Social considerations are crucial to success in implementing the 30×30 global conservation target

Sandbrook, Chris; Albury-Smith, Shenique; Allan, James R.; Bhola, Nina; Bingham, Heather; Brockington, Dan; Byaruhanga, Achilles; Fajardo, Javier Antonio Tamayo; Fitzsimons, James; Franks, Phil; Fleischman, Forrest; Frechette, Alain; Kakuyo, Kagumaho; Kaptoyo, Edna; Kuemmerle, Tobias; Kalunda, Pauline Nantongo; Nuvunga, Milagre; O’Donnell, Brian F.; Onyai, Fred; Pfeifer, Marion; Pritchard, Rose; Ramos, Ameyali; Rao, Madhu; Ryan, Casey M.; Shyamsundar, Priya; Tauli, Josefa Cariño; Tumusiime, David Mwesigye; Vilaça, Mônica; Watmough, Gary R.; Worsdell, Thomas; Zaehringer, Julie G.

doi:10.1038/s41559-023-02048-2

Cited by 23 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Any conservation efforts taking place in IPL must include the participation of Indigenous communities throughout the entire conservation planning process. Recognizing the agency and leadership of Indigenous Peoples as rights‐, knowledge‐, and stake‐holders (beyond consent‐giving), and the need for equitable distribution of benefits and compensation for costs are vital to underpin the success of the newly established Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (Reyes‐García et al., 2021; Sandbrook et al., 2023).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indigenous Peoples' Lands are critical for safeguarding vertebrate diversity across the tropics

Sze,

Childs,

Carrasco

et al. 2023

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Indigenous Peoples are long‐term custodians of their lands, but only recently are their contributions to conservation starting to be recognized in biodiversity policy and practice. Tropical forest loss and degradation are lower in Indigenous lands than unprotected areas, yet the role of Indigenous Peoples' Lands (IPL) in biodiversity conservation has not been properly assessed from regional to global scales. Using species distribution ranges of 11,872 tropical forest‐dependent vertebrates to create area of habitat maps, we identified the overlap of these species ranges with IPL and then compared values inside and outside of IPL for species richness, extinction vulnerability, and range‐size rarity. Of assessed vertebrates, at least 76.8% had range overlaps with IPL, on average overlapping ~25% of their ranges; at least 120 species were found only within IPL. Species richness within IPL was highest in South America, while IPL in Southeast Asia had highest extinction vulnerability, and IPL in Dominica and New Caledonia were important for range‐size rarity. Most countries in the Americas had higher species richness within IPL than outside, whereas most countries in Asia had lower extinction vulnerability scores inside IPL and more countries in Africa and Asia had slightly higher range‐size rarity in IPL. Our findings suggest that IPL provide critical support for tropical forest‐dependent vertebrates, highlighting the need for greater inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in conservation target‐setting and program implementation, and stronger upholding of Indigenous Peoples' rights in conservation policy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indigenous Peoples' Lands are critical for safeguarding vertebrate diversity across the tropics

Sze,

Childs,

Carrasco

et al. 2023

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore the 12 elements (and associated planning objectives) suggested here can only be successfully implemented at local scales where planning is equitable, inclusive and agreed upon by local rightsholders and stakeholders following the principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). Biodiversity outcomes in the 30 × 30 agenda can only be achieved through fair and equitable means (Sandbrook et al, 2023). We recognise that social equity in the context of PCAs has multiple dimensions, including distributional equity (e.g., people agree on a scheme for sharing benefits and burdens), procedural equity (e.g., decision-making, i.e., transparent, accountable and participatory) and recognition (e.g., respect for cultural identities, customary rights and traditional management practices) (Franks et al, 2018).…”

Section: Principle 6 Ensure Planning Is Equitable and Inclusivementioning

confidence: 99%

Priorities for protected area expansion so nations can meet their Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework commitments

Watson,

Venegas‐Li,

Grantham

et al. 2023

Integrative Conservation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As part of the Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (K‐M GBF), signatory nations of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) aim to protect at least 30% of the planet by 2030 (Target 3). This bold ambition has been widely celebrated and its implementation seen as pivotal for the overall success of K‐M GBF. However, given that many CBD signatory nations prioritised quantity (e.g., area) over quality (e.g., important areas for biodiversity) when attempting to meet their 2010 CBD Aichi protected area commitments, it is critical that nations focus on protecting those terrestrial, inland waters and marine areas that have the best chance of halting and reversing biodiversity loss and thus contribute to Goal A of the K‐M GBF. Here we provide a review on the type of areas that nations need to prioritise when implementing Target 3 that relates to area ‘quality’: areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well‐connected and equitably governed systems. We show that data is available for 12 distinct biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service elements that can be mapped and, if conserved, will (with appropriate management) help meet the broad intention of Target 3. We highlight examples of the planning methods available that can be utilized so these areas can be targeted for protection. We discuss issues related to trade‐offs regarding how to prioritise amongst them as well as to operationalise some of the vaguer concepts like ‘representation’ and ‘ecosystem functions and services’ so that they achieve the best outcomes for biodiversity.

show abstract

“…impacting project grant proposals (RAI, 2021). Another form of engagement is through projects where critical social scientists such as anthropologists in academia jointly tackle socio-ecological challenges with conservation scientists and professionals (Chua et al, 2020;Sandbrook et al, 2023).…”

Section: Studying the Conservation Landscapementioning

confidence: 99%

Fieldwork in conservation organisations–A review of methodological challenges, opportunities and ethics

Saif,

Staddon,

Keane

2023

Methods Ecol Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social science methodologies are increasingly used by conservation organisations to improve social‐ecological outcomes. However, ethnographic approaches seeking to understand organisations themselves and how organisational culture impacts biodiversity and social justice are rarely discussed. By exploring previous studies of the methodological considerations of organisational ethnography in conservation, we provide conservationists and ethnographers with an empirically grounded understanding of the opportunities, challenges and underlying ethical considerations of this approach. We conducted a scoping review of a disparate body of literature where ethnographers were embedded in conservation organisations and discussed their methodology, identifying 26 studies for analysis. We then extracted information on key themes relevant to methodological process and uptake. Our review found such research spanned the globe, with a broad range of methodological and ethical considerations related to how ethnographers and conservationists interact. For example, organisational ethnography was perceived as valuable by conservationists as it allowed tracking progress toward internal goals such as diversification of staff and providing moral and emotional support and valuable information for transforming organisational practices. However, conservationists also worried about ethnographers' presence in their organisations. A key methodological challenge we identify, corroborating with the literature, is how ethnographers can benefit organisations while supplying critique. Based on the results, we provide recommendations and areas of reflection for conservation organisations and ethnographers. Mainstreaming organisational ethnography through attention to certain methodological considerations can be beneficial for the future of conservation organisations and the biodiversity and people they impact.

show abstract

Social considerations are crucial to success in implementing the 30×30 global conservation target

Cited by 23 publications

References 9 publications

Indigenous Peoples' Lands are critical for safeguarding vertebrate diversity across the tropics

Indigenous Peoples' Lands are critical for safeguarding vertebrate diversity across the tropics

Priorities for protected area expansion so nations can meet their Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework commitments

Fieldwork in conservation organisations–A review of methodological challenges, opportunities and ethics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About