{"title":"第十六次缔约方会议和巩固包容性保护范式的进程。","authors":"Christopher B. Anderson","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14438","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD) 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) approved the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), legitimizing a paradigm shift for conservation to link decisions and outcomes with diverse social actors (CBD, <span>2022</span>). For example, target 3 aims to protect 30% of the planet by 2030. However, this 30×30 target must be met via equitable governance that recognizes and respects the rights and values of Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPs&LCs). Furthermore, the GBF incorporates non-Western understandings of nature and people−nature relationships (e.g., Mother Earth, nature's gifts, living in harmony with nature). Recently, COP16 was to implement this inclusive vision, but parties did not reach a consensus on a new financing mechanism besides the Global Environmental Facility and a comprehensive monitoring system for national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) (Affinito et al., <span>2024</span>). So, was COP16 a failure?</p><p>To staunch biodiversity loss, conservation biologists have striven to transcend biology (Soulé, <span>1985</span>), and despite its legacy (i.e., Global North, natural sciences), conservation increasingly has incorporated more perspectives (Mace, <span>2014</span>). Soulé’s foundational treatise detailed biological subdisciplines needed for conservation (e.g., genetics, population biology, physiology), but delimited social aspects to practical issues (e.g., natural resource management), general social sciences, and ecophilosophy. Subsequently, however, these human dimensions have flourished (Bennett et al., <span>2016</span>, <span>2017</span>). Furthermore, other disciplines and traditions have been working at this interface from other starting points (e.g., decades ago, the International Society for Ethnobiology's <i>Declaration of Belem</i> affirmed the link between biological and cultural diversity) (ISE, <span>1988</span>).</p><p>Conservation policy displays a similar process. Approved in 1992, the CBD's preamble detailed a range of biodiversity values, including intrinsic, ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational, and aesthetic. It also enumerated some issues concerning diverse actors (e.g., protecting customary use of biological resources based on traditional cultural practices compatible with conservation). However, the CBD's NBSAPs generally have not incorporated plurality in actions and indicators (Murali et al., <span>2024</span>). Nonetheless, at least in their NBSAPs, developing nations, particularly in Africa, have been better than developed ones at mainstreaming biodiversity conservation across sectors and incorporating more stakeholders (Whitehorn et al., <span>2019</span>).</p><p>Broadly, conservation has morphed from “nature for itself” and “nature despite people” to “nature for people” and “nature and people” (Mace, <span>2014</span>). Although ways of thinking and doing comingle, rather than being successional (Anderson & Pizarro, <span>2023</span>), the latter two categories are increasingly prevalent in science-policy interfaces (IPBES, <span>2022</span>). For example, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’ conceptual framework includes notions like “nature's contributions to people” and plural valuation (Pascual et al., <span>2023</span>). Similarly, new ways of addressing people−nature relationships are being systematized for broader use by the United Nation's Harmony with Nature initiative (http://harmonywithnatureun.org/), which collates global efforts regarding the rights of nature.</p><p>The COP16 did produce concrete outcomes. For instance, Colombia's vice president spearheaded an agreement to incorporate Afro-descendent and diaspora communities into efforts to empower women and girls, youths, and Indigenous peoples. A new CBD subsidiary body was created to provide a formal participation mechanism in the treaty for these IPs&LCs. Another agreement established the Cali Fund, enabling voluntary, private-sector contributions for equitable benefit sharing with IPs&LCs of economic resources obtained from biodiversity's genetic codes. Colombia also successfully made this the “people's COP.” Unlike official negotiations open only to CBD-accredited delegates, downtown Cali hosted public activities. Approximately 40,000 people a day attended numerous stands and events (e.g., local schools talking about urban gardens and the national police presenting special units dedicated to water and wildlife trafficking). Furthermore, there were open academic and political debates and nightly concerts featuring musicians who brought their territories’ biocultural stories, values, and struggles to the stage. Finally, thousands of signatures were gathered to support the Peace with Nature initiative (in Spanish, the term implies peace with and through nature). The COP16 was not just about inclusivity, it embodied it.