Content uploaded by Jose Antonio Sierra-Huelsz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jose Antonio Sierra-Huelsz on Mar 19, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Review
What's on the horizon for community-based
conservation? Emerging threats
and opportunities
Nafeesa Esmail ,
1,42,
*
,@
Jana M. McPherson ,
1,42,
*
,@
Latoya Abulu,
2
Thora Amend,
3
Ronit Amit,
4
Saloni Bhatia ,
5
Dominique Bikaba,
6,@
Typhenn A. Brichieri-Colombi ,
1
Jessica Brown,
7
Victoria Buschman,
8,9
Michael Fabinyi ,
10,11,@
Mohammad Farhadinia ,
12,13
Razieh Ghayoumi,
14,@
Terence Hay-Edie,
15
Vera Horigue ,
16,17,@
Vainuupo Jungblut,
18
Stacy Jupiter ,
19
Aidan Keane ,
20
David W. Macdonald,
21
Shauna L. Mahajan,
22,@
Andrew McVey,
23
Axel Moehrenschlager ,
24
Fred Nelson,
25
Meher Noshirwani,
26,27
Yaa Ntiamoa-Baidu ,
28
Jose Luis Postigo ,
29,@
Vatosoa Rakotondrazafy,
30,31
Madhu Rao,
32,33,34
Dilys Roe,
35,36,@
José Antonio Sierra Huelsz ,
37,38
Sue Stolton,
39
Alifereti Tawake ,
40
and Bonnie Wintle
41
Community-based conservation can support livelihoods and biodiversity, while
reinforcing local and Indigenous values, cultures, and institutions. Its delivery
can help address cross-cutting global challenges, such as climate change,
conservation, poverty, and food security. Therefore, understanding trends in
community-based conservation is pertinent to setting and implementing global
goals. We undertook a horizon scan to prioritize 15 emerging threats and oppor-
tunities expected to impact the future effectiveness of community-based con-
servation. Topics relate to global biodiversity policy; human rights; shifting
human geography; inclusion, diversity, equity, and access; conservation finance
and income; and economic reforms. Our findings offer guidance on strengthen-
ing community-based conservation to achieve global environmental and devel-
opment goals.
Motivations for a horizon scan on community-based conservation
Community-based conservation strives to integrate culturally sensitive socioeconomic develop-
ment with nature conservation to catalyze benefits for both people and nature. It aims to foster
stewardship of local ecosystems and biodiversity by enabling, championing, and elevating local
and collaborative governance systems and management practices [1–3]. The discourse on
community-based conservation has evolved to embrace localvalue systems and knowledge, de-
colonize conservation, support human well-being, and ensure the equitable distribution of bene-
fits and costs from conservation [4,5]. The practice of community-based conservation can either
be grassroots driven or implemented top-down, for example, via government directives or poli-
cies of the funding institution [2].
Effective implementation is dependent on delivery mechanisms, community characteristics, the
wider socioeconomic and political context [6], and proactive adaptation [7]. Outcomes can be
mixed, with initiatives prone to negative social outcomes when local world views are ignored or
resource management rights not effectively devolved [8]. Critiques highlight that existing legisla-
tion around natural resource management and an overemphasis on economic benefits under-
value cultural connections with place, commodify nature, and create economic competition
Highlights
The intertwined, global issues of climate
change, rapid biodiversity loss, and fail-
ure to eradicate poverty present a
wicked problem; they need to be ad-
dressed jointly, because each has impli-
cations for communities on the ground,
and one can fuel another.
For decades, community-based con-
servation has tried to tackle these
inter-related challenges with mixed
success and, at times, counter-
productive results, but has arisen as
a promising and popular approach
on global agendas.
We undertook a horizon scan on
community-based conservation and
identified 15 topics that offer opportuni-
ties to yield positive change for people
and the planet. The analysis also pro-
vides insights into pitfalls to avoid in
achieving 2030 global policy targets.
1
Wilder Institute/Calgary Zoo, 1300 Zoo
Road NE, Calgary, AB, T2E 7V6, Canada
2
Mongabay, 1259 El Camino Real #150,
Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA
3
Conservation & Development,
Bahnhofstr.9, 79725 Laufenburg,
Germany
4
School of Biology and Biodiversity and
Tropical Ecology Research Center
(CIBET), University of Costa Rica,
11501-2060, Montes de Oca, San Jose,
Costa Rica
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Month 2023, Vol. xx, No. xx https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.02.008 1
© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Trends in
Ecology & Evolution OPEN ACCESS
TREE 3128 No. of Pages 15
and associated decision inequities, even violence, ultimately disenfranchising rather than
empowering communities [4,7,9,10]. Community rights remain limited in many regions; nonethe-
less, community-based conservation has proven resilient, innovative, and continues to spread
[7,11]. The total land area legally recognized as under the direction of Indigenous peoples
and local community (IP&LC, see Glossary) is almost as large as that in protected areas
owned and managed by governments [12]. Moreover, territories under Indigenous stewardship
either legally or de facto cover more than a quarter of the planet’s land area and encompass
many biodiversity hotspots and ecologically intact ecosystems [12,13].
Thus, community-based conservation can contribute to policy developments and influence
legislation in three inextricably linked and worsening global predicaments: climate change, bio-
diversity loss, and the broader economic and social dimensions of the United Nations (UN)
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Against a reality of unfavorable temperature tra-
jectories, Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are
struggling to develop mechanisms to implement the Paris Agreement’s1.5°Ctargetfor
global warming [14]. Given the biodiversity crisis [15], Parties to the Convention on Biologi-
cal Diversity (CBD) have concluded protracted negotiations for the Kunming–Montreal
Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF [16]). Halfway through the implementation timeframe
for reaching the 2030 SDGs, progress is in jeopardy considering intersecting impacts from co-
ronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the largest number of violent conflicts since World War II,
and climate change [17].
Community-based conservation can not only support, but also be significantly impacted by these
multilateral policy instruments. Therefore, we implemented a horizon scan in 2021 to understand
threats and opportunities expected to hinder or facilitate community-based conservation effec-
tiveness within the coming 10–15 years. Horizon scanning is a foresight technique for detecting
early signals of future change (as opposed to identifying past or current trends). The technique
gathers, organizes, and prioritizes new and existing evidence of emerging threats and opportuni-
ties in a structured and transparent way, using diverse information sources [18]. This supports
better coordination of resources, responsive policy, and on-the-ground action to pursue oppor-
tunities early and mitigate threats before they fully materialize [19].
Our process for gathering and prioritizing threats and opportunities in community-based conser-
vation sought to maximize globally representative ideas (Box 1). A three-person facilitation team
coordinated the systematic, stepwise consensus-building process [20] by which collaborators
analyzed and evolved ideas gathered via an online global survey (see Figure I in Box 2).
Previous environmentally focused horizon scans have informed policy, funding, and decision-
making [21]. By highlighting upcoming risks and opportunities in community-based conservation
for global policy and local grassroots audiences alike, we aim to encourage proactive strategies
and actions to safeguard biodiversity and enhance human well-being.
The top 15 emerging topics in community-based conservation
The prioritized 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 (Figure 1). Many could exert either
negative or positive effects on community-based conservation, as evident in the brief descriptions
that follow (for further detail and a link to longer descriptions, see SM4 in the supplemental infor-
mation online). Examples in Table 1 illustrate how each topic may entail implications for conserva-
tion actors at local to global scales.
