scholarly journals The conservation costs and economic benefits of using biodiversity offsets to meet international targets for protected area expansion

Oryx ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 732-740 ◽  
Author(s):  
Falko T. Buschke ◽  
Susie Brownlie ◽  
Jeff Manuel
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Protected Areas ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Biodiversity Offsets ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Conservation Costs ◽  
Area Expansion

AbstractAichi Biodiversity Target 11 under the Convention on Biological Diversity sets out to conserve at least 17% of terrestrial area by 2020. However, few countries are on track to meet this target and it is uncertain whether developing countries have allocated sufficient resources to expand their protected areas. Biodiversity offsets could resolve this conservation shortfall if developers who affect biodiversity negatively at one locality are made responsible for its protection elsewhere. Here we simulate the use of biodiversity offsetting to expand protected area coverage in South Africa's grassland biome. South Africa's biodiversity offsets policy has been designed specifically to compensate for the residual loss of biodiversity caused by development, by establishing and managing protected areas within the same ecosystem type. We show that it is possible to meet protected area targets using only offsets, while facilitating economic development. However, doing so could slash the current extent of intact habitat by half. These losses could be reduced considerably should the gains in protected areas through offsetting supplement rather than supplant existing government commitments to protected area expansion. Moreover, supplementing existing government commitments would result in comparatively small reductions in potential economic gains, because the marginal economic benefit of transforming habitat decreases as more intact habitat is lost. Therefore, the intended role of biodiversity offsetting in achieving a country's protected area target should be made explicit to fully understand the associated trade-offs between conservation and economic development.

scholarly journals Where now for protected areas? Setting the stage for the 2014 World Parks Congress

Oryx ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 496-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Dudley ◽  
Craig Groves ◽  
Kent H. Redford ◽  
Sue Stolton
Keyword(s):  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Protected Areas ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Wildlife Trade ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Policy Changes ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
The Social ◽  
Transboundary Protected Areas

AbstractProtected areas are regarded as the most important tool in the conservation toolbox. They cover > 12% of the Earth's terrestrial area, with over half of this designated since 1970, and are thus a unique example of governments and other stakeholders consciously changing management of land and water at a significant scale. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has a global programme to complete ecologically-representative protected area networks, and this is driving the creation of large numbers of new protected areas. But there is also growing criticism of protected areas because of the social costs of protection and doubts about their effectiveness. We acknowledge this criticism but believe that it is over-stated and applied to a protected area model that has already been replaced by newer thinking. As protected areas are becoming more complex in concept and more complicated in management, we review the six most important changes affecting them over the last 2 decades: (1) a new protected area definition with more emphasis on nature conservation; (2) a plurality of management and governance models; (3) acknowledgement of wider protected area benefits beyond nature conservation; (4) greater social safeguards for protected areas; (5) evidence that protected areas are effective conservation tools; and (6) a new emphasis on larger protected areas, transboundary protected areas, connectivity conservation and landscape approaches. We conclude by considering fresh challenges as a result of policy changes and the global criminal wildlife trade, and consider the potential of the forthcoming 2014 IUCN World Parks Congress.

scholarly journals Spain and Marine Protected Areas: Recent Developments

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 847-855
Author(s):  
Mariano J. Aznar
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Marine Protected Areas ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Marine Protected Area ◽  
Natura 2000 ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Barcelona Convention ◽  
Specially Protected Areas

Abstract Spain has just declared a new marine protected area in the Mediterranean. This follows a protective trend taken by Spanish authorities during the last decades and has permitted Spain to honour its international compromises under the Convention on Biological Diversity. It contributes to a framework of protected areas established under conventional regimes such as OSPAR, RAMSAR or EU Natura 2000. The new area protects a ‘cetacean corridor’ and will be inscribed in the list of Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance under the Barcelona Convention regional framework.