</p><p>Paradigms do not change merely with good ideas (Kuhn, <span>1962</span>). They require leadership, linking concepts with actions, and building new institutions. Considering this paradigm shift's broader sociohistorical process, there is encouraging evidence worldwide of efforts to facilitate “knowledge dialogue” between actors and traditions (Anderson et al., <span>2015</span>). In my 25-year career in Latin America, I have witnessed a flourishing garden of initiatives. In Chile, young academics created the Society for Socioecological and Ethnoecological Studies (https://www.sosoet.cl/); in Argentina, the National Parks Administration has sought to transform traditional fortress conservation by linking parks with communities and their ways of life (https://www.argentina.gob.ar/interior/ambiente/parquesnacionales/recuperacion-sustentable-de-paisajes-y-medios-de-vida-en-09); and in Colombia, despite decades of strife, IPs&LCs are challenging Western legal definitions and gaining novel status for rivers as “subjects of rights” and as “victims of violence” (https://www.jep.gov.co/Sala-de-Prensa/Paginas/-la-jep-acredita-como-victima-al-rio-cauca-en-el-caso-05.aspx).</p><p><i>Conservation Biology</i> too accompanies this process. Authors can appeal decisions, empowering those who feel their discipline or methods were not adequately assessed, and we sought to unify criteria and communicate expectations to authors for social science contributions (Teel et al., <span>2018</span>). Years ago, we incorporated regional editors to provide more global perspectives, and to confront parachute science, we now require authors to identify the countries where data were collected and whether authorship reflects this provenance. In 2024 and 2025, we are publishing special issues on diverse voices in conservation, conservation social sciences, and people-centered conservation in Brazil. As we confront the challenges implied in shifting paradigms, and as acting editor-in-chief, I call on us all to renew our commitment to collaborating with the entire conservation community to enhance our already rigorous and legitimate editorial processes.</p><p>There are reasons to doubt and reasons to hope. During my sabbatical in Cali at the Universidad del Valle, I was encouraged to find inclusive conservation consolidating alongside COP16. At one event, the Cauca River Collective convened actors from throughout the watershed, including judges, authorities, ecologists, economists, river guardians, community elders, and school children, to carry out a symbolic act of restitution to the river as a victim of violence. They not only discussed, networked, and planned for the river, but also connected with it through ceremony and song. Later, at an activity organized by the Chontaduro Cultural House, an Afro-descendent community center that defines itself as “a space for dreaming and constructing a different world,” I was reminded that we are the ancestors of tomorrow. Regarding this paradigm shift, let us take responsibility and be the ancestors who leave a legacy of inclusive conservation.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.14438","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"COP16 and the process of consolidating an inclusive conservation paradigm\",\"authors\":\"Christopher B. Anderson\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cobi.14438\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD) 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) approved the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), legitimizing a paradigm shift for conservation to link decisions and outcomes with diverse social actors (CBD, <span>2022</span>). For example, target 3 aims to protect 30% of the planet by 2030. However, this 30×30 target must be met via equitable governance that recognizes and respects the rights and values of Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPs&LCs). Furthermore, the GBF incorporates non-Western understandings of nature and people−nature relationships (e.g., Mother Earth, nature's gifts, living in harmony with nature). Recently, COP16 was to implement this inclusive vision, but parties did not reach a consensus on a new financing mechanism besides the Global Environmental Facility and a comprehensive monitoring system for national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) (Affinito et al., <span>2024</span>). So, was COP16 a failure?