The MPA Guide: A framework to achieve global goals for the ocean.

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are conservation tools intended to protect biodiversity, promote healthy and resilient marine ecosystems, and provide societal benefits. Despite codification of MPAs in international agreements, MPA effectiveness is currently undermined by confusion about the many MPA types and consequent wildly differing outcomes. We present a clarifying science-driven framework­The MPA Guide­to aid design and evaluation. The guide categorizes MPAs by stage of establishment and level of protection, specifies the resulting direct and indirect outcomes for biodiversity and human well-being, and describes the key conditions necessary for positive outcomes. Use of this MPA Guide by scientists, managers, policy-makers, and communities can improve effective design, implementation, assessment, and tracking of existing and future MPAs to achieve conservation goals by using scientifically grounded practices.

People have shaped most of terrestrial nature for at least 12,000 years.

Archaeological and paleoecological evidence shows that by 10,000 BCE, all human societies employed varying degrees of ecologically transformative land use practices, including burning, hunting, species propagation, domestication, cultivation, and others that have left long-term legacies across the terrestrial biosphere. Yet, a lingering paradigm among natural scientists, conservationists, and policymakers is that human transformation of terrestrial nature is mostly recent and inherently destructive. Here, we use the most up-to-date, spatially explicit global reconstruction of historical human populations and land use to show that this paradigm is likely wrong. Even 12,000 y ago, nearly three quarters of Earth's land was inhabited and therefore shaped by human societies, including more than 95% of temperate and 90% of tropical woodlands. Lands now characterized as "natural," "intact," and "wild" generally exhibit long histories of use, as do protected areas and Indigenous lands, and current global patterns of vertebrate species richness and key biodiversity areas are more strongly associated with past patterns of land use than with present ones in regional landscapes now characterized as natural. The current biodiversity crisis can seldom be explained by the loss of uninhabited wildlands, resulting instead from the appropriation, colonization, and intensifying use of the biodiverse cultural landscapes long shaped and sustained by prior societies. Recognizing this deep cultural connection with biodiversity will therefore be essential to resolve the crisis.

Perspectives on area-based conservation and its meaning for future biodiversity policy.

During 2021, Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are expected to meet in Kunming, China, to agree on a new global biodiversity framework aimed at halting and reversing biodiversity loss, encouraging the sustainable use of biodiversity, and ensuring the equitable sharing of its benefits. As the post-2020 global biodiversity framework evolves, parties to the convention are being exposed to a range of perspectives on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, relating to the future framework as a whole or to aspects of it. Area-based conservation measures are one such aspect, and there are diverse perspectives on how new targets might be framed in relation to these measures. These perspectives represent different outlooks on the relationship between human and nonhuman life on Earth. However, in most cases there is a lack of clarity on how they would be implemented in practice, the implications this would have for biodiversity and human well-being, and how they would contribute to achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity of "living in harmony with nature." We sought to clarify these issues by summarizing some of these perspectives in relation to the future of area-based biodiversity conservation. We identified these perspectives through a review of the literature and expert consultation workshops and compiled them into 4 main groups: Aichi+, ambitious area-based conservation perspectives, new conservation, and whole-earth conservation. We found that although the perspectives Aichi+ and whole earth are in some cases at odds with one another, they also have commonalities, and all perspectives have elements that can contribute to developing and implementing the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and achieving the longer term CBD 2050 Vision.

Perspectivas de la Conservación Basada en el Área y su Significado para las Futuras Políticas de Biodiversidad Resumen Durante 2021, se espera que las partes miembro del Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica (CBD) se reúnan en Kunming, China, para acordar un nuevo marco de trabajo global para la biodiversidad enfocado en detener y revertir la pérdida de la biodiversidad, promover el uso sustentable de la biodiversidad y asegurar la repartición equitativa de sus beneficios. Conforme evoluciona el marco de trabajo global para la biodiversidad post-2020, las partes miembro del convenio están conociendo una gama de perspectivas de la conservación y el uso sustentable de la biodiversidad, relacionándolas con el futuro marco de trabajo en su totalidad o sólo con algunos aspectos del marco de trabajo. Las medidas de conservación basadas en el área son uno de dichos aspectos y existen diversas perspectivas sobre cómo los nuevos objetivos podrían estar enmarcados en relación a estas medidas. Estas perspectivas representan diferentes puntos de vista sobre la relación entre la vida humana y no humana en la Tierra. Sin embargo, en la mayoría de los casos existe una falta de claridad sobre cómo se implementarían en la práctica, las implicaciones que ésto tendría para la biodiversidad y el bienestar humano y cómo contribuirían para alcanzar la Visión para la Biodiversidad 2050 de "vivir en armonía con la naturaleza". Buscamos aclarar estos temas al resumir algunas de estas perspectivas en relación al futuro de la conservación de la biodiversidad basada en el área. Identificamos estas perspectivas por medio de una revisión de la literatura y talleres de consulta a expertos y las compilamos en cuatro grupos principales: Aichi+, perspectivas ambiciosas de conservación basada en el área, conservación nueva y conservación del mundo entero. Descubrimos que aunque las perspectivas Aichi+ y conservación del mundo entero entran en conflicto en algunos casos, también tienen puntos comunes, y todas las perspectivas tienen elementos que pueden contribuir al desarrollo e implementación del marco de trabajo global para la biodiversidad post-2020 y para alcanzar la Visión CBD 2050 de mayor plazo.

