• Cuts in funding, weakening support from governments, and disinformation are all driving a current crisis for conservation.
• But these challenges need not hold conservation programs back, the authors of a new op-ed with decades of experience at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other development programs argue, and suggest three strategies that can work.
• “Leaning into the human well-being outcomes of conservation can also shift the pervasive and harmful view that conserving nature is primarily an environmental undertaking rather than a cornerstone of sustainable development,” they write.
• This article is a commentary. The views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of Mongabay.

See All Key Ideas

Conservation is facing a crisis, fueled by myriad factors including cuts in funding, weakening support from governments, and disinformation. A significant driver of this crisis is a lack of understanding among many decision-makers and the public of nature’s vital role in food and water security, health, and climate change adaptation and mitigation. To combat the perception that conserving nature is primarily an environmental issue, it is imperative for the conservation sector to be more deliberate in demonstrating its impacts on human well-being.

The acceleration of ecological decline presents an urgent threat to humanity and our collective future. In the World Economic Forum’s 2025 annual list of the top 10 global risks, five of the longer term (10-year) risks are environmental, ranging from extreme weather events to biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and pollution. Yet, biodiversity conservation remains vastly underfunded for the value it provides.

For decades, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was a leader in recognizing the crucial role of healthy ecosystems as a foundation for human well-being, championing the phrase “conservation is development” to embody its perspective. The agency invested more than $385 million in biodiversity programs in fiscal year 2023 alone on approaches including forest conservation, sustainable fisheries management and conservation enterprises to benefit local communities and ecosystems.

A photograph from 2018 documenting a USAID Oceans project aimed at collecting data on fish catches in Asia. The Trump administration shut down almost all of USAID’s projects, including for marine conservation, in early 2025. Image courtesy of USAID.

USAID was particularly innovative in supporting projects that blended funding from different sectors to reach common goals. For instance, the agency’s Health, Ecosystems, and Agriculture for Resilient, Thriving Societies (HEARTH) program combined resources from the food security, global health and biodiversity conservation sectors, among others, to support 17 projects across 10 countries that promoted practices like agroforestry, regenerative agriculture and responsible aquaculture that benefit both people and the planet.

USAID’s recent dismantling has led to a significant decrease in conservation financing and the loss of the agency’s leadership in promoting nature conservation as a crucial component of global development. In this vacuum, the conservation sector has an opportunity to address the current crisis by learning from and expanding on USAID’s efforts.

Here are three ways the sector can do this:

1) Be more systematic in capturing the human well-being impacts of conservation projects that most resonate with the development sector: Too often, conservation projects measure success primarily in biophysical terms even though their interventions may also benefit local communities’ priorities like health, food and water security, livelihoods and climate resilience. By systematically targeting and tracking how their interventions impact these priorities, conservation projects have an opportunity to also illustrate their value for human well-being. With this information in hand, the conservation sector can argue for a seat at the table during global dialogues on development and broaden its funding base and influence.

An important first step is for the conservation sector to systematically include appropriate metrics when planning projects. The Conservation Measures Partnership provides suggestions on how to include social and human well-being outcomes derived from conservation actions. And when considering different metrics, it is crucial to choose human well-being indicators that are recognized by the global development community. This can allow for comparisons between conservation and other sectoral strategies (e.g., global health) as well as across geographies and over time.

For instance, a sustainable fisheries project could collect data on human nutrition in addition to fish biomass, using the commonly used minimum dietary diversity indicator (a proxy for adequate micronutrient intake). By using a standard indicator, the conservation strategy of sustainable fisheries management can be compared with a food-based strategy like fortification to improve nutrition. Compilations of standard indicators that conservation projects can adapt and incorporate are offered by United Nations, USAID’s HEARTH program and the Demographic and Health Surveys Program, among others.

Women sorting tree seedlings for reforestation in Uganda: reforestation programs done right can improve air quality, biodiversity, and local livelihoods. Image by Walter Mwesigye/USAID Biodiversity & Forestry via Flickr.

