UNEP-WCMC logo

Metadata Factsheet

1. Indicator name

3.1 Coverage of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures

2. Date of metadata update

2024-03-28 12:00:00 UTC

3. Goals and Targets addressed

3a. Goal

N/A

3b. Target

Headline indicator for Target 3. Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of marine and coastal areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, recognizing indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable, and integrated into wider landscapes, seascapes and the ocean, while ensuring that any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent with conservation outcomes, recognizing and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, including over their traditional territories.

4. Rationale

This indicator measures a policy response to biodiversity loss. An increase in the coverage of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) indicates increased efforts by governments and civil society to protect land and sea areas to achieve the long-term conservation of biodiversity, with associated ecosystem services and cultural values. 

The indicator and its disaggregations provide insights into progress on the following elements of Target 3: ‘30 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of marine and coastal areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions... are... conserved and managed through ecologically representative... and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures’. (See section 5b below in relation to the element ‘recognizing indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable’).

The indicator enables tracking of the ’30 per cent’ element, while the following disaggregations enable tracking of other elements: (1) coverage of protected areas versus OECMs, (2) coverage of realms, biomes, and ecosystems (3) coverage of areas of particular importance for biodiversity, (4) coverage by protected areas and OECMs with different levels of effectiveness, and (5) coverage by governance type. The rational for these disaggregations is explained further below:

  1. Coverage by protected areas versus OECMs: this enables the relative contributions of these two approaches to meeting the 30% element of the target to be distinguished.
  2. Coverage of realms, biomes, ecosystem functional groups, ecoregions etc: coverage of terrestrial, inland water, and marine and coastal realms will enable tracking of progress towards achieving 30 per cent coverage of ‘terrestrial and inland water areas’, and of ‘marine and coastal areas’, can provide insights into the degree to which protected area and OECM networks are ‘ecologically representative’. Richer understanding can be derived by disaggregating further to assess coverage of biomes within each realm (e.g.Tropical/subtropical forests biome, Rivers and streams biome, Pelagic ocean waters biome etc) and to Ecosystem Functional Groups within each biome (e.g. Tropical/Subtropical Lowland Rainforests, Seagrass meadows, Permanent Upland Streams etc), or terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecoregions.
  3. Coverage of areas of particular importance for biodiversity: existing Sustainable Development Goal Indicators 14.5.1 (marine), 15.1.2 (terrestrial and freshwater), and 15.4.1 (mountains) already report protected area coverage of Key Biodiversity Areas for all countries, as a measure of coverage of ‘areas of particular importance for biodiversity’, using nationally-defined, developed, and maintained datasets of areas of importance following the global Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) Standard. This provides a standardised dataset with which the headline coverage of areas of importance for biodiversity can be calculated. At a national scale, Parties may wish to include other areas that meet the definition of areas of particular importance for biodiversity (Plumptre et al 2024). A detailed methodology is provided below.
  4. Coverage by level of effectiveness: the ‘effectively conserved and managed’ element of Target 3 can be assessed by disaggregating protected area and OECM coverage using data on management effectiveness, governance quality, conservation outcomes, and the quality of design and planning to group protected areas and OECMs according to their level of effectiveness or change in effectiveness over time. A methodology for disaggregating the indicator in this way at the global level, building on the existing Global Database on Protected Area Management Effectiveness (GD-PAME), is in development, and broadly outlined below.
  5. By governance type (government, private organisations, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, or shared) using data already documented in the WDPA and WD-OECM. Coverage of protected areas or OECMs with Indigenous peoples’ governance, local community governance, or shared governance is relevant to the ‘equitably governed’ aspect of Target 3, albeit as a proxy, since these governance types have stronger engagement by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities than governance by government and private governance.

These disaggregations of the indicator reflect the fact that increases in percentage coverage are insufficient in isolation, and that protected areas and OECMs also need to be: located in areas of importance for biodiversity, cover representative areas of different realms, biomes and ecosystems (i.e. be ecologically representative), effective in achieving positive biodiversity outcomes, and equitably governed, as detailed in the wording of Target 3.

Disaggregations to reflect other elements of the target are not yet feasible owing to lack of suitable comprehensive data or methods, including in relation to areas of importance for ecosystem services, connectivity, equitably governance, integration into wider landscapes, seascapes and the ocean, and respect for the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. Assessing progress to Target 3 will require consideration of the importance and relevance of Sections C(a), C(b), C(g), and C(n) in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, as well as the cross-cutting nature of indicators for Targets 21-23.

5. Definitions, concepts and classifications

5a. Definition

Indicator definition:

This indicator measures the percentage area covered by protected areas or OECMs. The five disaggregations measure: (1) the percentage area covered by protected areas and the percentage area covered by OECMs; (2) the percentage area of terrestrial, inland water, and marine and coastal realms (and biomes and ecosystems within them) covered by protected areas or OECMs; (3) the mean percentage of areas of particular importance for biodiversity (KBAs) covered by protected areas or OECMs (SDG indicators 14.5.1, 15.1.2, 15.4.1 represent the marine, terrestrial/freshwater and mountain components of this metric); (4) the percentage area covered by protected areas or OECMs that are at different levels of effectiveness (details still under development); (5) the percentage area covered by protected areas or OECMs that are governed by each of: government, private organisations, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, or shared.

