**4. Mitigating species loss**

There are at least three issues that must be addressed if biodiversity is to be most effectively conserved throughout SEA: identification of species and their distributions (Section 3), decreasing the impacts of current threats, and creating ways to allow species to respond to climate change (because halting further climate change is considered impossible, Bowen & Ranger, 2009; Vistor et al., 2009). Each issue requires different actions in order to respond effectively.

As stated previously, accurate species identification requires thorough systematic surveys, taxonomic and acoustic studies, and where possible genetic research. However the scale of this work requires the use of university researchers, students and park rangers. The use of citizen science for survey and monitoring has been advocated by some researchers (Webb et al., 2010). However citizen science is plagued with potential problems in SEA: not only is hunting exceedingly popular, but in many taxonomic groups' cryptic species and the lack of adequate taxonomic knowledge precludes species surveys by non-specialists. However education, and enthusing of the population could allow some citizen science in distinct and recognisable species. School children in some parts of SEA also must complete science projects whilst at high school, and with little training such projects could contribute to this

Mapping a Future for Southeast Asian Biodiversity 13

hydro-electric dams. Such approaches have potential but must be closely tailored to each site and country, to be economically viable both for those responsible for the maintenance of the area which provides the ecosystem service and those who profit from the service. These schemes have a great number of potential pitfalls which have prevented their success in some areas (Wunder, 2006, 2007). PES-type schemes are obviously unsuitable when the service users earn less than the ecosystem service users, such as the cases of guano miners and durian growers (both of whom have income streams dependent on cave bat populations) and people whom mine karsts (and therefore are responsible for the resource). In situations involving the mining of karsts, determining who should pay for environmental services is difficult, as the income of the miners (who may own the karst) may be higher than those who benefit from bat related services (Wunder, 2006). However when PES-type schemes are well-tailored and targeted to specific areas, they can effectively protect forests, and stipulations can place more emphasis on biodiversity rather than solely forest, as in the

Carbon offsets (carbon credits) and the REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) systems also provide a means to fund forest protection (Laurance, 2008b). Afforestation can also be part of such schemes, but in some existing schemes this has included the use of non-native trees. If biodiversity is to be protected it is important that afforestation uses only native species (Corlett, 2009). Afforestation schemes are currently the subject of much debate, however when well applied they have the potential to both decrease rates of biodiversity loss and to mitigate climate change (Canadell & Raupach, 2008). Biodiversity offsets have also been used in some regions (i.e. Uganda), however in some areas (i.e. the USA) the heightened protection of one area has led to greater biodiversity declines elsewhere and thus yielding no net benefit to conservation overall (Ten Kate et al., 2004). Therefore education is necessary alongside offset schemes in order to attempt to prevent greater pressures being deflected elsewhere as a result of conservation within one area (conservation leakage, Gan & McCarl, 2007). Problems also arise when it comes to prioritising areas for conservation based on current risks alone. Hence it is valuable to predict future scenarios based on land cover and climate in assessing conservation priorities (Fig. 2). Although future risk should be part of any assessment criterion, assessment must also analyse other factors, so even if environmental pressure is deflected to other areas as a result of conservation in a particular area: that the most important areas (in terms of biodiversity/uniqueness) are adequately protected (Laumonier et al., 2010). Risk and enforcement can also be projected together and the combined effects predicted to generate the most effective means of minimising deforestation or biodiversity loss within an area

The protection of specific areas still requires funding, as National Parks are currently ineffective in many regions of SEA (Fuller et al., 2003; Steinmetz, et al., 2006). In other countries (i.e. Costa Rica) ecotourism has provided a highly successful means of funding biodiversity protection and educating local people about the value of biodiversity (Jacobson & Robles, 1992; Aylward et al., 1996). Currently although ethnotourism is popular (Zeppel, 2006), ecotourism in mainland SEA is mainly dominated by bird watching tours (Mollmann, 2008). Ecotourism has been shown to work well in parts of Malaysia and Indonesia (Hill et al., 2007, Pearce et al., 2008), and if it were to develop throughout SEA it could provide a

case of some "engineered PES" schemes (Wunscher et al., 2006).

