Who should have a say in which species are saved? The California condor offers lessons for a global biodiversity treaty

In 1987, biologists captured the last wild California condor to save the species from extinction, marking the official end of its free-flying population. The California condor is the largest flying bird in North America, and its decline was driven by factors like lead poisoning from ammunition, habitat loss, and low reproduction rates. After decades of captive breeding and reintroduction efforts costing millions of dollars, over 300 condors now fly in the wild again. This recovery is considered a conservation success, but it was highly controversial. Some experts debated whether trapping all remaining birds was a rescue effort or an unnecessary surrender. Others argued that the high costs could have been better spent on other threatened species. The condor’s story highlights the challenges of prioritizing which species to save when resources are limited.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is an international agreement adopted in 2022 to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. It sets goals to conserve and manage at least 30% of the world’s land, coastal areas, and oceans by 2030, stop human-caused extinctions, and help struggling species survive. To achieve these targets, the agreement aims to raise $200 billion annually from public and private sources by 2030. However, the treaty does not specify which species should be prioritized for protection. Instead, it provides a framework for countries to set their own conservation priorities and allocate funds accordingly. Early assessments suggest that the world is currently falling short of most of these global biodiversity targets.

With over 1 million species threatened with extinction worldwide, conservationists face difficult choices about which species to protect due to limited resources. They must weigh trade-offs, such as funding expensive rescue efforts for nearly extinct species versus interventions that benefit multiple species at once. Some species are prioritized for their ecological roles, like honeybees, which pollinate $15 billion worth of crops annually in the U.S. alone. Others are valued for their cultural or spiritual significance, such as the California condor, which holds deep meaning for the Yurok Tribe. Conservation efforts often focus on charismatic species—animals like pandas or elephants that attract public support and funding. A 2025 study found that five mammal groups (primates, carnivores, whales, elephants, and rhinos) received 86% of conservation funding despite making up only one-third of threatened mammal projects. In contrast, plants and invertebrates, which are vital for pollination and nutrient cycling, received just 6.6% of funding.

Conservation efforts often affect local communities whose livelihoods depend on the land or resources being protected. For example, the reintroduction of wolves in Europe has led to livestock losses for farmers, who then face higher costs to protect their herds. While the European Union provides funding to support these farmers, their ability to influence wolf recovery plans remains a point of contention. In Tanzania’s Ngorongoro Conservation Area, the Maasai people have fought for years against government orders to leave their ancestral lands to protect lions and other wildlife. In March 2026, presidential commissions recommended continuing these evictions, a decision that Indigenous advocates criticized for excluding Maasai input. These examples show that conservation projects can fail if local communities are not consulted or involved in decision-making.

The 2026 biodiversity conference will focus on ensuring that Indigenous peoples and local communities have a meaningful say in conservation decisions on their lands. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework calls for a “whole-of-society” approach, recognizing that protecting nature requires more than just government action. In 2024, countries created a permanent advisory body to include Indigenous knowledge and perspectives in treaty decisions. At the 2026 conference, delegates must agree on how this body will operate and whether Indigenous communities will have formal decision-making power. They will also discuss guidelines for applying the 30% global conservation targets in Indigenous territories. The goal is to design conservation programs with local communities rather than for them, ensuring that efforts are sustainable and trusted.