Bolder science needed now for protected areas

Abstract

Recognizing that protected areas (PAs) are essential for effective biodiversity conservation action, the Convention on Biological Diversity established ambitious PA targets as part of the 2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity. Under the strategic goal to "improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species, and genetic diversity," Target 11 aims to put 17% of terrestrial and 10% of marine regions under PA status by 2020. Additionally and crucially, these areas are required to be of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative, and well-connected and to include "other effective area-based conservation measures" (OECMs). Whereas the area-based targets are explicit and measurable, the lack of guidance for what constitutes important and representative; effective; and OECMs is affecting how nations are implementing the target. There is a real risk that Target 11 may be achieved in terms of area while failing the overall strategic goal for which it is established because the areas are poorly located, inadequately managed, or based on unjustifiable inclusion of OECMs. We argue that the conservation science community can help establish ecologically sensible PA targets to help prioritize important biodiversity areas and achieve ecological representation; identify clear, comparable performance metrics of ecological effectiveness so progress toward these targets can be assessed; and identify metrics and report on the contribution OECMs make toward the target. By providing ecologically sensible targets and new performance metrics for measuring the effectiveness of both PAs and OECMs, the science community can actively ensure that the achievement of the required area in Target 11 is not simply an end in itself but generates genuine benefits for biodiversity.

Designing protected area networks that translate international conservation commitments into national action

“…This is against the backdrop that many existing protected areas are biased towards locations that are less important for biodiversity and/or on remote and economically unproductive land (Brooks, 2014;Joppa and Pfaff, 2009;Venter et al, 2017). Therefore, the Aichi targets have created an opportunity for the conservation science community to guide protected area expansion, as there is a real need to develop evidence-based plans that prioritise biodiversity (Watson et al, 2016).…”

Untitled

“…Through the ecosystem services provided by protected areas, the implementation of the commitments could contribute to progress towards achievement of the goals and several targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, not only those on life on land and life below water, but also climate action, poverty eradication, and sustainable consumption and production, among others (SCBD, 2016b). It will also deliver various benefits with respect to climate change mitigation and adaptation (Gaüzère et al, 2016;Gross et al, 2016;Melillo et al, 2016), including to the (Intended) Nationally Determined Contributions of the Paris Agreement, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (Dudley et al, 2015), and the Land Degradation Neutrality goal of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. In addition, there will also be contribution towards the fulfilment of requirements in other multilateral environmental agreements, such as UNESCO's World Heritage Convention and its Man and the Biosphere Programme, the Ramsar Convention, the Convention on Migratory Species, and other biodiversityrelated conventions, in a synergistic manner.…”

Canada and Aichi Biodiversity Target 11: understanding ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ in the context of the broader target

“…However, freshwater and marine PA representation remains very poor. Overall, more work is required to better incorporate ecological representation into PA targets (Watson et al 2015).…”