Editorial Essay: An update on progress towards Aichi Biodiversity Target 11

Gannon, Patrick; Dubois, Grégoire; Dudley, Nigel; Ervin, Jamison; Ferrier, Simon; Gidda, Sarat Babu; MacKinnon, Kathy; Richardson, Karen; Schmidt, Megan; Seyoum‐Edjigu, Edjigayehu; Shestakov, A. S.

doi:10.2305/iucn.ch.2019.parks-25-2pg.en

Cited by 29 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(25 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One reason for this is that the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) has facilitated collation of data on PA extent, enabling countries and scientists to measure and report progress towards the coverage element of Target 11 (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2020). The spatial attributes of PAs captured in the WDPA have also allowed assessments of PAs in relation to ecological representation, coverage of some areas of importance for biodiversity, connectivity, and the potential contribution of PAs to the maintenance of some ecosystem services (Gannon et al 2019;Maxwell et al 2020; UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2020). However, capturing information on the effectiveness of PAs has remained challenging (Coad et al 2015), with the CBD providing no globally consistent advice for this element of Target 11.…”

Section: Learning From the 2011-2020 Strategic Planmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Simply knowing that an assessment has been done can, thus, provide some information. However, the diversity of approaches applied across the world has made comparing across methods and collating data for reporting towards the 2011-2020 Strategic Plan very difficult (Gannon et al 2019). As a result, we do not know if the PA estate is achieving its conservation objectives.…”

Section: Learning From the 2011-2020 Strategic Planmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Essential Indicators for Measuring Area-Based Conservation Effectiveness in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

Geldmann¹,

Deguignet²,

Balmford³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Work has begun in earnest to formulate a post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework which will outline the vision and targets for the next decade of biodiversity conservation and beyond. However, the performance of the 2011-2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity suggests that even a meaningful target can fail to deliver if not accompanied by fit-for-purpose indicators. Here we provide a review of how ‘protected area’ effectiveness was addressed in the 2011-2020 plan and based on this, provide recommendations for fit-for-purpose indicators that will measure how such efforts contribute to the conservation of biodiversity. Indicators need to be built on quantitative data from site-level biodiversity monitoring of species and ecosystems combined with measurements of the state of nature in near-time, informed by remote-sensed products and other technologies. Additionally, indicators need to capture whether the essential elements of good management are in place including the identification of ecological values, threats, and objectives, equitable governance, and sufficient management resources and capacity. These fit-for-purpose indicators will require multilateral collaboration to galvanize support for, and resources to develop, the necessary infrastructure to collate and store information from countries.

show abstract

Section: Learning From the 2011-2020 Strategic Planmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Learning From the 2011-2020 Strategic Planmentioning

confidence: 99%

Essential Indicators for Measuring Area-Based Conservation Effectiveness in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

Geldmann¹,

Deguignet²,

Balmford³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PSF 36/2 | 2020 284 over time will depend on improving governance and management effectiveness and other quality elements included in Aichi Target 11 (Gannon et al 2019). With regard to ecological representation, for instance, by January 2019 protected area coverage was at least 17% for 344 out of 823 terrestrial ecoregions, while 102 had less than 2% coverage.…”

Section: Penelope Figgismentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening the global system of protected areas post-2020: A perspective from the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas

MacKinnon¹,

Smith²,

Dudley³

et al. 2020

Parks Stewardship Forum

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protected areas are the cornerstones of biodiversity conservation and have never been more relevant than at the present time when the world is facing both a biodiversity and a climate change crisis. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) has been helping to set global standards and best practice guidelines in protected area planning and management for 60 years. Following this guidance, many countries have made significant progress toward their Aichi Target 11 commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The global community will be coming together at the 15th Conference of the Parties of the CBD to set new biodiversity conservation targets for the next decade, as milestones to 2050 and a vision of "a world living in harmony with nature." This paper lays out the WCPA perspective on priorities for supporting effective protected and conserved areas for the post2020 era.

show abstract

“…In Europe, a systematic evaluation of all national parks of a country has only been carried out in a few countries: Germany, Austria [6], Finland and the Netherlands [7]. For the German large-scale protected areas (national parks, biosphere reserves and nature parks) different criteria sets and evaluation systems have been established and compared by Scherfose 2013 [8], whereas Coad et al 2013 [9] and Gannon et al 2019 [10] report on global progress in the evaluation of protected areas.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Management Effectiveness of German National Parks—Experiences, Results, Lessons Learned and Future Prospects

Heiland

May²,

Scherfose

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 2005 until today, experience has been gained in the preparation, implementation and impacts of the evaluation of the management effectiveness of German national parks. This process began with the development of a quality set containing fields of action, criteria, standards and a questionnaire to assess the state of national park management. This quality set was applied in the first voluntary full evaluation of German national parks, which took place from 2009 to 2012. An assessment of the full evaluation and the following interim evaluation (2015–2018) demonstrated the positive effects of the evaluation for the national parks, but also revealed some weaknesses of the quality set and the evaluation process. For this reason, work has been underway since 2019 to further improve the evaluation method; however, this has not yet been completed. The article provides an overview of the entire process. It concludes with considerations on the transferability of the evaluation method to other countries and gives some recommendations as to the most important aspects to be considered when evaluating the management effectiveness of national parks.

show abstract

Editorial Essay: An update on progress towards Aichi Biodiversity Target 11

Cited by 29 publications

References 19 publications

Essential Indicators for Measuring Area-Based Conservation Effectiveness in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

Essential Indicators for Measuring Area-Based Conservation Effectiveness in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

Strengthening the global system of protected areas post-2020: A perspective from the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas

Evaluation of the Management Effectiveness of German National Parks—Experiences, Results, Lessons Learned and Future Prospects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About