Confronting parachute science in conservation

Parachute, or colonial, science is increasingly becoming a hot topic of discussion across scientific disciplines (e.g., de Vos, 2020; Stefanoudis et al., 2021), as we collectively seek to understand and improve the globalization of science. Parachute conservation is at a critical crossroads, as we recognize how wealth and opportunity disparity, along with the enduring long shadow of colonialism, hinders our progress on shared conservation goals. We can, and must, do better. Parachute science occurs when scientists and/or NGOs from the Global North venture to the Global South to conduct research or deploy programs and fail to invest in, fully partner with, or recognize local governance, capacity, expertise, and social structures. The issue is broad and universal, emerging from scientists, NGOs, and governments alike. Parachute conservation, often well-intentioned, results in unacceptable power imbalances, hindering conservation efforts. A simple and common manifestation of parachute conservation occurs when work is prioritized by the outsider's motives and needs, rather than the in-country or on-location requirements (de Vos, 2020). Bringing with them resources that are not available in-country, parachuting conservation scientists and practitioners can take control of agendas and drive undesirable outcomes. But, parachuting can manifest in many forms and guises. It is not just the result of unequal partnerships between collaborators from countries of varying wealth, but can also transpire within countries when nonlocals come in to implement a project. We have assembled 10 examples that help us explore and more fully recognize the wide variety of issues associated with parachute conservation. Through this effort, we hope to move conservation science and practice toward a more holistic understanding of the problem and, ultimately, solutions. Our contributing authors go beyond describing the problem to discussing best practices for behaving in these complex partnerships to building true international collaborations. Each piece reminds us that there are better ways to do science and conservation involving equitable partnerships that address on-the-ground priorities, benefit all parties involved, and result in positive research, learning and conservation outcomes. Key points common across these perspectives are that achieving equitable conservation partnerships requires building trust and long-term commitment; partnerships are built, earned, and maintained; not assumed and handed over. There are, no doubt, many additional viewpoints on this. We offer this special feature as a starting point and welcome the submission of additional perspectives and solutions, as we further our understanding of how to build globally dispersed capacity and success in conservation. We seek to magnify and multiply decolonized approaches to conservation. To resolve an issue, we must first understand why it occurs. The predominance of the western-centric approach to science and conservation, wealth disparities, the hegemony of English, and a lack of pluralistic approaches are obvious drivers of inappropriate power structures in conservation (de Vos, 2022). Ultimately, parachute science challenges all of us (de Vos, 2022). Our contributions also show how those from the Global South must recognize their potential for complicity. Over-confidence in those who hold financial resources devalues local knowledge and skills. The soft complicity of Global South governments and institutions helps to maintain a flawed system of power disparities. A lack of allyship amongst Global South researchers exacerbates the challenge. Crowder's (2022) personal experiences remind us of the need for humility and a willingness to listen as the first steps to progress on this issue. Crowder also emphasizes that capacity-building occurs in both directions, and existing local capacity provides the foundation for successful projects. Patel (2022), writing from different personal experience, points out that scientists from the Global North whose familial roots lie in the Global South, diaspora, can face unique challenges when striving to work in either place. Mwampamba et al. (2022) expand on this issue detailing the potential costs to expatriates from the Global South employed in the Global North as they strive to do conservation work in their home lands. Four articles consider colonial science structures that have hindered the globalization of conservation science, each proposing how these can be re-envisioned to help alleviate parachute science. Noting that pro-forma forced collaborations with local institutions and students are prone to lack depth, opportunity, and durability, Johnson et al. (2022), highlight the importance of long-term investments for sustained conservation action. Using a case study of a program designed to increase national capacity for conservation science and practice in Lao PDR, they shift the focus toward capacity building, education and measuring long-term conservation impact. To build equal capacity globally, we must also address global imbalances in access to resources and information. Local governance can often appear as an impediment to collaboration, yet exist as a logical response to prior practices by external researchers, NGOs, and institutions. Genda et al. (2022) remind us that it is essential to respect local governance structures. These authors note that the situation, not the expertise of the parachuting scientist, drives the success of initiatives. They also emphasize the thoughtful building of educational or awareness programs, focusing on critical knowledge gaps and key demographics within local communities while being mindful and respectful of governing institutions. Asase et al. (2022) argue that building open access data platforms can provide a firm foundation for truly globalizing conservation science. From remote sensing data to field collections, the lack of access to information from under-resourced countries hinders the progress of science in developing countries. They argue that providing open access to information is a critical step along the pathway toward building global science capacity through more robust and equitable long-term partnerships. Ruppert et al. (2022) delve into the importance of recognizing purpose, process, and relationships within the research implementation process. Their approach emphasizes using local capacity and knowledge in community-based data collection on human-wildlife conflict to engage in truly inclusive decision-making. Reflecting on a case study from Kenya, Ruppert and colleagues emphasize the need to situate the science within the community impacted by the problem to collect credible information and find durable solutions. Two of our papers take on the issue of creating mutual benefit through research collaborations. Burivalova and Rayadin (2022) address the unequal power imbalances resulting from language, funding, access to information, differing priorities, and research cultures. While many research partnerships begin with the foreign researcher's arrival at the study site, Burivalova and colleague suggest it instead start with grant-writing. Doing so not only reduces power imbalances but also makes space for meaningful conversations about existing expertise, actual conservation priorities, and the best use of existing capacity. Asquith et al. (2022) highlight their efforts in Bolivia to create a research symbiosis where those who use the data (practitioners) play a role in designing and implementing the research, ensuring that the research program mutually meets everyone's needs. Challenging and imperfect, these authors describe a case study that is mindful of colonial science and explicitly striving to create mutual benefit where it previously did not exist. Both case studies demonstrate how building robust and equitable trans-global research partnerships through mindful planning allows us to work together while ensuring that we progress with overarching common conservation goals. In total, these articles provide a breadth of viewpoints, ideas, case studies, and, frankly, a breath of fresh air in our efforts to decolonize conservation. International collaborative conservation efforts need to put away the parachutes and strategically plan for building equitable scientific collaborations in support of locally driven, solutions-focused, sustainable conservation action. Conservation is a truly global problem requiring a truly global effort. Historical power imbalances perpetuated by differential access to training, funding and information hinder the progress toward the equitability required to find salient, credible, and legitimate solutions to our pressing conservation challenges. These barriers challenge us, as scientists and practitioners, to both speak up about our interests and needs but also to listen and work to build programs that are mutually equitable and beneficial to all partners as well as the biodiversity we work to protect. We would like to thank all the authors who contributed to this special issue. The diverse perspectives are a rich starting point for a long but necessary journey ahead. The authors declare no conflict of interest. Asha de Vos and Mark W. Schwartz contributed equally to the writing of this article.