Working with Indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people

Working with indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) is vital for inclusive assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people. Indigenous peoples' concepts about what constitutes sustainability, for example, differ markedly from dominant sustainability discourses. The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services (IPBES) is promoting dialogue across different knowledge systems globally. In 2017, member states of IPBES adopted an ILK Approach including: procedures for assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people; a participatory mechanism; and institutional arrangements for including indigenous peoples and local communities. We present this Approach and analyse how it supports ILK in IPBES assessments through: respecting rights; supporting care and mutuality; strengthening communities and their knowledge systems; and supporting knowledge exchange. Customary institutions that ensure the integrity of ILK, effective empowering dialogues, and shared governance are among critical capacities that enable inclusion of diverse conceptualizations of sustainability in assessments

Bringing the Nature Futures Framework to life: creating a set of illustrative narratives of nature futures

To halt further destruction of the biosphere, most people and societies around the globe need to transform their relationships with nature. The internationally agreed vision under the Convention of Biological Diversity—Living in harmony with nature—is that “By 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefts essential for all people”. In this context, there are a variety of debates between alternative perspectives on how to achieve this vision. Yet, scenarios and models that are able to explore these debates in the context of “living in harmony with nature” have not been widely developed. To address this gap, the Nature Futures Framework has been developed to catalyse the development of new scenarios and models that embrace a plurality of perspectives on desirable futures for nature and people. In this paper, members of the IPBES task force on scenarios and models provide an example of how the Nature Futures Framework can be implemented for the development of illustrative narratives representing a diversity of desirable nature futures: information that can be used to assess and develop scenarios and models whilst acknowledging the underpinning value perspectives on nature. Here, the term illustrative refects the multiple ways in which desired nature futures can be captured by these narratives. In addition, to explore the interdependence between narratives, and therefore their potential to be translated into scenarios and models, the six narratives developed here were assessed around three areas of the transformative change debate, specifcally, (1) land sparing vs. land sharing, (2) Half Earth vs. Whole Earth conservation, and (3) green growth vs. post-growth economic development. The paper concludes with an assessment of how the Nature Futures Framework could be used to assist in developing and articulating transformative pathways towards desirable nature futures

Elusive Meanings: Decentralization, Conservation and Local Democracy.” In Governing Africa’s Forests in a Globalized World, edited by Laura A. German, Alain Karsenty and Anne-Marie Tiani, 56–71

Abstract This paper questions the concept of democratic decentralization and its reductionist focus on state, powers, and subsidiarity. We review key lessons from the political economy of decentralization in Asia, Africa and Latin America to recognize the democratic content of the redistribution of state powers toward peripheral sites of decision-making; at the same time, we take stock of the limited number of success stories and of the different actualization of subsidiarity principles in three cases: political decentralization, CBNRM and biodiversity conservation. In that process, we see overwhelming evidence of the elusive nature of 'democratic decentralization' in conservation schemes and the 'fugitive' nature of power in decentralization processes -and we asked ourselves why? We argue that part of the problem lies with the ways conservation discourse and decentralization theory are de-linked from more complex concepts of governance. Conservation discourse is primarily concerned with territories; decentralization theory is obsessed with powers and politics; in both cases, the legitimacy and innovative potential of local agency is put into parenthesis or subsumed under external, normative explanatory frames. This leads to overemphasis of political and discursive reasons and de-emphasis of the web of embedded institutions and informal networks through which local meanings and other-than-power capabilities circulate to shape uncertain outcomes. In particular, the historic mutation of the state under a diversity of external and internal pressures is confounded with the multi-form "taking of space" that characterizes local and translocal governance. We argue that the move from government to governance implied by environmental decentralization cannot lead to predefined, singular environmental outcomes. A shift of perspective is thus needed, taking into account the multiple scales at which the legitimating frameworks for local governance manifest themselves, including customary forms of representation and embedded tenures

SETTING THE SCENE

Chapter published in The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Africa, pp. 1-76International audienc

SETTING THE SCENE

Chapter published in The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Africa, pp. 1-76International audienc

SETTING THE SCENE

Chapter published in The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Africa, pp. 1-76International audienc

SETTING THE SCENE

Chapter published in The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Africa, pp. 1-76International audienc

Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people

International audienceWorking with indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) is vital for inclusive assessments ofnature and nature’s linkages. Indigenous peoples’ concepts about what constitutessustainability, for example, differ markedly from dominant sustainability discourses.The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services (IPBES) ispromoting dialogue across different knowledge systems globally. In 2017, memberstates of IPBES adopted an ILK Approach including: procedures for assessments ofnature and nature’s linkages with people; a participatory mechanism; and institutionalarrangements for including indigenous peoples and local communities. We present thisApproach and analyse how it supports ILK in IPBES assessments through: respectingrights; supporting care and mutuality; strengthening communities and their knowledgesystems; and supporting knowledge exchange. Customary institutions that ensure theintegrity of ILK, effective empowering dialogues, and shared governance are amongcritical capacities that enable inclusion of diverse conceptualization of sustainability inassessments