Ecology

The European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) is an ambassador wildlife species. In the United Kingdom, it topped a 2016 poll for favourite mammal organized by the Royal Society of Biology, and was chosen as the species most emblematic of Britain in a 2013 poll by UK broadcaster the BBC.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests. More

Workers plant trees in the outskirts of Bogotá as part of a reforestation project.Credit: Florian Kopp/imageBroker/ShutterstockThis year’s Global Risks Report from the World Economic Forum ranked ‘biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse’ as one of the three most severe risks that societies face over the next ten years, alongside ‘extreme weather’ and ‘critical change to Earth systems’ caused by climate change1.There is a plan to address this threat. In 2022, 196 countries adopted the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, agreeing to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 and ensure that natural resources are used sustainably by 2050. Yet, an estimated funding gap of US$598 billion–$824 billion exists between current annual spending on conservation and restoration and what is needed to achieve the goals of the framework2. Public finance and policies can help to close this gap — for example, governments could lower taxes for green technologies and redirect subsidies from activities that are environmentally harmful to those that are more sustainable. But a new source of finance is also needed.Biodiversity credits are one mechanism, highlighted by the Global Biodiversity Framework, that could help to generate private-sector funds and ensure that those funds pay for demonstrable conservation and restoration achievements. By buying these credits, which would be used to fund certain projects, companies could achieve any one of three goals. First, to boost their profile and marketing, organizations could make contributions to improving the world’s biodiversity independent of their own activities. Second, after assessing their impact on the environment and doing all they can to avoid or minimize harm, companies could compensate for any residual harm in a like-for-like way — meaning the credits they purchase would need to fund remediation efforts in the same location and ecosystem type as wherever the harm is being done3. Last, organizations could invest in efforts that enhance biodiversity and resilience in their supply chains.Analysis: the biodiversity footprint of the University of OxfordSome corporations are already making promises not just to minimize their impact on nature but also to enhance ecosystems and enrich biodiversity — in other words, to become ‘nature positive’. And mandatory biodiversity-credit markets (in which companies that are harming the environment are required by law to purchase credits) are emerging in several countries, including Colombia, Germany, India, France and England. But — as the failures of carbon-credit markets, designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, have made plain — for biodiversity-credit markets to grow and achieve what’s needed, they must be built in the right way, and they must operate in the right way.As members of the International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits, we have been developing a road map for biodiversity credits for about a year. Our panel consists of scientists, Indigenous Peoples and representatives from local communities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), finance and industry. Together, we have analysed 31 initiatives that are trialling the use of biodiversity credits in 21 countries. We have organized events at international meetings and held hundreds of discussions and numerous workshops in multiple languages. We have also conducted two global surveys to assess people’s interest and understanding, and to better understand how potential sellers and buyers imagine using biodiversity credits in practice.Drawing on this work and taking lessons from other markets, including carbon-credit and finance markets, here we lay out what we think is needed to establish trustworthy, impactful biodiversity-credit markets. We will present our recommendations in full (which we have developed in collaboration with the World Economic Forum and the Biodiversity Credit Alliance, an international organization that aims to support the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework) at this month’s United Nations biodiversity summit COP16 in Cali, Colombia.Carbon-credit conundrumFor most people working on issues tied to the environment, mentioning the word ‘credits’ brings to mind carbon credits. It probably also raises misgivings.Carbon-credit markets generally involve carbon-offsetting projects, which promise reductions in emissions in one place (often through the planting of trees to absorb carbon dioxide, or through the protection of existing forests that act as carbon sinks) to compensate for the emission of CO2 in another location. Despite their promise in helping to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, however, carbon-credit markets have hit problems4.The non-profit organization Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda is helping to restore forested land in the northern Albertine Rift in Uganda.Credit: Martin Zwick/AvalonThere has been a lack of transparency about how many offsetting projects have achieved or will achieve their long-term goals5,6, and a lack of clarity for buyers about how they can use the credits they purchase, and what claims they can make about them. Some schemes that focus only on the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, such as the planting of eucalyptus trees in African savannahs, can harm biodiversity and the communities that depend on it. Because most projects have focused on forested ecosystems, other important carbon sinks, such as salt marshes, have been overlooked. It has been unclear how the costs and benefits of carbon-offset projects will be shared among those involved, and who gets to decide this. Also, few efforts have engaged Indigenous Peoples or local communities — or engaged them enough.But carbon-credit markets are evolving and many of these problems could be resolved in the future. Also, well-designed biodiversity-credit markets — that help to strengthen the rights and voices of Indigenous Peoples and local communities — wouldn’t operate in the same way as today’s carbon-credit markets do. In fact, for biodiversity credits to drive the flow of money towards conservation and restoration that is needed — and for the work on the ground to be effective — governments and companies establishing biodiversity-credit markets must ensure that the problems that have arisen with carbon-credit markets are avoided. They will also need to ensure that the necessary conditions for biodiversity-credit markets to operate effectively are in place.Carbon offsets aren’t helping the planet — four ways to fix themCompanies buying biodiversity credits should view them as a way to channel funds into long-term conservation and restoration initiatives, rather than as something they can quickly sell to another firm to make a profit — as can happen, for example, in cap-and-trade schemes in which a limited supply of carbon credits can make for valuable commodities in their own right. Also, one tonne of CO2 will have the same impact wherever it is released, whereas the effects of damage to biodiversity are hugely variable depending on the precise location. If a company negatively affects a rainforest in Borneo, for instance, any biodiversity credits that the company buys to compensate for that harm will need to fund equivalent conservation and restoration in the same ecosystem.Five aspects in particular need addressing.Measuring the state of nature. One of the most commonly asked questions in our discussions was, ‘How do you measure actual improvements to biodiversity (or the amount of biodiversity loss that will be avoided thanks to an initiative) in a consistent, reliable and credible way?’Biodiversity is much more complicated to measure than are carbon emissions7. It encompasses genetic, taxonomic, functional, evolutionary and ecosystem diversity — all of which can be assessed in different ways8. For instance, when assessing taxonomic diversity, biologists might count the number of species in an area, or they might just count the number of genera. More than 570 biodiversity metrics have been proposed so far, and standards for monitoring biodiversity continue to be debated at international and national levels9. Also, how people value biodiversity will vary depending on the species or ecosystem in question, and the geographical and cultural context. Adding to these difficulties, the restoration of habitats can take decades, making it hard to measure a project’s actual or potential impact.But a balance can be found between technical rigour and practicability.Even relatively simple metrics, such as the probable impact of land-use changes on the risk of certain species going extinct (which can be readily estimated10), can provide clues about an ecosystem’s integrity and, crucially, about how this changes over time. And an array of metrics, such as the number of individuals in easily identifiable and ecologically important species groups, can be used to support assertions about improvements made to biodiversity and enable biologists to detect positive change in a relatively short time frame.Through our consultations and analyses, we have identified six key criteria for biodiversity measurements and reporting standards. First, with the objectives and rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities and of those buying the biodiversity credits in mind, a project’s goals — meaning what aspects of biodiversity are to be conserved or restored and to what degree — should be made clear at the outset. Second, measurements should be verifiable, appropriate for that ecosystem and based on robust science11. Third, measurements should be confirmed and assured by individuals or organizations working independently of the project. Fourth, all data should be made publicly available. Fifth, measurements should be made before the