The IUCN Green List of Protected - and Conserved Areas - setting the standard for effective conservation Marc Hockings Emeritus Professor ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas – setting the standard for effective conservation Marc Hockings Emeritus Professor (University of Queensland) and Vice-Chair IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas
Global issues and challenges for
protected areas post-2020
Demands and expectations on protected areas
Demands and expectations on protected areas
Objectives of protected areas
have changed and diversified
over time
Competing demands have
made management more
complex
Competing objectives makes
clear identification of values
critically important
Planning and community
engagement are needed to
address competing demands
Source: Watson, JEM, Dudley, N, Segan, DB and Hockings, M. (2014) The
performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515 (7525), 67-73
Global issues and challenges for
protected areas post-2020
Demands and expectations on protected areas
Protected area quality - Focus on PA outcomes supported by
adequate resources and effective and equitable management
Protected area quality
Management effectiveness assessments widely conducted
Only 60% achieve a “pass” grade
Renewed focus on quality of management and governance
Lowest third –
management Top third –
clearly management
inadequate ‘sound’
14% 27% 35% 24%
Middle third – basic
management
Global issues and challenges for
protected areas post-2020
Demands and expectations on protected areas
Protected area quality - Focus on PA outcomes supported by
adequate resources and effective and equitable management
Scaling up conservation to meet the challenge of biodiversity loss
Conclusions Reference Approach
Butchart et al., Global assessment of
A minimum of 27.9 per cent of the
global terrestrial area.
2015 the minimum needs
of all elements of Scaling up
conservation
Aichi Target 11
Svancara et al., Review of the
Average values reported for targets 2005 literature – 159
from conservation assessments was articles reporting
30.6 per cent ± 4.5 per with 222
conservation targets Strong scientific
Average of 37 per cent. More than 50
per cent of area required to meet 80
O’Leary et al.,
2016
Review of the
literature evidence for protection
per cent of conservation objectives.
Set global and regional conservation
Noss et al., 2012 Review of selected targets of at least 30%
of land/sea
studies of
targets at 50 per cent of the area.
conservation targets
Conserving 50 per cent of the Earth Wilson, 2016 Species–area curves Woodley et al (2019) PARKS 25(2): 31-46
would cover 85 per cent of the species
on the Earth.
Recent comprehensive conservation Pressey et al., Test of regional
plans have delineated around 50 per 2003 conservation goals
cent or more of regions for nature
conservation.
A wildlands design for the southern Miller et al.,Systematic
Rocky Mountains comprises 62 per cent 2003 conservation
of the ecoregion. planning
Lapola et al., Minimum ecosystem
A minimum of 60 per cent of the entire
2014; Lovejoy & size
ecosystem should be conserved in
Nobre, 2018
order to avoid a regime shift. Lovejoy
and Nobre suggest this be 80 per cent.
Mogg et al., Systematic
60 per cent of the world’s land area
2019 conservation
(excepting Antarctica) would need to
planning using
be protected to minimise the extinction
mammals
risk of the world’s terrestrial mammals.
Scaling up conservation Strong scientific evidence for protection targets of at least 30% of land/sea Woodley et al (2019) PARKS 25(2): 31-46 Need to account for conservation capacity across the world – three conditions framework Locke et al. (2019) National Science Review nwz136, https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwz136
Conservation strategies aligned to the three
Global Conditions
C1 – Cities and farms C2 – Shared lands C3 – Large wild areas
Establish ecologically Retain overall
Secure endangered
▶ ▶
▶
representative and ecological integrity
species well-connected PA
systems and maintain global
▶ Protect all remaining
Ensure Pas are well- processes (carbon
primary ecosystem ▶
managed, equitable storage, water
fragments and properly resources, large
▶ Mainstream resourced migrations etc)
sustainable land use ▶ Increase coverage of
KBAs ▶ Establish large PAs and
practices
Restore and maintain Indigenous and
Maintain pollinators
▶
▶
ecological process and community conserved
and increase species populations areas
ecological restoration Integrate sustainable
▶
Prevent further
resource extraction,
▶
▶ Green cities fragmentation
grazing, tourism etc.
