The distribution of diversity: challenges and applications
113
5.3.4 The WWF Ecoregions s cheme
Ecoregions, representing distinct biotas … , are
nested within the biomes and realms and, together,
these provide a framework for comparisons among
units and the identifi cation of representative habitats and assemblages.
(Olson et al ., 2001 , p. 933)
The WWF Ecoregions scheme (Table 5.6 ) represents
an attempt to provide a more refi ned global map for
conservation action than provided by the earlier IUCN
biogeographical regions scheme. The scheme can also
be understood as means to attract the massive increase
in funds for international biodiversity conservation
available from the GEF, bilateral donors and US foundations. As a member of the established WWF organizational family, WWF - US (the originator of the scheme)
sought to develop a scheme that would provide a global
programme framework for the entire WWF network.
Just as CI had done, WWF adopted and extended an
existing scheme, namely the ecoregional approach to
land classifi cation developed in North America, which
subdivides regions into successively fi ner functional
units following a controlling - factors methodology
(Chapter 4 ). This approach, being zonal in nature,
Notwithstanding, in purely scientifi c terms, it is clear
that the scheme is just one map of threatened nature
(or so far, four versions of one sort of map of threatened
nature) and one that should be subject to the closest
scrutiny for the very reason that so much money is
being raised and channelled through the scheme.
Those who fi nd fault with it on scientifi c or other
grounds need not, therefore, be considered ‘ dissidents ’
or dismissed as adherents to ‘ scattershot ’ conservation
(cf. Myers, 2003 , p. 917, p. 916). In any event, without
such ‘ scattershot ’ conservation many highly valued
areas around the world would lack due protection.
Moreover, beyond cross - examining the science
underpinning the approach, there is also the key question of how well CI will manage to deliver on their goals
in terms of on - the - ground conservation action within
their Priority Areas. As will be evident from the above,
the hotspots scheme is primarily a framework for capturing and then directing international investments in
biodiversity conservation into discrete regions. It identifi es very large geographical areas and lacks a framework for developing or investing in reserve networks.
The development of the Key Biodiversity Areas
approach (see below) can be understood as an attempt
to link hotspots with a reserve selection framework (see
section 3.5.5).
Table 5.6 Properties of the WWF Ecoregions scheme, an infl uential approach intersecting a functional ecosystems
approach with the notion of biogeographical representation (key reference: Olson et al. , 2001 ) .
Organization
WWF - US (developed 1991 – present).
Lead authors
D.M. Olson, E. Dinerstein and colleagues.
General goal
Promote conservation of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems harbouring
globally important biodiversity and ecological processes.
Purpose
Support two - pronged strategy of establishing protected areas and achieving
sustainable management in non - reserve matrix.
Key design consideration
Moving away from geo - political boundaries to planning within ecologically and
biogeographically derived areas.
Scale
Intersection of biogeographical regions with maps of major ecosystem types
derived from varied pre - existing data sources and schemes, following a
controlling factors rationale, to produce a zonal classifi cation of major ecosystem
types, resulting in a set of 867 terrestrial ecoregions, with a median size of
56,300 km
2 and a mean size of 150,000 km
2 (Olson et al. , 2001 ).
Explicitness and
reproducibility
Mixed: purpose all - embracing; where no pre - existing scheme, appears to conduct
gestalt synthesis of various schemes and criteria, relying both on formal analysis
of data and widespread expert consultation to refi ne the scheme and map.
113
5.3.4 The WWF Ecoregions s cheme
Ecoregions, representing distinct biotas … , are
nested within the biomes and realms and, together,
these provide a framework for comparisons among
units and the identifi cation of representative habitats and assemblages.
(Olson et al ., 2001 , p. 933)
The WWF Ecoregions scheme (Table 5.6 ) represents
an attempt to provide a more refi ned global map for
conservation action than provided by the earlier IUCN
biogeographical regions scheme. The scheme can also
be understood as means to attract the massive increase
in funds for international biodiversity conservation
available from the GEF, bilateral donors and US foundations. As a member of the established WWF organizational family, WWF - US (the originator of the scheme)
sought to develop a scheme that would provide a global
programme framework for the entire WWF network.
Just as CI had done, WWF adopted and extended an
existing scheme, namely the ecoregional approach to
land classifi cation developed in North America, which
subdivides regions into successively fi ner functional
units following a controlling - factors methodology
(Chapter 4 ). This approach, being zonal in nature,
Notwithstanding, in purely scientifi c terms, it is clear
that the scheme is just one map of threatened nature
(or so far, four versions of one sort of map of threatened
nature) and one that should be subject to the closest
scrutiny for the very reason that so much money is
being raised and channelled through the scheme.
Those who fi nd fault with it on scientifi c or other
grounds need not, therefore, be considered ‘ dissidents ’
or dismissed as adherents to ‘ scattershot ’ conservation
(cf. Myers, 2003 , p. 917, p. 916). In any event, without
such ‘ scattershot ’ conservation many highly valued
areas around the world would lack due protection.
Moreover, beyond cross - examining the science
underpinning the approach, there is also the key question of how well CI will manage to deliver on their goals
in terms of on - the - ground conservation action within
their Priority Areas. As will be evident from the above,
the hotspots scheme is primarily a framework for capturing and then directing international investments in
biodiversity conservation into discrete regions. It identifi es very large geographical areas and lacks a framework for developing or investing in reserve networks.
The development of the Key Biodiversity Areas
approach (see below) can be understood as an attempt
to link hotspots with a reserve selection framework (see
section 3.5.5).
Table 5.6 Properties of the WWF Ecoregions scheme, an infl uential approach intersecting a functional ecosystems
approach with the notion of biogeographical representation (key reference: Olson et al. , 2001 ) .
Organization
WWF - US (developed 1991 – present).
Lead authors
D.M. Olson, E. Dinerstein and colleagues.
General goal
Promote conservation of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems harbouring
globally important biodiversity and ecological processes.
Purpose
Support two - pronged strategy of establishing protected areas and achieving
sustainable management in non - reserve matrix.
Key design consideration
Moving away from geo - political boundaries to planning within ecologically and
biogeographically derived areas.
Scale
Intersection of biogeographical regions with maps of major ecosystem types
derived from varied pre - existing data sources and schemes, following a
controlling factors rationale, to produce a zonal classifi cation of major ecosystem
types, resulting in a set of 867 terrestrial ecoregions, with a median size of
56,300 km
2 and a mean size of 150,000 km
2 (Olson et al. , 2001 ).
Explicitness and
reproducibility
Mixed: purpose all - embracing; where no pre - existing scheme, appears to conduct
gestalt synthesis of various schemes and criteria, relying both on formal analysis
of data and widespread expert consultation to refi ne the scheme and map.