It is argued that the so-called Anthropocene has its beginnings in European colonisation.1
This seems a good starting point for the final instalment of the present ECOS article series
on Conflict, Post-Colonialism and Conservation. It could also be argued that Europe
produced the world’s three ‘great’ modern colonial powers: Spain, Britain and Russia.
However, whilst the European age of empires has ended (albeit with significant geopolitical
overhang), following the Soviet Union’s collapse Russia has aggressively embarked upon a
new imperial era of colonial expansion, most notably by invading Ukraine. The consequent
devastation of Ukrainian territory is a tragic reminder that military conflict represents a
fundamental (and potentially existential) threat to people and the environment not just in
distant parts of the world, but also here in Europe.2 Other continents have been more
exposed to various forms conflict during the post-colonial period, often posing fundamental
challenges for nature conservation.3,4 Moreover, legacies of European – and indeed
United States – colonisation, such as the British Indian Ocean Territory (represented in the
above striking coat of arms), remain the focus of environmental sovereignty disputes.5
Tackling environmental corruption and crime
Returning to the contention that the Anthropocene had its genesis in Western colonialism,
whilst this theory is not universally accepted it has sufficient academic support to be taken
seriously. Indeed, proponents have suggested that the epoch might instead be called ‘The
Kleptocene’ to draw “attention to colonialism’s ongoing theft of land, lives (both human and
nonhuman), and materials … in large part responsible for (the) contemporary ecological
crisis.”6,7 Although having different priorities, advocates of a historical ‘Kleptocene’ share
some concerns with others focussed on post-colonial relationships (or the nexus) between
kleptocracy, systemic or grand corruption and widespread undermining of environmental
governance.8,9 The latter group involves a broad alliance of international organisations
ranging from the United Nations Environment Programme, INTERPOL and the World
Wildlife Fund to multi-national companies promoting corporate ESG (Environment, Social,
Governance) agendas.10,11 Unfortunately, both carbon-based extractive models of
economic development linked to the Anthropocene/Kleptocene and some de-carbonisation
programmes lend themselves to corruption and threaten nature positive aspirations.12,13

Creating nature-positive financial systems
The good news is that nature-based solutions to climate change may be less vulnerable to
systemic corruption whilst having considerable scope for reducing biodiversity decline and
supporting ecosystem restoration.14 Potential synergies between so-called NbS and
largescale restoration are considered in a 2022 briefing from the European Environment
Agency on Carbon stocks and sequestration in terrestrial and marine ecosystems: a lever for
nature restoration?15 This requires continuing improvement of the evidence-base for
both NbS climate adaptation and mitigation, as well as ensuring integration with broader
conservation and restoration programmes. Another key consideration, particularly for less
developed regions of the world, is the availability of inception funding together with
ongoing financial support. UNEP’s 2021 State of Finance for Nature maintains that:
If the world is to meet the climate change, biodiversity, and land degradation targets, it
needs to close a USD 4.1 trillion financing gap in nature by 2050. The current investments in
Nature-based solutions amount to USD 133 billion – most of which comes from public
sources.14
The report also calls for investments in NbS to increase threefold by 2030. Since its
publication, the momentum for developing ‘Nature Positive Finance’ has grown significantly.
In June 2022, the UK government in conjunction with Stockholm 50 convened a major multinational summit, Financing the Transition to a Nature Positive Future, which highlighted:
Over half of (global) GDP – $44 trillion – relies on the services that nature provides or natural
capital – from the bees that pollinate the plants we eat, to the trees that purify our air and
the forests and oceans that absorb carbon emissions. However, we are spending our natural
capital much faster than it is being replenished.16
Whilst this event generated additional funding commitments from international
governments to the Global Environment Facility, the largest source of multilateral funds for
biodiversity, unlocking the quantum increase in private investment needed to close the
funding cap in natural capital remains elusive, although many initiatives are underway.17
Securing equity in conservation management
International nature conservation practices with historical links to colonialism have been
associated with the interests of elites; and this legacy continues to influence contemporary
discourses around both wildlife protection and restoration.18 Although the British
Association of Nature Conservationists- BANC, and the publisher of ECOS– started life as a
grass-roots organisation, early supporters included key figures, such as the late Max
Nicholson (a founder of WWF), with connections to the British establishment albeit often in
critical roles.19 Over the four plus decades of the journal’s publication, contributors’
writing on conservation and, particularly, rewilding has reflected a shift from more top
down to community-based approaches to wildlife management, although there remain
importance differences of perspective.20,21 This shift very much reflects wider trends and
is central to the present article series on Conflict, Post-Colonialism and Conservation.
Securing greater equity in conservation is partly about the allocation of funds from both
traditional public sources and new mechanisms. According to the influential UK-based China
Dialogue website, the 2022 “CoP biodiversity negotiations ended with ambitious global
goals, but failure to mobilise the funds requested by developing countries …. Montreal has
given us another decade of unrealistic targets that place the burden of conservation on
developing countries.”20 Nevertheless, elsewhere China Dialogue acknowledged CoP 15’s
“historic agreement to protect biodiversity,” including the target to protect 30% of land and
oceans by 2030, acknowledging support from Indigenous people and local communities.23
Elsewhere New Scientist hailed the agreement as a “new era” for ‘Indigenous-led
conservation,’ although Amnesty International was less enthusiastic about the Global
Biodiversity Framework noting that some groups remain opposed to this.24,25 Varying
reactions to CoP 15 reflect the complexity of contemporary ‘conservation geopolitics’ (a
term discussed in the introduction to this article series), particularly in relation to protected
areas, the sustainable use of natural resources, environmental governance and sovereignty.
Post-colonial and sustainable worldviews

Thus, greater equity is not just about money but also power and worldviews. An example is
different conceptions of ‘wilderness,’ (both marine and terrestrial) increasingly regarded as
a Western or colonial construct. A 2021 research paper entitled Indigenous knowledge and
shackles of wilderness not only challenges the latter concept by also that of a so-called
Anthropocene explored earlier in this article.26 The paper’s authors maintain that “many
iconic ‘wilderness’ landscapes – such as the Amazon, forests of Southeast Asia and the
western deserts of Australia, are actually the product of long-term management and
maintenance by Indigenous and local peoples.”27. By logical extension, therefore:
….the Anthropocene concept has a problem: it is based on a European way of viewing the
world. This worldview is blind to the ways Indigenous and local peoples modify and manage
landscapes. It is based on the idea that all human activity in these conservation landscapes is
negative.
At this point, it is useful to distinguish between the sustainable management of landscapes,
marine environments and animals by First Nations and the subsequent exploitation of these
by European colonial powers and settlers. This enables acceptance of the above worldview
whilst also supporting, at least in part, the contention that the Anthropocene was driven by
colonialisation. The distinction can be illustrated with reference to the consumption of
green sea turtles for food. Whilst these are still consumed on a non-commercial basis by
some Indigenous communities around the world, they are no longer a generally acceptable
Western food source after been classified as endangered by the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 1973.28,29
Nevertheless, illegal trade in turtles, particularly green sea turtles, has continued for
predominantly Asian markets, although there is recent evidence of some decline.30
Moving towards an ‘Ecological Civilisation’?
In Autumn 2021, the Convention on Biological Diversity hosted an ‘Ecological Civilisation
Forum’ with the stated mission of ‘Building a Shared Future for All Life on Earth,’ and
declaring that: “Biodiversity conservation is a critical goal in the development of an
ecological civilisation.”31 As this concept has become a key mission statement associated
with the CBD, it is worth reflecting on its significance for Conflict, Post-Colonialism and
Conservation. Two issues need highlighting: firstly, the notion of an ‘Ecological Civilisation’ is
derived from Marxism and fundamental to contemporary Chinese political ideology; and,
secondly, it implies an anthropocentric worldview.32 With regard to the latter contention,
Marxist philosophy would argue the concept transcends the capitalist human verses nature
dichotomy. However, China has an economy based on state capitalism and its boldest
international venture, the Belt and Road Initiative (now Green Belt and Road) is widely
regarded as a colonialist- or more accurately neo-colonialist– mega project.33
In reality the late modern era is dominated by various forms of neo-colonialism, often
fuelling conflicts (both cold/frozen and hot, as now in Ukraine).34 International
conservation is also viewed by some as neo-colonialist in both terrestrial and marine
environments.35 Yet, as with its earlier incarnations, neo-colonialism can both support and
compromise wildlife protection as current divergent narratives from foreign military bases
in the Mediterranean (Cyprus) and Pacific island of Guam demonstrate.36,37 To end with
a positive beginning, March 2023 finally saw global negotiations concluded on a long-awaited ‘Treaty of the High Seas,’ whose aim is “to protect the ocean, tackle environmental degradation, fight climate change and prevent biodiversity loss.”38,39

Afterword on Lemuria
In tutela nostra Limuria (Limuria is in our charge/trust) is the motto of the British Indian
Ocean Territory coat of arms shown at the beginning of this article. The name Limuria refers
to a mythical continent of Lemuria in the Indian Ocean. A (real) Lake Lemuria (of reportedly
healing powers) can be found the Kherson (currently Russian-occupied) regions of Ukraine.
References
4https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/NGW-001-En.pdf
5https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9673
6https://edgeeffects.net/kleptocene
7https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2514848621996577
8https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/07/what-kleptocracy-and-how-does-it-work
9https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/governance/environmental_corruption
10https://issuu.com/unpublications/docs/the_rise_of_environmental_crime
11https://www.agcs.allianz.com/news-and-insights/expert-risk-articles/esg-risk-briefing-3-2020.html
13https://www.u4.no/blog/climate-adaptation-takes-centre-stage-so-should-corruption
15https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/carbon-stocks-and-sequestration-rates
16https://www.unep.org/resources/state-finance-nature
19https://www.maxnicholson.com/obituaries/ecos.htm
21https://www.ecos.org.uk/ecos-35-34-rewilding-in-britain-lessons-from-the-past-15-years-peter-taylor
22https://chinadialogue.net/en/nature/cop15-wealthy-nations-prioritise-targets-over-biodiversity-fund
23https://chinadialogue.net/en/nature/cop15-reaches-historic-agreement-to-protect-biodiversity
26https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2022218118
27https://theconversation.com/indigenous-knowledge-and-the-persistence-of-the-wilderness-myth-165164
29https://daily.jstor.org/turtle-soup-from-class-to-mass-to-aghast
30https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16378
31https://www.cbd.int/conferences/2021-2022/ecological-civilization-forum
32https://monthlyreview.org/2022/10/01/ecological-civilization-ecological-revolution
33https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/belt-road-colonialism-chinese-characteristics
35https://unevenearth.org/2021/01/blue-neocolonialism
36https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/turtle-population-thriving-around-armed-forces-bases-in-cyprus
38https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_1382
39https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64815782