Changes in the human footprint in and around Indonesia's terrestrial national parks between 2012 and 2017.

The human footprint (HF) was developed to measure of the impact of human activities on the environment. The human footprint has been found to be closely related to the vulnerability of protected areas around the world. In Indonesia, as nature conservation is still seen as hindering economic development, it is especially important to assess the human footprint in order to comprehend the overall pressures resulting from the various human activities on Indonesia's national parks. This study measured the change in the human footprint in and around 43 terrestrial national parks over 5 years, between 2012 and 2017. As many as 37 out of 43 NPs experienced an increase in the HF, ranging from 0.4 to 77.3%. Tanjung Puting in Kalimantan experienced the greatest increase (77.3%), while Ujung Kulon in Jawa Bali bioregion had the greatest decrease (10.5%). An increase in human population density and improved access to parks from roads, rivers and coastlines are the main drivers of increasing impacts on national parks.

Conservation resource allocation, small population resiliency, and the fallacy of conservation triage.

Some conservation prioritization methods are based on the assumption that conservation needs overwhelm current resources and not all species can be conserved; therefore, a conservation triage scheme (i.e., when the system is overwhelmed, species should be divided into three groups based on likelihood of survival, and efforts should be focused on those species in the group with the best survival prospects and reduced or denied to those in the group with no survival prospects and to those in the group not needing special efforts for their conservation) is necessary to guide resource allocation. We argue that this decision-making strategy is not appropriate because resources are not as limited as often assumed, and it is not evident that there are species that cannot be conserved. Small population size alone, for example, does not doom a species to extinction; plants, reptiles, birds, and mammals offer examples. Although resources dedicated to conserving all threatened species are insufficient at present, the world's economic resources are vast, and greater resources could be dedicated toward species conservation. The political framework for species conservation has improved, with initiatives such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and other international agreements, funding mechanisms such as The Global Environment Facility, and the rise of many nongovernmental organizations with nimble, rapid-response small grants programs. For a prioritization system to allow no extinctions, zero extinctions must be an explicit goal of the system. Extinction is not inevitable, and should not be acceptable. A goal of no human-induced extinctions is imperative given the irreversibility of species loss.

Asignación de Recursos para la Conservación, Resiliencia de Poblaciones Pequeñas y la Falacia del Triaje de Conservación Resumen Algunos métodos de priorización de la conservación están basados en el supuesto de que las necesidades de la conservación superan a los actuales recursos y que no todas las especies pueden ser conservadas; por lo tanto, se necesita un esquema de triaje (esto es, cuando el sistema está abrumado, las especies deben dividirse en tres grupos con base en su probabilidad de supervivencia y los esfuerzos deben enfocarse en aquellas especies dentro del grupo con las mejores probabilidades de supervivencia y a aquellas en el grupo sin probabilidades de supervivencia o aquellas en el grupo que no necesita esfuerzos especializados para su conservación se les deben reducir o negar los esfuerzos de conservación) para dirigir la asignación de recursos. Discutimos que esta estrategia para la toma de decisiones no es apropiada porque los recursos no están tan limitados como se asume con frecuencia y tampoco es evidente que existan especies que no puedan ser conservadas. Por ejemplo, tan sólo un tamaño poblacional pequeño no es suficiente para condenar a una especie a la extinción; contamos con ejemplos en plantas, reptiles, aves y mamíferos. Aunque actualmente todos los recursos dedicados a la conservación de todas las especies amenazadas son insuficientes, los recursos económicos mundiales son vastos y se podrían dedicar mayores recursos a la conservación de especies. El marco de trabajo político para la conservación de especies ha mejorado, con iniciativas como los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sustentable de la ONU y otros acuerdos internacionales, el financiamiento de mecanismos como el Fondo para el Medio Ambiente Mundial, y el surgimiento de muchas organizaciones no gubernamentales mediante programas de subsidios pequeños hábiles y de respuesta rápida. Para que un sistema de priorización no permita las extinciones, las cero extinciones deben ser un objetivo explícito del sistema. La extinción no es inevitable y no debería ser aceptable. El objetivo de cero extinciones inducidas por humanos es imperativo dada la irreversibilidad de la pérdida de especies.

Primates in peril: the significance of Brazil, Madagascar, Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo for global primate conservation.

Primates occur in 90 countries, but four-Brazil, Madagascar, Indonesia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)-harbor 65% of the world's primate species (439) and 60% of these primates are Threatened, Endangered, or Critically Endangered (IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017-3). Considering their importance for global primate conservation, we examine the anthropogenic pressures each country is facing that place their primate populations at risk. Habitat loss and fragmentation are main threats to primates in Brazil, Madagascar, and Indonesia. However, in DRC hunting for the commercial bushmeat trade is the primary threat. Encroachment on primate habitats driven by local and global market demands for food and non-food commodities hunting, illegal trade, the proliferation of invasive species, and human and domestic-animal borne infectious diseases cause habitat loss, population declines, and extirpation. Modeling agricultural expansion in the 21st century for the four countries under a worst-case-scenario, showed a primate range contraction of 78% for Brazil, 72% for Indonesia, 62% for Madagascar, and 32% for DRC. These pressures unfold in the context of expanding human populations with low levels of development. Weak governance across these four countries may limit effective primate conservation planning. We examine landscape and local approaches to effective primate conservation policies and assess the distribution of protected areas and primates in each country. Primates in Brazil and Madagascar have 38% of their range inside protected areas, 17% in Indonesia and 14% in DRC, suggesting that the great majority of primate populations remain vulnerable. We list the key challenges faced by the four countries to avert primate extinctions now and in the future. In the short term, effective law enforcement to stop illegal hunting and illegal forest destruction is absolutely key. Long-term success can only be achieved by focusing local and global public awareness, and actively engaging with international organizations, multinational businesses and consumer nations to reduce unsustainable demands on the environment. Finally, the four primate range countries need to ensure that integrated, sustainable land-use planning for economic development includes the maintenance of biodiversity and intact, functional natural ecosystems.