Professional Documents
Culture Documents
01 - Catastrophic Declines in Wilderness Areas
01 - Catastrophic Declines in Wilderness Areas
01 - Catastrophic Declines in Wilderness Areas
Report
*Correspondence: jwatson@wcs.org
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.049
Current Biology 26, 2929–2934, November 7, 2016 ª 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 2929
C
A
D
A B C D
Figure 1. Change in the Distribution of Wilderness and Globally Significant Wilderness Areas since the Early 1990s
Globally significant wilderness areas are defined as wilderness areas >10,000 km2. The insets are focused on the Amazon (A), the western Sahara (B), the West
Siberian taiga (C), and Borneo (D). See also Figures S1 and S2.
were present in the early 1990s have fallen below the area decades. A further five biomes now have less than 10% wilder-
threshold used here for categorization as globally significant, ness remaining (Figure 2).
and 74% of all blocks experienced erosion in areal extent. A total
of 27 ecoregions (environmentally and ecologically distinct Disparity between Wilderness Protection and Loss
geographic units at the global scale [19]) have lost all of their Protected areas spearhead global efforts to conserve nature,
remaining globally significant wilderness areas since the early and when properly managed they are particularly effective for
1990s, including those areas in the Northwestern Congolian combating the effects of habitat loss and degradation [21]. Since
Lowland Forests and the Northern New Guinea Lowland Rain its inception, and through work plans such as the Aichi Targets of
and Freshwater Swamp Forests ecoregions. South America The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 [22], the Conven-
suffered particularly high losses in the Amazon basin, with the tion on Biological Diversity (CBD) has promoted protected areas
largest wilderness block being reduced from 1.8 million km2 to as a vital conservation mechanism. Consequently, there has
1.3 million km2 (a loss of over 30% in extent; Figures 1 and been a pronounced expansion of the global protected area es-
S1), and wilderness areas in the Ucayali Moist Forests and Iqui- tate over the past two decades, with its extent being an almost
tos Varzeá ecoregions dropping below the globally significant doubled since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 [16]. However,
threshold. This trajectory of wilderness loss in the Amazon is despite this growth, the increase in protection of wilderness
particularly concerning, given that overall deforestation rates has lagged significantly behind losses over the past two de-
reportedly dropped significantly across the Amazon Basin be- cades: 2.5 million km2 of wilderness areas (including 2.1 million
tween 2005–2013 [20]. km2 considered globally significant) was newly protected,
These recent losses have contributed further to existing biases whereas 3.3 million km2 (including 2.7 million km2 considered
in the geographical distribution of globally significant wilderness. globally significant) was lost. In some biomes, there has been a
Of Earth’s 14 terrestrial biomes, three located mostly in the tro- stark contrast between the area lost and the amount protected
pics (Tropical and Subtropical Coniferous Forests, Mangroves, (Figure 2). For example, the Mediterranean Forests, Woodlands,
and Tropical and Subtropical Dry Broadleaf Forests) now have and Scrub biome lost 37% of its globally significant wilderness
no globally significant wilderness area remaining, with the last extent since the early 1990s, yet there was no reciprocal protec-
areas disappearing from two of these biomes over the last two tion of the remaining wilderness areas. Similarly, 23% of the
≥1
(million km2)
>0.1-0.5
>0-0.1
0
>1
>2
0
>3
Total aid
($US millions)
Figure 3. Amount of Conservation Aid and Extent of Wilderness Now Remaining per Country
Amount of conservation aid is shown in millions of US$, and extent of wilderness is shown in million km2. Gray areas indicate countries that received no aid. See
also Figure S3.
wilderness areas provide the reference points and biological (Figures 3 and S2). The neglect of wilderness is arguably even
feedstock for these initiatives. Without concerted preservation more acute in funding under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement
of existing wilderness areas, there will be a diminished capacity finance discussions. Although there is strong financing for forest
for large-scale ecological restoration. conservation under the UNFCCC REDD+ mechanism to reduce
emissions from deforestation and degradation, the rules stipu-
Implications for Multilateral Environmental Agreements late that this financing must target areas with high baseline levels
The recent severe loss of wilderness is impacting options for of deforestation [42]. Such efforts, though valuable for other pur-
achieving strategic goals outlined in key multilateral environ- poses, serve to direct funds away from forested wilderness
mental agreements, including the CBD’s 2020 Aichi Targets areas that are presumed safe from deforestation and degrada-
and the United Nations Framework on Climate Change tion. As our results demonstrate, however, wilderness is under
(UNFCCC) Paris Agreement [22, 39]. There are a number of rea- immense land use pressures, and there is an urgent need for
sons why globally significant wilderness areas are ignored in pol- greater conservation effort in these areas to help maintain their
icy deliberations. International definitions of forests have not ecological intactness and integrity of function.
