Talk:Biodiversity hotspot

Question

Only a small percentage of the total land area within biodiversity hotspots is now protected. What is this percentage worldwide? My search yielded numbers for individual countries ranging from 6-27%.Marcus 04:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mention indiginous peoples ?

I was wondering whether indiginous peoples can be mentioned as a tool to police biodiversity hotspots. Some ethnic groups have expressed willingness to act as a "forest police" to protect a zone from illegal logging, dumping of waste, ...

See

• Reducing_Emissions_from_Deforestation_and_Forest_Degradation
• Talk:Indigenous_peoples#Participation_in_REDD

91.182.214.13 (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Marine lakes

Perhaps Marine lakes need to be mentioned ? Not sure whether all of these are situated within biodiversity zones, so could be of value to mention it here KVDP (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Price of conserving an area

According to Edward O. Wilson, the price to conserve an area would be as low as 25 USD per hectare in developing countries

I think it's notable enough to mention here ? 109.130.218.206 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Richest 80 people buying up biodiversity hotspots

According to Oxfam, the richest 80 people in the world hold 50% of all financial world of the entire world (1636 billion euro), see http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/wealth-having-it-all-and-wanting-more-338125, so if the these richest people would spend 1% (see http://onepercentfortheplanet.org/ ) to 10% of their wealth to buy up as much as possible land in the biodiversity hotspot regions, the regions could be protected much better. This, as the new owners can then demand the land to be made into no-go zones for people, and eliminate access paths and further development of infrastructure/access in these regions. That will in turn result in a elimination of illegal logging, and poaching (wood and bush meat/animal trade), as well as increased water and air pollution (from new/old factories). It hence will help to conserve our biodiversity, and also ensure that the ecosystem services of these zones (forests producing oxygen, filtering out toxic compounds from water/air, ...) continue to serve them, as well as the poor (as services are supplied to all people on the earth).

For the rich people buying up the forest, it is also beneficial/good investment, as the forests will never fall in financial value much (unlike regular currency), having land with much biodiversity will also become a status symbol, and it finally also benefits the poor as well (so helps them in promoting their public relations)

The amount that is payed by the mentioned 80 people will be used to compensate the poor people that owned the land (and/or the local government that still held unsold sections of biodiversity hotspots -destined for development-). The poor people can use that to relocate to nearby major cities. By relocating here, they might attain a more comfortable and hygienic living standard, and their pressure on the nearby environment is reduced significantly.

109.130.180.144 (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)