Caught in the crossfire: biodiversity conservation paradox of sociopolitical conflict – npj Biodiversity

“`html

Abstract

The current state of global biodiversity faces increasing threats due to human-induced environmental changes and unpredictable challenges. Effective conservation efforts are often hindered by limited knowledge, especially in developing economies like the Philippines. Our study revealed that areas with higher conflict levels exhibited lower species richness, fewer occurrence records, and reduced forest cover. This finding suggests a relationship between sociopolitical conflict and biodiversity in the Philippines. We posit that security risks from conflicts negatively impact conservation efforts, particularly in monitoring and implementing measures to protect natural resources. The links between armed conflict and biodiversity conservation are complex and warrant greater attention. We identified 10 approaches to address biodiversity knowledge shortfalls in conflicted areas, incorporating conflict-sensitive approaches and considering geopolitical contexts for more effective conservation efforts.

Introduction

Reducing global biodiversity loss, halting extinction risks, and preserving ecosystems are central to conservation biology. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework aims to safeguard species and habitats, relying on accurate biodiversity data to develop conservation priorities. Despite progress in cataloguing biodiversity, gaps persist, especially in areas with insufficient funding, limited capacity, and national security issues.

Armed conflicts and violent extremism significantly threaten national security and social stability, impacting the environment and biodiversity. Historical examples include forest destruction during the Vietnam War, marsh draining during the Gulf War, and wildlife decline during civil wars in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Contemporary conflicts in Afghanistan, Syria, and Ukraine continue to affect biodiversity. Over 90% of major armed conflicts between 1950 and 2000 occurred in countries with biodiversity hotspots. Military activities cause long-lasting ecosystem damage, promoting unsustainable practices like overharvesting species and deforestation.

The UN General Assembly declared November 6 as the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict. However, gaps in policy and research remain, especially in developing economies where biodiversity capacity building is insufficient. Sociopolitical conflicts negatively impact biodiversity documentation, limiting effective conservation efforts.

Mindanao: A Case Study

Mindanao, the second-largest island group in the Philippines, is a major agricultural producer and a biodiversity hotspot with over 30 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs). However, it faces sociopolitical adversities including armed conflicts, religious tensions, clan feuds, abductions, and violence. The history of conflict in Mindanao is complex, dating back to Spanish colonial resistance from Muslim communities.

Contemporary conflicts have led to ecological degradation and hindered biodiversity research. Sociopolitical conflicts disrupt research activities, hinder access to remote areas, and create risks for scientists. This limits accurate data collection on local flora and fauna, essential for informed conservation decisions.

Results

Patterns of Biodiversity Knowledge Shortfalls

Our analysis revealed that sociopolitical conflict promotes gaps in biodiversity knowledge in Mindanao. From 2000 to 2021, 2174 conflicts were recorded in Mindanao, with the highest levels of violence in Sulu and Maguindanao provinces. High-conflict areas showed significantly lower species richness compared to low-conflict areas.

We modeled the link between species occurrence records and conflict events at the provincial level. An increase in conflict events was associated with lower recorded species richness. Conversely, species richness was higher in areas farther from conflict events.

Conflict in Forests and Protected Areas

The spatial distribution of conflict events varied across habitat types. Most conflict events occurred in open habitats like agricultural areas and grasslands, with only 6% within protected areas. There was a significant negative correlation between fatalities and tree density/tree cover but not with canopy height.

Discussion

Our findings highlight the relationship between sociopolitical conflict and biodiversity knowledge shortfalls in the Philippines. Species richness and occurrence decreased in high-conflict areas, particularly for birds and insects due to their greater detectability. High-conflict areas likely have lower observed biodiversity due to conflict-related pressures or difficulty in recording biodiversity.

Conducting biodiversity research remains challenging due to past conflict events and disrupted local peace. Non-state armed groups operate in Mindanao, creating security risks for researchers. Documented biodiversity may underrepresent actual diversity in high-conflict regions, impacting conservation efforts.

While war can offer transitory advantages by creating no-go zones for vegetation recovery, our evidence from the Philippines tends to be negative. High-conflict areas had lower tree cover and forest density. Conflict zones often experience increased habitat destruction due to lack of regulations and challenging policy implementation.

Addressing biodiversity shortfalls requires documenting regions with significant gaps, establishing community-centric conservation projects, and integrating conflict-sensitive approaches into planning processes. We recommend meaningful actions to bolster conservation efforts in conflict-affected areas (Box 1).

Box 1: Recommended Conservation Strategies in Conflict Areas

1. Establishment of a regional biodiversity database: A collaborative FAIR database would aid harmonized conservation planning.
2. Crisis mapping and data analysis: Tools help assess conflicts’ impacts on biodiversity for rapid response.
3. Use of eDNA and barcoding technologies: Non-intrusive methods to study biodiversity in high-conflict areas.
4. Biodiversity monitoring using remote-sensing technologies: Satellite technology monitors land use changes in conflict zones.
5. Applications of conservation drones, bioacoustics, and camera traps: Technologies monitor wildlife populations without risking personnel.
6. Establishment of wildlife corridors: Connect fragmented habitats to maintain genetic diversity.
7. Creation of ‘Peace Parks’: Transboundary conservation areas promote regional stability.
8. Mainstream adaptive strategies for conflict context: Adapt strategies considering security risks and access limitations.
9. Partnership with the military for management and enforcement: Collaborate with military forces for protected area management.
10. Promoting citizen science in post-conflict management: Engage civilians in biodiversity research through accessible platforms.

Methods

Comparing Species Richness and Occurrence in Conflict Areas

We compared species occurrence data from the MOBIOS+ database with conflict data from UN-OCHA (2000-2021). We analyzed differences in species richness between low- and high-conflict areas using statistical tests.

Mapping Conflicts Events Distribution

Analysis of the Article on Sociopolitical Conflict and Biodiversity Conservation

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • The article discusses biodiversity conservation, species richness, and forest cover, which directly relate to SDG 15.
2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
   • The article highlights the impact of sociopolitical conflict on biodiversity, linking it to peace and security issues addressed by SDG 16.
3. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Indirectly related as the article mentions environmental degradation and habitat destruction, which are also climate-related issues.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.1: Ensure the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems.
   • Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity.
2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
3. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicators for SDG 15
   • Indicator 15.1.1: Forest area as a proportion of total land area.
   • Indicator 15.5.1: Red List Index (measuring extinction risk).
2. Indicators for SDG 16
   • Indicator 16.1.1: Number of victims of intentional homicide per 100,000 population, by sex and age.
   • Indicator 16.3.2: Unsentenced detainees as a proportion of overall prison population.
3. Indicators for SDG 13
   • Indicator 13.1.2: Number of deaths, missing persons, and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population.

4. Table of Findings

The analysis reveals that the article addresses critical intersections between biodiversity conservation and sociopolitical conflicts, aligning with multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The identified targets and indicators provide a framework for measuring progress in these areas, emphasizing the need for integrated approaches to address complex environmental and social challenges.

Copyright: Dive into this article, curated with care by SDG Investors Inc. Our advanced AI technology searches through vast amounts of data to spotlight how we are all moving forward with the Sustainable Development Goals. While we own the rights to this content, we invite you to share it to help spread knowledge and spark action on the SDGs.

Fuente: nature.com

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.