Opportunities and costs for preventing vertebrate extinctions

Abstract

Despite an increase in policy and management responses to the global biodiversity crisis, implementation of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets still shows insufficient progress [1]. These targets, strategic goals defined by the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), address major causes of biodiversity loss in part by establishing protected areas (Target 11) and preventing species extinctions (Target 12). To achieve this, increased interventions will be required for a large number of sites and species. The Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) [2], a consortium of conservation-oriented organisations that aims to protect Critically Endangered and Endangered species restricted to single sites, has identified 920 species of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, conifers and reef-building corals in 588 'trigger' sites [3]. These are arguably the most irreplaceable category of important biodiversity conservation sites. Protected area coverage of AZE sites is a key indicator of progress towards Target 11 [1]. Moreover, effective conservation of AZE sites is essential to achieve Target 12, as the loss of any of these sites would certainly result in the global extinction of at least one species [2]. However, averting human-induced species extinctions within AZE sites requires enhanced planning tools to increase the chances of success [3]. Here, we assess the potential for ensuring the long-term conservation of AZE vertebrate species (157 mammals, 165 birds, 17 reptiles and 502 amphibians) by calculating a conservation opportunity index (COI) for each species. The COI encompasses a set of measurable indicators that quantify the possibility of achieving successful conservation of a species in its natural habitat (COIh) and by establishing insurance populations in zoos (COIc).

Meeting the Aichi targets: Pushing for zero extinction conservation

“…the Christmas Island pipistrelle ( Pipistrellus murrayi ) (Martin et al 2012). Nonetheless, the remaining challenge is to protect and effectively manage AZEs&s, often in demanding geographical (rough terrain, remote sites) conditions, and restrictive geopolitical circumstances (corruption, insurgency, war) (Conde et al 2015). However, AZE sites are relatively small (median size ~121 km 2 ) compared to existing national parks and other protected areas (Ricketts et al 2005; UNEP-WCMC 2016).…”

“…The conservation opportunity index (COI) was developed by Conde et al (2015) to assess probability of success of in situ conservation of AZE species. The COI quantifies those factors that are likely to affect the likelihood of success: costs of land acquisition and management in the species’ range country, governance impediments to conservation including likelihood of political instability and politically motivated violence (including terrorism), and the impact of urban expansion on AZE sites.…”

Ethics of Conservation Triage

“…While the need for recognitional and procedural equity is gaining traction in conservation prioritization (Bennett and Dearden, 2014), these concepts have not featured with respect to triage perse (Rudd, 2011;Hagerman and Satterfield, 2014). Involving stakeholders to develop prioritization protocols and objectives may increase acceptance of decisions in conservation triage contexts, by forcing participants to recognize the benefits, costs, feasibility, and uncertainty of different actions (Conde et al, 2015).…”

“…This will require different types of care in conservation to be clarified, including what might constitute "preventative" and "palliative care", and when these different categories of care should be enacted (Hobbs and Kristjanson, 2003). For example, preventative care in conservation could relate to habitat improvements and controlling threatening processes, while palliative care could relate to taking remaining individuals from a species into captive breeding or storing seed or genetic material when species become functionally extinct (Sandler, 2014;Conde et al, 2015). Many species and ecosystems are now perceived to be reliant on conservation actions in perpetuity (Wiens et al, 2012).…”

“…Conservation triage has to date been based on the principle of maximum utility, but needs to widen the scope of its ethical principles to include consideration of other concepts of distributional justice such as need. Importantly, triage contexts in conservation need not force the sacrifice of the most critically endangered species or ecosystems, as the outcome of any prioritization will depend on the proximal and distal objectives of the prioritization itself and the trade-offs that are acceptable (Conde et al, 2015).…”