Search

Conclusions The results of this study indicate that climate change is relevant and apparent to protected areas managers; however, limited progress has been made on climate change adaptation in Canadian protected areas in the past decade and barriers exist to the implementation of adaptation strategies. Keywords: conservation; climate change; adaptation; protected areas; biodiversity; changements climatiques; zones protégées; biodiversité EN conservation climate change adaptation protected areas biodiversity ES changements climatiques zones protégées biodiversité 152 165 14 06/23/21 20210601 NES 210601 Introduction Protected areas represent one of the most effective ways to conserve biodiversity and have formed the cornerstone of conservation for the past century (UNEP 2010; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2014; Watson et al. 2014). There are some examples of progress in climate change adaptation across the country, such as the expansion of certain protected areas, creation of new protected areas, and consideration of climate change in planning initiatives, which should be expanded on a larger scale (Lemieux et al. 2010; Canadian Parks Council Climate Change Working Group 2013; Nantel et al. 2014). [Extracted from the article]

Abstract In 2010 Parties to the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) agreed to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss within a decade by achieving 20 objectives that are commonly known as the Aichi Targets. This article explores aspects of Canada's work on one of the few quantified targets (Target 11), which is intended to improve the status of biodiversity through protected areas (PAs) and a new type of designation, "other effective area-based conservation measures" (OECMs). In a faltering attempt to reach its Aichi Target 11 commitments by 2020, some Canadian jurisdictions have elected to focus more on coverage (quantity) and less on ecological integrity (quality), which has significant ramifications for long-term success of biodiversity conservation. For example, a jurisdiction responsible for marine conservation has re-designated regulated fishery closures as 'marine refuges' under the auspices of an OECM designation, which brings into question the real intent of Canada's commitment to the CBD and its own Biodiversity Strategy. Ambiguous language used to define and prescribe application of OECMs is being used as the basis for a revisionist paradigm that promises to undermine national and international conservation standards, fracture partnerships, and jeopardize the integrity of Canada's PA network. Canada must reject half measures that will result in ineffective or unintended perverse conservation outcomes, and focus on a post-2020 agenda that prioritizes conservation outcomes, management effectiveness, and the implementation of accountability measures within and between jurisdictions and by the Secretariat of the CBD. Highlights • Practitioners/scholars warned about the potential risks to effective biodiversity conservation associated with Aichi Target 11. • In Canada, recently established, 'marine refuges' do little to mitigate the increasing risks to ocean ecosystems. • Focusing on quantity over quality of protection jeopardizes biodiversity conservation. • Canada should focus on biodiversity outcomes under its post-2020 conservation agenda outcomes. • Enhanced accountability in Canada and also by the Secretariat of the CBD is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]