Search

Founded in 1993, the Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) vision was one of the earliest large‐landscape conservation visions. Despite growing recognition of large‐landscape conservation strategies, there have been few tests to date of conservation gains achieved through such approaches. We tested for conservation gains in the Y2Y region of North America following initiation of the Y2Y conservation vision in 1993 using a counterfactual spatiotemporal comparison and tracking change in five different conservation metrics. First, we enumerated the area of land within Y2Y in designated protected areas. We then compared the rate of change of protected area growth before‐ and after‐initiation of Y2Y in 1993 and to two adjacent counterfactual regions. Protected areas in the Y2Y grew by 7.8%, increasing by 107,289 km2, exceeding the Aichi target of 17% of the area under protection by 2018. More importantly, the rate of protected area growth increased 90% following initiation of the Y2Y large‐landscape conservation vision in 1993, whereas protected area growth declined in adjacent regions, or remained constant throughout North America. Sustained growth in protected areas and private land conservation was complemented by expansion of endangered grizzly bears in the U.S. portion of Y2Y, the greatest global expansion from zero to at least 117 wildlife road‐crossing structures and growing mainstreaming coverage of the Y2Y vision. Our counterfactual comparison provides valuable evidence that large‐landscape conservation strategies such as Y2Y can enhance protected area growth and other conservation metrics. We conclude that large‐landscape conservation strategies may be a useful model for achieving global large‐landscape conservation and biodiversity conservation targets.

Summary: The rapid global spread and human health impacts of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, show humanity's vulnerability to zoonotic disease pandemics. Although anthropogenic land use change is known to be the major driver of zoonotic pathogen spillover from wildlife to human populations, the scientific underpinnings of land use-induced zoonotic spillover have rarely been investigated from the landscape perspective. We call for interdisciplinary collaborations to advance knowledge on land use implications for zoonotic disease emergence with a view toward informing the decisions needed to protect human health. In particular, we urge a mechanistic focus on the zoonotic pathogen infect–shed–spill–spread cascade to enable protection of landscape immunity—the ecological conditions that reduce the risk of pathogen spillover from reservoir hosts—as a conservation and biosecurity priority. Results are urgently needed to formulate an integrated, holistic set of science-based policy and management measures that effectively and cost-efficiently minimise zoonotic disease risk. We consider opportunities to better institute the necessary scientific collaboration, address primary technical challenges, and advance policy and management issues that warrant particular attention to effectively address health security from local to global scales.

En ecosistemas terrestres, dulceacuícolas y marinos, los corredores ecológicos son una designación de conservación necesaria para asegurar la salud de los ecosistemas. Los corredores son elementos fundamentales de las redes ecológicas para la conservación y complementan los objetivos de las áreas protegidas y OMEC al conectar estos hábitats con otras áreas naturales intactas. Estos lineamientos responden a la creciente demanda por la conectividad que han manifestado académicos, tomadores de decisiones y profesionales de la conservación. Los ecosistemas bien conectados apoyan una serie de funciones ecológicas, incluyendo la migración, ciclos de agua y de nutrientes, polinización, dispersión de semillas, seguridad alimentaria, resiliencia frente al clima y resistencia a enfermedades. Estos lineamientos ofrecen orientación sobre cómo conservar los valores de la conectividad en diferentes contextos de la conservación de forma consistente y medible. Los 25 estudios de caso de estos lineamientos ofrecen ejemplos y buenas prácticas que muestran algunos enfoques que pueden asegurar la conectividad ecológica entre diferentes ecosistemas y especies a diferentes escalas espaciales y temporales. Para asegurar la integración y aceleración de la adopción de las medidas de conservación de la conectividad con el fin de amortiguar y promover la adaptación al cambio climático, es necesario enfatizar las capacidades humanas y técnicas.

