DOCSLIB.ORG

Integrating Habitat Status, Human Population Pressure, and Protection Status Into Biodiversity Conservation Priority Setting

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Integrating Habitat Status, Human Population Pressure, and Protection Status Into Biodiversity Conservation Priority Setting Integrating Habitat Status, Human Population Pressure, and Protection Status into Biodiversity Conservation Priority Setting HUA SHI,∗†† ASHIBINDU SINGH,† SHASHI KANT,∗ ZHILIANG ZHU,‡ AND ERIC WALLER‡ § ∗Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto, 33 Willcocks Street Toronto, ON M5S 3B3, Canada †Division of Early Warning and Assessment—North America, UN Environmental Programme, U.S. Geological Survey/EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, SD 57198, U.S.A. ‡U.S. Geological Survey/EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, SD 57198, U.S.A. Abstract: Priority setting is an essential component of biodiversity conservation. Existing methods to identify priority areas for conservation have focused almost entirely on biological factors. We suggest a new relative ranking method for identifying priority conservation areas that integrates both biological and social aspects. It is based on the following criteria: the habitat’s status, human population pressure, human efforts to protect habitat, and number of endemic plant and vertebrate species. We used this method to rank 25 hotspots, 17 megadiverse countries, and the hotspots within each megadiverse country. We used consistent, comprehensive, georeferenced, and multiband data sets and analytical remote sensing and geographic information system tools to quantify habitat status, human population pressure, and protection status. The ranking suggests that the Philippines, Atlantic Forest, Mediterranean Basin, Caribbean Islands, Caucasus, and Indo-Burma are the hottest hotspots and that China, the Philippines, and India are the hottest megadiverse countries. The great variation in terms of habitat, protected areas, and population pressure among the hotspots, the megadiverse countries, and the hotspots within the same country suggests the need for hotspot- and country-specific conservation policies. Key Words: biodiversity hotspots, GIS, habitat status, human pressure, megadiverse countries, protection status Integraci´on del Estatus del H´abitat, la Presi´on de la Poblaci´on Humana y el Estatus de Protecci´on a la Definici´on de Prioridades de Conservaci´on Resumen: La definicion´ de prioridades es un componente esencial de la conservacion´ de la biodiversidad. Los m´etodos actuales para identificacion´ de prioridades para la conservacion´ se han centrado casi por completo en factores biologicos.´ Sugerimos un nuevo m´etodo de clasificacion´ relativa para identificar areas´ de conservacion´ prioritarias que integra tanto aspectos biologicos´ como sociales. Se basa en los siguientes criterios: el estatus del habitat,´ la presion´ de la poblacion´ humana, los esfuerzos humanos para proteger el habitat´ y el numero´ de especies end´emicas de plantas y vertebrados. Utilizamos este m´etodo para clasificar a 25 sitios de importancia para la conservacion,´ 17 pa´ıses megadiversos y los sitios de importancia para la conservacion´ en cada pa´ıs megadiverso. Utilizamos conjuntos de datos consistentes, georeferenciados y de banda multiple´ as´ı como herramientas de percepcion´ remota anal´ıtica y de sistemas de informacion´ geografica´ para cuantificar el estatus del habitat,´ la presion´ de la poblacion´ humana y el estatus de proteccion.´ La clasificacion´ sugiere que las Filipinas, el Bosque Atlantico,´ la Cuenca del Mediterraneo,´ las Islas Caribenas,˜ el Caucaso´ e India-Burma son los sitios de importancia mas´ importantes y que China, las Filipinas e India son los pa´ıses megadiverosos mas´ importantes. La gran variacion´ en t´erminos de habitat,´ areas´ protegidas y presion´ de la poblacion´ entre ††email [email protected] Current address: Colorado Division of Wildlife, 6060 Broadway, Denver, CO 80216, U.S.A. P§aper submitted September 8, 2003; revised manuscript accepted December 30, 2004. 1273 Conservation Biology 1273–1285 C 2005 Society for Conservation Biology " DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00225.x 1274 Integrating Social Factors into Priority Setting Shi et al. los sitios de importancia, los pa´ıses megadiversos y los sitios de importancia en un pa´ıs sugiere la necesidad de pol´ıticas de conservacion´ espec´ıficas para los sitios de importancia y los pa´ıses. Palabras Clave: estatus del h´abitat, estatus de protecci´on, pa´ıses megadiversos, presi´on humana, SIG, sitios de importancia para la conservaci´on Introduction (1997) found a linear programming algorithm to be the optimal means for identifying areas to set aside as re- The importance of the ecological, social, economic, cul- serves. Results of a study by Margules and Pressey (2000) tural, and aesthetic values of biodiversity has been widely suggest six stages for conservation planning and include recognized (Pimm et al. 1995; Mittermerier et al. 1999). minimum-size area, complementarity, and minimal previ- Biodiversity is being significantly reduced by human activ- ous disturbance as the key determining factors for set- ities, however, and habitat destruction is the main threat ting conservation goals. Karieva and Marvier (2003) em- (Dompka 1996; Mittermerier et al. 1999; Thompson & phasized the need for incorporating a measure of the ef- Jones 1999). Some researchers estimate that the clearing fectiveness of past conservation efforts in conservation of half the world’s remaining forests would eliminate 85% priority setting. Rodrigues et al. (2004) used gap analy- of all the species they contain (Wilcove et al. 1998; Pimm sis to evaluate the effectiveness of the global protected &Raven 2000). Over the last two decades, the signifi- area network. Finally, Reid (1998) found that the value of cance of this threat has led to a growing awareness of hotspots may be more limited at smaller scales but that at the importance of biodiversity and habitat conservation. large geographic scales hotspots prove to contain useful Conservation experts have focused on identifying con- information for conservation planning. servation areas of prime importance as one of the keys to In almost all these studies, the indicators for setting pri- conserving the planet’s disappearing species, genes, and orities for conservation focus on plant or animal species. ecosystems (Olson & Dinerstein 1998; Stattersfield et al. Parameters include the total number and density of en- 1998; Prendergast et al. 1999; UNEP 1999). Their work demic plant and vertebrate species, gap species, or cov- has resulted in the identification of 17 megadiverse coun- ered species; the minimum area needed for adequate con- tries (McNeedly et al. 1990; Mittermeier et al. 1997) and servation; the state of connectivity; and the existence of 25 biodiversity hotspots (Mittermeier et al. 1999; Myers complementarity. These are all necessary, but together et al. 2000). they are still not adequate as a basis on which to set biodi- In 1995 more than 1.1 billion people were living in versity priorities. Some studies emphasize the importance biodiversity hotspots. The annual population growth rate of other biological and social aspects for biodiversity con- of 1.8% in these hotspots (1995–2000) was substantially servation. These include the status of habitat (Scott et al. higher than the annual global population growth rate of 1993; Kautz & Cox 2001), human population pressure 1.3% (Cincotta et al. 2000). Growing human populations, (Cincotta et al. 2000; Sanderson et al. 2002; Liu et al. owing to their increased demand for land, material prod- 2003), and human efforts to protect habitat (Karieva & ucts, and development projects, threaten natural habitats. Marvier 2003). None of the studies, however, integrates The most serious consequences of further habitat loss biological and social aspects in the criteria for setting occur in hotspot areas (Brooks et al. 2002). In addition, priorities for biodiversity conservation. In addition, past hotspots are high in species endemism and low in pris- studies also suffer from problems related to the reliabil- tine vegetation. Hence, various scholars, including Myers ity of data sources and from variability in the precision et al. (2000) and Pimm et al. (2001), have called for im- and accuracy of data (Myers et al. 2000). Similarly, these mediate steps to conserve these hotspots (Myers 1990; studies treated hotspots and megadiverse countries as in- SEPA 1998). dependent physical identities, which may not be an opti- The annual amount of financial resources available for mal approach because many hotspots are located within conservation—about US$6 billion ( James et al. 1999)—is megadiverse countries. small relative to the geographical area that requires bio- On the basis of these aforementioned issues, our diversity conservation (Weitzman 1998; GEF 2001). This goal was to develop a quantitative assessment of habi- financial resource scarcity has resulted in a variety of stud- tat (closed forest and other vegetation), protected areas, ies that focus on setting priorities for biodiversity con- and human population pressures in the 25 hotspots and servation. Those conducted by Mittermeier et al. (1999), 17 megadiverse countries. Using this quantitative assess- Myers et al. (2000), Brummitt and Lucghadha (2003), and ment, we developed a method of relative ranking for Ovadia (2003) prioritized hotspots (the hottest hotspots) conservation priority setting and compared the priority- based on the number of endemic species and their num- setting results of the 25 hotspots with the results from ex- ber area ratio. After comparing five algorithms, Csuti et al. isting macrolevel studies. We also extended the analysis Conservation Biology Volume 19, No. 4, August 2005 Shi et al. Integrating
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guide for Negotiators of Multilateral Environmental Agreements
    GUIDE FOR NEGOTIATORS OF MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS 1 Guide for Negotiators of Multilateral Environmental Agreements ISBN: 978-92-807-2807-1 Job Number: DEL/0932/NA Produced by the UNEP Division of Environmental Law and Conventions Director of Publication: Bakary Kante Writers/Project Coordinators: Mary Jane Mace of FIELD, and Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, Carl Bruch and Charlotte Salpin of UNEP Cover Design: Division of Communication and Public Information, UNEP Design and Layout: UNON/Publishing Section Services/Nairobi; Paul Odhiambo Image Credits: O. Broders / Still Pictures Rapids Colorado/Paria river junction, USA, Arizona, Glen Canyon , The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP or contributoring organisations or individuals. This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form of educational or non-proper services without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgment of the source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. 2 GUIDE FOR NEGOTIATORS OF MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AgREEMENTS Acknowledgments This publication was prepared by Mary Jane Mace with assistance of Jona Razzaque, Scott La Franchi, Abu Raihan Khalid, Alastair Cameron and Zornitsa Vakova of FIELD in collaboration with Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, Carl Bruch and Charlotte Salpin of UNEP. 3 Acronyms AOSIS Alliance of Small Island States AhWG Ad Hoc Working Group CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CITES Convention
