Georg Winkel, Jelle Behagel, George Iordachescu, Metodi Sotirov, Sven Wunder
The EU's Green Deal, a comprehensive policy package for sustainability transition in Europe, was launched in 2019 with the ambition to demonstrate global environmental leadership. It has been successful in establishing new EU environmental policy instruments, with a strong focus on sustainable land use and conservation, such as the EU Nature Restoration Law or the EU Deforestation Regulation. Recently, however, the Green Deal has lost political traction, and its sustainable land use and conservation-oriented policy instruments are under pressure or have already been cut back. In this paper, we undertake a multidisciplinary assessment of the Green Deal, presenting four theoretical perspectives (policy analysis, international relations, political economy/macroeconomics, and political ecology). These perspectives provide a so far missing comprehensive analysis of the strategic situation of EU land use and conservation policy, rooted in complementary explanations for the emergence, evolution, and faltering of the Green Deal. We move on to present two pathways for future EU land use and conservation policy—one assuming a continuation of currently visible patterns of deterioration in environmental ambitions; the other arguing for the possibility of reinvigorating the policy as what may be labeled as a new, Social Green Deal.
{"title":"What Comes After the European Green Deal? Analyzing the State and Perspective of the EU's Land Use and Conservation Policy","authors":"Georg Winkel, Jelle Behagel, George Iordachescu, Metodi Sotirov, Sven Wunder","doi":"10.1111/conl.13160","DOIUrl":"10.1111/conl.13160","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The EU's Green Deal, a comprehensive policy package for sustainability transition in Europe, was launched in 2019 with the ambition to demonstrate global environmental leadership. It has been successful in establishing new EU environmental policy instruments, with a strong focus on sustainable land use and conservation, such as the EU Nature Restoration Law or the EU Deforestation Regulation. Recently, however, the Green Deal has lost political traction, and its sustainable land use and conservation-oriented policy instruments are under pressure or have already been cut back. In this paper, we undertake a multidisciplinary assessment of the Green Deal, presenting four theoretical perspectives (policy analysis, international relations, political economy/macroeconomics, and political ecology). These perspectives provide a so far missing comprehensive analysis of the strategic situation of EU land use and conservation policy, rooted in complementary explanations for the emergence, evolution, and faltering of the Green Deal. We move on to present two pathways for future EU land use and conservation policy—one assuming a continuation of currently visible patterns of deterioration in environmental ambitions; the other arguing for the possibility of reinvigorating the policy as what may be labeled as a new, Social Green Deal.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.13160","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146042642","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Addressing the biodiversity crisis requires effective pro-nature conservation strategies. This study proposes and empirically validates a novel model that enhances conservation agency through sense of place (SOP) and promotes pro-nature conservation behavior (ProCoB). Focusing on Bryde's whale conservation at Weizhou Island, China, a 3-month educational program engaged 110 adolescents through lectures, participatory activities, and advocacy initiatives. Results revealed significant and sustained increases in conservation agency and behavior, especially among those involved in volunteer advocacy. Structural equation modeling showed that SOP directly boosted agency, which in turn promoted behavior, while subjective norms also contributed to increased agency. The model explained 65.8% of the variance in agency and 30.7% in behavior. Qualitative interviews confirmed notable improvements in participants’ SOP, attitude, agency, and behavior, particularly among those who integrated coursework with advocacy efforts. This research offers a theoretical framework linking SOP, agency, and ProCoB, highlighting the effectiveness of place-based educational approaches.
