Pimm and Raven (2000) concluded that if no hotspots are saved, at the current rates of tropical forest extinction, about 50,000 species per million will be lost by 2060 CE. There are some hotspots currently under protection. If these are saved as they are now, by 2010 CE about 30,000 species per million will be lost and the rate of loss will slowly decline. If all the hotspots are saved, which does not seem possible, the current rate of species loss of about 18,000 species per million will decline. The rates of decline are related not merely to the actual rate of decline but also to the fact that fewer and fewer species will be left, decade after decade, to be lost.

        Myers et al., (2000) estimated that the protection of species at risk would cost about US$ 20 million per hotspot per year, over the next five years and so US$ 500 million, annually, for the 25 hotspots now identified. Another estimate suggests US$ 300 billion annually (James et al., 1999) and when subsidies on different accounts are added it is about US$ 1.5 trillion, annually, world-wide (Myers, 1999).

        Since in many parts of the world, it is not adequately known as to the kind and extent of biodiversity that exists and that requires protection, it is also necessary to conduct status surveys. It has been estimated that it requires about US$ 3 billion, and 150 years of time, just to draw up a list of life in the world (Donellan, 1995). With India harbouring a fairly large share of the world’s biodiversity (about one sixth), at least US$ 50 million would be needed to list the plant and animal species in India.

      To qualify to the list of hotspots, an area should have at least 0.5 per cent of all species of plants world-wide, as endemics. Hotspots are also identified, by some other researchers, on the basis of richness of rare or taxonomically unusual species, in the areas under threat. Recognition of hotspots is a pre-requisite to identify areas whose biodiversity needs urgent measures of protection.

      The following 24 areas, often termed as the micro-hotspots, have also been identified in India: Andamans, Nicobars, Agasthyar hills, Annamalai hills, Nilgiri-Silent valley, Palni hills, Shimoga-Kanara, Mahabaleshwar, Konkan, Satpura ranges, Tirupathi hills, Visakhapatnam hills, Deccan hills, Chotanagpur plateau, Kutch, Aravalli hills, Khasia-Jainitia hills, Patkoi-Lushai hills, Cachar-Mikir hills, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim Himalayas, Garhwal Himalayas, Lahul Himalayas and Kashmir Himalayas. Some of these areas are a part of the two Indian hotspots recognised by Myers et al., (2000), but the rest need to be carefully evaluated, as emotional compulsions often do not meet with scientific criteria.

       So long as no serious conservation measures are implemented, a mere recognition of hotspots does not serve any purpose. We need to gather a huge lot and range of basic information in order to make our conservation programmes successful. In most cases we do not even know what species occur in a specified area. Although a considerable lot of taxonomic work was carried out in India, a sad but largely true comment that applies to many floristic works, is that they are based on ‘road side surveys’. There is an urgent need for a systematic and through study of the recognised hotspot areas.

        The Indian Subcontinent Plant Specialist Group of the SSC, which met in January 1998, resolved that the most urgent action in the conservation of the Indian flora, is to conduct status surveys to identify the species that need protection by conservation.

        Defined areas, such as hotspots, totally protected from all activity and interference, have often been suggested as a measure of effective conservation. Sacred Groves (devara kaadu; God’s forest) are cited as models in this context. Sacred Groves are patches of vegetation of various dimensions and antiquity, attached to temples and temple lands, and protected on the fear of God, from all kinds of activity and exploitation, for very long periods of time. Sacred Groves, more frequent in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, than elsewhere, often have shown a vegetational composition different from outside the protected site in the same area. Even new species have been reported from Sacred Groves, as for example Kunstleria keralensis. In the absence of data from the time of inception of the Sacred Groves till now, to compare the floristic and other changes in these areas, comparison and assessment of the real benefits of cordoning off of vegetational areas are difficult. Even when an area is cordoned off to protect it from outside influences, a certain amount of biodiversity is lost in course of time and some amount of new diversity will show up, due to an interaction of internal factors. Such natural loss of biodiversity is continuous and imperceptible and is a part of the natural process of evolution. A study of Mukkuthala Kavu, a Sacred Grove in the Malappuram district of Kerala, a certain amount of disturbance was noticed (Nair et al., 1997), some of which is certainly due to internal factors.