Institution
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Nonprofit•Dhaka, Bangladesh•
About: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources is a nonprofit organization based out in Dhaka, Bangladesh. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Biodiversity & Population. The organization has 1317 authors who have published 1870 publications receiving 97588 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: The Global Environment Facility (GEF) has allocated US $7.5 billion intended to develop and implement scientifically and socially credible solutions to key global environmental problems such as climate change, biological diversity loss and degradation of transboundary aquatic systems.
Abstract: Over its 17 years, the UN's Global Environment Facility (GEF) has allocated US $7.5 billion intended to develop and implement scientifically and socially credible solutions to key global environmental problems such as climate change, biological diversity loss and degradation of transboundary aquatic systems. We studied 906 GEF projects to analyse the challenges that it is facing in delivering solutions that are likely to be sustainable in the long-term. The research included desk reviews of relevant documents and follow-up interviews with a wide range of stakeholders. Some of the challenges the GEF faces are deeply rooted in temporal and spatial mismatches of scale between human economies and their environmental consequences and the strongly sectoral way current society is managed. We conclude that the GEF obtained impressive results for tackling problems of limited complexity and easily quantified benefits but progress is slower on more complex and less tangible problems impeding sustainable development. Potentially, the GEF could enable adaptive management through a ‘learning by doing’ process, transforming it into an innovative mechanism for delivering global benefits. Continued emphasis on ‘easy wins’ would not allow it to achieve this goal.
37 citations
••
TL;DR: This analysis identifies, for the first time, multi-designated areas across all designation types to understand how these areas are managed and governed to then move towards integrated and collaborative approaches that consider the different management and conservation objectives of each designation.
Abstract: Over the past decades, a number of national policies and international conventions have been implemented to promote the expansion of the world’s protected area network, leading to a diversification of protected area strategies, types and designations. As a result, many areas are protected by more than one convention, legal instrument, or other effective means which may result in a lack of clarity around the governance and management regimes of particular locations. We assess the degree to which different designations overlap at global, regional and national levels to understand the extent of this phenomenon at different scales. We then compare the distribution and coverage of these multi-designated areas in the terrestrial and marine realms at the global level and among different regions, and we present the percentage of each county’s protected area extent that is under more than one designation. Our findings show that almost a quarter of the world’s protected area network is protected through more than one designation. In fact, we have documented up to eight overlapping designations. These overlaps in protected area designations occur in every region of the world, both in the terrestrial and marine realms, but are more common in the terrestrial realm and in some regions, notably Europe. In the terrestrial realm, the most common overlap is between one national and one international designation. In the marine realm, the most common overlap is between any two national designations. Multi-designations are therefore a widespread phenomenon but its implications are not well understood. This analysis identifies, for the first time, multi-designated areas across all designation types. This is a key step to understand how these areas are managed and governed to then move towards integrated and collaborative approaches that consider the different management and conservation objectives of each designation.
37 citations
••
Norwegian University of Life Sciences1, University of York2, Manchester Metropolitan University3, University of Leeds4, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources5, University College London6, Royal Museum for Central Africa7, Ghent University8, University of Jos9, University of Helsinki10, Charles University in Prague11, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic12, Addis Ababa University13, University of Yaoundé I14, Mbarara University of Science and Technology15, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech16, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg17, United Nations Environment Programme18, University of Canterbury19, National Park Service20, Wageningen University and Research Centre21, University of Guelph22, Sewanee: The University of the South23, University of Montpellier24, University of Kisangani25, World Agroforestry Centre26, Missouri Botanical Garden27, University of Burundi28, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute29, Kunming Institute of Botany30, Université libre de Bruxelles31, American Museum of Natural History32, University of Bayreuth33, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ34, Karatina University35, Colorado State University36, Environmental Change Institute37, University of the Sunshine Coast38, College of African Wildlife Management39, University of Edinburgh40, University of Dundee41, Cape Peninsula University of Technology42, National University of Rwanda43, University of Gothenburg44, Mountains of the Moon University45, University of Southampton46, University of Cambridge47, Wuhan University48, BirdLife International49, University of Lincoln50, University of Florence51, University of Freiburg52, University of Bonn53, University of Dschang54, African Wildlife Foundation55, University of British Columbia56, Center for International Forestry Research57, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague58, Bioversity International59, National University of Singapore60, University of Toronto61, Yale University62, Florida International University63, Rothamsted Research64, Bangor University65, University of Liberia66
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors assemble and analyse a dataset of structurally intact old-growth forests spanning 44 montane sites in 12 African countries and find that the average AGC stock of these sites has a value of 149.4 megagrams of carbon per hectare (95% confidence interval 137.1-164.2).
Abstract: Tropical forests store 40–50 per cent of terrestrial vegetation carbon1. However, spatial variations in aboveground live tree biomass carbon (AGC) stocks remain poorly understood, in particular in tropical montane forests2. Owing to climatic and soil changes with increasing elevation3, AGC stocks are lower in tropical montane forests compared with lowland forests2. Here we assemble and analyse a dataset of structurally intact old-growth forests (AfriMont) spanning 44 montane sites in 12 African countries. We find that montane sites in the AfriMont plot network have a mean AGC stock of 149.4 megagrams of carbon per hectare (95% confidence interval 137.1–164.2), which is comparable to lowland forests in the African Tropical Rainforest Observation Network4 and about 70 per cent and 32 per cent higher than averages from plot networks in montane2,5,6 and lowland7 forests in the Neotropics, respectively. Notably, our results are two-thirds higher than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change default values for these forests in Africa8. We find that the low stem density and high abundance of large trees of African lowland forests4 is mirrored in the montane forests sampled. This carbon store is endangered: we estimate that 0.8 million hectares of old-growth African montane forest have been lost since 2000. We provide country-specific montane forest AGC stock estimates modelled from our plot network to help to guide forest conservation and reforestation interventions. Our findings highlight the need for conserving these biodiverse9,10 and carbon-rich ecosystems.
