Processes involved in assessing
priorities for local level Lepidoptera conservation programmes that aim to
achieve global conservation impact
Roger C. Kendrick
Senior Officer (p/t), Kadoorie Farm
& Botanic Garden, Lam Kam Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong S.A.R.,
China.
Email: moths@kfbg.org
Date
of publication (online): 26 January 2011
Date
of publication (print): 26 January 2011
ISSN
0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)
Editor: Richard S. Peigler
Manuscript
details:
Ms # o2579
Received 22
September 2010
Final received
19 November 2010
Finally
accepted 21 December 2010
Citation: Kendrick, R.C. (2011). Processes involved in
assessing priorities for local level Lepidoptera conservation programmes that
aim to achieve global conservation impact. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 3(1):
1456-1461.
Copyright: © Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden Corporation
2011. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows
unrestricted use of this article in any medium for non-profit purposes,
reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and
the source of publication.
Acknowledgements: The author would like to thank Kadoorie Farm
& Botanic Garden for supporting the author’s participation at the 3rd Asian
Lepidoptera Conservation Symposium, as well as Dr. Gary Ades and Dr. Michael
Lau at KFBG for providing critical advice on the structure and content of this
presentation paper and to Mark Sterling and three anonymous reviewers also assisted
in tightening up the composition. Lastly, but by no means least, the author extends his thanks to the
symposium’s organising committee for inviting this paper to be presented at the
symposium, and for their endeavour in running the 3rd Asian Lepidoptera
Conservation Symposium with such enthusiasm, efficiency and effectiveness, in
spite of the many constraints that had to be overcome.
Abstract: Identifying viable conservation projects for Lepidoptera that
target threatened species depends upon effective identification and execution
within a framework of events. This
process requires information gathering and analysis, stakeholder discussion and
local community involvement, planning, action, monitoring and review. Published working examples from four
continents are drawn upon to illustrate all the key stages, focusing on methods
for identifying priority areas (complementarity, biodiversity hotspots, habitat
distribution, irreplaceability) for conserving threatened Lepidoptera, whilst
considering other conservation issues.
Keywords: Biodiversity hotspots, complementarity, community involvement,
conservation planning, habitat distribution, irreplaceability, IUCN Red List,
Lepidoptera, priority areas, threatened species.
This article is part of the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the
3rd Asian Lepidoptera Conservation Symposium (3ALCS-2010) jointly
organized by the IUCN SSC South Asian Invertebrate Specialist Group
(SAsISG); Department of Zoology, Bharathiar University; Zoo Outreach
Organisation and Wildlife Information Liaison Development, held from 25 to 29
October 2010 at Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. http://www.zooreach.org/3alcs2010.html
This
paper, a keynote presentation at the third Asian Lepidoptera Conservation
Symposium, Coimbatore, October 2010, provides an initial pointer to the key
components of a framework that will assist the implementation of Lepidoptera
conservation projects, especially those projects focusing on iconic, globally
restricted species, by involving local communities in the projects, so that the
communities benefit significantly from their contributions to such projects.
In
an ideal world, there would not be a need to conserve butterflies, moths, or
any other flora or fauna. However, humanity has a long track record of
mismanaging natural resources in an unsustainable way, no more so than at the
current time, where habitat loss and fragmentation is now so severe that the
very fabric of life appears to be in danger of collapse. Asia is at the front line of this
issue, due to the long history of human civilization here and the burgeoning
human population that now accounts for 60% of all humans globally in 30% of the
world’s land area. The natural
land that supports the wealth of biodiversity found in Asia is constantly being
impacted upon, through degradation, conversion to other land uses and
unsustainable exploitation. In
many parts of Asia, little natural habitat remains, thus it would seem that the
priority for nature conservation should be to conserve all remaining natural
and semi-natural habitats. Unfortunately, wildlife conservation is generally low on the list of priorities
for many governments, who usually see economic growth and human issues as their
priority. However, as natural
resources underpin humanity, we would all be well advised to ensure our
remaining “natural capital reserves” are not further eroded.
