A Comparison of Global Conservation Prioritization Models with Spatial Spending Patterns of Conservation Nongovernmental Organizations

Abstract: In recent decades, various conservation organizations have developed models to prioritize locations for conservation. Through a survey of the spending patterns of 281 conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), we examined the relation between 2 such models and spatial patterns of spending by conservation NGOs in 44 countries in sub‐Saharan Africa. We tested whether, at the country level, the proportion of a country designated as a conservation priority was correlated with where NGOs spent money. For one model (the combination of Conservation International's hotspots and High Biodiversity Wilderness Areas, which are areas of high endemism with high or low levels of vegetation loss respectively), there was no relation between the proportion of a country designated as a priority and levels of NGO spending, including by the NGO associated with the model. In the second model (Global 200), the proportion of a country designated as a priority and the amount of money spent by NGOs were significantly and positively related. Less money was spent in countries in northern and western sub‐Saharan Africa than countries in southern and eastern Africa, relative to the proportion of the country designated as a conservation priority. We suggest that on the basis of our results some NGOs consider increasing their spending on the areas designated as of conservation priority which are currently relatively underfunded, although there are economic, political, cultural, historical, biological, and practical reasons why current spending patterns may not align with priority sites.     

Limitations of outsourcing on‐the‐ground biodiversity conservation

To counteract global species decline, modern biodiversity conservation engages in large projects, spends billions of dollars, and includes many organizations working simultaneously within regions. To add to this complexity, the conservation sector has hierarchical structure, where conservation actions are often outsourced by funders (foundations, government, etc.) to local organizations that work on‐the‐ground. In contrast, conservation science usually assumes that a single organization makes resource allocation decisions. This discrepancy calls for theory to understand how the expected biodiversity outcomes change when interactions between organizations are accounted for. Here, we used a game theoretic model to explore how biodiversity outcomes are affected by vertical and horizontal interactions between 3 conservation organizations: a funder that outsourced its actions and 2 local conservation organizations that work on‐the‐ground. Interactions between the organizations changed the spending decisions made by individual organizations, and thereby the magnitude and direction of the conservation benefits. We showed that funders would struggle to incentivize recipient organizations with set priorities to perform desired actions, even when they control substantial amounts of the funding and employ common contracting approaches to enhance outcomes. Instead, biodiversity outcomes depended on priority alignment across the organizations. Conservation outcomes for the funder were improved by strategic interactions when organizational priorities were well aligned, but decreased when priorities were misaligned. Meanwhile, local organizations had improved outcomes regardless of alignment due to additional funding in the system. Given that conservation often involves the aggregate actions of multiple organizations with different objectives, strategic interactions between organizations need to be considered if we are to predict possible outcomes of conservation programs or costs of achieving conservation targets.     

Constraints of philanthropy on determining the distribution of biodiversity conservation funding

Caught between ongoing habitat destruction and funding shortfalls, conservation organizations are using systematic planning approaches to identify places that offer the highest biodiversity return per dollar invested. However, available tools do not account for the landscape of funding for conservation or quantify the constraints this landscape imposes on conservation outcomes. Using state‐level data on philanthropic giving to and investments in land conservation by a large nonprofit organization, we applied linear regression to evaluate whether the spatial distribution of conservation philanthropy better explained expenditures on conservation than maps of biodiversity priorities, which were derived from a planning process internal to the organization and return on investment (ROI) analyses based on data on species richness, land costs, and existing protected areas. Philanthropic fund raising accounted for considerably more spatial variation in conservation spending (r² = 0.64) than either of the 2 systematic conservation planning approaches (r² = 0.08–0.21). We used results of one of the ROI analyses to evaluate whether increases in flexibility to reallocate funding across space provides conservation gains. Small but plausible “tax” increments of 1–10% on states redistributed to the optimal funding allocation from the ROI analysis could result in gains in endemic species protected of 8.5–80.2%. When such increases in spatial flexibility are not possible, conservation organizations should seek to cultivate increased support for conservation in priority locations. We used lagged correlations of giving to and spending by the organization to evaluate whether investments in habitat protection stimulate future giving to conservation. The most common outcome at the state level was that conservation spending quarters correlated significantly and positively with lagged fund raising quarters. In effect, periods of high fund raising for biodiversity followed (rather than preceded) periods of high expenditure on land conservation projects, identifying one mechanism conservation organizations could explore to seed greater activity in priority locations. Our results demonstrate how limitations on the ability of conservation organizations to reallocate their funding across space can impede organizational effectiveness and elucidate ways conservation planning tools could be more useful if they quantified and incorporated these constraints.     

