5.1 Palaeoenvironment, Biodiversity and Protected Areas
In recent decades, paleoenvironmental studies based on sedimentary records in
mountain regions have contributed a large quantity of data that can help to explain
the major environmental changes over time in different parts of the planet (Last and
Smol 2001; Battarbe et al. 2005; Willis and Birks 2006; Catalan et al. 2013). The
majority of these studies have focused on explaining the main vectors of global
change, and have discussed the impact of human activities on planet Earth (Boada
and Saurí 2002; Duarte 2006).
According to a recent international report, Protected Planet 2016, “there are
202,467 terrestrial and inland water protected areas recorded in the World Database
on Protected Areas (WDPA), covering 14.7% (19.8 million km
2 ) of the world’s
extent of these ecosystems (excluding Antarctica)” (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN
2016: 30). The same source indicates that 19% of the world’s mountain area has
been declared Protected Areas, and in recent decades conservation policies have
emphasized the role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and cultural
heritage. As Willis and Bhagwat (2010) point out, however, “since the first national
park was established in 1872, [protected zones] are spatially fixed, meaning that
migration beyond reserves in response to climate change may not be possible for
many species” (Willis and Bhagwat 2010: 765). All of this occurs in a matrix that
has been deeply affected by human impact and has experienced scenarios reflecting
major climate changes in recent decades (IPCC 2014).
Taking all of this into account, Willis and Bhagwat ask, “how can we then create
conditions that will protect native species beyond reserves and in novel ecosystems? This may require a whole new approach to conservation, restoring ecological
processes and enhancing the quality of landscape matrix surrounding reserves”
(Willis and Bhagwat 2010: 765). Is this reflection taking place? The answer is: at
the theoretical level, yes—but only for the past decade—and at the practical level,
no because of a lack of dialog between conservationists and the paleo-community
(Sutherland et al. 2009). Some attribute this failure to communicate to a lack of
awareness of scientific advances made by conservation managers, the absence of a
long-term perspective that extends beyond 50 years, the priority given to the study
of short time periods rather than the Holocene as a whole, and the self-imposed
limitations within the scientific community when only the negative aspects of
research attract attention (Froyd and Willis 2008). Other authors attribute the
problem to differences between the palaeoecological descriptions used, without
adjusting them to reflect the day-to-day management and conservation of biological
diversity (Willis and Bhagwat 2010).
Richardson and Whittaker (2010) remind us that the conservation of biodiversity
was formally defined during the past decade, when Whittaker et al. (2005) wrote
about the biogeography of conservation and drew attention to four topics: (i) scale
dependency; (ii) inadequacies in taxonomic and distributional data; (iii) developing
improved understanding of the effects of model structure and parameterization,
through increased sensitivity analyses; and (iv) areas in which applied theory
108
A. Pèlachs et al.
In recent decades, paleoenvironmental studies based on sedimentary records in
mountain regions have contributed a large quantity of data that can help to explain
the major environmental changes over time in different parts of the planet (Last and
Smol 2001; Battarbe et al. 2005; Willis and Birks 2006; Catalan et al. 2013). The
majority of these studies have focused on explaining the main vectors of global
change, and have discussed the impact of human activities on planet Earth (Boada
and Saurí 2002; Duarte 2006).
According to a recent international report, Protected Planet 2016, “there are
202,467 terrestrial and inland water protected areas recorded in the World Database
on Protected Areas (WDPA), covering 14.7% (19.8 million km
2 ) of the world’s
extent of these ecosystems (excluding Antarctica)” (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN
2016: 30). The same source indicates that 19% of the world’s mountain area has
been declared Protected Areas, and in recent decades conservation policies have
emphasized the role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and cultural
heritage. As Willis and Bhagwat (2010) point out, however, “since the first national
park was established in 1872, [protected zones] are spatially fixed, meaning that
migration beyond reserves in response to climate change may not be possible for
many species” (Willis and Bhagwat 2010: 765). All of this occurs in a matrix that
has been deeply affected by human impact and has experienced scenarios reflecting
major climate changes in recent decades (IPCC 2014).
Taking all of this into account, Willis and Bhagwat ask, “how can we then create
conditions that will protect native species beyond reserves and in novel ecosystems? This may require a whole new approach to conservation, restoring ecological
processes and enhancing the quality of landscape matrix surrounding reserves”
(Willis and Bhagwat 2010: 765). Is this reflection taking place? The answer is: at
the theoretical level, yes—but only for the past decade—and at the practical level,
no because of a lack of dialog between conservationists and the paleo-community
(Sutherland et al. 2009). Some attribute this failure to communicate to a lack of
awareness of scientific advances made by conservation managers, the absence of a
long-term perspective that extends beyond 50 years, the priority given to the study
of short time periods rather than the Holocene as a whole, and the self-imposed
limitations within the scientific community when only the negative aspects of
research attract attention (Froyd and Willis 2008). Other authors attribute the
problem to differences between the palaeoecological descriptions used, without
adjusting them to reflect the day-to-day management and conservation of biological
diversity (Willis and Bhagwat 2010).
Richardson and Whittaker (2010) remind us that the conservation of biodiversity
was formally defined during the past decade, when Whittaker et al. (2005) wrote
about the biogeography of conservation and drew attention to four topics: (i) scale
dependency; (ii) inadequacies in taxonomic and distributional data; (iii) developing
improved understanding of the effects of model structure and parameterization,
through increased sensitivity analyses; and (iv) areas in which applied theory
108
A. Pèlachs et al.