Recognize diverse approaches to area-based conservation of nature (original) (raw)

Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century

Nature

Humanity will soon define a new era for nature-one that seeks to transform decades of underwhelming responses to the global biodiversity crisis. Area-based conservation efforts, which include both protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, are likely to extend and diversify. However, persistent shortfalls in ecological representation and management effectiveness diminish the potential role of area-based conservation in stemming biodiversity loss. Here we show how the expansion of protected areas by national governments since 2010 has had limited success in increasing the coverage across different elements of biodiversity (ecoregions, 12,056 threatened species, 'Key Biodiversity Areas' and wilderness areas) and ecosystem services (productive fisheries, and carbon services on land and sea). To be more successful after 2020, area-based conservation must contribute more effectively to meeting global biodiversity goals-ranging from preventing extinctions to retaining the most-intact ecosystems-and must better collaborate with the many Indigenous peoples, community groups and private initiatives that are central to the successful conservation of biodiversity. The long-term success of area-based conservation requires parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to secure adequate financing, plan for climate change and make biodiversity conservation a far stronger part of land, water and sea management policies. Governments, policy-makers and many members of the conservation community have long held that protected areas are a fundamental cornerstone of biodiversity conservation 1,2. The importance of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) is also beginning to be recognized 3,4. OECMs were defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2018 as places outside the protected-area estate that deliver effective biodiversity conservation, such as government-run water catchment areas, territories conserved by Indigenous peoples and local communities, as well as some private conservation initiatives (Box 1). Both protected areas and OECMs (here referred to collectively as area-based conservation measures) are acknowledged in the CBD and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 5. In particular, the current ten-year Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 6 of the CBD-which was agreed to by 168 countries in 2010-has an explicit target (Aichi Target 11) that stipulates 'at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas and OECMs, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascape' by 2020. This target has dominated the area-based conservation agenda for the past decade. Between 2010 and 2019, protected areas expanded from covering 14.1% to 15.3% of global land and freshwater environments (excluding Antarctica) and from 2.9% to 7.5% of the marine realm 7 (Figs. 1, 2). Although it is not yet possible to track their global extent systematically, OECMs have emerged as a category of area-based conservation since 2010 8. However, despite these encouraging efforts, some disconcerting spatial dynamics in the global protected-area estate are becoming more apparent. One recent analysis showed that, on average, 1.1 million km 2 of land and sea were recorded as being removed from the global protected-area estate annually between 2006 and 2018 9. There is also

Towards a typological framework for area-based conservation

2020

Protected areas and other area-based measures are widely accepted as key elements in biodiversity conservation. However, the diversity and inconsistent usage of terms used to describe these measures have often led to confusion. This has sometimes hampered discussions on their role, including in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Here, we seek to provide some clarification of the most widely used terms describing different measures of areabased conservation by proposing a typological framework. This framework considers three area-based conservation types, which are not mutually exclusive: A. 'Areas dedicated to, and/or achieving, the conservation of nature'; B. 'Areas subject to specific governance and/or management relevant to the conservation of nature'; and C. 'Areas identified as priorities for the conservation of nature'. We hope that this framework will contribute to a better understanding of the different types of area-based conservation and help inform the development of new targets and indicators for the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.

Area-based conservation: Taking stock and looking ahead

One Earth, 2023

Area-based conservation, particularly of protected areas, is the primary approach used globally to address biodiversity decline and currently covers 8% of the world's oceans and 17% of its lands. In the wake of the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity, area-based conservation (including protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures [OECMs]) is set to diversify and rapidly expand as mandated by the 30x30 target to protect 30% of the planet by 2030. At this pivotal point, we take stock of the approach, including its history in global conservation policy and performance to date. We outline the following priority directions to ensure area-based conservation contributes to securing a sustainable and just future: (1) embracing a diverse area-based conservation toolbox to stem biodiversity loss, (2) centering social equity in area-based conservation, and (3) adopting robust monitoring and review processes to ensure effective and equitable outcomes.

Area-Based Conservation in the 21st Century

Humanity will soon define a new era for nature – one that seeks to correct decades of underwhelming responses to the global biodiversity crisis. Area-based conservation efforts, which include both protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, are likely to extend and diversify. But persistent shortfalls in ecological representation, management effectiveness and measurable biodiversity outcomes diminish the potential role of area-based conservation in stemming biodiversity loss. Here we show how protected area expansion by governments since 2010 has had limited success in increasing biodiversity coverage, and identify four emergent issues that –if addressed – will enhance the performance of area-based conservation post-2020. We close with recommendations for a broad biodiversity agenda that maximises the potential of area-based conservation. Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity must recognise that area-based conservation primarily focuses on local...

