![](media/image3.jpeg){width="0.8166666666666667in"
height="0.7604166666666666in"}

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="6.618055555555555in"
height="4.9631944444444445in"}

> ![](media/image5.png){width="0.6736111111111112in"
> height="1.0104166666666667in"}
> ![](media/image3.jpeg){width="0.9722222222222222in" height="0.9in"}

A Biodiversity Vision for the

UPper Paraná Atlantic Forest Ecoregion:

Designing a Biodiversity Conservation Landscape and setting priorities
for conservation action

**by Mario S. Di Bitetti^1^, Guillermo Placci^1^, & Lou Ann Dietz^2^**

**WWF Atlantic Forest Team:** Aida Luz Aquino, Atlantic Forest
Coordinator -- Paraguay^2^; Guillermo Placci, Atlantic Forest
Coordinator -- Argentina^1^; Mario S. Di Bitetti, Projects Officer --
Argentina^1^; Helena Maria Maltez -- Atlantic Forest Coordinator --
Brazil^3^; Lou Ann Dietz -- Atlantic Forest Coordinator -
International^2^

**WWF Atlantic Forest Steering Group:** Sandra Charity^4^, Javier
Corcuera^1^, Leonardo Lacerda^3^, Meg Symington^2^

^1^ Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina

^2^ WWF-US

^3^ WWF-Brazil

^4^ WWF-UK

Copyright 2003 World Wildlife Fund

Please cite this publication as:

Di Bitetti, M.S; Placci, G; and Dietz, L.A. 2003.

A Biodiversity Vision for the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Ecoregion:
Designing a Biodiversity Conservation Landscape and Setting Priorities
for Conservation Action.

Washington, D.C., World Wildlife Fund

# Cover photo: San Pedro, Misiones Province, Argentina by Gustavo Sebastián Cabanne 

This Vision for the Conservation of the

Biodiversity of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Ecoregion

(also known as the Interior Atlantic Forest, the Mata Atlântica do
Interior,

the Selva Paranaense, Bosque Atlántico del Interior)

is dedicated to all of the many institutions and individuals

who have contributed their efforts and resources to developing it,

and who are orienting their conservation programs to achieve it,

with the hope that together we can make it a reality --- if not within
our own lifetimes, then

within the lifetimes of our children.

February 2003

# Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .toc}

This document is the result of a collaborative effort of the WWF Network
with many other institutions and individuals in an ongoing process that
began in 1998. We would like to thank the following individuals and
institutions for their contributions:

Project activities leading to the Biodiversity Vision were made possible
through financial support provided by:

The Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade, U.S. Agency for
International

> Development (USAID), under the terms of Award No.
> LAG-A-00-99-00048-00. The opinions expressed herein are those of the
> author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Agency
> for International Development;

The Summit Foundation, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.;

The Overbrook Foundation, New York, NY, U.S.A.;

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Chicago, IL, U.S.A.;

WWF-US, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

The entire process of developing the Biodiversity Vision (from
mobilizing and developing partnerships, projects, and raising funds, to
compilation and analysis of data, insightful discussions during all
phases of the development of the methodology and data analyses,
developing conservation targets, as well as review of this document) was
coordinated by the **WWF Atlantic Forest Ecoregion Technical Team:**

Aida Luz Aquino, Paraguay Coordinator (WWF-US); Mario S. Di Bitetti,
Argentina Projects Officer (Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina - FVSA);
Guillermo Placci, Argentina Coordinator (Fundación Vida Silvestre
Argentina - FVSA); Helena Maltez, Brazil Coordinator (WWF-Brazil); Lou
Ann Dietz, International Coordinator (WWF-US).

**Coordination of WWF Atlantic Forest Ecoregion efforts in Brazil during
earlier stages:**

> Kátia Lemos Costa (1998-1999); Luis Paulo Ferraz (1999-2001).

Overall guidance - WWF Atlantic Forest Ecoregion Steering Group:

Sandra Charity (WWF-UK), Javier Corcuera (FVSA), Leonardo Lacerda
(WWF-Brazil),

Meg Symington (WWF-US).

**Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis:**

German Palé (FVSA); Juan Carlos Riveros Salcedo (WWF-US); Tom Allnutt
(WWF-

US).

Assistance in the development of the international and local
partnerships necessary to move forward the process of developing the
Vision:

Katia Lemos Costa (WWF-Brazil); Nancy de Moraes (WWF-US); Myrna Paola
Narváez

(FVSA); Daniela I. Rode (FVSA); Patricia Keller (Communications
Secretary for the Tri-

national Initiative for the Atlantic Forest Green Corridor); Ana Maria
Macedo Sienra

(Fundación Moises Bertoni); Miguel Morales (USAID Paraguay Mission);
Miguel

Pellerano (consultant).

Compilation of information for earlier stages of this Vision:

> Sueli Angelo Furlan (University of São Paulo); Francisco A. Arruda
> Sampaio (University of São Paulo); Rosalia Fariña (consultant).

Insightful discussions during different phases of the development of the
methodology:

> Garo Batmanian (WWF-Brazil); Robert Buschbacher (WWF-Brazil); José
> Maria Cardoso (Universidade Federal de Pernambuco); Roberto Cavalcanti
> (Conservation International do Brasil); Javier Corcuera (FVSA);
> Leandro Ferreira (WWF-Brazil); Marcia Hirota (Fundacion SOS Mata
> Atlântica); Mauro Galetti (Universidade Estadual de São Paulo--UNESP);
> Andrés Johnson (FVSA); Rosa Lemos de Sá (WWF-Brazil); Miguel Morales
> (USAID -- Paraguay Mission); Heloisa de Oliveira (Conservation
> International do Brasil); Claudio Valladares Padua (Instituto de
> Pesquisas Ecológicas -- IPÊ); Luiz Paulo de Souza Pinto (Conservation
> International do Brasil); Denise Marçal Rambaldi (Associação Mico-Leão
> Dourado); Carlos Saavedra (The Summit Foundation); Alejandro Serret
> (FVSA); Chelsea Specht; Marcelo Tabarelli (Universidade Federal de
> Pernambuco).

Continuing guidance in ecoregion conservation methodology:

> WWF-US Staff: Tom Allnutt, Sarah Christiansen, John Morrison, George
> Powell, Juan Carlos Riveros Salcedo, Doreen Robinson, and Harry Van
> der Linde.

Editing of this document:

Nancy de Moraes (WWF-US).

Maps:

German Palé (FVSA).

Review of this document:

Tom Allnutt (WWF-US); Sandra Charity (WWF-UK); James Dietz (University
of

Maryland); Leonardo Lacerda (WWF-Brazil); Doreen Robinson (WWF-US); Meg

Symington (WWF-US); Michele Thieme (WWF-US); Gustavo Sebastián Cabanne
(Instituto de Biociências-Universidade de São Paulo).

**Compilation of geographic, socioeconomic and biological data sets:**

**[For Paraguay]{.underline}**:

Alberto Madroño (Guyra Paraguay) provided information about birds.

Ana Maria Macedo Sienra (Fundación Moisés Bertoni) gathered information
available at

> FMB on vegetation, fauna, and protected areas, and compiled all
> information from Paraguay.

Nélida Rivarola with the help of Milagros Lencinas (Centro de Datos para
la

> Conservación --CDC, Dirección de Parques y Vida Silvestre,
> Sub-Secretaria de Recursos Naturales, Ministerio de Agricultura y
> Ganaderia) gathered information on vegetation, fauna, and protected
> areas from the CDC, the Facultad de Ciencias Químicas and the Museo de
> Ciencias Naturales.

Alberto Rautemberg (Servicios Ecoforestales para Agricultores -- SEPA)
and Elías

> Díaz Peña and Miguel Lovera (Sobrevivencia -- Amigos de la Tierra)
> provided socioeconomic data.

Jorge Pinazzo and Larisa Rejalaga (Carrera de Ingeniería Forestal,
Universidad National

> de Asunción) provided information about the physical environment.

The Departamento de Ordenamiento Territorial, Dirrecion de Ordenamiento
Ambiental --

> Direccion de Parques Nacionales y Vida Silvestre - Subsecretaria de
> Estado de Recursos Naturales y Medio Ambiente - Ministerio de
> Agricultra y Ganaderia together with the Carrera de Ingenieria
> Forestal - Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias - Universidad Nacional de
> Asuncion, and the Fundación Moisés Bertoni produced the forest cover
> map.
>
> **[For Argentina]{.underline}**:
>
> Miguel Rinas, Paula Bertolini, and Juan Pablo Cinto (Ministerio de
> Ecología y Recursos
>
> Naturales de la Provincia de Misiones) provided information on
> protected areas.
>
> Miguel López (Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad Nacional de
> Misiones) and
>
> Claudia Noseda (Plan Social Agropecuario) provided socioeconomic
> information.
>
> Luis Colcombet & Roberto Fernández (Instituto de Tecnología
> Agropecuaria -- INTA,
>
> Montecarlo) provided land use information.
>
> H.Daniel Ligier (Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria --INTA,
> Corrientes)
>
> provided information on geomorphology, hydrology, climate, and soils.
>
> Juan Carlos Chébez (Administración de Parques Nacionales) and Hernán
> Casañas (Aves
>
> Argentinas) provided information on fauna.
>
> Fernando Zuloaga and Manuel Belgrano (Instituto de Botánica Darwinion)
> provided
>
> information on vegetation.
>
> Irene Fabricante (FVSA) produced the forest cover map.
>
> **[For Brazil:]{.underline}**
>
> We used information collected in the *Avaliação e Ações Prioritárias
> para a Conservação da Biodiversidade da Mata Atlântica e Campos
> Sulinos,* a priority-setting effort for the Atlantic Forest and
> Southern Grasslands Biomes. This was carried out for PROBIO, the
> national project "Conservation and Sustainable use of Brazilian
> Biological Diversity," conducted by the Ministry of Environment. This
> fulfilled part of the country's obligations under the Biodiversity
> Convention, signed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and
> Development-UNCED (Rio 1992). This information was compiled for the
> Ministry of Environment by: Conservation International do Brasil;
> Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica; Fundação Biodiversitas; Instituto de
> Pesquisas Ecológicas; Secretaria do Meio Ambiente do Estado de São
> Paulo/SEMAD; and the Instituo Estadual de Florestas of Minas Gerais.
>
> Julio Gonchorosky (Director of Iguaçu National Park -- IBAMA) provided
>
> complementary information for the area of Iguaçu National Park and
> Turvo State Park.
>
> Instituto Brasileiro de Meio Ambiente e Recursos Naturais Renovaveis
> -- IBAMA
>
> provided information on protected areas;
>
> Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica provided the forest cover map.

Integration of data sets into ecoregional Geographic Information System:

**[For Paraguay]{.underline}**---Pedro Alvarenga (AlterVida) and Anibal
Aguayo (Guyra Paraguay);

**[For Argentina]{.underline}**---Irene Fabricante (FVSA) and José
Benitez

(Ministerio de Ecología y Recursos Naturales de la Provincia de
Misiones);

**[For Brazil]{.underline}**---Leandro Ferreira (WWF-Brazil);

**[Ecoregion wide]{.underline}**---Tom Allnutt and Megan McKnight
(WWF-US); German Palé (FVSA).

**Participants attending the workshop *Toward a Biological Vision for
the Paraná/Paraiba Interior Atlantic Forest Ecoregion,* held April
25-26, 2000, in Foz do Iguaçu, Paraná, Brazil:**

Tom Allnutt (WWF-US); Pedro Alvarenga (AlterVida, Paraguay); Aida Luz
Aquino (WWF-US, in Paraguay); João Batista Campos (Instituto Ambiental
do Paraná, Brazil); Manuel Balgrano (Instituo de Botánica Darwinion,
Argentina); José Benitez (Ministerio de Ecología y Recursos Naturales
Renovables, Misiones, Argentina); Hugo Cámara (Ministerio de Ecología y
Recursos Naturales Renovables, Misiones, Argentina); Rogerio Castro
(Secretaria Estadual do Meio Ambiente, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil); Juan
Carlos Chébez (Administración de Parques Nacionales, Argentina); Juan
Pablo Cinto (Ministério de Ecología y Recursos Naturales Renovables,
Misiones, Argentina); Luis Colcombet (Instituto de Tecnología
Agropecuaria--INTA, Montecarlo, Argentina); Laury Cullen (Instituto de
Pesquisas Ecológicas--IPÊ, Brazil); Wanderley de Moraes (Itaipú
Binacional, Brazil); Lou Ann Dietz (WWF-US); Maria Elena Escobar (Itaipú
Binacional, Paraguay); Irene Fabricante (FVSA); Luis Paulo Ferraz
(WWF-Brazil); Leandro Ferreira (WWF-Brazil); Julio Gonchorosky (Parque
Nacional do Iguaçu--IBAMA, Brazil); John Griffin (USAID, USA); Patricia
Keller (Tri-national Initiative for the Atlantic Forest Green Corridor);
Milagros Lencina (CDC, Parques Nacionales y Vida Silvestre, Paraguay);
H. Daniel Ligier (Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria--INTA,
Sombrerito, Argentina); Miguel López (Universidad Nacional de Misiones,
Argentina); Miguel Lovera (Sobrevivencia, Parguay); Ana Maria Macedo
Sienra (Fundación Moisés Bertoni, Paraguay); Megan McKnight (WWF-US);
Guillermo Placci (FVSA); George Powell (WWF-US); Alberto Rautenberg
(Servicios Ecoforestales para Agricultores, Paraguay); Larisa Rejalaga
(Carrera de Ingenieria Forestal/ Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias,
Universidad Nacional de Asunción - CIF/FCA/UNA, Paraguay); Doreen
Robinson (WWF-US); Marcelo Tabarelli (Departamento de Botânica,
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Brazil); Myriam Velázquez (Guyra
Paraguay, Paraguay); Victor Vera (consultant,Paraguay).

While we have tried to acknowledge all of the many organizations and
individuals who have contributed to this document, there may be some we
have missed. We apologize in advance for any oversight of their hard
work.

**[Table of Contents]{.smallcaps}**

Acknowledgements [v](#acknowledgements)

List of Figures [x](#list-of-figures)

List of Tables [xi](#list-of-tables)

Vision Statement [xii](#vision-statement)

Executive Summary [1](#executive-summary)

Chapter 1 [7](#chapter-1)

Ecoregion Conservation and the Biodiversity Vision
[7](#ecoregion-conservation-and-the-biodiversity-vision)

What is an ecoregion? [7](#__RefHeading___Toc35054547)

Minimum conservation targets to achieve the goals of ecoregion
conservation (ERC) [9](#__RefHeading___Toc35054548)

The Biodiversity Vision as a tool for implementing Ecoregion
Conservation [11](#__RefHeading___Toc35054549)

Chapter 2 [14](#chapter-2)

The Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Ecoregion
[14](#the-upper-paraná-atlantic-forest-ecoregion)

The Atlantic Forests Ecoregion Complex [14](#__RefHeading___Toc35054552)

The Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Ecoregion
[16](#the-upper-paraná-atlantic-forest-ecoregion-1)

Natural history of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest
[16](#__RefHeading___Toc35054554)

The main causes of fragmentation and degradation of the Upper Paraná
Atlantic Forest [18](#__RefHeading___Toc35054555)

Land use [18](#land-use)

Infrastructure [20](#infrastructure)

Unsustainable exploitation of the native forest
[20](#unsustainable-exploitation-of-the-native-forest)

Unsustainable hunting [21](#unsustainable-hunting)

The root causes of environmental degradation
[22](#the-root-causes-of-environmental-degradation)

Opportunities for biodiversity conservation in the Upper Paraná
Ecoregion [23](#__RefHeading___Toc35054561)

Chapter 3 [38](#chapter-3)

Goals for Achieving Biodiversity Conservation Results
[38](#goals-for-achieving-biodiversity-conservation-results)

The Problems of Fragmentation: Edge effects, Size effects and Isolation
[40](#__RefHeading___Toc35054564)

Chapter 4 [45](#chapter-4)

Designing a Biodiversity Conservation Landscape -- Methods
[45](#designing-a-biodiversity-conservation-landscape-methods)

Design of the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape.
[49](#design-of-the-biodiversity-conservation-landscapethe-biodiversity-conservation-landscape-was-designed-following-a-series-of-logical-steps-using-the-biodiversity-conservation-potential-map.-we-began-the-process-by-identifying-the-building-blocks-of-the-conservation-landscape-and-linking-them-in-a-series-of-steps-according-to-their-contribution-to-biodiversity-conservation.-the-following-steps-ordered-by-their-conservation-priority-were-taken-into-account-when-designing-the-biodiversity-conservation-landscape)

Chapter 5 [71](#chapter-5)

Results: The Biodiversity Conservation Landscape
[71](#results-the-biodiversity-conservation-landscape)

Representation of the Landscape Units [71](#__RefHeading___Toc35054570)

The Biodiversity Conservation Landscape
[71](#__RefHeading___Toc35054571)

A\) Priority Areas for Biodiversity Conservation
[71](#a-priority-areas-for-biodiversity-conservation)

B\) Strategic Areas for Biodiversity Conservation
[73](#b-strategic-areas-for-biodiversity-conservation)

C\) Sustainable Use Areas [73](#c-sustainable-use-areas)

Chapter 6 [90](#chapter-6)

Setting priorities for conservation action -- Conservation Targets
[90](#setting-priorities-for-conservation-action-conservation-targets)

From Vision to Action -- implementing an Ecoregion Action Plan
[95](#from-vision-to-action-implementing-an-ecoregion-action-plan-1)

References [96](#references)

Appendix 1 [102](#appendix-1)

Ecoregion Action Plan [102](#ecoregion-action-plan)

WWF Target Driven Programs [102](#wwf-target-driven-programs)

#   {#section .toc .unnumbered}

# List of Figures {#list-of-figures .toc}

#  {#section-1 .toc}

Figure 1. The Global 200 Terrestrial Ecoregions
[13](#figure-1.-the-global-200-terrestrial-ecoregions)

Figure 2. Location of the Atlantic Forests Global 200 Ecoregion in South
America
[25](#figure-2.-location-of-the-atlantic-forests-global-200-ecoregion-in-south-america)

Figure 3. The 15 Ecoregions of the Atlantic Forests Global 200 Ecoregion
Complex
[26](#figure-3.-the-15-ecoregions-of-the-atlantic-forests-global-200-ecoregion-complex)

Figure 4. Forest Remnants of the Atlantic Forests Global 200 Ecoregion
[28](#figure-4.-forest-remnants-of-the-atlantic-forests-global-200-ecoregion)

Figure 5. The Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Ecoregion
[29](#figure-5.-the-upper-paraná-atlantic-forest-ecoregion)

Figure 6. The Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Ecoregion Overlaps
Extensively with the Upper Paraná Rivers and Streams Global 200
Ecoregion
[30](#figure-6.-the-upper-paraná-atlantic-forest-ecoregion-overlaps-extensively-with-the-upper-paraná-rivers-and-streams-global-200-ecoregion)

Figure 7. The Process of Destruction of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest
[31](#figure-7.-the-process-of-destruction-of-the-upper-paraná-atlantic-forest)

Figure 8. Land Tenure Patterns in Different Parts of the Ecoregion
[32](#figure-8.-land-tenure-patterns-in-different-parts-of-the-ecoregion)

Figure 9a. Protected Areas of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest
[33](#figure-9a.-protected-areas-of-the-upper-paraná-atlantic-forest)

Figure 9b. Protected Areas of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest (Enlarged
Tri-national Area)
[34](#figure-9b.-protected-areas-of-the-upper-paraná-atlantic-forest-enlarged-tri-national-area)

Figure 10. Protected Areas in the Ecoregion Have Increased
[37](#figure-10.-protected-areas-in-the-ecoregion-have-increased)

Figure 11. Number and Total Area of Fragments in Size Categories
[44](#figure-11.-number-and-total-area-of-fragments-in-size-categories)

Figure 12. Number of Dry Months [51](#figure-12.-number-of-dry-months)

Figure 13. Elevation Range [52](#figure-13.-elevation-range)

Figure 14. Slopes Index [53](#figure-14.-slopes-index)

Figure 15. Landscape Units [54](#figure-15.-landscape-units)

Figure 16. Forest Remnants of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest
[55](#figure-16.-forest-remnants-of-the-upper-paraná-atlantic-forest)

Figure 17. Forest Fragments Discriminated by Size Categories
[56](#figure-17.-forest-fragments-discriminated-by-size-categories)

Figure 18. Forest Fragment Cores Discriminated by Area Categories
[57](#figure-18.-forest-fragment-cores-discriminated-by-area-categories)

Figure 19. Fragment Importance Index
[58](#figure-19.-fragment-importance-index)

Figure 20. Cities [59](#figure-20.-cities)

Figure 21. Crops [60](#figure-21.-crops)

Figure 22. Cattle Ranching [61](#figure-22.-cattle-ranching)

Figure 23. Rural Population Density
[62](#figure-23.-rural-population-density)

Figure 24. Threats to Biodiversity Conservation
[63](#figure-24.-threats-to-biodiversity-conservation)

Figure 25. Proximity to Strictly Protected Areas
[64](#figure-25.-proximity-to-strictly-protected-areas)

Figure 26. Proximity to Rivers [65](#figure-26.-proximity-to-rivers)

Figure 27. Zones of Planned Conservation
[66](#figure-27.-zones-of-planned-conservation)

Figure 28. Opportunities for Biodiversity Conservation
[67](#figure-28.-opportunities-for-biodiversity-conservation)

Figure 29. Threats and Opportunities
[68](#figure-29.-threats-and-opportunities)

Figure 30. Biodiversity Conservation Potential
[69](#figure-30.-biodiversity-conservation-potential)

Figure 31. Process of Development of the Biodiversity Conservation
Landscape
[70](#figure-31.-process-of-development-of-the-biodiversity-conservation-landscape)

Figure 32. Illustration of *Concept* of Categories of Areas Included in
the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape
[82](#figure-32.-illustration-of-concept-of-categories-of-areas-included-in-the-biodiversity-conservation-landscape)

Figure 33. Core Areas [83](#figure-33.-core-areas)

Figure 34. Priority Areas [84](#figure-34.-priority-areas)

Figure 35. Sustainable Use Areas Connecting the Priority Areas
[85](#figure-35.-sustainable-use-areas-connecting-the-priority-areas)

Figure 36. Biodiversity Conservation Landscape
[86](#figure-36.-biodiversity-conservation-landscape)

Figure 37. Area Under Strict Protection (present and future) in the
Biodiversity Conservation Landscape
[87](#figure-37.-area-under-strict-protection-present-and-future-in-the-biodiversity-conservation-landscape)

Figure 38. Area Under Sustainable Use Areas
[88](#figure-38.-area-under-sustainable-use-areas)

Figure 39. Forest Cover in Units of the Biodiversity Conservation
Landscape
[89](#figure-39.-forest-cover-in-units-of-the-biodiversity-conservation-landscape)

# List of Tables {#list-of-tables .toc}

Table 1. Protected Areas of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Ecoregion
[35](#__RefHeading___Toc35054622)

Table 2. Density Estimates and Area Requirements for Individuals and
Populations of Different Sizes of Typical Vertebrate Species of the
Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest. [43](#__RefHeading___Toc35054623)

Table 3. Representation in Protected Areas and Remaining Forest Cover in
Landscape Units [78](#__RefHeading___Toc35054624)

Table 4. Number of Fragments and Forest Cover (Ha) per Landscape Unit
and per Fragment Size Category. [79](#__RefHeading___Toc35054625)

Table 5. Representation of Landscape Units in the Priority Areas
[80](#__RefHeading___Toc35054626)

Table 6. Representation of Landscape Units in Final Biodiversity
Conservation Landscape [81](#__RefHeading___Toc35054627)

.

# Vision Statement {#vision-statement .toc}

To limit further species extinctions and

to maintain critical environmental services

by taking immediate actions

to ensure the long-term viability

of representative biodiversity

of the Atlantic Forest.

# Executive Summary {#executive-summary .toc}

# 

# Ecoregion Conservation

In recent years the conservation community has been promoting the design
and implementation of biodiversity conservation actions at larger
scales. WWF has embraced this approach, focusing conservation planning
and action on ecoregions --- relatively large units of land or water
that contain a distinct assemblage of natural communities that share a
large majority of species, dynamics, and environmental conditions. Since
most ecological and evolutionary processes that sustain biodiversity
occur at these larger scales, WWF has determined that ecoregions are the
best units to design and implement biodiversity conservation actions. ,
and t

One of the key elements needed to implement ecoregion conservation is a
***Biodiversity Vision***. A Biodiversity Vision is a planning tool,
usually in the form of a document like this, aimed at guiding
biodiversity conservation activities in the ecoregion. A Biodiversity
Vision sets a number of biodiversity conservation goals based on
widely-accepted principles of conservation biology, and identifies
critical areas to be either conserved, managed, or restored in order to
meet those goals. These areas are identified through a science-based
process that relies on the best available biodiversity data and
socioeconomic information. Through this process, we developed a
Biodiversity Conservation Landscape that is represented in a map
illustrating how the ecoregion would look in 50-100 years if we are
successful in conserving biodiversity. This Biodiversity Conservation
Landscape is a central piece of the Biodiversity Vision, and its
representation in a map helps to focus conservation activities on those
areas and to set specific targets that would render the best results for
biodiversity conservation.

# The Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest---a critically endangered ecoregion

In a worldwide ranking based on a comparative analysis of biodiversity
data, WWF has identified the Global 200---the most outstanding
ecoregions representing the full range of the Earth's diverse
terrestrial, freshwater, and marine habitats. The Atlantic Forests, a
Global 200 ecoregion, is actually a complex of 15 terrestrial
ecoregions[^1] that span the Atlantic coast of Brazil, extending
westward into eastern Paraguay and northeastern Argentina. The Atlantic
Forests are among the most endangered rainforests on earth, with only
7.4% of their original forest cover remaining, and this is in a highly
fragmented landscape. They have been ranked as one of the most
biologically diverse forests of the world. The southwestern portion of
the Atlantic Forest constitutes the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest
ecoregion and is the focus of this Biodiversity Vision.

The original[^2] area of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion is
the largest (471,204 km^2^) of the 15 ecoregions of the Atlantic Forests
Ecoregion Complex, extending from the western slopes of the Serra do Mar
in Brazil to eastern Paraguay and the Misiones Province in Argentina.
All this area was originally covered by a continuous subtropical
semi-deciduous forest with a high diversity of plant species that formed
different forest communities[^3]. This ecoregion has the largest
remaining forest blocks, still containing the original set of large
vertebrates, including top predators such as harpy eagles, crested
eagles, jaguars, pumas, and ocelots, and large herbivores, such as
tapirs, two species of brocket deer, and two species of peccaries. While
these blocks represent an important conservation opportunity, they
present the special challenge of crossing the borders of three countries
with different cultures and different languages, a complex
socio-economic and cultural diversity, and have experienced recent
economic and social crises.

