Balancing making a difference with making a living in the conservation sector

Goals play important roles in people's lives by focusing attention, mobilizing effort, and sustaining motivation. Understanding conservationists’ satisfaction with goal progress may provide insights into real-world environmental trends and flag risks to their well-being and motivation. We asked 2694 conservationists working globally how satisfied they were with progress towards goals important to them. We then explored how this satisfaction varied between groups. Finally, we looked at respondents' experiences associated with goal progress satisfaction. Many (94.0%) said “making a meaningful contribution to conservation” was an important goal for them, with over half being satisfied or very satisfied in this area (52.5%). However, respondents were generally dissatisfied with progress to collective conservation goals, such as stopping species loss, echoing formal assessments. Some groups were more likely to report dissatisfaction than others. For instance, those in conservation for longer tended to be less satisfied with collective goal progress (log-odds -0.21, 95% credibility interval (CI) -0.32 to -0.10), but practitioners reported greater satisfaction (log-odds 0.38, 95% CI 0.15-0.60). Likewise, those who are more optimistic in life (log-odds 0.24, 95% CI 0.17-0.32), male (log-odds 0.25, 95% CI 0.10-0.41), and working in conservation practice (log-odds 0.25, 95% CI 0.08-0.43) reported greater satisfaction with individual goal progress. Free-text responses suggested widespread dissatisfaction around livelihood goals, particularly related to job security and adequate compensation. While contributing to conservation appeared to be a source of satisfaction, slow goal progress in other areas – particularly around making a living – looked to be a source of distress and demotivation. Employers, funders, professional societies, and others should consider ways to help those in the sector make a difference whilst making a living, including by prioritizing conservationists' well-being when allocating funding. This support could include avoiding exploitative practices, fostering supportive work environments, and celebrating positive outcomes

Net positive outcomes for nature

Much research and policy effort is being expended on seeking ways to conserve living nature while enabling the economic and social development needed to increase global equity and end poverty. We propose that this will only be possible if the language of policy shifts away from setting conservation targets that focus on avoiding losses and towards developing processes that consider net outcomes for biodiversity

Four steps for the Earth: mainstreaming the post-2020 global biodiversity framework

The upcoming Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting, and adoption of the new Global Biodiversity Framework, represent an opportunity to transform humanity's relationship with nature. Restoring nature while meeting human needs requires a bold vision, including mainstreaming biodiversity conservation in society. We present a framework that could support this: the Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy. This places the Mitigation Hierarchy for mitigating and compensating the biodiversity impacts of developments (1, avoid; 2, minimize; 3, restore; and 4, offset, toward a target such as "no net loss" of biodiversity) within a broader framing encompassing all conservation actions. We illustrate its application by national governments, sub-national levels (specifically the city of London, a fishery, and Indigenous groups), companies, and individuals. The Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy supports the choice of actions to conserve and restore nature, and evaluation of the effectiveness of those actions, across sectors and scales. It can guide actions toward a sustainable future for people and nature, supporting the CBD's vision

Setting robust biodiversity goals

The new global biodiversity framework (GBF) being developed under the Convention on Biological Diversity must drive action to reverse the ongoing decline of the Earth's biodiversity. Explicit, measurable goals that specify the outcomes we want to achieve are needed to set the course for this action. However, the current draft goals and targets fail to set out these clear outcomes. We argue that distinct outcome goals for species, ecosystems, and genetic diversity are essential and should specify net outcomes required for each. Net outcome goals such as “no net loss” do, however, have a controversial history, and loose specification can lead to perverse outcomes. We outline seven general principles to underpin net outcome goal setting that minimize risk of such perverse outcomes. Finally, we recommend inclusion of statements of impact in action targets that support biodiversity goals, and we illustrate the importance of this with an example from the draft GBF action targets. These modifications would help reveal the specific contribution each action would make to achieving the outcome goals and provide clarity on whether the successful achievement of action targets would be adequate to achieve the outcome goals and, in turn, the 2050 vision: living in harmony with nature