The areas dedicated to conservation should comprise different

Regionalisations and complementary priority
exercises for conservation planning
Global hotspots
Three vast regions that cover an important extension of
the Mexican territory have been identified as biodiversity hotspots at a worldwide scale. They are defined as
biogeographic regions with an outstanding biological
richness that are threatened with destruction and have
a deficient range of protection in relation to the biodiversity they harbour.10 These are the Floristic Province
of California (which extends to the northern-most
part of the Baja California Peninsula); the Madrean
Pine-Oak Woodlands (practically all the mountain
ranges, sierras and the Neovolcanic Axis), and Mesoamerica (which covers the entire central-south part of
Mexico). The large area covered by these areas does not
allow orienting priorities at an adequate scale in order
to undertake local actions.
Priority regions
The terrestrial (RTP)11 and hydrological (RHP)12 priority regions, along with the Important Bird Areas
(IBAs or AICA in Spanish)13 have provided an essential
framework for the planning and allocation of resources
in order to know and preserve these areas. However,
when considered as a whole, they sum up to 60% of the
territory. The large extension of these regions stresses
the need of identifying precise priority sites for conservation.
Terrestrial Priority Regions, Alliance for Zero Extinction
and National Survey sites
It is essential to direct actions
and resources to priority sites
that harbour an exceptional
biodiversity. To attain their
conservation and sustainability,
we must reduce the negative
ecosystem transformation
tendencies, habitat fragmentation
and the introduction of invasive
exotic species.
Alliance for Zero Extinction
The Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE)14, is a worldwide conservation initiative for biodiversity that focuses on identifying sites where it is urgent to carry
out conservation actions to safeguard the species living
therein, species which are in imminent danger of extinction. Until mid-2006, the AZE initiative identified
595 sites around the world to protect 794 species. Of
these sites, 63 are located in Mexico, 49 of which are
found on continental territory and harbour 84 species
of great importance to terrestrial conservation, amphibians standing out amongst them.
National survey of conservation
priorities
With the aim of having a broader vision of the gap
analyses of terrestrial biodiversity, CONANP, CONABIO,
Pronatura, TNC-Mexico, FMCN and INE conducted a
survey in 2006 to detect priority sites for the conservation of biodiversity in Mexico. Important information was gathered from specialists, researchers and
conservationists throughout the country. Of the 228
sites proposed by the survey, 163 are terrestrial and 65
are coastal sites. CONABIO is currently working on the
geographic validation and polygon definition of such
sites based on the arguments and justifications provided by interviewees, with the purpose of analysing
if these priority sites are considered in the current PA
system.
Coincidence of terrestrial priority sites for
conservation and AZE sites
Priority sites
Proportion of AZE sites
Terrestrial Priority Regions
SE
32.65
Alliance for Zero Extinction Sites
SA
26.53
National Survey Sites
SM
8.16
SE + SA + SM
67.35
Ecoregional analysis
In order to identify conservation priorities, it was fundamental to consider the use of an ecosystem classification scheme that brings together the environmental
characteristics that determine the existence of biodiversity at its different scales. For this purpose, an official
terrestrial ecoregion map was generated, assisted by the
expertise of diverse specialists.15 This new map –whose
scale corresponds to level IV of the cartography of terrestrial ecoregions nested for North America16– allows
us to have a first assessment of the gaps and omissions
at a 1:1 000 000 scale.
This approach showed that 11 of 96 terrestrial
ecoregions are without any protection and 50 are underrepresented in the protected area system (with different levels of underrepresentation that range from
0.003% to 10.85%). 26 ecoregions are covered by PA
Levels of protection of terrestrial ecoregions in protected areas
The areas dedicated to
in less than 0.05% of their area; these ecoregions are
mainly situated in Veracruz and at the centre and in
the southeast of Mexico. In contrast, two ecoregions
located in the Sierra Madre Occidental and in the
Mexican Altiplano have primary vegetation coverage
in more than 12% of their areas. The fact that ecoregions of smaller size have a smaller proportional surface of primary vegetation in relation to larger ecoregions has important consequences for the attainment
of their habitat and landscape representativeness in a
well-preserved state.