La connectivité écologique est le mouvement sans entrave des espèces et le flux des processus naturels qui soutiennent la vie sur Terre. Il est impérieux que les pays du monde entier s’orientent vers une approche globale et cohérente de la conservation de la connectivité écologique, et qu’ils entreprennent de mesurer et de contrôler l’efficacité des efforts déployés en ce sens pour ainsi établir des réseaux écologiques fonctionnels. Pour favoriser l’atteinte de ces objectifs, les présentes lignes directrices présentent les corridors écologiques comme des moyens de recenser, de préserver, d’améliorer et de restaurer la connectivité; synthétisant un volume important de données scientifiques connexes; et formulent des recommandations concernant les moyens d’officialiser les corridors et les réseaux écologiques.

International agreements aim to conserve 17% of Earth's land area by 2020 but include no area-based conservation targets within the working landscapes that support human needs through farming, ranching, and forestry. Through a review of country-level legislation, we found that just 38% of countries have minimum area requirements for conserving native habitats within working landscapes. We argue for increasing native habitats to at least 20% of working landscape area where it is below this minimum. Such target has benefits for food security, nature's contributions to people, and the connectivity and effectiveness of protected area networks in biomes in which protected areas are underrepresented. We also argue for maintaining native habitat at higher levels where it currently exceeds the 20% minimum, and performed a literature review that shows that even more than 50% native habitat restoration is needed in particular landscapes. The post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework is an opportune moment to include a minimum habitat restoration target for working landscapes that contributes to, but does not compete with, initiatives for expanding protected areas, the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Sede Andina. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina Fil: Oddi, Facundo José. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Sede Andina. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina Fil: Miguez, Fernando E.. University of Iowa; Estados Unidos Fil: Bartomeus, Ignasi. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. Instituto de Recursos Naturales y Agrobiología de Sevilla; España Fil: Orr, Michael C.. Chinese Academy of Sciences; República de China Fil: Jobbagy Gampel, Esteban Gabriel. Instituto Sudamericano de Estudios de Resiliencia y Sostenibilidad; Uruguay. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - San Luis. Instituto de Matemática Aplicada de San Luis "Prof. Ezio Marchi". Universidad Nacional de San Luis. Facultad de Ciencias Físico, Matemáticas y Naturales. Instituto de Matemática Aplicada de San Luis "Prof. Ezio Marchi"; Argentina Fil: Kremen, Claire. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Schulte, Lisa A.. University of Iowa; Estados Unidos Fil: Hughes, Alice C.. Chinese Academy of Sciences; República de China Fil: Bagnato, Camilo Ernesto. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Sede Andina. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina Fil: Abramson, Guillermo. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Centro Atómico Bariloche; Argentina. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Gerencia del Área de Energía Nuclear. Instituto Balseiro; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina Fil: Bridgewater, Peter. Utrecht University; Países Bajos. University of Canberra; Australia Fil: Gómez Carella, Dulce Sol. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Sede Andina. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina Fil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina Fil: Dicks, Lynn. University of Cambridge; Reino Unido. University of East Anglia; Reino Unido Fil: Ellis, Erle C.. University of Maryland; Estados Unidos Fil: Goldenberg, Matías Guillermo. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Sede Andina. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina Fil: Huaylla, Claudia Alejandra. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Sede Andina. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina Fil: Kuperman, Marcelo Nestor. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Centro Atómico Bariloche; Argentina. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Gerencia del Área de Energía Nuclear. Instituto Balseiro; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina Fil: Locke, Harvey. Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative; Canadá Fil: Mehrabi, Zia. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Santibañez Ossa, Fernanda Andrea. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Sede Andina. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina Fil: Zhu, Chao Dong. Chinese Academy of Sciences; República de China

Connectivity conservation is essential for managing healthy ecosystems, conserving biodiversity and adapting to climate change across all biomes and spatial scales. Well-connected ecosystems support a diversity of ecological functions such as migration, hydrology, nutrient cycling, pollination, seed dispersal, food security, climate resilience and disease resistance. These Guidelines are based on the best available science and practice for maintaining, enhancing and restoring ecological connectivity among and between protected areas, other effective areas based conservation measures (OECMs) and other intact ecosystems. For the first time, this publication introduces a common definition and recommends formal recognition of ecological corridors to serve as critical building blocks of ecological networks in conjunction with protected areas and OECMs. Furthermore, these Guidelines also include 25 case studies that demonstrate current approaches to conserving ecological connectivity and ecological networks for different ecosystems and species, and at different spatial and temporal scales.

