Birdlife Policy Brief Paper on Protected Areas

BirdLife Policy Brief for CBD COP-10, Nagoya

Protected Areas Protected areas are a cornerstone of biodiversity conservation. The CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas (POWPA) has helped to galvanise action. BirdLife has been a member of the ‘Friends of POWPA’- an informal group of NGOs and Governments which has supported the CBD Secretariat to build capacity, raise awareness and encourage regular reporting on POWPA. BirdLife’s contribution to the objectives of POWPA range from direct ownership and management of reserves; support to national gap analyses using Important Bird Areas (IBA) approaches; promoting good governance, equity and participation; building capacity and raising funds, as well as implementing protected areas monitoring.

Establishment of formal protected-area networks is often not sufficient to maintain their biodiversity. Many protected areas have effectively failed in their conservation objectives for want of resources, sound management and, in particular, local community support. At COP-10, apart from coverage, other issues for discussion include the roles of indigenous and local communities, improved management, protected areas financing, as well as protected areas and climate change.

Increasing coverage and ensuring that protected areas are in the right places CBD members have already invested heavily in systems of protected areas and this is one of the most valuable mechanisms for biodiversity conservation. Unfortunately, and for many reasons, these systems are rarely designed so as to conserve biodiversity comprehensively. Although more than 100,000 protected areas have been established world-wide, analyses show that many serious gaps in coverage remain. More systematic ecological networks are needed to ensure that globally important biodiversity is conserved. These should consist of key areas of the highest biodiversity value (such as Important Bird Areas) that are interconnected within a managed landscape.

It is vital that CBD Parties ensure that all areas of particular importance for biodiversity are included in their national systems of protected areas. In this regard standard criteria should be developed for the identification of sites of global biodiversity significance and the CBD should facilitate the development of an inventory of Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) in the high seas (Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction – ABNJ). Safeguarding

these key biodiversity areas will require a variety of governance approaches, including, for example, national parks, community and indigenous conservation areas and private reserves. However, all need to be managed in order to safeguard the important biodiversity they shelter.

At present, terrestrial protected areas cover 12.2% of the planet’s surface area. However progress is very slow in the marine realm with marine protected areas occupying only 5.9% of the world’s territorial seas and less than 0.5% of the extraterritorial seas– only 0.7% of oceans overall.

BirdLife recommends the following text for the protected areas target in the revised and updated CBD strategic plan; Target 11: By 2020, at the latest, at least 20% of terrestrial, inland-water and coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity, are conserved through comprehensive, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of effectively managed and well-governed protected areas and other means, and integrated into the wider land- and seascape.

w w w. b i r d l i f e . o r g

Rationale for 20% terrestrial coverage For land (including inland waters) worldwide identification of a major component of key biodiversity areas, Important Bird Areas (IBAs), is nearly complete.

Recent analyses (based on all countries with data in the World Bird Database in late 2009) found that 10,993 IBAs covered an area of 9.1 million km2. Only 26% of IBAs are fully included in protected areas, while 49% are completely unprotected. The total area protected is 4.5 million km2, leaving 4.6 million km2 unprotected.

Expansion of protected areas to cover unprotected IBAs would increase terrestrial protected area coverage from 11.6% to 16.2% of land area. In 12 countries in which additional globally significant sites, Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), for non-avian taxa have been identified, IBAs represent 71 ± 5.4% (mean ± SE) of the number and 80 ± 5.4% of the area of KBAs for all taxa. Assuming that these rations are representative, an additional 0.9 million km2 of non-avian KBAs are likely to require protection. The addition of this area would increases terrestrial coverage from 13% to 17% of land area. This analysis excluded the USA, Argentina, Papua New Guinea and a number of additional smaller countries, as data were incomplete or missing at the time. Hence, to a first approximation, and taking a precautionary approach, an increase of percentage of land surface protected to 20% is required to ensure the protection of globally significant sites for biodiversity conservation.

