Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
despite this, a noticeable pattern emerges from the overlay of dif erent
approaches. There is signii cant overlap among templates that prioritize
irreplaceable regions (WWF and IUCN, 1994-97; Mittermeier et al., 1997,
2003b; Olson and Dinerstein, 1998; Stattersi eld et al., 1998; Myers et al.,
2000), among those that prioritize highly vulnerable regions (Myers et al.,
2000; Hoekstra et al., 2005), and among those that prioritize regions of
low vulnerability (Bryant et al., 1997; Sanderson et al., 2002; Mittermeier
et al., 2003b), but not between approaches across each of these three
general classes (Table 2.1). This provides useful cross-verii cation of
priority regions (Fonseca et al., 2000).
These patterns of overlap rel ect two approaches to how vulnerability is
incorporated into conservation in the broadest sense: reactive (prioritizing
areas of high threat and high irreplaceability) and proactive (prioritizing
areas of low threat but high irreplaceability). The former are considered
the most urgent priorities in conservation planning theory (Margules and
Pressey, 2000; Pressey and Taf s, 2001) because unless immediate con-
servation action is taken within them, unique biodiversity will soon be
lost. The latter are often de facto priorities, because the opportunities for
conservation in these are considerable (Norris and Harper, 2003; Cardillo
et al., 2006). Biodiversity conservation clearly needs both approaches, but
the implementation of each may correspond to dif erent methods. On the
one hand, large-scale conservation initiatives may be possible in wilder-
ness areas, such as the establishment of enormous protected areas, like
the 3800000 ha Tumucumaque National Park, created in the Brazilian
state of Amapá in 2003. On the other hand, i nely tuned conservation will
be essential in regions of simultaneously high irreplaceability and threat,
where losing even tiny patches of remnant habitat, like the sites identi-
i ed by the Alliance for Zero Extinction (Ricketts et al., 2005), would be
tragic.
Impact of global prioritization
The appropriate measure of impact is the success of prioritization in
achieving its main goal - inl uencing globally l exible donors to invest in
regions where these funds can contribute most to conservation. Precise
data are unavailable for all of the approaches (Halpern et al., 2006), but
hotspots alone have mobilized at least $750m of funding for conservation
in these regions (Myers, 2003). More specii cally, conservation funding
mechanisms have been established for several of the approaches, such
as the $100m, ten-year Global Conservation Fund focused on high-
biodiversity wilderness areas and hotspots, and the $125m, i ve-year
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, aimed exclusively at hotspots
(Dalton, 2000). The Global Environment Facility, the largest i nancial
