Description: This article examines the politics of emerging partnerships among big-tech corporations, big international non-governmental organisations (BINGOs) and bilaterals that promote the uptake and implementation of ‘smart technologies’ in biodiversity conservation. Despite growing global recognition of Indigenous and local peoples' rights to forests, lands, and oceans as central to socially just and successful conservation, new initiatives to conserve 30% of the Earth's territory by 2030 (‘30 × 30’) under the United Nations' (UN) post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework largely continue to neglect their existing customary rights and uses of biodiverse territories. The consequences of this have become evident in new global conservation partnerships that are taking a ‘technological turn’. ‘Smart technologies’ that rely on artificial intelligence (AI) and complex hardware, such as camera traps, drones, and smartphones, enable new forms of surveillance and securitisation through and beyond conventional conservation practices. Despite their potential to exacerbate social injustices against historically marginalised groups, the situated character of smart technology impacts and outcomes often remain unquestioned by mainstream conservation actors. Our paper shows how the dominant discourses framing such technology as successful and innovative across global and local partnerships belies its potential to: 1) inflict considerable violence upon local and Indigenous peoples; and 2) neglect the main political economic drivers of biodiversity loss. Drawing on examples from Palawan Island, the Philippines, we show how these global-local governance partnerships have valorised the potential success of smart technology for biodiversity conservation in situ without considering how they may adversely impact Indigenous and local peoples' rights and livelihoods, while at the same time neglecting and depoliticising the violence of capitalist extractivist expansion.

Description: The intensifying extraction, privatization, and conservation of maritime spaces are transforming seascapes globally. Amidst rapid coastal change and the ambiguous reconfiguration of oceans as frontiers are coastal dwellers who occupy the shadows of these seascapes. In contrast to the capture of high-profile marine species, the harvest of the edible nests of balinsasayaw (swiftlet, Aerodramus fuciphagus) remains largely concealed at the interstitial spaces between land, coast, and sea. In the Philippines, harvesters known as busyador negotiate social relations, political networks, and karst systems to extract these lucrative nests. Despite the nest industry growing in value in Southeast Asia, we show how the busyador struggle in precarious social relations and spaces peripheral to coastal governance in northern Palawan Island. Building on the concept of ‘seascape assemblages’, we emphasize the importance of the less visible human-nonhuman relations that shape the nest harvest and trade. We trace the marginal social histories of the balinsasayaw by highlighting the precarious nature of the harvest, revealing how the busyador are subject to unfair working conditions, dispossession, and violence. We argue that as state actors and local elites reconfigure oceans as frontiers for development and conservation, struggles over labour and tenure rights, livelihood opportunities, and justice at sea are disregarded.

Description: Blue economy initiatives have emerged along marine and coastal areas, seeking to bring the green economy into a ‘blue world’. Often defined as a global policy agenda, blue economy discourses and practices aim to generate ‘blue growth’ by linking poverty reduction, social equality, and marine conservation. While global and national policies have spent decades addressing coastal resource management, broader blue economy discourses and practices seem, on the surface, to promote economic growth strategies for marine conservation. Increasingly, new market-oriented programs and projects aim to tap the financial value of the ocean’s ‘blue capital’, ostensibly fostering income generation and sustainable solutions for conservation finance. Drawing on critical discourse analysis and key-informant interviews across scales, we examine the meanings and practices of the blue economy in Southeast Asia and in the Philippines. As an archipelagic nation, millions of coastal dwellers in the Philippines depend on oceans as a major source of livelihood, food security, and well-being. We examine how multilateral institutions, bilateral organisations, state agencies, civil society organisations, and other key actors represent and enact the blue economy discursively and in practice. We find that oceans are being imagined as an open frontier that must be managed and utilised for both conservation and economic purposes. New territorialisation processes are creating new borders and management structures that often bypass social and environmental safeguards, posing a major threat to coastal dwellers. We conclude that by foregrounding economic development and coastal management, more socially just and environmentally sustainable governance approaches are neglected.

Description: The current focus on mangroves as key ecosystems in mitigating the impacts of climate change has largely neglected the livelihoods of coastal dwellers interacting with mangroves. This article provides a review of scholarly and policy attention paid to these social groups and their means of struggle. It argues that the latest dominant governance discourse tying mangroves to blue carbon signifies a departure from catering to coastal people's interests and rights in mangroves. We describe the evolving discourses that have shaped mangrove use and conservation in the Philippines since the 1970s. While the mid-century preoccupation with mangrove conversion to fish farms gradually gave way to the pursuit of community-based mangrove conservation in the late 1980s and 1990s, recent experiences suggest a comparably weakened focus towards recognizing local access and use patterns. We contend that the present blue carbon framing of mangroves, which harbours technocratic and financialized ideals of sustainability, poses a fundamental disadvantage to local users of mangroves. We conclude by reflecting on ways to redress this trend via a new framing of mangroves.

Description: The realities of many coastal dwellers have been shaped by their interactions with fish and water along the world’s waterscapes. However, human and cultural geographers have largely overlooked how waterscapes influence coastal people’s behaviors and social interactions. Studies of geographies of the sea have acknowledged the importance of human–nonhuman interactions in the context of fluid ocean spaces and political economies. Critically engaging capitalist, industrialized perspectives of oceans, our article contributes to this literature to study how Afro-descendant small-scale fishers in the Gulf of Tribugá respond to intensifying neoliberal fishing regimes in Colombia’s Pacific coast. We do so by examining how fishers negotiate diverse representations of fish and how these influence their behaviors and practices over time and space. We bring the sea to the center of inquiry to investigate how the sociomaterial character of fish intersects with political, economic, and cultural forces and how they influence perceptions, access, and use of oceans. We argue that the scarcity induced by industrial fisheries overexploitation has changed people’s access to and control over fish and enabled biodiversity conservation discourses to marketize and transform fishing practices. This process has added value to fish through the creation of marine protected areas and the rebranding of fish in terms of traceability and “valued-added” sustainability. In this context, however, we highlight how fishers and their practices have endured through situated institutional practices despite being wrapped up in the complex power dynamics that have marginalized Afro-descendant people in Colombia since colonial times. Key Words: assemblage, Colombia, geographies of the sea, institutions, neoliberalism.