Rationale for 20% marine coverage Currently, protected area coverage in the marine realm lags far behind the land. Only 5% of coastal areas is protected, and only 0.7% of the oceans overall is included in marine protected areas. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity, especially in areas beyond national jurisdiction where there is great potential for sizeable no-take zones to be established. There is need for a major effort to expand marine protected areas to better cover marine key biodiversity areas (within exclusive economic zones) and ecologically and biologically sensitive areas (on the high seas). Particular emphasis is needed to protect critical ecosystems and the abundance and diversity of habitats and species such as tropical coral reefs, sea-grass beds, deepwater cold coral reefs, seamounts and coastal wetlands. A 20% target is called for by 2020 based on (a) similar considerations for protecting areas of global importance for biodiversity as on land and (b) scientific recommendations for marine reserves to minimise risks from overexploitation of harvested resources and consequent ecosystem effects.

Such recommendations generally range from 20-40%, so (considering the existing low baseline) this target establishes a figure at the lower end of the range of what is considered necessary to secure a healthy ocean.

Providing new and additional financial resources In Article 8m of the CBD, Parties were urged to cooperate in providing financial and other support for protected areas particularly to developing countries. This call was reinforced in paragraph 1 of decision IX/18 B, where the Ninth Conference of the Parties (COP-9) urged Parties, in particular developed country Parties, and invites other

Governments and international financial institutions including the Global Environment Facility, the regional development banks, and other multilateral financial institutions to provide the adequate, predictable and timely financial support, to developing country Parties, in particular the least developing countries, and small island developing States, as well as countries with economies in transition to enable the full implementation of the programme of work on protected areas.

Several cost estimates exist associated with effective conservation of a representation of the world’s protected areas. The World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEPWCMC, 2005) estimates that the cost of maintaining all the world’s existing protected areas is more than US$9.5 billion per year. The actual amount invested, however, is between US$2.5 billion and US$3 billion below that amount. If the world’s protected area systems continue expanding to include other key ecosystems, as has been the case during the past 50 years, annual costs could reach more than US$25 billion each year for a protected area system covering 15% of the world’s terrestrial surface (with 10% under strict protection) (UNEP-WCMC, 2005).

The cost of protected areas in developing countries is calculated to be between US$1.1 billion and US$2.5 billion per year. However, this amount is much smaller than actual requirements and much less than what is invested in developed countries (James et al. 1999a; James et al. 1999b; Bruner, Gullison, Balmford 2004).

According to Bruner et al. (2004), if the world’s protected area system expands to cover some of the existing high priority sites in developing countries, the annual protected area management cost in these countries could reach US$4 billion.

Apart from the some regional and national trust funds, the GEF and a few laudable partnerships established by bilateral agencies such as the Lifeweb Initiative, the financing of protected areas has not received serious attention. The huge funding shortfall still remains to be addressed. Therefore, BirdLife supports the following text for the resources target in the revised and updated CBD strategic plan; Target 20: By 2020, at the latest, capacity (human resources and financing) for achieving the three objectives of the Convention has increased to at least tenfold.

Local participation and sound management Element 2 of POWPA relates to issues of governance, participation, equity and benefit sharing. It remains the most under-implemented element of the programme.

Although there are encouraging developments, most Parties continue to emphasise state-run protected areas. A wider vision has yet to manifest itself, especially for indigenous and community conserved areas and private reserves and for the potential of co-management.

Many protected areas have effectively failed in their conservation objectives for want of resources, sound management and, in particular, indigenous and local community support. Governments need to pay attention to the quality of protected area governance and be willing to consider a range of governance types.

BirdLife’s Local Conservation Groups (LCG) approach Through its work with local communities and other stakeholders, BirdLife is mobilising and empowering a global network of volunteers, rooted locally, for the conservation and sustainable management of priority sites for bird and biodiversity conservation (Important Bird Areas (IBAs)). This growing network is currently present at over 2500 IBAs worldwide.

