Biological Diversity of Peru: Determining Priority Areas for Conservation

Author(s): Lily O. Rodrguez and Kenneth R. Young

Source: AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 29(6):329-337. 2000.
Published By: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-29.6.329
URL: 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 books
published 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
BioOnes 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. Commercial
inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

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.

Report

Lily O. Rodrguez and Kenneth R. Young

Biological Diversity of Peru: Determining

Priority Areas for Conservation

The distributions of both the organismal and ecological

diversity of Peru were evaluated through cartographic
analyses in relationship to Perus national system of protected areas. Also identified and mapped were areas so
poorly known that they represent conservation information gaps, areas that cannot currently be evaluated, but
which should not be overlooked. These methods revealed
that the protected area system in Peru did not adequately
protect either organismal or ecological diversity. In the
short term, inclusion of unprotected priority areas in the
national system is the best way to improve biological conservation. Over long time periods, it is also important to
make decisions about the priority of areas that are information gaps. This study provides a useful point of comparison with other countries that are at different stages in
the task of assembling biodiversity information. It was clear
that i) the identified priority areas were important for
national-level planning; ii) the drier and nonforested ecosystems seldom have been included in conservation
efforts; iii) because degradation processes will constantly
change, the conservation status of a particular area will
also change and should not be confounded in the setting
of priorities with the value of the biological diversity present;
and iv) the identification of information gaps is the most
transparent method for keeping decision-makers advised
as to the limits of scientific knowledge on the distribution
of biological diversity.

zone, landscape, or region within the system of protected areas.

Priorization has been done in terms of percentage of total territory protected. For example, Canada has a stated goal of including at least 13% of all its biogeographical subdivisions within
protected areas (3). Countries with a relatively high percentage
of their national territory in conservation units (> 10%), might
still be lacking a representative sample if some ecosystem types
are not included.
Recently, integrated approaches have been promoted (4, 5) to
overlay organismal and ecological diversity information on maps
of 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 exist
about biodiversity.
Such gaps are of special concern in tropical countries that are
still in the descriptive and exploratory stage of documenting biological diversity. Biodiversity evaluations in these countries can
be overwhelming tasks, particularly for those that have been
labeled megadiverse because of the great number of species
found within their borders (6).
One of those megadiverse countries is Peru, a global center
for species richness of vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants, with
numerous known endemic species of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, flowering plants, and ferns (Table 1). Within Peru there is
much ecological diversity; for example, most of the theoretically
possible Holdridge life zones are present within national boundaries (18). In this study, we evaluated the distribution of both
organismal and ecological diversity in relation to Perus national
system of protected areas, consisting of national parks, sanctuaries, reserves, reserved zones, protection forests, national forests, and communal and hunting reserves. We also mapped the
areas so poorly known biologically that they could not be
mapped under the defined criteria, but should not be ignored or
overlooked. Moreover, several of these information gaps were
considered among the priority areas, given the degree of isolation or other features that would be good predictors of high endemism or species richness. This study provides a point of com-

INTRODUCTION
The establishment of protected areas for biological conservation
starts with site selection. Often, of course, it is opportunity, practicality, cost, and/or politics that controls the selection of areas
to designate for protection. However, if a guiding principle were
to be identified, it would surely be that site selection at a national level should be oriented toward providing effective protection for a representative sample of the countrys biological
diversity.
One approach is based on the distribution of organismal diversity.
Table 1. Diversity and endemism of selected groups of Perus organisms.
Distributions of living organisms are
mapped and spatial concentrations of
Number
Percentage
Number of
Percentage
taxa are designated as priority areas.
Taxonomic
of
of worlds
Peruvian
national
This has been done using estimates
group
species
species
endemics
endemism
of total species richness, or those of
Mammals
460
10
58
13
indicator, rare, or endemic species
Bats
164
18
11
7
Birds
1710
19
110
6
(1, 2).
Reptiles
360
5
98
27
A different approach, at a higher
Amphibians
332
9
124
38
Freshwater fish
900
13
70
8
level of biological organization, is
Spiders
3000
9
?
?
based on the distribution of ecologiButterflies (diurnal)
3366
21
300
9
Molluscs (terrestrial)
800
3
?
?
cal diversity. Maps showing ecological zones, landscapes, or natural reFlowering plants
17 144
7
5354
31
Palms
142
7
1419
10
gions are used to approximate the
Ferns and fern allies
1060
10
160
16
spatial distribution of ecological di*G. Lamas, pers. comm. 1994.
versity. A national goal might be to
include at least one of every type of
Ambio Vol. 29 No. 6, Sept. 2000

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2000

http://www.ambio.kva.se

Reference
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
*
14
15
16
17

329

parison with other countries that

are at different stages in the task
of assembling the information
necessary to make these kinds of
assessments.
PERUS NATIONAL
SYSTEM OF
PROTECTED AREAS
At the time of this research there
were almost 50 sites that had
been declared protected areas by
the Peruvian government. A
glance at a map showing their
locations (Fig. 1) reveals bias in
their placement. Much of easternmost Peru was unprotected in
the Amazon basin, particularly
the lowlands bordering on Ecuador, Colombia, and Brazil. Most
of western Peru was unprotected, corresponding to the
coastal plain and Andean foothills and highlands looking out
over Pacific ocean drainages.
The national system includes
national parks (category II of the
IUCN), sanctuaries for the preservation of sites of notable natural or historical importance, national reserves for the sustainable extraction of selected biological resources, and protection
forests to safeguard soils and
forests, especially in upper watersheds (all the latter are category VI of IUCN; 19). With
the exception of national reserves, these categories are established by decreto supremo,
a type of law that supersedes
other legal claims to the lands
involved. Ideally, all of these areas would have management
plans, budgets, staffs, and protection programs designed to
promote the particular goals of
each type of area.
Figure 1. National system of protected areas in Peru at the time of this study.
The remaining national conservation units consist of reserved zones, national forests, communal reserves, and hunting tion available at that time (22) concerning forested areas that had
reserves. Legally, they are established by a relatively weak ad- apparently not been affected by Pleistocene climate change.
ministrative mandate. This heterogeneous group also differs from Shortly thereafter, Dourojeanni and Ros (23) described the exthe previous units because goals are not limited to strict or rela- isting protected areas and made a series of recommendations for
tively strict protection. The national forests are meant to be man- improving coverage and management. Daz (24) provided an
aged: utilized and then reforested. The communal and hunting updated overview.
Some years later, the Conservation Data Center, a universityreserves are designed to be managed locally, with national-level
oversight. The reserved zones are so designated on a temporary based group, compared a map they had developed of biogeobasis while further study is used to decide on their permanent graphical provinces (using global-scale provinces produced for
IUCN and combined with national-scale climatic zones) to a map
status.
The first strictly protected areas in Peru were Cutervo and of the national system of protected areas. Based on the types and
Tingo Mara National Parks, established in 1961 and 1965, re- distributions of provinces that were not well represented, they
spectively. Grimwood (20) provided the first national evaluation proposed several additional areas for consideration, ranking them
in the scientific literature of needs for additional protected ar- in terms of three levels of priority (25, 26).
Our study continues the practice of evaluating the national syseas.
By 1979, 14 areas had been formally designated. Lamas (21) tem in relationship to what is known about the distribution of
proposed that additional sites be considered based on informa- biological diversity. However, we also expanded the types of in330

