The central argument of this review hinges on the critical distinction between two paradigms for integrating biodiversity and development: coexistence and mutualism. Coexistence, in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), describes a state where different entities, such as human communities and wildlife, exist together with interactions managed primarily to minimize conflict ((Gao & Clark, 2023); (Petitpierre-Sauvain, 2008). This approach often frames biodiversity and development as separate domains that must be carefully balanced to prevent negative interference. In contrast, mutualism proposes a more deeply integrated relationship, drawing from its ecological origins to describe interactions that produce net positive benefits for all parties involved (Fox et al., 2020). Applied to the SDGs, a mutualistic framework actively seeks to create systems where environmental protection and socio-economic progress are not merely compatible but mutually reinforcing, shifting the goal from avoiding harm to actively creating synergistic value (Lydgate, 2012).

The imperative to transition from coexistence to mutualism is rooted in the indivisible and interconnected nature of the SDGs themselves. While coexistence can prevent conflict, it is insufficient to drive the transformative progress required. A mutualistic framework is superior because it fosters synergistic benefits that are essential for accelerating progress across the interconnected goals (Fenner, 2022); (The added value of partnerships in implementing the UN sustainable development goals, 2024). By leveraging the strengths of multiple stakeholders, it spurs innovation and creates positive feedback loops where advancing one goal supports another (Sharma & Sharma, 2024). A coexistence model, however, often leads to fragmented efforts and untapped potential (McGowan et al., 2019);(Basheer et al., 2025).

Furthermore, a mutualistic approach inherently demands integrated strategies that minimize the trade-offs often seen between competing objectives, such as economic growth and ecosystem protection (Fader et al., 2018); (Assessing the land resource–food price nexus of the Sustainable Development Goals, 2016). It forces a holistic perspective that redesigns systems to align these goals. This approach also promotes the deep, multi-stakeholder cooperation needed to tackle complex global challenges by creating shared benefits, which provides a powerful incentive for long-term commitment (Kloke-Lesch, 2021); (King, 2025).

An analysis of biodiversity mainstreaming within the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to date reveals a complex picture, marked by commendable progress alongside persistent gaps. At the planning level, biodiversity is explicitly recognized as fundamental to achieving various SDGs, particularly those related to poverty eradication, food security, and environmental sustainability (Lucas et al., 2014); (Ament et al., 2019). This recognition is institutionalized through SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 15 (Life on Land), which directly target conservation and sustainable use (Khan & Shehzad, 2025);(Lernborg & Atallah, 2025). Furthermore, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework reinforces this through its 23 targets for 2030, especially Target 14, which mandates that parties ensure biodiversity values are fully integrated into policies and regulations at all levels of government. At the implementation level, various innovative models have demonstrated the potential for synergy, such as Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs), Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), and regenerative agriculture practices, all of which link conservation with socio-economic development (Ernoul & Mesleard, 2008);(E et al., 2020);(Himshikha et al., 2024). In financing, mechanisms like Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) have been identified as effective tools, although these efforts are still hampered by a significant funding gap to reverse biodiversity loss (Lernborg & Atallah, 2025); (Wei et al., 2021).

However, despite these efforts, the current state of integration more closely reflects a paradigm of coexistence rather than true mutualism. Significant gaps remain, hindering the realization of a mutually beneficial relationship. Key challenges include insufficiently robust policy frameworks, inadequate biodiversity monitoring indicators at the country level, and a limited diversity of funding channels (Ogwu et al., 2025); (Dickens et al., 2020); (Wei et al., 2021). The disconnect between public perception, which favors conservation, and policy implementation, which often prioritizes other goals, also presents a major barrier (Clémençon, 2021). These gaps are not merely technical issues but are symptomatic of deeper, interconnected, fundamental barriers.

To transition toward a mutualistic relationship, it is crucial to understand the barriers that perpetuate the status quo. The literature identifies several key categories. Policy and institutional barriers such as imperfect regulations, conflicting policies, and a lack of inter-agency cooperation directly explain why on-the-ground implementation is often ineffective and fragmented (Wang et al., 2022); (Domenech et al., 2019); (Davis et al., 2022); (Szymańska et al., 2023). Financially, the aforementioned funding gap is exacerbated by weak economic incentives and a lack of sustainable financial support to foster mutualistic practices (Domenech et al., 2019); (Andrei et al., 2019).

