Progress towards the CBD protected area management effectiveness targets

Abstract

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

Setting and Implementing Standards for Management of Wild Tigers

“…Hockings et al (2006) [14] describe the mechanisms and rationale for MEE, along with many of the methods used world-wide. By 2013, the date of the last global survey, the IUCN Protected Area Management Effectiveness database held over 10,000 records and 90 countries had met the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2010 target of carrying out MEE in at least 30 per cent of their protected areas (Coad et al, 2013) [15]. An MEE system has also been developed explicitly for tiger protected areas in India called the MEETR-Management Effective Evaluation for Tiger Reserves (Mathur et al, 2014) [16].…”

Indicators for assessing good governance of protected areas: Insights from park managers in Western Australia

“…Coad et al (2013) noted that governance aspects of protected area management are in urgent need of more detailed and systematic assessments. This is supported by Leverington et al (2010) who reiterate the importance of evaluation as a vital component of governance.…”

Measuring conservation success with missing Marine Protected Area boundaries: A case study in the Coral Triangle

“…In the case of quantifying the amount of biodiversity protected by MPAs, a common problem is the absence of the protected area boundaries, and therefore the lack of polygons to overlay with biodiversity layers such as coral reefs, seagrass or mangroves which hinders its precise quantification in a GIS. An approach to solve this (both in the marine and the terrestrial realms) has been to create a circular polygon from a buffer around a point representing the location of the protected area Coad et al, 2013;Hoekstra et al, 2004;Jenkins and Joppa, 2009;Jenkins et al, 2013;Mora, 2011b;Mora et al, 2006;Rodrigues et al, 2004;Soutullo et al, 2008;Spalding et al, 2013;Venter et al, 2014;Wu et al, 2011). This point is assumed to be the centroid of the MPA, and the buffer is proportional to the area officially designated as protected.…”