Matching the Multiple Scales of Conservation with the Multiple Scales of Climate Change

Abstract:  To anticipate the rapidly changing world resulting from global climate change, the projections of climate models must be incorporated into conservation. This requires that the scales of conservation be aligned with the scales of climate-change projections. We considered how conservation has incorporated spatial scale into protecting biodiversity, how the projections of climate-change models vary with scale, and how the two do or do not align. Conservation planners use information about past and current ecological conditions at multiple scales to identify conservation targets and threats and guide conservation actions. Projections of climate change are also made at multiple scales, from global and regional circulation models to projections downscaled to local scales. These downscaled projections carry with them the uncertainties associated with the broad-scale models from which they are derived; thus, their high resolution may be more apparent than real. Conservation at regional or global scales is about establishing priorities and influencing policy. At these scales, the coarseness and uncertainties of global and regional climate models may be less important than what they reveal about possible futures. At the ecoregional scale, the uncertainties associated with downscaling climate models become more critical because the distributions of conservation targets on which plans are founded may shift under future climates. At a local scale, variations in topography and land cover influence local climate, often overriding the projections of broad-scale climate models and increasing uncertainty. Despite the uncertainties, ecologists and conservationists must work with climate-change modelers to focus on the most likely projections. The future will be different from the past and full of surprises; judicious use of model projections at appropriate scales may help us prepare.     

Integrating Top-Down with Bottom-Up Conservation Policy in Africa

Abstract:  Developed nations intervened in conservation policy across Africa during the 20th century to address needs to protect species and biodiversity that were based on their own perceptions and priorities. In the 21st century, conservationists in Africa have revised these perceptions and begun the process of identifying conservation priorities from an African perspective and in consideration of Africans' priorities. Although foreign conservation interveners struggled to identify mechanisms to which local people would respond, African conservationists are now demonstrating how to integrate the continent's unique socioeconomic circumstances into efforts to protect biodiversity. In Africa effective conservation policy must include the generation of wealth, reduction of disease and hunger, and support of traditional land-use practices.     

Avoiding Pitfalls of Using Species Distribution Models in Conservation Planning

Abstract:   Museum records have great potential to provide valuable insights into the vulnerability, historic distribution, and conservation of species, especially when coupled with species-distribution models used to predict species' ranges. Yet, the increasing dependence on species-distribution models in identifying conservation priorities calls for a more critical evaluation of model robustness. We used 11 bird species of conservation concern in Brazil's highly fragmented Atlantic Forest and data on environmental conditions in the region to predict species distributions. These predictions were repeated for five different model types for each of the 11 bird species. We then combined these species distributions for each model separately and applied a reserve-selection algorithm to identify priority sites. We compared the potential outcomes from the reserve selection among the models. Although similarity in identification of conservation reserve networks occurred among models, models differed markedly in geographic scope and flexibility of reserve networks. It is essential for planners to evaluate the conservation implications of false-positive and false-negative errors for their specific management scenario before beginning the modeling process. Reserve networks selected by models that minimized false-positive errors provided a better match with priority areas identified by specialists. Thus, we urge caution in the use of models that overestimate species' occurrences because they may misdirect conservation action. Our approach further demonstrates the great potential value of museum records to biodiversity studies and the utility of species-distribution models to conservation decision-making. Our results also demonstrate, however, that these models must be applied critically and cautiously.     

Conservation and Adaptation to Climate Change

Abstract: The need to adapt to climate change has become increasingly apparent, and many believe the practice of biodiversity conservation will need to alter to face this challenge. Conservation organizations are eager to determine how they should adapt their practices to climate change. This involves asking the fundamental question of what adaptation to climate change means. Most studies on climate change and conservation, if they consider adaptation at all, assume it is equivalent to the ability of species to adapt naturally to climate change as stated in Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Adaptation, however, can refer to an array of activities that range from natural adaptation, at one end of the spectrum, to sustainability science in coupled human and natural systems at the other. Most conservation organizations deal with complex systems in which adaptation to climate change involves making decisions on priorities for biodiversity conservation in the face of dynamic risks and involving the public in these decisions. Discursive methods such as analytic deliberation are useful for integrating scientific knowledge with public perceptions and values, particularly when large uncertainties and risks are involved. The use of scenarios in conservation planning is a useful way to build shared understanding at the science–policy interface. Similarly, boundary organizations—organizations or institutions that bridge different scales or mediate the relationship between science and policy—could prove useful for managing the transdisciplinary nature of adaptation to climate change, providing communication and brokerage services and helping to build adaptive capacity. The fact that some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are active across the areas of science, policy, and practice makes them well placed to fulfill this role in integrated assessments of biodiversity conservation and adaptation to climate change.     