New Steps of Change: Looking Beyond Protected Areas to Consider Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures

In 2010, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted the Aichi Biodiversity Targets as part of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. Target 11 calls for ‘at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas’ to be conserved by way of ‘well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures’. Yet four years after their adoption, parties to the CBD and other rights- and stakeholders have not received guidance about either what kinds of arrangements do and do not constitute ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’, or how best to appropriately recognise and support them. The paper argues that without clear guidance on the issue, conservation law and policy will continue to inappropriately and/or inadequately recognise the great diversity of forms of conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems and their constituent elements across landscapes and seascapes, including by Indigenous peoples and local communities. In this context, and in line with calls from the Convention on Biological Diversity and the IUCN, it proposes the establishment of an IUCN Task Force to further explore the issues with a view to developing clear guidance on ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ as a means to effectively and equitably achieve Aichi Biodiversity Target 11.

Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation II: Management and Effectiveness Synthesis

This is the second of a two-part series covering protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Part II looks at real-world protected area theory, management, implementation and effectiveness. There are different types of PAs including government-regulated, community-conserved areas, and private reserves. Adequate financial support is necessary for PAs, however it is often difficult to come by. The module also examines the effectiveness of PAs and how they can be successfully monitored.

Role and Trends of Protected Areas in Conservation

Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 2013

Protected areas and biodiversity are currently facing important degradation, especially in tropical regions. This evolution questions the management systems and calls for adaptive and sustainable management on the basis of regular assessments of global evolutionary trends and continuous adjustments of conservation objectives and management tools. Adaptive management is yet missing rigorous and integrated indicators for advanced evaluations for many protected areas which have never been assessed despite periodical updating of management goals and plans. The development of reliable, global and low cost methods for adaptive management is therefore a great concern for scientific and conservationist communities given the limitations of commonly used tools and recurrent problems of conservation funding. The PA-TAMCO Analytic Model was designed to promote adaptive actions and management considering spatialized, categorized and aggregated changes from advanced global evaluations. It is an innovative approach and tool for protected areas' global evolutionary trends with reference to conservation objectives. Theoretically, the Model is based on land cover concepts and land cover analysis recognized as the most practical approach to assess ecosystem units, with reference to vegetation cover, natural processes and theoretical spatial changes. Basically, it relies on four key indicators and tools: (1) Trend Index, (2) Evolutionary Trend, (3) Evolutionary Trend's Decision Tree Algorithm and (4) Trend Index and Evolutionary Trend's Classification Grid. Technically, it is based on Remote Sensing data processing; land cover mapping and land cover change analysis using appropriated Remote Sensing and GIS Softwares. The spatial indices and processes responsible for recorded evolutionary trends are determined using landscape ecology tools. In the field of conservation, positive processes are respectively positive and negative when they affect vegetation classes and anthropogenic classes and vice-versa, for negative ones. The input data for the computation of evolution indicators and spatial processes are derived from raw export results of the classifications of Remote Sensing data to GIS software. The sensitivity and resilience of specific ecosystems units to external stresses are measured by three indicators that are "intrinsic stability" (S i), "weighted stability" (S w) and "relative expansion rate" (R e). These indicators are essential for rational management of strategic ecosystems like savannah, water bodies and wetlands in animal sanctuaries and wildlife parks. The implementation of the Model starts with the knowledge of management category, conservation objectives and desired evolutions. The validation process relies on semi-structured interviews involving technical staff and oldest rangers. The model was successfully applied to the Rusizi National Park (Burundi) from 1984 and 2015.

SYNTHESIS: Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation II: Management and Effectiveness

Protected Area Systems in South American Countries

Floresta e Ambiente

Protected Areas (PA) represent an important biodiversity conservation strategy, but these areas are threatened by increasing human pressure and inefficient management. Thus, the objective was to analyze the management of PA in South America, a continent with particular characteristics in relation to the political and socioeconomic complexity that reflect the way each country manages its PA. The results showed that, although there is progress in establishing PAs, there is only effective protection when they have adequate size and management, and Protected Area Systems (PAS) are established. It was possible to observe the importance of the PAS, since, PA managed outside it have comprehensive norms, without defined criteria, with several organs operating without connection. For PA management, uniform and standardized actions are fundamental in order to allow a global network for biodiversity protection.

Recognize diverse approaches to area-based conservation of nature (original) (raw)

Related papers