S.A.P.I.EN.S Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society

5.2 | 2012 Vol.5 / n°2 - IUCN Commissions

Édition électronique URL : http://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/1248 ISSN : 1993-3819

Éditeur Institut Veolia

Référence électronique S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012, « Vol.5 / n°2 - IUCN Commissions » [En ligne], mis en ligne le 23 août 2012, consulté le 23 octobre 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/1248

Ce document a été généré automatiquement le 23 octobre 2020.

Licence Creative Commons 1

SOMMAIRE

Knowledge for Our Planet Foreword to the Special Issue of S.A.P.I.EN.S Journal on IUCN Commissions Julia Marton-Lefèvre et Georges Valentis

Presentation : IUCN Commission on Education and Communication Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

Creating Pathways for Positive Change Wendy Goldstein, Nancy Colleton, Sandra Rientjes, Frits Hesselink, Chuck Phillips, Juliane Zeidler, Justine Braby et Keith Wheeler Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

Presentation: IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

Biocultural Design: A New Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Development in Rural Indigenous and Local Communities Iain J. Davidson-Hunt, Katherine L. Turner, Aroha Te Pareake Mead, Juanita Cabrera-Lopez, Richard Bolton, C. Julián Idrobo, Inna Miretski, Alli Morrison et James P. Robson Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

Presentation: IUCN Commission on Environmental Law Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

Non-regression in environmental law Michel Prieur Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

Presentation: IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Jon Paul Rodríguez, Kathryn M. Rodríguez-Clark, David A. Keith, Edmund G. Barrow, John Benson, Emily Nicholson et Piet Wit Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

Presentation: IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

Why South-east Asia should be the world’s priority for averting imminent species extinctions, and a call to join a developing cross-institutional programme to tackle this urgent issue J. W. Duckworth, G. Batters, J. L. Belant, E. L. Bennett, J. Brunner, J. Burton, D. W. S. Challender, V. Cowling, N. Duplaix, J. D. Harris, S. Hedges, B. Long, S. P. Mahood, P. J. K. McGowan, W. J. McShea, W. L. R. Oliver, S. Perkin, B. M. Rawson, C. R. Shepherd, S. N. Stuart, B. K. Talukdar, P. P. van Dijk, J-C. Vié, J. L. Walston, T. Whitten et R. Wirth Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

The Amphibian Extinction Crisis - what will it take to put the action into the Amphibian Conservation Action Plan? P. J. Bishop, A. Angulo, J. P. Lewis, R.D. Moore, G. B. Rabb et J. Garcia Moreno Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

Presentation: IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

Protected areas: providing natural solutions to 21st Century challenges N. Lopoukhine, N. Crawhall, N. Dudley, P. Figgis, C. Karibuhoye, D. Laffoley, J. Miranda Londoño, K. MacKinnon et T. Sandwith Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

List of Acronyms

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 2

Knowledge for Our Planet Foreword to the Special Issue of S.A.P.I.EN.S Journal on IUCN Commissions

Julia Marton-Lefèvre et Georges Valentis

1 We are proud to present this special issue of S.A.P.I.EN.S dedicated to the work of IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, and its Commissions. IUCN is often referred to as the oldest and largest global environmental network dedicated to the vision of ‘a just world that values and conserves nature’.

2 Set up as “networks of expert volunteers entrusted to develop and advance the institutional knowledge, experience and objectives of IUCN”, the Commissions enable IUCN to link to cutting-edge science to advance knowledge and learning.

3 Today, the six IUCN Commissions – Commission on Education and Communication (CEC); Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP); Commission on Environmental Law (CEL); Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM); Species Survival Commission (SSC); and World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) – bring together approximately 11,000 scientists and experts from all over the world who give their expertise and knowledge to IUCN free of charge. .

4 The IUCN mission “to influence, encourage, and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable” could not be achieved without the Commissions. IUCN’s influence and knowledge base truly reaches out from local community-led initiatives through to international policy.

5 IUCN’s best-known knowledge products, such as the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the World Database of Protected Areas, and the emerging ones such as the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, would not be possible without the rigour and dedication of our Commission scientists and experts.

6 IUCN greatly benefits from this significant voluntary contribution from its Commission members. If we were to reflect this contribution in monetary terms, it would outstrip the total annual budget of the entire Union.

7 Knowledge drives action. In this special issue, we explore how the knowledge generated by the SSC is helping fight the global biodiversity crisis ─ via the examples of

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 3

Amphibians worldwide and Mammals in South-East Asia; how the debate in the CEL on the so-called “non-regression principle” is pushing the boundaries of law and policy; and how the CEM is tackling the existing knowledge gaps on the status of the world’s ecosystems. For its part, the WCPA presents its work on defining and applying the new concept of “nature-based solutions”; while CEESP focuses on an emerging framework for sustainable rural development. Last but not least, the CEC looks at pathways to resilient people and a resilient planet.

8 There is no question that the need for up-to-the-minute, user-friendly and comprehensive knowledge about biodiversity is greater now than it was fifty years ago when the first IUCN Commission, the SSC, was born. What we also need more than ever today is to reach out beyond the conservation community, to other scientific and academic networks – and this is precisely what we are hoping to achieve through this joint publication between IUCN and the Institut Veolia Environnement.

9 By introducing IUCN’s Commissions to the S.A.P.I.EN.S readership, we look forward to greater collaboration between our vast networks, for the benefit of millions of species that share our planet and ultimately our own, Homo sapiens.

AUTEURS

JULIA MARTON-LEFÈVRE Director General, IUCN

GEORGES VALENTIS Managing Director, Institut Veolia Environnement

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 4

Presentation : IUCN Commission on Education and Communication Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

NOTE DE L’ÉDITEUR

Commission Chair: Keith Wheeler For all other enquiries please contact: Rod Abson, IUCN CEC Focal Point International Union for Conservation of Nature, 28 rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland, Tel. +41 22 999 0282, Fax +41 22 999 0002, [email protected], Correspondence to: [email protected] For more information about the IUCN Commission on Education and Communication, visit: www.iucn.org/cec

About CEC

1 The IUCN Commission on Education and Communication (IUCN CEC) is a global network of more than 1,000 volunteers from 119 countries. CEC members contribute expertise on strategic communication, education, capacity development and knowledge management in support of the IUCN Programme and IUCN vision of a just world that values and conserves nature.

Background

Origins of the Commission on Education and Communication

2 Since 1948, volunteer Commission members have sought to enhance IUCN conservation efforts by engaging people within and beyond the conservation community in the issues of the time. Education has been a fundamental part of IUCN from its inception, when a formal advisory body was set up to advise the IUCN Council on conservation awareness.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 5

3 The Commission on Education and Communication has developed in distinct phases over its 64-year history, just as conservation efforts have evolved: • In the 1950s and 1960s, CEC focused on wildlife and conservation in school and youth education, working with a small membership. • In the 1970s and 1980s, CEC focused on developing and elaborating conceptual frameworks for the emerging field of environmental education. • In the 1990s, CEC adopted more strategic approaches in communication and education to advance IUCN conservation strategies, Agenda 21, the Convention on Wetlands and Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). CEC brought new thinking and methods to IUCN about how to manage events at the IUCN World Conservation Congress as learning and networking opportunities. • By 2000, CEC was poised for greater impact. This decade has seen the Commission gain recognition as the major Communication, Education and Public Awareness (CEPA) knowledge network for the Secretariats of the international environmental conventions and national governments. CEC has also demonstrated leadership in the area of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and developed initiatives to increase access to knowledge and online learning for capacity building of conservation professionals.

4 Currently, CEC is preparing for the next IUCN quadrennial period, 2013-2016. The Commission will continue to support IUCN efforts to improve the way the organization and the experts who advance its vision communicate about nature. CEC also plans to increasingly reach out to new groups beyond the immediate conservation community that are important for ensuring a future with resilient communities and vibrant natural environments.

Vision, Mission and Objectives

• Vision: A global community that loves and values nature; • Mission: We enable the global community to communicate effectively and use knowledge to create positive conservation change; • Objectives: CEC will contribute practical communication, education, capacity development and knowledge management expertise to the IUCN Programme 2013-2016. This will focus on three areas: valuing and conserving nature; effective and equitable governance of nature’s use; and deploying nature-based solutions to global challenges. The Commission will focus on achieving a number of specific objectives: 1.Lead IUCN’s work on Aichi Target 1 of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, adopted at the tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP 10); 2.Operationalise IUCN’s capacity development to deliver the IUCN Programme; 3. Promote nature-based solutions to global challenges within and beyond the conservation community; 4. Develop a globally-active CEC network to support programme implementation.

Achievements to date

Biodiversity Communication, Education and Public Awareness

5 CEC has built up strong working relationships related to implementation of the international environmental conventions, particularly with the Secretariat of the CBD Secretariat and Parties to the Convention. CEC is recognized as the major CEPA

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 6

knowledge network provider, able to draw on its membership with diverse experience and geographic scope. The Commission has worked in partnership on numerous CEPA for biodiversity activities: 1. CEC worked with the CBD Secretariat to develop the CEPA toolkit for National Focal Points and National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) Coordinators, which was very well-received. Produced in English, French and Spanish, it has helped to guide national level among Parties to the Convention. 2. CEC supported the development of a guide on CEPA for the Ramsar Secretariat. 3. Since 2002, CEC members serving on a CBD advisory board have contributed to the Convention's CEPA Work Plan and shared advice and good practices. 4. CEC provided capacity building in stakeholder engagement and strategic communication for NBSAP Coordinators through 12 regional workshops around the world in 2011. 5. As part of the lead up to the International Year of Biodiversity in 2010, CEC supported the CBD Secretariat and Futerra, a sustainability communications company, to design the logo for the year, offering feedback on the design and ensuring that it was culturally sensitive and appropriate for communicating the concept of biodiversity to a global audience. 6. In October 2010, CEC launched a film titled ‘Love. Not Loss.’ at the CBD COP 10 in Nagoya, Japan, that was developed in collaboration with the CBD Secretariat, Futerra and Wildscreen. This short film drew inspiration from the Futerra publication ‘Branding Biodiversity’ and challenged the conservation community to find ways of talking about biodiversity and nature that people can relate to, cuts down the technical language that can hinder clear communication and, ultimately, focuses on a positive future and links these messages to action people can take. The film was produced in English, French, Spanish and Arabic and has been viewed more than 18,000 times through the IUCN YouTube channel since its launch. 7. Following COP 10 in Nagoya, CEC took on the role of ‘champion’ for Aichi Target 11, the first of 20 biodiversity targets adopted at the event. Aichi Target 1 states: "By 2020, at the latest, people are aware of the values of biodiversity and the steps they can take to conserve and use it sustainably". CEC has offered advice on how to approach implementation of this target, proposed indicators, and helped to coordinate IUCN’s contribution to meeting this target. 8. CEC collaborated with a variety of key partners around strategies for raising awareness related to the United Nations Decade on Biodiversity 2011-2020. 9. CEC members reviewed the Global Biodiversity Outlook with the CBD Secretariat, and offered strategic advice and guidance on this and other publications. 10. In 2011, as part of the International Year of Forests, CEC prepared a special edition of the IUCN Forests Programme arbor vitae magazine on ‘Communicating Forest Values’. This also formed the basis of a session on communicating about forests during the United Nations Forum on Forests in New York, USA. 11. CEC worked with UNESCO in support of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005-2014, participating in debates and contributing to resource materials.

Current initiatives

6 CEC members are keen to help build the capacity of people to be ‘multipliers’ and enablers of the conservation change sought in the IUCN Programme. IUCN has a ‘One Programme’ approach that encourages cooperation between the IUCN Members,

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 7

Commissions and Secretariat. CEC is making an effort to better understand the skills sets and experience of individual CEC members in order to contribute more effectively to the end results of the collective union of IUCN. Such expertise includes strategic communication, knowledge management, change management, curriculum development, e-learning training development, facilitation, multi-stakeholder forum coordination and creative outreach approaches.

7 In order to maximize the opportunities for CEC members to develop as individuals and to apply their experience and skills sets to strengthen the work of IUCN, the Commission has embarked on a process of more tailored engagement of CEC members with specific programmatic initiatives, with some examples offered below.

8 Professional development: Several CEC members worked closely with the IUCN Climate Change Network Coordinator to produce a short course on climate change for IUCN staff around the world. The course objective is to build common understanding about the science and policy implications of climate change and how this relates to the work of IUCN. CEC members also provided feedback on a disaster risk reduction course being prepared by the IUCN Ecosystem Management Programme. CEC will continue to work with other programmatic topics to build common knowledge competencies throughout IUCN.

9 Information technology:CEC members have offered strategic reviews of new IUCN web platforms, offering advice on aspects such as the visual appeal and usability of these websites. CEC has played a lead role in introducing new technologies to IUCN and demonstrated the use of social media tools such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, wikis and blogs, which provide a way to connect CEC members and influence wider communities of people. The CEC newsletter, which is circulated every two months, presents a great diversity of examples of activities that CEC members are working on. It offers inspiration and enhances understanding about new approaches being used in every region for communication, education and capacity building in support of the IUCN vision.

10 Youth engagement:CEC has taken a proactive approach to reaching out to young professionals and organisations with an interest in children and youth. Over the years, many CEC members have been engaged in the development of environmental education curriculum. A young CEC member, Grace Mwaura, was appointed as an IUCN Councilor for 2009-2012 to bring a youth voice more directly into the decision-making platforms of IUCN. The Intergenerational Partnership for Sustainability (a group of CEC members) has been active in setting up a mentoring programme, linking a young professional with an experienced professional in the conservation field. The group has identified opportunities for young people to be engaged in IUCN initiatives and other youth- related events linked to the major events in the global environmental calendar.

11 In 2011, CEC coordinated the delivery of 1,000 hours of non-formal environmental education to Scouts from 28 countries on the topics of ‘celebrating biodiversity’ and ‘environmental rights of the child’ at the 22nd World Scout Jamboree, held in Sweden. IUCN is exploring ways of working with the World Organization of the Scout Movement and other organisations that directly involve youth in environmental initiatives.

12 Learning:CEC is providing advice and guidance on the development of the Conservation Campus, part of the IUCN World Conservation Congress in September 2012. The event features some 50 half-day and full-day capacity building sessions

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 8

related to the IUCN Programme, and CEC members are contributing their expertise to ensure that the sessions are interactive learning experiences and, after the event, will help generate e-learning packages based on the sessions.

Challenges for the future

13 The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity calls for greater collaboration and involvement of the various parties who have an influence on biodiversity, with each of the Aichi Targets tackling diverse and important pieces of the biodiversity puzzle. CEC will be taking on a lead role for IUCN’s work in support of this target, and this will require close collaboration with the CBD Secretariat and continuous promotion and sharing of good practices in biodiversity communication. In particular, CEC is well positioned to support IUCN capacity development efforts, working in close collaboration with the various IUCN constituencies of Members, Commissions and Secretariat.

14 The CEC network will also play an active role in identifying, capturing and communicating nature-based solutions to global challenges, an important aim of IUCN. CEC will build on past initiatives that move beyond the conservation community and into other sectors, such as environmental security institutions and those in the agricultural and food sectors. Keith Wheeler co-authored a United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) report: ‘Food and Agriculture: The future of sustainability’ which seeks consensus on sustainable paths for food and agriculture and will be a useful resource for IUCN as it branches out into matters of food security. CEC will also expand on existing relationships with groups providing wide public outreach, such as zoos and aquariums, protected areas entities and interpretive centres.

15 More specifically, the Commission will be directly involved in nearly 100 events at the upcoming World Conservation Congress. This will be an important opportunity not only for CEC but IUCN as a whole to share knowledge, experience and agree on the future direction of IUCN. CEC will be launching new biodiversity communication resources in follow up to the ‘Love. Not Loss.’ film.

16 For more than 60 years, communication and education has remained fundamentally important to achieving the mission and vision of IUCN. An ongoing challenge is to ensure that we are able to communicate about biodiversity in a meaningful way and that this is integrated within all conservation initiatives and within the day-to-day lives of people in all parts of the world. The membership base and the approaches employed by the Commission have grown and evolved over time. With the onset of many environmental challenges, new media and a growing population, the Commission must continue to grow and evolve to be as effective and relevant as possible. CEC’s strength lies in its membership, and providing members with opportunities to engage meaningfully with IUCN and to share their experiences within a wider network will be an ongoing priority.

Facts and figures

17 IUCN CEC membership welcomes more than 1,000 volunteer experts from 119 countries.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 9

18 IUCN CEC receives its mandate from the IUCN World Conservation Congress. CEC members will elect a new Chair of the Commission at Congress in 2012, when Keith Wheeler completes his term. Also, CEC will put forward a new Steering Committee to the IUCN Council for approval, nominated by the Chair.

19 IUCN CEC is governed by a Steering Committee and supported by the IUCN Science and Knowledge Management Unit. Regional Vice-Chairs intensify focus and identify National Activators to stimulate action in support of IUCN at the country level.

20 IUCN CEC offers 12 Specialty Groups: Communication, Education and Public Awareness (CEPA), Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), Environmental Information, Environmental Security, Greening Campuses, Knowledge Management, Learning and Leadership, Organizational Development and Change Management, Sustainability Centres, Agro-security and Biofuels, Youth and Intergenerational Partnerships, and World Conservation Learning Network.

NOTES

1. For a description of Aichi Target 1, see point 7 in the next section.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 10

Creating Pathways for Positive Change

Wendy Goldstein, Nancy Colleton, Sandra Rientjes, Frits Hesselink, Chuck Phillips, Juliane Zeidler, Justine Braby et Keith Wheeler Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

NOTE DE L’ÉDITEUR

This article was reviewed by two anonymous reviewers

Introduction

1 Somewhere in the world today a new road will connect previously isolated villages, a new school will open its doors and welcome students, a political or business leader will set forth a path for the future, and someone will speak on a mobile phone for the first time. At the same moment, an extreme weather event will flood a habitat, fish will swim into polluted waters, forests will be cut, and carbon will continue to be emitted into the atmosphere. Whether good or bad, natural or manmade, local or global, humans need to respond to change constantly.

2 Unlike other species, humans can influence or guide most changes. The ability of groups or communities to cope with these stresses is called ‘social resilience’ (Adger , 2000, quoted in Gallopin, 2006, p.297). In other words, resilience includes a capacity of response and an ability to cope with the impacts produced by a perturbation in the environment or society as well as being able to take advantage of opportunities (Gallopin, 2006, p.300).

3 Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing (United Nations Secretary- General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability, 2012) suggests that the people of the world are not yet on a pathway to being a resilient people, where they can quickly respond or adapt to changes. The report identifies three major strategies towards

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 11

increasing its vision of resilience: empowerment, a greener economy, and governance. These strategies are essentially oriented to social change—to developing and deploying human capacities, rethinking and re-organising our economies, and improving the governance of our societies.

4 The report recommends many actions or enabling conditions to contribute to empowerment. These include basic education, health services, gender equity, land tenure for women and democracy. These enabling conditions require transforming structures that are essential for people to “become beings for themselves” (Freire, 1993, p.55).

5 Resilience from an organizational management perspective is when the entity— whether a business, government, or non-governmental organization—has the ability to adapt to changing demands and external and internal influences with flexibility and fluidity. For example, organizations that have flatter and less complex hierarchies, an organizational culture that encourages innovation and creativity, and a decentralised governance structure all help empower people. As Freire (1993) demonstrated, people empower themselves by understanding “more clearly what and who they are so that they can more wisely build the future” (p.65) and by developing “their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world” (p.64). Processes such as dialogue, critical and systemic thinking, and learning by taking action on the world all support empowerment (Freire, 1993; Brown et al., 2005). “Resilient organizations have learning built into their system. With good learning practice and tools the organization anticipates change, recognizes it, and adapts” (C.W. Phillips & G. Martin-Mehers, personal communication, August 2011).

6 The IUCN Commission on Education and Communication (CEC) examines how certain practices can create pathways for positive change in conservation. Their cumulative expertise spans communication and public outreach, formal and informal education, capacity building, policy development, knowledge management, and change management. To mark the occasion of the 2012 World Conservation Congress, members of the CEC leadership prepared this article to share knowledge about how to influence sustainable development and conservation through the use of strategic change approaches.

7 The paper summarises useful insights and current thinking about how to engage people and bring about change with and by people for environmental and social resilience and is based on four pillars: • Applying social science research to guide communication; • Influencing policy through strategic communication; • Engaging stakeholders; and • Managing positive change.

Applying social science research to guide communication

8 Never before has so much information about the planet been available. Each day, satellites aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, balloons, ocean buoys, ships, submersibles and other in situ instruments collect data and provide vital details on subjects such as forest cover, floods, coastal regions, glaciers, weather patterns, and ocean productivity.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 12

Geospatial technology advancements enable people to access, analyse, and visualize their world in new ways. Through the use of smart phones and cameras, citizen scientists throughout the world are also providing local observations and providing them on platforms such as GoogleEarth allowing people anywhere and any time to see changes on local scales.

9 An abundance of data does not translate into information, just as an abundance of information does not translate into knowledge, and knowledge does not translate into improved decision-making or action. Identifying challenges doesn’t necessarily result in swift action to resolve a problem. One of the greatest challenges in the sustainability field is how to communicate urgent issues and motivate change.

10 Although published more than 20 years ago, Our Common Future, the ground-breaking report of the UN’s World Commission on Environment and Development led by former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, captures sustainability’s challenge even today:

11 In the middle of the 20th century, we saw our planet from space for the first time. … From space, we see a small and fragile ball dominated not by human activity and edifice but by a pattern of clouds, oceans, greenery, and soils. Humanity’s inability to fit its doings into that pattern is changing planetary systems, fundamentally. Many such changes are accompanied by life-threatening hazards. This new reality, from which there is no escape, must be recognized—and managed. (UNWCED, 1987, p.1)

12 An important departure from the 1987 Brundtland Commission report and today’s extensive global investment in environmental change science is the emerging recognition of the significance of social science research, which helps us understand how people make choices to change the pathway to a more resilient planet and people.

Developing New Approaches to Communication

13 Creating pathways to positive change will require new approaches. This was the essential message of the provocative report by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Norhaus, The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World, which argued that the environmental movement needed to be completely transformed if it was to be capable of addressing climate change. Among other criticisms, the report asserted that none of the US environmental public campaigns articulated a “vision of the future commensurate with the magnitude of the crisis” (Shellenberger & Norhaus, 2004, p.6) and challenged the environmental and conservation movement’s focus on trying to build a mass audience and its emphasis on themes like reducing mass consumption. They argue that a more appropriate response would be mass government investment in technological innovation, particularly through the military (Lalasz, 2012, March 1).

14 When developing new approaches, direction can be found in diverse fields such as psychology, marketing, social science, decision science, public relations, linguistics, communication management, cognitive and brain sciences. The cognitive linguist George Lakoff, rejecting traditional views, argues that: “Real reason is: mostly unconscious (98%); requires emotion; uses the logic of frames, metaphors and narratives; is physical (in brain circuitry); and varies considerably as frames vary.” (Lakoff, 2010, p.72). Lakoff cautions that it does not work to try to give people the facts about ‘a future worth choosing’ in the hope they will reason to the right conclusion.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 13

“The facts must make sense in terms of their system of frames, or they will be ignored. The facts, to be communicated, must be framed properly. Furthermore, to understand something complex, a person must have a system of frames in place that can make sense of the facts” and building these takes time (Lakoff, 2010, p.73).

Understanding What Gets Attention and Why

15 Gaining attention for environmental or sustainability issues in society is very competitive and requires professional public relations (PR) expertise. Businesses, non- government organizations (NGOs), political parties, religious organisations, unions, and governments use public relations staff or companies to relate to their stakeholders, gain positive attention for their organisation, share ideas, or even market products in a very competitive or noisy world. PR, the “management of communication between an organisation and its publics” (Grunig, 1992, p.4), is more than media relations, publicity, or communication techniques; it plays a part in “a continuous process of conflict over political and economic power, but also as part of a wider struggle around the production and use of social meaning” (Greenberg et al., 2011, p.68).

16 The climate change issue has been the theatre of an intense ‘war of ideas’ and the strategies deployed have attracted many analytical articles (Nesbit, 2011; Greenberg et al., 2011). In the United States, views in 2010 about climate change were divided along strong partisan lines with a Pew Research Center survey (2010, June 17) reporting that over “half of Democrats (56%) saying it is a very serious problem, whereas only 18% of Republicans are this concerned. More than one-in-four Republicans (28%) think climate change is not a problem at all” (p.70). This represents a lower level of concern about climate change than elsewhere in the world: in 19 of 22 countries surveyed “at least three-quarters of the population perceive global climate change as a serious or very serious problem” (ibid.).

17 Research suggests that public interest in environmental issues fluctuates over time. The American public gave higher attention to environmental concerns in 2006 and 2007, during a period of low unemployment and a decade of reasonable economic stability. Recently, with the global financial crisis and its impacts on unemployment, jobs and the economy, environmental issues and global warming have sunk to the bottom of the priority list (Nisbet, 2011). This is described as the public having a “finite pool of worry” by Leiserowitz et al. (2010, p.4), so that as “one perceived risk gains attention, other risks often are bumped from concern” (Nisbet, 2011, Chapter 4).

Framing to Motivate Change

18 As already touched on in Section 2.1, people think, mostly unconsciously, in terms of systems of structures called frames, each one of which is a physical neural circuit in our brains. “We use our systems of frame-circuitry to understand everything, and we reason using frame-internal logics. Frame systems are organized in terms of values, and how we reason reflects our values, and our values determine our sense of identity” (Lakoff, 2009, May 19).

19 According to Nisbet (2009), “Frames are interpretive storylines that set a specific train of thought in motion, communicating why an issue may be a problem, who or what might be responsible

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 14

for it, and what should be done about it. Framing is an unavoidable reality of the communication process, especially applied to public affairs and policy. There is no such thing as unframed information, and most successful communicators are adept at framing, whether using frames intentionally or intuitively” (p.15).

20 Under the right conditions, words activate frames, so communicators have to choose their words carefully to communicate a complex fact to activate the right frames. If people do not have such frames, then a longer process of building these in people’s minds is required through repetition. As Lakoff (2010) puts it, “All words in all languages are defined in terms of frame-circuits in the brain. Ultimately, framing is about ideas, about how we see the world, which determines how we act” (p.73). The moral significance of the environment “can only be communicated honestly and effectively using the language of value-based frames, preferably frames already there in the minds of the public” (Lakoff, 2009, May 19).

21 Most people do not have the overall background of frames to be able to understand the real crisis of our times in climate change and the environment. Even worse, most people have in their brain circuitry “frames that would either contradict the right frames or lead them to ignore the relevant facts” (Lakoff, 2010, p.74). Thus, if the facts don’t support a person’s values, they are not retained. This may be related to self- preservation; according to Crompton (2010), “…individuals are often predisposed to reject suggestions that they should change aspects of their behaviour where these are important in establishing and maintaining their social roles” (p.18).

22 In the case of climate change, and particularly with reference to rebutting the climate change denials of what he refers to as “conservative moral systems”, Lakoff suggests developing frames that connect the values that underlie our concerns about our planet's future: empathy, responsibility, freedom, and our ability to thrive, linking to everyday themes, like health, jobs, and their children's future. These ideas need to be repeated over and over (Lakoff, 2010, p.76). He suggests the following practical advice: • Frame issues in terms of moral values rather than policies. • Don’t reinforce your opponent’s frames by repeating them or by structuring your argument to counter them. • Frame facts in narratives that exemplify the emotional or moral context. • Make the message accessible by avoiding jargon and addressing everyday concerns.

Changing Behaviour through Government Action

23 To achieve policies for conservation, sustainability or to develop more resilient societies, people must change their behaviour. How to bring about behaviour change for social and environmental benefits is a mainstream topic of governments globally (Branson et al., 2012). Governments typically use a range of instruments from regulation to taxation and financial incentives to change behaviour – often referred to as “shoving”. These are often used in combination with communication which is oriented to stimulating voluntary change by connecting to people’s sense of responsibility, explaining other instruments or lowering people’s perceived barriers to making a change.

24 To bring about change in people it is necessary to make the change as easy as possible: identify obstacles and then remove those barriers. More common techniques to try to induce change, such as arguing, promising, or threatening, fail because they “increase

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 15

tension rather than easing tension by removing barriers that make behavior change easy” (Hernandez, 2009, December 19). Such observations have led to the idea of “nudging” gaining credence, whereby behaviours are encouraged “simply by modifying the environment in which people conduct their actions” (Branson et al., 2012, p.4). An example of a nudge is for shops to charge for plastic bags, a practice which has successfully reduced their use. Nudging is a low cost solution, but has its limitations, and according to a UK government report, “usually the most effective means of changing behaviour at a population level is to use a range of policy tools, both regulatory and non-regulatory” (ibid., p.6).

25 How well do people accept government behaviour change strategies? The Social Research Institute Ipsos MORI explored the public acceptability of a range of political interventions in 24 countries, intended to change personal behaviour on smoking, eating unhealthy foods, saving and living in an environmentally sustainable way (ibid.). The report found that there is majority support for all types of intervention across all of the countries polled, including surprisingly high levels of support for prohibitive government legislation, such as outright bans on smoking and unhealthy foods. The provision of information about how to change one’s behaviour is highly supported, as are financial incentives, with nudge strategies considered the most acceptable. Legislative approaches receive less support, with acceptability decreasing as more freedoms are lost. The variety of cultural norms across different countries means people have different levels of acceptance of government intervention: it is higher in India and China than in wealthy North European nations and the USA (ibid.).

26 The Ipsos MORI report concludes that there are no magic levers that will result in a desired change of a specific behaviour. There is a need to draw on a broader notion of public preparedness that understands that public acceptability is part of a cycle of change, and is not simply a static indicator of support.

27 These insights reveal the importance of public surveys and communicating a coherent frame to support environmental policy through an ethical strategic communication process. Increasingly, as highlighted in the practical examples below, governments can gain effective policy outcomes when they engage stakeholders in shaping policy and engage with communicators to help design processes at any early stage of any programme or policy.

Influencing Policy through Strategic Communication

28 One of the key areas where change must occur to benefit conservation is in the policy arena. Conservation scientists and activists frequently express frustration with the policy system (Zeidler, 2009; Spierenburg, 2012). The key is to understand the basics of communicating to an audience that is not necessarily passionate about conservation, but that has the power to take decisions directly impacting its efforts.

29 Effective communication is much more than policy briefs, reports or glossy brochures. Instead, it is about setting the stage, creating the mood, crafting the right language and images, and identifying the best time and means to deliver messages. Most importantly, it is about clearly stating the specific actions that are expected from the different audiences being approached (Hesselink & Zeidler, 2012).

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 16

30 Policy makers are the recipients of a plethora of policy, lobbyists, and media briefs. Even before the information revolution, government staff would report being “awash in information” (Weiss, 1977, as cited in Feldman et al., 2001). Capturing their attention should not be attempted through content, but primarily through style. A number of effective techniques have been identified through extensive research, including using anecdotes, clearly articulating the meaning of data, and identifying the relevance of research findings to policy questions (Feldman et al., 2001).

31 Conservationists attempting to influence policy commit common communication errors, as outlined in Box 1. Scientists also find it difficult to step out of their scientific role and to understand the varying perceptions that exist among different stakeholders (Hesselink et al., 2007). As Olson (2009) puts it: “….communication is not just one element in the struggle to make science relevant. It is the central element. Because if you gather scientific knowledge but are unable to convey it to others in a correct and compelling form, you might as well not even have bothered to gather the information” (p.9). Strategic communication and improved framing of important messages in a policy-relevant manner can help reduce tension and avoid conflict. Amongst the key features are: • understanding the political process and the art of influence; • having a clear mandate and focus; • gaining legitimacy by producing policy-relevant work; and • building partnerships with like-minded individuals and groups Haid et al.(1999).

Box 1: The eight most common errors in communicating to influence policy

1. Letting the facts, figures and other evidence speak for themselves 2. Using communication as an add on and not integrating it in the project 3. Not being aware of the principles of systemic change 4. Forgetting that influencing policy means influencing people 5. Using messages that do not stick 6. Applying wrong communication approaches or wrong expertise 7. Forgetting to develop a strategy 8. Sticking to old fashioned prejudices regarding spin, style and PR

Hesselink & Zeidler (2012)

Understanding the Policy-making Process

32 Zeidler (2009) recognizes four distinct stages of policy-making: development, implementation, impact evaluation, and review, which represent different entry points to influence policy. Communication strategies vary in terms of influence – from simply distributing research results to the relevant policy agents, to informing a specific current policy debate, to directly influencing government policy and investment (Fisher et al., 2008).

33 Understanding the different policy stages is also useful for identifying the diverse group of individuals involved at each of the levels of the policy-making process. Effective policy communication requires clearly identifying the target audience and

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 17

understanding its specific needs. Since people respond better to others they trust, rather than to logical arguments or cost-benefit analysis alone, building relationships with key players is an important step that will also help make these needs more evident.

34 Key players in the policy-making process include: • Top Decision Maker: The top executive in Cabinet, who is looking for clear and politically favourable decisions appealing to the voter. • Parliament: A more diverse conglomeration of policy makers, often coming from different party backgrounds and looking for advocacy debates. • Environment Ministry Leadership (or its equivalent): Ministers, Deputy Ministers and Permanent Secretaries or equivalents. As the Environment Ministry is not always perceived to be politically powerful, the Minister will look for policy opportunities that link to the national development agenda to position the Ministry in a more visible, political landscape. • Environment Ministry Staff: This group should provide the policy-relevant technical information. It must be noted that their interests and needs may also be politically motivated. • Other Government Institutions: These tend to have wide ranging and conflicting interests. The environment agenda is often far from their priorities. • Non-government Players: A powerful member of this group is industry. The citizen or “concerned neighbour” who has a direct interest in the specific area of concern can play a strong advocacy role, which can contribute to the communication strategy.

Crafting Policy-Relevant Communication

35 In addition to understanding an audience’s unique set of needs, an effective communicator should also understand the motivations and reward systems in play (Gibbons et al., 2008). For example, since changing policy and practice can lead to costly and sometimes negative administrative or political consequences for a ministry or governmental organization, the dynamics of resistance to change should be addressed. Aware of this potential challenge, an effective communications strategy will identify the current attitudes and behaviours of the intended target group, and include strategies to overcome prejudices, fears and resistance (Hesselink & Zeidler, 2012).

36 For example, the Damara Tern, a near-threatened unique seabird breeding on the desert coastline of Namibia, has faced considerable conservation problems due to increasing development pressures. Figure 1 illustrates the attitudinal and behavioural changes needed to ensure that the conservation needs of a bird like this will be considered by the government leadership, as well as a strategy to affect the desired changes through a series of actions.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 18

Figure 1. Framework for planning how to influence change in attitude and behaviour of government decision-makers using the example of a near-threatened bird species.

Delivering the Message

37 Once the strategy has been crafted, it needs to be delivered to its target audience using the appropriate communication tools (e.g. Hesselink & Zeidler, 2012; Zeidler, 2009; Hesselink et al., 2007; Haid et al., 1999). For example, if we want to target parliamentarians, a publication that is disseminated to the general public will not suffice. Instead, an appropriate distribution channel must be identified, and the policy message must be crafted in an appealing and concrete manner in accordance with the parliamentarians’ needs and priorities.

Assessing Impact

38 Although the final policy decision is the ultimate measure of success of the communication strategy, it is beneficial to track its impact earlier in the decision- making process. The following questions incite thought and encourage effective progress towards finding what works and what does not, learning from past successes and mistakes and adapting these for future impact on policy decisions: • What was heard, and what was understood? These two should not be confused. In many cases, messages are heard but not understood. • What worked, and what did not in terms of messaging and channels of dissemination and communication? Why did some messages not induce change? The channels of outreach and dissemination used can prove to be a major impediment. • What were the strategic budget allocations, and where was money not spent well? Because resources and funds available for the conservation communication are often quite

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 19

limited, it is important to determine their effectiveness. Lessons learnt from budget allocations with limited impact can go a long way towards improving budget allocations in the future.

Engaging Stakeholders

39 A crucial element in realizing social and ecological resilience is stakeholder engagement, or stakeholder participation. Successful and effective action towards sustainability will only be achieved when projects and policies are acceptable to the people and organizations that will live and work with their impacts (e.g. Susskind, 2009). Thus, stakeholders must be informed and involved from an early stage in the design and implementation of projects, programs and policies.

40 To a certain extent, stakeholder-focused approaches have replaced the more traditional one-directional or top-down approaches that used to be common in policy- making and communication. Taking a wider perspective, the increasing focus on stakeholders is connected to changes in the social structures of many countries in the world: citizens have become better informed and are more ready to challenge imposed decisions; the commercial sector is more aware of reputational damage and legal claims of poor practice; the lack of manpower and resources makes it increasingly difficult for authorities to enforce top-down decisions against opposition (Rientjes, 2002). This has led to new approaches such as interactive policy-making, corporate social responsibility, partnership agreements, and participatory project management (Lewicki et al., 2003).

41 This section examines the process of managing stakeholder engagement, illustrating it with the example of a recent IUCN experience that supported the development of sustainable forest governance in Ghana1. A brief overview of the Ghana case is given in Box 2.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 20

BOX 2. The Ghana Forest Experience

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 21

The European Union wants to buy timber from sustainably managed forests and needs assurance of good forest governance. In 2009, Ghana was the first country to sign a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) with the European Commission on forest governance following a series of multi- stakeholder dialogues including the government, private sector, civil society, and traditional authorities. IUCN’s CEC played a key advisory role in this process and convinced the government of the relevance of a multi-stakeholder dialogue. The expression and integration of the differing views and interests was instrumental in moving toward the common goal of good forest governance. Analyzing the Position of the Stakeholders in the Ghana Forest Management Case The stakeholders in the process are outlined in Table 1. Of these, only the Ghana government and the international organizations were initially in favor of a VPA, while the timber industry was against it, fearing potential additional production costs. Those who were already involved in certification processes did not see any need for a VPA. Chainsaw operators were not really aware or informed at the early stages, since a VPA was not in their immediate interest; and lacking any formal organization, they had little influence. However, as a result of the stakeholder process, they became organized into domestic timber associations. Forest Watch Ghana, representing civil society, was initially neither in favor nor against the VPA. They sought clarity on the benefits of VPA for local communities and tactically gave their support to the VPA process, canvassing to be given a seat on the Steering Committee. The European Commission (in their role as donor) used its influence to mediate between the government and civil society to reach agreement about the principles of stakeholder engagement. The direct role of local communities was limited due to their distance from the capital, in consequence of which they were represented by NGOs and international organizations. Forest Watch Ghana actively informed local communities throughout the country and was perceived as a reliable source of information. Preparing the Ground and Facilitating Stakeholder Involvement in Ghana Much time was invested in fostering social interactions between the various stakeholders. The IUCN, initially appointed by the Ministry to represent civil society on the Steering Committee, negotiated a more neutral role of observer and facilitator. In this capacity IUCN informed primary stakeholders and exposed them to international meetings on forest governance where government staff could benefit from the experiences of their peers in other countries. IUCN also brought in specific expertise (scientists, policy makers, educators) from its global networks where the process needed it and mediated one-on-one meetings where stakeholders could clarify their positions, thereby avoiding misunderstanding or prejudices. The multi-stakeholder dialogue resulted in most stakeholders being in favor of negotiating a VPA with the European Commission. The actual discussion of the agreement’s details led to new potential conflicts for which a new analysis had to be implemented. In the end, a common goal was achieved and many changes took place within the stakeholder community, with both stakeholders’ positions and level of influence varying throughout the process. Ghana: Lessons Learned and the Effects of a Stakeholder involvement process During the five years of the Ghana VPA multi-stakeholder process, many lessons were learned. All stakeholders recognized that such a process could enhance policymaking by providing additional information on technical, economic and legal aspects of forest governance. The government now values alternatives to a top-down approach and is interested in exploring how to better engage local communities on topics such as the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) process. Government institutions changed their attitudes and practices towards the private sector and civil society, both of which are clearly satisfied that their voice has been heard. In many NGOs a high degree of professionalism was established and clear areas were defined where they can work with the government. S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 The importance of informal relationships as a support to the formal process was exemplified. e.g. The official VPA coordinator from the Ghana Forestry Commission formed an informal team with IUCN and Forest Watch to interact on ways to make the formal process run smoothly. 22

Stakeholder analysis

42 The term ‘stakeholders’ refers to all individuals and groups of people or organizations that are involved or have an interest in a given issue or project (Kovacs & Rientjes, 2000). As an example of the number and diversity of stakeholders that may be involved in any given issue, Table 1 identifies the stakeholders involved in the Ghana forest governance case study.

Table 1. Overview of the number and diversity of stakeholders involved in the Ghana Forest Case Study

43 A first and essential step in stakeholder involvement is to identify the primary, secondary and tertiary stakeholders: • Primary stakeholders are those directly affected by the proposed activities; they include: ◦ those whose permission or approval of financial support is needed to reach the project’s goals; ◦ those who stand to suffer material, social or emotional loss or damage; ◦ those who stand to benefit from the project. • Secondary stakeholders are indirectly affected. • Tertiary stakeholders are not directly involved, but can influence opinion or facilitate the process.

44 This stakeholder analysis acts as the basis for a process of negotiation, consultation and communication. Not all stakeholders are involved in the process in the same way and to the same extent. Broadly speaking, stakeholders can be divided into four categories, based on their level of support for the project (for/against) and their degree of power over the issue2 (e.g. degree of control over land or resources; high/low). The process of

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 23

engagement that should be followed depends on the category of stakeholder; this is illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2. Stakeholder map.

45 Stakeholders can be separated into four categories based on their support for the issue (for or against), and their level of power/influence over the issue (low/high). Each quarter in the table gives, in italics, an example of a stakeholder from the Ghana case study that falls into that category, as well as the approach to adopt when communicating with that stakeholder.

Stakeholder Interests

46 Stakeholder interests can be divided into three categories (Rientjes, 2012): • Material interests (income, value of property, legal position); • Social interests (power, tradition, status); and • Emotional/psychological interests (sense of ownership, attachment, memories, values, self- determination, self-image).

47 With so many competing interests, conflicts between different stakeholders are unavoidable. Conflicts can relate to the issues themselves, the procedure followed, or access to information. In most conflicts, social and emotional issues play an important role. This is certainly true for any issues related to sustainability and environmental management: changes to the way people live and work with the natural environment affect their prosperity and livelihood, and can also affect their identity, their sense of community, and their sense of independence and self-determination. This mix of material and non-material interests makes conflicts concerning sustainability and the natural environment notoriously complex and volatile. Table 3 gives an overview of

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 24

potential sources and types of conflicts that can occur arising from these diverse interests.

Table 3: Areas of potential conflict of stakeholder interest, with examples from the Ghana Forest case

After Rientjes, 2012

48 When working to resolve conflicts between stakeholders, a general rule is that the solution to the conflict has to lie in the same ‘sphere’ as the cause of the conflict. Thus, if the basis of the conflict is that the local traditions and practices of a certain group of stakeholders are not respected, then financial compensation alone will not adequately resolve the conflict. If material interests are at stake, at least part of the solution will have to be material, such as offering (financial) compensation.

Avoiding and resolving stakeholder conflicts: good negotiations and a clear process

49 To avoid or minimize conflicts between stakeholders, engagement begins at the earliest possible juncture, with informing, explaining and educating the stakeholders (at a minimum the primary stakeholders), and extends to negotiating and making compromises.

50 In managing compromises between stakeholders, Reed (2008) cautions that “…the quality of a decision is strongly dependent on the quality of the process that leads to it” (p.2421). For negotiations to succeed it is necessary that all the stakeholders realize that they are mutually dependent on each other. It is rare that one stakeholder or stakeholder group can impose its wishes on all the others without negative consequences or high costs at a later stage: resource- and time-consuming monitoring and enforcement activities. A negotiated agreement is easier and cheaper to maintain if the parties involved have an interest in its successful implementation.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 25

51 The elements of good negotiations are based on the Harvard negotiation principles (Fisher & Ury, 1981): 1. Separate the people from the problem: do not make it personal; avoid prejudices and stereotypes. 2. Focus on interests, not on positions: Note that stakeholders with opposing positions may have shared interests. 3. Invent options for mutual gain: be creative about finding alternatives that will meet the needs/ interests of all stakeholders. 4. Insist on using objective criteria: jointly formulate criteria for success and use these to assess proposed solutions.

52 The Ghana forest case experience identified additional criteria, specifically concerning negotiations that involve a wider range of stakeholders: 1. Engage diverse stakeholders: ensure that all the relevant (primary) stakeholders are involved in the process and that all sides of the issue are represented. 2. Set up a good, but flexible structure for process management: ensure that the process of the stakeholder involvement is set up in advance, but be prepared to make changes as the need arises. 3. Practice transparency: make sure all parties understandwho is making the decisions, what the decisions are, and the limits to the process (as determined by, for example, the law, democratic processes and government structure). 4. Use effective communication channels and existing social networks: identify the stakeholders’ existing channels for obtaining, distributing and processing information to ensure information will be delivered in a language and format that is understandable to them. 5. Be responsive to all concerns. (Stokes Alexander, 2007)

53 Potential barriers to participation include varied levels of negotiation skills, information access, status and power. Therefore, support may be needed in the following areas to facilitate active and engaged participation: • Strategic communication may be needed to make stakeholders aware that there is an issue that affects them and encourage them to take part in the negotiation. • Training may be required to enable stakeholders to learnnegotiation skills prior to the engagement process. • Expert advice and support may be essential when examining complex, technical, or legal issues. • Facilitators (skilled and impartial)that help to focus, guide, andsummarize discussionscan make the process run more smoothly.

Conclusions

54 The traditional way to resolve conflicts is through the law. Throughout the world, alternative forms of dispute resolution are becoming more widely used, e.g. mediation, where the parties involved in a conflict develop their own tailor-made solutions. Mediation as a form of conflict resolution is closely linked to stakeholder involvement approaches. This frequently leads to innovative and creative outcomes that the courts can rarely provide. The mediation process itself can also help to bridge differences between the stakeholders and improve relations, thus decreasing the chance of new conflicts arising in the future.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 26

55 As illustrated by the Ghana VPA experience, a well-managed stakeholder involvement process has many results beyond a potential agreement or policy. In bringing together stakeholder groups that may normally not be on speaking terms, new patterns of social interaction are formed and the stakeholders are better equipped to resolve any future conflicts of interests. Stakeholder processes can lead to innovative and creative solutions when oriented to processes that encourage learning together. Stakeholder involvement builds a sense of shared ownership of the issues and solutions among the parties involved.

Managing Positive Change

56 Managing change for the long-term requires a process that is strategically managed and maintained with discipline. One of the causes for the meagre progress to date in changing societal behaviour in response to the threat of global warming may be the absence of a change management protocol that addresses the societal and individual behavioural changes necessary to deal with any complex issue. This section reviews the reasons for failure in change management, the need for a behavioural component, and reports on an existing protocol.

Why change fails

57 Extensive research concludes that at least 66% and perhaps as many as 90% of all change initiatives fail (Palmer, n.d.; Hannum et al., 2011). This is a sobering statistic for anyone seeking to change organizations, individual behaviours, communities or social systems. Moreover, it is a statistic that appears to have changed little over the last 25-30 years. The first step to managing change is to understand why change initiatives tend to fail.

58 One three year study (Doppelt, 2003) investigated the failure of 25 public and private organisations to achieve sustainable, “cradle to cradle” production. It concluded that a principal error was attempting to become more efficient within the existing hierarchical and linear business model, failing to recognise that profound cultural and organizational change was required. Consistent with this, a recent study published by the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) (Hannum et al., 2011) reported that between 66 and 75 % of all public and private change initiatives fail, identifying a resistant organizational culture as the chief cause.

59 John Kotter (1995) of the Harvard Business School provides one of the more exhaustive and often-quoted research efforts about why change fails. His study, focussed on business organizations, concluded that root causes of the failure include: • failure to meet expectations of stakeholders; • ineffective, missing or conflicted leadership; • lack of well-articulated goals; • inadequate resources dedicated to change; and • the complexity of the change management process.

60 In general, there has been less published on managing change in public or not-for- profit organizations. An exception is an intensive two-year study of large-scale changes in six public and not-for-profit organizations by Kee and Newcomer (2008). That study

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 27

focused on the role that leaders play in initiating and implementing change. Their findings indicated that most change efforts fail as a result of the shortcomings in change leadership, including: • Insufficient advocacy for the change; • Failure to adequately understand their responsibilities in the change initiative; • Insufficient attention to the complexity of the change and the potential risks raised by the change initiative; • Inadequate engagement of critical stakeholders; • Inadequate understanding of the organizational culture in the primary organization or the organizations in the larger system; • Inadequate appreciation of the organizational capacity needed to implement and sustain the change.

Behavioural component

61 A change management protocol that affects behavioural change must incorporate knowledge from the social sciences as well as the natural sciences. Progress in this direction has been somewhat hampered by a lack of accessibility to research from the social sciences that can help us to understand how to elicit responses to climate changes and promote behaviour changes:

62 “Despite an increasing awareness that tackling climate change is as much about understanding human behaviour as modelling regional rainfall patterns, most practitioners are unable to access the knowledge that they need. In fact, while interest in the psychology of communicating climate change and promoting sustainable behaviour has grown rapidly among social scientists, the people who engage with the public–environmental campaigners, local and regional government officials or community groups–rarely see the fruits of that labor.” (Corner, 2012, February 17)

63 Thus, the chain of communication between academics and practitioners is often broken. Certainly, “of all the human sciences with a potential to contribute to the key task of understanding and informing behaviour change in the environmental domain, psychology – the study of human beliefs and behaviours – has been particularly underused” (Spence & Pidgeon, 2009, p.9).

64 Nevertheless, a successful change management protocol must incorporate a behavioural component, as the example in the next section illustrates.

Change Acceleration Process (CAP)

65 The most well-grounded and broadly applicable universal change management process that we know of is the Change Acceleration Process (CAP) developed at General Electric (GE) in the late 1980’s (Von Der Linn, 2009, January 25).

66 The GE research that underpins CAP found that 100% of all changes considered “successful” had a good technical solution or approach; however, over 98% of all changes evaluated as “unsuccessful” also had good technical solutions or approaches. What differentiated the successful approaches was having a thorough strategy for addressing the “people side” of the equation; that is an organizational and cultural strategy.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 28

67 CAP was developed to incorporate into its protocol a disciplined integration of the psychosocial issues of change, while addressing the technical or content changes as well. This can be represented by the formula Q x A = E where Q = quality of the technical solution; A = acceptance of the strategy and engagement as a result of the cultural and organizational strategy; E = overall effect and effectiveness of the change.

68 CAP represents change as a progression from the ‘Current State’ via a ‘Transition State’ to a ‘Desired State’. It identifies the following necessary conditions for initiating change: • Leadership – a committed leader who ensures that the process has the required resources, publicly supports the change, models desired behaviours and is helpful in overcoming organization resistance. • Changing Systems, Structures and Capabilities – the ability and willingness to redefine fundamental infrastructure, policies, and practices and adjust skills and capabilities to support and drive to the desired state.

69 When these necessary conditions have been met, there are five essential elements of successful change: • Creating a Shared Need – developing compelling reasons for the change (e.g. a long or short term threat or opportunity) that resonates with all stakeholders. • Shaping a Vision – a clear image of the world after the change should be communicated, that should be widely understood and sufficiently detailed to allow stakeholders to see themselves in the picture. • Mobilizing Commitment – critical stakeholders should be engaged in the actualization of the change (see Section 4, “Engaging Stakeholders”). • Making Change Last –the change must be visible; change-driving strategies should be re- assessed regularly; leveraging early wins is essential; and the process must integrate with other activities and ways of operating. • Monitoring Progress and Learning – measuring progress is crucial: indicators of success such as milestones, benchmarks, future state descriptions, and behavioural cues should be put in place. Experiences and best practices should be communicated widely.

70 The CAP model highlights the importance of good process design and management of change that incorporates psychosocial components.An essential consideration is understanding and responding to resistance to change. The critical issue in people’s resistance to change is not the lack of attractiveness of the new state; it is inertia or attachment to the current state and the unwillingness to “lose” whatever it provides – familiarity, predictability, stability of relationships, sense of capability and competence. A manager or leader of a change process needs to recognize that there are accompanying emotions and psychological impacts to such loss that must be addressed as part of the process.

Conclusion

71 Developing resilient societies and ecosystems is a major challenge, with degraded diversity, overtaxed ecosystems, and the global population heading towards 9 billion by 2050. In times of tighter budgets, it will be even more vital to make strategic investments and ensure a process exists to accomplish conservation and sustainable development goals.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 29

72 There is information from many fields of social research that needs to be incorporated into these strategies, because in general people respond emotionally and unconsciously, rather than rationally to information about the state of the environment. As noted throughout this piece, new considerations such as developing frames will be essential to helping people to understand the crisis of environmental issues, linking to values that will drive action. Successfully engaging and communicating with policy-makers and other stakeholders requires understanding their interests, constraints, and the processes by which various sectors work. Only then will environmentalists, scientists, conservationists, governments, businesses, and NGOs communicate and engage to identify and develop solutions.

73 As new pathways to positive change are designed and implemented, those that represent the conservation community will need to become artful, yet ethical, in managing stakeholder processes, negotiations, and managing conflict. The fundamental emphasis of this article is in having an intentional change strategy for any action be it for biodiversity conservation or resilience. Success will be dependent upon a thoughtful and disciplined approach that must be guided through to its end, considerate of the people and entities that are engaged in the change process.

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Branson, C., B. Duffy, C.Perry, & D.Wellings (2012). Acceptable Behaviour? Public Opinion on Behaviour Change Policy. London: Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute. URL: http://www.ipsos- mori.com/DownloadPublication/1454_sri-ipsos-mori-acceptable-behaviour-january-2012.pdf

Brown V., M. Keon & R. Dyball (2005). Lessons from the past, learning for the future. In: Keen, M., V.Brown & B. Dryball (Eds.) Social Learning in Environmental Management Towards a Sustainable Future, Chapter 14. London: Earthscan.

Corner, A. (2012, February 17). Bridging the gap between climate change research and practice. Guardian Professional Network. URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/climate- change-research-business-practice.

Crompton, T. (2010). Common cause: The case for working with our cultural values. Research report for WWF-UK’s Strategies for Change Project. [No city given]: WWF-UK/COIN/Campaign to Protect Rural England/Friends of the Earth/Oxfam. URL: http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/ common_cause_report.pdf

Doppelt B. (2003). Overcoming the seven sustainability blunders. The Systems Thinker 14(5): 2-7. URL: http://www.greenleaf-publishing.com/content/pdfs/systhink.pdf

Feldman P., P. Nadash, & M. Gursen (2001). Improving communication between researchers and policy-makers in long-term care: Or, researchers are from mars; policy-makers are from Venus. The Gerontologist 41: 312-321.

Fisher B. et al. (2008). Ecosystems services and economic theory: integration of policy-relevant research. Ecol. Appl. 18: 2050-2067.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 30

Fisher, R. & W. Ury (1981). Getting to yes: negotiating an agreement without giving in. London: Random House.

