Home

To safeguard biodiversity effectively, marine protected areas (MPAs) should be sited using the best available science. There are numerous ongoing United Nations and nongovernmental initiatives to map globally important marine areas. The criteria used by these initiatives vary, resulting in contradictions in the areas identified as important. Our analysis is the first to overlay these initiatives, quantify consensus, and conduct gap analyses at the global scale.

Despite considerable efforts these past four years, we are not on track to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. We must dramatically step up the pace of implementation as we enter a decisive decade for people and the planet. We must connect the dots across all that we do – as individuals, civic groups, corporations, municipalities and Member States of the United Nations – and truly embrace the principles of inclusion and sustainability. Science is our great ally in the efforts to achieve the Goals.

Good governance is fundamental to effective protected area (PA) design, planning, and management operations, and the degree to which these are equitable in terms of the recognition and engagement of key actors, and the distribution of benefits and costs/burdens. Achieving both effective and equitable PA management is central to international PA policy (ie Aichi target 11). Site-level PA governance assessment assesses the quality of the governance arrangements of a PA in relation to best practice which is defined in terms of a set of good governance principles.

This manual provides detailed guidance for assessing the governance quality of protected areas (PAs) and other conserved areas (CAs) and any related conservation and development activities. The manual describes the relatively low-cost Governance Assessment for Protected and Conserved Areas (GAPA) methodology, which is intended for use at site level. GAPA can be used with PAs and CAs of any kind. This includes PAs/CAs governed and managed by government agencies, communities and the private sector.

This report presents the findings of the Final Evaluation of the six year1 Global Environment Facility – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (GEF-FAO) Forest Protected Area Management (FPAM) in Fiji, Samoa, Vanuatu and Niue project, which was implemented between January 2012 and July 2017. The project’s global environmental objective was ‘to strengthen biodiversity conservation and reduce forest and land degradation’ and the development objective was ‘to enhance the sustainable livelihoods of local communities living in and around protected areas’

Connectivity of protected areas (PAs) is needed to ensure the long-term persistence of biodiversity and ecosystem service delivery. The Convention on Biological Diversity agreed in 2010 to have 17% of land covered by wellconnected PA systems by 2020 (Aichi Target 11). We here globally assess, for all countries, the trends in terrestrial PA connectivity every other year from 2010 to 2018 using the ProtConn indicator, which quantifies how well the PA systems are designed to support connectivity.

Connectivity of protected areas (PAs) is crucial for meeting their conservation goals. We provide the first global evaluation of countries' progress towards Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity that is to have at least 17% of the land covered by well-connected PA systems by 2020. We quantify how well the terrestrial PA systems of countries are designed to promote connectivity, using the Protected Connected (ProtConn) indicator. We refine ProtConn to focus on the part of PA connectivity that is in the power of a country to influence, i.e.

 Here we undertake a cost-effective approach to protected area planning in Guyana that accounts for in-country conditions. To do this we conducted a stakeholder-led spatial conservation prioritisation based on meeting targets for 17 vegetation types and 329 vertebrate species, while minimising opportunity costs for forestry, mining, agriculture and urbanisation. Our analysis identifies 3 million ha of priority areas for conservation, helping inform government plans to double the current protected area network from 8.5 to 17%.

We argue that OECMs are essential to the achievement of big and bold conservation targets such as Half-Earth. But integration of OECMs into the conservation estate requires fundamental changes in protected area planning and how the conservation community deals with human rights and social safeguards issues; it therefore challenges our understanding of what constitutes “conservation”. It will only succeed if the key drivers of biodiversity and ecosystem service loss are addressed in the whole planet.