Priorities for protected area expansion so nations can meet their Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework commitments
甄选优先保护区域，确保各国履行昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架的承诺
Abstract
enAs part of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (K-M GBF), signatory nations of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) aim to protect at least 30% of the planet by 2030 (Target 3). This bold ambition has been widely celebrated and its implementation seen as pivotal for the overall success of K-M GBF. However, given that many CBD signatory nations prioritised quantity (e.g., area) over quality (e.g., important areas for biodiversity) when attempting to meet their 2010 CBD Aichi protected area commitments, it is critical that nations focus on protecting those terrestrial, inland waters and marine areas that have the best chance of halting and reversing biodiversity loss and thus contribute to Goal A of the K-M GBF. Here we provide a review on the type of areas that nations need to prioritise when implementing Target 3 that relates to area ‘quality’: areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems. We show that data is available for 12 distinct biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service elements that can be mapped and, if conserved, will (with appropriate management) help meet the broad intention of Target 3. We highlight examples of the planning methods available that can be utilized so these areas can be targeted for protection. We discuss issues related to trade-offs regarding how to prioritise amongst them as well as to operationalise some of the vaguer concepts like ‘representation’ and ‘ecosystem functions and services’ so that they achieve the best outcomes for biodiversity.
摘要
zh作为昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架（K-M GBF）的一部分，《生物多样性公约》（CBD）各缔约国旨在到2030年保护至少30%的地球面积（行动目标3）。这一雄心勃勃的目标广受赞誉，而目标的实现则被视为K-M GBF成功的关键。然而，许多缔约国在履行2010年“爱知目标”的保护区承诺时，更注重数量（如面积）而非质量（如生物多样性重要区域）。因此，至关重要的是，各国应重点保护那些最有可能制止和扭转生物多样性丧失的区域，包括陆地、内陆水域以及海洋，以促进K-M GBF长期目标A的实现。行动目标3致力于保护“高质量”区域——“对生物多样性、生态系统功能和服务特别重要的区域，是通过具有生态代表性、生态连通性良好，公平治理机制的有效保护和管理”。本研究将行动目标3细分为12个生物多样性保护与生态系统服务的绘制组成部分，如果这些区域得到保护且适当管理，将有助于目标的实现。本研究重点介绍了可借鉴的保护优先区甄选方法，以确保这些区域成为设立保护区的目标。本研究还讨论了如何权衡这些区域的优先保护顺序，以及如何让一些较模糊的概念，如“生态代表性”和“生态系统功能和服务”更加清晰化和可落地，以实现生物多样性保护的最佳成效。【审阅:白杨】
Practitioner points
en
-
The Protected and Conserved Area (PCA) Target in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework provides impetus for nations to significantly expand the extent of terrestrial, inland waters and marine areas under formal protection.
-
Nations must focus on protecting sites that have the best chance of halting and reversing biodiversity loss.
-
There are data and methods available to ensure important biodiversity conservation sites can be proactively identified, mapped and conserved.
实践者要点
zh
-
2020年后全球生物多样性框架下的保护区目标推动各国将更多的陆地、内陆水域和海洋区域纳入法律保护。
-
各国应优先保护最有可能制止和扭转生物多样性丧失的区域。
-
根据现有可利用的数据和方法，甄选和绘制生物多样性保护重点区域以实现有效保护。
1 INTRODUCTION
Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recently adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (K-M GBF), which included four goals that are supported by 23 targets to be completed by 2030 (CBD, 2022). The Framework states that it ‘is action- and results-oriented and aims to guide and promote, at all levels, the revision, development, updating, and implementation of policies, goals, targets, and national biodiversity strategies and action plans, and to facilitate the monitoring and review of progress at all levels in a more transparent and responsible manner’. The Framework's ratification was hailed as a major success for nature conservation by some nations (Gilbert, 2022) and considered as a foundational shift in recognising human rights as critical in the response to the biodiversity crisis. Statements from the CBD Secretariat and the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP 15) leadership go further, portraying the new K-M GBF as a ‘historic’ blueprint that will ‘galvanize urgent and transformative action’ to reduce biodiversity loss (CBD, 2022).
