1. Method

An important task of planners is to regulate land-uses to meet certain objectives, so that the results differ from those expected from spontaneous development. This usually comes with certain requirements or limitations as compared to unregulated use, and consequently it has an impact, particularly on local communities. In the case of conservation lands, conversion of natural habitat into productive land is usually prohibited, as well as non-regulated hunting and gathering. Once established, very little management of the natural resources themselves are required. Nevertheless, they cannot be left unattended; they need continuous attention, such as public relations care, monitoring and patrolling, which are activities, requiring staff, buildings and equipment. Each additional hectare involves additional costs. Such costs will re-occur every year. Thus, by setting aside land for conservation, a society enforces certain limitations on local communities and assumes a long-term financial commitment to meet with the management requirements.

Once conservation lands have been designated, policy makers and managers have to make choices, such as, where to finance what activities, which areas need more attention, what locations can be used by the public and which areas should never be impaired. They need to weight the importance of many different parameters. For complex multifactor planning, decision-makers may benefit from a computer programme to help them in dealing with multiple variables in a consistent way.

AFE-COHDEFOR has decided to have such analysis be carried out by the MICOSYS programme of the World Institute for Conservation and Environment to compare areas on the basis of scores for biological, socio-economical and cultural variables.

1.1. Cost-effectiveness

The most efficient way of setting up and maintaining a national biodiversity conservation system is by composing an integrated system which warrants the conservation of the maximum number of species on the minimum area of land and water at minimal costs. A system that would incorporate one example of each existing ecosystem thus provides the highest biodiversity on a minimum area of land. However, one example of each ecosystem would provide a low level of security for continuity, as many species could become extinct at once by natural disasters such as fires and hurricanes. A safe minimum standard of conservation should be set to secure continuity of biodiversity, while restricting conservation land claims to the strictly necessary.

1.2. Comparative weighting

1.2.1. Computer aided weighting

The comparative weighting takes place on the basis of a selection of ecological, taxonomical and socio-economical variables. Each variable can be assigned a value or algorithm on the basis of a professional judgement; thus, each value by its very nature is subjective. But once established, the processing of each parameter is carried out mathematically and performed identically for each variable and each area. As the parameters become numbers, the MICOSYS programme facilitates the paradoxical exercise of "adding apples and oranges". In the end it comes up with a numerical score for each evaluated area, which has come about by identical calculations. Such scores allow relative comparisons between the different areas. Of course those values are indicative and should not be used in an absolute sense.

1.2.2. Evaluation parameters

The current study evaluates the intrinsic values of the protected areas of the SINAPH, taking ecosystems and species of special concern, as its point of departure. Although the primacy of biodiversity and natural heritage values in ascribing protected area status is pre-eminent, many protected areas in Honduras also serve to provide environmental services, notably tourism, recreation, production of drinking water, research and education. Where appropriate, the programme assigns those services-potential a value.

Obviously, not all purposes can be served in a biodiversity conservation system and one must determine what is desired. As SINAPH’s role as the prime territory for in situ biodiversity conservation, one must select those areas of SINAPH that are indispensable for conservation purposes and where biodiversity conservation management objectives must prevail. In those areas non-consumptive environmental services are possible, but those must always be subject to limitations set by the primary objective of the area, which is biodiversity conservation. Some elements must be weighted that must be considered as threatening or negative elements in the evaluation and the programme may assign a negative value to such conditions. The programme has been set up to weight the following parameters of the protected areas of SINAPH:

· Size of the reserves

· Size of the land/water under cultivation

· Tourism value

· Environmental ducation

· Scientific research

· Size of economically used parts of watersheds

· Ecosystems

· Geomorphologic highlights

· Extraordinarily scenic landscapes

· Archaeological remains

· Species of special concern

· Investment costs

· Recurrent costs

· Staffing needs

The detailed argumentation for their selection and their weighting is explained in Volume VI, Manual MICOSYS. For the purpose of valuation, all legally declared protected areas, as well as those proposed protected areas that have a territorial definition in their proposal have been polygonised and measured in hectares, using the ArcView 3.1 GIS software of ESRI. This has facilitated measurements of territory related validations, such as ecosystems and productive lands.

