biodiversity conservation peru

8/19/2019 Biodiversity Conservation Peru

1/10

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions,research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.

Biological Diversity of Peru: Determining Priority Areas for ConservationAuthor(s): Lily O. Rodríguez and Kenneth R. YoungSource: AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 29(6):329-337. 2000.Published By: Royal Swedish Academy of SciencesDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-29.6.329URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1579/0044-7447-29.6.329

BioOne ( www.bioone.org ) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological,

and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and bookspublished by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use .

Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercialinquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

http://www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_usehttp://www.bioone.org/http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1579/0044-7447-29.6.329http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-29.6.329


2/10

329Ambio Vol. 29 No. 6, Sept. 2000 © Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2000http://www.ambio.kva.se

Report

INTRODUCTIONThe establishment of protected areas for biological conservationstarts with site selection. Often, of course, it is opportunity, prac-ticality, cost, and/or politics that controls the selection of areasto designate for protection. However, if a guiding principle wereto be identified, it would surely be that site selection at a na-tional level should be oriented toward providing effective pro-tection for a representative sample of the country’s biologicaldiversity.

zone, landscape, or region within the system of protected areas.Priorization has been done in terms of percentage of total terri-tory protected. For example, Canada has a stated goal of includ-ing at least 13% of all its biogeographical subdivisions within

protected areas (3). Countries with a relatively high percentageof their national territory in conservation units (> 10%), mightstill be lacking a representative sample if some ecosystem typesare not included.

Recently, integrated approaches have been promoted (4, 5) tooverlay organismal and ecological diversity information on mapsof conservation units, thus identifying spatial gaps in coverage.However, another important kind of gap can be overlooked or

hidden using these approaches: i.e. a spatial gap in information.These are areas for which adequate knowledge does not existabout biodiversity.

Such gaps are of special concern in tropical countries that arestill in the descriptive and exploratory stage of documenting bio-logical diversity. Biodiversity evaluations in these countries can

be overwhelming tasks, particularly for those that have beenlabeled “megadiverse” because of the great number of speciesfound within their borders (6).

One of those megadiverse countries is Peru, a global center for species richness of vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants, withnumerous known endemic species of mammals, reptiles, amphib-ians, flowering plants, and ferns (Table 1). Within Peru there ismuch ecological diversity; for example, most of the theoretically

possible Holdridge life zones are present within national bounda-ries (18). In this study, we evaluated the distribution of bothorganismal and ecological diversity in relation to Peru’s nationalsystem of protected areas, consisting of national parks, sanctu-aries, reserves, reserved zones, protection forests, national for-ests, and communal and hunting reserves. We also mapped theareas so poorly known biologically that they could not bemapped under the defined criteria, but should not be ignored or overlooked. Moreover, several of these information gaps wereconsidered among the priority areas, given the degree of isola-tion or other features that would be good predictors of high en-demism or species richness. This study provides a point of com-

Lily O. Rodríguez and Kenneth R. Young

Biological Diversity of Peru: DeterminingPriority Areas for Conservation

The distributions of both the organismal and ecologicaldiversity of Peru were evaluated through cartographicanalyses in relationship to Peru’s national system of pro-tected areas. Also identified and mapped were areas sopoorly known that they represent conservation informa-tion gaps, areas that cannot currently be evaluated, butwhich should not be overlooked. These methods revealedthat the protected area system in Peru did not adequatelyprotect either organismal or ecological diversity. In theshort term, inclusion of unprotected priority areas in thenational system is the best way to improve biological con-servation. Over long time periods, it is also important tomake decisions about the priority of areas that are infor-mation gaps. This study provides a useful point of com-parison with other countries that are at different stages inthe task of assembling biodiversity information. It was clearthat i ) the identified priority areas were important fornational-level planning; ii ) the drier and nonforested eco-systems seldom have been included in conservationefforts; iii ) because degradation processes will constantlychange, the conservation status of a particular area willalso change and should not be confounded in the settingof priorities with the value of the biological diversity present;and iv ) the identification of information gaps is the mosttransparent method for keeping decision-makers advisedas to the limits of scientific knowledge on the distributionof biological diversity.

Table 1. Diversity and endemism of selected groups of Peru’s organisms.

Number Percentage Number of PercentageTaxonomic of of world’s Peruvian nationalgroup species species endemics endemism Reference

Mammals 460 10 58 13 7Bats 164 18 11 7 8Birds 1710 19 110 6 9Reptiles 360 5 98 27 10Amphibians 332 9 124 38 11Freshwater fish 900 13 70 8 12Spiders 3000 9 ? ? 13Butterflies (diurnal) 3366 21 300 9 *Molluscs (terrestrial) 800 3 ? ? 14

Flowering plants 17 144 7 5354 31 15Palms 142 7 14–19 10 16Ferns and fern allies 1060 10 160 16 17

*G. Lamas, pers. comm. 1994.

