INTRODUCTION
When the United Nations General Assembly agreed to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, care was taken not to present them as a hierarchy, or to imply that some were more important than others. Nonetheless, many commentators have noted that the SDGs are not all created equal, in that meeting many of the SDGs will only be possible if some other SDGs are also achieved or are achieved first. And the SDGs most centrally involved with environmental stability – SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), SDG 15 (Life on Land), and SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), with its emphasis on healthy freshwaters – are recognised as being fundamental to the achievement of most if not all the others. The Stockholm Resilience Centre has developed a diagram of the relationship between the SDGs, with those relating to the biosphere at the base, those concerning society in the middle and finally, at the top and dependent on the others, those more closely related to work and the economy (Ervin, 2019).
The relationships between the various SDGs are not particularly straightforward. There may be tensions between social and environmental goals (Scherer et al., 2018), necessitating a careful reading of individual situations and negotiating trade-offs between two or more legitimate but competing demands. Pressure for economic growth has often undermined attempts to provide decent work, gender equality and
responsible consumption, and has been the cause of many environmental problems. Addressing one SDG may exacerbate the problems targeted by another, and it is important that monitoring of individual SDGs also looks at their impact on other goals.
Furthermore, approaches that “tick all the
environmental and social boxes” may not provide solutions at the scale required (Seddon et al., 2020).
On the other hand, coordinated responses offer the chance to address several SDGs at once. If one considers systems of protected areas, these can provide multiple benefits either at the global and landscape or seascape scale or locally, for
stakeholders and rights holders living in and around them. Conservation of biodiversity can support food and water security, and at the same time can help to reduce disaster risk. For instance, mangrove restoration is a conservation priority (related to both SDG 14, Life Below Water and SDG 15, Life on Land) that simultaneously helps build fish stocks (SDG 2, Zero Hunger), stores carbon, and provides coastal protection against storm surges (SDG 13, Climate Action). Savannah protected areas support local communities through ecotourism and employment (SDG 8, Decent Work and Economic Growth), while maintaining unique wildlife (SDG 15, Life on Land), and prevent health-damaging dust storms from dryland (SDG 3, Good Health and Well-Being).
Furthermore, there is an emerging consensus that if we fail to maintain the integrity of natural ecosystems, we will undermine the foundation for achieving social and economic goals as well.
In 2015, the Rockefeller-Lancet Commission on Planetary Health issued a stark warning:
“We conclude that the continuing degradation of natural systems threatens to reverse the health gains seen over the last century. In short, we have mortgaged the health of future generations to realise economic and
development gains in the present.” (Whitmee, 2015)
In a commentary on the commission’s findings, a link between forests, poverty and child health was explored by combining several global datasets, which showed strong links between the poorest children, forest loss, and three childhood diseases: diarrhoea, anaemia and stunting. The authors reported that “as the amount of upstream forest cover increases, the benefits for the poor increase, particularly for those poor households without access to improved water sources.” (Fisher et al., 2019) In 2020, the World Economic Forum for the first time identified all five of the “top risks” in its annual Global Risks Report as being linked to ecosystem breakdown. The five were extreme weather, climate action failure, natural disasters, biodiversity loss, and human-made environmental disasters (WEF, 2020).
The current COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the links between ecosystem degradation and the spread of zoonotic diseases (Plowright et al., 2017), the risks of pathogen spillover during land conversion (Faust et al., 2018), and the likely sites of emergence of new disease spillover (Allen et al., 2017). These are just three examples of the multiple links, as noted above, between environmental breakdown and disease (Cook et al., 2004), which can be addressed through effective maintenance of the integrity of natural ecosystems without human disturbance (MacKinnon et al., 2019).
Unfortunately, recognition of the key role of the
“biosphere SDGs” has not translated into widespread investment in the maintenance of natural
ecosystems. Quite the reverse. In an independent analysis of progress towards the SDGs published in 2019 (Sachs et al., 2019), the report’s authors noted that “countries obtain their worst scores on SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 15 (Life on Land). No country obtains a ‘green rating’
(synonym of SDG achieved) on SDG 14 (Life Below Water).” Achievement of all the SDGs is therefore threatened by widespread failure to address ecosystem collapse and climate change. Reversing this trend requires a fundamental shift in
governmental and wider societal priorities.