Author(s): MacKinnon, Kathy; Smith, Risa; Dudley, Nigel; Figgis, Penelope; Hockings, Marc; Keenleyside, Karen; Laffoley, Dan; Locke, Harvey; Sandwith, Trevor; Woodley, Stephen; Wong, Mike | Abstract: Protected areas are the cornerstones of biodiversity conservation and have never been more relevant than at the present time when the world is facing both a biodiversity and a climate change crisis. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) has been helping to set global standards and best practice guidelines in protected area planning and management for 60 years. Following this guidance, many countries have made significant progress toward their Aichi Target 11 commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The global community will be coming together at the 15th Conference of the Parties of the CBD to set new biodiversity conservation targets for the next decade, as milestones to 2050 and a vision of “a world living in harmony with nature.” This paper lays out the WCPA perspective on priorities for supporting effective protected and conserved areas for the post-2020 era.

The World Economic Forum now ranks biodiversity loss as a top-five risk to the global economy, and the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework proposes an expansion of conservation areas to 30% of the earth’s surface by 2030 (hereafter the “30% target”), using protected areas (PAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). Two immediate concerns are how much a 30% target might cost and whether it will cause economic losses to the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors. Conservation areas also generate economic benefits (e.g. revenue from nature tourism and ecosystem services), making PAs/Nature an economic sector in their own right. If some economic sectors benefit but others experience a loss, high-level policy makers need to know the net impact on the wider economy, as well as on individual sectors. The current report, based on the work of over 100 economists/scientists, analyses the global economic implications of a 30% PA target for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and the PA/nature sector itself. (OECMs were only defined by the CBD in 2018, too recently to economically model, but we include a qualitative treatment of them.) We carried out two analyses: a global financial one (concrete revenues and costs only); and a tropics- focused economic one (including non-monetary ecosystem service values), for multiple scenarios of how a 30% PA target might be implemented. Our financial analysis showed that expanding PAs to 30% would generate higher overall output (revenues) than non-expansion (an extra $64 billion-$454 billion per year by 2050). (Figure 1-2). In the economic analysis, only a partial assessment was possible, focusing on forests and mangroves. For those biomes alone, the 30% target had an avoided-loss value of $170-$534 billion per year by 2050, largely reflecting the benefit of avoiding the flooding, climate change, soil loss and coastal storm- surge damage that occur when natural vegetation is removed. The value for all biomes would be higher. Implementing the proposal would therefore make little initial difference to total (multi-sector) economic output, although a modest rise in gross output value is projected. The main immediate difference between expansion and non-expansion is therefore in broader economic/social values. Expansion outperforms non-expansion in mitigating the very large economic risks of climate change and biodiversity loss (Figure 5). The 30% target would also increase by 63%- 98% the area recognised as Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ land-based nature stewardship contribution (within appropriate rights and governance frameworks). Economic growth in the PA/nature sector (at 4-6%) was also many times faster than the 1% growth expected in competing sectors (Figure 3). Marine expansion restores growth to fisheries (after a shock) but non-expansion leads to a mid-term contraction (Figure 4). The annual investment needed for an expanded (30%) PA system is $103 – $178 billion1. This figure includes $68 billion for the existing system, of which only $24.3 is currently spent. (Underfunded systems lose revenue, assets, carbon and biodiversity). Most of the investment need is in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). These often have a competitive asset advantage in terms of natural areas, but they may need international support to capitalise on that opportunity. Otherwise, growing the PA sector could also entrench global economic inequalities. Benefits and costs also accrue to different stakeholders at smaller (e.g. local) scales, making welfare distribution a challenge that needs addressing.

