“Protected area” coverage in Cameroon on the eve of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2010 target

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.

Download Full-text

Towards reducing misrepresentation of national achievements in marine protected area targets

10.31230/osf.io/vyr82 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

patrick Smallhorn-West ◽

Hugh Govan

Keyword(s):

Environmental Sustainability ◽

Protected Area ◽

Large Scale ◽

Biological Diversity ◽

Marine Protected Area ◽

Area Coverage ◽

Convention On Biological Diversity ◽

International Database ◽

Online Databases ◽

Pacific Island Nations

Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted 20 targets, known as the Aichi Targets, to benchmark progress towards protecting biodiversity. These targets include Target 11 relating to Marine Protected Area coverage and the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) is the accepted international database for tracking national commitments to this target. However, measuring national progress towards conservation targets relies on sound data. This paper highlights the large-scale misrepresentation, by up to two orders of magnitude, of national marine protected area coverage from two Pacific Island nations in multiple online databases and subsequent reports, including conclusions regarding achievements of Aichi 11 commitments. It recommends that for the target driven approach to have value, users of the WDPA data should carefully consider its caveats before using their raw data and that countries should strive for a greater degree of accountability. Lastly it also concludes that protected area coverage may not be the best approach to environmental sustainability and that the remaining 19 targets should be considered to a greater extent.

Download Full-text

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

Oryx ◽

10.1017/s0030605314000519 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 48 (4) ◽

pp. 496-503 ◽

Cited By ~ 25

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.

Download Full-text

Spain and Marine Protected Areas: Recent Developments

The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law ◽

10.1163/15718085-12334051 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Trends in the abundance of marine fishes

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences ◽

10.1139/f10-081 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 67 (8) ◽

pp. 1205-1210 ◽

Cited By ~ 66

Author(s):

Jeffrey A. Hutchings ◽

Cóilín Minto ◽

Daniel Ricard ◽

Julia K. Baum ◽

Olaf P. Jensen

Keyword(s):

Biological Diversity ◽

Biodiversity Loss ◽

Maximum Sustainable Yield ◽

Marine Fishes ◽

Convention On Biological Diversity ◽

Global Database ◽

Top Predators ◽

2010 Target ◽

Rate Of Decline ◽

Demersal Species

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) established a target in 2002 to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. Using a newly constructed global database for 207 populations (108 species), we examine whether the 2010 target has been met for marine fishes, while accounting for population biomass relative to maximum sustainable yield, BMSY. Although rate of decline has eased for 59% of populations declining before 1992 (a pattern consistent with a literal interpretation of the target), the percentage of populations below BMSY has remained unchanged and the rate of decline has increased among several top predators, many of which are below 0.5BMSY. Combining population trends, a global multispecies index indicates that marine fishes declined 38% between 1970 and 2007. The index has been below BMSY since the mid-1980s and stable since the early 1990s. With the exception of High Seas pelagic fishes and demersal species in the Northeast Pacific and Australia – New Zealand, the multispecies indices are currently below BMSY in many regions. We conclude that the 2010 CBD target represents a weak standard for recovering marine fish biodiversity and that meaningful progress will require population-specific recovery targets and associated time lines for achieving those targets.

Download Full-text

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

Oryx ◽

10.1017/s0030605317001521 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 53 (4) ◽

pp. 732-740 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

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.

Download Full-text

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

Policy Quarterly ◽

10.26686/pq.v12i1.4578 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Linked indicator sets for addressing biodiversity loss

Oryx ◽

10.1017/s003060531100024x ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 45 (3) ◽

pp. 411-419 ◽

Cited By ~ 42

Author(s):

Tim H. Sparks ◽

Stuart H. M. Butchart ◽

Andrew Balmford ◽

Leon Bennun ◽

Damon Stanwell-Smith ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Biological Diversity ◽

Biodiversity Loss ◽

Convention On Biological Diversity ◽

The Status ◽

2010 Target ◽

Response Pressure ◽

Anthropogenic Threats ◽

Aid Decision ◽

Pressure State ◽

Indicator Sets

AbstractThe target adopted by world leaders of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 was not met but this stimulated a new suite of biodiversity targets for 2020 adopted by the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in October 2010. Indicators will be essential for monitoring progress towards these targets and the CBD will be defining a suite of relevant indicators, building on those developed for the 2010 target. Here we argue that explicitly linked sets of indicators offer a more useful framework than do individual indicators because the former are easier to understand, communicate and interpret to guide policy. A Response-Pressure-State-Benefit framework for structuring and linking indicators facilitates an understanding of the relationships between policy actions, anthropogenic threats, the status of biodiversity and the benefits that people derive from it. Such an approach is appropriate at global, regional, national and local scales but for many systems it is easier to demonstrate causal linkages and use them to aid decision making at national and local scales. We outline examples of linked indicator sets for humid tropical forests and marine fisheries as illustrations of the concept and conclude that much work remains to be done in developing both the indicators and the causal links between them.

Download Full-text

Producing Targets for Conservation: Science and Politics at the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity

Global Environmental Politics ◽

10.1162/glep_a_00238 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 14 (3) ◽

pp. 41-63 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Lisa M. Campbell ◽

Shannon Hagerman ◽

Noella J. Gray

Keyword(s):

Science And Technology Studies ◽

Biological Diversity ◽

Science And Technology ◽

Strategic Plan ◽

Convention On Biological Diversity ◽

Conservation Science ◽

Science And Politics ◽

2010 Target ◽

Conservation Governance ◽

Governance Network

Biodiversity targets were prominent at the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Having failed to reach the CBD's 2010 target, delegates debated the nature of targets, details of specific targets, and how to avoid failure in 2020. As part of a group of seventeen researchers conducting a collaborative event ethnography at COP10, we draw on observations made during negotiations of the CBD Strategic Plan and at side events to analyze the production of the 2020 targets. Once adopted, targets become “naturalized,” detached from the negotiations that produced them. Drawing on insights from science and technology studies, we analyze the interaction of science and politics during negotiations and discuss what targets do within the CBD and the broader global conservation governance network.

Download Full-text

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

Royal Society Open Science ◽

10.1098/rsos.150107 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 2 (4) ◽

pp. 150107 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

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.

Download Full-text