Image via Wikipedia

A few weeks back I cosigned a ‘statement of concern’ about the proposal for Australia’s South West Marine Region organised by Hugh Possingham. The support has been overwhelming by Australia’s marine science community (see list of supporting scientists below). I’ve reproduced the letter addressed to the Australian government – distribute far and wide if you give more than a shit about the state of our marine environment (and the economies it supports). Basically, the proposed parks are merely a settlement between government and industry where nothing of importance is really being protected. The parks are just the leftovers industry doesn’t want. No way to ensure the long-term viability of our seas.

–

On 5 May 2011 the Australian Government released a draft proposal for a network of marine reserves in the Commonwealth waters of the South West bioregional marine planning region.

Australia’s South West is of global significance for marine life because it is a temperate region with an exceptionally high proportion of endemic species – species found nowhere else in the world.

Important industries, such as tourism and fisheries, depend on healthy marine ecosystems and the services they provide. Networks of protected areas, with large fully protected core zones, are essential to maintain healthy ecosystems over the long-term – complemented by responsible fisheries management¹.

The selection and establishment of marine reserves should rest on a strong scientific foundation. We are greatly concerned that what is currently proposed in the Draft South West Plan is not based on the three core science principles of reserve network design: comprehensiveness, adequacy and representation. These principles have been adopted by Australia for establishing our National Reserve System and are recognized internationally².

Specifically, the draft plan fails on the most basic test of protecting a representative selection of habitats within the bioregions of the south-west. There are no highly protected areas proposed at all in three of the seven marine bioregions lying on the continental shelf³. Overall less than 3.5% of the shelf, where resource use and biodiversity values are most intense, is highly protected. Further, six of the seven highly protected areas that are proposed on the shelf are small (< 20 km in width)⁴ and all are separated by large distances (> 200 km)⁵. The ability of such small isolated areas to maintain connectivity and fulfil the goal of protecting Australia’s marine biodiversity is limited.

The gaps are further exemplified by the very patchy protection of identified unique features. We are concerned that 160 of the 165 areas identified as biologically important and thirteen of the sixteen key ecological features mapped during the planning process have either low levels of protection proposed (< 15% in highly protected areas) or very limited protection proposed (0% in highly protected areas). It is well recognized that where the habitat of a threatened species is spatially restricted full protection may be required⁶.

We have grave concerns about the lack of protection caused by these gaps in the proposed system of marine reserves. To protect marine biodiversity all habitat types should be represented to an adequate level within highly protected areas5. If implemented as proposed, the marine reserves would cover less than half of the mapped habitat types within the south-west planning region within highly protected areas. This would be a major failure for the whole marine planning process and send a poor signal internationally.

We urge the Australian Government to amend the proposed network of marine reserves to address these concerns, by significantly increasing the level of protection to cover adequately all the continental shelf bioregions, and providing a high level of protection for key features such as the Abrolhos region, the Rottnest Shelf, the Perth Canyon, Geographe Bay and the Capes, the Albany Canyons, the Recherche region, the Great Australian Bight, Kangaroo Island Canyons, and the Kangaroo Island upwelling system—one of Australia’s most productive ocean areas.

–

References & Notes

1. Effective biodiversity conservation involves high levels of protection within reserve networks, complemented by general strategies across the entire seascape – as set out in the UN FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries 1995. Although all Australian Governments endorse this approach, in some cases implementation of these general strategies needs considerable improvement : Nevill, J, 2009 Overfishing, uncertainty and ocean governance. PhD Thesis, University of Tasmania.
2. ANZECC TFMPA (Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council Task Force on Marine Protected Areas).1998. Guidelines for Establishing the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, Task Force on Marine Protected Areas. Environment Australia, Canberra.
3. IMCRA. 2006. A Guide to the Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia Version 4.0. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Australia.
4. GBRMPA. 2001. Biophysical operating principles as recommended by the scientific steering committee, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Australia.
5. Halpern, B S, Regan, H M, Possingham, H P and M A McCarthy. 2006. Accounting for uncertainty in marine reserve design. Ecology Letters 9: 2-11.
6. The Ecology Centre, University of Queensland. 2009. Scientific Principles for Design of Marine Protected Areas in Australia: A Guidance Statement, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Endorsements

• Endorsed by the AMSA Council on behalf of the Australian Marine Science Association.
• Endorsed by the ACRS Council on behalf of the Australian Coral Reef Society.

