Recognizing Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ rights and agency in the post-2020 Biodiversity Agenda

The Convention on Biological Diversity is defining the goals that will frame future global biodiversity policy in a context of rapid biodiversity decline and under pressure to make transformative change. Drawing on the work of Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars, we argue that transformative change requires the foregrounding of Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ rights and agency in biodiversity policy. We support this argument with four key points. First, Indigenous peoples and local communities hold knowledge essential for setting realistic and effective biodiversity targets that simultaneously improve local livelihoods. Second, Indigenous peoples’ conceptualizations of nature sustain and manifest CBD’s 2050 vision of “Living in harmony with nature.” Third, Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ participation in biodiversity policy contributes to the recognition of human and Indigenous peoples’ rights. And fourth, engagement in biodiversity policy is essential for Indigenous peoples and local communities to be able to exercise their recognized rights to territories and resources.     

The European Commission’s Green Deal is an opportunity to rethink harmful practices of research and innovation policy

The European Union’s Green Deal and associated policies, aspiring to long-term environmental sustainability, now require economic activities to ‘do no significant harm’ to EU environmental objectives. The way the European Commission is enacting the do no significant harm principle relies on quantitative tools that try to identify harm and adjudicate its significance. A reliance on established technical approaches to assessing such questions ignores the high levels of imprecision, ambiguity, and uncertainty—levels often in flux—characterizing the social contexts in which harms emerge. Indeed, harm, and its significance, are relational, not absolute. A better approach would thus be to acknowledge the relational nature of harm and develop broad capabilities to engage and ‘stay with’ the harm. We use the case of European research and innovation activities to expose the relational nature of harm, and explore an alternative and potentially more productive approach that departs from attempts to unilaterally or uniformly claim to know or adjudicate what is or is not significantly harmful. In closing, we outline three ways research and innovation policy-makers might experiment with reconfiguring scientific and technological systems and practices to better address the significant harms borne by people, other-than-human beings, and ecosystems.     

Multiple impact pathways of the 2015–2016 El Niño in coastal Kenya

The 2015–2016 El Niño had large impacts globally. The effects were not as great as anticipated in Kenya, however, leading some commentators to call it a ‘non-event’. Our study uses a novel combination of participatory Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis tools, and new and existing social and biophysical data, to analyse vulnerability to, and the multidimensional impacts of, the 2015–2016 El Niño episode in southern coastal Kenya. Using a social-ecological systems lens and a unique dataset, our study reveals impacts overlooked by conventional analysis. We show how El Niño stressors interact with and amplify existing vulnerabilities to differentially impact local ecosystems and people. The policy significance of this finding is that the development of specific national capacities to deal with El Niño events is insufficient; it will be necessary to also address local vulnerabilities to everyday and recurrent stressors and shocks to build resilience to the effects of El Niño and other extremes in climate and weather.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s13280-020-01321-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Untangling unexpected terrestrial conservation challenges arising from the historical human exploitation of marine mammals in the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean

Intensive human exploitation of the Antarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus gazella) in its primary population centre on sub-Antarctic South Georgia, as well as on other sub-Antarctic islands and parts of the South Shetland Islands, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries rapidly brought populations to the brink of extinction. The species has now recovered throughout its original distribution. Non-breeding and yearling seals, almost entirely males, from the South Georgia population now disperse in the summer months far more widely and in higher numbers than there is evidence for taking place in the pre-exploitation era. Large numbers now haul out in coastal terrestrial habitats in the South Orkney Islands and also along the north-east and west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula to at least Marguerite Bay. In these previously less- or non-visited areas, the seals cause levels of damage likely never to have been experienced previously to fragile terrestrial habitats through trampling and over-fertilisation, as well as eutrophication of sensitive freshwater ecosystems. This increased area of summer impact is likely to have further synergies with aspects of regional climate change, including reduction in extent and duration of sea ice permitting seals access farther south, and changes in krill abundance and distribution. The extent and conservation value of terrestrial habitats and biodiversity now threatened by fur seal distribution expansion, and the multiple anthropogenic factors acting in synergy both historically and to the present day, present a new and as yet unaddressed challenge to the agencies charged with ensuring the protection and conservation of Antarctica’s unique ecosystems.