5
Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology
and the Environment, Royal Enclave,
Srirampura, Jakkur, Bangalore, India
6
Strong Roots Congo, 84 Avenue du
Gouverneur, Bukavu, Democratic
Republic of Congo
7
New England Biolabs Foundation, 240
County Road, Ipswich, MA 01938, USA
8
International Arctic Resear ch Center,
University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2160
Koyukuk Dr, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA
9
Greenland Institute of Natural
Resources, Kivioq 2, Nuuk 3900,
Greenland
10
Climate, Society and Environment
Research Centre, University of
Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007,
Australia
11
Crawford School of Public Policy, The
Australian Nat ional University, Acton,
ACT 2601, Australia
12
Durrell Institute of Conservation and
Ecology, School of Anthropol ogy and
Conservation, University of Kent,
Canterbury, UK
13
Department of Biology, University of
Oxford, 11a Mansfield Road, Oxford,
OX1 3SZ, UK
14
Research Group of Biodiversity and
Biosafety, Research Center for
Environment and Sustainable
Development, Department of Environment,
Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
15
UNDP/GEF Small Grants Programme,
304 East 45th Street, 9th Floor, New
York, NY 10017, USA
16
School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie
University, 6 Wally’s Walk, NSW 2109,
Australia
17
Western Indian Ocean Marine Science
Association, Mizingani Street, House
No. 734, Zanzibar, Tanzania
18
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional
Environment Pr ogramme (SPRE P),
Avele Road, Apia, Samoa
19
Wildlife Conservation Society,
Melanesia Program, 11 Ma'afu Street,
Suva, Fiji Islands
20
School of GeoSciences, The University
of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH9 3FF, UK
21
Wildlife Conservation Research Unit
(WildCRU), Department of Bio logy,
University of O xford, The Reca nati
Kaplan Centre, Tubney House, Tubney,
OX13 5QL, UK
22
Global Science, World Wildlife Fund,
1250 24th Street, N.W., Washington,
DC 20037, USA
23
World Wildlife Fund –Kenya, Mvuli
Road, Nairobi, Kenya
24
IUCN Species Survival Commission
Conservation Translocation Specialist
Group, 2500 University Dr NW, Calgary,
AB T2N 1N4, Canada
25
Maliasili, 4 Carmichael St Suite 111-
193, Essex, Junction, VT 05452, USA
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
OPEN ACCESS
2Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Month 2023, Vol. xx, No. xx
Global target to conserve 30% of Earth by 2030
Target 3 of the GBF aims to conserve 30% of the planet by 2030 while ensuring equitable gover-
nance, respecting IP&LC rights, and accommodating genuinely conservation-compatible sus-
tainable use [16]. This target could expand area-based conservation beyond conventional
protected area management and governance categories to recognize, learn from, include, and
foster other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) [26]. Conducive to
community-based conservation and IP&LC stewardship, such measures could redefine effec-
tiveness and create opportunities at scale [26], while helping to reinforce IP&LC rights. Although
the wording of this target tries to guard against top-down, fortress-style conservation, it may still
drive such outcomes to the detriment of IP&LCs and community-based conservation, depending
on how the GBF is implemented within national political and policy contexts.
Global ecosystem restoration commitments
The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration and the US$12 billion Global Forest Finance
Pledge at UNFCCC in 2021 have renewed global commitments to restore nature [14,27]. More-
over, UNFCCC now recognizes the centrality of ecosystem restoration for climate-change mitiga-
tion and adaptation [14]. Such high-level commitments risk encouraging large, unsustainable
initiatives that may help carbon capture, but excuse continued emissions, harm biodiversity,
and/or exclude local communities from decision-making [28–30]. Conversely, these commit-
ments can help communities (re)build resilient social–ecological systems if they embrace the
rights and autonomy of IP&LCs, Indigenous and traditional knowledge (ITK), adaptive man-
agement, and, as encouraged by target 2 of the GBF, focus on ecological integrity and connec-
tivity alongside ecosystem services and functions [16].
Box 1. Ensuring globally representative input and perspectives
Diverse inputs and perspectives are critical to gaining a comprehensive overview; people who think differently (for
which demographic, geographic, and occupational diversity serve as good proxies [22,23]) are thought to maximize
collective wisdom and objectivity [24]. Many horizon scans elicit inputs primarily from an invited group of ‘experts’.
However, who and what defines an expert is contentious, and poses the risk that certain worldviews dominate. Some
recent scans have mitigated this by (remotely) soliciting initial ideas from as many different contributors as possible to
capture diverse global views [25].
The horizon scan presented here took a two-pronged approach. First, it was guided by a culturally diverse steering
committee and working group (the ‘collaborators’) from 24 nations in South, Central, and North America, Southern,
Central, and Northern Europe, West, Central, East, and Southern Africa, Western, South, and Southeast Asia,
Australia, and the Pacific Islands. The group purposefully comprised approximately equal numbers of women and
men at different career stages with varied disciplinary ba ckgrounds (plant, animal, and marine biology, natural resource
management, environmental science, environmental policy, social and cultural anthropology, human geography,
history, rural and sustainable development), diverse geographic and ecosystem expertise (marine, fres hwater, and ter-
restrial systems, tropical to polar, and across all continents) and distinct roles across community-based conservation
(research, practice, policy, and funding).
Second, it used an open online global survey (see SM1 in the supplemental information online) to elicit ideas on emerging
threats and opportunities in community-based conservation. The online survey was created in nine languages (Arabic, tra-
ditional and simplified Chinese, English, French, German, Hindi, Portuguese, and Spanish), posted on 20 online media fo-
rums (subscription lists, websites, etc.), and directly emailed to at least 2189 people worldwide with a known or inferred
interest in community-based conservation. Recipients were encouraged to share the survey with others. Participants were
asked about: (i) their experience with community-based conservation and vision for success; (ii) observed and anticipated
impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on community-based conservation efforts; and (iii) threats and opportunities they think
might hinder or facilitate effective community-based conservation within the next 15 years. Responses, collected from
March through May 2021, were anonymous, but respondents could choose to provide a name or organization for public
acknowledgement of participation (see SM2 in the supplemental information online). Responses were encouraged from
both individuals and groups to, for example, overcome language or literacy barriers by one person facilitating input from
team or community members.
26
Trust for Conservation of Coastal
Resources (TCCR), 1 Bath Island Road,
Clifton, Karachi 75530, Pakistan
27
IUCN Commission on Environmental,
Economic, and Social Policy (CEESP),
Rue Mauverney 28, 1196 Gland,
Switzerland
28
Centre for Biodiversity Conse rvation
Research, University of Ghana, PO Box
LG67, Legon, Accra, Ghana
29
Department of Animal Biology,
Universidad de Málaga. Boulevard
Louis Pasteur 31, 29010 Málaga. Spain
30
MIHARI Network, Lot VC 2 B
Ambanidia Villa Tsiriry, Madagascar
31
BEOLOBE, VA 26 NA Vi lla Mélodie
Tsiadana, Madagascar
32
IUCN World Commission on Protected
Areas (WCPA), Rue Mauverney 28, 1196
Gland, Switzerland
33
Wildlife Conservation Society, 2
Science Park Drive 01 03 Ascent,
118222, Singapore
34
Department of B iological Sciences,
National University of Singapore, Block
S3 #05-01 16 Science Drive 4, 117558,
Singapore
35
IUCN Sustainable Use and Livelihoods
Specialist Gro up (SULi), 235 High
Holborn, London, WC1V 7LE, UK
36
International Institute for Environment and
Development (IIED), 235 High Holborn,
Holborn, London, WC1V 7DN, UK
37
Centro de Investigaciones Tropicales,
Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa,
91000 Veracruz, Mexico
38
People and Plants International,
Bristol, VT 05443, USA
39
Equilibrium Research, 47 The Quays,
Cumberland Road, Spike Island, Bristol,
BS1 6UQ, UK
40
Locally Managed Marine Area (LMMA)
Network International Trust, 41 Mukta
Ben Road, Vatuwaqa, Suva, Fiji Islands
41
School of Ecosystem and Forest
Sciences, The University of Melbourne,
Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
42
Co-first authors.
*Correspondence:
nafeesae@calgaryzoo.com (N. Esmail)
and janam@calgaryzoo.com
(J.M. McPherson).
@
Twitter: @WilderInstitute (N. Esmail,
J.M. McPherson, T.A. Brichieri-Colombi),
@NafeesaEsmail (N. Esmail),
@Dominiquebikaba (D. Bikaba),
@michaelfabinyi (M. Fabinyi),
@VeraHorigue (V. Horigue), @mqnatsci
(V. Horigue), @shaunamahajan
(S. Mahajan), @WWFScience
(S. Mahajan), @Postigo_Jose_L
(J.L. Postigo), @dilysroe (D. Roe),
@Equilibrium_Res (S. Stolton).
Trends in Ecology & Evolution OPEN ACCESS
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Month 2023, Vol. xx, No. xx 3
Increased recognition of Indigenous and community rights
Growing emphasis on Indigenous, traditional, and community rights in global environmental pol-
icy [31], as exemplified by the US$1.7 billion pledge for tenure rights at the 2021 UNFCCC [32],
aspires to undo historic injustices and recognize the value of IP&LC knowledge and practices
in conservation [33]. Likely to further influence funding, legislation, and national policies, it may
foster improved environmental justice, given increased mapping of IP&LC rights [34] and possible
reinforcement by OECMs. This should increase recognition and support of community-based
conservation efforts. However, rights without resources are insufficient [35] and can be
undermined by conflict or the widespread rise of authoritarianism [36].
