The contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities to ecological restoration

Unidad de excelencia María de Maeztu MdM-2015-0552Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC) are affected by global environmental change because they directly rely on their immediate environment for meeting basic livelihood needs. Therefore, safeguarding and restoring ecosystem resilience is critical to support their wellbeing. Based on examples from the literature, we illustrate how IPLC participate in restoration activities maintaining traditional practices, restoring land degraded by outsiders, and joining outside groups seeking to restore ecosystems. Our review also provides examples of how Indigenous and local knowledge can be incorporated in the planning, execution, and monitoring of restoration activities. However, not all restoration initiatives engaging IPLC are beneficial or successful, and the factors that lead to success are not fully known. While local involvement in restoration projects is often mentioned as an element of success, this is primarily associated to projects that actively involve IPLC in co-designing restoration activities affecting their territories, ensure both short-term direct benefits to IPLC and long-term support of the maintenance of restored areas, and recognize IPLC local traditions and customary institutions. Based on these examples, we argue that IPLC should be a more important focus in any post-2020 CBD agenda on restoration

The contributions of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities to ecological restoration

Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC) are affected by global environmental change because they directly rely on their immediate environment for meeting basic livelihood needs. Therefore, safeguarding and restoring ecosystem resilience is critical to support their wellbeing. Based on examples from the literature, we illustrate how IPLC participate in restoration activities maintaining traditional practices, restoring land degraded by outsiders, and joining outside groups seeking to restore ecosystems. Our review also provides examples of how Indigenous and local knowledge can be incorporated in the planning, execution, and monitoring of restoration activities. However, not all restoration initiatives engaging IPLC are beneficial or successful, and the factors that lead to success are not fully known. While local involvement in restoration projects is often mentioned as an element of success, this is primarily associated to projects that actively involve IPLC in co-designing restoration activities affecting their territories, ensure both short-term direct benefits to IPLC and long-term support of the maintenance of restored areas, and recognize IPLC local traditions and customary institutions. Based on these examples, we argue that IPLC should be a more important focus in any post-2020 CBD agenda on restoration. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

A State‐of‐the‐Art Review of Indigenous Peoples and Environmental Pollution

Indigenous peoples (IPs) worldwide are confronted by the increasing threat of pollution. Based on a comprehensive review of the literature (n = 686 studies), we present the current state of knowledge on: 1) the exposure and vulnerability of IPs to pollution; 2) the environmental, health, and cultural impacts of pollution upon IPs; and 3) IPs' contributions to prevent, control, limit, and abate pollution from local to global scales. Indigenous peoples experience large burdens of environmental pollution linked to the expansion of commodity frontiers and industrial development, including agricultural, mining, and extractive industries, as well as urban growth, waste dumping, and infrastructure and energy development. Nevertheless, IPs are contributing to limit pollution in different ways, including through environmental monitoring and global policy advocacy, as well as through local resistance toward polluting activities. This work adds to growing evidence of the breadth and depth of environmental injustices faced by IPs worldwide, and we conclude by highlighting the need to increase IPs' engagement in environmental decision‐making regarding pollution control. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2020;16:324–341. © 2019 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC)Peer reviewe

INCLUDING INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL KNOWLEDGE IN THE WORK OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL SCIENCE-POLICY PLATFORM ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES (IPBES) GLOBAL ASSESSMENT : Outcomes and lessons for the future

This chapter makes a strong case for greater inclusion of Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) in global environmental policy fora and in science-policy interfaces. The chapter specifically looks at the IPBES Global Assessment which has developed one of the first global-scale mechanisms for operationalizing ILK in sustainability decision-making. The types of knowledges that have been successfully integrated into this assessment include ways in which ILK can help (1) to assess ecosystem change and associated human vulnerability; (2) to inform the achievement of global goals like the Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Targets; and (3) to inform policy-relevant options for decision-makers. It is argued that other global initiatives seeking to engage ILK in their endeavours can learn from the ILK approach of the IPBES Global Assessment.Peer reviewe

Is Climate Obstruction Different in the Global South? Observations and a Preliminary Research Agenda

In anticipation of the COP26 Glasgow United Nations Summit on Climate Change, this position paper draws attention to a series of research themes and potential questions to ask on the role of climate obstruction in the Global South. These initial research themes and questions set the foundation for a body of research that could have direct implications for nation states in the Global South and their engagement in future action on climate change

Response to "Practice what you preach : Ensuring scientific spheres integrate Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' rights and agency too" by Lopez-Maldonado

Non peer reviewe

Soil-derived Nature’s Contributions to People and their contribution to the UN Sustainable Development Goals

Acknowledgments The input of PS contributes to Soils-R-GRREAT (NE/P019455/1) and the input of PS and SK contributes to the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme through project CIRCASA (grant agreement no. 774378). PR acknowledges funding from UK Greenhouse Gas Removal Programme (NE/P01982X/2). GB De Deyn acknowledges FoodShot Global for its support. TKA acknowledges the support of “Towards Integrated Nitrogen Management System (INMS) funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), executed through the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). The input of DG was supported by the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) strategic science investment fund (SSIF). PMS acknowledges support from the Australian Research Council (Project FT140100610). PM’s work on ecosystem services is supported by a National Science Foundation grant #1853759, “Understanding the Use of Ecosystem Services Concepts in Environmental Policy”. LGC is funded by National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, Brazil – grants 421668/2018-0 and 305157/2018-3) and by Lisboa2020 FCT/EU (project 028360). BS acknowledges support from the Lancaster Environment Centre Project.Peer reviewedPostprin

