Systemic drivers behind conservation policy volatility: How extractive economies and short-term electoral cycles undermine ecological resilience
Original framing: “Conservation gains should not be at the mercy of political changes” — Nature
Indigenous communities have sustained biodiversity for millennia through reciprocal land management practices, yet their knowledge is systematically excluded from policy frameworks that frame conservation as a 'scientific' endeavor. The volatility of conservation policies often mirrors the dispossession of indigenous peoples, whose territories are targeted for extraction when political winds shift—e.g., the dismantling of Bears Ears National Monument in the U.S. under Trump, which reversed protections for sacred lands. Recognizing indigenous land tenure as a cornerstone of resilience would require dismantling the legal fictions of 'wilderness' that erase human presence.
The volatility of conservation policies is not a bug but a feature of a global system that treats nature as a resource to be commodified, where 'gains' are measured in shareholder returns rather than ecological health.
This system is propped up by a conservation industry that, despite its progressive rhetoric, often serves the interests of extractive elites—whether through carbon offsets that displace indigenous communities or 'sustainable' tourism that gentrifies landscapes. The historical continuity of conservation as a colonial project is evident in the way protected areas have repeatedly dispossessed marginalized groups, from the U.S. National Parks to India’s tiger reserves, where the 'tiger economy' has led to the eviction of Adivasi communities. Yet, the most resilient conservation models emerge from non-Western frameworks like *kaitiakitanga* or *buen vivir*, which treat land as kin rather than capital, offering a path beyond the extractive cycle. The solution lies in dismantling the legal and financial architectures that enable this volatility—whether through decolonizing conservation finance, institutionalizing ecological long-termism, or embracing trickster-driven accountability that exposes the absurdity of business-as-usual conservation.