sub-regional analysis of the status of aichi biodiversity target 11 …€¦ · viet nam % pa 2004...
Post on 12-Jul-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Sub-regional Analysis of the Status of Aichi Biodiversity Targets 11 & 12 Capacity-building workshop for East Asia and Southeast
Asia on achieving Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 and 12
Yanji City, Jilin Province, China
Dr. Sarat Babu Gidda
Convention on Biological Diversity 15 September 2015
Explanation of the Elements for Aichi Targets 11
By 2020,
at least 17 % of terrestrial and inland water areas, and 10 % of coastal and marine areas,
… especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services,
… are conserved through … protected areas that are…
… effectively and equitably managed,
… ecologically representative,
… well connected systems, integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes,
… and other effective area-based conservation measures
Target 11- quantitative aspects
17% terrestrial and 10 % of coastal and marine areas ?
Target 11
What are areas of particular importance for biodiversity?
Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs)
Important Bird Areas
Important Plant Areas
Alliance for Zero Extinction sites
Areas rich in wild relatives of crops
Vulnerability and Irreplaceability
Target 11 Ecosystem services of Protected Areas
Water security
Food and health security
subsistence, livelihoods
CC adaptation & mitigation
Ecologically Representative
.
Ecological Gap Assessment
Target 11 What is effectively managed ?
Effective management
By 2020, areas are conserved through effective management…
• Conservation needs equity: a fair sharing of the costs and benefits of preserving biodiversity and managing natural resources in a sustainable way
• Conservation needs respect to human rights: “do not harm”…and have a positive impact on livelihoods wherever possible
• So…what can we do to avoid further loss of habitats, species and natural resources?
• How can we ensure the very base of life, of livelihoods, and development ?
Equitable Management: IUCN matrix of protected areas categories and governance types
Governance
type
Category
(mngmt.
objective)
A. Governance by
Government
B. Shared Governance C. Private
Governance
D. Indigenous Peoples &
Community Governance
Federal
or
national
ministry
or
agency
Local/
municipa
l ministry
or agency
in change
Governm
ent-
delegated
managem
ent (e.g.
to an
NGO)
Trans-
boundary
managem
ent
Collabora
tive
managem
ent
(various
forms of
pluralist
influence)
Joint
management
(pluralist
management
board)
Declared
and run
by
individu
al land-
owner
…by
non-
profit
organisat
ions (e.g.
NGOs,
univ.
etc.)
…by for
profit
organisatio
ns (e.g.
corporate
land-owners
)
Indigenous bio-
cultural areas &
Territories-
declared and run
by Indigenous
Peoples
Community
Conserved Areas
- declared and
run by
traditional
peoples and local
communities
I - Strict Nature
Reserve/
Wilderness Area
II – National
Park (ecosystem
protection;
protection of
cultural values)
III – Natural
Monument
IV – Habitat/
Species
Management
V – Protected
Landscape/
Seascape
VI – Managed
Resource
i.e. Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas, ICCA
WCPA
Equitable Management
ICCA
Community Management
Government Private Community Shared
governance
By 2020, areas are conserved through equitably managed…
Integration and Connectivity
By 2020, areas are conserved through well connected systems, integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes
Target 11 What are other effective area-based conservation measures?
ICCAs including LMMAs
Private PAs
Building on tradition, tenure and social capital
Ngella, Solomon Islands
Siviri, Vanuatu Photos: Hugh Govan
Aichi Biodiversity Target 12
By 2020,
…the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and…
…their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained.
