Conservation Planning for Promoting Ecosystem Service Provisioning Outside Protected Area Networks

Among factors that contribute to global biodiversity loss, habitat loss through unsustainable land use and land cover changes has gained prominence, with impacts being exacerbated by increasing human populations. Establishing protected area networks (PANs) is strongly advocated by national and international mechanisms, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), as a primary strategy to guide biodiversity conservation and management; however, this can undermine conservation efforts outside protected areas. Understanding how people and biodiversity overlap and interact outside protected area networks (OPAN areas) is essential for setting realistic, sustainable targets to guide biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service provision beyond PAN. However, how OPAN areas can sustain or enhance ecosystem services (ESs) through improved conservation and management remains unassessed. We applied a novel ecosystem-based conservation (EBC) framework, using data from Tanzania, to assess how biodiversity and land use/land cover (LULC) types shape the monetary value of selected ESs in OPAN areas, and in future scenarios where restoration of priority wildlife corridors is implemented by 2030. Across the six ecosystems and four LULC types assessed, waterbody delivered the highest ES value (US$12.8 billion) through water provision and flood control. OPAN areas in miombo woodland also yielded high value (US$12.4 billion), with 46% from flood control and 54% from water provision and carbon storage. ES values varied across OPANs, mainly driven by relative size and degradation level. Restoring 197,497 ha of degraded land within 53 prioritised wildlife corridors in Tanzania could generate up to US$62.8 million annually in ESs under full restoration, and US$31.4 million under partial restoration, with carbon storage contributing over 90% of total value. Policy implications: The spatial heterogeneity and ES overlap observed highlight the need to integrate OPANs into the EBC framework, linking local restoration gains with national policies and global biodiversity frameworks.