Supporting scientists

• Adriana Verges, PhD, marine ecologist, Sydney Institute of Marine Science, University of NSW, Sydney.
• Alastair Harborne, PhD, NERC Research Fellow, Spatial Ecology Lab, University of Queensland, St Lucia Brisbane.
• Alex Petrie, BVMS(Hons) PostGradDip Conservation Medicine, 9/2 Davies Street Northbridge 6003.
• Alex Wyatt, Fulbright Scholar, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, USA.
• Alexander Gillespie, Pro-Vice-Chancelleor of Research and Professor of Law, University of Waikato, NZ.
• Alicia Sutton, BScHons, Centre for Marine Futures, Oceans Institute, University of Western Australia.
• Alvin van Niekerk, PhD, ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, University of Queensland.
• Andrew Baker, Assoc Professor, Pew Fellow in Marine Conservation, University of Miami, Florida USA.
• Andy Davis, Assoc Prof, marine conservation biology, University of Wollongong, NSW.
• Anna Scott, PhD, Lecturer, National Marine Science Centre, Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour NSW .
• Anthony Cheshire, PhD, Professor, Principal Scientist, Science to Manage Uncertainty, Belair, South Australia.
• Anthony Richardson, Associate Professor, Centre for Applications in Natural Resource Mathematics, UQ, Qld.
• Ayesha Tulloch, PhD candidate, The Ecology Centre, Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
• Barry Baker, Director, Latitude 42 Environmental Consultants, Kettering Tasmania 7155.
• Belinda Cannell, PhD, Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150
• Benjamin Fitzpatrick, Grad Res Assist, Centre for Marine Futures, University of Western Australia, WA.
• Benjamin Halpern, Director, Center for Marine Assessment and Planning; Research Scientist, UC Santa Barbara
• Beverley Clarke, PhD, Director of Studies, Master of Environmental Management, Flinders University, Adelaide.
• Bill Gladstone, Professor, Head, School of the Environment, University of Technology, Sydney New South Wales.
• Boris Worm, Associate Professor, Department of Biology, Dalhousie University Halifax, NS, Canada.
• Brian Finlayson, Professor, aquatic environments & conservation planning, Melbourne University, Victoria.
• Brigitte Sommer, PhD candidate, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, University of Queensland.
• Bruce Kendall, PhD, Professor of Environmental Science and Management, Univ of California, Santa Barbara.
• Carissa Klein, PhD, ARC Postdoctoral Fellow, conservation science, University of Queensland, Brisbane Qld.
• Carmen Primo, PhD, Associate Lecturer, NCMCRS, University of Tasmania.
• Chandra Salgado Kent, PhD, Research Fellow, Centre for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin University. WA.
• Charles Sheppard, Professor, School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, United Kingdom.
• Christopher Brown, PhD candidate, Marine Ecology & Fisheries. School of Biological Sciences, UQ, Brisbane.
• Christopher Burton, Director, Western Whale Research, Dunsborough, Western Australia.
• Clive Wilkinson, PhD, Coordinator of the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, Townsville
• Corey Bradshaw, Professor, Ecological Modeling, University of Adelaide, South Australia.
• Craig Johnson, Professor of Zoology, Director of Marine & Antarctic Futures Centre, IMAS, University of Tasmania
• Curt Jenner, Managing Director, Centre for Whale Research (WA) Inc, Fremantle, Western Australia.
• Dan Laffoley, Professor, Marine Vice Chair, IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas.
• Daniel Pauly, Professor of Fisheries, Fisheries Centre, The University of British Columbia, Canada.
• Daniel Smale, PhD, Research Fellow, Oc eans Institute, University of Western Australia, Perth Western Australia.
• Daniela Ceccarelli, PhD, Marine Ecology Consultant, PO Box 215, Magnetic Island QLD 4819.
• David Booth, Professor, Marine Ecology, University of Technology, Sydney New South Wales.
• David Sutton, Assoc Prof, Microbiology and Immunology, Oceans Institute, University of Western Australia.
• Debora De Freitas, PhD, Research Fellow, Aust. National Centre for Ocean Resources & Security, UniWollongong.
• Deborah Milham-Scott, PhD, Faculty of Science, Health & Education, University of the Sunshine Coast, Qld.
• Dirk Zeller, Senior Research Fellow & Project Manager, Sea Around Us Project, University of British Columbia.
• Eleanor Bruce, PhD, Senior Lecturer, coastal management, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, NSW.
• Elliott Norse, PhD, President, Marine Conservation Institute, Bellevue Washington USA.
• Emily Shaw, PhD candidate, Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney.
• Eric Treml, PhD, marine ecology and conservation, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland.
• Erich Hoyt, Research Fellow, Whale & Dolphin Conservation Society, IUCN SSC WCPA & CSG, United Kingdom.
• Fiona Scott, PhD candidate, marine algae, University of Tasmania, Hobart Tasmania.
• Fiorenza Micheli, PhD, Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, California, USA.
• Francis Pantus, PhD, Assoc Prof, Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland.
• Gabriel Vianna, PhD candidate, Centre for Marine Futures, University of Western Australia, Crawley WA.
• Gabrielle Cummins, BSc(Hons), Graduate Research Assistant, Centre for Marine Futures, Univ of WA.
• Gary Davis, US National Park Service Chief Ocean Scientist, Westlake Village, California, USA.
• Gary Luck, Assoc Prof, Environmental Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Albury NSW.
• Geoffrey Wescott, Assoc Prof, marine ecology and conservation, Deakin University, Geelong Victoria.
• George Shilllinger, PhD, Stanford University, Marine Biologist, Monterey, California.
• Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara, PhD, President, Tethys Research Institute, Milano, Italy.
• Graeme Kelleher, AO, FTSE, FIEAust, FEIANZ, former director Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Canberra.
• Graham Edgar, Assoc Prof, marine ecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart Tasmania.
• Greg Skilleter, PhD, Marine and Estuarine Ecology Unit, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
• Hedley Grantham, PhD, Science and Knowledge, Conservation International, NSW, Australia.
• Hugh Finn, PhD, School of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Murdoch University, Western Australia.
• Hugh Possingham, Professor, spatial ecology, Ecology Centre, University of Queensland, Queensland.
• Ian Dutton PhD, President and CEO, Alaska SeaLife Center, Seward, Alaska USA.
• Jacquie Sheils, MAppSc, benthic ecologist, Fantasea Cruises Whitsunday Islands, Queensland.
• James Brook, BSc (Ma), M.Env.St, marine ecologist, Normanville, South Australia 5204.
• James Watson, DPhil, Climate Adaptation, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, USA.
• Jamie Kirkpatrick, Professor, conservation ecology and planning, University of Tasmania, Hobart Tasmania.
• Janine Baker, PhD, marine ecologist, Hove, South Australia 5048.
• Jeff Wright, PhD, marine ecology, NCMCRS, University of Tasmania, Hobart Tasmania.
• Jens Zinke, Assistant Professor, Oceans Institute, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia.
• Jessica Meeuwig, Professor, marine ecology, University of Western Australia, Perth Western Austraia.
• Jessica Melbourne-Thomas, PhD, ecological statistician, Antartic Climate & Ecosystems Coop. Res. Centre, UTAS.
• Jill StJohn, PhD, Marine Coordinator, The Wilderness Society, West Perth, Western Australia.
• Jim Underwood, PhD, Adjunct Fellow, University of Western Australia, Perth Western Australia.
• Jochen Kaempf, Associate Professor, Physical Oceanography, Flinders University, Adelaide South Australia.
• John Beardall, Professor, phytoplankton ecophysiology, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
• John Hooper, PhD, Head Biodiversity & Geosciences Programs, Queensland Museum, Brisbane, Queensland.
• John Ogden, Emeritus Professor of Integrative Biology, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL USA.
• John Pandolfi, Professor, coral reef paleoecology, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, UQ, Brisbane.
• John Sherwood, Hon. Associate Professor, Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Warrnambool.
• Jon Nevill, PhD, Director, OnlyOnePlanet Consulting, PO Box 106 Hampton Victoria 3188.
• Jonathan Gardner, PhD, Professor of Marine Biology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
• Judit Szabo, PhD, conservation biologist, Research Fellow, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory.
• Judy Clarke, PhD, Wildlife Biologist, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Tasmania.
• Karen Edyvane, Professor, Marine Conservation & Management, Charles Darwin University, Northern Territory.
• Kate Sprogis, PhD, Centre for Fish and Aquatic Ecosystems Research, Murdoch University, Murdoch WA.