Growing violence against environmental human rights defenders
Threats and violence against environmental human rights defenders are rising, with record
numbers of murders and attacks in 2020 [37]. Increased attention from donors, international
fora, multilateral policy, media, and the public provides momentum to better integrate conser-
vation and human rights efforts. Security concerns can thwart community-based conservation
efforts. Existing mechanisms within the UN and EU, and pioneering Latin American legislation,
such as the Escazú Agreement [38], have the potential to mitigate against violations
associated with large extractive industries and conservation elites, but must be implemented
effectively.
Unpredictable and irregular human migration
More people than ever before were displaced by conflict, violence, and natural disasters in
2020–2022 [39]. Climate-induced disasters may displace up to 1 billion by 2050, with the
poorest disproportionately vulnerable [40]. Mobility can physically create space for conserva-
tion or reinvigorate talent pools by diversifying perspectives and experiences, potentially
Glossary
Black, Indigenous, and people of
color (BIPOC): term used to
acknowledge solidarity among, but also
differences in, the injustices faced by
various marginalized groups.
Buen Vivir:a departure from the
modern development narrative toward a
more biocentric, relational, and collective
understanding of well-being, where the
subject ofwell-being is not the individual,
but their interrelationship with their
cultural–natural environment.
Climate-smart approaches (CSA) to
agriculture, fisheries, and
aquaculture: actions to transform food
systems toward sustainable and climate
resilien t practic es, across agriculture,
commercial, and artisanal fisheries, and
aquaculture. Objectives encompass
sustainably increasing productivity and
incomes; adapting and building
resilience to climate change impactsand
variabilities; and reducing or removing
greenhouse gas emissions during
harvest, production, and the entire value
chain.
Conservation basic income: novel
biodiversity conservation funding
strategy that goes beyond conventional
market-based instruments.
Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD): in force since 1993, the CBD
has three main objectives: ‘conservation
of biological diversity; sustainable use of
the compo nents of biological diversity;
fair and equitable sharing of the benefits
arising out of the utilization of genetic
resources’. This recognizes that
biological diversity is about not only
plants, animals, microorganisms and
their ecosystems, but also people and
our need for food security, medicine,
fresh air and water, shelter, and a clean
and healthy environment. The CBD
Conferenceof the Parties (CoP) governs
the Convention and advances its
implementation through decisions made
at periodic meetings.
Convivial conservation: convivial
(literally: ‘living with’)conservationoffers
a new and integrated approach to
understanding and practicing
environmental conservation.
Doughnut economics: informed by
ecological, feminist, institutional,
behavioral, and complexity economics,
doughnut economics is centred on
progression toward an economy with a
strong social foundation and an
unbroken ecological ceiling for the
sustainability of humanity.
Box 2. Gathering and prioritization ideas on threats and opportunities
The process for identifying priority topics followed methods similar to other horizon scans in conservation (e.g., [21,25]) with
the distinction that initial ideas were elicited via a global, open online survey, where participation was not limited to specific
invitees (Figure I). In total, 1175 people (555 individuals and 36 groups, which self-reported to encompass another 620 indi-
vidual respondents) submitted suggestions regarding threatsand opportunities emerging in community-basedconservation.
These respondents originated in 107 nations, including Indigenous nations, and resided in 109 countries. They performed a
variety of non-mutually exclusive roles in community-based conservation (48% research, 48% practice, 17% policy, 12%
funding, 10% local governance, and 10% other) for initiatives in diverse settings (69% terrestrial, 68% rural, 29% marine,
20% freshwater, 10% urban, and 0.5% other) across all global regions. Most had 7 or more years of experience in
community-based conservation (8% <1 year, 12% 1–3 years, 17% 4–6 years, 18% 7–10 years, 13% 11–15 years, 32%
>15 years; see SM2 in the supplemental information online). More respondents identified as male (58%) than female
(41%); 1% chose ‘other’gender identification or preferred not to answer. Their knowledge backgrounds ranged from gov-
ernment, protected area management, and biological sciences to farming, forestry, Indigenous and traditional ecological
knowledge, anthropology, law, business, education, political science, and tourism. Jointly, these participants submitted
ideas for 1483 threats and 1044 opportunities.
A total of 39 collaborators helped consolidate and prioritize these ideas by adapting the Delphi method [20], with at least 14
collaborators actively contributing at each step. The process involved synthesis, shortlisting, in-depth investigation, itera-
tive rounds of debate, and anonymous ranking to identify the top 15 emerging topics expected to shape the future of com-
munity-based conservation (Figure I). Coordinators grouped submitted ideas into 261 topics. Collaborators then scored
these on a 0–100 scale for novelty, plausibility, impact, pervasiveness, and horizon scan ‘worthiness’, which combines
the prior four characteristics via fuzzy logic (further details in SM2 in the supplemental information online). Mean ‘worthi-
ness’scores (raw and transformed into z-scores to reflect that not all collaborators used the full 0–100 value range) served
to identify a shortlist (Box 3). Collaborators then researched shortlisted topics to substantiate or dispute horizon scan ‘wor-
thiness’in a first round of debate, followed by once more assigning ‘worthiness’scores, another round of debate, and fur-
ther scoring. Debates were held anonymously and asynchronously via an online facilitation platform. Contentious topics
with highly diverging scores were given particular attention to promote consensus.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
OPEN ACCESS
4Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Month 2023, Vol. xx, No. xx
Trends
Trends
in
in
Ecology
Ecology &
Evolution
Evolution
Figure I. The steps and people involved in distilling future threats and opportunities proposed by survey
respondents into a priority list of topics deemed highly relevant to the effectiveness of community-based
conservation over the next 10–15 years.
Environmental human rights
defenders: the UN General Assembly
defines these as: ‘Individuals and groups
who, in their personal or professional
capacityand in a peaceful manner, strive
to protect and promote human rights
relating to the environment, including
water, air, land, flora and fauna’.
Environmental, social, and
governance ( ESG): three factors
increasingly considered in addition to
profits in business to assess corporate
sustainability and ethical impact, material
risks, and growth opportunities.
Escazú Agreement: a2021
agreement among Latin American and
Caribbean governments as the first
environmental treaty of the region, which
enshrines the right of every person,
present and future, to a healthy
environment and sustainable
development. It is the first global
agreement with provisions on
environmental human rights defenders,
substantiating the high risks faced by
advocates and activists.
Global Biodiversity Framework
(GBF): at CoP14 of the CBD, a decision
was made to adopt a comprehensive
and participatory process to create a
post-2020 GBF, moving the world
toward the 2050 Vision of ‘living in
harmony with nature’. This landmark
document was finalized and adopted at
CoP15 as the Kunming–Montreal GBF
in December 2022.
Global Forest Finance Pledge at
UNFCCC CoP26: at the UNFCCC
CoP26, 130+ leaders, representing
more than 90% of the world’sforests,
committed to collaboratively halting and
reversing deforestation and land
degradation by 2030. Pledges were
made by globalleaders, industry,NGOs,
and community groups; this included
US$12 billion for forest-related climate
finance between 2021 and 2025 from
12 countries collectively.
Indigenous and traditional
knowledge (ITK): knowledge–
practice–belief complex encompassing
Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)
and Indigenous Knowledge (or Native
Science). TEK refers to the evolving
relationships between living beings
(including humans) and their environment,
culturally transmitted generation to
generation. Indigenous knowledge is the
local knowledge held by Indigenous
peoples or local knowledge unique to a
given culture or society. Indigenous
knowledge and TEK are inter-related, but
not necessarily the same, concepts.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution OPEN ACCESS
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Month 2023, Vol. xx, No. xx 5
facilitating community-based conservation. More typically, however, displacements perpetuate
conflict and environmental degradation, erode community cohesion, undermine resource-use
planning, dilute ITK, and weaken cultural connections to place and nature [41,42].
Trends
Trends
in
in
Ecology
Ecology &
Evolution
Evolution
Figure 1. The 15 topics identified as most pertinent to the effectiveness of community-based conservation over
the coming 15 years, and their thematic grouping. There is an assumed connection between topics within the same
theme. Broken arrows represent a direct connection between topics acrossthemes; additional, subtler connections may exist.
