Protected areas (PAs) are at the forefront of conservation efforts, and yet despite considerable progress towards the global target of having 17% of the world's land area within protected areas by 2020, biodiversity continues to decline. The discrepancy between increasing PA coverage and negative biodiversity trends has resulted in renewed efforts to enhance PA effectiveness. The global conservation community has conducted thousands of assessments of protected area management effectiveness (PAME), and interest in the use of these data to help measure the conservation impact of PA management interventions is high. Here, we summarize the status of PAME assessment, review the published evidence for a link between PAME assessment results and the conservation impacts of PAs, and discuss the limitations and future use of PAME data in measuring the impact of PA management interventions on conservation outcomes. We conclude that PAME data, while designed as a tool for local adaptive management, may also help to provide insights into the impact of PA management interventions from the local-to-global scale. However, the subjective and ordinal characteristics of the data present significant limitations for their application in rigorous scientific impact evaluations, a problem that should be recognized and mitigated where possible.

32 Protected Area coverage has reached over 15% of the global land area. However, the quality of 33 management of the vast majority of reserves remains unknown, and many are suspected to be 34 'paper parks'. Moreover, the degree to which management can be enhanced through targeted 35 conservation projects remains broadly speculative. Proven links between improved reserve 36 management and the delivery of conservation outcomes are even more elusive. In this paper we 37 present results on how management effectiveness scores change in protected areas receiving 38 conservation investment, using a globally expanded database of protected area management 39 effectiveness, focusing on the 'management effectiveness tracking tool' (METT). Of 1934 protected 40 areas with METT data, 722 sites have at least two assessments. Mean METT scores increased in 41 69.5% of sites while 25.1% experienced decreases and 5.4% experienced no change over project 42 periods (median 4 years). Low initial METT scores and longer implementation time were both 43 found to positively correlate with larger increases in management effectiveness. Performance 44 metrics related to planning and context as well as monitoring and enforcement systems increased 45 the most while protected area outcomes showed least improvement. Using a general linear mixed 46 model we tested the correlation between change in METT scores and matrices of 1) landscape and 47 protected area properties (i.e. topography and size), 2) human threats (i.e. road and human 48 population density), and 3) socio-economics (i.e. infant mortality rate). Protected areas under 49 greater threat and larger protected areas showed greatest improvements in METT. Our results 50 suggest that when funding and resources are targeted at protected areas under greater threat they 51 have a greater impact, potentially including slowing the loss of biodiversity. 52

The management effectiveness of protected areas is a critically important consideration for their conservation success. Over 40 different protected area management effectiveness (PAME) data collection tools have been developed to systematically assess protected area management effectiveness. Many of these assessments have recently been collated into the Global IUCN Protected Area Management Effectiveness (PAME) database. We use the PAME database together with and the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) to assess current progress towards the Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD) 2010 and 2015 targets for PAME, which call for at least 30 per cent and 60 per cent of the total area of protected areas to have been assessed in terms of management effectiveness, respectively. We show that globally 29 per cent of the area protected has been assessed and 23 per cent of countries have reached the 60 per cent target. In addition 46 per cent of countries have reached the 30 per cent target. However, analytical results show that there are biases in the type of protected area assessed; protected areas with larger areas, and protected areas designated as National Parks (IUCN category II) are much more likely to have conducted a PAME assessment. In addition there is a paucity of PAME assessments from Europe and North America, where assessments of protected area management may already be integrated into protected area planning and monitoring systems, creating a challenge for reporting to the CBD. We further discuss the potential and limitations of PAME assessments as tools for tracking and evaluating protected area management, and the need for further assessment tools to address the 'equity' elements of Target 11 of the CBD. KEYWORDS

Forest conservation is of particular concern in tropical regions where a large refuge of biodiversity is still existing. These areas are threatened by deforestation, forest degradation and fragmentation. Especially, pressures of anthropogenic activities adjacent to these areas significantly influence conservation effectiveness. Ecuador was chosen as study area since it is a globally relevant center of forest ecosystems and biodiversity. We identified hotspots of deforestation on the national level of continental Ecuador between 1990 and 2018, analyzed the most significant drivers of deforestation on national and biome level (the Coast, the Andes, The Amazon) as well as inside protected areas in Ecuador by using multiple regression analysis. We separated the national system of protected areas (SNAP) into higher and lower protection levels. Besides SNAP, we also considered Biosphere Reserves (BRs) and Ramsar sites. In addition, we investigated the rates and spatial patterns of deforestation in protected areas and buffer zones (5 km and 10 km outwards the protected area boundaries) using landscape metrics. Between 1990 and 2018, approximately 4% of the accumulated deforestation occurred within the boundaries of SNAP, and up to 25.5% in buffer zones. The highest rates of deforestation have been found in the 5 km buffer zone around the protected areas with the highest protection level. Protected areas and their buffer zones with higher protection status were identified as the most deforested areas among SNAP. BRs had the highest deforestation rates among all protected areas but most of these areas just became BRs after the year 2000. The most important driver of deforestation is agriculture. Other relevant drivers differ between the biomes. The results suggest that the SNAP is generally effective to prevent deforestation within their protection boundaries. However, deforestation around protected areas can undermine conservation strategies to sustain biodiversity. Actions to address such dynamics and patterns of deforestation and forest fragmentation, and developing conservation strategies of their landscape context are urgently needed especially in the buffer zones of areas with the highest protection status.