Biodiversity conservation an investment in humanity

The growing recognition that biodiversity conservation must be treated as an investment in humanity, rather than an environmental obligation, displays an important shift in the global development agenda. As countries grapple with climate change, environmental degradation and the increasing pressure on natural resources, the need to protect ecosystems has become inseparable from the need to sustain economies, livelihoods and human existence.
This is the central issue underpinning the second Global Biodiversity Alliance (GBA) conference being held in Georgetown under the theme, “Investing in Nature: Accelerating Biodiversity Finance for Sustainable Development.”
Guyana’s Lead Climate Negotiator, Dr Pradeepa Bholanath, has correctly emphasised that biodiversity conservation cannot be approached through a narrow focus on forest financing. Such an approach would overlook the interconnected functions of natural ecosystems and the wider benefits they provide to humanity. Forests are not merely collections of trees or resources to be preserved for their carbon-storage capacity. They sustain plant and animal life, regulate the climate, protect watersheds and support the ecological systems upon which communities and economies depend.
This wider understanding must inform the way biodiversity is valued, financed and managed.
Guyana is particularly well positioned to advance this argument, with more than 85 per cent of the country’s landmass covered by forests, representing approximately 18 million hectares, the value of the natural environment extends well beyond its contribution to global climate objectives. The country’s forests and other ecosystems provide essential environmental services while offering opportunities for sustainable economic activity and livelihood development.
Consequently, conservation must be understood as a people-centred development priority. The protection of natural resources cannot be separated from the welfare of communities, particularly those whose livelihoods are directly connected to the environment. Financing mechanisms must therefore recognise both the ecological value of biodiversity and its contribution to sustainable livelihoods.
Dr Bholanath’s position is significant because it challenges the tendency to treat environmental protection and economic development as competing priorities. Properly structured, biodiversity financing can support both. The objective should be to establish systems through which the protection of natural assets generates lasting benefits for present and future generations.
As such this also requires a more comprehensive approach to measuring the value of nature. Traditional financial assessments frequently fail to account adequately for the economic and social costs associated with environmental degradation. The loss of forests, wetlands, wildlife and other ecosystems carries consequences that extend into food security, water availability, public health, climate resilience and economic stability. These costs are often borne by communities and governments long after the damage has occurred.
Recognising these connections is essential to mobilising the scale and type of financing required to protect biodiversity. Conservation cannot depend entirely on government expenditure or voluntary commitments. Innovative financing instruments, stronger international partnerships and greater private-sector participation are necessary to bridge existing funding gaps and ensure that resources reach conservation programmes where they are most needed.
The expansion of the GBA from 17 founding members in July 2025 to more than 140 members is encouraging. The diversity of its membership provides an opportunity to bring together institutions that possess different forms of expertise, financial capacity and technical resources. More importantly, it creates a platform for aligning these capabilities around a common objective.
Guyana’s experience with green financing, particularly in renewable energy and sustainable agriculture, provides a foundation upon which biodiversity financing can be advanced. The next step is to extend that experience to the wider range of ecological functions that contribute to sustainable development. This will require financing models that recognise the value of entire ecosystems rather than assigning value to individual environmental assets in isolation.
The country’s Low Carbon Development Strategy, first conceptualised and implemented under the Dr Bharrat Jagdeo presidency and subsequently expanded through LCDS 2030 under President Irfaan Ali, demonstrates the importance of maintaining a long-term national framework for environmental stewardship. The establishment of the GBA is another opportunity to build on that foundation by strengthening international cooperation and broadening the financing available for conservation.
There is also an important international dimension to this undertaking. Countries with extensive natural resources should not be expected to shoulder the financial burden of protecting ecosystems that provide benefits extending far beyond their borders. International financing arrangements must recognise the global value of biodiversity and ensure that countries undertaking conservation efforts receive meaningful support.
Dr Bholanath is therefore right to insist on a broader, people-centred approach to biodiversity financing.