conservation or restoration work begins, while the project is under way, and after the project has been completed. Last, results should show that, thanks to the project, more biodiversity conservation or restoration is enabled than what would have happened anyway.Driving up demand. Many of the people we consulted questioned why companies would want to buy biodiversity credits. Certainly, outside the mandatory schemes, such as those established in Colombia and England, few companies are buying them today12. This is because companies are unsure of what biodiversity credits are, what makes a biodiversity credit high quality and how biodiversity credits should be used13. Companies are also wary because it can take years for substantial benefits of conservation and restoration projects to be detected — which in turn affects what statements an organization can make about what their purchases of biodiversity credits are achieving.Technologies, such as camera traps, are making it easier to monitor changes to biodiversity.Credit: Ann & Steve Toon/Nature Picture LibraryYet, our discussions have convinced us that all sorts of organizations recognize humanity’s dependence on nature and are committed to addressing the biodiversity crisis as well as the climate crisis. Also, many of these obstacles listed can be tackled.National and regional legislation should aid the development of ethical and trustworthy projects and transactions. This could entail requirements for companies to compensate for their harms to biodiversity. In February, the English government introduced a scheme called biodiversity net gain, a requirement that all new building projects achieve a 10% net gain in biodiversity (measured by the size, type, condition and strategic significance of the habitats being affected, on the basis of information such as species richness and rarity).More governments should establish rules on what counts as like-for-like habitat and lay out what principles should underlie accepted methodologies and assertions — just as we are doing here. Also, more governments should provide publicly available lists of independently approved approaches that involve the use of biodiversity credits, and registries of conservation and restoration projects that need funding. Colombia’s government is doing exactly this in association with the environmental-investment company Terrasos in Bogotá.Meanwhile, philanthropic organizations and impact-fund providers — which channel funds into investments that generate a measurable and beneficial social or environmental impact alongside a financial return — could provide the seed money needed to get projects up and running. This would in turn lower the risks of investment for private companies.Stimulating supply. Most of the conservation and restoration projects being funded by biodiversity credits today are at an early stage, in which the suppliers of the credits (that is, those developing the conservation or restoration projects) are still refining their methodologies for measuring biodiversity, setting the prices of the credits, assessing demand, identifying buyers and so on.To increase the number of biodiversity credits available for sale, governments, impact-fund providers and philanthropic organizations should invest in the people, training and technology needed for measuring, conserving and restoring biodiversity. In other words, seed investment from these organizations would help to bolster both the demand for and the supply of biodiversity credits.Environmentalists are trying to protect endangered marine species in the Colombian Pacific.Credit: Luis Acosta/AFP via GettyInitially, the use of biodiversity credits will work better for some projects and regions than others. A current difficulty is the complexity of people’s rights to ownership of land, seas and natural resources. Such rights might not be officially registered, but might align with the customary laws, values and traditions of Indigenous Peoples or local communities. Also, the rules and customs around who owns what vary in and between countries, and in the case of international waters, multiple countries are involved in governance14. Longer term, these challenges can and must be addressed.Setting the rules. The main lesson from carbon-credit markets is that governments should develop and enforce clear rules — about how biodiversity credits can be used, what needs to be reported by those selling them, what can be said about them and so on. Establishing and enforcing these rules will require governments and international oversight bodies to work together with organizations that set standards (such as those establishing certification schemes), Indigenous Peoples, local communities and international and national NGOs.Governments should require, for example, project developers selling biodiversity credits to make project information publicly available — from the impact of projects on biodiversity to the benefits they provide to local communities. In principle, a new or existing body at the international level could support the development of ethical and trustworthy biodiversity markets by developing standards, and sharing information and lessons from biodiversity-credit funded projects.Certification schemes could also help to ensure that biodiversity credits are ethical and trustworthy. Various media reports suggest that some certification systems have failed to protect either biodiversity or Indigenous Peoples. But emerging schemes are tackling these issues — such as the Global Biodiversity Standard for habitat restoration, which aims to provide assurance that tree planting, habitat restoration and agroforestry practices are protecting, restoring and enhancing biodiversity.Making projects work on the ground. One of the most common criticisms that we have heard environmentalists and others make about carbon-offset projects is that those involved fail to sufficiently engage the local stewards and custodians of land and seas in the design, planning and running of projects.In many carbon-offset projects, if Indigenous Peoples and local communities are considered at all, they are consulted only in the final stages of the project. Or they might be asked to sign forms to give their ‘free, prior and informed consent’. Such forms are a crucial tool. But in many cases, if they are given to people at all, they are given too late or without sufficient discussion. Also, often the forms are not legally binding.A project in Uganda is trialling the use of biodiversity credits to help the conservation of the chimpanzee.Credit: Godong/Universal Images Group via GettyFormally recognizing the importance of Indigenous and local knowledge, and the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to govern and manage their lands according to traditional practices, when designing biodiversity-credit markets would be a game-changer. Securing and protecting the rights of these communities is ultimately the duty of governments. Yet, to ensure that biodiversity-credit markets do not worsen current inequities, no biodiversity credits should be bought or sold without a seller first certifying to the buyer how people’s rights are being (or will be) observed and protected in the projects tied to the credits.In practice, this means companies enabling Indigenous Peoples and local communities to drive projects forwards from the outset. It means ensuring that individuals get the conservation or restoration training they need; that Indigenous Peoples and local communities receive fair compensation for their stewardship of biodiversity; that benefit-sharing mechanisms are integrated into contracts and so on.As an example, in one of the 31 projects that we have analysed, the non-profit Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda is building on its 25 years of experience and working with nearly 42,000 smallholder farming households. Project goals include: restoring 12,000 hectares of forested land to provide connectivity for wildlife between currently protected but fragmented blocks of forest in the northern Albertine Rift in Uganda; supporting the conservation of several threatened species, such as the chimpanzee; and creating income opportunities for more than 15,000 households. Crucially, the project has been designed by rural communities, and it will be owned and led by them.One year onWhen we were invited to develop a road map for biodiversity credits in 2023, we recognized the importance of the task, but were also concerned about the risks. We knew about the problems with carbon offsets and we were daunted by the ecological, social, financial, ethical and legal challenges that biodiversity-credit markets present.One year on, we still think that unregulated markets could lead to a poor use of public and private funds just when those funds are needed the most. These markets could even worsen the situation if investors are unable to recognize greenwashing claims; if companies use biodiversity credits to sustain or increase their negative impacts on biodiversity; and if efforts to protect and restore biodiversity fail to embrace the rights and needs of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.But all of us that have worked on this project are now convinced that — designed in the right way and used alongside other approaches, including those using high-quality carbon credits or payments for ecosystem services15,16 — biodiversity-credit markets could become one of the most important funding sources for implementing the Global Biodiversity Framework.Governments shape economies, champion innovation and enable markets through the signals they send and the rules they set. We therefore urge all governments to introduce policy measures and legislation that encourages — or preferably requires — companies to assess, disclose and address their impacts on biodiversity (as outlined in target 15 of the Global Biodiversity Framework). As part of this process, we recommend that the regulation, certification and enforcement of biodiversity credits be based on the framework laid out here and in our full report.Over time, success will be measured, not so much by the total market value, but by the long-term benefits that such credits bring — to biodiversity and to people. More

