| Operational Indicator |
Trends in representative coverage of protected areas and other area based approaches, including sites of particular importance for biodiversity, and of terrestrial, marine and inland water systems |
| Communication Question |
Responses - What do we do about biodiversity loss? |
| Strategic Goal |
C |
| Headline Indicator |
Trends in coverage, condition, representativeness and effectiveness of protected areas |
| Indicator Sub-topics |
Trends in protected areas coverage, representation and condition |
| Most Relevant Aichi Target |
11 |
| Other Relevant Aichi Targets |
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 |
| Operational Classification |
Priority and ready for use globally |
| Status of development |
Available globally. Extent of protected areas (PAs) provides a crude measure of absolute area protected. It is important that this is complemented by monitoring how well PAs cover (a) sites of particular importance for biodiversity (e.g. Important Bird Areas, Alliance for Zero Extinction sites, Important Plant Areas and other Key Biodiversity Areas), and (b) broad ecosystems (inland water, terrestrial, and marine). Furthermore, it is important to monitor the management effectiveness of PAs using standard protocols. All these components can be extended to include other area-based (non-PA) management approaches. |
| Sensitivity (can it be used to make assessment by 2015?) |
High |
| Scale (global, regional, national, sub-national) |
G, R, N, S |
| Scientific Validity |
High |
| How easy can it be communicated? |
High |
| Data Sources |
WDPA and national sources |
| Data Requirements |
PA location, boundaries, geographic area (ha), and IUCN management category, establishment date; and biomes/ecosystems to determine representation |
| Who's responsible for measuring? |
National protected area agencies |
| Other conventions/processes using indicator |
UN MDGs |
| Related Links |
|
