Moving Beyond Brundtland: Part 2
RECENTLY ESTABLISHED PARKS ARE USUALLY VERY SMALLAlthough small remnant populations of plants may prove useful to conservation goals and as such should be protected, they should not be considered equivalent to large populations (Lesica and Allendorf 1991). Small populations are subject to loss of rare alleles (Allendorf 1986), inbreeding (Frankel and Soul 1981), and may be prone to extinction from random environmental fluctuations and demographic stochasticity (Goodman 1987; Lande and Barrowclough 1987). Maintaining large viable populations of most animals, particularly medium to large mammals, requires a large amount of land (see Box 2). Unfortunately, most parks in the province are very small. For example, 45 percent of the protected areas are less than 100 hectares and 75 percent are under 1000 hectares.
It has been shown in several recent studies on protected areas in North America, Canada, and East Africa, that parks act essentially as land-bridge islands. These parks have been shown to lose mammalian species over time to the extent that in 14 western North American park assemblages, only the very largest park complex did not lose any mammals (Newmark 1995). The same pattern was observed in a more recent study of East African parks (Newmark 1996). These park complexes that escaped the loss of mammal species over time were exceptionally large, over 1000 km2 and usually around 10,000 km2. Parks of this size represent 4 percent of all the parks in the province. The truly large parks which are likely to maintain all their component species for the foreseeable future represent just 1 percent or 6 out of 663 parks. There is no sign that this pattern of establishing a preponderance of small parks is changing. Of 24 recently announced protected areas in Vancouver, one park is 3,000 hectares in size, the remaining 23 are less than 1000 hectares. Thus, while small parks are useful in some circumstances for providing a refuge for remnant endemic plants, invertebrates, or amphibians, if the province is committed to protecting its mid to large mammal species, much larger, connected parks must be established.
ASSUMPTION THAT AREAS OUTSIDE PA's WILL REMAIN WILDERNESS
For many large keystone species such as salmon and grizzly bear, the currently designated protected areas are not sufficient to maintain viable populations. This view is expressed by both the environmental community (CRN, Bear Watch, Sierra Club, Sierra Legal Defense Fund, etc.) and in the provincial government (LUCO and CDC). Although no critical studies have been done to assess the population viability of these species in B.C., the lack of such research should not be the basis for inadequate protection. In addition, the responsibility for conducting such studies (population viability analyses) prior to opening areas for resource extraction, should rest with the government. The two recent provincial studies on salmon (B.C. Government 1997) and grizzly bear (B.C. Government 1995), are informative but not of the depth necessary to properly assess viability. Instead the provincial government places a great deal of reliance on areas outside of protected areas remaining as wilderness and able to support populations of species. This may be an overly optimistic scenario given that the Forest Practices Code, (which defines management in much of the area outside PA's) only places a high emphasis on biodiversity protection in 10 percent of the land under its control. For example on Vancouver Island, the land outside protected areas is zoned as either a Low Intensity Area (LIA), a General Forestry Area (GF), or a High Intensity Area (HIA). LIAs place a strong emphasis on biodiversity but only represent 8 percent of the zoned land, while about half of the remaining area is zoned as a HIA, meaning that even the Forest Practices Code is relaxed to allow extensive logging and maintenance of the annual allowable cut.
These HIAs, therefore constitute ecological sacrifice zones. Even if not intensively logged, they are subject to some amount of habitat degradation. Road intrusion, poaching and other human activities only increase with time in such areas and these activities are usually detrimental to maintaining viable populations of sensitive species. As habitats become transformed from optimal to sub-optimal, populations of animals such as grizzly bears can experience dramatic declines. For example, essentially all deaths of grizzly bears aged one year or older in the Canadian Rockies and the United States is human induced (Mattson et al. 1996). Unfortunately, because of the source-sink dynamics between optimal habitat (protected areas) and sub-optimal habitat, (modified surrounding area), such negative population trends may go undetected for a considerable length of time (over a decade) even with the best census data (Doak 1992). Thus, the reliance on areas outside PA's to compensate for the lack of enough land within PA's is shortsighted. In general, we can expect that ecological integrity will deteriorate on lands outside of strictly protected reserves, notwithstanding claims of ecosystem or sustainable management to the contrary.
