Global S&T Development Trend Analysis Platform of Resources and Environment
| DOI | 10.1126/science.abh2234 |
| Integrate biodiversity targets from local to global levels | |
| David O. Obura; Yemi Katerere; Mariam Mayet; Dickson Kaelo; Simangele Msweli; Khalid Mather; Jean Harris; Maxi Louis; Rachel Kramer; Taye Teferi; Melita Samoilys; Linzi Lewis; Andrew Bennie; Frederick Kumah; Moenieba Isaacs; Pauline Nantongo | |
| 2021-08-13 | |
| 发表期刊 | Science
 |
| 出版年 | 2021 |
| 英文摘要 | Decisions to be made at the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will shape biodiversity conservation approaches for the next 30 years, a critical time for the future of nature and people. Reflecting from our African perspective, we applaud the necessary increase in ambition to conserve nature ([ 1 ][1]), but we share alarm about the limited equity and justice in establishment of protected areas and impacts on people ([ 2 ][2]–[ 6 ][3]). Further, raising the burden of protection in the Global South while failing to address global economic drivers of biodiversity decline will only repeat and amplify historical cycles, and effort invested in conservation will be wasted. We see hope in new and diversified approaches to conserved areas ([ 7 ][4]) and the development of other, less formal conservation mechanisms. Here we offer a framework that can help to integrate these with improved conventional conservation approaches.
Historically, conservation has emphasized protected areas in the most high-biodiversity and intact regions, supported by systematic conservation planning tools set to select low-use areas for their low cost and high biodiversity benefit, and isolating those places from people in strict no-use protected areas. A disproportionate burden of such protection has fallen on the Global South, where biodiversity condition is high yet resources and public support are limited ([ 6 ][3]); effective protection is hampered by trade-offs with meeting peoples' needs; histories of inequitable treatment of local and Indigenous communities and small-scale food producers exist; and there is a higher dependence on nature for food, livelihoods, and culture. Only very recently has it been acknowledged that over half of the high-value land for conservation is traditionally owned, used, or occupied by Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs), acting as the de facto managers ([ 8 ][5]). The increased conservation ambition in the past decade, and now being projected into the future, has focused on protecting very large and intact wilderness areas on land and at sea, many of which overlap with these IPLC spaces. A consequence of this overlap is increasing concern with control of territory, undermining tenure of IPLC, and weakening their links with nature.
The 2011–2020 strategy of the CBD established the 20 Aichi Targets, and although conservation actions have been essential to prevent some species extinctions and ecosystem declines, effort and resourcing have been inadequate and none of the Aichi Targets were achieved ([ 9 ][6]). Now the next set of 10- and 30-year goals and targets for biodiversity are under negotiation in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (GBF). Its current draft specifies four goals and 21 targets ([ 10 ][7]), and its final form will be determined by countries at COP 15. One of the 21 targets is to raise the area under protection to 30% of land and sea. This builds on two of the prior Aichi subtargets, on area protection (17% of land and 10% of ocean; see the figure), that were nominally successful. However, their success was not matched by achievement of linked effective management and biodiversity representation subtargets (as many protected areas are too degraded, a large proportion of protected areas are suboptimally located, and investment in management was insufficient, to protect biodiversity), nor by equity or sustainable use targets ([ 9 ][6]).
Momentum supporting increased targets for area under protection to 30 and 50% of global land and sea is growing, both through scientific publications supported by new technologies and data streams ([ 1 ][1]) and by campaigns (e.g., Campaign for Nature, High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People) based on and supporting this science. This has amplified concern about the equity issues raised above ([ 5 ][8]), as well as the potential impacts of higher protection on meeting peoples' needs ([ 2 ][2]–[ 5 ][8]). An important factor in this debate is the lack of diversity in mainstream scientific and conservation voices ([ 5 ][8], [ 7 ][4], [ 11 ][9]), resulting from a combination of barriers to publishing and communicating from varied cultural and societal contexts. For example, local and Indigenous knowledge is held within communities, not in the scientific literature, and many conservation practitioners and even scientists from non-Western cultures may rarely publish in accessible and mainstream literature. This unequal representation of conservation perspectives and approaches in mainstream conservation science, and concern over perverse interpretations of area-based analyses ([ 2 ][2]), are particularly important where the scientific literature has a strong role in developing and supporting policy, as in multilateral processes such as the GBF. This article seeks to at least partially redress this imbalance in the literature.
