***********************************************
WORLDWIDE
FOREST/BIODIVERSITY CAMPAIGN NEWS
Conserving
Forests Versus Conserving Species
***********************************************
Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org
http://forests.org/ -- Forest
Conservation Archives
http://forests.org/web/ -- Discuss
Forest Conservation
2/24/00
OVERVIEW, SOURCE
& COMMENTARY by EE
New studies by
Conservation International indicate that 1.4 percent
of the World's
land surface supports more than a third of the
Planet's plant
and animal species. This has
significant consequences
for strategies
to conserve biodiversity. Other
scientific research
in the realms of
landscape ecology and conservation biology
highlights the
importance of large forests across landscapes and
bioregions in
maintaining ecological processes, and long-term
viability of
constituent species, process and pattern.
The danger
lies in
over-focusing on any one ecological scale to the exclusion of
the others-precisely
what I would say is occurring in proposals to
focus primarily
on the biodiversity hotspots.
If resources and
funds are diverted from conserving large remaining
tracts of
primary forests across the Amazon, Russia, Africa, Papua
New Guinea,
Canada and elsewhere to essentially exclusively focus on
the 1.4% of land
with extraordinary biodiversity, as is being
proposed; we may
well save the bits but lose the whole.
Intact,
contiguous and
non-declining forest ecosystems arrayed across
landscapes and
bioregions are a critical component of what holds the
Earth's
biosphere together. Ultimately, we can
afford to lose
species more
than we can afford to lose remaining operational
regional
ecosystems. I would never espouse purposefully
losing
species to
extinction. Yet, to focus so narrowly
as is proposed
would write off
much of the Central Amazon, Papua New Guinea,
Canadian Boreal
forests and other large forest wildernesses because
they don't have
some arbitrary threshold of endemic species.
They do
however power
the climatic, hydrological, nutrient and other emergent
ecological
cycles that will prove far more fatal for the Planet,
humans and other
species if lost.
Yes, it is going
to be difficult and expensive to save large
contiguous
forests. But there is no alternative if
their cumulative
ecological
outputs are to be maintained. Such an
upscale approach by
no means writes
off species to extinction. Focusing on
maintaining
and restoring
large forests, particularly in those that encompass
hotspots such as
the lower expanses of the Andes merging into less
biodiverse but
larger Amazonian lowland habitats, will provide a
broad envelope
that is more likely to save species over the long-
term. Remaining forest wildernesses contain large
amounts of
biodiversity
that, though somewhat less than the hotspots, is more
likely to be
maintained by virtue of ecologically intact
surroundings.
I believe that
Conservation International's science is accurate, but
that their
policy prescription to narrowly focus essentially most of
the resources
for conservation on such a narrow land base is
dangerously
wrong. Granted, to do so would be
easier, save many
species with the
least effort, and would appeal to funders eager to
see quick and
easy, though perhaps transitory, results.
It is not
prudent to write
off remaining global forest wildernesses and their
intact habitats
by relegating them to a second class in terms of
conservation
importance. These forest ecosystem
engines are critical
for planetary
ecological processes, particularly given climate change
and other
spiraling downward ecological trends.
This is not doom and
gloom. It is based on ecological science at the level
of ecosystem, landscape and bioregion; rather than exclusively the species
level.
We need to
maintain a diversity of conservation approaches, lobby to
increase the
conservation funding pie, and not divert existing
resources
entirely to one type and scale of conservation.
g.b.
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT
STARTS HERE:
ITEM #1
Title: Shrinking Wilds Squeeze Diversity
A Third of Species Exist Exclusively
on 1.4 Percent of
Earth's Land Surface
Source: Associated Press
Status: Copyright 2000, contact source for
permission to reprint
Date: February 23, 2000
Byline: Rick Callahan
Feb. 23 -
Scientists who inventoried Earth's shrinking wilds have
reached an
astonishing conclusion: More than a third of the planet's
plant and animal
species exist exclusively on a scant 1.4 percent of
its land
surface.
The researchers
said the findings show that saving a large share of
the world's
species from extinction isn't an overwhelming task. They
believe
conservationists just need to focus on safeguarding 25
species-rich
"hotspots"- mostly tropical rain forests.
"The whole
point of this is that for a few hundred million dollars a
year, focused on
these hotspots, we can go a long way toward
guaranteeing
maintenance of the full range of diversity of life on
Earth,"
said Russell Mittermeier, president of Conservation
International,
and one of the study's authors.
Fish and Insects
Excluded
The
British-American team led by Norman Myers of Oxford University
relied on
previous research to tally the numbers of land species that
inhabit Earth's
remaining pristine forests, grasslands and other
habitats. Fish
and insects were excluded. Because some of the
tropical areas
remain unexplored, the researchers had to rely on
experts' best
estimates.
The findings
appear in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.
Mittermeier said
some of the researchers were surprised by the riot
of life they
found occupying such a small portion of land.
The team
identified 25 "hotspots" covering a total of 810,000 square
miles. That
relatively tiny expanse sustains 44 percent of Earth's
plant species
and 35 percent of its non-fish vertebrate animal
species.
Thirty-eight percent
of that area already enjoys some form of legal
protection. But
Mittermeier said much of that is what
conservationists
call "paper parks "- lands that are protected on
paper but where
logging, mining and grazing are often rampant.
The researchers
hope governments, corporations and private donors see
that the
challenge of protecting the remaining 62 percent is not
overwhelming.
Their paper
suggests that conservationists should use a "silver
bullet"
approach and concentrate on saving pieces of the hotspots
from logging,
slash-and-burn agriculture or other fates.
Some of the
richest hotspots are in Madagascar, Brazil, the tropical
Andes, the
Caribbean, and Borneo, Sumatra and other islands in
Southeast Asia.
"Surely the
resources can be found to protect this 1.4 percent of the
planet. That's
not an awful lot of land to contain so much of the
biodiversity of
the world," said Edward O. Wilson, a professor at
Harvard
University's Museum of Comparative Zoology.
ITEM #2
Title: A business plan to protect species
Nature article argues spending should
focus on 'hotspots'
Source: MSNBC
Status: Copyright 2000, contact source for
permission to reprint
Date: February 23, 2000
Byline Miguel Llanos
Feb. 23 - Conservationists writing in the journal
Nature say it's
time to adopt a
businesslike approach to saving species. "How can we
protect the most
species per dollar invested?" they asked. Their
answer: efforts,
and dollars, should focus on 25 "hotspots"
worldwide.
"THE WHOLE
point of this is that for a few hundred million dollars a
year, focused on
these hotspots, we can go a long way toward
guaranteeing
maintenance of the full range of diversity of life on
Earth,"
said Russell Mittermeier, president of Conservation
International,
and one of the study's authors.
"We're
saying it's time to put aside the gloom and doom and get down
to the business
at hand," he added. "The hotspots strategy makes the
extinction
crisis more manageable by enabling us to prioritize and
target
conservation investments in order to have the greatest
impact."
The hotspots are
25 areas that cover 1.4 percent of Earth's land
area, yet
account for 44 percent of all plant species and 38 percent
of four
vertebrate groups. Fish and insects were excluded. Because
some of the
tropical areas remain unexplored, the researchers had to
rely on experts'
best estimates.
HOTSPOT CRITERIA
The Nature
article is based on earlier research by Norman Myers, who
recognized that
the hotspot ecosystems covered a small total land
area, most often
in tropical forest areas, yet accounted for a very
high percentage
of global biodiversity.
"The
hotspots concept can turn a profound problem into a magnificent
opportunity,"
Myers argued. "I can think of no other biodiversity
initiative that
could achieve so much at comparatively small cost, as
the hotspots
strategy."
The researchers
determined a hotspot's significance using two
factors:
Number of
species in a region that are found nowhere else on the
planet. Each of the 25 hotspots has at least 1,500
species of
vascular plants
found only there.
The degree of
threat to species in a given region. That was
determined by
the percentage of remaining habitat in a region. Each
hotspot has less
than 30 percent of its original natural habitat.
Some of the
hotspots have less than 10 percent.
Several of the
hotspots have already seen significant species
extinction. In a
recent report, Conservation International found that
the most
endangered primates live in seven of the hotspots.
Madagascar, for
example, has lost roughly 40 percent of its primate
species since
the arrival of humans some 1,500 to 2,000 years ago.
RETURN ON
INVESTMENT
The focus urged
by the Nature article might not sit well with all
conservationists
- particularly those whose interests lie outside the
25 hotspots -
but for Conservation International chairman Peter
Seligmann it's
the plan with the best chance of protecting species
and raising more
money for the cause.
"It can
help guide investments through what will undoubtedly be the
most critical
era in life on Earth," he said. "By demonstrating that
we can be
successful, we should be able to stimulate much further
investment, and
encourage much greater involvement in the private
sector,
bilateral aid agencies and multilateral development banks."
Added Edward O.
Wilson, a species expert and Harvard zoologist:
"Surely the
resources can be found to protect this 1.4 percent of the
planet. That's
not an awful lot of land to contain so much of the
biodiversity of
the world."
Biodiversity
Hotspots
Hotspot
Remaining
primary vegetation
Area protected
Regional plant
species
Regional
vertebrate species
1. Tropical
Andes 25% 25%
20,000 1,567
2.
Mesoamerica 20 60
5,000 1,159
3.
Caribbean 11 100
7,000 779
4. Brazil's
Atlantic Forest 7.5 36
8,000 567
5. Choc/ Darien/
Western Ecuador 24 26
2,250 418
6. Brazil's
Cerrado 20 6
4,400 117
7. Central
Chile 30 10
1,605 61
8. California
Floristic Province 25 39
2,125 71
9.
Madagascar 10 20
9,704 771
10. Eastern Arc
& Coastal Forests
of
Tanzania/Kenya 7 100
9,704 121
11. West African
Forests 10 16
1,500 270
12. Cape
Floristic Province 24 78
2,250 53
13. Succulent
Karoo 27 8
5,682 45
14.
Mediterranean Basin 5 38
1,940 235
15.
Caucasus 10 28
13,000 59
16.
Sundaland 8 72
1,600 701
17.
Wallacea 15 39
15,000 529
18.
Philippines 3 43
1,500 518
19.
Indo-Burma 5 100
5,832 528
20.
South-Central China 8 26
7,000 178
21. Western
Ghats/ Sri Lanka 7 100
3,500 355
22. SW
Australia 11 100
2,180 100
23. New
Caledonia 28 10
4,331 84
24. New
Zealand 22 88
2,551 136
25. Polynesia/
Micronesia 22 49
1,865 223
Totals 12 38
3,334 9,645
###RELAYED TEXT
ENDS###
This document is
a PHOTOCOPY for educational, personal and non-
commercial use
only. Recipients should seek permission
from the
source for
reprinting. All efforts are made to
provide accurate,
timely pieces;
though ultimate responsibility for verifying all
information
rests with the reader. Check out our
Gaia's Forest
Conservation
Archives and Portal at URL= http://forests.org/
Networked by
Forests.org, Inc., gbarry@forests.org