Biodiversity within key protected areas is declining rapidly, according to research that scientists say is a “wake-up call” for world leaders debating how to halt nature loss at UN Cop16 talks in Colombia .
Conserving 30% of land and water by 2030 is one of the key goals set by world leaders. An agreement by 2022 to save nature, and leaders will meet again this month at a summit in the Colombian city of Cali to measure progress and negotiate new agreements to stop biodiversity loss.
However, designating more areas as protected “does not automatically result in better outcomes for biodiversity,” researchers warn in a recent study that questions the effectiveness of conservation practices.
Almost a quarter of the world's biodiversity-rich land is located within protected areas, but the quality of these areas is declining faster than outside protected areas. Analysis of the Natural History Museum (NHM).
The researchers looked at a biodiversity integrity index, which rates the health of biodiversity as a percentage in response to human pressures. The report found that the index fell 1.88 percentage points globally between 2000 and 2020. It then focused on the important areas of biodiversity it provides. 90% of nature's contributions to humanity, of which 22% is conserved.
The study found that in critical unprotected areas, biodiversity decreased by an average of 1.9 percentage points between 2000 and 2020, and by 2.1 percentage points in protected areas.
The authors suggest that there are several reasons for this. Many protected areas are not designed to protect the entire ecosystem, but rather a few species of concern, meaning that “full biodiversity sustainability” is not a priority.
Another reason is that these landscapes may have already suffered degradation, which is why they were protected in the first place. Researchers say local-specific analysis is key to figuring out why each one fails.
Dr Gareth Thomas, Head of Research Innovation at the NHM, said: “The 30×30 target has received a lot of attention (it should) and has become a key talking point in the UN biodiversity talks, but We want to understand if it has been. Really fit for purpose.
“If you ask most people, I think they would think of a 'protected' area: to protect nature. But this research shows that is not the case.”
The amount of land protected for nature is 17.5% in terrestrial areas and 8.4% in marine areas, each representing an increase of around half a percentage point by COP15 2022. This figure should increase significantly between now and 2030 to meet the target.
But in many of those areas, Thomas said, “the protections are not strong enough.”
“Countries must continue to focus on 30×30 and not waver. “They need to contribute more and focus more on protecting the land that provides those ecosystem services,” he said.
Oil, gas and mining concessions threaten biodiversity and native territories. For example, Kankwati-Douli National Park in the Republic of the Congo is one of the most biodiverse protected areas; However, more than 65% of the park is covered by oil and gas concessions, according to a new report from Earth Insight.
In the Amazon, the Congo Basin and Southeast Asia, at least 254,000 square kilometers (98,000 square miles) of protected areas are threatened by oil and gas exploration. The report found that more than 300,000 square kilometers of indigenous territories in the Amazon overlap with oil and gas concessions.
A recent study from the University of New South Wales in Sydney analyzed forest land in the world's 300,000 protected areas and found the policy is “almost completely ineffective” in many biodiversity-rich countries, including Indonesia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo , Bolivia, Venezuela and Madagascar.
Corruption, political instability and lack of resources are the main reasons for the non-implementation of conservation laws.
Protected areas are also threatened by the effects of the climate crisis: forest fires and droughts do not respect their boundaries. Australia, for example, had a strong record of protecting nature in its national parks, but in 2019 many were destroyed by fires.
Emma Woods, policy director at the Natural History Museum, said: “We urgently need to move beyond the current approach of designating highly protected areas such as 30×30. “Our analysis reinforces the view that this does not automatically lead to better outcomes for biodiversity and ecosystems.”
Thomas said he hoped the study results would serve as a “wake-up call” to policymakers and authorities. “Ministers and policymakers need to know that it's not about hitting a number,” he said.
Ben Groome, professor of biodiversity economics at the University of Exeter, who was not involved in the research, said support for 30×30 was “very positive” but “there was always the possibility that it would manifest itself in superficial implementation.” of policies in the form. Instead of focusing on quality, the 30×30 will reduce the cost of achieving the goal.
