Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T03:56:17.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A review of the role of protected areas in conserving global domestic animal diversity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2010

J.S. Rosenthal
J.S. Rosenthal*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Natural Resources Management, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
*
Correspondence to: J.S. Rosenthal, Faculty of Natural Resources Management, Lakehead University, 955 Oliver Road, Thunder Bay, Ontario, CanadaP7B 5E1. e-mail: jrosenth@lakeheadu.ca
Get access

Summary

A content analysis of 167 country reports submitted for the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's State of the World's Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture was conducted to determine the extent to which protected areas are recognized as means of conserving domestic animal diversity. For countries in which protected areas were reported to help conserve the diversity of domesticated animals, additional details were sought from a review of related literature. Protected areas were seldom discussed in country reports and were most often mentioned as means to protect biodiversity in general, wild relatives of domesticated animals or wild game species. The most frequently mentioned way in which protected areas conserve domestic animal diversity is through initiatives that utilize indigenous breeds of livestock in nature conservation programmes. By offering farmers financial incentives for these ecological services, protected areas help offset potential economic disadvantages of raising indigenous breeds that may be less productive in industrial environments. Additional incentives to raise indigenous breeds are supported by protected areas such as niche marketing of organic food and fibre, establishing “seed herd” programmes and tourism promotion. Many opportunities exist for protected area managers and authorities responsible for conserving animal genetic resources for food and agriculture to fulfil mutually compatible objectives.

Résumé

L'analyse des contenus des 167 rapports nationaux présentés pour la publication de L’état des ressources zoogénétiques pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture dans le monde a été effectuée pour définir jusqu’à quel point les zones protégées sont reconnues en tant que moyen permettant de conserver la diversité des animaux domestiques. Pour les pays dans lesquels on a signalé que les zones protégées contribuent à la conservation de la diversité des animaux domestiqués, des détails supplémentaires ont été recherchés grâce à un examen des publications sur ce sujet. Dans les rapports nationaux, les zones protégées ont été rarement abordées et étaient surtout mentionnées en tant que moyens de protection de la biodiversité en général, des races sauvages apparentées aux animaux domestiqués et/ou des espèces de gibier sauvage. La façon la plus mentionnée de conservation de la diversité des animaux domestiques par le biais des zones protégées est représentée par les initiatives qui utilisent les races indigènes d'animaux d’élevage dans les programmes de conservation de la nature. Grâce aux incitations financières offertes aux agriculteurs pour ces services écologiques, les zones protégées contribuent à compenser les inconvénients économiques potentiels relatifs à l’élevage des races indigènes qui pourraient être moins productives dans les environnements industriels. D'autres mesures d'incitation pour l’élevage de races indigènes sont soutenues par les zones protégées, comme le créneau commercial spécialisé d'aliments et de fibres biologiques, la mise en place de programmes de «troupeau fondateur» et la promotion du tourisme. De nombreuses possibilités sont ouvertes aux préposés des zones protégées et aux autorités qui sont responsables de la conservation des ressources zoogénétiques pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture pour la réalisation d'objectifs réciproquement compatibles.

Resumen

Se llevó a cabo un análisis del contenido de los 167 informes nacionales presentados para la elaboración de La situación de los recursos zoogenéticos mundiales para la alimentación y la agricultura de la FAO, con el fin de determinar en qué grado las áreas protegidas son reconocidas como medio para la conservación de la diversidad de animales domésticos. En aquellos países en los que se informó de las áreas protegidas como medida para la conservación de la diversidad de animales domesticados, se trató de encontrar detalles a partir de la literatura relacionada. Las áreas protegidas se trataron rara vez en los informes nacionales y, a menudo, fueron mencionadas como medio para proteger la biodiversidad en general, los parientes silvestres de los animales domésticos, y / o especies de caza silvestre. La forma mencionada más frecuentemente en que las áreas protegidas conservan la diversidad de los animales domésticos es a través de las iniciativas que utilizan a las razas autóctonas de ganado en los programas para la conservación de la naturaleza. Ofreciendo a los agricultores incentivos económicos por estos servicios ecológicos, las áreas protegidas contribuyen a compensar posibles desventajas económicas relacionadas con la cría de razas autóctonas que puedan ser menos productivas en ambientes industriales. La dedicación a la cría de razas locales es apoyada por áreas protegidas tales como nichos de mercado de alimentos ecológicos y fibra, estableciendo programas de “grupos de semillas” y la promoción del turismo. Existen muchas oportunidades para los gestores de las áreas protegidas y las autoridades responsables de la conservación de los recursos zoogenéticos para la alimentación y la agricultura para cumplir los objetivos compatibles entre sí.