Moreover, mountains and highlands (over 2 800 m)
are protected in greater proportion in relation to the rest
of the country. Considering types of vegetation, the dry
forests, the spiny thicket of Tamaulipas and the pineoak forests present the lowest levels of protection.
conservation should
comprise different elements
of biodiversity. It is essential
to protect representative
portions of functional units
–such as the ecoregions–
that integrate ecosystems,
90
Mexico’s continental area
Proportion of territory included in protected areas
22
80
20
18
70
16
60
14
50
12
40
10
8
30
6
12% (mean worldwide protected surface)
Gaps
Omissions:
greater
Proportion in protected areas
24
Proportion of the national territory
landscapes and species.
100
26
less
Covered in at least 12% of the terrestrial area
20
4
10
2
0
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
2800
3200
Elevation (m)
3600
4000
4400
4800
5200
5600
0
Conservation goals and main pressure factors on biodiversity
Five workshops took place during 2005 and 2006 with
the purpose of discussing the criteria for the analysis of
optimisation (by means of the MARXAN program17) in
order to identify priority sites in regular units of analysis (8 045 hexagons of 256 km2). The identification of
priority sites was carried out based on biological variables for which conservation goals and pressure factors
threatening biodiversity were defined. 2 546 layers of
biological data were considered, 1 450 of which were
selected to be employed in the analysis of identification
of priority sites. In every case, the desired conservation
goals were expressed in terms of the percentage of area
held by biodiversity elements in relation to the extension
of the national territory. Target values were assigned to
terrestrial vertebrate and plant species and to vegetation types, based on criteria such as rarity, endemism,
extinction risk status (the Mexican red list, NOM-059SEMARNAT-200118, and international red list, IUCN19)
and pressure from international commerce (CITES20).
Vegetation types in critical state covering less than
1.5% of the national territory21 were assigned the high-
est conservation goals. In addition, so as to include the
diverse ecological systems, other elements were taken
into consideration; in this sense, areas with a high richness of species, concentration of endemic species and
other types of vegetation that cover a greater territorial
extension were assigned lower conservation goals.
Diverse indicators and parameters –representing
anthropogenic activities– were selected, which constitute a cause of pressure or threat to ecological systems,
communities and to flora and fauna species. Variables
related to land use change, recognised as the main drivers of biodiversity loss, were assigned the highest values.
The areas under higher threats are located in the Gulf
of Mexico coastal plain, the centre of the country and
Importance values of planning units based on conservation goals
particularly in the so-called ‘mega-cities’, which have
extremely high values due to their inherent degree of
direct transformation on the natural environment and
their diffuse but strong negative impact on the environmental services rendered by the ecosystems.