One approach is based on the dis-tribution of organismal diversity.Distributions of living organisms aremapped and spatial concentrations of taxa are designated as priority areas.This has been done using estimatesof total species richness, or those of indicator, rare, or endemic species(1, 2).

A different approach, at a higher level of biological organization, is

based on the distribution of ecologi-cal diversity. Maps showing ecologi-cal zones, landscapes, or natural re-gions are used to approximate thespatial distribution of ecological di-versity. A national goal might be toinclude at least one of every type of


3/10

330 © Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2000 Ambio Vol. 29 No. 6, Sept. 2000http://www.ambio.kva.se

served zones, national forests, communal reserves, and huntingreserves. Legally, they are established by a relatively weak ad-ministrative mandate. This heterogeneous group also differs fromthe previous units because goals are not limited to strict or rela-tively strict protection. The national forests are meant to be man-aged: utilized and then reforested. The communal and huntingreserves are designed to be managed locally, with national-leveloversight. The reserved zones are so designated on a temporary

basis while further study is used to decide on their permanentstatus.

The first strictly protected areas in Peru were Cutervo and Tingo María National Parks, established in 1961 and 1965, re-spectively. Grimwood (20) provided the first national evaluationin the scientific literature of needs for additional protected ar-eas.

By 1979, 14 areas had been formally designated. Lamas (21) proposed that additional sites be considered based on informa-

tion available at that time (22) concerning forested areas that had apparently not been affected by Pleistocene climate change.Shortly thereafter, Dourojeanni and Ríos (23) described the ex-isting protected areas and made a series of recommendations for improving coverage and management. Díaz (24) provided anupdated overview.

Some years later, the Conservation Data Center, a university- based group, compared a map they had developed of biogeo-graphical provinces (using global-scale provinces produced for IUCN and combined with national-scale climatic zones) to a mapof the national system of protected areas. Based on the types and distributions of provinces that were not well represented, they

proposed several additional areas for consideration, ranking themin terms of three levels of priority (25, 26).

Our study continues the practice of evaluating the national sys-tem in relationship to what is known about the distribution of

biological diversity. However, we also expanded the types of in-

Figure 1. National system of protected areas in Peru at the time of this study.

parison with other countries thatare at different stages in the task of assembling the informationnecessary to make these kinds of assessments.

PERU’S NATIONALSYSTEM OFPROTECTED AREASAt the time of this research therewere almost 50 sites that had

been declared protected areas bythe Peruvian government. Aglance at a map showing their locations (Fig. 1) reveals bias intheir placement. Much of east-ernmost Peru was unprotected inthe Amazon basin, particularlythe lowlands bordering on Ecua-dor, Colombia, and Brazil. Mostof western Peru was unpro-tected, corresponding to the

coastal plain and Andean foot-hills and highlands looking outover Pacific ocean drainages.

The national system includesnational parks (category II of theIUCN), sanctuaries for the pres-ervation of sites of notable natu-ral or historical importance, na-tional reserves for the sustain-able extraction of selected bio-logical resources, and protectionforests to safeguard soils and forests, especially in upper wa-tersheds (all the latter are cat-egory VI of IUCN; 19). Withthe exception of national re-serves, these categories are es-tablished by “decreto supremo”,a type of law that supersedesother legal claims to the landsinvolved. Ideally, all of these ar-eas would have management

plans, budgets, staffs, and pro-tection programs designed to

promote the particular goals of each type of area.

The remaining national con-

servation units consist of re-


4/10


5/10


Figure 3. Priority areas for conservation of organismal diversity in Peru. Degree of protection in thenational system is given as none, partial, or complete.

overlapped. Secondary and ter-tiary rankings were on the basisof recommendations from 2 or 1group(s), respectively.

RESULTS

Ecological RegionsWe evaluated coverage of eco-logical diversity by comparingthe ecological region map (Fig.2) to a map of the national pro-tected areas (Fig. 1). The differ-ences in percentage coverage arestartling (Table 2), and did agood job of quantifying theAmazonian bias that has di-rected site selection in Peru,over the past three decades. Eco-logical regions that have thehighest representation in pro-tected areas were mostly Ama-zonian: savanna (80%), swamp

forest (26%), wet forest (24%),rain forest (13%), humid forest(7%), and seasonal forest (6%).The non-Amazonian regionswith high representation wereAndean tundra, located at 4200to 4700 m (6%), and permanentice above 4700 m (15%). Virtu-ally absent were the dry ecologi-cal regions of the coast and many of the dry to humid re-gions of the highlands.

