Corporate-led 'rewilding' fails to address land-grabbing, Indigenous displacement, and colonial biodiversity metrics
Original framing: “New biodiversity framework estimates what landscapes could support, not just what lives there” — Phys.org
The framework ignores that Indigenous peoples manage 80% of the world’s biodiversity, yet their land tenure is insecure in 90% of cases. For example, the *Mbororo* pastoralists of Brazil have maintained savanna biodiversity through rotational grazing for centuries, but their access to land is increasingly restricted by 'protected area' designations. The framework’s 'landscape potential' metrics assume land is empty until 'restored,' erasing Indigenous fire ecology (e.g., the Kariera people’s use of fire in Australia) and agroforestry systems (e.g., the *chagga* terraces of Tanzania). Without centering Indigenous data sovereignty, any 'biodiversity gain' will be extractive, not regenerative.
The biodiversity framework is not a neutral scientific tool but a **neocolonial project** that recasts Indigenous land as a calculable resource while obscuring the structural drivers of ecological collapse: agribusiness, urbanization, and climate migration.
Its focus on 'landscape potential' mirrors historical land grabs, where Indigenous stewardship is erased in favor of corporate 'restoration.' The solution lies in **decolonizing conservation**—centering Indigenous data sovereignty, redistributing land from corporations to communities, and integrating artistic and spiritual ecologies into biodiversity metrics. This requires dismantling the myth that biodiversity can be restored without justice, and instead treating ecosystems as **living relations**, not static resources. The trickster reveals the truth: what appears as ecological progress is often a trojan horse for deeper extraction, and the only way forward is to name that deception.