Emerging Topics in Community Conservation

We identified 15 topics as most pertinent to community conservation’s effectiveness over the coming 15 years. Many of the 15 prioritized topics could exert both negative and positive effects on community conservation. Topics fall into six broad themes related to (i) global biodiversity policy, (ii) human and community rights, (iii) shifting human geography, (iv) inclusion, diversity, equity and access, (v) conservation finance and income, and (vi) economic reforms. Here we provide a description of each topic.

The 15 topics identified as most pertinent to community conservation’s effectiveness over the coming 15 years, and their thematic grouping. There is an assumed connection between topics within the same theme. Dashed arrows represent a direct connection between topics across themes; many additional, subtler connections may exist.

Global target to conserve 30% of Earth by 2030

The world has set itself the ambitious global target of protecting and conserving 30% of the planet by 2030 – Target 3 in the emerging Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework under discussion by parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity [1]. Endorsed by many national governments, indigenous leaders, UN entities, philanthropists, economists, and other experts, there is general agreement that the 30% target reflects the absolute minimum required to curb global biodiversity loss, mitigate and adapt to climate change, continue to provide necessary ecosystem services and economic benefits, and reduce risks of future zoonotic diseases [2]. Enacting this goal will likely emerge as a central driving force for expanding area-based conservation beyond traditional protected areas to Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures’ (OECMs) or Conserved Areas on land, in freshwater and oceans, increasing effectiveness and connectivity of systems.

There is a risk of area-based targets leading to top-down implementation of fortress conservation models to the exclusion and detriment of indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs), if focused on the percentage target as opposed to the entire suite of conditions drafted. Without social interests – including human rights, equity and good governance – in mind, IPLC may risk marginalization and physical displacement, removal of their rights to land tenure, resource management and territorial sovereignty, especially in more autocratic nations. Conversely, if implemented well, the 30×30 goal promises tremendous opportunities for conserving biodiversity across larger areas, re-defining effective area-based approaches, promoting best practices, and showcasing and entrenching environmental stewardship by IPLC. Without forsaking the value and importance of protected areas globally – currently covering almost 15% of land surface (Aichi Target 11), the IPBES Global Assessment report [3] favors land-sharing as opposed to land-sparing approaches, i.e. area-based measures that foster spatial coexistence between humans and biodiversity. To capitalize on this for community conservation, a rights-based, community-led approach needs to be mainstreamed to respect and strengthen IPLC rights with appropriate social safeguards at national and international levels as plans to meet targets are implemented.

CBC – Convention on Biological Diversity. (2020). Update of the Zero Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Note by the Co-Chairs. CBD/POST2020/PREP/2/1. https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/3064/749a/0f65ac7f9def86707f4eaefa/post2020-prep-02-01-en.pdf
Campaign for Nature. (2022). https://www.campaignfornature.org/science-page
IPBES – Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. (2019). Report of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on the work of its seventh session. IPBES/7/10/Add.1. https://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/ipbes_7_10_add.1_en_1.pdf?file=1&id=35329&type=node

Global ecosystem restoration commitments

Many global efforts to restore degraded ecosystems have been met with limited success. Such initiatives often struggle to balance the need to scale restoration globally while also sensitizing restoration locally [1]. In search of more effective long-term solutions, the global community is increasingly aligning itself with restoration opportunities that support both local and indigenous communities (IPLCs) and the environment [2], and which explicitly consider the benefits and costs of different restoration options [3]. Most recently, the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, combined with the CoP26 pledge to end and reverse deforestation, has renewed momentum for restoration efforts. The UN resolution balances social, economic and environmental objectives and promotes multi-purpose landscapes (e.g. agroecology approaches, nature-based climate change solutions) that help IPLCs reconnect with nature in ancestral territories, revive traditional knowledge systems and adapt to changing conditions. At least 50 large programmatic initiatives are already underway [4]. Beyond the US$12 billion of public funding already pledged towards the protection, restoration and sustainable management of forests (i.e. The Global Forest Finance Pledge, [5]), corporations and the finance sector are seeking opportunities to invest in Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG)-compatible projects, providing an opportunity for community conservation to gain funding support from previously untapped sources.

Working towards these restoration goals has the potential to increase policy, technical, and financial support for communities to restore degraded ecosystems and to (re)build resilient social-ecological systems that benefit both local livelihoods and nature. There is also the potential to increase the partnerships with (responsible) business enterprises as communities learn to bundle conservation and development measures for ESG reporting. However, like any globally set targets, there are risks that IPLCs will be excluded from decision-making and further disenfranchised with natural resource management taken out of their hands. There is also the risk of business ‘greenwashing’ leading to superficial initiatives that are unsustainable over the long-term, and detrimental to local communities and to their governance and management mechanisms.

Sigman, E. (2021). The Dilemma of Scale: competing imperatives for global restoration. Restoration Ecology, 29(5), e13408. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13408
Erbaugh, J. T., Pradhan, N., Adams, J., Oldekop, J. A., Agrawal, A., Brockington, D., Pritchard, R. & Chhatre, A. (2020). Global forest restoration and the importance of prioritizing local communities. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 4(11), 1472-1476. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01282-2
Strassburg, B. B., Iribarrem, A., Beyer, H. L., Cordeiro, C. L., Crouzeilles, R., Jakovac, C. C., … & Visconti, P. (2020). Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature, 586(7831), 724-729. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2784-9
UN Decade (n.d). Restoration Implementers. Retrieved Feb 22, 2022, from https://implementers.decadeonrestoration.org/implementers
COP26 (2021, November 2). The Global Forest Finance Pledge. https://ukcop26.org/the-global-forest-finance-pledge/

Increased recognition of Indigenous and community rights

There is growing emphasis in the global policy arena on indigenous, traditional, and communities’ rights, knowledge, and practices, initiated with the 2019 IPBES Global Assessment and reflected in declarations and motions under the CBD Global Post-2020 Framework, 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, 2021 IUCN World Conservation Congress, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2022 Report. Adoption of a rights-based framework reflects both the desire to undo historic injustices and recognition of the value that indigenous or traditional knowledge and management practices bring for biodiversity conservation and cultural transmission. This is likely to influence funding directives, national legislation, policies, and improvements on the ground.

The momentum for affirming customary land tenure and natural resource rights for indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) creates opportunities for greater integration of social justice within conservation outcomes. Long-standing conflicts between indigenous rights, self-determination, and conservation efforts [1] might recede and be replaced by just and durable, locally rooted conservation approaches. Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) can further support and reinforce these trends [2]. New mechanisms and technologies facilitate mapping and titling of IPLC lands as well as documenting the impact of IPLC conservation systems and institutions. Platforms such as the Global ICCA (Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas) Registry (https://www.iccaregistry.org/) and LandMark (http://www.landmarkmap.org/) document IPLC land and resource tenure rights and their security, and thus serve to monitor progress. With enough societal push, governments will be forced to update conservation legislation to reflect and use a human-centred and rights-based approach [3].

It should be noted that the fulfilment of rights require measures to equip communities with appropriate resources, recognition (“acknowledgement of, and respect for actor’s rights and their identities, knowledge systems, values and institutions”), procedure (“inclusiveness of rule and decision-making, transparency, accountability, access to justice and dispute resolution”), and distribution (“sharing of costs and benefits among different actors”) [4,5]. Moreover, ICCAs (as defined by Sajeva et al., 2019 [6]) should not be seen as a replacement for legal recognition of indigenous peoples’ land and title rights. Moreover, a global rise in authoritarianism [7,8,9] may undermine progress and impinge on IPLC rights through increased land-grabbing by states and/or large corporations [10,11].

