Conditions for protected area effectiveness. Stephen Woodley Vice Chair for Science and Biodiversity World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN

Transcription

1 Conditions for protected area effectiveness Stephen Woodley Vice Chair for Science and Biodiversity World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN Total positive Total Negative

2 From: World Scientists Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice BioScience. The need for effective, well placed protected areas has never been greater

3 PA Effectiveness Depends on the Question Being Asked Questions asked on PA Effectiveness What is Measured Strengths and Weaknesses Are they in the right places? Is What Nature is the 1) overall better state off of the inside ecosystem a protected in a area, area? relative to not having a What is the condition of parts of protected area; 2) in the ecosystem, such as species good population condition trends or relative % cover? to theoretical thresholds What is the effectiveness of the management system? What is the value of ecological services provided by the PA? What is the economic benefit of the protected area? Or ROI? Coverage of species; KBAs; or representative ecosystems Measures of ecological integrity or health (usually a composite) Population time series trends; Change in cover PAME ; METT Water quality; Carbon storage; Recreation Contribution to GDP; Jobs; Employment Usual broad scale but better methods; We know PA have poor coverage; SCP focus on maximum ROI Considerable scientific input for both design and analysis. Rarely counterfactual Measure have be unrelated to overall condition; Available data Global PAME standard exists; Does not focus on biodiversity outcomes; Results mixed Relatively quickly and cheaply; Benefits are used defined; Not related to ecological outcomes Not done regularly; Measures may be completely unrelated to biodiversity outcomes

4 Global Survey of Management Effectiveness on Protected Areas - Leverington et al., World Parks Congress 2014

5 A global analysis of management capacity and ecological outcomes in PAs Geldmann el al. Conservation Letters 2018 Positive relationship between our METT-based scores for Capacity and Resources Study highlights the paucity of appropriate data for rigorous testing.

6 1800s The collapse of the range of Africa s elephants into parks & protected areas Blanc, J., et al., African Elephant Status report 2007: Occasional Paper Series of the IUCN Species Survival Commission, Kingdon, J., The Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals, 2 edn. Academic Press, London.

7 Large mammal population declines in African PAs - Craigie et al., Biological Conservation 143, 2010

8 On Average, Tropical Reserve Health Is Declining Laurence et al, Nature 489, 2012 Number of sites P < <---Bigger declines Bigger increases--->

9 Reserve Health Africa Americas Asia-Pacific Laurence et al., Nature 489, Protection: P = Continent: P = <---Worsening Improving---> Change in reserve protection

10 Predictors of Wildlife Populations in PAs - Barnes, M., Craigie, I. D., Harrison, L., Geldmann, J., Collen. B., Whitmee, S., Burgess, N. Brooks, T., Hockings, M., Woodley, S. Nature Communications 2016 What s the overall trend of populations? What types of species are benefitting more? Under what circumstances are protected areas effective?

11 Drivers Explanatory variables - Site (Protected Area), species and country scales - 6 non-exclusive categories Design (e.g. size, shape) Species Ecological Traits (e.g. body mass, taxa) Management Type (IUCN Category) Socio-economic context (National GDP, HDI, corruption) Human Development (e.g. road density, land-use change) Time series characteristics (e.g. length)

12 Socio-economic metrics Human Development Index (HDI) Hunger (Malnutrition) Corruption Index GDP (Gross Domestic Product) Wealthier countries have more capacity, resources OR Developing countries have greater threats, more resource dependence OR An axis of governance?

13 Body Mass Larger bodied biodiversity doing better Management effect?

14 Marine Conclusions Are Similar (Edgar et al. Nature 2014, Gill et al. Nature 2017) Most MPAs are the same as fished areas - with widespread shortfalls in staff and financial resources.. Some MPAs are extremely effective. Conservation benefits driven by five key features no-take, well enforced, old (>10 years), large (>100 km 2 ), and isolated by deep water or sand. Management drives MPA effectiveness adequate staff and budget capacity yield 3 times greater impact

15 Review of all literature Geldmann et al. 2013, updated 2017 Protected areas are working - Terrestrial counterfactual studies: 74% positive impact 12% negative 10% no effect 4% had mixed results Outcome results are highly variable We have weak metrics of success There are many predictors of success and failure.

