ABSTRACTIn view of the Aichi international policy targets to expand areas under conservation, we analyze to what extent conservation has become an inherent element of extraction. We scrutinize the Land Sparing versus Land Sharing debate by explicitly incorporating environmental justice issues of access to land and natural resources. We contend that dominant conservation regimes, embedded within Land Sparing, legitimize the displacement of local people and their land use to compensate for distant, unsustainable resource use. In contrast, the Land Sharing counternarrative, by promoting spatial integration of conservation in agroecological systems, has the potential to radically challenge extraction. Common ground emerges around the concept of sustainable intensification. We contend that if inserted in green economy's technocentric and efficiency-oriented framework, sustainable intensification will contribute to undermining diversified peasant agroecological systems by transforming them into simplified, export-orientated ones, thereby stripping peasant communities of the capacity to provide for their own needs.
This paper reviews recent work concerning the impact of geopolitics on wildlife conservation (and vice versa), and identifies future priorities in conservation geopolitics research. Geopolitics is understood as both: (i) an analytical focus on geopolitical practices, especially concerning the behaviour of countries with respect to territory and national security, and (ii) a set of theories that have been developed to explain and predict those behaviours. We develop a typology of core geopolitical practices of relevance to conservation, including territorial practices of colonisation and the management of migrations and borders, and security practices relating to military, economic, and environmental security. We proceed by identifying research that considers how these practices affect conservation situations and outcomes, noting the recent emergence of conceptual developments such as 'environmental geopolitics' and 'geopolitical ecology' that draw on multiple fields within the social sciences to theorise the links between geopolitics and environmental management. A 'geopolitical perspective' is defined as a focus on geopolitical practices combined with an explicit engagement with geopolitical theory, and we identify areas where this perspective has been, and could be more effectively brought to bear. In conclusion, we suggest four pressing priorities in conservation research to which the geopolitical perspective might contribute: how political and economic differences between countries affect biodiversity outcomes, how geopolitical practices to address those differences might facilitate or frustrate conservation efforts, how national borders and human and wildlife movements might be better managed for the benefit of both, and how conservation strategies might be best selected to suit existing (and future) geopolitical realities.