Indigenous peoples and local
community (IP&LC): ethnic groups
(typically) descended from, and
identifying with, the original inhabitantsof
a given area, as opposed to groups that
have more recently settled, occupied, or
colonized the area.
Offset: mechanism in which individuals
or organizations compensate for their
carbon emissions or biodiversity loss
they cause by financially supporting
carbon capture or biodiversity
conservation elsewhere.
Other effective area-based
conservation measures (OECMs):
the CBD at CoP14 defined this as ‘A
geographically defined area other than a
Protected Area, which is governed and
managed in ways that achieve positive
and sustained long-term outcomes for
the in-situ conservation of biodiversity,
with associated ecosystem functions
and services and where applicable,
cultural, spiritual, socio-economic, and
other locally relevant values’.
Paris Agreement: to achieve a
climate-neutral world by the mid-21st
century, this legally binding international
treaty aims to limit global warming to
1.5°C relative to preindustrial levels.
Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs): adopted in 2015,the UN SDGs
are global development targets, set to
be achieved in all countries by 2030.
UN Decade on Ecosystem
Restoration: joint initiative (2021–2030)
of the UN Environment Program and the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the
UN calling for the global protection and
revival of ecosystems for the benefits of
people and nature.
UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC): with
near-universal membership (197
Parties), the UNFCCC entered into force
in 1994 and is the parent treaty of the
2015 Paris Agreement and the 1997
Kyoto Protocol. It aims to stabilize
atmospheric greenhouse gas levels to
prevent dangerous human–climate
interactions, allow ecosystems to adapt
naturally, and enable sustainable
development.
Unbanked populations: people who
do not have an account at a physical or
online financial institution. About
1.4 billion adults, mostly in developing
economies,remained unbankedglobally
in 2021.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
OPEN ACCESS
6Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Month 2023, Vol. xx, No. xx
Table 1. A sample (illustrative rather than exhaustive) of recommendations arising from the priority topics
identified by the horizon scan, and the primary audiences that can act on each recommendation
a
Topic (T) and audience (A) Recommendation
T: Increased recognition of Indigenous and community
rights / Power shifting toward local actors
A: Organizations, institutions, and governments that
work with IP&LCs or impact their rights
Create grievance mechanisms (e.g., via third or multiparty
moderated platforms such as TalkToLoop
ii
)toensure
accountability (and transparency) with respect to
safeguarding rights, plus reporting and addressing abuse
of rights
T: Co-creating knowledge across disciplines and
cultures
A: Individuals, groups, organizations that collaborate
with IP&LCs
Follow best practice and legal guidelines for credible,
salient, and legitimate knowledge co-creation that values
diversity, is safe, ethical, and equitable, and balances
inclusion with transaction costs [99]. Examples include
the First Nations principles of OCAP®
iii
and the CARE
Principles for Indigenous Data Governance
iv
. This might
be supported by, for example, the UN Local
Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform
v
T: Leveraging ‘basic income’
A: Development organizations and governments
Thoroughly research and pilot conservation basic
income scheme, and then share clearly communicated
findings with decision-makers
T: Moving away from conventional economics
A: Governments
Develop well-being budgets, such as adopted by New
Zealand
vi
, and canvas input from communities on valued
indicators and underlying elements of well-being, specific
to individual contexts
T: Global target to conserve 30% of Earth by 2030
A: Parties to the CBD and legal advisory groups that
can support governments in implementing CBD
commitments
Ensure that national legislation and policies for
implementing the GBF do not disenfranchise IP&LCs or
marginalized groups, but instead engage community-led
organizations and community leaders in identifying
appropriate actions, such as the designation of OECMs.
Engagement might be modeled on Guardian Programs,
such as the Reef Guardians in Australia
vii
or Indigenous
Guardians in Canada
viii
T: Diversifying conservation-compatible livelihoods
A: Donors and the not-for-profit organizations that
guide philanthropists’spending
Scrutinize proposals and audit projects and fund
prefeasibility surveys to ensure that support for
alternative livelihood options focuses only on those that
are both conservation compatible and viable (e.g., those
that convincingly pursue a triple bottom line with suitable
environmental and social safeguards [100])
T: Mobile finance augmenting economic potential
A: Women’s organic shea cooperative in Wechiau
Community Hippo Sanctuary
In taking control over the local shea butter-processing
facility of the community protected area, the coop can
consider products in its business planning not only for
wholesalers, but also for end-users they might target
directly via online sales platforms to reap the benefits of
further onsite value addition and removal of
intermediaries
T: Conservation finance for grassroots initiatives
A: Donors, funding agencies
Create or join networks of likeminded donors (e.g., the
Environment + Justice Donor Circle
ix
)tosharebest
practices and increase commitments to grassroots groups;
pledge support akin to the Climate Funders Justice Pledge
x
,
which encourages transparent grants for Black,
Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC)-led groups
T: Strengthened corporate norms and standards
A: Investors in sustainable finance and the Global
Impact Investing Network
xi
Explore community-based conservation enterprises for
potential investment; advise community-based
conservation initiatives on types of data and metrics
needed, such as IRIS + standards
xii
, to evaluate and
demonstrate impact and attract impact investing
T: Global ecosystem restoration commitments /
Conservation finance for grassroots initiatives
A: social enterprise incubators and support
organizations (e.g., fundsforNGOs
xiii
)
Foster match-making mechanisms that allow donors
and grantees to find one another, such as the
Clearinghouse for Environmental Finance
xiv
(continued on next page)
Trends in Ecology & Evolution OPEN ACCESS
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Month 2023, Vol. xx, No. xx 7
Power shifting toward local actors
Heightened global recognition of continued, historically rooted injustices offers momentum to re-
dress international, national, and local power imbalances and mismatched goals within conserva-
tion partnerships [43]. However, mistrust is deep-seated and can spark protests, tensions, and
violence between those with and without power [e.g., big, well-funded international nongovern-
mental organizations (NGOs) vs. local, volunteer-based civil society organizations] [9]. Anticipated
growth of marginalized voices in decision-making gives hope that fair, transparent, inclusive gov-
ernance will advance socially just and culturally sensitive conservation approaches, such as com-
munity-based conservation, that avoid elite capture of resulting benefits [35].
Co-creating knowledge across disciplines and cultures
COVID-19 and associated travel constraints highlighted the need for interdisciplinary knowledge
and greater reliance on local leadership and community expertise. Although not a new concept
[44], knowledge co-creation with local and Indigenous stakeholders, including women, is increas-
ingly valued, but still often underutilized and misunderstood in environmental decision-making
[45]. Renewed interest may advance efforts to respectfully interweave knowledge systems, sup-
port cultural revival, and recognize Indigenous and Global South researchers and local actors
[46], facilitating genuine community-based conservation. Risks include tokenism, misrepresenta-
tion, and continued discrimination.
Conservation finance for grassroots initiatives
There is growing interest in dispersing funds to local-level and IP&LC initiatives [47]. Funders, as
well as emerging markets and new financing mechanisms, such as carbon finance, biodiversity
credits, and debt-for-nature swaps, could be tailored to suit and reach grassroots organizations
([48], but see [49]). Combined with capacity building and strategic support, these could
strengthen community-based conservation by aligning decision-making with local level resources
[47]. However, given that grassroots access remains rare [50], top-down imposition of locally in-
appropriate conservation measures remains a risk.
Diversifying conservation-compatible livelihoods
The stark economic downturn since 2020 has highlighted the urgency of sustainably diversifying
income and livelihoods for community-based conservation [51]. Options for conservation compat-
ible livelihoods are expanding [52] given growing online connectivity [53], increased environmental
and social responsibility in businesses [54], investment in sustainable enterprises [55], and conser-
vation finance mechanisms (e.g., environmental impact bonds) [47] or basic income schemes [56].
Adaptation to local contexts and careful evaluation via developing interdisciplinary metrics, includ-
ing culturally based indicators [57], are key for proof-of-concept to encourage wider adoption.
Table 1. (continued)
Topic (T) and audience (A) Recommendation
T: Strengthened corporate norms and standards
A: International Sustainability Standards Board
xv
Mandate standardized metrics for ESG reporting that
speak to the importance of genuine community
involvement and respect for IP&LC rights
T: Moving away from conventional economics
A: Organizations that certify others for social and
environmental standards, such as B Labs
xvi
Ensure that community initiatives can access
self-assessment and certification protocols, and/or
provide training/advice/pro bono services to
community-led not-for profit/profit-for-purpose
enterprises in the Global South that are seeking
certification
a
Roman superscripts point to websites listed in Resources.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
OPEN ACCESS
8Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Month 2023, Vol. xx, No. xx
Locally based climate-smart agriculture and fisheries
Climate-smart approaches (CSA) to agriculture, aquaculture, and fisheries, aimed at en-
hancing the sustainability and climate resiliency of food production systems [58,59], draw upon
not only ITK, but increasingly also remote sensing, robotics, and artificial intelligence [60,61].
