Top-Down vs. Bottom Up: Working Towards Consensus ... - CASIOPA

Recommendations

Info

TOP-DOWN VS. BOTTOM UP? WORKING TOWARDS CONSENSUSON SYSTEMATIC PROTECTED AREAS PLANNING IN ONTARIOFrom Plan to Action example: Carden Alvar, Ecodistrict 6E9The NCC is working in this area in conjunction with partners to select and refine conservation targetsand goals. The area contains alvar complexes, limestone plain forests, wetlands and linkages to theCanadian Shield. Information is updated and added regarding district level provincial policy, inventoryinformation such as high-quality alvar locations, and land-ownership information such as the location ofconservation-minded landowners, lands owned by local land trusts, and aggregate industry-owned lands.This local information can identify opportunities and constraints that might otherwise be overlooked byregional level conservation schemes. Using all available information, a long-term (10+ years)conservation plan (and a budget for its implementation) has been developed, protecting the highestquality sites and key buffer regions, maintaining northern linkages to the Canadian Shield, developingmanagement plans for grazing activity and supporting further economic impact studies.Benefits of Integrated, Multi-scale Biodiversity Conservation PlanningAt the planning stage, local priorities can be set with regard to the regional ecosystem context, whichcan better define irreplaceable sites, with regard to their ecological significance and their economic orsocial feasibility. Without consideration of this second factor, the irreplaceability of many sites may beunderestimated. At the implementation stage, knowledge of their regional context can inspire andempower local conservation efforts, and encourage investment and support from within the community.The coordination of conservation partnerships can build relationships over the long term, and enhancethe success of future efforts. Local data will also facilitate the response to unexpected opportunity andmake the conservation effort more flexible and adaptable.66 | P a g e
SUMMARY OF THE PARKS RESEARCH FORUM OF ONTARIO (PRFO)STATE OF THE ART PROTECTED AREAS DESIGN WORKSHOP, 2006Appendix F. Summary of Day 1 CommentariesSummarized by: Leif OlsonDepartment of Biology, Carleton UniversityCommentary 1Kris RothleyThe idea of systematic conservation planning has only recently been recognized by conservationplanners as a useful methodology. Some have suggested that the procedure is a waste of time. However,the examples outlined here have demonstrated its usefulness, both as an exercise (in which data isdescribed and examined specifically with regard to reserve design) and as a goal (in which data iscollected to facilitate a systematic conservation design). While there are similarities and differences inthe techniques and examples presented here, the commonalities tend to outweigh the differences. This isnot necessarily a good thing. All examples use datasets that have massive (and typically unspecified)uncertainty and error associated with them. There is still a focus on representation, only occasionallyconsidering persistence over time. Extensive assumptions are made regarding the ability of individualspecies or land cover classifications to function as indicators for habitat quality or biodiversity or scaledependentecological processes. Without validation, reliance on these assumptions may lead to failurefor many conservation plans. The use of occurrence data may lead to poor inferences regarding habitatquality. Declining populations may retreat to peripheral areas, rather than prime habitat. Protecting areasof existing species richness may not capture the best areas for species persistence.At the same time, there were many differences between the various approaches. The question of whetherthe same toolset can be used to good effect in both fragmented human-dominated landscapes and inunfragmented natural-cover dominated areas has not been resolved. The same methods may requiredrastically different philosophical interpretations when selecting or designing protected areas. The extentto which stakeholders are explicitly involved in the planning process also varies widely betweenexamples. The data available in different regions and to different planning jurisdictions may posedifficulties in implementing comparable conservation strategies. The threats facing these differentregions also varies in extent (point sources, regional land use changes, broad-level environmentaleffects, short versus long term impacts) and nature (population pressure, resource extraction, climatechanges).Some points were not addressed by any example. The management style that is necessary forconservation within designated core protected areas needs attention. Is the maintenance of true„wilderness areas‟ required in all instances? Or can some more extensive management practices play arole in successful conservation? Explicit attention must also be directed towards the management of„matrix‟ or buffer areas surrounding core conservation areas. The success of efforts within these areaswill undoubtedly depend on the context in which they are embedded. The idea of connectivity has beenrepeatedly described, but not explicitly defined. Any measure of connectivity will almost certainly havea species or taxonomic bias, which may lead to undesirable decisions.67 | P a g e
Page 3 and 4:
Top-Down vs. Bottom Up?Working Towa
Page 5:
SUMMARY OF THE PARKS RESEARCH FORUM
Page 8 and 9:
TOP-DOWN VS. BOTTOM UP? WORKING TOW
Page 10 and 11:
Page 13 and 14:
SUMMARY OF THE PARKS RESEARCH FORUM
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22: TOP-DOWN VS. BOTTOM UP? WORKING TOW
Page 25 and 26: SUMMARY OF THE PARKS RESEARCH FORUM
Page 71: SUMMARY OF THE PARKS RESEARCH FORUM
show all

Top-Down vs. Bottom Up: Working Towards Consensus ... - CASIOPA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?