COP16 and the process of consolidating an inclusive conservation paradigm

The Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD) 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) approved the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), legitimizing a paradigm shift for conservation to link decisions and outcomes with diverse social actors (CBD, 2022). For example, target 3 aims to protect 30% of the planet by 2030. However, this 30×30 target must be met via equitable governance that recognizes and respects the rights and values of Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPs&LCs). Furthermore, the GBF incorporates non-Western understandings of nature and people−nature relationships (e.g., Mother Earth, nature's gifts, living in harmony with nature). Recently, COP16 was to implement this inclusive vision, but parties did not reach a consensus on a new financing mechanism besides the Global Environmental Facility and a comprehensive monitoring system for national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) (Affinito et al., 2024). So, was COP16 a failure?

To staunch biodiversity loss, conservation biologists have striven to transcend biology (Soulé, 1985), and despite its legacy (i.e., Global North, natural sciences), conservation increasingly has incorporated more perspectives (Mace, 2014). Soulé’s foundational treatise detailed biological subdisciplines needed for conservation (e.g., genetics, population biology, physiology), but delimited social aspects to practical issues (e.g., natural resource management), general social sciences, and ecophilosophy. Subsequently, however, these human dimensions have flourished (Bennett et al., 2016, 2017). Furthermore, other disciplines and traditions have been working at this interface from other starting points (e.g., decades ago, the International Society for Ethnobiology's Declaration of Belem affirmed the link between biological and cultural diversity) (ISE, 1988).

Conservation policy displays a similar process. Approved in 1992, the CBD's preamble detailed a range of biodiversity values, including intrinsic, ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational, and aesthetic. It also enumerated some issues concerning diverse actors (e.g., protecting customary use of biological resources based on traditional cultural practices compatible with conservation). However, the CBD's NBSAPs generally have not incorporated plurality in actions and indicators (Murali et al., 2024). Nonetheless, at least in their NBSAPs, developing nations, particularly in Africa, have been better than developed ones at mainstreaming biodiversity conservation across sectors and incorporating more stakeholders (Whitehorn et al., 2019).

Broadly, conservation has morphed from “nature for itself” and “nature despite people” to “nature for people” and “nature and people” (Mace, 2014). Although ways of thinking and doing comingle, rather than being successional (Anderson & Pizarro, 2023), the latter two categories are increasingly prevalent in science-policy interfaces (IPBES, 2022). For example, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’ conceptual framework includes notions like “nature's contributions to people” and plural valuation (Pascual et al., 2023). Similarly, new ways of addressing people−nature relationships are being systematized for broader use by the United Nation's Harmony with Nature initiative (http://harmonywithnatureun.org/), which collates global efforts regarding the rights of nature.

The COP16 did produce concrete outcomes. For instance, Colombia's vice president spearheaded an agreement to incorporate Afro-descendent and diaspora communities into efforts to empower women and girls, youths, and Indigenous peoples. A new CBD subsidiary body was created to provide a formal participation mechanism in the treaty for these IPs&LCs. Another agreement established the Cali Fund, enabling voluntary, private-sector contributions for equitable benefit sharing with IPs&LCs of economic resources obtained from biodiversity's genetic codes. Colombia also successfully made this the “people's COP.” Unlike official negotiations open only to CBD-accredited delegates, downtown Cali hosted public activities. Approximately 40,000 people a day attended numerous stands and events (e.g., local schools talking about urban gardens and the national police presenting special units dedicated to water and wildlife trafficking). Furthermore, there were open academic and political debates and nightly concerts featuring musicians who brought their territories’ biocultural stories, values, and struggles to the stage. Finally, thousands of signatures were gathered to support the Peace with Nature initiative (in Spanish, the term implies peace with and through nature). The COP16 was not just about inclusivity, it embodied it.

Paradigms do not change merely with good ideas (Kuhn, 1962). They require leadership, linking concepts with actions, and building new institutions. Considering this paradigm shift's broader sociohistorical process, there is encouraging evidence worldwide of efforts to facilitate “knowledge dialogue” between actors and traditions (Anderson et al., 2015). In my 25-year career in Latin America, I have witnessed a flourishing garden of initiatives. In Chile, young academics created the Society for Socioecological and Ethnoecological Studies (https://www.sosoet.cl/); in Argentina, the National Parks Administration has sought to transform traditional fortress conservation by linking parks with communities and their ways of life (https://www.argentina.gob.ar/interior/ambiente/parquesnacionales/recuperacion-sustentable-de-paisajes-y-medios-de-vida-en-09); and in Colombia, despite decades of strife, IPs&LCs are challenging Western legal definitions and gaining novel status for rivers as “subjects of rights” and as “victims of violence” (https://www.jep.gov.co/Sala-de-Prensa/Paginas/-la-jep-acredita-como-victima-al-rio-cauca-en-el-caso-05.aspx).

Conservation Biology too accompanies this process. Authors can appeal decisions, empowering those who feel their discipline or methods were not adequately assessed, and we sought to unify criteria and communicate expectations to authors for social science contributions (Teel et al., 2018). Years ago, we incorporated regional editors to provide more global perspectives, and to confront parachute science, we now require authors to identify the countries where data were collected and whether authorship reflects this provenance. In 2024 and 2025, we are publishing special issues on diverse voices in conservation, conservation social sciences, and people-centered conservation in Brazil. As we confront the challenges implied in shifting paradigms, and as acting editor-in-chief, I call on us all to renew our commitment to collaborating with the entire conservation community to enhance our already rigorous and legitimate editorial processes.

There are reasons to doubt and reasons to hope. During my sabbatical in Cali at the Universidad del Valle, I was encouraged to find inclusive conservation consolidating alongside COP16. At one event, the Cauca River Collective convened actors from throughout the watershed, including judges, authorities, ecologists, economists, river guardians, community elders, and school children, to carry out a symbolic act of restitution to the river as a victim of violence. They not only discussed, networked, and planned for the river, but also connected with it through ceremony and song. Later, at an activity organized by the Chontaduro Cultural House, an Afro-descendent community center that defines itself as “a space for dreaming and constructing a different world,” I was reminded that we are the ancestors of tomorrow. Regarding this paradigm shift, let us take responsibility and be the ancestors who leave a legacy of inclusive conservation.