The total area of land now under conservation protection worldwide has doubled since 1990, when the World Parks Commission set a goal of protecting 10 percent of the planet’s surface. That goal has been exceeded, with over 12 percent of all land, a total area of 11.75 million square miles, now protected. That’s an area greater than the entire land mass of Africa writes Mark Dowie in the latest issue of Orion magazine.
Mark writes that he was curious about “this brand of conservation that puts the rights of nature before the rights of people” and visited with tribal members on three continents who were grappling with the consequences of Western conservation and found an alarming similarity among the stories he heard.
He concludes:
“Many conservationists are beginning to realize that most of the areas they have sought to protect are rich in biodiversity precisely because the people who were living there had come to understand the value and mechanisms of biological diversity. Some will even admit that wrecking the lives of 10 million or more poor, powerless people has been an enormous mistake – not only a moral, social, philosophical, and economic mistake, but an ecological one as well. Others have learned from experience that national parks and protected areas surrounded by angry, hungry people who describe themselves as “enemies of conservation” are generally doomed to fail.
More and more conservationists seem to be wondering how, after setting aside a “protected” land mass the size of Africa, global biodiversity continues to decline. Might there be something terribly wrong with this plan – particularly after the Convention on Biological Diversity has documented the astounding fact that in Africa, where so many parks and reserves have been created and where indigenous evictions run highest, 90 percent of biodiversity lies outside of protected areas? If we want to preserve biodiversity in the far reaches of the globe, places that are in many cases still occupied by indigenous people living in ways that are ecologically sustainable, history is showing us that the dumbest thing we can do is kick them out.
I don’t think it is as simple as Mark suggests.
There are instances where even recent arrivals, for example foresters in the Pilliga-Goonoo region of north west New South Wales, have been excluded from forest areas they were sustainably harvesting. While there are indigenous groups who have access to, for example, power boats for hunting dugongs, and appear to be harvesting beyond the sustainable capacity of these populations.
I have some sympathy for Duke University’s John Terborgh position which is, “My feeling is that a park should be a park, and it shouldn’t have any resident people in it,” he says.
According to Mark Dowie, John Terborgh bases his argument on three decades of research in Peru’s Manu National Park, where native Machiguenga Indians fish and hunt animals with traditional weapons. Terborgh is concerned that they will acquire motorboats, guns, and chainsaws used by their fellow tribesmen outside the park, and that biodiversity will suffer.
I hope that the Machiguenga people do acquire guns and motorboats. I don’t suggest that this be a reason for preventing their access to Manu National Park, but there will be a need to determine quota for sustainable harvest. And the only way to be sure any system is working is to have a proper monitoring program in place.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Without wishing to detract from the broad thrust of Mark Dowie’s research – I am curious about the statistics – its very easy to include massive areas under little threat of development to inflate park area figures. For example locally the area of the Simpson Desert Park increases Queensland’s stats considerably. Is the Simpson Desert under threat ? How much land is locked up in Cape York.
Be interesting to see some more breakdown on the numbers globally. In general the definition of a national park in SE Qld is a mountain that couldn’t be developed. I would have thought the issue with biodiversity conservation is about maintaining representative areas of various ecosystems. If you want to find Blue Grass on the Darling Downs you have to look in railway reserves. Representative conservation about zip.
And fire and indigenous humans can be important part of those systems. I don’t have too much problem with indigenous populations in these areas having access to modern technology – it depends on what they do with it. How much additional pressure comes to bear. However if western tradition is any guide there’s plenty of opportunity to get off the rails. Yes needs monitoring and elders need listening to.
The message seems to be “utilising the resources sustains their existence”.
That may conflict with some more modern thinking “preserving the resources sustains their existence”.
It may come as a surprise to many to discover that human life is part of the natural world.
I thought you might be interested in the very careful wording of the NPS Mission Statement here in the US:
“The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.”
Today, they’ve all but abandoned that mission in practice, it being an archaic view of resources and presuming an outdated notion that there exist limits to what goverment can or should do but I still think it a noble statement.
It is also worth noting, Phil and Ender, that regrowth thinning (harvesting) and controlled fire has been re-introduced to the southern US parks (Grand Canyon etc) to ensure the health of the formerly predominant Ponderosa Pine estate. Remember how the old map in the TV series burned? Fire was essential to the health, life cycle and biodiversity of this ecosystem. And there has also been a valuable water yield dividend.
