Nature Conservation Requires More than a Passion for

RICHARD M. COWLING,∗ ∗∗∗ ANDREW T. KNIGHT,∗ DANIEL P. FAITH,† SIMON FERRIER,‡ AMANDA T. LOMBARD,§ AMANDA DRIVER,∗∗ MATHIEU ROUGET,†† KRISTAL MAZE,‡‡ AND PHILIP G. DESMET§§ ∗Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit and Department of , University of Port Elizabeth, PO Box 1600, Port Elizabeth, 6000, South Africa †Australian Museum, 6 College Street, Sydney, New South Wales, 2010, Australia ‡New South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation, PO Box 402, Armidale, New South Wales 2350, Australia § Conservation Unit, Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa, 2b Lawrence Street, Central Hill, Port Elizabeth 6001, South Africa ∗∗Cape Conservation Unit, Botanical Society of South Africa, Claremont 7735, South Africa ††Kirstenbosch Research Centre, National Botanical Institute, Claremont 7735, South Africa ‡‡Biodiversity Directorate, National Botanical Institute, Private Bag x101, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa §§Leslie Hill Institute for Plant Conservation, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa

We are alarmed by Brooks et al.’s (2004) article, which the ability of conservation assessments to target and in- argues that species are the only valid currency for con- corporate biodiversity across a hierarchy of scales—from servation assessment and makes an impassioned plea for genes to ecosystems (Noss 1990). These include using the allocation of the huge resources required to compile field mapping of land classes by experts with a com- accurate and comprehensive species databases for iden- prehensive knowledge of the species in the planning re- tifying conservation priorities. They seek to discredit the gion (e.g., Mabbutt 1968; Vlok et al. 2003); taking the use of land classes as biodiversity features for conserva- widely adopted coarse-filter/fine-filter approach (Noss tion assessments. Our concerns with Brooks et al. are 1987); combining environmental and available species threefold: (1) there are a number of approaches, ignored data to produce land classes that reflect biological hetero- by Brooks et al., that demonstrate the efficacy of com- geneity associated with compositional turnover (Faith & bining the complementary strengths of available species Walker 1996; Faith & Ferrier 2002; Ferrier 2002; Faith data with environmental data so as to avoid species falling 2003); using species-area statistics derived from exist- through the coarse-filter net; (2) the biodiversity features ing survey data to set differential targets for land classes used in conservation assessments depend critically on the (Pressey et al. 2003; Desmet & Cowling 2004); and iden- goal, spatial scale, level of biodiversity knowledge, and tifying and mapping the spatial components of ecological implementation opportunities and constraints associated processes required to ensure the persistence of species with a particular planning region; and (3) conservation (Rouget et al. 2003). All these approaches were presented planners should focus on building the basis for the imple- at the World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa, in mentation of conservation action—the ultimate goal of 2003 and have been used in assessments that have led to conservation planning—rather than amassing more data the implementation of conservation action in the United on species locality records. We address each of these con- States (Davis et al. 1999; Clark & Slusher 2000), Aus- cerns in turn. tralia (RACAC 1996; Ferrier et al. 2002), and South Africa Brooks et al. ignore, discount, or misinterpret many of (e.g., Lombard et al. 1997; Driver et al. 2003b; Cowling the ways in which land classes and currently available et al. 2003a, 2003b;von Hase et al. 2003). Alone, envi- data on species localities can be combined to enhance ronmental and species data have shortcomings for many

∗∗∗email [email protected] Paper submitted June 15, 2004; revised manuscript accepted August 24, 2004.

