space for nature symposium · 2018-02-27 · 3 space for nature symposium symposium overview...

| F E B R UA RY 2 7 – 2 8 , 2 0 1 8

I N PA RT N E R S H I P W I T H

S PAC E F O R N AT U R E SYM P O S I UMSafeguarding space for nature and securing our futureDeveloping a post-2020 Strategy

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T SS YM P O S I U M OV E RV I E W

AG E N DA

A B S T R AC T S

T U E S DAY, F E B . 2 7 | Current targets, progress and shortfalls on protection of space for nature under Aichi Target 11

S E S S I O N 1 Plenary

S E S S I O N 2 How much is currently protected?

S E S S I O N 3 Areas important for biodiversity

S E S S I O N 4 How ecologically representative are current networks?

S E S S I O N 5 The need for effective and equitable management

S E S S I O N 6 Other effective area-based conservation measures

S E S S I O N 7 Connectivity and integration into the wider land/sea-scape

S E S S I O N 8 Posters and Reception

W E D N E S DAY, F E B . 2 8 | An Ambitious Post-2020 Strategy On Space For Nature

S E S S I O N 9 Plenary

S E S S I O N 1 0 How much space do we need for nature?

S E S S I O N 1 1 Space for nature in a post-2020 biodiversity strategy: how to achieve it?

S E S S I O N 1 2 Space for nature in a post-2020 strategy: what to include?

S P E A K E R A N D C H A I R B I O G R A P H I E S

P O S T E R A B S T R AC T S

3

4

6

6

7

1 0

1 2

1 4

1 6

1 8

1 8

1 7

1 9

2 1

2 3

3 8

S PAC E F O R N AT U R E S YM P O S I U M3

S YM P O S I U M OV E RV I E W

S A F E G UA R D I N G S PAC E F O R N AT U R E A N D S E C U R I N G O U R F U T U R E : D E V E LO P I N G A P O S T-2 0 2 0 S T R AT E GY

T H E C H A L L E N G E

We are rapidly losing Earth’s wild species and wild spaces, with global vertebrate populations having declined by two-thirds by in the last 40 years. Under the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have pledged to protect at least 17% of land and freshwater and 10% of our oceans by 2020. The plan focuses on areas of importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services in systems of effective, equitable and ecologically connected protected and conserved areas. Beyond these milestone targets, conservationists, scientists and policymakers are grappling with the question of how much space needs to be conserved - and how - in order to sustain humans and the rest of life on earth. Over the next few years, governments will be reviewing the current Strategic Plan and considering a new strategy to meet the vision of conserving biodiversity and maintaining ecosystem services and a healthy planet for all by 2050, as part of the wider 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

T H E S Y M P O S I U M

As part of the process to develop a post-2020 strategy, this symposium will bring together international scientists, conservation practitioners, policy-makers, business leaders, civil society and donors to:

• Review the science informing future area-based conservation targets

• Evaluate the implications of various policy options

• Provide balanced, evidence-based recommendations to Parties to the CBD and other policy processes

• Raise awareness of the need for a more ambitious, holistic and effective strategy to safeguard space for nature, incorporating protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures.

The symposium will complement and integrate the work of other groups reviewing this issue, such as the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Beyond the Aichi Targets Task Force. The outputs of the meeting will feed into post-2020 negotiations in the run up to the CBD’s 14th Conference of the Parties and the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development of the UN’s Economic and Social Council later in 2018 and will help to ensure that nature conservation is at the heart of sustainable development.

Learn more about the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Beyond the Aichi Targets Task Force at IUCN.org/protected-areas/wcpa/what-we-do/beyond-aichi-targets

This symposium will be hosted by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) and National Geographic Society (NGS), in partnership with the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), BirdLife International/RSPB, UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD).


AG E N DA

T U E S DAY, F E B . 2 7 | Current targets, progress and shortfalls on protection of space for nature under Aichi Target 11

9 : 0 0 S E S S I O N 1 - W E LC O M E A N D P L E N A RY Chair, Matthew Hatchwell, Zoological Society of London

9 : 4 5 S E S S I O N 2 - H OW M U C H I S C U R R E N T LY P ROT E C T E D ? Chair, Matthew Hatchwell, Zoological Society of London

1 0 : 3 0 B R E A K

1 1 : 0 0 S E S S I O N 3 - A R E A S I M P O RTA N T F O R B I O D I V E R S I T Y Chair, Jane Smart, International Union for the Conservation of Nature

1 2 : 2 0 LU N C H

1 3 : 3 0 S E S S I O N 4 - H OW E C O LO G I C A L LY R E P R E S E N TAT I V E A R E C U R R E N T N E T WO R K S ? Chair, Melanie Heath, BirdLife International

14 : 3 0 S E S S I O N 5 - T H E N E E D F O R E F F E C T I V E A N D E Q U I TA B L E M A N AG E M E N T Chair, Ken Norris, Zoological Society of London

1 5 : 3 0 B R E A K

16: 0 0 S E S S I O N 6 - OT H E R E F F E C T I V E A R E A- B A S E D C O N S E RVAT I O N M E A S U R E S Chair, Kathy MacKinnon, International Union for Conservation of Nature World Commission on Protected Areas

1 7 : 0 0 S E S S I O N 7 - C O N N E C T I V I T Y A N D I N T E G R AT I O N I N TO T H E L A N D/ S E A- S C A P E Chair, Nina Bhola, UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre

1 8 : 0 5 S E S S I O N 8 - P O S T E R S A N D R E C E P T I O N

19: 1 5 S Y M P O S I U M D I N N E R

T H E F U L L , D E TA I L E D AG E N DA C A N B E V I E W E D H E R E

https://www.zsl.org/sites/default/files/media/2018-02/Draft%20agenda%20-%20Space%20for%20Nature%20Symposium_27-28%20February%202018.pdf


W E D N E S DAY, F E B . 2 8 | An ambitious post-2020 strategy on space for nature

9 :00 S E S S I O N 9 - P L E N A RY Chair, Jonathan Baillie, National Geographic Society

9 : 4 0 S E S S I O N 1 0 - H OW M U C H S PAC E D O W E N E E D F O R N AT U R E ? Chair, Jonathan Hutton, Luc Hoffmann Institute

11 :00 B R E A K

11 : 3 0 S E S S I O N 1 1 - S PAC E F O R N AT U R E I N A P O S T-2 0 2 0 S T R AT E GY: H OW TO AC H I E V E I T ? Chair, Neville Ash, UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre

1 2 : 3 0 LU N C H

1 3 : 3 0 S E S S I O N 1 2 - S PAC E F O R N AT U R E I N A P O S T-2 0 2 0 S T R AT E GY: W H AT TO I N C LU D E Chair, Martin Harper, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

1 4 : 3 0 B R E A K

1 5 : 0 0 S E S S I O N 1 3 - C O N C LU S I O N S A N D AC T I O N S Chair, Simon Stuart, Synchronicity Earth

1 6 : 3 0 C LO S I N G R E M A R K S

T H E F U L L , D E TA I L E D AG E N DA C A N B E V I E W E D H E R E

AG E N DA

https://www.zsl.org/sites/default/files/media/2018-02/Draft%20agenda%20-%20Space%20for%20Nature%20Symposium_27-28%20February%202018.pdf


DAY 1 : Current targets, progress and shortfalls on protection of space for nature under Aichi Target 11

| S E S S I O N 1 | P L E N A RY

C R I S T I A N A PA Ș C A PA L M E R

Plenary remarks will provide context in three areas: (1) Where we are with respect to Aichi Biodiversity Target 11, and where we will likely be in 2020; (2) Why we need to create more space for nature and how this might be done; and (3) How to make this part of a larger transformational change.

| S E S S I O N 2 | H OW M U C H I S C U R R E N T LY P ROT E C T E D ?

N AO M I K I N G S TO N U N E N V I RO N M E N T WO R L D C O N S E RVAT I O N M O N I TO R I N G C E N T R E

C OV E R AG E O F T H E C U R R E N T G LO B A L P ROT E C T E D A R E A E S TAT E

Coverage of the global protected areas estate is changing rapidly – particularly in the marine environment. Some of this increase is due to better collation of data in the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), but much reflects a real increase, evidenced in the recent spate of new large Marine Protected Areas. However, the widely differing conservation objectives and management of areas makes it difficult to provide a consistent view of protected area coverage. Similarly, the low levels of reporting and recognition of areas under other forms of protection and conservation management, such as those conserved privately, or through the activities of indigenous peoples’ and local communities, means that it is not possible to provide a comprehensive measure of the areas receiving protection.

Future enhancements to the World Database on Protected Areas and its online Protected Planet interface will allow the quality and timeliness of the data to increase, and thus allow tracking change in the global protected areas estate in real-time. Likewise, by improving the channels for reporting the contribution of non-government actors to area based conservation can gain recognition and consideration in global metrics.

However, simply tracking coverage is not enough and all aspects of Aichi target 11, such as effectiveness, equity, representatively and connectivity must also be met, and the mechanisms to comprehensively track these aspects of the target must be put in place.


R AC H E L G O L D E N K RO N E R G E O RG E M A S O N U N I V E R S I T Y A N D C O N S E RVAT I O N I N T E R N AT I O N A L

T H E C O N S E RVAT I O N I M P L I C AT I O N S O F P ROT E C T E D A R E A D OW N G R A D I N G , D OW N S I Z I N G , A N D D E G A Z E T T E M E N T ( PA D D D )

Though conservation policy assumes that national parks and other protected areas are permanent fixtures on the landscape, recent research reveals widespread protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD). More than 3,000 enacted PADDD events have been documented since 1900 in 70 countries, affecting an area of more than 2.2 million km2 – nearly 10 times the size of the United Kingdom. Although some have proposed PADDD as a key instrument for enlightened conservation planning, PADDD is primarily driven by industrial-scale resource extraction and development, as well as local land pressures and land claims, with links to accelerated forest loss, fragmentation, and carbon emissions. Larger protected areas located nearer to population centers, as well as less effective protected areas are more likely to lose protection. In addition, more than 700 proposed PADDD events have been documented in 34 countries; the potential impacts of these proposals remain unknown. PADDD not only reduces the protected area estate, removing “space for nature,” but also may compromise the Aichi Target 11’s goals to maintain representative, well-managed, and well-connected systems of protected areas.

Alongside efforts to track PA expansions and upgrades, future work is needed to document PADDD rigorously using archival research and assess its risks and impacts using robust counterfactual methods. To address this phenomenon through evidence-based policies and practices, PADDD must be reported upon and tracked in a standardized manner. Policies governing PADDD analogous to those governing PA establishment should be promoted to ensure transparency and accountability. Only by accounting for the underappreciated phenomenon of PADDD can we ensure sustained and robust policies which safeguard space for nature and the people who depend upon it.

Co-authors: Siyu Qin, Roopa Krithivasan, Shalynn Pack, Carly Cook, Nasser Olwero, and Michael B. Mascia

| S E S S I O N 3 | A R E A S I M P O RTA N T F O R B I O D I V E R S I T Y

P E N N Y L A N G H A M M E R , G LO B A L W I L D L I F E C O N S E RVAT I O N

DA N I E L M A R N E W I C K , B I R D L I F E S O U T H A F R I C A

K E Y B I O D I V E R S I T Y A R E A S A S S I T E S F O R E N S U R I N G T H E P E R S I S T E N C E O F B I O D I V E R S I T Y P O S T-2 0 2 0

The destruction of natural habitats remains a key driver of biodiversity loss and is accelerating despite increased responses by the conservation community in recent decades. Pinpointing sites of particular importance for biodiversity to guide conservation efforts and inform development decisions has become ever more urgent.

Following 12 years of work led by an IUCN WCPA-SSC Joint Task Force, and building on four decades of effort to identify important sites for different elements of biodiversity (e.g. Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas, Areas of Zero Extinction), an umbrella standard for the identification of Key


Biodiversity Areas was launched at the 2016 World Conservation Congress, along with a partnership of 11 (now 12) international conservation organisations to support this identification. The quantitative, threshold-based criteria in the global KBA standard can be used to identify sites in terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments that contribute significantly to the global persistence of threatened biodiversity, geographically restricted biodiversity, ecological integrity, biological processes, and sites of high irreplaceability.

KBA identification is a bottom-up process, largely driven by local organisations and experts; essential to ensure the future safeguard and conservation of these sites. National KBA Coordination Groups are proposed as key structures to fulfill the role of coordinating the identification process at the national level. KBA data, stored on the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas, are being used in many different ways to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. These include guiding the strategic expansion and strengthening of protected-area networks by governments and civil society as they work to achieve Aichi Target 11 and the Sustainable Development Goals; informing private sector safeguard policies, environmental standards, certification schemes, and biodiversity financing; and supporting conservation planning and priority-setting at national, regional and local levels. The identification and safeguard of KBAs is an essential element of the post-2020 biodiversity strategy.

S T UA RT B U TC H A RT B I R D L I F E I N T E R N AT I O N A L

H OW M U C H L A N D D O W E N E E D TO M E E T T H E B I O D I V E R S I T Y A I M S O F A I C H I TA RG E T 1 1

Under Aichi Target 11, governments have committed to conserving ≥17% of terrestrial and ≥10% of marine environments globally, especially “areas of particular importance for biodiversity” through “ecologically representative” protected area systems or “other effective area-based conservation measures” (OECMs), while individual countries have set national commitments to conserve 3–50% of their land area.

An analysis in 2015 estimated that protected areas then covered 14.6% of terrestrial and 2.8% of marine extent, but found that 59–68% of ecoregions, 77–78% of important sites for biodiversity (Key Biodiversity Areas), and 57% of 25,380 species had inadequate coverage. The existing 19.7 million km2 terrestrial protected area network needs only 3.3 million km2 to be added to achieve 17% terrestrial coverage. However, the network would require nearly doubling to achieve coverage targets for all countries, ecoregions, important sites, and species using the most cost-efficient approach. This doesn’t take account of other aspects of Target 11, including coverage of ecosystem services and connectivity, which would probably elevate this estimate.

Such extensive and rapid expansion of formal protected areas is unlikely to be achievable by 2020. Greater focus is therefore needed on alternative approaches, including OECMs such as community- and privately-managed sites. Follow-on work is assessing the significance of existing OECMs in conserving biodiversity by estimating the degree to which they cover unprotected Key Biodiversity Areas in a selection of 10 countries worldwide. Preliminary results indicate that a high proportion of Key Biodiversity Areas outside protected areas contain management systems that appear likely to qualify as OECMs. Given this, greater emphasis on increasing the effectiveness of protected areas and OECMs may deliver greater biodiversity benefits than simply trying to expand areal coverage.


M A R K M U L L I G A N K I N G ’ S C O L L E G E LO N D O N A N D U N E N V I RO N M E N T WO R L D C O N S E RVAT I O N M O N I TO R I N G C E N T R E

P O S S I B L E V S . O P T I M A L S PAC E F O R N AT U R E S C E N A R I O S TO S U S TA I N B I O D I V E R S I T Y A N D E C O SY S T E M S E RV I C E P ROV I S I O N AT T H E G LO B A L S C A L E

This paper uses the Co$tingNature conservation prioritisation tool to examine the global distribution of key ecosystem services alongside species richness, endemism, current anthropogenic pressure on ecosystems and future threat to them, as a means of examining global priorities for conservation of terrestrial nature’s intrinsic value and contributions to people. It examines the extent of biodiversity and ecosystem services under protection now and generates a series of contrasting scenarios for future space for nature: protecting a randomly allocated 50% of land, protecting the 50% most ecosystem service productive global land areas; protecting the 50% most speciose areas for vertebrates; protecting the 50% of global land area with the least agricultural suitability and protecting the 50% of land with the highest conservation priority (incorporating pressure, threat, biodiversity and ecosystem services).

The results indicate significant differences in global biodiversity, potential and realised ecosystem services protected under these scenarios of equal land area but different targeting. Random allocation of new protected areas protects around 50% of biodiversity and ecosystem services for a 50% conservation investment in the terrestrial surface. Targeting towards biodiversity protects more biodiversity per unit land area, whereas targeting to conservation priority protects significantly less biodiversity per unit land area (but more ecosystem services). Targeting towards ecosystem services protects significantly more than 50% of ecosystem services, whereas targeting towards the 50% least agriculturally suitable land protects less than 50% of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

This paper shows that the current protected areas system protects less than 16% of biodiversity and ecosystem services globally: the Aichi 17% target will likely protect <17% of many of the ecosystem services that humanity currently relies on since some of the ecosystem services that we depend upon are not concentrated - they are all around us. Protecting half of land for nature will result in the protection of 50-60% of richness, 50-65% of endemism and 50-70% of currently realised ecosystem services depending upon the spatial targeting strategy for new PAs. Going forward, careful management of ecosystem services provided outside of PAs is required as even half-for-nature would not protect all of the ecosystem services that are currently used.