    [Show full text]
  • CBD Sixth National Report
    SIXTH NATIONAL REPORT OF MALAYSIA to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) December 2019 i Contents List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ vi List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................... vi Foreword ..................................................................................................................................................... vii Preamble ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 3 CHAPTER 1: UPDATED COUNTRY BIODIVERSITY PROFILE AND COUNTRY CONTEXT ................................... 1 1.1 Malaysia as a Megadiverse Country .................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Major pressures and factors to biodiversity loss ................................................................................. 3 1.3 Implementation of the National Policy on Biological Diversity 2016-2025 ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Brazil a Primer on Deforestation for Religious Leaders and Faith Communities
    BRAZIL A PRIMER ON DEFORESTATION FOR RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND FAITH COMMUNITIES Brazil is home to 60 percent of the Amazon rainforest—and one-third of the world’s rainforests. This rainforest cover makes Brazil the most biodiverse country on Earth. Between 2004 and 2014, the rate of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon fell nearly 80 percent to the lowest levels on record. During the same period, Brazil's economy grew roughly 40 percent, suggesting a decoupling of economic growth from deforestation. After a decade of decline, however, deforestation spiked in 2016 to the highest level since 2008, and in 2017 Brazil experienced its second highest rate of tree cover loss. BRAZIL'S FORESTS ARE A SACRED TRUST The Brazilian Amazon is the largest remaining expanse of tropical forest in This biodiversity is a foundation of healthy ecosystems in Brazil and beyond. the world, and accounts for almost half of the country’s land area.4 Tropical It represents a source of invaluable knowledge, remarkable beauty, and forests are also found in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest, Cerrado, Caatinga, Pampa and fundamental cultural meaning to indigenous peoples. Protecting the forest, its Pantanal biomes. Brazil’s forests are truly unique. They are also indispensable biodiversity, and the rights of its indigenous peoples and local communities, is to the future of Brazil’s people, and to the global environment. As such, they one of the great moral imperatives of our time. represent a sacred trust which we are bound to protect. The Amazon rainforest supports human well-being by playing an active role Thanks to its forests, Brazil is the most biodiverse country in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioinvasion and Global Environmental Governance: the Transnational Policy Network on Invasive Alien Species China's Actions O
    1 Bioinvasion and Global Environmental Governance: The Transnational Policy Network on Invasive Alien Species China’s Actions on IAS Description1 The People’s Republic of China is a communist state in East Asia, bordering the East China Sea, Korea Bay, Yellow Sea, and South China Sea, between North Korea and Vietnam. For centuries China stood as a leading civilization, outpacing the rest of the world in the arts and sciences, but in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the country was beset by civil unrest, major famines, military defeats, and foreign occupation. The claimed area of the ROC includes Mainland China and several off-shore islands (Taiwan, Outer Mongolia, Northern Burma, and Tuva, which is now Russian territory). The current President Ma Ying-jeou reinstated the ROC's claim to be the sole legitimate government of China and the claim that mainland China is part of ROC's territory. The extremely diverse climate; tropical in south to subarctic in north, varies over the diverse terrain, mostly mountains, high plateaus, deserts in west; plains, deltas, and hills in east. After 1978, Deng Xiaoping and other leaders focused on market-oriented economic development and by 2000 output had quadrupled. Economic development has been more rapid in coastal provinces than in the interior, and approximately 200 million rural laborers and their dependents have relocated to urban areas to find work. One demographic consequence of the "one child" policy is that China is now one of the most rapidly aging countries in the world. For much of the population (1.3 billion), living standards have improved dramatically and the room for personal choice has expanded, yet political controls remain tight.
