Global Priorities For Marine Biodiversity Conservation

In many parts of the world, marine ecosystems have been relatively neglected in conservation efforts. With human populations in coastal areas expected to swell in coming decades, marine biodiversity conservation is getting more attention, but efforts to identify conservation priorities for marine species and ecosystems are just beginning.

Oceans cover more than two thirds of the earth's surface and host a diversity of life rivaling that found on land. Although species diversity is less than in terrestrial ecosystems, diversity at the phyla level is greater: 32 of the world's 33 animal phylas are found in the ocean - and 15 of them are found only there (Norse, 1993). Marine diversity is so little known that there is no published list of the world's fish species (McAllister et al., 1994), and many new marine species, genera and even families of marine life are discovered every year. Like terrestrial biodiversity, marine diversity at all levels - genetic, species, and ecosystem - is under increasing threat from human activities. Well over half of the world's population lives within two hundred kilometers of a coastline. Coral reefs, mangrove forests, estuaries, coastal marshes and other coastal habitats have been rapidly degraded by pollution and sedimentation or converted to other uses and overfishing has depleted many of the world's major fisheries to a point of collapse (WRI, 1992b).

Marine biologists are quick to point out the ways that marine environments and their biota differ fundamentally from terrestrial ecosystems (Crassle et al., 1991). The fluid medium of oceans, their role as biogeochemical sinks, the more complicated structure of marine food webs, and the relative inaccessibility of ocean environments to humans all have important implications for conservation (Norse, 1993). However, as with terrestrial ecosystems, some coastal and marine areas are especially important for the conservation of biodiversity.

Norse (1993) identifies six biological criteria (several of which are commonly used in terrestrial priority-setting efforts) for deciding what marine areas to protect. Species diversity and areas of high endemism are cited, with the provision that they should be used only in conjunction with other criteria since species richness and endemism do not necessarily include economic importance, ecological importance, evolutionary significance or endangerment.

The other criteria are more specific to coastal and marine ecosystems and focus on ecological processes. Areas of high primary productivity sustain many of the world's populations of seabirds and marine mammals - as well as dense concentrations of fishes - and therefore merit special attention in marine conservation efforts. Shallow estuaries and coral reefs are examples of highly productive coastal areas, while upwelling areas where cold nutrient-rich subsurface waters come to the surface are examples of unusually productive marine areas.¹¹ Reproductive areas and nursery grounds should also get priority. Many marine organisms - including fishes, birds, mammals, and reptiles - depend on very localized breeding grounds, even though they live their adult lives within broad geographic ranges. Many fish and invertebrate species need specialized habitats during their juvenile stages. Estuaries, coral reefs, seagrass beds, and other habitats often serve as nurseries for species that inhabit much larger surrounding areas as adults.

Finally, many marine species, particularly shorebirds and marine mammals, are highly migratory. For species with well-defined migration routes, certain stopover points or narrow passages are vital to making a successful journey. For example, certain beaches and coastal wetlands that are rapidly disappearing are essential migratory stops for shorebirds. Even migratory species with large populations are therefore vulnerable to oil spills, hunting, or other events that destroy or degrade migratory habitats.

Until recently, priority-setting efforts in marine ecosystems have lagged considerably behind efforts on land. Recognizing the increasing threats to marine ecosystems, the IUCN's Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA), the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), and the World Bank launched an ambitious project in 1991 to identify priority areas for the conservation of marine biodiversity (Kelleher et al., 1995). The ultimate goal of the project - consistent with resolutions passed at major conservation forums¹² - is to establish a global network of protected areas that includes all of the world's distinct marine ecosystems.

One of the first major challenges confronting the project was the lack of consensus on a marine biogeographical classification. The CNPPA project divided the world's marine areas, based on biogeographical considerations and political boundaries, into 18 regions, such as the wider Caribbean, Mediterranean, southeast Pacific, and northeast Pacific. Existing biogeographic classifications were then used or adapted to identify priorities within each of these regions. In the future, a better system based, for example, on the Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) concept (see Sherman and Laughlin, 1992) may become available.

Working groups composed principally of marine resource managers and marine scientists were established in each of the 18 regions (Kelleher et al., 1995). These regional working groups were charged with subdividing their region into constituent biogeographic zones or "realms" and then identifying areas of national and regional priority for strengthening existing marine protected areas (MPAs) and establishing new MPAs (see Box 3.3).

Box 3.3 Responsibilities Of CNPPA Regional Marine Working Groups Summarize main physical and biological characteristics of regional marine environment. Divide marine region into constituent biogeographic zones. Inventory existing marine protected areas (MPAs). Identify gaps in representation of biogeographic zones in MPAs. Identify national priority areas for strengthening management of existing MPAS and establishment of new MPAs. Identify areas of regional priority for strengthening management of existing MPAs and establishment of new MPAs. Prepare other recommendations to promote the establishment and strengthen the manage-ment of MPAS in the region. Source: Kelleher et al. (1995).

Within guidelines developed by Kelleher and Kenchington (1992), each working group used a two-step process to apply biogeographical, ecological, social, and feasibility criteria to identify priority MPAS in their region (Box 3.4). First, biogeographical and ecological criteria (using existing data) were applied to generate a list of candidate areas. These candidate areas were then screened by economic, social, scientific, and feasibility criteria to select priority areas. In other words, all priority areas had to be assessed as having a reasonable chance for being successfully managed as a marine protected area.

National priority areas were identified principally on the basis of recommendations by national representatives on the CNPPA regional working groups, so they are usually consistent with priorities previously identified in National Environmental Action Plans or National Conservation Strategies or other plans. Regional priority areas were produced through a three-year consultative process led by the regional working group leader. The consultative process - based on consensus - was designed to give marine scientists and resource managers in each country an opportunity to help shape the final list of national and regional priority MPAs.

The CNPPA regional priorities for establishing or strengthening marine protected areas are limited to the dozen or so actions needed to conserve a representative sample of all biogeographic zones within a regional network of MPAs. National priorities for new and strengthened MPAs are generally more numerous, depending on how comprehensive existing national MPA systems are. These areas have been mapped on a GIS database of the 18 marine regions by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre and will be available to any interested users.

The World Bank, which supported the CNPPA project, hopes to begin collaborating with governments, other bilateral and multilateral donor agencies, and NGOs to implement regional and national MPA projects. Eventually, these efforts may lead to the development of a globally representative network of MPAs as envisioned in the CNPPA report.

Box 3.4 Criteria Used By CNPPA Working Groups To Select Priority Marine Protected Areas Biogeographic Importance: contains rare biogeographic qualities or is representative of a biogeographic "type" contains unique or unusual geological features Ecological Importance: contributes to essential ecological processes or life-support systems (e.g., source of larvae for downstream areas) encompasses a complete ecosystem by itself or in association with other MPAs contains a variety of habitats contains habitats for rare or endangered species contains nursery or juvenile habitats contains feeding, breeding, or migratory rest areas contains rare or unique habitats preserves genetic diversity (i.e., high species diversity) Naturalness: degree to which area has not been subject to human change Economic Importance: degree to which protection will maintain or enhance economic value (e.g., recreation, tourism, subsistence use, refugia for economically important species) Social Importance: value for research and monitoring National and International Significance: potential for listing as World or National Heritage Area or Biosphere Reserve; alternatively, extent to which area already figures in international or national conservation agreements Feasibility of Management: degree of insulation from destructive activities social and political acceptability and degree of community support accessibility for education, tourism, and recreation compatibility with existing local uses compatibility with existing management regimes Source: Kelleher et al. (1995).

Regional Approaches To Setting Priorities

Regional approaches to setting priorities have the advantage of working at intermediate scales that can (to some extent) avoid the imprecision of global priorities and the arbitrary limits of political boundaries that may bias nationally based conservation priorities. In coming years, regional organizations, such as the Central American Commission on Environment and Development (CCAD),³ are likely to play a larger role in coordinating conservation policies and actions. Donor organizations are often structured regionally and frequently set policies and priorities in a regional context. And regional approaches can serve to develop multinational networks and alliances to promote biodiversity conservation, share experiences, and develop cross-border conservation projects.

