Ronda Green
As both chair of Wildlife Tourism Australia and chair of the Biodiversity Working Group of IUCN’s TAPAS (Tourism and Protected Areas) I very much hoped to attend this symposium in person and join face to face discussions with people I really waned to meet. Since I was unable to do so, I joined online for the two days.
https://www.aciucn.org.au/30×30-and-beyond
Why 30×30?
Target 3 of the 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted by Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, is to effectively and equitably conserve at least 30% of the Earth (including land, freshwater and marine) by 2030.
I’m not going to attempt to cover the whole conference here: just some of the major themes that are related to wildlife tourism and wildlife conservation in general.I’m not directly quoting specific speaker in this report, but there was a great array of vert knowledgable speakers, who you can see in this page: https://www.aciucn.org.au/30×30-speakers
Conservation ors not mean just national parks. Several kinds of land ownership were discussed, such as public lands (National Parks and others), private land (Land For Wildlife, conservation covenants, wildlife refuges and NGO-owned properties), and Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs – a considerable proportion of protected land in Australia). We heard examples of good progress made by various NGOs, government departments and preservation and restoration on private lands across Australia.
It was recognised that, instead of identifying the easiest areas to create the right number of square kilometres by 2030, we will only achieve important biodiversity goals if we also make science-based decisions, choosing the right places, especially areas of high biodiversity, areas protecting vulnerable species and ecosystems (and I would add important inter-species interactions), and areas that protect important ecosystem services for human benefit. The CAR principle (Comprehensive, Adequate, Representative) was referred to a number of times. It appears many Australian bioregions, ecosystems and threatened species (including 40 critically endangered species) still lack any representation in Protected Areas, and others lack adequate protection. We need another 7% land area to reach the 30% goal, but need to carefully prioritise which areas to protect to maximise biodiversity conservation.
It was notable that when delegates physically present at the conference were asked to discuss the relative ease of achieving certain actions related to management of {protected Areas, those at some table considered the defining of biodiversity conservation goals as one of the easiest to achieve. In sharp contrast, one table identified it as one of the most difficult: this group included several invertebrate ecologists, who were very well aware of just how complex our ecosystems are when you start looking at insects and other animals outside of the mammals, birds and reptiles (and possibly frogs and fish) most people consider. (Actually, even when sticking to vertebrates, there are certainly complexities that some may well be unaware of, involving species interactions, ecological needs in different seasons, rare and cryptic species etc,).
Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) were discussed, with key selection criteria identified as: harbouring threatened biodiversity, geographically restricted biodiversity, ecological integrity, biological processes and irreplaceability, and the attempt to identify KBAs so that all threatened species will be protected.
We were reminded we need to think in context of the regional landscape, not just each parcel of land in isolation, including the need for buffers around sensitive areas and connectivity for animals and plants that need to move (and yes, plants do move as pollen, seeds and spores) between protected areas. (The types of connectivity needed varies greatly between species: I have written briefly about this elsewhere. https://scenicrim.wildlife.org.au/projects/wildlife-corridors-for-the-scenic-rim/)
The areas to be protected, if they are truly to conserve biodiversity, need to be managed accordingly. It is no longer an option to just draw lines on a map, especially with the introduction of feral animals and invasive weeds to so many regions, changes in fire regimes and the growing problem of climate change. Seriously environmentally damaging industries need to be excluded from the Protected Areas themselves and from other areas that can affect them (e.g.pollutants from upstream affecting downstream wetlands or coastal ecosystems). More rangers are needed, and training of local people as rangers.
We were reminded of the IUCN’s Green List, the introduction of which I attended at the World Parks Congress in Sydney in 2014. Where the Red List tells us which species are in particular danger of extinction, the Green List tells us which Protected Areas are doing a particularly good job at protecting ecosystems. Nominated areas must show good governance, sound design and planning, effective management and successful conservation outcomes, also respecting Indigenous culture and wherever relevant including Indigenous people in the governance and management. Arakwal National Park (one of the sites we visited during the 2024 Wildlife Tourism Australia conference field trip) was the world’s first Protected Area to be given this honour, and is still being managed well. I was delighted when Lamington NP, which I have been visiting for over half a century for recreation, ecological research, leading ecotours and running workshops, was more recently added the list.
The value of partnerships was discussed many times, for instance the combined efforts of government, Indigenous communities, NGOs and/or businesses.
Another topic that came up more than once was the importance, indeed the necessity, of knowing we’re doing it right, including the value of well-planned monitoring and setting goals to decide whether our outcomes are successful..
Human needs were discussed, especially those of local residents (including First Nations) and visitors.
Many people love enjoying nature in different ways. Hiking, quiet meditation, bird-watching, photography, camping, horse-riding through forests, rock-climbing etc. While some areas could be damaged by certain activity such as horse-riding and off-road 4WD, which are generally banned in national parks, there are many other areas where they can be combined with nature conservation. It was pointed out that the people who love adventure activities in natural settings are more likely to support conservation efforts which make the latter clear. The Great Barrier Reef was discussed as a major area that supported high–value tourism as well as being a highly-important protector of marine biodiversity.
The spread of misinformation was also discussed: e.g. the idea that Protected Area designation is part of a scheme to lock people out of most of the land, and that designation of National Parks etc. should thus be resisted. I have personally heard such arguments for decades, but nowadays social media is being used to spread the fear and propaganda and unnecessary indignation far more effectively. Certain activities are indeed prohibited in many reserves to protect native ecosystems, but there are others which do allow multi-use, and there are very few Protected Areas that exclude visitors altogether.
Inclusion of Indigenous people in major decisions that affect them was discussed by several speakers.. The importance of culturally significant places and species is not always well appreciated or catered for. The dingo for instance is very special to the First Nations people in Australia. Differences in culture in different reasons is also often overlooked in management plans and in decisions on establishing Protected Areas.
There was considerable discussion on Indigenous governance: ownership of projects, Indigenous-led management activities such as traditional burning etc. A highly valuable trend is the combining of Indigenous knowledge and scientific enquiry. Intellectual property rights should also be respected, and communities properly rewarded for imparting their knowledge. When citing Indigenous knowledge in academic papers and reports, a full reference to the source should be provided, including the community to which the person imparting the information belongs.
Not surprisingly, the question of financing came up quite a few times. Sources of funding for acquisition and management of land were discussed, including government grants, general donations, bequests, and partnering of conservation groups with relevant businesses.The amount of annual expenditure needed was estimated by one speaker as roughly fine times what is currently spent, and it was pointed out that this is really not a great percentage of the total income of most countries. Philanthropic input has been considerable, with well over $200million estimated to have been contributed towards biodiversity in the Financial Year 2023. Fund-matching between NGOs and government was mentioned as a valuable source of funding. Grant application can be challenging. We were advised that we needed to develop a winning message, define the problem accurately and clearly explain the possible solutions, and examples were offered.
There were challenging questions set to delegates to discuss, and many topics and examples other than the ones mentioned above. I’m looking forward to next year’s symposium, and hoping I can be there in person to meet some of the interesting speakers, panel,members and other delegates.