Rev. Bio!. Trop., 46(2): 183-190, 1998

COMMENT

Conserving Biólogical Diversity in tbe Tropics: Tbe Role ofPrivate Nature Reserves in Costa Rica

Patrick Herzogl and Christopher Vaughan2

Present address: Department of Environmental Science, LethridgeCommunity College, 3000 College Drive South, Lethbridge, AB TIK lL6, Canada. 2 Regional Wildlife Management Program for Mesoamerica and the Caribbean, Universidad Nacional, Heredia, Costa Rica, tel. 506c277-3544, fax 506-237-7039, email: cvaughan@,una.ac.cr

Recibido 16-V-1997. Corregido 06-XIlI-1997. Aceptado 18-U-1998

Conservation efforts to preserve biological carrying capacity of reserves to sustain ever diversity are often focusedon the establishment higher le veIs of visitatíon. of protected areas such as national parks, wildlife refuges and forest reserves (McNeely Thís growth pattern has been dramatically et al. 1990, WRI, mCN, UNEP 1992) under demonstrated in Costa Rica where visitatíon to government control. Boza (1993) identified the national parks is rising al 25-30% per annum need for innovative partnerships to ensure the (Bermudez and Mena 1992). The demand for maintenance of these areas in Costa Rica. Sínce ecotourism has also· led to the rapid ecotourismis viewed as a majorben(ffitderived establishment of nature reserves on private from the protection of these areas and él strong land. Other reasons for the establishment of incentive to acquire new lands to compl�te the private reserveS in Costa Rica inc1ude: the system (Boza 1993), a conservation link with protection of biodiversity, cultural and the tourist industry would he attractive. economical reasons (Chaverri 1979, Fournier and Herrera de Fournier ] 979, Gonzalez 1985, Numerous authorshave examined the Fournier 1991, Fournier 1992). benefits and drawbacks to such a relationship (Boo 1990, Rovinski 1991, Giannecchini Can private reserves complement 1993, Burnie 1994). In the typical scenatio, government elforts to protect biological increasing levels of visitation by ecotourists diversity? Weexamined this possibílity by to protected areas ideally generatesrevenue assessing (1) physical charaCteristics; (2) from entrance lees and services while species occurrence, prímarilyof and contributing to local' and nationaleconomies ; and (3) threats to the ecological vía employment, the development of integrity of individual reserves. infrastructure and exchange of foreign currency. However, the expansion of We established a listof nature reserves by ecotourism aIso leads to problems associated reviewing travel guides, advertísements in with overcrowding, disturbance of wildHfe newspélpers andpromotional materials from (Damon and Vaughan, 1995) and the limited travel agencies. Reserves were selected using 184 REVISTA DE BlOLOGIA TROPICAL the following critería: (l) prívate land Four reserves were adjacent to protected ownership; (2) current business plan based on areas under the jurisdictíon of the govemment ecotourism; (3) site development financed 01'Costa Rica (Hg. 2). The average distance of without govemment or donor suppart; and (4) tbe other 22 reserves to government - profit based operation. These critería controlled areas was 12.4 km (S.D. = 11.1). eliminated biological stations established by The range of distances to nearest protected educational institutions and reserves created area was 0.5 - 33.2 km. with the assistance of international fund­ raising campaigns. Biologic�d Inventory: Species checklists were primaray available for birds (Fig. 3). \Ve visÍted each reserve and surveyed ¡he Eight of the bírd lists were simple checldists of site, frequently with biologists and guídes who presence only while the other 2 included both collected biological information. \Ve obtained checklists and information on breeding status two types of species inventory data from these and seasonal patterns of abundance. Three individual s: observational checklists of species additional lists were excluded from our occurrence often available to tourists, and analysis because they included species personal records of wildlife sightings, observed outside reserve boundaries. particularly in relation to a predetemüned list of 14 mammals. \Ve determined reliability of The average number of birds/list was 200 this data by assessing qualifications and (S.D. = 78) ranging from 86 to 333 species. A experience of observers and techniques for total of 645 different speeies of birds were data colleetÍon and storage. identified at the 10 reserves, 74% of the Costa Rican avifauna (Stiles and Skutch 1989). Interviews were conductea with !he owner Nearly all of the endangered avifauna in Costa or manager of each reserve to determine site Rica were found in private nature reserves: of development, history, surrounding land use the 27 species listed by Sanchez and Quesada activities and community acceptance. Whenever (1989),21 species (78%) were reported in our possible, intervíews were condueted in the field. survey. AH members 01' the Accipitrídae and Falconidae are a180 considered endangered: Locations of prívate reserves were ploUed 76% and 85% of the species in these families 011 topographic maps (l: 200,000). Distanees have beeo observed at prívate reserves. Except were caIculated to the l1earest protected areas for the spotted-breasted oriole (Icterus identified by Boza (1993). pectoralis), species absent from reserves a1l require extensive wetland habitats that did not \Vereviewed 41 potential reserves: 9 areas exist al prívate reserves. failed to meet our critena aud we were unable to obtain information from 6 other eandidates. Only 4 reserves (19%) had lists of Oue survey was extensive and included mammals (Hg. 3). These lists included 47, 33, reserves throughout Costa Rica. 26 and 19 species, respectively and were dominated by species of interest to tourists and Physical Charaderistics: The 26 reserve managers (e.g., non-primates, large reserves (Table 1) ranged in size from 20- carnivores, sloths). Non-human primates are 1,492 ha and encompassed 10,124 ha. Average endangered species in Costa Rica (Sanchez