Some assessments of the new global framework argue that it should be viewed as a mixed success (Hughes, 2023). Parties did reach an agreement on several contentious issues at COP 15 and some individual targets have been strengthened, especially those associated with ecosystems and ensuring quality (of protected areas) was a focus (Maxwell et al., 2020; Watson et al., 2020). There are significant improvements over previous agreements, with parties agreeing to increase protection of terrestrial, inland waters and marine areas to at least 30% from the former 17% terrestrial and 10% for marine (Target 3); restoring 30% of the Earth's degraded terrestrial, inland water and marine and coastal ecosystems (Target 2); encouraging efforts by private businesses to track their biodiversity impacts (Target 15); recognizing the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to their traditional lands (Target 22) and infusing gender equality and responsiveness into CBD decision-making (Target 23). But it is also clear that some of the new targets are not an improvement on those agreed upon in 2010. For example, the target on species extinction (Target 4) has been diluted and its timeline shifted 30 years into the future, despite warnings during the final years of negotiations that the draft target was weak (Williams et al., 2021). Moreover, despite agreement that target wording was a major weakness with the 20 CBD Aichi targets (only six of its 20 targets contained quantitative language useful to track implementation success (Butchart et al., 2016)), and considered one of the main reasons no Aichi Targets were fully implemented, only eight (Targets 1, 2, 6, 7, 18, 21, 22 and 23) of the 23 K-M GBF targets incorporate coherent, quantitative wording that can be measured and reported on. It is therefore timely to consider core lessons for how nations implemented the Aichi Targets, to ensure better implementation of the targets in the K-M GBF.
Here we provide a perspective on Target 3 (hereafter T3) of the K-M GBF, the area-based conservation target, and in particular, how nations can identify areas for prioritisation when considering the area expansion agenda it outlines (see Table 1 for full text). It is well established that protected areas are a critical tool for halting biodiversity loss (Pacifici et al., 2020; Watson et al., 2014); ‘other effective conservation measures’ (OECMs) now offer the opportunity for recognition of a wider range of area-based conservation approaches to be added to the conservation estate (Dudley et al., 2018). The success of protected areas and OECMs [hereafter ‘protected and conserved areas’ (PCAs)] in the new ‘30% by 2030’ agenda, in terms of where new PCAs are located and how they are managed, will likely be a cornerstone for conservation efforts aimed to bend the curve for biodiversity (Visconti et al., 2019) and achievement of the K-M GBF's 2050 Goals. In July 2023 Protected Planet (protectedplanet.net) reports that PCAs cover 17.19% of terrestrial and inland waters, and 8.26% of marine areas. Thus, in less than 7 years the increase in area needed to achieve 30% of protection on land will be almost as much as the total area that has been protected since 1872 when Yellowstone was declared a National Park—the first formal terrestrial protected area in the world (Watson et al., 2014). In coastal and marine areas, that increase in area needs to be triple of what has been achieved since 1935 when the first formal Marine Protected Area was declared (Gubbay et al., 1995). This expansion agenda that CBD signatory nations have committed to is thus undoubtedly a major challenge, but also a unique opportunity to rapidly extend conservation efforts globally in an equitable and representative manner.
| Aichi Target 11 | Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Target 3 |
|---|---|
| By 2020, at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water, and 10% of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes. | Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30% of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of marine and coastal areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, recognizing indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable, and integrated into wider landscapes, seascapes and the ocean, while ensuring that any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent with conservation outcomes, recognizing and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities, including over their traditional territories. |
Significant conservation opportunities will be realized only if the wording in T3 around ‘areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems’ is defined, understood and prioritised by nations and other important stakeholders, such as the mining sector, that have made commitments to safeguard biodiversity (ICCM, 2023). Yet, this type of wording is not unique to the current K-M GBF framework, with the 2010 Aichi Target 11 (the area-based conservation target for the 2010-2020 CBD strategic plan), having similar qualifier language ‘especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services…through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas…’ to the K-M GBF's T3 (Table 1). Despite the presence of this language in the 2010 Aichi Targets, and clear guidance provided by CBD (e.g., CBD, 2018), and various publications (Barnes et al., 2018; Watson et al., 2014, 2016), nations for the most part ignored it with independent assessments showing that while there was significant areal expansion of PCAs during the 2010–2020 period, the specific gains when considering biodiversity coverage were incremental and piecemeal (Devillers et al., 2015; Kuempel et al., 2019; Maxwell et al., 2020; Relano & Pauly, 2023; Ward et al., 2020).
We argue that humanity cannot risk a repeat of the past decade where great gains were made in the overall area under recognised protection but in locations that were often not priorities for biodiversity conservation outcomes. There is an urgent need to correctly place (and then effectively govern and manage) the network of PCAs given the amount of land, water and sea available for significant conservation gain is rapidly decreasing (Halpern et al., 2008; Williams et al., 2020, 2022). While T3 and the overall K-M GBF must be seen as interim goals and targets when considering the 2050 Vision of the CBD, how PCA growth is implemented by nations over the next 7 years will likely determine the options for future post-2030 frameworks and their specific targets.