The largest threat to biodiversity in the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest
ecoregion is the extreme degree of forest fragmentation and degradation,
where the main proximate cause is the expansion of agriculture, both
large- and small-scale. Other causes include squatting by landless
people, the construction of infrastructure (dams, roads, etc.), illegal
hunting of wildlife, and unsustainable exploitation of the native
forest. Despite the high degree of forest fragmentation, there are still
good opportunities for the conservation of the remaining large forest
fragments in the ecoregion. By protecting these large areas we will be
able to conserve the ecological processes that sustain biological
diversity.

# Setting biodiversity conservation goals 

We have set four basic goals for this *Biodiversity Vision* to achieve
conservation results in the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion. The
four goals are based on conservation biology principles, and include:

1.  The conservation of blocks of natural forest large enough to be
    **resilient** to short-term and long-term environmental changes

2.  The maintenance of **viable populations** of all native species in
    their natural patterns of abundance and distribution, and with the
    genetic diversity necessary to meet environmental challenges

3.  The maintenance of **healthy ecological processes** and selective
    factors such as disturbance regimes, hydrological processes,
    nutrient cycles, and biotic interactions, including predation

4.  The **representation** of all native biological communities and
    seral stages across their natural range of variation within a
    Biodiversity Conservation Landscape.

**Crafting the Vision**

Underlying the Biodiversity Vision is a series of complex analyses aimed
at designing a Biodiversity Conservation Landscape that will accomplish
the conservation goals described above. During the past three years, WWF
has led a tri-national participatory process involving more than 30
local organizations representing multiple sectors and disciplines. Many
of these organizations[^4] provided information and data critical to
produce this Biodiversity Vision for the time frame and geographic scale
necessary to conserve the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Ecoregion's
biodiversity.

For the analyses we used various overlays of maps representing the
distribution of the different biological and socio-economic variables. A
Geographic Information System provided a critical tool for conducting
the analyses and visually describing different layers of information in
various maps. Three separate but interdependent analyses were critical
to arrive at the final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape:

The first step involved the **identification of individual** **landscape
units**[^5]. Given the lack of complete or sufficient biological
information available to define and map all ecological communities, we
used climatic, altitude, and topographic information as proxies for
developing a biological model. Using these three layers of information,
we identified 18 separate landscape units.

The second step involved the identification of native forest fragments
with the highest potential for achieving conservation goals. For this
**fragmentation analysis,** we used a map of forest fragments obtained
from satellite images. We ranked forest fragments according to a
Fragment Importance Index developed to indicate the relative
contribution of forest fragments to biodiversity conservation. The index
was based on four variables: fragment size, fragment size after
excluding a buffer zone[^6] of 500 m (an indirect measure of edge
effects, see Box 4), distance to nearest fragment, and altitudinal range
within the forest fragment.

The third step was a **threats and opportunities analysis**, where the
objective was to map areas that represent critical threats and important
opportunities for biodiversity conservation. Land use information
provided a critical basis for assessing conservation opportunities and
threats. The threat variables used in our analysis included: distance to
cities, agriculture, cattle raising, and rural population density.
Opportunity variables that were used included: the distance from a
strictly protected area, the proximity to a river (assuming that rivers
in this ecoregion constitute potential biological corridors), and zones
of planned conservation. Variables were weighted according to their
relative impact on biodiversity conservation.

We analyzed the current status of forest cover and representation of the
different landscape units within the protected area system using the
landscape units map in combination with the forest fragments map and the
protected areas map. This gave us an idea of how well represented each
landscape unit was in the actual landscape, and guided decisions on how
to improve representation of those underrepresented landscape units in
the final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape. Combining the fragment
importance index map with the threats and opportunities map, we
constructed a biodiversity conservation potential map that illustrates
where the areas with the highest biodiversity conservation potential are
located in the ecoregion. Using this biodiversity conservation potential
map as the basic layer of information, we defined a ***Biodiversity
Conservation Landscape***. Expert opinions and socio-political viability
of certain decisions where also taken into account when outlining the
Biodiversity Conservation Landscape. This process is summarized in Fig.
32.

Refining the final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape, involved a
series of logical analyses and decisions that we explain in a simplified
manner here. First, using the biodiversity conservation potential map as
a guide, we identified large native forest blocks (\>10,000 ha) to
constitute Core Areas (see definition below). These are the forest
fragments that may sustain the whole life cycle of a jaguar, which we
used as our umbrella species[^7]. Next we identified Main Corridors to
connect Core Areas. Lastly, smaller areas of relatively high
conservation value, surrounded by secondary corridors, were included to
increase representation of landscape units and associated biodiversity
within the final design of a biodiversity conservation landscape.

# Our Vision in a map

Our Biodiversity Vision is a Biodiversity Conservation Landscape that
spans the three countries, with adequate space for wildlife set aside
from human activities to ensure that critical biodiversity conservation
goals are met. The implementation of this Vision will depend on the
participation of many sectors and the coordination of activities across
the borders of the three countries.

The resulting Biodiversity Conservation Landscape is composed of **three
main types of areas:**

The **Core Areas** are the blocks of well-preserved native forest large
enough to be resilient to threats that cause biodiversity loss. These
are the most biologically important and strategic zones for
conservation, either public or private. Each Core Area should be managed
to maintain an area of continuous native forest large enough for the
life cycle of wide ranging species such as jaguars and white-lipped
peccaries. Core Areas should be managed under strict protection and
human activities should be reduced to a minimum. Core Areas should be
connected to other Core Areas through a network of corridors to meet our
biodiversity conservation goals. []{.mark}

The **Biological Corridors** are relatively narrow areas of native
forest, either natural or restored, that connect large forest patches,
either Core Areas or Sustainable Use Areas. The Biological Corridors
would allow the movement of the wildlife and sufficient genetic
interchange among Core Areas to maintain viable populations.

The **Sustainable Use Areas** are large areas that function as buffers
and connections surrounding the Core Areas, other critical conservation
areas under strict protection, and the biological corridors. They
maintain healthy ecological processes and environmental services in
combination with environmentally friendly economic activities.

We have also identified areas that are important for the development of
river basin management and conservation programs as well as areas where
we need to develop finer-scale land use planning to appropriately create
and implement critical Biological Corridors.

Figure 36 depicts the resulting Biodiversity Conservation Landscape. Due
to the lack of opportunities for biodiversity conservation and the lack
of forest fragments with sufficient conservation value, some landscape
units are not represented in the final Biodiversity Conservation
Landscape. However, this Biodiversity Conservation Landscape will ensure
the conservation of large and resilient blocks of native forests, where
viable populations of umbrella species and healthy ecological processes,
including predation by top predators, will be sustained. Both the
Biodiversity Conservation Landscape and the Biodiversity Vision will
continue to be refined over time as additional studies are undertaken
and new information becomes available.

# From Vision to Action -- implementing an Ecoregion Action Plan 

The implementation of this Biodiversity Conservation Landscape will
require a series of actions at different time and spatial scales. Since
no [one]{.underline} organization can achieve results at this scale,
actions must be coordinated among governmental and non-governmental
organizations of many sectors. Achieving this Vision will require
governments to incorporate the principles, ideas, and designs into their
regional development programs and policies. Maintaining intact forest in
the Core Areas will require improved implementation of existing
protected areas, both public and private, and new protected areas must
also be established. The connections among Core Areas can most easily be
secured through the establishment of forest corridors crossing
landscapes of multiple use zones that provide services valuable for the
human population. Design of these corridors and multiple use zones will
require fine-scale land use planning. It is critical to include the
participation of stakeholders[^8] to develop their support for
implementation. New environmentally-friendly and economically-viable
production alternatives, as well as incentives for the protection of
forest on private land (both large and small holdings), must also be
developed. Perverse incentives that contribute to forest conversion must
be eliminated. Large-scale education campaigns will be essential to
increase public understanding of the value of protected forests and thus
generate public support and involvement in conservation---including
enforcement of existing forest laws and development of new, improved
public policies where necessary. Capacity building is also essential for
landowners, both public and private, to become effective stewards of
forested areas. To implement many of these activities will require new
basic and applied research in areas such as restoration of native forest
communities, economic and biological sustainability of alternative land
uses, needs assessments for communication and education efforts, land
use planning, and economic mechanisms to sustain conservation.

With this Biodiversity Vision as a guide, WWF and local partners need to
transform short-term actions already underway to an ***Ecoregion Action
Plan*** that lays out targets over the short-term (1-5 years) and
medium-term (10-15 years). This Plan should clearly identify threat
mitigation strategies, and focus on clear targets for conservation
achievement as well as on the roles of partner institutions, long-term
financing possibilities, structures for effective governance,
communication and campaign activities, and capacity building. These
clear targets are essential to guiding, focusing, and monitoring
progress. Together with this inspiring Vision, the clear targets and
transparent reporting of achievements are necessary to build the
commitment and ownership by partners for continued and active
engagement. Embedded in the crafting of an Ecoregion Action Plan is the
need for flexibility. As more information is collected and actions are
monitored, the Plan can be easily updated and allow for sound judgment
when a change of course or tactic is necessary. In addition to helping
the ecoregion action programs organize their strategic efforts in an
ecoregion, the Plan has other benefits. The Ecoregion Action Plan can
help openly articulate the biodiversity agenda, and can help leaders
recognize the importance of this agenda among other national and
international priorities. It is clear that appropriate institutional
development of partners is necessary to strengthen advocacy on a variety
of levels. Since Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay are all (to varying
degrees) recently emerging democracies, this capacity building overlaps
significantly with the development of active participation in government
and taking an active role as citizens.

Implementation may take place at levels below the ecoregional scale, or
outside the ecoregion, depending on the issue involved. A threats
analysis is an essential filter for determining at what scale and
timeframe we should act. All conservation activities must be conceived
and implemented in relation to the social and political realities in
which they take place. In the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion,
these realities are different in each of the three countries and even in
different regions of the same country. Most of the actions will be
implemented on a national or regional level within each country.
However, strategic planning, monitoring of the threats and conservation
results, and resulting adjustments must be conducted at an ecoregional
scale.

# Chapter 1 {#chapter-1 .toc}

# Ecoregion Conservation and the Biodiversity Vision {#ecoregion-conservation-and-the-biodiversity-vision .toc-small-caps}

Conservation efforts around the world have been traditionally restricted
to small areas and focused on local activities that take place in short
time frames (1-5 years), such as the creation of a protected area or the
implementation of a buffer zone. These activities are the basis of
biodiversity conservation. However, to preserve biodiversity over the
long term, we need to focus our efforts at much larger spatial and
temporal scales, those at which most ecological and evolutionary
processes that maintain biodiversity occur. This task requires analysis
and planning at the level of landscape or larger spatial scales.
Ecoregions are the best units of analysis for planning at large spatial
scales (Box 1), even though many actions will be implemented locally.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # BOX 1                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc35054547 .anchor}What is an ecoregion?          |
|                                                                       |
| An ecoregion is a relatively large unit of land or water that         |
| contains a distinct assemblage of natural communities sharing a large |
| majority of species, dynamics, and environmental conditions. A        |
| terrestrial ecoregion is characterized by a dominant vegetation type, |
| which although not universally present in the region, is widely       |
| distributed and gives unifying character to it. Because the dominant  |
| plant species provide most of the physical structure of terrestrial   |
| ecosystems, communities of animals also tend to have a unity or       |
| characteristic expression throughout the region.                      |
|                                                                       |
| Ecoregions are more suitable units for conservation planning because  |
| they:                                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| 1.  Correspond to the major driving ecological and evolutionary       |
|     processes that create and maintain biodiversity;                  |
|                                                                       |
| 2.  Address the maintenance of populations of the species that need   |
|     the largest areas, an element of biodiversity that cannot be      |
|     accommodated at the site scale;                                   |
|                                                                       |
| 3.  Encompass a logical set of biogeographically related communities  |
|     for representation analysis; and                                  |
|                                                                       |
| 4.  Enable us to determine the best places to invest conservation     |
|     efforts and to better understand the role that specific projects  |
|     can and should play in conservation of biodiversity over the long |
|     term.                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| Analysis and planning at the ecoregional scale provide the best basis |
| for establishing conservation priorities. "Act locally, but think     |
| globally" is a useful motto because although we invariably have to    |
| act locally, without thinking more broadly at global or regional      |
| scales, we lack a context (biological, social and economic) for       |
| specific local actions that will produce long-term conservation       |
| benefits.                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| > From: Dinerstein et al. 2000. A Workbook for developing biological  |
| > assessments and developing Biodiversity Visions for ecoregion       |
| > conservation. Part I: Terrestrial Ecosystems. WWF- Conservation     |
| > Science Program.                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

This is why WWF has focused its attention on critical ecoregions, the
Global 200 (WWF 2000, Figure 1). These constitute a set of ecoregions
selected among all terrestrial, marine, and freshwater habitats around
the world through a science-based ranking effort. To identify the most
outstanding examples, this ranking is based on a comparative analysis of
biodiversity data throughout the world, using the ecoregions as the
units of analysis. The Global 200 includes representations of all major
habitat types in each major biogeographic unit. The objective of this
ranking is to prioritize conservation actions throughout the world
(Olson & Dinerstein 1998, Olson et al. 2000, 2001). WWF and partners are
thus shifting from site-based projects to planning and action at the
scale of ecoregions, in an approach called Ecoregion Conservation (ERC).
Ecoregion Conservation allows us to achieve conservation goals that
cannot be attained at other scales of planning and action (BOX 2).
Similar approaches are taken by most other major environmental
organizations throughout the world, including The Nature Conservancy,
Conservation International, and others (Bright & Mattoon 2001).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # BOX 2                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc35054548 .anchor}Minimum conservation targets   |
| to achieve the goals of ecoregion conservation (ERC)                  |
|                                                                       |
| The term biodiversity describes the full expression of life on the    |
| planet, from genes to species, to ecological interactions, to whole   |
| ecosystems. The ERC approach is designed to address the conservation  |
| requirements of the full experience of biodiversity; and thus the     |
| fundamental goals of biodiversity conservation help shape the         |
| overarching Vision for an ecoregion. In order to be rigorous and      |
| effective in ERC, we should focus conservation activities on five     |
| specific biodiversity targets:                                        |
|                                                                       |
| **Distinct communities, habitats, and species assemblages (distinct   |
| units of biodiversity)**                                              |
|                                                                       |
| > A primary conservation target is the representation of distinct     |
| > biogeographic subregions, habitats, communities, and assemblages of |
| > species. Representation of specific assemblages may also be         |
| > appropriate. The particular combination of units to be represented  |
| > in each ecoregion strategy will vary depending on: a) the           |
| > distinguishing features of each ecoregion, and b) the availability  |
| > and quality of information on patterns of biodiversity. We should   |
| > strive to represent and conserve habitats as well as the full       |
| > diversity of species in each ecoregion.                             |
|                                                                       |
| **Large expanses of intact habitat and intact biotas**                |
|                                                                       |
| > Empirical studies demonstrate that large areas of intact natural    |
| > habitat are best for conserving the full range of species,          |
| > habitats, and natural processes. However, intact ecosystems and     |
| > biotas are increasingly rare around the world. In particular, top   |
| > predators and larger vertebrates are disappearing rapidly in most   |
| > ecoregions as human activities convert and fragment natural         |
| > habitats and exterminate populations of vulnerable species via      |
| > overexploitation.                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| **Keystone ecosystems, habitats, species, or phenomena**              |
|                                                                       |
| > At ecoregional scales, certain kinds of habitat may exert a         |
| > powerful influence on biodiversity in surrounding habitats and      |
| > across the whole ecosystems. Their persistence and intact           |
| > ecological functioning may be critical for many species and         |
| > ecological processes in neighboring areas.                          |
|                                                                       |
| **Large-scale ecological phenomena**                                  |
|                                                                       |
| > The conservation of distinctive large-scale ecological processes,   |
| > such as hemispheric-scale animal migrations, requires a combination |
| > of site-specific, regional, and policy-level efforts applied over   |
| > vast continental areas or widely disjunct regions. Habitats or      |
| > sites that may not be particularly distinctive (e.g., characterized |
| > by high richness or endemism) or intact may still act as critical   |
| > habitat for migratory species. Conservation of such phenomena must  |
| > be linked with ecoregion-level activities and coordinated among     |
| > different ecoregions.                                               |
|                                                                       |
| **Species of special concern**                                        |
|                                                                       |
| > Some species that are heavily hunted, depleted in numbers, or       |
| > highly specialized in their habitat requirements run the risk of    |
| > falling through the cracks of ERC, a process which gives greater    |
| > weight to representation than single-species conservation efforts.  |
| > However, in many ecoregions, targeted efforts to restore            |
| > populations of sensitive species and their habitats are central to  |
| > ERC because they serve as focal species for planning.               |
|                                                                       |
| From: Dinerstein et al. 2000. A Workbook for developing biological    |
| assessments and developing Biodiversity Visions fore ecoregion        |
| conservation. Part I: Terrestrial Ecosystems. WWF- Conservation       |
| Science Program.                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

> Planning and action at the ecoregional scale and for the long term are
> essential to achieve

conservation results and to link human development opportunities to the
maintenance of biological diversity. A cornerstone of ERC is a
Biodiversity Vision (Box 3). A Biodiversity Vision is an analysis of
patterns of biological diversity and threats and opportunities for
conservation at the ecoregional level that serves as a blueprint for
conservation action - a design of what the ecoregion\'s biodiversity
will need to survive over the long term. A Biodiversity Vision is thus a
planning tool, usually in the form of a document like this, aimed at
guiding biodiversity conservation activities in the ecoregion. A
Biodiversity Vision sets a number of biodiversity conservation goals,
based on basic and widely accepted principles of conservation biology,
and identifies critical areas to be conserved, managed or restored in
order to meet those goals. These areas are identified through a
science-based process that relies on the best available biodiversity
data and socioeconomic information. Through this process we develop a
Biodiversity Conservation Landscape, represented in a map, that shows
how the ecoregion will look in 50-100 years if we are successful at
conserving its biodiversity and ecological processes. This Biodiversity
Conservation Landscape is a central piece of the Biodiversity Vision,
and its representation in a map helps to focus conservation activities
on those areas of the ecoregion that will render the best results for
biodiversity conservation. A Biodiversity Vision also identifies clear
conservation targets and serves as a tool to prioritize conservation
actions in the ecoregion.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # BOX 3                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc35054549 .anchor}The Biodiversity Vision as a   |
| tool for implementing Ecoregion Conservation                          |
|                                                                       |
| The cornerstone of ERC is a Biodiversity Vision that goes far beyond  |
| the current configuration of protected sites and management           |
| practices. To conserve the full range of biodiversity in most         |
| terrestrial ecoregions over the long term, conservation areas will    |
| need to be much larger and more numerous than what currently exists   |
| on the map today. In addition to putting more natural habitat under   |
| protection, other related conservation activities -- more sustainable |
| use of natural resources, protection of watersheds, establishment of  |
| strong NGOs, supportive legislation, environmental education -- need  |
| to be greatly expanded in scope and effort. Thus, in every ecoregion, |
| we ask from a conservation perspective, "What should the ecoregion    |
| look like in 10, 20, and 50 years hence?" This creation of a          |
| Biodiversity Vision highlights our commitment to the restoration of   |
| biologically valuable but degraded landscapes, strong legislation and |
| enforcement programs that protect native biodiversity, and the        |
| nurturing of an ecoregion-wide conservation movement.                 |
|                                                                       |
| All of these actions take time to develop. Thus, the Biodiversity     |
| Vision requires us to plan conservation activities over larger        |
| spatial and longer temporal scales than in the past. Conservationists |
| are challenged to define what success looks like in the context of    |
| conserving an ecoregion´s biodiversity in order to create a Vision.   |
| This picture of success depends greatly on the biological assessment  |
| as it gets refined. Too often, we confine our efforts to protecting   |
| isolated sites rather than developing a more far-reaching strategy    |
| for successful conservation at an ecoregion scale.                    |
|                                                                       |
| Without the Biodiversity Visions, ERC is only an incremental          |
| improvement over existing approaches. The creation of a Vision, as    |
| well as the implementation of an ecoregion conservation strategy,     |
| depends on the active involvement of many, in particular: host        |
| governments, experts of many disciplines, local conservation groups,  |
| development organizations, and citizens of countries within an        |
| ecoregion. WWF´s role will vary in each ecoregion, and throughout the |
| life of an ecoregion conservation initiative. ERC highlights the      |
| conservation of ecological processes, important evolutionary          |
| phenomena, higher order diversity (generic and family), and rare      |
| habitat types as well as the more traditional taxonomic indicators of |
| priority-setting - species richness and endemism.                     |
|                                                                       |
| In ERC biological analysis, we highlight intact or near-intact large  |
| vertebrate assemblages as vital conservation targets because of their |
| increasing rarity worldwide. Target areas and landscapes that support |
| or, with moderate restoration efforts, could support assemblages of   |
| megafauna such as top predators, megaherbivores, and keystone species |
| are identified. Top predators, such as jaguars, mountain lions,       |
| wolves, lions, tigers, and snow leopards, help to control native      |
| herbivore populations. Megaherbivores, such as elephants, giraffes,   |
| hippos, and rhinoceroses, influence habitat structure through their   |
| trampling, browsing, and grazing. Keystone species, such as sea       |
| otters, fig trees, or keystone herbivores such as beavers, bison,     |
| deer, and prairie dogs -- are species whose removal or decline in an  |
| ecoregion would have a disproportionate negative effect on the        |
| persistence of other species. We also highlight the critical          |
| importance of less conspicuous invertebrates and diminutive vascular  |
| plants -- the taxonomic units most numerous in species in any         |
| terrestrial ecoregion.                                                |
|                                                                       |
| Finally, a smaller goal of ERC is to reduce overarching threats to    |
| biodiversity that operate over multiple areas within the ecoregion    |
| (and sometimes outside of an ecoregion) rather than on a site-by-site |
| basis.                                                                |
|                                                                       |
| From: Dinerstein et al. 2000. A Workbook for developing biological    |
| assessments and developing Biodiversity Visions for ecoregion         |
| conservation. Part I: Terrestrial Ecosystems. WWF-Conservation        |
| Science Program.                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

WWF cannot work simultaneously in all of the more than 200 ecoregions
within the Global 200, and so has selected a subset of ecoregions on
which to currently focus its efforts as an international network. The
Atlantic Forests of South America is one of these focal ecoregions. This
document presents a Biodiversity Vision for one of the ecoregions of the
Atlantic Forests Ecoregion Complex, the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest. It
also provides a technical description of the analyses undertaken to
arrive at this ambitious Vision. The Biodiversity Vision is aimed at
laying the foundation for long-term (50 to 100 years) biodiversity
conservation in the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest. It is meant to capture
the major elements of biodiversity and serves as a fresh organizing
concept from which to frame actions, projects, trade-offs, threats,
opportunities, partners, and stakeholders. The Vision highlights areas
in which special attention should be paid to factors such as land- and
resource-use planning, watershed management, and social and economic
development.

######## Figure 1. The Global 200 Terrestrial Ecoregions {#figure-1.-the-global-200-terrestrial-ecoregions .Fig-list}

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="6.879861111111111in"
height="5.316666666666666in"}

# Chapter 2 {#chapter-2 .toc}

# The Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Ecoregion {#the-upper-paraná-atlantic-forest-ecoregion .toc-small-caps}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35054552 .anchor}The Atlantic Forests Ecoregion
Complex

The Atlantic Forests Global 200 Ecoregion Complex of Brazil, Paraguay,
and Argentina (hereafter referred to as the Atlantic Forest), is
composed of 15 ecoregions, and is among the most endangered tropical
rainforests in the world, with just 7.4 percent of its original
1,713,535 square kilometers of forest cover intact. The Atlantic Forest
extends from a tropical latitude in the states of Ceará and Río Grande
do Norte on the northeast coast of Brazil, to a highly seasonal
subtropical latitude in the southern state of Río Grande do Sul in
Brazil. It extends from the Atlantic Ocean westward to the interior over
Brazil\'s coastal mountain range to the watershed of the Paraná River in
eastern Paraguay and to Misiones Province of Argentina (Figure 2).

The biodiversity of the Atlantic Forest is not evenly distributed since
different combinations of temperature, altitude, soils, rainfall, and
distance to the ocean along its range have created conditions for unique
groups of species to evolve in localized areas. The forest retractions
and expansions of the geologically recent Pleistocene period may have
contributed to the creation of new species and have shaped the actual
distribution of the species of the Atlantic Forest (Prance 1982 in
Tabarelli et al. 1999). To design a conservation strategy that would
ensure the long-term survival of a representative sample of the complex
biodiversity of the Atlantic Forest, WWF scientists and partners have
divided the Atlantic Forest into 15 ecoregions for analysis to identify
biological goals and long-term conservation strategies to achieve them
(Figure 3).

In spite of its highly fragmented condition (Figure 4), the Atlantic
Forest remains one of Earth's most biologically diverse ecosystems,
containing about 7% of the world´s species (Quintela 1990 in Cullen et
al. 2001). One of the world´s highest diversity of woody plant species
per hectare has been recorded in the Atlantic Forest, in the State of
Bahia, with 450 species of trees (\>10 cm dbh) per ha. Not only its
biodiversity characterizes the Atlantic Forest, but its high level of
endemic species (those found nowhere else on earth) is astonishing and
makes this ecoregion complex a high priority for conservation. Forty
percent (8,000 species -- 2.7% of all plants on the planet) of the
Atlantic Forest's 20,000 plant species are endemic. Forty-two percent
(567 species -- 2.1% of the Earth's terrestrial vertebrates) of the
Atlantic Forest's 1,361 terrestrial vertebrates are also endemic (Myers
et al. 2000). Over 52% of the Atlantic Forest's tree species, 74% of its
bromeliad species, 80% of the primate species, and 92% of its amphibians
are endemic (Mittermeier et al. 2001, Quintela 1990 in Valladares-Padua
et al. 2002). Many of these species are now threatened with extinction.
Of all the species recognized as endangered in Brazil, nearly
three-quarters live in the Atlantic Forest (Bright & Mattoon 2001). It
is not a surprise that the eight Brazilian species considered extinct in
recent times were all endemic to the Atlantic Forest (Mittermeier et al.
1999).