1674

Conservation Biology, Pages 1674–1676 Volume 18, No. 6, December 2004 Cowling et al. Nature Conservation and Species Data 1675 reasons (e.g., McKenzie et al. 1989; Margules et al. 1994; systems (Berkes et al. 2002). The challenge is to collect Margules & Pressey 2000; Faith 2003; Lombard et al. data that depict opportunities and constraints in a spa- 2003), and conservation assessments should continue to tially explicit way, thereby enabling stakeholders to make seek creative ways to combine available data on both informed decisions about conservation actions. Second, types of features to secure the protection of not only the failure to build adaptable and resilient learning institu- species, but of all levels of the biodiversity hierarchy. tions for managing natural resources, which can respond Although species locality data and range maps are of- effectively to inevitable economic, social, and environ- ten useful for identifying priority areas at the global or mental change, severely undermines our ability to ensure continental scale, where the planning units are invariably that natural systems remain structurally and functionally large (e.g., Williams et al. 1997; Rodrigues et al. 2004), intact. the priority areas thus identified require finer-scale as- Finally, we sincerely hope Brooks et al.’s contribution sessments to guide conservation action at the local scale. does not result in attention being diverted from the real At this finer scale, it is extremely difficult, especially in and urgent need for conservation assessment to form species-rich but poorly explored developing countries, to part of a broader implementation framework that leads compile species-locality data that are sufficiently compre- to conservation action. Such a framework (e.g., Knight hensive in terms of taxa and sampling intensity to avoid &Cowling 2003) requires that biodiversity scientists be identifying priorities that are spatially and taxonomically actively involved in the planning process and involve biased (Ferrier 1997, 2002; van Jaarsveld et al. 1998; Lom- stakeholders—particularly those who will implement the bard et al. 2003). Experience from South Africa, where plan—in decisions about the form and types of data to be spatial turnover is high and localized endemics are com- used in the assessment, the planning goals, and the de- mon, suggests that identifying and targeting land classes as velopment of implementation instruments and strategies. surrogates for biodiversity pattern and process is a more The issue for conservation assessments is not whether effective and efficient use of resources than collecting “comprehensive species data (are) a much more promis- additional species-locality data in fine-scale assessments ing option” than “armchair environmental classification” where the goal is to implement outcomes that protect (Brooks et al. 2004), but rather the artificial and unhealthy nature (Driver et al. 2003a). divide between assessment and implementation that is Conservation assessments should be part of broader currently constraining conservation actions required to planning frameworks that are mindful of the goal of the protect nature. planning process and of the implementation constraints (e.g., land-use pressures and capacity of land-use decision- Literature Cited making institutions) and opportunities (e.g., existing con- servation initiatives and institutional arrangements) that Brooks, T.M., G. A. B. da Fonseca, and A. S. L. Rodrigues. 2004. Protected enable conservation actions (Kremen et al. 1999; Knight areas and species. 18:616–618. Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke, editors. 2002. Navigating social- &Cowling 2003). These issues provide a context that ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. influences the choice of biodiversity features for an as- Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. sessment. For example, species data can be more appro- Clark, F.S., and R. B. Slusher. 2000. Using spatial analysis to drive reserve priate than land-class data for forest management, where design: a case study of a national wildlife refuge in Indiana and Illinois resource extraction can be balanced against conserva- (USA). Landscape Ecology 15:75–84. Cowling, R. M., et al. 2003a.Aconservation assessment for the sub- tion needs by allocating strict protection to forest patches tropical thicket biome. Report 43. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit, containing many rare and vulnerable species and sustain- University of Port Elizabeth, South Africa. able logging to forest patches with fewer such species Cowling, R. M., R. L. Pressey, M. Rouget, and A. T. Lombard. 2003b.A (Howard et al. 1998). conservation plan for a global biodiversity hotspot—the Cape Floris- Brooks et al.’s argument appears to be driven by a belief tic Region, South Africa. Biological Conservation 112:191–216. Davis, F. W., D. M. Stoms, and S. J. Andelman. 1999. Systematic reserve that the biggest hindrance to nature conservation is the selection in the U.S.A.: an example from the Columbia Plateau ecore- lack of accurate data on species localities. We disagree. gion. Parks 9:31–41. Data do not save species, they merely allow us to mea- Desmet, P. G., and R. M. Cowling. 2004. Using the species-area rela- sure them. We believe that the biggest impediments to tionship to set baseline targets for conservation. Conservation and protecting nature are twofold. First, there is a need to Society: in press. Driver, A., R. M. Cowling, and K. Maze. 2003a. Planning for living understand and improve on the historically poor record landscapes—perspectives and lessons from South Africa. Center of implementation of the priorities identified by existing forApplied Biodiversity Science, Washington, D.C., and Botanical conservation assessments (Prendergast et al. 1999; Whit- Society of South Africa, Cape Town, South Africa. Available from ten et al. 2001; Reyers et al. 2002; Knight & Cowling www.botanicalsociety.org.za (accessed April 2004). 2003). This “implementation crisis” (Knight & Cowling Driver, A., P. Desmet, M. Rouget, R. M. Cowling, and K. Maze. 2003b. Succulent Karoo ecosystem plan. Biodiversity component technical 2003) stems from the failure of most assessments to focus report no. CCC 1/03. Botanical Society of South Africa, Cape Town, on and to take active account of implementation issues South Africa. Available from www.botanicalsociety.org.za (accessed spanning the complexity of real-world social–ecological April 2004).

Conservation Biology Volume 18, No. 6, December 2004 1676 Nature Conservation and Species Data Cowling et al.

