Conservation planning in a tropical wilderness: Opportunities and threats in the Guianan Ecoregion Complex

Abstract

With increasingly limited resources, conservation planners are challenged to provide policymakers with conservation portfolios that: 1) are representative of all important biodiversity features, 2) incorporate socioeconomic data, 3) are flexible to change, 4) require less financial resources over the long term, 5) overcome substantial information gaps, and 6) are developed across disciplines to maximize efficiency and stakeholder buy-in. The practice of setting priorities for conservation in a largely undisturbed region differs greatly from methods commonly applied to highly disturbed, human-dominated regions. The resulting portfolio should include a spectrum of conservation tools including protected area and policy recommendations, trade-off mechanisms, buffer zones, and conservation incentives encouraging certain land uses. Here we present a method for developing a conservation biodiversity vision and action plan, based on lessons learned in a planning process for the Guianan Ecoregion Complex that combined the input of regional stakeholders and local experts with geographic information systems (GIS) and computer-assisted decision-support systems (DSS). We highlight how we addressed some of the challenges associated with conservation planning in a tropical wilderness and offer reflections on how our methods could be modified to suit other areas.

Parent Publication

• Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress symposium

Citation

Schipper, Jan; Clarke, Gary; Allnutt, Tom. 2007. Conservation planning in a tropical wilderness: Opportunities and threats in the Guianan Ecoregion Complex. In: Watson, Alan; Sproull, Janet; Dean, Liese, comps. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress symposium; September 30-October 6, 2005; Anchorage, AK. Proceedings RMRS-P-49. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 218-226