In this context, the meta-review of PANORAMA solutions is important. PANORAMA includes currently
the world’s largest case study portfolio on the role of protected areas in delivering practical benefits from ecosystem services, allowing important lessons to be learnt about how protected areas are contributing to the SDGs, and to which SDGs, and also pointing the way forward to where they might contribute more in the future.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Context
Regions and general remarks on representativeness of results
Although there is doubtless some reporting bias, the PANORAMA solutions show some of the history of protected areas in the regions included. For example, it is well known that countries in South and Central America have led the way in developing payment for ecosystem services schemes, involving water services from forests and other ecosystems (Hamilton, 2008) and that Australia launched the global Healthy Parks, Healthy People programme (Parks Victoria, 2015). This also suggests that PANORAMA is picking up some of the most important examples from around the world and that review and synthesis across them can provide important insights, highlighting trends and providing a basis for recommendations to inform future
developments, as well as priorities for protected area management and funding.
However, as noted, the PANORAMA case study portfolio is not a random selection of sites; it relies on information supplied voluntarily and is further
influenced by donor priorities, meaning that it is likely
PANORAMA includes currently the
world’s largest case study portfolio
on the role of protected areas in
delivering practical benefits from
ecosystem services, allowing
important lessons to be learnt
about how protected areas are
contributing to the SDGs.
5: Discussion of results, conclusions and recommendations
to be distorted towards certain countries and regions. The information is, therefore, of limited use in drawing overall conclusions about global trends but is more valuable in discerning what makes an intervention successful in its own context.
Geographically, data are skewed towards the global South and to the tropics, particularly towards eastern and southern Africa, South America, and Mexico, which together currently supply around 90% of the solutions on PANORAMA. Similarly, there is bias in the geographical focus on particular SDGs, with examples from Africa focusing mainly on SDG 1 (No Poverty), Mexico, Central and South America on SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 13 (Climate Action), and Asia focusing on SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). Examples from Oceania, particularly Australia, are biased towards health issues, and marine-related solutions are most commonly from Southeast Asia.
Challenges addressed
Protected areas are almost always established for particular conservation objectives or to address particular challenges, and contributions to SDGs need to be seen against this backdrop. Many of the challenges facing these sites are similar and well known. Those most commonly mentioned across the solutions in this publication include land degradation, and particularly forest loss and degradation; loss of biodiversity; and general destruction of ecosystems.
Other immediate challenges facing protected area
managers include lack of awareness among both decision-makers and the wider public, poor governance at national or local levels, and lack of participation by affected rights holders and
stakeholders; and, virtually always in these regions, lack of access to secure, long-term funding. Many of the most commonly-mentioned challenges are social and economic in origin. Unemployment, poverty and lack of any other way of making a living are closely linked to pressures to exploit ecosystems directly for resources or for trade, which continue to increase in many areas. So, SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth, as it relates particularly to employment), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals, often virtually ignored in discussions about the SDGs) are all particularly closely linked to success or failure in these areas. This highlights a theme that emerges throughout this summary of case studies in PANORAMA: getting conservation right means first getting the contextual governance, social and economic issues right.
Ecosystems
The geographical bias of the PANORAMA portfolio inevitably means that there is also some bias in the range of ecosystems represented. Mangroves and wetlands, including swamps, marshes and peatland, are the ecosystems most frequently found among the solutions, not surprisingly as they are threatened in many parts of the world (Duke et al., 2017) and also supply multiple ecosystem services (Hutchison et al., 2014). Next most frequently mentioned are a range of tropical marine and terrestrial systems including coral reefs, seagrass beds and tropical evergreen forests; together these make up about a quarter of the database. In contrast to a general bias towards terrestrial conservation, the portfolio has strong representation from marine projects and initiatives, some 36% of all solutions included in this report. This is in part because, during the initial phase of building the PANORAMA solutions portfolio, there was a strong emphasis on collecting marine and coastal examples through the Blue Solutions project (GIZ, 2013).
Mangroves and wetlands, including
swamps, marshes and peatland,
are the ecosystems most frequently
found among the solutions, not
surprisingly as they are threatened
in many parts of the world (Duke et
al., 2017) and also supply multiple
ecosystem services (Hutchison et
al., 2014).
