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., (© 2023 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.)

Area-based conservation is a widely used approach for maintaining biodiversity, and there are ongoing discussions over what is an appropriate global conservation area coverage target. To inform such debates, it is necessary to know the extent and ecological representativeness of the current conservation area network, but this is hampered by gaps in existing global datasets. In particular, although data on privately and community-governed protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures are often available at the national level, it can take many years to incorporate these into official datasets. This suggests a complementary approach is needed based on selecting a sample of countries and using their national-scale datasets to produce more accurate metrics. However, every country added to the sample increases the costs of data collection, collation and analysis. To address this, here we present a data collection framework underpinned by a spatial prioritization algorithm, which identifies a minimum set of countries that are also representative of 10 factors that influence conservation area establishment and biodiversity patterns. We then illustrate this approach by identifying a representative set of sampling units that cover 10% of the terrestrial realm, which included areas in only 25 countries. In contrast, selecting 10% of the terrestrial realm at random included areas across a mean of 162 countries. These sampling units could be the focus of future data collation on different types of conservation area. Analysing these data could produce more rapid and accurate estimates of global conservation area coverage and ecological representativeness, complementing existing international reporting systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

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]

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. [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]

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted the Strategic Plan (SP) for Biodiversity 2011-2020 in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010. The SP comprises five strategic goals and 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets; these targets were agreed for implementation by the CBD signatory countries. The Aichi Biodiversity Target 6 states that by 2020 all fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants are managed and harvested sustainably. Even though substantial progress has been made towards achieving this target, globally, a third of the marine fish stocks are overfished and many fisheries are causing unsustainable levels of bycatch of non-target species and are damaging marine habitats. The Global Biodiversity Outlook-5, 2020 (GBO-5) report says that the biodiversity is declining at an unprecedented rate and the pressures driving this decline are intensifying and none of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets is fully met. The present study has reviewed the implementation of the global Aichi Biodiversity Targets by India and other countries focusing on fisheries sector and has brought out good practices adopted by the countries in implementing these targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the concept of “other effective area-based conservation measures” (OECMs) in the context of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 on marine protected areas and OECMs and its linkages to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It argues that mainstreaming biodiversity through CBD Aichi Biodiversity Targets’ implementation into the SDGs can contribute to a more systemic and comprehensive implementation of SDG 14.5 on conservation of at least 10% of marine and coastal areas. It argues that OECMs can complement MPAs and contribute to ecologically representative and effectively managed marine protected areas systems integrated into broader governance systems such as marine spatial planning. Selected global and local sectoral conservation measures are therefore highlighted in this analysis as potential forms of OECMs. At the local level, a case study of ecologically or biologically significant marine areas managed as locally managed marine areas (LMMAs) in Mozambique is discussed. This case study explores how multiple-use LMMAs, which respond to short-term fisher's needs and targeted biodiversity conservation, could contribute to the achievement of specific SDGs on food security, poverty elimination and resilient ecosystems if properly supported by long-term investments, strong institutions and integrated oceans management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]