DOCSLIB.ORG

Catastrophic Declines in Wilderness Areas Undermine Global Environment Targets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Catastrophic Declines in Wilderness Areas Undermine Global Environment Targets Report Catastrophic Declines in Wilderness Areas Undermine Global Environment Targets Highlights Authors d Globally important wilderness areas are ignored in James E.M. Watson, conservation policy Danielle F. Shanahan, Moreno Di Marco, ..., d We reveal that extensive losses of wilderness have occurred Eric W. Sanderson, Brendan Mackey, in the last two decades Oscar Venter d Efforts aimed at protecting wilderness areas are failing to keep pace with its loss Correspondence [email protected] d International policy must recognize the actions needed to maintain wilderness areas In Brief Watson et al. discover that the Earth’s wilderness areas are disappearing at a rate that has significantly outpaced their protection over the past two decades. Despite their ecological, climatological, and cultural importance, wilderness areas are ignored in multilateral environmental agreements, highlighting the need for urgent global policy attention. Watson et al., 2016, Current Biology 26, 2929–2934 November 7, 2016 ª 2016 Elsevier Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.049 Current Biology Report Catastrophic Declines in Wilderness Areas Undermine Global Environment Targets James E.M. Watson,1,2,7,* Danielle F. Shanahan,1 Moreno Di Marco,1,3 James Allan,1 William F. Laurance,4 Eric W. Sanderson,2 Brendan Mackey,5 and Oscar Venter6 1School of Geography, Planning, and Environmental Management, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia 2Wildlife Conservation Society, Global Conservation Program, Bronx, NY 10460, USA 3ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia 4Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science and College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD 4878, Australia 5Griffith Climate Change Response Program, Griffith University, Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD 4215, Australia 6Ecosystem Science and Management, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC V2N 2M7, Canada 7Lead Contact *Correspondence: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.049 SUMMARY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Humans have altered terrestrial ecosystems for Contemporary Wilderness Loss millennia [1], yet wilderness areas still remain as vi- We mapped decline of wilderness areas, defining ‘‘wilderness’’ tal refugia where natural ecological and evolu- as biologically and ecologically largely intact landscapes that tionary processes operate with minimal human are mostly free of human disturbance [2–4, 11]. These areas do disturbance [2–4], underpinning key regional- and not exclude people, as many are in fact critical to certain com- planetary-scale functions [5, 6]. Despite the myriad munities, including indigenous peoples [14, 15]. Rather, they have lower levels of impacts from the kinds of human uses that values of wilderness areas—as critical strongholds result in significant biophysical disturbance to natural habitats, for endangered biodiversity [7], for carbon storage such as large-scale land conversion, industrial activity, or infra- and sequestration [8], for buffering and regulating structure development. We measured temporal change in wil- local climates [9], and for supporting many of the derness extent by producing a global map of wilderness and world’s most politically and economically marginal- assessing it against a spatially comparable map for the early ized communities [10]—they are almost entirely 1990s (Figures 1 and S1). Both maps were devised using the ignored in multilateral environmental agreements. same methodological framework as the original ‘‘last of the This is because they are assumed to be relatively wild’’ map published in 2002 [13], but taking advantage of free from threatening processes and therefore are recently available datasets of in situ anthropogenic pressures. not a priority for conservation efforts [11, 12]. Following established practice, we exclude Antarctic and other Here we challenge this assertion using new compa- ‘‘rock and ice’’ and ‘‘lake’’ ecoregions [16, 17]. We discovered that a total of 30.1 million km2 (or 23.2% of rable maps of global wilderness following methods terrestrial areas) of the world’s land area now remains as wilder- established in the original ‘‘last of the wild’’ analysis ness, with the majority located in North America, North Asia, [13] to examine the change in extent since the early North Africa, and the Australian continent (Figures 1 and S1). 