Ambio 2022, 51:84–92 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01561-7 PERSPECTIVE Recognizing Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ rights and agency in the post-2020 Biodiversity Agenda Victoria Reyes-Garcı́a , Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares, Yildiz Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Petra Benyei, Rainer W. Bussmann, Sara K. Diamond, David Garcı́a-del-Amo, Sara Guadilla-Sáez, Natalia Hanazaki, Nicolas Kosoy, Margarita Lavides, Ana C. Luz, Pamela McElwee, Vicky J. Meretsky, Teresa Newberry, Zsolt Molnár, Isabel Ruiz-Mallén, Matthieu Salpeteur, Felice S. Wyndham, Francisco Zorondo-Rodriguez, Eduardo S. Brondizio Received: 2 December 2020 / Revised: 6 March 2021 / Accepted: 26 March 2021 / Published online: 18 May 2021 Abstract The Convention on Biological Diversity is continues to decline precipitously (Green et al. 2019). defining the goals that will frame future global biodiversity Moreover, the window of opportunity to take action is policy in a context of rapid biodiversity decline and under narrowing (Dı́az et al. 2019; IPBES 2019a, b). To slow pressure to make transformative change. Drawing on the biodiversity loss, transformative change, i.e., a fundamen- work of Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars, we argue tal system-wide reorganization, is needed in the ways that transformative change requires the foregrounding of biodiversity policies are designed, implemented, and Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ rights and enforced, from international to national scales, and across agency in biodiversity policy. We support this argument with sectors (Dı́az et al. 2020). four key points. First, Indigenous peoples and local In this ‘Perspective’, we argue that transformative communities hold knowledge essential for setting realistic change requires the foregrounding of Indigenous peoples and effective biodiversity targets that simultaneously and local communities’ (IPLC) rights and agency in bio- improve local livelihoods. Second, Indigenous peoples’ diversity policy. Much of the world’s biodiversity now conceptualizations of nature sustain and manifest CBD’s exists in landscapes and seascapes traditionally owned, 2050 vision of ‘‘Living in harmony with nature.’’ Third, managed, used and/or occupied by IPLC (Brondizio and Le Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ participation in Tourneau 2016; Garnett et al. 2018). Moreover, despite biodiversity policy contributes to the recognition of human increasing resource extraction pressures (Dı́az et al. 2019) and Indigenous peoples’ rights. And fourth, engagement in and growing violence against IPLC who are defending biodiversity policy is essential for Indigenous peoples and their territories and resources (Scheidel et al. 2020), bio- local communities to be able to exercise their recognized diversity is declining more slowly in areas managed by rights to territories and resources. IPLC than elsewhere (Garnett et al. 2018; Fa et al. 2020; O’Bryan et al. 2020). Keywords Biodiversity policy  However, IPLC continue to face challenges to full Convention on Biological Diversity  participation in the crafting and implementation of bio- Indigenous and local knowledge  Nature’s values  diversity policy at local, regional, and global levels Right-based approach (Witter et al. 2015; Forest Peoples Programme et al. 2020). For example, while about 40% of terrestrial pro- tected areas overlap with IPLC lands (Garnett et al. 2018), INTRODUCTION IPLC only formally govern \ 1% of them (UNEP- WMCM et al. 2018). Further, the current zero draft of the The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is now post-2020 biodiversity framework continues to make the working to formulate the goals that will frame global same long-standing calls for promotion of traditional biodiversity policy for decades to come. The Parties to the knowledge and ‘‘full and effective participation’’ of IPLCs Convention are doing so while facing the fact that they without the more concrete measures they have requested failed to achieve most of the targets of the 2011–2020 (see Box). Strategic Plan for Biodiversity while global biodiversity Ó The Author(s) 2021 123 www.kva.se/en Ambio 2022, 51:84–92 85 BOX: IPLC CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE POST-2020 FRAMEWORK Preliminary discussions for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework clearly indicated that it ‘‘should effectively incorporate gender considerations and the perspectives of Indigenous peoples and local communities’’ (CBD 2019). Consultations were held with IPLCs to develop the framework in two Global Thematic Dialogue for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in 2019–2020, as well as through 17 preparatory webinars across seven regions organized by the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) to gather inputs. Other Indigenous-led organizations like the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact and the Consejo Indı́gena de Mesoamérica, as well as groups that work closely with IPLCs, like the Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCA) Consortium, also submitted formal written recommendations to the process. These organizations emphasized the need for the framework to explicitly recognize territorial rights for IPLCs, to request protection for threatened land defenders, and to address mutual sustainability of humans and biodiversity (ICCA 2018; IIFB 2019). For example, one key demand was that target 1 ‘‘must include the legal recognition and protection for the territories, land and water of Indigenous peoples and local communities’’ (CBD 2021). Yet these recommendations are not reflected in the current text of the zero draft (as of early 2021), with only Target 20 addressing IPLCs: ‘‘By 2030, ensure equitable participation in decision-making related to biodiversity and ensure rights over relevant resources of Indigenous peoples and local communities, women and girls as well as youth, in accordance with national circumstances.’’ This weaker approach prompted Indigenous participants in the second Global Thematic Dialogue to write to CBD that ‘‘the contributions, values, perspectives, knowledge and text proposals of Indigenous peoples and local communities were not adequately taken into account in the updated zero draft of the global biodiversity framework’’ (CBD 2021). Four key points underscore the importance of recog- nature (e.g., Athayde et al. 2017; Joa et al. 2018; see also nizing IPLC rights and agency in biodiversity policy. First, Gadgil et al. 1993; Berkes et al. 2000; Gadgil et al. 2021 IPLC hold knowledge essential to setting realistic and for seminal papers on the topic). Indigenous and local effective biodiversity targets that simultaneously improve knowledge (ILK) has advanced scientific understandings of local livelihoods. Second, IPLC conceptualizations and species’ ranges, baselines, and trends and contributed to understandings of nature are aligned with CBD’s 2050 mapping, monitoring, and reporting changes in local bio- vision. Third, IPLC participation in biodiversity policy as diversity, including collective evidence of resource over- rights-holders enhances the social elements needed to meet exploitation, invasive species expansion, pollution, and CBD 2050 vision. And fourth, engagement in biodiversity climate-change impacts (e.g., IPBES 2019a, b; Forest policy is essential for Indigenous peoples and local com- Peoples Programme et al. 2020). As ILK contributions are munities to be able to fully exercise the rights to territories more valuable when knowledge is embedded into socio- and resources that have been recognized by international cultural contexts, there have been a number of initiatives agreements. We draw on the work of both Indigenous and led by Indigenous peoples and local community organiza- non-Indigenous scholars to illustrate these four key points. tions to enact a range of monitoring activities on the health We acknowledge that we are non-Indigenous academics of biodiversity, climate-change impacts, effects of unsus- working in partnership with and informed by IPLC and tainable activities, or implementation of international their representatives. We do not claim to speak on behalf of agreements such as the CBD (Farhan Ferrari et al. 2015; IPLC, but we gratefully acknowledge the depth of knowl- Tengö et al. 2017). For example, the Local Biodiversity edge and perspectives shared with us over the years that Outlook 2, a report compiled in partnership with IPLCs and shape this ‘Perspective’. issued to complement the Global Biodiversity Outlook 5, provides many examples of such on-the-ground initiatives and their contributions to the implementation of the IPLC HOLD KNOWLEDGE ESSENTIAL Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 (see Forest TO SETTING REALISTIC AND EFFECTIVE Peoples Programme et al. 2020). Nevertheless, current BIODIVERSITY TARGETS efforts to design and implement a post-2020 global biodi- THAT SIMULTANEOUSLY IMPROVE LOCAL versity framework do not fully acknowledge the impor- LIVELIHOODS tance of ILK for better stewardship of our planet (see Box). For example, while at least 36% of intact forest landscapes Scholars and practitioners acknowledge the importance of are within Indigenous people’s lands (Fa et al. 2020), IPLC’s knowledge in advancing scientific understanding of efforts to preserve these landscapes generally do not Ó The Author(s) 2021 www.kva.se/en 123 86 Ambio 2022, 51:84–92 recognize the multiple values of ILK in their management biodiversity decline (Dı́az et al. 2019; Forest Peoples (Zanotti and Knowles 2020). Programme et al. 2020). In contrast, IPLC often understand Moreover, the holistic nature of ILK is also essential in nature as an interconnected web of life, linking humans and CBD’s quest to set interdependent and mutually reinforcing non-humans in complex relations (e.g., Lyver et al. 2017; targets and to minimize trade-offs among targets, including Reo 2019). In such conceptualizations, humans are viewed targets set by other international agreements including the as an integral component of nature (Coscieme et al. 2020) Sustainable Development Goals or the United Nations and nature is imbued with social, cultural and spiritual Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. For values (Berkes 2017). Moreover, IPLC conceptualizations example, protected area expansion can trade-off against of nature often draw on stewardship ethics based on mutual IPLC’s livelihood options, quality of life, and rights (e.g., reciprocity between humans and nature, temporary custody Agrawal and Redford 2009; Sayer et al. 2021). Ignoring for future generations, and health of and attachment to land IPLC and their knowledge in decisions regarding protected (Pascua et al. 2017; Reo 2019). These conceptualizations area establishment and management would likely be dis- are also dynamic and adapt to external environmental ruptive for local communities and result in conservation changes (McMillen et al. 2017). They form the basis for failures (Whyte 2018), reinforcing sentiments that conser- land and seascape management, including the protection of vation can be a colonial enterprise (Whyte 2017). Alterna- sacred areas or species, taboo enforcement, or selective tively, the co-production of new knowledge based on cutting and burning (e.g., Joa et al. 2018). For example, evidence from both science and ILK could contribute to sacred forests -where no extractive activities occur- are setting realistic and effective biodiversity targets that common in IPLC lands and allow for the maintenance of simultaneously improve local livelihoods (Tengö et al. forest cover and structure (Samakov and Berkes 2017). 2014). Examples exist in which partnership between Many IPLC also limit the exploitation of resources for researchers and IPLC have resulted in emergent knowledge certain periods of time or seasons to ensure the mainte- that supports conservation, including for culturally impor- nance and natural recovery of ecosystems, including forest tant species and ecosystems (Sterling et al. 2017), and social areas, natural pastures or river sections (e.g., Hammi et al. aspects, such as local governance (Beveridge et al. 2020). 