Here we review key considerations for nations when they set priorities for PCA expansion that address ‘areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services … ecologically representative and well-connected’. We first identify specific biodiversity and ecosystem service elements that can be mapped against each of the core terms and show examples of where they can be included in planning exercises (Table 2). We then discuss ways to overcome the vaguer components of the target (including those associated with ‘representation’, ‘well connected’ and ‘ecosystem functions and services’) and discuss priorities when considering all these objectives, to ensure nations achieve biodiversity outcomes consistent with the CBD's 2050 Vision, and indeed other multilateral agreements. As this review deals solely with the issue of identifying the best places for PCAs to reduce biodiversity loss, we do not attempt to cover important issues such as PCA effectiveness, their governance, and issues associated with inclusivity, rights, and equity. These are critical elements of T3 that need attention and guidance and there are separate best practice efforts underway to do these issues justice (WWF and IUCN WCPA, 2023).
| Components of T3 | Specific biodiversity elements within components that should be targeted | Why they need to be targeted for PCA |
|---|---|---|
| ….especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity… | Rare or threatened species and habitats, and the ecosystems that support them | PCAs are a core tool in halting species extinction and stabilizing the decline of threatened species (Watson et al., 2014). There are current significant protection shortfalls on land, water and sea (Allan et al., 2022; Jones et al., 2020; Shen et al., 2023) which have been identified in global reviews (Maxwell et al., 2020) that need to be targeted for PCA expansion. |
| Threatened and/or collapsing ecosystems | As with threatened species, threatened and collapsing ecosystems need to be protected from threats (Murray et al., 2020) and there are shortfalls in the current PCA estate that need to be targeted. | |
| Range-restricted species and ecosystems in natural settings | Range-restricted species and ecosystems are more at risk of stochastic events (Shrestha et al., 2019). Their strategic protection in the PCA estate lowers this risk. | |
| Globally significant ecosystems (e.g., significant wetlands, Gondwanan rainforests, coral reefs) | Globally significant ecosystems have been recognised through efforts like UNESCO natural World Heritage, Ramsar and other international assessments (Allan et al., 2018; Kormos et al., 2016; Mackey et al., 2015). They need to be proactively protected, especially those that are at risk of being degraded. | |
| Areas with a high level of ecological integrity | These places are critical for species and ecosystem conservation especially considering the impacts of climate change (Di Marco et al., 2019; Leclère et al., 2020; Mokany et al., 2020). Conserving the most intact components of ecosystems is considered a 'no-regrets' conservation approach (Watson et al., 2020). They are currently not well protected (Grantham et al., 2020; Hansen et al., 2020; Watson et al., 2009). | |
| Ecosystems especially important for species life stages, feeding, resting, moulting and breeding (IUCN, 2016b) | These areas are critical for safeguarding key ecological processes needed to sustain certain species populations (Eken et al., 2004). | |
| Important species aggregations, including during migration or spawning (IUCN, 2016b) | These areas are critical for safeguarding key ecological processes needed to sustain species populations (Eken et al., 2004). | |
| Climate refugia for species and ecosystems | Many species are moving (or retreating) due to changes in the climate (Chen et al., 2011). As a consequence, ‘refugial’ habitats will likely be key for sustaining many species, especially for those species already endangered or likely to become endangered in the future (Morelli et al., 2020). | |
| ….and ecosystem function and services… | Ecosystems containing high levels of carbon in either above ground, or below ground, biomass | Sequestering and storing carbon in native vegetation is a critical component of climate change mitigation strategies (Houghton, 2007; Maxwell et al., 2019). PCAs play an important role in safeguarding this carbon (Liang et al., 2023), especially those that are at risk of being degraded (Noon et al., 2022). |
| Important waterbodies | Securing specific rivers, freshwater bodies, water catchments are critical for human well-being, especially those catchments near big population centres (Hole et al., 2022). PCAs can play an important role in safeguarding these water catchments, especially if those that are risk of being degraded (Acreman et al., 2020). | |
| …ecologically representative… | Representative natural ecosystems | Achieving a representative sample of biodiversity is a fundamental principle of reserve planning (Margules and Pressey, 2000; Watson et al., 2011). |
| …well-connected… | Areas of importance for ecological connectivity or that are important to complete a conservation network within a landscape or seascape | It is accepted that gradients of ecological connectivity are critical especially in a time of climate change. This includes: altitudinal gradients in hilly and mountainous areas such as the coastal ranges (Groves et al., 2012); latitudinal gradients, to ensure that migratory pathways of many mobile species are protected; catchment connectivity, where waterways in relatively natural or restored condition are used as natural routes for migration and dispersal across shorter coastal (mountain to sea) gradients (Beger et al., 2010), and connectivity from moister to drier climates, allowing seasonal movement of fauna as well as longer-term species adaptation (Scheffers et al., 2016). |
2 PRIORITIES FOR PROTECTED AND CONSERVED AREA EXPANSION
To ensure PCAs are placed in areas of importance for biodiversity, specific objectives need to be articulated based on the components of T3 surrounding biodiversity. We, therefore, break down the components in ‘areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services … ecologically representative and well-connected’ into 12 related biodiversity elements that have been widely identified in the protected area planning literature (Table 2). We show how these elements meet the specific component terms in T3 and provide wider justification of their use based on evidence in the peer-reviewed literature. We then provide examples of how these elements can be made into clear objectives for spatial planning. We show there is data that can be used now to set targets against these objectives and published methodologies that can incorporate these targets into planning that national governments and other stakeholders (e.g., conservation NGOs, mining and forestry sectors) can undertake (Table 3).
