A history of a contested ideal: national parks for fauna conservation

Our aim in this study is to provide the first ever quantitative, historical and map-based information of what fauna has been studied and recorded both outside and inside the protected areas of New South Wales (NSW), which are principally National Parks and Nature Reserves. Our objective was to consider the value of National Parks and Nature Reserves for fauna research and biodiversity conservation, and gauge the extent and limits of our knowledge of the fauna of NSW. We compared the increase in the area of parks and reserves in NSW with the expansion of the fauna records in the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Atlas of NSW Wildlife, and analysed the use of Scientific Licences issued by OEH for fauna research for 3.5 years to mid-2014. We found that the distribution and the number of Scientific Licences within protected areas show a heavy bias to the eastern strip of the State, with a greater clustering for the area around Sydney and the north coast, but it is evident that researchers make considerable use of protected areas. The 6, 070, 769 Atlas fauna records were divided by tenure type: National Parks held 1, 118, 204 records (21.4 records/km2), while Nature Reserves held 386, 755 records (40.6 records/km2). The off-park records total was 4, 407, 486 representing 72.6% of all records, with a density of 6.0 records per km2. Of the grand total of all the fauna records, 7% were of threatened species. Birds and mammals comprise 81% of all fauna records in the Atlas. The greatest number of records are of birds (n = 4, 913, 511), followed by mammals (n = 832, 361, of which 321, 721, or 39%, were from WildCount). Given the success of the growth of the number, area and distribution of parks and reserves in NSW, the idea that they can carry the heavy load of the aspiration to conserve the biodiversity of NSW now seems feasible, even desirable, especially given the increasing intensity of land use from never-ending population growth and its impacts, such as land clearing, roading, logging, water use, alien invasive species and climate change. However, this study has also revealed that we have a very poor understanding of some faunal groups, in particular invertebrates, reptiles and amphibians. Fauna accumulation curves of both records and of species match closely the growth in the area of parks and reserves since the formation of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service in 1967. Thus, the greater the area of parks and reserves, the greater the number of fauna records and of species. We took the historical view so that research is encouraged and the trajectory of the acquisition of new protected areas can be maintained. This study shows the ever-increasing value of protected areas to fauna conservation, and that it is vital to uphold the protected areas concept as a principal way to conserve our fauna. It should also be a guide to help recognise the importance of sustaining the effort to study our native fauna.

SHORT COMMUNICATION INCORPORATING BIODIVERSITY CONSIDERATIONS IN POLICY Shirley Clerkin Shirley Clerkin(e-mail: ecoscape@indigo.ie), NaturalEnvironment Officer, An Taisce, Tailors' Hall, Back Lane, Dublin8, Republic of Ireland. INTRODUCTION We all participate in natural processes, which are facilitated by biodiversity. Changes in lifestyles, farming practices, infrastructure and the way we work and live over the last half-century or so have resulted in dramatic changes in the state of Ireland's biodiversity. The need for policy to incorporate biodiversity considerations is now more urgent than ever before because our ability to cause change is much greater. The 1998 EuropeanCommunityBiodiversityStrategystated, 'Given the projected growth in economic activity, the rate of loss of biodiversity is farmore likely to increase than stabilise' (Commission of the European Communities 1998). The excellent and informative Ireland's environment: amillennium report, published by the Environmental Protection Agency, also demonstrates the links between the growth of GDP and environmental pressures, rating the need to protect our natural resources as an urgent priority (Stapleton et al. 2000). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has produced an important evaluation in a global context of Ireland's performance in biodiversity protection. Ireland is listed by the IUCN and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD 1996) as the worst achiever in the OECD, protecting the smallest amount of national territory for biodiversity of all 28 developed nations. In fact, Ireland protects only about 1% of the national territory to strict intemational standards (that is, with national parks, nature reserves and other such stricdly protected areas) (OECD, updated to the year 2000), whereas the average in the developed world is 12% of the national territory (OECD 1996). Special areas of conservation (SACs) and natural heritage areas (NHAs) are not included in these figures because they are not accorded strict protection. Because of the small percentage of national parks and nature reserves in Ireland, NHAs and SACs are at the forefront of the measures that will be put in place to ensure nature conservation and must be carefully managed to maximise their contribution to biodiversity. Support is required, however, from a wide range of other policies, so that protected areas do not become 'islands' in a bio-monoculture. Despite the lack of coverage of national parks and nature reserves, the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands recently commissioned a report, via the Heritage Council, on the possibility of lifing the hunting ban on state-owned lands within the minister's control. These lanjs aremainly nature reserves and national parks. Independent UK consultants Just Ecology recommended that the ban not be lifted because of the lack of baseline data on biodiversity in national parks and because the main aim of these areas is the conservation of natural heritage, not recreation or hunting. Biodiversity must be considered in all projects and plans through a combined approach of communication, policy, legislation and sectoral policy integration. The European Commission recommends (1) the development of national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and (2) the integration, as far as possible, of the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral and cross-sectoral plans, progranunes and policies (environment, agriculture, forestry and fisheries polices are generally perceived to be the biggest priority). With regard to the development of national strategies, the National Biodiversity Plan (NBP) was published by the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (DAHGI) in April 2002, just before the general election. Itwas published in final form without the wide consultation that An Taisce had recommended. The NBP states that a National Biodiversity Forum, representative of all stakeholders, will be established to provide a mechanism for consultation. The plan contains 91 actions but no specific timeframes or lead agencies and is, in An Taisce's opinion, weak on specifics. The NBP was produced in accordance with Article 6 of the Rio Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This convention, signed by 156 countries concerned about threats to biodiversity, contains the central set of international rules on biodiversity. Its parties commit themselves to (1) the conservation of biological diversity, (2) the BIOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT: PROCEEDINOS OF THE ROYAL IRISHACADEMY, VOL. 102B, No...

