Research article
Protected area coverage of threatened vertebrates and ecoregions in Peru: Comparison of communal, private and state reserves

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.07.023Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Only 56% of Peru's Threatened terrestrial vertebrates have ≥10% of their distributions within protected areas.

  • Private and communal Protected Areas amount to 7.6% of protected area coverage in Peru.

  • 114 Threatened terrestrial vertebrates are only protected in state PAs and 29 only in private/communal protected areas.

Abstract

Protected areas (PAs) are a conservation mainstay and arguably the most effective conservation strategy for species protection. As a ‘megadiverse’ country, Peru is a priority for conservation actions. Peruvian legislation allows for the creation of state PAs and private/communal PAs. Using publicly available species distribution and protected area data sets we evaluated the coverage of Threatened terrestrial vertebrate species distributions and ecoregions provided by both kinds of PA in Peru. Peru's state PA system covers 217,879 km2 and private/communal PAs cover 16,588 km2. Of the 462 species of Threatened and Data Deficient species we evaluated, 75% had distributions that overlapped with at least one PA but only 53% had ≥10% of their distributions within PAs, with inclusion much reduced at higher coverage targets. Of the species we evaluated, 118 species are only found in national PAs and 29 species only found in private/communal PAs. Of the 17 terrestrial ecoregions found in Peru all are represented in PAs; the national PA system included coverage of 16 and private/communal PAs protect 13. One ecoregion is only protected in private/communal PAs, whereas four are only covered in national PAs. Our results show the important role private/communal PAs can play in the protection of ecological diversity.

Introduction

The current global extinction crisis is predicted to increase in severity in the coming decades (Ceballos et al., 2015, Lewis, 2006, Purvis et al., 2000, Scheffers et al., 2016). Caused largely by anthropogenic activities (Asner et al., 2009, Estrada et al., 2017, Godfrey and Irwin, 2007, Moran and Kanemoto, 2017), current trends suggest that the world's tropical regions, home to the majority of terrestrial biodiversity (Dirzo and Raven, 2003, Myers et al., 2000), will be severely affected. A large loss of tropical vertebrate species diversity could have severe consequences for general ecosystem health (Hooper et al., 2005, Petchey, 2000). Other immediate consequences will be those effecting local human populations, including the loss of traditional natural resources, culturally important species and development opportunities from tourism and other forms of exploitation (Chapin Iii et al., 2000, Gascon et al., 2015).

Peru is considered one of the world's ‘megadiverse’ countries (McNeely et al., 1990, Noss, 1990). Its high level of species diversity is a result of the diversity of its ecosystems which are distributed between 19 terrestrial ecoregions (Fig. 1) (Olson and Dinerstein, 1998, Olson et al., 2001). The vast majority of Peru's vertebrate species are found in the Amazonian lowlands and Andean montane and pre-montane cloud forests (Pacheco et al., 2009). The remaining species are found distributed between its coastal deserts, dry forests, Andean Puna, and other habitats (ONERN, 1976, Rodríguez and Young, 2000).

Protected areas (PAs) have been a conservation mainstay for decades and are arguably the most effective conservation strategy for species protection (Gray et al., 2016, Hoffmann et al., 2010, Tognelli et al., 2008, Waldron et al., 2013). The locations of PAs are often chosen to protect representative ecosystems (Watson et al., 2010) or are based on socio-political criteria. This has often led to inadequate and unrepresentative coverage of species diversity, and does not prioritize Threatened species (Khan et al., 1997, Tognelli et al., 2008, Watson et al., 2010). Estimates suggest that globally only 15% of Threatened vertebrate species are ‘adequately’ covered by PAs (Venter et al., 2014). Previous studies in Peru have also reported inadequate coverage for a majority of species evaluated (Fajardo et al., 2014, Swenson et al., 2012, Young et al., 2009).