Biodiversity is declining at an unprecedented rate, and conservation is needed in many places including human-dominated landscapes. Evaluation of conflict risk between biodiversity conservation and human activities is a prerequisite for countries to develop strategies to achieve better conservation outcomes. However, quantitative methods to measure the conflict risk in large-scale areas are still lacking. Here we put forward a quantitative model in large-scale areas and produce the first continuum map of conflict risk in China. Our results show that conflict risk hotspots take up 32.86 % of China's terrestrial area, which may affect 42.98 % of China's population and more than 98 % of threaten vertebrates. Although species richness is high in these hotspot regions, only 10.69 % of them are covered by protected areas. Therefore, alternative conservation measures and proactive spatial planning are needed, especially in regions along the coastlines and around the Sichuan Basin. Especially, extraordinary attentions should be paid to urban agglomerations such as the Pearl River Delta and Yangtze River Delta. Compared to previous studies, our study quantifies the conflict risk of every gird cell, enabling the comparison among any locations. The analysis of 500 times generations shows a low sensitivity of the model as the maximum standard deviation is only 0.017. Furthermore, our model can be applied in other countries or at global scale to provide strategies for conflict governance and biodiversity conservation.

We assess progress toward the protection of 50% of the terrestrial biosphere to address the species-extinction crisis and conserve a global ecological heritage for future generations. Using a map of Earth's 846 terrestrial ecoregions, we show that 98 ecoregions (12%) exceed Half Protected; 313 ecoregions (37%) fall short of Half Protected but have sufficient unaltered habitat remaining to reach the target; and 207 ecoregions (24%) are in peril, where an average of only 4% of natural habitat remains. We propose a Global Deal for Nature—a companion to the Paris Climate Deal—to promote increased habitat protection and restoration, national- and ecoregion-scale conservation strategies, and the empowerment of indigenous peoples to protect their sovereign lands. The goal of such an accord would be to protect half the terrestrial realm by 2050 to halt the extinction crisis while sustaining human livelihoods.

In the face of grim reports of massive biodiversity loss, an optimistic global movement has emerged calling for the protection of half the world. This movement, known as Nature Needs Half or Half Earth, has been born out of decades of scientific inquiry and debate on how much of the world should be conserved in protected areas or other forms of area-based conservation in order to maintain ecosystem function and preserve the full diversity of life. As a social phenomenon, the movement to protect half the world is a values-based effort to mobilize the public and decision-makers to do what is necessary to preserve all life on earth.

The World Heritage Convention could make a bigger and more systematic contribution to global wilderness conservation by: (1) ensuring the World Heritage List includes full coverage of Earth's wilderness areas with outstanding universal value and (2) more effectively protecting the ecological integrity of existing World Heritage sites. Here, we assess current coverage of global-scale wilderness areas within natural World Heritage sites and identify broad gaps where new wilderness sites should be identified for inclusion in the World Heritage List. We also consider how existing mechanisms under the Convention can improve the ecological integrity of existing sites by expanding or buffering them, and by promoting connectivity between World Heritage sites, between World Heritage sites and other protected areas, or both. We suggest that the Convention should consider a new mechanism called a “World Heritage Wilderness Complex” to facilitate a wilderness approach. Finally, we map three landscapes and one seascape to illustrate how World Heritage Wilderness Complexes might be implemented.

Conservation targets should be based on what is necessary to protect nature in all its expressions. When in 1988 the Brundtland report called for tripling the world’s protected area estate (which was then at 3 to 4 per cent of the land area) there was a strong belief that sustainable development would ensure the proper care for nature on the rest of the unprotected earth. This has proven wrong. We therefore must materially shift our protected areas target to protect at least half of the world, land and water, in an interconnected way to conform with what conservation biologists have learned about the needs of nature. Instead we have set goals that are politically determined, with arbitrary percentages that rest on an unarticulated hope that such non-scientific goals are a good first step towards some undefined better future outcome. This has been a destructive form of self-censorship. It is time for conservationists to reset the debate based on scientific findings and assert nature’s needs fearlessly.

Gravel-bed rivers are disproportionately important to regional biodiversity, species interactions, connectivity, and conservation., Gravel-bed river floodplains in mountain landscapes disproportionately concentrate diverse habitats, nutrient cycling, productivity of biota, and species interactions. Although stream ecologists know that river channel and floodplain habitats used by aquatic organisms are maintained by hydrologic regimes that mobilize gravel-bed sediments, terrestrial ecologists have largely been unaware of the importance of floodplain structures and processes to the life requirements of a wide variety of species. We provide insight into gravel-bed rivers as the ecological nexus of glaciated mountain landscapes. We show why gravel-bed river floodplains are the primary arena where interactions take place among aquatic, avian, and terrestrial species from microbes to grizzly bears and provide essential connectivity as corridors for movement for both aquatic and terrestrial species. Paradoxically, gravel-bed river floodplains are also disproportionately unprotected where human developments are concentrated. Structural modifications to floodplains such as roads, railways, and housing and hydrologic-altering hydroelectric or water storage dams have severe impacts to floodplain habitat diversity and productivity, restrict local and regional connectivity, and reduce the resilience of both aquatic and terrestrial species, including adaptation to climate change. To be effective, conservation efforts in glaciated mountain landscapes intended to benefit the widest variety of organisms need a paradigm shift that has gravel-bed rivers and their floodplains as the central focus and that prioritizes the maintenance or restoration of the intact structure and processes of these critically important systems throughout their length and breadth.

SHOULD CONSERVATION TARGETS, such as the proportion of a region to be placed in protected areas, be socially acceptable from the start? Or should they be based unapologetically on the best available science and expert opinion, then address issues of practicality later? Such questions strike to the philosophical core of conservation. Ambitious targets are often considered radical and value laden, whereas modest targets are ostensibly more objective and reasonable. The personal values of experts are impossible to escape in either case. Conservation professionals of a biocentric bent might indeed err on the side of protecting too much. Anthropocentric bias, however, more commonly affects target setting. The pro-growth norms of global society foster timidity among conservation professionals, steering them toward conformity with the global economic agenda and away from acknowledging what is ultimately needed to sustain life on Earth.

The World Conservation Union (IUCN) plays a global leadership role in defining different types of protected areas, and influencing how protected area systems develop and are managed. Following the 1992 World Parks Congress, a new system of categorizing protected areas was developed. New categories were introduced, including categories that allowed resource extraction. Since that time there has been rapid growth in the global numbers and size of protected areas, with most growth being shown in the new categories. Further-more, the IUCN has heralded a ‘new paradigm’ of protected areas, which became the main focus of the 2003 World Parks Congress. The paradigm focuses on benefits to local people to alleviate poverty, re-engineering protected areas professionals, and an emphasis on the interaction between humans and nature through a focus on the new IUCN protected area categories.The purpose of this paper is to examine critically the implications of the new categories and paradigm shift in light of the main purpose of protected areas, to protect wild biodiversity. Wild biodiversity will not be well served by adoption of this new paradigm, which will devalue conservation biology, undermine the creation of more strictly protected reserves, inflate the amount of area in reserves and place people at the centre of the protected area agenda at the expense of wild biodiversity. Only IUCN categories I–IV should be recognized as protected areas. The new categories, namely culturally modified landscapes (V) and managed resource areas (VI), should be reclassified as sustainable development areas. To do so would better serve both the protection of wild biodiversity and those seeking to meet human needs on humanized landscapes where sustainable development is practised.