    [Show full text]
  • Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 in the Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries
    Journal for Nature Conservation 51 (2019) 125723 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal for Nature Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jnc Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 in the like-minded megadiverse countries T ⁎ Elizabeth Bacona,1, Patrick Gannona, , Sarah Stephena,2, Edjigayehu Seyoum-Edjigua, Megan Schmidta, Barbara Langb, Trevor Sandwithc, Jing Xind, Sujata Arorae, Khairul Naim Adhamf, Andrew John Rhodes Espinozag, Malta Qwathekanah, Ana Paula Leite Pratesi, Alexander Shestakova, David Coopera, Jamison Ervinj, ⁎ Braulio Ferreira de Souza Diask, Bruno Lelesa,3, Marc Attallaha, Jo Mulongoyl, Sarat Babu Giddaa, a Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD), Montreal, QC, H2Y1N9, Canada b Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Eschborn, Germany c IUCN Global Protected Areas Programme, Gland, Switzerland d Ministry of Ecology and Environment, People’s Republic of China e Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, India f Biodiversity and Forestry Management Division, Ministry of Water, Land and Natural Resources, Malaysia g Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP), Mexico h Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), South Africa i Secretariat of Biodiversity, Ministry of Environment, Brazil j United Nations Development Programme, New York, NY, 10017, USA k Department of Ecology, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, DF, 70910, Brazil l Institute for Enhanced Livelihoods, Montreal, Canada ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: The group of like-minded
    [Show full text]
  • THEIR FUTURE IS OUR FUTURE Biodiversity
    TRACKS THE INFLIGHT MAGAZINE FOR COP12 JANE GOODALL: “We are stealing the planet from future generations” RENEWABLE ENERGIES: Friend or Foe to Migratory Animals? ANIMALS AROUND THE WORLD: 12 Fascinating Stories from the Field THEIR FUTURE IS OUR FUTURE Introduction Roy A. Cimatu DENR Secretary of the Philippines For the first time in Asia, the Philippines will host the triennial Confe- rence of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations‘ Convention on the Con- servation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). This is the 12th CMS COP Meeting, which will be held from 23 to 28 October 2017 at the Philippine International Convention Center in Manila. CMS provides the international legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of migratory animals and their habitats. Our country became a Party to CMS – also known as the Bonn Convention – in 1994. Today, the Philippines is the only ASEAN Party State to the Convention. This is a great opportunity for our country to contribute to the long- term ecological health of our planet through the conservation of key species. Out of the 17 megadiverse countries, nine are Parties to CMS: Australia, Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, In- dia, Madagascar, Peru, South Africa, and the Philippines. In this CMS COP 12, the protection of no less than 34 species will be on the negotiating table. Among these 34 are well-known species such as the Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus). Our country is supporting the listing of the Whale Shark on CMS Appendix I (Threatened Migratory Species), to cloak this species with immediate and strict protection.
    [Show full text]
  • Lack of Well-Maintained Natural History Collections and Taxonomists in Megadiverse Developing Countries Hampers Global Biodiversity Exploration
    Org Divers Evol (2015) 15:619–629 DOI 10.1007/s13127-015-0202-1 FORUM PAPER Lack of well-maintained natural history collections and taxonomists in megadiverse developing countries hampers global biodiversity exploration Omid Paknia & Hossein Rajaei Sh. & André Koch Received: 7 September 2014 /Accepted: 21 January 2015 /Published online: 7 February 2015 # Gesellschaft für Biologische Systematik 2015 Abstract Recently, there have been controversial discussions positions for taxonomists and the expansion of existing or the regarding the decline in the number of taxonomists as the establishment of new natural history collections in MDCs, main bottleneck for the discovery and complete assessment respectively. Considering the lack of sufficient financial re- of global biodiversity. In addition, we here review and high- sources in many MDCs, we suggest that joint political priority light the eminent role of natural history collections in explor- of industrialized and developing countries should be given to ing the global species diversity by discussing the current con- the enduring maintenance and sustainable support of institu- ditions of institutional infrastructure in biologically tional infrastructures, if Convention on Biological Diversity megadiverse developing countries (MDCs). To our knowl- targets for 2020 are to be addressed expediently. edge, this is the first critical assessment, which primarily fo- cuses on these biologically wealthy nations. We show that in Keywords Biodiversity loss . Developing countries . addition to the taxonomists’ shortage, the lack of well- Megadiversity countries . Species discovery . Biodiversity maintained collection infrastructure represents the main bot- collections . Taxonomy tleneck for biodiversity exploration in MDCs. No campaign to inventory biodiversity at national or global scale in a foresee- able timeframe can be successful without the creation of more Global biodiversity and its protection Environmental destruction of natural habitats is proceeding rapidly on our planet, causing an irreversible loss of global O.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nagoya Protocol: Fragmentation Or Consolidation?
    Resources 2014, 3, 135-151; doi:10.3390/resources3010135 OPEN ACCESS resources ISSN 2079-9276 www.mdpi.com/journal/resources Article The Nagoya Protocol: Fragmentation or Consolidation? Carmen Richerzhagen German Development Institute/Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), Tulpenfeld 6, Bonn 53113, Germany; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-228-94927-199; Fax: +49-228-94927-130 Received: 23 December 2013; in revised form: 1 February 2014 / Accepted: 6 February 2014 / Published: 17 February 2014 Abstract: In October, 2010, a protocol on access and benefit-sharing (ABS) of genetic resources was adopted, the so-called Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Before the adoption of the Nagoya Protocol, the governance architecture of ABS was already characterized by a multifaceted institutional environment. The use of genetic resources is confronted with many issues (conservation, research and development, intellectual property rights, food security, health issues, climate change) that are governed by different institutions and agreements. The Nagoya Protocol contributes to increased fragmentation. However, the question arises whether this new regulatory framework can help to advance the implementation of the ABS provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This paper attempts to find an answer to that question by following three analytical steps. First, it analyzes the causes of change against the background of theories of institutional change. Second, it aims to assess the typology of the architecture in order to find out if this new set of rules will contribute to a more synergistic, cooperative or conflictive architecture of ABS governance.
    [Show full text]
  • Colombia a Primer on Deforestation for Religious Leaders and Faith Communities
    COLOMBIA A PRIMER ON DEFORESTATION FOR RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND FAITH COMMUNITIES Over half of Colombia is covered by forests. Despite its modest land area, Colombia has the world’s eighth-largest forest cover and is the second most biodiverse country on Earth. At least 10 percent of the Colombian Amazon has already been deforested and 2016 and 2017 saw sharp increases in tree cover loss – as the aftermath of a historic peace deal saw logging, mining and cattle ranching spread into areas of forest previously controlled by rebels. COLOMBIA'S FORESTS ARE A SACRED TRUST Colombia’s forests are a majestic and awe-inspiring gift. They cover more Most of this biodiversity is found in Colombia’s tropical forests, especially than half of the country,2 making Colombia home to the third largest area in the Andes, the Chocó,10 and the Amazon.11 But the latter two, while rich in of forest in South America,4 and the thirteenth largest area of forest in the diversity, are also degraded enough to rank among the 25 global biodiversity world.5 Forests are found across all regions of Colombia. About two-thirds of hotspots—places where exceptional concentrations of endemic species are the country’s forests lie within the Amazon and nearly a fifth is found in the undergoing exceptional loss of habitat.12,13 Colombia is host to more than Andes mountain range.6,7 Nearly half of Colombia’s forests are designated as 54,000 recognized species, many unique to the country.13 New discoveries indigenous territories, while 7 percent are in territories owned communally continually expand their ranks,14 offering new insights into nature’s abundance by Afro-Colombian communities,7 and as such they serve as an important and providing new knowledge that contributes to human well-being.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Review of the the United States – Mexico – Canada Agreement (USMCA)