Research priorities for conservation and natural resource management in Oceania's small‐island developing states

For conservation science to effectively inform management, research must focus on creating the scientific knowledge required to solve conservation problems. We identified research questions that, if answered, would increase the effectiveness of conservation and natural resource management practice and policy in Oceania's small‐island developing states. We asked conservation professionals from academia, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations across the region to propose such questions and then identify which were of high priority in an online survey. We compared the high‐priority questions with research questions identified globally and for other regions. Of 270 questions proposed by respondents, 38 were considered high priority, including: What are the highest priority areas for conservation in the face of increasing resource demand and climate change? How should marine protected areas be networked to account for connectivity and climate change? What are the most effective fisheries management policies that contribute to sustainable coral reef fisheries? High‐priority questions related to the particular challenges of undertaking conservation on small‐island developing states and the need for a research agenda that is responsive to the sociocultural context of Oceania. Research priorities for Oceania relative to elsewhere were broadly similar but differed in specific issues relevant to particular conservation contexts. These differences emphasize the importance of involving local practitioners in the identification of research priorities. Priorities were reasonably well aligned among sectoral groups. Only a few questions were widely considered answered, which may indicate a smaller‐than‐expected knowledge‐action gap. We believe these questions can be used to strengthen research collaborations between scientists and practitioners working to further conservation and natural resource management in this region.     

How decisions about fitting species distribution models affect conservation outcomes

Species distribution models (SDMs) are increasingly used in conservation and land-use planning as inputs to describe biodiversity patterns. These models can be built in different ways, and decisions about data preparation, selection of predictor variables, model fitting, and evaluation all alter the resulting predictions. Commonly, the true distribution of species is unknown and independent data to verify which SDM variant to choose are lacking. Such model uncertainty is of concern to planners. We analyzed how 11 routine decisions about model complexity, predictors, bias treatment, and setting thresholds for predicted values altered conservation priority patterns across 25 species. Models were created with MaxEnt and run through Zonation to determine the priority rank of sites. Although all SDM variants performed well (area under the curve >0.7), they produced spatially different predictions for species and different conservation priority solutions. Priorities were most strongly altered by decisions to not address bias or to apply binary thresholds to predicted values; on average 40% and 35%, respectively, of all grid cells received an opposite priority ranking. Forcing high model complexity altered conservation solutions less than forcing simplicity (14% and 24% of cells with opposite rank values, respectively). Use of fewer species records to build models or choosing alternative bias treatments had intermediate effects (25% and 23%, respectively). Depending on modeling choices, priority areas overlapped as little as 10–20% with the baseline solution, affecting top and bottom priorities differently. Our results demonstrate the extent of model-based uncertainty and quantify the relative impacts of SDM building decisions. When it is uncertain what the best SDM approach and conservation plan is, solving uncertainty or considering alterative options is most important for those decisions that change plans the most.     

The Questionable Effectiveness of Science Spending by International Conservation Organizations in the Tropics

Abstract:  The general context of conservation in the tropics—in the Amazon basin and elsewhere—is stagnant or declining funding and rapidly growing threat levels. For conservation programs this makes strategic deployment of limited conservation resources all the more important. International conservation organizations active in the tropics increasingly define themselves as science driven and expend considerable resources on science-based activities such as ecoregional analysis, field research, and monitoring of ecological variables. I argue that an overemphasis on science has generated a series of unintended but serious problems for conservation in the tropics. Spending on monitoring and ecoregional analysis has effectively starved protection and threat analysis of resources. A decoupling of biology from serious cost-benefit analysis has led to the privileging of small-scale and local analyses, rather than the systemic analyses essential for the strategic allocation of scarce conservation resources. Successful conservation in the tropics depends on the crossing of biogeography with sophisticated threat analysis to identify priority geographies for protection. This should be combined with much more systematic engagement with the principal drivers of tropical deforestation, especially agribusiness. Caution and a sense of proportion are required when balancing the financial demands of science and those of protection. I suggest that conservation organizations should cooperate far more in assembling and analyzing information on conservation spending and on threat levels and biogeography at the continental, national, and regional levels. Site selection should follow rather than precede this kind of strategic analysis, and sites should be considered elements of a network rather than stand-alone projects. More attention should be paid to market-driven conservation through techniques such as certification and responsible supply-chain management.     

