tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/world-parks-congress-13525/articlesWorld Parks Congress – The Conversation2014-11-17T04:17:13Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/329662014-11-17T04:17:13Z2014-11-17T04:17:13ZWhy are there no true freshwater protected areas in Australia?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64550/original/zb9htg4f-1415936919.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=4%2C141%2C3239%2C2096&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australia's north is home to many pristine rivers, but most national parks are focused on land-based conservation.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AMcArthur_River.jpg">Carole Mackinney/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Freshwater ecosystems such as rivers, lakes and wetlands are precious. They contain <a href="http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/clc/1785677">several-times more vertebrate species</a> per unit area than land and ocean environments, and they are <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S1464793105006950/abstract">more degraded</a>. </p>
<p>Protected areas such as <a href="http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/explore/parks/alpine-national-park">Alpine National Park</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/great-barrier-reef-marine-park">Great Barrier Marine Park</a> are a crucial tool for conserving wildlife on land and in the sea. But there is no similar protection for freshwater ecosystems in the world’s driest continent, Australia. Why not? </p>
<h2>Protected parks don’t protect freshwater ecosystems</h2>
<p>Australia’s <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs">National Reserve System</a> is a network of more than 10,000 protected areas, covering approximately 17.88% of the continent. Naturally, there are freshwater environments within these areas and in state parks and international reserves (called <a href="http://www.ramsar.org">Ramsar wetlands</a>). </p>
<p>One example is the <a href="http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/nationalparks/parkhome.aspx?id=n0175">Paroo-Darling National Park</a> in New South Wales. This area, like many others, meets International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) criteria for listing as a protected area. But does this listing protect freshwater biodiversity?</p>
<p>Protected areas in Australia and overseas are rarely designed specifically to protect freshwater ecosystems. These areas have clearly defined boundaries, whereas the boundaries of freshwater systems are, by their nature, more fluid. Furthermore, restrictions based on terrestrial environments often do not protect freshwater biodiversity. Collectively, protected areas don’t limit many of the threats to freshwater ecosystems. </p>
<p>For example, the <a href="http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/gpap_quality/gpap_pacategories/gpap_pacategory2/">IUCN listing</a> that covers Paroo-Darling National Park does not limit fishing, alien species, boating, or upstream threats such as water extraction, land-use modification, dam construction or pollution. </p>
<p>In other words, the National Park does not limit the major threats to the Paroo and Darling rivers. It’s a similar story right across Australia, where Ramsar wetlands and other freshwater areas remain vulnerable, despite their apparent protection.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64549/original/dpp2m7z4-1415936566.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64549/original/dpp2m7z4-1415936566.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64549/original/dpp2m7z4-1415936566.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64549/original/dpp2m7z4-1415936566.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64549/original/dpp2m7z4-1415936566.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64549/original/dpp2m7z4-1415936566.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64549/original/dpp2m7z4-1415936566.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64549/original/dpp2m7z4-1415936566.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The park’s named after its rivers, but it doesn’t necessarily protect them.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AParoo_Darling_NP.JPG">Cgoodwin/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>River systems are complex networks of interconnected channels, floodplains and wetlands, through which sediment, organic matter, energy, animal and plant populations, communities and species all move and are transformed. This means that the design of protected areas must be tailored specifically to ensure that rivers flow freely, that their entire catchment is connected together without barriers, and that they are also connected to their lowland floodplains. </p>
<p>Free-flowing river systems in Australia represent an opportunity to create true freshwater protected areas. We suggest that free-flowing rivers should be considered for protection as either <a href="http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/gpap_quality/gpap_pacategories/gpap_cat1a/">IUCN category Ia</a> (“areas that are strictly set aside to protect biodiversity”) or <a href="http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/gpap_quality/gpap_pacategories/gpap_category1b/">category Ib</a> (“large unmodified or slightly modified areas, retaining their natural character”). </p>