There are relatively fewer solutions from temperate regions and their ecosystems, almost certainly due to the reporting bias mentioned above, and very few solutions from urban protected areas, with the limited number that do exist relating mainly to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being). This is unsurprising but also slightly concerning. Development agencies and other donors have traditionally focused investments on high biodiversity ecosystems, particularly those facing the highest levels of threat and being critically important to humans, such as forests and coastal ecosystems. Additionally, there is an aspect of
‘fashion’ in terms of how conservation priorities are decided upon. Some other valuable ecosystems, including grasslands, savannahs and drylands, have tended to be sidelined as a result. Ecosystems of the high seas have been neglected as well, although this is due to a different set of reasons, related to the complex legal status of these areas. A call for more
examples of successful conservation initiatives in some of these ecosystems would be a valuable next step for PANORAMA.
There is also some concentration with respect to the SDGs targeted in relation to different
ecosystems. Marine ecosystem examples relate particularly to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 13 (Climate Action). In the latter case, this includes a lot of examples relating to mangroves and particularly mangrove restoration. Similarly, many of the
examples from freshwater ecosystems relate to SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and the use of natural ecosystems to supply plentiful supplies of pure water. The relationship between forests, water and ecosystem services is now well recognised (Hamilton, 2008) and is obviously attracting a lot of donor attention, but other ecosystem services – such as the role of dryland vegetation in slowing soil erosion, desertification and dust storms – get less
Hunan Badagongshan National Nature Reserve, China. © Hunan Badagongshan National Nature Reserve, China.
5: Discussion of results, conclusions and recommendations
attention. The latter also have major human health impacts with, for instance, wealthy countries like Kuwait experiencing high levels of childhood asthma due to the poor air quality as a result of dust (Al-Dousari, 2009).
PROCESS Building blocks
The review found that, out of the 809 building blocks that make up the solutions included in this
publication, the highest number of building blocks fall in the alliance and partnership development category, closely followed by those related to education, training and other capacity development activities. In the former category, the term governance features repeatedly, with the design and implementation of participatory approaches with stakeholders also being a regular feature. Another important enabler was communication, outreach and awareness building, the next highest building block category.
These results suggest that the key to success is more about reaching a broad consensus among local people to whom a programme or protected area brings real benefits than it is about a strong-arm approach to enforcement or an emphasis on technical innovation. In doing so, the results provide important guidance for those setting up new protected areas or managing existing sites, suggesting the need for detailed and probably
lengthy negotiations before deciding on a way forward. This is not necessarily easy in situations where pressures are acute, and there is the need for urgent action but imposing a solution without getting local people on side is likely to lead to long-term problems in its implementation. It is important also for donor agencies to bear this in mind, i.e. allowing for sufficient consultation at project planning and inception phase, as well as adaptive management during implementation, rather than imposing rigid frameworks.
A deeper look into individual examples found that building blocks related to educational and capacity-building aspects often involved supporting the development of very basic skills, including building the literacy and capacity of local actors such as fishers, small-scale farmers, and local people’s organisations, targeting both individuals and institutions. Action learning and training were also important, focusing both on skills particularly linked to protected area management, such as patrolling and enforcement, and on techniques like mangrove restoration or the use of tree nurseries. All these issues will have implications for both conservation and sustainable development. Patrolling against poaching protects wild plants and animals of course (SMART Partnership, n.d.) but, in many cases, communities also need these skills to protect their fishing, hunting or gathering grounds, or to stop poachers moving into communities, threatening families and disrupting society (IUCN SULi, IIED, CEED, Austrian Ministry of Environment and TRAFFIC, 2015). Restoration activities have clear conservation value but can also help to protect communities against natural disasters, such as the role of forests on mountain slopes or coastal vegetation in ameliorating floods or storm surges (Dudley et al., 2015). They can also provide a sustainable source of raw materials and foods, for instance, the role of mangroves in providing safe and nursery areas for fish (Hutchison et al., 2014).
