For the last two decades, countries around the world have been in a frenzy to earmark large swaths of their lands and waters as protected areas to meet the ambitious “30 by 30” target that calls for 30 per cent of Earth’s land and seas to be legally protected by 2030.
Governments are expanding existing protected areas and setting up new ones to prevent deforestation, conserve biodiversity and reduce planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions.
But how well are these protected areas working? That’s a question an international team of researchers explored in the context of 80 protected areas established between 2007 and 2014 across Southeast Asia.
In a new study published in the journal Current Biology, they report that more than half of these protected areas failed to stop deforestation, resulting in a loss of 72,497 hectares (179,144 acres) of forests — an area twice as large as the US city of Detroit.
“In the last 15 years, protected areas expansion was the key conservation mechanism in Southeast Asia and elsewhere in the world, but not all Southeast Asian countries have the financial abilities to build protected areas so fast,” says lead author Sreekar Rachakonda, now a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Queensland, Australia, who was at the National University of Singapore during the study.
“We wanted to see how these protected areas are faring after they were established.”
Effective and ineffective protected areas
Using satellite images captured between 2000 and 2020, the researchers used a computational model to compare the 80 protected areas with neighbouring patches of unprotected forests. They then determined whether the “protected area” designation had reduced deforestation in these areas compared to the rates in neighbouring unprotected tracts of forests.
The study found that only 36 of the 80 protected areas were effective in reducing deforestation rates. Collectively, these areas averted a loss of 78,910 hectares (194,991 acres) across Southeast Asia, which translated to preventing 8,821 hectares (21,797 acres) of forest loss annually. While deforestation rates were not zero in these areas, they were less than what they would have been had these forests not been protected.
“
It is not just important to expand protected areas. To make sure they work, to continue to manage them and provide them sufficient funding and support so they can continue to function well for biodiversity and for the climate.
Zeng Yiwen, researcher, Nanyang Technological University
The averted forest loss benefited 91 species of threatened birds and 98 species of threatened mammals, including the Mindanao spiny rat (Tarsomys echinatus), a vulnerable species endemic to Mount Kitanglad Range National Park in the Philippines. It also resulted in significant climate benefits by reducing emissions by 2.10 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, comparable to the total emissions of the tiny Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan in 2021.
The remaining 44 protected areas experienced similar or higher rates of deforestation than they did before their designation, and were thus deemed to be ineffectively managed. These 44 protected areas failed to prevent 72,497 hectares of forest loss and emissions of 2.07 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year. The researchers say that had these protected areas been effective, the climate benefits from protected areas in the region would have doubled.
These 44 protected areas are home to 121 species of threatened birds and 105 threatened mammal species.
These include the forest-dependent white-browed nuthatch (Sitta victoriae) , an endangered bird endemic to Nat Ma Taung National Park in western Myanmar that has lost almost 18 per cent of its forest cover since its establishment in 2010; the Seram masked owl (Tyto almae), endangered Seram bandicoot (Rhynchomeles prattorum) and dusky mosaic-tailed rat (Melomys aerosus), all endemic to Manusela National Park on Seram Island, Indonesia.
“We agree with their findings that ineffective protected areas management leads to deforestation and biodiversity loss,” says James Bampton, WWF’s regional forest lead for Asia Pacific, who wasn’t involved in the study but is familiar with protected areas management in the Greater Mekong region. “Good habitats are necessary for conservation, but it’s not sufficient on its own.”
Why new protected areas become ineffective
While protected areas are critical for conservation, effectively managing them requires both money and trained staff, neither of which are always readily available. Protected areas need funding to not only set up but continue day-to-day operations.
They must pay guards, train staff, procure equipment such as GPS trackers for monitoring, patrol areas, buy food and fuel, and install boards and signage. The study found that the 44 ineffective protected areas, spanning a combined 1.5 million hectares (3.7 million acres), need at least US$17 million to improve their management.
“A lot of tech costs money, and government budgets are quite tight for protected areas management,” says Malaysia-based conservation scientist Gopalasamy Reuben Clements, citing his own experience of helping authorities set up Kenyir State Park in Malaysia through his NGO, Rimba. “Federally managed protected areas or national parks seem to get more funding, but when we go to the state government parks, the funding gap is wider.”
It’s a reality reflected in the study’s findings, too. The effectiveness of PAs increased with an increase in funding. The correlation between per capita GDP and the effectiveness of protected areas was quite strong, suggesting that richer countries tend to have more effective protected areas.
Given the lack of funding for protected areas, the study’s authors say their findings can help countries decide whether to continue expanding ineffective PAs or redirect funding to improve the effectiveness of existing ones. The latter is easier because the paperwork is in place and establishment costs are already paid.
“It is not just important to expand protected areas,” says study co-author Zeng Yiwen from Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, adding that it’s critical “to make sure they work, to continue to manage them and provide them sufficient funding and support so they can continue to function well for biodiversity and for the climate.”
However, setting up new protected areas can be easier than sustaining existing ones because many grants and philanthropic funds are available for the former.
“Once you set up a protected area, that’s when the money pot shrinks,” Clements says, explaining that funders assume the onus is now on the governments to take up the funding to manage these areas. “But in reality, there’s still some transition funding needed and I don’t see any examples of transition funding for newly formed protected areas.”
As a sustainable finance specialist at the Zoological Society of London, Clements now helps organisations in Southeast Asia develop projects harnessing nature-based solutions.
Iding Achmad Haidir, a forester who until recently worked with the Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry that manages the country’s forests, says funding and staffing challenges are severe in protected areas that aren’t national parks.
“In Indonesia, national parks have more funding and human resources intervention compared to nature reserves and other [types of] protected areas,” he says, noting that, unlike national parks, reserves are managed at the provincial level.
While the current study didn’t find any differences between effective and ineffective protected areas based on their IUCN protected areas categories, it found that those that reported their management objectives to the IUCN, the global wildlife conservation authority, performed better than those who did not. This suggests that non-reporting parks were more likely to be “paper parks” — protected areas that exist on paper but have no conservation impact.
Can carbon markets address funding gaps?
The researchers say Southeast Asian countries could explore carbon markets and nature-based carbon credits to generate income through projects that incentivise conservation. Per their estimates, the potential for offsetting emissions in currently ineffective protected areas in Southeast Asia translates to US$12 million in the current carbon market — an amount that could cover a significant portion of the US$17 million needed to fund ineffective protected areas.
However, relying purely on such market-based mechanisms has its drawbacks. “With any market-based approach, there is a risk of market crashes,” Zeng says. “It brings risks within the lifetime of a project.” Instead, he says, blended finance, with its mix of public and private funding to manage protected areas, can alleviate the risk.
Carbon credits and related mechanisms also demand “additionality,” or proof that emissions reductions occurred because of the project. This, Clements says, can be a challenge.
“The criteria for qualifying for additionality is getting more stringent, and they are not empathetic to the plight of newly created protected areas where you need a transition time of five to 10 years to make them work.” Besides, well-managed protected areas would need more time to qualify for additionality because their emissions are already low.
“Budgeting that combines multiple financing streams — that’s the Holy Grail for protected areas managers — and it requires co-funding from the public, private and civil society sources,” WWF’s Bampton says, adding that countries could explore biodiversity credits, selling forest products, eco-tax breaks and ecotourism.
Ultimately, though, there must be political will to fund protected areas, he says: “Conservation is an ongoing thing — it always needs support and adapting to the situation.”
This story was published with permission from Mongabay.com.
