A shift in the criteria used to identify protected areas (PAs) could halve the costs of preventing habitat loss and enhance long-term conservation efforts, a study has claimed.
The analysis, conducted by researchers from the University of Queensland, and published in journal Global Change Biology, argued that protecting smaller, higher risk areas could lead to more effective and cost-efficient outcomes for biodiversity conservation worldwide.
As lead researcher Pablo Jose Negret pointed out, governments and NGOs mainly focus their conservation efforts on areas with lower threats, due to the fact that each low-risk square kilometre is generally less costly to protect compared to a high-risk one.
However, since fewer high-risk areas are needed to achieve the same benefit in terms of preventing future habitat loss, prioritising these areas can allow the achievement of the conservation goals at a lower cost, the study showed.
PAs are considered a key means to progress biodiversity conservation, especially under the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) agreed on in 2022 in Montreal, which includes a target of 30% of land protected by 2030.
According to the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), PAs represent more than 15% of Earth’s terrestrial area. CBD defines PAs as clearly defined geographical spaces that are recognised and managed through legal or other effective means in a bid to achieve long-term conservation outcomes.
LESS IS MORE
In the study, researchers noted that PAs are often established in areas of low human pressure – meaning that they are located far from roads and cities – and where agricultural productivity is low. According to the researchers, protected status in these places did not reduce threats because there were “few” of them to avert in the first place.
“It’s always good for biodiversity to expand protected area coverage, given the global destruction of natural landscapes, but this type of expansion is often in areas under lower threat,” Negret explained.
“Protecting these low-threat areas means your return on investment isn’t that great, and you’re not making the biggest impact.”
The study focused on Colombia’s bird habitats as a case study, as the country is home to the world’s highest number of bird species, and over two-thirds of its continental area is covered with forests.
Researchers estimated that achieving 90% forest conservation in the country by 2050 by expanding PAs in areas with a high risk of deforestation would cost around $12 billion. Fulfilling the same outcomes by expanding PAs in low-risk areas would cost three times more, around $36 bln, as it would require more than twice as much PAs.
“There would be between 50% and 70% less cost per forest area not deforested in the future if the investment is directed in the conserving regions with greater human pressures,” Negret highlighted.
“Despite the high cost of these areas, it would be more profitable to invest in them if the purpose of the expansion was not only to increase the area of natural ecosystems within the PAs, but also to maximise the area of standing forest in the country in the future,” Negret said.
Last month, a separate study published in the journal One Earth stressed the importance of key biodiversity areas (KBA) in conservation efforts. Establishing robust criteria for their identification will substantially increase the number of protected areas that are particularly important for global biodiversity preservation.
Distinct from PAs, KBAs are sites that significantly contribute to biodiversity’s global persistence, as outlined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Many KBAs wholly or partly overlap with existing PAs, including sites designated under international conventions.
By Giada Ferraglioni – giada@carbon-pulse.com
*** Click here to sign up to our twice-weekly biodiversity newsletter ***
