Strategic Leadership and Governance Principles

The EMS Foundation advocates for a strategy that provides forward-looking leadership beyond consolidating existing policies and emphasizes integrating constitutional principles, ethics, and ecological integrity into governance.

Recognizing Intrinsic Value of Biodiversity

The EMS Foundation urges acknowledging biodiversity’s intrinsic worth beyond utilitarian benefits and which supports ethical conservation that respects species and ecological uniqueness.

Animal Sentience and Ethical Considerations

Recommends explicitly recognizing animal sentience in biodiversity governance. The EMS Foundation highlights jurisprudence linking animal welfare with constitutional environmental values.

Defining Conservation and Differentiating Uses

The EMS Foundation calls for a clear, outcome-based definition of conservation focused on ecological integrity, which distinguishes conservation from commercial wildlife use and management activities.

Precautionary and Evidence-Based Use

Emphasizes rigorous scientific monitoring and transparent evaluation of sustainable use. Recommends applying the precautionary principle where evidence is limited or uncertain.

Ecological Integrity as Overarching Principle

Recommends explicitly positioning ecological integrity as the primary goal.

Ensures all actions contribute to ecosystem resilience and long-term biodiversity recovery.

Governance, Accountability, and Transparency

The EMS Foundation calls for clear institutional responsibilities, regular public reporting, and independent evaluation. This promotes adaptive governance and continuous learning for effective implementation.

Transparency as a Strategic Objective

Recommends routine publication of biodiversity data and decision-making processes this strengthens public trust and supports scientific and civil participation.

Independent Review and Adaptive Learning

Advocates for mid-term review to assess progress and adapt strategies. This encourages broad stakeholder participation for robust, legitimate governance.

Biodiversity as Shared Heritage and Ethical Responsibility

The EMS Foundation recommends recognizing biodiversity’s intrinsic, ecological, and cultural value. This emphasizes conservation as a shared responsibility for present and future generations.

Biodiversity Economy and Use

The EMS Foundation suggests testing both the benefits of biological resource use and risks of commodification and recommends framing sustainable use within a precautionary, evidence-based approach.

Constitutional and Policy Safeguards for Use

No presumption in favor of wildlife use; activities must demonstrate ecological sustainability and conservation benefits. Use must align with duties to prevent ecological harm, promote conservation, and secure sustainability over time.

Criteria for Ecologically Sustainable Use

Benefits must be proven species-specific, activity-specific, and place-specific over meaningful periods. Activities involving wildlife should show additional, durable conservation benefits beyond lawful use or trade.

Market and Governance Risks

Wildlife markets are influenced by unequal power, lobbying, and regulatory capture, risking ecological and welfare harms. Transparency, disclosure of interests, and independent assessments are essential safeguards.

Distinction Between Legality, Sustainability, and Conservation

Legal trade does not guarantee ecological sustainability or conservation benefits. Activities must meet ecological, animal-well-being, and measurable conservation criteria, not just legal compliance.

Precautionary Approach to Use and Trade

Expansion of use requires credible ecological baselines and monitoring. Uncertainty should lead to restrictions; expansion should not occur without sufficient evidence.

Wildlife Trade Risks and International Obligations

Both legal and illegal trade pose biodiversity threats, including population declines and ecosystem disruption. Trade should be assessed for sustainability, traceability, and potential laundering risks, not just legality.

Coexistence and Human-Wildlife Interactions

Focus on preventing conflicts through habitat protection and non-lethal measures. Indicators should measure coexistence quality, not just incident numbers, and responses should prioritize prevention.

Species Conservation and Recovery

Priority on maintaining viable, ecologically functional wild populations. In-situ conservation remains primary; ex-situ measures should support recovery, not replace natural populations.

Emphasis on In-Situ Conservation

The final NBSAP should prioritize conserving habitats, ecological relationships, and evolutionary processes. Ex-situ measures are supplementary and should only serve as emergency interventions.

