The distribution of diversity: challenges and applications
103
Some schemes do not fi t easily into a single category.
For example, WWF ’ s Global 200 ecoregions scheme is
a composite representation/hotspot scheme, as it seeks
to prioritize the most valuable examples worthy of
special conservation support from within the much
larger global set of ecoregions (Table 5.1 ).
Each scheme represents a blend of political, organizational and scientifi c imperatives operating at the time
of their development. Over the last fi fty years, four
major trends have created the context for the development of new protected area planning schemes:
1 the adoption of rational resource planning as a
central tenet of international development in the
1970s (e.g. Colby, 1991 );
2 the formation of the EU and the enactment of supra -
national environmental directives in the 1980s;
3 the rise of biodiversity on the global policy agenda
and the signing of the Convention on Biological
Diversity in the early 1990s;
4 the emergence of corporate social responsibility
linked to the rise of non - state market - based policy
approaches (e.g. certifi cation) at the beginning of the
present millennium.
The frameworks we discuss in this chapter should be
seen not only as scientifi c constructs, but also as ‘ governance devices ’ put into play to alter the designation
of land and to reconfi gure relationships to the benefi t
of the goals of the organizations producing them.
We focus in this chapter mostly on global frameworks. However, much conservation planning needs to
occur at the regional, landscape and site level (Figure
5.3 ). For conservation action to be successful at all
levels, both top - down and bottom - up approaches are
needed in order to fund, garner public support and
provide institutional frameworks for conservation
planning.
In practice, the choice of scheme devised and
promoted is thus also infl uenced by organizational as
well as conservation biogeography imperatives. For
example, representation schemes are suited to teams or
units integrated within national and regional government land use planning agencies. Hotspot schemes
appeal to organizations that seek to lobby or advise the
managers of major funds for biodiversity conservation
on how to disperse and target these funds in ways that
will deliver the ‘ biggest bang for the buck ’ . Important
Areas and other criteria - based approaches have
been developed by organizations such as BirdLife
International, with extensive networks of local expertise able to identity and then assess candidate sites.
typical or ‘ benchmark ’ sites (e.g. Special Areas of
Conservation across Europe), while others look for sites
that have greatest species richness. The Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park provides the most extensive application of the representation principle in the marine
realm (Fernandes et al ., 2005 ). The complex task of
selecting sites that satisfy goals of representation
across multiple habitat types is well suited to numerical
analysis using computer algorithms (Chapter 6 ).
The second approach focuses on the goal of retaining or restoring dynamic ecological processes. The
underlying maps refl ect ecological linkages across
landscapes rather than focusing on, for example, identifi cation of distinct assemblages of species. The WWF
Ecoregions approach (below) follows this functional or
controlling factors rationale.
The third strategic goal identifi es areas where it is
appropriate to invest conservation funding to maximize
the number of species conserved, given fi nite available
resources. This so - called ‘ silver bullet ’ strategy gives
precedence to areas containing high numbers of
species, or areas that contain high numbers of local or
regional endemics, and that are under risk from habitat
conversion or other forces. BirdLife International ’ s
Endemic Bird Areas scheme (ICBP, 1992 ) can be considered an example of a pure hotspots approach, while
CI ’ s hotspots scheme is an example of a composite
‘ hotspot/threatspot ’ approach.
The fourth strategic approach involves developing a
set of site - based conservation attributes and then
applying these criteria in a systematic and standardized manner to identify target sites for protection.
These attributes may include the presence of threatened or endemic species, but they might also include
sites of importance for congregating or migrating
species.
For example, within the island of Tenerife there are
very few areas of fresh or brackish water, and several
visiting and resident bird species would be lost from the
island altogether if these sites were allowed to disappear. Although such sites may not hold great importance in a scheme based on vegetation types or using
hotspot criteria, they do meet the criteria for inclusion
within Important Areas schemes. The schemes depend
on the creation of a robust set of criteria against which
candidate sites can be assessed, preferably using
numerical data. The most complete example is BirdLife
International ’ s Important Bird Areas approach, which
has been expanded by CI and other organizations into
the Key Biodiversity Areas framework.
103
Some schemes do not fi t easily into a single category.
For example, WWF ’ s Global 200 ecoregions scheme is
a composite representation/hotspot scheme, as it seeks
to prioritize the most valuable examples worthy of
special conservation support from within the much
larger global set of ecoregions (Table 5.1 ).
Each scheme represents a blend of political, organizational and scientifi c imperatives operating at the time
of their development. Over the last fi fty years, four
major trends have created the context for the development of new protected area planning schemes:
1 the adoption of rational resource planning as a
central tenet of international development in the
1970s (e.g. Colby, 1991 );
2 the formation of the EU and the enactment of supra -
national environmental directives in the 1980s;
3 the rise of biodiversity on the global policy agenda
and the signing of the Convention on Biological
Diversity in the early 1990s;
4 the emergence of corporate social responsibility
linked to the rise of non - state market - based policy
approaches (e.g. certifi cation) at the beginning of the
present millennium.
The frameworks we discuss in this chapter should be
seen not only as scientifi c constructs, but also as ‘ governance devices ’ put into play to alter the designation
of land and to reconfi gure relationships to the benefi t
of the goals of the organizations producing them.
We focus in this chapter mostly on global frameworks. However, much conservation planning needs to
occur at the regional, landscape and site level (Figure
5.3 ). For conservation action to be successful at all
levels, both top - down and bottom - up approaches are
needed in order to fund, garner public support and
provide institutional frameworks for conservation
planning.
In practice, the choice of scheme devised and
promoted is thus also infl uenced by organizational as
well as conservation biogeography imperatives. For
example, representation schemes are suited to teams or
units integrated within national and regional government land use planning agencies. Hotspot schemes
appeal to organizations that seek to lobby or advise the
managers of major funds for biodiversity conservation
on how to disperse and target these funds in ways that
will deliver the ‘ biggest bang for the buck ’ . Important
Areas and other criteria - based approaches have
been developed by organizations such as BirdLife
International, with extensive networks of local expertise able to identity and then assess candidate sites.
typical or ‘ benchmark ’ sites (e.g. Special Areas of
Conservation across Europe), while others look for sites
that have greatest species richness. The Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park provides the most extensive application of the representation principle in the marine
realm (Fernandes et al ., 2005 ). The complex task of
selecting sites that satisfy goals of representation
across multiple habitat types is well suited to numerical
analysis using computer algorithms (Chapter 6 ).
The second approach focuses on the goal of retaining or restoring dynamic ecological processes. The
underlying maps refl ect ecological linkages across
landscapes rather than focusing on, for example, identifi cation of distinct assemblages of species. The WWF
Ecoregions approach (below) follows this functional or
controlling factors rationale.
The third strategic goal identifi es areas where it is
appropriate to invest conservation funding to maximize
the number of species conserved, given fi nite available
resources. This so - called ‘ silver bullet ’ strategy gives
precedence to areas containing high numbers of
species, or areas that contain high numbers of local or
regional endemics, and that are under risk from habitat
conversion or other forces. BirdLife International ’ s
Endemic Bird Areas scheme (ICBP, 1992 ) can be considered an example of a pure hotspots approach, while
CI ’ s hotspots scheme is an example of a composite
‘ hotspot/threatspot ’ approach.
The fourth strategic approach involves developing a
set of site - based conservation attributes and then
applying these criteria in a systematic and standardized manner to identify target sites for protection.
These attributes may include the presence of threatened or endemic species, but they might also include
sites of importance for congregating or migrating
species.
For example, within the island of Tenerife there are
very few areas of fresh or brackish water, and several
visiting and resident bird species would be lost from the
island altogether if these sites were allowed to disappear. Although such sites may not hold great importance in a scheme based on vegetation types or using
hotspot criteria, they do meet the criteria for inclusion
within Important Areas schemes. The schemes depend
on the creation of a robust set of criteria against which
candidate sites can be assessed, preferably using
numerical data. The most complete example is BirdLife
International ’ s Important Bird Areas approach, which
has been expanded by CI and other organizations into
the Key Biodiversity Areas framework.