Where does Lepidoptera conservation at the
local level fit in? Lepidoptera should be one of the easier taxa to
conserve. They are iconic, being
the most popular group of insects in the perception of the general public
(Feltwell 1995; Young 1997; Leverton 2001; Glassberg 2003). Their ecology makes them good
indicators of change in the environment (Pyle 1984; Dennis 1993). They are a relatively easy group to
record (Pollard & Yates 1993; Waring & Townsend 2003) and identify due
to the amount of literature available, even in tropical areas (e.g. Migdoll
1988; Robinson et al. 1994; Woodhall 2005; Kehimkar 2008; Holloway
1983-2009). These assets make
Lepidoptera a good group for conserving natural land through the association of
rare species to particular habitats in a landscape. The iconic nature of butterflies and moths also makes it
easier to get local communities to adopt a rare butterfly (or moth) as their
own conservation flagship, or to provide a mechanism for gaining sustainable
income from the forest, giving the community a vested interest in conserving
the remaining land of conservation value near to them (Morgan-Brown 2007).
Conservation Framework
Convincing
regional, national and international business interests and governments of the
benefits of habitat protection may not be so easy. A comprehensive assessment to support the conservation of
any particular area is becoming imperative to successful conservation projects,
even for threatened taxa, though a “research to implementation” gap exists
(Knight et al. 2008). Fortunately,
the Convention on Biological Diversity sets out a Strategic Plan (COP6 2002)
(i.e. a framework for conservation policies) that can be used as a model (Fig.
1), which includes specifying conservation projects as actions undertaken to
meet a wider ranging set of conservation strategies that are adopted at the
national level by all signatory countries.
This
symposium’s second Key Area (assess priority areas / communities for
Lepidoptera conservation initiatives at the local level that has global
conservation impact) is, in effect, a strategy for implementing wildlife
conservation in general, modified in this case for the conservation of
Lepidoptera. Thus we need to
address and focus on points four through seven (Fig. 1) to put the strategy
into effect. What does it involve?
Objectives to meet the strategy must be identified, then actions that will be
prescribed. The outcomes of these
actions can be assessed and monitored, providing feedback to the project
organisers, participants, funders and supporters as to the level of success of
the project. Long term projects
must be monitored regularly to enable changes to actions where necessary.
Objectives
For
priority area assessment, there are two critical objectives of Lepidoptera
conservation that can be defined:
identify
the priority area(s) based upon presence of globally restricted Lepidoptera
identify
local communities open to involvement in conservation of the habitat for the
Lepidoptera involved within the priority areas
These
objectives should give clear statements of intent and act as a focus for a
programme of specific actions that can be grouped under each objective.
Actions – area assessment
The
first objective (identifying priority areas for globally restricted
Lepidoptera) can be undertaken with two main programmes, firstly identifying
existing knowledge on species and habitats, then assessing those data:
identify
the Lepidoptera species of global conservation concern that occur within the
target area – this should involve:
trawling
through published literature for species records, and sourcing other records
(collections);
undertaking
IUCN Red List assessments (global, regional and national) for all species found
in the target area - see Hoffmann et al. (2008) for an overview of the Red List
criteria application for threatened species and Collins & Morris (1985) for
one of the first examples of application at species level;
surveying
sites where possible to confirm the presence of threatened species;
profile
the ecology of each species of global conservation concern, and try to
investigate these species if there is no existing documentation.
Issues
that may have to be addressed include: (i) data ownership; (ii) accuracy (i.e.
is the data recorded to an appropriate scale) and reliability of data; (iii)
impediments to gathering data; (iv) legal requirements to be observed.
Once
the baseline data have been gathered, there are different ways these data
should be assessed, using the following assessments:
Complementarity / surrogacy:investigate known data by comparing Lepidoptera diversity with that of other
taxa to see if the Lepidoptera complement these other taxa, or are
representative of other taxa, and thus by focusing on conserving the habitat
containing Lepidoptera other priority taxa are also conserved (working
examples: Kitching 1996; Bonn & Gaston 2005; Williams et al. 2006; Carmel
& Stoller-Cavari 2006; Zafra-Calvo et al. 2010).
Biodiversity hotspots:map the richness of Lepidoptera diversity, with the aim of identifying areas
that have high Lepidoptera species richness (working examples: Danielson &
Treadaway 2004; Balletto et al. 2010 [2009]).
Habitat distribution:(metapopulation dynamics / habitat fragmentation / landscape scale analysis);
analyse the degree of fragmentation and connectivity of habitats suitable for
the target Lepidoptera, working at a landscape scale, so as to evaluate the
viability of a population’s long term survivability, noting that habitat
patches are temporally and spatially dynamic (working examples: Grand et al.
2004; Romo et al. 2007; Early et al. 2008).
Irreplaceability:assessing the uniqueness of a species or assemblage of species at a particular
site (endemic & threatened species), (working examples: Danielson &
Treadaway 2004; van Swaay & Warren 2006; Fattorini 2009).
These
assessments, though not individually mandatory, are most helpful to make a
robust case for conserving a particular site (irrespective of why that site is
being conserved, as the process is applicable to all flora and fauna) or
landscape. Each method has its own
strengths and weaknesses, and where a target species occurs in an area that has
good results from all four methods (i.e. the area also has other complementary
functions, such as other threatened taxa and high ecosystem service value, is a
hotspot for Lepidoptera biodiversity and also other taxa, is part of a larger,
unfragmented mosaic of natural habitats and is highly irreplaceable due to a
high number of endemic species), then the target site should be relatively easy
to conserve. A good working
example showing a multiple analysis approach is given by Rouget et al. (2004).
Actions – community
involvement
The
second objective (identifying and involving local communities) is critical to
any conservation project being successful. Identifying the stakeholders involved in land use issues for
a potential or actual wildlife conservation site, then fully engaging them as
early as possible in the planning phases of a project will usually result in
much clearer understanding of the benefits wildlife conservation will bring to
the stakeholders. Benefits may
include economic improvement, through (for example) ecotourism, sericulture or
butterfly ranching, cultural or spiritual improvement and health, through the
provision of ecosystem services (Chan et al. 2006; Miller et al. 2008).
Critical
stakeholders should include the following:
chairperson
(someone seen as incorruptible, unbiased and capable of providing guidance on
good governance)
representative
of the conservation project proponent
local
residential community representative(s)
regional
/ national NGO representative
regional
/ national government department(s) representative(s)
local
business community representative
local
/ regional educational institutions (secondary and tertiary)
Once
the critical stakeholders have been identified they should be brought together
to ensure everyone is at the same level of understanding. This requires the conservation project
leadership to have assessed all the available knowledge pertaining to the
project (the results from the assessments) and also to identify gaps in the
knowledge (Knight et al. 2008). At
the first stakeholder meeting these gaps can be highlighted and hopefully
addressed.
There
are issues regarding data, and the following questions will have to be
addressed to the satisfaction of all stakeholders:
who
knows what?
are
there significant data gaps?
what
are the significant impediments to gathering and sharing data?
who
owns the data?
what
are the data based upon (observation / records / specimens . . . )
how
accurate are the data?
how
are the data kept and shared?
are
there any training or capacity building needs amongst the stakeholders?
Once
the full facts have been disclosed, the stakeholders to the project will be in
a position to decide upon the best way to proceed.
A
couple of examples of community involvement spring to mind – the world
famous Ornithopteraranching operations in Papua New Guinea have been operating for 32 years
(Hutton 1983), and highlight sustainable operations that provide a local income
and benefit a globally threatened taxon (Clark & Landford 1991). More recently, Morgan-Brown (2007) has
documented the same approach in Tanzania, with a similar effect on conserving
butterfly populations and their habitats and significantly improving the lives
of the villagers involved, to the point where other villages are planning to
follow suit. However, it has been
observed that practices involving ecotourism may not be as beneficial, owing to
unsustainable use of resources and the limited capacity of most natural areas
to support the numbers of visitors required to benefit the local communities
involved (e.g. MacKinnon et al. 1986; Hannah 1992; Wells & Brandon 1992;
Swarts 2000).
Resources
Actions
in any project can only take hold when there are sufficient resources. It is assumed that the conservation
project will assess what resources are required prior to commencement of the
project. There are a number of
critical steps that determine whether there are sufficient resources, but the
preparation of an action plan (for species or for habitat - e.g. Bourn &
Warren (1998)) based upon the National Biodiversity Strategy Action Plan (each
country signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity has recently
submitted its fourth NBSAP, see the CBD website for details) should be the
starting point and will address resource issues.
The
action plan should consider the background assessment work mentioned above,
plus practical issues, such as legal constraints, sources of funding, manpower,
logistics, equipment and responsibility for completion of specific
actions. Once prepared, the action
plan should be implemented.