Values of the main pressure factors in planning units
assigned to the diverse biological variables
Threat factors intensity
less
Conservation goals
less
more
more
Terrestrial priority sites for conservation and their
representativeness in the protected area system
The terrestrial priority sites for conservation detected
in the analysis of optimisation cover 594 894 km2
(30.36% of the territory), but only 12.9% of this area
is under the protection of federal, state and municipal
PA (3.91% of the country’s continental territory). The
terrestrial priority sites were classified into three categories based on the selection frequency performed by
the optimisation program. Extreme priority sites (SE)
cover 2.18% of the continental area, such percentage
increases to 16.6% and to 30.6% when the sites of high
priority (SA) and of high and medium priority (SM)
are respectively considered. With the extreme priority
sites alone (SE) it is not possible to attain the goals for
all the biodiversity elements, a fact which reflects the
high level of heterogeneity that characterizes Mexico
as a mega-diverse country. Clearly, the country needs
to increase the area destined for conservation in order
to represent effectively a larger number of biodiversity elements, thus it is indispensable to have a sustainable management outside the PA. The terrestrial
priority sites for conservation ought to be analysed
with an integral vision along with the results derived
from different approaches and scales, by means of a
quantitative and qualitative synthesis that allows us to
evaluate, in a more successful way, how to conduct the
National Agenda for conservation and the sustainable
management of Mexico’s natural capital. Some criteria
for this integration include implementation actions,
such as the current instruments (PA, social and private
reserves, environmental management units, certified
forests, payment for environmental services, tax incentives, areas of importance for restoration, norms, etc.),
as well as the urgency levels, feasibility and costs. It is
crucial to follow up the results, for which it will be necessary to: 1) carry out a revision and validation process;
2) have a finer analysis resolution at regional and local
scales; 3) define criteria and select ad hoc variables for
the scale of the analyses; 4) achieve a greater participation of the involved actors, especially at a regional
scale and for the examination of less-studied biological groups; 5) identify the factors of success and failure
of different instruments and areas, taking into account
socioeconomic aspects; 6) incorporate new elements
and knowledge, like agrobiodiversity; and 7) analyse
the tendencies of pressure factors, such as deforestation
and climate change, amongst others.
An example of the importance
of private reserves for conservation
in the State of Oaxaca22
In order to conserve Mexico’s biodiversity
it is necessary to implement diverse strategies,
such as the establishment of new protected
areas, land use planning, integral management
programmes, and the participation
and involvement of society as a whole.
Terrestrial priority sites for conservation and their coincidence with PA, RTP and IBAs
Priority sites area (km2)
goals* (%)
PA (%)
RTP (%)
IBAs (%) Terrestrial area (%)
SE
42 725
34.9
18.19
49.52
30.70
2.18
SA
283 092
81.2**
15.59
39.29
24.72
14.45
SM
269 077
90.5**
9.23
29.80
20.42
13.73
SE + SA + SM
594 894
12.90
35.74
23.21
30.36
MS***
848 881
100
12.44
32.98
20.28
43.32
* Proportion in which the conservation goals are achieved at the proposed sites
** Accumulated value
*** The best solution assembles the group of sites with which all the conservation goals are reached
Federal protected areas
Extreme priority sites
State protected areas
High priority sites
Social and private reserves
Medium priority sites
for further information: www.conabio.gob.mx/gap
Rosario Álvarez, Juan Bezaury, Flavio Cházaro, Ernesto Enkerlin, Rocío Esquivel, María Pía Gallina,
Martín Gutiérrez, Patricia Koleff, Andrés Lira-Noriega, Vanesa Pérez, Susana Rojas, Marcia Tambutti.
References
1 CONABIO. 2006. Capital Natural y Bienstar Social. Comisión Nacional para el
Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, México.
2 Mendoza, E. y R. Dirzo. 1999. Deforestation in Lacandonia (southeast Mexico): evidence for the declaration of the northernmost tropical hot-spot. Biodiversity and Conservation 8:1621-1641.
3 FAO. 2007. Situación de los Bosques del Mundo 2007. Organización de las
Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación, Roma.
4 Dirzo, R. y M.C., García. 1992. Rates of deforestation in Los Tuxtlas, a neotropical area in southeast Mexico. Conservation Biology 6: 84-90.
5 Velázquez, A., J.F. Mas, J.R. Díaz, R. Mayorga, G.C. Alcántara, R. Castro, T.
Fernández, J.L. Palacio. 2002. Patrones de cambio de uso del suelo y tasas de deforestación en México. Gaceta Ecológica de la Instituto Nacional de
Ecología 62.
6 Nuñez-Farfán, J., C.A. Domínguez, R. Dirzo, L. Eguiarte y M. Quijano. 1996.
Estudio ecológico de las poblaciones de Rhizophora mangle en México. Reporte del proyecto B007, Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de
la Biodiversidad, México.