</p><p>To staunch biodiversity loss, conservation biologists have striven to transcend biology (Soulé, <span>1985</span>), and despite its legacy (i.e., Global North, natural sciences), conservation increasingly has incorporated more perspectives (Mace, <span>2014</span>). Soulé’s foundational treatise detailed biological subdisciplines needed for conservation (e.g., genetics, population biology, physiology), but delimited social aspects to practical issues (e.g., natural resource management), general social sciences, and ecophilosophy. Subsequently, however, these human dimensions have flourished (Bennett et al., <span>2016</span>, <span>2017</span>). Furthermore, other disciplines and traditions have been working at this interface from other starting points (e.g., decades ago, the International Society for Ethnobiology's <i>Declaration of Belem</i> affirmed the link between biological and cultural diversity) (ISE, <span>1988</span>).</p><p>Conservation policy displays a similar process. Approved in 1992, the CBD's preamble detailed a range of biodiversity values, including intrinsic, ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational, and aesthetic. It also enumerated some issues concerning diverse actors (e.g., protecting customary use of biological resources based on traditional cultural practices compatible with conservation). However, the CBD's NBSAPs generally have not incorporated plurality in actions and indicators (Murali et al., <span>2024</span>). Nonetheless, at least in their NBSAPs, developing nations, particularly in Africa, have been better than developed ones at mainstreaming biodiversity conservation across sectors and incorporating more stakeholders (Whitehorn et al., <span>2019</span>).</p><p>Broadly, conservation has morphed from “nature for itself” and “nature despite people” to “nature for people” and “nature and people” (Mace, <span>2014</span>). Although ways of thinking and doing comingle, rather than being successional (Anderson & Pizarro, <span>2023</span>), the latter two categories are increasingly prevalent in science-policy interfaces (IPBES, <span>2022</span>). For example, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’ conceptual framework includes notions like “nature's contributions to people” and plural valuation (Pascual et al., <span>2023</span>). Similarly, new ways of addressing people−nature relationships are being systematized for broader use by the United Nation's Harmony with Nature initiative (http://harmonywithnatureun.org/), which collates global efforts regarding the rights of nature.</p><p>The COP16 did produce concrete outcomes. For instance, Colombia's vice president spearheaded an agreement to incorporate Afro-descendent and diaspora communities into efforts to empower women and girls, youths, and Indigenous peoples. A new CBD subsidiary body was created to provide a formal participation mechanism in the treaty for these IPs&LCs. Another agreement established the Cali Fund, enabling voluntary, private-sector contributions for equitable benefit sharing with IPs&LCs of economic resources obtained from biodiversity's genetic codes. Colombia also successfully made this the “people's COP.” Unlike official negotiations open only to CBD-accredited delegates, downtown Cali hosted public activities. Approximately 40,000 people a day attended numerous stands and events (e.g., local schools talking about urban gardens and the national police presenting special units dedicated to water and wildlife trafficking). Furthermore, there were open academic and political debates and nightly concerts featuring musicians who brought their territories’ biocultural stories, values, and struggles to the stage. Finally, thousands of signatures were gathered to support the Peace with Nature initiative (in Spanish, the term implies peace with and through nature). The COP16 was not just about inclusivity, it embodied it.</p><p>Paradigms do not change merely with good ideas (Kuhn, <span>1962</span>). They require leadership, linking concepts with actions, and building new institutions. Considering this paradigm shift's broader sociohistorical process, there is encouraging evidence worldwide of efforts to facilitate “knowledge dialogue” between actors and traditions (Anderson et al., <span>2015</span>). In my 25-year career in Latin America, I have witnessed a flourishing garden of initiatives. In Chile, young academics created the Society for Socioecological and Ethnoecological Studies (https://www.sosoet.cl/); in Argentina, the National Parks Administration has sought to transform traditional fortress conservation by linking parks with communities and their ways of life (https://www.argentina.gob.ar/interior/ambiente/parquesnacionales/recuperacion-sustentable-de-paisajes-y-medios-de-vida-en-09); and in Colombia, despite decades of strife, IPs&LCs are challenging Western legal definitions and gaining novel status for rivers as “subjects of rights” and as “victims of violence” (https://www.jep.gov.co/Sala-de-Prensa/Paginas/-la-jep-acredita-como-victima-al-rio-cauca-en-el-caso-05.aspx).</p><p><i>Conservation Biology</i> too accompanies this process. Authors can appeal decisions, empowering those who feel their discipline or methods were not adequately assessed, and we sought to unify criteria and communicate expectations to authors for social science contributions (Teel et al., <span>2018</span>). Years ago, we incorporated regional editors to provide more global perspectives, and to confront parachute science, we now require authors to identify the countries where data were collected and whether authorship reflects this provenance. In 2024 and 2025, we are publishing special issues on diverse voices in conservation, conservation social sciences, and people-centered conservation in Brazil. As we confront the challenges implied in shifting paradigms, and as acting editor-in-chief, I call on us all to renew our commitment to collaborating with the entire conservation community to enhance our already rigorous and legitimate editorial processes.</p><p>There are reasons to doubt and reasons to hope. During my sabbatical in Cali at the Universidad del Valle, I was encouraged to find inclusive conservation consolidating alongside COP16. At one event, the Cauca River Collective convened actors from throughout the watershed, including judges, authorities, ecologists, economists, river guardians, community elders, and school children, to carry out a symbolic act of restitution to the river as a victim of violence. They not only discussed, networked, and planned for the river, but also connected with it through ceremony and song. Later, at an activity organized by the Chontaduro Cultural House, an Afro-descendent community center that defines itself as “a space for dreaming and constructing a different world,” I was reminded that we are the ancestors of tomorrow. Regarding this paradigm shift, let us take responsibility and be the ancestors who leave a legacy of inclusive conservation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10689,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Conservation Biology\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.14438\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Conservation Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14438\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Biology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14438","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
《生物多样性公约》(CBD)第15次缔约方大会(COP15)批准了《昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架》(GBF),使保护模式转变合法化,将决策和结果与不同的社会行动者联系起来(CBD, 2022)。例如,目标3旨在到2030年保护30%的地球。然而,这一30×30目标必须通过承认和尊重土著人民和地方社区(IPs&LCs)权利和价值观的公平治理来实现。此外,GBF结合了非西方对自然和人与自然关系的理解(例如,地球母亲、大自然的礼物、与自然和谐相处)。最近,COP16将实施这一包容性愿景,但除了全球环境基金和国家生物多样性战略和行动计划综合监测系统(NBSAPs)之外,各方没有就新的融资机制达成共识(Affinito et al., 2024)。那么,COP16失败了吗?为了遏制生物多样性的丧失,保护生物学家已经努力超越生物学(soul<s:1>, 1985),尽管它的遗产(即全球北方,自然科学),保护越来越多地纳入了更多的观点(梅斯,2014)。索尔索尔的基础论文详细介绍了保护所需的生物学分支学科(如遗传学、种群生物学、生理学),但将社会方面限定为实际问题(如自然资源管理)、一般社会科学和生态哲学。然而,随后,这些人类维度蓬勃发展(Bennett等人,2016,2017)。此外,其他学科和传统从其他起点开始研究这个界面(例如,几十年前,国际民族生物学协会的《贝伦宣言》肯定了生物多样性和文化多样性之间的联系)(ISE, 1988)。保护策略显示了类似的过程。1992年批准的《生物多样性公约》序言详细阐述了生物多样性的一系列价值,包括内在的、生态的、遗传的、社会的、经济的、科学的、教育的、文化的、娱乐的和审美的。它还列举了涉及不同行为者的一些问题(例如,保护以传统文化习俗为基础的生物资源的习惯使用,与保护相适应)。然而,《生物多样性公约》的NBSAPs总体上没有将行动和指标的多元性纳入其中(Murali et al, 2024)。尽管如此,至少在其nbsap中,发展中国家,特别是非洲国家,在将跨部门的生物多样性保护主流化和纳入更多利益相关者方面比发达国家做得更好(Whitehorn等人,2019)。从广义上讲,保护已经从“自然为自己”和“自然不管人”转变为“自然为人”和“自然与人”(Mace, 2014)。尽管思维方式和行为方式是相辅相成的,而不是连续的(安德森&;Pizarro, 2023),后两类在科学政策界面中越来越普遍(IPBES, 2022)。