Freire P. (1993). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. (20th Anniversary ed.). New York: Continuum Books.

Gallopin G.C. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environ. Chang. 16: 293–303.

Gibbons P. et al. (2008). Some practical suggestions for improving engagement between researchers and policy-makers in natural resource management. Ecol. Manage. Restor. 9:182-186.

Greenberg J., G. Knight & E. Westersund (2011). Spinning climate change: Corporate and NGO public relations strategies in Canada and the United States. Int. Comm. Gaz. 73: 65.

Grunig J. (Ed.) (1992). Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. New Jersey: Lawrence Eribaum Associates Inc..

Haid, P., E.C .Marques & J. Brown (1999). Re-focussing the lens: Assessing the challenge of youth involvement in public policy. Ottawa: Institute On Governance. URL: http://iog.ca/sites/iog/files/ lens.pdf

Hannum, K.M. et al.(2011). Emerging Leadership in Nonprofit Organizations: Myths, Meaning, and Motivations. Greensboro: Center for Creative Leadership. URL: http://www.ccl.org/leadership/ pdf/research/AMEXReportEmergingLeadership.pdf

Hernandez, M. (2009, December 19). A Conversation with Daniel Kahneman. [Blog post to: “The Inclusive Economy”.] Retrieved from: http://cfed.org/blog/inclusiveeconomy/ conversation_with_daniel_kahneman/

Hesselink, F.J. et al.(2007). Communication, Education and Public Awareness (CEPA): a Toolkit for Coordinators of National Biodiversity and Actions Plans (NBSAPs).Gland: IUCN.

Hesselink, F. & J. Zeidler (2012). Chapter 8. Bringing conservation science to life: the role of communication to support policy influencing processes in Africa. In: Davies, J. (Ed.) Conservation and Sustainable Development, Chapter 8. Oxon: IUCN/Routledge/IRDC.

Kee, J.E. & K.E. Newcomer (2008). Why do change efforts fail? What can leaders do about it? Publ. Manag. 37(3): 5-12.

Kotter, J. (1995). Leading Change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Bus. Rev. (March-April): 1-10.

Kovacs, T., & S. Rientjes (2000). A practical guide for communicating nature conservation. In: Rientjes, S. (Ed.) Communicating nature conservation, pp.49-94. Tilburg: ECNC.

Lakoff, G. (2009, May 19). Why environmental understanding, or "framing," matters: an evaluation of the EcoAmerica Summary Report. [Blog post to: Huffingtonpost.] Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/why-environmental-underst_b_205477.html

Lakoff, G. (2010). Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environ. Comm. 4(1): 70-81.

Lalasz, R. (2012, March 1). Creating the next conservation movement…or do we even need one? [Blog post to: Cool Green Science (The Conservation Blog of the Nature Conservancy)]. Retrieved from: http://blog.nature.org/2012/03/creating-the-next-consevation-movement-or-do-we-even- need-one/

Leiserowitz, A. et al. (2010). Climategate, public opinion, and the loss of trust. [Working paper, Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.] Retrieved from: http://ssrn.com/ abstract=1633932

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 31

Lewicki, R.J., B. Gray & M. Elliot (Eds.) (2003). Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts: Concepts and Cases. Washington: Island Press.

Nisbet, M.C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment 51(2): 12-23.

Nisbet, M.C. (2011). Climate Shift: Clear Vision for the Next Decade of Public Debate. Washington, D.C.: American University.

Olson, R. (2009). Don’t be such a scientist. Talking substance in an age of style. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Palmer, J. (n.d). Change management in practice: Why does change fail? [Published online at: ProjectSmart.co.uk.] Retrieved from: http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/change-management-in- practice.html

Pew Research Center (2010, June 17). Obama More Popular Abroad Than at Home, Global Image of U.S. Continues to Benefit: 22-Nation Pew Global Attitudes Survey. Chapter 8. Environmental Issues. Washington D.C.: Pew Global. Retrieved from: http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/06/17/chapter-8- environmental-issues-2/

Reed, M.S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol. Conserv. 141: 2417-2431.

Rientjes, S. (2002). Making nature conservation modern. J. Environ. Pol. Plann. 4: 1-21.

Rientjes, S. (2012). Conflicten rondom het beheer van natuurgebieden. [Conflicts concerning the management of nature areas.] Tijdschrift voor Conflicthantering [Journal of Conflict Management] 7(1): 10-15.

Shellenberger, M. & T. Nordhaus (2004). The Death of Environmentalism: Global Politics in a Post- Environmental World. [No city given]: Breakthrough Institute. http://www.thebreakthrough.org/ PDF/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf

Spence, A. & N. Pidgeon (2009). Psychology, climate change & sustainable behavior. Environment 51(6): 8-18.

Spierenburg, M. (2012). Getting the message across: Biodiversity science and policy interfaces – a review. GAIA 21(2): 125-134.

Stokes Alexander, S. (2007). IUCN Report on multi-stakeholder consultations for the Ghana EU VPA negotiation process. Gland: IUCN.

Susskind L. (2009). Deliberative Democracy and Dispute Resolution. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 24(3): 1-12.

United Nations Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability (2012). Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A future worth choosing. New York: United Nations. Retrieved from: http:// www.un.org/gsp/sites/default/files/attachments/GSP_Report_web_final.pdf

UNWCED [United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development] (1987). Development and International Co-operation: Environment. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Document A/42/427. Retrieved from: http://www.un- documents.net/wced-ocf.htm

Von Der Linn, B. (2009, January 25). Overview of GE’s Change Acceleration Process (CAP). [Blog post to: Bob Bon Der Linn’s HPT Blog.] Retrieved from: http://bvonderlinn.wordpress.com/ 2009/01/25/overview-of-ges-change-acceleration-process-cap/

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 32

Zeidler, J. (2009). Some thoughts on policy and desertification: what key contributions can scientists make to policy processes in our southern African context? African Journal of Range and Forage Science 26(3): 149-157.

NOTES

1. The authors wish to thank Dr. Adewale Adeleke, Director IUCN Ghana and project leader for IUCN during the Ghana VPA Multi-stakeholder dialogues and Ms. Chantal van Ham and Mr. Jean Paul Ledant, members of the evaluation team of the IUCN project, Strengthening Voices for Better Choices, for their valuable comments and text suggestions on the Ghana case. 2. This should not be confused with other power differences between stakeholders (e.g. access to financial or political resources). There is a range of techniques a facilitator/mediator can use to counterbalance that.

RÉSUMÉS

One of the key recommendations of the 2012 report, Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing, is “empowering people to make sustainable choices.” Prepared by the United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability (2012), this landmark report reframes sustainability while—like other reports before it—challenging those in the conservation community to consider how to create the pathways to empower people to make sustainable choices, to change their future, to be resilient. The hope of empowering people to make sustainable choices is not new, but the approaches and tools by which improved decision-making is facilitated and supported are changing rapidly. This article examines emerging, successful trends in communication and its link to change management. It explores contextualizing a problem or challenge, influencing policy through strategic communication, engaging stakeholders, and managing change. To better describe these linkages, this article presents a sample change strategy, the processes used to manage change, and the various aspects of a change management approach. Creating pathways for positive change is of special interest to the representatives of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Commission on Education and Communication (CEC), who developed this article. Sharing a vision of a global community that loves and values nature, the Commission facilitates capacity building, change management, knowledge management, learning processes and communication activities worldwide as a way to create pathways for positive change.

INDEX

Keywords : change, communication, environment, management, resilience, stakeholder

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 33

AUTEURS

WENDY GOLDSTEIN Deputy Chair IUCN CEC and Graduate School of the Environment, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Graduate School of the Environment, Macquarie University, Sydney Australia 2109. USA, E-mail: [email protected]

NANCY COLLETON Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Arlington, Virginia, USA, E-mail: [email protected]

SANDRA RIENTJES Kennis Management Mediation, Tilburg, The Netherlands

FRITS HESSELINK HECT Consultancy, Utrecht, The Netherlands

CHUCK PHILLIPS Sapience Organizational Consultants, Franconia, New Hampshire, USA

JULIANE ZEIDLER Integrated Environmental Consultants Namibia (IECN), Windhoek, Namibia

JUSTINE BRABY Integrated Environmental Consultants Namibia (IECN), Windhoek, Namibia

KEITH WHEELER Chair IUCN CEC and ZedX Inc., Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, USA

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 34

Presentation: IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

NOTE DE L’ÉDITEUR

Authors: Richard Cellarius, Aroha Mead & Georgina Peard

NOTE DE L'AUTEUR

Commission Chair: Aroha Te Pareake Mead, IUCN, E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]; Site: www.iucn.org/ceesp

About us

1 The IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) is a network of over 1,400 volunteer experts from 106 countries that provides multidisciplinary knowledge and expertise on the linkages between environmental, economic, cultural and social factors impacting natural resource conservation in order to assist society in finding solutions that are both sustainable and equitable. The Commission's work is carried out by specialist groups dealing with such topics as rights-based approaches to natural resource and protected area management and governance, indigenous and community conserved areas, food and agricultural policy for sustainable livelihoods, the impact of economic policies on natural resource management and conservation, and the social and environmental responsibility of the private sector.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 35

Background and mission

2 CEESP traces its origins to the “Commission on Ecology”, created in 1954, which recommended the establishment of a "Commission on Landscape Planning" in 1956. Subsequently, following the work of the Committee and the Sub-commission on Landscape Planning, the "Commission on Landscape Planning" was established as a permanent Commission in 1969. Reflecting emerging knowledge and changing priorities, the Commission was reconstituted as the “Commission on Environmental Planning” in 1971. This new Commission "is involved particularly with matters such as the urban/rural development cycle, land use planning, planning of human settlements and the application of ecological principles to development and to concrete action programmes. It pays attention to matters concerning the planning and management of cultural landscapes that need to be conserved."1 The name of the Commission changed several more times2 while maintaining and expanding on the foci outlined above, the current name being adopted at the 1st World Conservation Congress in Montreal in October 1996.

Vision

3 A world where equity is at the root of a dynamic harmony between people and nature, as well as among peoples; a world of diversity, productivity and integrity of natural systems; a world in which production and consumption patterns are sustainable; a world where cultural diversity is intertwined with biological diversity and together they generate abundant and sustainable livelihoods opportunities.

Mission

4 To contribute to the IUCN Mission by providing insights and expertise and promoting policies and action to harmonize the conservation of nature with the crucial socioeconomic and cultural concerns of human communities—such as livelihoods, human rights and responsibilities, human development, security, equity, and the fair and effective governance and equitable sharing of natural resources.

5 In order to realize this mission, CEESP provides a platform to understand and debate global challenges facing society, as well as the pros and cons of current and alternative models of natural resource governance. It seeks to foster a holistic approach to nature conservation across IUCN and the conservation community, embracing complexities and facilitating dialogue and collaborative learning based on cultural and social values and on knowledge and experience from diverse regions, communities, genders and ages.

6 CEESP supports delivery of the IUCN programme through: • Documenting experience – CEESP documents, synthesizes and provides sound analysis of experiences in natural resource governance, including capturing the experiences and voices of marginalized groups. • Providing advice – CEESP generates and disseminates credible and trusted knowledge, including local and traditional knowledge, in order to advise IUCN and the conservation community, as well as external audiences where relevant.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 36

• Building capacity – CEESP works with partners and stakeholders to develop or adapt tools and help build capacity within IUCN and the conservation community, local communities, indigenous peoples, and private and economic sectors to sustainably and equitably manage natural resources. • Convening – CEESP helps to convene, mediate and build partnerships for action between civil society, in particular local communities, women and indigenous peoples, and the conservation community, governments and private sector. • Advocating – CEESP engages in focused advocacy based on sound knowledge and concrete results and in line with IUCN programme and policies.

Achievements to date

7 The nature of the Commission's work as outlined above is such that its major achievements are often best reflected in its publications and presentations and advice given in a variety of international conferences and intergovernmental "Conferences of the Parties" (COPs). Since the outcomes of this work depend on the actions and willingness of other organizations and governments to act, the impact is often difficult to measure in the short term. The following provides some examples of past achievements.

Historical Achievements

8 CEESP has championed ‘participatory conservation’ and ‘rights-based conservation’ as inclusive processes to ensure that communities, particularly indigenous and local communities, are involved in all aspects of conservation policy design and implementation. CEESP and its predecessor commissions have produced well over 100 publications all dealing with aspects of balancing conservation of nature with sustainable livelihoods. Two of the most well-known and cited CEESP publications are: • “Sharing Power, Learning by Doing in Co-Management Throughout the World”(Borrini- Feyerabend et al., 2004) • “Participatory Conservation: Paradigm Shifts in International Policy” (TILCEPA, 2004)

9 Complete citations are available on the IUCN Publications website3.

10 CEESP also produces an annual peer-reviewed Journal “Policy Matters” on specific issues such as: History, Culture & Conservation (Issue 13); Poverty, wealth and conservation (Issue 14); Climate Change, Energy Change & Conservation (Issue 16); Macroeconomic Policies, Livelihoods & Sustainability (Issue 18). Policy Matters can be downloaded directly from the CEESP website.

More Recent Achievements

Good Governance in Protected Areas

11 CEESP has played a leading role in the promotion of good governance in protected areas. At the Vth World Parks Congress (Durban, 2003) CEESP members were catalytic in a process to systematize the concept of “governance of protected areas” and gain recognition of the role of indigenous peoples and local communities as crucial actors in conservation. This was done through workshops, promotion of specific text in the

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 37

Congress proceedings and of adopted resolutions in the Action Plan. Based on this Parks Congress Action Plan and follow-up efforts by CEESP members, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), at its COP in Kuala Lumpur (2004), approved a Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA). This included a “new approach” to protected areas calling governments to pay attention to the variety of potential protected area governance types and quality, equity in conservation, and indigenous peoples’ rights. This was also the recognition that rights and benefit sharing are the foundation for sustainability and conservation, i.e. addressing poverty and creating shared platforms. While the governments agreed to the principles and text, they have not however reported effectively against their PoWPA obligations, which is an area CEESP is currently working on with the CBD Secretariat and others.

Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas

12 Building on this momentum, CEESP promoted indigenous and community conserved areas (ICCAs) as an important form of protected areas governance. Although ICCAs are by no means a new way of ‘managing’ natural resources, CEESP members worked determinedly to take the idea of ICCAs from a concept to broader recognition and acceptance in international policy, thus giving legitimacy to the ways in which indigenous peoples and communities may ‘manage’ their resources. CEESP generated knowledge and technical guidance around ICCAs in collaboration with the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), helping to demonstrate the critical role of ICCAs in biodiversity conservation. CEESP has consistently brought this knowledge to inform deliberations of the Parties to the CBD, thus strengthening the PoWPA in relation to governance, participation, equity and benefit sharing and specifically calling to respect the customary governance systems that have maintained ICCAs over time.

13 CEESP members field-based in West Africa have been engaged in training on shared governance of marine protected areas for about a decade. They published a guide on marine protected areas under shared governance4, available in English and Portuguese. Additional trainingtook place in South-east Asia with a four year program on co- management of protected areas with local indigenous peoples.

Sharing Power

14 In 2004 CEESP members produced "Sharing Power – A Global Guide to Collaborative Management of Natural Resources", a joint publication of IIED, IUCN, CEESP and Centre for Sustainable Development (CENESTA). This was the first effort to comprehensively describe, promote and provide technical assistance and advice on shared management and governance possibilities at the local level and specifically with indigenous peoples. Drawing on the experience across the network, this publication is an in-depth resource, filled with real-world examples, lessons from success and failure, as well as practical guidance on enabling negotiated agreements on roles, rights and responsibilities for decentralized governance on natural resources. This text has been used extensively for training in the field and adopted in schools in many countries.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 38

Sharing Power Conference - A New Vision for Development

15 Building on the momentum of the publication, in January 2011, IUCN and CEESP sponsored the Sharing Power Conference, held in Whakatane, New Zealand, in collaboration with two Maori (indigenous) organizations, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa (a tribal authority), Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi (a Maori university) and Victoria University of Wellington. This first ever CEESP global conference brought together a unique mix of scientists, economists, indigenous leaders, environmentalists, academics, policy makers in national governments and international agencies, and many others who care about the quality of heritage this generation passes on to future generations. The Conference focused on the need for policy and decision makers in Governments and Corporations to accommodate a greater level of inclusion of indigenous peoples and all citizens, in national and international policies on the management and governance of bio-cultural resources, and advocated the rights of mother earth.

16 The Sharing Power Conference concluded that the time has come for a “new conservation ethic”, one that is accountable, celebrates cultural diversity, cares for species and ecosystems and supports civil society movements, indigenous peoples and local communities to bring a more socially and environmentally just world into being. The new conservation ethic responds to the visions and ideas of local communities and relies on local knowledge and decisions. The Conference Proceedings will be published in September 2012, as Volume 19 in CEESP's Policy Matters series, and launched at the Fifth IUCN World Conservation Congress in Jeju, South Korea. It will serve as a guide for all policy and decision-makers and advocates to make this new ethic a reality.

Ongoing and Current initiatives

Inclusive processes to enhance food and agricultural research and policy

17 Members of CEESP are working on the design and facilitation of deliberative and inclusive processes to support the governance of food and agricultural research. This is focused around work in different regions, including the Andean Altiplano, South Asia, West Africa and West Asia and through a range of activities including: intercultural dialogues between food providers (indigenous peoples, pastoralists, farmers) and scientists; farmer led assessments/evaluations on public research on natural resource management; citizens’ juries on the priorities and governance of agricultural research; south-south farmer exchanges for mutual learning on policy and practice for agricultural research and food sovereignty; and policy dialogues between food providers and decision makers at national and regional levels. Multi country research, publications, and policy recommendations are being developed on food, agriculture, land use and conservation.

18 In relation to small-scale fishing, CEESP is working to enable fisher communities, particularly in Meso-America, to influence policy and practice that affects both the sustainability of the natural resource and their livelihoods. CEESP members are engaged in the revision and adoption of the Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO's) guidelines for sustainable small-scale fisheries. The Guidelines will be important to defend small scale fishers' rights to resources and coastal lands, and a

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 39

"Documento"5 has been published to explain them to the fishers in Latin America in a simple manner.

Rethinking Economics

19 CEESP's Theme on Environment, Macroeconomics, Trade and Investment (TEMTI) focuses on the direct and indirect impacts that macroeconomic policies have on sustainability. The goal is to compile knowledge and experience on the impact of macroeconomic policies and bring this to a wider audience in order to influence policy and practice. CEESP recently published Volume 18 of its Journal Policy Matters, “Macroeconomic Policies, Livelihoods & Sustainability”. This provides case studies in Meso and South America (Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico) and India and is an example of this ongoing work.

The Whakatane Mechanism

20 The Whakatane Mechanism aims to ensure that conservation practices respect the rights of indigenous peoples and the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples in conservation policy and practice. Emerging from the CEESP Sharing Power Conference in Whakatane, New Zealand, in January 2011, the Mechanism is being developed by IUCN, CEESP, the Forest Peoples Programme (FPP), and Indigenous Peoples Organisations (IPOs). It is a process to assess, address and redress situations, primarily in protected areas, where indigenous peoples consider themselves to be negatively affected by a protected area designation or management practices. It facilitates a dialogue between management authorities and indigenous peoples in order to reach joint implementing solutions, and it celebrates and promotes successful partnerships in conservation. The Mechanism builds on the intentions and progress made through other agreements, such as United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the Durban Accord and Action Plan developed by the Vth World Parks Congress, the CBD PoWPA, and an array of initiatives focused on enhancing governance, equity and respect for human rights led by IPOs, and conservation organisations. In 2011 and 2012 the Whakatane Mechanism carried out two successful pilot Assessments hosted by the Ogiek people of Chepkitale, Mt Elgon in Kenya and by the Karen people of Ob Luang in Thailand.

Corporate Social and Environmental Accountability

21 CEESP has a mandate to enhance the capacity of civil society, governments and the private sector to ensure corporate social and environmental accountability and reduce its impact on climate and biocultural diversity. A primary aspect of members’ work focuses on supporting communities and indigenous peoples to engage mining companies to reform mining operations. For example, CEESP members have conducted and continue to conduct site visits in the Philippines, Salvador, Spain, Australia, US and Canada to assess the impacts of oil spills, the forced removal of indigenous communities from their traditional lands and impact of extractive industries.

22 In addition, CEESP will continue to work with IUCN's Business and Biodiversity Programme in the implementation of the recently revised "Business Engagement

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 40

Strategy", including participation in the development of specific initiatives to engage the business sectors that have a significant impact on natural resources and livelihoods. These include large 'footprint' industries such as mining, oil and gas, biodiversity-dependent industries including fishing, agriculture and forestry, financial services and “green” enterprises such as organic farming, renewable energy and nature-based tourism.

Protected Areas Governance and Social Assessment

23 CEESP in cooperation with the IUCN Global Protected Areas Programme, the WCPA and the Deutschen Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GiZ) are developing a resource kit focussed on governance of Protected Areas. The material has emerged from an assessment of the CBD PoWPA needs, and CEESP’s collective experience with governance training. The project is being completed in cooperation with the CBD Secretariat. The governance principles are also being used in cooperation with the IUCN World Heritage Programme to promote dialogue between indigenous peoples and national governments about improvements to consultation, participation, rights and governance of natural and mixed World Heritage Sites. This work is complemented by a team working on Social Assessment of Protected Areas that have produced publications, workshops and are developing a new set of guidelines. Specific attention is being given to Marine Protected Areas and the promotion of Locally Managed Marine Areas as culturally and economically appropriate foundations for national Marine Protected Area targets. A new CEESP sub-Specialist Group is looking at connectivity conservation and social policy in mountain landscapes.

Inter-Commission Initiatives

24 CEESP will continue its long-term collaboration with the WCPA through the inter- Commission Theme on Indigenous Peoples & Local Communities, Equity and Protected Areas (TILCEPA).

25 In addition, CEESP has recently established a joint Specialist Group on Sustainable Use and Livelihoods (SULi) with the Species Survival Commission (SSC). The work of the Group will include highlighting the importance of wild species for providing community benefits; analysing and communicating best-practice in aspects of sustainable use; promoting innovation in adaptive responses to the challenges of sustainable use; and developing practical tools and approaches to support sustainability and resilience in resource use.

26 Another recently established effort is the joint Specialist Group on Indigenous Peoples, Customary and Environmental Laws and Human Rights (SPICEH) with the Commission on Environmental Law (CEL). The goal of this Group is to create a participatory process which supports and advises IUCN and its membership on indigenous peoples, customary and environmental law and human rights law issues related to conservation.

Challenges for the future

27 CEESP’s work in the next four years will contribute to the IUCN global programme through a focus on the following continuing programme priorities, incorporating the

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 41

diverse perspectives and experiences of the CEESP membership, and by increased collaboration with IUCN Members, other Commissions and the Secretariat: 1. Developing and promoting a conservation ethic that supports diverse knowledge systems and values, delivers rights-based and equitable conservation with improved governance of natural resources and tangible livelihoods benefits, and links biological diversity with the cultural dimensions of nature conservation with a focus on the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. CEESP is promoting membership and partnerships between the conservation sector and broader social movements, including indigenous peoples, faith- based organizations and networks, smallscale fishing communities and advocacy groups, small-scale farmers and mobile pastoralists. 2. Increasing use of rights-based approaches to natural resource management and governance that promote social and cultural equity, indigenous peoples' self-determination, community governance, sustainable livelihoods and human security. 3. Promoting nature-based solutions to global challenges — such as climate change, conversion of forests and farmland to monocrops, including biofuels projects, food insecurity, poverty, inequitable economic and social development — that are underpinned by economic policies that reinforce sustainability, social equity and environmental integrity. 4. Enhancing capacity of civil society, governments and the private sector to ensure corporate social and environmental accountability and reduce the negative impact of industries on climate, biocultural diversity and food security.

Facts and Figures

28 With 1,465 volunteers, the Commission has a diverse membership in terms of disciplines, cultures, languages, geographical regions, age and gender, which brings multiple integrative perspectives and experiences to bear in debating, analysing and promoting the issues of concern to its vision and mission. Membership includes some of the world’s foremost conservation and sustainable development practitioners, natural and social scientists, and traditional community leaders. Membership is voluntary and by invitation or through application with the support of two existing Commission members.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 42

CEESP membership by region

29 CEESP carries out its work through six Themes, two Task Forces and three inter- Commission Themes/Specialist Groups. Most members of CEESP participate in more than one Theme/Specialist Group. The six Themes cover Culture and Conservation (TCC), Environment, Conflict & Security (TCES), Environment, Macroeconomics, Trade & Investment (TEMTI) Governance, Equity & Rights (TGER), Sustainable Livelihoods (TSL), and Social and Environmental Accountability of the Private Sector (TSEAPRISE). The two Task Forces focus on Biofuels and on REDD+ and Indigenous and Local Communities.

30 As noted above, CEESP also collaborates with the WCPA through an TILCEPA; with the SSC through SULi; and with the CEL through SPICEH.

31 A CEESP youth network began in 2010 to support intergenerational approaches to the vision and mission of CEESP and IUCN.

32 More details on the structure and membership of CEESP can be found at http:// www.iucn.org/ceesp

NOTES

1. A. H. Hoffmann, REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING FOR THE PERIOD 1970-1972, in Proceedings of the Eleventh General Assembly, IUCN PUBLICATIONS NEW SERIES Supplementary Paper No 40E, 1972. 2. Including “Commission on Sustainable Development” and “Commission on Environmental Strategy and Planning” 3. http://iucn.org/knowledge/publications_doc/publications/

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 43

4. "Em Governança Partilhada!: um guia prático para as áreas marinhas protegidas da África Ocidental" (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2009) 5. "Documento para el debate: Una version para todos" (Solis Rivera et al., 2012)

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 44

Biocultural Design: A New Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Development in Rural Indigenous and Local Communities

Iain J. Davidson-Hunt, Katherine L. Turner, Aroha Te Pareake Mead, Juanita Cabrera-Lopez, Richard Bolton, C. Julián Idrobo, Inna Miretski, Alli Morrison et James P. Robson Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

NOTE DE L’ÉDITEUR

This manuscript was reviewed by two anonymous reviewers.

Situating biocultural design

1 Dominant approaches to conservation and development are based on a historical perception of rural regions as sources of natural resources, labour or environmental services. The outcomes of such approaches have often resulted in diminished environments and disenfranchised populations (e.g. Northern First Nations, Indigenous Peoples, Small/Peasant Farmers). Consequently, many rural indigenous and local communities are proposing alternative approaches. Such approaches are often rooted in their distinct cultural identities and claims for greater control over land, development and identity now and in the future.

2 Establishing economic opportunities that meet the goals of Indigenous and other rural peoples, which may include a wide range of economic, political, cultural, ecological and social objectives, and are also viable businesses or income generating activities is undeniably challenging. Yet, there are increasing examples of communities who believe negotiating such a path is essential to the survival and wellbeing of their societies (c.f.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 45

Berkes & Davidson-Hunt, 2007; Davidson-Hunt & Turner, 2012; Davidson-Hunt & Berkes, 2010).

3 These priorities were clearly articulated in the recent Indigenous Peoples International Declaration on Self-Determination and Sustainable Development prepared for the June 2012 Rio+20 Summit. It affirms the cultural belief systems and worldviews of Indigenous Peoples as fundamental to sustainable development, which must also be grounded in the full exercise of Indigenous Peoples’ human and collective rights. Finally, the declaration also prioritises strengthening diverse local economies, which “provide sustainable local livelihoods, community solidarity and are critical components of resilient ecosystems” (Article 3), and territorial management in order to improve the quality of life and wellbeing of Indigenous Peoples and societies.

4 Biocultural diversity and heritage has provided a focus for many members of the Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) of the IUCN during the past twenty-five years. The biocultural heritage framework is also relevant to the future direction proposed by IUCN in the 2013-16 programme that will focus on ‘deploying nature-based solutions to global challenges in climate, food and development’ (IUCN, 2012). This paper opens a conversation about biocultural design that brings together the insights gained through a focus on biocultural diversity and heritage with a design approach to innovation. We do this by bringing together work carried out in recent times on the conceptual framings of biocultural diversity and heritage regarding adaptive capacity, with insights on processes of innovation from the field of design.

5 In section 2, we begin by presenting an overview of the concepts of biocultural diversity as developed in the field of conservation. In the literature, biocultural diversity is often used as an index, or measure, to assess geographical regions in terms of the linkages between biological, cultural and linguistic diversity (Gorenflo et al., 2012; Harmon, 1996; Sutherland, 2003). Such an index allows for a comparison of biocultural diversity across regions, its loss over time, and approaches to support its conservation. In parallel, ‘collective bio-cultural heritage’ is a conceptual framework for endogenous, or indigenous, approaches to sustainable development (Swiderska, 2006). This framework provides a focus on the linkages between the knowledge, innovations and practices of Indigenous and local communities and their inextricable linkages to territory, economy, cultural and spiritual values, customary laws and biological diversity (ibid., p.3).

6 CEESP has been active in supporting the development of this conceptual framework through their work with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and other policy forums, along with its implementation as an approach for sustainable development in rural indigenous and local communities. However, it should be recognized that for Indigenous Peoples, cultural, biological and linguistic diversities are intrinsically linked, as are environment and development. The purpose of this section is to review the origins of the terms biocultural diversity and heritage as used by academics and increasingly in the policies of governments, NGOs and UN agencies. While much of this work has been undertaken with indigenous and local communities, this review reflects the literature on these concepts and should not be misconstrued as an indigenous perspective on questions related to environment, development or conservation.

7 In Section 3, our goal is to utilize design thinking to propose an endogenous approach for biocultural innovation, rooted in the materials, values and creativity of local

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 46

communities, to support sustainable livelihoods. We have termed this approach biocultural design. Our thinking stems from the work of Oosterlaken (2009) and others (e.g. Melles et al., 2011) who are attempting to reorient the innovative capacity of design thinking toward addressing the needs of marginalized populations through new approaches to design thinking and practice. Their work, and ours in turn, draws on that of Sen (1999) who suggests that development – expanding the life opportunities that people can enjoy – is moved forward by people mobilizing their current resources and abilities to shape their opportunities in the future. Biocultural heritage offers a dynamic, rich set of resources that many rural indigenous and local communities are using in creative ways to meet their current needs, including income generation, and thereby shape the future of their communities. Many of the contemporary challenges faced by such societies, including limited livelihood opportunities, lack of access to basis public services, urban migration and climate change, are what have been called ‘wicked problems’ (Buchanan, 1992) and require new thinking and new approaches in order to move toward solutions. We propose biocultural design as one tool for developing products and services that some communities may find helpful in mobilizing biocultural heritage to address contemporary needs and challenges. We draw the review to a close with some concluding remarks on the potential contribution of biocultural design to support communities in undertaking development on their own terms.

Biocultural diversity

Origins and definition

Emergence of a Conceptual Framework

8 The conceptual framework of biocultural diversity draws upon multiple disciplinary roots with a common interest in understanding the relationship between biological, linguistic and cultural diversity. It builds upon a long-standing interest in understanding the interaction between nature and culture that goes back to Kroeber’s (1963[1939]) mapping of the linkages between cultural and natural areas, Steward’s (1955) work on cultural ecology, and Sauer’s (1956) work on cultural landscapes. These ideas were reflected in the field of heritage conservation through a discussion regarding the relationship between natural and cultural heritage during the 1970’s and 1980’s (Rössler, 2003; 2006). In 1993, the category of cultural landscape was introduced as a type of cultural nomination for World Heritage Sites. This provided recognition to landscape form and function, along with the symbolic associations that emerge out of the relationship between nature and culture (Mitchell et al., 2009).

9 While heritage conservation focused on landscapes, a parallel interest in the relationship between people and organisms was developing through the interdisciplinary study of ethnobiology (Hunn, 2007; 2008). This work has been largely descriptive with a focus on what people know about natural organisms. However, a focus on traditional ecological knowledge in the late 1990’s provided a broader perspective for considering knowledge systems about organisms and the relationships among organisms (Berkes, 2012). While the former often focused on knowledge as heritage and conservation as the solution to the loss of knowledge, the latter considered knowledge systems to be dynamic and relevant to endogenous processes of

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 47

development (Posey et al., 1984). A spatial approach to cultural and linguistic diversity, cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and endogenous development are important conceptual roots of the biocultural diversity framework.

10 In the 1990s, two discrete processes of mapping brought together spatial patterns of biological diversity with those of cultural and linguistic diversity. Throughout the 1980s the environmental conservation movement raised the profile of biological extinctions from the level of marginal concern to one of a recognized, global crisis (Myers et al., 2000). A series of maps that showed the remaining areas of high biological diversity were used as a tool during this decade to help visualize the extinction crisis and set priorities and targets for conservation. As these maps became widely available, Harmon (1996) overlaid linguistic and culture area maps onto maps of biological diversity “hotspots” and found many of the remaining areas of biodiversity occurred in the territories of Indigenous Peoples (see Gorenflo et al., 2012 for a review of this literature).

11 As the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2009) notes, “Many indigenous and tribal peoples live in areas rich in living and non-living resources, including forests that contain abundant biodiversity, water, and minerals” (p.197). Natural resource abundance cared for by Indigenous Peoples over generations became coveted for conservation and development. Increased consumption at the global level has focused much attention on these areas of natural resources and placed disproportionate pressures on Indigenous Peoples’ lands, territories, and natural resources. As collectives, Indigenous Peoples depend on their lands and the relationship they have to those lands, territories, and natural resources for the survival of their distinct cultures, livelihoods, and traditions (Wiggins, 1993).

12 These issues motivated academics, NGOs, and others to bring together different streams of research, action and advocacy under the conceptual umbrella of biocultural diversity. The mounting interest in biocultural diversity is evidenced through an examination of Google Scholar citations over a number of decades(Table 1). By the 2000s, biocultural diversity was becoming a useful proxy for expressing the linkages between biological and cultural diversity (Maffi, 2005).

Table 1. Number of Google Scholar hits between 1980 and 2012.

Timeframe Term Number of hits

1980-1990 Biocultural 2,010

Biocultural diversity 524

1991-2000 Biocultural 4,170

Biocultural diversity 1,620

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 48

2001-2012 Biocultural 14,600

Biocultural diversity 7,280

Definition

13 Biocultural diversity is defined by the Global Diversity Foundation1 as, “…the total variety of the world’s cultures and natural environments.” Integral to the concept is the recognition that, “Their co-evolution over time has generated local ecological knowledge and practice: a vital reservoir of experience, understanding and skills that help communities to manage their resources now and in the future.” This definition is similar to that posited by Maffi (2005; 2010) and others (c.f. Maffi, 2001; also Section 2.2.2), including many involved in IUCN and CEESP who have worked over the past decadeto construct a unique transdisciplinary program of work related to the recognition and preservation of biocultural diversity.

Applications

Program of work and key institutional players

14 Biocultural diversity originated as a metric to document, compare and analyze the linkages between biological, linguistic and cultural diversity across regions and over time (Gorenflo et al., 2012; Harmon, 1996; Sutherland, 2003) and became a transdisciplinary framework for both scholarship and action. The framework retains features reflecting its origins including: a strong, almost exclusive, focus on local and Indigenous Peoples; an emphasis on language over other aspects of culture and identity; and, a concern for conservation. Notably, the scholarship and practice has utilized the dominant discourses of conservation biology, including its focus on extinction, crisis, and loss (e.g. Soulé, 1985). Biocultural diversity also makes use of the “hotspot” identification approach developed by conservation biology to establish priorities for action and identify threats to biological diversity.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 49

Figure 1. Summary of the research-action-advocacy agenda of Biocultural Diversity

Drawn from Maffi (2001; 2005) and Maffi and Woodley (2010)

15 The impetus for framing biocultural diversity in terms of conservation is based on the observation that the global species extinction crisis is mirrored by a global cultural and linguistic extinction crisis (Gorenflo et al., 2012; Harmon, 1996; Maffi, 2005; Sutherland, 2003). Identified threats stem from diverse sources. Summarised by Woodley (2010, pp. 131-132), they include environmental degradation and exploitation, economic development, factors related to tenure and governance, and acculturation and socio- economic change. She concludes: “Changing livelihoods, worldviews and value systems alter peoples’ sense of place and cultural identity and lead to a breakdown in the intergenerational transmission of local knowledge, practices and languages that are so closely tied to the surrounding environment” (p. 133).

16 The identification of peoples and places as endangered established the basis for a platform of action (Figure 1) to address declines in global biocultural diversity based on a three-fold rationale that links ethics and social justice, human heritage, and adaptive capacity arguments (Maffi, 2001). The interest in these three areas has led to the development of four principal themes underpinning biocultural diversity; namely, (1) the relationships between biodiversity, cultural, and linguistic diversity; (2) common threats to biological, cultural and linguistic diversity and the sociocultural and environmental consequences of loss; (3) approaches for joint-maintenance and revitalisation of different aspects of biocultural diversity; and (4) “the development of related aspects of human rights” (Maffi, 2005, p.600, emphasis added). This program of work has resulted in a number of initiatives that have iteratively framed scholarship and action regarding biocultural diversity.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 50

Biocultural diversity initiatives

17 Maffi and Woodley (2010) provide a comprehensive survey of biocultural diversity projects. As summarized in Table 2, this work was the first to provide an overview of what distinguished biocultural diversity cases from other development approaches. These initiatives have worked to influence policy at local, national and international levels to reduce threats to, and support the conservation and sustained use of biocultural diversity.

18 As Maffi and Woodley (2010a, pp.179-181) have noted, many of those involved in advocating for biocultural conservation have focused on building recognition of biocultural diversity within policy, particularly through the work program of the CBD and within different initiatives from UNESCO that focus on the linkages between natural and cultural heritage. Biocultural diversity has also begun to appear in policy statements such as the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation2 (2002) and the Millennium Declaration (UN, 2000). At the national level, biocultural diversity has been incorporated into: The Biological Diversity Act of India (NBA, 2002); The Philippines Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 19973; and, an act passed in the Republic of Panama.

Table 2: Key elements of biocultural diversity conservation

Summarised and compiled from Maffi and Woodley (2010)

19 Over the last decade, biocultural diversity has also become a prominent and explicit theme and program area for many UN Programs, NGOs and government agencies, as well as in academic research programs. Specific examples of the use of biocultural diversity in substantive projects and programmes include inter alia: • UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, devoted its 7th Session in 2008 to the Theme ‘Climate change, bio-cultural diversity and livelihoods: the stewardship role of Indigenous Peoples and new challenges’4 • International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) program area, Biocultural Heritage: Protecting Interlinked Systems5; • IUCN used bio-cultural diversity and Indigenous Peoples as a specific theme at the 4th World Conservation Congress 20086: • CEESP bases the inter-relationship between biological and cultural diversity in all aspects of its work, and uses the term biocultural diversity in its objectives, approaches and policy papers7; • International Society of Ethnobiology – An Alliance for Biocultural Diversity uses the term biocultural heritage throughout their Code of Ethics8;

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 51

• Terralingua – Unity in Biocultural Diversity9 has been promoting linguistic dimension of biocultural diversity through many projects and programs, including the Terralingua Biocultural Diversity Education Initiative10; • Natural Justice – Lawyers for Communities and Environment published in 2011, Towards a People’s History of the Law: Biocultural Jurisprudence and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (Kabir Bavikatte and Daniel F. Robinson)11; and, • Biocultural Diversity Learning Network uses the Assling Accord to articulate a set of guidelines for guardians of biocultural diversity and their allies to acquire and develop appropriate tools of research and teaching12.

20 In the mid-2000s, IIED and Indigenous NGOs (ANDES, Peru and Call of the Earth/ Llamado de la Tierra) began working on the concept of ‘collective biocultural heritage’ (Swiderska & Argumedo, 2006). They define collective biocultural heritage as:

21 Knowledge, innovations and practices of Indigenous and local communities which are collectively held and inextricably linked to traditional resources and territories, local economies, and the diversity of genes, varieties, species and ecosystems, cultural and spiritual values, and customary laws shaped within the socio-ecological context of communities (Swiderska, 2006, p.3; Argumedo et al., 2011). The concept emerged in part as an attempt to offer a holistic and comprehensive approach for the protection of Indigenous knowledge. ‘Collective biocultural heritage’ entered the international arena as part of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (Swiderka & Argumedo, 2006; Mead, 2005). Biocultural heritage draws particularly on experiences and thinking that emerged through collaborative work with Quechua farmers, as well as the work of the late Dr. Darrell Posey, and the ‘guidelines for the protection of Indigenous heritage’ developed by Erica Daes of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations (Swiderska & Argumedo, 2006).

22 The concept of ‘collective biocultural heritage’ has been particularly influential in the work of IIED and Natural Justice. A focus of their activities has been establishing biocultural protocols as sui generis systems for protecting and using biocultural resources. The most frequently cited example of their work is related to the establishment of El Parque de las Papas (the Potato Park) in Peru as an ‘Indigenous Bio- cultural Heritage Area’ (Pimbert, 2007; Swiderska, 2006; Argumedo & Pimbert, 2008; Argumedo & Stenner, 2008).

Accomplishment and challenges

23 Scholarship and action regarding biocultural diversity has made a significant contribution to creating an alternative discourse for development in rural indigenous and local communities that has influenced both the policy and practice of national and international organizations. In particular, it shifted mainstream western-based conservation policy and practice by providing credible evidence of the importance of Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge in the preservation of the environment and biological diversity. It has also highlighted that development should be defined locally and, rather than emphasizing economic indicators, should be rooted in, and strengthen, the rights, knowledges, languages, identities, and resources of local and Indigenous Peoples. Maffi (2010, p.3) states that the proliferation of biocultural diversity conservation projects (c.f. Maffi & Woodley, 2010) illustrates that this is an imperative whose time has come.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 52

24 Along with a focus on conservation and development, the discourse of biocultural diversity also supports the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities and their efforts to achieve those rights and wider goals. Initiatives related to biocultural heritage have been particularly important in establishing new mechanisms, such as community biocultural protocols, for the protection of Indigenous knowledge and resources.13 Drawing on the growing recognition of local and Indigenous Peoples rights, as expressed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN, 2007), the CBD (Article 8j and associated Articles)14, and other international agreements, the human rights argument for the conservation of biocultural diversity rests on the right of local and Indigenous Peoples to exist as distinct social groups.15 Maffi (2005), for example, argues that changes in international human rights standards are promoting “a new vision in which the protection of human rights (both individual and collective) is intimately connected to the affirmation of human responsibilities toward and stewardship over humanity’s heritage in nature and culture” (p.612).

25 In spite of these accomplishments, it is important to realize that biocultural diversity conservation is not an Indigenous concept, but rather one that has been developed by scholars interested in understanding the linkages between nature and culture. Therefore to move forward in a joint effort of celebrating biocultural diversity and heritage, the central question becomes how to effectively respond to and work with Indigenous Peoples proposals and initiatives within the larger context of conservation and development models that are western-based. Supporting and advancing the self- determination and rights of Indigenous and local people are now the guiding forces around which collaborative initiatives and alliances must be oriented and structured.

26 A continuing challenge for the field of biocultural diversity will be ensuring that Indigenous Peoples obtain “recognition of their rights to the resources found on their land and territories on which they depend on for their economic, spiritual, cultural, and physical well-being” (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2009, para. 179) and as captured by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN, 2007) and reiterated again in the Indigenous Peoples International Declaration on Self-Determination and Sustainable Development. The growing privatisation of knowledge and resources adds a new dimension to the challenges of advocating for and securing such rights. However, this is an area that has been well developed and is being moved forward by Indigenous Peoples themselves (Swiderska, 2006; Pimbert, 2007; Mead, 2005). One of the longer-term goals of Indigenous Peoples in obtaining such rights has been to gain control over their lands, territories and resources in order to ensure development proceeds according to their own values and sustains their identities. In the field of biocultural diversity, IIED, IUCN CEESP and Natural Justice have suggested that biocultural products and services developed from biocultural heritage can provide an option for self-determination and endogenous development by linking economic opportunities with valued cultural practices and associated skills. Dutfield (2011) provides a review of legal instruments to support such a process.

27 Cocks (2010) has also suggested that the field of biocultural diversity needs to consider how self-determination can also produce new and novel combinations of biocultural values, practices, and knowledge that can contribute to endogenous development trajectories. The challenge for rural indigenous and local communities is to engage in processes of social change and “intercultural hybridisation” on their own terms and

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 53

with the power to achieve desired outcomes (ibid., p.72). This will include, when desired, the time to remember, and memorialize, the trauma and loss experienced through processes of colonization and globalization. It will also require the rights and policies necessary to ensure that communities can make decisions about their territories, education, health and development.

28 The goals of biocultural diversity conservation and Indigenous Peoples’ rights to preserve and protect their lands, territories and natural resources should allow for innovative processes and alliances founded on Indigenous Peoples’ self-determination. Rural indigenous and local communities share similar goals in sustaining their biocultural heritage. One of the remaining challenges is to conceptualize the role of biocultural heritage in supporting the adaptive capacity of communities for sustainable development. A field that may offer new thinking to support such aspirations is “design thinking”, which empowers the creativity of individuals and collectives to confront systemic marginalization and imagine new futures (Brown, 2009). We now turn to consider an approach for endogenous innovation that we term “biocultural design” and which builds upon the adaptive potential of biocultural heritage.

Biocultural design

29 The basic premise of biocultural design is that people are creative agents with knowledge, values and skills that allow them to shape their everyday lives (Davidson- Hunt, 2006; Davidson-Hunt & Berkes, 2003; Sen, 1999). Our goal in this section is to consider the creative potential of biocultural heritage as a source of innovation for sustainable development in rural indigenous and local communities. To do so, we draw inspiration from design thinkers working in the area of co-design and from the work of Sen (1999), a key thinker in human-centred approaches to development. While Sen’s framework is broad, we limit our discussion to its contribution to innovation and the development of new products and services for endogenous development. We propose biocultural design to be an intentional, collective and collaborative process by which individuals with a diversity of knowledge and skill sets engage in a creative process of designing products and/or services. The goal is for communities to create and deploy solutions to contemporary challenges that reflect their desires, values and aspirations.

30 What follows is conceptual in nature. We do not suggest that it is a process that all communities would find useful in all situations. However, it could provide a useful starting point for those communities already engaged in pursuing self-determination and sustainable economic development. We see particular application for biocultural design in situations were communities are looking to build new economic development opportunities that both reflect cultural values and use biocultural heritage in new ways - including the development of commercial products or services. Numerous case studies and policy statements, as presented in the introduction, reflect how Indigenous Peoples, and local communities, are working on their own terms to build futures for their communities through the creation of economic opportunities. However, the process of identifying what economic opportunities are desirable and appropriate and under what terms is often a complex and difficult one. We see biocultural design as a process that may help communities engage in such conversations and create innovative ways to meet their context-specific needs and challenges.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 54

Design Influences

31 Design is the process by which an idea is conceived and then given form, structure and function. Design is also a practice of inquiry and action that includes both creativity in the conception of new ideas and innovation in making such ideas visible in everyday life (Buchanan, 2001). The field of design has been dominated by physical design, such as architectural or interior design, engineering design, graphic design, urban design, information systems design, software design and fashion design. However, the approach can also be applied to the design of organizations, institutions and social systems (Nelson & Stolterman, 2002) as well as rural regions (Thorback, 2012).

32 When design professions emerged during the 20th century, they tended to assume a linear and knowable world whose problems could be solved through scientific knowledge applied by professionals. In the 1980s, a general crisis in confidence in expert knowledge and the resultant demand for citizen involvement in the design and implementation of solutions to problems facing society began to shape design. Nelson and Stolterman (2002) proposed that the relationship between designers and clients should be one that is balanced but also one in which there is creative tension. In this approach, the emphasis is not on an individual designer, as is common in design fields like fashion, but on the composition of a design team that brings their collective knowledge, values and skills to bear on a particular design challenge, or ‘brief’16, through a creative process of collaboration that leads to an innovation (e.g. physical product, technology, institutional arrangement, organizational procedure) as indicated by the design brief. Design aims to create a particular, working solution using available capital (financial, social, ecological, human) and time.

33 Brown (2009) proposes that design is the outcome of a process of divergent thinking that considers the full range of relevant ideas related to the brief and then progressively refines them through convergent thinking. This moves through phases of “inspiration, the problem or opportunity that motivates the search for solutions; ideation, the process of generating, developing and testing ideas; and, implementation, the path that leads from the project room to the market” (p.16). Brown (ibid., p.18) suggests that this process occurs through successive loops of these phases and is refined through attention to the constraints of desirability, feasibility and viability. He defines desirability as “what makes sense to people and for people”, feasibility as “what is functionally possible within the foreseeable future”, and viability as “what is likely to become part of a sustainable business model.” As Nelson and Stolterman (2002) suggest, design is a process that results in a ‘composition’. A composition “pulls a variety of elements into relationship with one another, forming a functional assembly that can serve the purposes, and intentions, of diverse populations of human beings” (p.22). The working solutions that result from the design process are not conceived of as ultimate, permanent solutions. Rather they are recognized as the best solution the design team could produce for the here and now, which will need to be reassessed, revised and redesigned according to changing variables underlying the design challenge, triggering new processes of inspiration, ideation and implementation.

34 Nelson and Stolterman (2002) and Brown (2009) are clear that design is a way of being and doing that brings together networks of materials and people into an intentional exercise of creative agency to respond to the changing environments that generate design challenges. Design practice, however, has overwhelmingly concentrated on

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 55

generating incremental change in the aesthetic of consumer goods for high consumption markets as a component of a tight chain of design, production, marketing and consumption (Melles et al., 2011). The ethical implications of design, Oosterlaken (2009) admonishes, have long been sidelined within the culture of design practice. In the face of mounting global environmental and social concerns, a growing number of voices are calling for a shift in the culture of design from ‘designing for the market’ to ‘designing for society’ (Margolin, 2007; Oosterlaken, 2009; Thomas, 2006). Some new thinking in design has invoked Sen (1999) to consider how design is not just about producing solutions but about enhancing the capabilities and functionings of people within diverse societies through a process of co-design (Melles et al., 2011; Oosterlaken, 2009).

Borrowing from Sen – capabilities, functionings and agencies

35 A key insight from Sen’s writings on human-centred development is that improvements in life chances and quality of life should be recognized and prioritized both as the aim and as a necessary means of development. Sen (1999) defines development as, “a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy” (p.3) and states that real freedom occurs through a process of enhancing the positive freedoms, or capabilities, of people to “lead the kind of lives they have reason to value” (p.10)17. A set of capabilities expresses the range of substantive freedoms, or life of opportunities, held by an individual.

36 Essential to the capability approach to development is the recognition that individuals, families and communities are embedded in contexts constituted by social and material relationships (Alkire & Deneulin, 2009; Oosterlaken, 2011). A capability approach thereby expressly “draws attention to the existence of immense human diversity” (Oosterlaken, 2009, p.98). For this reason, Sen does not propose a definitive set of capabilities (Oosterlaken, 2009). Rather, he suggests domains of instrumental freedom – political freedoms, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees, and, protective security – that are essential to creating capability-rich societies. In other work, Sen (1998; 2000; 2004) addresses the role of culture in informing capabilities. He argues that values, knowledge, and practices associated with cultural traditions are instrumental, evaluative and constitutive assets that inform capabilities and functionings. Within a capability approach, capabilities (that which you could be being and doing) are distinct from functionings (that which you are being and doing in practice). Capabilities denote the full range of possibilities an individual holds, while functionings are the actual life choices made by that individual – for example, working, resting, being literate, being healthy, being able to travel, and being confident (Oosterlaken, 2009; Sen, 1999). As functionings unfold, new ranges of capabilities come into view.

37 Oosterlaken (2009) is one of the first scholars to explicitly bring Sen’s capability approach into the field of design. Central to both design and the capability approach is the idea of an individual as starting point, seen as culturally endowed beings who act and create as part of complex social networks. A capabilities approach suggests that all humans have capabilities that become functionings through an exercise of their agency guided by cultural values. Capabilities are things, such as resources, assets or capitals that are culturally and socially constructed. For example, if a person does not perceive

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 56

the utility of a thing, or believes it is taboo to use a thing, then it does not fall into the set of possible resources, assets or capitals of which they can make use. While Oosterlaken (ibid.) suggests that the role of design is to increase the set of capabilities available to human agents, Sen’s work has noted that it is in the exercise of agency, in a specific time and place, in order to achieve a particular functioning, that individuals and societies change the set of capabilities available to them for future action. This is essential to Sen’s proposal, as the exercise of agency is decisive in determining one’s activities and thereby the building of one’s own capabilities and subsequent agency.

38 To be consistent with a capability approach, the goal of design would be to support people as they draw upon their capabilities and undertake actions to achieve specific functionings.

Biocultural designing – crafting compositions of co-existence

39 Central to recent conceptual framings of biocultural diversity is that ways of being and doing should allow for our co-existence with ‘the other’, who may be human or another living or spiritual being, while building upon and enhancing diversity. The concept of biocultural heritage clearly moves away from biocultural diversity as an index and shifts the focus to the materials of biological diversity interacting with the knowledge, practices and values of a society as they craft sustainable livelihoods. In Figure 2, we provide a graphic to focus attention on biocultural design as an intentional process of creating compositions of coexistence through the use and guidance of biocultural heritage. In design, composition is a central concept that captures the process and outcome of bringing together available elements in such a way that they produce a functional assembly, be it a product, service or other innovation. In other words, while design brings to the biocultural heritage framework a focus on innovation, the design process itself is given a new set of materials to work with in creating solutions that foster co-existence through a collaborative process with local peoples. The goal is to provide an approach to innovation that is rooted in biocultural heritage and to provide support to local peoples as they face livelihood challenges.

Figure 2. Bringing the field of biocultural diversity together with the practice of design.

40 In creating compositions of co-existence through a collaborative design process, people will draw upon their biocultural heritage and have the opportunity to learn about novel ideas and technologies from other participants. In Figure 3 we suggest that each challenge and design brief will draw upon biocultural heritage and non-endogenous, novel elements to varying degrees. What is required to respond to any given challenge and the ongoing need to co-exist with others requires a process of constructive dialogue in order to generate innovations, in the form of products or services, which reflect the contemporary needs, values and aspirations of a group of people.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 57

Figure 3. Biocultural designs results in compositions of co-existence that include varying proportional contributions of novel and biocultural heritage elements to generate innovation

Biocultural Designing

41 Biocultural designing is a multi-party process of inspiration, ideation and implementation (Figure 4). It begins with the formulation of a design brief and bringing together a design team (see Section 3.3.2). While the design team is responsible for leading the process, it does so by working with potential producers/providers of a product or service and the potential consumers. As Brown (2009, pp.177-178) suggests, design has begun to reflect a new and participatory social contract in which people expect to participate in a two-way conversation with product or service providers and to interact with the provider beyond the initial transaction. The line between product and service is also increasingly blurred. People have moved from simply demanding functional performance from products and services to demanding satisfying experience during their use of them. The outcome of a design process thus facilitates the being and doing of individuals who are part of complex systems and networks made up of materials, producers and consumers bound together through social relations and exchanges. Such networks will utilize their capabilities to create innovative compositions of co-existence and, through an iterative process, create products or services that enhance their ways of being and doing (capabilities). As with much design practice, a product or service is the functional outcome; however, equally important in biocultural designing is that the people most affected are active participants in the creation of products and services that can positively contribute to their livelihoods.

