V o l u m e 9  Numbers 3 & 4  2008

knowledge - conservation - sustainability

Journal of Life on Earth

Special
BIODIVERSITY &
CLIMATE CHANGE
 Journal
EDITOR’S CORNER
Objective
To contribute to the This is a very special issue of Biodiversity journal focused on the topic of the effectiveness of present or
understanding, protection proposed protected areas to preserve biodiversity in the face of climate change.
and restoration of Scientists, conservationists, politicians, policy-makers and many others who work with, or have any re-
the diversity of living things sponsibility for, the incredible diversity of living organisms on this planet are becoming more and more
concerned about the potential effects of climate change on all species, particularly those at risk. Protected
areas were thought to be one of the best tools we had for species protection. However, in response to
climate change, species are now starting to adjust their distribution patterns, many poleward and often
towards higher altitudes. This raises many questions and concerns related to the future role and effective-
ness of protected areas, such as parks and nature preserves. Protected areas will be affected by climate
change at least as much as other lands and waters in their natural regions. The impacts may indeed be
greater, since there are fewer mitigation and adaptation options than for lands and waters that are actively
manipulated. Those responsible for our protected areas will need to adapt their management practices to
help maintain biodiversity and natural processes, and provide assistance through the transition process.
The editorials and articles in this special issue were prepared by specialists from around the globe work-
ing for some of the most important organizations humanity has been able to assemble. They have put a
great deal of thought and effort into grappling with these questions. Their work in this issue focuses on 3
vital topics:
- Effects of climate change to date on biodiversity.
- Modeling predictions of future impacts of climate change on biodiversity and their potential role in pro-
tected areas decision-making.
- Challenges and requirements for future effective response.
These aspects will be critical in any future management responses to climate change impacts on biodi-
versity.
In the preparation and release of this special issue, the Board of Editors would particularly like to acknowl-
edge the co-operation of our partners, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the
United Nations Environment Programme - World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and the
Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
The Board of Editors is pleased to be able to release this special issue at the World Conservation Con-
gress in Barcelona, Spain, October 2008.

NOTE: The electronic edition of this issue is available for purchase and download from the Biodiversity
website: http://www.tc-biodiversity.org
Click on the Biodiversity and Climate Change link and follow the instructions. This issue contains full
colour images, current biodiversity news, an interview with Ahmed Djoghlaf (Executive Secretary of the
CBD) and more...Thank you for your support of this important issue.

Special Board of Editors

(SBOE)

Stephen Aitken - Managing Editor, Biodiversity

P.T. Dang - President of Tropical Conservancy
Peter Hall (SBOE Chair)- Biodiversity Publication Committee Chair; Senior
Advisor, Biodiversity, AAFC
Jeremy Kerr­- Canadian Facility for Ecoinformatics Research, Department
of Biology, University of Ottawa.
Earl Saxon – Climate change consultant, Washington D.C., former Climate
Change & Ecosystems Programme Officer, IUCN Switzerland
Ian Smith - Research Scientist, Environmental Health, Agriculture and
Agri-food Canada (AAFC).

Front cover illustration. Polar bears have an ability to pick up scents from as far away as thirty miles. Unfortu-
nately, they are increasingly stranded on land due to the catastrophic melting of the ice. (Photo © Robert & Carolyn
Buchanan/PolarBearsInternational.org)
 Biodiversity
Biodiversity

2008
Biodiversity & Climate Change
To those dedicated to protecting the Earth’s living organisms, their shelters and places of
refuge. May the forces of nature unite to gift them with strength and perseverance. ISSN 1488-8386

CONTENTS
Volume 9
Keynotes Numbers 3 & 4
Protected areas and the future - Jeffrey A.McNeely ............................................................................... 2
Climate change - Emission focused solution overlook biodiversity - Nikita Lopoukhine.................... 3

Articles Editor
Noah`s Parks - Earl Saxon…..…………………………………………………………............................... 5 SPECIAL BOARD OF EDITORS

Climate change, biodiversity conservation, and the role of protected areas: An Australian Patron
perspective - Brendan G. Mackey, James E.M. Watson, Geoffrey Hope and Sandy Gilmore.........11 MAURICE STRONG
Under-Secretary-General, UN
The 4C factor: Community conservation and climate change – Ashish Kothari………..................19 Special Advisor to the UN Secretary-General
Secretary-General, 1992 UN Conference on Environment
Climate change and identification of terrestrial protected areas in the Seychelles Islands & Development & Biological Diversity Convention, Brazil.
- Justin Gerlach………………………………………………….....………………………………............ 24
Associate Editors
Running dry: Freshwater biodiversity, protected areas and climate change - Jamie Pittock, Hemant K. Badola, D.Phil. Botany, India
Lara J. Hansen, and Robin Abell…………...........................………………....................................... 30 PAUL CATLING, Ph.D. Botany, Canada
JOHN HERITY, Biodiversity, IUCN Canada
Using species distribution models to effectively conserve biodiversity into the future - JOHN LAMBERT, Ph.D. Medicinal Plants, World Bank
Heather M. Kharouba, Julie L. Nadeau, Eric Young, and Jeremy T. Kerr…..………....................... 39 TED MOSQUIN, Ph.D. Botany, Canada
BALAKRISTNA PISUPATI, Ph.D. Molecular Biology, Sri Lanka
Protecting marine biodiversity in Canada: Adaptation options in the face of climate change - Setijati D. Sastraprajda, Ph.D. Botany, Indonesia
Sabine Jessen and Sarah Patton………………..………………………............................................. 47 IAN SMITH, Ph.D. Freshwater Arthropods, Canada
Vladimir Bocharnikov, Russia
Future landscapes in South-Eastern Australia: The role of protected areas and biolinks in
adaptation to climate change – Ian Mansergh, David Cheal, and James A. Fitzsimons…........... 59 Managing Editor
STEPHEN AITKEN
World Wild Web: Funding connectivity conservation under climate change – Ralf Buckley…... 71 aitken@tc-biodiversity.org
Looking forward: Applying an ecological model web to assess impacts of climate change
- Gary N. Geller and Forrest Melton………………………....……………………………......................79 Book Review Editor
K.G. ANDREW HAMILTON, Ph.D.
What should protected area managers do to preserve biodiversity in the face of climate
change? – David Welch……………………………………………………………………………...….... 84 News Editor
Identifying critical areas for conservation using measures of biodiversity and climate DON DE BELLE
change in Central America, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic - Eric Ross Anderson, Editorial Submissions
Emil Cherrington, Laura Tremblay-Boyer, Africa Flores and Emilio Sempris…….............................89 Managing Editor
c/o Tropical Conservancy (see address below)
Projected impacts of climate change on protected areas - Jenny Hewson, Erica Ashkenazi, aitken@tc-biodiversity.org
Sandy Andelman, and Marc Steininger………………………….......................................................100 Biodiversity Publication Committee
Future directions in conservation and development: Incorporating the reality of PETER HALL, Chair
climate change – Danny Coenen, Ignacio Porzecanski, and Thomas L. Crisman…………..........106 Subscriptions
Pervasive poleward shifts among North American bird species –Townsend Peterson T.D. Trinh
trinhtd@tc-biodiversity.org
and Enrique Martínez-Meyer……………………………………….…………………….......................114
Desktop Design
Protecting the future: Carbon, forests, protected areas and local livelihoods – T.D. TRINH
Alison Campbell, Sarah Clark, Lauren Coad, Lera Miles, Katharine Bolt and Dilys Roe ...............117 Queries
P.T. DANG, Ph.D. - President
Managing climate change effects on relic forest ecosystems: A program for Lebanese dangpt@tc-biodiversity.org
Cedar- Sattout, E. J. and N. Nemer …............................................................................................122
Mailing Address:
The voice Tropical Conservancy
94 Four Seasons Drive
The secretariat speaks: An interview with Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Secretary of the CBD ......131 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2E 7S1
Civil society speaks: Are we missing the 2010 Target ?- Ashish Kothari………...........................134 Tel: 1-613-224-9518 or 1-613-325-9518
URL: www.tc-biodiversity.org

In Every Issue Publication Date: 1 November 2008

editor’s corner
From the Special Board of Editors ...................................................................................................... ii
Species by Species
blossoming treasures of biodiversity
Biodiversity is supported in part by:
28. Triticale – A cereal solution for extreme climates E. Small & P.M. Catling ..............................................137
The International The Ontario
Biodiversity Animal Treasury Development Trillium
Polar Bears on thin ice: Climate change and the future of Polar Bears Research Centre Foundation
Megan A. Owen and Ronald R. Swaisgood .....................................................................................................143 IDRC (Canada)

Biodiversity News
Climate Change Threatens World Heritage Sites; Indigenous Peoples - Players and Biodiversity
Victims in the Climate Change Arena; A changing Antarctic ecosystem; Vulnerable is indexed by
Rainforest Species Live Close to their Optimal Temperature; Grazing Lands at Risk Biosis, Cambridge
Due to Rising CO2 Levels; Climate Change a major driver of Biodiversity Loss; Scientific Abstracts,
Spain Particularly Vulnerable to Climate Change; A third of Reef-Building Corals Environment Abstracts,
and Zoological Record.
Face Extinction .................................................................................................................................149
Book reviews
The Atlas of Climate Change: Mapping the World’s Greatest Challenge...............160 Inside Front Cover Art: The Diversity of Life by Roelof Idema
POLICY OF RESPECT
B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 1 this journal
2 0 0To8engender and foster respect for all living species,
capitalizes the common names of all formally named species.
 KEYNOTES

Protected areas and the future

The past several decades have been remarkably successful for protected areas. Coverage on land has increased
to some 12%, with virtually all countries represented in a global network of sites covering all varieties of the world’s
ecosystems. The Convention on Biological Diversity has adopted a vigorous work plan on protected areas, and
many countries are still adding to their protected area systems -- Madagascar is one outstanding example. Yet this
silver cloud also has a dark lining, as many protected areas exist only on paper and relatively few are managed as
well as they should, or could, be. The prognosis for the future is decidedly mixed and shortcomings are exacerbated
and complicated by projected changes in climate (see Projected Impacts of Climate Change on Protected Areas by
Hewson et al.). Here, I suggest ten provocative challenges the world’s protected areas may be facing in the coming
decades, obviously with differences among different parts of the world, or even within regions of the same country.

• Protected areas will no longer have the primary purpose of maintaining the current ecosystems but rather will
concern themselves with adapting to conditions brought about by changes in climate, demographics, economics,
and much else. As a result, protected area managers will need new forms of training, and perhaps even new
ideologies to address this new changing role of protected areas (see What Should Protected Area Managers do
to Preserve Biodiversity in the Face of Climate Change? by Welch).
• Ironically, the increase in total area protected will also lead to greater conflicts, as growing populations put
increasing pressure on the available land cover. Biotechnology, particularly the genetic modification of crops,
will enable plants to be grown productively in areas that were formerly unsuitable, thereby putting new economic
pressure on protected areas. As demand increases for minerals, conflicts with mining interests are also likely
to increase, requiring greater negotiation skills from protected area managers. Furthermore, as management of
protected areas is increasingly decentralized, as in Indonesia (to cite just one example), the pressures of resource
exploitation will become more difficult to resist (see Identifying Critical Areas for Conservation using Measures of
Biodiversity and Climate Change in Central America, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic by Anderson et al.).
• Marine protected areas will receive renewed attention. Significant efforts will be made to increase the percentage
of marine protection which currently covers only about half of one percent of the coastal zone. Valuable new
opportunities will be offered by marine protected areas in supporting fisheries, tourism, and conservation of
critical habitats such as coastal wetlands, mangroves and coral reefs. These coastal protected areas will be
seen as defenses against sea level rise and storm surges accompanying climate change. Conservation in the
open seas will also increase in importance. However, marine protected areas are unlikely by themselves to
overcome global problems such as increasing acidification and coral bleaching, both linked to climate change
(see Protecting Marine Biodiversity in Canada: Adaptation Options in the Face of Climate Change by Jessen
and Patton).
• Tourism, one of the traditional foundations of protected areas, may undergo some fundamental changes as
the price of oil increases and travel to distant areas becomes more expensive. As a result of climate-related
concerns about the carbon footprint of international travel, “virtual tourism”, through television and other forms
of virtual reality, may replace the real experience with nature, fundamentally changing the way the public relates
to natural ecosystems (see World Wild Web: Funding Connectivity Conservation under Climate Change by Ralf
Buckley).
• Invasive alien species will grow as a management concern, yet at the same time the issue will become more subtle
as scientists debate whether some invasions are in fact a natural response to climate change. Defining what is
“natural” will become a more active discussion.
• The economic value of land will inevitably increase as the human population grows within a finite land area.
One study of 45 countries in Africa and Latin America has indicated that land values around protected areas are
increasing twice as fast as in other areas. This will add more pressure to open up protected areas for human
settlement (see The 4C Factor: Community Conservation and Climate Change by Ashish Kothari).
• International conventions such as World Heritage and the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance will
change in character as fewer areas are added to the system (because the most suitable areas are already included).
Their emphasis will be on the management of existing sites rather than on the creation of new ones, and adapting
to climate change will be a major management issue. These sites of identified international importance will become
leaders in developing adaptive forms of management.
• Many protected areas will be affected by the threat of emerging infectious diseases, many linked to global
warming. Some of these threats will affect the wildlife populations that protected areas are designed to conserve,
but others will affect the relationship between domestic and wild animals and the health of humans who live in
and around protected areas as well as those visiting them.
• The economics of protected areas will become increasingly important, emphasizing the value of protected areas to
society, especially in terms of the ecosystem services provided, such as watershed protection, carbon sequestration,
and conservation of genetic resources (see Running Dry: Freshwater Biodiversity, Protected Areas and Climate
Change by Pittock et al.). As economies change, protected areas will be increasingly expected to cover more
of their own costs, leading to numerous creative ways of ensuring sufficient resources to effectively manage the
protected areas. Protected area managers will need to become increasingly businesslike (see Future Directions in

2 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
 Conservation and Development: Incorporating the Reality of Climate Change by Coenen et al.).
• As demand for resources continues, more protected areas will suffer from the “empty forest syndrome”, where
the most interesting and valuable species have declined in population (or even disappeared) due to poaching or
disease, leaving some protected areas as outstanding habitats that no longer are occupied by the species they
were intended to support.

This list of challenges is presented to stimulate discussion in a time of rapid change and growing challenges. The
challenges most certainly can be met, through improving management capacity for protected area staff, linking
protected areas to the surrounding landscapes, addressing the numerous other societal problems whose symptoms
also reach protected areas, and recognizing the many economic values that protected areas provide to society. These
four broad responses all take place against the backdrop of climate change, which will underline the importance of
protected areas in helping to store carbon and adapting to changing conditions. But perhaps the most important point is to
demonstrate to the public the cultural values of protected areas. This can best be done by encouraging more people to visit nature as
frequently as possible. Of course even this last imperative carries with it the dangers of overuse. The bottom line is that protected area
managers are going to require new sets of skills and sources of support to enable them to continue to ensure that protected areas
deliver their irreplaceable services to the rest of society.

Jeffrey A. McNeely
Chief Scientist,
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
1196 Gland
Switzerland
Email: jam@iucn.org

Climate change
– Emission focused solutions overlook biodiversity
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has progressively received more press coverage with every report it
has released. But the media circus around the fourth report was unprecedented. News coverage resembled the hoopla
usually reserved for the Oscar awards. Pre-release coverage focused on whether Governments were trying to muffle
content or whether the report was going to be too conservative in its predictions of effects. Somewhere along the way
there was a tipping point. People have now mostly accepted the facts that temperatures are increasing and climate
change is inevitable. Skeptics of this viewpoint are now relegated to join the club that still believes in a flat earth. The
best evidence of this change is of course to see politicians of all stripes leaping on the green bandwagon.

The debate now is how to identify the horrific effects of climate change and what to do about them. In fact, the main
criticism of the IPCC report is that it minimizes effects such as rising sea levels. Of course, the immediate need is to
reduce emissions. Some solutions have been offered for this, from the Kyoto protocol to trading in carbon futures.
There is also a lot of sensible advice out there, from the Oscar winning Al Gore and from your now-green utility
company, among others, on what you can do to help. (See Protecting the Future: Carbon, Forests, Protected Areas
and Local Livelihoods by Campbell et al.). But there has been far less discussion about how to cope with the inevitable
changes, and even less about how we can help affected plants and animals. The plight of the charismatic mega fauna
polar bear has captured our imagination, to the point where they have become an icon of climate change (see On
Thin Ice – Climate Change and the Future of Polar Bears by Owen and Swaisgood). It unilaterally caused an official
recognition of climate change in the USA as the process for listing of the bear as a threatened species was initiated.
The Polar Bear was listed as “Threatened” in 2008 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the province of
Manitoba, Canada. But countless other species also need equal consideration. Just imagine a salamander trying to
move to cooler northern regions faced with crossing a highway. In Waterton Lakes National Park in Alberta, ramps
were built to help newly hatched long-toed salamanders to cross a road in times when traffic is light. Ramps built for six
lanes of 24-hour traffic is akin to the fate of the French aristocrats sent to the guillotine - not much chance for survival!

Human survival has already taken a strategic hold on our preoccupations with climate change. We are already
building higher sea walls, moving people from island states and are beginning to plan what to do about food and
water shortage scenarios in a hot new world. Yet, aside from a handful of scientists, few are addressing the greater

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 3
global biodiversity and how they will adapt and cope with entirely new conditions of temperature and precipitation?
Should we help them or, better yet, how can we help them is the question that needs to be interwoven with our own
adaptation strategies? After all, biodiversity is critical to our lives. We still depend on wild stock of fish. Healthy forests
store carbon, thus reducing the effects of our emissions, and also filter pollution and yield clean water. There is of
course the moral imperative to help, given that it is our actions that have created the problem.

I would propose three strategies to minimize the impact of climate change on biodiversity.
First, invest in parks and protected areas with an eye to climate change. We need to identify the critical habitats
of the future: Where are species likely to move? Will there be new locations for staging or will migration patterns
change or halt? Birds that will continue to migrate, for example, will likely follow the creation of new wetlands as
patterns of precipitation change, altering water tables, and sea levels rise. Are these areas secure? If not, we need to
create protected areas to accommodate them. (See Noah`s Parks by Saxon; Pervasive Poleward Shifts among North
American Bird Species by Peterson and Martínez-Meyer).

Second, invest in connectivity. Creating isolated protected areas is not enough. We have to establish connections
among areas of land and sea under all kinds of use to help species respond to changing climates. We need to
identify the corridors that species will likely use and secure them. The north-south corridor of the Rocky Mountains,
for example, must continue to serve goats and grizzly bears. Species that inhabit the tops of mountains and islands,
such as the Pikas of mountains and the Boobies on Darwin’s famous Galapagos Islands, will have nowhere to go
when temperatures increase. Rescue operations may be the scenario of the future - physically moving plants to a
higher or more northern mountain, for example, may be the only way to save species such as the revered Edelweiss.
(See Future Landscapes in South-Eastern Australia: The Role of Protected Areas and Biolinks in Adaptation to
Climate Change by Mansergh et al.; World Wild Web: Funding Connectivity Conservation under Climate Change by
Buckley)

A third strategic investment should be in ecological restoration - a deliberate effort to reintroduce extirpated species
such as pollinators, to help native species to colonize unconnected areas in response to change, or to reintroduce
fire to ecosystems with species such a pines that depend on fire for seed dispersal or for creating openings in
which poplars and birches can grow. This is not a task only for ecologists. The forestry, fishery and agriculture
industries should recognize the importance to them of assisting in the recovery of degraded, damaged or destroyed
ecosystems. The future of their industries is also at risk. (See Managing climate change effects on relic ecosystems:
Applying monitoring programs in Lebanese cedar forests by Sattout and Nemer).

There is no longer any question that the world is changing. So as we start thinking seriously about how to stop
messing it up any further, biodiversity scientists need to step up and offer adaptation solutions for the life we share
the planet with and on which our life depends as well.

Nikita Lopoukhine
Chairman of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas
(Former Director General of National Parks in Canada)
(Based on an article in the International Herald Tribune
“The world will need our help when it gets hot”
by Nikita Lopoukhine published: February 2, 2007)

4 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
 A R T I C L E S

Noah’s Parks: A partial antidote to the Anthropocene extinction event

Earl Saxon
Abstract. Climate change will rapidly alter the abiotic environment of many localities leading to significant losses of biodiversity Author’s Address :
in ecosystems unable to adapt quickly. However, local extirpation will be least likely where environmental change is slowest. (at the time the research
Such locations will offer refugia for species with narrow environmental ranges, provide persistent sources of colonists, offer was carried out):
transitory homes for dispersers and serve as platform sites on which new community assemblages develop. Consequently, The Nature
networks of protected areas that include such sites will conserve more biodiversity. Conventional protected area network Conservancy
selection algorithms give priority to areas with the lowest current cost. I added projected environmental change as a cost factor. 4245 North Fairfax Dr.
I applied the modified algorithm in three arctic ecoregions where climate change is predicted to be extremely rapid and to Arlington, VA 22203
20 tropical ecoregions where the pace of climate change will be slower but many species are vulnerable to small changes. I USA
identified protected area networks that protect places where change will be slowest in all ecoregions. These climate-adaptive
protected area networks differ substantially from both current protected area networks and near-optimal networks that are Author’s current
based only on current costs. The modified method will help protected area planners to acquire potential climate refugia and to address: 1604 15th St.,
help implement adaptive conservation strategies for potential refugia that are already protected. It will also help reduce the risk N. W., Washington
that projected refugia are unknowingly allocated to land uses incompatible with their critical role in biodiversity conservation. D. C. 20009, U.S.A.
earl.saxon@gmail.org
Introduction environmental gradients in identifying both regional and
Rapid climate changes are already affecting ecosystems global priority areas for conservation… because patterns in
throughout the world (IPCC 2007) and are projected to commit diversity and characters of species are well known only for a
many species to extinction (Thomas et al. 2004; Sekercioglu et few taxa and some regions."
al. 2007; Williams et al. 2007). Unmitigated climate change will
Hannah et al. 2007, Pyke et al. 2005, and Williams et al.
lead to an extinction event (Wasdell 2006) that marks the end of
2005, identify conservation sites for selected sets of species
the briefest of geological epochs, the Anthropocene (Crutzen and
based on historic distribution patterns and projected climate
Stoermer 2000). Whether a given species survives will depend on
changes. Unfortunately, potential niches and needs can
whether some of its populations persist in situ long enough to adapt
there and/or contribute successful colonists to other places with only be discerned for a limited number of species and with
more suitable conditions. Successful colonization will depend in considerable difficulty (Araújo & Rahbek 2006). The future
part on the persistence of sources, as most colonization efforts fail location of major vegetation types has also been considered
(Elton 1958). Both the persistence and the subsequent speciation as a basis for protected-area planning (Lemieux and Scott
of endemics at risk are more likely where climate changes are 2005). However, Holocene data indicate that vegetation
relatively attenuated (Jansson 2003; Mackey et al. 2008). communities are themselves ephemeral responses to
climate, hence unsuitable units for conservation planning
Anthropocene refugia – the landscapes that change least, during periods of rapid climate change. When neither the
relative to otherwise similar landscapes – will serve four niches of species nor the composition of communities can
purposes. As they have in the past (Hewitt 2001), refugia be projected with confidence, the design of climate-adaptive
will offer places to which the most vagile species can escape, nature reserves must focus on conserving the full range of
places where the least vagile species can persist, places where physical environments that species and communities exploit
would-be colonists can take advantage of opportunities (Hunter et al. 1988). This approach aims to maximize the
to disperse, and perhaps most importantly, places for the number of species conserved, without knowing which ones
development of novel symbiotic relationships and food chains they will be, and to provide the greatest opportunities for
that will characterize the most biologically diverse ecosystems their adaptation. The challenge is to identify and protect
in a much warmer world. refugia before their locations are known and their usefulness
Hutchinson (1965) likened the relationships among species, has become critical.
habitats, and ecosystem functions to those among actors,
theatres, and plays. Climate refugia – those theatres least
Methods
Algorithms for selecting near-optimal networks of
affected by climate change – will be the places where
conservation sites attempt to maximize the representation
evolutionary plays continue even as actors come and go (S.H.
of viable occurrences of all biodiversity targets while
Pearsall, pers. comm.). The most successful array of theatres,
minimizing the cost of forgoing alternative land uses. As
or systems of protected areas, will be those that attenuate both
a practical approach, I used the SPEXAN - MARXAN -
current threats and the synergistic effects of climate variability
SITES - SPOT family of conservation site selection software
and rapid climate change.
(Possingham et al. 2000, Leslie et al. 2003, Shoutis 2003)
The conservative assumption is that future impacts of climate to derive near-optimal networks. Where greater computer
change on a species or a community will be least severe over resources or more detailed knowledge of the vulnerability
those parts of its current distribution where climate changes of conservation targets are available, optimal (Fischer &
least. Dynesius & Jansson (2000, p. 9119) “suggest the use Church 2005) or heuristic algorithms (Turner & Wilcove
of… high climatic stability [Fjeldsa et al. 1997] or steep 2006) may also be applied.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 5
SITES analyses required nine inputs, as follows: a
uniform hexagonal grid tessellation of the planning
region; biogeographic stratification units that partition
the environmental gradients in the planning region; a
distribution map for the biodiversity elements or targets to
be represented; a representational goal for each element;
an edge/area factor that determines the relative degree of
clumping versus dispersal among selected cells; a cost
surface that reflects the degree to which current land use is
incompatible with conservation outcomes; a penalty factor
to balance the benefit of including a costly grid cell against
the cost of failing to meet an important representational
goal; a specified number of independent set-building
computer runs; and, a specified number of simulated
annealing iterations per run.
In my experiments, I altered only the sixth factor, the cost
surface, to capture the effects of projected climate change.
I ran each site selection algorithm twice, once with only
the conventional surrogates for current land use cost and
again with an additional cost factor: projected magnitude of
environmental change (Saxon et al. 2005). I applied the same
procedure to three arctic ecoregions in Alaska where climate
change is predicted to be extremely rapid and to 20 tropical
ecoregions in the New Guinea archipelago where many
ecosystems will be at risk of catastrophic loss, even if climate
changes are moderate (Scheffer et al. 2001).
The size of the planning region and the size of individual
hexagonal grid cells determined the total number of grid cell
planning units. I used 6,163 hexagonal units, each 50 km2
in Alaska; and 36,450 hexagonal units, each 25 km2 in the
New Guinea archipelago. Decreasing the size of grid cells
would have increased mapping resolution, but exponentially
multiplied computer run time.
Each study area was subdivided to ensure that sites were
selected across the full range of regional ecological
gradients. I stratified the north slope of Alaska into 9
subunits consisting of 3 ecoregions (Nowacki et al. 2001)
each subdivided into three sections from west to east. I used
20 ecoregions Olsen and Dinerstein (1998) to stratify the
New Guinea archipelago.
I used land systems - areas or groups of areas throughout
which there is a recurring pattern of topography, vegetation,
and soils (Christian & Stewart 1953) - as the biodiversity
elements or targets to be represented in each site set.
Jorgensen and Heiner (2004) identify 34 ecological land
systems in arctic Alaska based on vegetation structure, land
cover, physiography, topography and bedrock characteristics.
To create a uniform land system map for the New Guinea
archipelago, I matched the land systems of Papua New
Guinea (Bellamy & McAlpine 1995) with similar land units
in Papuan provinces of Indonesia (RePPProT 1990). Upland
regions were matched on topography and bedrock type.
Lowland regions were matched on terrain and hydrology.
Some land systems (e.g., volcanic soils) occur only in
6 T R O P I C A L C
Papua New Guinea, whereas others (e.g., coastal deep peat
swamps) are found only in Papuan provinces of Indonesia
(Sheppard & Saxon 2008).
The aim of creating a network of climate-adaptive nature
reserves is to host viable examples of each land system in
sufficiently numerous, large, diverse physical settings to
ensure that the plants, animals and communities that inhabit
those land systems can survive and adapt for several hundred
years or until such time as they can colonize other suitable
habitats. I ignored very small land system occurrences (<50
km2) in any stratification unit in the site selection process
and made no effort to anticipate opportunities for dispersal
through corridors.
Neely et al. (2001) and Tear et al. (2005) model the trade-
offs between reserve size, local extirpation rate and local
colonization rate on the assumption that reserves behave as
if they were a set of continental islands, able to be colonized
from relatively nearby and relatively intact sources. They
conclude that protecting 30% of the original extent should
maintain 85% of its original species set. I accepted 30% as the
goal for both current and future portfolios.
The “boundary length modifier,” a dimensionless factor that is
a function of edge to area ratio, determines the algorithm’s bias
towards large, compact, and contiguous sites in the solution
sets. Minimizing edge/area ratio gives search priority to
large areas with steep environmental gradients, an important
climate-adaptive strategy in its own right. I selected values
that produced an array of sites whose size, compactness and
connectivity visually approximates those presently found in
each study area’s current nature reserves.
The difficulty of achieving conservation outcomes
varies greatly across each study area. The current cost of
commercially available land, current land cover, current
land tenure, current and potential land uses, and current and
potential infrastructure development opportunity costs make
conservation goals relatively more difficult to achieve in some
places than in others. Such considerations were reflected in
a synthetic current cost surface for arctic Alaska, which,
along with estimates of the abundance of the conservation
targets, drive the efficient selection of available cells to meet
representational goals (Couvillion & Smith 2004). Unlike
arctic Alaska, many parts of the New Guinea archipelago
are densely settled and extensively affected by current land
uses incompatible with conservation outcomes. I constructed
a current cost surface that gives equal weight to human
population density, settlements and accessibility on the one
hand (Sanderson et al. 2002) and to intensive agriculture (Joint
Research Centre 2003), plantations and forest concessions on
the other.
In order to anticipate direct impacts of climate change on
biodiversity and indirect impacts due to changing human land
use, (Sala et al. 2000), my experiments required a second
cost surface giving equal weight to the current conditions
and to the magnitude of projected environmental change. I
O N S E R V A N C Y
 500 km

Figure 1. Current protected areas in Arctic Alaska (black lines), include Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR) and Gates of the Arctic National Park (GANP). Sites found only in the portfolio based on current
conditions (blue), sites found only in the portfolio based on current and projected future conditions (red), and
sites found in both portfolios (green).

500 km

Figure 2. Current protected areas in the New Guinea archipelago (black lines), include Lorenz
National Park (LNP) and Mamberamo-Foja Nature Reserve (MFNR). Sites found only in the
portfolio based on current conditions (blue), Sites found only in the portfolio based on current
and projected future conditions (red), and sites found in both portfolios (green).

quantified the latter as the difference between current and available water capacity, soil bulk density, soil carbon density,
future environmental conditions based on 14 topo-edaphic and total soil nitrogen, potential evapo-transpiration, precipitation/
climate factors at each location (Saxon et al. 2005); elevation, potential evapo-transpiration, precipitation coldest quarter,
compound topographic index, potential solar radiation, profile precipitation warmest quarter, mean temperature coldest

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 7
quarter, mean temperature warmest quarter, average monthly of securing conservation outcomes. There are many ways to
temperature (excluding months < 0o C). account for the fact that conservation options are reduced
over time (Pressey et al. 2004). A tradeoff must be made
In arctic Alaska, I compared current environmental conditions
between planning for a very short time horizon, in which
with those projected for the year 2100 under the mean of
current costs would be used exclusively, and planning for a
climate change scenarios A2 and B2 (Nakicenovic & Swart
very long time horizon, in which climate change would be the
2000) by the HadCM3 general circulation model (GCM)
only consideration. For a century scale time horizon, I made a
(Gordon et al. 2000). I selected a highly climate-responsive
neutral calculation of their joint cost index as the square root
GCM and high emissions scenarios in order to develop a set of
of the sum of the squares of the separate current and future
sites that would capture refugia under severe future conditions,
climate cost indices.
given the severity and pace of climate change in the arctic and
the fact that threshold effects such as permafrost melt would A penalty factor is stipulated for each biodiversity element to
dramatically transform its ecosystems. ensure that the selection algorithm stops short of meeting an
In the New Guinea archipelago, climate changes are projected to be individual representational goal rather than incorporate grid cells
much less severe than in the arctic (IPCC 2007), although tropical that would add greatly to the portfolio's total costs. I set the penalty
biota often exhibit very little tolerance of climate variability. To factor equal to the cost of the grid cell with the highest cost.
develop a single set of mid-range values for projected climate The number of possible combinations of planning units into
change, I used the ensemble mean projected conditions for the site sets is astronomical. Rather than explore them all, the
year 2100 under two scenarios and two models. I included both simulated annealing process finds a near-optimal solution
a moderately severe scenario (A1FI) and a moderately optimistic by comparing the results from a large number of individual
scenario (B1) and utilized one highly responsive model from the computer runs, each started with a random set of grid cells.
Hadley Centre (HadCM3) and one model that is less responsive Adding more runs increases the chance of finding significantly
to greenhouse gas forcing (Department of Energy / National better solutions, but it also increases computer run time. I used
Center for Atmospheric Research’s Parallel Climate Model one hundred runs in each experiment reported here.
(PCM) (Washington et al. 2000).
During each run, a large number of iterations are performed.
Impacts of climate change must be added to the current cost In each iteration, individual hexagonal cells are added to and
substituted for those in the initial random set. A change is
Table 1. Statistics for portfolios of sites maintained only if it contributes to the representational goal
Arctic New Guinea and/or decreases the solution’s aggregate cost. To ensure that
Alaska Archipelago each grid cell has a high probability of being considered at
T, total area of planning
least once in the process of building each solution set, each
308,150 911,625
units (km2) run had at least 100 times as many iterations as grid cells. The
C, average area of arctic Alaska experiment, with 6163 grid cells, had 1,000,000
planning units in 100 site- iterations per run. Each run for the New Guinea archipelago,
118,341 273,764
selection runs based on 38.40 30.03 with 36,450 grid cells, had 3,650,000 iterations.
current costs only
(km2, %)
I used an irreplaceability analysis (Stewart and Possingham
Area of planning units
selected non-randomly,
2005) to identify all planning units selected more frequently in
105,500 301,200 each set of 100 test runs than they would be by chance alone,
with a confidence level of 34.24 33.04
95%, based on current subject to a 95% confidence interval, according to the formula,
costs only (see Eq. 2)
(km2, %)
p = C / T, (1)
C, average area of
planning units in 100 site
selection runs based on 102,866 270,125 where p is the probability of a planning unit being randomly
33.38 29.63 selected, C is the average number of planning units selected in
current costs plus future
climate-driven costs (km2, 100 runs, and T is the total number of planning units. The 95%
%)
confidence limit was determined according to the formula,
Area of planning units
selected non-randomly,
with a confidence level of 108,850 306,075 p + 1.96 * (σ / √T), where σ = 100 * p * (1 - p). (2)
95%, based on current 35.32 33.57
costs plus future climate- The results of the experiments with and without weighting
driven costs (see Eq. 2)
(km2, %) for climate change can be compared with one another by
Po/Pc, ratio of overlaps
the kappa statistic (Cohen 1960), a rigorous index of the
39,504 81,120
occurring to overlaps 12.82 8.90 degree of overlap between outcomes where test samples
expected by random
selection are small and methods are not identical. The kappa statistic
quantifies the extent to which overlaps in the distribution of
ᴋ, kappa statistic
(see Eq. 3) 1.78 2.72 planning units in two sets are due to chance, according to
the formula,

8 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
 κ = (Po – Pc) / (1 – Pc) (3)
where Po is the ratio of shared planning units to total
planning units and Pc is product of the random probabilities
of selection p from each of the two separate sets of solutions.
In completely non-overlapping sets, κ = -1; in randomly
overlapping sets, κ = 0; and, in perfectly matching sets,
κ = 1.
Results
In both arctic Alaska and the tropical New Guinea
archipelago, the overlap between near-optimal sets with
and without deliberately targeting refugia was greater than
random, but small considering that current costs influence
both portfolios (Table 1.). Overlaps in the tropical New
Guinea archipelago portfolios were 24% compared with
the 9% overlap expected between two random selections,
κ = 0.17. Overlaps in arctic Alaska were 23% versus an
expected value from two random selections of 13%, κ =
0.11. Put another way, three quarters of the land in near-
optimal networks that anticipate future conditions is
different from that in portfolios designed solely to meet
current conditions (Figures 1 & 2).
Current reserve networks do not provide comprehensive
protection for all the landscapes within arctic Alaska or
the New Guinea archipelago under either current or future
environmental conditions. However, those large reserves
that presently capture an entire environmental gradient from
seacoast to mountain peaks (e.g. Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge in Alaska and Lorenz National Park in Papuan
provinces of Indonesia) are irreplaceable components
of near-optimal networks derived both with and without
projected future environmental conditions. Large, but less
comprehensive current reserves (e.g., Gates of the Arctic
National Park in Alaska, Mamberamo-Foja Nature Reserve
in Papuan provinces of Indonesia) also include substantial
projected refugia.
Discussion
As opportunities to add protected areas arise, reassessments
of conservation priorities can consider changes in current
costs, the implications of refinements in climate models and
scenarios and observations of biotic responses to climate
change. At each opportunity, the methods reported here will
help identify sites whose protection will maintain the greatest
number of options for eventually completing a representative
network and protecting its ecosystems.
By the time the effectiveness of projected refugia is known
with certainty, it will likely be too late to reverse many
critical land use allocations or undo the consequences of land
resource management decisions already made. Managing
non-climate threats to biodiversity in projected refugia within
existing reserves is an important risk-reduction strategy. If
a site found in most near-optimal solutions is allocated to
land uses incompatible with biodiversity conservation, then
completing a representative network may eventually become
B I O D I V E R S I
impossible (Meir et al. 2004). The opportunity costs of actions
that foreclose the usefulness of individual sites as refugia will
accumulate and may eventually undermine the value of two
centuries of conservation efforts around the world.
Each climate change scenario has underlying assumptions
about global population growth, inter-regional equity and
technological change. In addition to their indirect impacts
delivered through the mechanism of climate change, these
factors have direct consequences for conservation outcomes
not considered above. These non-climate components of
global change will make the management of refugia in
protected areas more difficult. While protecting projected
refugia offers ecosystems a better chance of adapting to
rapid climate change, it does not guarantee their viability.
Noah’s Parks are necessary, but not sufficient guarantors that
evolutionary plays will continue with many actors.
Acknowledgments
A large number of talented people made substantial
contributions to the studies reported here. B. Baker, A.
Couvillion and S. Feirer compiled environmental, target
and cost data for the arctic Alaska test case. T. Jorgenson
and M. Heiner mapped the arctic Alaskan ecosystems. J.
McAlpine, P. Stanton and S. Sheppard provided valuable
insights on the land systems of New Guinea. W. Hargrove,
F. Hoffman and C. Zganjar calculated the projected
magnitude of environmental change under various climate
change model and scenario combinations. S. Sheppard and
C. Zganjar computed the site sets. C. Zganjar prepared the
figures. D. Shoutis and M. Watts provided critical help
with their SPOT and MARXAN software. H. Possingham
suggested appropriate spatial statistics. S. Solie, P. Kareiva,
G. Midgely, M. Cabeza, E. Main and an anonymous
reviewer provided extensive editorial comments. The New
Guinea archipelago test case was undertaken by the Joint
Initiative on Climate Change and Conservation of The
Nature Conservancy and Conservation International. It was
funded in part by the Melanesia Program of Conservation
International.
References
Araújo, M. B. and C. Rahbek. 2006. How does climate change affect
biodiversity? Science 313:1396-1397.
Bellamy, J. A. and J. R. McAlpine. 1995. Papua New Guinea: inventory
of natural resources, population distribution and land use handbook. 2nd
edition. Papua New Guinea Resource Information System (PNGRIS)
Publication 6. Australian Agency for International Development
(AusAID): Canberra, Australia.
Christian, C. S., and G. A. Stewart. 1953. General report on survey
of Katherine-Darwin Region, 1946. Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australian Land Research
Service 1. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation (CSIRO): Canberra, Australia
Cohen, J., 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational
and Psychological Measurement. 20:37-46
Couvillion, A., and C. Smith. 2004. Cost suitability index. Alaska-Yukon
Arctic Ecoregional Assessment Update 9. The Nature Conservancy:
Anchorage, Alaska.
Crutzen, P .J. and E. F. Stoermer. The ‘Anthropocene’. International
Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) Newsletter 41:17–18.
Dynesius, M. L. and R. Jansson. 2000. Evolutionary consequences of
changes in species’geographical distributions driven by Milankovitch
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 9
 climate oscillations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
97.16: 9115–9120
Elton, C. S. 1958. The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants.
Methuen: London, United Kingdom.
Gitay, H., A. Suarez, R. T. Watson, and D. J. Dokken. 2002. Climate
Change and Biodiversity. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) Technical Report 5. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
United Kingdom.
Fischer, D. T., and R L. Church. 2005. The SITES reserve selection
system: A critical review. Environmental Modeling and Assessment
10.3:215-228.
Fjeldsa, J., D. Ehrlich, E. Lambin, and E. Prins, E. 1997. Are
biodiversity ‘hotspots’ correlated with current ecoclimatic stability? A
pilot study using the NOAA-AVHRR remote sensing data. Biodiversity
and Conservation 6:401–422.
Gordon, C., C. Cooper, C.A. Senior, H. Banks, J.M. Gregory, T.C.
Johns, J.F.B. Mitchell, and R.A. Wood. 2000. The simulation of SST,
sea ice extents and ocean heat transports in a version of the Hadley
Centre Coupled Model without flux adjustments. Climate Dynamics
16:147-168.
Hannah, L., G. Midgley, S. Andelman, M. Araújo, G. Hughes, E.
Martinez-Meyer, R. Pearson, and P. Williams. 2007. Protected area
needs in a changing climate. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
5.3: 131–138.
Hewitt, G. M. 2001. Speciation, hybrid zones and phylogeography — or
seeing genes in space and time. Molecular Ecology 10.3:537–549.
Hunter, M. L., G. L. Jacobson, Jr., and T. Webb, III. 1988. Paleoecology
and the coarse-filter approach to maintaining biological diversity.
Conservation Biology 2:375-385.
Hutchinson, G. E. 1965. The Ecological Theater and the Evolutionary
Play. Yale University Press: New Haven Connecticut.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2007. Climate
Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution
of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani,
J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden and C. E. Hanson (Eds). Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Jansson, R. 2003. Global patterns in endemism explained by past
climatic change. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B
270:583-590
Joint Research Centre. 2003. Global Land Cover Mapping for the
Year 2000. Institute for Environment and Sustainability: Ispra, Italy.
Available from http://www-gem.jrc.it/glc2000/ProductGLC2000.htm
(accessed 14 May 2008)
Jorgenson, M.T. and M. G. Heiner. 2004. Ecosystems of northern
Alaska (map). United States Permafrost Association: Fairbanks,
Alaska. Available from http://www.uspermafrost.org/reports/NoAK_
Ecosystems_tabloid_med.pdf (accessed 14 May 2008).
Lemieux, C. J., and D. J. Scott. 2005. Climate change, biodiversity
conservation and protected area planning in Canada. The Canadian
Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien 49.4:384-397.
Leslie, H., M. Ruckelshaus, I. R. Ball, S. Andelman, and H. P.
Possingham. 2003. Using siting algorithms in the design of marine
reserve networks. Ecological Applications 13.1:S185–S198.
Mackey, B.G., J. E. M. Watson, G. Hope and S. Gilmore. 2008. Climate
change, biodiversity conservation, and the role of protected areas: an
Australian perspective. Biodiversity [this volume].
Meir, E., S. Andelman, and H.P. Possingham. 2004. Does conservation
planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world? Ecology Letters
7:615-622.
Nakicenovic, N. and R. Swart (Eds.). 2000. Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Neely, B., P. Comer, C. Moritz, M. Lammert, R. Rondeau, C. Pague,
G. Bell, H. Copeland, J. Humke, S. Spackman, T. Schulz, D.
Theobald and L. Valutis. 2001. Southern Rocky Mountains Ecoregion:
an ecoregional assessment and conservation blueprint. The Nature
Conservancy: Boulder, Colorado.
Nowacki, G., P. Spencer, M. Fleming, T. Brock, and M. T. Jorgenson.
2001. Ecoregions of Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
02-297 (map). Alaska Geographic Science Office: Anchorage, Alaska.
Available from http://agdc.usgs.gov/data/usgs/erosafo/ecoreg/ecoreg.
html (accessed 14 May 2008).
Olsen, D. M., and E. Dinerstein. 1998. The global 200: a representation
approach to conserving the Earth's most biologically valuable ecoregions.
Conservation Biology 12:502-515.
Possingham, H. P., I. Ball, and S. Andelman. 2000. Mathematical
methods for identifying representative reserve networks. Pages 291-
10 T R O P I C A L C
305 in S. Ferson and M. Burgman (Eds.). Quantitative Methods for
Conservation Biology. Springer-Verlag: New York, New York.
Pressey, R.L., M.E. Watts. and T.W. Barrett. 2004. Is maximizing
protection the same as minimizing loss? Efficiency and retention as
alternative measures of the effectiveness of proposed reserves. Ecology
Letters 7:1035-1046.
Pyke, C. R., S. J. Andelman, and G. Midgley. 2005. Identifying priority
areas for bioclimatic representation under climate change: a case study
for Proteaceae in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Biological
Conservation 125:1-9.
RePPProT (Regional Physical Planning Project for Transmigration),
1990. Land Resources of Indonesia: A National Overview. Land
Resources Department, Natural Resources Institute, Overseas
Development Administration, Foreign and Commonwealth Office:
London, United Kingdom and Direktorat Bina Program, Direktorat
Jenderal, Penyiapan Pemukiman, Departemen Transmigrasi: Jakarta,
Indonesia.
Sala, O.E., F.S. Chapin III, J.J. Armesto, E. Berlow, J. Bloomfield,
R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald, L.F. Huenneke, R.B. Jackson, A.
Kinzig, R. Leemans, D.M. Lodge, H.A. Mooney, M. Oesterheld,
N.L. Poff, M.T. Sykes, B.H. Walker, M. Walker, and D.H. Wall.
2000. Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100. Science
287:1770-1774.
Sanderson, E.W., M. Jaiteh, M.A. Levy, K.H. Redford, A.V. Wannebo,
and G. Woolmer. 2002. The human footprint and the last of the wild.
Bioscience 52.10:891-904.
Saxon, E., B. Baker, W. Hargrove, F. Hoffman, and C. Zganjar. 2005.
Mapping environments at risk under different climate change scenarios.
Ecology Letters 8:53–60. Available on line from http://www.blackwell-
synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00694.x (Accessed 15
May 2008).
Scheffer, M., S. R. Carpenter, J. A. Foley, C. Folke, and B. H. Walker.
2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591-596.
Sekercioglu, C. H., S. H. Schneider, J. P. Fay, and S. R. Loarie.
2007. Climate change, elevational range shifts and bird extinctions.
Conservation Biology 22.1:140-150.
Sheppard, S., and E. C. Saxon. 2008. Land Systems of the New Guinea
Archipelago. ESRI Map Book 23 (in press). Redlands, California: ESRI
Press. Available on line from http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/
NG_LandSystems (in prep).
Shoutis, D. 2003. SPOT: The Spatial Portfolio Optimization Tool, User
Guide. The Nature Conservancy: Ballston, Virginia.
Soulé, M. E., and B. A. Wilcox. 1980. Conservation biology: its scope
and its challenge. Pages 1-8 in M. E. Soulé and B. A. Wilcox (Eds.)
Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective. Sinauer
Associates: Sunderland Massachusetts.
Stewart, R. R., and H. P. Possingham. 2005. Efficiency, costs and trade-
offs in marine reserve system design. Environmental Modeling and
Assessment 10.3:203-213.
Tear, T.H., P. Kareiva, P.L. Angermeier, P. Comer, B. Czech, R. Kautz,
L. Landon, D. Mehlman, K. Merphy, M. Ruckelshaus, J.M. Scott
and G. Wilhere. 2005. How much is enough? The recurrent problem
of setting measurable objectives in conservation. BioScience 55.10:835-
849.
Thomas, C.D., A. Cameron, R.E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L.J. Beaumont,
Y.C. Collingham, B.F.N. Erasmus, M. Ferreira de Siqueira, A.
Grainger, L. Hannah, L. Hughes, B. Huntley, A.S. van Jaarsveld,
G.F. Midgley, L. Miles, M.A. Ortega-Huerta, A.T. Peterson, O.L.
Phillips and S.E. Williams. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change.
Nature 427:145-148.
Turner, W. R., and D. S. Wilcove. 2006. Adaptive decision rules for the
acquisition of nature reserves. Conservation Biology 20.2:527-537.
Wasdell, D., 2006. Beyond the Tipping Point: Positive Feedback and the
Acceleration of Climate Change. Available at http://www.meridian.org.
uk/_PDFs/BeyondTippingPoint.pdf (accessed 14 May 2008).
Washington, W.M., J.W. Weatherly, G.A. Meehl, A.J. Semtner Jr.,
T.W. Bettge, A.P. Craig, W.G. Strand Jr., J.M. Arblaster, V.B.
Wayland, R. James, Y. Zhang. 2000. Parallel climate model (PCM)
control and transient simulations. Climate Dynamics 16.10-11:755-
774.
Williams, J.W., S.T. Stephen, T. Jackson, and J.E. Kutzbach. 2007.
Projected distributions of novel and disappearing climates by 2100 AD.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104.14:5738–5742.
Williams, P., L. Hannah, S. Andelman, G. Midgley, M. Araújo,
G. Hughes, L. Manne, E. Martinez-Meyer, R. Pearson. 2005.
Planning for climate change: identifying minimum-dispersal
corridors for Cape Proteaceae. Conservation Biology 19.4:1063-
1074.
O N S E R V A N C Y
 Climate change, biodiversity conservation, and the role
of protected areas: An Australian perspective
Brendan G. Mackey1, James E.M. Watson2*, Geoffrey Hope3 and Sandy Gilmore1,4
Abstract. The reality of human-forced rapid climate change presents an unprecedented challenge to the conservation of Authors’ Addresses:
biodiversity in Australia. In this paper we consider the role of Australia’s current protected area network in mitigating biodiversity 1
The Fenner School of
loss across the continent. We do this by first examining the evolutionary history of Australia’s extant fauna and flora and, Environment & Society
specifically, the reasons why species have persisted through major changes in climate during repeated glacial cycles, and The Australian National
through the massive climatic changes that occurred during the Miocene and Pliocene climate change events. We then review University
the current major threats to Australian native species, including inappropriate fire regimes, feral mammalian predators and Canberra, ACT 0200
herbivores, invasive plants, and habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation by land use activities (especially commercial Email: brendan.
logging, water impoundment and diversion, agricultural expansion, and the intensification of pastoralism). We argue that these mackey@anu.edu.au
current threats are interfering with the natural responses to climate change that native species have relied upon in the past, 2*
The Ecology Centre
thereby undermining their resilience in the face of current, human-forced climate change. School of Integrative
Biology
We predict that the current approach to conservation planning based on accumulating small amounts of protected lands across University of
the continent, using a set of arbitrary conservation ‘targets’, will not be effective in mitigating the impacts of human-forced climate Queensland
change on Australia’s biodiversity. We argue that an Australia-wide conservation strategy is needed that incorporates a larger St Lucia, QLD, 4072
adaptation agenda- one that recognizes the importance of protecting and restoring those natural processes and responses that *Corresponding author
have enabled species to persist through past environmental change. The following key elements are a crucial component of an Email: james.
effective conservation plan: identifying and protecting important climate refugia (both ecological and evolutionary); conserving jameswatson@gmail.
the large-scale migration and connectivity corridors that operate at continent scales (including regional networks of habitat com
patches and habitat ‘stepping stones’); maintaining viable populations of all extant species to maximize intra-species genetic 3
Department of
diversity and thus options for local adaptation; reducing all current threatening processes at the landscape scale across the Archaeology and
continent; and protecting and restoring key large scale ecological processes (especially hydro-ecology and ecological fire Natural History
regimes). Finally, underpinning climatic adaptation responses must be a thorough understanding of the special role Australia’s College of Asia Pacific
extensive intact landscapes will play in the future protection of Australia’s native biodiversity. The Australian National
University
Canberra, ACT 0200
Introduction Australia’s biodiversity crisis is also evident by the number 4
Current Address: Bush
Australia’s landscapes have been evolving for around 60 of native species that have seriously declined in range and Heritage Australia
PO Box 329, Flinders
million years in isolation from other continents. In this abundance since 1788 (the time of European settlement). Lane, Melbourne, VIC
time the continent has drifted from higher latitudes towards Approximately 13% of all Australia’s known vertebrate species 8009
the equator as the global oceans have gradually cooled, are now listed in Australia’s official national Environment
resulting in extensive new sub-tropical environments (Nix Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, as either
1982). Unlike much of the higher latitudes in the Northern ‘threatened’ or ‘vulnerable’ (Table 1) and between 1995 and
Hemisphere, Australia was only marginally affected by 2005, the number of terrestrial bird and mammals assessed
glacial events over the last few million years. A combination as extinct, endangered or vulnerable on this list rose by 41%
of relative climatic ‘stability’ in parts (Hopper and Gioia (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006). These are numbers
2004) and geographic isolation, during which new habitats for concern but a recent regional analysis paints an even direr
have appeared, have contributed to the continent’s high picture. When the conservation status of all Australian terrestrial
level of species (and generic) richness and endemism. vertebrate species listed in one of the IUCN threat classes
Australia is one of only 17 mega-diverse countries that under (i) state legislation and (ii) non-legislative authoritative
collectively support about 70% of the world’s species of assessments (such as national action plans) is tabulated, nearly
plant and animals (Mittermeier et al. 1997). While it was 45% of all Australia’s vertebrate species are in some form of
settled by humans about 45000 years ago (Kershaw et al. serious decline in one or more parts of their range (Table 1).
2006) it had not experienced agriculture and pastoralism
This statistic points to the need for regional declines and
until the arrival and rapid spread of European settlement
extirpations to be acknowledged. Currently, these “secret
over the past 200 years.
extinctions” often fall below the conservation assessment
Because the major threatening processes to biodiversity are radar and are not formally recognized at national and
the result of recent change in land use, Australia is one of the international levels of reporting. The potential erosion of
few developed countries that remains a leading contributor intra-species genetic diversity from regional losses is of
to the current human-induced global mass extinction event conservation concern because, among other things, it may
(Wilson 1993; Lovejoy and Hannah 2005). Close to half of reduce the ability of Australia’s fauna and flora to respond
all mammal extinctions in the last two hundred years have to future challenges. Given current land cover status and
occurred in Australia (Johnson 2006), while three bird environmental trends (Australian State of the Environment
species, four frog species and 61 species of flowering plant 2006), Australia’s biodiversity will be affected in the coming
have become extinct since European settlement (Australian decades by the same suite of global drivers operating on
Bureau of Statistics 2006). other continents including changes in land use, climate,

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 11
 Animal class Freshwater fish
The total number of species in each vertebrate 230
animal class for continental Australia
Species listed under the Commonwealth Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; 27
bracketed values indicate % of listed species in each (12%)
animal class
Number of species given any IUCN threat class (except
‘least concern’) accumulated over all jurisdictions plus 97
non-legislative assessments; bracketed values indicate (42%)
% of listed species in each animal class.
Table 1. A comparison of the difference in the conservation status of Australian terrestrial vertebrate animal species between (a) the Australian Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act and (b) state and territory legislation plus authoritative national assessments. Adapted from Mackey (2006) and unpublished material. In compiling
these statistics consideration was given to vagrants, species that naturally have only marginal distributions in a given jurisdiction, and the arbitrariness of some jurisdictional
boundaries.
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, invasive species,
and ecosystem dynamics (Sala et al. 2000). Note however,
that while most trends suggest increasing stress for species
and ecosystems, positive responses to climate change are also
possible and apparent (Nemani et al. 2003).
In order to generate discussion and debate among scientists
and policy makers, we here provide an assessment of what
is needed to promote the survival of Australia’s biodiversity
given the prospects for the onset of human-forced, rapid
climate change. We first review the interactions between
natural climate change and biodiversity in Australia and
outline reasons why species have persisted through past
climate change events. We then provide an account of the
current threatening processes that are leading to wide-
scale biodiversity decline in Australia and the breakdown
of important natural processes. We then review the current
national reserve system to consider its adequacy in conserving
Australia’s biodiversity into the foreseeable future. In our
conclusion we identify a number of strategies we believe
are crucial for the development of an effective continental
conservation plan. Our focus is primarily on species rather than
ecosystems as the units of biodiversity. Some attention is given
here to genetic diversity issues, but clearly, further research is
needed on the ecosystem dimension of biodiversity-climate
change interactions, including the influence of species on the
functioning of ecosystem processes (Hooper et al. 2005).
The relationship between climate change
and Australia’s extant biodiversity
Analysis of fossil records and molecular data has shown that
Australia’s native plant and animal species are of ancient
lineage (leaving aside relatively recent immigrants such as
dingoes, Canis lupus dingo). The last great vertebrate animal
speciation event appears to have been during the Pliocene/
early Pleistocene drying and cooling event some 4-1 million
years ago, as exemplified by the explosion of song birds and
appearance and radiation of rodents on the Australian continent
(Norman et al. 2007). Most extant marsupial mammal species
are derived from groups that appear in the mid- to late- Miocene,
some 20 million years ago (Archer and Hand 2006; Osborne and
Christidis 2002). Australia’s plant species are of similar or more
ancient lineage, with the origin of many being traced back to
when Australia was part of the super-continent Gondwanaland,
12 T R O P I C A
Frogs Reptiles Birds Mammals
214 633 675 378
26 45 70 99
(12%) (7%) (10%) (26%)
92 262 269 214
(43%) (41%) (41%) (57%)
over 100 million years ago (Barker and Greenslade 1982;
White 1998). Exceptions are the alpine and desert floras
which both speciated and recruited in the Pliocene with the
advent of cold or extensive dry climates (Barlow 1986; Hill
1994; Hope 1994). These changes have also involved gradual
species loss and range restrictions, particularly for rainforest
taxa. For example, the Brassospora group of Nothofagus and
gymnosperms such as Dacridium and Dacrycarpus and their
associated faunas disappeared from southern Victoria in the
mid-Pliocene and their loss is attributed to increased summer
radiation load (Sniderman et al. 2007).
Evidence from marine sediments and polar ice cores has revealed
the severe climatic oscillations that have occurred over the last
500,000 years (Petit et al. 1999). About every 120,000 years,
average planetary conditions have oscillated between long glacial
periods with low levels of atmospheric CO2, low temperatures
and dryness to shorter inter-glacial ‘highs’ that experienced high
levels of atmospheric CO2, higher temperatures and wetness.
These glacial-interglacial oscillations revealed in the marine and
ice core records are considered to be driven by long term periodic
‘wobbles’ in the Earth’s orbit which changes the balance of solar
energy reaching each hemisphere (Muller et al. 1997). The
transition from glacial to interglacial is speeded up by positive
feedbacks from ice melt and oceanic discharge of greenhouse
gases (Hansen et al. 2007). The ice core record also shows that
the transition out of glacial troughs may have been extremely
rapid; arguably involving as much as 5°C warming in 20 years
(Taylor 1999). There has been a trend to greater variation in
moisture within the past 400,000 years with associated changes
in fire behaviour (Lynch et al. 2007). Although in Australia
warm interglacials were formerly associated with higher summer
rainfall as evidenced by full interior lakes, the process seems to
have failed in our present interglacial, the Holocene (Magee et al.
2005). Miller et al. (2005) suggest human impact as a possible
cause coupled to the extinction of the largest mammals and birds
around 45000 years ago. Brook et al. (2007) and Burney and
Flannery (2005) note a severe and continuing effect of humans
on the biota after arrival. In any case, while the causal factors
involved in these specific events may remain debated, we can
reliably conclude that all native species extant when Europeans
first occupied the continent 220 years ago had persisted through
all these long term trends and oscillations in temperature, CO2
concentration and wetness.
L C O N S E R V A N C Y
A number of adaptive responses or strategies can be proposed
to explain how species persisted on the continent through past
climate and other environmental changes.
1. micro-evolution. Evolution is heritable genetic change
within populations. It is commonly understood to refer
to only long term directional genetic change leading
to speciation, that is, the evolution of new species.
However, also evident is the evolution of new, fitter traits
that represent local adaptations to changing conditions,
including climate change, that are not necessarily
directional and lead to speciation. There is increasing
evidence that micro-evolution is far more rapid, common
and widespread than previously recognized (Thompson
2005) and is now occurring in response to rapid climate
change (Bradshaw and Holzapfel 2006).
2. phenotypic plasticity. The phenotype is the physical
expression in an organism of its genome. Phenotypic
plasticity refers to the range of genetically controlled
permissible responses with respect to a species’
morphological, physiological, behavioural or life history
strategies and traits (Nussey et al. 2005). An example of
phenotypic plasticity is the ability of a plant to change
its growth form from a ‘tree’ to a ‘shrub’ in response to
reduced water availability. Phenotypic plasticity differs
from micro-evolution in that the adaptive response is
found within the existing genome and is not the result of
new, heritable genetic change in the population.
3. dispersal. The dispersal of juveniles and seasonal
migrations are common ecological activities. However,
dispersal – in the sense of long distance movement – to
locations that meet a species physiological niche and
habitat resource requirements is a common adaptive life
history strategy in many species, especially birds (Gilmore
et al. 2007). In Australia, this is a necessary adaptive
response for many species given the great variability in
year-to-year rainfall and associated fluctuations in plant
growth and the supply of food resources (Berry et al.
2007).
4. refugia and range reductions. Species can also persist
by range reduction to micro-habitats that retain the
necessary niche and habitat requirements; so called
refugia (Mayr 2001; Lovejoy and Hannah 2004).
Locations can function as refugia as a result of species
responses to long term or short term environmental
change. In Australia, refugia have been documented in
the arid zone (long-term climate change related refugia;
Morton et al. 1995), in temperate forests (fire refugia with
respect to fire intervals of decades to centuries; Mackey
et al. 2002), and monsoonal Northern Australia (annual
seasonal refugia; Woinarski et al. 2007). The recognition
of locations or networks of locations as refugia also
invokes issues of spatial scale. For example, Soderquist
and MacNally (2000) identified the role of mesic gullies
embedded within dominantly drier forested landscapes.
Remnant patches in a fragmented landscape can also
B I O D I V E R S I
function as refugia from which organisms can disperse
to re-populate habitat as it regenerates following broad
scale ecological restoration efforts.
5. wide fundamental niche. It is also possible for species
to persist simply because they have evolved very wide
fundamental (that is, physiological) niche requirements
(sensu Hutchinson 1957) and are able to survive, compete
and reproduce under a broad range of climatic conditions.
For example, many of Australia’s forest and woodland
birds occur in temperate, subtropical and tropical climatic
zones, with the common determinate being vegetation-
related habitat resources rather than fundamental niche
response to temperate regimes (Keast 1985).
Given the above, can we now assume that Australia’s flora and
fauna are pre-conditioned to survive global warming impacts
and that most species will be able to persist through the human-
forced rapid climate change we are now experiencing?
The current rapid climate change event is different from previous
ones in a number of ways. First, it is human-forced as the
result of a strengthening of the ‘greenhouse effect’ caused by
humans burning fossil fuel for energy and deforestation (IPCC
2007) with additional effects from particulates and increased
albedo (planetary albedo is the proportion of solar radiation
reflected back into space). It is projected to impose climates not
previously experienced in the Pliocene-Pleistocene and could
result in entirely new mixes of environmental regimes. These
new conditions may impose selective forces for which a species
does not possess a suitable genetically programmed adaptive
response. Under this scenario, even taxa with a wide fundamental
niche may be stressed (adaptation mechanism 4 described
above). Nor can there be any guarantee that micro-evolution
will generate a solution (adaptation mechanism 1). Second, and
probably more importantly, the current rapid climate change
coincides with over two centuries of habitat loss and degradation
since European settlement of the Australian continent. Intensive
land use for forestry, mining and the development of human
settlements, along with the extensive use of 54% of the continent
for pastoralism has changed vegetation cover dramatically. Since
European settlement around 50% of all woodland and forest
ecosystems have been cleared and in some productive bioregions
95% of all natural vegetation has been modified or destroyed
(NLWRA 2001; Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006).
The combined grazing pressure of domestic and feral livestock
has also dramatically changed understorey plant species
composition and phenology, increased run-off and proneness
to erosion and resulted in the trampling of the tunnels and nests
of ground-dwelling animals, throughout Australia (McKenzie
and Burbidge 2002; Woinarski et al. 2007). Australia’s
fire regimes have been profoundly changed by loss of pre-
European indigenous fire regimes with serious repercussions
for fire-sensitive species and ecosystems (Bowman 2000).
The invasions of weeds and feral animals over the past two
centuries have also heavily contributed to the decline and
extinction of many Australian flora and fauna. Two exotic
generalist predators (Cat, Felix domesticus, and Fox, Vulpes
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 13
vulpes) have made major contributions to all mammal and bird
extinctions that occurred in Australia since European settlement
(Dickman 1996; Johnson 2006) while the introduction of the
Cane Toad (Bufo marinus) has decimated the amphibian and
reptile populations in the north of Australia (Woinarski et al.
2007). There are now more than 2500 non-native plant species
established in Australia (Australian State of the Environment
2006), with the total proportion of feral plants to all plant
diversity being 12% (Olson et al. 2006). The presence of many
of these species is changing the ecological functioning of some
native ecosystems (Woinarski et al. 2007).
It is beyond this paper to review all of the threatening processes
that are currently causing species decline in Australia but it is
important to note that there are a myriad of threats leading
to both global extinctions and regional losses of Australia’s
biodiversity. As noted above, regional extirpations represent
the loss of local populations of a species and the associated
erosion of infra-species genetic diversity is of evolutionary
significance (Mayr 2001; Mackey 2006). Regional losses
reduce prospects for many Australian species to persist in the
face of rapid climate change through either micro-evolution
or phenotypic plasticity (adaption mechanisms 1 and 2
described above; also see Mansergh and Cheal 2007). Human-
forced climate change has altered species distributions on
regional scales in Australia and will continure to do so. It is
predicted that by the middle of the next century range shifts
due to climate change will commonly span tens of kilometers
(Kapelle et al. 1999). Paleoecological evidence and future
modeling efforts suggests that these range migrations will
be individualistic, involving the movement of individual
species, not communities (Hannah et al. 2007). However,
evidence for the significance of co-evolutionary processes
is also continuing to emerge (Thompson 2005), and will
undoubtedly lead to further surprises being revealed about
the complex nature of species responses to climate change,
such as the extent to which successful migrations require the
accompaniment of co-evolved mutualists or even antagonists.
In any case, habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation across
Australia means species will find it more difficult to find
suitable locations to which they can migrate or take refuge
(adaptation mechanisms 3 and 4; Soulé 1990).
In summary, human activities are not only causing climate
to rapidly change but over the past two centuries they have
interfered with natural processes that would otherwise result in
ecosystem processes optimally (sensu Odum 1995) re-organising
to changing climatic and associated environmental conditions.
Prior to the Anthropocene, ecosystem processes were intact and
there was always a dynamic continuum of ecosystem types in
existence for species to explore. Thus, while in the past, the full
complement of natural adaptation mechanisms were potentially
available to a species, this is no longer the case.
will australia’s national reserve system
buffer extinctions from rapid climate change ?
The National Reserve System (NRS) is Australia’s premier
investment in nature conservation. The system includes public
14 T R O P I C A L C
reserves, protected areas on private lands and Indigenous
Protected Areas. Currently 11.6% of terrestrial Australia is
in IUCN category I-VI reserves (Sattler and Taylor 2008).
This is comparable with recommended international targets
but the reserve system has not been designed to maximize or
even optimize the conservation of biodiversity. Instead, many
reserves in Australia have been established for their aesthetic or
recreational value and established from land residual to the needs
of agriculture, forestry and settlement (Lindenmayer 2007).
In recent years there have been laudable efforts by the Federal
and State governments to systematically improve Australia’s
protected area system, in particular, by promulgating a more
systematic approach to the identification and establishment of new
reserves for the NRS based on the criteria of comprehensiveness,
adequacy and representativeness (Commonwealth of Australia
(CAR) 1996; 2005). However, there are a number of reasons
why this plan (even if fully implemented) will be unable to
“extinction-proof” Australia’s biodiversity in the face of extant
and imminent threatening processes.
First, only 67% of ecosystems that occur in Australia are
represented in the NRS and many of these are small and
poorly connected to other natural areas (NLWRA 2002).
Second, the thresholds identified for meeting the CAR criteria
reflect an arbitrarily minimalist view on the social, economic
and political feasibility of achieving effective, albeit bold,
conservation goals. For example, ecosystem surrogates
(generally defined in terms of broad classes of native
vegetation) are considered ‘adequately’ conserved when 15%
of their pre-European settlement extent are in a protected
area. Yet there is no evidence in the scientific literature for the
efficacy of this threshold (Commonwealth of Australia 2005),
and an ecologically effective target could well be beyond
double this figure (Tear et al. 2005).
Third, the planning does not take into account the needs
of dispersive species whose long term survival depends on
protecting the ongoing productivity of ‘source’ resource areas
in multiple and varying locations (Woinarski et al. 1992;
Soulé et al. 2004; Gilmore et al. 2007). The habitat resources
needed by these species are not necessarily found in or do not
persist reliably within the same landscape, and are distributed
across land tenures.
Fourth, the NRS does not take into account large-scale
ecological processes important for the conservation of
biodiversity, either because they constitute evolutionary
selective forces to which species are adapted (i.e. fire and
hydrological regimes), or because they sustain and replenish
the habitat on which animals depend (e.g. hydro-ecology)
(Soulé et al. 2004; Mackey et al. 2007).
We conclude that the National Reserve System is neither
large enough, nor will be large enough even if the NRS 15%
target is met, nor is it being designed to meet the challenges
to biodiversity conservation from climate change. Indeed, the
inadequacies of the NRS are evident even before considering the
O N S E R V A N C Y
potential impact of rapid climate change (Mackey 2007). Give
this, how can the effectiveness of NRS planning be improved in
the face of rapid climate change and other threats?
significantly expanding the current national
reserve system and assigning priority to
protecting large, intact landscapes
Systematic planning tools should used be used to identify new
reserves designed to meet specific conservation goals (Bruner
et al. 2001; Pressey and Cowling 2001). A primary goal needs
to be the maintenance of viable populations of all extant
species across natural ranges in order to maximize intra-species
genetic diversity and thus allow options for local adaptation
and phenotypic plasticity. This requires replicating habitats in
the reserve system so as to protect multiple source populations
across the environmental gradients occupied by the species.
Another important goal of an effective continental wide plan
for the reserve system will be the identification and protection
of refugia, including micro-habitats supporting relictual
species (Morton et al. 1995; Pressey et al. 2007). Past climate
change has resulted in some species experiencing dramatic
range reductions and these now only occur in networks of
scattered locations that retain suitable conditions at a micro-
scale. Refugia may prove critical in assisting certain species
to persist through future rapid climate change as they provide
a degree of additional resilience (sensu Holling 1996). In
Australia, refugia are often wetter locations and/or with diverse
topography (e.g. groundwater discharge points, run-on areas,
escarpments) that may well help buffer a drier future climate,
as has been projected for many parts of the continent (CSIRO
2007). While some of Australia’s protected areas contain
recognized refugia, many locations that function as refugia
are not under any form of protection (Mackey et al. 2002).
The prospect for rapid climate change accentuates the need
for including refugia in the goals of systematic conservation
planning for an expanded Australian NRS.
A revised set of conservation goals for an expanded NRS
must also reflect a scientific understanding of the special role
Australia’s extensive intact landscapes will play in the future
protection of Australia’s native biodiversity (Soulé et al. 2004,
Mackey et al. 2007). Large geographical regions of the Australian
continent retain a continuous cover of native vegetation and
therefore lack the massive habitat loss and fragmentation which
are the principle drivers of biodiversity loss in many parts of
the world (Fahrig 1997), and other regions within Australia
(Glanznig 1995). This high level of natural connectedness
improves the likelihood of survivorship of species by supporting
large populations and a range of microhabitats. The ecosystems
of extensive and intact lands will play a vital role in facilitating
natural adaptation responses by species to human-forced climate
change (Soulé and Terborgh 1999). In particular, mobile species
will have more habitat options as they disperse to find suitable
locations in response to rapidly changing climate.
Currently, large and intact landscapes are not recognized as a
high priority for new reserves in Australia (Commonwealth
B I O D I V E R S I
of Australia 2005) because conservation investments are
being directed to threatened species and ecosystems in land
that has been highly disrupted by past land use. We argue
the inverse, namely, that intact landscapes must become the
highest priority for a continental-wide conservation plan.
An example is the Kimberley region (in far north-west
Australia) which is one of the few bioregions in Australia
that retains its full complement of native mammal fauna
(Woinarski et al. 2007) yet is not considered a priority
under the NRS programme. Under the current approach,
the Kimberley region will only become a priority after
intensifying land use has caused significant habitat loss,
fragmentation and degradation and vertebrate species have
been severely reduced in numbers and range such that
they are officially recognized as threatened. It is more cost
effective to protect intact landscapes compared to restoring
heavily degraded land, and there are more, higher quality
options for reserves.
ensuring ecological connectivity
is maintained across the continent
A further additional goal for an effective continental-wide
conservation plan is maintaining and restoring large scale
ecological phenomena, flows, and critical processes that sustain
habitat resources, constitute selective forces to which species
are adapted, or otherwise influence community composition.
These ‘connectivity’ processes include: maintaining ecological
functional populations of highly interactive species in the
landscape (i.e. trophic regulators), understanding the habitat
requirements of dispersive fauna; and maintaining natural fire
and hydro-ecological regimes (Soulé et al. 2004; Mackey et
al. 2007). Hydro-ecology warrants further comment, given
that the distribution and availability of water is the principle Figure1.
environmental constraint, and thus determinant, of biology An example of one
and ecology in Australia. Water availability determines of Australia's intact
landscapes: the Great
rates of photosynthesis and biomass production, the ‘fruits’ Western Woodlands
of which propagate through the entire food chain (Berry et of southern Western
Australia. Image
al. 2007). The vegetation cover in turn influences water courtesy of Charles
infiltration, soil water storage, and catchment water budgets. Roche.
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 15
Throughout Australia, but particularly in the rangelands and
the seasonally dry tropical north, ground water resources are
biologically critical, enabling deeply rooted perennial plants
to flourish, and sustaining springs, water holes and streams
during dry periods (Woinarski et al. 2007). Both surface water
catchment boundaries and groundwater recharge/discharge
zones transcend protected areas boundaries and, like other key
landscape processes, demand a whole-of-landscape approach
to their maintenance and for the persistence of the flora and
fauna that they sustain over broad areas. Diversion of water
resources for human use away from environmental flows
changes natural hydro-ecological processes and has profound
impacts on associated species and ecosystems (Kingsford
2000).
Maintaining the special habitat requirements of dispersive
species will be particularly important in the face of rapid
climate change. In addition to migrants, eruptives and
nomads, many species are also facultative when conditions
demand they migrate to find suitable conditions (Gilmore
et al. 2007). As noted above, the habitat loss, fragmentation
and degradation now present in Australia presents significant
impediments and barriers to species that may need to
disperse and find new habitats or refugia (Bennett et al. 1992;
Mansergh and Cheal 2007). The current network of protected
areas is geographically unconnected, limiting its capacity to
function in this way for many species that are less mobile than
dispersive birds. Most protected areas, even large ones, remain
islands in “oceans” of land cover and land use unsympathetic
to the movement of biodiversity.
Therefore, an important component of an overall conservation
strategy is the protection and/or restoration of large-scale
migration corridors that operate at regional and continent scales.
Where habitat connectivity has already been largely disrupted
through broad scale land clearing (such as in the temperate
woodlands of south eastern Australia), it is imperative that
large scale rehabilitation of land cover conditions and land
use between existing nature reserves becomes an integral
part of the conservation framework. These intervening lands
need to become more conducive to biological permeability
and associated ecological and evolutionary processes. In this
context, restoration will include development of regional
networks of habitat patches, habitat corridors and habitat
‘stepping stones’. If migration corridors are not protected and/
or restored across broad zones in the fragmented landscapes
of Australia, the only other management option available for
many species will be translocation with associated costs, risks
and potential problems.
reducing threats in the landscape across australia
Natural adaptive responses by species will be facilitated by
reducing in the landscape the current threats to biodiversity.
Necessary conservation actions include: halting and reversing land
clearing as this will help prevent further loss and fragmentation
of core habitats and migration corridors (Soulé et al. 2004);
developing policies that lead to removal of unsustainable
extractive land use activities (primarily livestock grazing and
16 T R O P I C A L C
logging) (Woinarski et al. 2007; Lindenmayer 2007) thereby
preventing further habitat degradation; halting further large scale
impoundment and diversion of water (Mackey et al. 2007);
controlling invasive weeds and animal pests (Woinarski et al.
2007); and implementing ecologically appropriate fire regimes
(Soulé et al. 2004). Furthermore, rapid climate change may make
many existing threats worse (e.g. exotic species invasions may
be enhanced if native ecosystems come under stress) and plans
must be in place to take this into account.
Some of the current threatening processes will be eliminated
by creating additional protected areas, promoting biological
permeability, and restoring ecological processes, in the
surrounding landscape through more appropriate land
management. However, some threats (like pests and
weeds) must be managed both on and off reserves. Threat
management has to be coordinated across land management
agencies and land tenures at appropriate scales. A new, co-
operative and integrated approach to planning is needed, in
addition to current initiatives, so that the threatening processes
that affect multiple bioregions are dealt with systematically
and as effectively as possible (Worboys 2007). The concept
of systematic conservation planning must therefore be
expanded to include the problem of optimizing conservation
management across land tenures in a coordinated way with
any expansion of the reserve system.
Extending systematic conservation planning to private,
Indigenous and freehold land will require innovative
mechanisms that offer incentives to land owners and
stewards, such as voluntary covenants and negotiated
special leasehold conditions. Furthermore, the concept of
economically valuing ecosystem services (such as regulation
of water quality and supply) is now well recognized
(Costanza et al. 1997). The likelihood that carbon will soon
have a market price may well transform the economics of
land management in Australia and provide new opportunities
to fund the protection and restoration of native vegetation
habitat (Mackey et al. 2008a).
ConclusionS
Ultimately, it is the natural adaptation responses evident
during past global climate change events that will enable
species to persist in the face of the current human-forced,
rapid climate change. However, in Australia, this potential
adaptation capacity is being degraded and interrupted by the
same forces driving the current biodiversity extinction crisis.
The prevailing national strategy for biodiversity conservation
hinges on (a) accumulating relatively small areas of additional
protected lands across the continent, using a set of arbitrary
conservation ‘targets’ and (b) the development of ‘recovery
plans’ for a few priority threatened species. While necessary,
we doubt these steps will be sufficient to effectively mitigate
the impacts of human-forced climate change on Australia’s
biodiversity.
We argue that the foundation of an effective climate
adaptation conservation strategy is the development of
O N S E R V A N C Y
a whole-of-continent conservation plan. In such a plan,
the protected area network will remain the cornerstone
and central element. A greatly expanded protected area
network is needed to ensure, among other things, all
landscape ecosystems types are represented (see discussion
in Mackey et al. 2008b), intra-species genetic diversity
is maintained, refugia are protected, and populations
of functionally significant species are of a size to be
ecologically effective. Then, the challenge is to promote
conservation management across all land tenures in ways
that better buffer and link reserves, and protect and restore
important habitat that resides in the broader landscape
matrix. Systematic conservation planning must move
beyond prioritizing additions to the national reserve
system by adding to its tool kit mechanisms for off-reserve
conservation management such as payments for ecosystems
services, covenants on private land and changes to leasehold
conditions. A national conservation plan must incorporate
a “big picture” agenda that is holistic and recognizes
the importance of protecting and restoring those natural
processes and responses that have made species resilient
to climate change in the past. In this context, the future use
and management of currently intact lands warrants special
consideration. Such investments will enhance the role
protected areas play in helping biodiversity persist into an
environmentally uncertain future.
Acknowledgments
We thank Richard Fuller, Alexander Watson and Vanessa
Culliford for providing detailed comments on earlier drafts
of the manuscript, and the helpful advice of an anonymous
referee. Thanks also to Sandy Berry, Richard Hobbs, Rob
Lesslie, Helene Marsh, Henry Nix, Hugh Possingham, Harry
Recher, Michael Soulé, Regina Souter, Jann Williams and
John Woinarski, for discussions over recent years through
the WildCountry Science Council that helped inform this
paper. This paper was completed while BM was a visiting
international scholar at the Centre for Humans and Nature.
Some of the research drawn upon for this paper was funded
by ARC Linkage grant LP0455163.
References
Archer, M. and S.J. Hand. 2006. The Australian marsupial radiation.
In Evolution and Biogeography of Australasian Vertebrates, (eds. J.
Merrick, M., Archer, G. M., Hickey, and M. S. Y. Lee). Auscipub Pty
Ltd, Sydney. Pp 575-646
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2006. Measures of Australia’s progress.
Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Australian State of the Environment. 2006. Australian State of the
Environment 2006. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Barlow, B.A. 1986. Flora and Fauna of Alpine Australia: Ages and
Origins. CSIRO, Melbourne.
Barker, W.R. and P.J.M. Greenslade. 1982. Evolution of the Flora and
Fauna of Arid Australia. Peacock Publications, Adelaide.
Bennett, S., R. Brereton, and I. Mansergh. 1992. Enhanced
greenhouse and the wildlife of south eastern Australia. Technical
Report No. 127, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research,
Melbourne.
Berry, S.L., B. Mackey, and T. Brown. 2007. Potential applications
of remotely sensed vegetation greenness to habitat analysis and the
conservation of dispersive fauna. Pacific Conservation Biology 13: 120-
127.
Bowman, D.M.J.S. 2000. Australian rainforests: Islands of green in the
B I O D I V E R S I
land of fire. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bradshaw, W.E. and C.M. Holzapfel. 2006. Evolutionary Response to
Rapid Climate Change. Science 312: 1477-1478.
Brook, B.W., D.M.J.S. Bowman, D.A. Burney, T.F. Flannery, M.K.
Gagan, R.Gillespie, C.N. Johnson, P.Kershaw, J.W. Magee, P.S.
Martin, G.H. Miller, B. Peiser and R.G. Roberts. 2007. Would
the Australian megafauna have become extinct if humans had never
colonised the continent? Comments on “A review of the evidence for a
human role in the extinction of Australian megafauna and an alternative
explanation” by S. Wroe and J. Field Quaternary Science Reviews 26:
560–564
Bruner, A.G., R.E. Gullison, R.E. Rice and G.A. daFonseca. 2001.
Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291:
125-28
Burney, D.A. and T.F. Flannery. 2005. Fifty millennia of catastrophic
extinctions after human contact. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20:
395–401.
Commonwealth of Australia. 1996. The National Strategy for the
Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity, Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra.
Commonwealth of Australia. 2005. Direction for the National Reserve
System- A partnership Approach, National Resource Management
Ministerial Council, Canberra.
CSIRO. 2007. Australia’s Future Climate. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric
Research; http://www.dar.csiro.au/impacts/future.html.
Costanza, R., R. de Groot, R. dArge, S. Farber, N. Grasso, B. Hannon,
K. Limburg, S. Naeem, J. O'Neill, R.G. Paruelo, P. Sutton, and M.
Van Den Belt. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and
natural capital. Nature 387: 255.
Dickman, C.R. 1996. Impact of exotic generalist predators on the native
fauna of Australia. Wildlife Biology 2: 185-195.
Fahrig, L. 1997. Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on
population extinction. Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 603-610.
Gilmore S., Mackey B. and S. Berry. 2007. The extent of dispersive
movements in Australian vertebrate animals, possible causes, and some
implications for conservation. Pacific Conservation Biology 13: 93-
103.
Glanznig, A. 1995. Native Vegetation Clearance, Habitat Loss and
Biodiversity Decline - an overview of recent native vegetation
clearance in Australia and its implications for biodiversity. Biodiversity
Series, Paper No. 6, Biodiversity Unit. Australian Department of
Environment.
Hannah L, G. Midgley, S. Andelman, M. Araujo, G. Hughes, E.
Martinez-Meyer, R. Pearson, and P. Williams. 2007. Protected area
needs in a changing climate. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 5:
131-138.
Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell, D.W. Lea, and M. Siddall.
2007. Climate change and trace gases. Philosophic Transactions of the
Royal Society A 365: 1925–1954.
Hill, R. 1994. History of Australian Vegetation. Cretaceous to Recent.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Holling, C.S. 1996. Surprise for science, resilience for ecosystems, and
incentives for people. Ecological Applications 6: 733-735.
Hooper, D.U., F.S. Chapin, J.J. Ewel, A. Hector, P. Inchausti, S.
Lavorel, J.H. Lawton, D.M. Lodge, M. Loreau, S. Naeem, B.
Schmid, H. La Seta¨, A.J. Symstad, J. Vandermeer, and D.A.
Wardle. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: A
consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs, 75, pp.
3–35.
Hope, G.S. 1994. Quaternary Vegetation. Pp 368-389 in R. Hill (Ed.),
History of Australian Vegetation. Cretaceous to Recent. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Hopper, S. and P. Gioia. 2004. The Southwest Australian Floristic Region:
evolution and conservation of a global hot spot of biodiversity. Annual
Review of Evolution and Systematics 35: 623-50.
Hutchinson, G. E. 1957. Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor
Symposium. Quantitative Biology 22: 415-427.
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis Summary
for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Johnson, C. 2006. Australia’s Mammal Extinctions. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Kappelle, M., M.M.I. Van Vuuren, and P. Baas. 1999. Effects of climate
change on biodiversity: a review and identification of key research
issues. Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 1383-97.
Keast, A. 1985. Bird community structure in southern forests and northern
woodlands: a comparison. In A. Keast, H. F. R., H. Ford and D. Saunders
Birds of eucalypt forests and woodlands: ecology, conservation,
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 17
 management. Royal Australasian Ornithologist Union and Surrey Beatty
and Sons.
Kershaw, P., S. van der Kaars, P. Moss, B. Opdyke, F. Guichard, S.
Rule and C. Turney. 2006. Environmental change and the arrival of
people in the Australian region. Before Farming [online version] 2006/1
article 2.
Kingsford, R.T. 2000. Review: Ecological impacts of dams, water
diversions and river management on floodplain wetlands in Australia,
Austral Ecology 25: 109–127.
Lindenmayer, D.B. 2007. On borrowed time: Australia's environmental
crisis and what we must do about it. CSIRO Publishing, Camberwell.
Lovejoy, T.E. and L. Hannah. 2005. Climate Change and Biodiversity.
Yale University Press, New Haven.
Lynch, A.H., J. Beringer, P. Kershaw, A. Marshall, S. Mooney, N.
Tapper, C. Turney and S. van der Kaars. 2007. Using the paleorecord
to evaluate climate and fire interactions in Australia. Annual Review of
Earth and Planetary Sciences 35: 215–39.
Mackey, B.G. 2006. The state of biodiversity in Australia. In: Biodiversity
Summit 2006: Proceedings (Ed. M. Blakers) pp. 1- 4. The Green Institute
and Lawyers for Forests, Australia.
Mackey, B.G. 2007. Climate change, connectivity and biodiversity
conservation. In: Protected Areas: Buffering nature against climate
change. A symposium on building and managing the terrestrial protected
area system to best enable Australia's biodiversity to adapt to climate
change. WWF/IUCN/WCPA Canberra.
Mackey B.G., D.B. Lindenmayer, A.M. Gill, A.M. McCarthy and J.A.
Lindesay. 2002. Wildlife, fire and future climate: a forest ecosystem
analysis. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
Mackey B.G., M.E. Soulé, H.A. Nix, H.F. Recher, R.G. Lesslie, J.E.
Williams, J.C. Woinarski, R.J. Hobbs and H.P. Possingham. 2007.
Towards a scientific framework for the WildCountry project. In: Key
Topics and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology (Eds. Jianguo Wu & R.
J. Hobbs) pp. 92- 208. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mackey, B., H. Keith, S. Berry, and D.B. Lndenmayer. 2008a. Green
Carbon: the role of natural forests in carbon storage. Part 1. A green
carbon account of the eucalypt forests of south east Australia. ANU
ePress, Canberra.
Mackey, B., S. Berry and T. Brown. 2008b. Reconciling approaches
to biogeographic regionalization: a systematic and generic framework
examined with a case study of the Australian continent. Journal of
Biogeography 35: 213–229.
Magee, J.W., G.H. Miller, N.A. Spooner, and D. Questiaux. 2005.
Continuous 150 k.y. monsoon record from Lake Eyre, Australia:
Insolation-forcing implications and unexpected Holocene failure.
Geology 32: 885-888.
Mansergh, I and D. Cheal. 2007. Protected area planning and
management for eastern Australian temperate forests and woodland
ecosystems under climate change – a landscape approach. In: Protected
Areas: Buffering nature against climate change. A symposium on
building and managing the terrestrial protected area system to best
enable Australia's biodiversity to adapt to climate change. WWF/
IUCN/WCPA Canberra.
Mayr E. 2001. What evolution is. Basic Books, Washington.
McKenzie, N.L. and A.A. Burbidge. 2002. Australian Terrestrial
Biodiversity Assessment. Chapter 6. National Land and Water Resources
Audit, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Miller, G. H. Fogel, M. L. Magee, J. W. Gagan, M. K. Clarke, S. J. and
Johnson, B.J. 2005. Ecosystem collapse in Pleistocene Australia and a
human role in megafaunal extinction. Science 309 (5732): 287–290.
Mittermeier, R. A., P. R. Gil, and C. G. Mittermeier. 1997. Megadiversity:
Earth’s biologically wealthiest nations. Conservation International,
Washington D.C.
Morton S.R., J. Short, J. and R.D. Barker. 1995. Refugia for biological
diversity in arid and semi-arid Australia, Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 4,
Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Commonwealth
of Australia, Canberra.
Muller R.A., J. Gordon and J. MacDonald. 1997. Glacial Cycles and
Astronomical Forcing. Science 277: 215-218.
National Land and Water Resources Audit (NLWRA). 2001. Australian
Native Vegetation Assessment 2001. Commonwealth of Australia,
Canberra.
National Land and Water Resources Audit (NLWRA). 2002. Australian
Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment. Commonwealth of Australia,
Canberra.
Nemani, R.P., C.D. Keeling, H. Hashimoto, W.M. Jolly, S.C. Piper,
C.J. Tucker, R.B. Myneni, and S.W. Running. 2003. Climate-Driven
Increases in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 1982 to
1999. Science 300: 1560-1563.
18 T R O P I C A L C
Nix, H. A. 1982. Environmental determinants of biogeography and
evolution in Terra Australis. In Evolution of the Flora and Fauna of Arid
Australia (Eds. W.R. Barker and P.J. Greenslade). Peacock Publications,
Adelaide, pp 47-66.
Norman J.A., F.E. Rheindt, D.L. Rowe and L. Christidis. 2007.
Speciation dynamics in the Australo-Papuan Meliphaga honeyeaters.
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 42: 80-91.
Nussey, D.H., E. Postma, P. Gienapp, and M.E. Visser. 2005. Selection
on heritable phenotypic plasticity in a wild bird population. Science 310:
304-306.
Odum, H.T. 1995. Self-Organization and Maximum Empower. In:
Maximum Power: The Ideas and Applications of H.T.Odum (Ed. C.A.S.
Hall). Colorado University Press, Colorado.
Olsen, P., A. Silcocks, and M. Weston. 2006. The state of Australia’s
birds 2006- invasive species. Supplement to Wingspan, 16.
Osborne M.J. and L. Christidis. 2002. Molecular relationships of the
cuscuses, brushtail and scaly-tailed possums. Australian Journal of
Zoology 50: 135-149.
Petit J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile,
M. Benders, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque, M. Delmotte,
V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pépin, C.
Ritz, E. Saltzman and M. Stievenard. 1999. Climate and atmospheric
history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica.
Nature 399: 429-436.
Pressey, R.L., Cabeza, M., Watts, M.E., Cowling, R.M. and K.A.
Wilson. 2007. Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution 22: 583–592.
Pressey, R.L. and R.M. Cowling. 2001. Reserve selection algorithms and
the real world. Conservation Biology 15: 275-277.
Sala, O.E., F.S. Chapin III, J.J. Armesto, E. Berlow, J. Bloomfield,
R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald, L.F. Huenneke, R.B. Jackson, A.
Kinzig, R. Leemans, D.M. Lodge, H.A. Mooney, M. Oesterheld,
N.L. Poff, M.T. Sykes, B.H. Walker, M. Walker, and D.H. Wall.
2000. Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100. Science
287:1770-1774.
Sattler, P.S. and M.F.J. Taylor. 2008. Building Nature’s Safety Net 2008.
Progress on the Directions for the National Reserve System. WWF-
Australia Report, WWF-Australia, Sydney.
Sniderman, J. M. K., B. Pillans, P. B. O'Sullivan, and A.P. Kershaw.
2007. Climate and vegetation in southeastern Australia respond to
Southern Hemisphere insolation forcing in the late Pliocene-early
Pleistocene Geology 35(1):41-44
Soderquist, T.R. and R. Mac Nally. 2000. The Conservation Value of
Mesic Gullies in Dry Forest Landscapes: Mammal Populations in the
Box-Ironbark Ecosystem of Southern Australia. Biological Conservation
93: 281-291.
Soulé, M.E., B.G. Mackey, H.F. Recher, J.E. Williams, J.C.Z.
Woinarski, D. Driscol, W.C. Dennison and M.E. Jones. 2004. The
Role of Connectivity in Australian Conservation. Pacific Conservation
Biology 10: 266-279.
Soulé, M. E. and J. Terborgh. 1999. Continental conservation: scientific
foundations of regional reserve networks. Island Press, Washington
D.C.
Soulé, M. E. 1990. The onslaught of alien species and other challenges in
the coming decades. Conservation Biology 4: 233-240.
Taylor, K. 1999. Rapid Climate Change. American Scientist 87: 320.
Tear, T.H., P. Kareiva, P.L. Angermeier, P. Comer, B. Czech, R. Kautz,
L. Landon, D. Mehlan, K. Murphy, M. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Scott,
and G. Wilhere. 2005. How much is enough? The recurrent problem of
setting measurable objectives in conservation. BioScience 55: 835-849.
Thompson, J.N. 2005. The Geographic Mosaic of Coevolution. The
University of Chicago Press., Chicago and London.
White M.E. 1998. The Greening of Gondwana. 3rd Ed. Rosenberg
Publishing.
Wilson, E.O. 1993. The Diversity of Life. W.W. Norton and Company,
New York.
Woinarski J., P. Whitehead, D. Bowman and J. Russell-Smith. 1992.
Conservation of mobile species in a variable environment: the problem
of reserve design in the Northern Territory, Australia. Global Ecology
and Biogeography Letters 2: 1-10.
Woinarski, J., B. Mackey, H. Nix, and B.J. Traill. 2007. The Nature
of Northern Australia: natural values, ecological processes and future
prospects. ANU Press, Canberra.
Worboys, G. 2007. Managing Australia’s protected areas for a climate
shifted spectrum of threats. In: Protected Areas: Buffering nature against
climate change. A symposium on building and managing the terrestrial
protected area system to best enable Australia's biodiversity to adapt to
climate change. WWF/IUCN/WCPA Canberra.
O N S E R V A N C Y
 The 4C factor: Community conservation and climate change
Ashish Kothari
Abstract. ICCAs are sites of biodiversity significance that are being voluntarily conserved by Indigenous Peoples and local Author’s Address:
communities. They include those indigenous territories, catchment forests, coastal and marine ecosystems, heronries, individual Ashish Kothari
wildlife populations, and many others. The key features include a high degree of community control and decision-making, and the Member, Kalpavriksh
actual or potential to achieve conservation of key ecosystem/biodiversity elements. Co-Chair, IUCN Theme
While the role of ICCAs in conserving various aspects of biodiversity and ecosystems is being increasingly documented and
on Indigenous/Local
recognized, a seriously underestimated and understudied value of ICCAs is their role in mitigating and adopting to climate change.
Communities,
Equity, and
The article will explore these aspects, focusing on them in a conceptual sense, bringing in the somewhat scarce empirical Protected Areas
information that exists on these aspects, and putting out questions for further in-depth assessment. It will also briefly discuss Pune, India
the question of whether ICCAs can and should be brought into the discussions on carbon trading, especially into the debate
on “avoided deforestation”. This will include the views of Indigenous Peoples and local communities on this issue.
ashishkothari@vsnl.com
Website: www.
kalpavriksh.org
The ICCA Phenomenon While the role of ICCAs in conserving various aspects of
In the last few years, the widespread phenomenon of Indigenous biodiversity and ecosystems is being increasingly documented
and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs) has been recognized and recognized, a seriously underestimated and understudied
in international forums, especially the International Union for value of ICCAs is their role in mitigating and adapting to
the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Convention on climate change. This article explores the ways in which ICCAs
Biological Diversity (CBD). The latter’s Programme of Work are playing or could play such roles. It should be mentioned
on Protected Areas explicitly mandates countries to recognize at the outset that, because documentation of ICCAs is poor
ICCAs, and integrate them into national protected area systems. across most parts of the world, it is not possible to give many
ICCAs are sites of biodiversity significance that are being empirical illustrations for the various points made below.
voluntarily conserved by Indigenous Peoples and local Additionally, of course, the uncertain nature of the extent and
communities. The term ‘conservation’ here includes a range impacts of climate change, make any conclusive statements
of actions from strict protection to sustainable or rational use, on the role of ICCAs somewhat hazardous. This article is
as defined in the IUCN World Conservation Strategy of 1980. therefore a mix of hypothesis and evidence, and the author
They include many indigenous and mobile people’s territories, welcomes critical comments.
catchment forests, coastal and marine fishery reserves, In general, however, it would be safe to state that in so far as
heronries and waterfowl wintering populations, populations ICCAs have been crucial in community adaptation to unusual
of individual species, turtle nesting sites, sacred sites, and climatic events (droughts, floods, hurricanes, diseases, etc),
others. The key features include a high degree of community they are playing or will play a vital role when climate change
control and decision-making, and the actual or potential to increases the occurrence and intensity of such events. But in
achieve conservation of key ecosystem/biodiversity elements. order for this to take place in as effective and widespread a
(For more details and a number of case studies from around way as possible, ICCAs need considerable support in various
the world, see www.tilcepa.org, and www.ICCAForum.org). forms. I will deal briefly with this in the concluding section.
It is important to make a distinction between ICCAs and I should also state at the outset that the primary motivation
community managed areas. The former are a subset of the latter. and raison d’être of ICCAs is not climate change mitigation
Not all indigenous territories, or mobile peoples’ landscapes, or adaptation. Any attempt to recognize and support ICCAs for
or sites managed by other local communities, would meet this role should be in addition to their many existing values,
the crucial criteria that distinguish ICCAs: a combination of both to the communities and species/ecosystems, and to wider
community control in decision-making, livelihood and cultural society. This is crucial for the climate change ‘bandwagon’
links with the area, and the achievement of biodiversity or could seriously disrupt or distort local initiatives, especially
wildlife conservation. As an example, many community-based in the context of the dominant paradigms of mitigation
forestry sites are managed for commercial timber production, and adaptation that are emerging. Secondly, like any other
or many community-managed off-shore or freshwater sites are mitigation and adaptation strategy, this should not be used to
intensively harvested for fisheries. Conservation (in the sense of take attention away from the most important way of dealing
long-term maintenance of ecosystem integrity, survival of species with climate change….stopping the sources of excessive
of conservation importance, and so on), is neither an objective nor carbon emissions and other climate damaging phenomenon, so
an outcome of such practices. On the other hand, many resource that at least further and more damaging impacts can be avoided.
utilization areas are managed in ways that sustain or enhance ICCAs should not become an excuse for those most responsible
their conservation values, and these would be considered ICCAs. for climate-changing activities, to avoid having to take the
A subset of ICCAs could also be considered protected areas, as action most urgently needed to drastically cut emissions. This
defined by either the IUCN or the CBD. article must be read with both these caveats in mind.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 19
The Values of ICCAs
Before we look at the specific role of ICCAs in climate
change, it would be useful to list their ecological, social, and
economic values (Kothari 2006). They perform one or more
of the following functions:
• help conserve critical ecosystems and threatened
species;
• maintain essential ecosystem functions, including
hydrological stability;
• sustain the cultural and economic survival of tens of
millions of people;
• provide corridors and linkages for animal and gene
movement, including often between two or more
officially protected areas;
• synergise links between agricultural biodiversity
and wildlife, providing larger land/waterscape level
integration;
• offer crucial lessons for community-based or
participatory governance, useful even in government
managed protected areas;
• offer lessons in integrating customary and statutory
laws, and formal and non-formal institutions, for more
effective conservation;
• build on and validate sophisticated ecological knowledge
systems, elements of which have wider positive use;
• aid in community resistance to destructive development,
saving territories and habitats from mining, dams,
logging, tourism, over-fishing and so on;
• help communities in empowering themselves, especially
to reclaim or secure territories, tenure, and rights to, or
control over, resources;
• aid communities to better define their territories, e.g.
through mapping;
• help create a greater sense of community identity and
cohesiveness, and also a renewed vitality and sense of
pride in local cultures, including amongst the youth
who are otherwise alienated from these by modern
influences;
• create conditions for other developmental inputs to flow
into the community;
• lead to greater equity within a community, and between
the community and outside agencies.
• conserve biodiversity at relatively low financial
cost (though often high labour inputs), with costs of
management often covered as part of normal livelihood
or cultural activities; and
• provide examples of relatively simple administration
and decision-making structures, avoiding complex
bureaucracies.
ICCAs and climate change
Given the above functions and values, one can hypothesize
that ICCAs are, or could be, playing the following key roles
in relation to climate change (though these would not be the
primary motivation for the existence of the ICCAs, most of
which would pre-date the climate change crisis):
20 T R O P I C A L C
• Forested ICCAs are helping in “avoided deforestation”, where
communities are acting to prevent forces of forest cutting and
degradation, and thereby helping in carbon sequestration and
also avoiding the release of carbon into the atmosphere.
• ICCAs are acting as corridors, linkages, and stepping
stones in the larger landscape, including between formal
protected areas or other important biodiversity sites,
which could provide critical spaces for movement and
crucial refuges when climate change causes vegetation
and faunal shifts.
• ICCAs, particularly those encompassing mixed
landscapes of ‘wilderness’ and human land use, are
sustaining agricultural and cultural diversity, both of
which could be crucial to community strategies for
adapting to climate change.
• ICCAs are acting as important buffers or defences against
‘natural’ disasters such as drought, flood, cyclones, and
others, all of which are expected to increase in intensity
and in some areas in frequency, due to climate change.
• ICCAs would be amongst the last refuges for livelihood
options in situations of extreme stress caused by climate
change.
• The knowledge and wisdom embodied in ICCAs
are providing observations and information on the
dimensions and impacts of climate change, which will
be invaluable in mitigation and adaptation strategies for
humanity as a whole.
Each of these is explored in greater detail below.
iccas as avoided deforestation
Given that deforestation is believed to contribute up to 20%
of global carbon emissions, one key strategy to avoid further
emissions is to protect forests. ICCAs are likely to already be
contributing substantially to this. A considerable part of the earth’s
forests are under some form of ownership, custodianship, or active
management by Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
Some scholars estimate that about 420 million ha of forests
(11% of the world’s total) are under community ownership or
administration (Molnar et al. 2004), and that this could double
in the near future due to increasing policies of decentralisation
(White et al. 2004). By no means would all this comprise ICCAs
in the sense of achieving conservation; however, about 370
million ha is reported to be under some level of conservation
management by communities (Molnar et al. 2004).
Mapping and studies in the Amazon basin suggest that over
a fifth of its forests are under indigenous protected areas and
territories, and that these areas are most effective against
illegal logging and other external threats (Oviedo 2006). Such
areas are likely to be qualitatively superior to many areas
outside the reserves, thereby possibly contributing more to
carbon capture. Several thousand patches of forest in India,
ranging from tiny one hectare plots to some spread over tens of
thousands of hectares, are conserved by communities (Pathak
et al. 2007). Community managed forests are also found in
many industrial countries, such as in the New England region
of USA (Brown et al. 2006) or examples like the Regole
O N S E R V A N C Y
d’Ampezzo of the Ampezzo Valley in Italy, which has a
recorded history of about 1,000 years (http://www.regole.it/).
Decentralisation of forest management is seen to be a global
trend, which means that more and more forest could come
under community management (Molnar et al. 2004). If
managed to achieve ecosystem integrity and conservation, the
role of forested ICCAs in avoiding deforestation could also
substantially increase.
iccas as corridors and landscape linkages
Climate change is already believed to be causing ‘movements’ in
ecosystems and species, a phenomenon that will likely increase
over the next few decades. As this happens, the inadequacy of
the conventional protected area approach, creating islands of
protection within a landscape of increasing degradation, will be
badly exposed. Current boundaries of protection will no longer be
relevant, as flora and fauna move along with climate, hydrological,
and other changes. But will there be suitable ecosystems to move
into? Increasingly therefore conservationists are focusing on the
landscape (or seascape). It is here that ICCAs may play a crucial
role, for many of them already provide the crucial corridors or
linkages that ecosystems and species can use.
An ambitious programme to link the Kosciuszko and Namadgi
National Parks in Australia uses precisely this potential; it
brings together community groups, NGOs, government and
private agencies to reconnect isolated woodlands and grasslands
and the coastal forests of the country’s southern coast (http://
www.k2c.org.au/). This is an area where over the last 200
years considerable fragmentation of vegetation has taken
place, impacting many native species. As a consequence the
agricultural and ecological functions of the landscape are under
severe stress, effecting productivity. This will only increase
with climate change, hence the need to revive ecosystems and
re-establish connectivity across the landscape. An approach
combining various governance regimes, including ICCAs,
appears to provide hope of reversing the degradation, and
greater security against climate change impacts.
In India, the Foundation for Ecological Security has shown that
two isolated government protected areas, Nanda Devi National
Park and Askot Sanctuary, are actually linked through large van
panchayats, forests that are managed by communities (FES
2003). If the entire landscape is seen as one, but with diverse
forms of governance of various parts, and management regimes
are appropriately adjusted, it provides the potential to provide
space for moving ecosystems and species.
There are many other such examples, which are not presented
here for lack of space. More importantly, there are probably
very many more such examples that are not documented or
known other than to the relevant communities themselves…
and often even communities may not realize that their ICCAs
are performing this function.
iccas as strongholds of agricultural and cultural biodiversity
It is well recognized now that diversity provides resilience to
not only ‘natural’ ecosystems but also to human-made ones.
B I O D I V E R S I
An agricultural landscape with a diversity of crops, livestock,
and management practices, such as found in many ICCAs, is
more likely to withstand anomalous situations such as climatic
flux, than those that have been homogenized. As climate
change impacts agriculture and other land uses, systems with
greater diversity could become crucial for communities to
adapt. Crop varieties and livestock breeds that can withstand
drought, floods, pest attacks, or other drastic changes, would
be vital components of adaptability. Simultaneously, the
knowledge base of diverse cultures, especially those that have
evolved over generations and are also able to absorb modern
inputs, could be crucial factors in adaptation.
The Parque de la Papa (Potato Park) in Peru, an area managed
by a collective of 6 farming communities, uses its ‘biocultural’
heritage (a combination of biological and cultural diversity) to
respond to climate change. This is part of the region where the
potato originated, and has been diversified into an incredible
number of varieties oriented to various social, cultural, economic,
and other uses. The initiative has managed to sustain and revive
several hundred varieties (eg. The International Centre for
Potato in Lima, was assisted in repatriating many of the varities
it had collected from communities in the past; see http://www.
parquedelapapa.org/). Several thousand years of experience in
responding to climatic phenomenon, altitudinal and horizontal
variation, conflict, and other forces, has given the community the
ability to respond to externally driven fluctuations and changes.
It is actively using this experience, and the knowledge of crop
diversity, to adapt to observed and felt climate change related
impacts. This includes vertical movement of varieties, adapting
to changes in growing conditions at various heights. But what
is crucial is that there continues to be an active institutional
mechanism for managing the landscape in ways that enhance
conservation and sustainable use of natural resources, and
the resilience that this provides (Pers. Comm. with Quechua
representatives at the Park, 27.6.2008).
iccas as buffers and defences against disasters
Many ICCAs harbour ecosystems that provide crucial buffering
against ‘natural’ disasters such as cyclones, earthquakes,
floods and droughts. Well-managed coastal ecosystems such as
littoral forests, coral reefs and mangroves, have been repeatedly
shown as reducing the impacts of cyclonic waves and winds.
In northern Vietnam since 1994, local communities with help
from the Red Cross have planted and protected about 12,000
hectares of mangrove forests; these areas faced considerably
less damage during the Wukong typhoon that devastated other
areas in 2000 (IFRC quoted in Roe et al. 2007). In India,
the impact of the devastating tsunami was considerably less
where coastal vegetation and mangroves were intact. Learning
from this, some institutions and NGOs are encouraging
community led revival and protection of such ecosystems in
the Sundarbans and the eastern coast (Swahilya 2007; Roy
2008). Across south-east Asia and the Asia-Pacific, hundreds
of community managed fishery reserves are protecting vital
marine ecosystems that could provide shields against disasters
(Govan et al. 2006; Ferrari 2006; Lavides 2006).
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 21
iccas as last refuges for livelihood security
Many ICCAs contain ecosystems and resources that have been
specifically maintained for times of crisis, and not otherwise
used. For instance, in Ethiopia the Borana pastoral community
maintained the wetter lands as forests or pastures to be used
only as a last resort for grazing in times of severe drought (Bassi
2002). Scarce water sources in the arid region of western Asia
and northern Africa, were also often similarly guarded for times
of drought, e.g. in the widespread practice of himas (www.
developmentcrossing.com/forum/topic/show?id=1018705%3
ATopic%3A3599). Such practices are likely to be invaluable
in community adaptation to the uncertain impacts of climate
change, and also for biodiversity conservation. For instance, the
Society for Protection of Nature in Lebanon is actively promoting
the community-based revival of the hima system at two sites
that are crucial for threatened bird species as well as traditional
livelihoods (www.birdlife.org/news/news/2005/10/spnl.html) .
iccas as repositories of knowledge and wisdom
The maintenance of ICCAs is based on sophisticated knowledge,
and deep-rooted wisdom. This is already helping to provide vital
information on the dimensions and impacts of climate change.
For instance, for over a decade the Inuvialuit of Canada have been
reporting significant changes such as thinning of sea ice, delays in
the autumn freeze, alterations in sea ice distribution, and changes
in seal behaviour. A collaborative project between Indigenous
Peoples of the Arctic (through the Arctic Council, an inter-
governmental forum that formally includes several indigenous
networks), and scientific institutions under the International
Arctic Science Committee, is combining indigenous and formal
western scientific studies and insights to better understand
climate change impacts (Anon 2004). A number of institutions
and Indigenous Peoples’ organizations (including the UNU-IAS,
ANDES, the Christiansen Fund, and IIED) are now proposing
a series of indigenous climate change assessments to feed into
the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
into national and international policies, and into the responses
of Indigenous Peoples themselves (Sam Johnston, pers. comm.
2008). Increasingly, communities in ICCAs will have a crucial
role in generating and providing knowledge of the full range of
climate change impacts, and how to deal with them.
Are climate financial mechanisms
and ICCAs compatible?
Given their crucial role, would ICCAs be eligible for receiving
benefits from the various financial mechanisms being considered
under climate change treaties and discussions? Equally important,
should they be considered; what do the indigenous people and
local communities themselves think about this?
There is no doubt that, under mechanisms like the proposed
Reduced Deforestation from Deforestation and Degradation
(REDD), or similar voluntary mechanisms, ICCAs would be
eligible. In some international discussions, the sums being
talked about under such mechanisms are huge; one review
puts them at US$43 billion (Roe et al. 2007). According
to a World Bank estimate, forests could be worth anything
22 T R O P I C A L C
between US$1500 to US$10,000 per hectare, if the carbon
market were to pay for their full value.
One complication could be that in REDD, similar to the current
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) principle, initiatives
may be eligible only if they can show “additionality”,
i.e. that they are additional to what would have happened
without carbon financing. ICCAs are backed by a diversity
of community motivations, and are already in place, so at first
glance there would not seem to be any additionality. However,
many ICCAs also face serious threats, both from within
and without the community (including at times decreasing
tolerance to opportunity losses), and it can be argued that these
threats can be faced if some form of funding is available.
ICCAs could also be a much better alternative to large-
scale monocultural plantations that are being promoted for
carbon sequestration (including as biofuels, see http://www.
globalforestcoalition.org/paginas/view/66). These plantations
have significant negative impacts on biodiversity, people, and
ecosystem functions. Regeneration of forests/vegetation by
community regulation, and afforestation with local species
diversity as is often preferred by communities, would appear to
be considerably more desirable than monocultural plantations.
However, a more crucial question is, do Indigenous Peoples
and local communities themselves want carbon funding?
At various international forums, indigenous networks have
strongly opposed such mechanisms. They have good reason to.
So far, most carbon funding has gone through governments, or
even in the voluntary market, through corporations and formal
institutions. There is hardly any involvement of, much less
control by, the communities being impacted. CDM or other
mechanisms have not challenged the skewed and iniquitous
governance arrangements of ecosystem and landscape
management. There is a genuine fear that mechanisms like
REDD may in fact not only bypass communities, but in fact lead
to further marginalization, if governments impose conventional
forest and protected area management regimes in a bid to
demonstrate ‘effective’ conservation to earn carbon credits.
ICCAs would seem to be ideal candidates to benefit from any
financial mechanisms dealing with climate change. But these
mechanisms will need to be drastically different from the ones
that the global community has so far come up with, providing
central decision-making powers to the peoples and communities
that manage ICCAs, and being sensitive to the non-economic
aspects of ICCAs. There is not much evidence of such rethinking
on part of those dominating the discussions on carbon markets.
Most crucial is the recognition that ICCAs deserve recognition
regardless of their role in climate change, and that it could be
counterproductive to link them up only or even primarily to
mitigation and adaptation strategies. Their climate-related
benefits to humanity are incidental to many other values and
motivations. Additionally, financial mechanisms are not the most
important means of supporting ICCAs; much more crucial are
tenurial and territorial rights, safeguarding them from external
threats, and other such measures listed in the next section.
O N S E R V A N C Y
What needs to be done to enhance ICCA’s role?
A number of urgent steps are necessary if the role of ICCAs in
climate change mitigation and adaptation is to be strengthened
or actualized:
• Greater documentation and studies, carried out by or
with the relevant people/communities, on the various
roles that ICCAs may already be playing, or have the
potential to play, as described in Section 3 above. Some
ongoing regional reviews commissioned by TILCEPA are
beginning to cover this aspect (see www.ICCAForum.
org).
•. The opening up of western scientific work on climate
change, to indigenous knowledge and wisdom;
this requires a considerable paradigm shift towards
respecting various forms of knowledge, and building
bridges amongst them based on mutual respect (as is
happening at the Potato Park in Peru, see http://www.
parquedelapapa.org/).
• Recognition of ICCAs, as deemed appropriate by the
relevant people/communities, in law and policy, or
through social means; this would include their integration
into protected area systems with free and prior informed
consent, and backing through legal regimes that provide
Indigenous Peoples and local communities their territorial
and resource rights, and recognize their customary laws
(such as the Indigenous Protected Areas of Australia, see
Smith 2006). It is important to realize that this must be
done regardless of the recognition of the role of ICCAs
in climate change mitigation or adaptation. Also, it
needs to be borne in mind that top-down, inappropriate
recognition of ICCAs could at times lead to undermining
the community initiative, such as by imposing a uniform
management structure on a diversity of local institutional
and cultural realities, or by exposing communities to
unwanted external influences such as uncontrolled
tourism.
• Facilitating community capacity to adapt to climate
change impacts, including the revival of conservation
practices that may have eroded (e.g. the hima system in
western Asia and northern Africa, mentioned above),
providing information and training on new technologies
of mapping and forecasting that could complement their
own observations and knowledge (used, for instance,
by the NGO PAFID to help the Tagbanwa indigenous
people in claiming ancestral domain rights to protect
the islands they live in, such as the Coron ICCA in the
Philippines; see http://pafid.org.ph/), and appropriate
technological and institutional inputs that are acceptable
to the communities.
• Consideration of incentives for continued or new
community-based conservation of forests, with
mechanisms in which communities are central decision-
makers, and which directly benefit them in ways they find
acceptable. Such mechanisms need to be able to counter
the threats that ICCAs face from economic development
processes, lost economic opportunities and livelihood
B I O D I V E R S I
crises, privatization and take-over by corporate interests,
agrofuels and exotics, changing aspirations of new
generations, and other such forces.
• Moving national and local level planning into landscape
approaches, in which ICCAs are a crucial component;
such approaches will need to centrally involve relevant
communities in decision-making at not only the local but
the landscape level (see, for instance, the approach for the
Cape Floristic Region of South Africa, http://www.cepf.net/
xp/cepf/resources/publications/cape_floristic_region/).
• Facilitating the participation of Indigenous Peoples and
local communities in climate change negotiations (and
related negotiations in international biodiversity or
environmental agreements), to voice their opinions on
mechanisms being discussed (e.g. REDD), and provide
alternative visions of mechanisms that would help in
avoidance, mitigation and adaptation.
These steps will by no means stave off all the threats that
ICCAs face, or help revive all ICCAs that have gone defunct.
But they will give crucial support to many, and greatly enhance
the chance of their contribution to climate change solutions.
References
Anon. 2004. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Policy Document 2004.
Issued by the Fourth Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting Reykjavik, 24
November 2004.
Bassi, M. 2002. The making of unsustainable livelihoods: an ongoing
tragedy in the Ethiopian drylands. Policy Matters, Issue 10.
Brown, J, M.W. Lyman, and A. Proctor. 2006. Community conserved
areas: experiences from North America. PARKS Special issue on
Community Conserved Areas, 16(1).
Govan, H., A. Tawake, and K. Tabunakawi. 2006. Community-based
marine resource management in the South Pacific. PARKS Special issue
on Community Conserved Areas, 16(1).
Ferrari, M.F. 2006. Rediscovering community conserved areas in South-
East Asia: people’s initiative to reverse biodiversity loss. PARKS
Special issue on Community Conserved Areas, 16(1).
FES. 2003. A Biodiversity Log and Strategy Input Document for the Gori
River Basin, Western Himalaya Ecoregion, District Pithoragarh,
Uttaranchal. A sub-state process under the National Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan India. Foundation for Ecological Security,
Uttaranchal.
IFRC. 2001. Coastal Environment Protection: A Case Study of the Vietnam
Red Cross. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies, Geneva.
Kothari, A. 2006. Community conserved areas: towards ecological and
livelihood security. PARKS Special issue on Community Conserved
Areas, 16(1).
Lavides, M.N., M.G. Pajaro and C.M.C. Nozawa (Eds). 2006. Atlas of
Community-Based Marine Protected Areas in the Philippines. Haribon
Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources, Inc. and Panama
Ka Sa Pilipinas, Philippines.
Molnar, A., S. Scherr, and A. Khare. 2004. Who Conserves the World’s
Forests: community driven strategies to protect forests and respect
rights. Forest Trends and Ecoagriculture Partners, Washington DC.
Oviedo, G. 2006. Community conserved areas in South America. PARKS
Special issue on Community Conserved Areas, 16(1).
Pathak, N., T. Balasinorwala, A. Kothari, and B.R. Bushley. 2007.
People in conservation: Community conserved areas in India.
Kalpavriksh, Pune/Delhi.
Roe, D., H. Reid, K. Vaughan, E. Brickell, and J. Elliott. 2007. Climate,
carbon, conservation and communities. IIED and WWF-UK.
Roy, S. 2008. Local women give back Sundarban the mangrove forest.
Merinews, http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=136368.
Smith, D. 2006. Indigenous protected areas in Australia. PARKS Special
issue on Community Conserved Areas, 16(1).
Swahilya. 2007. Green forts for the coast. The Hindu, August 19.
White, A., A. Khare, and A. Molnar. 2004. Who Owns, Who Conserves,
and Why It Matters. Forest Trends, Washington DC.
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 23
 Climate change and identification of terrestrial
protected areas in the Seychelles Islands
Justin Gerlach
Author’s Address: Abstract. The Seychelles islands are notable for the high proportion of land area designated as National Parks (43%). These
Justin Gerlach sites were designated with the aim of protecting water catchments and threatened species, mostly in the 1960s and 1970s.
133 Cherry Hinton Road Their location does not take into consideration the likely impacts of climate change. It is anticipated that changes in organism
Cambridge CB1 7BX, and habitat distributions in the Seychelles islands will occur over the next 50-100 years largely as a result of sea level change
U.K. and altered rainfall patterns. Species and sites at particular risk will be those associated with low-lying areas and high altitude
jstgerlach@aol.com moss forest habitats. Due to the small area of the Seychelles islands and their isolated nature there is no significant potential
for redesign of protected areas to allow migration and mitigation, unlike continental ecosystems. The impacts on particularly
threatened protected areas, both existing (e.g. Aldabra World Heritage Site) and potential, are highlighted.

