Download impact of hotspots - School

HOTSPOTS IN CONTEXT
The problem of stemming the extinction crisis can best be framed by a question: In
which areas would a given dollar contribute the most towards slowing the current
rate of extinction? To accomplish this we first need to understand species’
distributions. This requires that we measure endemism: the degree to which
species are found only in a given place. This can be thought of as a measure of
“irreplaceability”. Since endemic species cannot be found anywhere else, the area
where an endemic species lives is wholly irreplaceable. We also need to decide
which species we should consider. Practically, vascular plants and vertebrate
animals are the best candidates, because these are the only species for which we
currently have sufficient data. Whether the distributions of plants and vertebrates
are mirrored by terrestrial invertebrate species remains an open question, although
some evidence suggests that they may be. It is less likely that the distributions of
aquatic species will parallel these patterns, and so these represent an urgent
research priority.
Our ultimate goal is to keep nature intact, which means that we must stop
anthropogenic species extinctions. To approach this goal, we must slow the rate of
species extinction as much as possible with whatever conservation resources we
have at our disposal, which requires incorporating threats (or “vulnerability”) and
costs into priority setting. Generally, the more threatened an area is, the more it
will cost to conserve. However, because economic opportunity costs vary
dramatically, there do still exist areas of relatively low cost in all hotspots.
We face a paradox in determining how to incorporate threats, costs, and
opportunities into conservation priorities. Intuitively, we want to conserve the most
threatened areas first, but we also want to get the greatest return for our
conservation dollar. This paradox can best be resolved by identifying areas that
hold species found nowhere else and that are guaranteed to lose species if the
areas are not conserved. Among these, we rank our actions with the most
threatened biodiversity receiving the most urgent action. Wherever we have
choices we select opportunities for attending to areas that are the least expensive
to conserve. In effect, we need a dual conservation strategy that always prioritizes
endemic-rich areas and ensures that we protect the most threatened places, while
preemptively protecting equally unique places that are not yet under extreme
threat. Based on this theory, Conservation International uses a two-pronged
strategy for global conservation prioritization, simultaneously focusing on the
irreplaceable and threatened biodiversity hotspots and on the five high-biodiversity
wilderness areas, which are irreplaceable but still largely intact.
Hotspots are not the only system devised for assessing global conservation
priorities. BirdLife International, for instance, has identified 218 “Endemic Bird
Areas” (EBAs) each of which hold two or more bird species found nowhere else.
The World Wildlife Fund-U.S has derived a system called the “Global 200
Ecoregions”, the aim of which is to select priority Ecoregions for conservation
within each of 14 terrestrial, 3 freshwater, and 4 marine habitat types. They are
chosen for their species richness, endemism, taxonomic uniqueness, unusual
ecological or evolutionary phenomena, and global rarity. All hotspots contain at
least one Global 200 Ecoregion and all but three contain at least one EBA; 60
percent of Global 200 terrestrial Ecoregions and 78 percent of EBAs overlap with
hotspots.
© Piotr Naskrecki
The coconut crab (Birgus latro), which is the
largest terrestrial invertebrate in the world, is
thought to have migrated to distant islands by
floating on coconuts.
© Conservation International, photo by Russell
Mittermeier
All 71 species of chameleons in the
Madagascar and the Indian Ocean Islands
Hotspot are endemic, representing 44 percent
of the world's total.
HOTSPOTS IN CONTEXT | HOTSPOTS DEFINED | IMPACT OF HOTSPOTS |
HOTSPOTS REVISITED | KEY FINDINGS | HOTSPOTS IN PERIL | CONSERVATION
RESPONSES
IMPACT OF HOTSPOTS
The impact of the hotspots concept has been astounding. Searching the Web yields numerous scientific papers that use
the word “hotspot” to refer to biodiversity conservation, and analyzing these citations over time reveals a clear pattern of
increase (see chart below). More importantly, the impact of the hotspots concept in terms of investment in conservation
has been dramatic. CI adopted hotspots as its central strategy in 1989, and in the same year, the John D. and Catherine
T. MacArthur Foundation implemented the hotspots as its primary global investment strategy.
In 2000, the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility joined CI in establishing the Critical Ecosystem Partnership
Fund. The MacArthur Foundation became a partner in 2001 and the Japanese Government joined the partnership in
2002, bringing the total investment to $125 million. The $100-million CI Global Conservation Fund, supported by the
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, also uses hotspots (along with high-biodiversity wilderness areas) to guide its
investments. In total, more than $750 million is estimated to have been devoted to saving hotspots over the last 15
years, perhaps the largest financial investment in any single conservation strategy. The hotspots concept has also
entered the mainstream as a tool for private sector businesses. For example, Office Depot explicitly gives preference to
pulp and paper vendors that protect natural forests in the biodiversity hotspots and high-biodiversity wilderness areas.
Biodiversity conservation efforts in hotspots often require the ability to withstand and adapt to a rapidly changing sociopolitical climate. While it can be tempting to write off high-risk areas, experience demonstrates both the importance and
the potential for maintaining a conservation presence in hotspots that are undergoing political difficulties. Madagascar,
one of the most important hotspots, was almost abandoned by conservationists in the early to mid-1980s, and again
during 2001 and 2002. Fortunately, several conservation (CI, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Wildlife Conservation
Society) and funding (USAID and the World Bank) organizations persevered with their investments in the country. This
resolve paved the way for the new President, Marc Ravalomanana, to give conservation a high priority in his
government’s development plans. In September 2003, President Ravalomanana committed to tripling the country’s
protected area network over the next five years, and just five months after this pledge he announced the establishment
of 14 new protected areas, increasing coverage by 65 percent. This provides an excellent illustration of the conservation
return on investment produced by the hotspots strategy.
CONSERVATION RESPONSE
As a global prioritization system, hotspots are extremely important in informing the flow of conservation resources.
However, they do not provide guidance as to how conservation should be focused on the ground. This requires a
distinct, regional-scale planning process. At Conservation International (CI), this planning process is known as
establishing targets for conservation outcomes. We define conservation outcomes at three scales of ecological
organization: threatened species (where we strive for “Extinctions Avoided” outcomes); Key Biodiversity Areas (where
the targets are “Areas Protected” outcomes); and landscapes (where we aim for “Corridors Consolidated” outcomes).
Targets for Conservation on the Ground
Protected Area Coverage in the Hotspots
CI Efforts in the Hotspots
Some species are threatened by species-specific threats such as hunting, direct exploitation, disease, and predation by
invasive species. Conservation responses to these threats will have to be implemented one species at a time, and will
likely involve incentives and legislation to reduce hunting pressure, control of invasive species, and captive breeding,
propagation, and re-introduction. However, such intensive conservation tactics are expensive, and so it will not be
possible to conserve all threatened species one-by-one.
Fortunately, however, we do not have to. Most threatened species are primarily threatened by the degradation and
destruction of the places where they live. The primary response to the biodiversity crisis must therefore be the
establishment and effective management of protected areas. Conservation action in the coming years must focus on
ensuring the long-term persistence of these protected areas, while at the same time adding new parks and reserves in
the highest priority portions of unprotected intact habitat.
Establishing protected areas that remain resilient is a further challenge. Climate change forces species to shift their
ranges according to alteration in their preferred habitat conditions, but this movement may be difficult or impossible in
heavily fragmented landscapes. Further, the rate and magnitude of current climate change is such that many species
may be unable to disperse quickly enough. Protection is therefore also needed where species will be in the future. We
must also focus on restoring degraded habitats to provide increased connectivity (to decrease fragmentation).
Conservation success depends on working effectively with people. Many residents of the Earth’s most biodiverse places
are extremely poor, living on less than a dollar a day. In addition, a large portion of the sites with remaining biodiversity
is made up of traditional lands of indigenous peoples. Living resources have a unique place in indigenous cultures, and
are also singular from a biological conservation perspective. Therefore, species loss represents not only a loss of global
biodiversity, but of cultural heritage as well. In short, many people and many species share a common vulnerability and
struggle for survival.
How much might it cost to complete the protected area system in order to conserve biodiversity across the hotspots?
Recent estimates have suggested that investment of as much as US$160 million per hotspot per year may be necessary
to cover management of unprotected key biodiversity areas and to close shortfalls in existing protected area budgets.
However, variation among the funding needs for hotspots is considerable, as much as 100 times greater in higher than
in lower income countries.
While conservation in the hotspots is complex, expensive, and difficult, it is not optional. We utterly reject a triage
approach of abandoning the hotspots to focus on less biodiverse, less threatened areas, where conservation is
comparatively easier. Instead, we see the successes of the last fifteen years as a rallying cry for a tenfold increase in
conservation attention. Nothing less than the diversity of life on Earth hangs in the balance.