Tag Archives: parks

Now is our chance to deliver on the 30% ocean protection target Updated for 2026





Top scientists, senior government managers, industry representatives, conservationists and even some nations’ presidents are currently in Sydney, Australia for the World Parks Congress.

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.

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.

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 scrap previous plans for new reserves, and at worst a full about-face, with NSW allowing recreational fishing into existing ‘no-take’ marine parks.

The world is backsliding on marine park promises

Were this just an Australian phenomenon, it would be bad enough. But global progress towards achieving the marine target has been excruciatingly slow.

Currently, less than 3% 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?

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.

A key outcome at the previous World Parks Congress, in Durban in 2003, 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 well being, and that healthy oceans need marine parks.

This is underpinned by decades of science that supports the design and establishment of marine parks and demonstrates their ecological benefits.

Not just ecology benefits, but economy

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:

  • Marine parks support commercial and recreational fishing. Researchers led by Hugo Harrison from James Cook University have shown that, across an area of some 1,000 sq km, the highly protected green zones of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park exported 83% of young coral trout to fished reefs.
  • Marine parks reduce the cost of climate change by improving ecosystem resilience. Amanda Bates and colleagues have found 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.
  • Marine parks support ecosystem recovery in the face of environmental catastrophes. A study 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.

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 report, former World Bank economist Caroline Hoisington calculated that the national network of marine protected areas proposed in 2012 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.

Building on success

We know what it takes to make a successful marine park. 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.

Now is the time to build on the rising tide of marine park establishment. The United Kingdom protected the Chagos Islands in 2010, the United States recently announced protection for its Pacific Remote Islands, and Palau has announced its intention to close its waters to foreign fishing, and to allow limited domestic fishing only in certain small areas.

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.

This global leadership is now at risk with the Australian Government having suspended the network pending a review, initiated despite more than 10 years of consultation and strong scientific support.

It’s time to be bold, both in Australia and globally. We need to undertake a step change in our approach to marine protection, reinforcing the target of effective protection for 30% of the world’s oceans as determined at the Durban congress more than a decade ago.

The science is clear. The benefits are well documented. Healthy oceans mean healthy economies, and healthy oceans mean marine parks.The Conversation

 


 

Jessica Meeuwig is Professor & Director, Centre for Marine Futures at University of Western Australia. She does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 




386841

Brazil – 10% of national parks and indigenous lands face mining threat Updated for 2026





All eyes are on Brazil following the re-election of Dilma Rousseff as president after an eventful campaign in which the strongly pro-environment candidate Marina Silva was squarely defeated.

Now, the country’s green credentials are seriously at risk. In a new report in the journal Science, researchers from Brazil and the UK (including myself) highlight the danger of new plans to allow mining and dams in protected areas and indigenous lands.

Congressional debates to approve or reject proposed legislation will decide if Brazil will retain its hard-won status as what The Economist calls “the world leader in reducing environmental degradation”.

The new government is at a crossroads: either maintain the integrity and long-term future of its globally significant ecosystems – or favour industrial interests by allowing 10% of even strictly protected areas to be mined.

While the proposals include mitigation measures (protecting land elsewhere) these are unrealistic and also inadequate because they fail to account for the indirect impacts of mines.

Developing mines and hydropower dams in protected areas would represent a reversal for Brazilian law-makers and a body blow to environmental agencies, credited with drastically reducing Amazonian deforestation over the past decade.

The gruesome twosomedamming and mining

Mega-projects have mega-impacts and in the Amazon, mining and damming go hand in hand. Mining is energy intensive and is one of the underlying reasons for Brazil developing dozens of large hydropower plants in Amazonia.

Hydroelectric dams can harm both society and the environment. For example, I was alarmed to see how severe flooding in Rondônia state this year led to economic paralysis and the spread of water-borne diseases in towns and countryside along the Madeira River.

The flooding of the Madeira in both Brazil and upriver in Bolivia was suspected to have been caused by the recently completed Jirau hydropower dam. Under current plans, very few protected areas will remain free from the influence of hydroelectric dams.

Mining projects such as the enormous Carajás iron ore mine in eastern Amazonia (see photo), powered by construction of the controversial Tucuruí dam in the 1970s, are only the tip of the iceberg. Mineral extraction in Brazil is poised to expand into what were previously considered no-go areas for industrial development.

Protected lands are a essential safeguard

Our research found that in the Amazon alone 34,117km2 of strictly protected areas and 281,443km2 of indigenous lands are in areas of registered mining interest. Forget football fields, this is an area larger than the whole of the UK.

The direct impacts of mines and dams are eclipsed by the indirect effects, as thousands of workers follow mega-development projects into protected areas. Rapid population growth in service towns causes urban areas, roads and farmland to expand into surrounding forests.

By 2000, Brazil had created the world’s largest protected area network, covering an enormous 2.2m km2 – an area the size of Greenland.

These parks have been highly effective. For example, by reducing deforestation rates to only 10-15% of those in surrounding areas, Brazil’s protected areas contribute to mitigating future climate change.

The beneficiaries of climate mitigation range from farmers in the south of Brazil who depend on Amazonia for their rainfall, to the poorest people in developing countries who stand to bear the brunt of global warming, sea-level rise and extreme climatic events.

Brazil’s protected areas go far beyond just saving the forests themselves and support traditional peoples, including rubber-tappers and Brazil-nut harvesters.

In addition, indigenous lands provide a safe space to maintain the traditions and cultures of the country’s 305 indigenous ethnic groups, including 69 uncontacted groups.

Brazil gets richer, but protected areas remain under-funded and under-staffed

Get-rich-quick mining is not a new threat to Brazil’s unique ecosystems. I have witnessed the decade-long struggle of a strictly protected area, the Jari Ecological Station in Pará, to remove illegal gold-mining from within its borders.

However, it is harrowing to now see 71% of the park (an area larger than Greater London) being under official consideration for mining operations. Even if ‘only’ 10% of the park is used for mining, indirect effects will change it for ever.

Relevant federal departments need adequate resources to ensure government decisions are made democratically and with reliable impact assessments. Chronic under-staffing in Brazil’s protected areas means that many lack basic information on baseline environmental conditions and diversity of plants and animals.

Buffer areas designed to protect parks from external threats are put at risk, and a lack of staffing and data puts ICMBio (the agency responsible for protecting parks) in a weak position from which to assess the potential impacts of dams or mining on the integrity of a park.

Brazil’s population is growing and increasingly wealthy, which means higher demands for energy and food. Some difficult decisions will have to be made.

However, environmental impact assessments and mitigation measures (in some cases impossible to achieve and in most cases not implemented anyway) surrounding proposed mega-projects have fallen short of international best practice and largely ignore indirect impacts.

I hope that Brazil reasserts its status as a leader of green development and does not legislate against her national treasures.

 


 

Luke Parry is Lecturer in Ecosystem Services, Lancaster Environment Centre at Lancaster University. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




386536