(Linkie et al., 2010).

viable means of conservation.

knowledge pool (Sara Bumrungsri pers. comm.). However for successful citizen science to be conducted, people must be educated to the importance of species such as bats (as throughout SEA bats are generally viewed negatively by the public, Kingston et al., 2006). Nature recreation has been implemented in schools, and provides an important means of enthusing the next generations about biodiversity and engendering greater respect for the environment (Pergams & Zaradac, 2008). Education is of paramount importance in the realisation of any level of conservation or mitigation. Without the support and backing of local people no changes to current activities will take place. Projections of species distributions, like those within this study - and subsequent ground truthing (validation and testing) by trained surveyors - can also provide a focus for further research and conservation activity.

Many strategies have attempted to decrease anthropogenic impacts on biodiversity. Recent studies have projected the species richness patterns of bats throughout SEA (Fig 1) (Hughes et al., in review; in prep b), and the regions of high species richness obviously provide a focus for conservation efforts. However within the scientific community there is great dispute as to what criteria should be used to assign conservation priorities. There is debate as to whether regions, species richness, evolutionary uniqueness and richness, numbers of threatened species or specific species should be used in area prioritisation (Corlett, 2009). Under the current circumstances it is not feasible to conserve on a single species basis, because this approach is financially unviable, and it ignores interactions within ecosystems. Furthermore there is currently inadequate knowledge to reliably designate IUCN threat levels for many species throughout SEA, due to the lack of knowledge about the distributions and population sizes of many species, and the presence of cryptic species. However SEA is regarded as an area of both evolutionary, and species richness (Gaston, 1995b; Sechrest, et al., 2002). Most currently species-rich areas are also liable to contain high levels of intraspecific genetic diversity as populations of most species have been predicted to have expanded during the last glacial maximum (LGM), and because current ranges may be restricted compared with ranges occupied during the LGM in tropical areas and may overlie former glacial distributions (Woodruff, 2010). Current species populations within areas of former glacial refugia often contain high genetic diversity in comparison to those in nonrefugial areas (Anthony et al., 2007), and genetic heterogeneity and diversity is known to make populations more robust to environmental change and therefore to increase the capacity of such populations to adapt (Aitken et al., 2008). Therefore former refugial areas, many of which fall within current National Parks deserve prioritisation on all grounds. However the current system of National Parks fails to function in many regions (Fuller et al., 2003), and with the high levels of corruption (Global Witness, 2007; EIA/Telepak, 2008) the enforcement of laws such as those governing reserves is difficult.

A variety of schemes and approaches have been developed to try to promote biodiversity conservation and decrease deforestation. The following section evaluates some of these methods in an attempt to formulate a viable method of mitigating biodiversity loss.

Paying for Environmental Services (PES) is one scheme suggested for conservation (Blackman & Woodward, 2010). PES schemes use money generated by environmental service users to pay people who own an area which is (in part) responsible for the service, in order to maintain forest/ biodiversity within the area responsible for that service. For example, forest cover in watersheds may be preserved by using the income generated by

knowledge pool (Sara Bumrungsri pers. comm.). However for successful citizen science to be conducted, people must be educated to the importance of species such as bats (as throughout SEA bats are generally viewed negatively by the public, Kingston et al., 2006). Nature recreation has been implemented in schools, and provides an important means of enthusing the next generations about biodiversity and engendering greater respect for the environment (Pergams & Zaradac, 2008). Education is of paramount importance in the realisation of any level of conservation or mitigation. Without the support and backing of local people no changes to current activities will take place. Projections of species distributions, like those within this study - and subsequent ground truthing (validation and testing) by trained surveyors - can also provide a focus for further research and conservation

