Search

Introduction: Integrating genetic data into conservation management decisions is a challenging task that requires strong partnerships between researchers and managers. Conservation in Latin America is of crucial relevance worldwide given the high biodiversity levels and the presence of hotspots in this region.Methods: We conducted a survey across Latin America to identify gaps and opportunities between genetic researchers and conservation managers. We aimed to better understand conservation managers’ points of view and how genetic research could help conservation practitioners to achieve their goals, by implementing genetic assessments that could effectively inform conservation practices. We distributed an online survey via four regional collaborating organizations and 32 focal points based in 20 Latin American countries. The target respondents were conservation managers of species or areas in Latin America.Results: We collected a total of 468 answered questionnaires from 21 Latin American countries. Most respondents (44%) were from an academic or research institution while non-academics were mainly from non-governmental institutions (30%) and government agencies (25%). Most respondents (65%) have performed or used genetic assessments in their managed area or species, either alone, in partnership, contracting someone else or using published results. For the majority of this group, the genetic results were relevant to their conservation management goals, helping to inform management decisions. Respondents that had not performed genetic assessments (35%) were mainly from the non-academic group, and their main barriers were limited access to funds, genetic lab facilities, and trained personnel to design studies and conduct lab work.Discussion: From the findings, we describe the current situation and provide a general diagnosis of the conservation-genetics gap in Latin America. We describe the gender gap, academic-practitioner co-development of conservation questions and projects, and the nationality and residency of Latin American conservation managers in relation to the countries where they work. We discuss opportunities to co-create research questions and co-develop studies based on conservation practitioners’ needs. We offer recommendations for overcoming barriers to integrate genetic information into conservation actions, and advance agendas that fit the needs and realities of the highly heterogeneous, biodiverse and challenging Latin American region.

Knowledge products comprise assessments of authoritative information supported by standards, governance, quality control, data, tools, and capacity building mechanisms. Considerable resources are dedicated to developing and maintaining knowledge products for biodiversity conservation, and they are widely used to inform policy and advise decision makers and practitioners. However, the financial cost of delivering this information is largely undocumented. We evaluated the costs and funding sources for developing and maintaining four global biodiversity and conservation knowledge products: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, Protected Planet, and the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. These are secondary data sets, built on primary data collected by extensive networks of expert contributors worldwide. We estimate that US$160 million (range: US$116-204 million), plus 293 person-years of volunteer time (range: 278-308 person-years) valued at US$ 14 million (range US$12-16 million), were invested in these four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013. More than half of this financing was provided through philanthropy, and nearly three-quarters was spent on personnel costs. The estimated annual cost of maintaining data and platforms for three of these knowledge products (excluding the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems for which annual costs were not possible to estimate for 2013) is US$6.5 million in total (range: US$6.2-6.7 million). We estimated that an additional US$114 million will be needed to reach pre-defined baselines of data coverage for all the four knowledge products, and that once achieved, annual maintenance costs will be approximately US$12 million. These costs are much lower than those to maintain many other, similarly important, global knowledge products. Ensuring that biodiversity and conservation knowledge products are sufficiently up to date, comprehensive and accurate is fundamental to inform decision-making for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Thus, the development and implementation of plans for sustainable long-term financing for them is critical.

An understanding of risks to biodiversity is needed for planning action to slow current rates of decline and secure ecosystem services for future human use. Although the IUCN Red List criteria provide an effective assessment protocol for species, a standard global assessment of risks to higher levels of biodiversity is currently limited. In 2008, IUCN initiated development of risk assessment criteria to support a global Red List of ecosystems. We present a new conceptual model for ecosystem risk assessment founded on a synthesis of relevant ecological theories. To support the model, we review key elements of ecosystem definition and introduce the concept of ecosystem collapse, an analogue of species extinction. The model identifies four distributional and functional symptoms of ecosystem risk as a basis for assessment criteria: A) rates of decline in ecosystem distribution; B) restricted distributions with continuing declines or threats; C) rates of environmental (abiotic) degradation; and D) rates of disruption to biotic processes. A fifth criterion, E) quantitative estimates of the risk of ecosystem collapse, enables integrated assessment of multiple processes and provides a conceptual anchor for the other criteria. We present the theoretical rationale for the construction and interpretation of each criterion. The assessment protocol and threat categories mirror those of the IUCN Red List of species. A trial of the protocol on terrestrial, subterranean, freshwater and marine ecosystems from around the world shows that its concepts are workable and its outcomes are robust, that required data are available, and that results are consistent with assessments carried out by local experts and authorities. The new protocol provides a consistent, practical and theoretically grounded framework for establishing a systematic Red List of the world's ecosystems. This will complement the Red List of species and strengthen global capacity to report on and monitor the status of biodiversity.