Conservation is often framed as a technical exercise: how much land to protect, which species to prioritize, what policies deliver measurable gains. A recent paper in Nature, A Framework for Addressing Racial and Related Inequities in Conservation, argues that this framing overlooks a deeper constraint. Many of the field’s most persistent problems, the authors contend, stem from how power, history, and exclusion continue to shape conservation practice.
The paper traces modern conservation’s institutional roots to the colonial era, when protected areas were frequently established through the removal or restriction of Indigenous peoples and rural communities. Land was treated as empty, and local use as degradation. While conservation has changed since then, the authors argue that these early assumptions were never fully dismantled. They persist in subtler forms, influencing who defines conservation priorities, whose knowledge counts as expertise, and who absorbs the costs of protection.
One consequence, the authors suggest, is the continued marginalization of Indigenous peoples and local communities, particularly in the Global South. These groups are often labeled as stakeholders or beneficiaries, rather than rights-holders with authority over their lands. Consultation may occur, but usually after decisions are already set. Participation is often limited to implementation, not governance. Even projects presented as inclusive can reproduce older hierarchies if power remains concentrated elsewhere.
The paper situates these concerns within the current push to expand protected areas globally, including proposals to conserve 30% of land and seas by 2030. Such targets, the authors note, are not inherently unjust. They could support Indigenous-managed territories and community-led conservation. But where legal systems fail to recognize customary land rights, the expansion of protected areas risks reinforcing state control and repeating past harms, even when ecological outcomes appear positive.
The authors also examine how conservation narratives value lives differently. Campaigns aimed at audiences in wealthy countries often emphasize the moral worth of wildlife, while paying less attention to the risks borne by people living alongside animals. When conflict occurs, local injury or death may receive limited attention compared to the killing of a charismatic species. The paper argues that these asymmetries reflect deeper processes of othering that shape whose suffering is acknowledged.
To address such patterns, the authors propose the RACE framework: Rights, Agency, Challenge, and Education. The framework is not offered as a checklist, but as a way for conservation institutions to examine their own assumptions. It emphasizes respect for human rights, meaningful local authority, accountability when harm occurs, and greater awareness of conservation’s own history.
The paper’s conclusion is restrained. Conservation alone cannot resolve social inequity, the authors note. But ignoring how inequality is embedded in conservation practice undermines both justice and effectiveness. Conservation, they argue, is ultimately about relationships. When those relationships are treated as secondary, ecological gains are often fragile, and conflict becomes harder to avoid.
