Trends in protected area representation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in five tropical countries

In late 2020, governments will set the next decade of conservation targets under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. Setting new targets requires understanding how well national protected area (PA) networks are spatially representing important areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services. We analyzed the representation of biodiversity priority areas (BPAs), forests, forest carbon stocks, non-timber forest products (NTFPs), and freshwater ecosystem services (FES) within terrestrial PA systems in Cambodia, Guyana, Liberia, Madagascar, and Suriname in 2003 and 2017. Four of the countries (all except Suriname) expanded their terrestrial PA networks during the study period. In all five countries, we found that PAs represented BPAs, forests, and forest carbon stocks relatively well, based on their size. PAs did not represent NTFPs and FES particularly well, except in Cambodia where FES were well represented. Countries that expanded PA networks during the study period also increased representation of forests, BPAs, and ES; in Cambodia and Madagascar these increases were substantial. Representation could be improved across all five countries, however, indicating that additional efforts are needed to safeguard biodiversity and ecosystem benefits to people in these countries

The effect of a political crisis on performance of community forests and protected areas in Madagascar

International audienceUnderstanding the effectiveness of conservation interventions during times of political instability is important given how much of the world’s biodiversity is concentrated in politically fragile nations. Here, we investigate the effect of a political crisis on the relative performance of community managed forests versus protected areas in terms of reducing deforestation in Madagascar, a biodiversity hotspot. We use remotely sensed data and statistical matching within an event study design to isolate the effect of the crisis and post-crisis period on performance. Annual rates of deforestation accelerated at the end of the crisis and were higher in community forests than in protected areas. After controlling for differences in location and other confounding variables, we find no difference in performance during the crisis, but community-managed forests performed worse in post-crisis years. These findings suggest that, as a political crisis subsides and deforestation pressures intensify, community-based conservation may be less resilient than state protection

The effect of a political crisis on performance of community forests and protected areas in Madagascar

Abstract Understanding the effectiveness of conservation interventions during times of political instability is important given how much of the world’s biodiversity is concentrated in politically fragile nations. Here, we investigate the effect of a political crisis on the relative performance of community managed forests versus protected areas in terms of reducing deforestation in Madagascar, a biodiversity hotspot. We use remotely sensed data and statistical matching within an event study design to isolate the effect of the crisis and post-crisis period on performance. Annual rates of deforestation accelerated at the end of the crisis and were higher in community forests than in protected areas. After controlling for differences in location and other confounding variables, we find no difference in performance during the crisis, but community-managed forests performed worse in post-crisis years. These findings suggest that, as a political crisis subsides and deforestation pressures intensify, community-based conservation may be less resilient than state protection

Rapid Assessment of Ecosystem Service Co-Benefits of Biodiversity Priority Areas in Madagascar

<div><p>The importance of ecosystems for supporting human well-being is increasingly recognized by both the conservation and development sectors. Our ability to conserve ecosystems that people rely on is often limited by a lack of spatially explicit data on the location and distribution of ecosystem services (ES), the benefits provided by nature to people. Thus there is a need to map ES to guide conservation investments, to ensure these co-benefits are maintained. To target conservation investments most effectively, ES assessments must be rigorous enough to support conservation planning, rapid enough to respond to decision-making timelines, and often must rely on existing data. We developed a framework for rapid spatial assessment of ES that relies on expert and stakeholder consultation, available data, and spatial analyses in order to rapidly identify sites providing multiple benefits. We applied the framework in Madagascar, a country with globally significant biodiversity and a high level of human dependence on ecosystems. Our objective was to identify the ES co-benefits of biodiversity priority areas in order to guide the investment strategy of a global conservation fund. We assessed key provisioning (fisheries, hunting and non-timber forest products, and water for domestic use, agriculture, and hydropower), regulating (climate mitigation, flood risk reduction and coastal protection), and cultural (nature tourism) ES. We also conducted multi-criteria analyses to identify sites providing multiple benefits. While our approach has limitations, including the reliance on proximity-based indicators for several ES, the results were useful for targeting conservation investments by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF). Because our approach relies on available data, standardized methods for linking ES provision to ES use, and expert validation, it has the potential to quickly guide conservation planning and investment decisions in other data-poor regions.</p></div

Transformation for inclusive conservation: evidence on values, decisions, and impacts in protected areas

As countries consider new area-based conservation targets under the Convention on Biological Diversity, protected areas (PAs) and their impacts on people and nature are coming under increasing scrutiny. We review the evidence base on PA impacts, combining the findings from existing rigorous impact evaluations with local case studies developed for this study. We identify characteristics of PA establishment and management that improve the sustainability of biodiversity conservation and justice for local communities. We find that recognizing and respecting local values and knowledge about natural resource stewardship, colearning, and comanagement are key to achieving positive impacts for nature and people. Transforming PA governance toward more inclusive conservation depends upon the ability of PAs to be designed and implemented around the values and needs of local people

Tools for measuring, modelling, and valuing ecosystem services: guidance for Key Biodiversity Areas, natural World Heritage Sites, and protected areas

Increasing interest in measuring, modelling and valuing ecosystem services (ES), the benefits that ecosystems provide to people, has resulted in the development of an array of ES assessment tools in recent years. Selecting an appropriate tool for measuring and modelling ES can be challenging. This document provides guidance for practitioners on existing tools that can be applied to measure or model ES provided by important sites for biodiversity and nature conservation, including Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), natural World Heritage sites (WHS), and protected areas (PAs). Selecting an appropriate tool requires identifying the specific question being addressed, what sorts of results or outputs are required, and consideration of practical factors such as the level of expertise, time and data required for applying any given tool. This guide builds on existing reviews of ES assessment tools, but has an explicit focus on assessing ES for sites of importance for biodiversity and nature conservation

Forest carbon density (tons carbon per hectare) overlaid with KBAs (left); total forest carbon per KBA (tons C) (right).

<p>Forest carbon density (tons carbon per hectare) overlaid with KBAs (left); total forest carbon per KBA (tons C) (right).</p

CEPF priority sites and relative importance for freshwater for agriculture (left) and local fisheries (right).

<p>CEPF priority sites and relative importance for freshwater for agriculture (left) and local fisheries (right).</p