Animal Welfare in Conservation

Recovery plans must explicitly consider animal sentience and well-being. Interventions should minimize harm and be necessary, proportionate, and ethically designed.

Evidence-Based and Necessary Interventions

Significant actions require demonstration of necessity, alternatives considered, and likely effectiveness. Stronger thresholds are needed for intrusive or irreversible interventions, especially for common species.

Restriction on Lethal Management

The NBSAP should favor non-lethal, preventative, and landscape-based management. Lethal control should only be used in cases of severe animal suffering, not routine population management.

Genetic and Ecological Population Integrity

Genetic diversity is vital but must be integrated with ecological and behavioral factors. Recovery plans should include demographic, social, and ecological dimensions alongside genetics.

Clarification of Rewilding

Rewilding should focus on restoring ecological processes and self-sustaining populations. It should avoid intensive manipulation and aim for ecological integrity.

Strengthening Species Recovery Targets

The target should emphasize preventing extinctions, ecological functionality, and habitat health.

Sustainable Financing and Market Risks

Market-based instruments require safeguards, transparency, and ecological additionality. Private finance should supplement, not replace, public funding for core biodiversity functions.

Limitations of Biodiversity Offsets

Offsets are limited and should not justify unacceptable biodiversity loss. No-go areas and strict regulations are essential to prevent ecological and animal harm.

Public Funding and Institutional Capacity

Government must retain responsibility for core conservation activities. Capacity should be assessed by expertise and institutional continuity, not just vacancy rates.

Protected Area Effectiveness

Expansion should focus on ecological quality, connectivity, and management effectiveness. Area targets must prioritize ecological integrity over mere hectares.

Governance, Participation, and Indigenous Rights

Participation must be meaningful, early, and influence decision-making. Indigenous knowledge requires genuine consent, control, and benefit-sharing.

Monitoring, Accountability, and Review

Data should be transparent, disaggregated, and linked to decision-making. An independent mid-term review and clear corrective mechanisms are necessary for adaptive management.

Ecological Integrity as Central Principle

The final NBSAP should prioritize ecological integrity as its core framework. All objectives, including sustainable use and development, must be evaluated through this lens.

Clear Definition of Conservation

Conservation involves protecting, restoring, and maintaining biodiversity in natural contexts. Activities aimed at extraction, profit, or recreation are not automatically considered conservation unless verified as beneficial to wild populations.

Animal Well-Being and Ethical Governance

The EMS Foundation strongly believes that animal sentience and well-being must be recognized as independent, enforceable standards across all activities. Development of comprehensive Wild Animal Well-being Regulations is essential for enforcement.

Strengthening Protected Area Effectiveness

Targets should focus on ecological condition, connectivity, management effectiveness, and species viability. Recognition of areas as OECMs must be based on durable conservation outcomes, not just land designation.

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Priorities

The EMS Foundation believes that there should be an Eemphasis on protecting threatened, poorly protected, and climate-resilient ecosystems, especially freshwater systems. Expansion should be guided by ecological need rather than administrative ease.

Governance, Participation, and Transparency

Decision-making must be transparent, inclusive, and recognize legitimate rights. Public disclosure of evidence, methodologies, and monitoring results is vital for legitimacy.

Sustainable Use and Trade

The use of wildlife must demonstrate ecological sustainability and animal well-being. Legality alone does not ensure conservation benefit; domestic restrictions can be stronger than CITES controls.

Biodiversity Finance and Offsets

Financial mechanisms should demonstrate measurable ecological and animal well-being benefits. Offsets are discouraged for high-impact developments; strict no-go rules apply to irreplaceable biodiversity.

Implementation and Monitoring

Each action requires clear accountability, baseline data, budgets, and milestones. Regular independent reviews and public reporting are necessary to ensure progress and corrective measures.

©EMS Foundation 2026. All Rights Reserved.