THE 12 PERCENT TARGET ESSENTIALLY IGNORES AREAS OUTSIDE PA's
There is an assumption by the resource extraction industry that areas not designated as protected are available for industrial use. This assumption is fostered by the fact that the PAS does little to enhance conservation goals outside the designated lands. Instead, the PAS leaves conservation issues outside protected areas largely to the Forest Practices Code, implementation of which has been questioned. The CORE process designated 12.8 percent of Vancouver Island as protected. The remaining public land areas were zoned according to the Vancouver Island Resource Targets (VIRT) process. This means that 8 percent is designated as LIA where industrial activity is permitted but theoretically there is a high emphasis on biodiversity. However, in the first draft of the VIRT clearcut logging is allowed to continue and over 50 percent was zoned as HIA where even the Forest Practices Code will be relaxed to allow for maximum timber extraction. The draft VIRT plan states that this HIA zone is designed to "balance" out any effects to timber supply induced by LIAs. In other words, any reduction in cut to protect biodiversity values in LIAs are easily compensated for by higher cuts in HIAs. Unless the PAS of the province comprehensively examines all land use within and outside PA's, any marginal benefits to conservation gained by the establishment of PA's may be negated by increased land use activities elsewhere, particularly if these activities increase habitat fragmentation.
CURRENT PAS PROVIDES LITTLE DIRECTION ONCE THE 12 PERCENT TARGET IS REACHED
The latest PAS update indicates that only about 2.8 percent remains to be designated and by all accounts this target will be reached by the year 2000. Unfortunately, the question as to what will happen once the 12 percent target is reached remains unanswered and neither the provincial government nor the environmental community has a clear idea about what conservation direction should be pursued. As mentioned previously, at least three regions have not yet begun their respective LRMPs and several other regions have only just embarked on the process. This means that the 12 percent target may be reached before several regions have even recommended their candidate areas for protection leaving these regions with only pre-existing parks. It is likely that there will be political pressure brought by the planning boards of these regions to list at least some of their candidate areas even if the target is surpassed. Also likely is the heavy opposition from industry who have come to accept the 12 percent target as final and who will inevitably see any attempt to increase the percentage of PA's as an erosion of their economic prospects. There is also some suggestion that the 12 percent target will only be met in the year 2000, when new elections are to take place. This means that the decision to increase PA's beyond the 12 percent target will be left to the new incoming government, whatever party it may be, avoiding a politically contentious issue during current term.
ACHIEVING THE 12 PERCENT GOAL CAN INDUCE A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY
The rapid designation of several large protected areas during the first few years following the implementation of the PAS and has led to over 9 percent of the land area being protected by 1996. This in turn has prompted the provincial government and some environmental groups to claim victory in the effort to protect biodiversity. For example the Endangered Spaces Campaign (WWF Canada) gave the provincial government an A grade in 1996 largely based on the amount of land that had been quickly protected. However, because the more important goal of representation has not been adequately met, WWF Canada reduced the grade to a C this year. Measuring success of the PA strategy based on simply achieving the 12 percent target is not prudent because it does not take into account the more important goal of achieving viable representation of all ecosystems and their constituent species.
EFFECTIVENESS OF B.C.'S PROTECTED AREAS STRATEGY
Since 1992, British Columbia has implemented a strategy designed to establish a network of protected areas that would create a comprehensive representation of the province's ecosystems and maintain viable populations of species. Certainly significant strides have been made in promoting conservation particularly in the early years of the strategy. There are few examples anywhere in the world where the establishment of protected areas has been elevated to a provincial goal. In just four years, lands totalling over 2.7 million hectares have been designated as protected areas. Some irreplaceable and biologically unique areas that have received protection include the Tatshenshini-Alsek Wilderness Park, protecting a network of rivers, the Khutzeymateen, protecting a large concentration of grizzly bears, and the intact Kitlope coastal temperate forest and watershed.