Monitoring and Review
Feedback
to stakeholders, participants, project funders and the public is critical to
keep the momentum of a conservation project. Good news is always well received and may well help with the
project’s continuation and support, especially from local communities. Reviewing projects also provides a
mechanism to evaluate how successful a project is, whether it is achieving the
targets, and whether alternative or modified strategies, objectives and actions
need to be formulated to improve the overall success towards achieving the
vision.
Consequently,
it is imperative that conservation projects have measurable targets and
milestones that can be evaluated during the project and upon completion, such
that the project can be seen to be a transparent process and have a positive
outcome for both the wildlife (Lepidoptera in the context of this article) and
the communities that have a vested interest in the project.
References
Balletto, E., S.
Bonelli, L. Borghesio, A. Casale, P. Brandmayr & A.V. Taglianti (2010
[2009]). Hotspots of biodiversity and conservation
priorities: A methodological approach. Italian
Journal of Zoology 77(1): 2-13.
Bonn, A. &
K.J. Gaston (2005). Capturing biodiversity:
selecting priority areas for conservation using different criteria. Biodiversity and Conservation14: 1083-1100.
Bourn, N.A.D.
& M.S. Warren (1998). Species Action Plan: ADONIS
BLUE Lysandra
bellargus (Polyommatus
bellargus). Butterfly Conservation, East Lulworth,
England, 21pp.
Carmel, Y. &
L. Stoller-Cavari (2006). Comparing Environmental and
Biological Surrogates for Biodiversity at a Local Scale. Israel Journal of Ecology &
Evolution 52: 11-27.
Chan, K.M.A.,
M.R. Shaw, D.R. Cameron, E.C. Underwood & G.C. Daily (2006).Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services. PLoS
Biology 4(11): e379. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040379.
Clark, P.B.
& A. Landford (1991). Farming Insects in Papua New
Guinea. International
Zoology. Yearbook 30: 127-131.
Collins, N.M.
& M.G. Morris (1985). Threatened Swallowtail
Butterflies of the World. The IUCN Red Data Book.
IUCN, Gland Switzerland, vii+401 pp., 8 plates.
COP6 [Conference
Of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity] (2002). Report
of the Open-Ended Inter-Sessional Meeting on the Strategic Plan, National
Reports and Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Annex.
Item 3: Strategic Plan for the Convention. 10-19. accessed online at http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-06/official/cop-06-05-en.pdf,
15 September 2010.
Danielsen, F.
& C.G. Treadaway (2004). Priority conservation areas for
butterflies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) in the Philippine islands. Animal Conservation7: 79-92. doi:10.1017/S1367943003001215
Dennis, R.H.L.
(1993). Butterflies
and climate change. Manchester University Press, Manchester,
England, xv+302pp.
Early, R., B.
Anderson & C.D. Thomas (2008). Using habitat
distribution models to evaluate large-scale landscape priorities for spatially
dynamic species. Journal
of Applied Ecology 45: 228-238. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01424.x
Fattorini, S.
(2009). Assessing priority areas by imperilled species:
insights from the European butterflies. Animal
Conservation 12: 313–320.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00251.x
Feltwell, J.
(1995). The
Conservation of Butterflies in Britain past and present.
Wildlife Matters, Battle, England, ix+233pp.
Glassberg, J.
(2003). Butterflies
through Binoculars: A Field Guide to Butterflies in the Boston – New York
– Washington Region. Oxford University Press, New
York, ix+160pp., 40 plates.
Grand, J., J.
Buonaccorsi, S.A. Cushman, C.R. Griffin & M.C. Neel (2004).A multiscale landscape approach to predicting bird and moth rarity hotspots in
a threatened pitch pine - scrub oak community. Conservation Biology18(4): 1063-1077.
Hannah, L.
(1992). African
People, African Parks: An Evaluation of Development Initiatives as a Means of
Improving Protected Area Conservation in Africa.
Agency for International Development, Bureau for Africa, Biodiversity Support
Program and Conservation International. Washington, 76pp.
Hoffmann, M.,
T.M. Brooks, G.A.B. da Fonseca, C. Gascon, A.F.A. Hawkins, R.E. James, P.
Langhammer, R.A. Mittermeier, J.D. Pilgrim, A.S.L. Rodrigues & J.M.C. Silva
(2008). Conservation planning and the IUCN Red List. Endangered Species Research6: 113-125.
Holloway, J.D.