42 Members of a design team, producers and consumers are all part of a network of beneficiaries associated with the design process. We use the term ‘beneficiaries’ rather than alternatives such as ‘stakeholders’ in order to emphasis the orientation of biocultural design towards the generation of change, or innovation, that is deemed positive by those most effected. Similar to the design team members, the producers/ providers and consumers will be involved in a process of creating compositions of co- existence that result in a specific functioning that they will produce/provide or consume. However, their involvement will not end with the creation of a product or service, but will continue as it becomes part of their experience of the world through new ways of being and doing as well as through enhanced capabilities that open up new opportunities.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 58

Figure 4. Biocultural design process.

43 At the start of a design process, divergent thinking is utilised to consider the full range of biocultural heritage as a set of capabilities that provides elements to create compositions (Brown, 2009, p.14). At this point, the focus is on thinking broadly to allow innovative compositions to emerge, quickly followed by conversations with producers/providers and consumers. Such conversations will reveal gaps in the team’s knowledge regarding biocultural capabilities and other perspectives on compositions created by the team. As suggested in Figure 4 this iterative sequence is repeated to deepen the knowledge of biocultural capabilities essential to the design process and to create compositions in the form of potential products or services through the creative input and perspectives of the whole network of beneficiaries.

44 As the process proceeds, thinking will become increasingly convergent as prototypes of products and services are developed and evaluated by the network of beneficiaries and through the lenses of viability, feasibility and desirability. Through this process of convergent thinking, the process will move from the set of biocultural capabilities to a narrower focus on the products or services that enhance a particular, desired functioning. The cycle ends with the creation and operationalization of a functional outcome (product or service) generated through the biocultural design process. This outcome reflects the specific product or service output of the process as well as the integration of that output in the everyday life of producers and consumers.

Biocultural Design Team Composition

45 Critical to biocultural designing is the formation of a biocultural design team. Such teams create networks of people who hold relevant knowledge for the particular design challenge and are similar to concepts such as place-based learning and communities of practice (Davidson-Hunt & O’Flaherty, 2007; Robson et al., 2009; Wenger et al., 2002). As with any team, a leader is needed, but in biocultural design it is important to establish a

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 59

co-leadership arrangement between, for example, a community enterprise/ organization and the design firm contracted by the enterprise/organization.

46 One of the advantages of design is that a plurality of knowledge enhances the creative process of the team and people with diverse skills can be included from a wide range of knowledge traditions. A botanist from a university and a plant harvester from the community are equally valid as team members and will enrich the capabilities set of the design process. Biocultural design teams should reflect the network of beneficiaries and, similar to the partnership of team leaders, should bring biocultural heritage together with novel elements to generate innovation. Each participant brings capabilities, agency and values to the biocultural design process. The success of a biocultural designer will rest on their ability to create the partnerships and networks necessary to create compositions of co-existence that can lead to particular products or services that meet a group’s aspirations for ways of being and doing both now and in the future.

Guiding Coordinates for biocultural designing

47 Designing is more akin to wayfinding through unknown territory than it is to following a previously made path. Reflecting upon ways in which design can be used, Melles et al. (2011) propose that ethics should guide practice. Similarly, the practice of biocultural designing also requires guiding coordinates to help those involved find their way, comparable to how stars help chart direction when terrain does not provide fixed reference points.

48 In Table 3 we provide a list of examples of guiding coordinates that we believe are central and distinguishing features of biocultural design. Communities undertaking biocultural design processes may find our list relevant, but may also choose to modify and refine it to reflect their context and perspectives. While we have provided a preliminary sketch of the terrain that could provide a new approach for sustainable development rooted in identity, values, territories and biodiversity, the details can only be filled in through practice and specific projects. Rather than create a rigid guidebook, we feel it is best at this point in time to simply point out new directions and signposts that will facilitate creative processes of intentional and collaborative problem solving relevant to one’s own journey through challenging and dynamic environments.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 60

Table 3. Guiding Coordinates of Biocultural Design

Design Team Composition: Does it provide balance between knowledgeable community members and complimentary expertise? Participation: How will community members / users of product or service be involved in the design process? Design Team Operational Principles: Have roles and responsibilities held by members of the design team been defined, and do the team’s operational principles consider self-reflexivity, equity, respect and compromise, as part of strengthening the foundations of collaborative design? Political and Institutional Support: Do political leaders and relevant institutional actors support the biocultural design approach, and has the need for checks and balances been incorporated into protocols and agreements (where applicable)? Cultural Identity: Is the design process guided by local cultural values / traditions / identity? How will the design process be sensitive to language (including technical jargon) and allow linguistic difference to guide the process? Local Materials: How will local resources / capacities contribute to the design process? Foundation and Building Blocks: Is there a clear understanding of the existing capabilities, capitals and rights amongst the design team, and their links to local institutions as well as their ability to be sustained over the long-term? Principle of Seven Generations: Has the distribution of benefits, harms and responsibilities been considered over the long term, through the lenses of desirability, feasibility and viability? Subsidiarity Principle: Has the role that can be played by community organizations (enterprises, institutions) been considered, including reflection on any aims and objectives related to self- determination? Network of Beneficiaries: Has the distributional effects of networks of beneficiaries (value chains) been assessed over time, including the role of (potential) partners? Cultures of Innovation Does the design process lead to a culture of innovation that builds upon itself over time?

49 What is important to note about such coordinates is that they are there to be drawn upon, but their salience, or visibility, may change depending upon one’s location in a design journey. Some may be of vital importance during one stage, fade away for a while, but then come back at a later point. Furthermore, one’s position in relation to a guiding coordinate changes throughout the journey and may influence choices made over the course of that journey in different ways at different times. Such coordinates

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 61

do not provide answers but rather act as queries to be considered and reflected upon as a design team works its way toward particular products or services that meet the aspiration of the network of beneficiaries.

Conclusions – From biocultural diversity to biocultural design

50 Indigenous and local peoples face pressures from many quarters. Often these pressures are contradictory and generate persistent tensions within communities. For example, demands for employment and economic opportunity generation are sometimes found to be at odds with the conservation of biocultural heritage. For this reason, many Indigenous and local peoples are advocating for and actualizing processes of endogenous development that squarely centre attention on the terms by which tensions are negotiated and innovative solutions are pursued (c.f. Berkes & Davidson- Hunt, 2007; Davidson-Hunt & Turner, 2012; Davidson-Hunt & Berkes, 2010). In this paper, we have introduced the idea of biocultural design as an approach to innovation that can support the endogenous development efforts of rural indigenous and local communities. Through intentional engagement in processes of design related to a particular need or problem, biocultural design teams can work to bring together biocultural heritage and novel or exogenous elements to create innovative products or services that reflect the needs, values and aspirations of communities. In doing so, biocultural design can support the creation and enactment of new compositions of co- existence that work to extend the real freedoms of individuals and groups of people.

51 Biocultural design draws upon the work undertaken to build awareness about biocultural diversity and efforts to position biocultural heritage as an important component for endogenous approaches to development. Much of this work has been undertaken by individuals and institutions associated with CEESP/IUCN. The use of biocultural diversity as an index has made a notable impact within a relatively short time. It has influenced international, national and local discourses, policies and practices by raising the profile of Indigenous and local peoples significant contributions to the creation, preservation and perpetuation of the rich diversity of life on Earth. Biocultural heritage has recognized and supported the rights of rural indigenous Peoples and local communities to control their own heritage as a means to achieve sustainable livelihoods and self-determination. In taking that next step, biocultural design offers an approach to support innovation within the framing of biocultural heritage and the means to include a plurality of knowledges as IUCN seeks nature-based solutions to global challenges in the years to come.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 62

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Alkire, S. & S. Deneulin (2009). The human development and capability approach. In: Deneulin, S. & L. Shahani (Eds.) An Introduction to Human Development and Capability Approach, pp.22-48. London: Earthscan.

Argumedo, A. & M. Pimbert (2008). Protecting Farmers’ Rights with Indigenous Biocultural Heritage Territories: The Experience of the Potato Park. [No city given]: IIED/Asociacion ANDES. Available at: http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G03072.pdf.

Argumedo, A. & T. Stenner (2008). Association ANDES: Conserving Indigenous Biocultural Heritage in Peru. [No city given]: IIED. Available at: http://pubs.iied.org/14567IIED.html.

Argumedo, A. et al. (2011). Implementing farmers’ rights under the FAO International Treaty on PGRFA: The need for a broad approach based on biocultural heritage. Paper prepared for the Fourth Governing Body of the International Treaty on PGRFA, Bali 14-18 March 2011. Available at: http:// cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/farmers_rights_paper_bali_draft5.pdf.

Bargh, M. (2012, in press). Rethinking and re-shaping indigenous economies: Māori geothermal energy. J. Enterp. Communities 6(3).

Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred Ecology. Third Edition. New York: Routledge.

Berkes, F. & I.J. Davidson-Hunt (2007). Communities and social enterprises in an age of globalization. J. Enterp. Communities 1(3): 209-221.

Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: Harper Collins.

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Des. Issues 8(2): 5-21.

Buchanan, R. (2001). Human dignity and human rights: thoughts on the principles of human- centered design. Des. Issues 17: 35-39.

Cocks, M. (2010). What is biocultural diversity? A theoretical review. In: Bates, D.G. & J. Tucker (Eds.) Human Ecology: Contemporary Research and Practice, pp.67-77. Boston: Springer.

Coeckelbergh, M. (2011). Human development or human enhancement? A methodological reflection on capabilities and the evaluation of information technologies. Ethics Infor. Tech. 13: 81-92.

Davidson-Hunt, I.J. (2006). Adaptive learning networks: Developing resource management knowledge through social learning forums. Hum. Ecol. 34(4):593-614.

Davidson-Hunt, I.J. & F. Berkes. (2003). Nature and society through the lens of resilience: toward a human-in-ecosystem perspective. In: Berkes, F., J. Colding &C. Folke (Eds.) Navigating Social- Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change, pp.53-82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davidson-Hunt, I.J. & F. Berkes (2010). Innovating through commons use: community-based enterprises. Int. J. Commons 4(1): editorial.

Davidson-Hunt, I.J. & M. O’Flaherty (2007). Researchers, indigenous peoples, and place-based learning communities. Soc. Nat. Res. 20:291-305.

Davidon-Hunt, I.J. & K.L. Turner (2012, in press). Indigenous communities, the bioeconomy and natural resource development. J. Enterp. Communities 6(3).

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 63

Dutfield, G. (2011). Food, biological diversity and intellectual property: The role of the International Union for the protection of new varieties of plants (UPOV). Global Economic Issue Publicationss: Intellectual Property Issues Paper No. 9. Geneva/New York: Quaker United Nations Office.

Gibson-Graham, J.K. & G. Roelvink (2010). An economic ethics for theanthropocene. Antipode 41(1): 320-346.

Gorenflo, L.J., S. Romaine, R.A. Mittermeier & K. Walker-Painemilla (2012). Co-occurrence of linguistic and biological diversity in biodiversity hotspots and high biodiversity wilderness areas. PNAS 109(21):8032-8037.

Harmon, D. (1996). Losing species, losing languages: connections between biological and linguistic diversity. Southwest J. Linguistics 15:89–108.

Hunn, E. (2007). Ethnobiology in four phases. J. Ethnobio. 27(1): 1-10.

Hunn, E. (2008). A Zapotec natural history: Trees, herbs, and flowers, birds, beasts and bugs in the life of San Juan Gbëë. Tuscon: The University of Arizona Press.

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2009). Indigenous and Tribal Peoples' Rights Over Their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources. OEA/Ser.L/V/II,

Doc. 56/09, 30 December 2009. Washington, D.C.. Available from http://cidh.org/countryrep/ Indigenous-Lands09/TOC.htm

IUCN [International Union for Conservation of Nature] (2012). The IUCN programme 2013-16, third draft, revised January 2012. Gland: IUCN.

Kroeber, A.L. (1963[1939]). Cultural and natural areas of native North America. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Originally published in Calif. Publ. Am. Archaeol. Ethnol. 38).

Maffi, L. (2001). On biocultural diversity: Linking language, knowledge, and the environment. Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press.

Maffi, L. (2005). Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Ann. Rev. Anth. 29: 599-617.

Maffi, L. (2010). What is biocultural diversity? In: Maffi, L. & E. Woodley (Eds.) Biocultural Diversity Conservation: A Global Source Book, pp.3-11. Washington: Earthscan.

Maffi, L. & E. Woodley (2010). Biocultural Diversity Conservation: A Global Sourcebook. Washington: Earthscan.

Maffi, L. & E. Woodley (2010a). Filling the gaps nd connecting the dots: Recommendations and next steps. In: Maffi, L. & E. Woodley (Eds.) Biocultural Diversity Conservation: A Global Source Book, pp.175-189. Washington: Earthscan.

Margolin, V. (2007). Design for development: towards a history. Des. Stud. 28: 111-115.

Mead, A.T.P. (2005). Emerging issues in Maori traditional knowledge, can these be addressed by UN agencies? International workshop on traditional knowledge, Panama City, 21-23 September 2005, Department of economic and social affairs. PFII/2005/WS.TJ/14. United Nations.

Melles, G., Z. Howard & S. Thompson-Whiteside (2011). Teaching design thinking: Expanding horizons in design education. Procedia - Social and Behav. Sci. 31:162 -166.

Mitchell, N., M. Rössler & P.-M. Tricaud (2009). Cultural landscapes: A handbook for conservation and management. World Heritage Series No. 26. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Center. Available from: http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/588

Myers, N. et al. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 64

NBA [National Biodiversity Authority] (2002). The Biological Diversity Act, 2002. No.18 of 2003. NBA, An Autonomous and Statutory Body of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.

Nelson, H.G. & E. Stolterman (2002). The Design Way : Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World: Foundations and Fundamentals of Design Competence. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.

Oosterlaken, I. (2009). Design for development: a capability approach. Des. Issues 25(4): 91-102.

Oosterlaken, I. (2011). Inserting technology in the relational ontology of Sen’s capability approach. J. Hum. Dev. and Capab. 12(3): 425-432.

Pimbert, M. (2007). Transforming knowledge and ways of knowing for food sovereignty and bio- cultural diversity. In: Haverkort, B. & S. Rist (Eds). Endogenous Development and Bio-cultural Diversity, pp.82-100. Leusden: Compas/CDE.

Posey D.A., J. Frechione, J. Eddins & L.F. da Silva (1984). Ethnoecology as applied anthropology in Amazonian development. Hum. Organ. 43(2): 95-107.

Robson, J.P. et al. (2009). Building communities of learning: Indigenous ways of knowing in contemporary natural resources and environmental management. J. Royal Soc. New Zeal. 39: 173-177.

Rössler, M. (2003). Linking nature and culture: World Heritage Cultural Landscapes. In: Cultural landscapes: The challenges of conservation, pp.10-15. Workshop in Ferrara, Italy, 11-12 November 2002.World Heritage Papers No.7. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Rössler, M. (2006) World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: A UNESCO flagship programme 1992-2006. Landscape Res. 31(4): 333-353.

Sauer, C.O. (1956). The agency of man on the earth. In: Thomas, W.L. (Ed.) Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth, pp.49-69. University of Chicago Press.

Sen, A. (1998). La cultura como base del desarrollo contemporáneo. [Culture as a basis for contemporary

F0 development.] Diálogos UNESCO. Revista Voces n B0 25. [UNESCO dialogues. Voices Magazine No.25.] Universidad de Rio Cuarto. Available at: http://www.unrc.edu.ar/publicar/25/dos.html.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom.New York: Random House.

Sen, A. (2000). Culture and Development. Paper presented at World Bank Tokyo Meeting, 13 December 2000. Available at: http://www.pyinnya.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/culture- and-development.pdf.

Sen, A. (2004). How does culture matter? In: Rao, V. & M. Walton (Eds.) Culture and Public Action, pp.37-58. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Soulé, M.E. (1985). What is conservation biology?BioScience 35: 727-734.

Sutherland, W.J. (2003). Parallel extinction risk and global distribution of languages and species. Nature 423: 276-279.

Steward, J. (1955). Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Swiderska, K. (2006). Protecting Traditional Knowledge: A framework based on customary laws and bio- cultural heritage sustainable agriculture, biodiversity and livelihoods programme. IIED Paper for the International Conference on Endogenous Development and Bio- Cultural Diversity, 3-5 October 2006, Geneva.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 65

Swiderska, K. & Argumedo, A. (2006). Towards a holistic approach to indigenous knowledge protection: UN activities, “Collective bio-cultures heritage” and the UNPFII.Fifth Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 15–26 May 2006, New York.

Thomas, A. (2006). Design, poverty, and sustainable development. Des. Issues 22(4): 54-65.

Thorbeck, D. (2012). Rural Design: A New Design Discipline. New York: Routledge.

UN (2000). Millennium Declaration. General Assembly Resolution A/55/L.2, 8th plenary meeting, 8 September 2000. Available at: http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm/

UN (2007). Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, General Assembly Resolution 61/295, 107th plenary meeting, UN Doc. A/RES/61295, 13 September, 2007.

Wenger, E., R.A. McDermot & W. Snyder (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge . Harvard Business School Publishing.

Wiggins, A. (1993). Indian rights and the environment. Yale Journal of International Law 18: 345-354.

Woodley, E. (2010). Lessons learned from the projects. In: Maffi, L. & E. Woodley (Eds.) Biocultural Diversity Conservation: A Global Source Book, pp.155-173. Washington: Earthscan Publications.

NOTES

1. http://www.globaldiversity.org.uk/ 2. Formulated by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division of Sustainable Development; available from http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/ English/POI_PD.htm and http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/ POIToc.htm respectively. 3. Available from http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=179605 4. http://social.un.org/index/IndigenousPeoples/UNPFIISessions/Seventh.aspx 5. http://biocultural.iied.org/ 6. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/bcd_ip_report_low_res.pdf 7. http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/ceesp/ceesp_about/ 8. http://ethnobiology.net/ 9. http://www.terralingua.org/ 10. http://www.terralingua.org/bcdeducation/ 11. http://www.lead-journal.org/content/11035.pdf 12. http://www.bdln.net/node/1092 13. Community Protocols - http://www.community-protocols.org/ 14. See http://www.cbd.int/convention/text/ 15. A comprehensive overview of multilateral agency work up to 2006 related to Indigenous knowledge protection is presented by Swiderska and Argumedo (2006). 16. A design brief is a concise document establishing the aim and boundaries of a design project (Brown, 2009). 17. Nussbaum has also contributed to development of the capabilities approach to development (Coecklbergh, 2011). Her work, however, is distinguished from Sen’s by a greater focus on skills and personality traits (Oosterlaken, 2009).

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 66

RÉSUMÉS

New approaches for sustainable development in rural indigenous and local communities have emerged that are rooted in their distinct cultural identities and claims for greater control over land, development and identity. One such approach is that of biocultural heritage, which emerged out of work to document biocultural diversity undertaken in part by members of the Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). CEESP members have developed this work over the past twenty-five years, both through work with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and other policy forums, but also through the operationalization of rural development policies and programs. One area that has not been fully examined, however, is the contribution of biocultural heritage to local processes of innovation that can explicitly meet communities’ contemporary needs and objectives. This paper presents a new approach called ‘biocultural design’ and seeks to open a conversation about how endogenous innovation could support sustainable development in rural indigenous and local communities. By introducing design thinking to the field of biocultural heritage conservation, biocultural design offers a process for indigenous and local communities to pursue aspirations of self-determination and endogenous development through product/ service innovation. It is an approach that may enhance communities’ adaptive capacity in responding to dynamic and changing environments and IUCN’s goal to deploy nature-based solutions to global challenges in the next quadrennial period.

INDEX

Keywords : biocultural design, biocultural diversity, biocultural heritage, capability approach, endogenous development, sustainable rural development

AUTEURS

IAIN J. DAVIDSON-HUNT Vice-Chair, North America, IUCN CEESP (CAN), Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba (CAN), 307 Sinnott Bldg., 70 Dysart Rd., Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2M6. E-mail: [email protected]

KATHERINE L. TURNER Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba (CAN)

AROHA TE PAREAKE MEAD Chair, IUCN CEESP & Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)

JUANITA CABRERA-LOPEZ Co-Chair, IUCN CEESP, TGER, (Guatemala and US)

RICHARD BOLTON Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba (CAN)

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 67

C. JULIÁN IDROBO Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba (CAN)

INNA MIRETSKI Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba (CAN)

ALLI MORRISON Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba (CAN)

JAMES P. ROBSON Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba (CAN)

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 68

Presentation: IUCN Commission on Environmental Law Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

NOTE DE L’ÉDITEUR

Authors: Louisa Denier and Françoise Burhenne-Guilmin

NOTE DE L'AUTEUR

Commission chair : Sheila Abed, E-mail: [email protected] CEL Liaison Officer: Maria Zanotti, Calle Nicanor Torales N° 150 c, Mcal. Lopez, Asuncion, Paraguay

About us

1 The IUCN Commission on Environmental Law (CEL) consists of an extensive volunteer network of over 900 environmental law experts from more than 114 countries. CEL is divided into Specialist Groups on areas such as Armed Conflict and the Environment, Energy Law and Climate Change, Enforcement and Compliance, Ethics, Oceans, Coastal and Coral Reefs, Sustainable Use of Soil, Water and Wetlands and Indigenous Peoples & Human Rights. Together with the Environmental Law Centre (ELC), CEL makes up the IUCN´s Environmental Law Programme (ELP).

2 The ELP is an integrated programme of activities that assists decision-makers with information, legal analysis, advisory services, legislative drafting, mentoring and capacity building at national, regional and global levels. The Programme also provides the opportunity and a forum for governments, non-governmental organisations and others to network and to share information and discuss ideas. The mission of the ELP is to advance environmental law through the development of legal concepts and instruments, and to facilitate the use of environmental law as a tool to influence,

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 69

encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable.

Background and mission

3 The present-day Commission on Environmental Law began in committee form in 1960 by decision of the Seventh IUCN General Assembly (the overall governing body of all members of IUCN). The Assembly decision, in the form of a resolution, gives insight into the motivation for the committee's creation:

4 "Whereas there is a need for more mutual contact between the Union and the personnel of governments and parliaments who are especially concerned with the conservation of nature and natural resources, and whereas there is a need for more contact between these persons in different countries in order to promote legislation on this subject, the Union should establish a special Committee on Legislation and Administration."

5 A convergence of factors in the late fifties motivated this action, including an increasing influx of legislative materials coming to IUCN with no designated focal point and a growing number of requests from the United Nations and individual countries for legal and administrative assistance in matters of conservation and nature protection. Equally influential for this decision, law had been an integral part of the Union's mission from the beginning. Three years after the Committee's creation, the next IUCN General Assembly meeting in Nairobi took note of the ever growing demand for services in environmental law and called for reconstituting the Committee as a permanent Commission, a status it has retained ever since though the name has changed from time to time.

6 Beginning as the Commission on Legislation in 1963, it became the Commission on Environmental Policy, Law, and Administration (CEPLA) in 1970 with a broadened mandate in policy and administration. This designation continued until 1990 when the Commission name was simplified to its current form. Sheila Abed (the 6th Chair of this Commission) has chaired the Commission since 2004.

7 In 1960 when the initial Committee was created, the first priorities were twofold: • to organize the existing accumulated materials and build a useable collection of legislative materials on conservation from member countries and internationally; and • to begin to address incoming technical requests for legal assistance.

8 Throughout the years, with the assistance of the ELC and in collaboration with other IUCN Commissions, CEL has continued to focus on building strong legal foundations for conservation of the natural environment nationally and internationally by: • gathering and monitoring information on national legislation, international treaties, policies, and trends; • promoting and assisting with development and implementation of international environmental law; and • promoting and assisting with technical assistance and capacity building in environmental law at individual, institutional and national levels.

9 In 1965, with help from project funds and small grants (particularly from WWF- Germany), the Commission was able to build a small secretariat with one full-time

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 70

lawyer and a small office located in Bonn, Germany, the home of the first and most long-standing Chairman, Wolfgang Burhenne. In 1970, to ensure stability and continuity of this staff, IUCN headquarters created the ELC out of the small Commission unit.

10 Beginning in the 1990s, as the Commission began to markedly expand its membership, CEL began to place special emphasis on capacity-building at the regional level. Initiatives were undertaken, in partnership with other institutions, to train environmental lawyers and to organize or contribute to regional workshops relating to environmental law. An important underlying feature of the Commission's operations throughout its forty-plus year history has been its commitment to building and maintaining close links with a variety of international organizations and other non- governmental organizations from the International Council of Environmental Law to World Wildlife Fund and other specialized environmental organizations.

Achievements to date

Historical achievements

11 In the sixties, the Commission began to take on a leadership technical role with development of early international conservation agreements. Early work, for example, with the African Convention, was undertaken at the request of or in collaboration with the FAO and UNESCO, this being an era prior to the creation of UNEP in 1973 following the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm, 1972).

12 Throughout the 70s and 80s the Commission played a significant role in the development of international instruments relating to biodiversity conservation, contributing to what is now known as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

13 Starting in the Asia Pacific, a CEL-led "Training the Trainers Programme" on Environmental Law was initiated in 1997 in Singapore. Training activities in the field of environmental law continued to be developed after this in many other parts of the world to increase capacities worldwide.

14 Through its liaison to the UN System, CEL began in the 90s to develop a practice of monitoring and participating in meetings of the United Nations General Assembly, UNEP Governing Council and UN/ECE, and other bodies, such as the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. A representative of CEL was always in attendance at those meetings as well.

More recent achievements

15 The CEL Working Group on the Non-Regression Principle1 submitted a proposal to the European Parliament which was successfully adopted on 29 September 2011. The resolution is on the establishment of an EU common position ahead of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development-Rio +20.

16 The joint WCPA/CEL Specialist Group on Protected Areas Law and Policy comprises some 30 lawyers and protected areas specialists. In cooperation with the ELC, the World

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 71

Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) and the Global Protected Area Programme (GPAP), CEL developed Guidelines for Protected Areas Legislation, the result of a major four year project, which arose from a project coordinated by a Steering Committee drawn from CEL and the WCPA. The Guidelines are illustrated by 15 case studies drafted by some members of the Specialist Group. These case studies focus on protected areas legislation enacted in different jurisdictions and regulating different types of protected areas.

17 CEL assisted with the creation of the “High Seas Alliance”, a partnership of organizations and groups aimed at building a strong common voice and constituency for the conservation of the high seas.

18 At the 9th International Conference on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement held in Whistler, British Columbia, Canada, in June 2011, the Specialist Group on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement convened a workshop on the establishment of a network for prosecutors to develop and bring cases for environmental crimes, which are often organized internationally. As a result of strong consensus among participants concerning the need for international cooperation between environmental prosecutors and the value of sharing best practices, the International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE) and IUCN-CEL agreed to jointly launch the Global Network of Environmental Prosecutors (GNEP), whose mission is to create linkages among environmental prosecutors around the world for the purpose of protecting the environment and human health, and to promote sustainable development. Its principal objective is to build a global community of environmental prosecutors and to facilitate the exchange of tools, capacity building, and information that assists environmental prosecutors in their work.

19 Of the other many topics to mention where CEL members have made achievements, there is the newly-created International Judicial Institute for Environmental Adjudication, which was created with CEL’s sponsorship and is led by a former CEL Chair, Prof. Nicholas Robinson.

Current initiatives

20 Over the years, CEL has been able to examine and work in line with new trends of environmental law. The Commission has been able to promote the creation of a Global Network for Prosecutors with allies like the INECE, and has been working with some of the most important environmental agencies in the world. Work by the Specialist Group on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement relating to the GNEP led to the creation of a small working group of environmental prosecutors that has been nominated to take the first steps in this initiative. During the workshop convened by the Specialist Group in June 2011 (mentioned in the section above), there was agreement that efforts were needed for international cooperation around issues such as fighting serious types of organized environmental crime.

21 Other current initiatives include: the CEL´s Oceans, Coasts and Coral Reefs Specialist Group which hosted a meeting in Istanbul of the scientific experts of the Group of Experts on the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. The objective was to share information on various issues of importance affecting biodiversity in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 72

The final outcome of the meeting was a joint statement, according to which the participants agreed, amongst other things, that: • Expert meetings should continue with following meetings to include experts in law, representatives from international, regional and national authorities, as well as researchers in the subject matters of the gaps identified; • The IUCN should continue to raise awareness of the needs of protection of biodiversity in the eastern Mediterranean; and • Greater awareness can be furthered through publications.

22 The joint WCPA/CEL Specialist Group on Protected Areas Law and Policy will start work with the Species Survival Commission on the implementation of the CBD’s Aichi Biodiversity targets2, specifically with regards to issues related to Access Benefit Sharing (ABS).

23 CEL is also working strongly in the field of ethics. In fact, CEL´s Ethics Specialist Group (ESG) is the only body within IUCN to tackle and approach the topic. The two main projects of the ESG are: (1) the Biosphere Ethics Initiative – seeking to highlight ethical principles in action around the world; and (2) the Earth Democracy project – seeking new or modified forms of governance that would allow for a flourishing, sustainable future for the entire community of life.

24 Working towards more coordinated and collaborative work to fulfil the “One Union, One Programme” goal, The Specialist Group on Indigenous Peoples, Customary Law and Human Rights (SPICEH) was established in late 2011 as a joint initiative of CEL and the Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) of IUCN. The new specialist group aims to create a participatory process to support and to advise IUCN and its membership on indigenous peoples, customary and environmental law and human rights law issues related to conservation.

25 During the course of 2011 the CEL Specialist Group on Water and Wetlands (SGWW) established three Sub-groups: Climate Change – Adaptation and Mitigation, Legal and Institutional Arrangements for Transboundary Water Cooperation, and The Human Right of Access to Water and Sanitation. Co-chairs were appointed to each sub-group and each prepared a detailed Work Plan to guide its work. In addition, the SGWW established an Executive Committee of 22 members to carry out an initial review of outputs produced by the sub-groups. The SGWW Chair met with the Senior Legal Specialist from the Organisation of American States’ (OAS) Department of Sustainable Development in order to discuss the development of case studies regarding the legal and institutional frameworks of the basins in which the OAS has development interventions since the early 1960s.

26 In addition, CEL´s Specialist Group on Soils continues to develop proposals and propel policies that are well-known and accepted throughout the world. CEL is also the only IUCN body dealing with the important issue of environment in conflict zones. The Specialist Group currently works side by side with the United Nations and their specialized offices. The current work of the IUCN CEL Specialist Group on Armed Conflict and the Environment focuses on two primary themes: (1) legal protection of the environment in times of armed conflict, and (2) the role of natural resources in post-conflict peace-building.

27 CEL members were also part of the World Water Forum addressing issues surrounding water law, another topic in which the Commission is active. The Commission´s

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 73

contribution to the Energy and Climate Change field is also sustained and constant. In 2011 CEL members participated in the inaugural meeting of International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

Challenges for the future

28 The work of CEL will bear in mind the need to: • Elaborate legal recommendations for environmental protection and ensure they are taken into account during and after Rio +20 in June 2012, and the IUCN Vth World Conservation Congress in September 2012 in order to have a long-lasting impact; • Support and adapt to new trends emerging in international environmental law, and address new topics such as spatial planning, through for example further developments in the context of protected area law (e.g. connectivity conservation); • Address the effectiveness of environmental law; e.g. with regards to implementation, compliance and enforcement – these concerns were also reflected in a petition drafted by lawyers and organisations for Rio+20 and signed in Limoges, which refers inter alia to the need to address gaps in environmental law and includes a list of possible new conventions e.g. a global soil convention; • Address the relationship of environmental law with other fields, such as human rights and the environment, trade, security and military activities, by for example working across specialist groups and encouraging work across disciplines; • Sensitise the judiciary and decision-makers (e.g. prosecutors and parliamentarians) to the role they can play in strengthening environmental law.

Facts and Figures

Structure of the Commission

29 The Commission is governed by a Chair, elected every four years, and a Deputy Chair selected from the Commission membership. The Commission is made up of the following working groups which aim to increase CEL input in priority areas into the work of IUCN: • Armed Conflict and the Environment; Co-Chairs: Carl Bruch, Michael Bothe • Energy Law and Climate Change; Chair: Richard Ottinger • Enforcement and Compliance; Chair: Kenneth Markowitz • Ethics; Co - Chairs: Klaus Bosselmann and Kathryn Kintzele • Oceans, Coastal and Coral Reefs; Co-Chairs: David VanderZwaag, Nilufer Oral • Sustainable Use of Soil; Chair: Ian Hannam • Water and Wetlands; Chair: Owen McIntyre • Judiciary; Chair: Ricardo Lorenzetti • Group of Young Professionals; Chair: Bruno Monteferri • SPICEH; Co-Chairs: Rodrigo de la Cruz, Kristen Walker. (This is a joint group between two Commissions: CEL and CEESP.) • Protected Areas: In early 2010, the WCPA Steering Committee and the CEL Steering Committee decided to replace the Task Force on Protected Areas Legislative Frameworks with a joint WCPA/CEL Specialist Group on Protected Areas Law and Policy; Co-Chairs: Antonio Benjamin, Ben Boer

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 74

• Arctic Regime Task Force; Chair: Wolfgang Burhenne • Access and Benefit Sharing Task Force; Chair: Tomme Young • CEL Working Group on the Non-Regression Principle; Chair: Michel Prieur

Membership

30 As with all Commissions, individuals become members of CEL by nomination by the Chair or any Commission Member.

31 Through the eighties, membership remained at around a hundred individuals. By the 1990s the pool of potential candidates had expanded substantially worldwide as environmental awareness grew. New members began to be invited in earnest and membership numbers began to grow substantially. By the mid-nineties, the Commission had some 300 members from 89 countries and this more than doubled by the end of the decade to some 700 international and environmental law specialists. Today, more than 900 CEL members represent diverse areas of expertise within the field of environmental law and policy. They are drawn from academia, public service, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations. An ongoing priority has been to increase membership in developing countries.

Resources

32 From the beginning, members have been the backbone of the Commission's substantive work programme, providing volunteer and consultant resources, networking, and information exchange on specialized issues, new developments and project requests, supplemented by short-term researchers and students. Funding always remained a special challenge for the Commission since only limited resources were available. Thus, from the early years, the Commission, with the assistance of the ELC, built alliances and partnerships with other environmental organizations and private donors to support substantive input to the work of IUCN as well as other international organizations, and to maintain its worldwide membership network.

33 Universities and State Agencies have also started to support the Commission. Some of the major funding partners have been the Worldwide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), the Karl Schmitz Scholl Fonds, the Elizabeth Haub Foundations, the International Council for Environmental Law, the University of Buenos Aires, the George Washington University, the University of Texas and ABRAMPA (Brazilian Association of Environmental Public Prosecutors. In addition, international organizations such as the United Nations Environment Programme and many governments have become strong supporters of ELP projects over the years.

NOTES

1. See paper by Michel Prieur in this issue.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 75

2. In 2002, the CBD Conference of the Parties (COP) adopted a Strategic Plan for the Convention, which contained the ambitious 2010 Biodiversity Target: “to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth”. COP 10 Decision X/2 marked the adoption of a revised Strategic Plan for the Convention (2011-2020), and a set of 20 targets for 2015 or 2020, (the Aichi Biodiversity Targets), organized under five strategic goals. The goals and targets comprise both: (i) aspirations for achievement at the global level; and (ii) a flexible framework for the establishment of national or regional targets.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 76

Non-regression in environmental law

Michel Prieur Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

NOTE DE L'AUTEUR

For further information: contact the group of legal experts of the IUCN Environmental Law Commission: [email protected] and [email protected]

1 Would it appear that we have entered an era of law that refuses established rights in the name of sovereignty of laws and Parliaments — “what a law can do can be undone by another law”? Is this not in contradiction with the rights of future generations, the paradigm of sustainable development proclaimed by States in Rio in 1992 and reaffirmed in Rio twenty years later?

2 The environment is a value-policy and an ethic (or a “moral of the environment”, as said by French President Pompidou in 19701) that, because of its scope, reflects a permanent quest for improved human and animal well-being in the name of permanent social progress. Environmental policies, if they reflect progress, should ban any regression.

3 Since the 1972 UN Conference in Stockholm, the main purpose of environmental policies and of their indispensable implementation instrument – environmental law, both national and international – is to contribute to abating pollution and preserving biological diversity.

4 At a time when environmental law is enshrined in numerous constitutions as a new human right, it is paradoxically threatened in its substance. This could lead to a U-turn and a real regression that would be detrimental to the future of humankind and a threat to intergenerational environmental fairness.

5 Should not environmental law be included in the category of eternal legal rules, and therefore be non-repealable in the name of the common interest of humanity?

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 77

6 Several threats exist that could curb environmental law. They are: • political: the often demagogic will to simplify laws leads to deregulation, indeed to the repeal of environmental legislation, in view of the growing number of national and international legal environmental standards; • economic: the global economic crisis is conducive to speeches calling for fewer legal environmental obligations, some people considering that they hinder development and poverty reduction; • psychological: the huge scope of environmental standards means they are complex and difficult to understand for non-specialists, which encourages calls for less restrictive environmental laws.

7 Regression takes many forms. It is seldom explicit, since governments do not have the courage to announce backtracking in environmental protection officially for fear of an unfavourable public response from environmental and consumer NGOs. • Internationally, it can take the form of refusing to adhere to universal environmental treaties, boycotting their implementation, or even denouncing them. This happened for the first time in the field of international environmental law when Canada decided to denounce the Kyoto Protocol during the Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention in Durban in December 2011. • In EU environmental legislation, regression is diffuse and appears when certain directives are revised. • National environmental legislation is subject to increasing and often insidious regression: ◦ changing procedures so as to curtail the rights of the public on the pretext of simplification; ◦ repealing or amending environmental rules, thus reducing means of protection or rendering them ineffective. Exceptionally, such regressions may be validated by a judge: for example, on the 27th April 2012, the Panama Supreme Court ruled for a provisional suspension of the Protected Area status given to the mangroves of Panama Bay.

8 Faced with this diversity of forms of regression, environmental lawyers must respond firmly and rely on implacable legal arguments. Public opinion, once alerted, would not tolerate reversals in environmental and therefore health protection.

9 A group of legal experts was created in August 2010 within the IUCN Environmental Law Commission. It aims at pooling relevant universal legal experience and arguments in order to put an end to threats of environmental law backsliding in liaison with a Franco-Argentinean research group of the ECOS-Sud2/MINCyT3 cooperation programme between the University of Limoges (France) and the National University of the Littoral in Santa Fe (Argentina).

10 Legal arguments must indeed be deployed so as to create a new principle of environmental law, in addition to those already recognised since Rio 1992 (viz prevention, precaution, polluter pays and public participation principles). This new principle is already recognised in a small number of national constitutions and legislations. Some courts refer to it. Legal doctrine has started to show an interest, in particular among Brazilian lawyers. “Non-regression” was for the first time the subject of proposals and discussion at European and international level, first in the European Parliament in September 20114 (Resolution 29 September 2011, par. 97), then in New York and Rio in the framework of Rio+20 in 2012.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 78

11 The legal arguments are based on: 1. Legal theory and philosophy of law: is it acceptable to depart from the theory of mutability of laws, the very foundation of democratic systems? Classical authors consider laws are necessarily subject to a rule of permanent adaptation that reflects changes in social requirements. Any legal rule must be modifiable or repealable at any time, for it would be morally unthinkable that a “generation of men, in any country, be possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the ‘end of time,’ or of commanding forever how the world shall be governed” (Paine, 1792, p.555). It is along the same lines that Article 28 of the draft Human Rights Declaration6 of June 24 th 1793 stated: “a generation cannot subject future generations to its laws”. Apart from the fact that the article was never adopted, the environment and sustainable development compel us today to think differently. The concept of sustainable development now means that the right to life and health of future generations must not be overlooked and measures that would be detrimental to them must not be adopted. Minimizing or repealing rules protecting the environment would result in imposing a more degraded environment on future generations. Therefore, the above-mentioned Article 28 taken literally, combined with the principle of sustainable development, can nowadays be interpreted in the environmental area as speaking in favour of the principle of non-regression, since it prohibits subjecting future generations to a law that would reduce environmental protection. 2. Human rights theory: international law, through the 1966 international covenants, aims for the constant progress of protected rights; it is interpreted as prohibiting regression. Environmental law, now a human right, can benefit from this theory of constant progress applied in particular to social rights. In its General Comment 3 of December 14 1990, the UN Committee for Economic Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) condemns “any deliberately retrogressive measures” (Para.9)7. The idea that once a human right is recognised it cannot be restrained, destroyed or repealed is shared by all major international instruments on human rights (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Art. 308; European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Arts. 17 and 539; Art. 5 of the two 1966 human rights covenants10). 3. International environmental law: universal or regional international environmental conventions all aim at “improving the environment”. The final nature of international environmental law is easily apprehended on reading all international environmental conventions. As specified in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, they all undertake to “conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth's ecosystem” (Principle 7)11. Aiming at protection means conversely asserting that any contrary measure is prohibited. A number of conventions state expressly that there can be no reversal: it is forbidden to reduce the level of environmental protection (e.g. North American Agreement On Environmental Cooperation, 199412). 4. European Union law: the Lisbon treaty (Art.2, para.313) aims at a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment; there can be no derogation from this principle, based on the theory of “acquis communautaires”. 5. Constitutional law: a number of countries (e.g. Brazil, Portugal, Germany), have eternal provisions (clausula petrea) in their constitutions. They can be interpreted as including human rights to the environment. The 2008 constitution of Ecuador14 recognizes non- regression in the field of the environment, and the 2008 constitution of Bhutan15 declares that 70% of the country’s forests are eternal. Law-makers are sometimes prohibited from reducing or restraining fundamental rights (for instance in Argentina or Spain): it should be possible to apply this limitation to environmental law, which has become a fundamental right, by invoking it in national courts and raising awareness in constitutional doctrine and NGOs.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 79

6. National environmental law: whereas national texts on the environment all proclaim as imperative reducing damage to the environment, they can, conversely, be interpreted as prohibiting any retrogressive measure. 7. Finally, jurisprudence in the various national, regional and international courts: it is advisable to inform judges and explain to them the existence of the principle of non- regression by publicising the first rulings that refer to this principle (in Hungary, Belgium, Brazil and Spain as well as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, July 1, 200916).

12 The principle of non-regression was first established by a referendum in California17 on November 2, 2010, when a majority of voters refused to suspend a law on climate change and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as requested by oil companies. The Swiss popular initiative in late 2011 prohibiting more than 20% of second homes in rural areas can be interpreted as expressing a refusal of increasing landscape and environmental degradation.

13 The principle of non-regression is thus emerging in states and at an international level. The French Senate, in its contribution to Rio + 20, included the principle among its recommendations18 (report No 545 by L. Rossignol, May 22, 2012). The International Centre of Comparative Environmental Law (CIDCE) made it its main proposal for the Rio + 20 Conference. This resulted in a consensus of the Major Groups in its favour, and in the express proposal by the Group of 77 + China to include it in the final document – “ The Future We Want” (UN, 2012, June 1919) – during informal negotiations on May 4 and 31, 2012 in New York.

14 In the face of opposition from the USA, Japan and Canada, and the indecision of the EU and Switzerland, Brazil, in its role as president of the conference, imposed the withdrawal of the expression “Principle of non-regression”. However, the principle was reintroduced with different wording in the final text adopted on the 22nd June, 2012. According to paragraph 20, after having noted some backtracking in the integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development20, it is written: “In this regard, it is critical that we do not backtrack from our commitment to the earth summit.” Thus, the term “non-regression” was replaced by “do not backtrack”, which carries the same meaning. The statement applies to all the decisions taken at Rio in 1992, that is to say, the three conventions, the Rio declaration, Agenda 21 and the forests declaration. The reaffirmation to implement in full the Rio 1992 commitments reinforces the idea of non-regression and contributes to the formation of a judicial obligation, following the custom of international law. The IUCN should adopt a recommendation in this direction on the occasion of the WCC in Jeju in September, 2012.

15 However, it is certain that the principle of non-regression allows for exceptions, so long as they do not contravene fundamental environmental policy objectives. For instance, under CITES on the international trade in endangered species of wild flora and fauna, species that are no longer endangered could be removed from the list without a regression in the level of protection. The ban on a particular pollutant could be lifted when it is demonstrated that it no longer poses a health hazard. Non-regression does not prohibit repealing or amending existing texts. There is no question of “freezing” environmental law. On the contrary, with the scientific progress that will result from the implementation of the precautionary principle, either it will be strengthened to deal with new threats to health and nature, or it will be eased if a source of pollution that required protection is demonstrated to be innocuous. The main thing is that the new rule continues to contribute to environmental and health protection, and does not

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 80

worsen pollution or loss of biodiversity. In order, therefore, to assess whether a new rule or changes to an old one are retrogressive, there must be a special chapter in the impact study of the draft bill or decree demonstrating non-regression on the basis of relevant indicators of the state of the environment, including legal indicators.

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Further reading

ECOS-Sud – MINCYT (2012, 23 May). Adoptar el principio de no regresión del derecho ambiental global: un desafío central para Río+20. [To adopt the principle of non-regression of international environmental law: a central challenge for Rio+20.] La Ley (suplemento de derecho ambiental) [The Law (supplement on environmental law)], 23 May 2012, pp.6-7. [In Spanish.]

Hachez, I. (2008). Le principe de standstill dans le droit des droits fondamentaux : une irréversibilité relative. [The principle of standstill in the law of fundamental rights: a relative irreversibility.] Brussels: Bruylant.

Prieur, M. & G. Sozzo (2012). La non régression en droit de l’environnement [Non-regression in environmental law.] Brussels: Bruylant.

Prieur, M. & G. Garver (June, 2012). Non-regression in environmental protection: a new tool for implementing the Rio principles. In: Future Perfect, Rio+20, p.30. Tudor Rose/UN.

NOTES

1. Quote from Pompidou’s Speech on the Environment, given at the Chicago French Alliance on February 28, 1970. For an English translation see: www.swans.com/library/art17/xxx145.html 2. Evaluation-orientation de la COoperation Scientifique française dans le Cône Sud [Assessment-direction of the French scientific cooperative in the southernmost regions of South America] 3. Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation of Argentina. 4. European Parliament (2011, 29 September). Resolution on on developing a common EU position ahead of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20). Document no. P7_TA- PROV(2011)0430. Brussels. Available online from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en/ 5. Paine, T. (1791). Rights of Man: Answer to Mr Burke’s Attack on the French Revolution. London: Jordan. 6. Republic of France,Constitution of the Year 1, Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, 1793, 24th June 1793. 7. UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment No.3: The Nature of States Parties Obligations, Art.2, Para.1 of the Covenant, 14 December 1990, E/1991/23. Available at: www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/94bdbaf59b43a424c12563ed0052b664

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 81

8. UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III). Available at: www.un.org/en/documents/udhr 9. European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 [Ireland], Number 20 of 2003, 30 June 2003. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/47a708170.html 10. Viz. the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p.171, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/ 3ae6b3aa0.html UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 993, p.3, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/ docid/3ae6b36c0.html 11. UN General Assembly, Report of the UN Conference on Environment and Development,Annex 1: Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (vol. I). Available at: www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1 12. NAAEC [North American Agreement On Environmental Cooperation] (Aug. 1993), US-Can.- Mex., US Gov’t Printing Office (1993), entered into force 1 January 1994. Part Three: Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Art.10, Para.3(b). Available at: www.cec.org/Page.asp? PageID=1226&SiteNodeID=567 13. European Union, Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, 13 December 2007, 2007/C 306/01. Available at: http:// www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/476258d32.html 14. Available from http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html 15. Available from http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5214 16. I/A Court H.R., Acevedo Buendia et al. case, Judgment of July 1, 2009, Series C, No. 198, para. 103. 17. Proposition 23, which would have suspended AB 32, the "Global Warming Act of 2006", was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in California as an initiated state statute, where it was defeated. 18. France Senate. Rio plus 20 : l'émergence d'un nouveau monde [Rio+20: the emergence of a new world.]. Report no. 545 (2011-2012) by Senator L. Rossignol, representing the commission for sustainable development, submitted 22 May, 2012. www.senat.fr/rap/r11-545/r11-5451.pdf (accessed 7 July, 2012). 19. UN [United Nations] (2012, June 19). The Future We Want. Agenda Item 10, Outcome of the Conference, Doc. A/CONF.216/L.1. 20. Viz. economic prosperity, environmental quality and social equity.

AUTEURS

MICHEL PRIEUR Professor Emeritus, University of Limoges, Scientific Director, Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Environmental law, Land planning and Urban law (CRIDEAU-OMIJ, Editor of the Revue Juridique de l’environnement (Environmental Law Journal), Member of the IUCN Environmental Law Commission, E-mail: [email protected]

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 82

Presentation: IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

NOTE DE L’ÉDITEUR

Authors: Edmund Barrow, Piet Wit and Patricia Hawes.

NOTE DE L'AUTEUR

CEM Steering Committee and Thematic Group Leads : Commission Chair: Piet Wit. Deputy Chair: Angela Andrade. Vice Chair Drylands & Capacity Building: Birguy Lamizana. Vice Chair: Said Damhoureyeh. Vice Chair Marine and Coastal Ecosystems: Kelvin Passfield. Further contact information is available at: http://www.iucn.org/ about/union/commissions/cem/cem_about/cem_contacts/ Correspondence to: [email protected]

About CEM

1 The IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM) is the IUCN’s youngest commission, established in 1996. It is a network of volunteer experts, numbering approximately 800, from around the world working on ecosystem management related issues, for example climate change adaptation, Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), Red List of Ecosystems (RLE), fisheries and ecosystem restoration and services. The Commission works closely with other IUCN Commissions, regional offices and global thematic programmes.

2 CEM receives membership and communications support from the Ecosystem Management Programme (EMP), its counterpart thematic programme in the IUCN Secretariat. EMP is part of the Nature Based Solutions Group of the Secretariat, which is housed in IUCN’s Headquarters in Gland, Switzerland. While CEM is an IUCN

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 83

Commission composed of volunteer scientists, EMP is comprised of IUCN Secretariat employed staff, and the Head of EMP is the focal point in the IUCN Secretariat for CEM.

Background and mission

3 The Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM) is the successor to the Commission on Ecology (COE), established in 1954. COE was the early home in IUCN for many of the biome-related programmes, such as the forest conservation or water programmes, and was responsible for many IUCN achievements over the following two decades. COE was replaced by CEM at the 1996 Members' Assembly at Montreal (Canada) with a mandate “to further the IUCN mission” by supporting the ecosystem management components of the Union’s programme.

4 Priorities for CEM's work included the development of participatory methods of ecosystem management, ecological economics, and dryland degradation. In practice, CEM has focused on the elaboration and promotion of the 'ecosystem approach' as a framework within which other themes could be tackled.

5 CEM’s current mission statement is “To provide expert guidance on integrated approaches to the management of natural and modified ecosystems to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable development”, with the principle objective being to mainstream ecosystem approaches to natural resources management worldwide.

Achievements to date

6 CEM has taken a focus on promoting the Ecosystem Approach in line with its mission. The well-being of people depends on the goods and services provided by ecosystems, including food, medicines, fuel, construction materials, clean water and air, and protection from natural hazards. Ecosystems, however, are under increasing pressure due to unsustainable use, degradation and conversion to other forms of use, such as farmland, plantation forests, and biofuels.

7 During the first four years’ programme, CEM worked with the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) to establish guidelines for Ecosystem Management. The twelve principles of Ecosystem Management were endorsed by the 8th Conference of the Parties (COP) in Nairobi in 2005. These principles were inspired by and based on the ten “Sibthorpe Principles of Ecosystem Management" developed under the guidance of CEM’s first chair, Ed Maltby (1996-2000). Based on this, CEM promotes the sound management of ecosystems through the use and application of the Ecosystem Approach — a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that places human needs at its centre. The aim of the IUCN CEM Ecosystem Management Series of publications is to support best practice ecosystem management, both at field and policy levels, and to help realise IUCN’s vision of a just world that values and conserves nature. CEM has nine key publications, which are available online1.

8 During the chairmanship of Hillary Masundire (2000-2008), CEM focused more on making the ecosystem approach usable by policy makers, and applicable by practitioners. This led to a number of guidelines and publications, backed up by presentations at conferences, seminars and workshops, such as the very influential “five steps to the ecosystem approach” by Gill Shepherd, guidelines for mining in

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 84

drylands, and a publication on lessons learned from the application of the ecosystem approach in Latin America. Translating the Ecosystem Approach into implementation action has resulted in a number of achievements, including: 1. CEM has helped make the case for Ecosystem Based Adaptation to climate change (EBA), and has published a book and a number of papers highlighting its importance as a core component of climate change adaptation, which is now increasingly accepted by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This has been achieved through convening side events and sessions on EBA at COPs of CBD and of the UNFCCC (Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban, Nagoya), as well as a variety of separate workshops. 2. Ecosystem and environmental approaches to DRR are often seen as neither the domain of conservation or of the disaster risk reduction communities. Through the work of CEM and EMP, such approaches are increasingly seen as important for the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) Global Platforms in 2009 and 2011, where the importance of environmental and ecosystem options is increasingly recognized – CEM played an important role in hosting side events. CEM was one of the founder members of the broad Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction (PEDRR), which has carried out a number of successful trainings. 3. More recently CEM and other partners convened a major workshop on the Mexican Gulf Oil Spill, together with the IUCN Washington office, which resulted in important influence on the policies and implementation strategies for the clean-up operations. 4. CEM has helped raise the importance of drylands natural resource management, through promoting and adapting the ecosystem approach to dry rangeland systems, for examples the Steppe Conference in Mongolia, or the importance of ecosystem management of oases. As a result of this, there is now a Global Drylands Initiative in the EMP. 5. In line with its broad mandate, CEM has helped raise awareness, through a variety of workshops, conferences and publications about the importance of different forms of ecosystem services – for example for environmental restoration, mountain ecosystems, food security, improved marine governance.

Major Current Initiatives

9 The current CEM programme (2009-2012) builds on the insights and initiatives taken during the previous periods. RLE, for instance, was identified by Ed Maltby as a potential product, while Hillary Masundire took the initiative to start working on disaster management in response to the 2004 tsunami.

Red List of Ecosystems (RLE)

10 RLE2 will become a global standard for how we assess the status of ecosystems, applicable at local, national, regional and global levels. RLE will categorise ecosystems as: not at risk; vulnerable; endangered; or critically endangered. This will be measured by assessing losses in area, degradation or other major changes. A standardized system will allow for objective, transparent and repeatable assessments of ecosystem risk, and losses of ecosystem functions and services. Such assessments will be scientifically comparable. At the global level, IUCN will assess the conservation status of the world’s terrestrial, freshwater, marine and subterranean ecosystems, aiming to achieve complete coverage by 2025. RLE is working towards five major targets: 1. List the world’s ecosystems and document their status;

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 85

2. Focus not only on threatened ecosystems but also on those that are in good condition as a result of active management, and so highlight best practices in ecosystem management; 3. Establish a “secretariat” to manage the RLE process in collaboration with the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species so as to ensure strong linkages; 4. Enhance technical and institutional capacity for ecosystem red-listing at national, regional and global levels; and 5. Develop strong linkages between good ecosystem management and sectors which are not necessarily focused on conservation (e.g. national and economic planning, livelihood improvement, and the private sector).

Ecosystem Based Adaptation (EBA)

11 As CEM and EMP have a joint and shared programme of work, they both promote EBA in climate change and biodiversity negotiations. For example, CEM compiled case studies and lessons from field experiences on EBA and presented them (under the title “Threatened Ecosystems, Vulnerable People”) in a CEM side event at COP 10 in Nagoya, 2009. CEM also took the lead in drafting a publication3 on policy principles and guidelines for implementing EBA in adaptation policies and projects, which was prepared by more than ten international organizations, and was launched at COP 17 in Durban, 2011. These guidelines will be updated for the UNFCCC COP in Doha, 2012.

Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)

12 DRR is gaining in importance within IUCN, with particular reference to nature and environment based solutions. CEM and EMP have been piloting this work, which has involved developing and delivering training materials in collaboration with PEDRR partners, including: • “Environmental Guidance Note for DRR” – first published in 2009, reprinted twice to date; • “Ecosystems for DRR” – book to be launched 2012/2013 in collaboration with United Nations University (UNU) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). • “Ecosystems for DRR, European context” – paper commissioned by TGL for Council of Europe and converted into recommendation to be adopted by Council of Europe, EUR-OPA agreement on natural hazards management in April 2012; • a Master’s degree programme, “Eco-DRR” is being developed with UNEP, WWF, UNU, Cologne University and ten southern Universities, for launch in the winter of 2012/2013.

Fisheries

13 The Fisheries Expert Group of CEM organized (14–16 October 2010, in Nagoya, before CBD COP 10) an international Scientific Workshop on selective fisheries and balanced harvest in relation to ecosystem sustainability. The conclusions were presented to CBD members in a side event. Recognizing that the conventional “increased selectivity” paradigm may be inconsistent with Ecosystem Management principles, alternate fishing strategies were reviewed and analysed. Balanced harvesting was defined as a strategy that distributes fishing pressure across the widest possible range of trophic levels, sizes and species, in proportion to their natural productivity, reducing fishing pressure where it is excessive. The report is available4 and policy and management implications were published in the Policy Forum section of the journal Science5.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 86

Challenges for the future

14 CEM has a joint work programme with the EMP and various funding opportunities are evolving with this, for example with respect to DRR or RLE – which are also examples of IUCN’s One Programme in action. As CEM has a diverse portfolio of activities, dependent on individual volunteer member interest, maintaining a strong focus is a challenge – though this is reduced by having a strong work programme with EMP.

15 RLE is a Union Wide knowledge product – but this also raises expectations as well as challenges as to how RLE can be integrated into other products (such as the Red List of Threatened Species, Key Biodiversity Areas, World Database on Protected Areas), and other important areas of work such as land/water use planning and macro-economic decision making.

16 EBA is gaining in importance, but it still remains a “fuzzy” concept when compared to other, more infrastructural, forms of climate change adaptation. CEM and others will continue to strengthen the case for ecosystem based options to climate change either on their own, or as part of more integrated approaches. The same can be said for ecosystem and environmental options for DRR, so as to continue to make the case to the two different communities of practise (conservation and the DRR communities).

17 Having a network of high level volunteer and motivated experts, who have a wide range of demands placed on them, makes it difficult to fund raise directly. Yet continuing to find ways and approaches to address these challenges will be at the fore front of improved conservation based arguments and economic justification of ensuring that the ecosystem approach is good for conservation and essential for the long term well-being of society. The time spent on fund-raising and program management will need to be balanced.

Facts and Figures

18 Like other IUCN commissions, CEM has a matrix structure with Thematic Groups (TGs) that work at global or regional levels and regional chairs that look after ecosystem management issues to be addressed by CEM in the IUCN regions6. In a limited number of countries the Regional Chair is supported by national focal points. These normally are appointed at the request of the membership of that country. CEM, encourages its members to establish TGs around topics that are of special interest to them; currently they number 21, almost all active. Examples include the Fisheries Expert Group (mentioned earlier), and the TGs on Mediterranean Ecosystems and Oases. A TG on Invasive Species and Ecosystems is in the making.

19 Other TGs were created at the request of partners of CEM. These include the TGs on Urban Ecosystems (following requests from architects), Nutrient Cycling (requested by IUCN’s President), and Capacity Building (identified by COP-8 of the CBD in Bonn, Germany). Some TGs were established to match existing programmes within the IUCN secretariat, for example with respect to Islands, Drylands, Wetlands, Coastal Ecosystems, and Ecosystems and the Private Sector.

20 CEM has nominated a limited number of Special Advisors and Focal Points to be called upon for specific questions related to their field of expertise. Two are former Focal Area

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 87

Leaders who had completed two terms (for the Ecosystem Approach and Ecosystem Restoration).

21 The Steering Committee has adopted a policy to nominate young professionals as co- leads to TG Leads and Regional Chairs. This policy will be stepped up for the next intersessional programme.

Governance of CEM

22 The Steering Committee is composed of five people, including the Chair. This small team is an effective and efficient means to govern the Commission. The Head of EMP sits on the steering committee as an observer. As a small Steering Committee is less costly, it has been possible to organize two Steering Committee meetings per year, in different IUCN regions, covering the continents that are represented in the Steering Committee. Each Steering Committee meeting is associated with a workshop that addresses an issue of relevance for the IUCN region where the meeting is held. Collaboration and co-funding for the workshop is sought with the IUCN Secretariat, councilors and IUCN Members. This formula has been very successful, and CEM and IUCN have become more visible in the regions, and their positions strengthened. It also helps to bridge the gaps between practitioners and policy makers, between theory and practice, and across sectors and disciplines.

CEM Steering Committee and Thematic Group Leads

23 Chair: Piet Wit, E-mail: [email protected]

24 Deputy Chair: Angela Andrade, E-mail: [email protected]

25 Vice Chair Drylands & Capacity Building: Birguy Lamizana, E-mail: [email protected]

26 Vice Chair: Said Damhoureyeh, [email protected]

27 Vice Chair Marine and Coastal Ecosystems: Kelvin Passfield, E-mail: [email protected]

NOTES

1. http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/cem/cem_resources/cem_ems/ 2. See accompanying article in this volume. 3. Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) in a Changing Climate: From Practice to Policy? Lessons learnt from islands. Adaptation Hub, Cop 17, Durban, 2011; and Adaptation Knowledge Day III, Bonn, 2012. 4. http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2011-001.pdf. 5. Garcia et al. (2012). Reconsidering the Consequences of Selective Fisheries. Science 335(6072): 1045-1047. 6. There are some minor differences between CEM regions and IUCN regions.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 88

IUCN Red List of Ecosystems

Jon Paul Rodríguez, Kathryn M. Rodríguez-Clark, David A. Keith, Edmund G. Barrow, John Benson, Emily Nicholson et Piet Wit Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

NOTE DE L’ÉDITEUR

This article was reviewed by two anonymous referee.

Background to the IUCN Red List concept

1 For decades, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has led the creation of red lists of threatened species. The first Red Data Books for birds and mammals were published in 1966 (Scott et al., 1987), gradually expanding both taxonomically and geographically (Rodríguez, 2008; Vié et al., 2009). Three fundamental milestones were reached during the last four decades: 1) the development of quantitative criteria for transparent, repeatable and objective risk assessment; 2) the extension of the species Red List from including only threatened species to an ever- expanding database on species from all taxonomic groups, both threatened and non- threatened; and 3) the extensiveness of application of the Red List concept across countries, regions and taxonomic groups.

2 First, in the early 1990s, IUCN transformed the process for listing threatened species (Mace & Lande, 1991; IUCN, 2001), by adopting quantitative criteria that separated the assessment of extinction risk (a fundamentally scientific process) from the definition of conservation priorities, which should also take into account additional factors, such as ecological distinctiveness, costs, logistics, likelihood of success, and societal preference (Fig. 1). This allowed for risk assessments that were transparent, objective and repeatable, recognizing that scientists and society must go hand in hand in the definition of conservation priorities for threatened species (Miller et al., 2007). More than a decade passed between the call for transforming the IUCN Red List categories and criteria (Fitter & Fitter, 1987), and the adoption of a global standard (IUCN, 2001).

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 89

During that time, several drafts were widely circulated and updated, the criteria were tested, and the involvement of anyone interested was encouraged (Mace et al., 2008). A key characteristic of this “red list process” was the wide participation of the IUCN membership, including governments and governmental agencies, national and international non-governmental organizations, academics and the private sector.

3 Extinction theory, species’ life histories and the nature of threatening processes, provided the conceptual framework for justification of the quantitative thresholds associated to each criterion and category (Mace et al., 2008). Proxies of extinction risk were developed by focusing on variables that reflected the symptoms of a declining species: population size, population structure, size of the geographical distribution, and their changes over time. Guidelines were developed (and are revised periodically) to assist assessors in the interpretation of the criteria at various geographical scales (i.e. national, regional, global), within contrasting biological realms (i.e. terrestrial, freshwater, marine), and for different taxonomic groups (IUCN, 2003; Miller et al., 2007; IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee, 2010).

Figure 1. Extinction risk is one of many factors to be considered when establishing conservation priorities

From Miller et al., 2007 The variables considered will depend on the purpose of the priority-setting exercise and the conditions within the region. Different factors may be summed, multiplied, or otherwise weighted to achieve an ultimate ranking of conservation priorities

4 Second, the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is no longer a repository of information on threatened species only, but a data base on the status of biodiversity as a whole (Vié et al., 2009). Species under any level of threat may be assigned a category, including those that have not yet been assessed (IUCN, 2001). Although current assessments are biased towards higher vertebrates, calls have been made to significantly expand the taxonomic base of the IUCN Red List (Stuart et al., 2010). By the time of writing this article, 61,914 of the 1,728,408 known species vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, fungi and protists had been assessed, about 4% of all described species. Of these 61,914 species, 19,570 (32%) were considered threatened, but the IUCN Red Lists provides information on all of them (IUCN, 2011). As assessments continue to accumulate, data on a growing proportion of all species would be available for consultation at the IUCN Red List website 1.

5 Third, interest in the application of IUCN Red List at the national level has significantly grown. In Europe alone, over 3,500 current and historical red lists are known (Köppel et al., 2003), while more than 250 national red lists for various taxonomic groups have

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 90

been developed in more than 100 countries (Zamin et al., 2010). Their impact on international conservation policy has been highlighted by the adoption of the Red List Index (Butchart et al., 2007) as one of the indicators to measure progress towards achieving the targets set forth by the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) and the Millennium Development Goals (2009).

6 In contrast, until very recently no equivalent global standard existed for ecosystems. Several protocols have been developed, but they differ in how they define ecosystems and their extinction, the quantitative criteria they use in the assessments, how they take into account loss of ecological function, the scale at which they are applied, and how they consider uncertainty in the data (Nicholson et al., 2009). In recognition of this gap, at the IV World Conservation Congress (2008), IUCN launched a “consultation process for the development, implementation and monitoring of a global standard for the assessment of ecosystem status, applicable at local, regional and global levels.” Building on the experience of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) and the Global Species Programme (GSP), the Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) is now one of the central themes of the Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM) and the Ecosystem Management Programme (EMP)2.

7 The idea of creating a global standard for assessing the status of ecosystems is not new within IUCN: formally or informally, it has been considered by someone at all World Conservation Congresses to date. At the time of establishment of CEM, during the first World Conservation Congress in Montréal in 1996, the first Chair of the Commission, Edward Maltby, launched a proposal for creating a red list of ecosystems and a concept and rationale set out in an unpublished document circulated to potential funders. Initial attempts to secure support for this initiative were not fruitful, and it took another decade for the subject to gain strength again from within the CEM membership and the IUCN secretariat.

From species to ecosystems

8 During the second World Conservation Congress, held in Amman in 2000, Armando Hernández, then Director of Environmental Issues of Fundación Polar, asked a simple question. Fundación Polar was the primary sponsor of the red books of Venezuelan fauna and flora (Rodríguez & Rojas-Suárez, 1995; Llamozas et al., 2003), participating not only as a donor, but also actively engaged in the research, design and publishing of the books. By that time, the fauna red book was in its second edition and the flora red book was in the final stages of research. So, Armando asked: “We now have the red books of Venezuelan animals and plants – when are we going to start working on the red book of ecosystems?” Those present at this conversation, whose experience was on the assessment of extinction risk of species, responded that a red book of ecosystem was not possible, as there were no standard, widely accepted categories and criteria available to underlie the assessment. Armando’s response was simple and unequivocal: “Invent them.”

9 Ecosystem red lists have the potential to complement the policy successes of species red lists in several ways. Ecosystems may more effectively represent biological diversity as a whole than do individual species (Cowling et al., 2004; Noss, 1996), especially given the taxonomic bias of the current IUCN Red List (Vié et al., 2009; Stuart et al., 2010). Moreover, they include fundamental abiotic components that are only

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 91

indirectly included in species assessments (e.g. riverine ecosystems; Beechie et al., 2010). Declines in ecosystem status may also be more apparent than extirpations or extinctions of individual species; society often perceives loss of biological diversity in terms of loss of benefits such as clean water, food, timber, and fuel (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Ecosystem-level assessments may also be less time consuming than species-by-species assessments. Despite concerted efforts, by 2011 the status of only 4% of the world’s known species had been evaluated for potential inclusion on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2011). Furthermore, red lists of ecosystems may suggest areas in which extirpations are likely to result from extinction debt in response to loss and fragmentation of species’ habitats (Terborgh, 1974; Terborgh et al., 1997; Tilman et al., 1994) because decline in the extent and status of an ecosystem may precede the loss of its species. When used in tandem with species red lists, ecosystem red lists could provide the most informative indicator to date of the status of other elements of biological and abiotic diversity. With ecosystems being spatial, this provides a firm linkage and need to engage with land/water use in terms of conservation and land use action.

10 Building on the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN, 2001), a process for adapting them to ecosystems began. It was obvious that there would be major conceptual challenges ahead, such as the delimitation of ecosystems and of the unit of assessment, the definition of ecosystem “extinction,” and the justification of thresholds for the categories and criteria. An initial proposal was presented at a workshop during the third World Conservation Congress, held in Bangkok in 2004 (Rodríguez, 2004), leading to the development and testing of a system for assessing the risk of ecosystems on the basis of four criteria: reduction of land cover and continuing threat, rapid rate of land cover change, increased fragmentation, and highly restricted geographical distribution (Rodríguez et al., 2007).

11 During the 1990s and 2000s, several other protocols were proposed with quantitative criteria (12 reviewed in Nicholson et al 2009), notably many developed and applied by government agencies in Australia, Europe and South Africa at state and national levels (e.g. Blab et al., 1995; Council of the European Communities, 1992; DEAT, 2004; EPBC Act, 1999; EPBC Reg., 2000; Kontula & Raunio, 2009; New South Wales Government, 2002; New South Wales Government, 2009; SANBI & DEAT, 2009). There were three major similarities between most of the protocols (Nicholson et al., 2009): 1) they were heavily influenced by the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN, 2001), converging on the variables measured for the different criteria and in many of the actual thresholds that defined the categories; 2) they incorporated various measures of ecosystem degradation and functional decline, as a way to complement the reduction in size of an ecosystem as measures of risk; 3) they used vegetation types as proxies for ecosystems, anticipating that assessors would probably turn to published vegetation maps and remotely sensed data for the development of ecosystem red lists.

12 On 27-28 March 2008, an ad hoc Working Group for the Development of Red List Categories and Criteria for Ecosystems3 met in London, under the auspices of the Zoological Society of London. The purpose of this group was to further examine proposed protocols, including Benson (2006), Burgess et al. (2006), Reyers et al. (2007), and Rodríguez et al. (2007), in order to initiate the development of a universally- accepted and globally-applicable system for quantifying the level of threat of ecosystems, and develop a work plan to see it through. It was agreed that such a system

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 92

should be: 1) easily understood by policy-makers and the public, 2) logically consistent with the species-based approach, 3) transparent, objective, and based on sound science, 4) applicable to terrestrial, marine, and freshwater systems, 5) applicable at multiple spatial scales (local to global) and resolutions (coarse to fine), 6) able to use historic and current data, 7) explicit about how risk assessments can inform conservation priorities, and 8) criteria with thresholds that reflect varying levels of risk.

13 One of the outcomes of this workshop was the drafting of a motion to be submitted to the fourth World Conservation Congress, to be held in Barcelona in October of the same year. After its adoption by the congress it became resolution 4.020, launching an official consultation process within IUCN “for the development, implementation and monitoring of a global standard for the assessment of ecosystem status, applicable at local, regional and global levels, with a view to submitting it to a future Session of the World Conservation Congress for adoption.”

First steps: establishing categories and criteria for an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems

14 Building on the momentum generated by the Barcelona World Conservation Congress, in early 2009 CEM created the Ecosystem Red List Thematic Group, thus providing a home for the ad hoc working group established the year before, and opening the participation to the broader community of the CEM members’ network. Two primary goals were identified for the thematic group for 2009-2012: 1) develop a research agenda and publish it along preliminary categories and criteria for examination by the scientific and conservation community, 2) disseminate this draft widely by presenting it at workshops around the world and encouraging tests of the system for a diversity of ecosystem types and institutional settings.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 93

Figure 2. The process of ecosystem risk assessment

From Rodríguez et al., 2011 Ecosystem data on one or more quantitative proxy risk indicators (criteria) are evaluated against thresholds to assign a threatened ecosystem category (CR, critically endangered, EN, endangered, or VU, vulnerable)

15 The first goal was achieved with the publication of the essay Establishing IUCN Red List Criteria for Threatened Ecosystems (Rodríguez et al., 2011), freely-available on-line, and published in English, Spanish and French, with summaries in Chinese, Danish and Bahasa Indonesian. On the basis of the requirements outlined in the previous section and the hypothesis that ecosystem risk is a function of the risk of its component species, their interactions, and the ecological processes they depend on, a set of four criteria were proposed (Fig. 2): recent declines in distribution or ecological function, historical total loss in distribution or ecological function, small distribution combined with decline, or very small distribution.

16 The first two criteria, which permit listing according to measures of either loss of area or degradation of ecological properties, included a key innovation adapted from the methods used by NatureServe in conservation status assessments (Master et al., 2009): a quantitative framework for combining the immediacy, scope and severity of threats with respect to their relative impact on ecosystem functioning. Although this introduced other challenges, such as the delimitation of the relative levels of severity, it provided a systematic approach for examining threats whose impact was more subtle than the complete removal of the vegetation or the physical substrate at a site, through, for example, deforestation and mining, respectively (Fig. 3).

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 94

Figure 3. Different combinations of severity and scope lead to different assessments of risk

Rodríguez et al., 2011 An ecosystem can only be listed as Critically Endangered if severity and scope are at their higher levels, while it can be Vulnerable with different combinations of severity and scope. These three categories, Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable are jointly referred to by IUCN as threatened ecosystem categories, and are assigned on the basis of quantitative criteria such as those illustrated in this figure. In this example, immediacy is constrained to a ±50 year time window

17 In parallel to the development of the preliminary categories and criteria, began the development of a portfolio of case studies to illustrate their implementation. The first major effort using the newly-developed criteria, was the Red Book of Terrestial Eosystems of Venezuela, which assessed the status of 18 vegetation types at the national and state level, and examined 10 case studies more closely by analyzing time series of satellite images (Rodríguez et al., 2010). Declines in extent >90% were predicted nationally for deciduous forests and ~70% for open savannas, leading to their classification as Critically Endangered and Endangered, respectively, but when the degree of perturbation was also considered (as in Fig. 3), all other major forest and savanna types were threatened as well. This suggested that focusing on changes in extent alone will tend to underestimate the true level of risk faced by ecosystems when degradation and loss of function are also taking place. Building a robust set of proxies for adequately expressing the relationship between risk and loss of ecological function remains one of the fundamental challenges ahead (Rodríguez et al., 2011).

18 In the first test of the preliminary categories and criteria by someone that was no part of the group that developed them, Holdaway et al. (2012), applied them to New Zealand’s naturally uncommon ecosystems. They found a larger density of threatened plant species (number per unit area) in Critically Endangered ecosystems than in those classified as non-threatened. The generality of this result in other regions and ecosystem types will surely be the object of future research, seeking a better understanding of the relationship between patterns in the distribution of threatened species and ecosystems.

19 Further research and testing of the criteria led to the additional development and refinement of the criteria (known as Version 2), and justification of the science that underpins them; these together are described in a manuscript that was under review at

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 95

the time of publication of this article in mid 2012, along with a series of case studies to illustrate and test the criteria. The testing and further development of the criteria highlighted several challenges for both the scientific theory behind the RLE and for the implementation of the criteria. These include the definition of ecosystems, their salient processes that define them and differentiate them from other ecosystems, defining when an ecosystem has been lost or has collapsed (analogous to the extinction of a species), and how spatial and temporal scales affect ecosystem threat assessment. These are ongoing areas of research for the scientists involved in developing and testing the criteria, and also key areas for interaction and feedback between researchers, policy-makers and those implementing the criteria. Despite challenges, which are common to all attempts to assess ecosystem threat status, in countries where similar protocols have been implemented, managers have been able to overcome them pragmatically and develop working definitions of ecosystems and their collapse to successfully implement assessment protocols (please see references in Keith, 2009 and Nicholson et al., 2009).

Recent activities: global dissemination, testing and feedback

20 With preliminary IUCN Red List of Ecosystem categories and criteria in hand, efforts shifted towards achieving the second goal of the Ecosystem Red List Thematic Group for 2009-2012: dissemination and testing, such that potential users from around the world could apply the criteria to a diversity of ecosystem types and in a variety of institutional settings. The ultimate purpose of this stage was to receive feedback for an updated version of the categories and criteria, to be 1) submitted for publication in a scientific journal prior to the 2012 World Conservation Congress, 2) discussed with the IUCN membership at a CEM-sponsored workshop during the Congress, and 3) proposed later to Council for adoption as the new official standard of the Union for assessing ecosystem risk at global, regional and national level.

21 Major support from the MAVA Foundation, and co-sponsorship of the Smithsonian Institution, the EcoHealth Alliance, Provita and the Fulbright Program, provided a boost to the consultation process by sponsoring a series of conceptual and practitioners workshops to be carried out in 2011 and 2012. The first workshop, on the Scientific Foundations of an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., USA, 4-4 April 2011) focused on building the science underlying the proposed categories and criteria (Fig. 2). Three other conceptual workshops – IUCN Red List for Wetland Ecosystems: Scientific guidelines and Case Studies (Tour du Valat Research Center, Arles, France, 20-22 September 2011), Red List Criteria for Ecosystems (University of Melbourne, Australia, 9-11 May 2012), and National-level Applications of the IUCN Red List for Sahelian and Marine Ecosystems: Scientific Guidelines and Case Studies (Centre de Suivi Ecologique, Dakar, Senegal, 3-7 July 2012) – and six practitioner’s workshops held in Beijing (10-11 April 2011), Santiago de Chile (22-25 May 2011), Austin (7 August 2011), Auckland (5 December 2011) and Lima (15-16 December 2011), provided extensive feedback on the science and practice underlying the RLE. Special attention was devoted to understanding how knowledge on ecosystem structure and function was better reflected in the categories and criteria, resulting in a

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 96

series of proposed amendments to the criteria (included now in Version 2) and identifying areas that required future research.

22 An area of discussion throughout the workshops was the link between the red list and ecosystem services, especially with other initiatives focused on ecosystem services such as The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB, 2010) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), as well as wider areas of engagement of land use planning and economic decision making. One of the key conclusions was that although ecosystems services maybe represent some of the ecosystem functions and processes that underpin ecosystems under assessment, a focus on changes in ecosystem services may result in a shift in emphasis to risk assessment of ecosystem utility or to the prioritization of ecosystems. The value placed on a given ecosystem, including the ecosystem services it provides, feeds into the prioritization rather than risk assessment phase (Fig. 1), where prioritization relates to conservation and land/water use action. Therefore the RLE will be very useful in initiatives such as IPBES, providing both an assessment of the status and change in biodiversity through ecosystems, but also change in the ecosystems that underpin the provision of ecosystem services. Other areas of discussion in the workshops included the potential users and clients of an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, and a brief outline of what would be the ideal governance structure of the initiative in order to ensure its long-term sustainability (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. Proposed governance structure for the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems.

Though it will be led by IUCN’s Ecosystem Management Programme (EMP) and Commission on Ecosystem Management (EMC), active participation of experts from other sectors of IUCN will be sought, especially from the Global Species Programme (GSP) and the Species Survival Commission (SSC), as well as academics and IUCN members

23 Since the adoption of Resolution 4.020 in 2008 and the closing of the V World Conservation Congress in Jeju in 2012, the consultation for the RLE will reach hundreds of participants in 20 countries (Fig. 5). The primary outputs of this process will be: • A peer-reviewed, on-line, freely available, IUCN Red List of Ecosystems: Categories, Criteria and Guidebook, which offers general guidelines on how to develop an ecosystem red list at the national, regional and global level.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 97

• A manuscript on the Scientific Foundations for an IUCN Red List for Ecosystems, summarizing the scientific advances of the consultation process, presenting a portfolio of case studies, and introducing the next version of the categories and criteria, submitted to a peer-review, scientific journal. • A website (linked to the website of the CEM Ecosystem Red List Thematic Group), with the following content (all in English, Spanish and French): • oReference documentation (e.g. guidebook, scientific articles). • oPortfolio of case studies, using a standard format. • oSet of presentations for training (in PowerPoint or using other web-based tools).

Figure 5. Global consultation for the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (2009-2012)

Base map: http://www.freeusandworldmaps.com/html/World_Projections/WorldPrint.html 18 workshops and 17 conferences in 20 countries on 5 continents. In cities where more than one workshop or conference took place, only one is shown (Beijing, Bogotá, Dakar, Santiago and Washington DC)

The route forward

24 By 2025, we aim to assess the conservation status of all of the world’s terrestrial, freshwater, marine and subterranean ecosystems and to create the first IUCN Red List of Ecosystems of the World. An intermediate goal will be to contribute with as many analyses as possible to the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Aichi Biodiversity Target 5, and assess whether “the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, [has been] at least halved and where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation [has been] significantly reduced.” We anticipate a significant expansion in existing institutional and technical capacity, especially in biodiversity- rich countries in the developing world, for assessing risk to ecosystems and for using this information for conservation decision-making by all sectors of society (Fig. 6).

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 98

Figure 6. Proposed time line for development of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems

25 We envision three major, overlapping challenges for the next few years: 1) strengthening technical and scientific capacity, 2) achieving global coverage of assessments, and 3) classification and mapping the ecosystems of the world. All the activities of the RLE will require strong links with the expert networks responsible for the three other key knowledge products of the Union – The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, World Data Base on Protected Areas and Key Biodiversity Areas – such that their databases are seamlessly integrated in an on-line, user-driven, freely- accessible information management system for performing biodiversity assessments. There is also a fourth, but slightly different challenge: how the RLE can inform land use planning at the national and regional levels and how it can link with macro-economic and fiscal planning, and with different governance structures, especially at the ecosystem level. In addition the RLE can play a very important role in how we identify and map ecosystem changes as a result of climate change, focusing on the potential restoration needs of degraded ecosystems in future.

Strengthening technical and scientific capacity

26 It is becoming clear that two parallel strategies are needed: one to develop the capacity to carry out periodic global RLE assessments, and a second to respond to stakeholder groups at the national and regional level. We envision global assessments to be an activity developed in close collaboration with GSP and SSC. This will require appointing at least one full-time EMP staff person, focused primarily on harmonizing sub-global assessments as they develop (e.g. Americas, Europe, Australia), and integrating them with the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (see Section 3, below).

27 National and regional assessments will require a different approach, with a flexible, deployable task-force of assessors available to travel to different locations at the request of the host country or region (Fig. 6). The task force must be able to lead workshops in at least the three IUCN official languages, though the more languages that they can cover the better. These would not be full-time staff, but either volunteers, people available on a contract basis, or somewhere in between. Such teams would also enhance capacity (where needed) at the national level to do this work, as well as gain national interest and ownership in RLE. Such teams would be complemented (as appropriate) at national or/and regional levels to make the linkages with national RLEs to land use, macro-economic planning, and governance structures.

28 We have already begun successfully testing this model, and are building a team so far capable of leading workshops in Spanish, English, Portuguese, French and Dutch, operating from Venezuela (where much of the current work is headquartered), Australia, Chile, Netherlands and United States. Next in the list are Brazil (where the

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 99

IUCN national office has already leveraged funds for a first national workshop), France and Senegal.

Achieving global coverage of assessments

29 With the generous support of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, between 2012 and 2014 we will undertake a new challenge, the IUCN Red List of the Continental Ecosystems of the Americas (Fig. 6). Activities will be structured around three themes that can be broadly defined as “science,” “public awareness,” and “biodiversity policy.” The scientific aim will be to fully assess the conservation status of the continental ecosystems of the Americas, by developing a series of baselines across the continental distribution of each type, assessing land cover change against these baselines, quantifying the drivers of change, and applying the red list criteria to ecosystems at the regional and national level.

30 Our public awareness aim is to improve public access to information on ecosystem status, by creating an on-line open-access, and free, toolbox for housing and analyzing scientific data, developing a portfolio of scientific and popular publications, and improving public knowledge. The Americas’ RLE will be integrated with the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and the World Database of Protected Areas as a decision support tool to enhance biodiversity conservation planning.

31 Finally, biodiversity policy is aimed at using RLEs to actively engage with governments in the region in the development of national RLEs (initially Chile, Colombia and Costa Rica), informing regional economic, social and environmental cooperation organizations, and maintaining a high profile at key global biodiversity-related scientific meetings. In addition, and through separate processes, we anticipate using the national RLEs to inform and influence land use planning and macro-economic development planning.

32 We propose to use the IUCN Red List of the Continental Ecosystems of the Americas as a model for implementation of analogous efforts in other regions. Expansion to other continents (e.g. Africa, Asia, Australia) and realms (e.g. marine and subterranean ecosystems) is expected to occur gradually over the next decade to achieve a global coverage of all terrestrial, freshwater, marine and subterranean ecosystems of the world (Fig. 6).

Classification and Mapping the ecosystems of the world

33 Although a global taxonomy and classification of ecosystems is not a pre-requisite for risk assessment, it would strengthen the consistency, comparability and portability of assessments between regions and realms. More importantly, it would provide a common field for linking the databases on species, ecosystems and areas. Implicit in the discussion above is that the maximum conservation impact of the RLE will be achieved by integrating ecosystem assessments with species assessments, and protected area and key biodiversity area databases into a single risk assessment, priority setting tool (i.e. Species + Ecosystems + Areas), while at the same time using the analyses to inform and influence land/water use policy, macro-economic planning, and governance. Using the Major Habitats Classification Scheme of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species4 as a starting point, we propose to develop a work plan jointly with the Global Species

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 100

Programme and the Species Survival Commission, to attempt to establish a single classification scheme, applicable to species, ecosystems and areas, spanning terrestrial, freshwater, marine and subterranean ecosystems. One of the key elements of this process needs to be a clear strategy for “cross-walking” existing species assessments into the new scheme, or at the very least, defining intermediate steps or a transitional stage between the “old” and “new” classification. Separately, the conservation impact of the RLE as a decision support tool would also be enhanced by making the linkages at national and regional levels with land use planning and macro-economic development priorities.

Conclusion

34 Several decades of experience with risk assessment of threatened species, combined with an increased availability of data and analysis tools, has provided the backdrop for the creation of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. Just as the IUCN Red list of Species has taken decades of research, assessment and remodeling to arrive at its present form, the RLE will continue to change and be improved through research, testing and implementation, and the collaboration between scientists, policy-makers, managers and the public that these processes entail. Together with other key knowledge products of the Union – the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the World Database of Protected Areas and Key Biodiversity Areas – it is part of a diverse toolbox for spatial and temporal analyses of biodiversity attributes at multiple scales. Precisely how these fit together will evolve as the RLE is further developed and the tools linked through global and regional assessments. Ultimately, we aspire to support the creation of national, regional and global RLE that are readily accessible and available to inform conservation decision-making by all sectors of society.

Acknowledgements

35 We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on a previous version of the manuscript.

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Beechie, T.J. et al. (2010). Process-ased principles for restoring river ecosystems. BioScience 60(3): 209-222.

Benson, J.S. (2006). New South Wales Vegetation Classification and Assessment: Introduction - the classification, database, assessment of protected areas and threat status of plant communities. Cunninghamia 9(3): 331-382.

Blab, J., U. Riecken & A. Ssymank (1995). Proposal on a criteria system for a National Red Data Book of Biotopes. Landscape Ecology 10(1): 41-50.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 101

Burgess, N.D., J.D. Hales, T.H. Ricketts & E. Dinerstein (2006). Factoring species, non-species values and threats into biodiversity prioritisation across the ecoregions of Africa and its islands. Biological Conservation 127(4): 383-401.

Butchart, S.H. et al. (2007). Improvements to the Red List Index. PLoS ONE 2(1): e140.

CBD (2010). 2010 Biodiversity Target Indicators. Montréal, Canada. Accessed 11 March 2010.: Convention on Biological Diversity, URL: http://www.cbd.int/2010-target/framework/ indicators.shtml).

Council of the European Communities (1992). Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

Cowling, R.M. et al. (2004). Nature conservation requires more than a passion for species. Conservation Biology 18(6): 1674-1676.

DEAT (2004). The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, No. 10. of 2004. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, URL: http:// www.environment.gov.za.

EPBC Act (1999). Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Commonwealth of Australia.

EPBC Reg. (2000). Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations, REG 7.02 Criteria for listing threatened ecological communities. Commonwealth of Australia.

Fitter, R., & M. Fitter (Eds.) (1987). The Road to Extinction. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

Holdaway, R. J., S. K. Wiser & P. A. Williams (2012), Status Assessment of New Zealand's Naturally Uncommon Ecosystems. Conservation Biology. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01868.x

IUCN (2001). IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K.: Species Survival Commission, World Conservation Union (IUCN).

IUCN (2003). Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels: Version 3.0. The World Conservation Union (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN Species Survival Commission.

IUCN (2011). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Version 2011.1. URL: http:// www.iucnredlist.org). Downloaded on 30 September 2011.

IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee (2010). Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 8.0: Prepared by the IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee of the Species Survival Commission. URL: http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/RedList/ RedListGuidelines.pdf.

IV World Conservation Congress (2008). Resolution 4.020: Quantitative thresholds for categories and criteria of threatened ecosystems.

Keith, D.A. (2009). The interpretation, assessment and conservation of ecological communities Ecological Management and Restoration 10(S1): S3-S15.

Kontula, T. & A. Raunio (2009). New method and criteria for national assessments of threatened habitat types Biodiversity and Conservation 18(14): 3861-3876.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 102

Köppel, C. et al. (2003). A statistical survey on European red lists. In: Iongh, H.H.D. et al. (Eds.) The Harmonization of Red Lists for Threatened Species in Europe, pp. 59-75. Leiden: The Netherlands Commission for International Nature Protection.

Llamozas, S. et al. (2003). Libro Rojo de la Flora Venezolana. Caracas, Venezuela: PROVITA, Fundación Polar y Fundación Instituto Botánico de Venezuela, Dr. Tobías Lasser.

Mace, G.M. et al. (2008). Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN's system for classifying threatened species. Conservation Biology 22(6): 1424-1442.

Mace, G.M. & R. Lande (1991). Assessing extinction threats: toward a reevaluation of IUCN threatened species categories. Conservation Biology 5(2): 148-157.

Master, L. et al. (2009). NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Assessing Extinction Risk. Arlington, Virginia, USA: NatureServe.

MDG (2009). Millennium Development Goals, Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability, URL: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/environ.shtml

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.

Miller, R.M. et al. (2007). National threatened species listing based on IUCN Criteria and Regional Guidelines: current status and future perspectives. Conservation Biology 21(3): 684-696.

New South Wales Government (2002). Threatened Species Conservation Regulation (listing criteria). New South Wales, Australia.

New South Wales Government (2009). Schedules of the Threatened Species Conservation Act (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/committee/ SchedulesThreatenedSpeciesConservationAct.htm). Sydney, Australia.

Nicholson, E., D.A. Keith & D.S. Wilcove (2009). Assessing the threat status of ecological communities. Conservation Biology 23(2): 259-274.

Noss, R.F. (1996). Ecosystems as conservation targets. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11(8): 351.

Reyers, B. et al. (2007). Developing products for conservation decision-making: lessons from a spatial biodiversity assessment for South Africa. Diversity and Distributions 13(5): 608-619.

Rodríguez, J.P. (November, 2004). Quantitative criteria for assessing extinction risk to terrestrial ecosystems. Oral presentation at the workshop "Assessing and monitoring biodiversity: tools and challenges for species, sites and habitats," Third World Conservation Congress, 17-25 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand.

Rodríguez, J.P. (2008). National Red Lists: the largest global market for IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Endangered Species Research 6(2): 193-198.

Rodríguez, J.P., J.K. Balch & K.M. Rodríguez-Clark (2007). Assessing extinction risk in the absence of species-level data: quantitative criteria for terrestrial ecosystems. Biodiversity and Conservation 16(1): 183-209.

Rodríguez, J.P. et al. (2011). Establishing IUCN Red List criteria for threatened ecosystems. Conservation Biology 25(1): 21-29.

Rodríguez, J.P. & F. Rojas-Suárez (1995). Libro Rojo de la Fauna Venezolana. Caracas: PROVITA, Fundación Polar.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 103

Rodríguez, J.P., F. Rojas-Suárez & D. Giraldo Hernández (Eds.) (2010). Libro Rojo de los Ecosistemas Terrestres de Venezuela. Caracas, Venezuela: Provita, Shell Venezuela y Lenovo (Venezuela).

SANBI & DEAT (2009). Threatened Ecosystems in South Africa: General Information / Descriptions and Maps. Pretoria, South Africa: Drafts for Public Comment, South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI).

Scott, P., J.A. Burton & R. Fitter (1987). Red Data Books: the historical background. In: Fitter, R. & M. Fitter (Eds.) The Road to Extinction, pp. 1-6. IUCN/UNEP.

Stuart, S.N., E.O. Wilson, J.A. McNeely, R.A. Mittermeier & J.P. Rodríguez (2010). The Barometer of Life. Science 328: 177.

TEEB (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.

Terborgh, J. (1974). Faunal equilibria and the design of wildlife preserves. In: Golley, F. & E. Medina (Eds.) Tropical Ecological Systems: Trends in Terrestrial and Aquatic Research, pp. 369-380. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Terborgh, J., L. Lopez & S.J. Tello (1997). Bird communities in transition: the lago Guri islands. Ecology 78(5): 1494-1501.

Tilman, D., R.M. May, C.L. Lehman & M.A. Nowak (1994). Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371: 65-66.

Vié, J.-C. et al. (2009). The IUCN Red List: a key conservation tool. In: Vié, J.-C., C. Hilton-Taylor & S.N. Stuart (Eds.) Wildlife in a Changing World - An Analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, pp. 1-14. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Zamin, T. J. et al. (2010). National red listing beyond the 2010 target. Conservation Biology 24(4): 1012-1020.

NOTES

1. http:/www.iucnredlist.org/ 2. http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/cem/cem_work/tg_red_list/ 3. Jonathan Baillie (Zoological Society of London), John Benson (Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust), Tim Boucher (The Nature Conservancy), Claire Brown (UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre), Neil Burgess (World Wildlife Fund US), Ben Collen (Zoological Society of London), David Keith (New South Wales Parks and Wildlife Service), Emily Nicholson (Imperial College London), Mark Spalding (The Nature Conservancy), Belinda Reyers (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research), Jon Paul Rodríguez (Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas and Provita), Andrew Taber (The Wildlife Trust), Irene Zager (Provita), and Tara Zamin (Zoological Society of London). 4. http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 104

RÉSUMÉS

We begin by briefly examining the achievements of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, and offering it as the model and motivator for the creation of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE). The history of the RLE concept within IUCN is briefly summarized, from the first attempt to formally establish an RLE in 1996 to the present. Major activities since 2008, when the World Conservation Congress initiated a “consultation process for the development, implementation and monitoring of a global standard for the assessment of ecosystem status, applicable at local, regional and global levels,” have included: development of a research agenda for strengthening the scientific foundations of the RLE, publication of preliminary categories and criteria for examination by the scientific and conservation community, dissemination of the effort widely by presenting it at workshops and conferences around the world, and encouraging tests of the system for a diversity of ecosystem types and in a variety of institutional settings. Between 2009 and 2012, the Red List of Ecosystems Thematic Group of the IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management organized 18 workshops and delivered 17 conferences in 20 countries on 5 continents, directly reaching hundreds of participants. Our vision for the future includes the integration of the RLE to the other three key IUCN knowledge products (IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, World Database on Protected Areas and Key Biodiversity Areas), in an on- line, user-driven, freely-accessible information management system for performing biodiversity assessments. In addition we wish to pilot the integration of the RLE into land/water use planning and macro-economic planning. Fundamental challenges for the future include: substantial expansion in existing institutional and technical capacity (especially in biodiversity-rich countries in the developing world), progressive assessment of the status of all terrestrial, freshwater, marine and subterranean ecosystems, and development of a map of the ecosystems of the world. Our ultimate goal is that national, regional and global RLEs are used to inform conservation and land/water use decision-making by all sectors of society.

INDEX

Keywords : ecosystem degradation, ecosystem threat status, elimination, endangered ecosystems, IUCN categories and criteria, IUCN Red List, land/water use and conservation, risk assessment, threatened ecosystems

AUTEURS

JON PAUL RODRÍGUEZ Centro de Ecología, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, Apdo. 20632, Caracas 1020-A, Venezuela. Provita, Apdo. 47552, Caracas 1041-A, Venezuela. IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, 28 rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland. IUCN Species Survival Commission, 28 rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

KATHRYN M. RODRÍGUEZ-CLARK Centro de Ecología, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, Apdo. 20632, Caracas 1020-A, Venezuela

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 105

DAVID A. KEITH Australian Wetlands and Rivers Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia. NSW Office of Environment & Heritage, PO Box 1967, Hurstville NSW 2220, Australia

EDMUND G. BARROW IUCN Ecosystem Management Programme, 28 rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland

JOHN BENSON Royal Botanic Gardens Trust, Mrs Macquaries Road, Sydney 2000, Australia

EMILY NICHOLSON ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia

PIET WIT IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, 28 rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 106

Presentation: IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

NOTE DE L’ÉDITEUR

Commission Chair: Simon N. Stuart PhD. Further details relating to the SSC may be found at: http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/species , Correspondence to: [email protected]

NOTE DE L'AUTEUR

Further details relating to the SSC may be found at: http://www.iucn.org/about/work/ programmes/species/ Authors: Claire Santer and Simon Stuart

About us

1 The IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) is a science-based network of more than 8,000 volunteer experts from almost every country of the world. SSC members include experts on plants, fungi, birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates. The major role of the SSC is to provide information, advice and policy guidance to IUCN on biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, the inherent value of species, their role in ecosystem health and functioning, the provision of ecosystem services, and their support to human livelihoods. SSC members also provide scientific information and advice to conservation organisations, government agencies and other IUCN members, and to the private sector, as well as supporting the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). A major function of the SSC is to catalyze conservation action among these external actors.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 107

2 SSC members collectively form a highly-regarded and influential network of species experts that is able to influence conservation outcomes at all levels worldwide, through engaging with each other and collaborating in IUCN’s and SSC’s name.

Background and mission

3 The SSC has its origins in the ‘Survival Service’ set up by IUCN in 1949 under the leadership of Harold J. Coolidge to answer the call made at an UNESCO conference for “Emergency Action for Preserving Vanishing Species of Flora and Fauna.” The mission of this new service was “for the assembling, evaluation, and dissemination of information on and the study of, all species of fauna and flora that appear to be threatened with extinction, in order to assist governments and appropriate agencies in assuring their survival”.

4 The Survival Service was formalized as the Survival Service Commission in 1956, and the name was changed to the Species Survival Commission in 1980. Today it has the following Mission, Vision, Goal and Objectives:

Mission

5 Over the next four years, the SSC will continue to play a leading role in enabling IUCN to be the world’s most authoritative voice on behalf of global biodiversity conservation and the sustainability of natural resource use. In particular, the SSC and its worldwide network are uniquely placed to enable IUCN to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity of biodiversity, and to ensure that the use of species is both equitable and sustainable, through the provision of knowledge on biodiversity status and trends, undertaking analyses of threats and facilitating action on the ground.

Vision

6 A just world that values and conserves nature through positive action to reduce the loss of diversity of life on earth.

Goal

7 The species extinction crisis and massive loss of biodiversity are universally adopted as a shared responsibility and addressed by all sectors of society taking positive conservation action and avoiding negative impacts worldwide.

Objectives

8 For the intersessional period 2013–2016 the SSC, working in collaboration with members, national and regional committees, other Commissions and the Secretariat, will pursue the following key objectives in helping to deliver IUCN’s “One Programme”1 commitment:

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 108

Assessing and monitoring biodiversity

9 To assess and monitor biodiversity and inform the world about the status and trends of biodiversity, especially at the species level, thus providing measures for the health of our one and only biosphere;

Analysing the threats to biodiversity

10 To analyse and communicate the threats to biodiversity and disseminate information on appropriate global conservation actions;

Facilitating and undertaking conservation action

11 To facilitate and undertake action to deliver biodiversity-based solutions for halting biodiversity decline and catalyse measures to manage biodiversity sustainably and prevent species’ extinctions both in terms of policy change and action on the ground;

Convening expertise for biodiversity conservation

12 To provide a forum for gathering and integrating the knowledge and experience of the world’s leading experts on species science and management, and promoting the active involvement of subsequent generations of species conservationists.

13 This mission is achieved in part through The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™2 which is the world’s most accurate, up-to-date information source on species, their distribution and their conservation status. The IUCN Red List is managed through a joint effort between SSC members who provide the data via an assessment process and IUCN’s Global Species Programme staff and The IUCN Red List Partner organizations who provide the tools, infrastructure and coordination required to publish the data consistently. All of these together agree The IUCN Red List standards and processes.

14 The IUCN Red List is not just a register of names and associated threat categories. It is a rich compendium of information on the threats to the species, their ecological requirements, where they live, their uses, and on conservation actions needed. Thus, the SSC plays a leading role in enabling IUCN to be the world’s most authoritative voice on behalf of global biodiversity conservation and the sustainability of natural resource use.

Achievements to date

The IUCN Red List

15 Back in 1949, a resolution of the UNESCO conference listed 13 birds and 14 mammals as “threatened animals of international importance”. By the end of 2011, The IUCN Red List included data for 61,914 species (of which 20,435 are Threatened, Extinct in the Wild, or Extinct); data collected, assessed and verified through the SSC network.

16 The building of The IUCN Red List in recent years has often been around large projects completing the assessment of every species in a taxonomic group, such as the Global Amphibian Assessment3 (completed in 2004) and the Global Mammal Assessment 4 (completed in 2008).

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 109

17 Thanks to the knowledge and dedication of the SSC’s volunteer members, coverage is now complete for a number of other major taxonomic groups including, birds (due to the long-term partnership with BirdLife International), horseshoe crabs, conifers, cycads, freshwater crabs and crayfish, lobsters, mangroves, reef-building corals, seagrasses, groupers, wrasses, sturgeons, and sharks and rays.

18 The process of collecting species data was standardized in1994 when the new IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria were introduced. Information management tools have been developed to support the assessment process enabling assessors and experts to collect, manage, process, and report on species data in a consistent manner.

Species Conservation Strategies (formerly Action Plans)

19 The SSC Conservation Action Plan series has been one of the world’s most respected sources of information on species and their conservation needs. Developed by the SSC’s Specialist Groups, more than 60 Action Plans were created between 1986 and 2008, documents which identified threats to groups of species and the actions required at all levels to reduce or eliminate those threats. In 2008, new Strategic Planning for Species Conservation guidelines were produced, outlining a multi-stakeholder approach to conservation planning for species. Two new conservation plans have already appeared, on the Critically Endangered Golden Mantella, a frog known from a single site in Madagascar, and on the Ethiopian Wolf. In both cases these plans were developed with the local communities and, critically, endorsed by the government. We now expect to see a number of new SSC-endorsed conservation plans appearing in coming years

Policies and Guidelines5

20 Various policies and guidelines are produced by the SSC. Used widely by governments and the conservation community, these guidelines cover issues such as sustainable use of species, captive breeding, re-introducing species into their former ranges, handling confiscated specimens, and halting the spread of invasive species.

Supporting the implementation of MEAs

21 The advice and knowledge of the SSC network members is being called upon increasingly in support of international conventions. The IUCN Red List provides quality data on biodiversity against which conservation targets set by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) can be measured. For many years, the SSC has worked as the objective, trusted scientific advisor to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), collaborating closely with TRAFFIC (the wildlife trade monitoring network of IUCN and WWF). The SSC also participates in the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) as well as contributing to the work of the RamsarConventionon Wetlands. This has covered the value of wetlands to livelihoods and discussions on the selection of sites of importance for freshwater biodiversity. The SSC also participates in the annual meetings of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) Scientific Committee, and in numerous other policy fora.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 110

Current initiatives

Interdisciplinary action

22 A very important aspect of the SSC’s work is implemented through five specialist groups, all of which conduct a very large amount of work linking the other components of the SSC. For example, the Invasive Species Specialist Group runs the online Global Invasive Species Database (GISD), and also the Aliens list serve, through which people from around the globe bring their problems and questions to the world’s leading experts on controlling invasive species. An exciting new development currently under implementation is the linking of the GISD with The IUCN Red List. The Re-introduction Specialist Group runs a publication series, Global Re-introduction Perspectives, which brings together re-introduction case-studies from all over the world, covering invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and plants. The Conservation Breeding Specialist Group is the SSC’s link with the zoo community, and plays a major role in advising on how to manage small populations of species, both in the wild and captivity, especially through the use of Population and Habitat Viability Assessments. The Wildlife Health Specialist Group has led the development of the Disease Risk Assessment guidelines, and actively promotes their use around the world. The Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group has recently been re-launched, and is shared with the IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP). It is the SSC’s main advisor, both on managing use to make it sustainable, but also on making use into a positive conservation tool.

The use of The IUCN Red List

23 The IUCN Red List Index has been adopted by the United Nations as one of the indicators for the 2015 Millennium Development Goal 7 on Environmental Sustainability, and as a result all countries of the world are being asked to develop their own national red lists in order to measure trends in the status of their species. The IUCN Global Species Programme and the SSC are involved in a proactive training initiative to help countries develop and enhance their national red listing programmes, and to develop improved means of incorporating data from national red lists into the global IUCN Red List.6 The IUCN Red List is also used by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as on the data sources for the System on Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR) which determines the GEF financial allocation for each eligible country.

Increasing the taxonomic coverage of the SSC

24 While marine, freshwater, plant and invertebrate species are under-represented on The IUCN Red List, fungi must be the most neglected of all the taxonomic groups in the conservation world. However, the SSC now has five fungi specialist groups to address this. There has been an increase in the number of well-documented plant Red List assessments coming through and good headway is being made on, for example, the Global Cactus Assessment.

25 Huge progress has been made on the Sampled Red List Index (SRLI) project, with representative samples being assessed of all the major plant groups by the Royal

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 111

Botanic Gardens Kew (RBGK), in its role as a Red List Partner Organization. Preliminary results have already been published by RBGK7, and these will shortly be included on The IUCN Red List – for the first time giving us an overall picture of the status of the plant kingdom.

26 The zoological side of the SRLI project is run by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), and among others they have completed assessments of random samples of 1,500 dragonfly species and 1,500 reptile species.

27 New marine assessment work continues on the cone shells and on the squids, cuttlefishes, octopuses and nautiloids, but with most attention on the marine fishes. In 2011 an important paper was published in Science on the tuna and billfish assessment showing that the level of threat to these species is strongly correlated with generation length and market price.

28 Freshwater species continue to be assessed on a regional basis with the completion of The IUCN Red List assessment of African freshwater species being a major achievement. During this project, 5,167 African freshwater species were assessed by 200 scientists. The livelihoods of an estimated 7.5 million people in sub-Saharan Africa depend on inland fisheries. These new data in The IUCN Red List will be invaluable in helping to safeguard these fisheries, freshwater supplies and the many other associated resources. The results of the African freshwater assessments are published and analyzed in an outstanding IUCN publication, The Diversity of Life in African Freshwaters: Underwater, Under Threat, in 2011. The freshwater assessments have now expanded into Asia.

29 The SSC continues to address the amphibian extinction crisis working as part of the new inter-institutional Amphibian Survival Alliance (ASA)8. The priorities for the ASA are the conservation of key sites for amphibians (very many of these fall outside protected areas), and fostering research on threatening processes, especially on the management of the devastating fungal disease, chytridiomycosis. National and regional amphibian action plans are being developed, 55 threatened species have been protected in situ (including 22,000 ha of new protected areas), conservation needs have been assessed for 2,435 amphibian species, and ex-situ programmes have been established for 100 threatened species.

Challenges for the future

Response of species to climate change

30 A traits-based approach to assessing species’ vulnerability to climate change has been developed and the approach tested on birds, amphibians and corals. A paper entitled “ Climate change susceptibility of the world’s birds, amphibians and corals” is in preparation. This will become a new approach to assessing the impacts of climate change on species, in addition to climate-envelope modelling which is already widely used. Meanwhile, the new methodology is being applied to economically valuable species in the Albertine Rift region of central Africa with a view to gaining insights on how climate change might impact the livelihoods of populations dependent on wild species.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 112

Impact of systemic pesticides

31 In 2011 the SSC established a joint task force with the IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM) on systemic pesticides. These systemic pesticides have been implicated in the decline of a number of groups of invertebrates, including pollinators such as honey bees. A number of environmental groups have called for neonicotinoid pesticides to be banned, but these calls have been strongly contested by the industry. The SSC and the CEM are therefore reviewing the scientific evidence in depth with a view to determining the true environmental impacts of systemic pesticides.

Area-based conservation planning

32 Working with the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), the SSC will carry out a study looking at how well protected areas conserve biodiversity, and what the relationship is between this and the IUCN management categories for protected areas. New criteria for identifying and designating sites of importance for biodiversity will be developed and agreed. Criteria have already been formulated for identifying Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), and these will now be subject to extensive review with the aim of reaching global agreement on a new system.

Rapid decline of large animals in Asia

33 Another major conservation crisis concerns the rapid declines of large animals in Asia, especially Southeast Asia. This includes most species of large mammals, turtles, and freshwater fishes such as the Mekong Giant Catfish and Chinese Paddlefish; many of these species could go extinct unless action is taken very soon. In collaboration with the Secretariat and various IUCN Members, the SSC is launching a new initiative to address the crisis, provisionally called Action Asia. There is an especially urgent need for increased law enforcement on the ground in the places where the most threatened species occur. We have started an important collaboration with the European Association of Zoos and Aquariums (EAZA), which invited us to join a major fundraising campaign for Action Asia, starting in September 2011 and running to 2013 to raise funds from the public for the conservation of severely threatened large animals in Southeast Asia.

Save Our Species (SOS)

34 “Save Our Species” (SOS)9 is a global coalition initiated by the three founding partners IUCN, GEF and World Bank to build the biggest species conservation fund, supporting on-the-ground field conservation projects all over the world. The SSC has formed a working group that plays an important advisory role in the selection of projects for funding.

Facts and Figures

35 The SSC is governed by a Steering Committee, which is headed by the Commission Chair. The Steering Committee represents a balance of regional and thematic

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 113

perspectives, and provides overall direction to the work of the Commission. Because the scope and scale of activities is so large, the Steering Committee has established a number of sub-committees which focus mainly on areas of the SSC’s work that need to be built up. Currently there are sub-committees on Freshwater, Invertebrates, Marine, Plants and Species Conservation Planning. There is also a Red List Committee that governs the strategic development and use of The IUCN Red List, and a Standards and Petitions Sub-Committee which is responsible for maintaining the standards of The IUCN Red List, and handling petitions against particular listings in an impartial and objective manner.

36 The great mass of work carried out by the SSC is done by Specialist Groups, Red List Authorities and Task Forces, all of which are established by the Chair in consultation with the Steering Committee.

37 There are currently 112 Specialist Groups, most of which have a taxonomic focus, as follows: • 10 Amphibian & Reptile Specialist Groups; • 15 Bird Specialist Groups; • 7 Fish Specialist Groups; • 5 Fungi Specialist Groups; • 9 Invertebrate Specialist Groups; • 36 Mammal Specialist Groups; and • 25 Plant Specialist Groups.

38 A number of the bird groups along with the Freshwater Fish Specialist Group are governed in a joint collaboration between the SSC and Wetlands International.

39 There are five large disciplinary Specialist Groups: • Conservation Breeding; • Re-introduction; • Invasive Species; • Sustainable Use & Livelihoods (shared with CEESP); and • Wildlife Health.

40 Red List Authorities (RLAs) coordinate and manage the species red list assessment process and submission. There are 85 such RLAs, the majority of which lie within the relevant specialist group. However there are 14 Red List Authorities that are not attached to any particular specialist group and are known as Stand-Alone RLAs.

41 The SSC also has three Task Forces: • Biodiversity and Protected Areas (shared with WCPA); • Systemic Pesticides (shared with CEM); • Climate Change.

42 The number of SSC members is constantly changing, but at the end of 2011 it stood at around 8,000. Individual members are invited to join by the Chair of each group.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 114

NOTES

1. The IUCN One Programme Charter, established at the 76th Council meeting in 2011, calls upon the Secretariat, Commissions, and National and Regional Committees to work together to develop and implement the IUCN Programme collaboratively. The full description of the Charter may be downloaded from: http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_one_programme_charter.pdf 2. www.iucnredlist.org/ 3. www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/amphibians 4. www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/mammals 5. All policy statements and technical guidelines are available on the IUCN Species website in English, French, Spanish, and sometimes other languages: www.iucn.org/about/work/ programmes/species/publications/iucn_guidelines_and__policy__statements 6. See www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/red-list-training for details. The joint SSC- Zoological Society of London (ZSL) website on national red lists from around the world can be found here: www.nationalredlist.org/site.aspx. 7. See www.kew.org/science-conservation/search-rescue/mapping-plants/plants-at-risk/iucn- srli-explained/index.htm 8. www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/species/our_work/amphibians/ 9. www.sospecies.org

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 115

Why South-east Asia should be the world’s priority for averting imminent species extinctions, and a call to join a developing cross- institutional programme to tackle this urgent issue

J. W. Duckworth, G. Batters, J. L. Belant, E. L. Bennett, J. Brunner, J. Burton, D. W. S. Challender, V. Cowling, N. Duplaix, J. D. Harris, S. Hedges, B. Long, S. P. Mahood, P. J. K. McGowan, W. J. McShea, W. L. R. Oliver, S. Perkin, B. M. Rawson, C. R. Shepherd, S. N. Stuart, B. K. Talukdar, P. P. van Dijk, J-C. Vié, J. L. Walston, T. Whitten et R. Wirth Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

NOTE DE L’ÉDITEUR

This manuscript was reviewed by two anonymous reviewers

Introduction

1 The world’s biodiversity is in crisis (e.g. Terborgh, 1999; Ceballos et al., 2010; Cardinale et al., 2012). Of biodiversity’s various levels, species hold a special place in the imagination of conservationists and the public alike: people equate to them more readily than to elements such as genes and ecosystems. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species1 categorises species’ extinction risk (Vié et al., 2009). Recent comprehensive Red List assessments show high threat levels for amphibians (30% of 6,347 species considered globally threatened), birds (12% of 9,990), mammals (21% of 5,488), cycads

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 116

(52% of 289), conifers (28% of 620) and freshwater crabs (17% of 1,281 species; but a further 49% of them were listed as Data Deficient) (Cumberlidge et al., 2009; Hilton- Taylor et al., 2009). Recent losses far exceed typical ‘background’ extinction rates, those before people dominated the earth (e.g. Baillie et al., 2004; McCullum, 2007; Ceballos et al., 2010). Moreover, the Red List Index shows that extinction risks are increasing (Hilton-Taylor et al., 2009). The various factors driving species to extinction result directly and indirectly from the hugely increased human population and its increased disposable income (e.g. Vitousek et al., 1997; Steffen & Tyson, 2001; TRAFFIC, 2008; Cardinale et al., 2012).

2 Species loss is problematic for humanity at multiple levels, although precise effects of any given level of loss remain uncertain (Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 1981; Balmford & Bond, 2005; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Cardinale et al., 2012). Unsurprisingly, species directly harvested for use are more likely to be assessed as globally threatened by the Red List than those that are not (Hilton-Taylor et al., 2009). Many species, whether harvested or not, are vital for effective ecosystem function and, thus, ultimately for human survival. Averting species loss, once seen as a niche luxury (e.g. Prendergast & Adams, 2003), is thus now stated policy of a growing majority of the world’s governments. Most countries (192 so far) are Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which came into force in December 1993. The CBD’s 2011– 2020 strategic plan includes the 20 ‘Aichi targets’. Target 12 contains the most explicit, concise mainstream recognition yet of the primacy of species conservation: “by 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained” (CBD, 2011, p.16).

3 This contribution profiles one part of the world with a high concentration of threatened species, and describes a response under preparation. It aims to encourage further discussion about how to respond and to encourage involvement in such responses.

Wildlife and conservation in South-east Asia

4 Extinction risk is uneven across the earth’s surface. Confining discussion to non-marine species, most taxonomic groups so far studied are more threatened in South-east Asia (here, the countries of ASEAN, the Association of South-East Asian Nations [Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam] plus Timor-Leste) than elsewhere (e.g. Brook et al., 2003; Cardillo et al., 2006; Sodhi & Brook, 2006; Lee & Jetz, 2008; Schipper et al., 2008; Hilton-Taylor et al., 2009; Sodhi et al., 2010). Notably, compared with Meso-America, South America or sub-Saharan Africa (South Asia was not included in the comparison), South-east Asia has a higher proportion of its vascular plant, reptile, bird and mammal species categorised as globally threatened on the Red List (Sodhi et al., 2010). These high threat levels are of particular concern, because South-east Asia is an important region for wildlife. Nearly all of it falls within biodiversity ‘hotspots’ (Myers et al., 2000), and of the above-mentioned tropical regions it has the highest mean proportion of country- endemic bird (9%) and mammal species (11%), and nearly does so for plants (Sodhi et al., 2010).

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 117

5 A fundamental reason for the region’s elevated threat level is that 47.9% of the world’s people live in South-east Asia or the adjacent countries of China, Bangladesh and India, yet this region comprises only 11.8% of the earth’s land area. South-east Asia itself supports 8.9% of people in 3.0% of the earth’s land2. Notwithstanding the high fertility of areas such as parts of Java and Bali (Whitten et al., 1996) and the region’s lack of deserts or permanent ice, large conservation landscapes are, therefore, likely to be less feasible in South-east Asia than where human densities are much lower. Accordingly, mapping human activity to define ‘the last of the wild’ found very little of South-east Asia that could be so described (Sanderson et al., 2002). However, nearby India’s ‘human footprint’ is generally even more intense (Sanderson et al., 2002) yet it is notably more successful in retaining species highly attractive to hunters and with large area needs, such as Tiger Panthera tigris, Asian Elephant Elephas maximus and Greater One-horned Rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis (Talukdar, 2006; Karanth et al., 2010; Walston et al., 2010). This indicates that the conservation challenge of South-east Asia cannot arise solely through the difficulties of reconciling the space needs of many people with landscape-level conservation.

6 South-east Asia has a higher annual rate of deforestation than Meso-America, South America or sub-Saharan Africa, and it increased between 1990–2000 and 2000–2005 (Sodhi et al., 2010). Forest loss through conversion, fragmentation and degradation is high, particularly in the lowlands (e.g. Jepson et al., 2001), although loss is generally somewhat lower in and near declared protected areas (e.g. Curran et al., 2004; Gaveau et al., 2009). The past few decades saw massive conversion of Sundaic forest to plantation agriculture, notably oil palm Elaeis guineensis and rubber Hevea brasiliensis (e.g. Mohd- Azlan & Lawes, 2011; Miettinen et al., 2012). Such conversion is now intensifying in northern South-east Asia, with eucalyptus Eucalyptus, sugar-cane Saccharum officinarum, biofuels and varieties of rubber and even oil palm able to cope with a marked dry season (e.g. Ziegler et al., 2009). Of all large South-east Asian countries, the Philippines has lost by far the highest proportion of forest. Over 93% of the country's original forest cover has been converted, reflecting its position as the region's most densely populated large country. Most of this loss has been driven by commercial logging operations instigated during U.S. and post-colonial administrations (e.g. Ong et al., 2002). This circumstance is exacerbated by the Philippines Archipelago being divided into at least six ‘major’ (and many more ‘minor’) faunal regions. Each constitutes a distinct and separate centre/sub-centre of endemism, wherein the country’s most severely threatened taxa are concentrated. As a result, the Philippines supports more severely threatened endemic species than does any other country in the world (Oliver & Heaney, 1997; Oliver, 2006).

7 Despite these habitat encroachment rates, overharvest is the main threat to many vertebrates, especially outside the Philippines. The marked and widespread ‘empty forest’ syndrome (Redford, 1992: forests largely devoid of noticeable wildlife), stems from overhunting (e.g. Robinson & Bennett, 2000; Nooren & Claridge, 2001; Corlett, 2007). The following discussion focuses on extinction risks in the next 10-30 years, although if current habitat trends continue, within 50+ years many more South-east Asian species, hunted and non-hunted alike, may go extinct (e.g. Laurance, 2006).

8 Heavy hunting in South-east Asia, particularly its northern part, reflects the apparently limitless trade demand for wildlife in the region and in East Asia (China, Korea, Japan, Mongolia and the Russian Far East). Many species are in demand, particularly for

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 118

consumption, as ‘strengthening’ food, tonics and medicines (e.g. Yang et al., 2000; Nooren & Claridge, 2001; Bell et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2005; World Bank, 2005; Nguyen, 2008; Zhang et al., 2008; Pantel & Chin, 2009; Nijman, 2010; Caillabet, 2011; Felbab- Brown, 2011; Nijman et al., 2012). Increasingly, these perceived attributes seem subsidiary to the status-symbolism of wild mammal and reptile meat’s rarity and thus expense (Drury, 2009; see also Rivalan et al., 2007). This is the reverse of the situation in many other tropical areas, where wild meat is an important protein source for the urban poor who cannot afford farmed meat (e.g. van Vliet et al., 2012), as are wild fish in South-east Asia. The long-distance luxury consumption trade comprises mostly large (over 1 kg) mammals, turtles and tortoises (Testudines), crocodiles (Crocodilia), suitably large snakes, monitors Varanus, Tockay Gekko gecko and salamanders (Caudatra). A much wider taxonomic variety is consumed largely locally. These are generally not so threatened by offtake, in part because the high-demand species have moved from local consumption to long-distance trade as urban markets have developed (e.g. Newton et al., 2008; Challender, 2011).

9 Trade in South-east Asia’s species for live captives and body parts not for eating has had similar severe impacts. Body parts, such as horns and other trophies, and reptile, pangolin and otter skins, are usually sought for display and to enhance the owner’s social standing (e.g. Srikosamatara & Suteethorn 1995). Hundreds of species, especially of birds, reptiles and fish, are taken in bulk (e.g. Ng & Tan, 1997; Shepherd, 2006, 2010a, 2010b; Lau et al., 2010; Challender, 2011; Luiselli et al., in press). The live animal demand has driven many species almost (such as Bali Starling Leucopsar rothschildi) or perhaps already (such as Siamese Bala-sharkBalantiocheilos ambusticauda) to extinction (e.g. Nash, 1993; van Balen, 1999; BirdLife International, 2001; Shepherd & Ibarrondo, 2005; Shepherd, 2006; Ng & Kottelat, 2007). Restricted-range species, especially new discoveries, are in high demand in these markets, which are stimulated by rarity and novelty (e.g. Stuart et al., 2006). Thus, Roti Island Snake-necked Turtle Chelodina mccordi, described only in 1994, was declared commercially extinct in 2000 (Samedi & Iskandar, 2000; Shepherd & Ibarrondo, 2005). In the Philippines, no trade demands existed for Camiguin Colasissi Loriculus camiguinensis before it was named (Tello et al., 2006), or Philippine Forest Turtle Seibenrockellia leytensis before its rediscovery (Diesmos et al., 2004), but the publicity around these events invoked local and international trade demands for live animals leading to serious (potentially catastrophic) declines in the populations of these species (WLRO, personal observation).

10 Local live markets are huge in some South-east Asian countries, but export is also massive: over 500,000 shipments of wildlife, containing over 1,480,000,000 live animals, were imported by the USA during 2000–2006 (Smith et al., 2009). Mostly (92%) these were for commercial purposes, largely the pet trade: over 69% of these live animal imports originated in Southeast Asia (Smith et al., 2009). Laundering of wild-caught South-east Asian animals, particularly reptiles, as captive-bred, to circumvent trade regulations, occurs and may be a very significant threat (Nijman & Shepherd, 2009; Lyons & Natusch, 2011; Luiselli et al., in press).

11 The various wildlife trade demands are penetrating South-east Asia at different rates. In part this presumably reflects great diversity within South-east Asia in governance, civil obedience, religious and socio-economic factors, and thus basic predisposition for poaching and consuming wildlife (see Milledge, 2007). In some areas low market-value wildlife still remains little affected. In general, those parts of South-east Asia initially

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 119

less permeated by traders are increasingly targeted as animals are extirpated in early supply areas (e.g. van Dijk et al., 2000; Challender, 2011). Additionally, as high-value species become scarce, formerly lower-value species, or classes within species (e.g. smaller individuals) are increasingly demanded (e.g. Tungittiplakorn & Dearden, 2002; Allan et al., 2005).

12 Freshwater fish are a special case in that large legal offtakes occur, many of assumed to be sustainable, although firm evidence of this is rare. Declines in catch per unit effort are widespread, but the fisheries (rather than faunistics) focus of much inland fish survey work hinders the identification of species in steep decline. And where these are identified, it is often unclear whether they are being pushed to extinction, or ‘just’ economic collapse, and whether the cause is overharvest rather than factors such as pollution or changing hydrodynamics (e.g. Allan et al., 2005). For many fish, such threats are augmented by the proliferation of hydroelectric power dams across the region’s rivers. These prevent essential migrations undertaken by many South-east Asian river fish. Equally they may change all habitat in the entire range of sedentary micro-endemics: species such as Schistura leukensis and S. tenura, discovered during pre- project surveys for hydropower dams, have not been seen since impoundment (Kottelat, 2000; Halls & Kshatriya, 2009; Dugan et al., 2010; ICEM, 2010; Ferguson et al., 2011; Ziv et al., 2012; CEPF, in prep.). South-east Asia, notably the Mekong, has an outstanding concentration of giant freshwater fish and these are particularly threatened (Mattson et al., 2002; Stone, 2007; Thompson, undated). The result is that “fresh waters are experiencing declines in biodiversity far greater than those in the most affect terrestrial ecosystems” and “protection of freshwater biodiversity is perhaps the ultimate conservation challenge” (Dudgeon et al., 2006, p.163). Across the globe, the challenge is believed to be greatest in tropical Asia (Dudgeon, 2000).

13 Wildlife trade is problematic in much of the world (e.g. Bennett et al., 2002; Fa et al., 2002; Oldfield, 2003; Sutherland et al., 2009; Bennett, 2011), but several factors make it especially so in today’s South-east Asia. These mostly reflect breakneck economic growth there and in adjacent East Asia (TRAFFIC, 2008; Drury, 2009; McNeely et al., 2009; Nijman, 2010) and the commensurate expansion and improvements to transport infrastructure that increases both access to wildlife areas and the capacity for transporting wildlife, while reducing overall costs. These factors have fuelled a massive demand for wildlife and their products, which has then driven both the use of new, highly capture-efficient, harvesting technologies (e.g. small-mesh nylon gill-nets for fish; Poulsen et al., 2004) and made existing but expensive technologies cost-effective (e.g. guns and cable snaring; e.g. Bennett et al., 2000; Hansel, 2004; SWG, 2009).

14 This economic growth has not been matched by strengthening the enforcement of hunting and wildlife trading laws. Political and citizen appreciation of the consequences of mass extinctions is uneven. Many still see trade-driven hunting as a scaled-up local misdemeanour, not as the high-tech, large-scale, high-investment– high-return, crime that it is. Available resources are thus insufficient to tackle the challenge (McNeely et al., 2009; Bennett, 2011; South & Wyatt, 2011). In many areas personal conscience is the main deterrent to illegal offtake. The region’s limited tradition of effectively managed protected areas means that many hunting-sensitive species have no actively secured populations. By contrast, neighbouring South Asia, not much more distant from big markets, has more generally functional protected areas (Yonzon, 2006). There are effectively protected areas in South-east Asia (at least, for

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 120

their target species; see below), but harvest-sensitive species persist mostly only because sufficiently large and remote areas remain for enough animals to escape hunting (e.g. Timmins & Duckworth, 1999; Rawson et al., 2011). Such passive persistence cannot be relied upon much longer, given regional trends in habitat fragmentation and notably road expansion (see above). Even high-profile areas with longstanding large budgets may effectively protect only small parts (e.g. Lynam et al., 2006; Dudley & Stolton, 2011). And the more valuable a species is, the harder people will work to find it. Nowhere in mainland South-east Asia seems to have proven remote enough to retain a viable rhinoceros population (Brook et al., 2012; Zafir et al., 2011). Many taxonomic groups particularly susceptible to overharvest, and with three or more species occurring solely or predominantly in South-east Asia, have 80–100% of these species considered globally threatened by the Red List, e.g. crocodiles, tortoises (Testudinidae), softshell turtles (Trionychidae), storks (Ciconiidae) and ibises (Threskiornithidae), resident vultures Gyps and Sarcogyps, wild hogs (Suidae), wild cattle (Bovini), typical (i.e. non-muntjac Muntiacus) deer (Cervinae), odd-nosed colobines (Rhinopithecus, Pygathrix, Nasalis and Simias) and apes (Hylobatidae and Pongo). More comprehensive Red List assessment of reptiles and fish would reveal yet more such groups.

15 Trade threats to wild populations are exacerbated by the region’s ongoing habitat conversion (notably heavy forest conversion to plantations), degradation and fragmentation. This compromises populations’ resilience to offtake: it is easier to extirpate a population the smaller is its habitat-block, particularly when blocks are isolated (e.g. Peres, 2001; Reed, 2004; Linkie et al., 2006; Ferraz et al., 2007; Gray et al., 2010). Wetlands, grasslands and other flatland habitats have been particularly affected because they are preferentially cleared for agriculture, particularly rice. Even those that remain are not safe: over 45% of South-east Asia’s ‘protected’ wetlands are considered threatened (Hilton-Taylor et al., 2009). Thus, many wetland (including wet grassland) species too small or dispersed to be targets of harvesting have declined markedly, such as Rufous-rumped Grass Babbler Graminicola bengalensis, a bird unrecorded in South-east Asia since 1923 (Leader et al., 2010). Fortunately it survives elsewhere (Leader et al., 2010), but Schomburgk’s Deer Rucervus schomburgki, only ever known from Thailand’s seasonally inundated central plains, was hunted while the plains were rapidly converted for rice, and the last known individual was killed in 1938 (Lekagul & McNeely, 1977). The loss of the wetlands is of particular concern: despite covering less than 1% of the world’s surface, they hold about 6–7% of the world’s species (Balian et al., 2008), with wet grasslands holding highly distinctive animals such as Bengal Florican Houbaropsis bengalensis. Hunting is also not responsible for the threatened status of many species, particularly small-bodied ones, in South-east Asia’s two large archipelagos, the Philippines and Indonesia–East Malaysia–Brunei Darussalam–Timor Leste. These hold many restricted-range endemic species heavily threatened by habitat change, introduced species and other factors (e.g. Brooks et al., 1997; Oliver & Heaney, 1997; BirdLife International, 2001; Amori et al., 2008; Clausnitzer et al., 2009).

16 The situation of increased trade-driven hunting in decreasing but more accessible habitat occurs in many parts of the world: South-east Asia is distinct only in degree. Moreover, some particularly hunting-sensitive wildlife is already sourced outside South-east Asia to meet market needs, in, e.g. turtles, pangolins Manis, big cats Panthera, rhinoceroses (Rhinocerotidae) and elephants Elephas and Loxodonta (Blake &

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 121

Hedges, 2004; Sze & Dudgeon, 2006; Bennett, 2011; Bouché et al., 2011; Challender, 2011; TRAFFIC, 2011).

17 Most of the highly damaging wildlife trade involving South-east and East Asia contravenes national laws and international treaties, notably CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, to which all South- east Asian countries except Timor-Leste are Parties). Unlike subsistence hunting by the rural poor, this trade has no morally appealing basis. Indeed, in hilly northern Lao PDR, trade has so depleted wildlife that nutritional status of the rural poor themselves is worsening (Krahn & Johnson, 2007). There are too few studies elsewhere to assess how widespread is this phenomenon. Wildlife trade follows routes resembling those for illegal trade in drugs, armaments and people, and some of the same people and organisations are involved (Warchol, 2004; World Bank, 2005; TRAFFIC, 2008; Elliott, 2009; Haken, 2011; South & Wyatt, 2011). Reducing consumer demand for wildlife, and the evolution of effective enforcement systems supported by local society and communities, may take decades: societal change in beliefs and subsequent behaviour change is needed (Bennett, 2011). Nevertheless, such change is the only long-term solution without the enormous, indefinite, resource requirements necessary for enforced protection of those wild populations eagerly sought by lawbreakers.

18 Many South-east Asian species will become extinct during the next human generation, on current trends (Bennett, 2011). In the interim, even with the highest levels of trade enforcement, the best prevention is time-buying activities focussed on key populations, both in situ and ex situ (which are, increasingly, ends of a continuum; Pritchard et al., 2011). Without ex situ management, Père David’s Deer Elaphurus davidianus of China, the Vietnamese race of Sika Cervus nippon pseudaxis, Bali Starling and several other species of South-east Asia and surrounds would probably be extinct (Ratajszczak et al., 1993; Jiang et al., 2000; BirdLife International, 2001; Mattioli, 2011). But in situ conservation of highly threatened species can at the same time prevent mass extinctions, preserve habitat function and integrity, and maintain evolutionary potential and ecosystem services (Drummond et al., 2010). The appropriate balance between these approaches differs between species, depending on their population status and threats. Unfortunately, the region’s protected area systems are mostly recently created and far from effectively managed (e.g. Smith et al., 1999; Rao et al., 2002; ICEM, 2003a–b; Tordoff et al., 2004; Myint Aung, 2007; Gumal et al. 2008, Or & Tang, 2011; Mohd-Azlan & Lawes, 2011; Harrison, 2011). Despite the need for systems-level improvement, there are some notable successes of site-based conservation in South-east Asia. Some are long-term, such as the Javan Rhinoceroses Rhinoceros sondaicus of Ujung Kulon National Park, Java, which have remained at a few dozen animals for decades (Griffiths, 1993; Griffiths et al., 2012). Although the population needs to rise to secure the species’s future, this animal fetches such high prices in the trade that the prevention of its extinction, in such a densely populated island, demonstrates that with sufficient will almost any species must be conservable. Also excellent indicators of what is possible are the recent events in several previously heavily hunted areas, such as resurgent ungulate populations in a formerly heavily poached part of Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand (Steinmetz et al., 2009) and large, sustained, increases in various diverse hunted species in Seima Protection Forest, Cambodia (O’Kelly & Nut 2010). Such successes show that appropriate types and intensities of law enforcement and liaison with local people can conserve species of even high trade value on site, even those not conventionally of high public appeal (e.g. van der Ploeg et al., 2011). Despite this, some of the region’s

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 122

conservation practitioners are about respecting site-based conservation. Indeed, many site-based conservation projects do not deliver the intended benefits, although this is rarely written up (e.g. Redford & Taber, 2000; Webber et al., 2007). In some cases, project methodologies were flawed (e.g. unrealistic expectations from so-called integrated development and conservation projects; e.g. Wells et al., 1998; Linkie et al., 2008), in others, sound plans were poorly executed; and for hardly any is there any credible outcomes monitoring (Ferraro & Pattanayak, 2006; Gratwicke et al., 2007). The challenge is to make more site-based species-focussed projects work effectively.

A response under development

19 Each species extinction is a loss to everyone across the world, even to those not directly aware of it. Thus, global resources should be mobilised to minimise the number of extinctions, particularly because the opportunity costs of in situ conservation often fall largely on already marginalised local people (Adams et al., 2004; Scherl et al., 2004; Coad et al., 2008). Raising and deploying effectively the financial and technical (including human capacity) resources to restrain projected extinction rates of South-east Asian species is arguably the conservation community’s biggest challenge in meeting Aichi 2020 Target 12. Among the broad scope of conservation-oriented resources deployed in South-east Asia, targeted funding for highly threatened species is supported by various donors including the IUCN-Global Environment Facility-World Bank funding programme SOS (Save Our Species) and the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund (CEPF). Both these funding sources are relatively recent, responding to the region’s situation. They are not, so far, sufficient to meet all the urgent funding needs, and do not (and were not intended to) address the gaps in other resources. An emerging programme, here called by its interim name of Action Asia (AA), has the goal of minimising global extinctions among South-east Asia’s non-marine vertebrates. The restriction to non-marine species reflects the reality that marine conservation often involves different people, institutions and techniques from those of land and freshwater undertakings. There are many severely threatened marine species in South- east Asian waters (e.g. Polidoro et al., 2008; Field et al., 2009; Chong et al., 2010), but for AA to try to cover them increases the risks of its early failure through overambitious objectives. For similar reasons, the invertebrates, fungi and plants of land and freshwater habitats have to be excluded, at least initially.

20 AA will be a coalition of organisations involved in wildlife conservation in the region (most of which are IUCN members) coordinated by the IUCN Species Survival Commission (IUCN SSC); IUCN is pre-adapted to this role, being intergovernmental and holding observer status at the UN General Assembly. Through information collation and prioritisation it will maintain a watching brief on the global status of Critically Endangered non-marine vertebrates of South-east Asia (excluding erratic vagrant visitors), stimulating action for those species receiving insufficient conservation attention and offering assistance to existing systems. AA will not implement activities directly: its role is to support implementing agencies, including partnerships (often between governments and NGOs [non-governmental organisations]). It will identify species and sites warranting support, and work with implementing agencies, where there are any, already involved with those species and sites to evaluate current conservation actions and identify required additions. It will source technical support

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 123

where requested, identify collaborations that already exist and, if needed, work to improve their effectiveness. It will facilitate collaborations between organisations where none yet exist. Where there are already adequate conservation interventions, monitoring and collaborations, it will work with relevant institutions to identify other ways in which it can support them, if any. Conversely, where no implementing agencies are supporting a species or a site it will identify potential support bodies and, if requested, work with them to design effective conservation interventions.

21 These species’ diverse conservation needs mean that a formulaic treatment for each species would constrain more than enable: as a catalytic coalition AA will use the synergistic power of its partners to evaluate on a case-by-case basis what is needed, and attempt to ensure that it happens. For species threatened by trade, a ‘fort-holding’ focus on effective management of species strongholds (whether or not formal protected areas) will be the cornerstone. Almost invariably, species of high trade value need protection through intensive law enforcement, as is so for any class of valuable objects at risk of illegal appropriation. Law enforcement is only one of a set of tools, but in much of South-east Asia it has often been the one with the biggest shortfall in implementation over the past 20 years. This has often rendered the other tools used inefficient, sometimes futile (Linkie et al., 2003; Stokes, 2010).

22 AA’s focus on assisting implementing agencies in alleviating direct threats to specific populations is complementary to the ongoing vital thematic undertakings above the site level. These include the reduction of wildlife trade through work at transit and consumer levels (e.g. TRAFFIC3 and the ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement Network 4), research to learn more about species’ conservation status, and education programmes for the general public at all levels about biodiversity’s values.

23 AA’s two main components are: (1) to identify the species in urgent need, agree their conservation needs (mostly relating to habitat and harvesting, the balance differing greatly between species), and support the latter’s implementation; and (2) to build, in selected ways, an enabling environment for these species-specific interventions. This second component, perhaps seeming at variance with a focussed approach, is not an attempt to build an overarching conservation strategy for South-east Asia. It is a recognition that specific interventions needed by each species require sufficient finance, technical capacity and political support, and that where AA can bring something additional to the existing system, it should do so. The contents of each component have been determined by extensive discussion, of the current conservation status and environment in South-east Asia, with many people within and outside IUCN SSC. As well as the authorship and those named in the acknowledgements, these include participants at workshops in Abu Dhabi (in February 2012, for AA, during the IUCN SSC Specialist Group Chairs’ meeting) and in Hanoi (in May 2012, specific to Vietnam). Many people have spoken in more than one role, e.g. for the institution employing them and for an IUCN SSC specialist group or Red List authority.

Species with urgent conservation needs

1. Maintain a list (‘eligible species list’) of highly threatened non-marine vertebrate species which occur (other than as vagrants or aliens) in South-east Asia, based on species Critically Endangered on the Red List; presently about 150 species meet these criteria. Support the relevant Red List Authorities to assess the (as-yet unknown number of) species likely to

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 124

warrant such listing but presently in other categories, including Not Evaluated and Not Recognised. 2. Within the eligible species list, identify species of immediate priority (‘priority species list’): those at the most imminent risk of extinction. Many of these are not yet established priorities, or even well-known, in much of the wider conservation community. This is among the biggest hurdles to their conservation (e.g. SWG, 2009). 3. Generate a list of ‘vital sites’, those irreplaceable or nearly so for one or more eligible species (Box 1). This list will be very different from most other site-priority lists, such as Important Bird Areas (BirdLife International, 2004), Endemic Bird Areas (Stattersfield et al., 1998), Key Biodiversity Areas (e.g. CEPF, in prep.), important habitats (e.g. wetlands; Ramsar sites5) which all produce site lists far lengthier than will AA. Such lists are complementary to AA, informing activities such as designing balanced national protected area systems. The closest existing site list may be that of the Alliance for Zero Extinction6 (sites holding species with no viable population elsewhere); but a fair number of highly threatened species are suspected to have potentially viable populations at more than one site (or, at least, no one site of the several which may possibly do so can be said to be more likely to do so than the others) and, conversely, many single-site species are not on the brink of extinction. 4. Determine for each priority species whether: (1) it has a support system in place, which may or may not need additional inputs (financial, technical, political, public interest), or (2) it has no current such system and so is in danger of extinction by neglect. Despite the proliferation of action plans over the last 20 years, regional conservation still largely relies upon implementing agencies selecting themselves to take on any given species. There is no centralised mechanism to rectify gaps or even, necessarily, notice them, thus enhancing risk of extinction by oversight. 5. Encourage action for priority species presently with no support, or at risk of losing it through, for example, impending personnel changes or funding uncertainties (see Rawson et al., 2011, p. 36; most of the many such cases are never documented). This includes lobbying donors to prioritise such species. 6. Support the relevant taxon-focussed overseers (such as IUCN SSC specialist Groups; see IUCN SSC, 2012) to provide a discussion platform about each priority species’ short- and long-term conservation needs and exchange species-specific information with on-the-ground implementing agencies. Few species so far have active such systems, the Saola Working Group of the IUCN SSC Asian Wild Cattle Specialist group being one (e.g. SWG, 2009). Directly consult with taxon-focussed overseers about what additional support, if any, they would welcome; and, where practicable, assist in sourcing such support. 7. Develop a system of tracking of each priority species’ conservation status, ensuring that this does not become an end in itself demanding so many resources as to stint interventions. Produce an annual overview of the eligible species’ conservation status, (i) determining which have priority actions underway or in preparation (and the extent to which these are expected to meet each species’ needs), which are being incidentally conserved under general interventions (with similar assessment of appropriateness to needs) and which are not being addressed at all; and (ii) giving implementing agencies a place to highlight areas they would welcome assistance and to communicate their progress.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 125

Box 1. Selecting vital sites, exemplifying the problem of incomplete information

Walston et al. (2010) argued persuasively for the need to prioritise resources for Tiger Panthera tigris conservation to ‘source sites’, those most likely to drive population recovery. Their analysis revealed that over two-thirds of surviving Tigers were in just 6% of present (and < 0.5% of historical) Tiger range. Few tropical Asian species have such population detail. Most AA-priority species do not allow the luxury of choice between many possible implementation sites. Some, such as Javan Rhinoceros, occur only at one locality (Griffiths et al., 2012); at the other extreme, the giant softshell turtle Rafetus swinhoei is down to four animals in three locations (Turtle Conservation Coalition, 2011). Most AA-priority species will probably be found to resemble Saola Pseudoryx nghetinhensis and Edwards’s Pheasant Lophura edwardsi: these may conceivably inhabit a dozen or more landscapes (but probably many fewer) but, equally conceivably, numbers may be too low for likely recovery in any of these landscapes (SWG, 2009; Mahood et al., in prep.). Non-priority AA-eligible species are more likely to have multiple potential recovery sites. Site prioritisation through biological information may be very difficult, and anyway human-dimension factors may be more important; notably, the chance and efficiency of success (Coudrat et al., in press). Incomplete information on wildlife status is problematic at many levels. On present information, it is impossible to know how many AA-priority species are in fact beyond recovery and so deployment of resources solely in their favour is not justified, how many are seriously overlooked and remain common enough not to warrant AA-priority status, and how many genuinely could vanish or, if assisted, recover. In particular, concluding that a species is beyond recovery is fraught with risks because of the difficulties of comprehensive survey and predictions of intervention success. On current knowledge, Kouprey Bos sauveli is a candidate for this status (Timmins, 2011), but a single chance record could change this. Past arguments were made that Asian Crested Ibis Nipponia nippon and Mauritius Kestrel Falco punctatus were doomed, but both have, through intensive management, shown high recent population growth (Conway, 1980; Burnham, 1999; Xi et al., 2001) to the extent that the ibis is now merely Endangered and the kestrel Vulnerable on the Red List. Even determining which species might be highly at risk requires much inference. For example, Hose’s Civet Diplogale hosei is known by only 17 museum specimens, and, before camera- trapping became widespread, very few other records; all came from a small area of north-eastern Borneo (Van Rompaey & Azlan, 2004). Taking the records to reflect its true status would consider this a very rare animal. But recent camera-trapping has found several new sites, with a such record in Kalimantan, Indonesia (Samejima & Semiadi, 2012), almost doubling the species’ known latitudinal range. It remains, however, unknown why it is localised and generally at very low densities, and it is quite possible that it is seriously threatened (Mathai et al, 2010). This is one of several dozen South-east Asian vertebrates with the current conservation priority being research to determine the intervention priorities and their urgency. Even more extreme, an animal as large and distinctive as the Saola remained unsuspected by the scientific world until 1992 (Vu et al., 1993). Indeed, Saola was just one of several startling discoveries in the Lao PDR–Vietnam–Cambodia area in the 1990s-2000s. Fish are particularly poorly known: for example, Kottelat (2011) estimated that 19 (11%) of the 175 fish species so far found in the Xe Kong catchment in Lao PDR were certainly or potentially unnamed. In a region with such pervasive knowledge gaps, decisions need to be taken on the best, albeit imperfect, available information. No objective process can dispel these uncertainties.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 126

Building an enabling environment for species-specific interventions in South-east Asia

1. Encourage existing conservation donors to prioritise highly threatened species of South-east Asia, and, most importantly, seek additional donors to do likewise. 2. Work with donors to meet two specific funding needs for AA-eligible species: (i) a rapid- response short-term emergency/bridging fund, and (ii) longer-term funding commitments (provided progress is satisfactory), mindful of the problematic expectation of some donors (particularly those reliant on public funds) that the problem can be ‘solved’ in a few-year project. These two approaches have been used for over 20 years by ZGAP’s [Zoologische Gesellschaft für Arten- und Populationsschutz] involvement with highly threatened species, often those with low public profiles, and with notable success. These include a number of Asian species, for example Blue-crowned Laughingthrush Garrulax courtoisi (Wilkinson et al., 2004) and Philippine Spotted Deer Rusa alfredi (Heckel et al., 2012). Short-term funding cycles have long been recognised as problematic (e.g. Janzen, 1986; Leisher, 2001); repackaging long-term projects every few years to fit donor expectations uses significant staff time, particularly from those individuals with most creative technical capacity, and most needed in direct implementation. Examples of long-term conservation funding in the region do exist, e.g. Allwetterzoo Münster’s ongoing financial commitment to the Cat Ba Langur [Trachypithecus poliocephalus] Conservation Project (Schrudde et al., 2010) and Twycross Zoo’s long-term funding to FFI [Fauna & Flora International] for conservation of Cao Vit Gibbon Nomascus nasutus along the China–Vietnam border (Insua-Cao et al., 2010). Perhaps more than any other NGO, WCS [Wildlife Conservation Society] has committed to long-term presence in high-priority conservation landscapes in South-east Asia (14 at present): sourcing the ongoing funds is a joint, and demanding, responsibility of field projects and headquarters. Some donors, such as the Wildlife Conservaton Network (http:// wildlifeconservationnetwork.org) already do operate with a suitably long-term perspective. An investigation of why long-term commitments of donors to implementing agencies are not more widespread, with case studies of the benefits (and risks) of long-term funding, would help tackle this issue. 3. Act as a broker between individual donors, notably those intending long-term commitments or emergency funds, and individual species projects. Simultaneously work with implementing agencies to minimise the need for recurrent outside funding wherever possible, i.e. to ensure that salient local governments and other internal stakeholders assume responsibilities commensurate with their resources. Dependence on outside sources, which will necessarily remain the case for many of the AA-eligible species, brings its own risk of vulnerability to external changes. 4. Support the implementing agencies in (or, where appropriate, engage additional parties for) high-level dialogue with the region’s governments to ensure their full awareness of the gravity of the regional extinction crisis and its effects on humanity at all scales. 5. Encourage the new round of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans7, national wildlife protection laws, and other laws and policies, to pay due attention to AA-eligible species conservation. 6. Provide technical, and potentially arrange financial, support to taxon-focussed overseers with AA-eligible species in their mandate. AA will not duplicate their work, but can offer support to presently under-resourced groups. Each overseeing group needs to manage a body of technical expertise on which field-based projects can draw, and act as a clearing house for species information. Currently these groups’ outputs vary highly, reflecting their reliance on volunteerism (e.g. Rabb & Sullivan, 1995). Some AA-eligible species are not presently within any such group’s remit, and, while this is so, AA will directly undertake species information collation and circulation.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 127

7. Link people with shared implementation challenges; for example, most IUCN SSC specialist groups are taxonomically defined, yet information exchange between people working in a given country to save animals from different taxonomic groups is also helpful. The IUCN SSC Freshwater Committee is a habitat-based cross-taxonomic group, and many specialist groups for plants have a geographic rather than taxonomic focus (IUCN SSC, 2012). 8. Raise the profile, among conservation organisations, all sectors of governments, international bodies and the general public of the extinction crisis in South-east Asia and its effects on humanity, through both publications and media outreach, including new social media. In some cases wide awareness may not be beneficial, given how rarity often adds market value (e.g. in the captive reptile and bird trade; see above). 9. Liaise with organisations and programmes that reduce consumer demand, educate the wider public, research species conservation status and other essential thematic undertakings and, where AA can specifically and efficiently advance these programmes, do so.

Minimising potential pitfalls and limitations

24 AA faces several challenges, common to almost any collaborative programme in almost any form of sustainable development.

25 First is the reality that conservation organisations may fail to collaborate to the extent that might be expected. Sometimes this reflects fundamental incompatibilities between differing sectoral or organisational goals, sometimes entrenched differences in opinion of how to attain a shared goal, and sometimes an unwarranted sense of ‘ownership’ by an individual or institution of a species (e.g. Juniper 2002, Knight, 2006; Gerber et al., 2011; Nicholls, 2012). This is different from the strong sense of responsibility and other attributes of insight, charisma, hard work, persistence, flexibility, skills diversity and leadership usually found to be present in one or two key individuals involved in any successful species project. But often non-collaboration is simply an almost inevitable result of conservation taking place in open competition for insufficient resources (financial, skilled human capital, and others): being credited for success is vital to conservation bodies (e.g. Redford & Taber, 2000; Knight, 2006). A new entity, particularly one risking being perceived as appropriating the destinies of rare species, some high profile, will be less welcomed the more it is seen as a potential competitor. Open sharing of information becomes even less likely when projects risk being seen as underperforming (e.g. Redford & Taber, 2000; Knight, 2006). Linked to this, by definition the AA-priority species are difficult challenges; some will not be recoverable. An implementer, donor or other supporter taking up such a species’ cause must accept that extinction may not be averted. This can be managed by explicit objective-setting, recognising that the recovery of certain species may be extraordinarily difficult, with significant likelihood of failure, even though this is unpalatable. Reflecting these linked challenges, AA must keep a low profile (despite this impeding sourcing of its own running costs), must not blur its distinctions from implementing agencies, must not seek its costs from sources already used by implementing agencies, and should remember and communicate scrupulously that its precise niche is supportive not competitive. IUCN SSC specialist groups probably have the closest remit of anything extant: catalytic rather than directly implementing, institutionally non-affiliated (despite their nesting within IUCN) by being open to people from all bodies, and facing the image-risk of being ‘interfering’ by having a clear, and mostly accepted, mandate to be involved.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 128

26 The omens for AA in this respect are good: when the Red List Global Mammal Assessment highlighted the desperate situation for South-east Asia (Schipper et al., 2008) the major international conservation NGOs agreed broadly on the need for, and urgency of, a cross-institutional response, and committed to participate. Regional- and national-level such bodies already exist, such as, respectively, the Global Tiger Initiative8 and MYCAT, the Malaysian Conservation Alliance for Tigers 9 (Kawanishi & Seidensticker, 2010), as do alliances specific to issues (e.g. ASEAN-WEN10) and methodology (e.g. the SMART partnership for conservation monitoring11). Similarly, at the loss of Vietnam’s last rhinoceros (Brook et al., 2012), nearly all conservation NGOs with a role in Vietnam of conservation of species near extinction responded favourably to the suggestion of a conservation alliance to help everyone perform better. Finally, one of the highest-profile, highest-risk species undertakings in the region – the management of Javan Rhinoceros in Ujung Kulon National Park – recently invited external assessment of the present population (Griffiths et al., 2012). To nurture this collaborative spirit, AA must never forget that its genesis was through the organisations that were already active.

27 A second stiff challenge is that while the extra money certainly needed for these species will, with sufficient determination, be sourced, it remains unclear where the necessary concomitant expansion of readily available technical competence and commitment will come from. Already many conservation projects speaking of highly threatened species do not successfully conserve them, and in some cases this reflects insufficiently experienced personnel in decision-making roles. There is wide perception in the region not just of the scarcity of trained permanent staff, but of ‘off the shelf’ capacity to act as technical advisors and trainers. Significant progress could be made by catalysing the relevant IUCN SSC specialist groups, and comparable bodies. Other approaches may well be needed, and this topic is a focus of ongoing AA discussions.

28 Third, many AA-eligible species have significant market value when dead, or are bycatch of species which do. For almost all these, present offtakes are unambiguously illegal. Irrespective of who actually takes the animals, the systems are underwritten by powerful individuals able to pay to live outside the law. Conserving these species will require these people to forego some of their illegal income. Hence AA’s aim to build high-level political support for these species’ conservation.

29 Finally, AA philosophy must remain only part of overall conservation activity, even in South-east Asia. Focus on species on the edge of the extinction (some of which will not be recoverable) risks diverting attention from next-decade’s potential crisis species, and hastening their decline. Moreover, vital products of conservation, such as ecosystem services, require conservation management of large proportions of land and water, even if these lack AA-eligible species. The costs needed for single-species- focused, single-site management for all 150 Critically Endangered species of South-east Asia would be a small part of the total estimated by Bruner et al. (2004) to be required for effective management of all existing protected areas in developing countries and expansion into high-priority new areas. Those authors found this amount to be well within the reach of the international community. To avert increasing risk to species facing ‘next generation’ imminent extinction, still today locally abundant (e.g. Red- shanked Douc Pygathrix nemaeus; Coudrat et al., in press), AA must result in additional resources (financial and technical) for South-east Asian species conservation, not reassignment of the existing sources.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 129

A country example: Vietnam

30 Evolving in parallel with AA is a national approach to threatened species conservation in Vietnam, stimulated in particular by the recent loss of the country’s last wild rhinoceros (Brook et al., 2012). This, initially independently of AA, identified many of the same issues, constraints and potential actions for averting species extinctions in the region. For about 10 highly threatened tetrapod vertebrate species, global conservation relies upon Vietnamese populations, a total exceeding that for most other South-east Asian countries. Vietnam has high biodiversity values and endemicity as well as very high threats: as well as those at global risk, many species face imminent national extirpation (Sterling et al., 2006). Of particular concern are Vietnam’s five species of Critically Endangered endemic or near-endemic monkeys and apes, some of the most highly threatened primates globally (Nadler et al., 2003; Mittermeier et al., 2009; Rawson et al., 2011), and a similar concentration of high-priority turtles (Turtle Conservation Coalition, 2011).

31 Developing an alliance of conservation practitioners at a national scale may be more challenging than doing so regionally. Keys to success in promoting interaction between species conservation implementers for improved collaboration, sharing of technical resources and improved transparency, will include overcoming implementers’ fears about an additional level of bureaucracy which brings no net benefit and the vulnerability that transparency brings in an environment where accountability is presently limited. Provision of core funding (additional to current sources) is a key desire for implementing agencies. Additional access to technical input is only variably perceived as beneficial. The unsupportive context within which conservation is implemented is perceived as the major constraining factor, with internal factors seen as secondary. Nonetheless, building a more enabling environment is a key role of this institutional alliance for Vietnam, which presently is in discussion with 54 people from 27 institutions, because it provides a united voice and message to government agencies, media and the public.

Progress to date and next steps

32 The information and thinking within IUCN SSC and its partners that has led to the recognition of the need for AA has already, in advance of formation of AA itself, informed the funding scope of SOS and the 2012–2013 EAZA [European Association of Zoos and Aquaria]–IUCN SSC South-east Asia Campaign. The feedback from the wider conservation community during the setting-up of these collaborations was instrumental in developing the concepts here presented, but further dialogue is needed and is ongoing. Indonesia is vital for the future of the two South-east Asian rhinoceros species (Brook et al., 2012; Zafir et al., 2011), so IUCN SSC worked with several conservation NGOs active in the rhino areas to meet the Indonesian Vice President in October 2011; he was very receptive to the six urgent recommendations presented (Stuart & Smart, 2012). And as a result of this earlier meeting, the Indonesian President declared the International Year of the Rhino in June 2012 and, at the time of writing, appears to have adopted most, if not all, of the six recommendations delivered to the Vice President nine months earlier.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 130

33 By the time of the World Conservation Congress in Jeju, Republic of Korea, in September 2012, working AA species and site lists will have been prepared. Consistent with the need for rapid and flexible response of AA these two lists will be somewhat dynamic, reflecting changes in species assessed on the Red List as Critically Endangered, and the fluidity in threats and their impacts. During this Congress, a meeting of available stakeholders will discuss the working mechanics of AA: precise objectives, modes of operation, governance and structure, first-year deliverables, and options for generating AA resources (including core costs). This meeting’s output will be followed by extensive correspondence to ensure adequate opportunity for input by those unable to attend the meeting. Extensive discussion is particularly important for an initiative that aims mostly to support and link existing bodies (Pfeffer & Sutton, 1999). Initial AA involvement is likely to start in countries with many AA-priority species and expand to other countries only when progress in the former is consolidated.

Acknowledgements

34 We dedicate this article to the memory of Navjot Sodhi, who died, so tragically early, in 2011. From his base at the National University of Singapore, he was among the first to call the world's attention to the intensifying conservation crisis in South-east Asia. His prodigious output continued to his hospital bed (for a short obituary, see Rajathurai, 2011). JWD particularly thanks the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, the Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi (through the Framework Support for Implementing the Strategic Plan of the IUCN Species Survival Commission) and the Sir Peter Scott Fund of IUCN for paid time to take the co-ordinatory role in developing the concept, and all the other authors for their inputs largely in their own voluntary time. The Vietnamese conservation alliance is supported by Nowak-Sprague Southeast Asia Biodiversity Initiative. Valuable information or perspective was provided by Mark Bezuijen, Philip Bowles, Nick Brickle, Sarah Brook, Reuben Clements, Lesley Dickie, Tom Evans, Mike Hoffmann, Kent Hortle, Paul Insua-Cao, Jennifer Luedtke, Mirko Marseille, John Mathai, Robert Mather, Mohd-Azlan J., John Parr, Colin Poole, Martina Raffel, Rachel Roberts, Bill Robichaud, Daniela Schrudde, Ulrike Streicher, Bryan Stuart, Jack Tordoff, Chavalit Vidthaynon, Daniel Willcox, and by numerous participants at the two workshops so far held.

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Allan, J.D. et al. (2005). Overfishing of inland waters. BioScience 55: 1041-1051.

Adams, W.M. et al. (2004). Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 306: 1146-1149.

Amori, A., S. Gippoliti & K.M. Helgen (2008). Diversity, distribution, and conservation of endemic island rodents. Quaternary Internat. 182: 6-15

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 131

Baillie, J.E.M., C. Hilton-Taylor & S.N. Stuart (Eds.) (2004). 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. A Global Species Assessment. Gland/Cambridge: IUCN.

Balian, E. et al. (Eds.) (2008). Freshwater Animal Diversity Assessment(Developments in Hydrobiology n° 198). Dordrecht: Springer.

Balmford, A. & W. Bond (2005). Trends in the state of nature and their implications for human well-being. Ecology Letters 8: 1218-1234.

Bell, D., S. Roberton & P.R. Hunter (2004). Animal origins of SARS coronavirus: possible links with the international trade in small carnivores. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 359: 1107-1114.

Bennett, E.L. (2011). Another inconvenient truth: the failure of enforcement systems to save charismatic species. Oryx 45: 476-479.

Bennett, E.L., A.J. Nyaoi, & J. Sompud (2000). Saving Borneo’s bacon: the sustainability of hunting in Sarawak and Sabah. In: Robinson, J.G. & E.L. Bennett(Eds.) Hunting for Sustainability in Tropical Forests, pp. 305-324. New York: Colombia University Press.

Bennett, E.L. et al. (2002). Hunting the world’s wildlife to extinction. Oryx 36: 328-329.

BirdLife International (2001). Threatened Birds of Asia: the BirdLife International Red Data Book. Cambridge: BirdLife International.

BirdLife International (2004). Important Birds Areas in Asia: Key Sites for Conservation. (BirdLife Conservation Series n° 13). Cambridge: BirdLife International.

Blake, S. & S. Hedges (2004). Sinking the flagship: the case of forest elephants in Asia and Africa. Conservation Biology 18, 1191-1202.

Bouché, P. et al. (2011). Will elephants soon disappear from West African savannahs? PLoS ONE 6: e20619.

Brook, B.W., N.S. Sodhi & P.K.L. Ng (2003). Catastrophic extinctions follow deforestation in Singapore. Nature 424: 420-423.

Brook, S. et al. (2012). Integrated and novel survey methods for rhinoceros populations confirm the extinction of Rhinoceros sondaicus annamiticus from Vietnam. Biol. Conserv. 155: 59-67.

Brooks, T.M., S.L. Pimm & N.J. Collar (1997). Deforestation predicts the number of threatened birds in South-east Asia. Conserv. Biol. 11: 382-394.

Bruner, A.G., R.E. Gullison & A. Balmford (2004). Financial costs and shortfalls of managing and expanding protected-area systems in developing countries. BioScience 54: 1119-1126.

Burnham, B. (1999). Letter from the president. Peregrine Fund Annual Report ‘1999’: i.

Caillabet, O.S. (2011). Malaysia at centre of Tokay gecko trade boom. TRAFFIC Bull. 23: 83-84.

Cardillo, M. et al. (2006). Latent extinction risk and the future battlegrounds of mammal conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103: 4157-4161.

Cardinale, B.J. et al. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486: 59-67.

CBD (2011). Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011-2020: Further information related to the technical rationale for the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, including potential indicators and milestones.Document no. UNEP/CBD/COP/10/INF/12/Rev.1. [No town given]: CBD.

Ceballos, G., A. García & P.R. Ehrlich (2010). The sixth extinction crisis: loss of animal populations and species. J. Cosmology 8: 1821-1831.

CEPF (in prep.). Ecosystem profile: Indo-Burma Hotspot. Arlington: CEPF.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 132

Challender, D.W.S. (2011). Asian pangolins: increasing affluence driving hunting pressure. TRAFFIC Bull. 23: 92-93.

Clausnitzer, V. et al. (2009). Odonata enter the biodiversity crisis debate: the first global assessment of an insect group. Biol. Conserv. 142: 1864-1869.

Chong, V.C., P.K.Y. Lee & C.M. Lau (2010). Diversity, extinction risk and conservation of Malaysian fishes. J. Fish Biol. 76: 2009-2066.

Coad, L. et al. (2008). The Costs and Benefits of Protected Areas for Local Livelihoods: a Review of the Current Literature. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.

Conway, W.G. (1980). Where we go from here. International Zoo Yearbook 20: 184-189.

Corlett, R.T. (2007). The impact of hunting on the mammalian fauna of tropical Asian forests. Biotropica 39: 292-303.

Coudrat, C.N.Z., J.W. Duckworth & R.J. Timmins (2012, in press). Distribution and conservation status of the Red-shanked Douc (Pygathrix nemaeus) in Lao PDR: an update. Amer. J. Primatol.

Cumberlidge, N. et al. (2009). Freshwater crabs and the biodiversity crisis: importance, threats, status, and conservation challenges. Biol. Conserv. 142: 1665-1673.

Curran, L.M. et al. (2004). Lowland forest loss in protected areas of Indonesian Borneo. Science 303: 1000-1003.

Diesmos, A.C. et al. (2004). Rediscovery of the Philippine Forest Turtle, Heosemys leytensis (Chelonia; Bataguridae), from Palawan Island, Philippines. Asiatic Herpetological Research 10: 22-27.

Drummond, S.P. et al. (2010). Influence of a threatened-species focus on conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 24: 441-449.

Drury, R. (2009). Reducing urban demand for wild animals in Vietnam: examining the potential of wildlife farming as a conservation tool. Conserv. Letters 2: 263-270.

Dudgeon, D. (2000). Conservation of freshwater biodiversity in Oriental Asia. Constraints, conflicts, and challenges to science and sustainability. Limnology 1: 237-243.

Dudgeon, D. et al. (2006). Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 81: 163-182.

Dudley, N. & S. Stolton (2011). Death of a Rhino: Lessons Learned from the Disappearance of the Last Javan Rhinoceros in Vietnam. [No town given]: WWF AREAS project.

Dugan, P.J. et al. (2010). Fish migration, dams, and loss of ecosystem services. Ambio 39: 344-348.

Elliott, L. (2009). Combating transnational environmental crime: ‘joined up’ thinking about transnational networks. In: Kangaspunta, K. & I. H. Marshal (Eds.) Eco-Crime and Justice: Essays on Environmental Crime, pp. 55-77. Turin: United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute.

Ehrlich, P.R. & A.H. Ehrlich (1981). Extinction: the Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species. New York: Random House.

Fa, J.E., C.A. Peres & J. Meeuwig (2002). Bushmeat exploitation in tropical forests: an intercontinental comparison. Conserv. Biol. 16: 232-237.

Felbab-Brown, V. (2011). The disappearing act: the illicit trade in wildlife in Asia. Foreign Policy at Brookings Working Paper 6: i-vii, 1-35.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 133

Ferguson, J.W. et al. (2011). Potential effects of dams on migratory fish in the Mekong River: lessons from salmon in the Fraser and Columbia rivers. Environmental Management 47: 141-159.

Ferraz, G. et al. (2007). A large-scale deforestation experiment: effects of patch area and isolation on Amazon birds. Science 315: 238-241.

Ferraro, P.J. & S.K. Pattanayak (2006). Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology 4(4): e105 (482-488).

Field, I.C., et al. (2009). Susceptibility of sharks, rays and chimeras to global extinction. Adv. Mar. Biol. 56: 275-363.

Gaveau, D.L.A. et al. (2009). Evaluating whether protected areas reduce tropical deforestation in Sumatra. J. Biogeog. 36: 2165-2175.

Gerber, L.R. et al. (2011). Managing for extinction? Conflicting conservation objectives in a large marine reserve. Conserv. Letters 4: 417-422.

Gratwicke, B. et al. (2007). Evaluating the performance of a decade of Save The Tiger Fund’s investments to save the world’s last wild Tigers. Environmental Conserv. 34: 255-265.

Gray, T.N.E., C. Phan & B. Long (2010). Modelling species distribution at multiple spatial scales: gibbon habitat preferences in a fragmented landscape. Anim. Conserv. 13: 324-332.

Griffiths, M. (1993). The Javan Rhino of Ujung Kulon: an investigation of its population and ecology through camera-trapping. (Project n°: ID 0091-2). Jakarta: Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation, and World Wide Fund for Nature Indonesia Programme.

Griffiths, M. et al. (2012). Independent Assessment of Rhino Population in Ujung Kulon National Park. [No town given]: IUCN SSC Asian Rhinoceros Specialist Group.

Gumal, M. et al. (2008). A Master Plan for wildlife in Sarawak: preparation, implementation and implications for conservation. In: Sodhi, N.S. et al. (Eds.) Biodiversity and Human Livelihoods in Protected Areas: Case Studies from the Malay Archipelago, pp. 26-52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Haken, J. (2011). Transnational Crime in the Developing World. [No town given]: Global Financial Integrity.

Halls, A.S. & M. Kshatriya (2009). Modelling the cumulative barrier and passage effects of mainstream hydropower dams on migratory fish populations in the Lower Mekong Basin. (Technical Paper n° 25). Vientiane: Mekong River Commission

Hansel, T. (2004). Observations on subsistence hunting along the Phu Yai mountain range, Xanakham district, Vientiane province, Lao PDR.Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 52: 195–200.

Harrison, R.D. (2011). Emptying the forest: hunting and the extirpation of wildlife from tropical nature reserves. BioScience 61: 919-924.

Heckel, J.-O.et al.(2012). Spotting a recovery: how ex situ and in situ conservation of the Philippine Spotted Deer is helping to save the species. Zooquaria 78: 21.

Hilton-Taylor, C. et al. (2009). State of the world’s species. In: Vié, J.-C., C. Hilton-Taylor & S. N. Stuart (Eds.) Wildlife in a Changing World – an Analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, pp. 15-41. Gland: IUCN.

ICEM (2003a). Cambodia National Report on Protected Areas and Development. Review of Protected Areas and Development in the Lower Mekong River Region. Indooroopilly: ICEM.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 134

ICEM (2003b). Lao PDR National Report on Protected Areas and Development. Review of Protected Areas and Development in the Lower Mekong River Region. Indooroopilly: ICEM.

ICEM (2010). MRC Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of hydropower on the Mekong mainstream. Hanoi: Mekong River Commission.

Insua-Cao, P. et al. (2010). How transboundary cooperation and field-based conservation have led to improved hope for the survival of the Eastern Black Gibbon(Nomascus nasutus) on the Vietnam– China border. In: Nadler, T., B.M. Rawson & Van N.T. (Eds.) Conservation of Primates in Indochina, pp. 263-70. Hanoi: Frankfurt Zoological Society and Conservation International.

IUCN SSC (2012). Advancing the Species Conservation Agenda: an Overview of the IUCN SSC Network 2009–2012. [No town given]: IUCN SSC.

Janzen, D.H. (1986). The future of tropical ecology. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Systematics 17: 305-324.

Jepson, P. et al. (2001). The end for Indonesia’s lowland forests? Science 292: 859.

Jiang Z. et al. (2000). Reintroduction and recovery of Père David’s Deer in China. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 28: 681-687.

Juniper, T. (2002). Spix’s Macaw. The race to save the world’s rarest bird. London: Fourth Estate.

Karanth, K.K. et al. (2010). The shrinking ark: patterns of large mammal extinctions in India. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 277: 1971-1979.

Kawanishi, K. & J. Seidensticker (2010). Collaboration and partnerships are essential to sustain wild Tiger populations. In: Tilson, R. & P. J. Nyhus (Eds.) Tigers of the World; the Science, Politics and Conservation of Panthera tigris, pp. 175-184. San Diego: Academic Press.

Knight, A.T. 2006. Failing but learning: writing the wrongs after Redford and Taber. Conserv. Biol. 20: 1312-1314.

Kottelat, M. (2000). Diagnosis of a new genus and 64 new species of fishes from Laos (Teleostei: Cyprinidae, Balitoridae, Bagridae, Syngnathidae, Chaudhuriidae and Tetraodontidae). J. South Asian Nat. Hist. 5: 37-82.

Kottelat, M. (2011). Fishes of the Xe Kong Drainage in Laos, Especially from the Xe Kaman. Vientiane: WWF Project Co-Management of Freshwater Biodiversity in the Sekong (sic) Basin.

Krahn, J. & A. Johnson (2007). Upland food security and wildlife management. Juth Pakai (Perspectives on Lao Development) 9: 17-33.

Lau, M.W.-N., J.R. Fellowes & B.P.L. Chan (2010). Carnivores (Mammalia: Carnivora) in South China: a status review with notes on the commercial trade. Mamm. Rev. 42: 247-292.

Laurance, W.F. (2006). Have we overstated the tropical biodiversity crisis? Trends Ecol. Evol. 22: 65-70.

Leader, P.J. et al. (2010). The taxonomic status of Rufous-rumped Grassbird Graminicola bengalensis, with comments on its distribution and status. Forktail 26: 121-126.

Lee, T.M. & W. Jetz (2008). Future battlegrounds for conservation under global change. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 275: 1261-1270.

Lee, R.J. et al. (2005). Wildlife trade and implications for law enforcement in Indonesia: a case study from North Sulawesi. Biol. Conserv. 123: 477-488.

Leisher, C. (2001). The long and the short of ICDPs. Tigerpaper 27(1): 24-25.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 135

Lekagul, B. & J.A. McNeely (1977). Mammals of Thailand (as updated 1988). Bangkok: Association for the Conservation of Wildlife.

Linkie, M. et al. (2003). Habitat destruction and poaching threaten the Sumatran tiger in Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra. Oryx 37: 41-48.

Linkie, M. et al. (2006). Assessing the viability of Tiger subpopulations in a fragmented landscape. J. Appl. Ecol. 43: 576-586.

Linkie, M. et al. (2008). Evaluating biodiversity conservation around a large Sumatran protected area. Conserv. Biol. 22: 683-690.

Luiselli, L. et al. (2012, in press). Conservation implications of rapid shifts in the trade of wild African and Asian pythons. Biotropica.

Lynam, A.J., P.D. Round & W.Y. Brockelman (2006). Status of Birds and Large Mammals in Thailand’s Dong Phayayen–Khao Yai Forest Complex. Bangkok: Wildlife Conservation Society and Biodiversity Research and Training (BRT) Programme.

Lyons, J.A. & D.J.D. Natusch (2011). Wildlife laundering through breeding farms: illegal harvest, population declines and a means of regulating the trade of Green Pythons (Morelia viridis) from Indonesia. Biol. Conserv. 144: 3073-3081.

Mahood, S. et al. (in prep.). The conservation status of Edwards’s Pheasant Lophura edwardsi.

Mathai, J. et al. (2010). Small carnivores in a logging concession in the upper Baram, Sarawak, Borneo. Small Carnivore Conserv. 42: 1-9.

Mattioli, S. (2011). Family Cervidae (deer). In: Wilson, D.E. & R.A. Mittermeier (Eds.) Handbook of the Mammals of the World, 2. Hoofed Mammals, pp. 350-443. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions.

Mattson, N.S. et al. (2002). Mekong giant fish species: on their management and biology. MRC Technical Paper No. 3. Phnom Penh: Mekong River Commission.

McCallum, M.L. (2007). Amphibian decline or extinction? Current declines dwarf background extinction rate. J. Herpetol. 41: 483-491.

McNeely, J.A. et al. (2009). Conservation biology in Asia: the major policy challenges. Conserv. Biol. 23: 805-810.

Miettinen, J. et. al. (2012). Historical Analysis and Projection of Oil Palm Plantation Expansion on Peatland in Southeast Asia. Washington, D.C..: International Council on Clean Transportation.

Milledge, S.A.H. (2007). Illegal killing of African rhinos and horn trade, 2000–2005: the era of resurgent markets and emerging organized crime. Pachyderm 43: 96-107.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.

Milliken, T., Emslie R.H. & Talukdar, B. (2009). African and Asian Rhinoceroses - Status, Conservation and Trade. A report from the IUCN Species Survival Commission (IUCN/SSC) African and Asian Rhino Specialist Groups and TRAFFIC to the CITES Secretariat pursuant to Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev. CoP14) and Decision 14.89. Geneva: CITES Secretariat.

Mittermeier, R.A. et al. (2009). Primates in peril: the world’s 25 most endangered primates 2008-2010. Primate Conserv. 24: 1-57.

Mohd-Azlan J. & M.J. Lawes (2011). The efficacy of protected areas and future challenges for Wildlife Conservation in Sarawak. In: Mokhtar, M. & S. Abdul Halim (Eds.) RIMBA2: Regional Sustainable Development in Malaysia and Australia, pp. 136-146. Bangi: LESTARI Publisher.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 136

Myers, N. et al. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853-858.

Myint Aung, U. [sic] (2007). Policy and practice in Myanmar’s protected area system. J. Environmental Management 84: 188-203.

Nadler, T. et al. (2003). Vietnam Primate Conservation Status Review 2002. Part 2: Leaf Monkeys. Hanoi: Fauna & Flora International Indochina Programme and Frankfurt Zoological Society.

Nash, S. (1993). Sold for a Song: the Trade in Southeast Asian Non-CITES Birds. Petaling Jaya: TRAFFIC Southeast Asia.

Newton, P. et al. (2008). Pangolins in peril: using local hunters’ knowledge to conserve elusive species in Vietnam. Endangered Species Research 6: 41-53.

Ng, H.H. & M. Kottelat (2007). Balantiocheilos ambusticauda, a new and possibly extinct species of cyprinid fish from Indochina (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae). Zootaxa 1463: 13-20.

Ng, P.K.L. & H.H. Tan (1997). Freshwater fishes of Southeast Asia: potential for the aquarium fish trade and conservation issues. Aquarium Sciences and Conservation 1: 79-90.

Nguyen V.S. (2008). Wildlife trading in Vietnam: situation, causes, and solutions. Journal of Environment and Development 17: 145-165.

Nicholls, H. (2012). Sex and the single rhinoceros. Nature 485: 566-569.

Nijman, V. (2010). An overview of international wildlife trade from Southeast Asia. Biodivers. Conserv. 19: 1101-1114.

Nijman, V. & C R. Shepherd (2009). Wildlife Trade from ASEAN to the EU: Issues with the Trade in Captive-Bred Reptiles from Indonesia. Brussels: TRAFFIC Europe.

Nijman, V. et al. (2012). Over-exploitation and illegal trade of reptiles in Indonesia. J. Herpetol. 22: 83-89.

Nooren, H. & G. Claridge (2001). Wildlife Trade in Laos: the End of the Game. Amsterdam: Netherlands Committee for IUCN.

Oldfield, S. (Ed.) (2003). The Trade in Wildlife: Regulation for Conservation. London: Earthscan.

O’Kelly, H. & M.H. Nut (2010). Monitoring of Key Wildlife Populations in Seima Protection Forest, Cambodia, 2005-2010. Phnom Penh: WCS Cambodia Program and the Forestry Administration.

Oliver, W.L.R. (2006). Philippines Biodiversity Conservation Programme: integrating institutional partnerships and practical conservation measures in some of the world’s highest priority areas. In: Hiddinga, B. (Ed.) Proceedings of the EAZA Conference 2005, pp. 249-263. Amsterdam: EAZA Executive Office.

Oliver, W.L.R & L.R. Heaney (1997). Biodiversity and conservation in the Philippines: an introduction to a global priority. In: Wildlife Conservation Society of the Philippines (Ed.) Philippine Red Data Book, pp. 1-11. Makati City: Bookmark, Inc.

Ong, P.S., L.E. Afuang & R.G. Rosell-Ambal (Eds.) (2002). Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Priorities: a Second Iteration of the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan. Quezon City: Dept. Environment & Natural Resources.

Or Oi Ching & Tang Fook Leong (2011). Orang Asli and wildlife conservation in the Belum- Temengor Forest Complex, Malaysia. TRAFFIC Bull. 23: 94-104.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 137

Pantel, S. & S.Y. Chin (2009). Proceedings of the Workshop on Trade and Conservation of Pangolins Native to South and Southeast Asia, 30 June–2 July 2008, Singapore Zoo, Singapore. Petaling Jaya : TRAFFIC Southeast Asia.

Peres, C.A. (2001). Synergistic effects of subsistence hunting and habitat fragmentation on Amazonian forest vertebrates. Conserv. Biol. 15: 1490–1505.

Pfeffer, J. & R.I. Sutton (1999). Knowing “what” to do is not enough: turning knowledge into action. California Management Review 42: 83-107.

Polidoro, B.A. et al. (2008). Status of the world’s marine species. In: Vié, J.-C., C. Hilton-Taylor & S.N. Stuart (Eds.) Wildlife in a Changing World – an Analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, pp. 55-65. Gland: IUCN.

Prendergast, D.K. & W.M. Adams (2003). Colonial wildlife conservation and the origins of the Society for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the Empire (1903–1914). Oryx 37: 251-260.

Pritchard, D.J. et al. (2011). Bring the captive closer to the wild: redefining the role of ex situ conservation. Oryx 46: 18-23.

Poulsen, A.F. et al. (2004). Distribution and Ecology of Some Important Riverine Fish Species of the Mekong River Basin. (Technical Paper n° 10.) Phnom Penh: Mekong River Commission.

Rabb, G. & T. Sullivan (1995). Coordinating conservation: global networking for species survival. Biodiv. Conserv. 4: 536-543.

Rajathurai, S. (2011). Obituary: Navjot Sodhi. Birding Asia 16: 120.

Rao, M., A. Rabinowitz & Saw Tun Khaing (2002). Status of protected areas in Myanmar, with recommendations for conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 16: 360-368.

Ratajszczak, R., J. Adler & J. Smielowski (1993). The Vietnamese Sika Cervus nippon pseudaxis conservation project. International Zoo Yearbook 32: 56-60.

Rawson, B.M. et al. (2011). The Conservation Status of Gibbons in Vietnam. Hanoi: Fauna & Flora International and Conservation International.

Redford, K.H. (1992). The empty forest. BioScience 42: 412-422.

Redford, K.H. & A. Taber (2000). Writing the wrongs: developing a safe-fail culture in conservation. Conserv. Biol. 14: 1567-1568.

Reed, D.H. (2004). Extinction risk in fragmented habitats. Anim. Conserv. 7: 181-191.

Rivalan, P. et al. (2007). Can bans stimulate wildlife trade? Nature 447: 529-530.

Robinson, J.G. & E.L. Bennett (Eds.) (2000). Hunting for Sustainability in Tropical Forests. New York : Columbia University Press.

Samedi & D.T. Iskandar (2000). Freshwater turtle and tortoise conservation and utilization in Indonesia. Chelonian Research Monographs 2: 106-111.

Samejima, H. & G. Semiadi (2012). First record of Hose’s Civet Diplogale hosei from Indonesia, and records of other carnivores in the Schwaner Mountains, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Small Carnivore Conserv. 46: 1-7.

Sanderson, E.W. et al. (2002). The human footprint and the last of the wild. BioScience 52: 891-904.

Scherl, L.M. et al. 2004. Can Protected Areas Contribute to Poverty Reduction? Opportunities and Limitations. Gland: IUCN.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 138

Schipper, J. et al. (2008). The status of the world’s land and marine mammals: diversity, threat and knowledge. Science 322: 225-230.

Schrudde, D., P. Levelink & M. Raffel (2010). Protection of the Cat Ba Langur (Trachypithecus [poliocephalus] poliocephalus) through the ‘Cat Ba Langur Conservation Project’. In: Nadler, T., B.M. Rawson & N.T. Van (Eds.) Conservation of Primates in Indochina, pp. 237-243. Hanoi: Frankfurt Zoological Society and Conservation International.

Shepherd, C.R. (2006). The bird trade in Medan, north Sumatra: an overview. Birding Asia 5: 16-24.

Shepherd, C.R. (2010a). Illegal primate trade in Indonesia exemplified by surveys carried out over a decade in North Sumatra. Endangered Species Research 11: 201-205.

Shepherd, C.R. (2010b). Observations on trade in laughingthrushes (Garrulax spp.) in North Sumatra, Indonesia. Bird Conservation International 21: 86-91.

Shepherd, C.R. & B. Ibarrondo (2005). The Trade of the Roti Island Snake-necked Turtle Chelodina mccordi, Indonesia. Petaling Jaya: TRAFFIC Southeast Asia.

Smith, J.L.D. et al. (1999). Metapopulation structure of Tigers in Thailand. In: Seidensticker, J.S., S. Christie & P. Jackson (Eds.) Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human Dominated Landscapes, pp. 166-175. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, K.F. et al. (2009). Reducing the risks of the wildlife trade. Science 324: 594-595.

Sodhi, N.S. & B.W. Brook (2006). Southeast Asian Biodiversity in Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sodhi, N.S. et al. (2010). The state and conservation of Southeast Asian biodiversity. Biodiv. Conserv. 19: 317-328.

South, N. & T. Wyatt (2011). Comparing illicit trades in wildlife and drugs: an exploratory study. Deviant Behavior 32: 538-561.

Srikosamatara, S. & V. Suteethorn (1995). Populations of Gaur and Banteng and their management in Thailand. Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 43: 55-83.

Stattersfield, A.J. et al. (1998). Endemic Bird Areas of the World: Priorities for BiodiversityConservation. (BirdLife Conservation Series N° 7.) Cambridge: BirdLife International.

Steffen, W. & P. Tyson (Eds.) (2001). Global Change and the Earth System: a Planet Under Pressure. Stockholm: International Geosphere–Biosphere Program.

Steinmetz, R. et al. (2009; for 2010). Population recovery patterns of Southeast Asian ungulates after poaching in Thailand. Biol. Conserv. 143: 42-51.

Sterling, E.J., M.M. Hurley & D.M. Le (2006). Vietnam: a Natural History. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.

Stokes, E.J. (2010). Improving effectiveness of protection efforts in Tiger source sites: developing a framework for law enforcement monitoring using MIST. Integrative Zoology 5: 363-377.

Stone, R. (2007). The last of the leviathans. Science 316: 1684-1688.

Stuart, B.L. et al. (2006). Scientific description can imperil species. Science 312: 1137.

Stuart, S.N. & J. Smart (2012). Species Survival Commission (SSC) Global Species Programme (GSP) report 2009–2012. In: IUCN SSC (Ed.) Advancing the Species Conservation Agenda: an Overview of the IUCN SSC Network 2009–2012, pp. 1-13. [No town given]: IUCN SSC.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 139

Sutherland, W.J. et al. (2009). One hundred questions of importance to the conservation of global biological diversity. Conserv. Biol. 23: 557-567.

SWG (2009). From Plans to Action: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the Saola Working Group. Vientiane: IUCN Lao PDR Country Programme and the SWG of the IUCN Species Survival Commission, Asian Wild Cattle Specialist Group.

Sze M.C. & D. Dudgeon (2006). Quantifying the Asian turtle crisis: market surveys in southern China, 2000–2003. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 16: 751-770.

Talukdar, B.K. 2006. Assam leads in conserving Greater Indian Rhinoceros in the new Millennium. Pachyderm 41: 85-89.

Tello, J.G. et al. (2006). A new species of hanging-parrot (Aves: Psittacidae: Loriculus) from Camiguin Island, Philippines. Fieldiana Zoology (N.S.) 106: 49–57.

Terborgh, J. (1999). Requiem for Nature. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Thompson, C. (undated). River of Giants: Giant Fish of the Mekong. Vientiane: WWF Greater Mekong Programme.

Timmins, R.J. (2011). Searching for the Last Kouprey. Report to the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. [No town given]: CEPF.

Timmins, R.J. & J.W. Duckworth (1999). Status and conservation of Douc Langurs (Pygathrix nemaeus) in Laos. Int. J. Primatol. 20: 469-489.

Tordoff, A.W. et al. (2004). Sourcebook of Existing and Proposed Protected Areas in Vietnam. Second edition. Hanoi: BirdLife International in Indochina and the Forest Protection Department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

TRAFFIC (2008). What’s Driving the Wildlife Trade? A Review of Expert Opinion on Economic and Social Drivers of the Wildlife Trade and Trade Control Efforts in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR and Vietnam. Washington, D.C.: East Asia and Pacific Region Sustainable Development Department, World Bank.

TRAFFIC (2011). South Africa and Viet Nam to collaborate on wildlife protection and law enforcement. TRAFFIC Bull. 23: 80.

Tungittiplakorn, W. & P. Dearden (2002). Hunting and wildlife use in some Hmong communities in northern Thailand. Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 50: 57-73.

Turtle Conservation Coalition (2011). Turtles in Trouble: the World’s 25+ Most Endangered Tortoises and Freshwater Turtles–2011. Lunenburg: IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, Turtle Conservation Fund, Turtle Survival Alliance, Turtle Conservancy, Chelonian Research Foundation, Conservation International, Wildlife Conservation Society and San Diego Zoo Global. van Balen, S. (1999). Birds on fragmented islands: persistence in the forests of Java and Bali. Tropical ResourceManagement Papers 30: i-iv, 1-181. van der Ploeg, J. et al. (2011). Assessing the effectiveness of environmental education: mobilizing public support for Philippine Crocodile conservation. Conserv. Letters 4: 313-323. van Dijk, P.P., B.L. Stuart, & A.G.J. Rhodin (Editors). (2000). Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop on Conservation and Trade of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Monographs 2: 1-164. van Rompaey, H. & M. Azlan J. (2004). Hose’s Civet, Diplogale hosei. Small Carnivore Conserv. 30: 18-19.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 140

van Vliet, N. et al. (2012). The bushmeat market in Kisangani, Democratic Republic of Congo: implications for conservation and food security. Oryx 46: 196-203.

Vié, J.-C. et al. (2009). The IUCN Red List: a key conservation tool. In: Vié, J.-C., C. Hilton-Taylor & S.N. Stuart (Eds.) Wildlife in a Changing World – an Analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, pp. 1-13. Gland: IUCN.

Vitousek P. M. et al. (1997). Human domination of earth’s ecoystems. Science 277: 494-499.

Vu V.D. et al. (1993). A new species of living bovid from Vietnam. Nature 363: 443-445.

Walston, J. et al. (2010). Bringing the Tiger back from the brink—the six percent solution. PLoS Biol 8(9): e1000485.

Warchol, G. (2004). The transnational illegal wildlife trade. Criminal Justice Studies 17: 57-73.

Webber, A.D., C.M. Hill & V. Reynolds (2007). Assessing the failure of a community-based human- wildlife conflict mitigation project in Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. Oryx 41: 177-184.

Wells, M. et al. (1998). Investing in Biodiversity. A Review of Indonesia’s Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. Washington D.C.: World Bank, East Asia Region.

Whitten, T., R.E. Soeriaatmadja & S.A. Afiff (1996). The Ecology of Java and Bali. [No town given]: Periplus Editions.

Wilkinson, R. et al. (2004). A highly threatened bird – Chinese Yellow-throated Laughing Thrushes in China and in zoos. Internat. Zoo News 51: 456-469.

World Bank (2005). Going, Going, Gone…the Illegal Trade in Wildlife in East and Southeast Asia. (Environment and Social Development East Asia and Pacific Region Discussion Paper.) Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Xi, Y., B. Lu & N. Fujihara (2001). Captive rearing and breeding of the Crested Ibis, Nipponia nippon. Journal of Poultry Science 38: 213-224.

Yang Q. et al. (2000). Trade in wild animals and plants in China–Laos border areas: status and suggestions for effective management. Chinese Biodiv. 8: 284-296.

Yonzon, P.S. (2006). The illicit trade on megavertebrates of Asia. Paper 6. In: McNeely, J.A. et al. (Eds.) Conservation Biology in Asia. Kathmandu: Society for Conservation Biology Asia Section and Resources Himalaya.

Zafir, A.W.A. et al. (2011). Now or never: what will it take to save the Sumatran Rhinoceros Dicerorhinus sumatrensis from extinction? Oryx 45: 225-233.

Zhang, L., N. Hua. & S. Sun (2008). Wildlife trade, consumption and conservation awareness in southwest China. Biodiv. Conserv. 17: 1493-1516.

Ziegler, A.D., J.M. Fox & J. Xu (2009). The rubber juggernaut. Science 324: 1024-1025.

Ziv, G. et al. (2012). Trading-off fish biodiversity, food security, and hydropower in the Mekong River Basin. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109: 5609-5614.

NOTES

1. www.iucnredlist.org 2. www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook 3. Wildlife trade monitoring network: www.traffic.org

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 141

4. www.asean-wen.org 5. www.ramsar.org 6. www.zeroextinction.org 7. www.ias.unu.edu/resource_centre/UNU- IAS_Biodiversity_Planning_NBSAPs_Assessment_final_web_Oct_2010.pdf 8. www.globaltigerinitiative.org 9. www.malayantiger.net 10. www.asean-wen.org 11. www.smartconservationsoftware.org

RÉSUMÉS

Global species loss during the present human-caused mass-extinction far exceeds background rates and is detrimental to human existence. Across the globe, vertebrate extinction risks are highest in South-east Asia. This region has among the world’s fastest recent habitat-loss rates. More of a determinant to the conservation status of many vertebrates has been a huge explosion in South-east and East Asian trade demand, and thus harvest rates, for wild species for luxury food, medicine, tonics, horns and other trophy parts, and captive animals. The region has little tradition of effectively managed protected areas. Consequently, many South-east Asian species will become extinct in the near future if current trends continue. An emerging programme coordinated by IUCN SSC on behalf of its member organisations is being developed to assist implementing agencies and their partners minimise the impending extinctions among South- east Asian non-marine vertebrates. The programme is neither a direct implementing body nor a direct donor, but is a supporter using the synergistic strength of its constituent organisations and IUCN’s intergovernmental status to ameliorate perennial challenges to these species’ conservation. Its two main components are (1) to identify species at greatest risk of extinction, specify their conservation needs and support conservation efforts to reduce this risk; and (2) to build, in selected ways, an enabling environment for species-specific interventions. To address the first component, the programme will: develop and maintain a priority species list with associated priority sites necessary to reduce extinction; determine what conservation mechanisms are already in place (many species presently have none), and encourage additional actions as warranted; and serve as a clearinghouse for information and skills exchange. To address the second component, the programme will: work with existing and new donors to prioritise these species and develop emergency and long-term conservation funding mechanisms for them; encourage the integration of priority species into relevant conservation plans; serve as a liaison body to support dialogue among relevant parties in improving species’ conservation (e.g. governmental and non-governmental site- and higher-level implementing agencies, and donors); support the functionality of information/expertise-based bodies such as IUCN SSC specialist groups; serve as a mechanism to link recommended conservation strategies with appropriate ‘stakeholders’; and increase public awareness of the severity of this extinction crisis. By October 2012, working species and site lists will be available and a stakeholder meeting will have discussed the working mechanics of the programme. Any highly collaborative effort of this magnitude faces stiff challenges. It must serve only as a catalyst, recognising and supporting existing efforts, and encouraging action for species presently not receiving it. All parties must recognise that not all conservation efforts will be successful: extinction potential of high-risk

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 142

species is, by definition, not negligible. Many of the most-threatened South-east Asian species have high market value, or are bycatch of those which do, meaning that powerful vested interests oppose their conservation. Considerably increased funding, primarily to implementing agencies, for highly-threatened species in South-east Asia is required. Funding to run the programme must not compete with the implementing agencies’ existing sources. Human capacity is also limiting outcomes, and how to effect an appropriate increase in capable and committed personnel to use increased funding effectively remains unclear. Finally, the philosophy of the programme must be recognised by all as only part of overall species conservation in South-East Asia.

INDEX

Keywords : extinction risk, inter-agency collaboration, overharvest, site-based conservation, South-east Asia, species, wildlife trade

AUTEURS

J. W. DUCKWORTH IUCN SSC, 6 Stratton Rd, Saltford, Bristol BS31 3BS, U.K., E-mail: [email protected], phone number: +44 1225 874997

G. BATTERS Cattle and Camelid Taxon Advisory Group, European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, Banham Zoo, The Grove, Banham, Norfolk, NR16 2HE, U.K.

J. L. BELANT Center for Resolving Human–Wildlife Conflicts, Mississippi State University, Box 9690 Mississippi State, MS 39762, U.S.A.

E. L. BENNETT Species Conservation, Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Blvd, Bronx, New York 10460, U.S.A.

J. BRUNNER IUCN, 2A Van Phuc Diplomatic Compound, 298 Kim Ma, Hanoi, Vietnam

J. BURTON Earthwatch Institute, 256 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7DE, U.K.

D. W. S. CHALLENDER Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology & Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NR, U.K.

V. COWLING WWF Laos, P.O. Box 7871, Saylom, Chanthabouli, Vientiane, Lao PDR

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 143

N. DUPLAIX IUCN SSC Otter Specialist Group, Fisheries and Wildlife Department, Oregon State University, 104 Nash Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331-3803, U.S.A.

J. D. HARRIS IUCN SSC, 7-9 North Parade Buildings, Bath BA1 1NS, U.K.

S. HEDGES Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Blvd, Bronx, New York 10460, U.S.A.

B. LONG World Wildlife Fund, 1250 24th St NW, Washington, DC 20037, U.S.A.

S. P. MAHOOD Wildlife Conservation Society Cambodia Program, PO Box 1620, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

P. J. K. MCGOWAN World Pheasant Association, Newcastle University Biology Field Station, Close House Estate, Heddon on the Wall, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE15 0HT, U.K.

W. J. MCSHEA Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute Conservation Ecology Center National Zoological Park 1500 Remount Rd, Front Royal, VA 22630, U.S.A.

W. L. R. OLIVER Philippines Biodiversity Conservation Programme, Philippines Biodiversity Conservation Foundation, 3A Star Pavilion Apartments, 519 Alonzo St, Malate, Manila, Philippines 1004

S. PERKIN IUCN Asia Regional Office, 63 Sukhumvit Soi 39, Wattana, Bangkok 10110, Thailand

B. M. RAWSON Conservation International, #102, Street 95, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

C. R. SHEPHERD TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Unit 3-2, 1st floor, Jalan SS23/11, Taman SEA, 47400 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia

S. N. STUART IUCN SSC, 7-9 North Parade Buildings, Bath BA1 1NS, U.K.

B. K. TALUKDAR Aaranyak and International Rhino Foundation, 50 Samanwoy Path (Survey), PO: Beltola, Guwahati - 781 028, Assam, India

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 144

P. P. VAN DIJK Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Conservation Program, President’s Office, Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive - Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A.

J-C. VIÉ Global Species Programme, IUCN, 28 rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland

J. L. WALSTON Asia Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Blvd, Bronx, New York 10460, U.S.A.

T. WHITTEN Fauna & Flora International, Jupiter House, Station Rd, Cambridge, CB1 2JD, U.K.

R. WIRTH Zoologische Gesellschaft für Arten- und Populationsschutz, Untertaxetweg 144, 82131 Gauting, Germany

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 145

The Amphibian Extinction Crisis - what will it take to put the action into the Amphibian Conservation Action Plan?

P. J. Bishop, A. Angulo, J. P. Lewis, R.D. Moore, G. B. Rabb et J. Garcia Moreno Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

NOTE DE L’ÉDITEUR

This article was reviewed by two anonymous reviewers

The extent of the Amphibian Extinction Crisis

1 The residents of the small city of Canterbury in Kent (UK) were unaware of the significance their city would have in relation to amphibian conservation when the largest international meeting of herpetologists took over their city in September 1989 for the First World Congress of Herpetology. As the biologists mingled in the various symposia and social events it became apparent that a common thread was emerging in their conversations: amphibian populations were in deep trouble. While authors of herpetological field guides had noted amphibian declines as early as the 1950s (e.g. Conant, 1958), it was only during the meeting in Canterbury that scientists realised the extent of the problem. Amphibians were in serious trouble across the globe.

2 Amphibians (frogs, toads, salamanders and caecilians) are usually encountered during the breeding season when they often produce loud breeding choruses or form aggregations at ponds, and in many cases very little is known about their non-breeding behaviour or movements. They are therefore difficult organisms to study at the population level. In the late 1980s, there were only a handful of long-term monitoring

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 146

studies on amphibian populations; consequently at that time it was possible neither to quantify the extent of amphibian declines nor to discriminate them from natural population fluctuations. However, there was enough anecdotal information shared at the First World Congress of Herpetology to stimulate an investigation into the evidence of these declines (Rabb, 1990; Blaustein & Wake, 1990; Wake & Morowitz, 1990; Wake, 1991). This led to the formation of the Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force (DAPTF) by the International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission (IUCN SSC) in late 1990 (Vial, 1991). The goal of the DAPTF was “to determine the nature, extent and causes of declines of amphibians throughout the world, and to promote means by which declines can be halted or reversed”. The Task Force operated through a global network of some 108 regional and sub-regional working groups of professional herpetologists, who collected geographical data on amphibian declines and their causes (Heyer & Murphy, 2005). The DAPTF raised funds and distributed them in the form of seed grants to initiate research projects in key areas in over 49 countries resulting in 197 publications on amphibian declines in 15 years (T.R. Halliday, personal communication, 2012).

3 The picture that emerged from the work stimulated by the DAPTF and other organisations and experts was not favourable for amphibians. Amphibian declines were reported as occurring as early as the 1950s in the USA, Puerto Rico and Australia (Conant, 1958; Czechura & Ingram, 1990; Kagarise-Sherman & Morton, 1993; Drost & Fellars, 1996; Burrowes et al., 2004). There were many subsequent reports of rapid and severe amphibian declines from Central and South America (e.g. Pounds & Crump, 1994; Young et al., 2001; Ron et al., 2003) and most alarming were the reports of declines in seemingly pristine areas (e.g. Czechura & Ingram, 1990; Pounds & Crump, 1994; Ron et al., 2003; Burrowes et al., 2004; Gallant et al., 2007). Statistical modelling by Pounds et al. (1997) demonstrated that the declines were more severe and widespread than had previously been thought, and as more and more papers were published, scientists became alarmed with the severity of the problem. In fact, using data from 936 amphibian populations across the globe, Houlahan et al. (2000) suggested that amphibian declines were a global phenomenon and Alford et al. (2001) demonstrated that the declines had been occurring at a global scale since 1990.

4 These studies highlighted the urgent need to identify formally those amphibian species that were declining and needed conservation attention. In 1996 the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ (Baillie & Groombridge, 1996) included only 126 species of amphibians, and although by the year 2000 this number had increased (Hilton-Taylor et al., 2000), there was still no comprehensive overview of the status of the planet’s amphibians. Although some countries had initiated their own Red List assessments (e.g. Minter et al., 2004), fewer than 1000 amphibian species had been assessed, which was not reflective of the amphibian species richness that was known at that time. Due to the severity and apparent global scope of amphibian declines, the IUCN, in partnership with Conservation International and Nature Serve, launched the Global Amphibian Assessment (GAA) initiative in 2001. The GAA was designed to help prevent further losses of amphibian populations and species by developing a complete picture of the conservation status and needs of all known species of amphibians (nearly 6000 species at the time, in contrast to the current total of approximately 7000 species1). This would be the first time that such an ambitious project assessing all species within the entire

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 147

class of Amphibia had ever been carried out, and this very fact highlighted the severity and urgency of the problem.

5 The entire assessment took over three years to complete, and the process involved hosting 14 regional workshops and one global (caecilian workshop), with the participation of over 500 amphibian specialists in more than 60 countries. The GAA resulted in an in-depth look at the state of the world’s amphibians – and it was a sobering scene (Stuart et al., 2008). While amphibian population declines were the main focus of DAPTF and the initial spark for conducting the GAA they had progressed into amphibian extinctions. The GAA assessed 5,915 amphibian species and categorised a third of these as Threatened with extinction2 (Figure 1).

6 The only other vertebrate classes that have been comprehensively assessed as to conservation status are the mammals and the birds. While the data for birds (9917 species, 12% Threatened) and mammals (4853 species, 23% Threatened) paint a gloomy picture, it is considerably worse for amphibians (5915 species, 32% Threatened; see Table 1). Perhaps one of the most alarming areas is the Data Deficient category, with currently 1,615 species of amphibians in this category3 (in contrast, birds are very well studied, with few species in the Data Deficient category; mammals less so, but still only have half as many Data Deficient species as amphibians). Organisms are placed in this category when they have been assessed against the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (2001) and the information available is inadequate to make either a direct or indirect assessment of their risk of extinction.

Figure 1. Summary of Red List categories for all amphibians. The percentage of species in each category is displayed on the pie chart (from Stuart et al. 2008)

7 Consequently, the Data Deficient category contains many newly described species, or ones that are rare with very small ranges or are difficult to find. If global figures are

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 148

extrapolated to the Data Deficient category, it suggests that at least a third of these species are also seriously threatened, thereby implying that nearly 40% of amphibian species are threatened with extinction (Table 1).

8 Although amphibians inhabit every continent in the world except Antarctica, their distributions are not uniform. The Neotropical Realm, which comprises Latin America and the Caribbean, contains nearly half of all amphibian species, most of which are endemic to this area (Chanson et al., 2008). It is no surprise that this area also contains the largest proportion of threatened and extinct species considering the extent of recent land-use change. The global map of the distribution of Threatened amphibian species (Figure 2) shows that these species are linked to insular systems, which are susceptible to habitat loss and disease (Chanson et al., 2008). In addition, being less mobile than other taxa, many amphibians have very small distributions, making them more susceptible to extinction (Purvis et al., 2000).

Figure 2. Richness map of Threatened amphibian species, with dark red colours corresponding to higher number of species

From Chanson et al., 2008

Table 1. A comparison of Threatened categories for Amphibians, Birds and Mammals.

Amphibians Mammals Birds (5915) (4853) (9917)

Threatened with extinction 32% (1893) 23% (1101) 12% (1213)

Critically Endangered or Endangered 21%* (1242) 10.5% (162) 5.4% (179)

Data Deficient 23% (1382) 7.8% (380) 0.8% (78)

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 149

Extrapolated proportion of Threatened species+ 39.5% (2336) 24.5% (1189) 12.3% (1220)

Based on data from Baillie et al., 2004 and Stuart et al., 2008 Note: ‘Threatened with extinction’ includes Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Near Threatened. Actual number of species in each category is in parentheses Legend : *Over 10% of amphibians in the Critically Endangered category are flagged as being “Possibly Extinct”, i.e. they have not been seen in a long time despite targeted surveys and are suspected to be possibly extinct; +This row was calculated by assuming that there is a similar proportion of Threatened species in the Data Deficient category as in the Class overall.

What is causing amphibian declines?

9 Six major causes of amphibian declines were identified by Collins and Storfer (2003), which they categorised into two classes: Group 1 threats, of which we have a good understanding of the processes involved and which may have negatively affected amphibian populations for a long time, perhaps in some cases 100 years or more, and Group 2 threats, of which we have poor knowledge of the subtleties and interactions involved, and which have emerged in the last 30 years or less, and are in desperate need of further investigation. They are:

10 Group 1 threats: • Habitat change (destruction and fragmentation); • Alien invasive species; • Over-exploitation/utilisation.

11 Group 2 threats: • Emerging infectious diseases; • Pesticides and environmental toxins; • Global climate change (including UV).

12 The extent to which each of these environmental factors is threatening the species exposed to it is illustrated in Figure 3. Each of the threats is briefly outlined below.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 150

Figure 3. Total (red+blue) and threatened (red) numbers of amphibian species that are affected by five of the six major environmental risks. N.B. Data were not available for determining how many amphibian species are threatened by Global climate change (including UV).

From Chanson et al., 2008

Habitat change (destruction and fragmentation)

13 Many authors have documented how habitat change can cause amphibian declines and extinctions (Gallant et al., 2007; Gardner et al., 2007; Sodhi et al., 2008; Hof et al., 2011). Habitat loss is the major contributing factor to amphibian declines globally with an estimated 63% of all amphibian species affected, and as much as 87% of the Threatened species affected (Chanson et al., 2008). Many amphibians require specific microhabitats with appropriate conditions of moisture, temperature, pH and sufficient refuges and food resources. These conditions are easily disrupted during even minor habitat modifications. The most common forms of habitat change are clearance for crops, logging, clear-cutting, urbanization and industrial development. Further, most of these processes are happening in tropical forests, where the majority of amphibian species are found (72%). The extent of the effects of habitat change can be difficult to determine as many amphibians spend most of their lives in one or two terrestrial environments and seasonally migrate to a different, usually aquatic environment, to breed. To disrupt the breeding migration would thereby cause a decline (see Becker et al., 2007). Habitat change may affect one or more of the habitats necessary for completion of the life cycle, for example, the environment in which the amphibians spend most of their year (e.g. forests), a summer feeding habitat (e.g. grasslands), the water bodies in which they breed and are utilised by their larvae (e.g. ponds, lakes, streams), or the land that separates these different habitats (e.g. corridors). Most amphibians do not live in isolation in a single microhabitat and effective conservation will require an integrated landscape approach as outlined by Lindenmayer et al. (2008) and Lannoo (2012). In addition, since the beginning of the 20th century human populations have grown exponentially, with concomitant habitat alteration and

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 151

destruction, and most of this change has occurred in tropical and subtropical ecoregions of high amphibian diversity and endemism (Gallant et al., 2007).

Alien invasive species

14 Humans have been deliberately or accidentally introducing animals all around the world for hundreds of years and in places like New Zealand they even formed ‘Acclimatisation Societies’ whose main mandate was to introduce ‘innoxious’ species (sometimes from the other side of the globe) to make the new colonised landscape feel more like home! There are many documented examples of how the introduction of alien species has negatively impacted local amphibian populations, and these can be broadly grouped into several categories: competition for food, space and resources; direct predation on adults and/or larvae; and vectors or reservoirs for disease and parasites. To a lesser extent some invasive species may actually hybridise with the native species, disrupting genetic integrity (e.g. Xenopus gilli/X. laevis; Picker, 1985). The list of particularly damaging invasive species includes fish (e.g. salmonids; Bradford, 1989; Bradford et al., 1993; Drost & Fellers, 1996;Jennings, 1996; Lannoo, 1996; Vredenburg, 2004; Knapp, 2005), the American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus; Rosen & Schwalbe, 1995; Kiesecker & Blaustein, 1998;Mazzoni et al., 2003) and cane toads (Rhinella marina; see Shine, 2010 for review).

Over-exploitation/utilisation

15 Amphibians are mainly harvested for food, medicine, use in research and teaching or the pet trade. A surprisingly huge number of frogs (hundreds of millions of individuals, Altherr et al., 2011; Warkentin et al., 2009) are consumed in the EU and USA every year. While more than 200 species of amphibians are consumed on a subsistence level or traded nationally or sub-nationally around the globe, approximately 20 species of the larger-bodied amphibians are regularly exported/imported for the food markets, most of these being wild-caught animals (Carpenter et al., 2007). However, the United States international trade is dominated by commercially bred bullfrogs Lithobates catesbeianus, with the overall trade of this species superseding trade of other highly traded frog species by several orders of magnitude (the US alone imported between 2,000-3,000 tonnes per annum of captive-bred bullfrogs from 2001-2009; Altherr et al., 2011). Unfortunately, similarly detailed trade and sourcing (captive bred, wild) information for other major markets is not readily available to determine whether this could be a pattern across importing countries. Although no large-scale declines have been attributed to collection for medicinal purposes, there have been reports of local population declines (Ye et al., 1993, cited in Carpenter et al., 2007). Many species of amphibians are collected for the pet trade, and in some countries such as Madagascar this represents a considerable financial income (Carpenter et al., 2007). In other amphibian-rich countries, the extent of amphibian collections for the pet trade is largely unknown (Pistoni & Toledo, 2010).

16 International trade of amphibians is regulated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)4, an international agreement between governments whose goal is to ensure that international trade of species in the wild is not a threat to their persistence. Amphibians are also

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 152

contemplated under CITES, where individual species or groups of species are listed under Appendices I–III, which accommodate varying levels of threat, with Appendix I addressing those species under the highest level of threat (CITES, 2012). Nevertheless, only a small fraction of amphibian species is listed under any of the Appendices, and most of the heavily traded amphibians in the US are not regulated by CITES (Schlaepfer et al., 2005). When taking into account extinction risk of species in trade as per the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™, a UNEP-WCMC report found that of 134 species for which international trade was considered to be a major threat, 54 were Threatened, and 46 were listed in CITES; however, there were 29 species that were Threatened but not listed in CITES (UNEP-WCMC, 2007).

17 In addition, there are issues surrounding recording the species in trade. Because there is currently no way to capture this information using the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (the World Customs Organization’s international customs coding system), it is not possible to monitor individual species in trade across countries (Gerson, 2012), and the lack of trade and biological information precludes an accurate assessment of whether current trade levels are sustainable (Schlaepfer et al., 2005). Furthermore, taxonomic issues compound this matter further as there are cryptic species that could easily be assigned to a nominal species and go undetected even in countries that do keep such species records. Therefore, it is very likely that current CITES listings underrepresent the number of amphibian species in international trade.

Emerging infectious diseases

18 While many of the factors implicated in the declines (habitat change, overexploitation, invasive species, pesticides, environmental toxins and climate change) may act in synergy, amphibian biologists and conservationists were looking for the ‘smoking gun’ – a common causal factor for the extremely rapid amphibian declines and mass mortalities in multiple parts of the world.The DAPTF played an important role in identifying what first appeared to be the ‘smoking gun’, by establishing a subcommittee of scientists to focus on disease and pathology, the PWG (Pathology Working Group). The PWG connected the researchers involved with monitoring amphibian mass mortality incidents and helped arrange a week-long meeting at the University of Illinois for all the scientists concerned. At the meeting it was concluded that the organism implicated with the mass mortalities was the same in Australia and Central America and that it belonged to an ancient group of fungi, the Chytridiales. This organism belonged to an undescribed genus that had previously not been known to affect vertebrates. Berger et al. (1998) identified the pathogen and Longcore et al. (1999) described the species as Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, the amphibian chytrid fungus, hereafter referred to as Bd. When the potential problem associated with the ‘new’ chytrid disease was identified, it was predicted to be “one of the most challenging threats to herpetological conservation in particular and wildlife conservation in general” (Cunningham, 1998). Fifteen years later, Bd is still considered to be one of the most severe threats faced by any vertebrate group (Fisher et al., 2012; Woodhams et al., 2011).

19 Increasing evidence suggests that Bd may act as an epidemic disease and has been associated with numerous amphibian population declines around the globe (e.g. Lips,

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 153

1998; 1999; Ron & Merino-Viteri, 2000; Rollins-Smith et al., 2002a; 2002b; Lips et al., 2003; 2005; Burrowes et al., 2004; Bell et al., 2004; Lips et al., 2006; Skerratt et al., 2007; Crawford et al., 2010; but see Di Rosa et al., 2007). An unprecedented number of fungal diseases has recently been documented to cause severe declines in animals and plants and is beginning to be recognised as one of the most severe risks to biodiversity in general (Fisher et al., 2012). The biology of Bd is well suited to position this disease as a very serious threat to amphibians. The fungus has been demonstrated to hybridise into a hyper-virulent strain (BdGPL, Farrer et al., 2011), it is easily spread around the globe by human activity and it is able to persist in the environment on non-susceptible species (and possibly even waterfowl; Garmyn et al., 2012), giving it the most potential, to cause dramatic amphibian extinctions.

Pesticides and environmental toxins

20 Pollution with pesticides and environmental toxins is the second most significant threat to amphibians with nearly a fifth of all species affected and 29% of Threatened species affected (Chanson et al., 2008). Amphibians have a uniquely permeable skin compared to other vertebrates and most species cannot easily control the movement of water across their external surface, making them particularly sensitive to any changes in water quality. Lethal, direct, sub-lethal and indirect effects have been reported for many environmental pollutants, such as heavy metals like mercury (Bergeron et al., 2010), pesticides (see review by Boone & Bridges, 2003; Groner & Relyea, 2011), herbicides such as Roundup® (Rohr & Crumrine, 2005; Jones et al., 2010; Relyea, 2011), fertilisers (see review by Rouse et al., 1999; Hatch et al., 2001) and endocrine disruptors (see review by Norris, 2011, and the many papers on atrazine, e.g. Hayes et al., 2012). In addition, predator-induced stress has been demonstrated to turn otherwise nonlethal levels of pesticide exposure into lethality for some species of amphibian larvae (Relyea & Mills, 2001; Relyea, 2003; 2004). The subtle and synergistic effects of many of these contaminants can be very difficult to determine.

Global climate change (including UV)

21 It is well recognised that the altered global climate of the 21st century will present new and challenging threats for amphibians on many fronts. In response to changes in average temperatures and rainfall patterns, amphibians have already been reported to have altered their breeding phenology by shifting the timing of their breeding behaviour (Blaustein et al., 2003; Phillimore et al., 2010). This has severe implications for the survival of their larvae due to snowmelt or desiccation. As highlighted in the previous section, amphibians have a sensitive permeable skin and are therefore very susceptible to changes in the amount and timing of rainfall and increasing dry periods. Furthermore, climate change has been documented to cause amphibian populations to expand their range to higher elevations, bringing species (and accompanying pathogens) into new habitats, with new competitive interactions (Raxworthy et al., 2008).

22 Coastal wetlands around the world are considered prime habitat for many species of amphibians and rising sea levels will inundate a lot of these wetlands thereby making them unsuitable to sustain amphibian populations. In addition, the increase in UV-B caused by the decreasing levels of ozone in the atmosphere has been shown to be

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 154

particularly damaging to amphibians in general and their eggs (Blaustein et al., 1994) and larvae in particular (reviewed in Blaustein et al., 1998; Blaustein & Belden, 2003). However, recent studies imply that UV-B may not be a significant contributor to global amphibian declines (Vredenburg et al., 2010). Although many of these issues may seem insurmountable, Shoo et al. (2011) identified management actions from across the globe to help ameliorate the effects of global climate change on amphibian populations.

Synergistic Effects

23 While all the factors listed above may play an independent role in amphibian declines and extinctions it has been reported that many may interact synergistically (e.g. Hof et al., 2011). For example, earlier studies found that habitat modification (Adams, 2000), chemical contaminants (Relyea & Mills, 2001), UV-B (Kats et al., 2000), and disease (Kiesecker et al., 2001) work synergistically to exacerbate the negative effects of introduced species on native amphibians. Furthermore, pollution in the form of excess nitrogen and phosphorous has been shown to increase the number of snail intermediate hosts of a trematode parasite, thereby increasing the incidence of these parasites in their amphibian definitive host (Johnson & Chase, 2004; for a full review see Lannoo, 2008). As a further example of the extent of synergistic effects, a link has been made between El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, causing decreased rainfall and therefore lower pond levels and shallower water for breeding, exposing amphibian embryos to greater amounts of UV-B radiation which may, result in increased mortality due to an increase in fungal attack from a saprophytic fungus (Kiesecker et al., 2001; but see Vredenburg et al., 2010 for clarification on the role of UV- B). There has been considerable debate on the synergistic effects of global climate change on disease (Pounds et al., 2006, Alford et al., 2007) and although climate change will obviously play an important role, more evidence is required to confirm a causal link (Rohr et al., 2008).

24 The causes of amphibian declines and extinctions are complex and multifactorial and differ between species and localities. Addressing these issues is undoubtedly one of the most challenging conservation problems of our times.

What global actions have been taken to stop the crisis?

The early response

25 After the anecdotal reports of declining amphibian populations the scientific community responded rapidly with the formation of the DAPTF. One of the earlier problems with identifying amphibian declines was the lack of a consistent monitoring system, and the first output from the DAPTF was the publication of a standard amphibian monitoring handbook (Heyer et al., 1994). This led to a network of DAPTF groups monitoring amphibians around the world in an easily comparative way and disseminating their results through the newsletter FrogLog. The DAPTF acted as the nerve centre for the worldwide effort and assisted in organising amphibian declines symposia (3rd World Congress of Herpetology in Prague, 1997), workshops (with NSF in 1998) and producing resolutions (Heyer & Murphy, 2005). Six working groups were

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 155

formed under DAPTF to look at specific issues and procedures (Climatic and Atmospheric Working Group, Chemical Contaminants Working Group, Disease and Pathology Working Group, two Interdisciplinary Working Groups, and Monitoring Protocols Working Group) and a volunteer network was established of 108 regional and sub-regional Working Groups in 90 different countries. During the period 1990 – 2005 (the term of DAPTF), despite the lack of sufficient funding, extensive and focused research was conducted resulting in more than 750 papers published on amphibian declines and conservation (Ohmer & Bishop, 2011). Furthermore, several texts on amphibian declines were also published (e.g. Green, 1997; Lannoo, 1998; 2005; Linder et al., 2003; Semlitsch, 2003) and many of these identified ways to address the continuing issue of declining amphibian populations.

26 In summary, despite substantial contributions from hundreds of biologists all over the world, amphibian species continued to decline, some to extinction.

The post-GAA response

27 After the alarming GAA results were published concerted efforts were made to develop global-level initiatives to further address the amphibian extinction crisis.

The Amphibian Conservation Summit

28 The Summit was called because it was deemed to be “morally irresponsible to document amphibian declines and extinctions without also designing and promoting a response to this global crisis” (Gascon et al., 2007, p.4). It was convened by the IUCN SSC and Conservation International in September 2005 in Washington and involved 78 amphibian specialists from around the globe. The overall goal of the Summit was to produce a comprehensive plan to respond to the on-going declines and extinctions of amphibian species by developing targeted actions to counter the different threats identified. In addition to novel threats such as emerging infectious diseases, pesticides and environmental toxins and global climate change, delegates also addressed the usual suspects such as habitat change, over-exploitation/utilisation and alien invasive species. The delegates acknowledged a poor understanding of the complex relationships among all the potential causal factors. A subset of the delegates also wrote white papers for each theme covered that formed the backbone of a comprehensive Amphibian Conservation Action Plan (ACAP) (Gascon et al., 2007). In addition to producing the ACAP, the Summit recatalysed the constitution of the IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group and, following a meeting in 2006 in Panama of the IUCN SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group and the World Association of Zoos and Aquaria, gave rise to the Amphibian Ark (AArk).

The Amphibian Conservation Action Plan

29 The ACAP established the strategic elements of an initiative needed to address the global decline of amphibians, including a five-year budget. As the situation is constantly changing it was by necessity a ‘living’ document, reflecting the dynamic nature of amphibian declines and extinctions. In this form the ACAP could respond to new findings and evolve to keep up to date with current knowledge. As no single answer will prevent further losses of amphibian species, an interdisciplinary approach

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 156

was used in the ACAP to design a response that was suited to the scale of the problem. The ACAP outlined priority action steps for amphibian conservation within eleven thematic areas: (1) identifying, prioritising and safe-guarding Key Biodiversity Areas; (2) freshwater resources and associated terrestrial landscapes; (3) climate change, biodiversity loss and amphibian declines; (4) emerging infectious diseases; (5) over- harvesting; (6) mitigating impacts of environmental contamination on amphibian population; (7) captive programmes; (8) reintroductions; (9) the continuing need for assessments: making the GAA an ongoing process; (10) systematics and conservation; (11) bioresource banking efforts in support of amphibian conservation.

The IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group

30 At the Amphibian Conservation Summit in 2005 it was decided to merge the Global Amphibian Specialist Group (GASG), the DAPTF and the GAA into one entity committed to implementing a global strategy for amphibian conservation: the Amphibian Specialist Group (ASG). The ASG was established to ensure long-term sustainability of amphibian research and conservation by building on DAPTF’s worldwide network of expert working groups and integrating them into the IUCN’s global network of Specialist Groups. The ASG is recognised as a formal specialist group within the IUCN SSC, and as such houses the Amphibian Red List Authority, which has taken over stewardship of other amphibian assessment processes from the GAA coordinating team. The ASG supports development and dissemination of new tools and best practices for adoption and application by a network of local, national, and regional working groups. The ASG has been able to implement a range of conservation initiatives focused around habitat protection in partnership with local and international organisations.

31 During the last six years the ASG’s direct conservation efforts have included: • Supporting the creation of 14 new protected areas for amphibians in Latin America, Africa and Asia and the development of new community conservation areas. • Protecting over 22,000 hectares of critical amphibian habitat, home to over 55 threatened or endemic species. • Supporting dozens of species-oriented research projects in Africa, Asia, Latin America and North America through annual Seed Grant programs.

32 Capacity building, education and outreach are all integral parts of the ASG’s approach to amphibian conservation. This is shown through a range of programs including: • A partnership in Sulawesi with the Alliance for Tompotika Conservation, where local communities and children have been actively engaged in an educational campaign celebrating biodiversity. • A training course for promising herpetology students in Colombia run in partnership with local NGO Fundación ProAves and Global Wildlife Conservation. • A training course in Haiti run in partnership with Panos Caribbean to teach and train young journalists aged 12-18 in biodiversity conservation, amphibian protection, and conservation communication. • Supporting the creation and implementation of 12 National and Regional Action Plans. • Spearheading an initiative – the Search for Lost Frogs – that has supported 126 researchers to undertake expeditions in 21 countries resulting in 15 species rediscoveries to date. The Search for Lost Frogs generated over 700 news articles in 21 countries, bringing a message about the importance of amphibians to a broad audience.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 157

The Amphibian Ark

33 Ex-situ conservation refers to “off-site” conservation and is usually conducted in the form of captive breeding programmes in zoological institutions. The AArk was formed in 2006 after the Amphibian Conservation Summit to specifically address the ex-situ conservation components of the ACAP. The speed at which some species were disappearing, and the lack of a full understanding on how to abate some of the most acute threats that amphibians face, particularly those affected by Bd, meant that the only way to ensure the survival of some species was by buying time through captive breeding programmes. AArk began Conservation Needs Assessment Workshops in 2006 and has now evaluated 42% of the world’s amphibian species for their conservation needs in 25 workshops across the globe5. AArk analyses suggest that over 360 species require captive breeding assistance, which when extrapolated to all Threatened and Data-Deficient species would result in about 950 species requiring captive populations. Unfortunately, the estimated global capacity for managing viable captive populations at the present time is only about 50 species. The AArk (and its partners) has also delivered 52 Ex Situ Conservation Training courses in 30 countries, and has trained over 1,725 students in amphibian biology, husbandry and conservation practices.

34 AArk has been particularly active in two campaigns, "2008 Year of the Frog" and "Frog Match Maker". “2008 Year of the Frog” involved many hundreds of zoos, aquaria, museums, universities, schools and other organisations. The main goal of the campaign was to generate public awareness and understanding of the amphibian extinction crisis and to ensure sustainability of survival assurance populations by creating funding for this conservation work. The money raised from the global campaign also helped to fund AArk’s international coordination activities and regional initiatives such as assessment and husbandry workshops and coordination of activities within each region. While the campaign was successful in raising awareness and funds, one of the drawbacks of such a concentrated and focussed campaign seems to be that once the campaign has finished the general public assumes the problems have been solved. “Frog Match Maker” is attempting to find partners to fund 51 different amphibian conservation projects in 26 countries.

Amphibian Conservation mini-summit and the Amphibian Survival Alliance

35 Although there have been some important gains since the Summit it became evident that little progress had been made in relation to the huge scale of the crisis. In 2006 many of the Summit participants issued a call to form an Amphibian Survival Alliance (ASA) to undertake full implementation of the ACAP (Mendelson et al., 2006). Therefore, Simon Stuart, as new SSC Chair, convened an Amphibian Mini-Summit in 2009 in London at which various parties committed to form the Amphibian Survival Alliance to combat amphibian declines and extinctions at a higher level than ever before. The participants also prioritised attention to two actions in the ACAP: stopping extinctions of species threatened by land use change or commercial use; and stopping the spread and reversing the impact of the amphibian chytrid fungus. In addition to these two priorities, the ASA also embraced expanding ex situ rescue operations as a priority issue to secure the persistence of amphibian species. The ASA is now operational, with two staff, and a secretariat provided for the time being by the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA). However, it now needs to bring more organisations and

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 158

institutions into the Alliance, and more importantly, become instrumental in making resources and funds available to galvanise amphibian conservation. Most conservation organisations are still not addressing this crisis, although the class Amphibia represents by far the most dramatic example of vertebrate extinctions taking place in our time (Wake & Vredenburg, 2008).

Future perspectives

36 Although a framework was set-up in the past to allow passive networking between individuals working on amphibian declines, there was no motivating driver that stimulated coordination and networking. The ASA was established to provide a powerful driving force to ensure efficient and effective coordination and collaboration between the main themes of amphibian conservation. The ASA will put in place a global strategy that will implicitly connect with other communities, scientific or otherwise, outside of amphibian specialists. Towards this goal, the ASA will turn the ACAP into a virtual, web-based, ‘living’ document. As described above, the ACAP is divided into eleven themes and these have been expanded and remodeled into actionstatements by the ASA to form 15 Action Working Groups (AWGs). The ASA will recruit members for each AWG (some of whom are likely to be external specialists, e.g. epidemiologists, climate change researchers, molecular biologists, etc.) and the members will select a chair (or co-chairs) to coordinate the group. As the AWGs become populated with members, the ASA will facilitate and stimulate productive interactions between the different AWGs. In addition, where necessary (e.g. captive breeding, disease mitigation and research), regional centres for the working groups will be established, with coordination and support through ASA, as conservation activities such as these should remain in affected countries whenever possible. To support the AWGs and many of the new amphibian conservation initiatives, the ASA is engaging with the business sector and will shortly be releasing an amphibian conservation business plan.

37 Amphibian conservation has thus far been, naturally, very much focused around the amphibians themselves, and the experts, aware of the magnitude of the crisis, have made huge efforts to try to revert it. However, in spite of some attempts to create awareness, a large audience is still unaware of the amphibian crisis and its implications, and even some large organisations dedicated to biodiversity conservation have not embraced the amphibian cause. If we keep trying to save amphibians in isolation it will continue to be an uphill struggle, so it is very important to capitalise on the fact that amphibian conservation touches on many aspects of environmental conservation, and therefore provides numerous opportunities to unite efforts across sectors. By our own count, amphibian conservation can be utilised in 15 of the 20 targets of the revised and updated Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011- 2020 (Aichi Biodiversity Targets), that the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) subscribed countries agreed upon (CBD, 2012).

38 Safeguarding the terrestrial and freshwater habitats that amphibians use is the cornerstone of amphibian conservation strategies: without this, all other conservation efforts are futile. Habitat destruction and degradation has a negative effect on two out of every three amphibian species across the world. It also has a negative effect on many other types of animals and plants, and this immediately provides an opportunity to reach out beyond the amphibian community – a quick look at the sites identified by the

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 159

Alliance for Zero Extinction highlights that in many cases, sites of conservation importance for amphibians are also important for many other different types of plants and animals. Organisations that are involved with the conservation of other taxonomic groups with significantly more access to resources, either because of the charismatic species involved or because of the utilitarian nature of the taxonomic group (e.g. game and hunting, see Lannoo, 2012), have been natural allies in the conservation of specific sites, and therefore, the amphibians in those sites. Partnerships with such organisations have the potential to scale up habitat protection for amphibians to a truly global scale by integrating amphibians into conservation planning and implementation. In this regard the ASG has had some success working with bird- oriented conservation organisations in its efforts to set aside habitat that is important for amphibians (e.g. American Bird Conservancy or Fundación Pro Aves). Similar efforts should be explored with other groups that have more resonance with people. Over 400 Threatened amphibian species are still entirely unprotected throughout their geographic ranges (Rodrígues et al., 2004), and many of these live at a single site, making their risk of extinction especially high – but also offering the opportunity to complement existing protected area networks with small reserves, which in turn could improve the habitat connectivity among protected areas or serve as stepping stones for habitat restoration. This is something that also requires us to bear in mind the potential effects of climate change and to develop ties with those institutions and organisations working on the topic to ensure that amphibians are also considered in their efforts and benefit from their initiatives.

39 Since amphibians are dependent upon both suitable terrestrial and freshwater habitats to survive, they provide us with an opportunity for cost-effective conservation that integrates these two realms. Amphibian distributional data can be used to identify watersheds that are biologically connected, and also to connect the conservation management unit (reserves) with the water management units (river basins). The water sector is an important constituency with which to build synergies, as water management and provision is one of the key issues that everybody agrees is essential both for a healthy environment and opportunities for development. Stronger bonds with the Inland Waters program of the CBD and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands are not only possible, but desirable. In addition, it would be important to work with the Conventions to ensure that they emphasise the role of amphibians as indicators of the health of wetlands, much more than they have done until now.

40 Amphibian populations are influenced by numerous factors both in terrestrial and in freshwater habitats (Wells, 2007). As stated above, their specific biological needs force us to integrate the management of these two realms. It is well documented that pollution in the form of chemical contaminants, including substances that are used in agriculture, is partially responsible for the decline of many amphibian populations (Chanson et al., 2008). As food production intensifies, not only will the water demand for agriculture rise in many parts of the world, but so will the amount of chemicals used. In addition, water will also be in high demand for energy production, and it will be very important that against these demands we all ensure that the water supply to the environment is sufficient to keep ecosystems functioning and providing vital environmental services. It is in this regard that amphibians can be used as a general indicator of the state of biodiversity. There are already reports of amphibian declines due to lack of access to water (McMenamin et al., 2008), and based on our current knowledge of amphibian biology we can forecast declines of populations in areas where

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 160

pesticides and fertilisers are overused (and conversely, we can expect healthier amphibian communities where the use of these substances is limited and better regulated). Setting monitoring programs that allow us to compare the population and richness trends of amphibians in intact forests with those near commodity production plots could provide an early warning system for the potential effects of such chemical substances on other living beings and to guide policy to regulate these substances.

41 There are, of course, some aspects that will need to be dealt with mostly within the amphibian expert community, but even here there is room for more collaboration. While the chytridiomycosis epidemic has opened a whole new field of research – the fungus is interesting in itself, being the only known species within a large group of fungi that interacts with animals – it is important to focus the research towards practical recommendations that help to manage the disease (Woodhams et al., 2011) and to pursue greater understanding of how the spread of the pathogen can be stopped. Prophylactic or remedial treatments of the disease and protocols for reintroduction of captive bred individuals into their natural environment are among the top priorities; there have been several reports of individuals of some species in captivity and in the wild healing or tolerating the infection (e.g. Bishop et al., 2009; Shaw et al., 2010; and see Woodhams et al., 2011 for more detail). This requires a thorough integration of captive breeding efforts with in situ conservation in order to undertake field trials that allow us to explore systematically different ideas to mitigate, if not cure, the disease, and to follow recommendations for reintroduction. This in turn relies on additional local capacity building so that captive breeding efforts can take place as close as possible to the original ranges of the species being bred. Even here there is room to collaborate with sectors beyond the amphibian community. For example, emerging infectious diseases caused by fungi are now recognised as a threat to food security and, after the emergence of the chytrid fungus on amphibians and the white-nose fungal syndrome in bats, fungal diseases are now seen as a general global threat to animal health and thus have a substantial negative impact on biodiversity (Fisher et al., 2012). Chytridiomycosis has been put forward as a model disease to understand the spread and persistence of other fungal pathogens in particular, and of emerging infectious wildlife diseases in general (e.g. Rachowicz et al., 2005; Briggs et al., 2010; Heitman, 2011).

42 The ASA is in the planning stages of a Global Amphibian Chytrid Summit. Although a smaller symposium on the amphibian chytrid fungus was organized by Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC) and US Fish and Wildlife Service in 2007, it focused mainly on the USA, and perhaps occurred too early in the piece to determine how to “turn science into action”. We have learned an enormous amount about the disease since then, and major advances in the science (particularly following recent field trials, e.g. the Kihansi Spray toad reintroduction) will provide us with the knowledge to devise a global approach. Besides presenting a ‘state of the nation’ report on how this disease may be impacting amphibians directly and indirectly, the summit would provide the forum for researchers to share unpublished data and specifically advise stakeholders (e.g. land-managers and conservation practitioners) how to tackle the threat of chytrids to wild amphibian populations – translating the science into action on the ground.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 161

Concluding remarks.

43 It is essential that we engage more with communities beyond the amphibian research and conservation community in order to ensure that amphibians become embedded in broader conservation efforts. Amphibian conservation has been underfunded for many years – this is probably the most conspicuous factor responsible for the limited progress to stop the crisis so far. Amphibians in the US receive only one quarter of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) funding that other vertebrate classes do. Over 80% of the amphibians considered at risk remain unlisted under the ESA (Gratwicke et al., 2012), and it is very likely that a similar scenario occurs in many other countries. Conservation resources are scarce and “amphibian” does not seem to be a keyword that appeals to donors supporting environmental conservation. The huge diversity of amphibians and their ecological requirements, however, justify that amphibian conservationists should be actively engaged with many communities concerned about biodiversity, freshwater resources, forests and certification, pharmaceuticals and bio- mimicry, protected area management, epidemiologists and mycologists, veterinarians, reforestation, REDD+, climate change, ecosystem services and sustainability, toxicology and agriculture, etc.. We need to keep educating others on the role of amphibians as barometers of ecosystem health, and to insert amphibians as a necessary component of broader environmental issues. And we need to keep binding the amphibian conservation community together to be able to present a united and coherent front to all of these audiences, which may facilitate dialogue and access to resources.

44 The success of the ASA initiatives will depend upon a paradigm shift in the scale of the responses and an unprecedented level of collaboration and coordination from stakeholders from many different sectors. If the scale of our response remains the same as it has been over the last 20 years, then we will witness the amphibian crisis turning into “the amphibian catastrophe” (Stuart, 2012).

Acknowledgements

45 We thank Michael Lannoo, Kevin Zippel, Kevin Johnson and two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on the manuscript.

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Adams, M.J. (2000). Pond permanence and the effects of exotic vertebrates on anurans. Ecol. Appl. 10: 559-568.

Alford, R.A., P.M. Dixon & J.H.K. Pechmann (2001). Global amphibian population declines. Nature 412: 499-500.

Alford, R.A. et al. (2007). Global warming and amphibian losses. Nature 447: E3-E4.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 162

Altherr, S., A. Goyenechea & D. Schubert (2011). Canapés to extinction – the international trade in frogs’ legs and its ecological impact. Munich/Washington D.C.: Pro Wildlife/Defenders of Wildlife/ Animal Welfare Institute.

Baillie, J. & B. Groombridge (1996). 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. Gland/Cambridge: IUCN.

Baillie, J.E.M., C. Hilton-Taylor & S.N. Stuart (2004). 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. A Global Species Assessment. Gland/Cambridge: IUCN.

Becker, C.G. et al. (2007). Habitat split and the global decline of amphibians. Science 318: 1775-1777.

Bell, B.D. et al. (2004). The recent decline of a New Zealand endemic: how and why did populations of Archey’s frog Leiopelma archeyi crash over 1996–2001? Biol. Conserv. 120: 189–199.

Berger, L. et al. (1998). Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian mortality associated with population declines in the rain forests of Australia and Central America. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95: 9031-9036.

Bergeron, C.M. et al. (2010). Mercury accumulation along a contamination gradient and nondestructive indices of bioaccumulation in amphibians. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 29: 1–9.

Bishop, P.J. et al. (2009). Elimination of the amphibian chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis by Archey’s frog Leiopelma archeyi. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 84: 9-15.

Blaustein, A.R. & L.K. Belden (2003). Amphibian defenses against ultraviolet-B radiation. Evol. Dev. 5: 89-97.

Blaustein, A.R. & D.B. Wake (1990). Declining amphibian populations: a global phenomenon? Trends Ecol. Evol. 5: 203-204.

Blaustein, A.R. et al. (1994). UV repair and resistance to solar UV-B in amphibian eggs: a link to population declines? P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91: 1791-1795.

Blaustein, A.R. et al. (1998). Effects of ultraviolet radiation on amphibians: Field experiments. Am. Zool. 38: 799-812.

Blaustein, A.R. et al. (2003). Global Change: challenges facing amphibians. In: Semlitsch, R.D. (Ed.) Amphibian Conservation, pp.199-213. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Boone, M.D. & C.M. Bridges (2003). Effects of pesticides on amphibian populations. In: Semlitsch, R.D. (Ed.) Amphibian Conservation, pp.152-167. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Bradford, D.F. (1989). Allotopic distribution of native frogs and introduced fishes in high Sierra Nevada lakes of California: implication of the negative effect of fish introductions. Copeia 1989: 775-778.

Bradford, D.F., F. Tabatabai & D.M. Graber (1993). Isolation of remaining populations of the native frog, Rana muscosa, by introduced fishes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, California. Cons. Biol. 7: 882-888.

Briggs, C.J. et al. (2010). Enzootic and epizootic dynamics of the chytrid fungal pathogen of amphibians. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA107: 9695-9700.

Burrowes, P.A., R.L. Joglar & D.E. Green (2004). Potential causes for amphibian declines in Puerto Rico. Herpetologica 60(2): 141-154.

Carpenter, A.I. et al. (2007). Over-harvesting. In: Gascon, C. et al. (Eds). Amphibian Conservation Action Plan, pp. 26-31. Gland/Cambridge:IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 163

CBD [Convention on Biological Diversity] (2012). Website accessed 26.04.2012. www.cbd.int/sp/ targets/

Chanson, J. et al. (2008). The State of the World’s Amphibians. In: Stuart et al. (Eds.) Threatened Amphibians of the World, pp. 33-52. Barcelona/Gland/Arlington: Lynx Edicions/IUCN/Conservation International.

CITES [Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora] (2012). Electronic resource available at www.cites.org. Accessed on July 4, 2012.

Collins, J.P. & A. Storfer (2003). Global amphibian declines: sorting the hypotheses. Divers. Distrib. 9: 89-98.

Conant, R. (1958). A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of the United States and Canada East of the 100th Meridian. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Crawford, A.J. et al. (2010). Epidemic disease decimates amphibian abundance, species diversity, and evolutionary his- tory in the highlands of central Panama. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107: 13777– 13782.

Cunningham, A.A. (1998). Disease and Pathology Working Group Report: a breakthrough in the hunt for a cause of amphibian declines. FrogLog 30: 3-4.

Czechura, G.V. & G.J. Ingram (1990). Taudactylus diurnus and the case of the disappearing frogs. Mem. Queensl. Mus. 29:361-365.

Di Rosa, I. et al. (2007). The proximate cause of frog declines? Nature 447: E4–E5. (doi:10.1038/ nature05941)

Drost, C.A. & G.M. Fellers (1996). Collapse of a regional frog fauna in the Yosemite Area of the California Sierra Nevada, USA. Conserv. Biol. 10: 414-425.

Farrer, R.A. et al. (2011). Multiple emergences of genetically diverse amphibian-infecting chytrids include a globalized hypervirulent recombinant lineage. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108: 18732-18736.

Fisher, M.C. et al. (2012). Emerging fungal threats to animal, plant and ecosystem health. Nature484: 188-194.

Gallant, A.L. et al. (2007). Global rates of habitat loss and implication for amphibian conservation. Copeia 2007: 965-977.

Gardner, T.A., J. Barlow & C.A. Peres (2007). Paradox, presumption and pitfalls in conservation biology: consequences of habitat change for amphibians and reptiles. Biol. Conserv. 138: 166-179.

Garmyn, A. et al. (2012). Waterfowl: Potential environmental reservoirs of the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. PLoS ONE 7(4): e35038. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035038

Gascon, C. et al.(2007). Amphibian Conservation Action Plan. Gland/Cambridge: IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group.

Gerson, H. (2012). International trade in amphibians: a customs perspective. Alytes 29(1-4): 103-115.

Gratwicke, B., T.E. Lovejoy & D.E. Wilt (2012). Will amphibians croak under the Endangered Species Act? BioScience 62: 197-202.

Green, D.M. (1997). Perspectives on amphibian population declines: defining the problem and searching for answers. In: Green, D.M. (Ed.) Amphibians in Decline: Canadian Studies of a Global Problem (Herpetological Conservation, No.1), Chapter 29. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 164

Groner, M.L. & R.A. Relyea (2011). A tale of two pesticides: How common insecticides affect aquatic communities. Freshwater Biol. 56: 2391-2404.

Hatch, A.C. et al. (2001). Juvenile amphibians do not avoid potentially lethal levels of urea on soil substrate. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20: 2128-2335.

Hayes, T.B. et al. (2012). Demasculinization and feminization of male gonads by atrazine: Consistent effects across vertebrate classes. J. Steroid Biochem. 127(1–2): 64-73.

Heitman, J. (2011). Microbial pathogens in the fungal kingdom.Fungal Biol. Rev. 25: 48-60.

Heyer, W.R. & Murphy, J.B. (2005). Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force. In: Lannoo, M.J. (Ed). Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of U.S. Amphibians, pp. 17-21. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Heyer, W.R. et al. (1994). Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Hilton-Taylor, C. et al. (2000). Assessment mismatches must be sorted out: they leave species at risk. Nature 404: 451.

Hof, C. et al. (2011). Additive threats from pathogens, climate and land-use change for global amphibian diversity. Nature 480: 516-519.

Houlahan, J.E. et al. (2000). Quantitative evidence for global amphibian population declines. Nature 404: 752-755.

Jennings, W.B. (1996). Status of amphibians. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Volume II, Chapter 31, pp.921-944. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis.

Johnson, P.T.J. & J.M. Chase (2004). Parasites in the food web: linking amphibian malformations and aquatic eutrophication. Ecol. Lett. 7: 521–526.

Jones, D.K., J.I. Hammond & R.A. Relyea (2010). Roundup® and amphibians: The importance of concentration, application time, and stratification. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 29: 2016-2025.

Kagarise-Sherman, C. & M.L. Morton (1993). Population declines of Yosemite toads in the eastern Sierra Nevada of California. J. Herpetol. 27: 186-198.

Kats, L.B. et al. (2000). Effects of UV-B radiation on anti-predator behavior in three species of amphibians. Ethology 106: 921-931.

Kiesecker, J.M. & A.R. Blaustein (1998). Effects of introduced bullfrogs and smallmouth bass on microhabitat use, growth, and survival of native red-legged frogs (Rana aurora). Cons. Biol. 12: 776-787.

Kiesecker, J.M. et al. (2001). Complex causes of amphibian population declines. Nature410: 681– 684.

Knapp, R.A. (2005). Effects of nonnative fish and habitat characteristics on lentic herpetofauna in Yosemite National Park, USA. Biol. Cons. 121: 265-279.

Lannoo, M. J. (1996). Okoboji wetlands: a lesson in natural history. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

Lannoo, M.J. (1998). The Status and Conservation of Midwestern Amphibians. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

Lannoo, M.J. (2005). Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of U.S. Amphibians. Berkeley: University of California Press.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 165

Lannoo, M.J. (2008). Malformed Frogs. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lannoo, M.J. (2012). A perspective on amphibian conservation in the United States. Alytes 29(1-4): 133-144.

Lindenmayer, D. et al. (2008). A checklist for ecological management of landscapes for conservation. Ecol. Lett. 11: 78–91.

Linder, G., D.W. Sparling & S.K. Krest (2003). Multiple Stressors and Declining Amphibian Populations: Evaluating Cause and Effect. Boca Raton: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

Lips, K.R. (1998). Decline of a tropical montane amphibian fauna. Conserv. Biol. 12: 106-117.

Lips, K.R. (1999). Mass mortality and population declines of anurans at an upland site in western Panama. Conserv. Biol. 13: 117-125.

Lips, K.R., J. Reeve & L. Witters (2003). Ecological factors predicting amphibian population declines in Central America. Conserv.Biol. 17: 1078–1088.

Lips, K.R. et al. (2005). Amphibian declines in Latin America: widespread population declines, extinctions, and impacts. Biotropica 37: 163–165.

Lips, K.R. et al. (2006). Emerging infectious disease and the loss of biodiversity in a Neotropical amphibian community. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103 (9): 3165–3170.

Longcore, J.E., A.P. Pessier & D.K. Nichols (1999). Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis gen. et sp. nov., a chytrid pathogenic to amphibians. Mycologia 91:219-227.

Mazzoni, R. et al. (2003). Emerging pathogen of wild amphibians in frogs (Rana catesbeiana) farmed for international trade. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 9: 3-30.

McMenamin, S.K., E.A. Hadly & C.K. Wright (2008). Climatic change and wetland desiccation cause amphibian decline in Yellowstone National Park. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105(44): 16988-16993.

Mendelson, J.R. et al. (2006). Biodiversity. Confronting amphibian declines and extinctions. Science 313: 48.

Minter, L.R. et al. (2004). Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Volume 9 SI/MAB Series. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Norris, D.O. (2011). Endocrine Disruption of Reproduction in Amphibians. In: Norris, D.O. & K.H. Lopez (Eds.) Hormones and Reproduction of Vertebrates, Volume 2 – Amphibians, pp.203-211. Academic Press.

Ohmer, M.E & P.J. Bishop (2011). Citation rate and perceived subject bias in the amphibian- decline literature. Conserv. Biol. 25(1): 195-199.

Phillimore, A.B. et al. (2010). Differences in spawning date between populations of common frog reveal local adaptation. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107(18): 8292-8297.

Picker, M.D. (1985). Hybridization and habitat selection in Xenopus gilli and Xenopus laevis in South-western Cape province. Copeia 1985(3): 574-580.

Pistoni, J. & L.F. Teledo (2010). Amphibian illegal trade in Brazil: what do we know? South Amer. J. Herpetol. 5 (1): 51-56.

Pounds, J.A. & M.L. Crump (1994). Amphibian declines and climate disturbance: the case of the golden toad and harlequin frog. Conserv. Biol. 8: 72-85.

Pounds, J.A. et al. (1997). Tests of null models for amphibian declines on a tropical mountain. Conserv. Biol. 11: 1307-1322.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 166

Pounds, J.A. et al. (2006). Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature 439: 161–167.

Purvis, A. et al. (2000). Nonrandom extinction and the loss of evolutionary history. Science 287: 328-330.

Rabb, G.B. (1990). Declining amphibian populations. Species 13-14: 33-34.

Rachowicz, L.J. et al. (2005). The novel and endemic pathogen hypotheses: competing explanations for the origin of emerging infectious diseases of wildlife. Conserv. Biol. 19: 1441-1448.

Raxworthy, C.J. et al. (2008). Extinction vulnerability of tropical montane endemism from warming and upslope displacement: a preliminary appraisal for the highest massif in Madagascar. Glob. Change Biol. 14: 1703–1720.

Relyea, R.A. (2003). Predator cues and pesticides: a double dose of danger for amphibians. Ecol. Appl. 13: 1515–1521.

Relyea, R.A. (2004). Synergistic impacts of malathion and predatory stress on six species of North American tadpoles. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23: 1080–1084.

Relyea, R.A.(2011). Amphibians are not ready for Roundup®. In: Elliott, J., C. Bishop & C. Morrisey (Eds.) Wildlife Ecotoxicology—Forensic Approaches, pp. 267-300. New York: Springer.

Relyea, R.A. & N. Mills (2001). Predator-induced stress makes the pesticide carbaryl more deadly to gray treefrog tadpoles (Hyla versicolor). P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 2491-2496.

Rodrigues, A.S.L. et al. (2004). Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428: 640–643.

Rohr, J.R. & P.W. Crumrine (2005). Effects of an herbicide and an insecticide on pond community structure and processes. Ecol. Appl. 15(4): 1135-1147.

Rohr, J.R. et al. (2008). Evaluating the links between climate, disease spread, and amphibian declines. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105: 17436–17441.

Rollins-Smith, L.A. et al. (2002a). Antimicrobial peptide defenses against pathogens associated with global amphibian declines. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 26: 63–72.

Rollins-Smith, L.A. et al. (2002b). Activity of antimicrobial skin peptides from ranid frogs against Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, the chytrid fungus associated with global amphibian declines. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 26: 471–479.

Ron, S.R. & A. Merino-Viteri (2000). Amphibian declines in Ecuador: overview and first report of chytridiomycosis from South America. FrogLog 42: 2-3.

Ron, S.R. et al. (2003). Population decline of the Jambato toad Atelopus ignescens (Anura: Bufonidae) in the Andes of Ecuador. J. Herpetol. 37: 116-126.

Rosen, P.C. & C.R. Schwalbe (1995). Bullfrogs: introduced predators in southwestern wetlands. In: LaRoe, E.T. et al. (Eds.) Our living resources: a report to the nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems, pp.452-4. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service.

Rouse, J.D., C.A. Bishop & J. Struger (1999). Nitrogen pollution: An Assessment of its threat to amphibian survival. Environ. Health Persp. 107(10): 799-803.

Semlitsch, R.D. (2003). Amphibian Conservation. 1st Edition. Smithsonian Books.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 167

Shaw, S.D. et al. (2010). Experimental infection of self-cured Leiopelma archeyi with the amphibian chytrid, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 92(2-3): 159-163.

Shine, R. (2010). The Ecological Impact of Invasive Cane Toads (Bufo marinus) in Australia. Q. Rev. Biol. 85(3): 253-291.

Schlaepfer, M.A., C. Hoover & C.K. Dodd Jr (2005). Challenges in evaluating the impact of the trade in amphibians and reptiles on wild populations. BioScience 55(3): 253-264.

Shoo, L.P. et al. (2011). Engineering a future for amphibians under climate change. J. Appl. Ecol. 48(2): 487–492.

Skerratt, L.F. et al. (2007). Spread of chytridiomycosis has caused the rapid global decline and extinction of frogs. Ecohealth 4: 125–134.

Sodhi, N.S. et al. (2008). Measuring the Meltdown: Drivers of Global Amphibian Extinction and Decline. PLoS ONE 3(2): e1636. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001636

Stuart, S.N. (2012). Responding to the amphibian crisis: too little, too late? Alytes 29(1-4): 9-12.

Stuart, S.N. et al. (2008). Threatened Amphibians of the World. Barcelona/Gland/Arlington: Lynx Edicions/IUCN/Conservation International.

UNEP-WCMC (2007). Review of Non-CITES amphibia species that are known or likely to be in international trade. Report prepared for the European Commission. Cambridge: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre.

Vial, J.L. (1991). Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force. Species 16: 47-48.

Vredenburg, V.T. (2004). Reversing introduced species effects: Experimental removal of introduced fish leads to rapid recovery of a declining frog. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101: 7646-7650.

Vredenburg, V.T. et al. (2010). Does UV-B radiation affect embryos of three high elevation amphibian species in California? Copeia 2010(3): 502–512.

Wake, D.B. (1991). Declining amphibian populations. Science 253:860.

Wake, D.B. & H.J. Morowitz (1990). Declining amphibian populations — a global phenomenon? Report to the Board on Biology, National Research Council, on workshop in Irvine, CA, 19-20 February 1990. Reprinted in 1991 in Alytes 9(2): 33-42.

Wake, D.B. & V.T. Vredenburg (2008). Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world amphibians. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105: 11466-11473.

Warkentin, I.G. et al. (2009). Eating frogs to extinction. Conserv. Biol. 23(4): 1056-1059.

Wells, K.D. (2007). The Ecology and Behavior of Amphibians. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Woodhams, D.C. et al. (2011). Mitigating amphibian disease: strategies to maintain wild populations and control chytridiomycosis. Front. Zool. 8(8): 1-23.

Ye, C., L. Fei & S. Hu (1993). Rare and Economic Amphibians of China. Chengdu: Sichuan Publishing House of Science and Technology. [In Chinese.]

Young, B.E. et al. (2001). Population declines and priorities for amphibian conservation in Latin America. Conserv. Biol. 15: 1213-1223.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 168

NOTES

1. see www.amphibiaweb.org for an updated tally. 2. ‘Threatened with extinction’ comprises the categories Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Near Threatened. 3. v. 2011.2 - www.redlist.org 4. www.cites.org 5. A detailed five-year AArk report is available for download at: www.amphibianark.org/AArk-5- year-report.pdf

RÉSUMÉS

The current mass extinction episode is most apparent in the amphibians. With approximately 7,000 species, amphibians are dependent on clean fresh water and damp habitats and are considered vulnerable to habitat loss (deforestation), changes in water or soil quality and the potential impacts of climate change, and in addition many species are suffering from an epidemic caused by a chytrid fungus. Because of their sensitivity and general dependence on both terrestrial and aquatic habitats they are often regarded as indicators of the health of the environment. The latest figures from the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species™ show that there are nearly as many species of amphibians categorised as Threatened as those of Threatened birds and mammals put together, with an estimated 40% of amphibian species in danger of extinction. Furthermore, although amphibians have survived multiple previous global mass extinctions, in the last 20-40 years precipitous population declines have taken place on a scale not previously seen. Although amphibian declines were first reported in the 1950s, the magnitude and global scope of the problem were only fully realised during discussions at the 1st World Congress of Herpetology in England in 1989. Shortly thereafter, the Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force (DAPTF) was established by the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) to investigate the causes and severity of the declines. Many projects and publications were stimulated by the DAPTF and the results of these prompted the IUCN to conduct a global amphibian assessment in 2004. IUCN SSC’s Amphibian Conservation Action Plan (ACAP) was published in 2007, following an Amphibian Conservation Summit held in 2005. The ACAP identified the key issues that require attention in order to curb this crisis, and provided the framework for interventions. While there have been significant efforts in the last five years, the response to the crisis has not progressed across all areas of the action plan at a scale sufficient to halt the crisis. As a direct result, species continue to decline and go extinct. Finding solutions to counter amphibian declines and extinctions is one of the greatest conservation challenges of the century, which comes with alarming and serious implications for the health of ecosystems globally. The Amphibian Survival Alliance (ASA), launched in June 2011, acts as a global partnership for amphibian conservation. It is in a pivotal position to implement the ACAP, acting to mobilise a motivated and effective consortium of organisations working together to stem the rapid losses of amphibian populations and species worldwide. The Alliance brings focus, coordination, and leadership in addressing one of the world’s most serious extinction crises. Its goal is the restoration of all threatened native amphibian species to their natural roles and population levels in ecosystems worldwide. The recently formed Amphibian

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 169

Survival Alliance will address the multiple ACAP issues with several new initiatives, including creating a web-based ‘living’ version of ACAP and driving the implementation of the ACAP themes in a more progressive and collaborative manner than ever before, thereby stemming the loss of an important part of the biological diversity of our planet.

INDEX

Keywords : amphibians, extinction crisis, amphibian conservation, amphibian conservation action plan, amphibian survival alliance

AUTEURS

P. J. BISHOP Amphibian Survival Alliance, c/o Department of Zoology, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand.

A. ANGULO IUCN Global Species Programme, Rue Mauverney 28, 1196 Gland, Switzerland

J. P. LEWIS IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500Arlington, VA 22202 USA

R.D. MOORE IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500Arlington, VA 22202 USA

G. B. RABB President Emeritus, Chicago Zoological Society, 9236 Broadway, Brookfield, IL 60513, USA

J. GARCIA MORENO Amphibian Survival Alliance, c/o EAZA, P O Box 20164, 1000 HD Amsterdam, The Netherlands

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 170

Presentation: IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

NOTE DE L’ÉDITEUR

Authors: Nikita Lopoukhine and Trevor Sandwith.

NOTE DE L'AUTEUR

Commission Chair : Nikita Lopoukhine, E-mail: [email protected]

About the Commission

1 The IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) is the world's premier network of protected area expertise. It has over 1,600 members, spanning 140 countries. WCPA works by helping governments and others plan protected areas and integrate them into all sectors; by providing strategic advice to policy makers; by strengthening capacity and investment in protected areas; and by convening the diverse constituency of protected area stakeholders to address challenging issues. For more than 50 years, IUCN and WCPA have been at the forefront of global action on protected areas.

Background and mission

2 The origins of this Commission can be traced back to the early years of the 20th century. As the number of protected areas increased, conservationists recognized a growing need to address some parks issues internationally. In 1910, Paul Sarasin, a Swiss medical doctor, proposed a “Committee to establish an International or World Commission for the Protection of Nature”. Related action at the international level

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 171

included conferences on wild fauna and flora held in 1905, 1909, 1913, 1923 and 1928. Political turmoil prevented these early conferences from generating the organizational structure needed for effective international conservation.

3 IUCN established a provisional Committee on National Parks during its 1958 General Assembly at Athens and Delphi, Greece. Harold (Hal) Coolidge headed the Committee, and would later become the first Chair of the full Commission. The Committee included five members representing Africa, three for Asia, and one each for North America, Latin America and Europe. Its purpose was to “strengthen international cooperation in matters relating to national parks and equivalent reserves in all countries throughout the world”.

4 In 1960, IUCN raised the status of the Committee to that of a permanent Commission, with the creation of the Commission on National Parks. IUCN had been asked by the international community to take responsibility for preparing a world list of national parks, in keeping with its role as a network to share the world’s knowledge on nature conservation.

5 The history of this Commission is inextricably linked to that of IUCN, and the work of its staff. From the outset Commission activities have been closely aligned with protected area activities throughout IUCN, carried out in support of the broader IUCN mission. The Commission and the IUCN Programme on Protected Areas have carried out an integrated work programme for the past 15 years, which is recognized as a model in line with the IUCN One Programme approach.

6 WCPA’s Mission is to promote the establishment and effective management of a world- wide representative network of terrestrial and marine protected areas as an integral contribution to IUCN's mission. The Commission has a Steering Committee, and the Chair is elected every four years at the IUCN World Conservation Congress. The principal objectives of WCPA are to: • help governments and others plan protected areas and integrate them into all sectors, through provision of strategic advice to policy makers. • strengthen capacity and effectiveness of protected areas managers, through provision of guidance, tools and information and a vehicle for networking; • increase investment in protected areas, by persuading public and corporate donors of their value; and • enhance WCPA's capacity to implement its programme, including through co-operation with IUCN members and partners.

Achievements to date

7 One of the ‘products’ for which the Commission is best known is the World Parks Congress (WPC) —a major event held every 10 years. Congresses provide an important opportunity for protected areas experts and policymakers worldwide to meet, review the current global situation and chart the path forward for protected areas. They are defining moments. They capture new concepts and in retrospect reveal paradigm shifts in thinking, policy and action towards protected areas. Views on what constitutes a protected area, the purpose of such areas, and how they should be run have all changed fundamentally since the first conference in 1962. Five have been held so far with the latest held in Durban, South Africa in 2003.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 172

8 Durban’s legacy led to the adoption (a year later) of a programme of work on protected areas (PoWPA) by the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Since then, WCPA has been repeatedly recognized through COP decisions as a source of expertise in the guidance to the signatories to the CBD in the implementation of the PoWPA.

9 Between 2004 and 2010, at the CBD’s request, IUCN: • Compiled information on financial incentives for protected areas (Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas, 2006) and set up a task force on costs and benefits • Developed guidance on: protected area selection (Identification and Gap Analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas, 2007); working with faith groups (Guidelines on the Management of Sacred Natural Sites, 2008); climate change (Natural Solutions, 2009); and connectivity (Connectivity Conservation Management, 2010) • Published a major text book (Managing Protected Areas; 2006), • Developed a database of protected area courses and established an online teaching module for national PoWPA focal points with the CBD and partners • Started development of a Green List as a voluntary standard for best practice in protected area management • Published a new edition of technical guidance on management effectiveness assessment; analysed global assessment results; and provided capacity support in World Heritage sites, West Africa, ASEAN countries, Finland, South Korea, Australia and Colombia • Produced new guidance on protected area management categories and worked with UNEPWCMC to improve the World Database on Protected Areas, to standardize data on the extent and coverage of protected areas.

10 The 2010 COP adopted a decision that invites WCPA to provide technical advice to parties in the following areas; ecological restoration, monitoring and evaluation of the status of biodiversity in protected areas, governance of protected areas, connectivity, representation with a regional approach, management effectiveness, conservation corridors, and adaptation to and mitigation of climate change (COP 10 Decision X/31 clause 8).

11 WCPA is a critical element to the Union’s role to evaluate individual nominations, monitor the conservation status of existing World Heritage sites, provide training and support for site managers, and advise on related strategy by preparing overviews. WCPA members are called upon to undertake the reviews and assure quality while also addressing the capacity building needs of these premiere global sites.

12 WCPA is also recognized for setting global standards: The IUCN Management Categories classify protected areas according to their management objectives. The use of Categories makes it easier to compare protected areas, support countries in setting objectives, and measure the effectiveness of protected areas. These categories are recognised by international bodies and many national governments as the global standard for defining and recording protected areas and as such are increasingly being incorporated into government legislation. Countries such as Austria, South Korea and Germany have sought out IUCN experts to certify that certain of their protected areas meet specific category standards.

13 A categories task force undertook a wide-ranging review of the IUCN Management Categories. The four-year review process culminated in a revised version of the guidelines, published for the 2008 IUCN World Conservation Congress in Barcelona,

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 173

Spain. A new definition of a protected area was adopted then as well, which is the first test in the process of assignment of Categories to a protected area. Significantly, the revision introduces a governance dimension to the categories system that includes options for the management of all categories of protected areas by indigenous and local communities.

14 In 1998, the Commission published the first of an ongoing reference series, “Best Practice Guidelines”. Drawing on the Commission’s expertise, each volume addresses topical issues facing protected areas, and helped make the Commission an authoritative voice on protected areas management. Seventeen guidelines have been issued to date1.

Current initiatives

Natural Solutions

15 Protected Areas have a principal function of safeguarding nature. Yet, to date, a systematic analysis of their effectiveness in this regard has not been carried out. With SSC, a study is now under way to analyse biodiversity outcomes in protected areas. The approach includes a meta-study on the effectiveness of different IUCN categories and governance types in delivering biodiversity outcomes, drawing on available long-term data from protected areas around the world (and comparable data from outside protected areas where available).

16 WCPA is focused on strengthening the management of existing protected areas as a contribution to addressing climate change issues Protected areas store at least 15 per cent of terrestrial carbon and supply ecosystem services for disaster reduction, water supply, food and public health, all of which enable community-based adaptation. Without protected areas, the challenges would be even greater.

Standards and Guidance

17 Ecological restoration is an important protected area management tool for halting and reversing ecosystem degradation. It contributes to global conservation objectives by reducing biodiversity loss, enhancing natural capital and ecosystem services, enhancing landscape connectivity, facilitating mitigation and adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change, and contributing to the improvement of human well-being. A Best Practice Guideline on Restoration will be launched at the 2012 World Conservation Congress (WCC) in Jeju, South Korea.

18 Another contribution to the Best Practice Guideline Series, on urban protected areas – protected natural areas within and adjoining cities – is planned to be launched at the 2012 WCC. These urban protected areas are important not only for the well-being of the people who live in those cities; they are also ambassadors for nature conservation generally. A generous contribution from the Korean Parks Service is making this publication possible by the Urban Specialist Group.

Capacity building

19 WCPA is committed to developing the curricula and supporting mechanisms to build up the level of professionalism of personnel associated with the management of protected

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 174

areas. The capacity to manage is the product of willingness, competence, skills, capability, and adequate resources. A Task Force on Education has launched the development of standard curricula, with the intent to make information, tools and publication readily available as well as to strengthen a broader understanding of the values of protected areas and the need to invest in these critical areas of the world.

Recognizing Good Management

20 Using pilot studies in a number of countries, work is under way to determine the feasibility of putting in place a PA quality standard, based in the assessment of management effectiveness of protected areas. The World Conservation Congress in Jeju in 2012 will provide an excellent opportunity to review the advances of the pilot and a venue for launching the Green List. The resulting IUCN Green List of well-managed protected areas will recognize the attainment of standards of management effectiveness across a range of criteria (e.g. biodiversity conservation, threat abatement, equitable governance, sustainable financing, visitor satisfaction, science and education).

Challenges for the future

21 The specific objectives of the IUCN WCPA for the next four years are to: • enhance the capacity to effectively manage protected area systems to achieve the Aichi Targets for halting biodiversity loss, in particular through meeting Aichi Target 112; • mainstream protected areas as natural solutions to global challenges, such as climate change, land degradation, food security, health and well-being; • foster equitable governance of protected area systems; • make the case for sustainable financing of protected area systems; • communicate and advocate the value of protected area systems.

22 WCPA recognizes that to achieve the full potential of protected areas, and to meet the goals of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, and particularly Aichi Target 11, the capacity for protected area management must be upgraded. Accordingly, WCPA will work with the Global Protected Areas Programme (GPAP) and other partners to build institutional capacity and practitioners’ skills to enhance protected area system design, management and governance, to conduct biodiversity monitoring, and to implement sound business planning. Good practice guidance will be generated, knowledge disseminated and competence built.

23 WCPA will work towards mainstreaming protected areas as “natural solutions” in addressing climate change, land degradation, food security, health and well-being. WCPA will continue to work with the Rio Conventions to position protected areas as a fundamental contribution in the objective of all three conventions.

24 WCPA will promote: • the full range of governance types for protected areas; • the increased participation of indigenous peoples and local communities; • the values of protected areas to human well-being and livelihoods.

25 Working with partners and communication experts (such as the IUCN CEC) WCPA will advocate the value of well-managed systems of protected areas with the purpose of

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 175

building awareness and the enhancement of the level of investment in protected areas, expansion and management effectiveness.

Facts and Figures

Figure 1. Structure of the WCPA Steering Committee

The names of individuals associated with each of the boxes may be found at http://cmsdata.iucn.org/ downloads/steeringcommittee.pdf. Currently, WCPA has over 1400 members in the Commission.

26 WCPA is led by the Commission Chair, supported by a Steering Committee and an operational structure including Task Forces and Specialist Groups that contribute to the realization of its mandate. The Commission is supported by the GPAP from the IUCN Secretariat and work with Regional Offices and IUCN Members to realize IUCN’s “One Programme” Charter. An Organigramme showing the structure of the Steering Committee is shown in Figure 1.

NOTES

1. See www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/wcpa/wcpa_puball/wcpa_bpg/ 2. Aichi Target 11: By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes.” Strategic Plan

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 176

of the Convention on Biological Diversity or the “Aichi Target” see http://www.cbd.int/sp/ targets/

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 177

Protected areas: providing natural solutions to 21st Century challenges

N. Lopoukhine, N. Crawhall, N. Dudley, P. Figgis, C. Karibuhoye, D. Laffoley, J. Miranda Londoño, K. MacKinnon et T. Sandwith Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

NOTE DE L’ÉDITEUR

This article was reviewed by Adrian Phillips and Linda Krueger.

Introduction

1 Over the past 50 years human activities have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than at any comparable period in our history with more than 60% of the world’s ecosystems already degraded (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). These changes have generated many economic gains but at growing environmental costs, including biodiversity loss and land degradation, which in turn has resulted in many economic, social and cultural losses. Communities that rely on sustainable use of natural resources find themselves particularly vulnerable to biodiversity and ecosystem degradation. However, the news is not all bad. Evidence is emerging that the long-term investments being made by national governments and communities in protected area systems globally are having a large pay-off. Protected areas are an efficient and effective means to address biodiversity loss, help buffer society from the effects of climate change, and maintain the critical ecosystem services on which all societies depend.

2 Habitat loss, fragmentation, overexploitation of natural resources, pollution, and the spread of invasive alien species have long been recognized as the “Big Five” threats to global biodiversity. The Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 published in 2010 showed that most threats to biodiversity were increasing, largely driven by our failure to protect ecosystem integrity, the growing surge in human population, and unsustainable

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 178

approaches to consumption and unlimited growth. The same report found that expansion of protected areas was one of the few positive indicators of environmental performance (CBD, 2010). In the last decade climate change has emerged as the key development and environmental concern of the new millennium. Climate change will exacerbate the other sources of environmental degradation and may generate new threats with devastating consequences for both biodiversity and human welfare, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable communities and nations. Protected area systems, if designed appropriately and managed effectively, can make a valuable contribution to overall efforts to address these challenges.

Biodiversity and Climate Change

3 A number of initiatives have highlighted the likely impacts of climate change on biodiversity (e.g., Bellard et al. 2012). Even a relatively modest 2 degree C global temperature rise will cause significant modifications to ecosystems and their functions, (Bergengren et al., 2011). Climate change is not only a threat in its own right, but many of the response measures being designed for mitigation will also impact adversely on natural habitats and biodiversity (World Bank 2010a). Already the demand for biofuels has led to more rapid deforestation and agricultural expansion for sugar cane, soya and oil palm plantations in the tropics. The clearance and burning of peat swamp forests for oil palm production in Indonesia, for instance, is estimated to have been a major contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, making Indonesia the world’s third largest emitter of GHGs in 2006. Investment in more renewable energy sources, such as hydropower and geothermal energy, can lead to loss of natural habitats and disruption of ecosystem processes unless carefully planned and implemented. Adaptation to climate change is likely to involve more investment in dams, levees and reservoirs to buffer against increased variability in rainfall and runoff and flood control; such infrastructure may be essential for economic development, but can reduce important ecosystem services, and dependent livelihoods, through their impacts on the volume, pattern, and quality of flow (Hirji and Davis, 2009).

4 Climate change over the past 30 years has produced numerous shifts in the distributions and abundances of species and has been implicated in at least one species- level extinction (Thomas et al, 2004). Estimates of future extinction risk vary considerably; one study identified an extinction range from 1% to 29%, depending on the biome, with an estimated 4% extinction of species in tropical forests (Thomas et al. 2004, Bellard et al. 2012). What is clear is that some habitats will be particularly affected, including freshwater systems and coral reefs. It is projected that the ocean will be particularly badly hit with much extinction predicted at mid- to higher- latitudes as shifting species encounter unfavorable conditions or ‘run out of ocean’ as they encounter continent margins, also opening up the opportunity for mass species invasions towards polar regions (Cheung et al. 2009). Overall, species will adapt, move or die out locally and ecological communities will reorganize around those species that are able to colonise new climatic zones.

5 There is good evidence that protected areas, planned as part of larger and connected conservation networks, offer practical, tangible solutions to the problem of species loss and adaptation to climate change (e.g., Hannah et al. 2002). IUCN defines a protected area as “a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed,

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 179

through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley, 2008), with nature conservation the priority objective. This definition is expanded with a series of six management categories (I-VI), ranging from strict protection with limited human access to protected landscapes and seascapes, which are cultural landscapes, often with settled human communities, managed as protected areas. Sites may be nested: strictly protected core areas may be surrounded, buffered and connected by protected areas where some resource utilisation is allowed. Over time, protected areas have undergone important changes in ownership and management patterns; from an almost exclusive focus on government management of state-controlled lands to a far more pluralistic model (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004). IUCN recognises four types of governance: (1) by national or local governments; (2) various forms of shared governance including transboundary protected areas across national borders; (3) by non-profit or for-profit private enterprises; and (4) by indigenous peoples and local communities (indigenous and community-conserved areas) (Dudley, 2008). A strong protected areas network may include most or all of these management categories and governance models, providing maximum flexibility and resilience to changing political and social conditions.

6 Despite a major growth in protected areas in the last few decadesthere is still an urgent need for an expanded protected area network with improved connectivity to slow biodiversity loss and to maintain ecosystem integrity and function. A recent analysis of the overlap between protected areas, Important Bird Areas (which comprise more than 10,000 globally significant sites for conserving birds) and Alliance for Zero Extinction sites (600 sites holding the last remaining population of highly threatened vertebrates and plants) found that less than half of these sites were protected (Butchart et al. 2012). Protection should also ensure that ecosystem complexity is recovered, especially in the ocean, so that ecosystems are more resilient to climatic shocks. Conservation biology confirms the need to protect large areas and maintain connectivity along altitudinal gradients. Yet natural ecosystems are becoming increasingly fragmented and many protected areas have become isolated “islands” within more intensively used production lands. Maintaining connectivity between protected areas through a mosaic of conservation-friendly land uses, under different tenure and management regimes, will be a key strategy to allow plant and animal species to adapt to climate change, especially for wide-ranging and migratory species such as large herbivores and predators at the head of the food chain.

