Search

Understanding the relative effectiveness and enabling conditions of different area‐based management tools is essential for supporting efforts that achieve positive biodiversity outcomes as area‐based conservation coverage increases to meet newly set international targets. We used data from a coastal social–ecological monitoring program in 6 Indo‐Pacific countries to analyze whether social, ecological, and economic objectives and specific management rules (temporal closures, fishing gear‐specific, species‐specific restrictions) were associated with coral reef fish biomass above sustainable yield levels across different types of area‐based management tools (i.e., comparing those designated as marine protected areas [MPAs] with other types of area‐based management). All categories of objectives, multiple combinations of rules, and all types of area‐based management had some sites that were able to sustain high levels of reef fish biomass—a key measure for coral reef functioning—compared with reference sites with no area‐based management. Yet, the same management types also had sites with low biomass. As governments advance their commitments to the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the target to conserve 30% of the planet's land and oceans by 2030, we found that although different types of management can be effective, most of the managed areas in our study regions did not meet criteria for effectiveness. These findings underscore the importance of strong management and governance of managed areas and the need to measure the ecological impact of area‐based management rather than counting areas because of their designation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The biodiversity crisis necessitates a global implementation of effective, equitable, and feasible conservation strategies. Public land acquisitions (PLAs) for watershed protection can produce co‐benefits for basic human needs and biodiversity, but there are concerns that acquiring land is not scalable or may not protect threatened biodiversity. PLA programs are rare, allowing for limited opportunities to assess these concerns. We investigate a unique policy that has legally mandated PLAs in the Colombian Andes, a tropical biodiversity hotspot, since 1993. Using a novel dataset of >7000 PLAs, along with surveys and in‐person interviews, we study the scale, spatial allocation, and constraints on PLA implementation, and examine its potential conservation benefits. More than 300,000 ha were acquired through PLAs, but economic and institutional factors such as land cost, government income, and land tenure informality were main drivers in the degree of PLA implementation. Acquisitions were thus directed mostly toward cheaper, less threatened ecosystems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sacred natural sites (SNSs) are examples of community‐level governance for sustainable management of natural resources, which can greatly benefit nature conservation. However, the lack of a comprehensive understanding of the role of SNSs in conservation has resulted in overly simplistic classifications of SNSs that challenge current SNS research and conservation practice. Here, we propose an SNS classification framework based on the types and levels of material and spiritual services that SNSs provide, and applied this framework in the Khawa Karpo, an important sacred area in the Tibetan region of China based on detailed field surveys conducted from 2000 to 2004 and 2015 to 2017 that addressed six types of SNSs, including sacred mountains, Ri Vgags, sacred lakes, sacred rocks, sacred caves, and sacred trees. We found that SNSs in this region played a crucial role in sustaining traditional cultures and providing material services. Adoption of our classification framework will assist with the development of management strategies and targeted conservation actions for individual SNSs, thus improving conservation levels particularly in the Tibetan region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Designating protected and conserved areas is a critical component of biodiversity conservation. The 10th Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2010 set global targets for the areal extent of protected areas (PAs) that were met partially in 2020, yet a new, more ambitious target is needed to halt ongoing global biodiversity loss. China recently introduced a national Ecological Conservation Redline policy, which aims to ensure no net change in land cover and no net loss of biodiversity or degradation of ecosystem services within areas that are critical for maintaining ecological safety and functions. Enacting this policy could achieve ancillary conservation outcomes even where conservation is not the primary objective, thus meeting CBD's definition of "other effective area‐based conservation measures" (OECM). By comparing the Ecological Conservation Redline boundaries with important coastal waterbird sites in China, we found that three times more sites could be conserved under the new redline policy compared to the national nature reserve system alone. This indicates that considering the redline policy approach as a form of OECM is a promising pathway to expand the areal coverage of PAs and conserve biodiversity outside currently designated PAs, providing a model that could be adopted around the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]