(1983-2009). The Moths of Borneo parts 1 & 3 to 18. Malaysian Nature Journal37: 1-107. 38: 157-317. 40: 1-165. 43: 57-226. 47: 1-309. 49: 147-326. 51:
1-242. 52: 1-155. 53: 1-188. 55: 279-486. 58: 1-529. 60: 1-268. 62: 1-240 &
Southdene Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Lumpur (parts 3, 6 & 18); also on-line at http://www.mothsofborneo.com/accessed 20 September 2010.
Hutton, A.
(1983). Butterfly farming in Papua New Guinea Oryx19: 158-162.
Kehimkar, I.
(2008). The
Book of Indian Butterflies. Bombay Natural History
Society, Mumbai, xvi + 497pp.
Kitching, I.J.
(1996). Identifying complementary areas for
conservation in Thailand: an example using owls, hawkmoths and tiger beetles. Biodiversity and Conservation5: 841-858.
Knight, A.T.,
R.M. Cowling, M. Rouget, A. Blamford, A.T. Lombard & B.M. Campbell (2008).Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the
research-implementation gap. Conservation
Biology 22(3): 610-617.
Leverton, R.
(2001). Enjoying
Moths. T & A D Poyser, London, xi+276pp.
MacKinnon, J.K.,
G. Child & J. Thorsell (1986). Managing Protected Areas in the
Tropics. IUCN, Gland, Switzer, 295pp.
Migdoll, I.
(1988). Ivor
Migdoll’s Field Guide to the Butterflies of Southern Africa.
New Holland, London, 256pp.
Miller, J.Y.,
J.C. Daniels & T.C. Emmel (2008). Planning for tomorrow:
the future of entomological investments. Florida
Entomologist 91(1): 139-144.
Morgan-Brown, T.
(2007). Butterfly Farming and Conservation Behavior in
the East Usambara Mountains of Tanzania. MSc Thesis, Graduate School of The
University of Florida, 55pp.
Pollard, E.,
& T.J. Yates (1993). Monitoring butterflies for
ecology and conservation. Chapman & Hall, London,
xiii+274pp.
Pyle, R.M.
(1984). Handbook
for Butterfly Watchers. Houghton Mifflin, New York,
xvi+280 pp.
Robinson, G.S.,
K.R. Tuck & M. Shaffer (1994). A Field Guide to the Smaller Moths
of South-East Asia. Malaysian Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur,
309pp.
Romo, H., M.L.
Munguira & E. García–Barros (2007). Area
selection for the conservation of butterflies in the Iberian Peninsula and
Balearic Islands. Animal
Biodiversity and Conservation 30(1): 7–27.
Rouget, M., B.
Reyers, Z. Jonas, P. Desmet, A. Driver, K. Maze, B. Egoh, R.M. Cowling, L. Mucina
& M.C. Rutherford (2004). South African National Spatial
Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Technical Report. Volume 1: Terrestrial
Component. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, viii+77pp.
(not including appendices).
van Swaay, C.A.M.
& M.S. Warren (2006). Prime Butterfly Areas of
Europe: an initial selection of priority sites for conservation. Journal of Insect Conservation10: 5–11.
Swarts, F.
(2000). The Pantanal in the 21st Century: For the
Planet’s Largest Wetland, an Uncertain Future. in Swarts, F. (ed.) The Pantanal of Brazil, Bolivia
and Paraguay. Hudson MacArthur, Gouldsboro, PA, USA, 287pp.
Waring, P. &
M. Townsend (2003). Field
Guide to the Moths of Great Britain and Ireland.
British Wildlife Publishing, Hook, Hampshire, England, 432pp.
Wells, M. &
K. Brandon (1992). People
and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management With Local Communities.
World Wildlife Fund. US-AID, 99pp.
Williams, P., D.
Faith, L. Manne, W. Sechrest & C. Preston (2006).Complementarity analysis: Mapping the performance of surrogates for
biodiversity. Biological
Conservation 128: 253-264.
Woodhall, S.
(2005). Field
Guide to Butterflies of South Africa. Struik, Cape Town,
440pp.
Young, M.
(1997). The
Natural History of Moths. T & A D Poyser, London,
xiv+271pp.
Zafra-Calvo,
N., R. Cerro, T. Fuller, J.M. Lobo, M.Á. Rodríguez & S. Sarkar (2010).Prioritizing areas for conservation and vegetation restoration in
post-agricultural landscapes: A Biosphere Reserve plan for Bioko, Equatorial
Guinea. Biological
Conservation 143: 787–794.