Tuesday 3 April 2012


We Are NOT the 12%

Torngat Mountains National Park (Photo credit: Heiko Wittenborn)

    Canadian’s like to pride themselves on their connection to nature.  We like to think that we are an eco-minded country.  We showcase our majestic mountains, clean rivers, pristine lakes, and green forests to visitors from around the globe but are we really what we portray ourselves to be?  We may talk the talk but is Canada walking the walk when it comes to protecting our environment? I believe the answer is “no”.
    In 1987, the world commission on Environment and Development announced a target to set aside 12% of the earth’s land cover for protected areas.  Many scientists believe that this target is too low to effectively protect the earth’s biodiversity of plants and animals.  This low target could actually accelerate species extinction rates due to humans continued impact on habitat destruction (DellaSala, et. al. 2001).  Nonetheless, it is a step in the right direction for protecting the earth from over exploitation. 
    In 1992, Canada pledged to meet this goal by the year 2000.  In 2001, one year after Canada was supposed to reach their goal of 12%, they had only protected 7% (DellaSala, et. al. 2001).  That is just over half of where the bar was set; a bar that was set too low by the opinion of many biologists.  Today, 11 years later, Canada still has not reached this goal (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2012).  How is Newfoundland doing in its attempt to reach this coal?  Quite frankly, Newfoundland is doing terribly. 

    In 1999, Newfoundland and Labrador was in dead last compared to the other 9 provinces when it came to protected areas.  Only 1.6% of the province was protected areas.   No other province came close to such a low percentage of protected area (New Brunswick was next with proportionately double the amount of protected area 3.6%) (DellaSala, et. al. 2001).   Why is Newfoundland doing so poorly?  
    Remember how in 1992 Canada pledged to increase the amount of protected areas?  Well, in 1995 Newfoundland decided to go the opposite direction.  The government of Newfoundland closed or privatized 29 of its provincial parks.  It didn’t stop there.  Two years later, another wave of park closers occurred.  After the dust had settled, the provincial government had either closed or handed over ownership of 41 provincial parks (Newfoundland Tourism, Culture and Recreation, 1997).  Click here to see the 1997 press release offering up our provinces natural heritage to the highest bidder.          Today, partially due to the development of the Torngat Mountain National Park in northern Labrador (a rock and ice park) Newfoundland has increased its protected area to 4.52% (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2012).  This is still well below the National average of 8.5% (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2012) and even farther away from the global goal of 12%. 



Figure 1: Percentage of total land area protected in each Canadian province and territory in 1999   (Della Sala et. al 2001)

Province
Protected Area (%)
Alberta
9.8
British Columbia
11
Manitoba
7.7
New Brunswick
3.6
Nova Scotia
8
Ontario
8.6
Quebec
3.8
Northwest Territories
7.7
Saskatchewan
5.8
Yukon Territory
9.2
Newfoundland and Labrador
1.6
Canada
7.4


So, if you think that Canada is a green country that the rest of the world should look toward as a role model when it comes to conservation, think about this: At the Fifth World Parks Congress in Durban (2003), it was announced that the global network of protected areas covered 11.5% of the planet’s surface ( Rodrigues et al., 2004).  Maybe, if Canada lived up to its reputation, the announcement would have been 12%, not 11.5%.
I believe the goal is obtainable; we just have to continue to work towards it.

Works Cited

DellaSala, D. A., Staus, N. L., Strittholt, J. R., Hackman, A., & Iacobelli, A. (2001). An Updated Protected Areas Database for the United States and Canada. Natural Areas Journal , 124-135.

Department of Environment and Conservation. (2012, April 3). Protected areas in Newfoundland and Labrador. Retrieved April 3, 2012, from http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/parks/apa/panl/index.html

Newfoundland Tourism, Culture and Recreation. (1997). Parks Properties Offering Business Opportunities in Rural Newfoundland. St. John's: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Rodrigues, A. S. L., Andelman, S. J., Bakarr, M. I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T. M., Cowling, R. M., Fishpool, L. D. C., et al. (2004). Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature, 428(6983), 640–643. doi:10.1038/nature02422

6 comments:

  1. Out of curiousity, does the 11.5% incorporate marine protected areas?
    Also, do you really think that Canada alone should be responsible for making up that last 0.5% of the global protected area as you claim we should? Did they supply a list of the main contributors to the global goal? This is a significant amount of land to protect and would put Canada over the 12% goal (not that that would be a bad thing, just realistically speaking).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Corrina,

      No the 11.5% incorporates only terrestrial surface area. Although it is a lot to ask for Canada to be a large contributor but being the 2nd largest country is able to feasibly set aside much more land for protected areas without having any economic setbacks. In our other post with the protection of 50% of Plan Nord, an area of 6 million kilometres squared. The papers we focused on are comparing North America or just Canada alone but the site http://www.wdpa.org/ which shows a global depiction of protected areas around the globe.

      Delete
  2. Do you think a part of the problem with protected areas in Newfoundland comes from the cultural connection with the environment?

    That is, Newfoundlanders value the environment, but they also want to be able to enjoy it as they see fit, without the restrictions put in place by formally designating protected areas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I feel a major part of resistance has to do with both a cultural connection and also protecting areas which have a potential for profitability. It is especially important to take into account area utilized by aboriginals, since these areas may not be important to you and me but may be of the greatest importance to them.

      Delete
  3. I agree - Canada is not doing as well as we give ourselves credit for. How much do you think the perception that NFLD is "just so wild" is playing into this? - heck, Ontario looks good in comparison and that's because there's hardly anyone in northern Ontario - the south has 3% natural habitat cover in some areas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's difficult to predict what the population believes about the interior of Newfoundland. I know that I thought it was untouched and intact before I started looking deeper into the issue. Talking to the few Newfoundlanders that socialize with, most of them believe the same. They are shocked to discover that there are logging roads criss-crossing almost all the entire island of Newfoundland. Interior Newfoundland and Northern Ontario are similar in that so few people actually visit these areas that the general public has no idea about the environmental degradation that is occurring right under their noses. The government has rules about creating buffers along highways so that people can't see what is happening just a few metres out of sight. As far as the general public is concerned, interior Newfoundland and northern Ontario are vast stretches of untouched wilderness. But nothing could be farther from the truth.

      Delete