Many strategies have attempted to decrease anthropogenic impacts on biodiversity. Recent studies have projected the species richness patterns of bats throughout SEA (Fig 1) (Hughes et al., in review; in prep b), and the regions of high species richness obviously provide a focus for conservation efforts. However within the scientific community there is great dispute as to what criteria should be used to assign conservation priorities. There is debate as to whether regions, species richness, evolutionary uniqueness and richness, numbers of threatened species or specific species should be used in area prioritisation (Corlett, 2009). Under the current circumstances it is not feasible to conserve on a single species basis, because this approach is financially unviable, and it ignores interactions within ecosystems. Furthermore there is currently inadequate knowledge to reliably designate IUCN threat levels for many species throughout SEA, due to the lack of knowledge about the distributions and population sizes of many species, and the presence of cryptic species. However SEA is regarded as an area of both evolutionary, and species richness (Gaston, 1995b; Sechrest, et al., 2002). Most currently species-rich areas are also liable to contain high levels of intraspecific genetic diversity as populations of most species have been predicted to have expanded during the last glacial maximum (LGM), and because current ranges may be restricted compared with ranges occupied during the LGM in tropical areas and may overlie former glacial distributions (Woodruff, 2010). Current species populations within areas of former glacial refugia often contain high genetic diversity in comparison to those in nonrefugial areas (Anthony et al., 2007), and genetic heterogeneity and diversity is known to make populations more robust to environmental change and therefore to increase the capacity of such populations to adapt (Aitken et al., 2008). Therefore former refugial areas, many of which fall within current National Parks deserve prioritisation on all grounds. However the current system of National Parks fails to function in many regions (Fuller et al., 2003), and with the high levels of corruption (Global Witness, 2007; EIA/Telepak, 2008) the

enforcement of laws such as those governing reserves is difficult.

A variety of schemes and approaches have been developed to try to promote biodiversity conservation and decrease deforestation. The following section evaluates some of these

Paying for Environmental Services (PES) is one scheme suggested for conservation (Blackman & Woodward, 2010). PES schemes use money generated by environmental service users to pay people who own an area which is (in part) responsible for the service, in order to maintain forest/ biodiversity within the area responsible for that service. For example, forest cover in watersheds may be preserved by using the income generated by

methods in an attempt to formulate a viable method of mitigating biodiversity loss.

activity.

hydro-electric dams. Such approaches have potential but must be closely tailored to each site and country, to be economically viable both for those responsible for the maintenance of the area which provides the ecosystem service and those who profit from the service. These schemes have a great number of potential pitfalls which have prevented their success in some areas (Wunder, 2006, 2007). PES-type schemes are obviously unsuitable when the service users earn less than the ecosystem service users, such as the cases of guano miners and durian growers (both of whom have income streams dependent on cave bat populations) and people whom mine karsts (and therefore are responsible for the resource). In situations involving the mining of karsts, determining who should pay for environmental services is difficult, as the income of the miners (who may own the karst) may be higher than those who benefit from bat related services (Wunder, 2006). However when PES-type schemes are well-tailored and targeted to specific areas, they can effectively protect forests, and stipulations can place more emphasis on biodiversity rather than solely forest, as in the case of some "engineered PES" schemes (Wunscher et al., 2006).

Carbon offsets (carbon credits) and the REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) systems also provide a means to fund forest protection (Laurance, 2008b). Afforestation can also be part of such schemes, but in some existing schemes this has included the use of non-native trees. If biodiversity is to be protected it is important that afforestation uses only native species (Corlett, 2009). Afforestation schemes are currently the subject of much debate, however when well applied they have the potential to both decrease rates of biodiversity loss and to mitigate climate change (Canadell & Raupach, 2008). Biodiversity offsets have also been used in some regions (i.e. Uganda), however in some areas (i.e. the USA) the heightened protection of one area has led to greater biodiversity declines elsewhere and thus yielding no net benefit to conservation overall (Ten Kate et al., 2004). Therefore education is necessary alongside offset schemes in order to attempt to prevent greater pressures being deflected elsewhere as a result of conservation within one area (conservation leakage, Gan & McCarl, 2007). Problems also arise when it comes to prioritising areas for conservation based on current risks alone. Hence it is valuable to predict future scenarios based on land cover and climate in assessing conservation priorities (Fig. 2). Although future risk should be part of any assessment criterion, assessment must also analyse other factors, so even if environmental pressure is deflected to other areas as a result of conservation in a particular area: that the most important areas (in terms of biodiversity/uniqueness) are adequately protected (Laumonier et al., 2010). Risk and enforcement can also be projected together and the combined effects predicted to generate the most effective means of minimising deforestation or biodiversity loss within an area (Linkie et al., 2010).