Wildfires have existed for as long as plants have been on land. These fires are not inherently bad, but in many regions they are becoming larger, more intense and faster-moving. In the western United States, extensive fires are now commonplace. For example, in July, the Park wildfire in northern California spread to more than 50,000 hectares in its first 24 hours — the equivalent of around one football field per second. Over one month, it grew to burn 170,000 hectares, an area half the size of Rhode Island. And the fire season might not be over yet.The area of land burnt each year increases exponentially with aridity1. And climate change is making the fire season in the western United States both warmer and drier. The area of forest that is burnt in a year is now ten times what it was four decades ago, aided in part by faster rates of spread, a study published today shows2 (see ‘Going up in flames’). If, as expected, this region gets warmer and drier still, it’s likely that the record area burnt, forest and otherwise, in 2020 — 3.3 million hectares, larger than Belgium — will be surpassed in 5–10 years. People and their homes will inevitably be in the path of some of these events. The United States is not prepared.See Supplementary InformationIn the past six years, just three fast-moving wildfires — in Paradise, California, in 2018; the 2021 Marshall fire in Colorado; and the 2023 fire in Lahaina, Hawaii — destroyed thousands of homes and together took more than 150 lives. As well as spreading flames and choking smoke, fires increase the likelihoods of water pollution, flooding and mudslides by, for example, killing vegetation that would otherwise regulate water run-off and stabilize soils.Wildfires are spreading fast in Canada — we must strengthen forests for the futureA new approach is needed: people must learn to live with wildfires. That was the conclusion of a 2023 report (see go.nature.com/415k8sc) by the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission, created by the administration of US President Joe Biden in 2021 to advise on policy to address the wildfire crisis. The report identified three priorities: investing in technology and data analysis to build resilience to wildfires; shifting from an emergency response mode to a proactive mindset of fire resilience; and cultivating beneficial forms of fire to look after flammable lands.Fire science needs a drastic shift, too3. Models must simulate complex interactions between climate, vegetation, wildfire and humans on regional and global scales. Here is where the science must go over the next five years.Embrace burningWhen intense or fast wildfires would be unacceptable, they should be either prevented from starting or starved of fuel. Through ‘prescribed’ burning, carefully managed fires can be used to thin out fuels. And wildfires can be managed to achieve an acceptable spread, when weather conditions or moisture levels in their fuel make it unlikely that they will become rapid, high-intensity blazes4.Indigenous knowledge reveals history of fire-prone California forestThe concept of ‘good fire’ has been part of Traditional Ecological Knowledge in North America for thousands of years. Indigenous Peoples have long carried out intentional burning for many purposes, including reducing fuel density and promoting the growth of specific plants used for food or materials5. There is great potential for good fire to be cultivated by Indigenous specialists and land managers. Impediments must be eased, including a lack of funding, challenges associated with managing landscapes that spread across multiple jurisdictions, and conflicts with environmental policies such as the US Clean Air Act6.But it’s often hard to persuade the public and politicians that fire can be beneficial. All fires cause smoke, and even prescribed fires sometimes get out of control, with catastrophic consequences. Over the past century, the fear of such events has contributed to the US government’s focus on avoiding fires or suppressing them quickly when they do break out. As a result, many forests have become packed with trees and undergrowth, making them more susceptible to extreme fires.Recognizing this risk, the US government has dedicated billions of dollars to reducing fuel loads in forests, through prescribed fire and other strategies, as part of its 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and its 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (see go.nature.com/3y3xewk). But it is unrealistic to reduce combustible materials, and keep them reduced, across all vegetated landscapes of the western United States — the forested area of which is about 1.5 times the size of France.Furthermore, reductions in fuel are not always beneficial to ecosystems. Species in the chaparral shrublands of California, for example, and forests in the wettest mountain areas of the western United States have evolved to grow densely for decades or centuries until rare, hot fires reset the cycle. To prescribe fires too frequently or at too low an intensity in these ecosystems would risk loss of native vegetation and the spread of invasive grasses, facilitating more fires7.Dry and windy conditions rendered the September Bridge fire near Wrightwood, California, ‘unpredictable’.Credit: Etienne Laurent/AFP via GettyTo advise policymakers, researchers need to supply evidence about the trade-offs of intentional fuel reduction versus fire suppression. For example, a prescribed fire comes at the cost of smoke pollution, but it also decreases the risks of wildfires in an unnaturally dense forest during a record-setting heatwave.Simulations of the likely outcomes of various types of fires should be part of this effort. The models need data to inform them: accurate maps of area burnt, progression of spread and fire intensity and severity for both wildfires and prescribed burns, as well as vegetation characteristics such as moisture content and biomass structure, before and long after a fire.Prepare for ecological changeIn many places, forests are not bouncing back after fires as they used to. Large and severe blazes can create gaps in forests that are too large for seeds to be spread across8. Drought and warming can also hinder tree regeneration. Although the limits of resilience are hard to define, many ecosystems are being pushed to thresholds at which they are permanently altered9.Megafires are here to stay — and blaming only climate change won’t helpForests stressed by changing conditions need adaptive management. This can take different forms. In California’s Sierra Nevada mountains, for example, where some 15% of the world’s giant sequoia trees (Sequoiadendron giganteum) died in 2020 and 2021, it might be worth suppressing unwanted fires and planting sequoia seedlings with more drought-resistant traits to avoid further losses10. But in other areas, longer-term interventions might be more appropriate.For example, forest species that are less flammable, such as aspen (Populus tremuloides), might be planted to serve as natural barriers to rapid fire spread11. In hotter, drier regions in the southwestern United States, where some forests have still not recovered years or even decades after severe fires, it might be wise for land managers to invest in reforesting with very heat-tolerant trees, or to accept grass- and shrub-dominated ecosystems that are adapted for intense, prolonged droughts and frequent fires.Model future firesFire and ecosystem modelling should inform responses to changes in wildfire activity and help to avoid worst-case scenarios.Earth-system models can approximate the general character of vegetation distributions at the global scale. But these models are too coarse and simple to realistically simulate interactions between fires and ecosystems. To bridge this gap, researchers must build on advances in intermediate-complexity modelling12, including simulations of fire–ecosystem dynamics across large regions over timescales of decades to centuries.Because there is no single best approach to modelling fire for a given region, multiple modelling groups should join forces. The global Fire Model Intercomparison Project (see go.nature.com/3a4th9n) can serve as blueprint. In this initiative, researchers run different models using a standardized set of data, compare their outputs and benchmark them against observations.In 2023, a small fire escaped containment and burnt through Lahaina, Hawaii, in just 2 hours.Credit: Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via GettyThe type, abundance and water content of vegetation must be simulated. In live vegetation, for example, moisture content depends on soils and roots, but also on individual species’ strategies to regulate water loss. The moisture levels of grass and dead pine needles are very sensitive to temperature. More-substantial fuels, such as tree trunks, are slower to respond and can retain the effect of a drought or wet period for months. To improve the ability to simulate fuel moisture dynamics, it is imperative to continue collecting, and improving, satellite measurements of vegetation water content13.Are we all doomed? How to cope with the daunting uncertainties of climate changeImportantly, the understanding of future climate is sensitive to the ability to simulate future fires. Large forest fires were recently shown to amplify warming locally14, and fire also influences climate globally, in that vegetation stores carbon but releases it into the atmosphere when burnt, mostly as carbon dioxide and methane. It is still unclear whether continental ecosystems will serve as sources or sinks for atmospheric carbon, and fire will play an important part in settling that issue. In California, the state’s ambitious target of carbon neutrality by 2045 (see go.nature.com/404c7sx) depends on the continued accumulation of carbon by its forested ecosystems — but increasingly large and severe forest fires threaten this goal15.Thus, better regional fire models are needed to estimate future fires locally, and better global models are needed to account for the effect of fires on the climate. This means improving the representation of ecology in Earth-system models to better understand how different types of plant use water, whether plants die or survive as a result of fire and other disturbances, and how ecosystems change over time.Collect more dataFire modelling is constrained by a lack of long-term observations of the occurrence and extent of fires, as well as their intensity, smoke emissions and the effects on ecosystems. Two or three decades of satellite data are enough to observe how fire is distributed across the continents on average, but not enough to understand the causes and effects of change over time. Fires and their carbon emissions must continue to be monitored globally, which can never be taken for granted given the short lifespans of satellites.On a regional level, many governments keep records of fires — but these data sets are often disparate, of questionable quality, geographically inconsistent and incomplete. For example, the US Forest Service has produced detailed satellite maps of the extent and severity of thousands of fires since 1984. But these maps feature only the largest 5% of fires, don’t include information on how each fire progressed, and stop at the US borders.A firefighter tackles a blaze northeast of Los Angeles, California, in September 2024.Credit: Ringo Chiu/ReutersThe US Forest Service also publishes a list16 of two million US wildfires that have received suppression efforts since 1992, and their causes. But it lacks data on where exactly each fire burnt, updates to the list take years and reporting practices are inconsistent among government agencies. And these challenges are global. In fact, compared with most of the world, records of wildfires in the western United States are pretty good.Comprehensive archives, including of satellite imagery tracking the spread of individual fires, are becoming available online. Meanwhile, data from sources such as social media, as well as housing records that capture property damage caused by wildfires, should be made publicly accessible. Open-science principles should be followed for all fire data.Reckon with human influencesPeople are often the main cause of fires — but human behaviour is hard to predict. It would have been impossible to predict, for example, that 4 July, US Independence Day, would become the day with the greatest number of wildfires in the United States.Fires are managed differently in wildlands and in urban zones: forests, shrubs and grasses need some fires, but populated areas do not. The interface between these zones, where flammable vegetation and human settlements intermingle, needs to be better built to accommodate both.The causes of wildfires are clear. How they burn through communities is notTo better simulate how fire and ecosystems interact with humans, and how people respond to growing fire risks, more collaboration is needed between physical scientists, social scientists and economists. Government and private funding will be needed to support such cross-disciplinary work. Organizations such as Headwaters Economics, a non-profit research body based in Bozeman, Montana, that focuses on community development and land management, are skilled at coordinating such projects. Collaborations could be motivated by cross-disciplinary sessions on wildfires at the annual meetings of organizations such as the American Geophysical Union and the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.Quantitative models are also needed to assess the likely outcomes of intervention strategies such as regulations or incentives related to building materials, landscaping or insurance. Solutions must be devised collectively by all parties — across academia, industry, national and non-profit partners and experts on the ground.Multiteam research platforms must be built to explore wildfires. This can be done through initiatives such as the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation’s Wildfire Resilience Initiative, a multidecade investment of more than US$100 million to align science, technology and policy, with the goal of guiding western North America to an era in which society can live sustainably with fire.Scientists must step up to help to build a fire-resilient future, beyond documenting events and assessing risks. Individual disasters attract attention, and rightly so, but the focus should be on how to coexist with fire — not simply how best to battle it. More