| Specific biodiversity elements | Example of a target objective that can be set in PCA planning efforts | Examples of methods for how to integrate these specific biodiversity elements into a PCA spatial plan | Example of global datasets (regional or local datasets should be used when available) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rare or threatened species and habitats, and the ecosystems that support them. | ‘Adequate coverage of all threatened species in the PCA estate’ where adequacy is defined as the minimum areas needed for species to persist and reach healthy and resilient levels. | Species on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, or national equivalents, have been used as the unit of interest when planning for PCA identification (Watson et al., 2010). Targets have been set based on species' range when it comes to PCA coverage with a weighting applied to plans (e.g., Venter et al., 2014) or on minimum viable populations (e.g., Wilson et al., 2010). Sites have been identified via Key Biodiversity Areas (Harvey et al., 2021), Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) (Clark et al., 2014), Important Marine Mammal Areas (Hoyt and Sciara, 2021; Tetley et al., 2022) and Alliance for Zero Extinction Sites (Conde et al., 2015; Ricketts et al., 2005) methodologies. |
|
| Threatened and/or collapsing ecosystems | ‘Adequate coverage of all threatened and collapsing ecosystems in the PCA estate’ where adequacy is defined as the minimum areas needed for ecosystem persistence. | IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (Keith et al., 2015) have been used as the unit of interest when planning for the PCA estate (Botts et al., 2020). Targets have been set on the ecosystems risk of collapse (Venegas-Li et al., 2023). |
|
| Range-restricted species and ecosystems in natural settings | ‘Complete coverage of range-restricted species and ecosystems in the PCA estate’. | High thresholds (e.g., 100%) of coverage can be set for range-restricted species and ecosystems for protection (Pressey et al., 2003). |
|
| Globally significant ecosystems (e.g., significant wetlands, Gondwanan rainforests, coral reefs) | ‘Complete coverage of globally significant ecosystems in the PCA estate’. | These ecosystems have been mapped and then high thresholds (e.g., 100%) of coverage then targeted for protection (Pressey et al., 2003). |
|
| Ecosystem integrity | ‘Representative samples of all ecosystems that have high levels of ecological integrity in the PCA estate’ where higher percentages set for those ecosystems that are more degraded and a minimum percentage is set as 50% protection per ecosystem. | Integrity is measured along a spectrum and thresholds can be set against the level of intactness using proxy data on ecosystems (Beyer et al., 2020; Grantham et al., 2020a). Those ecosystems that are identified as the most intact can then be targeted for protection (Venegas-Li et al., 2023). Sites can be identified using the IUCN's (2016) Key Biodiversity Area Standards (criteria C). |
|
| Areas important for species life stages, feeding, resting, moulting, migrating, spawning, aggregating, and breeding | ‘Complete coverage of all areas that are important for species life stages are in the PCA estate’. | The IUCN's (2016) Key Biodiversity Area Standards have established guidelines on identifying these sites (IUCN, 2016b) then high thresholds (e.g., 100%) of coverage can be set for protection (Handley et al., 2023). |
|
| Important species aggregations, including during migration or spawning | ‘Complete coverage of all ecosystems that are especially important for species life stages are in the PCA estate’. | The IUCN's (2016) Key Biodiversity Area Standards have established guidelines on identifying these sites (IUCN, 2016b) then high thresholds (e.g., 100%) of coverage can be for protection (Harvey et al., 2021). |
|
| Climate refugia for species and ecosystems | ‘Adequate coverage of all identified climate refugia in the PCA estate’ where adequacy is defined as the minimum areas needed for species to persist and reach healthy and resilient levels. | Targets have been set based on species' range climate refugia when it comes to PCA coverage (Cacciapaglia and van Woesik, 2015; Keppel et al., 2012; Maxwell, Reside, et al., 2019; Michalak et al., 2018). As we learn more about the direction and rate of climate change, new refugia will be identified suggesting continual evolution of the system (Arafeh-Dalmau et al., 2021; Beyer et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2016). |
|