• Keren Raiter, PhD candidate, Ecological Restoration and Intervention Ecology, University of Western Australia.
• Kerstin Bilgmann, PhD, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Biological Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide.
• Kimberley Millers, PhD candidate, School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Victoria.
• Kris Waddington, PhD, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Marine Futures, University of Western Australia.
• Larry Crowder Professor of Biology, Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Pacific Grove, California.
• Lars Bejder, PhD, Head, Cetacean Research Unit, Murdoch University, Murdoch WA 6150.
• Laurie Laurenson, Assoc Prof, Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Warnambool Victoria.
• Leslie Cornick, Associate Professor, Alaska Pacific University, Anchorage, AK, USA
• Lindy Weilgart, PhD, Research Associate, Dept. of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS Canada.
• Lissa Bar, PhD candidate, marine conservation, The Ecology Centre, University of Queensland, Brisbane Qld.
• Lorenna Machado, MappSc, Estuary and Tidal Wetland Ecosystems Research Group, JCU, Townsville, Qld.
• Louise Duxbury, PhD, Green Skills Inc, Adjunct Fellow, University of Western Australia, Perth Western Australia.
• Luciana Moller, PhD, Senior Lecturer in Marine Biology, Flinders University, Adelaide South Australia.
• Luciano Beheregaray, Professor, Molecular Ecology, Flinders University, South Australia.
• Malcolm McCulloch, Professor, Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies, University of Western Australia.
• Marc Hockings, Professor of Environmental Management, University of Queensland, Brisbane Queensland.
• Marcus Sheaves, Assoc. Prof, Estuary and Tidal Wetland Ecosystems Research Group, James Cook University.
• Margi Prideaux, PhD, Policy and Negotiations Director, Migratory Wildlife Network, Australia.
• Maria Beger, PhD, Postdoc Research Fellow, Marine Conservation Planning, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
• Mark Carey, PhD, marine ornithologist, Department of Environmental Management and Ecology, La Trobe Univ.
• Mark Hixon, Professor, Dept Zoology, Oregon State Uni, Oregon, USA & past chair US MPA Federal Advisory Com
• Megan Barnes, PhD candidate, Conservation Science, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland.
• Megan Evans, BScHons, Research Assistant, Conservation Planning, Ecology Centre, University of Queensland.
• Megan Saunders, PhD, Postdoc Research Fellow, Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
• Melanie Bishop, PhD, coastal ecology, Macquarie University, Sydney New South Wales.
• Melissa Nursey-Bray, PhD, University of Adelaide
• Michael McCarthy, Assoc Professor, environmental modelling, School of Botany, The University of Melbourne.
• Mike Bossley, PhD AM, Regional Managing Director, WDCS Australasia, Adelaide, Australia.
• Mike van Keulen, PhD, Director Coral Bay Research Station, Murdoch University, Western Australia.
• Nathan Hart, Research Associate Professor, Neuroecology Group, Oceans Institute, Univ of Western Australia.
• Neville Barrett, PhD, Institure for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania.
• Nicholas Dulvy, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Marine Biodiversity & Conservation, Simon Fraser Univ CAN
• Oscar Venter, PhD, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Marine & Tropical Biology, James Cook University.
• Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Professor & Director, Global Change Institute, University of Queensland.
• Pat Hutchings, DSc, Senior Principal Research Scientist, Australian Museum, Sydney, New South Wales.
• Patricia Sutcliffe, PhD candidate, Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, University of Queensland.
• Patrick Christie, PhD, Assoc Prof, School of Marine & Environmental Affairs,University of Washington, Seattle.
• Patrick O’Connor, PhD, Visiting Research Fellow, School of Earth & Environmetal Science, University of Adelaide.
• Paul Sattler, OAM, conservation biology, Mount Cotton, Queensland.
• Peri Coleman, MappSc, Principal Consultant, Delta Environmental Consulting, St Kilda South Australia.
• Peter Auster, Research Professor, Department of Marine Sciences, University of Connecticut, USA.
• Peter Fairweather, Professor of Marine Biology, School of Biological Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA.
• Peter Gill, PhD, Director, Blue Whale Study Inc, Narrawong, Victoria, 3285.
• Phil Bouchet, PhD candidate, Centre for Marine Futures, Oceans Institute, University of Western Australia.
• Philip Dearden, Professor & Chair, Dept of Geography, University of Victoria, PO Box 3060, Victoria, BC, Canada.
• Philip Molloy, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
• Philip Munday, Professor, marine ecology, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland.
• Philippa Brakes, MSc, Senior Biologist, Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, United Kingdom.
• Rachael Dudaniec, PhD, Postdoc Research Fellow, Geography, Planning & Environmental Management, UQ.
• Rachel Binks, PhD, Centre for Evolutionary Biology, University of Western Australia, Perth Western Australia.
• Rashid Sumaila, Professor and Director of the University of British Columbia Fisheries Centre, Canada.
• Renata Ferrari Legorreta, PhD candidate, Marine Spatial Ecology Lab, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
• Richard Appeldoorn, Professor of Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico.
• Richard Fuller, PhD, lecturer, Biodiversity and Conservation, Biological Sciences, University of Queensland.
• Richard Kingsford, Professor, Australian Wetlands and Rivers Centre, Uni NSW, Sydney New South Wales.
• Rob Harcourt, Professor of Marine Ecology, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales.
• Robert Sutherst, PhD, Honorary Professor, Ecology Centre, Biological Sciences, University of Queensland.
• Rod Connolly, Professor, marine ecology, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
• Romola Stewart, PhD, Marine Conservation Planner, Western Australia.
• Russell McWilliam, PhD candidate, Conservation Biology & Environmental Management, Univ of Wollongong.
• Sam Lake, Professor, aquatic ecosystems and management, Monash University, Melbourne Victoria.
• Sam Nicol, PhD, Postdoctoral Research Scholar, mathematical ecology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks Alaska.
• Sandra Brooke, PhD, Director of Coral Conservation, Marine Conservation Institute, Bellevue WA 98004 USA.
• Sara Maxwell, PhD, Marine Conservation Institute & University of California Santa Cruz, California USA.
• Sarah Dolman, BEng, MRes, Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, United Kingdom.
• Sarah Pausina, PhD candidate, marine ecology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
• Scoresby Shepherd, PhD, AO, Research Associate, Museum of South Australia, Adelaide South Australia
• Scott Burgess, PhD, marine ecologist, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland.
• Sean Connell, Assoc. Professor, marine ecology and conservation, University of Adelaide, South Australia.
• Sean Connolly, PhD, ARC Australian Professorial Fellow, School of Marine & Tropical Biology, JCU, Townsville.
• Shannon Donahoe, DVM, Associate Veterinary Pathologist, Australian Registry of Wildlife Health, NSW.
• Sian Prior, PhD, Marine Science and Policy Specialist, Emsworth, PO10 8HA, United Kingdom.
• Sidney Holt, DSc, marine policy and science expert, Italy.
• Sophie Petit, PhD, wildlife ecologist, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia.
• Steve Gaines, Dean, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
• Sue Murray-Jones, PhD, 9 Cudmore Terrace, Henley Beach, South Australia
• Tara Martin, Adjunct Lecturer, conservation planning, University of Queensland, Queensland.
• Terry Hughes, Professor, coral reef studies, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, JCU Queensland.
• Tim Flannery, Professor, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales.
• Tom Trnski, PhD, Research Manager, Auckland Museum, Auckland New Zealand.
• Trish Franklin, Director, The Oceania Project. PhD candidate, Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour NSW.
• Viv Tulloch, marine conservation, Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, University of Queensland.
• Wally Franklin, Director, The Oceania Project. PhD Candidate, Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour NSW.
• William Cheung, Lecturer, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.
• William Figueira, PhD, Centre for Research on Ecological Impacts of Coastal Cities, University of Sydney, NSW.
• Winston Ponder DSc, Senior Research Fellow, Australian Museum, Sydney New South Wales.