Scaling up conservation
Strong scientific evidence
for protection targets of at
least 30% of land/sea
Woodley et al (2019) PARKS 25(2): 31-46
Need to account for
conservation capacity
across the world – three
conditions framework
Locke et al. (2019) National Science Review
nwz136, https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwz136
Resources and capacity
need to match expansion
Coad, L., Watson, J. E. M., Geldmann, J., Burgess, N. D., Leverington, F.,
of protected areas Hockings, M., . . . Di Marco, M. (2019). Widespread shortfalls in
protected area resourcing undermine efforts to conserve biodiversity.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 17(5), 259-264 .Global issues and challenges for
protected areas post-2020
Demands and expectations on protected areas
Protected area quality - Focus on PA outcomes supported by
adequate resources and effective and equitable management
Scaling up conservation to meet the challenge of biodiversity loss
Employing diversified governance approachesOther Effective Area Based Conservation
Measures (OECMs)
A geographically defined area other than a Protected Area, which is governed and managed
in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in-situ conservation
of biodiversity with associated ecosystem functions and services and where applicable,
cultural, spiritual, socio–economic, and other locally relevant values. (CBD, 2018).
- Sacred - Watershed - ICCAs or
Ancillary
Secondary
Primary
Natural Sites protection privately owned
- Military areas areas areas that meet
- Ecosystem the definition of
- War graves a PA, but the
service-related
wetlands governance
authority
- Areas that are rejects or is
protected unable to
through very secure PA
low-impact use designationGlobal issues and challenges for
protected areas post-2020
Demands and expectations on protected areas
Protected area quality - Focus on PA outcomes supported by
adequate resources and effective and equitable management
Scaling up conservation to meet the challenge of biodiversity loss
Employing diversified governance approaches
Ecological connectivity and protected areas as part of functional
networks – the matrix is criticalConnectivity guidelines
Ecological network for
conservation
▶ Core habitats (PAs, OECMs)
connected by ecological
corridors
Ecological corridor
▶ a clearly defined geographical
space that is governed and
managed over the long term
to maintain or restore
effective ecological
connectivityGlobal issues and challenges for
protected areas post-2020
Demands and expectations on protected areas
Protected area quality - Focus on PA outcomes supported by
adequate resources and effective and equitable management
Scaling up conservation to meet the challenge of biodiversity loss
Employing diversified governance approaches
Ecological connectivity and protected areas as part of functional
networks – the matrix is critical
Supporting livelihoods and human well-being
Indigenous and local community engagement
Making Nature (and protected areas) relevant to all – especially
young and urban community – inspiring a new generation
Restoring ecosystemsThe likely successor to Aichi Target 11 Updated Zero Draft: The vision of the framework is a world of living in harmony with nature where: “By 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people.” Framework has 20 action-oriented targets for 2030 “(a) Reducing threats to biodiversity Target 2. By 2030, protect and conserve through well connected and effective system of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures at least 30 per cent of the planet with the focus on areas particularly important for biodiversity.” This focus on effective PAs and OECMs in the right places to conserve biodiversity speaks to the question of “quality” that I mentioned at the start of this talk
Current developments in assessing protected
area “Quality”
Renewed interest in assessing management effectiveness of
protected areas – especially coming from the management
agencies
Coad, L., Leverington, F., Knights, K., Geldmann, J., Eassom, A., Kapos, V., . . . Hockings, M. (2015). Measuring impact of protected area management interventions: current and
future use of the Global Database of Protected Area Management Effectiveness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 370(1681).
doi:10.1098/rstb.2014.0281New and revised assessment tools
New PAME tools developed
METT-4 updated and
converted to Excel tool with
better assessment of
outcomes
National systems such as
i-efectividad in Mexico used
LOGO
ANP
Sistema Permanente de Evaluación de la Efectividad en el Manejo
de las Áreas Naturales Protegidas Federales de México across their PA system
Stronger focus on governance
Nombre del Área Protegida:
RB Selva El Ocote
and outcomes compared to
Fecha de llenado de este formulario (DD/MM/AAAA): 10/04/2018
earlier tools
Nombre, adscripción y detalles de contacto del responsable del llenado del formulario:
Roberto Escalante López, Director de la Reserva de la Biosfera Selva el Ocote.