Wongnithisathaporn, P, Worsdell, T. (2021). Thailand’s Indigenous Peoples fight for ‘land of our heart’ (commentary). Mongabay. Accessed online March 16, 2022 at https://news.mongabay.com/2021/03/thailands-indigenous-peoples-fight-for-land-of-our-heart-commentary/
Gurney, G.G., Darling, E.S., Ahmadia, G.N., Agostini, V.N., Ban, N.C., Blythe, J., Jupiter, S.D. (2021). Biodiversity needs every tool in the box: Use OECMs. Nature 595(7869): 646-649. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02041-4
Knox, J. (2018). Framework Principles on Human Rights and the Environment. UN Human Rights Special Procedures: Special Rapportuer, Independent Experts & Working Groups. Geneva.
Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, K., Corbera, E., Martin, A., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Muradian, R. (2014). Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. Bioscience 64(11) 1027-1036.
Tekle Tegegne, Y., Palmer, C., Wunder, S., Moustapha, N.M., Fobissie, K., Moro, E. (2021). REDD+ and equity outcomes: Two cases from Cameroon. Environmental Science & Policy 124: 324-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.07.003.
Sajeva G., G. Borrini-Feyerabend, Niederberger, T. (2019). Meanings and more… Policy Brief of the ICCA Consortium no. 7. ICCA Consortium in collaboration with Cenesta. Accessed online 10 March, 2022 at https://www.iccaconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ICCA-Briefing-Note-7-Final-for-websites.pdf
IDEA. (2021). The Global State of Democracy 2021: Building Resilience in a Pandemic Era. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Stockholm, Sweden. Accessed online March 16, 2022 at https://www.idea.int/gsod/sites/default/files/2021-11/the-global-state-of-democracy-2021_1.pdf
Economist Intelligence Unit. (2022). Democracy Index 2021 The China Challenge. Economist Intelligence Unit, London, UK. Accessed online March 16, 2022 at https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2021/
Freedom House. (2022). Freedom in the World 2022 – The global expansion of authoritarian rule. Freedom House, Washington, DC. Accessed online March 16, 2022 at https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/FIW_2022_PDF_Booklet_Digital_Final_Web.pdf
Gonda, N. (2019). Land grabbing and the making of an authoritarian populist regime in Hungary, The Journal of Peasant Studies 46(3): 606-625. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2019.1584190
Human Rights Council (2020). Regional consultation on the rights of indigenous peoples in Asia – report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples. United Nations General Assembly A/HRC/45/34/Add.3.

Growing violence against environmental human rights defenders

The UN Environment Programme [1] defines an environmental human rights defender (EHRD) as “anyone (including groups of people and women human rights defenders) who is defending environmental rights, including constitutional rights to a clean and healthy environment, when the exercise of those rights is being threatened”. Environmental defenders are often part of communities protecting their lands and natural resources, or professionals involved in the protection of the environment and human rights (e.g. lawyers, journalists, rangers, members of civil society organisations) [2]. While conflicts have existed for centuries, threats and violence are rising, with the problem gaining increasing attention, particularly within donor and multi-lateral communities. In 2020, record numbers of EHRD were murdered globally, the majority of whom were defending ancestral territories and forests [3]. Threats to defenders are receiving greater public attention via media [4] and the internet (i.e. EJAtlas, https://ejatlas.org/) and have also become increasingly recognised in national and international policy agendas, e.g., through the series recently collated [5]. Historically, international nature conservation has been insufficiently connected with multi-lateral human rights (HRs) mechanisms and normative standards. However, growing international concern provides momentum for better integration between conservation and HRs efforts, building on existing mechanisms within the UN (OHCHR) and European Union to support human rights defenders.

Aside from the more obvious and direct pressures from extractive industries, concerns in respect to safeguards and infringements of HRs resulting from conservation initiatives have been significantly elevated over the last few years [6]. This builds on the 2019 report of Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples [7] and the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework negotiations- to be finalized in May 2022, which will be critical to provide a normative standard for the next decade. The Escazú Agreement is the first to legally explicitly integrate human rights with nature conservation matters (for the Latin American and Caribbean region). This landmark agreement complements the UNEP Policy on EHRDs [1] and “outlines an approach to enhance the protection of environmental defenders, increase public participation in environmental decision-making, and foster cooperation among countries for biodiversity conservation” [8]. There are also emerging synergies between the Escazú Agreement and the Arhus Convention (mostly focused on Europe/Commonwealth of Independent States) in terms of procedures and approaches for ERHD safeguards.

UN Environment Programme. (2018). UNEP’s Defenders Policy: Promoting Greater Protection for Environmental Defenders. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/22769/UN%20Environment%20Policy%20on%20Environmental%20Defenders_08.02.18Clean.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Global Witness. (2021, September). Last Line of Defence. https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/environmental-activists/last-line-defence/
Front Line Defenders. (2020). Front Line Defenders Global Analysis 2020. https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/fld_global_analysis_2020.pdf
Sammon, A. (2022, February 16). Ikea’s Race for the Last of Europe’s Old-Growth Forest. The New Republic. https://newrepublic.com/article/165245/ikea-romania-europe-old-growth-forest?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=5d11a099a5-briefing-dy-20220221&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-5d11a099a5-45565358
Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) (2021, September 7). The stories and voices of environmental defenders across the globe: Special issue of Policy Matters. IUCN. https://www.iucn.org/news/commission-environmental-economic-and-social-policy/202109/stories-and-voices-environmental-defenders-across-globe-special-issue-policy-matters
Ramutsindela, M., Matose, F., and Mushonga, T. (2022). Conservation and violence in Africa. In Ramutsindela, M., Matose, F., and Mushonga, T. (eds.) The violence of conservation in Africa.Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, UK. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800885615 
Commission on Human Rights (2019). Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples. UN Human Rights Council. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IPeoples/SRIndigenousPeoples/Pages/SRIPeoplesIndex.aspx
López-Cubillos, S., Muñoz-Ávila, L., Roberson, L. A., Suárez-Castro, A. F., Ochoa-Quintero, J. M., Crouzeilles, R., Gallo-Cajiao, E., Rhodes, J., Dressler, W., Martinez-Harms, M. J., & Runting, R. K. (2022). The landmark Escazú Agreement: An opportunity to integrate democracy, human rights, and transboundary conservation. Conservation Letters, 15: e12838. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12838

Unpredictable and irregular human migration

Humans have migrated since time immemorial. Over the past 50 years, patterns have been consistent, with rural to urban migration a widespread trend and only 2-4% of the global population living outside their native country [1]. But patterns are changing. Migration overall is increasing. As of 2020, there were 272 million global migrants, including 80 million displaced people – more than ever before [1]; that number had grown to 84 million by mid-2021 [2]. Among the 55 million people living in internal displacement, 85% had fled conflict and violence. Of 40.5 million newly displaced people in 2020, approximately one quarter were displaced for the same reason; the remainder fled due to natural disasters – 98% weather-related [3]. The estimated number of climate-change migrants is projected to range from 50 million to 1 billion by 2050 [4]. Poor people in poor countries are likely to be affected disproportionately as they have the least ability to adapt.

Displaced persons in low-employment situations commonly resort to fishing, poaching or other easily accessible natural resource extraction, and are vulnerable to seek alternative livelihood opportunities and protections affiliated with organized crime and militia groups [5]. Drastic demographic shifts can thus perpetuate conflicts by adding pressure on natural resources and wildlife, whilst heightening social, cultural and ethnic tensions.

Future waves of in- and out- migration may impact certain communities (and thus, community conservation in such places) in diverse and complex ways. Concepts and definitions of community will be continuously challenged. As community-based conservation is often approached spatially and dependent on long-term engagement, community fluxes will undermine planning and threaten the approach’s core foundations. Alongside, there is the potential of cultural dilution, loss of local and traditional knowledge, such as customary fishing practices, that community conservation could build on or that interventions aim to affect. New arrivals unfamiliar with the culture and social norms around local resource use, and rural populations more generally may become less rooted in or connected to their environment, and thus potentially less motivated to conserve. On the positive side, reverse migration could uphold and even strengthen the rural talent pool and capacity that community-based conservation depends on. Out-migration (from rural and/or conservation areas) can create space for conservation [6,7].

Several questions are posed in considering this topic in terms of future implications. How should community conservation projects address or respond to or prepare for increased potential migration events? How does community conservation become more migration-aware? How do community conservation projects better align and partner with other sectors to address the causes of out-migration and displacement in the first place? How might community conservation become embracing of migration and develop strategies for integrating new arrivals into existing projects to ensure new people in a community are aware of the conservation issues and vulnerabilities?

Sciubba, J.J. (2022). 8 Billion and Counting: How Sex, Death, and Migration Shape Our World. W. W. Norton & Company.
UNHCR. (2022). Refugee Statistics. Accessed online April 12, 2022 at https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/
IDMC. (2021). GRID 2021 – Internal displacement in a changing climate. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. Accessed online April 12, 2022 at https://www.internal-displacement.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/grid2021_idmc.pdf#page=40
Ferris, E. (2020). Research on climate change and migration where are we and where are we going?. Migration Studies, 8(4), 612-625.
Glaser, S.M., Devlin, C., Lambert, J.E., Villegas, C., & Poinsatte, N. Fish Wars: The Causes and Consequences of Fisheries Conflict in Tanzania. Broomfield, CO: One Earth Future Foundation. http://dx.doi.org/10.18289/OEF.2018.033
Gray, C.L. & Bilsborrow, R.E. (2014). Consequences of out-migration for land use in rural Ecuador. Land Use Policy 36: 182–191.
Robson, J.P., & Klooster, D.J. (2019). Migration and a new landscape of forest use and conservation. Environmental Conservation, 46(1), 1-8.

