|
|
|
1. RATIONALISATION1.1. Development modelsIn the process of the study a total of 5 main and several more intermediate models[1] were developed; three of which are presented in the report: Model 1: "Complete SINAPH"; Model 2: "Minimum Conservation System"; Model 3: “National Parks System”[2]. In order to avoid lengthy repetitions of data and considerations, the essence of each model is very briefly described, but than the full evaluation is only described for Model 3: the “National Parks System”. That model has come about in a final session between the study team and key professionals of DAPVS and has the full support of COHDEFOR. 1.1.1. Model 1: Full SINAPHThe SINAPH as currently constituted has grown over some 30 years, in a piecemeal fashion, targeting mostly mountain cloud forests, lowland rainforest and wetlands. Even though complete ecosystem inclusion was not taken into consideration during the creation of SINAPH it contains 58 of the 59 natural ecosystems examined in this study. Equally impressive is that 21 of these ecosystems have over 90 % of their total area protected within SINAPH, and a further 20 ecosystems have between 50% and 90 % of there total areas protected. In fact only 5 ecosystems have less than 12 % of their total area protected. If all the protected areas in SINAPH were equally well conserved and protected there would be little need for a rationalisation process, but this is clearly not the case. A number of protected areas in Honduras contain no mappable natural ecosystems, and are at best conserving no more than traditional agricultural practices. 1.1.2. Model 2: “Minimum Conservation System”The model “Minimum Conservation System” consists of the minimum number of areas that still contain all ecosystems in the country: the “minimum conservation system”. Selection of the largest and best-conserved area of each ecosystem created the minimum model. Areas that only contain ecosystems that are found in a better state of conservation elsewhere have all been eliminated. Even well known and well-established areas were eliminated if their ecosystems are non-essential. Even though the minimum conservation system is complete in its representation of ecosystems, it has not taken in consideration the function of a biodiversity conservation system, which is to durably conserve biodiversity. It is therefore weak in the criteria on spreading of extinction risks and minimum sizes of ecosystems for viable populations. It is obvious that many ecosystems are poorly represented and highly vulnerable in this model. To deal with this situation, the poorly represented ecosystems were analysed and another model was created to which areas were added that would substantially contribute to the viability of the populations that live within them. This is the most economical and viable model[3]. For reasons mentioned in the next paragraph this model is not further elaborated. 1.1.3. Model 3: The “National Parks System”The composition of aforementioned model does not take into account the realities of every day. Every country has highly appreciated well-established or renowned protected areas that can never be ignored, even if their ecosystems turn out to be non-essential in the most economical viable model. Such areas should be added to the system in what may be considered the realistic or rationalised model. The addition of these added areas was done in a joint session between the planning team and key officials of DAPVS. This model still needs addition of ecosystems that are not found in the selected areas of SINAPH. For the not-yet-protected areas, new field studies and planning is required; this study will have to limit itself to recommendations on how to proceed to fill the gaps. As MICOSYS evaluates all the ecosystems and species of special concern both registered in the country and registered in the protected areas system, it is possible to carry out a presence-gap-viability analysis on the “National Parks System” model. This establishes which ecosystems and/or species of special concern are missing, underrepresented and helps evaluate in which ecosystems the survival of species is less secure. 1.2. Presence/gap/viability analysisThe Ecosystems Map of Honduras identifies 70 ecosystems, which it breaks down into forests, shrubland, savannahs and wetlands, as well as a few production land-use types. Together they cover some 6,113,395 hectares (49.7 %), and agricultural systems covers some 6,195,793 hectares (50.3 %), of Honduras. Even though these are in some ways still encouraging figures, half of the surviving natural areas are found in the Mosquito Coast, meaning that natural areas in the Honduran interior are increasingly fragmented and isolated. For the analysis, all of the agro-ecosystems in the original map were combined into one, some aquatic ecosystems that were not evenly mapped such as river courses were discarded, as well as a few ecosystems that were considered as minor mapping errors (see Annex II). In total 59 ecosystems were used in the analysis (see figures 2-4). Of these 59 ecosystems 58 are found protected within the 41 legal or proposed reserves found in the National Park System, the same number as in the total SINAPH. The proportion of the total area of each of the 54 ecosystems found in the “National Parks System” varies from 1 % to 100 % of the distribution as shown on the Ecosystems Map of Honduras (2% to 100% in SINAPH). The presence/gaps analysis takes into account ecosystems not found or under-represented in “National Park System”. The IUCN considers those ecosystems under-represented that occur in less than 12 % of their original distribution in protected areas. It is however difficult to work with this criterion, given the level of detail of the mapped ecosystems of Honduras. While it may be possible to estimate what may originally have existed in Honduras at a coarse level of eco-regions[4], this is not the case for the fine-grained physiognomic ecosystems as mapped with the Ecosystems Map of Honduras. The ecoregions methodology could never locate the distinct set of ecosystem at the level of precision that could be achieved with the ecosystem map. This would unavoidably lead to a significantly higher loss of species diversity. For the gap analysis we still strive for inclusion of the finer levels of detail at 12 % representation, but of their currently existing distributions. This is a much more detailed level of representation than could ever be done with the eco-region methodology (Dinnerstein et al. 1995) applied in the region previously. 