In my last blog post
I mentioned that habitat loss (deforestation/unbanization etc) is the biggest
threat to biodiversity globally. The main policy instrument put in place by
government’s world over in order to address this issue is protected area
systems (like national parks/nature reserves etc) but the validity of this
approach is questionable.
In Australia, we are
very fortunate to have many endemic flora and fauna that, along with our unique
landscapes, attract numerous tourists each year from all around the world. However,
due to human activities and industrial development, Australia has seen the
extinction of three bird species, four frog species, 27 mammal species and 61
plant species since European settlement. Currently, over 1500 fauna species,
and over 3000 ecosystem types, are considered threatened. In response to this,
the Australian federal government promised to increase the amount of protected
areas (PAs) and created the National Reserve System (NRS) in 1992. This consists of 85 biogeoraphical
regions classed on the basis of their geology, morphology, climate and ecology.
Australia also became a signatory to the United Nations Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD), thereby entering an international treaty that
legally binds the international community to addressing biodiversity loss and
recognising its significance to society. Target 11 of the Aichi Biodiversity
Targets states:
“By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10
per cent of coastal and marine areas … are conserved through effectively and
equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of
protected areas...” (CBD Secretariat, 2011)
PAs are classified as
clearly defined regions, which are recognised and managed through legal or
other effective means, and are therefore classed as a regulatory policy
instrument. They strive to achieve long-term conservation of biodiversity and
the associated ecosystem services and cultural values, and to sample the
complete range of biodiversity from each region, while separating it from
threatening processes to its survival. In Australia 15.45% of terrestrial areas
are conserved through PAs and 9.6% of its marine jurisdiction are conserved through
marine parks. This coverage extent of PAs appears to be progressing in the
right direction to reach the target. However, the effectiveness of PAs as a
policy instrument to address the above target of conserving an ecologically
representative suite of biodiversity is debatable. While PAs have been a
fundamental movement in conservation efforts, and can be referred to as the “cornerstone
on which conservation relies” (Margules et
al, 2000), the significance of protected areas in environmental policies is
continuously debated. Some of the reasons for this debate will be explored below:
- Lack of Information:
A lack of information
has caused vast ramifications in the development of PAs throughout history. One
of the
first PAs to be created was Yellowstone National Park in 1872 in the United
States, when European settlers wanted to preserve the ‘untouched’ landscape
they first witnessed. At this time, much like today, the managers of these
parks only had authority within the park borders, which meant that outside of
the park borders industrialization and urbanization would continue to prevail,
and thus environmental degradation went ahead with no further thought. Through
this development of the matrix (which is the area outside of PAs) profound
effects are felt on the ecosystems within PAs. Habitat loss and fragmentation
are the biggest threats to biodiversity globally and with continued development
of the matrix, the connectedness between each of the PAs decreases and patch
isolation increases. This results in a decrease in migration between PAs,
reducing gene flow between populations; causing a great reliance from the biota
on PAs and thus dictating a finite amount of natural habitat and recourses available
for each population; the introduction of invasive species from the matrix and
susceptibility to abiotic disturbances through edge effects (check out this
video for a visual representation of the effects of the matrix https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZwTZ-d1ZRE
). The discovery about the effects of the matrix is only a relatively recent
discovery in comparison to the commencement of PAs, and thus the correct
information requirements were not available in order to enable correct
principle design. To this day, it is arguable whether decision-makers have the
correct information for the design of correct policy instruments for
biodiversity conservation, or when it is there, whether it is being utilised
appropriately. Perhaps the greatest uncertainty for the validation of PAs is
that the extent to which biota rely upon PAs to ensure their survival is still
uncertain. Furthermore, the affects of climate change are hypothesised, but
still indefinite. This uncertainty and/or ignorance of facts adds complexity to
the ability of PAs to be an effective policy instrument for promoting
biodiversity conservation.
