Conservation planning is the process of locating, configuring, implementing and maintaining resources, to promote the persistence of biodiversity and natural resources.[1] It uses specific protocols to identify priority species, sites or regions and separate them from the processes that threaten their existence and permanence, through conservation actions. It not only uses the analysis of biological systems to determine new priority areas, but also uses feedback, review and reiteration to evaluate pre-existing systems in order to improve them.[2].
The main core of conservation planning is biodiversity.[3] However, biological diversity is an ambiguous, multifaceted and dynamic concept that includes forms of life at different temporal and spatial scales. Biological diversity does not depend only on the environmental conditions that can be found in a locality, but also depends on the abiotic conditions existing in adjacent territories and on the unique and unrepeatable history of organisms.[4] This is why, to be effective, conservation planning must deal with two types of changes: first, biodiversity is not static in time or space, but is generated and maintained by natural processes and, second, humans are altering the planet in diverse ways at rates increasingly accelerated.[1] Thus, conservation planning must have two central axes: the variation in threats to biodiversity (and the responses to them), which can be measured as vulnerability,[5] and the unequal distribution of biodiversity, which can be measured as irreplaceability.[6].
It is important to mention that there is a gap between research and application. That is, there is a limit between theory and practice, where the successful implementation of conservation has been conceived, explicitly, from the conceptual framework of the discipline of vulnerability and the impossibility of substitution.[7].
Historically, diversity conservation was interpreted at only three hierarchical levels: genes, species and ecosystems. However, currently, the incorporation of criteria related to the sustainable use of biodiversity, which guarantee the possibility of an optimal quality of life for present and future generations, has required conservation planning at all levels: global, regional, ecosystems, landscape, species, genes.[2].
However, it is difficult to establish conservation criteria broad enough to examine the complexity of spatial and temporal interactions, which have influenced and influence the distribution and magnitude of biological diversity.[4].
Given that the term “biodiversity” is too broad to be covered in a single planning attempt, a question arises: what is the best working strategy to move towards “conservation progress”? Although there is no single answer to this question, perhaps the first step should be aimed at answering three basic concerns: what do we have? where is what we have? And what is the status of what we have? Finding answers to these questions can be a very good starting point for designing a possible strategy for biodiversity conservation. However, recognizing that the available resources are finite, it may be convenient to answer an additional question: what, of what we have, should be prioritized in terms of conservation?[8].
Ecological connectivity plan
Introduction
Conservation planning is the process of locating, configuring, implementing and maintaining resources, to promote the persistence of biodiversity and natural resources.[1] It uses specific protocols to identify priority species, sites or regions and separate them from the processes that threaten their existence and permanence, through conservation actions. It not only uses the analysis of biological systems to determine new priority areas, but also uses feedback, review and reiteration to evaluate pre-existing systems in order to improve them.[2].
The main core of conservation planning is biodiversity.[3] However, biological diversity is an ambiguous, multifaceted and dynamic concept that includes forms of life at different temporal and spatial scales. Biological diversity does not depend only on the environmental conditions that can be found in a locality, but also depends on the abiotic conditions existing in adjacent territories and on the unique and unrepeatable history of organisms.[4] This is why, to be effective, conservation planning must deal with two types of changes: first, biodiversity is not static in time or space, but is generated and maintained by natural processes and, second, humans are altering the planet in diverse ways at rates increasingly accelerated.[1] Thus, conservation planning must have two central axes: the variation in threats to biodiversity (and the responses to them), which can be measured as vulnerability,[5] and the unequal distribution of biodiversity, which can be measured as irreplaceability.[6].
It is important to mention that there is a gap between research and application. That is, there is a limit between theory and practice, where the successful implementation of conservation has been conceived, explicitly, from the conceptual framework of the discipline of vulnerability and the impossibility of substitution.[7].
Historically, diversity conservation was interpreted at only three hierarchical levels: genes, species and ecosystems. However, currently, the incorporation of criteria related to the sustainable use of biodiversity, which guarantee the possibility of an optimal quality of life for present and future generations, has required conservation planning at all levels: global, regional, ecosystems, landscape, species, genes.[2].
Beginnings and current events of conservation planning
Nature conservation began in the West at the end of the century with the declaration of reserves and parks that were created for a particular purpose: to maintain aesthetic quality, fauna and flora, special environmental conditions, rare or unique phenomena and cultural values.[9].
The main characteristic of this approach is that it did not use systematic criteria for its selection or at least it did not do so explicitly. Thus, these areas were selected based on very little rational or scientific criteria, which ended up becoming sites more or less protected from adverse human influence. That is, the absence of adequate planning was the norm and thus, the natural space ended up becoming an opportunity for short-term economic progress, converting areas of high environmental value into theme parks dedicated to providing recreation and leisure services to the population.[4].
The application of a systematic approach, that is, the selection and discarding of sites based on explicit criteria and methods, began with a proposal from the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) to create a network of protected areas in Africa (IUCN 1976).[2] From here, to assist decision-making in nature conservation, in order to establish the best work strategy, scientific and technical projects are increasing where a series of steps that consists of assessing the characteristics of biodiversity in a particular area, and then selecting the areas with the most relevant characteristics; evaluate the existing network of protected natural spaces and its improvement and identify and mitigate the most serious anthropogenic impacts, present and potential, on biodiversity.[10].
However, in recent decades, due to the accelerated changes that man is producing on the planet, the number of species in danger of extinction is significantly higher than the resources available to conserve them.[9] For this reason, scientists have raised the need to prioritize spaces for conservation: how to get the greatest performance with the lowest possible cost.[11] Thus, the term “hotspots” began to be used to refer to areas that concentrate large amounts of biodiversity. This approach using hotspots led to different organizations in the world allocating the funding of more than 750 million dollars, the largest sum allocated to an individual conservation strategy.
Early work on hotspots focused primarily on identifying cores of diversity on a global scale. However, several biological criteria can be invoked for priority-setting purposes (e.g., endemism, species richness, rarity, and taxonomically unusual species). However, the use of a hotspot-based approach has created great uncertainty in the scientific field mainly because, to understand these global priority-setting approaches, it is important to examine the indicators of vulnerability and irreplaceability that are used, and the spatial units of what is prioritized. Furthermore, the lack of data on biodiversity and endemism in some regions, as well as the lack of coordination and monitoring make it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of conservation plans.[7].
Hotspots for conservation planning
Contenido
En 1988, el ecólogo Myers fue el primero en aplicar los conceptos de irremplazabilidad y vulnerabilidad para orientar la planificación de la conservación a escala global. En su análisis, sin criterios cuantitativos, basado solo en pérdida de hábitat y alto grado de endemismo, localiza 10 “hotspots” en bosques tropicales de todo el planeta.[12].
En 1989, la organización conservacionista “Conservación Internacional” (CI) adoptó este modelo añadiendo dos criterios cuantitativos estrictos: para calificar como un “hotspots”, una región debe contener al menos 1.500 plantas vasculares endémicas (> 0,5% del total del mundo), y debe haber sufrido una pérdida de superficie de hábitat de al menos un 70% de su superficie original. Estos esfuerzos culminaron en una extensa revisión global[13] y la publicación científica que introdujo siete nuevos puntos de acceso sobre la base de estos dos criterios.[11].
Periódicamente estos “puntos calientes” se revisan y los análisis hasta ahora han revelado un conjunto de 35 puntos calientes de biodiversidad. Estas regiones colectivamente tienen no menos de 50% de plantas vasculares y 42% de los vertebrados terrestres (anfibios, mamíferos, aves y reptiles) como especies endémicas.[12].
Debido a la pérdida de hábitat en estas regiones, esta riqueza insustituible de la biodiversidad se concentra en apenas 2,3% de la superficie terrestre del mundo. En contraste con el reino terrestre, los datos sobre la distribución y el estado de las especies acuáticas, están comenzando a ser sintetizado en una escala global.[12].
Los datos sobre las regiones marinas siguen siendo escasos en comparación con la información sobre los sistemas terrestres, y nuestra falta de conocimiento acerca de los sistemas de agua dulce es aún mayor.[13].
Los impactos de los “hotspots” de biodiversidad en la conservación han sido diversos y profundos, no solo en el ámbito científico, sino también político-social.
El trabajo de Myers et. al. 2000[11] es uno de los artículos más citados y el uso del término “hotspots” ha crecido exponencialmente en los últimos años. Sin embargo, el impacto más sustancial ha sido en la asignación de recursos. Se ha convertido en el enfoque más directo de las prioridades de conservación global atrayendo más de mil millones de dólares en inversiones de conservación.[12].
Uno de los argumentos de Myers et. al. 2000[11] para centrarse en los “hotspots” para la conservación, es el hecho de que no es posible proteger la gama completa de la biodiversidad, debido principalmente a que los fondos son limitados y deben asignarse con cuidado.[14].
Sin embargo, el uso de “hotspots” ha recibido algunas críticas por la comunidad científica.[12] En 2003, un trabajo realizado por Kareiva y Marvier llamado “Conserving Biodiversity Coldspots” argumentan que el destinar grandes cantidades de dinero a la conservación de “hotspots” se debe solo a la simplicidad del modelo, no obstante, los “Coldspots” (puntos fríos o que no se contemplan en el modelo de Myers) juegan un papel ecológico importante. El ignorar estos puntos (“Coldspots”) puede conducir a grandes e importantes pérdidas ecológicas y servicios ecosistémicos.[15].
Estos autores también argumentan que los enfoques utilizados, carecen de criterio científico y generan grandes sesgos a la hora de elegir “hotspots” ya que, por ejemplo, las selvas tropicales son las regiones del planeta que albergan la mayor cantidad de especies endémicas, lo que deja en desventaja a cualquier otro tipo de hábitat. Así mismo, la riqueza de especies, las especies raras o especies con alto valor biológico no se consideran en estos “hotspots” y ponen en riesgo a un gran número de especies, de ambientes y el papel fundamental que las diversas comunidades de especies desempeñan en el fomento de un ambiente saludable y predecible.
Otros científicos también han criticado el enfoque de “hotspots” para la conservación, argumentando que las prioridades espaciales y las políticas públicas no pueden determinarse sobre la base de simples recuentos de especies, además, argumentan que se ignoran por completo las regiones de transición ecológica, la escasez del número y distribución de especies en algunas regiones del mundo, y no se contemplan los procesos evolutivos como prioritarios para la conservación.[7].
Por lo tanto, algunos científicos promueven un enfoque más amplio para incluir las regiones importantes para la generación y mantenimiento de la biodiversidad, sin importar si son ricos en especies . Recientemente, se han puesto en relieve la falta de consideración en el papel de los invertebrados en la toma de decisiones acerca de los hotspots de biodiversidad global, lo que sugiere un análisis más detallado y amplio que el considerado.[12].