S I Y UA N H E I N S T I T U T E O F G E O G R A P H I C S C I E N C E S A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U RC E S R E S E A RC H , C H I N E S E AC A D E M Y O F S C I E N C E S

B E N E F I T I N G LO C A L P E O P L E T H RO U G H A N AT I O N A L PA R K S Y S T E M - A N E C O SY S T E M S E RV I C E S A P P ROAC H

About 18% of China is designated to protected areas, but there is no overarching system for managing them; instead, they are subject to an overlapping mix of polycentric and multi-level administration. In 2016, the Chinese leadership formally proposed the national park system to initiate institutional change of conservation management. Until now, 10 national park pilots have been approved and are now facing the challenge of re-organising management units across an integrated spatial area to maintain the ecological integrity of the landscape.

Spatial integration to conserve a large and healthy ecosystem implies that local communities are more deeply involved in conservation both in space and in management. Since rural people are highly dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods, a key question that emerges is how to guarantee the livelihoods of local communities that will be part of a national park.

S PAC E F O R N AT U R E S YM P O S I U M1 0

In the principle of “ecological protection first and public welfare a priority”, “China national parks for people” project has been launched. The project uses an ecosystem services (ES) approach for Wuyishan national park pilot to investigate: 1) Local people’s major ES demands, 2) Perceptions to the ES management of current protected area systems and 3) Perceived conflicts between their practices and conservation goals. The ES approach has been taken mainly because the scope of conservation is expanding to secure ecosystem services for different stakeholders besides the maintenance of biodiversity.

Using structured and semi-structured questionnaires to survey more than 350 households, this project found that major ES demand was closely related to livelihood. Local people’s major concerns relating to ES provision were policy changes affecting land tenure, natural disaster prevention and mitigation, and standardization of production. There were no major conflicts between resource use and ecological protection, however, respondents felt that their traditional knowledge and production-methods had not been fully acknowledged. As a result, they reported a degree of reluctance to adhere to rules regulating their activities in and around the protected areas. Based on these answers, forest conservation easements have been proposed for tea plantations, with the aim of being ecologically compatible with forest conservation.

| S E S S I O N 4 | H OW E C O LO G I C A L LY R E P R E S E N TAT I V E A R E C U R R E N T N E T WO R K S ?

C A R LO S A L B E RTO D E M AT TO S S C A R A M U Z Z A R E M OT E S E N S I N G C E N T E R , F E D E R A L U N I V E R S I T Y O F M I N A S G E R A I S

I M P O RTA N C E O F T H E A M A ZO N B A S I N F O R G LO B A L B I O D I V E R S I T Y A N D N AT U R E ’ S B E N E F I T S TO P E O P L E

The Amazonian biodiversity is protected by 390 protected areas (PA) spanning 167 Mha, the equivalent to 26% of the region, not considering the indigenous territories (IT) (an additional 15 to 20%, depending on accepted definitions). This is an impressive coverage in view of the size and importance of the Amazon. However, taking in account its broad scope, the Amazon PA network is still not sufficient to achieve the Aichi Target 11 due lack of adequate ecological representation (especially for freshwater ecosystems and connectivity), effectively and equitably management and appropriate landscape integration, especially now under the Nature needs half debate.

The key challenge for Amazonian conservation consists of bringing national societies to be part of a Pan-Amazonian vision aimed at safeguarding and improving the conservation achievements through the following 5 pillars: (1) zero net conversion (deforestation limited to 15-20% of the region); (2) minimum of 50% covered by PA and IT and community reserves; (3) promotion of sustainable productions chains; (4) enforcement of environmental regulations; (5) and ecological restoration of key areas.

The roadmap for achieving this target should integrate the following elements: (a) stricto sensu PA (including no take areas) plus sustainable use reserves; (b) other space-based effective conservation mechanisms including IT, community reserves and legally set aside areas on private properties; (c) sustainable forest use outside PAs (timber and no timber products); (d) landscape approach based initiatives; (e) safeguarding of indigenous and no-indigenous traditional livelihoods and rights; (f) promotion of agroforestry and forest restoration sectors; (g) management of nature’s benefits to people guided by a spatially explicit economic valuation of ecosystems services; (h) policy mix for conservation, restoration and sustainable use with emphasis on poverty and inequality alleviation; rural


livelihood improvement; climate, food, energy and water security programs; climate change mitigation & adaptation; and (i) R&D programs focused on innovation and social engagement.

Co-authors: Britaldo Silveira Soares Filho, Claudio Carrera Maretti

DA N L A F F O L E YI N T E R N AT I O N A L U N I O N F O R C O N S E RVAT I O N O F N AT U R E WO R L D C O M M I S S I O N O N P ROT E C T E D A R E A S

T H E I M P O RTA N C E , P RO G R E S S , A N D C H A L L E N G E S O F P ROT E C T I N G T H E O C E A N

The world is at a turning-point in ocean protection and management. The decisions we take now will decide if we largely succeed or fail in safeguarding the ocean health and wealth for future generations and people’s wellbeing. The world still has time to make the decisions needed, but time to do this is fast running out.

The reality of the situation is that the value of the ocean and all its wide range of contributions it makes to life on Earth is known better than ever before. The serial changes humanity has made to the ocean is also better documented than ever before. A repeatable series of changes have now been made to every ocean basin, starting with ‘traditional problems’ such as fishing and pollution, but now exacerbated by widespread changes to ocean physics and chemistry. The problem is that this cocktail of impacts is rolling out at an unprecedented speed and scale, not appreciated until now.

Set against these ocean changes, and simplifying the complexities, there are two main perspectives on ocean protection – the political dimension that has changed little since the early 1980s that protect 10% of it - anyway you see fit - is sufficient. And the conservation civil society view debated across the decades which asks for more and more ocean ecosystems to be given full protection, culminating in the ‘half for nature’ aspirations.

This presentation will briefly characterise the situation from a small number of different angles. It will set out some issues on the reality, urgency and ambition of what actually needs to happen to help counter the overall trends now observed in the health and wellbeing of the world ocean.

M A R Í A R I V E R AR A M S A R C O N V E N T I O N O N W E T L A N D S S E C R E TA R I AT

R A M S A R C O N V E N T I O N O N W E T L A N D S TOWA R D S T H E S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E LO PM E N T G OA L S A N D T H E AG E N DA 2 0 3 0

The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, to which 169 States are now Parties, provides the global legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of all wetlands. These wetlands include marine and coastal ecosystems such as mangroves, coral reefs and seagrass meadows. It also includes inland wetland types such as lakes and rivers.

A key obligation of Contracting Parties to the Convention is the designation of wetlands of exceptional value in their territory as ‘Wetlands of International Importance’. By doing so, they commit to the long-term conservation and sustainable use of these Sites. The vision for the List is to develop and maintain an international network of wetlands which are important for the conservation of global biological diversity and for sustaining human life through the maintenance of their ecosystem components, processes and benefits/ services. So far, Parties have designated over 2,299 Ramsar Sites worldwide covering an area of 225,517,367 ha. However, still there are some types of wetlands such mangroves, coral reefs and peatlands that are considered to be underrepresented in the List.


The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals provide an important scenario for the implementation of the Ramsar Strategic Plan and for the contribution of the Convention to this process. Particular Goals and targets that are relevant for the work of the Convention are SDG 6: “Ensure clean water and sanitation for all”, and target 6.6: “By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes”. Wetlands provide water supply (quantity and quality). For SDGs 1 and 2 wetlands supply 1 billion livelihoods, 660 million people depend on fishing and 3 billion people on aquaculture and Rice. The Ramsar List is the world´s largest network of protected areas which clear contribute to Aichi Target 11 and SDGs 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources and 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.

| S E S S I O N 5 | T H E N E E D F O R E F F E C T I V E A N D E Q U I TA B L E M A N AG E M E N T

S T E P H E N WO O D L E Y I N T E R N AT I O N A L U N I O N F O R C O N S E RVAT I O N O F N AT U R E WO R L D C O M M I S S I O N O N P ROT E C T E D A R E A S

C O N D I T I O N S F O R P ROT E C T E D A R E A E F F E C T I V E N E S S

In this time of rapid global change, and increasing fears that ecological changes will significantly alter the ability of ecosystems to support human life, protected areas stand out as key solutions to many problems – by halting biodiversity loss, providing a range of ecosystem services, and playing a key role in mitigation and adaptation to climate change.

However, questions and debates persist about whether or not protected areas are effective in conserving biodiversity. This presentation lays out the evidence for when and why protected areas are effective by addressing these key questions.

Can protected areas actually conserve biodiversity in the long term?

Under what conditions are protected areas most successful?

We have often been confused about the questions we ask around protected area effectiveness. The literature is full of conflicting cases studies and regional analysis that often support conflicting conclusions on when and why protected areas are effective. The answer to the question of what makes them work is both complex and contextual.

A key challenge to understanding protected areas effectiveness is the lack of suitable, counterfactual data sets and metrics to assess effectiveness. However, based on several hundred studies, it is possible to construct a model of when and why protected areas deliver conservation outcomes, based on governance, management, and ecological design. If protected areas are going to be a key solution for protecting nature and the conditions for human life, they need to be treated as a complex, rather than a simple, solution set.


D I LYS RO E I N T E R N AT I O N A L I N S T I T U T E F O R E N V I RO N M E N T A N D D E V E LO P M E N T ( I I E D )

E N G AG I N G LO C A L C O M M U N I T I E S I N A R E A- B A S E D C O N S E RVAT I O N

There are two key approaches to effectively engage local communities in area-based conservation. The first is to recognise, support and enable community-based conservation on lands owned or managed by indigenous peoples and local communities.

The ICCA Consortium estimates that such land accounts for about 13% of the terrestrial surface of the planet – i.e. an area similar in size to the formal protected area network. Yet there could be much more. Decades of lessons from community based natural resources management highlight the persistent limited devolution of rights and benefits that are necessary to incentivise local conservation. The second approach is to encourage better support from communities for state or privately owned or managed protected areas.

In 2000, a global review of evictions from protected areas highlighted that, in Africa in particular, the majority of strictly protected areas (IUCN Categories 1-4) have evicted local people. A more recent review (2014) by IIED and Natural Justice showed that such practices are still happening today. Such injustices meted out by protected areas are not only against internationally agreed social and human rights norms they can also undermine the long term success of conservation. Research by IIED – and many others – has highlighted that if local people consider conservation to be unfair, they will not support it. If local people are to be effectively engaged in conservation then it has to be equitable.

But what does equitable conservation look like in practice? We will present a framework that applies equally to formal, state-run protected areas or to community conservation areas which describes the different dimensions of equity and the principles that underpin each of those dimensions. Early experiences of applying the framework and the lessons that have emerged from its application on how

to increase equity will be highlighted.

Co-authors: Phil Franks and Francesca Booker

JA M E S H A R D C A S T L E A N D N ATA S H A A L I I N T E R N AT I O N A L U N I O N F O R C O N S E RVAT I O N O F N AT U R E

P RO M OT I N G FA I R A N D E F F E C T I V E C O N S E RVAT I O N : T H E I U C N G R E E N L I S T O F P ROT E C T E D A N D C O N S E RV E D A R E A S

Protecting, managing and conserving important areas is a universal approach to nature conservation, present in all countries, for land, inland waters, coasts and seas. All types of protected areas can demonstrate conservation benefits and a wide-range of ecological attributes, as well as socio-economic, cultural and spiritual values.

Success is generally achieved through fair and inclusive governance as the basis for sound design and planning, and the key determinant of effective management. It is well known that governments are making excellent progress towards the quantitative aspects of global biodiversity goals through their national commitments, such as Aichi Target 11 and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 14 and 15. However, reporting and tracking of the qualitative aspects of these global goals has progressed less. These qualitative aspects include how well sites are governed, managed and connected and how effective are overall site conservation efforts.

In line with IUCN’s core mission of ‘A just world that values and conserves nature’ the IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas (IUCN Green List) programme sets out to assist reporting and delivery of these qualitative aspects. The programme aims to deliver a positive impact through an increase in the number of protected and conserved areas that can demonstrate successful conservation outcomes


through equitable governance and effective management. The IUCN Green List is underpinned by a global Standard that provides a benchmark by which sites can measure conservation outcomes, and use the criteria and indicators as a guide to improve and recognise fair and effective management of protected and conserved areas.

| S E S S I O N 6 | OT H E R E F F E C T I V E A R E A- B A S E D C O N S E RVAT I O N M E A S U R E S

H A R RY J O N A S N AT U R A L J U S T I C E A N D I N T E R N AT I O N A L U N I O N F O R C O N S E RVAT I O N O F N AT U R E WO R L D C O M M I S S I O N O N P ROT E C T E D A R E A S

OT H E R E F F E C T I V E A R E A- B A S E D C O N S E RVAT I O N M E A S U R E S : O P P O RT U N I T I E S A N D C H A L L E N G E S

Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 calls on Parties to the CBD to include, by 2020, 17% of terrestrial areas and 10% of marine areas within “well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures” (OECMs). In 2015, the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas established a Task Force to provide technical guidance on the term. The presentation updates on that process and sets out a number of issues of relevance to the post-2020 Biodiversity Framework.

OECMs provide a range of positive potential for overall conservation goals. These include their likely contribution to complementing protected area networks, ecological representation, connectivity, and maintenance of ecosystem functions and services, as well as their contribution to the integration of these networks into the wider landscape and seascape. They may also lead to the more equitable inclusion of a broad constituency in conservation efforts under different governance and management models. But challenges remain. These include national-level work (in some cases) to revise existing conservation laws, policies and institutional and reporting arrangements as well as engagement with diverse governance authorities.

J O H N WA I T H A K A I N T E R N AT I O N A L U N I O N F O R C O N S E RVAT I O N O F N AT U R E WO R L D C O M M I S S I O N O N P ROT E C T E D A R E A S

T H E RO L E O F O E C M S I N S A F E G UA R D I N G S PAC E F O R N AT U R E I N K E N YA

The Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) embarked on a campaign dubbed “Parks Beyond Parks’ in 1995 to create space for wildlife, promote local conservation initiatives outside parks and encourage integration of wildlife conservation and management objectives with those of land owners. The effort was driven by the need to address human wildlife conflict crises in areas neighbouring national parks, restore wildlife populations seriously decimated by poachers and reduce human encroachment on traditional wildlife areas. In addition, KWS was experiencing difficulties in carrying out its legal mandate of protecting all the wildlife in the country, over 75% of which existed outside protected areas. Further, the poorest communities in the country lived in Kenya’s most important wildlife conservation areas and had become increasingly intolerant to wild animals. At last, KWS had come to the realization that wildlife would never be truly secure in Kenya so long as the needs, rights and aspirations of local people continued to be ignored.


The key strategy to win space for wildlife was to promote community-based conservation initiatives through the “Minimum Viable Conservation Area approach, a framework adopted as the basis for ecosystem planning, HWC management, community engagement and integrating national parks into the wider landscape. Within the identified areas, KWS carried community outreach, education, awareness, sensitization and training programmes through its Community Conservation Department.

By 2005, the number of wildlife conservancies had increased from fewer than 10 in 1990s (all on private ranches) to about 20. By 2016, the number stood at 160 conservancies, 89% of which were on community land, covering 11 per cent of the country compared to national parks which had stagnated at 8%. These OECM-like sites currently provide habitat for 65 percent of all wildlife in the country, more than all nationally protected areas combined. They are manned by 2900 game scouts compared to 3,000 KWS rangers on active field duty. A further 2.4 million ha of conservancies have been proposed and there is potential for more. Once established, a conservancy is legally recognized as a form of land use under the Wildlife Act.

During a workshop held in Nairobi in June 2017, these conservancies were tested against the draft IUCN-WCPA OECM guidelines. They met all conditions except the one on “long-term” due to some clause in the country’s draft Wildlife Conservation and Management - Conservancy and Sanctuary Regulations, 2017 that appeared to make it easy for a conservancy to be deregistered. The draft legislation has been

amended to comply with the OECM guidelines.

These successes are not without challenges. However, the Park Beyond Parks strategy has enabled the protection of valuable wildlife habitats, turned wildlife from a liability to an asset, reduced the perception that the conservation interests of the state are at odds with primary livelihoods of communities, provided a pathway for devolving the rights and responsibilities for biodiversity conservation from national to local levels and made wildlife and biodiversity an important component of livelihoods. The momentum to create more is still on.