Other key concepts and definitions:

Protected area: ‘A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.’ (Dudley et al., 2008).

Other effective area-based conservation measure: ‘a geographically defined area other than a Protected Area, which is governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in situ conservation of biodiversity, with associated ecosystem functions and services and where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio–economic, and other locally relevant values.’ (CBD, 2018).

Areas of particular importance for biodiversity: ‘sites that contain significant populations/extents of threatened or geographically restricted species or ecosystems, or that have significant ecological integrity or irreplaceability, significance for the maintenance of biological processes, or provide significant ecological connectivity to maintain populations of species’ (Plumptre et al 2024). Key Biodiversity Areas have been identified in all countries and represent the most comprehensive network of such sites, and are defined as sites “contributing significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity” (IUCN, 2016).

5b. Method of computation

The indicator is calculated from data in the form of point locations and polygons of protected area and OECM boundaries managed in the WDPA and the WD-OECM. The majority of these sites are available for download at www.protectedplanet.net. However, due to restrictions requested by some data providers, a small number of sites are not made publicly available. These sites are still included in the analyses that generate coverage statistics.

Not all sites in the WDPA are included in the indicator. Proposed protected areas are excluded, as are sites for which the status has not been reported. Sites submitted as points with no reported area are also excluded. Currently, UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves (MAB) sites reported to the WDPA are excluded, on the basis that that the MAB sites currently in the WDPA include buffer and transition zones that in many cases are not protected areas. MAB Core areas are usually protected areas designated at a national level and are therefore generally accounted for in our calculations. (UNEP-WCMC is working with the MAB Secretariat to secure an accurate set of boundaries for the core areas to ensure the contribution of these sites is accurately reflected). MAB sites reported as OECMs are, however, included in coverage analyses.

The protected area coverage is calculated using the following steps:

  1. The WDPA is filtered to exclude records with the characteristics listed above.
  2. A buffer is created around protected areas reported as points using their Reported Area. There are important caveats associated with this method, some of which are explored by Visconti et al. 2013. Buffering points can underestimate or overestimate protected area coverage as the circles created around points might cover areas where protected areas do not exist (overestimation) or overlap with areas where other protected areas already exist (underestimation). It can also give inaccurate values for sites that are partly terrestrial and marine as the absence of boundaries make it difficult to predict which portion of a protected area is in the land or the sea.
  3. Both polygon and buffered point layers are combined in a single layer.
  4. For calculating the overall coverage, this layer is flattened (dissolved) to eliminate overlaps between designations and avoid double counting.
  5. Subsequent steps are described in Section 8.

The OECM coverage is calculated separately:

  1. The latest WD-OECM monthly release is used.
  2. A buffer is created around OECMs reported as points using their Reported Area.
  3. Both polygon and buffered point layers are combined in a single layer.
  4. Areas where protected areas and OECMs overlap are erased from this layer using the global protected areas dissolved layer (step 4 above).
  5. The output OECMs layer is flattened (dissolved).
  6. Subsequent steps are described in section 8.

Methods for the various disaggregations are detailed in Section 8 below.

Note that the indicator follows an established methodology in tracking coverage of protected areas and OECMs, given the wording of Target 3 which refers to “systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures”. The target also includes the wording “recognizing indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable”. This could be interpreted as implying (1) a disaggregation of the metric to show trends in the extent of protected areas and OECMs governed by Indigenous peoples or local communities and falling within Indigenous and traditional territories, and/or (2) that Indigenous and traditional territories are a third type of area that can be added to protected areas and OECMs to contribute towards achievement of the target (while noting the overlap in coverage between these areas). Given (1) the existing reporting practices of governments and other data providers to the World Database on Protected Areas and World Database on OECMs, (2) that unlike protected areas and OECMs, Indigenous and traditional territories are not defined according to their objectives or outcomes in relation to biodiversity, and (3) recognition that while global dataset of Indigenous and traditional territories exists, they are not comprehensive, Indigenous and traditional territories outside protected areas and OECMs are not included in the methodology described here.

This approach may evolve to reflect future COP decisions if appropriate (and providing suitable data become available). Parties can use the Complementary indicators “Extent of indigenous peoples and local communities’ lands that have some form of recognition” and/or “Coverage of Protected areas and OECMS and traditional territories (by governance type)” to report national trends.

5c. Data collection method

Data on protected areas and OECMs are submitted to UNEP-WCMC by national governments. In some cases, data are submitted directly by the governance authorities of protected areas or OECMs, and are added to the WDPA or WD-OECM following a verification process. The WDPA and WD-OECM are updated monthly.

KBAs are identified nationally through inclusive and consultative processes involving government, academia, non-governmental organisations, indigenous people’s groups, and other stakeholders as appropriate, typically coordinated by KBA National Coordination Groups. Anyone with appropriate data may propose a site, but consultation with all stakeholders at the national level is required during the proposal process. Submission of proposals for KBAs to the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas follows a systematic review process to ensure that the KBA criteria have been applied correctly and that the sites can be recognised as important for the global persistence of biodiversity. Regional Focal Points have been appointed to help KBA proposers develop proposals and then ensure they are reviewed independently. Guidance on Proposing, Reviewing, Nominating and Confirming sites has been published to help guide proposers through the development of proposals and the review process, highlighting where they can obtain help in making a proposal (see https://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/working-with-... and specific guidance at https://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/assets/af7c1f...). Site proposals undergo independent review. This is followed by the official site nomination with full documentation meeting the Documentation Standards for KBAs. Sites confirmed by the KBA Secretariat to qualify as KBAs are then published on the KBA Website. For further information, see www.keybiodiversityareas.org/working-with-kbas/pro....