| Ecosystems containing high levels of carbon in either above ground, or below ground, biomass. | ‘All ecosystems containing significant levels of carbon in either above ground, or below ground, biomass (and there are clear benefits to biodiversity) are in the PCA estate’. | There is an increasing amount of spatial data on carbon across ecosystems (Noon et al., 2022). There are a variety of methods of integrating important ecosystems with significant carbon qualities into PCA planning (Jung et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2023). Targets have been set around amounts of carbon wanting to be secured (Busch & Grantham, 2013). |
|
| Waterbodies important for biodiversity, ecosystems, or ecosystem services | ‘All important waterbodies which have clear benefits to biodiversity are in the PCA estate’. | There is hydrographic information available in a consistent and comprehensive format that can be used for regional and landscape applications (Chaplin-Kramer et al., 2023; Mulligan et al., 2020). There are a variety of methods of integrating important water bodies into PCA planning (Jung et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2023). |
|
| Representative natural ecosystems | ‘Representative samples of all ecosystems in the PCA estate’ with higher percentages set for those ecosystems that are more intact and a minimum percentage is set as 10% protection per ecosystem. | There is now a global ecosystem typology (Keith et al., 2022) that can be utilised. There are a variety of ways of achieving representative ecosystems across terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystem (Grantham et al., 2020b; Jung et al., 2021). |
|
| Areas of importance for ecological connectivity or that are important to complete a conservation network within a landscape or seascape. | ‘All areas required for functional and structural connectivity are captured in the PCA estate’. | Planning principles have been generated to ensure connectivity is captured across the gradients outlined (Hilty et al., 2020). There are a variety of ways and tools available for planning for connectivity (Game et al., 2010; Hilty et al., 2020; Theobald et al., 2022). |
|
We argue that these 12 biodiversity elements can be mapped, and planned for, by every CBD signatory nation using available data and as such can be considered in their national reporting immediately (Table 3). All of the elements can take advantage of publicly available input datasets that have been generated and made available over years of curation. For example, the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Species and Red List of Ecosystems provide critical information around the locations and threat status of species and ecosystems across Earth (Keith et al., 2015; Mace et al., 2008) and the World Database on Key Biodiversity Areas (IUCN, 2016) provides large quantities of information that can help identify sites of global importance to biodiversity (Kullberg et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2019). Important surrogate datasets have been recently created, and are constantly being updated, that are freely available to allow for both the mapping of ecosystem integrity (Beyer et al., 2020; Grantham et al., 2020) and some key ecosystem services (e.g., water and carbon) (Chaplin-Kramer et al., 2023; Goldstein et al., 2020; Noon et al., 2022). It is important to state that previous limitations relating to mapping and planning for ‘areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services … ecologically representative and well-connected’ cannot be made anymore by national decision makers and other stakeholders given the wealth of data available.
3 PRINCIPLES THAT CAN GUIDE PLANNING
While we argue these 12 distinct biodiversity elements could be used as a foundation to meet the broad intention of the wording ‘areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services … ecologically representative and well-connected’, we recognise they are not completely comprehensive and other elements will need to be identified as more data comes to hand, especially in the realms of ecosystem function and services. But given these twelve elements have been identified and in the most part, mapped, they can be used to guide area-based conservation as they clearly relate to the broader intentions around quality in T3 (see Table 2 and Figure 1) and are a logical first step to help prioritize areas that will lead to greater biodiversity gains than we have seen in the past.
Given that so many specific planning objectives can be identified, issues around which objectives to prioritise first when considering PCA designation, and what to do around trade-offs between elements, may arise. In this section, we identify six principles to help resolve potential prioritisation issues.