Joseph Ascalon took skills he learnt in industry and applied them to his time as a stay-at-home father and as executive director of an environmental non-profit organization.Credit: Joseph AscalonAfter studying chemical engineering at the University of the Philippines in Quezon City, Joseph Ascalon had qualms about going to work for corporate giant Procter & Gamble in 1992. He had been a student activist, leading marches against the presence of US military bases in the Philippines. Working for a US multinational company was a pivot. But in the early 1990s, the Philippines was starting to strengthen its environmental laws. And as the company’s new pollution-control officer, Ascalon could help to keep its waste water out of Manila’s estuaries. There was a lot of work to be done.Ascalon spent 17 years setting up environmental-management systems, which helped the organization to reduce its ecological impacts and increase efficiency, including by updating the company’s ageing soap and shampoo plant in Manila to bring it into compliance with environmental and pollution laws, and building a modern plant south of the city. However, when his wife, a product-packaging design manager for the multinational food company Nestlé, got a promotion in 2011 that would move the family to Switzerland, he didn’t think twice about resigning to become a stay-at-home father.Want to make a difference? Try working at an environmental non-profit organizationAfter spending six years in Switzerland raising his two daughters, Ascalon went back to the Philippines with his family in 2016. Not wanting to return to the pressure, long office hours and punishing Manila commute that came with an industry job, and craving to connect more deeply with environmental advocacy in his country, he parlayed his industry skills into non-profit work. He volunteered to lead a non-profit group’s marine-science camps focused on mangrove and coral-reef conservation around Verde Island Passage, a high-biodiversity sea channel south of Luzon island. In 2017, he became the executive director of the SEA Institute-Verde Island Passage (SEA Institute-VIP) in Quezon City, a non-profit organization that uses science, education and advocacy to build a network of local community scientists. In 2021, he also became programme head for Bantay Kalikasan, a non-governmental organization that restored Manila’s La Mesa Watershed Reservation.Now, Ascalon continues to balance family life with work life: in May, he took a step back from non-profit leadership to take care of his ageing parents. Ascalon consults on digital transformation for the ABS-CBN Foundation in Quezon City, which oversees the SEA Institute-VIP and Bantay Kalikasan. Ascalon tells Nature why prioritizing family responsibilities has helped his career to thrive in a personally meaningful direction.What did you like about working in industry?I loved working with the brightest people in their fields. My colleagues had the skills, experience and drive to succeed. That pushed my teams to achieve world-class results. Our environmental-management programme, for example, earned industry recognition for reducing emissions and hazards in our decades-old manufacturing facility. Our leaders led by example and knew how to coach and motivate. In the organization’s culture, individuals were trusted to do what was right for their customers and partners, so there was minimal bureaucracy. Because of this, I had a sense of fulfillment, as well as pride, in taking part in teamwork.What was it like to leave your industry position to focus on your family?My years as a stay-at-home father were the most fulfilling ones of my life. I got to spend quality time with my daughters during their formative years, and we formed bonds that would not have been possible if I had been pursuing a career. I worried about losing professional experience and getting left behind in terms of skills, industry practice and career advancement. But my perspective had shifted. My family was my new job and main responsibility.It’s time to make science in remote places family-friendlyThe most difficult task was getting the children out of the door to get to school on time. I had to learn new skills, such as baking, cooking and cleaning. I had developed time-management skills while working in industry, so juggling my daughters’ busy schedules made me feel right at home. I approached learning new tasks by doing research, reading, watching videos, experimenting, practicing and setting up systems that helped me to get things done. It helped that I could share my experiences and swap household tips and shopping advice in Switzerland with other Filipino families and stay-at-home fathers. I’m happy that being a ‘house dad’ is now widely accepted, and even praised, in Filipino culture, which used to focus more on stereotypical ‘masculinity’ in men. I was the envy of most of my fellow dads.What did you enjoy about being executive director at a conservation non-profit organization?I loved enabling others to succeed. Seeing a fisher learning the connection between their livelihood and the need to preserve ecosystems and biodiversity was rewarding. Another highlight was youth leaders asking for copies of our workshop materials to teach younger kids about the importance of the marine food web. These were small but crucial steps to empowering communities to protect marine and coastal ecosystems around the Verde Island Passage.When you took the director position at SEA Institute-VIP, which skills transferred well from your industry work?When you’re in a corporate setting, you have to plan ahead. What funding, people and skills will you need five years from now? You’re also dealing with different stakeholders, from government officials to community members.My path to heading a biotech companySo you prioritize tasks. You look for projects that have a chance of succeeding. You put in a bit of risk. Simply repeating goals that you know can be achieved won’t move the needle. You also have to develop a healthy acceptance of failure. Learn from it, and then move on to the next thing.I brought this approach to my non-profit work. For example, when we launched a marine-science camp for families and young people, marketing and coordinating it drained our resources. So we pivoted to marketing the camps to schools and companies, simplifying planning and coordination. But we realized that this approach is less applicable when working with communities, so we had to find different ways to work with community partners.What skills were you missing for environmental non-profit work?It was a challenge to engage with government agencies, officials and institutions to gain their support for our programmes and activities. Although I had worked with regulatory bodies as an environmental officer in industry, navigating the politics and personalities at our several public partners required time, patience and people skills.How did you address this gap?I sought out mentors inside and outside non-profit circles, who had previous experience and success, observed how they worked with government partners and took their advice to heart. I learnt that it’s crucial to find common ground for collaboration, manage and defuse conflict and sometimes reassess objectives to be more realistic.In the corporate setting, you could barrel through the decision-making process by taking risks as a leader. This same approach would be disastrous with government agencies and communities, because it would lead to mistrust in you and your foundation’s sincerity and goals.Why have you chosen to work as a consultant now?It’s not as exciting as being out in the field, but I needed to step back to take care of my mother. My wife and I at the age when we are taking care of our parents, instead of our adult children. As a consultant, I get the flexibility to decide when and where to work.What do you do now in your consultant role?The lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic prevented many non-profit organizations in the Philippines from reaching the people they were serving. Many aspects of our work had to stop. Now that we’re catching up, I’ve found that many of these groups haven’t shifted to digital tools and work processes. As a consultant, I am helping the ABS-CBN Foundation to reduce the time and effort spent by employees on routine and repetitive tasks. This will free up time to engage more with stakeholders. Organizations that fail to adapt to new working norms or to make use of digital tools and platforms will quickly find themselves at a disadvantage. I realized this work is essential to the survival of the foundation. More