{"title":"Place-Based Education Enhances Pro-Nature Conservation Behavior in Chinese Adolescents via Sense of Place and Agency","authors":"Ludan Chang, Shaofen Cai, Jin Chen","doi":"10.1111/con4.70023","DOIUrl":"10.1111/con4.70023","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Addressing the biodiversity crisis requires effective pro-nature conservation strategies. This study proposes and empirically validates a novel model that enhances conservation agency through sense of place (SOP) and promotes pro-nature conservation behavior (ProCoB). Focusing on Bryde's whale conservation at Weizhou Island, China, a 3-month educational program engaged 110 adolescents through lectures, participatory activities, and advocacy initiatives. Results revealed significant and sustained increases in conservation agency and behavior, especially among those involved in volunteer advocacy. Structural equation modeling showed that SOP directly boosted agency, which in turn promoted behavior, while subjective norms also contributed to increased agency. The model explained 65.8% of the variance in agency and 30.7% in behavior. Qualitative interviews confirmed notable improvements in participants’ SOP, attitude, agency, and behavior, particularly among those who integrated coursework with advocacy efforts. This research offers a theoretical framework linking SOP, agency, and ProCoB, highlighting the effectiveness of place-based educational approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/con4.70023","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145971975","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J. Angus Webb, Kate A. Schofield, Carly N. Cook, Jonathan R. B. Fisher, Samantha H. Cheng, Alec Christie, Steven J. Cooke, Natalie S. Dubois, Geoff Frampton, Biljana Macura, Susan J. Nichols, Rob Richards, Rebecca J. Aicher, Sara Mason, Erik Anderson, Erin Betley, Mark Borsuk, Jonah Busch, Sara Carlson, Jean-Jacques B. Dubois, Jacqualyn Eales, Edward T. Game, Robyn L. Irvine, Matthew Muir, Lydia Olander, Amina Pollard, Ana Porzecanski, Elizabeth Radke, Nicola Randall, Trevor Riley, Stephanie Ritchie, Nick Salafsky, Amanda Sigouin, Kara Stevens, Caroline E. Ridley
Evidence assessment—identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing data and findings from previous studies—is important to inform environmental decision-making but can be slow and resource intensive. Users seeking efficiency have developed multiple definitions and methods for rapid evidence assessment (REA), raising concerns about consistency and rigor. To improve consistency and confidence in REA, we convened an international group of evidence users and researchers to define REA for environmental applications. Through a consensus-driven and iterative approach, we define REA as: a structured review process that aims to maximize rigor and objectivity given assessment needs and resource constraints; is transparent about trade-offs, risks, and biases; and can integrate multiple types of evidence. Our standardized definition of REA will improve transparency and facilitate decisions about the appropriate levels of rigor required for those who commission, conduct, and use REAs for environmental decision-making.
{"title":"A Standardized Definition of Rapid Evidence Assessment for Environmental Applications","authors":"J. Angus Webb, Kate A. Schofield, Carly N. Cook, Jonathan R. B. Fisher, Samantha H. Cheng, Alec Christie, Steven J. Cooke, Natalie S. Dubois, Geoff Frampton, Biljana Macura, Susan J. Nichols, Rob Richards, Rebecca J. Aicher, Sara Mason, Erik Anderson, Erin Betley, Mark Borsuk, Jonah Busch, Sara Carlson, Jean-Jacques B. Dubois, Jacqualyn Eales, Edward T. Game, Robyn L. Irvine, Matthew Muir, Lydia Olander, Amina Pollard, Ana Porzecanski, Elizabeth Radke, Nicola Randall, Trevor Riley, Stephanie Ritchie, Nick Salafsky, Amanda Sigouin, Kara Stevens, Caroline E. Ridley","doi":"10.1111/con4.70005","DOIUrl":"10.1111/con4.70005","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Evidence assessment—identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing data and findings from previous studies—is important to inform environmental decision-making but can be slow and resource intensive. Users seeking efficiency have developed multiple definitions and methods for rapid evidence assessment (REA), raising concerns about consistency and rigor. To improve consistency and confidence in REA, we convened an international group of evidence users and researchers to define REA for environmental applications. Through a consensus-driven and iterative approach, we