Abstract
Non-technical summaryGlobal biodiversity is in dramatic decline. The general public appears to equate sustainable development with biodiversity conservation and environmental protection, whereas the international policy discourse treats sustainable development as little more than traditional economic development. This gap between public perception of what sustainable development entails and its translation into formal policy goals is an important barrier to mobilizing the public and critical financial support for meeting global biodiversity conservation objectives. This contribution argues that the goal of nature and biodiversity conservation must be much more clearly distinguished from the 2015 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) than is currently the case.Technical summaryThe term ‘sustainable development’ has become widely used since it was popularized through the 1992 Rio UN Conference on Environment and Development. The UN SDGs adopted in 2015 further reinforce the normative centrality of the concept. Yet, the extent to which sustainable development covers nature and biodiversity conservation depends on how it is defined. A better understanding of how the public in different countries assesses the value of local and global biodiversity is crucial for building support for financing the vision to live ‘in harmony with nature by 2050’ currently under negotiation in the Convention on Biodiversity. This review essay discusses four distinct definitions of sustainable development, and considers how these different conceptualizations are used by political actors to serve particular interests. It then describes how this discourse has unfolded in international agreements related to sustainable development and biodiversity. The analysis shows that the prevalent economic cost–benefit approach used to value ecosystem services to make a case for conservation cannot resolve trade-off decisions between short-term economic and long-term societal interests. What is needed is a broad discourse about the ethical and cultural dimensions of biodiversity as a global heritage at the highest political level.Social media abstractThe goal of global biodiversity conservation must be more clearly distinguished from the 2015 SDGs economic objectives.
Highlights
A practical and policy relevant question is if existing multilateral funding levels are all that should be expected for protecting the world’s global biological heritage? This analysis suggests that a potential public willingness to provide higher levels of support is not being exploited and a lack of political clarity about the relationship between sustainable development and nature and biodiversity conservation hampers efforts to do so
A campaign to halt the global decline in biodiversity will have to start with disentangling the conversation about nature conservation from the conversation about sustainable development which remains heavily focused on poverty alleviation and human development
Embedded in a neo-liberal market rationality and politically promoted under the eco-modernity slogan, sustainable development has promised the squaring of the circle between economic growth and environmental protection
Summary
The natural world is in dramatic decline. conservationists have long warned about this, new research from the last few years has documented an unprecedented acceleration of this trend. Economic valuation of long-term ecosystem services in comparison with the economic value resulting from ecosystem conversion has revolutionized the way politics has treated the issue It has encouraged and informed the development of comprehensive national nature and biodiversity conservation strategies in line with guidelines by the CBD which recognize the sovereign national rights over natural resources and over determining development priorities (CBD, 2020). As important as the economic valuation approach has proven in the political debate on conservation, marketrationality cannot resolve how economic trade-off decisions between short-term private and long-term public objectives are made Such decisions involve different political systems, power structures and stakeholders and must include environmental justice concerns about access to natural resources and environmental quality and indigenous peoples’ rights (Leach, 2018; Martinez-Alier et al, 2016). Discussion highlights the difficulty of doing this – as far as the nature conservation component of it is concerned
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
