No abstract

Early definitions of conservation focused largely on the end goals of protection or restoration of nature, and the various disciplinary domains that contribute to these ends. Conservation science and practice has evolved beyond being focused on just issues of scarcity and biodiversity decline. To better recognize the inherent links between human behaviour and conservation, “success” in conservation is now being defined in terms that include human rights and needs. We also know that who engages in conservation, and how, dictates the likelihood that conservation science will be embraced and applied to yield conservation gains. Here we present ideas for reconceptualizing conservation. We emphasize the HOW in an attempt to reorient and repurpose the term in ways that better reflect what contemporary conservation is or might aspire to be. To do so, we developed an acrostic using the letters in the term “CONSERVATION” with each serving as an adjective where C = co-produced, O = open, N = nimble, S = solutions-oriented, E = empowering, R = relational, V = values-based, A = actionable, T = transdisciplinary, I = inclusive, O = optimistic, and N = nurturing. For each adjective, we briefly describe our reasoning for its selection and describe how it contributes to our vision of conservation. By reconceptualizing conservation we have the potential to center how we do conservation in ways that are more likely to result in outcomes that benefit biodiversity while also being just, equitable, inclusive, and respectful of diverse rights holders, knowledge holders, and other actors. We hope that this acrostic will be widely adopted in training to help the next generation of conservation researchers and practitioners keep in mind what it will take to make their contributions effective and salient.

Both the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG) explicitly emphasized the role of educators in “reconciliation.” Alongside this, conservation practitioners are increasingly interacting with Indigenous Peoples in various ways, such as in the creation and support of Indigenous protected areas and (or) guardian programs. This paper considers how faculty teaching aspiring conservation practitioners can respond appropriately to the TRC and MMIWG Inquiry while preparing students to engage with Indigenous Peoples in a way that affirms, rather than questions Indigenous knowledge and aspirations. Our argument is threefold: first, teaching Indigenous content requires an approach grounded in transformational change, not one focused on an “add Indigenous and stir” pedagogy. Second, we assert that students need to know how to ethically engage with Indigenous Peoples more than they need knowledge of discreet facts. Finally, efforts to “Indigenize” the academy requires an emphasis on anti-racism, humility, reciprocity, and a willingness to confront ongoing colonialism and white supremacy. This paper thus focuses on the broad change that must occur within universities to adequately prepare students to build and maintain reconciliatory relationships with Indigenous Peoples.

No abstract