Why shucks paw – I dun been roundin’ up dem cows.
Not arguing about an appropriate fire regime. No contest.
On the thinning one – have had some diversity in answers from a polling of colleagues. Do you have the CRC Hydrology reference you mentioned?
Also had a comment (no reference remembered) that Melbourne water had tried thinning but effect didn’t last long.
Anyway I guess there are a few aspects to the thinning:
(1) does thinning increase water yield in drier times or is the drought the main issue. Could model it, could experiment. But given variation in rainfall maybe need to model – may do so at some point.
(2) Is there an erosion issue on steep country
(3) soil depth important – if shallow won’t grasses and shrubs easily take up the evapotranspiration slack?
(4) Have Brissy catchment rainfall but a more complex story there
I notice an environmental squabble developing on building a trail in SE Qld
“Hinterland plan no walk in the park for greenies”
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17581555%255E3102,00.html
There’s some useful issues for consideration raised here, but there is such a gap between areas which contain people effectively living a subsistence lifestyle and areas which people seek to exploit commercially, that I’m not sure any useful parallels can be drawn.
On the broader issue of National Parks (in Australia), people may be interested to know that a Senate Inquiry has just been set up into this topic. Details at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/ecita_ctte/nationalparks/index.htm
Andrew I see the enquiry is not to determine or debate the values and objectives of the national park system but to only determine the resources required for the system to meet those values and objectives.
Go to http://www.catchment.crc.org.au/ for all the gear on water yield. Good to check out includes;
“Managing Sediment Sources and Movement in Forests: The Forest Industry and Water Quality Croke, J et al 1999. This examined sediment movement and volume at various rainfall intensities for roads, snig tracks and general (clear fall) harvest area and found the gravel roads to be 10 times worse than snig tracks and snig tracks to be 10 times worse than the general harvest area. This means that a 5 metre wide unsealed road delivers about as much sediment as clearfalling the adjoining 500 metres. (your point 2) Thinning obviously will produce even less sediment and the risk to steep country is also reduced by the retained stems and the roots of cut stems that remain in situ.
(your point 1) The crc has extensively modelled yield in all rainfall scenarios. Changes due to vegetation are marginal at less than 500mm pa as the natural vegetation is mostly grassland and shrubs anyway. The higher the annual rainfall the more significant the yield change becomes.
Historically, in times of drought farmers would respond to a low well level by ringbarking every second tree up the catchment and this generally restored or prolonged the supply in the well.
Soil depth (3) is relevant as yields are generally higher than the norm in shallow soils.
But in general, it is all dependent on the length of the interval between two showers and the capacity of the vegetation to utilise the moisture during that interval.
As for Shaila Davis’ statement in respect of the walking trail in the Gold coast hinterland, her suggestion that a walking trail will pose a threat to water quality in the Hinz Dam catchment merely confirms my impression, gained after many days across the table in regional veg planning, that reason and logic are not regular guests at her table. The impact on water quality would be very difficult to even detect at a single hectare scale, let alone amount to a relevant feature on the catchment scale. And the Courier Mail should be condemned for its printing of such preposterous claims without exercising the basic journalistic competence of seeking a contrasting view.
Ian – I would have thought some more walks would have actually further gathered support from urban dwellers for conservation of such areas by allowing relatively safe access and therefore appreciation – surely better than bush-bashing or not having any access. My experience at Lamington would suggest that well made tracks would make very little impact. Is there another viewpoint?
My guess is that certain protesters grow hooch in the area and don’t want any intruders on “their” turf.
Rog
I won’t bore people with the details, but the development of the terms of reference for the Senate Committee Inquiry was one which involved a lot of people from different areas at different stages – way too many cooks which produced an end result less clear than would have been desirable.
However, as I happen to be Chairing the Committee for the Inquiry, I can confidently say that the Terms of Reference will be interpreted in such a way as to enable intrinsic questions about values and objectives of the system(s) to be considered, not just how many resources are needed.
I think you can’t make a decent start at determining what resources are needed unless you assess whether the values or objectives are adequate.