Introduction The first protected area in Seychelles was gazetted in 1966.

Designation and maintenance of protected areas are considered
major strategies to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem
function, particularly for water and genetic resources.
Historically, protected areas have been designated to include
water-sheds, notable populations of high profile species and
specific landscape features (particularly those considered to be
of cultural value). It has been noted that protected areas need
to be resilient to climate change or capable of adapting to such
change (Hannah et al. 2002; 2007). In countries with large
areas of semi-natural habitat, protected area boundaries could
theoretically be altered to take account of climatic instability.
In areas with high human population densities such changes
may be more problematic. Small island groups are thought to
be highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change (Nurse
et al. 1998; Payet & Agricole 2006) but the sensitivity of
protected areas has not been considered from the perspective
of small island systems. In such systems protected areas often
encompass whole geographic units (islands) and the potential
for re-designing reserves may be limited. In some situations
it may be possible to design protected areas that link a group
of islands and marine habitat, however, there is little dispersal
between islands for most terrestrial taxa and this could only
be a partial solution.
The Republic of Seychelles has a well developed protected
areas system, dating back to 1966. These islands may be
vulnerable to climate change as many are low-lying and at risk
from sea level rise and others support important habitats with
strong climate influences, such as mist forest. Accordingly,
the islands provide an interesting system for the evaluation
of climate change impacts on small protected areas. The
Seychelles islands comprise 115 distinct islands, ranging
from relatively high granitic islands (to 905m above sea level)
to raised coral atolls (0-8m above sea level) and coral cays
(Figure 1). Island size varies from 15,380 hectares (Aldabra)
to 0.1ha (several islands including L’Ilot and Chauve Souris).
The islands have been noted to be highly vulnerable to sea
level rise due to economic dependence on coastal industries,
particular issues of concern (some of which are already
apparent) include flooding of coastal wetlands, inundation of
low-lying islands, coastal erosion, increased coastal flooding
and salination of groundwater aquifers (Lajoie 2000).
Forty three percent of the land area is listed as under protection
(194km2), with an additional 228km2 of marine protected
areas. Twenty-five protected areas have been designated in
Seychelles (including designated but un-enforced shell and
fisheries reserves), of which 14 are terrestrial and a further 2
include terrestrial areas within the management of a marine
protected area. A recent analysis has proposed that the terrestrial
protected areas network should be expanded to include a further
23 sites (400ha) which are rich in biodiversity, and support
key populations of globally threatened species or threatened
habitats (Gerlach in press). These areas, their management and
purpose are summarised in Table 1. The potential impacts of
climate change on these sites are reviewed below.
Climate change in Seychelles
In Seychelles three main impacts may be expected from
climate change; sea level rise, and changes in precipitation and
temperature. The effects of climate change on the protected
areas of Seychelles (both existing and needed) were evaluated
by considering the potential effects on the islands and relating
those to the habitats, topography and species present in
each area. One review of climate change predictions for the
Seychelles region has been published (Payet & Agricole 2006).
This notes that predictions of the magnitude and precise nature
of the effects of climate change vary widely and few detailed
predictions have been made for the Seychelles islands. As the
individual islands are smaller than the resolution of existing
models most predictions have wide error margins and different
models provide markedly different predictions. For example
predictions of temperature increase by 2100 vary by a factor
of 5.8, and rainfall change varies from -8% to +29% (Payet &
Agricole 2006). All models agree on general patterns of air and
sea-surface temperature increases and more extreme seasonality
of rainfall. Accordingly, only general scenarios for future change
are used here unless real data are available to indicate current
trends. These data comprise sea level changes for 1993-2007 and
temperature and rainfall data sets from 1891-2007. In all cases
trends are projected forwards to the year 2100. The effects of
sea level rise have been evaluated by calculating the projected
minimum sea level rise and removing the land area expected to
be affected from the total land area for each site. This provides
an indication of the magnitude of loss of terrestrial habitat by

24 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
2100. For habitat and species vulnerabilities considerably more 1a
detailed climate modelling is needed for the islands before any
reliable predictions can be made. In this review species and
habitat considered to be particularly vulnerable are highlighted.
These have been identified as having a dependence on specific
temperatures or appear to be close to a limiting temperature
or rainfall level. These should be considered to be species and
habitats of particular concern, but not the only ones at risk.
Sea level
Predictions by the International Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC 2007) for sea level rise are a global increase of 0.18-
0.59m by 2100, with a local additional increase of 0.05-0.1m,
giving a projected rise of 0.23-0.69m for Seychelles. These
may be considered highly conservative predictions and real
increases may be expected to be significantly higher. Actual sea
level data from Seychelles for 1993-2007 show a mean value
of 2.21mm per year (Figure 2), giving a sea level rise of 0.27m
by 2100. With a spring tide range of 1.2m, sea level rise in 1b
this order would cause increased beach erosion and flooding of
low-lying areas. For the granitic islands this would represent
a local problem to areas currently less than 1.47m above sea
level, however, the coral islands are almost entirely less than
1m above sea level and even slight rises in sea level will have
devastating impacts on those islands. This will be particularly
problematic when combined with storm surges, any increase
in the frequency and magnitude of such surges may have
devastating impacts on all coastal areas, with the potential to
destabilise coral islands entirely. Projected changes in the area
of protected areas and KBAs due to sea level rise are shown
in Table 1. It should be noted that the trend of rising sea level
used here is a simple linear extrapolation from the 1993-2007
data. These data indicate an increasing rate of sea level rise
since 2002. If this is more than a temporary anomaly sea level
rise in the Seychelles islands could be considerably higher than
this estimate or the IPCC predictions, with a rise of 37mm per
year since 2002, extrapolating to as much as 3.7m by 2100. Figure 1. Islands of high biodiversity importance in Seychelles. 1a. All islands; 1b. Granitic islands.
The northern islands (mainly granitic islands) are mostly high These reductions in area simply consider the above-water land
islands (reaching over 30m above sea level) and most may area of the islands. Even the habitats that are not inundated
be relatively little affected by sea level rise. The coral islands will be subject to environmental change caused by sea level
of the Amirantes are all less than 1m above sea level (except related factors such as increased salinity in groundwater, an
for isolated dunes on some islands, e.g. D’Arros, which reach expansion in the area affected by salt spay, destabilization of
3-4m) and may be extensively eroded or even submerged by coast lines. All coastal habitats would be affected by this but
even the most conservative estimates of sea level rise. One one of the first is likely to be the mangrove swamp habitat.
island, ‘Sand Cay’, was submerged in the late 20th century. Significant mangrove areas are present in the lagoon of
Rises in sea level would be expected to cause similar loss of Aldabra Special Reserve and in areas of the granitic islands
the protected areas of Etoile, Boudeuse and African Banks. of Mahé (Port Launay Ramsar Site) and Curieuse Marine
Aldabra Special Reserve reaches a maximum height of 6.9m, but National Park, with small areas (less than 0.5 hectares) on
is mostly (90%) less than 2m above sea level. Conservatively other islands. These are all lagoonal or estuarine mangroves
projected sea level rise would probably reduce the area of the and serve only a very limited function in terms of coastal
atoll by approximately 25% by 2100. The other southern atolls protection. Reduction in the area or health of mangrove
may be even more affected; Cosmoledo reaches a height of systems would however have a significant impact on coastal
17m (dunes on Grande Ile) but is 95% less than 1m above sea biodiversity and on fisheries through loss of fish nursery
level. Farquhar has dunes to 20m but is otherwise only 1m habitat. Impacts on other habitats may be equally severe but
above sea level and at least 95% loss is probable, especially the nature of change is much harder to predict due to the wider
when combined with cyclone action and storm surge erosion. mixture of ecological factors acting upon them.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 25
 Table 1. Existing and protected areas in Seychelles and potential risks from climate change. MNP – Marine
National Park, NP – National Park, NR – Nature Reserve, PA – Protected Area, SR – Special Reserve.
Category Island Protected area (date Terrestrial Standard Management Purpose of Vulnerability
gazetted) area (ha) Error type designation
Present 2010
Protected Mahé Morne Seychellois NP (1979) 3,045 3,045 Government & private Water catchment protection Vulnerable habitat - moss forest

Port Launay Ramsar Site (2004) 29 <1 Government & private Mangroves High sea level vulnerability

Sèche Sèche NR (1966) 1.5 1.5 Government Sea-bird protection Sea-bird vulnerable to marine ecosystem change

Ile aux Vaches Ile aux Vaches Marines NR (1966) 4.7 4.5 Government Sea-bird protection Sea-birds vulnerable to marine ecosystem change
Marines

Mamelles Mamelles NR (1966) 8.8 8.5 Government Sea-bird protection Sea-birds vulnerable to marine ecosystem change

Praslin Praslin NP (1966, modified 1979 797 797 Government & private Water catchment protection Low vulnerability
and 2005) land and biodiversity

Curieuse Curieuse MPA (1979) 286 266 Government Biodiversity and tourism Mangroves vulnerable to sea level rise

Aride Aride SR (1979) 68 65 NGO managed Sea-bird protection Sea-birds vulnerable to marine ecosystem change

Booby Booby NR (1966) 0.5 0.5 Government Sea-bird protection Sea-birds vulnerable to marine ecosystem change

Cousin Cousin SR (1975) 28.6 18.6 NGO managed Sea-bird protection Sea-birds vulnerable to marine ecosystem change

Cocos, Fouche & Platte (1987) 0.5 0.1 Government Coral reef Marine ecosystem vulnerable to climate change

La Digue Veuve SR (1991) 8 8 Government Single species Low vulnerability

African Banks African Banks PA (1987) 30 0 Government Sea-bird protection High vulnerability to sea level rise and sea-birds vulnerable to marine ecosystem
change

Boudeuse Boudeuse NR (1966) 1.4 0 Government Sea-bird protection High vulnerability to sea level rise and sea-birds vulnerable to marine ecosystem
change

Étoile Étoile NR (1966) 1.4 0 Government Sea-bird protection High vulnerability to sea level rise and sea-birds vulnerable to marine ecosystem
change

Aldabra Aldabra SR (1976) 15,380 11,535 Government Biodiversity Dry scrub vulnerable to increased aridification. Moderate vulnerability to sea
level rise

Declared Silhouette Mountain forests 1,995 1,990 Vulnerable habitat - moss forest

Private Cousine 25.7 24 Sea-birds vulnerable to marine ecosystem change

North 201 179 Moderate vulnerability to sea level rise

Fregate 219 180 Moderate vulnerability to sea level rise

Bird 101 50 High vulnerability to sea level rise and sea-birds vulnerable to marine ecosystem
change

Denis 143 50 High vulnerability to sea level rise

Key Biodiversity Mahé Grand Bois 6.3 6.3 Low vulnerability

Areas

Bernica 2.5 2.5 Low vulnerability

La Reserve 50 50 Low vulnerability

Montagne Planeau 187.5 187.5 Highly vulnerable habitat - moss forest

Montagne Glacis 216.7 216.7 Low vulnerability

Mont Sebert 60 60 Low vulnerability

Beau Vallon 1 <1 Moderate vulnerability to sea level rise

Police Bay 262.5 150 High vulnerability to sea level rise

east coast islands 392.7 300 Moderate vulnerability to sea level rise

west coast islands 138.9 100 Low vulnerability to sea level rise

Silhouette La Passe 7.5 5 Moderate vulnerability to sea level rise

Grande Barbe 47.8 35 Moderate vulnerability to sea level rise

Praslin North-east coast 100 95 Low vulnerability

La Digue Mont La Digue 50 50 Low vulnerability

Felicite 268 96 Low vulnerability

Recifs & Ilot 21 18 Sea-birds vulnerable to marine ecosystem change

Fregates

North mirantes 834 350 High vulnerability to sea level rise

South 90.3 25 High vulnerability to sea level rise and sea-birds vulnerable to marine ecosystem
Amirantes change

Alphonse & St. 191 50 High vulnerability to sea level rise and sea-birds vulnerable to marine ecosystem
Francois change

Astove 661 397 Dry scrub vulnerable to increased aridification. Moderate vulnerability to sea
level rise

Cosmoledo 472 150 Dry scrub vulnerable to increased aridification. Moderate vulnerability to sea
level rise

Assumption 1,171 500 Dry scrub vulnerable to increased aridification. Moderate vulnerability to sea
level rise

Farquhar 402 20 High vulnerability to sea level rise and sea-birds vulnerable to marine ecosystem
change

26 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
Sea level rise is also expected to have major impacts on some
species that depend on the coastal zone for critical stages in
their life cycles. Two species of marine turtle, the green turtle
(Chelonia mydas) and the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys
imbricata) have significant breeding populations in Seychelles,
nesting on the beach-crest. Increases in sea level and coastal
erosion will inevitably lead to significant reductions in the
area of suitable nesting habitat. Population declines are likely
to result from this and this is a major cause for concern in
these already threatened species.
Rainfall
Projections of changes in precipitation are highly uncertain,
largely because of the small size of the islands. Current
projections are for annual precipitation to increase, accompanied
by increases in evaporation, leading to a freshwater deficit in the
coral islands (derived from calculations in IPCC 2007). Levels of
cloud cannot be projected adequately, the changes in precipitation
and evaporation may provide an approximation of the probable
changes, effectively a decrease in cloud cover in the coral islands
and slight changes (either increases or decreases) in the granitic
islands. This may cause additional unquantifiable stress on the
ecosystems of coralline protected areas such as Aldabra atoll.
Changes in rainfall may have significant effects on habitats
that currently experience extremes of precipitation. Of the
Seychelles habitats only scrub habitats on Aldabra and
the other southern atolls appear to be associated with low
rainfall, these areas are the most arid part of the Western
Indian Ocean (Farrow 1971) and may be vulnerable to further
decrease in rainfall or their characteristics may be altered
by rainfall increases. Although xerophytic adapted plants
are found on inselbergs (German for ‘island mountain’)
in the granitic islands (Fleischmann et al. 1996) these sites
experience high rainfall and xerophytes exist in these areas
due to a combination of high level exposure (and consequent
evaporation) and run-off. These are not likely to be affected
by projected changes in rainfall. The most specialised and
moisture dependent habitats are the moss forests of Mahé
(Morne Seychellois National Park and the unprotected area of
Montagne Planeau) and Silhouette islands. These are highly
vulnerable to changes in cloud cover, decreases in this cover
would result in drying and the loss of sensitive organisms, the
majority of which are narrow range endemics (often at the
generic level, and in some cases familial) (Gerlach in press).
Very little information is available on the effects of rainfall on
species in Seychelles; it has been proposed that rainfall has a
significant effect on populations of the Seychelles magpie robin
(Copsychus seychellarum) (Gerlach 1996) and the extinction
of the Aldabra banded snail (Rhachistia aldabrae) has been
attributed to decreasing rainfall on Aldabra (Gerlach 2007). It
is also possible that Critically Endangered populations of plant
species on Aldabra may be species normally associated with
high precipitation species which have marginal populations
on Aldabra, this may account for the apparent extinction of
plants, such as Carissa edulis var. sechellensis, which remain
present in the granitic islands.
B I O D I V E R S I
Temperature
Temperature change since 1880 (data from the Global Historical
Climatology Network dataset) for the granitic islands indicate
a significant warming trend of 0.6°C per 100 years (data since
1880, Y=0.006X-12.101; R2=0.240; F83=26.149). Temperatures
are known to limit the distribution of many animal and plant
species by influencing the processes and rates of metabolism
or developmental (e.g. Schebel & Grossfield 1986a, 1986b;
Delsinne et al. 2007). Temperature limitations probably influence
the distribution of several Seychelles animal and plant species,
there is evidence that one amphibian species, Thomasset’s
frog, Sooglossus thomasseti, is limited to high altitudes and
boulder fields due to an intolerance of temperatures exceeding
24°C (Gerlach in prep.) and any increase in temperature will
inevitably lead to a reduction in range of this species. Marginal
increases in temperature may threaten other taxa such as the
Aldabra giant tortoises, Dipsochelys dussumieri, which have been
calculated to have a critical temperature of 36-38°C (Swingland
& Frazier 1979) above which their poikilothermic (of varying
temperature) thermoregulation breaks down, resulting in death.
Air temperatures occasionally reach this level, with normal daily
ranges of 20.7-33.1ºC (Farrow 1971) and only slight increases
in temperature may be sufficient to expose tortoises to regular
harmful temperature stress. In addition temperature dependent
sex determination in the giant tortoises may also be affected
by increased air temperatures. The pivotal temperature for sex
determination in this genus is 29ºC (Gerlach 2004), with males
produced below this temperature and females above. Currently
ground temperatures in nesting areas are in the range of 28-30ºC,
slight increases in air temperature could reduce the availability
of nesting sites below 29ºC, leading to a sex ratio bias towards
females. This has implications for population dynamics but the
details of the interaction between air temperature, soil temperature,
microhabitat and nest site selection remain too poorly known for
meaningful prediction. Temperature dependent sex determination
in marine turtles will also be influenced by rising air temperatures.
Again, the exact impacts are hard to predict as the details of nest
site selection are not fully understood. An increase in temperature
would be expected to lead towards a female biased sex ratio
which may have some impacts on population structure but may Figure 2.
Recorded sea level
be marginal in comparison to the loss of nesting habitat caused changes at Pointe La
by sea level rise. The Seychelles sheath-tailed bat, Coleura Rue, Mahé
1200
Average tide height (mm)
1150
1100
1050
1000
950
900
1992 1997 2002 2007
Year
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 27
seychellensis, occupies roosts in boulder caves that remain at
temperatures of 26-30°C, or 1-2°C below the current ambient
daily maximum (Gerlach & Taylor 2006); projected temperature
increases may reduce the number of suitable roosts, further
threatening an already Critically Endangered species, currently
present in only two viable sites. Although all three of these species
are present in protected areas (S. thomasseti and C. seychellensis
in Morne Seychellois National Park and D. dussumieri in Aldabra
Special Reserve) such protection will have no effect on critical
temperature stresses.
The impacts of increased temperatures in Seychelles are
most obvious on coral reefs where the coral bleaching event
of 1998 (and subsequent less severe events) caused mass
mortality of coral colonies, varying from 74% to nearly 100%
in different areas (Spencer et al. 2000; 36). This bleaching has
been attributed to extreme sea-surface temperatures resulting
from a general trend in increasing temperatures (Glynn 1991;
Sheppard et al. 2005). The impacts of this pattern of increased
temperature and associated increase in frequency and severity
of coral bleaching episodes has been reviewed elsewhere (Payet
& Agricole 2006). As a marine phenomenon it is not considered
in detail in the present review but is relevant to the future of
terrestrial protected areas in Seychelles. Thirteen of the existing
protected areas (80% of the land area under protection) include
coral reef or coastline fringed by such reefs. Degradation of the
coral reef and subsequent deterioration of the reef structure is
expected to lead to an increase in coastal erosion, combined
with sea level rise. It is probable that severe degradation of
coastal habitats will be seen in the future.
Cyclones
Additional effects of climate change include changes in the
frequency and severity of cyclones, these only affect the most
southerly of the Seychelles islands with recent severe cyclones
reaching Farquhar and Providence atolls (2007 and 2008). Cyclone
frequency is affected by the El Nino Southern Oscillation which is
thought to be vulnerable to climate change (Sing et al. 2000).
Cyclone damage is only a significant issue in the southern
atolls. Increased damage may be expected for Farquhar and
Providence, with an increased risk of cyclones at Cosmoledo,
Astove, Assumption and Aldabra. Projections of cyclone range
expansion with climate change may also mean that cyclones
reach islands currently outside of the cyclone belt. In Seychelles
this would include the southern Amirantes, all low-lying coral
cays and atolls highly vulnerable to cyclone damage.
Sea currents
Sea currents may also be affected, causing changes in the
movement of pelagic marine organisms, especially migratory
fish populations. Changes in tuna population movements are
considered to be a major cause of breeding failure in Seychelles
sea-birds nesting on several island reserves as these birds feed
on the small fish driven to the surface by feeding shoals of tuna
(Ramos 2000). Alterations in marine currents would have effects
on the ecosystems of these islands by changing nutrient input
levels (through fish brought ashore by sea-birds and the size of
28 T R O P I C A L C
the bird colonies). The nature of these effects are hard to predict,
it is probable that there would be periods of change with periodic
increases and decreases in nutrient input. Chemical input into the
terrestrial environment may also be affected by ocean acidification
as increased pCO2 levels are associated with a decrease in marine
mollusc shell thickness (Gazeau et al. 2007) and a major source of
calcium in the terrestrial environment appears to be from marine
mollusc shells brought inland by hermit crabs (pers. obs.).
Discussion
Climate change is expected to have significant effects on the
protected areas of Seychelles. The direction of change is difficult
to predict on the fine scale needed for these small islands. Current
climate trends and predictions suggest that future climate may be
more variable than in the recent past, with elevated temperatures
and rainfall but with longer periods of dry weather and short
periods of elevated rainfall (Payet & Agricole 2006). This may
make both arid and mist influenced habitats particularly vulnerable
to change. These are the habitats with the greatest proportion of
endemic and restricted range species and are the highest priorities
for conservation in Seychelles. Both habitat types are altitude
limited, arid habitats being found on the low-lying southern atolls
(at 1-8m above sea level) and mist forest being above 550m. As
both habitats are restricted to the summits of their islands, neither
habitat can move in response to climate change. There is also no
potential for redesign of protected areas to allow migration and
mitigation as the islands are small and isolated. To some extent new
protected areas could be designated with the aim of mitigating the
impacts of climate change for some species. For lowland species
adapted to relatively high temperatures and prolonged dry periods
future ranges may extend higher above sea level than at present
and this should be considered in protected area design. Migration
would reduce the risk these species currently face from sea level
rise. However, all such species are found in sites that either lack
any higher ground or already include such potential future ranges
in the protected area. High-altitude species and habitats may be
climatically limited and for these there is no potential for vertical
movement as they are already at the summit of the mountains.
The only consideration for protected area design here is to ensure
that all such habitat is protected from other degradation factors
(e.g. development and invasion). All upland areas of Mahé island
should be protected (the highest priority being the biodiversity rich
site of Montagne Planeau) and the proposed Silhouette National
Park should be enacted as a matter of urgency.
Unpredictable impacts are also likely in the sea-bird reserves
where marine ecology provides the basis for nutrient input into
the terrestrial ecosystems. Extreme fluctuations in the breeding
success of sea-birds and the size of their populations apparently
due to lack of food, cannot easily be attributed to any single
ultimate cause. They probably result from a combination of over-
fishing, changes in sea-currents, sea temperatures and sea levels.
Climate change may be a major factor in these fluctuations or may
be an additional stress. Direct mitigation of the climate change
effects may not be possible, strict regulation of fisheries to ensure
that over-fishing is eliminated as a stress factor would minimize
the impacts on these keystone species, although it is questionable
O N S E R V A N C Y
whether this would be practical in times of climate change and
food insecurity. In the Seychelles context it should be noted that
most of the sea-bird colonies are on low-lying islands and even
conservative estimates of sea level rise can be expected to cause
the complete loss of four colonies and the significant reductions
in the size of several others, reducing sea-bird populations to
approximately 23-30% of current levels. This catastrophic decline
may reduce the food stress on the remaining colonies but would
also concentrate poaching impacts on fewer colonies.
Of the existing protected areas the significant climate change
effects may be expected to be due to sea level rise on Port
Launay Ramsar Site, coral islands of African Banks, Etoile
and Boudeuse, and Aldabra. Temperature and rainfall stresses
may be particularly significant in the important high forest
habitats of Morne Seychellois National Park and in the semi-
arid environment of the Aldabra Special Reserve.
It has been suggested that mitigation of climate change in
Seychelles could be achieved by providing natural migration
corridors, establishing further protected areas, reforestation,
habitat restoration, wetland conservation, reef conservation and
restoration and genetic adaptation (Government of Seychelles
2000). Most of these measures or processes can be regarded
as theoretical, with limited scope for effective implementation.
Migration corridors and areas of suitable habitat are not
available for most taxa or for most sites and there is no practical
scope for intervening in genetic adaptation. Measures relating
to habitat protection and restoration are more practical although
even here development pressures and economics impose severe
restrictions on the ability of governments and managers to
protect coastal wetlands and coral reefs.
Adaptation to climate change in the Seychelles context requires
management of existing protected areas and protection of new
areas in order to preserve healthy ecosystems. Protecting such
ecosystems and managing habitats to minimize the effects of
invasive species, fires and anthropogenic habitat loss would
preserve dynamic ecosystems with the greatest potential for
adaptation. Historically, in Seychelles and many other islands
groups, reserves have been created but have received very
little physical management. Habitat deterioration has occurred
through erosion of reserve boundaries and particularly by the
invasion of introduced plants, leaving such reserves with
degraded ecosystems vulnerable to any environmental change.
For island reserves to be viable in the future it is essential that
effective control of alien species and associated restoration of
habitat be undertaken by reserve managers and landowners.
Active management to preserve dynamic ecosystems may
allow at least some species and habitats on the higher islands
to adapt to changes in rainfall and temperature but would have
very little impact on the low-lying islands where sea level rise is
the single most important threat. For these there are no effective
mitigation measures or possibilities for adaptation. Redesign
of protected areas will not have any impact on such low-lying
island systems and very little impact on high-islands. This is in
contrast to continental areas where redesign of protected area
B I O D I V E R S I
networks is possible in theory, even if constrained in practice.
Effective protected area management and habitat restoration are
both urgent priorities.
References
Delsinne, T., Y. Roisin and M. Leponce. 2007. Spatial and temporal
foraging overlaps in a Chacoan ground-feeding ant assemblage. Journal
of Arid Environments 71(1): 29-44
Farrow, G.E. 1971. The climate of Aldabra atoll. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological
Sciences 260(836): 67-91
Fleischmann, K., S. Porembski, N. Biedinger and W. Barthlott. 1996.
Inselbergs in the sea: vegetation of granite outcrops of Mahé and Silhouette,
Seychelles. Bulletin of the Geobotanical Institute ETH 62: 61-74.
Gazeau, F., C. Quiblier, J.M. Jansen, J.-P. Gattuso, J.J.
Middelburg and C.H.R. Heip. 2007. Impact of elevated CO2 on
shellfish calcification. Geophyscial Research Letters 34: L07603,
doi:10.1029/2006GL028554
Gerlach, J. 1996. Rainfall patterns - an overlooked ecological influence.
Phelsuma 5: 75-76.
Gerlach, J. 2004. Indian Ocean giant tortoises. Chimaira Publishers,
Frankfurt-am-Main.
Gerlach, J. 2007. Short-term climate change and the extinction of the snail
Rhachistia aldabrae. Biology Letters 3: 581-584
Gerlach, J. 2008 (in press) Key Biodiversity Areas of the Seychelles
Islands. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden.
Gerlach, J. (in prep.) Thermal stresses in Sooglossidae.
Gerlach, J. and M. Taylor 2006. Habitat use, roost characteristics and
diet of the Seychelles sheath-tailed bat Coleura seychellensis. Acta
Chiropterologica 8(1): 129-139.
Glynn, P.W. 1991. Coral reef bleaching in the 1980s and possible connections
with global warming. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 6: 175–179.
Government of Seychelles. 2000. Initial National Communication
under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Ministry of Environment and Transport, Republic of Seychelles.
Hannah, I., G. F. Midgley, T. Lovejoy, W.J. Bond, M. Bush, J.C. Lovett,
D. Scott and F.I. Woodward. 2002. Conservation of biodiversity in a
changing climate. Conservation Biology 16(1): 264-268.
Hannah, L., G. Midgley, S. Andelman, M. Araujo, E. Martinez-Meyer, R.
Pearson, R. and P. Williams. 2007. Protected Area Needs in a Changing
Climate. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 131-138
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change
2007 - The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC
Lajoie, R.F. 2000 Implications of Accelerated Sea-level Rise (ASLR) for
Seychelles. In: Vega-Leinert, A.C. de la , Nicholls, R.J. , Nasser Hassan A.
& El-Raey, M. (Eds.) Proceedings of SURVAS Expert Workshop on African
Vulnerability & Adaptation to Impacts of Accelerated Sea-level Rise (ASLR).
Flood Hazard Research Centre Publications, Middlesex University
Nurse, L.A., R. F. McLean, and A.G. Suarez. 1998. Small island
states. In The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of
Vulnerability, 331-354. Watson, R.T., M.C. Zinyowera and R.H. Moss
(Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Payet, R., and W. Agricole. 2006. Climate Change in the Seychelles:
Implications for Water and Coral Reefs. AMBIO (2006): 182–189
Ramos, J.A. 2000. Characteristics of foraging habitats and chick food
provisioning by tropical Roseate Terns. Condor 102: 795-803
Schebel, E.M. and J. Grossfield. 1986a. Oviposition temperature range
in four Drosophila species triads from different ecological backgrounds.
American Midlands Naturalist 116(1): 25-35
Schebel, E.M. and J. Grossfield. 1986b. Pupation-temperature range in
12 Drosophila species from different ecological backgrounds. Cellular
and Molecular Life Sciences 42(6): 600-604
Sheppard, C., D. Dixon, M. Gourlay, A. Sheppard and R.A. Payet.
2005. Coral mortality increases wave energy reaching shores protected
by reef flats: examples from the Seychelles, Journal of Estuarine and
Coastal Shelf Science 64: 223–234.
Spencer, T., K.A. Teleki, C. Bradshaw and M. Spalding. 2000. Coral
bleaching in the southern Seychelles during the 1997_1998 Indian
Ocean warm event. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40: 569–586.
Singh, O.P., M. Ali Khan and M.S. Rahman. 2000. Changes in the
frequency of tropical cyclones over the North Indian Ocean. Meteorology
and Atmospheric Physics 75: 11-20.
Swingland, I.R. and J.G. Frazier. 1979. The conflict between feeding
and overheating in the Aldabran giant tortoises. In: Amlaner, C.J. &
Macdonald, D.W. (Eds.) A Handbook on Biotelemetry and Radio
Tracking. Pergamon Press, Oxford
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 29
 Running dry: Freshwater biodiversity, protected areas and climate change
Jamie Pittock, Lara J. Hansen, and Robin Abell
Authors’ Addresses: Abstract. Freshwater biodiversity is in significant decline and existing conservation strategies have not stemmed the loss to date.
Jamie Pittock, The damage is due to growing threats from traditional pressures and now the direct impacts of climate change, as well as from
WWF Research human responses to climate change. A suite of tools is required to address these threats, and one of these -- protected areas -- has
Associate, been underutilized and poorly applied to freshwater conservation. We outline how the effectiveness of investments in maintaining
Fenner School of and improving the resilience of freshwater systems within protected area systems for conserving freshwater biodiversity can be
Environment and enhanced. Measures for better protected area network design and management, and for restoration of connectivity required to
Society, build resilience are summarized. Strategies for aiding societal adaptation to climate change through protected area establishment
Australian National in a river basin context are also proposed. We conclude with a call to ensure that climate change mitigation and adaptation policies
University, better integrate conservation objectives to avoid more serious impacts on freshwater biodiversity.
jamie.pittock@anu. Key words. freshwater, wetlands, biodiversity, protected areas, climate change, resilience, adaptation, mitigation, conservation
edu.au planning, connectivity, environmental flows.
Lara J. Hansen,
Chief Scientist, Climate ecosystem services and cultural values” (IUCN 2008). Despite
Change Program, STATUS AND THREATS
WWF International. state of freshwater biodiversity
their prominence, there is evidence that PAs have failed to
(Current affiliation:
Freshwater habitats cover little of the earth’s surface – by meet their potential for conserving freshwater biodiversity,
Chief Scientist and
Executive Director, some accounts 0.8% (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment largely due to ineffective design and management (Abell
EcoAdapt,
(MEA) 2005a) – and support high species diversity per unit et al. 2007). This paper assesses what the added challenges
lara@ecoadapt.org posed by climate change will be to conserving freshwater
Robin Abell, area. Freshwaters in most regions have been poorly studied,
yet ~6% of the world’s species have been described from them biodiversity, what role PAs should play in addressing these
Senior Freshwater
Conservation Biologist, (Dudgeon et al. 2006). The MEA summarizes extensive losses challenges, and how they can be improved to be part of larger
Conservation Science
of wetlands globally and describes freshwater ecosystems climate change resilience and adaptation strategies.
Program,
WWF United States. as being over-used, under represented in protected areas We define adaptation as “initiatives and measures to reduce the
Robin.Abell@wwfus. (PAs), and having the highest portion of species threatened
org vulnerability of natural and human systems against actual or
with extinction (MEA 2005b). Primary direct drivers of expected climate change effects” (Intergovernmental Panel on
degradation and loss include infrastructure development, land Climate Change (IPCC) 2008:221). Resilience is “the ability
conversion, water withdrawal, pollution, over-harvesting and of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances while
overexploitation, the introduction of invasive alien species, retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning,
and global climate change (MEA 2005a). the capacity for self organization, and the capacity to adapt
The prospects for reducing continued losses of freshwater to stress and change” (IPCC 2008:233-234) and is a subset
biodiversity are dim. For instance, one of the top threats to of adaptation that represents less change from the status quo
those river basins with the greatest richness in freshwater fish compared to other adaptation options.
species is hydropower development since they tend to be those freshwater biodiversity in protected areas
with the greatest untapped hydropower potential (compare Understanding the nexus of freshwater biodiversity, PAs, and
IUCN et al. 2003 and International Journal of Hydropower climate change adaptation is complicated by a lack of data
and Dams (IJHD) 2002). The 2015 Millennium Development on the extent to which freshwater biodiversity is currently
Goals seek to halve poverty by, in part, extending water conserved by PAs. The MEA (2005a) overlaid spatial data
supplies and energy to the poor, and by expanding agricultural from the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA; Chape
production (United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) 2000), et al. 2003) with data describing the distribution of freshwater
including through dam construction and other infrastructure systems and concluded that 12% of the world’s inland waters
developments. If poorly implemented, these agreements are in PAs. However, GIS data have insufficient resolution to
may further exacerbate impacts from climate change and adequately define the global extent of freshwater ecosystems,
further facilitate the decline in freshwater ecosystems. Yet especially for seasonal wetlands and smaller streams. Existing
governments have also agreed by 2010 to “significantly institutions fail to adequately measure representation of
reduce the rate of loss of biological diversity” (UN 2002). If freshwater systems in PAs. Ramsar notes the presence but not
this commitment is to be achieved then freshwater biodiversity the area of each wetland type in its sites (Ramsar 2006).The
must be a focus of urgent action. WDPA records the extent of marine and terrestrial biomes in
Today, PAs are still the primary tool for conserving terrestrial PAs but the only freshwater category is “lake systems”, with
and marine biodiversity. Following a new definition proposed 1.54% coverage (Chape et al. 2003:28). At best, existing data
to the IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas suggest that freshwaters have not been intentionally excluded
(WCPA), we consider a protected area to be “a clearly defined from PA designations (Abell et al. 2007).
geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed Further, we cannot accurately say to what degree PAs around
to achieve the long-term conservation of nature, associated the world are effectively conserving freshwater ecosystems.

30 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
Effectiveness issues relate principally to PA siting, design,
and management. Whether or not PAs are managed explicitly
for freshwater conservation, there is evidence that freshwaters
within PAs receive some protection simply by having portions
of their catchments maintained in natural land cover (Driver
et al. 2005). A well-known example is the protection of the
Catskill and Delaware watersheds to improve the quality of
New York City’s drinking water (Dudley and Stolton 2003:86-
89). However, most freshwater systems and their catchments
extend beyond PAs, and threats from upslope, upstream, and
even downstream can be propagated via hydrologic pathways
to the ‘protected’ freshwaters (Abell et al. 2002:9, 26). The
flow regime for running water systems and the hydroperiod
for standing water systems are typically the variables that drive
maintenance of those systems (Poff et al. 1997; Williams 2006).
Changes to the hydropattern of so-called protected freshwater
systems as a result of external water withdrawals, dams,
channelization, land cover conversion, and other modifications
are therefore of serious concern (Jackson 2006).
Even well-sited PAs may fail to reach their full potential for
freshwater conservation due to management shortcomings.
Many of the world’s conservation reserves have been afflicted
with activities detrimental to freshwater systems, whose
terrestrial equivalents – such as large-scale hunting, mining
or logging – are not tolerated. In one well-known early
example, in 1913 a reservoir was constructed in the US’s
Yosemite National Park (National Park Service (NPS) 2008).
South Africa’s Kruger National Park, where around half the
species depend on aquatic and riparian habitats, has suffered
from water infrastructure developed upstream, within, and
downstream of the park (H. Biggs, SANParks, correspondence
10 May 2008; du Toit et al. 2003). Other widespread impacts to
freshwaters within PAs include stocking of exotic fish species
and fishing of native species (eg. Department of Conservation
and Environment (DCE) 1992).
B I O D I V E R S I
In the past, PAs have often contributed little to maintaining the
resilience of freshwater ecosystems within their boundaries,
and better management is required regardless of climate
change. Yet we also believe that they are a logical place to
invest in maintaining resilience in the face of climate change
due to the legal protections they may be afforded from some
impacts, the resources allocated to their management, the
potentially more intact status of their freshwater ecosystems,
and the community support they may receive.
direct threats to freshwater biodiversity from climate change
Water is part of the climate system and is one of the most
vulnerable parts of this system to climate change. As the Earth
warms, a host of changes to freshwater ecosystems are occurring.
With warming, freshwaters experience: higher evaporations
rates; changes in quantity and forms of precipitation, leading
in some cases to dramatically altered hydrologic regimes
most readily seen as more severe or more frequent floods and
droughts; altered thermal regimes with changes in seasonal
timing (such as spring onset and winter freeze patterns); altered
water chemistry; and increased vulnerability to salination
due to sea level rise and drawing down of aquifers. There are
also changes in the Earth’s cryosphere, where two-thirds of
the world’s fresh water is held (Shiklomanov 1993). Climate
change-induced melting of glaciers, other permanent ice, and
snow is resulting in further changes in the timing, quantity and
temperature of river flows. The potential acidification of aquatic
systems, similar to that seen in marine ecosystems, remains
largely unexplored. Second order impacts include reduced
water quality due to pulses of nutrients and contaminants,
fostered by more intense rainfall events. Other impacts include
oxidized soils from drought conditions (such as sulphuric acid
generated in the lower reaches of Australia’s Murray River
from 2007), pulses of contaminant melt from glaciers (Blais
et al. 2001), increased use of chemicals in response to climate
change, and greater erosion and siltation.
Figure 1.Southern
Australia is particularly
vulnerable to climate
change as global
warming draws rain-
bearing cold pressure
systems south of the
mainland and into the
Southern Ocean in
winter. Since the 1980’s
it has been predicted
that southern Australia
may suffer reduced
precipitation due to
climate change. From
the 1975, for example,
inflows into Perth’s
reservoirs fell in two
‘step changes’ from an
average 338 Gigalitres
(Gl) per year to 114 Gl
from 1997. Stepwise
reductions to dam
inflows, Perth, Western
Australia. Source: WA
Water Corporation.
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 31
Historical and new non-climate stressors will compound
the adverse effects of climate change, further reducing
ecosystem resilience. Eutrophication and contaminant
issues will be exacerbated by climate change as the multiple
stresses of elevated nutrients and increasing temperature
lead to reduced dissolved oxygen; altered thermal patterns
in rivers and stratification in lakes; increased metabolic
rates causing greater contaminant sensitivity; and reduced
toxicity thresholds as compounds become more toxic at
lower concentrations due to paired thermal stress or climate-
induced chemical changes.
Already climate change impacts are affecting freshwater
biodiversity (Parmesan 2006). Fish and fisheries are perhaps
the best studied systems with regard to vulnerability to
climate change (Poff et al. 2002; Ficke et al. 2007), with
changes to upstream migrations (Daufresne and Boet 2007),
stocks and productivity (Casselman 2002), species diversity
(Jackson and Mandrak 2002), and aquatic community
composition (Carveth et al. 2006). Some amphibian declines
have been in part attributed to climate change (Pounds et
al. 2006). Shifts in invertebrate community structure and
composition have already been seen and are expected
to continue (Durance and Ormerod 2007, Raddum and
Fjellheim 2002). Changes in the abundance of freshwater
primary production due to increasing water temperatures
have begun to affect entire aquatic food webs (Wrona et
al. 2006). These are only a small subset of examples of
the effects of climate change on freshwater ecosystems and
their biodiversity (IPCC 2008).
threats from policy responses to climate change
In addition to these direct impacts from climate change,
policies that governments and societies adopt to reduce socio-
economic risks related to climate change have a great potential
to extensively affect freshwater biodiversity both within and
outside of PAs. Types of adaptation measures (IPCC 2008) –
or maladaptation measures if considered from the perspective
of freshwater ecosystems – include addressing water shortages
and flood control using infrastructure to store and divert more
water. Climate change mitigation policies to increase production
of low carbon energy such as hydropower and biofuels (IPCC
2008) are likely to impact freshwater ecosystems even more in
the future. Production of many crops for biofuels could intensify
water use (IPCC 2008), leaving little water for biodiversity
conservation in some countries (de Fraiture et al. 2008), as well
as increasing conversion of riparian lands and the discharge of
pollutants. For example, China has adopted a comprehensive
national climate change program. While proposing measures
to integrate sectoral policies and protect ecosystems, the
program also commits to raising the portion of energy produced
by hydropower and biofuels, and managing water through
“rational exploitation”, new infrastructure, and speeding up
construction of the South-to-North Water Diversion (Chinese
Government 2007:25-50). The three canal systems of the Water
Diversion will supply water from the Yangtze River to areas up
to 1,800 km away in north China (US Embassy in China 2003)
32 T R O P I C A L C
and will change the hydrologic regimes of all affected systems.
Here and elsewhere, those seeking to conserve freshwater
biodiversity both within and outside PAs must not only consider
the direct impacts of climate change and non-climate pressures
but also the additional impacts of the climate change policies
of governments.
REDUCING IMPACTS BY ENHANCING RESILIENCE
The very nature of climate change means that all systems are
changing in their fundamental physical nature, and therefore
we can no longer protect or restore to a past state. Rather, we
need to think about what makes systems functional, useful,
or valuable. This concept has been well developed in regard
to coral reef systems. For example, coral reef protected
area managers think in terms of maintaining a functional or
sustainable coral system and preventing a state change to an
algal-dominated system. This means they work to identify
and exploit those factors that make:
• sites less likely to experience adverse climate pressure
(e.g. refugia, heterogeneity, resilient populations);
• a system less likely to respond adversely to a climate
change pressure, and;
• system recovery from an adverse response to a climate
pressure more likely;
• (Marshall and Schuttenberg 2006);
In general, climate adaptation strategies for biodiversity
conservation first require assessment of the problem,
the vulnerabilities and the opportunities for action. The
required actions can be categorized as:
• protecting adequate and appropriate space and
connectivity;
• reducing non-climate stresses;
• employing active adaptive management to start testing
strategies now, and;
• using vulnerable systems and the challenge of resilience-
building to encourage action to slow the rate and extent
of climate change (Hansen et al. 2003).
PA’s can play a role in all four of these adaptation components,
but the lens of climate change needs to be applied explicitly.
Without climate-informed management within and beyond
PA boundaries, many PAs will not be able to contribute to
freshwater conservation because of broader contextual
impacts. Shifting spatial and temporal precipitation patterns
will require reconsideration of which (wet)lands to protect
to ensure catchment functionality, as well as consideration
of when to allow extractive water use and how much.
Changes in precipitation patterns will likely affect patterns
of anthropogenic activities within PA catchments, such as
agricultural practices and associated water use. A reduction in
acceptable levels of pollutants to avoid shifts to undesirable
states will require better policies and management. Even
without the onus of climate change we have not adequately
managed over-use of water resources. For example, in the
western United States, maintaining adequate flows to support
fish populations is often directly at odds with agricultural
and municipal interests (Committee on Endangered and
O N S E R V A N C Y
 murray–darling basin
The impacts from the combination of non-climate pressures, climate change, and climate change policies, and the potential to build resilience to these pressures,
is well illustrated by the problems in maintaining aquatic connectivity and adequate environmental flows in the Murray–Darling basin, which covers a seventh of
Australia. PAs in the basin, including 15 Ramsar sites, encompass extensive freshwater ecosystems. On average there are 25,000 Gigalitres per year (Gl pa)
of inflows in the basin and, if none were diverted, 48% would be discharged into the estuary (Kirby et al. 2006). However, water diversions, of which 95% are for
irrigated agriculture, are severely degrading aquatic habitats (Kirby et al. 2006:6-8), including those within major PAs. Of the inflows, 44% is lost to evaporation
and transpiration, 44% is diverted for agriculture and other human uses, and only 12% now reaches the estuary (Kirby et al. 2006:9). A 2006 risk assessment
of inflows over 20 years concludes that climate change could potentially reduce inflows by 5% in 20 years, and that additional impacts from adaptations and
biological responses to climate change such as greater use of groundwater, bushfire-induced forest regrowth, more on-farm dams, forest establishment, and
re-use of irrigation tail waters could result in a total reduction of between 10 and 23% of annual inflows (van Dijk et al. 2006:1, 26).
Two conclusions can be drawn from this assessment: i) the combined environmental impact of these risks to water resources is secondary compared to the
diversion of nearly half the water for human uses, and ii) poor water management (eg. of groundwater) and mal-adaptations that did not consider resulting
reductions in inflows (on-farm dams, afforestation and tail water re-use) may reduce inflows as much as the direct impact of climate change. Even with this scale
of reduction in inflows from the assessed risks, if measures promised by governments are well implemented, including reducing water diversions and increasing
environmental flows, then some parts of the Murray-Darling’s freshwater biota may be conserved (eg. Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council (MDBMC) 2003,
Wong 2008).
Other Murray-Darling models based on observational studies suggest a more significant reduction in inflows from climate change. Cai and Cowan (2008)
conclude that with every 1˚C rise in average temperature, evaporation reduces inflows by 15%, and they model a 55% reduction in inflows from reduced
precipitation and increased evaporation with a 2˚C temperature rise by 2060. This magnitude of inflow reduction would exceed thresholds for the survival of
substantial elements of the freshwater biota. Doolan (2007) models a similar scenario for the Barmah Forest Ramsar site on the Murray River, where flood
return intervals would become too infrequent for many species to persist. Biota that may be conserved in situ in the face of moderate climate change with better
adaptation policies are unlikely to survive in the longer term with more severe impacts.
Governments identified six Murray-Darling “icon sites” – major wetlands (five of which are Ramsar sites) that are the focus of conservation efforts to avoid
desiccation of a range of freshwater ecosystems (Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) 2008). In 2002 an expert panel recommended options to “deliver
a healthy working river”, including generating up to 4,000 additional GI pa for environmental flows through decreasing the volume allocated for diversion (Jones
et al. 2002). Governments made a “first step decision” in 2003 to reallocate a mere 500 Gl pa to sustain a specific portion of each wetland type and icon site,
ranging between 20 and 80% of their original areas, and with a “low-moderate” probability of delivering a healthy river (MDBMC 2003). This decision is being
revised in 2008 with significantly higher reallocation to the environment to increase functionality, partly to compensate for the reductions in inflows forecast from
climate change (Wong 2008). The Victorian Government (2008) is now finalizing an adaptation policy covering much of this area that emphasizes conservation
of valued elements of freshwater biodiversity through better catchment management, water allocation, ecological connectivity using riparian corridors, and
enhancing reserves.
The Ovens River is one example of practical freshwater resilience-building using designation and better management of PAs. This river is one of only two
substantially unregulated tributaries remaining in the Murray-Darling basin, and thus is important for conserving riverine biodiversity. Protected under the
Victorian Heritage Rivers Act as a Heritage River Area, most natural resource extraction, including water resource developments, is prohibited along the 227 km
river in a riparian corridor that is up to 400 m wide (Victorian Government 1992). New riverine PAs are also planned (VEAC 2008). Biodiversity is likely to cope
better in the Ovens compared to other tributaries in the basin, as there are no dispersal barriers; a protection and restoration program prioritizes the riparian
corridor; the river flows from south to north with a large altitudinal gradient; and its upper catchment is protected in the Alpine National Park.

Figure 2. The Murray–Darling basin covers

a seventh of the continent’s landmass in
Australia’s south-east. The low levels of
rainfall in the current “drought” in southern
Australia (now ascribed by government
agencies in part to climate change) are not
unprecedented, but the inflows into the river
systems are at an historical low (see graph
below) that many fear represents the type
of inflow reduction experienced in Western
Australia. It is likely that the combination
of greater evapotranspiration with higher
temperatures and inflow intercepting land
uses has dramatically reduced runoff.
River Murray system inflows. Source:
Murray Darling Basin Commission.

Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin, National
Research Council (CETFKRB NRC) 2004 ), with a greater
challenge during drought years.
Many freshwater systems would benefit from further
investment in PAs. If the local effects of climate change
are limited (because the site contains thermal refugia, for
example), then freshwater biodiversity may be conserved
in situ by building ecosystem resilience. If effects are more
extensive, then responses may require greater investment
in approaches like removing barriers to species movement,
species translocation, and securing environmental flows.
Environmental flows are a portion of the original flow
regime of a river that should continue to flow down it and
onto its floodplains in order to maintain specified, valued
features of the ecosystem (Tharme 2003). For PAs to be

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 33
effective, these responses must be applied both within
and outside of them. Options for using current water
infrastructure to attenuate climate change impacts are worth
investigation. Reverse use of thermal pollution mitigation
devices at dam outlets to maintain naturally cooler waters
downstream of dams in the face of higher temperatures is a
promising option, albeit one that requires consistently good
management of dams to succeed. No manner of investment
in conservation strategies may build or maintain sufficient
resilience for some other systems in the face of continued
climate change. Examples include high elevation, high
latitude, or east-west flowing rivers, most lentic systems,
and many ephemeral systems.
Consistent with the measures proposed by the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD 2007) and the Victorian
Government (2008), it should become standard practice to
use designation and management approaches to increase the
resilience of PAs to:
• take advantage of and support innate resistance to climate
change of more intact habitats;
• maximize the existing investment in PAs and benefits of
active management of PAs for conservation;
• use the many measures required to build resilience of
PAs in the absence of climate change, like restoring
connectivity, for better climate change adaptation;
• buy time to institute other adaptation and abatement
strategies, including stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse
gas concentrations.
These measures apply equally to freshwaters as to other
realms. PAs must now be thought of as a piece of a larger
adaptation strategy, rather than as a stand-alone intervention.
Ultimately, however, limiting the rate and extent of climate
change is critical to protection of freshwater biodiversity.
OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE ADAPTATION
Developing effective climate change adaptation strategies for
freshwaters requires holistic planning. Due to human water
use and biodiversity needs, those wishing to protect freshwater
ecosystems in the face of climate change need to engage in a
process where all user concerns are integrated (eg. Postel and
Richter 2003). Adaptation for anthropogenic needs that does not
address key needs for ecosystem integrity will further damage
freshwater ecosystems and potentially restrict or omit the
possibility of long-term sustainable use of freshwater ecosystems.
Adaptation strategies for conserving freshwater biodiversity
through the designation and management of PAs could include:
Conserving ecosystems that are the source of water supplies
Designation of river catchments and groundwater recharge
zones as PAs can help sustain water supplies. Already 33 of
the world’s 105 largest cities rely on PAs for a significant
part of their water supplies and this could be enhanced with
additional PAs (Dudley and Stolton 2003:4). While upstream
river systems can be conserved with this approach, it may be
at the cost of adequate flows downstream due to diversions
for human uses.
34 T R O P I C A L C
“Restoring” freshwater habitats
to reduce impacts of natural disaster
A greater frequency of large floods is forecast in many regions
due to climate change (IPCC 2008). Many countries are
restoring floodplains’ capacity to attenuate peak floods, enabling
the establishment of reserves for lowland freshwater habitats.
In China, for example, reconnection of floodplains around
Dongting Lake has reduced flood risk, improved residents’
livelihoods, and provided considerable conservation benefits
(Pittock et al. 2006). Reopening the Gerlderse Poort floodplain
on the Rhine River in the Netherlands to create a 2,500 ha
nature reserve will help increase the safe flood discharge at the
cities of Arnhem and Nijmegen from 15,000 m3/s before 2006,
to 16,000 m3/s in 2015, and 16,500 m3/s in 2100, and locally
the peak flow will be lowered by 9 cm (Bekhuis et al. 2005,
V&W et al. 2006, J. Bekhuis, Stichting Ark, correspondence,
27 March 2008). This “nature development” will not recreate
a past habitat but will provide ecosystem services, including
abated flood risks; valuable habitat for a range of biota; and more
natural ecological functions including improved opportunities
for species dispersal.
Enhancing water services through riparian reserves
Some of the predicted impacts of climate change may be
reduced by protection and restoration of riparian corridors to
reduce pollution of watercourses, sustain fisheries, control
temperatures through shading, and provide woody debris
and allochthonous materials to freshwater systems (Vannote
et al. 1980). A number of rivers are designated as new types
of linear PAs (WWF 2006:30-33), including Wild and Scenic
Rivers in the USA, Heritage Rivers in Canada, Heritage
Rivers of Victoria (such as the Ovens River example in this
paper) and Wild Rivers of Queensland in Australia, and four
rivers under the European Union Natura 2000 network in
Sweden (A. Forslund, WWF Sweden, correspondence, 9
April 2008). Riparian reserves will be important beyond
the small number of protected rivers in these geographies,
and many countries already have legislation for broad
protection of riparian zones (Moore and Bull 2004). This
legislation is irregularly enforced but could provide the
basis for protection of habitats that are essential both for
freshwater and terrestrial species and water services for
human communities.
Managing water demand
to ensure adequate water allocations
In areas where water demand exceeds supply, adjustments to
water allocations, including for adaptation to climate change,
are an opportunity to ensure that PAs have environmental
flows. This can be achieved through such measures as
reallocation from consumptive uses, more efficient water use,
reduced transmission losses, recycling of wastewater, and
capping water extraction (eg. IPCC 2008). Australia’s National
Water Initiative (National Water Commission (NWC) 2008)
and South Africa’s environmental reserve (Department of
Water Affairs & Forestry (DWAF) undated) are two national
programs for systematically allocating environmental flows,
although implementation has been slow.
O N S E R V A N C Y
Harnessing current political and resource commitments
The world’s governments have made many commitments
to conserve freshwater biodiversity in representative and
well-managed PAs, pledges that should be used to accelerate
climate change adaptation through protecting adequate
spaces and connectivity, reducing non-climate stresses, and
practicing adaptive management. Member countries of the
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands have agreed to designate
sites representing the diversity of inland and coastal wetlands,
and have a target for 2010 of at least 2,500 sites covering
250 million hectares (Ramsar 2006, Pittock et al. 2006). The
CBD has also adopted programs that include rectifying the
under-representation of inland water ecosystems in PAs (CBD 3A
2004a:1.1.3 & 2004b). The CBD’s targets are to conserve at
least 10% of inland water ecosystems by area under integrated
river or lake basin management, and 275 million hectares of
wetlands in representative PAs, by 2010 (CBD 2006:Annex
IV). Additional consideration should be given to assessing the
length and representation in protected areas of linear systems
such as rivers.
Many people question whether governments are serious about
implementing these commitments. Under Ramsar many
countries, like China, have adopted and are implementing
strategies for representative wetland reserves (State Forestry
Administration (SFA) 2002:42). Outside Ramsar there is less
evidence of systematic conservation of freshwater ecosystems.
Australian governments, for instance, have had programs
to establish representative terrestrial and marine PAs from 3B
1992 but have failed to implement parallel commitments
for freshwaters (Nevill 2007). More positively, South Africa
has embarked on a National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority
Areas Project to identify a national network of freshwater
conservation areas (M. Driver, SANBI, pers. comm. 27 March
2008). By taking their pledges seriously, more governments
could enhance their PA programs to improve resilience to
climate change.

Climate-informed implementation of these PA commitments

can be improved for freshwaters by:
• selecting for new reserves the most favorable geographies
for climate resilience and managing these and existing
PAs better for freshwater dynamics, as has been done in
some marine systems (eg. Green et al. 2007);
• adopting the Freshwater Ecoregions of the World (Abell
et al. 2008) regionalization as course planning regions
for freshwater biodiversity conservation and developing
detailed ecoregional or landscape/catchment-scale
conservation plans to ensure the representation of the
full range of freshwater habitat types in PAs (Abell et al.
2002; Hansen et al. 2003; Higgins 2003; Theime et al.
2007; and Sowa et al. 2007);
• ensuring adequate connectivity among existing and
new PAs, and also other areas that will act as climate
refugia;
• improving collaboration among conventions, which is
strong between Ramsar and the CBD (CBD and Ramsar
3C
Figure 3. The Coorong Ramsar site (#5AU025; 140,500 ha), the Murray’s estuary, and many other wetlands
are increasingly desiccated. The Coorong estuary is divided in two by a barrage system to prevent upstream
sea water intrusion. The upstream portion of the Coorong is now 0.5 metres below sea level and would
require around two years of average river flows to refill; 3A, Coorong lake bed at Meningie West before
(May 2006); 3B, after (March 2008). Copyright: K Strother; 3C, Dry lake bed in the Coorong at Milang,
May 2008. Copyright B Gunn.
2007), yet appears insubstantial with the Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC; Ramsar
2002; UNFCCC 2008a);
• coordinating the national plans required under each
multilateral convention, especially the UNFCCC,
CBD, and Ramsar (UNFCCC 2008b; Ramsar 1999;
CBD 2008), to maximize conservation and help avoid
maladaptation.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 35
 Applying protected area design
and management principles
Freshwater habitats most able to respond to climate change
effects or act as refugia should be selected for new PA
designations wherever possible. These may include systems
with a north–south orientation and those with large altitudinal
gradients that may facilitate dispersal of aquatic species to
suitable refugia. Relatively intact freshwaters should be more
resilient than equivalent degraded systems, and are more
appropriate targets for PAs. The ideal PAs for freshwaters
will encompass a whole catchment (Peres and Terborgh 1995;
Saunders et al. 2002), preferably of a free-flowing river, but
such opportunities are rare. The next-best design option is
inclusion of PAs within an integrated catchment framework,
with the PAs forming the nuclei around which the framework
is built (Gilman et al. 2004). Areas whose conservation would
be essential to maintaining the viability and resilience of
4A
4B
4C
Figure 4. Exposed wetlands sediments high in sulphates are oxidizing, producing sulphuric acid. Around
3,000 hectares of the Coorong lake bed is affected, and as the damage spreads up the Murray River valley,
up to a quarter of other wetlands are impacted. At Bottle Bend lagoon near Mildura, for example, the water is
now ph 1.6; 4A, Acidified lagoon, Bottle Bend NSW, February 2008. Copyright Murray Wetlands Working
Group. See: http://www.mwwg.org.au/bottlebend.php; 4B, Dead red gum floodplain forests and salinized and
acidified creek, Bottle Bend NSW, April 2007. Copyright Murray Wetlands Working Group; 4C, Acidified
and salinized lagoon, Psyche Bend, Victoria, 2008. Copyright Murray Darling Freshwater Research Centre.
36 T R O P I C A L C
those PAs – such as riparian zones, upstream headwaters, or
migratory pathways – would be identified and incorporated
into additional PAs, buffer zones, or other managed areas.
Finally, an integrated river basin management plan would
support the PAs as well as meet human needs (eg. Gilman et al.
2004). One conceptualization of such a framework is offered
by Abell et al. (2007), which, while not prepared with climate
adaptation in mind, elaborates on design principles that will
help maintain functionality and build resilience. There are a
number of similar methods (eg. Abell 2002; Higgins 2003)
and examples (eg. Theime et al. 2007; Sowa et al. 2007) of
broad-scale freshwater planning that embrace the idea of
prioritizing parts of river basins to establish a representative
network of PAs, maintaining adequate connectivity and
flows, and supported by integrated river basin management.
However these were developed in the context of a largely
stationary hydrological environment and now need revision to
better provide for climate change adaptation, such as by better
targeting potential refugia (eg. Hansen et al. 2003).
Although there are limits to what PA design can achieve
in terms of climate change adaptation, enhancing PA
management can help to reduce non-climate stresses and
enable adaptive management. Every PA encompassing or
linked to freshwater systems should have climate change and
freshwater considerations in its management plan (Abell et al.
2007). The WCPA Inland Waters Taskforce recommends that
freshwater management within existing PAs should include
restoring connectivity of streams, such as by removing 4B
barriers and reconnecting rivers with floodplains; prohibiting
exotic fish stocking and over-fishing; protecting native flora,
particularly in riparian zones; and protecting water quality
(WCPA 2008). In most cases PAs will be effective freshwater
conservation tools only with allocation of environmental
flows and integrated river basin management.
CONCLUSION
Freshwater biodiversity is in decline and its conservation
has not been advanced in PAs to a great extent because of
the lack of attention to the needs of freshwater biodiversity.
Governments have yet to achieve the aspirations they
have set for freshwater biodiversity conservation. The
cumulative and growing impacts of non-climate pressures
on freshwaters, the direct impacts of climate change, and
maladaptation to climate change all heighten the threat to
freshwater biodiversity.
A range of responses, including more effective networks
of PAs, is required. We contend that building resilience for
freshwater ecosystems through further, climate-informed
protected area designations and management in an ecoregional
context is a sound investment. Resilience-building measures
may permit the dispersal of some biota to refugia and buy
time for these systems to be restored or managed more 4C
appropriately to support biodiversity in light of climate change
impacts. Further work is needed on the scientific, ethical, legal
and financial implications of adaptation options, if freshwater
biota are to survive greater warming.
O N S E R V A N C Y
Designations of PAs to sustain key water services for
people and nature may be the most effective incentives
for governments and societies to act to enhance PAs for
conservation of freshwater biota. Lastly, while freshwater
managers are working to address climate change in their
planning, it will be equally necessary for governments and
other organizations to consider freshwater resources and
conservation in setting climate change policies to avoid
maladaptation.
Acknowledgments
We thank Harry Biggs, Mandy Driver, Johan Bekhuis, and
Anna Forslund for providing data for examples. We are
grateful to John Matthews, Stephen Dovers, Karen Hussey
and Barrie Pittock who provided comments, as well as the
peer reviewer.
References
Abell, R., M. Thieme, E. Dinnerstien, and D. Olsen. 2002. A sourcebook
for conducting biological assessments and developing biodiversity
visions for ecoregion conservation. Volume II: freshwater ecoregions.
World Wildlife Fund, Washington DC.
Abell, R., J.D. Allan, and B. Lehner. 2007. Unlocking the potential for
protected areas in conserving freshwaters. Biological Conservation
134(2007): 48-63.
Abell, R., M. Thieme, C. Revenga, M. Bryer, M. Kottelat, N. Bogutskaya,
B. Coad, N. Mandrak, S. Contreras-Balderas, W. Bussing, M.L.J.
Stiassny, P. Skelton, G.R. Allen, P. Unmack, A. Naseka, R. Ng,
N. Sindorf, J. Robertson, E. Armijo, J. Higgins, T.J. Heibel, E.
Wikramanayake, D. Olson, H.L. Lopez, R.E. d. Reis, J.G. Lundberg,
M.H. Sabaj Perez, and P. Petry. 2008. Freshwater ecoregions of the
world: a new map of biogeographic units for freshwater biodiversity
conservation. BioScience 58(5): 403-414.
Bekhuis, J., G. Litjens, and W. Braakhekke. 2005. A policy field guide
to the Gelderse Port. A new, sustainable economy under construction.
Stichting Ark, Stroming BV and WWF, Nijmegen.
Blais, J.M., D.W. Schindler, D.C.G. Muir, M. Sharp, D. Donald, M.
Lafreniere, E. Braekevelt and W.M.J. Strachan. 2001. Melting
glaciers: A major source of persistent organochlorines in subalpine Bow
Lake in Banff National Park, Canada. Ambio 30:410-415
Cai, W. and T. Cowan. 2008. Evidence of impacts from rising temperatures
on inflows to the Murray-Darling Basin. Geophysical Research Letters
35: L07701, doi:10.1029/2008GL033390.
Carveth, C.J., A.M. Widmer and S.A. Bonar. 2006. Comparison of upper
thermal tolerances of native and non-native fish species in Arizona.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135: 1433-1440.
Casselman, J.M. 2002. Effects of temperature, global extremes and climate
change on year-class production of warmwater, coolwater and coldwater
fishes in the Great Lakes Basin. In N. A. McGinn (Ed.). Fisheries in
a changing climate. American Fisheries Society. Symposium 32,
Bethesda, pp. 39-59.
Chape, S., S. Blyth, L. Fish and P. Fox. (Compilers). 2003. 2003 United
Nations list of protected areas, IUCN, Gland and UNEP - WCMC,
Cambridge. Accessed on 30 December 2004 at http://www.unep.org/
PDF/Un-list-protected-areas.pdf
Chinese Government. 2007. China’s national climate change program.
(English version) National Reform and Development Commission,
Beijing.
CETFKRB NRC. 2004. Endangered and threatened fishes in the Klamath
River Basin: causes of decline and strategies for recovery. The National
Academies Press, Washington DC.
CBD. 2004a. Decision VII/28 Protected areas (Articles 8(a) to (e)). CBD,
Montreal. Accessed on 25 February 2008 at: http://www.cbd.int/
decisions/cop-07.shtml?m=COP-07andid=7765andlg=0
CBD. 2004b. Decision VII/4 Biological diversity of inland waters. CBD,
Montreal. Accessed on 25 February 2008 at: http://www.cbd.int/
decisions/cop-07.shtml?m=COP-07&id=7741&lg=0
CBD. 2006. COP 8 Decision VIII/15. Curitiba, 20 - 31 March 2006.
Framework for monitoring implementation of the achievement of the
2010 target and integration of targets into the thematic programmes of
work. CBD, Montreal. Accessed on 5 May 2008 at: http://www.cbd.int/
decisions/?m=COP-08andid=11029andlg=0
B I O D I V E R S I
CBD. 2007. Climate change and biological diversity. What needs to be
done? CBD, Montreal. Accessed on 14 May 2008 at: http://www.cbd.
int/climate/done.shtml
CBD. 2008. National biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs).
CBD, Montreal. Accessed on 15 May 2008 at: http://www.cbd.int/
nbsap/
CBD and Ramsar. 2007. Fourth joint work plan between Ramsar and
the Convention on Biological Diversity. CBD, Montreal and Ramsar
Convention Secretariat. Accessed on 17 March 2008 at: http://www.
ramsar.org/cbd/key_cbd_jwp4_e.htm
Daufresne, M. and P. Boët. 2007. Climate change impacts on structure
and diversity of fish communities in rivers. Global Change Biology 13:
2467–2478.
de Fraiture, C., M. Giordano, and Y. Liao. 2008. Biofuels and
implications for agricultural water use: blue impacts of green energy.
Water Policy 10 Supplement 1 (2008):67-81
DCE. 1992. Management Plan Alpine National Park Wonnangatta-Moroka
Planning Unit. State of Victoria, Melbourne.
Doolan, J. 2007. Dealing with climate change: the Victorian approach.
Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Presentation
at the 11th International Riversymposium, 1-4 September 2007, Brisbane.
Accessed on 13 May 2008 at http://www.riversymposium.com/index.
php?page=Papers#2007
Driver, A., K. Maze, M. Rouget, A.T. Lombard, J. Nel, J.K. Turpie,
R.M. Cowling, P. Desmet, P. Goodman, J.L. Harris, Z. Jonas, B.
Reyers, K. Sink, and T. Strauss. 2005. National spatial biodiversity
assessment 2004: Priorities for biodiversity conservation in South
Africa. Strelitzia 17. South African National Biodiversity Institute,
Pretoria.
du Toit, J.T., K.H. Rogers, and H.C. Biggs (Eds). 2003. The Kruger
experience. Ecology and management of savanna heterogeneity. Island
Press, Washington.
Dudgeon, D., A.H. Arthington, M.O. Gessner, Z. Kawabata, D.J.
Knowler, C. Lévêque, R.J. Naiman, A. Prieur-Richard, D. Soto,
M.L. J. Stiassny, and C.A. Sullivan. 2006. Freshwater biodiversity:
importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological
Reviews 81: 163-182.
Dudley, N. and S. Stolton. 2003. Running pure: the importance of forest
protected areas for drinking water. A research report for the World Bank
/ WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use. World
Bank / WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use,
Gland and Washington. Accessed on 10 March 2008 at: http://assets.
panda.org/downloads/runningpurereport.pdf
Durance, I. and S.J. Ormerod. 2007. Climate change effects on upland
stream macroinvertebrates over a 25-year period. Global Change
Biology 13(5): 942–957
DWAF undated. Guide to the National Water Act. DWAF, Pretoria.
Accessed on 18 March 2008 at: http://www.dwaf.gov.za/Documents/
Publications/NWAguide.asp
Ficke, A.D., C.A. Myrick and L.J. Hansen. 2007. Effects of global
climate change freshwater fish and fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology
and Fisheries. 17: 581-612
Gilman, R.T., R.A. Abell, and C.E. Williams. 2004. How can conservation
biology inform the practice of Integrated River Basin Management?
Journal of River Basin Management 2: 135-148
Green, A., P. Lokani, S. Sheppard, J. Almany, S. Keu, J. Aitsi, J. Warku
Karvon, R. Hamilton and G. Lipsett-Moore. 2007. Scientific design
of a resilient network of marine protected areas. Kimbe Bay, West New
Britain, Papua New Guinea. TNC Pacific Island Countries Report No.
2a/07. TNC, South Brisbane.
Hansen, L.J., J.R. Hoffman and J.L. Biringer. 2003. Buying time: A
user’s manual to building resistance and resilience to climate change in
natural systems. WWF. Gland.
Higgins, J.V. 2003. 10. Maintaining ebbs and flows for the landscape:
conservation planning for freshwater ecosystems. In: C. Groves,
Drafting a conservation blueprint: a practioner’s guide to planning for
biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, pp. 291-318.
IPCC. 2008. Technical paper on climate change and water. IPCC-XXVIII/
Doc.13 (8.IV.2008). IPCC Secretariat, Geneva. Accessed on 15 May
2008 at http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session28/doc13.pdf
IJHD. 2002. World atlas of hydropower and dams. IJHD, Sutton
IUCN, International Water Management Institute, Ramsar Convention
Bureau and World Resources Institute. 2003. Watersheds of the
world_CD. IUCN, Gland. Accessed on 17 March 2008 at: http://
multimedia.wri.org/watersheds_2003/index.html.
IUCN. 2008. Guidelines for applying protected area management categories.
Draft of revised guidelines. January 2008 version. IUCN, Gland.
Jackson, C.R. 2006. Wetland hydrology. In D.P. Batzer and R.R. Sharitz
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 37
 (Eds.). Ecology of freshwater and estuarine wetlands. University of
California Press, Berkeley, pp. 43-81.
Jackson, D.A and N.E. Mandrak. 2002. Changing fish biodiversity:
predicting the loss of cyprinid biodiversity due to global climate change.
In N. A. McGinn (Ed.). Fisheries in a changing climate. American
Fisheries Society. Symposium 32, Bethesda, pp. 89-97.
Jones, G., T. Hillman, R. Kingsford, T. McMahon, K. Walker, A.
Arthington, J. Whittington, and S. Cartwright. 2002. Independent
report of the Expert Reference Panel on environmental flows and
water quality requirements for the River Murray system. Cooperative
Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology. Canberra. Accessed on
13 May 2008 at: http://thelivingmurray.mdbc.gov.au/publications/
reports_pre-2003
Kirby, M., R. Evans, G. Walker, R. Cresswell, J. Coram, S. Khan, Z.
Paydar, M. Mainuddin, N. McKenzie, and S. Ryan. 2006. The shared
water resources of the Murray-Darling Basin. MDBC, Canberra.
Marshall P.A. and H.Z. Schuttenberg. 2006. A reef manager’s guide to
coral bleaching. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville
MEA. 2005a. Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water
synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington DC.
MEA. 2005b. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. World
Resources Institute, Washington DC.
MDBC. 2008. The Living Murray. MDBC, Canberra. Accessed on 18
March 2008 at: http://www.thelivingmurray.mdbc.gov.au/
MDBMC. 2003. Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council Communiqué
14 November 2003. MDBC, Canberra. Accessed on 13 May 2008
at:http://www.mdbc.gov.au/news/MC_communique/mdbmc_
communiques_archive
Moore, K., and G.Q. Bull. 2004. Guidelines, codes and legislation.
In: Northcote, T. and . Hartman (Eds.), Fishes and Forestry – World
Watershed Interactions and Management. Blackwell Science, Oxford,
UK, pp. 707–728.
NPS. 2008. Yosemite National Park history and culture. NPS, Washington
DC. Accessed on 22 February 2008 at http://www.nps.gov/yose/
historyculture/index.htm
NWC. 2008. National Water Commission – driving water reform. National
Water Commission, Canberra. Accessed on 18 March 2008 at: http://
www.nwc.gov.au/
Nevill, J. 2007. Policy failure: Australian freshwater protected area
networks. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 14:35-
47.
Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent
climate change. Annual Review of Ecology and Evolution 37: 637–
669.
Peres, C.A., and J.W. Terborgh. 1995. Amazonian nature reserves - an
analysis of the defensibility status of existing conservation units and
design criteria for the future. Conservation Biology 9: 34-46.
Pittock, J., B. Lehner, and L. Lifeng. 2006. River basin management
to conserve wetlands and water resources. In R. Bobbink, B. Beltman,
J.T.A. Verhoeven, and D.F. Whigham (Eds.). 2006. Wetlands:
functioning, biodiversity conservation and restoration. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin and Heidelberg. Chapter 8, pp.169-196.
Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D.
Richter, R.E. Sparks, and J.C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow
regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience
47: 769-784.
Poff N.L., M.M. Brinson, and J.W. Day. 2002. Aquatic ecosystems
and global climate change: potential impacts on inland freshwater and
coastal wetland ecosystems in the United States. Pew Center on Global
Climate Change, Arlington.
Postel, S. and B. Richter. 2003. Rivers for life. Managing water for people
and nature. Island Press, Washington.
Pounds, J. A., M.R. Bustamante, L.A. Coloma, J.A. Consuegra,
M.P.L. Fogden, P.N. Foster, E. La Marca, K.L. Masters, A.
Merino-Viteri, R. Puschendorf, S.R. Ron, G.A. Sánchez-Azofeifa,
C.J. Still, and B.E. Young. 2006. Widespread amphibian extinctions
from epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature 439: 161-
167
Raddum G.G. and A. Fjellheim. 2002. Species composition of freshwater
invertebrates in relation to chemical and physical factors in high
mountains in southwestern Norway. Water, Air and Soil Pollution:
Focus 2: 311-328.
Ramsar. 1999. Guidelines for developing and implementing national
wetlands policies. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland. Accessed on
17 March 2008 at http://www.ramsar.org/key_guide_nwp_e.htm
Ramsar. 2002. Resolution VIII.3 on climate change and wetlands. Ramsar
Convention Secretariat, Gland. Accessed on 25 February 2008 at http://
www.ramsar.org/res/key_res_viii_03_e.htm
38 T R O P I C A L C
Ramsar. 2006. Strategic Framework for the List of Wetlands of
International Importance, edition 2006. Ramsar Convention Secretariat,
Gland. Accessed on 25 February 2008 at http://www.ramsar.org/key_
guide_list2006_e.htm#II
Saunders, D.L., J.J. Meeuwig, and A.C.J. Vincent. 2002. Freshwater
protected areas: Strategies for conservation. Conservation Biology 16:
30-41.
SFA. 2002. China national wetland conservation action plan. (English
version). China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing.
Shiklomanov, I.A. 1993. World fresh water resources. In P.H. Gleick (Ed.).
Water in crisis: a guide to the world’s fresh water resources. Oxford
University Press. New York
Sowa, P.S., G. Annis, M.E. Morey, and D.D. Diamond. 2007. A
gap analysis and comprehensive conservation strategy for riverine
ecosystems of Missouri. Ecological monographs 77(3):301-334.
Tharme, R.E. 2003. A global perspective on environmental flow
assessment: emerging trends in the development and application of
environmental flow methodologies for rivers. River Research and
Applications 19: 397-441.
Theime, M., B. Lehner, R. Abell, S.K. Hamilton, J. Kellndorfer, G.
Powell, and J.C. Riveros. 2007. Freshwater conservation planning in
data-poor areas: an example from a remote Amazonian basin (Madre
de Dios River, Peru and Bolivia). Biological conservation 135: 484-
501.
UN. 2002. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August – 4 September 2002. UN, New
York.
UNFCCC. 2008a. Cooperation with international organisations. UNFCCC
Secretariat, Montreal. Accessed on 2 May 2008 at: https://unfccc.int/
cooperation_and_support/cooperation_with_international_organizations/
items/2970.php
UNFCCC. 2008b. National Reports. UNFCCC Secretariat, Montreal.
Accessed on 17 March 2008 at: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/
items/1408.php
UNGA. 2000. United Nations Millennium Declaration. Resolution
adopted by the General Assembly 55/2.
UN, New York.US Embassy in China. 2003. Update on China’s South-
North Water Transfer Project. A June 2003 report from Embassy Beijing.
United States Embassy in China, Beijing. Accessed on 29 February 2008
at: http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/sandt/ptr/SNWT-East-Route-
prt.htm
V&W (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water
Management), VROM (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning
and the Environment) and LNV (Ministry of Agriculture,
Nature Management and Food Quality). 2006. Spatial planning
key decision ‘room for the river. Investing in the safety and vitality
of the Dutch river basin region. (In English). V&W, VROM and
LNV, Den Hague. Accessed on 29 April 2008 at: http://www.
ruimtevoorderivier.nl
van Dijk, A., R. Evans, P. Hairsine, S. Khan, R. Nathan, Z. Paydar,
N. Viney, and L. Zhang. 2006. Risks to shared water resources of the
Murray-Darling Basin. MDBC, Canberra.
Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E.
Cushing. 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of
Fishery and Aquatic Sciences 37: 130-137.
VEAC. 2008. Final recommendations July 2008. River red gum forests
investigation. VEAC, East Melbourne.
Victorian Government. 1992. Version No. 014. Heritage Rivers Act 1992.
No. 36 of 1992. Victorian Government, Melbourne. Accessed on 2 May
2008 at: http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/
Victorian Government. 2008. Land and biodiversity at a time of climate
change. Green paper. Victorian Government, Melbourne.
WCPA. 2008. Draft guidelines for applying protected area management
categories. April 2008 version. WCPA, Gland.
Williams, D.D. 2006. The biology of temporary waters. Oxford University
Press, New York.
Wong, P. 2008. Water for the future. Senator the Hon Penny Wong.
Minister for Climate Change and Water Speech to the 4th Annual
Australian Water Summit, Sydney, 29-30 April 2008. Accessed on 26
May 2008 at: http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/wong/2008/
pubs/sp20080429.pdf
WWF. 2006. Free flowing rivers. Economic luxury or ecological necessity?
WWF International, Gland. Accessed on 18 March 2006 at: http://
www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/freshwater/news/index.
cfm?uNewsID=62620
Wrona, F.J.,T.D. Prowse, J.D. Reist, J.E. Hobbie, J.L.M. Lévesque, and
W.F. Vincent. 2006. Climate change effects on aquatic biota, ecosystem
structure, and function. Ambio 35:359-369.
O N S E R V A N C Y
 Using species distribution models
to effectively conserve biodiversity into the future
Heather M. Kharouba*, Julie L. Nadeau, Eric Young, and Jeremy T. Kerr
Abstract.Canadian biodiversity is especially high in temperate southern regions, where human-dominated land uses are Authors’ Addresses:
both intensive and widespread. As a result, endangered species are also disproportionately concentrated in these areas. Canadian Facility for
Climate change presents a new threat across most of Canada, including areas of intensive human land use, which creates Ecoinformatics
conditions for substantial shifts in species composition and potential losses of many rare species. Protected areas is one Research,
adaptation strategy but, in Canada, parks suffer from severe limitations in their distribution, size, and because they have Department of Biology,
static boundaries. Land use changes around several protected areas in Canada are leading increasingly to their effective University of Ottawa
isolation, a trend we demonstrate using high resolution satellite data. Little published research has yet addressed this issue 30 Marie Curie,
in the Canadian context, although some models now forecast ecological changes in the next century. Adaptation to global P.O. Box 450 Station A
change impacts will necessitate refocusing conservation strategies beyond the boundaries of protected areas to include Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
broader landscape perspectives. Necessary responses to these challenges include validated models predicting future biotic K1N 6N5
responses to global change, expanded biodiversity monitoring across Canada, improvements to the patchwork of federal http://www.science.
and provincial legislation protecting species, and preemptive conservation strategies that recognize impending transitions to uottawa.ca/~jkerr
unprecedented environmental conditions.
*Corresponding Author:
Heather M. Kharouba ,
Introduction conservation plan. In this article, we review the impacts of Dept. of Zoology,
Global changes, such as climate change or land use conversion, recent global changes on species’ distributions in Canada, and University of
British Columbia
threaten elements of the world’s biodiversity. While habitat loss the role of protected areas and species distribution modeling #2370-6270
impacts on species have long been at least qualitatively obvious, in the context of a rapidly changing environment. We University Blvd.
highlight the imperative to focus conservation efforts beyond Vancouver, B.C.
it is only relatively recently that strong evidence emerged V6T 1Z4
outlining that anthropogenic climate changes are now affecting the boundaries of static reserves and suggest implications for kharouba@zoology.
species (reviewed in Kerr and Kharouba 2007). In the past policy and conservation management in Canada. ubc.ca
century, for instance, species’ phenological timing for critical
biological processes, like flowering period, have begun to occur The context: Global change
earlier in the year (Walther et al. 2002; Root et al. 2003; Root and across Canada in the 20th century
Hughes 2005), and many species appear to be tracking toward Recent global changes have created a unique pattern in Canada:
the poles (Parmesan et al. 1999; Hill et al. 2002; Parmesan land use changes have been focused in southern Canada,
and Yohe 2003; Hickling et al. 2006; Hitch and Leberg 2007) whereas climate changes have been in mountainous areas
and to higher elevations (Konvicka et al. 2003; Wilson et al. and northern latitudes (Kerr and Cihlar 2003; White and Kerr
2005; Hickling et al. 2006). Habitat losses to agriculture and 2006). Agriculture is heavily concentrated in the prairie region,
urbanization, the primary causes of species endangerment in the southern British Columbia, and southern Ontario and Québec
U.S. and Canada (Dobson et al. 1997; Kerr and Cihlar 2003; Kerr (Kerr and Cihlar 2003). Land use intensity has increased
and Cihlar 2004; Kerr and Deguise 2004), have during the same dramatically since World War II through the introduction and
period, generated potentially insurmountable barriers to species widespread application of pesticides (Freemark and Boutin
migration (Dennis and Shreeve 1991; Collingham and Huntley 1995; Benton et al. 2002). Similarly, human population density
2000; Hill et al. 2001). The expansion of many butterfly species’ is also highest in these areas (Figure 1) and has increased
ranges already appears to be lagging behind current climates due substantially over the last century (White and Kerr 2006),
to lack of habitat availability (Hill et al. 1999; Parmesan et al. leading to increased habitat loss to agriculture.
1999; Warren et al. 2001). The interaction of climate and land
In addition to extensive and intensive land use changes,
use change alone is expected to commit 15-37% of the world’s
temperature and precipitation have also changed across Canada
species to extinction by 2050 (Thomas et al. 2004). Canada’s
over the last century. Most areas have experienced warmer
biodiversity is similarly threatened (Kerr and Deguise 2004):
temperatures, although temperatures have actually decreased
the latest research suggests that global changes have caused
in some regions, such as Northern Ontario and in some parts of
widespread shifts in the distribution of Canadian butterfly species
Northern Quebec (Lemmen et al. 2008). Changes in Canada have
(White and Kerr 2006).
been more substantial than in other countries, given its northern
With significant climate changes predicted for the future location. Moreover, temperatures are expected to continue to rise
(IPCC 2007), successful conservation strategies and reasoned over the next century, especially in the north (IPCC 2007). Future
policy directives that incorporate a range of possible species climate change scenarios also predict increased glacial melt
responses are critical. Global changes are likely to force many and flooding in the west, melting of the ice caps in the Arctic,
species to shift beyond the boundaries of existing protected increased drought episodes in central Canada and a rise in sea
areas, threatening the effectiveness of traditional conservation levels in the Atlantic (Lemmen et al. 2008).Canada also holds a
strategies. Accurate predictions of climate and land use impacts significant portion of the world’s boreal forest, which is expected
on species distributions are a prerequisite for any successful to be more affected by climate change than either temperate or

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 39
 Figure 1.
Species and endangered
species richness with
respect to human
population density in
two of Canada’s most
species diverse areas:
A) Southern British
Columbia; B) Southern
Ontario. Here, human
population density
is also the highest
in Canada leading
to significant habitat
losses and species
endangerment.

tropical forests (IPCC 2007). The risks associated with future
climate changes underscore the importance of exploring how
global changes will influence traditional conservation strategies.
Unfortunately, overall species richness, as well as endangered
species density, are concentrated in southern Canada where land
use also happens to be the most intense and therefore leading to
further species endangerment (Figure 1). This pattern of species
richness reflects the importance of climate in determining
regional differences in species diversity (Currie 1991; Kerr and
Packer 1997). However, people also tend to live in warmer
climates, resulting in an increase in human population densities
towards southern Canada, where species diversity also peaks.
Positive spatial relationships between human population
density and species richness have also been observed in Africa
(Balmford et al. 2001) and Europe (Araujo 2003) for vertebrates
and plants. As a result of this spatial overlap, patterns of habitat
loss are positively related to patterns of overall species richness
(Kerr and Cihlar 2003) and endangered species richness across
Canada (Kerr and Deguise 2004). Based on rates of species
endangerment (number of IUCN-listed species/total species
richness per country), extinction risk in Canada now rivals
those observed in poverty-stricken tropical countries (Kerr and
Deguise 2004; Kerr and Cihlar 2004). Since agricultural and
urban lands are rarely permitted to revert back to more natural
conditions, the likelihood of recovery for threatened species is
limited (Kerr and Deguise 2004). Therefore, even without the
additional risk from climate change, species in Canada already
face significant threats.
Canadian butterflies have already begun responding to recent
climate changes. Butterflies have many characteristics (e.g. short
generation times, high vagility, and physiological limitations
imposed by climate) that make them especially likely to reflect
the impacts of global change (Hughes 2000; Hill et al. 2001;
Peterson et al. 2004). In Canada, it appears that most butterfly
distributions have been tracking changing climatic conditions
and that overall butterfly species richness has increased over
the past century (White and Kerr 2006). Moreover, predictions
for the future suggest that most Canadian butterflies will
continue to respond relatively quickly (Peterson et al. 2004).
However, widespread agricultural land use in the south has
reduced their potential to respond to climate change (White and
Kerr 2006). In general, rare species (geographically-speaking)
are responding more negatively to land use and climate changes
than widespread generalist species which are expanding their
ranges (White and Kerr 2007). Butterfly species responses in
Canada are similar to those observed in the UK where specialists
are lagging behind changing climates (Menendez et al. 2006).
Responses of other Canadian taxa to global changes have been
less favourable and predictions for many are not optimistic. Some
Caribou and Muskox populations have already experienced
declines in recent years as a result of climate changes (Lemmen
et al. 2007). Likewise, in British Columbia, certain fish, the
Mountain Pine Beetle and Western Red Cedar have shown
abrupt changes in abundance and/or distribution in response to
past, relatively minor changes in climate (Lemmen et al. 2007).
Climate projections suggest that warm-water freshwater fish

40 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
species may expand their ranges northwards while cold-water purchased by local land trusts and preserved indefinitely in
species may be extirpated from much of their present range due the form of conservation easements. These areas could then be
to physical and ecological barriers (Chu et al. 2005; Sharma et available for habitat restoration and could play a valuable role
al. 2007). Similarly, carnivore species, such as the American in the recovery of species at risk. Private lands with easements
Marten and Lynx are also projected to experience population remain the property of the landowner, but restrictions are put
declines in their northern Appalachian parts of their range in on the property with respect to subdivision, building, timber
response to anticipated climate and land use changes (Carroll extraction, etc. to protect biodiversity. Just recently, a vast tract
2008), which could affect the Canadian populations. Many of wilderness in British Columbia that was privately owned
Arctic species have narrow habitat and niche requirements, was purchased by the Nature Conservancy of Canada for
which will make them particularly sensitive to climate changes conservation purposes (24 July 2008, Globe and Mail). For Figure 2.
easements to be effective and to prevent further division and All protected areas
(Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna 2001). Increasing (black areas; IUCN
aridity in the prairie grasslands is likely to negatively impact degradation of the land, rules for ongoing land use must be clear categories I-IV) found in
migratory waterfowl populations given their sensitivity to (Rissman et al. 2008). Most easements owned by the Nature Southern Ontario with
respect to part of the
drought conditions (Poiani and Johnson 1993). Given the Conservancy in the U.S. are protected with specific biological Canadian distribution of
high sensitivity of mammals to disturbance and the significant targets in mind. More research must be done to evaluate the the threatened Hooded
climate changes predicted for Northern Canada, this region conservation success of these properties (Kiesecker et al. 2007). Warbler (Wilsonia
citrine). The total area of
is considered to be a global hotspot of latent extinction risk A comprehensive discussion outlining all the limitations and all these reserves make
(Cardillo et al. 2006), meaning that significant biodiversity loss complexity of easements is beyond the scope of this review. up only a tiny fraction of
this part of the warbler's
is likely. As average temperatures continue to rise over the next range (light green area)
Climate change has the potential to substantially diminish
century, we can expect much more drastic species responses limiting the protection
the effectiveness of protected areas. The main drawback of afforded by these
and much higher rates of extinctions (Thomas et al. 2004).
even well-designed, optimally-situated reserves is that they reserves.
Conservation in a rapidly
changing environment
The addition of climate change to the other stressors already
affecting habitats and their constituent species presents a major
challenge for the conservation of biodiversity (Parmesan &
Galbraith 2004). In Canada, land use constraints have limited
both the size and placement of protected areas, and thus the
benefits of these areas. For example, few Canadian species
at risk of extinction can actually maintain viable populations
within the small reserves where fragments of their habitat
remain (Kerr & Deguise 2004). The reason for this dilemma is
twofold: first, Canada’s species at risk are heavily concentrated
in the agricultural southern region of the country (Figure 1)
and, second, protected areas in that region are scattered and
very small (Figure 2). The Mixed Wood Plains is one such
agricultural region that has a particularly small proportion of its
area protected but is home to the greatest number of species at
risk of extinction in Canada (Deguise and Kerr 2006). Canadian
protected areas rarely include more species at risk than
randomly chosen areas and sometimes include fewer (Deguise
and Kerr 2006). Moreover, protection afforded by reserves
increasingly ends at their borders as surrounding lands are lost to
development and agriculture. Recent remote sensing data shows
intensive habitat losses (e.g. deforestation) literally up to parks’
statutory boundaries (Figure 3). Increasingly, human activities
surrounding reserves impact the management of populations
inside park boundaries (Wiersma and Nudds 2001; Sinclair and
Byrom 2006). Given the already limited potential of reserves to
effectively conserve biodiversity without the additional threats
from climate change, conservation outside traditional reserve
networks is essential (Ricketts 2001; Ricketts et al. 2001).
As an alternative to systematic reserve selection, rights
on private lands of high ecological significance (e.g. areas
important for endangered species conservation) can be

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 41
 Figure 3.
Land cover maps around
the boundary of Pacific
Rim National Park,
British Columbia for the
years A) 1990 and B)
2005. Lighter patches
are fresh cuts. There
has been a significant
increase in deforestation
in this area over this
relatively short time
period and now habitat
is lost right up to the
park boundaries. Data
put together by R.
Fraser, A. Clouston, I.
Olthof and D. Pouliot
from the Canadian
Centre for Remote
Sensing.

are fixed in place in an era of rapidly changing environments.
Most reserves are managed to conserve “representative”
ecosystems that may no longer exist under future climatic
conditions (Hannah et al. 2002a). Currently, conservation-
planning frameworks at many levels of government in Canada
are based on assumptions of climatic and landscape stability,
making Canada’s protected areas vulnerable to anticipated
global changes (Lemieux and Scott 2005). Model predictions
based on a variety of climate scenarios suggest major biome
shifts within Canada’s National Park boundaries that could
significantly affect the ability of park managers to meet their
current conservation goals (Scott et al. 2002).
A key dilemma affecting many species conservation prospects
is that their ranges will be changing quickly, reflecting the
common dependence of range margins on climates (reviewed
in Kerr and Kharouba 2007). The potential for reserves to
maintain and protect their original complement of species may
be affected by the arrival of new species and the loss of species
currently receiving protection that must track shifting suitable
habitat beyond park boundaries (Hannah et al. 2002b; Scott et
al. 2002). New research suggests that protected areas in Canada
have provided little buffer against the effects of global change,
possibly because climate change operates over vast areas that
dwarf even the massive reserves in Canada’s north. Reserves
are also small relative to species ranges (Figure 2). In Canada,
for example, the average butterfly species’ range size is 1.2
X 106 km2 but mean reserve size is only ~5.9 X 103 km2.
Because species respond individually to changing climates,
the probability that shifts in their range will intersect reserve
boundaries is small. This research provides an early warning that
protected area networks, as they currently exist, may not provide
strong enough shelter from global change impacts on species
within their boundaries. As these reserves become more isolated
in the future with increasing land use change, it is reasonable to
expect their conservation importance will increase.
Conserving biodiversity in a dynamic world requires using
strategies that go beyond static reserve selection methods
(Pyke et al. 2005). Although the respective effects of climate
and land use change differ, the best conservation strategies
to address these aspects of global change converge. Dynamic
protected areas, or reserves that are re-located at specified
intervals to track shifting habitat, are one potential solution.
When modeled through time, dynamic reserves supported
more high quality home ranges for the American marten
(Martes americana) than static protected areas (Rayfield
et al. 2008). However, given that vast new reserve systems
will rarely be possible in the future due to increases in land-
use pressures (Da Fonseca et al. 2005), and because of the
severe legislative challenges of implementing a formal,
dynamic reserve system, management and protection of
existing natural and semi-natural areas in human-dominated
landscapes should become a priority. Increasing emphasis on
the matrix (non-habitat), not just the habitat “islands” within
it, will also improve landscape connectivity with obvious
benefits for species shifting in response to climate change.
Conservation strategies that incorporate corridors, restoration
of human-dominated landscapes, and buffer zones will likely
be especially valuable (Lovejoy 2006; Damschen et al.

42 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
2006). Relatively low-intensity (see Kerr & Cihlar 2004) or
mixed use agricultural landscapes (e.g. agroforestry; Hannah
et al. 2002b) can maintain increased habitat and resource
availability (Benton et al. 2002) that make dispersal through
such landscapes more likely (see Parmesan & Galbraith 2004;
Hannah & Hansen 2005). Finally, much more work is needed
at the interface between science and policy so that biodiversity
can be conserved effectively (Hannah et al. 2002b).
Species distribution
modeling and global change
However landscapes are to be managed in an era of rapidly
shifting climates, it will be necessary to identify areas where
conservation needs are likely to change. Designing and
implementing effective conservation strategies in the context of
future global changes necessitates accurate predictions about how
species are responding to these changes. Accurately predicting
where species will shift outside reserves is especially critical
given serious land use changes expected in the future (IPCC
2007) and because of limited knowledge of species’ populations
outside relatively intensively monitored park populations.
Species distribution modeling offers an efficient way to study
the geographical responses of species to global changes.
Species distribution models attempt to estimate a species’
niche across geographical space by relating presence records
of the species to environmental predictors. They estimate the
probability that species occur in areas where it has not directly
been observed given an array of measured niche parameters
(Segurado and Araujo 2004). These niche parameters can
include any sort of environmental or biotic characteristic that
may limit the distribution of the species being modeled (e.g.
minimum winter temperatures) and that can be measured
spatially. These models have wide management applications
in the context of conservation biology, biogeography and
climate change studies (Meynard and Quinn 2007).
A common application of these models (which predicts where
a species is found across geographical space, derived from its
occurrence records relative to environmental predictors) is to
project species’ potential future distribution under different
climate scenarios based on models built using data from the
present-day (e.g. Thomas et al. 2004; Peterson et al. 2004;
Pearson et al. 2006). Although these models may provide
the best estimates of how species will respond to impending
environmental changes, they have several limitations. For
instance, different modeling techniques can produce highly
divergent predictions (Pearson et al. 2006), even for the
same species and geographical region (Lawler et al. 2006).
These predictions can be so different as to compromise even
the simplest assessment of whether species distributions are
expected to contract or expand for any given climate scenario
(Pearson et al. 2006). Therefore, it is difficult to incorporate these
results into strategic conservation planning given their lack of
reliability (Araujo et al. 2006; Willis et al. 2007). Since no single
modeling technique is consistently superior to other techniques
(Segurado and Araujo 2004; Elith et al. 2006), averaging the
spatial predictions from several modeling techniques may
B I O D I V E R S I
help minimize errors (Araujo and New 2007). Secondly, when
predicting into the future, virtually all these models rely solely
on present-day spatial data (White and Kerr 2006; Kerr et al.
2007). This means that to build the predictions, these models
must be run through time, requiring the key assumption that
the spatial patterns identified in the initial species distribution
model will remain consistent through time. This “space-for-
time” assumption is known to be risky (White and Kerr 2006).
Predicting the future is clearly a challenging business and it
is essential to view all models purporting to accomplish this
goal with caution and in light of known limitations on model
accuracy. Despite their shortcomings, species distribution
models remain an essential tool for this purpose.
Improving predictions for the future
Incorporating unreliable predictions into conservation strategies
can have serious implications. Overestimating species’ ranges
(i.e. predicting presence where the species is actually absent) or
population sizes can cause management efforts to fall short of
conservation needs. Extinction is the most severe consequence
of poorly conceived (or absent) management efforts, so the
stakes for failure are very high. Likewise, underestimating
species’ ranges (predicting absence where species will actually
be present) or population sizes can lead to wasted effort and
misdirection of resources to areas where they are not essential.
Both problems point to the need for models of species’
responses to global change to be validated.
Model validation will be particularly informative if it includes
the temporal dimension that is intrinsic to forecasts of future
responses. This past century, which includes a period of rapid,
anthropogenic climate change as well as land use change, is the
best guide to the near future (Kerr et al. 2007). In many cases,
however, data for recent time periods may be unavailable, so
calibration of global change models using paleoecological
(e.g. pollen records from sediment cores) data sources may
also be helpful (Willis et al. 2007). Directly observing how
quickly species have actually responded to changes of known
magnitude, whether these changes have occurred over decades
within the 20th century or over centuries in the case of
paleoecological data, can be used to guide models forecasting
species’ future responses. As a first step, accurately predicting
species’ current niches using species responses in the recent
past would considerably improve confidence in the reliability of
models predicting responses into the future. For many Canadian
butterfly species at least, species distribution models derived
from purely spatial data are able to predict how those species’
distributions have changed over the 20th century (Kharouba
et al. 2008). For some species, however, the space-for-time
substitution fails badly: although the species’ niche models are
highly accurate spatially, they do not accurately predict shifts in
species’ ranges through time. Unfortunately, for these butterflies
at least, it is difficult a priori to determine which species we
will be able to make accurate predictions for, without any data
about the historical distribution of the species. It appears that
calibrating species distribution models with past observations is
necessary before projecting species ranges into the future.
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 43
Empirical validation of species distribution models across spatial
gradients is another way to improve future predictions. Here,
species’ observations made at given locations can be used to
determine whether model predictions are accurate. Corroborating
model predictions with on-the-ground observations also
allows for tests of macroecological hypotheses about how
species populations and niches are structured (e.g. are species
populations greater toward the centers of their ranges?). Models
can be validated with data that already exists (e.g. records from
herbariums, natural collections, ecological surveys, etc. The
largest distribution network of species observations is the Global
Biodiversity Information Facility (http://www.gbif.org/), which
(by June 30, 2008) made more than 160,000,000 georeferenced
records for thousands of species available without charge) or with
a posteriori measurements from field surveys designed explicitly
to test the models (Greaves et al. 2006; Boitani et al. 2008). For
rare species or for those difficult to observe in the wild, accurately
measuring the quality of habitat, rather than incorporating direct
species observations, can be used as an indirect test of the model.
Lastly, temporal model predictions should also be empirically
validated. If accurate, species distribution models should
predict shifts in species’ ranges at specific sites. This test is the
most data-intensive as it requires model predictions, as well as
species’ observations, at a given location in two different time
periods to be robust. Field surveys should be conducted at sites
where the species is predicted to have recently shifted into the
area (i.e. where the model currently predicts presence but
historically predicts absence), and where the species is predicted
to have persisted through time (i.e. where the model predicts
presence both currently and historically). Regardless of the
method, validating species distribution models will improve
our ability to predict future responses of species distributions
to global changes and will help to focus conservation strategies
so that they are as effective as possible in the future.
Management implications
There are several important implications for conservation
management in Canada and hopefully at a broader scale. More
specifically, we make recommendations about the application of
species distribution models to protected areas conservation, and
endangered species conservation. Predictions of future ranges
from species distribution models can be used to identify areas
that will be of most conservation need. Once these models are
calibrated with recent past observations, the ranges of species
with high predictive abilities (i.e. for whom projected models
closely matched current models) can be projected into the future
(Kharouba et al. 2008). For these species, such projections are
likely to paint a realistic picture of where species will be likely to
shift with changing environmental conditions. Such predictions
can form the basis for policy-relevant recommendations, such
as where to place migration corridors or protected areas that will
improve the likelihood that these species will shift successfully
into new areas. Species distribution models can also be useful
from the perspective of park managers, who could model
potential threats from invasive species, which are known to
threaten biodiversity (Mack et al. 2000). There is also potential
44 T R O P I C A L C
for these models to be used in an operational manner through
time to assess any changes in species distributions as a response
to climate and land use changes.
To meet the need for field-tests of models, standard monitoring
methods and systematic surveys carried out at regular intervals
(e.g. NABA survey for butterflies, Breeding Bird Survey) will
improve future predictions about species distributions (Pollard
and Yates 1993). Consistently monitoring species in large
areas at regular time intervals can help build databases that
could be used to test models. Systematically sampling areas
would provide records of species absence, as well as species
presence, which would provide stronger tests of species
distribution models. Predictions of absence are difficult to test
as failure to observe a species in a particular field site does
not prove the species is absent from that area (Anderson et
al. 2003). For example, to provide support that the Edith’s
Checkerspot Butterfly had shifted northwards over the past
century, Parmesan (1996) surveyed the entire distribution of the
species. She classified localities as ‘extinction’ or ‘persistence’
based on whether the site was classified as present or absent
in the historical records and whether they currently found
the species when sampling. Therefore, the conclusion that
the species shifted northwards but retracted from its southern
boundary (Parmesan 1996) was better supported.
Shifting species ranges presents a formidable challenge to
management as key pieces of legislation, such as Canada’s
Species at Risk Act (SARA, which came into force in 2003), have
no formal provision to adapt to climate change-induced shifts
in species’ geographical ranges. SARA identifies the critical
habit of species but does not emphasize strict habitat protection
except at species’ “residences” (areas currently occupied) and
on federally-managed lands, which are uncommon in areas
where most species at risk are found. However, SARA does
mandate the development of recovery plans for all species listed
as threatened, endangered, or extirpated. These recovery plans
must recognize that climate changes are ongoing and will lead
to long term shifts in habitats and recovery needs of species at
risk. Although the setting aside of new areas for more intensive
conservation and recovery efforts will be valuable, climate
change-induced shifts in species ranges and populations make it
necessary to manage for biodiversity conservation and recovery
beyond these geographically static areas. SARA makes some
effort to protect species’ habitats by designating their “critical
habitat” but if climate change renders that habitat a moving
target, it could prove even more difficult to protect it. The
complexities of federal-provincial relations and constitutional
law make this a difficult challenge but one that must be addressed
in a practical way. Whatever the legal difficulties of identifying
particular areas essential for species at risk, conservation and the
recovery of species in human-dominated lands may require a
new land ethic (sensu Aldo Leopold, 1949) that does not view
natural features as separate from human land uses. Biodiversity,
for example, is not something to be exclusively visited in distant
protected areas like a museum exhibit but should be included in
working landscapes to the greatest extent possible.
O N S E R V A N C Y
Acknowledging and accounting for uncertainty in park design
planning and management should be encouraged. Strategies
to maintain the habitat for a particular species within the
boundaries of a protected area, however well managed, may
become irrelevant if climate, operating over vastly greater spatial
extents, renders that area unsuitable. Adaptive management will
be essential to allow strategies to evolve flexibly in response to
new data that become available (Pearson et al. 2006; Lawler
et al. 2006). Hannah et al. (2007) have recently demonstrated
that addressing the potential effects of future climate change in
current reserve network planning leads to better protection of
species through time and lower long-term costs than if climate
change impacts are considered later.
Furthermore, establishing conservation easements near
protected areas will contribute to the development of buffer
zones, where land uses are relatively light. This approach will
improve the ecological integrity of ecosystems within parks
by reducing the magnitude of environmental gradients across
park boundaries and will also make landscapes surrounding
protected areas more hospitable to species that may need to
shift to remain within climatically suitable areas.
General conclusions
Species have already begun responding to global changes,
and predictions for the future suggest widespread extinctions.
Even without the additional threats from climate and land use
changes, static protected areas are not effectively conserving
biodiversity. Shifting species’ ranges with changing climates
makes focusing conservation efforts beyond the boundaries
of static reserves imperative. With additional improvements
through temporal and empirical validation, species distribution
models offer accurate predictions of where species are likely
to shift in the future allowing the identification of areas that
will be most important for conservation. Current conservation
strategies at all levels, from federal legislation (e.g. SARA)
to individual park planning, should focus on improving
landscape connectivity to facilitate species’ geographical
responses to future global changes and should account for a
degree of uncertainty in predictions of those responses.
References
Anderson, R.P., D. Lew, and A.T. Peterson. 2003. Evaluating predictive
models of species’ distributions: Criteria for selecting optimal models.
Ecological Modelling 162: 211-232.
Araujo, M.B. 2003. The coincidence of people and biodiversity in Europe.
Global Ecology and Biogeography 12: 5-12.
Araujo, M.B., W. Thuiller, and R.G. Pearson. 2006. Climate warming
and the decline of amphibians and reptiles in Europe. Journal of
Biogeography 33: 1712-1728.
Araujo, M.B., and M. New. 2007. Ensemble forecasting of species
distributions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22: 42-47.
Balmford, A., J.L. Moore, T. Brooks, N. Burgess, L.A. Hansen, P.
Williams, and C. Rahbek. 2001. Conservation conflicts across Africa.
Science 291: 2616-2619.
Benton, T.G., D.M. Bryant, L. Cole, and Q.P. Humphrey. 2002.
Farmland biodiversity: Is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in
Ecology and Evolution 8: 182-188.
Boitani, L., I. Sinibaldi, F. Corsi, A. De Biase, I.D. Carranza, M. Ravagli,
G. Reggiani, C. Rondinini, and P. Trapanese. 2008. Distribution of
medium- to large-sized African mammals based on habitat suitability
models. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 605-621.
Cardillo, M., G.M. Mace, J.L. Gittleman, and A. Purvis. 2006. Latent
extinction risk and the future battlegrounds of mammal conservation.
B I O D I V E R S I
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 103: 4157-4161.
Carroll, C. 2008. Interacting effects of climate change, landscape conversion,
and harvest on carnivore populations at the range margin: martin and lynx
in the Northern Appalachians. Conservation Biology 21: 1092-1104.
Chu, C., N.E. Mandrak, and C.K. Minns. 2005. Potential impacts
of climate change on the distributions of several common and rare
freshwater fishes in Canada. Diversity and Distributions 11: 299-310.
Collingham, Y.C., and B. Huntley. 2000. Impacts of habitat fragmentation and
patch size upon migration rates. Ecological Applications 10(1): 131-144.
Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna. 2001. Arctic flora and fauna:
status and conservation. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, Edita,
Helsinki, Finland. 272 p.
Currie, D.J. 1991. Energy and large-scale patterns of animal and plant
species richness. American Naturalist 137: 27-49.
Da Fonseca, G.A.B., W. Sechrest, and J. Oglethorpe. 2005. In Managing
the Matrix. T. E. Lovejoy and L. Hannah (Eds). Climate change and
biodiversity. pp. 346-358, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 418 p
Damschen, E.I., N.M. Haddad, J.L. Orrock, J.J. Tewksbury, and D.J.
Levey. 2006. Corridors increase plant species richness at large scales.
Science 313:1284-1286.
Deguise, I., and J.T. Kerr. 2006. Protected areas and prospects for
endangered species conservation in Canada. Conservation Biology
20(1):48-55.
Dennis, R.L.H., and T.G. Shreeve. 1991. Climatic change and the British
butterfly fauna: Opportunities and constraints. Biological Conservation
55: 1-16.
Dobson, A., J. P. Rodriguez, W. M. Roberts, and D. S. Wilcove. 1997.
Geographic distribution of endangered species in the United States.
Science 275: 550-553.
Elith, J., C.H. Graham, R.P. Anderson, M. Dudik, S. Ferrier, A.
Guisan, R.J. Hijmans, F. Huettmann, J.R. Leathwick, A. Lehmann,
J. Li, L.G. Lohmann, B.A. Loiselle, G. Manion, C. Moritz, M.
Nakamura, Y. Nakazawa, J.M. Overton, A.T. Peterson, S.J. Phillips,
K.S. Richardson, R. Scachetti-Pereira, R.E. Schapire, J. Soberon, S.
Williams, M.S. Wisz, and N.E. Zimmermann. 2006. Novel methods
improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data.
Ecography 29: 129-151.
Freemark, K., C. Boutin. 1995. Impacts of agricultural herbicide use
on terrestrial wildlife in temperate landscapes: A review with special
reference to North America. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment
52: 67-91.
Gaston, K.J., K. Charman, S.F. Jackson, P.R. Armsworth, A. Bonn,
R.A. Briers, C.S.Q. Callaghan, R. Catchpole, J. Hopkins, W.E.
Kunin, J. Latham, P. Opdam, R. Stoneman, D.A. Stroud, and R.
Tratt. 2006. The ecological effectiveness of protected areas: The United
Kingdom. Biological Conservation 132: 76-87.
Greaves, G.J., R. Mathieu, and P.J. Seddon. 2006. Predictive modelling
and ground validation of the spatial distribution of the New Zealand
long-tailed bat (Chalinolobus tuberculatus). Biological Conservation
132: 211-221.
Hannah, L., G. Midgley, G. Hughes, and B. Bomhard. 2005. The view
from the cape: Extinction risk, protected areas, and climate change.
BioScience 55(3): 231.
Hannah, L., G.F. Midgley, T. Lovejoy, W.J. Bond, M. Bush, J.C. Lovette,
D. Scott, and F.I. Woodward. 2002a. Conservation of biodiversity in a
changing climate. Conservation Biology 16(1): 264-268.
Hannah, L., G.F. Midgley, and D. Millar. 2002b. Climate change-
integrated conservation strategies. Global Ecology and Biogeography
11: 485-495.
Hannah, L., and L. Hansen. 2005. Designing landscapes and seascapes for
change. Pages 329-342 In Climate change and biodiversity. T. E. Lovejoy
and L. Hannah (Eds). Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 418 p.
Hannah, L., G. Midgley, S. Andelman, M.B. Araújo, G. Hughes, E.
Martinez-Meyer, R.G. Pearson, and P. Williams. 2007. Protected
area needs in a changing climate. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 5: 131-138.
Hickling, R., D.B. Roy, J.K. Hill, R. Fox, and C.D. Thomas. 2006.
The distribution of a wide range of taxonomic groups are expanding
polewards. Global Change Biology 12: 450-455.
Hill, J.K., C.D. Thomas, and B. Huntley. 1999. Climate and habitat
availability determine 20th century changes in a butterfly’s range margin.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Containing
papers of Biological character 266: 1197-1206.
Hill, J.K., C.D. Thomas, R. Fox, M. Telfer, S. Willis, J. Asher, and B.
Huntley. 2002. Responses of butterflies to twentieth century climate warming:
Implications for future ranges. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.
Series B, Containing papers of Biological character 269: 2163-2171.
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 45
Hill, J.K., Y. Collingham, C. Thomas, D. Blakeley, R. Fox, D. Moss,
and B. Huntley. 2001. Impacts of landscape structure on butterfly range
expansion. Ecology Letters 4(4): 313-321
Hitch, A.T., and P.L. Leberg. 2007. Breeding distributions of North
American bird species moving north as a result of climate change.
Conservation Biology 21: 534-539.
Hughes, L. 2000. Biological consequences of global warming: Is the signal
already apparent? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15: 56-61.
Jackson, S.F., and K.J. Gaston. 2008. Land use change and the dependence
of national priority species on protected areas. Global Change Biology
18(4): 1050-1060.
IPCC 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin,
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L.
Miller (Eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp.
Kerr, J.T., and J. Cihlar. 2003. Land use and cover with intensity of
agriculture for Canada from satellite and census data. Global Ecology
and Biogeography 12(2): 161-172.
Kerr, J.T., and J. Cihlar. 2004. Patterns and causes of species
endangerment in Canada. Ecological Applications 14(3): 743-753.
Kerr, J.T., and I. Deguise. 2004. Habitat loss and the limits to endangered
species recovery. Ecology Letters 7(12): 1163-1169.
Kerr, J.T., and H.M. Kharouba. 2007. Climate change and conservation
biology. Theoretical Ecology, 3rd edition, R.M. May and A. Maclean
(Eds). Oxford University Press. NY, USA. 257 p.
Kerr, J.T., H.M. Kharouba, and D.J. Currie. 2007. The macroecological
contribution to global change solutions. Science 316: 1581-1584.
Kerr, J.T., and L. Packer. 1997. Habitat heterogeneity as a determinant of
mammal species richness in high-energy regions. Nature 385: 252-254.
Kharouba, H.M., A.C. Algar, and J.T. Kerr. (accepted for publication).
Historically calibrated predictions of butterfly species’ range shift during
the 20th century: using global change as a pseudo-experiment. Ecology.
Kiesecker, J.M., T. Comendant, T. Grandmason, E. Gray, C. Hall ,
R. Hilsenbeck, P. Kareiva, L. Lozier, P. Naehu, A. Rissman, M.R.
Shaw, and M. Zankel. 2007. Conservation easements in context: a
quantitative analysis of their use by The Nature Conservancy. Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment 5(3): 125-130.
Konvicka, M., M. Maradova, J. Benes, Z. Fric, and P. Kepka. 2003.
Uphill shifts in distribution of butterflies in the Czeck Republic: Effects
of changing climate detected on a regional scale. Global Ecology and
Biogeography 12(5): 403-410.
Lawler, J.J., D. White, R.P. Neilson, and A.R. Blaustein. 2006. Predicting
climate-induced range shifts: Model differences and model reliability.
Global Change Biology 12: 1568-1584.
Lemieux, C.J. and D.J. Scott. 2005. Climate change, biodiversity
conservation and protected area planning in Canada. Canadian
Geographer 49: 384-397.
Lemmen, D.S., F.J. Warren, J. Lacroix, and E. Bush (Eds). 2008. From
Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007. Government
of Canada, Ottawa, ON. 448 p.
Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, New
York.
Lovejoy, T.E. 2006. Protected areas: A prism for a changing world. Trends
in Ecology and Evolution 21(6): 329-333.
Mack, R.N., D. Simberloff, M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout, and
F.A. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global
consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10: 689–710.
Menendez, R., A. Gonzalez Megias, J.K. Hill, B. Braschler, S.G. Willis,
Y. Collingham, R. Fox, D.B. Roy, and C.D. Thomas. 2006. Species
richness changes lag behind climate change. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London. Series B, Containing papers of Biological character
273: 1465-1470.
Meynard, C.H., and J.F. Quinn. 2007. Predicting species distributions:
A critical comparison of the most common statistical models using
artificial species. Journal of Biogeography 34: 1455-1469.
Parmesan, C. 1996. Climate and species’ range. Nature 382: 765-766.
Parmesan, C., N. Ryrholm, C. Stefanescu, J.K. Hill, C. Thomas,
H. Descimon, B. Huntley, L. Kaila, J. Kullberg, T. Tammaru,
W. Tennent, J. Thomas, and M. Warren. 1999. Poleward shifts
in geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional
warming. Nature 399: 579-584.
Parmesan C, and H. Galbraith. 2004. Observed impacts of global change
in the U.S. Arlington, Va. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 67 p.
Parmesan, C., and G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of
climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421: 37-43.
Pearson, R.G., W. Thuiller, M.B. Araújo, E. Martinez-Meyer, L.
46 T R O P I C A L C
Brotons, C. McClean, L. Miles, P. Segurado, T.P. Dawson, and
D.C. Lees. 2006. Model-based uncertainty in species range prediction.
Journal of Biogeography 33: 1704-1711.
Peters, R.L., J.D.S. Darling. 1985. The greenhouse effect and nature
reserves. BioScience 35: 707-717.
Peters, R.L., and T.E. Lovejoy. 1992. Global warming and biological
diversity. Yale University Press, London, UK. 386 p.
Peterson, A.T., E. Martinez-Meyer, C. Gonzalez-Salazar, and P.W.
Hall. 2004. Modeled climate change effects on distributions of Canadian
butterfly species. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82: 851-858.
Poiani, K. and W. Johnson. 1993. Potential effects of climate change on a
semi-permanent prairie wetland. Climatic Change 24:213-232.
Pollard, E., and T.J. Yates. 1993. Monitoring butterflies for ecology and
conservation: the British butterfly monitoring scheme. Chapman & Hall,
London, UK. 74 p.
Pyke, C.R., S.J. Andelman, and G. Midgley. 2005. Identifying priority
areas for bioclimatic representation under climate change: A case study
for proteaceae in the cape floristic region, South Africa. Biological
Conservation 125: 1-9.
Rayfield, B., P.M.A. James, A. Fall, and M-J. Fortin. 2008. Comparing
static versus dynamic protected areas in the Quebec boreal forest.
Biological Conservation 141: 438-449.
Ricketts, T.H. 2001. The matrix: effective isolation in fragmented
landscapes. American Naturalist 158: 87-99.
Ricketts, T.H., G.C. Daily, P.R. Ehrlich, and J.P. Fay. 2001. Countryside
biogeography of moths in a fragmented landscape: Biodiversity in native
and agricultural habitats. Conservation Biology 15(2): 378-388.
Rissman, A.R., L. Lozier, T. Comendant, P. Kareiva, J.M. Kiesecker, M.R.
Shaw, and A.M. Merenlender. 2007. Conservation easements: Biodiversity
protection and private use. Conservation Biology 21(3): 709-718.
Root, T.L., and L. Hughes. 2005. Present and future phenological changes in
wild plants and animals. Pages 61-74 in T. E. Lovejoy and L. Hannah (Eds).
Climate change and biodiversity. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Root, T.L., J.T. Price, K.R. Hall, S.H. Scheider, C. Rosenzweig, and
J.A. Pounds. 2003. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and
plants. Nature 421: 57-60.
Scott, D., J.R. Malcolm, and C. Lemieux. 2002. Climate change and
modelled biome representation in Canada’s national park system:
Implications for system planning and park mandates. Global Ecology
and Biogeography 11: 475-484.
Segurado, P., and M.B. Araujo. 2004. An evaluation of methods for
modeling species distributions. Journal of Biogeography 31: 1555-1568.
Sharma, S.D, .A. Jackson, C.K. Minns, B.J. Shuter. 2007. Will northern
fish populations be in hot water because of climate change? Global
Change Biology 13: 2052-2064.
Sinclair, A. R. E., and A. E. Byrom. 2006. Understanding ecosystem dynamics
for conservation of biota. Journal of Animal Ecology 75(1):64-79.
Thomas, C.D., A. Cameron, R.E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L.J. Beaumont,
Y.C. Collingham, B.F.N. Erasmus, M. Ferreira de Siqueira, A.
Grainger, L. Hannah, L. Hughes, B. Huntley, A.S. van Jaarsveld,
G.F. Midgley, L. Miles, M.A. Ortega-Huerta, A.T. Peterson, O.L.
Phillips, and S.E. Williams. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change.
Nature 427: 145-148.
Walther, G., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T. Beebee,
J. Fromentin, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and F. Bairlein. 2002. Ecological
responses to recent climate change. Nature 413: 389-396.
Warren, M.S., J.K. Hill, J.A. Thomas, J. Asher, R. Fox, B. Huntley,
R.B. Roy, M.G. Telfer, S. Jeffcoate, P. Harding, G. Jeffcoate, S.G.
Willis, J.N. Greatorex-Davies, D. Moss, and C.D. Thomas. 2001.
Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and
habitat change. Nature 414: 65-68.
White, P.J., and J.T. Kerr. 2006. Contrasting spatial and temporal global
change impacts on butterfly species richness during the 20th century.
Ecography 29: 908-918.
White, P.J., and J.T. Kerr. 2007. Human impacts on environment-diversity
relationships: Evidence for biotic homogenization from butterfly species
richness patterns. Global Ecology and Biogeography 16: 290-299.
Wiersma Y.F., and T.D. Nudds. 2001. Comparison of methods to estimate
historic species richness of mammals for tests of faunal relaxation in
Canadian parks. Journal of Biogeography 28:447-452.
Willis, K.J., M.B. Araujo, K.D. Bennett, B. Figueroa-Rangel, C.A.
Froyd, and N. Myers. 2007. How can a knowledge of the past help
to conserve the future? Biodiversity conservation and the relevance of
long-term ecological studies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B 362: 175-186.
Wilson, R.J., D. Gutiérrez, J. Gutiérrez, D. Martínez, R. Agudo, and V.J.
Monserrat. 2005. Changes to the elevational limits and extent of species
ranges associated with climate change. Ecology Letters 8: 1138-1146.
O N S E R V A N C Y
 Protecting marine biodiversity in Canada:
Adaptation options in the face of climate change
Sabine Jessen and Sarah Patton
Abstract. Climate change adds a significant stress to biodiversity in Canada, compounding the effects of continuing habitat Corresponding author:
loss and over-exploitation of natural resources. These cumulative threats to flora and fauna heighten the need for conservation Sabine Jessen
strategies. Policy in the climate change area has focused on greenhouse gas mitigation, but the complementary response of National Manager
adaptation must also be addressed as changing climate will have effects on biodiversity even if global emission targets are met. Oceans and Great
It is internationally recognized that protected area networks support the ability of ecosystems to cope with climate Freshwater Lakes
change. Natural ecosystems have greater resilience in the face of climate change impacts when additional stresses Program
from industrial and commercial exploitation are reduced, and when species migrating to more suitable locations Canadian Parks and
are facilitated through protected areas. Conservation as part of an adaptation policy is good insurance against Wilderness Society
the risk of species extinctions due to climate change. In Canada’s biodiversity and conservation policies there is 410-698 Seymour Street
little evidence to date of explicit recognition of, or action on, climate change adaptation, especially in the oceans. Vancouver, BC. Canada
In Canada’s oceans, there is an urgent need to create comprehensive networks of large protected areas to assist in buffering V6B 3K6
the effects of climate change. While some marine protected areas have been established in Canada, their sufficiency and sabine@cpawsbc.org 
their ability to facilitate connections between them needs to be examined in light of climate change. Marine ecosystems www.cpaws.org
are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and this is compounded by the many stresses they already face from
overharvesting, habitat destruction, alien species, and pollution. Minimizing these chronic stresses and employing ecosystem
based management approaches are key strategies to reducing the impact of climate change on marine ecosystems in Canada.

Introduction improve the capacity of ecosystems to cope with climate

Canada is the steward of a large proportion of global “natural
capital”, including 20 % of the world’s freshwater, and over
one-third of the world’s remaining original forests in the boreal
forest (Lee et al. 2003). Together with the longest coastline
in the world bordering on three of the world’s oceans, and
an ocean estate of 7.1 million square kilometers (Fisheries
and Oceans Canada 2008) –the second largest in the world,
Canada is home to a diversity of species and ecosystems on
land and in the sea. This natural capital in turn has provided
the basis for a prosperous society (NRTEE 2004).
According to the most recent assessment by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change there is no doubt
that the earth’s climate is warming, affecting both terrestrial
and marine natural systems (Fischlin et al. 2007). Climate
change is now considered one of the key stressors leading to
biodiversity loss (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).
Some ecosystems and species are especially vulnerable to
climate change (Secretariat of the CBD 2003), and there is now
considerable evidence that many are already being affected by
climate change and some are seriously threatened (Fischlin et
al. 2007). Canada, has experienced and is projected to continue
to experience greater rates of warming than most other regions
of the world over this century, although variations are expected
across the country (Lemmen et al. 2008).
Efforts to manage and conserve living marine and terrestrial
systems in the face of climate change will require adaptation
responses. Even with greenhouse gas mitigation measures
in place, there is an immediate need to plan and implement
adaptation measures to deal with existing and projected
changes in climate (Burton 2007), requiring new conservation
priorities and approaches (Peters and Darling 1985; Peters
and Lovejoy 1992; Lovejoy 2005; Gitay et al. 2002). A
variety of anticipatory or proactive adaptation options could
change (Fischlin et al. 2007).
In this paper we review the international literature on the
implications of climate change for marine biodiversity and on
the adaptation measures that have been proposed to address
them. We consider the implications of climate change for
Canada’s marine ecosystems and the adequacy of Canada’s
existing programs and policies for the protection of marine
biodiversity. Our focus is on the management of ocean
ecosystems and the establishment of marine protected areas
in Canada in order to prepare for climate change. We draw
upon our experience as NGO practitioners involved in marine
conservation processes in Canada. We review the extent to
which existing marine conservation policies and programs
are incorporating proposed adaptation measures and identify
the opportunities for improving Canada’s approach to marine
conservation in the face of climate change.
Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity
According to the IPCC (2007) climate change is unequivocal
and already evident. Eleven of the last twelve years ranked
among the warmest years since recording began in 1850 and
an additional increase of approximately 0.4°C is expected
over the next two decades. The Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (2005) warns that climate change is likely to
become the dominant direct driver of biodiversity loss by
the end of the century. Climate change is already having an
impact on biodiversity through shifting habitat, changing life
cycles, the development of new physical traits or species die-
offs and extinctions (Root et al. 2003; Parmesan and Yohe
2003; Parmesan 2006).
According to the IPCC (Fischlin et al. 2007) if global average
temperatures increase more than 2 to 3 degrees C above pre-
industrial levels, the result will be major changes in ecosystem

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 47
structure and function, ecological interactions between species
and shifting geographical ranges for many species. Further,
the resilience of many ecosystems (their ability to adapt
naturally) will likely be exceeded by the year 2100 and on a
global basis, 20-30% of species assessed so far will likely be
at an increased risk of extinction if global warming continues.
Ecosystems projected to be especially affected by climate
change include tundra, boreal forest and mountain regions,
coastal salt marshes, coral reefs and the sea-ice biome.
Globally, marine ecosystems are undergoing a variety of physical
and chemical changes as a result of climate change (Harley et
al. 2006). Ocean temperature increases are now being observed
to depths of 3000 metres (Fischlin et al. 2007), resulting in
thermal expansion of ocean waters which together with melting
glacier and Arctic ice, is leading to sea level rise. This sea level
rise is predicted to lead to the loss of 13-25% of the world’s
coastal wetlands (Fischlin et al. 2007). Species compositions
are changing in the oceans with increased temperatures, and
increased rainfall and fresh water runoff are leading to localized
changes in salinity and turbidity, and altering species habitats
(Harley et al. 2006; Hoffman 2003).
In their exploration of the coping response and adaptive
capacities of marine ecosystems around the world, Perry et al.
(2008) found that responses of the natural marine sub-system
at shorter scales include altered migration and distribution
patterns, changes in species composition, and changes in
available prey. At longer time scales, adaptive responses
include changes in size composition within species and
increased turn-over rates, changes in abundance, and changes
in food web dynamics and structure.
Oceans are becoming more acidic due to increasing carbon
dioxide. Much of the extra CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is
absorbed by the oceans, increasing the dissolved inorganic carbon
concentration, resulting in an increase in acidity and a decrease in
pH. The decrease in pH threatens sea life like corals and shellfish
that produce calcite and aragonite shells or structures (Gitay et al.
2002; Harley et al. 2006; Zeebe et al. 2008).
Marine species as varied as corals, birds and polar bears are
facing great challenges due to climate change. Tropical coral
reefs are subject to bleaching as temperatures rise and both
tropical and cold water corals will be impacted by ocean
acidification, which affects their ability to grow. Polar bears,
which are dependent on sea ice to hunt ice-breeding seals,
face possible extinction as the sea ice declines (Fischlin et al.
2007). Migratory species, including birds, are facing serious
declines with the change in timing of biological events, leading
to disconnects between migratory timing and availability of
food (Butler and Taylor 2005; Price and Root 2005).
Climate change is one of many human-induced stressors
on marine ecosystems and biodiversity . Other stressors
include destruction and fragmentation of habitat, pollution,
overexploitation, and invasive species. Recent research has
demonstrated the staggering extent of multiple stressors
on oceans with 40% of the world’s oceans already heavily
48 T R O P I C A L C
impacted by human activities, and no area of the global
oceans left unaffected by human influence (Halpern et al.
2008). Harley et al. (2006) note that “…marine ecological
responses to climate change will hinge on human fishing
pressure”. Fishing impacts marine ecosystems through
overfishing, destruction of habitat and bycatch (Jackson et al.
2001; Pauly et al.1998; Thrush and Dayton 2002; Watling and
Norse 1998; Worm et al. 2006). Combined, these stressors
affect the resilience of ecosystems, thereby increasing their
vulnerability to climate change.
Ecosystems can recover from many kinds of disturbances.
However, there is often a threshold beyond which an altered
ecosystem may not return to its previous state. The tipping
points for these irreversible changes may be impossible to
predict, yet they are known to exist, as demonstrated by the
decline of Atlantic cod. Thus, a precautionary approach is
prudent as ecosystems are pushed further from pre-existing
states (McLeod et al. 2005). The cumulative and synergistic
effect of climate change with these stressors will require new
conservation strategies and adaptation measures (Peters and
Darling 1985; Peters and Lovejoy 1992; Lovejoy 2005).
Canadian biodiversity under threat
Every region of Canada is experiencing the effects of a
changing climate. The most recent national assessment
of impacts and adaptation to climate change has clearly
identified unequivocal impacts on physical and biological
systems (Lemmen et al. 2008). Canada’s average temperature
has increased twice the global average. Significant changes
in environmental conditions are expected with climate
change. There is already considerable evidence of changes
in temperature, precipitation and moisture regimes, extent
and nature of glaciers and sea ice, and in the frequency and
intensity of extreme events (Lemmen et al. 2008).
Climate change will have profound effects on Canada’s
species and ecosystems. Biodiversity - the variability of life
forms within a given ecosystem - will inevitably be affected.
With warming temperatures, species and habitat will shift
northward, move to higher elevations and even disappear
(Lemmen et al. 2008). Already 521 species in Canada are
in various risk categories, (212 endangered, 136 threatened,
151 Special Concern) (COSEWIC 2007). Worldwide species
extinctions are expected by the IPCC (Fischlin et al. 2007)
if global warming continues. Species with limited climatic
ranges and/or restricted habitat requirements will be most
vulnerable to extinction (Gitay et al. 2002; Parmesan 2006).
Canada’s marine ecosystems are already experiencing the
effects of climate change and are expected to exhibit additional
changes in the future. On the Atlantic coast, possible changes
in the Labrador current, due to increased glacial melting in
Greenland, will bring colder water south and lead to local
fish kills. Of particular concern for marine food webs is the
impact on capelin stocks, a key prey species for cod and
seabirds (Vasseur and Catto 2008). Projected reductions in
Great Lakes outflow will affect the flood regime along the
O N S E R V A N C Y
St. Lawrence River, leading to declines in Northern Pike, as
well as marshland birds and waterfowl (Bourque and Simonet
2008). On the Pacific coast, wild salmon stocks are particularly
vulnerable to climate change impacts, as warming affects both
habitats on which they are dependent – the open ocean of the
eastern North Pacific and the streams and rivers in which they
spawn (Lemmen and Warren 2004). With continued warming
of the eastern North Pacific, the population distribution of
Sockeye Salmon is predicted to retreat to the colder waters of
the Bering Sea (Welch et al. 1998; Bruce and Haites 2007).
North Pacific Ocean waters are now the most acidic in the
global ocean (DFO 2008), with possible severe consequences
for cold water corals on the coast.
In Canada’s north, marine fish communities in Hudson’s
Bay changed from Arctic to sub Arctic in 1997 as a result
of warming waters and the reduction in summer ice cover
(Chiotti and Lavender 2008). These changes in northern
waters are also affecting Ringed Seals and Polar Bears that
rely on ice platforms which are now melting 2-3 weeks
earlier than 20-30 years ago. This is affecting reproductive
success and overall body condition of Polar Bears (Chiotti
and Lavender 2008). At Wapusk National Park, established to
protect denning Polar Bears, deteriorating sea ice conditions
may lead to their extirpation (Scott et al. 2002).The warming
experienced in the Arctic over the past 50 years is leading to
shifts in the distribution and migratory behaviour of wildlife,
including birds and whales, and to potential restructuring
of marine ecosystems as southern species, like Pacific and
Atlantic Salmon move north (Furgal and Prowse 2008).
Adaptation for Biodiversity Conservation
While much of the current focus for climate change policy
makers in Canada is on mitigation strategies to reduce the
emissions of carbon into the atmosphere, the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) also
requires countries to address adaptation to climate change. The
Ultimate Objective of the UNFCCC explicitly states the need
“to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change”, and
Article 4.1 commits Parties, including Canada, to “formulate,
implement, publish and regularly update national and, where
appropriate, regional programmes containing … measures to
facilitate adequate adaptation to climate change”.
Adaptation is necessary not only for the projected future
changes in climate but also because climate change is already
affecting ecosystems around the world, and will continue to
do so for decades and possibly centuries to come (Lemmen et
al. 2008; Burton 2007). Anticipatory and strategic approaches
to adaptation are needed to address this ongoing process of
change and to build the capacity and flexibility to cope with
whatever comes with the future evolving climate (Burton
2008). However, it must also be recognized that biodiversity
adaptation measures will likely only be successful if future
climate change remains.
Progress has been made on understanding the nature and
processes of adaptation (Smit et al. 2001; Burton et al. 2002).
B I O D I V E R S I
However, adaptation to climate change has been dominated
by considerations of the adjustments that society will have to
make to deal with the consequences of climate change. As noted
by Smit and Wandel (2006), the concept of adaptation has its
origins in the natural sciences and refers to the development
of characteristics that enable organisms or biological systems
to cope with and survive environmental changes. In this
paper we focus on the proactive adaptation policies that
governments should implement to help species and ecosystems
best adapt to climate change within their natural limits. 
The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable
Development (2006) reviewed Canada’s response to climate
change and concluded that the federal government has not
adequately addressed adaptation issues: “Despite commitments
to take action going back to 1992, there is no federal strategy
to specify how the effects of a changing climate would be
managed.” The constraints on the implementation of adaptation
strategies generally can be attributed to a number of political,
social and institutional factors, (IPCC 2007) and may include
fundamental misunderstandings and misinformation about
the urgency and nature of adaptation (Dickinson 2007).
The recent Canadian assessment of impacts and adaptation
(Lemmen et al. 2008) provides many examples of climate
change vulnerabilities and adaptation initiatives to address
impacts on human communities and economic sectors. While
ecosystem impacts are identified for every region of the
country (Lemmen et al. 2008) few formal adaptation programs
or policies to address the conservation of biodiversity are
identified. Among protected area agencies, only Ontario
Parks and Parks Canada are developing adaptation strategies
for their systems (Lemieux et al. 2007; Chiotti and Lavender
2008; Suffling and Scott 2005; Parks Canada 2008). In
British Columbia, Walker and Sydneysmith (2008) note that
climate change impacts on sea-surface temperatures, species
migrations and diversity, and ocean productivity have received
little consideration in the planning and management of marine
protected areas.
Clearly there is a need for comprehensive adaptation initiatives
to maintain Canada’s distinct natural resources and to honour
Canada’s obligations under the UNFCCC and under the
Convention on Biological Diversity to protect biodiversity.
Adaptation Options for Conservation
A consistent finding in the field of adaptation relates to
“mainstreaming” (Smit and Wandel 2006), by which
climate change risks are incorporated into existing policies,
programs and decision making processes related to resource
management, coastal and oceans management, and sustainable
development. Mainstreaming is necessary for effective
adaptation implementation, helping to ensure that the risks
and opportunities associated with climate change (and other
environmental changes) are addressed in decision making.
Given that most adaptive actions will not be taken in light
of climate change alone, we explore this key approach to
biodiversity conservation below.
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 49
Various adaptation options to address biodiversity conservation
in the face of climate change have been identified in the literature,
and the authors of the recent IPCC report (Fischlin et al. 2007)
note that this is a rapidly developing field. These adaptation
options are focused on enhancing ecosystem resilience to climate
change to allow ecosystems to respond to climate change within
the limits of natural variability (Gitay et al. 2002; Hannah et al.
2005; Fischlin et al. 2007; Julius et al. 2008; Keller et al. 2008;
Smith et al. 2006; Parmesan and Galbraith 2004). Hannah and
others (2002 and 2005) have coined the phrase “climate change-
integrated conservation strategies”, that respond to the speed,
magnitude and range shifts due to climate change. While the
specifics of these measures vary from author to author, there is a
considerable degree of overlap, and we summarize the consistent
elements below.
reduce and manage multiple anthropogenic stressors
Reduction and management of other anthropogenic stressors on
biodiversity arising from habitat destruction, over-harvesting,
pollution, and alien species invasions constitute critical climate
change adaptation measures, which will promote resilience
in any situation (Fischlin et al 2007; Julius et al. 2008). For
example, the FAO (2006) recommends that fishing efforts
should be reduced, as lightly fished stocks are likely more
resilient to climate change impacts than heavily fished ones.
establish networks of protected areas
A network approach to protected areas on land and in the sea
has been advocated for more than two decades (Noss and
Harris 1986; Soule and Terborg 1999) in order to stem the
tide of biodiversity loss by maintaining connectivity between
individual protected areas. Studies of marine protected areas
around the world demonstrate their contribution to maintaining,
enhancing and restoring biodiversity (Halpern et al 2003)
leading many fisheries scientists to call for their establishment
as a key conservation mechanism (Worm et al 2006; Pauly et
al. 2002;Roberts 2007). Marine protected area networks can
provide significant ecological and social benefits that cannot be
attained through individual MPAs (Smith et al 2006).
Networks of protected areas should be established and explicitly
designed to represent the diversity of habitats across the
landscape or seascape (Keller et al. 2008; Roberts et al 2001)
and to account for projected changes in climate. Incorporating
these elements into the design of protected area networks, the
movement of species to new geographical locations will be
facilitated and be increasingly necessary as climate shifts (Gitay
et al 2002; Keller et al. 2008; Taylor and Figgis 2007; Hoffman
2003). Replication of habitats in the reserve system is a vital
form of insurance and central to the representativeness goal
of protected area networks. Conserving ecotones/transitional
zones as repositories of genetic diversity may assist with future
rehabilitation of adjacent ecoclimatic regions. This approach
also ensures that areas throughout a species range are included
in the network (Hoffman 2003;Hannah et al. 2007).
Some scientists have proposed a conservation matrix model
that would see protected areas as the foundation for all other
50 T R O P I C A L C
management, with invasive activities strictly contained and areas
of no protection constituting only a small portion of the land or
sea (Roberts 2007; Schmiegelow et al. 2006). Recent scientific
studies have identified science-based targets for the optimal
extent of protected area networks. For terrestrial protected area
networks these have generally ranged between 32 and 70% of the
land base, and for marine protected areas (specifically reserves
with no fishing) the range is between 20 to 50% (Price et al
2007; Schmiegelow et al. 2006; Sarkar et al. 2006; Fahrig 2001;
Wiersma and Nudds 2006; Allsopp et al 2007; Vierros 2004;
Schubert et al. 2006) These targets far exceed those that have
generally been achieved by governments to date.
through integrated planning, situate protected
areas within a mosaic of other conservation
measures across landscapes and seascapes
Under the Convention for Biological Diversity (2004),
countries have committed, by 2015, to “integrate protected
areas into broader land- and seascapes and sectors so as to
maintain ecological structure and function”.
Situating the network within a broader mosaic of buffer zones and
other conservation measures and uses ensures connectivity around
and between protected areas. The establishment of biological
and migration corridors between protected areas helps to counter
habitat fragmentation (Gitay et al 2002; Welch 2005; Fischlin et
al. 2007; NRTEE 2003). These strategies require implementation
over larger regions, possibly across national borders, and over
longer time periods, but are critical to effectively functioning
protected area systems (Dudley et al. 2005).
Hannah and Hansen (2005) stress the importance of making
climate change an explicit consideration in connectivity design
and provide specific steps for designing dynamic landscape or
seascape plans. By taking into account projected changes in climate
and reducing other pressures on biodiversity, natural systems will
be less vulnerable to climate change (Gitay et al. 2002).
maintain viable populations to enable adaptation
Maintaining viable, connected and genetically diverse
populations appears to increase their long-term persistence
(Fischlin et al. 2007). Conservation of genotypes, species
and functional types, along with the reduction of habitat loss,
fragmentation and degradation, may promote the long term
persistence of ecosystems and the provision of ecosystem goods
and services (Schmiegelow et al. 2006; Hannah et al 2007).
design and manage protected areas as refugia for species
Identify and protect climate refugia as places where favourable
habitat will persist or develop as the climate changes and as
sources of “seed” for recovery. As the changing climate renders
areas outside refugia inhospitable to certain species, these species
will only continue to exist in the refugia (Taylor and Figgis 2007;
Julius et al. 2008; Marshall 2006; Harley et al. 2006).
develop arrangements for greater collaboration
and cooperation in adaptive management
In order to support the network and matrix approach across the
landscape/seascape, institutional mechanisms for coordination
O N S E R V A N C Y
and collaboration will be required to effectively achieve these
approaches (Hannah et al. 2005;Lovejoy 2005;Welch 2005). In
fact Lovejoy (2005) notes that “Institutional coordination, always
vital, will be required as never before.” The success of landscape
and seascape management will depend on coordination between
all levels of government, together public and stakeholder support
and understanding of the important ecological services provided
by nature. Public support and endorsement of management
actions is critical to gaining political support. Future management
and planning of protected areas hinges on public and political
agreement on the ultimate goal - to protect current ecological
communities or to facilitate ecosystem adaptation (Scott 2005).
Climate change strengthens the call for an adaptive management
approach (Hoffman 2003;Welch 2005) that focuses on transparency
and learning (IUCN 2003). Adaptive management is a structured
process of “learning by doing” (Walters 1997). Conservation
agencies must move from managing on the basis of models based
on climatic and biogeographic stability, and begin to incorporate
measures to address the changes that are likely to arise in the face
of climate change (Scott 2005; IUCN 2003;Hannah et al 2007).
monitoring to determine effectiveness
Determining the effectiveness of the management strategies
and changing management regimes based on this information,
is key to further adaptation success (Welch 2005; Da Fonseca
et al.2005). Since climate change impacts are uncertain,
monitoring provides important information on which to base
future management decisions.
Tools to assist with this process include the IUCN/WWF
(Pomeroy et al. 2004) guidebook on assessing management
effectiveness of marine protected areas based on a series of
biophysical, socioeconomic and governance indicators.
Taken together, these measures comprise an ecosystem based
approach aimed at maintaining an ecosystem in a healthy, productive
and resilient condition by considering both the cumulative impacts
of all user sectors and the needs of humans (Arkema et al. 2006;
Fischlin et al. 2007; McLeod et al. 2005; Cicin-Sain and Belfiore
2003; Hoffman 2003;Dudley et al. 2005). Even aside from the
climate change context, they are considered an important basis
for the conservation of biological diversity (Lovejoy 2005). As
such they represent win-win or no-regrets adaptation options,
based on the precautionary principle, that will provide benefits for
biodiversity conservation regardless of the existence of climate
change (Fischlin et al. 2007; Dickinson 2007).
Marine Conservation in Canada –
Policy Context and Current Status
Biodiversity conservation in Canada is a shared responsibility
between federal and provincial governments, as well as First
Nations and local governments (NRTEE 2003). Across Canada
there are a variety of approaches to conservation that include
comprehensive, integrated oceans and land use management
combined with protecting key habitats and species, promoting
sustainable use of plant and animal species, and mechanisms
for public education, awareness and action.
B I O D I V E R S I
Canada has made international commitments to complete
protected area networks on the land and in the sea. Under
the Convention on Biological Diversity, Canada along
with other signatories agreed in 2004 to establish by 2010
for terrestrial and 2012 for marine areas, “comprehensive,
effectively managed and ecologically representative national
and regional systems of protected areas…to reduce the current
rate of biodiversity loss” (CBD 2004). Similar commitments
were made at the World Summit on Sustainable Development
(United Nations 2002) and the World Parks Congress (IUCN
2003). In the latter case, this included specific targets of at
least 20-30% of each habitat in the marine environment.
However, despite these commitments, as of 2005 Canada
had protected only 9.9% of the total land area in Canada. The
share of total land protected varies with jurisdictions across the
country - ranging from 2.8% in Prince Edward Island to 13.1%
in British Columbia (Government of Canada 2007). Protection
in Canada’s oceans falls far short of the progress made on
land so far, with less than 0.5% protected and an even smaller
fraction is closed to all industrial activities, including fishing.
The remainder of this paper will focus on Canada’s efforts
to protect biodiversity in the oceans by examining the extent
to which the adaptation options noted above have been
implemented through current management and decision
making processes.
Marine Conservation Initiatives
and Climate Change in Canada
Marine ecosystems are vulnerable to the impacts of climate
change due to the myriad stresses they already face from
overharvesting, habitat destruction, alien species, and pollution.
Minimizing these chronic stresses and employing ecosystem
based management approaches are key strategies to reducing
the impact of climate change and addressing the management
of other human activities in the marine environment. Canada
has the legislative tools that could constitute both a “no regrets”
approach to marine conservation and achieve climate change
adaptation goals. Two key mechanisms considered here are
integrated oceans management and marine protected areas.
Integrated oceans management
Canada was one of the first countries in the world to legislate
an ecosystem based management approach for its oceans
territory when it passed the Oceans Act in 1997. Fisheries
and Oceans Canada (2002) has responsibility under the act
to develop integrated management plans through a process
that will inclusively and comprehensively plan and manage
human activities to minimize conflict among users, using a
transparent planning process and guided by the principles of
ecosystem-based management, sustainable development, the
precautionary approach, and conservation.
Integrated oceans management is supported by research
conducted by departmental scientists across the country,
including ecosystem overviews and identification of
ecologically and biologically significant areas (EBSAs). The
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 51
department has been active in climate change science since
1979 (Minns and Wilson 2005), and it has recently revamped
its science agenda (Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s 2007c)
which outlines a five year set of nine research priorities that
includes climate change. However, Fisheries and Oceans
Canada has to date not implemented a comprehensive national
program to address climate change impacts and adaptation as
recommended by staff at a national workshop in 2000 (Minns
and Wilson 2005). The report also notes that many of the
attributes that scientists say need to be better understood to
predict the impacts of climate change on marine resources and
sectors, are the same as those needed to move from a single
–species to an ecosystem-based management approach.
The 2004 Oceans Action Plan (OAP) (Fisheries and
Oceans Canada 2005) sets out a comprehensive approach
to management of Canada’s vast ocean territory. The Plan
notes that the health and quality of the marine environment
is declining in Canada due to a number of factors, including
“shifts in major oceanographic drivers due to climate change”
and identified five large scale ocean management areas
where integrated management planning is now proceeding:
Eastern Scotian Shelf, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Placentia Bay/
Grand Banks, Beaufort Sea and Pacific North Coast (Figure
1). Eventually the intent is to complete large scale oceans
management planning throughout Canada’s ocean territory.
Progress and structure of the integrated oceans planning
initiatives varies considerably among these five planning
regions, but is slow overall. The two most advanced processes,
the Eastern Scotian Shelf and the Beaufort Sea are reviewed
further below.
Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated
Management Process (ESSIM)
The Eastern Scotian Shelf (ESSIM) project covers 325,000
sq km of offshore area that is heavily used by a variety of
activities including fishing, oil and gas development, shipping,
maritime defence operations, submarine cables, scientific
research, and recreation and tourism. The multi stakeholder
and multi government process has been underway since
1998 and is the most advanced of all the integrated oceans
planning processes in Canada. Last year, a strategic level
plan (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2007b) was submitted to
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans by the stakeholder and
government committees and is awaiting approval.
The Eastern Scotian Shelf ecosystem has been subjected to
large and rapid changes as a consequence of human actions
and environmental variability. Trophic level shifts, introduced
invasive species, and shifting species range distributions are
characteristics of this changed marine ecosystem structure.
According to a recent scientific report, the ecosystem has
undergone a complex reorganization as a result of changes
in biodiversity (Zwanenburg et al. 2006). Pelagic and
invertebrate species are proliferating on the Eastern Scotian
Shelf, while groundfish (cod) which were overfished and
collapsed in the 1980s are not rebuilding as quickly as
expected (Zwanenburg et al. 2006; Fisheries and Oceans
52 T R O P I C A L C
2007b). Reduced cod stocks are more sensitive to climate
change and recovery will be determined by changes in forage
and prey species, which themselves are influenced by climate
changes (Bruce and Haites 2008). Other changes include
earlier spring phytoplankton blooms and increased abundance
of grey seals (Zwanenburg et al. 2006).
Some stakeholders participating in the ESSIM process are
concerned that conservation options are being foreclosed by
the rapid pace of offshore oil and gas development, (NRTEE
2003; Guenette and Alder 2007). To date, only two protection
measures have been implemented: the designation in 1994
of The Gully marine protected area, which supports a rich
diversity of marine life, including the Northern Bottlenose
Whale and cold water corals, and fishing closures for two areas
of high concentration and rare cold-water corals – Northeast
Channel and Lophelia coral conservation areas (Fisheries and
Oceans Canada 2007a).
The combination of major ecosystem changes already
observed resulting from overexploitation, industrial use and
climate change suggests an urgent need to implement more
comprehensive conservation measures, including planning
for MPA networks and more explicit consideration of climate
change adaptation options. Scientists studying this marine
region have identified the need for ecosystem level targets for
use in management of fisheries in order to better account for
the collateral impacts of fishing and changing environmental
conditions (Zwanenburg et al. 2006).
The strategic management plan highlights the collaborative
nature of the process among stakeholders and a coordinated
approach among government agencies, both important
attributes in integrated planning at a seascape level. The
plan includes objectives and strategies for the conservation
of biodiversity, including through a network of MPAs and
addressing the impacts of current activities, such as fishing
and noise (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2007a). However,
explicit mention of adaptation strategies to address the impacts
of climate change are absent.
Beaufort Sea Integrated
Management Planning
Centred on the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, the Beaufort
Sea planning process in the western Arctic began in 1999 in
response to the resurgence of oil and gas industry activities
in the Mackenzie River Delta and the potential threat posed
to the Beluga and their habitat in the region. As a result,
the initial focus of the planning process was on the urgent
need to provide long-term protection to the Beluga, by the
designation of Tarium Niryutait marine protected area
(Berkes et al. 2007; Elliott and Spek 2004). Extensive local
consultation and involvement in the management process
occurred among the Inuvialuit, the federal government and
industry. A regulatory package is currently being completed
for this MPA (Gardner 2008), and the steering committee and
working groups are now turning their attention to developing
longer term plans for more comprehensive oceans planning,
O N S E R V A N C Y
 Figure 1.
MPAs and LOMAs
in Canada
Note. An announcement
was made on Aug 22nd,
2008 of the formation
of three new national
wildlife areas on Baffin
Island.

Figure 2.
Ecologically and
biologically significant
areas (EBSAs) in the
Beaufort Sea LOMA
region. These areas
of high ecological or
biological significance
were identified by
scientific and local
communities in
accordance with
Fisheries and Oceans
Canada's national
evaluation framework.
The identification
of these areas as
EBSAs requires that
management activities
focus on greater risk
aversion. The Oceans
Act authorizes the
department to provide
these areas with
enhanced protection.
In some cases this may
include marine protected
area designation (map
courtesy of Fisheries and
Oceans Canada 2007).

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 53
 Table 1: Number and area of federal marine areas protected in Canada
Administrator Type of MPA
Parks Canada National Marine Conservation Area
Parks Canada National Park (Marine Portion)
Joint Parks Canada/ Québec Saguenay - St. Lawrence Marine Park
Environment Canada National Wildlife Area (Marine Portion)
Environment Canada Migratory Bird Sanctuary (Marine Portion)
Fisheries and Oceans Marine Protected Area
Totals
Source: (Gardner et al. 2008).
with a first task being the development of objectives (Beaufort
Sea Partnership 2008).
The risks posed by climate change were identified as one
of two primary concerns facing communities in the western
Arctic in 2000 (Ford and Smit 2004). Climate change was
not addressed through the initial phase of integrated marine
planning process for the Beaufort Sea. Given the anticipated
impacts of future climate change in the polar regions, it is
expected that this will become an issue of high priority for
marine planning. In community consultations held over the
last two years, residents identified a variety of climate change
related issues, including; observations of changes in wildlife
movements and distributions, physical impacts like coastal
erosion, changing ice conditions and more open water and
general concerns about the effects of climate change (pers.
comm. J. Paulic, 11 April 2008). These issues are being
considered in the current development of conservation
objectives for the next phase of the planning process.
The ecosystem overview report for the region (Cobb et al.
2008) identifies ecologically and biologically significant areas,
together with a suite of stressors in the Beaufort Sea region
(see figure 2). The stressors include: coastal infrastructure,
watershed activities and long-range transport of pollutants,
impacts of seismic, exploratory and ultimately exploitation
activities related to oil and gas and mineral and granular
resource extraction. Marine transport impacts include those
that occur with the passage of ships and barges, discharge
of ballast water, and unplanned spills and discharges.
Subsistence hunting and fishing and limited recreational and
tourism activities are thought to have only minor impacts on
the region.
Climate change is considered one of the most important
environmental and socioeconomic issues facing the Beaufort
Sea region and one of the biggest challenges facing the people,
institutions and processes in the region (Cobb et al. 2008). The
authors note that the goal of ecosystem based management
(EBM) is to preserve the ability of ecosystems to adapt to
climate change, (i.e. preserve their natural resilience). However,
their view is that “coastal residents will have to rely on their
capacity for resilience and adaptation to cope with a changing
and uncertain environment. It is hoped that, by working together,
additional resources and intelligence will be brought to bear on
54 T R O P I C A L C O N
No. of Marine Approximate
Areas MPA size (ha)
1 11,500
15 716,305
1 113,800
13 152,317
51 1,417,145
6 255,160
87 2,666,227
these questions.” Surely far more can be done than is suggested
here to address the climate change challenge in the Beaufort
Sea. There is now considerable understanding of the sensitivities
and adaptive capacity of northern communities (Ford and
Smit 2004). What is suggested by Cobb and others is hardly
an effective adaptation strategy given that the risks of climate
change are well known. The integrated planning process affords
an opportunity to bring an explicit, coordinated and strategic
approach to addressing the climate change issue, that should go
beyond “hoping” that residents will somehow ‘figure it out’.
Marine Protected Area Networks
Canada has also made commitments to establish a national
network of marine protected areas. In addition to the
international commitments already noted, these include
national commitments under the Canada’s Oceans Strategy
(2002), Oceans Action Plan (2004) and through federal budgets
(2004, 2005, 2007). Despite these commitments, as noted
above, Canada has made negligible progress in establishing
marine protected areas, with less than 1% of the oceans territory
currently protected. And at a recent conference, federal officials
estimated that by 2012, less than one third of Canada’s MPA
system would be complete (Gardner et al. 2008).
The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society recently released
a comprehensive study examining the opportunities and
challenges to achieving a national network of MPAs in
Canada by 2012 (Gardner et al. 2008; CPAWS 2008). On
the basis of extensive interviews of MPA practitioners across
the country, with a focus on government officials in the three
federal agencies with MPA responsibilities, a number of issues
were identified that are contributing to the lack of progress
on MPAs in Canada. A lack of leadership and capacity,
ineffective federal coordination, together with the absence of
a clear plan to achieve the 2012 commitment, were identified
as significant challenges impeding Canada’s progress.
A network approach to the planning of MPAs in Canada remains
in its infancy. The current approach to the establishment of
MPAs in Canada is largely ad hoc and proceeds on a site-by-
site basis, with as yet, no consideration for potential linkages
between sites and no explicit network planning, either within
any of the integrated management planning process, or
anywhere else in Canada’s oceans for that matter (Gardner
et al. 2008; Smith et al. 2006; Guenette and Alder 2007). As
S E R V A N C Y
a result of the current ad hoc approach, it can take between 6
and 20 years for marine protected area candidates to achieve
final legal protection (Gardner et al. 2008).
In 2005, the three federal agencies with responsibilities for
marine protected areas, Parks Canada, Environment Canada
and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, released a federal Marine
Protected Areas Strategy (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2005).
The strategy acknowledges the need for a more systematic and
coordinated approach to the establishment of MPAs. It commits
the agencies to establish an MPA network within the integrated
oceans management framework. Through the integrated
planning processes, baseline scientific information is compiled,
including the analysis and identification of ecologically and
biologically significant areas (EBSAs) (Fisheries and Oceans
Canada 2004) which help to guide the location of future MPAs.
While there is only a passing reference to climate change, the
strategy acknowledges the drawbacks of the current ad hoc
approach and the benefits of a network approach.
Canada’s federal agencies with marine protected area
responsibilities can learn from international experience on
establishing MPA networks (Smith et al. 2006). A recent
workshop (Fisheries and Oceans Canada and World Wildlife
Canada 2007) explored the experience of other countries with
a network approach to MPAs and distilled some best practice
advice for future steps in Canada, with a focus on identifying
ecological criteria for sound MPA networks. Principles for
incorporating climate change adaptation into site and system
planning are also available (Hoffman 2003; Hannah and
Hansen 2005; Dudley 2005). Spatial analysis tools using
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) are becoming
increasingly sophisticated and able to address connectivity
and protected area network design with climate change in
mind (Hannah and Hansen 2005).
Of the three agencies with MPA responsibilities, only Parks
Canada (2008) has developed a climate change adaptation strategy,
albeit still in draft form, to guide its approach to incorporating
climate change adaptation measures into its planning for and
management of national parks and national marine conservation
areas. This strategy was preceded by a series of comprehensive
reports commissioned by Parks Canada relating to climate change
and the national parks system. They included scenarios for 41
national parks, three NMCAs and six proposed national parks
(Scott 2003; Suffling and Scott 2000; Jones et al. 2003; Scott et
al. 2002), as well as the ecological impacts likely to occur at each
park, adaptation options available to park managers, and Canadian
biome changes that could occur under climate change. Across the
44 parks and NMCAs, Parks Canada has 45 distinct monitoring
programs that track hydrological or ecological responses to
climate. Nearly two thirds of the parks and NMCAs address
climate change in their management planning, and indicators
of climate change are being selected as part of Parks Canada’s
ecological-integrity-monitoring framework (Scott 2003).
Overall, observing the integrated management planning
processes and the implementation of MPA networks, it would
B I O D I V E R S I
appear that the urgency to address the current and future
impacts of climate change on marine ecosystems is not matched
by a similar urgency to achieve tangible results through these
initiatives. Long delays in realizing substantive progress in
Canada’s oceans through these two initiatives and the lack of
explicit adaptation strategies is leaving marine biodiversity
at great threat from the multiple stressors of climate change,
overfishing, habitat destruction and industrial developments.
The work being done by Parks Canada on adaptation strategies
for national parks and national marine conservation areas
could serve as a model for the other agencies like Fisheries and
Oceans to emulate. However, all federal agencies, together with
their provincial counterparts need to step up efforts to establish
MPA networks on each of Canada’s coasts.
Accelerating work on integrated management planning for
Canada’s oceans and incorporating MPA network planning as
a key outcome could have significant benefits for biodiversity
conservation in Canada’s oceans, and help to ensure more
resilient marine ecosystems that can withstand the impacts
of climate change. However, political support, federal
coordination and adequate funding are among the obstacles
that must be overcome in order to achieve this outcome
(Gardner et al. 2008).
Conclusions
Canada’s ocean ecosystems and biodiversity are at risk
as a result of the stresses of climate change. Canada has
obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity and
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to initiate
measures that will facilitate adaptation strategies to protect
ecosystems and biodiversity.
Notwithstanding progress on some fronts, most of Canada’s
marine environment is still threatened by the combined impacts
of climate change and other stressors such as overfishing and
habitat destruction. The need remains urgent to address the
changes that are already occurring in Canada’s ecosystems
and to prepare for future changes.
The adaptation options presented in this paper, if properly
implemented, could help to protect biodiversity in the face of
climate change and other anthropogenic stressors. Canadian
policy makers have identified the requisite elements on paper
but Canada’s progress is inadequate on both the integrated
management planning and MPA network front, and deliberate
planning for climate change in these processes is not well
advanced.
Other experience warns that societal responses to large
environmental challenges tend to be incremental and ad hoc
rather than strategic and planned. This combines with an
inclination to “muddle through” and to postpone action until a
catalyst dramatically indicates the seriousness of the threat (Smit
and Pilifosova 2001). The Canadian experience, unfortunately,
is consistent with these tendencies. If Canada does not proceed
to implement forward-thinking policies and to integrate climate
change planning into ocean management processes, biodiversity
in this country will suffer serious, avoidable, losses.
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 55
Acknowledgments
With many thanks to my colleagues at CPAWS-BC, in particular
Chloe O’Loughlin, Bob Peart, Eva Riccius, and Sarah Patton
for recognizing the urgent need to address adaptation to climate
change in the context of biodiversity conservation. Many
thanks to Barry Smit for suggestions, edits and encouragement,
to Julie Gardner for comments and edits and to two anonymous
reviewers for their constructive critiques and suggestions.
Thanks to Dora Repard for the map in Figure 1.
References
Allsopp, M., R. Page, P. Johnston, and D. Santillo. 2007. Oceans in
Peril – Protecting Marine Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch
Institute: 56 pp.
Arkema, K.K., S.C. Abramson, and B.M. Dewsbury. 2006. Marine
Ecosystem based management: from characterization to implementation.
Front.Ecol.Environ 4(10): 525-532.
Beaufort Sea Partnership. 2008. Integrated Ocean Management Plan
for the Beaufort Sea: Strawman for Partner Dialogue. Department of
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 9 May 2008 (unpublished).
Berkes, F., M.K. Berkes, and H. Fast. 2007. Collaborative Integrated
Management in Canada’s North: The Role of Local and Traditional
Knowledge and Community-Based Monitoring. Coastal Zone
Management Journal 35(1): 143 – 162.
Bourque, A. and G. Simonet. 2008. Quebec. In From Impacts to
Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007. D.S. Lemmen,
F.J.Warren, J. Lacroix, and E. Bush, (Eds). Ottawa: Government of
Canada. pp171-226.
Bruce, J.P., and E. Haites. 2008. Chapter 9: Canada in an International
Context In From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate
2007. D.S. Lemmen, F.J.Warren, J. Lacroix, and E. Bush, (Eds). Ottawa:
Government of Canada. pp 387-424.
Burton, I. 2008. Moving Forward on Adaptation. In From Impacts to
Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007. D.S. Lemmen, F.J.
Warrne and E. Bush (Eds). Ottawa: Government of Canada. pp. 425-440.
Burton, I., S. Huq, B. Lim, O. Pilifosova and E. Schipper. 2002. From
Impacts Assessment to Adaptation Priorities: the Shaping of Adaptation
Policy. Climate Policy 2:145-159
Butler, R.W., and W. Taylor. 2005. A Review of Climate Change
Impacts on Birds. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-
191: 1107-1109
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS). 2008. Myth and
Madness: Conquering the Tragedy of Marine Protection in Canada.
Vancouver, BC. CPAWS.
Chiotti, Q., and B. Lavender. 2008. Ontario. In From Impacts to
Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007. D.S. Lemmen,
F.J.Warren, J. Lacroix, and E. Bush, (Eds). Ottawa: Government of
Canada. pp 227-274
Cobb, D., H. Fast, M.H. Papst, D. Rosenberg, R. Rutherford and J.E.
Sareault (Eds). 2008. Beaufort Sea Large Ocean Management Area:
Ecosystem Overview and Assessment Report. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 2780: ii-ix + 188 p.
Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development.
2006. Report of the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable
Development to the House of Commons. Chapter 2 – Adapting to the
Impacts of Climate Change. Ottawa: Office of the Auditor General.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
(COSEWIC). 2007.
COSEWIC Annual Report 2007. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_
sara/files/cosewic/car%5FCOSEWIC%5Fannual%5Freport%5F2007%
5Fe%2Epdf
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2004. COP 7 Decision
VII/28 Protected Areas (Articles 8 (a) to (e)). www.cbd.int/
decisions/?dec=VII/28
Dickinson, T.. 2007. The Compendium of Adaptation Models for Climate
Change. First Edition. Ottawa: Environment Canada.
Dolan, A.H. and I.J. Walker. 2004. Understanding Vulnerability of
Coastal Communities to Climate Change Related to Risks. Journal of
Coastal Research SI 39:1317-24.
Dudley, N., K.J. Mulongoy, S. Cohen, S. Stolton, C.V. Barber, and S.B.
Gidda. 2005. Towards Effective Protected Area Systems. An Action
Guide to Implement the Convention on Biological Diversity Programme
of Work on Protected Areas. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity. Technical Series no 18.
56 T R O P I C A L C
Elliott, G.M. and B. Spek. 2004. Integrated Management Planning in the
Beaufort Sea: Blending Natural and Social Science in a Settled Land
Claim Area. In Making ecosystem-based management work. Proceedings
of the Fifth International Conference on Science and Management of
Protected Areas (SAMPAA). N.W.P. Munro, P. Dearden, T.B. Herman,
K. Beazley, and S. Bondrup-Nielsen (Eds). Wolfville, Nova Scotia.
FAO. 2006. Building Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change – Policies to
sustain livelihoods and fisheries. New Directions in Fisheries - A Series
of Policy Briefs on Development Issues, No. 08. Rome: UN Fisheries
and Agriculture Organization.
Fahrig, L. 2001. How much habitat is enough? Biological Conservation
100 (1): 65-74.
Feely, R.A., C.L. Sabine, K. Lee, W. Berelson, J. Kleypas, V.J. Fabry,
and F.J. Millero. 2004. Impact of Anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3
System in the oceans, Science 305: 362
Fischlin, A., G.F. Midgley, J.T. Price, R. Leemans, B. Gopal, C. Turley,
M.D.A. Rounsevell, O.P. Dube, J. Tarazona, and A.A. Velichko.
2007. Ecosystems, their properties, goods, and services. Climate Change
2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J.
van der Linden and C.E. Hanson (Eds.), Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, p211-272.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2002. Policy and Operation Framework for
Integrated Management of Estuarine, Coastal and Marine Environments
in Canada. Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2004. Identification of Ecologically and
Biologically Significant Areas. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Ecosystem
Status Rep. 2004/006.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2005. Canada’s Oceans Action Plan: For
Present and Future Generations. Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2007a. Corals of the Maritimes. http://
www.mar.dfo-mpo.ca/oceans/e/ocmd/coral/coral-e.html
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2007b. Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated
Ocean Management Plan: Strategic Plan. Dartmouth, N.S. Fisheries and
Oceans Canada.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2007c. Five Year Research Agenda 2007-
2012. Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2008. State of the Pacific Ocean
2007; Proceedings of the PSARC Fisheries and Oceanography Working
Group; 25 February, 2008. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Proceed. Ser.
2008/XXX
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2008b. Canada’s Ocean Estate: A
Description of Canada’s Maritime Zones. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/
oceans/canadasoceans-oceansducanada/marinezones-zonesmarines-
eng.htm
Fisheries and Oceans Canada and World Wildlife Fund Canada.
2008. Bringing international lessons learned and good practices to
bear on Canada’s MPA networks framework. http://www.wwf.ca/
MPAworkshop/
Da Fonseca, G.A.B., W. Sechrest, and J. Oglethorpe. 2005. In Climate
Change and Biodiversity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Pp
346-358.
Ford, J.D., and B. Smit. 2004. A Framework for Assessing the Vulnerability
of Communities in the Canadian Arctic to Risks Associated with Climate
Change. Arctic 57(4): 389-400.
Furgal, C., and T.D. Prowse. 2008. Northern Canada. In From Impacts
to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007. D.S. Lemmen,
F.J.Warren, J. Lacroix, and E. Bush, (Eds). Ottawa: Government of
Canada. pp 57-118.
Gardner, J., S. Bicego, S. Jessen, and M. Baker. 2008. Challenges and
Opportunities in Progress towards Canada’s Commitment to a National
Network of MPAs by 2012. Vancouver, B.C. Canadian Parks and
Wilderness Society (CPAWS).
Gayton, D.V. 2008. Impacts of climate change on British Columbia’s
biodiversity: A literature review. http://www.forrex.org/publications/
forrexseries/fs23.pdf
Gitay, H., A. Suarez, and R. Watson. 2002. Climate Change and
Biodiversity. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Technical
Paper V.
Government of Canada. 2005. Canada’s Oceans Action Plan. Ottawa:
Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Government of Canada.  2007. Canadian Protected Areas Status
Report  2000-2005, http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/publications/habitat/
cpa-apc/index_e.cfm
Green, R.E., M. Harley, L. Miles, J. Scharlemann, A. Watkinson,
and O. Watts (Eds). 2003. Global Climate Change and Biodiversity.
Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia.
O N S E R V A N C Y
Guenette, S. and J. Alder. 2007. Lessons from Marine Protected Areas
and Integrated Ocean Management Initiatives in Canada. Coastal
Management Journal 35 (1):51-78.
Halpern, B. 2003. The Impact of Marine Reserves: Do Reserves Work and
Does Reserve Size Matter? Ecological Applications, 13(1) Supplement:
S117 – S137.
Halpern, B.S., K.S. Selkoe, F. Micheli, and C.V. Kappel. 2007.
Evaluating and Ranking the Vulnerability of Global Marine Ecosystems
to Anthropogenic Threats. Conservation Biology 21(5):1301-1315.
Halpern, B.S., S. Walbridge, K.A. Selkoe, C.V. Kappel, F. Micheli, C.
D’Agrosa, J.F. Bruno, K.S. Casey, C. Ebert, H.E. Fox, R. Fujita, D.
Heinemann, H.S. Lenihan, E.M.P. Madin, M.T. Perry, E.R. Selig,
M. Spalding, R. Steneck, and R. Watson. 2008. A Global Map of
Human Impact on Science 319 (5865): 948-952.
Hannah, L. and L. Hansen. 2005. Designing Landscapes and Seascapes
for Change. In Climate Change and Biodiversity. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press: pp 329-341.
Hannah, L., T.E. Lovejoy, and S.H. Schneider. 2005. Biodiversity and
Climate Change in Context. In Climate Change and Biodiversity. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press: pp 3-14.
Hannah, L., G. Midgley, S. Andelman, M. Araujo, G. Hughes, E.
Martinez-Meyer, R. Pearson, and P. Williams. 2007. Protected area
needs in a changing climate. Front Ecol Environ 5(3): 131-138.
Hannah, L., G. Midgley, G. Hughes, and B. Bomhard. 2005. The View
from the Cape: Extinction, Risk, Protected Areas, and Climate Change.
BioScience 55(3): 231-242.
Harley, C.G., A.R. Hughes, K.M. Hultgren, B.G. Miner, C.J.B. Sorte,
C.S. Thornber, L.F. Rodriguez, L. Tomanek, and S.L. Williams.
2006. The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecology
Letters (2006) 9:228-241.
Hoffman, Jennifer. 2003. Designing Reserves to Sustain Temperate
Marine Ecosystems in the Face of Global Climate Change. In Buying
Time: A User’s Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to
Climate Change in Natural Systems. L.J. Hansen, J.L. Biringer and J.R.
Hoffman (Eds). WWF pp 123-156.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate
Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II,
III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A.
(Eds.)]. Geneva: IPCC.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007a. Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment. Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen,
M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (Eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,
USA, 996 pp.
IUCN The World Conservation Union. 2003. Climate Change and
Nature: Adapting for the Future. Information paper for the Vth World
Parks Congress.
Jackson, J.B.C., M.X. Kirby, W.H. Berger, K.A. Bjorndal, L.W.
Botsford, B.J. Bourque, R.H. Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson,
J.A. Estes, T.P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C.B. Lange, H.S. Lenihan,
J.M. Pandolfi, C.H. Peterson, R.S. Steneck, M.J. Tegner, and R.R.
Warner. 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal
ecosystems. Science 293:629-638.
Jamieson, G., R. O’Boyle, J. Arbour, D. Cobb, S. Courtenay, R.
Gregory, C. Levings, J. Munro, I. Perry, and H. Vandermeulen. 2001.
“Proceedings of the National Workshop on Objectives and indicators for
Ecosystem-based Management.” Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat
(CSAS) Proceedings Series 2001/09.
Jones, B., D. Scott, E. Barrow, and N. Wun. 2003. Climate Change
Scenarios for Canada’s National Parks: A Users Manual. Ottawa:
Environment Canada and Parks Canada.
Julius, S.H., J.M. West, G.M. Blate, J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce,
P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M.
Scott. 2008. Executive Summary. In Preliminary review of adaptation
options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A Report by the
U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global
Change Research. Edited by S.H. Julius and J.M. West. Washington,
DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: pp 1-1 to 1-6.
Keller, B.D., S. Airame, B. Causey, A. Friedlander, D.F. Gleason, R.
Grober-Dunsmore, J. Johnson, E. McLeod, S.L. Miller, R.S. Steneck,
and C. Woodley. 2008. Marine Protected Areas. In Preliminary review
of adaptation options for climate sensitive ecosystems and resources.
A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the
Subcommittee on Global Change Research. S.H. Julius and J.M. West
(Eds). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: pp
B I O D I V E R S I
8-1 to 8-95.
Lee, P., D. Aksenov, L. Laestadius, R. Nogueron and W. Smith. 2003.
Canada’s Large Intact Forest Landscapes: A Report by Global Forest
Watch Canada. Edmonton: Global Forest Watch Canada, 70 pp.
Lemieux, C.J., D.J. Scott, P.A. Gray and R.G. Davis. 2007. Climate
Change and Ontario’s Provincial Parks: Towards an Adaptation Strategy.
Sault St.Marie, ON: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. http://www.
mnr.gov.on.ca/198260.pdf
Lemmen, D.S. and F.J. Warren, (Eds). 2004. Climate Change Impacts
and Adaptation: A Canadian Perspective. Ottawa: Natural Resources
Canada. (Fisheries Chapter, pp 93-112).
Lemmen, D.S., F.J. Warren, J. Lacroix, and E. Bush (Eds). 2008. From
Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007; Government
of Canada, Ottawa, ON, 448 p.
Lovejoy, Thomas E. 2005. Conservation with a Changing Climate. In
Climate Change and Biodiversity. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press: 325-328.
Marshall, P. 2006. Three challenges for MPA managers. In MPA News
8(6):1
McLeod, K.L., J. Lubchenco, S.R. Palumbi, and A.A. Rosenberg.
2005. Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem-Based
Management. Signed by 221 academic scientists and policy experts with
relevant expertise and published by the Communication Partnership for
Science and the Sea at http://compassonline.org/?q=EBM.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-
Being: Biodiversity Synthesis. Washington, D.C.: World Resources
Institute.
Minns, C.K. and R. Wilson (Eds). 2005. DFO Climate Variability and
Change Impacts and Adaptations Research for Canada’s Marine and
Freshwater Fisheries: proceedings of a workshop held in Halifax, April
30-May2, 2000, and the Results of a Background Review of Activities
and Needs. Can.Tech.Rpt.Fish.Aquat.Sci. 2575: xi+82pp.
Nellemann, C., S. Hain, and J. Alder (Eds). 2008. In Dead Water –
Merging of climate change with pollution, over-harvest, and infestations
in the world’s fishing grounds. United Nations Environment Programme,
GRID-Arendal, Norway, www.grida.no.
National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE).
2003. Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) Project.
http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/publications/case-studies/natural-
heritage/eng/publications/case-studies/Essim-Case-Study-Full-Report-
eng.pdf
National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE).
2003. Securing Canada’s Natural Capital: A Vision for Nature
Conservation in the 21st Century. Ottawa: National Roundtable on the
Environment and the Economy.
Noss, R.F., and L.D. Harris. 1986. Nodes, networks, and MUMs:
preserving diversity at all scales. Environmental Management 10:299-
309.
Parks Canada. 2008. Draft Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for Parks
Canada. Unpublished document.
Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent
Climate Change. Annu.Rev.Ecol.Syst. 37:637-669.
Parmesan, C. and H. Galbraith. 2004. Observed Ecological Impacts
of Climate Change in North America. Arlington, VA. Pew Centre for
Global Climate Change.
Parmesan, C., and G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of
climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421: 37-42.
Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese, F. Torres Jr. 1998.
Fishing Down Marine Food Webs. Science (6 February) 279: 860-863
Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guénette, T.J. Pitcher, U.R. Sumaila, C.J.
Walters, R. Watson and D. Zeller. 2002. Towards sustainability in
world fisheries. Nature 418 (8 August): 689-695.
Peart, B., S. Patton, and E. Riccius. 2007. Climate Change, Biodiversity
and the Benefit of Healthy Ecosystems. http://www.cpawsbc.org/files/
pdfs/featured/Climate_Change_CPAWS-BC.pdf
Perry, R.I., R.E. Ommer, S. Jentoft, M. Barange, U. R. Sumaila,
B. Neis, K. Stephanus, R. Quiñones, K. Broad, and J. Lu.
Interactive responses of natural and human systems to marine
ecosystem changes. http://igbp2008.co.za/speaker_abstracts.php?id=6
Peters, R.L., and J.D.S. Darling. 1985. The Greenhouse Effect and Nature
Reserves. BioScience 35(11):707-717
Peters, R.L., and T.E. Lovejoy. 1992. Global Warming and Biological
Diversity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 386 pp.
Pomeroy, R.S., J.E. Parks, and L.M. Watson. 2004. How is your MPA
Doing? A Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating
Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness. Gland, Switzerland:
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,
World Conservation Union.
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 57
Price, J.T., and T.L. Root. 2005. Potential Impacts of Climate Change on
Neotropical Migrants: Management Implications. USDA Forest Service
Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191: 1123-1128.
Roberts, C. 2007. The Unnatural History of the Sea. Washington: Island
Press.
Roberts, C., B.S. Halpern, S.R. Palumbi, and R.R. Warner. 2001.
Designing marine reserve networks: why small, isolated protected areas
are not enough. Conservation Biology in Practice. Summer: 10-17.
Root, T.L., J.T. Price, K.R. Hall, S.H. Schneider, C. Rosenzweig, and
J.A. Pounds. 2003. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and
plants. Nature 421: 57-60
Schmiegelow, F.K.A., S.G. Cumming, S. Harrison, S. Leroux, K. Lisgo,
R. Noss and B. Olsen. 2006. Conservation Beyond Crisis Management:
A Reverse Matrix Model. BEACONS Discussion Paper No 1. Edmonton:
University of Alberta.
Schubert, R., H.J. Schellnhuber, N. Buchmann, A. Epiney, R.
Grießhammer, M. Kulessa, D. Messner, S. Rahmstorf, and J.
Schmidl. 2006. The Future Oceans – Warming Up, Rising High, Turning
Sour. Special Report. Berlin, Germany: German Advisory Council on
Global Change. (WBGU): 123pp.
Scott, D., J. Malcolm, and C. Lemieux. 2002. Climate change and modeled
biome representation in Canada’s national park system: implications for
system planning and park mandates. Global Ecology and Biogeography
11(6):475-484.
Scott, D.J. 2003. Climate Change and Canada’s National Park System:
scenarios and impacts. Report 19, Parks Canada Ecosystem Science
Review Reports. Ottawa: Parks Canada.
Scott, D. 2005. Integrating climate change into Canada ‘s national parks
system. In Climate Change and Biodiversity. T. Lovejoy and L. Hannah
(Eds.). New Haven, CT : Yale University Press. Pp 343-345.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2003.
Interlinkages between biological diversity and climate change. Advice on
the integration of biodiversity considerations into the implementation of
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its
Kyoto Protocol. Montreal, SCBD, 154p. (CBD Technical Series no. 10).
Smit, B., and O. Pilifosova. 2001. Adaptation to Climate Change in
the Context of Sustainable Development and Equity. Chapter 18
in Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability –
Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.
Smit, B., and J. Wandel. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and
vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16 (2006):282-292.
Smith, J.L., K. Lewis, and J. Laughren. 2006. A Policy and Planning
Framework for Marine Protected Area Networks in Canada’s Oceans.
Halifax: WWF-Canada.
58 T R O P I C A L C
Soule, M.E., and J. Terborg (Eds). 1999. Continental Conservation:
Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks. Washington,
D.C. Island Press, 227 pp.
Suffling, R., and D. Scott. 2002. Assessment of Climate Change Effects
on Canada’s National Park System. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 74: 117-139
Thrush, S.F.and P.K. Dayton. 2002. Disturbance to marine benthic
habitats by trawling and dredging: Implications for marine biodiversity.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:449-473.
UNEP. 2007. Biodiversity and Climate Change. Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity.
United Nations. 2002. World Summit on Sustainable Development Plan
of Implementation, Section IV, paragraph 31(c). Conference held 26
August to 4 September 2002, Johannesburg, South Africa. 
Vasseur, L., and N. Catto. 2008. Chapter 4: Atlantic Canada. In Impacts
to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007. D.S. Lemmen, F.J.
Warren, J. Lacroix, and E. Bush (Eds) 2008. Government of Canada,
Ottawa, ON, 448 p.
Walker, I.J., and R. Sydneysmith. 2008. Chapter 8: British Columbia.
In From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007.
D.S. Lemmen, F.J.Warren, J. Lacroix, and E. Bush, (Eds). Ottawa:
Government of Canada. 448 p.
Watling, L. and E. Norse.  1998.  Disturbance of the seabed by mobile
fishing gear:  a comparison to forest clear-cutting.   Conservation
Biology 12: 1180-1197
Welch, D.W., Y. Ishida, and K. Nagasaw. 1998. Thermal limits and
ocean migrations of sockey salmon: long term consequences of global
warming. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 55(4):
937-948.
Wiersma, Y and T. Nudds. 2006. Conservation targets for viable species
assemblages in Canada: Are percentage targets appropriate? Biodiversity
and Conservation 14(14):4555-4567.
Worm, B., E.B. Barbier, N. Beaumont, J.E. Duffy, C. Folke, B.S.
Halpern, J.B.C. Jackson, H.K. Lotze, F. Micheli, S.R. Palumbi, E.
Sala, K.A. Selkoe, J.J. Stachowicz, and R. Watson. 2006. Impacts of
Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science 314:787-790
WWF Canada and Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS).
2006. Vision, Goals, Objectives and Guiding Principles for the
Collaborative Delivery of a BC MPA Network. Vancouver, BC.: WWF
Canada and CPAWS.
Zeebe, R.E., J.C. Zachos, K. Caldeira, and T. Tyrrell. 2008. Carbon
Emissions and Acidification. Science 4 July 2008 321: 51-52.
Zwanenburg, K.C.T., A. Bundy, P. Strain, W.D. Bowen, H. Breeze, S.E.
Campana, C. Hannah, E. Head and D. Gordon. 2006. Implications
of Ecosystem Dynamics for the Integrated Management of the Eastern
Scotian Shelf. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2652: xiii + 91 pp.
O N S E R V A N C Y
 Future landscapes in south-eastern Australia: the role of
protected areas and biolinks in adaptation to climate change
Ian Mansergh 1,2 , David Cheal 3 & James A. Fitzsimons 4
Abstract. The extent and rapidity of global climate change is the major novel threatening process to biodiversity in the 21st Authors’ Addresses:
century. Globally, numerous studies suggest movement of biota to higher latitudes and altitudes with increasing empirical 1.
Climate Change
evidence emerging. As biota responds to the direct and consequent effects of climate change the potential to profoundly affect Adaptation Branch,
natural systems (including the reserve system) of south-eastern Australia is becoming evident. Climate change is projected to Department of
accelerate major environmental drivers such as drought, fire and flood regimes. Is the reserve system sufficient for biodiversity Sustainability and
conservation under a changing climate? Environment,
PO Box 500, East
Australia is topographically flat, biologically mega–diverse with high species endemism, and has the driest and most variable
Melbourne VIC 3002,
climate of any inhabited continent. Whilst the north–south orientation and altitude gradient of eastern Australia’s forests
Australia. Email: ian.
and woodlands provides some resilience to projected climatic change, this has been eroded since European settlement,
mansergh@dse.vic.
particularly in the cool-moist Bassian zone of the south-east. Following settlement, massive land-use change for agriculture
gov.au
and forestry caused widespread loss and fragmentation of habitats; becoming geriatric in agricultural landscapes and artificially
young in forests. The reserve system persists as an archipelago of ecological islands surrounded by land uses of varying 2.
Department of
compatibility with conservation and vulnerable to global warming. The capacity for biota to adapt is limited by habitat availability. Agricultural Sciences,
The extinction risk is exacerbated. La Trobe University,
Bundoora VIC 3086,
Re-examination of earlier analysis of ecological connectivity through biolink zones confirms biolinks as an appropriate risk
Australia.
management response within a broader suite of measures. Areas not currently in the reserve system may be critical to the
value and ecological function of biological assets of the reserve system as these assets change. Ecological need and the rise 3.
Arthur Rylah Institute
of ecosystem services, combined with changing socio-economic drivers of land-use and social values that supported the for Environmental
expansion of the reserve system, all suggest biolink zones represent a new, necessary and viable multi-functional landscape. Research, Department
This paper explores some of the key ecological elements for restoration within biolink zones (and landscapes at large) of Sustainability
particularly through currently agricultural landscapes. and Environment,
123 Brown Street,
Key words: Ecological connectivity, biodiversity, biolinks, climate and land-use change, eastern Australia Heidelberg VIC 3084,
Australia.
constant and therefore ecological assets and processes would Email: david.cheal@dse.
Introduction vic.gov.au
The impact of climate change on natural systems has rekindled remain spatially intact in the long term. Future landscapes 4.
School of Life and
scientific research and debate on the capacity of conservation will produce a different mix of ecosystem services and there Environmental Sciences,
reserves to remain ‘fit for purpose’. The effects of recent are opportunities for biodiversity requirements to be included Deakin University, 221
within this landscape flux. Future options are best evaluated Burwood Highway,
changes in climate and the resultant speed of change to the biota, Burwood VIC 3125.
including distributions, and therefore the ‘assets’ and ecological within an understanding of past land-use (Mansergh and Australia. Email: james.
functioning of reserves (Peters and Darling 1985; Rosenweig Anderson 2006). The capacity of the evolving reserve system fitzsimons@deakin.
edu.au
et al. 2008), indicate that inaction will greatly reduce future and surrounding landscapes to maintain biodiversity and
options (Miller-Rushing and Primack 2004). The restoration of ecological services at the end of this century is directly related
ecological connectivity between fragmented reserves will assist to actions taken in the next decade(s).
the climatically induced movement of species during the 21st Background
century (Thomas et al. 2004; Hilty et al. 2006; Boitani et al. The formal reserve system in south-eastern Australia is largely
2007; Jones-Walters 2007). Restoring sub-continental linkages an historical artefact created from the public land remaining
for a multitude of species remains untested and, although the after the predominant colonial land-uses of agriculture, mining,
efficacy of existing ecological corridors varies markedly, forestry and settlement radically changed the landscape from
research is resolving some key issues such as the enhancement that formed over the previous 60,000 years of occupation by
of species richness (Fleishman et al. 2002; Opdam and Wascher Aborigines. In the south-east over 50% of the landscape was
2004; Damschen et al. 2006; Hilty et al. 2006; Mackey et al. cleared. The Bassian – Bassian/Eyrean bioclimatic zone of
2007). Adaptation to climate change will elicit global changes mainland south-eastern Australia was dramatically affected, as
in net primary production and land-use (Nemani et al. 2003; it became the national food bowl (Figure 1). In Victoria, this
Sala et al. 2003; Fischlin and Midley 2007). An imperative massive habitat disruption happened early and most severely in
is to include biodiversity conservation in the land-use flux. To the grasslands and woodlands, leaving them as the most stressed
date, this has received inadequate consideration. in the continent (Lunt 1991; Morgan 2000). The spatial result
Reserve systems and climatic refugia are critical elements in is a series of fragmented ‘ecological islands’ surrounded by
this scenario. In this paper we examine ecological connectivity primarily agricultural and forestry land. Habitat fragmentation
(‘biolinks’) as an adaptation risk management response is a major conservation issue (Cunningham 2000; Hobbs and
to climate change in the context of the present and future Yates 2003; Soule et al. 2004; Figure 1 b; Hannah et al. 2007).
reserve system in south-eastern Australia. The reserve system Broadly, remnant terrestrial habitats in agricultural zones
expanded on the invalid assumption that climate and other became geriatric or senescent and increasingly fragmented
large-scale drivers of environmental change would remain (National Land and Water Resources Audit 2001; Sluiter et al.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 59

Figure 3. Map of south-east Australia showing existing forest and woodland (green), large fragments of
forest and woodland (red) and reserve system (blue) (mapping courtesy of Simon Bennett, Department
of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, pers. comm.).
1997). Forested landscapes, although retaining some ecological
connectivity, were kept ecologically young, and the area of old
growth forests was depleted (Woodgate et al. 1996). Figure 2
illustrates the concepts of progressive ecological fragmentation,
reserve selection, restoration and changing ecosystem services
of the landscape over time.
Australia, a globally mega-biodiverse region, is the flattest and
driest inhabited continent and has the most variable climate.
Many species survived previous episodes of climate change by
in situ adaptation (Truswell 1993; McKenzie 2002; Markgraf
and McGlone 2005), while others shifted their ranges or
survived in refuges (Reid et al. 1999; Shapcott 2000; Conran
and Lowrie 2007). For the latter, ecological connectivity is
important at all scales (e.g. Hoctor et al. 2000, 2008; Jones-
Walters 2007), enabling species to newly occupy sites that have
become suitable and vacate sites that have become unsuitable.
The capacity of the current (fragmented) reserve system to
conserve south-eastern Australia’s biota is doubtful.
60 T R O P I C A L C
The direct and indirect effects of climate change exacerbate
the effects of past uses of land and water resources (Sala et
al. 2003; NLWRA 2002a, b; Wentworth Group of Concerned
Scientists 2003). The future of water allocations (and to a
lesser extent land use) is a major national issue, exacerbated
by drought and climate change. The restoration of ecological
connectivity across the landscape, including between existing
reserves, will be a major feature of appropriate climate change
adaptation and risk management (Opdam and Wascher 2004).
Earlier bio-climatic modelling (Bennett et al. 1992; Brereton
et al. 1995) proposed a broad system of biolink zones where
ecological connectivity was restored across Victoria. With
more recent climatic, ecological and socio-economic analyses
available, this paper examines the ecological need for, and
possibilities of, relinked landscapes. The landscape approach
includes merging key issues of ecology and socio-economics.
Climate Change – Effects
in South-Eastern Australia
biophysical
Climate change will elicit environmental changes at all levels
and indications can now be observed in basic biological
productivity (e.g. water regimes), phenology, processes and
feedback mechanisms (e.g. vegetation regeneration and fire)
(Mouillot et al. 2002; Nemani et al. 2003; Menzel et al. 2006;
IPCC 2007; Rosenweig et al. 2008; Dunlop and Brown 2008).
The vegetation of south-eastern Australia is already water
constrained-stressed (Woodward and Rochefort 1991, Nemani
et al. 2003), and recent studies indicate that land-cover changes
(Figure 1) have caused a statistically significant decline in
summer rainfall in the region (McAlpine et al. 2007). Under
nearly all future climate scenarios (from low to high temperature
increases) south-eastern Australia faces a warmer, drier, fire-
prone and flood-prone future, with an increased likelihood of
extreme climatic events such as very hot days, high-risk fire days
and storms (Hennessy et al. 2005; Suppiah et al. 2007). Climate
change will significantly contract the Bassian region (+3°C,
-10% rainfall = > 30% reduction of the wet province, Brereton
et al. 1995). Containing both Mediterranean and Southern
Temperate Forests biomes, the area is vulnerable to climate
change and inappropriate land-use (Sala et al. 2003). River and
stream flow will be depleted, perhaps by as much as 30% (Jones
and Durack 2005), and the seasonality, frequency and intensity
of bushfires will change (Hughes 2003). Socio-economically
and environmentally, it will be a carbon-constrained, water-
stressed future, interspersed with increased risks of catastrophic
events such as large bushfires and sudden floods.
biodiversity response- models and evidence
The north – south and altitudinal gradients of eastern
Australia’s forests and woodlands have some resilience to
climatic changes. However, this resilience has been eroded
since European settlement particularly in the cool-moist
Bassian bio-climatic zone of the south-east (Figure 1). There
are considerable limitations to our ability to measure and
predict specific impacts on species, phenotypes or locations,
however some changes are already evident (Hughes 2003;
O N S E R V A N C Y
Figure 1.
Broad vegetation groups cleared
in Australia (up to 1997) overlaid
with the bio-climatic zones. Note
uncleared (white), woodland (light
grey) and forest (dark grey) (Blakers
et al. 1984; NLWRA 2002b). Note
extensive clearing in Bassian and
Eyrean-Bassian bio-climatic zones
of eastern Australia.

Figure 4 (below).
Map of state-wide biolinks and
refugia (from Brereton et al. 1995)
overlaying map of fragmentation
of native vegetation of Victoria.
Possible additional biolinks (?) and
arrows indicating the southward
(latitudinal) direction of movement.
(Vegetation map courtesy of Fiona
Ferwerda, DSE, pers.comm.)

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 61

Figure 3. Idealised landscape showing; a, habitat fragmentation over time; b, effectiveness of
revegetation; c, differing ecosystem services provided by landscape, and historic selection of reserves
and biolinks. Note that landscapes produce ecosystem services (lower right) that reflect societal values
over time. Biodiversity, reserves, tourism, amenity, carbon sequestration, water quality – historically
under valued – are increasing in societal value. Biolinks supporting the reserves will be selected in
different landscapes (adapted from framework in McIntyre and Hobbs 2000; Parkes DSE, pers. comm.;
Mansergh et al. 2006b).
Umina et al. 2005; Hilbert et al. 2007; Rosenweig et al. 2008).
Habitat fragmentation means that populations that are already
genetically isolated have higher extinction risks (Drayton and
Primack 1996; Burbidge et al. 1997; Soule et al. 2002).
Predicting changes in the bioclimatic envelopes of species is
one way to model the impacts of climate change. Such early
modelling was completed for 42 vertebrate species (Brereton
et al. 1995) and vascular plants (Newell et al. 2001). Despite
caveats on the methodology (not without valid criticism
(e.g. Newell et al. 2001; Beaumont et al. 2005; Heikkinen
et al. 2006), including that species distributions are more
complex than ambient atmospheric conditions (factors such
as microclimatic requirements, competitive interactions,
geological discontinuities and soil changes are usually ignored
62 T R O P I C A L C
in such modelling), the climate scenarios and trajectories
in these works remain valid: trends of movement to higher
latitudes and altitudes have followed theoretical predictions and
other global modelling (Peters and Darling 1982; Hughes 2003;
Thomas et al. 2004). Nitscke and Hickey (2007) used ecological
characteristics of species (e.g. regeneration requirements) and a
sophisticated digital elevation model to predict marked changes
in distributions of eucalypts, consistent with the earlier studies.
Indeed, biological and ecological responses are now being
observed across the globe (reviews in Rosenweig et al. 2008;
Thomas et al. 2004). In Australia, large southward distributional
changes in response to, or consistent with, climate change have
been observed in genetics of fruit flies (Umina et al. 2005) and
some vertebrates (Hughes 2003)
.
There are three broad themes to the debate on the impacts
of climate change on Australia’s terrestrial biota (and
consequently its reserves), and each theme has a different
consequential response:
• Much of Australia’s biota has evolved to persist locally,
rather than migrate (e.g. in situ speciation of Eucalyptus,
Ladiges and Whiffin 1993; Crisp and Chandler 1996: or
of Banksia, Richardson et al. 1995). Thus maximum
effort should be directed to protecting the extant biota in
its current distribution.
• Cumulative pressures will induce migration, as has been
the situation under past climate change (eg. Ogden and
Powell 1979). Thus there needs to be an increased effort
to restore ecological connectivity.
• Ecosystems and vegetation may change beyond a tipping
point and be transformed to new forms and expressions,
including exotic species. Certain biota may prove
impossible to ‘protect’, and it may be more realistic to
assist their adaptation in the direction of change.
Across the continent, all three of these themes may be
expressed this century. However, the restoration of ecological
connectivity between reserves and persisting habitats appears
to be the most proactive risk management strategy for south-
eastern Australia. Stern’s (2007) observation for global
economics, that early adaptation has rewards, is probably
more true in landscape ecology given irreversibility and long
lead times (Lloyd and Graumlich 1997; Macphail 1997).
biolinks
Brereton et al. (1995) identified climatic refugia (where
numbers of bioclimatic envelopes were concentrated under
climate change) and defined ‘biolinks’ as broad areas where
ecological connectivity could be enhanced to optimize the space
available for biota to adapt to changing climate - respectively
6% and 25% of the 22.7 million hectares of Victoria (Figure 3).
They concluded that the reserve system was reasonably well
located in relation to climate change, with a notable gap, Box–
Ironbark Forest, that has since been partially addressed (ECC
2001). However, landscape resilience would be enhanced
by the establishment of biolinks. Here we use the broad
zones identified by Brereton et al. (1995) with more recent
vegetation and landscape connectivity mapping and modelling
O N S E R V A N C Y
(e.g. Parkes et al. 2003; Ferwerda 2003; Wilson and Lowe the land area by 2008 (17% in Victoria and 7% in NSW; Figure
2003; DSE 2008) and recent socio-economic data to examine 1). In the mid-1990s, the principles of comprehensiveness,
attributes of current and future landscapes. We concentrate on adequacy and representativeness were incorporated into the
the woodland environment where fragmentation and isolation national framework for reserve system establishment and later
of reserves and biota are most pressing (Figure 1). ecosystem-wide assessments for establishing reserve networks
Fragmentation of native habitats is a long-recognized problem (JANIS 1997; Commonwealth of Australia 1999; ECC 1997;
in south-eastern Australia (and elsewhere) (Bennett 1999; Fitzsimons 2006a). These principles were designed to conserve
Hobbs and Yates 2003) and recommendations for dealing and protect examples of indigenous biota as part of self-
with fragmentation have often involved the establishment of sustaining, functioning ecosystems. Victoria’s reserve system
corridors (see Table 1). Whilst biolinks may include corridors, is well developed compared with the rest of the country, due in
biolinks and corridors are not synonymous. Biolinks are a large part to the existence of a strategic public land allocation Table 1.
broader concept and include areas of agricultural production, authority for the past four decades (Clode 2006). Most of Comparison of an
the focus in recent reserve expansion has been on improving idealised “biolinked”
human habitation and transport links. Although biolinks rural landscape with
as a concept are increasingly discussed, they are not (yet) comprehensiveness and representativeness (Lunt 1995; a landscape based on
Fitzsimons and Ashe 2003), and this approach is now well- traditional commodity
enmeshed in local or statewide planning contexts. production for
established elsewhere in south-eastern Australia (Eddy 1990; agriculture.
The boundaries and extent of biolink zones are not rigid, Mendel and Kirkpatrick 2002). Only in the past few years has * In Victoria voluntary
but permeable. Improving the extent and condition of all serious consideration been given to the adequacy of protected conservation
management covers
existing native vegetation has always been associated with areas in the face of climate change (Taylor and Figgis 2007; 100000 ha of habitat
biolinks (Mansergh and Bennett 1989; Bennett et al. 1995) VEAC 2007; Dunlop and Brown 2008). on Land for Wildlife
and the uncertainty surrounding climate change supports this properties; conservation
Land poorly suited to agriculture (e.g. montane forests, nutrient- covenants (Trust for
as a key part of any risk strategy. Remnant native vegetation Nature) cover 30000
provides local refugia, genetic variation, stocks of seed and poor heathlands and semi-arid mallee woodland) is well ha (Mansergh et al. in
many (smaller scale) functional biotic elements. Increasing represented in the reserve system and forms the bulk of Victoria’s press)
the health of this vegetation increases robustness and assists
biological inertia to resist sudden perturbations (Main 1988). Attribute Biolinked Landscape ‘Business as usual’
Approximately 5.8 x 103 km2 of vegetation with medium Gradual decrease and
and low levels of fragmentation persists on private property Regional native tree Higher & less clumped senescence, except in public
density
outside biolinks and refugia (data base of Figure 5). This is land where static

particularly pertinent given the increased attention paid to the Regional Vegetation Native (public land),
biolink concept and conservation connectivity in government
Modified regenerating
conservation policy (e.g. Victorian Government 2008 a, b). indigenous & agricultural Native (public land), agricultural
(private land)
(private land)
Overlaying vegetation extent, condition (quality) and landscape
‘Weedy’ on private land,
context (fragmentation) with biolink zones indicates that higher Local faunas Native & diverse native & species poor on
values for these parameters occur in biolinks and refugia than public
in the general state matrix (Figure 5). Biolinks traverse about Generalist native spp Increasingly common Increasingly restricted to
public land
33.5 x 103 km2 of cleared and highly fragmented landscapes
(of the 132 103 km2 in Victoria) and, as more than a third Occur on public land, including Restricted to large blocks of
Specialist native spp small areas, and targeted private public land and increasingly
of the land area has been suggested for restoration of habitat land isolated
heterogeneity and vegetation cover in biolinks (Mansergh Conservation as legitimate use
Planning Schemes Binary landscapes
and Cheal 2007), a gross restoration area of 11.2 x 103 km2 on private land
is indicated (including 1.8 x 103 km2 of public land). Future Human habitation Scattered throughout, regionally In alienated areas only &
increasing. declining
research may prove this third to be an under-estimate, however
the extent is well within 2020 policy visions for agriculture Oriented to conservation Relatively high proportion
Public Land Use and amenity values, licensed licensed for conventional
(using 30% less land) and the Catchment Management Council activities only where consistent agricultural use.
(40% of catchments revegetated; Mansergh et al. 2006a). This Higher levels of voluntary
land-use change is well within historic precedent (Table 2). and targeted conservation ad hoc, lower levels of
Mooted changes are not purely economic; they have been Private Land management, covenanting conservation management
and NGO purchase for
driven by what society wants from a landscape. conservation.*
Derived Ecosystem Increasing and increasingly
Land-use and context of the Services valued Continued decline

reserve and off-reserve system Increase proportion derived from Continued reliance on
protected areas and beyond Land holder Income sources other than conventional agricultural commodity prices
farming
As late as 1970, protected areas and reserves in Victoria and New
Conservation Reserve Increasingly important to Binary - clear boundary
South Wales encompassed less than 1% of the land area but, System ( public and and integrated with regional between conservation and
driven by societal demand, this has increased to become 8% of private) economy production estates.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 63
 intact landscapes and the core zones of the biolinks. The areas
between core areas are fragmented from an ecological, land
use and land ownership perspective. This presents considerable
challenges in securing existing and new linkages. Land
acquisition for the reserves system is typically focused on under-
represented ecosystems, such as temperate native grasslands and
grassy woodlands (e.g. Fitzsimons and Ashe 2003).
The recent development of multi-tenure reserve networks
in south-eastern Australia (which include public and private
lands managed for conservation in a coordinated manner
under various owners and tenures) improves connectivity,
reserve design and the representation of threatened ecosystems
in fragmented landscapes (Fitzsimons 2004; Fitzsimons and
Wescott 2008). The establishment of such networks in biolink
zones, along with a suite of other mechanisms, could restore
connectivity without the financial costs or potential social
disruption of large-scale land acquisition by governments.
With similar societal drivers expanding the area of reserves
in the public estate (above), various land trusts and non-
government organizations have purchased private or
leasehold lands for conservation and biodiversity, expanding
the concept of a reserve network (e.g. Figgis 2004; Cowell
and Williams 2006; Fitzsimons 2006b). Voluntary programs
such as Land for Wildlife (now national) and Landcare
(now international) developed in south-eastern Australia.
However, the fragmented and disconnected nature of the
formal reserve system persists across much of Victoria’s
biolink zones (Figure 4).
areas between reserves
The relative economic importance of agriculture has changed
radically over the 20th century. In 1950–51 during the
wool boom, agriculture, forestry and fisheries contributed
92% of all exports, but by 1998–99 this had declined to
22%. Agriculture, forestry and fishing contributed 29% of
Australia’s gross domestic product in 1950–51, declining to
approximately 3% in 2005. The National Land and Water
Resources Audit (NLWRA 2001a, b) found that 26% of
Australia’s agricultural production and 50% of profits
comes from irrigated land, which encompasses ~2% of the
agricultural landscape. Furthermore, 80% of agricultural
profits come from less than 1% of the area used; and 10%
of farm establishments produce between 40 and 50% of
Land-use change Period
Clearing for agriculture 1860 – 1960
Creation of reserve system 1970 – 2000
Establishment of hardwood
Table 2. 1999 – 2001
plantations
Extent of various major
land-use changes in
Victoria over time. Future Biolinks 2010 – 2030
64 T R O P I C A L C
Australia’s gross agricultural income (NLWRA 2001a).
Victorian and NSW agriculture is now less than3% of gross
state product (Garnaut Review 2008). In Victoria, about half
of the former agricultural areas are moving towards ‘amenity’
and transitional landscapes (Barr 2005).
In recent decades, the fate of land lying between formal reserves
has remained in doubt while society debated sustainability,
inter-generational equity and ‘heritage’ conservation. Much of
the debate has involved the scale and intensity of management,
both of which have increased with modern industrialised
methods. The conservation of ‘old growth forest’ has been a
major national issue. In wetter forested landscapes, long-term
harvesting has created a much younger forest over broad areas,
where less carbon is stored and fewer age-dependent attributes,
such as tree hollows, are retained in the landscape (Dean et al.
2003; Serong and Lill 2008). In the drier box–ironbark forests
of central Victoria, the loss of older forests as a result of
historic gold-mining and timber harvesting was a major factor
in the establishment of major conservation reserves in the early
2000s (ECC 1997, 2001).
In agricultural landscapes, remnant old trees are keystone
ecological features (Pieck 2003). A massive shortfall in tree
hollows is predicted for the near future, but has already happened
in some areas (Kile et al. 1980; Soderquist and Mac Nally 2000;
Manning et al. 2006). Adaptation of agriculture to climate
change may limit future biodiversity options. For example, since
the early 1980s land use in part of western Victoria has shifted
from grazing and dryland cropping towards cropping only. The
increase in centre-pivot irrigation areas from nil in 1980 to nearly
9000 ha by 2005 has resulted in the loss of 42% of Paddock
Buloke, Allocasuarina luehmannii (R.T. Baker) L.A.S. Johnson
trees, which is likely to result in species declines and local
extinctions (Maron and Fitzsimons 2007). It is estimated that if
the 3% annual rate of loss of paddock trees over the eight years to
2005 continues, none will be left in about 25 years (ibid.).
Landscape change can be rapid given the appropriate policy
mix. Australia signed the Kyoto Protocol in late 2007, but
between 1990 and 2005 Victoria (primarily through eucalypt
plantations) and Western Australia already turned the Kyoto
carbon emission category (land-use change) from a carbon
source to a carbon sink (Australian Government 2008).
In the context of climate change and enhancing the resilience
Mean p.a
Change (km2 ) Source
1150 Gilbee (1999) in Mansergh et al. 2006a
1225 Clode (2006)
National Forest Inventory (2004) in
380
Mansergh et al. (2006a)
560 See text
O N S E R V A N C Y
Figure 5. The proportion of each zone per classes of vegetation quality (left) and landscape component (fragmentation) (centre) within and outside greenhouse
refugia and biolinks in Victoria. Area of landscape component classes within biolink zones by tenure (right) – higher numbers denotes increased intactness.
(see Figure 3; Brereton et al. 1995; Parkes et al. 2003; Ferwerda 2003; www//: dse.vic.gov.au ).
of the reserve system, it is important that zones of functional
ecological connectivity are identified, as most forms of
intensification lessen natural resilience and thus future
cost-effective options (e.g. Dorrough and Moxham 2005;
Crosthwaite et al. 2008).
Biolink zones and ecological connectivity
Habitat fragmentation will be exacerbated by climate change.
The effects of habitat fragmentation are critical in relation to
building biolinks, but fortunately our understanding of the effects
is advancing rapidly (Hobbs and Yates 2003; Kirchner et al.
2003; Opdam and Wascher 2004; Hilty et al. 2006). As habitat
becomes more fragmented (Figure 2), the persistence and ability
of each species to (re-)colonize depends on the extent, condition,
configuration and cohesion of its habitat (Miller-Rushing and
Primack 2004; Opdam and Wascher 2004; Lindenmayer et al.
2005; Radford et al. 2005). Habitat heterogeneity increases
species richness (Brooker and Margules 1996; Hobbs and Yates
2003). Increasing the ecological connectivity and heterogeneity
means that landscapes could recover habitat (Figure 3). Biolinks
are concentrated in fragmented and variegated landscapes, rather
than in relict ones. It is the resilience of these landscapes that is
important under climate change.
Ecological resilience has been defined as the capacity of
ecosystems to recover from disturbances (Andreasen et al. 2001;
Hobbs and Yates 2003). Trees are critical for the resilience of
forests and woodlands, while the understorey and lower strata
are equally important for a full complement of biodiversity.
In Australian pastures, time since clearing and agricultural
management affect natural resilience. Progressively, grazing
on native pasture, pasture ‘improvement’, cropping, fertiliser
and pesticide application all directly erode the long-term
resilience of native vegetation (McIntyre and Martin 2001;
Chalmers et al. 2005). For example, a survey of grazing
properties in central Victoria found that even under current
B I O D I V E R
patterns of tree cover (which is as low as 2.7%), 40% of the
total area is highly likely to support natural (tree) regeneration
in the absence of livestock grazing. Nevertheless, successful
regeneration would be more than halved if no action were
to be taken in the next 30 years (Dorrough and Moxham
2005). The most cost-effective mechanism for revegetation is
natural regeneration, which also naturally selects for survival
in a drier and warmer future. The frequency of favourable
regeneration years may be limiting (Vesk and Dorrough 2006;
Mansergh and Cheal 2007). Ecological thresholds are still
being actively debated (Radford et al. 2005; Lindenmayer et
al. 2005). In the interim, Mansergh and Cheal (2007) have
recommended greater than 30% native vegetation cover.
Some key elements of all landscapes that are particularly
critical in the establishment of biolink zones are:
• riparian vegetation,
• distinctive topographical features, and
• ‘reservoir’ vegetation or habitat, including roadsides and
isolated trees, that could provide regeneration propagules
(seeds and dispersing young) (Prober and Thiele 1993;
Watson et al. 2000).
Key ecological elements of biolink zones
Cognisant of the principles provided by Lindenmayer et al.
(2005), we suggest the following broad ecological foci for
the establishment of meaningful biolinks. These features
can be incorporated into new ecosystem services that society
will require in a carbon-constrained future (e.g. carbon
sequestration) and sophisticated catchment modelling can
guide investment (e.g. Stoneham et al. 2003; Eigenraam et
al. 2005).
• Remnants to reservoirs — All areas of existing native
vegetation have value, either as parts of biolinks
between major habitat reserves (such as national parks
and the like) or as habitats in their own right. Better-
S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 65
 quality vegetation is assumed to support more effective
regeneration processes, enabling ‘natural’ (minimally
assisted) regeneration. Natural regeneration enables
natural selection and hence some adaptation towards the
novel local conditions resulting from climate change.
Unassisted regeneration based on remnant species and
sites is much cheaper than restoration of completely
alienated landscapes and locally exterminated vegetation
communities and habitats.
• Isolated stands of remnant native vegetation can act as
foci for the restoration of regional connectivity. Even very
small areas of native vegetation or habitat can be critical in
maintaining connectivity in fragmented landscapes (Prober
and Thiele 1993; Price et al. 1999; Watson et al. 2000).
• Dominant species — Although there is no suggestion
that some species are more important than others, some
species have more influence on the composition and
processes within habitats (vegetation communities) than
do other species. These most influential species are termed
‘dominants’ (Allaby 1985; Kent and Coker 1994) or
‘keystone species’ (Paine 1969; Lamont 1992; Hurlbert
1997). In south-eastern Australia, eucalypts are the most
common canopy trees and the most common dominants in
treed and mallee vegetation (e.g. Hobbs and Yates 2000).
Compared with the rest of the flora, their regeneration
requirements are relatively well-known. Indeed, the
regeneration requirements for all trees are much better
known than is the case for the rest of the flora. Restoring
dominant species (notably trees) to degraded landscapes,
and ensuring that they can continue regeneration there, are
justifiable early priorities in restoring degraded landscapes,
re-establishing connectivity and providing heterogeneous
seral stages and niches for biota. By definition, dominants
have the greatest influence on vegetation processes,
microclimates and microhabitats and growing conditions
for the whole community. For example, a single mature
eucalypt in a red gum forest may support 400 to 700
morphospecies of invertebrates (Yen et al. 2002).
• Although about 25% of eucalypt species have very tight
bioclimatic ranges (rainfall, temperature or both) (see
Hughes 2003), many eucalypt forests and woodlands
have broad ecological amplitudes and are amenable to
regeneration over broad geographic ranges. Regeneration
through natural selection will assist phenotypical responses
to changing climate (Mansergh and Cheal 2007).
• Adequate regeneration is often possible from the existing
stock of isolated and roadside trees with minor changes in
land management practices (Dorrough and Moxham 2005;
Vesk and Dorrough 2006; Dorrough et al. 2006), thus re-
establishing this key habitat feature and associated benefits
for in-site habitat and connectivity for the long term, e.g.
tree hollows for nesting (Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2002;
Woldendorp and Keenan 2005). Substantial resilience
remains in pastoral south-eastern Australia, but the area
over which natural regeneration can occur will be halved
over the next 30 years (Dorrough and Moxham 2005).
• Riparian environments — Riparian environments link
66 T R O P I C A L C
terrestrial and freshwater environments and provide critical
drought refugia (Soderquist and Mac Nally 2000; Palmer
and Bennett 2006). They optimize carbon sequestration,
water quality, biodiversity and assist flood mitigation
(Jones et al. 2007). Since the 1860s and the inception of the
Torrens title system, a 100 link (c. 20 metre) wide reserve
of public land has bordered many streams in Victoria
(Cabena 1983). Most of these have been degraded to
varying extents by licensing for agricultural purposes (see
Mansergh et al. 2006b) but are still public land and thus
are readily available for revegetation. In these landscapes
riparian zones optimize biodiversity, carbon sequestration
and water quality (Jones et al. 2007).
• Other public land — There are many linear reserves in stock
routes and along public roads, including vegetated road
reserves that do not support any formed roads or tracks.
Because of their huge boundary-to-area ratios the vegetation
on this public land is often degraded, but can support local
genetic variation and useful trans-landscape habitats for
many species (Adam and Robinson 1996; Witkowski and
Lamont 1997; van der Ree and Bennett 2001) and may
become critical propagule reservoirs for the establishment
of biolinks throughout the wider landscape.
• Local refugia — When regions were first surveyed in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many townships
(land reserved from agricultural development) were not
subsequently or substantially alienated and occupied. In
addition, local resource reserves (such as timber reserves,
travelling stock reserves and cemeteries) were also
established in anticipation of local exploitation. These
often remain as (more or less) degraded native habitats in
primarily agricultural landscapes, and many have been
incorporated into lower-profile local reserves. Some contain
the best examples of remaining habitat. For example, the
former timber reserves of Yarrara and Bambill South in
north western-Victoria support some of the best Belah-
dominated woodland in south-eastern Australia (Porteners
1993; Callister 2004). Such areas are obvious further core
areas for biolinks, including sources of local genotypes for
wider propagation and expansive regeneration.
New biocultural landscapes
Humans imbue landscape with meaning and create and
conserve them as manifestations of these meanings, which
are connected to both the past and the future (Schama 1998).
The rise of protected areas was an expression of a cultural
phenomenon that sought to preserve areas of natural beauty,
habitat and function. Since the 1970s the area of the protected
network rapidly increased world-wide in both western
and other societies indicating a shift in ideas about what
landscapes could provide and mean. Many reserved areas have
consequently become regionally and nationally, economically
important. Climate change threatens the ecological, socio-
economic and cultural meaning of the reserve system.
The effectiveness of ‘corridors’ for wildlife conservation is still
being evaluated (e.g. Hilty et al. 2006), however some of the
general criticisms (e.g. weed conduits, poor species richness)
O N S E R V A N C Y
are largely unfounded (Damschen et al. 2006). Biolinks are
not traditional corridors, but rather broad permeable zones
where functional ecological connectivity is restored across the
landscape and people live and obtain livelihoods. The relative
economic decline of agriculture over the last five decades has
allowed the socio-economic trajectories of land-use over 50% of
Victoria to move away from the past ‘agrarian paradigm’ toward
amenity and transitional landscapes (Barr 2005). Colonial, public
infrastructure such as stream reserves and stock routes that traverse
the landscape can evolve to new socio-ecological purposes as
key elements of an enhanced landscape legacy. The building
blocks of landowner involvement are already present in many
potential biolink landscapes with a strong spatial correlation with
the distribution of conservation covenants and Land for Wildlife
properties (Fitzsimons and Wescott 2008a, 2008b). Landcare,
now an international movement, was invented and evolved in
these landscapes. Other recent moves to include ‘ecosystem
services’ in the economy (amenity, carbon sequestration, water,
biodiversity) offer the possibility of hastening the movement away
from landscapes based exclusively on traditional commodities
toward biodiversity friendly landscapes.
The purposeful restoration of ecological connectivity across
the landscape as a climate adaptation response, implies a
move away from the dichotomous landscapes of the past
(production or preservation), towards new landscapes
producing different ‘products’ and meanings. Biolinks could
present a new biocultural landscape that will augment the
primary function of the reserve system for the 21st century and
beyond. Ecologically, the emergent vegetation patterns and
processes will not be replicas of pre-European settlement but
will continue to evolve spatially, temporally and genetically
(through adaptation and natural selection). Their development
should be informed by science and culture and could well
change/evolve over time, based on better understanding of
species and assemblages requirements. Such changes can
now be increasingly visualised at all scales in virtual reality
to inform current choices of future landscapes (Mansergh et
al. 2008). In Australia, they will be geographical cultural
manifestations, the new sense of place that has played such
a major part in creation of the reserve system itself and the
emerging conservation orientation of private land.
Conclusion
Climate change is the novel threat of the 21st century that
will affect basic ecological and biophysical processes, with
consequent implications that present far reaching challenges to
the reserve system and biodiversity of south-eastern Australia.
The lack of functional ecological connectivity between reserves
is likely to have profound effects on the condition of the system
and surrounding landscapes. As society adapts to climate change
it needs to review past land and water allocations, use and
management. These were driven by different imperatives and
colonial-conditioned world views in which nature conservation
was at best peripheral and vital ecosystem services were
presumed to be permanently available.
In south-eastern Australia, biolink zones that restore functional
B I O D I V E R S I
ecological connectivity across the landscape could provide a
new focus for land-use as part of an adaptation strategy. The
development of functional biolinks presupposes a long-term,
socially acceptable vision. Their development will require
ongoing ecological and other sciences at all scales and equally,
ownership of the vision from governments and society.
Acknowledgments.
We would like to thank Fiona Ferwerda, Brendan Freeman, Alex
Lau (Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment)
and Jennifer Frieden and Fiona MacKenzie (Victorian
Department of Planning and Community Development) and
Simon Bennett (Australian Government Department of the
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts) for their assistance
with the figures and some data. Vivienne Turner provided
critical review of an earlier draft of this manuscript.
References
Adam, P. and D. Robinson.1996. Negative effects of fuel reduction
burning on the habitat of the Grey-crowned Babbler Pomatostomus
temporalis. Victorian Naturalist 113: 4-9.
Allaby, M. 1985. The Oxford Dictionary of Natural History, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Andreasen, J.K., R.V. O’Neill, R. Noss, and N.C. Slosser. 2001.
Considerations for the development of a terrestrial index of ecological
integrity. Ecological Indicators 1: 21-35.
Australian Government. 2008. National Inventory Report 2005 (Revised).
The Australian Government Submission to the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change, 2008. Department of Climate Change,
Canberra.
Barr, N. 2005. The Changing Social Landscape of Rural Victoria.
Department of Primary Industries, Melbourne.
Barr, N. 2008. The social landscapes of rural Victoria in C. Pettit, William
W. Cartwright, I. Bishop, K. Lowell, D. Pullar, D. Duncan (Eds).
Landscape Analysis and Visualisation. Lecturer Notes in Geoinformation
and Cartography Series. Springer, Berlin. pp. 305-324.
Beaumont, L. J., Hughes, L. and M. Poulsen. 2005. Predicting species
distributions: use of climatic parameters in BIOCLIM and its impact
on predictions of species’ current and future distributions. Ecological
Modelling 186: 250-269.
Bennett, S., R. Brereton, and I. Mansergh. 1992. Enhanced Greenhouse
and the Wildlife of South Eastern Australia. Arthur Rylah Institute for
Environmental Research Technical Report No. 127. Heidelberg.
Bennett, A. F. 1999. Linkages in the Landscape. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland
Blakers, M., S.J.J.F. Davies, and P.N. Reilly. 1984. The Atlas of Australian
Birds. RAOU and Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.
Boitani, L., A. Falcucci, L. Maiorano, and C. Rondinini. 2007. Ecological
networks as conceptual frameworks or operational tools in conservation.
Conservation Biology 21: 1414-22
Brereton, R., S. Bennett, and I. Mansergh. 1995. Enhanced greenhouse
climate change and its potential effect on selected fauna of south-eastern
Australia: a trend analysis. Biological Conservation 72: 39-354.
Brooker, M. G. and C. R. Margules. 1996. The relative conservation value
of remnant patches of native vegetation in the wheatbelt of Western
Australia: I. Plant Diversity. Pacific Conservation Biology 2: 268-278.
Burbidge, A.A., M.R. Williams, and I. Abbott 1997. Mammals of
Australian islands: factors influencing species richness. Journal of
Biogeography 24(6): 703-715.
Cabena, P. B. 1983. Victoria’s water frontages: an historical review
and resource appreciation. Department of Crown Lands and Survey,
Melbourne.
Callister, K. E. 2004. Casuarina pauper (Belah) Woodlands of Northwest
Victoria: Monitoring and Regeneration. PhD thesis, University of
Ballarat, Ballarat.
Chalmers, A., S. McIntyre, R.D.B. Whalley, and N. Reid. 2005.
Grassland species response to soil disturbance and nutrient enrichment
on the Northern Tablelands of New South Wales. Australian Journal of
Botany 53: 485-499.
Clode, D. 2006. As if for a Thousand Years: a History of Victoria’s Land
Conservation and Environment Conservation Councils. Victorian
Environmental Assessment Council, Melbourne.
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 67
Commonwealth of Australia. 1999. Australian Guidelines for Establishing
the National Reserve System. Environment Australia, Canberra.
Conran, J. G. and A. Lowrie. 2007. The Biogeography of Drosera
striaticaulis (Droseraceae) in Australia: A Disjunct ‘Island’ Refugee?
Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 132(2): 142-151.
Cowell, S. and C. Williams. 2006. Conservation through buyer-diversity:
A key role for not-for-profit land-holding organizations in Australia.
Ecological Management & Restoration 7: 5-20.
Crisp, M. D. and G. T. Chandler. 1996. Paraphyletic species. Telopea
6(4): 813-844.
Crosthwaite, J., Malcolm, B., Moll, J. and J. Dorrough. 2008. Future
investment in landscape change in southern Australia. Landscape
Research 33: 239-255.
Cunningham, S.A. 2000. Effects of habitat fragmentation on the
reproductive ecology of four plant species in Mallee woodland.
Conservation Biology 14: 758-768.
Damschen, E.I., N.M. Haddad, J.L. Orrock, J.J. Tewksbury, and D.J.
Levey. 2006. Corridors increase plant species richness at large scales.
Science 313: 1284-86.
Dean, C., S. Roxburgh and B. Mackey. 2003. Growth modelling of
Eucalyptus regnans for carbon accounting at the landscape scale. In A.
Amaro, D. Reed, and P. Soaro (Eds). Modelling forest ecosystems. CAB
International, Wallingford, UK. pp. 27-39.
Dorrough, J. and C. Moxham. 2005. Eucalypt establishment in agricultural
landscapes and implications for landscape-scale restoration. Biological
Conservation 123: 56-66.
Dorrough, J., C. Moxham, V. Turner, and G. Sutter. 2006. Soil
phosphorus and tree cover modify the effects of livestock grazing on
plant species richness in an Australian grassy woodland. Biological
Conservation 130: 394-405.
DSE (Department of Sustainability and Environment). 2008. Net Gain
Accounting First Approximation Report. Department of Sustainability
and Environment, Melbourne.
Drayton, B. and R. and B. Primack. 1996. Plant Species Lost in an
Isolated Conservation Area in Metropolitan Boston from 1894 to 1993.
Conservation Biology 10(1): 30-39.
Dunlop, M. and P. Brown. 2008. Implications of climate change for
Australia’s National Reserve System: a preliminary assessment. Report
for Department of Climate Change and Department of the Environment,
Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
ECC. 1997. Box-Ironbark Forests and Woodlands Investigation: Resources
and Issues Report. Environment Conservation Council, Melbourne.
ECC. 2001. Box-Ironbark Forest and Woodlands Investigation: Final
Report. Environment Conservation Council, Melbourne.
Eddy, D. A. 1990. Conservation management of native grassland in
travelling stock reserves and cemeteries of the Monaro In Dowling, P.
M. and D. L. Garden (Eds). Native Grass Workshop. Australian Wool
Corporation Research and Development Group, Dubbo, NSW.
Eigenraam, M., G. Stoneham, C. Beverly, and J. Todd 2005. Emerging
environmental markets: a catchment modelling framework to meet
new information requirements in Proceedings of the OECD Workshop
on Agriculture and Water: Sustainability, Markets and Policies, 14-18
November, 2005 Adelaide. Available: http://www.oecd.org/secure/docD
ocument/0,2827,en_21571361_34281952_35567168_1_1_1_1,00.doc
Ferwerda, F. 2003. Assessing the Importance of Remnant Vegetation
for Maintaining Biodiversity in Rural Landscapes Using Geospatial
Analysis. MAppSci thesis, RMIT University, Melbourne.
Figgis, P. 2004. Conservation on Private Lands: The Australian Experience.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Fischlin, A. and G. Midley. 2007. Ecosytems, their properties, goods and
services. In IPCC Fourth Assessment report – Working Group 2 report:
Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Chapter 4. http://www.ipcc.ch/
ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm.
Fitzsimons, J. and G. Wescott. 2001. The role and contribution of private
land in Victoria to biodiversity conservation and the protected area
system. Australian Journal of Environmental Management 8: 142-157.
Fitzsimons, J. A. 2004. The Contribution of Multi-tenure Reserve
Networks to Biodiversity Conservation. PhD thesis, School of Ecology
and Environment, Deakin University, Melbourne.
Fitzsimons, J.A. 2006a. Private Protected Areas? Determining the suitability
for incorporating conservation agreements over private land into the
National Reserve System: A case study of Victoria. Environmental and
Planning Law Journal 23: 365-385
Fitzsimons, J. A. 2006b. Public land use planning using bioregions and other
attributes: determining the study area of the VEAC River Red Gum Forests
investigation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 118: 75-85.
Fitzsimons, J.A. and C. Ashe. 2003. Some recent strategic additions to
Victoria’s protected area system, 1997-2002. Victorian Naturalist 120:
68 T R O P I C A L C
98-108.
Fitzsimons J. A. and G. Wescott. 2008a. The role of multi-tenure reserve
networks in improving reserve design and connectivity. Landscape and
Urban Planning 85: 163-173.
Fitzsimons, J. A. and G. Wescott. 2008b. Ecosystem conservation in
multi-tenure reserve networks: the contribution of land outside of
publicly protected areas. Pacific Conservation Biology14: in press.
Fleishman, E., C. Ray, P. Sjogren-Gulve, C.L. Boggs, and D. D. Murphy.
2002. Assessing the Roles of Patch Quality, Area, and Isolation in
Predicting Metapopulation Dynamics. Conservation Biology 16(3):
706-716.
Garnaut Review. 2008. Issues Paper 1. Climate Change: Land use
-Agriculture and forestry. Garnaut Review, Melbourne.
Gibbons, P. and D. Lindenmayer. 2002. Tree Hollows and Wildlife
Conservation in Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.
Gilbee, A. 1999. Tree Cover Change in Victoria c. 1869-1993: An Outline
of Methods for Mapping and Monitoring. Natural Resource Systems.
Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne.
Hannah, D., J.C.Z. Woinarski, C.P. Catterall, J.C. McCosker, N.Y.
Thurgate, and R.J. Fensham. 2007. Impacts of clearing, fragmentation
and disturbance on the bird fauna of Eucalypt savanna woodlands in
central Queensland, Australia. Austral Ecology 32(3): 261-276.
Heikkinen, R.K., M. Luoto, M.B. Araújo, R. Virkkala, W. Thuiller, and
M.T. Sykes. 2006. Methods and uncertainties in bioclimatic envelope
modelling under climate change. Progress in Physical Geography 30:
751-777.
Hennessy, K., C. Lucas, N. Nicholls, J. Bathols, R. Suppiah, and J.
Ricketts. 2005. Climate change impacts on fire weather in southeastern
Australia. CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne.
Hilbert, D.W., L. Hughes, J. Johnson, J.M. Lough, T. Low, R.G.
Pearson, R.W. Sutherst, and S. Whittaker. 2007. Biodiversity
conservation research in a changing climate. Workshop report:
research needs and information gaps for the implementation of the
key objectives of the National Biodiversity and Climate Change
Action Plan. Australian Government Department of the Environment
and Water Resources, Canberra. Available: www.environment.
gov.au/biodiversity/publications/climate-priorities/pubs/climate-
priorities.pdf
Hilty, J. A., Lidicker, W. Z., and A. M. Merenlender. 2006. Corridor
Ecology: the science and practice of linking landscapes for biodiversity
conservation. Island Press, Washington. 323 p.
Hobbs, R. J. and C. Yates (Eds). 2000. Temperate Eucalypt Woodlands
in Australia: biology, conservation, management and restoration. Surrey
Beatty and Sons, Sydney.
Hobbs, R. J. and C. J. Yates. 2003. Turner Review No. 7: Impacts of
ecosystem fragmentation on plant populations: generalising the
idiosyncratic. Australian Journal of Botany 51: 471-488.
Hoctor, T.S., M.H. Carr, and P.D. Zwick. 2000. Identifying a linked
reserve system using a regional landscape approach: the Florida
Ecological Network. Conservation Biology 14: 984-1000.
Hoctor, T. S., W.L. Allen III, M.H. Carr, P.D. Zwick, E. Huntley, D.J.
Smith, D.S. Maehr, R. Buch, and R. Hilsenbeck. 2008. Land corridors
in the southeast USA: Connectivity to protect biodiversity and ecosystem
services. Journal of Conservation Planning 4: 90-122.
Hughes, L. 2003. Climate change and Australia: Trends, projections and
impacts. Austral Ecology 28: 423-443.
Hurlbert, S. H. 1997. Functional importance vs keystoneness:
Reformulating some questions in theoretical biocenology. Australian
Journal of Ecology 22: 369-382.
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. The physical
science basis: Summary for policymakers. UNEP, Paris.
JANIS. 1997. Nationally Agreed Criteria for the Establishment of a
Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative Reserve System for
Forests in Australia. Joint ANZECC/MCFFA NFPS Implementation
Subcommittee, Canberra.
Jones, R. and P. Durack. 2005. Estimating the impacts of climate change
on Victoria’s runoff using hydrological sensitivity model. CSIRO and
DSE, East Melbourne.
Jones, R.N., P. Dettman, G. Park, M. Rogers, and T. White. 2007.
The relationship between adaptation and mitigation in managing
climate change risks: a regional response for north central Victoria,
Australia. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
12: 685-712.
Jones-Walters, L. 2007. Pan-European ecological networks. Journal for
Nature Conservation 15: 262-264.
Kent, M. and P. Coker. 1994. Vegetation Description and Analysis: A
practical approach. John Wiley and Sons, Singapore.
Kile, G., P, Greig, and J. Edgar. 1980. Tree decline in rural Victoria.
O N S E R V A N C Y
 Institute of Foresters, Melbourne.
Kirchner, F., J. Ferdy, C. Andalo, B. Colas, and J. Moret. 2003. Role of
corridors in plant dispersal: an example with the endangered Ranunculus
nodiflorus. Conservation Biology 17: 401-410.
Ladiges, P. Y. and T. Whiffin. 1993. Taxonomic Revision of Eucalyptus
alpina s.l. and Recognition of Three New Species, E. victoriana, E.
serraensis and E. verrucosa. Australian Systematic Botany 6(4): 365-370.
Lamont, B.B. 1992. Functional interactions within plants – the contribution
of keystone and other species to biological diversity in R.J. Hobbs (ed)
Biodiversity of Mediterranean Ecosystems in Australia. Surrey Beatty
and Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW. pp. 95-127.
Lindenmayer, D., Fischer, J. and R. Cunningham. 2005. Native
vegetation cover thresholds associated with species response. Biological
Conservation 124: 311-316.
Lloyd, A. H. and L. J. Graumlich. 1997. Holocene Dynamics of Treeline
Forests in the Sierra Nevada. Ecology 78(4): 1199-1210.
Lunt, I. D. 1991. Management of remnant lowland grasslands and grassy
woodlands for nature conservation; a review, Victorian Naturalist
108(3): 56-66.
Lunt, I. D. 1995. European Management of Remnant Grassy Forests
and Woodlands in South-eastern Australia – Past, Present and Future?
Victorian Naturalist 112(6): 239-249.
Mackey, B.G., M.E. Soulé, H.A. Nix, H.F. Recher, R.G. Leslie, J.E.
Williams, J.C.Z. Woinarski, R.J. Hobbs, and H.P. Possingham.
2007. Towards a scientific framework for the WildCountry project In
J. Wu and R. J. Hobbs (Eds) Key Topics and Perspectives in Landscape
Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 192-213.
Macphail, M. K. 1997. Late Neogene Climates in Australia: Fossil Pollen-
and Spore-based Estimates in Retrospect and Prospect. Australian
Journal of Botany 45(3): 425-464.
Main, A. 1988. Climate change and its effect on nature conservation in
Australia. In Pearman G. (Ed.), Greenhouse: Planning for climate
change in Australia. CSIRO, Melbourne.
Manning, A., Fischer, J. and D. Lindenmayer. 2006. Scattered trees
are keystone structures – implications for conservation. Biological
Conservation 132: 311-321.
Mansergh, I. and H. Anderson. 2006. Global warming, biodiversity land-
use change in south eastern Australia. Paper delivered at REVGOV
Global Public Services Conference-June 2006: Institutions for providing
Global Environmental Goods. ‘Managing uncertainty, complexity and
change in the field of biodiversity and climate change’. Available:
http://biogov.cpdr.ucl.ac.be/bioinstit/NEW%20N%20PAPERS/I.%20
Mansergh%20&%20Anderson-Paper21-07-2006.pdf
Mansergh, I., Anderson, H. and N. Amos. 2006a. Victoria’s living
natural capital – decline and replenishment: 1880- 2050 (Part 2) -The
new millennium: replenishment. Victorian Naturalist 123: 288-322.
Mansergh, I., H. Anderson, and N. Amos. 2006b. Victoria’s living natural
capital – decline and replenishment: 1880- 2050 (Part 1). Victorian
Naturalist 123: 4-28.
Mansergh, I. and S. Bennett. 1989. ‘Greenhouse’ and wildlife
management. Victorian Naturalist 106: 248-52.
Mansergh, I. and D. Cheal. 2007. Protected area planning and management
for eastern Australian temperate forests and woodland ecosystems under
climate change – a landscape approach In M. Taylor and P. Figgis (Eds).
Protected areas: buffering against climate change: Proceedings of a
WWF and IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas symposium:
18-19 June 2007, Canberra. WWF Australia, Sydney. pp. 58-72.
Mansergh, I., A. Lau, and R. Anderson. 2008. Geographic landscape
visualisation in planning adaptation to climate change in Victoria,
Australia In C. Pettit, William W. Cartwright, I. Bishop, K. Lowell, D.
Pullar, and D. Duncan (Eds). Landscape Analysis and Visualisation.
Lecturer Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography Series. Springer,
Berlin: Chapter 23.
Markgraf, V. and M. McGlone. 2005. Southern temperate ecosystems
responses In T.E. Lovejoy and L.J. Hannah (Eds). Climate change and
biodiversity. Yale University Press, New Haven. pp. 142-156.
Maron, M. and J. A. Fitzsimons. 2007. Agricultural intensification and
loss of matrix habitat over 23 years in the West Wimmera, south-eastern
Australia. Biological Conservation 134: 587–593.
McAlpine, C.A., J. Syktus, R.C. Deo, P.J. Lawrence, H.A. McGowan,
I.G. Watterson, and S.R. Phinn. 2007. Modelling the impact of
historical land cover change on Australia’s regional climate. Geophysical
Research Letters 34: L22711.
McIntyre S. and R .J. Hobbs. 2000. Human impacts on landscapes: matrix
condition and management priorities In J. L. Craig, N. Mitchell and D.A.
Saunders (Eds). Nature Conservation 5 - Conservation in Production
Environments: Managing the Matrix. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping
Norton. pp. 301-307.
B I O D I V E R S I
McIntyre, S. and T. G. Martin. 2001. Biophysical and human influences
on plant species richness in grasslands: Comparing variegated landscapes
in subtropical and temperate regions. Austral Ecology 26: 233-245.
McKenzie, G. M. 2002. The late Quaternary vegetation history of the
south-central highlands of Victoria, Australia. II. Sites below 900m.
Austral Ecology 27: 32-54.
Mendel, L. C. and J. B. Kirkpatrick. 2002. Historical Progress of
Biodiversity Conservation in the Protected-Area System of Tasmania,
Australia. Biological Conservation 16(6): 1520-1529.
Menzel, A., T.H. Sparks, N. Estrella, E. Koch, A. Aaasa, R. Ahas, K.
Alm-Kübler, P. Bissolli, O. Braslavská, A. Briede, F.M. Chmielewski,
Z. Crepinsek, Y. Curnel, Å. Dahl, C. Defila, A. Donnelly, Y. Filella,
K. Jatczak, F. Måge, A. Mestre, Ø. Nordli, J. Peñuelas, P. Pirinen,
V. Remišová, H. Scheifinger, M. Striz, A. Susnik, A.J.H. Van Vliet,
F.E. Wielgolaski, S. Zach, and A. Zust. 2006. European phenological
response to climate change matches the warming pattern. Global Change
Biology 13: 1-8.
Miller-Rushing, A. J. and R. B. Primack. 2004. Climate change and plant
conservation. Plant Talk 35: 34-38.
Morgan, G. 2000. Landscape Health in Australia: A rapid assessment
of the relative condition of Australia’s bioregions and subregions.
Environment Australia, Canberra.
Mouillot, F., Rambal S. and R. Joffre. 2002. Simulating climate change
impacts on fire frequency and vegetation dynamics in Mediterranean-
type ecosystems. Global Change Biology 8: 423-437.National Forest
Inventory. 2004.
National Land and Water Resources Audit 2001. Australian Native
Vegetation Assessment 2001. National Land and Water Resources
Audit, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
National Plantation Inventory Update – March 2004. Bureau of Rural
Sciences: Canberra.
Nemani, R, C. Keeling, H. Hashimoto, W. Jolly, S. Piper, C. Tucker,
R. Myneni, and S. Running. 2003. Climate–driven increases in global
terrestrial net primary production from 1982 to 1999. Science 300:1560–
1563.
Newell, G., P. Griffioen, and D. Cheal. 2001. The potential effect of
‘Greenhouse’ climate warming scenarios upon selected Victorian plant
and vegetation communities. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental
Research, Melbourne.
Nitscke, C. and G. Hickey. 2007. Assessing the vulnerability of Victoria’s
Central Highlands to climate Change. Department of Sustainability and
Environment Technical report, Melbourne.
NLWRA. 2001a. Australian Agricultural Assessment – 2001. National
Land and Water Resources Audit: Canberra.
NLWRA. 2001b. Australian Native Vegetation Assessment – 2001.
National Land and Water Resources Audit: Canberra
NLWRA. 2002a. Australians and Natural Resource Management - 2002.
National Land and Water Resources Audit, Canberra.
NLWRA. 2002b. Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment - 2002.
National Land and Water Resources Audit, Canberra.
Ogden, J. and J. A. Powell. 1979. A quantitative description of the forest
vegetation on an altitudinal gradient in the Mount Field National Park,
Tasmania, and a discussion of its history and dynamics. Australian
Journal of Ecology 4: 293-325.
Opdam, P. and D. Wascher. 2004. Climate change meets habitat
fragmentation: linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in
research and conservation Biological Conservation 117: 285-297.
Paine, R.T. 1969. A note on trophic complexity and community stability.
American Naturalist 103: 91-93.
Parkes, D., G. Newell, and D. Cheal. 2003. Assessing the quality of native
vegetation: the ‘Habitat Hectares’ approach. Ecological Management
and Restoration 4: S29–S38.
Palmer, G.C. and A.F. Bennett. 2006. Riparian zones provide for distinct
bird assemblages in forest mosaics of south-east Australia. Biological
Conservation 130: 447-457.
Peters, R. and J. Darling. 1985. The greenhouse effect and nature reserves.
BioScience 35: 707-717.
Pieck, A. 2003. The distribution and habitat use of the common brushtail
possum, Trichosurus vulpecula, in the yellow-tailed black cockatoo
breeding area, Koppio Hills, Eyre Peninsula, South Australia. B.Sc.
(Hons.) thesis, Environmental and Recreational Management, University
of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia.
Porteners, M. 1993. The natural vegetation of the Hay Plain: Booligal-Hay
and Deniliquin-Bendigo 1:250 000 maps Cunninghamia 3: 1-122.
Price, O.F., J.C.Z. Woinarski, and D. Robinson. 1999. Very large
area requirements for frugivorous birds in monsoon rainforests of the
Northern Territory, Australia. Biological Conservation 91: 169-180.
Prober, S. M. and K. R. Thiele. 1993. The Ecology and Genetics of
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 69
 Remnant Grassy White Box Woodlands in Relation to their Conservation.
Victorian Naturalist 110(1): 30-36.
Radford, J.Q., A.F. Bennett, and G.J. Cheers. 2005. Landscape level
thresholds of habitat cover for woodland dependant birds. Biological
Conservation 124: 317-337.
Reid, J.B., R.S. Hill, M.J. Brown, and M.J. Hovenden. 1999. Vegetation
of Tasmania. Flora of Australia Supplementary Series, Volume 8.
Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra.
Richardson, D. M., R. M. Cowling, B. B. Lamont, and H. J. van
Hensbergen. 1995. Coexistence of Banksia species in southwestern
Australia: the role of regional and local processes. Journal of Vegetation
Science 6: 329-342.
Rosenweig, C., D. Karoly, M. Vicarelli, P. Neofotis, Q. Wu, G. Casassa,
A. Menzel, T. Root, N. Estrella, B. Suguin, P. Tryjanowski, C. Liu,
S. Rawlins, and A. Imeson. 2008. Attributing physical and biological
impacts to anthropogenic climate change. Nature 453: 352-358
Sala O, Ill F, J. Armesto, E. Berlow, J. Bloomfield, R. Dirzo, E. Huber-
Sanwald, L. Huenneke, R. Jackson, A. Kinzig, R. Leemans, D.
Lodge, H. Mooney, M. Oesterheld, N. Poff, M. Sykes, H. Walker, M.
Walker, and D. Wall. 2003. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year
2100. Science 287:1770-1774.
Schama, S. 1998. Landscape and Memory. Vintage Publications, New
York.
Serong, M. and A. Lill. 2008. The timing and nature of floristic and
structural changes during secondary succession in wet forests. Australian
Journal of Botany 56(3): 220-231.
Shapcott, A. 2000. Conservation and genetics in the fragmented monsoon
rainforest in the Northern Territory, Australia; a case study of three
frugivore-dispersed species. Australian Journal of Botany 48(3): 397-407.
Sluiter, I.R.K., P.R. Minchin, and S.C. Jaensch. 1997. The Buloke and
Pine Woodlands of Semi-arid and Dry Sub-humid Victoria and Nearby
Areas. Report by Ogyris Research, to the Australian Nature Conservation
Agency, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Soderquist, T.R. and R. Mac Nally. 2000. The conservation value of
mesic gullies in dry forest landscapes: mammal populations in the Box-
Ironbark ecosystem of southern Australia. Biological Conservation 93:
281-291.
Soule, M.E., B.G. Mackey, H.F. Recher, J.E. Williams, J.C.Z.
Woinarski, D. Driscoll, W.G. Dennison, and M.E. Jones. 2004. The
role of connectivity in Australian conservation. Pacific Conservation
Biology 10: 266-79.
Stern, N. 2007. The Stern Review: the economics of climate change.
Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
Stoneham, G., V. Chaudhri, A. Ha, and L. Strappazzon. 2003. Auctions
for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria’s
BushTender trial. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics 47: 477-500.
Suppiah, R., K.J. Hennessy, P.H. Whetton, K. McInnes, I. Macadam,
J. Bathols, J. Ricketts, and C.M. Page. 2007. Australian climate
change projections derived from simulations performed for the IPCC 4th
Assessment Report. Australian Meteorological Magazine 56: 131-152.
Taylor, M. and P. Figgis (Eds). 2007. Protected areas: buffering against
climate change: Proceedings of a WWF and IUCN World Commission
on Protected Areas symposium: 18-19 June 2007, Canberra. WWF and
IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, Canberra.
Thomas, C.D., A. Cameron, R.E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L.J. Beaumont,
Y.C. Collingham, B.F.N. Erasmus, M.F. de Siqueira, A. Gralinger,
L. Hannah, L. Hughes, B. Huntley, A.S. van Jaasvel, G.F. Midgley,
L. Miles, M.A. Ortega-Huerta, A.T. Peterson, O.L. Phillips, and S.
E. Williams. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427:
145-148.
Truswell, E. M. 1993. Vegetation changes in the Australian tertiary in
response to climatic and phytogeographic forcing factors. Australian
Systematic Botany 6: 533-557.
Umina, P.A., A.R. Weeks, M. Kearney, S.W. McKechnie, and A. A.
Hoffmann. 2005. A rapid shift in a classic clinal pattern in Drosophila
reflecting climate change. Science 308: 691-693.
van der Ree, R. and A. F. Bennett. 2001. Woodland remnants along
roadsides: A reflection of pre-European structure in temperate
woodlands? Ecological Management & Restoration 2: 224-226.
VEAC. 2007. River Red Gum Forests Investigation Draft Proposals Paper
for Public Comment. Victorian Environmental Assessment Council,
Melbourne.
Vesk, P. A. and J. W. Dorrough. 2006. Getting trees on farms the easy
way? Lessons from a model of eucalypt regeneration on pastures.
Australian Journal of Botany 54: 509-519.
Victorian Government. 2008a. Land and Biodiversity at a Time of
Climate Change. Green Paper. Victorian Government Department of
Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.
Victorian Government. 2008b. Victorian Environmental Assessment
Council Remnant Native Vegetation Investigation Draft Terms of
Reference for Public Comment. Available: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/
CA256F310024B628/0/F1B8623360DBBC1FCA25742D000A32D4/$
File/Remnant+Native+Vegetation+draft+TOR+for+advert.pdf
Watson, D.M., R. Mac Nally, and A. F. Bennett. 2000. The avifauna
of severely fragmented Buloke Allocasuarina luehmannii woodland in
western Victoria, Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 6: 46-60.
Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. 2003. Blueprint for a
National Water Plan. World Wildlife Fund Australia, Sydney.
Wilson, J.A. and K.W. Lowe. 2003. Planning for the restoration of native
biodiversity within the Goulburn Broken Catchment, Victoria, using
spatial modelling. Ecological Management and Restoration 4: 212-219.
Witkowski, E.T.F. and B.B. Lamont. 1997. Does the rare Banksia goodii
have inferior vegetative, reproductive or ecological attributes compared
with its widespread co-occurring relative B. gardneri? Journal of
Biogeography 24: 469-482.
Woldendorp, G. and R.J. Keenan. 2005. Coarse woody debris in
Australian forest ecosystems: A review. Austral Ecology 30: 834-843.
Woodgate, P.W., B.D. Peel, J.E. Coram, S.J. Farrell, K.T. Ritman,
and A. Lewis. 1996. Old-growth forest studies in Victoria, Australia
Concepts and principles. Forest Ecology and Management 85: 79-94.
Woodward, F. I. and L. Rochefort. 1991. Sensitivity analysis of vegetation
diversity to environmental change. Global Ecology and Biogeography
Letters 1: 7-23
Yates, C. J., D.A. Norton, and R.J. Hobbs. 2000. Grazing effects on plant
cover, soil and microclimate in fragmented woodlands in south-western
Australia: implications for restoration. Austral Ecology 25: 36-47.
Yen, A. L., S. Hinkley, P. Lillywhite, J. Wainer, and K. Walker. 2002.
A preliminary survey of the arboreal invertebrate fauna of two River Red
Gum trees (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) near the Murray River. Victorian
Naturalist 119: 180-185.

The CanaColl Foundation is an independent, non-profit

organization with one object: To promote research on
the Canadian National Collection of insects and related
arthropods (CNCI).
The CNCI is considered to be among the top five research
collections of insects and arachnids in the world.
In 27 years, CanaColl has issued a total of 254 grants
amounting to $157,645. These grants are equivalent to
9.8 person/years of work on the CNCI. CanaColl is strictly
a volunteer organization and administrative costs amount
to about 3% of the donations received.
CanaColl welcomes your support. For more information
write to the CanaColl Foundation, K. W. Neatby Bldg., 960
Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1A 0C6.

70 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
 World Wild Web: Funding connectivity
conservation under climate change
Ralf Buckley
Abstract. Connectivity is one key to conservation under anthropogenic climate change. Shortfalls in financial and political Authors’ Address:
support are more critical constraints than deficiencies in biological data. This applies especially for private lands in developed Ralf Buckley,
nations and public lands in developing nations. Here I examine 3 funding mechanisms: tourism, stewardship schemes, and International Centre for
global branding. Ecotourism Research,
A small number of commercial tourism operations make positive net contributions to conservation, some of global significance. Griffith University,
Their models deserve duplication. Stewardship schemes have been politically motivated and ecologically ineffective, but Gold Coast 4222,
they mobilise considerable funds. Principles for effective design are proposed. A well-branded worldwide initiative to link Australia.
connectivity conservation efforts across national and continental borders could tap new large-scale multilateral funding for r.buckley@griffith.
adaptation to climate change. edu.au
In addition, a worldwide initiative could improve links between the many different current mechanisms for connectivity Tel +61.7.55528675
conservation. For example, bilateral aid projects could kickstart conservation tourism in severely impoverished nations. Fax +61.7.55528895
Proximity to protected areas outside national borders could become a criterion for national stewardship incentives. If other
potential mechanisms such as water sales or carbon offsets do prove to generate significant conservation funding, they can
also be incorporated into the World Wild Web.

Introduction primary industries. In addition, many sites key for biodiversity

Connectivity conservation (Beier and Noss 1998; Sutherland
2000; Salafsky et al. 2002; Crooks and Sanjayan 2006;
Rouget et al. 2006) arose as one response to the isolation and
fragmentation of conservation reserves in increasingly modified
and fragmented landscapes (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment
2005; Wiegand et al. 2005; Fischer and Lindenmayer 2007;
Pressey 2007). It also provides one possible response to
the biological impacts of anthropogenic climate change
(Pressey et al. 2007). It is endorsed by conservation groups
and government agencies (Bennett 1999; Pressey 2007;
Conservation International 2008; IUCN 2008; The Nature
Conservancy 2008; Worldwide Fund for Nature 2008).
Connectivity conservation includes continent‑wide initiatives
such as the Wildlands Project (2008) in North America, the
PANParks initiative in Europe, the Alps‑to‑Atherton initiative
in Australia (NSW DECC 2008), and unbranded efforts by
private corporations such as Conservation Corporation Africa
(2008) and Wilderness Safaris (2008) in sub-Saharan Africa.
Some countries have also incorporated some of their public
parks into transboundary protected areas.
Significant research effort has been devoted to the ecological
design of connectivity conservation programs, with emphasis
on hotspots (Myers et al. 2000; Brooks et al. 2006); coldspots
(Kareiva and Marvier 2003; Leroux and Schmiegelow 2007);
and corridors (Beier and Noss 1998; Bennett 1999; Sutherland
2000; Damschen et al. 2006; Rouget et al. 2006; Shepherd
and Whittington 2006; Wilson et al. 2007; Lees and Peres
2008). Relevant information is no doubt far from complete.
There are, however, many areas which have been identified as
highly significant for biodiversity conservation, but remain
unprotected. Lack of political and financial support is thus a
more critical constraint than deficiencies in biological data.
Existing public protected areas worldwide are under pressure
for increased human use, whether for outdoor recreation,
subsistence harvesting, mineral exploration, or resumption for
conservation lie outside protected areas, in regions with
relatively dense human populations (Rondinini et al. 2006).
It is politically improbable that connectivity under climate
change can be achieved by dedicating further public protected
areas, either in developing or developed nations. Therefore,
mechanisms to promote conservation management of other
public and private land tenures are critical. Funding is a
necessary component of all such mechanisms, though there are
also political, legal and management aspects. Here, therefore,
I examine mechanisms to fund off-reserve conservation as a
key component of global connectivity conservation, itself a
key response to anthropogenic climate change.
Conservation funding mechanisms in general were reviewed
for the Fifth World Parks Congress by the Conservation
Finance Alliance (2003). In addition to government budget
appropriations which form the principal funding source for
protected area management agencies in developed nations,
they listed 11 other sources: bilateral and multilateral donors,
biodiversity enterprise funds, bio-prospecting, carbon offset
projects, debt swaps, environmental funds, fiscal instruments,
foundations, watershed services payments, resource extraction
fees and tourism-based fees.
Some of the specific applications of the measures listed by the
Conservation Finance Alliance (2003) have been ineffective or
even detrimental to conservation (Terborgh 1999; Iverson et al.
2006; Shone and Caviglia-Harris 2006; Wunder et al. 2008).
Similarly, many conservation stewardship schemes seem to
have been politically motivated subsidies to rural electorates,
with little conservation benefit (Kleijn and Sutherland 2003).
Donors, funds, foundations and various fiscal instruments
have remained important sources of conservation funding.
Debt swaps, bioprospecting and watershed service fees have
not yet lived up to their initial promise, but may yet do so
in modified form. Watershed service fees seem to have been
pursued particularly in Latin America (Asquith et al. 2008;

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 71
Kosoy et al. 2007; Munoz-Pina et al. 2008; Pagiola 2008).
Carbon offsets have been used widely to promote plantations,
but are still in their early stages as a practical conservation
mechanism to fund connectivity conservation. Resource
extraction in protected areas is highly politicised in most
countries. Parks agencies may be permitted to charge fees for
small-scale harvesting and beekeeping, for example, but not
for large-scale mineral or petroleum exploitation.
Opportunities to generate funding for off-reserve conservation
may also be applicable, in less wealthy nations, to support
public protected areas which are at risk of resumption to
subsistence agriculture or commercial logging (Terborgh
1999; Wilkie et al. 2006). In general, different packages
of measures and incentives are needed to promote the
conservation of biodiversity within existing protected areas,
on other public lands, and on private landholdings (Langholz
et al. 2000; Ferraro and Kiss 2002).
In this paper I focus on three possible mechanisms to improve
funding for global connectivity conservation: tourism,
stewardship schemes and global branding. Tourism-based
fees were mentioned by the Conservation Finance Alliance
(2003) in relation to public protected areas. Here, I review
some examples of commercial tourism operations which
make significant positive net contributions to connectivity
conservation by funding private reserves and community
conservancies. Stewardship incentive schemes were not listed
by the Conservation Finance Alliance (2003) but have been
adopted by a number of countries to encourage conservation
management of private lands. I consider here how stewardship
incentive schemes could be designed so as to make a more
effective contribution to global connectivity conservation.
Finally, I put forward a proposal for a globally branded
connectivity conservation initiative under the tentative title
of the World Wild Web, and consider how it might attract
large‑scale multilateral funding and national political support.
Political, Legal and Management Context
Funding is a necessary prerequisite for almost all connectivity
conservation programs, but it is not sufficient alone (Johns
2007). Such programs also need political support, an effective
legal basis, and practical management skills. In addition,
different countries, regions, organisations and landholders
commonly have very different social, environmental, economic
and political circumstances. Most measures intended to improve
conservation management of land at local scale have arisen
independently, with similar goals but different mechanisms.
Attempts to globalise such measures must take account of local
circumstances (Terborgh 1999; Sutherland 2000; Abakerli
2001; Wilkie et al. 2006). Different approaches are needed in
different places in order to muster political support, establish a
legal basis for conservation management, and provide practical
conservation management on the ground.
Without political support, protected areas may be abolished
completely, as occurred for some former national parks in
Zimbabwe. They may lose effective protection to become
72 T R O P I C A L C
paper parks, widespread in many parts of the world. They may
be reduced in size, as for the Etosha Pan protected area in
Botswana, or a former World Heritage oryx reserve in Oman.
They may suffer attrition or delays in receiving their operating
budgets, leading to temporary closure as occurred some years
ago in the USA. They may suffer excisions or fragmentation,
and consequent loss of conservation value, for uses such as
mineral production, oil and gas, powerline corridors, roads or
tourist developments.
These problems apply in both developed and developing
nations. Parks agencies in developed nations have to run
marketing campaigns to remind people of their value (Watson
and Borrie 2003). Governments budget for conservation
incentive schemes only where this has broad political support.
Landowners who establish game reserves and tourist lodges
need support from their neighbours to prevent poaching.
Communities need consensus in order to lease jointly-owned
land for wildlife tourism and conservation. These are all
essentially political issues.
There are three key legal aspects to connectivity conservation:
parks legislation, land tenure and tax law. Parks legislation
defines, for example: what rights parks agencies have to control
resources within protected areas; what options they have to
raise funds to buy new protected areas; what restrictions they
can apply to activities that affect endangered species outside
protected areas; and what authority they have to enter into
agreements with neighbouring landholders.
Different types of private or community land tenure comprise
bundles of rights in different countries. Investors who purchase
land zoned for development, for agriculture, or for forestry
may be compelled by law to pursue that designated land use,
with no option to manage the land for conservation. In some
countries, private landholders can own native wildlife; in
some they cannot; in some they can own only certain species.
Indigenous peoples and local communities have land rights in
some nations, but the arrangements differ considerably. Such
communities may or may not have the right to prevent other
people moving in and diluting the benefits they can obtain
from their land. They may have rights of use but no formal
title, so that even if they grant a tourism company permission
to operate, the company will not have a title to provide security
for loans to finance construction of facilities.
Taxation treatment of conservation land use and investment
is critical for private landholders and foundations. In the
USA, for example, land trusts effectively allow wealthy
individuals to offset conservation management costs against
other income. In Australia, in contrast, whilst there is a weak
provision for tax deductibility of capital losses if land is
brought under a conservation easement, ongoing operational
costs of conservation management cannot be offset against
other sources of income. Private conservation management is
therefore much less common in Australia than the USA.
Conservation management on the ground needs skilled
personnel (Lockwood et al. 2006). Where land is added to the
O N S E R V A N C Y
public protected area estate, parks agencies have necessary
management skills, though not necessarily resources. Where
private landholders convert farmland to conservation, the
new land use needs new skills. Restoring a landscape from
introduced pasture grasses suitable for cattle, to a mixture
of native woody and herbaceous plants suitable for native
wildlife with very different food preferences, can be a
difficult, long‑term and expensive exercise. Managing small
populations of many different wildlife species simultaneously
is very different from managing a single herd of cattle, sheep
or goats. Capture, translocation and reintroduction of animal
species is a highly skilled profession, particularly for species
which are large, potentially dangerous and/or endangered.
Where tourism is used to generate income for conservation,
another and equally specialised set of skills is needed in
order to run successful commercial tourism operations.
Few organisations or individuals combine all these skills
simultaneously.
Acknowledging that all sources of funding for connectivity
conservation have political, legal and management aspects as
above, I now examine the three specific funding mechanisms
outlined earlier.
Tourism Funding Conservation
Private conservation reserves and community conservancies
funded by tourism are becoming increasingly commonplace
worldwide (Buckley 2003, 2008; Kruger 2005; Puppim de
Oliveira 2005; Shultis and Way 2006; UNEP 2007). The
best‑known and earliest examples are in southern Africa,
particularly in Botswana, Namibia and South Africa itself.
Companies such as Conservation Corporation Africa (2008)
and Wilderness Safaris (2008) have developed successful
business models which rely on wildlife tourism to fund quite
large‑scale conservation efforts, including habitat restoration,
anti‑poaching efforts and wildlife relocation programmes
(author, pers. obs. 2001-2008). Wilderness Safaris (2008),
for example, has brought over a million hectares of land in
Botswana and Namibia, principally community land, into
conservation use. Conservation Corporation Africa (2008)
has successfully established a considerable number of private
conservation reserves funded through tourism, largely in
South Africa, and has pioneered restoration, restocking and
wildlife relocation techniques.
Tourism, for example, funds the private reserves of the
Sabi Sands area, which has effectively added 65000 ha to
Kruger National Park in South Africa (Buckley 2003), and
the Madikwe private reserve adjacent to the Botswana border
(Buckley 2008). There are many individual operators in each,
including Conservation Corporation Africa. In Madikwe,
the individual landowners have removed internal fences and
operate the entire area as a single co-managed reserve. In Sabi
Sands, they have not only removed fences between private
reserves, but also between these and the public national park.
Conservation Corporation also established the Phinda private
reserve which extends the St Lucia World Heritage Area in
south-eastern South Africa, and the Kwandwe reserve which
B I O D I V E R S I
provides critical habitat for the Endangered Blue Crane in the
southwest. In addition, it pioneered capture, translocation
and “soft release” techniques for the active population
management of a number of endangered wildlife species.
Similar approaches have been followed by Wilderness Safaris.
Its Ongava private reserve, adjacent to Etosha Pan national
park in northern Namibia, effectively extends the area of the
public park and is separated from it by a “semi-permeable”
fence which allows some animal species through, whilst
retaining others. A series of adjacent community conservancy
areas leased by Wilderness Safaris and funded by tourism
is gradually building a conservation corridor between the
Etosha Pan ecosystems of northeastern Namibia and the arid
ecosystems of the Skeleton Coast in the northwest, habitat
for desert-adapted elephants. This corridor runs adjacent to
the border with Angola, and once politics allow, cross-border
connectivity will also be feasible. South of the Skeleton
Coast, Wilderness Safaris leases a community conservancy
which supports the largest remaining population of desert-
adapted rhinoceros. It also supports extensive research on
rhino populations, ecology and conservation, both directly
and through an NGO, the Save the Rhino Trust (2008). In
Botswana, it funded the reintroduction of rhino, previously
poached to local extinction, into the publicly owned Moremi
reserve in the Okavango Delta, and leases large areas which it
runs for conservation funded by tourism.
A large number of smaller companies have adopted similar
models, though with fewer sites and smaller areas. Similar
tourism‑based models, often run by the same companies, also
help to fund conservation in public conservation reserves and
conservancies in east Africa and elsewhere. Conservation
Corporation Africa (2008), for example, operates a series
of private reserves in east Africa, leased from the national
governments and converted from subsistence agriculture
and hunting to wildlife conservation (Buckley 2006).
These effectively extend the protected area of the Serengeti
ecosystem. It has established a marine reserve at Mnemba
Island off the coast of Zanzibar (Buckley 2006), similar to
the private marine reserve at Chumbe Island (Buckley 2003).
Through a joint venture known as Taj Safaris, Conservation
Corporation Africa has recently built 4 tourist lodges to
support tiger conservation in India. It is currently providing
technical expertise to relocate Gaur, the Endangered Indian
Wild Ox, as part of a continent-wide conservation program.
There are also private reserves funded by tourism, though
generally at a smaller scale, in various countries in the
Americas, Asia, Europe and Australasia (Buckley 2003, 2008;
Conservation Finance Alliance 2003; Lindsey et al. 2005;
Svoronou and Holden 2005; Tisdell et al. 2005). Tourism
is not always the sole source of income for these reserves.
Some receive support from bilateral or multilateral aid. Some
were established and operated by philanthropic individuals or
conservation organisations such as Conservation International
(2008), The Nature Conservancy (2008), the Worldwide Fund
for Nature (2008) or the Australian Wildlife Conservancy
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 73
(2008). There are examples of private reserves with NGO
involvement and ecotourism operations in, e.g.: Australia,
Belize, Brazil, Chile, China, Ghana, Greece, Indonesia,
Mexico, Namibia, Nepal, Panama, the Phillippines, the
Seychelles, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates and
Zambia (Buckley 2008, table 7.2). There are also public
reserves which have been established with the assistance of
particular tour operators, such as the Khutzeymateen grizzly-
bear sanctuary in Canada (Buckley 2008). Both Conservation
International (2008) and the Worldwide Fund for Nature
(2008) now advertise a global suite of tours through their
own websites, as one way to generate political and financial
support. They use particular commercial tour operators with
good environmental credentials, such as Natural Habitat
Adventures (2008) to provide those tours (Worldwide Fund
for Nature 2008).
There are many other countries, including other African
nations, where similar tourism‑funded conservation models
have operated in the past and/or could operate in the future,
but where political circumstances prevent them operating
effectively at present. Tourism‑funded conservation models
cannot function well in countries where war or terrorism
threaten the safety of tour clients; where basic infrastructure
such as roads and airports are too run‑down; or where land
tenure is too unstable for a private tourism operator to invest.
If and when such countries adopt or return to relatively stable
democratic systems of government, they will probably be
able to call on significant international aid funding to help
rebuild infrastructure, perhaps including parks infrastructure.
Such aid programmes are typically short‑lived, however,
and a longer‑term source of income is needed once aid
funding comes to an end. The opportunity for tourism to take
over conservation funding in nations such as these is thus
particularly significant, since companies already operating in
the region have established clienteles who would visit new
destinations.
At a global scale, therefore, tourism has become a significant
source of funding for connectivity conservation, though
currently much more prevalent in particular regions and
restricted to a relatively small set of tourism operators. The
tourism industry more broadly does not necessarily contribute
to conservation, and indeed generates a wide range of
ecological impacts; but if an adequate conservation framework
is in place, tourism can generate significant funding to support
it. Indeed, for a small number of leading ecotour operators
whose owners are driven by conservation concerns, they
may also help to establish such conservation frameworks, by
providing examples of what can be achieved. There are thus
an increasing number of connectivity conservation initiatives,
particularly in developing nations, where private tourism
operations play a key role. To date, however, there are rather
few where these have been linked across national borders.
Conservation Incentive Schemes
Conservation stewardship and incentive payments, or tax
concessions, for individuals to carry out conservation on
74 T R O P I C A L C
private landholdings are now widespread in developed
countries. They form a logical component of connectivity
conservation where five conditions are met. (1) Significant
areas of land with high conservation value are in private
ownership. (2) The market value of land is too high for
governments to purchase it to add to the public protected area
estate. (3) There is adequate information to identify which
areas are most valuable for conservation. (4) There are adequate
legal mechanisms to formalise conservation management
requirements on the land concerned, e.g. through some form
of covenant on the land title or some form of agreement with
the owner. (5) The government concerned has adequate funds
to pay for incentives which are large enough to persuade land
owners to convert to conservation management.
Different countries have widely different schemes. They
are particularly prevalent in Europe, including the UK and
Scandinavia (Knop et al. 2006; Herzon and Mikk 2007;
Berentsen et al. 2007; Cooper and Signorello 2008; Dobbs
and Pretty 2008; Zabel and Holm-Muller 2008). They are also
widespread in North America (Langpap 2006; Rissman et al.
2007; Straka et al. 2007; Claassen et al. 2008; Wallace et al.
2008). There are significant structural differences between
European and American programs (Donald and Evans 2006;
Murdoch et al. 2007; Baylis et al. 2008). A variety of incentive
programs operate in Latin America (Sierra and Rusman 2006;
Wunder 2007; Pagiola et al. 2007; Sanchez-Azofeifa et al
2007; Asquith et al. 2008) and in Australia and New Zealand
(Cowell and Williams 2006; House et al. 2008; Walker et al.
2008). Stewardship incentive approaches currently have more
limited application in Asia (Spiteri and Nepal 2006; Engel
and Palmer 2008) and Africa (Gardner et al. 2007; Turpie et
al. 2008). There has been extensive modelling of different
approaches (e.g. Holzkamper and Seppelt 2007; Engel et
al. 2008). Connectivity is a landscape-scale endeavour, so
stewardship incentive schemes need explicit spatial targeting
in order to be most effective (Drechsler et al. 2007; Goldman
et al. 2007; McDonald et al. 2007; Parkhurst and Shogren
2007; van der Horst 2007; Wunscher et al. 2008).
Much of the land affected is zoned for agriculture. Historical
subsidies and tax concessions for land clearance, drainage
or drought relief have caused land degradation rather than
conservation. Kleijn and Sutherland (2003) found that few
European agri‑environment schemes had made significant
conservation contributions, and most were disguised subsidies.
Some schemes reward landholders simply for ceasing to breach
laws which require them to remove noxious weeds, prevent
pollution of surface waters, protect endangered species, or
maintain stocking rates below predefined thresholds. Some
pay them for measures aimed mainly to increase agricultural
production, such as: planting windbreaks, shade trees,
hedgerows or woodlots; establishing dams to impound surface
runoff; or controlling weeds, erosion and livestock.
If conservation incentive schemes are to be used effectively,
they should reward only conservation management beyond
basic legal and agricultural requirements. Management measures
O N S E R V A N C Y
specifically for conservation may include: retaining undisturbed
native vegetation; fencing livestock out of watercourses and
wetlands; maintaining mature trees as seed sources or as
breeding sites for native bird or mammal species; maintaining
mixed‑species meadows to conserve particular plant species;
maintaining warren or burrow areas, or areas of rock or dense
vegetation to provide refuges for small mammals; retaining
a continuous vegetation canopy across roads and tracks to
allow arboreal mammals to cross without descending to the
ground; and controlling feral and domestic dogs, cats and other
predators. Expertise in conservation biology, for the particular
species concerned, is generally needed to determine ecological
goals and the management practices required to achieve them
(Murphy and Noon 2007).
Once the ecological goals are determined, a variety of
different financial and legal mechanisms are available (Gulati
and Verkammen 2006; Hallwood 2007; de Nooij et al. 2008;
Ferraro 2008). These include, e.g.: tax concessions for capital
losses and/or ongoing operational costs; direct grants or
subsidies calculated according to predefined rules for particular
conservation actions; negotiated payments for conservation
easements on large and significant areas of land; tender systems
where different land owners can bid competing amounts as
the price of adopting conservation management practices;
and a variety of hybrid schemes. Different approaches are
more effective under different socioeconomic circumstances.
Landowners making a loss from agricultural production are
little influenced by tax concessions, whereas those with other
income sources find them persuasive. Discretionary grant
systems with high information and transaction costs are
unlikely to achieve high take‑up if landowners must invest
significant time in preparing applications with low success
rates. Sufficiently widespread and well funded schemes,
however, create markets for conservation brokers who lodge
bids on a fee‑for‑service basis, as in the USA.
From a practical conservation policy perspective, I propose five
general principles for the structure of conservation incentive
schemes, irrespective of detailed design. (1) Conservation
is cheaper than restoration, so focus on protecting areas of
high conservation value, and only occasionally on restoring
areas already degraded. (2) There is rarely sufficient funding,
so focus on areas of highest conservation value. (3) Different
areas have different conservation values and management
approaches, so design multiple tiers to reflect these differences.
(4) For effective conservation, use conservation biologists
to design the ecological goals. (5) For high take‑up, use
landholders to design the practicalities of implementation.
The key to funding connectivity conservation through
national stewardship schemes, therefore, is to ensure that
incentive programs do in fact contribute to conservation and
are not merely disguised agricultural subsidies. This requires
external scrutiny. It is for this reason that the critical review
by Kleijn and Sutherland (2003) generated a strong reaction
from individual national governments operating their own
agri-environment programs in Europe. In addition, each of
B I O D I V E R S I
these schemes operates entirely within the borders of the
nations which fund them. There are no known schemes where
proximity to protected areas, public or private, in an adjacent
nation has been adopted as a criterion for funding. Indeed, in
many large federated nations, schemes are run by subsidiary
governments and rarely consider linkages even across sub-
national borders.
Worldwide Connectivity and Branding
A well-branded worldwide initiative to link connectivity
conservation efforts across national and continental borders
could generate several benefits for connectivity conservation.
It could help to link the efforts of conservation tourism
operations and NGO’s across national borders, apply
successful models to new countries, and link these models to
other sources of funding such as international aid. For example,
bilateral aid projects could kickstart conservation tourism in
severely impoverished nations. Proximity to protected areas
outside national borders could become a criterion for national
stewardship incentives. A worldwide initiative could bring
international scrutiny to bear on conservation stewardship
programs funded by individual governments, so as to improve
their conservation outcomes. It could provide international
support for local conservation programs and NGOs in
individual nations, developed as well as developing. This
may be of particular significance in large nations with rapid
economic growth, as outlined below. It could also generate
significant new support directly, by tapping into large-scale
multilateral funding for adaptation to climate change.
The goal of major multilateral conservation organisations
such as IUCN is indeed to create a global system of
conservation reserves adequate to protect biological diversity
across the entire planet. To date, the principal approach has
been to expand the public protected area networks in as many
individual nations as possible. This approach has met with
some notable success, and naturally needs to continue. My
proposal here is simply that supplementary approaches which
have already been used in some countries and continents
to extend conservation efforts to other public, private and
community lands, could now be applied deliberately at a
global scale as a key component of connectivity conservation
efforts. A global‑scale endeavour may be able to attract
global‑scale funding more easily than local and national‑scale
programmes. Connectivity is an increasingly urgent issue
both because of climate change and because of continuing
clearance of areas outside formal reserves. Connectivity
conservation within individual nations and regions may gain
political support through a globally recognised, endorsed and
visible programme.
For illustration, I have proposed here a name such as World
Wild Web or perhaps Wild World, but these are options
only. The key is to identify a name which has the greatest
appeal, when translated to as many languages as possible, to
national governments and multilateral agencies who would
need to endorse and support it for it to be successful. If it
can also appeal to major private-sector sponsors, that would
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 75
be an additional advantage. The name World Wild Web, for
example, is not only descriptive of the intention, but might
also appeal to some very well cashed-up internet corporations
concerned to demonstrate corporate social responsibility. An
extremely miniscule proportional royalty on online financial
transactions, for example, could generate very major funding
at global scale. This approach has already been trialled with
credit cards. If other potential mechanisms such as water
sales or carbon offsets do prove to generate significant
conservation funding, they can also be incorporated into the
World Wild Web. Indeed, there are already programs which
use tourism industry funds to buy carbon offsets in order to
promote biodiversity conservation (Tourism Industry Carbon
Offset Scheme 2008).
One particular conservation concern at present is the very
rapid economic growth in the large newly‑industrialised
nations such as India, Brazil and China. These countries
have their own well‑established administrative systems, their
own cultural histories, their own government priorities, and
their own political perspectives and pressures as they seek to
provide increasing standards of material wealth for increasing
populations. These nations will not necessarily pay much heed
to concerns over conservation, if those concerns are raised
purely from a Western cultural or scientific perspective. They
are, however, very aware that they are in the global spotlight,
and they are concerned to bolster their international images
as powerful players in global politics. A programme such
as that proposed here, with a global name such as World
Wild Web, might boost the efforts of domestic conservation
interests in each of those nations. This could be particularly
significant, for example, in the case of transboundary reserves
which overlap from these nations into smaller neighbouring
countries, such as the Terai area along the border between
India and Nepal.
Global political responses to anthropogenic climate change
remain highly contested, but carbon taxes and trading
schemes of various types seem likely to generate a significant
pool of multilateral funding. In addition, since climate
change is rightly seen as a major threat to the world economy,
political stability and social development, as well as to the
natural environment, it seems highly likely that large-scale
multilateral funds will be established to assist in adaptation
- mitigation measures are likely to be partially successful
at best. There will be a period when such funds, once
established, are uncertain where best to direct their spending.
Since climate change threatens biodiversity at a global scale,
a global connectivity conservation initiative could well attract
large-scale support.
Protected areas, both public and private, may also obtain
funding directly and individually from carbon offset programs,
particularly since recent research by Mackey et al. (2008) has
shown that an intact and undisturbed primary forest ecosystem
stores an order of magnitude more carbon than previously
believed. Many large corporations worldwide are already
purchasing carbon offsets from private landowners who have
76 T R O P I C A L C
established tree plantations. If parks agencies were paid for
the carbon they keep out of the atmosphere, this could provide
a significant source of conservation funding. Such approaches
do not need to wait for a global-scale initiative such as
proposed here. A World Wild Web initiative, however, could
help to supplement funding for areas which are important for
biodiversity conservation, are affected by climate change, but
contribute little to carbon sequestration because they are in
arid, saline or cold-climate areas.
The development of a World Wild Web would be a major
multilateral exercise, and would require a well-respected
multilateral agency such as the IUCN to champion. It
would need support from major international conservation
organisations and from relevant UN agencies, and national
governments prepared to back the initiative in multilateral
fora. All of these are entirely possible.
Conclusions
Connectivity approaches are an increasingly important
component of biodiversity conservation worldwide, firstly
because of increasing population growth and associated
threats to existing areas of undisturbed habitat, and secondly
because of the impacts of anthropogenic climate change.
The ecological aspects of connectivity conservation have
been subject to considerable research, and while there are
doubtless still deficiencies in relevant data, there are practical
recommendations for areas which merit urgent protection.
The most critical obstacle is not ecological information, but
political and financial support.
Tourism has numerous risks and shortcomings as a source of
conservation funding, but there are now a number of examples
where private tourism corporations have indeed made net
positive contributions to conservation, and are indeed focussing
their future strategies on connectivity. They could do more
if their efforts were linked to other sources of conservation
funding, notably international donor and foundation funds in
the least developed nations. Opportunities to fund conservation
through nature‑based tourism are particularly valuable in
countries which are politically stable and democratically
governed, but not yet very wealthy or highly developed
in international terms. In these nations, tourism is often a
significant component of national income, and conservation
can be promoted as an asset to support tourism.
Stewardship and incentive programs, nominally established
specifically to promote conservation and enhance
connectivity, have largely been ineffective because they have
been operated as disguised subsidies for political ends. They
can indeed make significant contributions to connectivity
conservation, especially in developed nations, but only if they
are redesigned and operated under much closer scrutiny. In
addition, to maximise connectivity gains, systems operating
in individual countries also need to consider conservation
patterns in neighbouring nations. Whilst there are differences
in legal structures and land tenure systems between countries,
there are also overarching principles which could be applied
O N S E R V A N C Y
quite broadly. In addition, if the wealthier nations decide to
fund conservation incentive schemes in more impoverished
countries, they will need to reach multilateral agreement on
the design of such programmes.
Opportunities to harness these and other sources of funding
and support for connectivity conservation could be enhanced
by the establishment of a globally branded initiative under
a name such as the World Wild Web. This would provide
a framework within which conservation tourism could
operate more effectively; place increasing scrutiny on the
conservation outcomes of stewardship schemes; enhance
the effectiveness of local conservation initiatives in rapidly
developing nations; and provide an opportunity to gain
large-scale multilateral funding as one component of global
adaptation to anthropogenic climate change.
Acknowledgments
My thanks for invaluable discussions with: Les Carlisle of
Conservation Corporation Africa; Chris Roche and others
of Wilderness Safaris; Claudia Ollenburg in relation to
conservation on private agricultural landholdings; and Graeme
Worboys and other members of the IUCN World Commission
on Protected Areas, Australia’s Biological Diversity Advisory
Committee, and various World Heritage Scientific Advisory
Committees.
References
Abakerli, S. 2001. A critique of development and conservation policies in
environmentally sensitive regions in Brazil. Geoforum 32:551-565
Asquith, N.M., M.T. Vargas, and S. Wunder. 2008. Ecological
Economics 65(4): 675-684
Australian Wildlife Conservancy. 2008. http://www.awc.org.au/.
Cited 23 Jun 2008.
Bayliss, K., S. Peplow, G. Rausser, and L. Simon. 2008. Agri-
environmental policies in the EU and United States: a comparison.
Ecological Economics 65(4):753-764
Beier, P., and R.F. Noss. 1998. Do habitat corridors provide connectivity?
Conservation Biology 12: 1251-1252
Bennett, A.F. 1999. Linkages in the landscape: the role of corridors and
connectivity in wildlife conservation. IUCN, 254 pp.
Berentsen, P.B.M., A. Hendriksen, W.J.M. Heijman, and H.A. van
Vlokhoven. 2007. Costs and benefits of on-farm nature conservation.
Ecological Economics 62(3-4):571-579
Brooks, T.M., R.A. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca, J. Gerlach, M.
Hoffman, J.F. Lamoreux, C.G. Mittermeier, J.D. Pilgrim, A.S.L.
Rodrigues. 2006. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science
313:58-61
Buckley, R.C. 2003. Case studies in ecotourism. CAB International,
Oxford.
Buckley, R.C. 2006. Adventure tourism. CAB International, Oxford.
Buckley, R.C. 2008. Ecotourism: principles and practices. CAB
International, Oxford (in press).
Claassen, R., A. Cattaneo, and R. Johansson. 2008. Cost-effective design
of agri-environmental payment programs: US experience in theory and
practice. Ecological Economics 65(4):737-752
Conservation Corporation Africa. 2008. Reawaken Your Soul. http://
www.ccafrica.com/ Cited 3 Jun 2008
Conservation Finance Alliance. 2003. The conservation finance guide.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Conservation International. 2008. Discover Learn Explore Act Give.
http://www.conservation.org Cited 23 Jun 2008
Cooper, J.C., and G. Signorello. 2008. Farmer premiums for the voluntary
adoption of conservation plans. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management 51(1):1-14
Cowell, S., and C. Williams. 2006. Conservation through buyer-diversity:
a key role for not-for-profit land-holding organizations in Australia.
Ecological Management and Restoration 7(1):5-20
Crooks, K.R., and M. Sanjayan (Eds). 2006. Connectivity conservation.
B I O D I V E R S I
Cambridge, University Press
Damschen, E.I., N.M. Haddad, J.L. Orrock, J.J.Tewksbury, and D.J.
Levey. 2006. Corridors increase plant species richness at large scales.
Science 313: 1284-1286
de Nooij, R.J.W., R.S.E.W. Leuven, H.J.R. Lenders, T.E.P.A. Lam,
and S. Pieters. 2008. Relating the ecological and legal frameworks for
nature conservation in Europe. Journal of International Wildlife Law
and Policy 11(1):63-95
Dobbs, T.L., and J. Pretty. 2008. Case study of agri-environmental
payments: the United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(4):765-775
Donald, P.F., and A.D. Evans. 2006. Habitat connectivity and matrix
restoration: the wider implications of agri-environ schemes. Journal of
Applied Ecology 43(2):209-218
Drechsler, M., K. Johst, C. Ohl, and F. Watzold. 2007. Designing cost-
effective payments for conservation measures to generate spatiotemporal
habitat heterogeneity. Conservation Biology 21(6):1475-1486
Engel, S., and C. Palmer. 2008. Payments for environmental services as an
alternative to logging under weak property rights: the case of Indonesia.
Ecological Economics 65(4):799-809
Engel, S., S. Pagiola, and S. Wunder. 2008. Designing payments for
environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues.
Ecological Economics 65(4):663-674
Ferraro, P.J. 2008. Asymmetric information and contract design for
payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 65(4):810-
821
Ferraro, P.J., and A. Kiss. 2002. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity.
Science 298: 1718–1719
Fischer, J., and D.B. Lindenmayer. 2007. Landscape modification and
habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Global Ecology and Biography 16:
265-280
Gardner, T.A., T.I.M. Caro, E.M. Fitzherbert, T. Banda, and P.
Lalbhai. 2007. Conservation value of multiple-use areas in East Africa.
Conservation Biology 21(6):1516-1525
Goldman, R.L., B.H. Thompson, and G.C. Daily. 2007. Institutional
incentives for managing the landscape: inducing cooperation for the
production of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 64(2):333-
343
Gulati, S., and J. Vercammen. 2006. Time inconsistent resource
conservation contracts. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 52:454-468
Hallwood, P. 2007. Contractual difficulties in environmental management:
the case of wetland mitigation banking. Ecological Economics 63(2-
3):446-451
Herzon, I., and M. Mikk. 2007. Farmers’ perceptions of biodiversity
and their willingness to enhance it through agri-environment schemes:
a comparative study from Estonia and Finland. Nature Conservation
15:10-25
Holzkamper, A., and R. Seppelt. 2007. Evaluating cost-effectiveness
of conservation management actions in an agricultural landscape on a
regional scale. Biological Conservation 136:117-127
House, A.P.N., N.D. MacLeod, B. Cullen, A.M. Whitbread, S.D.
Brown, and J.G. McIvor. 2008. Integrating production and natural
resource management on mixed farms in eastern Australia: the cost of
conservation in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 127:153-165
IUCN. 2008. World Conservation Union. http://www.iucn.org. Cited 23
Jun 2008
Iverson, V., B. Chhetry, P. Francis, M. Gurung, G. Kafle, A. Pain,
and J. Seeley. 2006. High value forests, hidden economies and elite
capture: evidence from forest user groups in Nepal’s Terai. Ecological
Economics 58(1):93-107
Johns, D. 2007. Like it or not, politics is the solution. Conservation Biology
21(2): 287-288
Kareieva, P., M. Marvier. 2003. Conserving biodiversity coldspots: recent
calls to direct conservation funding to the world biodiversity hotspots
may be bad investment advice. American Scientist 91:344-352
Kleijn, D., and W.J. Sutherland. 2003. How effective are European
agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity?
Journal of Applied Ecology 40: 947-969
Knop, E., D. Kleijn, F. Herzog, and B. Schmid. 2006. Effectiveness of
the Swiss agri-environment scheme in promoting biodiversity. Journal
of Applied Ecology 43(1):120-127
Kosoy, N., M. Martinez-Tuna, R. Muradian, and J. Martinez-Alier.
2007. Payments for environmental services in watersheds: insights
from a comparative study of three cases in Central America. Ecological
Economics 61(2-3): 446-455
Kruger, O. 2005. The role of ecotourism in conservation: panacea or
Pandora’s box? Biodiversity and Conservation 14(3):579-600
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 77
Langholz, J.A., J.P. Lassoie, D. Lee, and D. Chapman. 2000. Economic
considerations of privately owned parks. Ecological Economics 33:
173–183
Langpap, C. 2006. Conservation of endangered species: can incentives
work for private landowners? Ecological Economics 57(4):558-572
Lees, A.C., C.A. Peres. 2008. Conservation value of remnant riparian
forest corridors of varying quality for Amazonian birds and mammals.
Conservation Biology 22(2):439-449
Leroux, S.J., and F.K.A. Schmiegelow. 2007. Biodiversity concordance
and the importance of endemism. Conservation Biology 21:274-277
Lindsey, P.A., R.R. Alexander, J.T. du Toit, and M.G.L. Mills. 2005.
The potential contribution of ecotourism to African Wild Dog Lycaon
pictus conservation in South Africa. Biological Conservation 123:339-
348
Lockwood, M., G. Worboys, and A. Kothari. 2006. Managing Protected
Areas: a Global Guide. Earthscan, London.
McDonald R.I., C. Yuan-Farrell, C. Fievet, M. Moeller, P. Kareiva, D.
Foster, T. Gragson, A. Kinzig, L. Kuby, and C. Redman. 2007.
Estimating the effect of protected lands on the development and
conservation of their surroundings. Conservation Biology 21(6):1526-
1536
Mackey, B., H. Keith, and S. Berry. 2008. Green carbon. Australian
National University, Canberra (in press).
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Ecosystems and human
well-being: policy responses: findings of the responses working group of
the millennium ecosystem assessment. Island Press, Washington DC.
Munoz-Pina, C., A. Guevara, J.M. Torres, and J. Brana. 2008. Paying
for the hydrological services of Mexico’s forests: analysis, negotiations
and results. Ecological Economics 65(4): 725-736
Murdoch, W., S. Polasky, K.E. Wilson, H.P. Possingham, P. Kareiva,
and R. Shaw. 2007. Maximizing return on investment in conservation.
Biological Conservation 139(3-4):375-388
Murphy, D.D., and B.R. Noon. 2007. The role of scientists in conservation
planning on private lands. Conservation Biology 21:25-28
Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca, J.
Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature
403:853-858
Natural Habitat Adventures. 2008. The Nature People. http://www.
nathab.com. Cited 23 Jun 2008.
New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change
(NSWDECC). 2008. Alps to Atherton Initiative. http://www.
environment.nsw.gov.au/a2a/index.htm. Cited 23 Jun 2008
Pagiola, S. 2008. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica.
Ecological Economics 65(4): 712-724
Pagiola, S., E. Ramirez, J. Gobbi, C. de Haan, M. Ibrahim, E.
Murgueitio, and J.P. Ruiz. 2007. Paying for the environmental
services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua. Ecological Economics
64:374-385
Parkhurst, G.M., and J.F. Shogren. 2007. Spatial incentives to coordinate
contiguous habitat. Ecological Economics 64(2):344-355
Pressey, R.L. 2007. Conservation planning for a changing climate. In:
Protected areas: buffering nature against climate change. WWF, Gland,
pp. 90-94
Pressey, R.L., M. Cabeza, W.E. Watts, R.M. Cowling, and K.A. Wilson.
2007. Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends in Ecology
and Evaluation 22: 583-592
Puppim de Oliveira, J.A. 2005. Tourism as a force for establishing
protected areas: the case of Bahia, Brazil. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 13(1):24-49
Rissman, A.R., L. Lozier, T. Comendant, P. Kareiva, J.M. Kiesecker,
M.R. Shaw, and A.M. Merenlender. 2007. Conservation easements:
biodiversity protection and private use. Conservation Biology 21(3):709-
718
Rondinini, C., F. Chiozza, and L. Boitani. 2006. High human density in
the irreplaceable sites for African vertebrates conservation. Biological
Conservation 133(3):358-363
Rouget, M., R.M. Cowling, A.T. Lombard, A.T. Knight, G.H. Kerley.
2006. Designing large-scale conservation corridors for pattern and
process. Conservation Biology 20: 549-561
Salafsky N, R. Margoluis, K.H. Redford, J.G. Robinson. 2002. Improving
the practice of conservation: A conceptual framework and research
agenda for conservation science. Conservation Biology 16:1469–1479
Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A., A. Pfaff, J.A. Robalino, and J.P. Boomhower.
2007. Costa Rica’s payment for environmental services program:
intention, implementation and impact. Conservation Biology 21(5):1165-
1173
Save the Rhino Trust. 2008. Save the Rhino International. http://www.
savetherhino.org/etargetsrinm/site/1/default.aspx. Cited 23 Jun 2008.
78 T R O P I C A L C
Shepherd, B., and J. Whittington. 2006. Response of wolves to corridor
restoration and human use management. Ecology and Society 11(2):1
Shone, B.M., and J.L. Caviglia-Harris. 2006. Quantifying and comparing
the value of non-timber forest products in the Amazon. Ecological
Economics 58(2):249-267
Shultis, J.D., and P.A. Way. 2006. Changing conceptions of protected
areas and conservation: linking conservation, ecological integrity and
tourism management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14(3):223-237
Sierra, R., and E. Russman. 2006. On the efficiency of environmental
service payments: a forest conservation assessment in the Osa Peninsula,
Costa Rica. Ecological Economics 59(1):131-141
Spiteri, A., and S.K. Nepal. 2005. Incentive-based conservation programs
in developing countries: a review of some key issues and suggestions for
improvements. Environmental Management 37(1):1-14
Straka, T.J., M.A. Kilgore, M.G. Jacobson, J.L. Greene, and S.E.
Daniels. 2007. Influence of financial incentive programs in sustaining
wildlife values. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 12(3):197-199
Sutherland, W.J. 2000. The conservation handbook: Techniques in
research, management and policy. Blackwell, Oxford
Svoronou, E., and A. Holden. 2005. Ecotourism as a tool for nature
conservation: the role of WWF Greece in the Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli
Reserve in Greece. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13:456-467
Terborgh, J. 1999. Requiem for nature. Shearwater, Washington DC.
The Nature Conservancy. 2008. Conservation science. http://www.nature.
org/tncscience/docs. Cited 23 Jun 2008
Tisdell, C., C. Wilson, and H.S. Nantha. 2005. Policies for saving a rare
Australian glider: economics and ecology. Biological Conservation
123:237-248
Tourism Industry Carbon Offset Service. 2008. Welcome to TICOS.
www.ticos.co.uk Cited 22 Aug 2008.
Turpie, J.K., C. Marais, and J.N. Blignaut. 2008. The working for water
programme: evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism
that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South
Africa. Ecological Economics 65(4):788-798
UNEP. 2007. User’s Manual on the CBD Guidelines on Biodiversity and
Tourism Development 122pp.
Van der Horst, D. 2007. Assessing the efficiency gains of improved
spatial targeting of policy interventions; the example of an agri-
environmental scheme. Journal of Environmental Management
85(4):1076-1087
Walker S, R. Price, and R.T. Theo Stephens. 2008. An index of risk as
a measure of biodiversity conservation achieved through land reform.
Conservation Biology 22(1):48-59
Wallace, G.N., D.M. Theobald, T. Ernst, and K. King. 2008. Assessing
the ecological and social benefits of private land conservation in
Colorado. Conservation Biology 22(2):284-296
Watson, A., and W. Borrie. 2003. Applying public-purpose marketing
in the USA to protect relationships with public lands. In: Buckley R,
Pickering C, Weaver D (Eds) Nature-based tourism, environment and
land management. CAB International, Oxford.
Wiegand, T., E. Revilla, and K.A. Moloney. 2005. Effects of habitat
loss and fragmentation on population dynamics. Conservation Biology
19:108-121
Wilderness Safaris. 2008. Our Journeys Change People’s Lives. http://
www.wilderness-safaris.com/. Cited 3 Jun 2008
Wildlands Project. 2008. Reconnect Restore Rewild http://www.twp.org.
Cited 23 Jun 2008
Wilkie, D., G. Morelli, J. Demmer, M. Starkey, P. Telfer, and M.
Steil. 2006. Parks and people: Assessing the human welfare effects of
establishing protected areas for biodiversity conservation. Conservation
Biology 20: 247–249
Wilson, R.G., H. Marsh, and J. Winter. 2007. Importance of canopy
connectivity for home range and movements of the rainforest arboreal
ringtail possum. Wildlife Research 34(3):177-184
Worldwide Fund for Nature. 2008. For a living planet. http://www.panda.
org. Cited 23 Jun 2008
Wunder, S., S. Engel, and S. Pagiola. 2008. Taking stock: a comparative
analysis of payments for environmental services programs in
developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics 65(4):
834-852
Wunder, S. 2007. The efficiency of payments for environmental services in
tropical conservation. Conservation Biology 21(1):48-58
Wunscher, T., S. Engel, and S. Wunder. 2008. Spatial targeting of
payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation
benefits. Ecological Economics 65(4):822-833
Zabel, A., and K. Holm-Muller. 2008. Conservation performance
payments for carnivore conservation in Sweden. Conservation Biology
22(2):247-251
O N S E R V A N C Y
 Looking forward: Applying an ecological
model web to assess impacts of climate change
Gary N. Geller 1* and Forrest Melton 2
Abstract. Climate change is a major threat to the world's protected areas, yet the difficulty of making good predictions of the Authors’ Addresses:
impacts of change constrains management, planning, and policy making. An important factor limiting development of these 1*
Corresponding author
predictions is the inability of existing computer models, which simulate ecosystem and related processes, to easily exchange NASA Jet Propulsion
information. The ecological Model Web, now in the early stages of development, addresses this limitation. The Model Web will Laboratory
be an open-ended network of interoperable computer models and databases that use web services to communicate with one California Institute of
another and with end-users. Analogous to the World Wide Web, it will grow organically and opportunistically within a framework Technology
of broad goals and high-level standards. Making it easier for models to communicate will increase their collective power and Pasadena, CA USA
the breadth of questions they can address, while providing web access to their results will facilitate greater extraction of societal Gary.N.Geller@jpl.
benefits by managers, policy makers, and the public. nasa.gov
2
California State
Climate change is bringing new threats to Protected Areas (PAs) Second is that current climate models have a limited ability University Monterey
as well as exacerbating existing ones (McCarty 2001; Dudley to predict future climate conditions at a spatial scale that is Bay
relevant to many issues of importance for PA management, Monterey Bay, CA USA
2003; Hannah et al. 2005, 2007; Welch 2005; Westerling et
al. 2006). These threats include changes in range for native as though improved models and greater computing power
well as exotic invasive species (including destructive insects are rapidly addressing this issue. A third difficulty is the
and diseases); drought and other weather extremes; changes challenge of trying to simulate the complexity of ecological
to fire regimes; changes to ecosystem structure and function; systems—ecological models cannot completely predict all
displacement of human populations; changes in sea level; the consequences of climate change even if uncertainty in
changes in ocean acidity and temperature; and many others. It is the climate predictions is reduced. Lastly, even when useful
a daunting list, particularly since most PA management agencies predictions are technically possible, the real-world effort and
have limited resources for monitoring and management. cost to create them and make them available to PA managers
and relevant policy makers can be formidable.
Historically, many PA managers have preferred to rely
on direct observations and field studies to guide decision The Ecological Model Web is a concept that addresses
making. The significant uncertainty in the future condition of these last two issues by focusing on the ability of existing
PA ecosystems as a result of climate and land use change, ecological and related models to exchange information,
however, makes it increasingly difficult to rely on historic i.e., to "interoperate" (Geller and Turner 2007). Increased
datasets when setting policy and allocating resources for PA interoperability of existing models is perhaps one of the most
management. Ecosystem models can provide very important cost-effective ways of enhancing predictive capabilities and
tools for estimating potential future conditions and quantifying addressing the climate-related questions posed by biodiversity
uncertainty. Some of the climate-related policy and resource researchers and PA decision-makers.To be useful, model
management questions relevant to PA management are listed results need to be made available to researchers, managers, and
below: policy-makers who can use them, and websites that connect
• What are the possible effects of changes in precipitation such users to the internal “model space” are an integral part of
patterns on a park ecosystem or park infrastructure? the concept. In this paper we discuss the Model Web concept,
• How much habitat will remain in 50 years for endangered what it might look like to PA managers and decision makers,
or keystone species within a park, and will it be enough and various challenges and limitations.
to support viable populations?
• How much of the PA is vulnerable to invasive species?
What is the Model Web?
The Model Web is a concept for a dynamic network of
Should additional resources be allocated to manage them?
computer models that, together, can answer more questions
• What are the implications of climate change for fire
than the individual models operating alone (Box 1). It is
management in a park and the surrounding landscape?
based on a philosophy that encourages modellers to provide
Despite the need to address these and other questions, access to their models and model outputs via standard
accurately predicting the impacts of climate change on PAs is "web services" (see Box 2), which makes it easier for the
a difficult task with several impediments. First is the inherent models to exchange information. Growth of this network
difficulty in making accurate predictions of climate when is predominantly organic and opportunistic, with top-level
significant uncertainty exists in estimates of future atmospheric planning taking the form of guidance and encouragement
concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. This from sponsors, users, and the modelling community itself.
problem has been addressed by the Intergovernmental Panel Access to model results is through purpose-built websites,
on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/) and elsewhere, which can be developed by the modellers themselves,
through the use of a limited number of emission scenarios. experienced users, or partnerships. The Model Web is best

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 79

Box 1: The Model Web in a nutshell
• A dynamic network of interoperating models (and datastores) that
together can answer more questions than the individual models
• Uses web services for inter-model communication
• Grows and evolves organically and continually—like the World
Wide Web, it is never finished
• Scope includes physical, chemical, biological, and ecological
processes, though there are no sharp boundaries
• Websites provide access to model results for researchers,
managers, policy makers, and the public
Box 2: Web Services
When a person uses a web browser to order a book from an on-line bookseller
such as Amazon.com, they are interacting with one of Amazon.com's computers
manually, where the human makes all the decisions. But it is also possible to fully
automate book ordering using what are known as Web Services. Web Services
are software systems designed to support computer-to-computer interaction over
a network (World Wide Web Consortium 2004). For example, replace the human
with inventory tracking software from one of Amazon's business partners. When
their stock runs low, that software automatically orders new books, communicating
with Amazon's computer using a variety of web services that communicate using
specific protocols. These services would provide information such as price,
delivery schedule, or status of an existing order, and accept the new order, all in
a fully automated fashion.
Web services, which are commonly used in business applications, make it easy
for computers to exchange information and to automate standard processes,
making them a good match for the needs of the Model Web. For example, one
model could use a web service to make a request for specific information to
a second model; that second model would then run and return the requested
information using another web service.
Figure 1. Simple Model Web example. In this example four models and several datastores exchange
information via web services to predict the future distribution of a species. “Climate data” contains historical
observations as well as the outputs from large and complicated climate models for a variety of future
scenarios; these are used to drive the four models. The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), and
perhaps other observation databases, provide species observation records, each of which indicates the date
and location of an observation of an identified organism (often these also reflect an actual collection of that
organism). These records are used by the species distribution model, along with outputs from the other three
models and the climate data. The small dotted arrows indicate that the outputs from these components are
available to other models, i.e., that their use is not limited to those specifically used in this example.
80 T R O P I C A L C
thought of as something that is fostered and grown rather
than planned and built. Growth and evolution will result in
gradually improved performance, with greater accuracy and
coverage, more choice of models, and improved websites
that provide access to the model results.
The Model Web concept is not completely new. Individual models
are routinely integrated into larger model systems or linked with
other models, a step in the direction of the Model Web concept
that is increasingly common. Most of these systems have been
the result of focused efforts to integrate suites of models into
moderately to tightly coupled packages to achieve specific goals.
This has proved very effective for addressing some difficult
problems, but imposes some limitations. In particular, because of
their focused goals these model systems are often not designed to
provide access to intermediate products and, in many cases even
the final products are not available except to the model developers
or after they are published. Thus, the potential for interaction
with other models is typically very limited. Increasingly, model
developers do make their source code publically available, and
while such code sharing can be useful to other modellers, it still
does not facilitate access to model results by PA managers. Many
of these limitations are the result of a historic lack of funding for
extension of models beyond their direct scientific or operational
application.
In contrast, models in the Model Web are loosely coupled
and form an “open” system where, using web services,
direct access is provided to intermediate and final
outputs. So once the effort is made to create a model or
model system—a considerable investment—access to the
intermediate and final outputs can be provided more easily.
Lowering the barriers to accessing information in this way
facilitates organic and opportunistic growth and extracts
more benefits from the investment made in developing the
models.
To illustrate how a Model Web might be utilized we provide
an example of a use case focused on species distribution
(Figure 1). In this example an ecologist wants to know
how the range of a particular species may change by 2050
to assess whether a PA is likely to provide suitable habitat
in the future. If, as the climate changes, the viable range
were to shift outside the PA, that PA would no longer offer
protection or, worse, suitable habitat may not exist outside
of the park boundaries. Knowing this now might allow park
management to consider a variety of countermeasures. A
small model web (Figure 1) could help answer this question-
-as well as provide outputs useful to other models and other
questions. The major elements in Figure 1 are: a database of
climate model outputs that provides future climate scenarios
(including parameters such as monthly maximum and
minimum temperatures, and average precipitation; stored
output data are used because of the expense of each model
run); a fire model that predicts departure from historic fire
return intervals; a landscape model that predicts forest
successional stages and landscape pattern; a biogeochemical
cycle model that predicts rates of evapotranspiration and
soil moisture levels; the Global Biodiversity Information
O N S E R V A N C Y
Facility (GBIF, http://gbif.org), which provides species
observation data; and a species distribution model that
correlates environment and habitat information with species
observations to provide a map of potential habitat (Peterson
2001; Elith et al. 2006).
A model web such as that in Figure 1 could support other
applications in addition to predicting species distribution,
including changes in fire risk, intensity, fuel load or emissions;
landscape patterns; nutrient cycling; soil moisture; and many
others. However, we selected species distribution as an
example use case because of its simplicity, the large amount
of work that has been done in this area, and its relevance to
PA management.
In this example, the species distribution model is first run using
species occurrence records, and historical environmental, fire,
and landscape observations to create the "habitat envelope"
for the species of interest. Then, climate scenarios for 2050
are used to drive the biogeochemical cycle model, the fire
model, and the landscape model, and outputs from these are
fed into the distribution model along with the future climate
scenario. The distribution model then generates a map of
the predicted range of the species in 2050 based on possible
future climate and landscape conditions.
While creating such range maps using environmental data has
become commonplace (e.g., Hannah et al. 2005), these studies
have not generally integrated outputs from multiple computer
models, and a generic and open approach characteristic
of the Model Web has not been used. Note, however, that
open Modeller (Fook et al. 006; Sutton et al. 2007; http://
openmodeller.sourceforge.net/), a species distribution
modelling system, does offer a variety of different correlation
algorithms as well as invocation through web services. In
fact, openModeller is used in a demonstration system for
GEOSS (the Global Earth Observing System of Systems; see
Nativi et al. 2007a,b; Khalsa et al.) which, in turn, is being
used in a Model Web demonstration system that incorporates
some of the elements in Figure 1. Building this demonstration
system was the first step towards creating a Model Web, as it
provides a “core” onto which additional models can be added;
plans for its expansion are underway.
Note that the models and technology needed to address the
PA manager's question already exist (albeit with limitations)-
-the difficult part is bringing them, and perhaps the various
model developers, together to harmonize the models and
run the simulations. While this effort--which can be very
significant--is required with either a Model Web approach
or the more traditional approach of creating tightly coupled
systems, a Model Web has some significant advantages.
Most importantly, once a model is made accessible via a
web service, it is available for use by many other models and
applications. That type of data sharing is not available with a
tightly coupled system. Thus, even the small model web of
Figure 1 has the potential to address a variety of questions
(dotted arrows in Figure 1).
B I O D I V E R S I
Two existing efforts pertinent to the Model Web are worth Figure 2. Sample user
mentioning here. GEOSS is an international effort to interface to support the
Model Web scenario
coordinate and harmonize the many public and private example in Figure 1.
observing systems, at all scales, to help decrease overlap,
increase cooperation, fill in gaps, and ultimately to improve
decision-making. The Model Web will utilize many of the
concepts and features being developed for GEOSS. For
example, the GEOSS Clearinghouse--essentially a catalog that
lists the data and services available by GEOSS participants--
will be useful in connecting data and services to the models
that need them, as well as in making models and their outputs
more accessible. GBIF, mentioned in the example use case,
is a good example of a “service provider” that makes the data
and services of the GBIF network of data-providing partners
available via web services. These web services allow users to
explore the data in the network in a variety of ways, including
finding species occurrence records, providing the number of
occurrence records per grid cell, locating species checklists by
area, and many other views of the data. While GBIF provides
access to existing databases, access to models or model results
would be handled similarly.
What will the Model Web Look Like to its Users?
The existence of data does not mean it is available as
useful information to managers and policy makers. In
fact, there has often been a gap between data sources
and the application user community, resulting in only
partial extraction of the benefits of the data. The Model
Web concept includes end-user-oriented websites that
are connected with the models providing the data. Box 3
describes work being conducted jointly between NASA
and the National Park Service to provide outputs from the
Terrestrial Observation and Prediction System (Nemani et
al. 2008) to park scientists and managers to support park
monitoring and management. This work illustrates the types
of web-browser-based services that might be supported in a
model web environment.
Figure 2 shows a hypothetical website that provides access
to the simple example scenario depicted in Figure 1. The
user first finds the species of interest in the observational
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 81

Box 3: Monitoring Protected Areas for
Environmental Change:
The Terrestrial Observation
and Prediction System
The Terrestrial Observation and Prediction System (TOPS) is an ecosystem
modelling framework designed to integrate data from satellite, aircraft, and
ground-based sensors with weather and climate models to operationally
produce estimates of current and future ecosystem conditions. The US National
Park Service is working with NASA, the American space agency, to develop
an environmental monitoring system that incorporates data from TOPS. The
prototype system focuses on two of the most popular parks in the country:
Yosemite and Sequoia/Kings Canyon. Using new and historical satellite data
from a variety of instruments, and combining this with meteorological data and
output from ecosystem models, TOPS provides estimates of key indicators
of ecosystem conditions, including productivity, greenness, soil moisture,
phenology, snow cover, and others. In addition to providing estimates of
current conditions, TOPS uses an archive of historical data to track trends and
identify significant patterns, and the modelling capabilities within TOPS are
leveraged to provide short- and long-term forecasts of future conditions.
The TOPS data gateway (Nemani et al. 2008) shown in the figure below, allows
PA managers to use a web browser to access dynamic maps of current park
conditions, view significant trends in key indicators of ecosystem conditions,
and perform different queries on the data layers to examine features of interest,
such as anomalies that may indicate a previously unknown disturbance event.
In addition, the data gateway also provides direct access to descriptive
information for each data layer, facilitating use by both technical and non-
technical PA staff.
databases using a text search that is connected with GBIF
and perhaps other repositories of species occurrence data.
Then the user enters baseline and future target dates,
such as 2000 and 50 years into the future. Next, the user
selects the desired future climate scenario from a list of
the scenarios used by the IPCC (these scenarios reflect
different trajectories of greenhouse gas emissions based
on different socioeconomic and technology development
pathways; http://www.ipcc.ch/). Other data, such as the
historic fire return interval and various types of landscape
82 T R O P I C A L C
information, or a choice of correlation algorithms, could
be entered on additional pages, and manual editing of the
species occurrence records used in the analysis might also
be supported. Once the configuration options are selected,
pressing the Run button then starts the analysis. When
completed, the manager can display predicted distribution
maps for the species at the selected dates and for the selected
emission scenario (Figure 3).
Who will build and maintain these websites? The Model
Web does not impose constraints, and they could be built
by modellers who have an interest in their work being
applied by management agencies who may or may not have
models of their own but have an interest in using them, or
by anyone else who believes such information could provide
a useful service. Regardless of who it is, it is critical that
the models be understood and that their limitations—and
they all have them—not be exceeded; of course, the model
developers themselves are in the best position to provide this
information.
A Model Web can only be as useful as the accuracy of the
models permit, though different levels of accuracy and
confidence can support different activities. As the Model
Web grows, different parts of it will mature at different rates,
and initially much of it will probably be of use primarily
for research by facilitating "model experiments" where
a researcher investigates model weaknesses or uses, for
example, sensitivity analyses to explore how various systems
might respond to perturbation. Later, as model accuracy and
uncertainty improves and the associated websites mature, the
results would become increasingly useful by PA management,
perhaps initially for staff such as park ecologists, and later
for managers at other levels, policy makers, and the general
public.
Challenges and Limitations
The growth of the Model Web and its utility to PA
managers and policy makers faces a variety of challenges.
First, making two models interoperate typically requires
substantial effort, and significant funding will be needed to
gradually update existing models so they can participate.
Fortunately, there is an increasing level of appreciation
for the need for greater cooperation and integration
among researchers studying the potential impacts of
climate, landscape, and other changes (e.g. Marshal et
al. 2008). And of course, the utility of the Model Web
to PA managers and policy makers in addressing climate
change issues depends on the quality of the predictions of
the climate models. These are improving rapidly, though
they still depend on the assumptions regarding future rates
of greenhouse gas emissions.
Some questions may require more sophisticated websites
than the simple example shown in Figure 2, or may
require additional effort on the part of the user. This
effort might include the input of local field or other data,
or considerable knowledge of the underlying methods or
O N S E R V A N C Y
science. Uncertainty in model outputs is another issue,
particularly as it tends to increase when multiple models are
involved. However, greater interoperability among models
and data stores will make it easier to include additional
models and datasets that can constrain the outputs or
improve the estimated initial conditions. Also, answers
could be obtained from several different scenarios or models
and these can be compared and combined, an approach that
may provide more information about an appropriate level of
confidence in the final result.
We should be very clear that a Model Web will not be, and is not
intended to be, a fully automated decision support system. What
the Model Web will be able to do, however, is to increase the
quantity and quality of information available to PA managers.
This, combined with other sources of information such as their
own experience and the experience of their colleagues, will lead
to better decisions and better park management as the challenge
of climate change comes to bear.
Conclusions
Greater ability to assess and predict the impacts of climate
change on PAs is needed. Increasing the interoperability
of computer models will help and the Model Web provides
a framework to encourage greater interoperability, as well
as organic and opportunistic growth of an open network of
models. These networked models will, together, answer more
questions than the individual models, and become particularly
valuable when combined with appropriate websites so users
such as PA managers and policy makers can access the models,
their outputs, and other datastores to help them make more-
informed decisions.
Acknowledgments
This research was partially carried out at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract
with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Stefano Nativi kindly provided inputs for Figure 3.
References
Dudley, N. 2003. No place to hide: Effects of climate change on protected
areas. WWF climate change programme, Godalming, United Kingdom.
Elith, J, C.H. Graham, R.P. Anderson, M. Dudık, S. Ferrier, A. Guisan,
R.J. Hijmans, F. Huettmann, J.R. Leathwick, A. Lehmann, J. Li,
L.G. Lohmann, B.A. Loiselle, G. Manion, C. Moritz, M. Nakamura,
Y. Nakazawa, J. McC. Overton, A.T. Peterson, S.J. Phillips, K.
Richardson, R. Scachetti-Pereira, R.E. Schapire, J. Soberon, S.
Williams, M.S. Wisz and N.E. Zimmermann. 2006. Novel methods
improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data.
Ecography 29: 129-151.
Fook, K. D., A.M.V. Monteiro, G. Câmara. 2006. Web service for
cooperation in biodiversity modeling. In: VIII Brazilian Symposium on
GeoInformatics, GEOINFO, Campos do Jordão. Brazilian Symposium on
GeoInformatics, GEOINFO.
Geller, G.N. and W. Turner. 2007. The Model Web: A concept for
ecological forecasting. IEEE International Geoscience and Remote
Sensing Symposium, Barcelona, Spain, 23-27 July.
Hannah L., G.F. Midgley, G. Hughes, and B. Bomhard. 2005. The view
from the Cape: extinction risk, protected areas and climate change.
BioScience 55: 231–42.
Hannah, L., G. Midgley, S. Andelman, M. Araújo, G. Hughes, E.
Martinez-Meyer, R. Pearson, and P. Williams. 2007. Protected area
needs in a changing climate. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 5:
131-138.
Khalsa S.J.S, S. Nativi, and G.N. Geller. The GEOSS Interoperability
B I O D I V E R S I
Process Pilot Project (IP3). Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Figure 3. Sample
Sensing Special Issue on Data Archiving and Distribution, in press. distribution maps
Lundquist, J.D. and D.R. Cayan. 2007. Surface temperature patterns in showing (hypothetical)
complex terrain: daily variations and long-term change in the central probability of occurrence
Sierra Nevada, California. Journal Geophysical Research, Atmospheres of a species in 2000
112:D11124. (top) and 2050 (bottom);
Marshal, J.D., J.M. Blair, D.P.C. Peters, G. Okin, A. Rango, and M. light gray corresponds
Williams. 2008. Predicting and understanding ecosystem responses to 100% probability,
to climate change at continental scales. Frontiers in Ecology and medium gray to 50%
Environment 6: 273-280.
McCarty, J.P. 2001. Ecological Consequences of Recent Climate Change.
probability, and dark
gray to 0% probability
Conservation Biology 15: 320–331. (derived from Khalsa
Nativi, S., P. Mazzetti, L. Bigagli, E. Boldrini, V. Angelini, É.Ó et al.).
Tuama, H. Saarenmaa, J. Kerr and S.J.S. Khalsa. 2007a. A pilot
project for biodiversity and climate change interoperability in the
GEOSS framework. In: Weitzman, A. and L. Belbin, (Eds). Abstracts
of the 2007 Annual Conference of the Taxonomic Databases Working
Group, Bratislava, Slovakia, 16-22 September pp 26-27. Biodiversity
Information Standards (TDWG) and the Missouri Botanic Garden.
St.Louis.
Nativi, S., P. Mazzetti, H. Saarenmaa, J. Kerr, H. Kharouba, E. Ó
Tuama, and S.J.S. Khalsa. 2007b. Predicting the impact of climate
change on biodiversity - A GEOSS Scenario. pp 262-264 in: GEO
Secretariat (Ed.) The full picture. Book produced for the GEO
Ministerial IV Plenary, Cape Town, 29-30 November. Tudor Rose,
Leicester, UK.
Nemani, R, H. Hashimoto, P. Votava, F. Melton, M. White, W. Wang,
A. Michaelis, S. Hiatt, C. Milesi, and L. Mutch. 2008. Monitoring
and forecasting protected area ecosystem dynamics using the Terrestrial
Observation and Prediction System (TOPS). Remote Sensing of
Environment, in press.
Peterson, A.T. 2001. Predicting species' geographic distributions based
on ecological niche modelling. The Condor 103: 599-605.
Sutton, T, R. de Giovanni, M.F. de Siqueira. 2007. Introducing
openModeller - A fundamental niche modelling framework. OSGeo
Journal 1:1-6.
Welch, D. 2005. What should protected area managers do in the face of
climate change? The George Wright Forum 22: 75-93.
Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam.
2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire
activity. Science 313: 940-943.
World Wide Web Consortium. 2004. Web Services Architecture. http://
www.w3.org/TR/ws-arch/#whatis. Last visited June 2, 2008.
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 83
 What should protected area managers do to preserve biodiversity
in the face of climate change ?
David Welch
Author’s Address: Abstract. Since the 1960s the rate of change of greenhouse gas concentration, radiative forcing and climate warming has
David Welch been, and will continue to be, more rapid than previously known in geological history. As a result, biomes, species distributions,
Parks Canada, 25 hydrology and the cryosphere will undergo profound changes. It will threaten some cultural resources and change visitor
Eddy Street (25-4-S), activities, satisfaction and safety. Protected area management cannot contribute significantly to climate change mitigation,
Gatineau, Québec but it can help nature adapt to it, and help society to understand its causes and consequences. The tools for managers are:
K1A 0M5 research and monitoring; awareness and engagement; leading by example; and action on the ground.
david.welch@pc.gc.ca The management of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems should focus on the restoration and maintenance of ecosystems,
natural processes, biodiversity and abiotic processes, forms and environments that are free of significant impacts from local
or regional threats to ecological integrity, cultural resources and human health. Ideally, protected areas should be nested
within ecological regions that are permeable for the movement of native species and that contain sufficient habitat for the
self-perpetuation of native wildlife populations. Fast and slow migrant native species should be managed to permit orderly
ecological shifts that favour the maintenance of high biodiversity. Alien species should be managed to minimize their presence.
The management of marine ecosystems should focus on the conservation of biotic resources and sustainable resource use,
also free from significant local and regional threats to wild populations and human health.
Conversely, parks should neither be manipulated to sequester carbon or to buffer against natural disasters, nor be moved in
pursuit of migrating or future ecoregions. Where natural regions guide park establishment, they should not be recast wholesale
in anticipation of landscape evolution.

Challenges for Park Managers
According to a succession of assessment reports from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the pace
of change of greenhouse gas concentrations since the 1960s
and the resulting radiative forcing and climatic warming has
been, and will continue to be, more rapid than previously
known in geological history. The water cycle, the cryosphere,
biomes and the distribution of species, both natural and
alien, have already experienced climate change impacts,
will undergo profound changes in the future (IPCC 2007;
Rosenzweig et al 2008). Parks will be impacted by climate
change at least as much as the other lands and waters in the
same natural regions (Scott and Suffling 2003).
However, there are fewer options to mitigate or adapt to impacts
on protected natural areas than for areas that can be actively
manipulated. For example, a park’s dedication to preserve
biodiversity representative of a natural region generally
precludes the option of managing vegetation in favour of
carbon sequestration. On the contrary, the restoration of natural
forest fire regimes may result in a net release of carbon to the
atmosphere. An exception may be the ecological restoration of
lands degraded prior to park establishment. In another example,
the process of establishing a park in a democratic state with
respect for property rights is not a simple one, and can take
decades. Therefore it is not feasible to relocate a park in pursuit
of a migrating biome, even without heritage resources such as
an archaeological site or a famous view. Park custodians must
therefore seek ways to adapt management practices to help
maintain biodiversity and natural processes in situ, to assist
nature through transitions that human activities have rendered,
and will render, inevitable.
Parks serve more purposes than protecting species and
ecosystems. They contain and protect archaeological and
historic sites, iconic vistas, and outstanding landforms and
earth processes. They provide opportunities for recreation
and environmental appreciation. They provide for the
gathering of fish, animals and plants by traditional users,
especially in the Arctic, for their consumption and for
cultural purposes. Park managers must balance all of these
uses when considering action in the face of climate change.
See, for example, Chapman (2002) for the implications of
wetland archaeology. In Canada, for example, northern
historic sites are subject to instability as permafrost melts.
Coastal historic and archaeological sites are threatened by
flooding and shore erosion. Opportunities for snow-based
recreation are declining, but overall visitation levels will
increase as an aging population takes advantage of warmer
shoulder seasons (Scott 2006a, 2006b). Public safety threats
will increase with respect to, among others, heatwaves,
storm hazards for small craft, thinning nearshore ice, and
the northward spread of warmer climate pathogens such as
Lyme disease and the West Nile virus, both recent arrivals
in Canada.
Except for some that are privately owned and operated,
parks are operated by government agencies and are therefore
subject to other acts, policies and priorities than their own.
At the same time, parks may be the primary place where
governments meet their citizens on a friendly basis, through
the work of interpreters, guides, wardens and animators, rather
than speed cops, customs officials and tax collectors. Both of
these factors bring a public duty and leadership role to park
agencies. Therefore managers must consider public education
and participation in greenhouse gas emission reduction as
well as resource protection.
Climate change has become big news, big policy and big
business, yet the reality for parks is that other stresses are
just as important, maybe more so in a given situation (Parks
Canada 2003). For example, nitrogen deposition, habitat

84 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
loss and fragmentation threaten the viability of wide-ranging
species (Thuiller 2007). Invasive species can out-compete,
displace or kill native species. Chemicals such as acid
aerosols and organochlorines are carried through airsheds,
down waterways, across continents and over oceans, and
threaten the life and reproductive health of many species.
Human activities, even without habitat loss, disturb wildlife
activities. The good news behind the bad news is that unlike
climate change, many of these stresses are local, regional and
national in scope, so there is often the authority to address
their causes, not just their effects.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) persists in the atmosphere for decades
to centuries, so even if, starting tomorrow, there were no more
human sources of greenhouse gases, warming would continue
for several decades and continue past ranges seen in glacial
and interglacial times. Climate change impacts will therefore
continue to intensify, and this will bring both challenges and
opportunities to park managers, since ecosystems and visitor
preferences will change in response. Archaeological and
historic places will be threatened, such as Herschel Island in
the Yukon or York Factory, Manitoba. Occasionally history
may be revealed, such as at the Fortress of Louisbourg,
Nova Scotia, where recent storms uncovered hitherto
unsuspected historic shore structures (Colette 2007; Parks
Canada pers. comm.). Park custodians must therefore adapt
their management practices to help maintain biodiversity
and natural processes, to assist nature through its inevitable
transitions, to participate in communications and house-in-
order programmes, and to ensure the protection of historic
places and artefacts. Benefits will accrue from removing
or halting maladaptive policies, practices and stresses that
increase vulnerability.
The protected area/climate change literature provides strong
justifications for the existence of parks and reserves, why there
should be more of them, why they should receive enhanced
protection, and how they might be selected. For example, the
recommendations of Hannah et al. (2002) and Hansen et al.
(2003) include:
• Locate parks with climate change in mind;
• Avoid fragmentation - provide connectivity and maintain
buffer zones;
• Represent vegetation types and diverse gene pools across
environmental gradients;
• Determine the necessity to transplant species and control
rapidly increasing species;
• Involve local communities for management of
biodiversity;
• Strengthen research capacity, e.g., to model biodiversity
under changing climates; and
• Conduct long-term monitoring to seek causality between
climate change and biodiversity responses.
Core Principles for Protected Area Adaptation
I propose the following core principles for a climate change
strategy for protected areas.
B I O D I V E R S I
House in order and public communications
A park agency can foster mitigation by putting its own
emissions house in order, and can use its outreach and
presentation activities to demonstrate leadership. Visitors are
generally ready to soak up information and listen to sound
arguments by credible proponents. Emission reductions in
response to interpretation, education and outreach can far
exceed in-house emission reductions, but credibility requires
such reductions.
Risk management
Environments have a degree of resilience and in some cases
can accommodate climate change by species migration or
in situ adaptation. However, there are many other stresses
impinging on ecological integrity, so I recommend a risk
management approach whereby tractable stresses are reduced
or eliminated. Since the majority of such stresses emanate
from the region surrounding a park, this can only happen
through stakeholder collaboration.
Focus on mandate
The mandates for protected areas increasingly emphasize
ecological and commemorative integrity, outweighing
tourism development, infrastructure and regional economic
development. This more assertive yet focussed mission leads
to more needs for action on the ground and accountability, and
less capacity to stray into related activities, such as primary
research or general public communications. However, to
the extent that internal capacity allows, and that the primary
mandate is favoured, park agencies should cooperate
in education, emission reduction and national science
programmes related to climate change research, mitigation
and communication.
Desired Outcomes
ecosystems and the resilient matrix
We will never know enough, nor have enough resources, to
micromanage natural ecosystems to coax them into balance
with a continually and rapidly changing climate. The best
we can achieve is to foster the presence of large regions
with enough habitat and connectivity for the movement of
native species (Hannah 2002; Noss 2001; Wein et al.1990).
This means not just establishing and maintaining wildlife
corridors, or connectivity, but achieving permeability
by removing impediments to natural movement across
all lands. Examples include maintaining hedgerows and
woodlots in agricultural areas, eliminating the cosmetic
use of pesticides, reducing light pollution, installing
wildlife crossings on major highways, active ecological
restoration such as reintroducing wildfire in boreal and
montane forests and large grazing animals to grasslands,
and, perhaps the hardest task of all, controlling invasive
and alien species.
With this in mind, the management of terrestrial and
freshwater ecosystems should focus on the restoration and
maintenance of ecosystems, natural processes, and biotic
and abiotic diversity. The outcome should be regional
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 85
ecosystems free of significant impact from local or regional
threats to ecological integrity, cultural resources, visitor
enjoyment and appreciation, and human health. Protected
areas would then be nested within regions that are permeable
for the movement of native species and habitats and that
contain sufficient habitat for the self-perpetuation of native
wildlife populations. Fast and slow migrant species should
be managed to permit orderly ecological transitions that
favour the maintenance of high native biodiversity and the
control of alien species.
Marine ecosystems may be connected and permeable in the
sense described above, but their management should focus on
the conservation of biotic resources and sustainable resource
use, also free from any significant local and regional threats
to wild populations and human health. The migratory and
life-cycle ranges, both oceanic and riverine, of native species
populations should be protected from threats to their self-
perpetuation. Alien invasive species should also be managed
to minimize their presence.
While the comments in this paper are directed at the
management of existing protected areas, society and
governments in general should pursue the establishment
of comprehensive networks of protected areas to protect a
representation of the diversity of ecosystems and landscapes
under their jurisdiction. Comprehensive means protected
areas of sufficient size to house self-sustaining biodiversity,
and it means areas that are located within managed landscapes
to provide for natural corridors, networks, stepping stones
and buffers. A useful model in this respect is the biosphere
reserve such as that designated by the UNESCO Man and
Biosphere Programme. These reserves feature a mix of
core protected natural areas, a larger surrounding landscape
managed under sustainable development principles, and
between them a buffer or transition zone allowing some
sustainable harvesting and low impact activities [www.
unesco.org/mab/BRs.shtml].
cultural resources and commemorative integrity
As previously noted, protected area managers are often
concerned not just with ecology but with geology and cultural
resources. However, climate change science has tended to
focus on the natural world and the impact of climate change
on nature and society. The study of climate change impacts
on historic and archeological resources lags behind, a situation
now recognized by UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee.
“Ancient buildings were designed for a specific local climate.
The migration of pests can have adverse impacts on the
conservation of built heritage. Increasing sea level and storm
activity threatens many coastal sites. And the conditions for
conservation of archaeological evidence may be degraded in
the context of increasing soil temperature. But aside from
these physical threats, climate change will impact on social
and cultural aspects, with communities changing the way
they live, work, worship and socialize in buildings, sites and
landscapes, possibly migrating and abandoning their built
heritage” (Colette 2007, p.10).
86 T R O P I C A L C
Protected area managers should conduct risk assessments of
archeological and historic sites and other cultural resources
under their stewardship. In some cases, no impact or risk
will be revealed. In others, adaptation plans will be needed
to limit certain impacts. In yet others, the impact may be
so severe that the resource cannot be saved on site, and
rescue plans will be needed. One option is relocation, as
has been done for the historic buildings at the Pauline Cove
Whaling Station on Herschel Island, Yukon, or the Cape
Hatteras Lighthouse, North Carolina. Other options include
documentation to establish a virtual record of a site, and the
rescue of selected items for conservation in museums and
visitor centres.
Conservation agencies worldwide are coming to recognize
traditional cultural activities as an integral part of a protected
ecosystem. These activities are seen not only as valued cultural
resources in their own right, and part of the human condition,
but in many cases as one of the processes governing landscape
evolution and wildlife condition. The challenge for protected
area managers will be to work with local communities as they
seek their own adaptations to climate change, and at the same
time maintain a balance with the maintenance of ecological
and commemorative integrity.
the visitor experience and public engagement
Regional adaptations and national policies depend on public
support. The more that people are aware of the many ways
of addressing climate change, the easier it will be to catalyze
policies and actions. Protected area custodians generally
have a well-regarded public image, and they can lever this
asset to promote and lobby for climate change mitigation
and adaptations, both institutional and private. Parks should
strive to demonstrate the values of biodiversity at the local
level, and demonstrate to visitors the impacts of the loss of
natural biodiversity, of invasive species and of the many other
impacts of climate change. These demonstrations can take
place during interpretive talks and walks, in visitor centres
and in virtual visits via park web sites. Citizens should become
aware of how to assist in the mitigation of climate change
at home, at work and during their visits to parks, and of the
role that they can play in spreading the word to their family
and friends. Regional stakeholders such as conservation
authorities, resource industries, communities and individual
land holders should be encouraged to consider climate change
resilience and adaptation strategies in their land management
practices.
How to Achieve the Desired Outcomes
information and awareness
Over five to ten years, the appropriate level of climate change
information should be made available to all aspects of natural
and cultural resource management, visitor experience, public
education, and asset and operations management. This
information should cover both the impacts of climate change
itself, and an understanding of how adaptation and protection
measures will affect natural and cultural systems.
O N S E R V A N C Y
The foundation for awareness is science, not just research, but
also impact and adaptation monitoring and the dissemination
of scientific results in professional, management and
popular media. Decision-makers and park visitors alike will
benefit from knowledge of Holocene landscape history, to
understand the changeable nature of climate and nature’s
ability to adapt to some kinds of change. We need to project
the impacts of climate change on natural processes and
visitor activities before committing to ecosystem restoration
or visitor infrastructure projects. The identification of valued
ecosystem components helps to set management goals
without getting bogged down in the minutiae of tracking
and reporting on all species, all minerals and so forth. The
barriers to regional migration should be determined, such as
fragmented habitats and restricted vertical migration paths.
Parks should monitor indicators of climate change impacts.
Multi-partner integrated monitoring can reveal unexpected
linkages between ecosystem components and the drivers of
environmental change.
Protected area staff includes senior executives, ecosystem
managers, ecologists, monitoring specialists, and visitor
experience and public education specialists. Their
engagement in climate change adaptation depends on
understanding the relevant science and issues. The
corresponding actions include preparing and disseminating
summary documents, newsletters and technical reports,
giving seminars and workshops, and including place-based
climate change overviews in training and professional
development. Successful adaptation based on ecosystem
resilience also depends on the management of surrounding
natural areas. Parks at the core of regional ecosystems should
facilitate awareness activities for their partners, to foster
ecological permeability and to mitigate local and regional
environmental stressors.
The public should be made aware of the impacts of
climate change upon species, ecosystems, and features,
as well as informed of what adaptations may be required.
Interpretation programmes should help visitors and staff
become aware of what they can do at home and at work,
through direct actions as well as spreading the word
to their friends and family. Education authorities and
non-governmental groups can assist in delivering this
information.
guidance and planning
Guidance and planning tools should be adapted in
appropriate ways to recognize climate change. Some of
this adaptation will depend on research and synthesis, so
it can be expected to take ten to fifteen years. Instruments
such as management planning guidelines, commemorative
integrity reviews, resource management regulations and
directives, park and site management plans, activity
plans, visitor strategies and training packages should
incorporate climate change material of a suitable type
and detail. Park managers need these tools to use climate
change information in their decision-making processes.
B I O D I V E R S I
For example, climate change guidelines for environmental
assessment are available in Canada, covering projects
that either have the potential to emit greenhouse gases, or
projects that will be affected by climate change (CEAA
2003).
Establishing parks to represent natural regions is one of the
best ways to protect biodiversity, as it assures a distribution of
protected areas across landscapes. Climate and habitat change
scenarios should be considered when developing park system
plans and park establishment options.
The uncertainty about the exact nature of climate change
impacts and responses requires a flexible, responsive
approach to ecosystem management. Adaptive management
achieves this flexibility while allowing movement forward
with only limited or uncertain knowledge. An intervention is
conducted as a scientific experiment, with measurable, time-
bound targets set in advance, careful measurement of results
as things happen, and approaches adjusted as new information
becomes available. Adaptive management should become the
norm in ecosystem management.
Visitor offers of attractions, activities and services, and related
investment and financial plans, must also take into account
the expected ecological, cultural and recreational impacts of
climate change in the coming decades and beyond.
actions on the ground
As noted in the desired outcomes section, climate and non-
climate stresses have synergistic impacts. To maintain or
rebuild ecosystem resilience one must therefore reduce the
number and magnitude of insults to an ecosystem. Fortunately,
many stressors are locally and regionally controllable. In a
freshwater system it may require limiting the concentration of
toxic substances in effluent. In a forest ecosystem it may mean
preventing fragmentation by access roads. In an agricultural
domain it may mean fostering land use practices that favour
hedgerows, shelter belts, woodlots and reduced pesticide
use. These tasks are approachable through conservation
partnerships.
Changes in climate will lead to changes in habitats and
species survival. Some plant species will have to migrate
hundreds of kilometres to follow a shifting climate zone.
Others might find a new home a short distance away. For
the latter it may be possible to adjust park boundaries to
capture the anticipated movement of habitats and species.
Park boundaries could be realigned to accommodate
transition zones where large changes of climate, habitat
and species distribution are expected. Given the enduring
nature of parks and the long-term implications of climate
change, adaptation should be addressed in management
plans. For example, a park’s purpose could be modified
to become the protection of processes and biodiversity,
rather than specific biomes and species. Future climates
and vegetation successions should be taken into account in
ecosystem restoration projects such as fire restoration and
land reclamation.
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 87
Whether reactive or adaptive, an integral part of
management is the monitoring of progress towards a
goal, assessing results, and modifying future actions
accordingly. Documenting these processes is essential to
full debate and support. A regular report series is the best
guarantee of systematic publishing, dissemination and
readership. Annual corporate reports and periodic state-of-
the-park reports are often appropriate. Indicators of climate
change impacts for a given park and its natural region
should be selected, protocols developed and monitoring
implemented.
What Not To Do
do not move parks to anticipated biomes
The notion of relocating parks must be rejected for three
reasons. First, it opens the door to other reasons to move
a park, e.g. to open land for the extraction of minerals or
fibre. Second, park establishment is a lengthy process with
no guarantee of success. Third, few natural areas remain
for new park establishment within regions that already have
park representation. Rather, the parks we have are often all
that remain as natural havens. The very presence of a well-
distributed system of protected areas is one of society’s best
adaptations to climate change.
do not use parks to buffer or mitigate other impacts
Parks are not an insurance policy to offset poor
environmental management. The restoration, protection
and maintenance of natural systems precludes their
manipulation to offset anthropogenic threats elsewhere.
Ecosystem services may come about with the maintenance
and restoration of ecological integrity, but parks should
not be manipulated deliberately for such things as flood
protection, water supply or carbon sequestration. This
could open the door to the commercialization of natural
resources in parks.
do not change natural regions to fit future biomes
The natural region representation approach to national park
establishment has served Canada well since its adoption
1976. It has since been adopted by many other jurisdictions.
It provides a firm and finite policy context for the removal of
land from production.
Natural regions are typically based on physiography and
vegetation. While physiography remains largely constant in
anything less than geological time, vegetation associations can
evolve significantly within several lifetimes. Climate change
will accelerate this to the extent that natural successions evolve
over a matter of decades. To allow climate models to operate
on today’s supercomputers, assumptions are made about future
emissions, the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere, and
geographic generalizations. Vegetation response is likewise
modelled on plant succession assumptions. While these
represent today’s best science, the placement of boundaries
remains notional and subject to change as models improve
and as the world develops real emission inventories rather
than scenarios.
88 T R O P I C A L C
Given that it may take years to decades to establish a new
park, it would be counterproductive to keep changing
a natural region map. This would open up a never-
ending process and create an unrealistic setting for park
feasibility studies and establishment negotiations. Map
unit descriptions can be modified to reflect the dynamics
of present and future climate and vegetation responses, but
the map entities should be held stable, even if this implies
a bias towards their physical attributes at the expense of
their biological ones.
CONCLUSIONS
A good network of protected areas that minimizes human-
imposed stresses is one of society’s and nature’s best
available mechanisms to adapt to climate change. Park
agencies can also influence visitors and the general public,
but this in turn requires well researched and monitored
climate change impact indicators as the basis for adaptive
ecosystem management, accountability and reporting
systems. House-in-order programmes complement the
messages that governments should send to their people.
Research on the synergy between climate change and
other processes can provide the knowledge to guide the
mitigation of local and regional stresses, thereby restoring
and maintaining the natural resilience of ecosystems and
wild species.
References
CEAA. 2003. Incorporating climate change considerations in environmental
assessment: general guidance for practitioners. Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency, 44 p.
Chapman, H.P. 2002. Global warming: the implications for sustainable
archaeological resource management. Conservation and Management
of Archaeological Sites 5:241-245.
Colette, A. 2007. Climate change and world heritage. UNESCO World
Heritage Centre, 54 p.
Hannah, L., G.F. Midgley, T. Lovejoy, W.J. Bond, M. Bush, J.C.
Lovett, D. Scott, and F.I. Woodward. 2002. Conservation of
biodiversity in a changing climate. Conservation Biology 16: 264–
268.
Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer, and J.R. Hoffman. 2003. Buying time: a
user’s manual for building resistance and resilience to climate change in
natural systems. World Wildlife Fund.
Noss, R.F. 2001. Beyond Kyoto: forest management in a time of rapid
climate change. Conservation Biology 15: 578-590.
Parks Canada. 2003. State of protected heritage areas 2001 report.
Ottawa: Parks Canada.
Rosenzweig, C., D. Karoly, M. Vicarelli, P. Neofotis, Q. Wu,
G. Casassa, A. Menzel, T.L. Root, N. Estrella, B. Seguin, P.
Tryjanowski, C. Liu, S. Rawlins and A. Imeson. 2008. Attributing
physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change.
Nature 453: 353-357.
Scott, D. and B. Jones. 2006a. Climate change and seasonality in
Canadian outdoor recreation and tourism. Waterloo, Ontario: University
of Waterloo, Department of Geography.
Scott, D. and B. Jones. 2006b. Climate Change and nature-based tourism.
Implications for park visitation in Canada. Waterloo: University of
Waterloo, Department of Geography.
Scott, D. and R. Suffling. 2003. Climate change and Canada’s national
parks. Toronto: Environment Canada.
Thuiller, W. 2007. Climate change and the ecologist. Nature 448:550-
552.
Wein, R.W., J.C. Hogenbirk, B.L. McFarlane, A.G. Schwartz, and R.A.
Wright. 1990. Protection strategies for parks under predicted climate
change. Parks 1: 17–22
O N S E R V A N C Y
 Identifying critical areas for conservation:
Biodiversity and climate change in central America, Mexico,
and the Dominican Republic
Eric R. Anderson*1, Emil A. Cherrington 1, Laura Tremblay-Boyer 2,
Africa I. Flores 1, Emilio Sempris 1
Abstract. Given the rapidity and intensity of anthropogenic impacts on natural systems, assessing the effectiveness of current Authors’ Addresses:
protected areas in preserving biodiversity is especially important in Mesoamerica and the Caribbean, which contain a wide 1
Water Center for
array of species and ecosystems. In light of the growing need to consider climate change in policymaking, combining climate the Humid Tropics
change projections with biodiversity maps allows scientists and decision-makers to understand possible climate change of Latin America
impacts on biodiversity. In this study, we use GIS to identify spatial relationships between regional climate change models and the Caribbean
and species habitat ranges for Mesoamerica and the Caribbean. Evaluating possible effects of climate change in terms (CATHALAC)
of temperature and precipitation involves three factors: historical averages, historical ranges, and future averages. Because 111 Ciudad del Saber,
different ecosystems and species exist at different temperature and precipitation ranges, we consider “comfort zones” of each Clayton, Panamá,
area. We develop a quantitative, spatial measurement of climate change intensity of each area by calculating the difference Republic of Panamá
between historical and future averages and dividing that difference by the area’s comfort zone, at a spatial resolution of Tel: (507) 317-3200
1km2. The result is a normalized grid of projected climate change severity. According to the modeling results, should worst http://www.cathalac.org
case scenario conditions prevail, by the 2020s, the Caribbean coasts of Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, and the *Corresponding author
Dominican Republic, will be significantly impacted by climate change. By the 2080s, all of the ecosystems and species of eric.anderson@cathalac.
Central America and the Dominican Republic may be subjected to conditions well outside of their traditional comfort zone, while org
most of Mexico’s ecosystems and species are at lower risk of severe climate change impacts. Integrating species richness emil.cherrington@
data with the climate change severity analyses identifies critical areas that may require specific interventions to facilitate the cathalac.org
adaptation of species to climate change. The information generated points not only to the utility of current protected areas, africa.flores@cathalac.
but is also useful in guiding the development of new protected areas and biological corridors, for the reduction of the potential org
impacts of future climate change. emilio.sempris@
cathalac.org
Introduction and Caribbean Biological Corridor, networks of protected 2
Sea Around Us Project
Mesoamerica and the Caribbean are two of the world’s top areas spanning the isthmus and Caribbean islands. These Fisheries Centre
twenty-five biodiversity hotspots, teeming with globally corridors are home to the globe’s only preserves for sensitive Aquatic Ecosystems
significant biological diversity. In Mesoamerica alone, nearly Research Laboratory
species such as the jaguar and whale shark (respectively the (AERL)
8% of the world’s terrestrial species are found on less than largest cat in the Americas, and the world’s largest fish), as The University of
1% of earth’s landmass (Mauri 2002). Yet, deforestation and well as over 250 threatened birds, mammals, and amphibians British Columbia
2020 Main Mall
uncontrolled human development have resulted in the loss of an (InfoNatura 2007). Vancouver, British
estimated 70% of original habitat (Conservation International Columbia V6T 1Z4
2004). In response to this situation, the regions’ governments The richness of species and ecosystems in Mesoamerica and Canada
l.boyer@fisheries.ubc.ca
have demonstrated their commitment to biodiversity the Caribbean is constantly threatened by human-induced
conservation through the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor drivers of environmental change. The conversion of natural

Figure 1.
Mesoamerican and
Caribbean biodiversity
hotspots.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 89
landscapes such as forests, grasslands and wetlands, into
agriculture, pastures, or settlements is the primary culprit of
habitat loss and the endangerment of species. Our knowledge
of humans’ capability to transform landscapes is not by any
means novel, however, we are becoming more and more aware
of our ability to modify the global and local climate. Like land
degradation, the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases
such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides, puts the
regions’ biodiversity at risk. Moreover, climatic catastrophes
undoubtedly imperil the stability of the regions’ social and
economic infrastructures, and global climate change is expected
to further exacerbate such susceptibility. Perhaps we are already
seeing this effect because now more than ever—at least in
recorded history—we are experiencing more frequent and
intense hurricanes and tropical storms. (Editor’s Note: At the
time of the final revision of this paper the authors were busy
churning out maps and rapid analyses of 3 raging tropical
storms: Hurricane Gustav, Hanna and Ike).
Historic climate is a principal factor in shaping landscapes
and determining the extent of species’ habitats. From the
abundant tropical sunlight and water arose diverse arrays of
ecosystems and species, filling unique and complex systems of
niches. Along with factors such as elevation and geology, these
species and ecosystems have adapted to certain temperature
and precipitation regimes, or climatic comfort zones. Human-
induced climate change is threatening to push environmental
conditions outside of many ecosystems’ and species’ comfort
zones. This biodiversity comprises many ecosystem services—
in the form of plant products that are vital to the regions’
livelihoods, ecosystems that filter out pollutants, and rare
species that display the world’s beauty. Consequently, the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) jointly recognize these important interactions, stating
the need to improve our understanding of these linkages and
to “fully integrate biodiversity considerations into climate
change mitigation and adaptation plans.” Thus, it is especially
important to monitor the possible impacts of climate change on
biodiversity, as it could guide policy strategies in the expansion
and redefinition of protected area networks.
In response to the call for such action, the overall objective of the
current study is to integrate geospatial data on biodiversity and
climate change in Belize, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic,
El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, and
Panama, in order to identify critical areas for conservation.
The study focuses on biodiversity from the standpoint of both
ecosystems and the species which inhabit them, keeping in
mind where climatic factors will potentially impact or threaten
these species. For the purposes of modeling an entire region,
we define ecosystems as the dominant vegetation, or land
use if human intervention has occurred. Species richness is a
fundamental measure of biodiversity, which counts the number
of unique individual species in a place, regardless of the density
or abundance of a particular species. Given the availability of
spatially-referenced data, we focus on terrestrial amphibians,
90 T R O P I C A L C
birds, and mammals, for species richness measures. We
compare both ecosystem extents and species richness data
to an index of climate change severity, which takes into
consideration future projected temperature and precipitation
deviations, relative to historic ranges. We assess the overall
severity of projected climate change within each ecosystem
type and at various altitudinal levels. The final product of this
study is the identification of critical habitats: where climate
change is projected to most greatly threaten biodiversity-rich
places. These processes all utilize geographical information
systems (GIS) in aggregating data, the spatial analyses, and
the integration of species richness distributions with the
climate change severity index.
Background
Measuring biodiversity. Biodiversity can be measured at
various temporal and spatial resolutions—from months
to centuries and from microbes to continents. In order to
incorporate both the Mesoamerican and Caribbean regions
in the context of climate change, we must first define a
reasonable measure for biodiversity. While methodologies
for measuring biodiversity differ for each objective and
investigator, the Convention on Biological Diversity
recognizes biodiversity at three levels: genes, species, and
ecosystems. In short, genetic studies are useful for assessing
evolutionary abilities or intra-species diversity. Populations
of species with higher genetic diversity—or a larger gene
pool—are expected to be more resilient against outside
disturbances. For studies of regional magnitudes, assessing
genetic biodiversity is likely out of the question. Because
a high richness of animal species inhabits Mesoamerica
and the Caribbean, and because ecosystems determine the
habitats of these species, we will focus on these two areas.
Climate change models & scenarios Given the breadth of
global climate change scenarios, a few challenges arise when
attempting to understand the regional implications of global
climate change. First, it is difficult to know which scenarios
to choose and how to describe the possible changes. While
there are many ways to display and assess climate change
scenarios, probably the most common way to display
such results are temperature and precipitation anomalies.
Because temperature may rise one or two degrees in the
tropics but upwards of six degrees in the arctic in the near
future, on a global scale, this type of illustration understates
the potential impacts of climate change in the lower latitudes
(Deutsch 2008). Much more useful than simple anomalies
are measurements of severity, which take into account
historical climate comfort zones, or a location’s customary
range of temperature and precipitation.
The second complication of understanding the regional
implications of global climate change is a question of scale.
These models consider the complex interactions between
marine, terrestrial, and atmospheric components, are
calibrated with historic climate registers, and can be validated
by rigorous sensitivity analyses. However, because of their
scale they still cannot capture regional and local phenomena
O N S E R V A N C Y
important to ecosystems, species, and human infrastructure.
The necessity of higher resolution climate scenarios for
applications to biodiversity has already been demonstrated in
numerous investigations, as scientists have underlined climate
change’s role in driving several species to near extinction.
For instance, the Central American Harlequin Frogs and
Panamanian Golden Frogs of the region’s cloud forests have
been victims of a disease caused by certain types of fungus.
Recently, climatic changes in these areas have created more
favorable conditions for the expansion of this fungus, hence
placing these rare frogs under even more pressure (Pounds
2006). Models that demonstrate the intricacies of possible
climate changes in particular localities will support studies
involving species with similarly small habitat ranges, and
such knowledge can better guide our strategies of adaptation
to climate change. Methods have been developed to obtain
finer results: regional downscaling (Hernandez et al. 2006;
Hijmans et al. 2005). Regional climate models provide higher
resolution results, which demonstrate local climatic effects.
In this sense, they are much more useful for local and regional
climate impact assessments, particularly on biodiversity.
Methodology
The geospatial analyses were conducted in three main stages:
1. Biodiversity: classification of ecosystems and derivation
of species richness datasets.
2. Climate change severity: derivation of a Climate
Change Severity Index (CCSI) for various scenarios.
3. Critical habitats: Integration of the climate change
severity index with ecosystem and species datasets for
the identification of critical areas for biodiversity.
Stage one only involves aggregation and simple (but
computationally expensive) analysis of various data; whereas
in stages two and three, we have developed new methods and
measures to identify critical areas in terms of climate change
and biodiversity. The type of analyses employed in this study
Theme Name
Ecosystems Ecosystem delineations for
Central America
Ecosystems Land cover data for Mexico
Ecosystems Land cover data for the
Dominican Republic
Ecosystems Digital elevation model
Species richness Species habitat distributions
Climate – historic Current conditions: mean monthly
temperature and precipitation
accumulation
Climate – Future conditions: mean monthly
projections temperature and precipitation
accumulation
Protected areas IUCN designated protected areas
B I O D I V E R S I
requires that all input datasets exist in a geospatial format.
As such, the lack of georeferenced data on aquatic or marine
biodiversity and high resolution climate outputs for the oceans
(e.g. sea temperature at multiple depths, pH, salinity) preclude
investigation of the impacts of climate change on aquatic
and marine biodiversity. This study therefore focuses on
analyzing terrestrial biodiversity and relevant climate change
scenarios. Since the overall objective is to integrate such a
wide array of data, we must also define how to generalize the
various factors. Before further describing the methodology,
we provide a table of data sources, without which this study
would not have been possible.
1. Biodiversity
Ecosystems. The majority of the data used in this analysis
come from the Central American Ecosystem Mapping project
(Vreugdenhil et al. 2002). The project identified a very rich list
of 197 ecosystems in Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama. In order to have common
ecosystem classes in Mexico and the Dominican Republic
as well, we apply a similar classification scheme to the two
countries. The ability to distinguish between land covered by
natural vegetation and other land cover types is extremely useful
in the development of networks of protected areas and biological
corridors. We separate broadleaf forest, coniferous forest, mixed
forest, savanna, and shrubland, into four distinct divisions based
on elevation: lowland, submontane, montane, and altimontane,
where the actual altitudinal classes depend upon an ecosystem’s
location on the Pacific or Atlantic slope (CIAT 2004). We also
include mangroves, wetlands, agriculture, and urban land cover
types, but do not divide them by altitudinal class. These inputs
result in a layer of twenty-five different types of ecosystems, based
on vegetation / land cover type and altitude. Figure 1 shows the
spatial array of these classes and elevations. We assess the overall
severity of projected climate change within each ecosystem type
and at various altitudinal levels, in order to identify the vegetation
Table 1:
/ land use and altitudinal classes likely to experience the most Data sources and
severe climate change. descriptions
Source Format
World Bank- and Government of the Netherlands- Shapefile, resampled to 1km
supported Central American Ecosystem Mapping raster
project, further refined by the Central American
Commission for the Environment & Development
GeoCover LC product developed by the Earth Satellite Raster, resampled to 1km
Corporation
Caribbean Vegetation Mapping Project funded by the Raster, resampled to 1km
USAID Caribbean Regional Program
International Centre for Tropical Agriculture, CGIAR- Raster, 90m
CSI SRTM 90m Database
NatureServe’s InfoNatura database Shapefiles, resampled to 6km
raster
WorldClim interpolations of observed data, Raster, 1km
representative of 1960-1990
WorldClim downscaling of global climate model outputs Raster, 1km
World Database on Protected Areas Consortium Shapefile
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 91
 Species Richness. The number of unique species in a place is known
as species richness. In order to obtain this type of biodiversity
map, we have overlain thousands of species habitat range maps
(distribution data). This compilation of spatial data is the result
of aggregating information about all of the documented birds,
mammals, and amphibians of Latin America. Two advantages of
this system are that it has harmonized disparate types of data into
a common format, and it also includes information from multiple
reputable sources (InfoNatura 2007).
By overlaying the distribution data for each bird species,
each mammal species, and each amphibian species, we obtain
richness maps for the entire region. A simplified illustration of
this process is shown in Figure 2.

2. Climate Change Severity

2 “2080s.” Like the baseline data, these future time periods include
3 model, version 3 (HadCM3), with respect to both worst case (A2)
Figures 2-3. 2, The spatial distribution of elevation and vegetation / land use classes. For display
purposes, the nine vegetation classes have been grouped together into five categories. Combining these
two characteristics result in 25 different ecosystems types that can be found in various countries; 3, Adding
individual species habitat ranges to calculate species richness. In the bottom layer, darker gray indicates
higher richness because more species inhabit that area.
In the following section we describe the methods of our regional
analyses of climate change data derived from high resolution
regional climate scenarios. Here we define a temporal and
spatial scale to express projected climate change scenario
output, as well describe the climate change severity index.
While there are many ways to display and assess climate change
scenarios, a common structure is to observe overall tendencies,
rather than to make comparisons simply between “today” and a
certain date in the future. In order to consider these overall trends,
we use historical baseline data, which is an average of thirty
years usually between 1961 and 1990. Climate scenario data is
also summarized like baseline data. The most common way to
group future projections is by the “2020s,” the “2050s,” and the
an average of thirty years (CCCSN 2008). For example, the 2020s
are an average of all the years from 2011 to 2040. The 2050s
include 2041 through 2070, and the 2080s include 2071 through
2100. Earlier we mentioned a measure of climate change severity,
which differs from a simple anomaly. Climate change severity
takes into account historical climate comfort zones, or the historic
ranges of temperature and precipitation ranges to which a place is
accustomed. Specifically, we consider mean monthly temperature
values and mean monthly precipitation accumulation to determine
a climatic range which a place has experienced during the baseline
period, what we call the climatic comfort zone.
In the context of this study, we utilize climate change scenario
outputs of 1km2 resolution, which constitute the highest spatial
resolution climate change scenario outputs currently available
for our region of interest. We consider a range of scenarios and
models available from WorldClim, specifically the Canadian
Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis’ third generation
coupled global climate model (CCCMa), the Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Research Organization’s Mark 3 of the
coupled climate model (CSIRO), and the Hadley Centre Coupled
and better case (B2) scenarios (IPCC 2000).
Building off of the framework of an ecosystem vulnerability to
climate change index that had been prototyped by Tremblay-
Boyer and Anderson (manuscript in preparation), we develop

92 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
a Climate Change Severity Index (CCSI). This measures
the climate change that a particular location is projected to
experience, compared to the natural climate variation (i.e.
temperature and precipitation regimes) that a location has
experienced historically (i.e. its current ‘comfort zone’, often
called ‘climatic space’). In other words, the CCSI is a measure
of how far a place is projected to move outside of its current
climate comfort zone. In terms of location, the CCSI can be
derived at a range of spatial scales, depending on the spatial
resolution or detail of the available climate data or desire of
level of analysis. Given that the CCSI values are calculated on
a cell-by-cell basis, it is also potentially useful to average the
measurements within certain boundaries, namely ecosystems.
The derivation for the CCSI is as follows. We build the CCSI
from a respective temperature change severity index (CCSIt) and
a Precipitation Change Severity Index (CCSIp), where the climatic 4
comfort zones are seen in the denominators of both. Because the
overall objective is to integrate temperature and precipitation
data, we consider them equally in the overall CCSI.
Temperature Change Severity Index (CCSIt):
Annual mean scenario temperature- Annual mean baseline temperature
Baseline temperature range

Precipitation Change Severity Index (CCSIp):

Annual scenario precipitation accumulation - Annual baseline precipitation accumulation
Baseline precipitation accumulation range

Climate Change Severity Index (CCSI):

Table 1.
Expected CCSI values,given
individual CCSIt and CCSIp
Precipitation (CCSIp)

Low CCSIp
High CCSIp
Temperature (CCSIt) 5
Low CCSIt CCSI t + CCSI p
Low severity
Depends on combination 2

High CCSIt
Depends on combination
High severity

Derivation of the CCSI yields raw quantitative values which

are interpreted as follows:
Table 2.
Values Severity Relevance to comfort
zone
Average temperature/precipitation
0 – 0.24 Marginal within historical range
Average temperature/precipitation
0.25 – 0.49 Low within historical range
Average temperature/precipitation
0.50 – 0.74 Medium within historical range
Average temperature/precipitation
0.75 – 0.99 High reaching the limits of historical
range 6
Movement of average temperature/ Figures 4-6. 4, Species richness in Central America, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic. Data derived
1.00 – 1.99 Very high precipitation outside historical range
from NatureServe InfoNatura Species Habitat Ranges, 2007; 5,The temperature change severity calculation
Movement of average temperature/ demonstrates a much higher departure from the comfort zone in the lower latitudes than in the upper; 6,
2.00+ Extreme precipitation very far outside The precipitation change severity calculation shows high departure from the comfort zone mainly on the
historical range
Caribbean coasts, as well as the lower latitudes.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 93
 Figure 7.
Combining the
temperature and
precipitation severity
calculations for the A2
& B2 scenarios in the
2020s and 2050s, these
4 maps demonstrate
the increasing climate
change severity over
time and under a
worse case scenario.
The CSIRO B2 plate
represents one of the
best case scenarios in
the 2020s, while the
HadCM3 A2 plate
illustrates the worst for
the 2050s.

Since there are high resolution climate change scenario
outputs from three global climate modeling organizations, for
two scenarios, and for three time periods, we calculated the
CCSI for all eighteen datasets, for temperature, precipitation,
and overall CCSI. We present the results on only a sampling
of these analyses, attempting to portray a representative
range of scenarios and changes over time, keeping in mind
uncertainties in the global climate change models and
downscaling techniques.
Results and Discussion
Here, we explore the implications of the modeling. First, we
display the species richness map of Central America, Mexico,
and the Dominican Republic, which results from superimposing
nearly 3000 individual species distribution datasets. Species
richness can also be considered a measurement of how many
species’ habitats overlap in a certain place. For instance,
“680 unique species” can also mean “680 species’ habitats
intersect at this point.” This should be especially important for
designing biological corridors.
Although evaluating the disparities between climate change
models is not our main objective, we do not disregard the
differences. There are inherent uncertainties associated
with the downscaled climate scenario data, and we choose
to focus on scenarios that have higher levels of agreement.
Whereas Table 1 only includes climate data from WorldClim
(Hijmans 2005), we have compared these interpolations to
other global and regional climate change scenarios (CCCSN
2008; Hernandez et al. 2006; Jones et al. 2004) to be assured
of general agreement among the regional downscaling
outputs. Because the different models diverge so greatly
further into the 2080s, we focus only on the 2020s and
2050s, where models show more agreement. The following
two maps display the Temperature Change Severity Index
(Figure 4) and Precipitation Change Severity Index (Figure
5), using data from the A2 scenario in the 2020s time
period. We also show the Climate Change Severity Index
for the 2020s and 2050s, both A2 and B2 scenarios, and
from different modeling organizations. CSIRO and CCCMa
illustrate less severe outputs than the HadCM3 model, but
the most noticeable differences are between A2 and B2
scenarios, as well as time frame.
Although not shown in the graphics, most of the scenarios
agree in the near-future projections. That is, during the
2020s time frame, nearly all of the models demonstrate very
similar increases in temperature, while different models and
scenarios deviate from each other further into the future.
Precipitation changes vary more greatly among models and
scenarios. Hijmans et al. (2005) also indicate a higher level
of uncertainty in the spatial interpolation of precipitation data
than temperature data.
Overall impacts. Temperature change severity increases
and moves northward over time. Initially, the most severe

94 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
temperature changes (CCSIt) are projected to occur at the If worst case scenario conditions prevail by the 2080s,
lower latitudes. We expect this because there are relatively virtually all of the ecosystems and species of Central
small comfort zones, or historical ranges, for temperatures America and the Dominican Republic will be subjected to
closer to the equator; so any temperature anomaly would conditions well outside of their traditional temperature and
be greater nearer the equator than in the more temperate precipitation regimes. While this abrupt shift may imply
latitudes. Precipitation change severity (CCSIp) is highly altitudinal migration of some species or the extirpation of
concentrated on the Caribbean coasts of most countries, as less mobile endemic species, further research is needed to
well as extensive areas of the Dominican Republic. In the better assess the potential resilience of specific species and
future, severity is projected to increase to the north and west, ecosystems.
so that Caribbean and Pacific precipitation change severity is
In terms of the potential impact on existing protected areas,
nearly equal by the 2080s.
according to the spatial analysis conducted, the ecosystems
In terms of overall trends, according to the spatial analyses, if and species most likely to be affected by climate change are
worst case scenario conditions prevail, the Caribbean coasts largely already within protected areas. We therefore expect
of lower Central America will be significantly impacted by that if these ecosystems continue to be protected, for a variety Figures 8-9.
of reasons, the chances of these ecosystems’ adapting to 8,Average CCSI per
climate change in the near-term. Species and ecosystems vegetation / land cover
across specific sites in Central America and the Dominican climate change would be higher compared to those vulnerable type; 9,Average CCSI
Republic would indeed face significant climatic stresses by ecosystems currently outside existing protected areas per altitude class.
being subjected to precipitation and temperature regimes far networks.
outside of the natural variation or comfort zone to which they
have been accustomed. Under the B2 scenario towards the
2020s, only the northern part of Costa Rica is projected to
move outside of its climatic comfort zone; however, under
the A2 scenario there is a substantial expansion of the “high”
and “very high” severity classes. This is especially evident
in northwestern Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and the
Caribbean side of Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and
Panama, the latter three projected to experience movement
outside of the comfort zone. In the 2050s, northwestern Mexico,
specifically parts of the states of Baja California and Sonora
are projected to experience the most severe climate change,
even more so in the A2 scenario. Additionally, the combination
of high temperature and precipitation change severity in
the southern parts and Caribbean coasts of Central America
might greatly affect Panama and Costa Rica (“extreme”
8
severity). The same combination of severe precipitation and
temperature changes in the Dominican Republic results in
most of the island’s categorization in the two highest severity
classes. As mentioned earlier, the differences between the B2
and A2 scenarios are more apparent in projections further into
the future. While the scenarios mostly agree in the 2020s,
the varying implications of different scenarios are very well
illustrated in the four panels of Figure 6.

