Essential indicators for measuring site‐based conservation effectiveness in the post‐2020 global biodiversity framework

Abstract: 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

Protecting 30% of the planet for nature: costs, benefits and economic implications

A. Waldron, K. Nakamura, J. Sze, T. Vilela, A. Escobedo, P. Negret Torres, R. Button, K. Swinnerton, A. Toledo, P. Madgwick, N. Mukherjee were supported by National Geographic and the Resources Legacy Fund. V. Christensen was supported by NSERC Discovery Grant RGPIN-2019-04901. M. Coll and J. Steenbeek were supported by EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 817578 (TRIATLAS). D. Leclere was supported by TradeHub UKRI CGRF project. R. Heneghan was supported by Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, Acciones de Programacion Conjunta Internacional (PCIN-2017-115). M. di Marco was supported by MIUR Rita Levi Montalcini programme. A. Fernandez-Llamazares was supported by Academy of Finland (grant nr. 31176). S. Fujimori and T. Hawegawa were supported by The Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (2-2002) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan and the Sumitomo Foundation. V. Heikinheimo was supported by Kone Foundation, Social Media for Conservation project. K. Scherrer was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 682602. U. Rashid Sumaila acknowledges the OceanCanada Partnership, which funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). T. Toivonen was supported by Osk. Huttunen Foundation & Clare Hall college, Cambridge. W. Wu was supported by The Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (2-2002) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan. Z. Yuchen was supported by a Ministry of Education of Singapore Research Scholarship Block (RSB) Research Fellowship

Working paper analysing the economic implications of the proposed 30% target for areal protection in the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framewor

58 pages, 5 figures, 3 tables- The World Economic Forum now ranks biodiversity loss as a top-five risk to the global economy, and the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework proposes an expansion of conservation areas to 30% of the earth’s surface by 2030 (hereafter the “30% target”), using protected areas (PAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). - Two immediate concerns are how much a 30% target might cost and whether it will cause economic losses to the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors. - Conservation areas also generate economic benefits (e.g. revenue from nature tourism and ecosystem services), making PAs/Nature an economic sector in their own right. - If some economic sectors benefit but others experience a loss, high-level policy makers need to know the net impact on the wider economy, as well as on individual sectors. [...]A. Waldron, K. Nakamura, J. Sze, T. Vilela, A. Escobedo, P. Negret Torres, R. Button, K. Swinnerton, A. Toledo, P. Madgwick, N. Mukherjee were supported by National Geographic and the Resources Legacy Fund. V. Christensen was supported by NSERC Discovery Grant RGPIN-2019-04901. M. Coll and J. Steenbeek were supported by EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 817578 (TRIATLAS). D. Leclere was supported by TradeHub UKRI CGRF project. R. Heneghan was supported by Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, Acciones de Programacion Conjunta Internacional (PCIN-2017-115). M. di Marco was supported by MIUR Rita Levi Montalcini programme. A. Fernandez-Llamazares was supported by Academy of Finland (grant nr. 311176). S. Fujimori and T. Hawegawa were supported by The Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (2-2002) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan and the Sumitomo Foundation. V. Heikinheimo was supported by Kone Foundation, Social Media for Conservation project. K. Scherrer was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 682602. U. Rashid Sumaila acknowledges the OceanCanada Partnership, which funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). T. Toivonen was supported by Osk. Huttunen Foundation & Clare Hall college, Cambridge. W. Wu was supported by The Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (2-2002) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan. Z. Yuchen was supported by a Ministry of Education of Singapore Research Scholarship Block (RSB) Research FellowshipPeer reviewe

Lessons learned from 18 years of implementing the management effectiveness tracking tool (Mett): A perspective from the mett developers and implementers

Understanding the successes and failures of management of protected areas is vital for the conservation of global biodiversity. The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) is a simple, questionnaire-based approach for assessing protected area management effectiveness (PAME). Since it was developed in 1999, it has become the most widely applied PAME tool, used in at least 127 countries worldwide. This paper reviews the development of the METT and how it has been implemented and adapted. A combination of literature review on implementation and implementation experience from the original authors and key users of the METT confirms that the METT is a relatively quick and simple way of collecting information about the status and trends of management in protected areas, and provides information to help drive management improvements. As such it is suitable for protected area managers, national protected area agencies, donors, and NGOs aiming to improve area management, and as a component of national reporting to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The paper examines issues related to METT implementation and concludes with 12 recommendations, from using the METT to verification of results, which together help ensure the tool is implemented in the most effective way and improves the credibility of PAME assessments

Key regional statistics on marine protected areas coverage and percentage overlaps for national and/or international designations.

<p>Key regional statistics on marine protected areas coverage and percentage overlaps for national and/or international designations.</p

L'Auto-vélo : automobilisme, cyclisme, athlétisme, yachting, aérostation, escrime, hippisme / dir. Henri Desgranges

04 octobre 19271927/10/04 (A28,N9789)

Distribution of the marine protected area network by number of designations.

<p>The graduation in colours reflects the increase in the number of overlaps, from one designation (no overlap) (blue) to eight designations (overlap) (red). This includes protected areas designated at the national, regional and international levels.</p

Key regional statistics on terrestrial protected area (PA) coverage and percentage overlaps for national and/or international designations.

<p>Key regional statistics on terrestrial protected area (PA) coverage and percentage overlaps for national and/or international designations.</p

Distribution of the terrestrial protected area network by number of designations.

<p>The gradation in colours reflects the increase in the number of overlaps, from one designation (no overlap) (blue) to eight designations (overlap) (red). This includes protected areas designated at the national, regional and international levels.</p

Overlapping protected area designations at Cap de Creus, Spain.

<p>Overlapping protected area designations at Cap de Creus, Spain.</p