Browsing by Subject "Convention on Biological Diversity"

Sort by: Order: Results:

Now showing items 1-3 of 3
  • Hochkirch, Axel; Samways, Michael J.; Gerlach, Justin; Bohm, Monika; Williams, Paul; Cardoso, Pedro; Cumberlidge, Neil; Stephenson, P. J.; Seddon, Mary B.; Clausnitzer, Viola; Borges, Paulo A.; Mueller, Gregory M.; Pearce-Kelly, Paul; Raimondo, Domitilla C.; Danielczak, Anja; Dijkstra, Klaas-Douwe B. (2021)
    Measuring progress toward international biodiversity targets requires robust information on the conservation status of species, which the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species provides. However, data and capacity are lacking for most hyperdiverse groups, such as invertebrates, plants, and fungi, particularly in megadiverse or high-endemism regions. Conservation policies and biodiversity strategies aimed at halting biodiversity loss by 2020 need to be adapted to tackle these information shortfalls after 2020. We devised an 8-point strategy to close existing data gaps by reviving explorative field research on the distribution, abundance, and ecology of species; linking taxonomic research more closely with conservation; improving global biodiversity databases by making the submission of spatially explicit data mandatory for scientific publications; developing a global spatial database on threats to biodiversity to facilitate IUCN Red List assessments; automating preassessments by integrating distribution data and spatial threat data; building capacity in taxonomy, ecology, and biodiversity monitoring in countries with high species richness or endemism; creating species monitoring programs for lesser-known taxa; and developing sufficient funding mechanisms to reduce reliance on voluntary efforts. Implementing these strategies in the post-2020 biodiversity framework will help to overcome the lack of capacity and data regarding the conservation status of biodiversity. This will require a collaborative effort among scientists, policy makers, and conservation practitioners.
  • Reyes-Garcia, Victoria; Fernandez-Llamazares, Alvaro; Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Yildiz; Benyei, Petra; Bussmann, Rainer W.; Diamond, Sara K.; Garcia-del-Amo, David; Guadilla-Saez, Sara; Hanazaki, Natalia; Kosoy, Nicolas; Lavides, Margarita; Luz, Ana C.; McElwee, Pamela; Meretsky, Vicky J.; Newberry, Teresa; Molnar, Zsolt; Ruiz-Mallen, Isabel; Salpeteur, Matthieu; Wyndham, Felice S.; Zorondo-Rodriguez, Francisco; Brondizio, Eduardo S. (2022)
    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.
  • Suvanto, Sophie (Helsingin yliopisto, 2020)
    Indigenous peoples and local communities’ traditional knowledge are essential for the protection of global biodiversity as 80 % of the global biodiversity lies within land managed by indigenous peoples. Traditional knowledge has been misappropriated since before the 15th century. Today, traditional knowledge is misappropriated when corporate entities monopolise and patent the knowledge, without the communities’ approval. Knowledge is also lost due to environmental disruption by development and infrastructure projects. The Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol protects traditional knowledge through access and benefit-sharing obligations. The Nagoya Protocol further holds an obligation to consider community protocols, in accordance with domestic laws, when implementing state obligations concerning access and benefit-sharing. As it is only the Nagoya Protocol that directly refers to community protocols and only as an obligation to consider them in accordance with domestic law, the benefit of community protocols and their ability to protect traditional knowledge, depends on the support and regulation of community protocols at both the national and international level. The aim of this study is, therefore, to examine the protection of traditional knowledge by using community protocols, by analysing how community protocols are regulated and supported at the local, national and international level. To determine how community protocols are regulated and supported at the international level, the Nagoya Protocol and decisions by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity are examined. To conclude how community protocols are applied and upheld in practice, national legislation and practices regarding the support and development of community protocols are reviewed. At the local level community protocols by the Raika community in India and the Kukula Traditional Health Practitioners Association in South Africa are analysed, together with an analysis of the national legislation relating to the protection of traditional knowledge. This thesis finds that at the international and national level, the use of community protocols is encouraged as an instrument to assist in the access and benefit-sharing process. They are not regulated or supported as an instrument that can protect environmental sustainability, which would also indirectly safeguard traditional knowledge. However, at the local level community protocols are seen as a more versatile tool that can be used to protect the environment, provide access to restricted land and clarify the access and benefit-sharing procedure. Community protocols are by no means regulated or supported as a panacea for the protection of traditional knowledge and the regulation and support for them at the local, national and international level differ. Nevertheless, community protocols are considered to be a versatile instrument that can be adapted to suit the indigenous communities’ needs depending on the states willingness and the communities understanding of their rights both nationally and internationally.