Management

This document is a guide along the path to realizing Target 3 of the KMGBF. It guides us through the text of the Target itself, breaking down all of the elements and, perhaps most importantly, it is loaded with links to more details. The path it offers leads to effective implementation through equitable and human rights-based action. It is a big guide for a big job. The development of this guide is a small example of the kind of cooperation and hard work that we need to succeed in Target 3.

Protected areas are essential to biodiversity conservation. Creating new parks can protect larger populations and more species, yet strengthening existing parks, particularly those vulnerable to harmful human activities, is a critical but underappreciated step for safeguarding at-risk species. Here, we model the area of habitat that terrestrial mammals, amphibians, and birds have within park networks and their vulnerability to current downgrading, downsizing, or de-gazettement events and future land-use change.

Infrastructure development is a major threat to biodiversity, leading to habitat loss and fragmentation, increased accessibility and pollution. Key Biodiversity Areas represent the most comprehensive network of important areas for biodiversity and the prevalence of infrastructure in KBAs has not previously been described. Here we examined the prevalence of current and potential future infrastructure within the global network of 15,150 terrestrial KBAs, using a range of open and commercial spatial datasets related to infrastructure.

Eight percent of all land surface has been designated as “Key Biodiversity Areas” (KBAs). Since these areas were established based on two percent of all terrestrial species estimated to exist, we ask what would happen if we used all species on Earth to identify additional KBAs. We explore this question at a global scale by using data from 64,110 species of animals and plants to identify how many areas could qualify as KBAs under current criteria. We find that between 26% and 68% of the world’s terrestrial areas can be classified as KBAs, depending on the spatial resolution.

Motivated by declines in biodiversity exacerbated by climate change, we identified a network of conservation sites designed to provide resilient habitat for species, while supporting dynamic shifts in ranges and changes in ecosystem composition. Our 12-ystudy involved 289 scientists in 14 study regions across the conterminous United States(CONUS), and our intent was to support local-, regional-, and national-scale conservation decisions.

We are in the midst of a major biodiversity crisis, with deep impacts on the functioning of ecosystems and derived benefits to people (1, 2). But we still have time to pull back. To do so, it is imperative that we learn from plants’ and animals’ past actions (3, 4). Conservation biology, ecology, and paleontology all emphasize that natural systems must exhibit resilience and dynamic responses to rapid environmental changes (3, 5, 6). Both climate and land-use change have accelerated over the past decades, underscoring the urgency for increased understanding and action (7–9).

The CKI OECM Workshop Report consolidates the discussions, outcomes, recommendations and next steps following the Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures Workshop, hosted by the National Environment Service, in partnership with Secretariat of Pacific Regional Environment Program and the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, on the 24th - 25th January 2023 in Rarotonga, Cook Islands.  

Many protected areas worldwide increasingly resemble habitat isolates embedded in human-modifed landscapes. However, establishing linkages among protected areas could signifcantly reduce speciesloss rates. Here we present a novel method having broad applicability for assessing enhanced regional connectivity on persistence of mammal diversity. We combine theoretically-derived species relaxation rates for mammal communities with empirically-derived pathways.

This paper identifies the Dasgupta Review’s key points about the role of protected areas (PAs) in conserving nature. Using these factors as a foundation, this paper explores how economists can conduct analyses that improve PA decisions and promote both biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service provision. People’s interactions with PAs should be considered when making design, management, and restrictions decisions about PAs because those interactions are critical to determining the threats to biodiversity within PAs and the benefits produced by PAs.

The aim of the National Protected Areas Forum was to fulfill mandates and strengthen policies to protect the country’s abundant natural assets into the future to benefit all life and future generations. Led by the Conservation and Environment Protection Authority (CEPA) with support from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).