By many, SINAPH is considered to include both legally established areas and proposed areas. Legally, this is not a correct approach, as merely proposing an area in a study cannot be supposed to have any legal status. In this study we make an explicit distinction between those areas that are legally established and those that are not. We also must draw the attention to the fact that a number of areas are legally declared, but without any territorial definition or co-ordinates. Such areas lack territory and must also be considered to be non-existing until their co-ordinates are legally established. Such areas are treated as proposed areas.

1.2.2.1. Size of the reserves

The size of a protected area is important for its effectiveness as an in situ conservation instrument for the following reasons:

·         The number of species present in an ecosystem increases with size;

·         With increasing size, a protected area is likely to harbour more different ecosystems;

·         Some species migrate within their range during their life cycle or during a season cycle (different parts of a watershed, different elevations). Larger areas are more likely to foresee in all requirements of such cycles.

The population sizes of organisms in larger territories are bigger and are therefore more resilient to fluctuations and support greater genetic flow; this is particularly relevant for species in need of large territories.

Large areas have a more favourable surface/periphery ratio and as a result, negative external effects have less of an impact on the area as a whole. Also management is relatively cheaper, as management is particularly directed at prevention and mitigation of external effects.

We must bare in mind however, that while the importance of a protected area increases with its size, these benefits do not increase in a straightforward fashion, they rather follow a declining curve (Dobson 1998).

1.2.2.2. Size of the land under cultivation

Many protected areas in Honduras have lands or waters (shrimp farms) under some form of productive land-use. These lands have been identified and mapped as productive lands in the Ecosystems map. Those areas are no longer very suitable for vital ecosystems with their organisms. Therefore, the sizes of the productive lands within the protected areas have been measured and valued negatively.

1.2.2.3. Tourism value

Particularly the national parks, who’s secondary objective is “to provide enjoyment for present and future generations”, may have important tourism values. Points are assigned for present and potential value. Very inaccessible areas like the ones in the Mosquitia triangle are not granted any points[1].

1.2.2.4. Education

Education may generally be considered to be covered under tourism value[2], a few cases stand out well above the average conditions of tourism potential. These are areas with easy access at a very short distance from a major city:

· La Tigra visible from Tegucigalpa;

· El Merendon dominating the skyline of San Pedro Sula;

· Pico Bonito “watching” over La Ceiba.

1.2.2.5. Scientific research

The benefits of scientific research for society are too evident and broad to even make an attempt to list them in this brief paragraph. There are some beneficial opportunities of research in protected areas, however, that are often overlooked. Protected areas attract foreign researchers that can only study tropical biology in the tropics. Particularly interesting are research stations that are established in co-operation between a national and foreign institution. Such centres create local employment, opportunities for national scientists to benefit from foreign knowledge, increased scientific output, foreign currency generation, etc. In Honduras the best example has been the centre at Cayos Cochinos, that for some time had been maintained in collaboration between a national NGO and the Smithsonian Institute. The Lancetilla Botanical Garden has initiated an effort to become the tropical research centre for Northern Honduras, for which it already is rather well equipped and suitably located.

1.2.2.6. Size of economically used parts of watersheds

All land is part of one watershed or the other, and giving a value to all analysed areas would merely lead to the repetition of the validation of the total land size. Therefore only those parts of watershed are taken into considerations that are actually used to produce water for drinking water or hydroelectric purposes. Sizes must be calculated as the watersheds above the intake points.

1.2.2.7. Ecosystems

The Central American Ecosystems Map has been produced to give better insights into wealth and distribution of species of Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. The Honduran Ecosystems Map forms the Honduras section in that integrated regional map.

The Ecosystems Map of Honduras was produced using the UNESCO system (Mueller-Dombois 1974), which is fundamentally a species independent physiognomic, hierarchical vegetation classification system. It takes into account ecological factors such as climate, elevation, seasonality and human intervention (Vreugdenhil et al., 2002, in press). One of the main advantages of this system is that the distribution of ecosystems that can be observed in the field can also be recognised on satellite images. Furthermore, satellite images normally clearly show human intervention in primary vegetation and therefore an ecosystems map based on the combination of the UNESCO classification and satellite images shows the actual status of ecosystem conservation at the time the satellite image was taken. The map of Honduras was based on images taken in the period 1994 – 2000, and as a result, some of the shapes of the ecosystem polygons may be somewhat outdated.