1.2.1. Outside of legally or proposed protected areaThe ecosystems that are not represented in any legally protected reserve or proposed reserve must be considered as the principal gaps in “National Parks System”. Out of the 59 Ecosystems used in the analysis, one is without any legal or proposed protection, the Submontane Deciduous Shrubland, restricted to the larger dryer Central Honduran valleys such as Comayagua. This is an ecosystem that contains significant numbers of endemic species of plants and reptiles and has been described as being in urgent need of conservation (House, 2001, McCraine, 2001). The principal obstacles to preserving this ecosystem are (1) its very restricted distribution, (only found in the larger dry valleys of Central Honduras) and (2) its poor state of conservation, as most alluvial soils are dedicated to intensive agriculture and in private ownership. Two medium-sized fragments, of around a thousand hectares each, are identified in the Ecosystems Map, one in the valley of Comayagua and one close to Tegucigalpa. These two areas need to be investigated to assess the possibility to create a new dry forest reserve. This would require the purchase of the private lands involved. Figure 2 : Percentage of total national area of ecosystem conserved in Model “National Parks System"
Figure
3
: Frequency of
occurrence of each ecosystem in Model “National Parks System”
Figure 4 Estimate of percentage of species sets conserved belonging to each ecosystem in Model “National Parks System”
1.1.1. Outside of legally but inside proposed protected areasA number of important ecosystems are found only in proposed protected areas, and therefore lack legal protection. The most important of these ecosystems is the Arid Deciduous Shrubland found only in the Aguan Valley and to a lesser extent in the Agaltha Valley. The Aguan Valley is home to one of the most unique ecosystems found in Honduras. This ecosystem has an endemic bird, the Honduran Emerald (Amazilia luciae), an endemic reptile (Ctenosaura melanosterna) and some 10 species of endemic plants. It is the driest region in Honduras and closely resembles the Motagua Valley in Guatemala, which is the driest area in Central America. The protected area of Arenal was proposed to conserve this forest but its limits were never properly defined. Recently House et al. (2001A) studied this ecosystem for the World Bank, and given their findings we recommend that the National Park Pico Bonito be extended to include this area, rather than create another small reserve under fragmented management. Two other ecosystems are also found exclusively in proposed protected areas, the Pine Savannah found along the Nicaraguan boarder and its associated Semideciduous Gallery Forests. The savannahs are more rolling and better drained than the savannahs of the west of the Mosquitia, the proposed protected area of Rus Rus needs to be legalised, to protect these ecosystems. The proposed Rio Kruta contains a special case of a coastal ecosystem, which is the extensive untouched Sandy Beach found off the Cape of Gracias a Dios. This ecosystem is has generally not been mapped, as usually sandy beaches are too narrow for mapping at scale 1:250,000. As this sandy beach is one of the few cases that could be mapped, it appears to be unique, in the evaluation system, and in a way it may be considered that way. This system is more marine than regular beaches, very dynamic in nature, for which it remains barely covered to non-vegetated over a very wide area. It has potential as breeding ground for marine birds that breed on sandbanks and wide beaches, such as terns. It is not under urgent threat, though in the case of yet-to-be discovered presence of nesting marine birdlife protection this would be necessary. Also for other caracteristics, the proposed Kruta reserve is makes part of the "National Parks System, However, this area is very populated. For biodiversity conservation only, the less inhabited downstream half of the proposed area is needed and the document proposes to only gazette 60,000 ha around the river mouth. 1.1.2. Underrepresented in legally protected areasAll ecosystems that have less than 12 % of there total area within the “National Parks System” are considered underrepresented. An important result of the ecosystems analysis is the discovery that the three largest pine forest ecosystems in Honduras are all heavily underrepresented: · With only 407 ha (2 %), the lowland well-drained Pine forest[1] is all but absent from the system. It found in small patches along the San Pedro Sula Valley and in much smaller areas on the Pacific Coast. These forests differ form their much more common submontane neighbours in that the predominant tree species is Pinus caribea and not Pinus oocarpa. Considering the cost of buying a significant proportion of this ecosystem, the best option would be to identify an area of National Forest that contains this ecosystem and elevate it to reserve status within SINAPH. The preferred solution would be to include this ecosystem by extending one of the existing forest reserves in the Sula valley (Cusuco, Merendon), but if no National Forest is found close to these existing areas it might be necessary to set up a completely new reserve. · With 11636 ha., the Submontane Pine forest has only 1 % of its total area legally protected in the "National Park System" Model (2% in SINAPH). As many of the remaining tracts of this forest type are found in Olancho within extractive reserves, it is recommended that a part of one of these National Forests be elevated to the status of a protected area. · With only 5 % of its total occurrence in the “National Parks System” Model, the Lower Montane Pine forest is also underrepresented and it is recommended that any new pine forest reserve created for the expansion of the previous ecosystems should also include some areas of this ecosystem. · The Pacific Deciduous Shrubland found in the south of Honduras is underrepresented in the SINAPH in that only 4 % of its total area is protected. The majority of mapped locations of this ecosystem is found around the Guanacuare Reserve and a minor alteration in the limits of this reserve would protect well over 12 % of this ecosystem. This ecosystem is secondary in nature, the product of human intervention; the climax ecosystem in this area is not deciduous shrubland and if adequately protected, these shrublands would gradually return to either Semi-Deciduous or Deciduous Forest. Table 5 : Representation and conservation viability of ecosystem classes in Model "National Parks System"
Table 6 : Quantification of characteristics.
|
