An introduction to ‘other effective area‐based conservation measures’ under Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Origin, interpretation and emerging ocean issues

Protected areas are the cornerstones of biodiversity conservation and have never been more relevant than at the present time when the world is facing both a biodiversity and a climate change crisis. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) has been helping to set global standards and best practice guidelines in protected area planning and management for 60 years. Following this guidance, many countries have made significant progress toward their Aichi Target 11 commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The global community will be coming together at the 15th Conference of the Parties of the CBD to set new biodiversity conservation targets for the next decade, as milestones to 2050 and a vision of “a world living in harmony with nature.” This paper lays out the WCPA perspective on priorities for supporting effective protected and conserved areas for the post-2020 era.

A protected areas calling card

Protected areas are widely recognised as a cornerstone of biodiversity management and sustainable development. A large number of global and regional treaties and other instruments promote the establishment of protected areas. Among these, the CBD, with 193 countries as members, is a particularly important endorsement of protected areas. It states that, as far as possible and appropriate, parties shall “ establish a system of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity ”. Other agreements and actions in the international arena also support protected areas. Under this global framework on protected areas, this idea was actively supported by some NGOs, for instance IUCN's WCPA (World Commission on Protected Areas). The WCPA is the major global network of protected areas specialists; its mission is “ to promote the establishment and effective management of a representative world-wide network of terrestrial and marine protected areas ”. Besides this, the fifth IUCN World Parks Congress, which is regarded as a landmark global forum on protected areas, held in Durban in 2003 under the title “Benefits Beyond Boundaries”, aimed to consolidate the role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity, as well as encouraging debate on their role in human development, in the fight against poverty and in moderating the effects of global change. This led to the more formalised process of the CBD's Programme of Work on Protected Areas, adopted in 2004, and still relevant to policy today. It triggered the launch of regional and national protected areas initiatives, and facilitated the documentation of social, economic, cultural, ecological and legal benefits of protected areas. As a result, protected areas have become a major instrument to reduce the rate of worldwide biodiversity loss. This calls for the effectiveness in protected areas management. The CBD's Programme of Work on Protected Areas aimed to help countries meet specific targets on biodiversity. The CBD 2010 Biodiversity Target, which was agreed in April 2002, was the first set of targets. This target was subsequently endorsed by the World Summit on Sustainable Development and the United Nations General Assembly, and was incorporated as a new target under the Millennium Development Goals; however, this target was not met, leading to a reformulation of the Biodiversity Target.

Protected area (PA) coverage is used as an indicator of biodiversity protection worldwide. The effectiveness of using PAs as indicators has been questioned due to the diversity of designations included in such measures, especially those PAs established for other purposes than biodiversity protection. Although international standards have been developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the policies on the ground have been developed independently of the IUCN categories. This makes the use of IUCN categories dubious measures of biodiversity conservation. The World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) developed a framework for the evaluation of management effectiveness of PAs, based on six stages (context, planning, inputs, process, outputs and outcomes). This evaluation method has often been confined to the study of outputs and outcomes. Generally, monitoring of populations and biodiversity has been the most commonly used approach for evaluation, but such evaluations are costly and do not always allow for comparisons of parks. A management plan is crucial for effective management of the parks and for guidance on how biodiversity should be prioritized against other goals. The evaluation of management plans using standardized coding schemes and content analysis is a useful tool that can be reproduced in other studies, allowing comparisons between different parks, regions and countries. In addition, it allows the detection of management weaknesses from the beginning of the protection process. We therefore analyzed the aims and the regulations in management plans of alpine PAs in Spain, as a first step for evaluating the conservation performance. We used content analysis and CAiv to assess how aims and regulations vary in relation to three explanatory factors: IUCN categories, Vegetation Zones and Autonomous Communities. We found the aims of many parks to be vague, without clear indication on how to prioritize biodiversity goals. Furthermore only 45% of the alpine PAs actually have a management plan, which strengthens our argument about unclear guidance of PA management. Although aims could partly be related to IUCN categories, the regulations showed no clear relationship to international policies, which reflects that aims are not necessarily implemented in practice. The overall weak correspondence in management practices among PAs indicated that management is influenced by other factors than international standards. Devolution to Autonomous Communities could be one explanation for the large variation in management practices among parks. The Spanish Constitution passed in 1978 allowed Autonomous Communities declaring and managing PAs and resulted in a sudden declaration of many PAs, and also in a large difference in the development of protection in different parts of the country. In addition, the lack of policies that have coordinated the PA management of central and local governments has probably contributed to the large variation of aims and regulations. We did not find any effect of the alpine versus Mediterranean mountain vegetation zones on management policies. The analysis of management plans shows that clearly defined aims are needed. Aims are, however, not sufficient. Management practices also need to correspond to the prioritizations made in management plans. Obviously there also need to be a management plan for each park to guide prioritizations among a diversity of aims. Information about aims and management practices is needed to apply protected areas coverage as a measure of biodiversity protection. Finally, such evaluations of management plans could not replace the analyses of impacts on biodiversity, but is an important first step in evaluating management effectiveness.