Vreugdenhil, et al., (2002, in press), argue that the ecosystem classes mapped in the Central American Ecosystems Map represent fairly distinct – though often partially overlapping – sets of species. However, since we assume that the UNESCO classes, particularly if extended with diagnostic species, represent sets of species and their mutual interrelationships and processes, fauna elements are as intrinsic to the ecosystem classes of the Central American Ecosystems Map (Vreugdenhil, et al., 2002, in press) as are flora elements. The ecosystem classes are therefore currently the closest proxy available to provide a differentiation of species sets that is not biased by such common factors as access or institutionalised study areas.

1.2.2.8. Geomorphologic highlights

Most protected areas systems in the world include special or unique geomorphologic formations. Such highlights are expressions of the physical nature that are not necessarily important for biodiversity conservation, but which form an inseparable part of nature and which are highly valued for their aesthetic beauty. Such formations may include rocks of a remarkable coloration or shape, caves, water wells, waterfalls, canyons, etc.

1.2.2.9. Extraordinarily scenic landscapes

Extraordinary landscapes are different from the previous tourism value in the sense that they apply to conditions of a more generic nature. A protected area of extremely difficult access may still provide a beautiful landscape from a distance, while an area with very easy access may have greater tourism potential while sometimes having lesser scenic landscape value.

1.2.2.10. Archaeological remains

In some cases protected areas may host the last links with our past in the form of archaeological remains. They may vary from isolated pre-historical tools to unique monuments. In this study only the most conspicuous monuments have been taken in consideration.

1.2.2.11. Species of special concern

In previous paragraphs we have argued that the ecosystems of the Ecosystems Map of Honduras responsibly serves as a proxy for species in a representation/gap analysis. In theory they would include all the sets of species of special concern and the ecosystem classes would distribute them without sampling bias. Nevertheless, regular species[3] of special concern and endemic species are also considered in the system.

1.2.3. Protected areas system requirements

1.2.3.1. Species representation

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN, which unites more than 700 conservation government institutions and NGOs world wide, http://IUCN.org) argues that 12 % of the original habitat of a given territory covers about 70 % of the species belonging to that habitat (or ecosystem in the sense being used by WICE). On the basis of species sets of a large number of ecosystems, Dobson (1998) developed a graph, Figure 1, "Estimate of percentile extinction of species in function of percentile habitat destruction", that plots the percentile increase in size of an ecosystem against the percentile increase of species. He found that the latter ranges between two curves, irrespective of the type of ecosystem, climatic conditions, geographical position or its species density. Some interesting positions on the optimistic curve are: 3 percent of the area would conserve 50% of the species, 12 percent conserves 70 percent of the species and 30 percent protects 80% of the species. Above 30 % even large increases in total area would add proportionally very few species. The pessimistic curve would lead to somewhat lower but still impressive conservation results. The UICN targeted to legally protect 12 % of the world's ecosystem in protected areas in the year 2000. Following Dobson’s curve this would conserve about 70% of the world’s species.

With more detailed ecosystem mapping information for Honduras, very realistic and cost-effective biodiversity conservation systems may be composed that warrant extremely high representation of the remaining species in any given study area or country. At the level of detail that WICE is working with its ecosystem mapping approach, in most study areas, using the criterion of 12% of the original habitat is very difficult to assess. Therefore WICE has a slightly different approach, which allows it to arrive at optimal results from currently still existing conditions. First it targets to set aside a minimum of 12 % of land of any country for biodiversity conservation in a coarse distribution across its territory, hoping to include most of the large-scale macro-ecosystems or landscapes of the country with an average of 12 % of their original territories. Some of those ecosystems may be over-represented while others are underrepresented. Assuming that the optimistic curve needs only 3% of the territory to include 50% of the species, and that the coarse distribution across the country captures well over 50 % of the ecosystems, this should lead to the inclusion of 50% or more of the species that are still present in the country. In most of the cases percentages are probably much higher, because large-scale landscapes usually include a number of less common small-scale ecosystems at percentages of 12% or more of their historical presence. Particularly in the case of mountain ecosystems, those small ecosystems may represent very high and highly distinctive biodiversity.