<p>Upgrading entire free-flowing river catchments to category I status would limit the number of people and type of activities allowed, but in most cases it would still allow limited-entry tourism, including strictly managed boating and fishing. </p>
<p>This strategy could generate both social and ecological benefits, but would obviously require careful consultation with regional communities. Yet there are examples of how it can be done: the <a href="http://www.bwca.cc">Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness</a> on the US-Canada border has been successfully given IUCN category I status. The result is that it has retained much of its natural character while supporting a tightly managed and lucrative ecotourism industry. </p>
<p>If we could harness ecotourism in isolated, protected river systems here in Australia, it could bring real benefits to regional communities, especially indigenous people. </p>
<p>Most of Australia’s free-free flowing rivers are in the northern half of the continent and represent the most diverse freshwater ecosystems in the country. Free-flowing rivers across Australia have been mapped as part of the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/node/20117">National Wild Rivers Program</a>, but this classification does not limit human use of these systems. </p>
<h2>Restoration versus Conservation</h2>
<p><a href="http://archive.nwc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/10399/Waterlines_No_23a_-_National_synthesis_of_river_restoration_projects.pdf">Billions of tax dollars</a> are being spent on ecosystem restoration programmes such as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/finally-murray-darling-basin-plan-signed-into-law-10939">Murray-Darling Basin Plan</a>. However, there has been little consideration of the potential benefits of investing in freshwater conservation.</p>
<p>The main focus of conservation is preventing loss, whereas restoration projects such as the Murray-Darling plan tend to be more <a href="http://tpyoung.ucdavis.edu/publications/2000ConseRestBiolCons.pdf">focused on recovery</a>. To use a medical analogy, conservation is like preventative health measures, whereas restoration is like treating people once they are sick. </p>
<p>Prevention is better than cure, and the same is true for environmental conservation versus restoration. Yet Australia currently invests more in freshwater restoration than it does in freshwater conservation. This is understandable in southern Australia, where there are far more degraded systems in need of restoration than there are intact systems. But it is not the case in northern Australia.</p>
<p>The Murray-Darling plan, like most freshwater environmental interventions in Australia is largely a response to over-exploitation and degradation. But for more pristine rivers, we need to start focusing on protection, for example by preventing new dam projects and avoiding water extraction.</p>
<h2>Where best to spend our environmental dollars</h2>
<p>Given limited funds, we suggest that scientific analysis is needed to identify the most effective and cost-efficient methods of delivering environmental protection, through restoration and conservation. </p>
<p>The default approach largely ignores potential economic, social and environmental benefits of preventing biodiversity loss before it happens. If we are to conserve what we have, right across Australia, we need to protect it. </p>
<p>That means not just setting up national parks around rivers and hoping for the best. It means designing protected areas and restrictions specifically for the conservation of river and wetland biodiversity.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32966/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>R. Keller Kopf has received funding from the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office (CEWO) </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicole McCasker is a member of the Greens.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Humphries receives funding from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the Austrian Science Fund.</span></em></p>Freshwater ecosystems such as rivers, lakes and wetlands are precious. They contain several-times more vertebrate species per unit area than land and ocean environments, and they are more degraded. Protected…R. Keller Kopf, Researcher , Charles Sturt UniversityNicole McCasker, Post-doctoral researcher, Charles Sturt UniversityPaul Humphries, Senior lecturer in Ecology, Charles Sturt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/341272014-11-14T01:18:40Z2014-11-14T01:18:40ZNow is our chance to deliver on the 30% ocean protection target<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64461/original/x288wyrg-1415869910.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=3%2C3%2C796%2C529&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Marine parks need to be big enough to safeguard wide-ranging species, like the sharks being studied here.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Manu San Felix/National Geographic Pristine Seas Expedition</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Top scientists, senior government managers, industry representatives, conservationists and even some nations’ presidents are currently in Sydney for the <a href="http://worldparkscongress.org">World Parks Congress</a>. This major international meeting happens only once a decade, and provides a critical opportunity to share the latest scientific knowledge and management of protected areas, both land-based and marine. It is also a time for assessing progress and reviewing targets that drive the world’s conservation reserves.</p>