1990s. We demonstrate alarming losses comprising An estimated 3.3 million km2 has been lost since the early 2 one-tenth (3.3 million km ) of global wilderness 1990s (approximately a 9.6% loss in two decades; Figure 2), areas over the last two decades, particularly in with the most loss occurring in South America (experiencing the Amazon (30%) and central Africa (14%). We 29.6% loss) and Africa (experiencing 14% loss). assess increases in the protection of wilderness Encouragingly, the majority of wilderness (82.3%, or 25.2 2 over the same time frame and show that these million km ) is still composed of large contiguous areas of at least 2 efforts are failing to keep pace with the rate of 10,000 km . Although this is an arbitrary threshold, wilderness wilderness loss, which is nearly double the rate areas of this size are often considered as globally significant wil- derness blocks [2, 11]. This is also the size threshold for identi- of protection. Our findings underscore an immedi- fying sites hosting intact ecological communities, adopted in ate need for international policies to recognize the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural the vital values of wilderness and the unprece- Resources (IUCN) standard for Key Biodiversity Areas [18]. Yet dented threats they face and to underscore urgent there was substantial erosion of these large wilderness areas large-scale, multifaceted actions needed to main- over the past two decades, with losses amounting to 2.7 million tain them. km2 (Figure 1). A total of 37 of the 350 wilderness blocks that Current Biology 26, 2929–2934, November 7, 2016 ª 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 2929 C B A D ABC D All wilderness Globally significant wilderness 2015 protected areas Remaining Remaining Loss Loss Figure 1. Change in the Distribution of Wilderness and Globally Significant Wilderness Areas since the Early 1990s Globally significant wilderness areas are defined as wilderness areas >10,000 km2. The insets are focused on the Amazon (A), the western Sahara (B), the West Siberian taiga (C), and Borneo (D). See also Figures S1 and S2. were present in the early 1990s have fallen below the area decades. A further five biomes now have less than 10% wilder- threshold used here for categorization as globally significant, ness remaining (Figure 2). and 74% of all blocks experienced erosion in areal extent. A total of 27 ecoregions (environmentally and ecologically distinct Disparity between Wilderness Protection and Loss geographic units at the global scale [19]) have lost all of their Protected areas spearhead global efforts to conserve nature, remaining globally significant wilderness areas since the early and when properly managed they are particularly effective for 1990s, including those areas in the Northwestern Congolian combating the effects of habitat loss and degradation [21]. Since Lowland Forests and the Northern New Guinea Lowland Rain its inception, and through work plans such as the Aichi Targets of and Freshwater Swamp Forests ecoregions. South America The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 [22], the Conven- suffered particularly high losses in the Amazon basin, with the tion on Biological Diversity (CBD) has promoted protected areas largest wilderness block being reduced from 1.8 million km2 to as a vital conservation mechanism. Consequently, there has 1.3 million km2 (a loss of over 30% in extent; Figures 1 and been a pronounced expansion of the global protected area es- S1), and wilderness areas in the Ucayali Moist Forests and Iqui- tate over the past two decades, with its extent being an almost tos Varzea´ ecoregions dropping below the globally significant doubled since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 [16]. However, threshold. This trajectory of wilderness loss in the Amazon is despite this growth, the increase in protection of wilderness particularly concerning, given that overall deforestation rates has lagged significantly behind losses over the past two de- reportedly dropped significantly across the Amazon Basin be- cades: 2.5 million km2 of wilderness areas (including 2.1 million tween 2005–2013 [20]. km2 considered globally significant) was newly protected, These recent losses have contributed further to existing biases whereas 3.3 million km2 (including 2.7 million km2 considered in the geographical distribution of globally significant wilderness. globally significant) was lost. In some biomes, there has been a Of Earth’s 14 terrestrial biomes, three located mostly in the tro- stark contrast between the area lost and the amount protected pics (Tropical and Subtropical Coniferous Forests, Mangroves, (Figure 2). For example, the Mediterranean Forests, Woodlands, and Tropical and Subtropical Dry Broadleaf Forests) now have and Scrub biome lost 37% of its globally significant wilderness no globally significant wilderness area remaining, with the last extent since the early 1990s, yet there was no reciprocal protec- areas disappearing from two of these biomes over the last two tion of the remaining wilderness areas. Similarly,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Analysing Data on Protected Areas Work in Progress