Africa has a large share of remaining intact biodiversity; a small share of global funds for protection; a youthful demographic presenting both challenges and opportunities for conservation; a growing but nonetheless limited technical, scientific, and implementation capacity; and a suppressed voice in global negotiations. Africa faces particularly strong trade-offs between biodiversity protection and poverty alleviation, with many of the voices expressing concern with how protected areas have been implemented across this continent. This experience is shared across the Global South, and to succeed, the GBF must resolve these challenges in these places in socially relevant ways.
Our framework grounds the GBF through the concept of “shared” land and seascapes ([ 3 ][10], [ 8 ][5], [ 12 ][11]), connecting people and nature rather than separating them. The condition of nature varies across all land and ocean (see the figure), from near-intact and “natural” in remote areas with low or no human population (e.g., areas within the Amazon forest, Sahara desert, or high seas), through increasingly modified in lightly to densely populated and used shared spaces that still present functions and characteristics of a natural biome (e.g., extensive pasturelands, or sparsely to moderately populated rural areas or fished seas), to fully altered in high-intensity agricultural and urban spaces, aquaculture, and intensively modified coastlines (classed as anthropogenically altered biomes or “anthromes”). Strict boundaries between categories of such “spaces” are challenging to define, emphasizing the continuum of nature–human interactions across them ([ 8 ][5], [ 12 ][11]). Across all of these spaces, even where nature is in a degraded state, it provides essential benefits to people ([ 13 ][12]), particularly to those living in poverty or with few material or financial assets. Whereas the dominant paradigm for nature conservation to date has focused on the most intact spaces for protection, we focus on the middle ground, where human interactions with nature cannot be resolved by separation.
![Figure][13]
Shared Earth, shared ocean framework
(Left) The approximate proportion of land or ocean area in 2020 in which nature is intact, variably affected in shared spaces, or fully altered in anthromes [from ([ 2 ][2])]. (Middle) Schematic allocation of effective conservation actions on land across the gradient of condition (as in left panel) in a country or territory. Protection of 17% of total land under Aichi Target 12 is depicted in the 0 to 20% of land where nature is most intact. Protecting 20% of area under intact native habitat is shown in shared spaces, from 21 to 80% of territory. Protecting 5% of area under intact habitat in anthromes is shown from 81 to 100% of territory. The sum of these meets the draft global biodiversity framework target of 30% protected. Relative to the 30x30 campaign for protecting nature in areas most important for biodiversity, the shared Earth approach spreads effort and benefits of additional conservation across space. (Right) The contribution of restored versus intact habitat will increase in more altered shared spaces and in anthromes. The contribution of different governance regimes, such as by Indigenous people and local communities (IPLCs), conventional protected areas (PAs), and “other” mechanisms, may vary across spaces. Axes labels are as in the middle panel.
GRAPHIC: K. FRANKLIN/ SCIENCE
Our approach is built on four pillars. First, it focuses at the local scale, from which decisions and measures are aggregated “from the ground up” to achieve targets. Second, it applies equity principles to ensure that needs and rights of people are met, prioritizing local institutions and rights holders, assisted by governments, organizations, scientists, and others. Third, all relevant knowledge is integrated at this level. The local focus means that local and traditional knowledge, accumulated experience, and social and cultural concerns can be in the forefront. Relevant scientific knowledge needs to be translated to this scale, using platforms that can help ensure consistency of local decisions across locations and across scales, and to address larger-scale phenomena such as connectivity. Fourth, all relevant targets of the GBF should be addressed concurrently.
Recent advances in the conservation literature connecting nature and people support this approach ([ 2 ][2]–[ 4 ][14], [ 6 ][3]–[ 8 ][5], [ 12 ][11]–[ 14 ][15]), in particular, to maintain 20% of local area under intact native habitat (13), notably in “shared spaces” ([ 12 ][11]) (see the figure). Doing this can adequately meet peoples' needs and maintain biodiversity functions, especially when applied down to a square kilometer scale so that benefits are within reach of those that need them. From this basis, multiple biodiversity targets relating to species, ecosystems, genes, and benefits to people ([ 15 ][16]) may be addressed together, potentially from both the 20% of intact habitat and 80% of “working” or “managed” area in the local land- or seascape ([ 12 ][11]) (see the figure).
In moderately and highly altered “shared spaces,” such as extensive populated rural landscapes [e.g., tea-farming landscapes in central Kenya, or cocoa and mixed agroforestry landscapes in southern Cameroon ([ 14 ][15])], the proportion of intact nature may be well below 20% of the landscape. But with effective restoration and appropriate time horizons to allow for rebuilding of ecological integrity and function ([ 15 ][16]), restored habitats could count toward conservation goals (see the figure), as well as increase their contribution of benefits to people.
In anthromes, a lower “intact habitat” threshold might be all that is possible, and decision-makers may focus on selected benefits, such as shading and temperature control, or on nonmaterial benefits provided by urban green spaces. We illustrate an arbitrary area target of 5% (see the figure), but existing guidance of 9 to 50 m2 of green space per person may require variable locally set targets.
Nature is most intact and human population density lowest in intact spaces and lightly altered shared spaces, where the proportion of land or sea meeting biodiversity criteria may approach 100% (see the figure). This area can enable the summed area of high protection to approach a global target, such as 30%. Where high levels of protection are already established, our approach can help refine management to address local needs within the broader context and potentially redress equity and rights issues that may be unresolved from the past ([ 5 ][8]).
Local government (e.g., districts, counties, states, municipalities) may provide the relevant framework for applying this approach, enabling consistent replication, locally differentiated targets, technical support, and resourcing within national systems. Within these, a wide variety of governance models could be applied to protected and conserved areas (see the figure), such as Indigenous and local community; private, local, or central government; or mixed, depending on national and local rights and tenure regimes. “Protected areas” are generally designated under national legislation and classified using International Union for Conservation of Nature categories. Less formal conservation mechanisms (e.g., Indigenous and community lands, private sanctuaries, etc.) are becoming classified under emerging standards for other effective conservation measures (OECMs) ([ 7 ][4]), though full inclusion and leadership by IPLCs in this process will be necessary for legitimacy. Our framework will facilitate integration of protected areas, OECMs, and other measures across intact, shared, and anthrome spaces.
This framework integrates the three pillars of the CBD and helps operationalize the goals and many of the targets of the GBF simultaneously: the equity intent of CBD objective 3 and GBF goal C (which relate to equitable access to and benefit sharing of genetic resources), extending this to all aspects of nature and its contributions to people; CBD objective 2 and GBF goal B on ensuring access to and provisioning of a range of benefits from nature; and CBD objective 1 and GBF goal A on conserving ecosystems, species, and genetic diversity, and restoring them where needed.
The framework can also help direct conservation finance to local institutions and actors, addressing goal D of the GBF. Objectives, expected results, and resourcing for conservation and protection vary along the continuum of condition of nature. Large, intact critical ecosystems—such as in wilderness areas and the high seas—play essential roles in global regulatory functions (e.g., carbon sequestration), as well as locally. Small habitat fragments in shared spaces and anthromes will be critical for daily contributions to peoples' quality of life and well-being (e.g., food security, pollination, water treatment) and in ensuring connectivity across land- or seascape mosaics, and with protected areas. The responsibilities and mechanisms for management and finance may vary across these scales. For example, small areas might be managed and supported based on functions such as maintaining integrity and connectivity, and on the spatial reach of the benefits they provide (e.g., through trade), as well as for their role in sustaining higher-level targets and global benefits (e.g., species conservation or carbon sequestration in community forests). Attention to local perceptions of justice and value, and innovative measures such as basic income grants for protected and conserved area-adjacent communities, can help balance the benefits and costs of conservation.
Looking into the future, conservation and restoration may need to focus on ecological functions and contributions to people rather than the prior intact assemblage, particularly where climatic and other changes make a historical native state impossible to reinstate. In this context, regenerative development and agroecological approaches linked to culture and Indigenous practices at land- and seascape scales may best integrate biodiversity, provisioning, and equity targets. By situating and aggregating local conservation within larger spatial frames, this approach can also facilitate biodiversity and human adaptation to climate change in landscape mosaics that facilitate climate migration.
