Search

Unidad de excelencia María de Maeztu CEX2019-000940-M Rural commons in East-Africa have historically played key socio-economic and environmental sustainability. Despite growing interest in this arena, there are still surprisingly few studies that examine rural customary management of pastoral communities in East Africa. This is striking given that this region is an exemplary area for pastoralism and thus ideal for communal systems such as commons. Deficient studies and political support in this area could be linked to widespread prejudice of branding pastoralism as perilous to the environment. We set out to conduct a study to examine and test pastoralists' customary norms that underpin environmental sustainability/unsustainabity of pastoral commons focusing on Mwanda-Marungu, in Taita hills, Kenya where the first author originates and brought up as a pastoralist up to the age of 24. Through ethnographic approaches and semi-open interviews to 193 respondents conducted in 2019-2021 during water and pasture stress during the dry months of July-October, we examined whether customary governance of Mwanda-Marungu would offer sustainable model that conforms to the IUCN's Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs). Our study showed that pastoral communities in this area have been developing inventive measures for generations that improve good management and ecological protection. These may be tied to the principles of OECMs which contests the misconception about pastoralism.

This registration contains the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist for the scoping review protocol entitled: "Assessing the potential of other effective area-based conservation measures for contributing to conservation targets: a global scoping review protocol".

Area-based approaches are a central component of global efforts to conserve biodiversity. While the focus of many countries has been mainly on protected areas, other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMS) have been accorded global recognition in the past decade as a vital complementary approach to protected areas. This recognition has been reemphasised in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework adopted by parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in December 2022, with its Target 3 ratchetting up area-based coverage targets to 30 per cent by 2030. A growing focus and reliance on OECMs to contribute towards achieving this target is anticipated. The international community has in the past few years introduced some guidance to identify, secure, manage, monitor and verify the anticipated long-term biodiversity conservation outcomes of OECMs. Some commentators have argued for domestic legal intervention to complement this general international guidance. The South African Government has recognised the potential contribution of OECMs towards the achievement of domestic and global area-based biodiversity targets in its National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (2018) but has alluded to the need for legal intervention to ensure that they achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in situ conservation of biodiversity. Some domestic commentators have highlighted the strong link between biodiversity stewardship (particularly conservation areas) and OECMs, advocating that these conservation areas should form the priority focus of domestic efforts to identify OECMs. This article scopes this potential link and specifically considers whether the current domestic legal and policy framework applicable to these conservation areas is sufficiently robust to ensure that only appropriate areas are identified as OECMs and that once recognised, they are governed and effectively managed in the long term. It highlights several frailties of the existing framework and drawing from anticipated legal reform in the Western Cape relating to biodiversity stewardship, it proposes a possible model for future national legislation regulating OECMs.

This registration contains the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist and the Data Extraction Tool for the scoping review protocol entitled: "Assessing the potential of other effective area-based conservation measures for contributing to conservation targets: a global scoping review protocol".

Protected areas (PAs) are considered as a globally accepted strategy for biodiversity conservation that demonstrates the difficulties in meeting the proposed objectives; therefore, different conservation schemes are promoted to integrate the design of interfaces that favor the exchange of knowledge among different sectors, systems and stakeholders. The objective of this study was to characterize challenges regarding the protection of natural protected areas and other biodiversity conservation schemes in Tamaulipas, Mexico. This paper analyzed 39 areas with some form of protection status in addition to the 70 national and international designations that are part of them. A document review and 13 semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts from the public, private, academic, and civil society sectors. The data were analyzed from a qualitative perspective using ATLAS.ti 9 software. The results show the overlapping of protection schemes in priority areas; the lack of policies and mechanisms that integrate the different schemes to facilitate the exchange between stakeholders; and regulatory, structural, governance, management, participation, and operational gaps, as well as the absence of comprehensive and long-term work. The importance of and challenges in articulating the different schemes and visions to achieve effective biodiversity conservation are evident.