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2000

http://www.ambio.kva.se

Ambio Vol. 29 No. 6, Sept. 2000

formation considered and tried

to clarify where that information
was lacking or nonexistent.
METHODS
For the evaluation of ecological
diversity, we carried out a cartographic analysis of Zamoras
(27) national map showing ecological regions. Two of those regions are marine and are not
considered further here. The remaining 16 regions were distinguished by Zamora (27) in relation to available climatic, geologic, topographic, ecological,
and edaphic information, synthesized at 1:2 000 000 scale (Fig.
2). On his map, the largest ecological regions are humid tropical forests in the Amazon lowlands (32%); wet forests, including those in the east Andean
foothills (13%); warm tropical
desert (7%), swamp forest in the
Amazon lowlands (6%); humid
steppe (6%), and rain or cloud
forest in the eastern montane
and premontane belts (5%). The
remaining 10 ecological regions
collectively cover about 20% of
Peru and are distributed in the
coastal plain, the Andes mountains, and in enclaves in the
Amazon lowlands. We manually
measured the areas and the
amount of overlap between
these ecological regions and the
national system of protected areas.
In order to evaluate the distribution of organismal diversity
and the location of information
gaps, we organized a workshop
of scientists knowledgeable
about Perus biological diversity, including taxonomists,
biogeographers, ecologists, and Figure 2. Simplified representation of Zamoras (27) ecological region map of Peru. For sizes and degree
others (see ref. 28 for partici- of protection of the regions refer to Table 2.
pants). Before the workshop,
each participant was provided with two maps of Peru at tice had the advantage of maximizing the collective knowledge
1:2 000 000 showing international boundaries, the 500 and 3000 available about a particular group of organisms. In many cases,
m elevational contours, and major lakes and rivers. They were unpublished data could be incorporated, making the information
asked to prepare by indicating on the respective maps: i) prior- gathered in this study the most updated possible. In addition,
ity areas, based on locations of high species richness and con- many of the specialists wrote formal reports detailing the locacentrations of endemic species, defined as those whose distri- tions and reasoning used to identify priority areas and informabutions are restricted to Peru; and ii) information gaps, defined tion gaps (see ref. 29).
We developed national maps of priority areas and of inforas areas within which no museum collections had been made or
no scientific research carried out. For these purposes, all invited mation gaps by combining and prioritizing the areas of coinciparticipants were actively involved in biodiversity research and dence of at least 3 of the maps produced by the various workwere aware of relevant published information, the status of mu- ing groups. We later added 2 additional areas and subdivided 2
others on the basis of biogeographical information (26, 30). The
seum collections, and often of unpublished information.
During the workshop, the specialists formed 5 working groups superposition of the map of priority areas with that showing the
organized taxonomically: mammals; birds; fish, amphibians, and coverage of protected areas allowed us to identify priority areas
reptiles; invertebrates; and vascular plants. Through discussion with no, partial, or complete protection within that system. Inand interaction, each group developed consensus maps of the formation gaps were also overlayed and prioritized, giving highpriority areas and information gaps for their speciality. This prac- est priority to those areas where 3 or more working groups had
Ambio Vol. 29 No. 6, Sept. 2000

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2000

http://www.ambio.kva.se

331

overlapped. Secondary and tertiary rankings were on the basis

of recommendations from 2 or 1
group(s), respectively.
RESULTS
Ecological Regions
We evaluated coverage of ecological diversity by comparing
the ecological region map (Fig.
2) to a map of the national protected areas (Fig. 1). The differences in percentage coverage are
startling (Table 2), and did a
good job of quantifying the
Amazonian bias that has directed site selection in Peru,
over the past three decades. Ecological regions that have the
highest representation in protected areas were mostly Amazonian: savanna (80%), swamp
forest (26%), wet forest (24%),
rain forest (13%), humid forest
(7%), and seasonal forest (6%).
The non-Amazonian regions
with high representation were
Andean tundra, located at 4200
to 4700 m (6%), and permanent
ice above 4700 m (15%). Virtually absent were the dry ecological regions of the coast and
many of the dry to humid regions of the highlands.
We also separately calculated
the coverage offered by only the
stricter conservation units: the
parks, reserves, and sanctuaries
(Table 2). The best coverage
was of savanna (80%), swamp
forest (23%), permanent ice
(15%), rain forest (8%), and Andean tundra (6%). All other ecological regions had little coverage. In fact, hot tropical desert,
cold high Andean desert, humid
steppe, and desert scrub were
especially poorly represented
with < 1% coverage.

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

Priority Areas
Thirty-eight areas were designated by the working groups as being of importance for species diversity and endemism. These areas were spread over the entire country (Fig. 3) and by consensus would protect much of Perus organismal diversity.
These areas were chosen independently of the locations of protected areas or the degree of human intervention. We then compared priority areas with the national system and were able to
distinguish (Fig. 3) priority areas with no protection, those with
partial representation in the protected areas system (i.e. they only
had very small protected areas, or these offered only incomplete
coverage of the organismal diversity and uniqueness of the area),
and those that were completely or almost completely covered by
the present system.
Nine of the priority areas were well covered, though in most
cases the inclusion within legal limits of a park or reserve does
not mean that protection and management activities are adequate
332

(31). Two were located on the coast, 2 in the Amazon lowlands,

and the remainder were in wet- and rain forests of the eastern
Andes (Fig. 3).
Ten of the identified priority areas were partially represented
in the national system, and it would be of interest to evaluate
how additional coverage could be achieved in each case. Nineteen 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 highlands
and also in the lowlands of northern and eastern Peru (Fig. 3).
We then noted the ecological region(s) found in each of the
38 priority areas. The priority areas designated by the working
groups did a much better job of representing the ecological diversity 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 regions. Thus, the workshop turned out to be a credible method

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2000

http://www.ambio.kva.se

Ambio Vol. 29 No. 6, Sept. 2000

of identifying representative samples for the conservation of both

ecological and organismal diversity.
These priority areas were determined by consensus of the
working groups. We also examined the maps made by each
working group separately to see if areas of particular importance
for some taxonomic groups had been overlooked. This was indeed the case, and for some conservation planning purposes it
would be of interest to have maps of taxa-specific priority areas
on hand. Particularly, we worry that by using only 1 map of the
vascular plant groups, 1 of the invertebrates, and 3 maps of the
vertebrates, inevitably there was bias in the consensus map towards 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 Gaps
Twenty-eight areas were identified by the working groups as
being locations in Peru so poorly known to modern science that
their evaluation for conservation purposes would be either premature or must be based on subjective or extrapolated information. These areas were spread across the country (Fig. 5) and
accounted for 44% of the territory of Peru. Fifteen of these information gaps were identified by only 1 or 2 working groups,
so there was some spatial overlap with the priority areas in Figure 3, which were so designated by 3 or more working groups.
This occurred because some areas are better known than others
for certain types of organisms.
We ranked the 28 information gaps in terms of how many
were identified by the working groups. The highest priority areas corresponded to 13 information gaps identified by most or
all of the working groups. These represented 289 000 km2 or
22% of Peru, and were principally found in the areas bordering
on Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia, and Chile (Fig. 5). They

Tropical savanna is the ecological region best represented in Perus

protected area system, with about 80% of what exists included within
the system. Photo: R. Foster.

included 11 ecological regions, from arid to perhumid in moisture 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 identified by 2 working groups covered 238 000 km2, or 18% of Peru,
while the remaining 2 accounted for 32 000 km2, or 2%.
DISCUSSION
Adequacy of Current Protection in Peru
By several criteria, our methods used for selecting priority areas for biological conservation in Peru were successful. We were
able to achieve agreement in a workshop for the locations of 38

Table 2. Representation of Perus ecological regions according to Zamora (27) in the national system of
protected areas. The areas with strict protection are the national parks, the national reserves, and the national
and historical sanctuaries.
Size
of
region
Ecological
region

Spanish
equivalent

Hot desert

Desierto
Clido
Tropical
Desierto
Semi Clido
Tropical
Desierto
Fro Alto
Andino
Matorral
Desrtico
Seco
Estepa
Estepa
Hmeda
Pramo o
Puna
Tundra
Andino
Nivales
Bosque
Pluvial
Bosque
Muy Hmedo
Bosque
Hmedo
Tropical
Bosque
Hmedo
Tropical
Hidromrfico
Bosque
Hmedo
Tropical
Estacional
Savana

Warm desert
Cold high
Andean desert
Desert scrub
Dry forest Bosque
Steppe
Humid steppe
Puna
Andean tundra
Permanent ice
Rain (cloud) forest
Wet forest
Humid forest
Humid swamp forest

Humid seasonal
forest
Savanna

Ambio Vol. 29 No. 6, Sept. 2000

Area with
strict
protection

Protected
area

(km2)

30000

2.3

90000

7.0

1146

1.3

1141

1.3

24000

1.8 65

0.3

65

0.3

40000

3.1

672

1.7

273

0.7

45000
35000
80000

3.5
2.7
6.2

1207
498
1098

2.7
1.4
1.4

913
498
518

2.0
1.4
0.6

130000

10.1

2671

2.0

2671

2.0

30000

2.3

1780

5.9

1780

5.9

5000
62000

0.4
4.8

746
8262

14.9
13.3

746
5252

14.9
8.5

163000

12.6

39468

24.2

6780

4.2

417000

32.4

29791

7.1

7471

1.8

83000

6.5

22031

26.5

19392

23.4

44000

3.4

2818

6.4

1285

2.9

100

0.01

80

80.0

80

80.0

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2000

http://www.ambio.kva.se

(km2)

(km2)