Hence, with the exception mainly of parts of Baja California

and the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico’s ecosystems and species
would go largely unaffected even under worst case scenario
conditions. This is because the majority of Mexico’s ecosystems
already tolerate a relatively wide margin of climate variation,
likely indicating resilience to climate change. On the other
hand, irrespective of the climate scenario data, the historic
climate data indicates that the vast majority of ecosystems
in Central America and the Caribbean are currently exposed
to relatively low variation in terms of rainfall patterns and 9
temperature. Overall, the climatic comfort zones of species
and ecosystems in Central America and the Caribbean are
relatively small.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 95
Integrating the analyses: Critical
ecosystems and species-rich areas
Impact on Ecosystems With regards to the CCSI for the 2020s,
averaged for each ecosystem type, we observe the following
trends. Comparing the CCSI to ecosystems and species is
a step towards showing places where rapid adaptation of
vegetation and species must occur if these projections ring
true. In this sense, “adaptation” most likely means migration,
because species will follow the environmental conditions in
which they are most comfortable. Many sensitive species
could be displaced when more aggressive species move in
to their niches. Invasive plants are an especially important
topic to consider when monitoring the changes within and
around ecosystems. Impacts of climate change will likely
occur too rapidly to allow for evolutionary changes in most
species.
Unlike the severity index maps shown before, this type of
climate change severity analysis is not designed to locate
actual places with severe climate change projections.
Rather, it should give an idea of the types of ecosystems
and elevations that will feel greater effects of climate
change. Significant consideration should be given to those
ecosystems that have very small spatial extents and a very
high average CCSI. The following graphs inform us of
general trends of the potential impact of climate change on
ecosystems, in terms of vegetation / land cover and altitude,
under the HadCM3 A2 scenario in the 2020s. We discuss
other scenarios further.
It should be noted in the results of Figure 7 that in the 2020s
under the A2 scenario, there are actually no ecosystems that
will experience conditions outside their comfort zone (“very
high” or “extreme” severity); however, by the 2050s and
2080s, these degrees of climate change severity are reached.
Regardless, the most striking result is that broadleaf forests
are projected to experience a significantly high percentage
of severe climate change. Savannas and mangroves also
have a considerable number of highly susceptible areas.
Spatial analysis indicates that shrublands, broadleaf forests,
and agriculture are the most dominant land cover types (also
evident in Figure 1). It is cause for concern that nearly a
quarter of the extensive broadleaf forests have a high, or
very high, severity index. The Caribbean coasts of Panama,
Costa Rica, and Nicaragua, as well as parts of the Dominican
Republic, contain the greatest richness of birds, mammals,
and amphibians, extensive broadleaf forests, and “very
high” CCSI values. Additionally, some 30% of agricultural
areas are also projected to experience highly severe climatic
changes.
In terms of altitude, there seems to be a decreasing trend of
severity with increasing elevation.This is most likely because
ecosystems at higher altitudes are more adapted to greater
ranges in temperature; thus, they may be potentially more
resilient to changes in climate.Conversely, it is important
to keep in mind the other factors that could put montane
96 T R O P I C A L C
ecosystems at risk, such as invasive plant and animal species.
As montane temperatures increase, it should be expected that
lowland species migrate upwards, shifting their contemporary
niches further uphill. Further investigation should be
applied to the ecosystems without altitude classifications,
such as agriculture, wetlands, mangroves, and urban areas.
These graphs alone do not express these types of threats to
ecosystems, but climate change will unequivocally be a driver
of species invasion.
Obviously the calculations of CCSI per ecosystem and
altitudinal class would result in higher severity using
the A2 scenario than the B2 scenario. The following
statements describe the general differences between the B2
and A2 scenarios, regarding both vegetation / land use and
elevation. In the B2 scenario, projected climate change
severity is “high” or “very high” in only submontane,
lowlands and unclassified altitudinal classes. Broadleaf
forests and agriculture comprise the majority of the most
severe climatic changes, while mixed forests and very small
amounts of urban areas lie in the “high” severity category.
As seen in the previous maps, these classes of higher
severity lie in parts of Costa Rica, Panama, Nicaragua, and
northwestern Mexico. There is a visible spread of climate
change severity in the A2 scenario, which results in high
severity in all elevation classes. Although high CCSI
values still dominate the lowlands and unclassified altitude
classes, submontane and montane areas have a substantial
amount of “high” and “very high” severity zones—evident
in Figure 8. As seen in Figure 7, broadleaf forests and
agriculture have the highest percentage of climate changes
that are projected to move outside of the comfort zone. In
the A2 scenario, every class of vegetation or land cover type
except shrubland is projected to experience movements
outside of the comfort zone as early as 2011 (the 2020s
time period). While the higher severity classes in the B2
scenario exist in only a few countries, every country is
projected to experience these changes in the A2 scenario,
except for Belize, El Salvador, and Guatemala. According
to the CCSI maps displayed earlier, by the 2050s, it is
possible that movement outside of the comfort zone will
occur in at least some parts of every country considered
in this study.
We complement this analysis of ecosystem impact with
the identification of critical areas. This is the combination
of species richness and severity of climate changes. While
the values are somewhat arbitrary, those chosen in order to
identify critical habitats are as follows:
• Highest 10th percentile of species richness, per country
• CCSI of 0.75 or higher (“medium,” “high”, and “very
high” severities)
The intersections of these criteria determine the “critical
areas.” Also displayed on the following two maps are the
protected areas. One should be able to visually assess the
efficiency of these networks of preserved land. Are they
O N S E R V A N C Y
Figure 10. Integration of two factors to identify critical areas for conservation. Utilizing the species richness map displayed earlier in this paper, we h­ighlight in green the places in each
country that are home to the highest 10th percentile of species. Light purple, pink, and grey, delineate the higher CCSIs. The intersections of the two factors result in critical areas, displayed
in bold purple, red, and black.

adequately placed to prepare for potential impacts of climate
change on biodiversity? (see Figure 9).
In the 2020s HadCM3 A2 scenario, critical areas exist in
Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and a small part of Panama. In the
case of the 2050s HadCM3 A2 scenario, critical areas spread
throughout all nine countries of interest, the most severe in
Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and Panama. Given that
the critical areas in the 2050s (defined by the highest severity
in black) will have already experienced severe climate change

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 97
in the 2020s time period, these places demonstrate the areas
of highest concern. The overlain protected areas network
gives an insight into the places in which further designation
of protected areas should be focused in order to facilitate
species’ adaptation to climate change.
Conclusions
From the near-term (2020s) onward, if worst case scenario
conditions prevail, the vast majority of the ecosystems of
Central America and the Dominican Republic should be
affected with varying degrees of climate change severity,
with differing effects on their constituent species. Mexico,
on the other hand, would be generally much less affected.
Since this study considers such a great quantity of data, it
presents a critical integration of climate, vegetation, and
animal species datasets, providing an overall understanding
of how each of these factors is related spatially. While it
does not give insight into how individual species may adapt
and migrate to climate change, this study is an important
step in the integration of often disparate areas of study.
The overall analysis has therefore identified critical areas
that may require specific interventions to facilitate the
adaptation of species and ecosystems to climate change. It
is also worth pointing out that in addition to climate change,
ecosystems and species will likely continue to be threatened
by deforestation.
In addition to having integrated various types of geospatial
data to identify critical areas for conservation, we have
also presented a novel framework within which climate
change impacts can be analyzed, irrespective of data source,
resolution or scenario. This study has focused on presenting
which species-rich places and ecosystems will be impacted
by climate change according to the worst case (A2) scenario
and a better case scenario (B2), giving greater meaning to
the implications of different possible futures. Further work is
required to also assess the impacts of climate change under
the numerous other scenarios.
Temperature change projections between different models are
much more in accordance in the 2020s than in the 2050s and
2080s. This is useful information because we should be able to
more confidently expect a regional rise of 1˚C as early as 2011
(when compared to the 1961-1990 baseline). Maps of these
anomalies can show us that some locations may experience
an increase of nearly 2˚C, and others less.
General tendencies in precipitation changes are much more
difficult to project than temperature, even in the not-too-
distant future. Both the amount and location of changes
in precipitation differ from scenario to scenario. Despite
the disagreements, there is a general trend in nearly all
the models that there could be drier wet seasons. This has
significant implications on agriculture, water quality and
water availability in our region. Moreover, this drying of
the rainy season could have significant impact on forest and
agricultural health as a result of forest fires. The scientific
consensus is that forest fires in Central America have not
98 T R O P I C A L C
played a large role in shaping the region’s landscape or in
driving vegetation dynamics (Middleton et al. 1997). This
may be changing. We can learn from previous events such
as the 1997-1998 El Niño, in which there was a significant
decline in precipitation during the rainy season in Panama.
The many impacts included lack of water in the Panama
Canal watershed—both for canal operations, drinking water,
and fishing—as well as a marked increase in burned area
(Donoso et al. 2000; López 2004).
Temperature and precipitation anomaly data is invaluable
to many biologists who are interested in phenology and
the absolute temperature ranges for a species of interest.
However, this data does not provide an overall idea of
how much climate change will affect different parts of
the region as a whole. Moreover, it does not take into
consideration any measure of climate variability. The
climate change severity index attempts to address these
issues. Unlike maps of raw temperature anomalies, the
severity index emphasizes the potential impacts of climate
change in the tropics. Nearly all of the global climate
models demonstrate mild temperature increases at lower
latitudes, compared to extreme changes towards the poles.
This is no doubt an important trend for glaciology and
studies of the global circulation of temperature and salinity,
but it understates the impact that such a small temperature
increase could potentially have on tropical ecosystems
and species. The tropics exist within much smaller annual
temperature ranges than northern latitudes (both in terms
of day-night ranges and seasonal variations); therefore, the
species and ecosystems have become accustomed to low
temperature variability. Because of these facts, what could
be considered a “mild” change in the tropics could in fact
be devastating (Deutsch 2008).
On the other hand, most countries in Mesoamerica and the
Caribbean receive widely different amounts of rainfall during
the year. Most places have distinct wet and dry seasons,
which the CCSI defines as a very large precipitation comfort
zone for the wet tropics. Therefore, the one might expect
that the climate change severity index would be very low in
terms of precipitation; however, these scenarios project such
great changes in precipitation that high CCSI values spread
throughout much of the Caribbean coast. Still, precipitation
behavior in the tropics is best described intra-annually. hus,
an improvement on the CCSI would allow for multi-season
comfort zones.
In this study we considered ecosystems, birds, mammals,
amphibians, temperature, and precipitation, but other
environmental variables are important as well, such as soil
moisture content, surface temperature, sea level pressure,
and wind direction and velocity (Hernandez et al. 2006).
Just as there are coupled models in climatology, we should
strive to couple high resolution climate scenarios with
future land use scenarios. The latter is undoubtedly the
major culprit of species endangerment and is the chief threat
to biodiversity. Given the current rates of deforestation in
O N S E R V A N C Y
Mesoamerica and the Caribbean, it is crucial to include
this factor in assessing the potential human impacts on
biodiversity. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
for example has already established a framework for
developing scenarios similar to the SRES for land cover
change. Narrative scenarios of future development in Latin
America and the Caribbean have been developed by a
regional expert group coordinated by the United Nations
Environmental Programme (UNEP)’s GEO-LAC group.
Explicit land cover change scenarios have already been
developed for northern Mesoamerica under the UNEP- /
USAID-supported ICRAN-MAR project of 2004-07.
Integrating such land use change projections into the CCSI
and critical habitats assessment would enhance current
impact assessments on biodiversity. Moreover, as this
study has focused solely on integrating climate change
data with terrestrial biodiversity, useful follow-up for this
research would include assessments of climate change’s
potential impacts on aquatic and marine biodiversity.
Uncertainty is an omnipresent concept in climate change
modeling; however, degrees of uncertainty are not the same
for all time frames. These analyses of climate change severity
and identification of critical areas show a high level of
agreement among various models in the 2020s. These critical
areas also coincide with many efforts to further develop the
Mesoamerican Biological Corridor and should add to the case
for conserving these places (CCAD 2000), especially those on
the Caribbean coast of Panama, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua.
Moreover, much of the critical area lies just outside of existing
protected areas, often spanning across various parks and
reserves. This strengthens the argument and demonstrates
the utility of expanding and connecting the current system of
protected areas in Mesoamerica and the Caribbean, in order to
conserve its rich biodiversity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was conducted as one of the components of the
“Mainstreaming Climate Indices & Weather Derivatives into
Decision-Making for Adaptation to Climate Change in Central
America, Mexico and the Dominican Republic” project,
USAID Cooperative Agreement No. 596-A-00-06-00099-00.
The project is implemented by the Water Center for the Humid
Tropics of Latin America and the Caribbean (CATHALAC)
through the sponsorship of the Global Development Alliance
(GDA) program of the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), and with support from the U.S.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH), Cable and
Wireless-Panama, and the Environmental Systems Research
Institute (ESRI).
The initial framework for this study was developed by
Laura Tremblay-Boyer and Eric Anderson who conducted
their research at CATHALAC in the context of the McGill
University Panama Field Studies Semester program, jointly
with the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI).
Their study culminated in the development of the methodology
B I O D I V E R S I
called EVCC (Ecosystem Vulnerability to Climate Change,
available at http://evcc-panama.mcgill.ca).
References
CCAD. 2000. Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano. Proyecto Ambiental
Regional de Centroamerica/Central America Protected Areas Systems.
CCCSN - Canadian Climate Change Scenarios Network [web
application]. 2008. Gatineau, Canada: Environment Canada. http://
www.cccsn.ca (accessed 03/2008)
CIAT. 2004. Void-filled seamless SRTM data V1. International Centre
for Tropical Agriculture, available from the CGIAR-CSI SRTM 90m
Database: http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org(accessed 01/2008)
Conservation International. 2004. Hotspots Revisited. http://web.
biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/hotspotsScience/hotspots_
revisited.xml (accessed 04/2008)
Deutsch, C.A., J.J. Tewksbury, R.B. Huey, K.S. Sheldon, C.K.
Ghalambor, D.C. Haak, and P.R. Martin. 2008. Impacts of climate
warming on terrestrial ectotherms across latitude. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 105: 6668-6672.
Donoso, M.C., C. Vargas, K. Leaman, M. Castillero, D. Martinez, and
M. Nakayama. 2001. Panama Canal Case Study: Impacts and Responses
to the 1997-1998 El Niño Event. Once Burned, Twice Shy: Lessons
Learned from the 1997-98 El Niño. M.H. Glantz (Ed.) UN University
Press, Tokyo. 294 pp.
Hernandez, J., J. Srikishen, D. Erickson, R. Oglesby, and D. Irwin. 2006.
A Regional Climate Study of Central America using the MM5 Modeling
System: Results and Comparison to Observations. International Journal
of Climatology 26: 2161-2179.
Hijmans R.J., S.E. Cameron, J.L. Parra, P.G. Jones, and A. Jarvis.
2005. Very High Resolution Interpolated Climate Surfaces for Global
Land Areas. International Journal of Climatology 25: 1965-1978.
InfoNatura: Animals and Ecosystems of Latin America [web
application]. 2007. Version 5.0. Arlington, Virginia (USA): NatureServe.
http://www.natureserve.org/infonatura (accessed 01/2008)
Jones, R.G., M. Noguer, D.C. Hassell, D. Hudson, S.S. Wilson, G.J.
Jenkins, and J.F.B. Mitchell. 2004. Generating high resolution climate
change scenarios using PRECIS, Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK,
40pp.
López, M.A. 2004. Central America and Mexico Regional Brief on
International Cooperation in Wildland Fire Management. Pan-
American Wildland Fire Conference. 21-24 October 2004. San José,
Costa Rica.
Mauri, C. 2002. Environmental Law Enforcement and Compliance in
Central America. Sixth International Conference on Environmental
Compliance and Enforcement. INECE. April 15-19, 2002, San Jose,
Costa Rica. 21 pp.
Middleton, B.A., E. Sanchez-Rojas, B. Suedmeyer and A. Michels.
1997. Fire in a tropical dry forest of Central America: A natural part of
the disturbance regime? Biotropica 29: 515-517.
Pounds, A.J., M.R. Bustamante, L.A. Coloma, J.A. Consuegra,
M.P.L. Fogden, P.N. Foster, E. La Marca, K.L. Masters, A.
Merino-Viteri, R. Puschendorf, S.R. Ron, G.A. Sanchez-Azofeifa,
C.J. Still, and B.E. Young. 2006. Widespread amphibian extinctions
from epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature 439: 161-
167.
IPCC, 2000. Special Report Emissions Scenarios, Summary for
Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 27 pp.
Tremblay-Boyer, L. and E.R. Anderson. Characterizing sensitivity to
climate change at the ecosystem scale: a case-study for Panama. To be
submitted to Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.
Manuscript in preparation.
Vreugdenhil, D., J. Meerman, A. Meyrat, L.D. Gómez, and D.J.
Graham. 2002. Map of the Ecosystems of Central America: Final
Report. World Bank, Washington, DC. 56 pp.
World Bank and CCAD. 2001. Ecosystems of Central America (ArcView
regional map files at 1:250,000). World Bank, Central American
Commission on Environment and Development (CCAD), World Institute
for Conservation and Environment (WICE), and the Centro Agronómico
Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE), Washington, DC.http://
www.worldbank.org/ca-env (accessed 04/2008)
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 99
 Projected impacts of climate change on protected areas
Jenny Hewson*, Erica Ashkenazi, Sandy Andelman and Marc Steininger
Authors’ Addresses: Abstract. In this article we use temperature and precipitation for the current period and outputs from a Global Climate Model to
Conservation analyze projected future climate compared to the current conditions of the World’s Protected Areas. We stratified the Global Land
International, Cover 2000 into major latitudinal bands and broad landcover extents including forest, woodland/grassland, managed/bare, and
2011 Crystal Drive, water, and projections were generated using the HadCM3 model and two different scenarios, the A1FI and B1. Based on these
Suite 500, landcover types, we combined precipitation and temperature outputs for 2050 versus the current conditions with the landcover
Arlington, VA 22202. data and extracted areas of change, those projected to experience greater than one standard deviation above the mean change
*Corresponding author: in either precipitation or temperature, and areas of no-change to assess how different landcover types may be impacted. We
j.hewson@conservation. also compared the projected range in annual mean monthly amounts of precipitation and temperature for the Protected Areas in
org each latitudinal band. Results reveal that of the Protected Areas in the more than 200 countries surveyed, over 50% are projected
to experience greater than 20% change and almost 38% are projected to experience greater than 50% change by 2050. The
range in annual mean monthly temperature for Protected Areas included similar projected changes in range under both the A1FI
and B1 scenarios for Protected Areas in the mid- & high-northern latitudes exhibit, whereas Protected Areas in the temperate
north, tropics, and mid- & high-southern latitudes exhibit less of an increase in mean monthly temperature under the B1 vs.
the A1FI scenario. Annual mean monthly precipitation results were more varied over the range of broad landcover extents. The
conclusion presents a discussion of the conservation strategies that may be relevant for Protected Areas in different regions.

Introduction and cloud cover patterns based on different emissions

Climate change has been observed at global, regional, and
local scales (IPCC 2000, 2007a; Fitzpatrick et al. 2008) and
is projected to impact precipitation and temperature patterns
to varying degrees in different parts of the world (Root et al.
2005; Williams et al. 2007). Differences in both the seasonal
distribution and annual total accumulations of precipitation,
or mean monthly temperature patterns and variation may
impact the local-regional environment, and the welfare of
both humans and biodiversity within that environment.
For example, shifts in precipitation may affect species ranges
and distributions in tropical forests (Engelbrecht et al. 2007).
As well, changes in hydrological processes may impact
the frequency and severity of flooding in some of the most
vulnerable areas of the world (Bradshaw 2007) and alter soil
moisture, in turn affecting crop productivity and, potentially,
global food availability (Wang 2005). Further, changes in the
annual accumulation of precipitation in parts of the world may
eliminate certain types of forests, in turn causing localized
species extinctions (Enquist 2002).
Changes in temperature could yield similarly disruptive
impacts such as increased droughts as a result of higher
temperatures (Sheffield and Wood 2008), or altered tree
fruiting patterns and other phenologies, with cascading impacts
on frugivore populations. Root et al. (2005), for example,
analyzed temperature data and the spring phenological traits
of 130 species and observed a shift towards an earlier spring
onset date for such traits. And Rull and Vegas-Vilarubbia
(2006) suggest that differences in temperature in the Guyana
Highlands may manifest in the extinction of species adapted
to high elevations as their habitats disappear. Similarly,
species that currently inhabit lowland forests may be forced
to shift to higher elevations to access the same temperature
environments (Pimm 2008).
According to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, Global
Climate Models (GCMs) “are used to make projections of
possible future changes over time scales of many decades”
(Randall 2007). GCM outputs have been widely used to analyze
the potential impacts of changes in precipitation, temperature,
forcings, and while the outputs are often model dependent,
generally have a coarse spatial resolution, and are subject to
much uncertainty (Barnett 1999; Berliner 2003; Raisanen
2007), they can be paramterized to model a suite of potential
emissions trajectories. A range of possible trajectories are
addressed through the emissions scenarios considered in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special
Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (IPCC 2000). These
scenarios, following four main storylines which are divided
into four scenario families (A1, A2, B1, and B2), address a
range of potential developments in population dynamics,
economic progress, and technological advances. However,
because much uncertainty exists regarding the potential future
trajectories of emissions, all scenarios are considered equally
probable (IPCC 2000; Meehl 2007).
Researchers have applied GCM outputs to assess potential
climate impacts in a variety of areas and, increasingly, to
evaluate potential impacts on biodiversity. For example,
Beaumont and Hughes (2002) used outputs from multiple
scenarios to analyze the potential distributions of selected
endemic Australian butterflies. Enquist (2002) used the
Holdridge life zones and nine climate scenarios to analyze the
effects of climate change on vegetation in Costa Rica. And
Higgins (2007) used HadCM3 outputs to investigate species
richness in E. Brazil and the Guinea Shield.
In this study we examined the projected impacts of climate
change on PAs using GCM outputs from the HadCM3 model
in monthly precipitation and temperature for 2050 vs. the
current conditions. The HadCM3 model is produced by the
UK Meteorological Office (UKMO) (Gordon et al. 2000). We
analyzed outputs for two IPCC scenarios, one business-as-
usual scenario and the other a progressive ‘global solutions’
scenario. Projections were analyzed based on landcover
type and latitude to assess how PAs in different landcover
types may be impacted. We selected the global PA network
for several reasons. Firstly, while PAs account for 11.5% of
global land under current climate conditions (Rodrigues 2004),
their boundaries assume a static condition and, as a result of

100 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
projected future changes in the climate, the areas within these boundaries
may experience very different climatic conditions (Dudley 2003; Willis
et al. 2008). Therefore, global scale analyses are necessary to identify
the range of changes that may occur in different areas with respect to
PAs. Secondly, while multiple climate change-related studies have been
performed using PAs at the regional/national scale, the literature for the
global scale is more limited. And, thirdly, global scale analyses inform
PA planners and managers, and assist with the appropriate targeting of
scarce conservation resources by identifying potentially vulnerable areas.
Data Sources Global Landcover
We selected landcover types based on the Global Landcover 2000
(GLC2000) dataset (GLC2000 2003). The GLC2000 classifies 22
global landcover types at a spatial resolution of 1km including: ten tree
cover classes, four shrubby and herbaceous, four cultivated and bare,
and three water, snow, and artificial surface classes. We generated four
broad landcover types by grouping and reclassing 20 of the GLC2000
classes into forest (classes 1-8, 10), woodland/grassland (classes 9, 11-
15), managed/bare (classes 16-19), and water (class 20). Classes 21
and 22 were omitted from the analysis. These four broad landcover
types were stratified among six latitudinal bands including areas North
of +70 degrees (high-northern latitudes), areas between 50 – 70 degrees
North (mid-northern latitudes), areas between 23.5 – 50 degrees North
(temperate North), areas between 23.5d N - 23.5d S (tropics), areas
between 23.5d S - 50d S (mid-southern latitudes), and areas South of
50degrees S (high-southern latitudes).
Climate Data
We used monthly precipitation and temperature data generated by the
Tyndall Data Centre and hosted by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of
the University of East Anglia (UEA) (Mitchell et al. 2004). The Tyndall
Data Centre regridded projected climate data from selected GCMs to a
spatial resolution of 0.5 degrees. GCM outputs were selected by the
Tyndall Data Centre based on their being ‘the only GCMs for which
any SRES simulations had been performed and deposited with the IPCC
Data Distribution Centre (DDC) at the time of scenario construction’
(Mitchell et al. 2004). For this study, these data represented some of
the only data available at a relatively fine spatial resolution. We selected
climate outputs from HadCM3 because this model, and earlier
versions, has been widely used (Beaumont and Hughes 2002;
Battin et al. 2007; Midgley et al. 2002; Scott et al. 2004; Thuiller
2004; Mika et al. 2008). We used HadCM3 precipitation and
temperature outputs for two emissions scenarios from different
scenario families, the fossil-fuel intensive A1FI (business-
as-usual) scenario from the business-as-usual family and the
‘resource-efficient technologies’ B1 (global solutions) scenario
from the innovative and global solutions family (IPCC 2000).
The A1FI scenario emphasizes economic growth based on
fossil-fuel intensive technologies and is characterized by a
mid-century peak in human population and high cumulative
emissions. Conversely, the B1 scenario focuses on innovation
& global solutions. The scenario incorporates economic
growth but with a focus on service and information using
clean/resource-efficient technologies. A mid-century peak in
population is also a characteristic, but emissions decline fastest
in this scenario.
Protected Area Data
We used the 2005 version of the World Database of Protected
Areas (WDPA) (WDPA 2005). The WDPA is compiled
B I O D I V E R S I T Y
annually by UNEP-WCMC and the IUCN World Commission on
Protected Areas (IUCN-WCPA). The data are produced, largely, to aid
in conservation related analyses, and represent the most comprehensive
global dataset of marine and terrestrial PAs available. However, there
are some limitations to the data. Some countries provide incomplete, or
no, reporting of their PAs to the Commission resulting in data gaps for
certain areas. Further, inaccuracies occur as a result of geographic or
attribute inconsistencies. For example, various data sources may be used
for the boundary delineation or attribute information of a PA resulting
in differing polygon extents or attribute information for the same PA.
In addition, misspelling of PA names can result in multiple entries for
the same PA. Finally, complex PAs, such as those containing both a
terrestrial and marine component, could not be accommodated by the
2005 version (WDPA 2005) .
Following Rodrigues et al. (2004) and others, we used all records for
class I-IV PAs in the WDPA except (a) point records without geographic
location (zero latitude and longitude), (b) records that did not seem to
correspond to an established PA, (c) point records for which no area
data were available, and (d) records corresponding to areas smaller than
100 hectares (ha). This 100-ha threshold is well below most estimates of
the minimum area needed to support intact communities of vertebrate
species (Gurd et al., 2001), and so it serves to exclude PAs that are likely
to be largely irrelevant for the conservation of the analyzed vertebrate
species (although they may play other important conservation roles).
Excluding PAs smaller than 100 ha, and those for which no area was
known, eliminated 54% of the PA records (mostly in Europe) but made
little change in the overall area protected (only reducing it from 11.5% of
the terrestrial surface to 10.9%).
Methodology
We calculated annual mean monthly temperature and precipitation for
the two scenarios and for two temporal periods. Following Beaumont
and Hughes (2002) and others, we selected 2050 and a control period
(averaged from 1961 – 90) (Mitchell et al., 2004). We selected 2050 to
capture a mid-century snapshot of potential climate conditions for the
world’s PA network using the outputs of one widely used GCM. Based
on the annual mean monthly calculations, we generated difference grids
Figure 1. Processing methodology for one sample region.
9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 101
 Figure 2. PAs projected to experience >50% compared to PAs projected to experience <50% climate change for selected
for each precipitation and temperature climate variable; this yielded four
difference grids, two for the A1FI and B1 temperature variables and two
for the A1FI and B1 precipitation variables.
To analyze the PAs by landcover type, the difference grids were combined
with the landcover grids, created above, generating ninety-six combined
climate variable-landcover grids. We extracted areas of change +/- one
standard deviation above the mean projected change for each of the
four land cover types within each latitudinal band yielding ninety-six
standard deviation change grids. We then identified areas of agreement,
where both scenario outputs projected +/- one standard deviation above
the mean change, by combining the four standard deviation grids per
land cover type per latitudinal band. Areas where two or more climate
variables exhibit agreement were recoded as change and all other areas
recoded to no-change. These final twenty-four grids, one per landcover
type per latitude, represent those areas within each land cover type where
there is agreement among at least two climate variables of projected
climate change. Within one latitudinal band, eight possible values exist
representing areas of no-change and change for the four landcover types.
We overlaid the global PA data layer on the change/no-change grids and
ran a series of tabulate areas to calculate the amount of change/no-change
per landcover type per Protected Area. We then calculated the total area
of change and no-change per Protected Area. Figure 1 illustrates the
processing methodology for one sample region.
To investigate the projected change in amounts of annual mean monthly
precipitation and temperature under the two scenarios, we also analyzed
the difference grids, created above, for each precipitation and temperature
climate variable individually. We intersected the global PA data layer
with each difference grid and extracted the mean change in annual
102 T R O P I
monthly temperature and precipitation for each PA within each broad
landcover extent.
Results
Figure 2 highlights the change/no-change outputs, based on the
+/- one standard deviation above the mean projected analysis,
for selected countries. Countries with a high number of PAs
projected to experience >50% climate change in their areal extent
include Russia, Brazil, Australia, and Indonesia. These countries
contain large numbers of PAs located in the mid- & high-northern
latitudes and tropical extents. Countries containing a high number
of no-change PAs include New Zealand, Benin, Burkina Faso, and
Ghana, located in the mid- & high-southern latitudes, and tropical
extents. While the WDPA data includes inconsistencies in
reporting amongst countries, these results illustrate the percent of
PA vulnerability in selected countries. Further, as most PAs are
designated by national or local authorities, illustrating the results
by country may serve to motivate countries to address biases and
shortfalls in coverage.
Intersection of the temperature and precipitation change difference
grids with the global Protected Areas layer revealed an overall
contraction in the range of temperature change throughout the
majority of the broad landcover extents for PA locations under the
global solutions scenario vs. business-as-usual scenario. Conversely,
the patterns of potential change in precipitation for PAs under both
scenarios are similar, with a general increase in projected precipitation
for the majority of PAs (57%), consistent with expected precipitation
change (Berliner 2003). However, precipitation is inherently difficult
to model using GCMs (Wang 2005).
C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
Because of the low number of PAs available for the high-northern
and high-southern latitudes these PAs have been combined with
their respective neighbors, mid-northern latitudes and mid-southern
latitudes. The results were analyzed within each broad landcover
extent (1) by comparing the projected change in annual mean monthly
precipitation vs. temperature for each PA for the two scenarios (A1FI
and B1) (Figure 3), (2) by comparing A1FI vs. B1 temperature
change and precipitation change for each PA (Figure 4), and (3)
by identifying the total percentage of PAs in each temperature and
precipitation strata per broad landcover extent (Table 1).
Over 80% of PA locations in the tropics are projected to
experience >=2dC increase in temperature, with almost 18%
projected to experience >=3dC increase, under the A1FI
scenario. Conversely, under the global solutions scenario,
<20% of PAs are projected to experience >=2dC increase in
temperature and <2% projected to experience >=3dC. The
majority of PA locations in the tropics, over 70%, are projected
to experience similar change in precipitation under both Figure 3.
Temperature and
scenarios. However, based on the very different temperature Precipitation Correlations
change projections under the two scenarios, conservation for A1FI and B1.

PAs in the high- and mid-

northern latitudes are projected
to experience an increase in mean
temperature, in agreement with
expected increased warming in
all areas especially poleward in
the Northern hemisphere (IPCC
2007b), with over 55% of PAs
projected to experience a mean
increase of >= 3dC under both
scenarios. The majority of PA
locations in this area, over
98% under both scenarios, are
projected to experience a +/-
30mm change in annual mean
monthly precipitation. For PAs
in the mid- and high-northern
latitudes, as increased warming
of >=3dC is projected to affect
the majority of PA locations and
similar precipitation patterns are
projected under both scenarios,
conservation strategies and
management practices that focus
on adaptation may be more
appropriate than those based on
mitigation.
Temperature increases are
also projected for PAs in the
Temperate North under both
scenarios. However, under the
gobal solutions scenario, less
than 25% of PAs are projected to
experience an increase of >=3dC
compared to almost 75% under the
business-as-usual scenario. The
annual mean monthly precipitation
projections for PA locations in
this area exhibit similar patterns
under both scenarios. This
again may be attributable to the
inherent limitations associated
with precipitation projections.
However, conservation strategies
that focus on mitigation may serve
to reduce the impacts of climate
change on PAs in this region.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 103
 inaccurate, or missing, PA boundaries
and/or attribute information, and
inconsistency in PA coverage reporting
for individual countries; these factors
may have impacted the results in some
areas. Finally, the network of global
PAs falls short of encompassing the
magnitude of current conditions and
therefore represents a biased sample
of both current climate conditions
(Pyke et al. 2005) and biodiversity
and ecological systems (Andelman
and Willig 2003).
However, these limitations being
considered, this analysis still provides
broad observations regarding how
the Protected Area system within
different countries and broad
landcover extents may be impacted by
changes in selected climate variables.
Further, it provides a starting point
for considering how conservation
strategies and management approaches
for adaptation to, or mitigation of, the
impacts of climate change on PAs in
different areas may be implemented.
While repeated analyses are planned
using an updated version of the WDPA
and downscaled climate outputs from
multiple GCMs, this analysis provides
one possible, though preliminary,
outlook using two very different
emissions scenarios.
Given the broad range of Protected
Areas projected to be impacted by
Figure 4.bTemperature vs. Precipitation change per PA.
climate change, the results of this study underline the importance
approaches that incorporate mitigation strategies may again serve to reduce of mitigation vs. adaptation to secure biodiversity, both within
the impacts of climate change that may affect PA locations in the tropics. and outside of PAs for future generations. In particular, although
mitigation policies will impact global emissions, mitigation may be
The PAs of the mid- and high-southern latitudes also exhibit differences in particularly beneficial for PAs in the temperate north, tropics, and mid-
projected temperature under the two scenarios. Almost 40% of PAs in this & high-southern latitudes. PA locations in these regions suggest large
region are projected to experience >2 ºC increase in annual mean monthly differences in mean monthly temperature under the global solutions
temperature under the business-as-usual scenario compared to <4% of PAs than the business-as-usual scenario. In contrast, our results suggest that
under the global solutions scenario. Projected precipitation change for mitigation alone may be insufficient for PAs in mid- and high-latitudes,
this region is similar, with 95% of PA locations projected to experience because projected temperature changes under both the A1FI and B1
+/-30mm change under both scenarios. Again, conservation strategies that scenarios are similar. Additional analyses are needed to understand
emphasize mitigation may prove useful in this region. how projected changes in precipitation, which are much more variable,
and more difficult to model (Raisanen 2007), are likely to impact PAs
Discussion and Conclusions and the biodiversity they contain.
Several limitations must be recognized with respect to this study. First, the
nature of parameterizing GCMs and associated emissions scenario runs, Habitat loss is likely to compound the impacts of climate change, by
necessitates assumptions and generalizations about the climate, thus requiring isolating PAs and curtailing opportunities for species migration in
the interpretation of outputs considers the limitations of such models (Smith response to climate change. Based on the findings of the Millennium
et al. 1997; IPCC 2000; Berliner 2003; Wang 2005). Second, the resolution of Ecosystem Assessment, many of the same regions that will be impacted
the climate data, while relatively fine compared to raw GCM outputs, remain by climate change will also be heavily impacted by deforestation.
coarse for the spatial extents of this analysis; the PAs used in this study range Therefore, setting aside additional PAs in these regions, particularly
in size from a few km2 to over 900,000km2. Third, the 2005 version of the forested areas, together with forest restoration, may be beneficial, not
WDPA that was available for this study has a number of limitations including only for mitigation, but for adaptation as well.

104 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
 Table 1. Total % of PAs per mean monthly temperature and precipitation band per broad landcover extent
Temperature Change Precipitation Temperature Change
Scenario Biome ºC ºC Change mm
0-1 1-2 2-3 3+ <-60 -60--30 -30-0 0-30 30-60 >60

Business-as-usual High-Northern Latitudes 0 0 0 100 0 0 7 93 0 0

A1FI Mid-Northern Latitudes 2 7 22 69 0 0 26 73 1 0

Temperate North 1 3 22 74 0 2 54 42 2 0

Tropics 2 18 67 14 1 12 35 38 11 3

Mid-Southern Latitudes 3 57 39 1 0 3 48 48 2 0

High-Southern Latitudes 75 25 0 0 0 0 8 92 0 0

Global solutions High-Northern Latitudes 0 0 22 78 0 0 11 89 0 0

B1 Mid-Northern Latitudes 5 23 16 56 0 0 24 75 1 0

Temperate North 2 22 51 25 0 1 57 40 1 0

Tropics 7 74 18 2 0 10 37 40 10 2

Mid-Southern Latitudes 23 73 4 0 0 3 44 51 2 0

High-Southern Latitudes 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0

Acknowledgments Meterological Society. BAMS:1383 - 1394.

This study was made possible by the TEAM Network of Conservation
International, funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. We
thank C. Jantz, K. Tabor, and the anonymous reviewers for comments
on the article.
References
Andelman, S.J., and M.R. Willig. 2003. Present patterns and future prospects for
biodiversity in the Western Hemisphere. Ecology Letters 6:818-824.
Barnett, T. P. 1999. Comparison of Near-Surface Air Temperature Variability in 11
Coupled Global Climate Models. Journal of Climate 12:511-518.
Battin, J., M.W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. Korb, K.K. Bartz, and
H. Imaki. 2007. Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 6720-6725.
Beaumont, L.J., and L. Hughes. 2002. Potential changes in the distributions of
latitudinally restricted Australian butterfly species in response to climate change.
Global Change Biology 8:954-971
Berliner, L. M. 2003. Uncertainty and Climate Change. Statistical Science 18:430-
435.
Bradshaw, C.J.A., N.S. Sodhi, K.S.H. Peh, and B.W. Brook. 2007. Global evidence
that deforestation amplifies flood risk and severity in the developing world. Global
Change Biology 13:2379–2395.
Dudley, N. 2003. No Place to Hide: Effects of Climate Change on Protected Areas.
WWF, Washington DC.
Engelbrecht, B.M.J., L.S. Comita, R. Condit, T.A. Kursar, M.T. Tyree, B.L.
Turner, & S.P. Hubbell. 2007. Drought sensitivity shapes species distribution
patterns in tropical forests. Nature 447:80-82.
Enquist, C.A.F. 2002. Predicted regional impacts of climate change on the
geographical distriubiton and diversity of tropical forest in Costa Rica. Journal of
Biogeography 29:519-534.
Fitzpatrick, M.C., A.D. Gove, N.J. Sanders, and R.R. Dunn. 2008. Climate change,
plant migration, and range collapse in a global biodiversity hotspot: the Banksia
(Proteaceae) of Western Australia. Global Change Biology 14:1-16.
GLC2000. 2003. Global Land Cover 2000 v1.1from the VEGETATION sensor on-
board SPOT-4. in. European Commission Joint Research Centre.
Gordon, C., C. Cooper, C.A. Senior, H.T. Banks, J.M. Gregory, T.C. Johns,
J.F.B. Mitchell, and R.A. Wood. 2000. The simulation of SST, sea ice extents and
ocean heat transports in a version of the Hadley Centre coupled model without flux
adjustments. Climate Dynamics 16:147-168.
Gurd, D. B., T.D. Nudds, and D.H. Rivard. 2001. Conservation of mammals in
eastern North American wildlife reserves: how small is too small? Conservation
Biology 15:1355-1363.
Higgins, P.A.T. 2007. Biodiversity loss under existing land use and climate change:
an illustration using northern South America. Global Ecology and Biogeography
16:197-204.
IPCC. 2000. IPCC Special Report Emissions Scenarios.
IPCC. 2007a. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Summary for Policymakers.
Valencia, Spain.
IPCC. 2007b. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt,
M.Tignor and H.L. Miller, (Eds). Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Meehl, G., C. Covey, T. Delworth, M. Latif, B. McAvaney, J. F.B. Mitchel, R.
Stouffer, and K. Taylor. 2007. The WCRP CMIP3 Multimodel dataset. American
Midgley, G.F., L. Hannah, D. Millar, M.C. Rutherford and L.W. Powrie. 2002.
Assessing the vulnerability of species richness to anthropogenic climate change in a
biodiversity hotspot. Global Ecology and Biogeography 11:445-451.
Mika, A. M., R.M. Weiss, O. Olfert, R.H . Hallett, and J.A. Newman. 2008. Will
climate change be beneficial or detrimental to the invasive swede midge in North
America? Contrasting predictions using climate projections from different general
circulation models. Global Change Biology 14:1721-1733.
Mitchell, T.D., T.R. Carter, P.D. Jones, M. Hulme, and M. New. 2004. A comprehensive
set of high-resolution grids of monthly climate for Europe and the globe: the observed
record (1901-2000) and 16 scenarios (2001-2100). Pages 1-25 In Working Paper 55.
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
Pimm, S. L. 2008. Biodiversity: Climate Change or Habitat Loss - Which Will Kill More
Species? Current Biology 18:117-119.
Pyke, C. R., S.J. Andelman, and G. Midgley. 2005. Identifying priority areas for
bioclimatic representation under climate change: a case study for Proteaceae in the
Cape Floristic Region. Biological Conservation 125:1-9.
Raisanen, J. 2007. How reliable are climate models? Tellus 59A:2-29.
Randall, D.A., R.A. Wood, S. Bony, R. Colman, T. Fichefet, J. Fyfe, V.
Kattsov, A. Pitman, J. Shukla, J. Srinivasan, R.J. Stouffer, A. Sumi, and K.E.
Taylor. 2007. Climate Models and Their Evaluation. In: Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin,
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor, and H.L. Miller (Eds)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY.
Rodrigues, A.S.L., S.J. Andelman, M.I. Bakarr, L. Boitani, T.M. Brooks, R.M.
Cowling, L.D.C. Fishpool, G.A.B. da Fonseca, K.J. Gaston, M. Hoffmann,
J.S. Long, P.A. Marquet, J.D. Pilgrim, R.L. Pressey, J. Schipper, W. Sechrest,
S.N. Stuart, L.G. Underhill, R.W. Waller, M.E.J. Watts, and X. Yan. 2004.
Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity.
Nature 428:640-643.
Root, T. L., D.P. MacMynowski, M.D. Mastrandrea, and S.H. Schneider. 2005.
Human-modified temperatures induce species changes: Joint attribution. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 102:7465-7469.
Rull, V., and T. Vegas-Vilarubbia 2006. Unexpected biodiversity loss under global
warming in the neotropical Guayana Highlands: a preliminary appraisal. Global
Change Biology 12:1-9.
Scott, D., G. McBoyle, M. Schwartzentruber. 2004. Climate change and the distribution
of climatic resources for tourism in North America. Climate Research 27:105-117.
Sheffield, J., and E.F. Wood. 2008. Projected changes in drought occurrence under
future global warming from multi-model, multi-scenario, IPCC AR4 simulations.
Climate Dynamics 31:79-105.
Smith, J.B., and G.J. Pitts. 1997. Regional Climate Change Scenarios for Vulnerability
and Adaptation Assessments. Climate Change 36:3-21
Thuiller, W. 2004. Patterns and uncertainties of species' range shifts under climate
change. Global Change Biology 10:2020-2027.
Wang, G. 2005. Agricultural drought in a future climate: results from 15 global climate
models participating in the IPCC 4th assessment. Climate Dynamics 25:739-753.
WDPA. 2005. World Database on Protected Areas 2005.
Williams, J.W., S.T. Jackson, and J.E. Kutzbach. 2007. Projected distributions of
novel and disappearing climates by 2100 AD. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 104:5738-5742.
Willis, S.G., D.G. Hole, Y.C. Collingham, G. Hilton, C. Rahbek, and B. Huntley.
2008. Assessing the Impacts of Future Climate Change on Protected Area Networks:
A Method to Simulate Individual Species’ Responses. Environmental Management.
Doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9125-3.
World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). 2005. Web-download, UNEP-WCMC
and IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas. http://www.wdpa.org

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 105
 Future directions in conservation and development:
Incorporating the reality of climate change
Danny Coenen1, Ignacio Porzecanski2 and Thomas L. Crisman3
Authors’ Addresses: Abstract.Biodiversity conservation benefits from involvement of local stakeholders to link conservation and development
1
School of Natural in site-specific, synergistic frameworks. The reality of climate change and continuing widespread development of land for
Resources and settlement, agriculture, and resource extraction underline the urgent need to accelerate conservation efforts, while also
Environment, University necessitating review of whether current management strategies remain appropriate to reach their objectives.Since biota have
of Florida, P.O. Box been documented to respond to climatic changes via individualistic adjustment of phenology, phenotypic plasticity and range
116350, Gainesville, shifts, novel ecological communities without present analogs are projected to emerge. Some protected species may be
FL 32611, Email: displaced outside the boundaries of current conserved lands. Expansion of existing and establishment of new protected
dcoenen@ufl.edu areas in anticipation of such scenarios is rarely feasible. Climate change impacts on stakeholders may further compromise
conservation objectives if agricultural and resource extraction practices change.
2
School of Natural
Resources and This paper reviews impacts of climate change relevant to biodiversity conservation, highlighting the interdependence of
Environment, University ecology, socioeconomics and policy across temporal and spatial scales. A regionally coordinated management framework
of Florida, P.O. Box with local stakeholder involvement is proposed and illustrated using the case example of REDD to achieve traditional
116455, Gainesville, FL conservation objectives and adaptation to climate change simultaneously by alleviating stresses, maximizing functional
32611, Email: igna@ redundancy, and increasing both connectivity and local genetic diversity of conservation areas. Development objectives are
ufl.edu addressed by integration with existing or proposed policy instruments for transfer of ‘green’ technologies and payments for
carbon sequestration based on the principles of additionality or avoided deleterious land conversion.
3
Dr. Kiran C. Patel
Center for Global
Solutions, University of
South Florida, 4202 East Introduction protection (Brooks et al. 2006), false assumptions about
Fowler Avenue - SOC Successful integration of conservation and economic homogeneity of stakeholder communities (Brown 2002),
102, Tampa, FL 33620, development into a synergistic framework has emerged incomplete models, insufficient data, corruption and lack of
Email: tcrisman@cas.
usf.edu as a central objective in interdisciplinary conservation strong institutions to enforce regulations (Damania & Hatch
biology. This paradigm developed following realization that 2004; Ferraro 2001), non-recognition of local people’s
approaches focusing on single goals to the exclusion of others property and use rights (Harris 2005; Ferraro 2001), and
have frequently yielded suboptimal results despite significant barriers to international technology transfers limiting
capital investment. As detailed by Holt (2005) and Brown dispersal of resource-efficient technology to industrializing
(2002), lack of consideration for local peoples’ resource needs nations (Gallagher 2006). For the foreseeable future,
and land use practices in design and management of protected conservation projects will continue to be most successful
areas, in some cases to the point of total exclusion or forced when designed site-specific, taking local ecological and
resettlement, inevitably results in high rates of noncompliance, socioeconomic complexity into full account, as both have
creating conflicts and undermining conservation objectives. dynamic, emergent properties that cannot be fully predicted
The flip side of the coin is resource exploitation-based using strictly reductionist approaches.
development in the absence of conservation planning, which,
Accelerating climatic change underlines the urgent need
given high population pressure in much of the developing
for sustainable development and successful conservation
world, tends to result in rapid environmental degradation
measures. It also forces changes to their implementation,
and a multitude of socioeconomic impacts ranging from
as conventional approaches may no longer yield positive
increased income disparity to loss of traditional culture and
outcomes under rapidly changing climatic conditions
identity. Integrated views of conservation and development
(Harris et al. 2006). Ecosystem management, because of
seek to ameliorate these issues through participation of local
its intrinsic properties and dynamics, is a complex mix
stakeholders and encouraging conservation through sustainable
of science and policy practiced by unevenly participating
use while minimizing exclusionary eco-protectionism (Holt
stakeholders within institutions that may, in many cases,
2005; Brown 2002).
be ill-prepared for the added complexity and uncertainty
Experience has shown that this integration process is not introduced by climate change. Ecology, socioeconomics,
straightforward. Not only have long-standing incongruities technological development and political realities, themselves
among theoretical frameworks guiding research and actors responding dynamically and at times unpredictably
management in natural, social and economic sciences proven to climate change, are becoming increasingly complex and
difficult to overcome, but, more significantly, approaches intertwined as they shape future conservation outcomes.
successful in one geographic location often fail in others. Adapting to these developments requires multidisciplinary
Complicating factors include, but are not limited to, difficulty cooperation and interdisciplinary thinking, backed by
quantifying the true economic value of ecosystem goods and appropriate funding for research and monitoring needs, to
services (Azqueta & Delacámara 2006; Turner et al. 2003; build on the principles outlined in this introduction and
Wilson & Carpenter 1999; Edwards & Abivardi 1998), find solutions to highlighted problems if devastating future
difficulty identifying and delineating areas most deserving scenarios are to be avoided.

106 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
Anticipated Climate Change Impacts in the
21st Century
Background
Global climate change is universally acknowledged as a
significant environmental concern (Oreskes 2004). According
to the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[IPCC] assessment report, mean global temperatures increased
by 0.74°±0.2°C during the past 100 years, recently increasing at
0.2°C per decade (IPCC 2007a). By 2100, emission scenarios
project CO2 concentrations at 1.9 to 3.5 times of pre-industrial
values, contributing to an additional mean global temperature
increase of 1.8° to 4.0°C relative to the 1980-1999 average (IPCC
2007a). Warming exceeding 2° to 2.5°C relative to preindustrial
times is considered ‘dangerous’, potentially triggering positive
feedback mechanisms that cannot be reversed within centuries
and will produce deleterious impacts at all levels of biological
organization (Lenton et al. 2008; Bierbaum & Raven 2007;
IPCC 2007b).
Climate change is not limited to temperature change alone,
but includes changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation
patterns, altered precipitation regimes, increased frequency
of extreme weather events, ocean acidification and sea
level rise. Regional impacts are diverse, although trends of
more warming over land than oceans, and at high latitudes,
particularly in the northern hemisphere, are discernible
(IPCC 2007a; IPCC 2007b). These effects are accompanied
by substantial existing anthropogenic resilience-depressing
stresses (McCarty 2001), including land transformation,
unsustainable resource extraction, hydrological manipulation,
habitat fragmentation and nutrient enrichment.
Since the late 1990s, socioeconomic and political changes
have been initiated by some international organizations and
individual nations to establish a policy foundation to manage,
mitigate and adapt to climate change (European Commission
2008; Pew Center on Global Climate Change 2006; European
Parliament & Council of the European Union 2003; UNFCCC
1998). While there has been moderate progress in reducing
domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by some Kyoto
protocol signatories (UNFCCC 2007a), global emissions
continue to grow at an increasing rate (Canadell et al. 2007;
Raupach et al. 2007). Many nations with significant emissions,
including the United States, China and India, have either not
ratified the Kyoto protocol or are not bound to mandatory
cuts. While it is accepted that G8 nations have historically
been responsible for an overwhelming share, on both total
and per capita bases, approximately 25% of annual carbon
dioxide emissions is caused by land use change such as
deforestation (IPCC 2007a), predominantly in the developing
world. Given the limited impact of the Kyoto protocol and
contentious ongoing debate about its post-2012 successor,
it appears increasingly unlikely that policy initiatives will
achieve necessary emission reductions of ca. 70% within
a few decades to stabilize mean global temperatures at
2-2.5°C above pre-industrial conditions (Friedlingstein 2008;
Bierbaum & Raven 2007).
B I O D I V E R S I
Delineation of likely ecological and socioeconomic impacts
under various scenarios of climate change has emerged as
a central research priority. Since climate change exhibits
substantial spatial and temporal complexity, analysis at
regional scales is required for risk assessment informing
conservation and mitigation efforts. Yet, general circulation
models (GCMs), despite their increasing complexity,
remain insufficient to characterize small and irregularly-
shaped landmasses, heterogeneous land cover and small-
scale circulation processes adequately. Regional climate
models (RCMs) and various downscaling methodologies are
beginning to address this information gap. However, while
models can assist in evaluating potential consequences of
various scenarios of climate change, a number of research
articles have highlighted important limitations to the ability
to fully predict future climates and ecological systems due to
their inherently uncertain or chaotic properties (Beninca et
al. 2008; Lenton et al. 2008; Roe & Baker 2007). On local
to regional scales – those most applicable to conservation
management - factors indirectly or completely unrelated to
global processes such as land use change become increasingly
important in shaping climate (Pielke Sr. et al. 2002). For these
reasons, prescriptive, site-specific bioclimate forecasts are
unlikely to ever be produced, highlighting the importance of
accepting and managing for uncertainty as a key element of
climate change ecology.
Ecological Effects
Climate directly controls or affects many ecological and
biological processes, including nutrient cycling, onset and
duration of the growing season, timing of reproduction,
environmental sex determination, animal behavior, and body
size in some taxa (Parmesan and Galbraith 2004; Walther et
al. 2002). Sustained temperature and precipitation deviations
beyond historical variability force climate-sensitive species
to adjust phenology, exhibit phenotypic plasticity and/or shift
habitat ranges to maintain suitable conditions for survival.
Numerous studies have established observational evidence
that such responses are already occurring in many taxa (IPCC
2007b; Parmesan 2006; Parmesan & Galbraith 2004; Parmesan
& Yohe 2003). The number of on-the-ground observations of
ongoing impacts has increased greatly during the past decade,
but their spatial distribution is highly heterogeneous. Of
nearly 29,000 long-term observational data series examined
by the IPCC that showed significant biological changes, 98%
were collected in Europe, with only two documented impacts
in Africa (Nature Editors 2007; IPCC 2007b). 90% of these
observed changes are consistent with expectations for a
warming world (IPCC 2007b).
Because tolerances and the speed and ability to migrate vary
between species, non-synchronous responses are expected
to occur as climate change accelerates, altering symbiotic
interactions such that extant communities and trophic webs
become progressively uncoupled (Williams & Jackson
2007; Hannah et al. 2002b; Walther et al. 2002). Projected
implications include reduced carbon uptake by terrestrial
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 107
ecosystems, increased extinction risk for up to 30% of plant
and animal species, and major reorganization of ecosystem
structure and function, potentially severely disrupting
provision of goods and services with cascading socioeconomic
effects (IPCC 2007a, IPCC 2007b).
Evolutionary responses are likely limited to adaptation via
phenotypic plasticity for long-lived species, whereas those
with rapid generation times respond via natural selection,
favoring dispersal ability and adaptations beneficial under
altered local conditions (Pearson & Dawson 2003). Similar
processes occurred following the last glacial maximum,
albeit over several thousand years, requiring slower rates
of dispersal. There is no evidence for changes in climatic
tolerances of species via evolutionary mechanisms (Petit et
al. 2008; Parmesan 2006).
Projecting structure and function of future ecosystems is
subject to considerable uncertainty, since models of imperfectly
known systems incorporate assumptions, parameterizations
and inevitably exclude some variables from consideration.
Bioclimate envelope models are commonly used to produce
initial assessments of potential future species range shifts over
large spatial scales, although they have inherent limitations
of their own. Discussing these is beyond the scope of this
paper, but they are addressed in detail by Pearson & Dawson
(2003). Bioclimate envelope shifts of dozens to hundreds
of kilometers are not uncommon in projections, potentially
resulting in species of conservation concern adjusting their
habitats beyond borders of protected areas established to
preserve them (Hannah et al. 2002a).
Successful habitat adjustment is further constrained by
anthropogenic barriers, as well as resource availability and
community dynamics in the new geographic range (Walther
et al. 2002). These combined effects may ultimately produce
unique communities consisting of species not co-existing
currently. Williams & Jackson (2007) suggest that novel
climate regimes are expected to develop throughout the
tropics and subtropics, including areas considered biodiversity
hotspots. Attempting to project future ecological organization
in climates without present analogs is fraught with additional
uncertainty due to the extrapolative nature of such projections
(Williams & Jackson 2007).
Socioeconomic Effects
The total cost of unmitigated climate change as direct human
impacts and indirect impacts resulting from the disruption of
ecosystem services has been estimated to reach up to 20%
of the global gross domestic product by 2100, implying that
the cost of inaction vastly exceeds that of comprehensive
mitigation (Stern 2007). Direct socioeconomic impacts are
caused by limitations of human physiology to withstand
weather extremes, and displacement as a result of sea level rise,
glacial outburst floods and other climate-linked processes. If
projections are correct, tragic events such as the European heat
waves of 2003 and 2006 will recur at higher frequencies and
intensities (IPCC 2007a). Implications for tropical cyclone
108 T R O P I C A L C
frequency and intensity are still subject to considerable
debate, with published research yielding conflicting results
about the relative contributions of increasing sea surface
temperatures and wind shear in the Atlantic Ocean (Saunders
& Lea 2008; IPCC 2007a; Vecchi & Soden 2007). There is
a need to prepare for potentially tens of millions of ‘climate
change refugees’ expected to be displaced from their homes
(Bierbaum & Raven 2007) as a result of climate-change
related impacts, most significantly flooding of densely settled
coastal areas and inundation of low-elevation island nations
due to sea level rise.
Indirect effects are imposed by changes in ecosystem structure
and function, and will be particularly hard-felt by people
dependent on ecosystem goods and services for provision of
food, water and other essential resources. Spread of disease
vectors affecting humans and their food crops is an added
concern. Impacts on food production will be regionally and
temporally heterogeneous, as multiple variables ranging from
carbon fertilization to altered water budgets interact to boost
or depress yields. In general, low-latitude agrosystems are
projected to be among the first to experience adverse impacts
(IPCC 2007b), potentially forcing rural people to increase
use or conversion of land to compensate for loss of income
and sustenance. The 4th assessment report of IPCC Working
Group II describes scenarios including increased drought and
flash flood risk in currently semi-arid to arid areas, altered
volume glacial melt that is a major source of drinking water
in many parts of the world, major losses of coastal ecosystems
and infrastructure due to increased erosion, flooding and salt
water intrusion, and a variety of human health impacts (IPCC
2007b). Generally, these consequences will be more acute
in developing countries due to lower adaptive capacity, with
Africa likely the most adversely affected continent.
The Sahel and other transitional ecosystems have been
subjected to climatic change for decades, mostly via
altered precipitation regimes associated with progressive
desertification. Giles (2007) noted that local adaptation to
these processes remains poorly studied, but evidence suggests
that many communities have proven surprisingly resilient.
Changing agricultural practices and a focus on collective
production, allowing for diversification and risk sharing,
have occurred. While it is impossible to generalize from these
isolated studies, they suggest that adaptation is possible even
in the absence of a modern technological base. The question
remains as to how much additional change can be absorbed
by local ingenuity without further deterioration of already
marginal living conditions.
Implications for Conservation
and Development
Current strategies for minimizing climate change impacts on
biota and human populations fall into the broad categories
of mitigation (reducing and sequestering emissions) and
adaptation (infrastructure upgrades, climate change-integrated
conservation strategies) (Bierbaum & Raven 2007; Hannah
et al. 2002a). Both go hand-in-hand within the general
O N S E R V A N C Y
framework of conservation and development and present
opportunities for synergies. Ultimately, success of future
biodiversity conservation endeavors hinge on: (1) minimizing
the magnitude of additional climate change, (2) developing
and applying climate change-integrated conservation and
development strategies, and (3) taking advantage of funds
available through carbon markets to reach conservation
objectives.
Climate change-integrated
conservation strategies
According to Folke (2006), “a major shift in perspective is
currently taking place with an emphasis on complex adaptive
systems characterized by nonlinear relations, path dependency,
thresholds, regime shifts, and multiple basins of attraction.
[…] Conservation thinking needs to move away from steady
state solutions to accept that change is the rule rather than the
exception”. Climate change-integrated conservation strategies
build upon these principles, with resilience management
and adaptive management at multiple spatial and temporal
scales being central elements. As pointed out by Harris et
al. (2006) and others, not all classic conservation biology
wisdom will still apply as global warming accelerates,
requiring a comprehensive re-evaluation of traditional
conservation practices. The inappropriateness of continuing
to utilize historical benchmarks as restoration targets, and
species conservation efforts in static preserves that may
soon experience abiotic conditions falling outside the target
organisms’ tolerance, are just two examples. Identifying and
embracing concepts and methodologies in need of change
will be a key challenge for conservationists. Opportunities
for synergistic management exist that simultaneously seek to
achieve traditional conservation and climate change-proofing
objectives by alleviating stresses, maximizing functional
redundancy, and increasing connectivity between conservation
areas. Increasing local genetic diversity by facilitating
reproduction among specimens from distal portions of their
natural range could be utilized to maximize the adaptive
potential of protected species (Harris et al. 2006).
The rapid rate of projected climate change may exceed the
ability of some species to keep up with shifting climate
zones (Petit et al. 2008). This has given rise to a debate
among conservation scientists about the merits of creation
of migration corridors and assisted migration (also known
as assisted colonization) (Hunter 2007; Mclachlan et al.
2007). Where economic and geopolitical realities preclude
creating new protected lands along leading edges of shifting
bioclimatic envelopes, and for species whose bioclimatic
envelopes are projected to collapse entirely, attempts may
focus on delaying responses to preserve the status quo in
protected areas for as long as possible via strategic human
intervention to boost resilience. Such measures could
conceivably incorporate disease control, removal of invasive
species and assisted propagation as well as techniques learned
from management of non-native specimens in zoological and
botanical gardens.
B I O D I V E R S I
Generally, vulnerability increases in systems subject to other
stresses that depress overall resilience and adaptive capacity
(IPCC 2007b), a condition sometimes referred to as “general
stress syndrome” (Western 2006). This may be particularly
applicable to coastal systems, such as salt marshes, mangrove
swamps and dune communities as they tend to be squeezed
between the figurative rock and a hard place, comprised of
rising seas and ever-expanding human settlements that fringe
many of the world’s coastlines with few opportunities for
migration or adaptation. Similar scenarios apply to montane
and polar environments.
As previously discussed, models are an important tool to evaluate
potential impacts under scenarios of climate change and to
assist in formulating risk assessments to inform management,
but they cannot predict the precise timing and consequences
of climatic and biotic threshold events, many of which will
come as a ‘surprise’, unanticipated until they occur. For this
reason, robust adaptive management frameworks need to be
implemented that are capable of responding to unanticipated
events and adapting to new types of ecological communities
lacking current analogs. This necessitates development of
temporally nested management schemes that retain current
3-5 year planning intervals while also incorporating long-
term, multi-decadal visions under a variety of impact scenarios
(Hannah et al. 2002a). Monitoring will contribute greatly to
success, providing data necessary to critically evaluate the
adequacy of the planning framework in regular intervals,
while also providing opportunities for model validation
and refinement. Experiments, both in controlled laboratory
environments and in the field, augment the toolbox of adaptive
management by providing data points on how representative
sample plots, functional groups or individual species may
respond to altered environmental conditions in the future.
Spatially hierarchical organization is also important.
Ideally, management should be global in extent, local in
implementation, and regionally coordinated. The regional
nexus is an indispensible component, as traditional top-down
and bottom-up approaches tend to lose focus at the far end
of their scalar spectra, creating issues of noncompliance and
free-ridership, respectively. Regional coordination is also best-
suited for landscape-scale management of the matrix between
conservation lands and other ‘pristine’ areas, which is crucial
to allow species to migrate as they adjust their ranges (Hannah
et al. 2002a, Hannah et al. 2002b). Finally, the regional nexus
allows for economies of scale in monitoring and modeling by
sharing resources.
Technology transfer and market mechanisms
in support of biodiversity conservation
Even the best possible conservation management and climate
change adaptation efforts cannot succeed without funding and
successful mitigation to limit accumulation of atmospheric
greenhouse gases to manageable levels. The remainder of this
paper therefore transcends disciplinary boundaries to assume
a more holistic perspective by highlighting a selection of
evolving incentives promoting technology transfers, carbon
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 109
trading mechanisms and conservation funding opportunities,
illustrated by pending implementation of the concept of REDD
(Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation).
In countries with high adaptive capacity, technological
innovation is a central part of climate change mitigation
efforts. In Germany, large-scale deployment of renewable
energy generation has contributed to reducing national CO2
emissions by approximately 18.4% between 1990 and 2005
(UNFCCC 2007b). Carbon capture and storage (CCS) from
large point sources is a potential, yet technologically complex
‘fix’ that is advocated as an attractive contribution to climate
change mitigation, although it substantially decreases the
efficiency of power plants utilizing this technology (IPCC
2005). This may have conservation implications by increasing
demand for fuels, including mining of fossil sources and
biomass. There are numerous other technological options in
development and currently available that could contribute
to stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations if
widely adopted. This process is slowed in part by a lack of
accounting for the true cost of carbon emissions, essentially
subsidizing fossil fuel-intensive industries by allowing them
to externalize those costs. More significant for developing
countries, economic and capacity limitations as well as
barriers to technology transfers (Gallagher 2006), pose severe
limitations to deployment of low-carbon technologies in parts
of the world where emissions are rising most rapidly. Removing
these barriers and providing incentives via instruments like
the Climate Change Adaptation Fund (Zahabu et al. 2007) to
assist in capacity building are short-term necessities to reduce
new construction of long-lived, inefficient infrastructure such
as coal-fired power plants.
The question of economic incentives holds - as a general
premise - the notion that it is advantageous, both for biodiversity
conservation and economic development purposes, to create a
market for GHG emissions. There are broad options for such
mechanisms from ensuring that desirable clean or alternative
technologies be developed, to the creation of disincentives by
taxing emissions.
Debatable as it may be, an argument can be made that a market
assigns ‘values’ in such a way that supply/ demand situations
develop. This implies, for the CO2 case, that once society
becomes aware of the perils of emissions and the benefits of
emitting less, capturing or storing carbon gasses, economic
transactions reflecting such values will follow. Inherent to this
concept is the idea of emission ‘offsets’; that is, individuals
or corporations can offset emissions by paying for them in
some way. An institution – normally an international body or
a sovereign state - sets a limit (cap) on the amount of CO2 that
can be emitted; various companies are issued emission permits
that allow them to emit specific amounts. For example, the
European Union (EU) set up a National Allocation Plan in
2001 with emission caps for each member state. Then each
state put an emission cap on each major company at a level
that would preclude the company’s emissions to increase
without penalty. This is the major difference and the core of
110 T R O P I C A L C
the mechanism: any company needing to emit more will have
an incentive to either invest in carbon credits or look for new
technologies that will result in mitigation of emissions. To
meet this demand, countries or companies will be searching to
provide offset capabilities via lessening emissions or actually
looking for new ways to capture or store carbon. The National
Allocation Plan was applied in the form of European Union
Allowances (EUAs) to 12,000 companies which account
for over half of all the CO2 emitted in the EU. The United
States does not possess such a mandatory scheme, but the
voluntary Chicago Climate Exchange is a sister company of
the European Climate Exchange and is in a position to trade
emission allowances if and when the United States government
should adopt a similar system (Asplund 2008).
The main thrust of these market initiatives is the expectation
that companies will lower emissions. A signal is being sent to
markets everywhere that there may be advantages to investment
in both innovation and carbon abatement. The trading segment
of the EU’s cap-and-trade system is the European Union
Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) – companies can buy and
sell EUAs among themselves, or they can buy or sell in the
cash market. In 2007, US$ 50 billion, almost entirely in EU
ETS allowances, were traded, almost double that of 2006
(Capoor & Ambrosi 2008), involving more than 2 billion tons
of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e). The absolute number is not as
important as the observed growth. It must be kept in mind that
the EU-ETS underwent a successful trial period in 2005-2007
to provide experience for a cap-and-trade system to be enacted
during 2008-2012 (Ellerman & Joskow 2008).
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) arrangement
under Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol allows industrialized
countries to invest in projects that reduce emissions in
developing countries to receive credits. CDMs today account
for most project-based transactions, with values tripling in
2007 over 2006 to US$ 7.4 billion. 68 countries offered to
reduce 2,500 MtCO2e via 3,000 mostly clean energy projects.
In contrast, voluntary markets that support mitigation
activities not mandated by policies effected only 42 MtCO2e
of reductions in 2007 (Capoor & Ambrosi 2008; Wara 2007).
As Laurance (2007) explained, “protecting an endangered
forest in Madagascar might have the same net benefit, from
a carbon-emissions perspective, as improving the efficiency
of a coal-fired generating plant in Ohio. A transaction like
this could have three important benefits: GHGs are reduced,
a biologically important forest is protected, and Madagascar
gains direly needed foreign revenues.” This example, even
if clarifying advantages of such schemes, also underlines
some of the difficulties in making these widely viable and
operational: difficulties that arise in emission measurements, in
conservation effectiveness (e.g. how to define a deforestation
‘baseline’), and in monitoring dynamics of investments in
carbon funds.
Further questions remain, especially regarding the
administration of the markets, the avoidance of speculation
and making the projects work to full capacity. According
O N S E R V A N C Y
to Wara (2007), “what matters in the long term is the type
of energy infrastructure that gets locked into place in the
world economy”. Furthermore, from the larger viewpoint
of biodiversity concerns, it is clear that market mechanisms
should be only one part of a more comprehensive strategy
that should also rethink protected area design, habitat
improvements, and dispersal corridors (Rahel et al. 2008).
Since monitoring changes that are bound to be accelerating
over the next decades and beyond will require increased
funding at the international and regional levels, utilization of
funds generated by market payments for mitigation projects,
particularly those with biodiversity benefits, are an attractive
option to expand on existing conservation funding schemes.
Case example: Realizing conservation
objectives via synergies with REDD
Since anthropogenic GHGs are well-mixed in the atmosphere,
mitigation has global applicability, meaning that sequestration
does not have to occur proximal to emission sources. To date,
credit for biomass sequestration is limited to afforestation
and reforestation projects under the CDM, whereas efforts
to reduce emissions via implementation of improved forest
management and reduced deforestation are not currently
credited (Zahabu et al. 2007). Efforts are underway to change
this by incorporating REDD into the follow-up to the Kyoto
protocol that is expected to be drafted by December 2009 and
take effect, pending ratification, by 2012. Many developing
nations have extensive forest cover experiencing rapid rates
of deforestation and degradation to accommodate rapidly
growing populations and global resource demand. REDD
promises to provide funds to reverse these trends by assigning a
direct, creditable market value to carbon sequestration services
provided by forests. Globally, $1.2 billion to $10 billion have
been cited as becoming available for forest protection (Miles
& Kapos 2008). Zahabu et al. (2007) describe a scenario for
implementation of REDD in Tanzania, whereby up to $119 per
average rural household ($630 million total) could be gained
annually by halting deforestation. Reducing deforestation also
slows regional climatic changes that would otherwise occur
via alteration of albedo and hydrologic cycles. Deforestation
in Amazonia, for instance, creates warmer, drier climates that
decrease evaporative cooling and increase both susceptibility
to fires and forest dieback, initiating a positive feedback loop
(Bonan 2008). Without intervention, critical thresholds may
be exceeded to initiate conversion to alternate biomes such as
savannahs, which would irrevocably result in mass extinctions
of forest fauna and flora (Lenton et al. 2008).
Most REDD proposals target trading among nations rather than
companies or individuals (Miles & Kapos 2008). To what extent
funds would be used and re-distributed would be left to each
government. However, because implementation would occur
at the site-scale, landowning individuals and communities will
be in a strong position to contribute to sequestration efforts,
allowing them to negotiate with governments to maximize
economic payments for maintaining or expanding land cover
compatible with sequestration if empowered by property or
B I O D I V E R S I
use rights, fulfilling the criteria of integrated conservation
and development discussed in the introduction to this paper.
This will be most effective for collective efforts, whereby
intracommunal competition is reduced, risks are shared,
and better negotiating positions achieved, as governments
will be keen to minimize transaction and monitoring costs
by avoiding contracts with individual smallholders (Grieg-
Gran et al. 2005). While governance challenges will have to
be overcome in many countries to build administrative and
enforcement capacity, a model framework already exists in
Tanzania through village forest reserves, which experience less
degradation from illegal resource extraction than traditional
public reserves (Zahabu et al. 2007). As suggested by Koenig
(2008), forest tracts may alternatively be leased from the
government by rural communities, which receive payments for
avoided deforestation or degradation, based on the principle
of additionality relative to a pre-determined baseline, in
return. This income replaces lost logging revenues and allows
purchase of resources traditionally extracted from forests if
such extraction would compromise sequestration objectives.
Many forest uses, including limited harvest of timber and
biomass, are compatible with climate change mitigation and
can be integrated with sustainable stand management. Lease
payments would cover government administrative costs and
allow for monitoring to ensure that sequestration objectives are,
in fact, met. Such an implementation scheme would provide
the type of direct market integration for non-consumptive or
low-impact use that has been so difficult to achieve.
Re- and afforestation projects established via the CDM
framework complement primary forests protected under
REDD by creating second-growth forests and plantations that,
while less diverse than comparable old-growth plots, increase
habitat connectivity and decrease fragmentation (Stokstad
2008). Therefore, development of carbon trading schemes
that incorporate biomass sequestration and appropriate
monitoring and enforcement mechanisms are the single most
important steps towards integrating rural communities in the
climate change adaptation and mitigation process.
Conservation objectives may not always coincide with forest
plots assigned the highest priority through REDD, which
is strictly based on carbon stocks and does not take other
environmental services into account. Many conservation
projects do not target forests at all. However, REDD funds
may release conservation funding currently tied up in
high-carbon, old-growth forests to be re-assigned to boost
protection of non-forested areas that may be at increased risk
for conversion and degradation as ranching and agricultural
crop production is displaced from forests elsewhere (Miles
& Kapos 2008), or from direct impacts of climate change. It
is in this sense that the market integration REDD promises
to generate opportunities that reach far beyond forests alone,
but allow climate change-integrated conservation strategies
to be more widely employed to boost resilience of many
of the most vulnerable ecosystems to avert or delay the
most devastating impacts of climate change. Conservation
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 111
organizations should be prepared for the consequences of
REDD implementation and identify at-risk areas in need of
investment while following through by developing capacity
for adaptive, regionally-coordinated management with a focus
on resilience management and long-term monitoring.
Conclusions
Climate change presents a formidable challenge to biodiversity
conservation, requiring substantial revisions to existing
methodologies while also creating new opportunities for
success. A central challenge for conservation managers is to
ensure a continued supply of ecosystem services while facing
substantial structural adjustments. Additional objectives
include minimization of biodiversity losses, facilitation of
migration by increasing habitat connectivity or partaking in
assisted migration where appropriate, minimization of non-
climate related stress to increase resilience, and fostering
adaptation by increasing local genetic diversity, among
others. Realization of these objectives requires climate
change-integrated conservation strategies based on principles
of adaptive management within a long-term visioning
framework, supported by extensive monitoring and modeling
efforts. Of crucial importance is development of market
mechanisms that account for the true cost of carbon emissions,
while simultaneously creating funds for mitigation and
adaptation efforts that are in many cases directly compatible
with conservation objectives or, alternatively, free up funding
for conservation targets unsuitable for carbon sequestration.
International cooperation to facilitate technology transfer and
reduce free-ridership, empowerment of local communities to
allow conservation-friendly development via payments for
carbon sequestration, and regional coordination to monitor
local compliance and ensure matrix management are important
short-term goals to form a basis for success. There is no doubt
that implementing these measures will be difficult, but that
does not diminish their necessity. Climate change is a present
reality, and no conservation organization can afford to ignore
this fact if long-term success is to be achieved.
References
Asplund, R.W. 2008. Profiting from Clean Energy. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. USA
Azqueta, D. and G. Delacámara. 2006. Ethics, Economics and
Environmental Management. Ecological Economics 56: 524-533.
Beninca, E., J. Huisman, R. Heerkloss., K.D. Johnk, P. Branco, E.H.
Van Nes, M. Sheffer, and S.P. Ellner. 2008. Chaos in a Long-term
Experiment with a Plankton Community Nature 451: 822-825.
Bierbaum, R.M. and P.H. Raven. 2007. A Two-Pronged Climate Strategy.
Science 316: 17.
Bonan, G.B. 2008. Forests and Climate Change: Forcings, Feedbacks, and
the Climate Benefits of Forests. Science 320: 1444-1449.
Brooks, T.M., R.A. Mittermeier, G.A.B de Fonseca, J. Gerlach, M.
Hoffmann, J.F. Lamoreux, C.G. Mittermeier, J.D. Pilgrim & A.S.L.
Rodrigues. 2006. Global Biodiversity Conservation Priorities. Science
313: 58-61.
Brown, K. 2002. Innovations for Conservation and Development.
Geographical Journal 168 (1): 6–17.
Canadell, J.G., C. Le Quere, M.R. Raupach, C.B. Field, E.T. Buitenhuis,
P. Ciais, T.J. Conway, N.P. Gillett, R.A. Houghton, and G. Marland.
2007. Contributions to Accelerating Atmospheric CO2 Growth from
Economic Activity, Carbon Intensity, and Efficiency of Natural Sinks.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(47): 18866-
18870.
Capoor, K., and P. Ambrosi. 2008. State and Trends of the Carbon Market
112 T R O P I C A L C
2008. Washington D.C.: World Bank Institute.
Damania, R. and J. Hatch. 2004. Protecting Eden: Markets or Government.
Ecological Economics 53: 339-351.
Doniger, D.D., A.V. Herzog, and D.A. Lashoff. 2006. An Ambitious,
Centrist Approach to Global Warming Legislation. Science 314: 764-
765.
Edwards, P.J. and C. Abivardi. 1998. The Value of Biodiversity: Where
Ecology and Economy Blend. Biological Conservation 83(3): 239-246.
Ellerman, A.D. and P.L. Joskow. 2008. The European Union’s Emissions
Trading System in Perspective. Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
European Commission. 2008. 20 20 by 2020: Europe’s Climate Change
Opportunity. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0030:FIN:EN:PDF.
European Parliament & Council of the European Union. 2003.
Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
13 October 2003: Establishing a Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Emission
Allowance Trading within the Community and Amending Council
Directive 96/61/EC.
Ferraro, P.J. 2001. Global Habitat Protection: Limitations of Development
Interventions and a Role for Conservation Performance Payments.
Conservation Biology 15(4): 990-1000.
Folke, C. 2006. The economic perspective: conservation against
development versus conservation for development. Conservation
Biology 20(3): 686-688.
Friedlingstein, P. 2008. A Steep Road to Climate Stabilization, Nature
451: 297-298.
Gallagher, K.S. 2006. Limits to Leapfrogging in Energy Technologies?
Evidence from the Chinese Automobile Industry. Energy Policy 34:
383-394.
Giles, J. 2007. Climate Change 2007: How to Survive a Warming World.
Nature 446: 716-717.
Grieg-Gran, M.A., I. Porras, and S. Wunder. 2005. How Can Market
Mechanisms for Forest Environmental Services Help the Poor?
Preliminary Lessons from Latin America. World Development 33(9):
1511-1527
Hannah, L., G.F. Midgley, T. Lovejoy, W.J. Bond, M. Bush, J.C. Lovett,
D. Scott, and F.I. Woodward. 2002a. Conservation of Biodiversity in a
Changing Climate. Conservation Biology 16(1): 264-268.
Hannah, L., G.F. Midgley, and D. Millar. 2002b. Climate Change-
integrated Conservation Strategies. Global Ecology and Biogeography
11(6): 485-495.
Harris, J.A., R.J. Hobbs, E. Higgs, and J. Aronson. 2006. Ecological
Restoration and Global Climate Change. Restoration Ecology 14(2):
170-176.
Harris, M. 2005. Nature Makes them Lazy: Contested Perceptions of
Place and Knowledge in the Lower Amazonian Floodplain of Brazil.
Conservation and Society 3(2): 461-478.
Holt, F.L. 2005. The Catch-22 of Conservation: Indigenous Peoples,
Biologists, and Cultural Change. Human Ecology 33(2): 199-215.
Hunter, M.L. 2007. Climate Change and Moving Species: Furthering the
Debate on Assisted Colonization. Conservation Biology 21(5): 1356-
1358.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2005. Carbon
Dioxide Capture and Storage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
IPCC. 2007a. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. 2007b. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Koenig, R. 2008. Critical Time for African Rainforests. Science 320: 1439-
1441.
Laurance, W.F. 2007. A New Initiative to Use Carbon Trading for Tropical
Forest Conservation. Biotropica 39: 20-24.
Lenton, T. M., H. Held, E. Kriegler, J.W. Hall, W. Lucht, S. Rahmstorf,
and H.J. Schellnhuber. 2008. Tipping Elements in the Earth’s Climate
System. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 1786-
1793.
McCarty, J.P. 2001. Ecological Consequences of Climate Change.
Conservation Biology 15(2): 320-331.
Mclachlan, J.S., J.J. Hellman, and M.W. Schwartz. 2007. A Framework
for Debate of Assisted Migration in an Era of Climate Change.
Conservation Biology 21(2): 297-302.
Miles, L., and V. Kapos. 2008. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation: Global Land-Use Implications.
Science 320: 1454-1455.
Nature Editors. 2007. Climate Change, Here and Now. Nature 446: 701.
Oreskes, N. 2004. Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on
Climate Change. Science 306: 1686.
O N S E R V A N C Y
Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent
Climate Change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics
37: 637-69.
Parmesan, C. and H. Galbraith. 2004. Observed Impacts of Global
Climate Change in the US. Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Retrieved June 27, 2008 from http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/
final%5FObsImpact.pdf.
Parmesan, C., and G. Yohe. 2003. A Globally Coherent Fingerprint of
Climate Change Impacts Across Natural Systems. Nature 421: 37-42.
Pearson, R.G., and T.P. Dawson. 2003. Predicting the Impacts of Climate
Change on the Distribution of Species: Are Bioclimate Envelope Models
Useful? Global Ecology and Biogeography 12(5): 361-371.
Petit, R.J., F.S. Hu, and C.W. Dick. 2008. Forests of the Past: A Window
to Future Changes. Science, 320: 1450-1452.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2006. Climate Change 101:
Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change. Retrieved
April 10, 2008, from http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/
Climate101-FULL_121406_065519.pdf.
Pielke Sr., R.A., G. Marland, R.A. Betts, T.N. Chase, J.L. Eastman, J.O.
Niles, D.d.S. Niyogi, and S.W. Running. 2002. The influence of land-
use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: relevance to
climate-change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A. 360: 1705-1719.
Rahel, F.J., B. Bierwagen, and Y. Taniguchi. 2008. Managing Aquatic
Species of Conservation Concern in the Face of Climate Change and
Invasive Species. Conservation Biology 22(3): 551-561.
Raupach, M.R., G. Marland, P. Ciais, C. Le Quere, J.G. Canadell,
G. Klepper, and C.B. Field. 2007. Global and Regional Drivers of
Accelerating CO2 Emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 104(24): 10288-10293.
Roe, G.H., and M.B. Baker. 2007. Why Is Climate Sensitivity So
Unpredictable? Science 318: 629-632.
Saunders, M.A., and A.S. Lea. 2008. Large Contribution of Sea Surface Warming
to Recent Increase in Atlantic Hurricane Activity. Nature 451: 557-560.
Stern, N. 2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stokstad, E. 2008. A Second Chance for Rainforest Biodiversity. Science
320: 1436-1438.
Turner, R.K., J. Paavola, P. Cooper, S. Farber, V. Jessamy, and S.
Georgiou. 2003. Valuing Nature: Lessons Learned and Future Research
Directions. Ecological Economics 46: 493-510.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
1998. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://unfccc.int/
resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html.
UNFCCC. 2007a. Compilation and Synthesis of Fourth National
Communications. Retrieved June 27, 2008, http://unfccc.int/resource/
docs/2007/sbi/eng/inf06.pdf.
UNFCCC. 2007b. GHG data from UNFCCC. Retrieved June 27, 2008,
http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/items/4146.php.
Vecchi, G.A., and B.J. Soden. 2007. Increased Tropical Atlantic Wind
Shear in Model Projections of Global Warming. Geophysical Research
Letters 34: L08702.
Walther, G.-R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T.J.C.
Beebee, J.-M. Fromentin, O. Hoegh-Guldenberg, and F. Bairlein.
2002. Ecological Responses to Recent Climate Change. Nature 416:
389-395.
Wara, T. 2007. Is the Global Carbon Market Working? Nature 445: 595-
596.
Western, D. 2006. Human-modified Ecosystems and Future Evolution.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(10): 5458-5465.
Williams, J.W., and S.T. Jackson. 2007. Novel Climates, No-analog
Communities, and Ecological Surprises. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 5(9): 475-482.
Wilson, M.A., and S.R. Carpenter. 1999. Economic Valuation of
Freshwater Ecosystems in the United States: 1971-1997. Ecological
Applications 9(3): 772-783.
Zahabu, E., M.M. Skutsch, H. Sosovele, and R.E. Malimbwi. 2007.
Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation. African
Journal of Ecology 45: 451-453.

The Canadian Museum of Nature:

Conserving Biodiversity on a Small Planet
The Canadian Museum of Nature not only boasts an impressive collection of more than 10 million
specimens, but is involved in many research and biodiversity initiatives worth supporting. CMN
researchers conduct leading systematics-based research in palaeontology, marine and freshwater
biology, Arctic flora, mineralogy, and more. Through the Museum’s Canadian Centre for Biodiversity
(CCB) and by overseeing the Biological Survey of Canada’s Terrestrial Arthropods component (insects,
spiders, etc.), the CMN documents biodiversity in Canada and shares this information with governmental
and non-governmental partners nation-wide.

The Rideau River Biodiversity Project (RRBP), which can be explored on-line at nature.ca/rideau,
examined the health and biodiversity of the Rideau River in Eastern Ontario and is a practical model
for other communities to study and conserve their local aquatic ecosystems. The CMN is now working
with key contacts to plan a similar project in Saskatchewan.

In addition to local and national initiatives, the CMN is involved in international collaborations, such
as serving on the International Advisory Board of the Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (INBio) in
Costa Rica. INBio’s work in documenting the country’s lush biodiversity is an important model for
other nations.

The CMN’s international efforts to promote biodiversity conservation is reaching remote communities
in Africa and Asia thanks to the work of the CCB. Using a “train the trainer” approach and offering
consultation and workshops, the CCB shares its expertise with professionals in these developing
countries to assist them in creating their own conservation programmes.

At its public exhibition site in Ottawa, the CMN educates students about biodiversity and other issues
through well-developed school programmes. Public programming brings the latest research on a
variety of nature topics up close and personal to varied audiences. And with nature.ca, the Museum’s
extensive Web site, Canada’s natural heritage is just a click of a mouse away.

Support this legacy. Consider making a donation, remembering the Museum in your will or estate plan,
or buying a membership. To find out how, call Lise Rochon at (613) 566-4203 or e-mail lrochon@
mus-nature.ca. For general information about the CMN’s programmes and activities, call (613) 566-
4700 or 1-800-263-4433.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 113
 Pervasive poleward shifts among North American bird species
A. Townsend Peterson1 and Enrique Martínez-Meyer2
Authors’ Addresses: Abstract. Climate change is expected to influence species’ geographic distributions in the form of poleward and upward
1
Natural History range expansion combined with extirpations from the equatorial and downslope sides of the distribution, but such shifts
Museum and observed to date have been relatively subtle. Such shifts would be driven by changing patterns of fitness under changing
Biodiversity Research conditions, producing population responses that would then be followed by range expansions and retractions. Here, we
Center, The University demonstrate pervasive population trends across the North American avifauna, reflected in the mean latitudinal position across
of Kansas, Lawrence, all individuals of each species, conservatively estimated as affecting nearly half of the species in the avifauna. This result
Kansas 66045 USA. appears to constitute an intermediate step that would likely translate into concrete range shifts in numerous species over
coming decades. We take this bellwether as a signal that climate change processes are affecting a significant proportion of
2
Instituto de Biología,
North American bird species, and that biodiversity conservation and protected areas planning and management strategies in
Universidad Nacional
the region will need reexamination and re-planning in light of likely population trends and range shifts.
Autónoma de México,
México, D.F. 04510
México. Introduction Hannah 2005). Several studies have documented shifts fitting
The reality of present-day climate change processes is in little these expectations (Holt 1990; Root et al. 2003; Lovejoy and
doubt, notwithstanding debates regarding human roles in Hannah 2005), suggesting that elements of biodiversity are
their causation (IPCC 2007): global temperatures are rising beginning to respond to warming climates (Parmesan 1996;
precipitously, patterns of precipitation are rearranging, and Visser et al. 1998; Parmesan et al. 1999; Chapin et al. 2000;
sea level is rising. Given that elements of biodiversity are Walther et al. 2002; Crozier 2003; Parmesan and Yohe 2003;
known to respond intimately to climate in terms of distribution Perfors et al. 2003; Huntley et al. 2007), but the ubiquity of
and phenology (Grinnell 1917, 1924; Brown and Lomolino these responses is unclear.
1998), these climatic changes have long been expected to
The process of manifesting these shifts, particularly in terms
translate into several predictable sets of distributional effects
of geographic distributions, can be conceptualized as a process
(poleward and upslope range expansions, equatorial-side and
of temporal differentials in fitness causing population swells
downslope retractions) (Dobson et al. 1989; Holt 1990; Visser
and lows in different portions of the geographic distribution,
et al. 1998; Crozier 2003; Perfors et al. 2003; Lovejoy and
followed by eventual extirpation of equatorial-side populations
and colonization of new areas along the poleward side of the
distribution (Fig. 1). Under this scheme, actual distributional
shifts would be the last signal of climate change effects on
species, and would not be detectable until late in the process,
but would be preceded by population shifts within the original
distributional area. Indeed, several analyses of distributional
shifts as a function of climate change have detected only subtle
distributional shifts (Parmesan 1996; Parmesan et al. 1999;
Cresswell and McCleery 2003; Crozier 2003; Parmesan and
Yohe 2003; Conti Nunes et al. 2007). In contrast, population
shifts have not been analyzed on continental scales—the
focus of this contribution—we show that numbers in about
half of North American bird species are swelling poleward
and declining on the equatorial sides of species’ distributional
areas, a trend that will eventually translate into real range
shifts.
Materials and Methods
Data for these analyses were obtained from the U.S. Breeding
Bird Survey (BBS), drawing on survey results from the entire
span of the survey (1966-present). We included only breeding
bird species, and eliminated nonnative species from all
analyses. We further reduced the working dataset by focusing
on only those species for which >5 occurrence localities
were available, so as to analyze only those species for which
Figure 1. Hypothesized process of climate change effects on species’ geographic distributions. Curved blue sampling was sufficient for assessment of trends.
lines summarize approximate abundance of the species; black dashed lines indicate range limits; arrows
indicate increases and decreases in fitness; and diamonds and X’s indicate colonizing populations and For each species in each year, we calculated the average
extirpated populations, respectively. (A) “Normal” condition; (B) intermediate stage, in which numbers
swell along poleward margin of species range, but reduce along equatorial margin; and (C) actual range latitude across all individuals as , where xij is the number of
shifts, consisting of poleward colonization, and equatorial-side extirpation. individuals of species i at site j, and Lj is the latitude of site j.

114 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
 Figure 2.
Example map of a species
(Common Poorwill,
Phalaenoptilus nuttallii),
showing strong northward
shifts in distribution over
the Breeding Bird Survey
sampling period: (top left)
distribution of individuals
of the species in 1980;
(top right) distribution of
individuals of the species
in 2004; (bottom) graph of
numbers of individuals of
the same species across all
sampling transects in the
BBS, showing individual
transects (small black
squares) and average
latitude (Lavg; large white
circles) through 1967-
2004. Circles on maps
indicate numbers of
individuals detected, with
successive sizes (small to
large) representing 1, 2, 3,
4-5, and 6-9 individuals
detected. The high 1967
Lavg value is based on only
3 occurrences detected
that year, as opposed to
much larger sample sizes in
succeeding years.

We then developed a simple linear regression for each species,
with Lavg as the dependent variable, and year as the independent
variable, taking probability values of <0.05 as statistically
significant. Finally, we were concerned that shifting patterns
of coverage in the BBS effort could be producing the shifts in
Lavg that were observed in initial analyses. As a consequence,
we restricted a second iteration of our analyses to only those
survey routes for which >20 yr of survey data were available,
and repeated the analyses described above. Clearly, however,
because numbers of routes are smaller in the 20-year data set,
fewer species meet the sample size requirements.
Results
Calculating the average latitude across all individuals tallied on
4726 U.S. Breeding Bird Survey (BBS 2006) routes in each year
during 1960-2006, we regressed average yearly latitude on year
to search for poleward population swells (Fig. 2; see methods
below and summary table in Supplementary Information). Of
572 species tested, 261 showed significant northward population
shifts, whereas only 74 showed significant southward population
shifts and 237 showed no significant shifts. The imbalance
between positive and negative shifts was statistically significantly
different from expectations (P < 10-15).
To guard against possible biases from historical shifts in
distribution of survey routes, we repeated the analysis over
1829 survey routes for which time series of >20 yr were
available, and results were similar: 180 species increasing
versus 33 species decreasing in average latitude, out of 378
species, with an associated probability of P < 10-14. Hence,
even controlling for potential bias resulting from uneven
spatial distribution of additions of routes to the BBS, the
poleward population swell is clear across almost half of North
American bird species. Results were similar when species were
divided into terrestrial (193 increasing and 59 decreasing in
latitude, out of 419 species) versus aquatic (34 increasing and
15 decreasing in latitude, out of 153 species), again indicating
the widespread nature of the population shifts.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 115
Discussion
The pervasive poleward population swells documented herein
among North American bird species have several important
implications for conservation. First, as can be appreciated in Fig.
1, population shifts will likely be followed by distributional shifts.
This situation will have myriad implications for conservation
efforts: presently well-situated reserves may no longer contain
populations of the species that they were designed to protect, and
discords among appropriate climate conditions and appropriate
land cover types may arise (Peters and Darling 1985; Lovejoy
and Hannah 2005). As such, we suggest serious reconsideration
of the configuration of both current and planned protected
natural areas to take into account ongoing climate change and the
likely future configuration of distributional areas (Papeş 2006;
Hannah et al. 2007)—clearly, this recommendation has serious
implications, but the frequency with which we have observed
species’ numbers shifting northward strongly suggests dramatic
range shifts in years to come.
More subtly, these results indicate the need for caution in
interpreting estimates of overall trends in species’ numbers,
which has become a popular means of summarizing results of
long-term monitoring data sets (Robbins et al. 1989; Butcher
and Niven 2007; Butcher et al. 2007). Certainly, given our
results, an overall ‘species trend’ would oversimplify the
population processes that may differ in different sectors
of species’ distributions. Of particular note are species
that are shifting in the northernmost tier of Breeding Bird
Survey routes may appear to be in decline, when they are
simply shifting out of the survey region populationwise—
recent high-profile press releases and proposals for priority
conservation status (Hamel 2000; Hunter et al. 2001) should
be reconsidered in this light. In general, though, this study
serves to indicate that the poleward, upward, and earlier
shifts that have been documented in recent years (Parmesan
1996; Visser et al. 1998; Parmesan et al. 1999; Inouye et al.
2000; Crozier 2003; Parmesan and Yohe 2003; Nakazawa
et al. 2007) are but the tip of the (melting?) iceberg. That is
to say, we readily publish on the observed distributional or
phenological shifts, and perhaps do not publish so readily
on negative evidence (Peterson 2003; Archaux 2004).
Nonetheless, among the large majority of species not as
yet showing distributional responses to warming climates,
based on the results of this study, many more are undergoing
population shifts probably based on differential fitness
across latitudinal gradients that will eventually manifest as
real distributional shifts.
Acknowledgments
We thank our colleagues at the University of Kansas and the
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México for ideas and
discussion. This study was supported partially by the Instituto
de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
and partially via a contract with Microsoft Research (to A. T.
Peterson and colleagues).
References
Archaux, F. 2004. Breeding upwards when climate is becoming warmer:
no bird response in the French Alps. Ibis 146: 138-144.
BBS. 2006. North American Breeding Bird Survey (U.S. Geological
Survey, http://www.mp2-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/, Washington, D.C.).
116 T R O P I C A L C
Brown, J. H., and M. V. Lomolino. 1998. Biogeography (Sinauer
Associates, Massachusetts).
Butcher, G. S., and D. K. Niven. 2007. Combining data from the Christmas
Bird Count and the Breeding Bird Survey to determine the continental
status and trends of North American birds; http://stateofthebirds.
audubon.org/cbid/content/Report.pdf (National Audubon Society, New
York).
Butcher, G. S., D. K. Niven, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, and K.
V. Rosenberg. 2007. The 2007 WatchList for United States birds.
American Birds 2007: 18-25.
Chapin, F. S. I., E. S. Zavaleta, V. T. Eviner, R. L. Naylor, P. M.
Vitousek, H. L. Reynolds, D. U. Hooper, S. Lavorel, O. E. Sala, S.
E. Hobbie, M. C. Mack, and S. Diaz. 2000. Consequences of changing
biodiversity. Nature 405: 234-242.
Conti Nunes, M. F., M. Galetti, S. Marsden, R. S. Pereira, and A. T.
Peterson. 2007. Are large-scale distributional shifts of the Blue-winged
Macaw (Primolius maracana) related to climate change? Journal of
Biogeography 34: 816-827.
Cresswell, W., and R. McCleery. 2003. How great tits maintain
synchronization of their hatch date with food supply in response to long-
term variability in temperature. Journal of Animal Ecology 72: 356-366.
Crozier, L. 2003. Winter warming facilitates range expansion: cold tolerance
of the butterfly Atalopedes campestris. Oecologia 135: 648-656.
Dobson, A., A. Jolly, and D. Rubenstein. 1989. The Greenhouse Effect
and biological diversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 4: 64-68.
Grinnell, J. 1917. Field tests of theories concerning distributional control.
American Naturalist 51: 115-128.
Grinnell, J. 1924. Geography and evolution. Ecology 5: 225-229.
Hamel, P. B. 2000. Cerulean Warbler Status Assessment (U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.).
Hannah, L., G. Midgley, S. Andelman, M. Araújo, G. Hughes, E. Martinez-
Meyer, R. Pearson, and P. Williams. 2007. Protected area needs in a
changing climate. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 131-138.
Holt, R. D. 1990. The microevolutionary consequences of climate change.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5: 311-315.
Hunter, W. C., D. A. Buehler, R. A. Canterbury, J. L. Confer, and P.
B. Hamel. 2001. Conservation of disturbance-dependent birds in eastern
North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 440-455.
Huntley, B., R. E. Green, Y. C. Collingham, and S. G. Willis. 2007. A
Climatic Atlas of European Breeding Birds (Lynx Editions, Madrid).
Inouye, D. W., B. Barr, K. B. Armitage, and B. D. Inouye. 2000.
Climate change is affecting altitudinal migrants and hibernating species.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97: 1630-1633.
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge).
Lovejoy, T. E., and L. Hannah (Eds). 2005. Climate Change and
Biodiversity (Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.).
Nakazawa, Y., R. Williams, A. T. Peterson, P. Mead, E. Staples, and K.
L. Gage. 2007. Climate change effects on plague and tularemia in the
United States. Vector Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 7: 529-540.
Papeş, M. 2006. Ecological niche modeling approaches to conservation
of endangered and threatened birds of Central and Eastern Europe.
Biodiversity Informatics 4: 14-26.
Parmesan, C. 1996. Climate and species’ range. Nature 382: 765-766.
Parmesan, C., N. Ryrholm, C. Stefanescu, J. K. Hill, C. D. Thomas, H.
Descimon, B. Huntley, L. Kaila, J. Kullberg, T. Tammaru, J. Tennent,
J. A. Thomas, and M. Warren. 1999. Poleward shift of butterfly species’
ranges associated with regional warming. Nature 399: 579-583.
Parmesan, C., and G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of
climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421: 37-42.
Perfors, T., J. Harte, and S. E. Alter. 2003. Enhanced growth of sagebrush
(Artemisia tridentata) in response to manipulated ecosystem warming.
Global Change Biology 9: 736-742.
Peters, R. L., and J. D. S. Darling. 1985. The Greenhouse Effect and
nature reserves. BioScience 35: 707-717.
Peterson, A. T. 2003. Subtle recent distributional shifts in Great Plains
endemic bird species. Southwestern Naturalist 48: 289-292.
Robbins, C. S., J. R. Sauer, R. S. Greenberg, and S. Droege. 1989.
Population declines in North American birds that migrate to the Neotropics.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 86: 7658-7662.
Root, T. L., J. T. Price, K. R. Hall, S. H. Schneider, C. Rosenzweig, and
J. A. Pounds. 2003. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and
plants. Nature 421: 57-60.
Visser, M. E., A. J. van Noordwijk, J. M. Tinbergen, and C. M. Lessells.
1998. Warmer springs lead to mistimed reproduction in great tits (Parus
major). Proceedings of the Royal Society B 265: 1867-1870.
Walther, G.-R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T. J. C.
Beebee, J.-M. Fromentin, Hoegh-Guldberg, and F. Bairlein. 2002.
Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416: 389-395.
O N S E R V A N C Y
 Protecting the future:
Carbon, forests, protected areas and local livelihoods
Alison Campbell 1, Sarah Clark 1, Lauren Coad 1, Lera Miles 1, Katharine Bolt 1,2, and Dilys Roe 3
Abstract. The current proposals on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries being discussed under the UN Authors’ Addresses:
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) could have significant implications for biodiversity conservation and for forest-dependent livelihoods. 1.
UNEP World
In the post-2012 period, developing countries could receive financial benefits in return for decreasing their greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and Conservation
forest degradation (REDD). Monitoring Centre,
Protected areas can act as a case study for REDD: lessons can be learnt from their success or otherwise in reducing deforestation and supporting local 219 Huntingdon Road,
livelihoods. Depending upon the exact mechanisms decided between and within countries, protected areas could have a role to play in reducing national-scale Cambridge CB3 0DL
deforestation, through strengthening existing forest protected areas and/or declaring new areas. Overall, protected areas are effective at limiting deforestation,
2.
Royal Society for the
but there are exceptions. Their track record in supporting livelihoods is more variable. The early indications are that community-managed and indigenous Protection of Birds, The
reserves are often effective in achieving both goals, but that biodiversity conservation is not necessarily such a high priority within these areas. Further research Lodge, Potton Road,
into the most effective management and governance frameworks for achieving goals on carbon emissions, biodiversity and communities, and the extent to Sandy, Bedfordshire
which protected areas reduce (or merely displace) deforestation within national boundaries would be useful in informing REDD implementation. SG19 2DL
3.
International Institute
for Environment
Background approaches to reducing deforestation and supporting co- and Development,
benefits. Protected area experience could thus help to inform 3 Endsleigh Street,
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest London WC1H 0DD
degradation (REDD) in developing countries was first REDD decision-making at local to national scales.
raised at a UN Framework Convention on Climate Change How successful are protected
(UNFCCC) meeting in 2005. The UNFCCC aims to stabilize
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level
areas at reducing deforestation?
Successful implementation of REDD is likely to require
that prevents dangerous interference with the climate system.
the reduction of deforestation rates on a national scale. It is
Decisions made under UNFCCC can therefore be expected
therefore useful to know the effects of forest designation and
to focus on stabilizing emissions of carbon dioxide and
management on deforestation rates, and to consider the design
other greenhouse gases, and not to make explicit provision
and management-related factors that influence protected area
for maximizing any other benefits of reduced deforestation
effectiveness in reducing deforestation and forest degradation.
and forest degradation. The prospect that forest issues could
Here, we focus on deforestation, as there is little research on
be tackled through the Convention has been welcomed
the impacts of protected areas on the degradation of forest
by many conservationists, but also sparked an increasing
carbon stocks.
amount of controversy, especially amongst forest user
groups. Whilst there are some risks both for conservation, The evidence suggests that protected areas are an effective
and for the livelihoods of people dependent on forests or tool for reducing deforestation within their boundaries. That
forest conversion, participatory planning and monitoring of is, there is usually less deforestation within formally protected
the effects of REDD activities on these co-benefits could areas than in their immediate surroundings (Sánchez-
help to minimise the risks. Azofeifa et al. 1999, 2003; Pelkey et al. 2000; Bruner et al.
2001; Deininger & Minten 2002; Helmer 2004; Curran et
A UNFCCC decision on compensation to developing countries al. 2004; DeFries et al. 2005; Mas 2005; Naughton-Treves
for REDD is only likely to arise as part of an overall post- et al. 2005, 2006; Sommerville 2005; Bleher et al. 2006;
2012 agreement on greenhouse gas emissions. Major issues Nepstad et al. 2006; Chowdhury 2006; Gaveau et al. 2007;
yet to be decided include whether the international agreement Oliveira et al. 2007; Phua et al. 2008). A minority of studies
involves a forest carbon market or fund, and to what extent have reported that protection status had no significant impact
broader forest conservation efforts and carbon stocks in non- on deforestation, indicating that legal designation alone is
forest ecosystems would be accounted for. At the December insufficient when land-use change pressures are high and
2007 Conference of Parties in Bali, Parties to the Convention governance limited (Marizán 1994; Cropper et al. 2001;
agreed a ‘demonstration’ phase to test REDD methodologies Rautner et al. 2005; Roman-Cuesta & Martinez-Vilalta
and share experiences. Various donors, tropical forest 2006). In addition, the extent to which deforestation is
countries, non-governmental organisations and private sector merely displaced to surrounding areas is unclear. This issue is
players are now investing in this pilot phase. particularly relevant in the context of REDD, where the aim
Whilst REDD is likely to involve national-scale policy is to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions.
changes and planning, forest management changes will have Whilst protected areas tend to reduce the rate of deforestation
to be implemented at a site scale. Although protected areas relative to their surroundings, forest may still be cleared at
are by definition (IUCN 1994) established for biodiversity high rates. In an extreme example, Gunung Raya Wildlife
conservation rather than climate mitigation purposes, they Sanctuary in Sumatra lost nearly 81% of its forest cover
can offer existing experience in the effectiveness of different between 1972 and 2002, with a deforestation rate only

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 117
0.1% less than that of the surrounding area (Gaveau et al.
2007). Annual deforestation rates in excess of 3-6 percent
have been reported within protected area borders (Achard
et al. 2002; Linkie et al. 2004). Such vulnerable protected
areas could offer useful test sites for reducing deforestation
within the REDD demonstration phase, as the necessary
land designations and legislative frameworks are already
in place, and the biodiversity co-benefits are already
identified.
This raises the question of what factors influence protected
area effectiveness in reducing deforestation, assuming
an equal degree of pressure. Effectiveness in reducing
deforestation is commonly linked to the level of funding
(Jepson et al. 2002; Wilkie et al. 2001; Aung 2007). Without
adequate funding, protected areas lack the necessary
infrastructure and management resulting in “paper parks”.
Dudley et al. (2004) suggest that legal gazettement does
immediately confer some protective effect, but that
active management (including planning, monitoring and
evaluation) improves this. Strong involvement of NGOs
can be a significant factor in protected area success,
probably as a result of their contribution to management
practices and employee accountability (Sommerville
2005). Staff education, training, and salaries are all often
listed as weaknesses in protected area management that
limit effectiveness (Aung 2007).
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) describes six
management categories for protected areas, based on the
reasons for establishment. In general, protected areas with
a higher IUCN category (I-II) are more (and sometimes
completely) restrictive of resource exploitation and land use
change than the lower categories (V-VI). Protected areas
designated under categories (I-II) seem to be more effective
at reducing deforestation than those which include a focus on
sustainable use (V-VI) (Jones 1990; Sánchez-Azofeifa 1999;
Pelkey et al. 2000; Dudley et al. 2004; Naughton-Treves et al.
2005; Bleher et al. 2006; Nepstad et al. 2006). However, there
are comparatively few studies on deforestation rates within
category V-VI protected areas, so further investigation would
be useful.
These comparative studies typically make use of remote
sensing to assess deforestation levels, and rarely consider
the forms of governance within the protected areas, or the
level of community involvement. Protected area management
and governance regimes can differ both within and between
IUCN categories (Naughton-Treves et al. 2006). The land
and resources in any of the six management categories can be
owned and/or directly managed, alone or in combination, by
government agencies, NGOs, communities and private parties
(Borrini-Feyerabend 2007). At one end of the governance
spectrum, the state has ownership of the area and may involve
the surrounding communities in some decision-making
through representation in stakeholder groups; at the other
end, protected areas are owned and run by the communities
themselves. Some insight can be gained through studies
118 T R O P I C A L C
of indigenous lands and community forestry areas, which
indicate success in reducing deforestation (Bray et al. 2003,
2004; Ruiz Perez et al. 2005; Hayes 2006; Murdiyarso &
Skutsch 2006; Nepstad et al. 2006; Stocks et al. 2007). These
factors need further investigation if the potential for REDD
to provide carbon, biodiversity and livelihood benefits is to
be assessed.
Land tenure and land use rights differ across protected areas,
as do the number of people living in and around the area.
Thousands of people, indigenous or otherwise, may live
within individual protected areas. These protected areas
vary in their governance and in the level of community
involvement. From a conservation perspective, the rationale
for community involvement is that denying locals access
to protected area resources or decision-making leads to
tension between protected area officials (where present)
and residents (Hayes 2006). When government agencies
allocate land for certain purposes without consulting local
residents, they may simply ignore the restrictions (Werner
2001), or violent conflict may erupt (Naughton-Treves
et al. 2006). There are various effective approaches to
involving local people, ranging from compensation for costs
incurred (Bruner et al. 2001) to full co-management (Brown
1999). Environmental education can help communities to
understand the benefits of protected areas and increase local
support for their protection. This type of outreach has been
found to correlate strongly with management effectiveness
(Dudley et al. 2004), though not in all cases (Struhsaker
et al. 2005). The strength of public support has also been
correlated with overall conservation success (Mugisha &
Jacobson 2004; Struhsaker et al. 2005), although again, not
in all cases (Bruner et al. 2001).
A protected area network that incorporates all levels of
protection, as appropriate for the situation at site level, could
be a valuable component of a national REDD strategy. Unless
a country’s protected area network includes a high proportion
of remaining forest, it can form only part of a successful
REDD strategy, as the local reduction in carbon emissions
resulting from the success of a protected area may be offset
by an increase in deforestation outside of the area (Ewers &
Rodrigues 2008).
What are the livelihood impacts
of forest protected areas ?
The majority of the rural poor make use of forest resources: in
Africa alone, 600 million people have been estimated to rely
on forests and woodlands for their livelihoods (Anderson et al.
2006). The benefits of protected areas for local communities
can include direct revenue from environmental protection,
livelihood diversification, security of access to given resources,
and the maintenance of ecosystem services such as watershed
protection. Costs can range from significant crop damage
by wildlife (e.g. Bajracharya et al. 2006) to displacement
of local communities from their customary lands (West et
al. 2006), and may include restricted access to resources
and disadvantageous changes in land tenure. The nature of
O N S E R V A N C Y
these costs and benefits depends largely upon the protected
area’s status and governance, as well as its history of use.
Some protected areas restrict access to resources, whereas
others allow sustainable use; and land tenure arrangements
and benefit sharing vary across the six IUCN management
categories.
The net livelihood impacts of protected areas are not easy
to summarise, as standardised assessment methodologies
are lacking, and because it is difficult to place a monetary
value on some aspects. However, general patterns can be
identified from the literature. Livelihood impacts vary
with protected area status, management strategies and
community involvement in governance. Management
structures can provide direct benefits, for example through
employment, but can restrict access to resources, alter
local power structures, and change social/traditional
values and behaviours. Strictly protected areas with top-
down management structures (often associated with IUCN
management categories I-II) can result in major livelihood
costs, generating conflict with local communities.
Community management schemes, and protected area
management allowing sustainable use of forest resources
(often associated with IUCN management categories
V-VI), have been shown to provide tangible livelihoods
benefits. However, significant costs can still be incurred
by communities if management and institutional capacity
is lacking or if issues of governance, particularly benefit
sharing and tenure, are not resolved.
Attitudinal surveys are sometimes used to measure local
perception of protected areas. Even with high costs,
communities can support protected areas, citing the forest
use benefits that they receive (Sekhar 1998). Positive or
negative attitudes are sometimes correlated with measurable
costs and benefits (Allendorf et al. 2006), but communities
may undervalue protected areas, as many of the benefits
of protected areas (such as forest products and ecosystem
services) are future use values, and may not be perceived
to be under threat by the community. Wealth, ethnicity, age,
gender and occupation have all been shown to be important
in predicting attitudes, often as a result of differential impacts
on livelihoods (Infield 1988; Infield and Namara 2001;
McClanahan et al. 2005; Allendorf et al. 2006; Kideghesho
et al. 2007). The impact of protected area designation on an
individual is likely to depend on his or her use of the forest,
tenure rights and political power within the community.
Those with high dependency on the forest, few land-tenure
rights and little political influence will be most at risk from
protected area designation, which in turn is likely to influence
their attitude towards conservation.
The inequitable distribution of livelihood costs and benefits
between and within communities and households is thus
an obvious barrier to sustainable reduction of deforestation
as well as a direct issue for human development. Although
richer members of forest communities are often the biggest
harvesters of forest products, the poor can be more dependent
B I O D I V E R S I
on these resources, relying on the collection of forest
products as a safety net during times of low-employment
and food production (Ferraro 2002). Forest restrictions can
therefore have large impacts on the poorest sections of forest
communities. Resource restrictions may also differentially
affect the livelihoods of men and women: such as allowing
collection of non-timber forest products and firewood, but
banning hunting (e.g. Sekhar 1998; Allendorf et al. 2006).
Overall, however, the more prominent members of society
tend to capture most of the benefits from protected areas whilst
suffering less of the costs. This is often true regardless of the
protected area status or the level of community involvement
in governance.
In contrast with the norm of government planning, some
protected areas are designated in response to the desire
of local communities to safeguard local resources (De
Lacy 1994; Catton 1997; Naughton-Treves 1998; Chapin
2000; Colchester 2000; Lawrence 2000; Schwartzmann
& Zimmerman 2005; Sohn 2007). Whilst the direct
benefits depend upon protected area management strategy,
designation is likely to be more favourable to local
livelihoods than the transfer of land ownership to external
companies. For example, when the Peruvian government
declared that the Madre de Dios region of the Amazon
was to be opened up to oil and gas exploration, locals and
conservation groups objected to the plans (Chicchón 2000).
The outcome included the designation of the Bahuaja
Sonene National Park in 1996, and an agreement that the
exploration activities in adjacent regions would return any
land not desired for extraction programmes for inclusion in
the protected area.
Increased efforts are required into the standardization of
methodologies for social impact assessment, to facilitate
further assessment of the costs and benefits of protected areas
to local livelihoods. Further study into the combined effects
of protection status and governance on the costs and benefits
of forest protection would also be a valuable input into the
development of REDD strategies.
Lessons for REDD
There is still much uncertainty regarding the factors influencing
effectiveness of protected areas in reducing deforestation and
impacts on local livelihoods, and a clear need for a detailed
assessment of these factors in order to inform climate change
policy. Although strictly protected areas are often effective in
reducing deforestation, it is clear that protected areas allowing
some resource extraction can still reduce deforestation whilst
imposing fewer livelihood costs. The type and quantity
of resources extracted will determine the effect on forest
carbon stocks. Further research is required into the impact
of the relationship between protected area status, community
involvement and governance within protected areas on forest
carbon stores and livelihoods.
An agreement on REDD could create an international market
or fund for avoided emissions of greenhouse gases from forest
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 119
loss or damage. The impact on protected areas and livelihoods
will depend upon the national as well as global approaches
selected. The potential exists for REDD to remove the large
scale drivers of deforestation, secure land tenure rights
in forest areas, and increase the potential benefits to local
people from conservation through community management
regimes. The carbon market offers increasing opportunities
for payments for restoration and retention of forest carbon.
However, existing forest carbon schemes share many of the
issues seen in protected area management, including lack of
established tenure and the inequitable distribution of resources
(May et al. 2004; Nelson and de Jong 2003; Griffiths 2007).
The transaction costs of projects tend to favour large operators
at the expense of small landholders (Pfaff et al. 2007). Clear
governance, including well-defined property rights, is critical
for emerging international markets (Landell-Mills and Porris
2002), and these issues need careful consideration as REDD
policy develops. Currently, carbon forestry projects are
particularly weighted against those whose livelihoods are
dependent upon less formal rights to forest resources, such as
poor or landless households and women (Brown et al. 2004;
Grieg-Gran et al. 2005); leading to the capture of most of the
benefits by elite groups (Brown & Corbera 2003; Brown et
al. 2004). Increased finance could exacerbate these issues,
and protection of carbon areas could intensify livelihood
impacts if a strict ‘fences and fines’ approach was employed.
Where strict protection is implemented, local people need
to be involved in management and compensated for losses
if they are expected to cooperate with the goal of reducing
emissions.
If livelihoods issues are treated with care, avoided
deforestation and other carbon storage schemes could
provide much needed funds for conservation and
development. Addressing the root causes of deforestation is
likely to require improved governance of forest areas rather
than heavy restrictions on the activities of local communities
(Chomitz 2006). Consideration of the potential impacts of
REDD approaches based on past experience is therefore
required, including an assessment of the management and
governance strategies that facilitate provision of livelihood
benefits. REDD implementation could provide the incentive
for governments to strengthen policies for forest protection
and settle tenure issues. An increase in the economic value
of standing forests could also have positive impacts on the
livelihood benefits of protected areas. Involvement of local
communities in planning and implementation of REDD, and
ensuring sharing of the benefits from REDD finance is likely
to result in a more sustainable solution to deforestation and
forest degradation.
Acknowledgments
UNEP-WCMC’s work on the linkages between reducing
emissions from deforestation, livelihoods and protected
areas has been financially supported by the Department for
International Development (UK), the Federal Ministry for
the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety
120 T R O P I C A L C
(Germany), UNEP and WWF UK. We are grateful for input
from: the Cambridge Conservation Forum and its members;
members of the Poverty Environment Partnership; the
Poverty Conservation Learning Group; Emily Brickell at
WWF UK; David Huberman at IUCN; and UNEP-WCMC
staff including Jerry Harrison, Jon Hutton, Peter Herkenrath
and Monika MacDevette. More detailed working papers on
this topic may be accessed from http://www.unep-wcmc.org/
climate/publications.aspx.
References
Achard, F., H.D. Eva, H-J Stibig, P. Mayaux, J. Gallego, T. Richards
and J-P. Malingreau. 2002. Determination of Deforestation Rates
of the World’s Humid Tropical Forests. Science 299(5583): 999-
1002
Allendorf, T., K. K. Swe, T. Oo, Y. Htut, M. Aung, M. Aung, K.
Allendorf, L. Hayek, P. Leimgruber, and C. Wemmer 2006.
Community attitudes toward three protected areas in Upper Myanmar
(Burma). Environmental Conservation 33(4): 344-352
Anderson, J., C. Benjamin, B. Campell and D. Tiveau. 2006. Forests,
poverty and equity in Africa: new perspectives on policy and practice.
International Forestry Review 8(1): 44-53
Aung, U.M. 2007. Policy and practice in Myanmar’s protected area
system. Journal of Environmental Management 84(2): 188-203
Bajracharya, S. B., P. A. Furley, and A.C. Newton. 2006. Impacts
of Community-based Conservation on Local Communities in the
Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Biodiversity and Conservation
15(8): 2765-2786
Bleher, B., D. Uster, T. Bergsdorf. 2006. Assessment of Threat Status and
Management Effectiveness in Kakamega Forest, Kenya. Biodiversity
and Conservation 15(4): 1159–1177
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. 2007. The “IUCN protected area matrix”- A
tool towards effective protected area systems. Summit on the IUCN
categories, Andalusia, Spain May 7-11 2007.
Bray, D.B., E.A. Ellis, N. Armijo-Canto, and C.T. Beck. 2004. The
institutional drivers of sustainable landscapes: A case study of the
‘Mayan Zone’ in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Land Use Policy 21: 333–346
Bray, D.B., L. Merino-Perez, P., Negreros-Castillo, G. Segura-
Warnholtz, J.M. Torres-Rojo, and H.F.M. Vester. 2003. Mexico’s
Community-Managed Forests as a Global Model for Sustainable
Landscapes. Conservation Biology 17 (3): 672-677
Brown, D. 1999. Principles and practice of forest co-management:
evidence from West-Central Africa. European Union Tropical Forestry
Paper 2, Overseas Development Institute, London.
Brown, K., N. Adger, E. Boyd, E. Corbera-Elizalde, and S. Shackley.
2004. How do CDM projects contribute to sustainable development?
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Technical Report 16
Brown, K., E. Cobera. 2003. Exploring equity and sustainable development
in the new carbon economy. Climate Policy 3(S1): 41-56.
Bruner, A. G., R. E. Gullison, R. E. Rice, and G.A.B. da Fonseca. 2001.
Effectiveness of Parks in Protecting Biodiversity. Science 291(5501):
125-128
Catton, T. 1997. Inhabited wilderness: Indians, Eskimos, and national
parks in Alaska. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Chapin, M. 2000. Defending Kuna Yala. USAID Biodiversity Support
Program, Washington DC.
Chicchón, A. 2000. Conservation theory meets practice. Conservation
Biology 14(5):1368- 1369
Chomitz, K.M. 2006. Policies for national-level avoided deforestation
programs: a proposal for discussion. Background paper for policy
research report on tropical deforestation, Revised Draft http://www.
rainforestcoalition.org/documents/ChomitzAvoidedDeforestationrev1.
3.pdf
Chowdhury, R.R. 2006. Landscape change in the Calakmul Biosphere
Reserve, Mexico: Modeling the driving forces of smallholder
deforestation in land parcels. Applied Geography 26: 129-152
Colchester, M. 2000. Self-Determination or Environmental Determinism
for Indigenous Peoples in Tropical Forest Conservation. Conservation
Biology 14(5):1365-1367
Cropper, M., J. Puri, C. Griffiths. 2001. Predicting the Location of
Deforestation: The Role of Roads and Protected Areas in North
Thailand. Land Economics 77 (2): 172-186
Curran, L.M., S.N Trigg, A.K. McDonald, D. Astiani, Y.M. Hardiono,
P. Siregar, I. Caniago, and E. Kasischke. 2004. Lowland Forest loss in
O N S E R V A N C Y
 protected areas of Indonesian Borneo. Science 303 (5660): 1000-1003
DeFries, R., A. Hansen, A.C. Newton, and M.C. Hansen. 2005.
Increasing isolation of protected areas in tropical forests over the past
twenty years Ecological Applications 15(1): 19–26
Deininger, K., and B. Minten 2002. Determinants of Deforestation and
the Economics of Protection: An Application to Mexico. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(4): 943-960
De Lacy, T. 1994. The Uluru/Kakadu Model - Anangu Tjukurrpa. 50,000
years of Aboriginal law and land management changing the concept
of national parks in Australia. Society and Natural Resources 7: 479-
498.
Dudley, N., A. Belokurov, O. Borodin, L. Higgins-Zogib, M. Hockings,
L. Lacerda, and S. Stolton. 2004. Are protected areas working? An
analysis of protected areas. WWF International, Gland.
Ewers, R.M., and A.S.L. Rodrigues. 2008. Estimates of reserve
effectiveness are confounded by leakage. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 23(3): 113-6
Ferraro, P. J. 2002. The local costs of establishing protected areas in low-
income nations: Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar. Ecological
Economics 43(2): 261-275
Gaveau, D.L.A., H. Wandono, F. Setiabudi. 2007. Three Decades of
Deforestation in Southwest Sumatra: Have Protected Areas Halted
Forest Loss and Logging, and Promoted Re-growth? Biological
Conservation 134(4): 495–504
Grieg-Gran, M., I. Porras, and S. Wunder. 2005. How can market
mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor?
Preliminary lessons from Latin America. World Development 33(9):
1511-1527
Griffiths, T. 2007. Seeing ‘RED’? ‘Avoided deforestation’ and the
rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Forest Peoples
Programme.
Hayes, T.M. 2006. Parks, People, and Forest Protection: An Institutional
Assessment of the Effectiveness of Protected Areas. World Development
34(12): 2064-2065
Helmer, E.H. 2004. Forest Conservation and Land Development in Puerto
Rico. Landscape Ecology 19(1): 29–40
Infield, M. 1988. Attitudes of a rural community towards conservation
and a local conservation area in Natal, South Africa. Biological
Conservation 45(1): 21-46
Infield, M., and A. Namara. 2001. Community attitudes and behaviour
towards conservation: an assessment of a community conservation
programme around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. Oryx 35(1):
48-60
IUCN 1994. Guidelines for Protected Areas Management Categories.
IUCN, Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland.
Jepson, P., F. Mornberg, H. van Noord. 2002. A Review of the Efficacy
of the Protected Area System of East Kalimantan Province, Indonesia.
Natural Areas Journal 22(1): 28–42
Jones, J.R. 1990. Current Management of Tropical Forest Areas in Costa
Rica from Colonization and Environment: Land Settlement Projects in
Central America. United Nations University Press.
Kideghesho, J.R., E. Roskat, and B.P. Kaltenborn. 2007. Factors
influencing conservation attitudes of local people in Western Serengeti,
Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation 16(7): 2213-2230
Landell-Mills, N., and I.T. Porras. 2002. Silver bullet or fool’s gold?
A global review of markets for forest environmental services and
their impact on the poor. International Institute for Environment and
Development, London.
Lawrence, D. 2000. Kakadu: the making of a national park. Melbourne
University Press, Melbourne.
Linkie, M., R. J. Smith, N. Leader-Williams. 2004. Mapping and
predicting deforestation patterns in the lowlands of Sumatra. Biodiversity
and Conservation 13(10): 1809-1818.
Mas, J.F. 2005. Assessing Protected Area Effectiveness Using Surrounding
(Buffer) Areas Environmentally Similar to the Target Area. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 105: 69–80
Marizàn, G.R. 1994. Deforestation in Protected Areas: Case Study
of Los Haitises National Park. Third International Conference on
Environmental Enforcement 1: 253-260. http://www.inece.org/3rdvol1/
pro1toc.htm. Accessed 9 May 2008
May, P.H., E. Boyd, F. Veiga, and M. Chang. 2004. Local sustainable
development effects of forest carbon projects in Brazil and Bolivia:
a view from the field. International Institute for Environment and
Development, London.
McClanahan, T., J. Davies, and J. Maina. 2005. Factors influencing
resource users and managers’ perceptions towards marine protected area
management in Kenya. Environmental Conservation 32: 42-49
Mugisha, A.R, S.K. Jacobson. 2004. Threat reduction assessment
B I O D I V E R S I
of conventional and community-based conservation approaches to
managing protected areas in Uganda. Environmental Conservation
31(3): 233–241
Murdiyarso, D., M. Skutsch (Eds). 2006. Community forest management
as a carbon mitigation option: Case studies. CIFOR, Indonesia.
Naughton-Treves, L. 1998. Predicting Patterns of Crop Damage by
Wildlife around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Conservation Biology
12(1):156-168
Naughton-Treves, L.M., B. Holland, K. Brandon. 2005. The Role
of Protected Areas in Conserving Biodiversity and Sustaining Local
Livelihoods. Annual Review Environmental Resources 30: 219–252
Naughton-Treves, L.M., N. Alvarez-Berríos, K. Brandon, A. Bruner,
M.B. Holland, C. Ponce, M. Saenz, L. Suarez, and A. Treves. 2006.
Expanding Protected Areas and Incorporating Human Resource Use: A
Study of 15 Forest Parks in Ecuador and Peru. Sustainability: Science,
Practice, & Policy 2(2): 32–44.
Nelson, K., and B. de Jong. 2003. Making global initiatives local realities.
Carbon mitigation projects in Chiapas, Mexico. Global Climate Change:
Human Dimensions 13: 19-30.
Nepstad, D., S. Schwartzman, B. Bamberger, M. Santilli and D. Ray.
2006. Inhibition of Amazon Deforestation and Fire by Parks and
Indigenous Lands. Conservation Biology 20(1): 65–73
Oliviera, P.J.C., G.P. Asner, D.E. Knapp, A. Almeyda, R. Galván-
Gildemeister, S. Keene, R.F. Raybin, and R.C. Smith. 2007. Land-
Use Allocation Protects the Peruvian Amazon. Science 31: 1233-1236
Pelkey, N.W., C.J. Stoner, T.M. Caro. 2000. Vegetation in Tanzania:
Assessing Long Term Trends and Effects of Protection using Satellite
Imagery. Biological Conservation 94: 297-309
Pfaff, A., S. Kerr, L. Lipper, R. Cavatassi, B. Davis, J. Hendy, and G.A.
Sanchez-Azofeifa. 2007. Will buying tropical forest carbon benefit the
poor? Evidence from Costa Rica. Land Use Policy 28(3): 600-610.
Phua, M.-H., S. Tsuyuki, N. Furuya, and J.S. Lee. 2008. Detecting
deforestation with a Spectral Change Detection Approach using
Multit8mporal Landsat Data: A Case Study of Kinabalu Park, Sabah,
Malaysia. Journal of Environmental Management 88(4): 784-795
Rautner, M., M. Hardiono, R.J. Alfred. 2005. Borneo: Treasure Island at
Risk. Report for WWF Germany.
Roman-Cuesta, R.M., and J. Martinez-Vilalta. 2006. Effectiveness of
Protected Areas in Mitigating Fire within Their Boundaries: Case Study
of Chiapas, Mexico. Conservation Biology 20(4): 1074–1086
Ruiz-Pérez, M., M. Almeida, S. Dewi, E.M.L. Costa, M.C. Pantoja,
A. Puntodewo, A. de Arruda Postigo, and A.G. de Andrade. 2005.
Conservation and Development in Amazonian Extractive Reserves: The
Case of Alto Juruá. Ambio 34(3): 218-223
Sánchez-Azofeifa, G.A., G.C. Daily, A.S.P. Pfaff, and C. Busch. 2003.
Integrity and Isolation of Costa Rica’s National Parks and Biological
Reserves: Examining the Dynamics of Land-Cover Change. Biological
Conservation 109(1): 123-135
Sánchez-Azofeifa, G.A., C. Quesada-Mateo, P. Gonzalez-Quesada, S.
Dayanandan, and K.S. Bawa, 1999. Protected areas and conservation
of biodiversity in the tropics. Conservation Biology 13(2): 407-411
Schwartzmann, S., and B. Zimmerman. 2005. Conservation alliances
with indigenous peoples of the Amazon. Conservation Biology 19:
721–27
Sekhar, N.U. 1998. Crop and livestock depredation caused by wild animals
in protected areas: the case of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India.
Environmental Conservation 25(2):160-171
Sohn, J. 2007. Protecting the Peruvian Amazon and its People from the
Risks of Oil and Gas Development. World Resources Institute.
http://www.wri.org/stories/2007/10/protectingperuvian-amazon-and-its-
people-risks-oil-and-gas-development
Sommerville, M. 2005. An analysis of deforestation trends across
Madagascar’s protected area system (1980-2000) & implications for
future management. MSc thesis, Oxford University.
Stocks, A., B. McMahan, and P. Taber. 2007. Indigenous, Colonist, and
Government Impacts on Nicaragua’s Bosawas Reserve. Conservation
Biology 21(6): 1495-1505
Struhsaker, T.T., P.J. Struhsaker, K.S. Siex. 2005. Conserving Africa’s
Rainforests: Problems in Protected Areas and Possible Solutions.
Biological Conservation 123(1): 45-54
Werner, S. 2001. Environmental Knowledge and Resource Management:
Sumatra’s Kerinci-Seblat National Park. PhD Dissertation, Technischen
Universität Berlin. http://edocs.tuberlin.de/diss/2001/werner_silvia.pdf.
Accessed 11 February 2008.
West, P., J. Igoe, D. Brockington. 2006. Parks and peoples: the social
impact of protected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology 35: 251-277
Wilkie, D.S., Carpenter, J.F., Zhang, Q. 2001. The Under-financing
of Protected Areas in the Congo Basin: So Many Parks and so Little
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 121
 Willingness-to-Pay. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 691–709

Managing climate change effects on relic forest

Authors’ Addresses:
1*
Corresponding author
Member, IUCN-
World Commission on
Protected Area. P.O.Box
158 Jounieh - Lebanon.
E-mail: elsa@intracom.
net.lb
2
Associate in the Faculty
of Agricultural and Food
Sciences, American
University of Beirut.
P.O. Box 110236, Beirut,
Lebanon.
E-mail: nabil.nemer@
gmail.com
ecosystems: A program for Lebanese Cedar
Sattout, E. J.1* and N. Nemer 2
Abstract. The effect of climate change on forests varies with the geographical zone and climatic conditions of countries and
regions. While climatic records for the Western Mediterranean show slight trends towards warmer and drier conditions over
the last century, parts of the Eastern Mediterranean have experienced cooler and wetter conditions. Mediterranean forests are
likely to be impacted by these changes, which could reduce their mitigation potential. If climate change occurs faster than
new ecosystem structure and function can be developed, then the historical relationships between animal, plant and climatic
conditions may not be reestablished and biological diversity will be reduced. During the last three decades, an expansion of
the geographic range of major forest insect pests, caused by increased winter temperatures, have been observed worldwide.
In Lebanon, changes in climatic conditions are linked with an altitudinal shift in bioclimatic zones. Cedar forest reserves,
typical of the Montane-Mediterranean zone, recognized worldwide for their biological, cultural, historical and social value
have been facing major threats. An alarming indicator appeared in these forests in the late 1990s where a web-spinning
sawfly affected 70% of one of the largest populations of Cedar (Cedrus libani A.) forests in Lebanon. The newly-discovered
insect, Cephalcia tannourinensis Chevin, now threatens the survival of several important Cedar forests, namely the Tannourine
Cedar Forest Nature Reserve, the Hadeth El Jebbeh Forest, and the Bsharry Forest. Recognizing the value of these relic
ecosystems, national stakeholders have been proactive in attracting international funds to conserve them, monitor their flora
and fauna diversity and to remediate and prevent climate change effects at both national and regional levels. Although
the pest management program was satisfactory, work on the sawfly’s biology revealed that it would increase again rapidly
unless climate change effects could be mitigated. The definition of adequate mitigation and adaptation measures requires
the development of monitoring programmes integrating biotic and abiotic parameters. This article highlights the importance
of these Cedar forests and the strategy adopted for managing the pest outbreak through the implementation of an integrated
management program. It presents a monitoring plan for Cedar forest ecosystems under the effects of climate change.
Keywords: Protected areas, web-spinning sawfly, Cedar, Cephalcia tannourinensis, monitoring program, pest management,
adaptive management.

Climate change effects
and forest ecosystems
The effects of climate change on forests varies with the
geographical zone and climatic conditions of countries and
regions. The impact from atmospheric and climatic changes
will likely affect the relative distribution of forest types;
diversity of vascular plants, lichens, and fauna; growth,
regeneration, and mortality patterns of vegetation, and cause
increased defoliation of tree crowns, increased dieback of
fine branches and a disruption of key ecological relationships
(Stolte 2001). In the US, examination of forest-process models
at national and regional scales suggests that forest productivity
will increase and biological diversity will change, favoring the
migration of some species and the extinction of other isolated
species. The range of northern species will shift further north,
the southern mixed pine and hardwood ecosystems will
expand northward in their range, increasing the geographic
distribution of southern forest communities. Ecosystems
consist of complex communities and existing models associate
biodiversity with current conditions only, therefore if climate
change occurs faster than the new ecosystem structure and
function can be developed, the historical relationships between
animal, plant and climatic conditions may not be reestablished
and biological diversity may suffer (McNulty & Aber 2001).
It is predicted that some disturbances will probably be quite
severe such as insect and pathogen outbreaks and others
increase in frequency such as fire (Dale et al. 2001; McNulty &
Aber 2001; Stolte 2001; Paoletti et al. 2007). During climate
transition, forests may have an increased predisposition to
other disturbance factors such as insects and disease outbreaks
(McNulty & Aber 2001).
Major ecological theory postulates that the outbreak of
some invasive species can be attributed to their release from
their natural enemies which sufficiently decrease selective
pressures to allow the organism to lose many of its adaptation
for deterring or coping with enemy attack. Invasive species
may be more capable of adapting to a changing climate than
native species operating under more adaptive constraints
(Parmesan & Matthews 2006).
During the last three decades, an expansion of the geographic
range of major forest insect pests has been observed, caused
by an increase in winter temperatures. The Pine Processionary
Moth, a major defoliator of pine trees in Europe and throughout
the Mediterranean region, has expanded its range both in
latitude and in altitude (Battisti et al. 2005; Hodar & Zamora,
2004). Because warming trends are predicted on a general
scale, insects are likely to respond to these changes by shifting
their range boundaries. Therefore, our ability to predict
changes in species distributions and the potential community
impacts, as well as to evaluate suitable management strategies
would benefit from focused study on the effects of climatic
factors on the survival and development of organisms.
The limiting factors in Mediterranean climate are periods of
drought and the risk of frost (Anonymous 1999). As climate
change effects the frequency of extreme events, the responses
to changes - over the Mediterranean region- both in average
climate and in warmer climate variability should lead to an
increase in the occurrence of extremely high temperatures and
a decrease in extremely low temperature events (Barrow et al.
1995). While land records for the Western Mediterranean show
a slight shift towards warmer and drier conditions over the last

122 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
century, parts of the Eastern Mediterranean have experienced
cooler and wetter conditions. A preliminary assessment in the
water balance over the Eastern Mediterranean, from Turkey
through to Egypt, revealed a tendency for a northward shift
of the desert line. ‘Many ecosystems could be lost as species
fail to keep up with the shift in climate boundaries and/or find
migration paths blocked by human activities’ (Karas 1999).
In Lebanon, changes in climatic conditions are bound up
with an altitudinal shift in bioclimatic zones. Thus, the most
B I O D I V E R S I
vulnerable bioclimatic zones are the coldest and most humid
zones, the areas that lay under severe drought conditions and
also those where a ‘climatic warming’ would occur within
the high altitudinal ranges (>1500m). Zones of medium
altitudinal range (500 up to 1500m), considered to be of
medium vulnerability, will be subject to changes in vegetation
composition. Species within this range will migrate to the
closest vegetation zone. The distribution of Cedar forest
which falls within the 500mm to 1300mm precipitation range
Figure 1.
Distribution of
Cedrus libani A.
Rich. forests in
Lebanon.
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 123
 Figure 2.
Site for pilgrims and
travelers: The Cedar of
Millennium of Lebanon
by Leon de Jaborde &
Radcliffe. 1827 (Gallery
Chahine. Beirut.
Lebanon).
with mean winter temperatures between 2 and 5°C may come
under increasing stress with the upward shift in bioclimatic
zones. Montane vegetation where the Tannourine Cedar Forest
Nature Reserve (TCFNR) is located may face considerable
decline and possibly even disappear (Anonymous 1999).
Cedar forest distribution,
biological and cultural values
Cedar forests occurring in the Mediterranean region occupy
an area of about 2700 km². The area constitutes 3% of
Mediterranean forest in the Basin of which about 2% are
protected. The distribution of the genus varies in the world:
Cedrus libani A. Rich is found in Lebanon, Syria and
Turkey; Cedrus brevifolia Henry in Cyprus; Cedrus atlantica
Manetti in Morocco and Algeria; and Cedrus deodora Loud.
in Afghanistan and India. Among these species, C. libani
occupies the smallest area; about 2,200 ha in Lebanon, 400 ha
in Syria and 1,000,000 ha in Turkey.
Cedars are restricted to high, mountainous areas. Cedar
forests extend over a discontinuous range composed of widely
separated regions. They are found in Northern Morocco and
Northern Algeria, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey and the
Hindu Kush, Karakoram, and Indian Himalayas (Bariteau
et al. 1999; Bariteau & Ferrandes 1992; Browicz 1982;
Mouterde 1966). In Turkey, C. libani forests essentially grow
in the sub-humid and semi-arid zones, as well as temperate,
cold and very cold ranges (Browicz 1982). C. libani forests
account for 3.5% of the Turkish forest cover and are mainly
spread out in the southern part of the country, the west and
middle Taurus as well as in the Amanus Mountains. In
Cyprus, only two large stands of Lebanon Cedar survive in the
124 T R O P I C A L C
Troodos Mountains of eastern Cyprus. In North West Syria,
C. libani woods, located in the El Ansariye Mountain where
it ranges from 1000 to 1580m altitude, consist of degraded,
mixed forests including oaks, maples and juniper (Bariteau &
Ferrandes 1992; Khouzami & Nahal 1983).
In Lebanon, C. libani is among the species listed as taxon at
lower risk and near threatened (LR/nt) in the IUCN Red List
(Hilton-Taylor 2000). National records classify Cedar as an
endangered species, threatened or on the way to extinction
(Khouzami et al. 1996). The 12 surviving stands of Cedar
(see figure 1) are confined to areas on the western slope of
the Mount Lebanon chain at altitudes ranging from 1400
to 2000m, facing the Mediterranean, where a high humid
atmosphere provided by cloud and fog compensate for the
evaporation of the hot and dry summer months (Talhouk et
al. 2001; Meiggs 1998; Khouzami & Nahal 1983; Mikesell
1969; Beals 1965). Only scattered remnants survive of the
once extensive stands of Cedar, fir and juniper (Bariteau et
al. 1999; Khouzami & Nahal 1983; Baltaxe 1965). These
forests, occupying 2000 to 2700 ha, are fragmented into 12
populations (Bariteau et al. 1999; Khouzami & Nahal 1983)
(see figure 1). Among these stands, four are protected by law
by the Ministry of Environment and all others are protected
under the stewardship of the Ministry of Agriculture. Most
of these Cedar forests are fairly pure Cedar stands sheltering
sporadic tree species such as Wild Apple (Malus trilobata
(Lab.) C. K. Schneider), Cedar Oak (Quercus cedrorum Ky.)
and Brant’s Oak (Quercus brantii Lindley) (Sattout 2004).
Throughout the Bronze Age, the history of Lebanon has been
bound up with the powers that controlled Mesopotamia and
O N S E R V A N C Y
the Nile valley, and both regions have looked to Lebanon
and to Mount Amanus in Syria for the special quality timber
they provided. Since Egyptian times, the great bulk of
Egypt’s timber imports have come from Phoenician ports and
particularly Byblos (current Arabic name – Jbeil) (Meiggs
1998; Alptekin et al. 1997; Basbous & De Tarade 1968; Beals
1965; De Vaumas 1954). Solomon and King David’s temples
and the temple of ‘Diane à Ephèse’ in Turkey were built from
Lebanese Cedar wood (Alptekin et al. 1997). Cedar forests
have been the subject of old paintings and engravings as well
as tales and epics (Hooker 1996) and they were also mentioned
in religious transcripts. Many old archival paintings show the
uses of these forests and give an idea about their landscape
value. In addition, these forests have been resting sites for
pilgrims (see figure 2). They have been used for amenity
services since the early fourteenth century.
In Lebanon, the Cedar forest of Tannourine-Hadath El-Jebbeh
(THEJ) is the largest remaining remnant of old growth Cedar
forest, which once completely covered the Lebanese western
mountain chain. These relic ecosystems have dwindled
owing to a lack of adequate management, illegal cutting of
trees, and overgrazing (UNEP-GEF/AUB/MOE 2000). The
THEJ expands at altitudes ranging from 1,300 to 1,900 m.
The forest is located at latitudes between 34°12’ and 34°15’
and longitudes between 35°54’ and 35°56’. Part of THEJ
forest is Tannourine Cedar Forests Nature Reserve (TCFNR).
It grows on calcareous soils and spreads on the north-eastern
B I O D I V E R S I
and south-western slopes (Sattout 2007). In the last decade, a
serious threat has arisen in the TCFNR, defoliation by a new
insect in the genus Cephalcia, (Hymenoptera: Pamphiliidae)
which infested about 70% of the THEJ. This is of major
concern because of its potential to spread to the nearby famous
Cedars of Bsharry (see figure 3). If it were to eventually reach
the Cedar forests of the Mediterranean, it could have a global
catastrophic effect on the world’s remaining Cedar forests.
The alarming indication of climate change effects in Tannourine
forests raises the need for the design and implementation of
a monitoring program integrating parameters supporting
the prediction of climate variables as well as planning for
adaptation and mitigation measures. Monitoring programs
were designed in 1998 for two Cedar nature reserves,
Ehden and Al shouf. However a lack of financial and human
resources has been constraining the regular collection of data
and analysis. Thus there is a weak biodiversity database
at present for these relic ecosystems making it difficult to
develop preventive measures for climate change impacts.
The current paper outlines the expected impacts of climate
change on Lebanon’s Cedar forests and discusses the
importance of international and regional partnerships in dealing
with the loss of such old growth forests and ecosystems in the
Mediterranean region. We conclude by outlining a strategy
for monitoring and managing climate change effects in sites
where Cedar is protected.
Figure 3.
Tannourine forest
attacked by Cephalcia
tannourinensis Chevin
(Hymenoptera:
Pamphiliidae).
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 125
 Figure 4.
Tannourine Cedar forest
after treatment with
growth regulator.
Indicator of climate change effects
and pest management plan
Pest outbreak causes and niches of Cephalcia tannourinensis
Global warming is predicted to cause distributional changes
in organisms whose geographic ranges are controlled by
temperature (Walther et al. 2003). Most insects are very
sensitive to changes in temperatures, which directly affects
their activity, development, phenology, and survival (Karban
& Strauss 2004).
Integrated pest management in Central European uplands
has revealed that two management practices help reduce
pest populations. The first involved fencing wild boars in
an outbreak site for one year at a density of one animal per
hectare and provided a 70% reduction in prepupae density of
the False Spruce Webworm (C. abietis) in the ground (Führer
& Fischer 1991). The second practice involved an increase
in the acidity of the soil as this favoured the proliferation of
parasitoids attacking Cephalcia sp. (Führer & Fischer 1991).
Among several possible causes of Cephalcia outbreaks in
these regions are two in particular, climatic and pedological
variables. The outbreaks have been generally preceded by
periods of hot and dry weather, and these conditions may
change Cephalcia survival as this insect spends most of its
life cycle in diapause as prepupae inside chambers of earthen
mineral soil. Investigations of C. abietis suggest that soil
acidification as a result of air pollution may favour survival
in this species by raising foliage food quality and increasing
parasitoid mortality (Führer & Fischer 1991). Given that
members of this genus are present in central Europe and that
they have caused severe defoliation similar to that observed
126 T R O P I C A L C
in Lebanon suggests that it is important to investigate the
management of this pest before it spreads to other Cedar
forests of the region.
The new Cedar web spinning sawfly insect was named
Cephalcia tannourinensis (Chevin 2002) from a genus first
described by Panzer in 1805. Members of the genus are well
adapted to humid climates with low temperatures such as those
encountered in central Europe, northern Europe and North
America (Guinet 2003). Studies of the biology and potential
control of Cephalcia by Nemer et al. (2005) in the Tannourine
forest suggests that this pest will reach outbreak status again
unless there is an intervention. Insect growth regulators alone
will not be able to keep this insect suppressed below economic
levels without serious impact on other invertebrate species,
and thus, overall faunal diversity (Abdo et al. 2008; Nemer &
Nasr 2004; Nemer et al. 2007).
In order to study the effect of climatic factors on the development
of prepupae of C. tannourinensis, we investigated the effect
of temperature and soil humidity on the diapause of the insect.
First we compared the development of prepupae under two
different temperatures of 10oC and 20oC, and subsequently
studied the effect of three levels of the soil humidity (5%, 10%
and 20%) on the prepupae of the Cedar Web-spinning Sawfly.
These studies confirmed that higher temperature and low
humidity levels induce a one year diapause cycle instead of
multiple years diapause cycle and therefore can be considered
as key indicators and limiting factors for the development of
Cephalcia prepupae. In Lebanon, a study by Mhanna (2007)
on modeling temperature trends and extremes from 1875 until
2006 found that Tmax and Tmin increased by 0.13°C and
O N S E R V A N C Y
2.9°C respectively over 131 years. Extreme values, together
with the years of their occurrence, were identified for Tmin for
the years 1998, 1999 and 2001. Decadal Tmin also increased
by 1.3°C since 1980. All these observations confirm that the
outbreak of C. tannourinensis in the Cedar forest of THEJ can
be attributed to the climatic changes which affected the life
cycle of the insect by increasing the number of individuals
with a one year diapause cycle. Temperature has also been
determined as a limiting factor for prepupae development
of other Cephalcia whereby prepupae entered a multiple
year diapause cycle when the temperatures were below 12oC
(Battisti 1994).
Some disturbances such as fire, insects, disease and drought
can be managed during the disturbance through preventive
measures and manipulations that affect the intensity and
frequency of the disturbance. Alternatively, the disturbance
can be managed to reduce its impact. A common way to
control outbreaks of the C. tannourinensis is to be alert to
soil moisture.
First year monitoring records showed a high number of
standing dead/alive and standing dead trees among which 62%
of standing dead/alive and 4.23 % of standing dead (Sattout
2007). This may lead to the expansion of Cephalcia throughout
the forest because of the unavailability of food sources. Dead
trees or trees not producing fresh buds are not attractive to
Cephalcia, however these trees become the source of many
wood destroying insects which, once established, attack
the healthier trees. There are many dead trees in the forest
as a result of severe insect infestation and other factors. The
Scolytid Beetle also attacks most of the dead trees therefore it
is recommended that these trees be removed from the forest.
Initiatives and partnership towards
healing old growth forests
In 1999, C. tannourinensis population densities peaked at
a very high density of 626 prepupae per m2, and a state of
emergency was declared by the relevant Lebanese ministries
and the municipalities of the region. A management program
utilizing the insect growth regulator diflubenzuron was
initiated in 1999 and aerial treatments were carried out by
helicopter, equipped with ultra-low volume sprayers during
the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004. The insect
population has been low since the last spray, and there has
been no necessity for further treatment (see figure 4) (Nemer &
Nasr 2004). Although the population density of the Lebanese
Cedar Sawfly is still under the threshold, results of studies
indicate an increasing trend in the population density and in
the absence of a decreasing temperature trend it is likely that
an outbreak of the pest will occur again in the coming years.
Concern about the risks facing Cedar forests in Lebanon
in particular, and in the Mediterranean region in general,
have raised international awareness of the threats to relic
ecosystems in the Mediterranean region. An international and
regional partnership has been established over the past 4 years
through the implementation of a United Nations Environment
B I O D I V E R S I
Programme- Global Environment Facility (UNEP-GEF)
project to heal the Cedar forest reserve and prevent the spread
of the newly discovered insects to other Lebanese forests and
Mediterranean countries. The project, entitled “Integrated
management of Cedar forests in Lebanon in cooperation
with other Mediterranean countries”, is most relevant to the
implementation of the GEF Operational Program on forest
ecosystems. It has generated knowledge of the management
of globally significant Cedar forests in Lebanon, and
disseminated the lessons and best practices learned on
integrated forest management through the establishment of
scientific networks. The project was implemented by the
Lebanese Ministry of Environment in close collaboration with
the Faculty of Agriculture and Food Sciences at the American
University of Beirut for a specific duration of 36 months at a
total cost exceeding US$ 1M. In addition to Lebanon, other
Mediterranean countries involved in the project are Algeria,
Cyprus, Morocco, and Turkey.
The project’s ultimate goal was the protection of Cedar
forests from serious insect pest invasion and conservation
of the Cedar forest biodiversity. The primary objective was
to develop a sustainable management plan that addresses
possible threats to the ecosystem of Cedar forests and best
practices for the removal of those threats. The main elements
of the project were:
(1) acquiring an understanding of the main causes of C.
tannourinensis outbreak in Tannourine and assessing the
possible threat of similar outbreaks in Cedar forests in the
Mediterranean region; (2) developing and applying a pest
management plan to the TCFNR and to other Cedar forests in
the region; (3) implementing the project at national, regional
and global levels (UNEP-GEF/AUB/MOE 2003).
Monitoring and adaptive management:
Road map for TCFNR
Monitoring is the “process of checking, observing, and
measuring outcomes for key variables, or specific ecological
phenomena, against a predefined quantitative objective or
standard” (British Columbia 2008). The effectiveness of a
reserve’s management program is measured by the results of
an implemented monitoring program. It is very difficult to
determine whether management strategies are effective, and
to identify ways to improve management, without rigorous
monitoring at various spatial and temporal scales (Prabhu et al.
2001; Noss & Cooperrider 1994). Adaptive actions proposed for
forest management can be grouped into three categories: societal
adaptation (forest policy to encourage adaptation, revision of
conservation objectives, changes in expectations); adaptation of
the forest (species selection, tree breeding, stand management,
fire smart landscapes); and adaptation to the forest (change
rotation age, use more salvage wood, modify wood processing
technology). Many of these management activities implicitly
consider climatic conditions (Spittlehouse et al. 2006).
US strategies developed by the Forest Health Monitoring
and Forest Inventories and Analyses Programs identified
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 127
Table 1. Biotic and abiotic components of the TCFNR monitoring programme and benefit (Abboud & Khater 2007). In this context, the
Measurements Objectives Time-series
flora monitoring scenario states “preserve and manage the
ecosystem integrity of TCFNR while promoting eco-tourism
Abiotic parameters
activities and recreational activities” (Sattout 2007). Long-
Record the effect of
trends of climate on term sustainability of the Cedar forest calls for an adaptive
Climatic data Seasonal
forests and especially C. management programme which in itself requires that climate
tannourinensis
change is kept within tolerable bounds.
Record the effect of soil
Soil humidity and composition Yearly Even though forest ecosystems are complex and difficult to
on C. tannourinensis
model, the implementation of monitoring programs designed to
Biotic parameters
record trends in forest structure and composition is essential. The
Flora
program must integrate biotic and abiotic parameters reflecting
Forest age structure,
composition and growth
Forest dynamic 5-year the health and integrity of the ecosystems. Filtration of the
Ecosystem resilience and
measurable parameters and criteria proposed in the flora and
Biodiversity indices Yearly fauna monitoring programs developed within the UNEP-GEF
health
Selected species: project (Sattout 2007; Abi-Said 2006; ARocha 2005) and review
Paeonia mascula (L.) Mill, Record changes in of US monitoring strategies has resulted in the development of
Cepahlanthera longifolia occurrence, frequency and
(Huds.) Fritsch., Romuela population density
Yearly an integrated monitoring program for observing and controlling
nivalis (Boiss. & Ky.) Klatt., climate change effects in TCFNR (Table 1).
Tulipa aleppensis Regel.
Fauna Abiotic parameters
Insects climatic conditions
Selected species: Changing temperature and precipitation patterns as well
Cephalcia tannourinensis Ch.,
Record changes in density as atmospheric chemistry are expected to affect forest
Dichelia cedricola Diak., Yearly
Thaumetopoea libanotica
and geographic expansion ecosystems. The major climate stressors are changes in (a)
Kiriak. & Talh. timing (b) location and (c) duration of droughts and fall,
Birds winter, and spring freeze cycles.
Jay bird Biodiversity indices Yearly
soil
Black Redstart Ecosystem health Yearly
A critical component of any healthy and sustainable
Mammals
Yearly: Before forest ecosystem, disturbed forest soil under atmospheric
Wild boar
Density of C. and after C. and climatologic changes will affect the viability of the
tannourinensis tannourinensis
cycle
whole ecosystem. The parameters to be measured are (a)
decomposition processes and nutrient availability through
the impacts of climate change including the classification of alteration of soil moisture (b) soil temperature and (c) litter
reliable sensitive indicators. They also developed extensive quality (pH, carbon, nitrogen, and nutrients).
monitoring systems for biological diversity, community
composition, and landscape metrics at local and regional Biotic parameters
scales. The integrated monitoring program provides a forest structure and composition
comprehensive biological monitoring system that is solid Indicators of multiple forest conditions contribute to an improved
spatially and temporally as well as ecologically diverse. understanding of the general functioning of forest ecosystems.
These monitoring systems address the collection of data on The indicators include estimates of: (a) species richness (trees,
key indicators of forest ecosystem processes. They are also understory and lichens); (b) productivity (growth); (c) forest
likely to detect many of the biological, physical, and chemical structure (size, distribution, etc.); (d) tree crowns (status, change
changes in forest ecosystems that are associated with climate in dieback and foliar transparency); (e) insect and disease levels
change. The indicators of forest ecosystem processes will be (defoliation and mortality); (f) mortality (lost volume/gained
important in developing and refining empirical models, and volume); (f) tree damages (insects, diseases, storms, etc.); and
validating the process models (Stolte 2001). (g) sequestration of carbon.
The TCFNR management program vision is ‘to position diversity indices and high altitude range species
the conservation of TCFNR at the heart of a distinctive Climate change is likely to affect the diversity of many
and relic cultural landscape providing unique multiple use vascular and epiphytic plant groups, since many of the
and experience’. Developed in 2007, the main aims of the prime determinants of species composition (carbon dioxide
program are: conservation of the ecological integrity of concentrations, temperature, relative humidity, precipitation,
the forest ecosystem and the improvement of the flora and storms, etc.) are changes expected to affect most areas. The
fauna diversity through habitat management; management diversity of plant life is often correlated to the aesthetic
of TCFNR within its natural forest extension; and promoting value of a forest system, the stability of the system, and the
traditional use, local community practice involvement diversity of insect and animal life. The diversity of plant life

128 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
will be measured through (a) the number of plant species, (b)
frequency of high altitude range species, (c) abundance and
(d) density. The type and amount of disturbance will also be
measured.
Migration of high altitude range species (Table 1) will be
monitored to define the contraction or expansion of species
distribution. The strategy will be developed through recording
the occurrence and density of the population of a defined
species within two horizontal belt transects. One is located
at the lowest boundaries of the forest while the other transect
surrounds the highest boundaries of the forest. Two bird
species are also integrated in the programme as indicators of
diversity and ecosystem health (Table 1).
Insects
Climate change effects such as carbon dioxide levels,
temperature, cloud cover and water and nutrient availability
all affect plant resilience to stress and therefore are observed
as changes in insect and pathogen populations and host plant
species (Stolte 2001; Ayres 1993). The changes in density of
the selected species (Table 1) and the geographical expansion
will be monitored.
mammals
The population of wild boars and their influence on the
density of C. tannourinensis must be monitored to integrate
the management of these populations in the programme
of controlling Cephalcia, without the use of pesticides if
possible. While the correlation between the density of wild
boars and C. tannourinensis will come to support the adaptive
management program in order to control the population
growth of wild boar in the forest, the need for increasing these
populations in order to keep the density of C. tannourinensis
under threshold levels is also sought.
The integrated and systematic monitoring approach for the
above biotic and abiotic parameters and their correlation
will give us more clues of how climate change is affecting
the whole Cedar forest ecosystem in Lebanon. Analysis
will be based on correlative statistical methods. Those
parameters are not static; they may be subject to change,
depending on the results obtained through implementation
of the programme.
Conclusion
Changes in disturbance regimes over geologic time are natural
processes in forest ecosystems. However as a consequence of
climate change, forests may be facing rapid shifts in the timing,
intensity, frequency, and extent of such disturbances. The
number and complexity of climate variables related to forest
disturbance make integrated research a difficult challenge.
In the present case, one of the biggest challenges will be to
tease out the effects of climate change from other biotic and
abiotic parameters impacting Cedar forests. Initial attempts at
analytical approaches must identify specific components (e.g.
individual species) and processes (e.g. growth, mortality) that
are very sensitive to climate change.
B I O D I V E R S I
Even if future changes cannot be exactly predicted, critical
research studies are desperately required to fill the key areas of
knowledge in order to design and execute adaptive management
strategies for Cedar forests in Lebanon. Absence of a national
plan and lack of human and financial resources make the task
of researchers attempting to collect critical sets of data in the
monitoring of environmental impacts a difficult task indeed.
The challenges are immense but the following research topics
are vital to build the necessary decision-making tools for the
development of mitigation and adaptation measures:
• Understand and define the atmospheric and climatic
conditions that initiate disturbances in Cedar forest
ecosystems.
• Understand the effects of disturbances on the Cedar
forest microclimate.
• Understand the effects of disturbances on ecological
niches.
• Define the trends in high range altitude species
populations and appearance of new species.
• Define the number of potential avian predators of the
insect pest C. tannourinensis.
• Define the population structure of C. tannourienensis
(number of one year diapausing larvae versus multiple
year’s diapausing larvae).
• Understand the effect of the adaptive management
strategy in mitigating the disturbances.
Based on the projections for climate change in the next decades
(Baede et al. 2001), it is highly likely that C. tannourinensis,
and other organisms with distributions determined in part by
temperature, will continue expanding their geographic range
and causing outbreaks. While the projected mean rise in
winter and summer temperatures could be used to forecast the
population density of the insect, the inherent unpredictability
of marked deviations from the prevailing climatic regime
will clearly pose a challenge in applied decisions. However,
incorporating these effects in a quantitative, predictive
framework combined with monitoring could prove practical.
For instance, in the case of C. tannourinensis, management
strategies could anticipate the measures needed to protect the
forest ecosystem following a climatic anomaly. Therefore, we
argue that the understanding of changes in the Cedar forest
ecosystems can benefit from paying more attention to the
rapid responses of species to climatic anomalies and thus
ultimately help to reduce the effects of climate change.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the useful
corrections and guidance provided.
References
Abboud, M. and C. Khater. 2007. Tannourine Cedar Forest Nature
Reserve: Management Plan. 2008-2012. UNEP/AUB/MOE. Lebanon.
180 pp.
Abdo, C., N. Nemer, G. Nemer, Y. Abou Jawdah, H. Atamian, and
N. Kawar. 2008. Isolation of Beauveria species from Lebanon and
evaluation of its efficacy against the Cedar web-spinning sawfly,
Cephalcia tannourinensis. BioControl 53 : 341-352.
Abi-Said, M. 2006. Tannourine Mammals Report. TCFNR/MOE/AUB.
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 129
 Lebanon. 38pp.
ARocha, 2005. Tannourine Birds Report. TCFNR/MOE/AUB. Lebanon.
58pp.
Alptekin, C. U., M. Bariteau, and J. P. Fabre. 1997. Le cèdre de Turquie:
Aire naturelle, insects ravageurs, perspectives d’utilisation pour les
reboisements en France. Biologie et Forêt 49: 19-31.
Anonymous, 1999. Lebanon’s First National Communication Report.
Climate Change Enabling Activity Project. Phase 1997–1999. URL:
http://www.moe.gov.lb/ClimateChange/phase1.htmll.GEF/UNDP/
MOE. Lebanon. [Accessed March 2008].
Ayres, M. P. 1993. Plant defense, herbivory, and climate chnage.
In: Kareiva, P. M., Kingsolver, J. G. and R. B. Huey (Eds), Biotic
Interactions and Global change, Sinauer Associates Inc, Sunderland,
MA, USA. Pp 75-94
Baede, A.P.M., E. Alhonsou, Y. Ding, and D. Schimel. 2001. The climate
system: an overview. In Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.
Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden,
X. Dai, K. Maskell , and C.A. Johnson (Eds). Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 87-98.
Baltaxe, R. 1965. Projet de bonification intégrale de la Montagne Libanaise.
Report on mapping the forests of Lebanon. Lebanon: FAO and Green
Plan.
Bariteau, M. and P. Ferrandes. 1992. Les Cèdres. In: Gallais, A. and H.
Bannerot (Eds), Amelioration des espèces végétales cultivées: Objectifs
et critères de selection. France: INRA.
Bariteau, M., K. P. Panestos, O. M’Hirit, and A. Scaltsoyiannes. 1999.
Variabilité Génétique du Cèdre de l’Atlas en comparaison avec les autres
cèdres Mediterranéens. Forêt Mediterranéenne 20: 175-190.
Barrow, E., M.A Semenov, and M. Hulme. 1995. Construction of site-
specific scenarios. In: R.A. Harrison, R.E. Butterfield, and T.E. Downing
(Eds). Climate Change and Agriculture in Europe. Assesment of Impacts
and Adaptations. Research Report No. 9, Oxford. pp 30-50.
Battisti, A. 1993. Bionomics of the srpuce web-spinning sawfly Cephalcia
arvensis Panzer in Northeastern Italy (Hym., Pamphiliidae). Journal of
Applied Entomology 117: 165-181.
Battisti, A. 1994. Voltinism and diapause in the spruce web-spinning
sawfly Cephalcia arvensis. Entomologia Experimentalis et Apllicata 70:
105-113.
Basbous, M. and R. De Tarade. 1968. Notes sur l’écologie du cèdre du
Liban. Beyrouth: Publications de l’Univeristé Libanaise.
Battisti, A., M. Stastny, S. Netherer, C. Robinet, A. Schopf, A. Roques
and S. Larsson. 2005. Expansion of geographic range in the pine
processionary moth caused by increased winter temperatures. Ecological
Applications 15: 2084-2096.
Beals, E. W. 1965.The remnant Cedar forests of Lebanon. Journal of
Ecology 53: 679-694.
British Columbia. 2008. Assessing effectiveness of management.
URL:http://www.forestbiodiversityinbc.ca/manage_steps_assess.asp
[Accessed Sept, 2008]
Browicz, K. 1982. Chorology of trees and shrubs in South-West Asia and
adjacent Regions. Vol. I. Polish Scientific Publishers, USSR.
Chevin, H. 2002. Cephalcia tannourinensis n. sp., nouveau ravageur du
Cèdre du Liban (Hymenoptères Pamphiliidae). L’Entomologiste 58:
241-242.
Dale, V.H., L.A. Joyce, S. McNulty, R.P. Neilson, M.P. Ayres, M.D.
Flannigan, P.J. Hanson, L.C. Irland, A.E. Lugo, C.J. Peterson, D.
Simberloff, F.J. Swanson, B.J. Stocks, B.M. Wotton. 2001. Climate
change and forest disturbance. BioScience 51: 723 -734.
De Vaumas, E. 1954. Le Liban: Montagne Libanaise, Bekaa, Anti-Liban,
Hermon, Haute Galilée Libanaise. Etude de géographie physique.
FIRMIN-DIDOT, Paris. France.
Führer E and P. Fischer. 1991. Towards integrated control of Cephalcia
abietis, a defoliator of Norway spruce in central Europe. For. Ecol.
Manage. 39: 87– 95.
Guinet, J.-M., 2003. Cephalcia pallidula (Gussakovskij) (Hymenoptera,
Pamphiliidae), symphyte nouveau pour la faune du Luxembourg. Bull.
Soc. Nat. luxemb. 103: 83-86.
Hilton-Taylor, C. (Compiler). 2000. 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge. UK. 36 pp.
Hodar, J. A. and R. Zamora. 2004. Herbivory and climatic warming:
a Mediterranean outbreaking caterpillar attacks a relict, boreal pine
species. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 493-500.
Hooker, R. 1996. Mesopotamia. Gilgamesh. World Civilizations. URL:
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MESO/GILG.HTM [May
21,2008].
Karas, J.H.W. 1999.Climate Change and the Mediterranean Region.
URL:http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/climate-
change-and-the-mediter [Accessed September 2, 2008]
130 T R O P I C A L C
Karban, R. and S. Y. Strauss. 2004. Physiological tolerance, climate
change, and a northward range shift in the spittle bug, Philaenus
spumarius. Ecological Entomology 29: 251-254.
Khouzami, M. and I. Nahal. 1983. Les bioclimats du Cèdre du Liban
(Cedrus libani A. Rich.) et leurs particularités dans son aire naturelle.
Research Journal of Aleppo University Agricultural Sciences 5: 39-62
Khouzami, M., M. Bassil, L. Fortunat, and A. Hayek. 1996. Étude
de la diversité biologique du liban. Liste des espèces basée sur les
rapports de l’étude de la diversité biologique du Liban. Ministère de
l’Agriculture et Programme des Nations Unies pour l’Environnement.
Liban.
Martineck, V. 1991. An outbreak of the web-spinning sawfly Cephalcia
arvensis Panz. In Eastern Bohemia. Lesnictivi 37: 541-567.
McCune, B., Dey J., Peck J. and . 1997. Regional gradients in lichen
communities of the southeast United States. Bryologist 100: 145- 158.
McNulty, S.G. and J.D. Aber. 2001. US national climate change assessment
on forest ecosystems: An introduction. Bioscience 51(9):720-722
Meiggs, R. 1998. Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World.
UK: Oxford University Press. 598 pp.
Mhanna, M. 2007. Modeling temperature trends and extremes  : Beirut
region as a case study. M.Sc. dissertation. American University of
Beirut. 164 pp.
Mikesell, M. W. 1969. The deforestation of Mount Lebanon. Geographical
Review 19:1-28.
Mouterde, P. 1966. Nouvelle flore du Liban et de la Syrie. Vol. I-II-III.
Editions de l’imprimerie catholique. Beyrouth. Liban.
Nemer, N., G. Demolin, N. Kawar, L. Kfoury, and E. Zakhour.
2005. Monitoring of the new Cedar web-spinning sawfly, Cephalcia
tannourinensis n.sp. in Cedar forests of Lebanon. In: Entomological
Research in Mediterranean Forest Ecosystems, F. Lieutier and D.
Ghaioule (Eds). INRA France pp. 247-255.
Nemer, N., N.S. Kawar, L. Kfoury, and B. Frerot. 2007. Evidence of
sexual attraction by pheromones in the Cedar web-spinning sawfly.
Canadian Entomologist 139: 713-721.
Nemer, N. and J. Nasr. 2004. Saving the Cedars of Lebanon. Biocontrol
News and Information 25: 9-11.
Noss, R.F. and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving Nature’s Legacy:
Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington DC.
380 pp.
Paoletti, E., A. Bytnerowicz, C. Andersen, A. Agustaitis, M. Ferretti, N.
Grulke, M.S. Gunthardt-Goerg, J. Innes, D. Johnson, D. Karnosky,
J. Luangjane, R. Matyssek, S. McNulty, G. Muller-Starck, R.
Musselman, and K. Percy. 2007. Impacts of air pollution and climate
change on forest ecosystems-emerging research needs. The Scientific
World Journal 7: S1:1-8. DOI 10.1100/tsw.2007.52
Parmesan, C. and J. Matthews. 2006. Biological impacts of climate
change. In: Groom, M. J., Meffe, G. K. and C. R. Caroll (Eds).
Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland,
Massachusetts, USA pp. 333-374.
Prabhu, R.H., H.J. Ruitenbeek, T.J.B. Boyle, and J. Pierre Colfer.
2001. Between voodoo science and adaptive management: The role
and research needs for indicators of sustainable forest management. In:
Raison, R. J., Brown, A. G. and D. W. Flinn (Eds). Criteria and Indicators
for Sustainable Forest Management. CABI Publishing, IUFRO Research
Series 7. Vienna. Pp.39-66.
Sattout, E. J. 2007. Flora Biodiversity Assessment and Monitoring in
Tannourine Cedar Forest Nature Reserve. UNEP-GEF Project on
Integrated Management of Cedar Forests in Lebanon in Cooperation
with Other Mediterranean Countries. TCFNR/AUB/MOE/SETS.
Lebanon. 97pp.
Sattout, E. 2004. Perspective for sustainable use of Cedrus libani A. Rich
in Lebanon. PhD dissertation. The University of Reading, UK. 205 pp.
Spittlehouse, D.L., M. Eng, A. Hamann, D. Meidinger, and T.L. Wang.
2006. Spatial climate data and assessment of climate change impacts
on forest ecosystems. Final Report for Forest Science Program Project
Y062149, Res. Br., BC Min. Forests and Range, Victoria, 34 pp.
Stolte, K. W. 2001. Forest Health Monitoring and Forest Inventory Analysis
Programs Monitor Climate Change Effect in Forest Ecosystems. Human
and Ecological Risk Assessment 7: 1297 -1316.
Talhouk, S.N., R. Zurayk, and S. Khuri. 2001. Conservation of the
coniferous forests of Lebanon: Past, present and future prospects. Oryx
35: 206-215.
UNEP-GEF/AUB/MOE. 2003. Project Document. Integrated Management
of Cedar Forests in Lebanon in Cooperation with Other Mediterranean
Countries. Project number: GFL / 2328 - 2713 - PMS: GF/2010-03.
Walther, G.R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T.J.C.
Beebee, J.M. Fromentin, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and F. Bairlein. 2002.
Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416: 389-395.
O N S E R V A N C Y
 T H E V O I C E

THE SECRETARIAT SPEAKS

An Exclusive Interview with Ahmed Djoghlaf Executive Secretary of the CBD August 14th,2008
Biodiversity Journal: Protected Areas (PAs) now cover about 12% of the earth’s land surface,
however, not all species and biomes are covered. Climate change may very well impact those
shortfalls dramatically. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), climate
change is likely to become the dominant direct driver of biodiversity loss by the end of the
century. How can the CBD assist in the preparation of PAs for the impending impacts of
climate change?
Ahmed Djoghlaf: As you know, the world is changing in terms of loss of biodiversity. The
MEA notes that humans have altered ecosystems more rapidly and extensively over the past 50
years than in any other period in human history. During the last century, the extinction rate of species has increased by up to a
thousand times. We are rapidly reaching the conclusion that climate change has become one of the most important drivers of the
loss of biodiversity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted that by the end of this century up to
30% of all assessed species will disappear.
Protected areas have long been a major tool for the conservation of nature in general, and biodiversity in particular. In 1836,
the King of Prussia bought a piece of land and declared it protected so as to prevent the land and the picturesque castle on it
from becoming a quarry. In the United States of America in 1872, Yellowstone National Park was established as the world’s
first national park. And long before that, indigenous communities world-wide identified sites they considered to be sacred,
ultimately creating protected areas. Protected areas are the foundation for safeguarding ecosystems, species and genes in all
their abundance and diversity. They are the backbone for the stability and functioning of ecosystem processes and the provision
of ecosystem services such as natural carbon storage, water cycles, pollination, control of diseases and flood control. Properly
designed and managed protected areas support livelihoods of local communities and strengthen local and national economies.
Protected area networks are our “Safety-Nets for Life on Earth”. Thus the establishment and long-term maintenance of protected
areas is in the interest of humanity and requires a common effort of the global community.
All this being said, these areas are not exempt from other environmental challenges. For example, as climate change progresses, up to
40 per cent of mammals in protected areas in sub-Saharan Africa are projected to become endangered. The parties to the Convention
on Biological Diversity have recognized the value of such spaces as well as their vulnerabilities. In 2004 they adopted a Programme
of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA) for the establishment of comprehensive, effectively managed and ecologically representative
national and regional protected area systems. World leaders have agreed to achieve this objective on land by 2010 and in marine areas
by 2012. Parties agreed to close the gaps in the existing systems, enhance management effectiveness and secure adequate financing.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA) provides a blueprint of how
to establish protected areas, how to manage them, how to govern them and what tools can be used to achieve the planned work.
It charts the way forward in detail and with clear targets. The end result will be protected areas that fulfil their key role of
conserving in situ biodiversity of the world and that help the achievement of the 2010 Biodiversity Target. It is a framework for
cooperation between Governments, donors, NGOs and local communities.
The PoWPA is now four years old and some of its ambitious deadlines have passed. However, there are many signs of progress.
Political will and commitments are clearly being catalyzed. Since the adoption of the programme of work, some 2,300
new terrestrial protected areas and 50 new marine protected areas, covering approximately 60 million hectares, have been
established. The PoWPA has also triggered countries to declare ambitious protection goals. In May this year, at the ninth meeting
of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD (COP 9) in Bonn, Germany, the Brazilian Environment Minister, His Excellency
Carlos Minc, announced the creation of four new protected areas, three of them in the Brazilian Amazon, totalling 2.3 million
hectares. In Bonn, Environment Ministers from 65 countries signed on support to a call for zero net deforestation by 2020. The
international community as a whole has made tremendous efforts in establishing protected areas.
Also during the Conference of the Parties (CoP 9 in Bonn, May 2008) a major initiative was introduced by the German
Government to enhance the scope and management of protected areas - the LifeWeb Initiative. The mandate of this initiative is
to enhance management of existing protected areas and establish additional areas to fill gaps in the global network of protected
areas. COP 9 welcomed the LifeWeb Initiative as one tool to assist in implementing the PoWPA and many Parties announced that
they want to be involved. The German CBD Presidency - in cooperation with the CBD Secretariat and other institutions – has
promised to make the LifeWeb Initiative a vital and effective tool to protect our precious ecosystems.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 131
Moreover, at COP 9 we developed a partnership called Friends of the PoWPA, comprised not only Governments like
Canada and Germany but also international NGOs such as Conservation International, TNC, Wildlife Conservation
society, BirldLife International and the WWF, as well as international organizations such as IUCN World Commission
on Protected Areas (WCPA), establishing a coalition of partners to implement the work programme. One of the outputs
was a comprehensive brochure “The Value of Nature – ecological, economic, cultural and social benefits of protected
areas” that demonstrates the multi-faceted value of PAs, not only in terms of conservation -- which of course is a well
known benefit -- but also in terms of income generation for the local communities alleviating and combating poverty,
and in terms of the spiritual and scriptural value and dimension of biodiversity. As you know a number of sacred sites
have provided a tremendous contribution to the protection of biodiversity as well as preserving the culture, civilization
and traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples. These sites are everywhere in the world: in deserts, rivers, and in
mountainous regions. “The Value of Nature” highlights all of these benefits. So PAs are not only for conservation but are
a fantastic development tool. Therefore I am very happy that at COP 9, efforts were made to enhance the PoWPA Friends.
In fact, through the PoWPA Friends Consortium we have organized a series of regional workshops attended by nearly 600
planners, practitioners and policy makers from some 100 countries, building capacity to enhance the management and
scope of protected areas – keys to long-lasting success.
As mentioned, climate change is already affecting protected areas and the species and ecosystems they are designed to protect.
Thus all of these initiatives are even more crucial to safe-guarding life on Earth. As such, there are some explicit provisions
for addressing climate change in the PoWPA. Under activity 1.4.5 of goal 1.4, Parties are required to integrate climate change
adaptation measures in protected area planning, management strategies, and in the design of protected area systems. Other
important activities include: expanding protected areas in areas under high threat and highly irreplaceable natural areas; gap
analysis; integrating protected areas into broader land - and seascapes; and transboundary protected areas. All of these provide
for addressing climate change. Thus, the PoWPA encourages adaptation to climate change through all ecosystems and will
therefore allow the international community to address climate change.
More generally, protected areas can serve as important elements of climate change adaptation and mitigation through the simple
principle that unbroken blocks of in-tact habitat increase ecosystems’ resilience to climate change since ecosystems with high
biodiversity and intact structural components recover more easily from climatic disturbances. Additionally, protected areas can
provide protection against the physical impacts of climate change such as rising sea levels, rising temperatures, and extreme
weather events. Therefore they are an important part of adaptation and mitigation to climate change.
As the IPCC has noted, regardless of what the governments and the Parties decide in Copenhagen next year regarding the post-
Kyoto regime, the world is bound to be warmer and precipitation patterns are bound to change. We are seeing the effects of this,
not only on the level of species, but in some ecosystems. Shifting upward or pole-ward is predicted to be one of the most common
responses of species to the impacts of climate change. Protected areas, particularly corridors, will have an important role to play
in providing habitat to facilitate such shifts so as to maximize the natural adaptive capacity of biodiversity. Some ecosystems
will need more protection and new protected areas will have to be created due to climate change. Therefore the PoWPA is a
valuable programme, not only to protect or conserve PAs, but also to adapt to climate change.
All of the initiatives I have mentioned, and more, will contribute to the preservation of all life on Earth.
Biodiversity Journal: There is immense pressure on PAs in many developing countries, pressures for resource extraction by
logging and mining companies etc. How do you envision the role of the global community in mobilizing funding resources to
maintain the effectiveness and multi-faceted roles of the existing protected areas?
Ahmed Djoghlaf: As I have said, one of the major contributions from Germany at the last Conference of the Parties in Bonn
was the announcement of the Life Web Initiative, which aims at supporting the implementation of the PoWPA through enhancing
partnerships at a global level. The purpose of the initiative is to provide funds to the governments who are willing to protect
more areas but do not have the financial ability to protect these areas. It aims to do so by matching voluntary commitments for
the designation of new protected areas and the improved management of existing areas with commitments for dedicated (co-)
financing of these areas.
In fact, the President of Indonesia announced their intention to protect 20 million hectares of marine areas which would transform
Indonesia into the largest marine PA in the world. This was followed by commitments by Thailand, Guatemala, Mexico and a
number of other countries including Madagascar. Many other countries have announced their intention to protect terrestrial and
marine areas and of course they are looking for more financial support by Germany and other partners who joined at COP 9.
Other countries like Finland, Norway, and Spain have announced their intentions to join the partnership and very soon there will
be a meeting between those who have announced new pledges to create PAs and those who are willing to support financially or
technically to organize the management of the Life Web Initiative. Therefore this is a major contribution in enhancing not only
the size of PAs, especially marine PAs, but also in providing better management of the existing PAs.

132 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
Also, as you know, the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) is the financial mechanism of the CBD. Its CEO and Chairperson,
Mrs. Monique Barbut, has announced an enhancement of the already existing PAs to complement the initiative of the German
Government. So these are double-track efforts; firstly enhancing what exists, better management and better use of already
existing PAs, and secondly enhancing the scope of PA through the Life Web Initiative.
COP 9 also adopted a landmark decision on options for mobilizing adequate and timely financial resources for the implementation
of the programme of work. In decision IX/18, the COP requested the Parties to develop sustainable financing plans including
innovative mechanisms, public-private sector partnerships, a national fund raising target and exploring funding opportunities
for implementing the PoWPA in the context of addressing climate change. The COP invited the GEF to consider support for
proposals that demonstrate the role protected areas play in addressing climate change.
Additionally, a strategy on resource mobilization was adopted in Bonn. This strategy will be submitted to our partners, the first
opportunity will be in Doha, Qatar (20 Nov to 3 Dec 2008). There will be meeting on financing developments to announce the
Bonn message for financing biodiversity which has been adopted by the Conference of the Parties. This will come five years
after the Monterey meeting in Mexico which as you know was when declarations and commitments by donors were made to
enhance the financial support for development (the Monterrey Consensus of the 2002 International Conference on Financing for
Development). We hope the Doha outcome will include some specific mechanism for financing biodiversity which will include
of course PAs.
Lastly another important achievement in Bonn was the development of a multi-year guidance to the GEF for its next replenishment;
the fifth replenishment for another four years. Through this, we hope to have more financial resources allocated to biodiversity.
This is the first time that the COP has provided advice and guidance to the GEF before the replenishment of its resources. There
is a proposal to double the resources already allocated to biodiversity during this phase which amounts to one billion dollars in
order to implement the Bonn decisions, which will of course include PAs.
All of this will improve PAs and more generally enhance the work of the CBD.

Biodiversity Journal: Biodiversity corridors are frequently mentioned in the research on the effectiveness of PAs, as they
provide a means for species to move between PAs, particularly given the indications that species are migrating poleward and in
some cases towards areas of higher altitude. Are biolinks between PAs addressed in the PA Programme of Work?
Ahmed Djoghlaf: Yes, goal 1.2 of the PoWPA deals with biolinks between PAs. This goal is devoted to integrating protected
areas into wider land – and seascapes by applying the ecosystem approach and taking into account connectivity, corridors and
the concept of ecological networks to maintain ecological processes and the needs of migratory species. As mentioned earlier
protected areas, particularly corridors, will have an important role to play in providing habitat to facilitate such shifts so as to
maximize the natural adaptive capacity of biodiversity.
As early as 2006, in Brazil, the Parties recognized that climate change was becoming one of the most important threats to
biodiversity. Accordingly, the COP adopted a decision that mandated the enhanced integration of climate change into all of the
work programmes, not only for PAs. When considering corridors, this decision was particularly relevant for the marine and
coastal programme of work as well as the programmes of work addressing biodiversity in mountains, forests, fresh water systems
and dry and sub-humid lands. Therefore, I do agree with you that it is an emerging finding from the scientific community that
species are on the move and ecosystems are changing, ultimately requiring a modality in order to facilitate this movement of
species. Without these, species will disappear because they do not have the possibility of moving to more suitable areas. We
see this with marine and mountain biodiversity among others. As such, this issue of biodiversity corridors has been on the
agenda of the international community for quite a while. Indeed the Mesoamerican corridor was initiated early in the 1990s to
facilitate this movement. Also in France, they have identified biodiversity corridors as one of the most important elements in
implementation of their biodiversity strategy. I was in Singapore last week for a conference on urban biodiversity and they also
considered this network between PAs as one of their most important priorities due to the many ecosystem services that cities
rely for bare necessities like clean water. Now the plan is to connect more PA with more corridors to allow the species to adapt
and to move in order to adjust to climate change.
Lastly, as you know, all of the signatory governments need to have a strategy or national plan for biodiversity under Article 6 of the
Convention on Biological Diversity. We are now encouraging all Parties that have done so (more than 140 countries), to revise them
in order to include climate change adaptation. To support countries’ efforts, we are organizing a number of regional workshops to
promote best practices and exchange experiences of how to adjust these strategies and action plans to current priorities, including
of course climate change and the achievement of the 2010 biodiversity target. Such exchanges will strengthen efforts in member
countries and indeed the overall work of the CBD -- all supporting the conservation of life on Earth.

Biodiversity Journal: Mr. Djoghlaf, thank you on behalf of all our readers.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 133
 CIVIL SOCIETY SPEAKS
ARE WE MISSING THE 2010 TARGET ?
By Ashish Kothari
Ashish Kothari, founder- Will the world meet the 2010 target? This was the question uppermost in the minds of delegates
member of Kalpavriksh, from nearly 200 countries, and members of several hundred civil society organisations gathered
India, Head of the in Bonn, Germany, in the second half of May. The occasion was the 9th Conference of Parties
IUCN inter-commission
Task Force on Local to the Convention on Biological Diversity, an international treaty that, back in 1993, laid the
Communities and ground for comprehensive and effective action to protect the earth's living beings. Fifteen years
Protected Areas.
later, it was time to take stock of what the convention had achieved. It was also the right time
to ask about “2010”….an iconic figure that has been reverberating in the corridors of those who
care about life on this planet.
What's with this figure? In 2002, governments of the world decided “to achieve, by 2010, a significant reduction of the current rate
of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on
Earth”. This was endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly, and incorporated into the Millennium Development Goals.
Both the primary goal of reducing biodiversity loss, and its links with the secondary goal of poverty alleviation, represented
a significant commitment on the part of countries to take urgent action on two of humanity's most pressing problems. It was
therefore natural for the several thousand participants in Bonn to ask: in 2008, are we anywhere near achieving these goals?

Biodiversity loss is humanity's loss

I don't need to explain that poverty is one of the biggest blots on human civilisation. But perhaps the issue of biodiversity loss,
and how it relates to poverty, could do with some elaboration.
Biodiversity --- or the range of plant, animal, and micro-organism life around us --- is the basis of everything we care about. It
is what makes the planet livable, for instance through the generous gift of oxygen that minute algae plants in the oceans provide
us with, or the regulation of climatic patterns we are so used to (and are now disrupting), the replenishment of fertility in the
soils we grow our food in, and so on. Simply put, without biodiversity, we would all be dead in a matter of minutes. Or rather,
we would not have existed in the first place!
And yet we have treated this crucial resource as if it was expendable. We have plundered forests at rates that are mind-boggling:
in the last 300 years we've lost 40% of the world's forest cover, and are currently losing 13 million hectares each year, including
6 million hectares of relatively intact ‘primary' forests. We have mistreated soils so badly that over half the world's arable land
is degraded. We have abused and overgrazed vast tracts of grasslands, converting them into dead deserts. We have polluted or
drained our wetlands beyond the point of recovery, with over 50% having been lost in just the last 100 years. Even the oceans ---
once considered infinite in their ability to provide us with fish and absorb our pollutants --- are facing collapse. Sixty per cent of
coral reefs could be lost by 2030. All of this has had a devastating impact on plant and animal species; if some current estimates
are to be believed, one more species may have gone extinct in the time it took you to read this article.
So what? Won't the billions of dollars that people are making, and the incredible technologies we are developing, help us pay or find
our way out of any environmental crisis? Not this one. A series of recent reports put together by hundreds of the world's scientists,
under the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, point to the fact that biodiversity loss is already causing our food producing and
water recharging systems to collapse, and recovery is going to be exceedingly difficult. Two-thirds of fish stocks in the high seas
are already exploited beyond recovery. Another worldwide assessment, the Global Biodiversity Outlook, paints a similar grim
picture. And in a preliminary report by a global team of economists as part of a European Commission and German government
funded study ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity' (TEEB), it is revealed that biodiversity damage is leading directly to
staggering economic losses. No overall estimate of this is possible, but to get an indication: currently, says the report, “ each year we
are losing ecosystem functions with a value equivalent to around EUR 50 billion from land-based ecosystems alone” .
Putting a human face to these cold statistics helps gauge the true extent of this unfolding tragedy. In Haiti (the Caribbean), the
loss of 97% of its forests in the last few decades, has resulted in severe soil erosion, flooding, decreased rainfall and consequent
drought, loss of land productivity, and severe water pollution from sediment and human effluents….all major reasons for
over 50% of its population being malnourished, and over 90% of its children suffering chronic intestinal parasitic diseases.
Several billion people in the world have depended directly (i.e. in their day-to-day existence) on biodiversity for their food,
medicine, livelihoods, and so on. Thousands of cultures continue to gain their strength from direct interactions with nature or
with modified ecosystems such as traditional agricultural landscapes. Whenever there is irreversible damage to biodiversity, the
immediate impacts are on such people...though eventually even those of us who buy food from supermarkets and medicines from
pharmacies, are affected. But it is the ‘ecosystem people' who suffer the most, and indeed their poverty is enhanced because of

134 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
the loss of resources for domestic consumption and for livelihoods. If current trends continue, over two billion people along the
coasts and in forests will face serious loss of not only livelihoods but also essential nutrition and well-being.
What is causing this loss?
Has the world done enough to check the loss of biodiversity, since it decided 15 years ago to take action? To answer this, one
must first look at the main causes of destruction and damage.
Fisheries are a good example to learn from. For thousands of years traditional fisherfolk have lived along the seas or inland
waterways, catching fish or other aquatic resources. There is little evidence of their having caused irreversible damage, though
undoubtedly there may have been a few sites where overfishing would have resulted. It is however when industrial-scale fishing
started a few decades ago that the depletion began. Massive ships with sophisticated navigation and fish school detecting systems,
deep-sea trawling equipment that would scrape up every bit of marine resource, and refrigeration and processing facilities that
could make fish last for weeks before getting to land, began to operate both near the coast and deeper into the oceans. Soaring
consumer demand from not only industrial countries but also the increasingly wealthy affluent class in ‘developing' countries,
has fuelled these fishing monsters. In the space of a few decades, virtually every ocean and sea in the world (except perhaps the
Indian Ocean) is overfished. Ironically, governments, mostly of industrial countries (including now China and India), subsidise
the fishing industry by about 30 billion dollars annually.
As in aquatic resources, industrial technologies and uncontrolled consumption have led to massive deforestation. These are
coupled with a desperate push for land amongst the poor, who often have no alternative but to clear trees to grow crops or graze
livestock. Tens of millions of hectares of natural diverse forest have been converted to plantations of industrially useful trees
like palm oil and eucalyptus; in the latest twist, the supposedly ecologically conscious decision of industrial countries to convert
from petrol to ‘biofuels', is leading to further conversion of forests into fuel plantations. Meanwhile, we continue to lose the
world's most diverse and climatically vital forests in the Amazon, central Africa, and south-east Asia , to timber logging and
conversion into soyabean and cattle ranches. In Brazil alone, since 1970, over 600,000 square kilometres of rainforest have been
destroyed….an area almost double the size of India!
And now the latest threat: climate change. This one is even more scary, for while deforestation contributes enormously to
the carbon emissions that are tilting the fine balance in our atmosphere, the resulting changes in climatic patterns are further
damaging forests. The ocean's ability to absorb pollutants reduces as climate change affects the productivity of its biodiversity….
another vicious cycle. Cause and effect merge into one deadly combination that is self-perpetuating.
Unless, that is, humans take some drastic action. And so the question again: have we done enough to stem the rot?

