Trans-national conservation and infrastructure development in the Heart of Borneo

English version

Autoři: Sean Sloan ^aff001; Mason J. Campbell ^aff001; Mohammed Alamgir ^aff001; Alex M. Lechner ^aff002; Jayden Engert ^aff001; William F. Laurance ^aff001
Působiště autorů: Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science, College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Cairns, Queensland, Australia ^aff001; School of Environmental and Geographical Sciences, University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, Jalan Broga, Semenyih, Selangor, Malaysia ^aff002; Mindset Interdisciplinary Centre for Environmental Studies, University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, Jalan Broga, Semenyih, Selangor, Malaysia ^aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(9)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221947

Souhrn

The Heart of Borneo initiative has promoted the integration of protected areas and sustainably-managed forests across Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei. Recently, however, member states of the Heart of Borneo have begun pursuing ambitious unilateral infrastructure-development schemes to accelerate economic growth, jeopardizing the underlying goal of trans-boundary integrated conservation. Focusing on Sabah, Malaysia, we highlight conflicts between its Pan-Borneo Highway scheme and the regional integration of protected areas, unprotected intact forests, and conservation-priority forests. Road developments in southern Sabah in particular would drastically reduce protected-area integration across the northern Heart of Borneo region. Such developments would separate two major clusters of protected areas that account for one-quarter of all protected areas within the Heart of Borneo complex. Sabah has proposed forest corridors and highway underpasses as means of retaining ecological connectivity in this context. Connectivity modelling identified numerous overlooked areas for connectivity rehabilitation among intact forest patches following planned road development. While such ‘linear-conservation planning’ might theoretically retain up to 85% of intact-forest connectivity and integrate half of the conservation-priority forests across Sabah, in reality it is very unlikely to achieve meaningful ecological integration. Moreover, such measure would be exceedingly costly if properly implemented–apparently beyond the operating budget of relevant Malaysian authorities. Unless critical road segments are cancelled, planned infrastructure will fragment important conservation landscapes with little recourse for mitigation. This likelihood reinforces earlier calls for the legal recognition of the Heart of Borneo region for conservation planning as well as for enhanced tri-lateral coordination of both conservation and development.

Klíčová slova:

Biology and life sciences – Ecology – Ecosystems – Forests – Forest ecology – Anatomy – Ecology and environmental sciences – Terrestrial environments – Conservation science – Engineering and technology – Civil engineering – Transportation infrastructure – Roads – Transportation – People and places – Geographical locations – Asia – Borneo – Malaysia – Medicine and health sciences – Cardiovascular anatomy – Heart

Zdroje

1. Selva N, Switalski A, Kreft S, Ibisch P. Why Keep Areas Road‐Free? The Importance of Roadless Areas. In: van Der Ree R, Smith DJ, Grilo C, editors. Handbook of Road Ecology. 1st ed. ed: Wiley Blackwell; 2015. p. 16–26.

2. Venter O, Sanderson EW, Magrach A, Allan JR, Beher J, Jones KR, et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nature Communications. 2016;7:12558. doi: 10.1038/ncomms12558 27552116

3. IENE. 2014 Roadless Declaration, Infra Eco Network Europe (IENE) International Conference “Life for a Greener Transport Infrastructure”, 16–19 September 2014 in Malmo, Sweden 2014 [accessed 2019 February]. Conference delcartion and related blog]. Available from: http://iene2014.iene.info/iene-2014-declaration/; https://conbio.org/policy/roadless-areas-initiative-gains-support.