Development of Wildlife Conservation Policy and Legislation in Ireland

Against a global backdrop of rapid environmental change, conserving biodiversity poses one of the biggest and most important challenges to society. For this reason, systems of nature reserves have never been more important. Protected areas are under threat in many parts of the world (Mascia & Pailler 2011), but the weakening of protected areas in a rich, developed country with a global reputation for conservation leadership (Harrison 2006) is particularly alarming (Ritchie 2013). Consequently, we are concerned about the recent spate of substantial policy, legislative, and management changes being made by three of six Australian state governments for exploitative uses of national parks—actions that could affect much of Australia and have negative effects on biodiversity.

A Chinese approach to protected areas: A case study comparison with the United States

Over the past twenty-five years studies on the history of nature conservation in Great Britain have played a central role in the slow emergence of British environmental history. The work of John Sheail, David Evans and Peter Marren on a national scale, 1 has spawned not only individual histories of environmental agencies, charities and organisations, but also research into the origins, development and management of some nature reserves. There have been just a handful of historical studies focused on Scottish nature reserves. 3 Craigellachie National Nature Reserve (NNR) was declared by the Nature Conservancy (NC) on 21 January 1960 by Nature Reserve Agreement (NRA) with the owner of the site, the Countess of Seafield. Though less well known than its much larger neighbour the Cairngorms NNR, Craigellachie makes an interesting case study into the often confused question of access onto NNRs because of its very unique close proximity to Aviemore town centre and the new mass tourism industry of the 1960s. Additionally, this historical study provides an insight into how the NC in Scotland negotiated their NRA agreements, and illustrates how they planned and conducted scientific research on their reserves. The Nature Conservancy, which had its official origins as a statutory body in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 and a Royal Charter in the same year, described the pure Birch Betula woodland of Craigellachie NNR as 'a valuable supplement to the neighbouring Cairngorm Reserve'. 4 In the 1990s Craigellachie NNR has an important role to play in Scottish Natural Heritage's (SNH) entire portfolio of Cairngorms area sites.

… From the slopes of the Lebanon to the Dead Sea,we will worship you with plowsWe will plant thee and build thee,we will make thee very beautiful.(Morning Song by Natan Alterman) In 1998, on the ce...