reserve size was 389 ha (S.D. = 471). Twenty and Quesada 1989) and records were available reserves (77%) were less than 500 ha in size trom 20 additional reserves for these highly (Fig. 1). visible species. HERZOG &VAUGHAN: Conserving biological diversity in ¡he tropics 185

TABLE 1

Costa Riean Private Reserves lnc/uded in this Study

Reserve Size (ha) Year Distance (km) Holdridge Life Zone

Rara Avis 1300 1986 Adjacent brnh-T SarapiquiEcolodge 100 1991 4.1 brnh-P Selva Verde 218 1985 7.1 brnh-P El Gavilan 130 1988 65 bmh-T Oro Verde. .. 380 .. 199Q 4.1 brnh-T Ecoadventure Lodge 538 1990 27.6 brnh-T Arenal Observatory Lodge 386 1988 33.2 bmh-T Villa Blanca Hotel 1380 1992 16.2 brnh-T Los Innocentes 900 1989 Adjacent bh-T Curu 1492 1945 Adjacent bh-T Dundee Ranch Hotel 1300 1991 9.1 bh-T Carara Ecological Hotel 141 1992 Adjacent bh-T Hacienda Bam 330 1988 30.8 brnh-T Cabanas Escondidas 45 1991 31.3 brnh-T El SaltoBiological Reserve 26 1989 2.7 brnh-P Marenco Reverse 500 1985 5.5 bmh-T Campanario 113 1992 1.4 brnh-T Corcovado Ten! Camp 177 1991 0.5 brnh-T TIsk1taLodge 170 1987 25.5 bh-T Alberque de Montaña 200 1980 10.0 bp-MB - Cabinas Chacon Finca de los Quetzales 53 1992 8.2 bp-M Genesis n 43 1988 9.6 bp-MB Rancho Naturalista 57 1987 20.9 brnh-P Totuga Lodge 40 1987 1.6 brnh-T Avarios Caribe 85 1990 11.4 bh-T Chirnurí 20 1988 5.5 bh·T

Key: Size in hectares Year initiated Distance 10 nearestpublic protectec area Holdridge Life Zone: bh-T= tropical wet forest, bmh-T= tropical very wet forest, bmh-P= prernontane very wet forest, bp-MP= lower montane rain fores!:, bp-M= montane rain foest.

