Nature Data Lab
Our StoryOur ChallengeOur ThesisOur People
ProgramsProjectsPapersProposals
Insights
Support Our WorkPartner with UsJoin the List

Priorities for protected area expansion so nations can meet their Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework commitments

Watson et al. ·

Experts identify the six broad principles that can guide national planning for the UN Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), ensure protected and conserved areas are well sited to maximize biodiversity outcomes.

Study link: Integrative Conservation (2023)

As part of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), signatory nations of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) aim to protect at least 30% of the planet by 2030 (Target 3). This bold ambition has been widely celebrated and its implementation seen as pivotal for the overall success of the GBF. However, given that many CBD signatory nations prioritized quantity (e.g. area) over quality (e.g. important areas for biodiversity) when attempting to meet their 2010 CBD Aichi protected area commitments, it is critical that nations focus on protecting those terrestrial, inland waters and marine areas that have the best chance of halting and reversing biodiversity loss and thus contribute to Goal A of the GBF.

This paper provides a review on the type of areas that nations need to prioritize when implementing Target 3 that relates to area ‘quality’: 

...areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems.

Data is available for 12 distinct biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service elements that can be mapped and, if conserved, will (with appropriate management) help meet the broad intention of Target 3. Six broad principles are identified:

  1. Make ‘areas of particular importance for biodiversity’ the primary focus of PCA establishment.
  2. Deal transparently with ecological representation, overcoming differing definitions used by stakeholders.
  3. Plan for ecological connectivity across landscapes and seascapes to facilitate vital processes, including meta-population viability and species migration.
  4. Be clear around the reasons for conserving ecosystem services, ensuring these services are compatible with biodiversity conservation.
  5. Utilize spatial integrated planning principles and tools (e.g. Marxan, PrioritizR) that support comprehensive decision making across multiple criteria.
  6. Ensure planning is equitable and inclusive, safeguard human rights of local communities and Indigenous peoples when implemented.

The paper also highlights examples of the planning methods available that can be utilized so these areas can be targeted for protection, discussing trade-offs and how to prioritise amongst them as well as to operationalize some of the vaguer concepts like ‘representation’ and ‘ecosystem functions and services’ so that they achieve the best outcomes for biodiversity.

Lead author: James Watson, University of Queensland (UQ)

Contributing authors: Ruben Venegas-Li (UQ), Hedley Grantham (U New South Wales), Nigel Dudley (Equilibrium Research), Sue Stolton (Equilibrium Research), Madhu Rao (IUCN/WCPA), Stephen Woodley (IUCN/WCPA), Marc Hockings (UQ), Karl Burkart (One Earth), Jeremy Simmonds (UQ), Laura Sonter (UQ), Rachakonda Sreekar (UQ), Hugh Possingham (UQ), Michelle Ward (UQ)