3.1 Principle 1. Make ‘areas of particular importance for biodiversity’ the primary focus of PCA establishment
The main objective of T3 and a fundamental requirement of PCAs is to halt biodiversity loss and enable its recovery. The definitions of both protected areas and OECMs clearly focus on the conservation of biodiversity as the core reason why they should be established by nations (Dudley, 2008; Dudley et al., 2018; Jonas et al., 2018). That means those places identified as ‘especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity’ as per the elements in Table 1 should be considered of the highest importance when it comes to planning and recognising new PCAs. Setting clear priorities around these biodiversity elements will mean that places that can be managed and enhanced to support the persistence and recovery of threatened species and ecosystems, key sites for maintaining biodiversity function (e.g., congregation sites, spawning sites), and the last samples of any ecosystem and other irreplaceable sites, such as those places that are still large, intact and functioning in ecologically and evolutionary natural ways, will be location priorities for area-based conservation. These are priorities that cannot be deprioritised or traded off against other factors within T3 or any other Target of the K-M GBF and there are numerous analyses that show the area of land and sea needed to safeguard the most endangered species and ecosystems is relatively small (Allan et al., 2022; Dinerstein et al., 2017; Jones et al., 2020).
3.2 Principle 2. Transparently deal with representation
Achieving an ecologically representative conservation estate has been a foundational principle for reserve design for at least four decades (Cocks & Baird, 1989; Margules & Pressey, 2000). This was to ensure comprehensive coverage of ecosystems and species in the PCA estate. But, as with previous strategic plans, it is not clear what ‘ecologically representative’ actually encompasses in T3, especially around how much ‘representation’ is needed and of what. In the past, ecoregions have often become the proximate reporting unit (see, e.g., UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2021) and it has been assumed by many nations that there needs to be exact amount of ‘representation’ that aligns directly with the overall target (e.g., 17% representation is needed for all ecoregions given the Aichi Target protected area estate target is 17%), despite this clearly not being stated in the language of the target (Butchart et al., 2015; Woodley et al., 2012).
To overcome issues with vagueness around what is an ecologically representative PCA system, it is essential to be transparent about the types of representation nations are attempting to achieve when setting ‘ecologically representative’ targets. While ecoregions may be the best option in data poor regions, they are delineated based on large-scale biogeographical patterns (Olson et al., 2001). We suggest that ideally representation should be based on ecosystem types and many countries and regions now have fine-scale data sets on these (Comer et al., 2020). The recently published IUCN Ecosystem Typology (Keith et al., 2022), which comprises six hierarchical levels including three upper levels (realms, functional biomes and ecosystem functional groups), allow bottom-up classification of ecosystems based on their functional characteristics. While mapping of these functional groups is happening at a rapid pace (Keith et al., 2020); it will take some time to get a complete global picture of ecosystems at this level (fifth and sixth hierarchical levels). We therefore argue mapping biogeographic ecotypes (the fourth hierarchical level), which is currently being completed, and then setting targets of representation for their coverage. This uses the ecosystem functional group maps and divides these by biogeography (e.g., ecoregions), a step that overcomes the coarseness of just using ecoregions themselves.
We suggest representation targets need to reflect what is feasible and pragmatic, and recognise large representation targets are simply not possible for many ecosystems, given the amount of human industrial-level pressure they have faced (Kuempel et al., 2016; Mappin et al., 2019). A potentially pragmatic way through this is setting smaller, feasible representative targets for more degraded systems and prioritise restoration efforts outside protected and conserved areas in these systems, as per Target 2 of the K-M GBF. At the same time, larger targets can be set for those more intact ecosystems, where retaining high elements of ecosystem integrity is a priority (Locke et al., 2019; Watson et al., 2020).
Beyond issues of clarity around the unit of representation and targets set for its achievement, all efforts to achieve a representative reserve system must be complementary—and not in competition—to those efforts trying to identify ‘… areas of particular importance for biodiversity’. Evidence shows that if PCA expansion is based on the objectives identified as those ‘especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity’, high levels of ecosystem representation can be achieved at the same time (Polak et al., 2015, 2016; Venter et al., 2014). But these studies also clearly show the opposite is not true—targeting ecosystem representation by itself does not mean sites critical for sustaining ‘areas of particular importance for biodiversity’ are captured. Thus, we argue that the expansion of protected areas should be based primarily on the location of areas of importance for biodiversity regardless of distribution across biogeographical typologies, in particular prioritising the conservation of habitats for rare and threatened species and ecosystems. A parallel effort should be made to include at least some representation across ecosystems as discussed above.
3.3 Principle 3. Plan for ecological connectivity
It is well established that ensuring ecological connectivity across landscapes and seascapes is critical in facilitating crucial ecological processes, including meta-population viability and successful species migration (Hilty et al., 2020; Tucker et al., 2018; Watson et al., 2018). Furthermore, intensive human activities like farming, urbanization, mining, fishing, and unsustainable forestry are disrupting these connections. Hence, maintaining and, if necessary, restoring landscape connectivity, especially between established PCAs and maintaining connectivity within and between ecosystems or specific species, is crucial for achieving the biodiversity goals laid out in the GBF, especially when considering intentions to secure ecosystem functions. Yet assessments show that PCAs connectivity did not improve during the Aichi period of implementation (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2021).