Reserva de la Biosfera Selva El Ocote
Tel ofic. 01968 68 8 11 07. Carretera Panamericana s/n km 1049. Barrio Cruz Blanca C.P 29140
Ocozocoautla de Espinoza, Chiapas, México.What are we
protecting? where?
For whom?
by whom? how?
Is it conserved?
Is it fair?
IUCN GREEN LIST MISSION
To increase and recognize the number of Protected and
Conserved Areas globally that are fairly governed, effectively
managed, and achieving their conservation outcomesThe IUCN Green List
standard
The first global standard of what represents
equitable and effective management of
protected areas
• Directly addresses quality elements of Aichi
Target 11
• Based on learning from two decades of work
on assessing management effectiveness of
protected areasAddresses all six elements of the WCPA management effectiveness evaluation framework
Global summary of protected
area effectiveness
Aims to “shift
Lowest third –
the graph to
management the right” –
clearly
inadequate Top third – moving more
14% management ‘sound’ protected
24%
areas into
27% 35%
sound
Middle third – basic management
managementThe IUCN Green List
standard
The first global standard of what represents
equitable and effective management of
protected areas
• Directly addresses quality elements of Aichi
Target 11
• Based on learning from two decades of work
on assessing management effectiveness of
protected areas
• Defines “effective and equitable”
management – not perfection in
management
• Can be used as a Standard separate from the
Green List processGREEN LIST IMPLEMENTATION
3
IMPLEMENT
2 - Site commitments
ADAPT - Self assessments
- EAGL - Stakeholder
adapts engagement
1 global - EAGL evaluations
COMMIT
indicators begin
- Establish cooperation - Public
with govt, NGOs and consultation
managers in a - Approved
jurisdiction
version
- Convene local experts
to form an Expert
Assessment group for
the Green List (EAGL)
- Accredit and train
EAGL
Van Long Nature Reserve, VietnamEAGL in Australia
Dr Andrea Leverington – retired Director of National Parks (Chair)
Dr Cathy Robinson – Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO
Cliff Cobbo – WWF Indigenous Engagement Manager
Dr Jon Day – former park manager - marine science and
management
Bob Conroy – consultant and former Executive Director NSW
NPWS
Prof Robyn Bushell – academic – tourism and protected areas
Dr James Fitzsimons – TNC Director of Conservation and Science
Dr Carly Cook – academic – conservation monitoring and
evaluationSITE-LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION
Maximum of 5 years from applicant to green list phase
(typically 0.5 to 1-2 years expected)5 INDICATORS +45 INDICATORS EVALUATION
Candidates prepare The EAGL
1 Applicant provides 2 evidence against all
evidence against context- recommendation is
Green List indicators,
setting indicators. submitted to the IUCN
with good stakeholder
consultation. Green List Committee
Successful check by an The Reviewer reports
CANDIDATE
GREEN LIST
APPLICANT
EAGL representative Candidate is evaluated by
Expert Assessment Group on compliance with
admits site to Candidate (EAGL). process.
1 PHASES AND Phase.
A site visit verifies The IUCN Green List
EVALUATION The site is ready to begin! evidence and stakeholder Committee consider
support. approval based on the
2 TIMEFRAME Once the EAGL agree that EAGL and Reviewer
all indicators are recommendations.
achieved, the site is Successful sites added
recommended for ‘Green
3 REQUIREMENTS Listing’.
to the ‘Green List’.