–

The reasons for the decline of Australia’s unique biodiversity are many, and most are well known. Clearing of vegetation for urban and agricultural land uses, introduced species and changed fire patterns are regularly cited in State of the Environment reports, recovery plans and published studies as major threats to biodiversity. But, while these threats are widely acknowledged, little has been done to quantify them in terms of the proportion of species affected, or their spatial extent at a national, state or local scale. To understand why such information on threats may be useful, consider for instance how resources are allocated in public health care¹.

Threat knowledge

Conditions such as cancer, heart disease and mental health are regarded as National Health Priority Areas in Australia, and have been given special attention when prioritising funds since the late 1980s. The burden of disease in these priority areas are quantified according to the incidence or prevalence of disease or condition, and its social and economic costs. Estimates of burden of disease and their geographic distribution (often according to local government areas) can assist in communicating broad trends in disease burden, but also in prioritising efforts to achieve the best outcomes for public health. An approach similar to that used in healthcare could help to identify priorities for biodiversity conservation – using information on the species which are impacted by key threats, the spatial distributions of species and threats, and the costs of implementing specific management actions to address these threats.

In a study recently published in BioScience¹, we examined in detail the threats reported for threatened species listed under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). We first calculated the percentage of threatened species affected by eight key threats:

• habitat loss
• introduced species
• inappropriate fire regimes
• disease
• pollution
• overexploitation
• native species interactions, and
• natural causes.

Figure 1. Relative impacts of major threatening processes expressed as the % of extant species threatened, the % of mapped species threatened (subset of extant threatened species for which spatial data were available), and the % of continental area of Australia across which the threat occurs within sub-catchments.

From this we were able to confirm that habitat loss is the most important threat to Australian biodiversity, affecting 81% of threatened species (Figure 1). However, we also found that changes to the natural fire patterns and introduced species threaten proportionally more species in Australia than in other countries including the United States of America, Canada and China.

Reporting on statistics such as these can be useful for making broad comparisons in the relative importance of threats, or to communicate better the dire situation facing Australia’s biodiversity – but the value of such analyses in informing practical efforts to conserve threatened species can be limited. One important reason for this is that the distribution of threats and species vary across the landscape. To become useful in conservation planning, we need to quantify threats spatially.

Which species, where?

To do this, we used species distribution models from the Species of National Environmental Significance database, and matched the listed threats for each species to their corresponding spatial models. From this we determined which of the 62,629 sub-catchments across the Australian continent contained species affected by each threat.

Figure 2. Distribution of the predominant threats to biodiversity across Australia. The ‘predominant threat’ is the threat affecting the greatest number of species in each sub-catchment. Where 2 or more threats affect an equivalent number of species, we assume no predominant threat occurring in these sub-catchments (shades of grey). Darker colours indicate a larger overall number of threats occurring in the sub-catchment. White indicates areas where no threatened species occur.

Our first effort revealed important connections between the distributions of species and threats. For instance, changed fire patterns are a threat to species across almost 90 % of the Australian landscape, but affect less than half of the threatened species. We then calculated the proportion of species affected by each threat contained within each sub-catchment, and subsequently determined the predominant threat in each sub-catchment. From this it became clear that multiple stressors are impacting native biodiversity over much of the continent (Figure 2) – even in regions sparsely populated by humans such as northern Australia.

This means that effective conservation management is critical even in areas considered to be wilderness. Our study has shown that the majority of Australia’s threatened species are affected by multiple pressures (over 75% of species), and these threats are distributed across most of the continent – many of which cannot be eased through the protection of habitat alone⁴. This is an important result – as it means that getting the best outcomes for biodiversity requires a broad understanding of factors to decide best direct conservation efforts: what threats exist, what are the potential benefits of conservation management, what are the most suitable management actions and how much will they cost?

What’s the priority?

The next step in this research is to understand how we can effectively prioritise resources to maximise conservation outcomes where a range of threats to biodiversity exist. We pursued this by developing a multiple-action, return-on-investment framework³. Similar approaches have been used to determine what conservation management actions to do, where and when – but so far, a lack of information on the threats to species and their spatial distributions means that the additional complexity of how to address the impacts of multiple threats on species has not yet been considered.

There are two possible consequences of ignoring the issue of multiple threats: first, the benefits of abating a single threat may be overestimated because species might be threatened by multiple processes; second, the cost of abating two threats in one place might be cheaper than the sum of the costs of abating each threat alone.

We tested our approach by considering two key threats to Australian biodiversity: the red fox and the European rabbit. Some species are threatened only by foxes, some only by rabbits, but some are affected by both – and so require management actions directed at both threats in order to persist. Using spatial data on the distributions of threatened species, and of the two introduced species, we calculated the area within each of Australia’s bioregions requiring management for foxes rabbits, or both. We then tested four return-on-investment frameworks (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Investment into conservation actions at a continental scale for all 72 bioregions, according to our 4 return-on-investment (ROI) frameworks: (a) Two-action-independent ROI, (b) three-action-independent ROI, (c) action-dependent ROI and (d) action-dependent ROI with spatial targeting. Map shows the priority bioregions for investment as indicated by the total percentage of funding for a bioregion summed over all actions, which is shown as low (up to 1%), medium (up to 2%) or high (up to 6%).

The first ignored the presence of more than one threat on threatened species. In this case, it was best to spend the majority of funds over all bioregions (68 %) on rabbit control – as many more species are threatened by rabbits than foxes. Our second method considered species impacted simultaneously by both foxes and rabbits, but ignored the benefits of integrated fox and rabbit control to species affected by only one of the threats. In this case, rabbit control was still the best option (receiving 62 % funds overall).