Priorities for global felid conservation

Conservation resources are limited, necessitating prioritization of species and locations for action. Most prioritization approaches are based solely on biologically relevant characteristics of taxa or areas and ignore geopolitical realities. Doing so risks a poor return on conservation investment due to nonbiological factors, such as economic or political instability. We considered felids, a taxon which attracts intense conservation attention, to demonstrate a new approach that incorporates both intrinsic species traits and geopolitical characteristics of countries. We developed conservation priority scores for wild felids based on their International Union for Conservation of Nature status, body mass, habitat, range within protected area, evolutionary distinctiveness, and conservation umbrella potential. We used published data on governance, economics and welfare, human population pressures, and conservation policy to assign conservation‐likelihood scores to 142 felid‐hosting countries. We identified 71 countries as high priorities (above median) for felid conservation. These countries collectively encompassed all 36 felid species and supported an average of 96% of each species’ range. Of these countries, 60.6% had below‐average conservation‐likelihood scores, which indicated these countries are relatively risky conservation investments. Governance was the most common factor limiting conservation likelihood. It was the major contributor to below‐median likelihood scores for 62.5% of the 32 felid species occurring in lower‐likelihood countries. Governance was followed by economics for which scores were below median for 25% of these species. An average of 58% of species’ ranges occurred in 43 higher‐priority lower‐likelihood countries. Human population pressure was second to governance as a limiting factor when accounting for percentage of species’ ranges in each country. As conservation likelihood decreases, it will be increasingly important to identify relevant geopolitical limitations and tailor conservation strategies accordingly. Our analysis provides an objective framework for biodiversity conservation action planning. Our results highlight not only which species most urgently require conservation action and which countries should be prioritized for such action, but also the diverse constraints which must be overcome to maximize long‐term success.     

Improving effectiveness of systematic conservation planning with density data

Systematic conservation planning aims to design networks of protected areas that meet conservation goals across large landscapes. The optimal design of these conservation networks is most frequently based on the modeled habitat suitability or probability of occurrence of species, despite evidence that model predictions may not be highly correlated with species density. We hypothesized that conservation networks designed using species density distributions more efficiently conserve populations of all species considered than networks designed using probability of occurrence models. To test this hypothesis, we used the Zonation conservation prioritization algorithm to evaluate conservation network designs based on probability of occurrence versus density models for 26 land bird species in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. We assessed the efficacy of each conservation network based on predicted species densities and predicted species diversity. High‐density model Zonation rankings protected more individuals per species when networks protected the highest priority 10‐40% of the landscape. Compared with density‐based models, the occurrence‐based models protected more individuals in the lowest 50% priority areas of the landscape. The 2 approaches conserved species diversity in similar ways: predicted diversity was higher in higher priority locations in both conservation networks. We conclude that both density and probability of occurrence models can be useful for setting conservation priorities but that density‐based models are best suited for identifying the highest priority areas. Developing methods to aggregate species count data from unrelated monitoring efforts and making these data widely available through ecoinformatics portals such as the Avian Knowledge Network will enable species count data to be more widely incorporated into systematic conservation planning efforts.     

Building on IUCN Regional Red Lists to Produce Lists of Species of Conservation Priority: a Model with Irish Bees

Abstract:  A World Conservation Union (IUCN) regional red list is an objective assessment of regional extinction risk and is not the same as a list of conservation priority species. Recent research reveals the widespread, but incorrect, assumption that IUCN Red List categories represent a hierarchical list of priorities for conservation action. We developed a simple eight-step priority-setting process and applied it to the conservation of bees in Ireland. Our model is based on the national red list but also considers the global significance of the national population; the conservation status at global, continental, and regional levels; key biological, economic, and societal factors; and is compatible with existing conservation agreements and legislation. Throughout Ireland, almost one-third of the bee fauna is threatened (30 of 100 species), but our methodology resulted in a reduced list of only 17 priority species. We did not use the priority species list to broadly categorize species to the conservation action required; instead, we indicated the individual action required for all threatened, near-threatened, and data-deficient species on the national red list based on the IUCN's conservation-actions template file. Priority species lists will strongly influence prioritization of conservation actions at national levels, but action should not be exclusive to listed species. In addition, all species on this list will not necessarily require immediate action. Our method is transparent, reproducible, and readily applicable to other taxa and regions.     