例如,生物多样性和生态系统服务政府间平台的概念框架包括“自然对人类的贡献”和多元估值等概念(Pascual等人,2023)。同样,处理人与自然关系的新方法正在系统化,供联合国“与自然和谐”倡议(http://harmonywithnatureun.org/)更广泛地使用,该倡议整理了有关自然权利的全球努力。COP16确实取得了具体成果。例如,哥伦比亚副总统带头签署了一项协议,将非洲裔和散居海外的社区纳入赋予妇女、女孩、青年和土著人民权力的努力中。设立了一个新的《生物多样性公约》附属机构,为这些最不发达国家提供正式参与条约的机制。另一项协议建立了卡利基金,使私营部门能够自愿捐款,以公平分享从生物多样性遗传密码中获得的经济资源。哥伦比亚也成功地使这次会议成为“人民的缔约方大会”。与官方谈判只对cbd认可的代表开放不同,卡利市中心举办了公共活动。每天大约有4万人参加各种摊位和活动(例如,当地学校谈论城市花园,国家警察介绍专门打击水和野生动物贩运的特别单位)。此外,还有公开的学术和政治辩论和夜间音乐会,邀请音乐家将他们的领土的生物文化故事,价值观和斗争带到舞台上。最后,成千上万的签名被收集起来支持“与自然和平”倡议(在西班牙语中,这个词意味着与自然和平并通过自然和平)。COP16不仅仅是关于包容性,它体现了包容性。范式不会仅仅因为好的想法而改变(库恩,1962)。它们需要领导,将概念与行动联系起来,并建立新的制度。 考虑到这种范式转变的更广泛的社会历史过程,世界各地都有令人鼓舞的证据表明,人们正在努力促进行动者与传统之间的“知识对话”(Anderson et al., 2015)。在我25年的拉美工作生涯中,我见证了一个欣欣向荣的倡议花园。在智利,青年学者创建了社会生态学和民族生态学研究学会(https://www.sosoet.cl/);在阿根廷,国家公园管理局通过将公园与社区及其生活方式联系起来,力求改变传统的堡垒保护(https://www.argentina.gob.ar/interior/ambiente/parquesnacionales/recuperacion-sustentable-de-paisajes-y-medios-de-vida-en-09);在哥伦比亚,尽管经历了几十年的冲突,地方法律组织仍在挑战西方的法律定义,并为河流获得了“权利主体”和“暴力受害者”的新地位(https://www.jep.gov.co/Sala-de-Prensa/Paginas/-la-jep-acredita-como-victima-al-rio-cauca-en-el-caso-05.aspx).Conservation生物学也伴随着这一过程)。作者可以对决定提出上诉,赋予那些认为自己的学科或方法没有得到充分评估的人权力,我们试图统一标准,并向作者传达对社会科学贡献的期望(Teel等人,2018)。多年前,我们合并了地区编辑,以提供更多的全球视角,而为了对抗降落伞科学,我们现在要求作者确定数据收集的国家,以及作者身份是否反映了这一来源。在2024年和2025年,我们将出版关于巴西保护、保护社会科学和以人为本的保护的各种声音的特刊。当我们面对范式转变所带来的挑战时,作为代理总编辑,我呼吁我们所有人重新承诺与整个保护社区合作,以加强我们已经严格和合法的编辑程序。我们有理由怀疑,也有理由希望。我在加州的瓦莱大学(university of del Valle)休假期间,受到鼓舞的是,我发现包容性保护与COP16一起得到了巩固。在一次活动中,考卡河集体召集了来自整个流域的行动者,包括法官、当局、生态学家、经济学家、河流守护者、社区长老和学童,开展了一个象征性的行动,向遭受暴力侵害的河流进行赔偿。他们不仅对河流进行讨论、联网和规划,而且还通过仪式和歌曲与河流联系起来。后来,在Chontaduro文化之家(Chontaduro Cultural House)组织的一项活动中,我被提醒,我们是明天的祖先。Chontaduro文化之家是一个非洲裔社区中心,它将自己定义为“梦想和构建一个不同世界的空间”。关于这种范式转变,让我们承担起责任,成为留下包容性保护遗产的先人。
COP16 and the process of consolidating an inclusive conservation paradigm
The Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD) 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) approved the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), legitimizing a paradigm shift for conservation to link decisions and outcomes with diverse social actors (CBD, 2022). For example, target 3 aims to protect 30% of the planet by 2030. However, this 30×30 target must be met via equitable governance that recognizes and respects the rights and values of Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPs&LCs). Furthermore, the GBF incorporates non-Western understandings of nature and people−nature relationships (e.g., Mother Earth, nature's gifts, living in harmony with nature). Recently, COP16 was to implement this inclusive vision, but parties did not reach a consensus on a new financing mechanism besides the Global Environmental Facility and a comprehensive monitoring system for national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) (Affinito et al., 2024). So, was COP16 a failure?
To staunch biodiversity loss, conservation biologists have striven to transcend biology (Soulé, 1985), and despite its legacy (i.e., Global North, natural sciences), conservation increasingly has incorporated more perspectives (Mace, 2014). Soulé’s foundational treatise detailed biological subdisciplines needed for conservation (e.g., genetics, population biology, physiology), but delimited social aspects to practical issues (e.g., natural resource management), general social sciences, and ecophilosophy. Subsequently, however, these human dimensions have flourished (Bennett et al., 2016, 2017). Furthermore, other disciplines and traditions have been working at this interface from other starting points (e.g., decades ago, the International Society for Ethnobiology's Declaration of Belem affirmed the link between biological and cultural diversity) (ISE, 1988).
Conservation policy displays a similar process. Approved in 1992, the CBD's preamble detailed a range of biodiversity values, including intrinsic, ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational, and aesthetic. It also enumerated some issues concerning diverse actors (e.g., protecting customary use of biological resources based on traditional cultural practices compatible with conservation). However, the CBD's NBSAPs generally have not incorporated plurality in actions and indicators (Murali et al., 2024). Nonetheless, at least in their NBSAPs, developing nations, particularly in Africa, have been better than developed ones at mainstreaming biodiversity conservation across sectors and incorporating more stakeholders (Whitehorn et al., 2019).
