The case of Finland is significant with more than the 80% of the protected areas included in its national network, owned and managed by private actors, corresponding to roughly the 8% of the total area under protection. These records are explained by the impact of the successful implementation of the Metso Programme (2008–2016) launched by the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Finnish Environment Institute and the Forest Development Centre Tapio, in order to tackle the biodiversity decline in forest habitats. The public-led programme aims at activating voluntary-based conservation agreements between forest owners and public authorities through a payment for ecosystem services mechanism. Between 2000 and 2010 some 5.600 new PPAs were established in Southern Finland under the Metso program and since 2005, 81 million euros have been allocated to PPAs’ landowners as compensation for income loss (Stolton et al., 2014).

PPAs in France correspond to 28% of the total natural reserves; these are natural reserves owned and managed by the Natural Areas Conservation Society (Conservatoire des espaces naturels- CEN). CENs are part of a NGOs national federation, representing them at national level and providing technical support. This is the only NGO whose role is officially recognized by the national Environmental Code since 2010. CENs can both own and rent the land, or enter into management agreements with public or private entities (Guigner and Prieur, 2010).

In the Netherlands, civil society and private actors have had a key role in the purchase and management of rural areas for conservation purposes. The major landowning nature protection organization, Natuurmonumenten, was created in 1905 and two private National Parks were established in the 1930s. Government intervention followed later on with legislation protecting private estates (Elbersen, 2001), while the designation of further National Parks only starts from the 1980s. In addition to the National Parks  registered in CDDA as having a private statute (two of them are privately owned and managed, the others managed through co-governance approaches), we should consider sites recognized and brought under the Nature Conservation Act in 1968 as nature reserves, which are owned and/or managed by private organizations and public bodies  (ibidem). More recently, starting from 1990, the Dutch National Ecological Network of protected areas (NEN) has been designed through a systematic planning; private actors, such as nature preservation organizations, have been involved in NEN areas management, receiving subsidies from provincial governments for land acquisitions(Bakker et al., 2015).

In Portugal the Faia Brava Reserve, owned and managed by a NGO, was legally recognized in 2010 as the first national private protected area within a specific legal framework. Precisely, the Decree-Law n. 142/2008, regarding nature and biodiversity conservation, states that a private land that is not included in classified natural sites may be given the designation of private protected area and integrated in the national network of protected areas. In case of recognition, a binding management plan will be agreed with the national authority (Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e das Florestas, ICNF). The application process and recognition of PPAs was established a year later with Portaria n. 1181/2009. It requires that the designation of a PPA can be requested by the owner(s) of properties in the area, as well as a different right-holder that the owners have authorized for that purpose, or by environmental NGOs or legal entities under private law the owner(s) have concluded an agreement with for the submission of the application. Conservation activities planned for the area management must comply with the objectives stated by national laws.

It is important to note that PPAs have emerged in European countries with a traditional public conservation policy based on public actors management of natural reserves (e.g. Portugal, France) or public ownership. A preliminary document and literature review on national legal and institutional frameworks for PPAs indicated that, excluding the Finnish Metso initiative, a public-led program addressing private landowners, no-profit actors (e.g. environmental NGOs) are the most common typology of private actors currently owning and managing European PPAs integrated in national networks of protected areas. However, for profit actors are not always excluded as potential PPAs’ owners, that is the case for example of the Portuguese legislative framework.

Despite specific country experiences outlined above, if we consider PPAs recognized as a policy instrument, their extension and contribution to the total of protected areas at European level appear to be still minor. Nevertheless, it is worth highlighting that beyond formally recognized PPAs other models and experience of protected areas managed by non-state actors exist, however they have received little scholars’ attention.

3. Private Protected Areas role in addressing environmental challenges

3.1. Introductory considerations

Discussion on PPAs contribution to nature conservation policies should explore their distribution amongst biomes and endangered habitats. It should be focused on their outcomes as buffer zones and as relevant stepping stones for biological continuum within the network of public-run natural reserves (Langholz and Lassoie: 2001). This especially applies, in order to ensure cost-effective actions, when public resources are used to incentivize the involvement of private landowners or NGOs as managers. Also, as regards Natura 2000 network, “biodiversity conservation” is the prevailing management philosophy applying the notion of biodiversity representativeness to select priority areas. In addition, in order to facilitate migration of species in response to climate change and decrease extinction risk, several European governments have already committed themselves to the design and implementation of national ecological networks (Bakker et al. 2015).

By reducing ecosystem destruction and degradation, protected areas may have a key role in climate change mitigation and adaptation. They reduce greenhouse gas emissions and maintain ecosystem processes and services they provide, which are essential for society to cope with the impacts of natural disasters and other effects of climate change, thus increasing resilience and reducing both communities’ and ecological systems’ vulnerability.