2010). Many examples show that management by cus- Lack of IPLC agency in biodiversity policy runs the risk tomary institutions results in more sustainable and pro- of using ILK only for utilitarian ends, particularly if ILK is ductive systems, in ecosystem restoration, or in combatting decontextualized, co-opted and/or instrumentalized for pollution (e.g., Hoover et al. 2012; Ens et al. 2016; Reyes- conservationists’ purposes, rather than understood as a Garcı́a et al. 2019; Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2020). relational expression based on human-to-nature apprecia- The acknowledgement and inclusion of IPLC’s under- tion and responsibilities (Whyte 2013; Todd 2016). Rec- standings of nature in biodiversity policy design and ognizing IPLC rights and agency in biodiversity implementation can be vital to set goals to achieve the management and policy can help prevent conflicts that CBD’s 2050 vision (Sterling et al. 2017). For example, might arise from extractive uses of ILK (Bohensky and IPLC’s conceptualizations of nature can extend ethical Maru 2011). Transformative change requires that biodi- concerns to diverse species and natural elements by giving versity policy recognize different worldviews and local more importance to relational values of nature (e.g., Pascua forms of relationship to nature, including the emphasis that et al. 2017; Reo 2019). Indeed, examples exist in which ILK systems place on nurturing responsible relationships IPLC values recognizing the rights of ecosystems to exist, among humans and non-humans (McGregor et al. 2018). reproduce, and thrive have been enshrined in policy Such change also requires that biodiversity policy safe- instruments, such as the Ecuadorian Constitution and the guards IPLC knowledge sovereignty (Kukutai and Taylor Bolivian law in which Mother Earth is granted rights and 2016), provides IPLC with better access to scientific tra- New Zealand’s recognition of the legal personhood of the ditions as a resource for their own purposes, and ultimately Whanganui River (Chapron et al. 2019). accommodates diverse knowledge systems (Dı́az-Re- Failure to recognize IPLC’s rights and agency in viriego et al. 2019). designing and implementing biodiversity policy disregards the existence of these different ways to relate with nature. For some authors, this transforms environmental manage- IPLC UNDERSTANDINGS OF NATURE ARE ment into a transactional enterprise in which nature is ALIGNED WITH THE CBD’S 2050 VISION considered a ‘‘resource’’, and the imposition of a single OF ‘‘LIVING IN HARMONY WITH NATURE’’ conservation model leads to the erosion of alternative worldviews (e.g., Nadasdy 2003; Eichler and Baumeister Worldviews that separate humans from the ecosystems 2018). Transformative change requires heeding IPLC voi- they rely on are recognized as an indirect cause of ces in global discussions on the collective future of Ó The Author(s) 2021 123 www.kva.se/en Ambio 2022, 51:84–92 87 humanity and the planet (McGregor et al. 2020) and displacements, and human suffering (Tauli-Corpuz et al. extending current biodiversity policy frameworks to 2018). accommodate IPLC understandings of nature (Tengö et al. Transformative change that includes IPLC’s agency in 2014; Lyver et al. 2016). biodiversity policy requires recognizing IPLC stewardship and their effective role in sustaining nature (Armstrong and Brown 2019), promoting IPLC decision-making rights, IPLC PARTICIPATION IN BIODIVERSITY POLICY respecting IPLC laws, principles, and customary practices, AS RIGHTS-HOLDERS ENHANCES THE SOCIAL and addressing Indigenous peoples’ relations with states BASES NEEDED TO MEET CBD’S 2050 VISION (Whyte 2017). Transformative change also requires accounting for the negative impacts of agricultural activi- IPLC are politically active in the defense of biodiversity, ties, resource extraction, or infrastructural development on ranging from participating in different scales of governance nature and for the rights of IPLC (and society in general) to to resisting environmentally degrading activities. At the resist such nature damaging activities (IPBES 2019a, b). local level, lands managed by IPLC have better nature conservation outcomes than other areas (e.g., Garnett et al. 2018; Tran et al. 2020). Moreover, many IPLC participate ENGAGEMENT IN BIODIVERSITY POLICY IS in monitoring systems to inform implementation and ESSENTIAL FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES TO BE development of conservation indicators and actions (Ens ABLE TO EXERCISE THEIR RECOGNIZED et al. 2016). At the global level, IPLC are increasingly RIGHTS TO TERRITORIES AND RESOURCES active and insisting on participating in environmental negotiations and intergovernmental processes, such as the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines involvement of the International Indigenous Peoples’ fundamental human rights to life, liberty, and security, Forum on Climate Change in the 2015 Paris climate con- while the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of ference, where they succeeded in drawing attention to their Indigenous Peoples recognizes their right to self-determi- presence and claims for rights through creative spaces and nation, territories, and resources. Despite these legal events (Suiseeya and Zanotti 2019). In other examples, the recognitions, and compared to other populations, Indige- Inuit Circumpolar Council has been very active in inter- nous peoples often suffer disproportionately from viola- national policy development to reduce pollution burdens, tions of their tenure, access, and resource rights (Giunta helping shape the Stockholm Convention on Persistent 2019; Forest Peoples Programme et al. 2020). For example, Organic Pollutants, or the Minamata Convention on Mer- resources that support IPLC livelihoods and spiritual and cury (see Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2020). Similarly, cultural needs are threatened by extractive industries, Indigenous peoples’ organizations such as the Coordinator intensive agriculture, unsustainable fishing, environmental of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin pollution and spread of invasive species (e.g., Hoover et al. (COICA, for its Spanish acronym) or Tebtebba (Indigenous 2012; FAO 2016; Kuokkanen 2019). These activities often Peoples’ International Center for Policy Research and result in loss of livelihoods, multiple insecurities, land Education) have played crucial roles in the recognition of conflicts, and even violence in the name of vested eco- Indigenous peoples’ rights in the context of UN nomic or government interests (Martinez-Alier et al. 2016; REDD ? negotiations (e.g., Walbott 2014). Using meth- Scheidel et al. 2020). ods that range from direct action to legal claims against When IPLC are not included as equal stakeholders and transnational corporations, IPLC have also been active leaders in biodiversity policy design and implementation, political actors against activities potentially leading to at national and international levels, their power to exercise environmental degradation including mining operations, and defend their recognized rights, including land tenure, hydrocarbon exploration, infrastructure development, and resource and access rights, is diminished. For example, toxic waste dumping (e.g., Spice 2018; Kuokkanen 2019). setting a target of protecting 30% of the Earth without A lack of recognition of IPLC rights and their equal IPLC’s involvement would not only disempower them, but participation as stakeholders and leaders in designing bio- the implementation of the target might result in numerous diversity policy can alienate IPLC by controlling and reg- violations of their rights. Transformative change in how ulating their resources through processes and institutions biodiversity policies are designed and implemented that may conflict with their worldviews (Richmond et al. requires not only addressing IPLC’s territorial concerns 2013; Tauli-Corpuz et al. 2018). This non-inclusive envi- (Zurba et al. 2019) and respecting their governance insti- ronmental governance results in IPLC’s resistance and non- tutions and practices (Artelle et al. 2019), but also compliance with top-down environmental regulations that including them as rights-holders in the design and imple- generate conflict over land and resources, forced mentation of biodiversity policy at multiple levels. Ó The Author(s) 2021 www.kva.se/en 123 88 Ambio 2022, 51:84–92 CONCLUSION source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless IPLC contributions to the enhancement and maintenance of indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not biodiversity in land and seascapes are increasingly included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended acknowledged and a growing number of strategies are use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted being mobilized to work with IPLC in conservation policy use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons. (e.g., Hill et al. 2020; McElwee et al. 2020). Yet in the zero org/licenses/by/4.0/. draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework there is little innovation regarding IPLC rights and agency. Transformative change will require recognizing IPLC REFERENCES rights and agency in biodiversity policy, requiring diverse mechanisms that range from fully acknowledging IPLC Agrawal, A., and K. Redford. 2009. Conservation and displacement: contributions and the potential social impacts of conser- An overview. Conservation and Society 7: 1–10. https://doi.org/ 10.4103/0972-4923.54790. vation, to generating equitable and constructive spaces for Armstrong, C.G., and C. Brown. 2019. Frontiers are frontlines: dialogue, representation in formal decision-making bodies, Ethnobiological science against ongoing colonialism. Journal of state acknowledgement of territorial rights, and developing Ethnobiology 39: 14–31. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-39. financial mechanisms that allow engagement and leader- 1.14. Artelle, K.A., M. Zurba, J. Bhattacharrya, D.E. Chan, K. Brown, J. ship in biodiversity policy design and implementation Housty, and F. Moola. 2019. Supporting resurgent Indigenous- (Forest Peoples Programme et al. 2020). led governance: A nascent mechanism for just and effective Nature’s decline is the result of direct and indirect dri- conservation. Biological Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. vers of change—including demographic, economic, polit- biocon.2019.108284. Athayde, S., J. Silva-Lugo, M. Schmink, A. Kaiabi, and M. ical, and institutional arrangements—underpinned by Heckenberger. 2017. Reconnecting art and science for sustain- societal values (Dı́az et al. 2019). We acknowledge that ability: Learning from indigenous knowledge through participa- these drivers interact with one another to impact nature and tory action-research in the Amazon. Ecology and Society 22: 36. that the point addressed here is only a piece of the complex https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09323-220236. Berkes, F. 2017. Sacred ecology, 4th ed. London: Routledge. puzzle leading to nature’s decline. However, we defend Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional that to accomplish the CBD’s 2050 vision for biodiversity, ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological global biodiversity institutions, supported by member Applications 10: 1251–1262. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051- states, should fully embrace and embody the role of IPLC 0761(2000)010. Beveridge, R., M. Moody, G. Murray, C. Darimont, and B. Pauly. in the transformative change so widely called upon. 2020. The Nuxalk Sputc (Eulachon) Project: Strengthening Indigenous management authority through community-driven Acknowledgements This manuscript reflects the author’s perspec- research. Marine Policy 119: 103971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tive, informed by a review of literature conducted for the Global marpol.2020.103971. Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Bohensky, E., and Y. Maru. 2011. Indigenous knowledge, science, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). However, this work is and resilience: What have we learned from a decade of not a formal product of IPBES. We thank H. Ngo and M. Guèze international literature on ‘integration’? Ecology and Society (IPBES) and N. Crawhall and P. Bates (UNESCO) for facilitating 16: 6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04342-160406. dialogues with representatives of Indigenous peoples and local Brondizio, E., and F.-M. Le Tourneau. 2016. Environmental gover- communities. We also thank all the Indigenous peoples and local nance for all. Science 352: 1272–1273. communities who over the years have shared their wisdom, struggles, CBD. 2019. Second synthesis of views of parties and observers on the and hopes with us. We also thank AB. Junqueira, I. Dı́az-Reviriego, scope and content of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Frame- and S. Gallois for comments on previous versions of this manuscript. work. Montreal: Convention on Biological Diversity. https:// VRG received funding from the European Research Council under www.cbd.int/doc/c/58f8/6926/dc3d8d9f16c9307e91e650e5/ grant agreement No 771056-LICCI-ERC-2017-COG. This work post2020-prep-01-inf-02-en.pdf. contributes to the ‘‘Marı́a de Maeztu’’ Programme for Units of CBD. 2021. Report of the second global thematic dialogue for Excellence (CEX2019-000940-M). indigenous peoples and local communities on the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Montreal: Convention on Author contributions VRG and EB conceived the research; all Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/a100/ee24/ authors reviewed literature; VRG wrote the original draft with