I relocated from California to Placencia, on the coast of southern Belize, in 1995, when there were no paved roads, no vehicles and everybody walked around barefoot. Back then, I was working as a research assistant and scuba-diving instructor. That meant that I had access to Belize’s stunning coral reefs, but also that I began to witness — and document — an ever-more depressing decline in the reefs’ health.In 1999, while managing Glover’s Reef Marine Reserve for the Belize Fisheries Department, I saw the effects of the 1998 global bleaching event caused by an El Niño followed by a strong La Niña — weather patterns resulting from variations in ocean temperatures in the Equatorial Pacific.Coral reefs deserve evidence-based management not heroic interferenceThen in 2001, the category-4 Hurricane Iris hit Placencia and the Laughing Bird Caye National Park 12 miles offshore, causing catastrophic damage. Laughing Bird Caye, part of the Belize Barrier Reef World Heritage Site, is crucial to local tourism. The devastation, for both the reef and the community, got me thinking about whether the corals could be re-established.Coral-reef restoration or rewilding has since become the subject of often intense debate, with a growing number of scientists maintaining that it is a losing battle in a rapidly warming world. Specialists continue to argue over even such basic questions as ‘what is a coral?’ and ‘what is a reef?’, before you get to ‘how much coral cover restored counts as restoration?’ Some researchers question whether reef restoration can be done at scale, whereas others have made overzealous assertions about how easy it is, what it can achieve and how. Reef restoration has taken off — like yoga, I often joke — with ever-wilder ideas about how to ‘save the reefs’. Instead of ‘yoga with babies’, ‘yoga with goats’ or ‘yoga with snakes’, it’s ‘feed the corals’, ‘shade the corals’ or ‘mix in some probiotics’.My and my team’s experiences, over almost two decades in Belize, show that coral-reef restoration projects can be an uphill battle. But — for now at least — done in the right way, the work can help the corals, their surrounding ecosystems and the communities that depend on them.Great Barrier Reef’s temperature soars to 400-year highIt took four years to find funding to trial transplanting coral fragments from Belize’s outer reef to Laughing Bird Caye. But since 2010, a team of Belizeans and I have moved genetically distinct colonies of elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata), staghorn coral (A. cervicornis) and hybrids (A. prolifera) — amounting to more than 96,000 fragments — to Laughing Bird Caye and more than 20 other sites across 7 marine protected areas.To better assess changes in coral cover, in 2014 we started using an imaging approach called diver-based photomosaics, a type of large-area imaging. Annual analyses of nine plots (each measuring 50–200 square metres) showed that coral cover increased from 4–6% in 2014 to more than 60% in 2021.In 2019, we began using drones to assess larger areas, and, by 2021, showed that we had re-established live corals in more than 0.2 hectares of reef around Laughing Bird Caye alone. Although survival rates could turn out to be a lot worse this year, even after two major coral-bleaching events in 2023, nearly 80% of 1,200 transplanted A. palmata fragments at four Cayes in southern Belize had survived (these data are yet to be published).‘Ecological grief’ grips scientists witnessing Great Barrier Reef’s declineWe are trying to keep portions of shallow reefs alive for as long as possible in a warming world, partially in the hope — which admittedly is thinning — that humanity begins to bend the warming curve so that corals can thrive again. But our experiences suggest that these efforts are likely to prove beneficial only if the water quality is good enough, and if living corals and macroalgae grazers are present. Macroalgal mats interfere with the settlement of coral larvae when they switch from their planktonic phase to the sessile one; sea urchins, crabs and other grazers keep levels of macroalgae down. No-take or highly protected marine zones are also crucial because they preserve species such as lobsters, which feed on the snails that feed on corals.Restoration can have all sorts of benefits. It can provide a habitat for hundreds of species and protect shorelines from erosion and flooding. It can provide an economic boost, too — and not just by driving tourism. In 2013, a group of us founded an initiative called Fragments of Hope to continue our coral-restoration work. Since then, we have employed only people who live in Belize. More than 100 have trained with us so far. Last year, more than 70% of our operating costs (nearly US$250,000 per year) were spent in Belize. Each person who worked with us last year (for 20 hours a week) earned around $5,000. And this year, it will be around $10,000. This is in a country where the minimum wage is $2.50 per hour and the gross domestic product per capita was less than $7,000 in 2023.Today, around 25 researchers from different disciplines use Fragments of Hope for their work. Environmental engineers are trying to quantify wave attenuation or work out how to improve waste-water treatment, and anthropology students are pursuing socio-economic studies.I often feel like giving up. But as long as the corals don’t, nor will I. Whenever I see tiny remnants of coral fusing together — often in the space of a year — to create a living coating over what had looked like a huge dead coral skeleton, I am persuaded to keep trying. Fragments of Hope and other interdisciplinary learning hubs should not be abandoned yet. More