0·100 101·250 251·500 501·1000 >1000

SIZE(HECT ARES) DlSTANCE (KlLOMETERS)

Fig. L Distribution of me distances of prívate nature Hg. 2. Number of prívatenature reserves with formallists reserves to ¡he nearest protected areaunder ,he jurísdiction or inventories of wildlife. of !he government of CostaRica. 186 REVISTA DE BIOLOGIA TROPICAL

10 reserves (84%) while the white-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari) was very uncommon (3/19,

7 16%). The latter species is endangered in

'"� 6 Costa Rica (Sanchez and Quesada 1989) as is the tapir (Tapirus bairdii), a species present at � 5 .. 4 O 7 of 19 reserves (37%). .. 3

An additional 14 species of mammals are listed as endangered species in Costa Rica SPECIES GROUP (Sanchez and Quesada 1989). Nine of these species inc1uding the giant anteater Fig. 3. Size distribution of the private nature reserves studied in Costa Rica. (Myrmecophaga tridactyla), collared anteater (Tamandua mexicana), silky anteater (Cyclopes didactylus), two-toed sloth (Choleopus hoffmani), three-toed sloth (Bradypus With respect to non-human primates, the variegatus), Deppe's squirrel (Sciurus deppei), white-faced capuchin (Cebus capucinus) was grison (Gallictis vittata), southern river the most common, found in 79% of reserves; (Lutralongicadus) and (Potos flavus) while howler monkeys (Alouatta palliata) were known to occur at private nature reserves. were also present at most reserves (75%). Spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi) were less Threats to Ecological Integrity: Illegal common (13 reserves, 54% of sites). Squirrel hunting of wildlife was the most common monkeys (Saimiri oerstedii) were reported at negative activity reported by reserve managers only 4 sites (17%) but did occur at 67% of the (Fig. 4). Poaching occurred at 20 reserves reserves located within the known in-country (77%) and was considered to be a potential range of the species. threat at 3 of the other 6 sites. In most cases, paca was the primary species sought by Several other species were reported from 19 hunters. Ocelot and deer were also hunted at reserves. The jaguar ( onca) and individual reserves. ( concolor) were only present at 6 (32%) and 3 (16%) reserves (N=19), respectively. In The extractÍon or removal of forest contrast, ocelot (Felis paradalis) and margay products was considered to be a threat at 14 (Felis wiedil) were more common (14 and 13 reserves (54%). The cutting of "palmito" or reserves, 74% and 68% respectively). heart of palm was reported as a common (Felis yagouaroundi) were known problem. The harvest of orchids and cutting of from observations at 11 (58%) reserves. Since the littlespotted cat or oncilla (Felis tigrina) was reported on one of 4 lists, private 80 nature reserves provided habitat for the 6 known 70 g¡ 60 felids in the country, all of which areendangered ¡:; 50 (Sanchez and Quesada 1989). Bl 40 ;;a 30 '":s 20 Two caviomorphs, the agouti (Dasyprocta 10 punctata) and paca (Agouti paca) were present Poaching Extraction Wildlife Clearing at nearly all 19 sites; agouti were recorded at THREATS 18 sites while 16 reserves reported the presence of paca. The collared peccary Fig. 4. The frequency of human-caused threats lo ecological integrity as reported by reserve owners and (Tayassu tajacu) was also present at 16 managers. HERZOG & VAUGHAN: Conserving biological diversity in the tropics 187 trees for charcoal production were also noted for these reserves compared to their as threats to the biodiversity of reserves. government counterparts.

