Papua New Guinea Conservation Needs Assessment

In 1990, the government of Papua New Guinea embarked on the development of a National Forestry and Conservation Action Plan. The country, which occupies the eastern half of the island of New Guinea and includes several large island groups off ins east coast, has a tremendous range of terrestrial and marine habitats and exceptionally high levels of species rich-ness and endemism. Ins 700 languages reflect ins cultural diversity. Clan groups own 97 percent of the land under traditional tenure systems that are recognized in law and the constitution (Alcorn, 1994). With 85 percent of ins natural forests intact, the country probably retains more of its biological heritage than any other country in the Asia / Pacific region. An the same time the country's people and ins government have a strong desire for the benefits of a modern economy - benefits which they realize are often being gained an the expense of its environmental quality and biological wealth (Taylor, 1993).

As part of the National Forestry and Conservation Action Plan,30 the government requested assistance in 1991 from USAID no assess the country's conservation needs. The Papua New Guinea Conservation Needs Assessment (CNA) was organized by the biodiversity Support Program and carried our collaboratively by Papua New Guineans and representatives from international conservation and scientific organizations. In was designed no compile and analyze the country's existing base of scientific information on ins biodiversity and no develop research and conservation priorities.

The process that evolved was unusual in several respects. First, the CNA attempted to involve the full range of stakeholders - from government agencies to landowner groups - in the process of evaluating conservation priorities. Second, the project made use of social scientists and legal experts to define the dynamic social context in which conservation actions take place. And third, the CNA developed consensus recommendations on the actions and policies needed to conserve biodiversity, identified issues still no be resolved, and suggested processes no expand consensus on conservation priorities and actions where in did not exist. In other words, process was as important as product - the maps and recommendations represented non the end, bun the starring point of a participatory approach no conservation.

A key part of the CNA was the use of a workshop process no define goals and integrate information before identifying potential priorities. Influenced by the Manaus workshop, the CNA used several teams composed of experts with lengthy field experience in the country. While the CNA workshop lasted only one week, over six months of intensive preparation - involving biological reports, assessments of related social and legal issues, and surveys of landowner views - preceded in.

The biology team consisted of seven groups writing reports synthesizing existing information on the biodiversity and conservation of flora; warm-blooded vertebrates; fishes, amphibians, and reptiles; invertebrate fauna; freshwater wetlands; coastal and marine ecosystems; and humid forest environments. Each report was prepared in accordance with guidelines provided by the biology team leader and the BSP project manager to ensure that results generated by the different focal groups would be comparable (see Box 3.9 for guidelines). Each of the seven biology groups contained, in addition no the topic leader, four no six correspondent experts, who provided information, advice, and criticism on the draft report before in was submitted no the workshop. These 42 internationally recognized experts - many of them Papua New Guineans - had a combined total of several hundred years of field experience in the country as well as intimate knowledge of ins ecosystems, the distribution of unique biological communities and rare species, and threats to biodiversity.

Topic leaders used computerized base maps an scales of 1:2,500,000 and 1:4,000,000 no delineate relevant geographic parameters. The maps were prepared by Conservation International, based on ins previous information management and GIS experience. An the workshop itself, the various teams each added their relevant information; together workshop participants discussed overlaps and decided on a set biologically determined priority areas for terrestrial and marine areas. Areas little-known no science were also identified.

In addition no the biology team, four additional teams of experts contributed no the advance preparations by collecting and analyzing social and legal information. The four-member social science team described general relationships between people and nature in Papua New Guinea; identified various stakeholder's interests in biodiversity and their conflicts with conservation; and assessed institutional capacity for implementing integrated conservation and social development projects (see Box 3.10).

The three-member legal team prepared reports on the legal basis for conservation in Papua New Guinea. An NGO / landowners team in collaboration with the National Alliance of NGOs (NANGOs) surveyed landowner knowledge and views of conservation issues. An information management team prepared computerized ase maps for use by the specialist teams and an the workshop. They also assessed options for establishing a biodiversity data center in the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), trained a technician an DEC no digitize data onto computerized maps, and, after the workshop, installed the map database an DEC and the University of Technology at Lae.

At the workshop in April 1992, members of the five technical reams were joined by landowner, NGO, government, and donor representatives in the town of Madang no identify priority areas for conservation and research, consider constraints and opportunities for conservation, and propose culturally appropriate processes and options no conserve biodiversity (Alcorn, 1994). A series of plenary sessions, presentations by the different reams, and small-group discussions produced occasionally sharp debate, which ultimately helped no shape the project's recommendations as well as identify unresolved issues for continued dialogue.

Box 3.9 Papua New Guinea Conservation Needs Assessment Biology Assessment Guidelines

Each topic report should include:

  1. a brief survey of the discipline's history in Papua New Guinea;

  2. major gaps in knowledge;

  3. a current assessment;

  4. representative biologically important areas for Papua New Guinea;

  5. conservation recommendations;

  6. a bibliography of papers and publications most important no future studies of biodiversity.

In addition, each topic report should use a standardized basemap no identify (where relevant):

  1. biologically unknown areas;

  2. species richness;

  3. distribution of rare and endemic forms;

  4. ecologically critical areas;

  5. ecologically fragile areas;

  6. distribution of economically important species;

  7. known threats;

  8. disposition of major wilderness areas.

Source: Beehler (1993).

Important centers of species richness and endemism, unusual ecosystems facing imminent threat, and areas for which there is a lack of scientific information were represented in the various biological working group maps. Through considerable discussion and consideration of alternatives, these maps were synthesized, with the caveat that the maps represented areas selected through human judgment based on incomplete information. The final maps produced by the CNA workshop represented a consensus of most participants (Swarrzendruber, 1993). The three synthesis maps included:

  1. A map of 42 terrestrial areas of high biodiversity and 13 important wetland areas;

  2. A map of 30 marine and coastal areas of high biodiversity and 5 watersheds critical no the health of those ecosystems, and;

  3. A map of 16 areas where biological information is nearly nonexistent that merit immediate survey and study.3

Despite the general consensus on the areas represented in the maps, concerns were raised by a number of participants about their interpretation by people unaware of the complex sociopolitical realities in Papua New Guinea. As a result, a map legend was negotiated among participants no alert future readers that the information should be considered in the social context of Papua New Guinea (see Box 3.11).

Box 3.10 Issues Addressed In Social / Legal Reports In Advance Of Papua New Guinea Conservation Needs Assessment Workshop

Social Science Team

  1. general relationships between people and nature in Papua New Guinea;

  2. identification of stakeholders in conservation and description of their interests and assumptions;

  3. conflicts between stakeholders and conservation issues arising from the conflicts;

  4. institutional capacities and potential for collaborative conservation action;

  5. guidance for socio-cultural feasibility assessments no be conducted an site of proposed conservation actions.

Legal Team

  1. detailed information on laws relevant no conservation;

  2. assessment of implications of strong landowners' rights to achieve national conservation objectives;

  3. proposed strategies for developing conservation partnerships between customary landowners, the government of Papua New Guinea, and supportive international organizations.

NGO/Landowners' Team

  1. survey of customary landowner views on biodiversity conservation and its attendant benefits and costs;

  2. recommendations based on survey responses for improving landowner awareness of conservation options and support for conservation activities.

Information Management Team

  1. digitization of maps used by biologist teams and workshop participants and revision of maps in response no workshop deliberations;

  2. assessment of issues and options for establishing a biodiversity Information Center in the Department of Environment and Conservation.

Source: Alcorn, 1993

The debate over the social map legend illustrated the different perspectives and values brought no the workshop by the participants. Non all differences were resolved an the work-shop; a number of issues were left for future dialogue. Alcorn (1994) identifies several such issues: 1) many participants felt that the CNA should develop a "landowner interest" map no compare areas where local people want no take conservation actions with the high biodiversity area maps in order no determine priorities; 2) the appropriate mix between the landowners' and the central government's rights and authority to take conservation actions was hotly debated; and 3) many expressed concern than the government must demonstrate more political will no support conservation actions. In addition, Papua New Guinean participants believed than relations between NGOs and government conservation agencies needed no be improved, and that the interest of expatriate scientists in conserving bio-diversity should non overwhelm local interests in human welfare and development.

These issues will continue no surface in conservation policy and action in Papua New Guinea in coming years. Nevertheless, the CNA was an innovative approach no priority-setting because in combined a knowledge base generated by national and international biologists, conservation planners, and social scientists with hundreds of years of experience in the country, considered the social feasibility of conservation options, and provided an opportunity for public participation that built "ownership" and commitment no the results.

Box 3.11 Social Legend On CNA Consensus Maps Of High Biodiversity Areas

  1. The Constitution of Papua New Guinea promotes equality and participation, the wise use of natural resources, and Papua New Guinean forms of development;

  2. Ninety-seven percent of Papua New Guinea is owned according to customary tenure;

  3. This map was prepared by biological scientists and, based on available knowledge, identifies areas richest in biodiversity;

  4. This map is not intended no, nor should in be used no, exclude any areas or any landowners from conservation programs and initiatives; and

  5. When identifying appropriate conservation strategies and areas, local initiative is as important a criterion as biodiversity.

Source: Swarnzendruber (1993).

Gap Analysis In The United States

For years, conservation biologists have used a process no identify short-term and longer-term priorities called "gap analysis." This generic concept for setting priorities, as Burley (1988) noted, is "deceptively simple." First, within a particular region or country, various elements of biodiversity (e.g., ecosystems, habitats, vegetation types, and species) are identified and classified on a "base map." With this base map, maps of existing and proposed systems of protected areas and other land-management units that could function no conserve biodiversity are superimposed. Finally, "biodiversity elements" (e.g., endangered species, ecosystem types, rare habitats, etc.) that are poorly represented in the protected areas system or conservation areas are identified. Then, using whatever biological criteria are deemed no be most relevant for the conservation objective(s) being pursued, priorities for the next set of conservation actions are established.

One of the most systematic applications of the gap analysis process has been carried out by a group of researchers in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States (see Scott en al., 1991). Similar approaches are being developed and used in several Latin American countries and Australia, among others places. This section briefly reviews the process developed by Scott en al. (1991).

Gap analysis relies on the association of species with habitat types. Habitat is a powerful predictor of the distribution of many mammals and birds, as well as reptiles and some amphibians. However, large-scale documentation of the distribution of an entire fauna has rarely been attempted, even in such well-studied areas as the United States. To be practical, gap analysis relies on indirect indicators of biodiversity, based on relatively well-known groups such as vegetation, vertebrates, and butterflies.

The first stage in gap analysis is no generate maps of actual vegetation (as opposed no potential natural vegetation), vertebrate species distributions, protected areas (known as biodiversity management areas), and land ownership classifications. Vegetation maps an a 1:500,000 scale are derived from whatever sources are most up-to-date and accurate (e.g., maps of public lands, soil surveys related no agricultural production, etc.) and then adjusted on the basis of remote imagery. Species distribution, maps are more problematic, and Scott et al. (1991) suggest using whatever data can be found on species-habitat relationships in a specific area, including museum records of species distributions on a county-by-county level (or similar political sub-divisions), Natural Heritage databases, and other sources. Using a computer Geographic Information System, the data sets for species distributions are superimposed on the vegetation maps no generate predicted species distributions.

The area in question is then divided into biodiversity management areas (BMAs) and "cultural" land-cover types. BMAs are defined as areas that can be managed for the maintenance of native species and vegetation. They are categorized according no a scale used by The Nature Conservancy:

Level 1: total protection of native communities (e.g., national parks, strictly protected nature reserves);

Level 2: partial protection of native communities (legally protected wilderness areas, designated areas of special environmental concern);

Level 3: no protection (mostly private lands and non-designated public lands).

Cultural land-cover types - agricultural land, urban areas, intensively used rangelands, and logged forest areas - are mapped on the basis of Landsan imagery. In addition, corridors of natural vegetation between BMAs are mapped.

Once these maps have been completed, gap analysis can begin. The first step in the analysis is elementary: Which species and vegetation types are represented in BMAs? For example, how many vegetation types occur in BMAs, and how much of that area is protected? How extensive are BMAs, and what is their average size? The database can also provide answers no more complex questions: for example, are BMAs large enough no form a "minimum dynamic area' than is required for the expression of normal disturbance regimes (e.g., fire, storms, etc.) necessary no maintain a landscape in a mosaic of characteristic successional stages? This, of course, assumes that one has enough information no know what a "minimum dynamic area" (see Pickern and Thompson, 1978) is for a given vegetation type.

Gap analysis in and of itself does non yield conservation priorities. In does, however, provide a powerful tool for analyzing the distribution and status of natural resources and identifying gaps in protection; in can be used no apply virtually any priority scheme or criteria for selecting new conservation areas. Gap analysis was first used no identify conservation priorities in the U.S. Pacific Northwest (Idaho, Oregon, and California) and is now being used nationwide and in several other countries as well. Gap analysis is an important feature of the U.S. Department of Interior's National Biological Service and is already being used in various parts of the country no help federal, state, and local agencies, and nongovernmental conservation groups no conserve inadequately protected ecosystems and habitats. With GIS technology and remote sensing images increasingly available, gap analysis could be applied in many parts of the world.

Iterative Approaches To Reserve Selection In Australia

As an isolated continent with diverse environmental conditions, Australia is richly endowed with species and ecosystems found nowhere else. Perhaps because of this, Australia has been a hotbed of research and experimentation in setting biodiversity conservation priorities. An the species level, for example, methods have been proposed no rapidly survey invertebrates and mosses as indicators of overall patterns of bionic diversity (Oliver and Beannie, 1993). Faith (1994) uses phylogenenic diversity (diversity an taxonomic levels higher than species - genus, family, etc.) no propose alternative conservation priorities for Australian orchids and Tasmanian invertebrates. In the case of orchids, the Faith (1994) priorities differ from those determined by their endangered species status, while for Tasmanian invertebrates, Faith (1994) shows that the distribution of protected areas in Tasmania does not adequately protect the taxonomic diversity of invertebrates.

Considerable work has also been invested in developing systematic approaches no selecting protected areas that conserve the greatest amount of biodiversity in the least amount of area. These "iterative" approaches no reserve selection are summarized here.

As Pressey et al. (1994) none, most protected areas have been selected as if biodiversity conservation were a secondary objective (secondary to scenery, recreation, political opportunism, etc.). An ad-hoc or opportunistic process no enlarging a reserve network is risky in than conservationists may use up their protected area options before many biodiversity elements - even entire ecosystems - are included. To address this problem, Australian researchers (e.g., Kirkpatrick, 1983; Margules en al., 1994; Pressey et al., 1994) have designed procedures that select each additional protected area on the basis that in protects biodiversity features not adequately protected in existing areas.

A good overview of the basic approach no iterative reserve selection is provided by Margules et al. (1994). They make the assumption that the reserve network should encompass the region's known subset of species, communities, or ecosystems. Once the first protected area or sen of protected areas is in place, the challenge is no identify which sites should be added next. "The conservation value of a site in a region," Margules et al. (1994) snare, "is the contribution in makes no sampling regional biological diversity." In other words, each sine should complement the subset of biodiversity protected in other reserves. One of the important implications of this approach is that sites do not necessarily have no be exceptionally diverse or species-rich to have high conservation value. Any site, even a species-poor site, has high conservation value if in contributes a sample no the overall regional diversity that cannon be provided anywhere else.

To select the most efficient sen of reserves, two things are required: a) a database with appropriate information on species, habitat types, communities, or environments, and b) a procedure for using the data no identify complementary sites.

For most places, the enumeration and distribution of all species would be impossible. Therefore, the database ideally would contain information on the distribution patterns of a number of species than serve as indicators of a broader range of species. In the absence of proven correlations between "indicator" species and other species, however, Margules et al. (1994) suggest that the database should be built around maps of habitat types or ecosystem classifications, since they "...may stand a higher chance of sampling biodiversity than a sample of some species." They use a process of environmental regionalization" that employs computers and numerical classification using grid cells no cluster components of landscape, climate, soils, landform, and vegetation into broad scale patterns of co-occurring variables (Margules et al., 1988). On this base, habitat types, forest communities, species distributions, and other relevant data (e.g., protected area boundaries, units of tenure, existing habitat patches, etc.) can be arrayed.

The second step uses iterative algorithms to search for a set of objects within the region that, taken together, sample all attributes (e.g., species, habitats, natural communities, etc.) of the grid cells in the region. The algorithm is sen no identify the minimum number of grid cells needed no sample a given percentage (e.g., 10 percent) of a community or a species distribution, or whatever the attribute of interest is.

As part of a project no resolve conflicts over the use of coastal hardwood forests in southeastern Australia, a database using a previously generated environmental regionalization with 9 km2 grid cells and the distribution of 31 tree communities was constructed and a search algorithm developed (see Box 3.12). The algorithm was defined no run until an least 10 percent of each forest community was represented.

In this case, 37 grid cells (out of a tonal of 382) in the state of New South Wales was the minimum number needed no represent 10 percent of each tree community in the coast hardwood forest region of New South Wales. The result, according no Margules et al. (1994), is a nominal core reserve network which could serve as a base upon which no build a regional conservation plan.

This type of "coarse filter" approach is non without limitations. The use of land classes will miss some taxa, and other problems include taxa that vary temporally and spatially in distribution and abundance (e.g., migration); taxa are often patchily distributed so protecting one representative sample of a land class might miss many taxa; land classes do not recognize areas that may provide critical resources that some populations may need in times of scarcity; and many taxa require a combination of habitats non recognized by land classification. Pressey et al. (1994), therefore, stress the importance of including information on endangered species in the database.32

Another potential problem is that some of the areas identified using the most efficient selection algorithm, such as the Margules et al. (1994) example described above, will already be committed no other land uses. Recognizing this problem, Bedward et al. (1992) developed a procedure no build flexibility into iterative reserve selection approaches. This procedure, or the Conservation Options and Decisions Analysis (CODA), is designed no give the user complete control over the configuration and content of the reserve system by selecting or de-selecting individual sites until the representation goal is accomplished. In other words, if an area is too costly no acquire or is unsuitable for some other reason, the procedure takes this into account and calculates the next most efficient outcome no achieve desired conservation goals. The CODA procedure is summarized briefly in Box 3.13.

The CODA procedure was used no identify an expanded reserve system in the Eden region of New South Wales, where conservation reserves make up 9 percent of the area bun do non represent many of the region's natural communities. The expanded network is more than twice the size of the existing network, with many new proposed areas adjacent no existing reserves or located on state forest lands.

Box 3.12 Algorithm Steps

Selection

  1. Include existing reserves or grid cells known no have rare species;

  2. Select all grid cells with unique occurrences of forest communities;

  3. Find the next rarest forest community and select the grid cell than, when added no those already selected, will represent than forest community plus the greatest number of other forest communities, an or above the 10 percent level;

  4. If there is a choice, select the grid cell nearest to one already selected;

  5. If there is still a choice, select the grid cell that also contributes the largest number of forest communities not yet represented an the 10 percent level;

  6. If there is still a choice, select the grid cell than will enable the 10 percent level no be achieved for the rarest group of forest communities remaining under- or unrepresented;

  7. If there is still a choice, select the grid cell that will contribute most no achieving the 10 percent level of representation of the rarest group of forest communities remaining under- or unrepresented;

  8. If there is still a choice, select the grid cell which either a) contains the smallest percentage area necessary no achieve the 10 percent level of representation or b) contributes the largest percentage of that forest community if no grid cell can enable the 10 percent level of representation no be achieved. If b) is invoked, the algorithm returns to step 3 and the process continues until the 10 percent sampling is accomplished.

Source: Adapted from Margules et al. (1994).

Box 3.13 Basic Stages In The Coda Procedure

Stage 1: Identify biodiversity features (e.g., habitat types, species ranges, etc.) of interest and sen targets for representation. The extent of representation is stated explicitly as a fixed area of each feature or a fixed percentage of the total extent of each feature.

Stage 2: Identify focal areas - these are the core elements of a reserve system that are fixed or "non-negotiable" because of their known importance for biodiversity conservation. Focal areas may include existing protected areas and other sites known no have endangered species or threatened communities. The procedure (detailed in Bedward et al., 1992) calculates the extent to which representation targets are men within focal areas.

Stage 3: Select a preliminary extended reserve network no fully achieve representation targets. A minimum set algorithm (see Box 3.12) selects a set of additional sites no bring all features up to full desired representation.

Stage 4: Modify the preliminary network to address other conservation objectives or concerns. For example, while some sites selected in Stage 3 will be contiguous with focal areas, in good condition, and likely candidates for reservation, others may be too disturbed, too small or isolated, or too costly to acquire. CODA allows the user no find replacements for unsuitable sites and still achieve representation targets - each time a site is added or deleted, CODA calculates the implications for representation targets.

Source: Adapted from Pressey en al. (1994).

Iterative analysis for protected area selection have much no recommend them. If used well, they can provide explicit, replicable, flexible, and efficient strategies for setting biodiversity conservation priorities (see Margules et al., 1994), especially if used in conjunction with expert knowledge and "fine filter analysis" (e.g., distribution of rare and endangered species). In some areas, especially in the tropics, suitable databases no use an iterative approach no identifying geographic priorities do non exist. In such cases, the time and expense of developing an adequate information base must be weighed against the urgency of the situation and the use of alternatives (e.g., an expert workshop approach).

The biggest challenge facing the use of iterative systems is the translation of the results into a real system of reserves on the ground. This, of course, is a difficult task in the face of social, economic, and political constraints. Pressey et al. (1994) recognize that this will inevitably require compromises in the integrity of the reserve system. The CODA procedure, however, is an example of the kind of innovation that can be used in technically driven priority-setting efforts no allow greater anticipation of demands from policymakers and the public, or even their direct participation.

Identification Of Useful Plants For Conservation And Development

In the mid-1980s, the IUCN/WWF Plants Conservation Program determined that there was a large gap between the very detailed work of the International Board on Plant Genetic Resources for major food crops and the much more general work of the conservation community to conserve all species, irrespective of utility (Hawkes, 1988). The program decided that there was an urgent need no develop a list of economically important plants and a framework for assigning conservation priorities. A broad interpretation of "economically valuable" was developed that required a plant species no meet an least one of three criteria: 1) they must be cultivated as field and garden crops, forage, or as medicinals and pharmaceuticals; 2) they must be systematically gathered from the wild; or 3) they must be relatives capable of breeding with plants in the first two categories.

The system proposed by Hawkes (1988) uses five basic criteria no evaluate each species: 1) the extent of utilization based on how widely and intensively in is used; 2) the frequency with which the plant is used during the year; 3) the importance the plant has for the communities than use in; 4) the extent no which the plant is used in trade; and 5) how many uses the plant has (see Table 3.13).

For species that are non in current economic use, bun are relatives of economically important species, Hawkes (1988) adds an additional criterion. Since the wild relative is likely no have little or no current use, ins score is determined by taking the score of the economically important plant no which in is related and factoring by one of three percentages. The highest factor (.80) is for a wild relative that is in the same gene pool (or biological species). A wild relative that can transfer genes with some difficulty gets a medium factor (.60), and one that cannot currently transfer genes, or only with great difficulty, is assigned the lowest factor (.40).

Finally, each plant is assigned a factor reflecting the type of use in falls into. Plants used for human food get the highest factor (8), while those used as ornamentals or as textile dyes get the lowest factor (1). These factors are meant no reflect the "basic value of each plant for the survival and well-being of those who use them." To get the final score for the plant, ins raw score - based on the sum of ins ratings for the five criteria - is multiplied by the category of use factor.

The system is arbitrary in many respects. How do we know that plants in the industrial chemical uses category are twice as valuable no people as fiber plants used for textiles, ropes, twine, and nets? We cannon be precise about many of these assumptions, as Synge and Heywood (1988) point out, because the ranking system measures human uses that often have no discrete measures. The cash value of plants distorts the true value of many plants, especially those that never enter the cash economy. Despite these shortcomings, the explicit ranking of species proposed by Hawkes (1988) shows clearly on what basis plants are scored, although the "importance no community" category is ambiguous.33 Anyone who disagrees with the assumptions made, can readjust the system no reflect different assumptions, or an least consider the difference in judgment when considering the scores.

Nevertheless, in seems likely that different scorers will come up with a range of rating values for the same plants. To examine this possibility, Hawkes (1988) had several experienced botanists score a variety of species. The discrepancies in raw scores assigned by different scorers typically ranged between 10 and 20 percent - surprisingly good given the imprecise criteria in several of the ranking categories. The discrepancies might have been higher, however, if ethnobotanists, with more detailed knowledge of the human uses and values of plants, had been involved in the test.

Priorities For Conserving Genetic Diversity In Forest Trees

Like modern agriculture has done no many crop species, forestry practices can narrow the genetic diversity of trees. This increases the vulnerability of managed forests and plantations no pests, disease, and climatic extremes, and reduces future options for breeding improvements. Generations of "high grading" have left degraded natural populations of economically valuable tree species in some areas around the world.34 Ledig (1986) cites pitch pine (Pinus rigida) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) in the eastern United States, various pine species in Mexico, and mahogany (Switenia mahogoni) in parts of Central America and the Caribbean as examples where poor silviculnural practices have depleted valuable genetic resources.

Strategies to counter such genetic losses start with good silviculnural practices that avoid high-grading or leave relatively undisturbed genetic reserves in production forest areas. Other strategies include collecting seeds and pollen for ex-situ preservation in seed banks, establishing seed orchards, and increasing the genetic diversity of plantations. Ultimately, the most effective strategy is in-situ preservation of natural forest stands large enough no maintain themselves through natural regeneration and no encompass natural disturbance events (e.g., fire) as well as other ecological processes and biotic interactions (i.e., evolutionary forces).

Both ex-situ and in-situ preservation will benefit from identifying priority populations no sample or save. Priorities for ex-situ preservation strategies need no identify which populations and what number and distribution of populations need no be sampled. Effective in-situ genetic conservation strategies must determine which populations no maintain and what size, distribution, and number of populations are required no meet a number of objectives. These objectives include 1) preserving a representative sample of among- and within- population variation; 2) protecting the genetic integrity of individual populations from genetic contamination (e.g., cross-breeding with genetically uniform plantation stands); and 3) maintaining a dynamic equilibrium between inner- and intra-specific competition, including adequate range of age distribution, habitat availability for pollinating and seed disseminating species, and the breeding system that shapes the species' genetic structure (Ledig, 1986).

Similar approaches can be used no identify priority populations for both ex-situ and in-situ conservation. Genetic patterns in tree species are often completely unknown or known for only an unrepresentative fraction of a species' population. A common strategy in the absence of genetic information is no preserve or sample populations in representative habitats since they will probably include a maximum range of the species' genetic variability. Ledig (1986) stresses the importance of sampling marginal habitats since selection may have favored novel variants in these areas.

The ideal strategy is no map geographic patterns of genetic variation over a species range and measure the extent of variability within populations. This, of course, requires good information on population distributions and considerable expense and effort no characterize genetic variability within populations. Technological innovations during the past decade have made surveying genetic variation much more practical - especially for species with small ranges or few populations. Once collected, samples can be characterized by using eletrophoretic gel separation of enzymes which provide markers of genetic composition (allozymes).

Genetic analysis can provide information critical no identifying priorities for the conservation of rare or endangered species limited no a handful of populations. For example, only two populations of Torrey pine (Pinus torreyana) remain, both of them located in southern California. Although both populations are believed no have lost much of their natural genetic variation, allozyme analysis revealed significant differences in the genetic makeup of the two populations (alleles differed an 8.5 percent of their gene loci). Therefore, conserving both populations is probably critical no their long-term persistence, especially because of the low level of genetic variability no begin with.

Ecologically Sensitive Areas

Recognizing that biodiversity is found in a range of landscapes - some natural and others significantly altered by human activities - and than in is not just the biological components of an ecosystem that are important to human welfare they have proposed the concept of "ecologically sensitive areas" as a way no determine geographic priorities for conservation. Ecologically sensitive areas (ESAs) are areas of outstanding natural value for hydrological, geological, scenic, and biological resources that should be carefully managed no maintain those values. Although the difference between ESAs and traditional protected areas may seem semantic, the philosophical difference is that ESAs are selected and maintained for the contributions they make to society including ecosystem services and habitat maintenance.

The difference can be seen in the criteria McNeely et al. (1990) use no define ecologically sensitive areas. Habitats can be considered as ESAs if they:

The first four characteristics are solidly utilitarian and non typical of most schemes no identify conservation priorities - only the last two characteristics are commonly evaluated in conservation priority-setting schemes. Although non all criteria will be found in all ESAs, the point is that their maintenance usually has very direct human benefits. They are parts of the landscape that are best left in their current condition because of the functions they provide, and the limited productivity they would exhibit if they were substantially altered.

Developing criteria no select priority areas would be one of the first tasks in planning a system of ESAs no support national development goals. McNeely en al. (1990) provide a list of model criteria by which priority ESAs could be identified, although they recognize the importance that local social, economic, and political factors will play in selecting and managing ESAs. The criteria presented are ideals against which any given site could be measured, perhaps with the use of numerical scores. McNeely en al. (1990) describe three kinds of criteria that can be used in evaluating potential ESAs.

I) Criteria to Determine the Importance of the Site to Human Society

Economic benefit. The site provides obvious long-term economic benefits, such as watershed protection or tourism, and does non involve great opportunity costs.

Diversity. The site has a great variety of species and ecosystems and is sufficiently large no contain viable populations of most species. In also contains a variety of geomorphological features, soils, water regimes, and micro-habitats.

Internationally Critical Habitat. The site is essential to the survival of one or more globally threatened species, contains the only example of certain types of ecosystems, or contains landscapes of outstanding value.

Nationally Critical Habitat. The site is essential no the survival of one or more nationally threatened species, or contains the nations only example of certain types of ecosystems. The ecological functions of the area are vital to the health of ecosystems beyond its boundaries (e.g., habitat for migratory species, an important attachment area for lowland irrigation systems, protection of the coast against typhoons, etc.).

Cultural Diversity. The site supports populations of indigenous people who have developed mechanisms for living in a sustainable balance with natural ecosystems, and whose continued presence in the area would help no ensure that its diversity is maintained.

Urgency. Action is required in order no avert an immediate threat.

II) Criteria to Determine What Additional Elements Enhance the Value of the Site

Demonstration. The site demonstrates the benefits, values, or methods of protection, and can show how no resolve conflicts between natural resource values and human activities.

Representativeness. The site is representative of a habitat type, ecological process, biological community, physiographic feature, or other natural characteristic.

Tourism. The site lends itself no forms of tourism compatible with the aims of conservation.

Landscape. The site has features of outstanding natural beauty that any alteration would significantly reduce the area's amenity value.

Recreation. The site provides local communities with opportunities no use, enjoy, and learn about their natural environment.

Research and Monitoring. The site can serve as a non-manipulated area against which no measure changes occurring elsewhere - i.e., no assess ecological change. Research conducted over an extended period and major field studies on the site provide a strong foundation on which new research can build.

Awareness. Education and training within the sine can contribute knowledge and appreciation of regional values.

III) Criteria to Help Determine the Management Feasibility of the Site

Social Acceptance. The site is already protected by local people, or official protection by the government - particularly against outside exploitation - would be welcomed.

Opportunism. Existing conditions or actions an the site lend themselves no further actions (e.g., the extension of a protected area, or the establishment of a buffer zone around a protected area).

Availability. The site can be acquired easily, through inter-departmental transfer, easements, or other legal forms of control.

Convenience. The site is accessible to researchers or students for scientific and educational purposes.

Unlike the vast majority of priority-setting schemes, the process outlined by McNeely et al. (1990) does non rely exclusively or principally on biological information. In a sense, the process folds in social and economic considerations than usually are only considered after biologically determined priorities have been identified. The advantage no this approach is that biodiversity can be explicitly linked no other natural resources and the values society attributes no them. The disadvantage is that many important elements of biodiversity may get lost in the process of selecting priority ESAs if non-biological factors are heavily weighted; there is no guarantee that biodiversity will be broadly represented in the final network of ESAs.

Although the ESA approach described in McNeely et al. (1990) is a conceptual one, the suggested criteria could be used by conservationists who struggle no reconcile biodiversity maintenance goals with human needs in an increasingly crowded world.

Endnotes

1. Over 150 countries had signed the Convention on Biological Diversity by the June 30, 1993 deadline. By June 21, 1995, 118 countries had both signed and ratified the Convention.

2. Higher plants include flowering plants (angiosperms), and conifers, cycads and tree ferns (gymnosperms). Ferns are sometimes included, but mosses (bryophytes), lichens, and algae are not.

3. Conservation International (CI), for example, considers the RAP program no be part of ins hierarchical approach no setting conservation priorities. CI's global priorities are based on "hotspots," "megadiversity countries" and major tropical wilderness areas, while expert workshops are used to identify priorities an the regional level. However, since only limited sites within Conservation International's global priority areas have been inventoried, RAP was devised to provide a "first-cut" assessment of biological value in little known areas. This information can then be used no provide a more informed basis for conducting expert work-shops no identify specific priorities within a "hotspots" region.

4. Ted Parker (an ornithologist), Al Gentry (a botanist an the Missouri Botanical Gardens), and several others were killed in a plane crash while conducting a RAP in Ecuador in August 1993.

5. Endemism is usually defined according no political rather than biological boundaries. For example, species listed as endemic to large countries such as Brazil or Russia may have geographic ranges of several hundred thousand square kilometers. They may be endemic no those countries, bun they do not necessarily have highly restricted geographic ranges, which Bibby et al. (1992) and others have used no define endemic species.

6. The Udvardy (1975) system classifies the world's ecosystems into a hierarchical set of realms and provinces that are defined on the basis of shared groups of species.

7. Bibby et al. (1992) base this percentage on the occurrence of species classified as "threatened" or "near-threatened" by Collar and Andrew (1988).

8. The biological importance classification is determined by the species no area relationship (# species / 1 ,000 km2) of the EBAs (see Reid and Miller, 1989 for discussion on using species-area curves for ranking richness). Thus, those areas with twice as many birds as expected are classified as very important (3), those with less than the expected number are classified as least important (1), and those with approximately the expected number are classified as of importance (2). Bibby et al. (1992) adjusted this basic classification no account for taxonomic uniqueness of bird species found in an area - the classification was raised by one class for an EBA if in had an unusual taxonomic score (only 17 areas benefited from this analysis). Finally, a tentative scoring system was used no classify the EBAs by the level of endemism found in other taxonomic groups - an EBA's level is revised upward if the score for endemism in other taxonomic groups is high. In the final analysis, 89 EBAs are ranked high (3) for their biological importance, 68 are ranked moderate (2), and 64 areas are ranked low (1).

9. In terms of threat, the basic score is determined by the prevalence of "threatened" species in an endemic bird area. A score range of one to three is used. Then, the EBAs are scored on the basis of their protected areas coverage ranging from those with less than 5 percent protected (3) to those that are more than 20 percent protected (1). The overall threat classification of an EBA is lowered by one class if in has more than 20 percent of ins area protected. This results in 61 EBAs classified as highly threatened, 99 as moderately threatened, and 61 as facing a low threat level.

10. In taxonomy, a phylum comes just below kingdom, but above class, order, family, genus, and species.

11. Upwelling areas support one third of the world's fish catch despite covering only 0.1 percent of the ocean's surface area (Norse, 1993).

12. These include the 17th General Assembly of the IUCN (1988) and the 4th World Wilderness Congress (1987).

13. The Central American Commission on Environment and Development (CCAD) was established in 1991 by the presidents of five Central American countries (Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica). CCAD has become a focal point for coordinating resource conservation and sustainable development policies and regional conservation projects. For example, the CCAD is now in the process of developing a regional "biodiversity conservation corridor" connecting protected areas in the region with a north-south natural habitat corridor from Mexico to Colombia. And one of the most promising Tropical Forestry Action Plan initiatives has been developed by the CCAD (Sizer, 1994).

14. For example, the Musmelid and Vivetrid Action Plan (for weasels, civens, mongooses, and their relatives) starts with ranking the overall conservation needs within the 123 known species (Schreiber et al., 1989). In then generates conservation priority ranks for those species that are most in need of surveys and field studies, identifies geographic areas of the world important for musnelid and viverrid diversity, and determines which existing or proposed protected areas are most important for endangered species within the two families.

15. MacKinnon and MacKinnon (1986a) divided the four subregions into biounits on the basis of levels of similarity and distinctiveness for plants, mammals, birds, and reptiles. The resulting "biounits" are basically a modified set of the units defined by Udvardy (1975). See MacKinnon and MacKinnon (1986a), pp. 31-39, for an explanation of how biounins were derived.

16. The score (P) is expressed as a percentage of the total area of the unit:
(sum of c) h a
P = S x H x A x 100
where c = the conservation contribution of individual protected areas, S = tonal size of the unit, h = the number of distinct habitat types included in the protected areas system, H = the total number of distinct habitat types recognized in the whole unit, a = the alninudinal range covered by the protected areas system, and A = the total altitudinal range of the biogeographic unit.

17. This score is based on the amount of natural habitat remaining, the current extent of protected areas as a percent of land area, and the potential "scope" or opportunities for establishing new protected areas.

18. This score is determined by the formula:
Total species of unit e(2)
mean no. of units per species + e(1) + 2
where e(1) = the number of endemics no a unit and e(2) = the number of near endemics shared with only one other unit.