J U L I A M I R A N DA LO N D O Ñ O PA RQ U E S N AC I O N A L E S N AT U R A L E D E C O LO M B I A

P ROT E C T E D A R E A S F O R C O N S E RVAT I O N A N D S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E LO PM E N T

The location of Colombia at the northwestern corner of South America, and its diverse geography thanks to the Caribbean and Pacific coasts, the three Andes mountain ranges, the Amazon region, and the Orinoco savannahs, explains its extraordinary natural wealth, represented by a vast wildlife diversity and more than 300 types of ecosystems.

In Colombia, the consciousness of this natural treasure awoke in 1941 when the country adhered to the Washington Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation. Ever since, important milestones include the Natural Resources Code in 1974, the adherence to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the 1991 Constitution, jurisprudence, several laws, and administrative decisions, structuring and putting in motion strong and active environmental institutions and especially, public and private initiatives developing a complete National System of Protected Areas.

Since 1960, Colombia has addressed the big challenge of creating and preserving National Parks, Regional Protected Areas, and Private Reserves in pristine ecosystems throughout its continental, marine, and insular territory. Today, there are 1,011 protected areas with an area of 28,950,735 hectares, which cover 14% of the national territory.

Nowadays, it is clear that well conserved protected areas are crucial for the country’s sustainable development and to meet challenges such as climate change and its devastating effects. These areas


provide water for energy, human consumption, agriculture, and industry, as well as benefits for human health, recreation, ecotourism, amongst other values that the country has assessed socially and financially. It is of paramount importance to develop other complementary and effective conservation measures in order to really achieve the conservation goals, which is an indubitable step forward in this country’s history!

| S E S S I O N 7 | C O N N E C T I V I T Y A N D I N T E G R AT I O N I N TO T H E W I D E R L A N D/ S E A- S C A P E

J O D I H I LT Y Y E L LOW S TO N E -Y U KO N C O N S E RVAT I O N I N I T I AT I V E

G A RY TA B O R C E N T E R F O R L A RG E L A N D S C A P E C O N S E RVAT I O N

C O N S E RV I N G T H E E A RT H ’ S C R I T I C A L E C O LO G I C A L P RO C E S S E S – T H E E M E RG E N C E O F C O N N E C T I V I T Y C O N S E RVAT I O N

Rapid changes in climate and diminishing abundance of biodiversity are challenging the planet’s resilient capacity to respond to large-scale human and natural disturbances. Protected area conservation strategies remain the cornerstone of saving nature; yet many protected areas exist as ecological fragments in a matrix of incompatible land and marine uses.

Connectivity conservation is an emergent conservation practice that complements and expands the ecological functionality of protected areas. Connectivity, such as between protected areas, is increasingly being recommended by conservation scientists and is moving into mainstream conservation policy making. Now is the time to develop consistent standards to increase their effectiveness as a ‘new’ tool that is essential for conserving the world’s biodiversity.

In recognition of the growing practice of connectivity conservation, the World Commission on Protected Areas has recently established the Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group. This presentation will highlight the priorities and opportunities of this emergent community of conservation practice, including the draft framework of a new IUCN conservation standard to advance the connectivity conservation effectiveness and to promote connectivity implementation.

S O N A M WA N G D I D E PA RT M E N T O F F O R E S T S & PA R K S E RV I C E S , ROYA L G OV E R N M E N T O F B H U TA N

C O N N E C T I N G A N D P ROT E C T I N G H A L F O F B H U TA N : A N AT I O N A L C A S E S T U DY

Designated from the 1960s onwards as a network of game reserves and sanctuaries, Bhutan’s protected area system was upgraded in the 1990s to align with the IUCN management categories for protected areas. The current network has five national parks, four wildlife sanctuaries and one strict nature reserve. Later, for the purpose of providing connectivity among these protected areas, a well-designed network of biological corridors was declared as a “Gift to mother earth by the people of Bhutan”. This declaration of biological corridors, and the addition of the country’s largest National Park, Wangchuck Centennial, in 2008, brought more than half of the country’s geographical area under the system of protected areas.


With 72 percent forest cover, Bhutan is one of the most forested countries in Asia. It now also boasts 51.44 percent of its geographical area within protected areas rich in mountains, tropical forests and pristine rivers, and home to thriving wildlife such as endangered tigers, snow leopards, Asian elephants, golden mahseer and the critically endangered white-bellied herons. The forest protected areas also serve as a carbon sink for more than 6.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. This amounts to almost three times of what the country emits, making Bhutan a carbon-negative country.

Bhutan entered into the 21st century with much of its biodiversity intact and pristine. This can be attributed mainly to the Buddhist ethics of conserving all forms of life and living in harmony with nature. Secondly, the country has been fortunate to have been guided by visionary leaders and good political will, and measures value within the unique philosophy of Gross National Happiness, in which environmental conservation is one of the four pillars.

Given its sparse population, vast contiguous forest tracts, strong conservation will at the political level, and socio-economic needs profoundly intertwined with sustainable natural resource management, Bhutan has the capacity to lead the world by example, by being a virtual laboratory for proactive landscape conservation. The country’s natural landscape at a macro level is best manifested in the protected areas and connecting biological corridors that are adaptively-managed according to changing needs and perceptions

DA N I E L R AV E N - E L L I S O N N AT I O N A L PA R K C I T Y F O U N DAT I O N

A L I S O N B A R N E S N E W F O R E S T N AT I O N A L PA R K AU T H O R I T Y

U R B A N G R E E N S PAC E : LO N D O N A S A N AT I O N A L PA R K C I T Y

It is likely that London will become the world’s first National Park City in 2019. Inspired by national parks, it will inspire Londoners to better connect with, protect and create space for nature.

It is projected by the United Nations that 60% of people will live in towns and cities by 2030. Urban landscapes and habitats are different from deserts and rainforests, but are no less valuable. Cities can provide spaces for many species, of which Homo sapiens are just one. London’s 8.8 million people share urban habitats with nearly as many trees and approximately 14,000 species of wildlife. These species should not be devalued simply because of their urban geography.

While many people may think that the dense presence of people is a barrier to creating space for nature, the opposite can be true. Although it may only be at the scale of a balcony or garden, people in cities often have the power and agency to not only protect space for nature, but actually create it.

Currently 47% of London is physically green. One long-term aim is to make half of the city green and blue. This is achievable if every Londoner replaced 1m2 of concrete with green or wilder space. Enabling this kind of crowd-conservation in cities is not only a way to involve people with creating space for nature where they actually live, but a gateway to building a stronger constituency of support for protecting nature in distant places too.

Like in national parks, London’s biodiversity is the result of a long history of top-down policies and grassroots activities to both formally and informally create and protect space for nature. The London National Park City will celebrate these successes while challenging and supporting residents to make the city radically more green and wild.


| S E S S I O N 8 | P O S T E R S A N D R E C E P T I O N

For details of posters, see poster abstracts below. The reception will take place in the Prince Albert Suite.

DAY 2 : An ambitious post-2020 strategy on space for nature

| S E S S I O N 9 | P L E N A RY

W I L L I A M L AU R A N C E JA M E S C O O K U N I V E R S I T Y A N D T H E A L L I A N C E O F L E A D I N G E N V I RO N M E N TA L R E S E A RC H E R S & T H I N K E R S ( A L E RT )

H OW T H E G LO B A L I N F R A S T R U C T U R E T S U N A M I I S S H R I N K I N G S H R I N K I N G S PAC E F O R N AT U R E

The 21st century will see an unprecedented expansion of roads, dams, power lines, and gas lines, as well as massive investments in mining and fossil fuel projects. At least 25 million kilometres of new roads are anticipated by 2050. Nine-tenths of all road construction is projected to occur in developing nations, including many that sustain intact tropical ecosystems with exceptional biodiversity and ecosystem services. The penetration of roads and other infrastructure into remote or frontier areas is a major proximate driver of habitat loss and fragmentation, wildfires, overhunting and other environmental degradation, often with nearly irreversible effects. Unfortunately, much road proliferation is poorly planned, chaotic or illegal and the rate of expansion is so great that it often overwhelms the capacity of environmental planners and managers. Even for high-profile road and infrastructure projects, cost-benefit analyses and environmental assessment procedures are often inadequate or systematically biased, leading to serious long-term economic, social or environmental impacts. I will highlight ongoing efforts to plan, prioritize and mitigate rapid road and infrastructure expansion, focusing predominantly on tropical developing nations.

| S E S S I O N 1 0 | H OW M U C H S PAC E D O W E N E E D F O R N AT U R E ?

N O Ë L L E K Ü M P E L B I R D L I F E I N T E R N AT I O N A L

H OW M U C H S PAC E D O P E O P L E WA N T F O R N AT U R E ? A G LO B A L P U B L I C O P I N I O N S U RV E Y

Under the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Aichi Target 11, governments pledged to protect 17% land and 10% oceans by 2020, and some scientists and conservationists have called to increase protection post-2020, but there has been limited public consultation on these targets.


To inform discussions at the IUCN World Parks Congress in 2014, ZSL carried out the first-ever multi-country public opinion survey on how much space we should set aside for nature, and why. The short, online survey (21 questions) targeted a randomised, national-level cross-section of society (at least 1000 respondents per country) in each of 7 developed and developing countries covering all 6 inhabited continents (Australia, Brazil, China, India, South Africa, UK and USA).

The majority (97%) of respondents thought that protected areas are necessary. People felt a median of 50% (40-70% depending on the country) of land and ocean should be protected, and assumed that 30% already was. They wanted slightly more ocean and slightly less of their own country protected. Females, younger people and those working outdoors wanted more protected, though having a background in or knowledge of conservation or protected areas had no effect. People from all countries felt that protected areas are most important for the conservation of wildlife and habitats, but there were subtle differences between the developing and developed countries, with the former placing a greater emphasis on livelihoods and ecosystem service values. The greater use of protected areas may create more positive attitudes – but other country factors may be important and further investigation is needed.

While the survey was necessarily simplistic (e.g. the questions were posed without explanation of the science behind or issues surrounding protected areas, and those living in the vicinity of protected areas or in less developed countries were not specifically targeted), the results suggest that there may at least in theory be public support for more ambitious targets on space for nature.

Co-authors: Robin Freeman, Jacob Ainscough, Sophie Grange-Chamfray and Jonathan Baillie

Discussants Harvey Locke, Nature Needs Half Julia Miranda Londoño, Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia Chris Sandbrook, University of Cambridge James Watson, Wildlife Conservation Society & University of Queensland

| S E S S I O N 1 1 | S PAC E F O R N AT U R E I N A P O S T-2 0 2 0 B I O D I V E R S I T Y S T R AT E GY: H OW TO AC H I E V E I T

M I K E B A R R E T T W W F - U K

B E N D I N G T H E C U RV E : R E S TO R I N G N AT U R E TO O U R P L A N E T

As we enter the Anthropocene, the changes affecting the natural world are happening at a pace and scale unprecedented in human history. Whereas most human development trends are heading the right way, all global indicators on the state of the natural world, and wildlife in particular, show steep declines. On average, global vertebrate wildlife populations measured in the Living Planet Index have fallen by 58% since 1970, and species extinctions are 100-1,000 times the background rate.

Our internationally agreed approach to tackle this lies with a set of biodiversity targets, the Aichi targets. The language throughout these targets is not ambitious, for example Aichi target 5 “the rate of loss of all natural habitats…is at least halved… and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced”. And we are not even on target to meet these unambitious targets by 2020. The global approach might be best described as ‘gently managing decline’.


Nature has intrinsic value but its loss also puts humanity’s own future in jeopardy. Nature is our life-support system: all of us depend on the resources it provides, from clean water, fertile soils and breathable air, to food, fuel, medicines and materials. Arguably we are now pushing against and exceeding planetary boundaries, including those for climate change, biosphere integrity, land-system change and biogeochemical flows. We are now entering a future where there may simply be insufficient nature to support the wellbeing of future generations of people.

We need a fundamentally different approach, and a change in the international discourse. We must aspire to restore nature to levels that will enable future generations to live in harmony with the natural world. This requires us to find solutions that will enable us to avoid dangerous climate change, restore nature and feed people within the available land and seas on our one planet.

Co-author: Rhys Green

C A RO L I N E P E T E R S O N U N I T E D N AT I O N S D E V E LO P M E N T P RO G R A M M E

I N N OVAT I V E M E C H A N I S M S F O R F I N A N C I N G A N A M B I T I O U S S T R AT E GY O N S PAC E F O R N AT U R E

Advocates of the ambitious Half-Earth / Nature Needs Half agenda argue that a Paris-like Global Deal for Nature under the CBD could mobilize unprecedented financial resources and political will to achieve common global objectives of maintaining a living biosphere, avoiding mass extinction, and preserving ecological processes that benefit all human societies.

In estimating the resources needed to implement this bold new vision, Dinerstein et al. 2017 refer to the literature to present estimates for the cost of protecting and restoring their mapped eco-regions. The presentation compares these with higher estimates from the CBD’s High-Level Panel on Global Assessment of Resources for Implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 on the resources required to implement all the Aichi Targets, as well as “bottom-up” quantification of national biodiversity finance gaps through the UNDP-managed BIOFIN initiative.

This presentation tracks developments in biodiversity finance since 2011 – in domestic resourcing, ODA, philanthropy, and natural capital markets, including innovative financing mechanisms, as well as agricultural subsidies – both positive and negative. The presentation looks at the potential of the Nature Needs Half movement to catalyse the necessary policy shifts, investment decisions and improvements in governance to achieve its goals. It explores the challenges and limitations of market-based instruments, the realities of weak governance, and competing narratives on the use of scarce land and natural resources to meet pressing development challenges. Examples are showcased of innovative financing mechanisms and partnerships that are seeing positive results, and opportunities are highlighted for replication and scale-up.

A N D R E W B A L M F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y O F C A M B R I D G E

H OW TO S PA R E H A L F A P L A N E T ?

There is growing momentum behind calls for humanity to spare up to half of the earth’s surface primarily for wild nature. But recent considerations of how this might be achieved are essentially mute on the critically important question of how to meet rising human demands for agricultural products on 50% or less of total land area. Setting very bold targets for nature yet not saying how these might be afforded risks undermining conservation. In this context, empirical comparisons of outcomes for


biodiversity from land sparing with those from land sharing offer two key insights.

First, detailed field assessments on four continents of how the abundance of over 1600 species of birds, trees, grasses, sedges, daisies, butterflies and beetles responds to land use change reveals that densities of most species in all taxa decline under any form of farming – and of these the majority are effectively dependent on wild habitats for their persistence. This finding strongly underscores the requirement for ambitious conservation targets. Second, for very many species their population densities on farmland are relatively insensitive to rising farm yields. This means that boosting yields on already-cleared land, if coupled with sparing or restoring habitat elsewhere for nature, could in principle generate the space to meet species’ needs.

Delivering land sparing faces many practical challenges – finding mechanisms which tie yield growth to safeguarding the bulk of non-farmed land for biodiversity, and improving farming in ways which increase yields sustainably whilst lowering environmental externalities and enhancing local livelihoods. But unless conservationists actively engage with agricultural and development experts in working to limit the space needed for food production, calls to give pre-eminence to nature across half of our planet will be ignored.

Co-author: Rhys Green

| S E S S I O N 1 2 | S PAC E F O R N AT U R E I N A P O S T-2 0 2 0 S T R AT E GY: W H AT TO I N C LU D E ?

P I E RO V I S C O N T I ZO O LO G I C A L S O C I E T Y O F LO N D O N A N D U N I V E R S I T Y C O L L E G E LO N D O N

S PAC E F O R N AT U R E I N C O N T E X T - I N T E G R AT I N G A R E A B A S E D C O N S E RVAT I O N M E A S U R E S I N TO F U T U R E S O C I O - E C O N O M I C S C E N A R I O S

The world is moving rapidly towards the conclusion of the decade of conservation and sustainable use of the land and seas that was framed in international policy within the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and its 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Yet, biodiversity decline continues unabated and conservationists are divided as to how much natural space should be conserved to protect biodiversity. Some argue that if fully achieved, the Aichi Target 11 relating specifically to area-based conservation, will suffice to avert further extinctions. On the other hand, there is a growing support for the ‘Half-Earth’ vision, which aims to secure at least half the planet for nature conservation. All these studies have generally ignored other societal goals, and the socioeconomic reality of economic growth and food security, both important drivers of biodiversity changes, worldwide and generally at odds with biodiversity conservation.

This presentation will assess the extent to which Half-Earth and Aichi Biodiversity Targets 11 and 12 are achievable under different human development pathways to 2030 aiming to reduce habitat loss by increasing agricultural efficiency, changing diets and reducing human population growth. We highlight the key socio-economic changes needed for achieving future visions for biodiversity conservation and the areas of the world where most protection and restoration are needed to achieve these visions.

