Lepr wo WaC|C Ain LS 262. Beyond Extinction Rates: Monitoring Wild Nature for the 2010 Targets Discussion Meeting: 19-20 July 2004 The Royal Society Measuring the Extent and Effectiveness of Protected Areas as an Indicator for Meeting Global Biodiversity Targets S. Chape, J. Harrison, M. Spalding and I. Lysenko (UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre) (Word Count: 9,318 incl. references) Beyond Extinction Rates: Monitoring Wild Nature for the 2010 Targets Discussion Meeting: 19-20 July 2004 The Royal Society Measuring the Extent and Effectiveness of Protected Areas as an Indicator for Meeting Global Biodiversity Targets S. Chape, J. Harrison, M. Spalding and I. Lysenko (UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre) Summary There are now over 100,000 protected areas world-wide, covering over 12% of the Earth's land surface. Consequently they represent one of the most significant human resource use allocations on the planet. The importance of protected areas is reflected in their widely accepted role as an indicator for global targets and environmental assessments. However, measuring the number and extent of protected areas only provides a unidimensional indicator of political commitment to biodiversity conservation. Data on the geographic location and spatial extent of protected areas will not provide information on a key determinant for meeting global biodiversity targets: effectiveness in conserving biodiversity. Although tools are being devised to assess management effectiveness, there is no globally accepted metric. Nevertheless, the numerical, spatial and geographic attributes of protected areas can be further enhanced by investigation into the biodiversity coverage of these protected areas, using species, habitats or biogeographic classifications. This paper reviews the current global extent of protected areas in terms of geopolitical and habitat coverage, and considers their value as a global indicator of conservation action or response. The paper discusses the role of the World Database on Protected Areas, collection and quality control issues and identifies areas for improvement, including how conservation effectiveness indicators may be included in the database to improve the value of protected areas data as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Key words: protected areas, biodiversity indicators, measurement, effectiveness 1. Introduction Protected areas are recognised as the most important core “units” for in situ conservation and information about the numerical and spatial attributes for over 100,000 sites covering more than 12 percent of the Earth's land area provides a basis for assessing the extent of formal protection of global biodiversity and a measure of conservation commitment at the global scale. Protected area coverage was endorsed by the 7" Conference of the Parties (CoP7) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as an indicator for immediate testing in relation to the adopted target of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. OIE aa tags a a at ee Additionally, CoP7 set a target that "at least 10% of each of the world’s ecological regions [should be] effectively conserved" (SCBD 2004: 383). Protected areas are also indicators for __ = i ae success in achieving Millennium Development Goal 7: Ensuring Environmental Sustainability’. In both cases the indicator is defined in terms of areal extent: "coverage" and "land area protected" respectively. Provision of data to measure this indicator, it can be argued, is both essential and straightforward and therefore we can maintain the current set of measurable parameters (numerical, spatial and geographic data). However, neither the indicator of areal extent, nor the current global protected area dataset, tells us if protected areas are achieving their conservation objectives. Therefore, it is proposed, two inter-related types of measurement are needed to assess real progress in meeting the 2010 targets: 1. Effectiveness of coverage: how much and what biodiversity is included within hey protected areas? 2. Effectiveness in achieving conservation objectives: are protected areas being managed effectively? In reviewing these two issues, this paper will discuss the role and value of using protected areas as indicators for meeting global biodiversity targets. It will also: = review current global protected area numbers and extent; » describe and review the current state of knowledge of the global extent of protected areas in relation to biomes and habitat types; « discuss current protected area management effectiveness initiatives that can contribute to the role of protected areas as indicators for achieving global biodiversity targets; » evaluate shortcomings in current data and evaluation methods, and propose improvements to ensure that protected areas are an effective indicator for achieving global biodiversity targets. 2. What Do We Mean by Protected Areas? Setting aside natural areas to maintain their intrinsic values is not a recent phenomenon in human history. It has been part of human endeavour for millennia, occurring in all regions of the planet where humans have settled. Historically, reasons for protecting natural areas have ranged from religious purposes to resource or species management, including initiatives such as sacred groves, and limited or prohibited species exploitation areas. For example, those areas set aside by Pacific islanders, European hunting reserves and the forest, elephant, fish and wildlife reserves established by the Mauryan kings of India in the second to third centuries BC (Grove 1995). As McNeely (1998) has noted, "protected areas are a cultural response to perceived threats to nature. Because society is constantly changing, so too are social perspectives on protected areas and the values that they are established to conserve". By the nineteenth century, human impact on the planet's natural ecosystems, especially through European colonial expansion and commercial enterprise in the Americas, Australasia, Asia and Africa, led to the establishment of the first modern national parks and reserves, as understood in the initial Western paradigm of protected areas. However, since the establishment of Yellowstone National Park in the United States in 1872, often quoted as the start of the modern era of protected areas, the global loss of natural habitats and species has continued unabated. In the face of this ongoing loss, our "cultural response" has been to establish more and more protected areas to conserve the Earth's vanishing biological diversity. Protected areas now represent one of the most significant forms of human land use on the planet - although the commitment to marine protection, at 0.5 percent of the Earth's oceans, remains completely inadequate. Since the 1960s, conservation science and principles for establishing and managing protected areas have developed enormously. International conservation organisations and academic institutions have helped this development, but primarily the growth of protected area knowledge has resulted from the work commenced by IUCN and the original National Parks Commission in the late 1950s (now the World Commission on Protected Areas) and strengthened over the past four decades. In particular, the early 1960s were a benchmark period in the global approach to protected areas. The First World Conference on National Parks was convened by IUCN, the NPC and other partners in 1962, and in the same year the UN General Assembly endorsed the importance of periodically reviewing the number and extent of the world’s ‘national parks and reserves’ by establishing the ‘UN List’” reporting process. The thirteenth edition of the UN List of Protected Areas was released in 2003 (Chape et al.), one of the world's longest running environmental reporting processes. Over the past 40 years there has also been a paradigm shift (Phillips 2003) in the role of protected areas - in fact the term "protected areas" was a relatively recent addition to the conservation lexicon in the latter half of the 20" century. We have moved from the 19" to mid-20" century ‘national parks and reserves’ paradigm to a broader conceptual and practical approach that includes: = the formulation of specific protected area management categories that recognise the scope and values of different management objectives in the conservation of natural areas; = “mainstreaming” of conservation concerns into development agendas, rethinking the role of protected areas vis-a-vis conservation and sustainable human use (for example, see Dudley and Stolton 2003, Pierce et al. 2002); m the recognition of the importance of cultural and social values; and = recognition of the role of protected areas as key indicators for assessing achievement of global biodiversity and sustainable development objectives. IUCN and the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) have been instrumental in guiding this paradigm shift, and have defined (IUCN 1994) a protected area as: An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means. The IUCN definition is widely adopted and is used, for example, by the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre as a basis for recording protected area information in the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Also adopted at the global level - at least by the 188 countries currently party to the Convention - is the protected area definition of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): A geographically defined area