Mislabeling marine protected areas and why it matters : a case study of Australia

As part of international obligations and national policies, most nations are working toward establishing comprehensive, adequate, and representative systems of terrestrial and marine protected areas (MPAs). Assigning internationally recognized International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected area categories to these MPAs is an important part of this process. The most recent guidance from the IUCN clearly states that commercial or recreational fishing is inappropriate in MPAs designated as category II (National Park). However, in at least two developed countries with long histories of protected area development (e.g., Canada and Australia), category II is being assigned to a number of MPAs that allow some form of commercial or recreational fishing. Using Australia as a case study, this article explores the legal and policy implications of applying protected area categories to MPAs and the consequences for misapplying them. As the Australian Government is about to embark on potentially one of the largest expansions of MPA networks in the world, ensuring the application of IUCN categories is both transparent and consistent with international practice will be important, both for the sake of international conventions and to accurately track conservation progress.

Cultural landscapes : a bridge between culture and nature?

Cultural landscapes are intended to increase awareness that heritage places (sites) are not isolated islands and that there is an interdependence of people, social structures, and the landscape and associated ecological systems. The paper explores whether the recognition of the 1992 World Heritage Cultural Landscape categories, the IUCN Protected Landscapes and the 2005 merging of cultural and natural criteria for World Heritage purposes have been effective in bridging the gap between culture and nature philosophically and in practice. With particular reference to opportunities presented in the Asia-Pacific region, where traditionally culture and nature are not regarded as separate, people are part of nature, the paper will further critically review the nature–culture link and its implications for North American-style national parks where cultural associations may not be seen to be necessary or even desirable. It suggests the imperative of highlighting and respecting in heritage nominations and inscriptions deep cultural associations of traditional communities with natural sites and implications for management to protect cultural and biological diversity and the need for thematic studies.

Innovative approaches to land acquisition and conservation management : the case of Fish River Station, Northern Territory

There has been a dramatic increase in the area that is within the National Reserve System since 2000 – from around 60 million hectares to around 100 million in 2008. This dramatic increase can be attributed to Indigenous Protected Areas and the acquisition of private or leasehold land for either addition to the public protected area estate or management as private protected areas. This growth has also been strategic, increasingly the reservation status of the most underreserved bioregions. However, the reality is the land acquisition has slowed since the global financial crisis of the late 2000s and this has led to new models with different partners coming to the fore. This chapter highlights one of those new models – the acquisition of Fish River Station in the Northern Territory for conservation.

Innovation for 21st century conservation

Most indicators of species and ecological health suggest that our current efforts are inadequate to stem species losses, especially in the face of increasing threats from invasive species and climate change. This has driven a commitment to seek integrated conservation management across many tenures to support our protected areas. To make this happen we need all sectors to break down silos and explore more effective partnerships to achieve conservation at scale, with many different land managers and communities.

This publication illustrates a rich variety of such innovation – new partnerships and models for the establishment, management, financing and governance of both protected areas and initiatives on other lands. Its key purpose is to illustrate that new approaches are possible and workable and to give impetus to these directions. However, the book also illustrates that the path to new approaches will not be without challenges and the occasional blockage. The period of production has seen major changes in government policies, funding cuts, change in personnel and questioning of the business models with some abandonment of the directions within this publication.

Lessons from large-scale conservation networks in Australia

Australia has seen a rapid growth in the establishment of networks of lands managed for connectivity conservation across tenures, at landscape and sub-continental scales. Such networks go under a variety of names, including biosphere reserves, biolinks, wildlife corridors and conservation management networks. Their establishment has varied from state government-led initiatives to those initiated by non-government organizations and interested landholders. We surveyed existing major landscape scale conservation initiatives for successes, failures and future directions and synthesized common themes. These themes included scale, importance of social and economic networks, leadership, governance, funding, conservation planning, the role of protected areas and communication. We discuss the emergence of national policy relating to National Wildlife Corridors in Australia and the relationship of this policy to the long standing commitment to build a comprehensive, adequate and representative National Reserve System. Finally we outline areas for further research for connectivity conservation projects in Australia.

Are green turtles globally endangered?

Aim  To examine the exploitation, recovery and current status of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) nesting at Ascension Island. Location  Ascension Island (UK) (7°57′ S, 14°22′ W), South Atlantic Ocean. Methods  We analysed records of the harvest of green turtles nesting at Ascension Island between 1822 and 1935, illustrating the decline in numbers over this period. Using a deterministic age-class structured model we predict the initial number of breeding females present in the population prior to the recorded harvest and compare this to our estimate of the current population based upon our recent annual surveys (1999–2004). Results  Prior to 1822 we estimate the nesting population of green turtles to have been at least 19,000–22,000 individuals in order for the population to have survived the level of harvest recorded. From recent data (1999–2004), we estimate the current breeding population of green turtles at this site to be 11,000–15,000 females. Our results illustrate a dramatic recovery of the population, which is still increasing exponentially and shows no evidence of slowing, suggesting it has not reached 50% of its carrying capacity. Main conclusions  We estimate that, since the 1970s, the Ascension Island population of green turtles has increased by 285% and question the recent listing of this species as endangered by the IUCN (World Conservation Union), in particular in the Atlantic Ocean, where 75% of the populations assessed by the IUCN are increasing. Indeed, we estimate the global population of this species to be in excess of 2.2 million individuals. We suggest that the IUCN's global listing process detracts attention from those populations that are truly threatened with extinction and should not, in its present form, be applied to globally distributed long-lived species such as marine turtles.