Perhaps the most fundamental are the social and environmental barriers. Cultural resistance to cooperation often rooted in historical contexts along with power asymmetries and the risk of exploitation in partnerships, creates a climate of distrust that impedes genuine collaboration (Andrei et al., 2019); (Powell & Maoz, 2014); (Egger & Hibbett, 2004); (When cheating turns into a stabilizing mechanism of plant–pollinator communities, 2023). Furthermore, environmental conditions themselves, such as resource availability and climate variability, can affect the stability of mutualistic relationships (Grman et al., 2012); (Dunkley et al., 2020). Thus, the journey from coexistence to mutualism demands a systemic approach that not only focuses on individual projects but also strategically dismantles these interconnected policy, institutional, financial, and social barriers.

Transitioning from a paradigm of coexistence to one of mutualism requires the application of policy instruments and practical approaches that actively create synergies between biodiversity conservation and development objectives. A review of the literature identifies several promising pathways, which are supported by lessons learned from various case studies around the world. This section outlines these instruments and distills critical lessons from both the successes and failures of their implementation.

The literature highlights several key instruments as effective in fostering mutualistic relationships. Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are recognized for their significant potential to simultaneously address climate, biodiversity, and disaster risk challenges. Although their implementation faces constraints such as a lack of expertise and stakeholder conflicts, studies demonstrate that NbS like forest landscape restoration can yield significant positive economic impacts, particularly in water flow regulation (Scolobig et al., 2025); (Restrepo et al., 2024). Overcoming these barriers requires legally binding policy instruments, mobilization of public and private finance, and enhanced capacity building (Scolobig et al., 2025).

Another effective instrument is Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES), which establishes a direct mutualistic link by integrating the economic valuation of ecosystem services into land-use planning. By providing direct financial incentives, PES transforms stakeholders from passive residents into active partners in conservation, creating a relationship where maintaining and enhancing ecosystem services generates tangible economic benefits (Restrepo et al., 2024).

More broadly, the development and updating of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) now serve as the primary policy mechanism for countries to translate GBF targets including those focused on mutualism into national action. Furthermore, the literature emphasizes the importance of Policy Mixes the combination of various instruments such as taxes, tradable permits, and command-and-control regulations.

This approach has proven more effective at addressing multiple market failures and enhancing policy synergy, fostering a comprehensive governance structure that supports mutualistic outcomes (Persson, 2006);(Ji et al., 2022);(Dalhammar et al., 2018). Market-based instruments like carbon pricing also effectively promote eco-innovation, though they often require supplementation with stringent controls to drive more radical change (Sánchez & Deza 2015).

The real-world application of these mutualistic approaches provides valuable lessons. Successful case studies reveal common key factors in the finance realm, innovations such as ‘biodiversity credits’ and nature-linked green bonds are being explored as ways to scale up private sector investment. These instruments are designed to create a mutualistic link where financial returns are directly tied to verifiable ecological outcomes, aligning with the goal of increasing transparency and accountability in biodiversity finance.

For instance, successful cross-border cooperation between Cieszyn (Poland) and Cesky Tesin (Czech Republic) was driven by clear goals, diverse stakeholder involvement, and guaranteed mutual benefits (Kurowska-Pysz et al., 2018). Similarly, successful Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in developing countries and a university- city partnership in Malmö, Sweden, underscore the importance of strategic alignment, transparent and participatory governance, and mutual learning processes (Tanveer et al., 2025); (Stauffacher et al., 2008).

Conversely, cases of failure offer critical insights. One international alliance failed due to a high dependency on single-project success and the difficulty for small companies to lead independently, highlighting structural challenges for smaller actors (Hollins, 2006). Another example of a lack of mutualism in a production relationship between Finland and Somalia showed that without an equitable distribution of benefits and production capacity, such relationships become unsustainable (Fox et al., 2020).

From these cases, several universal lessons can be drawn. First, inclusivity and stakeholder engagement are fundamental prerequisites; all parties must have ownership and derive benefits. Second, success hinges on clear objectives and strategic alignment from the outset. Third, transparent and collaborative governance is crucial for building trust and ensuring accountability. Finally, a mutualistic approach must consciously address power and capacity imbalances, especially in international collaborations, to ensure equitable and sustainable relationships. Therefore, the application of appropriate policy instruments must be accompanied by careful and adaptive partnership design based on these lessons.

The shift from a paradigm of coexistence to one of mutualism demands a nuanced understanding of how biodiversity conservation efforts interact with the broader Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These interactions manifest as both mutually reinforcing synergies and conflict-laden trade-offs. This section reviews the most significant synergies, analyzes the primary areas of conflict, and outlines strategies for their management based on findings from the extant literature.

