The positive impact of conservation action.

Governments recently adopted new global targets to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity. It is therefore crucial to understand the outcomes of conservation actions. We conducted a global meta-analysis of 186 studies (including 665 trials) that measured biodiversity over time and compared outcomes under conservation action with a suitable counterfactual of no action. We find that in two-thirds of cases, conservation either improved the state of biodiversity or at least slowed declines. Specifically, we find that interventions targeted at species and ecosystems, such as invasive species control, habitat loss reduction and restoration, protected areas, and sustainable management, are highly effective and have large effect sizes. This provides the strongest evidence to date that conservation actions are successful but require transformational scaling up to meet global targets.

Threats to reptiles at global and regional scales.

Reptiles are an important, yet often understudied, taxon in nature conservation. They play a significant role in ecosystems1 and can serve as indicators of environmental health, often responding more rapidly to human pressures than other vertebrate groups.2 At least 21% of reptiles are currently assessed as threatened with extinction by the IUCN.3 However, due to the lack of comprehensive global assessments until recently, they have been omitted from spatial studies addressing conservation or spatial prioritization (e.g., Rosauer et al.,4,5,6,7,8 Fritz and Rahbek,4,5,6,7,8 Farooq et al.,4,5,6,7,8 Meyer et al., 4,5,6,7,8 and Farooq et al.4,5,6,7,8). One important knowledge gap in conservation is the lack of spatially explicit information on the main threats to biodiversity,9 which significantly hampers our ability to respond effectively to the current biodiversity crisis.10,11 In this study, we calculate the probability of a reptile species in a specific location being affected by one of seven biodiversity threats-agriculture, climate change, hunting, invasive species, logging, pollution, and urbanization. We conducted the analysis at a global scale, using a 50 km × 50 km grid, and evaluated the impact of these threats by studying their relationship with the risk of extinction. We find that climate change, logging, pollution, and invasive species are most linked to extinction risk. However, we also show that there is considerable geographical variation in these results. Our study highlights the importance of going beyond measuring the intensity of threats to measuring the impact of these separately for various biogeographical regions of the world, with different historical contingencies, as opposed to a single global analysis treating all regions the same.

A diverse portfolio of marine protected areas can better advance global conservation and equity.

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are widely used for ocean conservation, yet the relative impacts of various types of MPAs are poorly understood. We estimated impacts on fish biomass from no-take and multiple-use (fished) MPAs, employing a rigorous matched counterfactual design with a global dataset of >14,000 surveys in and around 216 MPAs. Both no-take and multiple-use MPAs generated positive conservation outcomes relative to no protection (58.2% and 12.6% fish biomass increases, respectively), with smaller estimated differences between the two MPA types when controlling for additional confounding factors (8.3% increase). Relative performance depended on context and management: no-take MPAs performed better in areas of high human pressure but similar to multiple-use in remote locations. Multiple-use MPA performance was low in high-pressure areas but improved significantly with better management, producing similar outcomes to no-take MPAs when adequately staffed and appropriate use regulations were applied. For priority conservation areas where no-take restrictions are not possible or ethical, our findings show that a portfolio of well-designed and well-managed multiple-use MPAs represents a viable and potentially equitable pathway to advance local and global conservation.

Introducing Elinor for monitoring the governance and management of area-based conservation.

Monitoring the governance and management effectiveness of area-based conservation has long been recognized as an important foundation for achieving national and global biodiversity goals and enabling adaptive management. However, there are still many barriers that prevent conservation actors, including those affected by governance and management systems from implementing conservation activities and programs and from gathering and using data on governance and management to inform decision-making across spatial scales and through time. We explored current and past efforts to assess governance and management effectiveness and barriers actors face in using the resulting data and insights to inform conservation decision-making. To help overcome these barriers, we developed Elinor, a free and open-source monitoring tool that builds on the work of Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom to facilitate the gathering, storing, sharing, analyzing, and use of data on environmental governance and management across spatial scales and for areas under different governance and management types. We consider the process of codesigning and piloting Elinor with conservation scientists and practitioners and the main components of the assessment and online data system. We also consider how Elinor complements existing approaches by addressing governance and management in a single assessment at a high level for different types of area-based conservation, providing flexible options for data collection, and integrating a data system with an assessment that can support data use and sharing across different spatial scales, including global monitoring of the Global Biodiversity Framework. Although challenges will continue, the process of developing Elinor and the tool itself offer tangible solutions to barriers that prevent the systematic collection and use of governance and management data. With broader uptake, Elinor can play a valuable role in enabling more effective, inclusive, and durable area-based conservation.