At a foundational level, for PCA prioritisation, those areas that are more connected, or where connectivity can be re-established, should be given higher priority. This is especially true considering treating PCAs as ‘systems’ is a core component of T3. But connectivity will also be needed in fragmented landscapes given that climate change is also a factor, with predicted changes in temperature, precipitation, and other variables that will lead to changes in habitat extent and condition. There are an increasing array of methods that can ensure connectivity is considered in the assessment phase for future PCA designation (Buenafe et al., 2023; Keeley et al., 2021; Theobald et al., 2022) but an important consideration is that connectivity should not be prioritised over other objectives aimed at achieving either representation or those identified as ‘especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity’—it is important additional factor for successful biodiversity outcomes, not a direct priority for PCA establishment. Indeed, the extent to which connectivity might ‘weight’ decisions about PCA siting should reflect the context of the proposed PCA—namely, the specific biota it is seeking to protect and enhance, and the land-and seascape context (i.e., use, threats, degree of climate change it will experience) in which it occurs.
3.4 Principle 4. Be clear around the reasons for conserving ecosystem services
Functioning ecosystems sustain the ecological processes that drive the services upon which humanity depends (Díaz et al., 2018; Fedele et al., 2021; Pascual et al., 2017) and it is well established that PCAs provide an enormous range of ecosystem services to humanity (Stolton & Dudley, 2010). It is therefore not surprising that T3 contains the words ‘ecosystem functions and services’ when considering where to target PCAs. But not all ecosystem services are compatible with the core values of T3 and management for ecosystem services should not undermine biodiversity conservation objectives. Indeed, many of the drivers that create ecosystem services humanity depends on (e.g., human demand for the ‘provisioning services’ of fiber, energy, and food) are the very drivers of the extinction crisis and biodiversity collapse being experienced around the world (Maxwell et al., 2016).
It is therefore important for nations to outline specifically what ecosystem services are being targeted and how they are associated with positive biodiversity conservation outcomes (Grantham et al., 2016). Given the overall priorities of the CBD when it comes to PCAs (i.e., to conserve biodiversity [Dudley et al., 2018]), ecosystem services should not become the main reason for establishment of a protected area or recognition of an OECM until a clear positive link with biodiversity conservation is provided. This is because PCAs must ensure that any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent with conservation outcomes, recognizing and respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including over their traditional territories.
We identify two services—carbon sequestration and storage, and water provisioning—as examples that could be used to guide PCA expansion (Table 2). For the most part, these ecosystem services are positively linked to biodiversity (though the relationship is complex and landscape and vegetation-specific [Cardinale et al., 2012; Di Marco et al., 2018]), and there is increasingly data and methods available for how they can be mapped and incorporated in planning efforts (Table 3). But we recognise there are other services that have positive biodiversity associations that could be added (e.g., disaster risk reduction, spiritual and aesthetic benefits; Chaplin-Kramer et al., 2023; Simmonds et al., 2023).
3.5 Principle 5. Utilise spatial planning principles and tools
Central to Target 1 of the K-M GBF is that spatial planning efforts that set clear objectives and targets will have a crucial role in informing the design of future PCA networks and other conservation activities. This is because there is substantial evidence which shows that when regional and systematic spatial planning is undertaken, the overall design of PCA networks is more efficient in achieving conservation outcomes (Groves & Game, 2015; Moilanen et al., 2009), and allows for greater transparency and accountability for areas targeted (or not) for conservation (Grantham et al., 2020; McDonald-Madden et al., 2009; Watson et al., 2011).
There are a variety of freely available spatial priorisitisation software such as Marxan, Zonation, and PrioritizR that use models and algorithms to identify areas that integrate and maximize various types of objectives. They all consider the spatial distribution of biodiversity and certain aspects of biodiversity (e.g., species threat status, or how intact an ecosystem is), and can identify appropriate levels of PCA coverage for areas of particular importance for biodiversity while at the same time considering other planning objectives like ecological representation and connectivity (Beger et al., 2022; Grantham et al., 2020). These tools often not only account for ecological factors but also socioeconomic considerations, including land ownership, land use conflicts, and human population density (Carwardine et al., 2008; Wilson et al., 2009). By considering these factors, decision-makers can ensure that proposed PCAs are not only ecologically valuable but also socially acceptable and feasible (Knight et al., 2006; Sinclair et al., 2018).