CONSERVATIONISTS ARE ACCUSTOMED to having a clear foe—the exploiters who would use up this beautiful world and then move on to use up the next planet. The exploiters are hubristic and interested only in what they can exploit for personal gain. Their core philosophy was captured succinctly by Robert Bidinotto: “Nature indeed provides beautiful settings for the work of man. But unseen and unappreciated the environment is meaningless. It is but an empty frame, in which we and our works are the picture. From that perspective, environmentalism means sacrificing the picture to spare the frame.”1

The law governing large carnivores in the western U.S. and western Canada abounds in jurisdictional complexity. In the U.S., different federal and state laws govern large carnivore conservation efforts; species listed under the Endangered Species Act are generally protected, whereas those subject to state regulation can be hunted, trapped, or otherwise taken. Neither federal nor state environmental or land management laws specifically protect large carnivores, though these laws can be used to protect habitat. A similar situation prevails in Canada. Canadian federal law does not address large carnivore conservation, although the national parks provide some secure habitat. Provincial laws vary widely; none of these laws specifically protect large carnivores, but some provisions can be invoked to protect habitat. Although the two nations have not entered any bilateral treaties to protect large carnivores, several species receive limited protection under multilateral treaty obligations. Despite these jurisdictional complexities, the existing legal framework can be built upon to promote large carnivore conservation efforts, primarily through a legally protected reserve system. Whether the political will exists to utilize fully the available legal authorities remains to be seen. La ley que gobierna los carnivoros mayores en el oeste de los Estados Unidos y Canada es compleja. En los E.U. diferentes leyes federales y estatales gobiernan los esfuerzos de conservacion de los carnivoros mayores; las especies listadas bajo el Acta de Especies Amenazadas son generalmente protegidas, mientras que aquellas sujetas a regulacion estatal pueden ser cazadas, atrapadas o en otros casos tomadas. Ni las leyes federales ni las estatales referentes a la proteccion ambiental y ai manejo de tierras protegen especificamente a los carnivoros mayores, sin embargo estas leyes protegen sus habitats. Una situacion similar prevalece en Canada. La legislacion federal canadiense no aborda la proteccion de los carivoros mayores, aunque los parques nacionales proveen cierto hatbitat seguro. Las leyes de las provincias varian ampliamente; ninguna de ellas protege especificamente a los carnivoros mayores, pero algunas clausulas pueden ser citadas para proteger el habitat. Aunque las dos naciones no han iniciado tratados bilaterales para proteger a los carnivoros mayores, varias especies reciben proteccion limitada bajo tratados de proteccion multilaterales. A pesar de las complejidades jurisdiccionales, el marco legal existente puede ser usado para promover los esfuerzos de conservacion de carnivoros mayores, principalmente a traves de un sistema de reserva protegida. El hecho de que la politica existira utilizar completamente las autoridades legales viables aun esta por verse.

I grew up in the Calgary-Banff area, where my family has deep roots in the Canadian Rockies. We spent much of our leisure time in Banff National Park, hiking and horse riding in the summer and skiing in the winter. We routinely saw wildlife, we drank directly from undammed streams, and I was reared on stories of family encounters with grizzly bears and wilderness. I thought this was normal. Then at 16 I went to college in the Swiss Alps, where all of that had been lost. Though the Alps are as beautiful as any place on earth, they had lost their ecological integrity and I felt the melancholy that is present wherever the natural world has been degraded by our species. I vowed that would never happen to my beloved Canadian Rockies. I felt strongly that at least in this one place, my home, the mountains should be protected.

