Designing an ecologically representative global network of protected areas requires coordination between countries

AimTo evaluate the representativeness of the current network of protected areas (PAs) of one of the most threatened ecoregions in the world, the South American Gran Chaco, and determine priority conservation areas for endemic (and nearly endemic) terrestrial vertebrates of the region.LocationSouth America.MethodsWe identified all those amphibians, mammals and birds whose distributions were at least 70% within the Gran Chaco. Then, we refined and corrected species’ distributional ranges, first, using records from collections and expert knowledge, and second, by incorporating environmental and topographic data using a technique for range polygon refinement. Lastly, we used Zonation, a spatial conservation prioritization software, to evaluate representativeness of the current protected areas (PAs) network of the region and to define forest remnants to strategically expand PAs while maximizing the representativeness of the selected groups and considering human activities.ResultsCurrent PAs cover 9% of the region and represent 9.1% of the total distribution of endemic species. Considering our prioritization, increasing the coverage to 17% to match the Aichi targets would substantially increase the representativeness of the PA network, covering on average more than 30% of the ranges of all endemic species and 77% of the distributions of threatened and DD endemic species.Main conclusionsOur results highlight that the need for well‐informed decisions in the Gran Chaco is imperative. While the current PA network in the region ensures a very poor representation of endemic terrestrial vertebrates, opportunities to efficiently expand the PAs network are really high. This emphasizes the potential of complementarity‐based systematic conservation planning tools as an essential support for conservation decisions. Given the great information gaps regarding biodiversity and human activities in the region, similar studies with updated data would improve conservation planning in the Gran Chaco in the future.

Underprotected Marine Protected Areas in a Global Biodiversity Hotspot

As November's IUCN World Park Congress approaches, and the IUCN develops a policy on biodiversity offsets, we sense increasing excitement about the potential for biodiversity offsets as an innovative financing mechanism for protected areas. On the face of it, this is a win–win approach. Governments struggling to meet protected area goals could channel compensation for development impacts toward the establishment and management of protected areas. Developers could benefit from high-profile delivery of impact compensation, a clear route to transfer management responsibility, and assurance of the long-term outcomes that stakeholders require of biodiversity offsets. Indeed, conventional offsets are designed very much along the lines of new protected areas. Voluntary biodiversity offsets are thus being planned in protected areas around the world, and new government policy in countries such as Mongolia and Papua New Guinea is being designed to drive offset funds toward protected areas, following examples such as Funbio in Brazil. Win–wins are rarely, however, quite what they first appear. The core biodiversity offset principles of additionality, comparability, and longevity are all at risk when offsets are planned in protected areas. Instead of biodiversity offsets leading to No Net Loss, they could instead simply facilitate ongoing development impacts and erosion of biodiversity, to the ultimate detriment of protected areas. The biggest risk of channeling offset funds toward protected areas is cost-shifting, meaning that these new funds displace—rather than supplement—current or future funding committed to conservation. In such cases, compensation would not be additional—instead of reducing overall impacts of development, offsets would facilitate a continuing decline in biodiversity. Cost-shifting is a real, not a theoretical, phenomenon. For example, at a broader level, some developing countries have been accused of seeking development assistance for attractive sectors such as health, education or environment in order to free up core government funds for military spending. More specifically, we are aware of some developed-country jurisdictions that are actively capping or cutting funding to protected areas in anticipation that offset funding will fill the gap. So, should offsets never be allowed in protected areas, in case governments renege on their responsibilities? Almost 200 governments have adopted Aichi Target 11, committing to expand and effectively manage protected area networks. Perhaps offsets in protected areas should only be considered additional once this target is achieved nationally? This would avoid the risk of cost-shifting, but is a blunt approach—ignoring the severe underfunding of many protected areas and resultant biodiversity loss. This is likely to persist, despite the Aichi Target—governments struggling to fund primary healthcare will also struggle to resource effectively managed and representative protected area networks. A more practical solution to the cost-shifting problem could be to define and accept temporary additionality. Offsets in protected areas could be seen as additional until the stage in a country's economic development when a government could reasonably be expected to fully assume its protected area responsibilities. Such an approach would be familiar to international donors, which use global classifications of national income (e.g., from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) to prioritize aid funds to governments that cannot yet afford to assume core responsibilities. In practical terms, this approach would confine protected area offsets to lower income countries. Companies seeking short-term gains to compensate for short-term impacts would therefore face few challenges. For longer term offsets, a mechanism would be needed to refocus funding as national economies improved and core budgetary resources came on stream. Additionality is not the only concern. Prioritizing offsets in protected areas risks biodiversity in offset sites not being comparable to biodiversity in impact sites—i.e., "like-for-like or better." The global protected areas network is biased toward places that are relatively low in value for both biodiversity and economic activity. This presents a risk of trading the most threatened habitats for those that are already more secure, i.e., "trading down." Such risks could be reduced by large-scale planning combined with aggregated offset approaches, where compensation from multiple sources is pooled together. Landscape- or national-level planning in countries such as South Africa has been integrated into offset guidance, so that specific conservation targets can be met, and impacts on more threatened environments dissuaded, by increasingly onerous offset requirements (e.g., higher multipliers for the offset area needed). National offset frameworks could take this a step further by identifying conservation targets for each ecosystem and prioritizing aggregated offsets to support new (or better managed) protected areas where they are most needed. Overall, this should represent a system of "trading up," in which conservation is focused on the highest biodiversity priorities. Concerns about offset longevity—ensuring that offset gains last as long as development impacts—are particularly acute for offsets in protected areas, since a developer's stewardship responsibilities may be rapidly passed to a protected area authority. The solution remains the same as for other offsets: a solid guarantee of appropriately long-term funding for offset implementation by developers. Financing may best be secured using an independent funding mechanism. This has the added advantage of ensuring that compensation is reserved for offsets rather than entering general treasury funds: governments should not regard offset resources as just another form of taxation. Identifying the conditions for effective protected area offsets is not just an arcane technical discussion. At least 18 countries already have national government policies specifically requiring or guiding offsets, at least 29 others have policies suggesting or enabling the use of offsets, and these numbers are growing rapidly. Moreover, the issues we present here are not restricted to offsets in protected areas, but also apply to many situations in which there are expectations of an existing landowner or government duty of care. Biodiversity offsets hold much promise for helping expand and strengthen the protected area network in the developing world. To fulfil this promise, governments will need to design and implement policies that direct compensation from development projects to temporarily fill the most important protected area funding gaps. Conservation planners can assist governments and companies by refining methods for ensuring additionality, comparability, and longevity of offsets in protected areas, and contributing to science-based plans and policy guiding offset investment. Civil society scrutiny will be key during implementation, particularly for ensuring that protected area responsibilities are adopted by governments in-line with increasing revenues, and that there is sound governance of offset funding schemes. With these pieces all in place—a not inconsiderable challenge—offsets can contribute to saving, rather than sinking, protected areas. We thank Jez Bird, Tom Brooks, Jonathan Ekstrom, Phil Gibbons, David Keith, Suzanne Livingstone, Bruce McKenney, Edward Pollard, Hugo Rainey, Helen Temple, and James Watson for discussions that stimulated this manuscript.

