There are now over 100000 protected areas worldwide, covering over 12% of the Earth's land surface. These areas represent one of the most significant human resource use allocations on the planet. The importance of protected areas is reflected in their widely accepted role as an indicator for global targets and environmental assessments. However, measuring the number and extent of protected areas only provides a unidimensional indicator of political commitment to biodiversity conservation. Data on the geographic location and spatial extent of protected areas will not provide information on a key determinant for meeting global biodiversity targets: 'effectiveness' in conserving biodiversity. Although tools are being devised to assess management effectiveness, there is no globally accepted metric. Nevertheless, the numerical, spatial and geographic attributes of protected areas can be further enhanced by investigation of the biodiversity coverage of these protected areas, using species, habitats or biogeographic classifications. This paper reviews the current global extent of protected areas in terms of geopolitical and habitat coverage, and considers their value as a global indicator of conservation action or response. The paper discusses the role of the World Database on Protected Areas and collection and quality control issues, and identifies areas for improvement, including how conservation effectiveness indicators may be included in the database to improve the value of protected areas data as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets.

During 2021, Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are expected to meet in Kunming, China, to agree on a new global biodiversity framework aimed at halting and reversing biodiversity loss, encouraging the sustainable use of biodiversity, and ensuring the equitable sharing of its benefits. As the post-2020 global biodiversity framework evolves, parties to the convention are being exposed to a range of perspectives on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, relating to the future framework as a whole or to aspects of it. Area-based conservation measures are one such aspect, and there are diverse perspectives on how new targets might be framed in relation to these measures. These perspectives represent different outlooks on the relationship between human and nonhuman life on Earth. However, in most cases there is a lack of clarity on how they would be implemented in practice, the implications this would have for biodiversity and human wellbeing, and how they would contribute to achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity of "living in harmony with nature." We sought to clarify these issues by summarizing some of these perspectives in relation to the future of area-based biodiversity conservation. We identified these perspectives through a review of the literature and expert consultation workshops and compiled them into 4 main groups: Aichi+, ambitious area-based conservation perspectives, new conservation, and whole-earth conservation. We found that although the perspectives Aichi+ and whole earth are in some cases at odds with one another, they also have commonalities, and all perspectives have elements that can contribute to developing and implementing the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and achieving the longer term CBD 2050 Vision. Perspectivas de la Conservación Basada en el Área y su Significado para las Futuras Políticas de BiodiversidadResumen: Durante 2021, se espera que las partes miembro del Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica (CBD) * Address correspondence to Nina Bhola, email nina.bhola@unep-wcmc.org Article impact statement: Scaling up area-based conservation is essential to post-2020 framework to address the CBD mission to improve the status of biodiversity.

No abstract

Eight conventions make up the biodiversity cluster of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) that provide the critical international legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of nature. However, concerns about the rate of implementation of the conventions at the national level have triggered discussions about the effectiveness of these MEAs in halting the loss of biodiversity. Two main concerns have emerged: lack of capacity and resources and lack of coherence in implementing multiple conventions. We focused on the latter and considered the mechanisms by which international conventions are translated into national policy. Specifically, we examined how the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the associated Aichi Biodiversity Targets have functioned as a unifying grand plan for biodiversity conservation. This strategic plan has been used to coordinate and align targets to promote and enable more effective implementation across all biodiversity‐related conventions. Results of a survey of 139 key stakeholders from 88 countries suggests streamlining across ministries and agencies, improved coordination mechanisms with all relevant stakeholders, and better knowledge sharing between conventions could improve cooperation among biodiversity‐related conventions. The roadmap for improving synergies among conventions agreed to at the 13th Convention on Biological Diversity's Conference of Parties in 2016 includes actions such as mechanisms to avoid duplication in national reporting and monitoring on conventions and capacity building related to information and knowledge sharing. We suggest the scientific community can actively engage and contribute to the policy process by establishing a science‐policy platform to address knowledge gaps; improving data gathering, reporting, and monitoring; developing indicators that adequately support implementation of national plans and strategies; and providing evidence‐based recommendations to policy makers. The latter will be particularly important as 2020 approaches and work to develop a new biodiversity agenda for the next decade is beginning.

Federally funded university water programs have had limited success in halting the degradation of water resources in agricultural, rural, and urbanizing watersheds for the past five decades. USDA-funded university water programs have advanced our understanding of watershed processes and the development of best management practices (BMPs; e.g., conservation tillage, nutrient management, alternative and innovative septic systems, and riparian buffers) to mitigate environmental risks from anthropogenic activities, in particular from agriculture, to our water resources; yet water degradation persists and has worsened in many watersheds (Howarth et al. 2000;Mueller and Spahr 2006). The National Research Council (2012) stresses the need for sustainable agricultural practices to reduce changes in flow regimes and water quality.In this research editorial, we make four points relative to solving water resource issues: (1) they are complex problems and difficult to solve; (2) some progress has been made on solving these issues; (3) external nonstationary drivers such as land use changes, climate change and variability, and shifts in markets, policies, and regulations warrant constant vigilance to assure that presumed improvements are being attained; and (4) we are poised to make substantial progress on these challenges over the next 10 to 20 years if critical steps are taken. Our discussion is framed by identifying and describing four grand challenges that we face in agricultural, rural, and urbanizing watersheds: nutrient management, food safety, agricultural water use, and groundwater management. These four grand challenge areas were distilled from a listing of over 50 important issues related to agricultural water resource management identified at a workshop of university and government water scientists in November of 2011. Our over-