Marc Hockings

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.

The performance and potential of protected areas

Originally conceived to conserve iconic landscapes and wildlife, protected areas are now expected to achieve an increasingly diverse set of conservation, social and economic objectives. The amount of land and sea designated as formally protected has markedly increased over the past century, but there is still a major shortfall in political commitments to enhance the coverage and effectiveness of protected areas. Financial support for protected areas is dwarfed by the benefits that they provide, but these returns depend on effective management. A step change involving increased recognition, funding, planning and enforcement is urgently needed if protected areas are going to fulfil their potential.

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.

Systems for Assessing the Effectiveness of Management in Protected Areas

Abstract Since the mid-1990s, numerous methodologies have been developed to assess the management effectiveness of protected areas, many tailored to particular regions or habitats. Recognizing the need for a generic approach, the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) developed an evaluation framework allowing specific evaluation methodologies to be designed within a consistent overall approach. Twenty-seven assessment methodologies were analyzed in relation to this framework. Two types of data were identified: quantitative data derived from monitoring and qualitative data derived from scoring by managers and stakeholders. The distinction between methodologies based on data types reflects different approaches to assessing management. Few methodologies assess all the WCPA framework elements. More useful information for adaptive management will come from addressing all six elements. The framework can be used to adapt existing methodologies or to design new, more comprehensive methodologies for evaluation, using quantitative monitoring data, qualitative scoring data, or a combination of both.

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.

Tracking Progress Toward the 2010 Biodiversity Target and Beyond

Biodiversity indicators used by policy-makers are underdeveloped and underinvested. In response to global declines in biodiversity, some 190 countries have pledged, under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 (1, 2). Moreover, this target has recently been incorporated into the Millennium Development Goals in recognition of the impact of biodiversity loss on human well-being (3). Timely information on where and in what ways the target has or has not been met, as well as the likely direction of future trends, depends on a rigorous, relevant, and comprehensive suite of biodiversity indicators with which to track changes over time, to assess the impacts of policy and management responses, and to identify priorities for action. How far have we come in meeting these needs, and is it sufficient?

Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions.

The management requirements for protected areas are frequently complex and urgent; as a result, managers often need to act quickly and make decisions with limited supporting evidence at their disposal. Despite demands for high-quality information, it is unclear how much of this evidence conservation practitioners use to assist with their decision making. We investigated the information used to manage protected areas, based on the evidence reported by practitioners when evaluating their management performance. We examined the management of over 1000 protected areas run by two Australian conservation agencies – Parks Victoria and the New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change – an unprecedented scope for this type of study. We found that very few conservation practitioners use evidence-based knowledge to support their management. The evidence used varies with the management issue, reserve type, and reserve size. Around 60% of conservation management decisions rely on experience-based infor...

Managers consider multiple lines of evidence important for biodiversity management decisions

Protected area managers often fail to use empirical evidence for their management decisions, yet it is unclear whether this arises from a lack of available data, difficulty in interpreting scientific information for management application, or because managers do not value science for their decisions. To better understand the use of evidence for management decisions, we asked protected area managers in Australia what information is important when making decisions, the types of evidence they find most valuable, and the types of evidence they have for their protected areas. Managers described a complex array of information needed for management decisions, with nine different factors representing decisions about individual management issues and how to prioritize management actions. While managers reported less access to empirical evidence than other sources, this is not because they do not value it, reporting it to be the most valuable source of evidence. Instead, they make up the shortfall in empirical evidence with experience and information synthesized from multiple lines of evidence, which can provide important context for their decisions. We conclude that managers value a diversity of evidence because they face complex conservation decisions. Therefore, while empirical evidence can play an important role, alone this cannot provide all the knowledge managers need.

Managing the impacts of SCUBA divers on Thailand's coral reefs.

While dive tourism enjoys continued growth worldwide, concern exists that it is contributing to the degradation of coral communities, biologically and aesthetically. This study examined the effect of SCUBA diver contacts with coral and other substrates. Ninety-three percent of divers made contact with substrata during a 10-minute observation period with an average of 97 contacts per hour of diving. Two-thirds of the divers caused some coral damage by breaking fragments from fragile coral forms with an average of 19 breakages per hour of diving. Fin damage was the major type of damage. Underwater photographers caused less damage per contact than non-photographers; as did male divers, compared with females. Diver-induced damage decreases with increasing number of logged dives and attendance at pre-dive briefings. Park managers can help reduce impact by identifying and directing use to sites that are resistant to damage, matching diver competence and site preferences, and alerting operators to dive conditions. Minimising impact requires dive operators to be proactive in promoting minimal impact diving behaviour. This includes selecting sites that match diver expectations and experience, and providing pre-dive briefings in the context of diver activities and physical capacity, and site susceptibility to impact and current strength.

Resource management in tourism research: a new direction?

This analysis of papers in tourism journals found that tourism research is expanding in volume but is static in content; non-responsive to contemporary issues; dominated by academics; disinterested in resource, host community and cultural issues; oriented towards supply and descriptive rather than directed towards methodology and theory development. Despite concern for sustainability, the absence of resource management in tourism discourse is highlighted. While others have attributed this situation to the evolutionary development of tourism inquiry, this paper suggests that this is symptomatic of a discipline that lacks direction, and which is not moving towards maturity. This situation contrasts with other disciplines where a clear evolutionary development is evident. Our diagnosis is that tourism research can and will develop and mature only when it explicitly considers the nature of the tourism resource, and the interaction of the industry with it, thereby finding a place in the spectrum of resource management sciences.