Keywords

protected areasparksdomestic animal diversityconservation grazingsustainable developmentzones protégéesparcsdiversité des animaux domestiquespâturage de conservationdéveloppement durableÁreas protegidasparquesdiversidad de los animales domésticos
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Genetic Resources/Resources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales , Volume 47 , July 2010 , pp. 101 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Argumedo, A. 2008. The potato park, Peru: conserving agrobiodiversity in an Andean Indigenous Biocultural Heritage Area. In Amend, T., Brown, J., Kothari, A., Phillips, A. & Stolton, S., eds. Protected landscapes and agrobiodiversity values. Vol. 1 in the series, Protected landscapes and seascapes, pp. 45–58. Heidelberg, Germany, IUCN & GTZ.Google Scholar
Audiot, A. 1983. Les parcs naturels de France et la conservation genetique animale. Anim. Genet. Res. Inf., 1: 25–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audiot, A. 1995. Races d'hier pour l’élevage de demain. Paris, France, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique.Google Scholar
Bassi, M. & Tache, B. 2008. The Borana conserved landscape, Ethiopia. In Amend, T., Brown, J., Kothari, A., Phillips, A. & Stolton, S., eds. Protected landscapes and agrobiodiversity values, pp. 105–115. Vol. 1 in the series, Protected landscapes and seascapes. Heidelberg, Germany, IUCN & GTZ.Google Scholar
Bassols Isamat, E., Falgarona Bosch, J., Mallarach Carrera, J.-M. & Perramon Ramos, B. 2008. Agrobiodiversity conservation in the Garrotxa Volcanic Zone Natural Park, Spain: experience and recommendations for future directions. In Amend, T., Brown, J., Kothari, A., Phillips, A. & Stolton, S., eds. Protected landscapes and agrobiodiversity values, pp. 33–44. Vol. 1 in the series, Protected landscapes and seascapes. Heidelberg, Germany, IUCN & GTZ.Google Scholar
Borkowski, M. 2002. Limiting bush encroachment at Biebrza marsh by Konik/Tarpan grazing. In Bokdam, J., van Braeckel, A., Werpachowski, C. & Znaniecka, M., eds. Grazing as a conservation management tool in peatland, 22–26 April 2002, pp. 96–98. WWF Goniadz, Poland, Wageningen University, Biebrza National Park.Google Scholar
Bunzel-Drüke, M. 2001. Ecological substitutes for wild horse (Equus ferus, Boddaert 1785 = E. przwalskii, Poljakov 1881) and Aurochs (Bos primigenius, Bojanus 1827). Natur- Kulturlanschaft 4: 240–252.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, J. (ed.) 1989. The walking larder: patterns of domestication, pastoralism, and predation. London, UK, Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Cole, L. & Phillips, A. 2008. Conserving agrobiodiversity in England's protected landscapes. In Amend, T., Brown, J., Kothari, A., Phillips, A. & Stolton, S., eds. Protected landscapes and agrobiodiversity values, pp. 116–128. Vol. 1 in the series, Protected landscapes and seascapes. Heidelberg, Germany, IUCN & GTZ.Google Scholar
Cosyns, E., Degezelle, T., Demeulenaere, E. & Hoffmann, M. 2001. Feeding ecology of Konik horses and donkeys in Belgian coastal dunes and its implications for nature management. Belg. J. Zool. 131 (Suppl. 2): 111–118.Google Scholar
Delescaille, L.-M. 2002. Nature conservation and pastoralism in Wallonia. In Redecker, B., Finck, P., Härdtle, W., Riecken, U. & Schröder, E., eds. Pasture landscapes and nature conservation, pp. 39–52. Berlin, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudley, N. 2008. Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunne, F. & Doyle, G. 1988. Changes in Molinia-dominated vegetation due to cattle grazing in Killarney. Co. Kerry. Abstracts from the Irish Botanists’ Meeting 1998, p. 45.Google Scholar
FAO. 2001. Preparation of the first report on the state of the world's animal genetic resources: guidelines for the development of country reports. Anim. Genet. Res. Inf., 30: 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO. 2008. Domestic animal diversity information system (DAD-IS). Rome, Italy (available at www.fao.org/dad-is/).Google Scholar
