THREATS  TO  BIODIVERSITY  IN COCKPIT  COUNTRY

The following is taken from our report on the Biological Systems workshops which formed part of the "Parks-in-Peril" Site Conservation Planning (SCP) process.

Critical Threats to Cockpit Country Biodiversity are those which (1) affect multiple targets, and (2) affect the most highly threatened (i.e., poor viability) targets. This provides an Overall Threat rank for which threat abatement strategies should be developed.

For Cockpit Country, the most pressing critical threats affecting the functionality and long-term viability of the ecosystem are related to:

• Mining and quarrying activities
• Forest Conversion is related to agricultural practices, both historical:- clearing which contributed to an overall reduction in forest cover and fragmentation of remnant forest, and current practices:- shifting agriculture associated with poor cultivation practices;
• Alien invasive plant species, the establishments of which are facilitated by deforestation and fragmentation
• The persistence of non-dynamic gaps (e.g., trails).

While bauxite is not being extracted at present in Cockpit Country, the presence of bauxite deposits, existing prospecting leases issued by Government of Jamaica, and the irreversible effects to the landscape and biological diversity have long been cause for concern.
Conversion of forest has resulted in high intensity, widespread stresses among all conservation targets, either by altering ecological processes via reduced area, loss of connectivity or direct extirpation of species. The establishment of non-native plants is a threat to the Wet Limestone Forest across its total occurrence area, with as-yet unknown effects on native wildlife via habitat loss and degradation. There is additional concern for the possible mining of limestone in Cockpit Country.
Trails throughout Cockpit Country alter microclimate conditions, which in turn present barriers to dispersal for species with limited mobility, and facilitate the spread of invasive plant and animal species.

Because the conservation targets interact to create a functional landscape and are linked by a shared set of ecological processes, states, and gradients, reducing or eliminating key threats will be beneficial to all targets. This suggests that developing conservation strategies that address the underlying causes driving stakeholders to clear forest for agriculture, integrated with a forest restoration programme and strategy to address mining concerns will provide the most efficient and effective long-term protection for Cockpit Country biodiversity.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

In conjunction with developing conservation strategies, monitoring projects will be required: (1) to identify changes in threats to biodiversity, such as types of activities and their magnitudes, and the resultant effects (ecological monitoring), and (2) to determine the effectiveness of project interventions in mitigating or eliminating the threats to biodiversity and to ensure long-term sustainability of conservation endeavors (threat abatement & performance monitoring). The selection of appropriate indicators is critical to enable fine-scale adaptive management that can respond to short- and long-term changes in the environment.

Suitable indicators must:

• Address the appropriate spatial and temporal patterns of biodiversity
• Be direct measures or reliable proxies of threats to biodiversity
• Be direct measures or reliable proxies of project interventions
• Be measured objectively to ensure validity over time
• Allow for measuring by non-specialists, in particular local community members, without compromising data integrity
• Be relevant to local users so as to encourage long-term monitoring and protection after core funding terminates

Whereas most of the ecological monitoring will need to be overseen by trained specialists, such as a local scientific research coordinator, professional natural resource personnel, post-graduate students, parataxonomists, and trail guides (Table 20), community stakeholders will be able to participate in the socio-economic monitoring of threat abatement strategies (self-monitoring) (Table 21). Participatory monitoring will encourage ownership of the project and its continuation after termination of core funds. The examples of anthropogenic indicators of project success (Table 21) could serve as a foundation to increase dialog with community members (1) to solicit ideas for monitoring other natural resources utilized by citizens, (2) to monitor opportunities accrued through the project and (3) to monitor citizens' satisfaction and their role in conservation endeavors. Full development of plans for ecological and project performance monitoring (e.g., methods, timing, frequency, personnel, etc.) will be developed with inputs from the Stakeholder Situation Assessment.