Maximilian DixonBIS 4594/29/10

An Approach to Conservation & Sustainable Development

In order to truly save as much biodiversity as we can for the long-term, we must have enough protected areas that are large enough to halt species loss and maintain ecosystem functions. This includes enough effective buffers surrounding these protected areas. These buffers should consist of sustainable practices and development such as: community-based natural resource management, community-based conservation, integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) and small, farmer-based, organic agro-ecosystems. In order to support this approach we must first ask some tough questions.

Are current conservation practices effective enough to protect biodiversity today and for future generations? Are protected areas such as parks working as intended? How much land should be protected? How much should be used for buffers such as (ICDPs)? Should current areas of heavy human use be converted into buffers? How? These must all be addressed.

The first question is pretty easy to answer. If current practices were effective enough, then we wouldn’t be witnessing the alarming rate of species extinctions, habitat loss and disruption of ecosystem functions that we are seeing today. We also wouldn’t be having these kinds of discussions on what methods should be used. That brings us to the second question.

Are protected areas working? According to a study done by Aaron G. Bruner et al., more than 80% of Tropical parks were in better condition than surrounding areas in regards to clearing, logging and fire. Only about 60% were better with regards to hunting and grazing. The parks that were most effective were ones that were well guarded, had deterrents to illegal activities, had clearly marked boundaries and the locals were compensated for their loss of use (126). These numbers while encouraging, are hardly adequate for long-term biodiversity protection goals.

Where are we at as far as protected areas today? According to data taken from the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA):

“The mean protected area coverage per nation was 12.2% for terrestrial area, and only 5.1% for near-shore marine area. …the 10% target for protected area coverage” was “achieved for nine out of 15 regions for terrestrial area, but only for three of 15 regions for marine area” (Coad et al.35).

This base goal of 10% protected area coverage worldwide was “set by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) for both terrestrial and marine environments” (Coad et al.35). Is this enough coverage? Is it in the most effective areas? Are the individual areas large enough?

[1]

According to Naughton-Treves, Holland, and Brandon, “…most parks are not large enough to maintain adequate populations of rare or far-ranging species nor to maintain ecosystem-level processes that sustain biodiversity (e.g., natural fire regimes). Most of the world’s protected areas are smaller than 10,000 hectare (roughly 80%)” (226). This means that most protected areas are currently inadequate in size to accomplish essential biodiversity goals of conservation. “…research suggests that only parks >10,000 ha have the potential to slow long-term species loss” (Naughton-Treves, Holland, and Brandon 226). Only 20% of all protected areas have the “potential to slow long-term species loss.” They don’t even mention stopping species loss or reversing species loss. What about those that range outside the borders to feed, migrate and mate? We already know that most protected areas aren’t large enough, nor do they appear to be as effective as we need them to be. We also know that the areas immediately outside the boundaries are even worse off. How do we address this island effect?

According to Ivette Perfecto, John Vandermeer and Angus Wright, “…the biodiversity on any given island is proportional to the rate of immigration of new species to that island divided by the rate of extinction on that island. For the most part, the extinction rate on an island is determined by the size of the island, smaller islands having higher rates of extinction than larger ones” (32). Extinction happens naturally. All we can do is make sure we have large enough islands, more of them and that we make sure an adequate matrix is maintained in order to allow the migration of species within these fragments of natural habitat. “A matrix is composed of a collection of habitats of various qualities, and the quality of the matrix is effectively the sum or average of the qualities of the habitats within it” (Perfecto, Vandermeer and Wright 26). Basically, we need more than just protected areas in order to have any kind of long-term chance of effectively addressing biodiversity loss.

There must be buffers. In order to achieve this we need to address the most important UN Millennium Goal, which is to eradicate extreme poverty and thus end hunger. How do we do this? We need improved social organization, social equity and social justice. According to John G. Robinson and Kent H. Redford, “Social justice and equity require devolution and decentralization of authority and broader participation in decision making” (12). There needs to be a redistribution of wealth. The only true wealth is natural resources, so there must be some kind of realistic redistribution. Indigenous people and local communities must manage their own natural resources and become self-reliant.

This is where sustainable development and practices come in, such as community-based natural resource management, community-based conservation and ICDPs. Unfortunately ICDPs have “become all things to all people” (Naughton-Treves, Holland, and Brandon 240). There really are no standards, which severely hampers their effectiveness. They must be modified to better suit the goal of sustainability.

There are three main objectives for ICDPs, species conservation, ecosystem health, and human livelihoods. All three are absolutely vital for biodiversity conservation and sustainability. No ICDP can adequately meet all three of these objectives equally. They must be broken up into two subcategories: “development projects with conservation (DPC) and conservation projects with development (CPD)” (Robinson and Redford 25). DPCs will focus more on socioeconomic development, such as: improving infrastructure, local markets, income levels, nutrition, health care, education and empowerment. CPDs

[2]

will focus more on conservation, such as effective management of wildlife, protected areas, and resources. All projects must contain some element of both, but it must be clear which focus is dominant. Adaptive management: the integration of design, management, and monitoring to systematically test assumptions in order to adapt and learn, must also be practiced (Robinson and Redford 16-25).

