Efficient expansion of global protected areas requires simultaneous planning for species and ecosystems.

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

The fundamental role of conservation science is to provide land managers and policy-makers with evidence-based practical guidance. Conservation decisions are usually made with limited information and tight budgets. This dictates the need for efficiency and cost-effective actions. Basically, efficiency is the ratio between benefit and cost. The larger the ratio (compared to other systems) the higher the efficiency of that system. When calculating efficiency, benefits and costs are usually in the same currency. In this thesis, cost-effectiveness is the ratio of a non-economic benefit relative to an economic or semi-economic (e.g. area of land) cost. Using decision science and defining objectives (such as achieving certain conservation targets) of the conservation problem we are addressing, can help us find better actions. Once the objectives of the problem are established, decision makers need to decide what features of biodiversity – genes, species, habitat– we intend to benefit. Different conservation problems involve different kinds of biodiversity features, which can represent different levels of coarseness (e.g. single species versus multiple; species versus ecosystems, etc.); each will have different financial costs and biodiversity benefits. However, the cost-effectiveness of choosing conservation features at different levels of coarseness is not well studied. As such, the overarching questions of my thesis are: How does the cost-effectiveness of the conservation outcomes change with the use of different fine- and coarse-scale biodiversity features as target? What are the trade-offs between biodiversity benefit and conservation cost involved when applying fine- and coarse-scale conservation efforts? To examine these questions, I investigated the cost-effectiveness of conservation planning for two major conservation problems: 1) mitigating the effects of roads on wildlife (Chapters 2-3); and 2) the planning of protected area networks (Chapters 4-5). I explored the cost-effectiveness of several aspects of planning at different scales: single species (Chapter 2); from single to multiple species (Chapter 3) and from multispecies to a set of focal species (Chapter 3); and planning at both the multispecies and multi-ecosystem levels (Chapters 4-5). The negative impact of roads on wildlife is a major problem worldwide. The two main direct effects are mortality due to animal-vehicle collision and reduced connectivity due to fragmentation. Mitigation measures such as fences and wildlife passages can be used to reduce these effects, however they are expensive. The limitation of available conservation funds indicates the need for cost-effective solutions using decision science to decide which mitigation measures to use and where to place them. As such, I first mathematically formulated the problem of which road mitigation measures to place where, for the conservation of the threatened koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) population in the Koala Coast of south-east Queensland (Chapter 2). Each budget step had an optimal mitigation configuration. However, the linear shape of the trade-off curve between expected population size (the biodiversity benefit) and mitigation cost indicates that there is no clear “win-win” (low cost-high benefit) solution for protecting koala populations through road mitigation management. In Chapter 3, I used the problem formulation from Chapter 2 in combination with a metapopulation mean time-to-extinction model to find optimal mitigation solutions for multiple species. I also compared the cost-effectiveness of using focal species (with selected life history traits) to that of the multispecies analysis. I found that the multispecies analysis was more cost-effective than planning separately for each species. However, using the focal species with the largest home range can provide adequate results and can be used when time or funding are limited and decisions need to be made in a hurry. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) aims to protect the world’s biodiversity by expanding the current protected area network to comprise 17% of the Earth’s terrestrial area using ecosystem-based targets (Target 11) and preventing the extinction of known threatened species (Target 12). While both targets use protected areas, Target 11 is the main driver for the CBD’s expansion plan. However, the cost-effectiveness of the CBD’s guidelines of using ecosystem-based targets to effectively represent threatened species has not been adequately investigated. In Chapter 4, I used Australia as a case study to test how well ecosystem-based targets protect threatened species, and compared the cost-effectiveness of planning for species and ecosystems separately and simultaneously. I used species-specific targets for 1,320 threatened species and a 10% target for each one of Australia’s 85 bioregions. I discovered that, following the CBD’s ecosystem-based approach for protected area expansion, the outcome would be inadequate and inefficient for representation of threatened species. Even filling in the gaps for threatened species protection later (coarse- then fine-scale) proved to be an inefficient strategy, while the reverse (fine- then coarse-scale) was almost as cost-effective as planning for both simultaneously. In Chapter 5, I extended this problem to explore the trade-off curves between the target sizes of these two conservation features within several protected area networks of different sizes. These curves can be used as a planning tool for countries that have either geographical or monetary limitations. Depending on their needs, countries can use the trade-off curves to place more or less emphasis on either ecosystems or species when planning protected areas. This research is one of the first to address feature-objective coarseness in conservation planning. The methods develop here allows decision makers to understand the cost-effectiveness and trade-offs involved with engaging with different levels of biodiversity features’ coarseness. The two problems I address are current and pressing issues in conservation. The conclusions of my research show that: (i) Using all available data on the targeted biodiversity features will generate the most cost-effective solutions. (ii) Large-scale environmental surrogates or focal species might be used when monetary or time limitations prevail but are less cost-effective. (iii) Understanding the necessary trade-offs within the planning process can help decision scientists and planners to make informed choices about how to invest limited conservation resources, taking advantage of near win-win solutions where they exist.