con- d5aff33695045802975e0fa5/post2020-ws-2020-05-02-en.pdf. tributions from AFLL and PM; all authors edited and approved the Accessed 1–3 Dec 2020. manuscript. Chapron, G., Y. Epstein, and J.V. López-Bao. 2019. A rights revolution for nature. Science 363: 1392–1393. Competing interests Authors declare no competing interest. Coscieme, L., H. da Silva Hyldmo, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, I. Palomo, T.H. Mwampamba, O. Selomane, N. Sitas, P. Jau- Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons reguiberry, et al. 2020. Multiple conceptualizations of nature are Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, key to inclusivity and legitimacy in global environmental adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as governance. Environmental Science & Policy 104: 36–42. long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.018. Ó The Author(s) 2021 123 www.kva.se/en Ambio 2022, 51:84–92 89 Dı́az, S., J. Settele, E.S. Brondı́zio, H.T. Ngo, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. characteristics of global biodiversity targets to reported progress. Balvanera, K.A. Brauman, et al. 2019. Pervasive human-driven Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13322. decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative Hammi, S., V. Simonneaux, J.B. Cordier, D. Genin, M. Alifriqui, N. change. Science 366: eaax3100. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. Montes, and L. Auclair. 2010. Can traditional forest manage- aax3100. ment buffer forest depletion? Dynamics of Moroccan high atlas Dı́az, S., N. Zafra-Calvo, A. Purvis, P.H. Verburg, D. Obura, P. mountain forests using remote sensing and vegetation analysis. Leadley, R. Chaplin-Kramer, L. De Meester, et al. 2020. Set Forest Ecology and Management 260: 1861–1872. https://doi. ambitious goals for biodiversity and sustainability. Science. org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.08.033. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1530. Hill, R., Ç. Adem, W.V. Alangui, Z. Molnár, Y. Aumeeruddy- Dı́az-Reviriego, I., E. Turnhout, and S. Beck. 2019. Participation and Thomas, P. Bridgewater, M. Tengö, R. Thaman, et al. 2020. inclusiveness in the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Nature Sustainability assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Current 2: 457–464. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0290-6. Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 43: 8–20. https://doi. Eichler, L., and D. Baumeister. 2018. Hunting for justice: An org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006. indigenous critique of the North American Model of Wildlife Hoover, E., K. Cook, R. Plain, K. Sanchez, V. Waghiyi, P. Miller, R. Conservation. Environment and Society: Advances in Research Dufault, C. Sislin, et al. 2012. Indigenous peoples of North 9: 75–90. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2018.090106. America: Environmental exposures and reproductive justice. Ens, E., M.L. Scott, Y.M. Rangers, C. Moritz, and R. Pirzl. 2016. Environmental Health Perspectives 120: 1645–1649. https://doi. Putting indigenous conservation policy into practice delivers org/10.1289/ehp.1205422. biodiversity and cultural benefits. Biodiversity and Conservation ICCA Consortium. 2018. Submission in response to the notification 25: 2889–2906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1207-6. requesting views on the preparation, scope and content of the Fa, J.E., J.E. Watson, I. Leiper, P. Potapov, T.D. Evans, N.D. Burgess, post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. https://www.cbd.int/ Z. Molnár, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, et al. 2020. Importance of doc/strategic-plan/Post2020/postsbi/icca.pdf. indigenous peoples’ lands for the conservation of Intact Forest IIFB. 2019. Submission for the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 18: Framework, to make progress towards the 2050 vision, strategy 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2148. and targets for resource mobilisation and collective action. FAO. 2016. Technical and socio-economic characteristics of small- International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity. https://www. scale coastal fishing communities, and opportunities for poverty cbd.int/doc/strategic-plan/Post2020/postsbi/iifb1.pdf. alleviation and empowerment. Rome: FAO. IPBES. 2019a. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment Farhan Ferrari, M., C. de Jong, and V.S. Belohrad. 2015. Community- report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergov- based monitoring and information systems (CBMIS) in the ernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosys- context of the convention on biological diversity (CBD). tem Services. In Intergovernmental science-policy platform on Biodiversity 16: 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2015. biodiversity and ecosystem services, ed. S. Dı́az, J. Settele, E.S. 1074111. Brondı́zio, H.T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Fernández-Llamazares, Á., M. Garteizgogeascoa, N. Basu, E.S. Balvanera, et al. Bonn: IPBES secretariat. Brondizio, M. Cabeza, J. Martı́nez-Alier, P. McElwee, and V. IPBES. 2019b. In Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Reyes-Garcı́a. 2020. A state-of-the-art review of indigenous Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Ser- peoples and environmental pollution. Integrated Environmental vices, ed. E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Dı́az, and H. T. Ngo. UN- Assessment and Management 16: 324–341. https://doi.org/10. IPBES. 1002/ieam.4239. Joa, B., G. Winkel, and E. Primmer. 2018. The unknown known—A Forest Peoples Programme, International Indigenous Forum on review of local ecological knowledge in relation to forest Biodiversity, Indigenous Women’s Biodiversity Network Cen- biodiversity conservation. Land Use Policy 79: 520–530. https:// tres of Distinction on Indigenous and Local Knowledge, and doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2018.09.001. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2020. Kukutai, T., and J. Taylor. 2016. Indigenous data sovereignty. Local Biodiversity Outlooks 2: The contributions of indigenous Indigenous data sovereignty. Camberra: ANU Press. https://doi. peoples and local communities to the implementation of the org/10.22459/caepr38.11.2016. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and to renewing Kuokkanen, R. 2019. At the intersection of arctic indigenous nature and cultures. A complement to the fifth edition of Global governance and extractive industries: Survey of three case Biodiversi. Moreton-in-Marsh: Forest Peoples Programme. studies. The Extractive Industries and Society 6: 15–21. Gadgil, M., F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for Lyver, P.O., A. Akins, H. Phipps, V. Kahui, D.R. Towns, and H. biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22: 151–156. Moller. 2016. Key biocultural values to guide restoration action Gadgil, M., F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 2021. Indigenous knowledge: and planning in New Zealand. Restoration Ecology 24: 314–323. From local to global. Ambio 50: 967–969. https://doi.org/10. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12318. 1007/s13280-020-01478-7. Lyver, P.O.B., P. Timoti, A.M. Gormley, C.J. Jones, S.J. Richardson, Garnett, S.T., N.D. Burgess, J.E. Fa, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, Z. B.L. Tahi, and S. Greenhalgh. 2017. Key Māori values Molnár, C.J. Robinson, J.E.M. Watson, K.K. Zander, B. Austin, strengthen the mapping of forest ecosystem services. Ecosystem et al. 2018. A spatial overview of the global importance of Services 27: 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08. Indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability 1: 009. 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6. Martinez-Alier, J., L. Temper, D. Del Bene, and A. Scheidel. 2016. Is Giunta, A. 2019. Looking back to move forward: The status of there a global environmental justice movement? The Journal of environmental rights under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasant Studies 43: 731–755. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150. Indigenous Peoples. International Journal of Human Rights 23: 2016.1141198. 149–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2019.1572874. McElwee, P., Á. Fernández-Llamazares, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, D. Green, E.J., G.M. Buchanan, S.H.M. Butchart, G.M. Chandler, N.D. Babai, P. Bates, K. Galvin, M. Guèze, J. Liu, et al. 2020. Burgess, S.L.L. Hill, and R.D. Gregory. 2019. Relating Working with Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) in Large- Scale Ecological Assessments: Reviewing the experience of the Ó The Author(s) 2021 www.kva.se/en 123 90 Ambio 2022, 51:84–92 IPBES Global Assessment. Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10. conservation and climate action. Washington, DC: Rights and 1111/1365-2664.13705. Resources Initiative. McGregor, D., J.-P. Restoule, and R. Johnston. 2018. Indigenous Tengö, M., E.S. Brondizio, T. Elmqvist, P. Malmer, and M. research: Theories, practices, and relationships. Toronto: Spierenburg. 2014. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for Canadian Scholars’ Press. enhanced ecosystem governance: The multiple evidence base McGregor, D., S. Whitaker, and M. Sritharan. 2020. Indigenous approach. Ambio 43: 579–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280- environmental justice and sustainability. Current Opinion in 014-0501-3. Environmental Sustainability 43: 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Tengö, M., R. Hill, P. Malmer, C.M. Raymond, M. Spierenburg, F. j.cosust.2020.01.007. Danielsen, T. Elmqvist, and C. Folke. 2017. Weaving knowledge McMillen, H., T. Ticktin, and H. Kihalani. 2017. The future is behind systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—Lessons learned for us: Traditional ecological knowledge and resilience over time on sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability Hawai‘i Island. Regional Environmental Change 17: 579–592. 26–27: 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSUST.2016.12.005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1032-1. Todd, Z. 2016. An Indigenous Feminist’s take on the ontological turn: Nadasdy, P. 2003. Hunters and bureaucrats: Power, knowledge and ‘‘Ontology’’ is just another word for colonialism. Journal of aboriginal-state relations in the southwest Yukon, 1st ed. Historical Sociology 29: 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/johs. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. 12124. O’Bryan, C.J., S.T. Garnett, J.E. Fa, I. Leiper, J. Rehbein, Á. Tran, T.C., N.C. Ban, and J. Bhattacharyya. 2020. A review of Fernández-Llamazares, M.V. Jackson, H.D. Jonas, et al. 2020. successes, challenges, and lessons from Indigenous protected The importance of indigenous peoples’ lands for the conserva- and conserved areas. Biological Conservation. https://doi.org/10. tion of terrestrial mammals. Conservation Biology. https://doi. 1016/j.biocon.2019.108271. org/10.1111/cobi.13620. UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and NGS. 2018. Protected Planet Report 2018. Pascua, P., H. McMillen, T. Ticktin, M. Vaughan, and K.B. Winter. UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and NGS: Cambridge UK; Gland, 2017. Beyond services: A process and framework to incorporate Switzerland; and Washington, D.C., USA. cultural, genealogical, place-based, and indigenous relationships Wallbott, L. 2014. Indigenous peoples in UN REDD ? negotiations: in ecosystem service assessments. Ecosystem Services 26: ‘‘Importing power’’ and lobbying for rights through discursive 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.012. interplay management. Ecology and Society 19: 21. https://doi. Reo, N.J. 2019. Inawendiwin and relational accountability in org/10.5751/ES-06111-190121. Anishnaabeg studies: The crux of the biscuit. Journal of Whyte, K.P. 2013. Justice forward: Tribes, climate adaptation and Ethnobiology 39: 65. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-39.1.65. responsibility. Climatic Change 120: 517–530. Reyes-Garcı́a, V., Á. Fernández-Llamazares, P. McElwee, Z. Molnár, Whyte, K.P. 2017. Our ancestors’ dystopia now: Indigenous conser- K. Öllerer, S.J. Wilson, and E.S. Brondizio. 2019. The contri- vation and the Anthropocene. In The Routledge companion to the butions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to environmental humanities, ed. U.K. Heise, J. Christensen, and ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology 27: 3–8. https://doi. M. Niemann, 222–231. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10. org/10.1111/rec.12894. 4324/9781315766355-32. Richmond, L., B.R. Middleton, R. Gilmer, Z. Grossman, T. Janis, S. Whyte, K.P. 2018. What do indigenous knowledges do for indigenous Lucero, T. Morgan, and A. Watson. 