    The OECD is developing a method to report a more detailed and harmonised account of countries’ terrestrial and marine protected areas. It applies a harmonised methodology to data from the World Database on Protected Areas. Analysing data on protected areas WORK IN PROGRESS CONTACT Head of Division Nathalie Girouard [email protected] Senior Economist Ivan Haščič [email protected] Statisticians Alexander Mackie [email protected] and Sarah Sentier [email protected] Communications Clara Tomasini [email protected] Image credits: Dormitor Park by Thomas Maluck, Flickr/CC licence. UNSDG. Perereca de folhagem Moisés Silva Lima Flickr/CC Licence. Icon TheNounProject.com http://oe.cd/env-data 2 December 2016 International goals Methodology THE WORLD DATABASE ON PROTECTED AREAS The OECD is developing an improved method to The OECD’s indicators are based on data Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) generate more detailed indicators on protected from the World Database on Protected Areas and its World Commission on Protected areas, both terrestrial and marine, for countries (WDPA), which is a geospatial database of Areas (WCPA). across the world. terrestrial and marine protected areas. The WDPA is updated monthly. It contains The WDPA is managed by the United information on more than 200 000 It applies a harmonised methodology to data Nations Environment Programme’s World protected areas. from the World Database on Protected Areas. Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP- WCMC) with support from the International CATEGORIES OF MANAGEMENT By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and The World Database on Protected Areas lists z Ia Strict Nature Reserve marine areas, consistent with national and international protected areas designated at national (IUCN z Ib Wilderness Area law and based on best available scientific information.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 11 the Natural Ecological Value of Wilderness
    204 h The Multiple Values of Wilderness USDA Forest Service. (2002).National and regional project results: 2002 National Chapter 11 Forest Visitor Use Report. Retrieved February 1,2005. from http:Nwww.fs.fed.usl recreation/pmgrams/nvum/ The Natural Ecological Value USDA Forest Service. (200 1). National und regional project results: FY2001 National Foresr ViorUse Report. Retrieved February 1,2005, from http:llwww.fs.fed.usI of Wilderness recreation/pmgrams/nvum/ USDA Forest Service. (2000).National and regional project results: CY20a) Notional Fowst Visitor Use Repor?. Retrieved February 1,2005, from http://www.fs.fed.usl recreation/programs/nvud H. Ken Cordell Senior Research Scientist and Project Leader Vias. A.C. (1999). Jobs folIow people in the nual Rocky Mountain west. Rural Devel- opmenr Perspectives, 14(2), 14-23. USDA Forest Service, Athens, Georgia Danielle Murphy j Research Coordinator, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia Kurt Riitters Research Scientist USDA Forest Service, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina J. E, Harvard Ill former University of Georgia employee Authors' Note: Deepest appreciation is extended to Peter Landres of the Leopold Wilderness Research Institute for initial ideas for approach, data. and analysis and for a thorough and very helpful review of this chapter. Chapter I I-The Natural Ecological Value of Wilderness & 207 The most important characteristic of an organism is that capacity modem broad-scale external influences, such as nonpoint source pollutants. for self-renewal known QS hcaltk There are two organisms whose - processes of self-renewal have been subjected to human interfer- altered distribution of species, and global climate change (Landres, Morgan ence and control.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining Wilderness Within IUCN
    Article for the International Journal of Wilderness, to be published in 2009 Defining wilderness in IUCN Nigel Dudley, Cyril F. Kormos, Harvey Locke and Vance G. Martin The IUCN protected area classification system describes and defines a suite of protected area categories and management approaches suitable for each category, ranging from strictly protected “no-go” reserves to landscape protection and non-industrial sustainable use areas. Wilderness has its own protected area category under IUCN’s classification system, Category Ib, which describes the key objectives of wilderness protection and, more importantly, identifies the limits of what is and is not acceptable in such areas. At the 2008 World Conservation Congress, a new edition of management guidelines for the IUCN categories (Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories, Dudley 2008) was published following long consultation. Guidance for wilderness protection is now more detailed and precise than in the previous 1994 edition, and as a result will help further the application of this category around the world. We describe the revisions to the new guidelines generally, and some of the implications for wilderness protected areas specifically. Wilderness areas and protected areas The term “wilderness” has several dimensions: a biological dimension, because wilderness refers to mainly ecologically intact areas, and a social dimension, because many people – from urban dwellers to indigenous groups – interact with wild nature, and all humans depend on our planet’s wilderness resource to varying degrees. A wilderness protected area is therefore an area that is mainly biologically intact, is free of modern, industrial infrastructure, and has been set aside so that humans may continue to have a relationship with wild nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Antarctica's Wilderness Has Declined to the Exclusion of Biodiversity
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/527010; this version posted January 22, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. Antarctica’s wilderness has declined to the exclusion of biodiversity Rachel I. Leihy1, Bernard W.T. Coetzee2, Fraser Morgan3, Ben Raymond4, Justine D. Shaw5, Aleks Terauds4, and Steven L. Chown1 1School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia. 2Global Change Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa. 3Landcare Research New Zealand, Private Bag 92170, Auckland Mail Centre, Auckland 1142, New Zealand. 4Australian Antarctic Division, Department of the Environment and Energy, 203 Channel Highway, Kingston, Tasmania 7050, Australia. 5School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Queensland 4072, Australia. Recent assessments of the biodiversity value of Earth’s dwindling wilderness areas1,2 have emphasized the whole of Antarctica as a crucial wilderness in need of urgent protection3. Whole-of-continent designations for Antarctic conservation remain controversial, however, because of widespread human impacts and frequently used provisions in Antarctic law for the designation of specially protected areas to conserve wilderness values, species and ecosystems4,5. Here we investigate the extent to which Antarctica’s wilderness encompasses its biodiversity. We assembled a comprehensive record of human activity on the continent (~ 2.7 million localities) and used it to identify unvisited areas ≥ 10 000 km2 (1,6-8) (i.e. Antarctica’s wilderness areas) and their representation of biodiversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Kaibab National Forest
    United States Department of Agriculture Kaibab National Forest Forest Service Southwestern Potential Wilderness Area Region September 2013 Evaluation Report The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cover photo: Kanab Creek Wilderness Kaibab National Forest Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation Report Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas .................................................................................................. 2 Evaluation of Potential Wilderness Areas ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Fire Management in a Changing World
    STEWARDSHIP Wilderness Fire Management in a Changing World BY CAROL MILLER everal strategies are available for reducing accumu- results from either human or natural causes, and the man- lated forest fuels and their associated risks, including agement objective is to stop the spread of the fire and S naturally or accidentally ignited wildland fires, man- extinguish it at the least cost (USDA and USDI 2001). In agement ignited prescribed fires, and a variety of mechanical some cases, concerns about firefighter safety and suppres- and chemical methods (Omi 1996). However, a combina- sion costs will result in a less aggressive suppression tion of policy, law, philosophy, and logistics suggest there is response to a wildfire, with features of the landscape being a more limited set of fuels man- used to allow fire to burn within a designated area. WFU is agement activities that are the management of naturally ignited wildland fires to pro- appropriate in wilderness (Bryan tect, maintain, and enhance resources in predefined areas 1997; Parsons and Landres 1998; outlined in fire management plans (USDA and USDI 2001). Nickas 1998). Naturally ignited The management objective is to allow fire, as nearly as pos- wildland fires is the commonly sible, to function in its natural ecological role. In some cases, preferred fuels management strat- certain suppression tactics might be used with WFU to pro- egy in wilderness (Miller 2003), tect life, property, or specific values of concern. Recently, with management-ignited pre- there has been discussion about effectively dissolving the scribed fire being considered in distinction between wildfire and WFU, and managing all some cases (Landres et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Air Quality Value Plan for the Shoshone National Forest
    Wilderness Air Quality Value Plan Shoshone National Forest Clocktower Creek and Wapiti Ridge, Washakie Wilderness Prepared by: /s/ Greg Bevenger __________________________________ Greg Bevenger, Air Program Manager Recommended by: /s/ Bryan Armel ______________________________________________ Bryan Armel, Resources Staff Officer Recommended by: /s/ Loren Poppert ______________________________________________ Loren Poppert, Recreation Staff Officer Approved by: /s/ Rebecca Aus ______________________________________________ Rebecca Aus, Forest Supervisor May 2010 Wilderness Air Quality Value Plan Introduction Background As part of the USDA Forest Service effort to better understand and monitor wilderness areas, the agency has adopted the 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge (Forest Service 2005). The 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge was developed by the Chief’s Wilderness Advisory Group (WAG) as a quantifiable measurement of the Forest Service’s success in wilderness stewardship. The goal identified by the Wilderness Advisory Group, and endorsed by the Chief, is to bring each wilderness under Forest Service management to a minimum stewardship level by the year 2014, the fiftieth anniversary of the Wilderness Act. The Challenge was initiated in fiscal year 2005. The Challenge contains ten items that highlight elements of wilderness stewardship. These elements are 1) the natural role of fire, 2) invasive plants, 3) air quality, 4) education, 5) protection of recreational opportunities, 6) recreational site inventory, 7) outfitters
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Planning and Perceptions Of
    WILDERNESS PLANNING AND PERCEPTIONS OF WILDERNESS IN NEW SOUTH WALES ALISON JEAN RAMSAY Master of Town Planning University of New South Wales 1994 UNIVERSITY OF N.S.W. 2 4 MAR 1335 LIBRARIES CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of a university or other institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement is made in the text. (Signed) ABSTRACT Wilderness is still a controversial issue in New South Wales, despite the enactment of the NSW Wilderness Act in 1987 which gave a legislative basis to wilderness as a land use in New South Wales. Although there have been many studies of attitudes to wilderness and wilderness users in United States, there have been few such studies in Australia and none which have questioned the public's perception of what is wilderness and how it should be managed. The aim of this study was to review the history of wilderness planning in New South Wales, to examine how closely public perceptions of wilderness coincide with wilderness legislation, and to determine whether perceptions of wilderness are influenced by factors such as age, education, previous bushwalking experience or place of residence. Surveys were undertaken of almost 200 visitors to four wilderness areas in Kosciusko and Morton National Parks in New South Wales and to two areas in national parks which were not wilderness, one in Kosciusko National Park and one in Sydney Harbour National Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Terrestrial and Marine Protected Areas in Australia
    TERRESTRIAL AND MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IN AUSTRALIA 2002 SUMMARY STATISTICS FROM THE COLLABORATIVE AUSTRALIAN PROTECTED AREAS DATABASE (CAPAD) Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2003 Published by: Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Citation: Environment Australia, 2003. Terrestrial and Marine Protected Areas in Australia: 2002 Summary Statistics from the Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database (CAPAD), The Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra. This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from Department of the Environment and Heritage. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to: Assistant Secretary Parks Australia South Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601. The views and opinions expressed in this document are not necessarily those of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Minister for Environment and Heritage, or the Director of National Parks. Copies of this publication are available from: National Reserve System National Reserve System Section Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 or online at http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/nrs/capad/index.html For further information: Phone: (02) 6274 1111 Acknowledgments: The editors would like to thank all those officers from State, Territory and Commonwealth agencies who assisted to help compile and action our requests for information and help. This assistance is highly appreciated and without it and the cooperation and help of policy, program and GIS staff from all agencies this publication would not have been possible. An additional huge thank you to Jason Passioura (ERIN, Department of the Environment and Heritage) for his assistance through the whole compilation process.
    [Show full text]
  • Final-Forest-Plan-Shoshone.Pdf
    Responsible official Daniel J. Jirón Regional Forester Rocky Mountain Region 740 Simms Street Golden, CO 80401 For more information Joseph G. Alexander Forest supervisor Shoshone National Forest 808 Meadow Lane Avenue Cody, WY 82414 Olga Troxel Acting Forest Planner Shoshone National Forest 808 Meadow Lane Avenue Cody, WY 82414 Telephone: 307.527.6241 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Table of Contents Preface .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Terms used in this document ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Protect the Last of the Wild Global Conservation Policy Must Stop the Disappearance of Earth’S Few Intact Ecosystems, Warn James E
    COMMENT ECOLOGY Domestic safari finds HISTORY How the CIA CORRESPONDENCE Staff at the FAO OBITUARY Thomas Steitz, rich biodiversity down the co-opted science in can advise on data analysis ribosome Nobel laureate, back of the sofa p.31 the cold war p.32 and interpretation p.35 remembered p.36 TAYLOR WEIDMAN/ZREPORTAGE.COM/ZUMA TAYLOR A Xikrin woman walks back to her village from the Cateté River in Brazil. Protect the last of the wild Global conservation policy must stop the disappearance of Earth’s few intact ecosystems, warn James E. M. Watson, James R. Allan and colleagues. century ago, only 15% of Earth’s are free of industrial fishing, pollution and Earth’s intact ecosystems from disappear- surface was used to grow crops and shipping are almost completely confined to ing completely. raise livestock1. Today, more than the polar regions5. A77% of land (excluding Antarctica) and Numerous studies are revealing that LAST CHANCE 87% of the ocean has been modified by the Earth’s remaining wilderness areas are In 2016, we led an international team of direct effects of human activities2,3. This is increasingly important buffers against the scientists to map the world’s remaining illustrated in our global map of intact eco- effects of climate change and other human terrestrial wilderness3,4. This year, we pro- systems (see ‘What’s left?’). impacts. But, so far, the contribution of duced a similar map for intact ocean eco- Between 1993 and 2009, an area of terres- intact ecosystems has not been an explicit systems2 (see ‘Wild Earth’).
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC LAW 98-406—AUG. 28, 1984 98 STAT. 1485 Public Law 98-406 96Th Congress An
    PUBLIC LAW 98-406—AUG. 28, 1984 98 STAT. 1485 Public Law 98-406 96th Congress An Act To designate certain national forest lands in the State of Arizona as wilderness, and Aug. 28, 1984 for other purposes. [H.R. 4707] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That this Act may Arizona be cited as the "Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984". Wilderness Act of 1984. National TITLE I Wilderness Preservation SEC. 101. (a) In furtherance of the purposes of the Wilderness Act System. (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136), the following lands in the State of Arizona are National Forest hereby designated as wilderness and therefore as components of the System. National Wilderness Preservation System: (1) certain lands in the Prescott National Forest, which com­ 16 use 1132 prise approximately five thousand four hundred and twenty note. acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Apache Creek Wilderness—Proposed , dated February 1984, and which shall be known as the Apache Creek Wilderness; (2) certain lands in the Prescott National Forest, which com­ 16 use 1132 prise approximately fourteen thousand nine hundred and fifty note. acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Cedar Bench Wilderness—Proposed , dated August 1984, and which shall be known as the Cedar Bench Wilderness; (3) certain lands in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, 16 use 1132 which comprise approximately eleven thousand and eighty note. acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Bear Wallow Wilderness—Proposed , dated March 1984, and which shall be known as the Bear Wallow Wilderness; (4) certain lands in the Prescott National Forest, which com­ 16 use 1132 prise approximately twenty-six thousand and thirty acres, as note.
    [Show full text]