Ana səhifə

A biodiversity Vision for the upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Ecoregion


Yüklə 11.55 Mb.
səhifə15/18
tarix27.06.2016
ölçüsü11.55 Mb.
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18

B) Strategic Areas for Biodiversity Conservation


Because only one of the 18 landscape units reaches 10% representation within the priority areas (Table 5) we have identified a series of small-sized areas to increase the representation of other landscape units. These areas are either small (< 5,000 ha) but have high conservation potential or have low conservation potential but still maintain a forest fragment larger than 1,000 ha. Although these areas are not sufficiently resilient in isolation, they can play a strategic role in biodiversity conservation by facilitating the implementation of biological corridors as well as by increasing the representation of landscape units. According to their location and role we have classified the Strategic Areas into two categories:

Stepping Stones: When located within 50 km of a priority area, these strategic areas serve in our Biodiversity Conservation Landscape as “Stepping Stones” to be connected to form corridors. In certain cases they help increase the representation of some landscape units.

Isolated Areas: Strategic areas that are located more than 50 km from the nearest priority area, we considered Isolated Areas. If they have a potential for being connected to a Priority Area (e.g., there is a river nearby) we traced a possible corridor between the Isolated Area and the Priority Area. If there are limited possibilities for connection, these areas will remain isolated, reducing their potential for biodiversity conservation. However, they may still play an important local role in conservation (e.g., in environmental education or in the conservation of species restricted to these landscape units).

We categorized Stepping Stones and Isolated Areas as high importance when they belong to underrepresented landscape units, and of low importance when they belong to a well-represented landscape unit.



C) Sustainable Use Areas


Sustainable Use Areas are large areas that function as buffers and connections surrounding the Core Areas and Biological Corridors. They maintain environmental services in combination with “environmentally friendly” economic activities such as eco-tourism, agro-forestry and sustainable production of “yerba mate”, “palmito” (palm heart), timber, and non-timber forest products. In 50 years, these areas should be managed under land use plans or zoning based on social, environmental, and economic sustainability principles. These land use plans should include native forest protecting the watersheds and biologically important areas, a network of biological corridors, and appropriate economic activities. Within the Sustainable Use Areas, fine-scale analyses to complete the land use plan may identify additional biological corridors and areas for protection.

In the design of the Sustainable Use Areas, we included areas with a medium potential for conservation index (8 to 16: not high enough to be a Priority Area or a Stepping Stone). We also included as many as possible Stepping Stones of underrepresented landscape units.

We identified four categories of Sustainable Use Areas:

The Main Corridor connects the Core Areas (Figure 35). Main Corridors should ensure the gene flow of umbrella species and thus their population viability. Together with the Core Areas, they constitute the central pieces of the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape. In 50 years, Main Corridors should be managed under a fine-scale landscape design that maintains a minimum of 30% forest cover. New protected areas should be identified and created (Core or Satellite areas) and biological corridors should be established (protected and restored).
Secondary Corridors connect other priority areas with the Main Corridor or Core Areas (Figure 35). The expansion of the Main Corridor through the secondary corridor increases the resilience and representation of the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape.

Lateral Expansion of Corridors connects the Stepping Stones that are not on the way to Priority Areas (Figure 35), increasing the diversity of landscapes represented in the corridor.

Potential Corridors: Due to the extreme degree of forest fragmentation, most of the corridors follow rivers, as these areas have a higher conservation potential. However, these corridors may not be viable or sufficient to maintain the gene flow among Core Areas. For this reason we have identified alternative corridors, even though these have lower conservation potential. Similarly, we have identified potential corridors with neighboring ecoregions (Figure 35). The final design of these Potential Corridors will depend on an analysis conducted at a different scale and in coordination with other ecoregions’ biodiversity assessments.

