Architecture and Agency For Equity In Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction

The United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (Ocean Decade) bring increased attention to various aspects of ocean governance, including equity. One of the Ocean Decade\u27s identified challenges is to develop a sustainable and equitable ocean economy, but questions arise about how to conceptualize the multiple dimensions of equity in an ocean context. These questions become more complex as activities move away from coastal ecosystems and communities into off-shore Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ), where ocean resources are recognized simultaneously as unowned/open access and as common heritage. In this paper, we mobilize the Earth System Governance analytics of ‘architecture’ and ‘agency’, to reflect on the possibilities for equity in ABNJ. Motivated by the general attention to equity in UN initiatives like the SDGs and the Ocean Decade, we describe current UN architecture for ocean governance, including principles that might support equity. Existing UN architecture focuses on distributional equity among nation states, with less attention to recognitional or procedural equity. State actors have most agency, while non-state actors can exercise some via broad UN declarations and through mechanisms like ‘major groups.’ We use on-going negotiations in the International Seabed Authority on rules for mineral exploitation and in the Intergovernmental Conference on an international legally binding instrument under UNCLOS on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction to illustrate how existing architecture shapes possibilities for equity in ABNJ. As new governance possibilities are imagined, attending to existing architecture and agency can help avoid further entrenching existing power imbalances and unwittingly reproducing or exacerbating inequities

Conceptualizing responsible exits in conservation philanthropy

Conservation philanthropy has grown significantly in the past decade. As the number of philanthropic-supported conservation initiatives increases, so too will the frequency of exits-the ending of funding relationships. A trend toward "strategic philanthropy, " where foundations fund time-limited grants, is already contributing to near-constant exits. We draw attention to exits as a critical and ubiquitous-yet understudied-part of conservation grantmaking processes that can have tremendous impacts on the people and places foundations invest in. This paper begins to address this research gap with the first empirical study of exit processes in the context of ocean conservation philanthropy. We draw on an analysis of interviews and a knowledge co-production workshop with donors representing 36 foundations investing in ocean conservation globally to: (1) develop a conceptual framework that broadens and clarifies definitions of exits and provides a common language to characterize exits along varied dimensions, and (2) derive best practices for exiting responsibly. This paper provides timely guidance for environmental philanthropy broadly, including the need to think about exits early and often as an integral part of the grantmaking strategy. Responsible giving must include responsible exits

Who’s setting the agenda? Philanthropic donor influence in marine conservation

We are in a period of unprecedented growth in conservation philanthropy. How will this influx of private funding affect conservation agendas? Inspired by a collaborative research co-design process, this paper addresses questions about how foundations influence conservation agendas in the places they work. We draw from a case study of the world’s largest philanthropic funder of marine conservation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and their 20 years of investment in marine conservation in Palau and Fiji. Conservation practitioners in both countries universally agreed that the Packard Foundation had a significant and positive influence on the agenda, which they attribute to both how the foundation worked and what they chose to fund. Specifically, our study reveals how the Packard Foundation shaped conservation agendas in Palau and Fiji in partnership with its grantees through a grant-making process characterized by relationship building, collaborative decision making, convening and promoting of collective action, flexibility, and long-term funding. Packard’s approach was often identified as unique, and contrasted with numerous other donors, including foundations and other types of donors, who use a more top-down approach. By describing a relative success story in how philanthropic foundations can work with conservation practitioners to co-design a shared conservation agenda, our work provides timely guidance for donors and practitioners