Despite these gains, recent progress in implementation of the PAS has been less than encouraging. The PAS has become synonymous with the 12 percent target and the objective of protecting representative ecosystems and filling the gaps in the existing protected area network has been all but abandoned for the simpler goal of achieving a non-biological target. Progress is only being measured in total hectares and percentages, not in the amount of ecosystem representation and the viability of keystone species. Certain ecotypes (coastal Douglas fir, interior Douglas fir, bunch grass), usually in regions of high human use, are severely underrepresented in the PAS and at the current rate of land conversion and natural resource depletion, will soon exist only in heavily fragmented remnants. Instead, alpine and sub-alpine zones are over represented probably because there is little economic use for these areas and low human population densities. Where PA establishment interferes with logging interests, new zoning regulations have been implemented to maintain harvest levels (most of which are unsustainable) thereby degrading habitat outside PA's. This means that any conservation gains made in the PA's are negated by the increased use of lands outside protected areas. Most parks that are being established are very small in size (75 percent < 1000 hectares) and while this may be useful for some species such as endemic plants, for many of the larger animals, fragmented habitat with little connectivity will be a significant detriment to long term viability. Finally, the planning process appears to be behind schedule with several regions not even having started the process. As there is no discussion by the provincial government about what might be done to enhance conservation once the 12 percent target is met, the logical conclusion is that true representation of ecosystems and protection of viable populations of species will continue to remain an elusive a goal, as it was in 1992.
GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE TWELVE (OR TEN) PERCENT TARGET FOR PROTECTED AREAS
Do lands that are outside the boundaries of protected areas make a qualitative difference in the protection of wildlife and natural ecosystems? Within the borders of some nations, particularly those of the north, there remain vast expanses of land with little or no agricultural value, lands that are sometimes referred to as "wastelands." These lands are too arid or cold to sustain agriculture. Therefore, they may remain relatively undeveloped for the foreseeable future, and can be depended on to sustain natural ecosystems, ecological processes, and to protect wildlife, even if their productivity is low. Other unprotected lands can also serve as habitat for wildlife. For example, some arid steppe and grasslands used by pastoralists for livestock grazing and browsing can sustain significant wildlife populations, at least where pastoralists are tolerant of wildlife, and where they and their livestock are not too numerous. Even farmlands can harbor some kinds of wildlife, usually small species, assuming these lands are managed in ways that provide wild species with forage, cover, and breeding sites.
Thus, for now we can assume that there are potentially large amounts of unprotected lands, whether wastelands, arid pastoral lands, or farmlands, that can be counted as "habitat," even though they are not components of any system of parks or reserves. This assumption, however, is not universally valid; it depends on many economic, social, and cultural conditions. For example, cold northern tundra or boreal forests, even in industrialized nations such as Canada and Russia, are often perturbed or destroyed by exploration for gas and oil or by logging activities, and the wilderness and wildlife values of these regions are already being severely compromised. Additionally, the value of federal grazing lands for wildlife in the western United States depends, to a large degree, on how the grazers manage their cattle, particularly in riparian areas.
Therefore, the quantity and quality of habitat outside of protected areas is not a given, even in the wealthiest nations. In the tropics, the value of unprotected lands is even more problematic, and the conservation utility of such lands is likely to deteriorate as human populations continue to swell. Virtually all the lands within the borders of most tropical nations will soon be converted to human use, if not for pastoral or agronomic activities, then for settlements, water projects, mines, or plantations. In other words, whereas a good deal of unprotected land in the temperate zones has the potential (assuming enlightened management) to contribute to conservation, nearly every metre of land within most tropical nations will know the plow, the hoof, the blade, or the wheel. Moreover, the security of tropical forests and other habitats within the protected areas of developing countries is dependent on the efficiency of law enforcement and the stability of governments, conditions that are often weak or chaotic (Soul 1991).
Though optimists may conclude that lands outside of protected areas will make a substantial contribution to the protection of nature, in the tropics it is far more likely that agricultural expansion and intensification will exacerbate the conditions within natural areas (Janzen 1986). In large part this is because edge effects of various kinds, including diseases from domestic animals, invasions of exotic species and weeds, poaching and other illegal incursions, anthropogenic fires, changes in climate caused by changes in land use outside of natural areas, and pollution of air and water will decrease the effective size and habitat quality of conservation areas. We assume, therefore, that lands outside of protected areas will have little (or negative) value for conservation, at least in the tropics (see Newmark 1996).