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.

Integrating climate adaptation and biodiversity conservation in the global ocean.

The impacts of climate change and the socioecological challenges they present are ubiquitous and increasingly severe. Practical efforts to operationalize climate-responsive design and management in the global network of marine protected areas (MPAs) are required to ensure long-term effectiveness for safeguarding marine biodiversity and ecosystem services. Here, we review progress in integrating climate change adaptation into MPA design and management and provide eight recommendations to expedite this process. Climate-smart management objectives should become the default for all protected areas, and made into an explicit international policy target. Furthermore, incentives to use more dynamic management tools would increase the climate change responsiveness of the MPA network as a whole. Given ongoing negotiations on international conservation targets, now is the ideal time to proactively reform management of the global seascape for the dynamic climate-biodiversity reality.

Sixty years of tracking conservation progress using the World Database on Protected Areas.

The world's protected area network is constantly changing, and the dynamics of this network are tracked using the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). This database evolved from a list of protected areas first mandated by the United Nations in 1959, and it now informs the key indicators that track progress toward area-based conservation targets. In this capacity, the WDPA illuminates the role of protected areas in advancing a range of international objectives and agreements, including the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Sustainable Development Goals. Despite ongoing challenges in maintaining such a complex global dataset, the WDPA is continuously improving and taking advantage of new technology, making it widely applicable to diverse users, including those in sectors far from its original intended audience. In the future, the WDPA will expand to include areas that contribute to conservation and sustainable use outside of formal protected areas, and will increasingly link to other key global datasets. These innovations in the way the WDPA is managed and used will deliver vital knowledge to support a sustainable future for biodiversity and people globally.

Dynamics in the global protected-area estate since 2004.

Nations of the world have committed to a number of goals and targets to address global environmental challenges. Protected areas have for centuries been a key strategy in conservation and play a major role in addressing current challenges. The most important tool used to track progress on protected-area commitments is the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Periodic assessments of the world's protected-area estate show steady growth over the last 2 decades. However, the current method, which uses the latest version of the WDPA, does not show the true dynamic nature of protected areas over time and does not provide information on sites removed from the WDPA. In reality, this method can only show growth or remain stable. We used GIS tools in an approach to assess protected-area change over time based on 12 temporally distinct versions of the WDPA that quantify area added and removed from the WDPA annually from 2004 to 2016. Both the narrative of continual growth of protected area and the counter-narrative of protected area removal were overly simplistic. The former because growth was almost entirely in the marine realm and the latter because some areas removed were reprotected in later years. On average 2.5 million km2 was added to the WDPA annually and 1.1 million km2 was removed. Reasons for the inclusion and removal of protected areas in the WDPA database were in part due to data-quality issues but also to on-the-ground changes. To meet the 17% protected-area component of Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 by 2020, which stood at 14.7% in 2016, either the rate of protected-area removal must decrease or the rate of protected-area designation and addition to the WDPA must increase.