Power shifting towards local actors

The desire to unravel historically entrenched power imbalances has grown dramatically in recent years among both scholars [1] and the wider public, as illustrated by global participation in Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 [2]. Such wide-spread recognition of continued, historically-rooted injustices provide momentum for the decolonial perspectives that have been growing in conservation to enable more socially just and culturally sensitive approaches to environmentalism [3]. The term decolonization often focuses on power dynamics between international versus national/local actors; however, similar power dynamics also exist within countries, e.g. the marginalization of indigenous peoples; urban groups imposing norms and values on rural constituents; caste or other ethnicity politics determining social status of different groups. Power imbalances between actors and mismatched goals (often due to competing priorities among funders, partners) create decision-making and accountability conflicts from objective-setting through to implementation and evaluation [4]. This can result in communities losing decision-making power, furthering powerlessness and dependency, undermining trust in partnerships, and tarnishing the reputation of conservation organizations and the conservation sector as a whole.

There is growing emphasis in the global policy arena on indigenous, traditional, and communities’ rights, knowledge, and practices. Yet the recent United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change CoP26 (Nov 2021) also highlighted continued mistrust between various actors. Many Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) rejected the proposed concept of nature-based solutions by asserting that “Our Nature is not your solution”. In protest or retaliation of elite capture, community members have in the past (and may in the future) deliberately inflict damage on resources that they know the powerful (often conservation actors) value (e.g. residents setting fire to Bwindi Forest, Uganda in protest of being evicted when it was gazetted as a National Park [5,6]). If dynamics do not change, resistance to devolve and decentralize power or lack of trust in bottom-up governance will only increase. Furthermore, there are some practitioners who still have limited understanding of such social complexities.

It is likely that such issues will continue to be brought to the forefront of political agendas and fora; with a greater representation of marginalized voices in decision-making this will lead to a paradigm shift. In time, with adequate support and conscious effort, social movements and greater autonomy will emerge from local communities. Fair and transparent governance is key, and those given governance responsibility must also be given the financial and human resources required to support their mandates and capabilities [7]. Partnerships with local actors need to be restructured to base relationships on upward, downward, and public accountability [4].

Artelle, K.A., Adams, M.S., Bryan, H.M., Darimont, C.T., Housty, J. (‘Cúagilákv), Housty, W. G. J. (Dúqváísḷa), Moody, E., Moody, M. F., Neasloss, D. (Muq’vas Glaw), Service, C. N., and Walkus, J. (2022). Decolonial Model of Environmental Management and Conservation: Insights from Indigenousled Grizzly Bear Stewardship in the Great Bear Rainforest. Ethics, Policy & Environment 24:3, 283-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2021.2002624
Cornelius, N. (2021). From slavery and colonialism to Black Lives Matter: new mood music or more fundamental change? Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 40(1): 8-20. DOI 10.1108/EDI-07-2020-0199
Adams, W. and Mulligan, M. 2003. Decolonizing Nature: Strategies for Conservation in a Post-colonial Era. Earthscan Publications Ltd. https://adriancolston.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/decolonizing-nature-strategies-for-conservation-in-a-postcolonial-era1.pdf
Crosman K.M., Singh G.G., Lang S. (2021). Confronting Complex Accountability in Conservation with Communities. Frontiers in Marine Science 8: 709423. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.709423
Baker J., Milner-Gulland E.J., Leader-Williams, N. 2012. Park gazettement and integrated conservation and development as factors in community conflict at Bwindi Impenetrable Forest, Uganda. Conserv Biol. 26(1):160-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01777.x
Ramutsindela, M., Matose, F., and Mushonga, T. (2022). Conservation and violence in Africa. In Ramutsindela, M., Matose, F., and Mushonga, T. (eds.) The violence of conservation in Africa.Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, UK. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800885615 
Mustalahti, I., & Agrawal, A. (2020). Research trends: Responsibilization in natural resource governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 121, 102308.

Co-creating knowledge across disciplines and cultures

The value and use of co-creating knowledge with local and indigenous stakeholders (as opposed to a more traditional top-down approach) to generate usable actions and outcomes in conservation and sustainability science has been long recognised by parts of the conservation community [1, 2]. Yet new research indicates local and indigenous knowledge is nonetheless regularly underutilized and misunderstood in environmental decision-making [3]. Established guidelines [4] propose that good knowledge co-creation: “1) is that which is as inclusive as possible (without creating high transaction costs or impacting on the salience, legitimacy or credibility of the outcomes through ‘wasteful’ inclusion); 2) is conducted with a discourse that values diversity and debate; 3) occurs in an environment with clear rules, ethics and processes; and 4) is facilitated physically through a physical or virtual place to ‘meet’.”

Similarly, interdisciplinarity has long been valued in conservation [5], but to-date is not well integrated in conservation training programs [6]. The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the importance of integrating knowledge across disciplines by highlighting the connections between nature, health, economics and societal well-being [7]. Given travel constraints, it has also increased awareness among foreign researchers and practitioners of the necessity to rely more heavily on local leadership and community-based expertise [8].

Heightened awareness may lead to greater, more widespread efforts to respectfully interweave different knowledge systems, especially if funding for conservation becomes increasingly conditional on integrating local know-how. Holistically integrating local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge with regional and international multi-disciplinary expertise to co-create is likely to lead to novel, more creative and effective community conservation approaches with improved livelihood and conservation outcomes [9, 10]. Combined with growing societal acknowledgement of structural racism and racial injustices, greater awareness also presents an opportunity for due recognition of Global South researchers [11] and of bearers of local, traditional and indigenous ways of knowing, with the potential of cultural revival. Beyond such positive impacts, there are the risks of window dressing, misrepresentation, and essentializing. This can be mitigated as best as possible by following the criteria for ‘good’ knowledge co-creation [4], ensuing legitimacy and inclusivity.

Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and change, 26(3), 413-439.
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014). Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach. Ambio, 43, 579–591 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3
Wheeler, H., Danielsen, F., Fidel, M., Hausner, V. H., Horstkotte, T., Johnson, N., … & Vronski, N. (2020). The need for transformative changes in the use of Indigenous knowledge along with science for environmental decision-making in the Arctic. People and Nature, 2, 544– 556. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10131
Coggan, A., Carwardine, J., Fielke, S., & Whitten, S. (2021). Co-creating knowledge in environmental policy development. An analysis of knowledge co-creation in the review of the significant residual impact guidelines for environmental offsets in Queensland, Australia. Environmental Challenges, 4, 100138.
Soulé, M.E. (1985). What is conservation biology? A new synthetic discipline addresses the dynamics and problems of perturbed species, communities, and ecosystems. Bioscience 35(11), 727-734. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310054
Gardner, C.J. (2021). Not teaching what we practice: undergraduate conservation training at UK universities lacks interdisciplinarity. Environmental Conservation, 48(1), 65-70. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892920000442
World Economic Forum (2021). The Global Risks Report 2021. 16th Edition. http://wef.ch/risks2021
Bates, A. E., Mangubhai, S., Milanés, C. B., Rodgers, K. U., & Vergara, V. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic as a pivot point for biological conservation. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25399-5
Alexiades, M. N., Peters, C. M., Laird, S. A., Binnqüist, C. L., & Castillo, P. N. (2013). The missing skill set in community management of tropical forests. Conservation Biology, 27(3), 635-637.
Bammer, G., O’Rourke, M., O’Connell, D., Neuhauser, L., Midgley, G., Thompson Klein, J., Grigg, N.J., Gadlin, H., Elsum, I.R., Bursztyn, M., Fulton, E.A., Pohl, C., Smithson, M., Vilsmaier, U., Bergmann, M., Jaeger, J., Merk, F., Vienni Baptista, B., Burgman, M.A., Walker, D.H., Young, J., Bradbury, H., Crawford, L., Haryanto, B., Pachanee, C., Polk, M. & Richardson, G.P. (2020). Expertise in research integration and implementation for tackling complex problems: when is it needed, where can it be found and how can it be strengthened? Palgrave Communications 6:5. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0380-0
Else, H. & Perkel, J.M. (2022). The giant plan to track diversity in research journals. Nature 602: 566-570.

Conservation finance for grassroots initiatives

As funding for conservation increases from both private and public sources, there is growing interest in getting funds to the local level and to IPLC initiatives [1, 2]. Funders, as well as emerging markets and financing mechanisms, such as carbon finance, biodiversity credits and debt-for-nature swaps, are developing new financing vehicles that can be tailored to suit and be more accessible to grassroots organisations [3, but see 4]. Combined with capacity building, these have the potential to strengthen community conservation by aligning decision-making with resources at local levels [1]. Because grassroots access remains rare [5,6,7], however, top-down imposition of locally ineffective or resisted conservation measures remains a risk.

