Strategies to protect biodiversity in the face of a global crisis must be placebased and sensitive to context. A failure to consider the socioeconomic and political circumstances, as well as wellbeing needs and lived realities of those most directly reliant upon biodiversity will further undermine progress on Aichi targets and subsequent goals for the post-2020 framework. How communities experience the benefits or costs of conservation action is influenced in large measure by the principles that guide conservation governance, and the subsequent institutional structures and processes that frame conservation action (at local to global scales). In this article, we define and critically reflect on core principles of community-centered conservation governance needed to yield desirable and long-term conservation outcomes-both ecological and social (i.e., equitable and just). In doing so, we emphasize a conception of community-centered conservation that we argue is relevant to guide implementation of a post-2020 biodiversity framework, and which is based on a foundation of well-established evidence. Core principles of communitycentered conservation governance include: (a) building multilevel networks and collaborative relationships needed to coproduce conservation solutions;(b) promoting equity and recognizing the central role of women as agents of positive change in conservation efforts across scales; (c) reframing conservation action through the lens of reconciliation and redress (e.g., responding to injustices from land grabs and territorial enclosures); (d) ensuring a rightsbased approach to conservation action in which community agency, access and decision making autonomy are supported; and (e) revitalizing the customary and local institutions that provide legitimate and adaptive strategies for the stewardship of biodiversity. K E Y W O R D Sgender, governance, institutions, policy

In recent decades, scientists and practitioners have increasingly focused on identifying and codifying the best ways to manage activities in marine systems, leading to the development and implementation of concepts such as the social-ecological systems approach, ecosystem-based management, integrated management, marine spatial planning, participatory co-management, and the precautionary approach. To date, these concepts appear as separate entities: they have parallel literature streams; have been applied most often individually in attempts to improve governance and management; and in many ways, seem to be competing for attention. This patchwork of approaches may be hindering effective ocean governance. We propose that desirable features from these frameworks could be woven together to form the basis of more effective and equitable ocean governance arrangements across contexts, sectors, and scales. This article synthesizes the efforts of an IMBeR (Integrated Marine Biosphere Research Project) conference session and working group, that brought together experts in these diverse concepts with the objective of producing a synthesis of how they could be more effectively integrated for improved ocean sustainability outcomes. We reviewed and compared the concepts in terms of (a) the need to achieve a comprehensive suite of sustainability objectives, (b) similarities and differences in their scope, and (c) their place in practical management, policy and regulation. Achieving greater cross-sectoral integration, or a more holistic perspective on management for sustainability is at the core of each concept. All deal with aspects of governance and most, with improved participation in governance. The major differences in the origin and historical application of each concept are reflected in the degree of implicit or explicit focus given to different objectives of sustainability. Overall, the concepts are especially strong for ecological and institutional or governance considerations, moderately strong for economic aspects, and weakest for the social-cultural pillar of full spectrum sustainability. There is no panacea, and no emergent hierarchy among concepts. Some concepts fit better with top-down legislation-based efforts, others with more bottom-up stakeholder driven efforts. The selection of the core concepts for a situation will depend in a large part on which concepts are specified, or demand focus, in the legal and policy context of the situation (or area) of interest. No matter how influential or dominant a single concept might be, pragmatically, different concepts will be used in different areas, and there may always be the need for a combination of concepts and objectives woven together to achieve a cohesive quilt of sustainability.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract