Scaling up area-based conservation to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework's 30x30 target: The role of Nature's Strongholds.

The Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), signed in 2022 by Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, recognized the importance of area-based conservation, and its goals and targets specify the characteristics of protected and conserved areas (PCAs) that disproportionately contribute to biodiversity conservation. To achieve the GBF's target of conserving a global area of 30% by 2030, this Essay argues for recognizing these characteristics and scaling them up through the conservation of areas that are: extensive (typically larger than 5,000 km2); have interconnected PCAs (either physically or as part of a jurisdictional network, and frequently embedded in larger conservation landscapes); have high ecological integrity; and are effectively managed and equitably governed. These areas are presented as "Nature's Strongholds," illustrated by examples from the Congo and Amazon basins. Conserving Nature's Strongholds offers an approach to scale up initiatives to address global threats to biodiversity.

A standard lexicon of terms for area-based conservation version 1.0.

Target 3 in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) calls for protecting at least 30% of the world's lands and waters in area-based conservation approaches by 2030. This ambitious 30×30 target has spurred great interest among policy makers, practitioners, and researchers in defining and measuring the effectiveness of these types of approaches. But along with this broad interest, there has also been a proliferation of terms and their accompanying abbreviations used to describe different types of conservation areas and their governance, planning, management, and monitoring. The lack of standard terms is hindering the use and assessment of area-based approaches to conserve the world's biodiversity. It is difficult to track progress toward GBF Target 3 or to share learning with other practitioners if different groups of people are using different words to describe the same concept or similar words to talk about different concepts. To address this problem, the International Union for Conservation of Nature's World Commission on Protected Areas commissioned a task force to review existing terms and recommend a standard English-language lexicon for this field based on key criteria. The results were definitions of 37 terms across 6 categories, including types of protected and additional conservation areas (e.g., protected area, additional conservation area), sets of these areas (protected area network, protected area system), their governance and management (governance, rightsholders), assessment (effectiveness, equitability), spatial planning (key biodiversity area), and action planning (value, outcome, objective). Our standard lexicon can provide a common language for people who want to use it and a shared reference point that can be used to translate various terms used by different groups. The common understanding provided by the lexicon can serve as a foundation for collaborative efforts to improve the policies, implementation, assessments, research, and learning about this important set of conservation approaches.

Un léxico estandarizado de términos para la conservación basada en áreas versión 10 Resumen El objetivo 3 del Marco Global para la Biodiversidad de Kunming­Montreal (GBF) establece la protección de al menos el 30% de los suelos y aguas del planeta con estrategias de conservación basada en áreas para el 2030. Este objetivo ambicioso de 30x30 ha provocado un gran interés por definir y medir la eficiencia de este tipo de estrategias entre quienes hacen las políticas, los practicantes y los investigadores. Junto con este interés generalizado también ha habido una proliferación de términos y abreviaciones usados para describir los diferentes tipos de áreas de conservación y su gestión, planeación, manejo y monitoreo. La falta de términos estandarizados dificulta el uso y la evaluación de las estrategias basadas en áreas para conservar la biodiversidad mundial. Es difícil registrar los avances hacia el Objetivo 3 del GBF o compartir el aprendizaje con otros practicantes si diferentes grupos de personas usan diferentes palabras para describir el mismo concepto o palabras similares para hablar de conceptos distintos. Para abordar este problema, la Comisión Mundial de Áreas Protegidas de la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza comisionó un grupo de trabajo para que revise los términos existentes y recomiende un léxico estandarizado en inglés para este campo con base en criterios clave. Como resultado obtuvieron la definición para 37 términos de seis categorías, incluyendo los tipos de área protegida y las áreas adicionales de conservación (p. ej.: área protegida, área adicional de conservación), los conjuntos de estas áreas (p. ej.: red de áreas protegidas, sistema de áreas protegidas), su gestión y manejo (gobernanza, derechohabientes), evaluación (efectividad, equidad), planeación espacial (área clave de biodiversidad) y plan de acción (valor, resultado, objetivo). Nuestro léxico estandarizado puede proporcionar un lenguaje común para la gente que quiera usarlo y una referencia compartida que puede usarse para traducir varios términos que usan los diferentes grupos. El conocimiento común proporcionado por el léxico puede fungir como una base para que los esfuerzos colaborativos mejoren las políticas, implementación, evaluación, investigación y aprendizaje sobre este conjunto importante de estrategias de conservación.

Communicating climate change and biodiversity loss with local populations: exploring communicative utopias in eight transdisciplinary case studies.

Climate change and biodiversity loss trigger policies targeting and impacting local communities worldwide. However, research and policy implementation often fail to sufficiently consider community responses and to involve them. We present the results of a collective self-assessment exercise for eight case studies of communications with regard to climate change or biodiversity loss between project teams and local communities. We develop eight indicators of good stakeholder communication, reflecting the scope of Verran's (2002) concept of postcolonial moments as a communicative utopia. We demonstrate that applying our indicators can enhance communication and enable community responses. However, we discover a divergence between timing, complexity and (introspective) effort. Three cases qualify for postcolonial moments, but scrutinising power relations and genuine knowledge co-production remain rare. While we verify the potency of various instruments for deconstructing science, their sophistication cannot substitute trust building and epistemic/transdisciplinary awareness. Lastly, we consider that reforming inadequate funding policies helps improving the work in and with local communities.

Retaining natural vegetation to safeguard biodiversity and humanity.

Global efforts to deliver internationally agreed goals to reduce carbon emissions, halt biodiversity loss, and retain essential ecosystem services have been poorly integrated. These goals rely in part on preserving natural (e.g., native, largely unmodified) and seminatural (e.g., low intensity or sustainable human use) forests, woodlands, and grasslands. To show how to unify these goals, we empirically derived spatially explicit, quantitative, area-based targets for the retention of natural and seminatural (e.g., native) terrestrial vegetation worldwide. We used a 250-m-resolution map of natural and seminatural vegetation cover and, from this, selected areas identified under different international agreements as being important for achieving global biodiversity, carbon, soil, and water targets. At least 67 million km2 of Earth's terrestrial vegetation (∼79% of the area of vegetation remaining) required retention to contribute to biodiversity, climate, soil, and freshwater conservation objectives under 4 United Nations' resolutions. This equates to retaining natural and seminatural vegetation across at least 50% of the total terrestrial (excluding Antarctica) surface of Earth. Retention efforts could contribute to multiple goals simultaneously, especially where natural and seminatural vegetation can be managed to achieve cobenefits for biodiversity, carbon storage, and ecosystem service provision. Such management can and should co-occur and be driven by people who live in and rely on places where natural and sustainably managed vegetation remains in situ and must be complemented by restoration and appropriate management of more human-modified environments if global goals are to be realized.

Retención de la vegetación natural para salvaguardar la biodiversidad y la humanidad Resumen Hoy en día hay muy poca integración de los esfuerzos mundiales para alcanzar los objetivos internacionales de reducción de las emisiones de carbono, impedimento de la pérdida de biodiversidad y conservación de los servicios ambientales esenciales. Estos objetivos dependen parcialmente de la conservación de los bosques, selvas y praderas naturales (por ejemplo, nativos y en su mayoría sin alteraciones) y seminaturales (por ejemplo, de uso humano sostenible o de baja intensidad). Obtuvimos de manera empírica objetivos espacialmente explícitos, cuantitativos y basados en áreas para la conservación de la vegetación terrestre natural y seminatural (por ejemplo, nativa) en todo el mundo para mostrar cómo unificar los objetivos internacionales. Usamos un mapa de 250 m de resolución de la cubierta vegetal natural y seminatural y, a partir de él, seleccionamos las áreas identificadas como importantes en diferentes acuerdos internacionales para alcanzar los objetivos globales de biodiversidad, carbono, suelo y agua. Al menos 67 millones de km2 de la vegetación terrestre de la Tierra (∼79% de la superficie de vegetación restante) requieren ser conservados para contribuir a los objetivos de conservación de la biodiversidad, el clima, el suelo y el agua dulce en virtud de cuatro de las resoluciones de las Naciones Unidas. Esto equivale a conservar la vegetación natural y seminatural en al menos el 50% de la superficie terrestre total de la Tierra (sin contar a la Antártida). Los esfuerzos de retención podrían contribuir a alcanzar múltiples objetivos simultáneamente, especialmente en donde la vegetación natural y seminatural puede gestionarse para lograr beneficios colaterales para la biodiversidad, el almacenamiento de carbono y la provisión de servicios ambientales. Esta gestión puede y debe ser impulsada y llevada a cabo por las personas que viven en y dependen de los lugares donde la vegetación natural y gestionada de forma sostenible permanece in situ y debe complementarse con la restauración y la gestión adecuada de entornos modificados por el hombre si se quieren alcanzar los objetivos globales.

Author Correction: Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century.

Humanity will soon define a new era for nature-one that seeks to transform decades of underwhelming responses to the global biodiversity crisis. Area-based conservation efforts, which include both protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, are likely to extend and diversify. However, persistent shortfalls in ecological representation and management effectiveness diminish the potential role of area-based conservation in stemming biodiversity loss. Here we show how the expansion of protected areas by national governments since 2010 has had limited success in increasing the coverage across different elements of biodiversity (ecoregions, 12,056 threatened species, 'Key Biodiversity Areas' and wilderness areas) and ecosystem services (productive fisheries, and carbon services on land and sea). To be more successful after 2020, area-based conservation must contribute more effectively to meeting global biodiversity goals-ranging from preventing extinctions to retaining the most-intact ecosystems-and must better collaborate with the many Indigenous peoples, community groups and private initiatives that are central to the successful conservation of biodiversity. The long-term success of area-based conservation requires parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to secure adequate financing, plan for climate change and make biodiversity conservation a far stronger part of land, water and sea management policies.

Towards future-oriented conservation: Managing protected areas in an era of climate change.

Management of protected areas must adapt to climate impacts, and prepare for ongoing ecological transformation. Future-Proofing Conservation is a dialogue-based, multi-stakeholder learning process that supports conservation managers to consider the implications of climate change for governance and management. It takes participants through a series of conceptual transitions to identify new management options that are robust to a range of possible biophysical futures, and steps that they can take now to prepare for ecological transformation. We outline the Future-Proofing Conservation process, and demonstrate its application in a pilot programme in Colombia. This process can be applied and adapted to a wide range of climate adaptation contexts, to support practitioners in developing positive ways forward for management and decision-making. By acknowledging scientific uncertainty, considering social values, and rethinking the rules that shape conservation governance, participants can identify new strategies towards "future-oriented conservation" over the long term.

Building Stakeholder Awareness and Engagement Strategy to Enhance Biosphere Reserve Performance and Sustainability: The Case of Kien Giang, Vietnam.

Local application of the biosphere reserve concept in Kien Giang, Vietnam was examined to see how it compared with other biosphere reserves both in Vietnam and internationally and from that to assess the level of adoption and what could be limiting processes. This was undertaken mainly through qualitative document analysis, field surveys, and extensive interviews of stakeholders. While the designation the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve and establishment of the management regulation conformed with the conceptual model and criteria outlined by UNESCO, the practical implementation has been inadequate to achieve the desired outcomes of the biosphere reserve concept. There was limited public awareness and understanding of the biosphere reserve approach because of poorly developed communication channels. Top-down, state-control based on a strong sectoral approach to biosphere reserve planning and management hindered stakeholder and community participation. Weak engagement from the Province as the designated lead agency in biosphere reserve governance limited cross-sectoral collaboration in the delivery of the biosphere reserve mandated functions. External projects were perceived by community stakeholders to have only a temporary impact on biosphere reserve operation because of their small, short-term scale with the project maintaining control over funding and design of individual activities. Without proper investment in public awareness and improvement of Biosphere Reserve governance leadership, the desire for development of strategic public-private partnerships to support implementation remains unfulfilled and the Biosphere Reserve model will, as a consequence, contribute little to the long-term biodiversity conservation and socio-economic development in the region.

Understanding local-scale drivers of biodiversity outcomes in terrestrial protected areas.

Conservation relies heavily on protected areas (PAs) maintaining their key biodiversity features to meet global biodiversity conservation goals. However, PAs have had variable success, with many failing to fully maintain their biodiversity features. The current literature concerning what drives variability in PA performance is rapidly expanding but unclear, sometimes contradictory, and spread across multiple disciplines. A clear understanding of the drivers of successful biodiversity conservation in PAs is necessary to make them fully effective. Here, we conduct a comprehensive assessment of the current state of knowledge concerning the drivers of biological outcomes within PAs, focusing on those that can be addressed at local scales. We evaluate evidence in support of potential drivers to identify those that enable more successful outcomes and those that impede success and provide a synthetic review. Interactions are discussed where they are known, and we highlight gaps in understanding. We find that elements of PA design, management, and local and national governance challenges, species and system ecology, and sociopolitical context can all influence outcomes. Adjusting PA management to focus on actions and policies that influence the key drivers identified here could improve global biodiversity outcomes.

Bolder science needed now for protected areas.

Recognizing that protected areas (PAs) are essential for effective biodiversity conservation action, the Convention on Biological Diversity established ambitious PA targets as part of the 2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity. Under the strategic goal to "improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species, and genetic diversity," Target 11 aims to put 17% of terrestrial and 10% of marine regions under PA status by 2020. Additionally and crucially, these areas are required to be of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative, and well-connected and to include "other effective area-based conservation measures" (OECMs). Whereas the area-based targets are explicit and measurable, the lack of guidance for what constitutes important and representative; effective; and OECMs is affecting how nations are implementing the target. There is a real risk that Target 11 may be achieved in terms of area while failing the overall strategic goal for which it is established because the areas are poorly located, inadequately managed, or based on unjustifiable inclusion of OECMs. We argue that the conservation science community can help establish ecologically sensible PA targets to help prioritize important biodiversity areas and achieve ecological representation; identify clear, comparable performance metrics of ecological effectiveness so progress toward these targets can be assessed; and identify metrics and report on the contribution OECMs make toward the target. By providing ecologically sensible targets and new performance metrics for measuring the effectiveness of both PAs and OECMs, the science community can actively ensure that the achievement of the required area in Target 11 is not simply an end in itself but generates genuine benefits for biodiversity.

The performance and potential of protected areas.

Originally conceived to conserve iconic landscapes and wildlife, protected areas are now expected to achieve an increasingly diverse set of conservation, social and economic objectives. The amount of land and sea designated as formally protected has markedly increased over the past century, but there is still a major shortfall in political commitments to enhance the coverage and effectiveness of protected areas. Financial support for protected areas is dwarfed by the benefits that they provide, but these returns depend on effective management. A step change involving increased recognition, funding, planning and enforcement is urgently needed if protected areas are going to fulfil their potential.