Updates from the European Nature Conservation Policy-Makers Event

As a mentee in the Mentorship Program of the World Commission on Protected Areas, I had the unique opportunity to attend the Regional Conservation Forum in Bruges, Belgium, organized by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) from September 30th to October 3rd. This congress was a gathering of various stakeholders, including conservationists, environmentalists, politicians, and protected area managers. However, there was a notable absence of professionals from other essential fields such as economics, sociology, philosophy, and entrepreneurship, as well as local landowners who are often intimately connected to nature. This lack raises concerns about the implementation of conservation policies that may inadvertently prioritize environmental considerations at the expense of cultural and social dynamics. It is troubling to see a disconnect where conservation efforts are being addressed without acknowledging their ties to the broader spectrum of human values and economic frameworks.

The event was marked by passionate discussions on pressing environmental issues, including ecosystem degradation, biodiversity loss, air pollution, and climate change. Key themes revolved around sustainable development and taking intergenerational responsibility, encapsulated in the poignant query, “Are you a good ancestor?” Topics like ecosystem services, nature-based solutions, and effective management of protected areas were at the forefront. Additionally, the ambitious global goal of covering 30% of the Earth’s surface with conservation zones was promoted alongside strict protection areas. Despite the urgency of these discussions, there was a striking absence of critical engagement with these proposals; very few questions were raised, with the notable exception of a Swiss scientist emphasizing the importance of engaging local communities in shaping conservation strategies. His insistence on the necessity of recognizing local voices highlighted a significant gap in the discourse at the forum.

To effectively implement global conservation agendas, a framework of consultations involving various stakeholders, particularly local communities, is vital. Currently, many initiatives operate without adequately considering the local context or the rights of those most affected by environmental policies. Local communities, including small villages, rural areas, and indigenous groups, have historically developed their own strategies for sustainable natural resource management. It is crucial to foster respect and recognition for this cultural diversity, ensuring that local voices are not marginalized in favor of overarching global environmental goals. The relationship between individual actions and collective movements cannot be overlooked, as individual landowners play a crucial role in environmental stewardship and conservation.

The IUCN has introduced concepts like private protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures to meet the ambitious “30by30” target. However, there are significant questions to consider regarding the stakeholders involved in these initiatives. Are they connected to governmental structures, or do they have autonomy in their governance? Are local community rights respected in these conservation frameworks? The notion of commons, which traditionally emerged from grassroots initiatives rather than top-down mandates, appears under threat if not implemented with careful consideration of local governance and community rights. These questions underscore a critical need for a balanced approach that recognizes both local stewardship and broader conservation goals.

As articulated by the Swiss scientist at the forum, there is a pressing need to expand traditional definitions of effective conservation measures to involve diverse stakeholders actively. This involvement should naturally extend to individual landowners, empowering them to take responsibility for conservation on their properties. The political imposition of conservation strategies should be minimized to favor voluntary and culturally resonant actions. In other words, fostering a market-driven approach to conservation can enhance the synergy between environmental and social objectives, allowing for greater flexibility and innovation in conservation practices.

The discourse at the forum also raised vital inquiries about the future of conservation efforts. When will satisfaction with nature conservation be deemed sufficient? What constitutes an acceptable limit for ecological economic control? And what happens in a scenario of oversupply of nature? These questions are fundamental for understanding how society values and defines conservation. It was refreshing to hear Madhu Rao, chairwoman of the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), emphasize that the Commission’s role is to provide technical standards rather than enforce nature protection. This assertion serves as a reminder that effective conservation should emerge from informed, voluntary actions of individuals and communities, rather than being dictated by overarching political mandates. Such a perspective could potentially lead to a more inclusive and effective conservation strategy that honors both ecological integrity and human diversities.