Evaluating the conservation effectiveness of multiple types of protected areas (PAs) on carbon sequestration services can enhance the role of PAs in mitigating global warming. Here, we evaluated the conservation status and effectiveness of national parks, nature reserves, forest parks, geo-parks, and scenic spots on carbon sequestration within the Loess Plateau throughout 2000–2020. The results show that all existing PA types have good representation and conservation effectiveness on carbon sequestration. Nature reserves are the most representative of carbon sequestration but are the least effective in protecting carbon sequestration and are the only ones that are weekly effective in protecting critical carbon sequestration. The main factors influencing these results are PA size, 2000 precipitation, slope, change rate of evapotranspiration, PA rank, and 2000 evapotranspiration. We suggest upgrading the critical carbon sequestration distribution areas in scenic spots, forest parks and geo-parks to national parks or nature reserves in the future and implementing appropriate protection and restoration measures in low carbon sequestration areas within grassland and wild plant nature reserves to help achieve the goal of carbon neutrality early.

Naturschutz hat eine lange Tradition im Sudkaukasus, einer Region, die sich durch eine hohe Biodiversitat auszeichnet. Neben uber hundert Jahre alten Naturschutzgebieten in Aserbaidschan und in Georgien wurden kurzlich zwei neue grenzubergreifende Nationalparks in Armenien und Georgien eingerichtet. Alle diese Schutzgebiete haben Auswirkungen auf die lokale Anrainerbevolkerung, welche Land innerhalb oder in der Nahe dieser Gebiete nutzt. Um die Auswirkungen von zwei benachbarten, historischen Schutzgebieten in Georgien (Lagodekhi) und in Aserbaidschan (Zaqatala) sowie von zwei neuen grenzubergreifenden Nationalparks in Armenien (Lake Arpi) und in Georgien (Javakheti) auf die lokale Bevolkerung zu untersuchen, fuhrten wir eine qualitative Studie durch. Zentrale Fragestellungen der Studie betrafen zum einen die Ansichten der lokalen Bevolkerung, der lokalen Verwaltung und von Umwelt-Nichtregierungsorganisationen hinsichtlich der Auswirkungen von Schutzgebieten auf den Lebensunterhalt der Anrainerbevolkerung und zum anderen mogliche Strategien der Anrainerbevolkerung fur den Umgang mit den Auswirkungen der Schutzgebiete. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass Landnutzungsbeschrankungen, die durch die Schutzgebiete hervorgerufen werden, einerseits Interessenkonflikte zwischen den Zielen des Naturschutzes und den Zielen der Anrainerbevolkerung hervorrufen konnen, und andererseits Rivalitaten zwischen verschiedenen lokalen Gruppen in Bezug auf knappe Ressourcen wie Weideland. Landnutzungsbeschrankungen sind eine Folge der Landnutzungsbestimmungen der Schutzge und betreffen den Zugang zu Weideland und Waldern. Verschiedene Arten von Tourismus konnten eine mogliche Losung darstellen, um bestehende Konflikte zu losen und um die Einkommen der lokalen Bevolkerung zu verbessern.

Parks as Shibboleths

trialspecies,therelativemeritsofdifferentapproachesto ensure the long-term persistence of those species remain highly contentious. Most would agree, however, that both establishing protected areas and exercising some form of restraint on extraction of forest resources are among the most effective of all viable conservation measures. Deforestation, wildfires, logging, and hunting are among the leading drivers of species losses in tropical forests, and de facto or de jure protection from these threats can be conferred by either effective enforcement of regulations or physical remoteness. Attempts to assess conservation success of protected areasatlargescaleshaverestedprimarilyonconventional use of remote sensing to quantify spatial or temporal differences in rates of change in land cover due to deforestation and wildfires, rather than on empirical demographic or community-level metrics (Gaston et al. 2008). Q2 However, the former approaches fail to detect most types of subcanopy anthropogenic disturbances that also result, directly or indirectly, in species losses (Peres et al. 2006). Moreover, the effects of habitat loss and degradation on population extirpations and declines are nonlinear, so vegetation cover alone is rarely a robust proxy for the viability of terrestrial biotas. Remotesensing data show vast tracts of apparently intact tropical forests, but in reality levels of hunting and other forms of extraction in these areas are often unsustainable (Peres & Lake 2003). Fundamental questions yet to be answered include whether ostensibly intact protected areas retain full complements of forest species and how the extent of cryptic patterns of disturbance is related to human population density in both protected and unprotected areas. I considered the global to regional emergence of sustainable-use reserves, emphasizing the world’s largest tropical forest region, Amazonia. Sustainable-use reserves often have intermediate levels of disturbance, so I examined the degree of use of natural resources by resident communities and used human population density as a proxy for level of extraction. In both protected and unprotected areas, I also estimated responses of game vertebrate assemblages to hunting on the basis of the relative biomassextractedfromasubsetoftheforestfauna.Iused analysesofcovariance(ANCOVA)toexaminetheassociationbetweenhumandensityandgamebiomassharvested across different reserve categories. Finally, I considered the long-term capacity of sustainable-use forest reserves to maintain populations of all resident species.