The nature and extent of terrestrial protected area coverage on the UK's Overseas Territories

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 397-404
Author(s):  
NICHOLAS I. WILKINSON ◽  
JONATHAN G. HALL ◽  
JULIET A. VICKERY ◽  
GRAEME M. BUCHANAN
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Area Coverage ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
Terrestrial Environment ◽  
Overseas Territories ◽  
The Uk

SUMMARYSignatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) agreed to the effective protection of at least 17% of the terrestrial environment by 2020 (Aichi Target 11). Here, we assess the coverage of terrestrial protected areas (land protected by legislation) on the UK's Overseas Territories. These 14 Territories are under the sovereignty of the UK, a signatory of the CBD, and are particularly biodiverse. Eight Territories have protected areas covering 17% or more of their land, but the extent of protection across these Territories as a whole is low, with only 4.8% of this land designated as protected. This protection covered 51% of sites already identified as of conservation importance (Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas), although only 8% of the area of these sites was protected. The expansion of effective protection to meet the 17% target provides an opportunity to capture the most important sites for conservation. Locally led designation will require an improvement in knowledge of the distribution and density of species. This, together with measures to ensure that the protection is enforced and effective, will require provision of resources. This should be seen as an investment in the UK meeting its obligations to Aichi Target 11.

scholarly journals Protected areas: how will they contribute to third millennium challenges?

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentina Dinica
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Protected Areas ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
The Other ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Wilderness Areas ◽  
Clean Air ◽  
Area Classification

Biodiversity is valued for its intrinsic worth and for its role in generating ecosystem services, such as soil fertility, clean air, renewable bio-resources, and water quality and availability. While biodiversity outcomes are generally pursued by nations for land in various types of ownership, this article focuses on protected areas on publicly owned lands. Currently, the internationally agreed protected area classification used by the United Nation’s Convention on Biological Diversity differentiates them in terms of nature conservation objectives and ‘compatible’ human uses. This suggests that protected areas can be arranged along a spectrum of protection stringency, from reserves and wilderness areas at one end, to so-called ‘sustainable use lands’ at the other.

scholarly journals Efficient expansion of global protected areas requires simultaneous planning for species and ecosystems

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 150107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tal Polak ◽  
James E. M. Watson ◽  
Richard A. Fuller ◽  
Liana N. Joseph ◽  
Tara G. Martin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Threatened Species ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Conservation Strategy ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Planning Approach ◽  
Efficiency And Effectiveness ◽  
Adequate Representation ◽  
Efficient Expansion

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)'s strategic plan advocates the use of environmental surrogates, such as ecosystems, as a basis for planning where new protected areas should be placed. However, the efficiency and effectiveness of this ecosystem-based planning approach to adequately capture threatened species in protected area networks is unknown. We tested the application of this approach in Australia according to the nation's CBD-inspired goals for expansion of the national protected area system. We set targets for ecosystems (10% of the extent of each ecosystem) and threatened species (variable extents based on persistence requirements for each species) and then measured the total land area required and opportunity cost of meeting those targets independently, sequentially and simultaneously. We discover that an ecosystem-based approach will not ensure the adequate representation of threatened species in protected areas. Planning simultaneously for species and ecosystem targets delivered the most efficient outcomes for both sets of targets, while planning first for ecosystems and then filling the gaps to meet species targets was the most inefficient conservation strategy. Our analysis highlights the pitfalls of pursuing goals for species and ecosystems non-cooperatively and has significant implications for nations aiming to meet their CBD mandated protected area obligations.

scholarly journals Informing Canada’s commitment to biodiversity conservation: A science-based framework to help guide protected areas designation through Target 1 and beyond

FACETS ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 531-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura E. Coristine ◽  
Aerin L. Jacob ◽  
Richard Schuster ◽  
Sarah P. Otto ◽  
Nancy E. Baron ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Social Economic ◽  
Biodiversity Loss ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Spatially Explicit

Biodiversity is intrinsically linked to the health of our planet—and its people. Yet, increasingly, human activities are causing the extinction of species, degrading ecosystems, and reducing nature’s resilience to climate change and other threats. As a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Canada has a legal responsibility to protect 17% of land and freshwater by 2020. Currently, Canada has protected ∼10% of its terrestrial lands, requiring a marked increase in the pace and focus of protection over the next three years. Given the distribution, extent, and geography of Canada’s current protected areas, systematic conservation planning would provide decision-makers with a ranking of the potential for new protected area sites to stem biodiversity loss and preserve functioning ecosystems. Here, we identify five key principles for identifying lands that are likely to make the greatest contribution to reversing biodiversity declines and ensuring biodiversity persistence into the future. We identify current gaps and integrate principles of protecting ( i) species at risk, ( ii) representative ecosystems, ( iii) intact wilderness, ( iv) connectivity, and ( v) climate refugia. This spatially explicit assessment is intended as an ecological foundation that, when integrated with social, economic and governance considerations, would support evidence-based protected area decision-making in Canada.

scholarly journals Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) in marine protected areas

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renee Albrecht ◽  
Carly Cook ◽  
Olive Andrews ◽  
Kelsey E. Roberts ◽  
Martin FJ Taylor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Marine Protected Areas ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Marine Ecosystems ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Marine Biodiversity ◽  
Policy Responses ◽  
Conservation Implications ◽  
Proximate Causes

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are foundational to global marine biodiversity conservation efforts. Recently, countries have rapidly scaled up their MPA networks to meet targets established by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). While MPA networks are intended to permanently safeguard marine ecosystems, evidence points to widespread legal changes that temper, reduce, or eliminate protected areas, known as protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD). Research on PADDD to-date has focused on terrestrial PAs, leaving fundamental questions about PADDD in MPAs unanswered. To address this knowledge gap and provide a foundation for understanding the conservation implications of PADDD in marine ecosystems, we documented patterns, trends, and proximate causes of PADDD in MPAs globally. At least six countries have enacted 44 PADDD events in MPAs, most of which were in Australian MPAs. Globally, PADDD events in MPAs have affected an area of at least 1,198,774 square kilometers, approximately the size of South Africa. Most PADDD events in MPAs (67%) are associated with industrial-scale resource use, extraction, and development, suggesting that PADDD may undermine the conservation objectives of MPAs. Additional research, transparency, and proactive policy responses are needed to address PADDD to better safeguard marine ecosystems.

scholarly journals Challenging the State: Devolutionary Tenure Transitions for Saving and Expanding Forests

Human Ecology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liz Alden Wily
Keyword(s):  
Rural Communities ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Protected Areas ◽  
Forest Cover ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Property Relations ◽  
The Will ◽  
Customary Land

AbstractI address a contentious element in forest property relations to illustrate the role of ownership in protecting and expanding of forest cover by examining the extent to which rural communities may legally own forests. The premise is that whilst state-owned protected areas have contributed enormously to forest survival, this has been insufficiently successful to justify the mass dispossession of customary land-owning communities this has entailed. Further, I argue that state co-option of community lands is unwarranted. Rural communities on all continents ably demonstrate the will and capacity to conserve forests – provided their customary ownership is legally recognized. I explore the property rights reforms now enabling this. The replication potential of community protected forestlands is great enough to deserve flagship status in global commitments to expand forest including in the upcoming new Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

scholarly journals Achieving mangrove conservation and sustainable use in Mexico through community-based Management Units for Wildlife Conservation within and beyond Protected Areas

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paola Fajardo ◽  
Ignacio Valdez Hernández
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Wildlife Conservation ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Conservation Strategy ◽  
Close Monitoring ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Management Units ◽  
Alternative Scheme

Mangroves are valuable socio-ecological ecosystems that provide vital goods and services to millions of people, including wood, a renewable natural capital, which is the primary source of energy and construction material for several coastal communities in developing countries. Unfortunately, mangrove loss and degradation occur at alarming rates. Regardless of the protection and close monitoring of mangrove ecosystems in Mexico during the last two decades, mangrove degradation and the loss of biodiversity is still ongoing. In some regions, unregulated and unsustainable mangrove wood harvesting are important causes of degradation. In this context, community-based mangrove forestry through Management Units for Wildlife Conservation could be a cost-effective alternative scheme to manage and conserve mangrove forests, their ecosystem services and biological diversity within and beyond protected areas while providing sustainable local livelihoods and helping reduce illegal logging. The objective of the Management Units is to promote alternative means of production with the rational and planned use of renewable resources based on Management Plans. If implemented with a multidisciplinary perspective that incorporates scientific assessments this conservation strategy may contribute to achieving national and international environmental and biodiversity agreements providing multiple social, ecological and economic benefits from local to global scales.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document