For details of other data used in generating disaggegations, see below.

5d. Accessibility of methodology

The methods are also described in the metadata to SDG indicators 14.5.1 and 15.1.2 at https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata. Methods for the KBA disaggregation were also published in Butchart et al (2012, 2015), with relevant rationale also provided in Plumptre et al. (2024). The protected area indicator and its realm and KBA disaggregations are calculated nationally, regionally and globally. The ecoregion disaggregation is calculated at the global level. The scale of disaggregation by level of effectiveness and governance type is yet to be determined.

See References.

5e. Data sources

Protected area data are compiled by ministries of environment and other ministries responsible for the designation and maintenance of protected areas. Other data providers can contribute in some cases (see section 5c). Protected area data are aggregated globally into the World Database on Protected Areas by the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, according to the mandate for production of the United Nations List of Protected Areas (UN Economic and Social Council, 1959; Deguignet et al. 2014) and subsequent decisions of the CBD CoP. They are disseminated through Protected Planet, which is a joint product of IUCN and UNEP, managed by UNEP-WCMC. Parties are encouraged to ensure that updates to national protected area systems are submitted to the WDPA in a timely fashion.

OECMs are collated in the World Database on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (WD-OECM). This database can be regarded as a sister database to the WDPA as it is also hosted on Protected Planet. Furthermore, the databases share many of the same fields and have an almost identical workflow; differing only in what they list. OECMs are a quickly evolving area of work, as such for the latest information on OECMs and the WD-OECM please contact UNEP-WCMC.

Realms, biomes and ecosystem functional groups are defined in the Global Ecosystem Typology (https://global-ecosystems.org/). Inland water biomes are mapped in the RiverATLAS (Linke et al. 2019) and Global Lakes and Wetlands Database v2 (Lehner et al. 2024). Terrestrial ecoregions are mapped in Dinerstein et al. (2017), marine ecoregions are mapped in Spalding et al. (2007, 2012), and freshwater ecoregions are mapped in Abell et al. (2008).

KBAs are identified nationally through multi-stakeholder processes involving government, academia, non-governmental organisations, indigenous people’s groups, and other stakeholders as appropriate, typically coordinated by KBA National Coordination Groups, following standard criteria and thresholds. Key Biodiversity Areas data are aggregated into the World Database on Key Biodiversity Areas, managed by BirdLife International on behalf of the KBA Partnership, and made freely available through the KBA website at www.keybiodiversityareas.org.

5f. Availability and release calendar

The headline indicator disaggregated by coverage by realm, and by protected areas versus OECMs, is published on the Protected Planet website each month. Once fully developed, the disaggregation by level of effectiveness will also be published every month.

The disaggregation by coverage of areas of particular importance for biodiversity is updated annually using the latest versions of the datasets on protected areas, OECMs and Key Biodiversity Areas. This disaggregation is also provided annually in the UN Sustainable Development Goal Database (https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/dataportal) and in the IBAT Country Profiles (https://www.ibat-alliance.org/country_profiles?loc...), and every two years, alongside the disaggregations by ecoregion, biome and governance type in the Protected Planet Report series. Temporal trends are also provided in this series.

5g. Time series

1819 – current year

5h. Data providers

See Data sources.

5i. Data compilers

UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and BirdLife International

Protected area and OECM data are aggregated globally into the WDPA and WD-OECM by the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, according to the mandate for production of the United Nations List of Protected Areas (UN Economic and Social Council, 1959; Deguignet et al. 2014) and subsequent decisions of the CBD CoP. They are disseminated through Protected Planet, which is managed by UNEP-WCMC. Key Biodiversity Areas data are aggregated into the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas, managed by BirdLife International.

5j. Gaps in data coverage

Quality control criteria are applied to ensure consistency and comparability of the data in the World Database on Protected Areas and WD-OECM. New data are validated at UNEP-WCMC through a number of tools and translated into the standard data structure of the World Database on Protected Areas and WD-OECM. Discrepancies between the data in the World Database on Protected Areas and WD-OECM and new data are minimised by provision of a manual (UNEP-WCMC 2019) and resolved in communication with data providers. Data and knowledge gaps can arise due to difficulties in determining whether a site conforms to the IUCN definition of a protected area or the CBD definition of an Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measure. However, given that both are incorporated into the indicator, misclassifications (as one or the other) do not impact the calculated indicator value. Non-state governed protected areas are under-represented in the WDPA. The majority of countries have not yet reported OECMs.