Status of Target 11s and 12
17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water are protected
10 per cent of coastal and
marine areas are protected
Areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services are
protected
Protected areas are
ecologically representative
Protected areas are effectively and equitably
managed
Protected areas are well connected and
integrated into the wider landscape and seascape
Extinction of known threatened species has been
prevented
The conservation status of those species most in decline
has been improved and sustained
15.37%
8.4%
10.9%
13.07%
2.20%
7.83%
0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00%
Percentage of global areas protected in 2004 (red)
and 2014 (blue)
Land
Areas within national jurisdiction (0-200 nautical miles)
Territorial Seas (0-12 nautical miles)
65
46
83
79
49
66
0 20 40 60 80 100
0-7.99%
8-16.99%
>17%
Number of CBD Parties at different levels of protection (percentage) for terrestrial areas
in 2004 (red) and 2014 (blue)
15.4%
28.1%
24.4%
16.0%
15.2%
14.8%
14.5%
13.9%
12.3%
11.7%
13.1%
27.3%
18.3%
14.9%
15.0%
11.1%
11.1%
13.7%
11.8%
10.9%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%
World
Central America
South America
Europe
Middle East
Africa
Oceania
Caribbean
Asia
North America
Percentage of terrestrial area protected in 2004 (red) and 2014 (blue)
59
46
49
72
44
38
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0-1.99%
2-9.99%
>10%
Number of CBD Parties at different levels of protection (percentage) for territorial seas up to 12
nauticle miles in 2004 (red) and 2014 (blue)
10.9%
18.7%
18.3%
17.9%
14.3%
9.0%
7.9%
4.3%
4.2%
3.1%
7.8%
13.8%
11.5%
14.1%
9.1%
7.9%
4.9%
2.5%
3.3%
2.7%
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0% 20.0%
World
Europe
Oceania
South America
Central America
North America
Africa
Asia
Middle East
Caribbean
Percentage of territorial seas protected in 2004 (red) and 2014 (blue)
88
111
150
124
221
129
0 50 100 150 200 250
<2%
2-4.99%
5-9.99%
10-16.99%
17-39.99%
>40%
Number of terrestrial ecoregions at different levels of protection (2014)
80
40
34
78
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
<2%
2-4.99%
5-9.99%
>10%
Number of marine ecoregions at different levels of protection (2014)
48
88
85
26
28
31
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0-16.99%
17-49.99%
>50%
The number of countries with different levels of protected area coverage for Alliance for Zero Extinction Sites (red) and Important Bird and
Biodiversity Areas (blue)
Percentage of Protected Areas in East Asia and Southeast Asia
By 2020, (globally)
at least 17 % of terrestrial and inland water areas, and 10 % of coastal and marine areas, are conserved through protected areas
National targets should be accumulative to reach global target
4.6
3.6
4.8
16.1
16.9
14.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Total East Asia + Southeast Asia
East Asia
Southeast Asia
% Terrestrial PA
% Marine PA
Percentage of terrestrial protected areas in 2004 and 2014 in East Asia and Southeast
Asia
17.0
2.5
19.4
17.2
7.6
44.1
26.0
14.6
16.7
18.4
7.2
11.0
5.8
18.8
8.7
6.5
16.9
2.5
18.9
13.6
5.4
44.1
25.4
14.4
16.6
18.3
6.9
10.9
5.8
17.3
3.4
6.4
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
China
DPR of Korea
Japan
Mongolia
Republic of Korea
Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia
Indonesia
Lao PDR
Malaysia
Myanmar
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Viet Nam % PA 2004 % PA 2014
Percentage of marine protected areas in 2004 and 2014 in East Asia and Southeast
Asia
2.3
0.1
5.1
4.3
1.5
0.5
5.8
2.3
0.2
2.5
1.4
5.2
3.8
1.8
2.0
0.1
5.0
3.8
1.5
0.5
2.7
2.0
0.2
2.5
1.4
5.0
1.7
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
China
DPR Korea
Japan
Republic of Korea
Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia
Indonesia
Malaysia
Myanmar
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Viet Nam % PA 2004
% PA 2014
Protection Status of Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs) in East Asia and
Southeast Asia By 2020,
areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved
552
282 270
546
266
280
237
169 68
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Total East Asia + Southeast Asia East Asia Southeast Asia
Number of IBAs with complete protection
Number of IBAs with partial protection
Number of IBAs with no protection