To increase inclusion of species, one should strive after a second target, which is the inclusion of a sample of every ecosystem still existing in the country. Given the detail of ecosystem mapping feasible for even large regions with the UNESCO classification system (Mueller-Dombois 1974), the application of maps based on this method will significantly boost the number of species in conservation systems. At this level of detail however, it is rarely possible to target 12 % of the historically present territory of the ecosystems, and the authors feels that targeting 12% of the currently still surviving ecosystems is more realistic. This mixed objective will lead to a presence of a remarkably high percentage of the originally occurring species of a given country.

In dialogue with Den Boer (personal communications, 1992) they argued that the ideal level of protection for ecosystems would be the occurrence at 5 different locations of any given ecosystem in a national protected area system. The reasoning is as follows: Statistically, stochastic (randomly occurring) extreme conditions (which may be a mix of mankind induced and natural disasters) tend to occur in groups of maximally 3 or 4 events. The first next higher number, 5 representations of an ecosystem in a protected areas system, would provide a significantly higher level of security against extinction. In practice, such level of representation is never feasible for all ecosystems. Some ecosystems may only occur once or twice in the country and have a 100% representation in the protected areas system. The authors feel that the spreading of risks against extinction is still reasonably secure if an ecosystem occurs in 3 different protected areas, provided that extreme conditions may be mitigated by good management practices. This would particularly be the case if the same ecosystem would occur in a neighbouring country or if an ecosystem occurs in smaller – non-mappable – patches in other ecosystems. Species sets occurring only in one or two protected areas however, are considered vulnerable.

Ecosystems of the size of more than 100,000 ha are large enough that they may be considered to be equally protected as three different smaller size ecosystems at different locations. Recorded large-scale natural disasters in protected areas show (e.g. a major forest fire in Yellowstone National Park and several hurricanes in this region) that large stretches of natural land never are rarely equally affected by natural phenomena and that usually parts remain reasonably well intact. We therefore consider a typically large ecosystem adequately protected if it covers more than 100,000 ha in a protected areas system only once.

Newmark (1986) shows that in the United States, all areas over a 100,000 ha tend to lose some species over time, and that the situation would only significantly improve with areas over one million. The authors believe that areas larger than a million hectare may only occasionally be achieved in any given country in the world, and that for most species protected areas of 100,000 ha will provide durable shelter.

Viability

The smaller an area, the more likely it becomes that populations of species will go extinct. Many conservationists are concerned about the viability of an area. We rather like to think that all ecosystems – even the very small ones - are viable, but not each size is suitable for maintaining all the species that we associate with a defined ecosystem. As systems are reduced in size resulting from habitat destruction, we must expect more species to go extinct, but an ecosystem will always be viable for some species. Therefore “viability” rather relates to the individual species associated with an ecosystem. When we relate to “viability” in this document, we refer to the viability of the majority of the species set belonging to that ecosystem, but not to the ecosystem itself. The question is, how big must an area be for a species to survive? This is different for every species.

As different requirements apply to different organisms, we have searched for common trends. TNC (Secaira et al, 2001) observes that natural ecosystems occur in different typical sizes – e.g. mountainous forests on isolated mountaintops are typically small, while lowland humid tropical broadleaved forests are typically large. They argue that species that are used to living in typically small ecosystems are more resilient to surviving in small territories than species in large systems. Based on this premise, WICE has elaborated a set of balanced size classes and criteria.

Typically small terrestrial ecosystems

With regard to natural terrestrial ecosystems, few are typically smaller than 1,000 ha, even in mountainous regions. For terrestrial ecosystems (not belonging to islands and not embedded in larger ecosystems) of a characteristic size of up to 5,000 ha, we think it would be wise to strive for a minimum area of 1,000 ha. If such ecosystems are embedded however they usually are not considered to have a minimum size.

Embedded ecosystems

While we tend to associate species with one specific ecosystem, in practice many species live in a mosaic of ecosystems in different densities. Most mapped ecosystems are artificially cut up, while many species are distributed along gliding scales of gradual changes. As a result individual species distributions usually deviate in part from the mapped ecosystems and many species belonging to small ecosystems also occur in parts of neighbouring ecosystems, albeit in different densities. Furthermore, it is very likely that small ecosystems embedded in larger ecosystems consist of finer-grained mosaics that allow species to live in much larger territories than the mapped ecosystem units suggest. We therefore expect that embedded small ecosystems usually provide viable conditions for the populations that have established themselves long ago. The number of species typical for that ecosystem however will be smaller in smaller ecosystems than in large ones.