It is important to make the distinction between the Corridors we identified in our Biodiversity Conservation Landscape (Main Corridors, Secondary Corridors, etc.), which are actually Sustainable Use Areas, and the biological corridors that have to be implemented within the first ones. Biological corridors are relatively narrow areas of native forest, either natural or restored, that connect Priority Areas for biodiversity conservation to allow the movement of the wildlife and sufficient genetic interchange to maintain viable populations. The final design of biological corridors requires a finer-scale analysis and better knowledge of the biological requirements of umbrella and other key species. The Main Corridors, Secondary Corridors and other categories of Corridors are the areas where the biological corridors will be implemented after finer-scale landscape design. One of our targets (Chapter 6) is to implement a multidisciplinary program, a “Corridor Program”, aimed at studying from different perspectives the best ways to implement biological corridors and Sustainable Use Areas surrounding them in order to achieve connectivity among the Priority Areas for Biodiversity Conservation.


Other important areas of the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape

Area Needing a Corridor: The connectivity between the two main sectors (north and south) of the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape is critical for the implementation of this Biodiversity Vision. At this scale of analysis, the area between these two sectors has a very low biodiversity conservation potential index. Even though a project is being implemented in Brazil to create a 50 meter wide corridor (Iguaçu– Itaipú) that connects the two sectors, we can anticipate a priori that it will not be sufficient to guarantee adequate connectivity between them. This is because the edge effect along this narrow corridor will be extremely high (see Box 4) and there are no opportunities in the area to greatly increase its width or to create a good buffer zone along the corridor. Only very generalist species (or edge specialists) may make use of this critical corridor. Since we do not have fine-scale information available to design this corridor, we have identified a a broad area where the corridor should be designed and implemented (Figure 35).
Priority River Basin: Finally, we have identified areas that are important for the development of watershed management and conservation programs (Figure 36). River basins where selected based on several criteria: intactness of the basin, presence of protected areas in the basin (both strictly protected areas and Sustainable Use Areas), presence of ongoing conservation initiatives in the river basin, and potential of the river basin for connecting the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion to neighboring ecoregions. In relation to this last criteria, two of these river basins (Iguazú River and Jejuí River), are especially important because they constitute potential connections to the Araucaria ecoregion and the Chaco-Pantanal ecoregion respectively.
The final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape is depicted in Figure 36. The achievement of this conservation landscape within 50 years will ensure that our biodiversity conservation goals are met. This is not a static landscape since small-scale analyses and small-scale landscape designs may slightly modify its final shape. New opportunities for biodiversity conservation may arise in the future that would allow for other areas to be restored and incorporated in this Vision. Monitoring of the actual situation and adaptive management of the priorities represented in this Biodiversity Conservation Landscape are critical to ensure the achievement of our long-term goals of biodiversity conservation. These results will be refined over time as a result of more detailed and ongoing conservation planning, landscape design, and decision-making processes.
Representation of the landscape units in the final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape.

We can divide the ecoregion’s 18 landscape units into five groups according to their representation in the final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape (Table 6). Eight of the landscape units have no representation in the final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape. These same landscape units have no forest fragment larger than 1,000 ha (six have no fragment larger than 500 ha). The small fragments that remain in these landscape units are very isolated and located in areas of high threats and low opportunities for conservation. Most of the landscape units that have no representation in the final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape are located in the northern part of the ecoregion. They include all the seasonal units (with more than two dry months) and two semi-seasonal ones. These areas are close to the Cerrado Woodlands and Savannas Global 200 Ecoregion, and they probably represent transitional areas with this ecoregion.

A second group is composed of a landscape unit poorly represented by just one isolated area. This is a high altitude, semi-seasonal but flat area. Only 2.8% of this landscape unit is represented in the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape, but not within strictly protected areas.

A third group is represented by five landscape units that have low representation in the strictly protected areas (0.3 - 2.7% of their original area), and Sustainable Use Areas but have good representation in several isolated areas and river basin management areas. The final representation of these landscape units in the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape ranges from 16.0 to 27.6% of their original area.

