BetterTwo articles in this card have said what nature is worth and why acting on one problem at a time backfires. Neither answers the question that follows: what actually works.
IPBES gives one case, and draws a general finding from it that is worth more than the case.
“Strong reductions in deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon were achieved after formalizing and enforcing tenure rights to territories of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.”
And the finding drawn from cases like it: “response options that are implemented in more equitable ways also provide greater potential benefits… indicating that effectiveness and equity often are not trade-offs but go hand-in-hand.”
Doing it fairly is not the expensive version. It is the version that works.
Formalized and enforcedTwo words that carry the case
The sentence is short and easy to shorten further, which is exactly the risk.
IPBES writes “after formalizing and enforcing tenure rights”.
Formalizing is the legal act: the territory is recognised in law.
Enforcing is what happens when someone crosses the boundary anyway.
A right that exists on paper and is not defended is not the thing that reduced deforestation. Quoting only the first word would turn a working policy into a symbolic one.
The report situates this among knowledge and practices of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, which it says “can help successfully conserve biodiversity and sustainably manage other nexus elements”. The Amazon is the worked example, not the whole claim.
From case to findingWhy this is a finding and not an anecdote
One project working proves little. The report states something more general, and states it as a result rather than a hope.
The sentence, in full. “Response options that are implemented in more equitable ways also provide greater potential benefits across the nexus elements, indicating that effectiveness and equity often are not trade-offs but go hand-in-hand.”
Note oftennot always. IPBES is not claiming a law. It is reporting that the expected trade-off frequently is not there.
This matters because the trade-off is usually assumed rather than tested. Consultation is treated as a cost that slows a project down, and inclusion as a concession made to fairness at the expense of results. The report says that in the cases assessed, the inclusive version produced more benefit, not less, as with the marine protected areas that involved communities in management and produced more biodiversity, more fish and higher local incomes at once.
Fresh waterThe part of nature going fastest
The report's annex contains one line most coverage of biodiversity leaves out, and it changes where attention should go.
And the line itself: “freshwater biodiversity is being lost faster than terrestrial biodiversity”. Rivers, lakes and wetlands are not a smaller version of the land problem. They are the faster one.
The 75% carries a year on purpose. IPBES dates it to 2005twenty-one years ago. It is the figure the report gives, and we give it with its date rather than presenting it as current, because we cannot check what it is today.
ReefsA third of the reef builders
One last pair of numbers, because together they say something neither says alone.
About 33% of reef-building coral species are at high risk of extinction.
Nearly one billion people live within 100 km of a coral reef and benefit from it, “food, medicine, protection from coastal storms and erosion, tourism and recreation and livelihoods”.
The species at risk are the ones that build the structure. Everything on that list depends on the structure existing.
Which closes this card the way the other two closed theirs. What works is not a technology and not a slogan: it is deciding several things at once, with the people who live there, and backing the decision with something that holds when someone tests it.
QuestionsFrequently asked questions
What made deforestation fall in the Amazon?
IPBES writes that “strong reductions in deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon were achieved after formalizing and enforcing tenure rights to territories of Indigenous Peoples and local communities”. Both words matter, recognising on paper is not the same as enforcing.
Do you have to choose between effectiveness and equity?
IPBES answers no, and it is one of its findings: “response options that are implemented in more equitable ways also provide greater potential benefits across the nexus elements, indicating that effectiveness and equity often are not trade-offs but go hand-in-hand”.
Is freshwater biodiversity worse affected?
Yes, and it is not widely known: IPBES writes that “freshwater biodiversity is being lost faster than terrestrial biodiversity”. Unsustainable withdrawal, wetland degradation and forest loss have decreased water quality in many areas.
How much fresh water goes to food?
Around 80% of humanity's demand for freshwater is used to meet food production needs. It is what directly connects the plate to the river.
How many corals are at risk?
About a third of reef-building coral species are at high risk of extinction. And nearly one billion people live within 100 km of a coral reef and benefit from them in food, medicine, protection from coastal storms and erosion, tourism and livelihoods.
What does the report say about forests and drinking water?
That forest cover loss “decreases water regulation, quality and availability, resulting in increasing water treatment costs”. And it gives a dated figure: in 2005, 75% of the global population depended on forests for accessible freshwater.
Read nextRelated
Sources
- Media Release: IPBES Nexus Assessment, 17 December 2024, statistics annex included
- Thematic Assessment Report on the Interlinkages among Biodiversity, Water, Food and Health, IPBES, December 2024
About this article. General and educational information. The findings and figures come from the IPBES media release of 17 December 2024 and its statistics annex. The 75% figure is dated to 2005 by IPBES and this article dates it throughout. On equity, IPBES writes “often” rather than “always”; this article keeps that word.
Spotted an error or an out-of-date figure? Write to us: we will correct it and re-date the article. Our texts are written with the help of artificial intelligence and checked against official sources before publication, but a figure or a definition can change without us catching it. If anything here does not match what an official body tells you, they are right.