The Atlantic Forests Ecoregion Complex has also been identified as a
Biodiversity Hotspot, first by Myers (1988, 1990) and then by
Conservation International as one of its 25 Hotspots (Mittermeier et al.
1998, Myers et al. 2000). The Hotspots approach focuses on threatened
areas of species endemism. BirdLife International has mapped every bird
species with a restricted range of less than 50,000 square kilometers
with Endemic Bird Areas significantly overlapping a large part of the
Atlantic Forests Global 200 Ecoregion Complex (WWF 2000).

In addition to containing some of the world's rarest species, what
remains of the Atlantic Forest is directly associated with the quality
of life of the human population. Forests are vital to watershed
protection, prevention of soil erosion, and to maintaining environmental
conditions necessary for the existence of cities and rural areas. In
Brazil alone, the Atlantic Forest is the water reservoir for almost
three-quarters of Brazil´s population. A large fraction of the
electricity produced in Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina, is produced in
the rivers of the Atlantic Forest and especially in the Upper Paraná
ecoregion, where two of the largest hydroelectric dams in the world are
located (Itaipú and Yaciretá).

A long history of human occupation of the region is testified by the
stone tools of approximately 11,000 years ago that have been found in
the Atlantic Forest. When the Spaniards and Portuguese arrived in the
region in the early 1500s, they found groups of people, mostly Guaraní,
with an economy based on small farming, hunting, and gathering. These
native people, living at low to medium densities, had at most moderate
effects on the environment. However, with the arrival of the Europeans
in the 16th century, a dramatic transformation of the environment began
to take place in the Atlantic Forest (Dean 1995, Jacobsen in press).

As the first part of Brazil to be colonized by the Portuguese in the
early 1500s, the Atlantic Forest has developed into the population hub
of the country. In the 17th and 18th centuries, sugar cane, cattle
raising, and uncontrolled logging for the exploitation of wood from a
few tree species were the main economic activities that began to
transform the Atlantic Forest into pastures and monocultures. In the
19th century, coffee plantations became increasingly common in the
southern and central portions of the Atlantic Forest. In the 20th
century industrial activities, especially steel production, started to
consume increasing quantities of fuel-wood (Dean 1995, Bright and
Mattoon 2001). Eucalyptus and other exotic monoculture forest
plantations (for timber, pulp, firewood, charcoal, and other wood
products) replaced huge expanses of Atlantic Forest. In more recent
times, and especially in the south, soybean, wheat, corn, and other
annual monocultures have definitely transformed what was a vast
continuous forest into a highly fragmented landscape where small
fragments of forest survive amidst a matrix of monocultures, cattle
pastures, roads, and cities. Similar consequences of forest destruction
occurred in all the Atlantic Forest´s Brazilian states, despite
differences in the main economic activities and the timing of forest
destruction. In the state of São Paulo, for example, large landowners
began to exploit the forest very early in the history of Brazil, and
most of the land is in the hand of a few people (Cullen et al. 2001). In
the state of Santa Catarina, the destruction of the forest mostly began
in the 20th century and most landowners possess small parcels (Hodge et
al. 1997). Nowadays, three-quarters of Brazil's population of 170
million lives in the Atlantic Forest and eighty percent of Brazil\'s
GNP, the world's eighth largest economy, is produced in this region.

In contrast, the isolation from human population centers of the
Argentine and Paraguayan portions of the ecoregion has allowed the
preservation of the largest piece of Atlantic Forest. The occupation of
the ecoregion in Paraguay and Argentina began later, and until the
beginning of the 20th century, most of the Atlantic Forest in these
countries was still covered by native forest. In the last few decades,
large expanses of Atlantic Forests were clearcut in Paraguay for the
development of large-scale soybean plantations and small-scale
agriculture. In Argentina, the colonization and development of the
country began in the pampas, with one of the richest soils in the world,
far from the forest. The Atlantic Forest of Misiones Province in
Argentina was exploited relatively late in the history of the country,
mainly for timber and yerba mate (an endemic plant used for tea).

***The habitat destruction and fragmentation of the Atlantic Forest
coupled with the high levels of species endemism make conservation
action particularly urgent.***

# The Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Ecoregion {#the-upper-paraná-atlantic-forest-ecoregion-1 .toc-small-caps}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35054554 .anchor}Natural history of the Upper
Paraná Atlantic Forest

The original[^9] forest of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion
covered the largest area (471,204 km^2^) of all the ecoregions of the
Atlantic Forests Ecoregion Complex, extending from the western slopes of
the Serra do Mar in Brazil to eastern Paraguay and the Province of
Misiones of Argentina (Figure 5). In the north, the Upper Paraná
ecoregion borders the Cerrado Woodlands and Savannas Global 200
Ecoregion. The vegetation of the Cerrado is very distinct and its
physiognomy differs from that of the Atlantic Forest. The Cerrado is a
mosaic of forest communities, with slow growing tree species adapted to
seasonal rains and the presence of fires and savannas. The riverine
forests of the Cerrado, however, contain species typical of the Atlantic
Forest. In the west, the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest meets the Pantanal
and the Humid Chaco, a large floodplain characterized by gallery
forests, savannas, flooded grasslands, and deciduous chaco forests in
the non-flooded areas. In the south, the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest
borders an area of grasslands. Finally to the east, it intermingles with
the Araucaria Forests, another of the ecoregions in the Atlantic Forest
Ecoregion Complex. The boundary with the Araucaria Forests ecoregion is
not clearly delineated; it is sometimes difficult to define where one
ecoregion begins, and where another ends. Both ecoregions have been
sometimes classified as only one. With the exception of a few species
that characterize the Araucaria Forests ecoregion --- such as two
conifers, the dominant Brazilian pine or monkey puzzle tree (*Araucaria
angustifolia)* and *Podocarpus* sp., and a set of species associated
with them such as the tit-spinetail (*Leptasthenura setaria)*---many
species are shared between both ecoregions.

The predominant vegetation of the Upper Paraná ecoregion is a
semi-deciduous sub-tropical forest. Variations in the local environment
and type of soil allow for the occurrence of other plant
communities---gallery forests, bamboo forests, palmito (*Euterpe
edulis*) forests, and araucaria forests. Most of the remaining forests
have been exploited for timber, and some are second growth forests
recovering from deforestation. Forest fragments are thus composed of
both primary and secondary forests at different stages of succession.

The Upper Paraná ecoregion is situated in the southern portion of the
Brazilian Plateau. The topography of the ecoregion ranges from
relatively flat areas with deep soils near the Paraná and other main
rivers at altitudes of between 150-250 m above sea level (asl), to a
relatively flat plateau at altitudes of between 550-800 m asl. The areas
located between the main rivers and the plateau, at altitudes of between
300-600 m asl have relatively steep slopes and are dramatically exposed
to soil erosion when the forest cover is removed (Ligier 2000). Above
700-900 m asl, the Upper Paraná ecoregion gives way to the Araucaria
ecoregion in the east and to the Cerrado in the north.

The soils of the ecoregion are relatively nutrient rich. The usually
deep red soils near the main rivers become less deep and more rocky at
higher altitudes. There is high variation in soil types, varying in
texture, chemical composition, and acidity (Ligier 2000, Fernández et
al. 2000).

The ecoregion has a subtropical climate. Mean annual temperature ranges
from 16-22 ºC with a relatively high annual variation. In the southern
portions of the ecoregion, frost is common during the winter months
(June-August), especially at high altitudes. Rainfall in the ecoregion
ranges from 1,000-2,200 mm per year, usually with less rain in the
northern part of the ecoregion than in the south. Rains are not
uniformly distributed during the year, and in some portions of the
ecoregion there are up to five dry months, usually during the winter.
Increased rains during El Niño years produce large inter-annual
variations in rainfall.

Rainfall and the strong seasonality in temperature and light determine a
seasonal pattern of primary productivity of the forest (Placci et al.
1994, Di Bitetti unpublished). In the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest there
is strong seasonality in the availability of food for folivorous,
frugivorous, and insectivorous species. New leaves, fruits and insects
are more abundant during the spring months of September to December
(Placci et al. 1994, Di Bitetti & Janson 2001).

The natural characteristics of the region form an extremely rich habitat
harboring countless species of plants and animals, among them the
spectacular large cats---the jaguar (*Panthera onca*), puma (*Felis
concolor*), and ocelot (*Felis pardalis*) (Crawshaw 1995). Other common
mammals include the tapir (*Tapirus terrestris*), three species of
brocket deer (*Mazama americana*, *Mazama nana*, and *Mazama
gouazoubira*), two species of peccaries (*Tayassu pecari* and *Tayassu
tajacu*), coati (*Nasua nasua*), and four species of monkeys (*Cebus
apella nigritus*, *Alouatta caraya*, *Alouatta fusca fusca*, and
*Leontopithecus chrysopygus*). About 500 species of birds are found
here, including five species of toucans (*Ramphastos toco*, *Ramphastos
dicolorus*, *Pteroglossus castanotis*, *Baillonius bailloni*, and
*Selenidera maculirostris*). Reptiles and amphibians also show high
diversity, and include caimans, turtles, boas and other snakes
(including several endemic species within the genus *Bothrops*, such as
*Bothrops jararacusu*), lizards and spectacular amphibians, such as the
toad *Bufo crucifer*, and the frogs *Osteocephalus langsdorffi, Hyla
faber* and *Phyllomedusa iheringi*. Some animals are considered
endangered or threatened, such as the giant river otter (*Pteronura
brasiliensis*), the black lion tamarin (*Leontopithecus chrysopygus*),
the black-fronted piping guan (*Aburria jacutinga* ), the solitary
tinamou (*Tinamus solitarius*), the Brazilian merganser (*Mergus
octosetaceus*), the vinaceous breasted parrot (*Amazona vinacea*), the
bare-throated bellbird (*Procnias nudicollis*), and the harpy eagle
(*Harpia harpyja*). Some species, like the jaguar, the harpy eagle, the
giant river otter and the white-lipped peccary, require large expanses
of continuous forest to guarantee their long-term survival---which
represents a big challenge for their conservation in a fragmented
landscape. Some species of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion
have very restricted distributions and constitute local endemism, such
as the black lion tamarin, restricted to a small area in the western
part of the state of São Paulo, Brazil (Cullen et. al. 2001), and the
Urugua-í frog (*Crossodactylus schmidti*), endemic to a small portion of
Misiones (Chebez & Casañas 2000).

Levels of alpha and beta biodiversity are quite high in the ecoregion,
although there are very few places that have been intensively surveyed.
For example, in the San Rafael National Park area in Paraguay, 378
species of birds have been recorded but it is estimated that between 400
and 450 species are actually present in the area (Clay et al. 2000). The
areas of Iguaçú National Park in Brazil and Iguazú National Park in
Argentina are among the best-studied sites in the ecoregion, with four
hundred and sixty species of birds (Saibene et al. 1993) and more than
250 species of trees recorded in these protected areas. Between 53 and
73 species of trees (\>10cm dbh) per ha have been recorded in study
plots within the Iguazú National Park (Placci & Giorgis 1994, S. Holz
pers. com.). Eighty-five species of orchids have been recorded just in
the Iguazú National Park, which represents about 1/3 of the species
known for all of Argentina (Johnson 2001). Over 3,000 vascular plant
species have been recorded for Misiones, representing about 1/3 of the
total vascular flora from Argentina (Zuloaga et al. 2000, Giraudo et al.
in press).

The Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest plays an important role in the
conservation of watersheds, ensuring the water quantity and quality
essential for the conservation of the Upper Paraná Rivers and Streams, a
Global 200 freshwater ecoregion (Figure 6). With a remarkably diverse
fauna, including over 300 species of fish, in addition to diverse
aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates, the Upper Paraná Rivers and
Streams ecoregion has a high degree of endemism of freshwater species
(Olson et al. 2000).

The Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion is located over a large
portion of the one of the largest groundwater reservoirs in the world
---the Guaraní Aquifer. This aquifer extends over a total of 1.2 million
square kilometers from the central-west region of Brazil, through
Paraguay to southeastern and southern Brazil, northeastern Argentina and
central-western Uruguay (Facetti and Stichler 1995). The current volume
of freshwater reserves stored is around 40,000 km^3^. Its depth varies
from almost zero in Brazil to more than 1,000m in Argentina (Fili et al.
1998). Despite a large surface water reserve, the drinking water supply
in this heavily populated region is increasingly dependent on this
groundwater. Future problems may occur if exploitation does not take
place in a sustainable manner or if the waters become polluted. Due to
its significant average depth, the Guaraní Aquifer is still relatively
unaffected by surface pollution (The World Bank, 1997). However, the
rapid development of agriculture in the region, especially in Brazil
where the aquifer is nearer to the surface, has the potential to pollute
this valuable water resource. This is a very clear example of the need
for conservation planning and action at the ecoregional scale.

# 

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35054555 .anchor}The main causes of fragmentation
and degradation of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest

## Land use {#land-use .toc-sub-2}

Mainly due to agricultural expansion westward in Brazil (coffee in the
late 19th century and in the past 50 years for wheat, soybeans, sugar
cane, and oranges), the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest has been reduced to
only 7.8% of its original extent. In Brazil, only 2.7% (771,276 ha) of
the original Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest remains, including the Iguaçu
National Park, the Morro do Diabo State Park, the Turvo State Park and a
few smaller forest fragments---and virtually none outside of protected
areas.

Relative isolation from human population centers in Argentine and
Paraguayan portions of the ecoregion has allowed the preservation of the
largest area of remaining Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest in those two
countries. Approximately 1,123,000 ha (about half of the original forest
area of the ecoregion in that country) remain in Argentina, forming a
contiguous corridor covering a large part of the province of Misiones.
Most of the remaining forest lies within what is known as the Green
Corridor, an area of conservation and sustainable use of over 1,100,000
ha created by Misiones provincial law (García Fernández 2002, Cinto &
Bertolini in press). Although Paraguay retains a large area (1,152,332
ha) of Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest, it is only 13.4% of the original
area in that country. Paraguay has one of the highest deforestation
rates of any country in Latin America, and recent deforestation there
has fragmented the remaining forest (C. Tucker, personal communication)
(Figure 7).

We have identified that fragmentation, isolation, and degradation of the
forest fragments constitute the main threats to biodiversity
conservation in the ecoregion. These processes have occurred at
different intensities in different parts of the ecoregion. We will
discuss later (Chapter 3) the consequences of the process of forest
fragmentation and degradation on biodiversity conservation. Here, we
will focus our discussion on the main causes of forest fragmentation and
degradation.

Agricultural expansion has been identified as the major underlying cause
of the process of fragmentation of the forest in the Upper Paraná
ecoregion. The main economic activities driving this process of native
forest conversion include annual crops (soybeans, sugar cane, corn,
wheat, cotton, tobacco), and perennial crops (coffee, yerba mate, tea,
and pine and eucalyptu*s* forest plantations). Cattle ranching is also
an important economic activity in the ecoregion that usually requires
the conversion of the native forest into grasslands for grazing. The
importance of these economic activities differs regionally within the
ecoregion, mainly due to the different histories and development
patterns of the three countries (Laclau 1994, Holz & Placci in press).
For example, soybean plantations are very important in the southern
Brazilian states and in eastern Paraguay, but not in the Misiones
Province of Argentina. Illegal marihuana plantations are restricted to
the northern part of the Paraguayan portion of the ecoregion. In
Misiones, monoculture forest plantations, mainly of pine, constitute the
main economic activity in the province, and these plantations are
concentrated near the Paraná River. Tobacco plantations are concentrated
in the state of Santa Catarina, in Brazil (Hodge et al. 1997), and in
the eastern portions of Misiones. Thus, to address the causes of forest
fragmentation and degradation, different actions need to take place in
different parts of the ecoregion.

While large­-scale agriculture clearly has negative impacts on
biodiversity, subsistence agriculture also contributes to the
fragmentation and degradation of the forest in a number of ways. First,
for many small producers, agriculture is economically unsustainable
because they lack access to markets or other economic incentives
available to large producers. As a result of the unsustainability of the
production system, small producers eventually abandon their land and
often sell it to large landowners or companies. These lands are then
incorporated into highly intensive and large-scale production systems
(Laclau 1994, Colcombet & Noseda 2000).

Second, land occupation and settlement of landless poor in areas of
forest remnants is contributing to the conversion of the last forest
remnants into land dedicated to small-scale and unsustainable
agriculture. In this case, landless people illegally occupy private or
state-owned properties, usually temporarily, to produce a few annual
crops. With no other alternatives, the landless people seeking small
parcels of land for subsistence agriculture are sometimes forced to
illegally occupy the last forest remnants located in areas not suitable
for agriculture, where soils are unproductive or are on steep slopes
(Hodge et al. 1997, Cullen et al. 2001, Chebez & Hilgert in press).
Cullen et al. (2001) describe the situation for the state of São Paulo:
"Land concentration, land speculation, and landlessness are the main
causes of imprudent land use in areas where traces of Atlantic Forest
remain. Poor people who have been denied land and livelihood are being
used as objects of unfair negotiations and forced into these forests
fragments in ever increasing numbers, often encouraged by the state
government. This land tenure system results in the exploitation of
forest remnants and threatens the remaining habitats."

The causes of environmental degradation of the ecoregion are associated
with historical and present situations of social inequalities (Laclau
1994). This can be clearly seen when one looks at the unequal pattern of
land tenure that is generally similar across the three countries. In
Misiones, 93% of the producers have properties of \<100 ha, which
represents only 1/3 of the productive land. The rest of the productive
activities occur in large properties that occupy the other 2/3 of the
productive land. The tendency for concentration of land in the hands of
a few owners, and the majority of the people owning small parcels, has
increased in the last decade (Colcombet & Noseda 2000). In Paraguay, the
situation is similar, 82% of the rural properties have less than 20 ha
while only 1% have more than 1,000 ha. However, that one percent
represents 77% of the cultivated area (SEPA 2000). A similar pattern
occurs in the southern states of Brazil (Laclau 1994, Cullen et al.
2001, Figure 8).

## 

## Infrastructure {#infrastructure .toc-sub-2}

There are several dams in the ecoregion whose effect has been not only
to flood large extensions of native forest, but also to impose new
barriers that increase the fragmentation of the forest and reduce the
dispersal capacity of flora and fauna that live on opposite sides of the
newly-formed reservoir (Fahey & Langhammer in press). There are plans
for the construction of several new dams in the ecoregion whose negative
effects would likely be similar to those that have been already built
(FVSA 1996, Bertonatti & Corcuera 2000, Fahey & Langhammer in press).

Roads constitute an important cause of native forest fragmentation and
degradation, not only for their direct effect (edge effect,
fragmentation and isolation of populations, and road kills) but also
because they facilitate the process of colonization and invasion of
lands to obtain squatters' rights (Chebez & Hilgert in press). There are
almost no areas in the ecoregion without road access. Soil erosion along
poorly-designed and poorly-maintained dirt roads is also a cause of
concern.

There are plans to develop major engineering work such as dredging and
channelization in the Paraná-Paraguay waterway (Hidrovía), enhancing the
transportation of goods from the heart of South America to the Atlantic
Ocean, and vice-versa. Such plans have the potential of seriously
affecting the natural resources of the region (Huszar et al. 1999). This
large channel and navigation infrastructure, if implemented, will have a
large indirect impact on biodiversity because it will create economic
incentives for the expansion of large-scale agriculture and conversion
of the last forest remnants in the ecoregion.

## Unsustainable exploitation of the native forest  {#unsustainable-exploitation-of-the-native-forest .toc-sub-2}

The unsustainable exploitation of the native forest through
"conventional" or "traditional" logging has also degraded the forest
remnants. Native forest exploitation has traditionally been conducted in
a predatory and unsustainable manner (see Rice et al. 2001). It is well
documented that conventional logging has severe impacts on biodiversity
(Putz et al. 2000). In the Upper Paraná conventional logging of native
forest has, as its most direct effect, the impoverishment of the forest
and changes in forest structure and soil composition. It may also
increase the dominance of some tree species and may reduce the natural
regeneration of the forest (Mac Donagh et al. 2001).

Originally, only a few species of native trees (e.g., four in Misiones)
were harvested for timber, but as these species became scarce, the
number of species exploited has increased. Between 20 and 40 species are
now harvested regularly (Laclau 1994). Native forests that have been
exploited usually suffer a process of invasion by native bamboo species
that fill the gaps and apparently preclude the natural regeneration of
the forest. It is known that different bird communities are associated
with forests in different successional stages; second growth forests
contain more edge species and have lost primary forest species in
relation to primary forests (Protomastro 2001). However, little is known
about changes in species compositions in relation to different types and
degrees of primary forest exploitation (see Mac Donagh et al. 2001). One
of the main impediments to reversing this trend of unsustainable
exploitation and consequent degradation of the forests is that there is
insufficient scientific information on forest composition and structure,
forest dynamics, and on the best ways to responsibly manage the forests.

There are laws that protect the native forest cover in all three
countries and require management plans for native forest exploitation.
However, these plans or laws are insufficient or are not effectively
enforced. The situation of native forest exploitation is different in
the three countries.

In Argentina the native forest is exploited only outside strictly
protected areas. The Misiones provincial authority (Dirección de
Bosques) requires a management plan to exploit the native forest, but
these plans generally do not ensure the sustainable use of the forests
because they are usually clearly non-sustainable and/or they are not
well implemented as a result of lack law enforcement. Also, anecdotal
evidence suggests that there is likely an important fraction of the
timber that is illegally extracted and marketed.

In Paraguay, the native forest is effectively protected in some reserves
or in areas of difficult accessibility (e.g., Cordillera San Rafael).
However, most fragments of native forest are suffering a process of
unsustainable, and in most cases illegal, exploitation, including
forests within implemented national parks. Most of the illegally
harvested wood is transported to the Brazilian markets, facilitated by
the lack of controls, widespread corruption among public officials
responsible for law enforcement, and the existence of several roads on
the terrestrial border with Brazil.

In Brazil, the situation is very different due to the almost complete
absence of remaining large primary forest remnants with valuable wood
outside strictly protected areas. Most forest fragments outside these
protected areas are small patches of secondary forests. Although
prohibited by Brazil's Forest Code, most privately-owned riparian
forests have been clearcut. A 1990 Brazilian Presidential decree also
prohibits any cutting of primary and secondary Atlantic Forest.

São Paulo, in Brazil, is the main market for the wood irresponsibly
exploited in Paraguay and Argentina. Buenos Aires also receives an
important portion of the timber extracted in Misiones. Local markets
play only a minor role in the consumption of wood from this ecoregion.

Besides the extraction of timber for construction or furniture, the
remaining patches of forest are under heavy pressure for the extraction
of fuel wood. For example, in the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil, there
are no oil or gas pipelines to supply energy. Fuel wood or charcoal
(produced locally) is used by the majority of the rural people for
heating, cooking, and drying food. The production of tobacco, one of the
main products in Santa Catarina, requires large amounts of fuel wood
that is obtained locally in the secondary forest remnants (Hodge et al.
1997). In Misiones, yerba mate is also dried with fuel wood obtained
from secondary forests, which is becoming a scarce resource for yerba
mate producers (S. Holz pers. com.).

## Unsustainable hunting {#unsustainable-hunting .toc-sub-2}

Hunting of most native species is prohibited by law in all three
countries, with the exception of a few species for which hunting is
allowed and regulated. Indigenous people in all three countries have the
legal right to hunt in a traditional manner. However, illegal hunting is
widespread across the Upper Paraná ecoregion. Native forests are
impoverished as a consequence of a drastic reduction of populations and
local extinctions of hunted species (Cullen et al. 2000, 2001),
suffering the "empty forest syndrome" (Bennett et al. 2002). It is
difficult to control illegal hunting in the three countries, as most
government agencies lack the technical and financial resources to
enforce the law (for Misiones see Cinto & Bertolini in press), and
hunting has deep cultural (and in some cases economic) roots (Giraudo &
Abramson 1998).

Different sectors of the population conduct different types of hunting.
In the three countries, there is a strong cultural tradition of hunting
that is practiced during spare time, usually on weekends. Sport hunting
is practiced by people living in cities who have financial means. Rural
people who live near the forests hunt not only for sport or cultural
reasons, but because they may need to obtain meat. The same is true for
the lowly paid employees of logging companies who complement their diet
with bush-meat they hunt during the weekend in logging areas where they
are employed. Rural residents also hunt animals they consider pests,
usually because of damage they may cause to domestic animals. For
example, jaguars, pumas, and other carnivores are hunted because they
may attack livestock (Schiaffino 2000, Pereira Leite Pitman 2002).
Snakes are exterminated because a few species represent a danger for
humans and domestic animals.

There is also some well-organized illegal hunting to supply bush-meat to
local markets, such as in Brazil where there are restaurants that offer
bush-meat as special dishes. Bush-meat is also used for preparing
processed and dried meat.

Some indigenous communities still practice subsistence hunting (e.g.,
the Aché in Paraguay and some Mbya communities in Paraguay and
Misiones). However, even traditional hunting practices are currently
unsustainable in light of the relatively high human population densities
in most areas of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest, the small size of the
forest fragments[^10], and the low density of game animals found
throughout most of the ecoregion[^11].

## The root causes of environmental degradation  {#the-root-causes-of-environmental-degradation .toc-sub-2}

Most of the causes of forest fragmentation and degradation described
above are what can be called proximate causes. However the root causes
of forest lost and degradation in the ecoregion include:

-   High population growth rates (due to both high birth and immigration
    rates), high rates of illiteracy, and high rates of infant
    mortality---social indicators that constitute critical components of
    the socio-economic and environmental crisis of the Upper Paraná
    Ecoregion (Laclau 1994, SEPA 2000).

-   The low value that most people place on the native forest, which has
    been historically seen as an impediment to development (Laclau 1994,
    Hodge et al 1997).

-   Lack of law enforcement capacity due to fragile government
    institutions, lack of training of state officials, inefficient use
    of resources (Cinto & Bertolini in press), or simply due to
    widespread corruption.

-   The lack of public awareness about the ecological problems in the
    ecoregion (Laclau 1994) due to lack of environmental education. This
    situation is exacerbated by the high rates of illiteracy in the
    three countries.

-   The lack of economic alternatives and knowledge of sustainable use
    practices (Holz & Placci in press, Colcombet & Noseda 2000).

-   The deep economic crisis of the region along with some political
    instability.