which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives. Other international conventions and agreements have definitions of specific types of protected areas, and some definitions have been developed for particular regions. For example: World Heritage Sites, Ramsar Sites, Biosphere Reserves, ASEAN Heritage Sites, the European Natura 2000 network, and the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (see Box 1). Despite the growth in global agreements on nature conservation and establishment of protected areas, protected area designations used by countries are not necessarily directly comparable across countries because of potentially different legislative regimes. Over 1,000 different terms are known to be used around the world to designate protected areas. These terms are often defined within national legislation in relation to objectives and legal protection for individual areas. The need for internationally standardised protected area nomenclature and definitions was raised at the First World Conference on National Parks in 1962 (Adams 1964). It was noted that "an effort should be made to standardise the nomenclature for various types of specifically reserved areas or...to properly relate these terms so that similar objectives of differently designated areas will be readily recognisable" (Brockman and Curry-Lindahl 1964:366). Box 1: Internationally Recognised Sites Given the perceived importance of protected areas as a conservation tool, it is not surprising that they are actively promoted in a wide range of international conventions and programmes going back more than 70 years to the 1933 London Convention that called on Contracting Parties to establish "national parks" and "strict natural reserves" (the purpose of which was defined in the text of the Convention). Since then a range of international agreements and programmes have come into effect which designate or recognise specific sites nominated by national governments or some other appropriate body at the national level. These include: Site-based initiatives that recognise excellence including the World Heritage Convention and the European Diploma. In both cases sites must meet certain criteria, and each nominated site is assessed to ensure that these criteria are met. A major part of the purpose of such initiatives is to ensure the continued viability of some of the most significant natural areas. Systematic development of networks of sites including the Ramsar Convention, and the European Natura 2000 and Bern Convention. These initiatives are specifically aimed at the systematic development of networks of sites for the protection of identified species and/or habitats, and ensuring the protection of key features. Site networks that promote research, training and education including the UNESCO-MAB network of Biosphere Reserves. Again part of the intention is to develop a systematic network of sites covering the full range geographical and biogeographical regions. In each case, assessments are regularly made on the coverage of these networks, at least in terms of biogeography, and in some cases in terms of individual species and other key features. Also information on these sites and their management is generally good. They therefore provide a basis for delivering a more detailed and complete set of indicators on smaller subsets of protected areas. Growth of these networks over time also demonstrates the increasing attention given to protected areas internationally. Following the recommendations of the 1962 conference to seek a better approach to protected area terminology, a debate ensued for the next 30 years on the best way to address this issue. Finally, in 1994, agreement was reached on a six management objective-based category system (see Box 2). A number of countries have now formally adopted the IUCN Management Categories as the basis for planning and managing their national protected area systems, and in July 2003 the system was formally adopted in the revised African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources approved by the Assembly of the African Union. The international credibility of the categories was further strengthened by the endorsement of the category approach at the CBD CoP7: [the CoP] "recognizes the value of a single international classification system for protected areas and the benefit of providing information that is comparable across countries and regions and therefore welcomes the ongoing efforts of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas to refine the IUCN system of categories and encourages Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations to assign protected-area management categories to their protected areas, providing information consistent with the refined IUCN categories for reporting purposes" (VII/28.31) Box 2: Definitions of the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories (IUCN 1994) CATEGORY Ia Strict Nature Reserve: protected area managed mainly for science Area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or representative ecosystems, geological or physiological features and/or species, available primarily for scientific research and/or environmental monitoring. CATEGORY Ib Wilderness Area: protected area managed mainly for wilderness protection Large area of unmodified or slightly modified land, and/or sea, retaining its natural character and influence, without permanent or significant habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural condition. CATEGORY II National Park: protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations, (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible. CATEGORY III Natural Monument: protected area managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features Area containing one or more, specific natural or natural/cultural feature which is of outstanding or unique value because of its inherent rarity, representative or aesthetic qualities or cultural significance. CATEGORY IV Habitat/Species Management Area: protected area managed mainly for conservation through management intervention Area of land and/or sea subject to active intervention for management purposes so as to ensure the maintenance of habitats and/or to meet the requirements of specific species. CATEGORY V Protected Landscape/Seascape: protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation Area of land, with coast and sea as appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant aesthetic, ecological and/or cultural value, and often with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this tracitional interaction is vital to the protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area. CATEGORY VI Managed Resource Protected Area: protected area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems Area containing predominantly unmodified natural systems, managed to ensure long-term protection and maintenance of biological diversity, while providing at the same time a sustainable flow of natural products and services to meet community needs. 3. The World Database on Protected Areas and its Role in Measuring the Extent of the Global Protected Areas Estate The World Database on Protected Areas provides the only comprehensive global inventory of the world’s protected areas. First established in 1981 and managed since that time by the IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre’, now UNEP-WCMC, this database represents a unique and important resource. Since 2002, protected areas information from the WDPA has provided regular statistical and analytical information for the MDG, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and CBD processes. For example, the WDPA provided global data for the preparation of technical reports to the ninth meeting of the CBD Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) in 2003 (SCBD 2003) and CBD CoP7 in 2004 (Mulongoy and Chape 2004), thereby contributing to the key decisions of CoP7 on protected areas. The data-holdings within the WDPA have been gathered from a broad range of sources, with major updates undertaken every 3-5 years in preparation for the publication of the United Nations List of Protected Areas. Critical sources have included government agencies with direct responsibility for protected areas. However, other sources have generally included NGOs and published materials, particularly for those areas where formal government responses were unobtainable. In 2002 the WDPA was considerably strengthened through the establishment of a Consortium of international conservation organisations’. WDPA Consortium members are pooling their information resources for inclusion in the WDPA and collaborating on the improvement of the structure of the WDPA, as well as the quality and quantity of the core data that it contains. A broad range of data are held within the WDPA, including the following core information fields for sites within each country: 10 a Site name = IUCN management category a National designation = Date of designation = Location (co-ordinates) a Marine/Coastal aw Size = Biogeographic code (Udvardy 1976) Further fields allow for the tracking of a site’s designation history (proposed, gazetted and changes in boundaries), the annotation of habitat fields, relationship to other sites (adjacent, overlapping, etc), ownership and administration. There remain fields available for annotation of management information, staffing, budgets and visitor statistics; however, these are largely unused at the present time. Integral to the database is a geographical information system (GIS). This includes polygon boundary information for sites. As with the aspatial data, GIS data is derived from a broad range of sources, including official government systems and reliable secondary sources, including NGOs working on sites or in particular countries. The scale, resolution and reliability of the source material varies considerably. The WDPA provides a unique tool to investigate progress in the development of the global network of protected areas. Using both the database and the GIS it is possible to provide summary information at global, regional and national levels, while the GIS gives a further possibility to undertake spatial assessments, combining the protected areas information with other data layers, such as species or habitats. In this way it is possible to summarise the “effectiveness” of the protected areas network in covering particular places, habitats or species. IUCN management categories have been applied to about 60 percent of sites and 11 these provide some indication of the expected level of management intervention and human influence within sites. 4. Analysis of the Global Network of Protected Areas in 2004 For the present discussion we present a summary of the current holdings of the WDPA from a geopolitical perspective, and also a new analysis looking at the habitat coverage of the protected areas network. These represent part of a larger synthesis of protected areas information currently under development (Spalding et al. in prep). 4.1 Methodology = Aspatial Attribute Information The WDPA contains information on some 104,791 protected areas worldwide’, with information on all countries. However, not all data-fields are complete for all of these sites and so subsequent analyses have to take these deficiencies into account. Size: Information is available for 86% of the sites in the database. The largest protected areas tend to be the best documented and so, although it cannot be shown definitively, it is likely that those sites for which no size has been provided are small. IUCN protected area management categories: Historically this information was completed, where possible, by national agencies. However, if such information was not forthcoming it was assigned by other expert bodies including the World Commission on Protected Areas or by staff at UNEP-WCMC, using legislative or other sources wherever possible. In 2002 a decision was made to only assign IUCN categories when these were supplied by the relevant national agency and otherwise to leave this information blank. The result is that at the present time the IUCN category information includes both nationally “approved” information and non-official interpretations. Sites listed as “no category” meet the IUCN definition of a protected area. Date of designation: Available for 66,573 sites (64% of the total). = Geographic and boundary information Boundary information is held in the GIS for some 39,194 sites (37%). For a further 36,550 (35%) information is available describing the geographic co-ordinates of the central point, and there is also information on the size of the site. With this information it is possible to create buffered points (circles of the correct size centred on the known central point). The combined layer of polygons and buffered points therefore represents 72% of the total sites in the database. However, these include most of the largest sites and account for 95% of the total known area of protected areas. In addition, it is known in which country every protected area lies. In many countries there may be overlaps between protected areas, with strict nature reserves lying within the boundaries of national parks or other categories. A simple summation of the area statistics would thus produce an inflated estimate of total coverage. Using a GIS based approach it is possible, within the limitations of the accuracy of the source polygon information, to reduce this error and limit double counting®. For the statistics presented in the following analysis GIS figures were calculated for all sites with available locational information, while sites without such geographic pointers were simply added to the totals so derived. The sources for the information within the database are highly varied, and it must be assumed that the spatial accuracy of the information contains similar variation. Errors are likely to arise both from inaccuracy (points are simply wrong, with errors potentially varying 13 from tens of metres to tens of kilometres), to issues of resolution (with effectively the same results — maps prepared for low resolution use may show increasing levels of spatial misplacement associated with “pushing” them beyond their true resolution). At the present time it is not possible to provide an assessment of the level of these errors within the database. = Habitat analysis Four broad sources of information were used in separate analyses to look at the habitat coverage of the global protected areas network: Land versus sea area: The Digital Chart of the World (DCW) (rasterised to 1km resolution grid) was used to determine the proportion of the global protected areas estate which was terrestrial versus marine. Terrestrial habitats: The Global Land Cover 2000 (GLC2000) dataset was taken as a starting point. Unlike earlier global land cover assessments, considerable regional expertise was used in the development of this map layer. It uses a globally consistent legend based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (FAO 2000), and is based on 1km resolution SPOT imagery, although information from other sensors has been used to refine particular elements (Barolome et al., 2002). Various alterations were made in this base-map, notably subdividing a number of classes on broadly latitudinal bands, enabling the discernment of major forest and desert classes (tropical, temperate and boreal for forests, warm, cold and polar for deserts). Further refinements were made to fill some gaps in the GLC2000 coverage, notably for the far 14 northern parts of Eurasia and also some of the island groups, using data of the 1km Land Cover Classification Derived from AVHRR (Hansen et al. 2000, 1998). Mountains: In 2000 UNEP-WCMC developed the global mountains map, with data improved in 2002 (Blyth et al. 2002). This layer was analysed separately from the land cover information described above. Marine and coastal habitats: Two further habitat layers developed at UNEP-WCMC were also used for a separate analysis of coral reefs and mangrove forests (Spalding et al., 1997; Spalding et al., 2001). a It should be noted that each of these layers will include inaccuracies, which may be compounded where information is also out of date. For example, in the GLC2000 there are problems of interpretation, with some areas simply being mis-identified. The resolution of the source data may compound such error as boundary areas and patchwork landscapes are summarised into single square kilometre pixels. There may also be errors of spatial location, which will be particularly noticeable when any single layer is combined with another, and when buffered point and point only data is used. This can result in errors of “omission”, when habitats are incorrectly not included in a protected area; and “commission”, when habitats are incorrectly included within a protected area (see Figure 1). Insert Figure 1: How Omission and Commission Errors Occur in Habitat Data Analysis In the present study the mis-match between the GLC2000 and the higher resolution ocean layer held at UNEP-WCMC led to the occurrence of a considerable area of “no-data” along 15 the coastline in many areas. The relatively low resolution of the GLC2000 data-layer means that fine-scale habitats, such as riparian and coastal habitats are generally missed or under- represented — for example, although it includes a mangrove class (No. 23) it missed information for particular areas and it was necessary to incorporate additional data from the UNEP-WCMC data set. Similarly, there is still no accurate or commonly agreed layer of wetlands (GLC2000 No. 22) worldwide, partly due to the fine-scale nature of many of these, but also because many wetlands are seasonal or sporadic, and the vegetation present in many wetlands may lead to their being classed into other forest, grassland or shrub categories. In combining any two spatial layers, further inaccuracies may accrue due to mismatch between the layers. These inaccuracies may affect precision of habitat extent or protection estimates for habitats that are naturally fragmented and narrow (such as coastal features) and does not allow precise assessment of habitat distribution within separate sites. However, at the regional or global scale these problems do not distort statistical outputs and the methods applied provide the best currently achievable estimates. 4.2 Results - Numbers and Extent of Protected Areas The 104,791 protected areas in the WDPA cover a total surface of over 20 million square kilometres. The majority of this represents terrestrial surfaces, and they cover a total of 12.2% of the world land surface. By contrast less than 2 million square kilometres of ocean are protected, a figure representing about 0.5% of the total ocean surface or about 1.4% of the coastal shelf areas. Table 1 provides a summary of the protected areas of the world based on geopolitical regions as defined by the World Commission on Protected Areas’. From this it can be seen that there is considerable variation in the total area protected between regions. In fact the very low 16 level of protection provided for the Antarctic region is somewhat misleading as the entire continent is given a considerable level of protection by the Antarctic Treaty and its Protocol on Environmental Protection (Anon 1991) and is considered by some to be a protected area in its entirety. If Antarctic is excluded the some 13.5% of the world’s land surface is protected. ¥ Table 1: Distribution of Protected Areas by WCPA Region Total Total Total Percentage Total no Total land Total sites protected protected protected land area marine sites area area land area marine area protected entral America 677 151,058 133,731 103 17,327 521,600 25.6% South America —_ S072 217-725 se SSO 4)” ««161 166 RO 306 SCORN, North America* 13,414 4,450,119 4,231,839 754 218,280 23,724,226 17.8% ~~ 1,930,651 1,904,342. 