Broadly, conservation has morphed from “nature for itself” and “nature despite people” to “nature for people” and “nature and people” (Mace, 2014). Although ways of thinking and doing comingle, rather than being successional (Anderson & Pizarro, 2023), the latter two categories are increasingly prevalent in science-policy interfaces (IPBES, 2022). For example, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’ conceptual framework includes notions like “nature's contributions to people” and plural valuation (Pascual et al., 2023). Similarly, new ways of addressing people−nature relationships are being systematized for broader use by the United Nation's Harmony with Nature initiative (http://harmonywithnatureun.org/), which collates global efforts regarding the rights of nature.
The COP16 did produce concrete outcomes. For instance, Colombia's vice president spearheaded an agreement to incorporate Afro-descendent and diaspora communities into efforts to empower women and girls, youths, and Indigenous peoples. A new CBD subsidiary body was created to provide a formal participation mechanism in the treaty for these IPs&LCs. Another agreement established the Cali Fund, enabling voluntary, private-sector contributions for equitable benefit sharing with IPs&LCs of economic resources obtained from biodiversity's genetic codes. Colombia also successfully made this the “people's COP.” Unlike official negotiations open only to CBD-accredited delegates, downtown Cali hosted public activities. Approximately 40,000 people a day attended numerous stands and events (e.g., local schools talking about urban gardens and the national police presenting special units dedicated to water and wildlife trafficking). Furthermore, there were open academic and political debates and nightly concerts featuring musicians who brought their territories’ biocultural stories, values, and struggles to the stage. Finally, thousands of signatures were gathered to support the Peace with Nature initiative (in Spanish, the term implies peace with and through nature). The COP16 was not just about inclusivity, it embodied it.
Paradigms do not change merely with good ideas (Kuhn, 1962). They require leadership, linking concepts with actions, and building new institutions. Considering this paradigm shift's broader sociohistorical process, there is encouraging evidence worldwide of efforts to facilitate “knowledge dialogue” between actors and traditions (Anderson et al., 2015). In my 25-year career in Latin America, I have witnessed a flourishing garden of initiatives. In Chile, young academics created the Society for Socioecological and Ethnoecological Studies (https://www.sosoet.cl/); in Argentina, the National Parks Administration has sought to transform traditional fortress conservation by linking parks with communities and their ways of life (https://www.argentina.gob.ar/interior/ambiente/parquesnacionales/recuperacion-sustentable-de-paisajes-y-medios-de-vida-en-09); and in Colombia, despite decades of strife, IPs&LCs are challenging Western legal definitions and gaining novel status for rivers as “subjects of rights” and as “victims of violence” (https://www.jep.gov.co/Sala-de-Prensa/Paginas/-la-jep-acredita-como-victima-al-rio-cauca-en-el-caso-05.aspx).
Conservation Biology too accompanies this process. Authors can appeal decisions, empowering those who feel their discipline or methods were not adequately assessed, and we sought to unify criteria and communicate expectations to authors for social science contributions (Teel et al., 2018). Years ago, we incorporated regional editors to provide more global perspectives, and to confront parachute science, we now require authors to identify the countries where data were collected and whether authorship reflects this provenance. In 2024 and 2025, we are publishing special issues on diverse voices in conservation, conservation social sciences, and people-centered conservation in Brazil. As we confront the challenges implied in shifting paradigms, and as acting editor-in-chief, I call on us all to renew our commitment to collaborating with the entire conservation community to enhance our already rigorous and legitimate editorial processes.
There are reasons to doubt and reasons to hope. During my sabbatical in Cali at the Universidad del Valle, I was encouraged to find inclusive conservation consolidating alongside COP16. At one event, the Cauca River Collective convened actors from throughout the watershed, including judges, authorities, ecologists, economists, river guardians, community elders, and school children, to carry out a symbolic act of restitution to the river as a victim of violence. They not only discussed, networked, and planned for the river, but also connected with it through ceremony and song. Later, at an activity organized by the Chontaduro Cultural House, an Afro-descendent community center that defines itself as “a space for dreaming and constructing a different world,” I was reminded that we are the ancestors of tomorrow. Regarding this paradigm shift, let us take responsibility and be the ancestors who leave a legacy of inclusive conservation.
期刊介绍:
Conservation Biology welcomes submissions that address the science and practice of conserving Earth's biological diversity. We encourage submissions that emphasize issues germane to any of Earth''s ecosystems or geographic regions and that apply diverse approaches to analyses and problem solving. Nevertheless, manuscripts with relevance to conservation that transcend the particular ecosystem, species, or situation described will be prioritized for publication.