Dinámica de los Bienes de las Áreas Protegidas desde 2004 Resumen Países alrededor del mundo se han comprometido con un número de metas y objetivos para tratar los retos ambientales mundiales. Las áreas protegidas han funcionado durante siglos como una estrategia clave en la conservación y juegan un papel importante en cómo se manejan los retos actuales. La herramienta más importante que se usa para rastrear el progreso de los compromisos con las áreas protegidas es la Base de Datos Mundial de las Áreas Protegidas (WDPA, en inglés). Las evaluaciones periódicas de los bienes de las áreas protegidas muestran un crecimiento constante durante las últimas dos décadas. Sin embargo, el método actual, que usa la versión más reciente de la WDPA, no muestra la verdadera naturaleza dinámica de las áreas protegidas a lo largo del tiempo y no proporciona información sobre sitios que han sido removidos de la WDPA. En realidad este método sólo puede mostrar crecimiento o permanecer estable. Usamos herramientas de SIG en una estrategia para evaluar el cambio de las áreas protegidas a lo largo del tiempo con base en doce versiones temporalmente distintas de la WDPA que cuantifican las áreas añadidas o removidas de la WDPA anualmente desde 2004 hasta 2016. Tanto la narrativa del crecimiento continuo de un área protegida como la contra-narrativa de la eliminación de un área protegida fueron exageradamente simplistas. La primera se debe a que el crecimiento ocurrió casi en su mayoría en el dominio marino y la segunda a que algunas áreas eliminadas fueron reprotegidas años después. En promedio se añadieron 2.5 millones de km2 a la WDPA anualmente y 1.1 millones de km2 fueron removidos. Las razones para la inclusión y la eliminación de las áreas protegidas de la base de datos de la WDPA se debieron en parte a temas de calidad de datos pero también a cambios hechos sobre la marcha. Para lograr el 17% del componente de áreas protegidas del Objetivo 11 de Biodiversidad de Aichi para el 2020, el cual se encontraba al 14.7% en 2016, se debe disminuir la tasa de eliminación de áreas protegidas o se debe incrementar la tasa de designación y suma de áreas protegidas a la WDPA.

Measuring the extent of overlaps in protected area designations.

Over the past decades, a number of national policies and international conventions have been implemented to promote the expansion of the world's protected area network, leading to a diversification of protected area strategies, types and designations. As a result, many areas are protected by more than one convention, legal instrument, or other effective means which may result in a lack of clarity around the governance and management regimes of particular locations. We assess the degree to which different designations overlap at global, regional and national levels to understand the extent of this phenomenon at different scales. We then compare the distribution and coverage of these multi-designated areas in the terrestrial and marine realms at the global level and among different regions, and we present the percentage of each county's protected area extent that is under more than one designation. Our findings show that almost a quarter of the world's protected area network is protected through more than one designation. In fact, we have documented up to eight overlapping designations. These overlaps in protected area designations occur in every region of the world, both in the terrestrial and marine realms, but are more common in the terrestrial realm and in some regions, notably Europe. In the terrestrial realm, the most common overlap is between one national and one international designation. In the marine realm, the most common overlap is between any two national designations. Multi-designations are therefore a widespread phenomenon but its implications are not well understood. This analysis identifies, for the first time, multi-designated areas across all designation types. This is a key step to understand how these areas are managed and governed to then move towards integrated and collaborative approaches that consider the different management and conservation objectives of each designation.

A global map of saltmarshes.

BACKGROUND: Saltmarshes are extremely valuable but often overlooked ecosystems, contributing to livelihoods locally and globally through the associated ecosystem services they provide, including fish production, carbon storage and coastal protection. Despite their importance, knowledge of the current spatial distribution (occurrence and extent) of saltmarshes is incomplete. In light of increasing anthropogenic and environmental pressures on coastal ecosystems, global data on the occurrence and extent of saltmarshes are needed to draw attention to these critical ecosystems and to the benefits they generate for people. Such data can support resource management, strengthen decision-making and facilitate tracking of progress towards global conservation targets set by multilateral environmental agreements, such as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets of the United Nations' (UN's) Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, the Sustainable Development Goals of the UN's 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Ramsar Convention. NEW INFORMATION: Here, we present the most complete dataset on saltmarsh occurrence and extent at the global scale. This dataset collates 350,985 individual occurrences of saltmarshes and presents the first global estimate of their known extent. The dataset captures locational and contextual data for saltmarsh in 99 countries worldwide. A total of 5,495,089 hectares of mapped saltmarsh across 43 countries and territories are represented in a Geographic Information Systems polygon shapefile. This estimate is at the relatively low end of previous estimates (2.2-40 Mha), however, we took the conservative approach in the mapping exercise and there are notable areas in Canada, Northern Russia, South America and Africa where saltmarshes are known to occur that require additional spatial data. Nevertheless, the most extensive saltmarsh worldwide are found outside the tropics, notably including the low-lying, ice-free coasts, bays and estuaries of the North Atlantic which are well represented in our global polygon dataset. Therefore, despite the gaps, we believe that, while incomplete, our global polygon data cover many of the important areas in Europe, the USA and Australia.

Assessing the Cost of Global Biodiversity and Conservation Knowledge.

