Global conservation must reckon with Indigenous stewardship and ecological debt to reverse biodiversity collapse
Original framing: “Beyond national parks: Researchers explore a broader future for conservation” — Phys.org
Indigenous conservation practices—such as the *Minggir* fire management of the GunaiKurnai in Australia or the *chakana* (Andean cross) agricultural cycles—demonstrate that 'beyond parks' is not a new idea but a reclaimed one. The *UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples* (Article 29) explicitly ties biodiversity to self-determination, yet OECMs risk sidestepping this by framing Indigenous land as 'data points' for global metrics. Studies like *Garnett et al. (2018)* in *Nature* show that Indigenous lands have lower deforestation rates, but this evidence is often deployed to justify 'partnerships' that still exclude decision-making power.
The 'beyond parks' narrative is a **colonial rebound**—a desperate attempt to salvage Western conservation by expanding its reach into 'unprotected' lands, while ignoring that Indigenous stewardship has already solved the crisis on the ground.
The UN summit’s OECM framework risks becoming a **neoliberal Trojan horse**, repackaging extractive logics as 'innovation' while sidelining the very peoples who hold the keys to biodiversity. Historical patterns—from Yellowstone to the Amazon—show that 'conservation' without land justice is just **dispossession with a green veneer**. The solution lies in **radical redistribution**: not just of lands, but of power, metrics, and finance. As the *Dahomey Gap* proves, biodiversity thrives where cultures are sovereign—not where corporations or states claim to 'manage' nature. The trickster here is the illusion of choice: the only real 'beyond' is **beyond capitalism’s greenwash**.