SE Valley Times

A recent study led by Arizona State University faculty offers compelling evidence that nature conservation is not only effective but could be transformative in addressing biodiversity loss and mitigating climate change. The research, published on April 25 in the journal Science, emphasizes the urgent need for scaling up conservation efforts globally.

The study highlights that over 44,000 species are currently at risk of extinction, posing significant threats to ecosystems that provide essential services such as clean water and climate stabilization. In response to this crisis, governments have set new global targets to reverse biodiversity loss.

Penny Langhammer, lead author of the study and adjunct professor of biology at ASU, stated: "If you look only at the trend of species declines, it would be easy to think that we’re failing to protect biodiversity, but you would not be looking at the full picture." She added that conservation must receive more resources and political support while addressing systemic drivers like unsustainable consumption.

The research team conducted a meta-analysis of 186 studies encompassing 665 trials worldwide. These studies assessed various conservation interventions over a century, targeting species, ecosystems, and genetic diversity. The analysis revealed that 66% of these actions improved or slowed biodiversity decline compared to no action.

Beth Polidoro from ASU noted: "We have a lot of science-based evidence for successful conservation actions that can directly mitigate threats while working to improve species populations." However, she acknowledged gaps in understanding long-term success factors such as economic and social contexts.

The study provided examples where conservation efforts yielded significant results. For instance, predator management on Florida's barrier islands improved nesting success for loggerhead turtles. In the Congo Basin, deforestation was significantly lower in managed logging concessions. Protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon reduced deforestation rates and fire density.

Jake Bicknell from the University of Kent remarked: "Our study shows that when conservation actions work, they really work." He emphasized substantial improvements in endangered species populations due to targeted measures.

Even unsuccessful interventions offered valuable insights for refining strategies. Joseph Bull from Oxford University expressed optimism: "Conservation interventions seemed to be an improvement on inaction most of the time."

With more than half of global GDP dependent on nature, investing between $178 billion and $524 billion annually could support a comprehensive global conservation program. Currently, $121 billion is invested yearly into conservation worldwide.

Claude Gascon from the Global Environment Facility stressed: "Conservation action works — this is what the science clearly shows us." He called for sustained investment in nature alongside ambitious global biodiversity targets.

The paper advocates for increased investment in managing protected areas effectively. It also calls for rigorous studies across more countries evaluating diverse conservation interventions like pollution control and climate adaptation.

Grethel Aguilar from IUCN praised the study's impact: "This paper has analyzed conservation outcomes at a level as rigorous as in applied disciplines like medicine and engineering." She highlighted its potential to guide transformative change needed globally.

This research was supported by IUCN through funding from the Global Environment Facility with contributions from Lindsay Renick Mayer and Devin Murphy.