Regarding areas of importance for biodiversity, Similar processes apply for the incorporation of data into the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas (BirdLife International 2023), and the KBA Proposal, Review, Nomination and Confirmation process involves a number of steps to ensure that the data are valid and the KBA criteria have been appropriately applied.

the biggest limitation currently is that site identification to date has focused disproportionately on specific subsets of biodiversity, for example birds (for Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas) and highly threatened species (for Alliance for Zero Extinction sites). While Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas have been documented to be good surrogates for biodiversity more generally (Brooks et al. 2001, Pain et al. 2005), the application of the unified standard for identification of Key Biodiversity Areas (IUCN 2016) across different levels of biodiversity (genes, species, ecosystems) and different taxonomic groups remains a high priority, building from efforts to date (Eken et al. 2004, Knight et al. 2007, Langhammer et al. 2007, Foster et al. 2012). Fortunately, good progress is now being made, with birds now comprise less than 50% of the species for which Key Biodiversity Areas have been identified, and as Key Biodiversity Area identification for other taxa and elements of biodiversity proceeds, such bias will become a less important consideration in the future. Key Biodiversity Area identification has been validated for a number of countries and regions where comprehensive biodiversity data allow formal calculation of the site importance (or “irreplaceability”) using systematic conservation planning techniques (Di Marco et al. 2016, Montesino Pouzols et al. 2014).

Future developments of the indicator will include: a) improvements in the data on protected areas by continuing to increase the proportion of sites with documented dates of designation and with digitised boundary polygons (rather than coordinates); b) increased documentation of Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures in the World Database of OECMs; c) expansion of the taxonomic coverage of Key Biodiversity Areas through application of the Key Biodiversity Areas standard (IUCN 2016) to a wider variety of vertebrates, invertebrates and plants, as well as increased applicatoin of the criteria relating to ecosystem, ecological integrity and irreplaceability; and d) improved data on effectiveness; d) increased use of disaggregations by ecosystem functional groups as these are mapped in increasing numbers of countries.

5k. Treatment of missing values

At country level

Data are available for protected areas and Key Biodiversity Areas in all of the world’s countries, and so no imputation or estimation of national level data is necessary. Year of protected area establishment is unknown for a small but significant proportion of protected areas, generating uncertainty in temporal trends in the disaggregation by areas of importance for biodiversity (SDG indicators 14.5.1, 15.1.2, and 15.4.1). To reflect this uncertainty, in such cases a year was randomly assigned from another protected area within the same country, and this procedure was repeated 1,000 times, with the median plotted (Butchart et al. 2012, 2015).

At regional and global levels

Global and regional versions of the indicators are generated from all countries globally or in the relevant region, and so while there is uncertainty around the data, there are no missing values as such and so no need for imputation or estimation.

6. Scale

6a. Scale of use

Scale of application: Global, Regional, National

Scale of data disaggregation/aggregation

Global/ regional scale indicator can be disaggregated to national level: No

National data is collated to form global indicator: Yes

6b. National/regional indicator production

The following method is used to calculate coverage of protected areas by realm:

  1. Start with the latest WDPA monthly release.
  2. The WDPA is filtered to exclude records with the characteristics listed in section 5b.
  3. A buffer is created around protected areas reported as points using their Reported Area. There are important caveats associated with this method, some of which are explored by Visconti et al. 2013. Buffering points can underestimate or overestimate protected area coverage as the circles created around points might cover areas where protected areas do not exist (overestimation) or overlap with areas where other protected areas already exist (underestimation). It can also give inaccurate values for sites that are partly terrestrial and marine as the absence of boundaries make it difficult to predict which portion of a protected area is in the land or the sea.
  4. Both polygon and buffered point layers are combined in a single layer.
  5. The layer above is flattened (dissolved) by country/territory to remove overlaps between designations within countries/territories and avoid double counting (please note that this retains overlaps between countries and should therefore only be used to calculate national, not regional or global, coverage.
  6. Transboundary sites (those that are attributed to multiple countries) are split geographically according to where each part of the protected area is located and are then allocated to the corresponding countries/territories using the base map of the world (see section 5b).
  7. The flattened output is intersected with a base map of the world (see section 5b)
  8. The intersected output is converted to Mollweide (an equal area projection) and the land and EEZ protected area of every country and territory is calculated, in km2.
  9. The terrestrial protected area coverage is calculated for each country or territory by dividing the total area of terrestrial protected areas by total terrestrial area of that country/territory. The marine and coastal protected area coverage is calculated for each country or territory by dividing the total marine and coastal area of protected areas by total marine and coastal area of that country/territory.

OECM coverage by realm is calculated separately:

  1. Start with the latest WD-OECM monthly release.
  2. A buffer is created around OECMs reported as points using their Reported Area.
  3. Both polygon and buffered point layers are combined in a single layer.
  4. Areas where protected areas and OECMs overlap are erased from the OECMs layer above using the global protected areas flat layer.
  5. The output OECMs layer is flattened (dissolved) by country/territory to eliminate overlaps between areas and avoid double counting.
  6. The OECMs flattened layer is intersected with a base map of the world (see section 5b)
  7. The intersected flat layer is converted to Mollweide (an equal area projection) and the land and EEZ OECM area of every country and territory is calculated, in km2.

The national total protected area & OECM coverage for each realm in each country and territory is calculated:

  1. National terrestrial protected area & OECM coverage = (national total area of terrestrial protected areas + national total area of terrestrial OECMs) / total terrestrial area of the country/territory.
  2. National marine and coastal protected area & OECM coverage = (national total area of marine and coastal protected areas + national total area of marine and coastal OECMs) / total marine and coastal area of the country/territory.

Regional indices for the disaggregation by Key Biodiversity Areas are calculated as the mean percentage of each Key Biodiversity Area in the region covered by (i.e. overlapping with) protected areas and/or Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures: in other words, the percentage of each Key Biodiversity Area covered by these designations, averaged over all Key Biodiversity Areas in the particular region.