Knowledge products comprise assessments of authoritative information supported by standards, governance, quality control, data, tools, and capacity building mechanisms. Considerable resources are dedicated to developing and maintaining knowledge products for biodiversity conservation, and they are widely used to inform policy and advise decision makers and practitioners. However, the financial cost of delivering this information is largely undocumented. We evaluated the costs and funding sources for developing and maintaining four global biodiversity and conservation knowledge products: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, Protected Planet, and the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. These are secondary data sets, built on primary data collected by extensive networks of expert contributors worldwide. We estimate that US$160 million (range: US$116-204 million), plus 293 person-years of volunteer time (range: 278-308 person-years) valued at US$ 14 million (range US$12-16 million), were invested in these four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013. More than half of this financing was provided through philanthropy, and nearly three-quarters was spent on personnel costs. The estimated annual cost of maintaining data and platforms for three of these knowledge products (excluding the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems for which annual costs were not possible to estimate for 2013) is US$6.5 million in total (range: US$6.2-6.7 million). We estimated that an additional US$114 million will be needed to reach pre-defined baselines of data coverage for all the four knowledge products, and that once achieved, annual maintenance costs will be approximately US$12 million. These costs are much lower than those to maintain many other, similarly important, global knowledge products. Ensuring that biodiversity and conservation knowledge products are sufficiently up to date, comprehensive and accurate is fundamental to inform decision-making for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Thus, the development and implementation of plans for sustainable long-term financing for them is critical.

Analysing biodiversity and conservation knowledge products to support regional environmental assessments.

Two processes for regional environmental assessment are currently underway: the Global Environment Outlook (GEO) and Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Both face constraints of data, time, capacity, and resources. To support these assessments, we disaggregate three global knowledge products according to their regions and subregions. These products are: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Key Biodiversity Areas (specifically Important Bird &Biodiversity Areas [IBAs], and Alliance for Zero Extinction [AZE] sites), and Protected Planet. We present fourteen Data citations: numbers of species occurring and percentages threatened; numbers of endemics and percentages threatened; downscaled Red List Indices for mammals, birds, and amphibians; numbers, mean sizes, and percentage coverages of IBAs and AZE sites; percentage coverage of land and sea by protected areas; and trends in percentages of IBAs and AZE sites wholly covered by protected areas. These data will inform the regional/subregional assessment chapters on the status of biodiversity, drivers of its decline, and institutional responses, and greatly facilitate comparability and consistency between the different regional/subregional assessments.

Measuring impact of protected area management interventions: current and future use of the Global Database of Protected Area Management Effectiveness.

Protected areas (PAs) are at the forefront of conservation efforts, and yet despite considerable progress towards the global target of having 17% of the world's land area within protected areas by 2020, biodiversity continues to decline. The discrepancy between increasing PA coverage and negative biodiversity trends has resulted in renewed efforts to enhance PA effectiveness. The global conservation community has conducted thousands of assessments of protected area management effectiveness (PAME), and interest in the use of these data to help measure the conservation impact of PA management interventions is high. Here, we summarize the status of PAME assessment, review the published evidence for a link between PAME assessment results and the conservation impacts of PAs, and discuss the limitations and future use of PAME data in measuring the impact of PA management interventions on conservation outcomes. We conclude that PAME data, while designed as a tool for local adaptive management, may also help to provide insights into the impact of PA management interventions from the local-to-global scale. However, the subjective and ordinal characteristics of the data present significant limitations for their application in rigorous scientific impact evaluations, a problem that should be recognized and mitigated where possible.

Inferring national and regional declines of rare orchid species with probabilistic models.

Fragmentation of natural habitats can increase numbers of rare species. Conservation of rare species requires experts and resources, which may be lacking for many species. In the absence of regular surveys and expert knowledge, historical sighting records can provide data on the distribution of a species. Numerous models have been developed recently to make inferences regarding the threat status of a taxon on the basis of variation in trends of sightings over time. We applied 5 such models to national and regional (county) data on 3 red-listed orchid species (Cephalanthera longifolia, Hammarbya paludosa, and Pseudorchis albida) and 1 species that has recently come to the attention of conservation authorities (Neotinea maculata) in the Republic of Ireland. In addition, we used an optimal linear estimate to calculate the time of extinction for each species overall and within each county. To account for bias in recording effort over time, we used rarefaction analysis. On the basis of sighting records, we inferred that these species are not threatened with extinction and, although there have been declines, there is no clear geographical pattern of decline in any species. Most counties where these orchid species occurred had a low number of sightings; hence, we were cautious in our interpretation of output from statistical models. We suggest the main drivers of decline in these species in Ireland are modification of habitats for increased agricultural production and lack of appropriate management. Our results show that the application of probabilistic models can be used even when sighting data are scarce, provided multiple models are used simultaneously and rarefaction is used to account for bias in recording effort among species over time. These models could be used frequently when making an initial conservation assessment of species in a region, particularly if there is a relatively constant recording rate and some knowledge of the underlying recording process. Regional-scale analyses, such as ours, complement World Conservation Union criteria for assessment of the extinct category and are useful for highlighting areas of under recording and focusing conservation efforts of rare and endangered species.