Most of these root causes can be traced to an inequitable economic
system that has concentrated land and resources in the hands of a few
and has marginalized a large proportion of the population, depriving
them of their most basic needs. While it is not the objective of this
Biodiversity Vision to solve the social and economic problems of the
ecoregion, we must take them into account when planning a conservation
strategy for the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35054561 .anchor}Opportunities for biodiversity
conservation in the Upper Paraná Ecoregion

Despite the high degree of fragmentation of the forest in the Upper
Paraná ecoregion, there are good opportunities for the conservation of
biodiversity. These include a relatively well-implemented system of
protected areas (particularly in Argentina and Brazil), an increasing
interest in conservation issues by governments and local people, with
many new local environmental groups, and a Tri-national Initiative for
the Conservation of the Atlantic Forest Corridor.

[Protected area system]{.underline}**.** There are 54 strictly protected
areas (IUCN categories I-III) in the ecoregion, protecting 565,125 ha of
native forest. There are 2,186,375 ha in 20 Sustainable Use Areas (IUCN
categories IV-VI) including a large Biosphere Reserve (Figure 9a, 9b;
Table 1). These protected areas belong to national (federal), state
(provincial), municipal and private protected area systems in the three
countries. Many of these areas are small (\< 1,000 ha), and many are not
well implemented, with land tenure problems, and still lacking
management plans. However, the number of protected areas has risen
rapidly in recent years (Figure 10) and there is a lot of interest among
governments and NGOs in the creation of new protected areas in all three
countries. A large block of eleven protected areas, including the Iguaçu
National Park

in Brazil, the Iguazú National Park in Argentina, the Urugua-í
Provincial Park, and eight other smaller private and provincial reserves
account for a continuous protected area of 340,800 ha, that serves as a
large and resilient reservoir for the biodiversity of the ecoregion.

[Conservation laws]{.underline}**.** Despite problems with law
enforcement in all three countries, there are indeed laws to protect the
forests, particularly the riverine forests and areas with steep slopes.
The Brazilian Forest Code also protects the mountaintops and makes
mandatory the maintainance as a forest reserve at least 20% of the area
of a property. If well protected, these areas could serve as critical
corridors connecting forest remnants. Brazilian legislation prohibits
the conversion of the last forest remnants of Atlantic Forest. A
Brazilian 1990 Presidential decree prohibits cutting of primary or
secondary Atlantic Forest. An NGO-led movement is mobilizing national
support to transform this decree into permanent law, but they face
strong opposition from large-scale agriculture sectors in the Upper
Paraná ecoregion. The Green Corridor Law of the Misiones province in
Argentina, has created a multiple use conservation area of over one
million hectares, with the principle objective of maintaining the
connections among the main protected areas of Misiones. This law has
eliminated perverse incentives for forest conversion and has created
incentives for the protection and restoration of the native forest. All
three countries have legislation to protect watersheds. Brazil's new
water law allows for the establishment of river basin commissions and a
water users' tax to support conservation of watersheds. These laws
create good opportunities for the conservation of the last forest
remnants.

[Tri-national Initiative]{.underline}. In 1995, a Tri-national Forum of
government and non-government organizations of various sectors of the
three countries gathered in Hernandarias, Paraguay, in a workshop called
"La Conservación de la Selva Paranáense o Bosque Atlántico Interior".
The institutions that participated in this workshop agreed on the
necessity to create a Tri-national Corridor to connect the main
protected areas in the ecoregion, extending from Mbaracayú Natural
Reserve in Paraguay to Turvo State Park in Brazil, through the Green
Corridor of Misiones. In successive meetings of the Tri-national
Initiative (Curitiba, Brazil in 1997; Eldorado, Misiones in 1999) other
important agreements and commitments were made among the participants.
This forum is an important opportunity not only for the exchange of
experiences and ideas among participants but to advocate for the
creation of new protected areas and the implementation of existing ones,
as well as to reach consensus on other priority actions.

######## Figure 2. Location of the Atlantic Forests Global 200 Ecoregion in South America {#figure-2.-location-of-the-atlantic-forests-global-200-ecoregion-in-south-america .Fig-list}

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="6.417361111111111in"
height="8.268055555555556in"}

######## Figure 3. The 15 Ecoregions of the Atlantic Forests Global 200 Ecoregion Complex {#figure-3.-the-15-ecoregions-of-the-atlantic-forests-global-200-ecoregion-complex .Fig-list}

![](media/image8.jpeg){width="6.527777777777778in" height="8.43125in"}

######## Figure 4. Forest Remnants of the Atlantic Forests Global 200 Ecoregion {#figure-4.-forest-remnants-of-the-atlantic-forests-global-200-ecoregion .Fig-list}

![](media/image9.jpeg){width="6.336111111111111in" height="8.2in"}

######## Figure 5. The Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Ecoregion {#figure-5.-the-upper-paraná-atlantic-forest-ecoregion .Fig-list}

![](media/image10.jpeg){width="6.323611111111111in" height="8.2in"}

######## Figure 6. The Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Ecoregion Overlaps Extensively with the Upper Paraná Rivers and Streams Global 200 Ecoregion {#figure-6.-the-upper-paraná-atlantic-forest-ecoregion-overlaps-extensively-with-the-upper-paraná-rivers-and-streams-global-200-ecoregion .Fig-list}

![](media/image11.png)

######## Figure 7. The Process of Destruction of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest {#figure-7.-the-process-of-destruction-of-the-upper-paraná-atlantic-forest .Fig-list}

![](media/image12.jpeg){width="7.127777777777778in"
height="5.495138888888889in"}

Modified from Holz & Placci in press.

######## Figure 8. Land Tenure Patterns in Different Parts of the Ecoregion {#figure-8.-land-tenure-patterns-in-different-parts-of-the-ecoregion .Fig-list}

> ![](media/image13.wmf) ![](media/image14.wmf)
>
> ![](media/image15.wmf)

Modified from Laclau (1994) for Brazil and Argentina, and SEPA (2000)
for Paraguay.

######## Figure 9a. Protected Areas of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest {#figure-9a.-protected-areas-of-the-upper-paraná-atlantic-forest .Fig-list}

![](media/image16.jpeg){width="6.540277777777778in"
height="8.463888888888889in"}

######## Figure 9b. Protected Areas of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest (Enlarged Tri-national Area) {#figure-9b.-protected-areas-of-the-upper-paraná-atlantic-forest-enlarged-tri-national-area .Fig-list}

![](media/image17.jpeg){width="6.527777777777778in"
height="8.447916666666666in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35054622 .anchor}Table 1. Protected Areas of the
Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Ecoregion

+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| Number in | Name                     | C   | Strict         | Hect |
| Fig 10a & |                          | oun | Protection     | ares |
| 10b       |                          | try | (IUCN I, II,   |      |
|           |                          |     | and III) or    |      |
|           |                          |     |                |      |
|           |                          |     | Sustainable    |      |
|           |                          |     | Use            |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 1         | Reserva Natural Priv.    | Py  | SP             | 5    |
|           | Arroyo Blanco            |     |                | ,714 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 2         | Parque Nacional Cerro    | Py  | SP             | 6    |
|           | Corá                     |     |                | ,005 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 3         | Parque Nacional Cerro    | Py  | SP             | 30   |
|           | Sarambi                  |     |                | ,000 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 4         | Reserva Indígena Cerro   | Py  | SP             | \*   |
|           | Guazu                    |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 5         | Reserva Natural Bosque   | Py  | SP             | 59   |
|           | Mbaracayu                |     |                | ,056 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 6         | Refugio Biológico Carapá | Py  | SP             | 2    |
|           |                          |     |                | ,915 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 7         | Reserva Natural Privada  | Py  | SP             | 3    |
|           | Itabo                    |     |                | ,000 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 8         | Reserva Natural Privada  | Py  | SP             | 25   |
|           | Morombi                  |     |                | ,000 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 9         | Reserva Biológica        | Py  | SP             | 1    |
|           | Mbaracayú                |     |                | ,396 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 10        | Reserva Biológica Pikyry | Py  | SP             | 2    |
|           |                          |     |                | ,959 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 11        | Refugio Biológico Tati   | Py  | SP             | 1    |
|           | Yupi                     |     |                | ,128 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 12        | Monumento Científico     | Py  | SP             | 153  |
|           | Moisés Bertoni           |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 13        | Reserva Biológica Itabo  | Py  | SP             | 9    |
|           |                          |     |                | ,885 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 14        | Reserva Ecológica        | Py  | SP             | 3    |
|           | Capiibary                |     |                | ,759 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 15        | Reserva Biológica Limoy  | Py  | SP             | 11   |
|           |                          |     |                | ,866 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 16        | Reserva Nacional Kuriy   | Py  | SP             | 2    |
|           |                          |     |                | ,004 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 17        | Reserva Natural          | Py  | SP             | 10   |
|           | PrivadaYpeti             |     |                | ,000 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 18        | Parque Nacional Ñacunday | Py  | SP             | 1    |
|           |                          |     |                | ,688 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 19        | Parque Nacional Caaguazu | Py  | SP             | 12   |
|           |                          |     |                | ,738 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 20        | Reserva de Recurso       | Py  | SU             | 16   |
|           | Manejado Ybytyruzu       |     |                | ,220 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 21        | Parque Nacional Ybycui   | Py  | SP             | 3    |
|           |                          |     |                | ,804 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 22        | Reserva Natural Privada  | Py  | SP             | 4    |
|           | Tapyta                   |     |                | ,085 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 23        | Reserva de Recurso       | Py  | SU             | 58   |
|           | Manejado San Rafael      |     |                | ,490 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| #         |                          |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| # Total   |                          |     |                | **2  |
|  area pro |                          |     |                | 71,8 |
| tected in |                          |     |                | 65** |
|  Paraguay |                          |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| In        |                          |     |                | **   |
| Su        |                          |     |                | 74,7 |
| stainable |                          |     |                | 10** |
| Use Areas |                          |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| In        |                          |     |                | **1  |
| Strictly  |                          |     |                | 97,1 |
| Protected |                          |     |                | 55** |
| Areas     |                          |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
|           |                          |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 24        | Parque Estadual das      | Br  | SU             | 73   |
|           | Varzeas do Rio Ivinhema  |     |                | ,300 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 25        | Parque Estadual Morro do | Br  | SP             | 36   |
|           | Diabo                    |     |                | ,000 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 26        | Parque Estadual Pontal   | Br  | SU             | 270  |
|           | do Paranápanema          |     |                | ,679 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 27        | Parque Estadual Lagoa de | Br  | SU             | 34   |
|           | São Paulo                |     |                | ,764 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 28        | Estación Experimental de | Br  | SU             | 1    |
|           | Caiuá                    |     |                | ,563 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 29        | Parque Nacional Ilha     | Br  | SP             | 78   |
|           | Grande                   |     |                | ,875 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 30        | Parque Nacional do       | Br  | SP             | 185  |
|           | Iguazu                   |     |                | ,262 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 31        | Parque Estadual do Turvo | Br  | SP             | 17   |
|           |                          |     |                | ,491 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| #         |                          |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| # Tot     |                          |     |                | **6  |
| al area p |                          |     |                | 97,9 |
| rotected  |                          |     |                | 34** |
| in Brazil |                          |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| In        |                          |     |                | **3  |
| Su        |                          |     |                | 80,3 |
| stainable |                          |     |                | 06** |
| Use Areas |                          |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| In        |                          |     |                | **3  |
| Strictly  |                          |     |                | 17,6 |
| Protected |                          |     |                | 28** |
| Areas     |                          |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
|           |                          |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 32        | Parque Natural Municipal | Ar  | SP             | 13   |
|           | L. H. Rolón              |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 33        | Paisaje Protegido Andrés | Ar  | SP             | 12   |
|           | Giai                     |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 34        | Reserva Nacional Iguazú  | Ar  | SP             | 12   |
|           |                          |     |                | ,620 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 35        | Parque Nacional Iguazú   | Ar  | SP             | 54   |
|           |                          |     |                | ,380 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 36        | Refugio Privado deVida   | Ar  | SU             | 133  |
|           | Silvestre El Yaguarete   |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 37        | Refugio Privado de Vida  | Ar  | SP             | 550  |
|           | Silvestre Yacutinga      |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 38        | Parque Provincial Yacuy  | Ar  | SP             | 347  |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 39        | Reserva de Uso Multiple  | Ar  | SU             | 249  |
|           | F. Basaldúa              |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 40        | Refugio Privado de Vida  | Ar  | SP             | 41   |
|           | Silvestre Caá Porá       |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 41        | Parque Provincial        | Ar  | SP             | 4    |
|           | Guardaparque H. Foerster |     |                | ,309 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 42        | Reserva Natural Estricta | Ar  | SP             | 400  |
|           | San Antonio              |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 43        | Reserva Priv. Vida       | Ar  | SP             | 3    |
|           | Silvestre Urugua-í       |     |                | ,243 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 44        | Parque Provincial        | Ar  | SP             | 84   |
|           | Urugua-í                 |     |                | ,000 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 45        | Parque Provincial        | Ar  | SP             | 3    |
|           | Piñalito                 |     |                | ,796 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 46        | Parque Provincial Cruce  | Ar  | SP             | 522  |
|           | Caballero                |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 47        | Parque Provincial        | Ar  | SP             | 31   |
|           | Esmeralda                |     |                | ,569 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 48        | Reserva de Biosfera      | Ar  | SU             | 236  |
|           | Yabotí                   |     |                | ,313 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 49        | Parque Provincial Moconá | Ar  | SP             | 999  |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 50        | Reserva Privada San      | Ar  | SU             | 5    |
|           | Miguel de la Frontera    |     |                | ,500 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 51        | Reserva Natural Cultural | Ar  | SP             | 10   |
|           | Papel Misionero          |     |                | ,397 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 52        | Area Experimental        | Ar  | SU             | 5    |
|           | Guaraní                  |     |                | ,343 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 53        | Reserva de Uso Múltiple  | Ar  | SU             | 400  |
|           | EEA Cuartel Victoria     |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 54        | Parque Provincial Valle  | Ar  | SP             | 13   |
|           | del Arroyo Cuña Pirú y   |     |                | ,228 |
|           | Salto Encantado          |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 55        | Reserva Privada          | Ar  | SP             | 400  |
|           | Yaguaroundí              |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 56        | Reserva Privada Tomo     | Ar  | SU             | 1    |
|           |                          |     |                | ,441 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 57        | Parque Provincial de la  | Ar  | SP             | 92   |
|           | Araucaria                |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 58        | Reserva Privada          | Ar  | SP             | 3    |
|           | Aguaraí-mi               |     |                | ,050 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 59        | Parque Natural Municipal | Ar  | SP             | 84   |
|           | Lote C                   |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 60        | Parque Provincial        | Ar  | SP             | 686  |
|           | Esperanza                |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 61        | Reserva Privada Los      | Ar  | SU             | 440  |
|           | Paraisos                 |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 62        | Parque Provincial Del    | Ar  | SP             | 78   |
|           | Teyú Cuaré               |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 63        | Reserva Privada Puerto   | Ar  | SU             | 250  |
|           | San Juan                 |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| 64        | Corredor Verde Misionero | Ar  | SU             | 708  |
|           |                          |     |                | ,906 |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| #         |                          |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| # Total   |                          |     |                | *    |
| area prot |                          |     |                | *1,1 |
| ected in  |                          |     |                | 83,7 |
| Argentina |                          |     |                | 91** |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| In        |                          |     |                | **9  |
| Su        |                          |     |                | 58,9 |
| stainable |                          |     |                | 75** |
| Use Areas |                          |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| In        |                          |     |                | **2  |
| Strictly  |                          |     |                | 24,8 |
| Protected |                          |     |                | 16** |
| Areas     |                          |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| #         |                          |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| **Total   |                          |     |                | *    |
| area      |                          |     |                | *2,1 |
| protected |                          |     |                | 53,5 |
| in the    |                          |     |                | 90** |
| Upper     |                          |     |                |      |
| Paraná    |                          |     |                |      |
| Atlantic  |                          |     |                |      |
| Forest    |                          |     |                |      |
| Ec        |                          |     |                |      |
| oregion** |                          |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| **Total   |                          |     |                | *    |
| area      |                          |     |                | *1,4 |
| protected |                          |     |                | 13,9 |
| in        |                          |     |                | 91** |
| Su        |                          |     |                |      |
| stainable |                          |     |                |      |
| Use       |                          |     |                |      |
| Areas**   |                          |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| **Total   |                          |     |                | **7  |
| area      |                          |     |                | 39,5 |
| protected |                          |     |                | 99** |
| in        |                          |     |                |      |
| Strictly  |                          |     |                |      |
| Protected |                          |     |                |      |
| Areas**   |                          |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+
| #         |                          |     |                |      |
+-----------+--------------------------+-----+----------------+------+

\* It is unclear what is the area of this protected area since different
sources mention different figures.

######## Figure 10. Protected Areas in the Ecoregion Have Increased {#figure-10.-protected-areas-in-the-ecoregion-have-increased .Fig-list}

![](media/image18.wmf)

Data source: Chalukian 1999

# Chapter 3 {#chapter-3 .toc}

# Goals for Achieving Biodiversity Conservation Results {#goals-for-achieving-biodiversity-conservation-results .toc-small-caps}

Our conservation plan must work toward achieving the broad goals of
biodiversity conservation that are widely adopted as the foundation of
the science of conservation biology (Noss, 1992). This Biodiversity
Vision defines four conservation goals that should be accomplished over
the next fifty years. These goals include:

1)  **Resilience** - conserve blocks of natural habitat that are large
    enough to be responsive to short- and long-term environmental
    changes. We discuss below why large forest blocks are more resilient
    than smaller ones.

2)  **Viable Populations** - maintain viable populations of all native
    species in natural patterns of abundance and distribution, and the
    evolutionary potential of lineages.

3)  **Healthy Processes** - maintain ecological processes and selective
    factors characteristic of this ecoregion such as disturbance
    regimes, hydrological processes, nutrient cycles, and biotic
    interactions, including predation.

4)  **Representation -** maintain within a protected area network and
    Biodiversity Conservation Landscape all native biological
    communities and seral stages across their natural range of
    variation. 3

# 

# What do we need to do to achieve these goals?

In contrast to most other forest ecoregions of the world, the high
degree of habitat fragmentation and degradation of the Upper Paraná
Atlantic Forest ecoregion presents a large challenge to attaining the
goals of biodiversity conservation delineated above. It is usually
suggested that at least 10% (ideally 15-25%) of each landscape unit[^12]
should be preserved in order to adequately represent existing ecological
communities. It is impossible to achieve this goal in 50-100 years when
only about 7.8% of the original forest cover remains in the Upper Paraná
Atlantic Forest ecoregion.

What does remain of the original forest is highly fragmented, and a
fragmented landscape represents a daunting challenge for biodiversity
conservation resulting from a series of relatively well-understood edge-
size- and isolation-related effects. There are only 28 forest fragments
larger than 10,000 hectares in the entire ecoregion, and only two of
them are larger than 100,000 hectares. However, these few large
fragments represent over half of the remaining forest area (Figure 11).
Ninety-two percent of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion is
degraded by cities, roads and other infrastructure, private lands, and
areas of large-scale and subsistence agriculture. This landscape
modified and degraded by humans reduces the opportunities for connecting
the remaining forest fragments.

Despite the conservation problems described above, the few relatively
large forest blocks that remain in the ecoregion still contain umbrella
species (see footnote on page 7) such as jaguars, eagles, and
white-lipped peccaries, suggesting that biodiversity and the main
ecological processes remain essentially intact[^13]. These large blocks
of forest continue to be degraded and fragmented --- factors that will
likely reduce overall biodiversity and resilience. To achieve the first
three conservation goals described above we need to protect the few
large native forest blocks that remain in the ecoregion. Despite a long
debate among ecologists and conservation biologists on the issue of
whether or not several small fragments can maintain more or fewer
species than one large fragment (Bierregaard et al. 1992), a large
fragment is generally superior to a small one in terms of its ability to
conserve biodiversity at all levels. Only the largest forest blocks
(\>10,000 ha of continuous and relatively intact forest) are resilient
to short-term environmental changes, are able to keep individuals of
umbrella species and can maintain ecological processes and selective
factors such as important biotic interactions like the pollination of
keystone species (e.g. fig trees) and predation. It is important to
recognize, however, that protecting the remaining large blocks of
habitat, while absolutely critical, is by itself not sufficient to
achieving conservation goals.

Although our efforts will be focused on preserving large blocks of
relatively intact forest, and on connecting these to other forest
fragments through corridors of native forest, we do not disregard the
conservation value of small forest fragments. There are several ways by
which small fragments can contribute to conservation. First, small
forest fragments may play a role in the protection of watersheds and
soils. Second, they may serve as stepping-stones toward creation of
future biological corridors. Third, they may function as wintering
ground for some local and long-distance migratory birds. Fourth, they
may contain the seeds that facilitate local forest restoration programs
(Cullen et al. 2001, Valladares-Padua et al. 2002). Fifth, some of the
small fragments may still contain species not found elsewhere in the
ecoregions. Finally, they may play important cultural and educational
roles.

The major challenge to achieving enduring biodiversity conservation
goals in the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion is thus to maintain
the large blocks of relatively intact forest and connect them to other
such blocks through a system of corridors. Small fragments may serve as
stepping-stones and may help in the design and implementation of the
corridors. Through the creation of new protected areas, the effective
management of existing ones, and the creation and implementation of
biological corridors, along with environmentally friendly economic
activities, we believe that it is still possible to maintain the
critical ecological processes that sustain biodiversity in the
ecoregion. Designing a landscape that will allow us to achieve these
conservation goals requires a thorough analysis of fragmentation,
coupled with an analysis of threats and opportunities. Our vision for
the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest is that within the next 50 years, the
Biodiversity Conservation Landscape we have designed will become a
reality. The next chapter describes the process by which we designed
this Biodiversity Conservation Landscape.

Box 4 discusses some of the important biological aspects of
fragmentation that are particularly relevant for this ecoregion.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ######### BOX 4                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc35054564 .anchor}The Problems of Fragmentation: |
| Edge effects, Size effects and Isolation                              |
|                                                                       |
| **Edge effects**. One of the most deleterious consequences of the     |
| extreme fragmentation of forests is that the organisms that remain in |
| a forest fragment are exposed to the conditions of a different        |
| ecosystem that surrounds the forest. These conditions are more        |
| pronounced near the edge of the fragment, at the interface between    |
| the forest and the new ecosystem that surrounds it. The intensity of  |
| the edge effect is usually measured as the distance up to which the   |
| effect is still noticed within the forest fragment (Murcia 1995,      |
| Laurence et al. 2000). Edge effects could be classified into three    |
| broad types: abiotic effects (e.g., temperature, solar radiation),    |
| direct biotic effects (e.g., changes in species composition or        |
| introduction of exotic species), indirect biotic effects (e.g.,       |
| changes in species interactions near the edge, such as increased      |
| rates of predation) (Murcia 1995). Annual rates of tree mortality,    |
| tree damage, and gap formation sharply increase up to 100 m from the  |
| forest edge and result in increased loss of living biomass and        |
| increased emissions of carbon dioxide (Bierregaard et al. 1992,       |
| Laurence et al. 1998, Laurence et al. 2000). Some edge effects can be |
| noticed up to several hundred meters into a forest fragment,          |
| especially the biotic effects such as invasion by exotic or           |
| disturbance-adapted species and nest predation (Murcia 1995, Laurence |
| et al. 2000, Bright & Mattoon 2001). As a consequence of these edge   |
| effects, forest communities are drastically altered near the edge.    |
| For example, old-growth forest interior tree species are replaced by  |
| pioneer or secondary-growth trees (Benitez- Malvido 1998, Tabarelli   |
| et al. 1999).                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| To the three edge effects described above, we add a fourth and very   |
| important edge effect in our ecoregion -- that of human activity.     |
| Hunting, illegal logging, illegal harvesting of non-timber forest     |
| products are more pronounced near the forest edge, but human          |
| activities penetrate up to a thousand meters into the forest. Hunting |
| tends to decrease population sizes of most large vertebrate species   |
| in the Neotropics and to produce changes in the structure of mammal   |
| communities (Bodmer et al. 1997, Peres 2001, Bennett & Robinson       |
| 2001). Hunting in small forest patches can completely extirpate some  |
| species over the short term. For example, heavily hunted forest       |
| fragments of about 2,000 ha in the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest in    |
| the western portion of the state of São Paulo, Brazil, were emptied   |
| of tapirs, white-lipped peccaries, and brocket deer (Cullen et al.    |
| 2000, 2001).                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| In forest fragments with highly irregular shapes, perimeter-to-area   |
| ratios are large and thus edge effects include a larger proportion of |
| the fragment (Davies et al. 2001). For similar reasons, smaller       |
| fragments have a larger proportion of the area affected by edge       |
| effects than larger ones (Furlan et al. 2000). Very small forest      |
| fragments are entirely affected by edge effects and as a consequence  |
| are unlikely to preserve intact communities of the Atlantic Forest    |
| (Tabarelli et al. 1999).                                              |
|                                                                       |
| **Size effects**. Ecologists have long recognized that there is a     |
| direct relationship between fragment size and number of species       |
| (Rosenzweig 1995). Just by chance alone (i.e., "sampling error"), a   |
| small fragment may fail to include individuals of rare or sparse      |
| species. In like fashion, sampling theory predicts that small forest  |
| fragments will include a smaller number of ecological communities.    |
| Because ecological communities are composed of unique sets of         |
| species, forest fragments that are missing communities will have      |
| decreased species diversity. The risk of a species´ local extinction  |
| within small fragments is also greater because of several factors     |
| that contribute to the extinction risk of small populations. First,   |
| random environmental variation such as fires or severe droughts can   |
| wipe out a small population. Second, deterministic threats (e.g.,     |
| continuous deforestation or habitat degradation) can also decimate a  |
| population. Third, random demographic effects (e.g., a pronounced     |
| bias in the sex of new offspring) can drive small populations to      |
| extinction. Fourth, inbreeding and the loss of genetic variation are  |
| more common in small populations and render these populations less    |
| responsive to environmental change and more prone to extinction       |
| (Davies et al. 2001). In tropical rainforest fragments of about 100   |
| ha, substantial numbers of under-story bird species are lost within   |
| two decades following fragment isolation. For many tropical bird      |
| species, forest fragments of less than 100 ha will have little        |
| conservation value (Ferraz et al. in press).                          |
|                                                                       |
| Some species have large habitat requirements and small fragments      |
| cannot fill those requirements. Chiarello (2000) estimated that only  |
| forest fragments in excess of 20,000 ha can sustain viable            |
| populations of medium-size to large mammals in the Atlantic Forest. A |
| literature search of the habitat requirements of a small set of birds |
| and mammals from the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest shows that, even    |
| for species with relatively small habitat requirements (e.g.,         |
| squirrels, armadillos, agoutis, and monkeys), a forest fragment of    |
| less than 1,000 ha is not large enough to maintain a viable           |
| population. For species with large habitat requirements (harpy        |
| eagles, jaguars, tapirs), it is necessary to maintain forest          |
| fragments of at least a few hundred thousand hectares (Table 2).      |
|                                                                       |
| The disappearance of vertebrate species from forest fragments has a   |
| cascade effect on the ecosystem with consequences affecting other     |
| animal guilds, and even ecological processes like dung decomposition  |
| (Klein 1989), pollination and seed dispersal. In forest fragments,    |
| the absence of predators can result in an increase in herbivores,     |
| which can in turn have a dramatic effect on the forest structure and  |
| overall species diversity (Terborgh et al. 1999, 2001). The lack of   |
| top predators may allow for an increase in mid-sized predators, which |
| may result in higher predation rates on birds and small mammals       |
| (Davies et al. 2001, Terborgh et al. 1999). This effect may explain   |
| the sudden increase in predation on the highly-endangered golden lion |
| tamarin of the Atlantic Forest (J. Dietz pers. com.).                 |
|                                                                       |
| Our ability to preserve umbrella species, those with large habitat    |
| requirements, will thus be a good indicator of our ability to         |
| preserve intact biodiversity and healthy ecological processes. In     |
| order to maintain intact ecological communities and processes, it is  |
| essential to preserve the largest forest fragments that still contain |
| individuals of umbrella species such as jaguars and tapirs. In the    |
| Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest, isolated forest fragments of about      |
| 2,000 ha have already lost jaguars, and those that are heavily hunted |
| have lost many other large mammals as well (Cullen et al. 2000).      |
| However, forest fragments with several tens of thousands of hectares  |
| still have umbrella species and most of its biodiversity, including   |
| Morro do Diabo State Park in São Paulo Brazil with 35,000 ha (Cullen  |
| et al. 2000, Valladares Padua et al. 2002) and Mbaracayú National     |
| Park in NE Paraguay 59,000 ha (Zuercher et al. 2001, D. Ciarmiello    |
| pers. com.).                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| Based on species' home range requirements in this ecoregion (Table 2; |
| op. cited above), we may thus use 10,000 ha of well-protected forest  |
| as the lower limit for what we will consider a large forest fragment. |
| The figure of 10,000 ha also corresponds to the minimum area          |
| requirement for a male jaguar (P. Crawshaw 1994 and pers. com.). A    |
| block of about 10,000 ha of well-preserved forest can contain one     |
| adult male jaguar and 1-2 adult females, thus constituting the area   |
| required by a minimum breeding unit for this species. For these       |
| reasons, we have chosen the jaguar as an umbrella species for this    |
| analysis and we will use this species to monitor the effectiveness of |
| our Biodiversity Conservation Landscape design in the future.         |
|                                                                       |
| **Isolation**. Considerable evidence suggests that isolated areas are |
| difficult to re-colonize once their species are lost. Many forest     |
| species find it difficult or impossible to traverse the cattle        |
| pasture that often separates forest islands. The lack of gene flow    |
| into small and isolated forest populations contributes to the         |
| deleterious effects of inbreeding and increased probability of        |
| extinction (Dobson et al. 1999). The maintenance of biological        |
| corridors connecting forest fragments and allowing the movement of    |
| individuals and consequent gene flow, can reduce the deleterious      |
| effects of genetic isolation (Mech & Hallett 2001).                   |
|                                                                       |
| Forest fragments are not oceanic islands that have precise boundaries |
| with the surrounding ecosystem, but they are usually surrounded by    |
| other terrestrial ecosystems. The matrix in which forest fragments    |
| are embedded may facilitate or preclude connectivity among forest     |
| patches. The more similar the matrix is to the original forest, the   |
| more opportunities for the native species to disperse to other forest |
| fragments. The matrix can even provide alternative habitat for        |
| generalist species if the structural differences between the matrix   |
| and the original forest are small (Gascon et al. 1999, Davies et al.  |
| 2001). For example, scientists studying tropical rainforest dung      |
| beetles living in forest fragments of Amazonia near Manaus, found the |
| rainforest beetles in only one surrounding clearcut - one containing  |
| extensive second growth vegetation (Klein 1989). However, to allow    |
| all native species to disperse among forest fragments those forest    |
| patches should be connected through corridors of native forest.       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35054623 .anchor}Table 2. Density Estimates and
Area Requirements for Individuals and Populations of Different Sizes of
Typical Vertebrate Species of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest.