Area-Based Management Tools (ABMTs) are spatial instruments for conservation and managing different forms of ocean use. A multitude of ABMTs exists in marine areas within and beyond national jurisdiction, ranging from tools for the regulation of specific human activities (e.g. fisheries, shipping, or mining) to cross-sectoral tools (e.g. such as marine protected areas, MPAs, and marine spatial planning, MSP). By applying expert elicitation and reviewing scientific and grey literature we evaluate the contribution of ABMTs to sustainable development goals (SDGs) as set out under the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including for SDG 14 that directly addresses the conservation and sustainable use of oceans, seas, and marine resources. We find that fisheries-related and conservation-related ABMTs, and MSP offer the greatest potential contributions to SDG 14 and to SDGs in general. Moreover, there is high complementarity and synergy among different ABMTs for most SDG 14 targets and other SDGs, with the exception of SDG target 14.6 Prohibit fisheries subsidies and SDG 7 Affordable and clean energy. We find that some ABMTs contribute directly to goal attainment, while others contribute in more nuanced or even unexpected ways. Furthermore, context-specific factors that relate to political and legal factors, enforceability, transparency, governance structure, and inclusivity are crucial for unlocking the full potential of ABMTs of attaining multiple SDGs, as shown through examples. The major challenge to face in the next decade is ensuring durable and equitable outcomes from ABMT implementation by coordinating ABMT initiatives established by different organisations and responsible authorities. It is also critical that outcomes are monitored and evaluated across environmental, social, economic, governance, and health dimensions, with indicators addressing management effectiveness and not only ABMT area coverage., This research was conducted in the framework of COST action on “Ocean Governance for Sustainability - challenges, options and the role of science”, CA15217, within the Working Group 2 “Area Based Management” activities. We would like to thank COST for the funding that made the cooperation amongst the authors, and thus this article, possible. EG partially acknowledges also funding from PORTODIMARE “geoPORtal of TOols & Data for sustaInable Management of coAstal and maRine Environment” (2018–2020), Adriatic-Ionian Programme INTERREG V–B Transnational 2014–2020, grant no. 205, and funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 893614-4, reflecting only the author's view ; AQ partially acknowledges the Project SIMAtlantic (grant no. EASME/EMFF/2018/1.2.1.5); MLF partially acknowledges the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), with a Do*Mar programme PhD grant (PD/BD/113485/2015); MM partially acknowledges FCT, with a PhD grant (SFRH/BD/138422/2018). AQ, FA, MLF, LS, MM, CP partially acknowledge the financial support to FCT/MCTES for the financial support to CESAM (UIDP/50017/2020+UIDB/50017/2020), through national funds. CFS partially acknowledges funding from FCT research contract 2020.03704.CEECIND, research grant PTDC/CTA-AMB/30226/2017, and MARE strategic project UID/MAR/04292/2019. NV partially acknowledges also funding from the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, grants no. CNCS-UEFISCDI PN-III-P1-1.1-TE-2016-2491, PN-III-P1-1.1-TE-2019-1444, and the project T4BS (grant no. EASME/EMFF/2019/863621). The work of CP was supported by FCT research contract 2020.02510.CEECIND. The work of BN and SU was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) through its Research for Sustainable Development program (FONA), and the Federal State of Brandenburg.

Work on the post‐2020 global biodiversity framework is now well advanced and will outline a vision, goals, and targets for the next decade of biodiversity conservation and beyond. For the effectiveness of Protected areas and Other Effective area‐based Conservation Measures, an indicator has been proposed for “areas meeting their documented ecological objectives.” However, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has not identified or agreed on what data should inform this indicator. Here we draw on experiences from the assessment of protected area effectiveness in the CBD's previous strategic plan to provide recommendations on the essential elements related to biodiversity outcomes and management that need to be captured in this updated indicator as well as how this could be done. Our proposed protected area effectiveness indicators include a combination of remotely derived products for all protected areas, combined with data from monitoring of both protected area management and trends in species and ecosystems based on field observations. Additionally, we highlight the need for creating a digital infrastructure to operationalize national‐level data‐capture. We believe these steps are critical and urge the adoption of suitable protected area effectiveness indicators before the post‐2020 framework is agreed in 2021.

Private land conservation areas (PLCAs) have become critical for achieving global conservation goals, but we lack understanding of how and when these areas respond to global pressures and opportunities. In southern Africa, where many PLCAs rely on trophy hunting as an income-generating strategy, a potential ban on trophy hunting locally or abroad holds unknown consequences for the future conservation of these lands. In this study, we investigate the consequences of a potential trophy hunting ban in PLCAs in two biodiversity hotspots in South Africa's Eastern and Western Cape provinces. We used semistructured interviews with PLCA managers and owners to elicit perceived impacts of an internationally imposed trophy hunting ban on conservation activities in PLCAs, and to probe alternative viable land uses. The majority of interviewees believed that both the economic viability of their PLCA and biodiversity would be lost following a hunting ban. Owners would primarily consider transitioning to ecotourism or livestock farming, but these options were constrained by the social-ecological context of their PLCA (e.g., competition with other PLCAs, ecological viability of farming). Our results suggest that a trophy hunting ban may have many unintended consequences for biodiversity conservation, national economies, and the livelihoods of PLCA owners and employees. Along with similar social-ecological studies in other areas and contexts, our work can inform policy decisions around global trophy hunting regulation.