Anthropogenic activities explained the difference in exotic plants invasion between protected and non-protected areas at a northern subtropics biodiversity hotspot

Distribution and management of invasive alien plant species in protected areas in Central Europe

Underprotected Marine Protected Areas in a Global Biodiversity Hotspot

Author SummaryUnder the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), governments have agreed to ambitious targets for expanding the global protected area network that could drive the greatest surge in new protected areas in history. They have also agreed to arrest the decline of known threatened species. However, existing protected areas perform poorly for coverage of threatened species, with only 15% of threatened vertebrates being adequately represented. Moreover, we find that if future protected area expansion continues in a business-as-usual fashion, threatened species coverage will increase only marginally. This is because low-cost priorities for meeting the CBD targets have little overlap with priorities for threatened species coverage. Here we propose a method for averting this outcome, by linking threatened species coverage to protected area expansion. Our analyses clearly demonstrate that considerable increases in protected area coverage of species could be achieved at minimal additional cost. Exploiting this opportunity will require directly linking the CBD targets on protected areas and threatened species, thereby formalizing the interdependence of these key commitments.

Among the greatest challenges facing the conservation of plants and animal species in protected areas are threats from a rapidly changing climate. An altered climate creates both challenges and opportunities for improving the management of protected areas in networks. Increasingly, quantitative tools like species distribution modeling are used to assess the performance of protected areas and predict potential responses to changing climates for groups of species, within a predictive framework. At larger geographic domains and scales, protected area network units have spatial geoclimatic properties that can be described in the gap analysis typically used to measure or aggregate the geographic distributions of species (stacked species distribution models, or S-SDM). We extend the use of species distribution modeling techniques in order to model the climate envelope (or “footprint”) of individual protected areas within a network of protected areas distributed across the 48 conterminous United States and managed by the US National Park System. In our approach we treat each protected area as the geographic range of a hypothetical endemic species, then use MaxEnt and 5 uncorrelated BioClim variables to model the geographic distribution of the climatic envelope associated with each protected area unit (modeling the geographic area of park units as the range of a species). We describe the individual and aggregated climate envelopes predicted by a large network of 163 protected areas and briefly illustrate how macroecological measures of geodiversity can be derived from our analysis of the landscape ecological context of protected areas. To estimate trajectories of change in the temporal distribution of climatic features within a protected area network, we projected the climate envelopes of protected areas in current conditions onto a dataset of predicted future climatic conditions. Our results suggest that the climate envelopes of some parks may be locally unique or have narrow geographic distributions, and are thus prone to future shifts away from the climatic conditions in these parks in current climates. In other cases, some parks are broadly similar to large geographic regions surrounding the park or have climatic envelopes that may persist into near-term climate change. Larger parks predict larger climatic envelopes, in current conditions, but on average the predicted area of climate envelopes are smaller in our single future conditions scenario. Individual units in a protected area network may vary in the potential for climate adaptation, and adaptive management strategies for the network should account for the landscape contexts of the geodiversity or climate diversity within individual units. Conservation strategies, including maintaining connectivity, assessing the feasibility of assisted migration and other landscape restoration or enhancements can be optimized using analysis methods to assess the spatial properties of protected area networks in biogeographic and macroecological contexts.

