TY - BOOK
T1 - Building from the ground up: Opportunities to scale locally-led monitoring of the social impacts of conservation
AU - Dawson, Neil
AU - Worsdell, Thomas
AU - Bhardwaj, Aditi
AU - Massarella, Kate
AU - Ndoinyo, Yannick
AU - Oliva, Malena
AU - Martinez Callejas, Sindy
AU - Scherl, Lea M.
AU - Sze, Jocelyne
AU - Dublin, Holly
AU - Morea, Juan
AU - Stolton, Sue
AU - Munera, Claudia
AU - Bennett, Nathan James
AU - Suich, Helen
AU - Lavey, Warren G.
AU - Rajesh, Salam
AU - Monty, Fabiola
AU - Coolsaet, Brendan
AU - Cawsey, Paul
AU - Lu, Yoko
AU - Saintz, Galeo
AU - Clarke, Catherine
AU - Zafra-Calvo, Noelia
AU - Mustin, Karen
AU - Gingembre, Mathilde
AU - Sangha, Kamaljit
PY - 2025/7
Y1 - 2025/7
N2 - Existing monitoring frameworks, both led by international organizations and emerging through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), largely overlook the social components of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), particularly those related to equitable governance, Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC), participation, traditional knowledge, and land tenure security. Monitoring efforts led or co-led by Indigenous Peoples and local communities are crucial for addressing existing gaps in monitoring of the social implications of conservation, both to guide methodologies and contribute grounded, applicable data. Existing monitoring frameworks, both led by international organizations and emerging through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), largely overlook the social components of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), particularly those related to equitable governance, Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC), participation, traditional knowledge, and land tenure security. Monitoring efforts led or co-led by Indigenous Peoples and local communities are crucial for addressing existing gaps in monitoring of the social implications of conservation, both to guide methodologies and contribute grounded, applicable data. Existing monitoring frameworks, both led by international organizations and emerging through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), largely overlook the social components of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), particularly those related to equitable governance, Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC), participation, traditional knowledge, and land tenure security. Monitoring efforts led or co-led by Indigenous Peoples and local communities are crucial for addressing existing gaps in monitoring of the social implications of conservation, both to guide methodologies and contribute grounded, applicable data. Extensive, detailed and robust local-level monitoring of the social dimensions of conservation already occurs, with data and information being collected at large scales and widely distributed across regions, geographies and types of conservation: these initiatives demonstrate the feasibility and benefits of community-based or locally-led monitoring and could provide considerable complementary data for evaluating governance and social outcomes.
AB - Existing monitoring frameworks, both led by international organizations and emerging through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), largely overlook the social components of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), particularly those related to equitable governance, Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC), participation, traditional knowledge, and land tenure security. Monitoring efforts led or co-led by Indigenous Peoples and local communities are crucial for addressing existing gaps in monitoring of the social implications of conservation, both to guide methodologies and contribute grounded, applicable data. Existing monitoring frameworks, both led by international organizations and emerging through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), largely overlook the social components of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), particularly those related to equitable governance, Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC), participation, traditional knowledge, and land tenure security. Monitoring efforts led or co-led by Indigenous Peoples and local communities are crucial for addressing existing gaps in monitoring of the social implications of conservation, both to guide methodologies and contribute grounded, applicable data. Existing monitoring frameworks, both led by international organizations and emerging through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), largely overlook the social components of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), particularly those related to equitable governance, Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC), participation, traditional knowledge, and land tenure security. Monitoring efforts led or co-led by Indigenous Peoples and local communities are crucial for addressing existing gaps in monitoring of the social implications of conservation, both to guide methodologies and contribute grounded, applicable data. Extensive, detailed and robust local-level monitoring of the social dimensions of conservation already occurs, with data and information being collected at large scales and widely distributed across regions, geographies and types of conservation: these initiatives demonstrate the feasibility and benefits of community-based or locally-led monitoring and could provide considerable complementary data for evaluating governance and social outcomes.
UR - https://www.forestpeoples.org/publications-resources/briefing-papers/article/building-from-the-ground-up-opportunities-to-scale-locally-led-monitoring-of-the-social-impacts-of-conservation/
M3 - Other report
T3 - Transforming Conservation: from conflict to justice Briefing Paper
BT - Building from the ground up: Opportunities to scale locally-led monitoring of the social impacts of conservation
PB - Forest Peoples Programme
ER -