37 citations
••
United Nations Environment Programme1, Cologne University of Applied Sciences2, University of Jena3, University of the South Pacific4, National University of Singapore5, United Nations University6, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources7, University of Cologne8, Duke University9, Yale-NUS College10, University of Lausanne11, University of Geneva12, University of Glasgow13, Wageningen University and Research Centre14, Utrecht University15, Wetlands International16, University of Massachusetts Amherst17
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a review of the state of knowledge of ecosystem services and functions for disaster risk reduction, and show that ecosystems play a potentially important role in sustainably reducing the risk of disaster events worldwide.
Abstract: Ecosystems play a potentially important role in sustainably reducing the risk of disaster events worldwide. Yet, to date, there are few comprehensive studies that summarize the state of knowledge of ecosystem services and functions for disaster risk reduction. This paper builds scientific evidence through a review of 529 English-language articles published between 2000 and 2019. It catalogues the extent of knowledge on, and confidence in, ecosystems in reducing disaster risk. The data demonstrate robust links and cost-effectiveness between certain ecosystems in reducing specific hazards, something that was revealed to be particularly true for the role of vegetation in the stabilization of steep slopes. However, the published research was limited in geographic distribution and scope, with a concentration on urban areas of the Global North, with insufficient relevant research on coastal, dryland and watershed areas, especially in the Global South. Many types of ecosystem can provide sustainable and multifunctional approaches to disaster risk reduction. Yet, if they are to play a greater role, more attention is needed to fill research gaps and develop performance standards. Disaster risks are a critical area for research, but while the focus has been on man-made adaptation, this analysis of 529 studies compiles evidence for how ecosystems can mitigate hazard vulnerabilities.
37 citations
••
TL;DR: It is concluded that management intensity is important not only to reduce populations more quickly, but also to minimize the number of preventable deaths that occur over time.
Abstract: This study used a previously developed stochastic simulation model (1) to estimate the impact of different management actions on free-roaming kitten and cat mortality over a 10-year period. These longer-term cumulative impacts have not been systematically examined to date. We examined seven management scenarios, including: (1) taking no action, (2) low-intensity removal, (3) high-intensity removal, (4) low-intensity episodic culling, (5) high-intensity episodic culling, (6) low-intensity trap-neuter-return (TNR), and (7) high-intensity TNR. For each scenario we tracked within the model the number of kittens born, the number of kittens surviving to adulthood, and the number of adults removed using lethal control over the entire 10-year simulation. We further defined all kitten deaths and lethal removal of adults as "preventable" deaths because they could potentially be reduced by certain management actions. Our simulation results suggested that the cumulative number of preventable deaths over 10 years for an initial population of 50 cats is highest for a "no-action" scenario, estimated at 1,000 deaths. It is lowest for a high-intensity TNR scenario, estimated at 32 deaths, a 31-fold difference. For all management scenarios tested, including removal and culling, the model predicted fewer preventable deaths than for a no-action scenario. For all management scenarios, the model predicted that the higher-intensity option (defined in terms of the proportion of animals sterilized or removed within a given time period) would result in fewer preventable deaths over time than the lower-intensity option. Based on these findings, we conclude that management intensity is important not only to reduce populations more quickly, but also to minimize the number of preventable deaths that occur over time. Accordingly, the lessons for the animal welfare community are both encouraging and cautionary. With sufficient intensity, management by TNR offers significant advantages in terms of combined lifesaving and population size reduction. At lower intensity levels, these advantages are greatly reduced or eliminated. We recommend that those who seek to minimize suffering and maximize lifesaving for free-roaming cats attempt to balance prospective goals (i.e., saving lives tomorrow) with proximate goals (i.e., saving lives today), and recognize that thoughtful choice of management strategies can ensure that both of these complementary goals are achieved.
37 citations
Authors
Showing all 1320 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Kevin M. Smith | 114 | 1711 | 78470 |
Ary A. Hoffmann | 113 | 907 | 55354 |
David W. Macdonald | 111 | 1109 | 51334 |
Michael R. Hoffmann | 109 | 500 | 63474 |
Fred W. Allendorf | 86 | 230 | 34738 |
Edward B. Barbier | 84 | 450 | 36753 |
James J. Yoo | 81 | 491 | 27738 |
Michael William Bruford | 80 | 369 | 23635 |
James E. M. Watson | 74 | 461 | 23362 |
Brian Huntley | 74 | 225 | 28875 |
Brian W. Bowen | 74 | 181 | 17451 |
Gordon Luikart | 72 | 193 | 37564 |
Stuart H. M. Butchart | 72 | 245 | 26585 |
Thomas M. Brooks | 71 | 215 | 33724 |
Joshua E. Cinner | 68 | 177 | 14384 |