Typically large terrestrial ecosystems

With regard to very large ecosystems, in the level of detail of the Ecosystems Map, very few ecosystems in Central America are of a typical size of more than 50,000 ha to 500,000 ha. More often than not, large natural areas consist of mosaics of several different ecosystems, of much smaller characteristic sizes, meaning that even for large-scale ecosystems, a minimum size of 10,000 ha of stand-alone large-scale ecosystems should be enough for the survival of most species[4].

Typically medium size terrestrial ecosystems

Somewhere between typically large and small terrestrial ecosystems are medium size ecosystems. After reviewing sizes of ecosystems in Central America, we arbitrarily defined them to be between 5,000 and 50,000 ha, and we assessed their minimum size at 5000 ha, unless embedded.

Aquatic ecosystems

For aquatic ecosystems, one must rather consider the quantitative and qualitative viability of the water system (ranging from watersheds, estuaries, and coastal waters to minuscule isolated pools) as a whole, in which many recognized ecosystems are important but inter-dependent ecologically connected subsystems. Such sub-systems – often linear in shape - may be very small and specific species may be associated with them. Even though such species have specific ecological preferences, many populations of aquatic species cover much larger areas than the ecosystems where the majority of them are found. Most small aquatic ecosystems are part of larger aquatic ecosystems, even if they are only occasionally connected (pools, oxbow rivers). Even very small temporarily connected water bodies should be regarded as embedded ecosystems, which may hold viable populations of organisms in very small sizes. On water systems, no minimum size can be suggested. Most terrestrial ecosystems are traversed by rivers and thus include aquatic ecosystems. These aquatic elements in predominantly terrestrial ecosystems are usually part of water systems that reach far beyond the protected area, and consequently the viability of the aquatic species in such areas are subject to the integrity of those entire water systems. Usually integral water management of such systems is required to warrant the integrity of flora and fauna of gazetted lands.

With regard to connectivity between subsystems in water systems, it should be noted that within the latter, connectivity is far better than among terrestrial ecosystems. Theories on biological corridors for terrestrial ecosystems often do not apply to aquatic ecosystems, as virtually all aquatic organisms in a water system are connected through swimming, flying or currents. Non-territorially connected “stepping stones” are usually sufficient to connect populations (e.g. migratory birds, manatee) over large distances.

Genetic flow

A further point of consideration is the concern with genetic flow in small populations of animals requiring large areas. In the past, several almost extinct animals were feared to have become extinct (Mörzer Bruijns, 1972, pers. com.) because their severely reduced populations would be genetically too impoverished to survive. The case of the Przwalski's Horse was given as a showcase. In 1999, during one of his missions, Vreugdenhil learned that the Przwalski's Horse was successfully reintroduced to its ancestral territory, the Mongolian highland prairies. Nowadays, several species have increased from world wide populations of a few hundred to several hundreds of thousands or more (the American Bison, Vicuña) and several species are surviving at less dramatic but more viable numbers after having recuperated from one or two dozen individuals. While we don’t know is how long a drain on genetic diversity may last, it is clear that the resilience to severe genetic-diversity-drain fortunately is bigger than we feared previously. That does not mean that we should take this concern lightly. Frequent and/or long-term depletion of a population to very low numbers will in the end lead to reduced genetic variability and thus reduced tolerance to continuously changing environmental conditions or to the inbreeding of genetic defects. Also, the costs of bringing a species back from a very small population to viability are excessively high (thousands of times more costly than keeping species viable in natural ecosystems). The authors just want to make the point that hope should not be given up as long as there are still some individuals alive, but a conservation system should be designed to avoid conditions in which species will decline to extremely low numbers. This cannot always be avoided however, as is the case with the Honduran Emerald (the endemic humming bird Amazilia luciae).

The size of a country allowing, one should strive for at least one area of at least 100,000 ha, preferably considerably larger, in which large birds of prey and mammalian predators may keep up a healthy population and where large herbivores may roam. Such areas are usually not determined by criteria of composition of ecosystems but rather by mere availability.

Many of these larger animals – particularly the mammalian predators - are not fully dependent on natural habitat. Many may leave natural habitats and roam through rural areas. If left alone, individuals may connect with populations of their kind in other protected areas, thus breaking their genetic isolation. In most rural societies, farmers are inclined to hunt down every predator that roams the region. This habit might be diverted if farmers are compensated for the occasional kill of a domestic animal. It is recommended to create a modest (1 percent of the national biodiversity conservation budget) predator kill compensation fund that operates under a clear set of rules in combination with a campaign to leave wandering predators alone.

