In 1987, biologists captured the to transfer it to captivity, and the largest flying North American bird species was officially declared extinct in the wild. Today, after decades of coordinated efforts and on captive breeding and reintroduction efforts, have been restored to their natural environment.

It was a victory for the species’ survival, yet this triumph was contested at nearly every step of the way.

Conservationists over whether trapping every bird should be considered rescue or surrender. Critics argued that the cost was better spent on other threatened species. Rural communities in Utah and Arizona raised concerns about . Hunting groups such as the National Rifle Association .

A young California condor spotted at Grand Canyon National Park in 2011 after the species was reintroduced. ,

The condor’s comeback illustrates several questions that governments and conservation organizations grapple with today, including which species get funded and who bears the costs.

These are some of the questions being discussed at the U.N. , being held Oct. 19-30, 2026, in Yerevan, Armenia.

In 2022, countries worldwide adopted an agreement at that year’s biodiversity conference to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, known as the . It includes goals to raise US$200 billion a year from public and private sources around the world by 2030 to of the world’s land, coastal areas and oceans, stop human-caused extinctions and help struggling species survive.

The agreement itself doesn’t choose which species to save, but its rules are designed to shape national conservation priorities and guide the funds that pay for conservation.

Saving a species like the condor affects local communities and businesses whose activities have put those species at risk. Without local buy-in, pouring money into recovery efforts can fail, yet local communities are often left out of the discussions.

Deciding which species deserve protection

An estimated worldwide, and early assessments suggest the world is .

Because resources are limited, conservationists which species to protect and how. Should they fund expensive rescue efforts for a species close to extinction, or interventions likely to help multiple species at once? Or maybe they should protect organisms that are unique to a specific geographic region or a species that sustains local livelihoods.

Bees, like this honeybee pollinating a blossom in a California almond orchard, are essential for the success of many crops, but they have faced threats from parasites, pesticides and habitat loss. ,

Some species are valued for what they do for humanity, such as pollinating crops or purifying water, known as . Honeybees, for example, pollinate over in the U.S. alone each year. Others hold cultural and spiritual significance, in California. Many conservationists argue that living species possess independent of their usefulness to human beings.

Getting support for measures to can be easier than for others, however. Think of Greenpeace’s “save the whales” campaign or the World Wildlife Fund’s panda logo. A panda’s adorable face can help pay for its protection , helping other species living there.

It has typically been easier to attract conservation support and funding for iconic species than for others.

A 2025 study examined more than 14,000 species-focused conservation projects from 1992 to 2016. Five mammal groups – primates, carnivores, whales, elephants and rhinos – , despite accounting for only one-third of threatened mammal projects. Plants and invertebrates, which are crucial for pollination, nutrient cycling and sustaining food webs, received only 6.6% of the financial backing.

Conservation groups and economists at the Paulson Institute estimate that the world needs to spend an annually on biodiversity conservation and restoration to stop and reverse biodiversity loss.

Who bears the costs?

At the 2026 biodiversity conference, delegates will also take up another question that can make or break species recovery: When conservation affects local people, who pays and who gets a say?

While conservationists celebrated efforts to over the past two decades, some farmers lost livestock to these predators and faced higher costs to protect their flocks. Current , but farmers’ ability to shape wolf recovery is part of the story too.

Conservation can go terribly wrong if local communities aren’t consulted during planning. In the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, a protected area in Tanzania, the Maasai have fought for years against government orders that they leave the land they have lived on for generations in the name of lion conservation. In March 2026, recommended that the evictions continue in order to protect wildlife, in a process that , Indigenous peoples’ advocates at the Oakland Institute reported.

A male lion in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in Tanzania, where thousands of Maasai herders have been displaced over the years in order to conserve habitat for wildlife and tourism.

Protecting vulnerable species often means also supporting the communities living alongside them. At the last round of biodiversity talks in 2024, countries to bring Indigenous peoples and local communities’ knowledge and decisions into the treaty’s decisions.

At this year’s conference, known as COP17, they must agree on how that advisory body will operate, including whether these communities get a formal role in decision-making. They are also expected to adopt guidelines for how the apply in Indigenous territories.

The international agreement can’t dictate what happens on the ground, but its rules shape national conservation priorities and guide the funds that pay for conservation. That is why the debate over local consultation is at the heart of the 2026 talks. Conservation that is designed for people, rather than with them, risks losing the trust and local cooperation that makes recovery last.

Keys to success

Two key issues at the conference involve guaranteeing that Indigenous peoples and local communities have a say in decisions on their territory, including how conservation programs are designed and how resources are allocated.

The global biodiversity framework calls for a “, recognizing that protecting nature needs more than government action alone. But participation is not the same as decision-making power.

communities are too often consulted after priorities are set, rather than being involved in setting them. Whether the farmer paying for fencing or the Indigenous community with connections to a species helps set priorities or is only asked for input after the project has been approved shows whether consultation is genuine or not.

The condor’s return shows that nearly extinct species can recover with help. But sustaining a species’ recovery requires protecting the conditions – and supporting the people – that make their survival possible.

Researcher Garrett Ordonez, an environmental studies and international relations student at USC, contributed to this article.

Original article
Add as a preferred source on Google