MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414045423 · doi:10.2458/jpe.7334

Indigenous territorial rights in the Global Biodiversity Framework: Creating a third pathway to 30x30

2025· article· en· W4414045423 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Political Ecology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousHuman rightsConvention on Biological DiversityIndigenous rightsTraditional knowledgeAllianceInclusion (mineral)Convention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the conclusion of the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD-COP15) in Montreal, Canada in December 2022, many rights-holders and allies commended the inclusion of language respecting Indigenous rights and knowledge in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). In particular, they pointed to the recognition of and rights to Indigenous and traditional territories in Target 3, commonly referred to as 30x30. Drawing on a collaborative ethnography of CBD-COP15 and its preparatory meetings between 2020 and 2022, we examine how the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity and its allies built a transnational alliance of member states, non-governmental organizations, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), and others to further a human rights-based approach. We illustrate how they invoked the moral authority of the United Nations human rights framework and used consultation processes, established under Article 8j of the CBD, as well as the time and space provided by the COVID-19 pandemic. In doing so, they embraced Target 3–a target that was important to many actors–framing the recognition of territorial rights as key to achieving Target 3. The inclusion of rights-based language in Target 3 entails a critical step toward decolonizing conservation by underscoring the importance of recognizing and respecting the rights of IPLCs in all area-based conservation, by recognizing IPLCs rights—and implicitly Indigenous-led governance—over traditional territories, and by paving the way for a third category of area-based conservation, which sees Indigenous territorial claims as fundamental human rights and protecting territorial rights as a means of protecting Indigenous life. The power of this text lies in its codification of a conservation paradigm shift that frames long standing struggles against green grabs as human rights issues and foundation for legal claims in international, regional, and national courts. Nonetheless, it is limited in its ability to transform the broader political economy of conservation. The core challenge ahead is to utilize the various mechanisms for implementing the KMGBF—from monitoring and reporting to the new Subsidiary Body on Article 8j—to restructure the relations of domination under capitalism that cause environmental destruction and dispossession.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.049
Scholarly communication0.0160.018
Open science0.0030.026
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Political EcologySame topicIntellectual Property LawFrench-language works237,207