We also separately calculated the coverage offered by only thestricter conservation units: the

parks, reserves, and sanctuaries(Table 2). The best coveragewas of savanna (80%), swampforest (23%), permanent ice(15%), rain forest (8%), and An-dean tundra (6%). All other eco-logical regions had little cover-age. In fact, hot tropical desert,cold high Andean desert, humid steppe, and desert scrub wereespecially poorly represented with < 1% coverage.

Priority AreasThirty-eight areas were designated by the working groups as be-ing of importance for species diversity and endemism. These ar-eas were spread over the entire country (Fig. 3) and by consen-sus would protect much of Peru’s organismal diversity.

These areas were chosen independently of the locations of pro-tected areas or the degree of human intervention. We then com-

pared priority areas with the national system and were able todistinguish (Fig. 3) priority areas with no protection, those with

partial representation in the protected areas system (i.e. they onlyhad very small protected areas, or these offered only incompletecoverage of the organismal diversity and uniqueness of the area),

and those that were completely or almost completely covered bythe present system. Nine of the priority areas were well covered, though in most

cases the inclusion within legal limits of a park or reserve doesnot mean that protection and management activities are adequate

(31). Two were located on the coast, 2 in the Amazon lowlands,and the remainder were in wet- and rain forests of the easternAndes (Fig. 3).

Ten of the identified priority areas were partially represented in the national system, and it would be of interest to evaluatehow additional coverage could be achieved in each case. Nine-teen priority areas had no protection or other programs designed to safeguard biological diversity. The unprotected and partially

protected priority areas were located principally in the highlandsand also in the lowlands of northern and eastern Peru (Fig. 3).

We then noted the ecological region(s) found in each of the38 priority areas. The priority areas designated by the workinggroups did a much better job of representing the ecological di-versity of Peru than did the current protected areas. In fact, the

priority areas, though chosen based only on the distribution of species richness and endemism, included all 16 ecological re-gions. Thus, the workshop turned out to be a credible method


6/10


Table 2. Representation of Peru’s ecological regions according to Zamora (27) in the national system ofprotected areas. The areas with strict protection are the national parks, the national reserves, and the nationaland historical sanctuaries.

Size Area withof Protected strict

region area protectionEcological Spanishregion equivalent (km 2) % (km 2) % (km 2) %

Hot desert Desierto 30000 2.3 0 0 0 0CálidoTropical

Warm desert Desierto 90000 7.0 1146 1.3 1141 1.3Semi CálidoTropical

Cold high Desierto 24000 1.8 65 0.3 65 0.3Andean desert Frío Alto

AndinoDesert scrub Matorral 40000 3.1 672 1.7 273 0.7

DesérticoDry forest Bosque Seco 45000 3.5 1207 2.7 913 2.0Steppe Estepa 35000 2.7 498 1.4 498 1.4Humid steppe Estepa 80000 6.2 1098 1.4 518 0.6

HúmedaPuna Páramo o 130000 10.1 2671 2.0 2671 2.0

PunaAndean tundra Tundra 30000 2.3 1780 5.9 1780 5.9

AndinoPermanent ice Nivales 5000 0.4 746 14.9 746 14.9Rain (cloud) forest Bosque 62000 4.8 8262 13.3 5252 8.5

PluvialWet forest Bosque 163000 12.6 39468 24.2 6780 4.2

Muy HúmedoHumid forest Bosque 417000 32.4 29791 7.1 7471 1.8

HúmedoTropical

Humid swamp forest Bosque 83000 6.5 22031 26.5 19392 23.4HúmedoTropicalHidromórfico

Humid seasonal Bosque 44000 3.4 2818 6.4 1285 2.9forest Húmedo

TropicalEstacional

Savanna Savana 100 0.01 80 80.0 80 80.0

of identifying representative samples for the conservation of bothecological and organismal diversity.

These priority areas were determined by consensus of theworking groups. We also examined the maps made by eachworking group separately to see if areas of particular importancefor some taxonomic groups had been overlooked. This was in-deed the case, and for some conservation planning purposes itwould be of interest to have maps of taxa-specific priority areason hand. Particularly, we worry that by using only 1 map of thevascular plant groups, 1 of the invertebrates, and 3 maps of thevertebrates, inevitably there was bias in the consensus map to-wards areas most important for the vertebrates. For example,some areas of priority for birds were not identified as such for

plants (Fig. 4); the reverse was also true.