7 CONANP-CONABIO. 2005. Mapa ANP para los análisis de vacíos y omisiones
en conservación. Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas - Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, México.
8 Bezaury-Creel, J.E., J.F. Torres y N. Moreno. 2007. Base de Datos Geográfica
de Áreas Naturales Protegidas Estatales, del Distrito Federal y Municipales
de México para el Análisis de Vacíos y Omisiones en Conservación. The
Nature Conservancy - Pronatura - Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y
Uso de la Biodiversidad - Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas.
1 Capa ArcINFO + 1 Archivo de Metadatos Word.
9 UICN/CBD. 2001. Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica, Textos y Anexos. UICN/
CBD/94/1. Canadá.
10 Mittermier, R.A., P. Robles Gil, M. Hoffmann, J. Pilgrim, T. Brooks, C.G. Mittermeier, J. Lamoreux y G.A.B. Fonseca. 2004. Hotspots Revisited. Cemex, México.
11 Arriaga, L., J.M. Espinoza, C. Aguilar, E. Martínez, L. Gómez y E. Loa (coords.).
2000. Regiones Terrestres Prioritarias de México. Comisión Nacional para el
Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, México.
12 Arriaga, L., V. Aguilar y J. Alcocer (coords.). 2000. Aguas Continentales Diversidad Biológica de México. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de
la Biodiversidad, México.
13 Arizmendi, C. y L. Valdelamar. 2000. Áreas de Importancia para la Conservación
de las Aves en México. Cipamex, México.
14 Alliance for Zero Extinction. Pinpointing and coAlliance for Zero Extinction.
Alliance for Zero Extinction. Pinpointing and conserving epicenters of imminent extinctions. <www.zeroextinction.org/index.htm>, consulted June
2006.
15 INEGI-CONABIO-INE. 2007. Ecorregiones terrestres de México 1:1 000 000.
Instituto Nacional de Geografía y Estadística - Comisión Nacional Para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad - Instituto Nacional de Ecología, México.
16 CCA. 1997. Regiones Ecológicas de América del Norte: hacia una perspectiva común. Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental. <www.cec.org>
17 Ball, I.R. y H.P. Possingham. 2000. MARXAN (V1.8.2): Marine Reserve Design
Using Spatially Explicit Annealing, a Manual.
18 Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-Semarnat-2001 Protección ambiental especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres - categorías de riesgo
y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio - lista de especies
en riesgo. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. 2002. Diario
Oficial (Segunda Sección).
19 IUCN Red List <www.iucnredlist.org>, consulted October 2006.
20 CITES species database <www.cites.org/eng/resources/species.html>, consulted October 2006.
21 INEGI-Dirección General de Geografía (ed.) 2005. Conjunto de datos vectoriales de uso de suelo y vegetación, escala 1:250 000, serie 3 (continuo
nacional. INEGI, Aguascalientes.
22 Bezaury-Creel, J.E., J. F. Torres, L. Ochoa-Ochoa. 2007. Base de Datos Geográfica de Áreas Protegidas Sociales y Privadas de México para Análisis Espacial-Versión 0.1, 28/06/2007. The Nature Conservancy-Pronatura. 1 Capa
ArcGIS 8.0.
Design
Rosalba Becerra
Translation
Ximena Lima
Photography
Upper page from left to right (photographs from the CONABIO Image Bank
are indicated with /C): Northern Anteater (Tamandua mexicana) © Victor Hugo
Luja/C; Orchid (Epidendrum stanfordianum) © Manuel Grosselet/C; tree trunks
of Ficus and Bursera © Rosalba Becerra; Northern Cat-Eye Snake (Leptodeira
septentrionalis) © Victor Hugo Luja/C; Crested Guan (Penelope purpurascens)
© Humberto Bahena/C; cactus © Carlos Sánchez Pereyra/C; Garnet-throated
Hummingbird (Lamprolaima rhami) © Manuel Grosselet/C; Pronghorn (An
tilocapra americana) © Alejandro Boneta; frog (Hyla loquax) © Victor Hugo
Luja/C; Bursera © Carlos Sánchez Pereyra/C; background image: desert dune
sands at El Pinacate © Carlos Sánchez Pereyra/C. Main map from left to right:
Tropical dry forests © Carlos Sánchez Pereyra/C; oak-pine forest © Manel
Grosselet/C; gypsum dunes © Alejandro Boneta; grassland © Gerardo
Ceballos/C; xeric shrubs © Tania Urquiza; desert © Carlos Sánchez Pereyra/C;
oak forest © Alejandro Boneta; pine forest © Alejandro Boneta; cloud forest
© Edmundo Huerta/C; topical rainforest © Rosalba Becerra.