Climate Obstruction in the Global South: Future Research Trajectories

open access article“Climate Obstruction” broadly refers to campaigns and other policy actions led by well-organized and financed networks of corporate and other actors who have actively sought to prevent global and/or national action on climate change over the past four decades. In turn, these campaigns often shape public debates, which can affect political support and collective mobilization to mitigate climate change. However, to date, most of the research on climate obstruction has focused on countries in the Global North, especially the United States. Given considerable gaps in research and knowledge, this opinion paper presents a future research agenda needs to shine greater light on if and in what form climate obstruction in the Global South appears

Enabling transformative economic change in the post‐2020 biodiversity agenda

Abstract: The COVID‐19 pandemic, its impact on the global economy, and current delays in the negotiation of the post‐2020 global biodiversity agenda of the Convention on Biological Diversity heighten the urgency to build back better for biodiversity, sustainability, and well‐being. In 2019, the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) concluded that addressing biodiversity loss requires a transformative change of the global economic system. Drawing on the IPBES findings, this policy perspective discusses actions in four priority areas to inform the post‐2020 agenda: (1) Increasing funding for conservation; (2) redirecting incentives for sustainability; (3) creating an enabling regulatory environment; and (4) reforming metrics to assess biodiversity impacts and progress toward sustainable and just goals. As the COVID‐19 pandemic has made clear, and the negotiations for the post‐2020 agenda have emphasized, governments are indispensable in guiding economic systems and must take an active role in transformations, along with businesses and civil society. These key actors must work together to implement actions that combine short‐term impacts with structural change to shift economic systems away from a fixation with growth toward human and ecological well‐being. The four priority areas discussed here provide opportunities for the post‐2020 agenda to do so

Assessing progress towards meeting major international objectives related to nature and nature's contributions to people

In recognition of the importance of nature, its contributions to people and role in underpinning sustainable development, governments adopted a Strategic Plan on Biodiversity 2011-2020 through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) containing 20 "Aichi Biodiversity Targets" and integrated many of these into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted through the United Nations in 2015. Additional multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) target particular aspects of nature (e.g., Ramsar Convention on Wetlands; Convention on Migratory Species), drivers of biodiversity loss (e.g., Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), or responses (e.g., World Heritage Convention). These various MEAs provide complementary fora in which governments strive to coordinate efforts to reduce the loss and degradation of nature, and to promote sustainable development. In this chapter, we assess, through a systematic review process and quantitative analysis of indicators, progress towards the 20 Aichi Targets under the Strategic Plan (and each of the 54 elements or components of these targets), targets under the SDGs that are relevant to nature and nature's contributions to people (NCP), and the goals and targets of six other MEAs. We consider the relationships between the SDGs, nature and the contributions of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) to achieving the various targets and goals, the impact of progress or lack of it on IPLCs, the reasons for variation in progress, implications for a new Strategic Plan for Biodiversity beyond 2020, and key knowledge gaps.For the 44 SDG targets assessed, including targets for poverty, hunger, health, water, cities, climate, oceans and land (Goals 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 13, 14, 15), findings suggest that current negative trends in nature will substantially undermine progress to 22 SDG targets and result in insufficient progress to meet 13 additional targets (i.e. 80 per cent (35 out of 44) of the assessed targets) {3.3.2.1; 3.3.2.2}(established but incomplete). Across terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems, current negative trends in nature and its contributions will hamper SDG progress, with especially poor progress expected towards targets on water security, water quality, ocean pollution and acidification. Trends in nature's contributions relevant to extreme event vulnerability, resource access, small-scale food production, and urban and agricultural sustainability are negative and insufficient for achieving relevant targets under SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 11. This has negative consequences for both the rural and urban poor who are also directly reliant on declining resources for consumption and income generation {3.3.2.2}. For a further 9 targets evaluated in SDGs 1, 3 and 11 a lack of knowledge on how nature contributes to targets (4 targets) or gaps in data with which to assess trends in nature (5 targets) prevented their assessment.Fil: Butchart, Stuart. London Metropolitan University; Reino UnidoFil: Miloslavich, Patricia. University of Western Australia; AustraliaFil: Reyers, Belinda. No especifíca;Fil: Galetto, Leonardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Subramanian, Suneetha M.. No especifíca;Fil: Adams, Cristina. No especifíca;Fil: Palomo, Maria Gabriela. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia"; ArgentinaFil: McElwee, Pamela. No especifíca;Fil: Meretsky, Vicky J.. No especifíca;Fil: Morsello, Carla. No especifíca;Fil: Nel, Jeanne. No especifíca;Fil: Lynn Newberry, Teresa. No especifíca;Fil: Pacheco, Diego. No especifíca;Fil: Pyhala, Aili. No especifíca;Fil: Rossi Heras, Sergio. No especifíca;Fil: Roy, Joyashree. No especifíca;Fil: Ruiz-Mallén, Isabel. No especifíca;Fil: Salpeteur, Matthieu. No especifíca;Fil: Santos-Martin, Fernando. No especifíca;Fil: Saylor. Kirk. No especifíca;Fil: Schaffartzik, Anke. No especifíca;Fil: Sitas, Nadia. No especifíca;Fil: Speranza, Ifejika. No especifíca;Fil: Suich, Helen. No especifíca;Fil: Tittensor, Derek. No especifíca;Fil: Carignano, Patricia. No especifíca;Fil: Tsioumani, Elsa. No especifíca;Fil: Whitmee, Sarah. No especifíca;Fil: Wilson, Sarah. No especifíca;Fil: Wyndham, Felice. No especifíca;Fil: Zorondo-Rodriguez, Francisco. No especifíca