Rethinking Conservation: A Q&A with Eric Dinerstein on protecting biodiversity, empowering communities, and the future of conservation
Caleb: Thank you for joining me, Eric. To get us off the ground, will you explain the concept of Conservation Imperatives to a general audience?
Eric: Conservation Imperatives are a critical call to action. These are specific, unprotected areas worldwide that harbor irreplaceable biodiversity — places where rare and threatened species cling to survival. In our recent study, we identified 16,825 such sites, covering about 164 million hectares or 1.22% of Earth’s terrestrial surface. If we don’t act to protect these areas within the next five years, we risk losing countless species to extinction.
We propose a multi-pronged approach: designating new protected areas, purchasing or leasing private lands, and empowering Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities to lead where possible. If we act decisively, these Conservation Imperatives can play a pivotal role in achieving the global 30×30 biodiversity goals and addressing the biodiversity crisis. It’s a chance to turn the tide on the sixth mass extinction.
Caleb: When you think about the size and ambition of a goal like 30×30, the idea that there’s a little over 1% that is the most important to conserve is energizing in a way. Where are these imperatives mainly located?
Eric: Most of these critical sites are in tropical regions — countries like the Philippines, Brazil, Indonesia, Madagascar, and Colombia. Protecting just a fraction of tropical land — 0.74% — could save an extraordinary number of species from extinction. Just ten countries, all tropical, account for 72% of sites, and 30 countries account for 82% of sites. For conservation groups desiring to be the most strategic — all things being equal in terms of feasibility and that group’s historical connections and partnerships — these countries are a great place to focus. Importantly, many of these areas overlap with Indigenous territories. Recognizing and supporting the land rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities is not just the right thing to do but also one of the most effective ways to ensure these places are conserved.
Caleb: Does the assessment attempt to identify which of the conservation approaches you propose is most appropriate in which places? What else would we need to know to be able to do that?
Eric: No, that would be beyond the scope of this global study. However, in collaboration with several donors, we are working more granularly within countries (India, Indonesia, Ecuador, Peru, and Colombia) to identify the conservation approaches most suited to a particular site. Almost all the most feasible sites involve working closely with local communities. In some countries, like India, community reserves are likely the most expedient way to increase protection for an area, particularly in tribal-dominated areas such as the northeastern region.
Caleb: Given the threat of climate change to place-based conservation and the relatively small size of some of the identified imperatives, how best can governments, organizations, and communities secure lasting conservation? What other factors should we consider when planning localized efforts to protect these critical places and their biodiversity?
Eric: Here connectivity is critical. We need to take landscape-based approaches even when protecting these small areas, ensuring linkages to other areas or along elevational gradients. About 75% of all sites are in tropical moist forests. So, in areas where climate change leads to less precipitation and higher temperatures, protecting climatic refugia becomes a consideration. Many of the Conservation Imperatives sites are in very wet regions. Hopefully, these will be climatically stable refugia, like in other eras when drier conditions led to rainforest contracting until the next climatic reversal. Also, whenever I hear the word connectivity, I think of communities. In most human-dominated landscapes, fostering connectivity is only possible when communities are engaged from the outset as guardians of these critical corridors.
Caleb: Last year, I published a blog called Rethinking Conservation, in which I proposed that we should stop thinking about people as the problem and start thinking about them as the solution. What advice do you have for Rare on how we can make the most valuable contribution to global biodiversity conservation goals like the Imperatives?
Eric: You raise excellent points, and Rare’s marine successes clearly shape your message. In regions where aggressive enforcement by wildlife or fisheries departments is limited, engaging communities to design and manage access and harvest zones offers the best chance to restore ecosystems and artisanal fishing.
In the terrestrial realm, local communities and Indigenous groups often manage landscapes better than government agencies in similar habitats, often in remote and inaccessible areas. Their vigilance helps prevent disruptive development, protecting their way of life, livelihoods, and deep spiritual and cultural connection to nature.
My 50 years in Nepal have shown that a mixed solution is needed. Inviolate reserves allow source populations of species to recover, serving as the kernel of new populations. However, these inviolate core reserves need connected habitats for large, wide-ranging species to maintain viable populations. This requires coexistence strategies led by local communities. I would also suggest taking a seascape-level approach and vigilance over large areas, as unchecked commercial fishing fleets can quickly undermine local sustainability efforts.
Caleb: Finally, Eric, what’s next for you? Where is your research taking you?
Eric: A lot is in the works. My top priority is finding partners and donors to bring more Conservation Imperatives sites under conservation management in the next five years to prevent extinctions. We must head off extinctions.
We’re also developing a policy paper that complements Conservation Imperatives, focusing on conserving two types of rarity in nature: species restricted to very small areas — the narrow-range endemics captured in Conservation Imperatives — and widespread species that occur at low densities, like top predators and large mammals. We will likely lose these species unless we make a concerted effort to protect and restore populations in large, well-connected landscapes.
To support this, we’re creating an Iconic Species Index for each country, tracking key species in large landscapes. This Index would be of intrinsic value, but there’s another rationale: We argue that by 1) closely monitoring a subset of species in a large landscape, 2) across multiple landscapes in a country to obtain population trajectories that can be translated into an easy-to-understand Index like the Consumer Price Index, and 3) add to it an annual evaluation of the management interventions required to restore those populations; then 4) This Index becomes a critical metric to evaluate a country’s contribution to the Global Biodiversity Framework. To monitor those species, I’m working on trying to scale our state-of-the-art AI-embedded camera-alert system called ‘TrailGuard AI’ to prevent poaching and promote human-wildlife coexistence.
Finally, I’d love to return to writing children’s novels and publish a story about a wrinkle-faced bat and his companions in the Great Rainforest by the Sea.
Caleb: Thanks Eric, great to hear you are already thinking beyond Conservation Imperatives. Really appreciate the effort you and your co-authors are putting into this forward-thinking about our future. As an implementing NGO, this has great potential to focus our work towards 2030. And of course, I can’t wait to read your latest novel.