<p>The latter can be a bit tricky. The hosts of the congress include the New South Wales and Australian governments – both of which could until recently have claimed to be making great, if not world-leading, progress towards securing the necessary balance between what we take and what we conserve in our oceans. </p>
<p>But despite the best available science, both governments have recently chosen to reduce this progress to at best a standstill, in the case of the federal government’s decision to <a href="https://theconversation.com/paper-parks-or-a-world-class-system-of-ocean-protection-21527">scrap previous plans for new reserves</a>, and at worst a full about-face, with NSW <a href="https://theconversation.com/recreational-fishing-in-marine-parks-you-cant-be-serious-12785">allowing recreational fishing into existing “no-take” marine parks</a>.</p>
<p>Were this just an Australian phenomenon, it would be bad enough. But global progress towards achieving the marine target has been excruciatingly slow. Currently, <a href="http://www.protectplanetocean.org/official_mpa_map">less than 3%</a> of the world’s ocean is protected in marine parks, with only 1% afforded full protection in no-take sanctuaries. Is it any wonder that marine parks have yet to stem global declines in marine biodiversity?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64514/original/wdmqvfcs-1415909014.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64514/original/wdmqvfcs-1415909014.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64514/original/wdmqvfcs-1415909014.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=305&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64514/original/wdmqvfcs-1415909014.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=305&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64514/original/wdmqvfcs-1415909014.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=305&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64514/original/wdmqvfcs-1415909014.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64514/original/wdmqvfcs-1415909014.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64514/original/wdmqvfcs-1415909014.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Global marine protected area coverage is still low.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">protectplanetocean.org</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The World Parks Congress provides a critical opportunity to reaffirm the global commitment to protecting at least 30% of the world’s oceans in highly protected marine parks. </p>
<h2>Existing targets</h2>
<p>A key outcome at the previous World Parks Congress, in <a href="http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/gpap_capacity2/gpap_parks2/?2137/2003-Durban-World-Parks-Congress">Durban in 2003</a>, was a pledge to place 20-30% of the world’s oceans in no-take marine sanctuaries. This target was set on the basis of a very clear recognition that healthy oceans are essential to human <a href="http://www.compassonline.org/sites/all/files/document_files/EBM_Consensus_Statement_v12.pdf">well being</a>, and that healthy oceans need <a href="https://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/Consensus/consensus.pdf">marine parks</a>.</p>
<p>This is underpinned by decades of science that supports the design and establishment of marine parks and demonstrates their ecological benefits. But since the Durban congress, further research, much of which is Australian-led, has shown that marine parks also deliver economic benefits. Here’s how:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Marine parks support commercial and recreational fishing. Researchers led by Hugo Harrison from James Cook University have <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982212003958">shown</a> that, across an area of some 1,000 sq km, the highly protected <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/zoning-permits-and-plans/zoning/zoning-maps">green zones</a> of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park exported 83% of young coral trout to fished reefs.</p></li>
<li><p>Marine parks reduce the cost of climate change by improving ecosystem resilience. Amanda Bates and colleagues have <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n1/full/nclimate2062.html#close">found</a> that Tasmanian temperate reefs in marine parks are less likely to be invaded by tropical species than areas open to fishing, an important factor given the ability of tropical invaders to disrupt reef health. </p></li>
<li><p>Marine parks support ecosystem recovery in the face of environmental catastrophes. A <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12606/abstract;jsessionid=984952631DAF1E7F9D1C86B5908C3629.f02t02?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false">study</a> led by Andrew Olds found that coral reefs devastated by freshwater runoff in the 2011 Brisbane floods recovered more rapidly and more fully if they were inside the Great Barrier Reef’s no-take green zones, compared with those elsewhere in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Australia’s Centre for Policy Development has also published studies on the value of the “ecosystem services” that Australia’s oceans provide us for free – such as nurseries for fish and opportunities for recreation. In its <a href="http://cpd.org.au/category/programs/sustainable-economy/marine-sector">report</a>, former World Bank economist Caroline Hoisington calculated that the national network of marine protected areas <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/marine/marine-reserves/overview/background">proposed in 2012</a> could provide services worth A$1.2 billion a year, making a total of A$2 billion when added to Australia’s existing marine parks.</p>