6c. Sources of differences between global and national figures

National processes provide the data that are incorporated into the World Database on Protected Areas, the World Database on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures, and the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas, so there are very few discrepancies between national indicators and the global one. One minor source of difference is that the World Database on Protected Areas incorporates internationally designated protected areas (e.g., UNESCO World Heritage sites, Ramsar sites, etc), a few of which are not considered by their sovereign nations to be protected areas.

Note that because countries do not submit comprehensive data on degazetted protected areas to the WDPA, earlier values of the indictor may marginally underestimate coverage. Furthermore, there is also a lag between the point at which a protected area is designated on the ground and the point at which it is reported to the WDPA. As such, current or recent coverage may also be underestimated.

6d. Regional and global estimates & data collection for global monitoring

6d.1 Description of the methodology

See above for the methods for calculating coverage by realm and by Key Biodiversity Areas for regions and globally. Protected Areas and Key Biodiversity Areas in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJs) are included in the global versions of these indicators, but not for national or regional versions.

6d.2 Additional methodological details

N/A

6d.3 Description of the mechanism for collecting data from countries

See section 5.

7. Other MEAs, processes and organisations

7a. Other MEA and processes

Sustainable Development Goals

Marine versions of the indicator are the same as Sustainable development Goal (SDG) indicator 14.5.1. Terrestrial and freshwater versions of the disaggregation by areas of importance for biodiversity are the same as SDG indicator 15.1.2 (while SDG indicator 15.4.1 represents a version for sites of important mountain biodiversity).

Relevant subsets of the KBA disaggregation are also used and or reported in

  • daughter agreements of the Convention on Migratory Species (e.g. African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement, Raptors MOU),
  • United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)
  • Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): Global Assessment and each of the Regional Assessments.

Disaggregation by inland waters and by inland water biomes and realms is also relevant to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.

7b. Biodiversity Indicator Partnership

Yes

8. Disaggregation

i. Disaggregation by PAs and OECMs

See section 5.

ii. Disaggregation by realm, biomes, ecosystem functional groups and ecoregions

The indicator was previously disaggregated by coverage of the marine and coastal realm and the terrestrial realm (including inland waters). A methodology for calculating coverage of inland waters separately has now been developed (by TNC, with the support of the Convention on Wetlands Scientific and Review Panel STRP and UNEP-WCMC) and will be implemented moving forwards.

The following steps are used to disaggregrate coverage by realm (following the steps described in section 5):

Protected areas:

  1. The global protected areas flat layer is intersected with a base map of the world. The base map used by UNEP-WCMC is a combination of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ; VLIZ 2014) and terrestrial country boundaries (World Vector Shoreline, 3rd edition, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency). A simplified version of this layer has been published at Nature Scientific Data journal (Brooks et al. 2016a) and is available here: http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.6g.... A more accurate base map is under development by UNEP-WCMC and will replace this base map once complete.
  1. The intersected flat layer is converted to Mollweide (an equal area projection) and the area of each polygon is calculated, in km2.
  2. Calculated areas are summed by land, marine and Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ). Marine and coastal areas are those outlined in the EEZ dataset (see above). ABNJ constitute international waters outside the 200 nautical mile limits of national jurisdiction.
  3. Currently, the terrestrial protected area coverage is calculated by dividing the total area of terrestrial protected areas by total global terrestrial area, excluding Antarctica. ABNJ protected area coverage is calculated by selecting areas where ISO3 = 'ABNJ'. Marine and coastal protected area coverage is (total global protected areas flat coverage) - (ABNJ Area + Land Area). In future, it will be important to clarify whether terrestrial coverage statistics refer to terrestrial + inlands waters (as currently) or exclude inland waters (once coverage of inland waters is calculated too: see below).
  4. Inland water coverage will be calculated as the total extent of inland waters (from GLWD v2) within protected and conserved area boundaries (from WDPA and WD-OECM) divided by the total extent of inland waters.

OECMs:

  1. The OECMs flat layer is intersected with a base map of the world (see above)
  2. The intersected flat layer is converted to Mollweide (an equal area projection) and the area of each polygon is calculated, in km2.
  3. Calculated areas are summed as described above for protected areas.

Protected areas + OECMs:

Statistics for protected areas and OECMs combined are calculated by summing these.

At the national scale, it is recommended that the indicator is disaggregated to show coverage of Ecosystem Functional Groups within the Global Ecosystem Typology (e.g. Tropical/Subtropical Lowland Rainforests, Seagrass meadows, Permanent Upland Streams etc). This can be achieved by (a) matching national ecosystem maps to the Global Ecosystem Typology and assessing coverage by protected areas and OECMs; or (b) using indicative global maps from the Global Ecosystem Typology and assessing coverage by protected areas and OECMs, excluding any inappropriate ecosystem groups that may have been included erroneously owing to data resolution. Coverage of Ecosystem Functional Groups can be combined to show coverage of biomes (e.g.Tropical/subtropical forests biome, Rivers and streams biome, Pelagic ocean waters biome etc). At the global scale, it may be more appropriate to calculate coverage by protected areas and OECMs of biomes, or a combination of biomes and Ecosystem Functional Groups (to enable distinction between coral reefs and seagrass beds, for example). For inland waters, it is recommended to assess coverage of (the total length of) rivers and streams, and (the area of) lakes and wetlands, and artificial wetlands. At a global scale, or in the absence of better data at regional, national, or sub-national scales, these metrics can be derived using the vectorized linear river network of RiverATLAS (Linke et al. 2019) and the lakes, wetlands and artificial wetland classes in GLWD v2 (Lehner et al. 2022). Coverage can also be assessed for terrestrial ecoregions (Dinerstein et al., 2017), marine ecoregions (Spalding et al., 2007, 2012) and freshwater ecosystems (Abell et al. 2008).

