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 final free-flying condor, transferring it to captivity, and declared it extinct in the wild. Over the years, millions were invested in captive breeding and reintroduction, with over 300 condors now thriving in the wild. However, this success was met with controversy at various stages. Conservationists debated whether capturing every bird equated to rescue or surrender, while critics questioned if funds would better serve other threatened species.

Rural communities in Utah and Arizona worried about federal land-use limitations, and hunting groups, like the National Rifle Association, opposed lead ammunition bans, a major cause of condor deaths.

The condor's recovery highlights global debates on which species receive funding and who should bear costs. The U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity, convening from Oct. 19-30, 2026, in Yerevan, Armenia, aims to halt biodiversity loss through global goals like raising $200 billion annually to conserve and manage at least 30% of the world's land, coastal areas, and oceans. While the agreement doesn't dictate which species to save, it shapes national priorities and funds for conservation.

Conservation efforts impact local communities and businesses whose activities endanger certain species. Without local support, recovery initiatives may fail. An estimated 1 million species are currently at risk of extinction, and current progress on global biodiversity targets is insufficient. Conservationists must decide whether to fund expensive rescue efforts for critically endangered species or interventions benefiting multiple species.

Should resources focus on unique geographical organisms or species crucial for local livelihoods and ecosystem services?

Some species provide valuable ecosystem services, like pollinating crops or purifying water, benefiting humanity. The condor holds cultural significance for the Yurok Tribe in California. Conservationists argue that all living species possess an inherent right to exist, regardless of human usefulness. However, charismatic species often garner more support.

For instance, Greenpeace's "save the whales" campaign or the World Wildlife Fund's panda logo illustrate this trend. A 2025 study found that five mammal groups, including primates, carnivores, whales, elephants, and rhinos, received 86% of available funding in 14,000 conservation projects between 1992 and 2016, despite accounting for only one-third of threatened mammal projects.

Plants and invertebrates, crucial for pollination and sustaining food webs, received only 6.6% of the financial backing.

At the 2026 biodiversity conference, delegates will also tackle the question of who pays and who has a say when conservation affects local people. While conservationists celebrated wolf reintroductions in Europe over the past two decades, some farmers lost livestock and faced higher costs. EU funding programs support livestock protection, but farmers' input in wolf recovery is essential.

Conservation can fail if communities aren't consulted during planning. In Tanzania's Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Maasai people have fought against government orders to leave their ancestral land for lion conservation. In 2026, the COP17 conference will discuss creating a permanent advisory body to incorporate Indigenous peoples and local communities' knowledge and decisions into treaty decisions.

The agreement can influence ground-level actions, but its rules set the stage for national conservation priorities and guide the funds that support these efforts.