4. Meijer JR, Huijbregts MAJ, Schotten KCGJ, Schipper AM. Global patterns of current and future road infrastructure. Environmental Research Letters. 2018;13(6):064006. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aabd42

5. Laurance WF, Clements GR, Sloan S, O'Connell CS, Mueller ND, Goosem M, et al. A global strategy for road building. Nature. 2014;513(7517):229–32. doi: 10.1038/nature13717 25162528

6. Bettinger K. Death by 1,000 cuts: Road politics at Sumatra's Kerinci Seblat National Park. Conservation and Society. 2014;12(3):280–93. doi: 10.4103/0972-4923.145143

7. Sloan S, Campbell MJ, Alamgir M, Collier-Baker E, Nowak M, Usher G, et al. Infrastructure development and contested forest governance threaten the Leuser Ecosystem, Indonesia. Land Use Policy. 2018;77. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.043

8. Laurance WF, Sloan S, Weng L, Sayer J. Estimating the environmental costs of Africa’s massive ‘development corridors'. Current Biology. 2015;25:3202–8. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.10.046 26628009

9. Sloan S, Bertzky B, Laurance WF. African development corridors intersect key protected areas. African Journal of Ecology. 2016;55:731–7. doi: 10.1111/aje.12377

10. Ascensão F, Fahrig L, Clevenger AP, Corlett RT, Jaeger JAG, Laurance WF, et al. Environmental challenges for the Belt and Road Initiative. Nature Sustainability. 2018;1(5):206–9. doi: 10.1038/s41893-018-0059-3

11. Lechner AM, Chan FKS, Campos-Arceiz A. Biodiversity conservation should be a core value of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Nature Ecology & Evolution. 2018;2(3):408–9. doi: 10.1038/s41559-017-0452-8 29335571

12. Sloan S, Campbell M, Alamgir M, Engert J, Ishida FY, Senn N, et al. Hidden challenges for conservation and development along the Papuan economic corridor. Environmental Science and Policy. 2019;92:98–106.

13. CBD. Decision UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2 Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at Its Tenth Meeting. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); 2010.

14. Juffe-Bignoli D, Burgess ND, Bingham H, Belle EMS, de Lima MG, Deguignet M, et al. Protected Planet Report 2014: Tracking Progress Towards Global Targets for Protected Areas. Cambridge, UK: United Nations Environment Programme & World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 2014.

15. Saura S, Bertzky B, Bastin L, Battistella L, Mandrici A, Dubois G. Protected area connectivity: Shortfalls in global targets and country-level priorities. Biological Conservation. 2018;219:53–67. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.020 29503460

16. Government Sabah. Sabah Biodiversity Strategy (2012–2022). Kota Kinbalu, Malaysia: Borneo Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation, Japan International Cooperation Agency, 2012.

17. Runting RK, Meijaard E, Abram NK, Wells JA, Gaveau DLA, Ancrenaz M, et al. Alternative futures for Borneo show the value of integrating economic and conservation targets across borders. Nature Communications. 2015;6:6819. doi: 10.1038/ncomms7819 25871635

18. Pouzols FM, Toivonen T, Minin ED, Kukkala AS, Kullberg P, Kuustera J, et al. Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism. Nature. 2014;516(7531):383–6. doi: 10.1038/nature14032 25494203

19. Kark S, Tulloch A, Gordon A, Mazor T, Bunnefeld N, Levin N. Cross-boundary collaboration: key to the conservation puzzle. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2015;12:12–24. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2014.08.005

20. Vasilijević M, Zunckel K, McKinney M, Erg B, Schoon M, Rosen Michel T. Transboundary Conservation: A Systematic and Integrated Approach. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 2015 23.

21. Noss RF, Dobson AP, Baldwin R, Beier P, Davis CR, Dellasala DA, et al. Bolder thinking for conservation. Conservation Biology. 2012;26(1):1–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01738.x 22280321

22. Post Borneo. Sabah on track to expand totally protected areas to 30%. The Borneo Post. 25 October 2017. Available from: http://www.theborneopost.com/2017/10/25/sabah-on-track-to-expand-totally-protected-areas-to-30-cm/. Accessed March 2019.