<h2>Building on success</h2>
<p>We know what it takes to <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7487/full/nature13022.html">make a successful marine park</a>. We need significant areas of full protection in no-take sanctuaries, because partial protection (that is, allowing some users into the area) does not work for conservation. We need to invest adequately in enforcing them. And the marine parks need to be large, so that species are buffered from other ocean uses, and to ensure that wide-ranging species are protected. </p>
<p>Now is the time to build on the rising tide of marine park establishment. The United Kingdom protected the <a href="http://chagos-trust.org/">Chagos Islands in 2010</a>, the United States recently announced protection for its <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/24/fact-sheet-president-obama-designate-largest-marine-monument-world-limit">Pacific Remote Islands</a>, and Palau has <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-06/an-palau-declares-marine-sanctuary2c-bans-all-commerical-fishi/5241742">announced its intention</a> to close its waters to foreign fishing, and to allow limited domestic fishing only in certain small areas. </p>
<p>Returning to the opening irony of hosting the World Parks Congress in Sydney, Australia was a global leader by putting in place the world’s first national network of marine parks – right through the ocean territory that Australia manages – our Exclusive Economic Zone – the world’s third largest.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64519/original/275tx8wr-1415922043.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64519/original/275tx8wr-1415922043.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64519/original/275tx8wr-1415922043.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64519/original/275tx8wr-1415922043.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64519/original/275tx8wr-1415922043.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64519/original/275tx8wr-1415922043.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64519/original/275tx8wr-1415922043.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64519/original/275tx8wr-1415922043.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australia’s network of marine parks is a world-leader, but progress is in danger of stalling.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Centre for Conservation Georgraphy</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This global leadership is now at risk with the Australian Government having suspended the network <a href="https://theconversation.com/paper-parks-or-a-world-class-system-of-ocean-protection-21527">pending a review</a>, initiated despite more than 10 years of consultation and strong scientific support. </p>
<p>It’s time to be bold, both in Australia and globally. We need to undertake a <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7525/full/nature13947.html">step change in our approach to marine protection</a>, reinforcing the target of effective protection for 30% of the world’s oceans as determined at the Durban congress more than a decade ago. </p>
<p>The science is clear; the benefits are well documented. Healthy oceans mean healthy economies, and healthy oceans mean marine parks.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34127/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jessica Meeuwig does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Top scientists, senior government managers, industry representatives, conservationists and even some nations’ presidents are currently in Sydney for the World Parks Congress. This major international meeting…Jessica Meeuwig, Professor & Director, Centre for Marine Futures, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/330922014-11-13T19:32:58Z2014-11-13T19:32:58ZMarine parks for fish and people: here’s how to do it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64445/original/py8bgbp5-1415849683.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">NSW is considering a marine park for Sydney Harbour. But have we learnt from our past mistakes?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/hindmarsh/12197895894">Peter Hindmarsh</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As thousands gather for the World Parks Congress in Sydney, there are growing calls for a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/calls-for-sydney-marine-park-to-protect-remaining-habitat-20141111-11khse.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Atwi-13omn1677-edtrl-other%3Annn-17%2F02%2F2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o%26sa%3DD%26usg%3DALhdy28zsr6qiq">new marine park</a> in Sydney Harbour. New South Wales’s Labor opposition has promised, if elected, <a href="http://lukefoley.com.au/labor-to-protect-sydney-harbour-for-enjoyment-of-future-generations-with-creation-of-a-sydney-marine-park">to establish the park</a>, and there is speculation the state government will announce its own plan at the congress. </p>
