SCIENCE sciencemag.org 16 AUGUST 2019 • VOL 365 ISSUE 6454 649PHOTO: LUCY BROWN - LOCA4MOTION/ISTOCK.COM
LETTERS
positive biodiversity outcomes are corre-
lated with good management ( 10 , 11 ).
Setting post-2020 targets is not a choice
between focusing on biodiversity impor-
tance or spatial percentage protection
targets. We need both, as well as clear
ways of holding governments account-
able. Target 11 is the most successful of
all the 20 Aichi Targets ( 12 ). Suggestions
to replace it with a narrow, technocratic
target misunderstand the broader policy
context and realities on the ground. We
need a bold conservation target that
demands successful outcomes, focuses on
biodiversity, respects benefits to people,
and considers carbon values to help
achieve the Paris climate goals.
Stephen Woodley^1 *, Jonathan E. M. Baillie^2 ,
Nigel Dudley^1 , Marc Hockings1,3, Naomi
Kingston,4, Dan Laffoley^1 , Harvey Locke^1 ,
Jane Lubchenco^5 , Kathy MacKinnon^1 ,
Imen Meliane^1 , Enric Sala^2 , Mark Spalding6,7(^1) World Commission on Protected Areas, International
Union for Conservation of Nature, 1196 Gland,
Switzerland.^2 National Geographic Society,
Washington, DC 20001, USA.^3 School of Earth and
Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland,
St. Lucia, QLD 4067, Australia.^4 United Nations
Environment Programme World Conservation
Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.^5 Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR 97331. USA.^6 The Nature
Conservancy, Arlington, VA 22208, USA.^7 Department
of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2
3EJ, UK.
*Corresponding author.
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCES AND NOTES
- CBD, Aichi Target 11 (www.cbd.int/aichi-targets/
target/11). - UNEP-WCMC, IUCN, “Protected Planet: The World
Database on Protected Areas (WDPA)” (2019);
http://www.protectedplanet.net.
Edited by Jennifer SillsA bold successor to
Ai c h i Ta r g e t 1 1
In their Policy Forum “Protected area
targets post-2020” (19 April, p. 239), P.
Visconti et al. argue that focusing on
areas of biodiversity importance and
emphasizing monitoring outcomes would
strengthen a successor to Aichi Target 11
of the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD). We agree but believe that the
authors misrepresent Aichi 11 and the
potential of a percentage coverage target
in establishing valuable protected areas.
Visconti et al. claim that Target 11
focuses only on areal protection with-
out regard for what is protected, but its
description explicitly mentions “areas of
particular importance for biodiversity” ( 1 ).
Their suggestion that Target 11 “may have
contributed to global biodiversity loss” is
unsubstantiated. By using an out-of-date
dataset for 2010 to 2014, the authors have
ignored recent gains under Target 11,
including a massive increase in marine
protection from 2.5 to 7.6% since 2010
( 2 ). Visconti et al. argue that there is little
concrete evidence that percentage targets
work, but reports from a variety of coun-
tries indicate that such targets do indeed
provide incentives for governments to
protect important new areas on both land
and sea ( 3 ). For example, Canada has
increased its marine protected and con-
served areas between 2012 and 2019 fromTo conserve threatened biodiversity, southeast Asia will need more protected areas like Thailand’s Khao Sok National Park.0.8% to 8.3%, with the majority of sites
being targeted in high-value conservation
areas ( 4 , 5 ).
The global priorities proposed by
Visconti et al. would add a relatively small
percentage of Earth. For example, adding
all known unprotected Key Biodiversity
Areas would add only 1.3% of the land and
1.6% of the ocean ( 6 ). Many of the other
suggested priorities, including World
Heritage Sites, Ramsar sites, Natura
20 00 sites, and many Ecologically or
Biologically Significant Marine Areas, are
already protected so would not constitute
any conservation gain.
Visconti et al. choose not to include in
their revised target other fundamental
elements such as spatial connectivity and
social equity of protected areas. Yet these
issues were stressed in Aichi 11 ( 1 ) because
many governments fail to consider them.
With climate change, most conservation
features will not hold their value without
connectivity ( 7 ). The dismissal of social
safeguards risks alienating those wary
of protected areas due to human rights
concerns. Visconti et al. also overlook eco-
system services, missing the imperative of
the CBD to benefit people.
Visconti et al. are incorrect in stating
that protected area management effective-
ness (PAME) deals only with inputs (such
as staff ) and outputs (such as manage-
ment). Most PAME tools ( 8 ), as well as
the International Union for Conservation
of Nature (IUCN) Green List of Protected
and Conserved Areas ( 9 ), also focus on
biodiversity outcomes. Additionally,