Inclusive conservation and the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: Tensions and prospects

Christopher M. Raymond; Miguel A. Cebrián-Piqueras; Erik Andersson; Riley Andrade; Alberto Arroyo Schnell; Barbara Battioni Romanelli; Anna Filyushkina; Devin J. Goodson; Andra Horcea-Milcu; Dana N. Johnson; Rose Keller; Jan J. Kuiper; Veronica Lo; María D. López-Rodríguez; Hug March; Marc Metzger; Elisa Oteros-Rozas; Evan Salcido; My Sellberg; William Stewart; Isabel Ruiz-Mallén; Tobias Plieninger; Carena J. van Riper; Peter H. Verburg; Magdalena M. Wiedermann

doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2022.02.008

Inclusive conservation and the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: Tensions and prospects

Christopher M. Raymond, Miguel A. Cebrián-Piqueras, Erik Andersson, Riley Andrade, Alberto Arroyo Schnell, Barbara Battioni Romanelli, Anna Filyushkina, Devin J. Goodson, Andra Horcea-Milcu, Dana N. Johnson, Rose Keller, Jan J. Kuiper, Veronica Lo, María D. López-Rodríguez, Hug March, Marc Metzger, Elisa Oteros-Rozas, Evan Salcido, My Sellberg, William StewartIsabel Ruiz-Mallén, Tobias Plieninger, Carena J. van Riper, Peter H. Verburg, Magdalena M. Wiedermann

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

Abstract

The draft Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework commits to achievement of equity and justice outcomes and represents a “relational turn” in how we understand inclusive conservation. Although “inclusivity” is drawn on as a means to engage diverse stakeholders, widening the framing of inclusivity can create new tensions with regard to how to manage protected areas. We first offer a set of tensions that emerge in the light of the relational turn in biodiversity conservation. Drawing on global case examples applying multiple methods of inclusive conservation, we then demonstrate that, by actively engaging in the interdependent phases of recognizing hybridity, enabling conditions for reflexivity and partnership building, tensions can not only be acknowledged but softened and, in some cases, reframed when managing for biodiversity, equity, and justice goals. The results can improve stakeholder engagement in protected area management, ultimately supporting better implementation of global biodiversity targets.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	252-264
Number of pages	13
Journal	One Earth
Volume	5
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.02.008
State	Published - Mar 18 2022

Keywords

biodiversity conservation
ecosystem services
equity
inclusive conservation
plural valuation
protected area management
values

ASJC Scopus subject areas

General Environmental Science
Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous)

Online availability

10.1016/j.oneear.2022.02.008

Library availability

Discover UIUC Full Text

Cite this

Raymond, C. M., Cebrián-Piqueras, M. A., Andersson, E., Andrade, R., Schnell, A. A., Battioni Romanelli, B., Filyushkina, A., Goodson, D. J., Horcea-Milcu, A., Johnson, D. N., Keller, R., Kuiper, J. J., Lo, V., López-Rodríguez, M. D., March, H., Metzger, M., Oteros-Rozas, E., Salcido, E., Sellberg, M., ... Wiedermann, M. M. (2022). Inclusive conservation and the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: Tensions and prospects. One Earth, 5(3), 252-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.02.008

Raymond, CM, Cebrián-Piqueras, MA, Andersson, E, Andrade, R, Schnell, AA, Battioni Romanelli, B, Filyushkina, A, Goodson, DJ, Horcea-Milcu, A, Johnson, DN, Keller, R, Kuiper, JJ, Lo, V, López-Rodríguez, MD, March, H, Metzger, M, Oteros-Rozas, E, Salcido, E, Sellberg, M, Stewart, W, Ruiz-Mallén, I, Plieninger, T, van Riper, CJ, Verburg, PH & Wiedermann, MM 2022, 'Inclusive conservation and the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: Tensions and prospects', One Earth, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 252-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.02.008

@article{5317a59a03014a78bd1799d17c660462,

title = "Inclusive conservation and the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: Tensions and prospects",

abstract = "The draft Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework commits to achievement of equity and justice outcomes and represents a “relational turn” in how we understand inclusive conservation. Although “inclusivity” is drawn on as a means to engage diverse stakeholders, widening the framing of inclusivity can create new tensions with regard to how to manage protected areas. We first offer a set of tensions that emerge in the light of the relational turn in biodiversity conservation. Drawing on global case examples applying multiple methods of inclusive conservation, we then demonstrate that, by actively engaging in the interdependent phases of recognizing hybridity, enabling conditions for reflexivity and partnership building, tensions can not only be acknowledged but softened and, in some cases, reframed when managing for biodiversity, equity, and justice goals. The results can improve stakeholder engagement in protected area management, ultimately supporting better implementation of global biodiversity targets.",

keywords = "biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, equity, inclusive conservation, plural valuation, protected area management, values",

author = "Raymond, {Christopher M.} and Cebri{\'a}n-Piqueras, {Miguel A.} and Erik Andersson and Riley Andrade and Schnell, {Alberto Arroyo} and {Battioni Romanelli}, Barbara and Anna Filyushkina and Goodson, {Devin J.} and Andra Horcea-Milcu and Johnson, {Dana N.} and Rose Keller and Kuiper, {Jan J.} and Veronica Lo and L{\'o}pez-Rodr{\'i}guez, {Mar{\'i}a D.} and Hug March and Marc Metzger and Elisa Oteros-Rozas and Evan Salcido and My Sellberg and William Stewart and Isabel Ruiz-Mall{\'e}n and Tobias Plieninger and {van Riper}, {Carena J.} and Verburg, {Peter H.} and Wiedermann, {Magdalena M.}",