define REA as: <i>a structured review process that aims to maximize rigor and objectivity given assessment needs and resource constraints; is transparent about trade-offs, risks, and biases; and can integrate multiple types of evidence</i>. Our standardized definition of REA will improve transparency and facilitate decisions about the appropriate levels of rigor required for those who commission, conduct, and use REAs for environmental decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/con4.70005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145971977","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>At the 2025 IUCN World Conservation Congress, Members adopted Motion 087, establishing a policy framework to guide the use of synthetic biology in relation to conservation (IUCN <span>2025</span>). The policy requires case-by-case, science-based decision-making with rigorous risk and benefit assessment, Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), and transparent governance. It explicitly notes that if these provisions are not met, releases into natural ecosystems should not proceed. This language addresses concerns raised in Motion 133, which had proposed a blanket moratorium on genetically engineering wild species. The ongoing debate on the pros and cons of synthetic biology techniques for conservation was recently summarized by Lenharo (<span>2025</span>). Moreover, an open letter signed by more than 250 scientists urged rejection of a blanket moratorium (https://scienceforbiodiversity.org/). Motion 087 absorbs the legitimate caution in these arguments into a case-by-case, risk-informed process rather than a categorical prohibition. A moratorium would have removed potentially vital tools at a moment of accelerating evolutionary, ecological, and environmental risks in our rapidly changing world. By embedding strong precaution within an enabling framework, Motion 087 adopts a prudent path to the application of biotechnology in conservation science (IUCN <span>2025</span>). The resulting IUCN Resolution following from Motion 087 will also have implications for synthetic biology developments more generally, such as in agricultural, industrial, or pest management innovations, which may indirectly affect ecosystems and biodiversity.</p><p>The debate leading to this outcome was intensely divided, and the proposed moratorium (Motion 133) was rejected by only a single vote, reflecting deep social, cultural, and value-based concerns. These concerns are centered on trust, legitimacy, Indigenous rights, and the acceptability of using biotechnology in nature, and they must remain at the forefront as the conservation community moves from policy to practice. This is essential to ensure decisions are not only scientifically robust but also socially legitimate.</p><p>“Synthetic biology” refers to a continuum of tools from conventional transgenesis and genome editing to engineered gene drives. Genome editing can be used for targeted genetic rescue within a species, often without introducing foreign DNA, while gene drives are designed to bias inheritance. These modalities have different ecological footprints, reversibility, and governance needs, so policy should not treat them as a single risk class but evaluate interventions on a case-by-case basis.</p><p>Human-driven environmental change is exceptionally fast relative to recent geological history. Populations are forced to either move or adapt, or alternatively they face possible extinction. Genomic erosion, including loss of adaptive variation and increase in genetic load, poses a threat to many declining pop
在2025年IUCN世界自然保护大会上,成员们通过了第087号议案,建立了一个政策框架,指导合成生物学在保护方面的使用(IUCN 2025)。该政策要求在严格的风险和效益评估的基础上,以个案为基础,以科学为基础的决策,自由、事先和知情同意(FPIC),以及透明的治理。它明确指出,如果不满足这些规定,就不应继续向自然生态系统排放。这一措辞解决了133号议案中提出的担忧,该议案提议全面暂停对野生物种进行基因工程改造。最近,Lenharo(2025)总结了正在进行的关于合成生物学保护技术的利弊的辩论。此外,一封由250多名科学家签署的公开信敦促拒绝全面暂停(https://scienceforbiodiversity.org/)。议案087将这些论点中的合理谨慎纳入了一个逐案分析、了解风险的过程,而不是绝对禁止。在我们这个瞬息万变的世界里,在加速进化、生态和环境风险的时刻,暂停开采可能会剥夺潜在的重要工具。通过在一个有利的框架内嵌入强有力的预防措施,087行动采取了一条谨慎的道路,将生物技术应用于保护科学(IUCN 2025)。根据第087号决议产生的IUCN决议也将对合成生物学的发展产生更广泛的影响,例如在农业、工业或害虫管理创新方面,这可能间接影响生态系统和生物多样性。导致这一结果的辩论分歧很大,提议的暂停(第133号动议)仅以一票之差被否决,反映了深刻的社会、文化和基于价值的担忧。这些问题集中在信任、合法性、土著居民的权利以及在自然界中使用生物技术的可接受性上,随着保护界从政策转向实践,这些问题必须始终处于最前沿。这对于确保决策不仅在科学上可靠,而且在社会上合法至关重要。“合成生物学”是指从传统的转基因和基因组编辑到工程基因驱动的一系列工具。基因组编辑可用于在一个物种内进行有针对性的基因拯救,通常不需要引入外源DNA,而基因驱动的目的是偏向遗传。这些模式具有不同的生态足迹、可逆性和治理需求,因此政策不应将它们视为单一的风险类别,而应根据具体情况对干预措施进行评估。相对于最近的地质历史,人类驱动的环境变化异常迅速。种群要么被迫迁移,要么被迫适应,否则它们可能面临灭绝。基因组侵蚀,包括适应性变异的丧失和遗传负荷的增加,对许多下降的种群构成威胁,有时也对在最近的瓶颈中幸存下来的人口统计学上恢复的种群构成威胁。同时,栖息地的破碎化减少了种群之间的个体流动。