285 26,309 11,799,212 16.1% 791,681 715,218 390 76,463 4,480,990 1,838,144 1,825,918 155 —«:12,226~—«'11,487,920 ~—«15.9% 8077036469 a0 30 me DSaeAONT 280 M21 TS I eesOS:R64N 18 188i eas ea7uare547/400 ~ 43,837 699,761 «634,248 «=——(iss829—Ss—s«iSS— «5,119,172 «12.4% Australia/New Zealand __ 9,550. 1,400,292 831,420 422 568,872 8,011,930 104 estern and Central Africa ~—°2,583 ~—«*1,302,812 1,293,206 43 9,606 12,804,860 “404 «418,641 54,949 240 363,692 553,058 1,247 ‘1,251,034 1,226,928 «136 24,106 12,954,170 17,719 2,006,914 1,789,006 82 217,908 22,110,050 “1478 344,248 339058 184 5,190 4,487,510 66 —- 70,233 “3,470 59 66,763 14,024,832 104,791 20,275,834 18,382,225 4,254 1,893,609 150,168,330 12.2% *North America here includes Greenland, but excludes the US state of Hawaii As might be expected, there is considerable variance in both the average size and the total number of protected areas declared under each of the IUCN management categories, as shown in Figure 2. Category Ia and Ib sites are generally few in number and of average size, aA LAC 2 tol, osea 2a, 720 t beet ie As! Category III sites are numerous, but make up only 1% of the total protected areas coverage while both Category II and VI cover very large areas, but make up only 4% of the total number of sites each. These figures become more instructive at the level of individual regions, as shown in Table 2. For example, in many regions it is one category that dominates the regional statistics, such as Category II inNorth America , Category IV in South Asia and North Eurasia, Category V in Europe and Category VI in North Africa-Middle East and Australia-New Zealand. In some cases the regional dominance of particular categories is explained by single large protected areas, such as the Category VI Ar-Rub’al-Khali Wildlife Management Area (640,000 km?) in Saudi Arabia. 18 Table 2: Distribution of Protected Areas by IUCN Protected Area Management Category in WCPA Regions Central America 144,212 1,131,604 80,469 478,492 1,681,824 73,688 647,266 No. sites 845 701 1,362 595 1,338 2,082 1,287 5,204 460 31,221 3,711 24,005 No. sites 11 18 ~—«*164 38 284 38 192% 228 31,180 1,462 43,532 5,475 100 159,742 183,251 134,233 5,091 2,809 South America (Brazil) No.sites 180 - 7 i Sa 25S NTS 67 477 11,833 1,925 520,550 110,389 89,661 113,405 536,993 1,020,111 South America (Hispanic) ene : a be 58 28 222 80 154 164 254 56,331 37,146 101,043 4,344 74,994 293,411 21,924 15465 NEES OB) NNN 265/00 3.4447" 9 15;31010) Ny US {0L0 em Os aa 11,384 342,195 4,393 379,902 214 106,705 17,801 Western and Central Africa a 90 124 2,946 155 15,558 1,260 509,651 272,038 530,362 Eastern and Southern Africa 22 7 218 481 29° 224 48 229,808 12,448 101,624 108,881 776,049 North Africa and Middle East North Eurasia [ee ee al ce NO ee el ee See No. sites 195 - 66 11,324 5,267 407 54 406 South Asia ) No. sites 31 1 139 - 658 11 il 627 3 a aa aa Tampere 29,028 1,056,633 15,054 95,724 179,368 4,608 24,244 46,449 105,900 20,323 63,908 5,938 1,631,329 58,660 No.sites 43 340 om 78 34 a OG ee 25,072 25,343 205,195 4,035 138,877 26,806 197,908 South East Asia ~ 287 “we 254 68 199 169 830 833 216,679 39,383 309,644 33,152 251,100 21,662 593,162 Australia/New Zealand DICa 489 388 1,653 723 4,368 11,089 346,600 Pacific [eres e - NeE Ee el renee eS = No. sites Bop. HN esl 19 Insert Figure 2: Global Distribution of Protected Areas by IUCN Protected Area Management Category The extensive global coverage of protected areas is a relatively recent phenomenon and Figure 3 provides an illustration of the growth of the protected areas network over time. Insert Figure 3: Growth of Global Protected Areas over Time = Biome and Habitat coverage Earlier studies of this nature looked at biogeographic provinces developed by Udvardy (1976) and, while this is still a valid and interesting approach, it is important to point out that this is a biogeographic analysis. Due to the extent of environmental change and widespread biodiversity loss, the boundaries of most biomes or ecological regions now define hypothetical zones of applicability, and their usefulness as biodiversity indicators is limited. However, biome and ecoregion-based analyses do provide a theoretical framework that can function as a baseline for determining the extent of global change. We therefore present here a current analysis of the Udvardy biomes, supplemented with additional biome-level data derived by UNEP-WCMC for the Caspian Sea and the world’s oceans (Table 3 and Figure 4 — except for oceans due to the large area relative to other biomes). The global coverage of different habitat types, total areas and percentages protected are shown in Table 4 (in all sites including IUCN categories I-VI and those with no category assigned) and in Figure 5. The numbered habitats are those derived from the GLC2000 data layer, although it should be noted that not all of these are presented here as some were considered to be too unreliable for further investigation (including 22 wetlands and 23 mangroves), as noted above. The findings from the separate studies on mountains, 20 mangroves and coral reefs are also presented in Table 4. However, these have not been included in Figure 5 due to the relatively small total area coverage of the marine habitats and the very large area coverage by mountains. These results clearly show a marked variation in the level of protection being offered to different habitats. However, by looking at actual habitat cover it is particularly important to note that such statistics no longer represent original vegetation cover — percentage protection may appear elevated as a result of widespread habitat loss and these figures should be read as “percentage of remaining habitat protected”. The differences between the theoretical biome approach and actual habitat/land cover mapping is not directly comparable for all classes due to the different criteria used. However, it is illustrated, for example, by the difference between the Udvardy biome analysis of Temperate Grassland (5.95% protected) and that of the GLC2000 analysis (16%). This is based on a total theoretically available biome area of just over 9 million km?, compared to an estimated actual remaining habitat area of around 6.4 million km? - as well as differences in the resolution of the two methods of analysis. 21 Table 3: Protected Area Extent by Udvardy Biome Udvardy Biomes Tropical humid forests Sub-tropical/Temperate rain forests/ Woodlands Temperate needle-leaf forests/Woodlands Tropical dry forests/Woodlands Temperate broad-leaf forests Evergreen Sclerophyllous forests Warm deserts/semi-deserts Cold-winter deserts Tundra communities Tropical grasslands/Savannas Temperate grasslands Mixed mountain systems Mixed island systems Mixed island systems (additional terr.2004) Lake systems Antarctic glaciers/tundra Caspian Sea (added 2004) Ocean (added 2004) Biome (km’) 10,553,490 3,961,627 17,032,915 17,316,029 11,278,456 3,720,843 24,247,134 9,282,478 9,479,571 4,265,293 9,009,157 10,631,877 3,292,175 10,533 537,961 12,440,785 373,248 362,630,384 Insert Extent of PAs (km?) 1,991,052 539,155 1,424,311 2,302,192 1,159,314 327,696 2,681,875 1,340,329 2,093,468 564,061 536,405 1,721,892 402,432 391 14,270 795 3,934 2,099,456 Figure 4: Area Protected by Biome ( %) % Biome Protected 22 Table 4: Major Habitat Types - Global Coverage and the Area Protected Total habitat Total area Habitat name protected Proportion protected 1 Tropical Moist Forest 2 Tropical Dry Broadleaf Forest 3 Tropical and Subtropical Needle-leaf Forest 4 Temperate and Boreal Broadleaf Forest 5 Temperate and Boreal Mixed Forest 6 Temperate and Boreal Needle-leaf Forest 7 Temperate and Boreal Sparse forest 8 Savannah, Tree Cover Mosaic 9 Savannah, Tropical Shrubland 10 Tropical Grassland, Savannahs 41 Shrubland, Subtropical 12 Temperate Grassland 43 Shrubland, Subboreal 14 Warm Semidesert 15 Warm Desert 16 Cold Semidesert 17 Cold Desert 18 Shrubland, Boreal and Sub-polar 19 Tundra 20 Polar and High-Altitude Desert 21 Snow and Ice 24 Cropland and Natural Vegetation Mosaic 25 Cropland 26 Urban and built-up 29 No data Mountains 39,433,364 5,996,622 Mangrove 233,588 44,002 Coral reefs 255,339 53,632 23 Insert Figure 5: Major Habitat Types - Global Coverage and the Area Protected 5. Can We Use Protected Areas as Indicators for Biodiversity Targets? All types of protected areas have a role in global in-situ biodiversity conservation to a greater or lesser extent, whether they are managed as strict nature reserves, national parks, community conserved areas or managed resource areas. In the face of increasing human pressure on the planet's resources an effective global protected area system is the best hope for conserving viable, representative areas of natural ecosystems and their habitats and species. Therefore, protected areas are a valid