Wildfire was considered a serious threat at The collective importance of the reserves 7 reserves (27%). These reserves were located we studied is demonstrated by our assessment in regions where extended dry seasons of species richness. Despite the availability prevailed and where fires could either escape of records fromonly 38% of the reserves, 74% from neighbouring lands or result from arson. of the avifauna were reported to occur at these siles. We believe this remarkable figure reflects Four reserves (15%) had suffered habitat the unique ecological characteristics of 10ss or degradation due to illegal settlement by individual reserves and their country-wide squatters. Managers of reserves were generally distribution. Furthermore, since riparian zones confident a combinatíon of vigilance and and extensively forested areas exist within their community involvement in business operations boundaries, we suspect many reserves serve as would prevent or curtail such invasions. biological corridors for migration and Similarstrategies were also viewed as a means dispersa!. The resplendent quetzal to reduce illegal hunting and extraction. (Pharomachrus mocinno), great green macaw (Ara ambigua) and three-wattled bellbird Analysis: Individual reserves contribute, (Procnias tricarunculata) are 3 species that most obviously, to the protection of migrate along elevational gradients (Stiles and biodiversity in Costa Rica by providing habitat Clark 1989, Stiles and Skutch 1989) and may for endangered species. Sorne of these species reside temporarily at private reserves. are not well protected in government reserves: the squírrel monkey occurs at 4 prívate Reserve size and degree of isolation from reserves but is only present in 2 of the areas other protected areas undoubtedly influenced identified by Boza (1993). Similarly, the the species occurrence of mammals at scarlet macaw (Ara macaD) occurs at only 3 individual reserves. The general absence of protected areas in Costa Rica (Vaughan et al. jaguar and puma supports the contention by 1991), but inhabits 4 private reserves, By Terborgh (1992) that neotropical forest protecting endangered species and other fragments less than 1000ha in size (85% of our species that exist as metapopulations (Wilson reserves) will ultimately lose resident 1992), private reserves effectively expand the populations of these area-demanding species conservation efforts of the government and (Emmons 1990). If the lack of these keystone international organizations. predators leads to a release of prey species that function as seed predators to decrease the This effect is readily apparent when diversity of forest vegetation (Terborgh 1992), reserves dedicated to ecotourism are located private reserves are potentially atrisk. Qnly 1 in the buffer zones of protected areas. Several reserve did not report the presence of agouti, advantages can result from this relationship, paca or peccary (76% had all 3 species, 90% a including an expanded sphere of protected combination of any 2 species) yet only 7 habitat (Shafer 1990, Sayer 1991, Imback and reserves had sightings of jaguar or puma. Godoy 1992), a reduction in negative Maintaining wide-ranging species at private ecological edge effects (Saunders et al. 1991), reserves will require the regional integration and increased. security from disturbances like and management of al1types of protected areas. poaching. Indeed we noted all human threats to ecological integrity were offset by the Private reserves may be located in greater vigilance of staff at private reserves as ecoregions poorly represented in the well as higher levels of community support government system and in regions of the 188 REVISTA DE BIOLOGIA TROPICAL country without existing reserves. We belíeve Chaverri, A. 1979. Análisis de reservas biolígicas their ínclusion into the existing network of privadas en Costa Rica. Tesis M.S. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica. traditional protected areas is overdue given the continual pressures of economic development Damon, T. and C. Vaughan. 1995. Ecotourism and in Costa Rica (Hunter 1994). Thechallenge will wildlife conservation in Costa Rica: Potential for a be for govemment managers to design plans sustainable partnership. Pages 211-216 in J. that incorporatethese areas into the gaps present Bissonette and P. Krausman (eds.). Integrating People and Wildlife for a Sustainable Future. The Wildlife in the current system (ChaveITÍ 1979, Foumier Society. Bethesda, Maryland. and Herrera de Foumier 1979, Boza 1993). Land preservation generated by ecotourism can Fournier, L. 1991. Recuperación y mantenimiento de la complement efforts by the governrnent to diversidad biológica en el cantón de Mora, Costa Rica. safeguard biological diversity. However, in Resumenes del Tercer Congreso Nacional de Biología. San José, Costa Rica. sornecases, especially where reserves arelocal famíly-ownedbusinesses, technicalsupport and Fournier, L. 1992. Establishmiento de pequeñas reservas funding from international conservation naturales mediante la regeneración natural y su organizations may be appropriate to ensure the importancia en el desarrollo. Plenario. del n Simposio long-term protection of the biodiversity de Ecología, Turismo y Municipio. Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, San José. p.12. represented by these often unique parcelsof the tropical envÍronment. Fournier, L & M. Herrera de Fournier. 1979. Importancia científico, económica y cultural de un sistema de We thank the owners and managers of the pequeñas reservas naturales en Costa Rica. Agron. nature reserves we visited for their hospitality Cost. 3: 53-55. and the many individuals who provided Giannecchini, J. 1993. Ecotourism: new partners, new information and personal records on wildlife, relationships. Cons. Biol. 7: 429-432. especially Giovanni Bello Carranza and Jim Zook. Royal Jackson participated in rnany of Gonzalez, R. 1985. El establecimiento y los cuidados de the interviews and we appreciate his assistance. las pequeñas áreas boscosas. Universidad Estatal a Distancia, San José. 46 p. Thís project was cornpleted while the senior