  -------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ -------------- ----------- --------------- ------------
  Species        Density    Area per     Area per 50  Area required              Area required   
                            individual   individual   to guarantee a             to guarantee    
                                                      viable                     adaptive        
                                                      population                 evolution       
                                                      (N~e~=50)^1^               (N~e~=500)^2^   

                 Indiv/Ha   Ha/indiv     Ha/50 indiv  Ha/150 indiv   Ha/500      Ha/1500 indiv   Ha/5000
                                                                     indiv                       indiv

  Harpy Eagle    0.0002     5,000        250,000      750,000        2,500,000   7,500,000       25,000,000

  Jaguar         0.0003     3,500        175,000      525,000        1,750,000   5,250,000       17,500,000

  Tapir          0.0039     254          12,712       38,136         127,119     381,356         1,271,186

  Brocket deer   0.0157     64           3,191        9,574          31,915      95,745          319,149

  Black lion     0.0186     54           2,694        8,082          26,940      80,819          269,397
  tamarin                                                                                        

  South American 0.0408     25           1,227        3,680          12,267      36,801          122,669
  coati                                                                                          

  Collared       0.0414     24           1,207        3,621          12,071      36,214          120,715
  peccary                                                                                        

  White-lipped   0.0561     18           891          2,672          8,907       26,722          89,074
  peccary                                                                                        

  Azara´s agouti 0.1019     10           491          1,473          4,908       14,725          49,084

  Nine-banded    0.1275     8            392          1,176          3,922       11,765          39,216
  armadillo                                                                                      

  Brown capuchin 0.1366     7            366          1,098          3,661       10,982          36,607

  Brown howler   0.1595     6            314          941            3,135       9,406           31,352
  monkey                                                                                         

  Guianan        0.1795     5            279          836            2,786       8,357           27,858
  squirrel                                                                                       
  -------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ -------------- ----------- --------------- ------------

^1^ To guarantee an effective population of 50 individuals (the minimum
required for a population to be viable), it is necessary to maintain
between 3-10 times that number of individuals (150-500 individuals).
Thus, estimates for both 150 and 500 individuals are presented.

^2^ To guarantee an effective population of 500 individuals (the minimum
required for adaptive evolution) it is necessary to maintain between
1500 and 5000 individuals.

Source: Crawshaw 1994, Chiarello 2000, Cullen et al. 2000, Di Bitetti
2001, C. H. Janson pers. com.

######## Figure 11. Number and Total Area of Fragments in Size Categories {#figure-11.-number-and-total-area-of-fragments-in-size-categories .Fig-list}

![](media/image19.wmf)

# Chapter 4 {#chapter-4 .toc}

# Designing a Biodiversity Conservation Landscape -- Methods {#designing-a-biodiversity-conservation-landscape-methods .toc-small-caps}

The aim of this Biodiversity Vision analysis is to design a Biodiversity
Conservation Landscape that, if implemented, would accomplish the
biodiversity conservation goals described earlier: maintenance of large
and resilient forest blocks, maintenance of viable populations of
umbrella species, healthy ecological processes, and representation of
the native ecological communities.

During the past three years, WWF has led a tri-national participatory
process, involving local organizations representing multiple sectors and
disciplines, to develop this Vision for the time frame and geographic
scale necessary to conserve the biodiversity of the Upper Paraná
Atlantic Forest ecoregion. Thirty-six partners and WWF staff gathered in
Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, in April 2000. In preparation for the workshop,
various partner organizations in Paraguay and Argentina were contracted
to collect and compile the best data available for fauna and flora
distributions, geomorphologic, and socio-economic aspects that would be
compatible with the information already collected for Brazil in the
PROBIO[^14] national Atlantic Forest workshop held in Atibaia, Brazil on
August 1999. Many of these organizations provided information and data
critical to produce this Biodiversity Vision[^15], which will continue
to be refined over time as additional information becomes available.

This Biodiversity Vision is a product of various scientific analyses
using ArcView, a Geographic Information System (GIS). We used the
Spatial Analyst module of ArcView, using a grid cell size of 500 x 500m
(1/4 km^2^). The basic information for the analyses is expressed in maps
that represent the spatial distribution of a variety of different
biological and socio-economic variables. Various layers of information
were overlaid or combined to obtain new maps providing more integrated
information. A buffer zone of 25 km on the ecoregion border with the
Araucaria Ecoregion was used for the analyses. We initially conducted
three separate but interdependent analyses, described below.

**Landscape units analysis.** We first discriminated landscape units
within the area of analysis. A landscape unit is an area that contains a
set of species, communities, or ecological processes that differs from
other such landscape units. Each landscape unit usually has a
characteristic climate, soil type, and set of species. Thus, to get a
good representation of the full range of species and natural communities
of an ecoregion, it is necessary to preserve representative portions of
each landscape unit.

Since we did not have sufficient biological data to define and map
landscape units, we used climatic and topographic information as proxies
for developing a biological model. The assumption behind this
simplification is that geographic units with different climatic
conditions and topography will be correlated with distinct ecological
communities. This approach to define the landscape units is similar to
those used in other Biodiversity Vision analyses[^16], where actual
biological data were not available. To discriminate the landscape units
we used three data layers. The first layer is the number of dry months
in three categories: areas without dry season, areas with one to two dry
months, and areas with three or more dry months (Figure 12). The second
layer of information is altitude. We divided the ecoregion into two
altitudinal ranges: above or below 500 m asl (Figure 13). For the third
layer, using topographic data, we created a map that describes the
degree of slope. We then defined three categories: plains, moderate
slopes, and steep slopes, representing areas of increasing steepness and
increasing topographic variation (Figure 14). The combinations of these
three layers of information gave us a total of 18 landscape units
(Figure 15). It will be important to test if these landscape units
actually represent distinct ecological entities.

**Fragmentation analysis**. This analysis is aimed at discriminating
those native forest fragments with the highest potential for achieving
conservation goals. The basic information for this analysis is a map of
forest fragments obtained from satellite images (Figure 16). This forest
fragment map was created combining the SOS Mata Atlântica forest
fragments map (Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica 1998) for the Brazilian
portion of the ecoregion (based on satellite images from 1990-1995); a
map produced by Fundación Moisés Bertoni, the Dirección de Ordenamiento
Ambiental (DOA), and the Carrera de Ingeniería Forestal for the
Paraguayan portion of the ecoregion (based on satellite images from
1997); and a map produced by Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina (based
on satellite images provided by the Ministerio de Ecología y Recursos
Naturales Renovables de Misiones from 1999).

We rated the forest fragments according to their importance for
conservation. The importance for conservation of a forest fragment was
evaluated using five variables:

1)  *Fragment size*­­­­---The larger the fragment, the higher its importance
    for biodiversity conservation. (Figure 17).

2)  *Fragment Core*---The forest fragment area after excluding a buffer
    zone of 500 m, a distance to which edge effects are proven to be
    significant (see Chapter 3). This serves as an indirect measure of
    the shape and border effect of the fragment (Figure 18).

3)  *Nearest Neighbor*---The distance from the fragment to another
    forest fragment. This is a measure of connectivity/isolation of the
    forest fragments.

4)  *Altitudinal range within the forest fragment*---An indirect measure
    of variation in topographic, soil, and microclimatic conditions
    within a forest fragment.

5)  *Location of a fragment within a river basin*---Measure of the
    contribution of a forest fragment to watershed conservation. For
    this purpose we constructed a watershed position index.

We analyzed the contribution of each of the five variables to total
fragment importance variability with a Principal Components Analysis.
This multivariate analysis indicated that the first four variables
contributed most of the variation in forest fragments' conservation
importance. As the last variable (location of a fragment within a river
basin) did not contribute any new information, it was discarded.

We developed a "Fragment Importance Index" using the first four
variables. Each was placed in one of four categories (using the natural
breaks ArcView function) assigning a value from 0 (least important
category) to 3 (highest). The Fragment Importance Index is the average
of the values of the four variables used in the analysis. We then ranked
each forest fragment according to its Fragment Importance Index (Figure
19).

**Threats and opportunities analysis**. The objective of this analysis
was to map the areas that represent critical threats to biodiversity
conservation and areas that represent opportunities for biodiversity
conservation. This map was created using land use data, with different
land uses representing threats or opportunities for conservation.

We began the threats and opportunities analysis by assigning and mapping
different levels of threat and opportunity to different variables (types
of land use). For example, a road is usually a threat to biodiversity
conservation while a protected area is an opportunity for conservation.
We weighted the different variables used in this analysis according to
the level of threat or opportunity they represent for biodiversity
conservation, carrying out two separate analyses, one for threats and
one for opportunities.

The **threat variables** we used in this analysis included:

1)  *Cities*­­---Cities are represented by circular areas on a map. The
    area of the circle is equivalent to the area actually occupied by
    the city. In the analysis we identified three buffer zones around
    each city, with the threat to conservation decreasing as the
    distance from the city increases, the city itself representing the
    highest threat. The buffer zones around the cities are directly
    proportional to the size of the city, with larger cities having a
    larger area of negative influence on biodiversity conservation.
    (Figure 20).

2)  *Agriculture*­­---This variable represents the impact of agriculture,
    and was measured as the percentage of a municipality or departmental
    area devoted to agriculture, including both annual and perennial
    crops (Figure 21). We acknowledge that perennial and annual crops
    may have different impacts on biodiversity conservation, but the
    area occupied by perennial crops was so small in comparison to that
    of the annual crops, it was determined that it would not justify a
    separate data layer.

3)  *Cattle Ranching*­­---This variable represents the impact of cattle
    ranching on biodiversity conservation. It was measured as the
    percentage of a municipality or departmental area devoted to this
    activity (Figure 22).

4)  *Rural Population Density*---Due to the widespread cultural
    tradition of hunting and harvesting of non-timber products, and the
    fact that most people see the forest as an obstacle for development
    (see Chapter 2), the presence of rural population in the ecoregion
    usually has a large negative impact on the conservation of the
    native forest remnants. Thus, this variable represents the impact of
    rural population density on biodiversity conservation and is
    measured as people per hectare in each municipality or department
    (Figure 23).

*(Notes: 1. Due to the extreme fragmentation, and the high density of
roads, almost any single forest area in the ecoregion is easily accessed
by road. We did not consider roads as another threat variable because
roads already impact nearly the entire ecoregion.*

*2. For illustration purposes the maps are presented with their original
scales (e.g., actual rural population density). However, for the
analysis we divided all variables into four categories following natural
breaks in their frequency distribution (a function of ArcView does this
automatically). These four categories were assigned values of 1, 2, 4
and 8, with each category having double the value of the previous one.)*

We weighted threat variables differently according to the degree of
threat each poses to biodiversity conservation. Cities pose the highest
threat, thus we assigned to this variable three times the weight we
assigned to the variables posing a lesser threat. Agriculture represents
the second highest threat to biodiversity because it is the economic
activity with the most negative impact on biodiversity because it is
mainly large-scale monoculture plantations that usually require high
loads of herbicides and pesticides. It also usually has a high
opportunity cost in relation to cattle-ranching, an activity usually
restricted to the less productive areas. We assigned to agriculture two
times the weight we assigned to the least threatening variables. Finally
we assigned to the threat variables cattle ranching and density of rural
population the least weight because both have less impact on
biodiversity conservation than agriculture or the presence of a city.
With these four threat variables, we created a map, that depicts areas
with high and low threat to biodiversity conservation (Figure 24).

As **opportunity variables** we used:

1)  *Proximity to a strictly protected area (IUCN categories I-III)*
    ---Protected areas present an opportunity for conservation because
    there is usually an interest to increase their area by incorporating
    nearby areas of high potential for conservation. Also the
    implementation of buffer zones around protected areas, usually an
    important component of management plans, facilitates the development
    of local conservation programs. Areas closer to a strictly protected
    area have a higher potential for becoming a protected area, a
    biological corridor, or a Sustainable Use Area (Figure 25). We
    assigned to each protected area three possible areas of influence
    (buffers) surrounding it 1,000, 5,000 and 20,000 meters,
    representing decreasing opportunities for conservation as the
    distance from the strictly protected area increased.

2)  *Proximity to a river­*---We assumed that rivers in this ecoregion
    constitute potential biological corridors that may help to connect
    forest fragments. Because in the three countries there is
    legislation that protects the riverine forests, areas closer to
    rivers have higher potential for connectivity (Figure 26). On the
    other hand, since the majority of rivers in this ecoregion are not
    navigable, they do not represent ways to access the forest as they
    do in other ecoregions. We assigned three buffer zones of 1,000,
    2,500 and 5,000 m on both margins of the rivers (all rivers have a
    width of 500m the minimum unit of analysis, irrespective of their
    size), representing areas of decreasing potential for connectivity
    to other conservation areas.

3)  *Zones of planned conservation*---Sustainable Use Areas (IUCN
    categories IV-VI) and areas prioritized for conservation by
    PROBIO[^17] constitute areas identified by government or other
    institutions as areas with potential for conservation (Figure 27).
    The political consensus around these areas gives them a higher
    potential for conservation. PROBIO defined five categories of areas:
    category A corresponds to areas of extremely high biological
    importance; B to areas of very high biological importance; C to
    areas of high biological importance; D to insufficiently known areas
    but of probably high biological importance; and L to corridors. We
    assign a value of 8 to existing Sustainable Use Areas, a value of 4
    to category A PROBIO areas, a value of 2 to category B PROBIO areas
    and a value of 1 to areas categorized as C, D, and L by PROBIO.

We weighted the three opportunity variables according to their potential
for conservation, with strictly protected areas representing three times
and rivers constituting two times the potential for conservation of the
zones of planned conservation. These three layers of information were
combined to produce a map of opportunities for biodiversity conservation
(Figure 28).

We combined these two maps of threats and opportunities into one
consolidated map (Figure 29) that depicts areas with the highest threats
(in blue) and areas with the best opportunities (in green) for
biodiversity conservation.

Using the three analyses described above, we then conducted two
additional analyses:

# [Representation analysis]{.underline}---We combined the landscape units map, the forest fragments map, and the protected areas map to analyze the current status of forest cover and representation of the different landscape units within the protected area system. We assessed representation in terms of: 1) percentage of a landscape unit that is under strictly protected areas, 2) percentage of a landscape unit that is protected under Sustainable Use Areas, and 3) percentage of forest cover still remaining from each landscape unit. This representation analysis gives an idea of how well each landscape unit is represented in the current landscape and may guide decisions on how to improve representation of those underrepresented landscape units in the final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape. 

[Biodiversity Conservation Potential Analysis]{.underline}---The first
step in this analysis is to cross the fragment importance index map with
the threats and opportunities map to construct a map of biodiversity
conservation potential (Figure 30). The assumption of this analysis is
that the best forest fragments located at the least threatened places
with highest opportunities for biodiversity conservation constitute the
areas with the highest biodiversity conservation potential. This
combined analysis indicates where those areas are located in the
ecoregion. The conservation potential map that resulted from this
analysis represents a broad-scale cost-benefit analysis. The resulting
map shows the areas where we should focus our conservation efforts
because they have good potential for biodiversity conservation (green
areas in the map) and the areas where we should not, because the costs
for achieving conservation goals are too high (blue areas in the map).
**This map constitutes the most important layer of information we used
to design the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape**.

##  {#section-11 .toc-sub-2}

## Design of the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape---The Biodiversity Conservation Landscape was designed following a series of logical steps using the biodiversity conservation potential map. We began the process by identifying the building blocks of the conservation landscape and linking them in a series of steps according to their contribution to biodiversity conservation. The following steps, ordered by their conservation priority, were taken into account when designing the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape:  {#design-of-the-biodiversity-conservation-landscapethe-biodiversity-conservation-landscape-was-designed-following-a-series-of-logical-steps-using-the-biodiversity-conservation-potential-map.-we-began-the-process-by-identifying-the-building-blocks-of-the-conservation-landscape-and-linking-them-in-a-series-of-steps-according-to-their-contribution-to-biodiversity-conservation.-the-following-steps-ordered-by-their-conservation-priority-were-taken-into-account-when-designing-the-biodiversity-conservation-landscape .toc-sub-2}

-   *Identify the large native forest blocks* that will constitute the
    Core Areas (\>10,000 ha of core forest, excluding a 500 m buffer
    zone where edge effect is high). These are the forest fragments
    large enough to sustain the whole life cycle of umbrella species.

-   *Identify other priority areas for biodiversity conservation* that
    would include those with high potential for conservation (as
    indicated by the biodiversity conservation potential map), although
    they may not have sufficient forest or may not be large enough to
    sustain viable populations of native species over the long term.
    However, they may play an important role in biodiversity
    conservation (e.g., may constitute Stepping Stones).

-   *Connect the Core Areas and other Priority Areas* through the
    creation of corridors and the development of Sustainable Use Areas.
    The specific location of these corridors and Sustainable Use Areas
    was dictated by the biodiversity conservation potential map (e.g.,
    the areas with the highest biodiversity conservation potential).

-   *Increase the area of protected forests* through the protection of
    small fragments or the restoration of forest fragments that could
    then be connected to the main corridor, thus increasing the
    resilience of the conservation landscape. The location of secondary
    corridors and Sustainable Use Areas that connect these areas to the
    Core Areas and Main Corridors was also dictated by the biodiversity
    conservation potential map.

-   *Increase the representation of underrepresented landscape units*
    through the inclusion of forest fragments belonging to the less
    represented areas. These were also connected (when possible) through
    secondary corridors to the main corridors or Core Areas.

-   *Identify the most important river basins for watershed conservation
    and management*. These river basins were selected based on the
    intactness of the basin, the presence of protected areas in the
    basin (both strictly protected areas and Sustainable Use Areas), the
    presence of ongoing conservation initiatives in the river basin, and
    the potential of the river basin for connecting the ecoregion to
    other ecoregions (see next step).

-   *Facilitate the connectivity of the resulting Biodiversity
    Conservation Landscape* with neighboring ecoregions to guarantee
    long-term evolutionary processes.

-   Finally, we *checked the socio-political viability* of certain areas
    of the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape and based on expert
    opinions we made small adjustments to the final landscape.

Thus, to achieve our conservation goals, the Biodiversity Conservation
Landscape is focused on the objective of connecting the Core Areas
through corridors and establishing buffer zones around Core Areas,
priority areas, and corridors. As one of the important last steps in the
design of the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape, we overlaid a
preliminary landscape map with the landscape units map to assess the
degree of representation of each conservation unit and to seek ways to
obtain the best representation possible. To define the final map, we
also used expert opinions and socio-political viability analyses of
individual areas when available. We did not include this information as
another layer of information in the threats and opportunities analyses
either because it was not available for all the three countries or
because it was information regarding specific places, and we wanted to
use the same criteria for the entire ecoregion. However, this
information was used as the last step to fine-tune the final
Biodiversity Conservation Landscape to the socio-political reality of
the ecoregion. When expert opinions or socio-political considerations
were used in decisions whether or not to include some areas in the final
Biodiversity Conservation Landscape, it will be indicated in the text
(next Chapter). A visual representation of the methodology for the
entire analysis used to design a Biodiversity Conservation Landscape is
summarized in Figure 31.

######## Figure 12. Number of Dry Months {#figure-12.-number-of-dry-months .Fig-list}

########  {#section-12 .Fig-list}

![](media/image20.jpeg){width="6.604166666666667in"
height="8.546527777777778in"}

######## Figure 13. Elevation Range {#figure-13.-elevation-range .Fig-list}

![](media/image21.jpeg){width="6.361805555555556in"
height="8.216666666666667in"}

######## Figure 14. Slopes Index {#figure-14.-slopes-index .Fig-list}

![](media/image22.jpeg){width="6.4in" height="8.265972222222222in"}

######## Figure 15. Landscape Units {#figure-15.-landscape-units .Fig-list}

![](media/image23.jpeg){width="6.285416666666666in"
height="8.11736111111111in"}

######## Figure 16. Forest Remnants of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest {#figure-16.-forest-remnants-of-the-upper-paraná-atlantic-forest .Fig-list}

![](media/image24.jpeg){width="6.527777777777778in"
height="8.447916666666666in"}

######## Figure 17. Forest Fragments Discriminated by Size Categories {#figure-17.-forest-fragments-discriminated-by-size-categories .Fig-list}

########  {#section-13 .Fig-list}

![](media/image25.jpeg){width="6.502083333333333in"
height="8.414583333333333in"}

######## Figure 18. Forest Fragment Cores Discriminated by Area Categories {#figure-18.-forest-fragment-cores-discriminated-by-area-categories .Fig-list}

![](media/image26.jpeg){width="6.527777777777778in"
height="8.447916666666666in"}

######## Figure 19. Fragment Importance Index {#figure-19.-fragment-importance-index .Fig-list}

![](media/image27.jpeg){width="6.425694444444445in"
height="8.299305555555556in"}

######## Figure 20. Cities {#figure-20.-cities .Fig-list}

![](media/image28.jpeg){width="6.527777777777778in"
height="8.447916666666666in"}

######## Figure 21. Crops {#figure-21.-crops .Fig-list}

![](media/image29.jpeg){width="6.375in" height="8.01875in"}

The percentages in the map represent the sum of the percentages of the
area used by different crops. Since in most of the ecoregion two annual
crops are produced in a year they can sum up to more than 100%.