Information GapsTwenty-eight areas were identified by the working groups as

being locations in Peru so poorly known to modern science thattheir evaluation for conservation purposes would be either pre-mature or must be based on subjective or extrapolated informa-tion. These areas were spread across the country (Fig. 5) and accounted for 44% of the territory of Peru. Fifteen of these in-formation gaps were identified by only 1 or 2 working groups,

so there was some spatial overlap with the priority areas in Fig-ure 3, which were so designated by 3 or more working groups.This occurred because some areas are better known than othersfor certain types of organisms.

We ranked the 28 information gaps in terms of how manywere identified by the working groups. The highest priority ar-eas corresponded to 13 information gaps identified by most or all of the working groups. These represented 289 000 km 2 or 22% of Peru, and were principally found in the areas borderingon Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia, and Chile (Fig. 5). They

included 11 ecological regions, from arid to perhumid in mois-ture and from sea level up to elevations of permanent ice.

The remaining information gaps were found in all parts of Peru

(Fig. 5), representing 12 ecological regions. The 13 gaps identi-fied by 2 working groups covered 238 000 km 2, or 18% of Peru,while the remaining 2 accounted for 32 000 km 2, or 2%.

DISCUSSION

Adequacy of Current Protection in PeruBy several criteria, our methods used for selecting priority ar-eas for biological conservation in Peru were successful. We wereable to achieve agreement in a workshop for the locations of 38

Tropical savanna is the ecological region best represented in Peru’sprotected area system, with about 80% of what exists included withinthe system. Photo: R. Foster.


7/10


priority areas based on knowl-edge of the distributions of spe-cies richness and endemism. Inaddition, the identification and mapping of 28 information gaps

permit the recognition of areas poorly known in terms of bio-logical diversity, especially atthe organismal level. These mayor may not prove to be of na-tional importance as priority ar-eas; their identification, how-ever, is crucial for the planningof where investigative resourcesshould be directed.

Furthermore, although our principal interest was the deter-mination of priority areas based on organismal diversity, we alsoevaluated those priority areas interms of how well they covered important attributes of the eco-logical diversity of Peru. We

found that the priority areas in-cluded all 16 of the terrestrialecological regions recognized byZamora (27). This is in marked contrast to the protected areassystem, which seriously ignored dry and highland ecosystems(Table 2).

Nineteen of the priority areaswere not included in the pro-tected area system. Directingconservation efforts to these ar-eas should obviously be a na-tional and international priority.It is also of interest to ask whythese areas have been neglected.Many of the unprotected Ama-zonian priority areas are near international borders. Perhapssite selection on biodiversitygrounds has been overruled inthe past due to legal or securityconcerns. Because the distribu-tion of the biota does not respect

political boundaries, there needsto be more binational and mul-tinational coordination in estab-

lishing protected areas (32). The

Figure 4. Priority areas (adapted from 31) for birds (hatch marks) and vascular plants (green).

coastal and highland priority areas have been overlooked, we believe, not because they were of little importance to Peruvianresearchers and conservationists, but because so many of the con-servation projects funded by overseas moneys were targeted spe-cifically on Amazonian forests (33–36).

We deliberately made the priority areas amorphous in shapeand ambiguous in size (Fig. 3). Our intention here is to draw at-tention to the locations of these areas of important biological di-versity. The actual shape, size, and type of protected area called for in each location will need to be determined by a case-by-case evaluation. In contrast, the better protection of the priorityareas with only partial coverage could often be done with theenlargement of existing conservation units or the inclusion of additional ecosystem types.

When we analyzed the coverage of ecological diversityachieved by the current national protection system (Table 2), wefound marked differences between the entire system and those

areas offering stricter protection programs. This was due to thehuge areas in Peru included in reserved zones, national forests,and protection forests that in reality offered little protection to

plants and animals because of understaffing or a complete lack of efforts on the ground (“paper parks”). Maps that show the en-tire system can give the illusion of much better coverage thanis the case. Particularly, we draw attention to wet, humid, and seasonal forests that were often included within the limits of na-tional or protection forests, but which are not effectively man-aged in Peru. We also point out once again that the coastaldeserts and the upland Andes, plus scrub, humid steppe, and dryforests, were all poorly represented among Peru’s national parks,reserves, and sanctuaries.