Researchers in central Mexico have planted a forest of firs. Now they’re hoping the imperiled Eastern monarch butterflies will come.

Almost 1,000 oyamel firs

(Abies religiosa)
have been transplanted to a mountain in Michoacán, where they are growing at elevations beyond what was considered the species’ upper limit

1

. If the trees survive over the next few decades, they could help to shield the migratory eastern population of monarch butterflies (

Danaus plexippus
), which spend the winter roosting in oyamel fir forests, from the impacts of climate change.

This population of monarchs, which migrates up to 4,500 kilometres from the United States and Canada to Mexico, has declined dramatically since the 1990s, owing to climate change and habitat destruction.

Part of the butterflies’ remaining habitat — the fir trees in the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve in Michoacán — is slowly shifting upwards as the climate warms. But the firs will eventually “run out of mountain”, says Cuauhtémoc Sáenz-Romero, a forest geneticist at the Michoacan University of Saint Nicholas of Hidalgo in Morelia, Mexico, and the lead author of the study, which was published in

Frontiers in Forests and Global Change
this week.

Relocation project

To test whether the butterfly habitat could be relocated in the reserve, Sáenz-Romero and his colleagues

shifted hundreds of seedlings up a mountainside
by 400 metres several years ago. Since then, they have launched a pilot project on Nevado de Toluca — a nearby mountain that crests roughly 1,000 metres higher than the reserve. Local rangers discovered a new colony of butterflies wintering there in 2019, which suggests that it could be a suitable site to create a new habitat, Sáenz-Romero says.

Forest geneticist Cuauhtémoc Sáenz-Romero leads a team that have relocated firs in an attempt to save the butterflies.

Credit: Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times/Getty

The researchers grew nearly 1,000 oyamel fir saplings, and planted them at four elevations in circles beneath shrubs, which provide shade and protection. They then measured the firs’ survival and growth after three growing seasons.

The natural elevation limit for the fir was thought to be around 3,550 metres. But the team found that 68% of saplings planted at 3,800 metres survived, as did 44% of those planted at 4,000 metres — the two highest elevations. They did, however, grow more slowly than those planted at the two lower altitudes.

John Pleasants, an ecologist at Iowa State University in Ames, says that this feasibility study has great significance. It would require lot of effort to plant enough trees to provide refuge for the butterflies, “but that may be the only choice down the road,” he says.

