Developing an outcomes-based approach to achieving Target 3 of the Global Biodiversity Framework
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Developing an outcomes-based approach to achieving Target 3 of the Global Biodiversity Framework. / Dudley, Nigel; Robinson, John G.; Andelman, Sandy; Bingham, Heather C.; Conzo, Lori Anna; Geldmann, Jonas; Grorud-Colvert, Kirsten; Gurney, Georgina G.; Hickey, Valerie; Hockings, Marc; Jonas, Harry D.; Kettunen, Marianne; Marnewick, Daniel; Masozera, Michel ; Mitchell, L Brent; Parrish, Jeffrey; Redford, Kent; Espinoza, Andrew Rhodes; Russi, Daniel; Salafsky, Nick; Springer, Jenny; Sullivan-Stack, Jenna; Tugendhat, Helen; Watson, James E. M.; Wilkie, David S.; Woodley, Stephen.
In: Parks, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2022, p. 33-44.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Developing an outcomes-based approach to achieving Target 3 of the Global Biodiversity Framework
AU - Dudley, Nigel
AU - Robinson, John G.
AU - Andelman, Sandy
AU - Bingham, Heather C.
AU - Conzo, Lori Anna
AU - Geldmann, Jonas
AU - Grorud-Colvert, Kirsten
AU - Gurney, Georgina G.
AU - Hickey, Valerie
AU - Hockings, Marc
AU - Jonas, Harry D.
AU - Kettunen, Marianne
AU - Marnewick, Daniel
AU - Masozera, Michel
AU - Mitchell, L Brent
AU - Parrish, Jeffrey
AU - Redford, Kent
AU - Espinoza, Andrew Rhodes
AU - Russi, Daniel
AU - Salafsky, Nick
AU - Springer, Jenny
AU - Sullivan-Stack, Jenna
AU - Tugendhat, Helen
AU - Watson, James E. M.
AU - Wilkie, David S.
AU - Woodley, Stephen
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - The draft Global Biodiversity Framework proposes to increase protected areas and OECMs to at least 30 per cent of land and ocean by 2030 (30x30). Such areas are central to conservation, but only if effectively managed and equitably governed. In practice, governments often recognise areas that do not achieve successful outcomes or respect human rights and fail to recognise other effective governance systems. We argue that protected areas and OECMs should only be recognised as fully contributing to 30x30 if they are on track to achieve positive and sustained biodiversity outcomes while respecting human rights. Three principles are important: • Delivery of positive outcomes relating to biodiversity; • Recognition and respect for rights-holders and stakeholders living in or near the area or dependent on its natural resources; and • Meeting human needs through ecosystem services. Four levels in making progress towards Target 3 can be distinguished: 1. Areas that are currently fully effective; 2. Areas that are currently partially effective or on track to being effective; 3. Areas that are currently ineffective due to reversible issues; and 4. Areas that are currently and will continue to be ineffective due to irreversible issues. Some policy implications of this typology, its strengths and weaknesses, and how it might be further developed are discussed
AB - The draft Global Biodiversity Framework proposes to increase protected areas and OECMs to at least 30 per cent of land and ocean by 2030 (30x30). Such areas are central to conservation, but only if effectively managed and equitably governed. In practice, governments often recognise areas that do not achieve successful outcomes or respect human rights and fail to recognise other effective governance systems. We argue that protected areas and OECMs should only be recognised as fully contributing to 30x30 if they are on track to achieve positive and sustained biodiversity outcomes while respecting human rights. Three principles are important: • Delivery of positive outcomes relating to biodiversity; • Recognition and respect for rights-holders and stakeholders living in or near the area or dependent on its natural resources; and • Meeting human needs through ecosystem services. Four levels in making progress towards Target 3 can be distinguished: 1. Areas that are currently fully effective; 2. Areas that are currently partially effective or on track to being effective; 3. Areas that are currently ineffective due to reversible issues; and 4. Areas that are currently and will continue to be ineffective due to irreversible issues. Some policy implications of this typology, its strengths and weaknesses, and how it might be further developed are discussed
U2 - 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2022.PARKS-28-2ND.en
DO - 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2022.PARKS-28-2ND.en
M3 - Journal article
VL - 28
SP - 33
EP - 44
JO - Parks
JF - Parks
SN - 0960-233X
IS - 2
ER -
ID: 332037432