An over-reliance on technological innovation can make CSA inaccessible or socially inappropri-
ate. Moreover, it may undermine possible co-benefits to community-based conservation, such
as revived application of ITK, reduced biodiversity impacts, and improved livelihood resilience
[61,62]. Therefore, continued rollout of CSA requires forward-thinking and inclusive policy, legis-
lation, and capacity-building tailored to diverse contexts and stakeholders.
Mobile finance augmenting economic potential
Continued growth in mobile financial services has overcome cost, geographic, and identity-
verification barriers to provide previously ‘unbanked’populations with basic transaction ac-
counts, savings, credit, and insurance, which they previously lacked access to [63]. Benefits for
community-based conservation include increased financial and market literacy, pay-as-you-go
access to critical services (e.g., health, education, and utilities), expanded business opportunities,
and improved financial resilience [64–66]. However, unequal, gender-biased access could
deepen the digital divide [67]. Moreover, digital transaction records raise concerns over privacy
and misuse by corporations (predatory advertising) or fraudsters [65].
Leveraging 'basic income'
The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated implementation of cash transfers comparable to tem-
porary basic income [68–70]. Prior pilot schemes indicate that basic income improves health, ed-
ucation, and income-generating capacity [71,72]. A ‘conservation basic income’for
communities connected to areas of conservation interest could support the environmental and
socio-economic goals of community-based conservation by reducing reliance on resource ex-
traction, balancing opportunity costs, and empowering social innovation [56,72]. Conditions
(even implicit ones [73]), safeguards, financing, and complementary conservation measures re-
quire careful consideration.
Changes in tourism and travel patterns
Dramatically reduced tourism in 2020–2021 in light of COVID-19 highlighted the social and envi-
ronmental impacts of the sector, both positive (e.g., people’s presence deterring poachers or in-
come) and negative (e.g., garbage, disturbance, or unemployment causing overexploitation),
inspiring momentum for reform toward more purposeful, sustainable, and regenerative tourism
[74–76]. Community-based conservation initiatives might in future benefit from atypical tourism,
such as agritourism, cultural immersion, wellness stays, digital nomadism, and virtual tours
[76–78]. Nonetheless, avoiding heavy dependence on tourism-derived income is key to resilient
jobs and operational budgets, especially because concern over greenhouse gas emissions
may reshape travel [79].
Moving away from conventional economics
COVID-19-induced social and economic upheaval initially amplified calls for economic reform
[80], or at least green economic recovery. However, green growth may insufficiently mitigate cli-
mate and biodiversity crises unless social, ecological, and intergenerational outcomes are prom-
inent in evaluating wealth [81]. There are growing efforts to identify more comprehensive
indicators of well-being [57]. Community-based conservation, already pursuing holistic concep-
tions of what constitutes ‘wealth’, can both guide and benefit from wider adoption of transforma-
tive, sufficiency-focused frameworks, such as doughnut economics,convivial conservation,
and Buen Vivir, each of which take into account both environmental and human needs [82–85].
Trends in Ecology & Evolution OPEN ACCESS
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Month 2023, Vol. xx, No. xx 9
Strengthened corporate norms and standards
Private sector partnerships for community-based conservation initiatives may grow as regulators,
investors, and consumers pressure corporations to improve their environmental, social, and
governance (ESG) outcomes [55,86,87]. Environmental reporting increasingly includes biodi-
versity impacts [88,89], and efforts to standardize metrics will help minimize greenwashing [90],
but must allow for contextually tailored safeguards reflective of local sociocultural conditions.
Communities could benefit through fair pricing, provision of amenities, and conservation support
if corporate ESG efforts avoid large-scale, flawed offset projects that ignore local people and/or
biodiversity.
Shortlisted topics that did not make the top 15 are summarized in Box 3, alongside information on
how each group of topics (top 15, shortlist, and longlist) distinguished itself in terms of novelty,
plausibility, impact, and pervasiveness.
Horizon scanning insights
Implications for policy, funding, and management
The topics identified, and their emerging or future impacts on community-based conservation,
have diverse implications for current and potential future stakeholders. Depending on what
Box 3. Shortlisted topics
The following topics were shortlisted, investigated, and debated, but did not make the top priority list. When two topics
were deemed inter-related, they were considered both individually and jointly.
•Ideologies that clash with local realities restrict or divert available funding (e.g., when animal rights groups oppose all
consumptive use of wildlife).
•Impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic reinforce feedback cycles between poverty, biodiversity loss, conflict, and
disenfranchisement.
•Blanket trade regulations on wildlife and natural products hamper income opportunities for community-based conser-
vation initiatives.
•Ecological and socioeconomic implications of facilitating market expansion, digitally or otherwise, for sustainable prod-
ucts from community-based conservation initiatives.
•The digital divide widens as internet access and technological literacy innovates information sharing and engagement.
•Schemes to accrue conservation funds based on, for example, royalties for use of nature-based imagery, branding,
and marketing.
•Retargeting and reforming international cooperation and foreign aid to support conservation finance.
•Community-partnered, culturally appropriate, renewable and green energy technologies, such as floating photovoltaics.
•Capitalizing on synergies and complementarities of community-based conservation with emerging global social change
movements.
•Coordinated responses to, and impact tracing of, corrupt practices (including land grabbing) that affect communities.
•Pandemic mitigation measures and risk of zoonotic disease trans mission impede community-based conservation operations.
•Pandemic-induced awareness of zoonotic disease promoting conservation.
•Awareness of gender, gender identity, and their cultural context as critical considerations in conservation and development
interventions.
•Increased recognition of the concept and effectiveness of community-based conservation models motivating growing
implementation.
•Uniting individual and shared interests for social mobilization around collective goals, despite individualism.
•Increasing recognition of the rights of nature (e.g., when rivers are assigned legal personhood) and legal recourse for
environmental damage.
•Insecure land tenure and resource management rights at national and local levels.
Although selected among the original 261 topics based on horizon scan ‘worthiness’scores, shortlisted topics also
scored higher on novelty (Student’st-test = –8.24, d.f. = 1127, P<0.001) and stood out when novelty, plausibility, im-
pact, and pervasiveness scores were summarized as additive (Student’st-test = –3.89, d.f. = 1135, P<0.001) or
geometric means (Student’st-test = –4.96, d.f. = 1175, P<0.001). In turn, the top 15 topics scored higher than
these shortlisted topics in impact (Student’st-test = –3.39, d.f. = 635, P<0.001), pervasiveness (Student’st-test =
–3.33, d.f. = 631, P<0.001), additive (Student’st-test = –4.00, d.f. = 631, P<0.001), and geometric means (Student’s
t-test = –3.60, d.f. = 649, P<0.001).
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
OPEN ACCESS
10 Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Month 2023, Vol. xx, No. xx
trajectory each topic follows, outcomes for community-based conservation and global targets
under the CBD, UNFCCC, and SDGs could be detrimental or favorable. The foresight that this ho-
rizon scan offers regarding emerging threats and opportunities provides a powerful opportunity to
proactively address risks and promote actions that steer topics along a positive trajectory.
In the immediate, five of the top 15 topics have direct relevance to the Kunming–Montreal GBF
targets. The topics on global ecosystem restoration commitments and on conserving 30% of
Earth by 2030 offer insights relevant to GBF targets 2 and 3 on restoration and the global 30 ×
30 target, respectively. The topic on CSA relates to target 10 on sustainable agriculture; strength-
ened corporate norms and standards to topic 15 on improving the environmental and social per-
formance of businesses and financial institutions; and increased recognition of Indigenous and
community rights is relevant to topics 1 (spatial conservation planning), 3 (protecting 30% of
Earth), 5 (stemming overexploitation), 8 (minimizing climate change impacts), 9 (sustainable
use), and 21 (involvement through free, prior, and informed consent) [16].
