- CBD, “Compilation of national experiences in achieving
Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 in marine and coastal areas,
including area-based management measures used in
marine fisheries and other ocean sectors” (2018), Table 1,
pp 21–36; http://www.cbd.int/doc/c/d4c9/9cae/909c9460303
adf1b0dca5f9c/sbstta-22-inf-27-en.pdf. - N. Lopoukhine, “The current state of marine protected
areas in Canada” (2013); http://thepearsoncentre.ca/
wp-content/uploads/2014/01/State-of-Canadian-Marine-
Protected-Areas1.pdf. - Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, “Canada’s
marine protected and conserved areas” (2019); http://www.
dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/conservation/achievement-
reussite-eng.html. - E. Dinerstein et al., Sci. Adv. 5 , eaaw2869 (2019).
7. M. Krosby, J. Tewksbury, N. M. Haddad, J. Hoekstra, Conserv.
Biol. 24 , 1686 (2010). - L. Coad et al., Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B Biol. Sci. 370 ,
20140281 (2015). - IUCN, World Commission on Protected Areas, “IUCN green
list of protected and conserved areas: Standard, version
1.1.” (IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2017). - D. A. Gill et al., Nature 543 , 665 (2017).
- W. F. Laurance et al., Nature 489 , 290 (2012).
- P. Gannon et al., Parks 23.2, 13 (2017).
10.1126/science.aay2131
Response
Woodley et al. claim that percentage
targets incentivize governments to protect
important sites for biodiversity. They are
correct that protected area (PA) coverage
has increased since 2010, yet the evidence
overwhelmingly suggests that many of
these additional PAs have contributed little
to biodiversity conservation. For example,
PA extent in southeast Asia, a global
hotspot of endemism and threatened biodi-
versity across all major taxonomic groups
( 1 ), increased by 24% between 2000 and
2010 but only 3% since then ( 2 ). Globally,
the percentage of threatened amphibians,
mammals, and birds whose ranges were
sufficiently covered by PAs saw a modest
increase from 8.5% to 9% from 2014 to
2019, despite a higher increase in PA extent
( 3 ). Similarly, in 2010, 20 to 30% of pro-
tected areas covered sites of international
biodiversity importance [Figure 3 in ( 4 )];
in 2019, this percentage has declined to
17 to 18% ( 2 , 5 ). These up-to-date analyses
support the contention that PA growth
since 2010 has not led to proportionally
better biodiversity outcomes. Target 11
could be deemed the most successful Aichi
Target only if one measured success by the
areal extent gained.
Woodley et al. contend that marine pro-
tection has substantially improved since- Globally, however, marine protected
areas established since 2010 have broadly
targeted quantity over quality. They have
generally avoided areas with high fish
catch, despite overfishing being the most
important threat to biodiversity that
marine protected areas can address ( 6 ).
Woodley et al. assert that our pro-
posed target would increase PAs by a
trivial amount, but these percentages will
increase as implementation of the new
standard progresses. Additionally, we state
that the effective conservation of all sites
of documented global importance for bio-
diversity should be included. For example,
unprotected Ecologically or Biologically
Significant Areas cover 17.9% of the ocean
( 7 ), and there is increasing evidence that
many marine and terrestrial sites of high
ecological integrity and global biodiversity
importance are unprotected ( 8 ); both of
these are included in our proposal.
We do not dismiss connectivity and
social equity, as Woodley et al. assert.
On the contrary, we say that to achieve
positive outcomes, area-based approaches
must inherently address these issues. The
target we propose would require functional
connectivity, and its adequacy would be
evaluated through regular assessments of
the state of biodiversity at locations of sites
of global importance, which may change
with climate change. We also specifically
state that other targets that address ecosys-
tem services will need to complement ours.
We agree with Woodley et al. that
monitoring management effectiveness is
important, but we maintain that existing
systems largely track processes rather
than outcomes. The focus on process is
reflected by the fact that the only avail-
able global indicator of management
effectiveness relates to the number of pro-
tected areas with assessments ( 9 ), not the
adequacy of management or the biodiver-
sity outcomes it delivers. We are not alone
in recognizing that current monitoring
and indicators of management effective-
ness are useful but inadequate nor in
calling for outcome-based conservation
targets and indicators ( 10 – 12 ).
We do not claim that Aichi 11 “may have
contributed to global biodiversity loss”
but rather that the four shortcomings we
identify may have done so. We agree with
Woodley et al. that site conservation post-
2020 should not be defined by “a narrow,
technocratic target”; indeed, our sugges-
tion is broad (incentivizing the safeguard
of all biodiversity at the site scale) and
inspirational (focused on outcomes rather
than activities). Biodiversity outcomes
would define the effective implementa-
tion and target achievement rather than
arbitrary percentages of area. We should
demand no less of the world’s protected
and conserved areas.
Piero Visconti^1 *, Stuart H. M.
Butchart2,3, Thomas M. Brooks^4 , Penny
F. Langhammer5,6,7, Daniel Marnewick^8 ,
Sheila Vergara^9 , Alberto Yanosky^10 ,
Olivia Crowe^2 , James E. M. Watson11,12(^1) International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis (IIASA), A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria.
(^2) BirdLife International, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, UK.
(^3) Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK.^4 International Union for
Conservation of Nature, 1196 Gland, Switzerland.
(^5) Global Wildlife Conservation, Austin, TX 78767,
USA.^6 Amphibian Survival Alliance, London SW7
2HQ, UK.^7 School of Life Sciences, Arizona State
University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4501, USA.^8 BirdLife
South Africa, Dunkeld West 2196, South Africa.
(^9) ASEAN Center for Biodiversity, Laguna, Philippines.
NEXTGEN VOICES: SUBMIT NOW
Peer mentoring: Your advice needed!
Add your voice to Science! In this NextGen Voices survey, a reader asks for your advice!
Have you been in this situation or one like it? Do you have any tips that you would like
to share? Become a NextGen Voices peer mentor by contributing your thoughts!
Dear NextGen Voices peer mentors,
One of my lab responsibilities as a graduate student is to train another graduate
student to do certain parts of the team’s research. The graduate student often
neglects his duties, which means I have to do the work myself. Despite meet-
ing with him to demonstrate exactly how to do the tasks, offering to answer any
questions he has, and reminding him that many of these tasks are time sensitive,
I have not been able to persuade him to complete his assignments. I always cover
for him, both because failure to do these tasks puts my own research at risk and
because my PI has trusted me to train this student, so his failures reflect poorly
on me. How can I more effectively train this student and also protect my research
and my reputation as a manager?
Sincerely,
Trying to Manage
To submit, go to http://www.sciencemag.org/nextgen-voices
Deadline for submissions is 30 August. A selection of the best responses will be
published in an October issue of Science. Submissions should be 150 words or less.
Anonymous submissions will not be considered.
INSIGHTS | LETTERS
650 16 AUGUST 2019 • VOL 365 ISSUE 6454 sciencemag.org SCIENCE