Co-authors: Fastrè and Willem-Jan van Zeist


B E R N A R D O S T R A S S B U RG P O N T I F I C A L C AT H O L I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F R I O D E JA N E I RO

E C O N O M I C P E R S P E C T I V E S O N A N A M B I T I O U S S T R AT E GY F O R S PAC E F O R N AT U R E

How can ambitious goals for saving space for nature be reconciled with large-scale human demands for land-based products? Understanding the economics behind some potential interventions might provide useful insights for a strategy that reconciles both targets. As the challenge at hand is essentially how to nudge a multi-scale coupled socioecological system towards a more desirable outcome, the interventions should be planned accordingly.

Farm-scale economic results indicate that interventions aimed at reconciling conservation of existing habitats, ecological restoration and increased productivity of converted lands can be economically profitable, but important market-failures and other barriers need to be addressed.

Biome-wide results for the Atlantic Rainforest demonstrate how strategic spatial approaches can deliver an eightfold increase in conservation cost-effectiveness. A national level analysis shows that Brazil can achieve the largest agricultural expansion worldwide while simultaneously delivering zero deforestation and large-scale restoration. Global level analyses demonstrate that climate finance has the potential to reduce global extinctions of forest-dependent species by up to 94%, but can also increase risks in biodiversity rich but carbon-poorer ecosystems.

These analyses, alongside considerations arising from the Paris Climate Agreement, provide some insights regarding the economic underpinnings of an ambitious global strategy for safeguarding space for Nature.

T H O M A S B RO O K S I N T E R N AT I O N A L U N I O N F O R C O N S E RVAT I O N O F N AT U R E

S U G G E S T I O N S F O R S T R U C T U R I N G A S I T E C O N S E RVAT I O N TA RG E T W I T H I N T H E P O S T-2 0 2 0 B I O D I V E R S I T Y F R A M E WO R K

Aichi Target 11 focuses on site conservation, generating interactions with other “area-based” Aichi Targets that are either synergistic (e.g. Target 5) or compensatory (e.g. Target 7). How might Target 11’s inheritor be framed within the post-2020 biodiversity strategy, in a way that ensures synergy with all other targets, and improves the status of biodiversity?

First, perhaps the placement of Target 11 within Goal C (“…status…”) may have conflated means with ends. This might be redressed post-2020 by placing the new target into the equivalent of Goal E (“…implementation…”).

Second, the current focus on percentage site conservation targets may drive a perverse incentive for area, rather than importance. Instead, site conservation targeting could be stronger if focused on its objectives, by recalling the CBD’s three goals: conserving, sustainably using, and sharing the benefits from biodiversity.

Benefit-sharing is already well represented in Target 11 as “…effectively and equitably managed…”. Such language could be inherited into the new target, as, perhaps, “…protected areas and other effective site conservation measures are effectively and equitably managed…”.

Biodiversity conservation might be best reflected by explicit reference to “key biodiversity areas” – sites contributing significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity. The standard for identification of key biodiversity areas, finalised in 2016, builds from 40 years’ experience, encompasses ecosystem, species, and genetic levels of biodiversity across all realms, and is implemented nationally, with >15,000


sites already identified. Thus, a relevant element for a new target could be “…to safeguard all key biodiversity areas…”.

In Target 11, sustainable use of such areas could be incorporated by structuring an element of the target around “…and the benefits such sites provide to people…”. This would avoid the possibility of internal contradiction (where unsustainable use is not compatible with safeguarding nature), as well as being consistent with IPBES’ framing of “nature’s contributions to people.

| S P E A K E R B I O G R A P H I E S

N ATA S H A A L II N T E R N AT I O N A L U N I O N F O R C O N S E RVAT I O N O F N AT U R E

Natasha Ali has worked in IUCN’s Global Protected Areas Programme for one year. She works primarily on the IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas, and coordinates the incorporation of protected areas data from IUCN into Protected Planet. In addition, Natasha draws from the information generated about protected areas and biodiversity to inform international and regional policy, to aid the implementation of Aichi Targets 11 and 12 under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Sustainable Development Goals. Natasha joined IUCN in 2015, working on international policy and projects to improve the delivery of biodiversity data to governments and the private sector. Prior to IUCN, Natasha was a policy adviser at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, providing advice to the UK government, other governments and scientific partners - specialising in the international multi-lateral biodiversity conventions, and plant sciences. Natasha is based in the IUCN Office in Cambridge, UK.

N E V I L L E A S H U N E N V I RO N M E N T WO R L D C O N S E RVAT I O N M O N I TO R I N G C E N T R E

Neville Ash is Director of the UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), the specialist biodiversity Centre of UN Environment. Prior to this he spent 5 years in Kenya, including as Deputy Director of UN Environment’s Policy Division, leading UN Environment’s work on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and on addressing illegal trade in wildlife. Building on his role with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Neville led the process to establish the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

Previously he was Head of IUCN’s Ecosystem Management Programme, providing leadership on ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change and disaster risk reduction, and on IUCN’s work on ecosystems and people. From 2001-2007, Neville was Head of Ecosystem Assessment at UNEP-WCMC, working on a range of international assessment initiatives. He has also spent time researching and managing conservation initiatives in Asia and Africa, and worked with a range of regional and international policy processes.

J O N AT H A N B A I L L I E N AT I O N A L G E O G R A P H I C S O C I E T Y

Jonathan Baillie is the Chief Scientist and Senior Vice President of Science and Exploration at the National Geographic Society. Jonathan leads grant-making in the areas of science and exploration


across a variety of disciplines and serves as vice chair of the National Geographic Society’s Committee for Research and Exploration. He joined the Society after 14 years at the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), where he served in various capacities, most recently as Conservation Programmes Director. As director, Jonathan was responsible for conservation projects focusing on threatened species and their habitats in more than 50 countries.

Among his achievements at ZSL, Jonathan Baillie founded the EDGE of Existence programme, which focuses on Evolutionary Distinct and Globally Endangered (EDGE) species. Additionally, he has served as co-chair of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) National Red List Working Group and co-chair of the IUCN Pangolin Specialist Group. Jonathan helped initiate United for Wildlife, led by the Duke of Cambridge, a collaboration of seven of the most influential conservation organizations working to address illegal wildlife trade at scale. He has also been a visiting professor of zoology at the University of Oxford.

Jonathan Baillie completed his undergraduate studies at Queen’s University in Canada and received a master’s degree in conservation biology at Yale University and a PhD in biology at Silwood Park, Imperial College London. His extensive fieldwork includes research and monitoring of western lowland gorillas in Gabon; developing ecotourism sites in Central Africa; searching for extremely rare endemic birds in New Guinea; and conducting behavioural studies of desert baboons in Namibia.

A N D R E W B A L M F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y O F C A M B R I D G E

Andrew Balmford is Professor of Conservation Science in the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, where his main research interests are exploring how conservation might best be reconciled with land-demanding activities such as farming, quantifying the costs and benefits of effective conservation, understanding why nature is being lost, and examining what works in conservation. To have most impact he focuses his research in developing countries and collaborates closely with conservation practitioners and with colleagues in other disciplines, including economics and psychology. He helped establish the Cambridge Conservation Forum, the Cambridge Conservation Initiative and the Student Conference on Conservation Science.

He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and a Trustee of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Europe’s largest conservation charity. His book Wild Hope highlights success stories in conservation and argues that cautious optimism is essential in tackling environmental challenges.

A L I S O N B A R N E S N E W F O R E S T N AT I O N A L PA R K AU T H O R I T Y

Alison is Chief Executive at New Forest National Park Authority and has worked in the field of landscape management for 20 years. She is an elected Fellow of both the Landscape Institute and RSA. Previously as a Director for Natural England she led engagement with large regeneration programmes such as for the Olympics and took organisational lead on landscape and green infrastructure. Earlier in her career, Alison worked in Scottish local government and with RSPB on opencast mine restoration projects. She later led on local biodiversity policy within Defra and was Head of Advocacy for English Nature, developing policy across Parliament, Whitehall and Europe and supporting the passage of the NERC Act. Alison is on the Board of Directors for Business South, is appointed to the Forestry and Woodland Advisory Committee of the Forestry Commission and is a Trustee of the National Park City Foundation. Alison was inspired to follow her career path by her childhood in Dorset exploring the heathlands and coasts of the area and the nearby New Forest. She graduated from Oxford University with a Masters in Biological Sciences and achieved an MSc in Conservation at University College London. In her spare time she enjoys walking, sailing and music. She plays the flute and sings with Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra’s Inspiration Community Choir.


M I K E B A R R E T T W W F - U K

Dr. Mike Barrett trained as a geologist before specialising in hydrogeology. He worked for 8 years in groundwater resources, with a focus on water and sanitation both in the UK and East Africa. He then joined the UK Civil Service and over a 12 year period worked in both the Environment and Finance Ministries, also spending a year in 2004 working for the Prime Minister’s Commission for Africa. During this time, his focus was primarily on biodiversity, international forestry, and climate change policy. In November 2013 he joined WWF-UK as Director of Science and Policy, and is currently the interim Executive Director of Global Programmes.

N I N A B H O L A U N E N V I RO N M E N T WO R L D C O N S E RVAT I O N M O N I TO R I N G C E N T R E

Nina Bhola joined the UN World Conservation Monitoring Centre in 2014, following a PhD in which she investigated the relationship between wildlife distribution and land use change in and around protected areas in African savannas. Nina provides support and scientific advice to a range of projects and led on the development of the Protected Planet report in 2016 and the Marine Protected Planet webpage. She is now involved in a number of projects being developed by UNEP-WCMC to explore some of the key science relevant to target setting and will be working together with a number of partners to support the delivery of the findings into the more formal negotiations on the post-2020 strategy.

T H O M A S B RO O K S I N T E R N AT I O N A L U N I O N F O R C O N S E RVAT I O N O F N AT U R E

Thomas Brooks is Chief Scientist at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), based in Gland, Switzerland. His responsibilities include scientific support to the delivery of knowledge products under IUCN standards (such as the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species), maintaining IUCN interaction with peer scientific institutions, and strengthening the Union’s culture of science. Originally from Brighton, UK, he holds a B.A. (Hons) in Geography from the University of Cambridge (1993) and a PhD in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the University of Tennessee (1998). He has previously worked for The Nature Conservancy (1998–1999), Conservation International (1999–2010), and NatureServe (2010–2012). His background is in threatened species conservation (especially of birds) and in biodiversity hotspots (he has extensive field experience in tropical forests of Asia, South America and Africa). He has authored 246 scientific and popular articles, including 119 indexed in the ISI ‘Web of Science’.

S T UA RT B U TC H A RT B I R D L I F E I N T E R N AT I O N A L

Stuart is Chief Scientist at BirdLife International, where he has worked since 2002. He lead a team with an overall remit to develop BirdLife’s global scientific data, research and priority-setting that underpins the Conservation Programmes implemented by the BirdLife Partnership of 120 national biodiversity conservation organisations around the world (one per country), and that provides a sound scientific basis for BirdLife’s policy, advocacy and communication work. This includes identifying which bird species worldwide are closest to extinction - by regularly assessing all 11,000 bird species for the IUCN Red List (in our role as Red List Authority for birds for IUCN). It also includes identifying some of the most important sites for biodiversity, by defining (and guiding the application of) the global criteria for identifying Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs; 13,000 now identified worldwide), as well as collaborative research to address questions such as: how will climate change impact the world’s birds


and IBAs; where are the most urgent priorities for eradicating invasive alien species; what are the major drivers of deforestation having greatest impact on bird species; what is the scope and severity of illegal killing and hunting of birds; how can the value of ecosystem services delivered by important sites for biodiversity be assessed; what conservation actions are most urgent to implement and where; how can data from birds be used to track global environmental trends; what difference has conservation made; how can we measure conservation impact, etc.

JA M E S H A R D C A S T L E I N T E R N AT I O N A L U N I O N F O R C O N S E RVAT I O N O F N AT U R E

James joined IUCN’s Global Protected Areas Programme in 2012, following international project and programme roles in Southeast Asia, Pacific Islands, Western Indian Ocean and Southern Europe, with organisations including The Nature Conservancy, WWF, Fauna and Flora International and Nature Seychelles. James has a social science background with an MSc in biodiversity conservation and over 20 years’ experience in topics such as island biodiversity conservation and restoration, ecosystem-based climate change adaptation, global climate policy, and rights-based approaches to conserved areas governance and management. James has led the programme development of the IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas with IUCN and WCPA since 2012, and also contributed to project design and implementation across the IUCN Protected Areas portfolio. James is a linguist who speaks fluent English, Spanish, French and Vietnamese.

M A RT I N H A R P E R ROYA L S O C I E T Y F O R T H E P ROT E C T I O N O F B I R D S

Martin Harper is the Global Conservation Director of the RSPB. He leads the charity’s strategy for evidence, practical conservation and influence (in the UK, the 14 UK Overseas Territories and, working with the BirdLife International partnership, across the Africa-European flyway and globally where we can make a difference). He is a member of Defra’s Biodiversity Programme Board and is also on the Board of the Greener UK coalition of NGOs formed in 2016 to help ensure Brexit works for nature.

M AT T H E W H ATC H W E L L ZO O LO G I C A L S O C I E T Y O F LO N D O N

Matthew Hatchwell has been Director of Conservation at the Zoological Society of London since June 2017, overseeing a global field programme focused on endangered terrestrial and marine wildlife in land and seascapes mainly in Africa and Asia.

Prior to moving to ZSL, Matthew was the head of WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society) Europe, and before that directed WCS’s programme in Madagascar, where he was instrumental in the creation of Masoala and Sahamalaza/Iles Radama National Parks. As Director of WCS’s office in Brazzaville, Republic of Congo, Matthew helped establish Nouabale-Ndoki National Park, now part of the Sangha Tri-National World Heritage site. Back in the UK, he was co-editor of Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation (2007), a member of the Darwin Experts Committee from 2012-17, and led the development of the collaborative Trillion Trees initiative to end deforestation and restore tree cover.


S I Y UA N H E C H I N E S E AC A D E M Y O F S C I E N C E S

Dr. Siyuan He has a PhD in geography from the University of Cambridge on land degradation of the alpine meadow in Northern Tibet. She has a Masters of Science in ecology, a BSc in geography and a dual Bachelors in economics from Peking University, China, focusing on grassland ecology and pasture management. As a Luc Hoffmann Institute (LHI) research fellow, she took on the “China National Parks for People” project launched by LHI together with Beijing Normal University in 2015 to help the initiatives of the Chinese government to set up a new national park system. Using national park pilots as case studies, the research applied social-ecological system (SES) frameworks to assess stakeholders’ social preference of ecosystem services and design tools to look for policy instruments that would encourage local residents’ conservation behaviours to make the SES an adaptive system.

M E L A N I E H E AT H B I R D L I F E I N T E R N AT I O N A L

Melanie is the Director of Science, Policy and Information with BirdLife International. Her role is to develop strong and interdependent work streams of scientific research, information management, and policy development across the BirdLife Partnership and to stimulate and support BirdLife Partners to set and meet science and policy goals. Melanie is Programme Director for two of BirdLife’s Conservation Programmes - the Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas Programme and the Climate Change Programme. She sits on the newly established Key Biodiversity Areas Committee of the KBA Partnership, an ambitious new partnership established to map, monitor and conserve the most important places for life on earth. Melanie is responsible for multiple collaborative partnerships working with stakeholders from a variety of sectors and heads the BirdLife delegation at meetings of the multilateral environmental agreements. Melanie has authored several BirdLife publications and policies including Endemic Bird Areas of the World, Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas in Europe and Birds in Europe.

J O D I H I LT Y Y E L LOW S TO N E -Y U KO N C O N S E RVAT I O N I N I T I AT I V E

An expert on wildlife corridors, Dr Jodi Hilty is the President and Chief Scientist of the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. For over 20 years she has worked to advance conservation by leading science and community-based and collaborative conservation to advance policy and management. In the last 15 years she focused her work in North America. Jodi has been co-editor or lead author on three books, most recently Climate and Conservation: Landscape and Seascape Science, Planning, and Action. She currently serves on the Board of the Smith Fellowship and as Deputy Chair of the IUCN Connectivity Committee.

J O N AT H A N H U T TO N LU C H O F F M A N N I N S T I T U T E

Jon Hutton is Director of the Luc Hoffmann Institute based in Switzerland. An ecologist who graduated from Cambridge in 1978, Jon received a DPhil in crocodile ecology from the University of Zimbabwe in 1984. He went on to work in southern Africa for 25 years in a range of positions in government, NGOs and the private sector. After leaving Africa, Jon held the position of Director of UNEP-WCMC for 10 years before joining the Luc Hoffmann Institute. He has produced more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and book chapters as well as dozens of reports and conference proceedings covering conservation policy, wildlife and protected area management, community-based natural resource management, the


sustainable use of natural resources and the relationship between conservation and poverty. He was elected Honorary Professor of Sustainable Resource Management at the University of Kent in 2007 and a Fellow of Hughes Hall College, Cambridge, in 2017.