在某些情况下,通过基因编辑拯救基因和恢复多样性可能是确保长期生存能力的唯一实际解决方案(van Oosterhout et al. 2025)。科学和技术的进步一再重新定义了保护的界限。基因组学、辅助生殖技术(ART)和环境监测方面的突破扩大了保护生物多样性和应对快速环境变化的可用工具。这些创新带来了几十年前难以想象的机遇,从高分辨率基因组风险评估到环境DNA监测,从有针对性的遗传救援到基因组保护指导下的物种恢复行动(Speak et al. 2024)。我们从中得到的教训不是单靠技术就能拯救我们,而是创新和制度变革一起反复改变了令人沮丧的轨迹。有效的全球保护不受科学创造力的限制;选举周期所塑造的短期政治议程、对永久经济增长不切实际的追求,以及根植于人类例外论的普遍权利意识,都阻碍了这一进程。我们的集体短视使我们无法做出为我们共同未来服务的长期解决方案所需的艰难决定。科学和技术只是为我们争取了一点时间,以便得出一个必然的结论,即只有人类行为的根本和集体改变才能保护我们的星球。我担心的是,在当今的地缘政治气候下,科学和技术的进步有可能被用来为继续开发自然辩护,而不是推动我们在这个星球上的生活方式的紧急转变。 个案评估的最低操作标准应该是明确的,并包括:(1)问题定义与定量风险和效益假设,包括检测效果的功率分析,在可能的情况下由预测性生态进化计算机模拟(例如,“数字双胞胎”)支持;(2)跨生物、种群、群落和生态系统水平的危害识别,包括相关的脱靶和水平基因转移和遗传渗入风险;(3)暴露评估和隔离计划,包括尽可能的分子隔离、生态和地理隔离以及预定义的停止规则;(4)可逆性计划,包括可行的遗传对策和回滚阈值;(5)对指标和统计触发器进行公开预登记的发布后监测;(6) FPIC文件中包含社区定义的利益分享和在发布前撤回同意的权利;(7)各阶段的独立审查和公开报告。合成生物学干预也存在更广泛的结构性不平等。被要求提供FPIC的社区可能在资源、知识和世界观方面面临严重的不对称,这可能使他们容易受到不公平获取基因组数据和限制长期利益分享的影响。公司对生物技术工具的控制,包括专有的基因编辑平台和专利的基因驱动结构,可以进一步巩固这些不平衡。此外,个案评估不应忽视累积或区域生态系统的影响,强调协调一致的登记和监测系统的价值。最后,世界自然保护联盟的决议指导全球最佳实践,但缺乏法律可执行性,强调需要更强大的机制来确保未来应用中的问责制和公平性。在一个环境快速变化、栖息地破碎和基因组广泛侵蚀的时期,关闭所有种类的工具将是一个战略错误。环境保护界应该在科学和生物技术领域采取有纪律的大胆态度,建立在广泛参与、透明评估和在证据支持时采取行动的意愿的基础上。这不是技术乐观主义。这是对危机规模和速度的现实主义认识。它关乎科学、技术、政策和治理共同努力所能取得的进步。作者获得了来自Colossal Science Foundation Inc.(“Colossal Foundation”)的慈善基金,以支持粉红鸽的保护和恢复研究。这笔资金并未影响本观点的编写或内容。
{"title":"Turning IUCN's Synthetic Biology Policy Into Action","authors":"Cock van Oosterhout","doi":"10.1111/con4.70015","DOIUrl":"10.1111/con4.70015","url":null,"abstract":"<p>At the 2025 IUCN World Conservation Congress, Members adopted Motion 087, establishing a policy framework to guide the use of synthetic biology in relation to conservation (IUCN <span>2025</span>). The policy requires case-by-case, science-based decision-making with rigorous risk and benefit assessment, Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), and transparent governance. It explicitly notes that if these provisions are not met, releases into natural ecosystems should not proceed. This language addresses concerns raised in Motion 133, which had proposed a blanket moratorium on genetically engineering wild species. The ongoing debate on the pros and cons of synthetic biology techniques for conservation was recently summarized by Lenharo (<span>2025</span>). Moreover, an open letter signed by more than 250 scientists urged rejection of a blanket moratorium (https://scienceforbiodiversity.org/). Motion 087 absorbs the legitimate caution in these arguments into a case-by-case, risk-informed process rather than a categorical prohibition. A moratorium would have removed potentially vital tools at a moment of accelerating evolutionary, ecological, and environmental risks in our rapidly changing world. By embedding strong precaution within an enabling framework, Motion 087 adopts a prudent path to the application of biotechnology in conservation science (IUCN <span>2025</span>). The resulting IUCN Resolution following from Motion 087 will also have implications for synthetic biology developments more generally, such as in agricultural, industrial, or pest management innovations, which may indirectly affect ecosystems and biodiversity.</p><p>The debate leading to this outcome was intensely divided, and the proposed moratorium (Motion 133) was rejected by only a single vote, reflecting deep social, cultural, and value-based concerns. These concerns are centered on trust, legitimacy, Indigenous rights, and the acceptability of using biotechnology in nature, and they must remain at the forefront as the conservation community moves from policy to practice. This is essential to ensure decisions are not only scientifically robust but also socially legitimate.</p><p>“Synthetic biology” refers to a continuum of tools from conventional transgenesis and genome editing to engineered gene drives. Genome editing can be used for targeted genetic rescue within a species, often without introducing foreign DNA, while gene drives are designed to bias inheritance. These modalities have different ecological footprints, reversibility, and governance needs, so policy should not treat them as a single risk class but evaluate interventions on a case-by-case basis.</p><p>Human-driven environmental change is exceptionally fast relative to recent geological history. Populations are forced to either move or adapt, or alternatively they face possible extinction. Genomic erosion, including loss of adaptive variation and increase in genetic load, poses a threat to many declining pop","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/con4.70015","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145947219","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
O. Sarobidy Rakotonarivo, Valerie Mueller, Mirindra Rakotoarisoa, Henintsoa Rakoto Harison, Andrew Reid Bell
Worldwide, more people are migrating to the forest frontier, significantly altering land use in smallholder farming communities, yet there is limited empirical evidence on the environmental impacts of this migration. The common assumption is that migrants disproportionately contribute to resource degradation. In this study, we investigate if migration drives deforestation in Madagascar, using national census data, global land cover datasets, and qualitative insights from drought-affected migrant-sending and forest-margin migrant-receiving areas. Quantitative analysis showed no evidence of spatial overlap between net positive in-migration and forest loss, and only a marginally significant negative relationship between in-migration and forest cover for extreme in-migration. The qualitative findings suggested that while in-migrants may sometimes access lands through clearing forestlands, they were no more likely than local people to clear land. These results challenge narratives of migrants as primary drivers of environmental degradation and highlight the need for a nuanced understanding of migration–environment interactions.
{"title":"Beyond Blame: Migration's Limited Role in Madagascar's Deforestation","authors":"O. Sarobidy Rakotonarivo, Valerie Mueller, Mirindra Rakotoarisoa, Henintsoa Rakoto Harison, Andrew Reid Bell","doi":"10.1111/con4.70018","DOIUrl":"10.1111/con4.70018","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Worldwide, more people are migrating to the forest frontier, significantly altering land use in smallholder farming communities, yet there is limited empirical evidence on the environmental impacts of this migration. The common assumption is that migrants disproportionately contribute to resource degradation. In this study, we investigate if migration drives deforestation in Madagascar, using national census data, global land cover datasets, and qualitative insights from drought-affected migrant-sending and forest-margin migrant-receiving areas. Quantitative analysis showed no evidence of spatial overlap between net positive in-migration and forest loss, and only a marginally significant negative relationship between in-migration and forest cover for extreme in-migration. The qualitative findings suggested that while in-migrants may sometimes access lands through clearing forestlands, they were no more likely than local people to clear land. These results challenge narratives of migrants as primary drivers of environmental degradation and highlight the need for a nuanced understanding of migration–environment interactions.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/con4.70018","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145920256","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Peter Lindsey, Samantha K. Nicholson, Peter G. R. Coals, W. Andrew Taylor, Matthew S. Becker, Kerri Rademeyer, Willem D. Briers-Louw, João Almeida, Mike Chase, Ashleigh Dore, Philipp Henschel, Jonathan L. Kwiyega, Andrew Loveridge, Roseline L. Mandisodza-Chikerema, Bob Mandinyenya, Simon Nampindo, Marnus Roodbol, Gareth Whittington-Jones, Kenneth Uiseb, Vincent N. Naude, Vivienne L. Williams
Lions (Panthera leo) in Africa are targeted for the illegal wildlife trade, driven by demand in African and Asian markets, for their body parts. This threat is distinct from traditional drivers of lion decline such as prey depletion, habitat loss, and persecution and is poorly understood, underreported, growing, and prone to the influence of organized transnational crime. Here, we synthesize the current state of knowledge on targeted poaching for lion parts, identify key conservation and legal challenges, and propose a coordinated response agenda, drawing on examples from around the continent. We call for consideration in six critical areas: improving in situ protection, effective engagement of communities in conservation interventions, improved understanding of trade dynamics, disrupting the trade via multiple mechanisms, strengthening legal frameworks, and demand reduction. We recommend a proactive approach to prevent entrenchment of poaching and illicit markets and avert severe impacts on lion populations. Without coordinated action to address targeted poaching, there is a significant risk of lion population declines and extirpations. Urgent action is needed to acknowledge and address this issue, because it represents a potentially existential threat to the species.
{"title":"Increasing Targeted Poaching of Lions for Trade Has the Potential to Pose an Existential Threat to the Species in Africa","authors":"Peter Lindsey, Samantha K. Nicholson, Peter G. R. Coals, W. Andrew Taylor, Matthew S. Becker, Kerri Rademeyer, Willem D. Briers-Louw, João Almeida, Mike Chase, Ashleigh Dore, Philipp Henschel, Jonathan L. Kwiyega, Andrew Loveridge, Roseline L. Mandisodza-Chikerema, Bob Mandinyenya, Simon Nampindo, Marnus Roodbol, Gareth Whittington-Jones, Kenneth Uiseb, Vincent N. Naude, Vivienne L. Williams","doi":"10.1111/con4.70014","DOIUrl":"10.1111/con4.70014","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Lions (<i>Panthera leo</i>) in Africa are targeted for the illegal wildlife trade, driven by demand in African and Asian markets, for their body parts. This threat is distinct from traditional drivers of lion decline such as prey depletion, habitat loss, and persecution and is poorly understood, underreported, growing, and prone to the influence of organized transnational crime. Here, we synthesize the current state of knowledge on targeted poaching for lion parts, identify key conservation and legal challenges, and propose a coordinated response agenda, drawing on examples from around the continent. We call for consideration in six critical areas: improving in situ protection, effective engagement of communities in conservation interventions, improved understanding of trade dynamics, disrupting the trade via multiple mechanisms, strengthening legal frameworks, and demand reduction. We recommend a proactive approach to prevent entrenchment of poaching and illicit markets and avert severe impacts on lion populations. Without coordinated action to address targeted poaching, there is a significant risk of lion population declines and extirpations. Urgent action is needed to acknowledge and address this issue, because it represents a potentially existential threat to the species.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/con4.70014","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145919786","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Chenliang Tang, Jing Mao, Huijie Bai, Jincai Lü, Rongquan Zheng, Zhigang Qiao, Dahu Zou, Hongxing Zhang, Samuel T. Turvey, Benjamin Tapley, Andrew A. Cunningham, Yanbo Sun, Fang Yan
Chinese giant salamanders (CGSs, Andrias spp.) are apex freshwater predators representing an ancient evolutionary group, but are now critically endangered. Although multiple species-level lineages have recently been identified, their distributions remain poorly documented, hampering targeted conservation efforts. In response to wild population declines, over 200,000 captive-bred individuals have been released into the wild, sparking considerable controversy regarding their potential to bolster wild populations or cause genetic pollution. In this study, we surveyed 43 sites across China and detected CGSs at 35 locations using environmental DNA (eDNA) techniques. However, genetic analysis revealed a dominance of the widely farmed species Andrias davidianus outside its natural range, indicating genetic homogenization in the wild. This raises concerns about the long-term sustainability of CGS, as genetic uniformity in wild populations is associated with reduced diversity that potentially compromises adaptability and resilience. Our findings underscore the current challenges in CGS conservation, highlighting the importance of strategic conservation efforts that not only address population numbers but also prioritize the preservation of genetic diversity.
{"title":"Genetic Homogenization and Conservation Challenges Associated With Chinese Giant Salamander Release Programs: Insights From Environmental DNA","authors":"Chenliang Tang, Jing Mao, Huijie Bai, Jincai Lü, Rongquan Zheng, Zhigang Qiao, Dahu Zou, Hongxing Zhang, Samuel T. Turvey, Benjamin Tapley, Andrew A. Cunningham, Yanbo Sun, Fang Yan","doi":"10.1111/con4.70013","DOIUrl":"10.1111/con4.70013","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Chinese giant salamanders (CGSs, <i>Andrias</i> spp.) are apex freshwater predators representing an ancient evolutionary group, but are now critically endangered. Although multiple species-level lineages have recently been identified, their distributions remain poorly documented, hampering targeted conservation efforts. In response to wild population declines, over 200,000 captive-bred individuals have been released into the wild, sparking considerable controversy regarding their potential to bolster wild populations or cause genetic pollution. In this study, we surveyed 43 sites across China and detected CGSs at 35 locations using environmental DNA (eDNA) techniques. However, genetic analysis revealed a dominance of the widely farmed species <i>Andrias davidianus</i> outside its natural range, indicating genetic homogenization in the wild. This raises concerns about the long-term sustainability of CGS, as genetic uniformity in wild populations is associated with reduced diversity that potentially compromises adaptability and resilience. Our findings underscore the current challenges in CGS conservation, highlighting the importance of strategic conservation efforts that not only address population numbers but also prioritize the preservation of genetic diversity.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/con4.70013","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145920258","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Effective and equitable conservation requires navigating complex interactions among diverse actors with often conflicting interests. While the concept of common interest holds promise for fostering collaboration and guiding decision-making, it remains underexplored in conservation. This article introduces a typology of interest and relevant concepts designed to distinguish common interests—those broadly shared within a community and expected to benefit the whole over the long term—from special interests that serve narrower constituencies. We define an interest as a pattern of demands supported by expectations and grounded in identifications, and classify conflicts of interest as primary (identity-based), secondary (value-based), and tertiary (assumption-based). To assess whether a policy truly serves the common interest, we propose three evaluative standards: substantive validity (whether assumptions are supported by evidence), pragmatic effectiveness (whether value outcomes meet community demands), and procedural inclusiveness (whether relevant perspectives are meaningfully engaged). Using elephant conservation as a recurring example, this article illustrates how the proposed typology can help conservationists achieve both conceptual clarity and practical competence in engaging diverse actors in effective problem-solving. Finally, we highlight the importance of deliberative democratic processes for aligning diverse interests toward the flourishing of people and nature.
{"title":"Who Wants What and Why: A Typology for Clarifying Common Interest in Conservation","authors":"Yufang Gao, Susan G. Clark","doi":"10.1111/con4.70008","DOIUrl":"10.1111/con4.70008","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Effective and equitable conservation requires navigating complex interactions among diverse actors with often conflicting interests. While the concept of common interest holds promise for fostering collaboration and guiding decision-making, it remains underexplored in conservation. This article introduces a typology of interest and relevant concepts designed to distinguish common interests—those broadly shared within a community and expected to benefit the whole over the long term—from special interests that serve narrower constituencies. We define an interest as a pattern of demands supported by expectations and grounded in identifications, and classify conflicts of interest as primary (identity-based), secondary (value-based), and tertiary (assumption-based). To assess whether a policy truly serves the common interest, we propose three evaluative standards: substantive validity (whether assumptions are supported by evidence), pragmatic effectiveness (whether value outcomes meet community demands), and procedural inclusiveness (whether relevant perspectives are meaningfully engaged). Using elephant conservation as a recurring example, this article illustrates how the proposed typology can help conservationists achieve both conceptual clarity and practical competence in engaging diverse actors in effective problem-solving. Finally, we highlight the importance of deliberative democratic processes for aligning diverse interests toward the flourishing of people and nature.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/con4.70008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145920259","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Grégoire Touron-Gardic, El Hadj Bara Dème, Alex Ford, Erwan Simon, Ogoudje Isidore Amahowe, Yang Chen, Pierre Failler
Surfing's potential as a conservation tool is evaluated in West Africa and Atlantic Maghreb by analyzing the spatial overlap between surf spots and key environmental areas. Surfing communities often advocate for protecting their favored locations, linking wave preservation with broader ecosystem conservation. The methodology integrates surf spot data from reference guides with geospatial analysis to assess proximity to Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), Ramsar sites, and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs). Findings reveal that of 146 surf spots across 15 countries, 96 are within or less than 3 km from protected or labeled areas, including 59 near MPAs, 61 near KBAs, and 31 near Ramsar sites. High-density regions, such as South Morocco, Senegal's Dakar Peninsula, Liberia's Robertsport, and Ghana's Gold Coast, offer significant opportunities for synergy between surfing and conservation. The concept of Surf Conservation and Wave/Surfing reserves could be integrated into coastal management policies to strengthen community-driven conservation efforts. Such initiatives could raise awareness, engage local communities, authorities, NGOs, and foreign stakeholders, and promote sustainable tourism. By adopting these strategies, West African and Maghreb nations could protect marine ecosystems, create economic opportunities, and establish a development model where environmental preservation and local economies mutually reinforce each other, fostering sustainable livelihoods.
