Philippine protected areas are not meeting the biodiversity coverage and management effectiveness requirements of Aichi Target 11.

Neil Aldrin D Mallari, Nigel J Collar, Philip J K McGowan, Stuart J Marsden
Author Information
  1. Neil Aldrin D Mallari: Center for Conservation Innovations Philippines, #8 Foggy Heights Subdivision, San Jose, Tagaytay City, Cavite, 4120, Philippines. aldrin.mallari@gmail.com.
  2. Nigel J Collar: BirdLife International, Girton Road, Cambridge, CB3 0NA, UK. nigel.collar@birdlife.org.
  3. Philip J K McGowan: School of Biology, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK. philip.mcgowan@newcastle.ac.uk.
  4. Stuart J Marsden: School of Science and the Environment, Manchester Metropolitan University, Chester Street, Manchester, M1 5GD, UK. s.marsden@mmu.ac.uk.

Abstract

Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity urges, inter alia, that nations protect at least 17 % of their land, and that protection is effective and targets areas of importance for biodiversity. Five years before reporting on Aichi targets is due, we assessed the Philippines' current protected area system for biodiversity coverage, appropriateness of management regimes and capacity to deliver protection. Although protected estate already covers 11 % of the Philippines' land area, 64 % of its key biodiversity areas (KBAs) remain unprotected. Few protected areas have appropriate management and governance infrastructures, funding streams, management plans and capacity, and a serious mismatch exists between protected area land zonation regimes and conservation needs of key species. For the Philippines to meet the biodiversity coverage and management effectiveness elements of Aichi Target 11, protected area and KBA boundaries should be aligned, management systems reformed to pursue biodiversity-led targets and effective management capacity created.

Keywords

References

  1. Nature. 2004 Apr 8;428(6983):640-3 [PMID: 15071592]
  2. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006 Feb;21(2):71-6 [PMID: 16701477]
  3. Conserv Biol. 2009 Feb;23(1):53-63 [PMID: 19016822]
  4. Nature. 2000 Feb 24;403(6772):853-8 [PMID: 10706275]
  5. PLoS One. 2009;4(12):e8273 [PMID: 20011603]
  6. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e65298 [PMID: 23741486]
  7. Nature. 2010 Jul 15;466(7304):365-7 [PMID: 20592729]
  8. Environ Manage. 2010 Nov;46(5):685-98 [PMID: 20859627]
  9. Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Jun 7;278(1712):1633-8 [PMID: 21084351]
  10. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e32529 [PMID: 22457717]
  11. Conserv Biol. 2010 Apr;24(2):362-3 [PMID: 20491846]

MeSH Term

Animals
Biodiversity
Birds
Budgets
Conservation of Natural Resources
Philippines

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0managementbiodiversityprotectedareasAichi11areaTarget%landtargetscoveragecapacityprotectioneffectivePhilippines'regimeskeyplansPhilippineseffectivenessConventionBiologicalDiversityurgesinteralianationsprotectleast17importanceFiveyearsreportingdueassessedcurrentsystemappropriatenessdeliverAlthoughestatealreadycovers64KBAsremainunprotectedappropriategovernanceinfrastructuresfundingstreamsseriousmismatchexistszonationconservationneedsspeciesmeetelementsKBAboundariesalignedsystemsreformedpursuebiodiversity-ledcreatedPhilippinemeetingrequirementsBirdsCBDKeyManagement

Similar Articles

Cited By (1)