Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Science-2013-Le Saout-803-5
Science-2013-Le Saout-803-5
CONSERVATION
Soizic Le Saout, 1 Michael Hoffmann, 2,3 Yichuan Shi, 2,3 Adrian Hughes, 2
Cyril Bernard,1 Thomas M. Brooks, 2,4 Bastian Bertzky, 3* Stuart H. M. Butchart, 5
Simon N. Stuart, 2,3,6,7,8 Tim Badman, 2 Ana S. L. Rodrigues1†
A
lthough protected areas (PAs) cover We estimated the irreplaceability of each S2). Nearly all are located in biogeographic
13% of Earth’s land (1), substan- of the world’s 173,461 designated PAs, and regions of exceptional levels of endemism
tial gaps remain in their coverage of 2059 proposed sites (9), for ensuring rep- (12) and nearly all have already been iden-
of global biodiversity (2). Thus, there has resentation of 21,419 vertebrate species, tified as key biodiversity areas (13). Collec-
been emphasis on strategic expansion of the encompassing all amphibians, nonmarine tively, they are responsible for the long-term
D
B C
C
Overlap with World Heritage Sites
Partial or total
No overlap
High irreplaceability
Overall
Threatened species
B D
Overall and threatened species
The world’s most irreplaceable PAs for conservation of amphibian, bird, clusters of overlapping or nearby sites are presented here as a single symbol;
and mammal species.(A) Global distribution. (B) Central and South America. see fig. S1 and table S2 for a full list of sites comprising 137 protected areas in
(C) East Africa. (D) Southern and Southeast Asia. To facilitate representation, 78 clusters. See SM for details.
high irreplaceability. We thus recommend the Highly irreplaceable PAs whose unique- population abundance). This percentage can
inclusion of the latter as an operational indi- ness is driven by nonthreatened species can be estimated from global distribution maps
cator of the former in future assessments of afford proactive conservation actions that already available for some taxonomic groups
World Heritage status for biodiversity (16). anticipate future threats. and being compiled for others (10, 18), but
However, at present only about half the given the coarse nature of such maps, it is only
combined area of the 137 highly irreplace- Strategic Management Within PAs informative for relatively high percentages of
able PAs highlighted in this study is inscribed Ensuring that highly irreplaceable PAs are overlap (see SM). We provide, for each PA,
as WHS under criterion (x) (table S2). We managed as effectively as possible is crucial the list of species for which >5% of their range
thus encourage the respective nations and to the collective performance of the global overlaps the PA, and the extent of such overlap
the World Heritage Committee to consider network of PAs, but in order to be effective, (19). For example, Gunung Lorentz National
extending World Heritage recognition to local management must be strategically tai- Park, Indonesia, overlaps >5% of the range of
the remaining highly irreplaceable territory, lored to the specific biodiversity features of 46 mammal species, including two that occur
either through the nomination of new WHS each site. Local management plans often nowhere else, and eight that have more than
or the extension of existing sites (see the fig- focus on charismatic species, and manage- half their range inside the park, which should
ure and fig. S1) (16). Given that WHS must, ment decisions favoring these (e.g., habitat be high priorities for management.
as a prerequisite to inscription, meet rigorous protection) will often benefit a whole set of Data compiled in the International Union
standards of integrity, protection, and man- species. However, management objectives for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List
agement, the process to achieve and maintain established for particular species sometimes of Threatened Species (10) can help guide
recognition under the WHC would be a pow- deliver no benefits to, or can even jeopar- conservation strategies, particularly in high-
erful mechanism to ensure effective protec- dize the persistence of, other species [e.g., biodiversity, poorly known regions (20). In
tion of the exceptionally irreplaceable areas (17)]. In such cases, we propose that species Gunung Lorentz National Park, for exam-
identified in this study. for which a PA has the highest conservation ple, both the Alpine Woolly Rat (Mallomys
Furthermore, these areas vary in the responsibility should be the first consider- gunung, endangered, 95% overlap) and the
urgency of their conservation needs (tables ation for management and monitoring. Dingiso (Dendrolagus mbaiso, endangered,
S1 and S2). In areas of high irreplaceabil- The percentage of each species’ global dis- 59% overlap) are montane species threatened
ity for species at risk of extinction, there is tribution that overlaps each PA can be used as by hunting, which suggests that regulating
no time to lose in establishing effective man- a simple indicator of responsibility (comple- hunting in high-altitude ecosystems should be
agement necessary to prevent extinctions. mented by better data when available; e.g., on a management priority within this PA.
References and Notes 13. G. Eken et al., Bioscience 54, 1110 (2004).
Data that we provide are derived from 14. T. H. Ricketts et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102,
1. B. Bertzky et al., Protected Planet Report 2012: Tracking
extensive global data sets on species and Progress Towards Global Targets for PAs (IUCN, Gland, 18497 (2005).
PAs that are already freely available (SM). Switzerland and UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, 2012). 15. B. Bertzky et al., Terrestrial Biodiversity and the World
Heritage List (UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, 2013); www.unep-
Turning these data sets into information use- 2. A. S. L. Rodrigues et al., Bioscience 54, 1092 (2004).
wcmc.org/biodiversity-wh_975.html.
ful for the management of individual PAs 3. SCBD, COP 10 Decision X/2: Strategic Plan for Biodiversity
16. These recommendations are integrated and further devel-
2011-2020 (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
requires processing and resources that are Diversity, Nagoya, Japan, 2010).
oped in (15).
often not easily available to park managers 17. F. Courchamp et al. Science 302, 1532 (2003).
4. R. L. Pressey, C. J. Humphries, C. R. Margules, R. I. Vane-
18. M. Hoffmann et al., Science 330, 1503 (2010).
and decision-makers. We make our results Wright, P. H. Williams, Trends Ecol. Evol. 8, 124 (1993). 19. This information is available for 2370 PAs (covering
available in an easily accessible format 5. A. Moilanen, K. A. Wilson, H. Possingham, Spatial Conser- 6117 species) either through a link from each PA’s page
vation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computa- on www.protectedplanet.net, or searchable from http://
(table S1) (19), to complement other infor- tional Tools (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK, 2009). irreplaceability.cefe.cnrs.fr. For the example discussed
mation needed for effective protected area 6. F. Leverington, K. L. Costa, H. Pavese, A. Lisle, M. Hockings, in the text, Gunung Lorentz National Park, see either the
management (e.g., on the costs of conserva- Environ. Manage. 46, 685 (2010). “Irreplaceability Analysis” link in www.protectedplanet.net/
tion actions and the value of sites for con- 7. W. F. Laurance et al., Nature 489, 290 (2012). sites/1500 or http://irreplaceability.cefe.cnrs.fr/sites/1500.
8. A. J. Hartley et al. The Assessment of African PAs (European 20. A. S. L. Rodrigues et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 71 (2006).
servation of biodiversity at levels other than Commission: Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environ- 21. D. P. McCarthy et al., Science 338, 946 (2012).
species, such as genes and ecosystems). ment and Sustainability, Luxembourg, 2007).
PAs are our main hope for meeting ambi- 9. IUCN, UNEP-WCMC, The World Database on Protected
Acknowledgments: This work has been partially funded by
the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) and
tious global conservation targets, such as pre- Areas (WDPA): October 2012 (UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge,
by the MAVA Foundation. We thank N. Burgess, P. Geniez, O.
2012); www.protectedplanet.net
venting species extinctions (3), but the costs Gimenez, J. Hutton, N. Kingston, S. Ollier, and T. Wilkinson for
10. IUCN, 2012 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version
of ensuring their effective management are technical support and discussions, and anonymous referees for
2012.2 (IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, 2012); constructive comments. We are grateful to those who provided
substantial, albeit affordable (21). We hope www.iucnredlist.org. the information on which the World Database on PAs and IUCN
that the conceptual guidance and specific data 11. We focus on terrestrial vertebrate groups (for which better Red List of Threatened Species are based.
provided here will support strategic reinforce- spatial information exists) both as targets in their own right
and as surrogates for broader global biodiversity. As data Supplementary Materials
ment of the world’s existing PAs, to improve improve, the proposed methodology can be extended to
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6160/803/suppl/DC1
their individual and collective effectiveness marine PAs and to other taxa.
for conserving global biodiversity. 12. T. M. Brooks et al., Science 313, 58 (2006). 10.1126/science.1239268
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
What Does Zero Deforestation Ambiguous definitions and metrics create risks
for forest conservation and accountability.
Mean?
Sandra Brown 1* and Daniel Zarin 2
S
ince 2005, negotiations under the comes, including governments celebrat- (1). A key metric in the FAO-FRA reports is
United Nations Framework Conven- ing reductions of deforestation when large the annualized net change in forest area. This
tion on Climate Change (UNFCCC) areas of native forest have been cut down “net deforestation” is estimated as the differ-
have focused considerable attention on the and “zero deforestation” certification of ence in forest area between two points in time,
role that reducing emissions from defor- agricultural commodities produced on land taking into account both losses from defores-
estation and forest degradation (REDD+) recently cleared of native forest cover. Prog- tation and gains from forest regeneration and/
can play in climate change mitigation. As ress toward goals of forest conservation, or tree plantations, divided by the number of
global interest in reducing deforestation has climate change mitigation, and associated years between the two time periods (1, 2). For
grown, numerous governments, corporate cobenefits would be better served and more most tropical countries, this metric is gener-
groups, and civil society organizations have readily monitored by setting separate time- ally estimated from tabular data, provided
set time-bound targets for achieving “zero bound targets for reductions in the clearing to the FAO-FRA by the countries, which are
deforestation.” Some targets specify “net of native forests (gross deforestation) and based on periodic forest inventories, land-use
deforestation,” some “gross deforestation,” increases in the establishment of new forests surveys, and/or forest area maps but rarely
and some do not specify at all (see the table). on previously cleared lands (reforestation). from interpretation of multiyear remote sens-
Public- and private-sector policy-makers Net deforestation targets, inherently and ing imagery due to the lack of capacity and
who commit to deforestation reduction tar- erroneously, equate the value of protecting resources to acquire and process the imag-
gets, and those who advocate for them, are native forests with that of planting new ones. ery. Because losses in forest area generally
often unclear about their implications. This exceed gains due to secondary forest regener-
lack of clarity may lead to perverse out- Net Versus Gross Deforestation ation and tree plantings in tropical countries,
The most commonly used source of data on the FAO-FRA “net deforestation” metric for
1
Ecosystem Services Unit, Winrock International, Arlington, global deforestation is the United Nations those countries is often reported simply as
VA 22202, USA. 2Climate and Land Use Alliance, San Fran- Food and Agriculture Organization’s Forest “tropical deforestation” (3).
cisco, CA 94104, USA. Resource Assessment (FAO-FRA) program, Meanwhile, since 1988, the Brazil-
*Corresponding author. E-mail: sbrown@winrock.org which publishes reports at 5-year intervals ian Space Agency (INPE) has monitored