But when we fully considered the management requirements of species affected by multiple threats, as well as the benefits of integrated management for species only affected by one threat, we found that 96 % of the total funds were allocated to integrated management of foxes and rabbits. In short, fully accounting for the potential to implement integrated management actions that address more than one threat to biodiversity resulted in improved cost efficiencies and better conservation outcomes.

Our final analysis investigated whether detailed information on the spatial overlap of species’ distributions within each bioregion influenced the timing or amount of investment directed to management. For example, a bioregion where species are more densely concentrated than others might provide a greater return with targeted investment in conservation. However, we found that accounting for spatial overlap in the distributions of threatened species did not alter the prioritisation of funds to alternative management actions or locations (Figure 3d).

This suggests that refined data on distributions of threatened species might not improve our ability to determine where and when funding should be directed to conservation actions to mitigate specific threats to biodiversity. Our research suggests that efforts to prioritise conservation investments would be improved by gaining better information on the specific threats impacting on species, the distribution of these threats and the costs of management actions.

In a time when getting conservation outcomes through wise investments is crucial, we should also focus on gaining a greater understanding of the efficiencies gained through integrated management, and the institutional structures that facilitate this.

Megan Evans

–

References

¹Mitchell, R. J., R. J. McClure, J. Olivier, and W. L. Watson. 2009. Rational allocation of Australia’s research dollars: does the distribution of NHMRC funding by National Health Priority Area reflect actual disease burden? The Medical Journal of Australia 191:648-652

²Evans, M. C., J. E. M. Watson, R. A. Fuller, O. Venter, S. C. Bennett, P. R. Marsack, and H. P. Possingham. 2011a. The spatial distribution of threats to species in Australia. BioScience 61:281-289. doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.4.8

³Evans, M. C., H. P. Possingham, and K. A. Wilson. 2011b. What to do in the face of multiple threats? Incorporating dependencies within a return on investment framework for conservation. Diversity and Distributions 17: 437-450. doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00747.x

⁴Watson J.E.M., Evans M.C., Carwardine J, Fuller R.A., Joseph L.N., Segan D.B., Taylor M.F.J., Fensham R.J., Possingham H.P. 2011. The capacity of Australia’s protected-area system to represent threatened species. Conservation Biology 25: 324-332. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01587.x

Megan C. Evans, James E. M. Watson, Richard A. Fuller, Oscar Venter, Simon C. Bennett, Peter R. Marsack, & Hugh P. Possingham (2011). The spatial distribution of threats to species in Australia BioScience, 61 (4), 281-289 : 10.1525/bio.2011.61.4.8

Today’s guest post comes from across the Pacific Ocean. Dr. Sara Maxwell is a postdoctoral fellow with Marine Conservation Biology Institute and University of California Santa Cruz, Long Marine Laboratory. She was kind enough to contribute to ConservationBytes.com about an issue I’ve covered before in various forms – making conservation research relevant for conservation action.

–

© R. Arlettaz

In a catalyzing article titled “From publications to public actions: when conservation biologists bridge the gap between research and implementation” in the November 2010 issue of BioScience, Raphaël Arlettaz¹ and his colleagues Michael Schaub², Jérôme Fournier³, Thomas Reichlin², Antoine Sierro⁴, James Watson⁵ and Veronika Braunisch² explore reasons for our hard work as conservation biologists not reaching the implementation phase. This article strongly resonated with my colleague, Kiki Jenkins⁶ and I, Sara Maxwell. This resulted in a series of letters published in BioScience and now we join together, along with Jeffrey Camm⁷, Guillaume Chapron⁸, Liana Joseph⁹, and Rudi Suchant¹⁰ to synthesize our ideas and present them to the larger conservation community via ConservationBytes.

The article that sparked the discussion

In their article, Arlettaz and colleagues highlight some of the main roadblocks to implementing conservation research. The main reasons are that:

1. The research made by conservation biologists’ does not lend itself well to implementation, i.e., as a community we often focus on the wrong questions or address them in ways that do not lead to practical applications for practitioners;
2. The outcomes of conservation biologists’ research tends not to reach practitioners and so fails to be put into action;
3. When we successfully align and collaborate with practitioners, there is a lack of economic or political support to make the changes that need to happen; or
4. Conservation biologists do not commit to engaging themselves in the implementation of their recommendations due to a lack of reward structure for this behaviour and the conflicting roles of academia and conservation.

Arlettaz and colleagues illustrate how to overcome these roadblocks using a case study of their own work on the endangered hoopoe (Upupa epops) in Switzerland, showing how they followed through the recommendations of their work to implementation and had a direct impact on species recovery. They highlight means by which other conservation biologists can do the same.

Their approach – and the outcomes – should resonate strongly with all conservation biologists, not just for its reminders of our ‘wins’, but also of the times we feel we have failed. Who among us hasn’t poured what feels like your heart and soul into a project that you believe in, only to have the outputs of your work stymied by a government agency that puts politics above science. Who hasn’t felt the sting of knowing that while your career has advanced, the work you have published – for all of its potential impact – will likely go no farther than the pages of a journal. This because you lack the time and resources to go beyond the printed page because the academic system is not structured to allow – or reward – such efforts. And this is despite the fact that it was the promise of action stemming from your research that inspired you to enter conservation biology to begin with.

A response

Despite these roadblocks, like Arlettaz and colleagues, Jenkins and Maxwell are attempting careers where they engage in both academic research and inspire effective change – and are looking forward with hope that the academic system will change its system of rewards, and that they can help to drive that change.

In their letter, they identified a bottom-up approach to influencing the system of rewards within academia to reflect research impacts and not just publications. While they believe that peer-reviewed research must absolutely be maintained, they agree with Arlettaz and colleagues that it is only one dimension of effective conservation science. Just as it can be more expediate and effective for conservation scientists to conduct conservation actions themselves, Jenkins and Maxwell believe that conservation scientists should also begin grassroots change that brings implementation and impacts to the academic forefront, especially in innovative departments or progressive institutions. These means might involve: encouraging search and promotion committees to ask for statements of implementation, suggesting academic managers give rewards for implementation or research impacts, or simply including a section on research impacts on your own CV or annual activities reports. A rewards system does not need to be established by new rules; all that is required is a common currency. As more individuals start trading this currency, the broader its recognition and acceptance throughout academia.

The reply

In Arlettaz and colleagues’ reply, however, they doubted that this would be sufficient to overcome the immense research-implementation divide prevailing in biodiversity conservation, which partly stems from the practices currently ruling research institutions. They put forth a system of structured organizational change that might be more appropriate in those instances. The reward system for conservation scientists based in academia is heavily focused on publications in peer-reviewed journals, all of which favour demonstrated novelty and scientific progress.