Furthermore, in remote rural or coastal communities, the capacity needs are often still quite simple: basic literacy and the ability to use a mobile phone can help a fishing community to learn the price for fish in
However, achieving this is very difficult unless there is clear information about what has succeeded or failed, and a good monitoring system is needed for this. From the experience with the PANORAMA portfolio of projects, it seems as if more people and organisations are starting to
recognise this important factor for
success.
centres of population and thus avoid being swindled by middlemen and traders.
Interestingly, collection of baseline and monitoring data and knowledge was also one of the commonest building block categories, highlighted in many solutions affecting multiple SDGs. Monitoring is one of the first aspects of management to be cut when, as so often happens, protected areas face a budget shortfall, but this is really a false economy.
Experience shows (McShane and Wells, 2004) that a good monitoring system is one of the most important elements in any substantial conservation or
development project. Nothing works perfectly the first time around, and good projects use adaptive
management to address problems, correct for changing conditions, and integrate lesson learning into ongoing programmes. However, achieving this is very difficult unless there is clear information about what has succeeded or failed, and a good monitoring system is needed for this. From the experience with the PANORAMA portfolio of projects, it seems as if more people and organisations are starting to recognise this important factor for success.
The solutions recognise the need for sustainable funding to support protected areas, so it is no surprise that there is a heavy emphasis on this in the building blocks, with close links to SDG 17 on partnerships. Building blocks relating to strengthening sustainable livelihoods also occur frequently, which is the other side of this issue, linking to both poverty (SDG 1) and employment (SDG 8), and suggesting, as mentioned above, that projects need to consider immediate human needs alongside biodiversity or ecosystem needs.
Conversely, those building blocks least frequently cited are those falling into the categories of enforcement and prosecution, and legal and policy frameworks, policy advocacy. This result is
particularly interesting because it runs counter to the way in which many protected areas agencies (regarding enforcement), NGOs (regarding policy advocacy) and donors prioritise their efforts. While it must be stressed that most of the solutions in this report relate to individual protected areas rather than national protected area policy, it nonetheless
suggests that putting greater effort into negotiating agreements and succeeding in the social elements of conservation is often more useful than simply trying to instigate conservation by force. (These general conclusions are not intended to denigrate the tough and often dangerous work carried out by rangers in those protected areas that are a focus of the illegal wildlife trade and where enforcement is, indeed, often a critical priority.)
An overarching observation on process is that many of the 106 solutions illustrate that success was achieved through careful engagement of a broad group of people over longer periods of time, allowing for flexibility throughout all stages of implementation.
Scale of implementation
Not surprisingly, most of the solutions reported on PANORAMA are working at a local scale (71% of solutions include the local scale), although a significant number operate at multiple scales. This may be a function of the framing of the PANORAMA initiative itself, which deliberately seeks to promote locally led approaches. It also relates to the fact that most solutions published on the PANORAMA platform relate to projects or longer-term initiatives of conservation NGOs and international organisations, which often are implemented at local level. But it also illustrates a reality well known to most people involved in the management of protected areas: that national or global approaches can tell us a certain amount about how to react in any given situation but inevitably have their limitations. Most issues need to be addressed at the scale of an individual site or community and will be tailored to an individual situation. It is nonetheless interesting to see broader solutions being presented, such as national plans for particular species, software development, and capacity-building programmes. It will be interesting to see whether the balance between local and wider scale solutions changes in the future as the overall solutions portfolio grows. Indeed, it would be good to see the inclusion of more broad-scale programmes, such as national policy frameworks, regional initiatives (such as moratoria on clearing certain endangered habitats) and transnational initiatives.
5: Discussion of results, conclusions and recommendations
IMPACTS
Impacts section of the solution template Summary of some keywords helps to draw up a picture of what the various solutions published on the web platform are trying to influence.
The most frequently cited key words to characterise the solutions’ impacts are community/communities (155 occurrences), local (117), area/areas (114), management (86) and conservation (84). The fact that community/communities is by far the most commonly appearing term in the impacts section also reinforces the earlier conclusion that the priority is often to work closely with local communities in finding mutually satisfactory options for management
The most frequently cited key words to characterise the solutions’ impacts are community/communities (155 occurrences), local (117), area/areas (114), management (86) and conservation (84). The fact that community/communities is by far the most commonly appearing term in the impacts section also reinforces the earlier conclusion that the priority is often to work closely with local communities in finding mutually satisfactory options for management