Determination of conservation priorities in regions with multiple political jurisdictions
- 196 Downloads
Red lists serve as the most prominent tool for priority setting in applied conservation, even though they were not originally designed for this task. Hence, threat status does not always reflect actual conservation needs and can be very different from actual conservation priorities. Therefore, red lists may at best be a suboptimal tool for setting conservation priorities in a country or region. As a response, a range of alternative or complementary tools have been developed, with approaches, methods, and parameters such as population decline, population center etc. used, differing widely among countries. One recent development is the combination of conservation status with a measure of the international importance of a population in a focal region for the global survival of a species. Here, we provide a new method that integrates the two concepts while keeping them conceptually separate. The main benefit of this method is that it can be applied across variable geographical scales such as regions, countries, and even continents. Furthermore, it allows for better recommendations for applied conservation and conservation policy development than the two concepts in isolation. Our method, if applied internationally, would allow for a standardized priority setting in species conservation, would be highly comparable between countries, and would lead to a more efficient use of the limited financial and human resources for monitoring and conservation of biodiversity.
KeywordsSpecies conservation Conservation priorities National responsibility Threat status in Europe Conservation policy support
This article is a result from the EU-project EuMon (http://eumon.ckff.si), founded by the EU-Commission (contract number 6463). We would like to thank other EuMon-colleagues for discussions.
- Baillie J, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN (2004) IUCN Red List of threatened species: a global species assessment, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Red List, Programme, World Conservation Union Species Survival, Commission, IUCN—The World Conservation UnionGoogle Scholar
- Couturier A (1999) Conservation priorities for the birds of Southern Ontario. Technical appendices, and priority species lists 15, Bird studies Canada, Port Rowan, OntarioGoogle Scholar
- Evans D (2005) Natura 2000: completing the EU’s network of sites to conserve flora and fauna. PlantTalk 39:22–27Google Scholar
- Gärdenfors U (2000) Population viability analysis in the classification of threatened species: problems and potentials. Ecol Bull 48:181–190Google Scholar
- IUCN (1996) IUCN Red list of threatened animalsGoogle Scholar
- IUCN (2001) IUCN Red List categories and criteria: version 3.1Google Scholar
- Koomen P, van Helsdingen PJ (1996) Listing of biotopes in Europe according to their significance for invertebrates. Council of Europe Publications, Strasbourg, FranceGoogle Scholar
- National Recovery Working Group (2005) National biological ranking. System for recovery of species at risk. Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec, Canada. Unpublished ReportGoogle Scholar
- Rabinowitz A (1981) Seven forms of rarity. In: Synge H (ed) The biological aspects of rare plant conservation. Wiley, Chichester, pp 205–235Google Scholar
- Schmeller DS, Gruber B, Bauch B, Lanno K, Budrys E, Babij V et al (2008b) Determination of national conservation responsibilities in regions with multiple political jurisdictions. Biodivers Conserv. doi: 10.1007/s10531-008-9439-8
- The Nature Conservancy (1988) Natural heritage program operations manual. Arlington, Virginia, USAGoogle Scholar