Earth’s Natural Heritage’

For professionals tasked with managing protected areas, it is imperative that they have a broad understanding of the intrinsic natural values of our planet. In this chapter we provide this overview. We describe some of Earth’s natural processes, and its exceptional geodiversity and biodiversity. Then we briefly introduce, at a global scale, the impacts that humans are having on Earth’s natural heritage early in the 21st Century. This helps to emphasise why protected areas of all types, including government, non-government, private, indigenous and community conserved areas (ICCAs), are needed and why the efforts of each individual manager or ranger working in support of their local protected area or protected area system is so critical. Fundamentally it is the sum total of these individual and local conservation efforts that is contributing to the retention of life on Earth.JRC.H.5-Land Resources Managemen

Crop expansion and conservation priorities in tropical countries

Expansion of cropland in tropical countries is one of the principal causes of biodiversity loss, and threatens to undermine progress towards meeting the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. To understand this threat better, we analysed data on crop distribution and expansion in 128 tropical countries, assessed changes in area of the main crops and mapped overlaps between conservation priorities and cultivation potential. Rice was the single crop grown over the largest area, especially in tropical forest biomes. Cropland in tropical countries expanded by c. 48,000 km2 per year from 1999–2008. The countries which added the greatest area of new cropland were Nigeria, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Sudan and Brazil. Soybeans and maize are the crops which expanded most in absolute area. Other crops with large increases included rice, sorghum, oil palm, beans, sugar cane, cow peas, wheat and cassava. Areas of high cultivation potential—while bearing in mind that political and socio-economic conditions can be as influential as biophysical ones—may be vulnerable to conversion in the future. These include some priority areas for biodiversity conservation in tropical countries (e.g., Frontier Forests and High Biodiversity Wilderness Areas), which have previously been identified as having ‘low vulnerability’, in particular in central Africa and northern Australia. There are also many other smaller areas which are important for biodiversity and which have high cultivation potential (e.g., in the fringes of the Amazon basin, in the Paraguayan Chaco, and in the savanna woodlands of the Sahel and East Africa). We highlight the urgent need for more effective sustainability standards and policies addressing both production and consumption of tropical commodities, including robust land-use planning in agricultural frontiers, establishment of new protected areas or REDD+ projects in places agriculture has not yet reached, and reduction or elimination of incentives for land-demanding bioenergy feedstock

Global Priority Conservation Areas in the Face of 21st Century Climate Change

In an era when global biodiversity is increasingly impacted by rapidly changing climate, efforts to conserve global biodiversity may be compromised if we do not consider the uneven distribution of climate-induced threats. Here, via a novel application of an aggregate Regional Climate Change Index (RCCI) that combines changes in mean annual temperature and precipitation with changes in their interannual variability, we assess multi-dimensional climate changes across the “Global 200” ecoregions – a set of priority ecoregions designed to “achieve the goal of saving a broad diversity of the Earth’s ecosystems” – over the 21st century. Using an ensemble of 62 climate scenarios, our analyses show that, between 1991–2010 and 2081–2100, 96% of the ecoregions considered will be likely (more than 66% probability) to face moderate-to-pronounced climate changes, when compared to the magnitudes of change during the past five decades. Ecoregions at high northern latitudes are projected to experience most pronounced climate change, followed by those in the Mediterranean Basin, Amazon Basin, East Africa, and South Asia. Relatively modest RCCI signals are expected over ecoregions in Northwest South America, West Africa, and Southeast Asia, yet with considerable uncertainties. Although not indicative of climate-change impacts per se, the RCCI-based assessment can help policy-makers gain a quantitative and comprehensive overview of the unevenly distributed climate risks across the G200 ecoregions. Whether due to significant climate change signals or large uncertainties, the ecoregions highlighted in the assessment deserve special attention in more detailed impact assessments to inform effective conservation strategies under future climate change.This study was supported by the Environmental Protection Public Service Project of China (201209031) (URL:http://kjs.mep.gov.cn/gyxhykyzx/)

The State of the Evidence on Blended Finance for Sustainable Development: An Evidence Gap Map

Blended finance, which aims to mobilise private capital towards sustainable development in developing countries (OECD, 2018), is becoming increasingly important for bridging the investment gap for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, little is known about its development impact. This report presents the findings of a systematic search on blended finance studies and evaluations, which are visualised as an evidence gap map (EGM). The EGM presents the resultson a matrix of eight blended finance instruments and 14 sub-effects, which were grouped into four categories of effects: financial additionality, development additionality, market development and sector effects. The search identified 33 publications that met the inclusion criteria, containing 87 individual pieces of evidence. Almost half of the blended finance instruments focused on results-based incentives, with grants and guarantees being the next most numerous. Most of the evidence was found in programme evaluation reports (67%), while (quasi-)experimental evidence was scarce (12%). The comparison with a blended finance database (Convergence, 2020) showed that the increase in the size of the blended finance market from USD 16 billion in 2007 to USD 136 billion in 2018 did not trigger a similar increase in research. A particularly strong mismatch between frequency of use and lack of research was found for insurance, hedging and junior/subordinated capital, and for sector effects in energy and financial services.Blended Finance zielt darauf ab, privates Kapital für die Finanzierung nachhaltiger Entwicklung zu mobilisieren (OECD, 2018) und wird immer wichtiger, um die Investitionslücke für die Erreichung der Nachhaltigkeitsziele (Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs) zu schließen. Bisher ist jedoch wenig über die entwicklungspolitische Wirkung von Blended Finance bekannt. Dieser Bericht stellt die Ergebnisse einer systematischen Suche nach Blended Finance Studien und Evaluierungen vor, die als Evidenzkarte (Evidence Gap Map, EGM) visualisiert sind. Die EGM bildet die Evidenz auf einer Matrix von acht Blended-Finance-Instrumenten und 14 Subeffekten ab, die unter vier Kategorien fallen: finanzielle Additionalität, entwicklungspolitische Additionalität, Marktentwicklung und Sektoreffekte. Die Suche ergab 33 Publikationen, die die Kriterien erfüllten. Diese enthielten 87 Einzelergebnisse (pieces of evidence), von denen sich fast die Hälfte auf das Blended-Finance-Instrument der ergebnisorientierten Anreize bezog, gefolgt von Garantien und Zuschüssen. Die meiste Evidenz stammt aus Programmevaluierungsberichten (67%), während (quasi-)experimentelle Evidenz nur selten vorhanden ist (12%). Der Vergleich mit einer Blended-Finance-Datenbank (Convergence, 2020) zeigte, dass der Anstieg der Größe des Blended Finance Markts seit 2007 nicht mit einem ähnlichen Anstieg an Publikationen einherging. Eine besonders starke Diskrepanz zwischen tatsächlicher Nutzung und mangelnder Evidenz wurde bei Versicherungen, Hedging und nachrangigem/nachrangigem Kapital sowie bei Sektoreffekten in den Bereichen Energie und Finanzdienstleistungen festgestellt

Mind the gap: Information gaps and bridging options in assessing in-situ conservation achievements