iii Disaggregation by areas of importance for biodiversity:

This disaggregation shows temporal trends in the coverage by protected areas and OECMs of areas of particular importance for biodiversity (see definition above). It can be measured as the mean percentage of each important Key Biodiversity Area that is covered by protected areas and Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs), calculated from data derived from a spatial overlap between digital polygons for protected areas (from the World Database on Protected Areas; UNEP-WCMC & IUCN 2023), digital polygons for Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (from the World Database on OECMs) and digital polygons for Key Biodiversity Areas (from the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas, including Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas, Alliance for Zero Extinction sites, and other Key Biodiversity Areas). The value of the indicator at a given point in time, based on data on the year of protected area establishment recorded in the World Database on Protected Areas and the World Database on OECMs, is computed as the mean percentage of each Key Biodiversity Area currently recognised that is covered by protected areas and/or Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures.

Protected areas lacking digital boundaries in the World Database on Protected Areas, and those sites with a status of ‘proposed’ or ‘not reported’ are omitted. Degazetted sites are not kept in the WDPA and are also not included. Man and Biosphere Reserves are also excluded as these often contain potentially unprotected areas. Year of protected area establishment is unknown for ~12% of protected areas in the World Database on Protected Areas, generating uncertainty around changing protected area coverage over time. To reflect this uncertainty, a year was randomly assigned from another protected area within the same country, and then this procedure repeated 1,000 times, with the median plotted.

Prior to 2017, the indicator was presented as the percentage of Key Biodiversity Areas completely covered by protected areas. However, it is now presented as the mean % of each Key Biodiversity Area that is covered by protected areas in order to better reflect trends in protected area coverage for countries or regions with few or no Key Biodiversity Areas that are completely covered.

The indicator is reported for all Key Biodiversity Areas, and for marine, terrestrial and freshwater realms separately, matching SDG indicators 14.5.1 and 15.1.2 (while SDG indicator 15.4.1 represents the mountain subset). Sites were classified as marine Key Biodiversity Areas by undertaking a spatial overlap between the Key Biodiversity Area polygons and an ocean raster layer (produced from the ‘adm0’ layer from the database of Global Administrative Areas (GADM 2019)), classifying any Key Biodiversity Area as a marine Key Biodiversity Area where it had ≥5% overlap with the ocean layer (hence some sites were classified as both marine and terrestrial). Sites were classified as freshwater Key Biodiversity Areas if the resident species for which they were identified were documented in the IUCN Red List as dependent on ‘Inland Water’ systems. For non-resident or migrant species, or species that shift habitats during the annual cycle, the site was tagged as freshwater if the species occurred at the site in the appropriate season of water-dependence (e.g. some species are only dependent on water during the breeding season). Sites were then screened (using the satellite imagery base layer within ArcGIS) as to whether they lay wholly in the Coastal Zone (defined here as within 10 km of the coast), and these sites were then untagged as Freshwater and instead tagged as Marine if the wetland habitats present at the site fell purely within the IUCN Habitat Classification Scheme class ‘Marine Supratidal’ (i.e. estuaries, lagoons, etc.). If the site was within the Coastal Zone, but contained a mixture of Marine Supratidal and Inland Water classes, then it was tagged as both Freshwater and Marine. Each site was then manually cross-checked against other (less comprehensively available) site attributes, such as the habitat preferences of its trigger species, the site’s name (Delta, River, Humedal, etc.), its areal coverage by different habitat types, its overlap with Ramsar Sites etc, so as to confirm or remove the freshwater tag appropriately. Some Key Biodiversity Areas qualify as both marine and terrestrial, and others qualify as both terrestrial and freshwater. Such sites are included in both of the relevant realm disaggregations. The indicator is also disaggregated to show trends in coverage of Key Biodiversity Areas identified for migratory species by protected area and OECMs, as a measure of the protection of ecological connectivity (this disaggregation is also relevant to the Convention on Migratory Species).

While Key Biodiversity Areas provide the most comprehensive dataset available of areas of particular importance for biodiversity identified nationally using a standardised approach that is comparable across all countries, Parties may wish to include other areas that meet the definition of areas of particular importance for biodiversity (Plumptre et al 2024).

iv Disaggregation by level of effectiveness:

Partners of the Protected Planet Initiative are developing a method for disaggregating PA and OECM coverage by ‘level of effectiveness’. The proposed approach (UNEP-WCMC et al 2023), subject to change, is designed to bring together results from existing protected area effectiveness assessment methods and frameworks (including some listed as component and complementary indicators in CBD/COP/DEC/15/5 and listed in the Global Database on Protected Area Management Effectiveness). Key metrics have been identified for using these data to report on components of effectiveness (i.e. for Governance; Design & Planning; Management and Outcomes). Consultation on the proposed methods will commence shortly, with the aim of enabling the production of this disaggregation of the indicator in 2025. The proposed method follows a ‘phased approach’, which would allow data providers to submit data to Protected Planet at different levels of detail, according to their capacity to report and the availability of data. The indicator can already be disaggregated to show coverage of protected areas and OECMs for which a management effectiveness assessment has or has not been conducted, based on data submitted to the Global Database on Protected Area Management Effectiveness.

v. Disaggregation by governance type:

The indicator can be disaggregated by coverage of each IUCN governance type (government, private organisations, IP and LC, or shared) using the WDPA/WD-OECM GOV_TYPE field.