International audience; Marine conservationists are concerned with preserving and understanding living resources found within our seas whereas marine archaeologists are concerned with preserving and understanding the non-living. Despite havingdifferent motivations, marine conservation and marine archaeology are fighting against the same anthropological threats, including climate change, fishing activities, and offshore development. In recent years, the safeguarding of marine and cultural resources has been increasingly recognized through international commitments such as the 2010 Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the 2030 Development Agenda via the creation of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These goals and targets cover both pressing social and biological issues, but meeting these commitments has since been a challenge. In regards to biological conservation, both Aichi Target 11 and SDG 14.5 call for the conservation of 10% of the marine and coastal environment by 2020. Parties also agreed to SDG 11.4, which aims to strengthen efforts to protect the world’s cultural and natural heritage. While number-based goals, such as Aichi 11 and SDG 14.5, have been more popular given they are easier to track, qualitative goals, such as SDG 11.4, have been harder to measure. We highlight how synergy can be promoted between the conservation of both biological and cultural resources while contributing towards international commitments Aichi Target 11, SDG 14.5, and SDG 11.4 through «other effective area-based conservation measures» or OECMs. OECMs are a recent innovation in the marine conservation policy realm. They describe an area whose primary purpose is not biological conservation, but by consequence, biodiversity is benefiting. While OECM designation would allow an area to be internationally recognized as protected and counted towards the global conservation goals, more importantly, the OECM designation has the potential to increase the recognition of more stakeholders that contribute toward in-situ biological conservation and increase ecological representation and connectivity that is lacking among existing marine protected areas (MPAs). Using Underwater Archaeological Parks (UAPs) of Portugal as an example, we show that maritime archaeological sites have the potential to be designated as OECMs and Parties should consider them as OECMs become mainstreamed in conservation practices.; Les défenseurs de la conservation de la mer s'inquiètent de la préservation et la compréhension même des ressources vivantes présentes dans nos mers, tandis que les archéologues marins s'inquiètent de la préservation et de la compréhension des éléments non-vivants. Malgré des motivations différentes, la conservation marine et l'archéologie marine luttent contre les mêmes menaces anthropiques, notamment le changement climatique, les activités de pêche et le développement offshore. Ces dernières années, la préservation des ressources marines et culturelles a été de plus en plus reconnue dans les engagements internationaux tels que les objectifs d'Aichi pour la biodiversité de 2010 et le programme de développement à l'horizon 2030 via la création de 17 objectifs de développement durable (ODD). Ces objectifs et cibles couvrent à la fois des problèmes sociaux et biologiques urgents, mais respecter ces engagements est devenu un défi. En ce qui concerne la conservation biologique, l'objectif 11 d'Aichi et l'objectif de développement durable 14.5 préconisent la conservation de 10% de l’environnement marin et côtier d’ici 2020. Les parties ont également adopté l’ODD 11.4 qui vise à renforcer les efforts de protection du patrimoine mondial, culturel et naturel. Bien que les objectifs fondés sur des nombres, tels qu’Aichi 11 et SDG 14.5, soient plus populaires car ils sont plus faciles à suivre, les objectifs qualitatifs, tels que SDG 11.4, sont plus difficiles à mesurer. Nous soulignons comment la synergie peut être favorisée entre la conservation des ressources biologiques et culturelles tout en contribuant au respect des engagements internationaux des objectifs d’Aichi 11, ODD 14.5 et ODD 11.4 par le biais « d’autres mesures de conservation efficaces par zone » ou OECM. Les OECM constituent une innovation récente dans le domaine de la politique de conservation marine. Ils décrivent une zone dont la conservation biologique n’est pas le but principal, mais qui est propice à la biodiversité.Bien que la désignation OECM permette de reconnaître internationalement une zone protégée et d’être comptabilisée dans les objectifs de conservation globaux, elle est également susceptible de renforcer la reconnaissance d’un plus grand nombre de parties prenantes qui contribuent à la conservation biologique in situ et d’accroître la représentation et la connectivité écologiques qui manquent au sein des aires marines protégées (AMP) existantes. En prenant comme exemple les parcs archéologiques sous-marins du Portugal, nous montrons que les sites archéologiques maritimes ont le potentiel d’être désignés OECM et que les Parties devraient les prendre en compte au fur et à mesure que les OECM seront intégrés aux pratiques de conservation.