The protection of specific areas still requires funding, as National Parks are currently ineffective in many regions of SEA (Fuller et al., 2003; Steinmetz, et al., 2006). In other countries (i.e. Costa Rica) ecotourism has provided a highly successful means of funding biodiversity protection and educating local people about the value of biodiversity (Jacobson & Robles, 1992; Aylward et al., 1996). Currently although ethnotourism is popular (Zeppel, 2006), ecotourism in mainland SEA is mainly dominated by bird watching tours (Mollmann, 2008). Ecotourism has been shown to work well in parts of Malaysia and Indonesia (Hill et al., 2007, Pearce et al., 2008), and if it were to develop throughout SEA it could provide a viable means of conservation.

Mapping a Future for Southeast Asian Biodiversity 15

Other countries (e.g. Brazil) with large export markets have also started to produce certified wood for a large proportion of their exports, however few certifications have sufficient biodiversity emphasis (McNeely, 2007). Attempts at certification programs throughout much of SEA have met with little success, as most logged wood is used within the country, and people are not prepared to pay increased prices involved with establishing and maintaining certification (Cashore, et al., 2006; Laurance, 2008b). Until local people value the natural environment, or exports increase, certification will remain an unsuitable scheme for much of SEA. It may be for similar reasons that previous integrated conservation and development projects have met with little success (in terms of impact) despite large-scale investment throughout SEA (Terborgh et al., 2002; McShane & Wells, 2004). Communitybased conservation schemes have also been little used outside marine national parks, and

Certification is unlikely to work within SEA, and logging is liable to continue within natural forests (Fredericksen & Putz, 2003). The use of "reduced impact logging" could at least provide a means of providing both humans and biodiversity with a means of existence (Sessions, 2007; Putz et al., 2008). Reduced impact logging would require less human behavioural modification than stopping altogether or certification, and if local people can be educated to perceive it as an efficient way of logging, which preserves ecosystem services then it may provide a means of conservation. However as most logging which takes place in SEA is illegal, enforcement of laws is first essential (EIA/Telepak, 2008). Enforcement is also necessary to restrict hunting, and requires not only education but an enforced system of permits to control it. Logging programmes must also consider that the removal of the most mature trees may have negative consequences for those bat species that roost under bark and in other species which dwell in holes of mature tree (Gibbons & Lindenmayer, 2001; Kunz & Lumsden, 2003; Barclay & Kurta, 2007). As these forest-dwelling species are often the most limited in dispersal abilities, they are liable to suffer most from deforestation

Therefore in the protection of existing highly biodiverse areas, and to prevent an increasingly fragmented landscape further reducing biodiversity (A.C. Hughes et al., in prep b) education and law enforcement are paramount. Well considered funding systems also provide a good opportunity for decreasing biodiversity loss, and ecotourism if well developed could remedy both habitat destruction and overhunting. These are the primary

Recently developed models predicted that bat species would both lose areas of suitable habitat in their original range, and would often need to move north if they were to remain in similar niches in response to climatic change (A.C. Hughes et al., in review). However in order to adapt, species must be able to reach suitable habitat. Translocation, and assisted migrations are often put forward as ways of accomplishing this (McLachlan et al., 2007). However many species face the same threats, and so how could species be selected for translocation: by uniqueness, charismatic mega fauna, ecological role or extinction risk? Too many species face the same situation, and too little information exists on many to make translocation a viable solution. Even for species selected as candidates for translocation,

their use may be unsuitable for many areas (Gray et al., 2007).

means for protecting areas from anthropogenic direct threats.

**4.1 Mitigating the effect of climatic changes on biodiversity** 

(Kingston et al., 2003).

Multiple models exist to spatially project species probable distributions used limited spatial data, and in recent years the use of such models has increased dramatically; in 1999-2004 only 74 published studies used species/niche distribution models, however between 2005-2010 this increased to over 850 (Beale and Lennon, in review*).* Clearly such models represent useful tools for projecting species distributions, and can further allow targeted conservation to either species habitat requirements or the prioritization of areas for research or conservation (Pawar et al., 2007; Sergio et. al., 2007). Recent developments in habitat suitability modelling allow the prediction of a species' potential distribution based on presence-only records (e.g. Hirzel et al., 2002; Phillips et al., 2006). Presence-only modelling is a valuable tool in contemporary conservation biology, and has been applied to a wide range of taxa, from bryophytes (Sergio et. al., 2007) to reptiles (Pawar et al., 2007). Presence-only modelling may be more reliable than presence-absence models for species in which absence records cannot be reliably gathered (i.e. failure to capture a species at a site does not necessarily mean the species is absent- Wintle et al., 2004; MacKenzie, 2005; Elith et al., 2006; Jime´nez-Valverde et al., 2008). One presence-only modelling method that is used widely (Maxent – Phillips et al., 2006) involves maximum entropy modelling and has been used successfully to predict the distributions of bat species in both present day conditions (e.g. Lamb et al., 2008; Rebelo and G. Jones, 2010) and under projected climate change scenarios (Rebelo et al., 2010). Additionally Maxent has been found to be robust to changes in sample size, and still have good predictive ability at low sample sizes, making it the ideal model for the prediction of distributions for rare species (Hernandez et al., 2006; Wisz et al., 2008).

Figures 1 and 2 both use Maxent to project the distributions of 171 bat species for a number of time periods. By pairing known distribution coordinates each species has been recorded at with appropriate environmental variables it is possible to project the probable distribution of each species for any time period for which spatial data exists, and to combine these to calculate species richness (see Hughes et al., In review, for a full account of methods used).

Using projections of future climatic change it is possible to project the probable impacts and develop targeted solutions and effective conservation methods (Prentice et al., 1992; Beerling et al., 1995; Huntley et al., 1995; Sykes et al., 1996; Berry et al., 2001, 2002; Hannah et al., 2002; Midgley et al., 2002). Though improvements in modelling approaches in the future will allow further insights to be generated, such models will take time to be developed and refined. In many areas (such as Southeast Asia) with rapid rates of deforestation, prioritisation of key areas is required to protect areas of high conservation value from deforestation and modelling can facilitate the determination of these priority areas in a region of high conservation importance (Pawar et al., 2007; Sergio et. al., 2007; Gibson et al., 2010).

Box 1. Mapping species distributions using distribution models.

Multiple models exist to spatially project species probable distributions used limited spatial data, and in recent years the use of such models has increased dramatically; in 1999-2004 only 74 published studies used species/niche distribution models, however between 2005-2010 this increased to over 850 (Beale and Lennon, in review*).* Clearly such models represent useful tools for projecting species distributions, and can further allow targeted conservation to either species habitat requirements or the prioritization of areas for research or conservation (Pawar et al., 2007; Sergio et. al., 2007). Recent developments in habitat suitability modelling allow the prediction of a species' potential distribution based on presence-only records (e.g. Hirzel et al., 2002; Phillips et al., 2006). Presence-only modelling is a valuable tool in contemporary conservation biology, and has been applied to a wide range of taxa, from bryophytes (Sergio et. al., 2007) to reptiles (Pawar et al., 2007). Presence-only modelling may be more reliable than presence-absence models for species in which absence records cannot be reliably gathered (i.e. failure to capture a species at a site does not necessarily mean the species is absent- Wintle et al., 2004; MacKenzie, 2005; Elith et al., 2006; Jime´nez-Valverde et al., 2008). One presence-only modelling method that is used widely (Maxent – Phillips et al., 2006) involves maximum entropy modelling and has been used successfully to predict the distributions of bat species in both present day conditions (e.g. Lamb et al., 2008; Rebelo and G. Jones, 2010) and under projected climate change scenarios (Rebelo et al., 2010). Additionally Maxent has been found to be robust to changes in sample size, and still have good predictive ability at low sample sizes, making it the ideal model for the prediction of distributions for rare species (Hernandez et al., 2006; Wisz

