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

The role of funding in the performance of Latin America's protected areas

Conservationists have long argued that inadequate funding for managing protected areas (PAs) jeopardizes their ability to achieve conservation goals. However, this claim has rarely been substantiated by quantitative evaluations. To address this, we examined the impact of funding on PA effectiveness both at the scale of 17 national PA systems across Latin America and within a PA system (Ecuador), for which we had precise historical financial data. Most PAs reduced deforestation between 2000 and 2010, demonstrating their crucial role in forest conservation. However, large deficits in funding considerably reduced the effectiveness of PAs in Ecuador (on average, a unit decrease in deficit leads to a 3.07% increase in effectiveness in avoiding deforestation). While differences in effectiveness between individual PAs in Ecuador were associated with funding deficits, national-level socioeconomic metrics (e.g., the Human Development Index) were the major factor when comparing PA system-level effectiveness among countries. This result suggests that while funding plays a major role in the performance of individual PAs, the quality of the socioeconomic context at the country level is critical for the overall performance of the PA systems. We, therefore, emphasize that maximizing the effectiveness of PAs requires a multilevel approach that includes better and more strategic resource allocation for individual PAs, combined with actions for strengthening the governance and institutions that regulate PA systems.

Protected areas: Biodiversity or people - or both?

With 195 countries agreeing to protect 30% of the globe in an effort to curb the ongoing biodiversity crisis, there is an increasing focus on how this might harm or potentially benefit people living in and around protected areas.

A global map of species at risk of extinction due to natural hazards

An often-overlooked question of the biodiversity crisis is how natural hazards contribute to species extinction risk. To address this issue, we explored how four natural hazards, earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, and volcanoes, overlapped with the distribution ranges of amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles that have either narrow distributions or populations with few mature individuals. To assess which species are at risk from these natural hazards, we combined the frequency and magnitude of each natural hazard to estimate their impact. We considered species at risk if they overlapped with regions where any of the four natural hazards historically occurred (n = 3,722). Those species with at least a quarter of their range subjected to a high relative impact were considered at high risk (n = 2,001) of extinction due to natural hazards. In total, 834 reptiles, 617 amphibians, 302 birds, and 248 mammals were at high risk and they were mainly distributed on islands and in the tropics. Hurricanes (n = 983) and earthquakes (n = 868) affected most species, while tsunamis (n = 272), and volcanoes (n = 171) affected considerably fewer. The region with the highest number of species at high risk was the Pacific Ring of Fire, especially due to volcanoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis, while hurricane-related high-risk species were concentrated in the Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and northwestern Pacific Ocean. Our study provides important information regarding the species at risk due to natural hazards and can help guide conservation attention and efforts to safeguard their survival.

A multitaxonomic assessment of Natura 2000 effectiveness across European biogeographic regions

The Natura 2000 (N2K) protected area (PA) network is a crucial tool to limit biodiversity loss in Europe. Despite covering 18% of the European Union's (EU) land area, its effectiveness at conserving biodiversity across taxa and biogeographic regions remains uncertain. Testing this effectiveness is, however, difficult because it requires considering the nonrandom location of PAs, and many possible confounding factors. We used propensity score matching and accounted for the confounding effects of biogeographic regions, terrain ruggedness, and land cover to assess the effectiveness of N2K PAs on the distribution of 1769 species of conservation priority in the EU's Birds and Habitats Directives, including mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, arthropods, fishes, mollusks, and vascular and nonvascular plants. We compared alpha, beta, and gamma diversity between matched selections of protected and unprotected areas across EU's biogeographic regions with generalized linear models, generalized mixed models, and nonparametric tests for paired samples, respectively, for each taxonomic group and for the entire set of species. PAs in N2K hosted significantly more priority species than unprotected land, but this difference was not consistent across biogeographic regions or taxa. Total alpha diversity and alpha diversity of amphibians, arthropods, birds, mammals, and vascular plants were significantly higher inside PAs than outside, except in the Boreal biogeographical region. Beta diversity was in general significantly higher inside N2K PAs than outside. Similarly, gamma diversity had the highest values inside PAs, with some exceptions in Boreal and Atlantic regions. The planned expansion of the N2K network, as dictated by the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, should therefore target areas in the southern part of the Boreal region where species diversity of amphibians, arthropods, birds, mammals, and vascular plants is high and species are currently underrepresented in N2K.

