Beyond the trade-off: Biodiversity, health, and human rights

Biodiversity governance is often framed as a choice between protecting ecosystems and meeting human needs. This article argues that the trade-off is false – and that biodiversity, health, and human rights are inseparable.

In international biodiversity governance, conservation and sustainable use are often framed as a trade-off: protecting ecosystems on the one hand, meeting human needs on the other. This framing, while familiar, risks oversimplifying a far more interconnected reality. Biodiversity governance and sustainable use are central to public health, food systems, livelihoods, and the enjoyment of fundamental rights (Delgado-Serrano, 2017). The challenge is not choosing between conservation and human well-being but governing their intersection responsibly.

Biodiversity, health, and human rights

Biodiversity supports many of the conditions necessary for the realisation of human rights. Clean water, nutritious food, traditional medicines, cultural identity, and mental well-being all depend on functioning ecosystems (Marselle et al., 2021). When biodiversity declines, these foundations are weakened, often most acutely for Indigenous peoples and local communities, women, and youth who rely directly on natural systems for livelihoods and nutrition. In this sense, biodiversity governance is inseparable from questions of dignity, equity, and health.

Reframing sustainable use

In policy debates, sustainable use has often been approached with caution, sometimes framed as a potential compromise rather than as a conservation tool. Part of this caution reflects a tendency to treat conservation as synonymous with preservation, where protection is interpreted as the absence of use rather than its careful regulation. In international biodiversity law, however, conservation is defined more broadly. The Convention on Biological Diversity states that:

“Conservation of biological diversity means the conservation of ecosystems, species and genetic resources, and the sustainable use of their components” (CBD, 1992, Article 2).

Sustainable use is therefore not an alternative to conservation, but one of its core pillars. Precaution remains essential. Yet, when applied without context, precaution can obscure the role that lawful, well-regulated use plays in supporting food security, rural economies, and public health (Pérez et al., 2022).

Crucially, sustainable use does not mean unchecked exploitation. It refers to use that is legally grounded, science-based, socially legitimate, and governed in ways that maintain species viability and ecosystem integrity over time. Where sustainable use is dismissed outright under the assumption that exclusion automatically protects biodiversity, social vulnerability can deepen, particularly in contexts where communities depend on biodiversity for nutrition, medicine, and income (Sunderland, 2024).

This framing does not negate ethical obligations toward animals or concerns around welfare. Rather, it reflects the current international legal architecture, in which human rights are operationalised through state obligations. Animal welfare and conservation safeguards are addressed through regulatory standards, monitoring, and science-based management (Futhazar, 2020). The question, therefore, is not whether use should occur, but how it is governed.

Health as the operational bridge

Health provides a practical and policy-relevant bridge between biodiversity and rights. Biodiversity loss is increasingly recognised as a public-health concern, contributing to malnutrition, the spread of zoonotic diseases, and declining mental well-being (Keesing and Ostfeld, 2021). Conversely, healthy ecosystems function as preventive health infrastructure, supporting clean air and water, regulating disease, and strengthening resilience to environmental change.

Under international human rights law, states are required to respect, protect, and fulfil the right to health, including safeguarding its underlying determinants (Zeegers Paget and Patterson, 2020). This includes ensuring that environmental degradation, including biodiversity management, does not undermine access to safe food, water, and livelihoods.

When sustainable use is embedded within transparent, accountable regulatory systems, it can strengthen both conservation outcomes and public health (CBD, 1992; IPBES, 2023). Governance design, rather than ideological positioning, determines whether biodiversity management produces resilience or risk.

Governance under pressure: why context matters

The tension between conservation and use often intensifies under real-world pressures. In conditions of scarcity, drought, hunger, and economic crisis, rigid prohibition is rarely sustainable. People prioritise survival. Governance models that ignore this behavioural reality risk erosion of legitimacy and compliance (Ostrom, 1990; Agrawal and Ribot, 1999).

In contexts of relative abundance or economic stability, stronger conservation measures may be feasible and publicly supported. During disease outbreaks or environmental emergencies, public health considerations may temporarily reshape regulatory priorities. In landscapes characterised by inequality or resource competition, exclusion without engagement can deepen distrust and weaken long-term stewardship (Larson and Ribot, 2007; IPBES, 2020).