For a more detailed discussion, check out this blog co-authored by one of our collaborators, or this recent report on rethinking African conservation funding.

Holland, E. et al. (2022) Money where it matters for people, nature and climate: driving change through support for local level decision making over resources and finance. https://pubs.iied.org/20966iied, (accessed Stanford, CA).
UNDP (2022) BIOFIN: the biodiversity finance initiative. https://www.biofin.org/sites/default/files/content/publications/workbook_2018/executive_summary.html, (accessed 09 August, 2022).
Heard, R. and Villat, J., eds. (2020) Diversifying local livelihoods while sustaining wildlife, Luc Hoffmann Institute.
Standing, A. (2022) Debt-for-nature swaps and the oceans: The Belize Blue Bond. https://www.cffacape.org/publications-blog/debt-for-nature-swaps-and-the-oceans-the-belize-blue-bond, (accessed 09 August 2022).
Paul, R. et al. (2022) Greening the Grassroots: Rethinking African Conservation Funding. maliasili.org/greeningthegrassroots, (accessed 09 August 2022).
Davis, A. et al., Territorial Finance: Empowering Grassroots Climate Action, PRISMA, 2021.
Viet, P.G. (2021) 9 Facts about community land and climate mitigation. https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/2021-10/9-facts-about-community-land-and-climate-mitigation.pdf, (accessed 09 August 2022).

Diversifying conservation-compatible livelihoods

By disrupting the global economy, the COVID-19 pandemic has triggered an unprecedented loss of livelihoods and increased poverty, especially among vulnerable local communities [1]. For community conservation initiatives, this has re-kindled recognition and a sense of urgency around the need for livelihood diversification and the pitfalls of heavy reliance on ecotourism for conservation-related income and employment [2]. Although community conservation efforts need not be economically motivated, their implementation often entails direct and/or opportunity costs. Securing a reliable, resilient income stream is therefore critical to ensure that conservation outcomes and people’s well-being can be sustained long-term.

While recognition of the need to diversify is not new [3], opportunities for conservation compatible, socially responsible revenue generation are becoming ever more numerous. With the growing reach of mobile finance [4] and the internet [5], online tools can help communities connect remotely with markets, donors, and advisors. Corporate compliance and ambition in response to increasingly strong environmental, social, and governance performance rules and expectations [6] mean that socially and environmentally benign (or ideally beneficial) partnerships with businesses are increasingly realistic. Accelerating interest in sustainable investments [7-8] could provide the incubators [2] and capital required for communities to create their own socially and environmentally responsible enterprises guided by best-practice models [9]. Conservation basic income [10], outcome-based payments for ecosystem services [2], and other forms of grass-roots accessible conservation finance (e.g., Conservation Trust Funds, Environmental Impact Bonds, Coastal Resilience Insurance, Biodiversity Offsets) can compensate for opportunity costs and alleviate unfair conservation burdens by redistributing resources from those responsible for environmental harm to those able to mitigate the damage [11].

Adoption of these revenue options for community conservation purposes requires careful tailoring to local context and potentially collaboration and scaling across neighbouring initiatives for efficiency. Comparable and transdisciplinary monitoring metrics and frameworks are also only still developing. However, once proof-of-concepts are realized and impacts are more readily evaluated, the potential to support diverse conservation-compatible livelihoods promises to be strong.

Egger, D., Miguel, E., Warren, S.S., Shenoy, A., Collins, E., Karlan, D., Parkerson, D., Mobarak, A.M., Fink, G., Udry, C., Walker, M., Haushofer, J., Larreboure, M., Athey, S., Lopez-Pena, P., Benhachmi, S., Humphreys, M., Lowe, L., Meriggi, N.F., Wabwire, A., Davis, C.A., Pape, U.J., Graff, T., Voors, M., Nekesa, C., and Vernot, C. (2021). Falling living standards during the COVID-19 crisis: Quantitative evidence from nine developing countries. Science Advances 7: eabe0997. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abe0997
Stolton, S., Timmins, H. and Dudley, N. (2021). Making Money Local: Can Protected Areas Deliver Both Economic Benefits and Conservation Objectives?, Technical Series 97, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. 108 Pages. https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-97-en.pdf
Boshoven, J. (2018). The Nature of Conservation Enterprises: A 20-year retrospective evaluation of the theory of change behind this widely used approach to biodiversity conservation. Washington, USA: USAID. Accessed online April 19, 2022 at https://enviroincentives.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/The-Nature-of-Conservation-Enterprises.pdf
Andersson-Majang, S. & Naghavi, N. (2021). The State of the Industry Report on Mobile Money 2021. GSM Association, London, UK. Accessed online February 28, 2022 at https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/GSMA_State-of-the-Industry-Report-on-Mobile-Money-2021_Full-report.pdf
Kempp, S. (2022). Digital 2022: April Global Statshot Report. DataReportal. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2022-april-global-statshot
Mattison, R. and de Longevialle, B. (2022). Key trends that will drive the ESG agenda in 2022. SP Global. Accessed online May 25, 2022 at https://www.spglobal.com/esg/insights/key-esg-trends-in-2022
Bass, R, Hand, D., McCarthy, K., Emme, L., Gilbert, S., Shah, S., Zukovsky, S. (2021). COMPASS: the methodology for comparing and assessing impact – Investor Guide. Accessed online at 20-Mar-2012 at https://thegiin.org/assets/COMPASS%20Methodology_For%20Investors.pdf
BlackRock. (2022). Our approach to engagement on natural capital. Black Rock. Accessed online March 22, 2022 at https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/literature/publication/blk-commentary-engagement-on-natural-capital.pdf
Marquis, C. (2020). Better business: how the B Corp movement is remaking capitalism. Yale University Press.
Fletcher, R., & Büscher, B. (2020). Conservation basic income: A non-market mechanism to support convivial conservation. Biological Conservation, 244, 108520.
de Lange, E., Sze, J., Allan, J., Consaul Atkinson, S., Booth, H., Fletcher, R., Khanyari, M., and Saif, O. (2022). A global conservation basic income to safeguard biodiversity. OSF preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/nvpfh

Locally based climate-smart agriculture and fisheries

Climate-smart agriculture (CSA), aquaculture, and fisheries intend to reduce the environmental footprint of food production, transport, storage, and waste; they also seek to minimize the vulnerability of food production to climate change impacts, with the ultimate goal of sustainably enhancing food security, nutrition and livelihood resilience [1-3]. Associated practices focus on biophysically improving or safeguarding the function of natural cycles and ecosystem services in the face of climate variability through e.g., efficient water usage, incorporation of crop residues, minimum tillage, drought-tolerant crops, intercropping, and agroforestry [1,4]. They also include more technologically intensive approaches such as the use of drones, remote sensing, artificial intelligence and field sensors for yield prediction, disease detection, weeding, and precision application of irrigation, fertilizer, and pesticides [1,4-5]. Cellular agriculture focused on lab-grown protein, might be considered a recent, technologically intensive extension motivated by the same goals [6-7]. At their best, these practices aim not only to build climate change resilience and reduce food production’s contribution to Greenhouse gases but also to be regenerative, whereby agricultural lands become carbon sinks [8].

First defined in 2010, CSA is highly location-specific and knowledge-intensive [9]. As a result, it remains insufficiently realized on the ground and inadequately evaluated [10]. Trade-offs remain common between productivity and biodiversity [11]. Moreover, while CSA draws inspiration from ancestral practices, exclusion of local knowledge has been identified as a barrier to widespread adoption [12]. Research, funding and policy support have grown steadily, however [13], and CSA received renewed attention and financial pledges at the at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26; [14]).

CSA holds considerable promise for community conservation. Traditional, indigenous and local ecological knowledge can inform climate-smart and biodiversity-friendly practices, putting people at the center of transformation to successfully upscale biodiversity-friendly CSA [12]. This can support revival and adoption of traditional agroecological practices with improved recognition and respect for traditional and local knowledge systems and cultural heritage; respectful knowledge co-creation will support adaptive management and is considered particularly critical in climate-smart fisheries and aquaculture [3]. As evaluation frameworks mature, community conservation may also benefit from improved environmental impact assessments of food production; increased monitoring of illegal, underreported and unregulated fishing that might otherwise undermine artisanal fisheries [15]; increased food security, economic returns, and livelihood resilience [16]; reduced land use pressures; new income opportunities if innovation and behavior change normalizes alternative protein sources (e.g. from insects); reduced water use, waste, and pesticides/fertilizer.

