Protected Area Downgrading, Downsizing, And Degazettement Research Articles

Ability of new protected areas to counteract losses from downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement.

Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) is a common occurrence. Although PADDD is expected to weaken biodiversity protection, PADDD offsets and new unrelated protected areas (PAs) could help restore representation of biodiversity features to the reserve network affected by PADDD. Globally, we analyzed 16 territories with terrestrial PADDD and 4 territories with marine PADDD from 2011 to 2020. Our objective was to evaluate whether PADDD offsets and new PAs could restore the PAs, key biodiversity areas (KBAs), ecoregions, and threatened amphibian, mammal, bird, and reptile species ranges where PADDD had occurred. In our studied territories, offsets of PADDD were rare (enacted in 3 [19%] terrestrial territories and one [25%] marine territory). One territory had PADDD losses that were compensated fully by PADDD offsets in terms of area coverage and ecoregions represented. All other territories failed to achieve compensation goals. In territories affected by PADDD, PADDD offsets and new PAs partially restored area representation (63%) and KBA coverage (57%). However, only 38% of ecoregion representation and 20%, 33%, 31%, and 21% of threatened amphibian, mammal, bird, and reptile representation, respectively, were restored. Overall, we found a large shortfall in PADDD offsets, even when unrelated PAs were included in the calculus. There is an urgent need to expand PADDD offsets and PAs to advance biodiversity conservation and achieve the Global Biodiversity Framework's 30×30 target. Future planning of newly enacted conservation areas needs to prioritize biodiversity conservation and consider the purpose of restoring reserve networks affected by PADDD, rather than solely focusing on areal targets.

Two decades of clear-cutting threats in the Brazilian Amazonian protected areas around the Jirau, Santo Antônio, and Belo Monte large dams

Deforestation rates in the Amazon have markedly increased in the last few years, affecting non-protected and protected areas (PAs). Brazil is a hotspot of Protected Area Downgrading, Downsizing, and Degazettement (PADDD) events, with most events associated with infrastructure projects. Despite the threats dams impose on PAs, there is a knowledge gap in assessing deforestation in PAs around large dams in the Amazon. This study investigates how deforestation affects Biodiversity Protection Areas (BioPAs) and Indigenous Lands around the Jirau and Santo Antônio (JSA) dams (Madeira River, Rondônia) and Belo Monte dam (Xingu River, Pará) in the Brazilian Amazon. We compared clear-cutting between PAs and control areas and the annual rates of forest change between pre-dam and post-dam periods. We discussed deforestation-related factors (e.g., PADDD events and the presence of management plans or councils). Our results show an increase in deforestation after the operation of the dams when environmental control from licensing agencies decreases and other political and economic factors are in practice. Indigenous Lands experienced a significant increase in deforestation around the Belo Monte dam, which is associated with the demarcation process and land conflicts. Surrounding the JSA dams, sustainable use BioPAs showed high deforestation rates, and 27 PADDD events were reported, four directly related to dams. In addition to dams, deforestation was associated with the crisis of Brazilian democracy and the weakening of environmental policies. In conclusion, the weak environmental control from environmental licensing agencies during dam operation and PADDD events have contributed to increased deforestation rates and additional stresses in the Amazon.

Contemporary Quantitative Analysis of Events Such as Downgrading, Resizing and Declassification of Federalized Protected Areas in Brazil

Thispaperpresentsacontemporaryanalyticalandquantitativestudyof protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement-type events of federalized protected areas in Brazil. In view of its continentaldimensions, it has faced strong pressures to build sustainable conservation standards,which culminated in a long and brilliant process of updating and perfecting its environmentallegislation, considered one of the most modern in the world. However, due to the whimsof the capitalist system, Brazil had to relinquish land within environmental preservation areas soroadandhydroelectricinfrastructuresystemscouldbeexpandedtobetterservethepopulation.Faced with this scenario, some critical questions arise: how did the “Conservation Units” (UC’s) in Brazil originate? How many of these UCs are under federal governance? Howmany protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) events of conservation areas haveaffected or influenced federal UCs? What are the primary provocative tendencies of these PADDDevents?WhatcanbesuggestedtominimizetheeffectsofPADDDeventsontheexistingUCsintheBrazilian territory? Employing bibliographic surveys and analysis of data related to the PADDDevents in Brazil and on the federal UCs, provided by institutes involved in environmental preservation, we will arrive at the most satisfactory and coherent answers to theaforementionedquestions.

Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) in marine protected areas

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are foundational to global marine biodiversity conservation efforts. Recently, countries have rapidly scaled up their MPA networks to meet targets established by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). While MPA networks are intended to permanently safeguard marine ecosystems, evidence points to widespread legal changes that temper, reduce, or eliminate protected areas, known as protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD). Research on PADDD to-date has focused on terrestrial PAs, leaving fundamental questions about PADDD in MPAs unanswered. To address this knowledge gap and provide a foundation for understanding the conservation implications of PADDD in marine ecosystems, we documented patterns, trends, and proximate causes of PADDD in MPAs globally. At least six countries have enacted 43 PADDD events in MPAs, most of which were in Australian MPAs. Globally, PADDD events in MPAs have affected an area of at least 1,198,774 square kilometers, approximately the size of South Africa. Most PADDD events in MPAs (79%) are associated with industrial-scale resource use, extraction, and development, suggesting that PADDD may undermine the conservation objectives of MPAs. Additional research, transparency, and proactive policy responses are needed to address PADDD to better safeguard marine ecosystems.

Freshwater conservation planning in the context of nature needs half and protected area dynamism in Bhutan

The conservation movement “Nature Needs Half” (NNH) aims to protect 50% of the earth by 2050. But increase in total protected area (PA) coverage alone does not guarantee adequate species protection, and identifying conservation priority areas that meet specific species conservation targets is suggested as a way forward. Further, PAs are dynamic entities and the loss event termed protected area downgrading, downsizing and degazettement (PADDD) can hamper efficacy of PAs in biodiversity conservation. Considering known threats to both biodiversity and PAs during systematic conservation planning can help identify robust conservation priority areas. Bhutan, a country that already achieved the NNH target through terrestrial-focused PAs and with hydropower as main cause of PADDD, provides a unique case study. We identify freshwater priority areas for Bhutan using Marxan, a widely used systematic conservation planning tool. We assessed two different Marxan scenarios: scenario 1 did not exclude planning units with hydropower sites during planning and scenario 2 excluded them. We found using freshwater species and forest types as conservation features during conservation planning afforded better protection to the species and forest types by the reserves over that by the existing PA system, though the reserves and existing PA system had similar total area. Further, the reserve from the scenario 2 provided similar protection to the freshwater species and forest types as to that provided by the reserve from scenario 1. Our findings suggest need to consider target species and known threats during conservation planning stage to better protect biodiversity even within NNH paradigm.

Invasive alien species add to the uncertain future of protected areas

Establishing and managing protected areas (national parks, nature reserves and other sites of conservation value) represent the most common approach to conserving species and ecosystems, but these areas are vulnerable to global environmental change. Recently, Golden Kroner et al. (2019) suggested protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) as one of the main threats to biodiversity conservation. However, there are several other elements, of similar concern, that threaten conservation efforts in protected areas, such as climate change and pollution. Here, in a commentary to the Golden Kroner et al. (2019) paper, we address an additional important element affecting protected area dynamics and robustness that was overlooked by these authors – invasions by alien species. We argue that invasive alien species (IAS) contribute directly to the pressures of biodiversity loss by competing with native species and modifying the characteristics of the invaded ecosystems, and virtually no protected areas are free from these effects. Therefore, excluding IAS from legal instruments and policy frameworks underpinning current conservation approaches in protected areas presents a great risk for nature conservation. Consequently, this aligns poorly with the idea of protected areas being a cornerstone for conservation at local, regional and national levels. For that reason and to paint a more complete picture of the effectiveness of protected areas, we argue that when other factors threatening the existence and functioning of protected areas are discussed, we also need to account for biological invasions. This will ensure that adaptive conservation management strategies protect a wide range of species, ecosystems, and landscapes. Hence, this commentary aims to be of general interest for policymakers, managers and researchers.

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

Most of the terrestrial world is experiencing high rates of land conversion despite growth of the global protected area (PA) network. There is a need to assess whether the current global protection targets are achievable across all major ecosystem types and to identify those that need urgent protection. Using recent rates of habitat conversion and protection and the latest terrestrial ecoregion map, we show that if the same approach to PA establishment that has been undertaken over the past three decades continues, 558 of 748 ecoregions (ca. 75%) will not meet an aspirational 30% area protection target by 2030. A simple yet strategic acquisition plan that considers realistic futures around habitat loss and PA expansion could more than double the number of ecoregions adequately protected by 2030 given current funding constraints. These results highlight the importance of including explicit ecoregional representation targets within any new post-2020 global PA target.

Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement as a threat to iconic protected areas.

