Bolder science needed now for protected areas |
| |
| Authors: | James E M Watson Emily S Darling Oscar Venter Martine Maron Joe Walston Hugh P Possingham Nigel Dudley Marc Hockings Megan Barnes Thomas M Brooks |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Global Conservation Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NY, U.S.A;2. School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, Australia;3. Department of Biology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, U.S.A;4. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, Australia;5. University of Northern British Columbia, School of Ecosystem Sciences and Management, Prince George, Canada;6. Equilibrium Research, Bristol, United Kingdom;7. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland;8. World Agroforestry Center, University of the Philippines Los Ba?os, Laguna, Philippines;9. School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | Recognizing that protected areas (PAs) are essential for effective biodiversity conservation action, the Convention on Biological Diversity established ambitious PA targets as part of the 2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity. Under the strategic goal to “improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species, and genetic diversity,” Target 11 aims to put 17% of terrestrial and 10% of marine regions under PA status by 2020. Additionally and crucially, these areas are required to be of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative, and well‐connected and to include “other effective area‐based conservation measures” (OECMs). Whereas the area‐based targets are explicit and measurable, the lack of guidance for what constitutes important and representative; effective; and OECMs is affecting how nations are implementing the target. There is a real risk that Target 11 may be achieved in terms of area while failing the overall strategic goal for which it is established because the areas are poorly located, inadequately managed, or based on unjustifiable inclusion of OECMs. We argue that the conservation science community can help establish ecologically sensible PA targets to help prioritize important biodiversity areas and achieve ecological representation; identify clear, comparable performance metrics of ecological effectiveness so progress toward these targets can be assessed; and identify metrics and report on the contribution OECMs make toward the target. By providing ecologically sensible targets and new performance metrics for measuring the effectiveness of both PAs and OECMs, the science community can actively ensure that the achievement of the required area in Target 11 is not simply an end in itself but generates genuine benefits for biodiversity. |
| |
| Keywords: | Aichi Target 11 CBD environmental policy resilience targets threatened species conservation World Parks Congress CBD Congreso Mundial de Parques conservació n de especies amenazadas Objetivo Aichi 11 objetivos polí tica ambiental resiliencia |
|
|