- A lack of flexibility in space and time:
PAs are rather inflexible
through both space and time. Some suggest that with the expected changes in
species distributions due to climate change the NRS is likely to have an
inadequate representation of all habitats. The uncertainty of this prediction,
however, has drastic implications for the validity of PAs over a temporal
scale. In the likely situation that this does occur, expansion of the NRS PAs
in order to meet our CBD obligations would be required. However, further
research would need to go into the location of new PAs while considering the
finite space available, the overall effectiveness of PAs, and above all a
consensus would need to be achieved on this topic. Furthermore, it is difficult to rehabilitate
areas after they have already been degraded, therefore expanding the NRS to
incorporate areas that have previously been unprotected may not achieve
conservation objectives either, alluding to PAs inflexibility over a spatial
scale. The inflexibility of this instrument demeans PAs ability to meet the CBD
goals and conserve biodiversity to the essential high standard needed across a
significant spatial scale.
- Costs and benefits:
An effective policy
instrument is efficient in terms of achieving outcomes, giving a higher number
of positive returns in comparison to initial investments. For PAs this
criterion is difficult to fulfil due to the uncertainty surrounding the benefits
of conserving biodiversity. PA networks are an expensive investment, and
studies in Queensland have estimated that increasing areas by at least 18
million hectares could cost between AU$214 million and AU$2.9 billion, which
was largely underestimated by the state government who predicted AU$120 million.
This under estimation is rather dubious as it alludes to the lack of funding
that is being provided for the establishment and maintenance of PAs, and may be
at fault for their inefficiencies and ill management. Nevertheless, this is a
large estimate that varies with different land tenures, assumptions and
stochastic variability. In any case, the unknown feedbacks from conserving
biodiversity, such as future pharmaceutical revelations and sociological
benefits, make the efficiency in terms of outcomes difficult to estimate in
monetary values. As the payouts from biodiversity conservation are uncertain,
and over a much larger temporal scale than initial investments, the importance
placed on PAs effectiveness to conserve biodiversity, and the goal in general, is
greatly undermined leading to the apparent decline in biodiversity.
- Complexity and cross-sectorial influence:
Many stakeholders are
involved in the effectiveness of PAs; however the domination of political
supremacy and economic pressures commonly outcompete the values of conservation
efforts. This cross-sectorial influence tends to result in PAs representing
a bias, and thus unrepresentative, sample of biodiversity. A study by Watson et al (2011) showed that in Australia
21.1% of critically endangered, 13.9% of endangered species and 10.9% of
vulnerable species are not protected by PAs. The neglect of important
threatened species is dubious, and is due to the fact that areas of remoteness,
or with no potential for development or industrial uses (and thus economical gain), are commonly selected
for PAs. Therefore, it is apparent that the PAs of Australia provide virtually
no barrier to economical development, however the laws of protection within
them are being relaxed in order to increase exploitive uses of them and reap
the short-term economical gains. This is likely to cause the deterioration of
PAs conservational value, and deviates from the main goals of the CBD.
Furthermore, as PAs
rely on the ecological connections through remnant ecosystems on private lands,
it is even more concerning that laws about clearing on private land are now
being relaxed in Victoria and Queensland. This is of extreme significance due
to the subsequent decline of PA connectedness, which is likely to have detrimental
affects on biodiversity, further deviating from the CBD objectives. Although there
is a great number of studies indicating this probable fate, the limited
attention spans of the decision makers in association with current compared to
overarching problems demeans the issue, blurring policy making in this area.
The cross-sectorial influence is perhaps the greatest hindrance inhibiting the
success of PAs as a policy instrument for protecting biodiversity.
- Enforceability issues:
A successful policy instrument
needs to be enforceable, which PAs usually are, consistent with their
protection under statutory law; however legal aid funding in New South Wales is
now being reduced for public interest environmental cases. With this funding
the public is able to bring decision-makers to court over their accountability
in environmental and planning logistics, such as forestry operations. Without
this funding it is going to be a lot more difficult to hold the states to
environmental accountability, thus making it potentially easier for governments
to evade penalty for ill-management and exploitation of PAs.
Furthermore, the
recent changes to environmental decisions from national government to state
governments in order to streamline development in an effort to heighten
economic growth (you may have heard of the ‘cutting of green tape’), have had
consequences on the enforceability of PAs. Under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the
Australian Government Environment Minister is obligated to overlook any
developments in areas of significance to conservation. The reforms are
supported by the states as a necessity in order to recover from the Global
Financial Crisis and stimulate the economy. However, there are concerns that
this will result in a drop in the enforceability of environmental standards and
lead to exploitation in PAs, which will most probably have significant effects on
biodiversity decline. As a regulatory instrument, the effectiveness of PAs
relies on their enforceability, without it they can be deemed essentially
pointless with regard to meeting the CBD goals.
Summing
up..
So, while
the National Reserve System of protected areas makes for an impressive amount
of land and ocean being attributed to conservation efforts in Australia, they
are not supporting the main objective of the United Nations Convention on
Biological Diversity, to conserve an ecologically
representative suite of biodiversity. While more research is critical in
this area, it is becoming discernible that protected areas are not the optimal
solution to preserve the precious biodiversity of Australia, with the largest
problems residing in the vast temporal scale and uncertainty of the issue, the
political bias in protected area locations and the poor enforceability of the
regulatory instrument. It is likely that, rather than a reliance on protected
areas, a whole suite of policy instruments is needed for successful
biodiversity protection. The funding increase by the Australian government in
recent years is likely to be an attempt to pull the wool over the eye of the
public in a façade of conservation. More realistically, it is essentially an
attempt to fuel a short-lived burst of economic intensification. The Australian
government may be a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Biological
Diversity, however, through faults in the protected area network and lack of
other policy instruments to support protected areas, it is clear Australia’s
dedication to the objectives are in decline, along with Australia’s
biodiversity.
So is there a better option?
PAs are a form of
regulation; a disincentive to perform prohibited activities in a PA because of
legal ramifications. With the inefficiencies of the PA system outlined above an
alternative scheme must be considered. Another common instrument used in
biodiversity conservation is the payments for ecosystem services (PES). PES
schemes have been brought into public policy interest as a policy instrument
only recently, and they aim to promote biodiversity conservation through the
use of positive incentives, such as payments for landowners to conserve remnant
vegetation on their land. PES is a voluntary scheme and is thus likely to
suffer from contradicting incentives. It is also a possibility that because the
landowner will have more experience and local knowledge of their land, and the
costs involved with supplying environmental services, an overestimation of
payments given to the owner for those services may result. Furthermore, the
monitoring of these sites may be cost-intensive and thus the contract not
enforced, giving the landowner incentive to breach the contract, by grazing
stock for example, and still benefit. However, as PES is a relatively new
scheme much uncertainty surrounds its integrity. PAs and PES schemes are both
likely to have their faults, however if they were both implemented together in Australia, with scientific validity, perhaps we could move closer to our objectives with
the CBD and increase the standard of Australia's biodiversity conservation measures.
Adams, V. M., Segan, D. B., Pressey, R. L. (2011). ‘How
much does it cost to expand a protected area system? Some critical determining
factors and ranges of costs for Queensland’, PloS one, 6(9), 1 -
11.
Australian Government: Department of Environment,
2012, CAPAD 2012, viewed 20/5/14, available at http://www.environment.gov.au/node/34737
Bleeker, A., Hicks, W. K., Dentener,
F., Galloway, J., Erisman, J. W. (2011). ‘N deposition as a threat to the
World’s protected areas under the Convention on Biological Diversity’, Environmental Pollution, 159(10), 2280-2288.
CBD Secretariat, 2011, “Aichi Biodiversity Targets”,
viewed 20/5/14, available at http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/
Coad,
L., Campbell, A., Miles, L., Humphries, K. (2008). ‘The costs and benefits of
protected areas for local livelihoods: a review of the current literature’, UNEP
World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.
Dovers, S., Hussey,
K. (2013). ‘ Environment and Sustainability: A policy handbook’, The
Federation Press, Sydney, Australia, pp.126 - 137.
Driscoll,
D.A., Banks, S.C., Barton, P.S., Lindenmayer, D.B., Smith, A.L. (2013).
‘Conceptual domain of the matrix in fragmented landscapes’, Trends in
ecology & evolution, 28(10), 605-613.
Dunlop,
M., Hilbert, D. W., Ferrier, S., House, A., Liedloff, A., Prober, S. M., Swyth,
A., Martin, T. G., Harwood, T., Williams, K. J., Fletcher, C., Murphy, H.
(2012). ‘The implications of climate change for biodiversity conservation and
the National Reserve System: final synthesis’, Canberra: CSIRO.
Fuller, R. A., McDonald-Madden, E., Wilson, K. A.,
Carwardine, J., Grantham, H. S., Watson, J. E., Klein, C. J., Green, D. C.,
Possingham, H. P. (2010). ‘Replacing underperforming protected areas achieves
better conservation outcomes’, Nature, 466(7304), 365-367.
IUCN, 2013, “What is a protected areas?”,
viewed 18/5/14, available at http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/pas_gpap/
Jackson, C, Dirsuweit, T, Chauvet, L, Aubertin, C,
Rodary, E (2010). ‘Protected Areas, Sustainable Land?’, Farnham, England:
Ashgate Pub. Co, eBook Academic Collection, EBSCOhost, viewed 4 May
2014.
Lauwers, L. (2012). ‘Intergenerational equity, efficiency,
and constructibility’, Economic Theory, 49(2), 227-242.
Margules, C. R., Pressey, R. L. (2000). ‘Systematic conservation planning’, Nature,
405(6783), 243-253.
Miteva, D.A.,
Pattanayak, S.K., Ferraro, P.J. (2012). ‘Evaluation of biodiversity policy
instruments: what works and what doesn’t?’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy,
28, 69–92.
Nogrady, B. (2013).
‘Environmental law reform: how much is too much?’, ECOS, 2013(180).
Pattanayak, S. K.,
Wunder, S., Ferraro, P. J. (2010). ‘Show me the money: Do payments supply
environmental services in developing countries?’, Review of
Environmental Economics and Policy, 4(2), 254-274.
Porter-Bolland, L., Ellis, E. A., Guariguata, M. R.,
Ruiz-Mallén, I., Negrete-Yankelevich, S., Reyes-García, V. (2012). ‘Community
managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation
effectiveness across the tropics’, Forest Ecology and Management, 268,
6-17.
Ritchie, E. G., Bradshaw, C. J.,
Dickman, C. R., Hobbs, R., Johnson, C. N., Johnston, E. L., Laurence, W. F.,
McCarthy, M. A., Nimmo, D. G., Possingham, H. H., Pressey, R. L., Watson, D.
M., Woinarski, J. (2013). ‘Continental-Scale Governance Failure Will Hasten
Loss of Australia’s Biodiversity’, Conservation
Biology, 27(6),
1133-1135.
Ruming, K., Gurran, N.
(2014). ‘Australian planning system reform’, Australian Planner, 51(2),
102-107.
Smith, J. 2013. ‘Legal aid cuts
threaten environmental justice’, EDO NSW Weekly Bulletin 814:1.
Tacconi, L., Bennett, J. (1995). ‘Economic implications of
intergenerational equity for biodiversity conservation’, Ecological
economics, 12(3), 209-223.
Taylor, M. F., Sattler, P. S., Evans,
M., Fuller, R. A., Watson, J. E., Possingham, H. P. (2011). ‘What works for
threatened species recovery? An empirical evaluation for Australia’, Biodiversity and conservation, 20(4), 767-777.
Watson,
J. E., Evans, M. C., Carwardine, J., Fuller, R. A., Joseph, L. N., Segan, D.
B., Martin, T. J., Fensham, R. J., Possingham, H. P. (2011). ‘The Capacity of
Australia's Protected‐Area System to Represent
Threatened Species’, Conservation Biology, 25(2), 324-332.
