For centuries, biodiversity knowledge has flowed northward—physically, institutionally, and intellectually1,2. Specimens collected in tropical forests often end up in jars, freezers, drawers, and databases thousands of kilometers away3. Publications are produced elsewhere, frequently by authors with little connection to the ecosystems or communities where the data were collected. Many biodiversity-rich countries remain structurally excluded from scientific leadership, with too few collections and little control or agency over the scientific narrative4,5.

Parachute science and why it matters for global targets

This extractive model, what many now call parachute science, isn’t just outdated, it undermines global science1,6. Reversing this flow requires institutional models that are both locally anchored and globally scalable. Scientific infrastructure must be embedded within the ecosystems it seeks to understand and protect, as disconnected systems are inherently limited. To meet the targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework7, including Target 20 which emphasizes equitable participation and capacity-building, we must invest in infrastructure where biodiversity is most concentrated.

Funding structures that sustain extraction

Current scientific funding structures reinforce extractive models by design. Most international grants are structured to cover short-term field expeditions, travel costs, and the export of specimens to foreign institutions. These grants rarely allow funds to be used for developing or maintaining host-country infrastructure. As a result, local institutions remain chronically underfunded and underdeveloped. This absence of capacity perpetuates dependence and is often used to justify further extraction, which creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop. For example, collections are weak because they are underfunded, and they are underfunded because financial mechanisms favor external expeditions over local infrastructure.

Rebalancing resources toward in-country infrastructure

The solution is not vast new resources, but a rebalancing of existing ones. Even a small redirection of funds (e.g., away from repeated, short-term expeditions and toward permanent, locally anchored institutions) would generate significant returns. By structuring grants to permit and prioritize infrastructure investment, funders can ensure that specimens remain in-country, local scientists are empowered as research leaders, and that biodiversity knowledge flows both locally and globally.

Diversified financing for long-term stability

By breaking the cycle through reallocation, diversified financing provides the mechanism for long-term stability. In practice, effective approaches combine three complementary commitments. Host institutions anchor infrastructure within national systems by covering predictable costs such as staff salaries, utilities, and institutional oversight, which signals true national ownership. International partners support construction, maintenance, equipment, training, and digitization, with the explicit aim of reinforcing local capacity rather than substituting for it. Philanthropic sources and NGOs underwrite these same needs, or alternatively provide bridge funding for critical but intermittent expenses such as field expeditions or open-access publishing. These streams should not be rigid silos; in practice, any funder may support any component, and sustainability emerges from their overlap and complementarity. The impact of this approach is multiplied when embedded in permanent, locally governed institutions. The total costs are modest compared to the repeated expense of expeditionary projects, and the shift required is not an increase in funding but a structural reallocation toward permanence.

Outcomes: training, local leadership, and publication

Equally critical are two additional outcomes that emerge when financing is embedded in permanent, locally governed institutions. First, diversified funding creates predictable pathways for capacity building, enabling the long-term training of undergraduate and graduate students, technicians, and early-career scientists who become the next generation of research leaders. Second, institutional stability allows local researchers not only to generate data but to lead its dissemination, resulting in peer-reviewed publications and conservation tools where authorship and credit remain with those most closely connected to the ecosystems studied. Together, these outcomes ensure that infrastructure investment translates into human capacity and scientific leadership, addressing the persistent limited visibility and connectivity of biodiversity-rich countries from the global record.

Case study: a locally anchored biodiversity center in Beni, Bolivia

While many have called for greater inclusion of biodiversity-rich nations8,9, what distinguishes this contribution is a tested and transferable framework defined by a set of structural components that make this shift operational. In the Beni Department of Bolivia, one of the most ecologically important yet historically under-resourced regions in South America, the implementation of this framework through a long-term international collaboration has, over more than a decade, helped establish a local biodiversity collection and research center anchored at the Universidad Autónoma del Beni “José Ballivián” in Trinidad10. Primarily focused on herpetology, the facility now houses a large collection of curated specimens and has grown into a globally significant scientific hub, with a permanent museum collection, research laboratory, office space, and formal partnerships with national and international institutions.

The collection serves as a platform for training, research, and public engagement, linking science to local education, policy, and public interest. Students and professionals from Bolivian universities participate in fieldwork, specimen preparation, data curation, and ultimately dissemination (e.g. ref. 11, inter alia). Outreach efforts have broadened public engagement with biodiversity and reinforced the region’s ecological identity (e.g. ref. 12).

The center continues to expand through active fieldwork and new research initiatives. Its mission is governed by written agreements among Bolivian and international partners that define access, digitization, and long-term use. The facility is publicly accessible, and its data are increasingly used for both academic research and local conservation planning (e.g., Key Biodiversity Areas of Bolivia and the Red Book of the Vertebrates of Bolivia13).

Even when infrastructure exists, underinvestment in publishing pipelines perpetuates exclusion from the scientific record. In many low-income countries, even when local scientists have the training and data to publish, the costs of open-access publication present a final barrier to participation14. Sustained support enables local researchers to publish in open-access journals and contribute directly to global science. Without support to overcome publication costs, critical contributions risk going unseen, even when the data exist. When findings remain unpublished, they are invisible in the metrics that guide funding, policy, and conservation.

This framework has been effective where it has been implemented, not because it was imposed, but because it was built in close partnership with local scientists and embedded within local institutions. The research center now belongs to the country, with success demonstrated by its formal recognition as part of Bolivia’s national biodiversity infrastructure through Administrative Resolution VMABCCGDF No026/0915, a curated collection of nearly 2,000 specimens, training of numerous Bolivian students and young professionals, and >60 peer-reviewed publications and field guides led or co-authored by local researchers.

A replicable framework and broader relevance

This shift from extractive models to local ownership is essential. This initiative shows how stable, locally governed institutions can simultaneously advance science and strengthen society. Unlike prior calls for capacity-building, we suggest a solution that consists of five structural components (Fig. 1) which extends this framework beyond a single implementation. These elements (i.e., permanent infrastructure, local governance, integrated capacity building and training, global connectivity, and diversified financing; Fig. 1) form a replicable framework that can be adapted in other biodiversity-rich regions globally. While national contexts differ, the combination of these five components is essential for institutional sustainability. Similar principles are already emerging elsewhere, demonstrating that this is not an isolated case but part of a broader global shift. Together, these outcomes illustrate how the framework functions in practice when embedded within permanent, locally governed institutions.

Fig. 1
Fig. 1The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Full size image

A replicable framework for building sustainable, locally anchored biodiversity infrastructure and capacities.

Additional implementations of these same structural principles can be seen elsewhere. For example, the Madagascar Biodiversity Center has become a locally anchored research and training area, developed through long-term international partnerships and co-led by Malagasy scientists. The center has become a hub for specimen curation, training, and conservation planning, showing how local governance and integrated training pipelines can transform partnerships into lasting infrastructure serving both science and policy. It also shows how modest diversified financing, combined with global connectivity through international collaborations, can secure sustained relevance in both national and global conservation agendas. Additionally, in the Congo Basin, the Yangambi Research Station is being revitalized after decades of neglect, supported by regional institutions and global funders to reestablish scientific capacity. This demonstrates how permanent infrastructure combined with diversified financing can restore and sustain research capacity while reconnecting science with local priorities. In Southeast Asia, Indonesia’s Museum Zoologicum Bogoriense is expanding its role in biodiversity research and education through collaborations that strengthen local leadership and infrastructure. These examples illustrate how global connectivity support and national embedding of infrastructure can expand scientific reach while reinforcing local leadership. In each case, the central driver is the restructuring of funding flows to support permanent, locally governed institutions.

While the details differ, these efforts share a common foundation: locally embedded institutions, built through sustained partnership, and designed to endure. In return, they deliver both scientific and societal benefits, which include stronger regional capacity and better representation of research from areas that have long lacked meaningful, long-term support. Science needs more sustained interaction and commitment, not short-term charity or symbolic outreach. Additionally, while local institutions may be vulnerable to broader national instabilities, this framework mitigates this risk by emphasizing diversified financing, international partnerships, and formal governance structures that buffer institutions against political and economic volatility.

This is not a theoretical model but an operational framework with demonstrated impact, designed to be replicable and scalable across biodiversity-rich regions. Its foundations offer a blueprint for embedding biodiversity science where it is most needed. Each of the five structural components provides a clear entry point for sustainable investment by governments, international donors, and NGOs, and together they ensure the permanence that one-off projects cannot deliver. The framework exists, the costs are modest, and the benefits are proven. Replication is not only feasible, it is urgent. The question is not whether change is needed, but whether to continue financing a system structurally built to sustain inequality or to invest in one that builds lasting capacity where biodiversity conservation matters most.