Citation
CONABIO-CONANP-TNC-PRONATURA. 2007. Gap analysis for conservation priorities
of terrestrial biodiversity in Mexico- spaces and species. Comisión Nacional para
el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales
Protegidas, The Nature Conservancy-Programa México, Pronatura. Mexico.
O.T. 11959 “Vacíos y omisiones en conservación de la biodiversidad terrestre de México” (Mapa) FTE Cyan Magenta Yellow Black
Authors
Patricia Koleff, Andrés Lira-Noriega, Tania Urquiza, César Cantú, Rocío Esquivel,
Ignacio March, Marcia Tambutti, Jesús Alarcón, Segundo Blanco, Gerardo
Ceballos, Antony Challenger, Javier Colín, Ernesto Enkerlin, Oscar Flores-Villela,
Melanie Kolb, Pedro Maeda, Enrique Martínez-Meyer, Elizabeth Moreno,
Norma Moreno, Mariana Munguía, Miguel Murguía, Adolfo Navarro, Leticia
Ochoa-Ochoa, Víctor Sánchez-Cordero, Daniel Ocaña, Jorge Soberón, Juan
Francisco Torres y Raúl Ulloa.
Technical organizers
Patricia Koleff, Rocío Esquivel, Marcia Tambutti, Andrés Lira-Noriega, Tania
Urquiza, Ignacio March, César Cantú.
Executive Group
GAP ANALYSIS FOR CONSERVATION PRIORITIES OF TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY IN MEXICO
spaces and species
G u l f
o f
Me x i c o
SELECTED BIOLOGICAL VARIABLES FOR
THE IDENTIFICATION OF TERRESTRIAL
PRIORITY SITES
Critical natural and seminatural vegetation Plant families Plants (Mexican Red list, NOM-059-2001) Amphibians Reptiles Birds Mammals Species richness Total
68
12
214
208
424
273
242
9
1 450
Pa cif ic
Ocean
SELECTED LAYERS AS INDICATORS OF IMPACTS
ON BIODIVERSITY
O.T. 11959 “Vacíos y omisiones en conservación de la biodiversidad terrestre de México” (Mapa) VTA Cyan Magenta Yellow Black
Threat Factors
Habitat loss
• Land use change rate
• Habitat fragmentation indices
• Secondary herbaceous vegetation • Secondary shrub vegetation
• Heat points - wild fire
Agriculture and cattle farming
• Irrigation agriculture
• Seasonal and floodland agriculture
• High impact cattle farming (goats and sheep)
• Low impact cattle farming (bovine cattle and horses)
• Cultivated and induced grasslands
Infrastructure
• Paved road density
• Dirt road density
Settlements and demography
• New settlements (2000-2005)
• Localities < 1 000 inhabitants (2000)
• Localities 1 000 - 10 000 inhabitants (2000)
• Localities 10 000 - 100 000 inhabitants (2000)
• Localities 100 000 - 200 000 inhabitants (2000)
• Localities > 200 000 inhabitants (2000)
• Population growth rate (1990 - 2005)
Caribbean
Sea
Federal protected areas
State protected areas
Municipal protected areas
Extreme priority sites
High priority sites
Medium priority sites
0
250
500
1000
km