The fourth group is comprised of three landscape units that have some representation in the Priority Areas (4.0 – 5.1% of their original area) and a good representation in Sustainable Use Areas (13.7 – 15.5% of their original area). Their final representation in the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape is about 30% of their original area.

Finally, one landscape unit (non-seasonal, low altitude but hilly), has a fairly good representation in Priority Areas (12.5%) and Sustainable Use Areas (12.2%), reaching a 32.5% representation in the final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape.

In sum, even though some landscape units are not represented in the final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape, some others are fairly well represented. As we mentioned before, for this ecoregion, setting as a goal a good representation of all the landscape units is practically impossible. Thus, one of the four conservation goals set at the beginning (representation of all the ecological communities typical of this ecoregion) may not be attained, since many of the landscape units identified in our analysis are not going to be represented in the final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape. However, we strove to attain the best representation possible of all landscape units. Our goal is thus to preserve large forest blocks that are sufficiently resilient and capable of maintaining viable populations of umbrella species and the typical ecological processes that originally characterized the ecoregion. The lack of full representation of all the landscape units in the conservation landscape may preclude to some point attaining the goal of maintaining viable populations of all the native species characteristic of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion. Future field surveys may identify populations of species that are unique to landscape units not represented in the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape. If these species are found we should analyze alternatives for their long-term survival if this is still possible. This may include the possibility of slightly modifying the design of our Biodiversity Conservation Landscape to include representation of the small forest fragments where these species are found.

As a crude lower estimate, an area of at least 525,000 ha is needed to preserve a viable population of jaguars. A larger area of about 750,000 ha is needed to preserve a population of harpy eagles (see Table 2 in Chapter 3). Our final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape has more than 1,200,000 ha in Core Areas of strict protection. However, the minimum area requirement estimates presented above are for areas of continuous forest. Ensuring the connectivity of the Core Areas through the establishment of the Main Corridors is thus critical to achieve the goal of protecting umbrella species. To achieve the Biodiversity Vision, it is also critical to ensure that within 50 years 100% of the Core Areas, as well as a portion of the Priority Areas in other categories, are under effective strict protection. Presently, less than 50% of the 1,200,000 ha of Core Areas are strictly protected and a similar situation occurs in the other categories of Priority Areas (Figure 37). To attain full protection of the priority areas, a minimum of 1,284,100 ha of Strictly Protected Areas must be created and effectively implemented and maintained.

Similarly, to implement this Vision it will be necessary to create and implement more than 4,000,000 ha of Sustainable Use Areas. These areas do not need to have continuous forest, but at least 30% of forest cover is desirable. Especially critical for the implementation of this Vision are the Main Corridors that total more than 1,200,000 ha, of which only about 30% are under Sustainable Use Protection (Figure 38).

To achieve this landscape, besides securing a relatively large portion of the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape under strictly protected areas and sustainable use, the native forest will need to be restored in some areas. We have set as a goal to achieve in 50 years: 100% continuous native forest cover in the Core Areas and other areas under strict protection; at least 70% of forest cover in the Forested Areas with High Potential to Become Strictly Protected Areas; at least 30% forest cover in the corridors and Sustainable Use Areas; and at least 20% forest cover in the watershed management areas (the minimum Brazil’s Forest Code requires on private properties in the Atlantic Forest). This means that at least 10% of the Core Areas (more than 100,000 ha) and at least 50% of the Main Corridors will need to be restored. In total, a minimum of at least 2,606,678 ha of native forest needs to be restored to implement this Vision (Figure 39). This is a very ambitious and costly, but potentially feasible goal.



Table 3. Representation in Protected Areas and Remaining Forest Cover in Landscape Units


Landscape Unit

Size

Strictly Protected Area

Sustainable Use Area

Forest Cover




Ha

%

Ha

%

Ha

%

Ha


%

Seasonal High Plains

727,025

1.54

0

0

0

0

3,500

0.50

Seasonal High Steep Slopes

604,075

1.28

0

0

0

0

2,300

0.44

Seasonal High Moderate Slopes

726,750

1.54

0

0

0

0

3,400

0.45

Semi-seasonal High Moderate Slopes

190,225

0.40

0

0

0

0

3,375

1.73

Semi-seasonal High Steep Slopes

84,775

0.18

0

0

0

0

1,275

1.36

Seasonal Low Steep Slopes

262,650

0.56

0

0

0

0

1,350

0.55

Seasonal Low Plains

3,051,150

6.48

0

0

0

0

39,600

1.25

Seasonal Low Moderate Slopes

1,439,450

3.05

0

0

0

0

13,000

0.82

Semi-seasonal High Plains

229,125

0.49

0

0

0

0

6,875

3.00

Semi-seasonal Low Plains

2,949,775

6.26

4,650

0.16

376,100

12.75

67,825

2.28

Semi-seasonal Low Moderate Slopes

2,644,875

5.61

17,550

0.66

361,875

13.68

118,575

4.51

Semi-seasonal Low Steep Slopes

1,147,875

2.44

35,675

3.11

94,400

8.22

122,725

10.62

Wet High Moderate Slopes

2,817,725

5.98

8,650

0.31

93,875

3.33

135,400

4.78

Wet High Plains

2,253,350

4.78

9,675

0.43

23,300

1.03

85,300

3.90

Wet High Steep Slopes

5,906,300

12.53

36,750

0.62

90,800

1.54

373,175

6.31

Wet Low Plains

6,609,650

14.03

218,250

3.30

263,725

3.99

445,200

6.70

Wet Low Moderate Slopes

8,082,475

17.15

211,375

2.62

256,000

3.17

862,850

10.63

Wet Low Steep Slopes

7,393,175

15.69

255,375

3.45

614,275

8.31

1,399,050

18.97

Total

47,120,425

100.00

797,950

1.69

2,174,350

4.61

3,684,775

7.82

Table 4. Number of Fragments and Forest Cover (Ha) per Landscape Unit and per Fragment Size Category.