Along with medicine, conservation biology differs from other disciplines among the life sciences in that it is mission-driven. The consequential trade-off that conservation scientists face when ensuring that their scientific evidence is employed by policy-makers and conservation practitioners is ignored by almost all research institutions in assessing academics for employment, promotion or judging suitability for awarding grants. Until aspects around career evaluation are changed systematically, those conservation scientists who dare to move their ideas into the policy or management world will receive little support or recognition from their institutions.

They suggest that one idea for trying to overcome this is developing a system of accreditation that rewards the full spectrum of activities that conservation biologists play. This is not totally novel: engineers have an accreditation system based on patents; in the UK, it will be used to judge the merit of the science by the government (Gilbert 2010). They further suggest rules broadly recognised by academia, including indices for biodiversity conservation impact similar to the traditional metrics estimating publications output (i.e., journal impact factor, citation and h-indices).

In fact, such a tool is in development. In recent correspondence in Nature, Thomas Niederkrotenthaler, Thomas Dorner and Manfred Maier of the Medical University of Vienna, Austria, describe what they call the ‘Societal Impact Tool’. The goal of the tool is to evaluate research based on factors such as ‘the aim of the published investigation; the extent to which the authors attempt to translate their scientific findings into societal action; and the level, status and target group of this translation.’ Their tool is simple and straightforward, and could easily be adopted by both academic departments and journals.

Arlettaz and colleagues also suggested a second idea by which journals can help to strengthen the links between good science and better practice by rewarding science that is relevant and useful. This can be done by way of new scientific journals or sections in existing conservation journals preferentially publishing results that are not simply novel and scientifically rigorous but are proven to be useful for conservation in practice. The authors would provide a letter of support from practitioners demonstrating that the work is of practical importance*, similar to the traditional approach of engineers for progressing relevant operations research (e.g., the journal Interfaces). Journals may also systematically request practitioners to function as reviewers for judging the applicability of results.

The Journal of Applied Ecology recently launched one such initiative where they are giving a voice to practitioners to help span the divide between implementation and science (Hulme 2011). These concepts would tighten the collaboration between conservation scientists and practitioners, optimally from the very start of a research project as shrewdly suggested by Jenkins and Maxwell, and promote new implementation pathways where there is no ‘established implementation process’ by which to ‘escort recommendations’.

In summary…

At the end of the day, however, it is up to us as conservation biologists to make our own impact. It is up to us to prioritise, strategise and streamline our efforts to have the most influence, while following through on the tasks that allow us the opportunity to continue our work within the academic system where we have ultimately chosen to be. This means that we must put implementation at the forefront of our research planning – before we even know what our recommendations are – by beginning early to build trusting relationships with implementers, managers and/or local NGOs working on the ground.

This will additionally allow us to garner valuable insights into how to make our work most effective to them. We must also build implementation into our research budgets. This may involve anticipating the time or travel costs associated with ‘actively escorting’ our recommendations through available avenues, or budgeting for professional translation of work – whether it be in another language or to the general public – to reach our target audience. The key is that this ‘establishes implementation as more than an afterthought that is conducted on piecemealed time and funds, but instead gives this important piece of conservation science a prominent and tangible place in research design and funding.’

Reader, what do you think?

Through this series of articles, we’ve suggested six ways to improve the use of good science to guide better conservation:

• Using practical case-studies to demonstrate the best science-based approaches to conservation,
• Searching and promoting committees requesting statements of implementation,
• Academic managers rewarding staff for implementation or research impacts
• Stating research impacts on CV or annual activities reports,
• A new accreditation system to reward science which influences practice
• Journals or section of journals that require demonstrated proof of impact

This brings us to you, the ConservationBytes.com reader. What do you think? How can we as conservation biologists be more effective? How can we change the system? Do you know of examples where the system is already changing, either successfully or unsuccessfully? Should it even be changed? We look forward to your thoughts and comments, and thank Corey Bradshaw for putting forth this blog and excellent forum to move our field forward**.

–

*CJAB: We tried this in Conservation Letters, but it proved nearly impossible to implement. I personally do not think this is tractable.

**CJAB: Why, thank you – and, you are all welcome ;-)

–

1. Raphaël Arlettaz (raphael.arlettaz@iee.unibe.ch) is a professor at the University of Bern, Switzerland, where he leads the Institute of Ecology and Evolution and the Department of Conservation Biology and director of the Valais Field Station of the Swiss Ornithological Institute.
2. Veronika Braunisch, Thomas S. Reichlin, and Michael Schaub are postdoctoral research fellows at the Department of Conservation Biology, at the University of Bern. Veronika Braunisch also works as a research fellow at the Forest Research Institute of Baden-Wuerttemberg, in Germany together with Rudi Suchant, who leads the Wildlife Ecology group at this institute. Michael Schaub is also a research group leader at the Swiss Ornithological Institute.
3. Jérôme Fournier is with an environment consultancy company.
4. Antoine Sierro works at the Valais Field Station of the Swiss Ornithological Institute.
5. James E. M. Watson is a postdoctoral research fellow at The Ecology Centre, at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia.
6. Kiki Jenkins is a David H. Smith Conservation Fellow at the University of Washington School of Marine Affairs.
7. Jeffrey Camm is Professor of Quantitative Analysis, CoB Research Fellow and Head of the Department of Quantitative Analysis and Operations Management at the University of Cincinnati.
8. Guillaume Chapron is assistant professor at the Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, part of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
9. Liana Joseph is a David H. Smith Conservation Fellow at Wildlife Conservation Society in New York.
10. Rudi Suchant is a research fellow at Forest Research Institute of Baden-Wuerttemberg in Germany.

Trash fish © A. Lobo

The latest issue (Volume 3, Issue 4 – August 2010) of Conservation Letters is now available free-of-charge online. This issue’s papers include 1 Mini-Review, 2 Policy Perspectives, 6 Letters, 1 Correspondence and 1 Response:

• Don Driscoll et al. – Resolving conflicts in fire management using decision theory: asset-protection versus biodiversity conservation
• Mark Colyvan et al. – The natural environment is valuable but not infinitely valuable
• William Sutherland et al. – Standards for documenting and monitoring bird reintroduction projects
• David Edwards et al. – Wildlife-friendly oil palm plantations fail to protect biodiversity effectively
• Kelly Haisfield et al. – An ounce of prevention: cost-effectiveness of coral reef rehabilitation relative to enforcement
• Luke Parry et al. – Rural–urban migration brings conservation threats and opportunities to Amazonian watersheds
• Kyle Van Houtan et al. – Importance of estimating dispersal for endangered bird management
• Laura Prugh et al. – Reducing threats to species: threat reversibility and links to industry
• Aaron Savio Lobo et al. – Commercializing bycatch can push a fishery beyond economic extinction
• James Watson et al. – Mining and conservation: implications for Madagascar’s littoral forests
• Malika Virah-Sawmy – The difficult road toward real-world engagement: conservation science and mining in southern Madagascar

Another great line-up, for sure. You’ll also note that this is our greatest number of papers yet published in particular issue (sure sign that interest and demand is growing). As mentioned not too long ago, Conservation Letters was ISI-listed this year and will probably pick up a > 3 Impact Factor in June 2011.