Figures 1 and 2 both use Maxent to project the distributions of 171 bat species for a number of time periods. By pairing known distribution coordinates each species has been recorded at with appropriate environmental variables it is possible to project the probable distribution of each species for any time period for which spatial data exists, and to combine these to calculate species richness (see Hughes et al., In review, for a full account

Using projections of future climatic change it is possible to project the probable impacts and develop targeted solutions and effective conservation methods (Prentice et al., 1992; Beerling et al., 1995; Huntley et al., 1995; Sykes et al., 1996; Berry et al., 2001, 2002; Hannah et al., 2002; Midgley et al., 2002). Though improvements in modelling approaches in the future will allow further insights to be generated, such models will take time to be developed and refined. In many areas (such as Southeast Asia) with rapid rates of deforestation, prioritisation of key areas is required to protect areas of high conservation value from deforestation and modelling can facilitate the determination of these priority areas in a region of high conservation importance (Pawar et al., 2007; Sergio et. al., 2007;

Box 1. Mapping species distributions using distribution models.

et al., 2008).

of methods used).

Gibson et al., 2010).

Other countries (e.g. Brazil) with large export markets have also started to produce certified wood for a large proportion of their exports, however few certifications have sufficient biodiversity emphasis (McNeely, 2007). Attempts at certification programs throughout much of SEA have met with little success, as most logged wood is used within the country, and people are not prepared to pay increased prices involved with establishing and maintaining certification (Cashore, et al., 2006; Laurance, 2008b). Until local people value the natural environment, or exports increase, certification will remain an unsuitable scheme for much of SEA. It may be for similar reasons that previous integrated conservation and development projects have met with little success (in terms of impact) despite large-scale investment throughout SEA (Terborgh et al., 2002; McShane & Wells, 2004). Communitybased conservation schemes have also been little used outside marine national parks, and their use may be unsuitable for many areas (Gray et al., 2007).

Certification is unlikely to work within SEA, and logging is liable to continue within natural forests (Fredericksen & Putz, 2003). The use of "reduced impact logging" could at least provide a means of providing both humans and biodiversity with a means of existence (Sessions, 2007; Putz et al., 2008). Reduced impact logging would require less human behavioural modification than stopping altogether or certification, and if local people can be educated to perceive it as an efficient way of logging, which preserves ecosystem services then it may provide a means of conservation. However as most logging which takes place in SEA is illegal, enforcement of laws is first essential (EIA/Telepak, 2008). Enforcement is also necessary to restrict hunting, and requires not only education but an enforced system of permits to control it. Logging programmes must also consider that the removal of the most mature trees may have negative consequences for those bat species that roost under bark and in other species which dwell in holes of mature tree (Gibbons & Lindenmayer, 2001; Kunz & Lumsden, 2003; Barclay & Kurta, 2007). As these forest-dwelling species are often the most limited in dispersal abilities, they are liable to suffer most from deforestation (Kingston et al., 2003).

Therefore in the protection of existing highly biodiverse areas, and to prevent an increasingly fragmented landscape further reducing biodiversity (A.C. Hughes et al., in prep b) education and law enforcement are paramount. Well considered funding systems also provide a good opportunity for decreasing biodiversity loss, and ecotourism if well developed could remedy both habitat destruction and overhunting. These are the primary means for protecting areas from anthropogenic direct threats.