H A R RY J O N A S N AT U R A L J U S T I C E & I N T E R N AT I O N A L U N I O N F O R C O N S E RVAT I O N O F N AT U R E - WO R L D C O M M I S S I O N O N P ROT E C T E D A R E A S

Harry Jonas is an international lawyer based in Sabah, Malaysia. Harry co-founded Natural Justice (Lawyers for Communities and the Environment) in 2007 and is now launching Future Law - a Think Tank for legal innovation at the nexus of ecological and social systems. He co-chairs the World Commission on Protected Areas Task Force on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures with Kathy McKinnon and is a member of a number of IUCN commissions (WCPA, WCEL and CEESP). His publications include: Tyranny of the Masses (a novel), The Right to Responsibility, The Living Convention, Beyond Protected Areas and Conservation Standards. He is an Ashoka Fellow.

N AO M I K I N G S TO N U N E N V I RO N M E N T WO R L D C O N S E RVAT I O N M O N I TO R I N G C E N T R E

Leading the portfolio of work on Protected Areas at UNEP-WCMC, Naomi oversees the tracking of global progress towards international protected area targets. The programme also provides support to nations and regions in the development of their protected areas networks, and in meeting commitments under the Multilateral Environmental Agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the World Heritage Convention.

Following a PhD in Conservation Biology from Trinity College, Dublin, Naomi worked as a post-doctoral research fellow and as an environmental consultant, before spending nearly ten years as a conservation scientist with the Irish government’s nature conservation agency. She has extensive experience of working on the interface between ecological studies and information management, promoting the open sharing of biodiversity data to improve conservation decision making.

R AC H E L G O L D E N K RO N E R G E O RG E M A S O N U N I V E R S I T Y & C O N S E RVAT I O N I N T E R N AT I O N A L

Rachel Golden Kroner is a PhD candidate at George Mason University in Environmental Science and Policy, and Research Affiliate at Conservation International. Although her early background focused in the natural sciences, her current research integrates social sciences to study the permanence and effectiveness of protected areas. Her dissertation research examines protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) in the Amazon and its risks and impacts for forests and biodiversity. Her other interests include building the evidence base for effective environmental policy and science communication. Rachel leads her department’s Graduate Student Association, is active in the Society for Conservation Biology, and previously held positions at WWF, Oceana, and the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute. Rachel holds a Bachelor’s in Biology from Boston University and a Master’s of Science in Conservation Biology from the University of Maryland.


N O Ë L L E K Ü M P E L B I R D L I F E I N T E R N AT I O N A L

Noelle has over 20 years’ experience in conservation, research, project management and policy, including five years in the field in Africa and Asia. Specialising in tropical forest conservation, interests include wildlife hunting and trade, sustainable livelihoods and use, protected area management and policy (including World Heritage), climate change (including REDD+), primary forests, commodity certification, monitoring, biodiversity indicators, environmental and social safeguards and sustainable development.

Following interdisciplinary doctoral and postdoctoral research on bushmeat hunting in West and Central Africa with ZSL’s Institute of Zoology, Imperial College London and University College London, she worked on biodiversity indicators with IUCN in ZSL’s Indicators and Assessments Unit, co-managed ZSL’s Africa Programme for over six years, running projects in Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya and Madagascar and then led ZSL’s policy work, including the development of this space for nature symposium.

As Head of Policy at BirdLife International, Noelle now coordinates BirdLife’s support to international conventions (including the CBD, CMS, Ramsar, CITES, World Heritage and UNFCCC) and other global policy mechanisms, builds the capacity of BirdLife Partners in conservation policy and advocacy and manages projects in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Brazil, Chile and Madagascar with the support of the EC, GEF and other donors.

She also co-chairs the IUCN SSC Giraffe and Okapi Specialist Group and is a member of Defra’s Illegal Wildlife Trade Advisory Group.

DA N L A F F O L E Y I N T E R N AT I O N A L U N I O N F O R C O N S E RVAT I O N O F N AT U R E - WO R L D C O M M I S S I O N O N P ROT E C T E D A R E A S

Dan is a well-respected leader on Marine Protected Areas and ocean conservation. Scientist, communicator and conservationist, at IUCN he works in close partnership with the Global Marine and Polar Programme in the global honorary role of Marine Vice Chair for IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas. For over 30 years Dan has been responsible for the creation of many global, European and UK public and private sector partnerships, alliances and frameworks that underpin modern-day marine conservation. This work includes creating the concept of Blue Carbon, and scaling up action on ocean acidification, for marine World Heritage and conservation of the High Seas. He helped shape the framework for Marine Protected Areas under the Habitats Directive in Europe, has provided core guidance on Marine Spatial Planning with UNESCO, and most recently undertook the definitive study on the impacts of ocean warming.

P E N N Y L A N G H A M M E R G LO B A L W I L D L I F E C O N S E RVAT I O N

Dr. Penny Langhammer is Director of Key Biodiversity Areas for Global Wildlife Conservation and the Amphibian Survival Alliance. As co-chair of the IUCN SSC-WCPA Joint Task Force on Biodiversity Areas, Penny led the development of A Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas, for which she received the George Rabb Award for Conservation Innovation from the IUCN Species Survival Commission. Penny began her career at Conservation International, where she helped develop and apply the KBA methodology to identify and safeguard globally important sites for biodiversity across the Asia-Pacific, Africa-Eurasia and Latin America regions. Penny received her PhD from Arizona State


University and is now an adjunct professor in the School of Life Sciences and research affiliate with the Center for Biodiversity Outcomes. She maintains active research efforts on the impact of conservation action and the role of emerging infectious disease in the decline and extinction of amphibian species.

W I L L I A M L AU R A N C E JA M E S C O O K U N I V E R S I T Y

William Laurance is a Distinguished Research Professor and Australian Laureate at James Cook University in Cairns, Australia. A tropical environmental scientist and former President of the Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation, he has written eight books and over 600 scientific and popular articles. He is a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science and has received a variety of professional honours, including the Heineken Environment Prize, BBVA Frontiers in Conservation Biology Award, the Society for Conservation Biology’s Distinguished Service Award, and the Zoological Society of London’s Outstanding Conservation Achievement Award. He is director of the Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science at James Cook University, and founded and directs ALERT—the Alliance of Leading Environmental Researchers & Thinkers—a science-advocacy group that reaches over 1 million readers weekly. He is a four-time winner of Australia’s Best Science Writing Prize.

H A RV E Y LO C K E N AT U R E N E E D S H A L F

Initially trained as a lawyer, Harvey worked as a lawyer and partner of Calgary law firm for 14 years before pursuing his passion for protecting wild places. In 1999, after many years of volunteer work for conservation initiatives, Harvey became a full-time conservationist dedicated to national parks, wilderness, wildlife, large landscape and connectivity conservation and climate change. Harvey is co-founder and senior advisor for Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative and Nature Needs Half. He is a frequent speaker at major conservation conferences and universities around the globe. His writing and photography have been published in newspapers, magazines, books, and peer-reviewed journals.

In September 2016, Harvey was appointed Chair of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Beyond the Aichi Targets Task Force, which aims to ensure that new global conservation targets beginning in 2020 will effectively conserve biological diversity and halt biodiversity loss. In 2017, Harvey was also appointed to the National Advisory Panel for Canada Target 1, on how Canada can best achieve protection of 17% of its land and fresh water by 2020 to meet Canada’s commitment to Aichi Target 11 under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Harvey has been nominated for the 2018 Indianapolis Prize, the world’s leading award for animal conservation, established to bring attention to the cause of animal conservation and the dedicated people who spend their lives saving the Earth’s endangered animal species. He has been particularly involved in the conservation of grizzly bear through the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative and of plains bison through Bison Belong. Harvey has previously been awarded the Fred M. Packard International Parks Merit Award by the IUCN at the World Parks Congress, the J.B. Harkin Award for Conservation by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, and the Gold Leaf Award by the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas for his lifetime of extraordinary commitment and vision to advance the cause of parks, wilderness, ecological integrity and landscape connectivity in North America and the world. While not working to preserve it, Harvey enjoys spending time hiking and exploring wild nature all over the world. Harvey is fluent in French and competent in Spanish. Harvey Locke has two adult sons and lives in Banff, Alberta, Canada with his wife Marie-Eve Marchand.


J U L I A M I R A N DA LO N D O Ñ O PA RQ U E S N AC I O N A L E S N AT U R A L E S D E C O LO M B I A

Julia Miranda Londoño has been Head of National Parks Agency of Colombia since 2004. She is J.D. from the Xavieriana University school of Law in Bogotá Colombia and holds a graduate degree in environmental law from Universidad Externado de Colombia. Julia has played important roles in different public agencies and public institutions such as head of Environmental Office of the Urban Development Agency of Bogotá (1999-2001), and as head of Bogotá’s environmental authority (2001-2003). She has made contributions to environmental policies at both national and international meetings including the CBD COPs, IUCN World Parks and Conservation Congresses, National Parks Latin American Congress, World Heritage Convention Committees, World Protected Areas Leadership Forums, among others. As Regional Coordinator of the Latin American Network on Protected Areas, – REDPARQUES- (2008-2014), she led the integration of the Latin American countries towards the implementation of the CDB Program of Work on Protected Areas. Currently, she is the Coordinator in the Andes-Amazon Subregion of REDPARQUES. She has been part of the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) since year 2000, and WCPA Regional Vice Chair for South America (2009-2015). Since 2015 Julia Miranda is the WCPA Deputy Chair, where she has worked to materialize the WCPA mission. For her work she has received awards and honors such as the “Thirty Leaders of Colombia 2014 Award” and the “Ten Best Leaders in 2014 Award” from Semana Magazine and Democracy and Leadership Foundation, Colombia; the IUCN “Fred Packard Award” in 2012; the “Leaders for a Living Planet Award” from World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 2014; and the “Good Steward Award” from the International Conservation Caucus Foundation (ICCF) in 2017, among others.

K AT H Y M AC K I N N O NI N T E R N AT I O N A L U N I O N F O R C O N S E RVAT I O N O F N AT U R E - WO R L D C O M M I S S I O N O N P ROT E C T E D A R E A S

Kathy MacKinnon is Chair of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) and also co-chairs the WCPA Task Force on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) with Harry Jonas, working on the preparation of draft guidelines as input to the Convention on Biological Diversity. She has worked on conservation issues and especially protected areas for most of her career with extensive experience in protected area planning and management globally, working with NGOs, as a government advisor and as Lead Biodiversity Specialist for a major biodiversity donor, the World Bank. She has a particular interest in strengthening protection and management of terrestrial and marine habitats under different governance models, to promote effective biodiversity conservation in the long term.

DA N I E L M A R N E W I C K B I R D L I F E S O U T H A F R I C A

Daniel Marnewick manages BirdLife South Africa’s Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBA) Programme which aims to ensure the effective identification and conservation of South Africa’s 112 IBAs. He coordinated the assessment of all original IBAs, published the revised IBA Directory and the first IBA Status report in South Africa, and oversaw the declaration of over 90,000 hectares within IBAs as formal protected areas, with 12,0000 more hectares in the pipeline. Daniel has 18 years of experience in conservation and holds degrees in wildlife management and environmental sociology. His work has comprised conservation training, community natural resource management, and landscape scale conservation planning involving IBA site identification, protected area expansion, and habitat management. His current focus is on supporting the revision and extension of South Africa’s Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) network, and serving as the African representative and global chair for the KBA Community, a part of the global lKBA Programme.


M A R K M U L L I G A N K I N G ’ S C O L L E G E LO N D O N & U N E N V I RO N M E N T WO R L D C O N S E RVAT I O N M O N I TO R I N G C E N T R E

Mark Mulligan is a Reader in Geography and Head of Department at King’s College London and Senior Fellow of UNEP-WCMC. He works with a large team of PhD students on a variety of topics in the areas of environmental spatial policy support, ecosystem service modelling and understanding environmental change. This research is at scales from local to global and with a particular emphasis on tropical forests in Latin America and semi-arid drylands in the Mediterranean and Africa. He is developer of a range of open datasets at geodata.policysupport.org and free web-based policy support systems at www.policysupport.org. These include hydroclimatic and land cover datasets and the WaterWorld hydrological and Co$ting Nature ecosystem services modelling tools. His research involves fieldwork around the world and he is also developer of a range of open source instruments for environmental monitoring through the FreeStation and FreeSensor projects.

K E N N O R R I S ZO O LO G I C A L S O C I E T Y O F LO N D O N

Professor Ken Norris is Director of Science at the Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London (2014–present). From 2010 to 2014 he was Director of the Centre for Agri-Environmental Research (CAER) at the University of Reading. His research focuses on developing novel approaches to assessing the biodiversity impacts of environmental change by looking at how the evolutionary ecology of individual organisms affects population and community dynamics. His work is increasingly focused on the links between biodiversity, ecosystem function and ecosystem services, particularly through studies in tropical forest and agro-forestry ecosystems in Africa. Professor Norris has made significant contributions to pure and applied avian ecology, endangered species ecology and species recovery programmes.

C R I S T I A N A PA Ş C A PA L M E R C O N V E N T I O N O N B I O LO G I C A L D I V E R S I T Y S E C R E TA R I AT

Dr. Cristiana Paşca Palmer is the United Nations Assistant Secretary General and Executive Secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. Prior to this appointment, she served as the Minister of Environment, Waters and Forests of the Government of Romania. She was also Head of the Climate Change, Environment, and Natural Resources Unit within the European Commission’s International Development Agency, EuropeAID.

Dr. Paşca Palmer has over twenty years of extensive experience in global policymaking and in coordinating the implementation of environment and sustainable development policies, programmes and projects at the national and international levels. She is also a multidisciplinary practitioner and academic in international development with a strong focus on green economy and environmental sustainability, in addition to business management, international negotiations and environmental diplomacy.

Dr. Pasca Palmer received her PhD in International Relations from The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in the US, and holds a Masters in Public Administration from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, in addition to a Master of Science in Systems Ecology and Management of Natural Capital from the University of Bucharest in Romania.


C A RO L I N E P E T E R S O NU N I T E D N AT I O N S D E V E LO P M E N T P RO G R A M M E

Caroline Petersen is a Senior Advisor in UNDP’s Global Environmental Finance Unit, and also in the Green Commodities Programme. From 2014 to 2016 Caroline was acting Global Head of Ecosystems & Biodiversity for UNDP, leading a team of Regional Technical Advisors in Istanbul, Addis Ababa, Panama and Bangkok, supporting a large portfolio of projects under implementation, and helping countries access over $400 million of new Global Environment Facility (GEF) funds for biodiversity and sustainable land and forest management. This included developing innovative mechanisms for increasing domestic and international spending on biodiversity through the BIOFIN initiative. More recently Caroline has been involved in UNDP’s support to countries in accessing the Green Climate Fund, including ecosystem-based adaptation.

Caroline has a Masters from the London School of Economics, and prior to UNDP worked for the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) in a programme for conservation of the Cape Floristic Region.

DA N I E L R AV E N - E L L I S O NN AT I O N A L PA R K C I T Y F O U N DAT I O N

Daniel Raven-Ellison is a guerrilla geographer, radical educator and National Geographic Explorer. Daniel is leading the initiative to transform the whole of Greater London into the world’s first “National Park City”. One vision to inspire a million projects, this new kind of national park would recognise the importance of urban nature and galvanise actions to improve habitats, health, quality of life and resilience across the city and beyond. The campaign has widespread support, including from the Mayor of London, and is on track to be successful. In 2017 Daniel completed a 1700km walk across all of the UK’s national parks and cities to explore how people, things and nature can be better connected through technology. In 2018 Daniel will be completing a 100 metre expedition to make a short film that will transform how people think about Britain and make the case for more space being protected and created for nature.

M A R Í A R I V E R A R A M S A R C O N V E N T I O N O N W E T L A N D S S E C R E TA R I AT

María Rivera has more than 20 years of experience in national and international policy and on the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. She has worked in conservation and sustainable use of wetlands at national government and intergovernmental organizations. At the Ramsar Convention Secretariat, she advises and supports the strategic development and effective implementation of the Convention in the Americas region, and global processes as SDGs and synergies with other Multilateral Environmental Agreements, in particular the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS).

Before joining the Convention Secretariat in 2007, she worked at the Ramsar regional Centre for Wetlands on the Western Hemisphere in Panama and previously at the Ministry of the Environment in Colombia where she served as focal point for the Ramsar Convention, and coordinated the wetlands program and the preparation and implementation of wetlands policies and regulations. María has served as a member of the Wetlands Synthesis group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and member for the Neotropics of Ramsar’s Scientific and Technical Review Panel. She has also coordinated and participated in international wetlands training courses and waterfowl population surveys.