note = "ENVISION was funded through the 2017–2018 Belmont Forum and BiodivERsA joint call for research proposals, under the BiodivScen ERA-Net COFUND program, and with the support of the following national funders: the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development ( FORMAS, 2018-02429 ); the Federal Ministry of Education and Research ( BMBF ) ( FKZ:01LC1806A ), Germany; the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research ( NWO ); the National Science Foundation ( 1854767 ); a Cooperative Agreement with the US National Park Service ( P18AC00175 ); the University of Illinois Campus Research Board ( RB19119 ); and the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovaci{\'o}n , Spain. E.O.-R. has been funded by Juan de la Cierva Incorporation Fellowship of the Ministry of Science Innovation and Universities ( IJCI-2017-34334 ). I.R.-M. gratefully acknowledges support from grant RYC-2015-17676 funded by MCIN /AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by “ESF Investing in your future.” J.J.K. received support from the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development FORMAS ( 2019-01648 ). C.M.R. also received support from the VIVA-PLAN project, funded by FORMAS (2018-00175).",

year = "2022",

month = mar,

day = "18",

doi = "10.1016/j.oneear.2022.02.008",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "5",

pages = "252--264",

journal = "One Earth",

issn = "2590-3330",

publisher = "Cell Press",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Inclusive conservation and the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

T2 - Tensions and prospects

AU - Raymond, Christopher M.

AU - Cebrián-Piqueras, Miguel A.

AU - Andersson, Erik

AU - Andrade, Riley

AU - Schnell, Alberto Arroyo

AU - Battioni Romanelli, Barbara

AU - Filyushkina, Anna

AU - Goodson, Devin J.

AU - Horcea-Milcu, Andra

AU - Johnson, Dana N.

AU - Keller, Rose

AU - Kuiper, Jan J.

AU - Lo, Veronica

AU - López-Rodríguez, María D.

AU - March, Hug

AU - Metzger, Marc

AU - Oteros-Rozas, Elisa

AU - Salcido, Evan

AU - Sellberg, My

AU - Stewart, William

AU - Ruiz-Mallén, Isabel

AU - Plieninger, Tobias

AU - van Riper, Carena J.

AU - Verburg, Peter H.

AU - Wiedermann, Magdalena M.

N1 - ENVISION was funded through the 2017–2018 Belmont Forum and BiodivERsA joint call for research proposals, under the BiodivScen ERA-Net COFUND program, and with the support of the following national funders: the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development ( FORMAS, 2018-02429 ); the Federal Ministry of Education and Research ( BMBF ) ( FKZ:01LC1806A ), Germany; the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research ( NWO ); the National Science Foundation ( 1854767 ); a Cooperative Agreement with the US National Park Service ( P18AC00175 ); the University of Illinois Campus Research Board ( RB19119 ); and the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación , Spain. E.O.-R. has been funded by Juan de la Cierva Incorporation Fellowship of the Ministry of Science Innovation and Universities ( IJCI-2017-34334 ). I.R.-M. gratefully acknowledges support from grant RYC-2015-17676 funded by MCIN /AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by “ESF Investing in your future.” J.J.K. received support from the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development FORMAS ( 2019-01648 ). C.M.R. also received support from the VIVA-PLAN project, funded by FORMAS (2018-00175).

PY - 2022/3/18

Y1 - 2022/3/18

N2 - The draft Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework commits to achievement of equity and justice outcomes and represents a “relational turn” in how we understand inclusive conservation. Although “inclusivity” is drawn on as a means to engage diverse stakeholders, widening the framing of inclusivity can create new tensions with regard to how to manage protected areas. We first offer a set of tensions that emerge in the light of the relational turn in biodiversity conservation. Drawing on global case examples applying multiple methods of inclusive conservation, we then demonstrate that, by actively engaging in the interdependent phases of recognizing hybridity, enabling conditions for reflexivity and partnership building, tensions can not only be acknowledged but softened and, in some cases, reframed when managing for biodiversity, equity, and justice goals. The results can improve stakeholder engagement in protected area management, ultimately supporting better implementation of global biodiversity targets.

AB - The draft Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework commits to achievement of equity and justice outcomes and represents a “relational turn” in how we understand inclusive conservation. Although “inclusivity” is drawn on as a means to engage diverse stakeholders, widening the framing of inclusivity can create new tensions with regard to how to manage protected areas. We first offer a set of tensions that emerge in the light of the relational turn in biodiversity conservation. Drawing on global case examples applying multiple methods of inclusive conservation, we then demonstrate that, by actively engaging in the interdependent phases of recognizing hybridity, enabling conditions for reflexivity and partnership building, tensions can not only be acknowledged but softened and, in some cases, reframed when managing for biodiversity, equity, and justice goals. The results can improve stakeholder engagement in protected area management, ultimately supporting better implementation of global biodiversity targets.

KW - biodiversity conservation

KW - ecosystem services

KW - equity

KW - inclusive conservation

KW - plural valuation

KW - protected area management

KW - values

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85126608408&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85126608408&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.oneear.2022.02.008

DO - 10.1016/j.oneear.2022.02.008

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85126608408

SN - 2590-3330

VL - 5

SP - 252

EP - 264

JO - One Earth

JF - One Earth

IS - 3

ER -

Inclusive conservation and the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: Tensions and prospects

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Online availability

Library availability

Related links

Fingerprint

Cite this