Intertwined threats of nationalized nature and privatized ecological research for global biodiversity conservation

Abstract The delineation of nature by political borders and the restricted accessibility of ecological research data present intertwined challenges to global biodiversity conservation. We examined how the nationalization of biodiversity and the privatization of ecological data hinder effective cross‐boundary management of natural resources and perpetuate socioeconomic inequities. The ecological consequences of imposing geopolitical boundaries on species distributions include fragmented management regimes, inconsistent protection across ranges, and misaligned conservation priorities for transboundary populations. Biases inherent in national species assessments lead to systematic misclassification of conservation status, distorted estimates of biodiversity change, and inefficient allocation of conservation resources across borders. The limitations arising from anthropocentric terminology in conservation science can reinforce false native–non‐native dichotomies, obscure context‐dependent ecological impacts, and undermine transboundary management coherence. We argue that existing conservation frameworks have struggled to address these challenges at scale due to entrenched institutional constraints. As a way forward, we advocate for supranational ecological governance grounded in open‐access data, equitable funding, and collaborative frameworks that transcend political boundaries.