Access and allocation in global biodiversity governance: a review

Abstract

Access and allocation is one of the five analytical themes of the science plan of the Earth System Governance (ESG) project. Concerns over access and allocation are at the core of struggles and conflicts brought about by the often ineluctable trade-offs related to biodiversity conservation and the global, national and local governance systems that aim to contribute to global biodiversity conservation. Access and benefit-sharing mechanisms, integrated conservation and development projects, payments for ecosystem services or community conservation programmes have all tried balancing environmental objectives with concerns for the allocation of natural resources and associated rights within society, and for access to basic human needs. As a contribution to this special issue on access and allocation, this paper aims to contribute to the analysis of the relevance of questions of access and allocation to ESG by providing an in-depth review of the literature on access and allocation in biodiversity conservation at different scales. We describe how the concepts of access and allocation have been used and conceptualized in the literature produced between 2008 and 2018, and we discuss the two key issues which dominate the literature (1) benefit-sharing; and (2) the role of local institutions. By drawing on the trends and evidence from the literature, we consider the lessons for the next generation of ESG scholars and draw out some key policy implications to be included in the debates on the post-2020 strategic plan for biodiversity.

Transforming Biodiversity Governance

“…This evidence reflects a broader observed tendency that equity is more commonly invoked than justice in international agreements (see also Okereke, 2008). In policy contexts, equity is often applied to specific policies or with a focus on a single dimension (most frequently distribution), allowing more politically sensitive issues such as historic land rights to be sidelined (Coolsaet et al, 2020).…”

“…Global norms entrenched in other international frameworksespecially ideas of rightshave played an increasingly important role in shaping debates about justice and equity in biodiversity governance (Coolsaet et al, 2020). Indigenous Peoples, for example, steward 85 percent of the world's remaining biodiversity, yet their ability to do so is threatened by weak and/or infringed political, economic and social rights Tauli-Corpuz, 2016).…”

Equity, justice and the SDGs: lessons learnt from two decades of INEA scholarship

“…However, procedural justice may lead to unjust outcomes as the powerful influence policy processes (Azizi, 2020 ; Gonenc et al, 2020 ) and empowering the powerless may require more than just recognizing equality of opportunity (Kelly, 2010 ; Ross, 2015 ). Much of justice literature focuses on how, despite good intentions underpinning access and allocation mechanisms, they do not deliver equitable and just outcomes (Coolsaet et al, 2020 ). However, there are also empirical stories of success in securing both, where biodiversity aid and crowd funding have enhanced species protection (Scobie, 2020 ).…”

Lessons learnt in global biodiversity governance

“…For one, goals related to access and allocation remain largely unmet. According to Coolsaet et al (2020), one issue is that most approaches to access and allocation in practices are conducted through benefit-sharing mechanisms that tend to overlook the capabilities of local communities to benefit in the long run. These benefit sharing mechanisms are challenging to implement and often lead to elite capture, disempowerment of local communities, enhanced poverty, and dispossession of natural resources.…”

“…As this special edition of INEA moves to press, the CBD is close to adopting its 2030 targets. Coolsaet et al (2020) argue that the post 2020 global biodiversity framework should (1) include specific targets or more gender-responsive and equitable access and allocation arrangements which recognize local land tenure rights, (2) develop monitoring and evaluation systems that address access and allocation, along with other social and economic dimensions of biodiversity governance, and (3) feature implementation mechanisms, including funding, which explicitly incorporate equity dimensions of biodiversity governance. So far it does not look like all their demands will be met once the diplomatic dust settles and the new Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework emerges.…”