3.6 Principle 6. Ensure planning is equitable and inclusive
It is important to recognise that PCAs must safeguard human rights when implemented, as outlined in the CBD. Therefore the 12 elements (and associated planning objectives) suggested here can only be successfully implemented at local scales where planning is equitable, inclusive and agreed upon by local rightsholders and stakeholders following the principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). Biodiversity outcomes in the 30 × 30 agenda can only be achieved through fair and equitable means (Sandbrook et al., 2023). We recognise that social equity in the context of PCAs has multiple dimensions, including distributional equity (e.g., people agree on a scheme for sharing benefits and burdens), procedural equity (e.g., decision-making, i.e., transparent, accountable and participatory) and recognition (e.g., respect for cultural identities, customary rights and traditional management practices) (Franks et al., 2018).
While the CBD, from its inception in 1992, has specifically recognized the role of Indigenous Peoples through two articles—8(j) and 10(c)—Indigenous Peoples have historically been marginalized in the planning and implementation of CBD targets. This must change if the K-M GBF is to be successful, as significant portions of unprotected lands identified as particularly important for biodiversity overlap with Indigenous territories (Dinerstein et al., 2020; Garnett et al., 2018). Many civil society organisations have called for the adoption of a ‘rights-based approach’ to scaling conservation efforts globally, going beyond FPIC by centering the autonomous decision-making processes of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (Rights and Resources, 2021), while reducing overall costs for implementation (Tauli-Corpuz et al., 2020). When considering the equitable allocation of new PCAs under the GBF, it should be restated that the 30% global goal is neither a floor nor a ceiling for national or regional area-based target-setting efforts. Some jurisdictions may seek much higher regional targets, and other jurisdictions with highly converted rural lands should not be expected to significantly expand their PCA networks. It should also be noted that the target can be implemented, at least in part, by formalising the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities to the lands and waters they conserve, rather than exclusively through the designation of new, government-governed, PCAs. This differentiated approach will go a long way in allaying fears about ‘land grabs’ that may challenge the rollout of new area-based targets under the GBF in the future.
4 ENSURE THE INDICATORS REFLECT THE ELEMENTS OF TARGET 3
Beyond getting the planning principles right, it is critical that the very indicators set to report progress reflect what is needed for successful biodiversity outcomes (Nicholson et al., 2021; Stevenson et al., 2021). The CBD offers a monitoring framework outlining indicators which countries can use to report progress on the K-M GBF, but there is little guidance provided to parties around the specific objectives of ‘areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services’. The recognition of the need of a monitoring framework is an advance as it is considered poor implementation of the Aichi targets by parties was partially due to a weak or non-existent set of indicators. However, the current CBD headline indicator for T3 of the K-M GBF is ‘Coverage of Protected areas and OECMS (by effectiveness)’ and as such only focused on areal coverage of PCAs, rather than one that speaks to the qualitative elements of the target, especially the needs of biodiversity (i.e., those components listed in Table 2) (CBD, 2021). Developing and promoting a wider range of indicators, and refining current proposed indicators, at subsequent CBD Conference of Parties is therefore an urgent priority. We note an Ad Hoc Technical Advisory Group has been established under the CBD to refine the headline indicators and identify how they should be disaggregated and the priority must be to ensure they link directly to biodiversity outcomes.
5 CONCLUSION
Given the areal commitments made by nations in the K-M GBF, area-based conservation should remain the cornerstone of biodiversity conservation efforts long into the 21st century. But to ensure they are effective at abating the catastrophic biodiversity loss we are witnessing, PCAs that make up the 30% must be planned in ways that capture the needs of biodiversity, and best contribute to the broader 2050 Goals and Vision of the CBD. This review is intended to provide information around different elements of biodiversity and ecosystem services nations can target that meet the intentions of T3, in particular, to ensure that they can better achieve the quality outcomes for conserving biodiversity. If PCA expansion undertaken by nations follows the planning principles we identify, many of the needs of biodiversity will be met, if these areas are effectively managed for conservation.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
James E. M. Watson: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; funding acquisition; investigation; methodology; project administration; resources; software; supervision; validation; visualization; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Ruben Venegas-Li: Investigation; resources; software; supervision; validation; visualization; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Hedley Grantham: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Nigel Dudley: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Sue Stolton: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Madhu Rao: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Stephen Woodley: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Marc Hockings: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Karl Burkart: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Jeremy S. Simmonds: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Laura J. Sonter: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Rachakonda Sreekar: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Hugh P. Possingham: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Michelle Ward: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.