Biodiversity conservation efforts demonstrate powerful synergies with the achievement of several key SDGs. Most prominently, this is visible with SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), where ecosystem services such as pollination, natural pest control, and soil fertility all of which are underpinned by biodiversity are crucial for enhancing agricultural productivity and resilience (Yang et al., 2020);(Makwinja et al., 2022);(Hu et al., 2022). Ecosystem restoration programs have also been shown to synergistically advance SDG 2 (Yao et al., 2021). An equally strong synergy exists with SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), as healthy ecosystems act as natural water filters and protect watersheds, which is essential for maintaining water quality and availability (Yang et al., 2020); (Yao et al., 2021); (E et al., 2020). Furthermore, conservation is a core component of SDG 13 (Climate Action), given that biodiversity-rich ecosystems like forests and wetlands are vital for carbon sequestration and climate regulation (Yang et al., 2020); (Hu et al., 2022); (E et al., 2020). The synergies also extend to goals such as SDG 1 (No Poverty), where ecosystem services support local livelihoods through fisheries, forestry, and tourism, thereby offering pathways for poverty alleviation (Yang et al., 2020); (Sustainable protected areas: synergies between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic development, 2022); (Integrating ecology and poverty reduction: Ecological dimensions, 2012).

Despite these powerful synergies, conflicts between conservation and development objectives are unavoidable. The most acute trade-offs often emerge at the nexus of economic development and conservation. Agricultural expansion to meet food demands and the extraction of natural resources like oil, gas, and minerals frequently occur in areas of high biodiversity, creating direct conflicts (Grigg, 2007);(Chahar et al., 2016). Similarly, infrastructure development, including urbanization and port expansion, leads to habitat fragmentation and loss (Chahar et al., 2016); (Rajvanshi et al., 2009). Conflicts are also common within protected area management, where divergent stakeholder interests can impede the simultaneous achievement of social and environmental goals (Fisher et al., 2023).

The literature suggests several strategies to navigate these complex trade-offs. First, inclusive stakeholder engagement is critical for minimizing conflict and ensuring equitable outcomes, even if it is resource-intensive (Fisher et al., 2023); (Broussard et al., 2023). Second, analytical tools like Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) can help formally and transparently assess trade-offs between ecological and socio-economic goals (Drechsler, 2004). Third, the economic valuation of ecosystem services can build a compelling financial case for conservation, particularly for the finance sector (Grigg, 2007). Fourth, policy coherence between global biodiversity regimes and national policies, supported by a strong science-policy interface, is essential (Kedia & Anand, 2021). Finally, adaptive management approaches that embrace flexibility and a broader ethical-cultural discourse on the value of biodiversity can help manage uncertainty and align public perception with policy objectives (The emergence of biodiversity conflicts from biodiversity impacts: characteristics and management strategies, 2010); (Clémençon, 2021). By employing these strategies, it is possible to balance competing demands and steer interactions away from mere coexistence and toward genuine mutualism.

The shift from a paradigm of coexistence to one of mutualism demands a nuanced understanding of how biodiversity conservation efforts interact with the broader Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These interactions manifest as both mutually reinforcing synergies and conflict-laden trade-offs. On one hand, conservation efforts demonstrate powerful synergies with key goals, including SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), and SDG 13 (Climate Action), where healthy ecosystems provide foundational services. Conversely, the most acute trade-offs often emerge at the nexus of conservation and economic development objectives, such as those outlined in SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure). Navigating this complex landscape thus requires strategic management to mitigate negative impacts and foster mutually beneficial outcomes. The following Table 1 synthesizes these key interactions, illustrating the primary synergies, most common trade-offs, and proposed mutualistic management strategies for select, representative SDGs.

The transition toward mutualism requires concrete actions. For policymakers, this review highlights the need to move beyond fragmented, single-issue regulations toward integrated policy mixes that reward the generation of reciprocal benefits. This includes designing financial mechanisms like PES and green bonds that not only fund conservation but also create measurable value for development actors. Furthermore, establishing transparent and inclusive governance platforms is essential to manage trade-offs and build the trust necessary for multi-stakeholder partnerships to succeed.

For future research, several gaps need to be addressed. First, there is a pressing need for robust, standardized metrics to quantify ‘mutualism’ in practice—how can we measure the reciprocal benefits between development projects and ecosystem health? Second, more longitudinal case studies are required to track the socio-economic and ecological outcomes of projects that explicitly adopt a mutualistic framework. Finally, research should explore the cultural and social barriers to mutualism, such as power imbalances and historical distrust, and identify strategies to foster a collaborative ethos essential for sustainable development. Addressing these research questions will be vital to operationalize the mutualistic paradigm and accelerate progress toward the 2030 Agenda.