A time series can be created for all disaggregations using the WDPA/WD-OECM STATUS_YR field.

9. Related goals, targets and indicators

Target 1 Complementary indicator “Percentage of spatial plans utilizing information on key biodiversity areas”,

Target 2 & 3 Complementary indicator “Status of Key Biodiversity Areas”,

Target 3 Complementary indicator “Extent to which protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) cover Key Biodiversity Areas that are important for migratory species”.

10. Data reporter

10a. Organisation

UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC)

BirdLife International

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

10b. Contact person(s)

Heather Bingham Heather.Bingham@unep-wcmc.org

11. References

These metadata are based on https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadat..., and https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadat..., supplemented by https://www.bipindicators.net/indicators/coverage-..., https://www.bipindicators.net/indicators/protected... , https://www.protectedplanet.net/en/resources/calcu... and the references listed below.

References:

ABELL, R. et al (2008) Freshwater Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Biogeographic Units for Freshwater Biodiversity Conservation. BioScience, 58: 403–414, https://doi.org/10.1641/B580507

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2014). Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas: a global network for conserving nature and benefiting people. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. Available at datazone.birdlife.org/sowb/sowbpubs#IBA. 

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2023) World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. Developed by the KBA Partnership: BirdLife International, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Amphibian Survival Alliance, Conservation International, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Global Environment Facility, NatureServe, Rainforest Trust, Re:Wild, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Wildlife Conservation Society and World Wildlife Fund. May 2023 version. Available at http://keybiodiversityareas.org/site/search

BROOKS, T. et al. (2001). Conservation priorities for birds and biodiversity: do East African Important Bird Areas represent species diversity in other terrestrial vertebrate groups? Ostrich suppl. 15: 3–12. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2989/0030652.... 

BROOKS, T.M., et al. (2016a). Analysing Biodiversity and Conservation Knowledge Products to Support Regional Environmental Assessments. Scientific Data 3(1). Available from: www.nature.com/articles/sdata20167, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.7.

BROOKS, T.M. et al. (2016b). Goal 15: Life on land. Sustainable manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, halt biodiversity loss. Pp. 497–522 in Durán y Lalaguna, P., Díaz Barrado, C.M. & Fernández Liesa, C.R. (eds.) International Society and Sustainable Development Goals. Editorial Aranzadi, Cizur Menor, Spain. Available from: https://www.thomsonreuters.es/es/tienda/pdp/duo.ht...

BUTCHART, S. H. M. et al. (2010). Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328: 1164–1168. Available from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5982/1164.sh...

BUTCHART, S. H. M. et al. (2012). Protecting important sites for biodiversity contributes to meeting global conservation targets. PLoS One 7(3): e32529. Available from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.137.... 

BUTCHART, S. H. M. et al. (2015). Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets. Conservation Letters 8: 329–337. Available from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12.... 

CBD (2014). Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. Convention on Biological Diversity, Montréal, Canada. Available from https://www.cbd.int/gbo4/. 

CBD (2018). Protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. Decision 14/8 adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop-14-de...

CBD (2020a). Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. Convention on Biological Diversity, Montréal, Canada. Available from https://www.cbd.int/gbo5/

CBD (2020b). Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: Scientific and technical information to support the review of the updated Goals and Targets, and related indicators and baselines. Document CBD/SBSTTA/24/3. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/705d/6b4b/a1a463c1b19392... .

CHAPE, S. et al. (2005). Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360: 443–445. Available from http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1454/443.short.DEGUIGNET, M., et al. (2014). 2014 United Nations List of Protected Areas. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Available from http://unep-wcmc.org/system/dataset_file_fields/fi.... 

DEGUIGNET, M., et al. (2014). 2014 United Nations List of Protected Areas. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Available from https://resources.unep-wcmc.org/products/WCMC_RT10...

DI MARCO, M., et al. (2016). Quantifying the relative irreplaceability of Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas. Conservation Biology 30: 392–402. Available from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12...

DINERSTEIN, E., et al. (2017). An Ecoregion-Based Approach to Protecting Half the Terrestrial Realm. Bioscience 67: 534-545. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix014

DONALD, P. et al. (2018) Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs): the development and characteristics of a global inventory of key sites for biodiversity. Bird Conserv. Internat. 29:177–198.

DUDLEY, N. (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Gland, Switzerland. Available from https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/9243

EDGAR, G.J. et al. (2008). Key Biodiversity Areas as globally significant target sites for the conservation of marine biological diversity. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18: 969–983. Available from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aqc.902.... 

EKEN, G. et al. (2004). Key biodiversity areas as site conservation targets. BioScience 54: 1110–1118. Available from http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/12.... 

FOSTER, M.N. et al. (2012) The identification of sites of biodiversity conservation significance: progress with the application of a global standard. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4: 2733–2744. Available from http://www.threatenedtaxa.in/index.php/JoTT/articl.... 