<p>But marine parks have <a href="https://theconversation.com/go-fish-why-fishers-dont-care-for-marine-parks-14558">proved controversial</a> in NSW, culminating in sanctuary zones (where fishing was banned) being <a href="https://theconversation.com/recreational-fishing-in-marine-parks-you-cant-be-serious-12785">opened to recreational fishers</a> last year. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the federal government is reviewing the management of Australia’s commonwealth marine parks. New management plans proposed under the previous Labor government have been suspended, effectively leaving a system of parks “<a href="https://theconversation.com/marine-park-review-looks-set-to-repeat-past-mistakes-32869">on paper</a>”, with little protection. </p>
<p>So how can we get marine parks right? </p>
<h2>Why fishers don’t like marine parks</h2>
<p>Allowing recreational fishing in sanctuary zones is the latest move in the <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aqc.2469/abstract">troubled history of NSW marine parks</a>. Since 2009 we’ve seen three reviews, marine parks transferred from the state environment department to primary industries, a moratorium on new marine parks, and disbanding of the Marine Park Authority.</p>
<p>There has also been a shift away from using marine parks to insure against potential future threats such as unforeseen changes in fishing technology and growing coastal populations (known as a “precautionary approach”) to justifying the need for marine parks by <a href="http://www.marine.nsw.gov.au/">assessing current threats and risks</a>. </p>
<p>What went wrong?</p>
<p>First, the success of marine parks is often judged on the proportion of parks set aside as “sanctuary” or “no-take” zones, where fishing is prohibited.</p>
<p>But there is no scientific agreement on just what this figure should be. Opponents of fishing bans argued that these targets were being used in places, such as beaches, where there a few if any known threats to biodiversity. They are also home to mostly migratory species, unlikely to benefit from fishing bans in small areas. </p>
<p>Second, people had negative experiences with marine parks. <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aqc.2363/abstract">In interviews</a> recreational, commercial and Indigenous fishers reported more inconvenience and less enjoyment, negative effects on livelihoods, lifestyle and well-being, and negative impacts on their practice of culture. This fuelled opposition to marine parks. </p>
<p>Instead of doing a dedicated <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X11001370">social impact assessments</a>, the government simply did consultations and public discussions. And economic forecasts didn’t capture the individual importance of particular traditions, places, food items, or cultural practises. </p>
<p>Third, the case against marine parks was led by a vocal minority, heavily <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569113002093">grounded in ideology and politics</a>. Community surveys reveal that the majority of coastal communities support bans on fishing in marine parks. But these views were likely discouraged by louder voices. </p>
<h2>What does the science say?</h2>
<p>Fishing bans are justified scientifically on protecting marine wildlife and ecosystems. But <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X12000413">some marine scientists</a> argue that this approach unfairly targets fishing as the major threat to marine biodiversity when, in fact, there are a range of threats and fishing can be managed to be ecologically sustainable. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64444/original/t969t9sb-1415846739.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64444/original/t969t9sb-1415846739.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64444/original/t969t9sb-1415846739.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64444/original/t969t9sb-1415846739.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64444/original/t969t9sb-1415846739.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64444/original/t969t9sb-1415846739.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64444/original/t969t9sb-1415846739.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Marine parks help to protect our native species, like these Southern Yellowtailed Scad in New South Wales.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/pacificklaus/9640902375/in/photolist-fFW9oK-et3Mh-fPRFqG-6GqeuN-6GqbLs-6pbWdU-kPnirv-6Gm9nr-6Gmate-7Ggs9G-6Gm8Ae-egUieh-6GqdLU-kPnm2F-gQLjS6-kPmzUz-kPnjPR-6pbVZd-6GqcH3-6i57SA-6GmaaZ-6pbWkG-ipSiz-6GqcVy-6p7NdP-pvxGwd-asT1RU-puBac4-63exnx-4qoeQA-2Jsjp9-fQeqB2-8mxzUT-73xhBH-72ETZ5-invrW4-6ZtKf2-72ETVL-6ZxKum-i9RgRb-ifXqaC-ihdYUi-8AesUC-hNPjt-73BgFJ-6ZaTvA-7GcuYg-6p7N7n">Klaus Stiefel</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Marine parks were justified by evidence from other countries of the impacts of over-fishing, and evidence that, globally, <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7487/full/nature13022.html">no-take zones work</a>. But there was a lack of local NSW evidence. </p>
<p>Although the scrutiny was justified, it overshadowed debate about the other values of no-take zones:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Protecting critical habitats (such as spawning sites and sites important for threatened species) </p></li>