differentiated between types of forests and in some cases actu- What would it take to halt the rapid loss of wilderness and of
ally treat primary forests, degraded forests, and plantations as globally significant areas in particular? Achieving meaningful
equivalent [40]. International polices do not acknowledge the changes in policy at the global level is more likely if there is first
special qualities and benefits that flow from ecosystem pro- a critical mass of support at the national level. Ideally, this should
cesses operating at large scales. For example, there is no formal be evidenced through national strategies and plans that recog-
text within the UNFCCC, United Nations World Heritage Conven- nize the values of wilderness areas and specify policies for their
tion (WHC), or CBD that prioritizes or even recognizes the bene- protection. In any case, by creating clear text within operational
fits derived from large intact landscapes for nature and people. guidelines, work plans, and ongoing negotiations of key multilat-
An emphasis on degraded, fragmented, and altered ecosystems eral environmental agreements, international conservation in-
has ramifications for national environmental strategies. The ten- vestments can then be mobilized and focused in a manner that
dency is to focus national biodiversity conservation plans on can fund activities to help protect wilderness areas. These activ-
remnant habitats and endangered populations [3, 41], with few ities will vary based on the specific context of different nations
nations clearly articulating conservation goals for wilderness and regions, but there is a clear need to focus on halting current
area. threatening activities that have been leading to the recent
The lack of recognition of wilderness in global accords and na- erosion of wilderness areas, including limiting road expansion
tional policy also has implications for international funding pro- [43]; preventing industrial mining, forestry, and other large-scale
grams such as the Global Environment Facility, Green Climate agricultural operations [43]; and enforcing existing legal frame-
Fund, and Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund, which are works considering that half of all tropical forest clearing between
distributing billions of dollars in support for programs to help 2000 and 2012 was illegal [44–46]. A key goal could be to proac-
achieve the goals of multilateral environmental agreements. tively fund conservation interventions in wilderness areas where
Within the CBD funding mechanisms, for example, 80% of funds degrading activities are currently absent but are projected to
have been allocated to nations with <20% of all wilderness area occur in the near future.
24. Pan, Y., Birdsey, R.A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P.E., Kurz, W.A., 40. Mackey, B., DellaSala, D.A., Kormos, C., Lindenmayer, D., Kumpel, N.,
Phillips, O.L., Shvidenko, A., Lewis, S.L., Canadell, J.G., et al. (2011). Zimmerman, B., Hugh, S., Young, V., Foley, S., Arsenis, K., et al. (2015).
A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, Policy options for the world’s primary forests in multilateral environmental
988–993. agreements. Conserv. Lett. 8, 139–147.
41. Ceausxu, S., Gomes, I., and Pereira, H.M. (2015). Conservation planning for
25. Walker, W., Baccini, A., Schwartzman, S., Rı́os, S., Oliveira-Miranda, M.A.,
biodiversity and wilderness: a real-world example. Environ. Manage. 55,
Augusto, C., Ruiz, M.R., Arrasco, C.S., Ricardo, B., Smith, R., et al. (2014).
1168–1180.
Forest carbon in Amazonia: the unrecognized contribution of indigenous
territories and protected natural areas. Carbon Management 5, 479–485. 42. Venter, O., and Koh, L.P. (2012). Reducing emissions from deforestation
and forest degradation (REDD+): game changer or just another quick
26. Thompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S., and Mosseler, A. (2009). Forest
fix? Ann. N Y Acad. Sci. 1249, 137–150.
Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change. A Synthesis of the
Biodiversity/Resilience/Stability Relationship in Forest Ecosystems. 43. Laurance, W.F., Clements, G.R., Sloan, S., O’Connell, C.S., Mueller, N.D.,
Technical Series No. 43. https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts- Goosem, M., Venter, O., Edwards, D.P., Phalan, B., Balmford, A., et al.
43-en.pdf. (2014). A global strategy for road building. Nature 513, 229–232.
27. Bradshaw, C.J.A., Warkentin, I.G., and Sodhi, N.S. (2009). Urgent preser- 44. Edwards, D.P., Sloan, S., Weng, L.F., Dirks, P., Sayer, J., and Laurance,
vation of boreal carbon stocks and biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, W.F. (2014). Mining and the African environment. Conserv. Lett. 7,
541–548. 302–311.
45. Fitzherbert, E.B., Struebig, M.J., Morel, A., Danielsen, F., Brühl, C.A.,
28. Page, S.E., Siegert, F., Rieley, J.O., Boehm, H.D.V., Jaya, A., and Limin, S.
Donald, P.F., and Phalan, B. (2008). How will oil palm expansion affect
(2002). The amount of carbon released from peat and forest fires in
biodiversity? Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 538–545.
Indonesia during 1997. Nature 420, 61–65.
46. Lawson, S., Blundell, A., Cabarle, B., Basik, N., Jenkins, M., and Canby, K.
29. Le Quéré, C., Moriarty, R., Andrew, R.M., Canadell, J.G., Sitch, S.,
(2014). Consumer Goods and Deforestation: An Analysis of the Extent
Korsbakken, J.I., Friedlingstein, P., Peters, G.P., Andres, R.J., Boden,
and Nature of Illegality in Forest Conversion for Agriculture and Timber
T.A., et al. (2015). Global Carbon Budget (Global Carbon Project).
Plantations. A report for Forest Trade and Finance. September 2014.
30. Crooks, K.R., Burdett, C.L., Theobald, D.M., Rondinini, C., and Boitani, L. http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_4718.pdf.
(2011). Global patterns of fragmentation and connectivity of mammalian
47. World Wildlife Fund (2016). Amazon Region Protected Areas Programme
carnivore habitat. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 366, 2642–2651.
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/amazon/vision_
31. Peres, C.A. (2005). Why we need megareserves in Amazonia. Conserv. amazon/models/amazon_protected_areas/financing/arpa/.
Biol. 19, 728–733. 48. Boreal Leadership Council (2003). Canadian Boreal Forest Conserva-
32. Laurance, W.F. (2005). When bigger is better: the need for Amazonian tion Framework. http://borealcouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/
mega-reserves. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 645–648. Framework-2015ENG.pdf.