Faith, D. P.2003. Environmental diversity (ED) as surrogate information Margules, C. R., and R. L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation plan- for species-level biodiversity. Ecography 26:374–379. ning. Nature 405:243–253. Faith, D. P., and S. Ferrier. 2002. Linking beta diversity, environmental McKenzie, N. L., L. Belbin, C. R. Margules, and G. J. Keighery. 1989. Se- variation, and biodiversity assessment. Science 295:636–637. lecting representative reserves systems in remote areas: a case study Faith, D. P., and P.A. Walker. 1996. Environmental diversity: On the best- in the Nullabor region, Australia. Biological Conservation 50:239– possible use of surrogate data for assessing the relative biodiversity 261. of sets of areas. Biodiversity and Conservation 5:399–415. Noss, R. F. 1987. From plant communities to landscapes in conserva- Ferrier, S. 1997. Biodiversity data for reserve selection: making best tion inventories: a look at (USA). Biological use of incomplete information. Pages 315–329 in J. J. Pigram and R. Conservation 41:11–37. C. Sundell, editors. National Parks and Protected Areas: Selection, Noss, R. F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical Delimitation and Management, Centre for Water Policy Research, approach. Conservation Biology 4:355–364. University of New England, Armidale, Australia. Prendergast, J. R., R. M. Quinn, and J. H. Lawton. 1999. The gaps be- Ferrier, S. 2002. Mapping spatial pattern in biodiversity for regional con- tween theory and practice in selecting nature reserves. Conservation servation planning: where to from here? Systematic Biology 51:331– Biology 13:484–492. 363. Pressey, R. L., R. M. Cowling, and M. Rouget. 2003. Formulating con- Ferrier, S., G. Watson, J. Pearce, and M. Drielsma. 2002. Extended sta- servation targets for biodiversity pattern and process in the Cape tistical approaches to modelling spatial pattern in biodiversity in Floristic Region, South Africa. Biological Conservation 112:99–128. north-east New South Wales: I. Species-level modelling. Biodiversity RACAC (Resource and Conservation Assessment Council). 1996. Draft and Conservation 11:2275–2307. interim forestry assessment report. RACAC, Sydney, Australia. Howard, P. C., P. Viskanic, T. R. B. Davenport, F. W. Kigenyi, M. Baltzer, Reyers, B., D. H. K. Fairbanks, K. J. Wessels, and A. S. van Jaarsveld. 2002. C. J. Dickinson, J. S. Lwanga, R. A. Matthews, and A. Balmford. 1998. Amulticriteria approach to reserve selection: addressing long-term Complementarity and the use of indicator groups for reserve selec- biodiversity maintenance. Biodiversity and Conservation 11:769– tion in Uganda. Nature 394:472–475. 793. Knight, A. T., and R. M. Cowling. 2003. Conserving South Africa’s ‘lost’ Rodrigues, A. S. L., et al. 2004. Effectiveness of the global biome: a framework for securing effective regional conservation network in representing species diversity. Nature 428:640–643. planning in the subtropical thicket biome. Report 44. Terrestrial Rouget, M., R. M. Cowling, R. L. Pressey, and D. M. Richardson. 2003. Ecology Research Unit, University of Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Identifying the spatial components of ecological and evolutionary Kremen, C., V.R. Razafimahatratra, P.Guillery, J. Rakotomalala, A. Weiss, processes for regional conservation planning in the Cape Floristic and J. Ratsisompatrarivo. 1999. Designing the Masoala Region. Diversity and Distributions 9:191–210. in Madagascar based on biological and socioeconomic data. Conser- vanJaarsveld, A. S. 1998. Biodiversity assessments and conservation vation Biology 13:1055–1068. strategies. Science 279:2106–2108. Lombard, A. T., R. M. Cowling, R. L. Pressey, and P. J. Mustart. 1997. Vlok, J. H. J., D. I. W. Euston-Brown, and R. M. Cowling. 2003.Acocks’ Reserve selection on the Agulhas Plain, South Africa: a flexible tool valley bushveld 50 years on: new perspectives on the delimitation, for conservation in a species-rich and fragmented landscape. Con- characterisation and origin of thicket vegetation. South African Jour- servation Biology 11:1101–1116. nal of Botany 69:27–51. Lombard, A. T., R. M. Cowling, R. L. Pressey, and A. G. Rebelo. 2003. von Hase, A., M. Rouget, K. Maze, and N. Helme. 2003. A fine-scale con- Effectiveness of land classes as surrogates for species in conserva- servation plan for Cape Lowlands Renosterveld: technical report. tion planning for the Cape Floristic Region. Biological Conservation Report CCU 2/03. Botanical Society of South Africa, Cape Town, 112:45–62. South Africa. Mabbutt, J. A. 1968. Review of concepts of land classification. Pages Whitten, T., D. Holmes, and K. MacKinnon. 2001. Conservation biology: 11–28 in G. A. Steward, editor. Land evaluation. Macmillan, Sydney, a displacement behaviour for academia? Conservation Biology 15: Australia. 1–3. Margules, C. R., A. O. Nicholls, and M. B. Usher. 1994. Apparent species Williams, P. H., K. J. Gaston, and C. J. Humphries. 1997. Mapping bio- turnover, probability of and the selection of nature re- diversity value worldwide: combining higher-taxon richness from serves: a case study of the Ingleborough limestone pavements. Con- different groups. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London B 264: servation Biology 8:398–409. 141–148.

Conservation Biology Volume 18, No. 6, December 2004