7 Large-scale connectivity conservation initiatives are already underway on all continents, including national efforts such as the Yellowstone to Yukon initiative, transnational conservation areas in the Greater Virunga landscape in Central Africa and designation of biological corridors such as the MesoAmerican Biological Corridor (Worboys et al. 2010). New protected areas and mosaics of landuse are being designed to establish ecological corridors in Mexico and the Vilacamba-Amboro region of the Andes in Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Peru (World Bank, 2010a ). In South Africa megareserves in the Greater Cederberg area and elsewhere in the Cape Floristic Region include government-designated protected areas, and community and private lands under stewardship arrangements and sustainable management to create biological corridors from the mountains to the sea (Sandwith et al. 2010). Similarly the Australian government is proposing a whole-of-continent approach to connectivity conservation,

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 180

combining the goals of biodiversity conservation and climate change resilience through a National Wildlife Corridor Plan.

8 Atthe 10th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Nagoya, Japan in 2010, countriescommitted to increasing the coverage of protected areas by 2020 to at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water habitats (up from 12.7% currently) and 10% of marine areas (up from 6.3% of coastal waters and just over 1% overall). Another 17 of the 20 so-called Aichi Targets agreed in Nagoya also have implications for the expansion and improved management of protected areas. Protected areas, from national parks to community-managed nature reserves, are the cornerstones of biodiversity conservation, but generating support for more such areas will require stronger social and economic arguments to engender the necessary political backing and acceptance by communities, governments and industry. An important step in this process is the growing consensus between the parties to the international conventions on climate change (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC) and biological diversity (CBD) on the need to strengthen management of natural ecosystems as part of climate change response strategies.

Natural Solutions: Helping People to cope with Climate Change

9 Ecosystems and biodiversity are not just victims of climate change, but can also play a critical role in mitigation and adaptation. While the primary focus of climate change strategies is likely to remain on cleaner energy technologies and reduced emissions of GHGs, there is increasing recognition that natural habitats, and in particular protected areas, can make a significant contribution to mitigation by storing and sequestering carbon in vegetation and soils, and to adaptation by helping societies to respond, and adapt, to the changes that are occurring (Dudley et al. 2010 World Bank 2010a, MacKinnon et al. 2011). Yet the multiple goods and services which protected areas provide are largely unrecognised in national accounting even though the Aichi Targets and Rio+20 call for improved natural resource accounting.

10 Terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems play a significant role in the global carbon cycle, serving as major carbon stores and sinks, mitigating and reducing GHG emissions from energy production, transport and land use change. Forests cover some 30% of the world’s land area but store 50% of terrestrial carbon, including soil carbon – see Box 1. Inland wetlands, particularly peat, contain large carbon stores as do grasslands, which are estimated to hold 10–30% of global soil carbon (Parish et al. 2008). Coastal and marine habitats, especially salt marshes, mangroves, kelp and sea grass beds are also important carbon sinks. Although covering just 2% of the Earth’s surface, they are responsible for around 50% of the transfer of carbon to the sediment and sequester carbon more efficiently than terrestrial ecosystems of equivalent area; (Laffoley and Grimsditch 2009). With poor management or conversion, however, these habitats can easily switch to become net sources of carbon, and habitat loss and degradation are already responsible for approximately 20% of annual carbon emissions (Gitay et al. 2002, Baumert et al. 2006). For habitats such as mangroves and peatlands where carbon laid down over thousands of years is released by anthropogenic activities, the release is rapid and then sustained for many decades, and is often significant at national or indeed regional scales.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 181

Box 1. Storing carbon in the woodlands of Western Australia

Research from the Australian National University showed that Australian natural forests have far larger carbon stocks than had been previously recognized. Mature, undisturbed stands hold the greatest stocks, a fact which provides compelling evidence for increased protection and appropriate management. The estimated amount of 950 million tonnes carbon currently stored in the vegetation and soil of the Great Western Woodlands, 16 million hectares of forests and shrublands, is equivalent to more than six times Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions for 2008. Most of this ‘green carbon’ is stored in the soil, with every hectare containing an average of 40 tonnes of carbon. An additional 20 tonnes of carbon per hectare, on average, is stored in the trees, roots, woody debris, branches, and shrubs across the region. Sites located in the mature eucalypt woodlands have higher carbon stocks than those which contain fewer or smaller trees (e.g., shrublands and mallee ecosystems). The highest amount of carbon is found in mature eucalypt woodlands that have not been disturbed by logging, pastoralism or mining. Wild fires are the biggest threat to carbon stored in the Great Western Woodlands, with more than 2.5 million hectares burnt since 2000. With strengthened protection and improved fire management almost 1,550 million tonnes of carbon could be stored in the Woodlands, 600 million tonnes of carbon more than currently stored there.

Source: Berry et al. 2009.

11 The global protected area network is by far the most extensive natural resource management system that aims to maintain natural habitats, encompassing national parks, wilderness areas, nature reserves and marine protected areas. While their primary objective is biodiversity conservation, protected areas also make significant contributions to maintaining other ecosystem services. For example, protected areas are conservatively estimated to store over 312 Gt carbon or 15% of the terrestrial carbon stock (Kapos et al. 2008) although the degree to which carbon stocks are protected varies among regions and under different management and governance regimes (Campbell et al. 2008). Protected areas and indigenous reserves in the Brazilian Amazon, for example, are likely to prevent an estimated 670,000 km² of deforestation by 2050, representing 8 billion tonnes of avoided carbon emissions (World Bank 2010a), contingent on effective management under a mosaic of landuse governance ranging from national and state protected area agencies to indigenous peoples and local communities in their territories. The role of natural ecosystems in carbon storageand sequestrationprovides strong arguments for increasing protected area coverage, and for expanding protected area governance to communities and the private sector, especially in carbon-rich habitats. It also argues for restoring degraded habitats, such as peatlands, to retain more carbon as is currently happening in Sebangau National Park, in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, where drainage canals are being blocked to restore water tables and regenerate peatlands and protect swamp forests which are also important habitat for orang utans (DeVries 2010).

12 Adaptation to climate change has, and will, become an increasingly important part of the development agenda, especially in developing countries most at risk from climate change (World Bank 2010a). Protected areas can complement other adaptation

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 182

responses by maintaining ecosystem integrity, buffering local climate, and reducing risks and impacts from extreme climatic events such as storms, droughts and sea-level rise. For example wetlands, mangroves, coral reefs, barrier beaches and sand dunes protect coasts against storms and flooding (Dudley et al. 2010, Stolton et al. 2008). Such ecosystem-based approaches can complement, or even substitute for, more costly infrastructure investments to protect human settlements (Quintero 2007). Climate change is likely to lead to unpredictable and sometimes severe food and water shortages as well as the spread of certain disease vectors. Improved habitat management and protected areas can help to reduce the vulnerability of communities by maintaining essential natural resources and agricultural productivity and protecting ecosystem services, such as water supplies.

13 Protected areas contribute to adaptation strategies by: protecting and enhancing vital ecosystem services such as water flows and water quality; conserving habitats that maintain nursery, feeding and breeding areas for fisheries, wildlife and other species on which human societies depend; reducing land degradation and protecting water sources by preventing, and controlling, invasive alien species; reducing pollution and maintaining coastal protection and natural mechanisms of flood control; and protecting reservoirs of wild crop relatives to enhance agricultural productivity and crop resilience (World Bank 2010a). The value of ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation was recognized by the UNFCCC at the 16th Conference of the Parties in Cancun in 2010 but discussions still continue as to how to best put this into practice. Such approaches will become more important as the impacts of climate change, changing rainfall patterns and erratic weather events become more severe. Although their role is often unrecognised, protected areas are already helping communities to adapt to climate change and cope with some of the greatest environmental challenges: food security, water stress and vulnerability to natural hazards as described below.

Protected areas: Providing Food and Water security in a Changing World

14 Climate change and biodiversity loss are major threats to achieving theMillennium Development Goals, especially those relating to poverty alleviation and food and water security. Higher temperatures and more erratic rainfall patterns will result in severe decreases in water availability in many regions, increased risk of crop failure, overstocking and degradation of grazing lands, and ultimately livestock deaths and famine. In Africa, for example, severe water stress is expected to affect an estimated 250-700 million people by 2050 and crop production from rain-fed agriculture could decrease by 50 percent in some countries (World Bank 2010a).

15 Growing concern over water scarcity provides a powerful argument for protection and improved management of natural habitats to maintain water supplies for both agriculture and domestic use (Dudley et al. 2010, Stolton and Dudley 2010, World Bank 2010a). Municipal water accounts for less than a tenth of human water use, but clean drinking water is a critical human need. Today, half of the world’s population lives in towns and cities, and one-third of this urban population lacks clean drinking water. Dirty water is one of the world’s largest killers, particularly of children. A key UN Millennium Development Goal is to: Reduce by half, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water. With expanding urban needs, cities face

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 183

immediate problems related to access to clean water and mounting problems related to supply. Functioning natural ecosystems can help to maintain water quality and, in some circumstances, can also help increase the quantity of water available, through filtration, groundwater renewal and maintenance of natural flows. One-third (33 out of 105) of the world’s largest cities including Mumbai, New York, Sofia, Bogotá, Dar es Salaam, Melbourne, Quito, Tokyo and Sydney receive a significant proportion of their drinking water supplies directly from forest protected areas (Dudley and Stolton 2003). In South Africa the recognised value of the Cape mountain ranges and the Drakensberg in providing water supplies for Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban has led to considerable national investments in the Working for Water programme to remove invasive alien tree species with high water needs (Pierce at al. 2002).

16 Agriculture is the largest user of fresh water globally, taking as much as 50% of freshwater in many countries and up to 95% in some developing countries. By 2030, irrigated crop production is expected to grow by 80% in order to meet global food demand (World Bank 2010a). Many protected areas safeguard downstream water supplies for agricultural production. Economic studies in Madagascar showed that benefits from forest protection were much greater than conversion to agriculture with at least 50% of benefits accruing to downstream peasant farmers who relied on the watershed forests to provide adequate water supplies for irrigated rice production (World Bank 2003). One result of this is that Madagascar is now expanding its protected area network to six million hectares with substantial support from international donors and involving communities and other stakeholders in a comprehensive programme of protected area expansion. In Venezuela, about 20% of irrigated lands depend on protected areas while in Sulawesi, Indonesia, the 300,000 hectare Bogani Nani Wartabone (formerly Dumoga Bone) National Park was created to protect a major irrigation project designed to increase rice production (MacKinnon et al. 1986) – see also Box 2.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 184

Box 2. Protected areas securing essential water supplies

• In the Dominican Republic the Madre de las Aguas Conservation Area protects the source of 17 rivers that provide water for domestic use and irrigation to over half of the country’s population. • Ankarafantsika National Park in Madagascar protects water supplies to the rice-producing region of Marovoay plains and the Lac Alaotra watershed, a Ramsar site, serves about 80,000 ha of rice farms. • In Ecuador about 80% of Quito’s more than 1.5 million residents receive drinking water from two protected areas in the Andes, the Cayambe - Coca (400,00 ha) and Antisana Ecological Reserves (120,000 ha). • Kerinci Seblat National Park in Indonesia protects the head waters of two of Sumatra’s major rivers, the Musi and the Batanghari, which provide downstream water supplies for major cities such as Jambi, Padang and Palembang as well as millions of hectares of irrigated farmlands. • Eleven protected areas in the Australian Alps conserve 1.6m ha of catchments which deliver some 9,600 Gigalitres of high quality water annually to Australia’s food bowl, the Murray- Darling Basin. This water benefits more than 2 million people, with an estimated worth of $AUD10 billion per annum. The natural flow regimes and high quality water yield are directly linked to catchment condition maintained by well-managed protected areas. • The 22,000 hectare Te Papanui Conservation Park, in New Zealand’s Lammermoor Range provides the Otago region with essential water flows valued at, NZ$ 93 million for urban water supply, NZ$12 million for irrigating 60,000 hectares of Taieri farmland and NZ$ 31 million for hydroelectricity. • The 89,000-hectare Lagoas de Cufada natural park in south Guinea-Bissau was created to protect the largest freshwater reserve of the country. In a region where rainfalls have been reducing, this RAMSAR site plays a crucial role for water supply and for the survival of human communities and hundreds of plant and animal species. • The protected watershed of Banff National Park in Canada flows into Alberta’s Bow River Basin which is home to 1.2 million people. The park supplies drinking water, provides recreational opportunities and supports farmers and industries well beyond its boundaries.

Source: WCPA 2012

17 Many protected areas act as natural reservoirs for agriculturally important biodiversity including wild crop relatives, pollinators and pest control. Protected areas in drylands include the sites of origin for important food crops such as barley, sorghum and other cereals, though crop wild relatives are still poorly represented in the global protected area network . Nevertheless protected areas such as Karacadağ Mountain in Turkey protect wild populations of crop relatives that may be important for crop breeding (Stolton and Dudley, 2010) while the protected areas of the West Tien Shan in Central Asia harbour walnut forests as well as the wild relatives of fruit trees such as apples, pistachios, and pears (World Bank 2003, MacKinnon et al. 2005). Similarly the Sierra de Manantlan protected area in Mexico protects populations of wild maize Zea diploperennis which increases disease resistance when crossed with crop cultivars (Stolton and Dudley, 2010). Elsewhere dryland protected areas are helping to introduce more sustainable land management practices that reduce land degradation and safeguard some of the greatest wildlife spectacles on Earth – Box 3.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 185

Box 3. Combating land degradation; promoting sustainable land management through protected areas

Rising populations of both people and livestock, combined with sedentarisation and reduced access to land, have led to overstocking and overgrazing in many rangeland areas. Around the world protected areas are working with local communities to implement more sustainable grazing regimes. Community agreements to reduce grazing in Jordan: Dana Nature Reserve in central Jordan lies in an area where traditional livestock grazing had radically altered vegetation patterns and increased soil erosion. Agreement with farmers to halve the numbers of goats has led to spectacular increases in vegetation cover and associated wildlife. Alternative livelihood opportunities for communities include ecotourism, jewellery making and sales of local herbal and fruit products. Improving pasture and carbon storage in arid areas of China: Grasslands constitute about 34% of the global stock of terrestrial carbon. During the spring and summer pastoralists move their livestock up to mountain grasslands in the protected areas of the Tien Shan, Altai Shan, and Qilian Shan. Shortening the seasonal grazing regimes is expected to reduce grazing pressure, improve plant species diversity and productivity, increase the amount of carbon entering the soil as plant residues and reduce soil loss due to overgrazing. Fencing against overgrazing and desertification in Kuwait: Habitat protection, including in some cases fencing against grazing by goats and camels, and active vegetation restoration is leading to biodiversity benefits and dune stabilisation. Controlling invasive species: In Masai Mara National Reserve in Kenya, local communities are working with the Kenya Wildlife Service to remove the invasive alien species Parthenium whichis replacing fodder grasses and reducing grazing available to wildlife and livestock. Restoring natural grazing patterns: Research in the Chimborazo Faunal Production Reserve, Ecuador has shown the ecological benefits of encouraging the husbandry of native camelids, instead of cattle and horses. Benefits include a higher stocking rate with llamas and improved pasture condition. Community conservancies in Namibia are managing marginal landsfor conservation, expanding the conservation estate for large-ranging mammals such as elephants and ungulates and providing livelihood benefits to communities from wildlife tourism.

Source: WCPA 2011

18 Just as on land, many marine protected areas have been created to achieve long-term biodiversity conservation but many are also contributing to sustainable fisheries and local livelihoods. Some 250 million people globally are dependent on small-scale fisheries for their protein (FAO 2009). A growing body of empirical evidence suggests that marine reserves can rejuvenate depleted fish stocks in a matter of years when they are managed collaboratively with the resource users. Fishing communities, both freshwater and coastal, are increasingly setting aside areas of water to provide safe nursery grounds for fish to maintain stocks. A review of 112 studies in 80 marine protected areas (MPAs) found strikingly higher fish populations and larger fish inside the reserves compared with surrounding areas, or the same area before the reserve was established; fish from within the MPA help to replenish adjacent fished areas (Halpern 2003). In coastal West African countries, where fisheries play an important role both as the main source of animal proteins and as a source of income for the governments, the role of well-managed MPAs for the renewal of fisheries resources has been increasingly

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 186

recognized and endorsed. Fisheries monitoring in the Bamboung MPA in Senegal, for instance, has demonstrated an increase in fish size, species biodiversity and biomass less than five years after its establishment (De Morais et al. 2007). As a result seven countries (Mauritania, Senegal, Cape Verde, The Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Guinea and Sierra Leone) have collaborated to establish in 2007 a regional network of MPAs (RAMPAO), which now covers 25 protected areas.

19 Elsewhere MPAs are also being recognised for their contribution to sustainable fisheries. In Indonesia many of the archipelago’s coral reefs and the small-scale fisheries they support have reached a level and mode of exploitation where the only way to increase future production and local incomes is to protect critical habitats and reduce fishing effort. With government support, 1500 villages within 12 coastal districts off Sulawesi, Aru and Indonesian Papua, are establishing collaboratively-managed marine reserves, many within existing marine parks, contributing towards a government target of protecting 30% of the total area of coral reefs in each participating district (World Bank 2010a). Such community-managed reserves are now being extended throughout the Coral Triangle, covering Indonesia, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon islands, helping to protect the world’s richest coral reefs and exceptional marine biodiversity. Locally-managed marine areas in the Pacific, based on traditional or locally-based reef and marine conservation customs, also play an important role in marrying sustainable use objectives with marine conservation targets (Mills et al. 2011).

Protected Areas: Reducing the Risks from Natural Disasters

20 Protected areas maintain ecosystem integrity, buffer local climate, and reduce risks and impacts from storms, droughts and sea-level rise - all predicted to become more severe and frequent due to climate change. The multiple roles of protected areas will become more valuable as these climatic events become more severe, helping to reduce the impact of natural hazards and disasters and buffering vulnerable communities against all but the most severe flood and tidal events, landslides, and storms (Stolton et al, 2008). Intact mangroves provide protection and reduce the damage caused by tsunamis and hurricanes, while also harbouring vital fish nurseries. In Sri Lanka the Muthurajawella marsh near Colombo affords flood protection valued at over US$5 million/year (Costanza et al. 2008). In some cases, investments in protecting and natural restoring habitats (“green infrastructure”) may be more cost effective for reducing disaster risk than investing in hard infrastructure alone. In Vietnam where local communities have been planting and protecting mangrove forests as a buffer against storms, an initial investment of $1.1 million has saved an estimated $7.3 million a year in sea dyke maintenance and significantly reduced the loss of life and property from Typhoon Wukong in 2000 in comparison with other areas (IFRC 2002).

21 Unfortunately, while the “protective” role those natural ecosystems can play is finally receiving attention, many ecosystems are continuing to decline. Environmental degradation increases the risk that extreme weather events and geological events such as earthquakes will lead to disaster for vulnerable communities. While the protection of ecosystems alone cannot halt the occurrence of natural hazards or extreme events, there is increasing evidence that large, healthy and functioning ecosystems are likely

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 187

to be more resistant to the impacts of such events and reduce the likelihood of ecological and humanitarian disasters (Dudley et al. in press).

22 The concept of protecting ecosystems for disaster mitigation is not new. Some of the earliest “protected areas” were established explicitly to buffer human communities against extremes of climate and associated hazards. In Japan, for instance, forest protection was introduced in the 15th and 16 th centuries to counter landslides (Kumazaki et al. 1991), resulting in a series of policy decisions stretching back hundreds of years, so that Japan now has almost 9 million hectares of protection forests designated as buffers against extreme events. In the Middle East, protected areas called hima were established well over a thousand years ago to prevent deforestation and grassland erosion through over-grazing (Bagader et al. 1994) and traditional hima sites are in some cases being revived as modern protected areas. Throughout the tropics, many traditionally- managed indigenous and community-conserved areas and sacred natural sites recognise the value of natural vegetation to protect against floods and landslides caused by extreme weather events (Pathak et al, 2005). After devastating downstream floods in 1998, China took the decision to stop logging in mountain forests and redesignated those forests as protected areas for their watershed and biodiversity values (World Bank, 2003). Protected areas can contribute to disaster risk reduction in three ways: • Maintaining predominantly natural ecosystems that buffer against sudden natural hazards such as tidal surge (coastal mangroves, coral reefs), flash floods (wetlands, floodplains) and landslides (forests and other native vegetation) ( Stolton et al. 2008); • Maintaining traditional crops and cultural ecosystems that can help communities to cope with extreme weather events and natural disasters, such as agroforestry systems, terraced crop-growing and drought-resistant crops varieties (Amend et al. 2008); • Providing an opportunity for active or natural restoration of such systems where they are degraded or lost, such as reforesting steep slopes or restoring flood plains (Dobson et al. 1997).

23 There is now a growing body of evidence about the economic benefits of maintaining natural ecosystems (TEEB 2009, World Bank 2010b). Wetlands are some of the most threatened ecosystems on Earth and generally under-represented in national protected area networks, yet they provide many vital ecosystem functions. Montane wetlands and freshwater rivers and lakes serve as vital water recharge areas and important sources of water for irrigation and domestic and industrial use. Freshwater and coastal wetlands downstream are also productive fisheries on which many of the world’s poorest communities depend. A recent analysis of the role of wetlands in reducing flooding associated with hurricanes in the United States calculated an average value of US$8,240 per ha per year, with coastal wetlands in the US estimated to provide US$23.2 billion a year in storm protection services (Costanza et al. 2008). A global assessment of the value of wetlands estimated that the median economic value of wetlands (at year 2000 values) for flood control is US$464 per ha per year (Schuyt and Brander 2004). Wetlands can also act as filters, removing pollutants and improving water quality. Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova and Ukraine are collaborating to establish a Lower Danube Green Corridor to protect and restore natural habitats, including establishment of Natura 2000 protected areas, with recorded benefits to fisheries, water quality and flood control (WWF 2008). Before the restoration efforts, the 2005 Danube flood cost

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 188

Euros 396 million in damages, another illustration of the cost effectiveness of ecosystem-based approaches.

Table 1. Examples of the role of protected areas in preventing or mitigating natural disasters

Adapted from Dudley et al. 2009, Dudley et al. in press

24 The critical role of protected areas in reducing vulnerability and contributing to disaster mitigation is already well documented (Stolton et al. 2008, Stolton and Dudley 2010). What is now needed is greater awareness and appreciation of the multiple benefits that protected areas provide and appropriate measures to include ecosystem- based solutions into policies and practice. This will also require innovative financing mechanisms and institutional arrangements to promote more sustainable land management and green infrastructure as part of national and local strategies to ensure the safety of citizens against disasters. Such developments can also meet long-term recovery and livelihood needs, through provision of emergency foodstuffs and medicinal plants – see Box 4. Enhanced protection of natural habitats, especially through designation of protected areas, can provide a cost-effective third pillar to disaster strategies that also include better planning and early warning systems as well as hard infrastructure (Dudley et al. in press).

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 189

Box 4. Protecting medicinal plants and culture in Colombia

The establishment of the Sanctuary of Flora Medicinal Plants Orito Ingi Ande, in the Colombian Amazon Piedmont, was proposed by the indigenous Kofán communities in part of their ancestral territory. The area covers 10,200ha of tropical and Andean forest, ranging from 700 to 3300m above sea-level and harbours rich biodiversity including an estimated 400 bird species and over a hundred medicinal plants , used by local people. The yoco liana, for example, is one of the most highly regarded medicinal plants in northwestern Amazon. At a time when colonisation and deforestation has seriously impacted many indigenous communities, the declaration of a floristic sanctuary, focusing on medicinal plants, is an initiative from an alliance of traditional healers. It combines ecosystem protection with that of the traditional medicine systems, thus contributing to the recovery of the area’s natural, cultural and intangible heritage. The category of Sanctuary of Flora of Medicinal Plants harmonizes the western perspective of biodiversity conservation with traditional integrated management associated with the Cosmovision of the Kofán People. The preservation and survival of their customs and traditions in the use and management of medicinal plants depends on the conservation of these territories, and teaching young members of the community about traditional medicines is a key aim of the sanctuary.

Source: Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia, Stolton and Dudley 2010

Value for Money

25 Direct comparisons between the costs of investing in built infrastructure and maintaining natural habitats as protected areas are scarce, but some countries are already investing in habitat protection or restoration as part of disaster risk reduction strategies. A study of the value of investing in the restoration of forested wetland reserves in the USA Mississippi valley projected a return of $1035 per hectare (Jenkins et al. 2010). In Argentina and Ecuador, for instance, flood control projects, funded through World Bank loans, use the natural storage and recharge properties of critical forests and wetlands by integrating them into “living with floods” strategies that incorporate forest protected areas and riparian corridors (Quintero, 2007). A relatively small investment of $3.6 m in wetland protection and management, as part of a total outlay of $488m in flood defences in the Parana River basin, has now led to significant changes in state and municipal regulations in four provinces, including establishment of protected areas as part of flood protection schemes (Quintero, 2007). This incorporation of natural habitats into flood defences provided a low-cost alternative and supplement to more costly hard infrastructure, with the added benefit of high biodiversity gains through protection of 60% of Argentina’s birds and more than 50% of its amphibians, reptiles, and mammal species. This Argentinean example provides some useful lessons on how best to harness natural habitats as green infrastructure to reduce the vulnerability of downstream communities.

26 Investments in protected areas globally (from both national and international funds) are difficult to calculate but have been conservatively estimated at US$6 billion annually with $750 million spent each year in tropical countries (Balmford and Whitten, 2003). This works out to an average $453 per km2 globally, though just $93 per km2 is spent in tropical countries. It has been estimated that establishing and managing a comprehensive global network of protected areas would cost roughly US$23 billion per year, more than four times the current expenditure but low to middle income

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 190

countries would require less than one-tenth of this sum, just double what is currently spent (Butchart et al. 2012). Although these sums may seem large, they are tiny by comparison to the value of ecosystem services which natural ecosystems provide; indeed many protected areas can probably be justified on socio-economic values alone – see Box 5.

Box 5. Harvesting the benefits: Marine Protected Areas and Sustainable Fisheries

Many studies have demonstrated the social and economic benefits of marine protected areas for fisheries and livelihoods (e.g. TEEB, 2009). With an EEZ of 230,000 km2 and a shelf of 39,000 km2, the Mauritanian marine area is considered one of richest in fishery resources in the world. Fisheries contribute about 6% of GDP, 25- 30% of the state budget and 35-40% of export earnings. With a total area of 1.2 million hectares, half of which is marine, the Banc d'Arguin National Park plays a crucial role in maintaining these resources. The park is an important breeding and nursery ground for a substantial portion of Mauritania’s fisheries (Landreau, 2007). In recognition of this role, since 2006 the Mauritanian government has been investing part of revenues from fisheries agreements with the European Union (about 1 milllion €/year) in the management of this park (EU 2006). Similarly the Rio Cacheu mangroves natural park in Guinea-Bissau covers an area of 88,615 hectares, with 68% covered with mangrove forests. The Rio Cacheu is important both for biodiversity conservation and as a nursery ground for several species with high economic value including shrimps. A preliminary study assesses the economic and social value of coastal and marine ecosystems within Rio Cacheu park to Euros 8.969 million/year (Binet et al. 2012) with most value from the mangrove ecosystems, including both direct uses (artisanal fisheries) and indirect services (coastal protection, water treatment, carbon sequestration, etc.).

27 Initiatives such as the study on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) have given fresh impetus to the potential of payments for ecosystem services (PES), especially for water and carbon. Some government agencies and private sector companies already recognize the key role of protected areas in maintaining water supplies and other services. The Guanacaste National Park in Costa Rica, for instance, already benefits from payments from neighbouring citrus plantations for ecosystem services such as pollination, pest control and nutrient and water services (Janzen 1999). Since 1997 Costa Rica, a global leader in PES initiatives has invested over US$100 million in such schemes, with more than 80% of payments supporting conservation in national parks, biological corridors and strategic water catchments. PES schemes to compensate protected areas, communities, indigenous peoples and private landowners for maintaining forests and other water regulating habitats are also being piloted for water services in Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Nicaragua. Nevertheless although the global value of ecosystem services in terms of water regulation and supply alone is estimated at US$2.3 trillion (Costanza et al. 1997) very little of this potential value is spent on ensuring this ecosystem function through better management of protected areas.

28 A whole suite of new carbon funds has been developed to meet climate change targets for reducing forest loss and degradation (REDD), a major source of GHG emissions (World Bank 2010a). International finance for REDD+ (which incorporates restoration and conservation) could afford an exciting opportunity to protect forests for multiple benefits including biodiversity conservation, helping to expand protected areas and to benefit local communities engaged in forest stewardship. There is already much

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 191

optimism but also debate about how REDD+ may benefit biodiversity conservation (Peskett et al. 2008). Unfortunately high-priority sites for tackling deforestation to reduce emissions may not always reflect other forest values such as biodiversity conservation, livelihood benefits, or water delivery (Miles and Kapos 2008). Moreover while carbon markets may have potential to promote conservation in less productive lands, prospects are less promising where competing land uses are highly profitable e.g. clearance of forests to establish oil palm plantations (Damania et al. 2008; Wunder, 2012).

29 Questions also remain over governance issues; whether funds can be allocated for management of existing protected areas and how to reconcile REDD implementation plans with existing spatial plans and awarded concessions. Assuring the equitable distribution of revenues gained from carbon credits to communities affected by improved forest protection may prove to be a key challenge of REDD implementation (Peskett et al. 2008, Wunder 2009, Sandbrook et al. 2010). Nevertheless some successful pilot schemes are creating conservation corridors and providing financial benefits to communities for protecting high-biodiversity forest, with funding from voluntary carbon markets. In Madagascar, for instance, carbon revenue is being provided to local communities to protect the 425,000 hectares of the Ankeniheny-Mantadia- Zahamena Corridor, including restoration of degraded forests between the Analamazoatra Special Reserve and Mantadia National Park, in forests renowned for 17 endemic lemur populations as well as other rare and threatened species.

30 While carbon funds and other payments for ecosystem services may provide extra incentives for protecting forests, and perhaps other natural ecosystems under expanded REDD+ initiatives, they will not be a “silver bullet” for biodiversity conservation nor for alleviating poverty. Experiences with Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) provide useful and cautionary lessons in managing expectations about the benefits of carbon funds and REDD resources (Wells et al. 1999, MacKinnon, 2001, McShane and Wells 2004). Nevertheless there is growing understanding of the need to strengthen conservation and management of natural ecosystems as part of climate change response strategies at both national and local levels.

Why Protected Areas?

31 The increasing recognition that natural ecosystems have important values for human societies has not been accompanied by the same recognition of protected areas as institutional mechanisms for maintaining natural ecosystems, although the situation is gradually changing. Many research studies show that in most parts of the world, protected areas are amongst the most successful, and in some cases, the only successful way, of maintaining natural ecosystems, both from habitat conversion and degradation.

32 An early study on threats facing 92 protected areas in 22 tropical countries concluded that most protected areas are successful in protecting ecosystems (Bruner et al. 2001). This was backed up by a survey of 330 protected areas around the world using a consistent methodology, which found biodiversity condition consistently scoring high (Dudley et al. 2007). A global meta-study assessed management effectiveness evaluations from over 2300 protected areas and found that 86% met their own criteria for good management (Leverington et al. 2010). Research across four tropical areas

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 192

assessed natural vegetation changes. Overall, protected areas were effective; forest cover was often “strikingly higher” than surrounding areas (Joppa et al. 2008) and similar comparative studies found lower rates of land clearing in protected areas as compared with other land uses (Nagendra 2008). A recent global review by the World Bank shows that tropical protected areas, especially those conserved by indigenous peoples, lose less forest than other management systems (Nelson and Chomitz 2011). Similarly a study by the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre found that forests in protected areas accounted for just 3% of tropical forest losses from 2000-2005 in countries studied, considerably less than in surrounding landscapes (Campbell et al. 2008). While it is clear that protected areas are not complete proof against habitat degradation, they generally provide better protection than competing land-use options.

33 How well protected areas deliver ecosystem services depends on how effectively they are managed,how they are integrated with surrounding landscapes and land use strategies and whether they are supported by local communities.Protected areas exist under a range of management and governance regimes, from strict no-access areas to protected landscapes and indigenous reserves that include human settlements and cultural management. Consolidating, expanding, and improving the global protected area system, will require engagement of multiple partners, from communities to NGOs, government agencies and the private sector but is a necessary and logical response to both climate change and the crisis of biodiversity loss.

Looking Forward

34 The ‘perfect storm’ of unchecked population growth, unprecedented urbanisation, huge rises in resource use and climate change, are combining to impact massively on biodiversity and ecosystems with serious consequences for people and the natural world. Ensuring a more sustainable future will require a suite of actions, including greater support for natural solutions and expansion of the world’s protected areas. Making protected areas a key part of national and local responses to climate change and other environmental challenges can help to reduce rates of deforestation, protect carbon-rich habitats, ensure more sustainable land management and increase the resilience of human communities, especially the poorest and most vulnerable. At the same time, it is crucial to examine who is empowered to act as custodians of natural landscapes and seascapes, and to locate conservation activities within the appropriate economic, political, social and cultural contexts. While protected area systems are already providing multiple benefits and could become even more important in helping societies to meet development needs, achieving these multiple objectives requires at least a consideration of the following actions. 1. More and larger protected areas and buffer zones: to improve ecosystem resilience particularly in areas with both high carbon and high biodiversity or where ecosystem services are under threat, such as in watersheds, tropical forests, peat, mangroves, freshwater and coastal marshes, and sea grass beds. 2. Connecting protected areas within landscapes/seascapes: to expand habitat under some form of conservation management beyond park boundaries in buffer zones, biological corridors, and ecological stepping-stones, to build connectivity and resilience to climate change

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 193

3. Recognition and implementation of the full range of governance types from protected areas managed by state agencies to conservation areas managed by communities, indigenous peoples and the private sector. 4. Increasing the level of protection within protected areas: to protect and manage specific features with high carbon storage values, for example, to maintain old-growth forest or avoid loss and degradation of wetland and peat habitats. 5. Improving management within protected areas: to maintain conservation and carbon values and reduce degradation of habitats through threats such as illegal logging, agricultural encroachment, overexploitation, poor fire management and invasive alien species. 6. Restoration strategies: to restore degraded habitats within and around protected areas to enhance carbon and biodiversity values. 7. Better integration of protected areas within broader spatial and development planning: to identify places where natural ecosystems are protecting essential ecosystem services and could prevent and mitigate natural disasters. This includes determining when, and where there are social and economic benefits from incorporating “green” infrastructure within development plans. 8. Develop innovative financing strategies for protected areas, which recognise payments for ecosystem services, including additional government budget support or direct payments from communities and/or industries which benefit from the services provided.

35 Climate change increases the threats to biodiversity but it also provides a unique opportunity to re-emphasize the multiple values of biodiversity and ecosystem services and their contribution to both mitigation and adaptation strategies and human welfare. For too long, these services have been regarded as “free goods” rarely, if ever, acknowledged in national accounting. New initiatives such as TEEB and the availability of substantial international finance for REDD are highlighting the importance of natural habitats in addressing some of the most significant impacts of global change.

36 The global system of protected areas, now numbering more than 200,000 sites, and represented in every country on Earth, is critical for conserving biodiversity in the face of global change, including increased population, demand for resources and the inevitable consequences of climate change. It is also proving to be one of the most effective and comprehensive measures at landscape and seascape scale - to buffer societies and particularly the most vulnerable and marginalized communities, against emerging environmental challenges. Protected areas are not perfect tools, and if implemented carelessly or without regard to social consequences can cause problems for local or resident human communities, but there is increasing evidence for their net benefits. The research summarised in this paper starts to examine the significant role that protected areas can play in sustainable development and the climate agenda. By maintaining the essential ecosystem services upon which people depend, protected areas are proven, “green” and cost-effective natural solutions to help address the climate crisis and other global environmental challenges.

37 The challenge remains to address key considerations of what national governments, communities and the private sector must do to maintain the value of their investment in protected areas, and to make defensible choices on how to invest in expanded and better connected systems that are specifically designed to counter the threats of climate change, increased demand and altered patterns of resource use. In addition, there is a need to radically review the inclusivity of our approaches to conservation and

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 194

to explicitly involve those affected by enhanced habitat protection, in management systems that are participatory and result in more equitable distribution of benefits. Moreover, where there are investment choices to address adaptation to climate change there is a much greater need to understand how natural ecosystems and protected areas can be included in national and international responses, with implications for development assistance, research and analysis, and policy reform.

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Adeney, J.M., N.L. Christensen Jr. and S.L.Pimm (2009). Reserves Protect Against Deforestation Fires in the Amazon. PLoS One4: 3-12

Amend, T. et al. (eds.) (2008). Protected Landscapes and Agrobiodiversity Values. Values of Protected Landscapes and Seascapes volume 1, IUCN and GTZ, Gland, Switzerland

Bagader, A.A. et al. (1994). Environmental Protection in Islam. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law paper No. 20, IUCN, Gland Switzerland

Balmford, A. and T. Whitten (2003). Who should pay for tropical conservation, and how could the costs be met? Oryx 37: 238-250

Baumert, K.A, T. Herzog, and J. Pershing (2006). Navigating the Numbers. Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Policy. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.

Bellard, C. et al. (2012). Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology Letters (2012):1-13.

Bergengren, J. C., D.E. Waliser and Y. L. Yung (2011). Ecological sensitivity: a biospheric view of climate change. Climatic Change 107:3-4

Berry, S. et al. (2009). Biomass Carbon Stocks in the Great Western Woodlands. Canberra: Australian National University. http://epress.anu.edu.au?p=57021

Berthe, Y. (1997). The role of forestry in combating desertification. World Forestry Congress, Antalya, Turkey

Binet T. et al. (2012). Évaluation de la valeur économique et sociale des écosystèmes associés aux AMP de l’Afrique de l’Ouest. Rapport N°2 Estimation de la valeur économique et sociale d’un échantillon d’AMP en Afrique de l’Ouest, projet « Appui au renforcement institutionnel du Réseau Régional d’AMP en Afrique de l’Ouest et à la mise en oeuvre de son plan de travail », Dakar, Sénégal.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G, A. Kothari and G. Oviedo (2004). Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation. IUCN/WCPA, Gland. Switzerland.

Bruner, A. G. et al. (2001). Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291:125-129

Butchart, S. et al. (2012). Protecting Important Sites for Biodiversity Contributes to Meeting Global Conservation Targets. PLoS One 7(3): e32529. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032529

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 195

Campbell, A. et al. (2008) Carbon Emissions from Forest Loss in Protected Areas. United Nations Environment Programme–World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, U.K.

CBD (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal.

Cheung, W. W. L. et al. (2009). Projections of global marine biodiversity impacts under climate change scenarios. Fish and Fisheries 10: 235-251.

Costanza, R. et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387: 253–260.

Costanza, R. et al. (2008). The value of coastal wetlands to hurricane prevention. Ambio 37: 241-248

Damania, R. et al.( 2008). A Future for Wild Tigers. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

De Morais L.T et al. (2007). Suivi biologique des peuplements de poissons d’une aire protégée en zone de mangrove : le bolong de Bamboung (Siné Saloum, Sénégal) – IRD.

DeVries, B. (2010). Monitoring the Effects of Hydrological Restoration Efforts in Degraded Tropical Peatlands, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. M.Sc thesis. University of Wageningen, Netherlands

Dobson, A.P., A.D. Bradshaw and A.J.M. Baker (1997). Hopes for the future: restoration ecology and conservation biology. Science 277: 515-522

Dudley, N. (2008) Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Dudley, N. and M. Aldrich (2007). Five years of implementing forest landscape restoration: Lessons to date. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.

Dudley, N. et al. (2007). Tracking progress in managing protected areas around the world., WWF International, Gland, Switzerland

Dudley, N., K. MacKinnon and S. Stolton (in press). Reducing vulnerability: the role of protected areas in mitigating natural disasters. In: Renaud, F.G., K. Sudmeier-Rieux & M. Estrella (Eds.) The Role of Ecosystems for Disaster Risk Reduction, Tokyo. United Nations University Press.

Dudley, N. and S. Stolton. (2003). Running Pure: The importance of forest protected areas to drinking water. WWF, Gland and World Bank, Washington DC

Dudley, N . et al. ( eds). (2010). Natural Solutions: Protected Areas Helping People to Cope with Climate Change. IUCN-WCPA, TNC, UNDP, WCS, World Bank and WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

FAO, 2009. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. FAO, Rome.

Gitay, H. et al. (eds). (2002). Climate Change and Biodiversity. Technical Paper V. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.

Halpern, B.S. (2003). The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does reserve size matter? Ecological Applications 13: 117-137.

Hannah, L., G.F.Midgley, and D. Millar ( 2002). Climate-change integrated conservation strategies, Global Ecology and Biogeography 11: 485-495.

Hirji, R. and R. Davis (2009). Environmental Flows in Water Resources Policies, Plans and Projects. Case Studies. World Bank, Washington D.C.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 196

IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies). (2002). Mangrove Planting Saves Lives and Money in Vietnam. World Disasters Report Focus on Reducing Risk. IFRC, Geneva, Switzerland.

Janzen, D. (1999). Gardenification of Tropical Conserved Wildlands. Multitasking, Multicropping and Multiusers. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences. 96 (11): 5987-94.

Jeng, H. and Y. J. Hong (2005). Assessment of a natural wetland for use in wastewater remediation, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 111: 113-131.

Jenkins, W.A. et al. (2010).Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Ecological Economics 69 (5): 1051-1061, ISSN 0921-8009, 10.1016/ j.ecolecon.2009.11.022. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800909004716)

Joppa, L.N., S.R. Loarie and S.L. Pimm (2008). On the Protection of Protected Areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 6673-6678

Kapos, V. et al. (2008). Carbon and Biodiversity: A Demonstration Atlas. United Nations Environment Programme–World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Cambridge, U.K.

Kramer, R. et al. (1997). Ecological and Economic Analysis of Watershed Protection in Eastern Madagascar; Journal of Environmental Management 49: 277-295

Kumazaki, M.et al. (eds.) (1991). Green Forever: Forests and people in Japan, The National Land Afforestation Promotion Organisation, Tokyo

Laffoley, D. and G. Grimsditch (eds) (2009). The Management of Natural Coastal Carbon Sinks. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Landreau B. (2007). Plan d’affaires du parc national du banc d’Arguin. Nouakchott, Mauritanie

Leverington, F. et al. (2010). A Global Analysis of Protected Area Management Effectiveness. Environmental Management DOI 10.1007/s00267-010-9564-5

MacKinnon, J. et al. (1986). Managing Protected Areas in the Tropics. IUCN and UNEP, Cambridge.

MacKinnon, K. (2001). Integrated conservation and development projects – can they work? PARKS 11(2): 1-5

MacKinnon, K. et al. (1996). Ecology of Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo. Periplus, Singapore.

MacKinnon, K., P. Brylski and A. Kiss. (2005).West Tien Shan. At The crossroads of Central Asia. In Transboundary Conservation. A New Vision for Protected Areas.(editors R.A. Mittermeier, C.F. Kormos, C.G. Mittermeier, P. Robles Gil, T. Sandwith and C. Besancon) Pp. 285-289. CEMEX, Agrupacion Sierra Madre, Conservation International, Mexico.

MacKinnon, K., N. Dudley and T. Sandwith(2011). Protected areas: helping people to cope with climate change. Oryx 45(4):461-462.

McShane, T.O. and E. McShane-Caluzi (1997). Swiss forest use and biodiversity conservation. In C.H. Freese (ed.) Harvesting Wild Species: Implications for Biodiversity conservation, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London

McShane, T.O. and M. Wells (eds.) (2004). Getting biodiversity projects to work: Towards more effective conservation and development. Columbia University, New York.

Miles, L., and V. Kapos (2008). Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation: Global Land Use Implications. Science 320: 1454–55.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 197

Mills, M. et al. (2011). Incorporating Effectiveness of Community Based Management in a National Marine Gap Analysis for Fiji Conservation Biology 25: 1155–1164.‐

Nagendra, H. (2008). Do Parks Work? Impact of Protected Areas on Land Cover Clearing, Ambio 37: 330-337

Nelson, A. and K.M. Chomitz (2011). Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods. PLoS One,6:e22722

Niang I. et al.( 2012). Guide sur les options d’adaptation en zones côtières à l’attention des décideurs. UNESCO/COI, Dakar.

Parish, F. et al. ( eds) (2008). Assessment on Peatlands, Biodiversity, and Climate Change: Main Report. Wetlands International, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Pathak, N., T. Balasinorwala and A. Kothari (2005). Community Conserved Areas: Lessons from India, for the CBD Programme of Work, Kalpavriksh, Pune, India

Peskett, L.et al. (2008). Making REDD Work for the Poor. A Poverty Environment Partnership (PEP) Report. Overseas Development Institute, London, U.K.

Pierce, S. M. et al. (eds) (2002). Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development: Case Studies from South Africa. World Bank,Washington, DC.

Quintero, J.D. (2007). Mainstreaming Conservation in Infrastructure Projects. Case Studies from Latin America. World Bank, Washington D.C.

Sandbrook, C. et al. (2010). Carbon, forests and the REDD paradox. Oryx 44(3):330-333.

Sandwith, T., S. Ranger & J. Venter (2010). Joining the dots: Stewardship for Connectivity Conservation in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. In: G, Worboys, W. Francis and M. Lockwood, (eds). Connectivity Conservation Management. A Global Guide. Earthscan.

Schuyt, K. and L. Brander (2004).The Economic Values of the World’s Wetlands. WWF, Gland, Switzerland

Simms, A., J.Magrath and H. Reid (2004). Up in smoke? Threats from, and responses to, the impact of global warming on human development. New Economics Foundation, London.

Stolton, S, N. Dudley, & J. Randall(2008). Natural Security: Protected areas and hazard mitigation. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.

Stolton, S and N. Dudley. (eds)(2010). Arguments for Protected Areas. Earthscan, London.

TEEB (2009). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Summary for Policy Makers. UNEP and EC, Nairobi and Brussels, Kenya and Belgium.

Thomas, C. et al. (2004). Extinction risk from climate change. Letters to Nature. Nature 427|: 145-147

UNCCD (2006). Ten African Experiences: Implementing the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Africa: Secretariat of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Bonn, Germany

Union Européenne (2006). Accord de partenariat dans le secteur de la pêche entre la Communauté européenne et la République islamique de Mauritanie. Journal officiel de l’Union européenne, 08/12/2006

WCPA (2011). Natural Solutions. Protected areas helping people deal with desertification and drought. Fact sheet. IUCN/World Commission on Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 198

WCPA (2012). Natural Solutions: Protected areas maintaining essential water supplies. Fact sheet. IUCN/World Commission on Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland.

Wells, M.et al (1999). Investing in Biodiversity: A Review of Indonesia’s Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. World Bank, Washington D.C.

Worboys, G.L, W.L.Francis and M. Lockwood(eds) ( 2010). Connectivity Conservation Management. A Global Guide. Earthscan.

World Bank (2003). Cornerstones for Conservation. World Bank Assistance for Protected Areas. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

World Bank (2010a). Convenient Solutions to an Inconvenient Truth: Ecosystem-based approaches to Climate Change. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

World Bank (2010b). Natural hazards, unnatural disasters: the economics of effective prevention. World Bank, Washington DC

Wunder, S. (2009). Can Payments For Environmental Services Reduce Deforestation And Forest Degradation? In Angelsen, A.et al. (eds.) Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia p.213-224

Wunder, S. (2012). Of PES and other animals. Oryx 46(1):1-2.

WWF (2008). Water for Life: Lessons for Climate Change Adaptation from Better Management of Rivers for People and Nature. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.

RÉSUMÉS

Protected areas remain a cornerstone of global conservation efforts. The double impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss are major threats to achieving the Millennium Development Goals, especially those relating to environmental sustainability, poverty alleviation and food and water security. The growing awareness of the planet’s vulnerability to human driven changes also provides an opportunity to re-emphasize the multiple values of natural ecosystems and the services that they provide. Protected areas, when integrated into landuse plans as part of larger and connected conservation networks, offer practical, tangible solutions to the problems of both species loss and adaptation to climate change. Natural habitats make a significant contribution to mitigation by storing and sequestering carbon in vegetation and soils, and to adaptation by maintaining essential ecosystem services which help societies to respond to, and cope with, climate change and other environmental challenges. Many protected areas could be justified on socioeconomic grounds alone yet their multiple goods and services are largely unrecognized in national accounting. This paper argues that there is a convincing case for greater investment in expanded and better- connected protected area systems, under a range of governance and management regimes that are specifically designed to counter the threats of climate change, increased demand and altered patterns of resource use. The new agenda for protected areas requires greater inclusivity of a broader spectrum of actors and rights holders, with growing attention to landscapes and seascapes protected by indigenous peoples, local communities, private owners and other actors which complement conservation areas managed by state agencies. Greater attention also needs to be focused on ways to integrate and mainstream protected areas into sustainable development, including promotion of “green” infrastructure as a strategic part of responses to climate change.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 199

INDEX

Keywords : biodiversity, climate change, ecosystem services, protected areas

AUTEURS

N. LOPOUKHINE IUCN/World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), 28 rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland

N. CRAWHALL IUCN/World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), 28 rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland

N. DUDLEY Industry Fellow, School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management at the University of Queensland and a member of WCPA

P. FIGGIS IUCN/World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), 28 rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland

C. KARIBUHOYE IUCN/World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), 28 rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland

D. LAFFOLEY IUCN/World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), 28 rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland

J. MIRANDA LONDOÑO IUCN/World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), 28 rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland

K. MACKINNON IUCN/World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), 28 rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland, Correspondence: [email protected]

T. SANDWITH IUCN/World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), 28 rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 200

List of Acronyms

1 AA: Action Asia

2 AArk: Amphibian Ark

3 ABS: Access Benefit Sharing

4 ACAP: Amphibian Conservation Action Plan

5 APCEL: Asia-Pacific Centre for Environmental Law

6 ASA: Amphibian Survival Alliance

7 ASEAN: Association of Southeast Asian Nations

8 ASEAN-WEN: Association of Southeast Asian Nations Wildlife Enforcement Network

9 ASG: Amphibian Specialist Group

10 AWG: Action Working Group

11 CAP: Change Acceleration Process

12 CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity

13 CCL: Center for Creative Leadership

14 CEC: IUCN Commission on Education and Communication

15 CEESP: IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy

16 CEL: IUCN Commission on Environmental Law

17 CEM: IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management

18 CENESTA: Centre for Sustainable Development

19 CEPA: Communication, education and public awareness

20 CEPF: Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund

21 CESCR: UN Committee for Economic Social and Cultural Rights

22 CIDCE: Centre International de Droit Comparé de l'Environnement [International Centre of Comparative Environmental Law]

23 CITES: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

24 CMS: Convention on the Conservation of Migration Species of Wild Animals

25 COE: Commission on Ecology

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 201

26 COP: Conference of the Parties

27 DAPTF: Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force

28 DRR: Disaster Risk Reduction

29 EAZA: European Association of Zoos and Aquaria

30 EBA: Ecosystem Based Adaptation to climate change

31 ELC: Environmental Law Center

32 ELP: Environmental Law Programme

33 EMP: Global Ecosystem Management Programme

34 ENSO: El Niño Southern Oscillation

35 ESA: Endangered Species Act

36 ESD: Education for Sustainable Development

37 ESG: Ethics Specialist Group

38 FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization

39 FPP: Forest Peoples Programme

40 GAA: Global Amphibian Assessment

41 GASG: Global Amphibian Specialist Group

42 GEF: Global Environment Facility

43 GHG: Greenhouse Gas

44 GISD: Global Invasive Species Database

45 GIZ : Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (German Society for International Collaboration)

46 GNEP: Global Network of Environmental Prosecutors

47 GPAP: Global Protected Areas Programme

48 GSP: Global Species Programme

49 ICCA: Indigenous and Community Conserved Area

50 ICDP: Integrated Conservation and Development Project

51 ICEM: International Centre for Environmental Management

52 IECN: Integrated Environmental Consultants Namibia

53 IFRC: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

54 IIED: International Institute for Environment and Development

55 INECE: International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement

56 IPBES: Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

57 IPO : Indigenous Peoples Organisation

58 IPRA: Indigenous People's Rights Act of The Philippines

59 IRENA: International Renewable Energy Agency

60 IUCN: International Union for the Conservation of Nature

61 IWC: International Whaling Commission

62 IWGIA: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 202

63 KBA: Key Biodiversity Area

64 MEA: Multilateral Environment Agreement

65 MPA: Marine Protected Area

66 MYCAT: Malaysian Conservation Alliance for Tigers

67 NBA: National Biodiversity Authority

68 NBSAP: National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans

69 OAS: Organisation of American States

70 PA: Protected Area

71 PARC: Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation

72 PEDRR: Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction

73 PES: payments for ecosystem services

74 PoWPA: Programme of Work on Protected Areas

75 PWG: Disease and Pathology Working Group

76 RAMPAO: Réseau Régional d’Aires Marines Protégées en Afrique de l’Ouest (regional network of MPAs in West Africa)

77 REDD: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and (Forest) Degradation

78 RGBK: Royal Botanic Gardens Kew

79 RLA: Red List Authority

80 RLE: Red List of Ecosystems

81 SEA: Strategic Environmental Assessment

82 SGWW: CEL Specialist Group on Water and Wetlands

83 SOS: Save Our Species

84 SPICEH: Specialist Group on Indigenous Peoples, Customary and Environmental Laws and Human Rights

85 SRLI: Sampled Red List Index

86 SSC: IUCN Species Survival Commission

87 STAR: System on Transparent Allocation of Resources

88 SULi: Specialist Group on Sustainable Use and Livelihoods

89 SWG: Saola Working Group

90 TCC: Theme on Culture and Conservation

91 TCES: Theme on Environment, Conflict and Security

92 TEEB: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity

93 TEMTI: Theme on Environment, Maroeconomics, Trade and Investment

94 TG: Thematic Group

95 TGER: Theme on Governance, Equity and Rights

96 TILCEPA: Theme on Indigenous Peoples and Local Comminites, Equity and Protected Areas

97 TSEAPRISE: Theme on Social and Environmental Accountability of the Private Sector

98 TSL: Theme on Sustainable Livelihoods

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012 203

99 UNDESA: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

100 UNDP: United Nations Development Programme

101 UNDRIP: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

102 UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme

103 UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

104 UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

105 UNISDR: United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

106 UNU: United Nations University

107 UNWCED: United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development

108 WCC: IUCN World Conservation Congress

109 WCMC: World Conservation Monitoring Centre

110 WCPA: IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas

111 WCS: Wildlife Conservation Society

112 WPC: World Parks Congress

113 WWF: World Wildlife Fund

114 ZGAP: Zoologische Gesellschaft für Arten- und Populationsschutz [Zoological society for protection of endangered species and populations]

115 ZSL: Zoological Society of London

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 5.2 | 2012