Simply put, we conclude that "what we've got is all we'll get." Assuming the truth of this dismal scenario, and using the principles of ecological science, what is a reasonable prognosis for nature? One of the implications is that if only 10 (or 12) percent becomes the globally recognized target of nations for their natural (wild) estate, then it is predicted that about half of all terrestrial species in the world are destined for artificial extinction within a finite amount of time, depending on the size of the habitat remnants that remain. This sad statement is based on two assumptions. The first is the wildly optimistic premise that the 10 percent protection goal is achieved. The second premise is scientific: it is an empirically established principle referred to as the "species-area relationship" from the field of island biogeography. A corollary of the species-area relationship is that a 90 percent loss of habitat will precipitate a 50 percent loss of species within the remnant of natural habitat, assuming that the remnant, itself, is unfragmented. There are now dozens of studies that verify the basis for this conclusion (MacArthur and Wilson 1967; Wilson and Willis 1975; Brown 1978; Boecklin and Gotelli 1984; Newmark 1987; Kadmon and Pulliam 1993; and others).
The principle of species extirpation in habitat remnants is illustrated in the accompanying figures, and is founded on the empirically based "species-area" relationship, a well established principle of ecology that the number of species that exist in a place (whether the place is a true island or on an arbitrarily defined piece of a continent) depends on the size of that island or the piece of continent. The reasons for such a relationship are known, but too detailed for our purposes here. Suffice it to say that the species richness depends on habitat diversity and the viability of populations, a numbers game.
When area and species number are both converted to logarithms, the species-area curve is usually a straight line. For true oceanic islands (the upper figure), the slope of this line is quite steep. For circumscribed samples of land on continents, however, (top line in the lower figure), the slope is less steep, largely because animals and plants are free to come and go through the non-existent, arbitrary boundaries of the sampled area. In other words, on true islands a species cannot persist unless it has a viable population, and unless all of its survival and breeding requirements are met on that island.
In a continental region of the same size, however, innumerable species can be present at any given time, even if they cannot find all the necessities for persistence and reproduction on that particular piece of land. For example, elk and eagles occur on a single hectare of land in the Rocky Mountains, though they could not persist there long if that single acre were to become an island separated from all the adjoining land. The top figure shows the quantitative basis for the guideline mentioned above the species-area curve for oceanic islands. It can be seen that an island that is 1000 units (whether acres, hectares, square miles or square kilometres) in size has about twice as many species as an island that is 100 units in size. This rough guideline holds, whatever the scale. Thus, an order of magnitude loss of area is accompanied by a decrease of about 50 percent in number of species (species richness). How does this apply to protected areas that become isolated by development? In other words, how does insularization affect species richness?
The main effect is that species disappear from an isolated protected area at a rate proportional to the size of the area. This process is sometimes referred to as "relaxation" (Diamond). Relaxation is illustrated in the lower figure. The dot on the upper line represents the species richness for a non-isolated sample of mainland habitat that is 10 units in area. The dot on the lower line represents the species richness for a true, long-isolated, island of the same size. The inescapable conclusion is that protected areas will lose species, the rate and degree of loss depending on the size of the remnant (Soul et al. 1979; Newmark 1996). Further, if the isolated protected area is fragmented, creating even small islands, the ultimate loss of species could be even greater. Thus, the ecological and evolutionary consequences of large reductions on habitat area are profound, and the ecological significance of land use policy recommendations are worthy of careful scrutiny.
International organizations (e.g., The World Wildlife Fund) that recommend national targets for tropical nations of, say, 10 percent, are implicitly justifying an extinction of roughly 50 percent, on average, of each nation's biotic heritage. A 50 percent loss of tropical species represents one of the greatest mass extinctions since life crept onto the land nearly half a billion years ago (Wilson 1992). It also represents a level of biological simplification never caused before by the activities of a single species of terrestrial animal, let alone a species that claims ethical and intellectual superiority to other life forms.
Two questions remain. First, do the 10 or 12 percent guidelines, which are attempts to be politically realistic, actually encourage nations to double or triple the fraction of the territory tithed to nature? We have seen no evidence that this bit of realpolitik has worked. Even in a rich, industrialized province such as British Columbia, early idealistic efforts to implement the guideline have been distorted by the political process, and 12 percent has become a ceiling instead of a floor. Second, even if the answer were yes, we are obligated to ask whether a significantly larger, biologically based target percentage, say 40 percent, would have been less effective, discouraging nations from adding any territory to their stock of protected areas. If the latter were true, then perhaps the 10 or 12 percent guidelines should not be faulted. We are left to wonder, though, whether history will judge the current guidelines as examples complicit with the major environmental catastrophe in the last 60 millions years.