<li><p>Maintaining undisturbed reference sites for research, education, monitoring</p></li>
<li><p>Providing wilderness experiences. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Instead of justifying the need for marine parks for biodiversity conservation, many marine park proponents argued that banning fishing in some areas would lead to more fish for fishers in others. There was, however, little evidence for these benefits, and none from NSW.</p>
<h2>Where to from here?</h2>
<p>The past five years in NSW show that marine parks need both ecological justification (for the fish) and social acceptance (for the fishers) — also known as <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X14002371">social license</a>. </p>
<p>Here are four ways to make things better:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Assess the costs and benefits of marine parks: ecological, social and economic, all in one</p></li>
<li><p>Consult a range of views, not just the loud voices</p></li>
<li><p>Make marine parks not just about marine wildlife, but about fishing too. So a marine park could conserve a spawning area of a favourite local fish</p></li>
<li><p>Analyse the impact of only assessing current threats and risk, as opposed to potential future threats and risks such as growing coastal populations and urban spread.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>When thinking about new marine parks, we need to translate the scientific knowledge that we have into socially acceptable responses, and incorporate social, cultural and economic knowledge into the existing suite of biological knowledge. </p>
<p>We also need to get better at explaining how marine parks affect different people. This may ultimately mean being flexible and open minded about the best long term means of protection within marine parks. </p>
<p>But unless we do this, we will continue to see conflict in NSW’s and Australia’s marine parks.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33092/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Gladstone has previously conducted research funded by the NSW Department of Primary Industries and is a memebr of the Temperate East Bioregional Advisory Panel to the current Commonwealth Marine Reserves Review.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Voyer has previously conducted research funded by the NSW Department of Primary
Industries and is currently employed on a research project funded by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation.</span></em></p>As thousands gather for the World Parks Congress in Sydney, there are growing calls for a new marine park in Sydney Harbour. New South Wales’s Labor opposition has promised, if elected, to establish the…William Gladstone, Professor and Head of School of the Environment, University of Technology SydneyMichelle Voyer, Assistant researcher, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/340472014-11-11T19:30:28Z2014-11-11T19:30:28ZWe have more parks than ever, so why is wildlife still vanishing?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64206/original/nmb648nv-1415680228.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Kakadu National Park is Australia's largest – but we need to make sure parks are actually protecting wildlife from threats. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/rietje/3744758537">Rita Willaert/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>While we can never know for sure, an extraordinary number of animals and plants are <a href="http://www.iucnredlist.org/about/summary-statistics#How_many_threatened">threatened with extinction</a> — up to a third of all mammals and over a tenth of all birds. And the problem is getting worse.</p>
<p>At the same time, we have more land and sea than ever in protected areas (“parks”) — more than 200,000 protected areas covering about 15% of the world’s land area and 3% of the oceans. </p>
<p>So why are protected areas making so little difference?</p>
<p>This is a vital question about the future of nature that should be discussed at Sydney’s <a href="http://worldparkscongress.org/">World Parks Congress</a>, beginning today. </p>
<p>This once-in-a-decade Congress, led by the World Conservation Union (<a href="http://www.iucn.org/">IUCN</a>), will be attended by thousands. A sobering reality will lie behind the excitement and networking: while protected-area systems expand, we are losing the planet’s species at an <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6187/1246752.abstract">alarming rate</a>. </p>
<p>One reason is that protected areas are only one of our tools, and will never do the job alone. IUCN could say, though, that it’s doing the best it can. </p>
