PoWPA Activity 1.1.5
Complete protected area system gap analyses at national and regional levels based on the requirements for representative systems of protected areas that adequately conserve terrestrial, marine and inland water biodiversity and ecosystems. National plans should also be developed to provide interim measures to protect highly threatened or highly valued areas wherever this is necessary.
The three types of commonly accepted protected area system gaps are:
Exclusion of focal/internationally important species or ecosystems: one or more of the internationally important species and/or ecosystems/biotopes known to occur in the country are not included in any of the country’s current protected areas.
Insufficient coverage of species or ecosystems: while the internationally important species/ecosystem is represented in the protected area system, its occurrence is either of inadequate ecological condition, or the protected area(s) fail to address the migration/movements or specific conditions (e.g. security of wintering, stop-over grounds) necessary for the long-term survival of the species or ecosystem.
Management gaps: protected areas exist on paper and cover internationally important species and ecosystems in good number and scope, but management regimes (propriety of PA categories to ensure protection, absence or insufficient capacities of management units, poor law enforcement, exclusion of buffer zones, etc.) do not provide full security for particular species or ecosystems.
The sequence of action to undertake the protected area system gap assessment
Action 1. Identify focal biodiversity and set key targets: It is important for the country to (1) know the presence of internationally important, or so-called focal, species and ecosystems on its territory, and at the same time, match that with a set target of how much area it will dedicate to protected areas. At the simplest level, the World Conservation Union has suggested that countries set aside at least 10% of their terrestrial area into protected areas and some nations or parts of nations have gone much further in their commitments, e.g. Mongolia (30%). More sophisticated targets come from the development of regional or national biodiversity visions or directly from gap analyses. For example, a series of conservation targets have been set for the Forests of the Lower Mekong Ecoregion Complex, including 26 priority areas for conservation and priorities amongst mammals, birds, forests and fish.
Action 2. Evaluate and map the occurrence and status of critical biodiversity: Although this step can seem difficult in many countries where surveys of biodiversity are still very incomplete, all countries can proceed in an iterative way with available data and extrapolated biodiversity information that can be improved over time as additional data become available. Information is needed on both (1) what must be protected, and (2) what can be mapped. This stage therefore needs to draw on (1) existing information from all known sources, (2) new field surveys if time and funds allow. Mapping all species is impossible – most countries have only identified a small proportion of their plants and invertebrates. Gap analysis therefore often has to rely on data (1) for well-known internationally important species (such as mammals, birds, amphibians, and fishes), (2) for a few key species from other groups that are representative of particular habitats and (3) for ecosystems. Mapping in cases of data deficiency therefore maybe carried out in two steps: (1) using a particular/indicative unit of biodiversity to capture many other associated elements, and (2) doing a survey of other species and fine-scale special elements (a category that catches everything that species and habitats mapping may not catch, such as nesting cliffs, caves, azonal habitats like wetlands, etc.). Predictive models based on habitat affinities for key indicator species may be useful in some cases although they have clear limitations in terms of accuracy.
Action 3. Analyze and map the occurrence and status of protected areas: Basic data on protected areas are usually available at national level although precise spatial information is frequently lacking as is information on protected areas in other governance systems (e.g. private protected areas or indigenous areas). Information about the status of protected areas is generally less available, including issues relating to management objectives, governance and management effectiveness, although studies and data on these are starting to emerge. However, this information is important for inclusion in a gap analysis, even if it only exists in approximate form, as protected areas may exist on paper, but their governance, management, or management objectives may mean that no biodiversity conservation is afforded. Linking maps of protected areas with even basic knowledge about their management effectiveness is critical for this activity of the gap analysis.
Action 4. Compare maps of biodiversity with maps of existing protected areas to identify gaps: the maps of occurrence and status/ecological need of species and ecosystems need to be overlaid on the maps of occurrence and management status of existing protected areas and any gaps identified. These are ideally divided into (1) representation gaps, (2) ecological gaps, and (3) management gaps as discussed above. It is understood, nonetheless, that such a gap analysis can only approximate to total biodiversity.
Action 5. Prioritize gaps to be filled, and agree on the strategy for the next steps: It is understood that the government may not be able, in the next 5-10 years to fully “close the gap”. Therefore it is important to select priority gaps to be closed. Strictly speaking the gap analysis itself stops at the previous stage. But a gap analysis is carried out primarily as a tool to expand and strengthen the protected area system and the filling of urgent gaps is an explicit commitment cited in the PoWPA agreed to at the Seventh Conference of the Parties of the CBD. Therefore, once gaps are identified, analyzed, and prioritized, the government has to make a decision, which would – building on the gap analysis – propose developing new protected areas, enlarging existing protected areas and through other forms of land and water management including easements, development of ecological corridors, buffer zones and in some cases introduction of sustainable management approaches in land outside protected areas.
National planning for interim conservation measures to protect highly threatened/valued species and ecosystems
Under this part of Activity 1.1.5 countries may request assistance for development and national approval of short-to-medium term conservation and business plans for species and/or biomes clearly recognized by IUCN or another international NGO or intergovernmental organization as “highly threatened" or "highly valued”. Such plans can be modeled after any of the well established templates (such as those used by IUCN, BirdLife International, Wetlands International), as well as nationally accepted templates. Assistance can be granted for national adaptation of international plan models, rapid research, stakeholder consultations, validation, fine-tuning, and national approvals of such plans. Targeted fund-raising with high success chances is also supported.