The biodiversity crisis has gained political attention on a global level. The “2010 Target” of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) aims to significantly reduce the loss of biodiversity by 2010. In order to achieve this, a network of representative and effectively managed protected areas is to be established. The effectiveness of protected areas thus represents one indicator for progress towards the CBD’s 2010 Target. However, indicators require information. The present study, in a first step, reviews the availability of open access long-term ecological data for assessing protected area effectiveness. This review shows two parallel – though contradictory – phenomena: data overkill and data scarcity. While the number of online databases providing open access data on biodiversity has grown tremendously, no long-term ecological data for a larger set of protected areas can be openly accessed. Reasons for this data scarcity are discussed. Based on this lack of information, in a second step, a method to bridge information gaps through social science research is aspired. An innovative Conservation Success Framework is developed, which defines and relates conservation needs, conservation capacity and conservation actions, its three main components. The basic assumption is that conservation can only be successful where the conservation capacity exists that is required to implement the conservation actions determined by the conservation needs. The framework was used to develop open and closed questionnaires for application in two Mexican biosphere reserves, the Sierra Gorda and the Sierra de Manantlán. As "conservation success" is often immeasurable in protected areas in practice due to unspecific conservation objectives the term is for the case studies substituted by “conservation achievements”, i.e. clearly noticeable effects from conservation actions. Overall, almost 60 interviews were conducted with different stakeholder groups. The gained information is validated through social science research techniques, such as triangulation of perspectives and active and passive observation. Based on this, conservation needs are identified and conservation capacities summarised and discussed for both case study sites. Implemented conservation actions addressing identified conservation needs and conservation capacity constraints are then analysed. In addition, noticeable effects from conservation actions on the state of biodiversity at case study sites, i.e. the conservation achievements, are described. Where locally available, non-open access data (as opposing open access data) are used to verify the findings from the social science research. Identified conservation achievements at both case study sites are evident both from quantitative information (for example forest cover increase according to non-open access data) and qualitative information (for example perceived change in the occurrence of illegal activities according to interviews). In addition, rather “intangible” indicators that can only be revealed through qualitative surveys are identified for both sites. This study thus highlights the crucial importance of integrating different types of data, ecological and socio-economic, as well as quantitative and qualitative ones. The present study concludes with a series of recommendations 1) to local practitioners at the two case study sites, and 2) to the international conservation community. Local practitioners may benefit from the present study because its results provide for each site a) an overview of existing conservation needs and implemented conservation actions; b) an easy way to identify action gaps; c) a baseline to identify progress indicators; and d) an overview of diverse perspectives on the current effectiveness of the biosphere reserves. These benefits are considered of particular importance as they can be influential in the revision of the site’s management plans, which both are now approximately ten years old and will soon be revised. The international conservation community will not be able to make a clear statement in the year 2010 about the effectiveness of protected areas on a global level due to a lack of information and transparency. However, the year 2010 should not be considered an end point for measuring progress in in-situ conservation; instead protected area quality standards must be created, effectiveness evaluations institutionalised and efforts to foster regular reporting must continue. Consequently, a scheme of consolidated actions from local to national and international level is proposed that could help to sustainably bridge existing information gaps and close them on the long run. In the end, progress reporting on the effectiveness of protected areas, and other indicators, can only improve if different governance levels “mind the information gaps” in cooperation, until continued information gathering and sharing hopefully closes these gaps one day.Die Biodiversitätskrise unserer Zeit hat mittlerweile global politische Aufmerksamkeit erlangt. Das „2010-Ziel“ der Konvention zur biologischen Vielfalt ist es, den Verlust der Biodiversität bis zum Jahr 2010 signifikant zu reduzieren. Zur Zielerreichung soll bis dahin ein Netzwerk aus effektiven Naturschutzgebieten etabliert sein. Die Effektivität von Schutzgebieten ist somit ein Erfolgsindikator des 2010-Zieles. Die Messbarkeit von Indikatoren ist jedoch abhängig von der Verfügbarkeit entsprechender Informationen. Die hier präsentierte Studie befasst sich im ersten Teil mit der Verfügbarkeit offen zugänglicher ökologischer Langzeitdaten, die eine Abschätzung von Schutzgebietseffektivität zulassen. Diese Revision zeigt zwei parallele – und dennoch gegensätzliche – Phänomene auf: ein Übermaß an Daten und zugleich einen Mangel an Daten. Während insgesamt die Zahl im Internet frei zugänglicher Biodiversitätsdatenbanken innerhalb der letzten zwei Dekaden immens gestiegen ist, so gibt es bis heute keine Datenbank, die aktuelle ökologische Langzeitdaten von Schutzgebieten zur Verfügung stellt. Infolge dieser Erkenntnis wird im zweiten Teil der Studie eine Methode zur Überbrückung von Informationslücken durch sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung erarbeitet und angewandt. Es wird ein innovatives Bezugssystem für Naturschutzerfolg entwickelt, welches Naturschutzbedarf, Naturschutzkapazität und Naturschutzaktionen, die drei Hauptbestandteile des Systems, in Relation setzt. Die zugrundeliegende Annahme ist, dass Naturschutz nur erfolgreich sein kann, wenn ausreichend Naturschutzkapazität besteht, um alle jene Naturschutzaktionen umzusetzen, die aufgrund des Naturschutzbedarfs erforderlich sind. Das Bezugssystem bildet die Basis für die Entwicklung von offenen und geschlossenen Fragebögen zur Anwendung in den mexikanischen Biosphärenreservaten Sierra Gorda und Sierra de Manantlán. In der Praxis ist Naturschutzerfolg jedoch häufig nicht messbar, da die Ziele von Schutzgebieten oftmals sehr unspezifisch formuliert sind, weshalb der Begriff „Naturschutzerfolg“ in den Fallstudien durch den Begriff “Naturschutzergebnisse” substituiert wird. Insgesamt wurden fast 60 Interviews mit verschiedenen Interessengruppen durchgeführt. Basierend auf den Interviews werden für beide Fallstudiengebiete Naturschutzbedarf und Naturschutzkapazitäten identifiziert und diskutiert. Umgesetzte Naturschutzaktionen werden analysiert und deutlich erkennbare Folgen von Naturschutzaktionen, die „Naturschutzergebnisse“, beschrieben. Sofern möglich, werden lokal verfügbare (im Gegensatz zu öffentlich zugänglichen) Daten benutzt, um die Ergebnisse der Sozialforschung und die entwickelte Methode zu verifizieren. Naturschutzergebnisse sind in beiden Regionen sowohl durch quantitative Informationen, als auch durch qualitative Informationen nachweisbar. Hierdurch unterstreicht die Studie die Wichtigkeit, verschiedene Daten zu integrieren, sowohl ökologische und sozioökonomische, als auch quantitative und qualitative. Die hier präsentierte Studie schließt mit einer Reihe von Empfehlungen 1) für lokale Akteure auf der Ebene der Fallstudien, und 2) für die internationale Naturschutzgemeinschaft. Lokale Akteure können von der vorgestellten Studie profitieren, da sie für beide Fallstudien a) einen Überblick über existierenden Naturschutzbedarf und implementierte Naturschutzaktionen bietet; b) eine einfache Methode zur Identifikation von Lücken in Naturschutzaktivitäten vorstellt; c) eine Basis schafft, von der aus Erfolgsindikatoren entwickelt werden können; und d) verschiedene Blickwinkel auf die momentane Effektivität der Biosphärenreservate gesammelt darstellt. Die Ergebnisse sind zudem von Bedeutung, da sie die Überarbeitung der Schutzgebiets-Managementpläne, welche nun beide fast zehn Jahre alt sind und baldige Überarbeitung erfordern, beeinflussen können. Die internationale Naturschutzgemeinschaft wird im Jahr 2010 keine klare Aussage zur globalen Schutzgebietseffektivitaet machen können, da es an entsprechenden Informationen mangelt. Das Jahr 2010 sollte jedoch nicht als Endpunkt für die Messung von Fortschritt im in-situ Naturschutz verstanden werden; stattdessen sollten Qualitätsstandards für Schutzgebiete entwickelt und etabliert, Effektivitätsevaluierungen institutionalisiert, und Bemühungen um regelmäßige Fortschrittsberichte vorangetrieben werden. Hierfür wird ein Schema sich gegenseitig ergänzender Aktionen vorgestellt, welches die lokale, sowie nationale und internationale Naturschutz-Ebene einschließt. Dieses Schema kann helfen, existierende Informationslücken nachhaltig zu überbrücken und langfristig zu schließen. Schlussendlich kann die Messbarkeit von Schutzgebietseffektivität, und anderen Indikatoren, nur verbessert werden, wenn verschiedene Governance-Ebenen kooperativ Informationslücken überbrücken, bis diese Lücken eines Tages durch fortschreitende Datenaufnahme und –kommunikation geschlossen werden können