<p>But another reason, more confronting for IUCN, is that protected areas tend to be in the wrong places. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64219/original/5x6t2qbv-1415685431.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64219/original/5x6t2qbv-1415685431.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64219/original/5x6t2qbv-1415685431.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64219/original/5x6t2qbv-1415685431.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64219/original/5x6t2qbv-1415685431.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64219/original/5x6t2qbv-1415685431.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64219/original/5x6t2qbv-1415685431.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64219/original/5x6t2qbv-1415685431.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bison in Yellowstone National Park in the United States.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/richflynn/6193742140/in/photolist-bqiqRr-5bJTEY-fmBDFs-am8qmY-cQAzVy-9Dy4ax-bwQa9X-nzuC3U-5hkay3-5eSsvr-fUB3xn-5eFKSw-6qvFkR-duFctX-cX3vRC-ogrJwh-dmJ9p5-cZNSvU-hUsbXT-ezd1dw-oPoCVg-5gwaQn-arjxKA-8knbiK-gbC2i2-7WTdEM-na9zw-7Hc47G-9fKd9x-k1XMsV-c1iStJ-e3rwUt-ibcYEj-7VgLKQ-eK6Y5w-7kpqom-aJPBta-p5cmGX-nu32cg-bsrvc9-bPqraV-vBSfR-o4zU8e-h9RhwQ-jXX5JR-e93CV-a9dEqD-5RA7CH-arkWZb-k4CYMR">Rich Flynn</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Protecting the leftovers</h2>
<p>Just about anywhere people have looked, the majority of protected areas are residual — leftover areas of the world pushed to the margins where they least interfere with extractive activities such as agriculture, mining, or forestry. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0008273">On land</a>, protected areas are mainly remote or high, cold, arid, steep, and infertile. Similar patterns are emerging <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/aqc.2445">in the sea</a>.</p>
<p>Residual protected areas, by definition, make least difference to conservation. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, biodiversity continues to be lost in landscapes and seascapes suitable for clearing, logging, grazing, fishing, and extraction of minerals, oil, and gas. </p>
<p>Residual protection also gives the false appearance of progress because many people equate the number of protected areas and their extent with success.</p>
<p>These figures are only “<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6209/525.summary?sid=1136e401-b09a-4d1b-aed8-0e61b64b4c32">good news</a>” if they tell us about the difference these parks make to conservation. They don’t. </p>
<h2>Failing to stop the losses</h2>
<p>The most rigorous estimates of the difference that protected areas make are small. </p>
<p>By 2008, only 7% of <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/105/42/16089.full?sid=c46dde01-47ab-4889-b04b-0634e1f4c923">Costa Rica</a>’s much-lauded protected-area system would have been deforested in the absence of protection. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64221/original/qw9tn879-1415685793.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64221/original/qw9tn879-1415685793.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64221/original/qw9tn879-1415685793.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64221/original/qw9tn879-1415685793.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64221/original/qw9tn879-1415685793.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64221/original/qw9tn879-1415685793.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64221/original/qw9tn879-1415685793.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sloth in Cahuita National Park, Costa Rica.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/marika/4806411">Marika Lüders</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Globally, in 2005, the loss of native vegetation prevented by protected areas was <a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/278/1712/1633.full?sid=973514ca-e659-466b-9306-9bc51a0c359f">3% of their extent</a>.</p>
<p>These numbers get to the very purpose of protected areas. They are small because protected areas are mainly residual.</p>
<h2>Aiming for the wrong targets</h2>
<p>Protected areas that make little or no difference should be a major concern for IUCN, especially because targets for protection endorsed by the Convention on Biological Diversity at best obscure and at worst encourage the failure of protected areas to make a difference. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/">Convention’s targets</a> are meant to guide decisions on protected areas to 2020. The only unambiguously quantitative target (number 11) says nothing about making a difference. It aspires to 17% of land and 10% of the sea under formal protection. </p>
<p>The result has been a rush to proclaim large, remote protected areas where they are easiest to establish and make least difference. The story is familiar in <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00167.x/abstract">conservation and beyond</a>: provide a simplistic metric that implies success, and it will be manipulated to achieve high scores. </p>
<p>Another of the Convention’s targets (number 5) gets closer to the real purpose of protected areas, but remains problematic: “By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, is at least halved and where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation [are] significantly reduced.” </p>
<p>But there are problems here too. Before we halve the rate of loss, we need to know what the “baseline” rate of loss is — and over what period it should it be measured. Should it be measured in the past, when loss might have been slower, or now? Habitat loss also varies across the world — does that mean that reduction in loss rates of some areas can offset faster losses elsewhere?</p>
<p>Several kinds of tropical forests, for example, housing most of the world’s terrestrial species, are being lost rapidly. For these, even a halving of the rate of loss will mean mass extinction.</p>
<h2>Australia setting a bad example</h2>