D I LYS RO EI N T E R N AT I O N A L I N S T I T U T E F O R E N V I RO N M E N T A N D D E V E LO P M E N T ( I I E D )

Dilys Roe leads the Biodiversity Team at the International Institute for Environment and Development, a UK-based sustainable development think tank. Dilys’s main research interests focus on social aspects of conservation – particularly the links between conservation and poverty; community based conservation – and the appropriate incentives and governance structures needed to make that effective; and biodiversity mainstreaming – how to get biodiversity values better reflected in national development policies and plans. Dilys has a PhD in biodiversity management from the Durrell Institute for Conservation and Ecology at the University of Kent.

C H R I S S A N D B RO O K U N I V E R S I T Y O F C A M B R I D G E

Chris Sandbrook is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Geography at the University of Cambridge, where he is the Director of the Cambridge Masters in Conservation Leadership. He is a political ecologist with diverse research interests around a central theme of biodiversity conservation and its relationship with society. He is particularly interested in trade-offs between conservation and development in the global south, the values held by conservation practitioners, and the social implications of new technology in conservation.

C A R LO S A L B E RTO D E M AT TO S S C A R A M U Z Z A F E D E R A L U N I V E R S I T Y O F M I N A S G E R A I S

Carlos Alberto de Mattos Scaramuzza gained a BSc in Biology in 1986, and PhD in Ecology from University of São Paulo, Brazil in 2006. He has more than 30 years of professional experience related to biodiversity conservation and public policies. His main background covers conservation programs management and the establishment of bridges between technical-scientific research and biodiversity conservation practice. His major areas of expertise are: conservation biology; tropical landscape ecology and land use dynamics; including ecological modelling, remote sensing and GIS applications.

He was part of WWF-Brazil team from 2003-2012, as Landscape Ecology lab coordinator and Thematic & Regional Programs Director. From 2013-2017 he headed the Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Conservation Departments at the Secretary of Biodiversity of the Brazilian Ministry of Environment. As Director, his main role was to develop national public policies related to sustainable use and systematic conservation planning of terrestrial and ecosystem-scale Brazilian biodiversity. Recently Carlos joined Britaldo Soares team at the Remote Sensing Center of Federal University of Minas Gerais as researcher associate.

JA N E S M A RT I N T E R N AT I O N A L U N I O N F O R C O N S E RVAT I O N O F N AT U R E

Jane Smart leads IUCN’s Biodiversity Conservation Group (around 60 staff): the Global Species, Global Protected Areas and World Heritage Programmes. She is also Director of IUCN’s Global Species Programme.

Jane also takes a lead role in IUCN’s work on knowledge products and systems, including responsibility for the management and production of The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species ™. As Director of the Global Species Programme, Jane is responsible for staff based in Switzerland, Washington DC, US and Cambridge, UK working on assessments of species for The IUCN Red List, species conservation action,


the illegal wildlife trade, invasive species, key biodiversity areas and the provision of support to the Species Survival Commission.

Jane trained as a botanist and began her professional life as a plant ecologist. In 1989, Jane founded Plantlife International, becoming its first Chief Executive. Prior to joining the IUCN Secretariat Jane was Chair of the IUCN UK National Committee, as well as a long standing member of the IUCN SSC Plant Conservation Committee. In 2003 she was awarded the OBE for services to international conservation.

B E R N A R D O S T R A S S B U RG P O N T I F I C A L C AT H O L I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F R I O D E JA N E I RO

Bernardo Strassburg is an economist with a PhD in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia. Assistant Professor at the Department of Geography and the Environment at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Bernardo´s research is focused on understanding socioecological processes related to land-use and in developing solutions for reconciling the conservation and restoration of natural habitats with food security and other land-related human demands.

Bernardo is a Lead Author of IPBES Global Assessment and has previously co-authored IPBES Guide on the Value of Nature. Bernardo’s research has been published in Nature, Science and other high impact journals On the policy front, he has designed the most widely implemented REDD+ mechanism, and advised Brazil on its zero net deforestation target for Paris Climate Agreement, and is a lead author of Brazil´s National Restoration Plan.

Bernardo is also the founder and Executive Director of the International Institute for Sustainability, a non-profit organisation dedicated to bridge science, policy and practice for conservation.

S I M O N S T UA RT S Y N C H RO N I C I T Y E A RT H

Simon Stuart is Director of Strategic Conservation at Synchronicity Earth, having previously served as Chair of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The SSC is a science-based network with more than 7,500 experts (mostly volunteers) from all over the world who give their time through Specialist Groups, Red List Authorities and Task Forces.

Simon has undergraduate and doctoral degrees from the University of Cambridge, with fieldwork in Tanzania and Cameroon. He has over 25 years of experience with the IUCN and the SSC. Simon started work on the African Bird Red Data Book in 1983. He joined the IUCN Secretariat in 1986, and was Head of the Species Programme (1990-2000), Acting Director General (2000-2001), Head of the Biodiversity Assessment Unit (2001-2005), and Senior Species Scientist (2005-2008). He was elected as Chair of the SSC at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Barcelona in October 2008.

Simon has been instrumental in the species conservation movement, working on a number of global initiatives such as the Millennium Development Goals Biodiversity Target and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Simon has also produced numerous high impact reports and books.

G A RY TA B O R C E N T E R F O R L A RG E L A N D S C A P E C O N S E RVAT I O N

Gary Tabor is conservation biologist and wildlife veterinarian. He has worked on behalf of large landscape conservation internationally for over 30 years with 12 years as a leader within the U.S. conservation philanthropic community. In 2007, Gary established the Center for Large Landscape


Conservation in Bozeman Montana USA to advance the practice of large-scale conservation globally.

Gary’s conservation achievements include the establishment of Kibale National Park in Uganda; establishment of the World Bank’s GEF Mountain Gorilla Conservation Trust; co-founding the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative; pioneering the field of Conservation Medicine and Ecohealth (now called One Health) and co-founding Patagonia Company’s Freedom to Roam campaign to conserve wildlife corridors.

Gary is a Henry Luce Scholar. He’s a winner of an Australian Fulbright award in Climate Change and worked in Hugh Possingham’s lab at the University of Queensland. Gary is chair WCPA Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group.

P I E RO V I S C O N T I ZO O LO G I C A L S O C I E T Y O F LO N D O N & U N I V E R S I T Y C O L L E G E LO N D O N

Piero Visconti is a Research Fellow at the Zoological Society of London and University College London, UK. His work aims to understand how species viability and ecosystems function and structure are affected by habitat loss and climate change, and whether we can predict, for a given system, the existence of levels of loss of native vegetation beyond which ecosystems cannot recover to their original state. Recently, he has become interested in coupling ecological model with integrated assessment models to derive socio-economic pathways that lead to a desirable future.

J O H N WA I T H A K A I N T E R N AT I O N A L U N I O N F O R C O N S E RVAT I O N O F N AT U R E - WO R L D C O M M I S S I O N O N P ROT E C T E D A R E A S

John Waithaka is a conservation biologist with many years’ experience working on wildlife, protected areas and community conservation issues in Africa and North America. Upon graduating with a PhD in elephant ecology, he started working with the Kenya Wildlife Service, local communities, private landowners, researchers, non-governmental organizations and development partners to create space for elephants and other wildlife outside protected areas through conservation programs that integrated the ecological, social, economic and cultural aspects of natural resource management. He

has received international recognition for this effort.

John has been involved in the development of the IUCN-WCPA OECM Guidelines and is currently involved in identifying the potential OECMs in Kenya. Since June 2017, he has been working with stakeholders to ensure that all aspects of conservation, management and governance of potential OECMs in Kenya are aligned with the basic principles of the IUCN-WCPA OECM Guidelines. John is the current IUCN-WCPA Regional Vice Chair for East and Southern Africa and is also a member of the IUCN-World Heritage Panel.

S O N A M WA N G D I D E PA RT M E N T O F F O R E S T S A N D PA R K S E RV I C E S , ROYA L G OV E R N M E N T O F B H U TA N

Mr Sonam Wangdi currently works as the acting chief of Nature Conservation Division under the Department of Forests and Park Services of the Royal Government of Bhutan. This division is mandated with the overall conservation mandate of Bhutan. He also serves as the section head of Protected Areas Section of this Division. As the Section Head, Sonam is responsible for technically advising the protected area system of Bhutan that includes National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, strict nature reserves and network of biological corridors. Serving as the acting chief, he is also responsible for giving policy


guidance on conservation and protection of nature in Bhutan. Sonam is currently spearheading the national taskforce for revision of the protected area system of Bhutan that will look into redesigning of Bhutan’s 51% of area under protection to bring more relevance of these protected areas into the needs of present time.

JA M E S WAT S O N W I L D L I F E C O N S E RVAT I O N S O C I E T Y & U N I V E R S I T Y O F Q U E E N S L A N D

James is Director of Science and Research Initiative at the Wildlife Conservation Society where he has lead WCS’ global cross cutting science programs for the past 5 years. He is also a Professor at University of Queensland where he leads the Green Fire Science research group, made up of 16 PhD, Masters and honours students and 5 post docs, whose mission is to do applied research that is linked directly to the

practice of conservation.

James currently serves on the International Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Data and Knowledge Task Force, is a Research Fellow for the United Nation’s Environment Program-WCMC, a senior technical expert for United Nations Development Program’s Global Programme on Nature for Development and was a founding chair of the IUCN’s climate change specialist group. James has also just finished as the global president of the Society for Conservation Biology.

S T E P H E N WO O D L E Y I N T E R N AT I O N A L U N I O N F O R C O N S E RVAT I O N O F N AT U R E - WO R L D C O M M I S S I O N O N P ROT E C T E D A R E A S

Dr. Stephen Woodley is an ecologist who has worked on protected areas for 35 years, as a field biologist, park manager and first Chief Scientist for Parks Canada. Stephen co-chairs of the Task Force on Biodiversity and Protected Areas, jointly established by the World Commission on Protected Areas and the Species Survival Commission. This task force completed the global standard for identifying Key Biodiversity Areas and led a research program on the predictors of successful conservation outcomes for protected areas. He is Vice Chair for Science and Biodiversity with the World Commission on Protected Areas.


| P O S T E R A B S T R AC T S

1 . C O N DAT I S | A TO O L F O R M A X I M I Z I N G T H E C O N N E C T I V I T Y O F E C O LO G I C A L N E T WO R K S

K AT H E R I N E A L L E N , U N I V E R S I T Y O F L I V E R P O O L

If biodiversity and ecosystem services are to be effectively preserved into the future, any network of protected areas must be ecologically connected to allow species to shift their ranges in response to the changing environment. When planning to designate new conservation areas or areas for habitat creation and restoration, it is important to know how that new site will contribute to the wider ecological network. Condatis is a software tool designed to support spatial decision making that has been developed in partnership with conservation organizations and landscape-scale planners. Condatis allows quantitative analysis of the connectivity of a habitat network and proposed conservation interventions can be prioritized systematically, providing decision makers with evidence-based recommendations of where to protect or restore habitat. The outputs have been used to inform strategic decision making in UK conservation programmes including the Northern Forest. Here we show how outputs can be used to highlight bottlenecks in the landscape, where new or restored habitat would have maximum impact in increasing overall connectivity. We also show how proposed restoration sites can be ranked in terms of their contribution to connectivity. Condatis can be downloaded as a free desktop application and can contribute important information to a conservation action plan. A new version is under development, which will be accessed online and will have new functionality including connectivity in multiple directions and consideration of restoration cost. The project is supported by a network of experienced and new users, which helps to develop know-how and expand the tool’s real-world applications.

Co-author: Jenny Hodgson, University of Liverpool

2 . A G LO B A L M I T I G AT I O N H I E R A RC H Y F O R N AT U R E C O N S E RVAT I O N

W I L L I A M N S A R L I D G E , U N I V E R S I T Y O F OX F O R D

Efforts to conserve biodiversity comprise a patchwork of international goals, national-level plans, and local interventions which – overall – are failing. We discuss the potential utility of applying the mitigation hierarchy, widely used during economic development activities, to all negative human impacts upon biodiversity. Evaluating all biodiversity losses and gains through the mitigation hierarchy could help prioritize consideration of conservation goals and drive the empirical evaluation of conservation investments, through the explicit consideration of counterfactual trends and ecosystem dynamics across scales. We explore challenges in using this framework to achieve global conservation goals, including operationalization, monitoring and compliance, and discuss solutions and research priorities. The mitigation hierarchy’s conceptual power and ability to clarify thinking could provide the step change needed to integrate the multiple elements of conservation goals and interventions, in order to achieve successful biodiversity outcomes.

Co-authors: Joseph W Bull, University of Copenhagen and Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology; Prue F E Addison, University of Oxford; Michael J Burgass, University of Oxford and Imperial College London; Dimas Gianuca, University of Exeter; Taylor M Gorham, Marine Stewardship Council; Céline Jacob, University of Exeter and Université de Montpellier; Nicole Shumway, University of Queensland; Samuel P Sinclair, University of Oxford and Imperial College London; James E M Watson, University of Queensland and Wildlife Conservation Society; Chris Wilcox, CSIRO; EJ Milner-Gulland, University of Oxford


3 . S H I F T I N G T H E PA P O L I C Y F O C U S F RO M Q U A N T I T Y TO Q U A L I T Y TO AVO I D P E RV E R S E C O N S E RVAT I O N O U TC O M E S

M E G A N D B A R N E S , U N I V E R S I T Y O F H AWA I I M A N O A I A N D C R A I G I E

Aichi Target 11 focuses on protected areas. While it has galvanized expansion of the global protected area (PA) network, we highlight a lack of evidence that enlarging systems of PAs alone is associated with real biodiversity gains. We illustrate how prioritizing area above other objectives risks unintended perverse consequences. We consider the incentives underpinning this misguided focus on PA extent and suggest a new paradigm for PA target development: shifting the focus from quantity to quality to achieve improved biodiversity outcomes. We provide a framework and list of actions to begin the improved design and implementation of global PA policy targets.

Co-authors: Louise Glew, World Wildlife Fund; Carina Wyborn, Luc Hoffmann Institute and University of Montana

4 . C H A L L E N G I N G C O M M O N A S S U M P T I O N S I N P ROT E C T E D A R E A C O N S E RVAT I O N

C L A I R E B E D E L I A N A N D PA U L B A R N E S , U N I V E R S I T Y C O L L E G E LO N D O N

Protected areas remain a cornerstone of efforts to conserve biodiversity and ecosystems globally. They are rapidly increasing and if Aichi Target 11 is to be achieved, 17% of terrestrial and inland water areas and 10% of coastal and marine areas will be protected by 2020. This is to be accomplished through more formally protected areas as well as other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs), including for example indigenous and locally-managed reserves. As part of research carried out by the Issues and Myths in Protected Area Conservation: Tradeoffs and Synergies (IMPACTS) project, we examine the relationship between social and ecological outcomes of protected areas. We synthesize evidence from a systematic review of 100 of the latest peer-reviewed papers on the social outcomes of protected areas. In addition, we draw upon 25 interviews with protected area researchers and practitioners, who bring insights of practical experience in the field.

We challenge five common assumptions in protected management and governance that center on the relationship between human wellbeing and ecological outcomes. These assumptions are widely prevalent in international conservation policy and practice and among conservation NGOs. These assumptions are: (1) Conservation is pro-poor, (2) Poverty reduction benefits conservation, (3) Compensation neutralizes conservation costs, (4) Participation is good for conservation, and (5) Resource tenure underpins long-term conservation. Our synthesis of evidence challenges these common assumptions and finds that they are frequently not supported by evidence. In doing so, we offer ways forward to reconcile conservation and human-wellbeing goals.

Co-author: Emily Woodhouse, University College London


5 . P L A N N I N G F O R A F U T U R E W I L D E R N E S S I N G E R M A N Y | P OT E N T I A L A N D P R I O R I T I E S

S E B A S T I A N B R AC K H A N E , A L B E RT- LU DW I G S - U N I V E R S I TÄT F R E I B U R G

In line with the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the European Union, the German National Biodiversity Strategy (NBS) aims to establish wilderness areas on 2% of its terrestrial territory by 2020. This is a challenging target considering the country’s high population and infrastructure density. Our study used spatial analysis to assess the extent to which forest wilderness areas (i.e., strictly protected forest reserves) may contribute towards meeting the 2% target. We developed an algorithm for candidate site selection and assessed their potential number, spatial distribution and extent using a variety of selection rules. Our results indicate that forested candidate sites could meet the objectives of the German NBS; however, the number and size of candidate sites are heterogeneously distributed. The potential 19.2% of the German terrestrial territory covered by candidate sites ≥100ha, 9.6% for candidate sites ≥1,000ha and 3.7% for candidate sites ≥3,000ha, is reduced to a projected 5.8%, 1.6% and 0.5%, respectively, when considering forest ownership as a limiting factor. Large candidate sites ≥10,000ha are restricted to mountainous regions (n = 15) and the less populated Northeast German Plain (n = 1). Further research is required to identify priorities among the candidate sites assessed, considering their representativeness, natural dynamics and rarity. This study shows a high potential for forest wilderness areas in Germany, but a lot of political will and outreach work will be required to realise this potential. This is the case for many European countries and concerted efforts at European level could improve progress.

Co-authors: Pawan Datta, Nicolas Schoof and Albert Reif, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg; Christine Schmitt, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg and University of Bonn

6 . W I L D L I F E W I N N E R S A N D LO S E R S

R I C H A R D B RO C K , L I V I N G P L A N E T P R O D U C T I O N S

The ‘Wildlife Winners and Losers’ poster is an attempt to draw attention to this conservation series so that it can achieve as much as possible to help conserve wild species and wild places around the world. Recently there has been much interest in positive efforts for wildlife conservation, for example, plastics in the oceans -- a subject about which we had previously made a film for my 80+ film series ‘Wildlife Winners and Losers’. The subtitle is ‘How to turn Losers into Winners’. The media is, I believe, a crucial ingredient in helping the public to understand what is at stake, and what can be done for wildlife and where it lives, its survival and its habitat, now under more pressure than ever.

7. P ROT E C T T H E A N TA RC T I C | S T R E N G T H E N I N G T H E S C I E N T I F I C C A S E F O R A N A N TA RC T I C O C E A N S A N C T UA RY

LO U I S A C A S S O N , G R E E N P E AC E U K

The next three years mark a historic opportunity to supercharge ocean protection for generations to come. In spite of long-standing global commitments to protect 10% of the oceans by 2020, just 1% are fully protected. The UN will start formal negotiations for a new oceans treaty this year, aiming to agree global rules for creating ocean sanctuaries on the High Seas by 2020. This treaty could unlock barriers to protect at least 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030, as supported by the IUCN. With public interest in ocean protection surging, this year we can rally political momentum for oceans stewardship behind a concrete decision: to protect the Antarctic. In October, governments will decide whether to create the largest


protected area on Earth in the Antarctic Ocean. The proposed Weddell Sea sanctuary would be five times the size of Germany, providing a haven for the Antarctic’s unique marine life and offering global benefits.

A movement of millions worked together to protect the Antarctic’s landmass in the 1980s. To protect its oceans, Greenpeace has launched a major new campaign, backed by over half a million people worldwide. Our Arctic Sunrise ship is on a three-month expedition to the Antarctic to highlight the urgent need for a marine reserve to safeguard this fragile ecosystem. Scientists on board visited previously unexplored ocean depths, documenting a seafloor carpeted with life that shows clear indications of a vulnerable marine ecosystem. Greenpeace also used trawl surveys to assess the presence of microplastics in the region. The research is intended to help determine specific areas that should be a priority for protection from commercial fishing in these pristine waters, and to support proposals for protection.

Co-authors: Dr Susanne Lockhart, California Academy of Sciences; John Hocevar, Greenpeace USA

8 . S PAC E F O R N AT U R E I N T RO P I C A L E A S T A S I A

R I C H A R D T C O R L E T T, X I S H UA N G B A N N A T R O P I C A L B OTA N I C A L G A R D E N , C H I N E S E AC A D E M Y O F S C I E N C E

Seventy years ago, it would have been relatively easy to set aside half of tropical East Asia (tropical China, SE Asia west of Wallace’s Line, and NE India) for nature, although some major natural ecosystems (notably the floodplains and estuaries of major rivers) and species (such as rhinoceroses) were already under severe threat. Explosive population growth and rapid economic development since 1950 have transformed the region, converting more than half the forest to crops. Deforestation has so far been concentrated at low altitudes, on flat or gently sloping land, although some crops threaten forests at higher altitudes. The region is still 40% forested, but most of that forest has been depleted of large vertebrates and degraded by logging and other impacts, and some of it is committed for future clearance. Large areas have no native forest at all. Elsewhere, there are fragments of various sizes and/or patches of secondary forest regenerating on abandoned land. The steep decline in birth rates and increasing rural-urban migration suggest that land abandonment will increase over the coming decades, with agricultural activity concentrated on the most productive land. Some of this abandoned land will have been relatively lightly impacted, but much of it will have altered soils, a depleted native biota, well-entrenched aliens, and poor connectivity. There will once again be space for nature in tropical East Asia, but we will have to learn to manage this space in a way that allows native species to recolonize and new native ecosystems to develop.

9. I M PAC T O F P ROT E C T E D A R E A S O N P OV E RT Y, E X T R E M E P OV E RT Y A N D I N E Q U A L I T Y I N N E PA L

B OW Y D E N B R A B E R , U N I V E R S I T Y O F S H E F F I E L D

Protected areas (PAs) are key for biodiversity conservation. The target set by the international community is to reach 17% PA coverage by 2020. Recently, researchers have argued that after 2020 this target should be increased to 50%, a goal that is often discussed under the name “Half-Earth”. Critics of such a plan have already argued that this plan would place a huge burden on people’s livelihoods and might exacerbate poverty or unequal access to potential benefits. We assess how Nepalese PAs have influenced poverty, extreme poverty and inequality using a multidimensional poverty index, and a quasi-experimental design that controls for potential confounding factors in non-random treatment allocation. We specifically investigate the role of tourism in contributing to PA impacts. Nepali PAs reduced overall poverty and extreme poverty, and crucially, did not exacerbate inequality. Benefits


occurred in lowland and highland regions, but did not spread to areas outside PAs. Furthermore, older PAs performed better than more recently established ones, suggesting the existence of time-lags. Although tourism was a key driver of creating benefits, PAs were successful in reducing extreme poverty even in areas with few tourists. The outcomes of this research suggest that the creation of PAs can also lead to improved livelihoods. However, robust evidence of PA socio-economic impacts is only available for a limited amount of regions, and suggests large heterogeneity in effect shape and magnitude. Adjusting revenue redistribution policies for PAs could increase the benefits for these communities and reduce conflict between local communities and PA conservation objectives.

Co-authors: Karl L Evans, University of Sheffield and Johan A Oldekop, University of Sheffield and University of Michigan

1 0. P ROT E C T E D A R E A E F F E C T I V E N E S S A N D M A N AG E M E N T I N D I C ATO R S D O N OT C O R R E L AT E | W H AT A R E W E D O I N G W RO N G ?

J O H A N N A E K LU N D, U N I V E R S I T Y O F H E L S I N K I

Protected areas are one of the key tools for conserving biodiversity, and aspects of both coverage and effectiveness need to be considered in the upcoming negotiations for the Convention on Biological Diversity´s post-2020 strategy. Recent studies have highlighted the impact protected areas can have in avoiding habitat conversion, finding that they in general are effective, yet that this varies with governance regimes. However, the relationship to management actions on the ground is far less studied and we currently do not know which management actions are crucial for success. To investigate this in a challenging socio-ecological environment, we studied the effectiveness of the protected area network of Madagascar; a country with high deforestation rates and an unstable political environment. We computed the effectiveness of individual protected areas in avoiding deforestation, accounting for confounding factors (elevation, slope, distance to urban centers and infrastructure, and distance to forest edge). We then investigated whether Protected Area Management Effectiveness (PAME) scores, and their different facets, explained the variation observed. We found that the majority of the analyzed protected areas in Madagascar do reduce deforestation, but the levels of deforestation they manage to avoid varies. Protected areas with higher management scores did not perform better in terms of avoiding deforestation, but they showed lower absolute rates of deforestation inside their borders. This implies that different measures of protected area effectiveness should be combined to inform future policymaking.

Co-authors: Lauren Coad, University of Sussex and UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Jonas Geldmann, University of Cambridge; Mar Cabeza, University of Helsinki

1 1 . PAT H WAY S TO AC H I E V E T H E S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E LO P M E N T G OA L S

C O N S TA N C E FA S T R É , ZO O LO G I C A L S O C I E T Y O F LO N D O N

As we are closing in on the deadline set by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to achieve the protection of 17% of land and freshwater areas and 10% of marine areas by 2020 (i.e., Aichi Targets), and biodiversity decline continues unabated, conservationists are divided as to how much natural space should be conserved to protect biodiversity. Some argue that if fully achieved, the Aichi Targets for protected area expansion and habitat restoration will suffice to avert further extinctions. On the


other hand, there is a growing support for the ‘Half-Earth’ vision, which aims to secure at least half the planet for nature conservation. Some recent studies have shown that such goals may be achievable, provided that some ecosystems would be restored. However, these studies often ignore other societal goals, and the socioeconomic reality of economic growth and food security, both important drivers of biodiversity changes worldwide and generally at odds with biodiversity conservation. We use optimization algorithms and targets for terrestrial mammal species conservation and food production globally to plan for both biodiversity and food security. We determine how much natural habitat must be conserved to meet both targets and identify trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and agricultural production.

Co-author: Piero Visconti, Zoological Society of London

1 2 . T H E I U C N G R E E N L I S T O F S P E C I E S | A N O P T I M I S T I C N E W V I S I O N F O R C O N S E RVAT I O N

M O L LY G R AC E , U N I V E R S I T Y O F OX F O R D

The International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species has become the global standard for assessing the risk of extinction each species on earth faces. However, conservation also needs an optimistic vision of species conservation that presents a road map on how to achieve recovery, and the IUCN is creating a new set of metrics to do just that. These new metrics, known collectively as the “Green List of Species,” will be incorporated into the Red List in the coming years. The Green List will evaluate species’ status in terms of function (is the species fulfilling its role, or functionally extinct?) and geographic distribution, and how conservation actions contribute to species status. However, these metrics must be refined before rollout, considering the challenges presented by species with varying life histories and qualities of data. Here, we present the working Green List assessment framework and invite feedback.

Co-authors: Elizabeth Bennett, Wildlife Conservation Society; Barney Long, Global Wildlife Conservation; Resit Akçakaya, SUNY-Stony Brook; Tom Brooks, IUCN; Anna Heath, Synchronicity Earth; Simon Hedges, Wildlife Conservation Society; Craig Hilton-Taylor, IUCN; Mike Hoffmann, ZSL; David Keith, University of New South Wales; David Mallon, Manchester Metropolitan University; Erik Meijaard, Borneo Futures Project; EJ Milner-Gulland, University of Oxford; Ana Rodrigues, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; Jon Paul Rodriguez, IUCN; Peter Stephenson, IUCN; Simon Stuart, Synchronicity Earth; Richard Young, Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust

1 3 . A S S E S S I N G T H E A D E Q U AC Y O F T H E A I C H I TA RG E T S | L E S S O N S F O R T H E P O S T-2 0 2 0 F R A M E WO R K

E L I Z A B E T H G R E E N , R OYA L S O C I E T Y F O R T H E P R OT E C T I O N O F B I R D S

2020 is fast approaching, and governments will soon start discussing the nature of a revised Strategic Plan on Biodiversity through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). To inform these negotiations, we are conducting an assessment of the adequacy and effectiveness of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets in the 2011–2020 Strategic Plan on behalf of the CBD. Our aim is to provide the CBD with clear recommendations to support the design of effective future targets in the post-2020 biodiversity framework. Specifically, we wish to assess strengths and weaknesses of the current targets and identify criteria associated with making progress towards target objectives. We carried out a systematic review of the scientific literature, identifying biases in research effort and prevailing views on the strengths and weaknesses of the current targets. We then asked an international group of experts to score the targets and their constituent elements against a list of SMART-based criteria identified as important


characteristics of effective and adequate targets. Using these scores we investigate the relationship between target adequacy and progress made towards objectives. Our findings will show whether the extent to which the Aichi Targets meet our adequacy criteria (Measurable, Unambiguous, Specific, Comprehensive, Realistic, Ambitious, Time-bound and Scalable) has an impact on how much progress is made towards target objectives. Here we present results from our literature-based assessment and current progress with the expert assessment. This work will contribute to the design of more effective targets in the post-2020 biodiversity framework.

Co-authors: Richard Gregory, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and University College London; Stuart Butchart, BirdLife International, Graeme Buchanan, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; Georgina Chandler, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; Neil Burgess, UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre

1 4 . S A F E G U A R D I N G S PAC E | Strengthening cheetah conservation programmes by integrating human reproductive health initiatives, including family planning actions, reducing anthropogenic pressures on ecosystems and improving community health

DAV I D J O H N S O N , M A R G A R E T P Y K E T R U S T , P O P U L AT I O N & S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y N E T W O R K

Human population dynamics, including population growth, are key issues when considering cheetah conservation. More than 90% of Namibia’s cheetahs, for instance, live outside protected areas, and are therefore even more susceptible to anthropogenic impacts such as human-wildlife conflict and habitat loss. These and other impacts intensify as human populations grow and land use becomes more intensive. Conserving cheetah calls for innovative, cross-sectoral solutions promoting the sustainable co-existence of wildlife and humans, and which take into account the demographic realities of the world in which we live. Safeguarding land requires us to consider competing interests, and there is a notable overlap between the cheetah range states of most importance, and countries which have been identified as having inadequate access to reproductive health services, a key factor leading to population growth. This is therefore an important consideration when determining conservation policy.

Population, Health Environment conservation programmes, that incorporate voluntary and rights-based family planning actions with conservation-focused sustainable livelihood interventions, have been demonstrated to achieve greater conservation, health and gender outcomes than single sector programmes. They are little implemented, although this poster is based on the report published in January 2018 “The importance of human reproductive health and rights to cheetah conservation” co-authored by the Margaret Pyke Trust, with the Population & Sustainability Network and the Cheetah Conservation Fund, in which they set out the reasons why they believe the approach should be considered more widely.

Co-author: Dr Laurie Marker, Cheetah Conservation Fund and Margaret Pyke Trust, Population & Sustainability Network


1 5 . E C O - E VO LU T I O N A RY T RO P H I C M A N AG E M E N T | A unified approach to conserving biodiversity and ecosystem function in the Anthropocene

M E N N A E J O N E S , U N I V E R S I T Y O F TA S M A N I A

There is an urgency to stem the loss of biodiversity. Protected areas are essential for species conservation, but alone they are insufficient. Moreover, many species live primarily in impacted landscapes, which are often the most productive land. The different approaches of restoration ecology and conservation biology (e.g., urban restoration, protected area conservation) are providing exciting possibilities but they are intellectually and, hence, practically, balkanised which prevents valuable cross-fertilisation. We propose a unified approach to conserving biodiversity and ecosystem function that is applicable to all ecosystems, globally, on the continuum from intact protected areas to the most highly impacted anthropogenic environments. Effective management needs to be based in a foundational understanding of the mechanisms which drive species distribution and abundance in local ecosystems. Ecosystems are complex adaptive systems, shaped by the interplay between ecological and coevolutionary feedbacks between organisms and their environment.

Basing management in a trophic network framework is important to achieve the desired results. Perturbing species abundances, such as restoring apex predators or reducing invasive prey, can lead to effective control of invasive species. Conversely, lethal control of invasive species will alter species interactions in the trophic network and can lead to unexpected consequences. Incorporating evolution is important because evolution is a dynamic process. Changes in both abiotic (e.g., climate change, urbanisation) and biotic (species abundances) environments alter the strength of ecological interactions, which in turn alter selection pressures, leading to rapid adaptation. Restoration and conservation activities should aim to facilitate beneficial adaptation and avoid detrimental adaptation.

Co-authors: Daniel T Blumstein, University of California, Los Angeles; Kevin Crooks, Colorado State University; Leon Barmuta and Craig Johnson, University of Tasmania; Matt Betts and William Ripple, Oregon State University

1 6 . I U C N S TA N DA R D S F O R A R E A S F O R C O N N E C T I V I T Y C O N S E RVAT I O N | H E L P I N G S E C U R E S U C C E S S F U L P O S T-2 0 2 0 B I O D I V E R S I T Y C O N S E RVAT I O N TA RG E T S

M A RC E LO G O N C A LV E S D E L I M A , I U C N -W C PA C C S G B R A Z I L L E A D

With climate change and rapid population growth, protecting isolated parcels of land/seascape is no longer sufficient for conserving the planet’s ecological processes, yet there is no globally approved conservation designation for conserving connectivity. The Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group was formed by the IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas – WCPA to address this gap through the creation of Standards for Areas of Connectivity Conservation (ACCs). Since 2016, the CCSG has recruited over 700 connectivity practitioners from 75 countries. Members are engaged in a global consultation on the draft ACC Standards through in-person and online meetings. These efforts have created an active community of both scientists and policy-makers well-equipped to champion ACCs in their spheres of influence. Bringing together practitioners from across disciplines and geographies is necessary to understand current applications of connectivity conservation and to learn from those working on the ground how to best implement a new policy framework. We believe the next round of negotiations for the 2020–2030 CBD Strategic Plan will witness a new affirmation for nature


conservation including enhanced protected area targets for conservation and for the first-time explicit connectivity conservation goals in line with IUCN’s Standards for Areas for Connectivity Conservation which will help secure the success of the existing targets and of new Biodiversity Conservation post-2020 ones.

Co-authors: Gary Tabor, Center for Large Landscape Conservation/IUCN-WCPA CCSG Leader; Melly A Reuling, Center for Large Landscape Conservation; Grace Stonecipher, Center for Large Landscape Conservation

1 7. A B S E N C E O F E V I D E N C E F O R T H E C O N S E RVAT I O N O U TC O M E S O F S Y S T E M AT I C C O N S E RVAT I O N P L A N N I N G A RO U N D T H E G LO B E . A SY S T E M AT I C M A P

E M M A J M C I N TO S H , U N I V E R S I T Y O F OX F O R D

Systematic conservation planning exercises are routinely undertaken to inform efforts towards meeting global land and ocean protection targets. Despite being an evidence-based discipline, there have been no comprehensive reviews of the outcomes of systematic conservation plans to date. We have recently completed a systematic mapping exercise (a form of structured database following a standardized Centre for Environmental Evidence search and data extraction methodology) to collate and review evaluations of systematic conservation planning interventions. The review team screened articles recursively, first by title only, then title and abstract and finally by full-text, using inclusion and exclusion criteria related to subject, intervention, reported outcomes, study design and use of comparators. Of the approximately 10,000 unique articles returned through our searches (which included academic and grey literature), 1,198 were included for full-text screening. Only three of these studies met all inclusion criteria, although an additional 31 studies reported the outcomes of systematic conservation planning exercises but did not involve appropriate study designs. Rigorous evaluations of systematic conservation plans are not being published in academic journals or made publicly available elsewhere, and are probably rarely conducted, despite frequent claims about the effectiveness of these interventions. This does not imply systematic conservation planning is ineffective, but highlights the lack of high-quality evaluations and a gap in our understanding of how, when and why it can be effective. Academics and practitioners alike are urged to publish the results of systematic conservation planning exercises and to consider employing robust evaluation methodologies when reporting project outcomes.

1 8 . H OW D O JA PA N E S E U N D E RG R A D U AT E S T U D E N T S P E RC E I V E C O N F L I C T B E T W E E N H U M A N S A N D A S I A N E L E P H A N T S ? A P I LOT S T U DY O F D E V E LO P M E N T O F A P I C T U R E - S TO RY C O N T E N T TO O L F O R B I O D I V E R S I T Y E D U C AT I O N

S H I H O M I YA K E , KO B E C O L L E G E , J A PA N

This study aims to develop a methodology to create awareness for the public on biodiversity and sustainability. Although global and local biodiversity political issues have been developed and announced, few people in Japan are aware of these strategic plans or priorities retaining environmental diversity. The author aimed to spread awareness about biodiversity and environmental sustainability by developing a pilot educational tool of a picture story focusing on the Asian elephant based on collaboration with a zoo. One of the project outcomes suggested that story-telling events for zoo visitors had a significant impact in displaying a shocking unknown fact. In this research, the picture story (the picture and story are separate) was altered to a three-minute animation (the picture and story are


combined) evaluating the awareness it promoted among non-zoo visitors. Results from candidates, who were 20-year-old women, revealed that the most frequent impressions described by word associations were sad, pitiful, cruel, painful, selfish people and coexistence. Additionally, approximately 90% of candidates were unaware of the habitat loss of elephants. Candidates’ comments of free description also suggest that the picture story animation successfully communicated sympathetic emotions such as compassion for elephants and an ethical dilemma on discovering that human beings’ rich culture was created by victimizing the animal. To conclude, this animation effectively communicated the environmental problem of the discord between humans and wildlife as a ‘victim’ and ‘dilemma’.

1 9. L A N D S C A P E C O N N E C T I V I T Y F O R A F R I C A N W I L D D O G S AC RO S S K E N YA | E F F E C T S O F I N F R A S T R U C T U R E D E V E LO P M E N T

H E L E N O ’ N E I L L , ZO O LO G I C A L S O C I E T Y O F LO N D O N A N D U N I V E R S I T Y C O L L E G E LO N D O N

Habitat loss and fragmentation are two of the greatest threats to global biodiversity; maintaining connectivity between remnant populations is a key conservation tool for threatened species. However, in many areas, the aim of maintaining movement corridors for wildlife conservation must be balanced against the need for poverty alleviation and large-scale development projects. This study investigates the levels of connectivity still present across Kenya for a wide-ranging species which is under serious threat from habitat and connectivity loss, the African wild dog, and evaluates the potential impact of a major new infrastructure development, the Lamu Port - South Sudan - Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) corridor. Resource selection functions, fitted to GPS collar data, were used to develop landscape resistance-to-movement layers. Resistance layers were then used to model connectivity between known patches of wild dog resident range. Wild dogs are likely to be extensively affected by the construction of LAPSSET. Two of the seven known remaining populations in Kenya are in the route of the LAPSSET corridor, and as the project trisects the country connectivity between the northern and southern populations is likely to be substantially reduced.

Co-authors: Sarah Durant and Rosie Woodroffe, Zoological Society of London

2 0. L AT I N A M E R I C A N P E R S P E C T I V E O N T H E P O S T-2 0 2 0 TA RG E T S | B R I D G I N G S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E LO P M E N T, C L I M AT E C H A N G E A N D B I O D I V E R S I T Y

A N D R E W R H O D E S , P R O N AT U R A M É X I C O

In November 2017 the Latin American Network for Technical Cooperation in Natural Parks, Other Protected Areas, Wildlife and Flora (RedParques) met to discuss the post-2020 agenda, emphasizing perspectives, challenges and opportunities in area-based conservation. Twelve countries from RedParques concluded that post-2020 best opportunities for further area-based protection lie in: (1) enhancement of “Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures”; (2) an approach similar to the Paris Agreement on climate change, whereby countries pledge national contributions to enhanced global protected areas targets; (3) voluntary schemes that are closely aligned with sustainable development; (4) greater marine protection; (5) alignment of area-based conservation measures with climate change mitigation and adaptation; and (6) adequate finances for implementation. These elements contribute in a significant way to a more robust set of targets post-2020. The meeting was supported by IUCN/WCPA, Protected Areas Climate Change Specialist Group, the Beyond the Aichi


Targets Task Force, German Federal Enterprise for International Cooperation (GIZ), and Pronatura A.C and Pronatura Península de Yucatán.

Co-authors: Risa Smith; Martin Cadena; Mónica Álvarez; Efraím Acosta; Federico Starnfeld; Nigel Dudley; Talia Cruz; Lucía Ruíz; Fernando Camacho and Marcos Pastor

2 1 . D E V E LO P I N G B I O D I V E R S I T Y I N D I C ATO R S F RO M T H E I U C N R E D L I S T O F E C O S Y S T E M S

J E S S I C A A ROW L A N D, D E A K I N U N I V E R S I T Y

World leaders have committed to the 2020 goal under the Convention on Biological Diversity to improve the status of biodiversity. A suite of biodiversity indicators is currently used to monitor progress towards achieving these targets. Several indicators exist for measuring loss of species diversity and abundance, yet comprehensive indicators measuring change across ecosystems globally are lacking. We fill this gap by developing biodiversity indicators for ecosystems based on the data from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Ecosystems (RLE), the global standard for assessing the risks to ecosystems. Our indicators quantify spatial and temporal changes in risk status, area, and health of ecosystems across all biomes over recent, future and historical timeframes, using the Red List Index and Living Planet Index as models. Using the RLE biodiversity indicators, we quantify: (1) the overall risk of ecosystem collapse globally; and (2) the proportional change in the area of the ecosystem and loss of ecosystem health to show progress through time towards ecosystem collapse (i.e. ecosystem endpoint). The RLE biodiversity indicators allow spatial comparisons of the relative risk of collapse and the type of change occurring among ecosystems from local to global scales. Our indicators synthesise complex information to highlight regions most at risk of collapse, and allow clear communication with decision-makers, managers and the general public. This information will inform progress towards the 2020 Aichi Targets for the Convention of Biological Diversity, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and guide future policy and management prioritization.

Co-authors: David Keith, University of New South Wales, New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage and Australian National University; Emily Nicholson, Deakin University

2 2 . S A F E H AV E N S F O R W I L D T I G E R S | A R A P I D A S S E S S M E N T O F M A N AG E M E N T E F F E C T I V E N E S S AG A I N S T T H E C O N S E RVAT I O N A S S U R E D T I G E R S TA N DA R D S

S U E S TO LTO N , E Q U I L I B R I U M R E S E A R C H

Conservation Assured (CA) is a new conservation tool to set standards for effective management of target species. The first species-specific CA standards are for the tiger. Conservation Assured | Tiger Standards (CA|TS), is a partnership between tiger range governments, the CA|TS support group (11 leading global NGOs and expert agencies, working on protected areas and tiger conservation) and tiger conservation areas to define and implement area-based best practice management standards with the aim of providing the safe havens for wild tigers. On 28th February Conservation Assured is launching a new report Safe Havens for Wild Tigers: A rapid assessment of management effectiveness against the Conservation Assured Tiger Standards. To gain a better understanding of the challenges that tiger range governments face in protecting wild tigers and to provide a baseline for CA|TS implementation, a rapid survey was undertaken of current management in 112 sites in 11 tiger range


countries. The survey covered approximately 70% of the global wild tiger population across 200,000 km2 of the tiger range. The poster will outline the results of the survey and recommendations to help secure wild tiger populations.

Co-authors: Nigel Dudley, Equilibrium Research

2 3 . I M P ROV I N G T H E AC C U R AC Y O F G LO B A L E S T I M AT E S O F C O N S E RVAT I O N A R E A C OV E R AG E B A S E D O N A S A M P L E D A P P ROAC H

R AC H E L S Y K E S , D U R R E L L I N S T I T U T E O F C O N S E RVAT I O N A N D E C O LO GY, U N I V E R S I T Y O F K E N T

Signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity have committed through Aichi Target 11 to conserve 17% of the terrestrial realm through protected areas (PAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) by 2020. Progress towards this target is monitored using the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), which is based on information collated from partners in governmental agencies and conservation organisations. The WDPA is an incredibly important resource but has limitations: some partners lack capacity to provide the most up-to-date data, plus information on privately protected areas, indigenous and community conserved areas, and OECMs is not widely available. To overcome these limitations we are developing a new approach, based on collecting the best available data from a representative subset of countries. Here we present the first step in this process, which used the systematic conservation planning software Marxan to identify 25 countries that are representative in terms of: (a) patterns of biodiversity, and; (b) the socio-economic factors that influence the extent and characteristics of conservation area networks. For the selected areas, we will next select representative sampling sites within these countries and then collect the best available distribution data on all PAs and OECMs, working with all relevant organisations. From these data, we can then estimate the global percentage of the terrestrial realm that is under conservation, helping overcome any biases in current estimates.

Co-authors: Z G Davies, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent; N D Burgess, and N Kingston, Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre; and R J Smith, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent

2 4 . DATA B A S I N | A P ROV E N S PAT I A L , O N L I N E P L AT F O R M F O R A DVA N C I N G C O N S E RVAT I O N

JA M E S R S T R I T T H O LT A N D PA M E L A A F RO S T, C O N S E RVAT I O N B I O LO GY I N S T I T U T E

Effective conservation requires credible science, access to data and information, the means to use it, and collaboration support. Data Basin (www.databasin.org) was created by the Conservation Biology Institute and first launched in 2010. Data Basin is a powerful online mapping platform where users can easily create and edit their own maps constructed from a constantly growing library of spatial data, including files users can upload on their own. Each registered user is given a private workspace where they can create, upload, save, and manage their work in the system. Users are given control over permissions for any of their uploaded or created content. The platform is rapidly growing in popularity with users around the world who are interested in conservation. Data Basin and its many associated applications has proven to be extremely successful at: (1) delivering conservation science and


planning to many people who would otherwise not have access; (2) integrating many different sectors (governmental and non-governmental) without damaging existing social and technical infrastructure; (3) overcoming many social barriers to joint problem solving; and (4) addressing complex natural resource planning and management issues.

Co-authors: Brendan Ward; Daniel Harvey; Nikolas Stevenson-Molnar; and Natasha Anisimova, Conservation Biology Institute

2 5 . P E RC E I V E D B A R R I E R S TO A N D D R I V E R S O F C O M M U N I T Y PA RT I C I PAT I O N I N P ROT E C T E D -A R E A G OV E R N A N C E

C A RO L I N E WA R D, U N I V E R S I T Y O F L E E D S

Protected areas (PAs) are a frequently used conservation strategy, yet their socioeconomic impacts on local communities remain contentious. A shift toward increased participation by local communities in PA governance seeks to deliver benefits for human well-being and biodiversity. Although participation is considered critical to the success of PAs, few researchers have investigated individuals’ decisions to participate and what this means for how local people experience the costs and benefits of conservation. We explored who participates in PA governance associations and why; the perceived benefits and costs to participation; and how costs and benefits are distributed within and between communities. Methods included three focus groups, 37 interviews, and 217 questionnaire surveys conducted in three communities and other stakeholders (e.g., employees of a nongovernmental organization and government officials) in PA governance in Madagascar. Our study design was grounded in the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), the most commonly applied behaviour model in social psychology. Participation in PA governance was limited by miscommunication and lack of knowledge about who could get involved and how. Respondents perceived limited benefits and high costs and uneven distribution of these within and between communities. Men, poorer households, and people in remote villages reported the highest costs. Our findings illustrate challenges related to comanagement of PAs: understanding the heterogeneous nature of communities; ensuring all households are represented in governance participation; understanding differences in the meaning of forest protection; and targeting interventions to reach households most in need to avoid elite capture.

Co-authors: Lindsay Stringer and George Holmes, University of Leeds

2 6 . R E C O N C I L I N G B I O D I V E R S I T Y A N D C A R B O N S TO C K C O N S E RVAT I O N I N A N A F ROT RO P I C A L F O R E S T L A N D S C A P E

F R E D E R I K VA N D E P E R R E , U N I V E R S I T Y O F A N T W E R P

Biodiversity loss and climate change are among the most important threats that humanity faces in the 21st century. Consequently, the international community has engaged in a series of initiatives that aim at protecting either biodiversity or carbon stocks. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are binding multilateral commitments that include specific targets (the Paris Agreement and Aichi Biodiversity Targets). However, actions that simultaneously minimize carbon loss and maximize biodiversity conservation represent the best use of limited resources and available land. Nonetheless, exploration of synergies between these conservation goals has been limited to consideration of aspects of tree diversity, neglecting other important species groups that represent different trophic levels. We assessed this relationship for multiple trophic levels across the tree of life (10 organismal groups, three kingdoms) in lowland rainforests of the Congo Basin. Comparisons across regrowth and old-growth forests evinced


the expected positive relationship for trees, but not for other organismal groups. Moreover, differences in species composition between forests increased with difference in carbon stock. These variable associations across the tree of life contradict the implicit assumption that maximum co-benefits to biodiversity are associated with conservation of forests with the highest carbon storage. Initiatives targeting climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation should include both old-growth and regenerating forests to optimally benefit biodiversity and carbon storage.

Co-authors: Michael R Willig, University of Connecticut; Steven J Presley, University of Connecticut; Frank Bapeamoni Andemwana, University of Kisangani; Hans Beeckman, Royal Museum for Central Africa; Pascal Boeckx, Ghent University; Stijn Cooleman, Ghent University; Myriam de Haan, Botanic Garden Meise; André De Kesel, Botanic Garden Meise; Steven Dessein, Botanic Garden Meise; Patrick Grootaert, Royal Belgian Institute for Natural Sciences; Dries Huygens, Ghent University; Steven B Janssens, Botanic Garden Meise; Elizabeth Kearsley, Ghent University; Patrick Mutombo Kabeya, University of Kisangani; Maurice Leponce, Royal Belgian Institute for Natural Sciences; Dries Van den Broeck, Botanic Garden Meise; Hans Verbeeck, Ghent University; Bart Würsten, Botanic Garden Meise; Herwig Leirs, University of Antwerp; Erik Verheyen, University of Antwerp and Royal Belgian Institute for Natural Sciences

space for nature symposium · 2018-02-27 · 3 space for nature symposium symposium overview...

Documents