Conversely, negative future impacts of CSA could include displacement of local farming communities from poor agricultural lands if high-tech solutions are implemented beyond the economic means and capabilities of small-holders; corporate ownership and control over patented climate-smart plant varieties that trap small-holders in economically unsustainable situations; legal and ethical dilemmas over artificial intelligence applications, data ownership, intellectual property, privacy and informed consent; a digital divide that favours large industrial farms over small-holders [5]; and technocratic, top-down implementation of CSA disrespectful of local knowledge and practices. Such negative impacts can hopefully be avoided if national and multi-lateral institutions approach CSA policies and legislation with appropriate foresight [5].

FAO. (2021). Climate-smart agriculture case studies 2021 – Projects from around the world. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5359en  
Das, U., Ansari, M.A. (2021). The nexus of climate change, sustainable agriculture and farm livelihood: contextualizing climate smart agriculture. Climate Research 84:23-40. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01648
Galappaththi, E. K., Ford, J. D., Bennett, E. M., & Berkes, F. (2021). Adapting to climate change in small-scale fisheries: Insights from indigenous communities in the global north and south. Environmental Science & Policy, 116, 160-170.
GGGI. (2021). Compendium of practices in climate-smart agriculture and solar irrigation. The Global Green Growth Institute, Seoul, Korea. Accessed online June 3, 2022 at https://gggi.org/site/assets/uploads/2021/03/Compendium-of-Practices-in-Climate-Smart-Agriculture-Web_Final.pdf
Uddin, M., Chowdhury, A. & Kabir, M.A. Legal and ethical aspects of deploying artificial intelligence in climate-smart agriculture. AI & Soc (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01421-2
Lynch, J. and Pierrehumbert,R . (2019). Climate impacts of cultured meat and beef cattle. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 3: 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00005
Groen, D. (2022). Lab-grown meat can save our planet – if we can get people to eat it. Canadian Business may 03, 2022. Accessed online June 3, 2022 at https://www.canadianbusiness.com/ideas/meat-alternatives-lab-grown-protein/
Anderson, M. D. and Rivera-Ferre, M. (2021). Food system narratives to end hunger: extractive versus regenerative. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 49:18-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.12.002
FAO. (2013). Climate-Smart agriculture source book. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Accessed online June 3, 2022 at https://www.fao.org/3/i3325e/i3325e.pdf
van Wijk, M. T., Merbold, L., Hammond, J., Butterbach-Bahl, K. (2020). Improving assessments of the three pillars of climate smart agriculture: current achievements and ideas for the future. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 22. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.558483
Blaser, W.J., Oppong, J., Hart, S.P., Landolt, J., Yeboah, E., Six, J. (2018). Climate-smart sustainable agriculture in low-to-intermediate shade agroforests. Nature Sustainability 1:234–239. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0062-8
Ogunyiola, A., Gardezi, M. & Vij, S. (2022) Smallholder farmers’ engagement with climate smart agriculture in Africa: role of local knowledge and upscaling, Climate Policy, DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2021.2023451
Li, J., Wnag, L., Yan, K., Zhu, L., and Huang, J. (2022). Knowledge domain and emerging trends of climate-smart agriculture: a bibliometric study. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20796-9
Larson, K. (2021). COP26 and the Case for Climate-Smart Agriculture Investment. U.S. Global Leadership Coalition. Accessed online June 3, 2022 at https://www.usglc.org/blog/cop26-and-the-case-for-climate-smart-agriculture-investment/
Song, A. M., Scholtens, J., Barclay, K., Bush, S. R., Fabinyi, M., Adhuri, D. S., & Haughton, M. (2020). Collateral damage? Small‐scale fisheries in the global fight against IUU fishing. Fish and Fisheries, 21(4), 831-843.
Branca, G., Arslan, A., Paolantonio, A., Grewer, U., Cattaneo, A., Cavatassi, R., Lipper, L., Hillier, J. and Vetter, S., 2021. Assessing the economic and mitigation benefits of climate-smart agriculture and its implications for political economy: A case study in Southern Africa. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285: 125161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125161

Mobile finance augmenting economic potential

In 2020, 1.2 billion registered mobile money accounts facilitated 41.4 billion financial transactions worth US$ 767 billion across 96 countries [1]. This represents a 66% increase in accounts and approximately 20-fold increase in transactions and value since 2017 [2], with recent growth being highest in Latin America, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia, and West Africa [1]. By reducing cost-based, geographic, and identity-verification barriers, mobile financial services facilitate access for previously excluded poor and rural populations to basic transaction accounts, savings, credit, and insurance – services seen as critical for poverty reduction. Mobile Finance technology has helped governments reach and track payments to rural populations, reducing administrative burdens and supporting inclusivity of the informal sector, explore cash transfers in humanitarian disasters and bank the ‘unbanked’. Latest data indicates 1.7 billion adults remain unbanked, a decrease from 2 billion in 2014, with women overrepresented and nearly all in the Global South [3]. Low-income populations have benefited from mobile banking through pay-as-you-go access to essential services (e.g., utilities, education) and improved resilience to financial shocks, because distant friends and family can provide support [4]. Mobile banking also expands the geographic area in which business transactions can occur, facilitating access to more advantageous pricing, e.g., for farming inputs and outputs [5], and more generally increasing market access for remote communities. Low tech, cash-based village savings loan associations (VSLAs) have elevated the role of women in managing household finances; mobile finance has the potential to further improve such programs, increasing financial literacy and savings capacity [6].

Scaled up and tailored appropriately, such programs and fintech could support community-based natural resource management groups, particularly if implemented in combination with remote monitoring tools, offering the possibility to disintermediate conservation organisations who charge exceedingly high middleman transaction fees for conservation outcomes. However, the spread of mobile finance tools is reliant on communications infrastructure and mobile phone ownership, which may or may not be distributed equally in the future. In low- and middle-income countries, women remain 33% less likely than men to hold a mobile banking account. Uneven distribution could deepen the existing digital divide and gender bias, further marginalizing those without access [7]. Digital transactions also raise concerns over data privacy and vulnerability to data misuse, particularly outside well-governed systems and for those without financial literacy, increasing exposure to risks of predatory lending and over-indebtedness [4].

Andersson-Majang, S. & Naghavi, N. (2021). The State of the Industry Report on Mobile Money 2021. GSM Association, London, UK. Accessed online February 28, 2022 at https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/GSMA_State-of-the-Industry-Report-on-Mobile-Money-2021_Full-report.pdf
Pasti, F. (2019). The State of the Industry Report on Mobile Money 2018. GSM Association, London, UK. Accessed online February 28, 2022 at https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2018-State-of-the-Industry-Report-on-Mobile-Money.pdf
Demirgüç-Kunt, A., Klapper, M., Singer, D., Ansar, S., Hess, J. (2018). The Global Findex Database 2017: Measuring Financial Inclusion and the Fin- tech Revolution. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1259-0.
Pazarbasioglu, C., A., Garcia Mora, Uttamchandani, M., Natarajan, H., Feyen, E. and Saal, M. (2020). Digital Financial Services. The World Bank Group. Accessed online February 28, 2022 at https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/230281588169110691/Digital-Financial-Services.pdf
Wang, J., Yu, X., Lyu, K., Feil, J. (2021): The Impact of Mobile Finance Use on Livelihoods of Farmers in Rural China, Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 2021: 2013195. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2021.2013195
Chiwaula, L., Matita, M., Kamwanja, T., Cassim, L., Agurto, M. (2020). Combining Financial-Literacy Training and Text-Message Reminders to Influence Mobile-Money Use and Financial Behavior among Members of Village Savings and Loan Associations: Experimental Evidence from Malawi. Partnership for Economic Policy Working Paper No. 2020-10, Partnership for Economic Policy, Nairobi, Kenya. Accessed online March 7, 2022 at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3631410
Bamford, R., Hutchinson, G., Macon-Cooney, B. (2021). The Progressive Case for Universal Internet Access How to Close the Digital Divide by 2030. Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, London, UK. Accessed online February 28, 2022 at https://institute.global/sites/default/files/articles/The-Progressive-Case-for-Universal-Internet-Access-How-to-Close-the-Digital-Divide-by-2030.pdf

Leveraging ‘basic income’

Renewed interest in unconditional basic income has been growing since the 2008 global economic downturn given mounting evidence of positive outcomes on nutrition, health, schooling, and entrepreneurship, ease of implementation, and low administrative costs [1- 5]. The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically accelerated interest and implementation [6- 7] – in 2020, the United Nations Development Program proposed a temporary basic income for all 1.07 – 2.78 billion people living in or vulnerable to poverty across 132 developing and emerging economies [8], and in 2021 suggested to at least implement it for women [9]. Depending on scenario, annual costs could be less than the US$1.8 trillion spent yearly on environmentally harmful subsidies [10]. Worldwide, one third of social assistance measures rolled out in response to the pandemic by governments were unconditional cash transfers [8], and Spain, in 2020, implemented the first-ever nation-wide, unconditional basic income scheme of indefinite duration, albeit means-tested (focused on the poorest) and targeted at households rather than individuals [6].

