1. Reactive: focus on vulnerable habitats
2. Proactive: focussing on less vulnerable habitats

regions of land or ocean that contain distinct assemblages of species and share majority of thier speceis

(crude estimate: 825)

More than 20% of habitat already lost

(305 of 825)

(Madagascar)

Using several variables in order to establish a map of species distribution, habitat types, and conservation gaps.

Works to better preserve areas

Madagascar

endemic paradise

90% plants

99% frogs

Lemurs

75% all species endemic

Original: 5 million acres preserved

Goal: 15 million acres

Analysis looked at 6 species groups, showing best overlap to protect most

Selecting for single species does shitty job protecting all other species

List combined and that established best plan.

Population Viability Analysis (PVA)

Minimum Viable Population (MVP)

1. use of quantitative methods to predict future 

population status

2. smallest isolated population with some defined 

probability of survival

Predicting the likely outcomes of a population

Uses quantitative methods to make this prediction

Ex: Grizzly Bear in Yellowstone

•Demographic: survival and reproduction

•Environmental: changes in b/d rate from envi

- temporal

- spatial

•Individual

• Sampling and process variation

1. assessing risk of one pop: Grizzly
2. assessing risk of 2 plus pops: salmon
3. analyze/synthesize monitoring data: determine delisting of gray whale
4. guiding management by showing lifestages/demographic processes as management targets: Sea Turtles and nets
5. Guiding management to determine habitat size in order to prevent extinction: elephants
6. Guiding management to determine inividuals released to establish new pop: bearded vulture
7. Calc sustainable harvest: ginseng
8. # pops needed to avoid extinction: southern spotted owl

• Makes strong political arguments 
• Good to quantify and make cost/benefit decisions/arguments

Contingent Valuation

Problems:

Benefits

Willingness to Pay for a species

(Imaginary)

1. Survey Bias 
2. Embedding Effect: ecosystem not thought of
3. warm glow effect: more likely to pay when you dont have to
4. How do you pick what species to pay for?

1. Direct: goods (fish, water, crops...)
2. Indirect: services (water storage, pollination, nutrient cycling...)
3. Option: future uses (agriculture, leisure, water use...)
4. Nonuse: Intrinsic Significance (biodiversity, cultural...)

GDP: gross domestic product

ISEW: Index of sustainable economic welfare

GPI: Genuine Progress indicator

1. All goods and services
2. GDP (minus) environmental damages
3. GDP (minus) all negative impacts of country: health, crime, env damages 

Increasing GDP without any progress with GPI (health, crime, happiness)

Happy because we are doing better than others (richer)

Inequality/Income per capita Hump

• Development: 

1. Initial rise of econ progress: very damaging to env
2. At certain point (threshold): cleaning begins, able to afford env conservation
3. Developed Nations: able to conserve easily and counteract effects

• Problems: most damaging acts of developed countries are forced on to developing countries: computer wast (ghana) and CO2 emissions 
• Most developed are not the least hurtful because they are the most demanding
•  

• Need stable per capita consumption
• Stable population size
• GDP would be stable (non-growing non-decling economy)

Conservation Solutions

ESA

1973: ESA

• protection of all listed species no matter cost
• Restore endangered species
• Designate critical habitat and plan for recovery
• Federal agencies cannot destroy critical habitats but private can with permits

1. God Squad: created in order to allow exemption of species from protection in special casses (Snail Darter, won protection)
2. Landowners can include conservation plans in other areas in order to make up for use of critical habitats

• Secretary of the Interior Initiate listing
• collect info with public input (time and money)
• Candidates ranked (251 candidates) and notice for intent to list released
• Final listing must be made within year of intent
• Less then half of species delisted because of recovery and 9 because of extinction and rest because of taxonomic changes

1. Taxonomic omissions: no fungi added
2. Financial Disincentives: changed logging for 80 year old trees to 40 year old trees, screwing future woodpeckers.  
3. Abuse of listing delays 
4. Species listed to late (reaction vs proactive): species can't recover naturally
5. Endangered and threatened have little distinction: only endangered protected
6. Too many populations listed (mammals: several pops of same species protected individual) 
7. Doesn't work: Only 12 delisted b/c of recovery

1. Sp with critical habitat are more than twice as likely to improve
2. sp with plans will significantly recover
3. proportion of sp recovering have increased with increasing time listed

1. More prompt listing
2. More funding for basic science
3. Updated recovery plans
4. more funding for FWS and NMFS
5. Protect unoccupied habitat

• Last ditch effort
• Very expensive
• Condor Project: most expensive in history and reintroduction
• Reintroduction: placed in historical range (grey wolf/condor)
• Augmentation: Eggs, raising and reintroduction (Sea Turtles)
• Introduction of species into non historic area: Kakapo flightless parot

CITES

Convention of International Trade of Endangered Species

• Regulates trade of species (or products from them) on the list
• Must be problem in order to protect species (reactive)
• Genetic Evidence (Whale Meat)
• Relies by country enforcement and no CITES police

IUCN

International Union for the Conservation of Nature

1. More comprehensive
2. Includes quantitative criteria for listing
3. honored in 140 different countries
4. 1000 membered organizations

1. Based on quantitative criteria
2. Biased on birds/mammals (90-100% evaluated) (Insects only .1%)
3. Listing doesnt offer protection but can be used as endangered spp list

1.  a. Strict Nature Reserves                b. Wilderness Areas
2. National Parks
3. Natural Monuments 
4. Habitat management Area
5. Protected Landscape
6. Managed Resource Area

Convention on Biological Diversity

Goals

1. Conserving diversity
2. Sustainable use 
3. Fair and equitable trade: Sharing of the proceeds from utilizing genetic diversity
4. Makes BD an integral part of Development of countries
5. Main driver of increasing protection of land
6. Compared to protection of US by ESA

Convention on Biological Diversity 

Non-members

1. Andorra
2. The Holy See
3. USA

• Works in 30 countries
• one of the most trusted natural organizations
• Protects 17 million acres in US
• 1.28 billion revenue 
• Pioneered new conservation techniques (conservation Easements)

Conservation Easements

Advantages for conservation orgs

1. Easements transfer to new owners
2. Cheaper than buying property
3. Conserves a wider range of properties
4. avoids management costs

1. Preserves desired land use on property
2. Continued ownership and use of property
3. Financial: can be sold, may reduce property, income, and estate taxes

1. Agreement where the trustee holds ownership for piece of prop or rights of prop for the benefit of the beneficiary
2. Makes sure that development does not happen (legally responsible of land conservation)

1. $300 billion
2. New tax incentives for conservation easements 
3. Greater tax refunds
4.  (30-50)
5. Passed in 2008
6. 5.4 billion to conservation

1. Run by UNESCO
2. 131 reserves in 5 countries
3. Usual already reserves but they add in human influence
4. Three functions

• conservation of bio diversity
• Development: association of env with devel
• Logistic support: international network for research and monitoring 

1. aid given to implant sustainability in developing countries
2. Komodo Dragon Conservation programs in southern indonesia have improved living for locals because of biosphere reserve
3. Parks benefit not burden

• Zambia: elephant poaching big problem;
• locals hired as scouts;
• park service employees live in communities
• workers employed from villages
• Revenue split with local communities
• Decisions are made with all stake holders
• Rapid improvement and therefore system used throughout area

1. Battles won but war lost
2. People care about nature but not enough
3. contact with nature is declining
4. Funding is problem
5. new legal framework needed (ESA from 1970)
6. No good approach to preserving ecosystems
7. systematic crisis
8. restoration