######## Figure 22. Cattle Ranching {#figure-22.-cattle-ranching .Fig-list}

![](media/image30.jpeg){width="6.3493055555555555in" height="8.2in"}

######## Figure 23. Rural Population Density {#figure-23.-rural-population-density .Fig-list}

![](media/image31.jpeg){width="6.591666666666667in"
height="8.51388888888889in"}

######## Figure 24. Threats to Biodiversity Conservation {#figure-24.-threats-to-biodiversity-conservation .Fig-list}

![](media/image32.jpeg){width="6.527777777777778in"
height="8.447916666666666in"}

######## Figure 25. Proximity to Strictly Protected Areas {#figure-25.-proximity-to-strictly-protected-areas .Fig-list}

![](media/image33.jpeg){width="6.3875in" height="8.265972222222222in"}

######## Figure 26. Proximity to Rivers {#figure-26.-proximity-to-rivers .Fig-list}

![](media/image34.jpeg){width="6.413194444444445in"
height="8.299305555555556in"}

######## Figure 27. Zones of Planned Conservation {#figure-27.-zones-of-planned-conservation .Fig-list}

![](media/image35.jpeg){width="6.527777777777778in"
height="8.447916666666666in"}

######## Figure 28. Opportunities for Biodiversity Conservation {#figure-28.-opportunities-for-biodiversity-conservation .Fig-list}

![](media/image36.jpeg){width="6.527777777777778in"
height="8.447916666666666in"}

######## Figure 29. Threats and Opportunities {#figure-29.-threats-and-opportunities .Fig-list}

![](media/image37.jpeg){width="6.209027777777778in" height="8.01875in"}

The standard deviations of the values of the threat and opportunities
index assigned to each of the grid cells were used in this map for
illustration purposes.

######## Figure 30. Biodiversity Conservation Potential {#figure-30.-biodiversity-conservation-potential .Fig-list}

![](media/image38.jpeg){width="6.043055555555555in"
height="7.804166666666666in"}

Areas with the largest values (in dark green) are those with the highest
biodiversity conservation potential.

######## Figure 31. Process of Development of the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape  {#figure-31.-process-of-development-of-the-biodiversity-conservation-landscape .Fig-list}

# Chapter 5 {#chapter-5 .toc}

# Results: The Biodiversity Conservation Landscape {#results-the-biodiversity-conservation-landscape .toc-small-caps}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35054570 .anchor}Representation of the Landscape
Units

Ten of the 18 landscape units have less than 3% of their area remaining
in native forest cover --- the best-represented landscape unit has only
19%, and what remains is highly fragmented. The representation of the
landscape units within strictly protected areas ranged from zero percent
(nine landscape units) to 3.45% (the best represented unit) of their
original area (Table 3).

Only eight of the 18 landscape units are represented in at least one
forest fragment larger than 10,000 ha (Table 4). The ten landscape units
that do not have large forest fragments and have little representation
within the protected area system also do not have any fragment with a
high fragment importance index value. There are practically no
possibilities to obtain a good representation of these ten landscape
units in the final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape[^18]. The eight
landscape units that still have forest fragments larger than 10,000 ha
are represented in strictly protected areas. Due to this situation,
long-term biodiversity conservation efforts in the Upper Paraná Atlantic
Forest ecoregion should focus on ensuring the resilience of the areas
that can maintain viable populations of umbrella species and healthy
ecological processes. Only this will enable the long-term conservation
of the majority of the species. At the same time, we should try to
include the best representation possible, but knowing that achieving the
goal of at least 10% representation of each landscape unit is nearly
impossible in the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest and the final
Biodiversity Conservation Landscape will not attain this goal (see below
further discussion on the implication of this on the biodiversity
conservation goals).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35054571 .anchor}The Biodiversity Conservation
Landscape

The Biodiversity Conservation Landscape is composed of **three main
types of areas** (Figure 32).

# 

# A) Priority Areas for Biodiversity Conservation  {#a-priority-areas-for-biodiversity-conservation .toc-abc}

We defined five categories of priority areas:

1.  **Core Areas:** The Core Areas are the blocks of well-preserved
    native forest large enough to be resilient to threats causing
    biodiversity loss. These are the most biologically important and
    strategic zones for conservation, either public or private. In
    addition to harboring biodiversity, they make an important
    contribution to the maintenance of environmental services important
    for human quality of life (such as carbon sequestration, balance and
    quality of water supply, and aesthetic landscape). Here human
    activities must be reduced to a minimum and must be of low impact.
    Each Core Area should be managed under strict protection to maintain
    an area of continuous native forest large enough for the life cycle
    of individuals of large range species such as jaguars and
    white-lipped peccaries.

> To attain this goal, Core Areas must meet the following criteria:

-   They are larger than 10,000 ha.

-   They have high potential for conservation (their conservation
    potential index should range from 32 to 64) in more than 60% of the
    area.

-   They have an area of continuous forest cover larger than 10,000 ha
    after excluding an area of 500 m (buffer) under edge effect.

> We included four areas in this category that did not fully meet these
> criteria. Araupel (Brazil) and part of San Rafael (Paraguay) were
> included even though their conservation potential index was lower than
> 32, but it would have been higher if recent changes (the creation of
> new strictly protected areas) increasing their conservation status had
> been included in the analyses. Caaguazú (Paraguay) and Morombí
> (Paraguay) were included although they do not have more than 10,000 ha
> of forest cover without edge effect, they are very close to that
> figure (9,950 ha and 9,650 ha respectively). The final Core Areas are
> depicted in Figure 33.

***Note: Due to the high degree of fragmentation of this ecoregion, no
Core Area alone will be large enough to sustain viable populations of
umbrella species. To fulfill the critical role of Core Area, each of
them must be effectively connected through corridors to other Core
Areas. If isolated, the Core Areas will eventually lose the presence of
umbrella species and the ecological processes that depend on them.***

2.  **Forested Areas with High Potential to Become Strictly Protected
    Areas (FAHPSPA)**: Most of the forested areas of Misiones meet the
    requirements for becoming a Core Area. However, the probability that
    the entire area will eventually constitute a strictly protected area
    is very low according to socio-political assessments. For this
    reason, we selected those areas of the Green Corridor with the
    highest conservation potential index as Core Areas and the remaining
    areas were categorized as Forested Areas with High Potential to
    Become Strictly Protected Areas (Figure 34). Part of these areas may
    thus become strictly protected and probably incorporated into Core
    Areas and part of them will become Sustainable Use Areas. Thus, the
    FAHPSPA do not belong to either of these categories (sustainable use
    vs. strictly protected areas) yet. However, we considered them
    Priority Areas for Biodiversity Conservation even though not all the
    area will end up being strictly protected.

3.  **Potential Core Areas:** These areas meet only two of the three
    requirements for becoming Core Areas (they are larger than 10,000 ha
    and they have a high potential for conservation index in more than
    60% of the area). After excluding an edge of 500 m, however, they do
    not have an area of continuous forest cover larger than 10,000 ha.
    Nevertheless, due to their high conservation potential, they may
    become Core Areas in the future if restoration and good management
    initiatives are implemented, especially along their borders (Figure
    34).

4.  **Forest Areas that Need Assessment (FANA)**: These are areas with
    relatively low conservation potential. In 1997, they each had a
    forested core larger than 10,000 ha (this was the date of the
    satellite images used to create the forest fragments maps from
    Paraguay). However, they are located in the area with the highest
    deforestation rate in Paraguay, and they probably have been reduced
    to less than 10,000 ha (Guyra Paraguay, pers. com.) (Figure 34). We
    need to update our information on their current condition before
    defining their role in the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape. In
    this sense FANA are areas in a condition similar to the FAHPSPA,
    where it is not possible to define if they will belong to the
    category of Sustainable Use Areas or strictly protected areas yet.

5.  **Satellite Areas:** These are areas with high potential for
    conservation but are only 5,000--10,000 ha in size. (Figure 34). It
    will be difficult to increase their size because areas with low
    conservation potential surround them. However, if they can be
    connected to the Core Areas they will play an important biodiversity
    conservation role.

# B) Strategic Areas for Biodiversity Conservation {#b-strategic-areas-for-biodiversity-conservation .toc-abc}

Because only one of the 18 landscape units reaches 10% representation
within the priority areas (Table 5) we have identified a series of
small-sized areas to increase the representation of other landscape
units. These areas are either small (\< 5,000 ha) but have high
conservation potential or have low conservation potential but still
maintain a forest fragment larger than 1,000 ha. Although these areas
are not sufficiently resilient in isolation, they can play a strategic
role in biodiversity conservation by facilitating the implementation of
biological corridors as well as by increasing the representation of
landscape units. According to their location and role we have classified
the Strategic Areas into two categories:

> **Stepping Stones:** When located within 50 km of a priority area,
> these strategic areas serve in our Biodiversity Conservation Landscape
> as "Stepping Stones" to be connected to form corridors. In certain
> cases they help increase the representation of some landscape units.
>
> **Isolated Areas:** Strategic areas that are located more than 50 km
> from the nearest priority area, we considered Isolated Areas. If they
> have a potential for being connected to a Priority Area (e.g., there
> is a river nearby) we traced a possible corridor between the Isolated
> Area and the Priority Area. If there are limited possibilities for
> connection, these areas will remain isolated, reducing their potential
> for biodiversity conservation. However, they may still play an
> important local role in conservation (e.g., in environmental education
> or in the conservation of species restricted to these landscape
> units).

We categorized Stepping Stones and Isolated Areas as high importance
when they belong to underrepresented landscape units, and of low
importance when they belong to a well-represented landscape unit.

# C) Sustainable Use Areas {#c-sustainable-use-areas .toc-abc}

Sustainable Use Areas are large areas that function as buffers and
connections surrounding the Core Areas and Biological Corridors. They
maintain environmental services in combination with "environmentally
friendly" economic activities such as eco-tourism, agro-forestry and
sustainable production of "yerba mate", "palmito" (palm heart), timber,
and non-timber forest products. In 50 years, these areas should be
managed under land use plans or zoning based on social, environmental,
and economic sustainability principles. These land use plans should
include native forest protecting the watersheds and biologically
important areas, a network of biological corridors, and appropriate
economic activities. Within the Sustainable Use Areas, fine-scale
analyses to complete the land use plan may identify additional
biological corridors and areas for protection.

In the design of the Sustainable Use Areas, we included areas with a
medium potential for conservation index (8 to 16: not high enough to be
a Priority Area or a Stepping Stone). We also included as many as
possible Stepping Stones of underrepresented landscape units.

We identified four categories of Sustainable Use Areas:

**The Main Corridor** connects the Core Areas (Figure 35). Main
Corridors should ensure the gene flow of umbrella species and thus their
population viability. Together with the Core Areas, they constitute the
central pieces of the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape. In 50 years,
Main Corridors should be managed under a fine-scale landscape design
that maintains a minimum of 30% forest cover. New protected areas should
be identified and created (Core or Satellite areas) and biological
corridors should be established (protected and restored).

**Secondary Corridors** connect other priority areas with the Main
Corridor or Core Areas (Figure 35). The expansion of the Main Corridor
through the secondary corridor increases the resilience and
representation of the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape**.**

**Lateral Expansion of Corridors** connects the Stepping Stones that are
not on the way to Priority Areas (Figure 35), increasing the diversity
of landscapes represented in the corridor.

**Potential Corridors:** Due to the extreme degree of forest
fragmentation, most of the corridors follow rivers, as these areas have
a higher conservation potential. However, these corridors may not be
viable or sufficient to maintain the gene flow among Core Areas. For
this reason we have identified alternative corridors, even though these
have lower conservation potential. Similarly, we have identified
potential corridors with neighboring ecoregions (Figure 35). The final
design of these Potential Corridors will depend on an analysis conducted
at a different scale and in coordination with other ecoregions'
biodiversity assessments.

It is important to make the distinction between the Corridors we
identified in our Biodiversity Conservation Landscape (Main Corridors,
Secondary Corridors, etc.), which are actually Sustainable Use Areas,
and the biological corridors that have to be implemented within the
first ones. Biological corridors are relatively narrow areas of native
forest, either natural or restored, that connect Priority Areas for
biodiversity conservation to allow the movement of the wildlife and
sufficient genetic interchange to maintain viable populations. The final
design of biological corridors requires a finer-scale analysis and
better knowledge of the biological requirements of umbrella and other
key species. The Main Corridors, Secondary Corridors and other
categories of Corridors are the areas where the biological corridors
will be implemented after finer-scale landscape design. One of our
targets (Chapter 6) is to implement a multidisciplinary program, a
"Corridor Program", aimed at studying from different perspectives the
best ways to implement biological corridors and Sustainable Use Areas
surrounding them in order to achieve connectivity among the Priority
Areas for Biodiversity Conservation.

Other important areas of the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape

**Area Needing a Corridor:** The connectivity between the two main
sectors (north and south) of the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape is
critical for the implementation of this Biodiversity Vision. At this
scale of analysis, the area between these two sectors has a very low
biodiversity conservation potential index. Even though a project is
being implemented in Brazil to create a 50 meter wide corridor (Iguaçu--
Itaipú) that connects the two sectors, we can anticipate *a priori* that
it will not be sufficient to guarantee adequate connectivity between
them. This is because the edge effect along this narrow corridor will be
extremely high (see Box 4) and there are no opportunities in the area to
greatly increase its width or to create a good buffer zone along the
corridor. Only very generalist species (or edge specialists) may make
use of this critical corridor. Since we do not have fine-scale
information available to design this corridor, we have identified a a
broad area where the corridor should be designed and implemented (Figure
35).

**Priority River Basin:** Finally, we have identified areas that are
important for the development of watershed management and conservation
programs (Figure 36). River basins where selected based on several
criteria: intactness of the basin, presence of protected areas in the
basin (both strictly protected areas and Sustainable Use Areas),
presence of ongoing conservation initiatives in the river basin, and
potential of the river basin for connecting the Upper Paraná Atlantic
Forest ecoregion to neighboring ecoregions. In relation to this last
criteria, two of these river basins (Iguazú River and Jejuí River), are
especially important because they constitute potential connections to
the Araucaria ecoregion and the Chaco-Pantanal ecoregion respectively.

***The final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape is depicted in Figure
36. The achievement of this conservation landscape within 50 years will
ensure that our biodiversity conservation goals are met. This is not a
static landscape since small-scale analyses and small-scale landscape
designs may slightly modify its final shape. New opportunities for
biodiversity conservation may arise in the future that would allow for
other areas to be restored and incorporated in this Vision. Monitoring
of the actual situation and adaptive management of the priorities
represented in this Biodiversity Conservation Landscape are critical to
ensure the achievement of our long-term goals of biodiversity
conservation. These results will be refined over time as a result of
more detailed and ongoing conservation planning, landscape design, and
decision-making processes.***

**Representation of the landscape units in the final Biodiversity
Conservation Landscape.**

We can divide the ecoregion's 18 landscape units into five groups
according to their representation in the final Biodiversity Conservation
Landscape (Table 6). Eight of the landscape units have no representation
in the final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape. These same landscape
units have no forest fragment larger than 1,000 ha (six have no fragment
larger than 500 ha). The small fragments that remain in these landscape
units are very isolated and located in areas of high threats and low
opportunities for conservation. Most of the landscape units that have no
representation in the final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape are
located in the northern part of the ecoregion. They include all the
seasonal units (with more than two dry months) and two semi-seasonal
ones. These areas are close to the Cerrado Woodlands and Savannas Global
200 Ecoregion, and they probably represent transitional areas with this
ecoregion.

A second group is composed of a landscape unit poorly represented by
just one isolated area. This is a high altitude, semi-seasonal but flat
area. Only 2.8% of this landscape unit is represented in the
Biodiversity Conservation Landscape, but not within strictly protected
areas.

A third group is represented by five landscape units that have low
representation in the strictly protected areas (0.3 - 2.7% of their
original area), and Sustainable Use Areas but have good representation
in several isolated areas and river basin management areas. The final
representation of these landscape units in the Biodiversity Conservation
Landscape ranges from 16.0 to 27.6% of their original area.

The fourth group is comprised of three landscape units that have some
representation in the Priority Areas (4.0 -- 5.1% of their original
area) and a good representation in Sustainable Use Areas (13.7 -- 15.5%
of their original area). Their final representation in the Biodiversity
Conservation Landscape is about 30% of their original area.

Finally, one landscape unit (non-seasonal, low altitude but hilly), has
a fairly good representation in Priority Areas (12.5%) and Sustainable
Use Areas (12.2%), reaching a 32.5% representation in the final
Biodiversity Conservation Landscape.

In sum, even though some landscape units are not represented in the
final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape, some others are fairly well
represented. As we mentioned before, for this ecoregion, setting as a
goal a good representation of all the landscape units is practically
impossible. Thus, one of the four conservation goals set at the
beginning (representation of all the ecological communities typical of
this ecoregion) may not be attained, since many of the landscape units
identified in our analysis are not going to be represented in the final
Biodiversity Conservation Landscape. However, we strove to attain the
best representation possible of all landscape units. Our goal is thus to
preserve large forest blocks that are sufficiently resilient and capable
of maintaining viable populations of umbrella species and the typical
ecological processes that originally characterized the ecoregion. The
lack of full representation of all the landscape units in the
conservation landscape may preclude to some point attaining the goal of
maintaining viable populations of **all** the native species
characteristic of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion. Future
field surveys may identify populations of species that are unique to
landscape units not represented in the Biodiversity Conservation
Landscape. If these species are found we should analyze alternatives for
their long-term survival if this is still possible. This may include the
possibility of slightly modifying the design of our Biodiversity
Conservation Landscape to include representation of the small forest
fragments where these species are found.

As a crude lower estimate, an area of at least 525,000 ha is needed to
preserve a viable population of jaguars. A larger area of about 750,000
ha is needed to preserve a population of harpy eagles (see Table 2 in
Chapter 3). Our final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape has more than
1,200,000 ha in Core Areas of strict protection. However, the minimum
area requirement estimates presented above are for areas of continuous
forest. Ensuring the connectivity of the Core Areas through the
establishment of the Main Corridors is thus critical to achieve the goal
of protecting umbrella species. To achieve the Biodiversity Vision, it
is also critical to ensure that within 50 years 100% of the Core Areas,
as well as a portion of the Priority Areas in other categories, are
under effective strict protection. Presently, less than 50% of the
1,200,000 ha of Core Areas are strictly protected and a similar
situation occurs in the other categories of Priority Areas (Figure 37).
To attain full protection of the priority areas, a minimum of 1,284,100
ha of Strictly Protected Areas must be created and effectively
implemented and maintained.

Similarly, to implement this Vision it will be necessary to create and
implement more than 4,000,000 ha of Sustainable Use Areas. These areas
do not need to have continuous forest, but at least 30% of forest cover
is desirable. Especially critical for the implementation of this Vision
are the Main Corridors that total more than 1,200,000 ha, of which only
about 30% are under Sustainable Use Protection (Figure 38).

To achieve this landscape, besides securing a relatively large portion
of the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape under strictly protected
areas and sustainable use, the native forest will need to be restored in
some areas. We have set as a goal to achieve in 50 years: 100%
continuous native forest cover in the Core Areas and other areas under
strict protection; at least 70% of forest cover in the Forested Areas
with High Potential to Become Strictly Protected Areas; at least 30%
forest cover in the corridors and Sustainable Use Areas; and at least
20% forest cover in the watershed management areas (the minimum Brazil's
Forest Code requires on private properties in the Atlantic Forest). This
means that at least 10% of the Core Areas (more than 100,000 ha) and at
least 50% of the Main Corridors will need to be restored. In total, a
minimum of at least 2,606,678 ha of native forest needs to be restored
to implement this Vision (Figure 39). This is a very ambitious and
costly, but potentially feasible goal.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35054624 .anchor}Table 3. Representation in
Protected Areas and Remaining Forest Cover in Landscape Units

  ------------------- ------------ -------- ----------- ------ ------------- ------- ----------- -------
  Landscape Unit      Size                  Strictly           Sustainable           Forest      
                                            Protected          Use Area              Cover       
                                            Area                                                 

                      Ha           \%       Ha          \%     Ha            \%      Ha          \%

  Seasonal High       727,025      1.54     0           0      0             0       3,500       0.50
  Plains                                                                                         

  Seasonal High Steep 604,075      1.28     0           0      0             0       2,300       0.44
  Slopes                                                                                         

  Seasonal High       726,750      1.54     0           0      0             0       3,400       0.45
  Moderate Slopes                                                                                

  Semi-seasonal High  190,225      0.40     0           0      0             0       3,375       1.73
  Moderate Slopes                                                                                

  Semi-seasonal High  84,775       0.18     0           0      0             0       1,275       1.36
  Steep Slopes                                                                                   

  Seasonal Low Steep  262,650      0.56     0           0      0             0       1,350       0.55
  Slopes                                                                                         

  Seasonal Low Plains 3,051,150    6.48     0           0      0             0       39,600      1.25

  Seasonal Low        1,439,450    3.05     0           0      0             0       13,000      0.82
  Moderate Slopes                                                                                

  Semi-seasonal High  229,125      0.49     0           0      0             0       6,875       3.00
  Plains                                                                                         

  Semi-seasonal Low   2,949,775    6.26     4,650       0.16   376,100       12.75   67,825      2.28
  Plains                                                                                         

  Semi-seasonal Low   2,644,875    5.61     17,550      0.66   361,875       13.68   118,575     4.51
  Moderate Slopes                                                                                

  Semi-seasonal Low   1,147,875    2.44     35,675      3.11   94,400        8.22    122,725     10.62
  Steep Slopes                                                                                   

  Wet High Moderate   2,817,725    5.98     8,650       0.31   93,875        3.33    135,400     4.78
  Slopes                                                                                         

  Wet High Plains     2,253,350    4.78     9,675       0.43   23,300        1.03    85,300      3.90

  Wet High Steep      5,906,300    12.53    36,750      0.62   90,800        1.54    373,175     6.31
  Slopes                                                                                         

  Wet Low Plains      6,609,650    14.03    218,250     3.30   263,725       3.99    445,200     6.70

  Wet Low Moderate    8,082,475    17.15    211,375     2.62   256,000       3.17    862,850     10.63
  Slopes                                                                                         

  Wet Low Steep       7,393,175    15.69    255,375     3.45   614,275       8.31    1,399,050   18.97
  Slopes                                                                                         

  Total               47,120,425   100.00   797,950     1.69   2,174,350     4.61    3,684,775   7.82
  ------------------- ------------ -------- ----------- ------ ------------- ------- ----------- -------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35054625 .anchor}Table 4. Number of Fragments and
Forest Cover (Ha) per Landscape Unit and per Fragment Size Category.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Landscape Unit</td>
<td colspan="2">25-500ha</td>
<td colspan="2">500-1,000ha</td>
<td colspan="2">1,000-10,000ha</td>
<td colspan="2">10,000-100,000ha</td>
<td colspan="2">100,000-1,000,000ha</td>
<td colspan="2">Total</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>#</td>
<td>Ha</td>
<td>#</td>
<td>Ha</td>
<td>#</td>
<td>Ha</td>
<td>#</td>
<td>Ha</td>
<td>#</td>
<td>Ha</td>
<td>#</td>
<td>Ha</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Seasonal High Steep Slopes</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>2,300</td>
<td>0 </td>
<td> 0</td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>56</td>
<td>2,300</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Seas. High Moderate Slopes</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>3,400</td>
<td>0 </td>
<td> 0</td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>91</td>
<td>3,400</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Seasonal Low Steep Slopes</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>1,350</td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>27</td>
<td>1,350</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Semi-seas. High Steep Slope</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>1,275</td>
<td>0 </td>
<td> 0</td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>21</td>
<td>1,275</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Semi-seas. High Mod. Slopes</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>3,375</td>
<td>0 </td>
<td> 0</td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>64</td>
<td>3,375</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Seasonal High Plains</td>
<td>58</td>
<td>3,500</td>
<td>0 </td>
<td> 0</td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>58</td>
<td>3,500</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Seas. Low Moderate Slopes</td>
<td>222</td>
<td>12,325</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>675</td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>223</td>
<td>13,000</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Seasonal Low Plains</td>
<td>637</td>
<td>34,925</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>4,675</td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>645</td>
<td>39,600</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Semi-seasonal High Plains</td>
<td>95</td>
<td>4,600</td>
<td>0</td>
<td> 0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>2,275</td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>96</td>
<td>6,875</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Semi-seasonal Low Plains</td>
<td>590</td>
<td>39,450</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>12,825</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>15,550</td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>617</td>
<td>67,825</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Wet High Plains</td>
<td>982</td>
<td>51,450</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>2,625</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>12,125</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>19,100</td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>995</td>
<td>85,300</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Wet High Moderate Slopes</td>
<td>1,224</td>
<td>44,325</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>16,200</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>37,775</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>20.275</td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>1,239</td>
<td>118,575</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Semi-seas. Low Mod. Slopes</td>
<td>564</td>
<td>60,100</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>5,400</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>14,000</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>55,900</td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>605</td>
<td>135,400</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Semi-seas. Low Steep Slopes</td>
<td>278</td>
<td>21,425</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>5,900</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>29,725</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>65,675</td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>0 </td>
<td>299</td>
<td>122,725</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Wet High Steep Slopes</td>
<td>3,623</td>
<td>116,000</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>41,925</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>114,975</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>71,050</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>101,250</td>
<td>3,673</td>
<td>445,200</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Wet Low Plains</td>
<td>1,481</td>
<td>188,825</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>17,350</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>46,325</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>18,175</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>102,500</td>
<td>1,594</td>
<td>373,175</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Wet Low Moderate Slopes</td>
<td>2,495</td>
<td>191,750</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>53,500</td>
<td>96</td>
<td>247,525</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>115,875</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>254,200</td>
<td>2,677</td>
<td>862,850</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Wet Low Steep Slopes</td>
<td>3,603</td>
<td>224,475</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>45,725</td>
<td>76</td>
<td>198,575</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>244,050</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>686,225</td>
<td>3,758</td>
<td>1,399,050</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><h5 id="total">Total </h5></td>
<td>16,111</td>
<td>1,004,850</td>
<td>308</td>
<td>206,800</td>
<td>288</td>
<td>718,850</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>610,100</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>1,144,175</td>
<td>16,738</td>
<td>3,684,775</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35054626 .anchor}Table 5. Representation of
Landscape Units in the Priority Areas