In its purest form, universal basic income would be paid regularly, unconditionally, and individually to all residents of a particular jurisdiction without eligibility thresholds or subsequent conditions on spending or behaviour [8]. Conservation basic income builds on this idea, with recipients identified e.g. by geographic proximity to a protected area or biodiversity hotspot, or by a history of resource use from that area [3]. By providing basic income to those in conservation-sensitive areas, it could reduce reliance on unsustainable resource extraction, provide reparation for past or ongoing environmental injustices, compensate for opportunity costs; free time and resources for investment in creating communal good; subsidize locally-tailored health and education services, and empower communities to advocate for environmental protection [11]. A minimum wage of US $ 5.50 per day for everyone living within existing protected areas is estimated to cost US $639 billion annually [11].

Being unconditional, it would distinguish itself from market-based incentives, such as bio-prospecting, carbon offsets and other payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes intended but largely failing to render conservation profitable and competitive vis-à-vis other land uses [3]. With markets for ecosystem services incomplete, many PES initiatives have morphed into results-based aid or subsidies, which are conditional (as opposed to unconditional) cash transfers. Some explicitly incorporate conditions related to both poverty-alleviation and conservation: Bolsa Floresta in Brazil, for example, restricts deforestation and agricultural expansion but also mandates schooling [12]. A related tool, perhaps best described as a universal basic service, is India’s National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), which ensures that everyone who applies is given employment up to a specific number of hours at a specified daily wage. NEGRA has been recognized to have substantial environmental benefits because much of the labour is invested in protecting and restoring natural resources [13].

Thus, it is possible to envision both obligation-free conservation basic income and conservation-related cash transfers conditional on specific, pre-agreed ecological and socio-economic goals. How and by whom those goals are set and who pays are critical questions. Moreover, even ostensibly obligation-free schemes may entail implicit, indirect or access-based conditioning. Eligibility criteria, disbursement mechanisms, naming of the cash transfer scheme and associated training or programming can all direct recipients towards certain behaviours without explicit conditions [14]. Thus, a program labelled nature basic income, for example, may encourage pro-conservation spending or behaviour [14]. Finally, although positive impacts from cash transfers have been demonstrated for individual and household-level welfare, little is known about community-level social, economic, cultural and political impacts and how these differ when all or only some community members receive funds [15]. The sustainability of such systems is unclear and needs to be well thought out, particularly in terms of the financing source, beneficiaries, and potential conditions. Moreover, conservation basic income will work best in supporting conservation if part of a suite of complimentary measures.

Banerjee, A., Niehaus, P., and Suri, T. (2019). Universal basic income in the developing world. Annual Review of Economics 11(1); 959-983. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-030229
Bidadanure, J.U. (2019). The Political Theory of Universal Basic Income. Annual Review of Political Science 22:481-501. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-070954
Fletcher, R., & Büscher, B. (2020). Conservation basic income: A non-market mechanism to support convivial conservation. Biological Conservation, 244, 108520.
Hasdell, R. (2020). What we know about Universal Basic Income: A cross-synthesis of reviews. Stanford, CA: Basic Income Lab.
McDowell, T. (2021). Basic Income and the Legitimization Crisis of Neoliberalism. Journal of Social Policy 2021: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279421000763
Arnold, C. (2020). Pandemic speeds largest test yet of universal basic income. Nature 583(7817): 502–503. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01993-3
Samuel-Ogbu, B. (2021). Universal Basic Income: A Pandemic Based Reassessment – Seven Pillars Institute. (2021, December 9). Seven Pillars Institute. https://mail.sevenpillarsinstitute.org/universal-basic-income-a-pandemic-based-reassessment/
Molina, G.G. and Ortiz-Juarez, E. (2020). TEMPORARY BASIC INCOME: Protecting Poor and Vulnerable People in Developing Countries. UNDP, NY, USA. Accessed online April 30, 2022 at https://www.undp.org/library/dfs-temporary-basic-income-tbi
Montoya-Aguirre, M., Ortiz-Juarez, E. and Santiago, A. (2021). Protecting Women’s Livelihoods in Times of Pandemic: Temporary Basic Income and the Road to Gender Equality. UNDP Development Futures Series March 2021, UNDP. Accessed online April 30, 2022 at https://www.undp.org/publications/dfs-protecting-womens-livelihoods-times-pandemic-temporary-basic-income-and-road-gender
Koplow, D. and Steenblick, R. (2021). Protecting Nature by Reforming Environmentally Harmful Subsidies: The Role of Business. Earth Track, Inc., Cambridge, MA. Accessed online May, 5, 2022 at https://www.earthtrack.net/document/protecting-nature-reforming-environmentally-harmful-subsidies-role-business.
de Lange, E., Sze, J., Allan, J., Consaul Atkinson, S., Booth, H., Fletcher, R., Khanyari, M., and Saif, O. (2022). A global conservation basic income to safeguard biodiversity. OSF preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/nvpfh
Bakkegaard, R.K. and Wunder, S. (2014). Bolsa Floresta, Brazil. In E.O. Sills, S. Atmadja, Sassi, C. de A.E. Duchelle, D. Kweka, I.A.P. Resosudarmo, W.D. Sunderlin, (eds.). 2014. REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe. 51-67. Centre for International Forestry Research.
Moudgil, M. (2021). Rural job scheme guarantees carbon sequestration. Mongabay 18 June 2021. Accesssed online May 5, 2022 at https://india.mongabay.com/2021/06/rural-job-scheme-guarantees-carbon-sequestration/
Pellerano, L., and V. Barca. 2017. The conditions for conditionality in cash transfers: Does one size fit all. In D. Lawson, L. Ado-Kofie, and D. Hulme (Eds.), What Works for Africa’s Poorest: Programmes and Policies for the Extreme Poor. Rugby, UK: Practical Action Publishing. Pp. 223-242. Accessed online May 14, 2022 at https://practicalactionpublishing.com/book/2363/what-works-for-africas-poorest
Mumbunan, S., Maitri, N.M.R., Tazkiana, D., Prasojo, A., Sihite, F., and Nabella, D.M. (2021). Basic Income for Nature and Climate. Research Center for Climate Change, Universitas Indonesia, Deok, Indonesia. Accessed online April 30, 2022 at https://forclime.org/documents/Books/Mumbunan2021_Basic_Income_for_Nature_and_Climate_final_versi0n.pdf

Changes in tourism and travel patterns

The COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted tourism and travel, an industry which generated 10.4% of global GDP in 2019, decreased to 5.5% in 2020 due to ongoing mobility restrictions [1]. Notwithstanding, at the time of publication the growing pent-up demand in 2022 has resulted in a strong return to travel forecasted to exceed 2019 figures [2]. In the meantime, for many marine and terrestrial community-based conservation areas, the absence of tourists has dramatically reduced operational budgets, jobs and income opportunities [3-4]. Tourism’s absence has also reinforced some of the industry’s detrimental social and environmental impacts [4]. Consequently, stakeholders are calling upon tourism’s recovery to be re-oriented toward education, environmental and social justice, and racial healing, in line with the World Tourism Organisation’s emphasis on sustainability [5]. 

Whether such a transformation becomes reality remains unclear. Sharma et al. [6] point to “a disconnect between what UNWTO (World Tourism Organization) preaches (sustainability) and what is exercised (growth expansion),” highlighting the need for a sustainable tourism industry charter for public and private sector operations. Such a charter might include provisions to regulate overcrowding visitors spatially and temporally. Crowd-limiting luxury tourism, however, is not the answer, as luxury is often associated with higher environmental impact [7], and exclusivity socially untenable in the long- term. Responsible and sustainable tourism will therefore need to be redefined and acted upon to genuinely create more flexible and resilient tourism systems which are not greenwashed or corrupt, but socially-just. The Global Sustainable Tourism Council is developing standards for different sectors and destinations. Meanwhile there are shifts towards more purposeful travel [8] and a “regenerative tourism” model has emerged [9]. Regardless, there are and will continue to be actors and countries that will push for quick rather than sustainable tourism recovery.

If lasting, the pandemic-induced shift – reinforced by concerns over green-house gas emissions [10] – from international to domestic and local tourism will likely have political, economic as well as cultural ramifications on community conservation initiatives. Beneficial impacts may arise from emerging forms of tourism, including agrotourism, cultural immersion, wellness tourism [11], digital nomadism (office workers taking advantage of remote working arrangements and technology), and virtual tours [4, 12]. These atypical attractions could make sustainable tourism more accessibly integrated into and benefit some community conservation initiatives. Increasingly accessible technical and financial assistance through grants, crowdsourcing, and investment and facilitation platforms may also help [4]. Nonetheless, a persistent lesson from the pandemic is the value of avoiding complete dependence on tourism-based income. Conveniently, agrotourism can promote the selling of commodities such as cocoa while also hosting and educating visitors thereby diversifying revenue streams [13].

World Tourism & Travel Council. 2021. Economic Impact & Trends 2021. https://wttc.org/Portals/0/Documents/Reports/2021/Global%20Economic%20Impact%20and%20Trends%202021.pdf?ver=2021-07-01-114957-177
World Tourism & Travel Council. 2022. Press release: U.S. Travel & Tourism Recovery Projected to Exceed Pre-Pandemic Levels in 2022. https://wttc.org/Portals/0/Documents/Press%20Releases/WTTC-US-Travel-and-Tourism-Recovery-Projected-to-Exceed-Pre-Pandemic-Levels-in-2022.pdf?ver=2022-02-09-130301-967
Phua, C., Andradi-Brown, D.A., Mangubhai, S. , Ahmadia, G.N. , Mahajan, S.L. , Larsen, K. , Friel, S., Reichelt, R., Hockings, M., Gill, D., Veverka, L., Anderson, R., Cédrique Augustave, L., Awaludinnoer, Bervoets, T., Brayne, B., Djohani, R., Kawaka, J., Kyne, F., Ndagala, J., Oates, J., Osuka, K., Prvan, M., Shah, N., Vallarola, F., Wenzel, L., Widodo, H., and Wells, S. (2021). Marine protected and conserved areas in the time of COVID. Parks 27:85-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2021.PARKS-27-SICP.en 
Spencely, A. (2021). The future of nature-based tourism: impacts of COVID-19 and paths to sustainability. Luc Hoffmann Institute, Gland, Switzerland. Accessed online March 4, 2022 at  https://luchoffmanninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/luchoffmanninstitute-future-nature-based-tourism-report-2021.pdf. 
One Planet Sustainable Tourism Programme. (2020). One Planet Vision for a Responsible Recovery of the Tourism Sector. Accessed online 25/02/2022 at https://www.unwto.org/covid-19-oneplanet-responsible-recovery 
Sharma, G.D., Thomas, A., and Paul, J. (2021). Reviving tourism industry post-COVID-19: A resilience-based framework. Tourism Management Perspectives 37: 100786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100786 
Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T., & Steinberger, J. K. (2020). Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nature communications, 11(1), 1-10. https://wttc.org/News-Article/US-Travel-and-Tourism-Recovery-Projected-to-Exceed-Pre-Pandemic-Levels-in-2022
Boluk, K. A., Herzog, C., Åberg, K. G., & Freund, D. (2022). Re-purposing tourism: engaging our radical in tourism education. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 1-5.
Bellato, L., Frantzeskaki, N., & Nygaard, C. A. (2022). Regenerative tourism: a conceptual framework leveraging theory and practice. Tourism Geographies, 1-21.
Jurjonas, M., & Aldana, L. (2020). The Flyer’s dilemma and the Logger’s case for climate justice. World Development Perspectives, 20, 100263 
Hashimoto, A. (2022). Rural Tourism Activities. In Encyclopedia of Tourism Management and Marketing. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Embling, D., Southan, J. (2020). Travel after 2020: what will tourism look like in our new reality? Travel Trend Report October 2020. Euronews in collaboration with Globetrender, UK. Accessed online March 4, 2020 at https://static.euronews.com/website/pdf/euronews-trend-report-travel-after-Oct-2020.pdf?utm_source=euronews%26utm_medium=organic%26utm_campaign=whitepaper 
Bannor, R. K., Oppong-Kyeremeh, H., Amfo, B., & Allotey, A. A. (2022). Diversification into agritourism by cocoa farmers in Ghana as an alternative source of income. Agricultural Finance Review.

Moving away from conventional economics

Disillusionment with the globally prevailing, neoliberal market economy, by now widely recognised as the cause of much environmental degradation and socio-economic deprivation, has allowed ideas for economic reform to become more mainstream [1]. The social and economic upheaval caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has potentially strengthened momentum for economic reform, with governments, businesses, and individuals alike seeking ideas for “building back better” [2]. Nonetheless, efforts to implement a “green recovery” to date have fallen short of the transformative changes needed to meaningfully address the climate and biodiversity crises Earth and humanity are facing [3]. Four future economic paths with vastly different implications for community conservation are possible: (i) restoring the previous economy, (ii) removing obstacles to economic growth, (iii) green recovery and (iv) transformative economic reconstruction [4]. The first two paths may restore pre-pandemic livelihoods, but respectively will perpetuate or accelerate environmental degradation and biodiversity loss [4-5]. Green recovery, as characterized for example by the European Green Deal, assumes that continued economic growth can be decoupled from environmental harm through technological advances (e.g. green energy) and a circular economy that minimizes waste via reuse and up-cycling, both encouraged by adequately pricing environmental externalities. Because decoupling rates achieved to date are too slow to halt environmental damage within relevant timeframes, however, biodiversity loss might slow but not stop [3-4]. Avoiding unsustainable use of Earth’s resources arguably requires moving away from economic growth, keeping the economy within sustainable limits, or accepting a reduction in production and consumption, transformative ideas captured by concepts of a steady-state economy [6], doughnut economics [7], and degrowth [8]. Such post-growth scenarios, although environmentally more benign, might not eliminate biodiversity loss, however, if food production, for example, becomes more decentralized and extensive as a result [4]. Nonetheless, consensus among international experts suggests that goals for conserving nature and its sustainable use can be met only through transformative economic, political, social, and technological change [9]

Green recovery encourages a ‘triple bottom line’ perspective, in which value and success are not measured purely economically, but put equal emphasis on social and environmental outcomes, or inclusive, inter-generational wealth [10]. Typical ‘triple bottom line’ reporting has been criticized for confounding minute, myopic improvements in business practice with sustainability while perpetuating the primacy of economic profit [11]. Improved tools to measure social impact [12], and careful, broader-scale tracking of the flow, stock of, and investment in natural assets [10], as adopted by e.g. the UK [13] and supported by the World Bank’s Global Program on Sustainability may, however, help more meaningful implementation of the concept.

More transformative concepts tend to be guided by ideas of sufficiency and redistribution [14]. Doughnut Economics, for example, proposes to keep economic activities within a sustainable space between earth’s system capacity and human needs and dignity [7]. A bio-circular green economy would combine aspects of circular economy (minimizing waste), bioeconomy (focused on nature-derived products) and green economy (recognising the role of ecosystems in human well-being) [15], and has been promoted in e.g. Thailand [16]. Buen Vivir, which has percolated in South America since the 2000s, seeks harmonious, community- and biocentric coexistence between beings, ecologically-balanced and culturally inclusive. It recognises and promotes interconnectedness and solidarity between humans, culture, nature and the physical environment [17]. In a similar vein, Convivial Conservation rejects the capitalist growth agenda and people-nature dichotomy, seeking equity, environmental justice and structural change. It promotes the integration of humans and nature in shared land- and seascapes that recognise, celebrate, and share the multi-dimensional value of mundane, every-day nature [18].

Attaining the transformative changes needed will require the democratisation of governance at both supra-national and local levels [10], enhancing decision-making powers at local levels while directing interventions at the (often non-local) sources of environmental damage [18]. Such governance reform, and emphasis shifting from monetary gain to holistic well-being would benefit community conservation by supporting locally tailored solutions to simultaneously improving livelihoods and nature conservation. In turn, existing community conservation initiatives can encourage the transformation by showcasing the benefits of an effective focus on holistic rather than just economic wealth.