Growing milkweed (

Asclepias
) and nectar plant species east of the Rocky Mountains and reducing pesticide use are also important for butterflies’ survival, says Sáenz-Romero, but such strategies are “not enough” to save them from climate change. He estimates that at least 5,000 trees would need to reach maturity in central Mexico’s higher elevations by the 2060s to ensure that the eastern monarchs have a winter home. More

Schrader, J. et al. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08036-1 (2024).Article 

Google Scholar 
Losos, J. B. & Ricklefs, R. E. (eds) The Theory of Island Biogeography Revisited (Princeton Univ. Press, 2009).
Google Scholar 
Kreft, H., Jetz, W., Mutke, J., Kier, G. & Barthlott, W. Ecol. Lett. 11, 116–127 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Givnish, T. J. & Montgomery, R. A. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20132944 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Enbody, E. D. et al. Science 381, eadf6218 (2023).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Whittaker, R. J., Fernández-Palacios, J. M., Matthews, T. J., Borregaard, M. K. & Triantis, K. A. Science 357, eaam8326 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cámara-Leret, R. et al. Nature 584, 579–583 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Givnish, T. J. Taxon 59, 1326–1366 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ellsworth, L. M., Litton, C. M., Dale, A. P. & Miura, T. Applied Veg. Sci. 17, 680–689 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Medeiros, A. C., von Allmen, E. I. & Chimera, C. G. Pac. Sci. 68, 33–45 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Novotny. V. & Molem, K. Nature 584, 531–533 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Valente, L. et al. Nature 579, 92–96 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

Guerrillas from the FARC movement were involved in a long-running conflict in Colombia, which is one of the world’s most biodiverse countries.Credit: Joaquin Sarmiento/AFP via Getty

Since Russia’s invasion in 2022, 3 million hectares of Ukraine’s protected areas have been affected by military activities1. For example, our independent analysis of satellite imagery shows that in the Sviati Hory (Holy Mountains) National Nature Park in the east of the country, 16% of forested areas have been physically damaged by fires, shelling and the movements of military vehicles (see ‘Assessing impacts in conflict zones’). Protected areas have lost their staff and equipment, and properties have been damaged or destroyed.Today, more armed conflicts are under way than at any point since the Second World War. Conservationists and others are increasingly investigating the impacts on biodiversity2–4, yet governments and conservation organizations have been reluctant to explicitly address the issue in conservation policy. In 2022, when nearly 200 countries agreed in Montreal, Canada, on the Global Biodiversity Framework — a set of goals intended to prevent catastrophic loss of the world’s biodiversity — armed conflict was left unmentioned.

Sources: Land cover: ESA/OpenStreetMap; National park boundaries: Emerald Network; Burnt areas: Analysis by D. Weir et al.

This month, ministers of the environment, conservationists, Indigenous peoples and others are gathering in Cali, Colombia, to help to translate the biodiversity framework into action at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP16). Colombia is one of the world’s most biodiverse nations. Since 2016, it has also been facing challenges in implementing a peace agreement signed after five decades of conflict, much of which was between its government and the guerrilla movement FARC.Linking to the experiences of the Colombian people, COP16 organizers have specified that the meeting should be “a COP of the people”, and that it should prioritize “Paz con La Naturaleza” or peace with nature. In doing this, they are encouraging attendees to focus on how the exploitation of natural resources, and the conflict that this brings, can harm biodiversity, as well as on how interventions to protect biodiversity might help to foster peace (see go.nature.com/3y95zgv).We urge world leaders and conservation, humanitarian and other organizations to follow Colombia’s lead and give greater priority to the impact of armed conflict on biodiversity — and to conservation’s role in promoting peacebuilding — in research and policy agendas.What’s knownResearch on the effects of armed conflicts on ecosystems has been limited for obvious reasons. But over the past decade, the use of satellite imagery, the tracking of social media and other open-source intelligence, and the increasing involvement of local communities in research have allowed investigators to improve monitoring of the impact of armed conflicts in settings that are difficult or dangerous to work in.Between 1950 and 2000, more than 80% of armed conflicts took place in 34 recognized biodiversity hotspots5. According to data published in July, 39 countries — including many that are rich in biodiversity, such as Colombia, Myanmar, Brazil and Cameroon — are currently experiencing sustained or escalating levels of conflict (see ‘Far-reaching effects’ and go.nature.com/3btgzrn).

Source: ACLED Conflict Index 2024

The impacts go far beyond the direct effects of warfare. Access to small arms and light weapons, such as pistols, rifles and light machine guns, makes it easier for people to kill animals for bushmeat or trade. Indeed, increases in the ownership of small arms following conflict have been implicated in the decline, and in some cases the extinction, of large mammals across the Sahara–Sahel region of Africa6. Conflict can even bring long-term changes in the threats to wildlife. In Cambodia, for example, increased access to weapons through conflict was one factor that allowed an illegal wildlife trade to emerge, one that continues to supply international markets with (among other items) the body parts of Sunda pangolins (Manis javanica; often called scaly anteaters) and gaur (Bos gaurus, a wild cattle species) for traditional medicine, meat and handicrafts7.Several studies have shown that illegal hunting and logging often accelerate during and after conflict — either because governance and institutions are weakened, or because traditional management systems disappear when people are displaced8. Likewise, conflicts can increase people’s dependencies on wood for fuel and thereby drive overharvesting9.
No basis for claim that 80% of biodiversity is found in Indigenous territories
The effects of armed conflict on biodiversity can be extremely diverse, depending on the context. In Angola, almost three decades of conflict beginning in the mid-1970s displaced millions of people, which left some areas of the country relatively free of human impacts. Also, the widespread use of landmines (which are still being cleared) prevented people from returning to large areas of wilderness. As a result, certain populations of threatened wildlife species in remote areas of the country, for example in the centre and near the border with Namibia and Zambia, have been able to persist10,11.Conversely, in some areas closer to urban centres, such as the coastal Quiçama National Park near the capital Luanda, widespread hunting during and after conflict has led to declines in many mammal species12 and probably to the local disappearance of some species, including the common eland (Tragelaphus oryx) and roan antelope (Hippotragus equinus). And since the conflict ceased, large mammal populations across Angola’s wilderness and protected areas have declined owing to a breakdown in law enforcement and governance — disruption that began with the conflict but that persists to this day.Alongside studies of the effects of conflict on biodiversity, there has been a growing interest in the use of ‘nature-based solutions’ to support people’s well-being and livelihoods during and after conflict — and to help avoid future conflict. As part of the Kibira Peace Forest project, which was established in Burundi in 2021, for example, a coalition of regional and international organizations and donors engaged the government, private sector and local community — particularly women — in the stewardship of biodiversity. An assessment of the project suggests that it strengthened social cohesion and improved people’s livelihoods, which in turn reduced levels of conflict and deforestation (see go.nature.com/47xztpy).Putting conflict on the tablePromising as these efforts are, much more research is needed — for example, to probe the interactions between biodiversity loss, armed conflict and climate change. There are also questions about whether Indigenous or community-led management of natural resources is more resilient than, say, government management in the face of conflicts. A 2023 study showed that in the world’s biodiversity hotspots, ecosystems on Indigenous peoples’ lands are less degraded than are those on non-Indigenous lands, even though armed conflict is more likely to occur in the former13.