+------------------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| ##### Landscape Unit               | ###### Ha    | \% of landscape  |
|                                    |              |                  |
|                                    |              | unit area        |
+------------------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| Seasonal High Plains               | 0            | 0.0              |
+------------------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| Seasonal High Steep Slopes         | 0            | 0.0              |
+------------------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| Seasonal High Moderate Slopes      | 0            | 0.0              |
+------------------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| Seasonal Low Steep Slopes          | 0            | 0.0              |
+------------------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| Semi-seasonal High Moderate Slopes | 0            | 0.0              |
+------------------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| Semi-seasonal High Steep Slopes    | 0            | 0.0              |
+------------------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| Seasonal Low Plains                | 0            | 0.0              |
+------------------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| Seasonal Low Moderate Slopes       | 0            | 0.0              |
+------------------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| Semi-seasonal High Plains          | 0            | 0.0              |
+------------------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| Semi-seasonal Low Plains           | 8,900        | 0.3              |
+------------------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| Semi-seasonal Low Moderate Slopes  | 25,200       | 1.0              |
+------------------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| Wet High Plains                    | 27,725       | 1.2              |
+------------------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| Wet High Steep Slopes              | 134,950      | 2.3              |
+------------------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| Wet High Moderate Slopes           | 76,875       | 2.7              |
+------------------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| Wet Low Plains                     | 263,500      | 4.0              |
+------------------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| Semi-seasonal Low Steep Slopes     | 45,175       | 4.0              |
+------------------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| Wet Low Moderate Slopes            | 411,250      | 5.1              |
+------------------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| Wet Low Steep Slopes               | 953,850      | 12.9             |
+------------------------------------+--------------+------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35054627 .anchor}Table 6. Representation of
Landscape Units in Final Biodiversity Conservation Landscape

  ----------------- ---------- ------ ------------- ------ ---------- ----- ---------- ------ -------------- ------
  Landscape unit    Priority          Sustainable          Isolated         Priority          Conservation   
                    Area              Use Area             Area             River             Landscape      
                                                                            Basin                            

                    Ha         \%     Ha            \%     Ha         \%    Ha         \%     Ha             \%

  Seasonal High     0          0.0    0             0.0    0          0.0   0          0.0    0              0.0
  Plains                                                                                                     

  Seasonal High     0          0.0    0             0.0    0          0.0   0          0.0    0              0.0
  Steep Slopes                                                                                               

  Seasonal High     0          0.0    0             0.0    0          0.0   0          0.0    0              0.0
  Moderate Slopes                                                                                            

  Seasonal Low      0          0.0    0             0.0    0          0.0   0          0.0    0              0.0
  Plains                                                                                                     

  Seasonal Low      0          0.0    0             0.0    0          0.0   0          0.0    0              0.0
  Moderate Slopes                                                                                            

  Seasonal Low      0          0.0    0             0.0    0          0.0   0          0.0    0              0.0
  Steep Slopes                                                                                               

  Semi-seas. High   0          0.0    0             0.0    0          0.0   0          0.0    0              0.0
  Moder. Slopes                                                                                              

  Semi-seas. High   0          0.0    0             0.0    0          0.0   0          0.0    0              0.0
  Steep Slopes                                                                                               

  Semi-seasonal     0          0.0    0             0.0    6,450      2.8   0          0.0    6,450          2.8
  High Plains                                                                                                

  Wet High Plains   27,725     1.2    36,125        1.6    14,650     0.7   281,400    12.5   359,900        16.0

  Wet High Moderate 76,875     2.7    78,400        2.8    14,500     0.5   341,200    12.1   510,975        18.1
  Slopes                                                                                                     

  Semi-seasonal Low 8,900      0.3    193,925       6.6    19,750     0.7   338,450    11.5   561,025        19.0
  Plains                                                                                                     

  Wet High Steep    134,950    2.3    132,950       2.3    112,425    1.9   809,600    13.7   1,189,925      20.2
  Slopes                                                                                                     

  Semi-seas. Low    25,200     1.0    187,300       7.1    52,450     2.0   464,100    17.6   729,050        27.6
  Moder. Slopes                                                                                              

  Wet Low Moderate  411,250    5.1    1,249,825     15.5   29,900     0.4   612,125    7.6    2,303,100      28.5
  Slopes                                                                                                     

  Wet Low Plains    263,500    4.0    908,000       13.7   49,925     0.8   764,925    11.6   1,986,350      30.1

  Semi-seas. Low    45,175     4.0    162,400       14.2   40,850     3.6   126,125    11.0   374,550        32.6
  Steep Slopes                                                                                               

  Wet Low Steep     953,850    12.9   900,450       12.2   175,450    2.4   374,300    5.1    2,404,050      32.5
  Slopes                                                                                                     
  ----------------- ---------- ------ ------------- ------ ---------- ----- ---------- ------ -------------- ------

######## Figure 32. Illustration of *Concept* of Categories of Areas Included in the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape {#figure-32.-illustration-of-concept-of-categories-of-areas-included-in-the-biodiversity-conservation-landscape .Fig-list}

Note: Not part of the actual Biodiversity Conservation Landscape

![](media/image39.wmf){width="6.083333333333333in"
height="7.8597222222222225in"}

######## Figure 33. Core Areas {#figure-33.-core-areas .Fig-list}

![](media/image40.jpeg){width="6.527777777777778in"
height="8.447916666666666in"}

######## Figure 34. Priority Areas {#figure-34.-priority-areas .Fig-list}

![](media/image41.jpeg){width="6.323611111111111in"
height="8.183333333333334in"}

######## Figure 35. Sustainable Use Areas Connecting the Priority Areas {#figure-35.-sustainable-use-areas-connecting-the-priority-areas .Fig-list}

![](media/image42.jpeg){width="6.517361111111111in"
height="5.036111111111111in"}

######## Figure 36. Biodiversity Conservation Landscape {#figure-36.-biodiversity-conservation-landscape .Fig-list}

![](media/image43.jpeg){width="6.517361111111111in"
height="5.036111111111111in"}

######## Figure 37. Area Under Strict Protection (present and future) in the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape {#figure-37.-area-under-strict-protection-present-and-future-in-the-biodiversity-conservation-landscape .Fig-list}

![](media/image44.wmf)

**Minimum Total Indirect Use Protected Area to be created: 1,284,100
hectares.**

######## 

######## 

########  

######## 

######## Figure 38. Area Under Sustainable Use Areas {#figure-38.-area-under-sustainable-use-areas .Fig-list}

![](media/image45.wmf)

**Sustainable Use Area to be created: 4,003,300 hectares.**

The first two categories (Forested Areas with High Potential to Become
Strictly Protected Areas (FAHPSPA) and the Forested Areas that Need
Assessment (FANA) corespond to areas that may eventually be included (at
least part of them) in the category of strictly protected areas.

######## Figure 39. Forest Cover in Units of the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape {#figure-39.-forest-cover-in-units-of-the-biodiversity-conservation-landscape .Fig-list}

![](media/image46.wmf)

**Minimum Total Area to be restored: 2,606,678 hectares.**

# Chapter 6 {#chapter-6 .toc}

# Setting priorities for conservation action -- Conservation Targets {#setting-priorities-for-conservation-action-conservation-targets .toc}

Defining the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape is just the beginning.
The implementation of this Biodiversity Conservation Landscape will
require a series of actions at different time frames and spatial scales.
Since no [one]{.underline} organization can achieve results at the large
scales required to implement this Vision, actions must be coordinated
among governmental and non-governmental organizations of a variety of
sectors in Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina. Achieving this Vision will
require governments to incorporate it into their regional development
programs and policies.

This Biodiversity Vision document should serve as a guide for all to
prioritize actions. In this chapter we identify a series of targets and
milestones critical for the implementation of this Vision. However,
these targets, milestones, and time frames will need to be under
constant review and adaptation as implementation proceeds. Partners and
stakeholders must discuss and define clear roles for the implementation
of this Vision and develop processes for coordinating and monitoring
progress as well as adapting the actions and goals. The next step is to
develop an Ecoregion Action Plan identifying specific targets and
milestones as well as realistic time frames for achieving them as well
as indicators of success. New strategies must be developed to generate
the incremental funding needed to support this new scale of urgent
actions. However, conservation action in the Atlantic Forest cannot wait
for the perfect plan.

Thus, this chapter outlines general targets and milestones that clearly
emerge from the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape, and from our
analysis of threats and opportunities, to serve as a starting point for
all institutions to prioritize specific immediate actions. We have
identified a series of targets for the next three years (to be
implemented by the end of 2005), for the next seven years (by the end of
2010), and for the next 43 years (by 2050). The targets are essential to
achieve the entire Biodiversity Conservation Landscape (Figure 36). The
milestones are priority steps toward achieving the targets. Some
milestones are specific to certain portions of the Biodiversity
Conservation Landscape or to one or two countries.

Target 1:

**All existing strictly protected areas (IUCN protected area categories
I-III), effectively managed by 2010 (48 areas totaling 791,775 ha).**

These protected areas, both private and public, are located in *Core
Areas*, *Potential Core Areas,* and *Satellite Areas* (Figures 9a & 9b;
Table 1)*.* Of the 48 existing target areas, 21 areas totaling 197,155
ha are in Paraguay; 4 areas totaling 317,628 ha are in Brazil, and 23
areas totaling 224,816 ha are in Argentina. The status of implementation
for these areas currently ranges from relatively well managed to public
"paper" parks with land tenure problems and no government presence. As
new strictly protected areas are created (see Target 2) this target will
increase to a total of 1,284,100 ha under effective management---100% of
core areas (1,226,175 ha) plus a portion of the Priority Areas of other
categories (*Potential Core Areas, Satellite Areas, Isolated Areas).*

[Milestones]{.underline}:

For each protected area:

1.  Demarcation and land tenure resolved.

2.  Management plan developed and implemented that integrates the
    protected area into the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape and
    addresses external and internal threats.

3.  Effective law enforcement in place.

4.  Effective management of buffer zone in place.

5.  Local community support for the protected area achieved.

6.  Sustained funding secured to support long-term management and
    enforcement.

For the protected area systems:

1.  A baseline evaluation of the implementation of these protected areas
    completed by 2005.

2.  A system in place for long-term monitoring of effective
    implementation of these protected areas by 2005.

3.  Institutional and individual capacity developed to implement target
    protected areas (private and public) by 2010.

4.  At least one mechanism developed in each of the three countries to
    provide sustained funding for maintenance of target public and/or
    private protected areas by 2005.

**◊** Potential mechanisms include the Green Corridor government fund in
Argentina, the Private Fund to support the Green Corridor (FONPAC) in
Argentina, a national environment fund in Paraguay, water usage taxes in
Brazil, other ecological service payments, tourism fees.

Target 2:

**New protected areas created and some existing ones expanded to ensure
that 1,934,200 ha of forest** **are under strict protection (IUCN
protected area categories I-III) by 2053.**

The target total protected areas include 100% of the *Core Areas* (13
areas totaling 1,226,175 ha---see Figure 33), plus 708,025 ha of
Priority Areas in other categories (*Potential Core Areas, Satellite
Areas, Isolated Areas,* and without including the *Forest Areas Needing
Assessment,* and *Forested Areas with High Potential to Become Strictly
Protected Areas---*See Figure 34). Currently less than 50% of the Core
Areas are under strict protection, and a similar situation exists for
the other categories of Priority Areas (Figure 37). The current area
under strict protection must be increased by a total of 1,284,100 ha to
achieve this target. Types of potential protection mechanisms include
private and public reserves, conservation easements, conservation
concessions, environmental services payments, and implementation of
forest laws.

[Milestones]{.underline}:

1.  For all *Forest Areas Needing Assessment* (Figure 37), stop
    deforestation by 2004, complete assessments of forest cover and
    determine potential to become *Core Areas* by 2005; create new areas
    under strict protection as indicated in the assessment by 2010.

> ◊ These areas are all located in Paraguay, in the area of highest
> deforestation rate. None of these forest areas is currently under any
> type of protection.

2.  For all *Core Areas* (Figure 33) - 13 areas, 1,226,175 ha, complete
    a fine-scale landscape design identifying targets for additional
    protected areas by 2005. Create 683,475 ha of new protected areas by
    2010.

3.  For each *Potential Core Area* (Figure 34), complete an evaluation
    of its potential to become a *Core Area* by 2004. For areas where
    potential to become a *Core Area* is confirmed, complete a landscape
    design identifying targets for additional protected areas and
    restoration needed (to expand forest fragments to 10,000 ha) by
    2005.

> **◊** These areas are located in Paraguay and Argentina.

4.  For *Forested Areas with High Potential to Become Strictly Protected
    Areas* (Figure 34), complete a fine-scale landscape design
    identifying target areas for protection by 2005.

> **◊** These areas are all located in the Misiones Green Corridor in
> Argentina.

5.  Identify opportunities for protection of *Satellite Areas* and
    *Isolated Areas* (Figure 34) by 2010.

6.  Develop three mechanisms to provide incremental funding for
    acquisition and establishment of public and private areas under
    strict protection (IUCN categories I -- III) by 2005.

7.  At least two demonstration projects underway by 2005 to test the
    effectiveness of economic incentives for creation and maintenance of
    private or public protected areas in priority areas: Clean
    Development Mechanisms (carbon sequestration -- appropriate for
    *Potential Core Areas* that need restoration), water usage taxes for
    watershed protection, conservation concessions, conservation
    leasing, other ecological service payments, ICMS Ecológico in
    Brazil, ecotourism, and others.

8.  At least one improved legal tool for private reserves and private
    forest protection developed in each of the three countries by 2005.

9.  At least six initiatives underway to provide additional incentives
    for private land protection.

Target 3:

*Sustainable Use Areas* (IUCN protected area categories IV-VI) totaling
4,003,300 ha created and effectively implemented to maintain 30% forest
cover by 2010.

Currently, 16 *Sustainable Use Areas* totaling 1,413,991 ha (2 areas
totaling 74,710 ha in Paraguay, 4 areas totaling 380,306 ha in Brazil,
and 10 areas totaling 958,975 ha in Argentina) have been created
(Figures 9a and 9b; Table 1). None of these areas has yet been zoned.
This target will require the creation of 2,589,309 ha of new Sustainable
Use Areas. Categories of *Sustainable Use Areas* include: *Main
Corridors*, *Secondary Corridors*, *Lateral Expansion Corridors*,
*Potential Corridors* (Figures 35 and 38). The two categories of areas
needing further assessment (*Forested Areas with High Potential to
Become Strictly Protected Areas* and *Forested Areas* *Needing
Assessments*) may eventually be included as *Sustainable Use Areas* as
well. Especially critical are the *Main Corridors* that total more than
1,300,000 ha, of which only about 30% are currently under sustainable
use protection.

[Milestones]{.underline}:

1.  An ecoregional "Corridor Program" developed and underway by 2005
    with an interdisciplinary team doing research, design, and
    monitoring of corridors, studying legal mechanisms, implementing
    policies, consulting with local residents, etc.

2.  Create 930,000 ha of new Sustainable Use Areas in the *Main
    Corridors* by 2010, thus assuring that 100% of the Main Corridors
    are under sustainable use protection.

3.  Landscape designs, with participation of stakeholders, underway in
    all Main Corridors (1,200,000 ha) by 2005, and completed by 2010.

4.  Management of at least one pilot area of the Main Corridors
    according to landscape designs maintaining 30% forest cover, begun
    by 2005.

5.  Implement Misiones Green Corridor Law by 2010.

6.  At least five alternative economic activities or environmentally
    sustainable agricultural practices identified (i.e., ecotourism,
    palmito, yerba mate cultivated under forest cover,
    sustainably-managed production forests, forest certification under
    FSC, best practices of soy production), viability studies completed,
    and initiatives developed to positively impact maintenance of forest
    cover in the *Main Corridors* by 2005.

7.  At least one policy action planned and promoted to reduce perverse
    incentives and create positive incentives for forest conservation in
    each of the three countries by 2005.

8.  GIS capacity of municipal level institutions developed to promote,
    facilitate, coordinate, and monitor fine scale landscape designs in
    the Main Corridors by 2010.

9.  The *Forested Areas with High Potential to Become Strictly Protected
    Areas* managed (totaling 380,000 ha, all in the Misiones Green
    Corridor of Argentina) according to landscape designs (land use
    plans) that maintain 70% forest cover by 2010.

**Target 4:**

Restore 2,606,678 ha of native forest in the Biodiversity Conservation
Landscape by 2050

This target would ensure our goal of 100% continuous native forest cover
in the *Core Areas* and all areas under strict protection, 70% forest
cover in the *Forested Areas with High Potential to Become Strictly
Protected Areas*, at least 30% forest cover in the *Sustainable Use
Areas*, and at least 20% forest cover in the W*atershed Management
Areas*. This means that at least 10% of the *Core Areas* (more than
100,000 ha) and at least 50% of the *Main Corridors* must be restored
(Figures 36 and 39).

[Milestones]{.underline}:

1.  A pilot Clean Development Mechanism (carbon sequestration) project
    developed for marketing by 2005, and generating long-term funds for
    restoration and maintenance of carbon sink forest by 2010.

2.  Restoration to achieve 30% forest cover of the *Main Corridors*
    (connecting Core Areas) underway between the northern and southern
    portions of the Tri-national Biodiversity Corridor by 2010,
    including**:**

-   Fine-scale design of biological corridors and stepping stones based
    on biological data analyses, opportunities, threats, and
    cost-benefit analysis

-   Stakeholder participation in the design

-   Initiatives underway to ensure protection and/or restoration of
    forest cover in biological corridors and stepping-stones.

3.  Forest Landscape Restoration Pilot Project underway in the
    Capanema-Andresito area of the Iguaçu/Iguazú River Basin and Main
    Corridor by 2005.

4.  Forest landscape restoration underway on the borders of *Potential
    Core Areas* (all in Paraguay and Argentina) to expand the forest to
    10,000 ha (after subtracting a 500 m edge) by 2010.

5.  Initiatives underway to restore 100,000 ha of *Core Areas* by
    2010*.*

6.  A strategy developed for restoration of the *Iguassu River Basin*
    (Brazil & Argentina) to 20% forest cover and implementation
    initiated by 2010.

7.  A strategy developed for restoration of the *Jejui River Basin*
    (Paraguay) to 20% forest cover and implementation initiated by 2010.

8.  A strategy for restoration of the Ilhas & Varzeas do Rio Paraná
    A.P.A. portion of the *Upper Paraná River Basin* (Brazil and
    Paraguay) to 20% forest cover and implementation developed and
    initiated by 2010.

Target 5:

**Long-term public support and participation in conservation of the
Biodiversity Conservation Landscape**

[Milestones]{.underline}:

1.  Development of private and government financial mechanisms in all
    three countries to provide long-term funding for conservation in the
    ecoregion by 2005.

2.  Political recognition of the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape by
    the governments of the three countries by 2005.

3.  Increased public awareness of the value of the Upper Paraná Atlantic
    Forest and the need to implement the Biodiversity Conservation
    Landscape by 2005.

4.  Stakeholders, including government development initiatives,
    incorporating Biodiversity Vision targets into their programs by
    2005.

5.  Permanent environmental education programs in all three countries
    targeting empowerment of community actions for the implementation of
    the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape initiated by 2005.

6.  Tri-national Forum strengthened for developing consensus on
    strategies, coordination of actions, and sharing of experiences
    among stakeholders of the three countries

7.  Increased local technical capacity, creating a critical mass of
    professionals conducting applied conservation research and
    conservation programs by 2010.

8.  Community participation resulting in improved law enforcement to
    achieve a significant reduction by 2005 of:

-   illegal logging and illegal trade of forest products

-   illegal hunting and illegal wildlife trade.

**Target 6:**

**A permanent system of monitoring and adaptive management of the
Biodiversity Conservation Landscape and Action Program in place by
2010.**

[Milestones]{.underline}:

1.  Conservation, research, and monitoring program for populations of
    umbrella species (jaguars, white-lipped peccaries, tapirs) underway
    by 2005.

2.  Systems in place by 2005 for long-term monitoring of:

-   Forest cover and land use

-   Illegal hunting and illegal wildlife trade

-   Effective implementation of protected areas.

3.  Mechanisms functioning for coordination of efforts among
    institutions within and across country borders, including periodic
    review and adjustment of goals and strategies by 2005.

4.  Mechanisms in place for coordination of protected area management
    and law enforcement activities among different governmental agencies
    within and among the three countries by 2005.

5.  Field surveys conducted to test the validity of the landscape units
    identified in the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape by 2010.

6.  Field surveys conducted to assess if there are species unique to the
    landscape units not represented in the Biodiversity Conservation
    Landscape by 2010. If there are, and these species do not require
    large areas (for example, small vertebrate species), evaluate the
    viability of incorporating these landscape units into the
    Biodiversity Conservation Landscape by 2010.

# From Vision to Action -- implementing an Ecoregion Action Plan {#from-vision-to-action-implementing-an-ecoregion-action-plan-1 .toc-small-caps}

With this Biodiversity Vision as a guide, WWF and local partners need to
each transform short-term actions already underway to an *Ecoregion
Action Plan* that lays out specific targets over the short-term (1-5
years) and medium-term (10-15 years). This Plan should clearly identify
threat mitigation strategies, and focus on clear targets for
conservation achievement as well as on the roles of partner
institutions, long-term financing possibilities, structures for
effective governance, communication and campaign activities, and
capacity building. These clear targets are essential to guiding,
focusing, and monitoring progress. Together with this inspiring Vision,
the clear targets and transparent reporting of achievements are
necessary to build the commitment and ownership by partners for
continued and active engagement. Embedded in the crafting of an
Ecoregion Action Plan is the need for flexibility. As more information
is collected and actions are monitored, the Plan can be easily updated
and allow for sound judgment when a change of course or tactic is
necessary. In addition to helping the ecoregion action programs organize
their strategic efforts in an ecoregion, the Plan has other benefits.
The Ecoregion Action Plan can help openly articulate the biodiversity
agenda, and can help leaders recognize the importance of this agenda
among other national and international priorities. It is clear that
appropriate institutional development of partners is necessary to
strengthen advocacy on a variety of levels. Since Brazil, Argentina, and
Paraguay are all (to varying degrees) recently emerging democracies,
this capacity building overlaps significantly with the development of
active participation in government and taking an active role as
citizens.

Implementation may take place at levels below the ecoregional scale, or
outside the ecoregion, depending on the issue involved. A threat
analysis is an essential filter for determining at what scale and
timeframe we should act. All conservation activities must be conceived
and implemented in relation to the social and political realities in
which they take place. In the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion,
these realities are different in each of the three countries and even in
different regions of the same country. Most of the actions will be
implemented on a national or regional level within each country.
However, strategic planning, monitoring of the threats and conservation
results, and necessary adjustments must be conducted at an ecoregional
scale.

# References {#references .toc}

Bennett, E. L.; Eves, H.; Robinson, J. & Wilkie, D. 2002. Why is eating
bushmeat a biodiversity crisis? *Conservation in Practice* 3 (2): 28-29.

Bennett, E. L. & Robinson, J. G. 2001. *Hunting for Wildlife in Tropical
Forests: Implications for Biodiversity and Forest Peoples.* The World
Bank, Environment Department Papers, Biodiversity Series -- Impact
Studies, Paper \# 76, 42 pp.

Benitez-Malvido, J. 1998. Impact of forest fragmentation on seedling
abundance in a tropical rainforest. *Conservation Biology* 12: 380-389.

Bertonatti, C. & Corcuera, J. 2000. *Situación Ambiental Argentina
2000*. Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, 440 pp. Buenos Aires,
Argentina.

Bierregaard, R. O.; Lovejoy, T. E. ; Kapos, V.; Augusto dos Santos, A. &
Hutchings, R. W. 1992. The biological dynamics of tropical rainforest
fragments. *Bioscience* 42: 859-866.

Bodmer, R. E.; Eisenberg, J. F. & Redford, K. H. 1997. Hunting and the
likelihood of extinction of Amazonian mammals. *Conservation Biology*
11: 460-466.

Bright, C. & Mattoon, A. 2001. The restoration of a Hotspot Begins.
*World Watch* 14(6): 8-16.

Chalukian, S. C. 1999. Cuadro de situación de las Unidades de
Conservación de la Selva Paranáense. Informe presentado a la Fundación
Vida Silvestre Argentina.

Chebez, J. C. & Casañas, H. 2000. Areas claves para la conservación de
la biodiversidad de la provincia de Misiones, Argentina. (Fauna
Vertebrada). Informe para la Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina.

Chebez, J. C. & Hilgert, N. (in press). Brief History of Conservation in
the Paraná Forest. In: Guzmao Camara & C. Galindo Leal (Editors). *The
State of the Hotspots: The Atlantic Forest*. Center for Applied
Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, Washington D.C.

Chiarello, A. G. 2000. Density and population size of mammals in
remnants of Brazilian Atlantic Forest. *Conservation Biology* 14:
1649-1657.

Cinto, J. P. & Bertolini, M. P. In press. Conservation Capacity in the
Paraná Forest. In: Guzmao Camara & C. Galindo Leal (Editors). *The State
of the Hotspots: The Atlantic Forest*. Center for Applied Biodiversity
Science, Conservation International, Washington D.C..

Clay, R.P., Del Castillo, H., Madroño, A. y Velázquez, M. 2000.
Colección de datos para una Visión Biológica del Bosque Atlántico del
Interior en Paraguay. Guyrá Paraguay: Conservación de Aves. Informe para
el WWF.

Crawshaw, P. 1995. Comparative ecology of ocelot (*Felis pardalis*) and
Jaguar (*Panthera onca*) in a protected subtropical forest in Brazil and
Argentina. Ph. D. Thesis. University of Florida, United States.

Colcombet, L & Noseda, C. 2000. Sector agrario de la provincia de
Misiones. Informe para la Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina.

Conservation International do Brazil 2000. Avaliação e ações
prioritárias para a conservação da biodiversidade da Mata Atlântica e
campos sulinos. Conservation International do Brazil, Fundação
Biodiversitas, Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas, Secretaria do Meio
Ambiente do Estado de São Paulo, SEMAD/Instituto Estadual de
Florestas-MG. Brasília: MMA/SBF, 40 pp.

Cullen, L. Jr.; Bodmer, R. E. & Valladares-Pádua, C. 2000. Effects of
hunting in habitat fragments of the Atlantic Forests, Brazil.
*Biological Conservation* 95: 49-56.

Cullen, L. Jr.; Bodmer, R. E. & Valladares-Pádua, C. 2001. Ecological
consequences of hunting in Atlantic Forest patches, São Paulo, Brazil.
*Oryx* 35: 137-144.

Cullen, L. Jr.; Schmink, M.; Valladares-Padua, C. & Rodriguez Morato, M.
I. 2001. Agroforestry benefit zones: a tool for the conservation and
management of Atlantic Forest Fragments, Sao Paulo, Brazil. *Natural
Areas Journal* 21: 346-356.

Davies, K. F.; Gascon, C. & Margules, C. R. 2001. Habitat fragmentation:
consequences, management, and future research priorities. In: M. E.
Soulé and G. H. Orians (Editors), *Conservation Biology: Research
Priorities for the Next Decade*. Island Press, Washington D.C.; pp
81-97.

Dean, W. 1995. *With Broadax and Firebrand: The destruction of the
Brazilian Atlantic Forest*. University of Chicago Press, London.

