Investing in Biodiversity, Investing in Justice: Rethinking Conservation Finance

By Rhea Tibrewala

Source:

Money follows data, but who controls the data that shapes conservation funding decisions?

In the face of a mounting global biodiversity crisis, the funding gap for wildlife conservation is staggering. Though , this falls short of the estimated $824 billion needed each year to meet national biodiversity targets.

While this year’s World Wildlife Day theme: “Wildlife Conservation Finance: Investing in People and Planet” addresses financial solutions for wildlife conservation, it also raises the important question of whether the data influencing investment decisions in this area lead to equitable outcomes. Following this, we must ask ourselves — who controls biodiversity data? Whose knowledge is valued, and who gets left out of conservation finance decisions? Are current conservation funding models reinforcing historical injustices?

Examining the underlying data, identifying any gaps, and removing any biases is key to shifting towards more inclusive conservation finance models, which ensures that resources are directed towards where their impact is most needed.

The hidden inequities in biodiversity monitoring

Global biodiversity data has been shaped over the years by historical, economic and political forces. such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) show that biodiversity monitoring is disproportionately concentrated in wealthier countries, areas with existing research infrastructure, or former colonial hubs.

For example, biodiversity data collection in Nigeria saw a dramatic shift post-independence, with local organizations publishing 70% of the country’s species observations, compared to just 28% under British rule during the colonial period. Similarly, there was a sharp decline in biodiversity data collection in Cambodia during its civil war in the 1970s, resulting in long-term gaps in conservation knowledge that remain to this day.

Why do these disparities matter in the context of conservation funding? Essentially, because the money follows the data, and areas with limited data availability often struggle to attract investment, despite being home to endangered species or fragile ecosystems. Without funding, these regions remain limited in their ability to conduct further monitoring and research, creating a self-reinforcing cycle.

The case for data justice

Another aspect to consider is the historical dominance of North American and Western European-led institutions in the global biodiversity research landscape.

Indigenous communities and local conservation groups around the world often lack access to major funding streams — not for lack of effort, but because their knowledge is not captured by dominant global conservation frameworks. Without resources to build and contribute to globally recognized biodiversity databases, their work remains invisible to investors.

This imbalance influences funding models towards prioritizing global conservation initiatives, rather than grassroots or locally-led efforts, raising the question — whose knowledge drives decision making in conservation finance?

for researchers draws on existing work in environmental justice to propose some key questions that should form the basis for guiding conservation finance decisions, such as:

• Who funds the collection of conservation data?
• Who uses the data, and how?
• Who benefits, and who pays the costs as a result of the policies shaped by this data?

Answering these questions may help address some of the existing power imbalances in decision making.

Moving beyond parachute science

Parachute or helicopter science is another harmful practice, in which external researchers collect biodiversity data without meaningful collaboration with local experts.

that a large proportion of the world’s biodiversity is found in Indigenous lands. However, local conservationists are often sidelined from research leadership, funding, and policy-making, which is problematic on multiple levels.

For one, external researchers may overlook important contextual factors when trying to understand local biodiversity. What’s more, community-led conservation can often be more effective in creating a sense of shared ownership, while top-down approaches can often feel forced and disconnected from the lived experiences of those affected.

In some cases, top-down conservation approaches can actively harm local communities. , the government of Tanzania has begun to evict the Maasai people from the Ngorongoro Conservation Area to expand foreign-funded tourism and carbon-credit projects. This so-called “fortress conservation approach” has led to escalated tensions between the Maasai and law enforcement, prioritizing profit over the rights of this Indigenous community which has coexisted with wildlife for generations.

Not more data — better data

So how can the imbalances in conservation data be addressed?

Technological innovations have enabled biodiversity data collection at a much larger scale, but the fundamental issue is not the amount of data available. Removing biases from available and new data is the key to ensuring fairer decision making when it comes to conservation investment decisions.

We can begin by integrating multiple forms of biodiversity knowledge, rather than focusing entirely on current datasets.

Researchers from traditionally overrepresented regions need to go beyond acknowledging the biases shaping their work — they must actively collaborate with local communities to ensure that local contexts and knowledge are reflected. Similarly, institutions in resource-rich regions can play a role, funding underrepresented researchers, amplifying their voices in decision making, and allocating resources to diversity initiatives. Finally, publishers, who shape global discourse on biodiversity should also try to promote inclusivity by supporting multilingual research, diversifying peer review panels, and making publications more financially accessible.

Reforming conservation finance

Once the underlying data biases are addressed, we can begin to think about how to reform conservation finance.

Decentralized funding models, for example, can help shift investment towards local conservation efforts. Other proposed include Wildlife Conservation Bonds and Debt-for-Nature swaps, that convert national debt into direct funding for conservation efforts in underfunded regions. (PES) models are another alternative being explored, under which local communities are engaged and compensated for protecting and maintaining ecosystem services.

As the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework aims for $200 billion in annual biodiversity investments by 2030, we have to change the focus from how much we invest to how we invest.

Data is power in conservation finance. Failing to address the historical inequities in biodiversity data collection, access, and decision-making, will result in the continual funding of conservation projects that reinforce global imbalances, rather than rectify them.

Instead — let’s embrace data justice and equitable financing models, ensuring that conservation dollars reach those who are on the front lines of protecting biodiversity — not just those who have the most data.

References:

• CITES, 2025
• Biodiversity Monitoring for a Just Planetary Future. (2024). Science.
• Pritchard, R., Sauls, L.A., Oldekop, J.A., et al. (2022). “Data Justice and Biodiversity Conservation.” Conservation Biology.
• Garnett, S.T., et al. (2018). “A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation.” Nature Sustainability.
• Nature.org, 2025
• International Institute for Environment and Development, 2025