<p>IUCN’s mission is hindered by recalcitrant governments. </p>
<p>Australia, as host of the World Parks Congress, will show off its conservation wares. The display window is less impressive than when Australia genuinely led global conservation thinking from the 1970s to 1990s. </p>
<p>Our protected areas on land, such as those in the host state, are <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320700000501">strongly residual</a> (claims of an <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00601.x/abstract">improving trend</a> are based on inadequate data). </p>
<p>Australia’s <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/aqc.2445">marine parks</a>, which are directed more at satisfying total protected area than protecting threatened marine biodiversity, show other countries how not to protect the sea. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64222/original/pwh4cpqp-1415686206.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64222/original/pwh4cpqp-1415686206.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64222/original/pwh4cpqp-1415686206.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64222/original/pwh4cpqp-1415686206.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64222/original/pwh4cpqp-1415686206.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64222/original/pwh4cpqp-1415686206.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64222/original/pwh4cpqp-1415686206.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australia is setting a bad example of how to protect our oceans.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisschoenbohm/4623487967">Chris Ford</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And the only quantitative targets in Australia’s <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/node/21198">Strategy for the National Reserve System</a> — for protected extent and coverage of regional ecosystems — leave plenty of scope for more parks that make little or no difference.</p>
<p>Not content with marginalising protection, Australian governments are <a href="http://theconversation.com/our-national-parks-must-be-more-than-playgrounds-or-paddocks-14389">weakening what’s there</a>. Parks on land are being <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12189/abstract">opened up</a> for livestock grazing, industrial logging, mining, “conservation hunting”, and commercial development. </p>
<p>No-take zones in marine parks are being <a href="https://theconversation.com/recreational-fishing-in-marine-parks-you-cant-be-serious-12785">opened up for fishing</a>. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is in jeopardy and the plan to fix it <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-plan-to-save-the-great-barrier-reef-is-destined-to-fail-unless-33542">is destined to fail</a>. </p>
<h2>Four steps to make parks work</h2>
<p>Here are four ways for IUCN to lead the way to parks that make a bigger difference:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Stop using targets that give the illusion of conservation progress. These include the number and extent of protected areas and percentages of countries, states, or regions covered. At best they will inadvertently obscure the real signal. At worst they will be used perversely to dress up residual protection.</p></li>
<li><p>Measure success as the difference protected areas make relative to no protection. This is “impact evaluation” in fields such as medicine, education, and development aid, where difference means saving and improving human lives. If saving species is also important, evaluating the <a href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040105">impact of protected areas</a> is essential.</p></li>
<li><p>Establish an IUCN Task Force to develop ways for evaluating the impact of protected areas, considering both biodiversity and human livelihoods. Assess the impact of current protected areas to provide lessons for management and future planning. And test approaches to setting priorities as the predictions they are.</p></li>
<li><p>Develop targets for the impact of protected areas: how much threat should be averted and how much loss should be avoided?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Ultimately, the success of conservation depends on what natural resources are left unexploited by humans so that other species can survive.</p>
<p>Protection that does not avoid the loss of species and ecosystems merely gives the appearance of conservation progress under exploitative business-as-usual. </p>
<p>Real conservation – the kind that makes a difference – depends on IUCN’s leadership. Every year of delay means irreversible, avoidable <a href="http://theconversation.com/extinction-just-how-bad-is-it-and-why-should-we-care-13751">loss of biodiversity</a>.</p>
<p><em>This article was co-authored by Dr Piero Visconti,
Board Member of the European Section of the <a href="http://www.conbio.org/">Society for Conservation Biology</a> in Washington, D.C.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34047/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>While we can never know for sure, an extraordinary number of animals and plants are threatened with extinction — up to a third of all mammals and over a tenth of all birds. And the problem is getting worse…Bob Pressey, Professor and Program Leader, Conservation Planning, James Cook UniversityEuan Ritchie, Senior Lecturer in Ecology, Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.