Di Bitetti, M. S. 2001. Home range use by the tufted capuchin monkey,
*Cebus apella nigritus*, in a subtropical rainforest of Argentina.
*Journal of Zoology, London* 253: 33-45.

Di Bitetti, M. S. Unpublished manuscript. Seasonal patterns of arthropod
abundance in the subtropical forest of Iguazú National Park, Argentina

Di Bitetti, M. S. & Janson, C. H. 2001. Reproductive socioecology of
tufted capuchins (*Cebus apella nigritus*), in northeastern Argentina.
*International Journal of Primatology*. 22(2): 127-142.

Dinerstein, E.; Powell, G.; Olson, D.; Wikramanayake, E.; Abell, R.;
Loucks, C.; Underwood, E.; Allnutt, T.; Wettengel, W.; Ricketts, T.;
Strand, H.; O´Connor, S.; Burgess, N. & Mobley, M. 2000. A workbook for
conducting biological assessments and developing Biodiversity Visions
for ecoregion conservation. Part I: Terrestrial Ecoregions. WWF,
Conservation Science Program.

Dobson, A.; Ralls, K.; Foster, M.; Soulé, M. E.; Simberloff, D. Doak,
D.; Estes, J. A.; Mills, L. S.; Mattson, D.; Dirzo, R.; Arita, H.; Ryan;
S.; Norse, E. A.; Noss, R. F, & Johns, D. 1999. Corridors, reconnecting
fragmented landscapes. In: M. E. Soulé and J. Terborgh (Editors),
*Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve
Networks*. The Wildlands Project, Island Press, Washington D.C.; pp
129-170.

Facetti, J., and Stichler W. 1995. Analysis of Concentration of
Environmental Isotopes in Rainwater and Groundwater from Paraguay.
International Seminar of Isotopic Hydrology. IAEA- Vienna.

Fahey. C & Langhammer. P. F. (in press). The effects of dams on
biodiversity in the Atlantic Forest. In: Guzmao Camara & C. Galindo Leal
(Editors). *The State of the Hotspots: The Atlantic Forest*. Center for
Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, Washington
D.C..

Fernández, R.; Lupi, A. M. & Pahr, N. M. 2000. Land aptitude for forest
plantations. Province of Misiones. Informe para Fundación Vida Silvestre
Argentina.

Ferraz, G.; Russell, G. J.; Bierregaard, R. O.; Pimm, S. L. & Lovejoy,
T. E. In press. Rates of species loss from Amazonian forest fragments.
*Nature.*

Fili, M., E.F. Rosa Filho, M. Auge, J.M. Xavier. 1998. Acuífero Guarani:
Un Recurso Compartido por Argentina, Brasil, Paraguay y Uruguay (América
del Sur). Boletín del Instituto Tecnológico Geominero de España. Madrid
-- España. Vol. 109(4):73.78.

Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica 1998. Atlas da evolução dos remanescentes
florestais e ecossistemas associados no domínio da Mata Atlântica no
Período 1990-1995. Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica, Instituto Nacional de
Pesquisas Espaciais and Instituto Socioambiental. São Paulo.

Furlan, S. A.; Arruda Sampaio, F. A. & Gomide, M. L. 2000. Diagnóstico
sócio ambiental das Ecorregiôes da Mata Atlântica (texto preliminar de
circulação restrita). Department of Geography, University of Sao Paulo.
Report to WWF-Brazil.

F.V.S.A. 1996. La represa de Corpus Christi y otras obras en la Cuenca
del Plata. Informe de la Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, Buenos
Aires. 60 pp.

García Fernández, J. 2002. El Corredor Verde de Misiones: una
experiencia de planificación a escala bio-regional. In: R. Burkart, J.
P. Cinto, J. C. Chébez, J. García Fernández, M. Jager & E. Riegelhaupt
(Editors*). La Selva Misionera: Opciones para su Conservación y Uso
Sustentable*. FUCEMA, Buenos Aires, pp. 17-71.

Gascon, C.; Lovejoy, T. E.; Bierregaard Jr., R. O.; Malcolm, J. R.;
Stouffer, P. C.; Vasconcelos H. L.; Laurence, W. F.; Zimmerman, B.;
Tocher, M & Borges, S. 1999. Matrix habitat and species richness in
tropical forest remnants. *Biological Conservation* 91:223-229.

Giraudo, A. R. & Abramson, R. R. 1998. Usos de la fauna silvestre por
los pobladores rurales en la selva Paranáense de Misiones: tipos de uso,
influencia de la fragmentación y posibilidades de manejo sustentable.
Boletín técnico \# 42 de la Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina.

Giraudo. A. R.; Povedano, H.; Belgrano, M. J.; Krauczuk, E.; Pardiñas,
U.; Miquelarena, A.; Ligier, D.; Baldo, D. & Castelino, M. in press.
Biodiversity Status of the Interior Atlantic Forest of Argentina. In:
Guzmao Camara & C. Galindo Leal (Editors). *The State of the Hotspots:
The Atlantic Forest*. Center for Applied Biodiversity Science,
Conservation International, Washington D.C..

Hodge, S. S.; Hering de Queiroz, M. & Reis, A. 1997. Brazil´s National
Atlantic Forest policy: a challange for state-level environmental
planning. The case of Santa Catarina, Brazil. *Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management* 40: 335-348.

Holz, S. & Placci, L. G. (in press). The Socioeconomic Roots of
Biodiversity Loss in Misiones. In: Guzmao Camara & C. Galindo Leal
(Editors). *The State of the Hotspots: The Atlantic Forest*. Center for
Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, Washington
D.C.

Huszar, P.; Petermann, P.; Leite, A.; Resende, E.; Schnack, E.
Schneider, E.; Francesco, E.; Rast, G.; Schnack, J.; Wasson, J.; García
Lozano, L.; Dantas, M.; Obrdlik, P. & Pedroni, R. 1999. Hechos o
Ficción: Un Análisis de los Estudios Oficiales de la Hidrovía
Paraguay-Paraná. Toronto, Canadá. Fondo Mundial para la Naturaleza
(WWF). 45 pp.

Jacobsen, T. in press. Endangered forests, vanishing peoples:
biocultural diversity and indigenous knowledge. In: Guzmao Camara & C.
Galindo Leal (Editors). *The State of the Hotspots: The Atlantic
Forest*. Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation
International, Washington D.C..

Johnson, A. E. 2001. *Las orquídeas del Parque Nacional Iguazú*.
Literature of Latin America (LOLA), Buenos Aires. 282 pp.

Klein, B. C. 1989. Effects of forest fragmentation on dung and carrion
beetle communities in Central Amazonia. *Ecology* 70: 1715-1725.

Laclau, P. 1994. La conservación de los recursos naturales y el hombre
en la Selva Paranáense. Boletín Técnico nº 20 de la Fundación Vida
Silvestre Argentina.

Laurence, W. F.; Ferreira, L. V.; Gascon, C. & Lovejoy, T. E. 1998.
Biomass loss in Amazonian forest fragments. *Science* 282: 1161.

Laurence, W. F.; Vasconcelos, H. L. & Lovejoy, T. E. 2000. Forest loss
and fragmentation in the Amazon: implications for wildlife conservation.
*Oryx* 34: 39-46.

Ligier, H. D. 2000. Caracterización geomorfológica y edáfica de la
provincia de Misiones. Informe para Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina.
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Corrientes.

Mac Donagh, P.; Gauto, O.; Lopez Cristóbal, L.; Vera, N.; Figueredo, S.;
Fernández, R.; Garibaldi, J.; Alvez, M.; Keller, H.; Marek, M.; Cavalin,
J. & Kobayashi, S. 2001. Evaluation of forest harvesting impacts on
forest ecosystems. In: S. Kobayashi, J. W. Turnbull, T. Toma, T. Mori &
N. M. N. A. Majid (Editors), *Rehabilitation of Degraded Tropical Forest
Ecosystems*. Center for International Forestry Research, Indonesia, Pp.
69-79.

Mittermeier, R. A.; da Fonseca G. A. B.; Rylands, A. B. & Mittermeier,
C. G. 1999. La Mata Atlántica. In: R. A. Mittermeier, N. Myers, P.
Robles Gil, C. G. Mittermeier (Editors). *Biodiversidad Amenazada: Las
Ecoregiones Terrestres Prioritarias del Mundo.* Conservation
International -- CEMEX, México, pp. 136-147.

Mittermeier, R. A., Myers, N., Thomsen, J. B., da Fonseca, G. A. B. and
Olivieri, S. 1998. Biodiversity hotspots and major tropical wilderness
areas: approaches to setting conservation priorities. *Cons. Biol*. 12:
516-520.

Mech, S. G. & Hallett, J. G. 2001. Evaluating the effectiveness of
corridors: a genetic approach. *Conservation Biology* 15: 467-474.

Murcia, C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for
conservation. *Trends in Ecology and Evolution* 10: 58-62.

Myers, N. 1988. Threatened biotas: hotspots in tropical forests. *The
Environmentalist* 8: 178-208.

Myers, N. 1990. The Biodiversity challenge: expanded hot-spots analysis.
*The Environmentalist* 10: 243-256.

Myers, N. et al. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation
priorities. *Nature* 403: 853-858.

Noss, R. F. 1992. The Wildlands Project: Land conservation strategy.
Wild Earth Special Issue -- The Wildlands Project: 10-25.

Noss, R. F.; O´Connell, M, A. & Murphy, D. D. 1997. *The Science of
Conservation Planning; Habitat Conservation Under the Endangered Species
Act*. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Novaro, A. J.; Bodmer, R. & Redford, K. H. 1999. Sustentabilidad de la
caza en el Neotrópico: ¿Cuán comunes son los sistemas de fuente y
sumidero? In: T. G. Fang, O. L. Montenegro & R. E. Bodmer (Editors),
*Manejo y Conservación de Fauna Silvestre en América Latina*. Pp. 27-31.

Olson, D. M. & Dinerstein, E. 1998. The Global 200: A representation
approach to conserving the earth´s most biologically valuable
ecoregions. *Conservation Biology* 12: 502-515.

Olson, D. M., E. Dinerstein, R., Abell, T. Allnutt, C. Carpenter, L.
McClenachan, J. D'Amico, P. Hurley, K. Kassem, H. Strand, M. Taye, and
M. Thieme. 2000. *The Global 200: A Representation Approach to
Conserving the Earth's Distinctive Ecoregions*[.]{.smallcaps}
Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund-US.

Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E.; Wikramanayake, E.D.; Burgess, N.D.; Powell,
G.V.N.; Underwood, E.C.; D\'Amico, J.A.; Strand, H.E.; Morrison, J.C.;
Loucks, C.J.; Allnutt, T.F.; Lamoreux, J.F.; Ricketts, T.H.; Itoua, I.;
Wettengel, W.W.; Kura, Y.; Hedao, P. and Kassem, K. 2001. Terrestrial
ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on Earth. BioScience 51(11):
933-938.

Pereira Leite Pitman, M. R.; Gomez de Oliveira, T.; Cunha de Paula, R. &
Indruciak, C. 2002. Manual de Identificação, prevenção e controle de
predação por Carnívoros. Ediçoes IBAMA, Brasilia.

Peres, C. A. 1999. Effects of subsistence hunting and forest types on
the structure of Amazonian primate communities. In: J. G. Fleagle, C.
Janson & K. E. Reed (Editors). *Primate Communities*. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, U.K.. Pp. 268-283.

Placci. G. 2000. El desmonte en Misiones: impactos y medidas de
mitigación. In: C. Bertonatti & J. Corcuera. *Situación Ambiental
Argentina 2000*. Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, Buenos Aires,
Argentina. pp. 349-354.

Placci, L. G.; Arditi, S. I. & Cioteck, L. E. 1994. Productividad de
hojas, flores y frutos en el Parque Nacional Iguazú, Misiones.
*Yvyraretá* 5: 49-56.

Placci, L. G. & Giorgis, P. 1993. Estructura y diversidad de la selva
del Parque Nacional Iguazú, Argentina. VII Jornadas Técnicas sobre
Ecosistemas Forestales Nativos: Uso, Manejo y Conservación. Eldorado,
Misiones. Pp.123-138.

Protomastro, J. 2001. A test for pre-adaptations to human disturbances
in the bird community of the Atlantic Forest. In: J. L. B. Alburquerque,
J. F. Cândido, F. C. Straube & A. L. Roos (Editors.), *Ornitología e
Conservação: Da Ciência às Estratégias.* Editora Unisul, Tubarão - SC,
pp. 179-198.

Putz, F. E.; Redford, K. H.; Robinson, J. G.; Fimbel, R. & Blate, G. M.
2000. *Biodiversity Conservation in the Context of Tropical Forest
Management.* The World Bank, Environment Department Papers, Biodiversity
Series -- Impact Studies. Paper \# 75, 80 pp.

Rice, R. E.; Sugal, C. A.; Ratay, S. M. & da Fonseca, G. A. B. 2001.
Sustainable Forest Management: A Review of Conventional Wisdom.
*Advances in Applied Biodiversity Science* 3; 1-29, Washington DC:
CABS/Conservation International.

Rosenzweig, M. L. 1995. *Species Diversity in Space and Time*. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Saibene, C; Castelino, M.; Rey, N.; Calo, J. & Herrera, J. 1993.
*Relevamiento de aves del Parque Nacional Iguazú*. Literature of Latin
America (LOLA), Buenos Aires.

SEPA 2000. Bosque Atlántco Interior, Visión Biológica. Informe del
Sector Socio económico al WWF.

Schiaffino, K. 2000. Una experiencia de participación de productores
rurales en un proyecto de conservación de yaguareté en Misiones. In: C.
Bertonatti & J. Corcuera. *Situación Ambiental Argentina 2000*.
Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina. pp.
269-271.

Tabarelli, M.; Mantovani, W. & Peres, C.A. 1999. Effects of habitat
fragmentation on plant guild structure in the montane Atlantic forest of
southeastern Brazil. *Biological Conservation* 91: 119-127.

Terborgh, J.; Estes, J. A.; Paquet, P.; Ralls, K.; Boyd-Heger, D.;
Miller, B. J. & Noss, R. F. 1999. The role of top carnivores in
regulating terrestrial ecosystems. In: M. E. Soulé and J. Terborgh
(Editors), *Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional
Reserve Networks*. The Wildlands Project, Island Press, Washington D.C.;
pp 39-64.

Terborgh, J.; Lopez, L.; Nuñez, P.; Rao, M; Shahabuddin, G.; Orihuela,
G.; Riveros, M.; Ascanio, R.; Adler, G. H.; Lambert, T. D. & Balbas, L.
2001. Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest fragments. *Science*
294: 1923-1926.

Valladares-Padua, C.; Padua, S. M. & Cullen, L. Jr. 2002. Within and
surrounding the Morro do Diabo State Park: biological value, conflicts,
mitigation and sustainable development alternatives. Environmental
Science and Policy 5: 69-78.

The World Bank. Project Appraisal Document. Report Nº: 16770 PA.
Document of August 6, 1997.

WWF 2000. The Global 200 Ecoregions: A User´s Guide. World Wildlife
Fund, Washington, D.C., 33 pp.

Zuercher G.L; Gipson P. S. & Hill K. 2001. A Predator-Habitat Assessment
for Felids in the Inland Atlantic Forest of Eastern Paraguay: A
Preliminary Analysis. *Endangered Species UPDATE* 18: 115-119.

Zuloaga, F.; Morrone, O. & Belgrano, M. 2000. Características
biogeográficas de la provincia de Misiones. Instituto de Botanica
Darwinion. Informe para Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina.

# Appendix 1 {#appendix-1 .toc-small-caps}

Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest

# Ecoregion Action Plan {#ecoregion-action-plan .toc}

######## and 

# WWF Target Driven Programs {#wwf-target-driven-programs .toc}

The Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion Biodiversity Vision
(Biodiversity Landscape Design and Conservation Targets) prioritizes
actions that will contribute significantly to the achievement of targets
for two WWF Global Target Driven Programs (TDPs) -- *Forests for Life*
and the *Living Waters Campaign*. The following is a list of the
relevant TDP targets with explanations of how the Upper Paraná Atlantic
Forest Ecoregion Action Plan relates to them.

### Forests for Life

Target 1: (Protect)

The establishment and maintenance of viable representative networks of
protected areas in the world's threatened and most biologically
significant forest regions, by 2010

[Milestones]{.underline}:

## ***The completion of a gap and threat analyses for all focal forest ecoregions by 2002***

> Gap and threat analyses were conducted as part of the development of
> the Biodiversity Vision for this ecoregion.

***Identification and mapping of target Protected Area sites to enhance
representation of Protected Area systems in focal forest ecoregions by
2004***

The Biodiversity Vision includes a Biodiversity Conservation Landscape
designed to increase the representation of biodiversity under protection
as well as to protect forest blocks large enough to be resilient and
capable of maintaining viable populations of umbrella species and
healthy ecological processes. The Ecoregion Action Plan targets the
fine-scale landscape design of Core Areas and corridors to identify
specific sites for the creation of new protected areas.

***Management improved in 50 million ha of existing forest Protected
Areas by 2005***

The Ecoregion Action Plan targets:

-   Improved management of 791,775 ha of existing strictly protected
    areas (IUCN Categories I-III) by 2010.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Improved management of 1,413,991 ha of existing Sustainable Use
    Areas (IUCN Categories IV-VI) by 2010.

***50 million ha of new forest Protected Areas created in focal forest
ecoregions by 2005***

The Ecoregion Action Plan targets:

-   Creation of 728,025 ha of new strictly protected areas (in Core
    Areas and Potential Core Areas) by 2010.

-   Creation of 2,589,309 ha of new Sustainable Use Areas by 2050.

**Target 2: (Manage)**

***100 million ha of certified forests by 2005, distributed in a
balanced manner among regions, forest types, and land tenure regimes*.**

[Milestones]{.underline}**:**

***New working groups or national standards recognized by FSC in at
least 20 countries by 2004*.**

The Ecoregion Action Plan targets viability studies and initiatives
developed for forest certification under FSC as an alternative economic
activity targeting critical areas of the Biodiversity Conservation
Landscape by 2010. Brazil already has a national working group,
viability studies are currently underway for Paraguay, and a national
FSC working group was recently established in Argentina.

***High Conservation Value Forests national protocols in place in at
least 20 countries by 2005***

Argentina has established a commission to develop standards for the
Atlantic Forest and Brazil has recently established standards for the
Atlantic Forest. Our Ecoregion Action Plan targets this for Paraguay,
aiming to reduce the rate of Atlantic Forest conversion to soybean
cultivation.

***Community forest management protocols in place in at least 20
countries that can lead to, or maintain, community forest certification
by 2005***

We are evaluating the economic and biological viability of community
forest management for Sustainable Use Areas in Paraguay.

**Target 3: (Restore)**

***By 2005, at least 20 forest landscape restoration initiatives
underway in the world's threatened, deforested or degraded forest
regions to enhance ecological integrity and human well-being*.**

[Milestones]{.underline}**:**

A gap and threat analysis of priority conservation landscapes in all
focal forest ecoregions by 2002.

> The Biodiversity Vision includes gap and threat analyses**.**

Socioeconomic and ecological criteria and indicators for tracking
progress with forest landscape restoration developed by 2002

We are developing ecological indicators as a part of the process to
develop a monitoring mechanism for the Biodiversity Vision.

***At least 10 forest landscape restoration initiatives underway in the
world's threatened, deforested or degraded forest regions by 2003***

Over the next 50 years, the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape
identifies 2,606,678 ha requiring native forest restoration. We plan to
have a Forest Landscape Restoration Plot Project underway in the
Capanema-Andresito area of the *Iguaçu/Iguazú River Basin and Main
Corridor* by 2005. Funding proposals have already been developed in
2003. The project could begin as soon as funding is obtained.\
***The elimination of at least one economic, financial and/or policy
incentive that contributes to forest loss and/or degradation by 2004***

We are working to establish effective enforcement of the forest law in
Paraguay by 2005. In addition, we are working to establish economic
incentives to soy producers in Paraguay and Brazil and wood producers in
Argentina to reduce the rate of native forest conversion and to
encourage native forest restoration according to our Biodiversity
Landscape Design.

### Living Waters

**Target 1: (Water Infrastructure Development)**

**Ecological processes are maintained or restored in at least 50 large
catchment areas of high biodiversity importance by 2010**

[Milestones]{.underline}:

1\. Sustainable water or river basin management initiatives that promote
conservation and restoration of ecological processes of high priority
freshwater ecosystems are adopted by 2004 in at least 10 countries or
international processes.

Our Ecoregion Action Plan includes the development of a conservation
strategy to maintain ecological processes (watershed; catchment) for
three watersheds: the Iguassu River Basin (Brazil and Argentina), the
Jejui River Basin (Paraguay), and the Ilhas & Varzeas do Rio Paraná APA
portion of the Upper Paraná River Basin (Brazil and Paraguay). These
river basins are included in the Upper Paraná Global 200 Freshwater
Ecoregion as well as the terrestrial Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest
ecoregion.

> The Conservation Landscape Design calls for the fine-scale design and
> implementation of biological forest corridors along rivers and streams
> in these watersheds to connect *Core Areas* both surrounded by
> *Sustainable Use Areas* to maintain a minimum forest cover of 20% to
> maintain ecological processes (watersheds; catchments). To achieve
> these fine-scale landscape designs, we will need to develop and
> implement social and legal mechanisms to ensure effective
> participatory management.

By 2004 work is underway at key locations that results in cessation or
reorientation to of at least 10 water infrastructure developments that
threaten high priority freshwater ecosystems by 2007.

> Although systematic data on hydroelectric initiatives planned for the
> Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion was not available for our
> Biodiversity Vision analysis, we know that there are a significant
> number of dam projects under consideration for all three countries,
> mainly to supply electricity to the heavily-populated Rio de Janeiro -
> São Paulo region. We intend to monitor the plans for and construction
> of these new dams to minimize the threat they pose to both terrestrial
> and freshwater biodiversity. We view the existing dams in the region
> as potential opportunities to join watershed and biodiversity
> conservation efforts. The Itaipú Binational Dam (Paraguay and Brazil)
> is the largest in the world. We are establishing a technical
> partnership with Itaipú for implementation of the Biodiversity Vision
> in the dam's area of influence---right in the heart of the
> Biodiversity Conservation Landscape.

[^1]: The Atlantic Forests Global 200 Ecoregion is actually not one
    Ecoregion but a set of 15 terrestrial ecoregions characterized by
    tropical or subtropical forests. These 15 ecoregions form continuous
    tropical and subtropical forests that share a common biogeographic
    history and have many species in common, and for this reason WWF has
    considered them together as one Global 200 ecoregion.

[^2]: Original (or originally) refers to the time when the area was
    mostly covered by pristine native forest vegetation. That time
    roughly corresponds to the late 15^th^ and early 16^th^ centuries,
    coinciding with the arrival of the first European immigrants and the
    beginning of the rapid process of transformation of the forest into
    agricultural land. Prior to this time, native people likely impacted
    the ecoregion as a whole to a relatively small or medium degree.

[^3]: Individual plant communities of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest
    ecoregion are characterized by different soil types and the dominant
    tree species. In the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest, some of the
    typical communities include: palmito (*Euterpe edulis*) and palo
    rosa (*Aspidosperma polyneuron*) forests, bamboo forests (four
    species of bamboo are common in the ecoregion and are the dominant
    species in some areas), laurel forests (several species of trees
    within the genus *Nectandra* and *Ocotea* are common in this forest
    type). However, no detailed vegetation map exists for the entire
    ecoregion and there is not complete agreement on the nomenclature
    used for the different forest communities.

[^4]: See Acknowledgements.

[^5]: A landscape unit is a parcel of land of any size that is fairly
    uniform in certain characteristics (e.g., soil type, vegetation,
    land use, etc.) and differs from other such portions of land. In
    this particular analysis, we identified different landscape units
    based on abiotic characteristics (altitude, topography, rainfall,
    and seasonality) considered to be important determinants of
    biodiversity distribution. See Landscape Units Analysis in Chapter 4
    for details on how we identified landscape units.

[^6]: The term buffer zone is used in this document with two different
    meanings. Sometimes, as is used here and in GIS analyses, a buffer
    zone is an area of arbitrary size that surrounds any focal area: a
    city, a forest fragment, or an ecoregion. In other cases, we will
    use the term buffer zone as it is typically used in conservation
    biology: a transitional area that ameliorates the negative effects
    of human impacts on surroundings of a natural ecosystem, usually a
    strictly protected area.

[^7]: Umbrella species are those with very large area requirements.
    These species can be used as target species for conservation
    planning under the assumption that if we are able to preserve viable
    populations of them, we will preserve enough habitat for many other
    species with smaller area requirements. For a critical review of the
    umbrella species concept see Noss et al. 1997.

[^8]: Stakeholder---any person, group, or institution that affects or is
    affected by (either positively or negatively) a particular issue or
    outcome.

[^9]: See footnote 2

[^10]: Small forest fragments usually preclude the existence of a
    source-sink dynamics which may allow sustainable hunting (see Novaro
    et al. 1999).

[^11]: Most tropical and subtropical forests support less wildlife,
    especially ungulates and other large game animals, than tropical
    grasslands and savannas, because in the former, most productivity is
    located in the canopy (see Bennett & Robinson 2001, Bennett et al.
    2002)

[^12]: See footnote 5 on page 3 and Landscape Units Analysis on Chapter
    4.

[^13]: Although umbrella species remain in these large forest blocks,
    this is not an indication of their long-term survival in the forest
    remnant. Most of these forest blocks need to be connected to other
    forest remnants for the long term viability of these populations.

[^14]: See footnote 17.

[^15]: See Acknowledgements

[^16]: For example, in the Biodiversity Visions for the Southwestern
    Amazon Ecoregion, the Northern Andes Ecoregion, and the Madagascar
    Spiny Thicket Ecoregion.

[^17]: PROBIO is a project of the Ministry of Environment of Brazil for
    the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity. PROBIO
    identified priority areas and priority actions for the conservation
    of the Atlantic Forest (Conservation International of Brazil 2000).

[^18]: Our Ecoregion Action Plan includes field surveys to test the
    validity of the landscape units identified in this analysis and to
    assess whether there are Atlantic Forest species that are unique to
    the landscape units not represented in the Biodiversity Conservation
    Landscape. If there are, and these species do not require a large
    area to have a viable population (e.g., small vertebrate), the
    conservation of forest fragments in these landscape units could
    become part of the Biodiversity Conservation Landscape. See Chapter
    6.