Scaling up area-based conservation to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework's 30x30 target: The role of Nature's Strongholds

The Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), signed in 2022 by Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, recognized the importance of area-based conservation, and its goals and targets specify the characteristics of protected and conserved areas (PCAs) that disproportionately contribute to biodiversity conservation. To achieve the GBF's target of conserving a global area of 30% by 2030, this Essay argues for recognizing these characteristics and scaling them up through the conservation of areas that are: extensive (typically larger than 5,000 km2); have interconnected PCAs (either physically or as part of a jurisdictional network, and frequently embedded in larger conservation landscapes); have high ecological integrity; and are effectively managed and equitably governed. These areas are presented as "Nature's Strongholds," illustrated by examples from the Congo and Amazon basins. Conserving Nature's Strongholds offers an approach to scale up initiatives to address global threats to biodiversity.

Introducing Elinor for monitoring the governance and management of area-based conservation

Monitoring the governance and management effectiveness of area-based conservation has long been recognized as an important foundation for achieving national and global biodiversity goals and enabling adaptive management. However, there are still many barriers that prevent conservation actors, including those affected by governance and management systems from implementing conservation activities and programs and from gathering and using data on governance and management to inform decision-making across spatial scales and through time. We explored current and past efforts to assess governance and management effectiveness and barriers actors face in using the resulting data and insights to inform conservation decision-making. To help overcome these barriers, we developed Elinor, a free and open-source monitoring tool that builds on the work of Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom to facilitate the gathering, storing, sharing, analyzing, and use of data on environmental governance and management across spatial scales and for areas under different governance and management types. We consider the process of codesigning and piloting Elinor with conservation scientists and practitioners and the main components of the assessment and online data system. We also consider how Elinor complements existing approaches by addressing governance and management in a single assessment at a high level for different types of area-based conservation, providing flexible options for data collection, and integrating a data system with an assessment that can support data use and sharing across different spatial scales, including global monitoring of the Global Biodiversity Framework. Although challenges will continue, the process of developing Elinor and the tool itself offer tangible solutions to barriers that prevent the systematic collection and use of governance and management data. With broader uptake, Elinor can play a valuable role in enabling more effective, inclusive, and durable area-based conservation.

Effects of management objectives and rules on marine conservation outcomes

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.

How effective are protected areas for reducing threats to biodiversity? A systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Protected areas (PAs) have become one of the most important instruments to preserve nature and, when effective, can significantly reduce human pressure and derived threats to biodiversity. However, evidence suggests that despite the growing number and coverage of PAs worldwide, biodiversity trends continue to deteriorate, and human pressure increases outside and inside PAs. While many studies have focused on the effectiveness of PAs in maintaining ecological features, less attention has been given to the threat reduction potential of PAs, despite threats being one of the main factors leading to the need to conserve biodiversity. It is therefore essential to understand PAs' role in addressing threats. In this paper, we describe the protocol for conducting a systematic review to explore and review the evidence surrounding the effectiveness of PAs as an intervention to reduce threats to biodiversity. We will examine the role of PAs in addressing several types of threats. Thus, our primary research question is: How effective are protected areas for reducing threats to biodiversity?

METHODS

This protocol follows the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence guidelines for evidence synthesis and complies with the ROSES (Reporting Standards for Systematic Evidence Synthesis) reporting framework. We will use a comprehensive search, covering databases such as Web of Science-core collection and Scopus and organizational websites to capture relevant grey literature. Our search terms and strategies aim to find studies assessing change of threats given in PAs at any scale and ecosystem type capturing literature in English. Independent reviewers will screen search results at the title-abstract, and full text levels. In order to evaluate the relevance of the evidence, we will use the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Critical Appraisal Tool. The results will be presented as a narrative synthesis supported by quantitative data. Additionally, a meta-analysis, if possible, will be performed.