The 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework aims to bring 30 per cent of the earth under protected areas (PAs) and ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ by 2030 to halt the biodiversity crisis. The steady expansion of PAs since 1960 has not hindered the crisis from intensifying, however, while it has been achieved against strong scholarly and indigenous critiques. Why, then, do (neo)protectionist ideas remain so powerful in global conservation policy? This paper argues that an ignored element in critiques is (neo)protectionism's rootedness in biological fieldwork and the emotional-institutional power this carries in conservation circles. This further fuels an enduring ‘great conservation tragedy’.

The dramatic increase in anthropogenic activity severely threatens the biodiversity and life-support services that underpin human well-being. The broadened focus of protecting ecosystem services (ESs) better aligns the interests of people and biodiversity conservation. In this study, we used species richness as a surrogate for biodiversity and mapped the key ESs in East Africa with the goal to assess the spatial congruence between biodiversity and ESs, and evaluate the representation of current protected areas (PAs) network for biodiversity and ESs. The results showed that PAs well represented for species richness and regulating services but underrepresented for provisioning services. The PAs network occupies 10.96% of East Africa's land surface, and captures 20.62-26.37% of conservation priorities for vertebrate and plant species. It encompasses more than 16.23% of priority areas for three regulating services, but only 6.17% and 5.22% for crop and livestock production, respectively. Strong correlations and high overlaps exist between species richness and regulating services, particularly for carbon storage, water yield and plants. Thus, we believe that actions taken to conserve biodiversity also will protect certain ESs, which in turn will create new incentives and funding sources for the conservation of biodiversity. Overall, our results have wide-ranging policy implications and can be used to optimize conservation strategies for both biodiversity and multiple ESs in East Africa.

In 2016, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) published its first methodological assessment report on scenarios and models, identifying important gaps in the literature. IPBES has since then moved onto Phase 2, namely a commitment to build on the assessment findings to catalyse the development of the next generation of multi-scale models and scenarios for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Part of that commitment involves the inclusion of Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) in those models and scenarios. IPBES is both an institution (with its governance structure, work programme, deliverables, and so on) and a network (with its member states, authors, stakeholders, and readership). Within that network, the methodological assessment report can be said to be ‘performative’, ergo playing a significant role in shaping engagement and research pathways in the years to come. Within the social sciences, this paper marks a first attempt at evaluating some of the potential challenges of Phase 2—with specific regard to the inclusion of ILK—and strives to generate more engagement from social scientists and humanities scholars on this issue. I combine in-depth expert interviews with document analysis and focus on the ideas of ‘scale translation’ and the translation of ILK into quantitative data—which I contend are likely to be the most contentious and arduous aspects of ‘integration’. I conclude that while IPBES is on track for leading the research community away from IPCC-type global, panoptic models and scenarios, a more honest and genuine dialogue between natural scientists, social scientists, and ILK holders is still required—so as to better communicate what may be (scientifically) feasible and (politically) acceptable.

The Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) have recently been recognized as a viable tool for conserving biodiversity beyond protected areas. As a new concept, it is essential to evaluate the current knowledge on OECMs and their prospects for conserving biodiversity resources outside protected areas. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on key concepts, including OECMs, governance, and biodiversity, using the Publish or Perish Software Program in Google Scholar. Out of the total 200 articles identified through the keywords, 54 were shortlisted for a comprehensive full-text review. Based on the closeness of the study objectives to our research questions, 27 articles were selected for detailed analysis. As no journal articles related to the OECM in Nepal were found within the set time frame, contemporary policies and legal documents of Nepal were also reviewed. Additionally, to account for the lengthy publication process, a few more recent journal articles were also reviewed. The review revealed that nearly half of the studies (13) focused on global and regional scales, while eight studies were conducted in eight different countries, and two studies in each of three additional countries. Recent studies on the integration of OECM principles in Nepal’s forestry sector policies and practices were also reviewed. Community-led conservation, supported by coordination and collaboration among multilevel governance systems - including both state and non-state actors-has been found effective in conserving biodiversity resources outside protected areas. However, further studies on natural resources governance beyond protected areas are needed to ensure long-term in-situ conservation of biodiversity through the OECM model.

Oceanic islands are particularly vulnerable to the global decline of biological diversity, suffering disproportionally large losses of endemic species. A primary tool for mitigating species loss is the establishment of protected area networks. The 2030 Global Biodiversity Framework target calls for the protection of 30% of Earth’s land surface by 2030. This study identifies areas within the Tropical Important Plant Areas network of the British Virgin Islands (BVI), to better inform the expansion of the current protected area network with the objective of conserving the BVI’s unique flora. We identified and applied conservation targets for five threatened habitats and 34 species of conservation concern, including four endemic to the BVI. A total of 5,248 georeferenced plant records for the 34 species collected through decades of collaborative work between the National Parks Trust of the Virgin Islands and the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, along with the distribution of five threatened habitats were used within the decision support system MARXAN to identify four spatial portfolios to guide the expansion of the BVI’s current protected area network. Highlighting the need to expand the current (2007–2017) Protected Areas System Plan in the BVI, we found that the current Plan only covers 15% of terrestrial land and does not meet the conservation targets for plants and habitats. The portfolios identified in our analysis efficiently expand the current Protected Areas System Plan to strategically expand coverage for all conservation features, with two main portfolios reaching all defined conservation targets for protection. Notably, to evaluate options not requiring land purchase, we extracted areas within state-owned Crown land from two main identified portfolios and found that the two Crown land-portfolios could protect 28% and 23% of the BVI, respectively, while meeting the targets for most plants of conservation concern. However, to reach 30% land protection and meet the conservation targets for all plant species, including endemics, private land would need to be considered for this inclusion within the protected area network. Our results provide science-based guidance for the selection of candidate protected area expansion sites that include threatened plants and habitats for reaching the 2030 Biodiversity Framework targets. While systematic conservation planning can provide guidance on protected area expansion, it is important to evaluate and prioritise conservation actions, based on multiple solutions and available resources. We recommend similar approaches are applied more broadly throughout the Caribbean and other archipelagos across the world.

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.

The Amazon floodplains represent important surfaces of highly valuable ecosystems, yet they remain neglected from protected areas. Although the efficiency of the protected area network of the Amazon basin may be jeopardized by climate change, floodplains are exposed to important consequences of climate change but are omitted from species distribution models and protection gap analyses. The present and future (2070) distribution of the giant bony‐tongue fish Arapaima spp. (Arapaimidae) was modelled accounting for climate and habitat requirements, and with a consideration of dam presence (already existing and planned constructions) and hydroperiod (high‐ and low‐water stages). The amount of suitable environment that falls inside and outside the current network of protected areas was quantified to identify spatial conservation gaps. We predict that climate change will cause a decline in environmental suitability by 16.6% during the high‐water stage, and by 19.4% during the low‐water stage. About 70% of the suitable environments of Arapaima spp. remain currently unprotected. The gap is higher by 0.7% during the low‐water stage. The lack of protection is likely to increase by 5% with future climate change effects. Both existing and projected dam constructions may hamper population flows between the central, Bolivian and Peruvian parts of the basin. We highlight protection gaps mostly in the south‐western part of the basin and recommend the extension of the current network of protected areas in the floodplains of the upper Ucayali, Juruà and Purus rivers and their tributaries. This study has shown the importance of integrating hydroperiod and dispersal barriers in forecasting the distribution of freshwater fish species, and stresses the urgent need to integrate floodplains within the protected area networks.

