Tim Badman

Protected Areas and Effective Biodiversity Conservation

Increasing the collective contribution of protected areas toward preventing species extinctions requires the strategic allocation of management efforts. Although protected areas (PAs) cover 13% of Earths land (1), substantial gaps remain in their coverage of global biodiversity (2). Thus, there has been emphasis on strategic expansion of the global PA network (3–5). However, because PAs are often understaffed, underfunded, and beleaguered in the face of external threats (6, 7), efforts to expand PA coverage should be complemented by appropriate management of existing PAs. Previous calls for enhancing PA management have focused on improving operational effectiveness of each PA [e.g., staffing and budgets (6)]. Little guidance has been offered on how to improve collective effectiveness for meeting global biodiversity conservation goals (3). We provide guidance for strategically allocating management efforts among and within existing PAs to strengthen their collective contribution toward preventing global species extinctions.

IUCN/WCPA protected areas program: making space for people and biodiversity in the anthropocene

Protected areas have emerged as a cultural feature and perhaps the largest land resource allocation decision in human history. Yet they are not without controversy on their adequacy for conservation and social justice. We argue that protected areas not only are necessary for conservation, they also contribute to human well-being and social justice in the Anthropocene. The World Parks Congresses have been a major forum for advancing global protected area policy and practice. Recently the IUCN-World Commission on Protected Areas and the IUCN-Global Protected Areas Program has been moving toward a vision parallel and complementary to the proposed Earth Stewardship initiative of the Ecological Society of America. This novel view of IUCN is also called “The Promise of Sydney” because it will be the focus of the 2014 World Parks Congress in Australia. ICUN’s novel view suggests that protected areas are an effective way to put Earth stewardship into action.

Commentary on Greg Terrill's Article

In “‘Surprise!’ Is Not Good System Design,” Greg Terrill has given a good and thought provoking account of the discussions that have led to the current discussion in the World Heritage Convention on the idea of an “upstream process.” Importantly as a State Party observer of the Convention he also is able to give insight into some of the political dynamics and drivers that are leading to a focus on the upstream process as a solution to the future of the Convention. His analysis of this is credible, as are the conclusions regarding the potential benefits of the upstream process being adopted. I see these issues from my current perspective as Director of the World Heritage Programme of IUCN but also as someone who first worked on World Heritage developing a nomination (the Dorset and East Devon Coast, inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2001). It should also be noted that the underlying issue to reduce the political charge on discussion of nominations at theWorld Heritage Committee is nothing new. Many seasoned observers see the loss of the previous role of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee, which allowed prior discussion of nominations as a root of the current issues, as it removed a formal space to consider problematic issues before proposals came before the Committee. Whilst the Bureau may not be re-created in that role, a technically focused subsidiary body that would allow discussion of difficult cases before they reach the Committee for decision is missed in the work of the Convention. The specific idea to intervene to make the process longer and with earlier stages of reflection between the States Parties and Advisory Bodies is an innovation, and much credit for bringing this into the mainstream of current discussions goes to Kishore Rao for advancing these ideas as a key plank of his mandate as Director of the World Heritage Centre. Underlying the need for upstream process is the need for a culture shift to a situation where the World Heritage Committee and Advisory Bodies are working toward a common goal and a consistent framework to uphold the reputation and credibility of the World Heritage Convention as a standard-setting conservation instrument. This is not a trivial point: one of the main misperceptions of many problematic recent inscriptions is the view that this is the “Committee not respecting the heritage & society, Vol. 7 No. 1, May, 2014, 72–77