333

priority areas based on knowledge of the distributions of species richness and endemism. In
addition, the identification and
mapping of 28 information gaps
permit the recognition of areas
poorly known in terms of biological diversity, especially at
the organismal level. These may
or may not prove to be of national importance as priority areas; their identification, however, is crucial for the planning
of where investigative resources
should be directed.
Furthermore, although our
principal interest was the determination of priority areas based
on organismal diversity, we also
evaluated those priority areas in
terms of how well they covered
important attributes of the ecological diversity of Peru. We
found that the priority areas included all 16 of the terrestrial
ecological regions recognized by
Zamora (27). This is in marked
contrast to the protected areas
system, which seriously ignored
dry and highland ecosystems
(Table 2).
Nineteen of the priority areas
were not included in the protected area system. Directing
conservation efforts to these areas should obviously be a national and international priority.
It is also of interest to ask why
these areas have been neglected.
Many of the unprotected Amazonian priority areas are near
international borders. Perhaps
site selection on biodiversity
grounds has been overruled in
the past due to legal or security
concerns. Because the distribution of the biota does not respect
political boundaries, there needs
to be more binational and mul- Figure 4. Priority areas (adapted from 31) for birds (hatch marks) and vascular plants (green).
tinational coordination in establishing protected areas (32). The
coastal and highland priority areas have been overlooked, we areas offering stricter protection programs. This was due to the
believe, not because they were of little importance to Peruvian huge areas in Peru included in reserved zones, national forests,
researchers and conservationists, but because so many of the con- and protection forests that in reality offered little protection to
servation projects funded by overseas moneys were targeted spe- plants and animals because of understaffing or a complete lack
of efforts on the ground (paper parks). Maps that show the encifically on Amazonian forests (3336).
We deliberately made the priority areas amorphous in shape tire system can give the illusion of much better coverage than
and ambiguous in size (Fig. 3). Our intention here is to draw at- is the case. Particularly, we draw attention to wet, humid, and
tention to the locations of these areas of important biological di- seasonal forests that were often included within the limits of naversity. The actual shape, size, and type of protected area called tional or protection forests, but which are not effectively manfor in each location will need to be determined by a case-by- aged in Peru. We also point out once again that the coastal
case evaluation. In contrast, the better protection of the priority deserts and the upland Andes, plus scrub, humid steppe, and dry
areas with only partial coverage could often be done with the forests, were all poorly represented among Perus national parks,
enlargement of existing conservation units or the inclusion of reserves, and sanctuaries.
additional ecosystem types.
When we analyzed the coverage of ecological diversity Policy Implications for Peru
achieved by the current national protection system (Table 2), we The methods used in this study constitute a mechanism by which
found marked differences between the entire system and those the protected areas in Peru could be reevaluated at intervals, of
334

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2000

http://www.ambio.kva.se

Ambio Vol. 29 No. 6, Sept. 2000

perhaps every 3 to 5 years. This

would allow for the incorporation of new data on species diversity and distributions into the
maps of the information gaps
and the priority areas. No one
map likely will ever be completely satisfactory as a measure
of Perus ecological diversity.
However, future reevaluations
can continue to use the most updated sources available. For example, the landscape-level and
intra-regional differences in
lowland Amazon habitat types
detected with remote sensing
(37) could serve as input in the
near future.
The information used to designate priority areas came from
the consensus of active researchers knowledgeable about Perus
biological diversity. Because of
the preliminary and scattered
nature of the scientific literature,
plus the nascent state of biodiversity data bases, this technique offered the most practical
way to select priority areas.
However, it is not without its
weaknesses. The distribution
patterns of diversity and endemism are not universal, and vary
from group to group, resulting in
taxa-specific priority areas (e.g.
Fig. 4; for others see maps in 29,
38). If consensus is sought, then
it is possible that minority viewpoints will be lost or overlooked. This is especially of
concern for the most diverse
groups of plants and invertebrates, which are poorly known
and for which informed observers are few. The solution is to
check results for bias and to
make available the list of participants and the methods used in
the evaluation.
Figure 5. Information gaps for the evaluation of biological diversity in Peru. Priority is indicated as high,
higher, or highest.
We recognize that identifying
priority areas is but the first step
in the completion and consolidation of a national system of pro- iv) there be special programs of research and sustainable use of
natural resources designed to deal with biological conservatected conservation areas. However, site selection and priorition in sites and ecological regions that have been neglected
zation based only on perceived or projected threats to natural
in the past.
environments, on feasibility, or on cost/benefit analyses run the
risk of focusing attention on areas either lacking important biological diversity or which do not help achieve representation of Priority Areas in Conservation
both organismal and ecological diversity.
We found that the current protected area system in Peru does
Our specific recommendations for nature conservation in Peru not provide adequate representation of either organismal or
were that
ecological diversity. However, by identifying priority areas for
i) new, enlarged, or improved protected areas be established in conservation, we keep the emphasis on solutions, rather than
the priority areas (Fig. 3) with no or partial coverage in the belaboring criticisms of past decisions. In the short term, inclucurrent system;
sion of the unprotected priority areas is the best way to improve
ii) this or a similar process be used to reevaluate the national biological conservation in Peru. Over long periods of time, it is
system in the future;
also important to arrive at conclusions about the priority of the
iii) the information gaps identified here (Fig. 5) be of priority for areas so poorly known that they had to be considered informathe investigators and funding agencies interested in tion gaps in this study. Despite much recent research on holisbiodiversity protection in Peru; and
tic methods for assessment of priority areas for biodiversity (39
Ambio Vol. 29 No. 6, Sept. 2000

