Seeing beyond the frames we inherit: A challenge to tenacious conservation narratives

“…Such tendencies distort both ecological and social realities in the context where FLR takes place. Attention is therefore needed to improve research practices and communicate FLR imperatives with the public, private and political spheres which does not resort to idealised and misleading frames (Chignell and Satterfield, 2023). New narratives which better capture the lived experiences and realities of contexts facing environmental degradation must be communicated for more relevant solutions which do not undermine social justice in pursuit of addressing global environmental challenges (Ramčilović-Suominen et al, 2023).…”

“…In particular, implicit framing of human–nature divide pervades mainstream conservation training. For example, persistent narratives of population growth and livestock expansion as threats to biodiversity in the Bale Mountains of Ethiopia legitimize efforts to resettle the people living there, despite evidence that population growth and livestock do not threaten biodiversity (Chignell & Satterfield, 2023 ). The idea that more data are better and necessary for effective conservation may direct more funding and research to data‐driven and digital‐technology‐enabled approaches (e.g., Bezos Earth Fund's AI Grand Challenge for Climate and Nature [ https://www.bezosearthfund.org/news‐and‐insights/phase‐i‐grants‐ai‐grand‐challenge‐climate‐nature ]) and detract from processes that could achieve more just social and ecological outcomes.…”

“…In our reflexive analysis of Step 2, we saw how conservation power dynamics can become institutionally ingrained as part of the epistemic culture and be difficult to shift. Organizational change through an epistemic justice lens involves expanding knowledge production practices, reevaluating how one values diverse professional experiences, and reconsidering who is recognized as authoritative (Chignell & Satterfield, 2023 ). These kinds of changes to redress testimonial injustice can unsettle deep‐seated ideas about what constitutes legitimate expertise.…”