Incidentally, one of Conservation Letters‘ Editors-in-Chief, Hugh Possingham, recently conducted a mini citation review of the major conservation biology journals and found the following:

Citation statistics in 2008 – average number of citations/paper to July 2010

Papers published in 2008

• Conservation Letters: 6.65
• Conservation Biology: 5.57
• Biological Conservation: 4.40
• Biodiversity and Conservation: 3.26

Papers published in 2009

• Conservation Letters: 2.11
• Conservation Biology: 1.77
• Biological Conservation: 1.53
• Biodiversity and Conservation: 0.74

Very interesting ;-)

CJA Bradshaw

The biodiversity guru of Australia’s tropical north, John Woinarksi, has just published the definitive demonstration of the magnitude of mammal declines in Kakadu National Park (Australia’s largest national park, World Heritage Area, emblem of ‘co-management’ and supposed biodiversity and cultural jewel in Australia’s conservation crown). According to Woinarski and colleagues, most of those qualifiers are rubbish.

The paper published in Wildlife Research is entitled Monitoring indicates rapid and severe decline of native small mammals in Kakadu National Park, northern Australia and it concludes:

The native mammal fauna of Kakadu National Park is in rapid and severe decline. The cause(s) of this decline are not entirely clear, and may vary among species. The most plausible causes are too frequent fire, predation by feral cats and invasion by cane toads (affecting particularly one native mammal species).

I’ve done quite a bit of work in Kakadu myself, and the one thing that hits you every time you travel through it is the lack of visible wildlife. Sure, you’ll see horses, pigs and buffalo, as well as cane toads and cats, but getting a glimpse of anything native, from Conilurus to Varanus, and you’d consider yourself extremely lucky.

We’ve written a lot about the feral animal problem in Kakadu and even developed software tools to assist in density-reduction programmes. It doesn’t appear that anyone is listening.

Another gob-smacking vista you’ll get when travelling through Kakadu any time from April to December is that it’s either been burnt, actively burning or targeted for burning. They burn the shit out of the place every year. No wonder the native mammals are having such a hard time.

Combine all this with the dysfunctional management arrangement, and you cease to have a National Park. Kakadu is now a lifeless shell that does precious little for conservation of biodiversity (and 3 of the 5 criteria it had to satisfy to become a World Heritage Area are specifically related to natural resource ‘values’). I say, delist Kakadu now and let’s stop fooling ourselves.

Ok, back from the rant. Woinarski and others superimposed a mammal monitoring programme over top a fire-regime experiment for vegetation. Although they couldn’t sample every plot every season, they staggered the sampling to cover the area as best they could over the 13 years of monitoring (1996-2009). What they observed was staggering.

• overall, the number of mammals and species per plot decreased
• decreases were 71 % for total number of individuals and 54 % for number of species per plot
• the proportion of plots with no mammals increased from 13 % in 1996 to 55 % in 2009
• of 19 native species recorded from three or more samples, 10 species declined, 9 species showed no change, and no species increased
• declines were fastest for northern quoll Dasyurus hallucatus, fawn antechinus Antechinus bellus, northern brown bandicoot Isoodon macrourus, common brushtail possum Trichosurus vulpecula and pale field-rat Rattus tunneyi

They also found that the change in the number of mammal species and individuals per plot was correlated with the percentage of years in which the plot was burnt. Well, there’s a surprise.

I concede that cane toads are an intractable problem, and removing large feral ungulates is difficult and expensive. But (and that’s a big ‘but’), why can’t Kakadu impose ecologically informed fire management? Why can’t it invest in targeted, scientifically directed feral animal culls at the scale necessary to reduce environmental damage? Why is it letting Australia’s conservation jewel go the way of the Thylacine? Every Australian should be up-in-arms over this.

Kakadu is no longer Australia’s conservation jewel. It is now its conservation dunny.

CJA Bradshaw

Woinarski, J., Armstrong, M., Brennan, K., Fisher, A., Griffiths, A., Hill, B., Milne, D., Palmer, C., Ward, S., Watson, M., Winderlich, S., & Young, S. (2010). Monitoring indicates rapid and severe decline of native small mammals in Kakadu National Park, northern Australia Wildlife Research, 37 (2) DOI: 10.1071/WR09125

© Floog

A short post about a small letter that recently appeared in the latest issue of Conservation Biology – the dangers of REDD.

REDD. What is it? The acronym for ‘Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation’, it is the idea of providing financial incentives to developing countries to reduce forest clearance by paying them to keep them standing. It should work because of the avoided carbon emissions that can be gained from keeping forests intact. Hell, we certainly need it given the biodiversity crisis arising mainly from deforestation occurring in much of the (largely tropical) developing world. The idea is that someone pollutes, buys carbon credits that are then paid to some developing nation to prevent more forest clearance, and then biodiversity gets a helping hand in the process. It’s essentially carbon trading with an added bonus. Nice idea, but difficult to implement for a host of reasons that I won’t go into here (but see Miles & Kapos Science 2008 & Busch et al. 2009 Environ Res Lett).

Venter and colleagues in their letter entitled Avoiding Unintended Outcomes from REDD now warn us about another potential hazard of REDD that needs some pretty quick thinking and clever political manoeuvring to avoid.

While REDD is a good idea and I support it fully with carefully designed implementation, Venter and colleagues say that without good monitoring data and some well-planned immediate policy implementation, there could be a rush to clear even more forest area in the short term.

Essentially they argue that when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, there could be a 2-year gap when forest loss would not be counted against carbon payments, and its in this window that countries might fell forests and expand agriculture before REDD takes effect (i.e., clear now and avoid later penalties).

How do we avoid this? The authors suggest that the implementation of policies to reward early efforts to reduce forest clearance and to penalise those who rush to do early clearing need to be put in place NOW. Rewards could take the form of credits, and penalties could be something like the annulment of future REDD discounts. Of course, to achieve any of this you have to know who’s doing well and who’s playing silly buggers, which means good forest monitoring. Satellite imagery analysis is probably key here.

