A recommended approach to biodiversity conservation

A common-sense biodiversity treaty or policy acknowledges that we have human and subjective decisions to make. Are we happy with the new fish community in the Great Lakes? Of course the point is moot, given that eliminating introduced Pacific salmon from the Great Lakes is neither possible or desirable. On the other hand, we use “lampricides,” chemicals designed to kill juvenile lamprey to protect Pacific salmon. But this begs the question: what are our priorities for species conservation and on what do we base those decisions? Personally, I support ecologically-sound human intervention to achieve conservation outcomes. We conserve the “good” invaders (Great Lakes Pacific salmon) and work to eliminate the “harmful” invaders (lampreys). New Zealand and Australia are overrun with destructive, introduced species. Both countries have adopted “scorched-earth” policies that seek to eliminate invasive species in order to protect unique indigenous plant and animal communities. But in New Zealand, the introduced brown trout (Salmo trutta) and rainbow trout form the basis of a valuable angling industry. Both of these introduced species are carefully managed. Active control programs are not limited to introduced or invasive species. Wolf (Canis lupus) control is being practised in parts of British Columbia and Alberta to save remnant populations of mountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). Land use changes, such as agricultural development, have created excellent habitat for small generalist indigenous predators such as raccoons and red foxes (Vulpes fulva) which are now decimating ground-nesting grassland birds. Lethal control of these predators greatly improves the nest success of endangered birds. Ecological “purists” recoil at the thought of active management via human intervention. The problem with the purist approach is that most regions on Earth are affected/managed by people. Whether it is agriculture, grazing, mining, forestry, recreation or urbanization, most landscapes are under human control. However, a major recommendation of COP15 was that 30 per cent of terrestrial areas and 30 per cent of the oceans be “conserved.” But “conserved” is not defined. To many, “conserved” means an area is off-limits to human activity. But those who have spent time interacting with nature experience forest fires, droughts, floods and grazing which bestow a dynamism so that no two years are alike. Forests in “no use” areas become senescent as a fire-controlled multi-age natural forest devolves into a decadent old growth community with low biodiversity. Paradoxically, a “no use” decision is a “use” decision. Grazing is often necessary to conserve species richness. Without cattle, our precious multi-species native grasslands would be converted to crop monocultures resulting in a significant loss of biodiversity. The ecological ignorance of the anti-beef campaigns is truly staggering. COP15 recommended that at least 30 per cent of terrestrial areas and 30 per cent of marine areas be “conserved.” But since not all areas are equal in terms of biodiversity, one would expect that a prioritization exercise would precede any land designations. In Canada, species richness is highest in what is known as the southern working landscape (SWL). To be blunt, a hectare of Canadian Shield is a biological desert compared to a hectare of Ontario’s Carolinian Forest. The SWL is where most agriculture and forestry takes place, and is where most Canadians live. And it is in these areas where the most critical biodiversity challenges arise because the twin imperatives of modern food production and urbanization can be at odds with biodiversity conservation. The total amount of agricultural land in Canada is 62.2 million hectares and comprises only 6.3 per cent of Canada’s total land area of 998.5 million hectares. Furthermore, most of the SWL—especially the agricultural portion—is privately owned. COP15 minimizes the challenges of conservation on the privately owned agricultural landscape. Farmers and ranchers may be minorities in Canada, but control vast tracts of land. They often are people who have a strong private land ethos and react viscerally to ANY attempt to diminish their property rights. Including farmers and ranchers in the biodiversity debate is critical. Marine protected areas (MPAs) pose a special challenge since they are by definition three-dimensional protected areas compared to terrestrial areas. MPAs are dynamic with migratory species moving in and out. Furthermore, does the entire water column need to be “protected?” For example, if a goal is to protect an endangered and non-mobile bottom-dwelling invertebrate, what harm is there from ships passing hundreds of metres overhead? Having said that, I am a strong proponent of “fish sanctuaries” where no commercial harvest is allowed and angling is catch-and-release. Many fish species are vulnerable to over-harvest at certain times in their life cycle, such as spawning, where there can be large concentrations of fish in a relatively small area, and protection of fish at these times pays conservation dividends. And lastly, the problem with big challenges such as biodiversity conservation is that the issue can simply overwhelm the capacity of any organization or government. The key to biodiversity conservation is to have an energized constituency to advocate for biodiversity conservation. The most vigorous constituency for fish and wildlife conservation are North America’s hunters and anglers. The Oct. 12, 2022, issue of the Smithsonian Magazine noted that more than half of the bird populations are shrinking. But there was one notable exception: waterfowl. The Smithsonian article noted: “The populations of waterfowl—such as ducks, geese and swans that inhabit inland lakes, ponds and wetlands—are increasing." Ruth Bennett, an ecologist at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute's Migratory Bird Center and co-producer of the report, points to the positive actions taken by hunters and fishers who collectively prioritized preserving these species’ habitats so hunting could continue as the biggest reasons for this bright spot. “Without the hunting and fishing community, these birds would have had the same trajectory as all these other species,” says Bennett. “Hunting groups and federal agencies recognized that these birds were declining and took action. It’s really a conservation success story and it goes to show what’s possible when there is enough money and political will to protect birds.”” It cannot be overstated that waterfowl are thriving because they are hunted and not in spite of being hunted. In fact, most hunted species that are managed according to the best science are thriving. Organized hunting and angling groups are effective lobbyists and have persuaded governments to match dollars raised privately. In fact, the largest multi-country conservation program in history is the multi-million dollar North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Waterfowl habitat conservation programs benefit many species since conserved wetland and grassland areas provide habitats for hundreds of non-hunted species. Humans are stewards of the environment: Mother Nature’s gardeners, if you will. We should not recoil from making subjective decisions about biodiversity goals nor should we be ashamed of advocating for a “people-centric” approach to biodiversity conservation. Our decisions won’t be perfect, but we know a lot more about nature than we admit. Lastly, we should worry more about ecological diversity and ecosystem function as opposed to individual species and acts and regulations. In this way we make biodiversity conservation in everybody’s interest. Robert D. Sopuck is the former Conservative MP who represented Dauphin-Swan River-Neepawa, Man., from 2010-2019. The Hill Times