Earth's natural heritage

Earth is a unique planet. It is in the interests of humans and all other species on Earth that its intrinsic values are understood, respected, and its life-support systems are protected and sustained. Securing Earth’s natural heritage reinforces the role and importance of protected areas and conservation practice on Earth at a global scale. These areas and such action help to conserve Earth’s natural heritage and the essential ecosystem processes, habitats and species that help support life. The moderating influence provided by protection and conservation is essential, given the voracious capacity of Earth’s expanding human population to consume and alter natural resources at a rate that threatens the very planetary life-support systems (MEA 2005)

Global Priority Conservation Areas in the Face of 21st Century Climate Change

International audienceIn an era when global biodiversity is increasingly impacted by rapidly changing climate, efforts to conserve global biodiversity may be compromised if we do not consider the uneven distribution of climate-induced threats. Here, via a novel application of an aggregate Regional Climate Change Index (RCCI) that combines changes in mean annual temperature and precipitation with changes in their interannual variability, we assess multi-dimensional climate changes across the ''Global 200'' ecoregions-a set of priority ecoregions designed to ''achieve the goal of saving a broad diversity of the Earth's ecosystems''-over the 21 st century. Using an ensemble of 62 climate scenarios, our analyses show that, between 1991-2010 and 2081-2100, 96% of the ecoregions considered will be likely (more than 66% probability) to face moderate-to-pronounced climate changes, when compared to the magnitudes of change during the past five decades. Ecoregions at high northern latitudes are projected to experience most pronounced climate change, followed by those in the Mediterranean Basin, Amazon Basin, East Africa, and South Asia. Relatively modest RCCI signals are expected over ecoregions in Northwest South America, West Africa, and Southeast Asia, yet with considerable uncertainties. Although not indicative of climate-change impacts per se, the RCCI-based assessment can help policy-makers gain a quantitative and comprehensive overview of the unevenly distributed climate risks across the G200 ecoregions. Whether due to significant climate change signals or large uncertainties, the ecoregions highlighted in the assessment deserve special attention in more detailed impact assessments to inform effective conservation strategies under future climate change

Total area of cropland in biomes within tropical countries.

<p>Shaded portions of bars show (A) total area of cropland in each biome, and (B) proportion of 5-min grid cells with <10% or ≥10% cropland cover, assessed from cropland map of <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0051759#pone.0051759-Ramankutty1" target="_blank">[5]</a>. Lakes, rock and ice, tundra, temperate and mediterranean biomes are excluded.</p