Integrated spatial planning for biodiversity conservation and food production

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.

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

Achieving global biodiversity goals by 2050 requires urgent and integrated actions

Area-based conservation planning in Japan: The importance of OECMs in the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

Indicators keep progress honest: A call to track both the quantity and quality of protected areas

Over the past several decades, the spatial extent of national parks, forest reserves, and other protected areas has expanded rapidly, encompassing more than 16 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial and inland water area in 2024. This expansion of protected areas has often led to population displacements and heightened restrictions on access to land and natural resources for indigenous peoples and other local communities, at times precipitating various conflicts, contestations, and broader forms of noncompliance with conservation regulations. Despite ongoing challenges in resolving trade-offs between conservation and livelihood objectives, the recently established Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) seeks to achieve even more ambitious conservation targets. These include GBF Target 3—sometimes referred to as the “30 × 30” target—of encompassing 30 percent of all terrestrial and marine ecosystems in protected areas or other effective area-based conservation measures by 2030. The GBF’s vision for achieving Target 3 implicitly assumes, however, that widespread challenges related to noncompliance in conservation governance can largely be resolved in their present manifestation(s), and prevented from reemerging as the scale of the global conservation estate increases. Seeking to deepen our understanding of the emergence and recurrence of illicit or otherwise non-rule-complying behaviors in everyday practices of conservation governance, we draw on a case study of the Manas Biosphere Reserve, a UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve in the India-Bhutan borderlands region, northeastern India. Highlighting key findings from this case study, we foreground the concept of illicit resilience to encompass a suite of informal factors and dynamics that lead to the persistence of de facto land uses and management regimes in ways that often strikingly diverge from de jure prescriptions for resource conservation within protected areas. These dynamics include (1) long-term insurgency and political unrest; (2) collusive corruption, patronage, and local politics; and (3) elite-driven processes of informal resettlement and subsequent occupation of forestland. In short, we argue that a deeper understanding of such forms of illicit resilience and their underlying drivers will be crucial for more accurately conceptualizing both feasibility constraints on, and socioenvironmental justice implications of, efforts to rapidly upscale the spatial remit of conservation areas by 2030 and beyond.

ABSTRACTDespite the global network of protected areas covers 12% of the world's land surface, its performance is still unsatisfactory. Although political and scientifically sound conservation targets usually portray different pictures of the task ahead, we show that in terms of priority areas for expanding the global network of reserves, there is much agreement between the political targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the scientifically derived goals endorsed by international conservation organizations. Here we analyse four global databases to identify priority areas for fulfilling the CBD target of representing 10% of every ecological region within protected areas, and compare the distribution of priority regions for fulfilling that political target, with the distribution of the priority areas for global biodiversity conservation identified by Conservation International, the WWF, and the Wildlife Conservation Society on scientific basis. For 63% (549) of the world's terrestrial ecoregions the CBD 10% target is still not met; fulfilling it requires protecting another 4.6% of the Earth's land surface (6,239,894 km2). Yet, at least 78% of the priority regions for fulfilling that target lay within priority regions for the main global conservation strategies. By pursuing the political target set by the CBD much ancillary gains in terms of other global conservation objectives can be obtained.

Assessing the effectiveness of potential protected areas and OECMs in conserving biodiversity against subsurface resource extraction impacts

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.

Underprotected Marine Protected Areas in a Global Biodiversity Hotspot

Protected areas are a key instrument for conservation. Despite this, they are vulnerable to risks associated with weak governance, land-use intensification, and climate change. We used a novel hierarchical optimization approach to identify priority areas for expanding the global protected area system that explicitly accounted for such risks while maximizing protection of all known terrestrial vertebrate species. To incorporate risk categories, we built on the minimum set problem, where the objective is to reach species distribution protection targets while accounting for 1 constraint, such as land cost or area. We expanded this approach to include multiple objectives accounting for risk in the problem formulation by treating each risk layer as a separate objective in the problem formulation. Reducing exposure to these risks required expanding the area of the global protected area system by 1.6% while still meeting conservation targets. Incorporating risks from weak governance drove the greatest changes in spatial priorities for protection, and incorporating risks from climate change required the largest increase (2.52%) in global protected area. Conserving wide-ranging species required countries with relatively strong governance to protect more land when they bordered nations with comparatively weak governance. Our results underscore the need for cross-jurisdictional coordination and demonstrate how risk can be efficiently incorporated into conservation planning. Planeación de las áreas protegidas para conservar la biodiversidad en un futuro incierto.

