Designing protected areas networks in the north: identifying representative area and the use of focal species in a Yukon case study.(Report)

Abstract: The science of conservation biology has made many contributions to improving biodiversity conservation within protected areas around the globe. Northern ecosystems are unique, and principles for protected areas design developed for temperate and tropical ecoregions may not readily be extrapolated to northern regions. Recent increases in ecological threats to the Canadian North have spurred interest in improving conservation and representation of northern ecosystems. Here, I present an overview of issues relevant to protected areas planning in the Canadian North, with a focus on the Yukon. I highlight recent Northern Research Institute- supported research on protected areas design in the Yukon, with a particular focus on the issue of representation and an examination of the potential utility of so-called "focal" species in identifying the location of representative protected areas. I show how Geographic Information Systems (GIS) may be applied to test questions of how many protected areas may be required to adequately represent mammal diversity in the ecoregions of the Yukon. I also use two different approaches to identify focal species for the Yukon to show that there is a great deal of ambiguity involved in how these species are identified.

Introduction

The Canadian North is perceived as a vast wilderness by many, yet is also under increased pressure from resource activities (logging, mining) and from global phenomena such as climate change. Since the early part of the twentieth century there has been interest in protecting northern biodiversity and ecosystems. The motivation for protection, and the methods employed in identifying potential protected areas have changed over time. Recent emphasis in protected areas planning is on setting aside large tracts of land that are representative of northern biodiversity. The challenge is deciding how large these protected areas should be, and where they should be located in order to be most effective. Past practices for designation of protected areas were ad hoc (McNamee 2002) and often based on economic opportunities and/or feasibility. Over time, the influence of the science of conservation biology has resulted in the incorporation of the notion of minimum size and representation requirements (Diamond 1975; Wiersma et al. 2005). This paper briefly traces the history of northern protected areas. The paper then outlines how current principles from conservation biology, coupled with cutting-edge software tools, can be applied to improve planning.

Specifically, I address two of the key issues in protected areas design using data to delineate potential protected areas within the Yukon. The first issue is that of biodiversity representation and how many protected areas are necessary to adequately represent natural regions. The second question addresses whether focal species are an appropriate tool for identifying potential protected areas. These questions have been extensively examined in the conservation biology literature; this

contribution is uniquely focused on how they apply in the North.

History of Northern Protected Areas

The first protected areas in the Canadian North were federally-designated areas (national parks, national wildlife areas, migratory bird sanctuaries), established in the early part of the twentieth century to protect significant populations of species of interest--for example, wood bison in Wood Buffalo National park (1922), snow geese in Hannah Bay Migratory Bird Sanctuary (1939), and muskoxen in the Thelon Game Sanctuary (1927). These were generally established without consultation with local people (since this was not the practice of the day) and, in many cases, Aboriginal peoples were removed from lands designated as protected (Sandlos 2007), often because they were perceived not be part of the "natural wilderness" (Catton 1993; Sandlos 2007). The first three northern national parks (Kluane, Nahanni, and Auyuittuq) were established in the 1970s under then-Indian Affairs minister Jean Chretien. These parks were as much about asserting and protecting Arctic sovereignty as they were about protecting biodiversity (McNamee 2002). Although token efforts were made in some cases to involve consultation with local communities, these parks were largely established where the government felt it was most advantageous from the perspective of preserving key wildlife (e.g., Wood Buffalo) of providing an attraction for tourism (e.g., Nahanni). The Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry (the Berger Inquiry) in 1974-75 highlighted the need to protect northern wilderness and gave a sense of urgency to the process. J. Hugh Faulkner took over the parks portfolio in 1978 and set a goal for the establishment of six new northern parks that would conserve northern ecosystems (known as the "6 North of 60" program; McNamee 2002). Four of these--Ivvavik , Quttinirpaaq (formerly known as Ellesmere Island), Aulavik, and Tuktut Nogait--were established by the late 1990s (McNamee 2002). A fifth, Ukkusiksalik, was established in 2003. Many of these were established as part of land claims settlements with Aboriginal peoples.