Insights generated by the top 15 topics are also relevant well beyond multilateral biodiversity pol-
icies. Table 1 provides a sample of audiences for horizon scan findings. The diversity of audiences
emphasizes how unconventional stakeholders may become important participants in, or cham-
pions for, community-based conservation. For many conservation actors, organizations, such
as the International Sustainability Standards Board or the Global Impact Investing Network, are
unlikely to have previously come to mind as potential partners. We acknowledge that audiences
in Table 1 primarily reflect organizations acting at a broader than local scale, because many of the
top 15 topics relate to issues beyond the control of individual communities. Nonetheless, the
topics entail lessons pertinent to communities; collaborators are working on disseminating
grassroots-relevant insights via appropriate channels.
Synergies and conflicts between topics
Many of the top 15 topics share current or projected future linkages (Figure 1). Therefore, the tra-
jectory of one can affect others. For example, a solution to support conservation finance for
grassroots initiatives via tailored, accessible funding mechanisms could aid transparent and
grassroots-accountable implementation of ecosystem restoration commitments and SDGs. Sim-
ilarly, strengthened recognition of IP&LC rights means that, more than ever, conservation inter-
ventions of any kind are expected to carefully consider rights and social justice. This can
promote co-creation of knowledge across disciplines and cultures. It is also shaping policy instru-
ments, with, for example, the text for at least six of the 21 goals proposed for the GBF making
reference to recognition or, participation by, and rights for, Indigenous people.
Conversely, if recognition of IP&LC rights is hampered by the current era of global democratic roll-
back and growth in top-down-heavy national governance, any gains from decolonizing conserva-
tion and creating greater local and grassroots autonomy may also be lost, undermining the trend
of power shifting from global toward local actors.
Convergent findings
We are unaware of any prior horizon scans specifically on community-based conservation, but
recent scans in related fields independently (and unbeknown to our collaborators) highlighted
several topics shortlisted or prioritized here. For example, both our shortlist and the 2023 annual
horizon scan of global biological conservation issues[21] feature innovative, decentralized energy
solutions, such as power generation through floating solar panels or microhydro operated by In-
digenous peoples
i
. Our shortlisted topic on internet access and technological literacy made the
top list in a 2020 forest and forest livelihoods horizon scan [91]. A horizon scan on challenges
Trends in Ecology & Evolution OPEN ACCESS
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Month 2023, Vol. xx, No. xx 11
and solutions for sustainable rangelands in Australia identified the need for diversifying livelihoods
and meaningful cultural knowledge exchange, both among our top 15 [92].
Such overlap lends credence to the valueof the horizon scanning process for detecting weak sig-
nals. At the same time, each horizon scan focuses on a specific context. Thus, discrepancies are
expected and highlight nuanced differences in the context-specific relevance of any signal.
Challenges and contentions
We defined novelty based on personal familiarity plus a sense of who else may have heard about
a topic. Collaborators struggled at times to balance novelty with the more familiar risk assessment
criteria of plausibility, impact, and pervasiveness, which can be particularly hard to judge for newly
emerging topics or those undergoing a step-change in relevance or impact. For that reason,
some of the most vigorous debates (and highest standard deviations in scores) centered on
topics least known to collaborators. Examples include leveraging ‘basic income’, which made
the top 15, and increasing recognition of the rights of nature, which did not. Notably, economic
and legal expertise, which might have reduced uncertainty on these topics, was under-repre-
sented in the collaboration. However, significant distinctions between long-listed, shortlisted,
and ultimately prioritized topics in the additive and geometric means across novelty, plausibility,
impact, and pervasiveness, suggest that collaborators managed to successfully capture all four
facets in their intuitive horizon scan ‘worthiness’scores.
Horizon scans can vary considerably in scope, scale, and complexity [93]. Although conservation
generally is an interdisciplinary field, community-based conservation is particularly multifaceted
given its goal of benefitting both nature and people and consequent position at the juncture of de-
velopment and conservation. This is reflected in the diverse nature of priority topics identified
(Figure 1), and undoubtedly added to the vigor of debate, with tensions perceived by some col-
laborators between topics on rights and social change versus topics focused on technical and
financial advances.
At times, discussions among collaborators were side-tracked by debates over whether identified
trends were good versus bad, when the ultimate goal was to highlight changes regardless of their
desirability. Similarly, questions arose over for whom or for what we were assessing impact, and
whether impacts on biodiversity outcomes were equal to impacts on people. Such conundrums
emphasize that conservation, and community-based conservation in particular, is inseparable
from ethical considerations for which there are no universally agreed norms [94,95].
Concluding remarks
In pursuing both biodiversity conservation and human well-being, community-based conserva-
tion embraces the perspective that economy, society, and the environment are nested rather
than intersecting spheres. Society cannot exist without the environment, and the economy rep-
resents a subset of social interactions [96,97]. It is this perspective that makes community-
based conservation a potentially powerful approach for addressing current global, intercon-
nected crises.
This horizon scan has yielded suggestions for how to strengthen community-based conservation
as an approach, given emerging opportunities and risks. Implementation may require additional
investigations (see Outstanding questions). Proof of widespread impact will only be seen if
community-based conservation approaches can be effectively scaled organizationally and geo-
graphically [2,98]. There is immense potential, especially if certain conditions take hold, such as
if support from private enterprise and ESG materializes with appropriate standards and
Outstanding questions
Are there learnings from community-
based conservation that can be
applied to other contexts?
How can community-based conservation
initiatives increase their impact from local
to national, and national to regional
scales?
How can relevant Indigenous and
traditional knowledge and practices be
integrated into formal conservation
approaches and policies?
How can community-to-community
knowledgeexchangebebetterfacili-
tated, particularly between regions?
How quickly and effectively can
community-based conservation initiatives
build resilience in the face of extreme
climate events and other disruptive
social, political, and cultural changes?
How can community-based conservation
withstand and thrive amid rising
authoritarianism, violence against
environmental human rights defenders,
and violent conflicts more broadly?
Specifically, how can cultural values
and guardianship be secured in
extreme conflict situations involving
external actors on traditional lands?
How can we hold Parties accountable to
international multilateral conventions
affecting community-based conservation
by following through on commitments?
How can nations shift from gross
domestic product to more holistic
indicators for defining and measuring
well-being to facilitate balanced
recognition of the socioeconomic
and biological goals of community-
based conservation?
How can we overcome the common
perspective that community-based
conservation involves trade-offs be-
tween nature and livelihoods, when it
ideally creates a positive feedback
loop instead?
How can we help communities feel
socioeconomic benefits related to
conservation efforts more quickly?
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
OPEN ACCESS
12 Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Month 2023, Vol. xx, No. xx
safeguards; if community-led projects reap direct financingasopposedtoreceivingminimal
funds with high transaction and intermediary costs [47]; if rights-based perspectives continue
to permeate conservation from high-level policy discourse down to grassroots implementation;
and if greener economic models emerge to put sustainability at the forefront of decision-making.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all who contributed ideas through our online survey (see SM3 in the supplemental information online), es-
pecially those whose suggestions evolved into the final list. We thank the following for valuable feedback on final topic de-
scriptions: Justin Bull, Emiel de Lange, Laura Ell, Mark Ellis-Jones, Robert Fletcher, Alejandro Guarin, Alia Hirji, Markus
Hoellerer, Andreas Kontoleon, Tatenda Mambo, Galeo Saintz, Emily Sigman, Julia Steinberger, Judith Stroehle, and Aggie
Weighill. The horizon scan also benefitted from the contributions of additional steering committee and working group
members: Lorena Arce, Ana Minerva Arce-Ibarra, Dan Brockington, Tero Mustonen, Minu Parahoe, Neema Pathak-Broome,
Harmony Patricio, Kristen Walker Painemilla, andPasang Dolma Sherpa; aswell as support providedby Danica Stark and Tracy
Hillis, and helpful suggestions by the reviewers.
Declaration of interests
None declared by authors.
Supplemental information
Supplemental information to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.02.008.