Protected areas (PAs) are expected to conserve nature and provide ecosystem services in perpetuity, yet widespread protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) may compromise these objectives. Even iconic protected areas are vulnerable to PADDD, although these PADDD events are often unrecognized. We identified 23 enacted and proposed PADDD events within World Natural Heritage Sites and examined the history, context, and consequences of PADDD events in 4 iconic PAs (Yosemite National Park, Arabian Oryx Sanctuary, Yasuní National Park, and Virunga National Park). Based on insights from published research and international workshops, these 4 cases revealed the diverse pressures brought on by competing interests to develop or exploit natural landscapes and the variety of mechanisms that enables PADDD. Knowledge gaps exist in understanding of the conditions through which development pressures translate to PADDD events and their impacts, partially due to a lack of comprehensive PADDD records. Future research priorities should include comprehensive regional and country‐level profiles and analysis of risks, impacts, and contextual factors related to PADDD. Policy options to better govern PADDD include improving tracking and reporting of PADDD events, establishing transparent PADDD policy processes, coordinating among legal frameworks, and mitigating negative impacts of PADDD. To support PADDD research and policy reforms, enhanced human and financial capacities are needed to train local researchers and to host publicly accessible data. As the conservation community considers the achievements of Aichi Target 11 and moves toward new biodiversity targets beyond 2020, researchers, practitioners, and policy makers need to work together to better track, assess, and govern PADDD globally.

Quantifying the extent of protected-area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement in Australia.

The use of total area protected as the predominant indicator of progress in building protected area (PA) networks is receiving growing criticism. Documenting the full dynamics of PA networks, both in terms of the gains and losses in protection, provides a much more informative approach to tracking progress. To this end, documentation of PA downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) has increased. Studies of PADDD events generally fail to place these losses in the context of gains in protection; therefore, they omit important elements of PA network dynamics. To address this limitation, we used a spatially explicit approach to identify every parcel of land added to and excised from the Australian terrestrial PA network and PAs that had their level of protection changed over 17 years (1997-2014). By quantifying changes in the spatial configuration of the PA network with time-series data (spatial layers for nine separate time steps), ours is the first assessment of the dynamics (increases and decreases in area and level of protection) of a PA network and the first comprehensive assessment of PADDD in a developed country. We found that the Australian network was highly dynamic; there were 5233 changes in area or level of protection over 17 years. Against a background of enormous increases in area protected, we identified over 1500 PADDD events, which affected over one-third of the network, which were largely the result of widespread downgrading of protection. We believe our approach provides a mechanism for robust tracking of trends in the world's PAs through the use of data from the World Database on Protected Areas. However, this will require greater transparency and improved data standards in reporting changes to PAs.

Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) in the Amazon

Protected areas (PAs) are a cornerstone of biodiversity conservation. Brazil, home to one-third of the world's tropical forests and 12% of its PAs, is a global leader in PA creation and management. Despite this leadership, evidence suggests that Brazil is scaling back elements of its PA network through a process known as PA downgrading, downsizing and degazettement (PADDD). To examine PADDD in Brazil, we created a comprehensive spatial database and documented all enacted and proposed PADDD events since 1900. We identified 67 enacted PADDD events, which affected 112,477km2 and eliminated 6% of Brazil's total potential terrestrial PA estate. Hydropower (39%) and rural human settlements (20%) were associated with most of these enacted PADDD events, which have increased in frequency since 2005. Another 27 active PADDD proposals currently threaten to eliminate 60,555km2 of protected lands. We then compared short-term deforestation rates in Brazilian Amazon forests that experienced PADDD to deforestation rates in corresponding still-protected and never-protected forests. Contrary to previous research, we did not find a significant causal effect of enacted PADDD events on short-term deforestation rates; rather, short-term deforestation rates in PADDDed forests appear correlated with broader patterns of deforestation. These findings suggest the need for national policies governing PADDD that are analogous to policies governing the initial establishment of PAs, including public consultation, technical studies, compensatory measures, and visual representation and explanation of the proposed changes.

Effects of protected area downsizing on habitat fragmentation in Yosemite National Park (USA), 1864 – 2014

Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) has been documented worldwide, but its impacts on biodiversity are poorly understood. To fill this knowledge gap, we reviewed historical documents to identify legal changes that altered the boundaries of Yosemite National Park. We identified two downsizes and five additions between 1905 and 1937 that reduced the size of Yosemite National Park by 30%. To examine the effects of these downsizing events on habitat fragmentation by roads, we compared protected, never-protected, and downsized lands at three spatial scales using four habitat fragmentation metrics: road density, fragment (land surrounded by roads) area-to-perimeter ratio, fragment area, and fragment density. In general, lands that were removed from protection, e.g., downsized, were more highly fragmented than protected lands and indistinguishable from never-protected lands. Lands where downsizes were reversed were less fragmented than lands where downsizes were not reversed. These results suggest that protected area downsizing may exacerbate habitat fragmentation, a key contributor to biodiversity loss globally. Furthermore, the case study in Yosemite National Park demonstrates that iconic protected areas in developed countries are not immune to downsizing. These findings underscore the need to account for PADDD and governance histories in ecological research, monitoring, and evaluation. As we move toward more evidence-based conservation policy, a rigorous understanding of PADDD is essential to ensure that protected areas fulfill their promise as a strategy for conserving global biodiversity.

Tropical Deforestation and Carbon Emissions from Protected Area Downgrading, Downsizing, and Degazettement (PADDD)

AbstractProtected area downgrading, downsizing and degazettement (PADDD) is a global phenomenon that has not received formal attention in Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) policies designed to reduce forest carbon emissions and conserve biodiversity. Here, we examine how PADDD affects deforestation and forest carbon emissions. We documented 174 enacted and 8 proposed PADDD events affecting more than 48,000 km2 in three REDD+ priority countries: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malaysia, and Peru. Where sufficient data were available, we estimated deforestation rates and the quantity and economic value of forest carbon already lost and at risk in three land tenure classes: PADDDed, protected, and never‐protected. PADDDed forests experienced deforestation and forest carbon emissions greatly exceeding rates in protected areas and slightly exceeding rates in never‐protected forests. PADDD represents business‐as‐usual for protected areas, posing substantial risk to forests and forest carbon stocks. REDD+ policies have substantive implications for protected area biodiversity and forest carbon emissions; the Warsaw Framework for REDD+ provides new, but insufficient, guidance for nations to address these issues.

Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean, 1900–2010

National parks, nature reserves, and other protected areas (PAs) are the centerpiece of efforts to conserve biodiversity. Conservation policy and practice assume that PAs are permanent institutions, but scattered evidence suggests widespread PA downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD). To assess the extent, patterns, trends, causes, and consequences of PADDD, we reviewed authoritative United Nations lists of PAs (1962–2009), examined published documents, and consulted 128 conservation experts. We focused on Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, which collectively contain most global priorities for conservation and more than 70% of the global PA estate. We identified 543 instances of PADDD in 57 countries, affecting more than 503 591km2 of protected lands and waters. The occurrence, spatial extent, timing, proximate causes, and consequences of PADDD varied widely among countries. Of the 375 PAs affected by PADDD, 76 PAs (20.3%) were affected more than once. Thirty (5.5%) of the 543 PADDD events were eventually partially or wholly reversed. In the absence of PA downsizing and degazettement, at least four additional countries would have already met 2020 targets for PA coverage established under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Our findings suggest that PADDD is a patchy, episodic phenomenon associated with industrial-scale natural resource extraction and development; local land pressures and land claims; and conservation planning. Though some PADDD events may foster biodiversity conservation, most PADDD suggests tradeoffs between conservation goals and other policy objectives. PADDD thus represents both a largely unrecognized threat to biodiversity and a rarely employed mechanism to strengthen conservation policy.

Land, Food, and Biodiversity

Land, Food, and Biodiversity

Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) and its conservation implications

AbstractNational parks and other protected areas (PAs) are the foundation of global efforts to conserve biological diversity. Conservation policy and practice assume that PAs are permanent fixtures on the landscape, but scattered evidence points to widespread—yet largely overlooked—PA downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD). As a preliminary investigation of PADDD and its implications for conservation science and policy, we explore the published literature and contemporary media reports. We identify 89 historic instances of PADDD, in 27 countries, since 1900. Contemporary accounts reveal that PADDD has recently occurred or is currently under consideration in at least 12 countries worldwide. Proximate causes of PADDD vary widely, but center on access to and use of natural resources. Case studies from India and South America highlight the fact that PAs are socially defined and socially constructed governance regimes, responsive to social pressures—including conservation demands—at local to global scales. PADDD challenges longstanding assumptions underlying conservation policy and practice, including efforts to reduce deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), and underscores the need for resilient and robust conservation strategies. Because many fundamental questions regarding PADDD remain unanswered, further research is required to understand this conservation phenomenon and develop tailored policy responses.