Conservation initiatives involving PAs in Peru have increased dramatically over the past few decades (Jenkins and Joppa, 2009, SERNANP, 2017). Protected area legislation in Peru began by following the traditional ‘fines and fences’ approach (Adams, 2004, Brockington, 2002, Hutton et al., 2005) but now also includes more inclusive conservation models, such as community conservation initiatives; those run by local stakeholders (Horwich and Lyon, 2007, Horwich et al., 2015, Kitamura and Clapp, 2013, Shanee et al., 2014), which include private/communal PAs (Hajek et al., 2011, Monteferri and Coll, 2009, Shanee et al., 2014, Stolton et al., 2014). Government PAs are divided between those that are run by the state (National Parks, National Sanctuaries, etc) and those run by regional governments (Regional Conservation Areas) (Monteferri and Coll, 2009). In Peru non-government PAs can be awarded to those with land titles, such as owners of family plots or on communally held lands, as a Private Conservation Areas (ACP) through application to the Ministry of the Environment (Law No. 26834 of 1997) or through conservation agreements based on the civil code. On un-titled lands with forest cover, individuals and organizations can request non-timber forestry concessions. The two most common are Conservation Concessions (CC) and Ecotourism Concessions (CE) (Law No. 29763 of 2015). There is no limit to the size of a CC, although CEs are limited to areas of ≤10,000 ha and are subject to an annual fee.

The first state PA, the 8214 ha Parque Nacional de Cutervo, was created in 1961. In contrast the first private PA, the 34,412 ha ACP Chaparri, wasn't created until 2001 as legal frameworks for ACPs were not previously available. The first Conservation Concession, the 135,955 ha Los Amigos CC, was also granted in 2001. The first Ecotourism Concessions weren't created until 2004, when four were formalized in the same year.

We use publicly available data to evaluate coverage of the distributions of terrestrial mammal, bird, reptile and amphibian species listed in one of the IUCN Red List Threatened categories or as Data Deficient (IUCN, 2016), and ecoregions (Olson and Dinerstein, 1998, Olson et al., 2001) provided by state and private/communal PAs in Peru. We pay particular attention to species and ecoregions that are found in only one type of PA.

Section snippets

Methods

Peru lies between 0°05′5″ and 18°25′3″ degrees south and 69°52′14″ and 81°26′25″ degrees west, covering ∼1,285,216 km2, with elevations ranging from sea level up to 6768 m above sea level (m.a.s.l.) (ONERN, 1976, Rodríguez and Young, 2000). Major terrestrial ecosystems found in Peru include mangrove, desert, dry forests, high mountain Sierras, Puna, montane and pre-montane cloud forests, terra firme and varzea Amazonian rainforests (ONERN, 1976, Rodríguez and Young, 2000). Thirty of 32 world

Results

Our analysis shows that the national PA system of Peru, including all categories of PA covers 217,879 km2 of terrestrial habitats (17% of Peru's total land surface) (Fig. 2). Within this, 28,800 km2 (13.2%) are in Regional Conservation Areas and 21,682 km2 (10.0%) in Communal Reserves. Private/communal PAs cover 16,588 km2 (1.29% of Peru's total land surface and 7.6% of the PA network), of which 3495 km2 (21.1%) are in Private Conservation Areas, 12,009 km2 (72.4%) in Conservation Concessions

Discussion

The Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi Target 11 is to have 17% coverage of terrestrial land area in PAs by 2020 (CBD, 2014, Venter et al., 2014), increasing from the 10% target set in 2003 (Brooks et al., 2004), with an additional target (12) of preventing the extinction of Threatened species (Venter et al., 2014). Based on our results, Peru has already passed the Aichi target (11) of 17% of its territory in PAs, three years ahead of schedule. However our results show that Peru's PA

Acknowledgements

We dedicate this manuscript to the memory of our co-author Dr Robert Horwich (1940–2017) for his contributions in developing community conservation work in Peru and across the globe. We wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers and the editor for their comments on a previous version that have greatly improved this manuscript. We are grateful to Brooke Aldrich, Luis Zari and Ashley Atkins for their help with this study. We would also like to acknowledge the contribution made by all

References (100)

  • G.P. Asner et al.

    A contemporary assessment of change in humid tropical forests

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2009)
  • A.E. Beresford et al.