Resources
i
www.rightenergypartnership-indigenous.org/
ii
www.talktoloop.org/
iii
https://fnigc.ca/ocap-training/
iv
www.gida-global.org/care
v
https://lcipp.unfccc.int/
vi
https://internationalbudget.org/publications/new-zealands-well-being-budget-a-new-model-for-managing-public-
finances/
vii
www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-work/our-programs-and-projects/reef-guardians
viii
www.ilinationhood.ca/guardians
ix
www.libertyhill.org/form/environment-justice-donor-circle/
x
www.climate.donorsofcolor.org/
xi
https://thegiin.org/
xii
https://iris.thegiin.org/metrics/
xiii
www.fundsforngos.org/
xiv
https://ordspub.epa.gov/ords/wfc/f?p=165:1
xv
www.ifrs.org/groups/international-sustainability-standards-board
xvi
www.bcorporation.net/en-us/
References
1. Charles, A., ed (2021) Communities, conservation and liveli-
hoods: IUCN an d Halifax, Cana da: Community C onservation
Research Network, IUCN and Community Conservation Re-
search Network
2. Mahajan, S.L. et al. (2021) A th eory-based framework for un-
derstanding the establishment, persistence, and diffusion of
community-based conservation. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, e299
3. Jupiter, S.D. et al. (2014) Locally-managed marine areas: multiple
objectives and diverse strategies. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 20, 165–179
4. Guibrunet, L. et al. (2021) Beyond participation: how to
achieve the recognition of local communities’value-systems
in conservation? Some insights from Mexico. People Nat. 3,
528–541
5. Ruano-Chamorro, C. et al. (2022) Advancing procedural justice
in conservation. Conserv. Lett. 15, e12861
6. Brooks, J.S. (2017) Design features and project age contribute
to joint success in social, ecological, and economic outcomes
of community-based conservation projects. Conserv. Lett. 10,
23–32
7. Salerno, J.D. et al. (2021) Ada ptation and evolution of in stitu-
tions and governance in community-based conservation.
Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, e355
8. Galvin, K.A. et al. (2018) African community-based conservation:
a systematic revi ew of social and ec ological outcom es. Ecol.
Soc. 23, 39
9. Ramutsindela, M. et al. (2022) Conservation and violence in
Africa. In The Violence of Conservation in Africa (Ramutsindela,
M. et al., eds), pp. 2–21, Edward Elgar Publishing
10. Matusse, A. (202 2) Protecting (with) M ount Mabo: is another
form of nature conservation possible? In The Violence of
Trends in Ecology & Evolution OPEN ACCESS
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Month 2023, Vol. xx, No. xx 13
Conservation in Africa (Ramutsindela, M. et al., eds), pp.
187–201, Edward Elgar Publishing
11. Nelson, F. et al. (2021) Progress or regression? Institutional
evolutions of community-based conservation in eastern and
southern Africa. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, 9
12. Tauli-Corpuz, V. et al. (2020) Cornered by PAs: adopting rights-
based approach es to enable cost -effective cons ervation and
climate action. World Dev. 130, 104923
13. Garnett, S.T. et al. (2018) A spatial overview of the global importance
of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1, 369–374
14. Depledge, J. et al. (2022) Glass half full or glass half empty? The
2021 Glasgow Climate Conference. Clim. Policy 22, 147–157
15. Ceballos, G. et al. (2020) Vertebrates on the brink as indicators
of biological annihilation and the sixth mass extinction. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117, 13596–13602
16. Convention on Biological Diversity (2022) Decision Adopted by
the Conference of the Parties to the Con vention on Biological
Diversity. 15/4. Kunm ing-Montreal Global Biodiversity Fr ame-
work, Convention on Biological Diversity
17. United Nations (2022) The Sustainable Development Goals Re-
port 2022, United Nations Publications
18. Wintle, B.C. et al. (2020) Scanning horizons in resear ch, policy and
practice. In Conservation Research, Policy and Practice (Sutherland ,
W.J. et al., eds), pp. 29–47, Cambridge University Press
19. Könnölä, T. et al. (2012) Facing the future: Scanning, synthesiz-
ing and sense-ma king in horizon sca nning. Sci. Public Policy
39, 222–231
20. Mukherjee, N. et al. (2015) The Delphi technique in ecology and
biological conservatio n: applications and guide lines. Methods
Ecol. Evol. 6, 1097–1109
21. Sutherland, W.J. et al. (2022) A global biological conservation
horizon scan of issues for 2023. Trends Ecol. Evol. 38, 96–107
22. Freeman, R.B. and Huang, W. (2015) Collaborating with people
like me: ethnic coaut horship within the Un ited States. Labour
Econ. 33, S289–S318
23. Luque-Lora, R. et al. (2022) A global analysis of factors
predicting conservationists' values. People Nat. 4, 1339–1351
24. Aggarwal, I. et al. (2019) The impact of cognitive style diversity
on implicit learning in teams. Front. Psychol. 10, 112
25. Esmail, N. et al. (2020) Emerging illegal wildlif e trade issues: a
global horizon scan. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12715
26. Gurney, G.G. et al. (2021) Biodiversity ne eds every tool in the
box: use OECMs. Nature 595, 646–649
27. Edrisi, S.A. and Abhilash, P.C. (2021) Need of transdisciplinary
research for accelerating land restoration during the UN Decade
on Ecosystem Restoration. Restor. Ecol. 29, e13531
28. Herr, D. et al. (2019) A n analysis of the pot ential positive an d
negative live lihood impact s of coastal carbo n offset proje cts.
J. Environ. Manag. 235, 463–479
29. Blicharska, M. et al. (2022) Operationalisation of ecological
compensation –obstacles and ways forward. J. Environ.
Manag. 304, 114277
30. Sigman, E. (2021) The dilemma of scale: competing imperatives
for global restoration. Restor. Ecol. 29, e13408
31. Knox, J. (2018) Framework Principles on Human Rights and the
Environment 2018, United Nations Publishing
32. UN Climate Change Conference UK (2021) COP26 IPLC Forest
Tenure Joint D onors Statement , UK Governm ent and United
Nations Climate Change
33. Domínguez, L. and Luoma, C. (2 020) Decolonising conserva-
tion policy: how colonial land and conservation ideologies per-
sist and perpetuate indigenous injustices at the expense of
the environment. Land 9, 65
34. Alden Wily, L. (2018) Collective land ownership in the 21st century:
overview of global trends. Land 7, 68
35. Tegegne, Y.T. et al. (2021) REDD+ and equity outcomes: two
cases from Cameroon. Environ. Sci. Policy 124, 324–335
36. The Economist Intelligence Unit (2022) Democracy Index 2021
The China Challenge, Economist Intelligence Unit
37. Bille Larsen, P. et al. (2021) Understanding and responding to
the environmental human ri ghts defenders crisis: the case for
conservation action. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12777
38. López-Cubillos, S. et al. (2022) The landmarkEscazú Agreement:
an opportunity to integrate democ racy, human right s, and
transboundary conservation. Conserv. Lett. 15, e12838
39. Sciubba, J.D. (2022) 8 Billion and Counting: How Sex, Death,
and Migration Shape Our World, W.W. Norton & Co
40. Ferris, E. (2020) Research on climate change and migration
where are we and where are we going? Migr. Stud. 8, 612–625
41. Albert, S. et al. (2018) Heading for the hills: climate-driven com-
munity relocations in the Solomon Is lands and Alaska provide
insight for a 1.5°C future. Reg. Environ. Chang. 18, 2261–2272
42. Middleton, J. et al. (2020) Indigenous mental health in a chang-
ing climate: a systematic scoping review of the global literature.
Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 053001
43. Cornelius, N. (2021) From slavery and colonialism to Black Lives
Matter: newmood music or more fundamentalchange? Equality,
Diver. Inclusion: Int. J. 40, 8–20
44. Agrawal, A. (1995) Dismantling the divide between indigenous
and scientific knowledge. Dev. Change 26, 413–439
45. Wheeler,H.C. et al. (2020) Theneed for transformative changes in
the use of Indigenous knowledge along with science for environ-
mental decision-making in the Arctic. People Nat. 2, 544–556
46. Stefanoudis, P.V. et al. (2021) Turning the tide of parachute
science. Curr. Biol. 31, R184–R185
47. Holland, E. et al. (2022) Money where it Matters for People, Na-
ture and Climate: Driving Change through Su pport for Local
Level Decision Making over Resources and Finance, IIED
48. Heard, R. and Villat, J. (2020) Diversifying Local Livelihoods
while Sustaining Wildlife, Luc Hoffmann Institute
49. Standing, A. (202 2) Debt-for-Natur e Swaps and the Oceans:
The Belize Blue Bond, CFFA-CAPE
50. Rainforest Foundation Norway (2021) Falling Short: Donor
Funding for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities to Se-
cure Tenure Rights and Manage Forests in Tropical Countries
(2011–2020), Rainforest Foundation Norway
51. Egger, D. et al. (2021) Falling living standardsduring the COVID-
19 crisis: quantitative evidence from nine developing countries.