Policy Implications for PeruThe methods used in this study constitute a mechanism by whichthe protected areas in Peru could be reevaluated at intervals, of


8/10


in the completion and consolidation of a national system of pro-tected conservation areas. However, site selection and priori-zation based only on perceived or projected threats to naturalenvironments, on feasibility, or on cost/benefit analyses run therisk of focusing attention on areas either lacking important bio-logical diversity or which do not help achieve representation of

both organismal and ecological diversity.Our specific recommendations for nature conservation in Peru

were thati) new, enlarged, or improved protected areas be established in

the priority areas (Fig. 3) with no or partial coverage in thecurrent system;

ii) this or a similar process be used to reevaluate the nationalsystem in the future;

iii) the information gaps identified here (Fig. 5) be of priority for the investigators and funding agencies interested in

biodiversity protection in Peru; and

iv) there be special programs of research and sustainable use of natural resources designed to deal with biological conserva-tion in sites and ecological regions that have been neglected in the past.

Priority Areas in ConservationWe found that the current protected area system in Peru doesnot provide adequate representation of either organismal or ecological diversity. However, by identifying priority areas for conservation, we keep the emphasis on solutions, rather than

belaboring criticisms of past decisions. In the short term, inclu-sion of the unprotected priority areas is the best way to improve

biological conservation in Peru. Over long periods of time, it isalso important to arrive at conclusions about the priority of theareas so poorly known that they had to be considered informa-tion gaps in this study. Despite much recent research on holis-tic methods for assessment of priority areas for biodiversity (39–

Figure 5. Information gaps for the evaluation of biological diversity in Peru. Priority is indicated as high,higher, or highest.

perhaps every 3 to 5 years. Thiswould allow for the incorpora-tion of new data on species di-versity and distributions into themaps of the information gapsand the priority areas. No onemap likely will ever be com-

pletely satisfactory as a measureof Peru’s ecological diversity.However, future reevaluationscan continue to use the most up-dated sources available. For ex-ample, the landscape-level and intra-regional differences inlowland Amazon habitat typesdetected with remote sensing(37) could serve as input in thenear future.

The information used to des-ignate priority areas came fromthe consensus of active research-ers knowledgeable about Peru’s

biological diversity. Because of

the preliminary and scattered nature of the scientific literature, plus the nascent state of bio-diversity data bases, this tech-nique offered the most practicalway to select priority areas.However, it is not without itsweaknesses. The distribution

patterns of diversity and ende-mism are not universal, and varyfrom group to group, resulting intaxa-specific priority areas (e.g.Fig. 4; for others see maps in 29,38). If consensus is sought, thenit is possible that minority view-

points will be lost or over-looked. This is especially of concern for the most diversegroups of plants and inverte-

brates, which are poorly knownand for which informed observ-ers are few. The solution is tocheck results for bias and tomake available the list of partici-

pants and the methods used inthe evaluation.

We recognize that identifying

priority areas is but the first step


9/10


servation in Latin America and the Caribbean. As they caution,the results from a continental-scale evaluation, such as their’s,should not be used to set priorities within a particular country.We believe that the priority areas identified by our approach aremore germane to national-level planning. They coincide with usin documenting and lamenting the relative lack of conservationefforts in drier and nonforested ecosystems (44).

To that conclusion, we would add two more:i) Degradation processes that threaten biological diversity will

constantly change as markets, technologies, and policiesevolve (e.g., 45). Thus, the conservation status of a particu-lar area will also change and should not be confounded in

priorization schemes with the relative value of the biologi-cal diversity present.

ii) Currently, the highlighting of information gaps is the mosttransparent approach for keeping decision makers advised asto the limits of scientific knowledge on the distribution of bio-logical diversity.

EPILOGUEThese are exciting times in the development of conservationmeasures for Peru’s biological diversity. The workshop and analyses described in this article were part of a planning proc-

Coastal deserts in Peru are extensive and have great scenic and recreational value, in addition to highspecies endemism. Few desert areas, however, are included within the national system of protected areas.Photo: K. Young.

Highland Peru is densely populated andheavily used by rural populations insome areas. However, social changesare leaving other areas open forconservation practices, includingecological restoration of naturalenvironments. Photo: K. Young.

43), the identification of infor-mation gaps continues to be ne-glected.

We expect that the recogni-tion of priority areas and infor-mation gaps will be importanttools for the evaluation of con-servation needs in other coun-tries. When objective mappingof organismal diversity is im-

possible, consensus of expertopinion is a viable replacementmethod and the sources of biasor error can at least be acknowl-edged. Maps of informationgaps are needed to warn of lo-cations where adequate infor-mation is lacking. Often the

products produced by geo-graphic information systems donot explicitly show the areaswith no or with only extrapo-

lated data and thus can uninten-tionally disguise informationgaps.

