Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement as a threat to iconic protected areas

Abstract

Protected areas (PAs) are expected to conserve nature and provide ecosystem services in perpetuity, yet widespread protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) may compromise these objectives. Even iconic protected areas are vulnerable to PADDD, although these PADDD events are often unrecognized. We identified 23 enacted and proposed PADDD events within World Natural Heritage Sites and examined the history, context, and consequences of PADDD events in 4 iconic PAs (Yosemite National Park, Arabian Oryx Sanctuary, Yasuní National Park, and Virunga National Park). Based on insights from published research and international workshops, these 4 cases revealed the diverse pressures brought on by competing interests to develop or exploit natural landscapes and the variety of mechanisms that enables PADDD. Knowledge gaps exist in understanding of the conditions through which development pressures translate to PADDD events and their impacts, partially due to a lack of comprehensive PADDD records. Future research priorities should include comprehensive regional and country‐level profiles and analysis of risks, impacts, and contextual factors related to PADDD. Policy options to better govern PADDD include improving tracking and reporting of PADDD events, establishing transparent PADDD policy processes, coordinating among legal frameworks, and mitigating negative impacts of PADDD. To support PADDD research and policy reforms, enhanced human and financial capacities are needed to train local researchers and to host publicly accessible data. As the conservation community considers the achievements of Aichi Target 11 and moves toward new biodiversity targets beyond 2020, researchers, practitioners, and policy makers need to work together to better track, assess, and govern PADDD globally.

Perspectives on area‐based conservation and its meaning for future biodiversity policy

“…Much of the existing PA estate is not managed effectively and is underfunded (Watson et al 2014) and generally faces increasing development pressures (Geldmann et al 2014). As a result, PAs are vulnerable to downgrading, downsizing, and degazettment, which may compromise overall objectives to conserve biodiversity (Golden Kroner et al 2015;Qin et al 2019), therefore casting doubt on the perspectives mentioned above. Although there may be many modes of application, further consideration is needed to determine where conservation actions are taken across the world (country, region, continent, and planet) and what strategies would be needed at each level (Visconti et al 2015;Dinerstein et al 2019).…”

Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) in marine protected areas

“…First, standardized tracking and public reporting of PADDD as a key performance indicator for PAs is critical [13]; increased transparency would facilitate scientific research and performance measurement [49]. Such a process could be facilitated through the CBD's Post-2020 Framework [50,51], with data integrated into the World Database of Protected Areas. Future mobile MPAs with shifting boundaries implemented as a climate change adaptation strategy [52] represent an emerging transparency challenge, further underscoring the importance of standardized monitoring and public reporting of PADDD.…”

“…National-level policies and processes also provide opportunities to address PADDD and minimize its impacts [51]. MPA permanence could be improved through PADDD processes that parallel PA establishment, and include public consultation, visual representations of PADDD proposals, and environmental impact studies [49].…”

“…MPA permanence could be improved through PADDD processes that parallel PA establishment, and include public consultation, visual representations of PADDD proposals, and environmental impact studies [49]. The mitigation hierarchy (avoidance, minimization, restoration, and offsetting) [55] could help guide negotiations surrounding PADDD proposals [13,51]. Policies that prohibit environmentally damaging PADDD in priority conservation sites or 'No-Go Areas' (e.g.…”

“…World Heritage marine sites) or for proximate causes that undermine marine conservation goals (e.g. mining) could be enacted to avoid impacts of PADDD [51,56]. Laws could require that legislation establishing MPAs contain comprehensive restrictions on industrial-scale activities, preventing potential loopholes such as those that allowed dredge spoil dumping in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park [57].…”