2 Applicant Phase Indicators (5) Candidate Phase Indicators (+45) GREEN LIST (successfully achieve and maintain all 50 indicators)
1 month 2-6 months preparation, then evaluation 5 year certificate duration
GOOD GOVERNANCE SOUND DESIGN & PLANNING EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION OUTCOMES
3 REQUIREMENTS 3 criteria 4 criteria 7 criteria 3 criteria
Applicant Phase: 5 indicators as a 3 indicators: PA type, definition, IUCN
1 indicator: accessible information on PA
checklist of basic information on overall 1 indicator: governance structure Category; supporting legislation; NOT APPLICABLE
laws and regulations
management framework MANAGEMENT PLAN
Candidate Phase: objective evaluation 14 INDICATORS 11 INDICATORS 20 INDICATORS
5 INDICATORS
of evidence for all Green List indicators (1 app phase + 13 more indicators) (3 app phase + 8 more indicators) (1 app phase + 19 more indicators)
Green List phase: scheduled renewal
All relevant indicators All relevant indicators All relevant indicators All relevant indicators
with light re-evaluation:Green List and Thresholds
• Indicator 3.7.1 - Each of the major site
values is monitored and has defined
performance measures which provide an
objective basis for assessing if the value is
being successfully protected
• Indicator 3.7.2 - A threshold level has been
specified for performance measures that, if
achieved, demonstrates objectively that the
associated major site value is being
successfully protectedGreen List Guidance
• Thresholds can be established in many ways…: values taken
from scientific literature, comparison with past measurements, ecological
modelling, values set by legislation or regulation and/or expert consensus.
In all cases, the reasons for the selection of the threshold should be
documented...
• Each of the site’s major values should be assessed against a
performance threshold as the basis for determining conservation success in
relation to the associated value.
• Thresholds will rarely be absolute and may be refined as knowledge
improves. Thresholds should not be arbitrarily changed to accommodate
changes in management performance.
• Guidance - Thresholds should establish the condition of the natural value as
being good, fair or in poor conditionGood Good with some concern Fair Poor
Rabbits/Hares Animals, scats or burrows not observed • Animals observed – 1 or 2 per hectare &/or • Animals observed – 3 or more per
• Scats observed – not observed unless hectare &/or
searching &/or • Scats observed – widespread, obvious
• Burrow entrances observed – less than 1 per without search &/or
hectare • Burrow entrances observed – more
than 1 per hectare
Weeds Cover of weeds in assessed area very Cover of weeds in assessed area is obvious Obvious, high cover of weeds across
low, not obvious without active without active searching. High-threat weeds area assessed, with large proportion of
searching. No high-threat weeds. may be present but not obvious without active cover contributed by high-threat weeds
searching
Erosion Soil erosion not observed, or trivial Soil erosion obvious but low- Soil erosion obvious, severe local impact, but Soil erosion extensive and severe,
impact, restricted to small, restricted to localised area affecting large or many areas
localised areas
Off-Road Activity No obvious off-road activity Minor off-road activity, restricted Moderate off-road activity, affecting several Major off-road activity affecting large
to isolated area areas proportion of area assessed
Grassy/Heathy Dry Forest
Key Value: Box Ironbark
Birds Birds of concern (Sparrows, Blackbirds, Occasional bird (Sparrows, Birds (Sparrows, Blackbirds, Yellow-throated Many birds (Sparrows, Blackbirds,
Grantic Hillslopes
Yellow-throated Miners, Skylarks, Blackbirds, Yellow-throated Miners, Skylarks, Starlings, Common Mynas) Yellow-throated Miners, Skylarks,
Starlings, Common Mynas) not seen Miners, Skylarks, Starlings, regularly seen, may be in small flocks of 3 to 10 Starlings, Common Mynas) seen, often
Common Mynas) seen, never in birds in flocks of more than 10 birds
groups of more than 3 birds
Understorey Vegetation structure consistent with Vegetation structure mostly Vegetation structure not consistent with Vegetation structure not consistent with
Natural Ecosystem. Most expected consistent with Natural Natural Ecosystem. Some expected major Natural Ecosystem. Most understorey
understorey lifeforms appear present Ecosystem. Some minor understorey lifeforms absent or cover & lifeforms absent or have very low cover
with obvious high cover and diversity lifeforms absent, or cover & diversity are low and diversity
diversity a bit lower than
reasonably expected
Recruitment Most mature woody species appear to Scattered recruitment of most Sparse recruitment, most adult woody
have enough juvenile or immature woody species present, although species not obviously represented, few
plants to replace them. There is usually some mature species don't immature individuals
a range of sizes present. appear to be represented by
immature or juvenile plants.