Jacobs, M. and Laybourn-Langton, L. 2018. Paradigm shifts in economic theory and policy. Intereconomics 53(3): 113–118. Accessed online May 25, 2022 at https://www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2018/number/3/article/paradigm-shifts-in-economic-theory-and-policy.html
OECD (2020). Building Back Better: A Sustainable, Resilient Recovery after COVID-19. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Accessed online May 25, 2022 at https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=133_133639-s08q2ridhf&title=Building-back-better-_A-sustainable-resilient-recovery-after-Covid-19
Taherzadeh O (2021). Promise of a green economic recovery postCovid: trojan horse or turning point? Global Sustainability 4, e2: 1–6. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/sus.2020.33
Sandbrook, C., Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Adams, W. M. (2020). Biodiversity conservation in a post-COVID-19 economy. Oryx, 1-7.
Otero, I., Farrell, K.N., Pueyo, S., Kallis, G., Kehoe, L., Haberl, H., Plutzar, C., Hobson, P., Garcia-Marquez, J., Rodriguez-Labajos,B., Martin, J.-L., Erb, K.-H., Schindler, S. Nielson, J., Skorin,T., Settele, J., Essl, F., Gomez-Baggethun,E., Brotons,L., Rabitsch,W., Schneider,F., and Pe’er, G. (2020). Biodiversity Policy beyond Economic Growth. Conservation Letters 13 (4): e12713. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12713.
Dietz, R. and O’Neill, D. (2013). Enough is enough: building a sustainable economy in a world of finite resources. Routeledge, London. Accessed online May 30, 2022 at https://marcell.memoryoftheworld.org/Rob%20Dietz/Enough%20Is%20Enough%20(1161)/Enough%20Is%20Enough%20-%20Rob%20Dietz.pdf
Raworth, K. (2017). A Doughnut for the Anthropocene: humanity’s compass in the 21st century. The Lancet Planetary Health 1(2): e48 – e49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30028-1
Kallis, G., Kostakis, V., Lange, S., Muraca, B., Paulson, S., and Schmelzer, M. (2018). Research on Degrowth. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 43(1): 291–316. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025941
IPBES. (2019). Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.
HM Treasury. (2021). The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dagsupta Review
Milne, M.J. and Gray, R. (2013). W(h)ither Ecology? The Triple Bottom Line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and Corporate Sustainability Reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 118: 13-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1543-8
Kah, S. and Akenroye, T. (2020). Evaluation of social impact measurement tools and techniques: a systematic review of the literature. Social Enterprise Journal 16(4): 381-402. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-05-2020-0027
Office for National Statistics. (2021). UK natural capital accounts: 2021. Estimates of the financial and societal value of natural resources to people in the UK. Statistical Bulletin. Accessed online May 30, 2022 at https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapitalaccounts/2021
IPCC. (2020). Climate Change 2022 Mitigation of Climate Change. Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change. Accessed online June 14, 2020 at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SPM.pdf
D’Amato, D. and Korhonen, J. (2021). Integrating the green economy, circular economy and bioeconomy in a strategic sustainability framework. Ecological Economics 188: 107143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107143.
NSTDA. (2021). Bio-Circular-Green economy to be declared a national agenda. National Science and Technology Development Agency, Thailand. Accessed online May 30, 2020 at https://www.nstda.or.th/thaibioeconomy/138-bio-circular-green-economy-to-be-declared-a-national-agenda.html
Acosta, A. and Martinez Abarca, M. (2018). Buen Vivir: an alternative perspective from the peoples of the Global South to the crisis of capitalist modernity. In Satgar, V. (ed). The Climate Crisis: South African and Global Eco-Socialist Alternatives. Wits University Press, Soth Africa. Accessed online May 30, 2022 at https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.18772/22018020541.11
Büscher, B., & Fletcher, R. (2019). Towards convivial conservation. Conservation & Society, 17(3), 283-296.

Strengthened corporate norms and standards

The private sector may increasingly emerge as a potential partner for community conservation initiatives. Corporations worldwide are under increasing pressure from regulators, investors, and consumers to disclose and improve their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) records. Among regulatory examples, the European Green Deal’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation mandate ESG disclosures for large companies and the financial services sector, respectively, including on “the protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems” [1]. Regulatory pressures on the financial services sector inevitably permeate the investment chain; moreover, investment management corporations like BlackRock have issued their own disclosure demands, expecting those seeking investment to disclose impact and dependencies on natural capital, including biodiversity [2]. Additionally, the Global Impact Investors Network (GIIN) provides investors with ESG assessment tools [3]. Mandatory disclosures have been argued to reduce ESG incidents, i.e., harm to nature or people [4], assuming stakeholders (including shareholders) care. Consumers appear to care: internet searches for sustainable goods have increased 71% since 2016 [5], and sustainability-labelled products sell at rates 5 times greater than conventional counterparts [6]. Businesses keen on measuring and highlighting their sustainability can pursue third-party certification and associated standards, such as the best practice guidance and free self-assessment protocols provided by B Labs (https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/). Moreover, legal tools are emerging for corporations to directly engrain ESG goals in their business model [7].

Although the environmental component of ESG was initially focused on carbon emissions, biodiversity reporting frameworks have emerged [8-9]. An International Sustainability Standards Board announced in 2021 is expected to address the lack of standardization in ESG metrics [10], which to date leaves room for greenwashing.

Ideally, environmental sustainability is pursued not via offsets (company invests in environmental projects to compensate for ongoing negative impacts, anywhere), but via insetting (company avoids or reduces environmental damage within its own value chain) [11]. In some jurisdictions, insetting is becoming a legal requirement (e.g., Germany’s Supply Chain Act and the European Directive on corporate sustainability due diligence).

There are risks. Predominant emphasis on net-zero carbon may lead companies to invest in large-scale offset projects focused purely on carbon sequestration. This can work against community-based approaches and biodiversity conservation, e.g., when non-native, mono-culture forests are planted in formerly open habitats without regard for the impact on local livelihoods or species [12]. Yet, as industries transition from ‘corporate social responsibility’ to value creation at all supply chain points, communities could gain bargaining power to demand fair pricing, support for necessary amenities and/or conservation efforts. ESG benchmarking, third-party certification, and legally mandated supply chain due diligence could support such a transition to socially and environmentally responsible sourcing of labour and materials. To date, however, certification and monitoring costs often exceed the value that permeates to local communities and can be prohibitive for small- to medium- sized enterprises.

European Commission. (2021). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2021/2178. Official Journal of The European Union 10.12.2021 L443/9-67. Accessed online April 8, 2022 at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R2178&from=EN
BlackRock. (2022). Our approach to engagement on natural capital. Black Rock. Accessed online March 22, 2022 at https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/literature/publication/blk-commentary-engagement-on-natural-capital.pdf
Bass, R, Hand, D., McCarthy, K., Emme, L., Gilbert, S., Shah, S., Zukovsky, S. (2021). COMPASS: the methodology for comparing and assessing impact – Investor Guide. Accessed online at 20-Mar-2012 at https://thegiin.org/assets/COMPASS%20Methodology_For%20Investors.pdf
Krueger, P., Sautner, Z., Tang, Y., and Zhong, R. (2021). The Effects of Mandatory ESG Disclosure Around the World. European Corporate Governance Institute – Finance Working Paper No. 754/2021, Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper No. 21-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3832745
Economist Intelligence Unit. (2021). An Eco-wakening – Measuring global awareness, engagement and action for nature. The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited. Accessed online April 11, 2022 at https://impact.economist.com/perspectives/sites/default/files/an_ecowakening_measuring_awareness_engagement_and_action_for_nature_final_may_18_2021.pdf
Whelan, T., Kronthal-Sacco, R. (2019). Actually, Consumers Do Buy Sustainable Products. Harvard Business Review June 19, 2019. Accessed online April 11, 2022 at https://hbr.org/2019/06/research-actually-consumers-do-buy-sustainable-products
Marquis, C. (2020). Better business: how the B Corp movement is remaking capitalism. Yale University Press.
Climate Disclosure Standards Board (2021). Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures. Climate Disclosure Standards Board and CPD Worldwide. Accessed online 11 April, 2022 at https://www.cdsb.net/sites/default/files/biodiversity-application-guidance-single_disclaimer.pdf
Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, (2022). The TNFD Nature-Related Risk & Opportunity Management and Disclosure Framework Beta v0.1. Accessed online 11 April, 2022 at https://tnfd.global/tnfd-framework/
IFRS. (2021). IFRS Foundation announces International Sustainability Standards Board, consolidation with CDSB and VRF, and publication of prototype disclosure requirements. Accessed online March 22, 2022 at https://www.ifrs.org/news-and-events/news/2021/11/ifrs-foundation-announces-issb-consolidation-with-cdsb-vrf-publication-of-prototypes/
Bhatia, V. (2022). Explainer: carbon insetting vs offsetting. World Economic Forum. Accessed online 25 March, 2022 at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/03/carbon-insetting-vs-offsetting-an-explainer/
Fleischman, F., Basant, S., Chhatre, A., Coleman, E.A., Fischer, H.W., Gupta, D., Güneralp, B., Kashwan, P., Khatri, D., Muscarella, R., Powers, J.S., Ramprasad, V., Rana, P., Rodriguez Solorzano, C., Veldman, J.W. (2020). Pitfalls of Tree Planting Show Why We Need People-Centered Natural Climate Solutions, BioScience 70(11): 947–950. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa094