If it is for plants, then it would be orientation to cultivation or re-introduction.

There are different methods for conservation of biodiversity, and there is a need to select based on the conservation objectives. Due to limited human, financial and material resources in most cases, prioritization of populations, species and ecosystems is an important step. On the other hand, since human impacts on biodiversity are escalating, there is a need to employ complementary in situ and ex situ conservation strategies. Moreover, conservation is not a one time event, but a continuous endeavour.

Yes I agree... depends on the situation, objective, budget, many things...

Could you, please, be more specific?

I think we maybe could pic a case of study or it was really a generic question?

if there was a method to conserve biodiversity, simple and effective it will use it. But there are a lot of different cases, and conservation biology, nothing is simple. The criterion biodiversity, species richness, is a guide to identify sites where there is a major conservation issue, where it is urgently needed to protect this heritage. But then the protection and management of this heritage through other criteria, such as the functionality of the ecosystems are protected, interactions between ecosystems and the other around the protected area ..... The biology conservation is not only the conservation of a species colection.

”which strategy can we use for conseving biodiversity?”

not the ones of the ministry of environment

the one from our country pays at each 5 years for a (usually the same) strategy for 30 years

in the last 20 years it became a (very profitable) business...

Think in legacies (not only in forests) and biodiversity will be happy (see our paper as example http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/bio.2012.62.7.6?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102526845553)

The strategy should cover people/ community, their values on biological diversity, goverment's honest commitment on conservation and changing climate, but it is not the all.

To be naïve or to be realistic?

The determining part of the world GDPs is invested to make new businesses and to pump out the resources (living and lifeless) of Mother Earth. Some minor part of the rest is thrown to the scientific community to make a wonder.

Balance for an average human being - if she/he has a chance - can be another beer or a hamburger.

Was this an economic or political question?

P.S. The aim of new businesses is to make new businesses.

First, habitat preservation conditions, the existence of legislation correctly and strictly enforced, with awareness of new generation on the protection of species to maintain a balance.

I think there is not a "best" strategy, there are many different strategies some more adequate in some conditions, other in other conditions. In general, invest in education of young generations, let grow the awareness of he value of nature.

There is an intrinsic tendency in market economies to promote reduction of biodiversity, in part due to maximizing profitable production for a market, in part due to the reductionist worldview that accompanies the latter. This must be dealt with in the long run.

In the shorter term, it is imperative that conservation efforts be accompanied by agrarian reform and other efforts aimed at achieving social equity for inhabitants, popular education, collective empowerment and grass-roots participation in formulating and implementing conservation efforts.

An example I was involved with: in Nicaragua, during the 1980s, the sea turtle conservation program on the country's Pacific Coast WORKED because it occurred in the context of an agrarian reform and social programs, which obviated the need for peasant farmers and urban poor to collect eggs to earn an income or feed themselves. The program employed a popular education approach and worked with grass roots organizations to formulate the conservation plan and enlist the residents to protect *their* natural resources.

As stated above there is no 'best strategy'. The fate of biodiversity is highly dependent upon the context in which it is being used or abused. An evidence-based approach seems to offer the best guarantees but it is unfortunately not that simple. In some instances, politics and economics often tend to overrule scientific advice while in other instances we may not have the time for time consuming surveys and research. A 'shoot first ask question later' approach along with monitoring of restoration trajectory may be better adapted for heavily impacted systems, especially when financial resources are scarce.

Hi there,

Since there are numerous ways for it and no "best strategy" as mentioned above. This book might help you find a strategy your looking for. I hope it helps.