To best protect threatened plants, inefficient national parks should be sold off and the proceeds used to buy more cost-effective ones.
So says at the University of Queensland in St Lucia, Australia, who reckons that replacing 1聽per cent of Australia鈥檚 protected areas could significantly increase the number of vegetation types 鈥� such as grasses and woodlands 鈥� being protected.
Worldwide, there are 100,000 regions dedicated to biodiversity maintenance, covering 12聽per cent of countries鈥� land and territorial waters.
Advertisement
鈥淗istorically, a lot of these areas were designated because we couldn鈥檛 use them for economic or agriculture purposes, not for their biodiversity value,鈥� says Fuller. 鈥淐onsequently, many species and habitats remain inadequately protected.鈥� In some of the world鈥檚 protected areas, for example, up to 83聽per cent of threatened plants are found outside protected areas.
Fuller says environmentalists who try only to increase the number of protected sites are effectively 鈥渁dding to an inefficient system鈥�. Instead, he says, governments should sell off expensive land of low conservation value and buy new sites instead.
Cutting up Australia
Fuller鈥檚 team has developed a mathematical model to test their theory in Australia. The group divided the country鈥檚 landmass into around 65,000 sections before assigning each a 鈥渃onservation value鈥� based on the rarity of the vegetation type within it: higher values were given to areas where more native vegetation has been lost since 1750, when Europeans began widespread clearance.
They then divided each section鈥檚 conservation value by its financial value, enabling them to rank currently protected areas in terms of cost-effectiveness. In the model, the least cost-effective areas were sold off and the funds used to buy more cost-effective sites.
For a vegetation type to be considered as 鈥減rotected鈥� in the team鈥檚 model, 15聽per cent of the land area it covered in 1750 must lie in protected areas. Currently, only 18 out of 60 Australian vegetation types are protected by this measure. Replacing just 1 per cent of the least cost-effective areas boosted the number to 54. 鈥淲e get an enormous increase in efficiency without spending more money,鈥� says Fuller.
Starting debate
鈥淚t鈥檚 a logical approach with obvious benefits for protected biodiversity,鈥� says , an environmental consultant in Hampton, Victoria, Australia. 鈥淏ut I have no confidence that governments could effectively manage such a difficult programme.鈥�
Martin Taylor, a protected areas policy manager at environmental campaign group , is less complimentary. He says the idea of 鈥渢rading off protected areas to buy theoretically better ones鈥� is 鈥渜uite horrifying鈥�.
Sacrificing a protected area based solely on vegetation types without consideration of native animals or local geography is troublesome, he says. 鈥淣o area can be written off so lightly as these authors do.鈥�
Fuller defends his approach, saying the study is just a demonstration. 鈥淚f this idea was to be put into practice you would need to consider these other values.鈥�
鈥淎ll we wanted to do was show how significantly and quickly the gains could be made,鈥� says Fuller. 鈥淲e wanted to start a debate about how best to protect our environment.鈥�
Journal reference: Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature09180
