Why national parks and nature reserves don’t always safeguard ecosystems as expected

National parks and nature reserves don't always safeguard ecosystems as expected, argues Miguel Lurgi, of Swansea University

- 

A peregrine falcon foraging in the forest

(Ronald Plett)

SETTING aside land for nature is one of the main global strategies to conserve biodiversity. From national parks to local reserves, these areas are designed to give wildlife the space it needs to thrive.

But my latest research with colleagues shows that these protected areas don’t always work in the way we expect.

They can help increase the number of species and provide habitats for large predators. But they don’t necessarily preserve the complex web of interactions that keeps ecosystems functioning. Our study found that the effectiveness of protected areas varies widely across Europe. This has mixed effects on the ecological relationships that sustain life.

Protected areas are central to international conservation policy. In 2022, governments at the UN biodiversity conference (Cop15) agreed to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. The framework aims to protect 30% of the world’s land and sea by 2030. The ambition is to halt biodiversity loss and safeguard the services that healthy ecosystems provide.

But while the number of protected areas continues to grow, there is still debate about how well they work. Most studies measure biodiversity success by counting species or tracking population trends. These are important, but they miss a crucial part of how ecosystems operate: the network of ecological interactions. Interactions between species such as predator-prey relationships connect species together in ecosystems and are crucial for their persistence.