Dinerstein et al. (44) recentlyidentified and prioritized 178terrestrial ecoregions for con-


10/10


References and Notes1. Bibby, J., Collar, N.J., Crosby, M.J., Heath, M.F., Imboden, C., Johnson, T.H., Long,

A.J., Stattersfield, A.J. and Thirgood, S.J. 1992. Putting Biodiversity on the Map: Pri-ority Areas for Global Conservation . International Council for Bird Preservation, Cam-

bridge, United Kingdom.2. Ando, A., Camm, J., Polasky, S. and Solow, A. 1998. Species distributions, land val-

ues, and efficient conservation. Science 279 , 2126–2128.3. WWF-Canada. 1993. Endangered Spaces Progress Report No. 4 . World Wildlife Fund,

Canada.4. Scott, J.M., Csuti, B., Smith, K., Estes, J.E. and Caicco, S. 1991. Gap analysis of spe-

cies richness and vegetation cover: an integrated biodiversity conservation strategy. In: Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: the Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future . Kohm, K.A. (ed.). Island Press, Washington, DC, p. 282–297.

5. Miller, R.I. (ed.). 1994. Mapping the Diversity of Nature . Chapman and Hall, London.6. McNeely, J., Miller, K. Reid, W., Mittermeier, R. and Werner, T. 1990. Conserving

the World’s Biological Diversity . IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, WRI, CI, WWF-US,World Bank, Washington DC.

7. Pacheco, V., de Macedo, H., Vivar, E., Ascorra, C.F., Arana-Cardó, R. and Solari, S.A.1995. Lista anotada de los mamíferos peruanos. Occ. Papers Conservation Biology(Conservation International) No. 2 , 1–35. (In Spanish).

8. Ascorra G., C.F. 1996. Areas importantes de diversidad de quiropteros en el Perú. In: Diversidad Biológica del Perú: Zonas Prioritarias para su Conservación . Rodríguez,L.O. (ed.). Proyecto FANPE GTZ-INRENA, Lima, Peru, p. 79–81. (In Spanish).

9. O’Neill, J.P. 1992. A general overview of the montane avifauna of Peru. In: Biogeografía, Ecología y Conservación del Bosque Montano en el Perú . Young, K.R.and Valencia, N (eds). Memorias Museo Hist. Nat ., UNMSM 21, 47–55.

10. Carrillo de Espinoza, N. and Icochea, J. 1995. Lista taxonómica preliminar de los rep-tiles vivientes del Perú. Publ. Mus. Hist. Nat. UNMSM (A) 49 , 1–27. (In Spanish).

11. Rodríguez Bayona, L.O. 1996. Areas prioritarias para conservación de anfibios en elPerú. In: Diversidad Biológica del Perú: Zonas Prioritarias para su Conservación .Rodríguez, L.O. (ed.). Proyecto FANPE GTZ-INRENA, Lima, Peru p. 87–92. (In Span-ish).

12. Chang, F. and Ortega, H. 1995. Additions and corrections to the list of freshwater fishes

of Peru. Publ. Mus. Hist. Nat. UNMSM (A) 50 , 1–11.13. Silva, D. 1996. Determinación de areas importantes de diversidad biológica en el Perú:situación de las aranas (Arthropodoa: Araneae). In: Diversidad Biológica del Perú:Zonas Prioritarias para su Conservación . Rodríguez, L.O. (ed.). Proyecto FANPEGTZ-INRENA, Lima, Peru, p. 93–94. (In Spanish).

14. Ramírez Mesías, R. 1996. Diversidad de moluscos terrestres en el Perú. In: Diversidad Biológica del Perú: Zonas Prioritarias para su Conservación . Rodríguez, L.O. (ed.).Proyecto FANPE GTZ-INRENA, Lima, Peru, p. 95–97. (In Spanish).

15. Brako, L. and Zarucchi, J.L. 1993. Catalogue of the Flowering Plants and Gymnospermsof Peru. Monogr. Syst. Bot. 45 , 1–1286.

16. Khan, F. and Mousa, F. 1994. Diversity and conservation status of Peruvian palms. Biodiv. Conserv. 3 , 227–241.

17. León, B. and Young, K.R. 1996. Distribution of pteridophyte diversity and endemismin Peru. In: Pteridology in Perspective . Camus, J.M., Gibby, M. and Johns, R.J. (eds).Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, p. 77–91.

