DIFFERENCES have emerged among conservationists across the world on how best to protect the natural world that surrounds us.
A huge global survey carried out by Scottish and English researchers has found that conservationists broadly agree on their goals, but not how to move towards them.
There are even differences in how men and women view conservation. The survey found demographic differences that included the finding that women lean more towards conservation that aims to benefit communities and give them a say in conservation decisions, while men tend to favour an approach associated with protecting nature for its own sake.
The survey is highly important because next year in Beijing in China, the United Nations (UN) will host the world’s largest ever convention on biological diversity.
The convention is expected to produce a global framework which is already being called a “New Deal for Nature”.
It will be aimed at the entire international community and address the underlying pressures and challenge of biodiversity and ecosystem loss.
According to a statement from Edinburgh University which took part in the survey, those working in the field believe that “maintaining ecosystems, securing public support, and reducing the environmental impact of the world’s richest people should be priorities”.
The global conservation community is divided, however, on several issues such as whether to place economic value on nature.
The survey was compiled from the views of more than 9200 conservationists in 140 countries.
Researchers behind the study hope that their findings can inform global goals to be set at the UN convention. Those goals, if agreed, will shape conservation strategy for the following decade. The study, carried out by the universities of Cambridge, Edinburgh and Leeds, has been published in the Nature Sustainability journal.
Majority agreement was found among conservationists for goals based on scientific evidence, as well as for giving a voice to people affected by those goals.
There was also general agreement that population growth should be reduced and that humans are part of nature. Invasive species also proved to be a divisive issue. Some 35% of conservationists think non-native species offer little value to conservation, while half disagree.
Researchers say that despite best efforts to reach as many conservationists around the world as possible, their survey is still skewed towards Europe and North America.
Despite the skewed sample, the diversity of opinion the study is helping to reveal is often underrepresented in conservation decision making.
Dr Chris Sandbrook of the University of Cambridge said: “There will be huge decisions taken about the future of conservation in the next 18 months. Let’s make sure we ask the whole global community, so we can build an inclusive and effective movement.”
Dr Janet Fisher of Edinburgh’s School of GeoSciences, said: “We head towards the UN meeting in China next year at which key priorities for conservation will be decided, it is helpful to define points of agreement and contention, and show how widening consultation within the community matters.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here