CJA Bradshaw
Oscar Venter, James E.M. Watson, Erik Meijaard, William F. Laurance, & Hugh P. Possingham (2010). Avoiding Unintended Outcomes from REDD Conservation Biology, 24 (1), 5-6 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01391.x

Jim Jim Falls, Kakadu National Park

Australia has a pretty bad biodiversity conservation track record – we have some of the worst mammal extinction trends in the world, and we’ve lost at least 50 % of our forested area since European colonisation. Despite our relatively large system of parks and reserves, things aren’t going to well (even in the parks!).

Our rapidly expanding influence means that we have to start protecting larger and larger areas if we want to have any chance of slowing the modern extinction crisis. This means we have to go beyond dedicated biodiversity reserves and sequester more ‘wilderness’ (defined as “…large areas that have experienced minimal habitat loss“). Watson and colleagues therefore used Australia as a good example to determine the extent to which the national protected area network captures ‘wilderness’, and how Australia’s planned expansion of the reserve system will include ‘wilderness’ in the future.

Although there wasn’t much planning involved initially, Australia (like many other countries) started to take biodiversity conservation seriously in the mid-1990s, such that now we have about 11 % of our 7.7 million km² land area within a National Reserve System. Planning didn’t feature heavily in the early years, but it has been embraced now by nearly all planning bodies within government.

© Wiley-Blackwell

Using estimates of the total wilderness area in Australia (Fig. a), Watson and colleagues determined how much was included in the Reserve System (Fig. b), and how this value changed between 2000 and 2006.

Of the 2.93 million km² of wilderness (38 % of land area, mostly in northern and western Australia), only 14 % was protected in 2000. This value increased marginally to 19 % by 2006 as the size of the Reserve System itself increased by 37 % (i.e., from 652597 to 895326 km²).

Bottom line – our growth in reserve area didn’t really capture the necessary wilderness; instead, gains were made in areas largely modified by humans. Even where wilderness has been captured, it’s predominately in ‘multiple use’ regions (incorporating mining, forestry and grazing, for example).

This isn’t a bad thing really – by focussing on areas of high biodiversity value that are under relatively high threat embraces the biodiversity hotspot approach to conservation and emphasises restoration. This is, of course, needed. But not incorporating a wider component of the habitats within wilderness could bias conservation toward range-restricted species.

© Wiley-Blackwell

Watson and colleagues therefore make a number of recommendations:

1. We should strive to quantify and map spatially the  important ecological and evolutionary processes that drive the distribution and abundance of biodiversity so they can be explicitly incorporated into reserve area prioritisations.
2. We should focus on predicting the magnitude and distribution of future threats and incorporate them into the spatial prioritisation framework.
3. We should incorporate realistic constraints (e.g., financial costs) into prioritisation.
4. We need to map and analyse a range of social and economic factors that define opportunities for conservation in conjunction with information on conservation values, threats and costs.

The bottom line is that we need to find a better balance between planning that protects threatened species and ecosystems in already highly fragmented (threatened) landscapes, and planning that protects large areas of wilderness that still contains most of its conservation values (wilderness). We’re getting there, but slowly, and hopefully in time to save our remaining threatened species from extinction.

CJA Bradshaw

Watson, J., Fuller, R., Watson, A., Mackey, B., Wilson, K., Grantham, H., Turner, M., Klein, C., Carwardine, J., Joseph, L., & Possingham, H. (2009). Wilderness and future conservation priorities in Australia Diversity and Distributions DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00601.x

Our seventh Conservation Scholar is Daniel Pauly…

Biography

After completing my doctorate studies in Germany in 1979, I spent many years at the International Centre for Living Aquatic Resource Management (ICLARM), then in Manila, Philippines, where I developed methods for tropical fish stock assessment, which I applied and taught in many tropical developing countries. I became a Professor at the University of British Columbia’s Fisheries Centre in 1994, and its Director in 2004. My scientific focus has mainly been on the management of fisheries and ecosystem modelling, comprising over 500 contributions to peer-reviewed journals, authored and edited books, reports and popular articles. The concepts, methods and software I have (co-)developed are in use throughout the world. This applies notably to the ecosystem modelling approach incorporated in the Ecopath software, to FishBase, the online
encyclopaedia of fishes, and the global mapping of fisheries trends. My work has received numerous awards, notably the Cosmos Prize (2005, Japan) and the Volvo Environment Prize (2006, Sweden). Profiles on me and my work were published in Science on 19 April 2002, Nature on 2 January 2003, The New York Times on 21 January 2003, and in other publications.

Major Publications

• Pauly, D., Alder, J., Bennett, E., Christensen, V. Tyedmers, P. & Watson, R. (2003). The future for fisheries. Science 302, 1359-1361
• Pauly, D. Christensen, V., Guénette, S. Pitcher, T.J., Sumaila, U.R., Walters, C. J., Watson, R. & Zeller, D. (2002) Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 418, 689-695
• Watson, R. & Pauly, D. 2001. Systematic distortions in world fisheries catch trends. Nature 414, 534-536
• Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R. & Torres Jr, F. C. (1998) Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279, 860-863 (see previous post on this paper and the Classics section)
• Pauly, D. & Christensen, V. (1995) Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature 374, 255-257.

Questions and Answers

1. Which type of fisheries – commercial, recreational or artisanal – represents the greatest exploitative threat to tropical marine ecosystems?

All fisheries have the potential of depleting the resources they exploit. Industrial fisheries, however, are extremely effective at what they do, and they have over a short period a devastating effect on their resource base.

2. What fisheries management practices can be used to counter the phenomenon you have described as ‘fishing down marine food webs’?

Establishing large marine protected areas, and strict controls over the remaining, fished areas.

3. Why are freshwater and lacustrine systems so sensitive to human-induced environmental change?

Because they are small systems compared to the reach of our industries (fishing, pollution, habitat modification, etc). The oceans are larger, and hence the human impacts appeared later.

4. How effective are marine protected areas (MPAs) in conserving tropical biodiversity, and should alternative solutions also be pursued?

MPAs should never be seen as sufficient by themselves. Conventional management is needed too.

5. How can scientists work to overcome misconceptions in policy and public perception that arise from the ‘shifting-baseline’ syndrome?

We should use old records and data routinely, and always refer to the earliest time for which data are available. They should use a wide range of data, not only those compatible with the model currently fashionable.

CJA Bradshaw

(with thanks to Navjot Sodhi, Barry Brook, Ward Cooper, Wiley-Blackwell and Daniel Pauly for permission to reproduce the text – buy your copy of Tropical Conservation Biology here)