18. ONERN. 1976. Mapa Ecológico del Perú: Guía Explicativa . Oficina Nacional deEvaluación de Recursos Naturales, Lima. (In Spanish).

19. Pulido, V. 1991. El Libro Rojo de la Fauna Silvestre del Perú . FWS-US, WWF, INIAA,Lima. (In Spanish).

20. Grimwood, I.R. 1968. Notes on the distribution and status of some Peruvian mammals. IUCN and NYZS, Special Publ. No. 21 , 1–86.

21. Lamas, G. 1979. Algunas reflexiones y sugerencias sobre la creación de parquesnacionales en el Perú. Rev. Ciencias UNMSM 71 , 101–114. (In Spanish).22. Haffer, J. 1969. Speciation in Amazonian forest birds. Science 165 , 131–137.23. Dourojeanni, M. and Ríos, M. 1982–1983. Un enfoque crítico sobre el Sistema Nacional

de Unidades de Conservación del Perú. Rev. Forestal Perú 11 , 149–170. (In Spanish).24. Díaz Cartagena, A. 1988. El sistema nacional de unidades de conservación en el Perú.

Bol. Lima 59 , 1–22. (In Spanish).25. CDC-UNALM. 1991. Plan Director del Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Con-

servación (SINUC), una aproximación desde la diversidad biológica . Centro de Datos para la Conservación, Universidad Nacional Agraria la Molina, Lima. (In Spanish).

26. CDC-UNALM. 1996. Representatividad de la diversidad biológica a través delSINANPE: metodología y recomendaciones. In: Diversidad Biológica del Perú: Zo-nas Prioritarias para su Conservación . Rodríguez, L.O. (ed.). Proyecto FANPE GTZ-INRENA, Lima, Peru, p. 133–136. (In Spanish).

27. Zamora Jimeno, C. 1996. Las regiones ecológicas del Perú. In: Diversidad Biológicadel Perú: Zonas Prioritarias para su Conservación . Rodríguez, L.O. (ed.). ProyectoFANPE GTZ-INRENA, Lima, Peru, p. 137–141. (In Spanish).

28. List of participants in the August 1994 workshop: César F. Ascorra, Asunción CanoE., César del Carpio, Gonzalo Castro, Fonchii Chang M., Walter Danjoy, Patrick DeRham, Walter Elliott, Louise Emmons, Filomeno Encarnación C., Robin Foster, IrmaFranke, Washington Galeano, Miguel Holle, Risto Kalliola, Gerardo Lamas, MariellaLeo, Blanca León, Hernando de Macedo R., Kember Mejía, John P. O’Neill, Percy

Núñez, Hernán Ortega T., Víctor Pacheco T., Víctor Pulido C., Rina Ramírez M., RobertReynolds, Lily Rodríguez, Kalle Ruokolainen, Rodolfo Salas G., Edgar Sánchez, TomSchulenberg, Diana Silva, Mario Tapia N., Hanna Tuomisto, Niels Valencia, ManuelVegas-Vélez, Walter Wust, Kenneth Young and Carlos Zamora.

29. Rodríguez, L.O. (ed.). 1996. Diversidad Biológica del Perú: Zonas Prioritarias para su Conservación . Proyecto FANPE GTZ-INRENA, Lima, Peru. (In Spanish).

30. Kalliola, R., Tuomisto, H., and Ruokolainen, K. 1996. Areas importantes para laconservación de la selva baja peruana desde el punto de vista geoecológico. In:

Diversidad Biológica del Perú: Zonas Prioritarias para su Conservación . Rodríguez,L.O. (ed.). Proyecto FANPE GTZ-INRENA, Lima, Peru, p. 127–132. (In Spanish).

31. Young, K.R., Church, W.B., Leo, M. and Moore, P.F. 1994. Threats to Rio Abiseo National Park, northern Peru. Ambio 23 , 312–314.

32. Tréllez Solís, E. (ed.). 1993. Ambiente y Fronteras: Una Visión desde los Países del Convenio Andrés Bello . Secretaría Ejecutiva del Convenio Andrés Bello, Sanfafé deBogotá, Colombia. (In Spanish).

33. Henderson, A., Churchill, S.P. and Luteyn, J.L. 1991. Neotropical plant diversity. Na-ture 351 , 21–22.

34. Mares, M.A. 1992. Neotropical mammals and the myth of Amazonian biodiversity.Science 255 , 976–979.

35. Churchill, S.P., Balslev, H., Forero, E. and Luteyn, J.L. 1995. Biodiversity and Con- servation of Neotropical Montane Forests . New York Botanical Garden, Bronx.

36. León, B., Young, K.R., Cano, A., La Torre, M.I., Arakaki, M. and Roque, J. 1997.Botanical exploration and conservation in Peru: the plants of Cerro Blanco, Nazca.

BioLlania, Edición Especial 6 , 431–448.37. Tuomisto, H., Linna, A., and Kalliola, R. 1994. Use of digitally enhanced satellite im-

ages in studies of tropical rain forest vegetation. Int. J. Remote Sens. 15 , 1595–1610.38. Biodiversity Support Program, Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy,

Wildlife Conservation Society, World Resources Institute, and World Wildlife Fund 1995. A Regional Analysis of Geographic Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in

Latin America and the Caribbean . Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, DC.39. Pressey, R.L. 1996. Protected areas: where should they be and why should they be there?

In: Conservation Biology . Spellerberg, I.F. (ed.). Longman, London, p. 171–185.40. Freitag, S., van Jaarsveld, A.S. and Biggs, H.C. 1997. Ranking priority biodiversity

areas: an iterative conservation value-based approach. Biol. Conserv. 82 , 263–272.41. Lockwood, M., Bos, D.G. and Glazebrook, H. 1997. Integrated protected area selec-

tion in Australian biogeographic regions. Environ. Mgmt 21 , 395–404.42. van Jaarsveld, A.S., Freitag, S., Chown, S.L., Muller, C., Koch, S., Hull, H., Bellamy,

C., Kruger, M., Endrody-Younga, S., Mansell, M.W. and Scholtz, C.H. 1998.

Biodiversity assessment and conservation strategies. Science 279 , 2106–2108.43. Flather, C.H., Knowles, M.S. and Kendall, I.A. 1998. Threatened and endangered spe-cies geography: characteristics of hot spots in the conterminous United States. Bio-

science 48 , 365–376.44. Dinerstein, E., Olson, D.M., Graham, D.J., Webster, A.L., Primm, S.A., Bookbinder,

M.P. and Ledec, G. 1995. A Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregionasof Latin America and the Caribbean . World Wildlife Fund and World Bank, Wash-ington, DC.

45. Young, K.R. 1996. Threats to biological diversity caused by coca/cocaine deforesta-tion in Peru. Environ. Conserv. 23 , 7–15.

46. The workshop was part of a process to produce a national plan (“Plan Director”) for the protected area system of Peru, within the framework of an agreement between thePeruvian and German governments. For help with the workshop, we thank the partici-

pants and Claudia Bouroncle, Rosario Herrera, Lawrence López, and Ursula Valdez.In addition, Peru’s Instituto de Recursos Naturales (INRENA) provided much infor-mation and assistance. For cartographic expertise, we thank Agustín Abad, DarinGaynor, Amie Smith and Joseph School. For economic support, K.Y. thanks the Dan-ish Environmental Research Programme for the DIVA project (1994–1998).

47. First submitted 25 May 1998. Accepted for publication after revision 13 March 2000.

Lily O. Rodríguez is an ecologist doing field research andworking on different projects for the conservation ofbiodiversity in Peru, mainly in protected areas. Her address:APECO, Parque José de Acosta 187, Magdalena, Lima 17,Peru.E-mail: [email protected]

Kenneth R. Young is a biogeographer interested inbiological conservation in the tropics. His address:Department of Geography, GRG 334, University of Texas atAustin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.E-mail: [email protected]

ess associated with the creation of a new national plan (“PlanDirector”) for the protected-area system. This became law inMarch 1999, including the priority areas and information gaps

presented here. In addition, several changes have been made inorder to respond to the weaknesses we and others uncovered. Anew national park, Bahuaja-Sonene, was created to administer the tropical savanna areas and adjacent ecosystems in southeast-ern Peru. Seven new reserved zones were established, severalin border areas with Bolivia, Colombia, and Ecuador, and col-lectively including both highland and lowland ecological regions.These cover the following priority areas: Cordillera del Cóndor (2), Napo (5), Nanay (7), Junín-Zárate (25), and Puno (36). The

national forests were removed from the protected area systemand are in the process of being given in private concessions for exploitation. Also, new scientific expeditions have produced atleast partial biological information on two information gaps:

Napo-Putumayo (3) and Vilcabamba (6). Although many of theweaknesses we identified remain, it is a welcome fact that this

project has helped to institutionalize a reassessment of the pro-tected areas from viewpoints of ecological and organismal di-versity, using a participatory, consensus-seeking process. Wehope that this will continue in the future. The remaining prior-ity areas and information gaps serve as reminders of where ef-forts need to be focused.

biodiversity conservation peru

Documents