Sci. Adv. 7, eabe0997
52. Hendriks, S.L. (2022) Sustainable small-scale fisheries can help
people and the planet. Nature 606, 650–652
53. Kempp, S. (2022) Di gital 2022: Apri l Global Statsho t Report,
DataReportal
54. Mattison, R. and de Longevialle, B. (2022) Key trends that will
drive the ESG agenda in 2022, SP Global
55. Bass, R. et al. (2021) COMPASS: The Methodology for Com-
paring and Assessing Impact –Investor Guide, The GIIN
56. E. de Lange, et al. A Global Conservation Basic Income to Safe-
guard Biodiveristy, Nature Sustain., in press.
57. Sterling, E.J. et al. (2020) Creating a space for place and multi-
dimensional well-being: lessons learned from localizing the
SDGs. Sustain. Sci. 15, 1129–1147
58. Das, U. and Ansari, M.A. (2021) The nexus of climate change,
sustainable agriculture and farm liv elihood: contextualizing cli-
mate smart agriculture. Clim. Res. 84, 23–40
59. Galappatht hi, E.K. et al. (2021) Adapti ng to climate c hange in
small-scale fisheries: Insights from indigenous communities
in the global north and south. Environ. Sci. Policy 116,
160–170
60. GGGI (2021) Compendium of Practices in Climate-Smart Agri-
culture and Solar Irrigation, The Global Green Growth Institute
61. Uddi n, M. et al. (2022) Legal and ethical aspects of dep loying
artificial intellige nce in climate-smart a griculture. AI Soc. Pub-
lished online April 28, 2022. ht tps://doi.org/10.1007 /s00146-
022-01421-2
62. Ogunyiola, A. et al. (2022) Smallho lder farmers ’engagement
with climate smart agriculture in Africa: role of local knowledge
and upscaling. Clim. Policy 22, 411–426
63. Andersson-Majang, S. and Naghavi, N. (2021) The State of the
Industry Report on Mobile Money 2021, GSM Association
64. Wang, J. et al. (2022) The impact of mobile finance use on live-
lihoods of farmers in Rural China. Emerg. Mark. Financ. Trade
58, 2867–2879
65. Pazarbasioglu, C. et al. (2020) Digital Financial Serv ices,The
World Bank Group
66. Chiwaula, L. et al. (2020) Combining Financial-Literacy Training
and Text-Message Reminders to Influence Mobile-Money Use
and Financial Behavior among Members of Village Sa vings
and Loan Associations: Experimental Evidence from Malawi,
Partnership for Economic Policy
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
OPEN ACCESS
14 Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Month 2023, Vol. xx, No. xx
67. Bamford, R. et al. (2021) The Progressive Case for Universal In-
ternet Access How t o Close the Digita l Divide by 2030,Tony
Blair Institute for Global Change
68. Molina, G.G. and Ortiz-Juarez, E. (2020) Tempora ry Basic In-
come: Protecting Poor and Vulnerable People in Developing
Countries, UNDP
69. Montoya-Aguirre, M. et al. (2021) Protecting Women’sLiveli-
hoods in Times of Pandemic: Temporary Basic Income and
the Road to Gender Equality, UNDP
70. Arnold, C. (2020) Pandemic speeds largest test yet of universal
basic income. Nature 583, 502–503
71. Banerjee, A. et al. (2019) Universal basic income inthe develop-
ing world. Annu. Rev. Econom. 11, 959–983
72. Fletcher, R. and Büscher, B. (2020) Conservation basicincome:
a non-market mechanism to support convivial conservation.
Biol. Conserv. 244, 108520
73. Pellerano, L. and Barca, V. (2017) The conditions for condition-
ality in cash transfers: does one size fit all? In What Works for
Africa’s Poorest: Programmes and Policies for the Extreme
Poor (Lawson, D. et al., eds), pp. 223–242, Practical Action
Publishing
74. Phua, C. et al. (2021) Marine protected and conserved areas in
the time of COVID. PARKS 27, 85–102
75. World Tourism Travel Council (2021) Economic Impact &
Trends 2021, World Tourism & Travel Council
76. Spencely, A. (2021) The Future of Nature-Based Tourism: Im-
pacts of COVID-19 and Paths to Sustainability, Luc Hoffmann
Institute
77. Bell ato, L. et al. (2022) Regenerative tourism: a conceptual
framework leveraging theory and practice. Tour. Geogr.
Published online March 2, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14616688.2022.2044376
78. Embling, D. and Southan, J. (2020) Travel after 2020: What Will
Tourism Look Like in Our New Reality?, Euronews in collabora-
tion with Globetrender
79. Jurjonas, M. and Aldana, L. (2020) The Flyer’sdilemmaandthe
Logger’s case for climate justice. World Dev. Perspect. 20, 100263
80. OECD (2020) Building Back Better: A Sustainable, Resilient
Recovery after COVID-19, Organisation for Econ omic Co-
operation and Developm ent
81. Taherzadeh, O. (2021) Promise of a green economic recovery
post-Covid: trojan horse or turning point? Glob. Sustain. 4, e2
82. Kaul, S. et al. (2022) Alternatives to sustainab le development:
what can we learn from the pluriverse in practice? Sustain.
Sci. 17, 1149–1158
83. Raworth, K. (2017) A doughnut for the Anthropocene:
humanity's compass in the 21st century. Lancet 1, e48–e49
84. Acosta, A. andMartinez Abarca, M. (2018)Buen Vivir: an alterna-
tive perspective from thepeoples of the GlobalSouth to the crisis
of capitalist modernity. In The Climate Crisis: South African and
Global Eco-Socialist Alternatives (Satgar, V., ed.), pp. 131–147,
Wits University Press
85. Büscher, B. and Fletcher, R. (2019) Towards convivial con servation.
Conserv. Soc. 17, 283–296
86. European Commission (2021) Commission Delegated Regula-
tion (EU) 2021/2178, European Commission
87. Whelan, T. and Kronthal-Sacco, R. (2019) Actually, consumers
do buy sustainable products. Published online June 19, 2019.
https://www.stern.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/assets/docu-
ments/HBR_Consumers%20Do%20Buy%20Sustainable%
20Products_June%202019.pdf.
88. Climate Disclosure Standards Boar d (2021) Application Guid-
ance for Biodive rsity-Related Di sclosures, Climate Disclosure
Standards Board and CPD Worldwide
89. Taskforce on Natur e-related Financi al Disclosures (2022) The
TNFD Nature-Related Risk & Opportunity Management and
Disclosure Framework Beta v0.1, TNFD
90. IFRS (2021) IFRS Foundation Announces International Sustain-
ability Standards Board, Consolidation with CDSB and VRF,
and Publication of Prototype Disclosure Requirements, IFRS
91. Oldekop, J.A. et al. (2020) Forest-linked livelihoods in a global-
ized world. Nat. Plants 6, 1400–1407
92. Nielsen, U. et al. (2020) Challenges, solutions and research pri-
orities for sustainable rangelands. Rangel. J. 42, 359–373
93. Esmail, N. et al. (2022) Framing the problem and identifying po-
tential solutions. In Transforming Conservation: A Practical
Guide to Evidence and Decision Making (Sutherland, W.J.,
ed.), pp. 197–234, Open Books
94. Vucetich, J.A . etal. (2021) Finding purpose in the conservationof
biodiversity by the commingling of scienceand ethics. Animals11,
837
95. Sandbrook, C. et al. (2019) The global conservation movement
is diverse but not divided. Nat. Sustain. 2, 316–323
96. Colding, J. and Barthel, S. (2019) Exploring the social-
ecological systems discourse 20 years later. Ecol. Soc. 24, 2
97. Giddings, B. et al. (2002) Environment, economy and socie ty:
fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustain.
Dev. 10, 187–196
98. Mills, M. et al. (2019) How conservation initiatives go to scale.
Nat. Sustain. 2, 935–940
99. Coggan, A. et al. (2021) Co-creating knowledge in environmen-
tal policy development. An analysis of knowledge co-creation in
the review of the significant residual impact guidelines for envi-
ronmental offsets in Queensland, Australia. Environ. Challenges
4, 100138
100. Anderson, J.L. et al. (2015) The fishery performance indicators:
a management tool for triple bottom line outcomes. PLoS ONE
10, e0122809
Trends in Ecology & Evolution OPEN ACCESS
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Month 2023, Vol. xx, No. xx 15
