Reacción a "Reactions: two-thirds of conservation efforts help combat biodiversity loss"

This study is based on a review of those publications that have examined the impact of some conservation action in alleviating or neutralizing the loss of biodiversity due to our impact on natural systems. The conclusion highlights what may seem obvious: that the efforts made in conservation are useful to reduce and even paralyze the efforts to annihilate, deliberately or involuntarily, the populations of many species. The authors find that, in two out of three cases, conservation actions are successful and paralyze or reduce the effects of the agent that caused a loss of biodiversity.

The study undoubtedly offers a necessary message. If we focus our efforts correctly, humanity has the knowledge and technological resources necessary to reverse the effects of our actions on biological diversity. This is an encouraging result that, unfortunately, does not diminish the massive amount of alarming data on the general situation of biodiversity. If some 130 studies show that it is possible to restore biodiversity after a harmful effect, there is much evidence that shows that human actions are causing an unprecedented and irreversible decline in the planet's biodiversity. Can we really reverse this situation? Let's look at some data.

In December 2022, sponsored by the United Nations, almost 200 countries approved a new plan to try to reverse before 2030 the decline and extinction of the populations of living beings that inhabit, alongside us, the only that we have. This plan was proposed after the failure of a previous one held in 2010 in which, optimistically, another set of goals was proposed to reduce the loss of biodiversity in 2020. If the authors of this study demonstrate that the task is possible, the data are stubborn Works are loves. As the authors recognize, the annual investment made in the world for biodiversity conservation (121 billion dollars) would be almost 20 times less than annual global military spending, and about 14,000 times less than global spending on supporting fossil fuels that cause climate change.

About the limitations of the study:

• As the authors themselves acknowledge in the supplementary material, the data are biased towards terrestrial environments and regions of the world with the least biodiversity and greatest conservation resources: Europe and North America. Data are lacking from tropical areas, where detrimental anthropogenic effects are greatest.
• The study exemplifies the scarcity of studies that, with a standardized methodology, compile reliable information before and after a specific conservation action. We lack biodiversity observatories that, like climatological stations, provide us with comparatively reliable data.
• The positive cases detected do not imply that the situation of biodiversity loss is reversed, but it is enough for the conservation action to slow down the rate of decline for it to be considered positive.