    Final Environmental Review of the The United States – Mexico – Canada Agreement (USMCA) OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 2019 TABLE of CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. LEGAL & POLICY FRAMEWORK A. The Trade Promotion Authority Context B. The Environmental Review Process C. Scope of the Environmental Review II. BACKGROUND A. Economy and Environment in USMCA Countries B. U.S. Goods Trade with Canada and Mexico III. DESCRIPTION OF THE AGREEMENT A. Coverage And General Commitments Of The Environment Chapter B. Summary Of Other Chapters C. Impact IV. PUBLIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS A. Summary of Public Comments B. Summary of Advisory Committee Report V. POTENTIAL ECONOMICALLY-DRIVEN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Potential Impacts in the United States B. Transboundary Issues VI. POTENTIAL REGULATORY IMPACTS A. Regulatory Review B. Investment VII. ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION ANNEXES Annex I – Economic Data Tables Annex II – Organizations Providing Comments Annex III – Existing Environmental Cooperation Activities 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 18, 2017, President Trump notified Congress of his intent to enter into negotiations with Canada and Mexico to modernize the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), consistent with section 105(a)(1)(A) of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-26, Title I; “Trade Promotion Authority” or “TPA”). The United States – Mexico – Canada Agreement (“USMCA” or “Agreement”), was signed on November 30, 2018. The USMCA modernizes the 25-year-old NAFTA into a 21st century, high-standard agreement that will support mutually beneficial trade leading to freer markets, fairer trade, and robust economic growth in North America. The Agreement couples economic growth with environmental protection, and includes the most comprehensive set of enforceable environmental obligations of any previous U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion Conservation
    Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion Conservation An Integrated Approach to Conserving the World’s Biological and Cultural Diversity Written by Gonzalo Oviedo (WWF International) and Luisa Maffi (Terralingua). Parts II and III written by Peter Bille Larsen (WWF International) with contributions from Gonzalo Oviedo and Luisa Maffi. The views expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of WWF or Terralingua. Any inaccuracies remain the responsibility of the authors. The material and the geographical designations in this report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WWF concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Editing and layout: Tim Davis Coordination of publication: Diwata Olalia Hunziker Cover photographs: Top (l-r): Sing-sing (Sinasina, Papua New Guinea), WWF/Panda Photo/M. Pala; Itelmen (Russia), Viktor Nikiforov; Himba/Zemba (Namibia), WWF-Canon/John E. Newby. Middle: Kayapo (Brazil), WWF/Mauri Rautkari. Bottom: Koryak (Russia), Kevin Schafer ISBN 2-88085-247-1 Published November 2000 by WWF-World Wide Fund For Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), 1196 Gland, Switzerland. Any reproduction in full or in part of this publication must mention the title and credit the above-mentioned publisher as the copyright owner. © text 2000 WWF Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion Conservation An Integrated Approach to Conserving the World’s Biological and Cultural Diversity WWF International – Terralingua Gland, Switzerland "The power to act has moved away from governments, and... the real force for environmental improvement lies with people...
    [Show full text]
  • Megadiverse Countries
    Megadiverse Countries October 3, 2020 In News Megadiverse Countries is a term used to refer to the world’s top biodiversity-rich countries. This country-focused method raises national awareness for biodiversity conservation in nations with high biological diversity, with many species unique to a specific country. This concept was first proposed in 1988 by Russell Mittermeier. More About Megadiverse Countries The Megadiversity Country concept is based on four premises: The biodiversity of each and every nation is critically important to that nation’s survival. Biodiversity is by no means evenly distributed on our planet, and some countries, especially in the tropics, harbour far greater concentrations of biodiversity than others. Some of the most species rich andbiodiverse nations also have ecosystems that are under the most severe threat. To achieve maximum impact with limited resources, conservation efforts must concentrate heavily (but not exclusively) on those countries richest in diversity and endemism and most severely threatened. The identified Megadiverse Countries are: United States of America, Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, Brazil, Democratic Republic of Congo, South Africa, Madagascar, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, China, Australia Criteria for Classification The principle criterion is endemism, first at the species level and then at higher taxonomic levels such as genus and family. To qualify as a Megadiverse Country, a country must: Have at least 5000 of the world’s plants as endemics Have marine ecosystems within its borders The focus on endemism is in line with the IUCN’s “doctrine of ultimate responsibility”, which holds that a country with the only populations of an endangered species has ultimate responsibility for ensuring the survival of that particular species.
    [Show full text]