National and international strategies tackling climate change are not entirely recognizing the mitigation and adaptation potential of protected areas on global and local scale, and this could cause a failure in successfully integrating nature conservation policy with climate change protocols. Due to the significant overlap between the drivers of climate change and the drivers of biodiversity loss, it is crucial that the two work in synergy.

Additionally, we must carefully take into account the other side of the coin, that is the challenges arisen by climate change effects on the reserves management and on national and international protected-area planning system. Climate change is already disrupting ecological relationships, species ranges and interactions (Stein et al., 2014). Impacts are expected to increase over time, pushing ecosystems towards ecological thresholds and transition. On one hand, protected sites are less stressed by non-climate-related pressures with healthier ecosystems and biological diversity, thus more resilient to disturbance (Elmqvist et al., 2003); on the other hand, policy makers and site managers are being confronting with uncertainty in climate change projections, impacts magnitude and in the evaluation of the sites and networks’ vulnerability. The relevance of these threats and the urgency of effective strategies and implementation of useful adaptation and mitigation measures is also reflecting in their significant place on the international agenda; in particular, the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas is currently developing a guidebook titled Responding to Climate Change: Guidance for Protected Area Managers and Planners which especially focuses on adaptation strategies for protected areas in the face of climate change, stressing upon the need of monitoring both vulnerability assessment and adaptive management approaches.

Considering our focus on the potential role of a specific governance type of protected areas (PPAs) in addressing biodiversity loss and climate change, two facets concerning its peculiarities must be acknowledged. Firstly, issues may arise when protected areas, shaped in order to provide public outcomes, are owned and managed by private actors. Specific concerns are related to accountability and transparency principles. Moreover, some questions have been raised about the commodification and neo-liberalization of nature (Castree, 2003) especially when in protected areas ecotourism activities are allowed, that in the case of PPAs, may be the main source of revenues. As argued by Langholz and Lassoie (2001; 1081) an “insidious shortcoming is the potential conflict of interest between ecology and economics. Those reserve owners dependent on tourism may be tempted to degrade resources rather than conserve them, placing profit over protection.”  Secondly, since PPAs are voluntarily provided and created by landowners, ONGs, land-trusts or private companies, even if a legal recognition is required, we assume that a prioritization on national level of localization is more difficult to occur, especially when not supported by a consistent national strategic plan. However, this concern is not entirely distinctive of PPAs since global protected area estate was found to be biased towards locations that are cheaper to protect and away from important areas for biodiversity conservations, adequately covering just the 15% of threatened vertebrates (Venter et al., 2014).  

3.2. Private Protected areas key contributions to enhancing climate change mitigation and adaptation

By ensuring the conservation of the ecosystems, protected areas, regardless of the governance type, reduce emission of carbon dioxide from land use change, specifically avoiding the loss of stored carbon that would otherwise be released in the atmosphere. Therefore, they serve as an important carbon pool; according to Campbell’s estimates, the current global system of protected areas stores roughly 312 gigatonnes of terrestrial carbon (Campbell et al., 2008). UNEP-WCMC estimated that protected areas carbon store amounts to the 15% of the terrestrial carbon stock (Stolton et al., 2014). This role is evidenced by the international efforts made to promote the protection of the tropical forests through the REDD programme (especially in developing countries), reducing in this way part of the emissions coming from deforestation and forest degradation. Grasslands, inland waters and marine biomes are also important carbon reservoirs. Additionally, active measures of afforestation, reforestation and restoration of natural habitats that expand carbon pools allow carbon sequestration.

The adaptation role of protected areas, concerning adjustments in natural and human systems in response to actual or expected climate and its effects, can be described using an ecosystem-based approach. Enhancing and expanding protected and well managed ecosystems can buffer human communities against natural disasters through risks’ reduction (maintaining mechanisms of flood controls, for instance). Moreover, the delivery of ecosystem services can help people coping with the negative impacts of climate change supplying human needs (e.g. water and food supply). In turn, facing the increasing pressure on biodiversity, the reduction of “non-climate” threats can be seen as a relevant adaptation approach. 

Another potential key contribution is related to public and stakeholders’ involvement and local communities’ participation in protected area management, which is commonly referred as a condition for enhancing communities’ adaptive capacity. However, a growing number of scholars have warned about the challenges that public participation could pose, especially in the case of anticipatory responses to climate change that present a high degree of uncertainty (Few et al., 2006).