The world takes action…or does it ?

At COP9 in Bonn, delegates reviewed the implementation of several conservation related work programmes. Each of the world's
major ecosystems --- forests, marine areas, drylands, inland wetlands, agricultural lands --- have detailed action plans (see
www.cbd.int). In addition there are cross-cutting plans such as the one to expand and strengthen protected areas. Many of these
are very impressive in concept, and some, like the protected areas work programme (www.cbd.int/protected/), are extremely
progressive in building in elements of democratic governance and equity. Many countries also reported renewed attempts to
conserve ecosystems and expand their protected area (PA) network, and civil society organisations including indigenous peoples
and local communities also spoke of their own initiatives.
Overall, though, it was clear that the world was nowhere near reaching the 2010 target. It is of course difficult to gauge this
precisely, since precise estimates of ecosystem and species loss are very difficult to make. But if some gross indicators are taken,
the picture is quite bleak. Deforestation rates may have gone down very marginally, but the world's most biologically diverse
forests in the tropics continue to be degraded at alarming rates. There is little let-up in the over-exploitation of marine fisheries.
Species listed in the Red Data book of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), have steadily increased,
with only a handful showing encouraging recoveries.
One interesting discussion at COP9 concerned protected areas (PAs). Many countries have made impressive progress in expanding
the area under PAs. It is however not clear if this has helped secure some more ecosystems and species from threats, for thousands
of PAs across the world remain without adequate on-ground protection. Secondly, and this was a hot topic at COP9, many new
PAs continue to be set up in conventional top-down manner, adversely affecting the livelihoods of communities living inside or
adjacent to them by stopping or restricting access to resources. In other words, attempts to meet the first part of the 2010 target
(reduced rate of biodiversity loss) may actually be taking us further away from meeting the second part (alleviating poverty)!
Conversely, there is little evidence that conventional poverty alleviation programmes, which continue in most countries, have
integrated biodiversity conservation. It is only in a few countries that the two are explicitly being put together; Madagascar for
instance has committed to tripling its PA coverage, but by following more democratic policies and encouraging community
conservation initiatives along with the more usual government ones.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 135
In the case of agriculture too, innovative programmes to conserve crop and livestock diversity appeared to be floundering in the quagmire
of massive loss of land, aggressive push of corporate chemical-intensive agriculture, and the newest threat, genetically engineered crops.
The TEEB report mentioned above states that almost 40% of the land currently under low-impact forms of agriculture (which use high
levels of biodiversity and low levels of chemicals), “could be converted to intensive agricultural use, with further biodiversity losses.”
These low-impact agriculture practices are what should be encouraged. Yet at COP9, the official celebration of World Biodiversity
Day (May 22nd), with the central theme of agricultural biodiversity, did not have farmers and pastoralists centre-stage. A global
movement of small farmers, alienated from the process, had to publicly protest to make their voices heard. Countries have
clearly missed the message that civil society has tried hammering in for years: that the world's crop and livestock diversity is
best conserved by the millions of small farmers and pastoral communities that have generated it in the first place. Instead, many
governments are flirting with dangerous technofixes, spurred on by powerful corporations, to ‘solve' the world's food and agro-
product problems. One such is genetic engineering. But that's the subject of another, future article in this column.
Can we achieve 2010 ?
Doubtful….very very doubtful. Most government delegations at COP9 did not seem to be in a mood to take the drastic actions needed to
even begin moving towards a significant reduction in rate of biodiversity loss. At the start of the conference, NGOs, indigenous peoples
and local communities had presented to the delegates what they considered to be some essential steps. These included:
• halting all illegal logging and phasing out commercial operations in the most valuable forests;
• a moratorium on industrial fishing till the seas recover;
• recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities to their territories and lands, and to their own
conservation practices;
• securing protected areas with full respect to the rights of communities in them;
• substantial increase in funding for biodiversity conservation, while phasing out all kinds of ‘perverse' incentives such as
agricultural subsidies that encourage unsustainable practices;
• support to farmers and pastoralists to conserve agricultural biodiversity;
• greater recognition of the enormous value of biodiversity in our lives, and building the true value into planning, budgeting,
and accounting systems;
• prohibitions or moratoria on genetic engineering, and expensive techno-fixes for climate change problems.
• Governments politely heard these out, some agreed in public, many agreed in private…but when it came to the negotiations,
there were always a few countries to block major progressive moves.
Nobody, of course, expects the CBD process to achieve a revolution, especially given that the delegates coming to it are from
agencies that are amongst the weakest in their own governments back home. But if delegates coming to these meetings are indeed
committed to the CBD's goals, they need to display far more guts and honesty. News coming in on the last day of the month
suggests that at least on one matter, they did; they all agreed to call for a moratorium on the mad scheme to “fertilise” the oceans
with huge inputs of nutrients into the sea to absorb carbon faster.
But such decisions are exceptions rather than the rule; overall, the negotiations are bogged down in political doublespeak and
obstructionist behaviour of some governments. Several million dollars are spent for each such meeting, and after nine of them
since 1993, we are all asking ourselves: is it worth it?

We have two years left to 2010. We cannot possibly achieve the target set in 2002. But we can do our hardest to start moving
towards it. For this, civil society will need to mobilise itself even more, governments who care will need to be bolder, and the
corporations and governments who simply don't care, will need to be shamed and defeated. A tall order, very tall indeed. But do
we have any alternative? We only have one world, and our life depends on it!
This article was first published online at http://infochangeindia.org/200806067167/Environment/Politics-of-Biodiversity/Are-
we-missing-the-2010-target.html
Ashish Kothari is a founder-member of Kalpavriksh, a 20-year-old environmental research and action group in India. He is currently
the co-ordinator of the Technical and Policy Core Group to formulate India 's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. He
is a member of several government committees including the Expert Group on the Biodiversity Act, the committee to revise the
National Wildlife Action Plan, the Environmental Appraisal Committee for River Valley Projects, etc. He is the head of the IUCN
inter-commission Task Force on Local Communities and Protected Areas and is on the board of Greenpeace International.

Ashish Kothari
Apt. 5 Shree Dutta Krupa
908 Deccan Gymkhana
Pune 411004
Tel: 91-20-25675450
Tel/Fax: 91-20-25654239

136 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
 S P E C I E S B Y S P E C I E S

BLOSSOMING TREASURES OF BIODIVERSITY:

28. Triticale – A cereal solution for extreme climates
E. Small and P.M. Catling
How can we reverse the increasing risk of hunger and starvation, due in part to climate change? Cereals have always Authors’ Addresses:
been the leading world crops, and are critically important for the Developing World. Not surprisingly we look to cereals E. Small
P.M. Catling
for a solution. Experts say that the conventional cereals are unlikely to meet future shortfalls, but an unconventional Biodiversity,
cereal might be an answer. National Program on
Environmental Health,
Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada
Cereals—defined as members of the grass family that furnish edible seeds for people—are the world’s most Ottawa, Ontario,
important plants. Most of our planet’s cropland is used to produce cereal grain, of which humans consume Canada K1A 0C6
about 50% directly and the remaining 50% indirectly as livestock products. Three cereals—Wheat, Rice, and Corn
(Maize)—account for about 60% of the calories and 56% of the protein that humans get directly from plants. smalle@agr.gc.ca OR
catlingp@agr.gc.ca

Figure 1. The parents of Triticale. Left: Common Wheat (Triticum aestivum subsp. aestivum); right: Rye (Secale cereale). Source: Baillon, M.H. 1876–1892. Dictionnaire de
Botanique. Librarie Hachette, Paris, France. 4 vols.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 137
 Figures 2-3.
2 (top), Triticale.
Source: Wikimedia
Commons (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Image:
Triticale.jpg)
3 (bottom), Left to
right: grains of Wheat,
Triticale and Rye.
Notice that the grains of
Rye resemble those of
Wheat, but are longer
and less plump, while
the grains of Triticale
are relatively large.
Source: Wikimedia
Commons (http://
en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Image:Wheat_
ry_triticale.JPGhttp://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Image:Wheat_ry_
triticale.JPG).

THE PLANT
Triticale (scientific name: H Triticosecale) is an artificial
(man-made) hybrid of a wheat species (either Durum Wheat:
T. turgidum subsp. durum = T. turgidum, or Common Wheat:
T. aestivum) and Rye (Secale cereale). The name Triticale—
a combination of parts of the Latin words Triticum (the wheat
genus) and Secale (the rye genus)—first appeared in print in
Germany in 1935. Generally a field of Triticale viewed from
a distance looks like a field of Wheat. Depending on the
cultivar, Triticale more or less resembles Wheat or Rye, or
is intermediate between them. Triticale varieties generally
have larger flowering heads in comparison to Wheat. Most
Triticale cultivars have prominent awns (the narrow bracts
around the grains), but a few are more or less awnless. The
kernels are longer than those of Wheat and are plumper than
those of Rye, and range in colour from the tan of Wheat to
the gray-brown of Rye. Triticale is self-pollinating, similar
to Wheat, but Rye is cross-pollinated. There are both winter
and spring varieties. Winter varieties are adapted to fall
planting, overwintering as seedlings or small plants, and
growing and maturing rapidly in the following season, while
spring varieties are planted in the spring and mature the
same season.

138 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
HISTORY
Leavened bread is thought be the most universal food. Until the
creation of Triticale, it could only be made from two grains:
Wheat and Rye. Rye has been grown in poor environments for
thousands of years, because on infertile or acidic soils and in
cooler climates its production is greater than that of Wheat.
However, this “grain of poverty,” despite furnishing the second
most important flour for making bread, is much inferior to Wheat
for this purpose. For many years, agriculturists were interested
in combining the excellent grain quality and productivity of
Wheat with the vigour and hardiness of Rye. The first recorded
artificial cross of the two species is thought to have been in
Scotland in 1875. This and other early hybridization attempts
produced sterile plants, incapable of producing seed, and thus
of no use for producing grain. In 1888, the first fertile cross
was described in Germany. However, techniques that reliably
produced fertile hybrids did not become available until the
1930s. The most important technique for producing fertile
types was to double the chromosome number of hybrids,
accomplished by exposing plant tissues to the alkaloid
colchicine. Subsequently, breeders combined different kinds
of Wheat and Rye and selected desirable characteristics in
the hybrids. Several Triticale breeding programs were carried
out in Europe and North America, and the first commercial
cultivars were released in 1969. Early cultivars had significant
limitations, such as inability to reproduce due to infertility
and shriveled kernels, low yield, and poor nutritional value.
However, these problems have been eliminated in recent
cultivars. Today, Triticale is valued most where conditions
are marginal for cultivation of Wheat. Under good conditions,
some cultivars can produce grain yields exceeding 10 metric
tons/ha (4.5 tons/acre).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE
Triticale is grown in dozens of countries, but Poland, Germany,
China, France, Australia and Belarus account for nearly 90%
of current world production. As indicated in the following
table, Triticale is outranked in world production by eight major
cereals, but it is growing in importance. Although Wheat is
still considered a preferable crop under optimal conditions,
the change to more extreme climates and loss of areas where
Wheat can be grown effectively suggest the cultivation of
Triticale may expand.
World Production Statistics for cereals, ranked by tonnage
(means of 5 years (2000–2004), in thousands of tonnes).
Source of raw data: Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations; http://faostat.fao.org/site/408/DesktopDefault.
aspx?PageID=408
USES
Most of the world’s Triticale is used for livestock feed, either as
forage (living plants consumed in the field) or fodder (harvested
plants fed as hay, grain and processed feeds). Because Triticale
tends to be leafy and vigorous, it is often grown for grazing or
whole-crop silage as well as for feed grain. Triticale provides
useful feed for all classes of livestock, but is an especially good
B I O D I V E R S I
feed grain for monogastric animals like pigs, in contrast to
ruminants such as cattle. When livestock are fed with grain,
there is a considerable energy loss, and it much more efficient
for humans to consume the grain and allow the livestock to
eat the remaining plant material.
Corn (Maize) 636000
Rice 591000
Wheat 589000
Barley 143000
Sorghum 57646
Millets 28428
Oat 26380
Rye 19332
Triticale 11244
Fonio 259
The future importance of Triticale is as a food for humans. In
many modern varieties, the nutritional qualities of the grain
are more or less comparable to those of Wheat. However,
the content of the amino acid lysine, an essential component
of protein required by humans and most other animals for
normal growth and development, is generally higher in
Triticale than in other cereal grains. Triticale meals, flours,
and prepared food products are currently marketed for human
consumption, but not nearly to the same extent as Wheat.
Triticale is also employed for whole-grain specialty breads,
confectionery items such as biscuits, cookies, shortbreads,
and crackers, breakfast cereals, tortillas and pancake mixes.
“Whole berry” (whole kernel) flakes and flour of Triticale
are available in some health-food stores and supermarkets.
Home cooks use Triticale in a variety of dishes, including
cereals, casseroles and pilafs. Gluten, largely from the elastic
proteins in Wheat, is responsible for the texture, appearance
and volume of dough. Gluten gives dough the ability to rise
by allowing it to retain gas released by a leavening agent
such as baking powder or yeast. Because it is low in gluten,
bread made from Triticale alone is quite heavy. Accordingly,
Triticale flour is blended with Wheat flour (often half
and half) or with other cereals to achieve desired market
characteristics. Triticale flour results in baked products
with a savoury, nutty flavor. Nevertheless, there is a need
for breeders to increase the palatability of Triticale, which in
general is not yet comparable to that of Wheat.
Triticale has been employed for several minor uses. The
grain has appreciable starch, and is used to a small extent for
alcohol production. The species is considered to be a potential
energy crop for bioethanol production. Triticale has been
used as a cover crop to prevent erosion in vineyards of South
Africa and cotton fields in Texas. The plant proved useful
in reclaiming highly compacted and polluted mine spoils
in Czechoslovakia. The straw has been used as insulation
material in building construction.
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 139
CROP ECOLOGY
“Coping with tomorrow’s unstable weather
could become one of the most serious
challenges for agriculture. Global warming
could summon more floods, droughts, even
cold snaps in some regions. Governments
should encourage crop diversification to
cushion their populations against the shock of
climate change.”
—Suresh Sinha, Indian Agricultural Research
Institute
Triticale is an unusually robust plant, capable of being
grown successfully in a wide range of circumstances, and
accordingly it is an ideal crop to develop in response to the
climatic challenges of global warming. It combines the high
yield potential and good grain quality of Wheat with Rye’s
tolerance of diseases, poor (acidic) soil conditions, and
fluctuating or difficult climatic conditions (such as extreme
cold and drought). Durum Wheat, often used as a parent in
generating Triticale varieties, is also known for adaptation
to relatively dry environments, and also contributes drought-
tolerant genes to Triticale. Although it is most important in
marginal environments, Triticale grows well in almost all
environments where Wheat and Rye are grown. It is difficult to
achieve consistently good yields of Wheat on marginal soils.
Triticale has high regrowth capacity after grazing, especially
in relatively cool temperatures, making it an excellent forage
crop. It has a special role in “Integrated Cropping Systems,”
where it is cultivated in rotation with other crops to provide a
break in pest, disease and weed cycles, as well as furnishing
farmers with a crop that is flexible, since it can be used for both
grain and forage. Triticale has also proven to grow very well
in heavily manured soil, so it can be used to take advantage
of surplus animal waste. Triticale’s resistance to diseases
(particularly those affecting foliage) enables relatively low
input of fungicide, making it relatively economical to grow,
and environmentally-friendly.
TOXICITY
Ergot is a fungus disease of the fruiting heads of Wheat,
Rye and Triticale, which makes the grain poisonous. Some
early cultivars of Triticale were sometimes quite susceptible
to Ergot, but modern varieties are generally resistant. Ergot
was responsible for several epidemics in medieval times,
including the widespread disease called St. Anthony’s
Fire. In 944 AD in southern France, 40,000 people died of
ergotism. Symptoms often include gangrene, and people
would lose parts of their extremities, such as toes, fingers,
ear lobes or, in more serious cases, arms and legs. The tails,
ears and hooves of farm animals that grazed on affected
plants were also often lost. Hallucinations were common
in humans, not surprising since Ergot is a natural source of
the psychedelic drug LSD, and indeed is the original source
from which LSD was first isolated. The disease was called
“Fire” because it caused burning sensations at the extremities
from gangrenous infection, and was named after St. Anthony
140 T R O P I C A L C
because, beginning in 1039, the hospitals set up to treat the
disease in Europe were dedicated to Saint Anthony. Outbreaks
occurred from time to time until 1816. It has been suggested
that the 1692 Salem, Massachusetts witch trials resulted from
hallucinations of community members who were exposed to
Ergot-infected Rye. In the resulting paranoia, 19 presumed
witches were hanged and one was pressed to death in Salem.
Today, pharmaceutical companies deliberately infect cereal
fields with the Ergot fungus in order to harvest it for medicinal
products, notably Ergotamine, which is taken for various
kinds of headaches, including migraines, and Ergonovine,
used in obstetrics to control postpartum hemorrhage.
Celiac disease is a condition where proteins consumed from the
closely related cereals Wheat, Rye, Barley, Oat and Triticale
damage the small intestines. Celiac disease affects about one in
250 people, usually beginning in infancy. Common symptoms
include constipation, diarrhea, bloating, gas and burping, but
there are many other problems that may develop. Treatment
involves removing gluten and its related proteins from the
diet. Rice, corn, flax, quinoa, tapioca, amaranth, potato, nuts
and beans are considered safe food substitutes. Pure oats are
also safe, but are difficult to obtain commercially without
wheat and other gluten sources. Specialty stores sell gluten-
free cereals, bread and pastries. Some of the rarer cultivated
wheats, including Einkorn, Emmer and Spelt, produce food
products that are relatively hypoallergenic (cause less reaction)
in comparison to those made from the common bread wheats.
Some individuals suffer allergic reactions to common bread
wheat products, including wheat gluten, but reactions are
often absent when consuming spelt products.
CROPS OF THE FUTURE
“As populations explode and come to demand
more and better food, man’s inescapable reliance
on food plants has made the production of new,
hardier, and better kinds of crop plants almost the
only way left to fight man’s ancient and universal
enemy—hunger.”
—B.S. Dodge (in It Started in Eden)
About a dozen major crops, including the cereals, currently
provide most of the world’s food. These demand good
growing conditions, and often require irrigation, fertilizers,
pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and modifications of the
soil such as tilling, draining and terracing. Virtually all of
the world’s prime agricultural land is under cultivation, and
indeed is decreasing because of urban growth. Water has
become so scarce in many regions that some have taken to
calling it “liquid gold.” This same phrase is increasingly
also being applied to petroleum, as energy supplies shrink,
inflating the cost of agriculture. Breeding for greater yield
in response to fertilizers and irrigation has worked well in
the past, but no longer seems to be the principal means of
producing more food for the world (see below). What many
agriculturists envision as essential for the future are crops
that can produce reasonable yields on poor agricultural lands
O N S E R V A N C Y

(the only kind not yet fully exploited) and in the face of
fluctuating, undependable climatic conditions, and limitations
on availability of agricultural chemicals, as well as water and
energy needed for planting and harvesting machinery. In all of
these respects, Triticale is the leading candidate.
THE DANGER TO BIODIVERSITY
Conventional agriculture has allowed the population of the
world to grow to its present size, and indeed without current
practices there would be widespread starvation. However,
clearing lands and modifying habitats so that crops can
be grown has been extremely harmful to biodiversity. As
discussed in the special Biodiversity Issue 9(1& 2), The Value
of Biodiversity to Food and Agriculture (29 April 2008), it is
possible to practice agriculture in ways that minimize harm
to, and indeed promote biodiversity. Indeed, because Triticale
appears to be an excellent crop for sustainable agriculture
and organic farming, simply growing it in place of Wheat
B I O D I V E R S I
Figure 4.
Triticale. Source:
Agriculture and Agri-
Food Canada (Ottawa)
photograph collection.
will reduce many of the negative environmental effects of
the latter. However, the present option of selecting crops
like Triticale that can utilize land marginally suitable for
agriculture is potentially dangerous to biodiversity. Of course,
wild species utilize wildlands as natural habitats, and some of
these can be converted to cropland. It is hoped that the future
conversion of wildlands to agriculture will be implemented in
ways that protect our natural wealth of biodiversity.
PRIORITIES AND PROSPECTS
“It appears certain that Triticales will soon add to
the world’s food production potential. Because
of their good protein and amino acid properties,
they may also play a role in correcting protein
malnutrition among cereal-eating nations.”
—Norman Borlaug, 1970 Nobel Peace Prize
winner
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 141
Norman Borlaug, the “Father of the Green Revolution,”
developed high yielding dwarf strains of Wheat while
working at the Rockefeller-financed CIMMYT Agricultural
Station in Mexico City. Use of such seed has allowed tropical
countries to double their Wheat productivity. There were
also improvements in Rice productivity at a similar centre
in the Philippines and other crops at yet more agricultural
stations. The resulting “Green Revolution” led to a new
era of much higher production of food in such countries as
India, Pakistan and Mexico. Unfortunately, high-yielding
varieties require high inputs of fertilizers and have been
associated with increased use of fossil fuels, contributing
to environmental degradation. Also, increase in human
population has continued, wiping out gains in the reduction
of world hunger. It is unlikely that the productivity of cereals
can be additionally improved sufficiently to meet increasing
demands for food, so the development of Triticale as a cereal
that can be grown in marginal agricultural regions is very
important.
The most pressing goal for Triticale is to improve its
already desirable adaptations for good growth and yield
in stressful environments. Objectives include breeding for
resistance to acidic, sandy or alkaline soils, trace element
deficiencies (copper, manganese and zinc), trace element
toxicities (high boron), moisture-deficient environments,
and enhanced tolerance to high and low temperatures. There
is also a need to improve the milling and baking qualities
of Triticale, either by breeding or development of new
processing technologies. Keys to future success also include
enhancing productivity, the quality of prepared products,
and promotion and education.
As the established crops, such as Wheat, Maize and Rice,
become harder to obtain, it is likely that Triticale will become
invaluable in feeding the world’s growing population. Decreases
in arable land and water supplies, increasing population, and
changing climate will make it necessary to utilize poorer soils
and/or climatically marginal areas to produce grain. Triticale
will almost certainly increase in importance to compensate
for the decreasing ability of current cereal crops to supply
a hungry world facing daunting environmental challenges.
The very favourable protein content means that Triticale is
likely to play an increasingly important role as a food grain,
especially in regions in which cereal crops already constitute
the main dietary source of protein.
“The greatest service which can be rendered any country
is to add a useful plant to its culture; especially, a bread
grain.”
—Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States
BELIEVE IT OR NOT
• Episodes of the popular TV series Star Trek were based
on protecting cereal grains called “Quadrotriticale”
and “Quintotriticale” that were supposed to have been
142 T R O P I C A L C
developed from Triticale.
• In 2002, Thomas Hofmann and colleagues presented
evidence in the Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry that bread crust is the healthiest part of bread,
because the crust is a rich source of cancer-fighting
antioxidant chemicals. Generally dark-coloured breads,
such as pumpernickel made from rye, and whole wheat
bread, provided more of these antioxidants than light-
coloured breads.
• It was once frequent practice to sow Rye and Wheat
together in a field, so that the grains were harvested
and mixed together to produce a cereal mixture called
“maslin” (variously spelled). The word maslin (thought
to trace back to the Latin mixtus, mixed) refers to any
grain mixture, but normally means a combination (the
plants, grain, flour or meal) of Rye and Wheat. Maslin,
which was the most common flour in Europe from the
1300s to the 1600s, also refers to the bread made from
such flour.
• During the Middle Ages, some convicts were put into a
prison cell with 2 bushels of wheat or rye grain. When
they had eaten all of it, they were released.
• A bushel of rye, wheat or triticale may contain 1 million
individual kernels.
• The rye-based bread “pumpernickel” is most commonly
interpreted as based on the German pumpern, to fart +
Nickel, devil, demon, or goblin, based on the amusing
idea that this dark bread has the power to produce
demonic outbursts of flatulence.
KEY INFORMATION SOURCES
Brown, W.L., 1989. Triticale: a promising addition to the world’s cereal
grains: report. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 105 pp.
Bushuk, W., and E.N. Larter, 1980. Triticale: production, chemistry, and
technology. In Advances in cereal science and technology, vol. 3. Edited
by Y. Pomeranz. American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul,
MN. pp. 115–157.
Darvey, N.L., and H. Naeem, 2000. Triticale: production and utilization.
In Handbook of cereal science and technology. 2nd edition. Edited by K.
Kulp and J.G. Ponte, Jr. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY. pp. 257–274.
Forsberg, R.A., 1985. Triticale: proceedings of a symposium. Crop Science
Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.
82 pp.
Guedes-Pinto, H., N.L. Darvey, and V.P. Carnide (Eds), 1996.
Proceedings 3rd international triticale symposium, Triticale: today and
tomorrow, June 1994, Lisbon, Portugal. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
London, U.K. 898 pp.
Gupta, P.K., and P.M. Priyadarshan, 1982. Triticale: present status and
future prospects. Advances in Genetics 21: 255–345.
Hörlein, A.J., and J. Valentine, 1995. Triticale (H Triticosecale). In
Cereals and pseudocereals. J.T. Williams (Ed.). Chapman & Hall,
London, U.K. pp. 187–221.
Hulse, J.H., and E.M. Laing, 1974. Nutritive value of triticale protein
(and the proteins of wheat and rye). International Development Research
Centre, Ottawa, ON. 183 pp.
Larter, E.N. 1995. Triticale. In Evolution of crop plants. 2nd edition. Edited
by J. Smartt and N.W. Simmonds. Longman Scientific & Technical,
Burnt Mill, Harlow, Essex, U.K. pp. 181–183.
Pena, R.J., and A. Amaya, 1992. Milling and breadmaking properties
of wheat-triticale grain blends. Journal of the Science of Food and
Agriculture 60: 483–487.
Tsen, C.C. (Ed.), 1974. Triticale: first man-made cereal. American
Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MN. 291 pp.
Varughese, G., W.H. Pfeiffer, and R.J. Pena, 1996a. Triticale: a
successful alternative crop (part 1). Cereal Foods World 41: 474–482.
Varughese, G., W.H. Pfeiffer, and R.J. Pena, 1996b. Triticale: a
successful alternative crop (part 2). Cereal Foods World 41: 636–645.
O N S E R V A N C Y
 BIODIVERSITY ANIMAL TREASURY
On thin ice: Climate change and the future of Polar Bears
Megan A. Owen and Ronald R. Swaisgood*
About the Authors:
Megan Owen is a Conservation Program Specialist at the San Diego their preferred prey, seals. USFWS stimulated a flurry of
Zoo conducting conservation research for several bear species. Her
research focus seeks to apply research in zoo settings to conservation activity among U.S. Geological Survey biologists when they
needs in both captive and wild populations. Her areas of specialty in- subsequently requested new, targeted analyses of decades
clude stress, reproduction, maternal care and sensory ecology. (http://
cres.sandiegozoo.org/staff/bio_owen.html) of data collected on U.S. Polar Bear populations, resulting
in the release of nine rigorous reports detailing the current
Ron Swaisgood serves the San Diego Zoo as Associate Director population trends and the most significant conservation
of Conservation Research and Head of the Division of Applied
Animal Ecology, where he supervises several recovery programs threats. A parallel—and just as controversial—analysis
for endangered species. His focus is behavioral and ecological and debate among scientists and politicians is taking place
research, theoretically driven, to tackle conservation problems. He in Canada, where roughly 15,000 of the estimated 20,000-
serves on several national and international committees, including
the Conservation Committee of the Animal Behavior Society, Polar 25,000 Polar Bears worldwide reside (Schliebe et al. 2006;
Bears International, and the IUCN’s Bear Specialist Group. (http:// Stirling and Derocher 2007). The results are still unfolding,
cres.sandiegozoo.org/staff/bio_swaisgood.html)
but the most tangible outcome is the listing of the Polar Bear
*Corresponding author’s address: Conservation and Research for as “Threatened” in 2008 by USFWS and the province of
Endangered Species, Zoological Society of San Diego, 15600 San Manitoba, Canada.
Pasqual Valley Road, Escondido, CA 92027-7000, USA, http://
zooconservation.org
The Politics of Listing a Species as
Introduction Endangered by Climate Change
The Polar Bear is undoubtedly the “poster child” for climate While acknowledging the inherent challenges in linking
change and is the focus of increasing media attention. The climate change to specific effects on an individual species,
nightly news regularly depicts a lonely Polar Bear isolated it’s hard to imagine a better scientific case than has been built
on a small iceberg floating out to sea, implicitly on a course for Polar Bears (see details below). In 2006 the IUCN’s Polar
to extinction. The Polar Bear is also emerging as the most Bear Specialist Group, comprised of 40 members, decided Figure 1.
© Robert & Carolyn
political of all animals, as some would use its listing as unanimously to list the Polar Bear as vulnerable. Only Buchanan/Polar-
a protected species to provide legal clout to reduce carbon one scientific report (Dyck et al. 2007) has challenged the BearsInternational.org
emissions held responsible for climate change. But what does
science have to say about the predicament of the Polar Bear
and its arctic ecosystem? Here we review recent scientific
evidence bearing on this question and find that the “real truth”
may not be too disparate from the dire predictions found
readily in the media. An extensive science-based management
program has been answering questions crucial to Polar Bear
management and is bringing greater public attention to the
issue of climate change and the arctic ecosystem in which the
Polar Bear resides.
Driving much of the activity both in scientific and lay circles
has been the U.S. Department of Interior’s announcement
in late 2006 directing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) to determine whether the Polar Bear should
be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act. This decision was the culmination of a debate
formally set in motion in February 2005 when the Center
for Biological Diversity and other NGO’s filed a petition
with the US Department of the Interior to classify the polar
as Endangered. They cited mounting scientific evidence
suggesting that the rapid loss of sea-ice in the face of global
climate change was having detrimental effects on Polar
Bears, which depend on sea-ice as a platform for hunting

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 143

“Arctic sea ice declined rapidly to unprecedented low
extents in the summer of 2007, raising concern that the
Arctic may be on the verge of a fundamental transition
toward a seasonal ice cover” (Stroeve et al. 2008).
“Polar Bears are uniquely adapted to thrive on sea ice
and are dependent on it as a platform for hunting seals,
seasonal movements, summer refuge, traveling to ice
or terrestrial refuge areas, finding mates, and breeding”
(Stirling and Derocher 2007).
conclusion that climate change is reducing both sea-ice and
Polar Bear populations. In a swift rebuttal, Stirling et al. (2007)
detailed the serious scientific shortcomings of the methods
and conclusions of the Dyck et al. report, leaving little doubt
that the best scientific evidence indicates a primary role for
climate change-mediated declines in health, reproduction and
population size of Polar Bears.
A political consensus has been more difficult to realize. Just
months after USFWS designated the Polar Bear as Threatened,
the governor of Alaska filed a lawsuit challenging the decision.
USFWS finds itself in the unenviable position of fighting legal
actions from both ends of the political spectrum. More legal
challenges are sure to come, and the issue will likely play
out in the courts for years. Canadian biologists have assigned
“special concern” status to Polar Bears four times, but the
federal government has done little to advance Polar Bear
conservation, a fact which has been frustrating for the biologists
so painstakingly documenting the plight of Polar Bears.
Canada has yet to give the Polar Bear protected status
nationwide. Some people argue that listing the Polar Bear
will needlessly bring financial ruin to many native Inuit
communities that depend on U.S. trophy hunters willing to
spend $25,000 to hunt a Polar Bear. Moreover, practitioners
of traditional knowledge in Nunavut argue that Polar Bear
numbers are increasing, though no scientific data supports
this viewpoint (Stirling and Derocher 2007). If indeed, Inuit
sightings of Polar Bears are increasing, some have suggested
that this may be due to the changing behavior of hungry Polar
Bears bringing them into contact with local peoples. Also,
as the amount of available sea-ice diminishes, more Polar
Bears can be found on land. In fact, Nunavut has successfully
opposed listing of all species occurring in its territories,
suggesting that listing endangered species is more about
politics than science (Mooers et al. 2007).
Policy-makers are still grappling with what it means to list, for
the first time, a species threatened by climate change, where
the source of the problem is global and the impacts have little
to do with what is happening to the species locally. The ESA
Polar Bear listing in the United States specifically excludes
mitigation of activities that affect climate change. Currently
no country regulates greenhouse gas emissions specifically to
protect Polar Bears or any other species.
Polar Bear Biology
The Polar Bear ranges throughout the circumpolar Arctic and
currently it is the only member of the Ursidae to still inhabit
144 T R O P I C A L C
the entirety of its historic range. There are 19 subpopulations
of Polar Bears unevenly distributed in the circumpolar arctic.
These populations are found in the United States, Canada,
Norway, Greenland and Russia. Polar Bears evolved from
brown bears about 200,000 years ago when, scientists believe,
a group of brown bears became isolated by a changing
glacial landscape (Stirling and Derocher 1988). Subjected
to the intense selection pressures of the Arctic, Polar Bears
evolved rapidly, diverging more from brown bears than the
recent divergence would suggest. Among its many attributes
that separate it from brown bears, the Polar Bear possesses
adaptations for an almost exclusively carnivorous diet, a semi-
aquatic lifestyle, and the largest home range of any terrestrial
mammal. Classified as a marine mammal, the Polar Bear is at
home on the sea ice and adept in the water.
The largest bear, Polar Bear males—roughly twice the mass of
females—can weigh more than 680 kg. Polar Bears mate seasonally
between February and June. Females delay implantation until the
fall, and altricial cubs (requiring nourishment) are typically born in
January after a relatively short gestation of about 60 days (Ramsay
and Stirling 1988). Females give birth to 1-3 cubs in snow dens,
fasting for 8 months before the autumn sea-ice provides access to
the seals. Cubs remain with the mother for 2.5 years and females
breed every 3 years.
Polar Bears do not hibernate, although females use dens to
raise cubs. Polar Bears are consummate travelers, moving
an average of 5,000 km/year and covering a home range of
some 200,000 km2 (Garner et al. 1990). This penchant for
movement makes them a challenging species to maintain in
captivity, where abnormal stereotypic pacing often develops
(Clubb and Mason 2003).
Polar Bears rely on the sea ice for their livelihood. Life in the
harsh climate of the Arctic requires a high calorie diet and Polar
Bears feed almost exclusively on seals (primarily Ringed Seals),
which are rich in fat. Depending on the population, between
80% to 98% of a Polar Bear’s diet is comprised of seals (Iverson
et al. 2006). In order to meet their energy needs, Polar Bears
require about 45 Ringed Seals (or Ringed Seal equivalents)
per year (Stirling and Øritsland 1995). Extrapolating to a
worldwide population of 20,000 bears, this means that a
healthy population of bears would need to eat nearly a million
seals annually. Polar Bears occasionally scavenge on whale and
other marine mammal carcasses (Bentzen et al. 2007) and have
even been known to eat berries, but there is no replacement
for the calorie-rich seals on which the specialize (Stirling et
al. 2008). Typically Polar Bears will lie in wait on the sea ice
near a seal’s breathing hole. From this perch they will use their
powerful claws and body strength to strike a seal when it comes
up for air. Without the ice, Polar Bears have no platform from
which to hunt seals.
Summer is no picnic for Polar Bears. When much of the sea ice
melts in the spring, they are forced to hunt in less productive
waters or move to the shorelines, where they fast until the
sea ice refreezes the following autumn. Living primarily
off of stored fat, they occasionally supplement their diet by
O N S E R V A N C Y
scavenging or feeding on vegetation. The duration of fasting
varies with location, but Polar Bears face losing about 1 kg of
body weight daily for several months each year.
How Many Polar Bears are There?
In 1972 the IUCN and five Polar Bear nations attempted to
estimate the world population based on reports from ships and
local communities. Estimates ranged from 5,000 (by scientists
from the Soviet Union) to 20,000 (by the Canadian Wildlife
Service). The real population numbers will never be known,
but new hunting regulations established under the International
Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears in 1973 and
the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972 allowed
some heavily hunted populations to rebound. Today the global
population is estimated at 20,000-25,000, but it is declining due
to the effects of climate change. Population estimates are quite
accurate for some populations where mark-recapture census
techniques are employed, but it is still a matter of guesswork for
many less studied populations. The Canadian Arctic provides
habitat for some 60% of the global population residing there.
Climate Change, Sea Ice and Polar Bears
We begin with the premise that climate change is a real
phenomenon driven largely by human activities. Although
a few detractors remain, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) reached consensus that there is a
greater than 90% probability that climate change is caused
by human activities. There is also near-consensus among
Polar Bear biologists that climate change is a significant risk
to Polar Bear populations and that some populations have
already seen real losses in the face of climate change (Stirling
and Derocher 2007). Dyck et al. (2007) have argued that
human disturbance through ecotourism has caused some of
the population-level effects on Polar Bears, but Stirling et al.
(2007) counter with compelling arguments—well-supported
by scientific data—supporting the case for climate change
effects on Polar Bears. The clear majority of polar biologists
follow the general logic espoused by Governor of California
Arnold Schwarzenegger who compared the case for global
warming to a scenario where 99 out of 100 doctors make
a diagnosis of cancer. The remaining doctor claimed it was
probably not cancer and took a wait-and-see approach. Which
position would a reasonable person embrace?
Climate change is not affecting all areas of the globe equally.
The arctic is experiencing more rapid change than other
regions. From the Polar Bear’s perspective climate change is
felt most readily in the loss of sea ice coverage. Arctic ice is a
mixture of new ice—formed each winter—and multi-year ice,
which tends to be thicker. Satellite imagery shows dramatic
reductions in all measures of sea ice coverage (review in
Stroeve et al. 2008). Multi-year ice (older than 5 years) has
decreased by 56% from 1982 to 2007. Ten-year old ice has all
but vanished. The ice that remains is 23% thinner.
In 2005 the news was bad and the projections dire. But
what has happened since then has exceeded just about
everybody’s worst-case scenarios. In 2007, at the end of the
B I O D I V E R S I
A (top), Polar bears
are struggling to find
ice in summer, which
they need in order to
hunt. (© Dan Guravich/
PolarBearsInternational.
org) ;
B (bottom), The survival
rate of cubs continues
to decline. (© Robert
& Carolyn Buchanan/
PolarBearsInternational.
org). (© Dan Guravich/
PolarBearsInternational.
org).
arctic summer another million square miles was lost—more
area than California and Texas combined. In 2008 giant
fractures, more than 100 km long, opened up in the multi-
year ice, stunning climate scientists. Ships can now pass
through channels that once were solid ice. Most climate
models did not predict this degree of ice loss until 2050.
Now predictions for an ice-free summer arctic by 2030 don’t
3
seem unreasonable. What was not accounted for in these
models, perhaps, was the role ice plays in reflecting solar
energy. The white ice reflected most radiation back into the
atmosphere, but the dark water absorbs the sun’s energy,
speeding up global warming.
How Does the Loss of Sea Ice Affect Polar Bears?
Polar Bear biologists have not been caught by surprise.
In an influential paper published in 1993, Stirling and
Derocher (1993) warned the scientific community of the
impending crises. They presented data showing that the
population in Western Hudson Bay was already suffering
lower reproductive rates and higher cub mortality during
the warmer years. They predicted more to come, predictions
which, unfortunately, have been borne out (Stirling and
Derocher 2007; Stirling et al. 2008). They argued that the
most devastating effect of climate change was the shorter
sea ice season. Today the ice breakup on the Western
Hudson Bay occurs three weeks earlier than it did 30 years
ago, forcing the bears to come ashore earlier. For each week
earlier that the ice breaks up, bears come to shore about 10
kg lighter, thus reducing their nutrient stores. On the other
end of winter, the ice is returning later and later, extending
the bear’s summer fast. Also, the bears are missing one of the
most productive hunting periods in the late spring before the
ice breakup, when Ringed Seal pups are most abundant and
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 145
 Zoo bears: a role for
conservation? (© Robert
& Carolyn Buchanan/
PolarBearsInternational.
org)
easy to predate. The early breakup cuts the seal pup-hunting
season short. In other regions, such as the South Beaufort
Sea, shorter sea ice seasons may force bears to forage in
less productive areas over deeper waters rather than over the
continental shelf, where foraging success is much greater
(Regehr et al. 2007).
During recent years Polar Bear scientists have documented
a suite of climate-related effects on Polar Bears in several
populations, including the Western Hudson Bay and South
Beauford Sea (Regehr et al. 2007; Rode et al. 2007; Stirling
et al. 2008; Stirling et al. 1999). Nutritionally-stressed bears
are investing less in growth and reproduction, shunting most
available energy to survival. Today’s Polar Bears are smaller
and in poor body condition in many populations. Females
in poorer condition are weaning fewer cubs and litter size
is declining. Cub survival is down, especially in years with
earlier ice breakup. For the first time adult male bears were
6 when Polar Bears decide to disperse nor how they make the
documented cannibalizing cubs and females, presumably to
make up for reduced seal availability (Amstrup et al. 2006).
There is also evidence that some Polar Bears are drowning,
despite being a marine mammal with excellent swimming
abilities (Monnett and Gleason 2006). With less sea ice and
already energetically stressed, many Polar Bears may find
themselves in need of crossing bigger and bigger gaps in the
ice to get to feeding areas as well as back to over-summer
grounds in the wake of the ice break up. Over the past three
decades pregnant females have been forced to travel more
than 6 extra kilometers each year to reach dens, and this
distance is predicted to increase as the rate of sea ice loss
accelerates (Bergen et al. 2007). These females are “chasing
the ice” and with increasing frequency end up denning on
terra firma instead of on the sea ice. One of the world’s best-
studied Polar Bear populations, the Western Hudson Bay, has
lost an estimated 22% of its population from 1984 to 2007.
Other trends in the arctic do not bode well for the Polar
Bear. Ringed Seals, the primary Polar Bear prey, have also
evolved a lifestyle specialized for sea ice. The seals require
the ice for dens for their offspring. Polar Bears thus face the
prospect of hunting for fewer seals that are harder to access.
As well, some populations are exposed to environmental
contaminants such as organochlorines that may compromise
health and reproduction (Bentzen et al. 2008). Additionally,
146 T R O P I C A L C
oil exploration and other activities can destroy habitat and
potentially disturb bears, especially females with cubs in
dens. Even ecotourism may impact bears (Dyck and Baydack
2004; Dyck et al. 2007), although the best evidence suggests
that so far it has not (Stirling et al. 2008).
Climate change is set to exacerbate these threats further,
opening up areas that have until now remained inaccessible
(Stroeve et al. 2008). The Northwest Passage between the
Atlantic and the Pacific oceans was more navigable than
ever in 2007. These trends raise the question of whether the
arctic is becoming a “wildlife ghetto” for Polar Bears—an
environment where they can no longer thrive.
Behavioral Ecology: Filling the Knowledge Gaps
Justifiably, most Polar Bear biologists study population-level
processes. It is their field research which enables us to track and
understand the dynamics of Polar Bear populations and which,
ultimately, has provided the foundation for listing the Polar Bear
as Threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. It is
essential that this work be continued, but at the same time, a new,
somewhat smaller research program is needed to understand
some of the behavioral processes operating in individual bears
that give rise to population-level outcomes. Work in behavioral
ecology will prove especially useful for predicting how
individuals will respond to the rapid environmental changes they
will undoubtedly face in the near future.
Although there is already a solid foundation of research in
behavioral ecology, much of it conducted by Ian Stirling and
his colleagues, there are important processes that we still
do not understand. For example, we do not know how and
choice of where to settle. It may well be true that Polar Bears
will find refuge in the northern-most latitudes, but how can
we be sure they will get there? What constitutes a dispersal
barrier for Polar Bears? If the features of the habitat change,
will Polar Bears recognize suitable habitat when they see it?
If a translocation program is needed to relocate Polar Bears to
refugia from climate change, how will this be accomplished?
How will Polar Bears respond to being plopped down in novel
habitat that may require different survival skills from those
they possess? These problems plague other conservation
management programs for small populations (Stamps and
Swaisgood 2007), and their effects on the future of Polar Bear
conservation remain unknown.
A Role for Zoos in Polar Bear Conservation?
As employees of a zoological institution (who also work
in the field), we bring a somewhat different perspective
to Polar Bear conservation, one that can compliment the
ongoing efforts by field ecologists. While advocating more
behavioral ecological work in the field, we recognize that
Polar Bears will be extremely difficult to track closely enough
to make the kind of behavioral observations required. More
behavioral research has been conducted during seasonal
periods when Polar Bears are more accessible, but much of
what occurs “out on the ice” remains less well documented.
O N S E R V A N C Y
New technology, such as fine-scale GPS data coupled with
“critter cams” mounted on the GPS collars, may eventually
provide needed data on fine-scale habitat use, foraging
strategies, and spatial movements. However, research on
some aspects of Polar Bear behavioral ecology will only
be feasible in captive settings. We and others in the zoo
community have begun to build collaborative partnerships
with our colleagues working in the field, in an effort to fill in
some of the gaps in knowledge that compromise our ability
to understand Polar Bear biology in situ.
A promising avenue for research in conservation science
is sensory ecology (Lim et al. 2008), roughly defined as
how animals acquire and respond to information in their
environment. Understanding how animals perceive their
world can play a valuable role in conservation breeding,
reintroduction programs, and small population management
(Swaisgood 2007; Swaisgood in review; Swaisgood and
Schulte - in press). This approach is especially valuable for
programs at the in situ-ex situ interface. If predictions hold true
that Polar Bear rescue centers will soon need to be established,
then this interface will need to be more aggressively managed.
Rescued bears from areas of rapid sea-ice decline may need
to be placed in conservation breeding centers to stave off
extinction of local populations.
The zoo community has already started to make inroads into
these avenues of research. For example, largely in response
to requests from field conservationists, we have begun a
program addressing sensory capabilities and conservation
management of Polar Bears in situ and ex situ. Field biologists
are concerned about both large-scale (global warming) and
localized (industrial activity) disruptions to Polar Bear habitat.
For example, as the arctic opens up to human activities,
biologists are worried about the effects of noise pollution from
increasing industrial activities, including petroleum extraction.
Although earlier research suggested that denning females
do not respond strongly to noise (Amstrup 1993) and many
dens may be buffered from noise by the snowpack (Blix and
Lentfer 1992) these industrial activities overlap extensively
with maternal denning areas and so the effects are especially
worrisome, possibly compromising cub survival. Currently
petroleum activities must respect an arbitrary 1-mile buffer
zone around known den sites. This buffer zone is not based
in any biological understanding of Polar Bear perception and
may very well be inadequate, especially for mothers with cubs
that cannot leave the den. To address this problem, we have an
ongoing program using standard psychoacoustic methodology
to determine the hearing sensitivity of Polar Bears across
a spectrum of frequencies (Owen et al. 2007). Follow-up
studies will determine how effectively noise is transmitted
through the snow to dens. The goal is to combine these results
with known noise sources (frequency and amplitude) to create
biologically relevant acoustic buffer zones and regulations for
noise-causing activities.
Finding a mate on the vast expanse of sea ice is a challenging
task (Molnar et al. 2008; Ramsay and Stirling 1986) and Polar
Bear biologists speculate that habitat fragmentation from sea
B I O D I V E R S I
ice loss may compromise reproductive activity (Stirling et al.
1999). Disruption of olfactory trails left by bears may impact
Polar Bears’ ability to locate mates efficiently. Chemical
signals also play a large role in mediating aggression and
priming individuals for mating—especially in relatively
solitary species such as the Polar Bear. With less access to
these important signals, Polar Bears may be more inclined
to fight than mate, as has been documented for giant pandas
(Swaisgood et al. 2004a; Swaisgood et al. 2000). With the
large size difference between the sexes, the male Polar Bear
experiencing communication breakdown may become more
aggressive towards females, even in the mating context. To
address these concerns we have entered into a collaboration
with field biologists and several zoos to begin to tease apart the
meaning of these scent signals to Polar Bears (Owen et al.- in
review). If reduced access to scent signals does compromise
reproduction, we will need to devise ways to manage this
situation in both ex situ and in situ environments.
Zoos, and possibly rescue centers, may find other ways
that the captive bears can contribute to the conservation of
their wild counterparts. For example, emerging studies of
reproductive biology, maternal care (Swaisgood et al. 2004b),
and nutritional ecology can yield insights useful for in situ
conservation. But perhaps the most important advantage of
zoos is that they have the public’s ear. Zoos need to capitalize
on this strength to become a vanguard for broadcasting the
Polar Bear conservation crisis as well as the threats facing the
arctic due to global warming.
Conclusions: Where to in the Future?
In the face of dramatic and well documented losses of perennial
sea ice, the consensus among Polar Bear scientists and mangers
is that, if current trends continue, the Polar Bear will be gone
from much of its range by the middle of the 21st century. Facing
a reduction of approximately 42% of summer sea-ice habitat,
roughly two-thirds of the population will be gone.
Many would present a fatalistic attitude in the face of such
complicated challenges to Polar Bear conservation. If the
direst predictions for sea ice loss come true, then the Polar
Bear will lose most of its available habitat. But it is important
to remember that even the worst predictions do not foresee
the elimination of the most northern sea ice habitat for Polar
Bears in the next few decades. Moreover, the vast expanse
of unbroken sea ice in these most northern latitudes today
does not provide good habitat for seals or bears. Thus, as the
southern range becomes more challenging for Polar Bears, the
northern landscape may become more suitable, providing a
temporary refuge. This refuge, predominantly in the Canadian
archipelago ecoregion, may buy us enough time to reverse
the effects of climate change before the Polar Bear becomes
extinct in the wild. Because humans created climate change,
we can take remedial action to reverse it.
In the meantime, what should we do to counter the effects
of climate change? Clearly, altering the course of climate
change is beyond the control of a few Polar Bear biologists,
although the song they have been singing to the media has
resonated with the general public and is beginning to create
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 147
a political climate for addressing climate change. The effects
of climate change cannot be reversed overnight, however, and
wildlife managers and politicians can make progress toward
curtailing other impacts on Polar Bears that will exacerbate
the effects of climate change. As Ian Stirling recently
suggested in an interview with the journal Nature: “In the face
of sea-ice declines, the best way to manage the bear may be
to minimize other threats, Stirling says — to protect denning
areas, minimize offshore activities and human traffic, reduce
hunting or ensure hunts move over to (target) bears that are
going to die anyway” (Courtland 2008, p.483). These are
more familiar tools frequently used to manage protected areas
and may help arrest the momentum toward a tipping point for
rapid Polar Bear decline.
Using some of the scientific approaches discussed above, Polar
Bear biologists can collectively bring attention to the most
important peripheral impacts on Polar Bears and help develop
sound strategies for managing these risks. This information needs
to be effectively communicated to regulatory agencies so that the
best remedial actions can be taken. These actions undoubtedly
will include establishment of new protected areas and regulations
that will curtail some of the human activities set to expand as the
arctic opens up in the wake of climate change.
Acknowledgments
We thank out partner organization, Polar Bears International,
for their generous financial support of our polar bear programs
and for encouraging us to become more involved in polar
bear conservation, research and outreach. They also maintain
a website that is an excellent source for further information
on polar bears: http://www.polarbearsinternational.org. We
also thank Anne Bowles and her team at Hubbs-SeaWorld
Research Institute, San Diego for their collaboration on our
bioacoustics program.
References
Amstrup, S.C. 1993. Human disturbances of denning Polar Bears in
Alaska. Arctic 46:246-250.
Amstrup, S.C., I. Stirling, T.S. Smith, C. Perham, and G.W. Thieman.
2006. Recent observations of intraspecific predation and cannibalism
among Polar Bears in the southern Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology 29:997-
1002.
Bentzen, T.W., E.H. Follmann, S.C. Amstrup, G.S. York, M.J. Wooller,
D.C.G. Muir, and T.M. O’Hara. 2008. Dietary biomagnification of
organochlorine contaminants in Alaskan Polar Bears. Canadian Journal
of Zoology 86:177-191.
Bentzen, T.W., E.H. Follmann, S.C. Amstrup, G.S. York, M.J. Wooller,
and T.M. O’Hara. 2007. Variation in winter diet of southern Beaufort
Sea Polar Bears inferred from stable isotope analysis. Canadian Journal
of Zoology 85:596-608.
Bergen, S., G.M. Durner, D.C. Douglas, and S.C. Amstrup. 2007.
Predicting Movements of Female Polar Bears between Summer Sea
Ice Foraging Habitats and Terrestrial Denning Habitats of Alaska in
the 21st Century: Proposed Methodology and Pilot Assessment U. S.
Geological Survey.
Blix, A.S., and J.W. Lentfer. 1992. Noise and vibration levels in artificial
Polar Bear dens as related to selected petroleum exploration and
development activities. Arctic 46:20-24.
Clubb, R., and G. Mason. 2003. Captivity effects on wide-ranging
carnivores. Nature 425:473-474.
Courtland, R. 2008. Polar Bear numbers set to fall. Nature 453:432-433.
Dyck, M.G., and R.K. Baydack. 2004. Vigilance behaviour of Polar
Bears (Ursus maritimus) in the context of wildlife-viewing activities at
Churchill, Manitoba, Canada. Biological Conservation 116:343-350.
Dyck, M.G., W. Soon, R.K. Baydack, D.R. Legates, S. Baliunas, T.F.
Ball, and L.O. Hancock. 2007. Polar Bears of western Hudson Bay
and climate change: are warming spring air temperatures the ‘‘ultimate’’
survival control factor? Ecological Complexity 4:73-84.
Garner, G.W., S.T. Knick, and D.C. Douglas. 1990. Seasonal movements
of adult female Polar Bears in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. International
148 T R O P I C A L C
Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:216-226.
Iverson, S.J., I. Stirling, and S.L.C. Lang. 2006. Spatial and temporal
variation in the diets of Polar Bears across the Canadian Arctic:
indicators of changes in prey populations and environment. In: Boyd,
I.L., S. Wanless, and C.J. Camphuysen, (Eds). Top Predators in Marine
Ecosystems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lim, M.M.L., N.S. Sodhi, and J.A. Endler. 2008. Conservation with
sense. Science 319:281.
Molnar, P.K., A.E. Derocher, M.A. Lewis, and M.K. Taylor. 2008.
Modelling the mating system of Polar Bears: a mechanistic approach
to the Allee effect. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series
B 275:217-226.
Monnett, C., and J.S. Gleason. 2006. Observations of mortality associated
with extended open-water swimming by Polar Bears in the Alaskan
Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology 29:681-687.
Mooers, A.L., L.R. Prugh, M. Festa-Bianchet, and J.A. Hutchings. 2007.
Biases in legal listing under Canadian endangered species legislation.
Conservation Biology 21:572-575.
Owen, M.A., A.E. Bowles, J. Simerson, J.L. Keating, S.L. Denes,
and R.R. Swaisgood. 2007. Auditory sensitivity of the Polar Bear:
preliminary results from behavioral testing. Proceedings 18th
International Conference on Bear Research and Management. Monterrey,
Mexico. p 224.
Owen, M.A., R.R. Swaisgood, T. Spady, and A. Pessier. In review. Polar
Bear olfactory signaling in a reproductive context. Zoo Biology.
Ramsay, M.A., and I. Stirling. 1986. On the mating system of Polar Bears.
Canadian Journal of Zoology 64:2142-2151.
Ramsay, M.A., and I. Stirling. 1988. Reproductive biology and ecology
of female Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus). Journal of Zoology, London
214:601-634.
Regehr, E.V., C.M. Hunter, H. Caswell, S.C. Amstrup, and I. Stirling.
2007. Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea I: Survival and Breeding
in Relation to Sea Ice Conditions, 2001-2006. U. S. Geological Survey.
51 p.
Rode, K.D., S.C. Amstrup, and E.V. Regehr. 2007. Polar Bears in the
Southern Beaufort Sea III: Stature, Mass, and Cub Recruitment in
Relationship to Time and Sea Ice Extent Between 1982 and 2006. U. S.
Geological Survey. 32 p.
Schliebe, S., T. Evans, K. Johnson, M. Roy, S. Miller, C. Hamilton, R.
Meehan, and S. Jahrsdoerfer. 2006. Range-wide review of Polar Bear
(Ursus maritimus) populations.
Stamps, J.A., and R.R. Swaisgood. 2007. Someplace like home:
experience, habitat selection and conservation biology. In: Swaisgood,
R.R., (Ed.). Special Issue, Animal Behaviour, Conservation and
Enrichment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. pp 392-409.
Stirling, I., and A.E. Derocher. 1988. Factors affecting the evolution and
behavioral ecology of the modern bears. International Conference of
Bear Research and Management 8:189-204.
Stirling, I. and A.E. Derocher. 1993. Possible impacts of climate warming
on polar bears. Arctic 48(3): 240-245.
Stirling, I., and A.E. Derocher. 2007. Melting Under Pressure. The
Wildlife Professional 1:24-27.
Stirling, I., A.E. Derocher, W.A. Gough, and K. Rode. 2008. Response
to Dyck et al. (2007) on Polar Bears and climate change in western
Hudson Bay. Ecological Complexity 5:193-201.
Stirling, I., N.J. Lunn, and J. Iacozza. 1999. Long-term trends in the
population ecology of Polar Bears in western Hudson Bay in relation to
climate change. Arctic 52:294-306.
Stirling, I., and N.A. Øritsland. 1995. Relationships between estimates of
ringed seal and Polar Bear populations in the Canadian Arctic. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 52:2594-2612.
Stroeve, J., M. Serreze, S. Drobot, S. Gearheard, M. Holland, J.
Maslanik, W. Meier, and T. Scambos. 2008. Arctic sea ice extent
plummets in 2007. Eos 89:13-20.
Swaisgood, R.R. 2007. Current status and future directions of applied
behavioral research for animal welfare and conservation. In: Swaisgood,
R.R., (Ed.). Special Issue, Animal Behaviour, Conservation and
Enrichment, Applied Animal Behaviour Science. p 139-162.
Swaisgood, R.R. - in review. The conservation-welfare nexus in
reintroduction programs: a role for sensory ecology. Animal Welfare.
Swaisgood, R.R., D. Lindburg, A.M. White, H. Zhang, and X. Zhou.
2004a. Chemical communication in giant pandas: experimentation and
application. In: Lindburg, D., and K. Baragona, (Eds). Giant pandas:
biology and conservation. Berkeley, California: University of California
Press. p 106-120.
Swaisgood, R.R., D.G. Lindburg, M.A. Owen, and S. Hall. 2004b.
Contrasting patterns of maternal care in giant pandas and American black
bears. Proceedings Fifteenth International Conference on Bear Research
and Management, February 2004, San Diego, California. p 23.
Swaisgood, R.R., D.G. Lindburg, X. Zhou, and M.A. Owen. 2000. The
effects of sex, reproductive condition and context on discrimination of
conspecific odours by giant pandas. Animal Behaviour 60: 227-237.
Swaisgood, R.R., and B.A. Schulte. In press. Applying knowledge of
mammalian social organization, mating systems and communication
to management. In: Kleiman, D.G., K.V. Thompson, and C.K. Baer,
(Eds.). Wild Mammals in Captivity, 2nd edition. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
O N S E R V A N C Y
 B I O D I V E R S I T Y N E W S

Becoming carbon neutral is only the beginning. The climate

problem will not be solved by one company reducing its
emissions to zero, and it won’t be solved by one government
acting alone. The climate problem will not be solved without
mass participation by the general public in countries around
the globe. Rupert Murdoch (Chairman of News Corporation)

Climate Change Threatens

World Heritage Sites
World heritage is the highest level of environmental protection
possible. In 1972, the UNESCO World Heritage List was
created and now includes over 180 natural heritage sites. Of
these, over 120 are now threatened by climate change and 1
shrinking bioclimatic habitats. Many of the natural heritage
sites are becoming so drastically altered by climate change
that they may eventually lose the characteristics that originally
made them heritage sites, and many sites are witnessing the
destruction of the habitats of rare wildlife species. A case in
point is Glacier National Park; when created in 1910 it had
150 glaciers, now it has 27 glaciers, all greatly reduced in size.
World Heritage sites now affected by climate change include
coral reefs, mangroves, boreal and tropical forests, polar and
alpine ecosystems, glaciers, wetlands and grasslands. Well
known examples of the 120 sites which are now being altered 2
include: the Sagarmatha National Park in Nepal, home to Mount
Everest, Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, the Waterton Glacier
International Peace Park that spans the USA-Canada border,
the Cape Floral Region Protected Areas in South Africa, home
to nearly 20 % of the continent’s floral biodiversity, Ecuador’s
Galápagos Islands, and Machu Picchu in Peru.
David Sheppard, Head of IUCN’s Programme on Protected
Areas in an exclusive interview with Biodiversity said that he
is “particularly concerned about sites with coral reefs that are
being impacted by warming water and coral bleaching such as
in the Great Barrier Reef in Australia and the Belize Barrier
Reef Reserve”. To protect the natural heritage sites there are
3 key methods according to Mr. Sheppard. “One approach is 3
to make the sites larger so the species and ecosystems have
a better chance at adapting and responding. For example at
the Aletsch Glacier site in Switzerland, last year the World
Heritage Committee agreed to extend the site to make it larger.
A second approach is to try to link individual sites better into
the landscape. There are a number of corridor initiatives
around the world today, one of which is the Yellowstone to
Yukon initiative. This is an attempt to encourage planning
for heritage sites at a broader level to try and encourage
conservation-friendly land use in areas outside the world
heritage sites. Basically that is allowing the species more
room to roam, to move and adapt to changing climate.
The third key approach is to try to get a better handle on the real 4
impacts of climate change on species and ecosystems. Within Figures 1-4. 1, Mount Everest; 2, Mount Kilimanjaro; 3, Ecuador’s Galápagos Islands;
South Africa for example, the Cape Floral Kingdom is doing 4, Peru’s Machu Picchu. (Photos courtesy of IUCN)

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 149
 6
5

9 10
Figures 5-10. 5, The Dihamri Socotra Archipelago in Yemen is especially rich in flora and fauna. About 37 % of Socotra’s plant species, 90 % of its reptile species and 95 % of its land snail
species cannot be found anywhere else in the world. (Photo by David Sheppard, IUCN); 6, The Joggins Fossil Cliffs, Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia, Canada is the world reference site for the
Coal Age, which occurred about 300 millions year ago. The cliffs contain the best and most complete known fossil record of terrestrial life from the Coal Age, including the remains of the
first reptiles in the Earth’s history, as well as fossil trees, animals and plants. (Photo courtesy of IUCN); 7, Mount Sanqingshan National Park in China is a largely undisturbed area of Central
Asian steppe and lakes in the Korgalzhyn and Naurzum State Nature Reserves. These are key stopover points for globally threatened species and provide feeding grounds for up to 15-16
million birds. They are also home to the critically endangered Saiga Antelope (Saiga tatarica). (Photo by Peter Shadie, IUCN); 8, Surtsey Island, Iceland. The youngest island in the world
was formed by volcanic eruptions in 1963-67. It has been legally protected from its birth and, as such, provides the world with a pristine natural laboratory, free from human interference.
It has provided a unique scientific record of the process of colonisation of land by plants and animals. (Photo courtesy of IUCN); 9, Satellite view of the Everglades National Park; 10,The
Florida everglades.

a lot of research looking at impacts, what the predictions are examples of world heritage sites that demonstrate approaches
for 50 years from now in terms of location of key species and that are applicable not only for heritage sites but for protected
habitats, and what that means for future planning. These are 3 areas in general”.

150 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
The effects that we are now seeing include epochal changes
in the Earth’s climate. There is a time lag in the Earth’s
climate system, and it takes decades for the Earth to adjust to
changes in the atmosphere. This is what scientists refer to as
the thermal inertia in the system, meaning that we are always
30 or 40 years behind the damage that we have already done.
Latest assessments by UNESCO, IUCN and UNEP-WCMC
predict that human-caused global warming will produce
droughts and floods across the world, that glaciers and ice
sheets will melt resulting in floods and rising sea levels, and
that we will see increasingly extreme weather events over the
next century. On the global scale, climate change is expected
to lead to changes in the distribution of species, including
invasive species, pathogens and parasites. It will also influence
the timing of biological events, such as flowering, and the
relationships between predator and prey, parasite and host,
plant and pollinator. The effects are already manifest in many
regions, and include the relocation of species poleward and
to higher altitudes and latitudes, changes in bird migrations,
and the dislocation of plankton and fish species to those that
can adapt to warmer conditions. In addition, concerns such
as fires, floods and insect plagues are expected to become
more prevalent. The end result will be that the vast majority
of biomes, both on land and in the sea, will be threatened in
some way by the effects of climate change.
11
Data compiled by the Zoological Society of London indicates
that between a quarter and a third of the world’s wildlife
has been lost since 1970. Populations of land-based species
have fallen by 25%, marine by 28% and freshwater by 29%.
Humans are wiping out about 1% of all other species every
year. At this rate, according to best estimates, by the end of
this century another 50% of Earth’s still remaining species
will have become extinct or be critically endangered. Climate
change alone, if unabated, could eliminate one quarter of
species during the next five decades. 
Eight New Natural Wonders Added to the List
Following IUCN’s recommendations, the following eight
sites were added to the World Heritage List; the Socotra
Archipelago in Yemen, Canada’s Joggins Fossil Cliffs, the
French Lagoons of New Caledonia, Saryarka in Northern
Kazakhstan, Mount Sanqingshan National Park in China,
Surtsey in Iceland, the Swiss Tectonic Arena Sardona, and the
Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve in Mexico.
Everglades De-listed from World Heritage Danger List
Urban encroachment, agricultural fertilizers, mercury
contamination and lower water levels due to flood controls,
as well as serious risk from climate change and sea-level
rise all threaten the Everglades. Against objections voiced
by IUCN, the Everglades National Park, which had been on
UNESCO’s list of World Heritage sites in danger since 1993,
has been removed from the list of protected sites. In response
to the change in status, the IUCN issued a statement at the 12
July meeting of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee
Figures 11-12.
in Quebec city calling on the United States to “carry out 11, Great Blue Heron perched at sunset in the Everglades National Park; 12,Giant Wood
a vulnerability assessment and develop a risk reduction Storks over Florida everglades. (Photos courtesy of IUCN).

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 151

13
Figure 13. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Climate Change, an Issues Paper by
IUCN. (Cover Photo: IUCN - Danièle Perrot-Maître).
strategy” for Everglades protection. In line with this, all the
parties to the convention have been requested to undertake a
re-assessment of the vulnerability of protected areas in relation
to climate change, and to begin risk assessment, reduction and
adaptation strategies for heritage sites.
In an exclusive interview with the Biodiversity journal, Pedro
Rosabal Gonzalez, Senior Programme Officer for IUCN’s
Programme on Protected Areas, said that IUCN’s objections
were based on the fact that the established process for removal
sites from the list, under the World Heritage Convention, had
not been followed. Mr. Gonzalez also remarked that in last
year’s World Heritage Committee (WHC) meeting in New
Zealand, “the US requested, with no previous notice, that the
Everglades be removed from the World Heritage Danger List.”
The IUCN’s objections focused attention on the fact that, the
request failed to address whether the threats, for which the
site was added to the list, had been tackled or not. In addition
states Mr. Gonzalez, “many of the threats to the Everglades
are long term and need to be addressed as part of a long
term management and action plan with funding dedicated to
restoration. It is also true that new threats from climate change
are going to make a significant impact to those activities that
are happening now and that was not considered. Those are
152 T R O P I C A L C
the key reasons IUCN objected to the decision taken by the
WHC…At the end of the day it was a political decision taken
by the WHC.”
IUCN’s Protected Area Program and Climate Change
One of the key components and a high priority of the new
IUCN program in relation to PAs is how to use the protected
areas as a tool for adaptation and mitigation to climate change.
The perceived threat to PAs from climate change has increased
dramatically, being now ranked as having the highest priority,
moving from having been ranked eighth only four years ago.
The IUCN, the World Commission on Protected Areas and the
Commission on Ecosystem Management, are working together
to develop a “green list” of PAs that could be more vulnerable
to climate change. The large connectivity initiative from the
World Commission on Protected Areas has already been
implemented in mountain biomes, as those are areas which
are seriously affected by climate change. The commission
is looking at different ways to identify and develop large
biological networks and biological corridors between existing
PAs to allow some species to migrate and thus assist PAs in
serving as a mitigation and adaptation strategy for climate
change. IUCN is also proposing a series of standards by which
PAs could be considered for any carbon offset initiative. The
first entry point will be the World Heritage sites.
Indigenous Peoples - Players and
Victims in the Climate Change Arena
Indigenous peoples around the world will bear the brunt of
climate change – but they are also armed with the traditional
knowledge to survive its effects. That’s the message from the
first comprehensive analysis of this subject entitled, Indigenous
and Traditional Peoples and Climate Change, an issues paper
released by the IUCN in March 2008. “Indigenous peoples
are literally living on the edge – highly dependent on natural
ecosystems, they usually occupy marginal lands, are under
pressure socially and many lack proper political representation
to improve their situation,” says Gonzalo Oviedo, IUCN
Senior Advisor on Social Policy, a contributing author to the
report. Mr. Oviedo in an exclusive interview with Biodiversity
expanded on this, “Probably best known amongst these is the
Arctic which has already shown strong evidence of climate
change impact. Most of the inhabitants are indigenous Peoples
with a long tradition of cultural systems for management of
the resources in the area. This is a very clear situation where
the traditional life-style of these groups is being severely
affected by climate change”.
Another area where Indigenous Peoples are involved is the
situation of small islands, particularly in Oceania (comprised
of numerous lands—mostly islands in the Pacific Ocean and
vicinity), where the ecosystems will be affected by both sea
level rises and rainfall patterns. “The Pacific Islands have a
large diversity of traditional cultures. It is already estimated
that it will no longer be possible for those cultures to continue
to live on some of the islands. This is the possibility of
relocation of these groups. The drylands of Africa are also
O N S E R V A N C Y
expected to be severely effected and may suffer desiccation. learn to integrate these issues into policy at all levels. But as
Traditional Peoples, nomadic and pastoral, occupy these areas Mr. Oviedo laments, “at the global level there is no appropriate
and their traditional lifestyles may no longer be possible. system for taking these issues into consideration.”
South America is another area, the traditional habitats of the
Maya people and others. The unusual weather patterns will
affect them dramatically”.
There is no systematic scientific research on the traditional
knowledge of these peoples and the problem is of course
that many of the traditional methods of adaptation to climate
change which have been quite successful in the past may be lost
before they are thoroughly understood. Though some of these
strategies may not be adequate in the face of the magnitude of
potential climate change impacts, “often the best way of helping
these peoples is to build upon their traditional adaptation
practices. For instance in Africa and the Middle-East in the
arid lands there is a rich tradition of water management and
these cultures have developed very sophisticated techniques
to many the scarce resource of water…in many places when
there is some rain the people have built very sophisticated
systems for channelling the water underground because it
would be inefficient to just store the water on the surface due
to high temperatures and evaporation. Unfortunately in some
cases these are disappearing. This is however an important
example of traditional adaptation techniques that could be
built upon with modern technology and methods”.
The report maps out the areas of the world which will be most
vulnerable to climate change in the future and how this will
impact on Indigenous Peoples (IPs). It calls on policy makers
to take IPs experiences into account when making climate
change policy. “Globally there have been some attempts at
creating opportunities for input from IPs but it has not been
very successful particularly in the context of the climate change
convention. Even if some traditional Peoples have been there
at the meetings of the Climate Change Convention, to provide
these kinds of inputs it has not really been included in any way
in the agenda of the convention and that is a problem” says Mr.
Oviedo. Unfortunately in the field of disaster management, a
lack of understanding of the vulnerability of some of these
14
groups can create even more vulnerability. For instance during
the Indian Ocean Tsunami, “many of these groups had no land
rights, were just living on the coast for example in Sri Lanka
without any land title. The moment people had to be relocated
these people were put in a worse condition than before because
they had no papers or legal title to the places they were living.
Inversely, those who first received guarantees for re-allocation
were the tourism operators.”
The role of women in the context of climate change carries
a big burden, with cultural disadvantages. “For instance in
Bangladesh during the regular flooding, most of the victims
are women because they are never taught to swim and
because they cannot get rid of the complex clothing of their
culture, a very simple problem that aggravates their risk of 15
drowning…at the same time if the focus on preparedness and
resilience adaptation is on the women they have the capacity Figures 14-15. 14, A spiny king crab (Paralithodes californiensis) perches on a rock. (Photo courtesy of
to strengthen the capacity of the family.” There is still a lot to Wikimedia Commons); 15, Blue shark (Prionace glauca). (Photo courtesy of NOAA).

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 153

16
17
Figures 16-17. 16,Adelie Penguin, Pygoscelis adeliae, relies on sea-ice for summer
feeding. (Photo courtesy of Samuel Blanc, naturalist guide, photographer and lecturer
in polar regions - http://www.sblanc.com/); 17, The Gentoo Penguin, Pygoscelis papua,
is easily recognized by the wide white stripe extending like a bonnet across the top
of its head. This non-ice dependent species is gradually replacing the Adelie Penguin.
(Photocourtesy of Zee Evans, National Science Foundation).
A changing Antarctic ecosystem
Predators Find Advantage in Warmer Antarctic Waters
It has been 40 million years since the waters around Antarctica
were warm enough to sustain populations of sharks and
most fish, but now global warming appears to be creating
conditions for the proliferation of predators, such as sharks
and crabs, on the sea floor in these waters. Recent studies
have indicated that an increase of just a few degrees Celsius
could make Antarctic waters hospitable to some species. The
waters around the Antarctic Peninsula, the northernmost and
warmest part of the continent, remain within a few degrees of
freezing year round, but in the last 50 years the temperature
there has increased by 1 to 2 °C, which is about double or
triple the global average increase.
The frigid Antarctic waters have been a refuge for relatively
soft-bodied, slow-moving invertebrates such as worms,
sea lilies, clams, brittle stars and other bottom-dwelling
animals. The metabolic limitations of sharks have kept them
away and that may have been the best defence for species
in the Antarctic that have no protection from shell-crushing
predators. The increasing water temperatures brought about
by global warming, are however increasing the probability
of predators beginning to change the delicate ecology of the
Antarctic benthic community.
The first of the predators that appears to be moving in is the
King Crab which has already been found on the deep slopes
off the Antarctic continental shelf, where the water is slightly
warmer than elsewhere. In the past few years, at least 14
subspecies have been spotted on seafloors off Antarctica,
and researchers have recently found them even closer to the
continent, near shallower waters.
Sharks are also expected to appear as the waters warm.
The cold poses a challenge for sharks, as they need to keep
swimming to stay afloat, which requires a lot of energy. Very
cold water slows them down to the point where it’s hard to
keep swim muscles moving. The Ice Fish (Antarctic Blennies),
suborder Notothenioidei, which has antifreeze glycoprotein in
its system, is the only bony fish that now lives in Antarctic
waters. They are already preyed upon by seals and penguins,
but will face a new threat if sharks move in and other bony
fishes begin to prey on and compete with them.
About 70 % of Antarctic species are found nowhere else on
Earth but this ecosystem which has existed in isolation for
millions of years is changing rapidly. What is emerging with
the invasion of predators looks to be unavoidable, and the
only way to prevent it is to hope to roll back the forces driving
global warming. In the near term, controls on ships navigating
around Antarctica could mitigate the proliferation of these
invasive species which often spread through expelling ballast
water. The window of opportunity is closing.
Dramatic shifts in the Antarctic Food Web
Nowhere on Earth is climate change happening faster than in
Antarctica. Average midwinter temperatures have increased
6°C, or five times the global average, since 1950. Working out

154 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
of Palmer Station in Western Antarctica, scientists who have all species are attuned to the seasonal cycles of sea ice.
spent decades studying Antarctica have uncovered widespread New research from MBL Ecosystems Center co-director
interconnected changes in the polar ecosystem where nearly Hugh Ducklow, and co-researchers James McClintock of

18

19

Figures18-19. 18, The Larsen Ice Shelf, part of the Antarctic Peninsula. (Photo courtesy of NASA); 19, Tropical Rainforests - approximates the WWF’s map of Tropical and subtropical
moist broadleaf forests. (Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 155
 University of Alabama at Birmingham, and William Fraser of
Polar Oceans Research Group, Sheridan, Montana points to
dramatic shifts in the food web. Springtime sea ice is melting
ever-earlier, and winter ice is forming later, amounting to a
90-day loss in annual sea-ice cover since 1978. According to
Ducklow, if the warming trend continues, “within about the
next 50 years, the mean winter temperature will be warmer
than the freezing point of seawater. At that point, no sea ice
forms,” and this will bring about fundamental changes in the
ecosystem.
Phytoplankton, photosynthetic organisms that have evolved
to live in sea-ice pockets during the winter, are rapidly
losing habitat. This, in turn, is diminishing the population
of Antarctic krill, small crustaceans that forage on the algae.
20 Krill are the preferred food source for penguins, whales, and
other top predators in Western Antarctica, and it is unknown
what they will eat as krill disappear. Ice-dependent seabirds
and seals, such as the Adélie Penguin, Pygoscelis adeliae,
and the Weddell Seal, Leptonychotes weddellii, are in rapid
decline near Palmer Station. They are gradually being
replaced by non-ice-dependent species, (including the Gentoo
Penguin, Pygoscelis papua, and Chinstrappenguin, Pygoscelis
antarcticus) that do not rely on sea ice for winter feeding and
are migrating into the area.
“We are looking at a replacement ecosystem which doesn’t
have any analogue in the historical or fossil record,” says
Ducklow. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), this lack of historical analogues is a
general problem in predicting the effects of climate warming.
(Information from a press release from the Marine Biological
Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA, 7 July 2008)

21 Vulnerable Rainforest Species Live Close to their Optimal

22
Figures 20-22. 20, Wetlands in Donana. (Photo by Fred Technische, December 1999 - Wikimedia
Commons); 21, Satellite image of Malta. (Photo courtesy of NASA); 22, Rock desert (hamada) inside the
island of Boa Vista, Cape Verde, 11 October 2007. (Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).
Temperature
Impacts of climate warming in tropical regions, where
biodiversity is at its highest, are often predicted to be small
relative to those in temperate regions because the rate
of climate warming in the tropics is lower than at higher
latitudes. However predictions based only on the magnitude
of climate change may be misleading. Models that include
organismal physiology suggest that impacts of climate
warming may be more severe in the tropics than in temperate
regions. According to recent studies in Science Magazine and
PNAS by Joshua J. Tewksbury assistant professor of biology
at the University of Washington and his colleagues warming
in the tropics, although relatively small in magnitude, may
very well have highly damaging consequences because cold-
blooded tropical animals, including insects, fish, reptiles and
amphibians, have limited abilities to acclimatize as they are
currently living very close to their optimal temperature.
The studies go on to say that, “In contrast, species at higher
latitudes have broader thermal tolerance and are living in
climates that are currently cooler than their physiological
optima, so that warming may even enhance their fitness …
Available thermal tolerance data for several vertebrate taxa

156 T R O P I C A L C O N S E R V A N C Y
exhibit similar patterns, suggesting that these results are general concentrations over the period of the experiment, when
for terrestrial ectotherms …” implying that “in the absence compared with plots maintained at present-day CO2 levels.
of ameliorating factors, such as migration and adaptation, Artemisia frigida, a common woody sub-shrub of some North
the greatest extinction risks from global warming may be in American and Asian grasslands (commonly known as Fringed
the tropics, where biological diversity is also greatest.” It is Sagebrush, Fringed Sagewort, or Prairie Sagewort) began as
difficult to measure when species living in tropical areas are a relatively minor component among the 35 different species,
being affected by climate change. In contrast, changes that at well less than 1% of the above ground biomass. Growth at
occur in temperate regions, where there is seasonality, are the doubled CO2 levels resulted in approximately a 40-fold
obvious if a plant flowers at the wrong time of year. increase, to roughly 10% of the aboveground biomass, and a
20-fold increase in plant cover by the end of the experiment.
The studies point out that even slight rises in overall global Morgan commented that the study clearly shows that not
temperature could lead to a decline in “Darwinian fitness,” only will some plants be winners, and others losers, but it
and that tropical forest species may be particularly at risk as also points to the different sensitivity to CO2 among species.
“they live in constant shade, are not generally adapted to the Encroachment of shrubs into grasslands is an important
high operative temperatures found in warmer open habitats, problem facing rangeland managers and ranchers; this
and have few behavioral options available to evade rising process replaces grasses, the preferred forage of domestic
temperatures.” Unlike warm-blooded animals, cold-blooded livestock, with species that are unsuitable for domestic
organisms have no ability to regulate their body temperatures.
They are limited to seeking shade when it is too hot or
burrowing into the soil. If it is still too hot in the shade they
will not be able to survive. The expectation is that such species
would struggle to cope with the 2-4 degrees Celsius rise in
tropical temperatures predicted by the end of this century. A
decline in insect populations would likely result in unwanted
consequences in the food chain and the pollination of plants.
(Information from Science, vol. 320, 6 June 2008; and PNAS,
vol. 105 no. 18 6668-6672, 6 May 2008)
Grazing Lands at Risk Due to Rising CO2 Levels
In a study published in the journal Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, researchers led by Jack Morgan of the
USDA, reported that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
levels could change the nature of grasslands and decrease
their usefulness as grazing pastures.
The 5-year study, using experimental field stations to determine
the effects of CO2 on plant species composition, compared
relative composition of 35 different native plants, and how 23
that changed in elevated CO2 concentrations of 720ppm
(roughly double present day ambient CO2 levels). Scientists
expect the atmospheric levels of CO2 will be double present
day concentrations by the end of the century.
Morgan questions a commonly cited hypothesis that the
incursion of woody plants into world grasslands over the past
two centuries has been driven in part by increasing carbon
dioxide concentration in Earth’s atmosphere. The hypothesis
is based on the idea that “woody plants have a photosynthetic
metabolism and carbon allocation patterns that are responsive
to CO2, and many have tap roots that are more effective than
grasses for reaching deep soil water stores that can be enhanced
under elevated CO2.” However the study concluded that “this
hypothesis has little direct support, and more traditional theories
of shrub encroachment involving climate change, management,
24
and fire may prove to be the real cause of the changes.”
Morgan’s study revealed that, although doubling CO2 over Figures 23-24. 23, Coral Reef, Papua New Guinea, April, 2004. (Photo by Mila Zinkova, courtesy of
Wikimedia Commons); 24, The mountains “Bola del Mundo” (left) and “La Maliciosa” (right), and
the Colorado shortgrass steppe had little impact on plant La Barranca valley between them in Sierra de Guadarrama of central Spain. (Photo from Wikimedia
species diversity, it did result in increasingly dissimilar plant Commons).

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 157
 livestock grazing. CO2-induced enhancement of plant growth
suggests that rising atmospheric CO2 may be contributing
to the shrubland expansions of the past 200 years, and this
will directly affect rangelands, but there is no direct evidence
of loss of diversity. (From an exclusive interview with Jack
Morgan for the Biodiversity Journal, 18 July 2008)
Climate Change a major driver of
Biodiversity Loss
According to recent reports by IUCN and UNEP-WCMC, human-
generated climate change will increasingly drive biodiversity loss,
affecting both individual species and their ecosystems. Scientific
evaluations on climate change have confirmed that climate
change is indeed a key agent in biodiversity loss and stress to bio-
resources. Many plant and animal species are unlikely to survive
the change. New studies indicate that 15–37% land plants and
animals would eventually become extinct as a result of climate
changes expected by 2050. Some of these species may no longer
be able to adapt to environments unsuitable to their continued
existence. Others will simply be unable to migrate to places
where the climate is suitable.
The outcome of climate change is likely to be unpredictable.
Individual species will adapt according to their climate
tolerances and abilities to disperse to more favourable locations,
to alter their phenology (e.g. breeding date) or adapt to shifting
food sources. The effects of climate change will vary from
system to system in the abundance of herbivores and food
plants, as well as in predators and prey. Many studies have
attempted to project the rate and extent of ecosystem responses
to climate change, some using simple models assuming that
entire ecosystems will shift to follow the changing climate, and
others using models featuring the responses of different types
of herbs, bushes and trees. The vulnerability of an ecosystem
to climate change depends on its species’ tolerance of change,
the degree of change, and the other stresses already affecting it,
Figure 25.Demarkation while the impacts of climate change will vary uniquely for each
of where the world’s
coral reefs lie. (Photo ecosystem. Climate change can also increase an ecosystem’s
courtesy of NASA) vulnerability to existing pressures.
158 T R O P I C A L C
For example, as mean temperatures rise wetlands will begin
to dry out; a 3° to 4° C increase could wipe out 85% of
all remaining wetlands. For coastal marshes, on the other
hand, storm severity and frequency combined with relative
rate sea-level rise could mean the loss of estuaries and
deltas, especially where these are backed by agricultural
or urban land, preventing natural retreat; the loss of habitat
would have significant knock on effects for migratory
species. Low lying islands will be affected by the same
forces as costal marshes, resulting in loss of land area and
seabird nesting colonies. Deserts will become hotter and
dryer, resulting in increased desertification, loss of arable
land, and loss of grasslands. Alpine/mountain ecosystems
will see vegetation zones migrating upward, competing in
already fragile habitats, with the highest altitude species
possibly having nowhere left to go and being unable to
migrate.
Polar ecosystems are especially vulnerable to climate
change and will see longer seasons and changes in
precipitation resulting in vegetation changes and losses of
tundra, thawing of permafrost leading to addition release
soil carbon as CO2. Impacts on Arctic biodiversity are
already being observed. Marine ecosystems will be affected
not only by an increase in sea temperature and changes in
ocean circulation, but also by ocean acidification, as the
concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide (carbonic acid)
rises. This is also expected to negatively affect shell forming
organisms, corals and their dependent ecosystems. Coral
reefs, already stressed by polluted sediment and nutrient
run-off, may be pushed to the brink by coral bleaching
that can result from prolonged exposure to even a minor
elevation of 1° C, and with possibly increased impacts
of elevated CO2 levels in the oceans reducing skeletal
calcification rates. The IUCN estimates that 20 % of the
world’s coral reefs, home to hundreds of thousands of fish
species, have already been damaged, and that a further 50
% are facing immediate or long term danger of collapse.
(IUCN Protected Areas News story, 14 April 2008).
25
O N S E R V A N C Y
Spain Particularly Vulnerable to Climate Change
Climate change is already taking a toll on Spain. Barcelona
in early 2008 experienced its worst drought in 50 years.
The drought ended with unusually heavy rains, the third
wettest in the last 60 years. This appears to be early signs of
what has been predicted by scientists, as a result of climate
change, bringing with it more extreme weather conditions
including heat waves, cyclones, and more frequent droughts
and flooding. Temperatures in Spain are predicted to rise
5° to 8° C (3° to 5° C above the 2° warming that the UN
has set as the global limit to avoid the gravest danger, and
beyond which irreversible ecosystem changes will occur with
unpredictable results for humankind and the lives we lead.)
An already arid region, a hotter and drier climate is expected
to lead to the Africanization of much of the Iberian Peninsula.
Desertification is predicted to advance in the south, and
holiday areas may be invaded by sub-tropical diseases such as
dengue, Rift Valley fever and malaria. A recent government
report cautioned that water resources could fall by 22% by
the end of the century. Spain’s biodiversity will face the
consequences, with extinction rates for reptile and amphibian
species perhaps reaching as high as 97%.
Spain is still busy raising awareness of the issue, rather than
taking comprehensive political action in light of its CO2
emissions exceeding 1990 levels by 49% a couple of years
ago. To help solve the climate crisis and enhance collaboration
of politicians, civil society and the private sector, IUCN, the
world’s largest and oldest environmental network, has hosted
this World Conservation Congress in Barcelona. Climate
change has now finally moved up the political agenda in
Spain, after years of giving economic growth political
precedence. “The fight against climate change is an absolute
priority for any responsible government in these times and
we cannot lose even a minute,” said Prime Minister José Luis
Rodríguez Zapatero. (By Carolin Wahnbaeck, IUCN Global
Communications, 07 July 2008)
A third of Reef-Building Corals Face Extinction
Corals have now joined frogs and toads amongst the most
endangered species on Earth. Often referred to as the rainforests
of the oceans, due to the profusion of species which they
shelter, coral reefs are home to as many as 2 million species
of animals and plants, representing 25 to 30 % of all marine
life. Coral reefs provide services averaging between $100,000
and $600,000 per square km each year, amounting to a total
global value between $30 and $180 billion annually. The reefs
provide shelter for many species for their entire life cycles,
while serving as nurseries for others during early stages of
development. But, the rate at which corals are approaching
extinction is unprecedented. Just ten years ago, less than 5%
of the species assessed would have been placed on the IUCN
Red List. Continued destruction of these reef ecosystems
will certainly end in a massive and irreversible loss of global
biodiversity.
A two year study, published in Science Magazine, has come
to the stark conclusion that one third of reef-building corals
B I O D I V E R S I
around the world are threatened with extinction. Using IUCN
Red List criteria, and led by IUCN’s Kent Carpenter, the
Global Marine Species Assessment (GMSA) study of the 845
known zooxanthellate reef-building coral species found that,
of the 704 for which sufficient data existed, 231 or 33% meet
the IUCN Red List criteria for species at risk of extinction.
The regions at greatest risk are the Caribbean with the highest
concentration of endangered species in high-extinction-risk
categories, and the Coral Triangle of the Western Pacific
with the highest ratio of species in all categories of elevated-
extinction-risk.
Rising surface temperatures and local impacts are leading to
coral bleaching events and coral disease events, which are
further worsened by human-related disruptions, and have lead
to the collapse and mass destruction of large tracts of corals.
According to a recent news story on mongabay.com, “Local
threats, which primarily result from human disturbance,
include coastal development, sedimentation resulting from
erosion and deforestation, sewage discharges, nutrient
loading and eutrophication from agricultural run-off, coral
mining and over-collection for the pet trade, over fishing, and
recreational activities. On a global scale, reefs are imperilled
by rising temperatures, which causthat provide corals with
sustenance, and ocean acidification, which causes changes in
reef communities by making it more difficult for some corals
to form carbonate skeletons that serve as their structural basis.
These synergetic effects cause physiological stress, weakening
corals and leaving them susceptible to infection by pathogens,
including bacteria and viruses.”
The GMSA study warns that, “if bleaching events become
very frequent, many species may be unable to re-establish
breeding populations before subsequent bleaching causes
potentially irreversible declines” and goes on to caution that,
“if corals cannot adapt, the cascading effects of the functional
loss of reef ecosystems will threaten the geologic structure
of reefs and their coastal protection function, and have huge
economic effects on food security for hundreds of millions of
people dependent on reef fish.”
The results highlight the widespread plight of coral reefs and
the urgent need to act. The impending mass extinction of
corals can still be averted, if action is taken on both local and
global levels. The estimated cost of protecting reefs is a tiny
fraction the value they bring: 0.2%. The hope is that if we
can apply good conservation measures, through creating new
protected areas, corals that have other stresses will be able to
survive and rebuild. If we can apply what we know to help
corals get through the crisis of CO2 levels, they just might be
able to pull through.
Please send your news, press releases and media
information to our News Editor Don de Belle
debelle@tc-biodiversity.org
T Y 9 ( 3 & 4 ) 2 0 0 8 159
 B O O K R E V I E W S
THE ATLAS OF CLIMATE CHANGE:
Mapping the World’s Greatest Challenge.
Kirstin Dow and Thomas E. Downing (University of California Press, Berkeley, 2006). ISBN-10: 0-520-25023-0, 112 pp. $19.95.
“Atlas” usually conjures up an image of an unwieldy tome.
But this Atlas measures only 21 cm wide and 24 long, less
than a sheet of letter paper, and at 7 mm thick is light enough
to twirl at finger’s end. Only the subject is weighty – the future
of life on Earth. The treatment is decidedly lighthearted:
colorful charts and diagrams, with a minimum of distressing
photographs (only eight of these after the ominous cover, and
these are often minuscule) to encourage the reader to become
immersed in the subject.
The term “atlas” refers to the four satellite photographs and
34 maps, 16 of which extend over a double-page spread.
These are annotated by 25 bar charts, 16 pie diagrams,
12 charts showing changes over the years, and five other
diagrams that summarize and amplify the data presented
on eight pages of tables at the end of the text. All diagrams
are clear and lively in presentation, and occasionally
160 T R O P I C A L C
surprising even to a knowledgeable reader. For example,
Mongolia (one of the most sparsely populated countries
in the world) is a leader in CO2 emissions as measured
against GDP.
Map coverage varies considerably. Only five maps present
the natural world: prevailing winds and ocean currents that
transport heat around the world (pp. 32-33) and expected
changes in global temperatures, river flow (pp. 37, 57) and
agricultural potential in Africa (p. 59). Quite surprisingly,
there are no world maps showing patterns of temperature
changes over the last few decades.
Most maps present conditions by country or region (melting
of polar ice sheets, glacial retreats, and the 2003 heat
wave in Europe), while nine others are just excuses for
presenting examples of signs of global warming, disruption
of ecosystems, predicted coastal flooding and associated
destruction of cultural heritage, current weather-related
disasters and individual cities that have committed resources
to changing lifestyles. The very serious effects of rising
sea levels is particularly skimpy. There is no systematic
presentation of the vast number of vulnerable oceanic
islands, little discussion of the effects of rising sea levels
on coastal ecosystems such as reefs and mangrove swamps,
and even the coastal flooding of larger countries is treated
vaguely (e.g., coastal populations are listed according to
their distance from the coast, not according to how elevated
they are above sea level, with Norway being listed the same
as the Netherlands).
The bulk of the maps present the political situation, in 14
cases with individual countries and in two cases by regional
groups of countries (with “CIS” representing the Asian
countries formerly included in the USSR). Five of these
maps deal with CO2 emissions (changes in total production
from 1896-2000, production by GDP and changes in 1993-
2003, total production and in agricultural situations)
although methane and other greenhouse gasses are also
featured. Other subjects include health threats, number
of weather-related disasters in 2000-2005, water scarcity,
projected food shortages, greenhouse gas emissions from
air and sea transportation, legislation and financial support
and the capacity of countries for dealing with global
warming.
In short, this is a political tract rather than a scientific one.
Despite this viewpoint, it serves a very useful function as a
“primer” on global climate change and provides much useful
baseline data.
Andy Hamilton— Book Review Editor
O N S E R V A N C Y
 Partnerships
Biodiversity is sincerely grateful to the partners listed below for their financial assistance and in-kind contributions to
the production and publication of this special issue. Biodiversity is also grateful to all members of the Special Board of
Editors and our volunteers who have spent many working hours to ensure the success of this issue.

Agriculture &
Agri-Food Canada IDRC CRDI
International Development Centre de recherches pour le
Agriculture & Agro- Research Centre développement International

alimentaire Canada

Environment
Canada
Environnement
Canada

Disclaimer. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect those of Tropical Conservancy or its partners as listed above.

Biodiversity encourages authors from around the world to submit articles for publication.
Please query the Managing Editor first re: topics (see coordinates in masthead), which
range from ecosystem research, species profiles and discoveries, methodology in track-
ing biodiversity, human effects on species and habitats, innovative conservation initiatives,
discussions of shifts in international, national, or local policies that benefit biodiversity, and
so on. Papers must be accurate, referenced, and written in a clear, understandable style;
most are reviewed by outside experts. Depending on the topic, length varies from 1,500
to 8,000 words. Accompanying illustrations, high-quality maps, and clear, crisp photos are
welcomed.

Printed in Canada at VN Printing, Ottawa, on paper with post-consumer

recycled content and with vegetable oil ink
 BIODIVERSITY
Published by
Tropical Conservancy
94 Four Seasons Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2E 7S1

Volume 9, Numbers 3 & 4, 2008

Native trees in the Socotra Archipelago, Yemen. The Dihamri Socotra Archipelago is especially rich in flora and fauna. About 37 % of Socotra’s
plant species, 90 % of its reptile species and 95 % of its land snail species cannot be found anywhere else in the world. Following IUCN’s recom-
mendations, this site and 7 others were added to the list of World Heritage Sites this year. The other sites include; Canada’s Joggins Fossil Cliffs,
the French Lagoons of New Caledonia, Saryarka in Northern Kazakhstan, Mount Sanqingshan National Park in China, Surtsey in Iceland, the
Swiss Tectonic Arena Sardona, and the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve in Mexico. (Photo by Khaldoun Al Omari, courtesy of IUCN)

ISSN 1488-8386
T r o p i c a l 3-4
C o ns e r va nc y
Working to Conserve World
Biodiversity & Environment 771488
Individual $20.00
Institution $30.00