In 2010, the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted the Aichi Biodiversity Target 11, calling for conserving 10% of the ocean through marine protected areas (MPAs) and “other effective area-based conservation measures” (OECMs), explicitly recognizing that other types of spatial conservation measures beyond areas designated as MPAs may also achieve biodiversity gains. Eight years later, CBD Parties adopted a definition and criteria for OECMs, and by early 2022, only a few OECMs had been reported. The OECM definition clearly requires that the measures be area-based and likely to contribute to conservation. However, conservation need not be their primary objective. Guidance on the extent and limits of what these “area measures” might include is needed. Clarity would assist countries in delivering on the CBD’s Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, with decadal goals incorporating an area-based conservation target, in which OECMs will play a crucial role. To achieve greater recognition of OECMs, countries require sector-specific guidance to guide recognition, listing, and ongoing implementation of OECMs. Here, we evaluate how well area-based fisheries management measures meet the OECM criteria as well as sustainable use principles, broader ecosystem management objectives, and more general biodiversity conservation goals. We systematically review case studies across a broad range of spatial management approaches to provide evidence of correspondence with the OECM criteria, arguing that many with primary objectives related to fisheries sustainability provide co-benefits for biodiversity, and hence biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. This review highlights how fisheries measures can help achieve a number of Sustainable Development Goals alongside the global targets for biodiversity of CBD.

The 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework aims to bring 30 per cent of the earth under protected areas (PAs) and ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ by 2030 to halt the biodiversity crisis. The steady expansion of PAs since 1960 has not hindered the crisis from intensifying, however, while it has been achieved against strong scholarly and indigenous critiques. Why, then, do (neo)protectionist ideas remain so powerful in global conservation policy? This paper argues that an ignored element in critiques is (neo)protectionism's rootedness in biological fieldwork and the emotional-institutional power this carries in conservation circles. This further fuels an enduring ‘great conservation tragedy’.

The concept of ‘long-term’ is a key part of the definitions of both protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). Draft principles for OECMs in Australia developed by the Australian Government propose a minimum period for OECMs of 25 years, where a landholder is not able to commit to in-perpetuity conservation. The proposal suggests this is consistent with IUCN Guidelines for Privately Protected Areas. As authors of the Guidelines for Privately Protected Areas we contend however that Australia’s proposed OECM guideline suggesting 25 years of “intention” to deliver biodiversity outcomes is ‘long-term’ is not supported by IUCN guidelines. Furthermore for protected areas, Australia has a long-established definition of ‘long-term’ – specifically a minimum timeframe of 99 years is required if permanent protection is not possible – embedded in both national policy and legal agreements. As national governments rapidly seek to define OECMs in response to the raised ambitions of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, there will be increasing interest in what counts towards Target 3. Ultimately, more land managed for conservation is good and all forms of area-based conservation should be encouraged. However, not all forms of area-based conservation qualify for inclusion in Target 3. Long-term intent and outcomes are fundamental, as outlined in the definitions of protected areas and OECMs.

The concept of 'long-term' is a key part of the definitions of both protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). Draft principles for OECMs in Australia developed by the Australian Government propose a minimum period for OECMs of 25 years, where a landholder is not able to commit to in-perpetuity conservation. The proposal suggests this is consistent with IUCN Guidelines for Privately Protected Areas. As authors of the Guidelines for Privately Protected Areas we contend however that Australia's proposed OECM guideline suggesting 25 years of "intention" to deliver biodiversity outcomes is 'long-term' is not supported by IUCN guidelines. Furthermore for protected areas, Australia has a long-established definition of 'long-term' - specifically a minimum timeframe of 99 years is required if permanent protection is not possible - embedded in both national policy and legal agreements. As national governments rapidly seek to define OECMs in response to the raised ambitions of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, there will be increasing interest in what counts towards Target 3. Ultimately, more land managed for conservation is good and all forms of area-based conservation should be encouraged. However, not all forms of area-based conservation qualify for inclusion in Target 3. Long-term intent and outcomes are fundamental, as outlined in the definitions of protected areas and OECMs.