Ecological connectivity

During a geological time scale, all populations will go extinct, and in nature, local extinction does occur (Den Boer, 1977). Under natural circumstances, ecosystems, which have lost a species, will usually be re-stocked. Whether or not members of another population will replace a locally extinct population depends on many factors, such as the mobility of the species, distance from the nearest population that might re-stock and ecological connectivity. In larger protected areas, many of the smaller species may re-populate vacated sites from within.

Biological corridors potentially offer a passage for re-stocking and exchange of genetic material among populations, but in principle, a corridor only serves to that purpose for all organisms if it is ecologically identical to the connected areas. An inhabited terrestrial biological corridor with mainly intervened arboreous cover provides connectivity to those species that can at least temporarily survive under those intervened conditions; that is a very limited selection of species compared to the ones that live in the connected natural ecosystems. Additionally it probably connects populations of animals of intermediate mobility that are capable to pass through that habitat even though they may not live there permanently. Connectivity becomes rather restricted between ecosystems of different nature, even more so if the connecting ecosystem is still of another (e.g. intervened) type. An extended marshland is a poor biological corridor for most terrestrial organisms and a savannah provides limited connectivity for forest-dwelling species, while a lowland tropical forest does not provide connectivity for the vast majority of high elevation species.

Highly mobile species may benefit from biological corridors or even non-connected stepping-stones, but may not strictly need them. Those include many flying species and aquatic organisms.

We have to realise that we live in an era in which species will disappear forever and not everything can be done to prevent that. We have to search for the best possible solutions in the setting of the societies where we live and work. This means that some ecosystems can only be conserved as isolated islands surrounded by production lands. In these areas certain species can survive while others are bound to be lost. If such ecosystems are the last remnants remaining in a country, the authors feel that they still need to be conserved, even though their habitats cannot be connected to others, hoping that at least a part of them will turn out to be resilient to ecological isolation.

When ecological connectivity is not feasible, occasionally, human interference may be required in the form of artificial exchange of individuals among populations or assisted re-stocking. Biological connectivity may not be realised if financial resources are restricted or if land-use conditions of the lands between protected areas render such conditions ecologically very difficult. If choices must be made to finance the conservation of a protected area or a connecting corridor, usually the protected area must prevail, as the latter protects more species than the corridor.

A final observation is at place. This analysis has been carried out at a national level, assuming that the Hondurans would desire to conserve their own national natural heritage. Most species have far wider ranges than the territory of Honduras and their survival is likely to also be secured in neighbouring countries. This will considerably enhance both their likely occurrence in protected areas as well as their long-term survival chance in the region as a whole.

1.2.3.3. Requirements for a durable minimum conservation system

Considering the former issues, we suggest to strive after meeting the following criteria to compose a conservation system with a safe minimum standard of conservation that is broadly representative of at least the presently surviving biodiversity:

· 12 percent of the national territory protected under strict biodiversity conservation legislation and management with no human occupation or land use other than non-consumptive environmental services;

· Typically large isolated terrestrial ecosystems should have of a minimum of 10,000 ha;

· Typically medium sized isolated terrestrial ecosystems should have of a minimum of 5,000 ha;

· Each ecosystem should occur twice at or above its minimum size or as embedded ecosystems, or only once if it covers more than 100,000 ha.

· The integrity of water systems encompassing protected aquatic ecosystems should be conserved through adequate management measures.

· A modest specific set of measures to back the in situ system for threatened species through some ex-situ conservation measures.

It is important to realise that probably no country in the world all these criteria can be met, and that no system can be devised that can conserve all species of a country. While trying to meet as well as possible with these criteria in Honduras, the authors believe that this would lead to conserving the highest possible level of species conservation for the country, but that unavoidably some species will be lost for Honduras and some for the entire world.

1.2.4. Model development

When all the data have been entered into MICOSYS, it will be possible to compose different conservation models. This process requires various steps of evaluation and it is very important that the protected areas management is involved in the process at the highest level, so that the managers are fully aware of the different choices and in the end are comfortable with the results of the final selection. After all, they will have to live with the selected model and defend it both politically and to the public.

