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

Abstract

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.

How far have we come? A review of MPA network performance indicators in reaching qualitative elements of Aichi Target 11

“…While we should not expect an even distribution of indicators across those elements, focus on the assessment of one element raises the risk of MPA networks not meeting their expected goals. Such narrow focus may also distract from recognizing politically motivated implementation or infringements to social justice, which lead to distrust, conflict, and violations (Dehens & Fanning 2018; DeSanto, 2013), and other unintended consequences (Geldmann et al., 2020; Weeks et al., 2014).…”

“…We recognize the indicators missing or underrepresented in this review (Table S5) may characterize fundamental components of terrestrial protected area and MPA networks and hence help assess whether or not these networks are meeting their objectives. In particular, recent initiatives identifying indicators for equitable management (Zafra‐calvo et al., 2017) and integration (Bacon et al., 2019) will help identify priority indicators for evaluation of MPA networks against the qualitative elements (Geldmann et al., 2020). Our findings can also be complemented in the future by using other sources, such as gray literature (e.g., technical reports), local management plans, regional strategies, national action plans, and expert opinions, to identify and categorize a core suite of headline indicators to evaluate MPA networks effectiveness.…”

“…While focusing on the area alone makes it more straightforward to assess and may help bolster political will, such a simple measure falls short as a proxy for protected area effectiveness (Claudet et al., 2020; Coad et al., 2019; DeSanto, 2013; Zupan et al., 2018). The six qualitative elements of Aichi Target 11 (hereafter qualitative elements ; “areas of importance for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services,” “ecological connectivity,” “equitable management,” “effective management,” “integration into the wider land and seascape,” and “ecological representation”) are designed to ensure that established protected areas are effective beyond consideration of the quantitative target by providing a conceptualization of how MPA networks should attain biodiversity conservation (Geldmann et al., 2020; Rees, Foster, Langmead, Pittman, & Johnson, 2018).…”

“…While many studies proposed indicators that can help assess the effectiveness of individual MPAs (Woodcock et al., 2017), indicators for measuring network‐specific elements (e.g. connectivity, representativeness) are infrequently used in practice (see Gannon et al., 2017), (Geldmann et al., 2020). Furthermore, a synthesis of indicators that can be used for evaluating effectiveness of MPA networks in achieving Aichi Target 11 (e.g., equity, land–sea integration) is still needed (Geldmann et al., 2020).…”

“…connectivity, representativeness) are infrequently used in practice (see Gannon et al., 2017), (Geldmann et al., 2020). Furthermore, a synthesis of indicators that can be used for evaluating effectiveness of MPA networks in achieving Aichi Target 11 (e.g., equity, land–sea integration) is still needed (Geldmann et al., 2020). Here, we draw upon several existing MPA evaluation frameworks to organize indicators and ensure a practical connection to existing evaluation initiatives (Gannon et al., 2017; Leverington, Costa, Pavese, Lisle, & Hockings, 2010; Pomeroy et al., 2004).…”