Fiona Leverington

Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines

Global Biodiversity Target Missed In 2002, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) committed to a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. There has been widespread conjecture that this target has not been met. Butchart et al. (p. 1164, published online 29 April) analyzed over 30 indicators developed within the CBDs framework. These indicators include the condition or state of biodiversity (e.g., species numbers, population sizes), the pressures on biodiversity (e.g., deforestation), and the responses to maintain biodiversity (e.g., protected areas) and were assessed between about 1970 and 2005. Taken together, the results confirm that we have indeed failed to meet the 2010 targets. An analysis of 30 indicators shows that the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2010 targets have not been met. In 2002, world leaders committed, through the Convention on Biological Diversity, to achieve a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. We compiled 31 indicators to report on progress toward this target. Most indicators of the state of biodiversity (covering species’ population trends, extinction risk, habitat extent and condition, and community composition) showed declines, with no significant recent reductions in rate, whereas indicators of pressures on biodiversity (including resource consumption, invasive alien species, nitrogen pollution, overexploitation, and climate change impacts) showed increases. Despite some local successes and increasing responses (including extent and biodiversity coverage of protected areas, sustainable forest management, policy responses to invasive alien species, and biodiversity-related aid), the rate of biodiversity loss does not appear to be slowing.

A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets

In 2010, the international community, under the auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity, agreed on 20 biodiversity-related “Aichi Targets” to be achieved within a decade. We provide a comprehensive mid-term assessment of progress toward these global targets using 55 indicator data sets. We projected indicator trends to 2020 using an adaptive statistical framework that incorporated the specific properties of individual time series. On current trajectories, results suggest that despite accelerating policy and management responses to the biodiversity crisis, the impacts of these efforts are unlikely to be reflected in improved trends in the state of biodiversity by 2020. We highlight areas of societal endeavor requiring additional efforts to achieve the Aichi Targets, and provide a baseline against which to assess future progress. Although conservation efforts are accelerating, their impact is unlikely to improve the global state of biodiversity by 2020. Indicators of progress and decline The targets set by the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2010 focused international efforts to alleviate global biodiversity decline. However, many of the consequences of these efforts will not be evident by the 2020 deadline agreed to by governments of 150 countries. Tittensor et al. analyzed data on 55 different biodiversity indicators to predict progress toward the 2020 targets—indicators such as protected area coverage, land-use trends, and endangered species status. The analysis pinpoints the problems and areas that will need the most attention in the next few years. Science, this issue p. 241

A Global Analysis of Protected Area Management Effectiveness

We compiled details of over 8000 assessments of protected area management effectiveness across the world and developed a method for analyzing results across diverse assessment methodologies and indicators. Data was compiled and analyzed for over 4000 of these sites. Management of these protected areas varied from weak to effective, with about 40% showing major deficiencies. About 14% of the surveyed areas showed significant deficiencies across many management effectiveness indicators and hence lacked basic requirements to operate effectively. Strongest management factors recorded on average related to establishment of protected areas (legal establishment, design, legislation and boundary marking) and to effectiveness of governance; while the weakest aspects of management included community benefit programs, resourcing (funding reliability and adequacy, staff numbers and facility and equipment maintenance) and management effectiveness evaluation. Estimations of management outcomes, including both environmental values conservation and impact on communities, were positive. We conclude that in spite of inadequate funding and management process, there are indications that protected areas are contributing to biodiversity conservation and community well-being.

Evaluating effectiveness : a framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas

The first version of this document was published in 2000. At that stage, although the IUCN-WCPA Management Effectiveness Evaluation Framework had been developed over several years, it had only been field tested in a few countries. The whole concept of assessing management effectiveness of protected areas was still in its infancy. The need for methodologies to assess protected areas had been discussed by protected area practitioners for several years, but only a handful of systems had been field-tested and implemented, and there was little commitment to management effectiveness beyond a few enlightened individuals in nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and parks agencies. There was also, in consequence, little evidence of the suitability of particular methodologies to meet the needs of the vast array of different types of protected area, and little experience in implementing the findings of assessments to achieve the aim of the whole exercise: more effective conservation. Six years later, the situation is very different. Management effectiveness evaluation is a term now well recognised in the lexicon of protected area management. Many different assessment methodologies have emerged, most of them developed using the Framework agreed by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and its World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), and the number of individual protected areas that have undergone some form of evaluation has risen from a few hundred to many thousand.

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 worlds 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.

Nature and extent of human–elephant Elephas maximus conflict in central Nepal

Human-elephant conflict is one of the main threats to the long-term survival of the Asian elephant Elephas maximus. We studied the nature and extent of human-elephant interactions in the buffer zones of Chitwan National Park and Parsa Wildlife Reserve in Nepal, through household questionnaire surveys, key informant interviews, site observations, and analysis of the reported cases of damage during January 2008-December 2012. During this 5-year period 290 incidents of damage by elephants were reported, with a high concentration of incidents in a few locations. Property damage (53%) was the most common type of damage reported. Crop damage was reported less often but household surveys revealed it to be the most frequent form of conflict. There were also human casualties, including 21 deaths and four serious injuries. More than 90% of the human casualties occurred during 2010-2012. More than two thirds of the respondents (70%) perceived that human-elephant conflict had increased substantially during the previous 5 years. Despite the increase in incidents of human-elephant conflict in the area, 37% of respondents had positive attitudes towards elephant conservation. Our findings suggest that public awareness and compensation for losses could reduce conflict and contribute to ensuring coexistence of people and elephants in this human-dominated landscape.

New resources for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas

One of the goals set out in the Convention of Biological Diversity’s Programme of Work on Protected Areas (CBD, 2004; http://www.cbd.int/protected/) is to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of protected areas management across the world’s protected area estate. A key activity is to implement management effectiveness evaluations for at least 30% of each Party’s protected areas by 2010. To measure progress towards the CBD goal on management effectiveness various tools have been developed and applied worldwide, using the guidance provided by the World Commission on Protected Areas (Hockings et al., 2006, Assessing Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas. 2nd edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland).