The distribution of diversity: challenges and applications
109
CI hotspots had all the key qualities of a great brand:
it made people aware of the biodiversity conservation
solution (strategic awareness); it had, through its publication in Nature , a claim to scientifi c approval and
credibility (perceived quality); and, at the time, it was
the only global prioritization scheme on offer (singular
distinction). In the three years following the launch of
the hotspots initiative, $750 million of biodiversity
funds were raised, enabling the organization to extend
its organizational reach geographically and across
sectors. In short, it helped CI become the preferred
partner of choice for many of the world ’ s major companies, donors and celebrities. The CI hotspots scheme
swiftly attained the status of – and remains – the best
known and most widely referenced global conservation prioritization framework.
There have so far been four different generations of
the hotspots framework. Myer ’ s original (1988) version
of the scheme focused entirely on tropical forest areas
and identifi ed ten priority areas. He subsequently
expanded this set by the addition of four more tropical
forest areas and four Mediterranean areas (Myers,
1990 ). The approach taken in both of these original
papers was to distil quantitative estimates of diversity
and of habitat loss from available literature sources,
comprising diverse forms of data and estimates of
highly variable precision and substance.
The version we term CI - 2000 hotspots (Myers et al .,
2000 ) consisted of 25 areas and was based on a much
more comprehensive assessment by a large team of
contributors using rather more stringent criteria. The
revised CI - 2004 hotspots scheme was expanded once
again, to include 34 areas, largely in order to expand
geographical reach in the light of fundraising success
(Figure 5.6 ; Mittermeier et al ., 2004 ).
The criteria for designating an area as a biodiversity
hotspot within the CI hotspots framework are extremely
simple at fi rst sight (Table 5.5 ) and amount to a
combined hotspots/threatspots analysis. Areas are designated providing they possess > 0.5 per cent global
plant diversity (1,500 species) as endemics, and providing they have lost > 70 per cent of their primary
vegetation.
The fi rst criterion follows the rationale that plant
diversity can be used as a surrogate for the likely diversity of other taxa and that, if there is investment in
such highly diverse areas that are under such pressure,
general biodiversity benefi ts will follow. Having designated their 25 areas in the CI - 2000 scheme, the
authors of the scheme reported that the areas also
5.3.3 Conservation International ’ s h otspots
‘ The traditional scattergun approach of much
conservation activity, seeking to be many things
to many threatened species, needs to be complemented by a “ silver bullet ” strategy in the form of
hotspots with their emphasis on cost - effective
measures. ’
(Myers et al ., 2000 , p. 858)
Conservation International (CI) was formed in the
USA in 1987 by former staff from The Nature
Conservancy (TNC). The new organization attracted
some of America ’ s new breed of entrepreneurs onto
their board (notably the Intel founder and multi -
millionaire Gordon Moore) – people who really understood the power of brand and branding. By the 1990s,
there were numerous conservation groups jostling for
the attention of decision makers and donors and, this
competition intensifi ed with the promise of massive
new inter - governmental funds for biodiversity conservation following the 1992 Earth Summit. CI stepped
into this arena with a businesslike approach, seemingly viewing such potential donors and agencies
rather like customers in need of a service, and the
service they aimed to provide was an effi cient and
scientifi cally credible global conservation scheme to
target these new funds.
At the centre of their strategy, CI re - launched an
approach to targeting resources at ‘ biodiversity
hotspots ’ developed some years earlier by Norman
Myers (1988, 1990) . Myers ’ s argument was that,
given the inadequacy of funding to save biodiversity,
global conservation efforts should be focused into
those regions of the world that supported the greatest
amount of unique and threatened species diversity.
CI argued that a ‘ silver bullet ’ approach of targeting
scarce fi nancial resources into a few such regions
would provide greatest conservation return per dollar
spent and should be preferred over all other ‘ scattergun ’ approaches. Moreover, CI not only re - ran Myers ’
earlier analysis, expanding the number of hotspots,
but crucially developed a strategy to invest heavily in
and promote their new ‘ hotspots ’ brand. This involved
engaging leading PR companies, the publication of a
cover story article (Myers et al ., 2000 ) and supplement
in the prestigious scientifi c journal Nature , a substantial supporting book (Mittermeier et al ., 1999 ), high -
level conferences and seminars, and presentations in
‘ hotspot countries ’ .
109
CI hotspots had all the key qualities of a great brand:
it made people aware of the biodiversity conservation
solution (strategic awareness); it had, through its publication in Nature , a claim to scientifi c approval and
credibility (perceived quality); and, at the time, it was
the only global prioritization scheme on offer (singular
distinction). In the three years following the launch of
the hotspots initiative, $750 million of biodiversity
funds were raised, enabling the organization to extend
its organizational reach geographically and across
sectors. In short, it helped CI become the preferred
partner of choice for many of the world ’ s major companies, donors and celebrities. The CI hotspots scheme
swiftly attained the status of – and remains – the best
known and most widely referenced global conservation prioritization framework.
There have so far been four different generations of
the hotspots framework. Myer ’ s original (1988) version
of the scheme focused entirely on tropical forest areas
and identifi ed ten priority areas. He subsequently
expanded this set by the addition of four more tropical
forest areas and four Mediterranean areas (Myers,
1990 ). The approach taken in both of these original
papers was to distil quantitative estimates of diversity
and of habitat loss from available literature sources,
comprising diverse forms of data and estimates of
highly variable precision and substance.
The version we term CI - 2000 hotspots (Myers et al .,
2000 ) consisted of 25 areas and was based on a much
more comprehensive assessment by a large team of
contributors using rather more stringent criteria. The
revised CI - 2004 hotspots scheme was expanded once
again, to include 34 areas, largely in order to expand
geographical reach in the light of fundraising success
(Figure 5.6 ; Mittermeier et al ., 2004 ).
The criteria for designating an area as a biodiversity
hotspot within the CI hotspots framework are extremely
simple at fi rst sight (Table 5.5 ) and amount to a
combined hotspots/threatspots analysis. Areas are designated providing they possess > 0.5 per cent global
plant diversity (1,500 species) as endemics, and providing they have lost > 70 per cent of their primary
vegetation.
The fi rst criterion follows the rationale that plant
diversity can be used as a surrogate for the likely diversity of other taxa and that, if there is investment in
such highly diverse areas that are under such pressure,
general biodiversity benefi ts will follow. Having designated their 25 areas in the CI - 2000 scheme, the
authors of the scheme reported that the areas also
5.3.3 Conservation International ’ s h otspots
‘ The traditional scattergun approach of much
conservation activity, seeking to be many things
to many threatened species, needs to be complemented by a “ silver bullet ” strategy in the form of
hotspots with their emphasis on cost - effective
measures. ’
(Myers et al ., 2000 , p. 858)
Conservation International (CI) was formed in the
USA in 1987 by former staff from The Nature
Conservancy (TNC). The new organization attracted
some of America ’ s new breed of entrepreneurs onto
their board (notably the Intel founder and multi -
millionaire Gordon Moore) – people who really understood the power of brand and branding. By the 1990s,
there were numerous conservation groups jostling for
the attention of decision makers and donors and, this
competition intensifi ed with the promise of massive
new inter - governmental funds for biodiversity conservation following the 1992 Earth Summit. CI stepped
into this arena with a businesslike approach, seemingly viewing such potential donors and agencies
rather like customers in need of a service, and the
service they aimed to provide was an effi cient and
scientifi cally credible global conservation scheme to
target these new funds.
At the centre of their strategy, CI re - launched an
approach to targeting resources at ‘ biodiversity
hotspots ’ developed some years earlier by Norman
Myers (1988, 1990) . Myers ’ s argument was that,
given the inadequacy of funding to save biodiversity,
global conservation efforts should be focused into
those regions of the world that supported the greatest
amount of unique and threatened species diversity.
CI argued that a ‘ silver bullet ’ approach of targeting
scarce fi nancial resources into a few such regions
would provide greatest conservation return per dollar
spent and should be preferred over all other ‘ scattergun ’ approaches. Moreover, CI not only re - ran Myers ’
earlier analysis, expanding the number of hotspots,
but crucially developed a strategy to invest heavily in
and promote their new ‘ hotspots ’ brand. This involved
engaging leading PR companies, the publication of a
cover story article (Myers et al ., 2000 ) and supplement
in the prestigious scientifi c journal Nature , a substantial supporting book (Mittermeier et al ., 1999 ), high -
level conferences and seminars, and presentations in
‘ hotspot countries ’ .