Protected areas are a key conservation tool, yet their effectiveness at maintaining biodiversity through time is rarely quantified. Here, we assess protected area effectiveness across sampled portions of Great Britain (primarily England) using regionalized (protected vs unprotected areas) Bayesian occupancy-detection models for 1238 invertebrate species at 1 km resolution, based on ~1 million occurrence records between 1990 and 2018. We quantified species richness, species trends, and compositional change (temporal beta diversity; decomposed into losses and gains). We report results overall, for two functional groups (pollinators and predators), and for rare and common species. Whilst we found that protected areas have 15 % more species on average than unprotected ones, declines in occupancy are of similar magnitude and species composition has changed 27 % across protected and unprotected areas, with losses dominating gains. Pollinators have suffered particularly severe declines. Still, protected areas are colonized by more locally-novel pollinator species than unprotected areas, suggesting that they might act as ‘landing pads’ for range-shifting pollinators. We find almost double the number of rare species in protected areas (although rare species trends are similar in protected and unprotected areas); whereas we uncover disproportionately steep declines for common species within protected areas. Our results highlight strong invertebrate reorganization and loss across both protected and unprotected areas. We therefore call for more effective protected areas, in combination with wider action, to bend the curve of biodiversity loss – where we provide a toolkit to quantify effectiveness. We must grasp the opportunity to effectively conserve biodiversity through time.

Protected areas are one of the main tools for halting the continuing global biodiversity crisis caused by habitat loss, fragmentation and other anthropogenic pressures. According to the Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity, the protected area network should be expanded to at least 17% of the terrestrial world by 2020 (http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets). To maximize conservation outcomes, it is crucial to identify the best expansion areas. Here we show that there is a very high potential to increase protection of ecoregions and vertebrate species by expanding the protected area network, but also identify considerable risk of ineffective outcomes due to land-use change and uncoordinated actions between countries. We use distribution data for 24,757 terrestrial vertebrates assessed under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 'red list of threatened species', and terrestrial ecoregions (827), modified by land-use models for the present and 2040, and introduce techniques for global and balanced spatial conservation prioritization. First, we show that with a coordinated global protected area network expansion to 17% of terrestrial land, average protection of species ranges and ecoregions could triple. Second, if projected land-use change by 2040 (ref. 11) takes place, it becomes infeasible to reach the currently possible protection levels, and over 1,000 threatened species would lose more than 50% of their present effective ranges worldwide. Third, we demonstrate a major efficiency gap between national and global conservation priorities. Strong evidence is shown that further biodiversity loss is unavoidable unless international action is quickly taken to balance land-use and biodiversity conservation. The approach used here can serve as a framework for repeatable and quantitative assessment of efficiency, gaps and expansion of the global protected area network globally, regionally and nationally, considering current and projected land-use pressures.

Assessing invasive terrestrial plant species in protected areas is of major importance, taking into consideration the role they play as key drivers in conserving biological diversity. The paper is aiming to argue the Invasive Terrestrial Plant Species (ITPS) in the Romanian protected areas with a special focus on the species Fallopia japonica in the Maramures Mountains Natural Park. Fallopia japonica, also known as Polygonum cuspidatum or Reynoutria japonica is an herbaceous perennial plant, largely occupying the riparian ecosystems and causing serious damages to native vegetation. The species is broadly regarded as one of the most invasive plant species in Europe, also listed by the World Conservation Union as one of the world’s one hundred worst plant invaders. The paper seeks to analyze the potential spread of Fallopia japonica in a protected area-Maramures Mountains Natural Park - V IUCN category as well as Natura 2000 site (SPA and SCI) integrating comprehensive statistical and field data with modern computing methods (GIS-based). Consequently, based on accurate mapping and field investigation of Fallopia japonica in the study-area, the authors were able to identify specie’s main ecological requirements and preferences, spreading conditions etc. The current research will have great contribution to undertaking further studies on invasive terrestrial plant species development, distribution potential and impact upon native habitats.

Systematic conservation planning has a substantial theoretical underpinning that allows optimization of tradeoffs between biodiversity conservation and other socioeconomic goals. However, this theory assumes perfect spatial information about the locations of biodiversity features (e.g., species distributions). In practice, planners represent well‐known taxa and other biodiversity “surrogates” in protected area systems, hoping that unmapped species will also be conserved. However, empirical research finds that surrogates predict species presence imperfectly, and sometimes rather poorly, at scales relevant to planning, and existing theory provides no further guidance. We developed new theory, explicitly incorporating aspects of spatial scale, for the representation problem when the locations of species distributions are unknown. Using probability theory and simulated and real species distributions, we found that the probability of adequately representing an unmapped species in a protected area system will be low unless the total fraction of the region being protected is larger than the species representation target. Furthermore, successful conservation depended critically on the relative sizes of the species distribution and of the individual protected areas; fewer, larger protected areas allowed the entire species distribution to fall into an unprotected gap. This scale‐dependence varied with the configuration of the protected area system, with the conservation objective most likely to be attained if the individual protected areas were hyperdispersed (evenly spaced across the planning region). Using these results, we developed three design principles for representing unmapped species in protected areas: (1) The fraction of the region placed in protected areas should be substantially larger than the species‐level representation target; (2) Individual protected areas must be at least one to two orders of magnitude smaller than the unmapped species' distribution; and (3) Protected areas should be evenly dispersed over geographic space. We also performed preliminary investigations of the effects of surrogates and socio‐economic cost data on the probability of adequately representing unmapped species, finding that the primary effect of surrogates may simply be to promote hyperdispersion of protected areas across the planning region, and that seeking to minimize opportunity costs gives poorer conservation results than random protected area placement.