As áreas protegidas são consideradas pilares para estratégias de conservação da diversidade biológica. Presume-se que a distribuição destas áreas representa a proteção de espécies e ecossistemas. Dentre as 20 metas globais para a redução da perda de biodiversidade, a Meta 11 de áreas protegidas estabelece, dentre outros aspectos, que 17% das áreas terrestres devem ser cobertas por sistemas de áreas protegidas ecologicamente representativos, efetivos, conectados e integrados a paisagens terrestres mais amplas. Neste estudo avaliou-se a representatividade ecológica, a efetividade e a integração a paisagens mais amplas do sistema de unidades de conservação, e perspectivas para subsidiar a sua ampliação no bioma Pampa. Além das unidades de conservação stricto senso, em parte das análises também foram considerados os sistemas complementares de terras indígenas e mecanismos de preservação em propriedades rurais definidos pela Lei de Proteção da Vegetação Nativa. A avaliação da representatividade foi feita considerando o Pampa (nível nacional) e também os 11 sistemas ecológicos presentes no bioma (nível regional). Foram levantadas 53 unidades de conservação no Pampa, com cobertura total de 3,23% do bioma Os mecanismos de preservação em propriedades rurais têm potencial de ampliar o sistema de áreas protegidas para até 9,64%, porém ainda depende de validação do órgão ambiental. O percentual protegido por unidades de conservação nos sistemas ecológicos variou entre 0% e 17,76%, sendo que nove dos 11 sistemas possuem menos de 3% em unidades de conservação. Os dados indicaram que as unidades são relativamente efetivas, pois 64% delas mantiveram ou recuperaram sua cobertura de vegetação nativa. As análises sugerem ainda, que a efetividade associada à cobertura vegetal no interior das unidades possui uma relação com a dinâmica no seu entorno. De forma geral, as unidades sofrem influência das alterações no uso da terra em suas adjacências. Para manutenção da efetividade da unidade de conservação, a unidade deve ser manejada considerando essas influências do entorno. Na perspectiva de ampliação do sistema, o esforço para conservação deve ser centrado na criação de novas unidades de conservação e diversificação de categorias. Os dados aqui obtidos indicam que o Pampa dificilmente alcançará a meta de 17% em um sistema de áreas protegidas ecologicamente representativo até 2020. Protected areas are considered cornerstones for biodiversity conservation strategies. It is presumed that the distribution of these areas represents the protection of species and ecosystems. Among the 20 global targets for reducing biodiversity loss, Target 11 establishes that 17% of land areas must be covered by ecologically representative, effective and connected systems integrated to wider terrestrial landscapes, among other aspects. This study assessed ecological representativeness, effectiveness, and integration of protected area system, into wider landscapes of the Pampa biome. Perspectives to subsidize protected area expansion were also considered here. The representativeness assessment was made by considering the Pampa (national level) and also the 11 ecological systems present in the biome (regional level). Complementary systems of indigenous lands and mechanisms of preservation in rural properties defined by the Law of Protection of Native Vegetation was considered for the national level. Fifty-three protected areas were found in Pampa, with a total coverage of 3.23% of the biome Preservation mechanisms on rural properties have the potential to extend Pampa protected area system to up to 9.64%, but still depend on the environmental agencies validation. The percentage protected by protected areas in ecological systems ranged from zero to 17.76%, and nine of the 11 systems have less than 3% in protected areas. Data indicated that protected areas are relatively effective since 64% of them maintained or recovered their native vegetation cover. Data also indicated that protected area effectiveness has a relation to the dynamics in its surroundings regarding land use and vegetation cover. It is possible to affirm that Pampa protected areas are influenced by changes in land use in their vicinity. Protected areas must be managed considering these environmental influences to maintain their effectiveness. In perspective of expansion of the protected area system, the effort for conservation should be centered on the establishment of new protected areas with the diversification of management categories and in ecological systems with low percentages of protected areas cover. Data obtained here indicates that Pampa is unlikely to reach the 17% target in an ecologically representative protected area system by 2020.