Sympathy for John Terborgh’s position “…that a park should be a park, and it shouldn’t have any resident people in it,” is contradicted by the preposition, that “… the only way to be sure any system is working is to have a proper monitoring program in place”. (Proper, including cost-effectiveness and of maximum benefit to local residents).
If we think of the relationship between people and and the natural environment, National Parks confer divorce rather than marriage.
Principle 22 of the RIO DECLARATION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, states: Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognise and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.
As for the use of modern technology such as firearms and motorised transport, two hundred years of assimmilationist abuse cannot be shrugged off. Deny the Director General of EPA a salary, vehicle, phone, and all other modern tecnologies and have him derive the same abundant income using traditional utensils of the locality.
This really is a moot discussion because no-one seems to be able to destroy habitat at the scale and intensity that the public sector destroys its own assets. The way things are going the only values left in these dumps will be residual economic ones. Plus ca change… the absence of self interest in public sector ecology is every bit as debilitating as the absence of self interest in public sector industry, farming or commerce. With the same result, we all end up equally impoverished, save for a totally self absobed governing clique.
OK Ian – I’ll ask – can you elaborate somewhat so I can understand your point.
The Power & the Glory!
“Many young people are depressed by the injustices of the world we live in. Their efforts to bring about social change often fall on deaf ears. It is easy to be overwhelmed by the enormity of the problems. So it is a wonderful thing that the dozens of young people who worked so hard to have these iconic forests protected have had a success. They can see something very tangible for their efforts. This decision is an inspiration to stay involved and active knowing that by working co-operatively and engaging the community support that is out there it is possible to bring about change. The final icon is of course the scattered patches of old growth forest which were until now, available for logging. The protection of the remaining old growth forest on public land is a landmark decision of outstanding conservation significance. It formally recognises all old growth forests and their unique contribution to the social and environmental character of north-east New South Wales. It stops playing the game that some old growth is not high conservation value.
Old growth forests have repeatedly been demonstrated to be of particular community value. It has been the emotional appeal of old growth forests that has stirred people into direct action and ignited the conservation blockades of recent history, such as Chaelundi and Mummel Gulf, and which have now ultimately led to their protection.”
http://www.anzacatt.org.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20030702028
OK Phil, in the 2003 fires NSW Sparks and Wildfires lost 700,000 ha to hot habitat destroying conflagrations from an estate of citrca 9 million ha. State (Satanic) Forests lost only 70,000 ha out of an estate of about 3 million ha. Private forests lost 4,000 ha to clearing of non-regrowth forest and circa 7,000 ha to hot fires out of an estate of about 15 million ha.
Clearly, the intergrated multiple uses and personal self interests at play on the private forest estate, when combined in a mosaic of cleared and forested land, exhibits a very marked advantage in ensuring the long term survival of forest ecosystems and habitats.
Farmers fight their fires for free while Parks and Wildlife Officers do it on overtime penalty rates. That is, if they are not all at the beach in extreme fire danger periods.
Public sector environmental management is very good at highlighting minor variances in selected ecological indicators to make themselves look good but the consequences of negligent fire management policies are invariably excluded as ‘externalities’.
Public sector environmental management delights in identifying minor adverse impacts like land clearing by farmers but are in classic denial when confronted by their own culpable policies.
So what’s the answer besides getting a hair cut and putting Ian Mott in NSW Nat Parks as DG?
NUMBERS IN STATEMENT AT END OF THIS POST DO NOT ADD UP. Earth’s surface is roughly 200 million square miles with land covering roughly 60 million. There may be 12 percent of the Earth’s surface preserved including ocean preserves, but if 12 million square miles of land are protected that’s 20 percent of all land. And I agree with other statement that what is meant by protected here is open to wide interpretation. Are these designated government preserves, or any land that receives any type of consideration for protection?
—– The total area of land now under conservation protection worldwide has doubled since 1990, when the World Parks Commission set a goal of protecting 10 percent of the planet’s surface. That goal has been exceeded, with over 12 percent of all land, a total area of 11.75 million square miles, now protected. That’s an area greater than the entire land mass of Africa writes Mark Dowie in the latest issue of Orion magazine.
But the bad numbers don’t detract too much so from an otherwise interesting article that makes solid points.
I live at 32645 Commonwealth in Seattle. Been up here before?