Issues for the IUCN: Redefining Protected Areas

As we enter the twenty-first century, populations are sky-rocketing and our appetite for resources increases every day. This is why it is crucial to have protected areas that are set aside specifically for the purpose of conserving our biodiversity and preserving ecosystem integrity as much as possible. Today the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 's list of protected areas encompasses 11.5 % of the earth's surface, and these areas are crucial refuges for wildlife and the healthy ecosystems they require.

The way these areas are categorized, however, needs improvement. Boitani et al, in a new paper on PLoS Biology, point out weaknesses in the current system and make suggestions for items to consider when the classifications are brought up for revisions this October at the World Conservation Congress.

Boitani et al argue that the main fault in the current system is that it focuses on "broad management approaches," but often overlooks the role that each PA has in the conservation of biodiversity. Basically the categories are based on vague objectives and ill-defined goals, with activities that are hard to quantify in order to monitor their effectiveness. The authors use Yellowstone as an example: it is currently classified as IUCN Category II, National Park, which is defined as "managed mainly for ecosystem protection and management." This glosses over the specific goals that are important for this park, such as restoring healthy populations of native carnivores (grizzlies and wolves).

The new idea is to create new categories that will allow for areas to be ranked by more specific objectives that relate to biodiversity goals. In this case, Yellowstone would be put into a category indicating that management activities are prioritized for maintaining predator/prey balance and restoring the large carnivore populations that have been decimated in recent historical times. This system would be much more informative than the current definitions for National Parks, National Monuments, etc.

The authors offer up some important criteria to consider when the classification system is reviewed this fall: they recommend that the categories need to be related to defined outcomes (example: restore a self-sustaining wolf population), that the targets and goals are quantifiable (are the wolves reproducing at a sustainable rate? are their prey populations sufficiently healthy as well?), and that the different categories of protected areas can be incorporated into holistic frameworks for effective conservation plans, treating the areas as parts of a network as opposed to free-floating habitat patches. They emphasize that even though areas should be treated as networks, specific management goals for each area will be most effective if they concentrate on collecting data at the species and habitat levels, which have the most quantifiable parameters and most amenable to accurate monitoring. "Explicit and measurable outcomes" are crucial to get a realistic idea of the effectiveness of a given management practice.

Head over to PLoS to read the paper for the details of the suggestions, I hope that their ideas are given serious thought at the convention later this year.

Boitani, L., Cowling, R.M., Dublin, H.T., Mace, G.M., Parrish, J., Possingham, H.P., Pressey, R.L., Rondinini, C., Wilson, K.A. (2008). Change the IUCN Protected Area Categories to Reflect Biodiversity Outcomes. PLoS Biology, 6(3), e66. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060066

(Image credit)