The expansion of conservation territories has become an important symbol for measuring the success of biodiversity conservation policies. However, overreliance on symbolic actions risks distorting policy decisions, overstating achievements while hiding inefficiencies. To ensure fair and sustainable conservation efforts, it is essential to critically assess whether prioritising territorial expansion represents the most effective response to the biodiversity crisis. In 2000, a transnational conservation organisation (WWF) organised an expert meeting in Gabon to map out conservation priorities in Central Africa, resulting in the virtual demarcation of vast forest areas. These areas became focal points for conservation efforts over decades. Using the Maiko Tayna Kahuzi-Biega (MTKB) landscape conservation in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as a case study, this paper questions whether conservation expansion within these initiatives has led to symbolic or substantive outcomes in achieving fair and sustainable conservation. Our findings reveal that while conservation expansion attracts international donor funding, it remains largely symbolic. Legal designations and mapped territories create an illusion of progress, diverting resources from the substantive actions needed to achieve equitable and sustainable outcomes. Simply designating conservation areas does not ensure legitimacy or authority on the ground, nor does it address the social inequalities that undermine conservation efforts. The difficulties faced by conservation initiatives in the MTKB landscape cannot be attributed solely to the persistent conflict in the region. Even after years of instability, transnational conservation actors and donors remain engaged in the region, pursuing global agendas that prioritise the expansion of conservation territories. The concept of “symbolic politics”, as developed by Edelman, provides a valuable theoretical framework to explain why conservation expansion policies persist despite significant evidence of their inability to achieve fair and sustainable outcomes.

The expansion of conservation territories has become an important symbol for measuring the success of biodiversity conservation policies. However, overreliance on symbolic actions risks distorting policy decisions, overstating achievements while hiding inefficiencies. To ensure fair and sustainable conservation efforts, it is essential to critically assess whether prioritising territorial expansion represents the most effective response to the biodiversity crisis. In 2000, a transnational conservation organisation (WWF) organised an expert meeting in Gabon to map out conservation priorities in Central Africa, resulting in the virtual demarcation of vast forest areas. These areas became focal points for conservation efforts over decades. Using the Maiko Tayna Kahuzi-Biega (MTKB) landscape conservation in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as a case study, this paper questions whether conservation expansion within these initiatives has led to symbolic or substantive outcomes in achieving fair and sustainable conservation. Our findings reveal that while conservation expansion attracts international donor funding, it remains largely symbolic. Legal designations and mapped territories create an illusion of progress, diverting resources from the substantive actions needed to achieve equitable and sustainable outcomes. Simply designating conservation areas does not ensure legitimacy or authority on the ground, nor does it address the social inequalities that undermine conservation efforts. The difficulties faced by conservation initiatives in the MTKB landscape cannot be attributed solely to the persistent conflict in the region. Even after years of instability, transnational conservation actors and donors remain engaged in the region, pursuing global agendas that prioritise the expansion of conservation territories. The concept of “symbolic politics”, as developed by Edelman, provides a valuable theoretical framework to explain why conservation expansion policies persist despite significant evidence of their inability to achieve fair and sustainable outcomes.