Landscape Unit

25-500ha

500-1,000ha

1,000-10,000ha

10,000-100,000ha

100,000-1,000,000ha

Total




#

Ha

#

Ha

#

Ha

#

Ha

#

Ha

#

Ha

Seasonal High Steep Slopes

56

2,300



 0













56

2,300

Seas. High Moderate Slopes

91

3,400



 0













91

3,400

Seasonal Low Steep Slopes

27

1,350



0













27

1,350

Semi-seas. High Steep Slope

21

1,275



 0













21

1,275

Semi-seas. High Mod. Slopes

64

3,375



 0













64

3,375

Seasonal High Plains

58

3,500



 0













58

3,500

Seas. Low Moderate Slopes

222

12,325

1

675













223

13,000

Seasonal Low Plains

637

34,925

8

4,675













645

39,600

Semi-seasonal High Plains

95

4,600

0

 0

1

2,275









96

6,875

Semi-seasonal Low Plains

590

39,450

19

12,825

8

15,550









617

67,825

Wet High Plains

982

51,450

4

2,625

8

12,125

1

19,100





995

85,300

Wet High Moderate Slopes

1,224

44,325

8

16,200

6

37,775

1

20.275





1,239

118,575

Semi-seas. Low Mod. Slopes

564

60,100

24

5,400

16

14,000

1

55,900





605

135,400

Semi-seas. Low Steep Slopes

278

21,425

9

5,900

8

29,725

4

65,675





299

122,725

Wet High Steep Slopes

3,623

116,000

27

41,925

21

114,975

1

71,050

1

101,250

3,673

445,200

Wet Low Plains

1,481

188,825

62

17,350

48

46,325

2

18,175

1

102,500

1,594

373,175

Wet Low Moderate Slopes

2,495

191,750

79

53,500

96

247,525

6

115,875

1

254,200

2,677

862,850

Wet Low Steep Slopes

3,603

224,475

67

45,725

76

198,575

11

244,050

1

686,225

3,758

1,399,050
Total

16,111

1,004,850

308

206,800

288

718,850

27

610,100

4

1,144,175

16,738

3,684,775

Table 5. Representation of Landscape Units in the Priority Areas



Landscape Unit
Ha

% of landscape

unit area



Seasonal High Plains

0

0.0

Seasonal High Steep Slopes

0

0.0

Seasonal High Moderate Slopes

0

0.0

Seasonal Low Steep Slopes

0

0.0

Semi-seasonal High Moderate Slopes

0

0.0

Semi-seasonal High Steep Slopes

0

0.0

Seasonal Low Plains

0

0.0

Seasonal Low Moderate Slopes

0

0.0

Semi-seasonal High Plains

0

0.0

Semi-seasonal Low Plains

8,900

0.3

Semi-seasonal Low Moderate Slopes

25,200

1.0

Wet High Plains

27,725

1.2

Wet High Steep Slopes

134,950

2.3

Wet High Moderate Slopes

76,875

2.7

Wet Low Plains

263,500

4.0

Semi-seasonal Low Steep Slopes

45,175

4.0

Wet Low Moderate Slopes

411,250

5.1

Wet Low Steep Slopes

953,850

12.9

Table 6. Representation of Landscape Units in Final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape




Landscape unit

Priority Area

Sustainable Use Area

Isolated Area

Priority River Basin

Conservation Landscape




Ha

%

Ha

%

Ha

%

Ha

%

Ha

%

Seasonal High Plains

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Seasonal High Steep Slopes

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Seasonal High Moderate Slopes

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Seasonal Low Plains

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Seasonal Low Moderate Slopes

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Seasonal Low Steep Slopes

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Semi-seas. High Moder. Slopes

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Semi-seas. High Steep Slopes

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Semi-seasonal High Plains

0

0.0

0

0.0

6,450

2.8

0

0.0

6,450

2.8

Wet High Plains

27,725

1.2

36,125

1.6

14,650

0.7

281,400

12.5

359,900

16.0

Wet High Moderate Slopes

76,875

2.7

78,400

2.8

14,500

0.5

341,200

12.1

510,975

18.1

Semi-seasonal Low Plains

8,900

0.3

193,925

6.6

19,750

0.7

338,450

11.5

561,025

19.0

Wet High Steep Slopes

134,950

2.3

132,950

2.3

112,425

1.9

809,600

13.7

1,189,925

20.2

Semi-seas. Low Moder. Slopes

25,200

1.0

187,300

7.1

52,450

2.0

464,100

17.6

729,050

27.6

Wet Low Moderate Slopes

411,250

5.1

1,249,825

15.5

29,900

0.4

612,125

7.6

2,303,100

28.5

Wet Low Plains

263,500

4.0

908,000

13.7

49,925

0.8

764,925

11.6

1,986,350

30.1

Semi-seas. Low Steep Slopes

45,175

4.0

162,400

14.2

40,850

3.6

126,125

11.0

374,550

32.6

Wet Low Steep Slopes

953,850

12.9

900,450

12.2

175,450

2.4

374,300

5.1

2,404,050

32.5

Figure 32. Illustration of Concept of Categories of Areas Included in the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape

Note: Not part of the actual Biodiversity Conservation Landscape



Figure 33. Core Areas


Figure 34. Priority Areas



Figure 35. Sustainable Use Areas Connecting the Priority Areas

Figure 36. Biodiversity Conservation Landscape

Figure 37. Area Under Strict Protection (present and future) in the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape






Minimum Total Indirect Use Protected Area to be created: 1,284,100 hectares.

Figure 38. Area Under Sustainable Use Areas





Sustainable Use Area to be created: 4,003,300 hectares.

The first two categories (Forested Areas with High Potential to Become Strictly Protected Areas (FAHPSPA) and the Forested Areas that Need Assessment (FANA) corespond to areas that may eventually be included (at least part of them) in the category of strictly protected areas.


Figure 39. Forest Cover in Units of the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape



Minimum Total Area to be restored: 2,606,678 hectares.
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət