Search

The term “blue justice” was coined in 2018 during the 3rd World Small-Scale Fisheries Congress. Since then, academic engagement with the concept has grown rapidly. This article reviews 5 years of blue justice scholarship and synthesizes some of the key perspectives, developments, and gaps. We then connect this literature to wider relevant debates by reviewing two key areas of research – first on blue injustices and second on grassroots resistance to these injustices. Much of the early scholarship on blue justice focused on injustices experienced by small-scale fishers in the context of the blue economy. In contrast, more recent writing and the empirical cases reviewed here suggest that intersecting forms of oppression render certain coastal individuals and groups vulnerable to blue injustices. These developments signal an expansion of the blue justice literature to a broader set of affected groups and underlying causes of injustice. Our review also suggests that while grassroots resistance efforts led by coastal communities have successfully stopped unfair exposure to environmental harms, preserved their livelihoods and ways of life, defended their culture and customary rights, renegotiated power distributions, and proposed alternative futures, these efforts have been underemphasized in the blue justice scholarship, and from marine and coastal literature more broadly. We conclude with some suggestions for understanding and supporting blue justice now and into the future.

Defining a safe and just biosphere space requires a synthetic scaleable measure of biosphere functional integrity to secure Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP). Using a systematic review of 153 peer-reviewed studies we estimated the minimum level of functional integrity needed to secure multiple critical NCP, including pollination, pest and disease control, water quality regulation, soil protection, recreation and natural hazards mitigation in human-modified landscapes. We characterise functional integrity by the quantity, quality and spatial configuration of (semi-)natural habitat within any landscape. We find that at least 20-25% of structurally complex and biologically diverse (semi-)natural habitat in each 1 km2of land area is needed to maintain the supply of multiple NCP simultaneously. Exact quantity, quality and spatial configuration required is dependent on local context, and may differ for individual NCP. Today, about 50-60% of human-modified lands have less than 10% and 20% (semi-)natural habitat per 1 km2respectively. These areas require immediate attention to regenerate functional integrity in order to secure ecological functioning in those landscapes.

Mountain environments in East Africa experience more rapid increases in temperature than lower elevations, which, together with changing rainfall patterns, often negatively affect coffee production. However, little is known about the adaptation strategies used by smallholder coffee farmers in Africa. Using the lens of everyday adaptation, semi-structured interviews were carried out with 450 smallholder farmers living near the Bale Mountains in Ethiopia (n = 150), Mount Kenya in Kenya (n = 150), and Kigezi Highlands in Uganda (n = 150). We report similarities in adaptation strategies used (e.g., increased use of improved seeds, inputs, soil-conservation techniques) but also differences across and within regions (e.g., irrigation, coffee-farming abandonment), related to different biophysical, economic, and sociocultural factors. In all regions, access to land, funds, and limited mutual-learning opportunities between farmers and other agents of change constrained further adaptation options. Local people have capacity and means to determine how best they can adapt to climate change, and government agencies and NGOs could implement more participatory engagement with smallholder coffee farmers, attuned to the opportunities and constraints in everyday life to facilitate adaptation to predicted changes in climate. We are deeply grateful to our study participants, who graciously shared their time, energy, and stories. We thank our field assistants and facilitators for making this research possible. We also acknowledge the Mountain Research Initiative (MRI), the Sustainability and Development Initiative (SDI), and the Initiative on Climate Adaptation Research and Understanding through the Social Sciences (ICARUS) for funding support.

Debate about what proportion of the Earth to protect often overshadows the question of how nature should be conserved and by whom. We present a systematic review and narrative synthesis of 169 publications investigating how different forms of governance influence conservation outcomes, paying particular attention to the role played by Indigenous peoples and local communities. We find a stark contrast between the outcomes produced by externally controlled conservation, and those produced by locally controlled efforts. Crucially, most studies presenting positive outcomes for both well-being and conservation come from cases where Indigenous peoples and local communities play a central role, such as when they have substantial influence over decision making or when local institutions regulating tenure form a recognized part of governance. In contrast, when interventions are controlled by external organizations and involve strategies to change local practices and supersede customary institutions, they tend to result in relatively ineffective conservation at the same time as producing negative social outcomes. Our findings suggest that equitable conservation, which empowers and supports the environmental stewardship of Indigenous peoples and local communities represents the primary pathway to effective long-term conservation of biodiversity, particularly when upheld in wider law and policy. Whether for protected areas in biodiversity hotspots or restoration of highly modified ecosystems, whether involving highly traditional or diverse and dynamic local communities, conservation can become more effective through an increased focus on governance type and quality, and fostering solutions that reinforce the role, capacity, and rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities. We detail how to enact progressive governance transitions through recommendations for conservation policy, with immediate relevance for how to achieve the next decadeâ s conservation targets under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. © 2021 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. We are thankful for funding and support provided by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (IUCN CEESP), particularly the Chair, Kristen Walker Painemilla, and Deputy Chair, Ameyali Ramos Castillo. We are grateful for advice and voluntary contributions provided by members of the CEESP Theme on Human Wellbeing and Sustainable Livelihoods and especially to Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend for constructive comments. ND and BC were supported through the “Just Conservation” project funded by the Centre for the Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity (CESAB) of the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB), https://www.fondationbiodiversite.fr/. NGC’s time was funded through the Darwin Initiative RESPeCT project (No. 25-019). We are grateful to Samantha Cheng at the American Museum of Natural History for her time and advice on use of Colandr software and to Andy Wright https://www.madebyawdesign.com/ for the illustration of Figure 5. For images in Figure 5 we thank: the MIHARI Network https://mihari-network.org/ who permitted use of images of a fisherwoman speaking and Mangrove reforestation at Belo-sur-Mer, southwestern Madagascar; and Holladay Photo for the image of the Kahana community, Koolauloa, Oahu doing a traditional Hawaiian fishing practice called Hukilau.

The warming rates in many mountain areas are higher than the global average, negatively impacting crop systems. Little is known about the climatic changes which are already being observed in eastern Democratic Republic (DR) of Congo, due to the lack of long-term meteorological data. Local perceptions could help us to understand not only the climatic changes and impacts but also which adaptation strategies are already being used by local smallholder farmers. Semi-structured questionnaires were administered to 300 smallholder Bafuliru (n = 150) and Lega (n = 150) farmers living in the Itombwe Mountains. The respondents reported climatic changes and impacts, with the Bafuliru—living on the eastern drier slopes—reporting more changes and impacts. While the Bafuliru were implementing several adaptation strategies (e.g., increased irrigation and use of inputs, more soil conservation, more income diversification), the Lega were implementing very few, due to soft limits (access to inputs, markets, and information) and culture (less interest in farming, less capacity to organize into groups). The results highlight important differences in sociocultural contexts, even for one ‘remote’ mountain, calling for a more collaborative approach to adaptation planning and action.

Aichi Target 11 (AT11) includes the commitment of 194 governments to equitably manage protected areas (PAs) by 2020. Here we evaluate whether existing PA Management Effectiveness (PAME) and social and governance assessment tools can be used to determine if AT11 meets equity goals. We find that PAME assessment conditions are insufficiently inclusive of relevant actors and do not satisfactorily allow for a diversity of perspectives to be expressed and accounted for, both of which are essential for equitable PA management. Furthermore, none of the analysed PAME tools fully cover multidimensional equity and thus they are inadequate for assessing progress towards equitable management in PAs. The available social and governance PA assessment tools stipulate more inclusive and participatory conditions within their guidelines, and the IUCN Governance Guidelines comprehensively capture equity dimensions in PA management, but results are not comparable across sites. We conclude that available assessment tools do not provide a reliable way to track equity in PAs at global scale. The IUCN Governance Guidelines could be adjusted to achieve this goal, providing that the information collected is made globally comparable, while ensuring transparency, accountability and room for contestation, including by communities whose livelihoods are directly implicated. Ultimately, developing and deploying globally comparable measures to evaluate equity is problematic, as the process of gathering comparable data inevitably obscures information that is highly relevant to resolving equity issues at local scales. This challenge must be met, however, if nations are to achieve and report on their success at meeting AT11 by 2020.

It is broadly acknowledged that natural resources conservation strategies affect the livelihoods of local communities. Moreover, evidence suggests that these livelihood impacts, in turn, can influence conservation achievements. Yet, what constitutes a conservation strategy that communities perceive as acceptable and thus they would be willing to commit to over time remains poorly understood. This study explores the perceptions of communities regarding the effects of two different conservation strategies in the Ruvuma landscape: governmental land concessions and licenses to private tourist operators in North Mozambique, versus community-managed protected areas supported by NGOs in South Tanzania. The study engages communities in a series of semi-structured discussions about natural resource use, impact of the conservation strategies on their livelihoods, pressures on natural resources, and ways to address such pressures and reach an acceptable conservation strategy, from a community perspective. Our findings suggest that communities perceive as non-affordable current opportunity and damage costs in subsistence agriculture. A strategy integrating improved agricultural production, common use of the forest managed by communities, and joint ventures between communities and private companies for getting more benefits from trophy hunting are identified as acceptable.

During a workshop held in Oaxaca, Mexico, a shared vision, mission and strategies to foster a more plural valuation of nature were developed. The participants represent a wide range of backgrounds and are active in science, policy and practitioner networks and activities. Their common ground is the recognition of the need to change the prevailing culture of how nature is valued and subsequently managed as an essential step towards a more just and sustainable world. After an open plenary session in which the goal of the workshop was determined and the diverse perspectives and backgrounds of the participants were heard, breakout groups developed the components of a shared vision, mission and strategies for plural valuation of nature. Consequently, these components were discussed back in plenary and consolidated into a consensus text, which was further debated and its main building blocks agreed upon. The compilation of our shared views converged into a normative call and perspective to share with our peers. The information generated throughout the workshop was collaboratively synthesized, amended, reviewed and validated by all workshop participants/co-authors. Our message aims to contribute to advancing plural valuation approaches as a science-policy field, as well as to raise personal awareness among researchers and practitioners on implicit inequality and power issues. The authors wish to thank the Sida-funded SwedBio programme at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, the Programme for Ecosystem Change and Society of Future Earth, the Gordon and Betty Moore University through sub-grant GBMF5433 to the Basque Centre for Climate Change (bc3) for supporting the undertaking of the workshop that led to this paper and the EQUIVAL project and the work of UP, PB and NZC, the Future Earth Montreal Global Hub, the Institute of Ecosystem and Sustainability Research at the Autonomous National University of Mexico and the Division of Science Policy and Capacity-Building (SC/PCB) of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), CISEN V, the ValuES project from GIZ supported by the BMUB and ecoSERVICES from Future Earth for providing support and financial resources. SJ wishes to thank the Flemish Department of Environment and Energy for funding a research stay under the Flanders–Basque Country Declaration of Intent. i The workshop was supported by the project ‘Nurturing a Shift towards Equitable Valuation of Nature in the Anthropocene’ (EQUIVAL) of the Future Earth-Pegasus programme, Future Earth Montreal Global Hub, the Capacity Building Programme Mentoring Program on Plural Valuation supported by Future Earth’s Natural Assets Knowledge–Action Network, the Institute of Ecosystem and Sustainability Research at the Autonomous National University of Mexico, the Basque Centre for Climate Change, the Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) and ecoSERVICES of Future Earth, SwedBio GIZ-BMUB, the ESP Working Group on Integrated Valuation and UNESCO.

Plural valuation is about eliciting the diverse values of nature articulated by different stakeholders in order to inform decision making and thus achieve more equitable and sustainable outcomes. We explore what approaches align with plural valuation on the ground, as well as how different social-ecological contexts play a role in translating plural valuation into decisions and outcomes. Based on a co-constructed analytical approach relying on empirical information from ten cases from the Global South, we find that plural valuation contributes to equitable and sustainable outcomes if the valuation process: 1) is based on participatory value elicitation approaches; 2) is framed with a clear action-oriented purpose; 3) provides space for marginalized stakeholders to articulate their values in ways that can be included in decisions; 4) is used as a tool to identify and help reconcile different cognitive models about human-nature relations; and 5) fosters open communication and collaboration among stakeholders. We also find that power asymmetries can hinder plural valuation. As interest and support for undertaking plural valuation grows, a deeper understanding is needed regarding how it can be adapted to different purposes, approaches, and social-ecological contexts in order to contribute to social equity and sustainability. Fil: Zafra-Calvo, Noelia. Basque Centre For Climate Change; España Fil: Balvanera, Patricia. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; México Fil: Pascual, Unai. Basque Centre For Climate Change; España Fil: Merçon, Juliana. Universidad Veracruzana; México Fil: Martín López, Berta. Leuphana University Of Lüneburg; Alemania Fil: van Noordwijk, Meine. World Agroforestry Centre; Indonesia Fil: Mwampamba, Tuyeni Heita. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; México Fil: Lele, Sharachchandra. Ashoka Trust For Research In Ecology And The Environmen; India Fil: Ifejika Speranza, Chinwe. University of Bern; Suiza Fil: Arias-Arévalo, Paola. Universidad del Valle; Colombia Fil: Cabrol, Diego. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias. Departamento de Desarrollo Rural; Argentina Fil: Caceres, Daniel Mario. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias. Departamento de Desarrollo Rural; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina Fil: O'Farrell, Patrick. Council For Scientific And Industrial Research; Sudáfrica Fil: Subramanian, Suneetha Mazhenchery. United Nations University. Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability; Japón Fil: Devy, Soubadra. Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environmen; India Fil: Krishnan, Siddhartha. Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environmen; India Fil: Carmenta, Rachel. University of Cambridge; Reino Unido Fil: Guibrunet, Louise. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; México Fil: Kraus-Elsin, Yoanna. Instituto Humboldt; Colombia Fil: Moersberger, Hannah. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; Francia Fil: Cariño, Joji. Forest Peoples Programm; Reino Unido Fil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina

Fil: Díaz, Sandra. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Departamento de Diversidad Biológica y Ecología. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina. Fil: Díaz, Sandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnica. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina. Fil: Zafra Calvo, Noelia. Future Earth; España. Fil: Purvis, Andy. Natural History Museum; Reino Unido. Fil: Verburg, Peter H. VU University Amsterdam. Institute for Environmental Studies: Países Bajos. Fil: Obura, David. Coastal Oceans Research and Development Indian Ocean; Kenia. Fil: Leadley, Paul. Université Paris-Sud. Ecologie Systématique Evolution; Francia. Fil: Chaplin Kramer, Rebecca. Stanford University. Natural Capital Project; Estados Unidos. Fil: De Meester, Luc. Leibniz Institut für Gewässerökologie und Binnenfischerei; Alemania. Fil: Dulloo, Ehsan. Bioversity International; Mauricio. Fil: Martín- López, Berta. Leuphana University of Lüneburg. Faculty of Sustainability; Alemania. Fil: Shaw, Rebecca. The World Wide Fund for Nature; Estados Unidos. Fil: Visconti, Piero. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Ecosystem Services and Management Program; Austria. Fil: Broadgate, Wendy. Future Earth; Suecia. Fil: Bruford, Michael W. Cardiff University. School of Biosciences and Sustainable Places Institute; Reino Unido. Fil: Burgess, Neil D. UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino Unido. Fil: Cavender Bares, Jeannine. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior; Estados Unidos. Fil: DeClerck, Fabrice. EAT Foundation; Noruega. Fil: Fernández Palacios, José María. Universidad de La Laguna. Instituto Universitario de Enfermedades Tropicales y Salud Pública de Canarias; España. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas A. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas A. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Hill, Samantha L. L. UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino Unido. Fil: Isbell, Forest. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior; Estados Unidos. Fil: Khoury, Colin K. International Center for Tropical Agriculture; Colombia. Fil: Krug, Cornelia B. University of Zurich. Department of Geography; Suiza. Fil: Liu, Jianguo. Michigan State University; Estados Unidos. Fil: Maron, Martine. The University of Queensland; Australia. Fil: McGowan, Philip J. K. Newcastle University. School of Natural and Environmental Sciences; Reino Unido. Fil: Pereira, Henrique M. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania. Fil: Reyes García, Victoria. Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies; España. Fil: Rocha, Juan. Future Earth; Suecia. Fil: Rondinini, Carlo. Sapienza University of Rome. Department of Biology and Biotechnologies. Global Mammal Assessment Program; Italia. Fil: Shannon, Lynne. University of Cape Town. Department of Biological Sciences; Sudáfrica. Fil: Shin, Yunne-Jai. University of Cape Town. Department of Biological Sciences; Sudáfrica. Fil: Snelgrove, Paul V. R. Memorial University of Newfoundland. Departments of Ocean Sciences and Biology; Canada. Fil: Spehn, Eva M. Swiss Academy of Sciences. Swiss Biodiversity Forum; Suiza. Fil: Strassburg, Bernardo. Pontifical Catholic University. Department of Geography and the Environment. Rio Conservation and Sustainability Science Centre; Brasil. Fil: Subramanian, Suneetha M. United Nations University. Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability; Japón. Fil: Tewksbury, Joshua J. University of Colorado; Estados Unidos. Fil: Watson, James E. M. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados Unidos. Fil: Zanne, Amy E. George Washington University. Department of Biological Sciences; Estados Unidos. Global biodiversity policy is at a crossroads. Recent global assessments of living nature (1, 2) and climate (3) show worsening trends and a rapidly narrowing window for action. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has recently announced that none of the 20 Aichi targets for biodiversity it set in 2010 has been reached and only six have been partially achieved (4). Against this backdrop, nations are now negotiating the next generation of the CBD's global goals [see supplementary materials (SM)], due for adoption in 2021, which will frame actions of governments and other actors for decades to come. In response to the goals proposed in the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) made public by the CBD (5), we urge negotiators to consider three points that are critical if the agreed goals are to stabilize or reverse nature's decline. First, multiple goals are required because of nature's complexity, with different facets—genes, populations, species, deep evolutionary history, ecosystems, and their contributions to people—having markedly different geographic distributions and responses to human drivers. Second, interlinkages among these facets mean that goals must be defined and developed holistically rather than in isolation, with potential to advance multiple goals simultaneously and minimize trade-offs between them. Third, only the highest level of ambition in setting each goal, and implementing all goals in an integrated manner, will give a realistic chance of stopping—and beginning to reverse—biodiversity loss by 2050.

It is widely recognized in science, policy, and practice that protected areas (PAs) that are equitably and effectively managed are essential for halting biodiversity loss. However, our understanding of the relationships between management effectiveness and equity remains weak. Here, we investigate potential synergies and trade-offs between management and equity as well as how they can work together to reduce human pressure in PAs. We then examine the potential of existing global datasets on effectiveness, equity, and human pressure to help inform international policy processes. Our preliminary findings show a negative association between well-defined and sound managed PAs and how satisfied are local people about the decisions related to the management of the PA, reinforcing study of cases that found conflicts in top-down established and managed PAs. We find, however, no association between management effectiveness and social equity with an increasing human pressure. We find only a limited overlap in global databases on management effectiveness, social equity, and human pressure (n = 33). Thus, our results highlight the need to increase the number of PAs with appropriate data about management effectiveness, equity and human pressure to inform policy processes. Without such data, it will be difficult to suggest in honest new quantitative targets for the quality of PAs and Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures post-2020. We would like to thank Mike Mascia and Neil Burgess for useful discussions in early stages of the manuscript. This work is funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 program under the MSCA grant agreement no. 659881 to NZ-C and no. 676108 to JG; as well as VILLUM FONDEN ( VKR023371 ) to JG.

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. We are thankful to Naomi Kingston, Phil Franks and Adrian Martin, who provided insightful comments on the manuscript, and to all respondents to this questionnaire and all organizations that helped us to distribute it, especially to Heather Bingham. This work is funded by the EU Horizon 2020 program under the MSCA grant agreement no. 659881 to NZ-C and supported by a JCFG from the Spanish MEC to IP (IJCI-2016-28475). NZ-C and NDB also acknowledge the DNRF for funding for CMEC, grant no. DNRF96.

This study presents a characterisation of the implementation of Adaptive Management (AM) from the analysis of 35 projects around the world. Our results reveal that AM projects are usually aimed at ecosystem management, conservation and restoration. Also, they mainly act upon forest or epicontinental water ecosystems and their goal is generally species exploitation and in most cases these projects act at a local scale. From a methodological point of view, most AM cases use an active approach and monitoring programs and were at the phase of problem identification. We found differences in the implementation of AM between developed and developing countries that were present in our samples in the following way: AM projects in developed countries were typically carried out by state agencies, and focused on solving problems concerning epicontinental waters and the public use of ecosystems. They had the support of national funds and used modelling techniques. In contrast, the AM projects from developing countries were mainly aimed at the conservation of natural protected areas and at the mitigation of environmental impacts derived from mining activities. The financial support of these projects was frequently provided by international organizations, and the use of modelling techniques was uncommon. For a better exploitation of all the possibilities of AM, we suggest the use of criteria to be customized to the specific needs of the socio-economic reality of every country and to monitor the results at a global scale to continuously improve this practice.

Understanding the spatial distribution of elephant carcasses in relation to ecological characteristics and human activities is critical to developing targeted management strategies for reducing poaching. We employ a spatial modelling approach to quantify the relative contribution of multiple climatic, ecological, human and protected area management predictors of the number of elephant carcasses in a recognized poaching hotspot: the Ruvuma landscape of northern Mozambique and southern Tanzania. This includes the Niassa Reserve in the south and the Selous Game Reserve in the north. In Mozambique, the number of elephant carcasses is positively associated with State-managed protected areas such as Niassa Reserve, but particularly with environmental variables including low rainfall and high temperatures. In Tanzania, elephant carcasses are positively associated with community-managed sites. A strong focus on effective management of protected areas in the Ruvuma landscape is crucial to reducing the killing of elephants., This work builds partially on the research project ‘Poverty and ecosystem Impacts of Tanzania’s wildlife Management Areas’ (“PIMA”), funded by the Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) programme (NE/L00139X/1), itself funded by UK’s Department for International Development, Economic and Social Research Council and Natural Environment Research Council. N.Z-C. and N.B. acknowledge the Danish National Research Foundation for funding for the Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate; grant number DNRF96.

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 knowledge of the spatial patterns of species richness and, particularly, of endemic and threatened species at the scale at which management activities take place is crucial for conservation. Yet, detailed descriptions of species’ distribution areas are often lacking or incomplete, especially in the tropics. This article focuses on the African island of Bioko and uses species accumulation curves to evaluate the completeness of its biological inventory for three plant groups (ferns, monocotyledons and dicotyledons), birds and monkeys. Results showed that the current inventory is fairly complete for monkeys and birds, but only covers half of the vegetation in the island. Bioclimatic models were used to estimate the potential distribution of each species and to assemble species richness patterns for each taxa and for endemic and threatened species, revealing that montane and lowland rainforests were the richest habitats, while high altitude shrubs and subalpine meadows were the poorest ones. Predicted richness values for monsoon forests were unexpectedly low for plants and birds, probably because of insufficient sampling in these areas. Additionally, the comparison of species richness patterns with the proposed delineation of protected areas for the island shows that these will cover most hotspots of species richness, endemism and threatened species, except for dicotyledonous plants and endemic birds. The potential utility of the predicted patterns for conservation priorities and initiatives in Bioko is discussed.

10 páginas, 2 figuras, 1 tabla., [Aim]: Human-related pressures are growing in species-rich regions and pose a threat to the conservation of biodiversity. Here, we use the available data for five taxonomic groups (ferns, monocotyledons, dicotyledons, birds and monkeys) to exemplify a procedure directed to discriminate the degree of conflict between human actions and biodiversity. [Location]: Bioko island, Equatorial Guinea. [Methods]: Using bioclimatic envelope modelling techniques devoted to produce estimations of the potential distributions, we generated geographical representations of the variation in the total number of species as well as in the number of endemic and threatened species. We then employed partial regression techniques to determine how and to what extent current environmental, habitat and human-derived variables are associated with these potential species richness values. [Results]: Although the type of associations we looked for was sometimes difficult to discern since the same patterns could be explained by different types of variables, our results show that potential species richness values are generally positively associated with human-related factors (mainly agriculture and bushmeat hunting activities), suggesting that the localities with environmental conditions favourable to higher species richness tend to be those exploited by humans. [Main conclusions]: We propose that the combined use of distribution models and partial regression techniques can support a better understanding of the relationship between species occurrences/preferences and human-related factors and inform future conservation initiatives, particularly in small but hyperdiverse territories, in which dispersal limitations do not play a prominent role., N.Z.-C. thanks the Spanish Agency for Development and Cooperation (AECID) for its financial support through a MAE/AECI Grant. Work by M. Á. R. was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (grant CGL2006-03000/BOS).

8 páginas, 3 figuras, 1 tabla., Although the conversion of natural vegetation to agriculture threatens biodiversity, post-agricultural lands may provide an opportunity to preserve biodiversity if they are allowed to regenerate. We develop a framework for incorporating abandoned agricultural fields into the design of a Biosphere Reserve using former cocoa plantations on Bioko, Equatorial Guinea, as a case study. First, we used BIOCLIM to model the potential distribution of 62 ferns, 327 monocotyledons, 749 dicotyledons, seven primates, and 104 birds on Bioko. Next, we quantitatively assessed the representation of these distributions in conservation areas proposed by the Equatoguinean administration (hereafter “EPAs”). In addition, we used an area prioritization algorithm implemented in the ResNet software package to select an initial set of sites to serve as the Biosphere Reserve’s core areas, that is, intact forest in Bioko’s montane regions. Then, to augment the beta-diversity of the Reserve, we used the area prioritization algorithm to prioritize buffer zones in lowland sites including rainforest remnants and abandoned plantations that have partially regenerated to forest. We also compared the representation of biodiversity in the EPAs to its representation in Biosphere Reserves designed with ResNet. The representation of vegetation types and species in Reserves selected by ResNet that occupy 25% of the land on Bioko is equivalent to the representation achieved by the EPAs, which would cover 42% of Bioko. To conclude, we propose a conservation plan for Bioko., N.Z.-C. wants to thank the Spanish Agency for Development and Cooperation (AECID) for its financial support through a MAE/AECI Grant. Work by M.Á.R. was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Grant CGL2006-03000/BOS). Work by R.C., T.F., and S.S. was supported by National Science Foundation(USA) Grant SES-0645884, 2007–2009 (Principal Investigator: S.S.).