Data justice and biodiversity conservation.

Increases in data availability coupled with enhanced computational capacities are revolutionizing conservation. But in the excitement over the opportunities afforded by new data, there has been less discussion of the justice implications of data used in conservation, that is, how people and environments are represented through data, the conservation choices made based on data, and the distribution of benefits and harms arising from these choices. We propose a framework for understanding the justice dimensions of conservation data composed of five elements: data composition, data control, data access, data processing and use, and data consequences. For each element, we suggest a set of guiding questions that conservationists could use to think through their collection and use of data and to identify potential data injustices. The need for such a framework is illustrated by a synthesis of recent critiques of global conservation prioritization analyses. These critiques demonstrate the range of ways data could serve to produce social and ecological harms due to the choice of underlying data sets, assumptions made in the analysis, oversimplification of real-world conservation practice, and crowding out of other forms of knowledge. We conclude by arguing that there are ways to mitigate risks of conservation data injustices, through formal ethical and legal frameworks and by promoting a more inclusive and more reflexive conservation research ethos. These will help ensure that data contribute to conservation strategies that are both socially just and ecologically effective.

Justicia Informativa y Conservación de la Biodiversidad Resumen El incremento en la disponibilidad de datos acoplado con las capacidades computacionales mejoradas está revolucionando la conservación. Sin embargo, debido a la emoción generada por las oportunidades proporcionadas por los datos nuevos, ha habido menos discusiones sobre las implicaciones de justicia de los datos que se usan en la conservación, es decir, cómo las personas y los ecosistemas están representados por los datos, las opciones de conservación basadas en estos datos y la distribución de los daños y beneficios que surgen de estas opciones. Proponemos un marco de trabajo para entender las dimensiones de justicia de los datos de conservación compuestos por cinco elementos: composición de los datos, control de datos, acceso a los datos, procesamiento y uso de los datos, y consecuencias de los datos. Diseñamos un conjunto de preguntas guía para cada elemento, el cual los conservacionistas podrían usar para analizar detalladamente la recolección y uso de los datos y así identificar posibles injusticias informativas. La necesidad de tener este marco de trabajo está ilustrada por una síntesis de críticas recientes a los análisis de priorización de la conservación global. Estas críticas demuestran la gama de formas en la que podrían usarse los datos para producir daño ecológico y social debido a la elección de los conjuntos de datos subyacentes, las suposiciones hechas en el análisis, la sobresimplificación de las prácticas de conservación reales y la exclusión de otras formas de conocimiento. Existen maneras de mitigar los riesgos de injustica informativa en la conservación por medio de los marcos de trabajo éticos y legales y mediante la promoción de una ética de investigación de la conservación más incluyente y reflexiva. Todo lo anterior ayudará a asegurar que los datos contribuyan a las estrategias de conservación que son socialmente justas y ecológicamente efectivas.

'To prevent this disease, we have to stay at home, but if we stay at home, we die of hunger' - Livelihoods, vulnerability and coping with Covid-19 in rural Mozambique.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as social distancing and travel restrictions have been introduced to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus (hereinafter Covid). In many countries of the Global South, NPIs are affecting rural livelihoods, but in-depth empirical data on these impacts are limited. We traced the differentiated impacts of Covid NPIs throughout the start of the pandemic May to July 2020. We conducted qualitative weekly phone interviews (n = 441) with 92 panelists from nine contrasting rural communities across Mozambique (3-7 study weeks), exploring how panelists' livelihoods changed and how the NPIs intersected with existing vulnerabilities, and created new exposures. The NPIs significantly re-shaped many livelihoods and placed greatest burdens on those with precarious incomes, women, children and the elderly, exacerbating existing vulnerabilities. Transport and trading restrictions and rising prices for consumables including food meant some respondents were concerned about dying not of Covid, but of hunger because of the disruptions caused by NPIs. No direct health impacts of the pandemic were reported in these communities during our interview period. Most market-orientated income diversification strategies largely failed to provide resilience to the NPI shocks. The exception was one specific case linked to a socially-minded value chain for baobab, where a strong duty of care helped avoid the collapse of incomes seen elsewhere. In contrast, agricultural and charcoal value chains either collapsed or saw producer prices and volumes reduced. The hyper-covariate, unprecedented nature of the shock caused significant restrictions on livelihoods through trading and transport limits and thus a region-wide decline in cash generation opportunities, which was seen as being unlike any prior shock. The scale of human-made interventions and their repercussions thus raises questions about the roles of institutional actors, diversification and socially-minded trading partners in addressing coping and vulnerability both conceptually and in policy-making.

COVID-19 and the case for global development.

COVID-19 accentuates the case for a global, rather than an international, development paradigm. The novel disease is a prime example of a development challenge for all countries, through the failure of public health as a global public good. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the falsity of any assumption that the global North has all the expertise and solutions to tackle global challenges, and has further highlighted the need for multi-directional learning and transformation in all countries towards a more sustainable and equitable world. We illustrate our argument for a global development paradigm by examining the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic across four themes or 'vignettes': global value chains, digitalisation, debt, and climate change. We conclude that development studies must adapt to a very different context from when the field emerged in the mid-20th century.

Ecosystem services from southern African woodlands and their future under global change.

Miombo and mopane woodlands are the dominant land cover in southern Africa. Ecosystem services from these woodlands support the livelihoods of 100 M rural people and 50 M urban dwellers, and others beyond the region. Provisioning services contribute $9 ± 2 billion yr(-1) to rural livelihoods; 76% of energy used in the region is derived from woodlands; and traded woodfuels have an annual value of $780 M. Woodlands support much of the region's agriculture through transfers of nutrients to fields and shifting cultivation. Woodlands store 18-24 PgC carbon, and harbour a unique and diverse flora and fauna that provides spiritual succour and attracts tourists. Longstanding processes that will impact service provision are the expansion of croplands (0.1 M km(2); 2000-2014), harvesting of woodfuels (93 M tonnes yr(-1)) and changing access arrangements. Novel, exogenous changes include large-scale land acquisitions (0.07 M km(2); 2000-2015), climate change and rising CO2 The net ecological response to these changes is poorly constrained, as they act in different directions, and differentially on trees and grasses, leading to uncertainty in future service provision. Land-use change and socio-political dynamics are likely to be dominant forces of change in the short term, but important land-use dynamics remain unquantified.This article is part of the themed issue 'Tropical grassy biomes: linking ecology, human use and conservation'.