Recognising Stakeholder Conflict and Encouraging Consensus of ‘Science-Based Management’ Approaches for Marine Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ)

Abstract

Areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) encompass the seabed, subsoil and water column beyond coastal State jurisdiction and marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) is rich and varied. From providing sustenance and supporting livelihoods, to absorbing anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, ABNJ ecosystems are vital to the wellbeing of humankind. However, an enhanced understanding of BBNJ and its significance has not equated to its successful conservation and sustainable use. Negotiations for a new international legally binding instrument for the conservation and sustainable use of BBNJ have scoped applicable principles for a future agreement, including the use of best available science and science-based approaches. But there remains a lack of convergence on what science-based approaches would look like, or how they would be operationalised. In order to negotiate and implement a meaningful BBNJ treaty that can meet conservation and sustainable use objectives, stakeholder perceptions must be identified, and areas of divergence must be overcome. This study uses Q-methodology to reveal and analyse the diversity of perceptions that exist amongst key stakeholders regarding what it means to operationalise sciencebased approaches for the conservation and sustainable use of BBNJ. The Q-study features 25 stakeholder interviews and 30 Q-study participants revealing four different perceptions, each of which represent a different interpretation of what science-based management means in the context of BBNJ. Across these perceptions, there were areas of stakeholder consensus (e.g., regarding the benefits of integrative management, the application of precautionary approaches when data are insufficient, and the issues pertaining to the trustworthiness and credibility of science) and areas of stakeholder conflict (e.g., regarding the definition, function and authority of science within current and future BBNJ governance processes). Key implications of this study include the evidencing of fundamental tensions between differing perceptions of the authority of science and between conservation and sustainable use objectives, that may be fueling stakeholder conflict, and the subsequent proposal of integrative and highly participatory management approaches to operationalise science-based management of BBNJ.

Tourist Preferences for Seamount Conservation in the Galapagos Marine Reserve

“…It is important that this public goodwill translates through national and international policy processes and those decisions are informed by the best available scientific information. In the context of the BBNJ treaty negotiations, while stakeholders show varying opinions on the role science plays, there is evidence of consensus regarding the benefits of integrative management, the application of precautionary approaches when data are insufficient, and the perceived trustworthiness and credibility of science (Gaebel et al, 2020). Our study reiterates and amplifies these positive messages.…”

Equity – the Bottleneck and the Opportunity

“…This pervasiveness of unsustainability could be surprising, because resource users rarely have "degradation of the part(s) of Nature being used" as an objective. Multiple communities may have different goals for how and how much to use shared resources, but they are at least likely to share the objective that they do not want it degraded to the point where uses, particularly their own, are not possible (Bellangier et al, 2020;Gaebel et al, 2020). There may be economic strategies and accounting approaches where "cashing out" a resource and investing the profits is a rational strategy, but even in those cases, reaching that decision and keeping the economic strategy viable requires a vision of "sustainability" shared by all those affected by that choice (Clark, 1973;Defrancesco et al, 2014).…”

What is the main driver of unsustainable natural resource use in the Comoro Islands?

“…Over the past two decades, scientists and numerous national and international organizations have argued for the urgent need to find alternative community-based approaches to protect and manage natural systems in developing countries (Jantz et al, 2015;King et al, 2021). Untill recently, natural resource and habitat management strategies tended to rely on biological and ecological data based on species ecology, population genetics or demographics, but have often neglected the human societies that critically depend on natural ecosystems (Fritz-Vietta, 2016, Gaebel et al, 2020König et al, 2021). Although some conservation strategies have been developed in many countries on collaborative governance processes and participatory protected area management for instance, such strategies are non-existent in different parts of the world (Krueck et al, 2019;Ghosh-Harihar et al, 2019;Ayivor et al, 2020;Rittelmeyer 2020;O'Brien et al 2021;Jin et al, 2021;Arumugam et al, 2021).…”

“…Communities living in geographic proximity to natural resources and forests typically have traditional knowledge about as well as emotional bonds with these areas. Ignoring the needs and practices of local communities in habitat conservation initiatives may result in conflicts between natural resource managers and these populations if the latter feel they face restrictions in the benefits they acquire from these areas (Fisher et al, 2020;Gaebel et al 2020). This can eventually have a negative effect on both the long-term effectiveness of biodiversity conservation and on the livelihoods of the local population (Sournia, 1990;Fritz-Vietta, 2016;Debata et al, 2017;Gaebel et al, 2020;Jin et al, 2021).…”

“…Ignoring the needs and practices of local communities in habitat conservation initiatives may result in conflicts between natural resource managers and these populations if the latter feel they face restrictions in the benefits they acquire from these areas (Fisher et al, 2020;Gaebel et al 2020). This can eventually have a negative effect on both the long-term effectiveness of biodiversity conservation and on the livelihoods of the local population (Sournia, 1990;Fritz-Vietta, 2016;Debata et al, 2017;Gaebel et al, 2020;Jin et al, 2021). Reconciling the needs of the local population and natural resource use is now seen as fundamental in developing countries to implement management plans that ensure livelihoods and well-being in parallel with biodiversity conservation objectives (Helm Aveliina, 2006;Boron et al, 2016;Jin et al, 2021).…”