author was on leave from Lethbridge Huntér, J.R. 1994. 1s Costa Rica truly conservation­ Cornmunity College, Alberta, Canada. minded? Cons. Biol. .8: 592-595.

1mbach, A.C. & J.e. Godoy. 1992. Progress in the management buffer zones in the American tropics: proposals to inerease !he influence of protected areas. REFERENCES Parks 3: 19-22.

Bennudez, F. & Y. Mena. 1992. Parques nacionales de MeNeely, J.A., K.R. MilIer, w.v. Reid, R.A. Mittenneir & Costa Rica. Oficina de Planificacion y Servicios T.B.Werner. 1990. Conserving the world's biologieal Tecnicos, Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y diversity. International Uníon for Conservation of Minas, San Jose, Costa Rica. Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland. World Resources Institute, Conservation 1ntemational, Boo, E. 1990. Ecotourism: the potentialand pitfalls. World World Wildlife Fund-US, and the World Bank, Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.e. Washington, D.e.

Boza, M.A. 1993. Conservation in action: past, present, Rovinski, Y. 1991. Private reserves, parks, and ecotourism and future of the national park system of Costa Rica. in Costa Rica. Pages 39-57 in T. Whelan, editor. Cons. Biol. 7: 239-247. Nature tourism: managing for the environment. lsland, Washington, D.e. Burnie, D. 1994. Ecotourists to paradise. New Sci. April 16, pages 23-27. Sanchez, O. & A. Quesada. 1989. Lista de especies en vías de extinción y temporadas de caza. Servicio de Vida HERZOG & VAUGHAN: Conserving biological diversity in tbe tropics 189

Silvestre, Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Stiles, EG. & A.E Skutch. 1989. A guide to the birds of Minas, San Jose, Costa Rica. Costa Rica. Comell University, Ithaca, New York.

Saunders, D.A., RJ. Hobbs & C.R. Margules. 1991. Terborgh, J. 1992. Maintenance of diversity in tropical Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: forests. Biotropica 24: 283-292. A review. Cons. Biol. 5: 18-32. Vaughan, C., M. McCoy & J. Liske. 1991. Scarlet macaw Sayer, J. 1991. Rainforest buffer zones: guidelines for ecology and management perspectives.Pages 23-34 in protected area managers. Intemational Union for J. Clinton-Eituiear (ed.). Proceedings of the fust Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Mesoamerican workshop on the conservation and _Switzerbmd. management of macaws. Center for the Study of frop¡cifBlids�SanAntonio; Texas: Shafer, CL 1990. Nature reserves: island theory and conservation practice. Smithsonian Institution, World Resources Institute (WRI), The World Washington, D.C. Conservation Uníon (IUCN) & United Nations Envíronment Programme (UNEP). 1992. Global Stiles, EG. & DA Clárk. 1989. Conservation of tropical Biodiversity Strategy. World Resources. Institute, rain forest birds: a case study from Costa Rica. Am. Washington, D.C. Birds 43: 420-428.