The distribution of diversity: challenges and applications
131
classifi cation, ecoregions were mapped out by combining the following MHTs with ocean basins:
1 polar;
2 temperate shelf and seas;
3 temperate upwelling;
4 tropical upwelling;
5 tropical coral.
The information and classifi cations supporting the
ecoregion delineations were derived from Kelleher et al .
(1995) , Sherman et al . (1990) , Longhurst (1998) and
Bailey (1998) , and from consultation with regional
experts. Although acknowledged to be incomplete
(certain areas, e.g. high seas, hydrothermal vents, are
not included) and less fi nely resolved than its terrestrial
counterpart, the lack of a suitable alternative at the
time put the WWF marine ecoregions in a strong position with regard to marine planning.
In the priority - setting step, ecoregions were assessed
based on the following biodiversity criteria: species
richness, levels of endemism, higher taxonomic
uniqueness, unusual ecological or evolutionary phenomena, and global rarity of habitat type. They were
then categorized as globally outstanding, regionally
outstanding, bioregionally outstanding or locally
important. In the marine realm, a total of 43 priority
marine ecoregions were included in the fi nal Global
200 list (Olson & Dinerstein, 2002 ).
The conservation status of each priority ecoregion
was assessed using independent information on levels
of threat. In the marine realm, this was carried out for
the tropical coral ecoregions based on the Reefs at Risk
analysis (Table 5.8 ; Bryant et al ., 1998 ). Again, inadequacies in baseline data and maps limited the detail
and objectivity of the analyses.
The Global 200 is arguably the most ambitious
attempt at global conservation priority - setting. It
explicitly applies the ecosystem approach at a variety
of scales: regional, ecoregional, site and community.
The ecoregion approach has the advantage of being
ecologically appropriate; it acknowledges, but does not
give supremacy to, the complexities of cross - border
multi - stakeholder interests.
However, some of the criticisms that apply to the
representation and hotspot approaches (above) apply
here, too. For example, it might be argued that many
taxa interact with their environments at a scale which
differs greatly from the ecoregion, that the methods are
not entirely transparent, and that in places priorities
may refl ect political and social realities more than
considered an occupation of last resort, and that issues
of ownership differ widely between marine and terrestrial systems. Acknowledgement of the productivity
and human use aspect of marine systems, as well as
the need to conserve ecosystems as functioning wholes,
led to the development of the Large Marine Ecosystems
framework (Sherman, 1993 ).
Large marine ecosystems (LMEs) are regions of
the order of 200,000 km
2 , characterized by distinct
bathymetry, hydrography, productivity and trophically
interdependent populations (Table 5.8 ). As a biogeographical classifi cation scheme, they represent
a ‘ cookie - cutter ’ approach (Figure 5.2 ) in that they
are not globally comprehensive. However, they do
have a signifi cant role to play in ecosystem - based
marine management and conservation, particularly
through governmental channels, in partnership with
NGOs. There are currently 16 international Global
Environment Facility (GEF) - supported LME projects
(Sherman et al ., 2007 ).
As an example of a regional implementation, the
South China Sea Project was initiated in 2005 and is
instituting a fi ve - module approach typical of LME
projects. These modules focus on the application of a
suite of indicators assessing changes in productivity
and oceanography, fi sh and fi sheries, pollution and
ecosystem health, socio - economics, and governance
(see www.unepscs.org ).
Note that biodiversity conservation, or nature value,
does not fi gure explicitly in this strategic approach.
However, remedial actions taken in the context of LME
projects to restore damaged habitats, recover depleted
fi sh stocks and curb coastal pollution and nutrient
enrichment clearly have conservation implications.
From a classifi cation point of view, LMEs have also
been incorporated in the delineation of WWF
Ecoregions and the MEOW.
5.4.6 WWF Global 200 – the m arine
p erspective
Combining aspects of the hotspots and representation
approaches, the World Wildlife Fund developed a
system of terrestrial, freshwater and marine priority
ecoregions (see section 5.3.4 ; Olson & Dinerstein,
2002 ). This analysis was a fi rst attempt at representation within major habitat types (MHTs) on a global
scale. Still lacking a comprehensive global marine
131
classifi cation, ecoregions were mapped out by combining the following MHTs with ocean basins:
1 polar;
2 temperate shelf and seas;
3 temperate upwelling;
4 tropical upwelling;
5 tropical coral.
The information and classifi cations supporting the
ecoregion delineations were derived from Kelleher et al .
(1995) , Sherman et al . (1990) , Longhurst (1998) and
Bailey (1998) , and from consultation with regional
experts. Although acknowledged to be incomplete
(certain areas, e.g. high seas, hydrothermal vents, are
not included) and less fi nely resolved than its terrestrial
counterpart, the lack of a suitable alternative at the
time put the WWF marine ecoregions in a strong position with regard to marine planning.
In the priority - setting step, ecoregions were assessed
based on the following biodiversity criteria: species
richness, levels of endemism, higher taxonomic
uniqueness, unusual ecological or evolutionary phenomena, and global rarity of habitat type. They were
then categorized as globally outstanding, regionally
outstanding, bioregionally outstanding or locally
important. In the marine realm, a total of 43 priority
marine ecoregions were included in the fi nal Global
200 list (Olson & Dinerstein, 2002 ).
The conservation status of each priority ecoregion
was assessed using independent information on levels
of threat. In the marine realm, this was carried out for
the tropical coral ecoregions based on the Reefs at Risk
analysis (Table 5.8 ; Bryant et al ., 1998 ). Again, inadequacies in baseline data and maps limited the detail
and objectivity of the analyses.
The Global 200 is arguably the most ambitious
attempt at global conservation priority - setting. It
explicitly applies the ecosystem approach at a variety
of scales: regional, ecoregional, site and community.
The ecoregion approach has the advantage of being
ecologically appropriate; it acknowledges, but does not
give supremacy to, the complexities of cross - border
multi - stakeholder interests.
However, some of the criticisms that apply to the
representation and hotspot approaches (above) apply
here, too. For example, it might be argued that many
taxa interact with their environments at a scale which
differs greatly from the ecoregion, that the methods are
not entirely transparent, and that in places priorities
may refl ect political and social realities more than
considered an occupation of last resort, and that issues
of ownership differ widely between marine and terrestrial systems. Acknowledgement of the productivity
and human use aspect of marine systems, as well as
the need to conserve ecosystems as functioning wholes,
led to the development of the Large Marine Ecosystems
framework (Sherman, 1993 ).
Large marine ecosystems (LMEs) are regions of
the order of 200,000 km
2 , characterized by distinct
bathymetry, hydrography, productivity and trophically
interdependent populations (Table 5.8 ). As a biogeographical classifi cation scheme, they represent
a ‘ cookie - cutter ’ approach (Figure 5.2 ) in that they
are not globally comprehensive. However, they do
have a signifi cant role to play in ecosystem - based
marine management and conservation, particularly
through governmental channels, in partnership with
NGOs. There are currently 16 international Global
Environment Facility (GEF) - supported LME projects
(Sherman et al ., 2007 ).
As an example of a regional implementation, the
South China Sea Project was initiated in 2005 and is
instituting a fi ve - module approach typical of LME
projects. These modules focus on the application of a
suite of indicators assessing changes in productivity
and oceanography, fi sh and fi sheries, pollution and
ecosystem health, socio - economics, and governance
(see www.unepscs.org ).
Note that biodiversity conservation, or nature value,
does not fi gure explicitly in this strategic approach.
However, remedial actions taken in the context of LME
projects to restore damaged habitats, recover depleted
fi sh stocks and curb coastal pollution and nutrient
enrichment clearly have conservation implications.
From a classifi cation point of view, LMEs have also
been incorporated in the delineation of WWF
Ecoregions and the MEOW.
5.4.6 WWF Global 200 – the m arine
p erspective
Combining aspects of the hotspots and representation
approaches, the World Wildlife Fund developed a
system of terrestrial, freshwater and marine priority
ecoregions (see section 5.3.4 ; Olson & Dinerstein,
2002 ). This analysis was a fi rst attempt at representation within major habitat types (MHTs) on a global
scale. Still lacking a comprehensive global marine