International and regional perspectives on the state of world heritage

A presentation marking the 40th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention, identifying some key challenges in its implementation. The presentation concludes with some proposals for joint work by Australian natural and cultural heritage conservation organisations.

Australia

Describes the current state of private protected areas in Australia

A global gap analysis of sea turtle protection coverage

 Although the number and extent of protected areas (PAs) are continuously increasing, their coverage of global biodiversity, as well as criteria and targets that underline their selection, warrants scrutiny. As a case study, we use a global dataset of sea turtle nesting sites (. n=. 2991) to determine the extent to which the existing global PA network encompasses nesting habitats (beaches) that are vital for the persistence of the seven sea turtle species. The majority of nesting sites (87%) are in the tropics, and are mainly hosted by developing countries. Developing countries contain 82% nesting sites, which provide lower protection coverage compared to developed countries. PAs encompass 25% of all nesting sites, of which 78% are in marine PAs. At present, most nesting sites in PAs with IUCN ratification receive high protection. We identified the countries that provide the highest and lowest nesting site protection coverage, and detected gaps in species-level protection effort within countries. No clear trend in protection coverage was found in relation to gross domestic product, the Global Peace Index or sea turtle regional management units; however, countries in crisis (civil unrest, war or natural catastrophes) provided slightly higher protection coverage of all countries. We conclude that global sea turtle resilience against threats spanning temperate to tropical regions require representative PA coverage at the species level within countries. This work is anticipated to function as a first step towards identifying specific countries or regions that should receive higher conservation interest by national and international bodies. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.

Towards consistency, rigour and compatibility of risk assessments for ecosystems and ecological communities

Ecosystem-level conservation is increasingly important at global, national and local levels. Many jurisdictions have developed and apply their own protocols for assessing the threat status of ecosystems, often independently, leading to inconsistencies between and within countries which are problematic for cross-jurisdictional environmental reporting. Australia is a good example of these historic legacies, with different risk assessment methods applied nationally and in most states. The newly developed criteria for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) provide a framework to compare and contrast apparently divergent protocols. We critically reviewed the Australian protocols and compared them with the IUCN RLE, based on the following components of a risk assessment protocol: (i) categories of threat; (ii) assessment units; (iii) underlying concepts and definitions; (iv) assessment criteria; (v) uncertainty methods; and (vi) assessment outcomes. Despite some differences in specific objectives, criteria and their expression, the protocols were structurally similar, included broadly similar types of criteria, and produced assessment outcomes that were generally concordant. Alignment with the IUCN RLE would not require extensive changes to existing protocols, but would improve consistency, rigour and robustness in ecosystem risk assessment across jurisdictions. To achieve this, we recommend: (i) more quantitative assessments of functional change; (ii) separation of management and policy considerations from risk assessment; and (iii) cross-referencing of assessment units in different jurisdictions. We argue that the focus on processes and ecological function, rather than only patterns, is key to robust risk assessment. © 2014 The Authors.

Assessing the threat status of ecological communities

Conservationists are increasingly interested in determining the threat status of ecological communities as a key part of their planning efforts. Such assessments are difficult because of conceptual challenges and a lack of generally accepted criteria. We reviewed 12 protocols for assessing the threat status of communities and identified conceptual and operational issues associated with developing a rigorous, transparent, and universal set of criteria for assessing communities, analogous to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List standards for species. We examined how each protocol defines a community and its extinction and how each applies 3 overarching criteria: decline in geographic distribution, restricted geographic distribution, and changes to ecological function. The protocols vary widely in threshold values used to assess declines and distribution size and the time frames used to assess declines, leading to inconsistent assessments of threat status. Few of the protocols specify a scale for measuring distribution size, although assessment outcomes are highly sensitive to scale. Protocols that apply different thresholds for species versus communities tend to require greater declines and more restricted distributions for communities than species to be listed in equivalent threat categories. Eleven of the protocols include a reduction in ecological function as a criterion, but almost all assess it qualitatively rather than quantitatively. We argue that criteria should be explicit and repeatable in their concepts, parameters, and scale, applicable to a broad range of communities, and address synergies between types of threats. Such criteria should focus on distribution size, declines in distribution, and changes to key ecological functions, with the latter based on workable proxies for assessing the severity, scope, and immediacy of degradation. Threat categories should be delimited by thresholds that are assessed at standard scales and are logically consistent with the viability of component species and important ecological functions.