Suchergebnisse

Protected areas are one of the key tools for conserving biodiversity and recent studies have highlighted the impact they can have in avoiding habitat conversion, finding that protected areas in general are effective, yet that this varies with governance regimes (Schleicher et al. 2017) and over time (Eklund et al. 2016). However, the relationship to management actions on the ground is far less studied (Coad et al. 2015) 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 are small. Protected areas with higher management scores did not perform better in terms of avoiding deforestation. Yet, instead of suggesting that management is ineffective or that PAME is not a good indicator of management effectiveness, we present a novel framework that uses a combination of deforestation measures and can clarify why no correlations have been found, in this study and elsewhere. References Coad, L. et al. 2015. Measuring impact of protected area management interventions: current and future use of the Global Database of Protected Area Management Effectiveness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 370:20140281. Eklund, J. et al. 2016. Contrasting spatial and temporal trends of protected area effectiveness in mitigating deforestation in Madagascar. Biological Conservation 203: 290-297. Schleicher, J. et al. 2017. Conservation performance of different conservation governance regimes in the Peruvian Amazon. Scientific Reports 7: 11318. ; peerReviewed

Humanity's impact on the environment is increasing, as are strategies to conserve biodiversity, but a lack of understanding about how interventions affect ecological and conservation outcomes hampers decision-making. Time series are often used to assess impacts, but ecologists tend to compare average values from before to after an impact; overlooking the potential for the intervention to elicit a change in trend. Without methods that allow for a range of responses, erroneous conclusions can be drawn, especially for large, multi-time-series datasets, which are increasingly available. Drawing on literature in other disciplines and pioneering work in ecology, we present a standardised framework to robustly assesses how interventions, like natural disasters or conservation policies, affect ecological time series. ; HSW was supported by the Cambridge Trust Poynton Scholarship, Cambridge Department of Zoology J.S. Gardiner Studentship and Cambridge Philosophical Society; TA was supported by the Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT180100354) and the University of Queensland strategic funding; JG was supported by European Union's Horizon 2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie program (No. 706784) and VILLUM FONDEN (VKR023371); BIS was supported by a Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 Research Fellowship; WJS is funded by Arcadia and JPGJ was supported by the Leverhulme Trust: RPG-2014-056.

The United States of America (USA) is the largest consumer of internationally legally traded wildlife in the world. A proportion of this trade consists of species, products and parts listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which are recorded in the CITES Trade Database. Using this database, we quantified wildlife entering the USA from major exporting countries and political regions, as well as the most traded wildlife products and taxonomic groups. The trends in legal trade, and seizures of illegally traded items, over time were also examined for 21 taxonomic groups, and the relationships between legal trade and seizures were tested against four national measures of biodiversity. We found that: 1) there seems to be a overall relationship between legal and illegal trade flows; 2) Asia was the main region exporting CITES-listed wildlife products and parts to the USA between 1979 and 2013; 3) some taxonomic groups are traded more frequently for consumption while others are more frequently traded as pets or fashion items: 4) bears, crocodilians and the group 'other mammals' (mammals that do not fall into Ursidae, Felidae, Cetacea, Proboscidea, Primates or Rhinocerotidae) increased in both legal trade and seizures from 1980 to 2013; 5) both seizures and legally traded items from felines and elephants have significantly decreased through time; 6) volumes of legally traded species and seizures are correlated with four attributes of exporting countries: species endemism, species richness, number of IUCN threatened species and country size. One of the challenges facing analyses documenting legal and illegal trade in CITES-listed species is the variation in reporting efficiency and enforcement over time; this is minimised here because we only use import and seizure data from one country – the United States – which has maintained a similar enforcement system over time. We therefore provide a broadly comprehensive analysis of wildlife imports into the USA in a form that can be used ...

Despite ongoing debates about the viability of sustaining economic growth while maintaining environmental integrity, international sustainability agendas increasingly propose reconciling socio-economic development and global environmental goals. Achieving these goals is impeded by limited funding and a lack of information on where financial flows to integrate environment and development are targeted. We analyze World Bank and Global Environment Facility data to investigate the extent and distribution of such funding across the tropics. We find a misalignment between funding flows and need with highly biodiverse, low development (HBLD) countries receiving no more funding than non-HBLD countries. Countries with low biodiversity receive more funding than highly biodiverse countries and there was no statistical association between a country's development status and funds received. Rather than environment-development need, funding appears to be driven by governance and political-economic factors. Future research should investigate how such factors and funding flows are associated with conservation and development outcomes. This study analyzes 381 projects of the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) concluded between 1995 and 2013 to show how much money is spent on joint conservation and development in the tropics, where the money is directed, whether it is directed to areas of greatest environmental and development need, and finally what factors drive funding allocation decisions. The total extent of funding was US$16.5 billion across 75 countries, representing approximately US$870 million per year. Countries with high biodiversity and low human development receive no more funding for integrated conservation and development than other countries. Notably, countries with a low biodiversity status receive relatively more funding than highly biodiverse countries and there was no association between development need and funds received. Therefore, we find that neither biodiversity nor human development status explain funding allocation, but rather that governance and political-economic factors are most likely more influential. This study analyzes the extent and distribution of World Bank and GEF funding for joint conservation and development in the tropics, whether it is directed to areas of greatest environmental and development need, and finally what factors drive funding allocation decisions. Total spending was US$16.5 billion across 75 countries. We find that neither biodiversity nor HDI status are driving funding allocation, but rather that governance and political-economic factors are most likely more influential.

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 (PA) systems or other "area-based conservation measures", while individual countries have committed to conserve 3–50% of their land area. We estimate that PAs currently cover 14.6% of terrestrial and 2.8% of marine extent, but 59–68% of ecoregions, 77–78% of important sites for biodiversity, and 57% of 25,380 species have inadequate coverage. The existing 19.7 million km2 terrestrial PA network needs only 3.3 million km2 to be added to achieve 17% terrestrial coverage. However, it would require nearly doubling to achieve, costefficiently, coverage targets for all countries, ecoregions, important sites, and species. Poorer countries have the largest relative shortfalls. Such extensive and rapid expansion of formal PAs is unlikely to be achievable. Greater focus is therefore needed on alternative approaches, including community- and privately managed sites and other effective area-based conservation measures. ; We are grateful to the many individuals and organizations who contribute to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species,WDPA, or to identification of IBAs or AZEs. We thank A. Bennett for help with data collation and N. Dulvy, W. Laurance, and D. Faith for helpful comments on an earlier draft. This work was supported by the Cambridge Conservation Initiative Collaborative Fund and Arcadia. ; This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Wiley via http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/conl.12158

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 (PA) systems or other "area-based conservation measures", while individual countries have committed to conserve 3–50% of their land area. We estimate that PAs currently cover 14.6% of terrestrial and 2.8% of marine extent, but 59–68% of ecoregions, 77–78% of important sites for biodiversity, and 57% of 25,380 species have inadequate coverage. The existing 19.7 million km2 terrestrial PA network needs only 3.3 million km2 to be added to achieve 17% terrestrial coverage. However, it would require nearly doubling to achieve, cost-efficiently, coverage targets for all countries, ecoregions, important sites, and species. Poorer countries have the largest relative shortfalls. Such extensive and rapid expansion of formal PAs is unlikely to be achievable. Greater focus is therefore needed on alternative approaches, including community- and privately managed sites and other effective area-based conservation measures.