The question of “who prevails” in such contexts is not a moral verdict but a governance stress test. Different socio-ecological conditions shape how rights are interpreted and operationalised in practice. Durable biodiversity policy must anticipate this variability rather than assume uniform conditions across regions and communities.

Evolving framing in multilateral biodiversity policy

These governance dynamics are increasingly reflected in multilateral biodiversity frameworks. The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework calls for a human-rights-based approach to biodiversity governance, acknowledging links between biodiversity, health, equity, and intergenerational responsibility. The Global Action Plan on Biodiversity and Health further emphasises integrated policy approaches that align conservation with health and social objectives (CBD Secretariat, 2026).

Rather than framing conservation and human rights as opposing forces, recent discussions under the Convention on Biological Diversity have highlighted their interdependence. Sustainable use, when legally regulated and science-based, is increasingly understood not as a threat to conservation, but as one of the mechanisms through which conservation can remain socially legitimate and practically durable.

Moving beyond the false divide

The real challenge confronting biodiversity governance is not deciding which right “wins.” It is designing adaptive, accountable systems capable of holding multiple rights and obligations together under pressure.

Policies that assume stable conditions in unstable environments will struggle to endure. Conversely, governance frameworks that remain anchored in legality, science, participation, and transparency are better positioned to navigate scarcity, abundance, and crisis alike.

Beyond the trade-off narrative lies a more demanding task: building institutions resilient enough to reconcile ecological integrity, public health, and human dignity in real time. That work is ongoing. The question is whether governance models will evolve quickly enough to meet it.

In light of Human Rights Day, these questions take on added urgency. The right to health, food, water, and dignity cannot be meaningfully and fully realised in the absence of healthy ecosystems. As global biodiversity policy continues to evolve, the challenge is not only to protect nature but to ensure that governance systems uphold the rights and well-being of the people who depend on it most. Recognising the interdependencies between biodiversity, health, and human rights is not symbolic: it is essential for building resilient and just futures.

References

CBD Secretariat (2026). Information Webinar: Advancing the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity to support the full enjoyment of human rights. https://www.cbd.int/doc/notifications/2025/ntf-2025-151-health-en.pdf

Convention on Biological Diversity (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro, 5 June 1992. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/convention/text/ (Accessed: 19 February 2026).

Convention on Biological Diversity (2022). Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. https://www.cbd.int/gbf

Convention on Biological Diversity (2023). Global Action Plan on Biodiversity and Health. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-16/cop-16-dec-19-en.pdf

Delgado-Serrano, M. (2017). Trade-offs between conservation and development in community-based management initiatives. https://thecommonsjournal.org/articles/10.18352/ijc.792

Futhazar, G. (2020). ‘The Convention on Biological Diversity and the protection of animal welfare’, Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 23(1), pp. 1–25.

IPBES (2023). Sustainable Use of Wild Species – Summary for Policymakers, IPBES Secretariat, Bonn. Available at: https://files.ipbes.net/ipbes-web-prod-public-files/2023-05/IPBES_SusUse_SPM_ILK_lorres_forWeb_en.pdf (Accessed: 19 February 2026).

Keesing, F. and Ostfeld, R. (2021). Impacts of biodiversity and biodiversity loss on zoonotic diseases. https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/118/17/e2023540118.full.pdf

Larson, A.M. and Ribot, J.C. (2007). The poverty of forestry policy: double standards on an uneven playing field. Sustainability Science.

Marselle, M.R., Hartig, T., Cox, D.T., De Bell, S., Knapp, S., Lindley, S., Triguero-Mas, M., Böhning-Gaese, K., Braubach, M., Cook, P.A. and De Vries, S. (2021). Pathways linking biodiversity to human health: a conceptual framework. Environment International, 150, p.106420.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

Pérez, G.I.A., Demissew, S., Salgar, A.M.H., Saw, L.G., Stenseke, M., Taleb, M.S. and Wu, N. (2022). Summary for policymakers of the thematic assessment of the sustainable use of wild species of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

Zeegers Paget, D. and Patterson, D. (2020). The essential role of law in achieving the health-related Sustainable Development Goals. European Journal of Public Health, 30(Supplement_1), pp. i32–i35. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa036