Assessment of approaches to identify areas with special importance ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4. RESULTS Species specific criteria are most commonly adopted for the identification of sites important for biodiversity conservation. All approaches implement the majority of criteria grouped under this heading. One advantage of using species specific criteria is that the success of the conservation effort is easier to measure (Mace et al. 2006, 18). Species data, either through direct counts of indicator species (Balmford et al. 2005, 212) or through assessments of threat (Butchart et al. 2004, 2), provide easier monitoring systems for measuring effectiveness 27 . In practice, conservation approaches often direct conservation action towards species and communities, as these are firstly manageable and comprehensible components of biodiversity and secondly, often hold more appeal with the general public (Mace et al. 2006, 18). Ecosystem specific criteria are employed by the HCV concept and the ERBC approach. The REA was added in brackets as it only employs criterion F (distinctive ecosystems). On the one hand, these criteria tend to loose precision. On the other hand, data is more readily available and consistent than species specific data. Furthermore, ecosystem specific criteria are able to integrate ecological processes and thus contribute to the maintenance of ecosystem functioning (Margules and Pressey 2000, 245). The HCV concept is the only one that implements all three criteria listed in the site specific criteria group. The ERBC approach only implements criterion H (provision of ecosystem services) and thus, has only been added in brackets in Figure 6. For successful implementation, biological priorities must also be integrated with socio-economic considerations (CBD 2005, 14; Mace et al. 2000, 393), however, these evaluations, as part of a biological assessment, are still in their “infancy stages” (Mace 2000, 393). Although approaches based purely on ecosystem specific criteria are critical for conservation, they are not a replacement for approaches based on species specific criteria and vice versa (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a, 11). There is no best surrogate. The choice of criteria should depend on data and resource availability. In the majority of situations a combination of criteria is most practical (Margules and Pressey 2000, 246; Pressey 2004, 1677). Judging from the approach criteria used for site identification, the HCV concept is the most extensive in terms of the broad variety it employs. This is followed closely by the ERBC approach, the REA and then the KBA approach. The FSA must be viewed separately, as it relies on a completely different set of criteria, all of which are species based. 27 Please refer to chapter 7, General Terms, for a detailed explanation. 40
4. RESULTS 4.2 Strength-Weakness Analysis (SWA) In order to assess the selected approaches 28 used to identify biodiversity relevant areas a strength-weakness analysis was performed based on a predetermined set of key questions, criteria and sub-criteria 29 . These indicators were divided into thematic groups 30 to provide a clear orientation to the reader concerning the approaches’ inherent qualities. The selected approaches are the High Conservation Value (HCV) concept, the Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) approach, the Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC) approach, the Focal Species Approach (FSA) and the Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA). For the strength-weakness analysis 31 the Groups I (Ecology), II (Implementation) and IV (Supplementary) were assessed. This entails criteria A-F and J-M 32 , as shown in Figure 7 (see next page). Supported by argumentative reasoning 33 the approaches were classified according to very weak (--), weak (-), average (O), strong (+) and very strong (++) for each key question within the respective groups. Hence, a strength-weakness profile could be determined for each approach based on the Groups I, II and IV. 28 Please refer to chapter 3.2, Rational behind Approach Selection, for more detail. 29 Please refer to the chapter 2.2.2 for an overview of all key questions, criteria and sub-criteria. 30 Please refer to chapter 2.2.1.1 for an explanation to the thematic group divisions. 31 Please refer to chapter 2.2.6, Strength-Weakness Analysis, for the exact methodological description. 32 Please refer chapter 2.2.2, Design of Assessment Methodology, for an explanation. 33 Please refer to Appendix A1 for the argumentative reasoning which enabled a classification of the results. 41
Page 1: School of Forest Science and Resour
Page 4 and 5: 3.4 Interim Discussion ............
Page 6 and 7: ABSTRACT Abstract This thesis has a
Page 8 and 9: LIST OF FIGURES List of Figures Fig
Page 10 and 11: ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviations AZE CBD
Page 12 and 13: 1. INTRODUCTION areas with high rat
Page 14 and 15: 2. METHODOLOGY 2. Methodology 2.1 O
Page 16 and 17: 2. METHODOLOGY Figure 2 provides an
Page 18 and 19: 2. METHODOLOGY Group Key Questions
Page 20 and 21: 2. METHODOLOGY 2.2.5 Design of Asse
Page 22 and 23: 2. METHODOLOGY Table 2: Defined cla
Page 24 and 25: 2. METHODOLOGY Group Criteria Sub-c
Page 26 and 27: 2. METHODOLOGY Table 3: Ordinal ran
Page 28 and 29: 3. CASE STUDIES 3.2 Rationale behin
Page 30 and 31: 3. CASE STUDIES 3.3.2 Key Biodivers
Page 32 and 33: 3. CASE STUDIES with the establishm
Page 34 and 35: 3. CASE STUDIES 3.4 Interim Discuss
Page 36 and 37: 3. CASE STUDIES Figure 4 provides a
Page 38 and 39: 4. RESULTS 4. Results 4.1 Pre-Asses
Page 40 and 41: 4. RESULTS responsible for the type
Page 42 and 43: 4. RESULTS 4.1.1.3 Site Specific Cr
Page 44 and 45: 4. RESULTS 4.1.2 Explanatory Notes
Page 46 and 47: 4. RESULTS networks (Dinerstein et
Page 48 and 49: 4. RESULTS 4.1.2.5 Rapid Ecological
Page 52 and 53: 4. RESULTS Figure 7: Overview of cr
Page 54 and 55: 4. RESULTS Table 9: Overview: appro
Page 56 and 57: 4. RESULTS 4.2.2 Strength-Weakness
Page 58 and 59: 4. RESULTS In Group II (Implementat
Page 60 and 61: 4. RESULTS weakness the sub-criteri
Page 62 and 63: 4. RESULTS 4.2.2.3 Profile of Ecore
Page 64 and 65: 4. RESULTS required data. In additi
Page 66 and 67: 4. RESULTS the FSA is applied at th
Page 68 and 69: 4. RESULTS ecosystem types) was cla
Page 70 and 71: 4. RESULTS 4.3 Additional Criteria
Page 72 and 73: 4. RESULTS 4.3.1 Methods for Site C
Page 74 and 75: 4. RESULTS Rapid assessments (i.e.
Page 76 and 77: 4. RESULTS landscape, especially fo
Page 78 and 79: 4. RESULTS during the “biodiversi
Page 80 and 81: 4. RESULTS on such considerations a
Page 82 and 83: 4. RESULTS In general, the identifi
Page 84 and 85: 4. RESULTS 4.3.2.3 Ecoregion-Based
Page 86 and 87: 4. RESULTS 4.3.3.1 Use of Existing
Page 88 and 89: 4. RESULTS Macro-scale databases pr
Page 90 and 91: 4. RESULTS imparts ownership and pr
Page 92 and 93: 4. RESULTS All approaches make use
Page 94 and 95: 4. RESULTS The HCV concept and REA
Page 96 and 97: 4. RESULTS Table 11: Approach ranki
Page 98 and 99: 4. RESULTS The HCV concept, the KBA
Page 100 and 101:
4. RESULTS 4.4 Summary In order to
Page 102 and 103:
4. RESULTS Figure 25: Overview of r
Page 104 and 105:
5. DISCUSSION 5. Discussion This th
Page 106 and 107:
5. DISCUSSION (Interview Partner E)
Page 108 and 109:
5. DISCUSSION Overall, the ERBC app
Page 110 and 111:
5. DISCUSSION In summary, the popul
Page 112 and 113:
6. CONCLUSION cultural analysis sub
Page 114 and 115:
6. CONCLUSION recommendations for s
Page 116 and 117:
7. GENERAL TERMS Ecosystem: is a bi
Page 118 and 119:
7. GENERAL TERMS Inventories: refer
Page 120 and 121:
7. GENERAL TERMS Representativeness
Page 122 and 123:
7. GENERAL TERMS Top-down: controll
Page 124 and 125:
REFERENCES Bryant D., Nielsen D., T
Page 126 and 127:
REFERENCES Hill D. A., Fasham M., T
Page 128 and 129:
REFERENCES Mills L. S., Soule M. E.
Page 130 and 131:
REFERENCES Sanderson E. W., Jaiteh
Page 133 and 134:
APPENDIX Appendices A1 Explanations
Page 135 and 136:
APPENDIX spread of national and int
Page 137 and 138:
APPENDIX O. How large is the protec
Page 139 and 140:
APPENDIX III Approaches & their req
Page 141 and 142:
APPENDIX A3 List of Interview Partn
Page 143 and 144:
APPENDIX which can quite possibly r
Page 145 and 146:
APPENDIX A4-2 Interview Partner B I
Page 147 and 148:
APPENDIX Scoping assessments are p
Page 149 and 150:
APPENDIX A3-4 Interview Partner D I
Page 151 and 152:
APPENDIX If one needs to still def
Page 153 and 154:
APPENDIX A4-5 Interview Partner E I
Page 155 and 156:
APPENDIX HCV. Thus making it harder
Page 157 and 158:
APPENDIX • Is there demand for ce
Page 159 and 160:
APPENDIX • C. Human Resources: Wh
Page 161 and 162:
APPENDIX identified values. This ma
Page 163 and 164:
APPENDIX • Do you think market ba
Page 165 and 166:
APPENDIX past observations. It woul
Page 167 and 168:
APPENDIX A4-9 Interview Partner I I
Page 169 and 170:
APPENDIX • So as a general statem
Page 171 and 172:
APPENDIX HCV designation - the jur
Page 173 and 174:
APPENDIX community types conserved
Page 175 and 176:
APPENDIX more rapidly identify area
Page 177 and 178:
APPENDIX • Which criteria would b
Page 179 and 180:
APPENDIX • F. Certification: Do y
Page 181 and 182:
APPENDIX A4-12 Interview Partner L
Page 183 and 184:
APPENDIX all FSC certificates (worl
Page 185 and 186:
APPENDIX representation of biodiver
Page 187 and 188:
APPENDIX new KBA in aquatic biomes
Page 189 and 190:
APPENDIX Furthermore, the question
Page 191 and 192:
APPENDIX This is a very important
Page 193 and 194:
APPENDIX A4-14 Interview Partner O
Page 195 and 196:
APPENDIX performed at a smaller spa
Page 197 and 198:
APPENDIX A5 Strength-Weakness Analy
Page 199 and 200:
APPENDIX 5 Punde S (2007): Prioriti
Page 201 and 202:
APPENDIX Criteria Strength Weakness
Page 203 and 204:
APPENDIX A5-3 Strength-Weakness Pro
Page 205 and 206:
APPENDIX priorities in the Apache H
Page 207 and 208:
APPENDIX Criteria Strength Weakness
Page 209 and 210:
APPENDIX A5-5 Strength-Weakness Pro
Page 211 and 212:
APPENDIX A6 Methods for Site Choice
Page 213 and 214:
APPENDIX A6-3 Ecoregion-Based Conse
Page 215 and 216:
APPENDIX A6-5 Rapid Ecological Asse
Page 217 and 218:
APPENDIX HCV (continued) Interview
Page 219 and 220:
APPENDIX A7-4 Focal Species Approac
Page 221 and 222:
APPENDIX A8-2 Key Biodiversity Area
Page 223 and 224:
APPENDIX Table 33: List of data req
Page 225:
APPENDIX
show all

Assessment of approaches to identify areas with special importance ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?