Regional approaches to priority setting will often have to rely on nationally based analysis and databases to assess priorities at a regional scale. Moreover, they can only be as effective as the national strategies used to implement conservation actions. Nevertheless, regional approaches are a promising area for future work on assessing conservation priorities - probably much more so than global approaches.

Five examples of efforts to set regional priorities are presented here. The first example, IUCN Species Survival Action Plans, is focused on distinct groupings of wild species rather than on a particular region, but since species are often found in several countries, and the action plans often include recommendations that are regional in scope, they are included here. The other examples include the IUCN Regional Protected Area Reviews; conservation potential and threat assessments for Asia and Latin America developed by World Wildlife Fund-U.S.; the expert workshop approach developed by Conservation International; and a framework for setting biodiversity conservation priorities in Latin America developed by the Biodiversity Support Program and five other NGOs for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Species Survival Commission Action Plans

In the mid-1960s, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) established the Species Survival Commission to focus expert attention on the status and conservation needs of distinct groupings of wild species. There are now over 100 Specialist Groups covering mammals, birds, invertebrates, reptiles, fish, and to a lesser degree plants. Each of these Specialist Groups is a volunteer network of scientists (nearly 5,000 are involved) that seeks to generate and update information on the species covered by the group, and to devise and implement programs to conserve the most threatened of those species in collaboration with IUCN members. The most important responsibility of the Specialist Groups is to develop an Action Plan that provides a comprehensive overview of all the species within their brief, establishes or applies a system for setting research and conservation priorities, and proposes projects to address those priorities (Stuart, 1987). The overwhelming focus, thus far, has been on animals.

By the late 1980s, the first comprehensive Action Plans were being completed. As of 1993, twenty-five Action Plans had been produced. Nor surprisingly, the Action Plans use various priority-ranking schemes reflecting differences in data quantity and quality, the number of species covered by the Specialist Group, and other factors perhaps best known to members of the particular group. The Action Plans rank conservation priorities for several objectives.¹⁴

While it is difficult to generalize about the characteristics of priority-ranking schemes, the Action Plan for Asian Primates (Eudey, 1987) provides a good example of the priority-setting process used by an IUCN Specialist Group. First, the Action Plan generates an overall conservation priority ranking for the 64 species found in Asia. This is a composite score combining ratings for each species on the basis of three criteria: degree of threat, taxonomic uniqueness, and association with other threatened primates (see Box 3.5). Those species with scores above 7 (11 is the maximum score possible) are judged in need of conservation action - 37 species or 59 percent of all Asian primates received a 7 or above.

Box 3.5 IUCN Conservation Priority Ranking Criteria For Asian Primates A) Degree of Threat Not known to be rare or threatened. Rare or at risk. Populations exist at low density and/or in limited geographic areas, or are widely distributed in diverse habitats but some populations subject to extreme selection pressures due to habitat alteration and hunting/trapping. Vulnerable. Populations have limited distribution and/or ecological tolerance and habitat destruction and hunting/trapping are slowly but steadily reducing population. Likely to move to category 4 by 2000 without conservation action. Highly vulnerable. Surviving populations small or fragmented, and threatened by human activities. Likely to move to category 5 by 2000 without conservation action. Endangered. Less than 25,000 individuals remain and threatened by human activities. Populations found in very limited areas, or in highly fragmented ranges. Likely to move to category 6 by 2000 without conservation action. Highly endangered. Less than 10,000 individuals remain and no subpopulation is considered secure. B) Taxonomic Uniqueness A member of a large species group (one of several closely related species). A very distinct species, or member of small distinct taxonomic group. Only member of genus or family (monotypic genus or family). C) Association with Other Threatened Primates A wide-ranging species, and/or most of range does not overlap with any highly threatened species. Major part of species' range overlaps with highly threatened species. Source: Eudey (1987).

Second, the Action Plan prioritizes recommended conservation actions in each of four areas: small-scale surveys, large-scale surveys at the regional or country level, protected area development and management, and special projects (e.g., captive breeding). The project priority rankings are based on the evaluation of four criteria - number of species in the project area, imminence of threat to the project area, primate species diversity in the area, and number of endemic primates in the area (see Box 3.6). A total project rating is produced by summing the scores for each of the criteria.

The rating systems used in the Action Plans typically mix quantitative and qualitative information, and use somewhat arbitrary weightings for scores that combine more than one criteria. These are not really weaknesses - qualitative information may be the most important of all and arbitrary judgments are almost inevitable in any priority-setting process. However, the more reliant a priority-ranking scheme is on qualitative data and relatively arbitrary weightings, the more likely that experts will disagree on the results. This is less likely to be the case with the IUCN Species Survival Commission Action Plans since many of the most knowledgeable experts are involved in the Specialist Groups. The Action Plans are widely viewed as fairly authoritative statements on the conservation status and needs of species covered by the groups. One of their strengths is that they are often quite specific with respect to geographic conservation priorities and the types of conservation actions that are needed.

Box 3.6 IUCN Primate Specialists Groups Criteria For Assessing Project Priorities A) Number of species in project area with high conservation priority rating (priority ranking of 7-11), or vulnerable (priority ranking of 5-7), or at risk (priority ranking of 4), scored on the following scale of 1-5: 1 or more vulnerable or at risk species 1-2 high priority species 3-4 high priority species 5-6 high priority species 7 or more high priority species B) Imminence of threat to the ecosystem under consideration, scored on scale of 1-4: Low degree of threat Moderately threatened Highly threatened (under serious threat from increasing human activities although undisturbed area is still relatively large) Very highly threatened (ecosystem is small in size and/or highly fragmented and subject to intense pressures from human activities) C) Overall primate diversity in project area, rated on a scale of 1-3: 3 or fewer species 4-7 species 8 or more species D) Number of endemic primate species and subspecies in project area, rated on scale of 1-4: 1 or more populations living under marginal conditions 1 or 2 endemic subspecies in the area 1 endemic species, or more than 2 endemic subspecies 2 or more endemic species in the area Source: Eudey (1987).

But the Action Plans also have limitations. Since the conservation priority rating systems vary from one animal or plant group to the next, it is not possible to rank conservation needs across groups. It is also often impossible to determine whether high priority rankings for protected areas management, for example, are more important than an equivalent ranking for surveys or captive breeding. In many regions, the geographical conservation priorities of one Action Plan have not been correlated with overlapping priority areas identified in other Action Plans. However, as more Actions Plans are completed, IUCN is working to prepare regional and country overviews of priorities identified by various Specialist Groups. The first of these overviews (Stuart et al., 1990) includes countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Finally, there is the danger of obscuring elements of subjectivity behind the impression of numerical precision. "However," as Cumming et al. (1990) point out, "the purposes of calculating and using such indices is to produce rational, dispassionate thinking into the process of setting priorities and to reduce arbitrary, subjective elements as much as possible. A primary function of such exercises is to make the rationale for choices explicit and so aid in reaching consensus about priorities for conservation action."

The Action Plans developed by the IUCN Species Survival Commission Specialist Groups can be an important reference for nearly anyone involved in setting conservation priorities. With continued refinement of the priority-ranking process by the Specialist Groups and the IUCN, these documents are likely to become better guides for establishing priorities in the future.

Regional Protected Area Reviews

In 1982, following the Third World National Parks Congress in Bali, the IUCN prepared the Bali Action Plan for protected areas. The first objective of the Bali Action Plan was to establish a worldwide network of national parks and protected areas, exemplifying all terrestrial ecological regions, by 1992. To do this, the Congress agreed that a biogeographical approach would be used to identify areas for a variety of conservation objectives, particularly the protection of unique ecosystems and rare and valuable species (MacKinnon and MacKinnon, 1986a).

Over the next several years, the IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA) authorized a series of systematic regional reviews to identify gaps in protected areas coverage, including weaknesses in existing parks, and recommendations for new protected areas. Since then, reviews have been completed for three regions including the Indo-Malayan Realm (MacKinnon and MacKinnon, 1986a), the Afrotropical Realm (MacKinnon and MacKinnon, 1986b), and Oceania (Dahl, 1986). A fourth review covering the neotropics was planned but never completed.

The basic approach used in these reviews was to divide the regions (or biogeographic realms) into distinct biogeographical subdivisions based on the Udvardy (1975) system. For example, the first subdivision of the Indo-Malayan Realm (tropical Asia) is into four separate subregions: Indian, Indochinese, Sundaic (peninsular Malaysia and western Indonesia), and Wallacean (eastern Indonesia and Philippines). This is followed by further subdivision into biogeographic units (biounits).¹⁵ The Indo-Malayan Realm, for example, has 43 biounits stretching from the mountains of Baluchistan (in Pakistan) in the west, across the Indian subcontinent south of the Himalayan crest, through southern China and Indochina, and south through insular southeast Asia (Philippines and Indonesia). Finally, each biounit is characterized by the major habitat types - based on vegetation cover - within it. Typically, a biounit is divided into between 4 and 10 habitat types.

Two main objectives of the protected areas reviews are to 1) characterize threat levels to biounits and habitat types, and 2) provide an index of the effectiveness of protection afforded each habitat type (MacKinnon and MacKinnon, 1986a). Estimates were made for the "original" and current extent of each habitat type within each biounit, although the basis for these estimates is not provided. The percentage of remaining habitat is used as a simile index of the threat faced by each habitat type. Next, the boundaries of existing and proposed protected areas are plotted over the maps showing remaining natural habitat. This provides an index of current and proposed protection for each habitat type.

MacKinnon and MacKinnon (1986a) used a simple scoring system to evaluate conservation needs in three areas: the conservation importance of existing protected areas, the amount of protection provided in different biogeographical units, and help identify priorities for further protected areas action in each biogeographic unit. Individual protected areas were scored with respect to protection objective and management effectiveness (see Table 3.9). The individual protected area scores were then summed for the biogeographic unit, and the protected areas evaluated with respect to habitat coverage (i.e., are all major habitats included in the protected area system?) and altitudinal range.¹⁶

A maximum score can occur only if a protected areas system offers total protection to 10 percent of the biogeographic unit, is under effec-tive management, and includes adequate areas of all habitat types and the complete elevational range of the biogeographic unit.

To determine conservation priorities, MacKinnon and MacKinnon (1 986a) use a two-component system. The first part, called "urgency for improvement," is based on a model which reflects a decreasing need for conservation as more land is set aside, and as protected areas management improves. The need for protection increases as the remaining area of natural habitat decreases, but decreases if the scope or potential for additional protection decreases. According to MacKinnon and Mac-Kinnon (1986a), such scope for added protection includes improving the objectives and effectiveness of management as well as increasing the area protected. The highest urgency goes to highly underprotected areas where there is still adequate opportunity to improve protection. The lowest urgency is given to unthreatened units already adequately protected or to biogeographic units so fully developed or degraded that there is little opportunity for additional protection.

Table 3.9 Scoring Matrix For Effective Contribution Of Protected Areas

Protection Objective	Effective Management	Moderate Manangement	Poor Control	No Effective Control
Total Protection	1.0	0.8	0.5	0.3
Nonconsumptive uses only	0.9	0.7	0.5	0.3
Managed for visitor uses	0.8	0.6	0.4	0.2
Managed for protection and production	0.7	0.5	0.4	0.2
Resource reserved for future use	0.6	0.5	0.3	0.2
Multiple use, no habitation	0.4	0.3	0.2	0.1
Multiple use, with habitiation	0.2	0.2	0.1	0.1
Source: MacKinnon and MacKinnon (1986a).

The second part of the priority score, called "conservation importance," is based on species richness and levels of endemism for selected plants and animals. For the Indo-Malayan Realm, the scores are determined for passerine birds, ungulates, and diurnal primates, in addition to plants.¹⁸

The combined importance score for the biogeographic unit is simply multiplied by the urgency score to produce a final priority score for action within the biogeographic unit.

The strengths of the MacKinnon and MacKinnon (1986a) system include its biogeographic classification, its specificity in locating biodiversity conservation priorities, and its recognition that institutional factors (i.e., the effectiveness of protected areas management) are critical in determining conservation priorities. But the approach is not without weaknesses. For example, the scoring matrix for determining the effective contribution of protected areas seems arbitrary. Is it reasonable to assume that a protected area managed for "total protection" but with "no effective control" is better for conserving biodiversity than a multiple-use area, with habitation, that is under "effective management"? MacKinnon and MacKinnon's (1986a) methodologies are difficult to replicate both because of the subjective assessments used (e.g., management effectiveness) and because the methodology was not detailed. This illustrates the need for transparency and explanation of what factors were critical to subjective judgements. Finally, since conservation data in many areas are limited and often questionable, is it prudent to assign conservation priorities across the whole of tropical Asia? Despite the weaknesses of this ambitious attempt to set conservation priorities, the strengths have influenced subsequent approaches to priority setting (e.g., Dinerstein and Wikramanayake, 1993; Dinerstein et al., 1995).

Box 3.7 Data For Construction Of Conservation Potential / Threat Index (CPTI) Basic Data Country area (km2) Remaining forest area (km2) Rate of deforestation (% / year) Protected area (km2) Secondary Data Number of protected areas Number of protected areas >300 km2 Number of protected areas >1,000 km2 Species richness (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fishes, swallowtail butterflies, vascular plants) Species endemism (mammals, birds, vascular plants) Human population density (#/km2) Conservation funding (dollars/km2/yr) Source: Dinerstein and Wikramanayake, 1993.

Conservation Potential And Threat Assessments In The Indo-Pacific And Latin America Regions

Tropical Asia and the island nations of the South Pacific (or the Indo-Pacific region) have some of the world's highest human population densities, most rapidly growing economies, and still contain some of the richest and most varied habitats on earth. Remaining forests and other natural habitats, however, are shrinking fast in most parts of the region as demands for timber, agricultural lands, water development, and coastal resources escalate. Seeking to develop a "paradigm" to establish conservation priorities at regional, national, and subnational levels, Dinerstein and Wikramanayake (1993) developed a model to quantify conservation potential and threats to biodiversity in the region.

The model produces a conservation index - called the conservation potential / threat index - based upon the interaction of the size of terrestrial protected areas, remaining forest habitat, deforestation rates, and biological richness. This index forecasts how deforestation during the next decade will affect conservation opportunities, which are largely defined as establishing protected areas. The goal of the approach is to identify where reserves are most needed and therefore suggest how funding can be most effectively invested to conserve biodiversity.

The approach has a number of distinctive features. First, the scheme is a simple model based on assumptions about future trends (i.e., deforestation); nearly all other approaches are based on the static analysis of contemporary data. Second, the approach is designed to be broadly useful at several geographic scales - regional, national, and subnational, or within and between biogeographical units. Third, the approach considers the size and location of existing protected areas to identify and roughly quantify gaps in the reserve network. Fourth, because the conservation potential / threat index (CPTI) is designed to be a model, the assumptions upon which it is premised are clearly stated; this valuable feature is missing from most approaches to setting conservation priorities.

Box 3.8 Conservation Potential / Threat Index Categories Category I: Countries with a relatively large percentage (>4 percent) of forests under formal protection and that will have a high proportion (>20 percent) of unprotected forest areas remaining after ten years. Category II: Countries with a relatively large percentage (>4 percent) of forests under formal protection, but that will have little (<20 percent) unprotected forests left after ten years. Category III: Countries with a relatively low percentage (<4 percent) of forests under formal protection, but that will still have a relatively large proportion (>20 percent) of their unprotected forests left after ten years. Category IV: Countries with a relatively low proportion (<4 percent) of forests under formal protection, and that will have little unprotected forest area remaining under current deforestation rates in 10 years.

Data for constructing the CPTI are, relatively speaking, easy to collect, although the availability and quality of data will vary from location to location, especially at subnational levels. The basic information needed includes data on forest cover, deforestation rates, protected areas (location and size), species richness and endemism, as well as population density and conservation funding (see Box 3.7).

The CPTJ is constructed with two axes: the percentage of the country (or province or biogeographic unit) in protected areas is plotted along the y-axis; and the percentage of unprotected forest assumed to be remaining in 10 years is plotted along the x-axis. Deforestation rates and protected area coverage rates are assumed to remain constant during the next 10 years. Thus data points for the y-axis are the current percent of land area currently in IUCN-recognized protected area status. The projection of forest area remaining at the end of 10 years is calculated by subtracting the amount of forest lost during the next 10 years from the existing forested area given a constant rate of deforestation.

Two threshold lines are added to the graph which, in effect, divides the graph into four rectangles. A horizontal line along the y-axis delineates the global average for protected areas (4 percent). Countries falling below this thresh-old line have less than average protected areas coverage while those above have more. If one were to use the optimum protected area of 10 percent (as advocated by IUCN), the threshold line would of course move up the y-axis. The other threshold is a vertical line along the x-axis set at 20 percent of unprotected forest remaining in 10 years. This threshold was chosen as an estimate of the minimum amount of multiple-use forest area that would be required to maintain minimal ecosystem functioning.¹⁹

Countries (or provinces or biogeographic units) plotted against the two axes will thus fall into one of four categories (see Box 3.8).

Dinerstein and Wikramanayake (1993) applied the model to 23 countries in the Indo-Pacific region. The countries vary widely in terms of conservation threat and potential. Only three countries - Indonesia and tiny Brunei and Bhuran - fall in Category I (highest potential, lowest threat). On the other hand, six countries - Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, the Philippines, Tonga, and Vietnam - are placed in Category IV (lowest potential, greatest threat). The South Asia nations are clustered in or near Category II, while southeast Asian and South Pacific nations are clustered in Category III.

Finally, Dinerstein and Wikramanayake (1993) compare investments in biodiversity conservation in Indo-Pacific countries. Using data from Abramovitz (1991) and UNDP/ World Bank/UNEP (1991), conservation Investments from U.S-based institutions and the Global Environment Facility were calculated in dollars per square kilometers for remaining habitat. This information, while only partial, provided a sense of how funds are distributed compared with the distribution of countries the CPTI categories.

According to the Dinerstein and Wikramanayake analysis, the CPTI index yields the following useful (if rather general) recommendations for conservation investments in the Indo-Pacific region. First, while countries In Category I (Bhuran, Brunei, and Indonesia) are the conservation ideal, protecting already established reserves remains problematic. Therefore, conservation financing should be directed to ensuring that those reserves that are essentially "paper parks" (especially large reserves) become operational as soon as possible. In Category II, where countries have a relatively large proportion of their territory in protected areas but have rapidly diminishing unprotected natural habitats, countries with high species richness (such as India and Thailand) and high endemicity (India, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, and Thailand) qualify as high priorities for conservation investments. Countries in Category III (relatively small area protected, but large areas of remaining habitat) have the greatest potential for conservation before habitat areas become highly fragmented. They represent important opportunities for establishing networks of large protected areas most suited to maintaining biodiversity. While all countries in Category III (Cambodia, Fiji, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Vanuaru) represent good investments in biodiversity conservation, those where external financing has been minimal (e.g., countries in Indochina and the South Pacific) should be given the highest priority for investments. Finally, although countries in Category IV have relatively little protected area and are expected to have little forest outside of protected areas in ten years, biodiversity considerations (i.e., high species richness and endemism) indicate that China, the Philippines, and Vietnam are key countries for conservation Investments.

Dinerstein and Wikramanayake (1993) suggest the goals for conservation investments in the Indo-Pacific region over the next decade should be to move countries from Categories II and III into Category I, while immediate actions are taken to halt the erosion of biodiversity in Category IV countries. To do this, they suggest that trust funds be used wherever possible to finance ongoing management, expansion of existing protected areas, and the creation of new areas. Such trust funds in countries with low absorptive capacity for conservation programs and funds (e.g., Bhutan, Laos, and Papua New Guinea) could be used initially to support training, professional development, and institutional strengthening, with support gradually being shifted to protected areas management.

Within countries, however, there is considerable variation in the distribution of remaining habitat and protected areas. Dinerstein and Wikramanayake (1993) applied the CPTI to three countries - Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines - to assess conservation potential and threat in their constituent biogeographic units (as defined in MacKinnon and MacKinnon, 1986a) or administrative units. Within Indonesia, most of the biogeographic units (5 out of 7) have high potential for conservation (Category I), while in Malaysia all 3 administrative units have intermediate potential and in the Philippines 3 of 4 biogeographic units are under great threat.

The advantages of the CPTI - its simplicity, quantitative basis, clear assumptions, and its design as a model with interacting factors - are also limitations. For a part of the world as varied in natural habitat and human societies as the Indo-Pacific region, protected area percentages can only serve as a rough proxy for biodiversity conservation potential and deforestation rates can only serve as an even rougher proxy for biodiversity threats.

The World Wildlife Fund-U.S. has undertaken an ambitious project to increase the sophistication of the concepts first outlined by Dinerstein and Wikramanayake (1993). Using a series of criteria to quantify conservation potential and threat, the study was designed to assess the conservation status of ecoregions within five broad terrestrial ecosystem categories found in Latin America and the Caribbean (from Mexico to Tierra del Fuego). Funded by the World Bank, the study was intended to provide guidance to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as it expands its portfolio of biodiversity projects in the region. The authors stress that the results of the study are not intended to set priorities per se, but will serve as the first of several important filters to guide conservation planning (Dinerstein et al., 1995).²⁰ Additional information on species distribution patterns - and social, economic, and institutional factors would be critical to the final determination of priorities.

The Dinerstein et al. (1995) approach differs from earlier applications of the CPTI (Dinerstein and Wikramanayake, 1993; Dinerstein et al., 1993; Krever et al., 1994) in several important respects. The two most important are a) the use of a detailed ecosystem and habitat classification scheme and b) the use of a series of quantifiable and weighted criteria to assess both potential and threat. Other important differences include methodology, and the use of more refined levels of biological and social and economic information.²¹ These differences are briefly summarized below.

Dinerstein et al. (1995) created a hierarchical classification scheme based on level of ecological organization and interaction, with the ecoregion as the basic unit of analysis. An ecoregion is defined as "a geographically distinct assemblage of communities that share a large majority of their species and similar environmental conditions, and whose ecological interactions are critical for their long-term persistence. To benefit from substantial previous research experience, the authors based ecoregion boundaries wherever possible on classification systems used by regional biologists and conservationists. In their first attempt to classify ecoregions in Latin America and the Caribbean, Dinerstein et al. (1995) identified 178 ecoregions.

A set of ecoregions with comparable climatic regimes, similar physiognomic structure, and whose flora and fauna show similar guild structures and life histories are grouped in Major Habitat Types (MHTs). The broadest level category is Major Ecosystem Types (METs). These are defined as a set of structurally similar habitats and their constituent ecoregions that "(1) share comparable ecosystem dynamics in terms of both function and scale, (2) display similar ecological responses to habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation, and (3) all require a similar suite set of conservation activities appropriate to that ecosystem type."

Dinerstein et al. (1995) then classified ecoregions on the basis of their conservation status and biological distinctiveness. Conservation status categories for ecoregions were adapted from the IUCN categories for species: Extinct (completely converted), Critical, Endangered, Vulnerable, Relatively Stable, or Relatively Intact. Five indicators, including loss of original habitat, number and size of habitat blocks, rate of habitat conversion, degree of habitat fragmentation, and degree of protection, were used - together with a weighting system based on indicator values - to assign ecoregions to one of the categories. This initial classification was modified by consideration of potential future threats over the next twenty years. Our of 178 ecoregions, 31 were identified as Critical, 51 as Endangered, 55 as Vulnerable, 27 as Relatively Stable, 8 as Relatively Intact, and 6 were unclassified. While the highest number of Critical and Endangered ecoregions were in the tropical moist forest and tropical dry forest MHTs, the tropical dry forest ecoregions were on average more threatened and most xeric ecoregions were either Critical, Endangered, or Vulnerable.

Biological distinctiveness was determined on the basis of such variables as beta diversity (species diversity between habitats), species richness and endemism for selected taxa, unique biological communities or ecological processes, and rarity or distinctiveness of habitat types at varying biogeographic scales. With help and reviews from over 150 regional biodiversity specialists and conservation planners, Dinerstein et al. (1995) classified ecoregions - using weighted values - as Globally Outstanding (34 ecoregions), Regionally Outstanding (32), Bioregionally Outstanding (59), or Locally Important (47). Montane grasslands had the highest proportion of ecoregions classified as Globally or Regionally Outstanding, followed by tropical moist forests (concentrated in western Amazonia, tropical northern Andes, and Atlantic forests of Brazil). However, all MHTs were rep-resented by at least one ecoregion classified as Globally or Regionally Outstanding.

Using a matrix of conservation status and biological distinctiveness and "decision rules" to achieve bioregional representation, 74 ecoregions were designated as of Highest Priority at the Regional Scale. While Dinerstein et al. (1995) believe the matrix should be used as a guide by governments and donors to prevent the complete conversion or degradation of the most threatened ecoregions, they stress that specific investment decisions also require assessment of social, economic, and political factors. Concerns by conservationists in Latin America that such admonitions may be ignored by donors has fueled criticisms of broad geographic priority-setting efforts at continental scales, such as the Dinerstein et al. (1995) and BSP et al. (1995) projects.

At a time when the Global Environment Facility (and other donors) are directing increasing amounts of biodiversity conservation financing in an ad-hoc manner, it is encouraging to see approaches such as the CPTI used to make investments more systematic and effective. Such an approach cannot, of course, substitute for participatory priority setting at the local level, where the success of conservation investments will ultimately be determined. Nevertheless, the evolving CPTI could provide a clearly evaluated basis from which more locally based and consultative efforts could depart to determine effective conservation priorities on the ground.

Priority-Setting Workshops In South America

While national-level priority-setting projects often benefit from a somewhat coherent information base, and sometimes benefit from previously identified conservation priorities, conservation planners in the Amazon Basin have had to start from the ground up. The Amazon regions extraordinary endowment of biodiversity is poorly documented - estimates of its overall species richness have varied dramatically during the past decade. Until recently, no effort had been made to develop an overview of the distribution of Amazonia's immense array of species and ecosystems. Without this information, conservation investments in the region have amounted to little more than shots in the dark.

In January 1990, a workshop held in Manaus, Brazil, made the first attempt to consolidate a full spectrum of ecological information about Amazonia. The workshop was jointly sponsored by IBAMA (Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Natural Resources), INPA (National Institute for Amazon Research), Conservation International, the New York Botanical Garden, the Royal Botanical Garden (Kew), and the Smithsonian Institution. It brought together over one hundred of the most knowledgeable scientists working in the seven countries of the Amazon Basin. The goal of the workshop was to decide which areas should receive highest priority for conserving biodiversity. This was accomplished through mapping species distributions and consolidating hydrological, geological, and ecological research on the Amazon (IBAMA / INPA/CI, 1991). Before the workshop was over, the participants had identified nearly 100 discrete geographic areas with high conservation value and classified them by conservation importance.

The approach pioneered by Conservation International and its partners in Manaus differs from the previous examples of regional priority setting by using a workshop to develop priorities through consensus. Workshop participants were local and regional experts, most with several decades of field research experience within the region. The approach stresses the use of species-level information (not to the exclusion of other factors, however), and assumes that using expert knowledge within a well-designed workshop process is the most rapid and informed way to set priorities when published data are nonexistent, spotty, or suspect.

The workshop consisted of specialists in plant systematics, plant ecology, mammals, ornithology, herpetology, ichthyology, entomology, geomorphology, and protected areas, many with experience across the vast geographic expanse of Amazonia. They pursued a three-step process to develop a set of conservation priorities.

During the first step, each of the specialist groups was convened separately. Each group's task was to define, just for that taxonomic group, what areas of the Amazon Basin should be classified as areas of high conservation value. Thus each group prepared - through discussion and consensus - a map showing areas they selected. These maps were drawn by hand on a transparent base map of existing protected areas provided at a scale of 1:1.5 million. A ranking system was devised in which areas were classified by importance from 1 to 5, with 5 the most important. The criteria used by the groups for their classification included diversity (richness), endemism, and rarity of species. The groups gave names to classified areas based on existing physiographic names (rivers, mountain ranges, etc.). Each group prepared a standard justification sheet for each area they selected, describing it by country(s), location, diversity or endemism, and the rank of relative importance.

The next stage of the process consisted of intensive synthesizing of information. All the information from the zoological groups was merged together, as was that from the systematic botany and vegetation ecology groups. Separate botany and zoology maps were then prepared by these combined groups, with the design and boundaries of the areas reached by consensus within the larger groups. The same ranking system was used as in the first groups, and boundaries were redrawn by hand on a fresh workshop base map.

During the final stage of the process, the botany and zoology specialists convened in one large group. The two synthesis maps prepared in the previous stage were overlayed and compared, both on a geographic basis and by ranks. Again, through a process of consensus, information was merged, boundaries were redrawn on a new map sheet, and rank priorities were reassigned, using the same ranking system as in the two earlier stages.²² The final map ranked priorities from 5 (highest) to 1 (lowest).

In the final synthesis map, over 150 individual areas throughout Amazonia are identified as conservation priorities. They cover nearly 55 percent of the Amazon Basin. The highest priority areas (rated from 3 to 5) are so rich in species and high in endemism that participants in the workshop indicated they should be protected from any development. Areas nor identified as priorities are not necessarily unimportant for conservation; in many cases, there simply was not enough information to make an informed judgement. This raises the obvious question of how much the identified priorities merely reflect intense research and site visits by a handful of scientists.

The participants and organizers of the Manaus workshop saw it as the beginning of an ongoing effort to continually revise and narrow conservation priorities in Amazonia, and publication of the map was intended to be part of an evolving conservation strategy. The Peruvian government used the map to help identify the location of a new conservation area. Other governments and funding agencies, including the World Bank, have used the map as a guide to conservation efforts. Few processes have started with so little previously synthesized information and analysis to develop a conservation overview of such a vast area.

The Manaus workshop process was an experiment in priority setting for a large area in the absence of detailed information. In several respects it was a success - it synthesized a large body of information and experience into a form that governments and donor agencies could use as a rough guide to conservation planning. And whatever its limitations, it brought together a multinational team of scientists and conservationists to establish a foundation for future priority-setting.

A number of lessons emerged from the workshop. For example, the priority-setting process was limited to a handful of individuals from government agencies, universities, and large national and international NGOs. "Grassroots" groups and local experts with valuable information on biodiversity resources and distribution as well as experience with land-use / conservation problems were not involved. Another problem was replicability - the priorities were determined by a group of experts but the information they used in making their decisions was not recorded. Each expert brought his or her own knowledge and experience. Workshop participants did not have a common base of information to build upon and shape according to their knowledge. And the Manaus workshop produced many priorities, but little or no practical guidance on how to implement actions to protect them.

Like other approaches, including the Species Survival Commission Action Plans and the conservation potential / threat assessments, the expert workshop approach is being refined with each application. In December 1993, Conservation International together with the Foundation for biodiversity, a national level Brazilian NGO, and the Northeastern Ecological Society, held a work-shop in Recife to identify priority conservation areas in the northern half of the Atlantic coastal forest region of Brazil (a second workshop for the southern half of the region is planned for 1996). Several improvements were introduced by Conservation International at this Atlantic Coastal Forest Workshop (Olivieri et al., 1995).

First, nearly a year was spent preparing for the workshop. Data were collected and assembled in advance to provide each of the seven working groups with a basic database to build upon and modify. For example, information on 144 species representing species addressed by the six taxonomic working groups²³ was collected, mapped, and assessed with respect to quality and geographic coverage. The working groups were also smaller than the working groups in Manaus, ranging from 4 to 12 in size.

Second, the Recife workshop considered disturbance levels and human development pressures. The seventh working group used demographic data (population growth and density) and land-use data to identify areas most threatened and least threatened by human activities. The results of this group's findings were used to finalize the list of priority areas once the results of the taxonomic working groups were integrated.

Third, detailed records of information used by experts in reaching decisions were compiled during the workshop process. Written explanations of what information was used and how (eg, whether weighted factors were used, etc.) were recorded on standardized forms.

Fourth, to enhance the role of local expertise and to minimize the possibility of a geographically biased final selection, subregional groups were organized to integrate the findings of the seven topical working groups relevant to their geographic subregion.

Fifth, a concerted effort to communicate the results of the workshop to policymakers, conservationists, and the public is planned. In addition to a map (similar to the widely disseminated Manaus map), a detailed technical report will be published for scientists and conservationists. An executive summary or policymaker's guide will be widely distributed. The maps and databases used in the project are available for anyone's use; they are likely to be particularly useful to planners and Environmental Impact Assessment specialists. Finally, information from the project will be packaged in a flexible interactive CD ROM format to allow educators, students, and the public to consider the values and conservation options of the Atlantic Coastal Forest.

The improvements in the Recife workshop addressed a number of the limitations encountered in Manaus. Still, the process, like all methodologies, could be improved. Since no working group addressed ecosystem classification and distribution, the reliance on taxonomically-based working groups raises concerns about the representation of ecotypes and habitats in the final priorities. An aquatic working group, however, ensured that river systems and wetlands were not overlooked. The relatively small geographic area covered and the objective of identifying conservation priorities for one threatened ecosystem type (Atlantic coastal forests in northeastern Brazil) perhaps obviated the need for ecosystem-based analysis. Still, the question of sampling bias remains (i.e., are species occurrences and expert knowledge a reflection of concentrated research in some areas and little or no investigation elsewhere?). For both the Manaus and Recife workshops, the principal goal was conserving the species richness of the most visible taxonomic groups. Is that enough to capture large-scale ecological processes upon which species diversity ultimately depends?

The expert workshop model has influenced other efforts to set priorities. For example, the BSP priority-setting framework described below uses an expert workshop as a key step in its process, and the Papua New Guinea Conservation Needs Assessment (described under national-level efforts) also used an expert workshop approach. Together with local organizations, Conservation International plans to co-organize future expert workshop events to identify priorities in a number of regions including the southeastern Atlantic coastal forest, and the cerrado in Brazil, the entire length of the Andean mountain complex, the Maya region (Guatemala, Mexico, Belize), Madagascar and Irian Jaya (Olivieri, personal communication).

An Integrative Framework For Setting Regional Biodiversity Conservation Priorities

Under a new strategy designed to focus resources on supporting sustainable development, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) identified biodiversity loss as a problem that could widely affect development options and the global environment (USAID, 1994). USAID requested the Biodiversity Support Program (BSP)²⁴ to lead an effort to develop a framework for setting geographic conservation priorities that would guide the agency's biodiversity conservation investments in Latin America and the Caribbean. BSP invited representatives of five major international NGOs to form a collaborative NGO working group to assist in this effort. The working group included representatives of Conservation International (CI), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), World Resources Institute (WRI), the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), and the World Wildlife Fund/U.S (WWF).

Over a nine month period, beginning in January 1994, the working group developed a framework and collected and synthesized data to identify priority areas for conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean. In September 1994, a workshop with the participation of regional experts was held in Miami, Florida to review and revise the framework methodology and data and apply the framework to identify preliminary geographic priorities for USAID Investment in the region.²⁵

The goal of the project was to identify areas of outstanding regional importance for biodiversity conservation. The collaborative working group concluded that the framework should address three sets of criteria: a) biological importance, b) conservation status, and c) institutional and policy feasibility (defined as institutional and policy characteristics that could lead to successful conservation investments (BSP et al., 1995). All members of the working group held the common view that a logical, transparent, and integrative priority-setting framework would represent a significant advance over analytical approaches limited to species richness or other easily measured biological factors commonly used by funding institutions, government agencies, and NGOs.

Underlying the approach were several principles including recognition that:

• Biodiversity is important for every nation's development; the framework is intended to identify biodiversity conservation priorities at a regional scale;
  
  
• Effective biodiversity conservation requires maintaining representation of all major habitat types found in the region. Since major habitat types cut across national boundaries, the priority-setting analysis should be based on biogeographic units, not country units;
  
  
• Biological importance alone is not a sufficient criterion for determining biodiversity conservation priorities at a regional level since natural habitats have been degraded to varying extents and because national commitment to conservation varies. Biodiversity conservation priorities should integrate biological importance, conservation threat and opportunity, policy / institutional feasibility and utility factors.

The framework builds upon the approach developed by Conservation International to assess biological importance and the analytical approach to determine conservation threat and potential used by WWF-U.S. and the World Bank. For example, a hierarchical ecological classification scheme based on the Dinerstein et al. (1995) system is used to organize information on biological value (e.g., ecosystem, phyleric, and species diversity), conservation opportunity and threat (e.g., presence / absence of large blocks of original habitat, protected area coverage, degree of habitat degradation and / or fragmentation), and institutional and policy feasibility (e.g, national commitment and capacities of government and NGOs to implement conservation projects). However, recognizing that the best information often resides with local and regional experts, the data collected under the BSP framework used a workshop process to refine data. The role of workshop participants was to revise criteria and indicators, provide additional information, and determine weighting factors.

Before the Miami workshop, the working group collected existing data from a variety of sources for each set of criteria. Biological importance data was compiled by CI and WCS. Information on species richness, endemism and distribution were entered into tabular databases and mapped using computer-based geographic information systems (GIS).

The WWF Conservation Science Program provided an analytical framework within which conservation threat and opportunity at the landscape level could be quantified. WRI compiled data on policy and institutional factors and worked with the WWF Policy Program to develop a methodology for assessing those factors. An analysis of potential utility factors related to biodiversity was prepared by the Institute for Sustainable Development.

Once the NGO working group had collected basic data in the three areas, it was critiqued, revised and supplemented at the Miami workshop by biologists and social scientists with regional expertise.

Since a major premise of the approach was that USAID should support the conservation of priority ecosystems representative of the region's rich diversity of ecosystems, a biogeographic classification scheme was a critical consideration. Based on work by Dinerstein et al. (1995), the Latin American and Caribbean region was divided into 148 ecoregions. These were clustered into 35 biogeographically similar ecoregions (Regional Habitat Units or RHUs) which in turn were aggregated into 7 major habitat types (Table 3.10). Biological importance, conservation status, and utility values of regional habitat units were compared only within the same major habitat type (e.g., tropical dry forests in Mexico were compared with tropical dry forests in Central America but nor with Mexican pine / oak forest which is part of the temperate forest major habitat type).

Over 50 scientists and conservationists from throughout the region came to the Miami workshop. They were invited on the basis of their regional experience and their knowledge about issues critical to either biological importance (e.g., taxonomists), conservation status (e.g., protected area planners), or feasibility / utility (e.g., social scientists). At the workshop, participants were organized into a series of working groups to review, refine, and apply the draft framework and data assembled by the NGO working group.

To identify areas based on their biological importance, six taxonomic expert groups - plants, insects, birds, fish, reptiles / amphibians, and mammals - identified "taxonomic biodiversity priority areas" (TBPs). Each TBP was characterized using a standard form, and rated as being of high, medium or low biological value based on a variety of criteria that differed slightly for each taxonomic group but included species richness, phyleric diversity, number of endemic species, beta diversity and presence of rare / endangered species. The data from the six taxonomic analysis were then integrated to determine the overall biological importance of each Regional Habitat Unit.

An innovative approach was used at the workshop to assess the current and estimated future conservation status of the 148 ecoregions in Latin America and the Caribbean. The method determined current conservation status by considering a series of landscape-level features for each ecoregion including: presence / absence of large blocks of original habitat; percent of remaining original habitat; rate of conversion; degree of degradation and / or fragmentation; and, degree of protection. Each variable was assigned a numerical value that, when summed and weighted, provided a snap-shot status assessment.

Ecoregions were then grouped by categories inspired by the IUCN categories for threatened and endangered species: Extinct (completely converted); Critical; Endangered; Vulnerable; Stable; and Relatively Intact. The presence of large blocks of original habitat, a high percentage of remaining habitat, and some degree of formal protection highlight opportunities for conservation within the ecoregion. Combined with degree of fragmentation and degradation, these variables also help predict the maintenance of ecological processes (e.g., predation, pollination and seed dispersal systems, nutrient cycling, migration, dispersal, and gene flow) that, ultimately, will determine how much biodiversity will persist over the long-term. Future trajectories of conservation status were assessed by considering the type, intensity, and timeframe of severe threats to the biota and landscapes of an ecoregion no produce a modified conservation status. The ecoregion assessments were then aggregated no determine the conservation status for each of the 35 RHUs.²⁶

Table 3.10 Hierarchical Classification Of Major Habitat Types And Regional Habitat Units In Lation America And The Caribbean

Major Habitat Type	Regional Habitat Unit (RHU)
1. Tropical Lowland Moist Forests	1. Atlantic Lowland Moist Forest 2. Upper Amazonian Lowland Moist Forest 3. NE Amazonian Lowland Moist Forest 4. SE Amazonian Lowland Moist Forest 5. Chaco/Darien Lowland Moist Forest 6. Central American Lowland Moist Forests
2. Tropical Montane Moist Forests	1. Tropical E Andes Montane Forest 2. Central American Montane Forest 3. Caribbean Montane Forest 4. Venezuelan Coastal Montane Forest 5. Guayanan Montane Forest
3. Tropical Dry Forests	1. N South America Dry Forest 2. W Andean Dry Forest 3. Chaco 4. Central American Dry Forest 5. Mexican Dry Forest 6. Cerrado / Pantanal
4. Xeric Formations	1. Mexican Xerics 2. Caribbean Xerics 3. Caatinga 4. Peruvian / Chilean Deserts 5. Chilean Winter Rainfall Xerics 6. Argentinian Monte
5. Herbaceous Lowland Grasslands	1. Central American Pine Savanna 2. Llanos / Grande Savanna 3. Pampas 4. Patagonian Steppe 5. Amazonian Savannas
6. Herbaceous Montane	1. Paramo 2. Puna 3. Southern Andean Alpine 4. Pantepui
7. Temperate Forests	1. Soutern Cone Temperate Forest 2. Brizilian Araucaria Forest 3. Mexican Pine / Oak Forest
Source: BSP eet al. (1995).

Participants in the policy and institutional working group at the Miami workshop focused much of their discussion on the fact that the relevance of policy and institutional analysis to geographic priority setting depends on the types of potential conservation investment. In other words, in order to answer the "where" question, one must specify the "what".

As a partial resolution of this issue, workshop participants developed an "investment portfolio" model that balances short and long-term conservation benefits with levels of risk associated with conservation investments. The group defined two different policy and institutional vectors relevant to priority-setting:

1) Existing policy and institutional capacity conducive no effective on-the-ground conservation interventions in the short-term; and

2) Policy and institutional environments conducive no productive long-term investments in the development of such capacity (i.e., currently weak but improving institutional capacity combined with strong political will).

The group also considered whether high human utility value could be used to discriminate among otherwise equal regional habitat units. Workshop participants agreed that human utility values were important in setting priorities and could potentially capture ecosystem function values of biodiversity not captured by biological importance. They stressed the need no consider local as well as global utility values. They recommended assigning the highest value to genetic resources, followed by productive and protective biological resources, and carbon sequestration, in that order. For example, "unique" utility values in an ecoregion, such as wild relatives of important food grains, are more important than the ecoregions incremental contribution to a "non-unique" value, such as carbon sequestration.

Because of the project's emphasis on representation, and weighting of biological value and conservation threat criteria, the final list of priority regional habitat units contains a number of areas that have not received significant conservation attention in the past. For example, temperate forest ecosystems (e.g., pine-oak forests in Mexico), xeric formations (e.g., the Caatinga in Brazil), and grasslands (e.g., the Panagonian steppe) were recognized by workshop experts as having high levels of biological importance (see Table 3.11).

Workshop participants provided creative and constructive suggestions for improving policy / institutional analysis in relation to setting geographic conservation priorities. In particular, policy and institutional analysis should emphasize greater use of data to assess feasibility rather than emphasizing expert input. Many participants also suggested that policy and institutional factors are most important for determining what types of conservation investments to make in priority areas identified on the basis of biological importance and conservation status. Other participants believed that policy and institutional factors could be used to decide between areas ranked equally on the basis of conservation importance and conservation status.

A major limitation to the framework was the absence of analysis for aquatic and marine ecosystems - a problem recognized by the NGO working group. Other lessons learned, particularly for policy and institutional analysis, include the need no involve local counterparts earlier in the process and to collect and disseminate data to workshop participants further in advance of the workshop. These lessons and others will be applied by the Biodiversity Support Program as in plans work in 1995 with conservation groups and regional experts to improve and apply the framework in the Asia and Pacific region.

The usefulness of the integrated framework approach, however, was widely recognized by workshop participants. One indicator of success was the interest expressed by participants in using similar frameworks to assess priorities in their home countries. The integrative approach using multiple criteria, the consideration of biodiversity at species and ecosystem levels, and stressing the representation of all major ecosystems across a broad and diverse region represents a significant step forward in priority-setting efforts.

Table 3.11 Regional Habitat Units With Regionally Outstanding Biological Value

Regional Habitat Units (within Major Habitat Types(MHTs)) 1. Tropical Moist Lowland Forests 1-1 Atlantic 1-2 Upper Amazon 2. Tropical Moist Montane Forests 2-1 Tropical Andes 3. Tropical Dry Forests 3-3 Chaco 3-6 Cerrado-Pantanal 4. Xeric Formations 4-1 Mexican Xerics 4-3 Caatinga 5. Herbaceous Lowland Grasslands 5-4 Patagonian Steppe 6. Herbaceous Montane Grasslands 6-1 Paramo 6-2 Puna 7. Temperate Forests 7-1 Southern Temperate Forest 7-3 Mexican Pine-Oak Source: BSP et al. (1995).

Setting Priorities At National And Local Levels

The most effective actions no conserve biodiversity will take place at national and especially local levels. National and local capacities and resources for conservation are limited everywhere, especially in developing countries. Ultimately, setting priorities an these levels will have the greatest effect - and should help influence and strengthen priorities sen from an international perspective, thereby strengthening the effectiveness of international resources. Priorities set at these levels are indispensable because they are more likely no:

• focus on specific conservation objectives;
• specify species, ecosystems, or sites;
• reflect national and local values and needs;
• afford the opportunity no mesh with policy and planning processes;
• provide the opportunity no involve a wider spectrum of participants - from government agencies no NGOs and local communities - in the priority-setting process;
• reflect the resources and capacities available no implement priorities; and
• indicate to international donor agencies and conservation organizations which ecosystems, habitats, and species are considered most important from a national perspective

In short, the links between nationally and locally sen priorities and actions on the ground are usually more direct than such links between international priorities and implementation.²⁷ In any case, most internationally sen priorities will depend on further elaboration an national and, even more, local levels.

The conservation literature describes a wide range of available approaches for setting priorities an national and local levels; these approaches employ an array of techniques, tools, and data. In addition, approaches originally used no identify priorities from an international perspective may be adapted no priority considerations at more local levels. Many of these approaches are directed an similar conservation objectives - most commonly establishing and maintaining protected areas representative of ecosystems and species found in the country or a region within in. Much less attention has been directed at identifying priorities for protecting biodiversity in managed agricultural and forest ecosystems and human settlements (although crop genetic conservation priorities have received some attention by national and international research institutions). Some of the methods described in this section are flexible enough to identify priorities for a range of conservation objectives, but much more work is needed to develop approaches for identifying priorities consistent with national and local values and objectives.

Although many methods suitable for use an the national and subnational levels have been described in the literature, relatively few countries have established clearly defined conservation priorities. Even fewer countries have consensus priorities that are actively used no guide conservation activities or direct government and donor resources. As a result, many planning and policy processes that in effect determine how resources are used or where development takes place do not adequately consider biodiversity. For example, geographic conservation priorities have rarely been specified or considered in such relevant activities as the development of Tropical Forestry Action Plans, National Environmental Action Plans, National Conservation Strategies, or donor-funded natural resources assessments and profiles. In the absence of good conservation priorities, these processes may actually threaten the conservation of biodiversity rather than strengthen in. At the very least, their absence in such processes represents lost opportunities for focusing on conservation efforts.

However, there are a growing number of examples of priority-setting efforts applied at the national or subnational level, some of which have been used specifically to influence the allocation of conservation resources. These include efforts in Argentina (Ruben-Vila and Bernonanni, 1993), Brazil (Olivieri et al., 1995), Mexico (Peterson et al, 1993), Papua New Guinea (Swarnzendruber, 1993), Bulgaria (BSP, 1994), the United States (Scott et al., 1991), Russia (Krever et al, 1993), Australia (Margules en al., 1994; Pressey et al., 1994), New Zealand (Atkinson, 1994), and India (Rodgers and Panawar, 1988; Daniels et al., 1991).

Seven examples of efforts no establish biodiversity priorities at national and local levels are profiled in the remainder of this chapter. They include the Natural Heritage Programs used an the state / provincial level in over a dozen countries in the Western Hemisphere; the Papua New Guinea Conservation Needs Assessment; gap analysis in the United States; iterative approaches no reserve selection in Australia; the use of rapid ecological assessment and inventory techniques in Belize; a system proposed by IUCN and WWF to identify economically important plant species; strategies for identifying genetic resource conservation priorities; and the identification of Ecologically Sensitive Areas proposed by McNeely en al. (1990).

Natural Heritage Programs

In 1974, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) - a U.S-based private, nonprofit membership organization - nook the first steps no develop a methodology for ranking natural areas based on their respective wealth of rare species. TNC already had nearly 25 years of experience in protecting natural areas throughout the United States, but until 1974, remained "sheepishly ambivalent about what made an area worth saving" (Snolzenbung, 1992). The solution no the problem came when TNC decided no use computer technology no log information on the known occurrences (or locations of subpopulations) of rare or endangered species. This approach was further refined over the next several years no include other geographically referenced information on species and habitats. In partnership with a number of snare governments, the program was named the "Natural Heritage Program," and became a tool for land-use planning and setting habitat protection priorities. Today, the Natural Heritage Program has been established in all 50 U.S. snares. Conservation Data Centers in 5 Canadian provinces and 13 Latin American countries use the same bio-diversity ranking system developed in the Natural Heritage Program model.

The system works by assigning conservation priority ranks to "elements of natural diversity," which are plant and animal species, sub-species, and natural communities or habitats. In practice, the ranking scheme has been used primarily with species of vertebrates and plants since a compatible classification of ecological communities an national and international levels has yen to be accomplished and data are sparse for invertebrates (Master, 1991). However, a standardized natural community classification system has been completed for the western United Stares and soon will be for the eastern part of the country. Thus the Natural Heritage Programs in the United States will increasingly focus on community and habitat elements of diversity.

The species ranks are based on information about each species for a series of criteria, including the known or estimated number, quality, and condition of element "occurrences" (i.e., subpopulations of the species); the estimated number of individuals; narrowness of range and habitat; trends in population and habitat; threats no the element; the element's fragility; and other factors (TNC, 1988). This information is then used no assign a rank of 1 no 5 (with I representing extreme vulnerability) no the species an three separate scales - global, national, and state or province (see Table 3.12 for an example of what the ranks might mean an a global level).

When the global, national, and subnational ranks are combined, the system allows for a rapid assessment of the species' known or probable threat of extinction or extirpation in a particular jurisdiction. For example, a species ranked G5/N2/S1 is extremely vulnerable no extirpation in the state or province (5), vulnerable (bun non critically) an the national level (N), and widespread and abundant globally with no threat of extinction (C).

In practice, TNC and ins partners do nor use the ranking system alone no set priorities. With each species or element record, recommendations are included for protection, inventory, research, and management. These recommendations are frequently based on a number of site-specific facts and qualitative assessments of the species' conservation needs; they are crucial determinants of follow-up actions. In most cases, conservation actions are nor directed an individual species bun instead tend no focus on sites that are home for more than one priority species. To choose among such sines, TNC uses another 1 to 5 scale no assess "site biodiversity significance" and "site protection urgency. The former focuses on the overall number and ranking of element occurrences an the sine, while the latter assesses the relative threat of destruction no the site.

The element ranking system developed by TNC has been highly successful in many respects. In has served as the organizing principle for building a huge database on species and habitats throughout the United Snares and no a more limited extent in Latin America and Canada. This database has helped TNC and various government agencies pinpoint where habitat protection programs are needed. In addition, the Biodiversity Conservation Network (as the combined Natural Heritage and Conservation Dana Center programs are called) has been used extensively in land-use planning decisions no avoid destroying critical habitats. For nearly two decades, in has helped no specify biodiversity conservation priorities in a relatively systematic way over a large area. Over a third of the G1 (critically imperiled) and G2 (imperiled) species in the United States have never been formally considered as candidates for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. Aquatic habitats and species are disproportionately threatened. Only a small fraction of aquatic groups (amphibians, fishes, crayfishes, and unioid mussels) have been federally listed. In contrast, nearly all mammal and bird species classified as G1 or G2 have been protected under the Endangered Species Act (Natural Heritage Center Network, 1993).

Table 3.12 Global Ranks Used By Natural Heritage Programs And Conservation Data Centers

G1 critically imperiled gloabally (typically fewer than 5 occurances); G2 imperiled globally (typically 6 to 20 occurances); G3 rare or uncommon but not imperiled (typically 21 to 100 occurances); G4 not rare and appearently secure, but with cause for long-term concern (usually more than 100 occurances); G5 demonstrably widespread, abundant and secure; GH of historical importance (possibly extinct; still searching with the expectation that it may be rediscovered); GX assumed to be extinct throughout its range; G? not yet ranked G#T# for intraspecific taxa (subspecies); the G rank applies to the full species and the T rank applies to the infraspecific taxon; G#Q taxonomic status is questionable Source: Master (1991).

Like any scheme, the ranking system has limitations for some conservation objectives. For example, the system does non distinguish between species on the basis of economic, ecological, or taxonomic value. Another limitation is that the system has been used primarily no identify and purchase or otherwise conserve²⁸ small "ecologically unique" habitats rather than conserve large diverse landscapes.²⁹ The Nature Conservancy, however, has focused more on large-scale ecosystem conservation in recent years through ins Last Great Places program which works with a variety of private and public land owners no conserve vital elements of large ecosystems. Nevertheless, the Natural Heritage ranking system is the most institutionalized system for ranking conservation priorities anywhere.

Previous | Next