112
The shaping of the global protected area estate
To continue with our focus from sections 5.3.1 and
5.3.2 on Indonesia, most of the archipelago is located
within the Sundaland and Wallacea CI - hotspots.
However, Indonesian territories on the island of New
Guinea fail to qualify as a hotspot despite exceptionally
high plant because forest conversion has (fortunately)
not yet reached the level of 70 per cent. This is in contrast to the East Melanesian islands, which were defi ned
as a hotspot in the CI - 2004 scheme due to recent
habitat loss. Such examples are indicative of the reactive character of the hotspots criteria, responding to
excessive habitat loss rather than focusing resources
on areas before they reach the 70 per cent threshold.
In practice, the high endemism and growing threats
make the island of New Guinea an important international conservation priority, notwithstanding that they
are not included in the hotspots scheme, and this is
recognized explicitly by CI, which has included New
Guinea in a set of fi ve High - Biodiversity Wilderness
Areas (see www.conservation.org/explore/priority_
areas/wilderness/pages/default.aspx ), formerly termed
Major Wilderness Areas (e.g. Myers et al ., 2000 ). The
other currently recognized areas under this ancillary
framework are Amazonia, the Congo basin, North
American deserts, and the Miombo - Mopane woodlands and savannas of southern Africa.
Completing a three - pronged suite of Priority Areas
schemes alongside the hotspots and wilderness Areas,
CI have also identifi ed three areas under an Oceans and
Seascapes framework, namely the Bird ’ s Head Seascape
in eastern Indonesia, The Eastern Tropical Pacifi c
Seascape and the Sulu - Sulawesi Seascape.
It should therefore be understood that CI is not limiting its attention only to the biodiversity hotspots areas,
but rather that the hotspots scheme is embedded within
a broader Priority Areas framework. Nonetheless, it is
the hotspots scheme that has attracted greatest popular
and scientifi c attention. As Myers (2003) somewhat
waspishly notes in response to criticism of the approach,
the science involved in the CI hotspots scheme has been
deemed rigorous enough to capture funding of over
$750 million. In this regard, the CI - hotspots scheme
has been the centrepiece of an enormously successful
strategic conservation fundraising effort.
The approach has also generated an extraordinary
resonance among the scientifi c community, with academic paper after paper making claim to their study
being intrinsically important on the grounds that the
work is focused on the ecology, biogeography or conservation of one of the world ’ s biodiversity hotspots.
its northernmost strip), the whole of the Italian
Peninsula and rather varying extents of other countries surrounding the basin, plus a large envelope
extended into the Atlantic to embrace the Macaronesian
islands. Macaronesia is a recognized biogeographical
unit, comprising the Azores, Madeira, Cape Verde, the
Salvage Islands and the Canaries, with known affi nities
with the south - western tip of the Iberian Peninsula
and the extreme north - western fringe of North Africa.
The construction of this hotspot makes some sense in
biogeographical terms – all of these areas share some
similarities – but does not appear to be based on a
particular antecedent biogeographical map. If it is
based on a specifi c antecedent map, it is clear that other
lines and envelopes could be drawn, depending on the
criteria chosen.
Thus, decisions made as to the appropriate biogeographical units to use may determine whether particular areas become or remain hotspots. An example of
this is the Juan Fern á ndez Islands, which do not qualify
on their own as a hotspot and were not mapped in the
CI - 2000 version, but which are embraced in an
expanded version of the Chilean Winter Rainfall/
Valdivian Forests hotspot in the CI - 2004 version.
The above examples illustrate that it is entirely reasonable to undertake critical evaluation of the hotspots
framework and that the scientifi c clarity and internal
consistency of the framework can be criticized.
Moreover, it can be of enormous importance whether
an area is embraced or excluded, as this determines the
‘ winners ’ and ‘ losers ’ in terms of conservation investment and attention.
For instance, Bates & Demos (2001) bemoan the
failure to include Amazonia within the hotspots
scheme, noting that while much of the forest cover of
the Amazon Basin remained intact, particular areas of
high biodiversity value, such as the Bel é m/Par á region,
had experienced very signifi cant degrees of habitat
loss. Consideration of a $40 billion government road
and development programme targeted on the southern
Brazilian Amazon coincided with the failure to recognize this region as a global priority within CI - 2000
hotspots, and Bates & Demos (2001) argued that this
sent the wrong signal to the government of Brazil at a
key moment in regional planning.
Similarly, Jepson & Canney (2001) point out that the
scheme omits systems arguably central to addressing
the foundational values of conservation, such as the
last great megafaunal assemblages of the African
savannas.
The shaping of the global protected area estate
To continue with our focus from sections 5.3.1 and
5.3.2 on Indonesia, most of the archipelago is located
within the Sundaland and Wallacea CI - hotspots.
However, Indonesian territories on the island of New
Guinea fail to qualify as a hotspot despite exceptionally
high plant because forest conversion has (fortunately)
not yet reached the level of 70 per cent. This is in contrast to the East Melanesian islands, which were defi ned
as a hotspot in the CI - 2004 scheme due to recent
habitat loss. Such examples are indicative of the reactive character of the hotspots criteria, responding to
excessive habitat loss rather than focusing resources
on areas before they reach the 70 per cent threshold.
In practice, the high endemism and growing threats
make the island of New Guinea an important international conservation priority, notwithstanding that they
are not included in the hotspots scheme, and this is
recognized explicitly by CI, which has included New
Guinea in a set of fi ve High - Biodiversity Wilderness
Areas (see www.conservation.org/explore/priority_
areas/wilderness/pages/default.aspx ), formerly termed
Major Wilderness Areas (e.g. Myers et al ., 2000 ). The
other currently recognized areas under this ancillary
framework are Amazonia, the Congo basin, North
American deserts, and the Miombo - Mopane woodlands and savannas of southern Africa.
Completing a three - pronged suite of Priority Areas
schemes alongside the hotspots and wilderness Areas,
CI have also identifi ed three areas under an Oceans and
Seascapes framework, namely the Bird ’ s Head Seascape
in eastern Indonesia, The Eastern Tropical Pacifi c
Seascape and the Sulu - Sulawesi Seascape.
It should therefore be understood that CI is not limiting its attention only to the biodiversity hotspots areas,
but rather that the hotspots scheme is embedded within
a broader Priority Areas framework. Nonetheless, it is
the hotspots scheme that has attracted greatest popular
and scientifi c attention. As Myers (2003) somewhat
waspishly notes in response to criticism of the approach,
the science involved in the CI hotspots scheme has been
deemed rigorous enough to capture funding of over
$750 million. In this regard, the CI - hotspots scheme
has been the centrepiece of an enormously successful
strategic conservation fundraising effort.
The approach has also generated an extraordinary
resonance among the scientifi c community, with academic paper after paper making claim to their study
being intrinsically important on the grounds that the
work is focused on the ecology, biogeography or conservation of one of the world ’ s biodiversity hotspots.
its northernmost strip), the whole of the Italian
Peninsula and rather varying extents of other countries surrounding the basin, plus a large envelope
extended into the Atlantic to embrace the Macaronesian
islands. Macaronesia is a recognized biogeographical
unit, comprising the Azores, Madeira, Cape Verde, the
Salvage Islands and the Canaries, with known affi nities
with the south - western tip of the Iberian Peninsula
and the extreme north - western fringe of North Africa.
The construction of this hotspot makes some sense in
biogeographical terms – all of these areas share some
similarities – but does not appear to be based on a
particular antecedent biogeographical map. If it is
based on a specifi c antecedent map, it is clear that other
lines and envelopes could be drawn, depending on the
criteria chosen.
Thus, decisions made as to the appropriate biogeographical units to use may determine whether particular areas become or remain hotspots. An example of
this is the Juan Fern á ndez Islands, which do not qualify
on their own as a hotspot and were not mapped in the
CI - 2000 version, but which are embraced in an
expanded version of the Chilean Winter Rainfall/
Valdivian Forests hotspot in the CI - 2004 version.
The above examples illustrate that it is entirely reasonable to undertake critical evaluation of the hotspots
framework and that the scientifi c clarity and internal
consistency of the framework can be criticized.
Moreover, it can be of enormous importance whether
an area is embraced or excluded, as this determines the
‘ winners ’ and ‘ losers ’ in terms of conservation investment and attention.
For instance, Bates & Demos (2001) bemoan the
failure to include Amazonia within the hotspots
scheme, noting that while much of the forest cover of
the Amazon Basin remained intact, particular areas of
high biodiversity value, such as the Bel é m/Par á region,
had experienced very signifi cant degrees of habitat
loss. Consideration of a $40 billion government road
and development programme targeted on the southern
Brazilian Amazon coincided with the failure to recognize this region as a global priority within CI - 2000
hotspots, and Bates & Demos (2001) argued that this
sent the wrong signal to the government of Brazil at a
key moment in regional planning.
Similarly, Jepson & Canney (2001) point out that the
scheme omits systems arguably central to addressing
the foundational values of conservation, such as the
last great megafaunal assemblages of the African
savannas.