Furthermore, PPAs can foster the ecological resilience to climate change of national and European protected areas networks enhancing connectivity that facilitate the movement of some species between protected areas. This would increase the network’s resilience to climate related threats while simultaneously delivering societal benefits, namely reducing vulnerability in face of extreme weather events and other impacts. Focusing on the dimension of the ecological systems, PPAs’ creation can be seen as a relevant strategy, especially if we take in account that climate change will affect species range dynamics. This fact makes it necessary to reconsider the current fixed networks of protected areas; nevertheless, in order to be effective the design of future systems of protected areas (including new PPAs) need to consider the strategic location of each protected site. Therefore, the chance of ensuring ecological integrity of natural habitats and related ecosystem processes is a key contribution of PPAs that can provide positive effects within a well-designed nature conservation strategy with climate-informed goals.

Another important key contribution refers to PPAs potential in building people’s resilience capacity in the face of climate vulnerability. PPAs are considered to be a more flexible tool than state-run protected areas since legal protection with conservation objectives is not imposed in privately owned land through a top-down approach. Conversely, it is the private actor that voluntarily imposes some limits on human activities. Therefore, on one hand it seems that a reduced social controversy could be a relevant aspect to allow a growing participation of local communities in the management of the protected site. On the other hand, it is worth noting that the governance model adopted by each PPA and the institutional and socio-economic context are critical determinants for institutions and local communities’ adaptive capacity building. 

3.3. A preliminary assessment framework

Additionally, assessment of good governance principles that are recognized in the academic literature as a prerequisite for effective management in protected areas and the embodiment of democratic and participatory traditions rooted in public interest are needed (Hannah, 2006). This is particularly urgent if we consider the raising concerns over the process of neoliberalization of environmental governance and the trend toward the withdrawal of public sector from the management of public goods that can be detected in the shifting from state responsibility on protected area establishment and management to an increasing private sector involvement in nature conservation policies.

While management effectiveness assessment is well established, protected areas governance assessment is a comparatively recent development. Protected areas governance quality evaluation frameworks have been proposed by IUCN (Borrini-Feyerabend, 2013) and Lockwood (Lockwood, 2010) building on the principles suggested by Graham et al. (Graham et al., 2013): legitimacy and voice, direction, performance, accountability and fairness. Adaptations of those frameworks to make them more suitable for the peculiarities of PPAs in Europe are therefore required.

Moreover, it would be worthwhile to investigate PPAs’ protected status, focusing on the characteristics of the conservation agreement and government-approved management plan of the single PPA with a particular attention to the implications related to its ability to secure biodiversity conservation in the long term. While empirical studies have explored state protected areas downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement mainly caused by access to natural resources (Mascia et al., 2014), no comprehensive study has been made yet on PPAs financial sustainability, particularly relevant in the case of PPAs dependency on ecotourism trends.

4. Concluding remarks

National parks, natural reserve and other management typologies of protected areas are recognized as the core of nature conservation policies efforts in Europe and worldwide, covering 15.4% of the terrestrial and inland water areas and 8.4% of the marine area (Juffe-Bignoli et al., 2014). The current and expected impacts of climate change could give protected areas a renewed role. Protected areas, regardless of their management and governance type are able to tackle two intertwined global threats: biodiversity loss and climate change.

Data analysis from the European Common Database on Nationally Designated Areas shows that State protected areas are the cornerstone of European protected area network. Nevertheless, the characteristics of some protected areas which are owned and managed by private actors, as discussed above, could turn PPAs in a relevant and promising instrument for expanding nature conservation areas, particularly considering the importance given by the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 of the European Union (European Commission, 2011) on private sector involvement and public-private partnerships to halt the loss of biodiversity. Concurrently, as already mentioned, the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity agreed on Aichi target 11 which states that conserved areas should reach at least 17% for terrestrial areas (including inland water) and 10% for marine areas. Increasing the amount of protected sites is an ambitious goal, it is as well as the real issue at stake is the design and implementation of effectively managed and well-governed new protected areas able to deliver biodiversity conservation outcomes and provide societal benefits.

In particular, the main challenges for PPAs effectiveness in addressing  biodiversity loss and climate change are related to their geographical distribution, connectivity, and representativeness and their ability to provide strong and stable legal structures for private protection.  Securing accountability and effective participation is crucial to ensure adequate and inclusive governance. Therefore, research is required on opportunities and tradeoffs between mitigation and adaptation measures and biodiversity conservation in PPAs as well as on related policy and legal frameworks for PPAs. Governance assessment is also necessary. Furthermore, this investigation should be undertaken within a broader discussion on why, for whom and how nature conservation should be performed. The fact that some EU countries have recently developed regulation and legislation for PPAs explains the research relevance also in view of monitoring activities.

5. References

BAKKER, M., ALAM, S.J., DIJK, J. VAN, ROUNSEVELL, M., SPEK, T., BRINK, A. van den. The feasibility of implementing an ecological network in The Netherlands under conditions of global change. Landscape Ecology 30, 791–804. (2015) doi:10.1007/s10980-014-0145-5