23. Ancrenaz M, Abram N, Agama A, Kler H, Vogel M, Meijaard E. Strategic Plan of Action for Sabah—Heart of Borneo Initiative (2014–2020). Malaysia: Sabah Forestry Department, WWF-Malaysia; 2013.

24. Galante M, Pinard M, Mencuccini M. Estimating carbon avoided from the implementation of reduced-impact logging in Sabah, Malaysia. International Forestry Review. 2018;20(1):58–78.

25. Bibi JMSA. The Heart of Borneo Corridor Project. International Heart of Borneo Conference, 'A decade of Heart of Borneo initiative: Accomplishments and the way forward'; 24–25 October; Kota Kinabalu, Sabah 2017.

26. Saura S, Bastin L, Battistella L, Mandrici A, Dubois G. Protected areas in the world’s ecoregions: How well connected are they? Ecological Indicators. 2017;76:144–58. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.12.047 28469529

27. CMEA. Master Plan: Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia Economic Development, 2011–2025. Jakarta: Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs (CMEA), Ministry of National Planning and Development, National Development Planning Agency, 2011.

28. Alamgir M, Campbell MJ, Sloan S, Suhardiman A, Laurance WF. High-risk infrastructure projects pose imminent threats to forests in Indonesian Borneo. Scientific Reports. 2019;9:Article 140.

29. Ministry of Local Government and Housing. Sabah Structure Plan 2033. Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malasyia: Town and Region Planning Department of Malaysian Ministry of Local Government and Housing, 2016.

30. van der Zande AN, ter Keurs WJ, van der Weijden WJ. The impact of roads on the densities of four bird species in an open field habitat—Evidence of a long-distance effect. Biological Conservation. 1980;18(4):299–321. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(80)90006-3

31. Laurance WF, Goosem M, Laurance SGW. Impacts of roads and linear clearings on tropical forests. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2009;24(12):659–69. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.06.009 19748151

32. Benítez-López A, Alkemade R, Verweij PA. The impacts of roads and other infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: A meta-analysis. Biological Conservation. 2010;143(6):1307–16. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.009

33. Palomino D, Carrascal LM. Threshold distances to nearby cities and roads influence the bird community of a mosaic landscape. Biological Conservation. 2007;140(1):100–9. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.029

34. Sloan S, Jenkins CN, Joppa LN, Gaveau DLA, Laurance WF. Remaining natural vegetation in the global biodiversity hotspots. Biological Conservation. 2014;117(September):12–24.

35. Wadey J, Beyer HL, Saaban S, Othman N, Leimgruber P, Campos-Arceiz A. Why did the elephant cross the road? The complex response of wild elephants to a major road in Peninsular Malaysia. Biological Conservation. 2018;218:91–8. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.11.036

36. Ministry of Local Government Planning, (cartographer) Sabah Structure Plan 2033—Proposal Map (Plan SSP2033, Gazette LXXI/47/231). Kota Kinabalu, Sabah: Town and Regional Planning Department; 2016.

37. GADM. Database of Global Adminsitrative Areas (GADM); 2018 [Accessed November 2016]. v. 2.1. Available from: https://gadm.org/old_versions.html.

38. IUCN, UNEP-WCMC. The World Database on Protected Areas; 2015 [Accessed December 2015]. UNEP-WCMC. Available from: www.protectedplanet.net.

39. Miettinen J, Shi C, Liew SC. 2015 Land cover map of Southeast Asia at 250 m spatial resolution. Remote Sensing Letters. 2016;7(7):701–10. doi: 10.1080/2150704X.2016.1182659

40. Dale MRT, Fortin MJ. From graphs to spatial graphs. Annul Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 2010;41:21–38. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144718

41. Minor ES, Urban DL. Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecological Applications. 2007;17:1771–82. doi: 10.1890/06-1073.1 17913139

42. Minor ES DL. U. A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conservation Biology. 2008;22:297–307. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00871.x 18241238

43. Rayfield B, Fortin MJ, Fall A. Connectivity for conservation: A framework to classify network measures. Ecology. 2011;92:847–58. doi: 10.1890/09-2190.1 21661548

44. Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S. Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: Towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landscape Ecolology. 2006; 21:959–67. doi: 10.1007/s10980-006-0013-z

45. Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L. A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2007;83:91–103. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.03.005

46. Abram NK, Y. K, Sheppard S. Spatial Planning for Conservation and Sustainable Development ‘SPaCe’: Report for Sabah Structure Plan 2033. Kota Kinabalu: Living Landscape Alliance, HUTAN, WWF-Malaysia, 2013.

47. Abram NK. Understanding where to invest conservaiton efforts: Spatial planning for conservation effectiveness and sustainable development in Sabah. International Heart of Borneo Conference: 'Natural Capital: Unleashing Their Potential for Sustainable Growth in Sabah'; 11–12 November; Kota Kinbalu, Sabah, Malaysia: Sabah Forestry Department; 2013.

48. Tai B, Barano T, Fahmi Faisal K, Lip B, Wulffraat S. The Spatial Planning Experience in Borneo. WWF, 2018.

49. Venter O, Sanderson EW, Magrach A, Allan JR, Beher J, Jones KR, et al. Global terrestrial Human Footprint maps for 1993 and 2009. Scientific Data. 2016;3:160067. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.67 27552448

50. Baccini A, Goetz SJ, Walker WS, Laporte NT, Sun M, Sulla-Menashe D, et al. Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps. Nature Climate Change. 2012;2(3):182–5. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1354

51. Bryan JE, Shearman PL, Asner GP, Knapp DE, Aoro G, Lokes B. Extreme differences in forest degradation in Borneo: Comparing practices in Sarawak, Sabah, and Brunei. PLOS ONE. 2013;8(7):e69679. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069679 23874983

52. Ball IR, Possingham HP, Watts M. Marxan and relatives: Software for spatial conservation prioritisation. Spatial Conservation Prioritisation: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. p. 185–95.

53. Sloan S, Zamora JC, Labbate G, Asner G, Imbach P. The cost and distribution of conservation for national emission reductions. Global Environmental Change. 2018;53:39–51.

54. Chan H. The Heart of Borneo Corridor Project Implementation. Brown Paper Talk; 4 March; Sarawak Development Institute 2015.

55. Yanindraputri P. Balancing Sustainable Growth and Forest Conservation through Spatial Planning for a Green Economy in the Heart of Borneo. Working Paper. Singapore: Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre), 2016 October. Report No.: 3.

56. Corlatti L, HacklÄNder K, Frey-Roos F. Ability of wildlife overpasses to provide connectivity and prevent genetic isolation. Conservation Biology. 2009;23(3):548–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01162.x 19210301

57. van der Grift E, van der Ree R, Fahrig L, Findlay S, Houlahan J, Jaeger J, et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of road mitigation measures. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2013;22(2):425–48. doi: 10.1007/s10531-012-0421-0

58. Jain A, Chong KY, Chua MAH, Clements GR. Moving away from paper corridors in Southeast Asia. Conservation Biology. 2014;28(4):889–91. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12313 24975570

59. Clements GR. The environmental and social impacts of roads in southeast Asia [PhD Thesis]. Cairns, Australia: James Cook University; 2013. Available from: https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/31888/.

60. Tan CL. Plans afoot to form green belt. The Star. March 29 2011. Available from: http://e-borneo.blogspot.com/2011/03/plans-afoot-to-form-green-belt-between.html. Accessed March 2019.

61. Chan H. The Heart of Borneo Corridor Project: Ensuring healthy watershed corridors for Borneo. International Heart of Borneo Conference, 'Bridging Heart of Borneo Landscapes and Beyond through Healthy Watershed Corridors'; 11–12 November; Kota Kinabalu 2015.

62. Rytwinski T, Soanes K, Jaeger JAG, Fahrig L, Findlay CS, Houlahan J, et al. How effective is road mitigation at reducing road-kill? A meta-analysis. PLOS ONE. 2016;11(11):e0166941. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166941 27870889

63. Cheng Li T. Bridging a Forest: Animal crossings that reduce the perils of roads. The Star. 22 September 2014;Sect. Environment. Available from: https://www.thestar.com.my/news/environment/2014/09/22/bridging-a-forest-animal-crossings-that-reduce-the-perils-of-the-roads/. Accessed March 2019.

64. Chen M. How effective are wildlife corridors like Singapore’s Eco-Link?: Mongabay.com; 2017 [updated 26 July; accessed 2019 March]. Available from: https://news.mongabay.com/2017/07/how-effective-are-wildlife-corridors-like-singapores-eco-link/.

65. Clements GR, Lynam AJ, Gaveau DLA, Wei LY, Lhota S, Goosem M, et al. Where and how are roads endangering mammals in Southeast Asia's forests? PLOS ONE. 2014;9(12):25p.

66. Laurance WF, Goosem M, Laurance SG. Impacts of roads and linear clearings on tropical forests. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2009;24(12):659–69.

67. Gaveau DLA, Locatelli B, Salim MA, Yaen H, Pacheco P, Sheil D. Rise and fall of forest loss and industrial plantations in Borneo (2000–2017). Conservation Letters. 2018;0(0):e12622. doi: 10.1111/conl.12622

68. Mongabay. Malaysian State Chief: Highway construction must not destroy forest: Mongabay.com; 2019 [updated March 26; accessed 2019 March]. Available from: https://news.mongabay.com/2019/03/malaysian-state-chief-highway-construction-shouldnt-destroy-forest/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mongabay%2Fsoutheast-asian-infrastructure+%28Southeast+Asia+Infrastructure%29.

69. Laurance WF, Albernaz AKM, Schroth G, Fearnside PM, Bergen S, Venticinque EM, et al. Predictors of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Biogeography. 2002;29(5–6):737–48.

70. Alamgir M, Campbell MJ, Sloan S, Goosem M, Clements GR, Mahmoud MI, et al. Economic, socio-political and environmental risks of road development in the tropics. Current Biology. 2017;27(20):R1130–R40. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.08.067 29065299

71. Laurance WF, Cochrane MA, Bergen S, Fearnside PM, Delamônica P, Barber C, et al. The Future of the Brazilian Amazon. Science. 2001;291(5503):438–9. doi: 10.1126/science.291.5503.438 11228139

72. Bera SK, Basumatary SK, Agarwal A, Ahmed M. Conversion of forest land in Garo Hills, Meghalaya for construction of roads: A threat to the environment and biodiversity. Current Science. 2006;91(3):281–4.

73. Alamgir M, Sloan S, Campbell MJ, Engert J, Laurance WF. Infrastructure expansion projects undermine sustainable development and forest conservation in Papua New Guinea. PLOS ONE. 2019. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219408 31339902

74. Teo HC, Lechner AM, Walton GW, Chan FKS, Cheshmehzangi A, Tan-Mullins M, et al. Environmental Impacts of Infrastructure Development under the Belt and Road Initiative. Environments. 2019;6(6):72. doi: 10.3390/environments6060072

75. Thacker S, Adshead D, Fay M, Hallegatte S, Harvey M, Meller H, et al. Infrastructure for sustainable development. Nature Sustainability. 2019;2(4):324–31. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0256-8

Trans-national conservation and infrastructure development in the Heart of Borneo

Souhrn

Klíčová slova:

Zdroje

PLOS One

Svět praktické medicíny 1/2024 (znalostní test z časopisu)

Koncepce osteologické péče pro gynekology a praktické lékaře

Sekvenční léčba schizofrenie

Hypertenze a hypercholesterolémie – synergický efekt léčby

Význam metforminu pro „udržitelnou“ terapii diabetu