scholarly journals Global Biodiversity Knowledge Commons and Civil Society of the Global South

Author(s):  
Balasubramanian Dhandapani ◽  
Prabhakar Rajagopal ◽  
Vijay Barve ◽  
Pankaj Koparde ◽  
Antonio Saraiva

In our times of challenged relationships between nature and culture, it is essential that biodiversity conservation in biodiversity-rich areas of the world is ceded priority with recognised urgency. The Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD) Aichi Target 19 states that "By 2020, knowledge, the science base and technologies relating to biodiversity, its values, functioning, status and trends, and the consequences of its loss, are improved, widely shared and transferred, and applied." One of the significant impediments mentioned in achieving the goals of CBD is lack of scientific information, which is substantiated by studies that highlight various gaps such as taxonomic, thematic, spatial and temporal biases in the global knowledge on biodiversity. Behind such global approaches to knowledge and its production, there is a need to establish a biodiversity knowledge commons at the global, regional and national scales. Biodiversity informatics is tightly integrated with both fundamental biological sciences and the most recent advances in information technology, which gives it a unique blended quality of an academic discipline and technological practice. This has generated much enthusiasm, where rapid technological progress in biodiversity informatics is witnessed along with large scale threats to biodiversity. Such enthusiastic efforts for biodiversity informatics data and tools, as Peterson et al. (2010) argues, need to be integrated with other overall conceptual frameworks, particularly within ecology and evolutionary biology. In the context of the Global South, it is important to place the practice and knowledge of biodiversity informatics within the framework of sustainable development, biodiversity conservation, traditional knowledge and development aspirations. The emphasis on growth, in the current global economic paradigm, has meant undue stress on natural resources. State institutions in the Global South, responsible for natural resource and biodiversity conservation, are often found to be silent if not supportive of the dominant development policies. Civil society groups and grass-roots level organisations have taken the lead in documenting biodiversity at relevant scales, to argue for conservation. It is imperative that citizen science has a growing role to play in environmental assessments (Chandler et al. 2016), mediated through biodiversity informatics. By participating in knowledge production and overcoming the barriers of scientific legitimacy by collaborating with experts in scientific institutions, civil society science groups play a role in changing the power relations by developing the means to generate independent knowledge (Jalbert 2016), contributing towards a global knowledge commons. Limiting factors such as a data sharing culture, coping with quickly evolving technologies and capabilities, inhibit communities in the Global South from participating in building a global biodiversity knowledge commons. The historically skewed accumulation of knowledge on biodiversity of the Global South in northern institutions facilitates their influence of contemporary global policies and allocation of resources. Apart from a few exceptions, such as Biodiversity Information for Development, JRS Foundation’s African efforts and Critical Ecosytem Partnership Fund’s investments in biodiversity hotspots, one does not see any encouraging shifts in this cyclic trend, which will not be effective in addressing the biases in global biodiversity knowledge. As much as the development of the discipline and practice of biodiversity informatics at different scales is important, it is equally necessary to address such structural aspects that affect the constitution of the global biodiversity knowledge commons and its relevance to the communities in the Global South.

PLoS Biology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. e3001296
Author(s):  
Tatsuya Amano ◽  
Violeta Berdejo-Espinola ◽  
Alec P. Christie ◽  
Kate Willott ◽  
Munemitsu Akasaka ◽  
...  

The widely held assumption that any important scientific information would be available in English underlies the underuse of non-English-language science across disciplines. However, non-English-language science is expected to bring unique and valuable scientific information, especially in disciplines where the evidence is patchy, and for emergent issues where synthesising available evidence is an urgent challenge. Yet such contribution of non-English-language science to scientific communities and the application of science is rarely quantified. Here, we show that non-English-language studies provide crucial evidence for informing global biodiversity conservation. By screening 419,679 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions, compared to 4,412 English-language studies identified with the same criteria. Relevant non-English-language studies are being published at an increasing rate in 6 out of the 12 languages where there were a sufficient number of relevant studies. Incorporating non-English-language studies can expand the geographical coverage (i.e., the number of 2° × 2° grid cells with relevant studies) of English-language evidence by 12% to 25%, especially in biodiverse regions, and taxonomic coverage (i.e., the number of species covered by the relevant studies) by 5% to 32%, although they do tend to be based on less robust study designs. Our results show that synthesising non-English-language studies is key to overcoming the widespread lack of local, context-dependent evidence and facilitating evidence-based conservation globally. We urge wider disciplines to rigorously reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges. Please see the Supporting information files for Alternative Language Abstracts.


PeerJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. e9616
Author(s):  
Paola Fajardo ◽  
David Beauchesne ◽  
Alberto Carbajal-López ◽  
Rémi M. Daigle ◽  
L. Denisse Fierro-Arcos ◽  
...  

Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) have inhabited coastal areas, the seas, and remote islands for millennia, and developed place-based traditional ancestral knowledge and diversified livelihoods associated with the biocultural use of marine and coastal ecosystems. Through their cultural traditions, customary wise practices, and holistic approaches to observe, monitor, understand, and appreciate the Natural World, IPLCs have been preserving, managing, and sustainably using seascapes and coastal landscapes, which has been essential for biodiversity conservation. The international community has more than ever recognized the central role of IPLCs in the conservation of biodiversity-rich ecosystems, in particular, for the achievement of the Global Biodiversity Targets determined by the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to tackle biodiversity loss. However, much remains to be done to fully recognize and protect at national levels IPLCs’ Traditional Biodiversity Knowledge (TBK), ways of life, and their internationally recognized rights to inhabit, own, manage and govern traditional lands, territories, and waters, which are increasingly threatened. At the 2018 4th World Conference on Marine Biodiversity held in Montréal, Canada, eight themed working groups critically discussed progress to date and barriers that have prevented the achievement of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets agreed for the period 2011–2020, and priority actions for the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Discussions in the “Application of Biodiversity Knowledge” working group focused on Targets 11 and 18 and the equal valuation of diverse Biodiversity Knowledge Systems (BKS). This Perspective Paper summarizes the 10 Priority Actions identified for a holistic biodiversity conservation, gender equality and human rights-based approach that strengthens the role of IPLCs as biodiversity conservation decision-makers and managers at national and international levels. Furthermore, the Perspective proposes a measurable Target 18 post-2020 and discusses actions to advance the recognition of community-based alternative conservation schemes and TBK to ensure the long-lasting conservation, customary biocultural use, and sustainable multi-functional management of nature around the globe.


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Hobern ◽  
Brigitte Baptiste ◽  
Kyle Copas ◽  
Robert Guralnick ◽  
Andrea Hahn ◽  
...  

There has been major progress over the last two decades in digitising historical knowledge of biodiversity and in making biodiversity data freely and openly accessible. Interlocking efforts bring together international partnerships and networks, national, regional and institutional projects and investments and countless individual contributors, spanning diverse biological and environmental research domains, government agencies and non-governmental organisations, citizen science and commercial enterprise. However, current efforts remain inefficient and inadequate to address the global need for accurate data on the world's species and on changing patterns and trends in biodiversity. Significant challenges include imbalances in regional engagement in biodiversity informatics activity, uneven progress in data mobilisation and sharing, the lack of stable persistent identifiers for data records, redundant and incompatible processes for cleaning and interpreting data and the absence of functional mechanisms for knowledgeable experts to curate and improve data. Recognising the need for greater alignment between efforts at all scales, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) convened the second Global Biodiversity Informatics Conference (GBIC2) in July 2018 to propose a coordination mechanism for developing shared roadmaps for biodiversity informatics. GBIC2 attendees reached consensus on the need for a global alliance for biodiversity knowledge, learning from examples such as the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) and the open software communities under the Apache Software Foundation. These initiatives provide models for multiple stakeholders with decentralised funding and independent governance to combine resources and develop sustainable solutions that address common needs. This paper summarises the GBIC2 discussions and presents a set of 23 complementary ambitions to be addressed by the global community in the context of the proposed alliance. The authors call on all who are responsible for describing and monitoring natural systems, all who depend on biodiversity data for research, policy or sustainable environmental management and all who are involved in developing biodiversity informatics solutions to register interest at https://biodiversityinformatics.org/ and to participate in the next steps to establishing a collaborative alliance. The supplementary materials include brochures in a number of languages (English, Arabic, Spanish, Basque, French, Japanese, Dutch, Portuguese, Russian, Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese). These summarise the need for an alliance for biodiversity knowledge and call for collaboration in its establishment.


Author(s):  
Donald Hobern ◽  
Joseph Miller

There has been major progress over the last two decades in digitising historical knowledge of biodiversity and in making biodiversity data freely and openly accessible. Interlocking efforts bring together international partnerships and networks, national, regional and institutional projects and investments and countless individual contributors, spanning diverse biological and environmental research domains, government agencies and non-governmental organisations, citizen science and commercial enterprise. However, current efforts remain inefficient and inadequate to address the global need for accurate data on the world's species and on changing patterns and trends in biodiversity. Significant challenges include imbalances in regional engagement in biodiversity informatics activity, uneven progress in data mobilisation and sharing, the lack of stable persistent identifiers for data records, redundant and incompatible processes for cleaning and interpreting data and the absence of functional mechanisms for knowledgeable experts to curate and improve data. The first Global Biodiversity Informatics Conference (GBIC) in 2012 delivered the Global Biodiversity Informatics Outlook (GBIO, Hobern et al. 2012), an architectural vision for the major components of a distributed global infrastructure for biodiiversity information, but realigning the work of existing organisations and projects to achieve this vision remains challenging. Recognising the need for greater alignment between efforts at all scales, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) convened the second Global Biodiversity Informatics Conference (GBIC2) in July 2018 to propose a coordination mechanism for developing shared roadmaps for biodiversity informatics. GBIC2 attendees reached consensus on the need for a global alliance for biodiversity knowledge, learning from examples such as the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) and the open software communities under the Apache Software Foundation. These initiatives provide models for multiple stakeholders with decentralised funding and independent governance to combine resources and develop sustainable solutions that address common needs. GBIF was asked to coordinate next steps following GBIC2, including publication of a paper, Connecting data and expertise: a new alliance for biodiversity knowledge (Hobern et al. 2019). The supplementary materials for the paper include PDF brochures explaining the concept in eleven languages. During 2019, GBIF is coordinating further consultations to establish an optimal model for the governance and operations of the alliance and to advance collaboration around some of the major building blocks of the GBIO. Collaboration at this scale, and across all aspects of biodiversity information, is essential for effective delivery of important information products such as the Essential Biodiversity Variables and the planned pan-European natural history collections infrastructure, DiSSCo. This presentation explains the goals for this alliance and updates on progress during 2019 in operationalising the concept.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatsuya Amano ◽  
Violeta Berdejo Espinola ◽  
Alec P. Christie ◽  
Kate Willott ◽  
Munemitsu Akasaka ◽  
...  

The widely held assumption that any important scientific information would be available in English underlies the underuse of non-English-language science across disciplines. However, non-English-language science is expected to bring unique and valuable scientific information, especially in disciplines where the evidence is patchy, and for emergent issues where synthesising available evidence is an urgent challenge. Yet such contribution of non-English-language science to scientific communities and the application of science is rarely quantified. Here we show that non-English-language studies provide crucial evidence for informing global biodiversity conservation. By screening 419,680 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions, compared to 4,412 English-language studies identified with the same criteria. Relevant non-English-language studies are being published at an increasing rate, and can expand the geographical (by 12-25%) and taxonomic (by 5-32%) coverage of English-language evidence, especially in biodiverse regions, albeit often based on less robust study designs. Our results show that synthesising non-English-language studies is key to overcoming the widespread lack of local, context-dependent evidence and facilitating evidence-based conservation globally. We urge wider disciplines to rigorously reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao Xiao ◽  
Chris Newman ◽  
Christina D. Buesching ◽  
David W. Macdonald ◽  
Zhao-Min Zhou

AbstractHere we document 47,381 individuals from 38 species, including 31 protected species sold between May 2017 and November 2019 in Wuhan’s markets. We note that no pangolins (or bats) were traded, supporting reformed opinion that pangolins were not likely the spillover host at the source of the current coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. While we caution against the misattribution of COVID-19’s origins, the wild animals on sale in Wuhan suffered poor welfare and hygiene conditions and we detail a range of other zoonotic infections they can potentially vector. Nevertheless, in a precautionary response to COVID-19, China’s Ministries temporarily banned all wildlife trade on 26th Jan 2020 until the COVID-19 pandemic concludes, and permanently banned eating and trading terrestrial wild (non-livestock) animals for food on 24th Feb 2020. These interventions, intended to protect human health, redress previous trading and enforcement inconsistencies, and will have collateral benefits for global biodiversity conservation and animal welfare.


2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-99
Author(s):  
W. D. Lubbe ◽  
Louis J. Kotzé

In the Anthropocene the loss of biodiversity is set to become increasingly critical. Our law and governance institutions have been unable to halt this worrying trend. One of the reasons for this regulatory deficiency is that global law and governance pertaining to biodiversity are fragmented. In response to the need for a greater integration of law and governance directed at the protection of an integrated biosphere and as a measure to counter fragmentation, we argue that global biodiversity law and governance should be based on the connectivity conservation approach. While the debate about connectivity could occur in various geographical contexts, we focus for our present purposes on regional biodiversity governance in Southern Africa. It is our central hypothesis that adopting a holistic approach to biodiversity conservation in this region might go a long way towards preventing the human encroachment on biodiversity that typifies the Anthropocene.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 56-60
Author(s):  
Joana Setzer ◽  
Lisa Benjamin

New scholarship has identified trends, constraints, and opportunities for climate litigation in the Global South. While countries in the Global South tend to experience a lack of capacity within government agencies, civil society, and the judiciary, the Global South is not a homogenous group. Where climate litigation has been identified, the judiciary is often implementing government policy prescriptions in the absence of detailed climate legislation or filling enforcement gaps. But there are also a number of countries where climate litigation is not taking place or where gaps exist between ongoing litigation and traditional definitions of climate litigation. The scholarship is yet to further explore the relationship between climate legislation and litigation in the Global South, in particular in circumstances where ripe policy and legislative conditions for climate litigation exist. Taking into account different regional and national experiences, this essay explores that relationship.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document