The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which created these guidelines, is an international environmental network founded in 1948 that provides conservation data, assessment and analysis to governments, NGOs and private entities. IUCN also manages the Red List of Threatened Species. This connectivity guideline is part of a series of best practices for protected area land managers.
Providing a definition and context for the importance of connectivity, the authors state:
‘Ecological connectivity’ is the unimpeded movement of species and the flow of natural processes that sustain life on Earth. This is not an overstatement. Without connectivity, ecosystems cannot function properly, and without well-functioning ecosystems, biodiversity and other fundamentals of life are at risk [Hilty 2020: xii].
Moreover,
Most global, regional and national targets for biodiversity conservation, climate change and environmental sustainability cannot be met unless ecological connectivity conservation is addressed [Hilty 2020: 48].
In short, ecological connectivity undergirds the conditions for life on Earth. The authors explain that the concept of connectivity reflects an evolution in conservation science. Previously, nature conservation consisted primarily of setting aside areas of undisturbed or minimally disturbed land. While protected areas remain the foundation of nature conservation, “they are no longer considered sufficient in many places. It is now understood that active measures must also be taken to maintain, enhance or restore ecological connectivity among and between protected areas and OECMs[4] [Hilty 2020: 2].”
Hence,
These Guidelines have been drafted to help clarify and standardize a shift in conservation practice from a narrow focus on individual protected areas to considering them as essential parts of large landscape conservation networks. This is done through creating ‘ecological networks for conservation’ that are specifically designed, implemented and managed to ensure that ecological connectivity is maintained and enhanced where it is present, or restored where it has been lost. Unless systems of protected areas and OECMs retain all essential ecosystem processes, they are not sufficient [Hilty 2020: 3].
The guidelines emphasize the importance of clearly defining one or more ecological objectives for establishing a corridor, such as to facilitate gene dispersal, migration, or adaptation to climate change for particular or multiple species. Clearly defined objectives allow for a corridor to be created in a way that leads to successful outcomes vis a vis the objectives. Primary objectives should relate directly to ecological connectivity, while complementary social or economic objectives (ecosystem services, such as flood and erosion control, enhancing crop pollination, for example) may also be included.
The toolbox for connectivity conservation includes various types of formal and informal recognition, national legislation, local and regional zoning regulations, conservation easements, conservancy design and transportation planning [Hilty 2020: 48].
The importance of connectivity is increasingly recognized in international treaties, and in national and sub-national planning and policy initiatives.
Until recently, connectivity legislation was rare at the national or even sub-national level. Now, countries such as Bhutan, Costa Rica and Tanzania, and sub-national jurisdictions such as California and New Mexico (USA), have enacted corridor legislation. Additionally, site-specific legislation has been enacted in some countries. For example, the South Korea Act on the Protection of the Baekdu Daegan Mountain System, 2003 (Act no. 7038), which came into effect in 2005, designates an area of 263,427 ha. Of this, 86% is made up of 183 existing protected areas and 14% consists of new buffer and core areas that create a biodiversity corridor along the main mountain range of the Korean Peninsula [Hilty 2020: 45].
However, mostly countries have not yet effectively integrated connectivity into policy and planning. Partly this is due to the complexity of establishing ecological corridors.
Connectivity conservation requires innovative implementation approaches to conserve lands and water within the conservation matrix – across patterns of resource use, jurisdictions, cultures and geographies [Hilty 2020: 48].
These guidelines are meant as a toolbox to help local, regional, national and international entities navigate that complexity.
‘Ecological connectivity’ is the unimpeded movement of species and the flow of natural processes that sustain life on Earth. This is not an overstatement. Without connectivity, ecosystems cannot function properly, and without well-functioning ecosystems, biodiversity and other fundamentals of life are at risk [Hilty 2020: xii]. |
Hilty, Jodi, et al., 2020, Guidelines for conserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 30. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/49061.
[4] OECM stands for “other effective area-based conservation measures,” which refers to: “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 are also conserved [Hilty 2020: 50].