It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Aichi Target 11 committed governments to protect ≥17% of their terrestrial environments by 2020, yet it was rarely achieved, raising questions about the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework goal to protect 30% by 2030. Asia is a challenging continent for such targets, combining high biodiversity with dense human populations. Here, we evaluated achievements in Asia against Aichi Target 11. We found that Asia was the most underperforming continent globally, with just 13.2% of terrestrial protected area (PA) coverage, averaging 14.1 ± SE 1.8% per country in 2020. 73.1% of terrestrial ecoregions had <17% representation and only 7% of PAs even had an assessment of management effectiveness. We found that a higher agricultural land in 2015 was associated with lower PA coverage today. Asian countries also showed a remarkably slow average annual pace of 0.4 ± SE 0.1% increase of PA extent. These combined lines of evidence suggest that the ambitious 2030 targets are unlikely to be achieved in Asia unless the PA coverage to increase 2.4-5.9 times faster. We provided three recommendations to support Asian countries to meet their post-2020 biodiversity targets: complete reporting and the wider adoption “other effective area-based conservation measures”; restoring disturbed landscapes; and bolstering transboundary PAs.
Asia is shown to be behind in meeting the Aichi Target 11 under the Convention on Biological Diversity and current trends indicate that 2030 targets are unlikely to be achieved with severe impact on biodiversity.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details










1 University of Oxford, Oxford Martin School and Department of Biology, Oxford, UK (GRID:grid.4991.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8948)
2 Cambridge Conservation Initiative, Cambridge, UK (GRID:grid.4991.5)
3 University of Oxford, Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Biology, Oxford, UK (GRID:grid.4991.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8948); Northern Arizona University, Department of Biological Sciences, Flagstaff, USA (GRID:grid.261120.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8040)
4 Eco Values for Sustainable Development, Amman, Jordan (GRID:grid.261120.6)
5 Chinese Academy of Sciences, Centre for Integrative Conservation, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Yunnan, China (GRID:grid.9227.e) (ISNI:0000000119573309)
6 Duzce University, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Management, Duzce, Turkey (GRID:grid.412121.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 1710 3792); Technical University of Munich, Terrestrial Ecology Research Group, Freising, Germany (GRID:grid.6936.a) (ISNI:0000000123222966)
7 Wildlife Consultant, Sadah, Oman (GRID:grid.6936.a)
8 Mongolia Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia (GRID:grid.6936.a)
9 Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Institute of Zoology, Tashkent, Uzbekistan (GRID:grid.419209.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 2110 259X)
10 University of Oxford, Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Biology, Oxford, UK (GRID:grid.4991.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8948); Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Directorate General of Natural Resources and Ecosystem Conservation, Jakarta, Indonesia (GRID:grid.4991.5)
11 Prince Saud al Faisal Wildlife Research Centre, Field Research Department, Taif, Saudi Arabia (GRID:grid.4991.5)
12 University of Haripur, Department of Forestry & Wildlife Management, Haripur, Pakistan (GRID:grid.467118.d) (ISNI:0000 0004 4660 5283)
13 Government of Nepal, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Ministry of Forests and Environment, Singhadurbar, Nepal (GRID:grid.466728.9) (ISNI:0000 0004 0433 6708)
14 Caucasus Nature Fund, Tbilisi, Georgia (GRID:grid.466728.9)
15 Vasundhara Sector 5, Ghaziabad, India (GRID:grid.466728.9)
16 University of Oxford, Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Biology, Oxford, UK (GRID:grid.4991.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8948)
17 Independent Wildlife Researcher, Sulaimani, Iraq (GRID:grid.4991.5)
18 Caucasus Nature Fund, Tbilisi, Georgia (GRID:grid.4991.5)
19 A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation (GRID:grid.437665.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 1088 7934)
20 University Malaysia Terengganu, Institute of Tropical Biodiversity and Sustainable Development, Kuala Nerus, Malaysia (GRID:grid.412255.5) (ISNI:0000 0000 9284 9319)