The Kibira Peace Forest project in Burundi, funded by the United Nations Nature Facility, engaged local people in biodiversity stewardship.Credit: UN Capital Development Fund

More immediately, changes to some of the instruments that will be used to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework could help countries to mitigate the impacts of conflict on biodiversity, build biodiversity governance and help to restore biodiversity following conflict.The Convention on Biological Diversity is the international treaty that governs the conservation of biodiversity, its sustainable use and the sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources. Since entering into force in 1993, it has been ratified by 196 parties. But it is silent on the issue of conflict. Also, neither the convention’s previous Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and its accompanying Aichi targets, nor its current Global Biodiversity Framework — which lays out 23 actions or targets needed to protect and restore biodiversity between now and 2030 — address the relationship between biodiversity and armed conflict.
Ditching ‘Anthropocene’: why ecologists say the term still matters
In our view, countries should be urged to incorporate language that explicitly considers the needs and challenges arising in the face of armed conflict — and during peacebuilding — in their National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs). These lay out the actions that nations will take to address threats to biodiversity, and so help to achieve the ambitions of the Global Biodiversity Framework. For example, countries could set out how restoration of biodiversity will be used to build and sustain peace. Countries could also include plans to monitor the impact of armed conflict on biodiversity in their NBSAPs. Data on conflicts are already available should governments want to use them, such as the ACLED Conflict Index, which is derived from data on incidents of political violence worldwide.There is little appetite for adding further indicators to the official list of more than 100 that will be used to monitor progress towards the Global Biodiversity Framework’s targets. Yet the development and future inclusion of indicators that help governments, scientists and policymakers to measure and understand the impact of armed conflicts on the environment and biodiversity over time, and hence their effects on countries’ abilities to deliver on their commitments, could bring tremendous value.Crucially, more technical and financial support must be directed towards countries affected by conflict. This is especially important during the early years of recovery following conflict, when continuing insecurity and weak environmental governance can exacerbate deforestation and other threats to biodiversity. The Convention on Biological Diversity and other international conservation agreements, such as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, represent vehicles for collating expertise, focusing people’s attention and mobilizing funding and technical assistance. These should be harnessed specifically for this purpose.Donors often view conservation projects in conflict areas as too risky or too prone to failure. This can mean that community projects, local non-governmental organizations and front-line staff, such as rangers, go unsupported. As long as those involved ensure that they have an in-depth understanding of the local context, and prioritize the local ownership of projects and resource management, a shift in mindset would enable the growth of sustainable, impactful conservation projects to mitigate the effects of conflict on biodiversity, and to help to foster peace.

Refugees from Angola who fled the country during its 27-year civil war were able to return after a peace accord was signed in 2002.Credit: Alexander Joe/AFP via Getty

Influential organizations are beginning to make headway on this front. In 2020, the Global Environment Facility, one of the largest international donors supporting biodiversity projects, reviewed its portfolio of projects in ‘fragile states’ (countries with weak governance, chronic humanitarian crises, persistent social tensions and so on) and in countries dealing with ongoing conflict. It identified that ‘conflict-sensitive’ approaches can help to improve the outcomes of conservation projects, and has since been working to update its practices accordingly14. Elsewhere, partnerships between conservation and peacebuilding organizations, such as between Conservation International in Arlington, Virginia, and the PeaceNexus Foundation near Geneva, Switzerland, are beginning to provide insights that could be applied more broadly to projects in challenging settings15.Ultimately, much greater awareness is needed of the impacts of conflict on biodiversity. Incorporating the issue into the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework would be an effective way to achieve this, particularly because conflict reduces the capacity of countries to gather and collate data on biodiversity. Increased awareness could also create opportunities for other organizations to engage, from United Nations peacekeepers to humanitarian organizations. As an example, organizations that clear landmines, such as Norwegian People’s Aid in Oslo, are already increasingly examining how to mitigate the impact of their activities on sensitive habitats.Following Colombia’s leadThere is now consensus among scientists and most governments that healthy ecosystems are crucial for safeguarding human rights, livelihoods and well-being. Although there will always be limits to the degree of environmental protection that can be achieved in war zones, there are huge opportunities to reduce environmental harm stemming from conflict, to ensure that biodiversity protection in post-conflict recovery efforts becomes mainstream, and to ensure that the environment is integrated into peacebuilding processes.

An illegal wildlife trade in Cambodia — driven in part by increased access to weapons through conflict — supplies international markets with the body parts of Sunda pangolins (Manis javanica).Credit: Imago/Alamy

Multiple factors have encouraged Colombia’s COP16 organizers to push the issue at the upcoming meeting. Colombia has endured one of the longest armed conflicts in Latin America, which has been fuelled largely by illicit economies underpinned by natural resources, such as gold and timber, in turn severely harming biodiversity. Even today, ecosystems and local communities, including Indigenous peoples, Afro-Colombians and campesinos (small farmers), are trapped in the middle. And although deforestation in the country was reduced by 36% in 2023 thanks to collaborative work between communities, civil society and the government to protect forests from exploitation, escalating threats to leaders of social and environmental movements could drive rates up again. In the first 9 months of 2024 alone, 117 such leaders were murdered in Colombia.The links between Colombian biodiversity and conflict are so strong that the environment is included in the country’s Special Jurisdiction for Peace (Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz; JEP). The JEP is a transitional-justice mechanism that was launched in 2017 as part of the peace agreement between FARC guerrillas and the government. In 2019, the government declared that the environment had been a “silent victim of the conflict” and that it would investigate reparation mechanisms for the damage caused.Against a backdrop of such experiences — which are not unique to Colombia — the country’s two-year presidency of the Convention on Biological Diversity offers an unprecedented opportunity to at last bring attention to the interactions between biodiversity, conflict and peace. More