ANTIMICROBIAL resistance is a global health problem of growing concern. In 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that over the past 70 years the use and misuse of antimicrobials in human and animal medicine has led to a ‘relentless rise’ in the number and types of resistant micro-organisms. Every use of an antimicrobial can increase the risk of the development of microbial resistance, the consequences of which are severe for animals and people. An indication …

THE Kennel Club has announced that from January 2012 it will no longer register any puppies born by caesarean section from a bitch that has had two previous caesarean operations. Veterinary surgeons will be able to report the births of litters born by caesarean section from January 27, 2011 onwards

Banff National Park is a mountainous area of the Canadian Rockies which forms part of the larger ecosystem running from Yellowstone to the Yukon. Recent research has demonstrated that to maintain wide-ranging species like grizzly bears and wolves, a landscape approach must be taken to ensure connections between populations. Like all Western North American national parks, Banff is subject to external stresses in its ecosystem. It is also subjected to internal stresses caused by intensive tourism infrastructure and the national transportation corridors which traverse it. The park’s ecology is now acknowledged by Parks Canada to be impaired. Public controversy over development in Banff National Park has existed for over 25 years. The controversy escalated to an international issue in 1993 when the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, a non-government organization, launched a campaign to halt further development in the park due to the proliferation of commercial development and decline in ecological integrity in Banff Park. The Minister of Canadian Heritage intervened and established a $2 million CAN Banff Bow Valley Study headed by a Task Force independent of Parks Canada. The Task Force was charged with studying the health of the park and finding an honourable solution to the issues facing it. The Task Force used a round table process in an effort to bring together the competing interests. The Banff Bow Valley Study reaffirmed Banff’s role and responsibilities as a national park. The diverse group of interests in the round table process agreed on a common vision for Banff’s Bow Valley. Goals for ecological integrity were agreed to which recognize Banff’s role as a protected area providing source populations of wildlife to the broader Yellowstone to Yukon corridor.

Small animal practitioner and BVA past-president, Harvey Locke, will join recent graduate Stephanie Massey to discuss practice support at this year9s BVA Careers Fair at the London Vet Show. Here he discusses what to look for

Harvey Locke, a former BVA President, chairs the BVA's CPD Group whose remit is to develop the BVA's CPD programme nationally. He was a founding partner of a small animal hospital practice in Cheshire, from which he recently retired. After three busy years on the BVA officer team and being recently retired from practice, perhaps the powers that be in the BVA felt that I should not find myself at a loose end! I was invited to take on the role of chairman of this new group for its first year. It was not a difficult decision to make; in fact, I was honoured and excited by the invitation. I have had plenty of practice at chairing meetings over the past few years and also gained a significant level of experience in the planning of CPD courses from my time on the BSAVA's …

FOLLOWING on from the letter from Mike Jessop concerning the disposal of medicinal products ( VR , January 21, 2012, vol 170, p 82), the BVA is pleased to announce the launch of the revised and updated good practice guide to handling veterinary waste in England and Wales, developed by the BVA's Hazardous Waste Group. We are all too aware of the anxiety that surrounds the safe and correct disposal of veterinary waste and, for most of our members, ploughing through …

DEFRA has announced that the UK will harmonise its pet movement rules with the rest of the European Union from January 1, 2012. The changes will mean a better, more proportionate way of managing the risk of rabies, bringing us into line with current science and ensuring that the risk to the UK remains very low. In recent years the incidence of rabies in domestic and wild animal populations in the EU and other countries has decreased due to the effective use of vaccine. No single case of rabies in the EU associated with the legal movement of pets under the EU pet travel scheme has been reported since its inception in 2004. The new rules will mean that all …

MANY colleagues will already be aware that evidence has emerged that a small number of farmers may have been illegally swapping cattle ear tags in order to retain highly productive TB reactors. As a result Defra Minister Jim Paice announced last week that from mid-April in England DNA tags will be inserted by Official Veterinarians (OVs) into the ears of cattle that test positive for TB at the time of disclosure. Although these arrangements will not apply in Scotland, there will of course be implications for members with clients that have cattle in England. At the time …

Harvey Locke, President of the BVA, and Grant Petrie, President of the BSAVA, comment: We are disappointed that the Kennel Club has made these comments regarding our position on the issue of limiting the registration of puppies born by caesarean section. Throughout the process we did make it clear