Introducción de Elinor para el monitoreo de la gobernanza y la gestión de la conservación con base en zonas geográficas Resumen El monitoreo de la efectividad de la gobernanza y de la gestión de la conservación basada en zonas geográficas ha sido reconocido durante mucho tiempo como una base importante para alcanzar las metas nacionales y mundiales de la biodiversidad y permitir un manejo adaptativo. Sin embargo, todavía existen barreras que evitan que los actores de la conservación, incluidos aquellos afectados por los sistemas de gobernanza y gestión, implementen actividades y programas de conservación y recopilen y usen datos de la gobernanza y la gestión para informar las decisiones a lo largo de las escalas espaciales y a través del tiempo. Exploramos los esfuerzos hechos en la actualidad y en el pasado para evaluar la efectividad de la gobernanza y la gestión así como las barreras que los actores enfrentan al usar los datos y el conocimiento resultantes para informar la toma de decisiones de conservación. Para ayudar a derribar estas barreras desarrollamos Elinor, una herramienta de monitoreo gratuita y de software libre que parte del trabajo de la ganadora del Premio Nobel Elinor Ostrom, para facilitar la recopilación, almacenamiento, divulgación, análisis y uso de los datos sobre la gobernanza y la gestión ambiental en las escalas espaciales y para las zonas con diferentes tipos de gobernanza y gestión. Planteamos co­diseñar y pilotear Elinor con los científicos y practicantes de la conservación y usando los componentes principales del sistema de evaluación y de datos en línea. También planteamos cómo Elinor complementa las estrategias existentes al abordar la gobernanza y la gestión en una sola evaluación a un nivel elevado para diferentes tipos de conservación basada en zonas geográficas, lo que proporciona opciones flexibles para la colecta de datos, e integramos un sistema de datos con una evaluación que soporta el uso y divulgación de datos en diferentes escalas espaciales, incluido el Marco Mundial para la Biodiversidad. Aunque los retos seguirán existiendo, el proceso de desarrollo de Elinor y la propia herramienta ofrecen soluciones tangibles a las barreras que previenen la colecta sistemática y el uso de datos de la gobernanza y la gestión. Con una mayor aceptación, Elinor puede tener un papel importante en el momento de hacer posible una conservación basada en zonas geográficas más eficaz, integradora y duradera.

Analysis of differences and commonalities in wildlife hunting across the Africa-Europe South-North gradient.

Hunting and its impacts on wildlife are typically studied regionally, with a particular focus on the Global South. Hunting can, however, also undermine rewilding efforts or threaten wildlife in the Global North. Little is known about how hunting manifests under varying socioeconomic and ecological contexts across the Global South and North. Herein, we examined differences and commonalities in hunting characteristics across an exemplary Global South-North gradient approximated by the Human Development Index (HDI) using face-to-face interviews with 114 protected area (PA) managers in 25 African and European countries. Generally, we observed that hunting ranges from the illegal, economically motivated, and unsustainable hunting of herbivores in the South to the legal, socially and ecologically motivated hunting of ungulates within parks and the illegal hunting of mainly predators outside parks in the North. Commonalities across this Africa-Europe South-North gradient included increased conflict-related killings in human-dominated landscapes and decreased illegal hunting with beneficial community conditions, such as mutual trust resulting from community involvement in PA management. Nevertheless, local conditions cannot outweigh the strong effect of the HDI on unsustainable hunting. Our findings highlight regional challenges that require collaborative, integrative efforts in wildlife conservation across actors, while identified commonalities may outline universal mechanisms for achieving this goal.

Protected areas have a mixed impact on waterbirds, but management helps.

International policy is focused on increasing the proportion of the Earth's surface that is protected for nature1,2. Although studies show that protected areas prevent habitat loss3-6, there is a lack of evidence for their effect on species' populations: existing studies are at local scale or use simple designs that lack appropriate controls7-13. Here we explore how 1,506 protected areas have affected the trajectories of 27,055 waterbird populations across the globe using a robust before-after control-intervention study design, which compares protected and unprotected populations in the years before and after protection. We show that the simpler study designs typically used to assess protected area effectiveness (before-after or control-intervention) incorrectly estimate effects for 37-50% of populations-for instance misclassifying positively impacted populations as negatively impacted, and vice versa. Using our robust study design, we find that protected areas have a mixed impact on waterbirds, with a strong signal that areas managed for waterbirds or their habitat are more likely to benefit populations, and a weak signal that larger areas are more beneficial than smaller ones. Calls to conserve 30% of the Earth's surface by 2030 are gathering pace14, but we show that protection alone does not guarantee good biodiversity outcomes. As countries gather to agree the new Global Biodiversity Framework, targets must focus on creating and supporting well-managed protected and conserved areas that measurably benefit populations.

Southeast Asian protected areas are effective in conserving forest cover and forest carbon stocks compared to unprotected areas.

Protected areas aim to conserve nature, ecosystem services, and cultural values; however, they have variable success in doing so under high development pressure. Southeast Asian protected areas faced the highest level of human pressure at the turn of the twenty-first century. To estimate their effectiveness in conserving forest cover and forest carbon stocks for 2000-2018, we used statistical matching methods to control for the non-random location of protected areas, to compare protection against a matched counterfactual. We found Southeast Asian protected areas had three times less forest cover loss than similar landscapes without protection. Protected areas that had completed management reporting using the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) conserved significantly more forest cover and forest carbon stocks than those that had not. Management scores were positively associated with the level of carbon emissions avoided, but not the level of forest cover loss avoided. Our study is the first to find that METT scores could predict the level of carbon emissions avoided in protected areas. Given that only 11% of protected areas in Southeast Asia had completed METT surveys, our results illustrate the need to scale-up protected area management effectiveness reporting programs to improve their effectiveness for conserving forests, and for storing and sequestering carbon.

Using the IUCN Red List to map threats to terrestrial vertebrates at global scale.

The Anthropocene is characterized by unparalleled human impact on other species, potentially ushering in the sixth mass extinction. Yet mitigation efforts remain hampered by limited information on the spatial patterns and intensity of the threats driving global biodiversity loss. Here we use expert-derived information from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List on threats to 23,271 species, representing all terrestrial amphibians, birds and mammals, to generate global maps of the six major threats to these groups: agriculture, hunting and trapping, logging, pollution, invasive species, and climate change. Our results show that agriculture and logging are pervasive in the tropics and that hunting and trapping is the most geographically widespread threat to mammals and birds. Additionally, current representations of human pressure underestimate the overall pressure on biodiversity, due to the exclusion of threats such as hunting and climate change. Alarmingly, this is particularly the case in areas of the highest biodiversity importance.

The Effectiveness of Protected Areas in Conserving Globally Threatened Western Tragopan Tragopan melanocephalus.

Protected areas are a critical tool to conserve biodiversity in the face of the global crisis of species extinction. Here, we present the first ever management effectiveness assessment of Pakistan's Protected Areas (PAs). We link these assessments to the delivery of conservation outcomes focusing on the threatened Western Tragopan (Tragopan melanocephalus) endemic to Pakistan and India. We used two approaches, first mapping the spatial distribution of potential habitat coverage using machine learning ensemble models and second, an assessment of the management effectiveness of protected areas. Our results show that only Machiara National Park scored just above 40% (indicating relatively weak management), 22 of the PAs fell within the 25-50% quantile (indicating weak management), and 3 scored below 25% (indicating poor management). PAs within the species distributional range covered 92,387 ha which is only 2% of the total potential habitat of the Tragopan. Scoring of Planning element was insufficient both in term of the site and species. Likewise, inputs (e.g., research and monitoring program, staff numbers, staff training, current budget, security of budget, and management after process) were also inadequate. Finally, we recommend the establishment of more protected areas within the species potential habitat and inclusion of species-specific plans in Pakistan's PAs management.

Evaluating Impact Using Time-Series Data.

Humanity's impact on the environment is increasing, as are strategies to conserve biodiversity, but a lack of understanding about how interventions affect ecological and conservation outcomes hampers decision-making. Time series are often used to assess impacts, but ecologists tend to compare average values from before to after an impact; overlooking the potential for the intervention to elicit a change in trend. Without methods that allow for a range of responses, erroneous conclusions can be drawn, especially for large, multi-time-series datasets, which are increasingly available. Drawing on literature in other disciplines and pioneering work in ecology, we present a standardised framework to robustly assesses how interventions, like natural disasters or conservation policies, affect ecological time series.

Statistical matching for conservation science.

The awareness of the need for robust impact evaluations in conservation is growing and statistical matching techniques are increasingly being used to assess the impacts of conservation interventions. Used appropriately matching approaches are powerful tools, but they also pose potential pitfalls. We outlined important considerations and best practice when using matching in conservation science. We identified 3 steps in a matching analysis. First, develop a clear theory of change to inform selection of treatment and controls and that accounts for real-world complexities and potential spillover effects. Second, select the appropriate covariates and matching approach. Third, assess the quality of the matching by carrying out a series of checks. The second and third steps can be repeated and should be finalized before outcomes are explored. Future conservation impact evaluations could be improved by increased planning of evaluations alongside the intervention, better integration of qualitative methods, considering spillover effects at larger spatial scales, and more publication of preanalysis plans. Implementing these improvements will require more serious engagement of conservation scientists, practitioners, and funders to mainstream robust impact evaluations into conservation. We hope this article will improve the quality of evaluations and help direct future research to continue to improve the approaches on offer.

Emparejamiento Estadístico para la Ciencia de la Conservación Resumen Hay más conciencia sobre la necesidad de evaluaciones de impacto más rigurosas y las técnicas de emparejamiento estadístico se están usan con más frecuencia para evaluar los impactos de intervenciones de conservación. Las técnicas de emparejamiento pueden ser herramientas poderosas si son utilizadas correctamente, pero también pueden llevar a conclusiones erróneas. En este artículo describimos consideraciones importantes para realizar estudios de conservación que utilizan técnicas de emparejamiento estadístico. Identificamos tres pasos dentro de un análisis de emparejamiento. Primero, es importante desarrollar una teoría del cambio que considere las complejidades del mundo real y las posibles consecuencias indirectas para poder seleccionar unidades de tratamiento y controles. Segundo, es clave seleccionar las covarianzas y la estrategia de emparejamiento apropiadas. Tercero, evaluar la calidad del emparejamiento a través de una serie de revisiones. El segundo y el tercer paso pueden ser repetidos y deben concluirse antes de que se exploren los resultados. Evaluaciones de impacto de intervenciones de conservación podrían mejorarse con una mejor planeación de las evaluaciones junto con la intervención, una mejor integración de los métodos cualitativos, mejor consideración de consecuencias indirectas a grandes escalas espaciales y un incremento en la publicación de planes pre-analíticos. La implementación de estas mejoras requerirá de un compromiso más serio por parte de científicos de la conservación, y de practicantes y financiadores. Esperamos que este artículo mejore la calidad de evaluaciones y ayude a guiar futuras investigaciones e intervenciones de conservación.

A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures.

One-sixth of the global terrestrial surface now falls within protected areas (PAs), making it essential to understand how far they mitigate the increasing pressures on nature which characterize the Anthropocene. In by far the largest analysis of this question to date and not restricted to forested PAs, we compiled data from 12,315 PAs across 152 countries to investigate their ability to reduce human pressure and how this varies with socioeconomic and management circumstances. While many PAs show positive outcomes, strikingly we find that compared with matched unprotected areas, PAs have on average not reduced a compound index of pressure change over the past 15 y. Moreover, in tropical regions average pressure change from cropland conversion has increased inside PAs even more than in matched unprotected areas. However, our results also confirm previous studies restricted to forest PAs, where pressures are increasing, but less than in counterfactual areas. Our results also show that countries with high national-level development scores have experienced lower rates of pressure increase over the past 15 y within their PAs compared with a matched outside area. Our results caution against the rapid establishment of new PAs without simultaneously addressing the conditions needed to enable their success.

Improving collaboration in the implementation of global biodiversity conventions.

Eight conventions make up the biodiversity cluster of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) that provide the critical international legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of nature. However, concerns about the rate of implementation of the conventions at the national level have triggered discussions about the effectiveness of these MEAs in halting the loss of biodiversity. Two main concerns have emerged: lack of capacity and resources and lack of coherence in implementing multiple conventions. We focused on the latter and considered the mechanisms by which international conventions are translated into national policy. Specifically, we examined how the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the associated Aichi Biodiversity Targets have functioned as a unifying grand plan for biodiversity conservation. This strategic plan has been used to coordinate and align targets to promote and enable more effective implementation across all biodiversity-related conventions. Results of a survey of 139 key stakeholders from 88 countries suggests streamlining across ministries and agencies, improved coordination mechanisms with all relevant stakeholders, and better knowledge sharing between conventions could improve cooperation among biodiversity-related conventions. The roadmap for improving synergies among conventions agreed to at the 13th Convention on Biological Diversity's Conference of Parties in 2016 includes actions such as mechanisms to avoid duplication in national reporting and monitoring on conventions and capacity building related to information and knowledge sharing. We suggest the scientific community can actively engage and contribute to the policy process by establishing a science-policy platform to address knowledge gaps; improving data gathering, reporting, and monitoring; developing indicators that adequately support implementation of national plans and strategies; and providing evidence-based recommendations to policy makers. The latter will be particularly important as 2020 approaches and work to develop a new biodiversity agenda for the next decade is beginning.

Mejora en la Colaboración en la Implementación de las Convenciones Mundiales sobre la Biodiversidad Resumen Ocho convenciones son las que forman la agrupación multilateral de acuerdos ambientales (MEAs, en inglés), los cuales proporcionan el marco de trabajo legal importante para la conservación y el uso sustentable de la naturaleza. Sin embargo, la preocupación por la tasa de implementación de estas convenciones a nivel nacional ha disparado discusiones sobre la efectividad de estas MEAs para detener la pérdida de la biodiversidad. Han surgido dos preocupaciones principales: la falta de capacidad y recursos y la falta de coherencia en la implementación de múltiples convenciones. Nos enfocamos en la segunda y consideramos los mecanismos mediante los cuales las convenciones internacionales se transforman en reglamentos y políticas nacionales. En específico, examinamos cómo el Plan Estratégico para la Biodiversidad 2011 - 2020 y los Objetivos de Biodiversidad de Aichi asociados han funcionado como un gran plan unificador para la conservación de la biodiversidad. Este plan estratégico se ha usado para coordinar y alinear los objetivos para promover y habilitar una implementación más efectiva a lo largo de todas las convenciones relacionadas con la biodiversidad. Los resultados de una encuesta entre 139 accionistas clave de 88 países sugieren la optimización en los ministerios y en las agencias, una coordinación mejorada de los mecanismos entre todos los accionistas relevantes, y una mejor partición del conocimiento entre las convenciones podría aumentar la cooperación entre las convenciones relacionadas con la biodiversidad. La hoja de ruta para mejorar las sinergias entre las convenciones, acordada en la Conferencia de Participantes de la 13ra Convención sobre la Diversidad Biológica en 2016, incluye acciones como los mecanismos para evitar la duplicación de reportes y monitoreos nacionales sobre las convenciones y la capacidad de construcción relacionada con la partición de la información y el conocimiento. Sugerimos que la comunidad científica pueda participar activamente y contribuir al proceso de políticas al establecer una plataforma política-científica que resuelva los vacíos en el conocimiento; mejore la recolección, reporte y monitoreo de datos, desarrolle indicadores que respalden adecuadamente a la implementación de planes y estrategias nacionales; y proporcione recomendaciones basadas en evidencia para los políticos. La última acción será de particular importancia conforme se aproxima el 2020 y se inicie la labor por desarrollar una nueva agenda de biodiversidad para la siguiente década.

Exceptional responders in conservation.

Conservation operates within complex systems with incomplete knowledge of the system and the interventions utilized. This frequently results in the inability to find generally applicable methods to alleviate threats to Earth's vanishing wildlife. One approach used in medicine and the social sciences has been to develop a deeper understanding of positive outliers. Where such outliers share similar characteristics, they may be considered exceptional responders. We devised a 4-step framework for identifying exceptional responders in conservation: identification of the study system, identification of the response structure, identification of the threshold for exceptionalism, and identification of commonalities among outliers. Evaluation of exceptional responders provides additional information that is often ignored in randomized controlled trials and before-after control-intervention experiments. Interrogating the contextual factors that contribute to an exceptional outcome allow exceptional responders to become valuable pieces of information leading to unexpected discoveries and novel hypotheses.