New research reveals major global conservation policies lack clarity and thoroughness in how they deal with equity.
Led by James Cook University's Melissa Hampton-Smith, the study calls for a stronger focus on fairness in international conservation policies to avoid harming and alienating the very people whose support is crucial to combat worldwide biodiversity loss.
In their review of key global conservation policies, the researchers found that treatment of equity was generally vague and fell short in several areas, focusing on resource distribution rather than inclusive decision-making and recognition of diverse groups and their rights.
"Our results are troubling because equity isn't just a feel-good add-on. Without it, conservation risks harming and alienating the very communities needed to make these efforts succeed," Ms Hampton-Smith said.
"Securing local rights, inclusive decision-making, and fair distribution of costs and benefits is crucial. Conservation efforts that overlook equity could lead to further injustices, particularly in areas with a history of marginalisation."
"Ensuring on-ground conservation efforts are equitable requires comprehensive treatment of equity in international policy given its role in shaping actions and policies of nations, funders, and non-government organisations", said co-author Dr Georgina Gurney, also from James Cook University.
This research comes as almost 200 countries gathered earlier this week under the world's most influential conservation treaty, the United Nations Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD), at the Conference of the Parties in Cali, Columbia.
Discussions will focus on the CBD Global Biodiversity Framework including its headline target to protect 30 per cent of the planet by 2030.
"While the CBD Global Biodiversity Framework is one of the policies we examined with the most comprehensive treatment of equity, key aspects related to decision-making and mitigating negative impacts on communities are missing," Dr. Gurney said.
"The need for clearer, more comprehensive equity guidelines should be a focus of discussion in Cali this week."
Ms Hampton-Smith said that to achieve truly fair conservation all major international conservation bodies should define equity in policy problem statements, recognise that fairness looks different for different people in different places, and emphasise local rights and inclusive decision-making, not just resource distribution.
Dr Gurney echoed her sentiments, especially as efforts to expand conservation areas accelerate worldwide.
"The current lack of clarity and depth in how equity is treated in global conservation policy risks contributing to unfair on-ground practices," Dr Gurney said.
"This is concerning because, quite simply, if conservation is perceived as unfair, it can harm people's wellbeing and undermine their support for caring for nature."