The first step in the selection of models is the removal of low scoring areas from the table. Criteria for removal will vary from study area to study area, depending on the status of conservation. It has become common practice in the application of MICOSYS to recognise three levels of quality, based on the final scores. Those levels are set at twice or above the maximum ecosystem value for areas of probable national significance and once or under the maximum ecosystem value for areas of no national significance:

Level 1: Areas whose scores suggest that the areas may be of major importance for conservation of the biodiversity of the country. All those areas should be maintained in the computer programme;

Level 2: areas whose conservation significance to the country is not yet quite clear. The level 2 areas should be evaluated individually by examining from where they obtain the scores. If their scores come from an abundance of species of special concern, while factors like size and ecosystems score low values, the area probably is not of national significance for biodiversity conservation. High numbers of species of special concern usually merely indicate that an area is better studied than others. On the other hand, an area that has at least one high score for an ecosystem should be evaluated further. A high ecosystem score means that the area either has the largest portion of that ecosystem and/or that it occurs in no more than 1 or 2 other areas. Such areas may be of national significance for biodiversity conservation. When the non-essential level-2-areas are identified, they should be taken out of the computer programme as well. The Reduced selection of areas has all areas, which may be of national importance, but the programme may still contain an overrepresentation of ecosystems, which may result in heavy maintenance costs of the protected areas system.

Level 3: areas whose levels suggest that they be of very limited relevance to the conservation in the country (areas of merely local or regional importance). Those areas should be taken out of the computer programme;

1.2.5. Cost estimates

As prioritising in biodiversity conservation is not merely a function of biological and social values, but also of financial requirements, MICOSYS has been designed to make rough first estimates of investment needs and recurrent costs as well. As variations in area-specific requirements average out when applied for more areas, the reliability of those estimates increases when applied for a large number of areas.

First the programme calculates the needs for field stations as a function of the land surface. Then it calculates the staffing needs per field post, which generates a total field-staff need per protected area. It also estimates equipment and transportation needs related to staff and buildings, as well as the need for trails. Special infrastructure needs include regional offices, multiple use centres and visitor centres, which have to be entered individually. Each such type of special buildings generates its own staffing and equipment requirements. Maintenance and write-off are calculated for buildings and equipment. All prices are entered in 2002 US dollar values on the bases of experience of the projects PAAR and PROBAP. Where possible, the data were calibrated with real information as provided by area administrators of the protected areas and DAPVS.

1.3. The planning team

The design of the rationalisation has been carried out under the responsibility of the World Institute for Conservation and Environment (WICE), an international “nature conservation think tank” that has worked in Europe, the United States, Latin America, Africa and Asia.[5]

· Ir. Daan Vreugdenhil, Director WICE, specialist in conservation planning, GIS-ecosystem mapping and eco-tourism;

· Dr. Paul R. House, Professor in Botany, Lecturer in Plant Taxonomy, Pharmaceutical Botany, and Economic Botany, at the National University of Honduras, specialist in ecosystem mapping, taxonomy and ethno-botany;

· Carlos A. Cerrato B., MSc., Professor Wildlife management, at the National University of Honduras. Zoologist, marine and aquatic biologist;

· Dr. Ana Cristina Pereira, President of the National Commission of Banking and Insurance, Economist with special experience in conservation financing and knowledgeable amateur orchid botanist;

· Lcdo. Ricardo A. Martínez C., Independent advisor of the Minister of Tourism, former director of the Instituto Hondureño de Turismo, specialist in tourism, project leader of the national Tourism Strategy and various ecotourism projects and plans;

[1] The Biosphere Reserve Río Plátano had about 1500 visitors in 2001 and has been assigned 20 points (see Annex IV).

[2] Tourism to protected areas has a high educational significance, particularly for families with children.

[3] These terms are elaborated in the Manual of MICOSYS.

[4] These criteria need reconsideration for areas with migrating ungulates and possibly the low-diversity macro-ecosystems of the Northern Arctic.

[5] Many of its members are among the most experienced conservationists in their countries of residence. It has been instrumental in the financing of GEF, World Bank and UNDP biodiversity projects in many countries of the world, it has developed national protected areas strategies, management plans and successful ecotourism development schemes. In Central America, WICE has been involved in the development or execution of elements of conservation programmes in each one of the 7 countries of the Region, as well as Southern Mexico.