19. Dinerstein and Wikramanayake (1993) state that benefits provided an this level might include adequate protection of watersheds, agricultural productivity, stability of local climate, fuelwood supplies, a sustainably harvested local timber industry, and conservation of some fraction of biodiversity falling outside of protected areas.

20. This provides little comfort, however, no many conservationists in Latin America who fear that the results of such a study will amount to de facto priorities that have non been adequately informed by regional and local expert knowledge and data. In response no this criticism, the Dinerstein et al. (1995) report was circulated within the region for review and comment.

21. More refined biological information might include zones of endemism, species richness, beta diversity gradients, migration corridors, critical resource or breeding habitats and other information that resides in national conservation strategies, regional analysis, and species-based studies. Dinerstein et al. (1995) suggest that although social, economic, and institutional factors (e.g., macroeconomic policies, debt burdens, land tenure, demographic patterns, capacity of local non-governmental and governmental institutions, etc.) are critical no the success of conservation efforts, the analysis of these factors is best done after landscape-level biological assessments. Population density and development plans, however, are used as modifiers for rates of habitat loss and the long-term effectiveness of protected areas.

22. However, this step added a sixth category for areas ranked as "5" by more than one spe-cialist group. An the same time, the two lowest rankings were combined so than the final map priorities were again on a 1 to 5 scale.

23. The taxonomic groups included plants, birds, mammals, reptiles / amphibians, insects, and aquatic biota.

24. The Biodiversity Support Program is a consortium of World Wildlife Fund, World Resources Institute, and The Nature Conservancy. BSP is funded by USAID through a cooperative agreement with the World Wildlife Fund.

25. An important assumption of the exercise was that the list of priority areas will be used no guide some but not all of the agency's biodiversity conservation funds. USAID acknowledges that biodiversity conservation will be important no sustainable development in all countries and in will support conservation efforts requested by host country governments as part of its individual country mission programs.

26. Because many of the RHUs cover large areas, in proved essential to conduct the conservation status assessment an the ecoregion level first to ensure transparency of results and greater objectivity. Conservationists interested in how a RHUs conservation status was determined can refer to the status assigned no the ecoregions that compose that RHU and the values assigned no the landscape-level variables and threat indicators for each ecoregion.

27. This is not always true. Some international conservation NGOs set priorities on a global or regional basis, usually informed by field staff, to determine where they will develop or fund projects on the ground.

28. Other than outright purchase, TNC may negotiate with private land owners no purchase conservation easements, or work with natural resource management agencies no designate special management areas on public lands where rare or endangered species are found.

29. Even The Nature Conservancy, with a 1994 annual budget of over $250 million, has limits on how much real estate in can purchase, especially in such ecologically diverse states (with high land values) as Florida and California.

30. Supported by the World Bank and other multilateral and bilateral donors.

31. Together with several Papua New Guinean institutions, Conservation International is planning a Rapid Assessment Program expedition to survey several of these unknown areas.

32. Modifying the results based on expert knowledge and experience may be an even more useful complementary strategy.

33. In is not entirely clear what "importance no the community" means. Plants can be important for a wide range of uses or beliefs (e.g., food, medicine, livestock forage, spiritual beliefs, aesthetic reasons, building materials, etc.).

34. High grading refers no the selective logging of the straightest defect-free trees on a short rotation interval.

Chapter Four: Principles For Setting Biodiveristy Conservation Priorities

Priorities provide the critical link between Conservation goals and objectives and on-the-ground actions that make biodiversity conservation a reality, not merely an abstract idea. Therefore, a set of geographic priorities should be viewed as a means, or a tool, for effective implementation of conservation objectives, not as an end in itself. Relationships between objectives, priorities, and the implementation of conservation actions must be considered. This chapter presents ten principles to be considered in choosing a method for setting conservation priorities (see Box 4.1). They were developed to build on the strengths and limitations of the approaches reviewed in Chapter III. These principles can help make any process to set biodiversity conservation priorities more effective.

Setting geographic conservation priorities is usually thought of as a quantitative, largely objective, and mostly biologically based technical activity. Indeed, it is difficult to envision arriving at a set of priorities that did not emphasize biological characteristics. At the same time, experience shows social, political, and economic considerations often are combined with quantitatively based and objectively derived conservation priorities when it comes to directing investments. Holistic approaches, therefore, call for making the non-biological criteria more explicit.

Ecologists and other biologists typically involved in setting conservation priorities often fail to realize a simple fact of life that helps to explain why conservation priorities are so often ignored. In most circumstances, effective conservation is ultimately, for better or worse, a political process whose chances of success are improved through wider participation. Broader participation (e.g., policy makers, representatives of local communities and land owners) can strengthen the linkage between priorities and on-the-ground actions, without distorting the technical integrity of a process to establish biodiversity conservation priorities.

Several of the principles discussed in this chapter, therefore, address the political need for participation and consultation in the priority-setting process. Others address largely technical considerations, and one or two might simply go under the heading of "common sense."

Box 4.1 Principles For Setting Biodiversity Conservation Priorities

1. Link biodiversiry priorities with clear conservation goals and objectives.

2. Use a replicable, transparent process to develop credible priorities.

3. Clarify local, national, and global biodiversity conservation priorities.

4. Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of relevant priority-setting schemes.

5. Make full use of relevant and available information.

6. Involve those responsible for implementing conservation actions.

7. Involve communities and other stakeholders.

8. Consider how priorities fit in a policy and institutional context.

9. Link conservation priorities to other planning and policy processes.

10. Establish a process to revise or reassess priorities at regular intervals.

1. Link Biodiversity Priorities With Clear Conservation Goals And Objectives

A strategy that defines basic biodiversity conservation problems and sets out a range of appropriate conservation objectives should be linked to identifying conservation priorities for ecosystems, habitats, and species. This step, however, is often overlooked or left unstated. Yet without this step, conservation priorities are likely to have little meaning for anyone but those who made the determination. All priorities are determined with some objective in mind - the key is to ensure that the objective is explicit and can be understood by others. Moreover, the strategy and objectives that priorities are intended to support will help to determine which priority-setting schemes are most appropriate.

Is the goal of conservation efforts to conserve representative examples of all habitat types within a country? Or is it to conserve the biodiversity found only in forest or marine ecosystems? Other typical conservation objectives might be to conserve biodiversity associated with agricultural landscapes, or to protect wild relatives of agricultural and other economically important plants. Perhaps the objective is to protect rare and endangered species wherever they are found, or maybe it is to protect vital migratory bird habitats. In many cases, conservation objectives are broadly defined as the protection of all species and ecosystems found within a given region or country. Ideally, the objective should indicate whether the intent is to maintain current levels of biodiversity, to increase biodiversity, or to minimize the loss of biodiversity (and thus protect evolutionary processes that maintain biodiversity), and it should specify what areas or taxonomic groups are involved.

The Indonesia Biodiversity Action Plan outlines several major objectives for which it seeks to develop or refine conservation priorities (Indonesia Ministry for Population and Environment, 1991). For example, one of these objectives is to "establish an integrated protected areas system covering all major terrestrial habitats covering at least 10 percent of the country's land area." Another is to ensure that biodiversity losses are minimized in unprotected production forests. In terms of marine conservation, the action plan identifies the expansion of the marine protected area system to 20 million hectares adequately representing all seven major biogeographic regions in the country.1

Once conservation objectives have been established, the next step is to identify which ecosystems, habitats, and species must be protected / conserved if the objective(s) is to be met. Whether the objective is to maintain the broad diversity of life associated with natural habitats, or to maintain the diversity of agricultural and semi-domesticated species and varieties, no set of priorities makes much sense without a link to clearly defined objectives.

2. Use A Replicable, Transparent Process To Develop Credible Priorities

Using a transparent, replicable approach is important because it lends credibility to the priorities selected, minimizes the role of prejudice, clarifies assumptions and value judgments, and reveals what was and what was not evaluated. Too often, governments, donors, and the public are confronted with lists of conservation priorities that are accompanied by little or no description of the criteria, methods, and information used in their identification. Without this information, it is quite possible to conclude that the priorities reflect nothing more than the personal predilections or intuitions of those who identified them.

Although setting conservation priorities is a political process, clear justifications for pro-posed priorities can help to keep discussion focused on the merits of the identified priorities - and lessen subjective and political interpretations of them. Explicitness is always a virtue in setting priorities, and will save time, effort, and mistaken speculation when priorities are subsequently revised or reviewed by others.

3. Clarify Local, National And Global Biodiversity Conservation Priorities

The conservation of biodiversity is a common concern of all humanity, but this shared concern does not translate into shared priorities or opportunities. Within nations, local needs for food, fuel, and shelter may conflict with the national government's plans to use biodiversity to fuel national development priorities. Among nations, the threats to biodiversity differ, as does the technological or economic capacity needed to respond to them. The nature lover in the United States or Europe generally holds a very different view of the elephant than does the African farmer or the Sumatran palm oil entrepreneur. And, of course, the European nature lover's view of elephants would probably be similar to the African's perspective - perhaps even less tolerant - if elephants were trampling their garden.

Perceptions of biodiversity can vary substantially when viewed from global, national, or local perspectives. As a result, conservation priorities influenced by one perspective may not coincide with those selected from another perspective, and they may actually conflict. Viewing biodiversity through global, national, and local "lenses" can help to sort out differing perspectives and priorities. The matrix in Table 4.1 provides examples of how perspectives and priorities might look from each of these vantage points.

Globally, the first priority for many conservationists is to maintain the greatest global diversity of species and ecosystems; they focus their attention on species-rich countries or regions where extinction threats are high. Attempts to identify "hotspots", megadiversity countries, and Vavilov centers of agricultural diversity2 are examples of biodiversity priorities viewed through a global lens (McNeely et al., 1990).

Nationally, choices and priorities in con-serving biodiversity reflect each country's development needs. A nation in northern Europe may rank low on a list of international biodiversity conservation priorities because it has relatively few species and ecosystems, but from a national perspective conserving them should be a top priority. By the same token, conserving wheat varieties may be the global concern for genetic resource conservation in Ethiopia, but conserving sorghum is likely to be a higher Ethiopian priority because sorghum is an important staple food in that country (WRI, 1992b).

Table 4.1 Three Views Of Biodiversity Conservation

 
Global
National
Local
Priority Save all ecosystems, species and genes Save ecosystems, species and genes useful nationally Save species and habitats that meet local resource needs
Guiding Concern Integrational equity
Ethics 		Sustainable development
Ethics / utilitarian		 Direct benefits
Utilitarian / cultural
Ownership Common heritage Sovereign resources Local resources
Priority Sites Endemic Bird Areas
Hotspots
Representation of all major ecosystems in global network of protected areas 		National hotspots and regions serving multiple needs. Sources of cultural / material benefits
Strategies For Action Debt leverage
Development assistance
Conditionality 		Debt forgiveness
Technology transfer
Biotechnology
National planning		 Regaining resource control
Participation in planning

Locally, conservation priorities shift to species and habitats that directly meet material, cultural, and aesthetic needs. The people who are today most directly concerned with conserving biodiversity are the forest dwellers, farmers, trappers, fishermen, and others who rely directly on biological resources for their livelihood. Each day, they manage the diversity of life to meet their perceived needs without unnecessarily diminishing the environment's capacity to meet their needs on the next day. Reflecting their own livelihood, their priorities may sometimes differ from those of others concerned with biodiversity conservation. From a local standpoint, it may be entirely rational to remove certain species or modify habitats that directly threaten human welfare. Local people may attempt to eliminate what to them are threatening aspects of biodiversity - such as lions, wolves, or other predators - just as society at large tries to eliminate smallpox or AIDS.3 Similarly, crops of little national significance may be vital to local communities or serve important cultural roles. From an ethical standpoint, each individual in the global human community has the right to try to meet his or her own daily needs.

Efforts to influence national and local action based on globally perceived conservation needs are destined to fail if they run counter to local needs. They will fail because national and local perceptions are treated as obstacles instead of legitimate points of view. Enduring solutions demand that a partnership be reached among all interested parties. Cooperation among countries is needed to lead and orient biodiversity conservation and to set international priorities for action. But these priorities should not be requirements for national and local action, but rather one component of a global partnership. To achieve conservation objectives that have higher international than national or local priority, international institutions should provide acceptable incentives through funding or technical assistance, or should help broker debt relief and technology transfer. Alternatively, international institutions might agree to support a country's national biodiversity priorities in exchange for national support of international priorities found within its borders.

4. Evaluate The Advantages And Disadvantages Of Relevant Priority-Setting Schemes

Governments, donors, and conservation agencies are frequently interested in priorities because they seem to simplify difficult choices about which they may know little. However, they should be wary of claims that any single scheme can optimally protect everything that is important about biodiversity. Such a scheme does not exist and never will.

Biodiversity can be thought of as a vast collection of many elements - genes, species, and ecosystems - differentially distributed in space. Any priority-setting scheme will only identify some subset of these biodiversity elements and will usually consider only some portion of the biosphere's total space. How large or how small that subset is, and what space it covers, depends primarily on how the conservation objective is defined. For example, the approach developed by Birdlife International (Bibby et al., 1992) identifies priority areas for bird conservation by analyzing the geographic ranges of endemic bird species. It does not identify conservation priori-ties for migratory birds, nor does it include domesticated fowl. Likewise, a priority-setting scheme for identifying the most important forest elephant habitats will not cover grasslands and savannas, and may or may not protect gorillas. Trade-offs should be consciously made and decisions should be informed by consideration of the costs and benefits of the chosen scheme.

5. Make Full Use Of Relevant And Available Information

Priorities are only as good as the information evaluated in the priority-setting process. Lack of information should seldom be used as an excuse not to set priorities - all available information should be fully utilized. Moreover, because of the rapidity with which natural habitats are being destroyed and species endangered, it is important to seek the most recent data.

Often, information relevant to setting priorities is widely dispersed and unpublished. Surveys of existing government institutions can lead to a basic information base for priority-setting at the national level (forest inventories; land-use, ownership, and trade statistics; natural resources consumption patterns, population growth rates, etc.). Especially for local-level assessments, non-governmental organizations will sometimes be the best sources of information. Governments rarely maintain detailed and current information at the subnational level, but local groups might. At the international level, the World Conservation Monitoring Center, UNEP's Global Environmental Monitoring Service, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, and international-ly recognized scientific institutions (such as the New York Botanical Garden, the Missouri Botanical Garden, the Royal Botanic Garden / Kew, Leiden, etc.) can provide a useful entry point. A more detailed discussion on information useful to priority-setting can found in Reid et al. (1993).

A balanced picture of conservation priori-ties depends on information concerning a number of subjects. In addition to the obvious information on species and habitats, information on local human communities can be very useful for integrating relevant social and economic issues into the priority-setting process. This information might include knowledge about institutions and their decision-making processes, their expressed interest in conservation, natural resource and land-use patterns, population trends, employment and livelihood patterns, land and resource tenure, and local development projects. Even more useful is to identify the stakeholders that influence the factors that could determine the success of conservation efforts. For example, who depends on wood from certain types of biologically valuable woodlands - are they urban charcoal buyers or international corporations with timber concessions? Such information may not be readily apparent, since many stakeholders may not be visible in, or even part of, local communities. The kind of information needed will depend on the choice of priority-setting methodology or scheme, as well as an assessment of which are most critical to the success of the stated conservation objective.

Finally, it is important to be aware of the quality and limitations of data used in the priority-setting process. An effort to assess data quality is time well spent. Knowing where the data came from, when and how they were collected, and whether they were subject to expert review and ground-truthing is essential to any credible scientific effort. Such information helps priority setters and users to know where weak or incomplete data may affect results and how results should be interpreted in the light of data quality; it also indicates where better data are needed.

6. Involve Those Responsible For Implementing Conservation Actions

Biodiversity is often thought of as a common heritage resource.4 Who will be responsible for taking action once the biodiversity conservation priorities have been identified? For any particular subset of biodiversity in any particular place, certain institutions will have responsibilities, interests, and capacities for taking actions required to conserve priority species or ecosystems. For example, marine ecosystem conservation priorities may require the involvement of one or more agencies that are not typically involved in conservation efforts but have responsibilities over the use and management of the resource; in addition, the participation of organizations representing coastal communities in both planning and implementation may be critical for success.

As soon as possible, those involved in the priority-setting process should identify other groups and organizations (stakeholders) with an interest in the outcome of the effort, and identify which organizations will play a decisive role in implementing conservation actions within the priority area. Such organizations might include government agencies (such as the national parks and protected areas agency or the ministry of forestry or fisheries), communities, and private land owners in the affected areas. It is possible that sound, technically derived priorities can be identified without the involvement of these institutions, but it is unlikely that priority conservation actions will be effectively implemented with-out their cooperation. Moreover, in many cases, these institutions will have valuable information and experience for the priority-setting effort. When, and to what extent, to involve these institutions will depend on the situation, but at a minimum, they should be informed early on that the priority-setting effort is taking place.

7. Involve Communities And Other Stakeholders

With few exceptions, the areas identified as conservation priorities will contain people and communities. Actions to conserve biodiversity can have significant impacts on those who live in the affected communities. For both biodiversity and the people who live with it, local participation in the priority-setting process can have benefits that endure long after the priorities are identified. Ideally, those coordinating the priority-setting process should consult with communities, landowners, and local residents because they have a tremendous influence over and knowledge of land-use activities. They also often have considerable knowledge about species and ecosystems found in their vicinity. The conflict between local needs and sentiments and outsiders' conservation objectives is a universal problem that should be addressed from the earliest stages of conservation planning. Setting priorities offers outside conservationists and local people and interests (including local conservationists) one of the first opportunities to build respect, trust, and collaboration. Imposing conservation actions in priority areas without local participation is a virtual guarantee that conflicts will develop, perhaps fatally weakening local support for biodiversity conservation efforts.

Like the previous principle, the timing and degree of local involvement will vary with the circumstances of the project. It is never too early to consider how local peoples whose lives depend on natural resources - including biodiversity - can be effectively involved in conservation planning and priority-setting.

8. Consider How Priorities Fit In A Policy And Institutional Context

Once a basic set of conservation priorities has been determined, it will usually be impossible to undertake actions in all areas simultaneously. Some priorities might be more important than others for a variety of reasons, including strictly biological / ecological considerations. Decision makers responsible for allocating resources must inevitably confront this issue. For this reason, priority-setters should be pre-pared to be involved in the policy process that transforms a set of systematically chosen and scientifically credible priorities into a series of decisions about where to spend money, how to allocate personnel, and what policies to revise. In most cases, these decisions are made by policy makers in the absence of scientifically-credible priorities. When this happens, proponents of a particular set of priorities have wasted their time and other's money by not working to keep bio-diversity conservation priorities on the policy agenda.

The ability of decision makers to take action is usually constrained by some factors, motivated by others. For example, uppermost in the minds of decision makers might be factors related to the existing capacity to take action, or perhaps the ability of a priority action to attract political support or to generate economic returns. Decision makers may well want to "over-lay" social, economic, or political factors that the priority-setting process did not consider. While many scientists may be adverse to being accomplices in the political process, they should con-sider the likely results if they do not remain involved. Whatever criteria are used to rank or reshuffle conservation priorities, it should be clearly explained why and how the basic set of conservation priorities has been ranked.

9. Link Conservation Priorities To Economic And Sectoral Planning And Policy Processes

Conservation priorities will be effective only when they are linked to economic and sectoral policy and planning processes that affect resource allocation, land use, and the consumption of natural resources. Conservation usually depends on the allocation of money, personnel, policy reforms, and land-use changes, and not simply on knowing which species and ecosystems are most important for a particular conservation objective. At all levels - local, national, and global - there are institutions, mechanisms, and planning processes that can significantly influence or directly take actions needed for the conservation of biodiversity priorities.

At the international level, the Global Environmental Facility administered by the World Bank, UNDP, and UNEP, and the recurrent policy revisions and program planning efforts at international conservation organizations and bilateral and multilateral development institutions provide opportunities for linking the assessment of conservation priorities to major policy processes and funding mechanisms.

At the national level, the development of National Conservation Strategies (NCS), National Environmental Action Plans (NEAPs), National Biodiversity Strategies, Tropical Forestry Action Plans (TFAPs), etc., provide opportunities to link conservation priorities with policy processes and funding mechanisms that could have significant impacts on biodiversity. National Biodiversity Strategies, as required of all countries that are party to the Convention on Biological Diversity, provide a timely opportunity to link biodiversity conservation priorities with an important national policy process in many countries.

Finally, at the provincial and local level, land-use planning, economic development strategies, and the preparation of zoning legislation and local regulations could be important ways to increase the influence of conservation priorities.

10. Establish A Process To Revise Or Reassess Priorities At Regular Intervals

New information on species and ecosystems is constantly being generated, and the threats to those resources also change with time - even very short periods of time. The values that humans attach to species and ecosystems change as well. With this in mind, conservation planners should establish a process for revising priorities on the basis of new information, new threats, or new or revised values. Priorities should never be viewed as static. Change is inevitable with conservation priorities, and conservation planners should be flexible enough to keep track of new information and to revise existing priorities on that basis. Any changes to the priorities should involve stakeholders in the decision-making process, and changes should be documented so that it is clear how and why the priorities changed.

One implication of revising and reassessing priorities is the universal need for better monitoring of biodiversity status and trends at all levels (genes to ecosystems) and scales (local to global). At the regional and global scales, and in most countries, no biodiversity monitoring exists, with the minor exception of monitoring some endangered species populations and trade levels under CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species).

Endnotes

1. The seven biogeographic regions include terrestrial areas and adjacent offshore areas.

2. "Vavilov centers" refer to restricted geographic areas where an unusually high diversity of crop species and their wild relatives are found. They are named after Nikolai Vavilov, a prominent Russian plant geneticist, who believed these centers are where crop species originated. Vavilov identified a number of these centers in Central Asia, China, and South and Central America.

3. Some might argue that in some places society at large is still preoccupied with eliminating predators. For example, the U.S. government still has a predator control program in parts of the western United States that is often criticized as unnecessary and out of touch with current knowledge about the role of predators (e.g., coyotes) in controlling species that are destructive for agriculture (e.g., various rodents).

4. As the debates over the Convention on Bio-logical Diversity illustrated, however, this view is being replaced by a more proprietary view as biodiversity is increasingly seen to have significant economic value. But this proprietary view is held mainly between national governments, not at the level of subnational or local institutions. This could change as the benefits from "biodiversity prospecting" grow and institutions (and individuals) seek to claim that value as their own.

Previous | Next