In most cases, members live in or adjacent to the sites they look after, and understand the interests and needs of their communities. As well as being an excellent means of engaging the local community in conservation, LCGs also provide a mechanism by which limited resources can be utilised efficiently and equitably, in a manner that suits the cultural, social, historic and economic circumstances of the community. Supported by the national BirdLife Partner, LCGs provide a link between local communities and national institutions, such as other NGOs, government agencies and researchers.

Many forms of governance are recognised for protected areas, including private and shared governance, as well as governance by indigenous peoples and local communities. Greater consideration of governance and equity issues (in relation to all governance types) is critical because well governed and effectively and equitably managed protected areas are a proven method for safeguarding habitats and species, and for delivering ecosystem services. There is also a need to ensure that men and women from local and indigenous communities realise the benefits of enhanced biodiversity conservation, including food security and poverty reduction, without bearing inequitable costs.

Protected areas and climate change Protected areas are an essential part of the global response to climate change. The CBD should ensure that protected areas and protected area systems are recognised as an important contribution to climate change adaptation/mitigation strategies for biodiversity and human livelihoods. The COP-10 draft recommendations on protected areas provide a good basis for this recognition and BirdLife supports their adoption by the Parties.

In particular, the current language on promoting the benefits of protected areas to climate change mitigation and adaptation should not be lost or weakened. This includes the wording that reminds the UNFCCC to pay attention to the role of protected areas, and that invites the Executive Secretary to convene a special meeting of the Joint Liaison Group of the Rio Conventions to discuss a joint programme on protected areas, biodiversity, climate change and land degradation. These elements are clear actions to promote synergies between the CBD and the UNFCCC, and improve the recognition of the vital importance of safeguarding biodiversity, ecosystems and the essential services they provide in climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Other areas of the paper also serve to reinforce this message and should be maintained or strengthened by the COP. These include the call to Parties to;

•

identify areas that are important for biodiversity conservation as well as climate change mitigation and adaptation,

• •

develop tools to assist in this integrated planning,

•

to link integrated protected area systems into national strategies and action plans for addressing climate change (including national adaptation strategies and plans).

support and finance natural ecosystems and protected-areas systems that contribute to carbon sequestration, carbon stocks and ecosystem based approaches for adaptation, and

Further, BirdLife would like to see the envisaged reporting framework annexed to the draft decision improved by recognising the need for Parties to report on progress towards integrating their protected area system into national strategies and action plans for addressing climate change.

Protected areas should also be integrated into the wider land- and seascape and sectors, taking into account ecological connectivity and the concept of ecological networks. This is a vital step in addressing the impacts of climate change on biodiversity as it improves the ‘permeability’ of the landscape for species to move with a changing climate.

References Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E. and Balmford, A. (2004) Financial costs and shortfalls of managing and expanding protected-areas systems in developing countries.

BioScience 54: 1119–1126.

James, A.N., Green, M.J.B. and Paine, J.R. (1999a). Global review of protected area budgets and staff. WCMC: Cambridge, UK. James, A., Gaston, K. and Balmford, A. (1999b). Balancing the earth’s accounts. Nature 401: 323–324.

UNEP- WCMC ( 2005). Convention on Biological Diversity.

Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group on Protected Areas Meeting Minutes: Options for Mobilizing Financial Resources for the Implementation of the Programme of Work by Developing Countries and Countries with Economies in Transition, June 2005. URL: http://www.cbd. int/doc/meetings/pa/pawg-01/official/pawg-01-03-en.doc.

BirdLife contact in Nagoya: Muhtari Aminu-Kano, Senior Adviser – Policy & Advocacy muhtari.aminu-kano@birdlife.org

The BirdLife Partnership BirdLife International is a partnership of 114 national conservation organisations and a world leader in conservation. BirdLife’s unique local to global approach enables it to deliver high impact and long term conservation for the benefit of nature and people.

w w w. b i r d l i f e . o r g