Canada and Aichi Biodiversity Target 11: understanding ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ in the context of the broader target

• Published in: Biodiversity and conservation 2015-12, Vol.24 (14), p.3559-3581
• Main Authors: MacKinnon, D, Lemieux, C. J, Beazley, K, Woodley, S, Helie, R, Perron, J, Elliott, J, Haas, C, Langlois, J, Lazaruk, H, Beechey, T, Gray, P
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: accounting; Biodiversity; Biodiversity loss; Biological diversity conservation; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Climate Change/Climate Change Impacts; conservation areas; Conservation biology; Conservation Biology/Ecology; Convention on Biological Diversity; Ecology; Environmental regulations; Forecasts and trends; governance; issues and policy; Jurisdiction; Life Sciences; Nature conservation; Original Paper; Protected areas; Protection and preservation; Risk reduction
• ISSN: 0960-3115; 1572-9710
• DOI: 10.1007/s10531-015-1018-1

A renewed global agenda to address biodiversity loss was sanctioned by adoption of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets in 2010 by Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. However, Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 contained a significant policy and reporting challenge, conceding that both protected areas (PAs) and ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ (OEABCMs) could be used to meet national targets of protecting 17 and 10 % of terrestrial and marine areas, respectively. We report on a consensus-based approach used to (1) operationalize OEABCMs in the Canadian context and (2) develop a decision-screening tool to assess sites for inclusion in Canada’s Aichi Target 11 commitment. Participants in workshops determined that for OEABCMs to be effective, they must share a core set of traits with PAs, consistent with the intent of Target 11. (1) Criteria for inclusion of OEABCMs in the Target 11 commitment should be consistent with the overall intent of PAs, with the exception that they may be governed by regimes not previously recognized by reporting agencies. (2) These areas should have an expressed objective to conserve nature, be long-term, generate effective nature conservation outcomes, and have governance regimes that ensure effective management. A decision-screening tool was developed that can reduce the risk that areas with limited conservation value are included in national accounting. The findings are relevant to jurisdictions where the debate on what can count is distracting Parties to the Convention from reaching conservation goals.