The last and arguably most important sustainability component is agriculture. In Africa, “agriculture continues to be the dominant economic activity, accounting for 70% of total employment, 40% of total exports and 34% of the GDP” (Love et al. 732). Those are significant numbers, which I’m sure, are somewhat reflective of the rest of the developing world. Even developed countries may someday resemble this structure after fossil fuel extraction is no longer profitable and industrial consumerism crashes. This means a lot of land and a significant chunk of the matrix that surrounds protected areas is being used for agriculture.

We know that local populations of species go extinct on a regular basis and must be replenished via migration from other habitat areas. According to Ivette Perfecto, John Vandermeer and Angus Wright, “Agro-ecosystems can be rich repositories of biodiversity” so long as they are “conducive to inter-fragment migration” (74). Since agriculture makes up a vast amount of the matrix, it makes sense to practice the best agro-ecosystems for each local. “…on average, organic farms produce as much, if not more, than conventional farms” and they don’t unleash toxicants into the environment like industrial agriculture does (Perfecto, Vandermeer and Wright 67).

There are some great examples throughout history. One is the past indigenous agricultural practice of rice cultivation in China and India. Another is the chinampa system that “supported Aztec and Toltec societies in what is now the Mexico City Basin”, long before European conquerors wreaked havoc on those cultures (Perfecto, Vandermeer and Wright 82). These systems not only supported dense populations, but also provided habitat that allowed species to move through.

A good modern example is Cuba’s “transition to a more ecologically sound form of agriculture” (Perfecto, Vandermeer and Wright 65). Due to the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990’s, they lost their main source of cheap fertilizer, pesticides, petroleum and animal feed. “Within a year, yields of all crops collapsed and the Cuban population went hungry” (Perfecto, Vandermeer and Wright 65). This was directly due to their practicing of 30 years of industrial agriculture. Out of desperation, “Agricultural researchers sought out the few traditional farmers that were left in the country and began a process of learning and integration of traditional and scientific knowledge” (Perfecto, Vandermeer and Wright 65). This laid the foundation for the new agricultural system Cuba practices today.

Not too long from now, what happened in Cuba will happen to the entire world. We will start to feel the effects of peak oil production and prices will begin climbing to levels most can’t afford, thus cutting us off from the inputs conventional farming currently depends upon. That is unless we change our agro-ecosystems in time. This all leads to small, farmer-based, organic agro-ecosystems as the answer.

It must be said that local projects and practices alone are not enough to achieve sustainability. Outside influences such as the global capitalist system, corrupt national governments, multi-national corporations, the World Bank, the IMF, and any other meddling entity or interest group must be prevented from interfering with and disrupting

[3]

them. This will ensure that only indigenous people and local communities are in charge of and responsible for the management of their resources and lives.

The last question deals with whether or not some areas of heavy human use should be converted into buffers. If Cuba can successfully solve their food production problem by practicing urban, organic agriculture on a country wide scale, then so can the rest of the world. After all, ending hunger does play a significant role in biodiversity conservation and Cuba is a great example of how this can be done. Since human population is continuing to rise, which leads to more development and more habitat loss, it only makes sense to convert heavy human use areas into more sustainable buffer zones. The more we can successfully do this, the better.

Our best chance for successful biodiversity conservation and sustainable development consists of three things. First, we must protect enough habitat to sustain the most biodiversity, as well as keystone species for each region on the planet. This is to ensure that we save enough biodiversity to keep our ecosystems healthy and ecosystem services functioning. Second, we must create enough healthy buffers around these protected areas to not only provide a viable matrix for species to migrate through, but also provide the natural resources local communities need in order to live sustainably. Lastly, we must adopt sustainable practices within the buffers and as much as possible within the heavy human use areas. All of these areas are interconnected, which means that if we fail in one area, eventually we fail in all areas. There is no way around this.

Works Cited

Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E, Rice, R.E., & da Fonseca, G.A.B. (2001). Effectiveness of parks in protecting biodiversity. Science 291, 125-128.

Coad, Lauren, Neil Burgess, Lucy Fish, Corinna Ravillious, Colleen Corrigan, Helena Pavese, Arianna Granziera and Charles Besançon. (2009). Progress towards the Convention on Biological Diversity terrestrial 2010 and marine 2012 targets for protected area coverage. Parks Vol 17 No 2 Durban+5, 35-42.

Love, D., Twomlow, S., Mupangwa, W., van der Zaag, P, & Gumbo, G. (2006). Implementing the millennium development food security goals – Challenges for the southern African context. Physics & Chemistry of the Earth, 31, 731-737.

Naughton-Treves, L., Holland, M.B. & Brandon, K. (2005). The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 219-52.

Perfecto, Ivette, John Vandermeer & Angus Wright. Nature’s Matrix: Linking Agriculture, Conservation and Food Sovereignty. Earthscan, 2009.

Robinson JG, Redford KH. 2004. Jack of all trades, master of none: Inherent contradictions among ICD approaches. In McShane TO and Wells MP (Eds.), Getting biodiversity projects to work: Towards more effective conservation and development. New York (NY): Columbia University Press. 10-34 p.

[4]