    Poor overlap between the distribution of protected areas and globally Threatened birds in Africa

    Anim. Conserv.

    (2011)
  • E. Bernard et al.

    Downgrading, downsizing, degazettement, and reclassification of protected areas in Brazil

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2014)
  • BirdLife International and NatureServe

    Bird Species Distribution Maps of the World

    (2015)
  • L.A. Breunig

    Conservation in Context: Establishing Natural Protected Areas during Mexico's Neoliberal Reformation Department of Geography and Regional Development

    (2006)
  • D. Brockington

    Fortress Conservation: the Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania

    (2002)
  • T.M. Brooks et al.

    Coverage provided by the global protected-area system: is it enough?

    Bioscience

    (2004)
  • T.M. Brooks et al.

    Global biodiversity conservation priorities

    Science

    (2006)
  • A.G. Bruner et al.

    Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity

    Science

    (2001)
  • B. Buscher et al.

    Whims of the winds of time? Emerging trends in biodiversity conservation and protected area management

    Conserv. Soc.

    (2007)
  • S.H.M. Butchart et al.

    Observations of two threatened primates in the peruvian Andes

    Primate Conserv.

    (1995)
  • S.H.M. Butchart et al.

    Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets

    Conserv. Lett.

    (2015)
  • CBD

    Strategic Plan for Biodiversity

    (2014)
  • G. Ceballos et al.

    Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction

    Sci. Adv.

    (2015)
  • F.S. Chapin Iii et al.

    Consequences of changing biodiversity

    Nature

    (2000)
  • Cornell lab of Ornithology

    Neotropical Birds

    (2016)
  • R. Dirzo et al.

    Global state of biodiversity and loss

    Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.

    (2003)
  • ebird

    Ebird

    (2016)
  • J.F. Eisenberg et al.
    (1999)
  • L. Emmons et al.

    Neotropical Rainforest Mammals: a Field Guide

    (1997)
  • A. Estrada et al.

    Impending extinction crisis of the world's primates: why primates matter

    Sci. Adv.

    (2017)
  • J. Fajardo et al.

    Combined use of systematic conservation planning, species distribution modelling, and connectivity analysis Reveals severe conservation gaps in a megadiverse country (Peru)

    PLoS One

    (2014)
  • K.J. Gaston

    Global patterns in biodiversity

    Nature

    (2000)
  • K.J. Gaston et al.

    The ecological performance of protected areas

    Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.

    (2008)
  • L.R. Godfrey et al.

    The evolution of extinction risk: past and present anthropogenic impacts on the primate communities of Madagascar

    Folia Primatol.

    (2007)
  • C.L. Gray et al.

    Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide

    Nat. Commun.

    (2016)
  • A.J. Hansen et al.

    Biophysical factors, land use, and species viability in and around nature reserves

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2002)
  • M. Hoffmann et al.

    The impact of conservation on the status of the World's vertebrates

    Science

    (2010)
  • D.U. Hooper et al.

    Effects of biodiveristy on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge

    Ecol. Monogr.

    (2005)
  • R.H. Horwich et al.

    Conservation and the current status of the golden langur in Assam, India, with reference to Bhutan

    Primate Conserv.

    (2013)
  • R.H. Horwich et al.

    Community conservation: practitioners' answer to critics

    Oryx

    (2007)
  • R.H. Horwich et al.

    Creating Modern Community Conservation Organizations and Institutions to Effect Successful Forest Conservation Change

    (2015)
  • J. Hutton et al.

    Back to the barriers? Changing narratives in biodiversity conservation

    Forum Dev. Stud.

    (2005)
  • IUCN

    IUCN Red List Catagories and Criteria: Version 3.1

    (2001)
  • IUCN

    IUCN World Parks Congress 2014

    (2014)
  • IUCN

    IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

    (2016)
  • IUCN

    Protected Area Categories

    (2017)
  • A. Kamdem-Toham et al.

    Forest conservation in the Congo basin

    Science

    (2003)
  • M.L. Khan et al.