16 What Works in Conservation Global Review

17 REPORTED DRIVERS OF PROTECTED AREA OUTCOMES Total positive Total Negative

18 Predictors of increasing effectiveness Reference Generalized elements of success No-take or harvest Edgar et al. (2014) Sound governance/sound management Capacity and Resources Geldmann et al 2018 Sound management Established protected area regulations Geldmann et al. (2013) Sound governance/sound management Increased anti-poaching Geldmann et al. (2013) Sound management Increased enforcement Gill et al Sound governance Established legislation Geldmann et al. (2013) Sound governance Established PA targeted interventions Geldmann et al. (2013) Sound management Greater protected area age Edgar et al. (2014) Sound management Larger protected area size Blackman et al. (2015) Sound ecological design Greater indigenous governance Nolte et al. (2013) Sound governance Greater gross domestic product per capita Barnes et al. (in press) Sound governance/sound management Greater Gini score Barnes et al. (in press) Sound governance/sound management Large animal body size Barnes et al. (in press) Sound management Greater benefits to local community Bruner et al. (2001) Sound governance/sound management Clearer boundary demarcation Bruner et al. (2001) Sound management Lower corruption Smith and Walpole (2005) Sound governance Strictness of protection Sciberras et al. (2015) Sound governance/sound management

19 Governance 100 Ecological Outcomes 100 Ecological integrity Species, Cover Ecosystem Services Management 100 Who decides Who benefits Corruption Enforcement Restoration Monitoring Capacity 100 Ecological Design Size Location connectivity

20 Relative Importance of Factor Factors Determining Positive Ecological Outcomes in Protected Areas high low low Cumulative level of Threat high

21 What drives PA success? Yes PAs work - when they are set up to work Different PA Categories and Governance types all work Ongoing struggle with measuring ecological condition, management inputs and counterfactuals Governance underlies the foundation and allows management to operate. Management capacity, including enforcement, is essential. Ecological design is fundamental, but superfluous without governance and management.

22 PERFORMANCE STANDARD FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Global Standard for driving and recognising area-based conservation success Adaptable to country/region Voluntary commitment Independently assured evaluation procedure Globally consistent & credible recognition for protected/conserved areas, staff and communities

23 Where to Place PAs? Sites that make significant contributions to the global persistence of biodiversity Identified by national constituencies using globally standardized criteria and quantitative thresholds Criteria applicable across all taxonomic groups and to terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments Have delineated boundaries but are not necessarily any specific management entity (e.g. protected areas) Provide decision-makers with improved understanding of why particular sites are important for biodiversity

24 Proportion of each country s protected area estate which is known to have been assessed for management effectiveness (by area).

25 PA Effectiveness Metrics in Canada Actually we are behind global efforts to assess effectiveness and outcomes Parks Canada has led with EI monitoring and SOP reports but this program has been reduced CWS has conducted based METT assessments BC, Alberta and Ontario working with Professor Wright to develop a low cost assessment tool Most Canadian PA systems cannot report on biodiversity outcomes

26 N = 7,892 (IUCN Category) Cumulative Plot of Protected Areas and Size (ha) largest PAs account for 30% of the area Area ha Top 3% Pas account for 90% of the area 50% of PAs are less than 200 ha Distribution of PAs is in northern and low productivity environments Cumulative Number of Protected Areas

27

28 Predictors of Conservation Outcomes in Canadian National Parks (in review - Barnes, Woodley, Hockings) time series for 144 native species from 17 Canadian National Parks 2. Populations of wildlife in Canadian Protected Areas are overall positive 3. Success of Canadian National Parks driven by conservation investment and park size i.e. governance is in place so drivers are management and ecological design 4. Species threat status is significant higher threat species doing relatively poorer

29 Recommendation for New Targets Need both PA quality and quantity (scaling up) refocus on quality Quality is a function of location (Impact) and effectiveness (Ecological outcomes) Effectiveness is a function of governance, management and ecological design Need all elements in a new target Impact Effectiveness - Quantity