Feremans, N., Godart, M.-F. & Deconinck, M. 2006. Traditional management of the rural areas in Wallonia (Belgium). In Gafta, D. & Akeroyd, J., eds. Nature conservation: concepts and practice, pp. 392–400. Berlin, Germany, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gautam, R., Regmi, B.R., Shrestha, P., Poudel, D. & Shrestha, P. 2008. Community conservation of agrobiodiversity in and around protected areas: experiences from western Nepal. In Amend, T., Brown, J., Kothari, A., Phillips, A. & Stolton, S., eds. Protected landscapes and agrobiodiversity values, pp. 129–137. Vol. 1 in the series, Protected landscapes and seascapes. Heidelberg, Germany, IUCN & GTZ.Google Scholar
Geerlings, E., Mathias, E. & Köhler-Rollefson, I. 2002. Securing tomorrow's food: promoting sustainable use of farm animal genetic resources. Ober-Ramstadt, Germany, League for Pastoral Peoples.Google Scholar
Gerken, B. & Sonnenburg, H. 2002. Landscape development and species protection in woodlands, forests and pastures using large herbivores. In Redecker, B., Finck, P., Härdtle, W., Riecken, U. & Schröder, E., eds. Pasture landscapes and nature conservation, pp. 285–301. Berlin, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gugic, G. 2008. An in-situ model for the preservation of the indigenous breeds in Lonjsko Polje Nature Park. ELBARN Central Workshop at Kutna Hora, Czech Republic, 8–10 February, 2008 (available at www.save-foundation.net/ELBARN/pdf/Gugic_Lonjsko_polje.pdf).Google Scholar
Guzmán, R. & Iltis, H.H. 1991. Biosphere reserve established in Mexico to protect rare maize relative. Diversity, 7: 82–84.Google Scholar
Hansson, M. & Fogelfors, H. 2000. Management of a semi-natural grassland: results from a 15-year-old experiment in southern Sweden. J. Vegetation Sci., 11: 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, R. 2002. Kerry Cattle, their conservation and use in habitat restoration in Ireland. In Bokdam, J., van Braeckel, A., Werpachowski, C. & Znaniecka, M., eds. Grazing as a conservation management tool in peatland, 22–26 April 2002, pp. 89–93. WWF Goniadz, Poland, Wageningen University, Biebrza National Park.Google Scholar
Henson, E. 1992. In situ conservation of livestock and poultry. Rome, Italy, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
Huhta, A.-P. & Rautio, P. 2005. Condition of semi-natural meadows in northern Finland today - do the classical vegetation types still exist? Ann. Bot. Fennici, 42: 81–93.Google Scholar
Isselstein, J., Jeangros, B. & Pavlu, V. 2005. Agronomic aspects of biodiversity targeted management of temperate grasslands in Europe – a review. Agron. Res., 3: 139–151.Google Scholar
Ivanov, S. 2008. Agrobiodiversity in the Stara Planina Mountain Nature Park, Serbia. In Amend, T., Brown, J., Kothari, A., Phillips, A. & Stolton, S., eds. Protected landscapes and agrobiodiversity values, pp. 94–95. Vol. 1 in the series, Protected landscapes and seascapes. Heidelberg, Germany, IUCN & GTZ.Google Scholar
Jeremic, J. 2008. Rescue and quarantine in context of nature protection in Croatia. ELBARN Central Workshop at Kutna Hora, Czech Republic, 8–10 February, 2008 (available at www.save-foundation.net/ELBARN/pdf/Jeremic_Rescue.pdf).Google Scholar
Köhler-Rollefson, I. 2000. Management of animal genetic diversity at the community level. Eschborn, Germany, GTZ.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R., Wilson, J. D., Bradbury, R. B. & Siriwardena, G. M. 1999. The second Silent Spring? Nature 400: 611–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauvergne, J.J. 1980. Conservation des races domestiques dans les zoos et parcs naturels de France, Belgique, Pays-Bas et Suisse. Bulletin Technique du Département de Génétique Animale No. 33. Jouy-en-Josas, France, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique.Google Scholar
Lovén, L. & Äänismaa, P. 2006. Kolin kaskiopas. Vammala, Finland, Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy.Google Scholar
Martin, F.-X. & Morceau, Y. 2006. Le Baudet do Poitou: 25 ans de recherche pour sa conservation. Les Actes BRG, 6: 393–400.Google Scholar
Matzon, C. 1986. The use of native rare breeds in management of areas of importance for nature conservation in Sweden. In Hodges, J., ed. Animal genetic resources: strategies for improved use and conservation, pp. 217–219. Rome, Italy, FAO.Google Scholar
Megyesi, B. & Kovách, I. 2006. Nature conservation and biodiversity in Hungary. In Gorlach, K. & Kovách, I., eds. Land use, nature conservation and biodiversity in Central Europe (the Czech, Hungarian and Polish cases), pp. 110–126. Budapest, Hungary, Political Science Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Meissner, R. 2006. Natural and cultural grazing in the Danube Delta. Loenen, The Netherlands, Consultancy Herds and Homelands.Google Scholar
Nabhan, G.P., Allan-Wardell, G., Bernhardt, P., Burquez, A., Buchmann, S., Cane, J., Cox, P.A., Dalton, V., Feinsinger, P., Ingram, M., Inouye, D., Jones, C.E., Kennedy, K., Kevan, P., Koopowitz, H., Medellin, R., Medellin-Morales, S., Pavlik, B., Tepedino, V., Torchio, P. & Walker, S. 1998. The potential consequences of pollinator declines on the conservation of biodiversity and stability of food crop yields. Conserv. Biol., 12: 8–17.Google Scholar
Nabhan, G.P. & Tuxill, J.D. 2001. People, plants and protected areas: a guide to in situ management. Tunbridge Wells, UK, Earthscan.Google Scholar
National Parks and Wildlife Service. 2005. Management plan for Killarney National Park 2005–2009. Dublin, Ireland, National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government.Google Scholar
Norris, A. & Low, T. 2005. Review of the management of feral animals and their impact on biodiversity in the Rangelands: a resource to aid NRM planning. Pest animal control CRC report 2005. Cranberra, Australia, Pest Animal Control CRC.Google Scholar
Nozawa, C., Malingan, M., Plantilla, A. & Ong, J.-E. 2008. Evolving culture, evolving landscapes: The Phillippine rice terraces. In Amend, T., Brown, J., Kothari, A., Phillips, A. & Stolton, S., eds. Protected landscapes and agrobiodiversity values, pp. 71–93. Vol. 1 in the series, Protected landscapes and seascapes. Heidelberg, Germany, IUCN & GTZ.Google Scholar
Ostermann, O.P. 1998. The need for management of nature conservation sites designated under Natura 2000. J. Appl. Ecol., 35: 968–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, S. 1984. Vegetation development after the exclusion of grazing cattle in a meadow area in the south of Sweden. Plant Ecol. 55: 65–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, A. 2002. Management guidelines for IUCN category V protected areas, protected landscapes/seascapes. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piek, H. 1998. The practical use of grazing in nature reserves in The Netherlands. In WallisDeVries, M.F., Makker, J.P. & van Wieren, S.E., eds. Grazing and conservation management, pp. 253–274. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pokorny, D. 2008. Conservation by consumption: in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity in the Rhön UNESCO-Biosphere Reserve, Germany. In Amend, T., Brown, J., Kothari, A., Phillips, A. & Stolton, S., eds. Protected landscapes and agrobiodiversity values, pp. 59–70. Vol. 1 in the series, Protected landscapes and seascapes. Heidelberg, Germany, IUCN & GTZ.Google Scholar
Poschlod, P., Schneider-Jacoby, M., Köstermeyer, H., Hill, B.T. & Beinlich, B. 2002. Does large-scale, multi-species pasturing maintain high biodiversity with rare and endangered species? – The Sava floodplain case study. In Redecker, B., Finck, P., Härdtle, W., Riecken, U. & Schröder, E., eds. Pasture landscapes and nature conservation, pp. 367–378. Berlin, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prescott-Allen, R. & Prescott-Allen, C. 1983. Park your genes. Ambio, 12: 37–39.Google Scholar
Pykälä, J. 2005. Plant species responses to cattle grazing in mesic semi-natural grassland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 108: 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rischkowsky, B. & Pilling, D. 2007. The state of the world's animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. Rome, Italy, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
Rook, A.J., Dumont, B., Isselstein, J., Osoro, K., WallisDeVries, M.F., Parente, G. & Mills, J. 2004. Matching type of livestock to desired biodiversity outcomes in pastures – a review. Biol. Conserv., 119: 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, J. 2006. The impact of native versus exotic livestock in the Chimborazo Faunal Production Reserve, Ecuador. Greenwich, UK, International Centre for Protected Landscapes/University of Greenwich.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, J. 2008. The impact of native versus introduced livestock in the Chimborazo Faunal Production Reserve, Ecuador. In Amend, T., Brown, J., Kothari, A., Phillips, A. & Stolton, S., eds. Protected landscapes and agrobiodiversity values, pp. 31–32. Vol. 1 in the series, Protected landscapes and seascapes. Heidelberg, Germany, IUCN & GTZ.Google Scholar
Sarmiento, F.O. 2008. Agrobiodiversity in the farmscapes of the Quijos River in the tropical Andes, Ecuador. In Amend, T., Brown, J., Kothari, A., Phillips, A. & Stolton, S., eds. Protected landscapes and agrobiodiversity values, pp. 22–30. Vol. 1 in the series, Protected landscapes and seascapes. Heidelberg, Germany, IUCN & GTZ.Google Scholar
Sasimowski, E. & Slomiany, J. 1986. Polish Koniks in the Roztocze National Park. In Hodges, J. ed. Animal genetic resources: strategies for improved use and conservation, pp. 285–289. Rome, Italy, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
Schermer, M. 2004. The concept of eco-regions in Austria. In Cristóvão, A., ed. Proceedings of the 6th European IFSA Symposium: Farming and Rural Systems Research and Extension: European Farming and Society in Search of a New Social Contract – Learning to Manage Change, 4–7 April 2004, pp. 173–184. Vila Real, Portugal.Google Scholar
Scimone, M., Rook, A.J., Garel, J.P. & Sahin, N. 2007. Effects of livestock breed and grazing intensity on grazing systems: 3. Effects on diversity of vegetation. Grass Forage Sci., 62: 172–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, J. 2002. Managing wood pasture landscapes in England; the New Forest and other more recent examples. In Redecker, B., Finck, P., Härdtle, W., Riecken, U. & Schröder, E., eds. Pasture landscapes and nature conservation, pp. 123–136. Berlin, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telenged, B. 1996. Livestock breeding in Mongolia past and present: advantages and disadvantages of traditional and modern animal breeding practices. In Humphrey, C. & Sneath, D., eds. Culture and environment in Inner Asia 1: the pastoral economy and the environment, pp. 161–188. Cambridge, UK, The White Horse Press.Google Scholar
Vulink, J.T. & Van Eerden, M.R. 1998. Hydrological conditions and herbivory as key operators for ecosystem development in Dutch artificial wetlands. In WallisDeVries, M.F., Makker, J.P. & van Wieren, S.E. eds. Grazing and conservation management, pp. 217–252. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WallisDeVries, M.F., Parkinson, A.E., Dulphy, J.P., Sayer, M. & Diana, E. 2007. Effects of livestock breed and grazing intensity on biodiversity and production in grazing systems. 4. Effects on animal diversity. Grass Forage Sci., 62: 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, J.C. & Hoces, D. 1997. Community participation, sustainable use, and vicuña conservation in Peru. Mountain Res. Dev., 17: 283–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woelders, H., Zuidberg, C.A. & Hiemstra, S.J. 2006. Animal genetic resources conservation in The Netherlands and Europe: Poultry perspective. Poultry Science, 85: 216–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, I.A., Dalziel, A.J.I., Ellis, R.P. & Hall, S.J.G. 2002. The status of traditional Scottish animal breeds and plant varieties and the implications for biodiversity. Edinburgh, Scotland, Scottish Executive Social Research.Google Scholar
Yarwood, R. & Evans, N. 2000. Taking stock of farm animals and rurality. In Philo, C. & Wilbert, C., eds. Animal spaces, beastly places: new geographies of human–animal relations, pp. 99–115. London, UK, Routledge.Google Scholar