Networks of protected areas are fundamental for biodiversity conservation, but many factors determine their conservation efficiency. In particular, on top of other human-driven disturbances, invasions by non-native species can cause habitat and biodiversity loss. Jointly understanding what drives patterns of plant diversity and of non-native species in protected areas is therefore a priority. We tested whether the richness and composition of native and non-native plant species within a network of protected areas follow similar patterns across spatial scales. Specifically, we addressed three questions: (a) what is the degree of congruence in species richness between native and non-native species? (b) do changes in the composition of non-native species across ecological gradients reflect a similar turnover of native species along the same gradients ? (c) what are the main environmental and human disturbance drivers controlling species richness in these two groups of species? Species richness and composition of native and non-native plant species were compared at two spatial scales: the plot scale (10 m × 10 m) and the Protected Area scale (PA). In addition, we fit Generalized Linear Models to identify the most important drivers of native and non-native species richness at each scale, focusing on environmental conditions (climate, topography) and on the main sources of human disturbance in the area (land use and roads). We found a significant positive correlation between the turnover of native and non-native species composition at both plot and PA scales, whereas their species richness was only correlated at the larger PA scale. The lack of congruence between the richness of native and non-native species at the plot scale was likely driven by differential responses to fine scale environmental factors, with non-natives favoring drier climates and milder slopes (climate and slope). In addition, more non-native species were found closer to road-ways in the reserve network. In contrast, the congruence in the richness of native and non-native species at the broader PA scale was mainly driven by the common influence of PA area, but also by similar responses of the two groups of species to climatic heterogeneity. Thus, our study highlights the strong spatial dependence of the relationship between native and non-native species richness and of their responses to environmental variation. Taken together, our results suggest that within the study region the introduction and establishment of non-native species would be more likely in warmer and dryer areas, with high native species richness at large spatial scale but intermediate levels of anthropogenic disturbances and mild slope inclinations and elevation at fine scale. Such an exhaustive understanding of the factors that influence the spread of non-native species, especially in networks of protected areas is crucial to inform conservation managers on how to control or curb non-native species.

The scientific consensus is that biodiversity is under increasing threat from habitat loss, climate change and pollution. The challenge to protect areas of high biodiversity value is gaining profile and the issue is not going to go away. Increasingly, society is expecting the oil/gas industry to make a broader contribution to solving the issue and increasingly industry wants to make that contribution. Hydrocarbon resources required to meet future demand for affordable energy are often located in protected or sensitive areas, which can give rise to tensions around competing land use. At the heart of the issue is the call to establish a universal system of protected areas. Protected areas was a key theme at the World Parks Congress in September 2003 and will also feature in the 7th Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in February 2004. Government signatories to the CBD are required to establish areas to protect biodiversity as part of their obligations under international law. There are a number of global systems for designating protected areas. World Heritage Sites are designed to protect areas of outstanding universal value and are also part of government's international obligations. Oil and gas activities are not considered compatible with the objectives of such sites. The UN List of National Parks and Protected Areas is classified into six categories by the World Conservation Union (IUCN). The Category System was not designed to define where industry should and should not operate, but is increasingly being used to determine land use options, although this system lacks the clear rules and procedures that characterise the World Heritage Convention. Then there are other protected areas systems such as Ramsar (for wetlands) or man and biosphere reserves. Governments may also put in place regional or national regulatory frameworks such as the European Union Habitats and Birds Directives (Natura 200 sites). Less formal are areas or regions that have been prioritised by various conservation organisations - these differ according to the criteria used by the organisation. There is a lack of trust between the conservation community and business. Some NGOs are willing to engage, but are coming under pressure to deliver benefits to conservation. Others are more adversarial. Financial institutions are also enquiring about company policy with respect to operating in protected areas. All these factors will affect us. We therefore need to position ourselves to manage this issue in the long term. The paper will outline the case for action, the recent developments within and key challenges faced by the Shell Group - particularly Shell EP, and the key features of its approach.