measurable indicator of progress in conserving the world’s remaining biodiversity or at least slowing the rate of loss. That, at least, is the theory. However, we need to be clear that measurements of the number and extent of protected areas, at least at the formal governmental level, may only provide a superficial indication of the political commitment to conserving biodiversity. Based on a comprehensive global gap analysis undertaken by Conservation International in 2003, Rodrigues et al. (2004: 641) have concluded that “the degree to which biodiversity is represented within the existing network of protected areas is unknown”. Two factors are fundamental to understanding the issues associated with using protected areas as global biodiversity indicators: 1. protected area locations and design issues; and 2. effectiveness of protected areas in achieving conservation objectives. = Protected Area Location and Design Issues Although a number of countries have designed and implemented protected area system plans (Davey 1998), studies have confirmed (for example, Rodrigues et al. 2003, Pressey et al. 24 2002, Margules and Pressey 2000) that protected area establishment frequently does not correlate with identified conservation priorities. One of the most apparent observations from the current global statistical analysis is the considerable mismatch between the levels of protection between terrestrial and marine areas. The task of setting aside areas of ocean has barely begun, while the price already being paid for this shortfall is one of collapsing fish stocks and growing levels of pollution. Aside from the gross difference between the level of protection for terrestrial and marine realms, we know that even terrestrial protected area systems are inadequate, confirmed by the Conservation International study that concluded that “at least 1,310 species (831 at risk of extinction) are not protected in any part of their ranges” (Rodrigues et al. 2003:7). Protected area data, in combination with habitat and species information, can provide a basis for determining gaps in the extent of biodiversity protection, and thereby inform decision- makers and stakeholders about priorities for conservation action (see Figure 6). However, the quality and relevance of the analysis clearly depends on the accuracy and resolution of the protected area boundary, habitat and species data and, as we have noted, there is considerable variation in the currently available data. On a related issue, the setting of minimum percentage targets for conservation of biomes or ecological regions (for example, the 10% target agreed by Contracting Parties at CoP7) may create political comfort but does not provide a basis for realistic assessments, as discussed above. However, it is important that consistent indicators are set that are useful at sub-national, national, regional and global levels (Reid et al. 1993) and biomes/ecological regions continue to provide the baseline framework in which more detailed habitat, community and species level monitoring can occur. Insert Figure 6: Example of Determining Habitat Conservation Priorities in Southern Chile 25 = Effectiveness of Protected Areas in Achieving Conservation Objectives Throughout the world, but especially in the tropics, established protected areas are under severe threat (MacKinnon in press, Bruner et al. 2001, Carey et al. 2000, Oates 1999, Brandon et al. 1998). Carey et al. (2000:18) have summarised significant threats to protected areas, in increasing order of importance, as: = "Individual elements removed from the protected area without alteration to the overall structure (e.g. animal species used as bushmeat, exotic plants or over-fishing of specific species). « Overall impoverishment of the ecology of the protected area (e.g. through encroachment, long-term air pollution damage or persistent poaching pressure). » Major conversion and degradation (e.g. through removal of vegetation cover, driving roads through the protected area, major settlements or mining). » — Isolation of protected areas (e.g. through major conversion of surrounding land)." In the face of widespread threats to protected areas, and their conservation values, it is essential that we understand and measure the dimensions of the problem. That is, to bring together information about protected area numbers, extent and ecological representivity with assessments of conservation effectiveness of the existing network. By doing so we can develop a set of sound indicators that can provide meaningful assessments of whether or not biodiversity targets are met. Unfortunately, existing protected area data held in the WDPA does not indicate if protected areas (as individual sites, national systems and global networks) are actually effective in achieving identified biodiversity conservation objectives. 26 Existing numerical, spatial and geographic data therefore needs to be supplemented with relevant information that enables an assessment of conservation effectiveness. Achievement of conservation objectives is part of the assessment of overall management effectiveness of protected areas. Considerable work is being undertaken globally in this regard, notably by IUCN (Hockings et al. 2000), and The Nature Conservancy (TNC 2003). Based on the IUCN framework (see Box 2), several other tools have been developed for assessing management effectiveness at individual protected areas and at the level of the protected area system. These include the WWF Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Areas Management (RAPPAM) methodology (Ervin 2003), recently used to assess 200 forest protected areas (Dudley et al. 2004). Since 2001, assessments have also been completed in a number of countries including Russia (Tyrlyshkin et al. 2003), China (Li 2003) and Bhutan (Tshering 2003).. In KwaZulu Natal in South Africa (Goodman 2003) the RAPPAM methodology was used to prioritise allocations of budgets across the protected area system, based on management needs. However, there is as yet no globally accepted measure for assessing management effectiveness and the sheer number of protected areas means that a full assessment of management effectiveness for all sites worldwide remains unlikely in the short-term. Even so, the CBD CoP7 endorsed a protected areas programme of work, which included under Goal 4.2 the following ambitious activities by States Parties: 27 Box 2: Measuring the Effectiveness of Protected Area Management There is a growing concern amongst protected area professionals that many protected areas around the world are not achieving the objectives for which they were established. One response to this concern has been an emphasis on the need to increase the effectiveness of protected area management, and to help this process a number of assessment tools have been developed to assess management practices. It is clear that the existence of a wide range of situations and needs require different methods of assessment. The World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) therefore developed a ‘framework’ for assessment. The WCPA framework aimed both to provide some overall guidance in the development of assessment systems and to encourage standards for assessment and reporting. The WCPA Framework is based on the idea that good protected area management follows a process that has six distinct stages, or elements: it begins with understanding the context of existing values and threats, ™ progresses through planning, and s allocation of resources (inputs), and m= as aresult of management actions (processes), m eventually produces products and services (outputs), that result in impacts or outcomes. In order to monitor the progress towards meeting its effectiveness target, the World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use has published (Stolton et al. 2003) a simple site-level tracking tool to facilitate reporting on management effectiveness of protected areas within WWF and World Bank projects. The tracking tool has been built around the WCPA framework and has been adopted by the GEF and other agencies. The methodology can be modified to fit local needs to : Identify the strengths and weaknesses of a protected area system. = Analyse and compare a variety of pressures and threats across all protected areas within a system. = Identify areas with high ecological and social importance, and determine conservation priorities. = Develop and prioritize policy interventions and follow-up steps. Complement more detailed, site-level assessments. WWF International is setting up a database to compile the results of interventions at WWF and Bank-assisted sites, although the primary beneficiaries and users of the results are protected area staff. The tool has been translated into French and Spanish as well as Chinese, Lao, Khmer, Vietnamese, Mongolian and Indonesian and tested at more than 200 sites worldwide. The original tracking tool was developed for forested protected areas but has also been adapted for use in marine protected areas, where it is currently being field—tested (Staub and Hatziolos 2004). 28 "4.2.1 Develop and adopt, by 2006, appropriate methods, standards, criteria and indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of protected area management and governance, and set up a related database, taking into account the IUCN-WCPA framework for evaluating management effectiveness, and other relevant methodologies, which should be adapted to local conditions. 