Aichi Target 18 beyond 2020: mainstreaming Traditional Biodiversity Knowledge in the conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal ecosystems

Abstract

Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) have inhabited coastal areas, the seas, and remote islands for millennia, and developed place-based traditional ancestral knowledge and diversified livelihoods associated with the biocultural use of marine and coastal ecosystems. Through their cultural traditions, customary wise practices, and holistic approaches to observe, monitor, understand, and appreciate the Natural World, IPLCs have been preserving, managing, and sustainably using seascapes and coastal landscapes, which has been essential for biodiversity conservation. The international community has more than ever recognized the central role of IPLCs in the conservation of biodiversity-rich ecosystems, in particular, for the achievement of the Global Biodiversity Targets determined by the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to tackle biodiversity loss. However, much remains to be done to fully recognize and protect at national levels IPLCs’ Traditional Biodiversity Knowledge (TBK), ways of life, and their internationally recognized rights to inhabit, own, manage and govern traditional lands, territories, and waters, which are increasingly threatened. At the 2018 4th World Conference on Marine Biodiversity held in Montréal, Canada, eight themed working groups critically discussed progress to date and barriers that have prevented the achievement of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets agreed for the period 2011–2020, and priority actions for the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Discussions in the “Application of Biodiversity Knowledge” working group focused on Targets 11 and 18 and the equal valuation of diverse Biodiversity Knowledge Systems (BKS). This Perspective Paper summarizes the 10 Priority Actions identified for a holistic biodiversity conservation, gender equality and human rights-based approach that strengthens the role of IPLCs as biodiversity conservation decision-makers and managers at national and international levels. Furthermore, the Perspective proposes a measurable Target 18 post-2020 and discusses actions to advance the recognition of community-based alternative conservation schemes and TBK to ensure the long-lasting conservation, customary biocultural use, and sustainable multi-functional management of nature around the globe.

Transforming Biodiversity Governance

“…In the case of MPAs, a key challenge is how to ensure that local communities remain meaningfully involved in governance with a greater focus on increasing the coverage of areas under designation and on scaling-up (Gruby and Basurto, 2014;McCay and Jones, 2011). Progress has also been limited toward achieving CBD Aichi Target 18, which was dedicated to the full and effective participation of IPLCs, but which did not provide a measurable target (Fajardo et al, 2021).…”

“…Efforts made to achieve Target 11 have been undermined by the lack of progress in achieving other Aichi Targets, which are complementary and necessary to fully address the drivers of biodiversity loss but more difficult to measure and achieve. This includes targets that are concerned with conserving biodiversity outside of protected areas, for example Target 5, which aims to "at least halve, and where feasible bring close to zero, the rate of loss of all natural habitats"; Target 10, which is concerned with decreasing pressures on coral reefs; Target 7, on the sustainable management of areas under agriculture, forestry or aquaculture; Target 15, on enhancing ecosystem resilience; and Target 18, on the full and effective participation of IPLCs (Fajardo et al, 2021;Watson et al, 2016b). There has also been little effort by high-income and importing countries to achieve Aichi Targets that focus on underlying drivers of biodiversity loss, such as Target 3 on the phasing out of harmful subsidies, and Target 4 on sustainable consumption and production.…”

“…A greater role for IPLCs in decision-making and policy-setting at regional, national and international levels is only likely to facilitate the achievement of biodiversity outcomes and the management of potential economic and social trade-offs. The importance of properly including IPLCs has gained traction within discussions on the Post-2020 GBF, but much work remains to ensure this is fully embedded and implemented (Fajardo et al, 2021).…”

Understanding technological, cultural, and environmental motivators explaining the adoption of citizen science apps for coastal environment monitoring

“…Climate change impacts such as global warming, glacier melting, sea-level rise, extreme weather events (e.g., heat waves, floods, hurricanes, wildfires, droughts), and increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are depleting natural and cultural values and resources and simultaneously putting local, regional, and global economies at risk (McMichael & Lindgren, 2011;Ward et al, 2020). The global community is currently trying to respond to the numerous fronts of environmental degradation, namely the impacts of climate change and the great biodiversity crisis (Fajardo et al, 2021).…”

Participatory Monitoring—A Citizen Science Approach for Coastal Environments

“…As an alternative, many researchers have implemented citizen science initiatives as a tool for both acquiring biological data, but also approximating society to the academic realm and promoting environmental awareness (Stepenuck and Green, 2015). Citizen science was pointed as a key strategy to achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Target 18 in coastal zones after 2020 (Fajardo et al, 2021), stressing its important contribution to environmental and social sciences, while co-producing data that are fundamental for integrated management.…”