Commentary

Andrés Moreira-Muñoz

Institute of Geography, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Kochstr. 4/4, 91054 Erlangen, Germany. Member of the Society for Conservation GIS (www.scgis.org). e-mail: amoreira@geographie.uni-erlangen.de

Conservation in a changing world: biodiversity hotspots and the distracting paradigm

A recent report from the Fifth World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa, shows that the global network of protected areas covers now 11.5% of the earth’s surface (Rodrigues et al. 2004). This percentage surpasses the 10% target proposed in the last World Parks Congress held in Caracas a decade ago (McNelly 1993). Finally a main conservation goal is reached! But… does it means the global biodiversity crisis reaches an end, returning the hope for the long term maintenance of the world’s biota? The answer is a rotund “not at all”: Rodrigues et al. (2004) show that the global network is still far from representing most species of terrestrial mammals, birds, turtles, and amphibians, some of the best known biological groups. Not even mentioning other known groups like plants and huge still less known groups like insects and fungi... and all the “invisible life” (Nee 2004). Were the precedent estimates ten years ago too low? What is then the “optimal” percentage with which most of the world’s biota will be protected? I won’t risk an answer, I rather believe rather that this percentage doesn’t exist, it is an illusion, a chimera supported by an out-toof date conservation paradigm.

Protected areas and hotspots

I refer to to the current conservation paradigm and its central approach, the “hotspots approach”, which has turned out during the last decade as the most popular approach for driving biodiversity conservation decisions (Myers et al. 2000). This approach makes the assumption that protected areas are the best solution for biodiversity conservation at the global scaleeverywhere, and therefore worksstudies steadily improvinge the methods and techniques to identify the areas at the global scale in which more species can be protected, optimising the money inverted. Protected areas have certainly played the most important role in biodiversity conservation since the first National Park was created in 1872 (Yellowstone NP), but much conservation action and science have been developed since then. Why has got this approach become so popular between conservation agencies? Because it is the simplest approach that permits worldwide comparisons and allows therefore allows the decision making at the global scale. Its power lies in its simple assessment method: put together species geographic ranges (better endemics) from the worlds’ best known biological groups and look where they concentrate. Add information about the remaining natural vegetation in these territories... and voilá!, you will have your hotspot on the map. But this approach suffers methodological as well as theoretical weaknesses, setting aside many other conservation approaches.

Hotspots, black holes of taxonomic information?

Methodologically the application of the hotspots approach is very controversial (Harcourt 2000, Brummit and Lughadha 2003). Why? It is of course possibley to overlay on the global map the distribution of already known species on the global map, and get the red polygons on the mapit... But independent of what biological group we take, red hotspots on the map will continue being “black holes” of taxonomic information: from the 4 million to 100 million calculated species living on earth, we only know only a 1.7 million! Taking only just one example from México, a megadiversity country: it will take at least 60 years to complete the floral national checklist (Magaña and Villaseñor 2002). And if we want to be really consequent with the approach, we need to take account of all the groups: insects, fungi, bacteria... yes, even the invisible live should come to play (Nee 2004). The issue is extremely challenging, since the picture we take today can change tomorrow, because we are trying to know the “species”, a momentum in the dynamic line of evolution. But some speciation processes can be occurring in front from of our eyes, beyond our comprehension capacity. And we are speaking here only about completing a checklist, not even thinking about getting the minimal information to assess the degree of threat for each species... but how difficult can beis it to assess the species when we are only beginning to know them! The problem is getting complex, since taxonomists are also an “endangered species”: they suffer a worldwide decline, are seen as “postage-stamp collectors” and published their monographs in journals with a relatively low Impact Factor. Fortunately, a new taxonomy arises, integrating the traditional morphological approach with the new molecular techniques, showing at least some “light after the dark” (Boero 2001). But taxonomists are already very few to complete the world species checklist, a challenge tooktackled by the “All Species Foundation” (www.all-species.org). And when we finally get the global species checklist (in only 25 years?), will it be the time of discovering the real hottest hotspots?

The hot against the cold

In spite of the controversial hotspots approach is controversial the basic concept still appears compelling: hotspots are a way of directing conservation efforts towards the most effective actions at the global scale. But Kareiva and Marvier (2003) very wellvividly express the weakness of setting the conservation goal exclusively to protect the largest possible number of species in the smallest possible area. Broader range of objectives are set to the side, such as

· maintaining functioning ecosystems around the world,

· protect the diversity of lineages for future evolutionary breakthroughs,

· preserving landscapes for recreation and education,

· protecting spaces for the “ecosystem services” nature provides at all scales.

Hotspot-based conservation strategies would not automatically take these objectives into account, on the contrary, many important places on earth will seesuffer from diminished its conservation efforts only because they can be better recognized as “coldspots”. Kareiva and Marvier (2003) give enough examples why a “coldspot” could be as good as a hotspot for directing conservation action. The conservation of a threatened species of a unique genera or family can be crucial for phylogenetic diversity. This can be exemplified well if we have to choose whether to protect in an equivalent area, the only oneunique species of the genus Zephyra in the margin of the Atacama desert, againstor 30 species of the almost 3.000 Ecuadorian orchids… Or if we have to decide whether to conserve the only one species of Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus) againstinstead of the high number of American rodents… As Kareiva and Marvier (2003) strongly assert: “This leaves scientifically minded conservationists with the unanswered question: What then should we do?”

Setting the priorities… and the limits?

In the last decade an enormous variety of methods and computer algorithms for the definition of priority areas at different scales have been developed (Csuti et al. 1997). Priority areas for conservation are also identified in many countries at the national level (Muñoz-Schick et al. 1996, Rodriguez and Young 2000). All these efforts generates maps that can be useful for decision making and priority setting. On the global scale, important conservation investments have been directed to applying this approach (Myers and Mittermeier 2003). But we know that maps are a synoptic view of the reality, an abstraction, data synthesis and generalisation. Maps shows limits, and limits are usually static lines, and we know now that ecosystems are constantly changing at every scale. and we Therefore we must develop methods to “put the processes on the map” (Balmford et al. 1998) adaptive planning and management systems (Mace???). New approaches begin to recognise the inconsistency of limits, focusing on biogeographic ecotones as conservation targets (Araújo 2002, Spector 2002). Many species live now on the edge of their historical range (Channel and Lomolino 2000) and others are expected to change their geographic range dramatically due to climate change, getting rapidly under threat (Thomas 2004). Other species like leatherback turtles (Ferraroli et. al 2004, Hays et al. 2004) have such a big geographic range due to their migration necessities, that they move freely from one hotspot to the next, crossing enormous unsure fishery arenas…

But there are not only species there, “...From this perspective we will view an ecosystem not as an aggregation of species, but as a complex web of dynamic interrelationships [...] For too long we have accepted without question a paradigm that is proving a hindrance to our ability to conserve the biodiversity of the Earth. It is not contributing to our success now, and it will become even less useful over the long run.” (Jope 1994). Der letzte Absatz ist etwas zusammenhangslos!

Conservation action v/s conservation science

The impact of computational site-selection tools in applied conservation planning have been minimal, revealing big gaps between theory and practice in reserve design (Prendergast et al. 1999, Cabeza and Moilanen 2001). But cConservation practice usually surpasses conservation science, applying a diversity of methods and techniques to stop ecosystems diminish and damage. will continue acting, anteceding ???? was willst Du sagen? the theory. Salawfsky et al. (2002) proposed at least 20 approaches complementary to the protected areas approach, in a context of a long term biodiversity conservation-practice program.

Community-based conservation has been very controversial but itnevertheless shows anyway good examples of success (Peres and Zimmermann 2001), related to three conceptual shifts in applied ecology: a shift from reductionism to a systemic view of the world; a shift to include humans in the ecosystems research; and a shift from an expert-based approach to participatory conservation and management (Berkes 2004).These shifts show a changing conservation paradigm, to the development of new applied approaches, like “adaptive co-management”, defined as a process by which institutional arrangements and ecological knowledge are tested and revised in an ongoing process of “trial-and-error”. The main thingcentral idea in of this process is that decisions cannot be imposed from the top down, and local communities are not seen as one just one stakeholder more, but as the most powerful force driving local and regional improves in conservation. Thisese is shown by the high presence of communities and indigenous people in the Fifth World Parks Congress (Brosius 2004). Theis approach is hardly bounded to grass-roots efforts, thatbut and in many cases shows muchmany more effective results than the top-down programme. As Chapela (2000) puts it, “The fine-scale management cannot be done by remote control from the boardrooms of the World Bank”. (Chapela 2000).

A paradigm shifts, a new one arises ?

The biodiversity crisis is not a problem for conservation agencies, it is a concern for the global society, for the poorest and the richest, the hottest and the coldest. Sustainable use of resources, less consumerism, energy saving, alternative economies, political agreements, frontiers peace, social equality and solidarity, are all challenges that can not anymore been evaluated apart from the global conservation urgencies any longer. The most effective argument that human activities should safeguard biodiversity is the need to secure the basic ecosystem services dependent on that diversity: production of plant biomass, retention of nutrients, resistance to drought and availability of fresh water, pollination of crops, and, just as important, opportunities tofor humans to recreate, to learn from and to enjoy natural landscapes. This is not an easy argument to tell to heavily consuming populations in industrialized countries or to impoverished, marginalized populations in developing countries (Novacek and Cleland 2001). But the argument, nonetheless, must be spread nonetheless, through demonstration of the services the natural world provide. Indicators of sustainability have been applied at different spatial scales, recognizing the different levels of biodiversity organization (Soberón et al. 2000). We must recognizerecognise that most ecosystems in the world already have the “human footprint” (Sanderson 2002). But human-dominated landscapes are the best conservation targets, in an approach of systematic conservation planning (Margules and Pressey 2000).

We can describe the current conservation paradigm as a “distracting paradigm”, because the general opinion and we as the “map makers” come easily to the reach a point that weon which we naively believe that with making the best maps for selecting the really hottest hotspots we can be satisfied. But this is not the case, ,as with the global spread of the “hotspots” approach, the scientific community reached the peak of an out-to date conservation paradigm. Now iIt’s now time to change paradigm, aslike some other authors have already strongly calledadvised (Jope 1994, Stott 1998). I We don’t know yet the new arising paradigm yet, but I’m convinced that it will be the result, in the near future, of the in future it will appears from the future better more fruitful synergy effects between integration of conservation science and conservation action will appear everywhere on earth, from the cold to the warm and the warm to the hot. Der letzte Satz ist doch schön jetzt, oder? Netter Artikel!!! Wo kommt der rein?

Acknowledgements:

Jorge Soberón gently render me the term “distracting paradigm”. Charles Convis has been a constant discussion partner on the benefits, advantages and limits about conservation GIS, and encouraged me to submit the commentary. Frieda Grüninger turn the commentary to readable English. DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) provided the financial support for my research on biogeography and conservation.

References

Araújo, M.B. 2002. Biodiversity hotspots and zones of ecological transition. Conserv. Biol. 16: 1662 –1663.

Balmford, A., G.M. Mace and J.R. Ginsberg. 1998. The challenges to conservation in a changing world: putting processes on the map. In: Mace, G.M. , A. Balmford, A. & J.R. Ginsberg. Conservation in a changing world, 1-29. Cambridge U. Press.

Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking Community-Based Conservation. Conserv. Biol. 18: 621-630.

Boero, F. 2001. Light after dark: the partnership for enhancing expertise in taxonomy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 266.

Brosius, J.P. 2004. Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas at the World Parks Congress. Conserv. Biol. 14: 1351-1357.

Brummit, N. and E.N. Lughadha. 2003. Biodiversity: Where’s Hot and Where’s Not. Conserv. Biol. 17 (5): 1442-1448.

Cabeza, M. and A. Moilanen. 2001. Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 242 –248.

Channell, R. and M.V. Lomolino. 2000. Dynamic biogeography and conservation of endangered species. Nature 403: 84-86.

Chapela, I.H. 2000. Global bodies won’t save the environment: it needs grass-roots efforts. Nature 403: 129.

Csuti, B., S. Polasky, P.H. Williams, R.L. Pressey, J.D. Camm, M. Kershaw, A.R. Kiester, B. Downs, R. Hamilton, M. Huso and K. Sahr. 1997Csuti, B. et al. A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biol. Conserv. 80: 83 –97. (1997).

Ferraroli, S., J-Y. Georges, P. Gaspar, and Y. Le Maho. 2004. Where leatherback turtles meet fisheries. Nature 429: 521-522.

Hays, G.C., J.D.R. Houghton, and A.E. Myers. 2004. Pan-Atlantic leatherback turtle movements. Nature 429: 522.

Harcourt A.H. 2000. Coincidence and mismatch of biodiversity hotspots: a global survey for the order primates. Biol. Conserv. 93: 163-175.

Jope, K.L. 1994. Paradigm of Species Conservation. Conserv. Biol. 8: 924-925.

Kareiva, P., . and M. Marvier. 2003. Conserving biodiversity coldspots: recent calls to direct conservation funding to the world’s biodiversity hotspots may be bad investment advice. American Scientist 91: 344-349.

Magaña, P. and J.L. Villaseñor. 2002. La flora de México: se podrá conocer completamente? Ciencias 66: 24-26.

Margules, C.R. and R.L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243-253.

McNeely, J. (Ed.) 1993. Parks for Life: Report of the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, IUCN, Gland.

Muñoz-Schick, M., H. Núñez and J. Yáñez (Eds.) 1996. Libro Rojo de los Sitios Prioritarios para la Conservación de la Diversidad Biológica de Chile. CONAF.

Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853-858.

Myers, N. and R.A. Mittermeier. 2003. Impact and Acceptance of the Hotspots Strategy: Response to Ovadia and to Brummitt and Lughadha. Conserv. Biol. 17: 1449–1450.

Nee, S. 2004. Earth's real biodiversity is invisible, whether we like it or not... Nature: 429: 804-805. (2004).

Novacek, M.J. and E.E. Cleland. 2001. The current biodiversity extinction event: Scenarios for mitigation and recovery. PNAS 98: 5466-5470.

Peres, C.A. and B. Zimmermann. 2001. Perils in Parks or Parks in Peril? Reconciling Conservation in Amazonian Reserves with and without Use. Conserv. Biol. 15: 793-797.

Prendergast, J.R., R.M. Quinn and J.H. LawtonPrendergast et al. 1999. The gaps between Theory and Practice in Selecting Nature Reserves. Conserv. Biol. 13: 484-492.

Rodrigues, A.S.L., S.J. Andelman, M.I. Bakarr, et al., 2004, Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428: 640-643.

Rodriguez, L.O. and K.R. Young. 2000. Biological diversity of Perú: determining priority areas for conservation. Ambio 29: 329 –337.

Salafsky, N., R. Margoluis, K.H. Redford and J.G. Robinson. 2002. Improving the Practice of Conservation: a Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda for Conservation Science. Conserv. Biol. 16: 1469-1479.

Sanderson E.W., M. Jaiteh, M.A. Levy, K.H. Redford, A.V. Wannebo and G.WoolmerSanderson, E.W et al. 2002. The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild. Bioscience 52 (10): 891-904.

Soberón, J., P. Rodríguez, E. Vázquez-Domínguez. 2000. Soberón, J. et aImplications of the hierarchical structure of biodiversity for the development of ecological indicators of sustainable use. Ambio 29 (3): 136 –142 (2000).

Spector, S. 2002. Biogeographic Crossroads as Priority Areas for Biodiversity Conservation. Conserv. Biol. 16: 1480-1487.

Stott, P. 1998. Biogeography and ecology in crisis: the urgent need for a new metalanguage. J. Biogeo. 25:1-2.

Thomas, C.D., A. Cameron, R.E. Green et al., 2004, Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427: 145-148.