Protection Status of Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs) in East Asia and
Southeast Asia
125
26
64
35 32 15
92
8 14
36 53
1 11
8
31
148
7
83
21 7
4
23
70
15
41 11
41
2
44
5
24
137
19
12 1
1
2
36
3
4
11
5
3
3
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450 Number of IBAs with complete protection
Number of IBAs with partial protection
Number of IBAs with no protection
Protection Status of Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas in danger (IBAs in danger)
in East Asia and Southeast Asia
19
1
18
3 3
4 4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Total East Asia + Southeast Asia
East Asia Southeast Asia
Number of IBAs in danger with complete protection
Number of IBAs in danger with partial protection
Number of IBAs in danger with no protection
Protection Status of Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas in danger (IBAs in danger)
in East Asia and Southeast Asia
1 1
4
2 2 2
3
2
3
1 2
1
3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
DPR Korea Japan Cambodia Indonesia Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Thailand Viet Nam
Number of IBAs in danger with complete protection
Number of IBAs in danger with partial protection
Number of IBAs in danger with no protection
Protection Status of Alliance for Zero Extinction Sites (AZEs) in East Asia and
Southeast Asia
26
7
19
23
9
14
25
13
12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Total East Asia + Southeast Asia East Asia Southeast Asia
Number of AZEs with complete protection
Number of AZEs with partial protection
Number of AZEs with no protection
Protection Status of Alliance for Zero Extinction Sites (AZEs) in East Asia and
Southeast Asia
6
1 1
14
1 3
1
6
3 3
7
2
2 3
11
2 2
10
2 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
China DPR Korea Japan Indonesia Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Viet Nam
Number of AZEs with complete protection
Number of AZEs with partial protection
Number of AZEs with no protection
Ecological Representativeness in East Asia and Southeast Asia
Number of terrestrial ecological regions (ER) and level of protection
58
21
37
47
24
23
125
50
75
0
50
100
150
200
250
Total East Asia + Southeast Asia
East Asia Southeast Asia
Number of terrestrial ER with >10% protection
Number of terrestrial ER with 5% to 10% protection
Number of terrestrial ER with < 5% protection
14
4 2 1 1
5 2 2
11
5 3
8
18
1
4 1
11
1 1
3
2
1
1 1
2
30
8
11
1 4
7
22
6
10
6
5 11 4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Number of terrestrial ER with >10% protection
Number of terrestrial ER with 5% to 10% protection
Number of terrestrial ER with < 5% protection
Ecological Representativeness in East Asia and Southeast Asia
Number of terrestrial ecological regions (ER) and level of protection
48
15
33
4
4
9
2
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Total East Asia + Southeast Asia
East Asia Southeast Asia
Number of marine ER with >10% protection
Number of marine ER with 5% to 10% protection
Number of marine ER with < 5% protection
Ecological Representativeness in East Asia and Southeast Asia
Number of marine ecological regions (ER) and level of protection
3
2
6
3
1
10
6
3
4
1
3
5
1
2
1
2
5
1
1 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Number of marine ER with >10% protection
Number of marine ER with 5% to 10% protection
Number of marine ER with < 5% protection
Ecological Representativeness in East Asia and Southeast Asia
Number of marine ecological regions (ER) and level of protection
Group Work Element of Aichi Target 11 and 12 Status Gaps Opportunities
Quantitative aspects
i.e. % of total protected areas for terrestrial and marine
i.e. % to reach national target i.e. % gap between current status + implementation and national target
Improving ecological representation
i.e. % of ecoregions protected to national target
i.e. % of ecoregions needing protection to reach national target i.e. tools and partnerships needed to develop ecological gaps assessment
i.e. 20% of 5 endemic ecoregions will be protected i.e. partnership with X for national training on ecological mapping
….
Summarize quantitative
information collected from the
questionnaire in one or two points.
What is needed to complete conservation
gap? Points made can be: - tangible/ quantitative - in-tangible/ qualitative
What specific elements are feasible?
Points made can be: - tangible/ quantitative - in-tangible/ qualitative
top related