Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2

David W. Macdonald, Katherine J. Willis

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781118520208
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Biology
• Index: Biological Sciences

Following the much acclaimed success of the first volume of Key Topics in Conservation Biology, this entirely new second volume addresses an innovative array of key topics in contemporary conservation biology. Written by an internationally renowned team of authors, Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2 adds to the still topical foundations laid in the first volume (published in 2007) by exploring a further 25 cutting-edge issues in modern biodiversity conservation, including controversial subjects such as setting conservation priorities, balancing the focus on species and ecosystems, and financial mechanisms to value biodiversity and pay for its conservation. Other chapters, setting the framework for conservation, address the sociology and philosophy of peoples' relation with Nature and its impact on health, and such challenging practical issues as wildlife trade and conflict between people and carnivores. As a new development, this second volume of Key Topics includes chapters on major ecosystems, such as forests, islands and both fresh and marine waters, along with case studies of the conservation of major taxa: plants, butterflies, birds and mammals. A further selection of topics consider how to safeguard the future through monitoring, reserve planning, corridors and connectivity, together with approaches to reintroduction and re-wilding, along with managing wildlife disease. A final chapter, by the editors, synthesises thinking on the relationship between biodiversity conservation and human development.

Each topic is explored by a team of top international experts, assembled to bring their own cross-cutting knowledge to a penetrating synthesis of the issues from both theoretical and practical perspectives.

The interdisciplinary nature of biodiversity conservation is reflected throughout the book. Each essay examines the fundamental principles of the topic, the methodologies involved and, crucially, the human dimension. In this way, Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2, like its sister volume, Key Topics in Conservation Biology, embraces issues from cutting-edge ecological science to policy, environmental economics, governance, ethics, and the practical issues of implementation.

Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2 will, like its sister volume, be a valuable resource in universities and colleges, government departments, and conservation agencies. It is aimed particularly at senior undergraduate and graduate students in conservation biology and wildlife management and wider ecological and environmental subjects, and those taking Masters degrees in any field relevant to conservation and the environment. Conservation practitioners, policy-makers, and the wider general public eager to understand more about important environmental issues will also find this book invaluable.

1

The framework

1

Conservation priorities: identifying need, taking action and evaluating success

Andrew S. Pullin¹, William Sutherland², Toby Gardner³, Valerie Kapos⁴ and John E. Fa⁵

¹Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
²Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
³Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
⁴United Nations Environment Programme, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK
⁵Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Jersey, and ICCS, Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Ascot, UK

“What I decided I could not continue doing was making decisions about intervening when I had no idea whether I was doing more harm than good”

Archie Cochrane

Introduction

Conserving biodiversity requires identifying and addressing the myriad of problems generated when humans exploit natural resources. This challenge is ongoing and expensive in terms of time, money and access to the necessary expertise. Needs invariably outweigh resources, and actions require prioritization on multiple fronts. Conservation also needs appro­aches that ­enable more effective objective setting, as well as critical evaluation of conservation actions and of the extent to which targeted problems are solved.

Although there might seem to be room for some optimism given the increased investment in protected areas, sustainable forest management, and the management of invasive ­species, the rate of biodiversity loss does not appear to be slowing (Butchart et al. 2010; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2010). In addition, information on the nature and scale of conservation problems is accumulating faster than our ability to process it and respond effectively. Current rates of biodiversity loss exceed estimates of historical rates by several orders of ­magnitude (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Species extinctions are invariably associated with direct drivers, such as habitat loss and overexploitation, though secondary extinctions can readily be triggered by the initial loss of species that ­provide key ecosystem functions. Interaction effects between land use and climate change also ­present increasingly complex challenges for global conservation (Iwamura et al. 2010).

Conservation is part of a continuous cyclical process in which management activities are implemented in spite of uncertainties about their effectiveness. This process typically starts with the detection of the decline or degradation of an aspect of nature that we value. Once this change has been identified, conservation goals can be set, such as an area of habitat to be ­protected, a wetland area to be restored or ­species decline to be arrested or reversed. When goals are made clear, interventions can be selected and implemented, and their relative success or failure assessed in order to inform future action. In this cycle of doing and ­learning, conservation decision making ultimately involves some scientific evaluation of the effectiveness of past efforts to guide future actions (Pullin & Knight 2001; Knight et al. 2006).

Priority setting in conservation research and action will always reflect human-oriented ­values and be forever changing and contested, not least as baselines of human values shift and other societal priorities change. Nevertheless, science can be a potent guiding force in informing decision making and can help improve the cost-effectiveness of conservation practice. Conservation science is just one component of the overall decision-making process. Economic, social and political considerations also play a role and may determine the outcome. For example, decisions concerning which species and habitats are worth saving are strongly influenced by the necessarily subjective values of individual stakeholders, as well as by the political and socio-economic opportunities and constraints of the region of concern. Science can advise on which are likely to be the most cost-effective solutions for conserving the giant panda, for instance, but this information is only one factor in deciding how much money should be spent on its conservation, or the way in which available funds should be spent.

Table 1.1 Example summary of steps and ­processes that might be included in a decision-­making framework

Steps	Processes
Objective setting: desired trends, targets, time frame	Social process: priority assessment, stakeholder consultation, ethics approval
Solution scanning: identify potential interventions, actions	Expert process: consultation, workshops
Effectiveness assessment: comparison of previous intervention performance	Evidence-based process: evidence synthesis, predictive models
Cost-effectiveness assessment: value from investment	Evidence-based process: economic assessment, planning models
Outcome evaluation: programme evaluation	Mixed methods process: quantitative and qualitative data analysis

In this opening chapter, we first explore ways in which priorities for both conservation action and research emerge and are evaluated. Recognizing that conservation is ultimately a societal process underpinned by values and beliefs, we describe how decisions about resource allocation for conservation actions can be informed by explicit use of scientific ­evidence in decision-making frameworks. Decision-making frameworks are composed of a set of transparent principles and criteria that can help evaluate the pros and cons of alternative choices, thereby facilitating the identification of cost-effective actions (Table 1.1).We end by outlining future challenges to the development of decision-­making frameworks for conservation that encompass policy, management and research.

Identifying need for action

Effective conservation depends on identifying priorities for specific research and/or action. As described in this section, these are typically verified by one of two routes. The first route is more reactive and involves the detection, through surveillance monitoring, of a change in status of a taxon, species group, habitat or ­ecosystem. The second route is more proactive and works by identifying potential threats that may cause ­significant negative changes in the future.

Detection of ecological changes

Surveillance monitoring, whether of changes in habitats, species or even life history attributes of particular species, can sometimes detect unexpected and important changes useful for prioritizing conservation activity (whether for action or research). For example, long-term data on the widespread declines of sea turtles (Crouse et al. 1987) have motivated the ­discovery, development and implementation of innovative solutions such as turtle exclusion devices on shrimp trawlers. In another ­example, the UK Common Birds Survey (now, with a change in methodology, the Breeding Birds Survey), which was set up in 1962 partly to identify changes in bird populations from direct organophosphate pesticide poisoning, has played an important role in detecting a range of other issues requiring action. These include bird responses to agricultural change and changes in woodland management, as well as to changing conditions in the African wintering grounds (Newson et al. 2009).

Even when ecological changes are detected, the challenge remains of how to interpret and communicate the significance of monitoring data. Biodiversity indices that combine a range of trend data are increasingly used to represent broader changes in the environment, and are often welcomed by policy makers responsible for setting high-level targets. For example, in 2000 the UK government set a target of reversing the decline of farmland birds by 2020. One of the reasons why this target was selected over others was that a single index was available for tracking whether or not the desired changes were taking place. On a global scale, the Living Planet Index (Loh et al. 2005) and other ­composite indices are being used to track ­progress towards reducing the current rate of biodiversity loss (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2010). In the last ­decade, catalysed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) and its political impact, there has been an increase in emphasis on measuring change in ecosystems and the ­services they provide to human well-being and the global economy. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) project, for example, has estimated monetary values for many of the headline metrics used to measure environmental change in an effort to help guide conservation policy (Sukhdev et al. 2010). This guidance includes a detailed consideration of subsidies and incentives, environmental liability, national income accounting, cost-benefit analysis, and methods for implementing instruments such as Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES). Adoption of a more ecosystem-based approach to conservation may ultimately encourage a shift in societal values and political priorities far beyond that achieved by ­traditional species-based conservation approaches.

Identification of the most endangered species has provided a long-standing focus for conservation research and action since the inception of the IUCN Red Lists in the 1960s (IUCN 2011; Mace et al. 2009). Red Lists of species and their conservation status were initially based on ­subjective expert-based threat assessments for different species groups. The Red Listing process and assessment of extinction risk have now become much more rigorous, and are based on a combination of factors involving population size, rate of decline, size of the distribution range of the species as well as other empirical measures of threat (Mace et al. 2011). More recently, Rodríguez et al. (2011) have argued the need for analogous ecosystem-level threat assessments, suggesting they may be more ­efficient and less time consuming than species-by-species evaluations, given that ecosystems better represent biological diversity as a whole and require fewer resources to survey. Despite concerted efforts, by 2010 the status of only 47,978 of the world’s 1,740,330 known species had been evaluated for potential inclusion on the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2011).

Proactive decisions based on value and threat

Conservation priorities are commonly based on asset value (e.g. total number of species or the number of endemic species in a defined area) and/or potential threat to those assets. Brooks et al. (2006) reviewed nine major approaches for setting global conservation priorities. Most of these approaches prioritize highly irreplaceable regions, with some being reactive (prioritizing high-vulnerability, threatened areas), and others more proactive (prioritizing low-vulnerability wilderness areas). A lack of data means that it is difficult to compare these approaches in terms of their success in generating conservation funding (Halpern et al. 2006), but hot spots alone have mobilized at least $750 million of funding for conservation in these regions (Brooks et al. 2006). More specifically, conservation funding mechanisms have been established for several of the approaches, such as the $100 million, 10-year Global Conservation Fund focused on high-biodiversity wilderness areas and hot spots, and the $137 million Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, aimed exclusively at hot spots. The Global Environment Facility, the largest financial mechanism addressing biodiversity conservation, has since 2006 applied a Resource Allocation Framework (RAF) to prioritize its distribution of funds. The RAF allocates resources to countries based on (among other factors) their potential to generate global environmental benefits, which for biodiversity is assessed in relation to the ­distributions of species and ecosystems and their threat status (GEF 2005).

Given the uneven global distribution of ­biodiversity, prioritizing conservation efforts makes sense to ensure the ‘biggest bang for our buck’ (Brooks et al. 2006; Possingham & Wilson, 2005; Wilson et al. 2006). One major challenge is that different measures of conservation value are not always strongly correlated, and as such need to be given joint consideration in any ­priority setting exercise. For example, Funk & Fa (2010) used global vertebrate distributions in terrestrial ecoregions to evaluate how ­continuous and categorical ranking schemes target and accumulate endangered taxa within the IUCN Red List, Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) and EDGE of Existence programme. By employing total, endemic and threatened ­species richness as well as an estimator for richness-adjusted endemism, Funk & Fa (2010) showed that all metrics target endangerment more efficiently than by chance. However, each selects unique sets of top-ranking ecoregions, which overlap only partially, and include ­different sets of threatened species. From these analyses, Funk & Fa (2010) developed an inclusive map for global vertebrate conservation that incorporates important areas for endemism, richness and threat.

Providing information to support prioritization of conservation action has become ­something of a cottage industry, with many overlapping initiatives collating data on species and habitats, their distribution and status, and the level of protection they are...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title page
• Copyright page
• Contributors
• Preface
• About the Companion Website
• Part I: The framework
• Part II: Habitat case studies
• Part III: Taxonomic case studies
• Part IV: Safeguarding the future
• Part V: A synthesis
• Index