Geography of conservation spending,biodiversity, and culture

We used linear and multivariate models to examine the associations between geography, biodiversity, per capita economic output, national spending on conservation, governance, and cultural traits in 55 countries. Cultural traits and social metrics of modernization correlated positively with national spending on conservation. The global distribution of this spending culture was poorly aligned with the distribution of biodiversity. Specifically, biodiversity was greater in the tropics where cultures tended to spend relatively less on conservation and tended to have higher collectivism, formalized and hierarchical leadership, and weaker governance. Consequently, nations lacking social traits frequently associated with modernization, environmentalism, and conservation spending have the largest component of Earth's biodiversity. This has significant implications for setting policies and priorities for resource management given that biological diversity is rapidly disappearing and cultural traits change slowly. Therefore, we suggest natural resource management adapt to and use characteristics of existing social organization rather than wait for or promote social values associated with conservation spending. Supporting biocultural traditions, engaging leaders to increase conservation commitments, cross‐national efforts that complement attributes of cultures, and avoiding interference with nature may work best to conserve nature in collective and hierarchical societies. Spending in modernized nations may be a symbolic response to a symptom of economic development and environmental degradation, and here conservation actions need to ensure that biodiversity is not being lost.     

The effectiveness of surrogate taxa to conserve freshwater biodiversity

Establishing protected areas has long been an effective conservation strategy and is often based on readily surveyed species. The potential of any freshwater taxa to be a surrogate for other aquatic groups has not been explored fully. We compiled occurrence data on 72 species of freshwater fishes, amphibians, mussels, and aquatic reptiles for the Great Plains, Wyoming (U.S.A.). We used hierarchical Bayesian multispecies mixture models and MaxEnt models to describe species’ distributions and the program Zonation to identify areas of conservation priority for each aquatic group. The landscape‐scale factors that best characterized aquatic species’ distributions differed among groups. There was low agreement and congruence among taxa‐specific conservation priorities (<20%), meaning no surrogate priority areas would include or protect the best habitats of other aquatic taxa. Common, wideranging aquatic species were included in taxa‐specific priority areas, but rare freshwater species were not included. Thus, the development of conservation priorities based on a single freshwater aquatic group would not protect all species in the other aquatic groups.     

Incorporating the Effects of Socioeconomic Uncertainty into Priority Setting for Conservation Investment

Abstract:  Uncertainty in the implementation and outcomes of conservation actions that is not accounted for leaves conservation plans vulnerable to potential changes in future conditions. We used a decision-theoretic approach to investigate the effects of two types of investment uncertainty on the optimal allocation of global conservation resources for land acquisition in the Mediterranean Basin. We considered uncertainty about (1) whether investment will continue and (2) whether the acquired biodiversity assets are secure, which we termed transaction uncertainty and performance uncertainty, respectively. We also developed and tested the robustness of different rules of thumb for guiding the allocation of conservation resources when these sources of uncertainty exist. In the presence of uncertainty in future investment ability (transaction uncertainty), the optimal strategy was opportunistic, meaning the investment priority should be to act where uncertainty is highest while investment remains possible. When there was a probability that investments would fail (performance uncertainty), the optimal solution became a complex trade-off between the immediate biodiversity benefits of acting in a region and the perceived longevity of the investment. In general, regions were prioritized for investment when they had the greatest performance certainty, even if an alternative region was highly threatened or had higher biodiversity value. The improved performance of rules of thumb when accounting for uncertainty highlights the importance of explicitly incorporating sources of investment uncertainty and evaluating potential conservation investments in the context of their likely long-term success.     

Land trust evaluation of progress toward conservation goals

In the United States local land trusts preserve and conserve land to protect water quality and supply, farmlands, habitat for native plants and animals, areas of cultural or historical significance, and scenic views. We surveyed the 24 active, local land trusts in North Carolina (U.S.A.) to determine how they report progress toward attaining such conservation goals. Twenty-two land trusts responded to our survey. Of these, eight reported developing specific conservation goals for all of the properties they protect, five identified conservation targets on all properties, and two reported monitoring biological indicators on all of their protected properties. On the basis of these results, we believe most of the land trusts surveyed could not determine whether they were meeting conservation goals because most did not identify explicit, measurable goals and monitor progress toward them. Instead they reported success in terms of the amount of land protected and money raised. We think this is a lost opportunity for land trusts to build sound approaches to environmental management, engage the public, entice new donors, and attain funding for additional conservation activities. We propose conservation professionals help local land trusts adopt the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation, a framework developed by a consortium of international conservation organizations, to develop conservation goals and measure whether the goals are achieved.     