Aunque el uso de “hotspots” utilizando los criterios propuestos por Myers no está completamente libre de críticas, se ha convertido en una herramienta clave para orientar los esfuerzos de conservación y en la actualidad, juega un papel principal en la toma de decisiones sobre las estrategias de conservación.[15].
La planificación para la conservación y el establecimiento de prioridades están intrínsecamente relacionados, sin embargo, sigue siendo una tarea difícil definir criterios amplios, en función de los intereses, los costos, los patrones de biodiversidad, las amenazas y la gestión presente y futura.
Aunque su importancia es aún objeto de debate, los costos económicos podrían representar un paso importante en la planificación de la conservación. La incorporación de información sobre los costos y beneficios de la conservación de la biodiversidad podría proporcionar una retribución más adecuada de los recursos disponibles para la conservación. En este sentido, la financiación destinada a medidas de conservación continúa siendo escasa para los altos niveles de biodiversidad amenazada.[12].
Do conservation priorities match what is conserved?
The main objective of conservation planning has been and is the protection and persistence of biodiversity.[4] Although in recent times, scientists have had a greater participation in decision-making, conservation measures, and in particular, the selection of sites for the establishment of protected areas for the conservation of biodiversity has been driven, mainly, by political and economic decisions and rarely scientifically based aimed at obtaining good coverage of biological characteristics within a region.[16].
Thus, in practice little is known about how to set appropriate objectives, or the extent to which the current global protected area network meets its objective of protecting biodiversity.
Numerous studies have shown that the current global network of protected areas differs considerably from conservation objectives and priorities. These studies are important for conservation planning as they highlight the need for an urgent review of current protected areas and additional conservation needs.
Current levels of protection should not be used as a criterion for future priorities: regions with a greater surface area covered by protected areas do not reflect a lower need for protection in the future, but, on the contrary, are regions that present high endemism that is not protected within these areas.[17].
Protected areas can mitigate the risk of biodiversity loss, but only if there is an adequate distribution that allows not only the protection of endangered species, but also the protection of ecosystems at risk; ecological function; evolutionary processes, etc.[18].
A first step is to analyze and know the biomes that are in a state of vulnerability or danger. Hoestrak et al, 2005 carried out an analysis in which they found that on all continents there are ecoregions in crisis and many of these ecoregions coincided with the “hotspots” proposed by Myers et al 2000[11] and also with the habitat of 249 species in danger of extinction.
Fundamentals of systematic planning and methodological tools
En todas partes del mundo hay un legado de áreas para la conservación que se fueron acumulando a lo largo del tiempo de manera oportunista, que no necesariamente representan la biodiversidad regional. Por lo que la planificación sistemática y la priorización de áreas buscan mejorar estos sistemas. Margules y Pressey (2000) ,[19] Groves et al (2002)[20] y Crowling y Pressey (2003)[21] han establecido algunas características distintivas de la planificación sistemática: En primer lugar, se requiere de la participación de actores sociales involucrados, entre los que se encuentran aquellas personas que depende o influyen de alguna manera en el recurso que se pretende conservar. Así, la planificación debe ser parte de políticas sociales que reconozcan y atiendan estos intereses. También requiere de una clara metodología para la medición y el cartografiado de la biodiversidad.
El concepto de biodiversidad debe hacerse operativo a través del uso de sustitutos o subrogados (surrogates) que deben ser cuantificables, y se deben poder estimar de manera realista (colectas de campo, datos de sensores remotos y modelos). Esto puede hacerse a través del uso de subrogados verdaderos o subrogados estimados. Los subrogados verdaderos son todos aquellos elementos que puedan ser medidos y evaluados y al mismo tiempo, que permitan representar la biodiversidad en su totalidad y faciliten que el concepto de diversidad se vuelva operativo para la planificación sistemática, por ejemplo, elementos del paisaje, presencia de especies u taxones, tipos de hábitat, diversidad de especies, especies en riesgo, diversidad de comunidades bióticas, regiones biogeografías, ecorregiones, etc.
Los llamados subrogados estimados, pretenden representar a los subrogados verdaderos, es decir, son aquellos paramentos que no podemos estimar de manera directa en el campo pero que nos permiten inferir la diversidad biológica, como, por ejemplo, parámetros ambientales o grupos de especies.
Otra característica, en la metodología de la planificación sistemática, consiste en elegir los indicadores de la biodiversidad, dando prioridad al conjunto de subrogados verdaderos, siendo además explícito en el modo y el criterio utilizado para su elección. Establecer metas y objetivos cuantitativos claros de conservación contemplando el diseño, la forma, la conectividad, etc. considerando no solo criterios de biodiversidad sino también criterios sociopolíticos.
Evaluar la viabilidad del plan de conservación en un análisis multicriterio donde se contemple los recursos disponibles.
Por último, es importante, evaluar el sistema periódicamente con el fin de mejorar, modificar y reestructurar el plan propuesto.[20].
En general, la planificación sistemática tiene como objetivo principal proteger los elementos de la biodiversidad, de los procesos que atentan contra ellos dentro del contexto donde dichas áreas fueron establecidas. El logro de este propósito general depende del grado de cumplimiento de dos objetivos básicos: representatividad y persistencia. La representatividad hace referencia al grado en que se protege todo el ámbito de escalas espaciales y de organización biológica de la biodiversidad. La persistencia se refiere a que es necesario asegurar la supervivencia a largo plazo de la biodiversidad, manteniendo los procesos ecológicos que la sustentan, la viabilidad de las poblaciones y la integridad de los ecosistemas.[19].
El objetivo de persistencia debe incluir explícitamente elementos asociados con la redundancia, la resiliencia y la definición de límites de las áreas a proteger.[22].
Representativeness: Gap Analysis for Conservation Planning
Gap analysis is a method that evaluates the biodiversity of a certain region, compares it with that found within a protected area or region, and identifies where species or ecosystems remain without protection or with insufficient protection.[22] In practical terms, we can say that those species or regions that are not represented mean gaps in conservation efforts. The analysis of gaps allows us to focus conservation efforts that ensure persistence over time.[3].
Representativeness is one of the fundamental objectives in systematic planning. Thus, the design of a representative network of protected areas requires a conceptual and methodological framework that allows the evaluation of compliance with the objective of representativeness. Gap analysis is a widely used tool developed on solid ecological principles that has made it possible to base conservation actions in different regions of the world and at different planning scales.[19][23] However, conservation specialists find themselves in the constant dilemma of defining what percentage of a given region is sufficient to ensure the viability of species and their long-term persistence.[23] In addition, there are multiple sources of uncertainty, among them the absence of dynamic information treatments stands out: given that both species and threats are dynamic in space and time, systematic planning and gap analysis must be constantly updated in order to support the designation of new areas or the expansion of existing ones.[3] A challenge associated with gap analysis, which until now has not been properly analyzed, is the potential contribution of biodiversity to conservation in fragmented landscapes and with different land uses.[22].
Landscape fragmentation can result in a loss of habitat, a reduction in its size and increasing isolation;[3] consequently, it increases the loss of species at a local and regional scale and changes in faunal assemblages and ecological processes, in addition, it hinders migration and dispersal towards more appropriate habitats, in response to climate change.[24] Landscapes altered and dominated by intensive land uses can host remnants of vegetation and unique species and, therefore, play a fundamental role in the conservation of biodiversity. Biodiversity inside and outside protected spaces is a pillar for the production of critical ecosystem services for society. The above implies a change in the conservation model: an integrated management of the territory is now pursued that includes both protected areas and buffer areas, landscapes with different land uses and biological corridors.[25].
Persistence: biological corridors for conservation planning
The processes of habitat reduction and fragmentation are pointed out by the scientific community as one of the main causes of the current biodiversity crisis.[26] It is unlikely that the maintenance of biodiversity will be achieved solely through protected areas (especially in those cases where the protected areas are small and surrounded by altered environments such as agricultural fields, grasslands, urban and tourist areas). Rather, the probability of maintaining biodiversity is maximized as long as there is a network of interconnected habitats that maintains the connectivity of ecological processes and species populations. Connectivity is a key ecological attribute in the functionality of ecosystems that must be incorporated into systematic planning and that is achieved with the appropriate design of biological corridors.[22].
A biological corridor is defined as “the territory whose purpose is to provide connectivity between landscapes, ecosystems and habitats (natural or modified) to ensure the maintenance of biodiversity and population, ecological and evolutionary processes.”[23] The objective of biological corridors is to contribute to improving the probabilities of persistence of many populations of species, provide habitats and resources necessary to complete the life cycle of organisms and facilitate movement in the event of abrupt changes in the associated ecological factors.[24] Corridors Biological habitats were proposed by Wilson and Willis in 1975, and are based on the assumption that fragments united or connected by an adequate biological corridor reduce the rate of extinction and have a greater conservation value than isolated habitats. The purpose of these corridors is to allow the dispersal of plants and animals, facilitating gene flow and the colonization of suitable sites. They also facilitate seasonal and daily migrations between a variety of different habitats.[27].
It is clear that systematic planning is essential for the maintenance of ecological and population processes of species. This is especially relevant in those landscapes vulnerable to human impact or where ecological integrity is outside its optimal state.[22] International conventions have been giving increasing importance to the need to guarantee the geographical mobility of species and genetic exchange, to avoid the isolation of populations. From conservation based on the protection of specific species and places, a more global vision of conservation has been promoted, where the integrity of ecological processes and ecosystems take greater prominence.[26].
Conservation planning and priorities at different scales
Species planning
Species are considered the fundamental unit in conservation planning, this is mainly due to the fact that their extinction is an irreversible process compared to the disturbances that can affect ecosystems or ecoregions.[28] Species have been by far the most used and studied in planning strategies. In 2007, 41,415 species had been evaluated by the IUCN, resulting in 16,306 of them being, worldwide, on the Red list, with a high risk of extinction (IUCN 2007). Having a Red List presents the possibility of establishing priority areas of conservation, strengthening or improving existing sites and evaluating the future impacts that man can generate on the species.[29] However, for some taxa there is not the amount of information necessary to know their conservation status; among these groups there are many invertebrates and some plant taxa.[28].
On the other hand, in recent years, conservation planning has focused on large regions or at levels of organization higher than that of the species; these approaches could be insufficient for those groups that are little known or restricted in their distribution. Knowledge about the size, distribution and density of populations is a basic aspect for the study and management of a particular species.[30].
In 1999, the Wildlife Conservation Society promoted an exercise to define priorities and plan for the jaguar (Panthera onca), a species in danger of extinction, throughout its distribution range, from northern Mexico to northern Argentina. Scientists from 18 countries agreed that, to know the current conservation status of the jaguar, they needed to have information about the range currently occupied by the jaguar; the areas with the highest population density; habitat preference; and sites where jaguars have been observed during the last 10 years. During the exercise, these experts also assessed the jaguar's long-term survival across its range and developed an algorithm to prioritize jaguar conservation units in the most important habitat types.
From this work, it emerged that the jaguar's range had contracted to approximately 46% of its estimated range in 1990. The status of the jaguar and its distribution has also decreased by 12% compared to 1990, including extensive areas in Mexico, Colombia and Brazil. From this data, 51 conservation units representing 30 different regions were prioritized as the basis for a solid conservation program. Thus, the jaguar is included in Appendix I of the International Wildlife Trade Treaty, which means that it is illegal to trade its skin or any other of its parts.
Due to its inclusion in the International Wildlife Trade Treaty, jaguar skin prices in the international market collapsed, stopping this activity as it was not profitable for hunters.[31].
Jaguars are protected by national legislation in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, French Guiana, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Suriname, Uruguay, Belize, USA and Venezuela. However, hunting them is legal as they are considered problem animals in Brazil, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico and Peru. Furthermore, in 2012, the non-governmental organization “Panthera” promoted a project that seeks to consolidate a biological corridor from Mexico to Argentina. This agreement was signed by various Latin American countries, with the aim of saving the jaguar from extinction. However, the results to date are not very encouraging and it is estimated that the number of specimens drops to 250, the main cause of their danger of extinction is hunting and the reduction of habitat by man.[32].
Habitat planning
With 16,306 known species in danger of extinction, each year the threat rates are higher and without a doubt, the conservation status of many plants and animals has yet to be assessed. Fortunately, the cornerstone of conservation action is habitat conservation, this allows us to protect or safeguard thousands of species simultaneously. The Protected Planet Report 2012 shows that protected areas are growing in relation to the amount and surface area of the Earth covered, which currently includes 12.7% of the world's land area and 1.6% of the world's ocean area.
The IUCN is considered an international governing body, contributing to the creation, consolidation and development of protected area systems. This organization has presented successive categorizations that served as the basis for the regulations adopted by many countries. Although the categories do not imply a hierarchy, they reflect the degree of acceptable human activity in each case.[33].
However, a growing number of studies have questioned a conservationist approach based centrally on the creation of protected areas.
Although the arguments are diverse, most converge on two central issues: the efficiency of protected natural areas and their permanence in the medium and long term.[34] Efficiency refers to the difficulty of guaranteeing sufficient representation of the planet's biodiversity, in just one global network of protected areas, which can contemplate not only the immensity in the number of species, but also distribution patterns, ecological interactions, evolutionary processes and natural phenomena over time. scales.[35] This difficulty lies, mainly, in that the three principles used to distinguish, locate and establish a protected natural area are: number, richness and endemism of species, each of these principles are the result of three different processes.[34] Likewise, it has been questioned that protected areas fail to incorporate large-scale and long-lasting processes, thus natural areas would appear to be static zones, where ecosystem dynamics are “rigid”.[4] Another great criticism is the permanence of natural areas, these areas are not immune to the disturbances that occur in their immediate and distant surroundings, whether due to local residents, the urban population and industrial pollution, etc.[33].
The historian Morris Berman in his book Body and Spirit (1992) states “Zoos give the false impression that species can be saved, even if wild ones are destroyed.” During the last century, conservation efforts, both institutional, monetary and scientific, have focused on devising strategies that allow maximum conservation of biodiversity. The current network of protected areas, created in many cases based on scientific criteria, and in many other cases, created based on economic or political criteria, could represent Morris Berman's zoo fallacy, widespread throughout the world.[34] Thus, protected areas are concentrated in a limited number of biological "sanctuaries" that attempt to protect a limited number of species regardless of what happens in their environment.[4].
Ecosystem and ecoregional planning.
Organisms form the basis of biodiversity, but they function in the context of ecosystems.[38] As previously mentioned, protected areas are not sufficient for the conservation of biodiversity. Thus, some decades ago it was suggested that the conservation of biological diversity should focus, not only on patterns, but on ecological and evolutionary processes; that species-poor ecosystems can be crucial for the functioning of material cycles and energy flows; and that data on species are unreliable due to their geographic and taxonomic biases.[34].
Representing the environmental diversity of a territory does not necessarily imply protecting its biological diversity. It is also evident that our lack of reliable information on the distribution of species prevents us from using the information to make selections of areas to protect. The distribution of the species themselves probably includes not only the full spectrum of existing environmental conditions, sometimes invisible to the human eye, but also demographic and historical effects, capable of generating different communities under similar environmental conditions.[4].
Ecosystems are much more than the visual perception of a combination of shapes, geographical features and vegetation: they comprise in themselves the set of elements that are part of the environment.[33] The vision of the ecosystem, as a functional unit for conservation, is useful to promote management actions that can be quite specific to particular components of the ecosystem, to direct activities that allow obtaining products and services from terrestrial and aquatic systems, while conserving their biodiversity.[38].
Lugo et al. 2001 propose some of the paradigms that govern ecosystem management: a dynamic vision of the state of ecosystems in contrast to stable and static systems such as protected areas, will be appropriate in an era of environmental change, where systems will function in transitory states and few will achieve stable states. In addition, it will allow management from a point of view of elasticity instead of stability, which will allow for considering the interactions and functionings at the interfaces (For example: Terrestrial/aquatic), all scales of time and space can be considered, and the speeds of change, instead of focusing on short-term aspects and at local spatial scales, it will allow maintaining a global perspective even when managed at a local scale. Finally, disturbances should be seen as an integral part of ecosystems, thus the ecological and sociological context should be managed instead of ignoring social aspects, which are sometimes determining factors in the success of ecosystem management.
However, given the high cost of the conservation of large areas and the resource limitations, mainly economic, conservation should focus on areas where the greatest benefits are produced and the efforts invested lead to better impacts, especially environmental ones.[39] Fundamental aspects to achieve effective conservation are defining, knowing and giving priority to the places where action must be taken in the first instance.
Towards an integrated vision of biodiversity management
In recent years, it has been suggested to include some elements in systematic planning for biodiversity conservation. Planning must ensure that natural and cultural values are maintained in space and time.[42] Conservation of biological diversity must focus not only on patterns, but on ecological processes. The lack of taxonomic and distribution data on the vast majority of species that inhabit any region makes it difficult to choose places capable of representing the biodiversity of a territory. Our lack of information on the geographical distribution of organisms, their interactions and their role in ecological processes is arguably our greatest obstacle to developing reliable biodiversity conservation strategies. In any case, the often arbitrary and subjective procedures for selecting the spaces to be protected must be replaced by the scientifically proven methods currently available, seeking to also incorporate the economic and ecological values that the species and natural systems provide.[22].
It is likely that many conservation areas do not reach a sufficient size to be considered free of the danger of extinction of species, or that there is no interference in ecological and evolutionary processes.[29] The development and implementation of networks of interconnected territories that allow conservation objectives and goals to be met, and that consider different spatial and temporal scales in their design and planning, is therefore a priority and urgent. Such networks can be called functional areas for conservation, the challenge is to establish these management areas and provide them with the institutional mechanisms necessary for their implementation.[22].
On the other hand, effective biodiversity management requires a constant flow of information that allows evaluating the effectiveness of management and compliance with conservation goals. This implies the adjustment of goals, objectives, strategies and actions implemented with an adaptive vision; management actions that may be appropriate at a given time may not be appropriate in another period.[19].
A monitoring program is key in feedback, learning, improvement and adaptation of the conservation strategies implemented. Monitoring the impact of conservation actions on the ecological processes that maintain biological diversity in protected spaces continues to be one of the most important challenges.[22].
In the face of a changing world (and to learn and adapt to new scenarios brought about by current paradigms of economic, political and social development), functional areas for conservation require knowledge and adaptive management approaches.[23] This involves learning from successful and unsuccessful experiences, recognizing uncertainty in the management process and accepting and incorporating unexpected changes in the context within which management is applied.
In this context, it is essential that the various users take advantage of the research generated for decision-making and thus guide the formulation of national public policies. Experience shows that this has been difficult; In general, the results of scientific research and monitoring have minimally influenced the design and implementation of conservation strategies. Consequently, it is necessary to develop and institutionalize knowledge management models that allow the staff of the institutions in charge of biodiversity management to generate and disseminate knowledge as a means to improve the decision-making process.[29].
References
[1] ↑ a b Pressey, R. L., Cabeza, M., Watts, M. E., Cowling, R. M., & Wilson, K. A. (2007). Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends in ecology & evolution, 22(11), 583-592.
[2] ↑ a b c Margules, C., Sarkar, S., & Margules, C. R. (2007). Systematic conservation planning. Cambridge University Press.
[3] ↑ a b c d Meynard, C. N., Howell, C. A., & Quinn, J. F. (2009). Comparing alternative systematic conservation planning strategies against a politically driven conservation plan. Biodiversity and conservation, 18(12), 3061-3083.
[4] ↑ a b c d e f g h i Lobo, J. M. (2008) Hacia una estrategia global para la conservación de la diversidad biológica. Boletín Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa, 1(42), 493-495.
[5] ↑ Pressey, R.L. and Taffs, K.H.(2001).Scheduling conservation action in production landscapes: priority areas in western New South Wales defined by irreplaceability and vulnerability to vegetation loss. Biological Conservation, 100, 355–376.
[6] ↑ Pressey, R. L., Johnson, I. R., and Wilson, P. D. (1994). Shades of irreplaceability—towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal. Biodiversity and Conservation, 3, 242–262.
[7] ↑ a b c Brooks, T. (2010). Conservation planning and priorities. Conservation Biology for All. Escrito por Brooks199-219.
[8] ↑ Galindo, G., Gordillo, D. M., Suarez, N. R. B., Betancourth, J. C., & Vergara, L. K. (2009). Planificación ecorregional para la conservación de la biodiversidad en el Caribe Continental Colombiano. Instituto Alexander Von Humboldt.
[9] ↑ a b Andrade, G., & Corzo, G. (2011). ¿Qué y dónde conservar? Bogotá D.C., Colombia: Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia.
[10] ↑ Razola, I., Benayas, J. R., De la Montaña, E., & Cayuela, L. (2006). Selección de áreas relevantes para la conservación de la biodiversidad. Revista Ecosistemas, 15(2).
[11] ↑ a b c d e Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., and Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853–858.
[12] ↑ a b c d e f g Marchese, C. (2015). Biodiversity hotspots: A shortcut for a more complicated concept. Global Ecology and Conservation, 3, 297-309.
[13] ↑ a b Mittermeier, C.G., Turner, W.R., Larsen, F.W., Brooks, T.M., Gascon, C., 2011. Global biodiversity conservation: the critical role of hotspots. In: Zachos, F.E., Habel, J.C. (Eds.), Biodiversity hotspots: Distribution and Protection of Priority Conservation Areas. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 3–22.
[15] ↑ a b Kareiva, P., & Marvier, M. (2003). Conserving Biodiversity Coldspots Recent calls to direct conservation funding to the world's biodiversity hotspots may be bad investment advice. American Scientist, 91(4), 344-351.
[16] ↑ Tognelli, M.F., et al. Assessing the performance of the existing and proposed network of marine protected áreas to conserve marine biodiversity in Chile. Biol. Conserv. (2009).
[17] ↑ Rodrigues, A. S., Andelman, S. J., Bakarr, M. I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T. M., Cowling, R. M., & Yan, X. (2004). Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature, 428(6983), 640-643.
[18] ↑ Hoekstra, J. M., Boucher, T. M., Ricketts, T. H., & Roberts, C. (2005). Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecology letters, 8(1), 23-29.
[19] ↑ a b c d Margules, C. R. and Pressey, R. L. (2000). Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405, 243–253.
[20] ↑ a b Groves, C.R., D.B. Jensen, L.L. Valutis, K.H. Redford, M.L. Shaffer, J.M. Scott, J.V. Baumgartner, J.V. Higgins, M.W. Beck & M.G. Anderson. 2002. Planning for biodiversity conservation: putting conservation science into practice. BioScience 52: 499-512.
[21] ↑ Cowling,R.M.,Pressey,R.L.,Rouget,M.,and Lombard,A.T. (2003). A conservation plan for a global biodiversity hotspots –theCapeFloristicRegion,SouthAfrica. Biological Conservation,112,191–216.
[22] ↑ a b c d e f g h Herrera, B., & Finegan, B. (2008). La planificación sistemática como instrumento para la conservación de la biodiversidad. Experiencias recientes y desafíos en Costa Rica. Rec. Nat. Amb, 54, 4-13.
[23] ↑ a b c d Feoli-Boraschi, S. (2012). Corredores biológicos: una estrategia de conservación en el manejo de cuencas hidrográficas. Revista Forestal Mesoamericana Kurú, 6(17), 1-5.
[24] ↑ a b Arias, E., Chacón, O., Induni, G., Herrera, B., Acebedo, H., Barborak, J. R., & Coto, M. (2008) Las redes de conectividad como base para la planificación de la conservación de la biodiversidad: propuesta para Costa Rica. Recursos Naturales y Ambiente (Costa Rica).(Ago 2008).(, (54), 37-43.
[25] ↑ Bennett, G; Molungoy, KJ. 2006. Review of experiences with ecological networks, corridors and buffer zones. Montreal, CA, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Technical Series No. 23. 100 p.
[26] ↑ a b San Vicente, M. G., & Valencia, P. L. (2009). La integración de la conectividad ecológica en los instrumentos de ordenación y planificación territorial: una revisión. Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, (49), 45-66.
[27] ↑ Canet-Desanti, L. (2007). Herramientas para el diseño, gestión y monitoreo de corredores biológicos en Costa Rica (Doctoral dissertation, Tesis Mag. Sc. Turrialba, CR, CATIE).
[28] ↑ a b Sodhi, N. S., & Ehrlich, P. R. (Eds.). (2010). Conservation biology for all. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
[29] ↑ a b c d e Brooks, T. M., Mittermeier, R. A., da Fonseca, G. A., Gerlach, J., Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux, J. F., & Rodrigues, A. S. (2006). Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science, 313(5783), 58-61.
[30] ↑ Sanderson, E. W., Redford, K. H., Chetkiewicz, C.-L. B., Medellin, R. A., Rabinowitz, A. R., Robinson, J. G. and Taber, A. B. (2002), Planning to Save a Species: the Jaguar as a Model. Conservation Biology, 16: 58–72. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00352.x.
[31] ↑ Mondolfi, E., & Hoogesteijn, R. (1991). Investigaciones para el manejo de poblaciones de jaguar. Felinos de Venezuela: Biologıa, Ecologıa y Conservación, 75-82.
[32] ↑ Srbek-Araujo, A. C., Mendes, S. L., & Chiarello, A. G. (2015). Jaguar (Panthera onca Linnaeus, 1758) roadkill in Brazilian Atlantic Forest and implications for species conservation. Brazilian Journal of Biology, 75(3), 581-586.
[33] ↑ a b c Castelli, L., & Spallaso, V. (2007). Planificación y conservación del paisaje.FUNAFU. Ciudad de Buenos Aires.
[34] ↑ a b c d Toledo, V. M. (2005). Repensar la conservación: ¿áreas naturales protegidas o estrategia bioregional?. Gaceta ecológica, (77), 67-83.
[35] ↑ a b March, I. J., Carvajal, M. A., Vidal, R. M., San Román, J. E., & Ruiz, G. (2009). Planificación y desarrollo de estrategias para la conservación de la biodiversidad. Capital natural de México, 2, 545-573.
[36] ↑ Devitt, K. R., Adams, V. M., & Kyne, P. M. (2015). Australia’s protected area network fails to adequately protect the world’s most threatened marine fishes. Global Ecology and Conservation, 3, 401-411.
[37] ↑ Shah P, Baylis K (2015) Evaluating Heterogeneous Conservation Effects of Forest Protection in Indonesia. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0124872. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124872.
[38] ↑ a b c d Lugo, A. E. (2001). El manejo de la biodiversidad en el siglo XXI. Interciencia,26(10), 484-490.
[39] ↑ a b Herzog, S. K., Soria Auza, R. W., & Bennett Hennessey, A. (2005). Patrones ecorregionales de riqueza, endemismo y amenaza de la avifauna boliviana: prioridades para la planificación ecorregional. Ecología en Bolivia, 40(2), 27-40.
[40] ↑ Chavez Gonzalez, Honoria; Gonzalez Guillen, Manuel De Jesús Y Hernandez De La R, Patricia. Metodologías Para Identificar Áreas Prioritarias Para Conservación De Ecosistemas Naturales. Rev. Mex. De Cienc. Forestales [Online]. 2015, Vol.6, N.27, Pp. 8-23.
[41] ↑ a b c d Polak T, Watson JEM, Fuller RA, Joseph LN, Martin TG, Possingham HP, Venter O, Carwardine J. 2015 Efficient expansion of global protected areas requires simultaneous planning for species and ecosystems.R. Soc. open sci.2: 150107.
[42] ↑ Primack, R; Rozzi, R; Feinsinger, P; Dirzo, R; Massardo, F. 1998. Fundamentos de conservación biológica: perspectivas latinoamericanas. México D.F., MX, Fondo de Cultura Económica. 797 p.
However, it is difficult to establish conservation criteria broad enough to examine the complexity of spatial and temporal interactions, which have influenced and influence the distribution and magnitude of biological diversity.[4].
Given that the term “biodiversity” is too broad to be covered in a single planning attempt, a question arises: what is the best working strategy to move towards “conservation progress”? Although there is no single answer to this question, perhaps the first step should be aimed at answering three basic concerns: what do we have? where is what we have? And what is the status of what we have? Finding answers to these questions can be a very good starting point for designing a possible strategy for biodiversity conservation. However, recognizing that the available resources are finite, it may be convenient to answer an additional question: what, of what we have, should be prioritized in terms of conservation?[8].
Beginnings and current events of conservation planning
Nature conservation began in the West at the end of the century with the declaration of reserves and parks that were created for a particular purpose: to maintain aesthetic quality, fauna and flora, special environmental conditions, rare or unique phenomena and cultural values.[9].
The main characteristic of this approach is that it did not use systematic criteria for its selection or at least it did not do so explicitly. Thus, these areas were selected based on very little rational or scientific criteria, which ended up becoming sites more or less protected from adverse human influence. That is, the absence of adequate planning was the norm and thus, the natural space ended up becoming an opportunity for short-term economic progress, converting areas of high environmental value into theme parks dedicated to providing recreation and leisure services to the population.[4].
The application of a systematic approach, that is, the selection and discarding of sites based on explicit criteria and methods, began with a proposal from the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) to create a network of protected areas in Africa (IUCN 1976).[2] From here, to assist decision-making in nature conservation, in order to establish the best work strategy, scientific and technical projects are increasing where a series of steps that consists of assessing the characteristics of biodiversity in a particular area, and then selecting the areas with the most relevant characteristics; evaluate the existing network of protected natural spaces and its improvement and identify and mitigate the most serious anthropogenic impacts, present and potential, on biodiversity.[10].
However, in recent decades, due to the accelerated changes that man is producing on the planet, the number of species in danger of extinction is significantly higher than the resources available to conserve them.[9] For this reason, scientists have raised the need to prioritize spaces for conservation: how to get the greatest performance with the lowest possible cost.[11] Thus, the term “hotspots” began to be used to refer to areas that concentrate large amounts of biodiversity. This approach using hotspots led to different organizations in the world allocating the funding of more than 750 million dollars, the largest sum allocated to an individual conservation strategy.
Early work on hotspots focused primarily on identifying cores of diversity on a global scale. However, several biological criteria can be invoked for priority-setting purposes (e.g., endemism, species richness, rarity, and taxonomically unusual species). However, the use of a hotspot-based approach has created great uncertainty in the scientific field mainly because, to understand these global priority-setting approaches, it is important to examine the indicators of vulnerability and irreplaceability that are used, and the spatial units of what is prioritized. Furthermore, the lack of data on biodiversity and endemism in some regions, as well as the lack of coordination and monitoring make it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of conservation plans.[7].
Hotspots for conservation planning
Contenido
En 1988, el ecólogo Myers fue el primero en aplicar los conceptos de irremplazabilidad y vulnerabilidad para orientar la planificación de la conservación a escala global. En su análisis, sin criterios cuantitativos, basado solo en pérdida de hábitat y alto grado de endemismo, localiza 10 “hotspots” en bosques tropicales de todo el planeta.[12].
En 1989, la organización conservacionista “Conservación Internacional” (CI) adoptó este modelo añadiendo dos criterios cuantitativos estrictos: para calificar como un “hotspots”, una región debe contener al menos 1.500 plantas vasculares endémicas (> 0,5% del total del mundo), y debe haber sufrido una pérdida de superficie de hábitat de al menos un 70% de su superficie original. Estos esfuerzos culminaron en una extensa revisión global[13] y la publicación científica que introdujo siete nuevos puntos de acceso sobre la base de estos dos criterios.[11].
Periódicamente estos “puntos calientes” se revisan y los análisis hasta ahora han revelado un conjunto de 35 puntos calientes de biodiversidad. Estas regiones colectivamente tienen no menos de 50% de plantas vasculares y 42% de los vertebrados terrestres (anfibios, mamíferos, aves y reptiles) como especies endémicas.[12].
Debido a la pérdida de hábitat en estas regiones, esta riqueza insustituible de la biodiversidad se concentra en apenas 2,3% de la superficie terrestre del mundo. En contraste con el reino terrestre, los datos sobre la distribución y el estado de las especies acuáticas, están comenzando a ser sintetizado en una escala global.[12].
Los datos sobre las regiones marinas siguen siendo escasos en comparación con la información sobre los sistemas terrestres, y nuestra falta de conocimiento acerca de los sistemas de agua dulce es aún mayor.[13].
Los impactos de los “hotspots” de biodiversidad en la conservación han sido diversos y profundos, no solo en el ámbito científico, sino también político-social.
El trabajo de Myers et. al. 2000[11] es uno de los artículos más citados y el uso del término “hotspots” ha crecido exponencialmente en los últimos años. Sin embargo, el impacto más sustancial ha sido en la asignación de recursos. Se ha convertido en el enfoque más directo de las prioridades de conservación global atrayendo más de mil millones de dólares en inversiones de conservación.[12].
Uno de los argumentos de Myers et. al. 2000[11] para centrarse en los “hotspots” para la conservación, es el hecho de que no es posible proteger la gama completa de la biodiversidad, debido principalmente a que los fondos son limitados y deben asignarse con cuidado.[14].
Sin embargo, el uso de “hotspots” ha recibido algunas críticas por la comunidad científica.[12] En 2003, un trabajo realizado por Kareiva y Marvier llamado “Conserving Biodiversity Coldspots” argumentan que el destinar grandes cantidades de dinero a la conservación de “hotspots” se debe solo a la simplicidad del modelo, no obstante, los “Coldspots” (puntos fríos o que no se contemplan en el modelo de Myers) juegan un papel ecológico importante. El ignorar estos puntos (“Coldspots”) puede conducir a grandes e importantes pérdidas ecológicas y servicios ecosistémicos.[15].
Estos autores también argumentan que los enfoques utilizados, carecen de criterio científico y generan grandes sesgos a la hora de elegir “hotspots” ya que, por ejemplo, las selvas tropicales son las regiones del planeta que albergan la mayor cantidad de especies endémicas, lo que deja en desventaja a cualquier otro tipo de hábitat. Así mismo, la riqueza de especies, las especies raras o especies con alto valor biológico no se consideran en estos “hotspots” y ponen en riesgo a un gran número de especies, de ambientes y el papel fundamental que las diversas comunidades de especies desempeñan en el fomento de un ambiente saludable y predecible.
Otros científicos también han criticado el enfoque de “hotspots” para la conservación, argumentando que las prioridades espaciales y las políticas públicas no pueden determinarse sobre la base de simples recuentos de especies, además, argumentan que se ignoran por completo las regiones de transición ecológica, la escasez del número y distribución de especies en algunas regiones del mundo, y no se contemplan los procesos evolutivos como prioritarios para la conservación.[7].
Por lo tanto, algunos científicos promueven un enfoque más amplio para incluir las regiones importantes para la generación y mantenimiento de la biodiversidad, sin importar si son ricos en especies . Recientemente, se han puesto en relieve la falta de consideración en el papel de los invertebrados en la toma de decisiones acerca de los hotspots de biodiversidad global, lo que sugiere un análisis más detallado y amplio que el considerado.[12].
Aunque el uso de “hotspots” utilizando los criterios propuestos por Myers no está completamente libre de críticas, se ha convertido en una herramienta clave para orientar los esfuerzos de conservación y en la actualidad, juega un papel principal en la toma de decisiones sobre las estrategias de conservación.[15].
La planificación para la conservación y el establecimiento de prioridades están intrínsecamente relacionados, sin embargo, sigue siendo una tarea difícil definir criterios amplios, en función de los intereses, los costos, los patrones de biodiversidad, las amenazas y la gestión presente y futura.
Aunque su importancia es aún objeto de debate, los costos económicos podrían representar un paso importante en la planificación de la conservación. La incorporación de información sobre los costos y beneficios de la conservación de la biodiversidad podría proporcionar una retribución más adecuada de los recursos disponibles para la conservación. En este sentido, la financiación destinada a medidas de conservación continúa siendo escasa para los altos niveles de biodiversidad amenazada.[12].
Do conservation priorities match what is conserved?
The main objective of conservation planning has been and is the protection and persistence of biodiversity.[4] Although in recent times, scientists have had a greater participation in decision-making, conservation measures, and in particular, the selection of sites for the establishment of protected areas for the conservation of biodiversity has been driven, mainly, by political and economic decisions and rarely scientifically based aimed at obtaining good coverage of biological characteristics within a region.[16].
Thus, in practice little is known about how to set appropriate objectives, or the extent to which the current global protected area network meets its objective of protecting biodiversity.
Numerous studies have shown that the current global network of protected areas differs considerably from conservation objectives and priorities. These studies are important for conservation planning as they highlight the need for an urgent review of current protected areas and additional conservation needs.
Current levels of protection should not be used as a criterion for future priorities: regions with a greater surface area covered by protected areas do not reflect a lower need for protection in the future, but, on the contrary, are regions that present high endemism that is not protected within these areas.[17].
Protected areas can mitigate the risk of biodiversity loss, but only if there is an adequate distribution that allows not only the protection of endangered species, but also the protection of ecosystems at risk; ecological function; evolutionary processes, etc.[18].
A first step is to analyze and know the biomes that are in a state of vulnerability or danger. Hoestrak et al, 2005 carried out an analysis in which they found that on all continents there are ecoregions in crisis and many of these ecoregions coincided with the “hotspots” proposed by Myers et al 2000[11] and also with the habitat of 249 species in danger of extinction.
Fundamentals of systematic planning and methodological tools
En todas partes del mundo hay un legado de áreas para la conservación que se fueron acumulando a lo largo del tiempo de manera oportunista, que no necesariamente representan la biodiversidad regional. Por lo que la planificación sistemática y la priorización de áreas buscan mejorar estos sistemas. Margules y Pressey (2000) ,[19] Groves et al (2002)[20] y Crowling y Pressey (2003)[21] han establecido algunas características distintivas de la planificación sistemática: En primer lugar, se requiere de la participación de actores sociales involucrados, entre los que se encuentran aquellas personas que depende o influyen de alguna manera en el recurso que se pretende conservar. Así, la planificación debe ser parte de políticas sociales que reconozcan y atiendan estos intereses. También requiere de una clara metodología para la medición y el cartografiado de la biodiversidad.
El concepto de biodiversidad debe hacerse operativo a través del uso de sustitutos o subrogados (surrogates) que deben ser cuantificables, y se deben poder estimar de manera realista (colectas de campo, datos de sensores remotos y modelos). Esto puede hacerse a través del uso de subrogados verdaderos o subrogados estimados. Los subrogados verdaderos son todos aquellos elementos que puedan ser medidos y evaluados y al mismo tiempo, que permitan representar la biodiversidad en su totalidad y faciliten que el concepto de diversidad se vuelva operativo para la planificación sistemática, por ejemplo, elementos del paisaje, presencia de especies u taxones, tipos de hábitat, diversidad de especies, especies en riesgo, diversidad de comunidades bióticas, regiones biogeografías, ecorregiones, etc.
Los llamados subrogados estimados, pretenden representar a los subrogados verdaderos, es decir, son aquellos paramentos que no podemos estimar de manera directa en el campo pero que nos permiten inferir la diversidad biológica, como, por ejemplo, parámetros ambientales o grupos de especies.
Otra característica, en la metodología de la planificación sistemática, consiste en elegir los indicadores de la biodiversidad, dando prioridad al conjunto de subrogados verdaderos, siendo además explícito en el modo y el criterio utilizado para su elección. Establecer metas y objetivos cuantitativos claros de conservación contemplando el diseño, la forma, la conectividad, etc. considerando no solo criterios de biodiversidad sino también criterios sociopolíticos.
Evaluar la viabilidad del plan de conservación en un análisis multicriterio donde se contemple los recursos disponibles.
Por último, es importante, evaluar el sistema periódicamente con el fin de mejorar, modificar y reestructurar el plan propuesto.[20].
En general, la planificación sistemática tiene como objetivo principal proteger los elementos de la biodiversidad, de los procesos que atentan contra ellos dentro del contexto donde dichas áreas fueron establecidas. El logro de este propósito general depende del grado de cumplimiento de dos objetivos básicos: representatividad y persistencia. La representatividad hace referencia al grado en que se protege todo el ámbito de escalas espaciales y de organización biológica de la biodiversidad. La persistencia se refiere a que es necesario asegurar la supervivencia a largo plazo de la biodiversidad, manteniendo los procesos ecológicos que la sustentan, la viabilidad de las poblaciones y la integridad de los ecosistemas.[19].
El objetivo de persistencia debe incluir explícitamente elementos asociados con la redundancia, la resiliencia y la definición de límites de las áreas a proteger.[22].
Representativeness: Gap Analysis for Conservation Planning
Gap analysis is a method that evaluates the biodiversity of a certain region, compares it with that found within a protected area or region, and identifies where species or ecosystems remain without protection or with insufficient protection.[22] In practical terms, we can say that those species or regions that are not represented mean gaps in conservation efforts. The analysis of gaps allows us to focus conservation efforts that ensure persistence over time.[3].
Representativeness is one of the fundamental objectives in systematic planning. Thus, the design of a representative network of protected areas requires a conceptual and methodological framework that allows the evaluation of compliance with the objective of representativeness. Gap analysis is a widely used tool developed on solid ecological principles that has made it possible to base conservation actions in different regions of the world and at different planning scales.[19][23] However, conservation specialists find themselves in the constant dilemma of defining what percentage of a given region is sufficient to ensure the viability of species and their long-term persistence.[23] In addition, there are multiple sources of uncertainty, among them the absence of dynamic information treatments stands out: given that both species and threats are dynamic in space and time, systematic planning and gap analysis must be constantly updated in order to support the designation of new areas or the expansion of existing ones.[3] A challenge associated with gap analysis, which until now has not been properly analyzed, is the potential contribution of biodiversity to conservation in fragmented landscapes and with different land uses.[22].
Landscape fragmentation can result in a loss of habitat, a reduction in its size and increasing isolation;[3] consequently, it increases the loss of species at a local and regional scale and changes in faunal assemblages and ecological processes, in addition, it hinders migration and dispersal towards more appropriate habitats, in response to climate change.[24] Landscapes altered and dominated by intensive land uses can host remnants of vegetation and unique species and, therefore, play a fundamental role in the conservation of biodiversity. Biodiversity inside and outside protected spaces is a pillar for the production of critical ecosystem services for society. The above implies a change in the conservation model: an integrated management of the territory is now pursued that includes both protected areas and buffer areas, landscapes with different land uses and biological corridors.[25].
Persistence: biological corridors for conservation planning
The processes of habitat reduction and fragmentation are pointed out by the scientific community as one of the main causes of the current biodiversity crisis.[26] It is unlikely that the maintenance of biodiversity will be achieved solely through protected areas (especially in those cases where the protected areas are small and surrounded by altered environments such as agricultural fields, grasslands, urban and tourist areas). Rather, the probability of maintaining biodiversity is maximized as long as there is a network of interconnected habitats that maintains the connectivity of ecological processes and species populations. Connectivity is a key ecological attribute in the functionality of ecosystems that must be incorporated into systematic planning and that is achieved with the appropriate design of biological corridors.[22].
A biological corridor is defined as “the territory whose purpose is to provide connectivity between landscapes, ecosystems and habitats (natural or modified) to ensure the maintenance of biodiversity and population, ecological and evolutionary processes.”[23] The objective of biological corridors is to contribute to improving the probabilities of persistence of many populations of species, provide habitats and resources necessary to complete the life cycle of organisms and facilitate movement in the event of abrupt changes in the associated ecological factors.[24] Corridors Biological habitats were proposed by Wilson and Willis in 1975, and are based on the assumption that fragments united or connected by an adequate biological corridor reduce the rate of extinction and have a greater conservation value than isolated habitats. The purpose of these corridors is to allow the dispersal of plants and animals, facilitating gene flow and the colonization of suitable sites. They also facilitate seasonal and daily migrations between a variety of different habitats.[27].
It is clear that systematic planning is essential for the maintenance of ecological and population processes of species. This is especially relevant in those landscapes vulnerable to human impact or where ecological integrity is outside its optimal state.[22] International conventions have been giving increasing importance to the need to guarantee the geographical mobility of species and genetic exchange, to avoid the isolation of populations. From conservation based on the protection of specific species and places, a more global vision of conservation has been promoted, where the integrity of ecological processes and ecosystems take greater prominence.[26].
Conservation planning and priorities at different scales
Species planning
Species are considered the fundamental unit in conservation planning, this is mainly due to the fact that their extinction is an irreversible process compared to the disturbances that can affect ecosystems or ecoregions.[28] Species have been by far the most used and studied in planning strategies. In 2007, 41,415 species had been evaluated by the IUCN, resulting in 16,306 of them being, worldwide, on the Red list, with a high risk of extinction (IUCN 2007). Having a Red List presents the possibility of establishing priority areas of conservation, strengthening or improving existing sites and evaluating the future impacts that man can generate on the species.[29] However, for some taxa there is not the amount of information necessary to know their conservation status; among these groups there are many invertebrates and some plant taxa.[28].
On the other hand, in recent years, conservation planning has focused on large regions or at levels of organization higher than that of the species; these approaches could be insufficient for those groups that are little known or restricted in their distribution. Knowledge about the size, distribution and density of populations is a basic aspect for the study and management of a particular species.[30].
In 1999, the Wildlife Conservation Society promoted an exercise to define priorities and plan for the jaguar (Panthera onca), a species in danger of extinction, throughout its distribution range, from northern Mexico to northern Argentina. Scientists from 18 countries agreed that, to know the current conservation status of the jaguar, they needed to have information about the range currently occupied by the jaguar; the areas with the highest population density; habitat preference; and sites where jaguars have been observed during the last 10 years. During the exercise, these experts also assessed the jaguar's long-term survival across its range and developed an algorithm to prioritize jaguar conservation units in the most important habitat types.
From this work, it emerged that the jaguar's range had contracted to approximately 46% of its estimated range in 1990. The status of the jaguar and its distribution has also decreased by 12% compared to 1990, including extensive areas in Mexico, Colombia and Brazil. From this data, 51 conservation units representing 30 different regions were prioritized as the basis for a solid conservation program. Thus, the jaguar is included in Appendix I of the International Wildlife Trade Treaty, which means that it is illegal to trade its skin or any other of its parts.
Due to its inclusion in the International Wildlife Trade Treaty, jaguar skin prices in the international market collapsed, stopping this activity as it was not profitable for hunters.[31].
Jaguars are protected by national legislation in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, French Guiana, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Suriname, Uruguay, Belize, USA and Venezuela. However, hunting them is legal as they are considered problem animals in Brazil, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico and Peru. Furthermore, in 2012, the non-governmental organization “Panthera” promoted a project that seeks to consolidate a biological corridor from Mexico to Argentina. This agreement was signed by various Latin American countries, with the aim of saving the jaguar from extinction. However, the results to date are not very encouraging and it is estimated that the number of specimens drops to 250, the main cause of their danger of extinction is hunting and the reduction of habitat by man.[32].
Habitat planning
With 16,306 known species in danger of extinction, each year the threat rates are higher and without a doubt, the conservation status of many plants and animals has yet to be assessed. Fortunately, the cornerstone of conservation action is habitat conservation, this allows us to protect or safeguard thousands of species simultaneously. The Protected Planet Report 2012 shows that protected areas are growing in relation to the amount and surface area of the Earth covered, which currently includes 12.7% of the world's land area and 1.6% of the world's ocean area.
The IUCN is considered an international governing body, contributing to the creation, consolidation and development of protected area systems. This organization has presented successive categorizations that served as the basis for the regulations adopted by many countries. Although the categories do not imply a hierarchy, they reflect the degree of acceptable human activity in each case.[33].
However, a growing number of studies have questioned a conservationist approach based centrally on the creation of protected areas.
Although the arguments are diverse, most converge on two central issues: the efficiency of protected natural areas and their permanence in the medium and long term.[34] Efficiency refers to the difficulty of guaranteeing sufficient representation of the planet's biodiversity, in just one global network of protected areas, which can contemplate not only the immensity in the number of species, but also distribution patterns, ecological interactions, evolutionary processes and natural phenomena over time. scales.[35] This difficulty lies, mainly, in that the three principles used to distinguish, locate and establish a protected natural area are: number, richness and endemism of species, each of these principles are the result of three different processes.[34] Likewise, it has been questioned that protected areas fail to incorporate large-scale and long-lasting processes, thus natural areas would appear to be static zones, where ecosystem dynamics are “rigid”.[4] Another great criticism is the permanence of natural areas, these areas are not immune to the disturbances that occur in their immediate and distant surroundings, whether due to local residents, the urban population and industrial pollution, etc.[33].
The historian Morris Berman in his book Body and Spirit (1992) states “Zoos give the false impression that species can be saved, even if wild ones are destroyed.” During the last century, conservation efforts, both institutional, monetary and scientific, have focused on devising strategies that allow maximum conservation of biodiversity. The current network of protected areas, created in many cases based on scientific criteria, and in many other cases, created based on economic or political criteria, could represent Morris Berman's zoo fallacy, widespread throughout the world.[34] Thus, protected areas are concentrated in a limited number of biological "sanctuaries" that attempt to protect a limited number of species regardless of what happens in their environment.[4].
Ecosystem and ecoregional planning.
Organisms form the basis of biodiversity, but they function in the context of ecosystems.[38] As previously mentioned, protected areas are not sufficient for the conservation of biodiversity. Thus, some decades ago it was suggested that the conservation of biological diversity should focus, not only on patterns, but on ecological and evolutionary processes; that species-poor ecosystems can be crucial for the functioning of material cycles and energy flows; and that data on species are unreliable due to their geographic and taxonomic biases.[34].
Representing the environmental diversity of a territory does not necessarily imply protecting its biological diversity. It is also evident that our lack of reliable information on the distribution of species prevents us from using the information to make selections of areas to protect. The distribution of the species themselves probably includes not only the full spectrum of existing environmental conditions, sometimes invisible to the human eye, but also demographic and historical effects, capable of generating different communities under similar environmental conditions.[4].
Ecosystems are much more than the visual perception of a combination of shapes, geographical features and vegetation: they comprise in themselves the set of elements that are part of the environment.[33] The vision of the ecosystem, as a functional unit for conservation, is useful to promote management actions that can be quite specific to particular components of the ecosystem, to direct activities that allow obtaining products and services from terrestrial and aquatic systems, while conserving their biodiversity.[38].
Lugo et al. 2001 propose some of the paradigms that govern ecosystem management: a dynamic vision of the state of ecosystems in contrast to stable and static systems such as protected areas, will be appropriate in an era of environmental change, where systems will function in transitory states and few will achieve stable states. In addition, it will allow management from a point of view of elasticity instead of stability, which will allow for considering the interactions and functionings at the interfaces (For example: Terrestrial/aquatic), all scales of time and space can be considered, and the speeds of change, instead of focusing on short-term aspects and at local spatial scales, it will allow maintaining a global perspective even when managed at a local scale. Finally, disturbances should be seen as an integral part of ecosystems, thus the ecological and sociological context should be managed instead of ignoring social aspects, which are sometimes determining factors in the success of ecosystem management.
However, given the high cost of the conservation of large areas and the resource limitations, mainly economic, conservation should focus on areas where the greatest benefits are produced and the efforts invested lead to better impacts, especially environmental ones.[39] Fundamental aspects to achieve effective conservation are defining, knowing and giving priority to the places where action must be taken in the first instance.
Towards an integrated vision of biodiversity management
In recent years, it has been suggested to include some elements in systematic planning for biodiversity conservation. Planning must ensure that natural and cultural values are maintained in space and time.[42] Conservation of biological diversity must focus not only on patterns, but on ecological processes. The lack of taxonomic and distribution data on the vast majority of species that inhabit any region makes it difficult to choose places capable of representing the biodiversity of a territory. Our lack of information on the geographical distribution of organisms, their interactions and their role in ecological processes is arguably our greatest obstacle to developing reliable biodiversity conservation strategies. In any case, the often arbitrary and subjective procedures for selecting the spaces to be protected must be replaced by the scientifically proven methods currently available, seeking to also incorporate the economic and ecological values that the species and natural systems provide.[22].
It is likely that many conservation areas do not reach a sufficient size to be considered free of the danger of extinction of species, or that there is no interference in ecological and evolutionary processes.[29] The development and implementation of networks of interconnected territories that allow conservation objectives and goals to be met, and that consider different spatial and temporal scales in their design and planning, is therefore a priority and urgent. Such networks can be called functional areas for conservation, the challenge is to establish these management areas and provide them with the institutional mechanisms necessary for their implementation.[22].
On the other hand, effective biodiversity management requires a constant flow of information that allows evaluating the effectiveness of management and compliance with conservation goals. This implies the adjustment of goals, objectives, strategies and actions implemented with an adaptive vision; management actions that may be appropriate at a given time may not be appropriate in another period.[19].
A monitoring program is key in feedback, learning, improvement and adaptation of the conservation strategies implemented. Monitoring the impact of conservation actions on the ecological processes that maintain biological diversity in protected spaces continues to be one of the most important challenges.[22].
In the face of a changing world (and to learn and adapt to new scenarios brought about by current paradigms of economic, political and social development), functional areas for conservation require knowledge and adaptive management approaches.[23] This involves learning from successful and unsuccessful experiences, recognizing uncertainty in the management process and accepting and incorporating unexpected changes in the context within which management is applied.
In this context, it is essential that the various users take advantage of the research generated for decision-making and thus guide the formulation of national public policies. Experience shows that this has been difficult; In general, the results of scientific research and monitoring have minimally influenced the design and implementation of conservation strategies. Consequently, it is necessary to develop and institutionalize knowledge management models that allow the staff of the institutions in charge of biodiversity management to generate and disseminate knowledge as a means to improve the decision-making process.[29].
References
[1] ↑ a b Pressey, R. L., Cabeza, M., Watts, M. E., Cowling, R. M., & Wilson, K. A. (2007). Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends in ecology & evolution, 22(11), 583-592.
[2] ↑ a b c Margules, C., Sarkar, S., & Margules, C. R. (2007). Systematic conservation planning. Cambridge University Press.
[3] ↑ a b c d Meynard, C. N., Howell, C. A., & Quinn, J. F. (2009). Comparing alternative systematic conservation planning strategies against a politically driven conservation plan. Biodiversity and conservation, 18(12), 3061-3083.
[4] ↑ a b c d e f g h i Lobo, J. M. (2008) Hacia una estrategia global para la conservación de la diversidad biológica. Boletín Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa, 1(42), 493-495.
[5] ↑ Pressey, R.L. and Taffs, K.H.(2001).Scheduling conservation action in production landscapes: priority areas in western New South Wales defined by irreplaceability and vulnerability to vegetation loss. Biological Conservation, 100, 355–376.
[6] ↑ Pressey, R. L., Johnson, I. R., and Wilson, P. D. (1994). Shades of irreplaceability—towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal. Biodiversity and Conservation, 3, 242–262.
[7] ↑ a b c Brooks, T. (2010). Conservation planning and priorities. Conservation Biology for All. Escrito por Brooks199-219.
[8] ↑ Galindo, G., Gordillo, D. M., Suarez, N. R. B., Betancourth, J. C., & Vergara, L. K. (2009). Planificación ecorregional para la conservación de la biodiversidad en el Caribe Continental Colombiano. Instituto Alexander Von Humboldt.
[9] ↑ a b Andrade, G., & Corzo, G. (2011). ¿Qué y dónde conservar? Bogotá D.C., Colombia: Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia.
[10] ↑ Razola, I., Benayas, J. R., De la Montaña, E., & Cayuela, L. (2006). Selección de áreas relevantes para la conservación de la biodiversidad. Revista Ecosistemas, 15(2).
[11] ↑ a b c d e Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., and Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853–858.
[12] ↑ a b c d e f g Marchese, C. (2015). Biodiversity hotspots: A shortcut for a more complicated concept. Global Ecology and Conservation, 3, 297-309.
[13] ↑ a b Mittermeier, C.G., Turner, W.R., Larsen, F.W., Brooks, T.M., Gascon, C., 2011. Global biodiversity conservation: the critical role of hotspots. In: Zachos, F.E., Habel, J.C. (Eds.), Biodiversity hotspots: Distribution and Protection of Priority Conservation Areas. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 3–22.
[15] ↑ a b Kareiva, P., & Marvier, M. (2003). Conserving Biodiversity Coldspots Recent calls to direct conservation funding to the world's biodiversity hotspots may be bad investment advice. American Scientist, 91(4), 344-351.
[16] ↑ Tognelli, M.F., et al. Assessing the performance of the existing and proposed network of marine protected áreas to conserve marine biodiversity in Chile. Biol. Conserv. (2009).
[17] ↑ Rodrigues, A. S., Andelman, S. J., Bakarr, M. I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T. M., Cowling, R. M., & Yan, X. (2004). Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature, 428(6983), 640-643.
[18] ↑ Hoekstra, J. M., Boucher, T. M., Ricketts, T. H., & Roberts, C. (2005). Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecology letters, 8(1), 23-29.
[19] ↑ a b c d Margules, C. R. and Pressey, R. L. (2000). Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405, 243–253.
[20] ↑ a b Groves, C.R., D.B. Jensen, L.L. Valutis, K.H. Redford, M.L. Shaffer, J.M. Scott, J.V. Baumgartner, J.V. Higgins, M.W. Beck & M.G. Anderson. 2002. Planning for biodiversity conservation: putting conservation science into practice. BioScience 52: 499-512.
[21] ↑ Cowling,R.M.,Pressey,R.L.,Rouget,M.,and Lombard,A.T. (2003). A conservation plan for a global biodiversity hotspots –theCapeFloristicRegion,SouthAfrica. Biological Conservation,112,191–216.
[22] ↑ a b c d e f g h Herrera, B., & Finegan, B. (2008). La planificación sistemática como instrumento para la conservación de la biodiversidad. Experiencias recientes y desafíos en Costa Rica. Rec. Nat. Amb, 54, 4-13.
[23] ↑ a b c d Feoli-Boraschi, S. (2012). Corredores biológicos: una estrategia de conservación en el manejo de cuencas hidrográficas. Revista Forestal Mesoamericana Kurú, 6(17), 1-5.
[24] ↑ a b Arias, E., Chacón, O., Induni, G., Herrera, B., Acebedo, H., Barborak, J. R., & Coto, M. (2008) Las redes de conectividad como base para la planificación de la conservación de la biodiversidad: propuesta para Costa Rica. Recursos Naturales y Ambiente (Costa Rica).(Ago 2008).(, (54), 37-43.
[25] ↑ Bennett, G; Molungoy, KJ. 2006. Review of experiences with ecological networks, corridors and buffer zones. Montreal, CA, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Technical Series No. 23. 100 p.
[26] ↑ a b San Vicente, M. G., & Valencia, P. L. (2009). La integración de la conectividad ecológica en los instrumentos de ordenación y planificación territorial: una revisión. Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, (49), 45-66.
[27] ↑ Canet-Desanti, L. (2007). Herramientas para el diseño, gestión y monitoreo de corredores biológicos en Costa Rica (Doctoral dissertation, Tesis Mag. Sc. Turrialba, CR, CATIE).
[28] ↑ a b Sodhi, N. S., & Ehrlich, P. R. (Eds.). (2010). Conservation biology for all. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
[29] ↑ a b c d e Brooks, T. M., Mittermeier, R. A., da Fonseca, G. A., Gerlach, J., Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux, J. F., & Rodrigues, A. S. (2006). Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science, 313(5783), 58-61.
[30] ↑ Sanderson, E. W., Redford, K. H., Chetkiewicz, C.-L. B., Medellin, R. A., Rabinowitz, A. R., Robinson, J. G. and Taber, A. B. (2002), Planning to Save a Species: the Jaguar as a Model. Conservation Biology, 16: 58–72. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00352.x.
[31] ↑ Mondolfi, E., & Hoogesteijn, R. (1991). Investigaciones para el manejo de poblaciones de jaguar. Felinos de Venezuela: Biologıa, Ecologıa y Conservación, 75-82.
[32] ↑ Srbek-Araujo, A. C., Mendes, S. L., & Chiarello, A. G. (2015). Jaguar (Panthera onca Linnaeus, 1758) roadkill in Brazilian Atlantic Forest and implications for species conservation. Brazilian Journal of Biology, 75(3), 581-586.
[33] ↑ a b c Castelli, L., & Spallaso, V. (2007). Planificación y conservación del paisaje.FUNAFU. Ciudad de Buenos Aires.
[34] ↑ a b c d Toledo, V. M. (2005). Repensar la conservación: ¿áreas naturales protegidas o estrategia bioregional?. Gaceta ecológica, (77), 67-83.
[35] ↑ a b March, I. J., Carvajal, M. A., Vidal, R. M., San Román, J. E., & Ruiz, G. (2009). Planificación y desarrollo de estrategias para la conservación de la biodiversidad. Capital natural de México, 2, 545-573.
[36] ↑ Devitt, K. R., Adams, V. M., & Kyne, P. M. (2015). Australia’s protected area network fails to adequately protect the world’s most threatened marine fishes. Global Ecology and Conservation, 3, 401-411.
[37] ↑ Shah P, Baylis K (2015) Evaluating Heterogeneous Conservation Effects of Forest Protection in Indonesia. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0124872. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124872.
[38] ↑ a b c d Lugo, A. E. (2001). El manejo de la biodiversidad en el siglo XXI. Interciencia,26(10), 484-490.
[39] ↑ a b Herzog, S. K., Soria Auza, R. W., & Bennett Hennessey, A. (2005). Patrones ecorregionales de riqueza, endemismo y amenaza de la avifauna boliviana: prioridades para la planificación ecorregional. Ecología en Bolivia, 40(2), 27-40.
[40] ↑ Chavez Gonzalez, Honoria; Gonzalez Guillen, Manuel De Jesús Y Hernandez De La R, Patricia. Metodologías Para Identificar Áreas Prioritarias Para Conservación De Ecosistemas Naturales. Rev. Mex. De Cienc. Forestales [Online]. 2015, Vol.6, N.27, Pp. 8-23.
[41] ↑ a b c d Polak T, Watson JEM, Fuller RA, Joseph LN, Martin TG, Possingham HP, Venter O, Carwardine J. 2015 Efficient expansion of global protected areas requires simultaneous planning for species and ecosystems.R. Soc. open sci.2: 150107.
[42] ↑ Primack, R; Rozzi, R; Feinsinger, P; Dirzo, R; Massardo, F. 1998. Fundamentos de conservación biológica: perspectivas latinoamericanas. México D.F., MX, Fondo de Cultura Económica. 797 p.
Although protected areas still constitute the spinal cord of the global biodiversity conservation strategy, they will not achieve their purpose in the long term if progress is not made simultaneously in improving the management of natural resources in the environment where they are located, as well as in generating more sustainable consumption and production processes.[35].
Habitat conservation planning seeks optimal designs of protected areas that meet several objectives such as the representativeness of biodiversity and population persistence. Connectivity is one of the fundamental requirements for the persistence of the population; in addition, conservation planning must extend to aquatic environments. Threats to aquatic habitats are not yet being rigorously evaluated.[36] For example, a study by Devitt et. to the. 2015 for 4 species of threatened marine fish in northern Australia, has shown that marine protected area networks are not sufficient to protect these species. In particular, for sawfishes (family Pristidae) the protection objectives have not been met. These results indicate that greater protection of marine habitats is required in order to improve sawfish protection and habitat connectivity.
Another recent study, carried out in protected forest areas in Indonesia, has shown how the effectiveness of seven protected forest areas between 1999 and 2012 varies in space. The observed differences in the conservation effectiveness of different protected areas may be due to different factors: Indonesia is particularly diverse, landscape threats are different in each region and forests vary greatly from one region to another. At the national level, the percentage of conservation of vegetation cover in protected areas is only 1%; this result would indicate a low-moderate effectiveness of said reserves. However, when evaluating the effectiveness of each park individually, the effectiveness of protected areas is highly variable, largely correlating with the type of use permitted in each one. Thus, those reserves where moderate use of resources is allowed or are surrounded by local residents are less efficient than those strict areas.[29].
This article shows that repeatable and efficient selection methods can provide disparate results depending on the method and type of information used.[37] Various studies have shown that our protected spaces are insufficient to house at least one population of each of the endangered species.[4] The future inclusion of information on invertebrates will undoubtedly increase the inefficiency of the current design.[29] But the thing is that, in addition, a design of areas protected areas must recognize the dynamic nature of biological diversity. It is necessary to incorporate connections into the network of protected areas that facilitate persistence and guarantee the future stability of biological diversity under change scenarios.[4].
A valuable tool to guide and optimize the efforts of the study, conservation and sustainable use of natural resources is the identification of priority areas for these purposes. Over the past three decades, several computer models have been designed and developed to support the identification of large priority areas for conservation. In this regard, there are specific comparative and descriptive works for biodiversity conservation, which can be used during the methodological process of identifying priority areas.[40].
Ecoregions are increasingly accepted as useful geographic units for conservation planning, but to date ecoregional priorities have not been formally evaluated.[39] The proposed strategy is not intended to replace, nor does it propose the abandonment of, the preservation of natural areas or the conservation of endemic, rare or endangered species. Such efforts must continue, however, that type of conservation covers no more than 20% of the planet's surface, where critical natural areas exist. The rest of the world does not generally attract the attention of conservationists, despite its importance for biodiversity conservation.[38].
Over the past decade, there has been a major shift toward ecosystem-based planning for the expansion of protected area networks.
The main objectives of this change have been to efficiently represent biodiversity as a whole, including species and processes.[41] Ecosystem-based planning has allowed us to avoid the great bias and lack of information for some taxonomic groups that, ultimately, were not represented in conservation areas.[38] However, some researchers have questioned this approach, arguing that the objectives of planning for ecosystems are too general, to effectively represent biodiversity, allowing many species fall into oblivion.
The effectiveness of this approach is diminished for species that are rare, have patchy distribution, or are data deficient, as is the case for many threatened species. The global targets set in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2004 and 2010 are the main reason for the shift from species-based to ecosystem-based planning. Specifically, in 2010 the Convention on Biological Diversity aims to conserve 17% of terrestrial and continental waters and 10% of coastal and marine ecosystems. However, the methodology to achieve this objective is, therefore, open to the interpretation of each participating country, so that they can give rise to diverse results for the biodiversity represented in protected areas.[41].
A comparative study carried out by Polak et al, 2015,[41] shows that there is a high degree of variation in the protection of ecosystems (bioregions) and threatened species in Australia's current protected area network. 48% of ecosystems have achieved their goal of being in the 10% protected, as proposed by the Convention of Strategic Plans on Biological Diversity, however, some ecosystems are underrepresented. These results are worse for the species: in this study, only 284 (21.5%) threatened species reach the protection goal. Its discouraging results show that a minimum of 29.5 million hectares would still need to be added to the existing protected area network to achieve 10% representation of each ecosystem. This is fundamentally due to the unequal protection of different ecosystems, thus, the majority of protected ecosystems are arid ecosystems. However, an analysis considering only the number of hectares necessary for the protection of threatened species, shows an expansion of the current network of protected areas of 54.9 million hectares, this is equivalent to 18.7% of Australia's territory.
On the other hand, when planning is only carried out using the ecosystem planning approach this author obtains a map of protected areas that are relatively uniformly arranged throughout Australia, as a result of the nature of ecosystems, which are large non-overlapping spatial features. However, projections based only on the protection of threatened species result in a network concentrated mainly in the coastal zone, reflecting the fact that the distribution of species is usually in small dynamic units.
This clearly demonstrates that an ecosystem-based approach alone would not be sufficient to protect threatened species, at least in Australia. Thus, this approach would fall far short of the network of protected areas necessary for the conservation of threatened species. Planning the expansion of protected area networks, to meet objectives for ecosystems and species at the same time, achieves both objectives with fewer resources and less surface area. Simultaneous planning is more efficient, because the selection process for these areas avoids the reporting of redundant units. Applying ecosystem-based targets alone is likely to mean future protected areas that are not optimal for meeting the commitment to protect endangered species, which could result in losing nearly $5 billion in conservation dollars.[41]
Although protected areas still constitute the spinal cord of the global biodiversity conservation strategy, they will not achieve their purpose in the long term if progress is not made simultaneously in improving the management of natural resources in the environment where they are located, as well as in generating more sustainable consumption and production processes.[35].
Habitat conservation planning seeks optimal designs of protected areas that meet several objectives such as the representativeness of biodiversity and population persistence. Connectivity is one of the fundamental requirements for the persistence of the population; in addition, conservation planning must extend to aquatic environments. Threats to aquatic habitats are not yet being rigorously evaluated.[36] For example, a study by Devitt et. to the. 2015 for 4 species of threatened marine fish in northern Australia, has shown that marine protected area networks are not sufficient to protect these species. In particular, for sawfishes (family Pristidae) the protection objectives have not been met. These results indicate that greater protection of marine habitats is required in order to improve sawfish protection and habitat connectivity.
Another recent study, carried out in protected forest areas in Indonesia, has shown how the effectiveness of seven protected forest areas between 1999 and 2012 varies in space. The observed differences in the conservation effectiveness of different protected areas may be due to different factors: Indonesia is particularly diverse, landscape threats are different in each region and forests vary greatly from one region to another. At the national level, the percentage of conservation of vegetation cover in protected areas is only 1%; this result would indicate a low-moderate effectiveness of said reserves. However, when evaluating the effectiveness of each park individually, the effectiveness of protected areas is highly variable, largely correlating with the type of use permitted in each one. Thus, those reserves where moderate use of resources is allowed or are surrounded by local residents are less efficient than those strict areas.[29].
This article shows that repeatable and efficient selection methods can provide disparate results depending on the method and type of information used.[37] Various studies have shown that our protected spaces are insufficient to house at least one population of each of the endangered species.[4] The future inclusion of information on invertebrates will undoubtedly increase the inefficiency of the current design.[29] But the thing is that, in addition, a design of areas protected areas must recognize the dynamic nature of biological diversity. It is necessary to incorporate connections into the network of protected areas that facilitate persistence and guarantee the future stability of biological diversity under change scenarios.[4].
A valuable tool to guide and optimize the efforts of the study, conservation and sustainable use of natural resources is the identification of priority areas for these purposes. Over the past three decades, several computer models have been designed and developed to support the identification of large priority areas for conservation. In this regard, there are specific comparative and descriptive works for biodiversity conservation, which can be used during the methodological process of identifying priority areas.[40].
Ecoregions are increasingly accepted as useful geographic units for conservation planning, but to date ecoregional priorities have not been formally evaluated.[39] The proposed strategy is not intended to replace, nor does it propose the abandonment of, the preservation of natural areas or the conservation of endemic, rare or endangered species. Such efforts must continue, however, that type of conservation covers no more than 20% of the planet's surface, where critical natural areas exist. The rest of the world does not generally attract the attention of conservationists, despite its importance for biodiversity conservation.[38].
Over the past decade, there has been a major shift toward ecosystem-based planning for the expansion of protected area networks.
The main objectives of this change have been to efficiently represent biodiversity as a whole, including species and processes.[41] Ecosystem-based planning has allowed us to avoid the great bias and lack of information for some taxonomic groups that, ultimately, were not represented in conservation areas.[38] However, some researchers have questioned this approach, arguing that the objectives of planning for ecosystems are too general, to effectively represent biodiversity, allowing many species fall into oblivion.
The effectiveness of this approach is diminished for species that are rare, have patchy distribution, or are data deficient, as is the case for many threatened species. The global targets set in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2004 and 2010 are the main reason for the shift from species-based to ecosystem-based planning. Specifically, in 2010 the Convention on Biological Diversity aims to conserve 17% of terrestrial and continental waters and 10% of coastal and marine ecosystems. However, the methodology to achieve this objective is, therefore, open to the interpretation of each participating country, so that they can give rise to diverse results for the biodiversity represented in protected areas.[41].
A comparative study carried out by Polak et al, 2015,[41] shows that there is a high degree of variation in the protection of ecosystems (bioregions) and threatened species in Australia's current protected area network. 48% of ecosystems have achieved their goal of being in the 10% protected, as proposed by the Convention of Strategic Plans on Biological Diversity, however, some ecosystems are underrepresented. These results are worse for the species: in this study, only 284 (21.5%) threatened species reach the protection goal. Its discouraging results show that a minimum of 29.5 million hectares would still need to be added to the existing protected area network to achieve 10% representation of each ecosystem. This is fundamentally due to the unequal protection of different ecosystems, thus, the majority of protected ecosystems are arid ecosystems. However, an analysis considering only the number of hectares necessary for the protection of threatened species, shows an expansion of the current network of protected areas of 54.9 million hectares, this is equivalent to 18.7% of Australia's territory.
On the other hand, when planning is only carried out using the ecosystem planning approach this author obtains a map of protected areas that are relatively uniformly arranged throughout Australia, as a result of the nature of ecosystems, which are large non-overlapping spatial features. However, projections based only on the protection of threatened species result in a network concentrated mainly in the coastal zone, reflecting the fact that the distribution of species is usually in small dynamic units.
This clearly demonstrates that an ecosystem-based approach alone would not be sufficient to protect threatened species, at least in Australia. Thus, this approach would fall far short of the network of protected areas necessary for the conservation of threatened species. Planning the expansion of protected area networks, to meet objectives for ecosystems and species at the same time, achieves both objectives with fewer resources and less surface area. Simultaneous planning is more efficient, because the selection process for these areas avoids the reporting of redundant units. Applying ecosystem-based targets alone is likely to mean future protected areas that are not optimal for meeting the commitment to protect endangered species, which could result in losing nearly $5 billion in conservation dollars.[41]