    Effectiveness of the protected area network in biodiversity conservation: a case-study of Meghalaya state

    Biodivers. Conserv.

    (1997)
  • A. Kothari

    Community conserved areas

    Parks

    (2006)
  • Cited by (29)

    • Distribution and conservation status of the mountain tapir (Tapirus pinchaque) in Peru

      2022, Journal for Nature Conservation
      Citation Excerpt :

      Our study found that protected areas cover 107,000 ha (59%) of the mountain tapir’s current range in Peru. This contrasts with 17.7% cited in a recent study (Shanee et al., 2017) based on IUCN range maps. We note that our estimated range size, at 180,000 ha, resulting from a species-specific model, adjusted by expert opinion, is a more conservative estimate of current occupied habitat than the 340,000 ha of the IUCN range polygon used in the Shanee et al. (2017) study of multiple species.

    • Cross-scale and social-ecological changes constitute main threats to private land conservation in South Africa

      2020, Journal of Environmental Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      The past several decades have seen considerable growth in the number of PLCAs, with 25 countries now reporting PLCAs in the World Database on Protected Areas (Bingham et al., 2017; Stolton et al., 2014). PLCAs have been shown to complement statutory PAs in Australia, Brazil, Peru and South Africa by conserving threatened plant and vertebrate species, and improving landscape connectivity (Archibald et al., 2020; Clements et al., 2019; De Vos and Cumming, 2019; Pegas and Castley, 2016; Shanee et al., 2017). They can also contribute to regional and national economies through nature- and wildlife-based enterprises that create jobs, attract tourists to a region, and provide diverse ecosystem services (Clements and Cumming, 2017; Langholz and Lassoie, 2001; Pegas and Castley, 2014).

    • Current and future socio-ecological vulnerability and adaptation of artisanal fisheries communities in Peru, the case of the Huaura province

      2020, Marine Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      At present, the lowest adaptive capacity to ecological changes was obtained for Carquín (“low”, 0.357), due to the low proportion and size of PNA relative to the fishing zone. The largest number of Protected Natural Areas (PNA) which are areas for the conservation and protection of species [56], are in Huacho and Vegueta. Carquín lacks PNAs.

    • Large-scale ecological red line planning in urban agglomerations using a semi-automatic intelligent zoning method

      2019, Sustainable Cities and Society
      Citation Excerpt :

      Global experience indicates that the zoning of protected areas is an effective measure for alleviating those problems (Astiaso Garcia, 2017; del Carmen Sabatini, Verdiell, Rodríguez Iglesias, & Vidal, 2007; Delmelle, Desjardins, & Deng, 2017; Geneletti & van Duren, 2008; Gren & Andersson, 2018; Verdiell, Sabatini, Maciel, & Rodriguez Iglesias, 2005; Williams, Revelle, & Levin, 2004). For example, Bathrellos, Gaki-Papanastassiou, Skilodimou, Papanastassiou, and Chousianitis (2012) and Bathrellos, Skilodimou, Chousianitis, Youssef, and Pradhan (2017) suggested that urban planning in Greece should take ecological protection factors into account, and Shanee et al. (2017) showed that protected areas can maintain ecological diversity in Peru. In China, the “protected areas” are also known by the term “ecological red line” (ERL), which mainly focuses on green spaces in urban areas.

    • Conservation gaps and priorities in the Tropical Andes biodiversity hotspot: Implications for the expansion of protected areas

      2019, Journal of Environmental Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      When the entire TA is considered, PAs perform worst for amphibians and reptiles with only 8% and 10% of the species reaching their representation targets, respectively. While direct comparisons with other studies are difficult due to differences in methods and conservation target levels used (Shanee et al., 2017), amphibians and reptiles generally have been found to be among the worst covered taxonomic classes in the Andes region and beyond (e.g. Tognelli et al., 2008; Swenson et al., 2012; Acevedo-Rincón et al., 2017; Shanee et al., 2017). Our results show that most threatened amphibians and reptiles have restricted (<500 km2) to highly restricted (<100 km2) geographical ranges.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text