4.2.2 Implement management effectiveness evaluations of at least 30 percent of each Party’s protected areas by 2010 and of national protected area systems and, as appropriate, ecological networks." (SCBD 2004) Both IUCN and WWF approaches to evaluating management effectiveness include achievement of protected area conservation objectives and assessment of threats and vulnerability. However, for the purposes of assessing achievement of biodiversity targets it may be more efficacious to adopt a separate set of simple measures that can be applied at national levels and collated at regional and global levels within the WDPA. Parks Canada (2004), for example, has successfully adopted a process of measuring ecological integrity (Box 3) of its protected area system to: x assess the effectiveness of management actions; » increase understanding of ecosystem change; » find areas where further research is needed; and # serve as an ‘ecological baseline’ to which non-protected landscapes can be compared. 29 Box 2: Parks Canada Ecological Integrity Monitoring Framework (Parks Canada 2004) Biodiversity Ecosystem Functions Stressors characteristic of region resilient, evolutionary potential unimpaired system Species richness Succession/ retrogression Human land-use patterns = change in species richness = disturbance frequencies and size = _land use maps, road densities, = numbers and extent of exotics (fire. insects, flooding) population densities = vegetation age class distributions Population dynamics Habitat fragmentation = mortality/natality rates of Productivity = patch size, inter-patch distance, indicator species =s Remote or by site forest interior immigration/ emigration of indicator species Decomposition Pollutants population viability ofindicator = by site = sewage, petrochemicals etc. species = long-range transport of toxics Nutrient retention Trophic structure =s Ca, N par site Climate = size class distribution of all taxa = weather data = predation levels = _ frequency of extreme events Other = park specific issues Another national example of protected area monitoring is being applied in the Philippines for improving the conservation and management of coral reef protected areas (CCEF/CRMP 2002). Measured indicators include: = human activities and natural disturbances: fishing, tourism, population and land use impacts, climatic factors (typhoons, coral bleaching); = condition of habitat and causes of coral damage; status of fish and other species; and = community perceptions of the marine protected area. 30 6. Delivering Accurate and Meaningful Protected Area Indicators for Assessing Global Biodiversity Targets There are two fundamental streams of action, with associated information needs, required to achieve the 2010 biodiversity target, and the 2012 target for establishing an effective, globally representative marine protected areas system: completing protected area systems and ensuring the biodiversity effectiveness of protected areas. 6.1 Completing Protected Area Systems There is a need to improve the accuracy of data on the spatial distribution of protected areas within a time-based framework to enable equally accurate, and comprehensive, assessment of the conservation status of ecosystems/habitats and species. This requires: 1. Database: Improvements to the structure, content quality and access of the WDPA, continuing the global collaboration with international conservation organisations and improving interaction with national agencies and regional bodies responsible for protected area data collection. Relay of high quality protected areas numerical, areal and geographic data from countries to the WDPA on a regular basis — especially accurate polygon boundary information, linking to effective quality control mechanisms. 2. Analyses: Regular habitat and species gap analyses relative to protected area networks at national, regional and global level. 3. Communicating results: Publication and wide dissemination of annual analytical status reports on protected areas data — including reports on the conservation effectiveness issues discussed below. 31 6.2 Ensuring the Biodiversity Conservation Effectiveness of Protected Areas Conservation effectiveness is the key to achieving and sustaining global biodiversity targets and appropriate measures need to be incorporated into monitoring and reporting processes as soon as possible. Although work still needs to be done to improve the accuracy of measurements of the extent of protected areas, there is a level of urgency in the need to measure conservation effectiveness within the short time frame available before 2010. As we have seen, the tools have been developed — it is a question of agreeing on an appropriate standard set of indicators that can be recorded and compared for global analyses. Action needs to be taken to: = Ensure a global approach to assessment: Develop a global approach to the design and application of conservation effectiveness indicators. The necessary design work could be undertaken by the Ongoing Ad Hoc Technical Working Group on Protected Areas established at the CBD CoP7, and the international specialist organisations assigned as partners in the implementation of the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas (IUCN WCPA, UNEP-WCMC, WWF, etc). = Measure biodiversity conservation effectiveness: Develop and implement a global protected areas monitoring project to measure baseline and ongoing conservation effectiveness over a 5-10 year period - potentially expressed through measures of ecological integrity. Ideally, such a project should include every country, but would at least need to include a representative sample of protected areas (600-1,000) in all biomes/ecoregions. = Incorporate new data layers: Improve the capacity of the WDPA to incorporate relevant data on habitats, and also other factors that contribute to an understanding of key 32 management effectiveness issues: for example, budgets (as a proportion of GDP), staffing, or visitor numbers. As management effectiveness measures become more widely available they will improve the resolution of the WDPA to act as an indicator of progress towards targets. It is possible that an ‘indicator subset’ of the WDPA could be created specifically to assist the indicator biodiversity reporting process. = More effective application of IUCN protected area management categories: IUCN management categories also have a potentially important role in regional and global analyses by providing a common language and enabling the comparison and summary of protected areas on the basis of management objectives. If uniformly adopted and properly applied, the categories provide another layer of useful information that can be used in the evaluation of management and conservation effectiveness and action needs to be taken at all levels to improve their use. 6.3 Use of Remote Sensing Technology More widespread and better use needs to be made of remote sensing technology. The relatively recent ASTER (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer) remote sensing system was launched in 1999 with an expected life of more than six years and clearly has great potential to support protected areas monitoring from national to global scales. ASTER is recording 600 high-resolution images a day, each one covering an area of 60 km’, with a pixel size of 15 metres. NASA is using the system to compile a prototype ‘protected areas archive’ with a simple set of effective tools available for field level use by protected area managers (NASA 2004). The system is being constructed with the following capabilities: » read and display user-supplied overlay shape files; 33 image annotation - adding text, lines, arrows, shapes; distance and area measurement; inclusion of historic Landsat data to support change analysis; and creation of new shapefiles; support for ASTER, Landsat, and MODIS data; simple classification functions; topographic layer, with draping capability and perspective roaming; simulated true colour; ability to create custom CD-ROMs where the user selects scenes/protected areas; access to information through both CD-ROMs and the Internet; integration with specialised documentation for PA managers; and links to external sources of information (for example, WDPA and species databases). Linkages with high-resolution remote sensing data could assist in developing more complex GIS models to look at a range of measures of “conservation effectiveness”. It would be possible, for example to investigate critical issues such as connectivity and potential for ecological networks, boundary length, and threats (such as population densities within threshold distances from park boundaries and adjacent land/resource uses). 7. Conclusion This paper has stressed the importance of a comprehensive approach to the use of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Measurements of numbers and extent must be combined with assessments of conservation effectiveness to achieve meaningful results. Monitoring methodologies are being applied by different organisations 34 and national agencies in a number of the world’s protected areas that have the potential for use in measuring the status of protected areas at the global level. The challenge is to define a standard methodology and apply it consistently in countries so that meaningful results can be derived to determine if global biodiversity targets are met. As indicated in this review, there are significant inaccuracies in the current spatial data on the world’s protected areas, which in turn means imprecision in identifying conservation gaps and defining priorities. Yet these inaccuracies can be addressed in a relatively straightforward manner, given sufficient technical and financial resources and concerted action. Above all, national governments need to progress the protected areas agenda adopted at the CBD CoP7 — including the endorsed outcomes of the 5"" World Parks Congress held in 2004 — to provide effective protection regimes to conserve the world’s remaining biodiversity. The application of such effectiveness is the test of real political will, expressed through good governance, enforcement of legal protection and provision of resources necessary for protected area management. Acknowledgement The authors are grateful for the valuable comments and contributions (including the text for Box 2) of Dr Kathy MacKinnon, Lead Biodiversity Specialist, World Bank and Cambridge Biodiversity Group visiting scholar. 