This is why a growing group, of which we are part, have been pushing hard for a systemic alternative, a \u2018convivial conservation\u2019 that confronts the root causes of the crisis: an unjust capitalist economy bent on continual growth through land use change, resource extraction and worker exploitation. To some, this seems radical. And if radical is defined etymologically as \u2018going to the roots,\u2019 then it is: convivial conservation goes straight to the roots of the biodiversity crisis. But in another sense, it is not at all. Radical in the common sense of \u2018extreme\u2019 is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.<\/p>\n
For conservation, this has meant increasing protected areas and appeasing, even embracing, economic \u2018business as usual.\u2019 And despite some more progressive nudges, these are also the continued cornerstones of the 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Most conservation leaders ultimately still believe that separating humans and the rest of nature while embracing capitalist market logics (through forms of \u2018natural capital\u2019 valuation) can be the basis for the solution going forward. The extreme consequences of this approach for biodiversity as well as climate change are visible all around us.<\/p>\n
Trump, if anything, is another extreme yet logical consequence of capitalist business-as-usual, and conservationists will be wondering what this will mean going forward. And they know it will not be good. If we learned anything from Trump\u2019s first presidency, it is that he was openly hostile to all environmental issues. And now he will come back with a vengeance and an even more extreme agenda.<\/p>\n
We wrote about the consequences of Trump becoming president the first time in our 2020 book \u2018The Conservation Revolution.\u2019 There, we argued that, like the climate, biodiversity is very \u201clikely to suffer under a Trump presidency\u201d but that \u201cthis is not the only reason why his election is significant for conservation.\u201d We argued that there is a much bigger challenge facing conservation, and we referred to this as the \u2018Trump moment in conservation\u2019:<\/p>\n
\u201cBasically, the Trump moment means that mainstream conservation refuses \u2013 at its own peril and that of the biodiversity it aims to conserve \u2013 to properly acknowledge the root causes of biodiversity loss and to support the radical types of responses necessary to halt and reverse this trend. Instead, [\u2026], many conservationists are content \u2013 often proudly or \u2018pragmatically\u2019 so \u2013 to join forces with the economic logics and institutions of destruction behind such terms as \u2018natural capital\u2019 or \u2018ecosystem services.\u2019 In doing so, they might occasionally slow down some biodiversity loss in some places. But at the very same time they strengthen the broader drivers of biodiversity destruction that completely undermine the small gains that might be made. This is the conservation equivalent of the \u2018Trump moment,\u2019 which can only be tackled by taking and supporting much more radical action.\u201d<\/p>\n
Now that we are facing a \u2018Trump moment in Conservation, Part II,\u2019 we can say it even more bluntly: conservation has never truly addressed the fundamental power structures that lead to biodiversity loss. And it let itself believe that under Biden it could go back to doing what it had always done: expand protected areas and work with business-as-usual economic interests. Basically, to \u2018tweak\u2019 the system instead of strongly opposing it; to intensify well-worn strategies rather than engage in radical experimentation that inspires real transformation. In so doing, conservation sometimes wins some battles, but it consistently loses the overall war.<\/p>\n
The question is whether \u2018Trump II\u2019 will be the wake-up call that\u2019s needed. The conservative, cautious and business-as-usual forces remain very strong in the conservation movement, despite its continuous apocalyptic messaging that the world is on fire and transformative change must happen now. But when push comes to shove, mainstream conservation tends to fall in line with the powers that be, regardless of how destructive they are. The first announcements by major conservation organizations that they will continue business-as-usual, including working with Trump, have already appeared.<\/p>\n
We want to urgently repeat our earlier plea: this second \u2018Trump moment in conservation\u2019 must be a wake-up call to the futility of this approach. Conservation must stop hiding behind its objective science, its pragmatic politics and its feel-good appeal to reorganize as a counter-hegemonic force in alliance with other movements around the world (climate justice, land back, Fridays for the Future and many more) that seek genuine system change. Not doing so enables more Donald Trump, more Viktor Orban, more destruction, more cynicism, more inequality and more extinction.<\/p>\n
We need a radical convivial conservation movement, now more than ever. And we call upon the conservation sector to adopt, embrace and help build this. If Trump II is not a wake-up call, then what is?<\/p>\n