|
| | | Forum Newbie
Group: Administrators
Last Login: 3/4/2008 5:21:32 PM
Posts: 5, Visits: 27 |
| In preparation for the IUCN Categories Summit in Spain this May, the IUCN-WCPA requested that the Wilderness Task Force revise the guidelines for Category 1b-Wilderness. Please find the revised guidelines attached. The Wilderness Task Force can still update these guidelines leading up to the Categories Summit in Spain this May, and there will also be an opportunity for revisions after the Summit. Your comments and feedback on this document are therefore very important. Please post comments here or send to Cyril Kormos, Wild’s VP for Policy. You may also send comments directly to IUCN.
Vance
Vance G. Martin, Co-Chair, WTF; President, The WILD Foundation
|
| |
| | | Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 3/15/2007 12:13:51 PM
Posts: 1, Visits: 5 |
| Greetings:
A couple of comments regarding the white paper. Generally, it does a good job not being entirely focused on terrestrial wilderness, which is consistent with the broader definition of this category that explicitly embraces areas of the sea, as well as the land. It would be good, however, to include some examples in the revised sections that are more relevant to ocean areas. For example, in the second bullet under "primary objectives", you might list "oil and gas platforms", or "offshore liquified natural gas terminals", and in the following bullet, you might include "commercial fishing" as an example of an industrial extractive activity. In the section relating "primary objectives", I thinks some reference to "preserving natural habitats", in some form or another, might make this section less species-focused.
There seems to be something of a minor internal conflict in the references to climate change. Under "primary objectives" the second bullet talks about providing ecosystem services that include "buffering biodiversity from the impacts of climate change." However, later in the document, in the section dealing with guidance for selection of sites and distinguishing features, the mention of the need to buffer these areas from the effects of climate change begins with the word "ideally." I recommend that you consider striking the work "ideally", as this should be something "provided" and therefore presumably expected, not something hoped for in an ideal world.
Finally, I think there is a typo in the original definition...I believe that it should read "without significant or permanent human habitation"...both the word document downloaded on this page, and the pdf file of the white paper on the Categories Summit page this phrase is ""without significant of permanent human habitation." Probably should be cirrected sometime.
Again, generally excellent suggested revisions.
Regards,
Brad Barr
Brad Barr, Senior Policy Advisor
NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program
Brad.Barr@noaa.gov
|
| |
| | | Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 3/27/2007 5:58:31 PM
Posts: 2, Visits: 4 |
| Greetings,
I have read the draft revised guidelines with interest, and congratulate the Wilderness Taskforce on its work. However, there are a few comments I think are worth making, being:
1) B Primary objectives. I suggest we add 'and natural values' to the current words:
'To preserve the long-term integrity and natural values of large, mainly undisturbed natural areas which:'
Natural values covers both biodiversity and geodiversity, whereas the current revision appears to ignore geodiversity. Geodiversity covers geology, geomorphology and soils. Geodiversity may not be alive, but it can nevertheless be destroyed, and we should acknowledge that wilderness protects this. 'Geodiversity' as a term is where biodiversity was 25 years ago, in that is significance is just starting to be acknowledged, and we should acknowledge it here. To this end I would add a third point under the first objective, being:
'o protect existing geodiversity (geology, landforms, soils).'
2) Secondary objectives, first point. Gary Nabhan and Prof. Michael Soule speak of 'ecological indigeneity' in regard to this objective. This may be a useful term to include here, as it captures the idea of low numbers, and in balance with resources?
3) II, B, Secondary, first dot point. I think we need to add 'Ecologically' in front of 'sustainable use', as various lobby groups seek to promote a different meaning of sustainable use (e.g. economic sustainable use!).
4) IV, B, first dot point. I think it would be better to say 'and top predators (e.g. large mammals)' as perhaps we should not always assume mammals are the top predators (e.g. in marine systems?).
5) IV, B, second dot point. I think this would be much better phrased as:
'* Wilderness areas should be of a sufficient size to protect biodiversity, and to maintain ecological processes and ecosystem services. The aim should be to be of sufficient size that they buffer against both the impacts of climate change and maintain evolutionary processes, however smaller wilderness areas are also needed, especially if connected to other natural areas.'
My reasons are that it is sometimes claimed that areas must be larger than 30 million ha to maintain evolutionary processes, and some people in Australia have gone so far as to say that smaller areas than this are useless. This is clearly not correct, and threatens many valuable existing wilderness areas. The rewording would make clear that our aim is for the largest areas possible, but that smaller areas are also valuable. It also beings in the idea of connectivity, which does not seem to be raised elsewhere, and which is critical to biodiversity protection.
6) IV, B, fourth dot point. I think we should replace 'biological' with 'natural' to read 'natural and cultural criteria listed above'. Natural covers both biodiversity and geodiversity.
Cheers,
Dr. Haydn Washington
Blue Mountains Wilderness Network, Australia |
| |
|
|