2013. Indigenous studies peoples? In Traditional ecological knowledge, 57–82. Cam- speaks to environmental management. Environmental Manage- bridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ ment 52: 1041–1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0173- 9781108552998.005. y. Witter, R., K.R. Marion Suiseeya, R.L. Gruby, S. Hitchner, E.M. Samakov, A., and F. Berkes. 2017. Spiritual commons: Sacred sites as Maclin, M. Bourque, and J.P. Brosius. 2015. Moments of core of community-conserved areas in Kyrgyzstan. International influence in global environmental governance. Environmental Journal of the Commons 11: 422. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc. Politics 24: 894–912. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015. 713. 1060036. Sayer, J., C. Margules, and J.A. McNeely. 2021. People and Zanotti, L., and N. Knowles. 2020. Large intact forest landscapes and biodiversity in the 21st Century. Ambio 50: 970–975. https:// inclusive conservation: A political ecological perspective. Jour- doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01476-9. nal of Political Ecology 27: 539–557. https://doi.org/10.2458/ Scheidel, A., D. Del Bene, J. Liu, G. Navas, S. Mingorrı́a, F. Demaria, V27I1.23165. S. Avila, B. Roy, et al. 2020. Environmental conflicts and Zurba, M., K. Beazley, E. English, and J. Buchmann-Duck. 2019. defenders: A global overview. Global Environmental Change. Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs), Aichi https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102104. Target 11 and Canada’s Pathway to Target 1: Focusing Spice, A. 2018. Fighting invasive infrastructures: Indigenous relations conservation on reconciliation. Land 8: 10. https://doi.org/10. against pipelines. Environment and Society: Advances in 3390/land8010010. Research 9: 40–56. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2018.090104. Sterling, E.J., C. Filardi, A. Toomey, A. Sigouin, E. Betley, N. Gazit, Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to J. Newell, S. Albert, et al. 2017. Biocultural approaches to well- jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. being and sustainability indicators across scales. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1: 1798–1806. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017- 0349-6. AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES Suiseeya, K.R., and L. Zanotti. 2019. Making influence visible: Victoria Reyes-Garcı́a (&) is ICREA Research Professor at the Innovating ethnography at the paris climate summit. Global Institute of Environmental Science and Technology of the Autono- Environmental Politics 19: 38–60. mous University of Barcelona (ICTA-UAB). Her research interest Tauli-Corpuz, V., J. Alcorn, and A. Molnar. 2018. Cornered by include biocultural diversity, conservation and climate change protected areas: Replacing ‘fortress’ conservation with rights- impacts. based approaches helps bring justice for indigenous peoples and Address: Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), local communities, reduces conflict, and enables cost-effective Barcelona, Spain. Ó The Author(s) 2021 123 www.kva.se/en Ambio 2022, 51:84–92 91 Address: Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA), Address: Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Carrer de les columnes, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Carrer de les columnes, s/n. Z-building (ICTA-ICP), Bellaterra Campus, Cerdanyola del s/n. Z-building (ICTA-ICP), Bellaterra Campus, Cerdanyola del Valles, Bellatera, 08193 Barcelona, Spain. Valles, Bellatera, 08193 Barcelona, Spain. e-mail: victoria.reyes@uab.cat e-mail: David.garcia.delamo@uab.cat Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares is a postdoctoral research fellow at Sara Guadilla-Sáez is an independent researcher. Her interests the Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS) of the include traditional ecological knowledge, biodiversity conservation University of Helsinki, Finland. His research interests include bio- and community-based natural resources management. cultural approaches to conservation, ethnobiology and Indigenous Address: Independent Researcher, Barcelona, Spain. land governance. e-mail: sguadillasaez@gmail.com Address: Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS), Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Natalia Hanazaki is a full professor at Universidade Federal de Santa Helsinki, P.O. Box 65, (Viikinkaari 1), 00014 Helsinki, Finland. Catarina, Brazil. Her research interests include human ecology, ethnobi- e-mail: alvaro.fernandez-llamazares@helsinki.fi ology and traditional ecological knowledge, and biodiversity conservation. Address: Departamento de Ecologia e Zoologia, Universidade Federal de Yildiz Aumeeruddy-Thomas is Director of Research at the CNRS, Santa Catarina, ECZ/CCB/UFSC, Campus Trindade s/n, Florianópolis, SC Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology, Biocultural Inter- 88010-970, Brazil. actions and Adaptation Team, in Montpellier. Her research focused e-mail: natalia.hanazaki@ufsc.br; hanazaki@gmail.com over the last 30 years in tropical, Himalayan and, now, Mediterranean sites and localities on local traditional knowledge about agrobiodi- Nicolas Kosoy is an Associate Professor at McGill University. His versity, and local social-ecological dynamics of agroecosystems research interest include ecological economics, heterodox valuation, within anthropogenic landscapes. political ecology and political economy. Address: Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology, University Address: Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, McGill Montpellier, CNRS, CEFE, UMR 5175, 1919, Route de Mende, School of Environment, McGill University, Macdonald Stewart 34293 Montpellier, France. Building, MS3-037, Macdonald Campus, Ste. Anne-de-Bellevue, e-mail: yildiz.aumeeruddy-thomas@cefe.cnrs.fr Quebec H9X 3V9, Canada. e-mail: nicolas.kosoy@mcgill.ca Petra Benyei is a postdoctoral fellow at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Her research interests include the evaluation of transdis- Margarita Lavides PhD, a Research Fellow at Earth Law Center, ciplinary approaches (including citizen/community science) to docu- New York City and a Biology educator at New York City Department ment, share, and protect indigenous and local knowledge as a of Education. Her research interests include coral reef fish local commons. extinction, marine protected areas, climate change, socio-ecological Address: Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA), system, indigenous and local knowledge. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Carrer de les columnes, Address: Earth Law Center, New York, NY, USA. s/n. Z-building (ICTA-ICP), Bellaterra Campus, Cerdanyola del e-mail: MLavides2@schools.nyc.gov Valles, Bellatera, 08193 Barcelona, Spain. e-mail: petra.benyei@uab.cat Ana C. Luz is an Invited Researcher at ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Portugal. Her research interests include Rainer W. Bussmann is a Professor at the Department of Ethnob- the study of social-ecological links in urban and rural systems, and otany, Institute of Botany, Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia. His biodiversity conservation. research focuses on ethnobotanical research, and the preservation of Address: ISEG- Lisbon School of Economics & Management, traditional knowledge, in the Andes, the Caucasus, and the Hima- Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal. layas. e-mail: aluz@iseg.ulisboa.pt Address: Department of Ethnobotany, Institute of Botany and Bakuriani Alpine Botanical Garden, Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Pamela McElwee is Associate Professor of Human Ecology at Rut- Georgia. gers, The State University of New Jersey. Her research interests e-mail: rainer.bussmann@iliauni.edu.ge include ecosystem services, land-based climate mitigation, and vul- nerability and adaptation to global environmental change. Sara K. Diamond is a PhD graduate from the Department of Address: Department of Human Ecology, Rutgers University, 55 Geography and The Environment at the University of Texas at Austin. Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA. Her current research examines drivers of natural resource use and e-mail: pamela.mcelwee@rutgers.edu governance strategies in rural communities in the Peruvian Amazon. Address: Department of Geography and the Environment, University Vicky J. Meretsky is a professor, O’Neill School of Public and of Texas, Austin, USA. Environmental Affairs at Indiana University. Her research interests Address: College of Liberal Arts, The University of Texas at Austin, include conservation of imperiled species, collaborative conservation, 116 Inner Campus Dr. Stop G6000, Austin, TX 78712, USA. and conservation planning, particularly under climate change. e-mail: sdiamond@utexas.edu Address: O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indi- ana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA. David Garcı́a-del-Amo is a doctoral candidate at the Environmental e-mail: meretsky@indiana.edu Science and Technology Institute from the Autonomous University of Barcelona (ICTA-UAB). His research interests include rural com- Teresa Newberry is a Professor of Biology and Academic Chair of munities, Indigenous and Local Knowledge, co-production of Science and Health at Tohono O’odham Community College. Her knowledge, co-management, climate change, sustainability, and cul- research interests include preservation of biocultural diversity and tural and biodiversity conservation. traditional ecological knowledge, indigenous education, and ecosys- tem response to climate change. Ó The Author(s) 2021 www.kva.se/en 123 92 Ambio 2022, 51:84–92 Address: Department of Science, Tohono O’odham Community Felice S. Wyndham is an independent scholar and research affiliate College, Sells, 1830 E. Broadway, Ste 124-202, Tucson, AZ 85719, at the School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography at the USA. University of Oxford. Her ecological anthropology research on nar- e-mail: tnewberry@tocc.edu rating landscapes explores the ways we relate to places and other living things by examining the intersections of stories and ecological Zsolt Molnár is a scientific advisor at the Centre for Ecological knowing, of landscapes and memory. Research, Hungary. His research interest includes traditional eco- Address: School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography, logical knowledge, historical landscape ecology and nature conser- University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. vation management. Address: PO Box 3162, Santa Cruz, CA 95063, USA. Address: Centre for Ecological Research, ELKH, Alkotmány u. 2-4, e-mail: felice.wyndham@anthro.ox.ac.uk Vácrátót 2163, Hungary. e-mail: molnar.zsolt@ecolres.hu Francisco Zorondo-Rodriguez is Assistant Professor at Departa- mento de Gestión Agraria of the Universidad de Santiago de Chile. Isabel Ruiz-Mallén is a ‘Ramón y Cajal’ Senior Research Fellow at His research lines focus on the contribution of biodiversity to human the IN3-Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), Spain. Her research well-being, and relationships of local communities with protected interests lie in knowledge co-production and transformative learning areas and other biodiversity management tools. processes behind sustainability and science education, community- Address: Departamento de Gestión Agraria, Facultad Tecnológica, based conservation and grassroots climate resilience. Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile. Address: Internet Interdisciplinary Institute, Universitat Oberta de e-mail: francisco.zorondo@usach.cl Catalunya, Av. Friedrich Gauss, 5, Castelldefels, 08860 Barcelona, Spain. Eduardo S. Brondizio is Distinguished Professor of Anthropology e-mail: iruiz_mallen@uoc.edu Indiana University-Bloomington and collaborating professor of the Society and Environment Program at the University of Campinas, Matthieu Salpeteur is an anthropologist, researcher at the French Brazil. His research combines long-term understanding of the social- National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD), environmental transformation of the Amazon and international col- member of the PALOC team (MNHN-IRD), Muséum national laborative research on the human dimensions of global environmental d’histoire naturelle, Paris. His research interests revolve around and climate change. contemporary transformations in pastoral systems, local ecological Address: Department of Anthropology, Indiana University Bloom- knowledge, agrobiodiversity dynamics. ington, 702 E. Kirkwood Ave. Student building 130, Bloomington, IN Address: Patrimoines Locaux, Environnement et Globalisation (UMR 47401, USA. 208 PALOC), IRD, MNHN, French National Research Institute for e-mail: ebrondiz@iu.edu Sustainable Development (IRD), 57 rue Cuvier, CP 51, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France. e-mail: matthieu.salpeteur@ird.fr Ó The Author(s) 2021 123 www.kva.se/en