AimTo assess the representativeness values of Mesoamerican endemic birds within the current network of protected areas (PAs) to determine high‐priority and complementary conservation areas to maximize the long‐term protection of species.LocationFrom central Mexico to southern Panama.MethodsWe selected 180 bird species that are geographically restricted to Mesoamerica and estimated their potential ranges using species distribution models. Then, using two different removal rules in ZONATION software, we assessed the species’ representativeness levels within the current PA network. We also defined forest remnants that could be used to strategically expand PAs (to reach Aichi biodiversity targets) and maximize the species protection, explicitly considering anthropic pressures.ResultsCurrent PAs cover ~13% of the land area of Mesoamerica, representing an average of ~19% of the total potential distribution for the endemic bird species considered. We also observed that there is <30% overlap between current PAs and the priority areas we define. Our prioritization analyses showed that strategically increasing protection coverage to 17%, as stipulated in the Aichi targets, would substantially increase the representativeness values of PAs (regardless of the removal rule used) and would increase the range by >35% for all species and >29% for threatened species. The consensus priority conservation areas identified were mainly distributed in Costa Rica (~48%), Mexico (~28%), and Panama (~10%).Main conclusionsConsistent with the global picture, Mesoamerican PAs showed low representativeness of their vulnerable endemic avifauna; therefore, well‐informed decisions to guide conservation strategies are imperative. We provide insights about where future conservation efforts should focus to accomplish a representative and well‐connected regional PA network.

Ecology of urban green spaces: The way forward in answering major research questions

Editorial relating to a special collection of papers in which leading conservation scientists identify grand challenges for biodiversity conservation.

Ecuador has the largest number of species by area worldwide, but also a low representation of species within its protected areas. Here, we applied systematic conservation planning to identify potential areas for conservation in continental Ecuador, with the aim of increasing the representation of terrestrial species diversity in the protected area network. We selected 809 terrestrial species (amphibians, birds, mammals, and plants), for which distributions were estimated via species distribution models (SDMs), using Maxent. For each species we established conservation goals based on conservation priorities, and estimated new potential protected areas using Marxan conservation planning software. For each selected area, we determined their conservation priority and feasibility of establishment, two important aspects in the decision-making processes. We found that according to our conservation goals, the current protected area network contains large conservation gaps. Potential areas for conservation almost double the surface area of currently protected areas. Most of the newly proposed areas are located in the Coast, a region with large conservation gaps and irreversible changes in land use. The most feasible areas for conservation were found in the Amazon and Andes regions, which encompass more undisturbed habitats, and already harbor most of the current reserves. Our study allows defining a viable strategy for preserving Ecuador's biodiversity, by combining SDMs, GIS-based decision-support software, and priority and feasibility assessments of the selected areas. This approach is useful for complementing protected area networks in countries with great biodiversity, insufficient biological information, and limited resources for conservation.

Conservation in eastern and southern Africa has historically centered on megafauna and protected areas (PAs), yet, in the face of rapid change, biodiversity outside of PAs is under threat. With policy changes underway in Kenya, we have performed an analysis that (a) quantifies how inclusive the current PA network is of the country's vertebrate diversity, and (b) identifies wildlife policy areas that need reform to achieve conservation targets. We found that species richness of mammals, birds, and amphibians is highest in areas of intermediate human pressures, whereas Kenya's current wildlife conservation policy focuses on land use (LU) types with the least human pressure. Percentage of range overlap for amphibians, mammals, and birds were all highest in rangelands followed by agricultural (cultivated) areas and then national PAs. Out of 1,535 terrestrial vertebrate species, 80 had no range overlap with national PAs. The current wildlife PA network adequately covers only 16% of amphibians, 45% of birds, and 41% of mammals. In addition, we used a biodiversity importance score which demonstrated the importance of rangelands and agricultural areas for biodiversity conservation. Finally, we observed that the distribution of current PAs, and the focus of Kenya's wildlife policy in general, is in areas of lowest human pressure, often with the highest large mammal densities. However, other biodiversity indicators ‐ such as bird and plant species richness ‐ show that areas under human‐dominated LU currently support substantial biodiversity. Overall, our analysis demonstrates that formal PAs and wildlife policy presently cover only a small fraction of national biodiversity, which resides mainly in human‐dominated landscapes that are undergoing rapid change. These findings echo global calls for a landscape‐based approach to conservation policy and practice that promotes the coexistence of people and wildlife within social‐ecological systems.