2) Break down siloes within and between donor organizations: USAID’s HEARTH program emerged from conversations among staff across the food security, environment and health sectors to understand each other’s priorities and identify opportunities to work together. Though USAID was shuttered midway through HEARTH’s implementation, the program nevertheless represents a promising model for other large organizations working on conservation and global development.

Examples of this type of systems-based, cross-sector collaboration are rare in the philanthropic world, which often remains siloed. For instance, climate funders tend to focus on mitigation, conservation funders on species and ecosystems, and water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) funders on water infrastructure. Each funder often addresses a piece of the puzzle rather than the whole, even when working in the same geography.

To break down these siloes, program officers in the conservation sector should explore opportunities to build bridges with their counterparts in the food and water security, health and climate change sectors to align goals, share resources and multiply impact. Some examples of potential shared projects are low-hanging fruit: partnering with the WASH sector to ensure that water infrastructure is complemented by healthy watersheds that provide a dependable supply of water and working with the food security sector to sustainably manage wild fisheries and forests to ensure a continued supply of nutrient-rich wild foods.

Sustainable agriculture practices like agroforestry benefit people, biodiversity, and the planet. Here, a farmer cuts cacao pods in Colombia. Image by Thomas Cristofoletti via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0).

3) Capitalize on opportunities to address the broader development needs of frontline communities: Because they work with some of the most isolated, vulnerable and underserved communities globally, conservation organizations are uniquely situated to understand and address the unmet development needs of these communities. Opportunities to address these needs can take different forms depending on the context.

Examples from conservation organizations like Blue Ventures and Health in Harmony include training community members to provide health care, partnering with local organizations from other sectors (e.g., food security or health) to furnish necessary services, and collaborating with appropriate government institutions.

A 2020 study found that Health in Harmony’s approach of a conservation-health care exchange averted deforestation while increasing healthcare access, with the highest reductions in logging occurring around villages that were most engaged in the exchange. An analysis by Blue Ventures of its People-Health-Environment program in Madagascar concluded that “a broad human rights-based approach is vital for removing barriers to community engagement in conservation.”

These findings underscore the crucial role that conservation organizations can play in improving the lives of the communities they work with while meeting their environmental goals.

These three approaches can broaden conservation’s influence, reach and financing by emphasizing what’s always been true: nature and human well-being are inseparable.

Implementing these suggestions won’t be easy and will require resources, expertise and a willingness among the conservation sector to increase efforts to work with other sectors. But leaning into the human well-being outcomes of conservation can also shift the pervasive and harmful view that conserving nature is primarily an environmental undertaking rather than a cornerstone of sustainable development.

 

Anila Jacob is a physician with almost 15 years of experience working on USAID projects that integrate biodiversity conservation with health, food and water security, and climate change efforts to improve outcomes for both people and the planet. Jessica Deichmann is a conservation biologist with over 20 years of experience leading and supporting biodiversity research and conservation programs across Latin America and Africa, with a focus on ecological monitoring, species conservation and community-based natural resource management. Sara Carlson worked as a senior biodiversity adviser at USAID for over 13 years, where she led efforts on evidence-based conservation and integrated programming, including its HEARTH program.

Related audio from Mongabay’s podcast: A discussion of how the Wildlife Conservation Network finances community conservation efforts via a venture capital model, listen here:

See related coverage and commentary:

Small grants are key to a successful next generation of conservationists (commentary)

No, Bill Gates, we don’t have to choose between people & planet (commentary)

Across the world, conservation projects reel after abrupt US funding cuts

Citations:

Asprilla-Perea, J., & Díaz-Puente, J. M. (2018). Importance of wild foods to household food security in tropical forest areas. Food Security, 11(1), 15-22. doi:10.1007/s12571-018-0846-8

Jones, I. J., MacDonald, A. J., Hopkins, S. R., Lund, A. J., Liu, Z. Y., Fawzi, N. I., … Sokolow, S. H. (2020). Improving rural health care reduces illegal logging and conserves carbon in a tropical forest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(45), 28515-28524. doi:10.1073/pnas.2009240117