Large Trees - Forest structure consistent with Natural Forest structure does not Forest structure dominated by smaller trees. Forest structure dominated by smaller
Native Ecosystem w.r.t. growth stage. resemble that of older Natural There are no big old trees and/or stags of an trees. There are no big old trees and/or
Numerous big old trees or stags of an Ecosystem, but there are expected diameter, although some are half stags of an expected diameter, and
expected size (usually 10/ha in open occasional big old trees and/or that diameter none even half that diameter
woodland to 20/ha in forest, 50-70 cm). stags of an expected diameter
sizeIUCN Green List in Figures
• 59 GL Sites from 16 countries
Sites • 500 Candidate sites in 50+ countries, engaging
1000+ site staff
• 30 EAGLs around the world
EAGLs
• = ~300 Experts
• 33 Partner Organisations
Operations • ~40 members in the Operations Team
• >800 people on COMPASS engaged with GL
Global • 3 Committees = ~35 members
management and • Implemented jointly w/ IUCN’s World Commission
oversight on Protected Areas
• Voluntary commitment and project investment from
Commitment
agencies and donorsGreen List in the News "IUCN’s Green list is the most important international certification of excellence concerning governance of protected areas. It’s with great honour that we acknowledge that three Italian national parks (Arcipelago Toscano, Foreste Casentinesi and Gran Paradiso) met this goal. This is an outcome in which the Ministry has invested and it shows the value of our precious natural capital, not only in terms of biodiversity protection, but also around its overall management," Roberto Cingolani, Minister of Ecological Transition of Italy. Recently, there has been a lot of interest from Asian region about the IUCN Green List and KNPS is ready to share our experiences and knowledge with global communities. Managing protected areas effectively will be important in the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. I believe that the IUCN Green List will play a crucial role in post-2020 period. Hyung-Kun Song, Chairman of Korea National Park Service
Current initiatives – some examples
• Amazon project – multi-country • South America (Peru, Columbia)
initiative supported by Gordon and • Africa project (funded by Germany and
Betty More Foundation China)
• Promote an Amazon Green List • Asia project (funded by Korea)
Standard and community of
protected and conserved areas • Tech4Nature support for sites in Thailand,
• To support the Green List in at least China, Seychelles, Switzerland, Mauritius
5 Amazon countries • Bhutan – collaboration with Conservation
• To collaborate with national and Assured | Tiger Standards and WWF
regional conservation partners
• Flagship initiative under Mediterranean
• To undertake site-level diagnosis for Strategy on Sustainable Development
at least 20 protected areas in the
Amazon region and help them to • World Heritage Natural Sites joint
achieve success through the IUCN programme
Green List programme. • BIOPAMA programme
• Coral Triangle – proposal expected to
commence in near futureGreen List website
35UN CBD Decisions –Post-2020
CBD COP 13, Mexico
• Decision XIII/2 “promote the IUCN Green List of
Protected and Conserved Areas as a voluntary standard
to encourage protected area management effectiveness”
CBD COP 15 - POST 2020 Framework: the IUCN Green List
Standard is proposed as measure for the quality elements of
protected areas for biodiversity and climate change (Target 2)
proposed by the CBD Secretariat in CBD/SBSTTA/24/3Add.1Green List ambition? Experts agree that a scientifically credible and necessary interim goal is to achieve a minimum of 30% protection by 2030 Why not 30x30x30 with 30% of the total extent of the world’s protected and conserved areas achieving the IUCN Green List Standard by 2030
What would this mean in Australia
• Australia has >13,000 protected areas
• 10 largest protected areas in Australia represent 33% of total estate
• Engaging one hundred of the ~300 PAs over 50,000 ha in size would represent 33% of
the total Australian PA estate
• All terrestrial World Heritage sites would cover >4% of the total Australian PA estate
Size distribution of Australia's protected areas
4500
4000
3500
Number of PAs
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Area (ha)Thank-you
You can also read