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2000

http://www.ambio.kva.se

335

Highland Peru is densely populated and

heavily used by rural populations in
some areas. However, social changes
are leaving other areas open for
conservation practices, including
ecological restoration of natural
environments. Photo: K. Young.

43), the identification of information gaps continues to be neglected.

We expect that the recognition of priority areas and information gaps will be important
tools for the evaluation of conservation needs in other countries. When objective mapping
of organismal diversity is impossible, consensus of expert
opinion is a viable replacement
method and the sources of bias
or error can at least be acknowledged. Maps of information
gaps are needed to warn of locations where adequate information is lacking. Often the
products produced by geographic information systems do
not explicitly show the areas
with no or with only extrapolated data and thus can unintentionally disguise information Coastal deserts in Peru are extensive and have great scenic and recreational value, in addition to high
gaps.
species endemism. Few desert areas, however, are included within the national system of protected areas.
Dinerstein et al. (44) recently Photo: K. Young.
identified and prioritized 178
terrestrial ecoregions for conpriorization schemes with the relative value of the biologiservation in Latin America and the Caribbean. As they caution,
cal diversity present.
the results from a continental-scale evaluation, such as theirs,
should not be used to set priorities within a particular country. ii) Currently, the highlighting of information gaps is the most
transparent approach for keeping decision makers advised as
We believe that the priority areas identified by our approach are
to the limits of scientific knowledge on the distribution of biomore germane to national-level planning. They coincide with us
logical diversity.
in documenting and lamenting the relative lack of conservation
efforts in drier and nonforested ecosystems (44).
To that conclusion, we would add two more:
i) Degradation processes that threaten biological diversity will EPILOGUE
constantly change as markets, technologies, and policies These are exciting times in the development of conservation
evolve (e.g., 45). Thus, the conservation status of a particu- measures for Perus biological diversity. The workshop and
lar area will also change and should not be confounded in analyses described in this article were part of a planning proc336

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2000

http://www.ambio.kva.se

Ambio Vol. 29 No. 6, Sept. 2000

ess associated with the creation of a new national plan (Plan

Director) for the protected-area system. This became law in
March 1999, including the priority areas and information gaps
presented here. In addition, several changes have been made in
order to respond to the weaknesses we and others uncovered. A
new national park, Bahuaja-Sonene, was created to administer
the tropical savanna areas and adjacent ecosystems in southeastern Peru. Seven new reserved zones were established, several
in border areas with Bolivia, Colombia, and Ecuador, and collectively including both highland and lowland ecological regions.
These cover the following priority areas: Cordillera del Cndor
(2), Napo (5), Nanay (7), Junn-Zrate (25), and Puno (36). The

national forests were removed from the protected area system

and are in the process of being given in private concessions for
exploitation. Also, new scientific expeditions have produced at
least partial biological information on two information gaps:
Napo-Putumayo (3) and Vilcabamba (6). Although many of the
weaknesses we identified remain, it is a welcome fact that this
project has helped to institutionalize a reassessment of the protected areas from viewpoints of ecological and organismal diversity, using a participatory, consensus-seeking process. We
hope that this will continue in the future. The remaining priority areas and information gaps serve as reminders of where efforts need to be focused.