This “shared Earth and ocean” approach meets a need identified within the GBF, for its global ambitions and elements to be translated down to the local scale, founded on inclusion and equity, where the best science and praxis can be integrated in locally relevant ways to meet multiple targets simultaneously. The interests of local communities and rights holders require locally contextualized solutions for conservation, across intact, shared, and fully altered spaces, which can be aggregated and reported to larger scales. It also offers a legitimate and people-focused way to spread effort for conservation across the whole gradient of condition of nature ([ 12 ][11]) rather than isolating it away from people in only the most intact regions. Like many innovative approaches, many of its elements are known and established, but with a paradigmatic shift in focus—from the ground up, and with equity and provisioning of benefits to people as priorities—the potential for success is transformed.
The ambition and complexity of efforts required to achieve the GBF will be considerably greater than for the Aichi Targets. We see merit in the full set of Targets proposed for the GBF, mirroring the indivisibility of the Sustainable Development Goals, not in any one target in isolation. For example, although protecting 30% of nature is likely necessary to adequately reduce biodiversity loss ([ 1 ][1]), if it is pursued without equal attention to equity, local custodianship, and provisioning of benefits to people ([ 3 ][10], [ 4 ][14], [ 15 ][16]), errors of the past will likely be repeated ([ 5 ][8], [ 6 ][3]), as well as the level of achievement of the Aichi Targets ([ 9 ][6]). Critics will question if our approach will succeed better, but a renewed approach is needed, and both societal (e.g., Leaders Pledge for Nature) and scientific ([ 5 ][8], [ 6 ][3], [ 8 ][5]) voices are calling for a paradigm shift toward sustainability, meeting peoples' needs, and equity that our approach helps to implement. We call on countries, donors, and organizations to shift to this focus on shared spaces and equity from local to global scales as the best way to reconcile the challenges to delivering on the GBF and a “nature positive” outcome by 2050.
A particular challenge will be the design and establishment of the multilevel and polycentric governance systems that will be needed for success, underpinned by spatial planning frameworks and incorporating diverse conservation and sustainable production actions that address the impacts and interests of multiple actors, sectors, and jurisdictions across spatial scales. However, without addressing the drivers of biodiversity decline arising from high-consumption practices that underpin global inequalities, no conservation-focused actions will be sufficient to halt or reverse biodiversity decline or attain sustainable use at a global scale.
1. [↵][17]1. J. E. M. Watson et al
., Nature 578, 360 (2020).
[OpenUrl][18]
2. [↵][19]1. M. Barnes,
2. L. Glew,
3. C. Wyborn,
4. I. D. Craigie
, PeerJ Preprints 10.7287/peerj.preprints.26486v1 (2018).
3. [↵][20]1. Z. Mehrabi,
2. E. C. Ellis,
3. N. Ramankutty
, Nat. Sustain. 1, 409 (2018).
[OpenUrl][21]
4. [↵][22]1. J. Schleicher et al
., Nat. Sustain. 2, 1094 (2019).
[OpenUrl][23]
5. [↵][24]1. A. Agrawal et al
., “An open letter to the lead authors of ‘Protecting 30% of the Planet for Nature: Costs, Benefits and Implications’” (2021); |
| 领域 | 气候变化 ; 资源环境 |
| URL | 查看原文 |
| 引用统计 | |
| 文献类型 | 期刊论文 |
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.173/C666/handle/2XK7JSWQ/335867 |
| 专题 | 气候变化 资源环境科学 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | David O. Obura,Yemi Katerere,Mariam Mayet,et al. Integrate biodiversity targets from local to global levels[J]. Science,2021. |
| APA | David O. Obura.,Yemi Katerere.,Mariam Mayet.,Dickson Kaelo.,Simangele Msweli.,...&Pauline Nantongo.(2021).Integrate biodiversity targets from local to global levels.Science. |
| MLA | David O. Obura,et al."Integrate biodiversity targets from local to global levels".Science (2021). |
| 条目包含的文件 | 条目无相关文件。 | |||||
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
修改评论