Human society benefits a lot from artificial light at night (ALAN), but in the same time it has led to a significant increase in light pollution of the night sky during the past decades. It has serious consequences on reproduction, navigation, foraging, habitat selection, communication, trophic and social interactions of the biota. Also widespread incursion of ALAN within protected areas has been evidenced for some countries, including the National Nature Parks (NNPs), Biosphere and Nature Reserves in the Steppe Zone and Crimea Mountains of Ukraine. However, the common situation with ALAN impact on protected areas within Ukraine is unclear yet. This research attempted to estimate the level of light pollution on the NNPs, Biosphere and Nature Reserves in the Forest, Forest-Steppe zones and Carpathian Mountains within Ukraine. Kmz layers of these protected areas and the New World Atlas of Artificial Sky Brightness, through Google Earth Pro, were used to calculate the level of artificial sky brightness for 33 NNPs, 2 Biosphere Reserves and 9 Nature Reserves. The results show that majority of studied protected areas are impacted by ALAN, but some of them stay almost under the dark sky still. The situation is unique for Europe, therefore these areas have the special value for biodiversity conservation and can be recognized as refugia where natural habitats are not influenced by ALAN. Based on obtained results, recommendations for improving of nature conservation management are given in the context of ALAN problem.

Nowadays all over the world new protected areas are being created. In Ukraine this process is developed within European programs. During the years of independence many new protected areas were created. Large amount of them were included in so called Ukrainian ecological network that ought to be built in 2015. This network is connected with the European ecological network. The governmental reports show high level of the execution of the programs of developing of the protected areas. But in reality we can see that many of new protected areas do not have the determined limits. This results in dangerous human occupation of such lands. Businessmen understand that occupation will be impossible soon. And they think that such protected areas are proclaimed but yet not really exist. And most of Ukrainian courts agree with this. Recent research and publications analyses. Research of management of protected areas through legal means in Ukraine was made by many Ukrainian scientists (V.I. Andreytsev, A.P. Hetman, M.V. Shulga, P.F. Kulynich, A.M. Myroshnychenko and others). At the same time the scientists have not paid enough attention to the problem of defining the limits of protected areas which is now really a great legal problem in Ukraine. Paper objective is the legal problem of defining the limits of protected areas in Ukraine regarding to the sustainable land management. Paper main body. Generally, protected areas are understood to be those in which human occupation or at least the exploitation of resources is limited. The definition that has been widely accepted across regional and global frameworks has been provided by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in its categorization guidelines for protected areas. The definition is as follows: "A clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values." In Ukraine all protected areas consist of a «fund». Its name can be translated into English like «natural reserved fund». It includes areas of national and regional value. Protected areas are divided into categories. The most widespread are: nature reserve (most protected), national park, zakaznik (a type of protected area in Ukraine and some other former Soviet republics that meets World Conservation Union's (IUCN) category III, or more frequently category VI criteria). In Ukraine there are two types of land planning: 1) land management; 2) planning of development of territories which includes city planning. The limits of each land lot are determined by special documentation within the system of land management. The main type of documentation is the project of land management. This document is also made for protected area as a separate geographical space. According to the law the limits of each protected area are determined by the project. But very often we face the situation when there is no such project. The reasons are different. One of them is that many people are not interested in creation of a new protected area. The amendments to the law “About natural reserved fund of Ukraine” made in 2010 give the solution of this problem. Before the land management project is contained the limits are determined by project of creation of protected area. This document is contained before the proclamation of protected area. But lawyers often face the situation that appeared before 2010. Most of them think that the only evidence of existence of protected area is the land management project. They are so fascinated with this thing that many of them still even do not know about the project of creation of protected area. The author disagrees with them. On the basis of analysis of laws of Ukraine and many other court rulings he offers several new ways of definition of the limits of protected areas. Conclusions of the research. The main way to define the limits of protected areas is to make the project of land management. The additional way is to make the project of creation of protected area. If these documents do not exist other ways would be used: scientific justification, list of landowners, city planning documentation

We all participate in natural processes, which are facilitated by biodiversity. Changes in lifestyles, farming practices, infrastructure and the way we work and live over the last half-century or so have resulted in dramatic changes in the state of Ireland's biodiversity. The need for policy to incorporate biodiversity considerations is now more urgent than ever before because our ability to cause change is much greater. The 1998 European Community Biodiversity Strategy stated, 'Given the projected growth in economic activity, the rate of loss of biodiversity is far more likely to increase than stabilise' (Commission of the European Communities 1998). The excellent and informative Ireland's environment: a millennium report, published by the Environmental Protection Agency, also demonstrates the links between the growth of GDP and environmental pressures, rating the need to protect our natural resources as an urgent priority (Stapleton et al. 2000). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has produced an important evaluation in a global context of Ireland's performance in biodiversity protection. Ireland is listed by the IUCN and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD 1996) as the worst achiever in the OECD, protecting the smallest amount of national territory for biodiversity of all 28 developed nations. In fact, Ireland protects only about 1% of the national territory to strict intemational standards (that is, with national parks, nature reserves and other such stricdly protected areas) (OECD, updated to the year 2000), whereas the average in the developed world is 12% of the national territory (OECD 1996). Special areas of conservation (SACs) and natural heritage areas (NHAs) are not included in these figures because they are not accorded strict protection. Because of the small percentage of national parks and nature reserves in Ireland, NHAs and SACs are at the forefront of the measures that will be put in place to ensure nature conservation and must be carefully managed to maximise their contribution to biodiversity. Support is required, however, from a wide range of other policies, so that protected areas do not become 'islands' in a bio-monoculture. Despite the lack of coverage of national parks and nature reserves, the Minister for Arts, He itage, Gaeltacht and the Islands recently

Protected Areas (PAs) in Tanzania had been established originally for the goal of habitat, landscape and biodiversity conservation. However, human activities such as agricultural expansion and wood harvesting pose challenges to the conservation objectives. We monitored a decade of deforestation within 708 PAs and their unprotected buffer areas, analyzed deforestation by PA management regimes, and assessed connectivity among PAs. Data came from a Landsat based wall-to-wall forest to non-forest change map for the period 2002–2013, developed for the definition of Tanzania’s National Forest Reference Emissions Level (FREL). Deforestation data were extracted in a series of concentric bands that allow pairwise comparison and correlation analysis between the inside of PAs and the external buffer areas. Half of the PAs exhibit either no deforestation or significantly less deforestation than the unprotected buffer areas. A small proportion (10%; n = 71) are responsible for more than 90% of the total deforestation; but these few PAs represent more than 75% of the total area under protection. While about half of the PAs are connected to one or more other PAs, the remaining half, most of which are Forest Reserves, are isolated. Furthermore, deforestation inside isolated PAs is significantly correlated with deforestation in the unprotected buffer areas, suggesting pressure from land use outside PAs. Management regimes varied in reducing deforestation inside PA territories, but differences in protection status within a management regime are also large. Deforestation as percentages of land area and forested areas of PAs was largest for Forest Reserves and Game Controlled areas, while most National Parks, Nature Reserves and Forest Plantations generally retained large proportions of their forest cover. Areas of immediate management concern include the few PAs with a disproportionately large contribution to the total deforestation, and the sizeable number of PAs being isolated. Future protection should account for landscapes outside protected areas, engage local communities and establish new PAs or corridors such as village-managed forest areas.