UDTR Global Rights of Nature Radar

BioProsperity: A Biocultural Framework for Biodiversity Finance and Equitable Regenerative Economies

Identification

Public canonical key

doi:10.5281/zenodo.19927769

Authors

Constanza Gómez Mont

Reported year

2026

Reported language

en

Source type

article

First detected

2026-11-09T19:04:47.564112+00:00

Last metadata observation

2026-11-09T19:07:07.113251+00:00

Last HTTP verification

Not checked

Documentary abstract — original language

The accelerating transgression of planetary boundaries, the persistent decline of biodiversity, and the structural exclusion of biodiversity stewards from economic benefit-sharing collectively signal a failure not of individual frameworks but of integration across them. This failure is not neutral. It is reinforced by extractive economic flows that systematically transfer value out of biocultural territories while externalizing ecological costs. In doing so, they obscure the flows of value that connect these territories with cities and markets. This paper introduces BioProsperity as a conceptual framework that synthesises insights from Earth system science, ecological economics, commons governance theory, the nature-positive agenda, rights-of-nature jurisprudence, and diverse Global South knowledge systems, including Sumak Kawsay (Buen Vivir), Ubuntu, and Gross National Happiness, among others, into a unified approach to biocultural prosperity. BioProsperity is defined as a condition in which ecological integrity, biocultural continuity, and inclusive wellbeing are mutually reinforcing, sustained by regenerative flows of resources, knowledge, and capital between territories and cities and in which this interdependence becomes the organising principle for economic activity, governance, investment, and knowledge systems. The framework’s benefits extend to all people, not only to those who directly steward biodiversity: because the ecological systems sustained within biocultural territories regulate climate, water, food production, and disease at planetary scale, the prosperity of urban populations, global supply chains, and distant economies is structurally dependent on the conditions that BioProsperity seeks to create and maintain. Through an integrative literature review spanning planetary boundaries science (Rockström et al., 2009; Richardson et al., 2023), Doughnut Economics (Raworth, 2017), natural capital economics (Dasgupta, 2021), commons governance (Ostrom, 1990), the IPBES values framework (IPBES, 2022), biocultural diversity scholarship (Toledo & Barrera-Bassols, 2008; Maffi, 2005), pluriversal design theory (Escobar, 2018), and relational philosophies from Africa, the Andes, and South Asia, the paper identifies a critical gap: the absence of a framework that integrates ecological, economic, cultural, and governance dimensions at the territorial scale while centring the agency of biodiversity stewards. BioProsperity addresses this gap by proposing biocultural territories-operationalised as Areas of BioProsperity (ABPs)-as the primary unit of analysis, governance, investment and action. The framework is articulated from Latin America and the Caribbean, home to 40% of the world’s biodiversity, while demonstrating global relevance through the argument that biocultural territories constitute foundational global commons for the world economy. Implications for policy, finance, biodiversity practice, and community governance are discussed. Limitations and directions for future research are identified. This paper represents a first conceptual iteration of the BioProsperity framework, intended as a foundation for further refinement through empirical application, interdisciplinary research, and multistakeholder engagement.

Identifiers

OPENALEX

W7159220129

DOI

10.5281/zenodo.19927769 · 10.5281/zenodo.19927770

OPENAIRE

doi_dedup___::d79b7026bdec9e4fe4412348dc38870d

Documentary context

Documentary family

Scholarship

Source-reported types

Research · article

Natural entities mentioned

Territory

Entity mentions are not evidence of legal recognition. Jurisdiction studied is separate from author affiliation country.

Sources

OpenAIRE · Record 1 · Record 2

OpenAlex · Record 1 · Record 2

• DOI · https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19927769
• DOI · https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19927770
• Document · https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19927770
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W7159220129

Documentary status

Outside legal scope after review

Library

This identity is not yet included in the Legal Library.