References and Notes

1. 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: Priority Areas for Global Conservation. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
2. Ando, A., Camm, J., Polasky, S. and Solow, A. 1998. Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279, 21262128.
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 species 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. 282297.
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 Worlds 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-Card, R. and Solari, S.A.
1995. Lista anotada de los mamferos peruanos. Occ. Papers Conservation Biology
(Conservation International) No. 2, 135. (In Spanish).
8. Ascorra G., C.F. 1996. Areas importantes de diversidad de quiropteros en el Per. In:
Diversidad Biolgica del Per: Zonas Prioritarias para su Conservacin. Rodrguez,
L.O. (ed.). Proyecto FANPE GTZ-INRENA, Lima, Peru, p. 7981. (In Spanish).
9. ONeill, J.P. 1992. A general overview of the montane avifauna of Peru. In:
Biogeografa, Ecologa y Conservacin del Bosque Montano en el Per. Young, K.R.
and Valencia, N (eds). Memorias Museo Hist. Nat., UNMSM 21, 4755.
10. Carrillo de Espinoza, N. and Icochea, J. 1995. Lista taxonmica preliminar de los reptiles vivientes del Per. Publ. Mus. Hist. Nat. UNMSM (A) 49, 127. (In Spanish).
11. Rodrguez Bayona, L.O. 1996. Areas prioritarias para conservacin de anfibios en el
Per. In: Diversidad Biolgica del Per: Zonas Prioritarias para su Conservacin.
Rodrguez, L.O. (ed.). Proyecto FANPE GTZ-INRENA, Lima, Peru p. 8792. (In Spanish).
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, 111.
13. Silva, D. 1996. Determinacin de areas importantes de diversidad biolgica en el Per:
situacin de las aranas (Arthropodoa: Araneae). In: Diversidad Biolgica del Per:
Zonas Prioritarias para su Conservacin. Rodrguez, L.O. (ed.). Proyecto FANPE
GTZ-INRENA, Lima, Peru, p. 9394. (In Spanish).
14. Ramrez Mesas, R. 1996. Diversidad de moluscos terrestres en el Per. In: Diversidad
Biolgica del Per: Zonas Prioritarias para su Conservacin. Rodrguez, L.O. (ed.).
Proyecto FANPE GTZ-INRENA, Lima, Peru, p. 9597. (In Spanish).
15. Brako, L. and Zarucchi, J.L. 1993. Catalogue of the Flowering Plants and Gymnosperms
of Peru. Monogr. Syst. Bot. 45, 11286.
16. Khan, F. and Mousa, F. 1994. Diversity and conservation status of Peruvian palms.
Biodiv. Conserv. 3, 227241.
17. Len, B. and Young, K.R. 1996. Distribution of pteridophyte diversity and endemism
in Peru. In: Pteridology in Perspective. Camus, J.M., Gibby, M. and Johns, R.J. (eds).
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, p. 7791.
18. ONERN. 1976. Mapa Ecolgico del Per: Gua Explicativa. Oficina Nacional de
Evaluacin de Recursos Naturales, Lima. (In Spanish).
19. Pulido, V. 1991. El Libro Rojo de la Fauna Silvestre del Per. 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, 186.
21. Lamas, G. 1979. Algunas reflexiones y sugerencias sobre la creacin de parques
nacionales en el Per. Rev. Ciencias UNMSM 71, 101114. (In Spanish).
22. Haffer, J. 1969. Speciation in Amazonian forest birds. Science 165, 131137.
23. Dourojeanni, M. and Ros, M. 19821983. Un enfoque crtico sobre el Sistema Nacional
de Unidades de Conservacin del Per. Rev. Forestal Per 11, 149170. (In Spanish).
24. Daz Cartagena, A. 1988. El sistema nacional de unidades de conservacin en el Per.
Bol. Lima 59, 122. (In Spanish).
25. CDC-UNALM. 1991. Plan Director del Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservacin (SINUC), una aproximacin desde la diversidad biolgica. Centro de Datos
para la Conservacin, Universidad Nacional Agraria la Molina, Lima. (In Spanish).
26. CDC-UNALM. 1996. Representatividad de la diversidad biolgica a travs del
SINANPE: metodologa y recomendaciones. In: Diversidad Biolgica del Per: Zonas Prioritarias para su Conservacin. Rodrguez, L.O. (ed.). Proyecto FANPE GTZINRENA, Lima, Peru, p. 133136. (In Spanish).
27. Zamora Jimeno, C. 1996. Las regiones ecolgicas del Per. In: Diversidad Biolgica
del Per: Zonas Prioritarias para su Conservacin. Rodrguez, L.O. (ed.). Proyecto
FANPE GTZ-INRENA, Lima, Peru, p. 137141. (In Spanish).
28. List of participants in the August 1994 workshop: Csar F. Ascorra, Asuncin Cano
E., Csar del Carpio, Gonzalo Castro, Fonchii Chang M., Walter Danjoy, Patrick De
Rham, Walter Elliott, Louise Emmons, Filomeno Encarnacin C., Robin Foster, Irma
Franke, Washington Galeano, Miguel Holle, Risto Kalliola, Gerardo Lamas, Mariella
Leo, Blanca Len, Hernando de Macedo R., Kember Meja, John P. ONeill, Percy
Nez, Hernn Ortega T., Vctor Pacheco T., Vctor Pulido C., Rina Ramrez M., Robert
Reynolds, Lily Rodrguez, Kalle Ruokolainen, Rodolfo Salas G., Edgar Snchez, Tom
Schulenberg, Diana Silva, Mario Tapia N., Hanna Tuomisto, Niels Valencia, Manuel
Vegas-Vlez, Walter Wust, Kenneth Young and Carlos Zamora.
29. Rodrguez, L.O. (ed.). 1996. Diversidad Biolgica del Per: Zonas Prioritarias para
su Conservacin. Proyecto FANPE GTZ-INRENA, Lima, Peru. (In Spanish).
Ambio Vol. 29 No. 6, Sept. 2000

30. Kalliola, R., Tuomisto, H., and Ruokolainen, K. 1996. Areas importantes para la
conservacin de la selva baja peruana desde el punto de vista geoecolgico. In:
Diversidad Biolgica del Per: Zonas Prioritarias para su Conservacin. Rodrguez,
L.O. (ed.). Proyecto FANPE GTZ-INRENA, Lima, Peru, p. 127132. (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, 312314.
32. Trllez Sols, E. (ed.). 1993. Ambiente y Fronteras: Una Visin desde los Pases del
Convenio Andrs Bello. Secretara Ejecutiva del Convenio Andrs Bello, Sanfaf de
Bogot, Colombia. (In Spanish).
33. Henderson, A., Churchill, S.P. and Luteyn, J.L. 1991. Neotropical plant diversity. Nature 351, 2122.
34. Mares, M.A. 1992. Neotropical mammals and the myth of Amazonian biodiversity.
Science 255, 976979.
35. Churchill, S.P., Balslev, H., Forero, E. and Luteyn, J.L. 1995. Biodiversity and Conservation of Neotropical Montane Forests. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx.
36. Len, 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, Edicin Especial 6, 431448.
37. Tuomisto, H., Linna, A., and Kalliola, R. 1994. Use of digitally enhanced satellite images in studies of tropical rain forest vegetation. Int. J. Remote Sens. 15, 15951610.
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. 171185.
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, 263272.
41. Lockwood, M., Bos, D.G. and Glazebrook, H. 1997. Integrated protected area selection in Australian biogeographic regions. Environ. Mgmt 21, 395404.
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, 21062108.
43. Flather, C.H., Knowles, M.S. and Kendall, I.A. 1998. Threatened and endangered species geography: characteristics of hot spots in the conterminous United States. Bioscience 48, 365376.
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 Ecoregionas
of Latin America and the Caribbean. World Wildlife Fund and World Bank, Washington, DC.
45. Young, K.R. 1996. Threats to biological diversity caused by coca/cocaine deforestation in Peru. Environ. Conserv. 23, 715.
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 the
Peruvian and German governments. For help with the workshop, we thank the participants and Claudia Bouroncle, Rosario Herrera, Lawrence Lpez, and Ursula Valdez.
In addition, Perus Instituto de Recursos Naturales (INRENA) provided much information and assistance. For cartographic expertise, we thank Agustn Abad, Darin
Gaynor, Amie Smith and Joseph School. For economic support, K.Y. thanks the Danish Environmental Research Programme for the DIVA project (19941998).
47. First submitted 25 May 1998. Accepted for publication after revision 13 March 2000.

Lily O. Rodrguez is an ecologist doing field research and

working on different projects for the conservation of
biodiversity in Peru, mainly in protected areas. Her address:
APECO, Parque Jos de Acosta 187, Magdalena, Lima 17,
Peru.
E-mail: lrodriguez@datos.limaperu.net
Kenneth R. Young is a biogeographer interested in
biological conservation in the tropics. His address:
Department of Geography, GRG 334, University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
E-mail: kryoung@mail.utexas.edu

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2000

http://www.ambio.kva.se

337