Annex 1. LIST OF INTERVIEWEES
1. David Carruthers - Director of Information Systems, Ecotrust, Canada.
2. James Cox - Gap Analysis Specialist, Florida Fish and Game, USA.
3. Lois Dellert - Ex-Deputy Chief Forester, B.C., Canada.
4. Jarred Diamond - University of California at Los Angeles, USA.
5. John Dick - Ex-Regional Manager, Department of Environment, Lands and Parks, and consultant, Toronto, Canada.
6. Barry Gilbert - Mammal Ecologist and Grizzly Bear Researcher, Utah State University, USA.
7. Monte Hummel - Executive Director, World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Canada.
8. Sabina Jessen - Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, B.C., Canada.
9. Jan Kirkby - Sensitive Ecosystem Study, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, B.C., Canada.
10. Kaaren Lewis - Senior Policy Analyst, PAS, B.C., Canada.
11. Allan McDonell, Executive Director, B.C. Wild, Canada.
12. Kenton Miller - Scientist, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Switzerland.
13. Wayne McCrory - Grizzly Bear Biologist, B.C., Canada.
14. Jeff McNeely - Scientist, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Switzerland.
15. Ted Mosquin - Biodiversity Researcher and Consultant, Toronto, Canada.
16. Reed Noss - Editor of Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology and Conservation Biologist, Oregon State University, USA.
17. Stuart Pimm - University of Tennessee, USA.
18. Mike Scott - Gap Analysis Specialist, University of Idaho, USA.
19. Daniel Simberloff - Conservation Biologist, University of Florida, USA.
20. Dennis Sizemore - Ecologist and Bear Researcher, Round River Conservation Organization, Utah, USA.
21. Merran Smith - Sierra Club Mapping, B.C., Canada.
22. Brian Springinotic - Land Use Specialist, PAS, B.C., Canada.
23. John Terborgh - Ecologist, Duke University, North Carolina, USA.
Blanchard, B.M, Knight, R.R. (1991) Movements of Yellowstone Grizzly Bears. Biological Conservation 58: 41-67.
Boecklen, W.J, Gotelli, N.J. (1984) Island Biogeographic Theory and Conservation Practice: Species-Area or Specious-Area Relationships? Biological Conservation 29:63-80.
Brown, J.H. (1971) Mammals on Mountaintops: Nonequilibrium Insular Biogeography. American Naturalist 105:467-478.
Burley, F.W. (1988). Monitoring Biological Diversity for setting Priorities in Conservation. In: Biodiversity. E.O. Wilson (ed). National Academy Press, Washington D.C. pp. 55-145.
Conservation of Grizzly Bears in British Columbia. (1995) Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Victoria, B.C.
Cox, J., Katz, R., MacLaughlin, M. and Gilbert, T. (1994) Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission publication.
Demarchi, D., Marsh, R., Harcombe, A... (1990). The Environment. In: The Birds of British Columbia. Vol. 1. Royal British Columbia Museum. pp. 55-145.
Diamond, J.M. (1976) Island Biogeography and Conservation: Strategy and Limitations. Science 193: 1027-1029.
Doak, D.F. (1995) Source-Sink Models And The Problem Of Habitat Degradation: General Models And Applications To The Yellowstone Grizzly. Conservation Biology 9(6): 1370-1379.
Edwards, T.C., Deseler, E., Foster, D., Moisen, G.G. (1996) Adequacy of Wildlife Habitat Relations Models For Estimating Spatial Distributions of Terrestrial Vertebrates. Conservation Biology 10:263-270.
Forest Practices Code of British Columbia: Biodiversity Guidebook. (1995) Forest Service of British Columbia, B.C. Environment, Victoria, British Columbia.
Frankel, O.H., Soul , M.E. (1981). Conservation and Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Gap Analysis Workbook for Regional Protected Areas Teams. Providence of British Colombia Government publication. Victoria, British Columbia, 1993.