© 2006 Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd 10.1191/0309132506ph591pr I New conservation geographies amid globalization: introduction The worldwide expansion of conservation management areas is often showcased as a major success of modern global environmentalism. Protected-area coverage in particular has undergone extensive enlargements that are being coordinated, financed, implemented and monitored through global organizations (Brechin et al., 2003; Zimmerer et al., 2004). The global institutions supporting protectedarea conservation include the UN (especially UNESCO and the UNDEP, the United Nations Development and Environment Program); the World Bank and regional development banks (eg, the IDB, Inter-American Development Bank); and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The latter range from European-based NGOs that coordinate and promote protected-area conservation, such as the IUCN (the World Conservation Union), the WCMC (World Conservation Monitoring Centre) and the WCPA (World Commission on Protected Areas), to influential Washington-based counterparts, including Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, and the World Resources Institute. The latter’s World Resources reports and those of the IUCN have regularly updated the global status of protected areas, providing valuable sources to those interested in environmental conservation (eg, IUCN, 1985; 1992; WRI and IIED, 1986; WRI, 1990; 1992; 1994; IUCN and WCMC, 1998; IUCN and WCPA, 2001; see also Lightfoot, 1994). This essay explores how cultural ecology and related fields, particularly the cognate approach of political ecology, are developing a variety of interdisciplinary perspectives to offer fresh insights into the worldwide expansion of conservation areas. (The present essay is the second on topics unfolding at the interface of cultural ecology and political ecology; see also Zimmerer, 2004.) A variety of new geographical conditions is integral to the growth of conservation areas through globalization, with the ensuing intensification of nature-society interactions in this arena (Zimmerer, 2000; 2006; Neumann, 2004a; 2005). Recent contributions suggest that the worldwide expansion of the conservation Progress reports

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is involved in the implementation of an international Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) (UNEP: Developing international payments for environmental services: a technical discussion (Background Paper), 2006) mechanism, namely “Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation in the developing countries and the conservation, sustainable forest management and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks in the developing countries” (REDD+). However, the laws of the DRC are insufficient to achieve a sustainable PES and REDD+ implementation. Based on indicators on land tenure security, classical conditions of contracts, 3E+ REDD+ criteria and measures on conservation and restoration, this chapter analyses the laws related to PES in force in the DRC in order to obtain a more sustainable preservation of ecosystem services. The chapter focuses on four ecosystem services: carbon sequestration and storage, biodiversity protection, watershed protection and landscape beauty. Several criteria have been applied to assess the potential of the DRC PES laws to promote a sustainable preservation of ecosystems and ecosystem services. A first set of well-known criteria are the 3 E+ REDD+ criteria, which entails that to achieve a successful REDD+ implementation, the REDD+ project should be effective, costly efficient, equitable and bring co-benefits. Effectiveness refers to the achievement of environmental goals. Cost efficiency means that the project should attempt to reach the environmental goals through reasonable financial means. Equity fits with the inclusive capacity of the project. Four co-benefits are distinguished, namely biodiversity conservation, governance, adaptation of climate change and improvement of social conditions. Secondly, this chapter refers to classical contract conditions from French and Belgian Civil Law inherited by Congolese Civil Law. These conditions are the consent of the parties, the capacity of parties, the existence of an object and the legal purpose. Thirdly, the chapter refers to the indicators on conservation and restoration measures and on land tenure security (property right titles and clear borders). The chapter demonstrates that there is a need to update or enforce the existing laws related to PES applied in the DRC in order to increase the preservation of ecosystem services. The chapter argues that the transformation of the existing laws would positively influence the implementation of SDG 13 and 15.

To Achieve Big Wins for Terrestrial Conservation, Prioritize Protection of Ecoregions Closest to Meeting Targets

ABSTRACTIn 2010, Contracting Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted the so‐called ‘Aichi targets’ in order to achieve global biodiversity conservation. Target 11 specifically provides that ‘by 2020 (…) at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas (…) are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well‐connected systems of protected areas and other effective area‐based conservation measures’. This objective is currently far from being reached since less than 3% of the ocean has been designated as marine protected areas (MPAs).In areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) in particular, with less than 0.5% protected, there is no mechanism aimed at creating internationally‐recognized MPAs and the initiatives launched by regional organizations, although promising, have limitations.ABNJ are nevertheless facing increasing human pressures and it is therefore appropriate and pressing to designate a comprehensive and representative network of MPAs in these areas. This paper analyses the current efforts conducted to better conserve marine biodiversity in ABNJ and identifies enabling conditions for meeting the Aichi Target 11. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) adopted a de‰nition that describes a protected area as clearly de‰ned geographical space, recognized, dedicated, and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values (Dudley 2008). In general, protected lands include areas such as national parks, national forests, national seashores, all levels of natural reserves, wildlife refuges and sanctuaries, and designated areas for conservation of native biological diversity and natural and cultural heritage and signi‰cance. Protected lands also include some of the last frontiers that have unique landscape characteristics and ecosystem functions. Along the shoreline and over the ocean and sea, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has de‰ned marine-protected areas (MPAs) as any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated ˜ora, fauna, and historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or the entire enclosed environment (Kelleher 1999). As reported by the World Database onCONTENTS1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................1 1.2 Remote Sensing of Changing Landscape of Protected Lands ................5 1.3 Remote Sensing for Inventory, Mapping, and ConservationPlanning of Protected Lands and Waters ...................................................9 1.4 Remote Sensing of Frontier Lands ............................................................ 13 1.5 Remote Sensing in Decision Support for Managementof Protected Lands ....................................................................................... 16 1.6 Concluding Remarks ................................................................................... 17 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................ 19 References ............................................................................................................... 20Protected Areas (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2010), as of 2009, worldwide approximately 13% of the lands are designated as protected areas and about 0.8% waters along the shoreline and over the ocean are set as MPAs. In the United States, 14.81% of the terrestrial lands have been set as protected, and along the shoreline and over the ocean 24.75% of the terrestrial waters up to 12 nautical miles are set as MPAs. Protected lands and waters serve as the fundamental building blocks of virtually all national and international conservation strategies, supported by governments and international institutions. Those provide the core of efforts to protect the world’s threatened species and are increasingly recognized as essential providers of ecosystem services and biological resources; key components in climate change mitigation strategies; and in some cases also vehicles for protecting threatened human communities or sites of great cultural and spiritual value (Dudley 2008).

Aichi Target 11 of the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity commits countries to the effective conservation of areas of importance for biodiversity, through protected areas and “other effective area‐based conservation measures” (OECMs). However, the prevalence and characteristics of OECMs are poorly known, particularly in sites of importance for biodiversity. We assess the prevalence of potential OECMs in 740 terrestrial Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) outside known or mapped protected areas across ten countries. A majority of unprotected KBAs (76.5%) were at least partly covered by one or more potential OECMs. The conservation of ecosystem services or biodiversity was a stated management aim in 73% of these OECMs. Local or central government bodies managed the highest number of potential OECMs, followed by local and indigenous communities and private landowners. There was no difference between unprotected KBAs with or without OECMs in forest loss or in a number of state‐pressure‐response metrics.

Protected areas (PAs) are considered the cornerstone of biodiversity conservation (Chape et al., 2005), and according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), are defined as “A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long'term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley, 2008). The IUCN set the first ‘target’ for protection, by agreeing at the 1992 World Parks Congress in Caracas, Venezuela, that PAs should cover a minimum of 10% of each biome by 2000. There are now over 120,000 PAs worldwide, taking into account both those classified under any of the six IUCN management categories, and those not classified, including private reserves and community'conserved areas (UNEP'WCMC, 2008). The overall trend in the total surface of PAs has been steadily upward during the last few decades in all regions of the world, but has been leveling off somewhat since 2000 (Fig. 1). Recognising the importance of PAs to global efforts to halt biodiversity loss, in late 2010 at the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 10th Conference of Parties in Japan, twenty targets were set for biodiversity conservation (‘Aichi Targets’). These include a global increase of terrestrial and inland water PAs to 17% (from 13%) by 2020, and coastal and marine PAs from 1% to 10% in the same period (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010). Despite this growth, however, the effectiveness of PAs in conserving habitats and species cannot simply be interpreted as the result of their number and size as it also depends on their location, structure (size, shape, connectivity) and, of equal importance, their management (Cantu'Salazar & Gaston, 2010; Rodrigues et al., 2004). Traditionally, a top' down approach was employed to PA establishment and management which excluded local participation (Ervin et al., 2010; Kiss, 1990; Stevens, 1997). As a result, people whose livelihoods chiefly involve the direct exploitation of local natural resources often come into conflict with the institutions of PAs. Frequently, communities living in and around PAs have important and longstanding relationships with these areas that embrace inter alia cultural identity and subsistence practices essential to sustaining livelihoods, and often contribute to maintenance of biodiversity (Anthony & Bellinger, 2007). Consequently, PAs

Beyond Biodiversity Conservation: Why Policy Needs Social Theory, Social Theory Needs Justice, and Justice Needs Policy

Protected areas (PA) play a crucial role in preserving global biodiversity and ecosystem services. They ensure the protection of endemic species, preserve sensitive environments, and, in some cases, contribute to the livelihoods of local communities. Currently, there are 265,908 protected areas across 245 countries and territories, covering 16.64% of the planet's land and 7.74% of its marine areas. This article compares national legislation on PA in Brazil and Italy, evaluating their alignment with IUCN standards. In Brazil, Law No. 9,985/00, which establishes the National System of Conservation Units (SNUC), regulates protected areas, while in Italy, Law 394/91 guides the classification and management of these areas. The classifications of both countries were analyzed based on the framework established by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and its World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). Brazil's nomenclature shows greater similarity to the IUCN standard, although it is not fully adopted, and includes a greater number of classifications than the standard. Italy strictly follows the exact number of categories established by IUCN criteria and has a nomenclature that largely differs from the IUCN standard. Adopting a more standardized nomenclature between countries facilitates international comparisons and promotes a more effective exchange of knowledge on management practices.

Every decade, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) convenes a World Parks Congress (WPC), in conjunction with the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). The sixth WP...

European protected areas go upmarket