35 8. References Adams, A.B (editor) (1964). Proceedings of the First World Conference on National Parks. National Parks Service, US Department of the Interior, Washington DC. Anon (1991). Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (1991). See British Antarctic Survey: www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_Antarctica/Treaty/protocol.html. Bartholome E, A.S. Belward, F. Achard S. Bartalev, C. Carmona-Moreno, H. Eva, S. Fritz, J- M. Gregoire, P. Mayaux, H-J. Stibig (2002). GLC 2000 — Global Land Cover mapping for the year 2000. Project status report. November 2002. European Communities, Italy. Blyth S., Groombridge B., Lysenko I., Miles L., Newton A. 2002. Mountain Watch: environmental change & sustainable development in mountains. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK. Brockman, C.F. and K. Curry-Lindahl (1964). Problems of Nomenclature: the Need for Definitions. In Proceedings of the First World Conference on National Parks, 366-367. National Park Service, US Department of Interior, Washington DC. Brandon, K., K.H. Redford and S.E. Sanderson (editors) (1998). Parks in Peril: People, politics and protected areas. The Nature Conservancy and Island Press, Washington DC. Bruner, A.G., R.E. Gullison, R.E. Rice and G.A.B. Fonseca (2001). Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291:125-128. 36 Carey, C., N. Dudley and S. Stolton (2000). Squandering Paradise? WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. Chape, S., S. Blyth, L. Fish, P. Fox, M. Spalding (compilers) (2003). 2003 United Nations List of Protected Areas. UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK and IUCN-The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland. Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation Inc. and Coastal Resource Management Project (CCEF/CRMP) (2002). Marine Protected Area Report Guide: Improving Coral Reef Marine Protected Area Management in the Philippines. CCEF: www.coast.ph/projects.html. Pierce, S., R. Cowling, T. Sandwith and K. MacKinnon, K.(editors) (2002). Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development: Case Studies from South Africa. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Davey, A.G. (1998). National System Planning for Protected Areas. YUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Dudley, N., A. Belokurov, O. Borodin, L. Higgins-Zogib, M. Hockings, L. Lacerda and S. Stolton (2004). Are protected areas working? An analysis of forest protected areas by WWF. WWE International, Gland, Switzerland. Dudley, N. and S. Stolton (2003). Running Pure: The importance of forest protected areas to drinking water. A research report for the World Bank / WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use. WWF International, 37 Ervin, J. (2003). WWF: Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology. WWF International Gland, Switzerland. FAO (2000). Land Cover Classification System — LCCS. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Goodman, P. S. (2003). South Africa: Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas in KwaZulu-Natal using WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology. WWF Gland, Switzerland. Grove, R.H. (1995). Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Origins of Environmentalism, 1600-1860. Cambridge University Press. Hansen, M., DeFries, R., Townshend, J. R. G. and Sohlberg, R. (1998). Land Cover Classification Derived from AVHRR. College Park, Maryland: The Global Land Cover Facility. Hansen, M., DeFries, R., Townshend, J. R. G. and Sohlberg, R. (2000). Global land cover classification at 1km resolution using a decision tree classifier. International Journal of Remote Sensing 21:1331-1365. Hockings, M., S. Stolton and Nigel Dudley (2000); Assessing Effectiveness — A Framework for Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas; University of Cardiff and IUCN, Switzerland. 38 IUCN - The World Conservation Union (1994). Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland. Laurance, W.F. (1999). Reflections on the tropical deforestation crisis. Biological Conservation 91:109-117. Li Digiang, Zhou Jianhua, Dong Ke, Wu Bo, Zhu Chunquan (2003). China: Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas in the Upper Yangtze Ecoregion using WWF's RAPPAM Methodology. WWF Gland, Switzerland. Lysenko, I. and P. Bubb (2003). A Protected Areas Gap Analysis for Region XI Chile: Biodiversity Aysén Project 2003. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.. MacKinnon, K. (in press). Megadiversity in Crisis: Politics, Policies and Governance in Indonesia's Forests. In Emerging Threats to Tropical Forests, W. Laurance and C. Peres (editors). University of Chicago Press. McNeely, J.A. (1998). How Protected Areas can Respond to the Changing Nature of Society. In Protected Areas in the 21st Century: From Islands to Networks. YUCN, Gland, Switzerland. McNeely, J.A. (ed.) 2003. Protected Areas in 2023: Scenarios for an Uncertain Future. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 39 Margules, C.R. and R.L. Pressey (2000). Systematic conservation planning. Nature Vol. 405: 243-253. Mulongoy, K.J. and S. Chape (editors) (2004). Protected Areas and Biodiversity: An Overview of Key Issues. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and UNEP- WCMC. Biodiversity Series No. 21. UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK. Oates, J. (1999). Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest: How conservation strategies are failing in West Africa. University of California Press, Berkeley. National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) (2004). ASTER Protected Area Archive. Internet: http://asterweb.jp].nasa.gov/APAA/concept.htm. Parks Canada (2004). The EI Monitoring Framework. Internet: www.pc.gc.ca/progs/np- pn/ecosystem/ecosystem3_e.asp. Phillips, A. (2003). A Modern Paradigm. In World Conservation, 2/2003: 6-7. [UCN-The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Pressey, R.L., G.L. Whish, T.W. Barrett and M.E. Watts (2002). Effectiveness of protected areas in north-eastern New South Wales: recent trends in six measures. Biological Conservation 106:57-69. Reid, W.V., J.A. McNeely, D.B. Tunstall, D.A. Bryant and M. Winograd (1993). Biodiversity 40 Indicators for Policy Makers. Contribution to the WRI/IUCN/UNEP Global Biodiversity Strategy. World Resources Institute, Washington and IUCN-The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Rodrigues, A. S. L., S.J. Andelman, M.I. Bakarr, L. Boitani, T.M. Brooks, R.M. Cowling, L.D. C. Fishpool, G.A.B. da Fonseca, K.J. Gaston, M. Hoffmann, J.S. Long, P.A. Marquet, J.D. Pilgrim, R.L. Pressey, J. Schipper, Wes Sechrest, S.N. Stuart, L.G. Underhill, R.W. Waller, M.E.J. Watts and Xie Yan (2004). Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature Vol 428/8:640-643. Rodrigues, A. S. L., S.J. Andelman, M.I. Bakarr, L. Boitani, T.M. Brooks, R.M. Cowling, L.D. C. Fishpool, G.A.B. da Fonseca, K.J. Gaston, M. Hoffmann, J.S. Long, P.A. Marquet, J.D. Pilgrim, R.L. Pressey, J. Schipper, Wes Sechrest, S.N. Stuart, L.G. Underhill, R.W. Waller, M.E.J. Watts and Xie Yan (2003). Global Gap Analysis: towards a representative network of protected areas. Advances in Applied Biodiversity Science 5. Conservation International, Washington DC. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD) (2004). Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its Seventh Meeting. UNEP/CBD/COP/7/21, SCBD Montreal. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD) (2003). Status and Trends of, and Threats to, Protected Areas. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/5/Rev.1, SCBD Montreal. 41 Spalding M.D., M. Jenkins and S. Chape (in prep) (Editors). State of the World’s Protected Areas. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK. Spalding, MD, C. Ravilious and E.P. Green (2001). World Atlas of Coral Reefs. University of California Press, Berkeley. Spalding M.D., F. Blasco and C.D. Field (eds.) (1997). World Mangrove Atlas. International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems, Okinawa, Japan. Stolton, S. , M.Hockings, N. Dudley, K. MacKinnon and T. Whitten (2003). Reporting progress in protected areas. A site-level management effectiveness tracking tool. World Bank, WWF Alliance. Staub, F. and M. Hatziolos (2004). Score card to assess progress in achieving management effectiveness goals for marine protected areas. World Bank. Washington DC. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) (2003). The 5S Framework for Site Conservation: A Practioner's Handbook for Site Conservation Planning. Washington DC. Tshering, K. (2003). Bhutan: Management Effectiveness Assessment of Four Protected Areas using WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology. WWF Gland, Switzerland. Tyrlyshkin, V, A. Blagovidov and A. Belokurov (2003). Russia: Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas using WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology. WWF Gland, Switzerland. 