82 Clifton ET AL. are then subjected to policies expressly designed to exclude or restrict local livelihood activities. This situation has been exacerbated by the tendency for international non-governmental organisations to join forces with the State to promote their conservation agenda. Whilst the political and environmental implications of this trend have been explored within the academic literature, the consequences for the survival of disempowered and marginalised stateless communities have received little attention. This article will focus upon stateless peoples enmeshed within a policy framework influenced by globalised environmental priorities and directed by international conservation NGOs in South-East Asia. It will explore how stateless peoples’ capacities are undermined by models of ‘participation’ used by these actors and underline the importance of recognising stateless peoples’ rights and responsibilities in marine natural resource management. Keywords stateless – Bajau – Sabah – conservation – governance 1 Introduction Global biodiversity conservation policy is heavily influenced by international agreements such as the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (hereinafter: CBD), which includes 193 states as signatory parties. The current CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity incorporates a number of targets often referred to collectively as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. These targets include a goal of setting aside 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland waters and 10 per cent of marine environments as protected areas. Opinion differs as to the appropriate magnitude of these targets, with recommendations including protecting up to 40 per cent of the world’s marine environment to ensure biodiversity conservation.1 The Aichi Targets are integrated into international and national initiatives to conserve biodiversity focusing on so-called biodiversity ‘hotspots’. These are regions accorded priority for environmental protection on account of representing a combination of species and ecosystem irreplaceability and vulnerability. Recent estimates indicate that conser­ vation investment in the 35 currently recognised hotspots exceeds US$1 1 Helen E Fox, Carrie S Soltanoff, Michael B Mascia, Kelly M Haisfield, Alfonso V Lombana, Christopher R Pyke and Louisa Wood, ‘Explaining Global Patterns and Trends in Marine Protected Area (MPA) Development’ (2012) 36 Marine Policy 1131. tilburg law review 19 (2014) 81-89