|
Contents of the Current
Issue
Back Issues
Reprints/ Permissions
Writer's Guidelines
Send a Letter to the Editor
|
Environment
Drawing Boundaries on Conservation
By Patrick Tucker
New formula needed for balancing the needs of people and habitats.
|
The trend toward setting aside land for conservation purposes has been accelerating in recent decades. More parks and reserves have been established since 1970 than ever before in history. Currently, more than 11% of the earth's land has been set aside for protection, a land area that includes 16% of North America, 19% of South America, and an impressive 22% of Central America.
Despite these positive efforts to protect the planet's diversity of genes, species, and ecosystems, the
earth is on the verge of a significant extinction event that could be 100 to 1,000 times greater than any previous extinction since the dawn of humanity, according to the World Resources Institute. As more land is put under protection, and as the human race continues to grow, industrialize, and develop, many conservation laws may be abandoned in the years ahead. This dilemma has prompted observers to
ask, How much land is necessary to ensure biodiversity?
One common approach to designating land for conservation has been to use percentage targets for protected areas, such as 10% of a tundra, boreal forest, or coral reef. However, according to
|
|
Protected Areas by Continent and
Region |
|
Area |
Percent |
|
Antarctica |
0.50% |
|
Australia / New Zealand |
16.87% |
|
Brazil |
18.70% |
|
the Caribbean |
8.17% |
|
Central America |
22.45% |
|
East Asia |
13.99% |
|
Eastern and Southern Africa |
14.06% |
|
Europe |
12.37% |
|
North Africa and the Middle East |
9.79% |
|
North America |
16.21% |
|
North Eurasia (the landmass composed of Europe and Asia) |
7.74% |
|
the Pacific |
1.89% |
|
South America |
19.33% |
|
South Asia |
6.53% |
|
Southeast Asia; |
9.55% |
|
Western and Central Africa |
8.65% |
|
total |
11.58% |
|
Source: United Nations Environment Program--World
Conservation Monitoring Centre, World Database on
Protected Areas (2006). |
|
|
|
Kathleen Mogelgaard, a University of Michigan population and environment specialist, the absolute size of global protected areas may be less essential
than locating, designing, and managing them in a way that surrounding
populations can support.
In her recent report for the Population Reference Bureau, Mogelgaard identifies four key problems to area-based conservation efforts and
outline several solutions.
- Problem 1: Rocks and Ice Syndrome.
The boundary of a protected area is a political construction, sometimes based on criteria such as scenic value rather than ecosystem health. Some areas with low percentages of protected land also host the most-threatened species. Roughly 20% of endangered species are "gap species," or animals that are not covered under any land conservation plan.
- Problem 2: Size Matters. The preservation of large areas of undisturbed land is important to maintain a genetically viable population of top predators, such as jaguars and harpy eagles, according to Mogelgaard. Top predators often require hundreds of thousands to several million hectares of land in order to survive and breed at self-sustaining levels. Of
about 100,000 protected areas worldwide, only around 2,252 are adequately sized to enable the survival of top predators. A decline in top predators can have adverse effects on a given area's ecosystem balance.
- Problem 3: Paper Parks. Many parks in developing countries lack management staff and, in some instances, are not even clearly marked, thus existing as protected land only on paper. "Most of the evidence for this phenomenon is anecdotal, and there is some research that indicates the paper park problem is not as serious as some would suggest. Nonetheless, the need for improved financing and management for protected areas is clear," according to Mogelgaard.
- Problem 4: Fences and Fines. In contrast to undermanaged parks, overly rigid park enforcement can undercut support among local populations for conservation efforts.
"In striving to meet an area-based target, policy makers sometimes establish protected areas that are in direct conflict with the livelihoods of local people," Mogelgaard asserts. She cautions that, without compensation for lost revenue, local people, particularly in impoverished areas, will have no choice but to violate protected-area regulations. Mogelgaard recommends that a cost-benefit analysis be part of the process for selecting land to be set aside. Furthermore, environmental organizations and governments should bolster existing efforts to incorporate local communities' economic interests into conservation plans.
Protecting biodiversity in a time of increased resource consumption, overpopulation, and environmental degradation will require continued sacrifice on the part local communities, many of which already face resource shortages. Recognizing the immediate human costs to conservation will require greater empathy and humility on the part of conservationists, as
well.
Source: How Much Land Should Be Protected For Biodiversity by Kathleen Mogelgaard. Population Reference Bureau, 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 520, Washington, D.C. 20009. Telephone 1-800-877-9881. Web site
www.prb.org.
To order the print edition of the
November-December
2006 issue of THE FUTURIST ($4.95 plus $3 postage and handling) or to become a
member of the World
Future Society ($49 per year).
Send comments about our Web pages to:
webmaster@wfs.org
COPYRIGHT © 2006 WORLD FUTURE SOCIETY, 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 450, Bethesda,
Maryland 20814. Tel. 301-656-8274. E-mail info@wfs.org. Web site
http://www.wfs.org. All rights
reserved. |