Global Administrative Areas (2019). GADM database of Global Administrative Areas, version 2.8. Available from www.gadm.org. 

HAN, X. et al. (2014). A Biodiversity indicators dashboard: addressing challenges to monitoring progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets using disaggregated global data. PLoS ONE 9(11): e112046. Available from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.137.... 

HOLLAND, R.A. et al. (2012). Conservation priorities for freshwater biodiversity: the key biodiversity area approach refined and tested for continental Africa. Biological Conservation 148: 167–179. Available from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

IUCN (2016). A Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland. Available from https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/46259. 

IUCN-WCPA Task Force on OECMs (2019). Recognising and reporting other effective area-based conservation measures. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

JONAS, H.D. et al. (2014) New steps of change: looking beyond protected areas to consider other effective area-based conservation measures. Parks 20: 111–128. Available from  http://parksjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10... .

KBA Secretariat (2019). Key Biodiversity Areas Proposal Process: Guidance on Proposing, Reviewing, Nominating and Confirming sites. Version 1.0. Prepared by the KBA Secretariat and KBA Committee of the KBA Partnership. Cambridge, UK. Available at http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/assets/35687f5....  

KBA Standards and Appeals Committee (2020). Guidelines for using A Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas. Version 1.1. Prepared by the KBA Standards and Appeals Committee of the IUCN Species Survival Commission and IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/49131

KNIGHT, A. T. et al. (2007). Improving the Key Biodiversity Areas approach for effective conservation planning. BioScience 57: 256–261. Available from http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/3/.... 

LANGHAMMER, P. F. et al. (2007). Identification and Gap Analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas: Targets for Comprehensive Protected Area Systems. IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 15. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Available from https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/9055. 

LEHNER, B. et al. (2022). Global hydro-environmental lake characteristics at high spatial resolution. Scientific Data 9: 351. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01425-z.

LEVERINGTON, F. et al. (2010). A global analysis of protected area management effectiveness. Environmental Management 46: 685–698. Available from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-01...

LINKE, S. et al. (2019). Global hydro-environmental sub-basin and river reach characteristics at high spatial resolution. Scientific Data 6: 283. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0300-6.

MONTESINO POUZOLS, F., et al. (2014) Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism. Nature 516: 383–386. Available from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v516/n7531/ab.... 

NOLTE, C. & AGRAWAL, A. (2013). Linking management effectiveness indicators to observed effects of protected areas on fire occurrence in the Amazon rainforest. Conservation Biology 27: 155–165. Available from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-.... 

PLUMPTRE, A. et al. (2024) Targeting site conservation to achieve new global biodiversity goals. One Earth (in press).

PAIN, D.J. et al. (2005) Biodiversity representation in Uganda’s forest IBAs. Biological Conservation 125: 133–138. Available from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S.... 

RICKETTS, T. H. et al. (2005). Pinpointing and preventing imminent extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. 102: 18497–18501. Available from http://www.pnas.org/content/102/51/18497.short. 

RODRIGUES, A. S. L. et al. (2004). Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428: 640–643. Available from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6983/ab.... 

RODRÍGUEZ-RODRÍGUEZ, D., et al. (2011). Progress towards international targets for protected area coverage in mountains: a multi-scale assessment. Biological Conservation 144: 2978–2983. Available from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S.... 

SIMKINS, A.T., PEARMAIN, E.J., & DIAS, M.P. (2020). Code (and documentation) for calculating the protected area coverage of Key Biodiversity Areas. https://github.com/BirdLifeInternational/kba-overl... . 

SPALDING, M.D., et al. (2012). Pelagic provinces of the world: A biogeographic classification of the world’s surface pelagic waters. Ocean & Coastal Management, 60: 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.12.016

SPALDING, M.D., et al. (2007). Marine Ecoregions of the World: A Bioregionalization of Coastal and Shelf Areas. BioScience, 57(7): 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1641/B570707

TITTENSOR, D. et al. (2014). A mid-term analysis of progress towards international biodiversity targets. Science 346: 241–244. Available from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6206/241.sho.... 

UN Economic and Social Council (1959). Establishment by the Secretary-General of the United Nations of a list of national parks and equivalent reserves. E/RES/713(XXVII). Mexico City.

UNEP-WCMC (2019). World Database on Protected Areas User Manual 1.6. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Available from http://wcmc.io/WDPA_Manual .

UNEP-WCMC & IUCN (2023). The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Available from http://www.protectedplanet.net.

UNEP-WCMC, IUCN & JNCC (2023). Monitoring ‘effectiveness’ of areas contributing to Target 3. Available from: https://wdpa.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/PAME/prote...

VISCONTI, P., et al. (2013). “Effects of Errors and Gaps in Spatial Data Sets on Assessment of Conservation Progress.” Conservation Biology, 27(5), pp. 1000–1010, https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12095.

VLIZ. (2014). Maritime Boundaries Geodatabase: Maritime Boundaries and Exclusive Economic Zones (200NM), version 11. Available online at https://www.marineregions.org/. https://doi.org/10.14284/386

 Back to top

Feedback: UNEP-WCMC is keen to ensure that our data is accurate and up to date. We welcome any feedback on the quality, reliability, and accuracy of the information on this site. If you see any errors or missing information, please get in touch.