{"title":"Opportunities Generated by Surf Conservation in West Africa and Atlantic Maghreb","authors":"Grégoire Touron-Gardic, El Hadj Bara Dème, Alex Ford, Erwan Simon, Ogoudje Isidore Amahowe, Yang Chen, Pierre Failler","doi":"10.1111/con4.70019","DOIUrl":"10.1111/con4.70019","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Surfing's potential as a conservation tool is evaluated in West Africa and Atlantic Maghreb by analyzing the spatial overlap between surf spots and key environmental areas. Surfing communities often advocate for protecting their favored locations, linking wave preservation with broader ecosystem conservation. The methodology integrates surf spot data from reference guides with geospatial analysis to assess proximity to Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), Ramsar sites, and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs). Findings reveal that of 146 surf spots across 15 countries, 96 are within or less than 3 km from protected or labeled areas, including 59 near MPAs, 61 near KBAs, and 31 near Ramsar sites. High-density regions, such as South Morocco, Senegal's Dakar Peninsula, Liberia's Robertsport, and Ghana's Gold Coast, offer significant opportunities for synergy between surfing and conservation. The concept of Surf Conservation and Wave/Surfing reserves could be integrated into coastal management policies to strengthen community-driven conservation efforts. Such initiatives could raise awareness, engage local communities, authorities, NGOs, and foreign stakeholders, and promote sustainable tourism. By adopting these strategies, West African and Maghreb nations could protect marine ecosystems, create economic opportunities, and establish a development model where environmental preservation and local economies mutually reinforce each other, fostering sustainable livelihoods.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/con4.70019","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145920260","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Hanalei Hoʻopai-Sylva, Carlo Caruso, Spencer Miller, Joshua R. Hancock, Matthew Parry, Kira Hughes, Crawford Drury
Effective conservation of degraded ecosystems requires mitigation of the original cause of decline, but this is difficult in the context of global climate change. On coral reefs, persistent environmental stress, which causes coral bleaching, may be addressed in restoration efforts by using coral stocks which are naturally more resilient, an approach termed “proactive restoration” in terrestrial management. To explore the feasibility and consequences of this approach, we outplanted 391 colonies of seven species of reef-building coral designated as “thermally tolerant” or “thermally sensitive” via stress testing and monitored them for 2 years using photogrammetry to evaluate tradeoffs and Relative Return-on-Effort. We found no growth, complexity, or effort tradeoffs when using thermally tolerant corals, but tolerant corals had lower survivorship during our monitoring period, driven primarily by one genus. These data illustrate nuanced tradeoffs and consequences to proactive reef restoration and suggest that the potential benefits of this approach may only be fully realized during future coral bleaching events.
{"title":"Proactive Coral Reef Restoration Using Thermally Tolerant Corals in Hawaiʻi","authors":"Hanalei Hoʻopai-Sylva, Carlo Caruso, Spencer Miller, Joshua R. Hancock, Matthew Parry, Kira Hughes, Crawford Drury","doi":"10.1111/con4.70004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/con4.70004","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Effective conservation of degraded ecosystems requires mitigation of the original cause of decline, but this is difficult in the context of global climate change. On coral reefs, persistent environmental stress, which causes coral bleaching, may be addressed in restoration efforts by using coral stocks which are naturally more resilient, an approach termed “proactive restoration” in terrestrial management. To explore the feasibility and consequences of this approach, we outplanted 391 colonies of seven species of reef-building coral designated as “thermally tolerant” or “thermally sensitive” via stress testing and monitored them for 2 years using photogrammetry to evaluate tradeoffs and Relative Return-on-Effort. We found no growth, complexity, or effort tradeoffs when using thermally tolerant corals, but tolerant corals had lower survivorship during our monitoring period, driven primarily by one genus. These data illustrate nuanced tradeoffs and consequences to proactive reef restoration and suggest that the potential benefits of this approach may only be fully realized during future coral bleaching events.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/con4.70004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145891508","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}