Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

Other effective area–based conservation measures (OECMs) are anticipated to play an important role in progress towards global protection targets, with progress being judged on the basis of the areas reported to the World Database on Other Effective area‐based Conservation Measures (WD‐OECM). Given concerns that OECMs may be designated inappropriately, in this study we asked what evidence has been provided to show that sites have been assessed against the criteria to be OECMs. We found <5% of the 6,482 sites in the dataset provide supporting information of any kind, and 2.2% of sites have features that conflict with the definition of an OECM. Although our results cannot determine if sites genuinely meet the criteria to be recognized as OECMs, they reveal a significant issue with the ability to verify whether sites should be in the WD‐OECM. To increase the credibility of OECMs, we recommend sites be classed as unconfirmed until they can demonstrate they meet the relevant criteria.

Designating protected and conserved areas is a critical component of biodiversity conservation. The 10th Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2010 set global targets for the areal extent of protected areas (PAs) that were met partially in 2020, yet a new, more ambitious target is needed to halt ongoing global biodiversity loss. China recently introduced a national Ecological Conservation Redline policy, which aims to ensure no net change in land cover and no net loss of biodiversity or degradation of ecosystem services within areas that are critical for maintaining ecological safety and functions. Enacting this policy could achieve ancillary conservation outcomes even where conservation is not the primary objective, thus meeting CBD's definition of “other effective area‐based conservation measures” (OECM). By comparing the Ecological Conservation Redline boundaries with important coastal waterbird sites in China, we found that three times more sites could be conserved under the new redline policy compared to the national nature reserve system alone. This indicates that considering the redline policy approach as a form of OECM is a promising pathway to expand the areal coverage of PAs and conserve biodiversity outside currently designated PAs, providing a model that could be adopted around the world.

Other effective area‐based conservation measures (OECMs) create opportunities for a wide range of area‐based conservation strategies. As countries seek to integrate OECMs into conservation planning, it is useful to consider the types of areas that might meet the formal criteria. To support this goal, I analyzed the different types of measures discussed as possible OECMs in the literature, identifying a wide range of measures, far more diverse than those currently recognized as OECMs. There was a strong emphasis on measures with conservation as a secondary management objective, with most studies being supportive of the potential to balance biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource use. However, many studies have highlighted the need to ensure biodiversity outcomes are achieved and sustained, and that appropriate governance and management structures are in place. Concerns were raised about measures associated with resource extraction, such as fisheries and forestry, which were often considered incompatible with conservation. Very few studies offered a nuanced discussion of specific measures or evaluated whether sites offer conservation outcomes, leaving clear knowledge gaps in translating speculation into evidence. Nevertheless, the current literature offers a strong starting point from which to target potential case studies to build the evidence base necessary to advance OECMs.

Global peatlands store more carbon than all the world's forests biomass on just 3% of the planet's land surface. Failure to address mounting threats to peatland ecosystems will jeopardize critical climate targets and exacerbate biodiversity loss. Our analysis reveals that 17% of peatlands are protected globally—substantially less than many other high‐value ecosystems. Just 11% percent of boreal and 27% of temperate and tropical peatlands are protected, while Indigenous peoples' lands encompass at least another one‐quarter of peatlands globally. Peatlands in protected areas and Indigenous peoples' lands generally face lower human pressure than outside those areas. Yet, almost half of temperate and tropical peatlands in protected areas still experience medium to high human pressure. Country submissions of Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement and National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans under the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework could help catalyze actions and secure funding for peatland conservation, including support for the Indigenous stewardship that is critical to protect many of the world's highest priority peatland areas.

With the Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), the international community has committed to retaining ecosystems of high ecological integrity. Monitoring progress toward this target requires the identification of suitable indicators, but these are not universally recognized. In this study, we analyze available global maps of terrestrial ecological integrity and evaluate their representation of different dimensions of integrity (structure, composition, and function). Although 73% of terrestrial surface holds conservation value according to at least one map, less than 1% of land attains high integrity according to all of them. Solely relying on one indicator map risks overlooking the integrity value of at least 41 million km2 of land, with some key areas for biodiversity conservation inadequately represented by these indicators of integrity. However, when used in combination, complementary dimensions of integrity help identify an area covering 41.1% of the terrestrial surface, two‐thirds requiring urgent conservation action. The synergistic use of existing measures offers considerable potential to guide the implementation of Target 1 of the GBF while supporting more equitable conservation paradigms. Developing robust indicators and understanding the link among different ecological dimensions is essential to protect ecosystems of high ecological integrity in the long term.

Calls to increase the global area under protection for conservation assume existing conservation areas are effective but, without adequate investment, they may not be. We collected survey data from expert respondents on perceived budgets, management, and threats for 516 protected areas and community conservation areas in savannah Africa to create a ConservationArea Performance Index. Combining this index with an indicative biodiversity outcome—population status of African lion, Panthera leo—we found that 82% of the sampled area was in a state of failure or deterioration, with only 10% in a state of success or recovery. A large proportion of succeeding or recovering conservation areas received external support through collaborative management partnerships. That Africa’s current conservation area network—the foundation of conservation efforts—is crumbling complicates proposed strategies to protect additional land. We contend that investing in the effective management of existing conservation areas— potentially through well-structured collaborative management partnerships— should be prioritized urgently.

Protected areas (PAs) are a key strategy for conserving areas of outstanding biodiversity value and promoting sustainable development. Significant efforts have been made toward establishing PAs over the last few decades across the globe. However, an assessment of PAs in mountain regions, including in the biodiversity rich Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH), is lacking. We assessed the status, trend, and distribution of PAs and the ecological representativeness in the PA network. Our analysis showed the HKH has a total of 575 PAs covering 40.17% of the region, accounting for 8.49% of global PA coverage. The HKH hosts 335 Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs), 348 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), 12 Global 200 Ecoregions, and 4 Global Biodiversity Hotspots. However, the study showed limited ecological representation in the current PA system as 67% of ecoregions, 39% of hotspots, 69% of KBAs, and 76% of IBAs are still outside of the PA system. About 47% of the PAs are small (<250 sq. km) with no connectivity to other PAs and the majority are distributed in the lower reaches of the HKH. These findings suggest the need to assess and demarcate potential corridors to improve connectivity between PAs and integrate PAs into wider conservation landscapes at national and regional scale beyond country boundaries through regional cooperation. There is also a need to assess and strengthen PA management effectiveness and governance and consider other effective area‐based conservation measures especially in the higher elevations and with a specific focus on ecological representation. The Hindu Kush Himalaya has a total of 575 protected areas (PAs) covering 40.17% of the region, accounting for 8.49% of global PA coverage. The region rich in biodiversity with 335 Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBA), 348 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA), 12 Global 200 Ecoregions, and 4 Global Biodiversity Hotspots has, however, limited ecological representation in PA system. Findings suggest the need to assess and demarcate potential corridors to improve connectivity between PAs and integrate PAs into wider conservation landscapes at national and regional scale beyond country boundaries through regional cooperation.

Area-based fisheries management measures (ABFMs) are commonly related to the sustainable use of resources but are increasingly considered broader conservation measures. This Scoping Review (ScR) identified and mapped the evidence base regarding the contribution of ABFMs to fisheries sustainability and marine conservation. The ScR was conducted following the JBI methodology and the PRISMA statement. A total of 2,391 documents were identified, and following a two-stage screening process, 151 documents were eventually included in the ScR for full review and data extraction. Most of the documents were published during the last 12 years. Studies had a wide geographical distribution (mainly located in Europe and North America), were primarily conducted at the subnational level, concerned fishing restrictions of towed gears, and assessed ABFMs from a single stock’s perspective. ABFMs identified were of various types, and the use of terminology was not consistent in the literature. Multiple combinations of data collection (primarily experimental surveys/sampling and open data sources) and analysis methods (most commonly, fisheries and ecological analyses and modelling) were applied (often in combination), using a variety of different metrics. Various knowledge gaps emerged, mainly related to the study of ABFMs networks and the application of an interdisciplinary and ecosystem-based approach for assessing ABFMs. The social, economic, and environmental impact of ABFMs was positive in most cases (56%) and in less cases negative (22%) or mixed (14%). This ScR is a valuable source of information for the contribution of ABFMs to rebuilding marine ecosystems and attaining CBD conservation targets through the lens of the OECM concept.

Measuring connectivity is key to track progress toward broad conservation goals, such as the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity's proposed Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. The framework includes an area‐based target for the protection of 30% of lands and seas globally—through well‐connected systems of protected areas. Although the field of connectivity science has grown rapidly, limited progress has been made in tracking conservation connectivity in practice. This is in part due to the lack of a standardizing framework to clarify different purposes, approaches, and datasets—particularly in differentiating a metric from its application within a broader connectivity framework—as well as a benchmark to quantitatively compare alternative approaches. To address this science‐practice gap, we developed a novel metric of connectivity called the Protected Network metric (ProNet). ProNet is designed to assess the structural connectivity of a protected area network in a way that can be easily described, clearly communicated, and rapidly computed at high resolution. We evaluated how ProNet adheres to fundamental conservation science principles using a library of hypothetical landscapes, compared it to two commonly used existing connectivity metrics, and demonstrated its performance in assessing connectivity for a set of real‐world landscapes selected across the gradient of human modification. More broadly, ProNet is a powerful tool to galvanize emerging connectivity conservation as a countermeasure to increasing fragmentation of global ecosystems. Measuring connectivity is key to track progress toward area‐based targets for the protection of well‐connected protected area networks, such as 30% of lands and seas globally. We developed a novel metric of connectivity called the Protected Network metric (ProNet), designed to assess the structural connectivity of a protected area network in a way that can be easily described, clearly communicated, and rapidly computed. We evaluated how ProNet adheres to fundamental conservation science principles using a library of hypothetical landscapes and demonstrated its performance in assessing connectivity for a set of real‐world landscapes selected across the gradient of human modification.