42 Udvardy, M, (1975). A Classification of the Biogeographical Provinces of the World. Prepared as a contribution to UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere Programme Project No. 18. IUCN, Morges, Switzerland. ' Goal 7 - Ensure environmental sustainability; Target 9: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources; Indicator 26: Land area protected to maintain biological diversity. > XVII UN General Assemby: Economic development and the conservation of nature, 18 December, 1962. 3 Which became the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in 1988 and the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre in 2000. ‘ Founding members are: American Museum of Natural History, BirdLife International, Conservation International, Fauna & Flora International, IUCN — The World Conservation Union, The Nature Conservancy, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Wildlife Conservation Society, World Resources Institute, WWF ° This figure represents only those sites which are known to have been designated — there is further information on the WDPA regarding degazetted, proposed and recommended sites which is not considered further in this study. ° In fact this approach introduced a secondary error for those sites where buffered points have been used. In these cases it is possible that adjacent sites could be falsely presented as overlapping. In the current study this error was assumed to be smaller than the potential error of double counting, although further work may be needed to address the scale of this problem. 7 Antarctica: Antarctica, Bouvet Island (Norway); French Southern Territories (France) Heard and McDonald Islands (Australia); Falkland Islands, St. Helena, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands (UK); Australia (Christmas Island, Cocos/Keeling, Norfolk Island) and New Zealand; Caribbean: Anguilla, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands (UK); Anitgua and Barbuda; Aruba, Netherlands Antilles (Netherlands); Bahamas; Barbados; Cuba; Dominica; Dominican Republic; Grenada; Guadeloupe, Martinique (France); Haiti; Jamaica; Puerto Rico; US Virgin Islands (US); Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Trinidad and Tobago; Central America: Belize; Costa Rica; El Salvador; Honduras; Guatemala; Nicaragua; Panama; Eastern and Southern Africa: Botswana; Eritrea; Ethiopia; Kenya; Lesotho; Malawi; Mayotte, Réunion (France); Mozambique; Namibia; Seychelles; Somalia; South Africa; Sudan; Swaziland; United Republic of Tanzania; Uganda; Zambia; Zimbabwe; East Asia: China; Japan; Hong Kong (SAR, China); DPR Korea; Republic of Korea; Macau (SAR China); Mongolia; Taiwan, Province of China; Europe: Albania; Andorra; Austria; Belgium; Bosnia and 43 Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; Czech Republic; Denmark (incl. Faroe Islands); Estonia; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Iceland; Ireland; Italy; Latvia; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; FYR Macedonia; Malta; Monaco; Netherlands; Norway (incl. Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands); Poland; Serbia and Montenegro; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; UK (incl. Gibraltar); Vatican City State; North Africa and Middle East: Afghanistan; Algeria; Bahrain; Cyprus; Egypt; Islamic Republic of Iran; Iraq; Israel; Jordan; Kuwait; Lebanon; Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; Morocco; Oman; Qatar; Saudi Arabia; Syrian Arab Republic; Tunisia; Turkey; United Arab Emirates; Republic of Yemen; North America: Canada; Greenland (Denmark); Mexico; St. Pierre and Miquelon (France); United States; North Eurasia: Armenia; Azerbaijan; Belarus; Georgia; Kazakhstan; Kyrgyzstan; Republic of Moldova; Russian Federation; Tajikistan; Turkmenistan; Ukraine; Uzbekistan; Pacific: American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, United States Minor Outlying Islands (US); Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau (New Zealand); Fiji; French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna Islands (France); Kiribati; Marshall Islands; Micronesia; Nauru; Northern Mariana Islands; Palau; Papua New Guinea; Pitcairn, Henderson (UK); Samoa; Solomon Islands; Tonga; Tuvalu; Vanuatu; South America: Argentina; Bolivia; Chile; Colombia; Ecuador; French Guiana (France); Guyana; Paraguay; Peru; Suriname; Uruguay; Venezuela; South Asia: Bangladesh; Bhutan; British Indian Ocean Territory (UK); India; Maldives; Nepal; Pakistan; Sri Lanka; Southeast Asia: Brunei Darussalam; Cambodia; Indonesia; Lao PDR; Malaysia; Myanmar; Philippines; Singapore; Thailand; Timor Leste; Viet Nam; Western and Central Africa: Angola; Benin; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cameroon; Cape Verde; Central African Republic; Chad; Comoros; Congo; DR Congo; Cote d’Ivoire; Djibouti; Equatorial Guinea; Gabon; Gambia; Ghana; Guinea; Guinea-Bissau; Liberia; MadagSascar; Mali; Mauritania; Mauritius; Niger; Nigeria; Rwanda; Sao Tome and Principe; Senegal; Sierra Leone; Togo. 44 ecole re i ake HBT) i el BD dl ANP lintel eae sdincetiap hel Fog ST eee ae ee eerie (eatrventeel) haeadat | Crepes Turis). spenes C).. \crilcharped hat > ihn } ehiegie f he ke V both iM MN Wd erty ‘ifaenly ws Aaiie ie A = erat” | ry i Avene j mond Aina chain bias th dul nena " je ydal arate re cata i: i Pepe sina DY i ieee ibatic lett) oA) cherie se abnivate vient saimevehl ot ne Wh lasey ecg seri Sas ari. pnye ik eee dphi\ en weaned sind aibwinn fami om wie. Lik vat. syed | i } “my — fait’) wag Had iil w 4 vn be NO, cet fered c'Wheiie aethie nee alam A aga had wiley 4 Y ih ae te elle Winn s eauieileal WabiNte? <0} sow th viene | nln 28 nosalh Wey." Howe ee ee ee 4 ea seve alias wy Pel eit. dtc ei F —— Main an He brit shores ait te arnt eer j u ie Re ere id Soon i vi ee te oe Rican aut “vinlihedl Ro a "aly tc Re italia: es teaeoiicns a ¥ 7 ; MIE, ih a, drs ani arene nal Arie. heey es Repuanleanh ahaa seit ial ‘t win sit sane ina tai | ln ei Ni dl | “veaaivtal igh lly eth rand tee tht int inks one xe tect ait a ator hall Nagel ty Satine ns rigs t ‘Sie a diel oe Egat ‘te Stn on) Semath, fe 198 Measuring the Extent and Effectiveness of Protected Areas as an Indicator for Meeting Global Biodiversity Targets S. Chape, J. Harrison, M. Spalding and I. Lysenko (UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre) FIGURES Figure 1: How Omission and Commission Errors Occur in Habitat Data Analysis (Adapted from Rodrigues et al. 2003) Omission error Commission error Omission error True shape of PA reflected in 2. Buffered points of PA (known 3. Point only data of PA can accurate polygon boundary area and centre point) can result in errors of omission result in errors of omission (Habitat A) (Habitat A) and commission (Habitat B) Figure 2: Global Distribution of Protected Areas by IUCN Protected Area Management Category IUCN Category by Size IUCN Category by No. of Sites la 5% Ib 3% No category 18 No category 34% F i. i . i wWinwean I pal ee ; byerdss 4 oy iL iv hs bay (eat SA LS ee | me pan F weer hell Lath * acite+ > oe " } ile ~~ ecards py Hetty! it aceettuhe iy nie) eWireRicuh? ieee) EON Vt) —— — = im Awl LAviih ial beater 4 in %, ; a LY? ripley j ‘ ; i ~~ J ; on anette fi ene eae ; Py. Megat () th i. (ne dpnause od ? > in wi vy ee Hy ri oft Ax? a aha id rian ® awe = Hints ee ee e / re ie iM . dwt AWS 7 ote ot ‘pagel Wel | ae er a ciel hig et ana cote La a i aaiairs Mie Number of Sites 1 Area Km? Figure 3: Growth of Global Protected Areas over Time 00,000 80,000 4 60,000 5 40,000 | 20,000 1873 20,000,000 @383 Cumulative area sites of known date 18,000,000 == Cumulative no. of sites of known date Aeoucce 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 Note: 38,427 PAs covering approximately 4 million km? have no date and are not 6,000,000 included in the cumulative graph 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 o o o oo o o° o oO o oO o oO o oO o - o oO o oO oO ied o oO o o GY o o a a co o Qc Ve N Nn oO o zs zs » wo o wo Ld ia o o oa a co o o o o o a a a a oa a a o oa a o o a a a oa a oa a a o - - = = = = = = = = = - 6 = - . = = = = = = = = = N Year Figure 4: Area Protected by Biome (%) 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 Area in Km? ay \ ‘ i I iy i i i ~~ te — a ‘ er ete ia ; nel) Diehegyed Tete vue) berpatle in aihy Dru (6 swe 4 iy a = ma mes) { ac ~~ i rein en i i i é ee cms (ee wiv et i : z i ~ c i : = : i Ody pee eH) 19 ) Dogies a aie, A! y a i ' i 4 si i Ly Wie lw oF H 1 i > alg sani ’ } p = eee kA eal! Se ye bd tm cme 59 y h “i NRO ete Men nN ‘ ee eee , f j 7 i f Surface area (1000 sq km) Figure 5: Major Habitat Types - Global Coverage and the Area Protected fee y Figure 6: Example of Determining Habitat Conservation Priorities in Southern Chile (Adapted from Lysenko and Bubb 2003) % Habitat Protection Habitat Conservation Priorities @ @ UNEP WCMC Informs conservation priority setting Guides conservation action Habitat stbdhvines, Level 4 Habitat Protection, % 1 MB atte Pneess | Ese ress Habe Sou lev | Wm) S0SqUE ‘(mm 1 OTRA VECETACHAY ’ en) LT | | Peele tatesesions (7) Prtected Ares Bounty oe pet pesaes (mune \ hee egulecare of wey comerry, terecry, (yar wet Bs ectterty Te = aie tu At of ts Seti or bomdires Compted by LLprrke ext Pty @UNER-VICMC, 203 f 3 Compied by Lymnbosnd PPsbb BUNEP-WCLAC, 2003