Priority areas for conservation of and research focused on terrestrial vertebrates

Effective conservation policies require comprehensive knowledge of biodiversity. However, knowledge shortfalls still remain, hindering possibilities to improve decision making and built such policies. During the last 2 decades, conservationists have made great efforts to allocate resources as efficiently as possible but have rarely considered the idea that if research investments are also strategically allocated, it would likely fill knowledge gaps while simultaneously improving conservation actions. Therefore, prioritizing areas where both conservation and research actions could be conducted becomes a critical endeavor that can further maximize return on investment. We used Zonation, a conservation planning tool and geographical distributions of amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles to suggest and compare priority areas for conservation and research of terrestrial vertebrates worldwide. We also evaluated the degree of human disturbance in both types of priority areas by describing the value of the human footprint index within such areas. The spatial concordance between priority conservation and research areas was low: 0.36% of the world's land area. In these areas, we found it would be possible to protect almost half of the currently threatened species and to gather information on nearly 42% of data-deficient (DD) species. We also found that 6199 protected areas worldwide are located in such places, although only 35% of them have strict conservation purposes. Areas of consensus between conservation and research areas represent an opportunity for simultaneously conserving and acquiring knowledge of threatened and DD species of vertebrates. Although the picture is not the most encouraging, joint conservation and research efforts are possible and should be fostered to save vertebrate species from our own ignorance and extinction.     

Extinction risk of the endemic vascular flora of Kauai,Hawaii, based on IUCN assessments

The International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN Red List) is the world's most comprehensive information source on the global conservation status of species. Governmental agencies and conservation organizations increasingly rely on IUCN Red List assessments to develop conservation policies and priorities. Funding agencies use the assessments as evaluation criteria, and researchers use meta-analysis of red-list data to address fundamental and applied conservation science questions. However, the circa 143,000 IUCN assessments represent a fraction of the world's biodiversity and are biased in regional and organismal coverage. These biases may affect conservation priorities, funding, and uses of these data to understand global patterns. Isolated oceanic islands are characterized by high endemicity, but the unique biodiversity of many islands is experiencing high extinction rates. The archipelago of Hawaii has one of the highest levels of endemism of any floristic region; 90% of its 1367 native vascular plant taxa are classified as endemic. We used the IUCN's assessment of the complete single-island endemic (SIE) vascular plant flora of Kauai, Hawaii, to assess the proportion and drivers of decline of threatened plants in an oceanic island setting. We compared the IUCN assessments with federal, state, and other local assessments of Kauai species or taxa of conservation concern. Finally, we conducted a preliminary assessment for all 1044 native vascular plants of Hawaii based on IUCN criterion B by estimating area of occupancy, extent of occurrence, and number of locations to determine whether the pattern found for the SIE vascular flora of Kauai is comparable to the native vascular flora of the Hawaiian Islands. We compared our results with patterns observed for assessments of other floras. According to IUCN, 256 SIE vascular plant taxa are threatened with extinction and 5% are already extinct. This is the highest extinction risk reported for any flora to date. The preliminary assessment of the native vascular flora of Hawaii showed that 72% (753 taxa) is threatened. The flora of Hawaii may be one of the world's most threatened; thus, increased and novel conservation measures in the state and on other remote oceanic islands are urgently needed.     

Financial Mechanisms for Conservation in Brazil

Abstract:  I reviewed some of the financial mechanisms for biodiversity conservation activities in Brazil. There is a heavy dependence on the public sector, but macroeconomic policies aimed at reducing government spending have resulted in reduced budgets dedicated to public conservation measures. The financial constraints for environmental protection have also increased because of a reduction in foreign aid. Positive signs for the immediate future, however, come from new initiatives that create economic instruments to finance conservation. The most important initiatives include conservation criteria for tax redistribution; environmental compensation; water charges; royalties for electricity, petroleum, and natural gas; tradable obligations for forest reserves; and voluntary measures on the part of the business sector. Resources created from these initiatives have different origins and are managed by different public agencies according to varying laws and policies, so their efficient implementation will require that the institutions involved in biodiversity conservation in Brazil establish a minimum set of common priorities and objectives.