Current trends suggest most Asian countries are unlikely to meet future biodiversity targets on protected areas

Aichi Target 11 committed governments to protect ≥17% of their terrestrial environments by 2020, yet it was rarely achieved, raising questions about the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework goal to protect 30% by 2030. Asia is a challenging continent for such targets, combining high biodiversity with dense human populations. Here, we evaluated achievements in Asia against Aichi Target 11. We found that Asia was the most underperforming continent globally, with just 13.2% of terrestrial protected area (PA) coverage, averaging 14.1 ± SE 1.8% per country in 2020. 73.1% of terrestrial ecoregions had <17% representation and only 7% of PAs even had an assessment of management effectiveness. We found that a higher agricultural land in 2015 was associated with lower PA coverage today. Asian countries also showed a remarkably slow average annual pace of 0.4 ± SE 0.1% increase of PA extent. These combined lines of evidence suggest that the ambitious 2030 targets are unlikely to be achieved in Asia unless the PA coverage to increase 2.4-5.9 times faster. We provided three recommendations to support Asian countries to meet their post-2020 biodiversity targets: complete reporting and the wider adoption "other effective area-based conservation measures"; restoring disturbed landscapes; and bolstering transboundary PAs.

Active versus passive restoration: Forests in the southern Carpathian Mountains as a case study

Active and passive restoration are both increasingly considered as options for nature recovery, with potential to help address the current climate and biodiversity crises. So far, however, there is little practical information on how to gauge the benefits and limitations of each approach, in terms of their effects on large-scale ecosystem composition, structure, and functioning. To address this knowledge gap, this study used satellite remote sensing to investigate changes in land cover and primary productivity within the forests of the Făgăraș Mountains in southern Romania, where large-scale restoration and land abandonment have simultaneously taken place across the past two decades. To our knowledge, this study is the first to contrast the impacts of active and passive restoration within a single landscape on components of ecosystem structure and functioning at such temporal and spatial scales. Results show active restoration activities to be very effective at facilitating the recovery of cleared forests in small parts of the landscapes; but they also highlight substantial areas of natural forest expansion following agricultural abandonment, in line with regional trends. Altogether, our approach clearly illustrates how freely available satellite data can (1) provide vital spatially explicit insights about large-scale and long-term transformations in ecosystem composition, structure and functioning; and (2) help contrast the impacts of restoration approaches on vegetation distribution and dynamics, in ways that complement existing ground-based studies.

Habitat Protection Indexes - new monitoring measures for the conservation of coastal and marine habitats

A worldwide call to implement habitat protection aims to halt biodiversity loss. We constructed an open-source, standardized, and reproducible workflow that calculates two indexes to monitor the extent of coastal and marine habitats within protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. The Local Proportion of Habitats Protected Index (LPHPI) pinpoints the jurisdictions with the greatest opportunity to expand their protected or conserved areas, while the Global Proportion of Habitats Protected Index (GPHPI) showcases which jurisdictions contribute the most area to the protection of these habitats globally. We also evaluated which jurisdictions have the highest opportunity to contribute globally to protecting habitats by meeting a target of 30% coverage. We found that Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) have the greatest potential to do so. Our workflow can also be easily extended to terrestrial and freshwater habitats. These indexes are helpful to monitor aspects of the Sustainable Development Goal 14 and the emerging post-2020 global biodiversity framework, to understand the current status of international cooperation on coastal and marine habitats conservation.

Scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal, milestones and indicators for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework

Despite substantial conservation efforts, the loss of ecosystems continues globally, along with related declines in species and nature's contributions to people. An effective ecosystem goal, supported by clear milestones, targets and indicators, is urgently needed for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and beyond to support biodiversity conservation, the UN Sustainable Development Goals and efforts to abate climate change. Here, we describe the scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal and milestones, founded on a theory of change, and review available indicators to measure progress. An ecosystem goal should include three core components: area, integrity and risk of collapse. Targets-the actions that are necessary for the goals to be met-should address the pathways to ecosystem loss and recovery, including safeguarding remnants of threatened ecosystems, restoring their area and integrity to reduce risk of collapse and retaining intact areas. Multiple indicators are needed to capture the different dimensions of ecosystem area, integrity and risk of collapse across all ecosystem types, and should be selected for their fitness for purpose and relevance to goal components. Science-based goals, supported by well-formulated action targets and fit-for-purpose indicators, will provide the best foundation for reversing biodiversity loss and sustaining human well-being.