Well-Connected

Guidelines for conserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors are based on the best available science and practice for maintaining, enhancing and restoring ecological connectivity among and between protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures – OECMs, and provide a rich resource for policy makers and practitioners. More resources are being developed to help implementers identify opportunities for advancing connectivity conservation at national and subnational levels through National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans – NBSAPs and Global Environmental Facility – GEF financing.

There are a wide range of area-based approaches for connectivity in use that can contribute to Target 3 and can be drawn on for inspiration and legal precedents. Bhutan, Costa Rica, Croatia, India, Kenya, Malaysia, and the Netherlands all have corridor legislation and are undertaking national connectivity measures. Marine spatial planning and marine zoning can help connectivity planning for marine protected areas -MPAs. It is likely that there are already initiatives taking place within most countries including involvement in transboundary efforts, for example, flyways, free-flowing rivers or the Cetacean migration corridor in the Mediterranean Sea. An inventory of these areas could be conducted identifying potential networks contributing to Target 3.

Most connectivity planning will occur beyond protected areas and OECMs – connectivity is ultimately a supporter of conservation occurring in the remaining natural areas of cities, farms and shared lands. This represents both a challenge and an opportunity. Whilst ideally guided by ecological considerations, design decisions will be constrained by existing ownership or resource use rights and human activities.

Securing and improving connectivity is therefore often only achievable by a multistakeholder group including protected areas and OECMs managers, indigenous peoples, local communities and government, landowners and managers, etc. International cooperation for migratory networks requires a different set of stakeholders, policies and cooperation. The same range of governance types that apply to protected areas and OECMs also apply to ecological corridors and the governance authority may or may not be the same as the landowner or rightsholder of a portion of the corridor.

Along the corridor, a mix of tenure, whether legally or customarily defined, can be present under all governance types and be represented through a variety of instruments such as formal delegation, leasing, contracts or other agreements requiring a large scope of social alliances and cooperation to handle. The corridor tenure(s) should be clear and articulated; identifying statutory and customary ownership and use rights and negotiating with all rightsholders on their respective connectivity management roles.

These approaches require actor identification, awareness raising and management, achieving scale requires planning at the landscape or seascape level. Engaging such a diverse range of rightsholders, stakeholders and other actors at a large scale will be complex but also represents an opportunity for greater community involvement in conservation and aligning goals on the 70% of areas outside of protected areas and OECMs at risk of loss or reduced connectivity from the heightened human-use.

Connectivity is important for achieving many Multilateral Environment Agreements, in particular the Convention on Migratory Species – CMS. Connectivity is also a qualifier of GBF Target 2 on ecological restoration and Target 12 on urban green and blue spaces and prominent in Goal A.

Ecological corridors are not a substitute for protected areas and OECMs but should be identified and established in areas where connectivity is required, have specific ecological objectives and be managed and governed to achieve these goals. They should be differentiated from non-corridor areas by specific uses that are prohibited or allowed e.g., sustainable resource use. Systematic conservation planning and ecological modelling can identify potential ecological corridors and factor in likely obstacles. Such planning may consider specific conservation targets (e.g., focal species, KBAs, population sizes etc.), climate change modelling scenarios, and socio-economic and political filters. It is also important to consider the role of existing and planned infrastructure (e.g., roads, railways, oil pipelines, hydropower dames), where poor planning can result in fragmentation and further loss of connectivity.

It is important to consider certain species’ needs for dispersal and habitat size when assessing or improving the connectivity of a protected areas and OECMs. Calculations of appropriate distances between them should be made according to species’ characteristics such as dispersal range and area required for a minimum viable population. Distances should be minimized and area between core habitats managed to maintain connectivity. Protected areas and OECMs managers can propose corridors to regional/national planners and support corridor managers to develop ecological objectives and management plans. Managers of very small protected areas and OECMs (e.g., < 10 ha) in highly fragmented regions or in mountains where habitat range is limited, may play a critical role in maintaining connectivity across a region and should work with other local protected areas and OECMs managers to retain connectivity.

Connectivity in marine conservation planning is an emerging topic of discussion and particularly important for coral ecosystems that require connectivity for heat-adapted larvae to migrate to cooler sites under climate change. Kelp forests, hydrothermal vents and migratory routes of marine species whose life cycle needs involve movements vertically and horizontally through the ocean as well as across regional or global routes for food, breeding, calving, and other essential function, are other important examples. Disruption of marine connectivity can have wide-ranging impacts. The IUCN Conservation Corridor group is collating rules of thumb for designing MPA networks and a series of case studies of initiatives around the world working toward maintaining, enhancing, and restoring ecological connectivity of the marine environment.

Connectivity approaches are particularly important for inland water systems that have landscape-scale dependencies on their upstream catchments and connectivity with groundwater, floodplain and downstream habitats. For example, the Pärnu River was targeted under Estonia’s National Water Act as a migratory swimway to restore the free-flowing condition and important habitat of a river and manage freshwater fishes over their entire migration route.