Multifaceted patterns of protected area (PA) expansion are reviewed considering: i) the increase in PA number and coverage; ii) distribution and extent of important bird areas (IBAs); and iii) distribution and coverage of global biodiversity hotspots and the Global 200 Ecoregions that fall within the Hindu Kush-Himalayas (HKH). The analysis revealed that biodiversity conservation is a priority for the eight regional member countries of the HKH, who have established 488 PAs over the last 89 years (1918 to 2007). The eight countries sharing the HKH have committed 39% of this total geographical area to the PA network and 11% to IBAs, which is quite significant when compared to the global target of 10%. There has been an increasing trend in PA establishment over the last four decades. The PA coverage within the HKH of China alone is significant (35.5%), followed by India (1.46%) and Nepal (0.58%). When IUCN management categories are considered, the majority of PAs belong to Category V (39%), followed by Category IV (29%). Only 0.6% of PAs are managed as Category I, and, in recent years, Categories V and VI have increased. Of the total HKH geographical area, 32% is covered by four global biodiversity hotspots and 62% by the Global 200 Ecoregions. However, only 25% of the global biodiversity hotspots and 40% of the Global 200 Ecoregions are part of the PA network. There are still numerous gaps in conservation in the HKH. Coordinated and committed efforts are required to bring other critical habitats within the PA network in the HKH.

Establishing systems of protected areas (PAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) is a key strategy to reversing biodiversity loss (CBD SBSTA, 2021; Maxwell et al., 2020). As part of its mandate to safeguard biodiversity, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) provided clear international targets on establishing PAs and OECMs in 2010. Aichi Target 11 called for the protection of 10% of marine and 17% of terrestrial areas globally (CBD, 2010). These percentages were interim targets to encourage ambition while ensuring tractability and not necessarily based on conservation needs (Woodley et al. 2019). There is general consensus that the percentages behind Target 11 were insufficient to protect all important aspects of Earth's biodiversity. Proposed replacement percentages range from 28% to 80%, depending on the desired outcome (Butchart et al., 2015, Dinerstein et al. 2019, Woodley et al. 2019, Jones et al., 2020). As the CBD finalizes its post-2020 strategic plan - the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) - there is consensus that it must include more ambitious area-based targets paired with stronger implementation mechanisms (Visconti et al., 2019; Maxwell et al., 2020). Most lessons learned from the outcomes of Aichi Target 11 relate to the suitability of its environmental targets, potentially obscuring how it affected social equity (the absence of avoidable and unfair cost and benefit distributions) (McDermott et al., 2013). The power to implement CBD targets lies with countries through their national biodiversity strategic and action plans (NBSAPs). Whether targets are achieved equitably depends on decision-makers within national borders. However, global conservation is inherently a transboundary pursuit; costs of environmental degradation and benefits of conservation spill over borders (Mason et al., 2020; Roberson et al., 2020). Geopolitical states have high variability in the numbers of threatened species and habitats within their borders and varied abilities to conserve based on financial capacities, conflict, and collective attitudes toward conservation. These realities require consideration of equity beyond the local scale to equity among geopolitical states in global conservation efforts (Sarkki & Garcia, 2019). To date, the CBD has emphasized equitable benefit sharing, or the fair distribution of benefits from the harvest or study of biological resources (Nagoya Protocol). There has been less emphasis on equitable cost-sharing, which includes direct costs of establishing and managing PAs and opportunity costs of not undertaking certain economic activities (e.g., agriculture) in PAs (Naidoo & Iwamura, 2007). Costs pose significant short-term barriers to halting biodiversity loss (Waldron et al., 2013; Maxwell et al., 2020). Once adequate financing and equitable cost-sharing are achieved, long-term revenues and ecosystem services of most PAs are projected to exceed implementation and opportunity costs (Waldron et al., 2020). However, interventions are still needed to alleviate the short-term costs certain groups may bear. Although the CBD does not legally require that countries implement equitable cost-sharing, finalization of the GBF presents an opportunity to apply social equity concepts to its revised area-based conservation strategy for just and effective implementation. We highlighted this opportunity by identifying lessons learned from Aichi Target 11 through the lens of social equity theory. We then devised recommendations on how to approach equitable cost-sharing among countries for PAs in the post-2020 GBF.