Aichi Target 11 (AT11), adopted by 193 Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2010, states that protected areas (PAs) must be equitably managed by 2020. However, significant challenges remain in terms of actual implementation of equitable management in PAs. These challenges include, among others, the lack of a standardized approach to assess and monitor social equity and the difficulty of reducing social equity to a series of metrics. This perspective addresses these challenges and it proposes a minimum set of ten indicators for assessing and monitoring the three dimensions of social equity in protected areas: recognition, procedure and distribution. The indicators target information on social equity regarding cultural identity, statutory and customary rights, knowledge diversity; free, prior and informed consent mechanisms, full participation and transparency in decision-making, access to justice, accountability over decisions, distribution of conservation burdens, and sharing of conservation benefits. The proposed indicator system is a first step in advancing an approach to facilitate our understanding of how the different dimensions of social equity are denied or recognized in PAs globally. The proposed system would be used by practitioners to mainstream social equity indicators in PAs assessments at the site level and to report to the CBD on the ‘equitably managed’ element of AT11

The Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi Target 11 requires its 193 signatory parties to incorporate social equity into protected area (PA) management by 2020. However, there is limited evidence of progress toward this commitment. We surveyed PA managers, staff, and community representatives involved in the management of 225 PAs worldwide to gather information against 10 equity criteria, including the distribution of benefits and burdens, recognition of rights, diversity of cultural and knowledge systems, and processes of participation in decision-making. Our results show that more than half of the respondents indicated that there are still significant challenges to be addressed in achieving equitably managed PAs, particularly in ensuring effective participation in decision-making, transparent procedures, access to justice in conflicting situations, and the recognition of the rights and diversity of local people. Our findings are a first and fundamental contribution toward a global assessment of equitable management in PAs to report on Aichi Target 11 in 2020 and help define the next set of PA targets from 2020–2030.

No abstract

This introduction to the special collection explores how a revised or expanded understanding of ‘environmentality’ can further our analysis of the evermore complex terrain of environmental politics today. We offer an outline of the literature from which the discussion emerges and how the subsequent articles both engage with and depart from it. We describe the origin of the ‘green governmentality’ discussion following the rise of global sustainable development discourse. We then explain how this initial exploration was subsequently complicated by introduction of two further lines of investigation: (1) attention to the micropolitics of community-based natural resource management; and (2) extrapolation from this to describe the different forms of green governmentality within which such local practices are situated as well as the multiple scales at which environmental governance is exercised. Following this, we outline a range of critiques to which this burgeoning research has also been subject and the fruitful lines of future research to which they point. We finish by describing how the various contributions to this collection engage with different aspects of this multifaceted discussion as the basis for further engagement by other researchers in the years ahead.

No abstract