State of the Wild 2010-2011: A Global Portrait

About the Wildlife Conservation Society Founded in 1895, the Wildlife Conservation Society saves wildlife and wild pla...

Author: Eva Fearn | Ward Woods

33 downloads 752 Views 9MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

About the Wildlife Conservation Society

Founded in 1895, the Wildlife Conservation Society saves wildlife and wild places through science, international conservation, education, and the management of the world’s largest system of urban wildlife parks, led by the flagship Bronx Zoo in New York City. Together these activities change attitudes toward nature and help people imagine wildlife and humans living in harmony. WCS is committed to this mission because it is essential to the integrity of life on Earth.

2010–2011

S TAT E

OF THE A Global Portrait

WILD

State of the Wild Kent H. Redford, series editor Eva Fearn, volume editor Catherine Grippo, photo editor Sandra Alcosser, poetry editor Ken Kostel, developmental editor Editorial Board: Debbie Behler, Natalie Cash, Nancy Clum, Josh Ginsberg, Stephen Sautner, Bill Weber, Peter Zahler State of the Wild 2006: A Global Portrait of Wildlife, Wildlands, and Oceans, edited by Sharon Guynup, with a special section, “Hunting and Wildlife Trade” State of the Wild 2008-2009: A Global Portrait of Wildlife, Wildlands, and Oceans, edited by Eva Fearn, with a special section, “Emerging Diseases and Conservation: One World–One Health” State of the Wild 2010-2011: A Global Portrait, edited by Eva Fearn, with a special section, “Wildlife Conservation in a Time of War”

2010–2011

S TAT E

OF THE

WILD

A Global Portrait

With a special section

Wildlife Conservation in a Time of War vo lum e e di to r

Eva Fearn se ri e s e di to r

Kent H. Redford

Wildlife Conservation Society fo re wo rd b y

Ward Woods

washington ❘ covelo ❘ london

Copyright © 2010 Wildlife Conservation Society All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher: Island Press, 1718 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20009, USA. ISLAND PRESS is a trademark of The Center for Resource Economics.

Grateful acknowledgment is expressed for permission to reprint the following selections: Anonymous (twelfth-century Sanskrit), “Water pouring from clouds,” translated by W. S. Merwin with J. Moussaieff Masson from East Window: The Asian Translations (Port Townsend, Wash.: Copper Canyon Press, 1998). Copyright © 1998 by W. S. Merwin. Reprinted with the permission of the Wylie Agency. Wendell Berry, “To the Unseeable Animal,” from The Selected Poems of Wendell Berry. Copyright © 1998 by Wendell Berry. Reprinted with the permission of Counterpoint. Michael Longley, excerpt from “The Snow Leopard,” from The Weather in Japan, published by Jonathan Cape. Originally published in the New Yorker (March 10, 1997). Copyright © 1997, 2000 by Michael Longley. Reprinted by permission of The Random House Group Ltd. W. S. Merwin (trans.), excerpt from “Korean Figures,” from East Window: The Asian Translations (Port Townsend, Wash.: Copper Canyon Press, 1998). Copyright © 1973 by W. S. Merwin. Reprinted with the permission of the Wylie Agency. Naomi Shihab Nye, “Shoulders,” from Red Suitcase. Copyright © 2000 by Naomi Shihab Nye. Reprinted with the permission of BOA Editions Ltd., www.boaeditions.org. Mary Oliver, “Sleeping in the Forest,” from Twelve Moons. Originally published in the Ohio Review. Copyright © 1978 by Mary Oliver. Reprinted with the permission of Little, Brown & Company. Kay Ryan, “How Birds Sing,” from Elephant Rocks. Copyright ©1997 by Kay Ryan. Reprinted with the permission of Grove/Atlantic. ISSN 1556-0619 ISBN (cloth) 978-1-59726-677-2 ISBN (paper) 978-1-59726-678-9 The opinions expressed in this book are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Wildlife Conservation Society.

Printed on recycled, acid-free paper

Manufactured in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Thank you earth, you know the way. m ohawk

BLESSING

Contents

by the numbers

Wildlife Conservation in a Time of War

foreword

Conservation and the Global Economic Recession Ward Woods

introduction

Future States of the Wild Kent H. Redford

2

pa rt 1

State of the Wild

5

State of the Wild: Wounded Wilderness Gary Paul Nabhan

6

g lo bal conservation news highlight s

xi xiii

11

Africa

12

Asia

15

Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands

19

Central and South America

23

Europe

27

North America

31

Oceans

35

Discoveries Josh Ginsberg, Catherine Grippo, and Jane Perrino The Rarest of the Rare: Some of the World’s Most Endangered Animals Rarest Ecosystems Patrick Comer

38

44 50

Emerging Diseases and Conservation: An Update on One World–One Health William B. Karesh

52

Champions of the Wild

59

pa rt i i

Focus on the Wild

63

Wildlife Conservation in a Time of War Conservation Amid War Jeffrey A. McNeely Conservation and Governance: Lessons from the Reconstruction Effort in Afghanistan Peter Zahler

pa rt i i i

64

72

Marine Life in Times of Conflict Callum M. Roberts

81

Who Owns the Wild? Civil Conflict in Africa Simon Anstey, Fred Nelson, and Liz Rihoy

88

Parks as Peace Makers: The Peru–Ecuador Divide Virginia Rosas

96

Emerging Issues in the Wild

105

conse rvation of wildlife

106

Vanishing Asian Turtles Peter C. H. Pritchard

107

What Future for Forest Elephants? Stephen Blake and Simon Hedges

114

Restoration of the Guanaco, Icon of Patagonia Andrés J. Novaro

122

Changing Flyways: Migratory Birds in a Warming World Janice Wormworth conse rvation of wild places The Boreal Forest: Trouble in Canada’s Great Wilderness Peter Lee

129 138 139

Inspiring Ocean Conservation Claudio Campagna

146

The Wild and the City Steward T. A. Pickett

153

Life Waters: Wetlands and Climate Change Carmen Revenga and Max Finlayson

160

Conservation Controversy: Can Paying for Ecosystem Services Save Biodiversity? Will Stolzenburg

167

t h e art and pr actice of conservation

174

Faith, Hope, and Conservation Martin Palmer and Tony Whitten

175

Canine Detection Teams and Conservation Megan Parker and Aimee Hurt

183

Agriculture and Wildlife in Europe Nigel Dudley and Sue Stolton

189

The Dilemma of Confiscated Wildlife Michael Hutchins

196

The Evolving Practice of Conservation in Rwanda Bill Weber

203

Final Thoughts 213 Safe Havens for Wildlife and People in Contested Holy Lands Gary Paul Nabhan and Michael L. Rosenzweig Acknowledgments

219

Notes

221

Index

235

BY T HE NU MBER S

Wildlife Conservation in a Time of War

Sudan has the largest population of internally displaced persons and international refugees in the world: over 5 million. Displacement at such a scale has resulted in significant environmental damage and has led to conflicts over natural resources. Political instability in Sudan has also led to poaching in neighboring Central African Republic.1 Poverty and conflict go hand-in-hand. Over the past 15 years, approximately 80 percent of the world’s 20 poorest countries have experienced a major war. Countries emerging from war have a 44 percent chance of relapsing within 5 years.2 A 1993 survey of Rwanda’s Akagera National Park revealed that an estimated 90 percent of large mammal species, including lions, impala, and buffalo, were lost from the park as a result of the civil war that began in 1990.3 Colombia’s Caño Limon-Coveñas oil pipeline has been bombed by guerrilla forces about 1,000 times in the past 20 years. The resulting oil spills have caused severe damage to some of the country’s rivers and wildlife.4 During years of civil unrest in Chad, conservation work in and around Zakouma National Park had increased the elephant population from 1,100 animals in 1985 to about 3,500 in 2006. Chad’s elephant population is under severe threat again due to lawlessness and poaching.5 Six hundred rangers currently guard the rich biodiversity of Virunga National Park, Africa’s oldest park, in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Since 1996, 120 park rangers have been killed by armed rebels.6 Over 100 million land mines have been planted around the world and remain active long after conflicts are over. An estimated 20,000 people are killed or injured by land mines each year. The number of livestock and wild animals

By the Numbers • xi

affected is likely much higher, including antelopes and elephants in Angola and Zimbabwe. The presence of mines discourages ecotourism and field conservation activities.7 National borders are prime conflict zones, so establishing transboundary protected areas (TBPAs) is important for conserving the natural resources found in these regions. As of 2007, there were 227 TBPAs around the world, covering over 1.8 million square miles (4.6 million km2).8 Illegal logging was widespread in Cambodia during the country’s 30-plus years of civil war, and the corruption continues today. Cambodia’s total forest cover plummeted from nearly 75 percent in the 1960s to about 56 percent in 2006.9 Over 80 percent of the major armed conflicts that occurred between 1950 and 2000 took place within biodiversity hotspots, which are defined by Conservation International as areas that have lost at least 70 percent of their original habitat and contain at least 1,500 species of endemic plants.10 During the Vietnam War, the US military used bombs and toxic agents to defoliate an estimated 36 percent of southern Vietnam’s 719,000 acres (291,000 ha) of coastal mangroves. More than half of the 99,000 acres (40,000 ha) of mangroves destroyed in Can Gio, Ho Chi Minh City, were reforested between 1978 and 1999.11 At least two-thirds of current social and political conflicts are driven in part by contested claims to land.12

xii • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

FOR EWOR D

Conservation and the Global Economic Recession WA R D WO O D S

he world is reeling from the global economic recession that took firm hold in 2009. Its widespread and interconnected nature has practically crippled our modern banking institutions and baffled economists. As countries struggle with debt, particularly in the developing world, many will experience a prolonged period of economic malaise, with high unemployment rates and reduced standards of living. For the countries that contain our last wild places, a decrease in global consumption of natural resources could offer a reprieve for biodiversity. In fact, the recession has reduced demand for and exploitation of some natural resources. For example, Malaysia and Indonesia have lowered the targeted acreage of rainforest to be converted to palm oil plantations, a relief to orangutans and other forest wildlife. By the same token, a reduction in economic security may prove detrimental to wild places—local communities and national governments may sell rights to extract natural resources in order to receive much-needed immediate income, shelving good conservation regulations in the process. Regardless of unpredictable economic factors, conservation organizations such as the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) will continue the vital work of protecting our planet’s precious species and ecosystems. In its 100-plus year history, WCS’s science-based approach to conservation has survived other recessions, and its investment in conservation has proven to be quite a bargain. WCS’s $200 million annual operating budget directly helps to conserve

T

WARD WOODS is chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Wildlife Conservation Society; a former trustee of Stanford University and chairman of the Stanford Management Company; chairman of the Advisory Board of the Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University; a trustee of the Packard Foundation; a member of the Council on Foreign Relations; and a director of several private companies. Foreword • xiii

at least one quarter of all the world’s biodiversity contained within the 200 million acres where WCS works—that equals one dollar per acre, an incredible value per dollar. Funding to support conservation efforts must come from private donations, governments, and bilateral donor agencies, and all three of these sources have been affected by the global recession. Government and bilateral donor agencies tend to use their financial resources to prioritize economic development and social safety networks over wildlife conservation. Remaining funds may go toward mitigating and adapting to climate change. At the same time, foundations that historically have supported conservation may reduce their grants. As of early 2009, foundations reported an average 30 percent decline in their endowments from their previous highs. To effectively achieve durable conservation results regardless of the global economy, conservation organizations must identify and seize innovative new opportunities. In wild places, such as the rich forests of Cameroon and Congo, logging concessions have recently been marked, roads have been cut, and species such as chimpanzees and forest elephants have been disturbed. But the market for expensive tropical timber has recently shrunk, causing a decrease in the value of logging concessions and presenting an opportunity to acquire these concessions for conservation. Similarly, opportunities may open up to buy out hunting leases, mining rights, or even fishing concessions. Other opportunities may lie in new partnerships. As this edition of State of the Wild makes clear, biodiversity conservation is intricately linked to factors as varied as rural livelihoods and political stability, which could encourage new partnerships to address several facets of conservation both comprehensively and simultaneously. Recognizing this, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has increased funds for programs that seek to promote environmental conservation, economic development, and democratization. Such programs include building sustainable natural resource management in Afghanistan, a place notable as a crossroads for species from three faunal realms. Another opportunity for new partnerships lies in climate change offset programs that may pay for preserving intact forests. For example, WCS plans to “sell” the carbon currently secured in Makira Forest, Madagascar, in a developing international market for “avoided deforestation” credits. The funds from these carbon offsets will support the conservation of lemurs and reptiles in this forest, and will be disbursed to the local people, helping to alleviate poverty and build security. Finally, by strengthening their strategies, conservation organizations can invest in the future and position themselves for the eventual economic upturn. The first rule during economic hard times is to match inflows and outflows. WCS and other conservation organizations are systematically assessing vulnerabilities and increasing efficiency of operations while cutting operating costs. xiv • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Every dollar should be used for conservation. This means that some activities not directly tied to the mission of saving wildlife and wild places may cease. In the process of streamlining, conservation organizations should also decide which species and places are most essential for conservation, and where effort will yield the greatest conservation impact. Finally, to fund this continued work, conservation organizations need to reach new audiences and highlight the fact that conservation is in humankind’s best interest. Ultimately, the value of conservation is that sustaining wild places and biodiversity today will ensure a better future for the planet and humanity. Thank you for reading State of the Wild as part of this journey.

wa rd wo o ds n e w yo rk ci ty n ov e m b e r 2 009

Foreword • xv

2010–2011

S TAT E

OF THE A Global Portrait

WILD

Introduction: Future States of the Wild KENT H. REDFORD t is a remarkable thing that Afghanistan, in the midst of its long spiral of violence, recently declared its first national park. Band-e-Amir National Park, in the foothills of the Hindu Kush, was formally designated on April 22, 2009. When visiting this area in 1978, I was struck by the stunning juxtaposition of the azure blue waters, contained in intricate natural dams, and the tawny mountains. The dry, windy silence was broken only by the sound of small waterfalls. It is a beautiful place, displaying its life subtly and its scenery brazenly. Though much of the wildlife has disappeared from the area, it still contains ibex (a type of wild goat) and urial (a type of wild sheep), along with wolves, foxes, smaller mammals, and fish. The new park will also protect a broad range of bird species, including the Afghan snow finch (Montifringilla theresae), believed to be the only bird found exclusively in Afghanistan. Creating the park was not easy, and sustaining it will be no easier. This act is a testament to the desire of the local people and the foresight of the Afghan government. Aldo Leopold wrote of living in a “world of wounds” due to the impacts humans have had on the natural world.1 Unfortunately, this world of wounds extends to the violence done by people to other people, apparently an inescapable part of our human heritage, which, tragically, does not exist independent of violence toward the natural world. As in Afghanistan, all too often these two types of violence are intertwined, with environmental destruction either a strategy, a result of the conflict itself, or a consequence of the after-

I

KENT H. REDFORD is director of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Institute and vice president for conservation strategy at WCS. He previously worked at The Nature Conservancy and the University of Florida. His areas of interest include biodiversity conservation, sustainable use, the politics of conservation, and the mammals of South America. 2 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

math. But healing is possible, and the creation of Band-e-Amir National Park is a manifestation of the power of conservation to provide hope. In these times of financial upheaval and far-reaching social change, hope is a currency in short supply. But we can draw hope from conservation and create hope through conservation. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Institute created the State of the Wild series in 2006 as a vehicle for building support for the values of saving the wild. With this series, we aim to inform and inspire others who dream of the wild and care about ensuring its future. Our objective is to fulfill a need for a science-based publication that focuses on achievable conservation of wildlife and wild places. We have four main goals: (1) to put out in the public forum insightful, timely analyses of the most pressing global conservation issues; (2) to present conservation news highlights; (3) to promote innovative, science-based solutions to conservation problems; and (4) to influence global public policy. We explore both successes and shortcomings of conservation practice based on WCS’s more than 100 years of doing conservation, and highlight an emerging theme of particular importance in each edition. The first volume of State of the Wild featured a section on hunting and wildlife trade, and the second volume focused on the intersection of the health of wildlife, domestic animals, and humans. This third volume focuses on the interplay between conservation and war through five essays examining how the wild has been affected during times of human conflict, and how conservation can, in some circumstances, help ameliorate the effects of conflict. This theme is complemented by a range of essays clustered into sections addressing conservation of wildlife, conservation of wild places, and the art and practice of conservation. We have drawn upon the talents of scientists from WCS and other institutions, as well as environmental authors and poets. In times of human crisis, it is easy to lose touch with the indispensable role nature plays in the continuing survival of humankind. Humans have become the most significant evolutionary force acting on the nonhuman world, but we remain largely ignorant of that which we are molding. For example, despite millennia of living with storks, people in Europe did not know where they flew when they disappeared each fall. As we see later in this volume, it was not until 1822, when a stork pierced with an arrow of unmistakable African origin returned to Germany, that stork migration to Africa was understood.2 This pfeilstorch (a stork struck with an arrow), one of some 20 known from Europe, was, of course, shot, stuffed, and placed in a museum. Although we remain the dominant evolutionary force, perhaps our impacts can be changed to bring a better life to both humans and the millions of other species that share the planet with us. We hope that State of the Wild can play a small part in this change.

Introduction • 3

To the Unseeable Animal Being, whose flesh dissolves at our glance, knower of the secret sums and measures, you are always here, dwelling in the oldest sycamores, visiting the faithful springs when they are dark and the foxes have crept to their edges. I have come upon pools in streams, places overgrown with the woods' shadow, where I knew you had rested, watching the little fish hang still in the flow; as I approached they seemed particles of your clear mind disappearing among the rocks. I have waked deep in the woods in the early morning, sure that while I slept your gaze passed over me. That we do not know you is your perfection and our hope. The darkness keeps us near you. Wen dell Berry

4 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

PART I

STAT E OF T HE W I L D

ur planet’s wild places—its myriad forests, grasslands, freshwaters, scrublands, and deserts, not to mention the largely unknown oceans—contain boundless biological interconnections. Exploring the natural world, directly through research and travel or indirectly through films and books, provides us an education on how wonderful and varied ecosystems are, and how our human societies are degrading the planet. Here, in State of the Wild, we share information on emerging issues in the conservation of wildlife and wild places over the past two years. The opening essay, “State of the Wild: Wounded Wilderness,” reveals the discovery of mercury contamination in even our most remote wild places. Often, we hope that oceans, rivers, and forests will somehow absorb the unwanted output from our industries and cities, but the consequences of this practice are playing out on a planetary scale. From this overarching view, the focus narrows to showcase conservation victories and losses around the world in “Global Conservation News Highlights.” These serve to describe the present state of the wild and, in sum, are both comforting and worrisome. “Discoveries” synthesizes news from the past two years in a different way, highlight-

O

ing some of the new species that were discovered on the exhilarating expeditions of wildlife biologists and recreational naturalists. This is followed by “Rarest of the Rare,” a poignant catalogue of species in decline, some of which may not last beyond a few more generations unless conservation efforts are redoubled. We hope that “Rarest of the Rare,” rather than serving as an epitaph, will inspire a desire to learn more about wildlife and to work toward its long-term survival. The section continues as we follow a State of the Wild series tradition by returning to the theme of the previous volume (2008–2009)—Emerging Diseases and Conservation: One World–One Health—to explore why the intersection of wildlife, livestock, and human health continues to make headlines. With the background and context provided by these pieces, we can better appreciate the contributions made by the 2010–2011 “Champions of the Wild”—individuals who have truly dedicated their lives to conservation. Subsequent parts of the book analyze wildlife conservation challenges, both local and global, and contemplate the theme of this edition: the conservation of wildlife during times of conflict. We hope you are inspired by the science, issues, species, and places presented in this book. u

State of the Wild • 5

Source: Chlaus Lotscher/Peter Arnold, Inc.

Caribou bulls cross the Alatna River, Gates of the Arctic National Park, Alaska.


STATE OF THE WILD:

Wounded Wilderness G A R Y PA U L N A B H A N

y canoe skimmed along a small lake in Alaska where I had traveled for a fishing trip. The quiet was punctuated only by the rippling water and distant bird calls. As I looked out upon snow-capped peaks, coniferous forests, and meadows carpeted with blueberries, I spotted a trail frequented by Dall’s sheep (Ovis dalli dalli) and a few bears. I tried to imagine just how far south this boreal forest ecosystem stretched from Alaska into Canada, imagining the miles and miles of trees and wilderness that separated me from the distant cities I know. All I could see before me was the cold blue waters of Takahula Lake below the Arrigetch Peaks in the Brooks Range, some 70 miles from the nearest settlement of any size. I had not considered Russia and China across the Arctic Sea to the west, a source of airborne pollutants that blow into this area. But my mind would soon have to grapple with the fact that I was now enjoying a contaminated wilderness.

M

GARY PAUL NABHAN is founder and facilitator of the Renewing America’s Food Traditions collaborative and is based on Tumamoc Hill in Arizona, the first restoration ecology site in the world and home of the Alliance for Reconciliation Ecology. His latest book is titled Where Our Food Comes From. Wounded Wilderness • 7


Source: Michael S. Quinton/National Geographic Stock

I had been out canoeing on Takahula Lake since seven in the morning, but the Arctic dawn had already occurred many hours earlier. It was July in the Gates of the Arctic National Park, and I was the only one on the water. That is to say, the only human, but there were plenty of Pacific loons (Gavia pacifica) and trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinator), as well as moose wading on the far side of the lake. The air was crisp and clear; the water fresh from glacier melt; it seemed for a moment that I was partaking in the quintessential wilderness experience. As I cast my line toward a shallow shoal between me and the shore, I saw the shimmering serpentine body of a green-spotted northern pike (Esox lucius) dodge its splash, then turn and spot the spoon-shaped lure. The fish lunged toward the lure, its boney jaw clamping down hard on the hook. Within half a minute, I had the pike in my hands, a sleek, 16-inch body quivering within my firm grip. I was thrilled. But as I set about removing the hook from its upper jaw, I remembered what park ranger Pete Christian had said when Inupiaq elder James Nageak and I had gone out fishing the day before. Pete did not want to discourage us from fishing altogether but asked us to consider catch and release for a peculiar reason: high levels of mercury had been found in lake trout in the Gates of the Arctic National Park and the Noatak National Preserve. Many of the fish in a number of freshwater lakes in

Levels of methylmercury found in loons’ blood and feathers serve as an indicator of the health of North American lakes.

Alaska were already unfit to eat on a regular basis, primarily as a result of airborne contaminants that had blown in from factories and power stations thousands of miles away. Mercury? I was astounded that fish in a wilderness lake contained enough methylmercury to cause neurological damage and impair reproductive

health in people as well as in other fish-eating animals. Because the risk threshold for humans is the consumption of only two fish per month, some physicians discourage anyone from eating more than six ounces of any kind of fish per week, and they warn pregnant women against eating fish considered to be “apex predators.”

The assessment concluded that, lakes in national parks across western North America. Two bodies of fresh- for the past 140 years, mercury had water not far from Takahula—Burial been accumulating on most lake Lake and Matcharak Lake—were among those sampled for evidence of airborne contaminants that can bioaccumulate up the food chain. The fish inhabiting these lakes carried not only dangerously high levels of mercury but also problematic levels of the insecticide dieldrin, a toxin known to be an immunesystem depressant and endocrine disrupter, banned in the United States since 1987. Even though both lakes have relatively small watersheds nested entirely within the largest intact wilderness forest area remaining on the North American continent, the toxins had found their way Fly fishing on Rangeview Lake, Alaska. Mercury levels here. The results of the in many Alaskan lakes make the fish unfit for human monitoring assessment consumption. were sobering: bottoms within the Arctic Circle The dieldrin concentration in originating from coal burning and Burial Lake, as well as dieldrin smelting operations. The mercury concentrations in some individand dieldrin came from farther ual Matcharak Lake fish, south in North America but also exceeded contaminant threshfrom coal-fired power plants, factoolds for subsistence fishers. . . . ries, and large agricultural fields Mercury concentrations exceedacross northern Europe, Russia, ed thresholds for wildlife health, China, Korea, and Japan. The toxins and the median mercury concenknow no boundaries, persist in the tration in Burial Lake and in global environment for a very long some fish at Matcharak Lake time, and move with the wind, rain, exceeded the human contami1 nant health threshold. and snow. Wounded Wilderness • 9

Source: Alaska Stock Images/National Geographic Stock

Why? It turns out that the deadliest forms of mercury are organic mercury compounds. Exposure to just a few drops of certain compounds may be enough to cause death. Methylmercury is the most persistent form, remaining stored in body tissues rather than being excreted away. From microbes to crustaceans to predatory fish, it bioaccumulates up the food chain. Although I had caught a pike and not a lake trout, I was unsure whether I should bring the fish back to the kitchen for breakfast or release it. I hesitated for a moment, gripping the pike between my palms to sense the power of its wildness. Then I leaned over the wooden hull of the canoe and released the fish into the crystal clear but contaminated waters of Takahula Lake. I paddled back to camp, the fish bucket empty, but the memory of that slimy green pike still occupying my mind. As an occasional visitor to Alaska from Arizona, I would not have been particularly vulnerable to mercury exposure by eating one or two fish during this trip. But nearly everyone else I was camping with was an Alaskan resident whose family and community depended on wild-caught fish and game for much of the year. Habitual consumption of either lake trout or pike from these parts would pose a real health risk for them. When I returned home from the Arctic wilderness, I read a six-year study that the Western Airborne Contaminants Assessment project had undertaken in the most remote

Source: Julie Larsen Maher/WCS

Grizzly bears roam the Alaskan wilderness.

particular moment in our planet’s history, it seems like humans have nature surrounded. Since my fishing foray into the Alaskan wilderness, I have mulled over the internal conflict I felt when holding that northern pike in my hands. My senses were emphatically alerting me that “wild nature” was alive and well, squirming between my hands, filling my nostrils with the fragrances of forest and lake, enriching my vision with the splendor of snowy At this point in history, slopes and moose sauntervirtually no place on Earth is ing across the sandbars and muskegs where I had without human influence— recently seen the tracks of or contamination. grizzly, caribou, and lynx. But my mind was picking

With this, I recalled writer Bill McKibben’s idea of the end of nature.2 He referred to the notion that, at this point in history, virtually no place on Earth is without human influence—or contamination. In fact, in many places humans are at war with the integrity of the natural world, dramatically diminishing the health and resilience of what we once called wild ecosystems. And at this


up an altogether different signal: wild nature had somehow been compromised, contaminated, or corrupted. Although I found it difficult to say the phrase “end of nature” aloud, because its very implications were so repugnant to me, I certainly understood the sentiment. The nature writer Aldo Leopold once lamented that most ecologists are painfully aware that they live “in a world of wounds,” whether they reside in an area directly damaged by political and military conflict or in an area contaminated by industrial, agricultural, or recreational waste, or nuclear fallout.3 And yet, most ecologists I know do not write off “wounded landscapes” any more than a medical practitioner would abandon care for a wounded patient. We must engage in their healing through the processes of remediation and ecological restoration, and we must also begin to deal with the root causes. The counterpoint to Leopold’s recognition that we have caused wounds is that we can heal many of them, and, though that healing takes time, it is worthy of our efforts. We have the capacity to restore the world and to stand in awe of its wonders once more. I look forward to the day when my grandchildren can fish in an Arctic lake and take back to camp a pike that is not only uncontaminated x but a thrill to grill and eat.

G L OBAL CON SERVAT I ON NEWS HI G HL I G HT S

he past two years brought both good news and bad news for wildlife and wildlands conservation. A number of new protected areas and partnerships are safeguarding vulnerable species and places. At the same time, the effects of climate change have continued to reveal themselves worldwide, many sooner than predicted, and the world economy plummeted into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The following pages provide a glimpse into a set of the most pressing issues and trends affecting biodiversity in every region of the globe, and show that amidst some very troubling developments exist successes and glimmers w of hope.

T

Global Conservation News Highlights • 11

Africa ecent challenges to African conservation include fluctuating commodity prices, political crises, unpredictable peace processes, and escalated poaching. Commodity prices rose in 2007–2008, leading to increased pressure from extractive industries across Africa, but declines in 2009 resulted in unemployment and an increase in poaching from Gabon to Zambia. Conflict over natural resources continued to plague Chad, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, imperiling globally important ecosystems and wildlife populations. Hopes are high, however, for the role that ecotourism and carbon markets can play in providing economic incentives to preserve species and habitats across the continent.

R



African elephants.

Africa: In 2008, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) reopened the international ivory trade, which had been banned since 1989. This allowed Japan and China to import ivory from southern African countries, which have stable or increasing elephant (Loxodonta africana) populations. Shortly afterward, South Africa permitted culling of elephants in Kruger National Park, sparking intense criticism by some conservationists. Anecdotal reports from eastern and central Africa strongly suggest that relaxing the ban has increased the market for illegal ivory, resulting in steep increases in poaching across the Congo Basin. www.cites.org/eng/news/press/2008/080716_ivory .shtml; www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3347260/China-allowed-to-buy -ivory-from-Africa.html.

Source: Karl Ammann/naturepl.com

Africa: The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands added the Ngiri-Tumba-Maindombe Complex to its List of Wetlands of International Importance in 2008. At more than 16 million acres (6.5 million ha)—twice the size of Belgium—this swamp forest in the Democratic Republic of Congo is now the largest Ramsar site in the world and has recently been shown to harbor a previously unknown population of endangered bonobos (Pan paniscus). The region also provides important ecosystem services, including fish, watershed management for the Congo River, and significant carbon storage. www.worldwildlife.org/who /media/press/2008/WWFPresitem9857.html.

Bonobo.

Source: Brent Huffman/Ultimate Ungulate Images

Uganda: In a rare victory for grassroots conservation activists in Africa, mass protests in Uganda persuaded the government to cancel plans to lease the largest remaining block of rainforest along the shores of Lake Victoria in the 75,000-acre (30,000 ha) Mabira Forest Reserve to a sugarcane manufacturer. Most of southern Uganda was once forested, and protesters argued that Mabira should be preserved for the enjoyment of the people of nearby Kampala rather than be sacrificed for short-term private gain. Mabira is home to over 300 species of birds, including Nahan’s francolin (Francolinus nahani), and a number of endemics, such as the grey-cheeked mangabey (Lophocebus albigena). www.voanews.com/english /archive/2007-06/2007-06-08-voa53.cfm; www.scientificblogging.com/news _account/mabira_forest_reserve_update_no_to_sugar. Grey-cheeked mangabey.


Source: Julie Larsen Maher/WCS Source: Thomas Breuer

Red ruffed lemur.

Source: Michael Nichols/ National Geographic Stock

Western lowland gorilla.

Kongou Falls, Ivindo National Park, Gabon.


Madagascar: In early 2009, Madagascar’s president was overthrown by the country’s opposition leader. The ensuing political turmoil led to an escalating environmental crisis, with illegal loggers ravaging protected areas, and poachers killing endangered lemurs in order to sell them to restaurants. In the midst of this crisis, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) has taken a lead role in raising awareness about natural resource exploitation and continues to work toward the creation of the Makira Forest Protected Area. Makira is home to species such as the critically endangered Madagascar serpent eagle (Eutriorchis astur), red ruffed lemur (Varencia variegata rubra), and silky sifaka (Propithecus candidus). Significant advances were made in developing a sustainable financing mechanism for Makira through the sale of carbon emission credits from avoided deforestation, and local communities are encouraged to participate in the management of the protected area through natural resource monitoring programs. Lisa Gaylord, Wildlife Conservation Society, pers. comm., 2009; http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0820-madagascar.html.

Republic of Congo: In August 2008 WCS announced that an estimated 125,000 western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) are thriving across northern Republic of Congo. Scientists carrying out a survey of the region between 2006 and 2007 had believed that only about 50,000 gorillas remained in the area after bushmeat hunting and Ebola outbreaks decimated populations throughout central Africa. Approximately half of the estimated 125,000 reside in protected areas and logging concessions where WCS and its partners have pioneered landscape conservation since the mid-1980s. The other half were found in Ntokou-Pikounda, an unprotected and inaccessible expanse of dry and swamp forest, renewing efforts to designate this area as Congo’s newest national park. www.wcs.org/new-and -noteworthy/motherlode-of-gorillas-discovered-in-central-africa.aspx.

Gabon: The Gabonese government is working with the government of China on plans to extract Africa’s richest iron deposits from Belinga, located between Gabon’s Minkebe and Ivindo national parks. Pressure from local activists has led to the project’s suspension until environmental impact studies are completed. Major concerns include exacerbation of the bushmeat trade, water contamination, and the potential construction of a hydroelectric dam inside Ivindo to provide power to the mine. The dam could threaten endemic fish species and terrestrial wildlife habitat. www.internationalrivers.org/en/africa/belinga-dam-gabon; www.rainforestfoundationuk.org/Belinga_Update.

Asia ll of Asia’s wildlife is under tremendous threat from heavy hunting, for both local consumption and wealthy urban or international markets, primarily for use in traditional medicines. In tropical and semitropical Asia, where most of the continent’s 4 billion humans live at some of the highest densities on the planet, only small islands of truly wild lands remain. In the colder and drier climes, grasslands face unsustainable land use, including desertification from overgrazing by livestock, while boreal regions face largely unregulated natural resource extraction. Not all is lost, however, as innovative and tried-and-true conservation initiatives are gaining momentum. The global response to climate change is increasingly emphasizing avoided deforestation as a major intervention, and throughout Asia governments and nongovernmental organizations are producing functional forest protection projects. More familiar biodiversity conservation initiatives, such as protected areas and landscape-level local stakeholder engagement, are steadily becoming more effective, as governments and the conservation community race to save Asia’s vast diversity.

A


Source: Chris Shank/WCS Source: Allan Michaud

Travertine dam, Band-e-Amir National Park, Afghanistan.

Black-shanked douc langur.


Afghanistan: Despite more than a generation of nearly continuous warfare, the government of Afghanistan is working to establish protected areas and safeguard its endangered species. In April 2009, Afghanistan’s National Environment Protection Agency announced the establishment of Band-e-Amir as the country’s first national park. A popular destination for tourists and religious pilgrims, Band-e-Amir features six clear blue lakes separated by dams made of travertine (a mineral deposit). Although some species have disappeared from the area, surveys indicate that Siberian ibex (Capra sibirica) and urial (Ovis orientalis) are still present, though some other species, including snow leopards (Uncia uncia), have disappeared. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) provided much of the funding that supported activities related to the park’s creation, and WCS worked closely with local communities and the Afghan government to develop the park’s management plan. www.wcs.org/new-and -noteworthy/new-park-for-afghanistan.aspx.

Cambodia: Nearly 10 years of focused conservation efforts appear to be paying off in two important biodiversity areas in Cambodia. In the Seima Biodiversity Conservation Area, current estimates of the endangered black-shanked douc (Pygathrix nigripes) indicate over 40,000 individuals, while elsewhere in its range the species is rapidly declining. Numbers of yellow-cheeked crested gibbons (Nomascus gabriellae) and green peafowl (Pavo muticus) are also on the rise. On Cambodia’s Tonle Sap Lake, a number of species of endangered waterbirds, including spot-billed pelicans (Pelecanus philippensis), painted storks (Mycteria leucocephala), and greater (Leptoptilos dubius) and lesser adjutant storks (Leptoptilos javanicus) have staged remarkable comebacks thanks to former hunters and egg collectors who are now instead protecting and monitoring the colonies. The active involvement of local communities has been key to the success of these conservation initiatives. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/ 09/080903-new-monkeys.html; www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/03/asia/ AS-GEN-Cambodia-Bird-Conservation.php (accessed April 4, 2009).

Source: J. Thorbjarnarson/WCS Source: Julie Larsen Maher/WCS

Chinese alligator.

Tiger.

China: The Chinese alligator (Alligator sinensis) is one of the world’s most endangered reptiles, with a wild population of less than 150 individuals. Conservation efforts in China over the last 30 years focused almost exclusively on captive breeding, but that changed in 2003, when trial efforts to release captive-reared alligators began in southern Anhui Province. The success of these efforts prompted releases at Gaojinmao forest preserve, where a series of ponds were created specifically for alligator reintroductions, and on Chongming Island in Shanghai municipality. In 2008, the Gaojinmao and Chongming alligators successfully nested for the first time, and the number of wild juvenile alligators is growing at a rapid pace. Habitat availability remains the most critical limitation, but the success of the experimental releases and increasing support from the State Forestry Administration in Beijing provide renewed optimism for bringing this species back from the brink of extinction. John Thorbjarnarson, Wildlife Conservation Society, pers. comm., 2009.

India: Tiger conservation suffered a major blow in 2004 when all 22 tigers (Panthera tigris) of the famous Sariska Tiger Reserve in the northwestern Indian state of Rajasthan were poached during the course of the year. The resulting public outcry led the government of India to abandon existing tiger population monitoring approaches and provided renewed vigor for tiger conservation in the country. The government also redoubled its efforts to reintroduce tigers back into Sariska. During the second half of 2008, Indian wildlife officials successfully translocated three tigers (two female and one male) from the Ranthambore Tiger Reserve in the south. Moving the tigers was complex, involving sedations, helicopter flights in rough weather, and the construction of large enclosures for releasing the animals. Happily, the three tigers survived and established territories within Sariska. India now waits to see if the tigers will breed during the upcoming mating season. www.indiatogether.org/2008/aug/env-relocn.htm.


Source: Norman Lim Source: Staffan Widstrand/naturepl.com

Sunda pangolin.

Spoon-billed sandpiper.


Indonesia: Illegal hunting and international trade in wildlife are key threats to thousands of animal species in Asia. Particularly hard hit is Indonesian wildlife, which is hunted throughout the archipelago and shipped primarily to Vietnam and China for luxury consumption and use as components of traditional medicines. Encouragingly, Indonesian authorities, in collaboration with conservation organizations, are taking an increasingly tough stance on wildlife trade. In July 2008, Indonesian police raided the warehouse of an illegal wildlife trader in the city of Palembang in South Sumatra and recovered over 30,000 pounds (13.6 metric tons) of the endangered Sunda pangolin (Manis javanica), packed frozen and ready for export, and arrested 14 suspects. Similarly, in June and August 2008, Indonesian authorities infiltrated and arrested a number of key middlemen in several tiger (Panthera tigris) trading syndicates. www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/pangolin -trade263.html#cr.

Myanmar: The known global population of spoon-billed sandpiper (Eurynorhynchus pygmeus) has declined dramatically in the last few years to only 200 to 300 pairs. However, recent surveys of coastal Myanmar located a new wintering population of 84 birds, the largest number recorded anywhere apart from the breeding grounds for many years. One of the greatest threats to the species is the continued destruction of its intertidal habitat, both in nonbreeding and critical migration stopover areas such as the Saemangeum wetlands on the South Korean coast of the Yellow Sea, where a 21-mile (33 km) sea wall was constructed in April 2006. Surveys at Saemangeum over the last two years have found that at least 10 shorebird species, including spoon-billed sandpiper, have declined by 30 percent or more. www.birdlife.org/news/news/2008 /02/sbs_myanmar.html; www.birdskorea.org/Habitats/Wetlands/Saemangeum /BK-HA-Saemangeum-SSMP-Update-2008-05-26.shtml.

Australia, NewZealand, PacificIslands and the

he Pacific region’s remoteness and vast size have not spared it from human disturbance. Here the effects of habitat loss, overexploitation of resources, and invasive species—including predators, rats, and large herbivores—are among the most severe in the world, and further losses of species and ecological processes seem almost inevitable. Despite this gloomy outlook, government agencies, scientists, conservation volunteers, and many communities are fighting back. New Zealand has pioneered methods to remove rats and other introduced mammals from its islands, and innovative Australian techniques are being used to efficiently identify areas of highest conservation priority. New reproductive technologies are being developed to conserve endemics, from a large ground frog (Platymantis vitianus) in Fiji to Gilbert’s potoroo (Potorous gilberti) in Western Australia, and heroic efforts are being made to recover ailing flagship animals such as the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) and New Zealand kakapo (Strigops habroptila). As sea levels are predicted to rise, temperatures to increase, and rainfall to diminish over much of the Pacific in coming decades, the region will need to call upon its ingenuity to meet the challenges that its wildlife and peoples will face.

T


Source: Jean-Paul Ferrero/AUSCAPE Source: Jean-Paul Ferrero/AUSCAPE

Northern quoll.

Dingoes.


Australia: Australia has the world’s highest rate of mammal extinctions over the last 200 years. Until recently, the only secure region was thought to be the “Top End,” a vast landscape of tropical savanna encompassing part of the Northern Territory and the Kimberley region of Western Australia. Recent surveys, however, report declines of more than 90 percent in the distribution of many large rodents, medium-sized carnivorous marsupials, possums, and bandicoots. Delegates at a meeting of the Australian Mammal Society in 2008 heard that several species, including the golden-backed tree-rat (Mesembriomys macrurus) and northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus), have almost vanished from across the Top End and now have their best chances of survival on nearby offshore islands. The most pervasive and serious threats are likely overgrazing by cattle, an increase in the frequency and intensity of fires ignited to stimulate growth of fresh pastures, and predation by feral cats. Participants in a workshop convened in February 2009 agreed that urgent management action is needed but identified limited funding and lack of infrastructure in northern Australia as critical impediments. www.australianwildlife.org/images/file/darwin_extinction_crisis_meeting_press _release_feb09.pdf.

Australia: The national love–hate relationship with the dingo (Canis lupus dingo) continues. Introduced to Australia about 4,000 years ago, the dingo is a declared pest over much of the southern part of its continental range, owing to its attacks on livestock. Consequently, land managers are legally obliged to control it. In 2008, however, the dingo was listed as vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and was recognized by the governments of Victoria and New South Wales as a threatened native species, while in the Northern Territory it enjoys full protection. These jurisdictions make a clear distinction between pure dingoes, wild domestic dogs, and dingo–dog hybrids, and focus their efforts on conserving the dingo while simultaneously controlling feral dogs and hybrids. Dingoes, and possibly dingo–dog hybrids, may help suppress red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and feral cat populations, two introduced predators that wreak havoc on native fauna. Several projects are under way to quantify the biodiversity benefits of dingoes and identify where pure populations remain. www.iucnredlist.org/details/41585; http://current.com/items/89444867/dingo _species_under_threat.htm.

Source: Frans Lanting/AUSCAPE Source: CSIRO

Eastern gray kangaroo with joey in pouch.

New species of Ophiomitrella brittlestar.

Australia: A recent study predicts a bleak future for some of Australia’s most widely distributed and iconic species—its large kangaroos. Currently, the antilopine wallaroo (Macropus antilopinus), euro (M. robustus), red kangaroo (M. rufus), and eastern gray kangaroo (M. giganteus) occupy geographic ranges of some 300,000 to 2,650,000 square miles (777,000 to 6,860,000 km2) that extend from the tropics to more temperate regions. Climate models predict that these four species’ ranges would shrink if temperatures increase by as little as 1.0°F (~0.5°C). With average annual temperatures expected to increase as much as 3.6°F (2.0°C) by 2030 over vast areas of northern Australia, the core ranges of the red and eastern gray kangaroos and euros would decrease by some 10 to 55 percent, and the wallaroo’s range by 89 percent. By 2070, with average annual temperatures rising by up to 11.0°F (6.0°C), range contractions of all species would average 96 percent, with the wallaroo almost certainly facing extinction. www.enn.com/wildlife/article/38422; www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs /10.1086/588171.

Australia: Collections of animals from the Tasman Fracture and Huon Commonwealth Marine Reserves off the southern coast of Tasmania yielded 274 new species and another 86 species previously unknown from Australian waters. Reported in October 2008, the discoveries include sponges, stony corals, fishes, crabs, brittlestars, and an astounding diversity of mollusks. Most of the new species were found at depths of 3,280 to 5,250 feet (1,000 to 1,600 m) on seamounts. In December 2008, further surveys to the deepest part of the Tasman Fracture—up to 13,100 feet (4,000 m)—revealed dense communities of anemones, gooseneck barnacles, sea spiders, giant sponges, small fishes, and carnivorous sea squirts. These new and bizarre creatures are the deepest known life-forms in Australian waters. The surveys also documented dead deep-water corals below 4,260 feet (1,300 m), raising the possibility that the water quality is becoming less suitable for native deep-sea life. The Australian government declared marine reserves of over 87,230 square miles (226,000 km2) of ocean off the southeast Australian coast in July 2007 and plans to designate more large reserves between 2009 and 2010. www.csiro.au/science/SeamountBiodiversity.html; ww.csiro.au /news/Deep-Sea-Expedition.html.


Source: John Shaw/AUSCAPE Source: Jean-Paul Ferrero/AUSCAPE

Tuatara.

Kagu.


New Zealand: In September 2008, the New Zealand Ecological Society hosted a symposium charting 25 years of research on Tiritiri Matangi Island. Just 0.85 square miles (2.2 km2), Tiritiri lies east of the Whangaparaoa Peninsula near Auckland, New Zealand, and hosts 78 species of birds, including 11 species that were translocated due to their iconic value or precarious status elsewhere, such as little spotted kiwi (Apteryx owenii). Three species of introduced reptiles, including the tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus), are now extinct or exceedingly rare on the mainland. Many of the island’s species are benefiting from a reforestation program that raised forest cover from 6 percent in 1984 to 60 percent just 10 years later, and from the removal of the Pacific rat (Rattus exulans), which has alleviated pressure on seedling plants as well as birds and their eggs. The successful restoration of Tiritiri Matangi provides valuable lessons for conservation managers and stocks of rare or threatened species for use in other restoration projects throughout the Auckland region. www.tiritirimatangi.org.nz/; www.newzealandecology.org/nzje/.

New Caledonia: New Caledonia’s trove of endemic species—including biological oddities such as the carnivorous and almost flightless kagu bird (Rhynochetos jubatus) and the world’s largest gecko (Rhacodactylus leachianus)—is facing severe habitat destruction, primarily as a result of opencast mining for nickel, which generates 90 percent of the country’s foreign exchange. Only 9 percent of the island’s forest cover remains, and many streams and marine systems have been highly disturbed. In 2008, approximately 6,000 square miles (15,000 km2) of New Caledonia’s coral reef and lagoon systems were declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site, while Brazilian-owned Vale Inco secured agreement from the local Kanak people to finalize construction of a huge metallurgical plant capable of producing 132,000,000 pounds (60,000 t) of nickel a year. Another massive facility is planned for Koniambo in the island’s north. Future erosion of biodiversity in this hot spot remains certain. www.sylvain-env.com/bio.pdf; www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/new_caledonia/Pages/impacts.aspx.

Central and South America everal Latin American governments define natural resource prospection and development as matters of national interest and are allowing private companies to operate in remote wilderness areas, which are often occupied by indigenous peoples and sometimes have protected area status. Grassroots organizations are frequently effective in contesting development efforts that do not include careful consideration of conservation priorities. For example, indigenous Amazonian peoples in Peru succeeded in overturning decrees permitting the sale of collective lands to private investors for mining, logging, and drilling. Meanwhile, state governments in Brazil are developing creative financial mechanisms to encourage preservation of remaining forest. While this effort has not yet been reflected in reduced rates of deforestation, the initiative offers hope for the future and shows that conservation constituencies are effective at the state level. Carbon sequestration and valuing of ecosystem services may also help reduce the rate of destruction in the Amazon and around the world.

S


Source: Suzi Eszterhas/naturepl.com Source: Carsten Peter/ National Geographic Stock

South American fur seal.

Polylepis trunks.


Argentina: Argentina achieved two important conservation milestones in 2008 with the creation of a marine park in Patagonia’s Golfo San Jorge and a new no-fishing zone on Burdwood Bank. The park, which includes more than 40 small islands, protects 250 square miles (647 km2) of coastal waters and nearly 100 miles (160 km) of shoreline, safeguarding Patagonia’s only colonies of South American fur seal (Arctocephalus australis) and southern giant petrel (Macronectes giganteus) and nesting and feeding grounds for 250,000 pairs of Magellanic penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus). Despite the protection that official recognition brings, a number of threats still loom, namely overfishing and petroleum development. The no-fishing zone on Burdwood Bank protects approximately 1,118 square miles (2,896 km2) of one of the most productive regions in the Southern Hemisphere from bottom trawling and all other fishing activities. The bank is also the breeding ground for southern blue whiting (Micromesistius australis) and Fuegian sardines (Sardina fueguina, Sprattus fuegensis). http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor /2008/12/penguins-find-sanctuary-in-arg.html.

Bolivia: A recent study of the Polylepis forests in the northern Lake Titicaca basin and the mountain ranges of La Paz and Apolobamba in Bolivia revealed the presence of royal cinclodes (Cinclodes aricomae) and ash-breasted tit-tyrants (Anairetes alpinas)—two endangered bird species that were virtually unknown in the country—in 8 and 28 forest patches, respectively. Polylepis trees are used for firewood and building materials, so the forests are depleting rapidly. With funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the American Bird Conservancy and a team of biologists are working with local communities to implement activities in the region that will help conserve these rare birds’ special forest habitat. www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/stories/0810_bolivian.html.

Source: Luiz Claudio Marigo/naturepl.com Source: Paul P. Calle, VMD

Deforestation, Brazil.

Grand Cayman blue iguana.

Brazil: Brazil’s vast rainforests continue to face deforestation pressures, yet some recent reports assert that the rate of loss has been slowing since 2004. Data collected by Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE) between August 2007 and July 2008, however, paints a very clear picture of a surge in rainforest destruction. INPE’s findings show roughly 10,000 square miles (25,000 km2) of Amazon forest as damaged, a 67 percent increase over the previous year’s findings. In all, annual rainforest destruction in Brazil between 2007 and 2008 totaled roughly 14,000 square miles (37,000 km2). INPE’s report also pointed out that this total does not include those forested areas selectively logged for commercial purposes, nor does it address forest conversion for agricultural biofuel production. These figures would only increase the rate of deforestation, making the need for regulation and implementation of management plans even more critical. www.inpe.br/ingles/news/news_dest48.php; http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1220-amazon.html.

Caribbean: In 2009, the Cayman Islands government protected 200 acres (81 ha) of dry shrubland on Grand Cayman, prime habitat for the Grand Cayman blue iguana (Cyclura lewisi). This endemic species once numbered in the thousands but plummeted to a wild population of less than 25 by 2002 as a result of development, habitat loss, and mortality from motor vehicles and dogs. The National Trust for the Cayman Islands established a captive breeding and release program to save the species, and WCS’s Global Health Program has provided veterinary support. About 250 free-ranging iguanas now roam two sites on Grand Cayman: the Queen Elizabeth II Botanic Park and the Salina Reserve. The new protected area provides enough land to establish a self-sustaining Grand Cayman iguana population in three locations, ensuring the survival of the species. www.blueiguana.ky.


Source: ImageBroker/Imagebroker/FLPA

Costa Rica: The government of Costa Rica came under sharp criticism from environmentalists in 2008 after granting Industrias Infinito permission to cut 472 acres (191 ha) of nationally protected forest in the rural district of Las Crucitas de Cutris as part of a concession creating a large-scale open-pit gold mine. Nationwide protests convinced the country’s Supreme Court to halt development of the site until the project can be studied. Las Crucitas is well-known habitat for the almendro tree (Dipteryx panamensis), a valuable hardwood species for which Costa Rica has historically sought protection due to its importance in the feeding and nesting habitats of the endangered great green macaw (Ara ambiguus). President Oscar Arias and Environment and Energy Minister Roberto Dobles declared the mining project an investment of national interest that will provide new economic opportunities for the impoverished northern province. www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/38629; www.savebiogems.org/costarica/.

Source: Pete Oxford/naturepl.com

Great green macaw.

Giant river otter.


Peru: The Peruvian government continued to grant hydrocarbon concessions that overlap with protected areas throughout 2008, and energy and mining authorities have succeeded in blocking any legal challenges to these moves. Recently, a proposal to degazette a critical portion of Bahuaja Sonene National Park in order to permit a new concession generated enough public protest and international disapproval that the government abandoned its plans before the proposal was officially announced. Bahuaja Sonene is one of the flagships of Peru’s system of protected areas and provides habitat for a high diversity of species, such as the maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus), marsh deer (Blastocerus dichotomus), giant river otter (Pteronura brasiliensis), and black caiman (Melanosuchus niger). It is also rich in natural resources. Increased human migration to the region, land conversion, illegal logging, gold mining, and excessive extraction of other resources remain serious threats. www.parkswatch.org/parkprofile.php?l=eng&country=per&park=tabs.

Europe he European Union (EU) continues to spread south and east with 27 member states as of 2008. Some of the newest members—Bulgaria and Romania, for example—are some of Europe’s least developed and most wildliferich countries. The sheer diversity of territories and cultures making up the EU brings many challenges for the protection of wildlife and the natural environment. Membership in the EU and the resulting access to funds available to newcomers have inevitably brought to new members an increase in development pressures, from intensification of traditional agriculture to the construction of new coastal communities and highways across unspoiled landscapes. The expanding free-trade area of the European Single Market has also stretched its borders south and east, making the illicit trade of wildlife goods from outside of Europe considerably easier across internal borders. Largely as a result of land use changes encouraged by EU farming, forestry, and development policies, the latter third of the twentieth century was disastrous for wildlife across western Europe, from the United Kingdom to Spain. The next five years should reveal whether wildlife in the newest member states will suffer a similar fate to their more advanced neighbors.

T


Source: Jouan & Rius/naturepl.com

Europe: The already extensive Natura 2000 network of over 26,000 European protected areas continues to expand and now covers more than 20 percent of the EU. In 2008, Poland added 18 sites in the Carpathians to the network, including the Góry Slonne Mountains, which support Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) and European grey wolf (Canis lupus lupus). The same year saw action to protect the EU’s marine environment, which extends out 200 miles (322 km) from the coast, following adoption of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, under which member states are required to designate Marine Protected Areas within which damaging activities such as fishing will be controlled and, in some cases, prohibited. Such directives provide an essential legal framework for conservation, but substantial differences remain in the level of implementation by individual member states. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm.

Source: Philippe Clement/naturepl.com

Eurasian lynx.

Marsh fritillary.


Europe: The European Butterfly Indicator for Grassland Species, published in 2008 by Butterfly Conservation Europe, illustrates the continuing decline of natural and seminatural grasslands across Europe. The report shows that populations of typical grassland butterflies have declined by 60 percent since 1990, primarily because of land-use change, particularly the plowing of wildflower-rich grassland to expand arable land. At the same time, the increasing urbanization of Europe’s population has also led to widespread abandonment of farmland. This has resulted in the spread of scrub and consequent losses of butterfly food plants and habitat for species such as the dusky large blue (Maculinea nausithous) and marsh fritillary (Euphydryas aurina). The Climatic Risk Atlas of European Butterflies underlines the risk that losses will be exacerbated by climate change. www.bc -europe.org/upload/VS2008-022%20European%20Butterfly%20Indicator %201990-2007.pdf.

Source: Sue Everett

Signal crayfish.

Europe: Conservative estimates indicate that the annual cost of dealing with the consequences of introduced invasive species in Europe is as much as €12,700 million. For example, the signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) has invaded many rivers in northwest Europe, causing the native white-clawed crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes) to disappear. Bluetongue, a viral disease of wild and domestic ruminants carried by midges (Culicoides spp.), has spread to much of northwest Europe, necessitating the introduction of vaccination programs for livestock. The European Commission’s communication Towards an EU Strategy on Invasive Species recommends policy options for tackling the threat posed by invasive species, including publishing an EU invasive species strategy in 2010. In the meantime, the commission proposes establishing an information and early warning system. However, globalization and the expanding, and increasingly leaky, boundary of the EU have made it increasingly difficult to halt the continued spread of species far from their natural homes. www.europe-aliens.org; http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm.

Source: Kim Taylor/naturepl.com

Bulgaria: In Bulgaria, two of Europe’s most threatened raptors, the Asian imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca savigny) and the saker falcon (Falco cherrug), are the focus of a project to protect the remaining breeding pairs and restore populations of both species. Threatened by illegal hunting, electrocution from power lines, nest disturbance, the falconry trade, and habitat loss, both raptors are approaching extinction in Bulgaria. The project, developed by the Bulgarian Bird Protection Society and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, aims to build greater public awareness, remove power lines within 3 miles (5 km) of nests, as well as build and erect artificial nests. www.friendsofbspb.org; www.rspb.org.uk /ourwork/conservation/projects/bulgaria.asp. Saker falcon.


Source: Sue Everett Source: Imagebroker/FLPA

A no-shooting sign, Akamas Peninsula, Cyprus, shot up by hunters.

Common walnut.


Cyprus: The Akamas Peninsula, on the Greek-administered side of the Mediterranean island of Cyprus, is an area of great ecological significance, but its wildlife and landscape lack adequate protection. Akamas is both a European Important Bird Area and Important Plant Area, with 39 of Cyprus’s 128 endemic plant species. Akamas is also one of the few Mediterranean locations where both loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) and green turtles (Chelonia mydas) nest. In 1997, the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention asked the Greek Cypriot government to declare Akamas a national park and take other measures to protect its wildlife, but the region has yet to be designated as a protected area. A 2008 report by the nonprofit organization Terra Cypria to the Standing Committee showed that tourist development is rapidly eroding the once unspoiled coast, causing permanent disturbance to turtle nesting beaches. www.conservation.org.cy/akamas/akamas.htm.

Germany: According to a recent study in the Royal Society’s Biology Letters, climate change will cause the ranges of up to one in five of Germany’s wild plant species to shrink dramatically. Scientists from the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and the French Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine estimate that with only moderate warming of about 3.7°F (2.2°C), about 7 percent of species will lose more than two-thirds of their current ranges. This rises to 11 percent with an increase of 4.8°F (2.9°C) and 20 percent for 6.3°F (3.8°C). Many plant species could also lose their niches in especially vulnerable habitats such as mountains or moors, and, according to models, species likely to migrate northward from southern Europe may not be able to offset these losses. Common walnut (Juglans regia), originally introduced north of the Alps by the Romans, is one species projected to find more areas with suitable conditions as temperatures warm. Biology Letters 4: 564–567.

North America or perish, now as ever, is nature’s inexorable imperative.” Good “A dapt advice from author H. G. Wells, but North American wildlife today are finding adaptation difficult in the face of rapid habitat changes and fragmentation across the continent. Migratory birds are leaving their summer grounds later every year, while many glaciers are receding, altering mountain species’ habitat. Resource extraction is also increasing pressure on wild areas such as Canada’s Peace-Athabasca delta, a nesting ground to over 1 million waterfowl. Fortunately, conservation thinking in North America is following Wells’s advice and adapting its approaches. Following in the footsteps of conservation pioneers Aldo Leopold, John Muir, Bob Marshall, and Theodore Roosevelt, scientists and practitioners in North America are incorporating new strategies to manage landscapes and species and strengthening partnerships to protect and interconnect crucial habitats and maintain corridors for wildlife.


Source: Ron Long, Simon Fraser University, Bugwood.org Source: Julie Larsen Maher/WCS

Mountain pine beetle.

Polar bear.


Canada: The winter of 2008 blasted parts of British Columbia with subzero temperatures, the most frigid winter for several years—good news for trees struggling to cope with mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) infestation. Beetle larvae feed on the inner bark of pine trees, depleting water and nutrients and introducing a fungus that destroys a tree’s natural defenses against infection. The beetles produce an internal antifreeze that protects them from mild cold. Warm winters, such as those recently experienced by much of the western United States and Canada, do not provide the deep, sustained cold temperatures necessary to kill bark beetles. The recent continuous stretch of belowzero temperatures in British Columbia brings hope for a reduction of the infestation, which is killing large sections of pine forest across the Rocky Mountains. www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/01/28/bc-deep-freeze-pine -beetles.html; http://mpb.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/biology/introduction_e.html.

United States: Less than 50 days into his presidency, Barack Obama directed the heads of all executive departments and federal agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) before undertaking any action that may affect endangered or threatened species, such as polar bears (Ursus maritimus). The Bush administration had reversed this long-standing practice in December 2008 by permitting agencies to take action without first consulting the scientists who oversee the nation’s Endangered Species Act. Supporters of Obama’s decision said it would help guard against potential conflicts of interest and lack of expertise in guiding decision making by any agency hoping to press ahead with a particular project. www.whitehouse.gov /the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and -Agencies/; www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/080514a.html.

Source: Merlin D. Tuttle, Bat Conservation International, www.batcon.org Source: Alan D. Barron, 2006

Little brown bat.

Blotched tiger salamander.

Northeastern United States: Thousands of bats, including little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) and Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis), are dying across the northeastern United States from a set of symptoms now labeled white-nose syndrome. The most visible symptom is clumps of white growths on bats’ muzzles and bodies caused by a form of Geomyces fungus. Infected bats consume critical winter stores of fat during hibernation and can starve to death. The fungus also makes it more difficult for bats to hunt insects during the summer. If the infection occurs on the bats’ wings, their wing membranes are destroyed as they slough off the infection, thereby impeding their ability to fly. Scientists are still trying to determine the source of the fungus and how it spread so quickly; they suspect that recreational cavers may have transported it from South America or Europe. Significant declines in bat populations could have far-reaching ecological consequences because bats eat enormous numbers of flying insects and play a role in pollination and seed dispersal. Science 323: 227; www.dec.ny.gov/animals/45088.html.

Western United States: While searching for frogs and salamanders in ponds last surveyed 15 years ago in northern Yellowstone National Park, a Stanford University graduate student discovered a shocking decline among resident amphibians and of the ponds themselves. The dozens of small, fishless ponds in Yellowstone are ideal for the breeding and development of species such as blotched tiger salamanders (Ambystoma mavortium melanostictum), boreal chorus frogs (Pseudacris maculate), and Colombia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris). Historically, the ponds have been recharged during the summer by groundwater, but increasing temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns are now causing the ponds—and the jelly-like amphibian eggs deposited in them—to dry up. Moreover, seasonal wetlands near the ponds, usually ideal amphibian habitat, are evaporating earlier in the spring. This evidence reveals that even the most protected areas are affected by climate change. PNAS 105: 16988–16993; www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081028184830.htm.


Source: Michael Nolan/Peter Arnold, Inc. Source: Julie Larsen Maher/WCS

Humpback whale.

Pronghorn antelope.


New York: For the very first time, in 2008, researchers from Cornell University and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation recorded whale calls in the waters around New York City. Ten microphones were placed 13 miles (21 km) from the entrance to New York Harbor and off the coast of Fire Island, where whales have been spotted only occasionally. The recordings prove that endangered North Atlantic right (Eubalaena glacialis), humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), and fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) migrate through these waters during the summer. Research continued through early 2009 to determine which whales use the same waters on their return migration during the winter. The results of the study will help inform decisions about shipping traffic and the conservation of these species. www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Sept08/whalesNY.html.

Wyoming: The US Forest Service (USFS) designated the first wildlife migration corridor—the “Path of the Pronghorn”—in June 2008, protecting a portion of the approximately 100-mile (160 km) corridor pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) use to migrate between Grand Teton National Park and Wyoming’s Upper Green River Valley. Archaeological evidence indicates that pronghorn have been traveling the same route for more than 6,000 years. The designation ensures that future activities on USFS lands along the corridor will allow pronghorn to continue their migration, but the unprotected portion on private and Bureau of Land Management lands remains open to the construction of fences, roads, and gas fields—all obstacles to pronghorn migration. Conservationists hope a similar designation will eventually apply to the entire migration corridor. www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2008/2008-06-17-091.asp; www.fs.fed.us/r4 /btnf/projects/2008/pronghorn/PronghornDN.pdf.

Oceans he past two years have seen major advances in ocean conservation, with equally daunting rises in threats from continued overexploitation, landbased pollution, and the growing impacts of climate change. The world’s fisheries are in a continued crisis, with global production stalled since the mid-1990s even as more boats continue to fish smaller and smaller fish at the farthest corners of the earth. This complicates management, let alone conservation. As people around the globe begin to consider “greening” their infrastructure and activities, a major opportunity presents itself to “blue” human impact on marine ecosystems by reducing waste discharge into water bodies, preventing destructive coastal developments, and limiting nitrogen-laden runoff from agricultural lands. Recent news that over 6,000 Irrawaddy dolphins (Orcaella brevirostris), a species whose numbers had been declining due to bycatch and coastal pollution, were discovered in Bangladeshi waters provides hope that other, yetto-be discovered populations of threatened species exist. Finally, while significant gains have been made in establishing large tracts of marine protected areas, it remains clear that, despite this, the oceans are increasingly impacted by climate change and that a broad array of initiatives will be necessary to maintain the oceans as some of the last of the world’s intact wild.

T


Source: Imagebroker/FLPA

Global: Recent research shows that acidification of ocean water due to increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is adversely affecting marine ecosystems much faster than predicted by previous climate change models. Increased acidity reduces the calcification rate of corals, mollusks, and other organisms dependent upon high levels of carbonate (CO3) saturation in the world’s oceans. Less calcification means weaker shells and corals, while increasing ocean temperatures, higher sea levels, and increasing storm events threaten coral reef structures and their ecological communities. PNAS 105(48): 18848–18853; www.ciw.edu/news /coral_reefs_may_start_dissolving_when_atmospheric_co2_doubles.

Source: Neil Lucas/naturepl.com

Bleached coral, Philippines.

Source: Brian J. Skerry/ National Geographic Stock

Bluefin tuna.

Guitarfish, rays, and other bycatch tossed from a shrimp boat.


Atlantic Ocean: Bluefin tuna (Thunnus spp.) are wide-ranging, large-bodied fish prized around the world as a valuable food source. Commercial fishing fleets striving to meet rising global demand for sushi have rendered the bluefin tuna increasingly rare. Atlantic bluefin (Thunnus thynnus), which breed only in the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean, are rapidly declining. Despite clear indications of overfishing, the International Commission for the Conservation of the Atlantic Tunas, the regulatory board charged with overseeing commercial tuna fishing, has set catch limits for 2009 that conservation groups say are unsustainable and much higher than those recommended by the commission’s scientific advisers. In more hopeful news, the Atlantic bluefin is now proposed for listing under Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, which would ban all international trade in the species and give populations a chance to recover. Current Biology 18(24): R1110–R1111; http://e360 .yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2096.

Atlantic Ocean: In 2008 the Shark Specialist Group of IUCN reported that Atlantic shark species such as spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) and guitarfish (Rhinobatos spp.) are under increasing threat from overfishing, bycatch, and the growing market for shark meat and fins. Of 116 species of Atlantic sharks, rays, and chimera, 26 percent are threatened with extinction, and an additional 20 percent are near threatened. Sharks and rays are particularly vulnerable because they are long-lived, slow to mature, and have low reproductive rates. Few species of sharks are afforded legal protection under European Union law, and international catch limits on northern Atlantic sharks are sparse. The report calls for increased data on the conservation status of sharks, the extension of catch limits to more species, and an end to finning. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/down loads/shark_report_1.pdf.

Source: Ariadne Van Zandbergen/FLPA

Indian Ocean: A group of conservation organizations are proposing that the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean be declared a marine reserve. All but one of the 50-plus islands and islets, spanning 250,000 square miles (647,500 km2), are currently uninhabited. The Chagossian people were forced to leave the archipelago in the 1960s when the United States built a military base on Diego Garcia, the archipelago’s largest atoll. While the absence of people has been key to the preservation of the area and its species, such as coconut crabs (Birgus latro) and green turtles (Chelonia mydas), most scientists believe that the return of the Chagossians is vital to long-term conservation. www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature /giant-marine-park-plan-for-chagos-1604555.html; www.chagos-trust.org/.

Source: NOAA, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, Coral Reef Ecosystem Division, Robert Schroeder, photographer

Coconut crab.

Source: David Wachenfeld/AUSCAPE

Yellow tang (Zebrasoma flavescens), Mariana Archipelago.

Fisherman selling the day’s catch, Solomon Islands.

Pacific Ocean: In 2009 President George W. Bush established three new national monuments, comprising the largest marine protected area in US history. The Mariana Trench, Pacific Remote Islands, and Rose Atoll Marine National Monument encompass nearly 200,000 square miles (518,000 km2) of marine habitat. These areas are home to rare beaked whales (Mesoplodon spp.) and endangered Micronesian megapodes (Megapodius laperouse), and include some of the most pristine coral reefs in the central Pacific, a sulfur cauldron, and underwater vents and volcanoes. Marine monuments are permanent and enjoy the highest level of regulatory protection afforded by US law. Commercial fishing, mineral exploration, waste dumping, mining, oil drilling, and other extractive activities are prohibited, though some scientific and certain recreational activities may be permitted. www.fws.gov/pacific/news/2009/Monuments/Factsheet.pdf.

Pacific Ocean: In 2007 the heads of states of Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Island, and Timor Leste signed The Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries, and Food Security (CTI) to help maintain the health and productivity of the diverse ecosystems that lie within their waters. Called the “Amazon of the seas,” the Coral Triangle is the center of global marine biodiversity, including 75 percent of the world’s coral reef species, over 3,000 species of reef fish, and spawning and nursery areas for the largest tuna fisheries. The area is also home to over 100 million people, many dependent upon marine resources for their livelihood. The first initiative of its kind, the CTI provides a multilateral framework for governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work together to save one of the most important and threatened places on Earth. www.cti-secretariat.net/files/Manila%20Resolutions.pdf.


Discoveries J O S H G I N S B E R G , C AT H E R I N E G R I P P O, AND JANE PERRINO

rom a twenty-first-century perspective, the term discovery harks back hundreds of years to a time when the world was wild and our knowledge of nature was limited. Yet the discovery of new species—an event that still fills us with wonder and awe—should come as no surprise. With perhaps 30 million species of animals and plants in the world, and only about 2 million of these described by science, our ignorance of the world is the norm, not the exception. So why does discovery still enthrall us? To answer this question, we need to acknowledge that discovery can mean many things. Most commonly, we think about the discovery of entirely new species, found in previously unexplored areas and described as unique taxa: most of the examples in this essay reflect this kind of discovery. But we also discover new species when we revisit old findings using modern tools, such as molecular analysis of evolutionary histories, or new approaches to observing an animal’s behavior in the wild. Finally, we may also discover new populations of a species, a particularly uplifting find when the species in question is endangered. As the distinguished ecologists Jared Diamond and Robert May noted over 20 years ago in the journal Nature,1 conservation biology is a discipline with a time limit. In the last year alone, discoveries of several thousand orangutans in Borneo, 125,000 lowland gorillas in northern Congo, and 6,000 Irrawaddy dolphins in Bangladesh all gave us hope, buying us time in our endeavor to assure the persistence of the world’s wildlife.

F


Source: Francesco Rovero, MTSN

Sengis or elephant-shrews, so named for their long snouts, supposedly were f ully known until Italian scientist Rhynchocyon udzungwensis. Francesco Rovero discovered the first new species in 125 years in the Udzungwa Mountains of Tanzania. Rhynchocyon udzungwensis is a giant elephant-shrew compared to its close relatives and can grow to 1.5 pounds (0.68 kg), 25 percent larger than other known shrews. The species is most likely monogamous like other elephant-shrews and lives only in two high-altitude forest blocks in the mountains of south-central Tanzania.3

Source: Raoul Bain, American Museum of Natural History

Source: David Hall/seaphotos.com

On a recreational dive off of Ambon Island, Indonesia, husband and wife dive team Buck and Fitrie Randolph of Maluku Divers photographed and observed a new species of anglerfish that has come to be known as the Maluku frogfish or Histiophryne psychedelica for its swirling striped pattern. The fish possesses leglike pectoral fins, a prominent feature of anglerfish, and has an unusually flat face with a frowning mouth and forward-directed eyes, which may allow for better depth perception. Its body structure is soft and pliable, allowing it to creep into crevices seemingly too small for its size. H. psychedelica does not have a lure fixed to its head for catching prey as other anglerfish do; rather, this fish hunts by waiting with mouth gaping, striking at close passersby.2

Maluku frogfish.

Source: S. Blair Hedges

Blair Hedges of Pennsylvania State University discovered the 3 inch (10 cm) long Leptotyphlops carlae snake hiding under a small rock on the island of Barbados. Belonging to the threadsnake family, which look much like earthworms, the world’s smallest known snake uses its lower jaw to rake termite and ant larvae into its mouth. The species lays elongated eggs, a trait related primarily to the shape of the available body cavity and clutch size.4 Leptotyphlops carlae threadsnake.

White-lipped keelback snake.

In the Thua Thien Hue province of central Vietnam lies one of the last remaining lowland wet evergreen forests rich in biodiversity, a remote part of the Annamite mountain range known as the Green Corridor. Here a World Wide Fund for Nature expedition discovered 11 new species of plants and animals. The list of discoveries includes the nonvenemous white-lipped keelback snake (Amphiesma leucomystax), which has a yellow-white stripe along its mouth; a butterfly in a new genus under the Satyrinae subfamily; a new Zela species of skipper butterfly; and five new orchids.5

Discoveries • 39

Source: A.J. Plumptre

Source: HJDGarcia, Haribon Foundation's Threatened Species Program with support from Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund

Hyperolius spp.

Andrew Plumptre of the Wildlife Conservation Society led the first research team in decades into Misotshi-Kabogo forest, an area in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo that has been used as a rebel base camp in a series of civil wars. The region has notably rich biodiversity, which likely resulted from the relative isolation of the forest for centuries. The team’s discoveries include four new mammals—a small bat species (Rhinolophus spp.) with horseshoe-shaped nostrils, a rat species, and two shrew species—and two new amphibians—a bright green frog of the Hyperolius genus and a black frog of the Phrynobatracus genus that measures 0.80 inch (2 cm) long.6


Styloctenium mindorensis.

In 1857, British scientist Alfred Russell Wallace collected a flying fox specimen on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi. He was certain that Styloctenium wallacei was a unique species of fruit bat, although he was met with adversity upon this announcement. As Wallace’s discovery was the sole specimen of its kind, he had difficulty making his case. If ever existent, the species was believed to be extinct. Recently, scientists on an expedition on Mindoro Island, Philippines, discovered another curious species of Styloctenium. Various physical traits distinguish Styloctenium mindorensis from other fruit bats, and through genetic analysis there is no doubt that this creature is distinctive among its relatives.7

Source: Julian Bayliss

Source: Paddy Ryan/Ryan Photographic

Atheris mabuensis.

Brachylophus bulabula.

While setting up a British Government Darwin Initiative Award project, conservation biologist Julian Bayliss used Google Earth to identify mountains over 5,000 feet (1,500 m) in northern Mozambique. The aim was to assess the biological similarity between Mount Mulanje in southern Malawi and its neighboring mountains in northern Mozambique, including Mount Mabu. When Bayliss first climbed up Mount Mabu in 2005 he noticed a dark green area of forest in the distance. Using satellite imagery, he determined that this forest was the largest continuous tract of midaltitude forest in southern Africa. Subsequent field visits confirmed this. An international team of 28 scientists, led by Royal Botanic Gardens Kew botanist Jonathan Timberlake, visited the area in 2008 and found a wealth of newly documented species. These included the globally threatened Thyolo alethe thrush (Alethe alethe choloensis), which appeared in moderate numbers, and Mozambique’s only endemic bird species, Namuli apalis, previously believed to populate only Mount Namuli. Among the new species were two butterflies; three snakes, including a new species of bush viper (Atheris mabuensis); a pygmy chameleon (Rhampholeon spp.); and rare orchids.8

Australian and US conservationists, led by Scott Keogh of the Australian National University’s School of Botany and Zoology, were ecstatic to uncover a new iguana species in Fiji after analysis of mitochondrial DNA from 61 iguanas from 13 islands. Although Fijian iguanas are well studied among reptiles, one of the Brachylophus genus had been overlooked. Named Brachylophus bulabula after the Fijian word for “hello,” this iguana has distinctly white banding over its entire body that immediately greets the eye. Unfortunately, it seems this newly discovered reptile is already highly threatened by introduced predators such as mongooses and feral cats.9

Discoveries • 41

Source: CI-Colombia/photo by Marco Rada

Amphibians around the globe are under threat, so the discovery of 10 new amphibian species by Conservation International was an encouraging sign and reason to protect the mountainous Tacarcuna Hills region of northwestern Colombia. These finds include an orange-legged rain frog (Pristimantis spp.) with spiky skin, three glass frogs (Nymphargus, Cochranella, and Centrolene spp.) with transparent skin, one harlequin frog (Atelopus spp.), three poison dart frogs (Colostethus, Ranitomeya, and Anomaloglossus spp.), and a salamander (Bolitoglossa taylori).10


Source: Ítalo Mourthé

Bolitoglossa taylori.

Cacajao ayresii.

Along the Rio Aracá, a tributary of the Rio Negro in Brazil, conservation scientist Jean-Phillipe Boubli discovered a new species of uakari. Having followed the native Yanomamo Indians on their hunts, Boubli noted variations in this small monkey that distinguished it from other uakari species, and while other uakaris normally inhabit flooded river forests, the new Cacajao ayresii, so-called in honor of Brazilian biologist José Márcio Ayres, was found in a mountainous region along the Brazil–Venezuela border. The newly found uakari species lives in a small territory outside of any preserve and is sometimes hunted by locals.11

Source: Takako Uno

Five new pygmy seahorses were discovered in the reefs of the Red Sea in the Middle East, and off Sulawesi, Indonesia, a result of collaboration between scientists and dive photographers. It has taken decades for the two communities to track down several of these creatures since initial sightings. The Walea seahorse (Hippocampus waleananus), named after a central Sulawesi island, is a brilliant orange. H. debelius was named for dive photographer Helmut Debelius, who led a successful campaign to track this knobby, redlined seahorse, while H. severnsi, a seahorse with a blotchy white and brown tone and Satomi’s pygmy seahorse. short spines along its dorsal side, was named after diver Mike Severns. At less than half an inch tall (13 mm), Satomi’s seahorse (H. satomiae) is a strong contender for the world’s smallest seahorse; this species gives birth to young approximately the size of a 12-point-type apostrophe. Pontoh’s seahorse (H. pontohi), beige in color, was discovered by a local Indonesian guide named Hence Pontoh.12

JOSH GINSBERG is vice president and deputy chief of conservation for the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). Josh has worked for WCS for 13 years and previously held positions as vice president of conservation operations, director of the Asia and Pacific Program, and acting director of the Africa Program. Josh spent 17 years as a field biologist/conservationist in Asia and Africa and is currently an adjunct professor at Columbia University. CATHERINE GRIPPO is program manager for the Wildlife Conservation Society Institute and photo editor for State of the Wild. She previously worked in the music industry. Catherine holds a BA in communication and media studies from Fordham University, where she also minored in visual arts. JANE PERRINO holds a BS in biology from Wheaton College of Wheaton, Illinois. Having worked in watershed conservation and as a veterinary assistant, Jane is interested in translating zoological research to public education for conservation efforts. Jane lives in New York City where she works as a part-time research assistant for the Wildlife Conservation Society. Discoveries • 43

The Rarest of the


Rare

Amur or Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica).


Some of the World’s Most Endangered Animals xtinction is tragic, especially if it is preventable. Today, many species are threatened by habitat destruction, overhunting, and the loss of prey and food sources. The complete list of Earth’s rarest creatures is too long for these pages. Instead, each volume of State of the Wild highlights a selection of life forms that are inching closer to extinction, representing different taxonomic groups and all regions of the globe. The following species are listed as Critically Endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a global network of almost 11,000 volunteer scientists who compile and update the comprehensive Red List. The IUCN Red List categorizes rare species as Near Threatened, Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered based on observed and estimated populations, threats, and specific biological parameters. Critically Endangered species face an “extremely high risk of extinction in the wild,” often meaning that the species’ numbers have been reduced by approximately 80 percent in the last 10 years (or three generations). Unfortunately, as of 2009, the total number of Critically Endangered plant and animal species was well over 3,200, a statistic that grows with each assessment. Thankfully, some saw genuine improvement in their conservation status: 37 mammal and two bird species are now less threatened than they were. Species on the road to recovery, two of which are featured in the following text, prove that conservation action can indeed help.

E

The Rarest of the Rare • 45


Cuban crocodile.

Florida bonneted bat.

Green-eyed frog: Chytrid fungus, fatal to amphibians, has reduced the population of the green-eyed frog (Lithobates vibicarius) to only a few hundred. This frog, which grows to an average of 2.5 inches (6.5 cm), was once common in Costa Rica and Panama. Agriculture and logging have now limited its range to Costa Rica where a population near Parque Nacional Juan Castro Blanco exhibited physical deformities likely due to agricultural chemicals easily absorbed by frogs. One hope for the species is captive breeding.3

Source: 2005 Robert Puschendorf

Florida bonneted bat: The Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) was thought to be extinct until 2002, when a small colony was discovered in a North Fort Myers suburb. The bat, the largest in Florida, with a 21-inch (53 cm) wingspan, is critically endangered due to the loss of roosting sites, a cumulative result of the felling of old trees in hurricanes and for construction. Pesticide spraying for mosquitoes may contribute to a decline of these insectivorous bats. Their population is estimated at about 100, and they were recently reviewed for potential Federal protection.2

Source: Merlin D. Tuttle, Bat Conservation International, www.batcon.org

Cuban crocodile: The Cuban crocodile (Crocodylus rhombifer), which reaches a maximum size of about 11 feet (3.5 m) in length, is currently restricted to two small areas of Cuba. Illegal hunting continues to be a threat, chiefly for meat for restaurants serving the tourist industry. There is also evidence of extensive hybridization with American crocodiles (Crocodylus acutus), which are found throughout Central and northern South America. The estimated population of Cuban crocodiles is 4,000, but it is highly likely that a growing number of these animals are hybrids.1

Green-eyed frog.

Source: Bonnie L. Rusk 2004

Grenada dove: The national bird of this Caribbean island nation, the Grenada dove (Leptotila wellsi) numbers fewer than 150. The pink-breasted bird is legally protected and has been featured on the country’s postage stamp. Nevertheless, habitat loss in Grenada, compounded by introduced predators such as mongooses, cats, and rats, has pushed the remaining Grenada doves to Mt. Hartman National Park and Mt. Hartman Estate. Despite plans to develop part of this area as a resort, a 10-year recovery plan hopes to restore enough habitat to support four subpopulations totaling several hundred doves.4 Grenada dove.


Ploughshare tortoise: The ploughshare tortoise (Astrochelys yniphora) is found in the Baly Bay region in northwestern Madagascar. The current wild population is nearly 200 mature animals (400 individuals in total). The tortoise was historically threatened by hunting and frequent human-caused fires. Ilegal collection of ploughshare tortoises for the international pet trade continues to be a threat. Smuggling has increased since the 2009 political unrest in Madagascar. The tortoises are now restricted to five small, unconnected subpopulations, posing a genetic concern for the species. Ploughshare tortoises are nearly certain to go extinct within 30 years if current threats continue unabated.6

Island gray fox: The island gray fox (Urocyon littoralis), at 3 to 4 pounds (1.5 kg), is the smallest fox in the United States, and it lives only on six of the California Channel Islands. The fox is vulnerable to canine diseases introduced to the islands by domestic dogs and also heavily preyed upon by the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). It is believed that there are fewer than 1,000 individuals left. Even so, in the past decade, gray foxes were euthanized on San Clemente Island to protect another rare species, the endemic loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicanus mearsi). Because both the shrikes and the foxes are so rare, the fox-control efforts ceased in 2003, and the focus is now on restoring habitat and reducing the populations of introduced species on the islands.7

Source: Moose Peterson/ardea.com

Source: Winfried Wisniewski/FLPA

Hirola: The hirola or Hunter’s hartebeest (Beatragus hunteri or Damaliscus hunteri) is one of the most highly threatened antelopes in Africa. It is now found only in an approximately 2,900-squaremile (7,600 km2) area along the border of Kenya and Somalia. White markings around the hirola’s head give it the appearance of wearing glasses. The main threats to the species include disease, predators, habitat loss due to encroachment by cattle farmers, and severe drought. The species has been legally protected from hunting in Kenya since 1971 and in Somalia since 1977, but lack of effective enforcement leaves it vulnerable to poaching. An estimated 600 individuals survive.5

Hirola.

Source: WCS

Island gray fox.

Ploughshare tortoise.

Some of the World’s Most Endangered Animals • 47

Source: Anup Shah/naturepl.com

Vaquita.

White-headed langur: The white-headed or Cat Ba langur (Trachypithecus poliocephalus) lives on Cat Ba Island in Halong Bay off the northeastern coast of Vietnam. There may be as few as 59 individuals remaining, the result of a 98 percent decline over the last 40 years. The major threats to this species are hunting for “monkey balm,” a traditional Chinese medicinal preparation, and the destruction and exploitation of their forest habitat. Prior to 1979, few people lived on Cat Ba Island, but now approximately 12,300 people live in the buffer zone of Cat Ba National Park. The white-headed langurs are split into just a few isolated subpopulations, many of which are all-female groups. This fragmentation results in low reproductive rates and a danger of inbreeding.10

Source: Terry Whittaker/AUSCAPE

Vaquita: The five-foot-long (1.5 m) vaquita (Phocoena sinus) is the smallest marine cetacean and is known to occur only in the northern Gulf of California in Mexico. This porpoise has distinctive dark rings around its eyes and dark patches on its beak. The main threat to the vaquita is getting caught and drowned in fishing gillnets used in these waters. In addition, the vaquita may be affected by reduced water flow into the Gulf from the Colorado River, and the increase in pesticide and fertilizer pollution in that water. A population estimate conducted in 1997 estimated that 567 vaquitas survive, but their current number is estimated at 150. In 2009, the Mexican government passed a resolution to ban trawling in part of the vaquita’s range.9

Source: Flip Nicklin/Minden Pictures/ National Geographic Stock

Sumatran orangutan: The majority of Sumatran orangutans (Pongo abelii) live in the province of Aceh in northern Sumatra, Indonesia. They were originally considered a subspecies of the neighboring Borneo orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) but were classified as a distinct (and much rarer) species in 2004. The Sumatran orangutan population is believed to have declined by 80 percent based on a variety of surveys over the past 75 years. A 2008 estimate places the population of Sumatran orangutans at around 6,600 left in the wild. Most orangutans live outside protected areas, and their forest habitat is seriously threatened by logging and deforestation for palm oil plantations. As more forest is converted, young orangutans are orphaned, illegally captured for the international pet trade, killed as pests for raiding fruit crops, or even killed for food.8

White-headed langur.

Sumatran orangutan.


Road to Recovery

Romer’s tree frog.

Przewalski’s horse: The stocky, short-necked Przewalski’s horse (Equus ferus przewalskii) is the only true living species of wild horse. It is native to the steppe of Central Asia and became extinct in the wild, existing only in zoos and animal parks. Projects spearheaded in the early 1990s by the Mongolian Association for Conservation of Nature and the Environment, the Foundation for the Preservation and Protection of the Przewalski’s Horse, and the International Takhi Group have reintroduced the horse into its native habitat in three areas in central, northwest, and southwest Mongolia. As of January 2008, there are more than 300 free-ranging reintroduced and wild-born Przewalski’s horses and the number is increasing. Further initiatives are under way in neighboring China. There are hopes that there will soon be large, self-sustaining wild populations of the once extinct animal.12

Source: Eric Baccega/naturepl.com

Source: Chun Chiu, Pang

Romer’s tree frog: The tiny Romer’s tree frog (Chirixalus romeri), averaging less than 0.8 inches (2 cm) in length, is found only on the islands of Hong Kong. Romer’s tree frog was first discovered in the 1950s and then was long thought to be extinct because its natural habitat was almost completely destroyed by the construction of an airport. However, in the 1990s, captive breeding and release programs were initiated by a collaboration of the Melbourne Zoo, World Wildlife Fund–Hong Kong, Hong Kong University, and the Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Gardens. A few thousand frogs were released at various sites, and while it appears that the population has not grown significantly, the species has survived where it was once thought lost.11

Przewalski’s horse.

Road to Recovery • 49

Rarest Ecosystems PAT R I C K C O M E R

n ecosystem represents an interconnected set of animal, plant, insect, and other species in a particular part of a biome. The variety of ecosystems that our planet affords is astounding, and more so when we learn about an ecosystem that is highly adapted to a particular set of environmental parameters. The following are two representatives from the increasing number of rare ecosystems—rare either because they have been degraded, their characteristic community of species has changed, or they exist in very particular places. As the global climate warms and precipitation patterns shift, environmental parameters will influence ecosystems in new ways, so it is worth taking a close look at them. As of 2010, two of the rarest ecosystems on Earth are the longleaf pine woodlands of North America and the Guyanan tepuis of South America. In the spring of 1773 William Bartram, a naturalist from Philadelphia, traveled across the southeastern United States and saw “a vast forest of the most stately pine trees that can be imagined.”1 At that time, longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) was the dominant tree across much of the coastal plain, encompassing some 141,000 square miles (360,000 km2) from Virginia in the northeast, south to Florida, and west to Texas. Over time, logging, land development, and management techniques to suppress wildfires destroyed most of these old-growth forests. Currently, less than 3,000 square miles (7,800 km2) of longleaf pine forests still exist, a 97 percent decline and one of the most drastic reductions of any major ecosystem in

A

Source: Raymond Gehman/National Geographic Stock

Prescribed fires have helped to preserve longleaf pine forests in Florida.

PATRICK COMER is chief terrestrial ecologist for NatureServe, an international nonprofit devoted to bringing scientific methods, information, and understanding to environmental decision makers. His research centers on the classification, mapping, and assessment of terrestrial ecosystems throughout the Americas. He also develops methods and tools for integrating scientific information into land use planning. 50 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: Kevin Schafer/Peter Arnold, Inc.

the United States. The Red Hills Region of Florida and Georgia is home to some of the best-preserved stands of longleaf pine. Longleaf pine woodlands encompass a variety of habitats and include a diverse suite of grasses and herbs. Individual trees can grow up to 115 feet (35 m) and can live 300 years. The longleaf pine is adapted to an environment in which extensive natural fires may burn every few years. The rare animal species that occur in longleaf pine woodlands include the endangered redcockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), as well as several amphibians and reptiles such as the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) and the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi)—the largest North American snake. Since the early 1990s, ecosystem-based land management on many public and private lands has slowed or even reversed the decline of these forests, and many populations of red-cockaded woodpecker have begun to stabilize. The Guyanan tepuis are isolated mesas or tabletop mountains that are found only among the Guyana Highlands in the border regions of Venezuela, Guyana, and Brazil. Tepuis means “house of the gods” in the local indigenous language. Most are composed of sandstones and quartzites and are so geologically ancient that they have been eroded with sinkholes and deep caves (features more common in soluble limestones). Typically between 2,600 and 5,000 feet (800 to 1,500 m) above sea level, they tower above the surrounding lowlands and are often shrouded in clouds and mist. One tepui, Auyantepui, is the source of the world’s tallest waterfall, known as Angel Falls or Kerepakupai Merú. Due to their age and relative isolation—both from the surrounding jungle and one another—tepuis support unique local ecosystems rich in endemic (locally evolved) species. Coarse, thick-leaved shrublands occur across the tops and sides of some tepuis and can form dense thickets reaching 26 feet (8 m) in height. In this extremely wet, cool climate, short trees, including the threatened conifer Podocarpus roraimae form open canopies over succulent and rosette-forming shrubs and herbs. Most tepuis are protected within Venezuela’s Canaima National Park, which is classified as a World Heritage Site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. u

Angel Falls, Auyantepui.

Rarest Ecosystems • 51

Emerging Diseases and Conservation: An Update on One World—One Health1 WILLIAM B. KARESH

ad cow disease, monkey pox, Ebola, and avian influenza are now household words, expressions of the inextricable link between the health of wildlife, people, and domestic animals. The exponential growth of human and livestock populations, urbanization, intensive agriculture, and the global trade in animals has increased the chances for contact between animals, humans, and disturbed ecosystems, for diseases to emerge or reemerge, and for those diseases to spread. This is of particular concern as we consider zoonotic diseases—diseases that are transmissible from animals to humans. The multifaceted nature of this issue challenges our previously held notions of the boundaries between wildlife conservation, veterinary science, pathology, human livelihoods, agriculture, and public health. The threat of disease can be global—as recently illustrated by the 2009 H1N1 influenza’s rapid spread from Mexico to countries around the world—which means that all sectors need to collaborate to both prevent and respond to outbreaks. As conservationists, we need to partner with like-minded individuals and organizations in human health, agriculture, and the domestic animal veterinary fields to craft effective ways to make our world a healthier place for all. There are multiple connections between disease, health, and conservation. Disruption of ecosystems, such as deforestation, flooding caused by dams, and agricultural expansion, can provide opportunities for disease emergence and

M

WILLIAM B. KARESH is vice president of the Wildlife Conservation Society and director of its Global Health Program. He is leading efforts around the world to reduce the impact of diseases such as Ebola, influenza, and tuberculosis on endangered species and people. He also serves as president of the World Organization for Animal Health’s Working Group on Wildlife Diseases and cochairs the IUCN’s Wildlife Health Specialist Group. 52 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild


The Ebola virus kills both gorillas and humans. Currently, there is no known cure for the disease.

reemergence, particularly zoonotic diseases. Incursions into forests and other wild areas bring humans and their livestock closer to wildlife, increasing the chance of contact and disease transmission. Overhunting can eliminate certain species from a complex ecological web, disrupting predator–prey relationships and allowing dramatic changes to occur in the numbers of disease vectors and reservoirs (often insects and rodents). The disruption of ecosystems often weakens the natural barriers to the movement of disease, which has resulted in the emergence of novel diseases such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Ebola, and new strains of avian influenza, the reemergence of old diseases such as anthrax, and the further spread of existing diseases such as tuberculosis. Continued environmental degradation, intensified livestock production, and a warming climate all increase the risk of disease transmission between wildlife, domestic animals, and people. At the same time, rapid international transportation, livestock export, and the illegal trade of wild animals provide avenues for the quick spread of diseases far beyond the countries where they originate. Emerging zoonotic diseases impede the global endeavors to improve human health and livelihoods, and therefore must be studied and addressed through Emerging Diseases and Conservation: An Update on One World—One Health • 53

Source: W. B. Karesh/WCS

Wildlife Conservation Society health staff collect samples from a whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus) in Mongolia to test for the presence of avian influenza.


comprehensive policy. Infectious diseases that have emerged and reemerged since the mid-1990s have cost an estimated $100 billion in losses to the global economy in that time.2 The health sciences have traditionally been segregated into many specialty areas without linkages between human medicine, livestock disease, and wildlife health. The compartmentalization of these specialized fields has hampered communication, research, and other efforts that could prevent or control the emergence and spread of diseases. A broader understanding of the connection between human and animal health requires a more comprehensive approach, such as the One World–One Health paradigm, highlighted in the State of the Wild 2008–2009. The One World–One Health paradigm engages expertise and experience from a range of not only the health professions, but also biologists, sociologists, anthropologists, economists, natural resource managers, and other stakeholders from the public and private sectors to address complex health challenges and utilizes a multidisciplinary approach to create solutions. Since State of the Wild 2008–2009’s special section on emerging diseases and conservation was published, much progress has been made toward understanding the driving factors behind disease emergence and sharing that information across professional disciplines and political borders. Highly pathogenic avian influenza (subtype H5N1) is still killing millions of domestic poultry (mostly chickens and ducks in Asia and Africa) and causing economic hardship for people in the affected countries. It also continues to infect and kill people (over 400 cases were reported as of October 2009, resulting in at least 262 human deaths), and presents an ongoing threat of a potential pandemic—a situation where the avian influenza virus mutates so that it can move not just from bird to bird, or bird to human, but from human to human.3 However, collaboration among health organizations and local governments to deal with influenza has vastly improved. Nevertheless, much remains to be done to implement better control mechanisms, and, although new vaccine technologies for both humans and birds may help to reduce risks, in many areas local capabilities to carry out vaccination strategies are sorely lacking. Over the past two years, dramatic improvements in global information sharing have allowed scientists from around the world to more easily communicate

findings and ideas, an essential step toward meeting the challenge of protecting people and animals from influenza. The Global Initiative on Sharing Avian Influenza Data (GISAID) has fostered international sharing of avian influenza virus isolates and related data in new ways.4 Scientists participating in the GISAID consortium have agreed to allow access to their sequence data, to analyze the findings jointly, to publish the results collaboratively, and to exchange new virus information within months, rather than many years as was commonplace in the past. The hundreds of scientists working on innovative analyses and participating in this network can improve predictions, monitor changes, and produce new vaccines much more rapidly than ever before. To understand the evolving risks of avian influenza we must first know how common it is and where it is present in wild and domestic birds. We need to know where wild birds migrate and if wild birds carry the virus from its incubation points in large duck and chicken farms. To help answer these questions, the Wildlife Highly pathogenic avian influenza Conservation Society (WCS) created the Global Avian (subtype H5N1), is still killing Influenza Network for Surveillance (GAINS) in 2006.5 Over the past 4 years, participants from GAINS partner millions of domestic poultry organizations around the world have recorded the move(mostly chickens and ducks in ments and locations of over 100,000,000 wild birds, collected over 40,000 samples for influenza testing, and Asia and Africa) and causing placed their findings in a publicly available, open database economic hardship for people and mapping system. Thousands of people have been trained to safely and effectively participate in a global in the affected countries. wildlife health monitoring system for the first time in history. Further applications of this global monitoring approach could cover a wide range of diseases, and could enhance the detection of new diseases, or the occurrence of known diseases in new places. The US Agency for International Development has therefore launched a new initiative to support a multisectoral, multidisciplinary approach to monitoring other wildlife diseases around the world. Over the last two years, the One World–One Health concept has gained wide acceptance, as well as the endorsement of policy makers. The World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) have adopted the One World–One Health approach in their forward-looking collaborative efforts to control avian pandemic influenza and other diseases of global concern. In Winnipeg in 2009, the Public Health Agency of Canada hosted a meeting of health experts and diplomats from UN member countries to develop, plan, and implement multilateral agency and national government actions to prevent zoonotic disease outbreaks, promote health programs, and better prepare to respond to potential pandemics. In addition, the Asia Pacific Economic Emerging Diseases and Conservation: An Update on One World—One Health • 55

Community’s health working group—whose member countries have experienced their fair share of health crises from zoonotic outbreaks such as SARS and Nipah virus—adopted the One World–One Health concept at their 2008 meeting in Peru and made a commitment to finding collaborative ways to improve health and livelihoods. National governments are also acknowledging the links between wildlife, domestic animal, ecosystem, and human health, and the need for cross-sectoral policies to address the threat of disease. There is growing recognition that forest degradation can be a driver of both wildlife and human disease, and that clearing tropical forests can create breeding grounds for Anopheles mosquitoes that carry malaria. In 2007, the Brazilian government brought together the ministries of agriculture, human health, and the environment to develop A frequently overlooked facet multidisciplinary projects to advance the health of peoof climate change is that warmer ple, animals, and the environment. Since the launch of Brazil’s One World–One Health program, ten projects temperature and altered rainfall linking human, domestic animal, and wildlife health levels may foster emerging have been funded. In the United States, the National Academies of and reemerging infectious Science has embraced the ideas underlying One World– diseases, posing a threat to One Health and has commissioned a number of panels and studies to address the growing need to comprehenhumans and wildlife. sively address emerging diseases, the global spread of disease, and the expected effects of climate change on disease. These initiatives have engaged significant wildlife health expertise and recommended formal integration among health and environmental sectors in ways that have not been seen before. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) created the National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne, and Enteric Diseases under the CDC’s Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases. Staffed with over 600 epidemiologists, physicians, veterinarians, and other disease specialists, this new center brings together some of the oldest components of the agency—those dealing with viral, bacterial, parasitic, and other communicable diseases—in order to understand, prevent, and control infectious diseases that can affect wildlife and humans, such as plague, Ebola, and rabies, within a larger ecological context. These recent collaborative efforts are both essential and encouraging. Another example comes from the OIE, which has traditionally focused on livestock health and required its 174 member countries to report on disease occurrences in order to maintain their international agricultural trading status. Recently, the OIE has added a broader range of zoonotic and wildlife diseases to its list and has modified its global electronic disease reporting system to include wildlife diseases. As of 2009, the OIE requires countries to report 56 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: CDC/Abbigail Tumpey

on instances of chytrid fungus and ranaviral diseases of amphibians, two diseases that spread quickly and have caused local extinctions of frogs. Wildlife health measures are being incorporated into the field of conservation not only at the policy level but also on the ground in areas where it is greatly needed, such as rural southern Africa. State of the Wild 2008–2009 described how past efforts by livestock interests to control disease set the stage for potential disease reemergence in southern Africa’s transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs). TFCAs re-connect protected areas, sometimes across international borders, often requiring the dismantling of disease “control” fences to open migration pathways for wildlife. Although seemingly good for conservation and ecotourism, without appropriate planning, this practice could pose the risk of disease transmission between formerly segregated wildlife populations and between wildlife and the livestock and humans in and near these parks. Over the past two years, the countries of the Southern African Development Community have continued to build collaborative efforts, and more than half a million dollars of funding has supported local projects focused on health challenges facing livestock, wildlife, and people in and around TFCAs.6 While the challenges are greater than ever, there is now honest engagement among park managers, livestock owners, other local community members, tourism operators, veterinarians, and physicians. These stakeholders are committed to ensuring that the establishment of the TFCAs proceeds without negative consequences to the health of wildlife, livestock, and humans. For possibly the first time, a broad range of issues such as proper governance structures, human resettlement, poverty alleviation, natural resources management, gender roles, zoonotic and other infectious diseases (including HIV/AIDS), open data-sharing, and the need to fence land are being discussed with all stakeholders. Collaborative work on disease monitoring, prevention, and conservation will continue to be critical as we look to the future. A frequently overlooked facet of global climate change is that warmer temperature and altered rainfall levels may foster emerging and reemerging infectious diseases, posing an increased threat to humans and wildlife. The health of wild animals is tightly woven into the ecosystems in which they live, and alterations in their environment, including those caused by changes in temperature and rainfall, can influence their susceptibility to disease. Climate-related changes can also affect the viability of viruses, bacteria, and parasites.

Humans can contract Rift Valley fever from exposure to the bodily fluids of infected domestic animals or through the bite of a virus-carrying mosquito. These goats were tested for the virus during an outbreak in Saudi Arabia.

Emerging Diseases and Conservation: An Update on One World—One Health • 57

At the IUCN’s 2008 World Conservation Congress in Barcelona, Spain, WCS reported that climate change could influence 12 pathogens and their spread into new regions with potential cascading effects on the health of wildlife, human populations, and global economies. This report, The Deadly Dozen: Wildlife– Human Disease Threats in the Age of Climate Change, highlights that some diseasecausing agents are very sensitive to climate conditions that can affect both wildlife and people, such as Rift Valley fever (a zoonotic disease spread by mosquitoes), red tides (toxic ocean algal blooms deadly to both humans and marine life), and anthrax (a lethal bacteria that can be long lived in the environment).7 Little data exists on how diseases will spread in response to climate change, Exciting work is taking place to and surveillance efforts for these diseases need to be examined in tandem develop new technologies for with meteorological data to reveal climapping and monitoring diseases, mate-related trends. Drivers of global change—populaand to create new vaccines. tion growth, expanding agriculture and livestock production, biodiversity loss, and climate change—disturb the balance of disease pathogens in wild ecosystems. We are beginning to gain an understanding of the vulnerabilities of certain species, transmission routes, and ways to prevent disease problems. But organisms continue to mutate, adapt, and spread. Exciting work is taking place to develop new technologies for mapping and monitoring diseases, and to create new vaccines such as one for Ebola that could protect people and great apes. Much more work is necessary if we are to keep pace with our rapidly changing world. We must continue to build new partnerships, stronger capabilities for wildlife health surveillance, and, as importantly, innovative mechanisms to put information to use to effectively protect the health of wildlife, domestic animals, F and people everywhere.


Champions of the Wild

The Guards of Chad’s Zakouma National Park Protection Unit are state employees entrusted with park security. They spend most of their days dealing with elephant poaching problems inside the park. Their dedication is noteworthy. For example, the chief of the Goz Djerat outpost has been paying informants out of his own pocket to notify him about poaching activities, leading to seizures of automatic weapons and the arrest of some poachers. Tragically, the poachers are winning, as the elephant population has crashed from nearly 4,000 to just over 600 individuals in just the past four years. Since 1990, 14 guards and 3 civilian park employees have been killed by poachers. Following are the names of the Zakouma guards and employees who have lost their lives for conservation: Mahamat Abakhar, Attahîr Abdoulaye, Droup Abdoulaye, Katir Abdoulaye, Zakaria Adoum, Adam Ahamat, Tidjany Al Mahadi, Mando Augustin, Bichara Badawi, Abba Chédida Hamat, Ahamat Issa, Ousman Issa, Zakaria Mahamat, Ahmat Mahmat, Misskine Ramadan, Djongo Tamsangui, and Allam Youssouf. Civil unrest in Chad makes enforcing conservation efforts extremely difficult, but despite the dangers presented by poachers and the tough working conditions within Zakouma, many of the guards stay committed to saving the park’s remaining elephants.

Source: D. Potgieter

People across the globe are doing exemplary work in the field to save wildlife and wild places, but many of their stories go untold. This new feature of State of the Wild honors a set of true conservation heroes and describes the challenges they face as they strive to preserve the natural world for future generations.

Zakouma ranger on patrol.

Champions of the Wild • 59

Yuri Melini is founder and director of the Center for Environmental, Social, and Legal Action (CALAS), an environmental nonprofit organization based in Guatemala City, Guatemala. Melini has publicly highlighted the socioenvironmental impacts of mining, petroleum exploration, and illegal timber extraction across Guatemala and particularly within the Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR), Guatemala’s most ecologically intact and archaeologically important protected area. Challenges to the protection of the MBR include the usurpation of massive expanses of parks and community managed forests by powerful individuals, many supported by or linked to the narcotics trade, and the lack of consistent application of national laws. Much of Melini’s work focuses on three areas. First, he is leading the national charge to improve the government’s ability to hold powerful absentee ranchers accountable for usurping land in the MBR. Second, he is working to pass national legislation aimed at improving enforcement. And finally, he supports community groups attempting to defend forest concessions granted to them by the government. Melini has trained lawyers, prosecutors, and judges in environmental legislation and helped to develop a cadre of professionals willing to promote institutional change in Guatemala. In 2008, Melini suffered an assassination attempt in which he was shot several times at close range. Fortunately, he survived the attack and continues living and working in Guatemala as a tireless public advocate for the basic human right to a healthy environment.


Source: Chuck Goddard, Hoopa Valley Tribe

Mark Higley.

Source: CALAS

Mark Higley is an exemplary naturalist, scientist, manager, and mentor. He has served as the wildlife biologist for the Hoopa Valley Tribe in northwestern California since 1991. The Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation is the largest land-based reservation in California. According to the 2000 US Census, the reservation suffers from an unemployment rate of 14 percent and a poverty rate of 29 percent, rivaling figures of many American inner cities. Higley helps the Hoopa Valley Tribe’s Forestry Division provide for the conservation and management of natural resources, many of which are important to the tribe for cultural and traditional subsistence. He oversees research and monitoring efforts of wildlife populations on the reservation, supervises crews of field technicians to complete federally mandated endangered species surveys, and brings outside conservation expertise to the reservation. Higley also developed innovative management approaches, involving community participation and science, to address human–bear conflict issues on the reservation. The extreme socioeconomic conditions on the reservation have a direct impact on quality of life and the means to achieve self-sufficiency, making for a challenging work environment, but Higley’s efforts are paying off both for the tribe and for the wildlife on their land.

Yuri Melini.

Source: Christopher Shank/WCS

Habiba Sarabi, born Mazari Sharif, was appointed governor of Afghanistan’s Bamiyan Province in 2005, making her the first female governor in the country. Bamiyan, located in Afghanistan’s central Hindu Kush Mountains, is one of Afghanistan’s poorest and least-developed provinces, but it is also a region of spectacular natural wonders. Sarabi, a hematologist and former minister of Women’s Affairs, was designated one of Time Magazine’s “Heroes of the Environment” in 2008, in part for her instrumental role in the establishment of Band-e-Amir National Park, Afghanistan’s first official protected area. For decades, tourists have enjoyed Band-e-Amir’s six crystal blue lakes and spectacular red cliffs, but the area never had protected status. As chair of the Band-e-Amir Protected Area Committee (BAPAC), a government/community management committee, Sarabi successfully tackled many difficult issues regarding land use and governance. Sarabi understands that in order for tourism to enhance the livelihoods of local people, the integrity of Band-e-Amir’s landscape must be maintained. Her strong stance on environmental issues makes her a positive role model for local communities, and her actions will inspire national change.

Habiba Sarabi (far right).

Champions of the Wild • 61

The snow leopard that vanishes in a whirlwind of snow Can be seen stalking on soft paws among the clouds. Michael Lon gley, from “The Snow Leopard,” N E W Y O R K E R , March 10, 1997


PA RT I I

FOC U S ON T HE W I L D Wildlife Conservation in a Time of War

onserving wildlife and wild places often entails working under a broad range of political circumstances, including conflict and war. A recent review showed that over 90 percent of the major armed conflicts between 1950 and 2000 occurred in countries noted for their richness of species and the endangered status of their biodiversity.1 The Wildlife Conservation Society and others have been working in many countries that have experienced violence, from Rwanda and Sudan, through Colombia and Guatemala, to Afghanistan and Cambodia. Dealing with human conflict has all too often been a part of the conservationist’s work. Only recently has the international community begun to appreciate the cost of instability and war on the natural world. For this reason, the special focus of State of the Wild 2010–2011 is “Wildlife Conservation in a Time of War.” What follows is an examination of the role that conservation plays in the context of human conflict, war, and reconstruction. Critical to the long-term success of the conservation of wildlife and wild places is understanding how wildlife fares in times of conflict, the interventions conservation can provide, and how conservation can contribute to reconstruction and rehabilitation. The essays here bring together an international perspective ranging from Afghanistan to southern Africa. The

C

introductory essay, “Conservation Amid War,” synthesizes the variety of ways in which human conflict affects wildlife and how conservation organizations can prepare for these situations. Next, “Conservation and Governance: Lessons from the Reconstruction Effort in Afghanistan” details how conservation nongovernmental organizations in this wartorn country can help build natural resource management capacity and democratic governance while protecting rare species such as ibex and markhor sheep. Recognizing the vast scope of the marine realm, the third essay, “Marine Life in Times of Conflict,” illustrates the resilience of the underwater world in the face of global terrestrial turmoil. In the penultimate essay, “Who Owns the Wild? Civil Conflict in Africa,” three experts from the region address how government collapse affects wildlife management in Mozambique and Zimbabwe, and how community resource management contributes to stability and supports conservation. Finally, in a stirring example of the power of conservation, the essay “Parks as Peacemakers: The Peru– Ecuador Divide” documents the efforts of scientists and civil society to help alleviate a long-standing border dispute in the biodiverse Cordillera de Cóndor region. Through the pursuit of conservation in conflict settings, we hope that both the affected humans and wild nature can i survive and heal.

Focus on the Wild • 63

Source: Bruce Davidson/naturepl.com

Rwandan refugees fled to Virunga National Park to escape genocide and cut down over 100 square miles of forest for fuel.


Conservation Amid War J E F F R E Y A . M c N E E LY

he Borjomi-Kaharaguli National Park in the southern Caucasus Mountains of the Republic of Georgia contains some of the best-preserved mountainous forests in that region. It provides important habitat for wolves (Canis lupus), brown bears (Ursus arctos), and the endemic Caucasian black grouse (Tetrao mlokosiewiczi). On August 15, 2008, Russian military helicopters reportedly dropped incendiary munitions on the Borjomi forests as part of a retaliatory campaign, starting fires that burned for weeks and ravaged nearly 2,500 acres (1,000 ha). Warfare such as this and in all its forms causes destruction to both human societies and biodiversity. While ecological damage cannot be compared with the human costs of war, the fact that nature also suffers from the follies of violent conflict is a situation worthy of greater attention. From 1968 to 1977, I saw firsthand the impacts of the Vietnam War on the people and places of Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Vietcong tactics depended heavily on tropical forests for shelter. The US military, wanting to uncover guerrilla supply routes, sprayed the forests with over 21 million gallons of Agent Orange, a carcinogenic herbicide. This deforestation campaign devastated many areas, and

T

JEFFREY A. McNEELY is senior science advisor at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), where he is responsible for overseeing the work of the world’s largest conservation network. Before joining IUCN, he spent 12 years in Thailand, Indonesia, and Nepal, conducting research and practical application of resource management activities. He is currently working to link biodiversity to sustainable agriculture, human health, biotechnology, climate change, energy, and more traditional fields of IUCN interest such as species, protected areas, ecosystems, and economics. Conservation Amid War • 65

the damage to mangroves in the second half of the twentieth century its Article 3, supports the Charter of Mekong Delta is still visible today. occurred in countries containing bio- the United Nations in recognizing the North Vietnam also sent supplies diversity hotspots—areas that support responsibility of states “to ensure that down the Annamite Mountain chain the entire populations of more than activities within their jurisdiction or through Laos and Vietnam, and US half of all plant species and more than control do not cause damage to the forces sought to disrupt this flow of 42 percent of the planet’s vertebrates. environment of other States or of ordnance by dropping more bombs More than 80 percent of all conflicts areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.” This estabalong these mountains than lishes a clear international fell on Germany in all of Over 90 percent of the major legal basis aimed at avoidWorld War II. The substaning environmental damage tial damage to Vietnam’s armed conflicts in the second half during wars between forests during this war has 1 of the twentieth century occurred nations. The convention been termed “ecocide.” Nevertheless, some also acknowledges the relain countries containing biodiversity wildlife was able to survive tionship between peace hotspots—areas that support the and even prosper during and conservation, concludthe wartime conditions in ing that “ultimately, the entire populations of more than Indochina. Tigers (Panconservation and sustainhalf of all plant species and thera tigris) reportedly able use of biological diverlearned that fighting leaves sity will strengthen friendly more than 42 percent of all the corpses upon which they relations among States and could feed. After the war, contribute to peace.”3 Such planet’s vertebrates. international laws set a field biologists returned to useful framework, but, on Vietnam’s forests to find an amazing number of species had sur- took place directly within the highly the ground, the civil conflicts that dominate recent wars often involve vived the turmoil, including the biodiverse areas.2 Often, expanses of newly discovered giant muntjac forest are distant from government antigovernment forces that by defini(Muntiacus vuquangensis) and the saola control and can harbor insurgents. tion are operating outside the law. The remoteness also means that few Patterns of warfare can influence (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis). Since 1990, wars and civil conflicts public services are available to main- the distribution of species and even have been waged in forests, grass- tain existing protected areas or to help ecosystems, and large mammals are lands, and other important wildlife the people caught in the conflict. War especially vulnerable during times of habitat in Angola, Bosnia, Cambodia, can severely impact biodiversity conflict. For example, the white rhiCentral African Republic, Colombia, because refugees and militias often noceros (Ceratotherium simum) was the Democratic Republic of Congo turn to the forests for food, building exterminated from Sudan during its (DRC), Guatemala, India, Indonesia, materials, and tradable resources. At 17-year civil war (1955–72), perhaps Liberia, Mexico, Myanmar, Nepal, the same time, conflict makes conser- because it was already rare, an easy target, and its horns and other body Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, vation work extremely challenging. The international community is parts were worth money to traders. Senegal, Sierra Leone, the Solomon In Central Africa, the continuing Islands, Sri Lanka, and Sudan—quite a well aware of the hazards that condepressing catalogue. Over 90 percent flicts pose to biodiversity. The wars, skirmishes, and rebellions are of the major armed conflicts in the Convention on Biological Diversity, in having a profoundly negative impact 66 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: Jean-Paul Ferrero/AUSCAPE

on both people and wildlife. In Lake Edward, on the border between Uganda and the DRC, the hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius) population declined from approximately 9,600 in the 1970s to just 683 in 2005 due to poaching by insurgent militiamen. The hippo’s decline has cascading ecosystem effects: hippo populations previously deposited over 45 million pounds (nearly 100 million kg) of nutrients into the lake annually, which fed phytoplankton and worms and, in turn, tilapia (Tilapia rendalli) fish, an important local food and economic resource. Within the DRC, a more serious conservation threat has been civil conflict and refugees in and near Virunga National Park, a World Heritage Site especially important for critically endangered mountain gorillas (Gorilla gorilla beringei). The DRC has been through several decades of instability, often merging into war and exacerbated by conflict in neighboring countries. In 1994, Virunga National Park was in the path of some 850,000 refugees fleeing the genocide in Rwanda. This remote protected area provided temporary shelter, but the settlers deforested some 118 square miles (300 km2) and significantly depleted populations of elephants (Loxodonta africana) and hippos. In addition, well-meaning humanitarian relief groups left mounds of medical waste, increasing disease transmission risks to gorillas and other animals.4 In 1996, the DRC civil war blazed again, killing some 3.8 million people

White-naped cranes find refuge in the demilitarized zone separating North and South Korea.

and displacing many farmers. Yet, even after the 2003 Peace Agreement, Virunga National Park was still infested with armed ex-farmers and ex-military men who freely poached game for food and sale. By mid-2005, the Congolese military had established 21 positions in the park to keep an eye on the seven rebel camps also inside the park. The late-2008 outbreak of new violence in the region further threatened the wildlife there. In the struggle to protect wildlife, at least 120 park staff have been killed over the past few decades, including one in January 2009.

Buffer Zones Provide Respite On a more positive note, history suggests that, in many parts of the world, buffer zones between warring ethnic or tribal groups may offer respite for wildlife populations. Buffer zones tend to receive less hunting pressure because conflicting groups try to

avoid each other. When Lewis and Clark crossed the Great Plains in 1803–06, they found the greatest number of large mammals in the buffer zones between different Native American tribes at war, including the Chippewa, Lakota, Mandan, Blackfeet, and Shoshone. It appears that war parties and hunters penetrated but did not occupy an approximately 46,000-square-mile (120,000 km2) area that, as a result, was richly stocked with elk (Cervus canadensis), bison (Bison bison), and wolves. Today, only a few US national parks offer a glimpse of this rich fauna that was in the past at least partly maintained by warfare between tribes.5 Amazonia experienced a similar phenomenon. Juan Salinas de Loyola, the first European to sail up the Ucayali River in the Upper Amazon in 1577, found large villages with hundreds of warriors who seemed to be Conservation Amid War • 67

Source: P. Elkan & M. Fay/WCS

In southern Sudan, large aggregations of wildlife still exist, like these white-eared kob. Their future will be determined by the Sudanese political peace process.

in constant conflict with their neighbors, leaving extensive buffer zones between the villages rich in wildlife. Modern examples of buffer zones are demilitarized areas, such as the demilitarized zone separating North and South Korea. This is a 2.5-mile-wide (4 km) strip of land stretching across the peninsula, bracketed by an additional “civilian control zone” that totals 590 square miles (1,529 km2) on the South Korean side. The demilitarized zone provides a sanctuary for species that are rare in Korea, especially red-crowned (Grus japonensis) and white-naped cranes (Grus vipio). 68 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

These birds are symbols of peace and tranquility in Asia, and the irony of their finding a refuge between two heavily armed nations is hard to miss. In other settings, fauna-rich buffer zones reveal some surprising evidence of the resilience of wildlife. A 2007 survey in southern Sudan carried out by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) found what may be the largest remaining mammal migration in the world—over 1.3 million white-eared kob (Kobus kob leucotis) are still thriving in the region despite years of conflict. WCS surveys, repeated in 2008, also found approximately 8,000 ele-

phants, 13,000 reedbuck (Redunca redunca), 8,900 buffalo (Syncerus caffer), and nearly 4,000 Nile lechwe (Kobus megaceros), a species found only in that region.6 The Sudd, Africa’s largest wetland, has remained underdeveloped because of Sudan’s civil war, but many interests have cast covetous eyes on this wetland, recognizing it as a potential breadbasket for the region. Sadly, the onset of peace may be the biggest threat to wildlife in Sudan: automatic weapons are now widespread, and former combatants looking for income often become hunters and poachers. The govern-

ment of southern Sudan has plans to recruit several thousand ex-soldiers from the Sudan People’s Liberation Army to help manage the country’s protected areas.

These examples show that the impact of war on biodiversity can be decidedly mixed, with a combination of damages and benefits. The situation in Nicaragua is illustrative: A 20-year civil war there resulted in nearly 100,000 casualties and the relocation of half of the country’s population. During the turmoil, trade in timber, fish, minerals, and wildlife slowed significantly, and the domestic cattle population was reduced by twothirds, freeing pastures for recolonization by forests and enabling the recovery of collared peccaries (Tayassu tajacu), monkeys (Alouatta villosa, Cebus capucinus, Aotus paniscus, and Saimiri oerstedii), crocodiles (Caiman crocodilus), iguanas (Iguana iguana), and large birds. However, at the same time, new military bases and roads were established in formerly remote areas, opening them up to exploitation. The country’s once-outstanding system of protected areas fell into neglect, and the collapsed economy forced villagers to fall back on clearing forest for firewood and harvesting wildlife for food.7 A paradoxical but somewhat disheartening corollary is that when peace “breaks out,” wildlife may suffer from either increased hunting or new development in areas that were

Source: Edward Myles/FLPA

Conservation after Conflict Ends

The Nile lechwe living in the Sudd thus far have been relatively unaffected by Sudan’s civil war.

previously too unsecure to attract investment. For example, Liberia’s 15year civil war, which left about 200,000 people dead, rendered Sapo National Park virtually untouched. Now that the fighting has declined and a modicum of stability has returned, new threats to Sapo have emerged in the form of a gold rush and an accompanying trade in bush-

meat to feed the prospectors, many of whom are homeless ex-combatants.

The Challenge for Conservation Work Conflict makes the work of conservation much more complicated. Conservationists and parks departments sometimes have to sit by as the places they value come under fire or Conservation Amid War • 69

Source: Mike Kolloffel/Peter Arnold, Inc.

Land mines kill or injure thousands of people and animals each year.

are overrun by displaced people. Decades of work can be undone by even relatively small conflicts. For example, disaffected tribes and Maoist “Naxalite” guerrillas in remote areas of central and eastern India may influence tiger conservation. The area controlled by the Naxalites constitutes about 30 percent of India’s tiger range. While guerrilla activity may not directly threaten tigers, it prevents conservation, regulation, and monitoring. Excessive harvesting of deer and wild pigs, the main prey of tigers, may render this region unable to support tigers. Gaining a better understanding of the causes and consequences of conflict can help conservation organizations to continue functioning even during volatile times. When I was 70 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

working in Nepal in 1972–74, Chitwan National Park was teeming with large mammals, including the greater one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), tigers, and numerous species of ungulates. Located in the productive lowlands that were gradually being converted to agriculture, Chitwan was protected by some 300 army troops, enabling the wildlife and tourism to prosper. After armed struggle began in 1996, Maoist rebels spread throughout the country, and the troops were redeployed in response, leaving Chitwan open to increased poaching. In other protected areas, conservation organizations such as the National Trust for Nature Conservation and World Wildlife Fund–Nepal were able to continue working with all parties of

the conflict and remain in the field even when government authorities had withdrawn. It is important for conservation practitioners to recognize the different interests of local and national authorities and to understand what happens to natural resources when conflict destabilizes power structures. For example, in the DRC, the bushmeat supply to urban and rural markets varies depending on the level and type of conflict. During peacetime, meat from species in Garamba National Park (mostly elephants and buffalo) constituted more than half of the bushmeat in the urban markets.8 This was because, during times of stability, the military controlled the supply of bushmeat to urban markets (and provided the automatic weapons necessary to hunt such large species). During war, however, the military was diverted, which opened access to bushmeat operations and allowed massive exploitation, evidenced by a fivefold increase in meat of protected species in urban markets. Interestingly, the local chiefs discouraged the use of automatic weapons, so fewer large mammals appeared in local markets. Even during war, the amount and type of bushmeat in rural markets remained relatively stable because of the continued authority of the village chiefs. This suggests that during times of conflict, traditional local authorities play an important role, and that conservation organizations can engage with those authorities to help wildlife survive the chaos.

Each conflict has its own unique features, but experience suggests several general policies for conservationists to consider:

This may involve stepping in after government support has been withdrawn, and helping the staff to maintain good relations with the local people.

ensure that any new forms of development have broad public support and will be environmentally sustainable.

We can find little reas• Do everything possisurance that war will ble to maintain a presExperience from Colombia, Nepal, become less of an issue in ence in conflict zones the coming years. Armies of conservation interIndia, and parts of Africa shows that remain a dominant politiest. This may involve insurgent groups will often permit cal, social, and economic working through a force in most countries. local nongovernmennongovernmental organizations Yet, senior military offital organization. to carry out conservation activities cials in many parts of the • Be seen not as a tool world increasingly recogof the government that benefit rural communities. nize that political, ecobut rather as a supnomic, and ecological viaporter of the legitibility are closely interrelated. Because • Seek objective understanding of mate interests of the people who any historical grievances of the many threats to national security are living in the conflict zone. communities living in areas have their roots in the inappropriate Experience from Colombia, where conflict occurs, and use management of natural resources, Nepal, India, and parts of Africa this understanding to design and because the struggle over natural shows that insurgent groups will appropriate forms of support to resources often fuels conflict, defense often permit nongovernmental agencies could legitimately be conservation interests. organizations to carry out con• Work with humanitarian agen- expected to support improved conservation activities that benefit servation as a preventive measure. cies to encourage resettlement of rural communities. refugees in suitable areas that will War is indisputably a disaster for peo• That said, continue to support ple, but it does not necessarily have to not damage biodiversity. government conservation agendestroy wildlife. • In postconflict situations, b cies to the fullest extent possible.

Conservation Amid War • 71

Conservation and Governance Lessons from the Reconstruction Effort in Afghanistan PETER ZAHLER

elevision and other media portrayals of Afghanistan often present a country traumatized by over a quarter-century of near-constant warfare—a devastated landscape, barren except for the desperately poor people trying to eke out a living in this ostensibly postconflict environment. Yet Afghanistan contains a surprising diversity of life, with 10 species of hooved mammals—ranging from delicate gazelles to giant Marco Polo sheep—and nine species of wild cat, the same number as is found in all of sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, until only 50 years ago, the Asiatic cheetah and now globally extinct Caspian tiger were also found in Afghanistan. The reason for this rich diversity of wildlife is that Afghanistan sits at the crossroads of three biogeographic realms—the Palearctic (Europe and northern Asia, which bestowed such species as brown bear and wolf ), Afrotropic (providing such species as gazelle and hyena), and Indomalayan (which brought such species as leopard cats and giant flying squirrels). This unique species diversity is why conservation in Afghanistan matters to the world— even more true as the decades of conflict and its many consequences threaten. Yet conservation matters for more than just wildlife: it can, and should, provide a way for postconflict rural Afghan communities to manage their natural

T

PETER ZAHLER is assistant director of the Wildlife Conservation Society’s (WCS) Asia Program, where he is responsible for projects in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Papua New Guinea. He has over 25 years of experience in conservation biology on three continents, including research on a wide variety of mammals and birds. Peter designed WCS’s Afghanistan Program with a focus on community management, the creation of protected areas, and environmental legislation, and has worked toward a four-country transboundary protected area between China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Tajikistan. 72 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

resources. This is particularly important because unsustainable resource use in Afghanistan can ultimately have local, regional, and even global repercussions.

For many developing countries, natural resource management is still the single most important aspect of the lives, livelihoods, and survival of rural communities. Poor and marginalized people are usually directly dependent upon environmental services. Forests provide firewood, building materials, and a host of foods and medicines. Functional grasslands provide grazing for livestock. Streams and rivers provide water, fish, and irrigation. And wildlife provides food, clothing, and goods to trade. Natural resources also serve as an important economic buffer by allowing rural people to keep their capital—often livestock—for the longer-term production of wool, milk, and offspring, rather than slaughtering it for food. Given this reliance on natural resources, rural village or community-level governance structures are often built around the need to manage land, forests, water, grazing, hunting, and fishing, and to solve group resource use problems. Unfortunately, war often destroys these local governance structures. Many people are killed and others flee, becoming internally displaced or refugees in neighboring countries. Local physical infrastructure such as water channels, crop fields, storage buildings, local markets, and roads are destroyed, and historic systems of resource management crumble. If the conflict continues for years, or in some cases even decades, cultural memory of these local governance institutions also disappears. Repatriated communities may no longer remember how they once managed the land and resources, and this may be exacerbated by an influx of new settlers with different cultural and resource management practices. In Afghanistan, for example, over 4.5 million refugees have returned from neighboring countries since 2002, with millions more people internally displaced during the wars.1 These shifting waves of people have torn the very fabric of tribal tradition that once defined and controlled local governance institutions. Even in situations where conflict has not entirely eradicated traditional practices, local governance may fail due to a combination of population growth, natural resource depletion, and external economic interests. In postconflict set-

Source: Knut Mueller/Peter Arnold, Inc.

The Importance of Natural Resource Governance

A quarter century of conflict has left the Afghan countryside devastated. These rusting tanks are only one legacy of the damage, much of it the subtle but pervasive effects of years of unsustainable and unmanaged exploitation from a desperate population struggling to survive.

Conservation and Governance • 73

tings, international donor agencies interested in reconstruction may pressure local communities to open their societies and join global economic markets that they neither trust nor understand. Traditional systems of governance are rarely capable of dealing with these new stresses unaided.

Partnerships for a Sustainable Future Into this rural “governance gap” has stepped the conservation community. While this may come as a surprise, it should not. The simple fact is that landscapes and biodiversity worthy of protection do not choose their political context, so if conservation organizations are to protect these landscapes and biodiversity, they must go where the need for conservation exists. A recent study has found that most modern conOrganizations that attempt to flict occurs in regions that are highest in biodiversity,2 and not surprisingly this often leads conservation provide support in more politically organizations into, or has them already situated in, conexplicit sectors, such as human flict or postconflict settings. Once there, organizations must deal with the threats to wildlife and resources, rights or even straightforward and often those threats come from people trying to surgovernance reform, often meet vive in these areas. Yet at the most basic level, conservation organizations are interested in sustainable natuwith strong cultural resistance, ral resource management—an interest which matches in part because of the overt the needs of these same poor rural communities. Since the 1960s, the international conservation comappearance of “external” munity has progressively recognized that local compressure brought to bear on munities are integral to the effective stewardship of their land and its biodiversity. To promote local stewlong-standing traditions. ardship, conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have invested in education (especially focused on sustainable land use), technical training, natural resource and political mapping (e.g., landownership), resolving wildlife–human conflict, developing alternative livelihoods, improving production and market access, and building local institutions to improve resource management. In the past, international development and aid organizations have assumed the responsibility of reaching out to poor, rural, and postconflict communities. However, conservation NGOs can also make important contributions. Rather than simply building infrastructure such as a bridge or school, conservation NGOs are interested in helping communities improve long-term, sustainable resource management—the foundation of rural people’s very survival. To do this effectively means facilitating governance at all levels, often by helping to rebuild and strengthen traditional governance structures that have dissolved or are not working, or by creating new institutions in areas that may not have had forms of political involvement more complex than the extended family. This 74 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: Don Bedunah

work can range from helping establish resource committees to co-drafting the bylaws through which the communities can more sustainably manage their natural assets. Unlike development projects that are rarely on the ground for more than two or three years, some conservation NGOs work at sites for many years, promoting long-term changes. To do this, conservation NGOs first earn the trust of local communities and then work to build capacity for better natural resource management. In the process, NGOs can become valued partners and advisers as these communities work through what are often traumatic social and political changes. At the same time, large international conservation NGOs have the ability to gain access to high levels of the central government and can act as facilitators between rural and often marginalized communities and central government agencies. By providing this link, conservation NGOs can help local communities cross the geographic, cultural, and political barriers of the national landscape, assert their legitimacy, and join the broader process of democratization. Of course, many other international aid organizations, such as those that focus on education, work with the similar goal of long-term change. However, organizations that attempt to provide support in more politically explicit sectors, such as human rights or even straightforward governance reform, often meet with strong cultural resistance, in part because of the overt appearance of “external” pressure brought to bear on long-standing traditions. Conservation, on the other hand, can be more widely accepted. Wildlife, forests, and resources are shared concerns, and extinction—especially of culturally iconic or economically important species—is a touchstone that can cross political and cultural boundaries. This can be true even in the case of dangerous predators. For example, in Mongolia, surveys have shown that while nomadic herders on the steppe do not want large numbers of wolves threatening their livestock, neither do they want the wolf to disappear, as it is culturally revered and respected (and the trade of its fur and body parts can provide a source of income).3

Approximately 80 percent of Afghans depend directly on natural resources for their survival, either growing crops or grazing domestic animals such as goats.


Conservation, Governance, and Stability: The Afghan Context

Snow leopards are endangered due to loss of prey and poaching for pelts and bones.



Afghanistan and its environment have suffered enormously from nearly 30 years of conflict. Desperate people have leveled forests and overgrazed grasslands, and the coupling of an influx of modern weapons with increased poverty has dramatically depleted wildlife populations. Since 2002, the global community has poured enormous resources into Afghanistan’s reconstruction. Unfortunately, little funding reaches outside the capital Kabul, and thus, while the central government has made some progress in the past few years, these improvements have had little effect on much of the country. With the vast majority (over 80 percent) of Afghans living in rural areas and depending directly on the natural resource base for their very survival, conservation should be a critical component of reconstruction in Afghanistan. Importantly, long-term stability will depend upon sustainable management of the country’s natural resources and the new governance structures that support this. Afghanistan lies within arguably the world’s most volatile political region. If local environmental degradation continues, people will no longer be able to carve a living out of the fragile steppe, desert, and mountains as they have for centuries. Poverty will spread, communities and cultural practices will dissolve, and rural migration will further destabilize neighboring communities, regions, and even states.

Source: Beth Wald, 2005

Recognizing this, the UN Environment Programme performed a postconflict assessment of Afghanistan in 2002. Subsequently, the US Agency for International Development provided funding to the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) for conservation initiatives to help improve local and central governance for natural resource management. This includes collecting the first baseline data on wildlife in decades, helping the new Afghan government draft the country’s first modern environmental laws, and training government officials. WCS is also working with 50 communities in the northern Wakhan region, the central highlands of Bamiyan, and the province of Nuristan along the Pakistan border to help rural villages strengthen, reform, or rebuild governance systems for sustainable resource management and economic development. The Wakhan region is a pencil of land stretching east into the Pamir Mountains bordered by Pakistan, China, and Tajikistan. Most of the Wakhan lies above 14,000 feet (4,200 m) in elevation—well above treeline—and while it supports critical populations of snow leopards (Uncia uncia), Himalayan lynx (Lynx lynx), Marco Polo sheep (Ovis ammon), ibex (Capra sibirica), and brown bears (Ursus arctos), it is also a cold, harsh, and easily disrupted environment. On this “roof of the world,” environmental degradation can affect more than the wildlife and soils. The vast majority of both Wakhi and Kyrgyz peoples who live here depend directly on local ecosystem processes for their survival. These agropastoralists take livestock up into high pastures in the spring, moving back down to lower elevations before the snows of winter. Some farm plots are hewn from the sides of steep mountains, providing critical local food production as the terrain makes transport of products prohibitively expensive and, when rains or frequent earthquakes block the few roads with landslides, impossible. The long-term survival of Wakhan communities and the entire Pamir environment depends on local people successfully managing their natural resources. The first step to ensure sustainable local management of resources in the Wakhan region is to help communities recognize the severity of threats (such as overgrazing and unsustainable hunting) and identify practices to alleviate those threats. Community-level conservation education is a simple and direct way to encourage dialogue on environmental concerns. WCS works with Wahki peo-

Marco Polo sheep live on the steep, snowy slopes of the Pamir Mountains. Trophy hunters prize them for their impressive horns.


ple from Pakistan to give presentations in the local language about biological and conservation principles regarding their resources, unsustainable activities, and alternatives, and particularly techniques to regulate overgrazing and hunting. The dialogue helps villagers see that loss of wildlife and rangelands threatens their ecosystem, culture, and future economic opportunities. This conservation education program also collects information from local stakeholders regarding traditional knowledge, uses, and rights. Although the program’s focus is With the vast majority (over 80 on adults, there are now also 56 environmental educapercent) of Afghans living in rural tion school committees in all 13 schools in the Wakhan Corridor, with 526 students and 82 teachers collecting areas and depending directly on data relevant to community resource decision making. the natural resource base for The next goal has been to enable communities throughout the Wakhan Corridor to achieve consentheir very survival, conservation sus on changes in resource use and sustainable manshould be a critical component agement. Community-based institutions are required by the Environment Law of the Islamic Republic of of reconstruction in Afghanistan. Afghanistan, which calls for the creation of community development committees (CDCs). However, these committees, when functioning at all, are not focused on resource management, and so WCS has worked within the CDC system to incorporate environmental decision making. WCS also works with these committees to develop environmental bylaws and hire and train wildlife rangers with the expectation that they will become staff of the provincial agencies (and eventually central ministries). The work in Bamiyan, the second focal region, entails similar education and community resource management planning and has included the development of Band-e-Amir, Afghanistan’s first national park. This beautiful set of six deepblue lakes set off from each other by natural travertine dams attracted tourists— both international aid workers and Afghans—even through the years of conflict and instability. WCS helped create the Band-e-Amir Protected Area Committee (BAPAC) to co-manage the park with the provincial government, with plans for park revenue to be transmitted through the BAPAC governance structure to improve local livelihoods. WCS’s work in the third region, Nuristan, is much more difficult, but perhaps the most important for Afghanistan’s biodiversity. Nuristan, by dint of its location within the northwestern edge of the South Asian monsoon belt, has some of the highest species diversity in Afghanistan. Thick conifer forests, similar to what might be found in the mountains of southern Colorado, contain some of the last populations of Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus), markhor (Capra falconeri), Persian leopard (Panthera pardus), leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis), and yellow-throated marten (Martes flavigula) in 78 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: Alex Dehgan

Afghanistan. However, Nuristan’s proximity to the volatile Pakistan border area makes it especially vulnerable to unsustainable management. The current “lawlessness” and economic isolation of this region has restricted or cut off normal market access and has put extreme pressure on communities to exploit their resources unsustainably—for example, selling rights to the remaining forests to illegal timber operations in Afghanistan or across the border. Unfortunately, due to the security conditions along the Pakistan– Afghanistan border, there is no chance for international experts to work in this region. Instead, WCS has focused on training Nuristanis in wildlife survey, forestry, and community conservation techniques, and has encouraged them to open dialogue on natural resource management within their own communities. If institution-building efforts in Nuristan are successful, these systems will enable local communities to improve their livelihoods while sustaining the resource base upon which they depend. It may also bring these communities into the larger political process in Afghanistan, all of which will

The largest of six lakes in Band-e-Amir, Afghanistan’s first national park.


go a long way toward providing stability in a region long renowned for almost continual conflict.

Conservation’s Role in Postconflict Governance The conservation community has stepped into the role of building governance institutions and is working in conflict and postconflict settings, addressing both direct threats to biodiversity and the governance institution building necessary for long-term conservation. By facilitating natural resource management and environmental decision making, conservation NGOs are also often contributing to the process of democratization, whether intended or not. This carries with it a heavy responsibility, with implications and consequences for the communities, the NGOs, and the regions in which they work. Because of this, international conservation NGOs and their staff need better training in the myriad subjects related to governance at the community level, such as cultural anthropology, political science, civic engagement, comparative democratization, and transitional government. To refuse to engage at these levels would condemn some of the last great wild places and their unique biodiversity to becoming just another V casualty of human conflict.


Marine Life in Times of Conflict C A L LU M M . R O B E R T S

he boat slid to a halt on the beach. I jumped from the bow and walked across sands left smooth by the falling tide. A black necklace of tar ringed the island at the strandline, and soot blackened the island beyond. Bomb craters blistered the land, and live cluster bomblets were strewn across the open sand. Trenches and discarded weaponry spoke of careful military preparation and chaotic abandonment. The skeletal remains of shattered concrete structures, heaped into grotesque shapes, broke the low skyline. An osprey watched me carefully from a perch of twisted iron. All was quiet now but for the rustle of wind and the cry of terns. My visit to the island of Umm al Maradem (Mother of Rocks) in November 1992 took place 22 months after the end of the first Gulf War. As Saddam Hussein’s army retreated, it unleashed one of the world’s largest acts of environmental terrorism. Troops blew up over 600 oil wells that blazed for months, burning some 500 million barrels of oil. They destroyed a coastal oil terminal, refinery, and several tankers, releasing an estimated six to eight million barrels of oil into the sea, perhaps more.1 Umm al Maradem lay in the path of spilled oil moving south on Gulf currents and beneath a soot pall that, at its height, stretched to India. My job was to assess the damage to the coral reefs that fringed

T

CALLUM M. ROBERTS is professor of marine conservation at the University of York in England. His research focuses on threats to marine ecosystems and species and on finding the means to protect them. His work includes studies of the profound historical and recent alteration of marine ecosystems by fishing, on the extinction risk of marine species, and on global conservation priorities for coral reefs. His best-known work is on the performance and design of marine reserves. His award winning book The Unnatural History of the Sea charts the effects of 1,000 years of exploitation on ocean life. Callum is also a Pew Fellow in Marine Conservation. Marine Life in Times of Conflict • 81

Source: Francis Abbott/naturepl.com

Oil-polluted shoreline in Bahrain, Persian Gulf. Saddam Hussein’s troops released millions of barrels of oil into the sea when they retreated from the Gulf War.


this and several other islands. The devastated landscape led me to fear the worst for life beneath the water. But the sea was bright and clear, and the coral reef below shimmered with hues of green and brown. How has the sea fared in times of conflict? As battles rage above water, and human societies are thrown into tragedy and turmoil, just how much damage is done to marine life? World War I can be considered the first emergence of modern conflict, with its advanced machinery and industrialized killing. For example, during the North Sea Blockade, when the British naval fleet attempted to keep the German fleet in port and prevent overseas trade with Germany, large areas of the North Sea were sown with mines. The seas around Britain and far beyond into the North Atlantic became a hunting ground for German submarines and much too dangerous to fish. Associated with this, governments put fishing vessels to other uses, such as minesweeping, protecting convoys, and setting antisubmarine nets. Landings of seafish into England and Wales fell by two-thirds between 1914 and 1917.2 In the three decades prior to World War I, fishing in Europe had become industrialized, and steam trawlers had diminished fish stocks. The catch per unit of fishing effort, an index of how many fish are in the sea, fell by 50 percent in the last decade of the nineteenth century.3 But for sea animals such as fish, whales, dolphins, seabirds, and seals, the war provided a welcome relief from the ravages of a fishing industry that, by this time, had removed or killed half or more of all mature fish of some species every year.4 World War I also proved a boon for the nascent science of fisheries management. After the cessation of hostilities, fishers were rewarded with spectacular catches all along the North Atlantic seaboard of Europe. Later analyses of landings and fishing effort data showed that combined stocks of bottom-living fish such as cod, haddock, and hake had rebounded. For example, catch per unit of fishing effort increased by 105 percent in the North Sea, by 75 percent around the Faroe Islands, and by 260 percent in the English Channel.5 Scientists were finally convinced of the link between fishing pressure and the size of fish stocks, and they realized that stock sizes could be manipulated by adjusting fishing pressure—a fundamental truth that lies at the heart of fisheries management today. The gigantic wartime fishing “experiment” was repeated during World War II. Fish landings into England and Wales fell by three quarters between 1939 and 1944. E. S. Russell, the UK government’s chief fisheries scientist, pleaded

Source: Michael Pitts/naturepl.com

in 1942 for postwar restraint in fishing so as to take advantage of the muchneeded stock rebuilding.6 But his call went unheeded. Instead, the end of the war led to a massive recapitalization of the fishing industry that continued into the 1970s. The World Wars had other impacts on the sea. During World War II, Japanese and American forces established bases throughout the Pacific, planting airports on coral atolls, cutting channels through lagoons, and storing toxic agents like nerve gas on remote islands. The realignment of coastal water flows and blanketing of coral reefs with concrete had many localized effects on marine wildlife, some of which were permanent. In some places, however, nature has reclaimed the debris of war for itself. Chuuk Lagoon in Micronesia was Imperial Japan’s main military base in the Pacific. In 1944, a surprise attack by US forces sank over 40 ships and destroyed nearly 250 aircraft on the atoll. Chuuk Lagoon is a memorial to those who died, and the ships have long since been colonized by rich communities of corals, sponges, and seafans. The cavernous steel bellies of the slowly rusting vessels are now home to eels, groupers, and lionfish. Some effects of conflict on marine life never cease. In preparation for war, military tests of missiles and munitions cause some immediate and dramatic damage to marine test sites, such as around the Marshall Islands in the Pacific and Puerto Rico. Palmyra Atoll in the Line Islands was an American naval airbase in World War II. Parts of the atoll are still off-limits due to unexploded ordinances. Beneath the waves, however, Palmyra is home to some of the most intact coral reefs remaining on Earth.7 These reefs sustain spectacular communities of predatory sharks, groupers, jacks, and snappers. Their abundance offers us a glimpse of the primordial wealth of fish that reefs and other marine habitats once supported. Everywhere in the Pacific, nature has softened the harsh edges of war. Military roads on Midway Atoll, another US base, have today been reclaimed by nesting colonies of millions of Laysan albatrosses (Phoebastria immutabilis). Even the mile-wide bomb craters from nuclear tests on Enewetak Atoll were recolonized by fish and invertebrates within a couple of decades of the explosions. Of greater concern are the powerful sonars still used by modern navies that produce noises that can injure

Aerial view of Eastern Island, Midway Atoll, showing runways used during World War II.

Marine Life in Times of Conflict • 83

Source: U.S. Gov't Navy/National Geographic Stock

After World War II, Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, was used as an atom bomb testing site by the US government.


cetaceans like beaked whales (Ziphiidae spp.) and have been implicated in many mass strandings.8 Probably the largest act of ecological destruction inflicted in wartime was the US spraying of herbicides during the Vietnam War (commonly known as Agents Orange, White, and Blue). Around one-sixth of the area of South Vietnam was sprayed at least once, causing mass defoliation and the widespread death of trees.9 Coastal mangroves were among the most sensitive species, and an estimated 36 percent of the mangroves in South Vietnam, over 386 square miles (1,000 km2), was defoliated and much of it killed. The death of mangrove trees led to large-scale erosion of mudflats and loss of the network of tidal channels that interlaced them. The elimination of these habitats caused a steep fall in the number of coastal birds, such as the little ringed plover (Charadrius dubius) and greater coucal (Centropus sinensis). Since mangroves act as nurseries for young fish and crustaceans, like shrimp, snapper, and emperor fish, mangrove loss is implicated in the postwar decline in Vietnamese fisheries.10 Elsewhere, conflict has led to some positive outcomes for marine life. In the Falkland Islands, for example, mines have kept beaches around Port Stanley free of people since the Falklands War in 1982. These beaches were recolonized by nesting Magellanic penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus), which are too light to trigger the explosives, and which prior to the war had disappeared due to human disturbance.11 However, the de facto protection they have enjoyed will not last forever: the UK agreed to clear all of the mines by 2009, although it requested a ten-year extension to this deadline in 2008.


Source: Frans Lanting/AUSCAPE

How did the reefs of Umm al Maradem fare after the first Gulf War? Pulling on mask and fins, I slid into the water and set off across the shallow reef. Immediately, I surprised a heavybeak parrotfish (Chlorurus gibbus), which scudded away resplendent in green, blue, and pink. A shoal of goatfish, unconcerned by my approach, raised puffs of sand as they dug for worms among seagrass blades. Damselfish charged me as I passed, defending coral knolls that rose like castles from the sand. Moving seaward, the bottom fell away beneath me, revealing a flourishing reef that circled the island. Beneath spreading table corals, shoals of fatMillions of Laysan albatrosses nest at an lipped grunts followed my movements through goggle eyes. Scattered groups abandoned navy base on Midway Island. of grazing surgeonfish worked their way across the reef while moray eels gaped from shadowy crevices. To my great relief, the reef appeared almost unscathed. I swam around the island. Bombs had blown a few holes in the reef, and the area around the jetty was littered with rubbish, coils of rusting cable, tin boxes, and engine parts, but on the whole the ecosystem seemed healthy. The patches of dead coral I saw were victims of cold weather and low tides, not oil or bombs (although the cold weather may have been made worse by the pall of soot from burning oil wells that had blocked out the sun for more than eight months). Scattered groups of grazing Later on, I walked around the island. I noticed that areas of fresh oil at the strandline overlay older deposits, surgeonfish worked their way solid as tarmac. Large slabs indicated earlier spills that across the reef while moray could have originated from the bombing of oil installations in the long war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s. eels gaped from shadowy crevices. These spills had killed intertidal life and poisoned seabirds, To my great relief, the reef sea snakes, and marine mammals. Oil spilled in these wars had further effects on marine life. To the south, the oil appeared almost unscathed. washed onto Saudi Arabia’s coastline in dark drifts of “chocolate mousse,” an apt description for the sticky emulsion created when oil and water mix. The slicks heaped suffocating layers over the roots and trunks of the world’s most northerly mangrove forest and blanketed substantial areas of sensitive saltmarsh and sabkha (hypersaline evaporite deposits). The following year, there was a failure in prawn reproduction: the

Source: Frans Lanting/National Geographic Stock

A green turtle enjoys the clear waters of a lagoon off Midway Atoll’s Eastern Island. Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge is part of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument.

eggs were released into these poisoned coastal seas, and the juveniles failed to thrive in some of the worst affected shallow subtidal areas. Offshore breeding colonies of terns could not find sufficient food for their young as populations of their fish prey became scarce, probably also a result of high egg and larval mortality in places affected by the oil spill. Although Gulf habitats and species have since staged a comeback, oil contamination will probably affect these sensitive ecosystems for decades to come. Wars among nations are one thing, but many modern conflicts involve civil strife and guerrilla fighting. In Central Africa, for example, the Democratic 86 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Republic of Congo has experienced decades of dictatorship and civil war. Here we find a bleak connection between the fortunes of leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) and olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) turtles and the illegal logging of forests—a practice that has flourished in the shadow of the breakdown in governance and the rule of law.12 Competing for natural resources, small and medium logging operations have become active. Loggers float trees down rivers, and, Shielded for now from the world of during floods, many logs have been washed to sea. violent conflict by a layer of water, Ocean waves have flung much of this timber ashore, and choking beaches with jumbled masses of felled fish and other species live on in peace. trees. Their vast trunks, hundreds of feet long and often 8 feet (2.4 m) wide, create mazes through which nesting turtles must navigate to lay their eggs. In time, turtle offspring must find a way to sea. The barriers posed by the trees are often insurmountable, as the bleached skeletons of stranded turtles offer mute testimony. Civil conflict in recent years in Somalia, however, has had a surprisingly positive effect on fish stocks in its troubled waters. Somalia has descended into anarchy and is fragmented into domains controlled by different warlords. Piracy has flourished in coastal seas as a means of generating revenue and weapons. At the start, illegal fishing thrived, but the frequency and audacity of attacks on merchant ships led to the abandonment of nearshore trade routes and fishing grounds. International vessels pursuing Indian Ocean tuna have now forsaken Somali coastal fishing areas.13 Because these are important waters for juvenile tuna, it is possible that relief from fishing mortality caused by civil war may benefit tuna populations. I hesitate to overgeneralize, but, on the whole, war seems to have spared marine systems the harm suffered by terrestrial wildlife and landscapes. In some cases it has relieved the impacts of exploitation for a time, giving fish and their habitats a breather. Soldiers are not particularly aquatic, and armies rarely turn to the sea for food. Where the structures of war have intruded upon the sea, they soon are reclaimed by life, although ports and harbors often remain converted to civilian use. Shielded for now from the world of violent conflict by a z layer of water, fish and other species live on in peace.


Who Owns the Wild? Civil Conflict in Africa S I M O N A N S T E Y, F R E D N E L S O N , A N D L I Z R I H OY

frica’s vast expanses of wildlands, from the plains of the Serengeti to the drylands of the Kalahari, harbor an extraordinary abundance and diversity of wildlife that inspire people around the world. Wildlife is a strategic economic resource and the basis for the livelihood of many rural people. Tourists who flock to Africa’s wildlife areas generate the bulk of more than $14 billion in

A

SIMON ANSTEY was born in Tanzania and has spent most of his working life in western and southern Africa, with three years in central Asia and the Middle East. In 1992, he established IUCN’s Mozambique program, supporting postconflict protected area rehabilitation and pilot community natural resource management initiatives. He has a doctorate on the politics of natural resource governance and Yao history in northern Mozambique from the Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, and is currently the director of ResourceAfrica. FRED NELSON has worked on community-based natural resource management, ecotourism, and conservation policy in eastern Africa since 1998. From 2000 to 2005 he served as the first Tanzania program director for the Sand County Foundation Community Based Conservation Network, working with pastoralist communities in northern Tanzania and helping to establish the Tanzania Natural Resource Forum. In 2007, he founded Maliasili Initiatives, a consulting firm working to address biodiversity conservation and natural resource management challenges using innovative, collaborative, and market-based strategies. LIZ RIHOY currently resides in Kenya and is the programme director of the Zeitz Foundation. She has worked with nongovernmental organizations in a number of African countries on community development and natural resource management issues. Her interests lie in governance and Community Based Natural Resource Management and she is completing a PhD thesis on related policy processes in Zimbabwe and Botswana for the University of the Western Cape. 88 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: Michael D. Kock

annual tourism revenue, with recent rates of tourism industry growth nearly double those of North America and Europe.1 Since wildlife in many African nations is a major driver of income and investment, it is often a source of competing interests among private companies, government agencies, and the local communities—communities that rely directly on the land and its resources for their survival. In contrast to resplendent scenes of wildlife and wilderness, the other prevailing image of Africa is that of suffering and war. But amid the headlines, the root causes of conflict are often ignored, and links between civil conflicts and natural resources remain obscure. Major armed conflicts have emerged directly from struggles to control land and valuable natural resources, as occurred in the civil wars in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo during the 1990s.2 Over the past decade, the nature of conflict in Africa has shifted, and largescale wars are being replaced by localized strife around issues of land ownership. Such civil conflicts may emerge from day-to-day competition among different groups of people, often fueled by the wider political contests regarding the control and allocation of natural resources. That competition can quickly turn violent, as occurred in 2008 in Kenya when the disputed presidential election led to an explosion of bloodshed rooted in longstanding tensions and grievances over land rights. In Africa, as elsewhere in the world, when governments do not rec-

African elephants are a popular tourist attraction, but they can come into conflict with local communities.

Who Owns the Wild? • 89

ognize citizens’ rights to lands and resources, they sow the seeds of eruptive civil conflict.

Contested Ground Globally, up to 2 billion people depend on the natural resources on collectively held lands—lands to which they hold traditional or customary rights based on their use and occupancy. But modern states often do not recognize these types of land rights and instead classify collectively held lands as government owned or un-owned. The resulting tension lies at the core of many social and political conflicts: at least two-thirds of all current conflicts in the world are driven in part by contested claims to land.3 In Africa, part of the colonial legacy is that postindependence governments generally retain rights to allocate landownership. This means that if resources such as timber or wildlife become economically valuable, governments can reallocate land to external investors or state agencies, often bypassing the claims of local residents. As local communities struggle to survive, even amidst Africa’s great natural wealth, unaccountable governance and weak legal rights create the conditions for civil conflict. In rural Africa, the lack of security regarding land and resource rights also undermines the incentive for conservation. Because people tend to protect the resources they own, the right to use and capture benefit from a natural resource, such as wildlife, is a key incentive for its long-term stewardship. Therefore, for conservation to be successful on the vast lands outside of Africa’s national parks, local communal and private landholders need to view wildlife as valuable and therefore worthy of conservation. A clear illustration of how ownership improves incentives for conservation can be seen from the 1960s onward, as Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Namibia devolved wildlife ownership from the state to private ranchers. The ranchers were able to capture the economic value of wildlife on their land through tourism and In Africa, as elsewhere in the meat production and therefore, had the incentive to manworld, when governments do not age these activities sustainably. This led to widespread wildlife population recoveries on private lands. Later recognize citizens’ rights to lands reforms extended the benefits of resource proprietorship and resources, they sow the to local communities. For example, Namibian legislative reforms in 1996 enabled local communities to secure seeds of eruptive civil conflict. rights to wildlife by forming communal conservancies. Since then, more than 45,000 square miles (117,000 km2) of communal land has been established as communal conservancies, many of which benefited from wildlife tourism and provided important new sources of local income. As a result, the communities were willing to commit more of their land to wildlife rather than other uses, and communal conservancies con90 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

tributed to the recovery of some large mammal populations, including the critically endangered black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis).4 Although devolved land and resource rights are essential to local livelihoods and provide incentives for conservation, democratizing natural resource management in rural Africa has proven difficult. The following examples from Zimbabwe and Mozambique illustrate how local rights and conservation interact in conflict and postconflict settings.

In 1980, Zimbabwe emerged from almost a century of colonial rule and a long liberation war, much of which centered on questions of land tenure. The government has sought to reverse the legacy of racially biased inequalities in land and resource distribution. In 2000, it began instituting a campaign to forcibly redistribute land held by white farmers, resulting in a volatile cocktail of land and race that dominated all aspects of economic, political, and social life. In the consequent protracted crisis, Zimbabwe’s once relatively strong economy has collapsed, there has been an extensive period of political repression and violence, the previously well-functioning bureaucracy and education and health service are in tatters, and around half the population depends on food aid. One of the many casualties of this crisis has been Zimbabwe’s extensive network of national parks. In addition, many private wildlife conservancies—which once made up a significant proportion of the total land managed for wildlife and helped conserve endangered species such as black rhino and African wild dog (Lycaon pictus)—have been appropriated by the government for reallocation. Amid this instability, communal wildlife management has shown a greater degree of resilience than conventional state or private conservation approaches, particularly through the Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE), established in the mid-1980s by Zimbabwean policymakers and conservationists. One of southern Africa’s most important natural resource management experiments, CAMPFIRE was designed to create incentives for local people to manage wildlife sustainably by allowing them to benefit economically from wildlife tourism and safari hunting. Between 1989 and 2001, CAMPFIRE grew to cover 23 districts, an area of around 13,500 square miles (35,000 km2) (doubling the land under wildlife management in Zimbabwe), involved over 120,000 households, and produced $20 million in revenue.5 Although successful in both promoting conservation and

Source: Neil Cooper/Peter Arnold, Inc.

Zimbabwe

A Zimbabwean woman collects water from a dry riverbed. It is feared that climate change may increase pressure on water sources and arable/grazing land in southern Africa, fueling conflict.


improving local communities’ livelihoods, a shortcoming of CAMPFIRE was held to be its failure to devolve sufficient ownership of wildlife to the local communities. Instead, wildlife ownership was granted to district governments— rural district councils (RDCs)—who then received up to half of the revenue generated by wildlife-related economic activities. In Zimbabwe’s current crisis, however, this shortcoming may have evolved into a blessing. Splitting wildlife-related revenue between district governments and local communities has created a strong political constituency that can counter the national government’s tendency to recentralize wildlife revenues for state coffers. Vesting control of wildlife with the politically powerful RDCs has ensured that they are outspoken supporters of CAMPFIRE and the local benefits it produces. More importantly, district governments and local communities form a system of checks and balances that helps prevent local elites, unscrupulous priIn Zimbabwe’s time of crisis vate sector interests, and politicians from abusing the natuand institutional breakdown, a ral resource base to the degree that would otherwise be possible given the country’s institutional collapse. community-based approach is The village of Mahenye in southeastern Zimbabwe proving as, if not more, robust illustrates the importance of this balance of power. For 10 years, Mahenye had a thriving CAMPFIRE program that than other conservation policies. improved villagers’ standards of living and encouraged them to set aside land for wildlife, resulting in increased wildlife populations. However, in 2001, reflecting national trends, the local chief struck a personally lucrative deal with a safari hunting operator and effectively appropriated the village’s wildlife revenues. As a result, the villagers lost all economic benefits from wildlife and, consequently, had little incentive to conserve the species that roamed on their land. Fortunately, after their long experience with CAMPFIRE, villagers were both aware of their legal rights and how to exercise them. Acting in conjunction with their RDC, villagers reasserted their claims and forced the chief to relinquish control of wildlife-related revenue and replace the colluding safari operator. This helped to resecure both the communal benefits from wildlife and the incentive to sustainably manage the community’s resources. One of CAMPFIRE’s main successes is that, over time, it has made local people aware of the economic value of sustainably managed wildlife and their legal rights to access and use this natural resource. In Zimbabwe’s time of crisis and institutional breakdown, this community-based approach is proving as robust, if not more, than other conservation policies.

Mozambique Mozambique experienced extensive armed conflict for much of the period between the late 1960s and 1992, first during the war for independence from Portugal and then during a 12-year civil war. The civil war resulted in the death 92 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: Simon Anstey

Elected representatives from Matchedge Village in the Chipanje Chetu Community Based Natural Resource Management initiative in north Mozambique planning their boundaries for collective land title and management zones for wildlife, fisheries, and forest management. The group includes ex-combatants from all sides in the Mozambican civil war, hunters, fisher people, and an herbalist.

Source: Simon Anstey

of around a million people and the displacement of half the population. The country was reduced to one of the poorest in the world. Wildlife was also seriously impacted. Combatant and civilian groups depended on wild meat for food, and there was widespread illegal exploitation of ivory and timber. The renowned Gorongosa National Park lost around 90 percent of its large mammals, and without field staff, funding, or security, the general protected areas system in Mozambique collapsed.6 Following the first multiparty elections in 1994, the government instituted numerous initiatives to address the causes of the civil war and to help sustain peace. These reforms included new policies meant to democratize governance from the national to the local level, ensure clear legal rights to land for local communities, and promote community-based natural resource management. However, there has been relatively little progress in implementing the reforms. The most progressive legislation has vested local communities with legal collective title over their land, which gives them the right to negotiate with investors on issues of resource use and benefit sharing. But even this has faced implementation challenges because securing such local rights is not a government priority and does not serve the interests of political elites. The reforms’ rhetoric is becoming less meaningful to local communities as state and private entities appropriate large resource-rich areas of Mozambique: the state has doubled the overall area of national parks and reserves under its jurisdiction, and the most valuable portion of the national forest estate has been set aside for private timber concessions. These trends create the potential for new local conflicts over land and resource rights, and the lack of clear ownership and benefits for local people may erode their incentive to conserve wildlife and natural resources. Over the past decade, various initiatives have sought to strengthen new community land rights and improve local governance, livelihoods, and conservation. Started in 1999, Chipanje Chetu (“Our Wealth”) is an initiative in which nongovernmental organizations and the local government facilitated internal negotiations among five villages to formally secure and title 2,500 square miles (6,500 km2) of communal land. As part of the initiative, the villages created an elected governance structure; a management plan for their shared timber, wildlife, and fisheries resources and a system for managing revenues from these resources; and negotiated access for trophy hunting with a private operator. The communities received cash income and

This team of scouts from the Chipanje Chetu Community Based Natural Resource Management initiative, Mozambique, is responsible for natural resource monitoring and management activities.


Source: Michael D. Kock

The lifestyle of pastoralists is based largely on the sustainable use of natural resources.


ensured sustainable management of wildlife populations that had previously been declining. In 2004, the central government, despite the community land title, tried to reallocate the area as a private hunting concession connected to a member of the political elite or, alternatively, to declare it a state hunting area. Reallocating the land to an external owner would have reduced income for the villagers and their access to a range of resources, decreased incentives to sustainably manage the area’s wildlife, and likely increased conflict. During the next three years, residents of Chipanje Chetu displayed a remarkable degree of resourcefulness: they drew on their land title and the social cohesion that had built up through earlier negotiations to successfully maintain at least a basic recognition of their rights and ensure continued benefit from the wild resources. This case illustrates how securing a degree of local community proprietorship over natural resources can help build democratic mechanisms to combat politicized competition, often in ways that benefit both local livelihoods and conservation. But a few isolated initiatives are not enough. With Mozambique facing increasing pressure on land and resources, and many rural communities living below the poverty line, the basic question for stability and wildlife conservation remains: Whose land, whose resources, whose wealth?

New Battlegrounds? Peace, development, and conservation in Africa all depend on greater recognition of rural peoples’ rights to manage the lands and resources on which their lives depend. However, increasing pressures for access to land and resources threaten to undo many gains and reignite long-simmering tensions. These pressures include growing human populations and changing global economic forces, such as increased demand from large agribusinesses for land for food and biofuel Climate change will act as crops and surging demand from Asia for minerals and tima multiplier of other pressures ber. In addition, new stresses are coming, climate change being the most critical. on land and biodiversity, Climate change will act as a multiplier of other presmagnifying environmental sures on land and biodiversity, magnifying environmental and social stresses and increasing rural peoples’ vulneraand social stresses and increasing bility. For example, warmer temperatures and less rainfall rural peoples’ vulnerability. leading to water scarcity and land degradation may reduce food production and intensify competition not only between groups of people, but also between humans and wildlife. The violence in Darfur, Sudan, with its links to land rights and resource competition between agriculturalists and pastoralists, is perceived in part as an early harbinger of the wider climate change–induced conflicts that Africa will experience.7 Climate change will also mean that species’ ranges will shift, and existing protected areas will not effectively cover the key habitats that wildlife may need in the future. Therefore, more than ever, efforts to protect wildlife in Africa will have to focus on creating local incentives for conservation beyond the boundaries of national parks. In a changing world, secure rights to land and resources will be critical to local communities and to wildlife conservation. Negotiating these growing challenges in the contested landscapes of rural Africa requires collaborative efforts that help local communities advocate for their resource rights. Ultimately, durable conservation, local rights and incentives, and, by extension, peace in Africa, are all tied to the question of x who owns the wild.

Acknowledgments This article draws on the authors’ work included in a forthcoming volume, Community Rights, Conservation, and Contested Lands: The Politics of Natural Resource Governance in Africa. Support for this collaborative work was provided by the IUCN Southern Africa Sustainable Use Specialist Group and the Bradley Fund for the Environment.


Parks as Peace Makers The Peru–Ecuador Divide VIRGINIA ROSAS

ver since their independence from the Spanish crown in the early 1820s, Peru and Ecuador have engaged in border skirmishes in the remote Amazonian region they share. Over the decades, this inaccessible jungle area became politically significant because it held their undelineated international border.1 In 1941, the struggle escalated into outright war, and after Peru’s decisive victory, both countries signed the Rio Protocol brokered and guaranteed by the United States, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. A provision of the protocol was that the final boundary between Ecuador and Peru should be established. However, difficult terrain and technological limitations left settling on an agreed-upon international border open to continued debate. Many options were considered, but in each case the actual demarcation line was unacceptable to either country.2 This tenuous process of delineating the border continued. But regular political diplomacy had failed. In 1942, at the time of the Rio Protocol agreement, geographers had been unaware of the existence of the Cenepa River, and differing interpretations of the watershed divide led to a situation where 48 miles (78 km) of common frontier had to be demarcated through the hilly and forested Cordillera del Cóndor region. In 1951, Ecuador claimed that designating a national boundary in this challenging topography—a region of ridges between 1,640 feet (500 m) and 9,840 feet (3000 m) in elevation—was beyond the scope of the brokered agreement. Ambiguity over the control of these eastern slopes of the Andes provoked another series of skirmishes and diplomatic crises, which compounded the destabilization already being caused by totalitarian regimes and insurgent movements in this part of South America.

E

VIRGINIA ROSAS is editor of the World section of the Peruvian newspaper, El Comercio. She was a delegate for Peru in the Maryland Group. 96 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: Biosphoto/Ruoso Cyril/Peter Arnold, Inc.


There was little progress as Peru refused to cede territory. It had already been forced to hand over the Arica and Tarapacá regions to Chile in 1883, and it had lost Leticia Province to Colombia in 1930. Meanwhile, Ecuador maintained that it had always had sovereign access to the river system of Marañon-Amazonas in the disputed region and that river access was imperative to Ecuador’s identity as an Amazonian nation. These claims were rejected by Peruvian officials, and in 1995, a significant armed conflict engulfed the region again. It was in this context that, in August 1997, the Latin American Studies Center at the University of Maryland sponsored a “civil diplomacy” program called Ecuador and Peru: Towards a Democratic and Cooperative Conflict Resolution. Ten Ecuadorians and ten Peruvians representing their respective civil societies met in an arena free of official diplomatic obligations. The group was diverse, consisting of academics, entrepreneurs, journalists, human rights specialists, educators, and representatives of conservation nongovernmental organizations. The history and character of the conflict between Peru and Ecuador made nontraditional (or “track two”) diplomacy necessary. The hope was that this group could open avenues of communication and begin constructing a network that would provide the foundation for productive negotiations between Peru and Ecuador.3 The participants at the first gathering in Maryland—dubbed Partners in Conflict—met under the leadership of Saúl Sonowsky, director of the Latin American Studies Center, and Edy Kaufman, conflict-resolution specialist at the

Jaguars and other species live in the transboundary park within the Cordillera del Cóndor.

Livestock is transported down the Marañon River in Peru. The Marañon merges with the Ucayali before flowing into the Amazon River.

Parks as Peace Makers • 97

Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The “Maryland Group” focused on two areas: civil society’s contribution to the creation of peace, and civil society’s capacity to suggest proposals for peace-building initiatives to government. Participants were invited to express themselves freely in a confidential atmosphere, and, through a series of ice-breaker exercises, they started imagining ideal situations for both Peru and Ecuador 30 years into the future.4 Kaufman, who had participated in Israeli–Palestinean peace negotiations, expected the Ecuadorians and Peruvians to be as hostile to each other as the Israelis and Palestinians had been. However, it became clear that Ecuadorians and Peruvians had much in common, given their shared roots in Andean and Amazonian cultures. As Avecita Chicchón, the environmental representative from Peru, recalls, “Once we It became clear that Ecuadorians focused on universal values of peace, human rights, fight against poverty, and the conservation of nature, and Peruvians had much in we quickly saw the need to work together.”5 common, given their shared roots At first, the group grappled with legal, economic, and political routes to diplomatic resolution. Then it started in Andean and Amazonian cultures. assessing nontraditional avenues to influence official relations between the two nations, including environmental problems in the disputed region, the role of the media in influencing public opinion regarding the conflict, the responsibility of education to spread awareness, and the role of corporations and economic development in the disputed region. The group discussed the necessity of reinforcing local democratic institutions at every stage of the peace negotiation, because local people in the region, most of them indigenous Awajun or Shuar, were the most directly affected by the conflict. All participants concurred that it was necessary to find a solution that would not impede future development possibilities for the Cordillera del Cóndor region—an area rich in timber and minerals. Discussions about natural resources and local communities led to a closer examination of shared environmental concerns in the Cordillera del Cóndor region, a topic that both the Ecuadorian and the Peruvian delegates approached eagerly. Biological surveys of the Cordillera del Cóndor had shown that it was one of the most biologically valuable places on the planet. The lower elevations are covered with tall, wet forests of lowland and montane tree species, and the composition of the forests varies from one ridge to another, creating great diversity. The lower slopes contain Amazonian fauna, including parrots, parakeets, falcons, and, notably, a subspecies of the long-haired spider monkey (Ateles belzebuth belzebuth). Remarkable plant communities exist along the tops of ridges, including species-rich clumps of bromeliads and orchids and the insect-eating plant Drosera spp. Roberto Troya represented the environmental perspective from Ecuador during these discussions. He emphasized that civil societies could achieve a 98 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild


level of understanding and a common ground because they could more freely share different opinions: “Civil society’s contribution was a catalyst in the ongoing negotiations between the two governments in the search for peace.” He and the group began working on a proposal to create a “park for peace” in the disputed region. This approach—dedicating a border area to conservation—had worked to facilitate solutions to conflict in other places, such as the La Amistad International Park between Panama and Costa Rica.6 The group proposed creating a binational park under a joint sustainable development program. The region would be managed by a binational fund that would receive support from both local and international sources. Gradually, the idea of a binational park created a feeling of optimism among the participants. When speaking of nature, political frontiers became meaningless. The Maryland Group also recognized the need to support local populations because the Cordillera region encompasses the ancestral territories of the Awajun, Wampis, and Shuar of Peru and Ecuador. These indigenous peoples on both sides of the border share extended families, culture, and territories and rely heavily on access to the rivers and forest resources. The proposal recommended integrating “sister towns” across the border to build local relations and creating binational criteria for the management of river basins, flora, fauna, fishing resources, and future mining, hydrocarbon stores, energy, and genetic resources.7 In March 1998, the Maryland Group met for a second time at the Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador (Cashapampa, Quito). The Cashapampa meeting was devoted to considering the proposed binational conservation area, and indigenous people from both sides of the border were invited to attend. The leader of the Indigenous Organization of the Amazon Basin participated, as did Catholic priests who had worked with indigenous people for decades. Indigenous representatives wanted part of the Cordillera region to be declared as communal reserves or protected areas. They also emphasized that they identify themselves first as Awajun or Shuar and secondarily as Peruvians or Ecuadorians, and they did not want to be considered traitors if they fostered friendly relations with fellow indigenous people. Formal diplomacy between Peru and Ecuador was progressing, but many problems remained. Members of the Maryland Group recognized that they would face resistance upon returning home and in order to solidify acceptance

This subspecies of long-haired spider monkey is endemic to the Cordillera del Cóndor region.


of their work, they must generate measures to achieve mutual trust—concrete actions focused on reducing tensions and preventing conflict. The group identified issues that could potentially become problems in the future, such as the prevalence of malaria, and turned these issues into opportunities for cooperation—in this case, by designing a campaign to combat malaria in the Cordillera region. The group also outlined provisions for indigenous peoples, recommending that the border, wherever eventually drawn, remain permeable to allow peaceful transit and that indigenous groups on both sides of this boundary have the same social and political rights. Eventually, one of the Maryland Group members moved into a position within the government where he was able to open an avenue of communication between the civil society group and the formal diplomatic discussions. Aided by this, the Maryland Group presented its “Cashapampa Declaration” to the Ecuadorian foreign relations minister, Dr. José Ayala Lasso, and the Peruvian ambassador to Quito, Dr. Alberto Montagne, on March 5, 1998. In that declaration, the group suggested that the Cordillera del Cóndor be classified as one of the world’s most important areas for biodiversity conservation. It outlined how a binational The Maryland Group helped park could serve as a peace-making tool in a conflict zone and how its establishment others recognize that the could help foster sustainable development Cordillera del Cóndor region programs in the region. On October 26 of that year, under the was a common heritage. attentive watch of the guarantor countries, the presidents of Peru and Ecuador signed a set of peace and cooperation accords called the Presidential Act of Brasilia that definitively resolved the border conflicts between the two countries and established that “on the basis of their common roots, both nations will work toward a promising future full of cooperation and mutual benefits.”8 Based on the Maryland Group’s recommendations, the accords acknowledged the need to establish zones for environmental protection on both sides of the international frontier as well as the need to promote development plans around these zones to foster economic and social cooperation. The political negotiations became reality in 1999, when Ecuador created the 16-square-mile (25 km2) El Cóndor Park. On the other side of the newly established border, Peru created a conservation reserve of 34 square miles (54 km2) 100 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: Ed Reschke/Peter Arnold, Inc.

and later added the Santiago-Comaina Reserve to it, which is currently 10,200 square miles (16,420 km2). These protected areas helped create a political “buffer zone” and committed each country to conserving this biologically and culturally unique area. At the same time, the project “Binational Peace and Conservation in the Cordillera del Cóndor,” funded by the International Tropical Timber Organization and Conservation International, held a series of field workshops with native communities. Stories emerging from the region confirmed that the Awajun-Wampis of Peru and the Shuar of Ecuador were beginning to reestablish relations. Twelve years after the Presidential Act of Brasilia was signed, we can now say with certainty that the citizen diplomacy conducted by the Maryland Group

Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park on the US–Canada border is the world’s first transboundary peace park. It was established to promote goodwill and to emphasize the importance of international cooperation to the preservation of wildlife and wildlands.



Blue and yellow macaws (Ara ararauana) and scarlet macaws (Ara macao) can be found in the Cordillera del Cóndor region.

and its dedicated members bore fruit. Their meetings brought together institutions and interests that found common ground within the two warring countries, particularly when allowed space for discussion free of political and military priorities. The group’s work began thawing the tension between Peru and Ecuador, and their well-thought-out recommendations influenced the official peace negotiations. The Maryland Group helped others recognize that the Cordillera del Cóndor region was a common heritage. By incorporating input from indigenous people, the group’s recommendations helped reconnect the Awajun-Wampis and the Shuar, who today can freely navigate the Santiago River and are working together to conserve their forest and river resources. The final border was declared in 1999, and since then Peru and Ecuador have not shown any signs of conflict.

r


Water pouring from clouds in the night of palm forests large ears motionless they listen the elephants eyes half-closed to the sound of the heavy rain their trunks resting on their tusks An onymous t welfth cen tury Sanskrit, W. S. Merwin tr anslated with J. Moussaieff Masson

Emerging Issues in the Wild • 103

PA RT I I I

EMER GI N G I SSU ES I N T HE W I L D

ur world contains wondrous wildlife and wild places, many of which face increasing direct and indirect human-induced threats. To better share the emerging challenges ahead, we invited the following authors who have dedicated their professional lives to understanding conservation—following elusive reptiles, studying wild places from satellites and on foot, or tracing the age-old journeys of migratory birds and elephant seals. In addition to sharing technical knowledge, these experts convey the inspiration they feel for biologically complex places, and their passion for finding the most effective conservation solutions. As reflected in the following pages, successful conservation requires work of widely varying scope and perspective. The sections “Conservation of Wildlife” and “Conservation of Wild Places” reveal scientific discoveries related to a set of specific emerging concerns. The final section, “The Art and Practice of Conservation,” highlights techniques and concepts that will hopefully improve conservation. From this mix of essays, two main themes emerge. The first is that our planet is changing rapidly. Natural resource

O

extraction is penetrating once-remote forests in Africa and North America. Compounding this, global warming is shifting Earth’s biomes. These threats are global, and their impacts on biodiversity are sometimes challenging to document or predict. The intersection of a rapidly changing natural world with the growing needs of people could fuel outright conflict. The second major theme that emerges is that most parts of the planet are interconnected, and that damage can have cascading effects far from where it originates. The interconnection of ecosystems is well illustrated by a pair of essays, one focusing on the Patagonian Sea and the other on the Patagonian steppe, creating an ecological portrait of this region. Many of the essays provide a holistic view that emphasizes human activity and culture, as we now dominate the planet. Successful long-term conservation requires a combination of knowledge and inspiration. Hopefully, the unholy trinity of habitat destruction, conflict, and climate change can be controlled in order to stave off greater losses and w keep our wild places rich and enduring.

Emerging Issues in the Wild • 105

SECTION 1

Conservation of Wildlife

n our rapidly changing world, new threats to wildlife develop every year, challenging us to stay abreast of emerging issues in conservation. The species that share our planet are finding their home ranges razed, dammed, or polluted as nations pursue economic growth. Despite international treaties and some few conservation successes, one in every three species of amphibian and one in eight species of bird are in peril, and nearly one in four of the world’s mammals is threatened with extinction. This set of essays aims to share what experts are learning about wildlife and introduce a spectrum of conservation challenges. Most often, the threats to species’ survival are known but challenging to control: hunting and wildlife trade, habitat destruction due to natural resource extraction or human livelihoods, and climate change. These threats are highlighted by the following four essays. In Southeast Asia’s rivers and lakes, freshwater turtles, a remarkably diverse group of reptiles, are being hunted to extinction. The unsustainability of the trade in turtles is examined in the essay “Vanishing Asian Turtles.” The essay “What Future for Forest Elephants?” shows that, despite the ban on ivory trade, forest elephants continue to be hunted, bringing poachers to volatile parts of

I


Central Africa and developing regions of Asia. The authors underscore the many challenges to studying forest elephants and to protecting their habitat. The semi-arid steppe of Chile and Argentina is home to Patagonia’s once-abundant herbivore, the guanaco. Human livelihoods—particularly ranching and hydrocarbon extraction—threaten the migrations of these mammals. “Restoration of the Guanaco, Icon of Patagonia” traces the demise of the guanaco’s ecological role in this fragile ecosystem and what can be done to restore it. Moving to the broader, more pervasive threat of climate change, “Changing Flyways: Migratory Birds in a Warming World” outlines how migratory bird populations will struggle to adapt to a changing planet, but may also serve as sentinels. These essays emphasize that each of these species or groups plays a unique role in its ecosystem. Unfortunately, the slow extinction of that ecological role means that the planet’s biodiversity could be diminished without us fully understanding the consequences. Without secure populations of freshwater turtles, forest elephants, guanacos, and migratory birds, the empty wildernesses they leave behind f will likely be far less resilient.

Vanishing Asian Turtles PETER C. H. PRITCHARD

decade ago, the French turtle conservationist Bernard Devaux published an extraordinary book, La Tortue Martyre.1 This meticulously compiled work documents the abuse to which turtles and tortoises have been subjected throughout recorded history. It describes centuries of inhumane treatment of these fascinating animals, the worst evidence of which is in food markets in Asia, where live turtles are sometimes slowly dismembered to keep slices of their meat fresh for each buyer. Turtle remains at archaeological sites around the world show that humans have been hunting and eating turtles and tortoises for millennia, causing the extinction of some species. For example, the gigantic, 4-foot (1.3 m) tortoise Geochelone crassiscutata, once widespread in Florida, appears to have been hunted to extinction by early humans.2 Following the discovery of the Galapagos and the Mascarene Islands in the sixteenth and early eighteenth centuries, visitors and settlers took advantage of the abundant and often tame island faunas, especially the tortoises. As a result, tortoises disappeared completely from the Mascarenes, and Galapagos populations on the islands of Fernandina, Pinta, and Floreana became extinct in the wild.3 Generally, the demography and structure of turtle populations are such that they cannot tolerate significant take, especially of adults—turtles take too long to mature, most species lay too few eggs, and the mortality rate for eggs and hatchlings is too high (although the Northern Australian snake-necked turtle Chelodina rugosa may be an exception4).

A

PETER C. H. PRITCHARD is founder and director of the Chelonian Research Institute, the most comprehensive collection of turtle and tortoise specimens built up without sacrifice of live animals. He has undertaken extensive field work with turtles on all continents and many remote islands, and he has established a permanent field station for turtle conservation in northwestern Guyana. Three turtle species are named after him. Vanishing Asian Turtles • 107

The biology of turtles, our overuse of them, and the destruction and pollution of some of their habitats brings us to the current concern for the turtle species of Asia. In South and Southeast Asia, freshwater ecosystems and large rivers are home to complex communities of turtles. Most distinctive are the softshell turtles (Trionychidae), with their long necks, piglike snouts, and flexible, leathery shells that facilitate concealment in muddy lake bottoms. They range in size from the 12-inch (30 cm), olive-brown Indian flap-shell turtle (Lissemys punctata) to the 39-inch (1 m) long, narrow-headed Chitra and the various Aspideretes species found in the great rivers of India and Bangladesh. South and Southeast Asia also harbor an extensive range of hardshell freshwater and semiterrestrial turtles. Most are members of the family Geoemydidae,5 and species range in size from large river turtles of the genus Batagur, The demography and structure which can reach 24 inches (60 cm), to the 4-inch (10 cm) semiaquatic black-breasted leaf turtle of turtle populations are such that (Geoemyda spengleri). Overall, the freshwater turtle they cannot tolerate significant communities of Southeast Asia are the most diverse in the world. take, especially of adults— Virtually all of these species have been unwillturtles take too long to mature, ing participants in the growing turtle trade. In recent years, a new wave of chelonian harmost species lay too few eggs, vesting has swept across southern and Southeast Asia. Most of the demand comes from China, and the mortality rate for eggs where the traditional taste for chelonians perand hatchlings is too high. sists. China’s rapidly growing wealth, prosperous middle class, and currency that is convertible on 108 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: Peter Praschag

The critically endangered golden coin turtle is highly prized for the supposed cancer-curing properties of its lower shell.

international markets makes the trade lucrative. Softshells and hardshells alike are collected for their meat—as food and medicine—and for the pet trade.6 Eggs of some turtle species are collected from the wild as delicacies or to stock turtle farms. This combination of threats has sounded the death knell for tens of thousands of individual turtles and rendered several species critically endangered. Today, more than 40 species of Asian turtles and freshwater tortoises are classified as Endangered or Critically Endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).7 Several Asian turtle species are on the point of complete disappearance from the wild, judging by the scarcity of specimens in markets in the range-states. These include the Guangdong river turtle (Mauremys nigricans) from China and the Vietnamese leaf turtle (Annamemys annamensis). The pressure of the turtle trade is great. While some larger species are sold as food in markets, other species may command extraordinary prices for their alleged medicinal purposes. One species of box turtle, the golden coin turtle (Cuora trifasciata), has been virtually exterminated throughout its range in China and Vietnam because its flesh is considered a cure for cancer. Prices for individual golden coin turtles are so high—sometimes over $2,000—that any field laborer who might encounter one of the last wild specimens could make more money from this single turtle than from a year’s work. Golden coin turtles are now being raised in captivity at a large scale. Wild turtles have been seriously depleted in most areas of China, with the exception of the relatively undeveloped island of Hainan, where there are still potentially viable populations of the four-eyed turtle (Sacalia quadriocellata), and the Chinese striped-neck While some larger species are sold as turtle (Ocadia sinensis). With so few wild turtles left in China, traders and suppliers have turned to ransackfood in markets, other species may ing turtle populations in other Asian countries to command extraordinary prices for meet the demands of the Chinese markets. The trade has been staggering in scope, and its impact, although their alleged medicinal purposes. difficult to quantify, has reduced turtle populations in neighboring Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, and India, and even farther away in Cambodia, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Some species only recently discovered (such as the Sulawesi forest turtle, Leucocephalon yuwonoi, from Indonesia) or rediscovered (the Arakan forest turtle, Heosemys depressa, from Myanmar) have been seen in alarming numbers in Chinese food markets. In addition to these countries, the United States is a source of turtles for East Asian consumers. The familiar red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans), a hardshell native to the Mississippi Valley, may be found in most Chinese turtle markets—the adults sold mainly as food, the juveniles sold as pets. Generally, the China–US turtle trade concentrates on softshell turtles and is Vanishing Asian Turtles • 109

Source: Rick Hudson

The critically endangered Arakan forest turtle, native to Myanmar, has been found in alarming numbers in Chinese food markets.


reaching a level of intensity that has forced many US states to re-evaluate their policies toward the harvest and export of native turtles. However, official statistics are not kept and harvesting often proceeds without legal restraint. Moreover, some states such as Florida based their lack of regulation on the mistaken assumption that the local softshell species (Apalone ferox) was so prolific and fast-growing that it could tolerate even large-scale exploitation. Export of the Florida softshells included wild and farmed live animals, turtle meat products, and eggs from the wild for sale to turtle farms.8 Recently, a growing citizen protest, backed by scientists and conservationists, pressured the Florida Wildlife Commission to ban the commercial export of wild-caught Florida turtles, and in early 2009, the commission voted the ban in. The intensified scouring of turtle habitats in East and Southeast Asia for the growing trade has had an ironic by-product: the discovery of new species, such as Cuora aurocapitata in 1988 and Cuora zhoui in 1990, among others. In addition, at least one species of box turtle has been rediscovered—the small, semiaquatic and aquatic turtles of the genus Cuora. These were captured and traded extensively, mainly as pets, and since the mid-1960s, there have been large-scale Cuora exports from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. At least three (C. galbinifrons, C. bourreti, and C. picturata) have been described from pet trade material alone. In most cases, wild populations have not been documented, and type localities are speculative. All box turtles are now fully banned from international traffic by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. In many Asian countries, turtles have cultural meaning and are viewed as a symbol of longevity. In Thailand, wild turtles may be picked up by well-meaning Buddhists and released in temple ponds. Many die, but some, including the large Heosemys grandis and Hieremys annandalii, can tolerate captivity sufficiently well that they have been given the vernacular name “temple turtles.” In these multispecies assemblages at temples, one can see more turtles in a single day than in an entire year in the wild. The most famous of these ponds is near the Temple of Byazid Bostami in Chittagong, Bangladesh, in which several hundred tame specimens of the large black softshell Aspideretes nigricans have existed for

Source: Peter Praschag

Many Asian cultures revere turtles. Here, people feed black softshells in a temple pond in Chittagong, Bangladesh.

centuries with only minimal natural recruitment.9 These Chittagong temple turtles were thought to constitute the entire world population of their species, until it was recently discovered that A. nigricans, although absent from the Ganges, is widely distributed in the Brahmaputra River.10 With many turtle species so critically endangered, surprise discoveries and rediscoveries of even lone individuals in temple ponds, zoos, or markets spell some hope for saving a species. One of the largest softshell species, the giant Yangtse softshell (Rafetus swinhoei), is on the very brink of extinction. There may be no surviving wild individuals in China, and some of the scattered captives and zoo specimens have recently died. These included lonely individuals in the Beijing and Shanghai Zoos as well as a solitary specimen in a pond in a Buddhist monastery complex in Suzhou, near Tai Hu Lake where the species thrived only a century ago. In Vietnam, a semisacred population of Rafetus swinhoei in Hoan Kiem Lake in downtown Hanoi is now reduced to a single individual, and one more was recently identified and photographed in Dongho Lake west of Hanoi.11 In 2008, a last-ditch effort by the Turtle Survival Alliance and Chinese conservationists to save the Rafetus swinhoei brought together the two remaining captive specimens in China—an approximately 100-year-old male from the Suzhou Zoo and an approximately 80-year-old female from the Chengda Zoo— in hopes of breeding them. Surprisingly, courtship, mating, and oviposition occurred rapidly in this precious, elderly couple. Their union resulted in about 100 eggs in 2008, but because the female had subsisted on a diet seriously Vanishing Asian Turtles • 111

deficient in calcium for so many years, the eggshells were too thin and the eggs failed to hatch (even though some embryological development had taken place). Additional clutches in the 2009 season also failed to hatch. With improved nourishment, she will, it is hoped, be in better breeding condition next season.12 Most conservationists give top priority to the preservation of threatened species in the wild, but sometimes this is difficult or impractical due to habitat degradation, introduced or invasive species, or ongoing legal or illegal collection of wild specimens. In addition, turtle populations cannot be saved in the wild if the species is so rare that the few With many turtle species so remaining individuals are isolated and not part of a breeding colony. The political will, public interest, and funding critically endangered, surprise necessary for effective protection is also often lacking. In discoveries and rediscoveries of response, many Asian turtle conservation programs are turning to captive breeding and working to form assurance even lone individuals in temple colonies, either within the natural habitat or outside it, as ponds, zoos, or markets spell a strategy to save some species. Captive breeding, artificial incubation, and raising some hope for saving a species. hatchling turtles in captivity through their vulnerable early years (“head-starting”) have become popular techniques and have been successful in saving certain endangered turtles and tortoises, including the Española or Hood Island saddleback tortoise (G. nigra hoodensis), and the related Duncan (Pinzon) saddleback tortoise (G. nigra duncanensis) in the Galapagos. Much of the current effort to organize Asian turtle captive breeding programs and conservation is the work of the members of the Turtle Survival Alliance and its partner, the Chelonian Conservation Fund, 112 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: Paul P. Calle, VMD

The female Yangtze giant soft-shell turtle basks in her new exhibit at the Suzhou Zoo.

Source: Brian D. Horne

Rare Burmese star tortoises for sale at a market in Bangkok, Thailand.

both headquartered in the United States with numerous Asian field programs. Their programs have focused on the most critically endangered species, including the giant softshell and some of the Burmese species, especially the rare star tortoise (Geochelone platynota) and the almost extinct Burmese roofed turtle (Batagur trivittata). The last known nesting sites of the Burmese roofed turtle on the Chindwin River are now protected, and 20 percent of nestlings are transferred to the Yadanabon Zoo in Mandalay each year. As of 2009, more than 170 young individuals lived in a special facility at the zoo, and the captive group had successfully nested. Ideally, captive breeding utilizes wild-caught specimens with selected, appropriate genetic heritage, but the real world usually works otherwise, with confiscated animals or long-term captive specimens constituting the primary source of breeding stock for most operations. Under good husbandry conditions, most often within the natural habitat of the species, it is possible to produce large numbers of captive-raised turtles, but, distressingly often, no intact and protected habitat is available to receive them. Captive breeding programs are a useful tool in light of the severe conservation situation of Asian turtles, but they require commitment and resources to be successful, and permanent captive breeding programs rarely succeed unless they are conducted at the national level. In the end, there is no substitute for a turtle hatching in the wild and surviving to produce eggs of its own.

p

Vanishing Asian Turtles • 113

What Future for Forest Elephants? STEPHEN BLAKE AND SIMON HEDGES

espite a diverse evolutionary heritage spanning 60 million years and numerous families, genera, and species, elephants today are represented by just two species, the African elephant (Loxodonta africana) and the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus). African elephants are further divided into two subspecies, the savanna elephant (L. a. africana) and the smaller forest elephant (L. a. cyclotis). Asian elephants share many traits with African forest elephants so here we refer to them as a single group, the forest elephants. Forest elephants, like their better-known savanna-living counterparts, are wondrous creatures with complex social lives. They play a dominant role in the ecosystems in which they live and

D

STEPHEN BLAKE began working in the Congo Basin in 1990, focusing on research and conservation of forest elephants. As African forest elephant conservation coordinator for the Wildlife Conservation Society, he oversaw regionwide elephant conservation status assessments in five countries for the CITES MIKE program. He also undertook a regionwide study of forest elephant movements using GPS telemetry. Stephen is now based in the Galapagos Islands where he works on giant tortoise ecology with the Max Planck Institute of Ornithology. SIMON HEDGES is Asian elephant coordinator for the Wildlife Conservation Society, where he oversees elephant conservation projects in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, and Thailand. He has over 20 years of experience in wildlife conservation–related research, survey, and policy work, including the writing and implementation of conservation strategies and action plans. Since 1998, Simon has focused on Asian elephants, particularly on survey method development and human–elephant conflict assessment and mitigation. He is co-chair of the International Union for Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission’s Asian Elephant Specialist Group, a member of the CITES MIKE program’s technical advisory group, and was the lead writer and editor of the MIKE Dung Survey Standards. 114 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: Simon Hedges

Two adult female Asian elephants help a very young calf to its feet.

serve as flagships for conservation wherever they occur. For these and a host of other reasons, we have spent much of our professional lives studying and tracking forest elephants in Asia and Africa, and working toward their conservation. Ecologically, forest elephants need large areas for their populations to flourish, and therefore, their presence defines the last strongholds of the “wild” in Asian and African tropical and sub-tropical forests. In recent decades, the range and abundance of forest elephants have decreased dramatically due to a combination of habitat loss, poaching, and other forms of human–elephant conflict.

African Forest Elephants The historical distribution of Africa’s elephants tracked the glacial and interglacial expansions and contractions of the continent’s equatorial forests. Such strong adaptive pressures may have forced the ancestors of savanna elephants to leave the forests, while in West and Central Africa, elephants remained bound to the forest. In more recent history, humans have determined the distribution of Africa’s forest elephants. From the sixteenth century on, European trading bases along the coast of West Africa allowed the plunder of forest elephants for ivory. Today, the Ivory Coast, named for its elephant population of almost mythical size, may have fewer than 200 individuals left.1 What Future for Forest Elephants? • 115

Source: Martin Harvey/Peter Arnold, Inc.

Confiscated ivory tusks. Poaching for ivory threatens both Asian and African forest elephants.


The dark, dank heart of Central Africa, however, remained relatively unexplored by Europeans until the 1870s when Henry Morton Stanley forged his way through the Congo Basin. At that time, unbroken forest covered nearly 770,000 square miles (2 million km2), and it may have contained a million forest elephants. After Stanley, trading posts spread up the Congo River like wildfire. The first roads sliced the forest into separate fragments like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, and ivory, rubber, and timber flowed from Central Africa’s forests to Atlantic ports. Today, the elephants of the Congo Basin are in a state of crisis. In the forests that cover much of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Congo, Cameroon, Gabon, and a small portion of the Central African Republic (CAR), the number of elephants that remain is not known, but the trajectory of threats is alarming. In the 1980s, the first systematic elephant survey of the region showed that these forests had not been impenetrable to commercial hunters and had not provided complete refuge from the poaching that engulfed much of Africa. There were approximately 172,000 elephants still living in the Congo Basin, but an estimated 44 percent of the population had been lost to hunting.2 New roads for logging and other forms of development had provided easy access to the forest, which, coupled with nearly nonexistent law enforcement and high ivory prices, had encouraged large-scale poaching in all but the most remote areas. The remaining elephants had presumably been driven into the depths of the forest to escape hunting pressure. In the late 1990s, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) developed a program called Monitoring of the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE). As part of this program, we surveyed six areas in Cameroon, Congo, Gabon, CAR, and DRC—covering some 23,000 square miles (60,000 km2)—in an attempt to get a better idea of the status of Africa’s forest elephants. We found large elephant populations in two national parks, each containing more than 10,000 individuals. But elsewhere, numbers were considerably reduced, and we detected a strong relationship between the size of an intact wilderness area and its elephant density.3 Near roads, where human disturbance is high and where poaching is concentrated, elephants were absent or scarce, having either fled or been hunted out. The conclusion was that, in the absence of effective law enforcement, the key to elephant survival is large blocks of forest that are difficult for people to access. To further assess how forest elephants are responding to the changes sweeping across the Congo Basin, we fitted Global Positioning System (GPS) telemetry units onto 37 individuals in six national parks in Congo, Gabon, and CAR. The GPS units tracked the elephants’ movements on a daily basis and allowed us to determine that forest elephants are capable of ranging over thousands of square kilometers as they search for food, minerals, and mates. Given these large ranges and the continuing fragmentation of the wilderness, it is likely that

there is nowhere left in the entire Congo Basin in which elephant movements remain uninfluenced by humans.4 During the decade-long study, vast areas of forest were lost to the bulldozer. The road system acts like a virtual prison, constraining forest elephants throughout their range, and as roadless wilderness shrinks, so too do the elephants’ home ranges. The few substantial areas of intact forest that remain occur only in national parks such as Minkébé in Gabon and Odzala-Kokoua in Congo. All the indications point to a continued dramatic loss of Africa’s forest elephants. Logging, mining, and the international community’s attempts to lift the region out of poverty have led to massive investment in roads and infrastructure with little attention to the severe negative ecological impacts. Building natural resource extraction infrastructure in the Congo Basin dramatically increases access to the largest remaining forest elephant populations on Earth. Industrial developments and roads encourage the growth of villages and allow access for hunting, made lucrative by the international demand for illegal ivory, and facilitated by poverty, war, and lawlessness. Only where significant investments have been made in antipoaching efforts, or deep in the forest where people cannot yet easily reach, do elephant numbers remain high. The trouble is that “deep forest” in the Congo Basin will soon be a thing of the past.

Asian elephants formerly ranged from the Iranian coast into the Indian subcontinent, eastwards into Southeast Asia, including Sumatra, Java, and possibly Borneo, and into China at least as far as the Yangtze-Kiang. There is some debate about whether Asian elephants are truly “forest” elephants or whether they have been displaced from more favored open vegetation types by humans. Today, however, most Asian elephants occur in forests of various types but are now extinct in West Asia, Java, and most of China. They are still found in isolated populations in 13 nations, with an approximate total range of 188,000 square miles (486,800 km2) and a total population of perhaps 30,000 to 50,000. However, these figures are little more than guesses because, until recently, there were few attempts to ascertain how many elephants are left in Asia. It is nonetheless clear that Asian elephant populations have been in decline across most of their range. To take but one example, in the mid-1980s, surveys found that on the Indonesian island of Sumatra, 12 discrete populations of elephants persisted in the southernmost province of Lampung. However, our 2001–2002 surveys in Lampung Province found that forest conversion for agriculture had been so extensive that only three of those elephant populations remained. Fortunately, the province’s two national parks, Bukit Barisan Selatan and Way Kambas, still contained elephant populations of international importance.5 But given that 75 percent of Lampung’s elephant populations have been lost since 1984, it is likely that a significant number of populations elsewhere on

Source: Stephen Blake

Asian Elephants

Mambeleme, a Bambenzelle pygmy from the northern Congo, used to hunt elephants in exchange for goods but now contributes his firsthand knowledge of forest elephants to a variety of conservation projects.

What Future for Forest Elephants? • 117


Okoumé logs ready for transport from the Gabonese forest. Logging roads fragment Africa’s forests and provide easy access for hunters.

Sumatra—and in other parts of Asia that have developed as rapidly—have also disappeared. Eight years on, knowledge about Asian elephant distribution is better but there are still only a handful of places where we know how many elephants remain. These places are usually those where non-governmental organizations like the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) have monitored elephant numbers as an essential starting point for long-term elephant conservation. Unfortunately, the majority of the remaining Asian elephant populations are small and isolated—outside of India there are few, if any, population strongholds (i.e., populations that number in the thousands rather than the hundreds). Almost all populations are threatened by poaching, the fragmentation and loss of their habitat, and direct conflict with humans. Consequently, a major concern is that these small and isolated elephant populations will lose demographic and genetic viability. The greatest threat is the fragmentation and loss of habitat. Wildlands, defined as large, undeveloped areas, account for only about 51 percent of the Asian elephant’s range (these calculations are of necessity based on scarce data on elephant distribution). It is estimated that only 16 percent of these wildlands was protected as of 2003. The most important wildlands area outside of India is the large block of forest along the Thai–Myanmar border and the forests of northern Myanmar.6 Maintaining or re-creating large, unfragmented areas of habitat is thus essential for the long-term conservation of Asian elephants, particularly if we are to maintain ecologically functioning populations that retain at least some of their evolutionary potential. But this is challenging, as many of India’s, Sri Lanka’s, and Indonesia’s elephants live in close proximity to sizeable towns and villages, and there is little opportunity to re-create large blocks of habitat or even substantial habitat links. Moreover, when elephant populations are 118 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

surrounded by agriculture and human settlements, there are high levels of human–elephant conflict—for example, instances when elephants raid crop fields and plantations or trample the people guarding those fields. Such conflict leads to the capture or killing of elephants as pests. Encouragingly, smallscale, traditional methods for repelling elephants from farms, such as using watch towers, bright lamps, firecrackers and other noisemakers, as well as simple physical barriers, can substantially reduce crop raiding.7

What Future for Forest Elephants? How can we save forest elephants on two continents, with limited ability to accurately count them; inadequate knowledge about their ecology, behavior, and population viability; and ever-increasing threats? To truly save a species, we need to consider some basic principles necessary for long-term, range-wide conservation. First, we need to secure representation: conserving populations of forest elephants within all of their major ecological settings in order to maintain behavioral and genetic diversity. Second, we need to secure redundancy: the replication of forest elephant populations within the same ecological setting to insure against losing an entire ecologically, behaviorally, or genetically defined population. Third, it is important to preserve ecological functionality. This means having forest elephant populations large enough to maintain their interactions with the full range of other species in the ecosystem, including food plants, predators, competitors (such as wild cattle and buffalo), and even paraHow can we save forest elephants on sites, and to maintain their role as seed dispersers and two continents, with limited ability ecosystem “engineers.” Given our inadequate knowledge of forest elephant ecology, it is hard to define to accurately count them; inadequate “large enough,” but it is likely that maintaining true knowledge about their ecology, ecological functionality would require elephant population sizes typical of the time before human hunting behavior, and population viability; significantly depleted elephant numbers. and ever-increasing threats? However, even if the best biologically based conservation strategy were implemented, it would not be enough to save forest elephants if it did not address the human dimension. It is particularly important to reduce human–elephant conflict to allow rural people and elephants to coexist. Yet currently, humans continue to expand into the last forest wildernesses, provoking, not reducing, human–elephant conflict. Fortunately, conservationists are beginning to address the need to re-create large, connected areas of elephant habitat, particularly outside of protected areas. In Asia, the Managed Elephant Range (MER) concept provides a landscape-level approach in which planners assess the habitat requirements of elephants over large areas and allow for compatible human activities such as What Future for Forest Elephants? • 119


An African forest elephant, with snare around left foreleg, crosses an oil pipeline to access fresh mangoes on the other side. Snaring remains a threat to elephants in many regions of Africa.


reduced-impact forestry, slow rotation shifting cultivation, and controlled livestock grazing. MERs are typically established as extensions to existing protected areas and often include habitat corridors linking protected areas. The MER concept is particularly attractive where protected areas are steep and hilly (as in, say, Laos and Sumatra) and the surrounding, lower-elevation areas are disproportionately important to elephants but contain agriculture or villages. Encouragingly, the Indian Government’s Project Elephant has established 26 “Elephant Reserves” that cover the bulk of the elephant range in India, both within protected areas and outside them. However, the full potential of MERs to promote elephant-compatible land use has yet to be properly evaluated. In Central Africa, a similar landscape approach has been developed by WCS, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and others, and focuses on defining and managing “conservation landscapes”—large forest blocks centered on protected areas. In these conservation landscapes, development objectives are integrated into an overall management plan based on sustainable use of natural resources adjacent to protected areas. Priorities include protecting the integrity of national parks and of species that range beyond park borders, reducing fragmentation, maintaining ecological connectivity within and between landscapes, and facilitating sustainable economic activities. But what must be done to implement these ideas and give forest elephants a future? For Asian elephants, the IUCN Asian Elephant Specialist Group is preparing a range-wide elephant conservation strategy. A conservation strategy document for Central Africa’s elephants, developed in 2005, provides a useful plan for conservation in that region but the political will and the resources necessary to implement it are lacking. Both strategies outline the need to identify: (1) key elephant populations, (2) human–elephant conflict hotspots, (3) areas in need of protection, (4) areas where the threat of poaching is high, and (5) opportunities to re-create habitat linkages. Once key elephant populations are identified, it is important to establish baseline population estimates to learn how many elephants remain and whether their populations are declining, stable, or increasing. This is critical for assessing the success or failure of conservation activities and to accurately advise governments on elephant conservation policies. WCS and its partners have refined elephant

survey methods including those based on taking genetic fingerprints from elephant dung, greatly It is particularly important to improving monitoring effectiveness. In some cases, reduce human–elephant conflict dung-derived DNA can provide more precise population estimates than conventional dung counts and reveal to allow rural people and elephants additional data about the ratio of males to females and to coexist. Yet currently, humans the population’s level of genetic diversity. Forest elephant conservation requires comprehencontinue to expand into the last sive strategies that include the many factors outlined in forest wildernesses, provoking, not this essay, from improving survey techniques to protecting and re-creating habitat to alleviating human– reducing, human–elephant conflict. elephant conflict. It should also be noted that national governments, international lending agencies, and the private industries that promote, build, and finance the infrastructure to extract resources in the forests of Asia and Africa should bear the responsibility for the conservation of forest elephants and their habitat. The costs of wildlife protection are trivial compared to the investments made in resource extraction. For example, the Belinga iron mine project in Gabon, 31 miles (50 km) from the critical Minkébé wilderness area, will cost at least $3 billion in preproduction investment in infrastructure alone. This single enterprise’s budget is 34 times greater than the annual investment required to effectively manage a network of protected areas throughout the entire Niger Delta/Congo Basin forest region.8 Ultimately our best conservation efforts in the field are simply a holding pattern. If MERs and conservation landscapes are to succeed, and the remaining elephants and indeed all that we consider wild are to survive, we need a new way of valuing the wild. If the development trajectory and management of infrastructure in the Congo Basin continue without immediately ameliorating their negative consequences, the last forested wildernesses of Africa and the elephants living in them may disappear. Similarly, in Asia, the implementation of well-designed conservation strategies is urgent because many of the last suspected elephant strongholds are in developing nations. Without conservation measures, forest elephants will be irreplaceably lost across much of their range e and, with them, a vital part of the wild.

What Future for Forest Elephants? • 121

Restoration of the Guanaco, Icon of Patagonia A N D R É S J . N O VA R O

n Patagonia, the southernmost region of South America, the wind rarely ceases to blow across the dry, rocky steppe and plateaus. It is a vast, open, ecologically fragile landscape and one of the most remote places on Earth. Yet even here, among the towering Andean peaks and rugged coasts, human activities have had an impact on native wildlife. Around the time of the arrival of Europeans in the sixteenth century, Patagonia was teeming with guanacos (Lama guanicoe), a wooly, approximately 250-pound (110 kg) relative of the camel and a wild ancestor of the llama (Lama glama). After the Pleistocene extinctions 10,000 to 12,000 years ago, guanacos were the most abundant large herbivore in Patagonia, numbering around 20 million. At this scale, their grazing and seasonal migrations shaped the ecosystem. Guanaco herds could include up to a few thousand animals in seasonal aggregations of family groups and bachelor herds, and migrated hundreds of miles in search of the best forage, going to higher-altitude plateaus in the summer and down to more temperate areas in the winter. They were the main prey of pumas (Puma concolor) and scavengers such as the Andean condor (Vultur gryphus). Until the late nineteenth century, guanacos were also the primary source of food and clothing for the Tehuelche people on the continent and the Selk’nam people on the island of Tierra del Fuego. Accounts of early European

I

ANDRÉS J. NOVARO is director of the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Patagonian and Andean Steppe Program, which strives to conserve guanaco migrations and the spectacular places where they occur by working with local governments and the private sector to address impacts of extractive industries, livestock grazing, and poaching. Andrés is also an Argentine Science Council (CONICET) researcher whose work focuses on impacts of hunting on wildlife, predator–prey interactions, and, more recently, guanaco migration. 122 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: Susan Walker

explorers refer to large herds of guanacos moving across the steppe, followed by groups of Tehuelche hunters and their families.1 The guanaco’s majestic appearance, its role as a major herbivore in shaping the Patagonian steppe ecosystem, and its importance to human cultures make it the wildlife icon of southern South America. Unfortunately, as with other icons of the world’s once-extensive grasslands, such as the bison (Bison bison) in North America and the Mongolian gazelle (Procapra gutturosa) in Asia, the expansion of human activities has led to a catastrophic collapse of guanaco populations over the past 150 years. In the late nineteenth century, an influx of European, Argentine, and Chilean settlers brought sheep to Patagonia, and by the 1950s, there were almost 30 million sheep in the region, becoming major competitors with guanacos for grazing areas. Today, only about 500,000 to 1 million guanacos remain in populations scattered throughout Patagonia and the southern Andes, having lost 60 percent of their original range and 90 percent of their original population.2 Only a few, large populations still number in the thousands, offering a spectacular glimpse of the past in the Payunia Reserve in northern Patagonia, the Monte Leon National Park in southern Patagonia, and on several large ranches strewn across the steppe. In the vast areas between, guanacos occur only in very small herds or have been extirpated.

A lone guanaco looks out across the vast Patagonian steppe. This is one of the most remote places on Earth, yet even here humans have an impact on wildlife.

Effectively Absent The grazing patterns and seasonal movements of large guanaco herds helped shape the grassland–scrub ecosystem. The catastrophic decline in guanaco numbers means that most of the Patagonian steppe has lost its dominant herbivore. Today, the remaining guanacos are increasingly restricted by fences, hunting, and intense competition from sheep and other livestock, forcing them to become sedentary. As a result, guanacos throughout most of Patagonia are now limited to relatively confined spaces throughout the year, and their interactions with the landscape—in particular the plants they eat—have changed dramatically. Thus, where guanacos are restricted in their movements and their populations reduced, many of the ecological roles they once played have practically vanished. Restoration of the Guanaco, Icon of Patagonia • 123

Source: Fred Bruemmer/Peter Arnold, Inc.

Where they share the same landscape, guanacos and sheep compete for natural resources.


Ecologists call the subtle functional loss of a species within an ecosystem ecological extinction—as distinct from global extinction, which occurs only when the last individual of a species has disappeared. Because over half a million guanacos still exist, the guanaco is not in danger of becoming globally extinct. Yet its ecological extinction could signal the final chapter for a group of natural relationships in this region. Several signs point to the demise of the guanaco’s role in the Patagonian ecosystem. Grazing interactions in this fragile scrub–steppe have so changed in the past century as to alter the land. Because sheep and other livestock occupy the more humid and productive grassland areas, guanacos have been pushed to the most arid parts of the range. Guanacos are no longer able to move seasonally between home ranges; instead, they graze year-round in a single location, intensifying their impact on local plant resources. In addition, in areas where sheep have replaced guanacos, heavy, constant grazing by large herds of sheep has caused the degradation of plant cover and soil erosion. The combined result of these factors is that over 35 percent of the steppe has been moderately to severely desertified.3 Replacing guanacos with sheep on the landscape has also altered predator– prey relationships in the Patagonian ecosystem. For example, the presence of fewer wild guanacos and more sheep have changed the ecological behavior of the largest scavenger, the Andean condor. Where condors still exist, their diet now consists mostly of livestock. But some ranchers put poison in sheep carcasses to kill predators, and the giant birds have frequently succumbed to this. The puma, the guanaco’s main natural predator, now also consumes sheep and introduced wildlife such as European hare, red deer, and wild boar, rather than guanacos.4 As a result, puma numbers are increasing, and instances of conflict with ranchers are on the rise. These changes in Patagonia’s ecosystems have altered predator–prey interactions so much that they might challenge guanaco recovery even in areas where sheep ranching is declining and hunting is no longer a problem. Pumas, which were extirpated from most of Patagonia in the early twentieth century, have in some ways benefited from abundant livestock and nonnative prey species, and they have recovered, reaching high densities in many areas. When a predator

species is abundant and its preferred prey species—in this case, guanaco—is not, even occasional predation may prevent small prey populations from rebounding. Thus the resurgence of predation by pumas may prevent the recovery of some smaller guanaco populations. Because of the many human induced changes to their habitat, guanaco seasonal migrations across large swaths of open steppe are increasingly rare. Long-distance migrations are ecological phenomena integral to the character of a species and the wildness of a landscape. Many terrestrial mammals once migrated over great distances to take advantage of seasonal fluctuations in resources, but an estimated 95 to 99 percent of these migrations have disappeared during recent decades due to development, physical barriers, and hunting.5 Guanaco populations that still Recent research by the Wildlife Conservation Society migrate long distances may represent has demonstrated that guanacos need expansive areas and that some populations —those with large numbers the only remaining phenomenon and few barriers to movement—still migrate seasonof this kind in South America, ally. Regions with spectacular migratory guanaco populations include the San Guillermo landscape in the making their preservation a southern Andean steppe, the Payunia–Auca Mahuida unique conservation opportunity. landscape and Somuncura Plateau in northern Patagonia, and Karukinka Natural Park in Tierra del Fuego. In the extensive, 1,700-square-mile (4500 km2) Payunia Reserve, guanacos have seasonal home ranges as large as 230 square miles (600 km2)—impressive when compared to home ranges of guanacos on sheep ranches, which are often only 3 square miles (8 km2). In the Payunia, guanacos still make a seasonal roundtrip migration of over 100 miles (160 km). Guanaco populations that still migrate long distances may represent the only remaining phenomenon of this kind in South America, making their preservation a unique conservation opportunity.

New Threats, Renewed Hope In the 1990s, hunting regulations and a less profitable international market for sheep wool allowed some guanaco populations to rebound. However, in recent years, two new types of conservation concerns have emerged, one of them being wool sheared from live-captured wild guanacos. Shearing of live guanacos takes place primarily among 10 to 15 of the large populations in central and northern Patagonia, including the two migratory populations in Payunia and Somuncura. Between 2003 and 2008, approximately 20,000 guanacos were captured, sheared, and released, producing 20,000 pounds (9,000 kg) of wool that was sold at an average price of $45 per pound. As a consequence of this favorable price, 35 percent of guanacos in continental Patagonia have been targeted for live shearing, with unknown consequences for the long-term recovery of Restoration of the Guanaco, Icon of Patagonia • 125


Weighing about 250 pounds (110 kg), guanacos are smaller than llamas and less woolly.


populations.6 Renewed interest in the sale of guanaco wool (and to a lesser extent guanaco meat) may present an important opportunity to boost support for guanaco on private lands in both Argentina and Chile. However, if improperly managed, this commercialization of the species could lead to new threats, such as stress on the animals, selective breeding for wool attributes, and other problems associated with highly managed wildlife. The second new concern comes from the indirect impacts of increased exploration for hydrocarbon and mining, which has escalated in Patagonia and the southern Andes. In Argentine Patagonia, 150,000 miles (240,000 km) of oil and gas exploration roads were opened in the past few decades. These

Source: Hermann Brehm/naturepl.com

roads are left open during and after exploration and provide poachers with widespread access to previously inaccessible areas. Poaching led to a 92 percent decline in guanaco numbers in the Auca Mahuida area of northern Patagonia, and it has also affected guanacos and other wildlife in the San Guillermo landscape. These potential new threats highlight the need for more research to fully understand the impacts of guanaco use and of new development. Recent research on Patagonian guanacos has documented the nature of grazing competition with livestock. Research has also investigated the threshold density level at which small guanaco populations could sustain puma predation. Other ongoing studies are addressing the effects of fragmentation and hunting from oil trails, and evaluating whether capture and live-shearing of guanacos results in levels of stress and mortality that would prevent population recovery. The Wildlife Conservation Society is studying the seasonal migration patterns of the remaining large guanaco populations in the four extensive landscapes in Argentina and Chile using radio telemetry and transect counts. Knowing their seasonal migration patterns will provide an understanding of the factors determining movement, the humancaused disturbances that may interrupt movements, and the measures that can be taken to restore migration. At the regional level, a multi-institutional project is under way to map the distribution of guanacos and prioritize new areas for conservation. (Currently, less than 1 percent of the Patagonian steppe is effectively protected.)

Andean condors feed on a guanaco carcass. Livestock has replaced guanaco as a primary food source for the birds.

Sweeping Vision There is a need for governments, ranchers, and nongovernmental organizations to agree on a vision that prioritizes the conservation of wild guanaco populations and their habitat. The vision of success for guanaco conservation is a Patagonian landscape where guanacos are again the dominant herbivore, migrating seasonally in large herds and across great distances between summer and winter ranges and interacting with native plants and predators. Over the Restoration of the Guanaco, Icon of Patagonia • 127

Source: Suzanne Bolduc/WCS

Puma numbers are increasing in Patagonia. The big cats now consume more sheep than guanacos and face persecution by livestock ranchers.


past 15 years, a consortium of government agencies in Argentina and Chile, along with scientists and nongovernmental organizations, has begun to develop this vision and to implement a strategy to restore functional guanaco populations to much of their former range. In 2006, this consortium released a management plan for guanacos that was adopted by the federal government of Argentina. The restoration strategy calls for the preservation of the great wild places where guanacos can still migrate—the truly wild Patagonian steppe—and the recovery of large guanaco populations on private lands between protected areas.7 This vision will require that guanacos and conservation planners alike adapt to the climate change impacts forecasted for Patagonia and the southern Andes, where global warming scenarios predict increasing aridity. Except for those that live in Tierra del Fuego’s wetter, forested habitat, guanacos occur in greatest numbers in some of the driest parts of Patagonia. An average 3.6°F (2°C) increase in temperature over the coming decades, combined with decreased precipitation in areas such as western Patagonia, is likely to exacerbate desertification and increase conflicts between wildlife and livestock interests. However, the predicted climate scenario presents a strong argument for the restoration of guanaco populations because this hardy species is better adapted than sheep to arid conditions. This became evident over the past century when the guanacos that were marginalized to drier places managed to thrive while sheep overgrazed even the richest ranges. Conservationists will also need to test and implement means to make private landowners more tolerant of large guanaco populations, particularly as herds move across the landscape. One key is to explore sustainable market options for guanaco products such as wool and meat and to develop mixed management plans involving livestock and wild guanacos. Finally, new protected areas must not simply be envisioned, but actually established to help maximize connectivity between populations and between seasonal home ranges. Such a network of lands covering a variety of native habitats would allow functional populations of this Patagonian icon to continue their spectacular and ecologically critical n migrations in the face of future development and climate change.

Changing Flyways: Migratory Birds in a Warming World J A N I C E WO R M WO R T H

ach September, cathedral bells in Christchurch, New Zealand, ring to welcome the first returning bar-tailed godwits (Limosa lapponica baueri), large wading shorebirds. A bit of celebration is certainly called for, given that some of these endurance champions of the bird world migrate all the way from Alaska, approximately 6,800 miles (11,000 km)—the longest nonstop flight recorded for a land bird. They owe their mind-boggling feat to extraordinarily efficient physiology, abundant food, and favorable southward winds. After spending long Arctic summer days breeding, bar-tailed godwits gorge on worms and shellfish on the rich Yukon–Kuskokwim Delta mudflats. By departure time their hearts and flight muscles have enlarged, their blood has thickened to carry more oxygen, and their weight has doubled. Their transformation from breeding machines to fat-fueled flying machines complete, they await winds that will boost them toward New Zealand. Some make the trans-Pacific journey in a single hop, but just how they fly continuously without food or water for about nine days is a question that challenges our understanding of vertebrate physiology. It is small wonder that godwits excite the public’s imagination. In 2008, the godwits returned to New Zealand weeks earlier than normal. Climate change was immediately raised as one possible cause. Shifts in the timing of bird migrations are becoming a widespread phenomenon, a fingerprint of climate change that commands intensifying scientific scrutiny. The annual migration of 50 billion birds is a massive, global ecological pulse—one

E

JANICE WORMWORTH is a Canadian freelance science communicator whose engagement with climate change and energy issues spans more than 15 years. She has worked for numerous national and international environmental groups, and consults with organizations seeking to address climate change through their business. She now lives in Australia, where she is working on a book about climate change and biodiversity. Changing Flyways: Migratory Birds in a Warming World • 129

Source: Markus Varesvuo/naturepl.com

Bar-tailed godwits make the longest recorded nonstop flight—from Alaska to New Zealand—of any land bird.

that is waning in the face of systemic human threats, which include habitat destruction, overhunting, and other disturbances, and increasing, warmer average global temperatures. But shouldn’t migratory birds’ very mobility endow them with greater adaptability in the face of climate change? Paradoxically, the dependence of some on multiple habitats at precise times of the year actually increases the odds that changing climate patterns will disrupt part of their fine-tuned annual cycle. As it turns out, migratory birds have much to reveal when it comes to climate change, and unfortunately, much to lose. We have learned much since 1822, when a white stork (Ciconia ciconia) flying over Germany with an arrow jutting out of it—an arrow of West African design—provided the first clear evidence of long-distance migration.1 Fortunately, today more sophisticated tools have revealed that migratory birds exploit seasonal abundance at different climes, and that their long journeys may result in bottlenecks of time, energy, and resources. These constraints are particularly severe for long-distance migrants that use a small number of fixed staging sites to rapidly refuel. For example, the threatened rufa subspecies of red knot (Calidris canutus) travels 19,000 miles (30,000 km) round trip between Tierra del Fuego in South America and its Canadian Arctic breeding grounds. Its journey is timed to include a crucial spring refueling stop in Delaware Bay on the US mid-Atlantic coast to fatten on the eggs of spawning horseshoe crabs. This bird’s recent decline is blamed in part on commercial overharvesting of the crabs. However, like many migratory birds, the red knot also faces new, climatedriven threats. Scientists trying to gauge how climate change will impact birds still confront huge knowledge gaps as to where many species breed, refuel, and overwinter, as well as what ecological conditions they require at those locations.

Warming Disrupts Timing Time is of the essence for birds that have synchronized their annual migratory cycles with conditions along their flyways as well as in their breeding and wintering areas. Generally, birds want to breed as early as local conditions allow since early reproduction increases reproductive success. Matching peak nutritional 130 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: Fritz Pölking/AUSCAPE

demands of chicks with peak abundance of suitable food, such as insect larvae, can be crucial. However, the increase in global average surface temperatures of 1.3°F (0.74°C) over the past century is disrupting these time-sensitive relationships. Warming causes seasonal spring events such as plant budburst, insect emergence, and arrival of migratory birds to occur earlier in many cases, but not necessarily at the same rate or to the same degree. The well-studied pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca) is one such insect-eating migratory bird that misses the earlier worm. Some pied flycatcher populations no longer arrive in the Netherlands to nest, lay eggs, and hatch chicks in time to capitalize on peak abundance of their caterpillar food source. Due to warming temperatures, caterpillars now emerge earlier but peak in abundance at different times in different areas. The birds’ arrival time from their West African wintering grounds is relatively fixed, and where this is mismatched with food-peak timing (where they have missed the earliest food peaks), populations have

White storks migrate in flocks of as many as 11,000 individuals.

Changing Flyways: Migratory Birds in a Warming World • 131

declined by 90 percent. (Where the caterpillars peak later and early breeders are able to reproduce at the right time, populations have declined to a lesser degree.) The pied flycatchers now breed more quickly after arriving, but not fast enough to fully take advantage of the earlier food peaks.2 Plant-eating migratory birds, such as geese, may also be vulnerable to warming. As one of North America’s most northerly breeding geese, the greater snow goose (Chen caerulescens atlantica) is under especially severe time constraints in the short Arctic summer. The geese must match the nutrient abundance of local plants with their newly hatched goslings’ peak appetite demands. In years with warmer springs, snow geese produce smaller, lighter goslings less likely to survive their 2,500-mile (4,000 km) southward autumn migration.3 Even though the geese breed earlier in warmer years, local plant growth peaks earlier still. This suggests that hatching even a few days too late can reduce a gosling’s growth rate, and that climate warming is likely to impact at least some aspects of the reproductive success of greater snow geese.

Climate Change Causes Range Shifts

Source: Graham Eaton/naturepl.com

Red knots time their migrations to include important rest and “refueling” stops.


Climate affects not only when key events take place, but also where birds and their food sources and predators are found. Birds’ well-known sensitivity to such factors as temperature and precipitation means their distributions are largely climate limited. Thus, where the climate warms, birds are expected to generally shift their ranges in step with suitable conditions: toward the poles or upward in elevation.4 However, an independent, unique response is expected from each species, reflecting its own specific climate tolerances. These idiosyncratic reactions mean ecological communities are unlikely to shift intact and could instead be forced to reorganize and reshuffle. The Arctic, for example, is warming at almost twice the global rate, and tundra-breeding shorebirds face not only gradual northward invasion by subarctic shrub, but also new predators, competitors, and parasites. Such shifts could trigger further, possibly more extreme, impacts with consequences that are challenging scientists’ ability to model and forecast. Widespread evidence from Europe and the Americas indicates that range shifts are already taking place.5 Research on birds breeding in France

Source: Malcolm Schuyl/FLPA

suggests some species are not keeping up with the pace of climate change. In the last two decades of rapid warming in this region, average temperatures during the breeding season have shifted northward by approximately 170 miles (273 km).6 In response, France’s bird communities have moved their habitat use northward at an average of 57 miles (91 km) in that time, lagging behind shifting climatic zones. For large numbers of European bird species, climatic changes over this century are likely to shift their geographical distributions by as much as 600 miles (1,000 km).7 As ranges inch poleward, some birds’ migrations could become longer, testing the endurance of flyers already pushed to their physiological limits. Some warblers that migrate across the Sahara to breed in Europe, for example, could face journeys up to 250 miles (400 km) longer. Finally, research from Europe and southern Africa suggests that, on average, future climatically suitable ranges for some bird species will contract, and small ranges are associated with higher extinction risk.8 In continental North America, the Prairie Pothole Region, the world’s most productive waterfowl habitat, may shrink and shift. Known as North America’s “duck factory,” this 290,000 square-mile (750,000 km2) region stretching from Alberta to Iowa is made up of grassland and farmland dotted with millions of wetland ponds, and produces a majority of the continent’s ducks in most years.

Snow geese use a wetland beside a factory. Many migratory birds face climate-related changes in food availability and loss of wetlands through drought and lower water tables.


It also serves as vital breeding or stopover habitat for at least 300 migratory bird species. However, over the next half century, a warmer, more drought-prone climate could cause pond numbers to plummet, potentially halving US breeding duck numbers. At the same time, the region’s most productive habitat would slowly shift east where 90 percent of pothole wetlands have already been drained for agriculture. The dilemma in the duck factory highlights a key climate-related threat: although global warming may create new, climatically suitable habitat, it may be unsuitable for the birds if the landscape is already filled with farms or cities and crisscrossed by roadways and rail lines. Climate change will threaten birds in areas far from direct human influence, such as the ivory gull (Pagophila eburnea), an Arctic-breeding migrant. This pure-white gull, one of North America’s rarest and least-known seabirds, can be seen hovering above polar bears waiting to scavenge, or hunting through cracks in sea ice. Yet retreat of sea ice from its remote coastal breeding areas will leave For large numbers of European the ivory gull adrift in a warming world. The Arctic Climate Impact breeding bird species, climatic Assessment found that endangered changes over this century are likely Canadian populations of the ivory gull plummeted 90 percent in the to shift the boundaries of their two decades prior to 2004, and its geographical distributions by as potential breeding range in the European Arctic will likely shrink by much as 600 miles (1,000 km). 70 percent this century. The ivory gull’s plight is unfortunately not unique among migratory birds, as many new climate-related impacts will be superimposed over already deteriorating conservation conditions.

Uncertain Climate for Survival Some groups, such as generalists, birds less reliant on specific migratory habits, and species with invasive characteristics, may hold their own or even prosper in the face of climate change.9 But some migratory species are predicted to be especially hard hit because they are vulnerable to changes in any of their breeding, wintering, and stopover habitats. Those unable to shift or adapt will ultimately die out, and widespread extinctions are possible. The important task of quantifying this remains a work in progress. The British Trust for Ornithology 134 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: Steve Kaufman/Peter Arnold, Inc.

finds climate change could significantly reduce the abundance of 84 percent of 300 migratory birds listed with the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)—impacting as many species as the sum of all other human threats combined. Changing water regimes—altered wetlands, for example—are the most pervasive climate-related threats and are expected to affect nearly 150 of these species, including the wetland-dependent and critically endangered Siberian crane (Grus leucogeranus) and the aquatic warbler (Acrocephalus paludicola), Europe’s rarest songbird.10 The novel challenges of climate change demand new strategies for wildlife conservation. Species in a state of flux may move out of protected areas into areas that are hostile to their survival. While “static” protected areas will remain

Earlier snow melt due to climate change could make western sandpipers’ southward migrations more perilous by increasing the birds’ encounters with peregrine falcons.


a cornerstone of conservation, a versatile and nimble approach will be needed to restore degraded landscapes required by birds as they shift ranges in response to a changing climate. A key priority for all conservationists is to work on plans to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. Also crucial will be sustaining the largest, most genetically diverse bird populations possible. Conservation efforts must also be ecologically coherent and focus on entire migratory flyways, particularly with regard to reducing habitat destruction and predicting where bird ranges may shift. All this will demand a truly The six discrete subspecies of international approach to protecting birds that recognize no political borders. So far, however, climate change has red knot bring much testimony figured into only a few international species conservation from their travels around the conventions, among them the CMS and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. globe, from Arctic tundra to Notwithstanding these threats and conservation chalAfrican desert coasts, European lenges, there is an upside to migratory birds’ sensitivity to change and globetrotting lifestyles: their potential to be estuaries and Australian beaches. “prime witnesses” to climate change. The six discrete subspecies of red knot, for example, bring much testimony from their travels around the globe, from Arctic tundra to African desert coasts, European estuaries and Australian beaches. Monitoring the numbers, breeding success, migration timing, and other vital signs of these flying data collectors could reveal information on the health of the diverse ecosystems through which they pass. Faced with the impossible task of monitoring all species, scientists have proposed using trans-Saharan migrants, shorebirds, and penguins and other seabirds as proxies to illuminate the wider impacts of climate change on migrating wildlife. In the meantime, the high-flying lifestyles of bar-tailed godwits and red knots will continue to provoke fascinating questions and defy easy answers. Despite surviving past glacial periods and turbulent climates, many migratory birds now face the combined threats of climate change and other escalating human disturbances—an uncertain future. The quest to solve the mysteries of migration and safeguard these remarkable birds will be challenging, but our planet will be y the richer for it if we succeed.


I’ve wandered the world in search of life: bird by bird I’ve come to know the earth. Pa blo Neruda, from “The Poet Say s Go odbye to the Birds”

I need the sea because it teaches me. Pa blo Neruda, from “On the Blue Shore of Silence”

Conservation of Wild Places • 137

SECTION 2

Conservation of Wild Places

Ask naturalists what inspires their work, and they will tell you of wild places that fascinate them. But swaths of wilderness are shrinking, and the human footprint is evident on over 80 percent of the planet. In addition, climate change has begun to slowly, inexorably alter wild places. As modelers and ecologists attempt to understand how warming will change or shift biomes, others are urgently assessing the value of our last fragments of intact nature and devising new methods for protecting them. The following essays, written by passionate scientists and journalists at the forefront of conservation thinking, highlight precious places from the truly wild seas to urban green spaces. To start, we delve into Canada’s expansive northern boreal which contains possibly one quarter of the globe’s remaining intact forest cover. The riches of this harsh wilderness, and the growing industrial threats eroding its edges, are featured in the essay, “The Boreal Forest: Trouble in Canada’s Great Wilderness.” A jaunt to the southern hemisphere in “Inspiring Ocean Conservation” takes us to the Patagonian Sea, where confluences of currents support an abundance of marine wildlife—and also attract the international fishing industry. The essay celebrates the wildlife in the seas and the skies that we are only beginning to understand.


Because a large and growing number of us now live in urban or semiurban areas, a closer look at maintaining the wild in our midst is of emerging importance. “The Wild and the City” highlights how nature contained in the patchy network of urban green spaces supports a variety of species and benefits city residents. To illustrate the juggernaut of climate change, “Life Waters: Wetlands and Climate Change” covers the many growing pressures on biodiverse wetlands, taking examples from three continents. In each volume of State of the Wild, we analyze an emerging debate in conservation. The wild places explored here, and the many that we could not cover, help regulate the planet’s carbon, water, and other lifesustaining services. “Conservation Controversy: Can Paying for Ecosystem Services Save Biodiversity?” asks whether assigning monetary value to wild places will inspire more effective conservation. Each location, no matter how light or heavy the imprint of human activity, provides ecological services and inspiration, and, as these authors attest, understanding a wild L place is a first step to conserving it.

The Boreal Forest: Trouble in Canada’s Great Wilderness PETER LEE

f you view the world looking down from the North Pole, the white ice of the Arctic gradually fades into a great evergreen snow forest that rings the planet like an emerald halo. Known as the boreal biome, or taiga in Russian, this ring spans some 7,500 miles (12,000 km) across northern Asia, Europe, and North America and is one of the last truly wild places on Earth. The boreal forest exists largely outside of public awareness, but its importance to the planetary ecosystem is unsurpassed, particularly in the face of climate change. Named after Boreas, the Greek god of the north wind, the boreal biome is characterized by long, frigid winters with low sunlight, followed by summers that bring clouds of voracious insects and ecosystem-renewing fires. It is not surprising that most of the boreal forest is sparsely populated by humans. Those of us who live here are fortunate to experience a vast wilderness where winters leave snow thick on the ground, showing traces of snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), and where summer visits to still lakes are punctuated by the songs of Swainson’s thrush (Catharus ustulatus) mingled with those of hermit thrushes (Catharus guttatus). Of the boreal it has been written, “There are no houses between us and the North Pole and the wild is always there, somewhere near.”1 Yet this landscape, immense as it is, is under threat on several fronts. Globally, the boreal forest biome represents Earth’s most extensive terrestrial ecosystem. There are large boreal areas across Russia, Canada, and Alaska, with small intact vestiges in Europe and in some parts of the contiguous United

I

PETER LEE is executive director of Global Forest Watch Canada. His career has focused on improving sustainable forest management, primarily in Canada’s boreal forest. He also has conservation and environmental experience in government (Alberta Government), academia (University of Alberta), private industry (Syncrude), and notfor-profit organizations (World Wildlife Fund Canada). The Boreal Forest: Trouble in Canada’s Great Wilderness • 139

Source: Global Forest Watch Canada

In a view of the world from the North Pole down, a great evergreen snow forest rings the planet, known as the boreal biome, or taiga in Russian.

States. (Relatively small areas described as boreal exist in South America, but the term is commonly applied only to the northern forests.) Because of its size, extent, and variation in geology, geomorphology, climate, vegetation, soils, flora, and fauna, the boreal biome is important both ecologically and as an economic resource. Canada’s boreal forest is nearly 14 times the size of California and features large mountain ranges and expansive plains with bogs, peatlands, and permafrost. It provides mating, nesting, and breeding habitat for more than half of North America’s birds and contains more than 20 percent of Earth’s freshwater rivers, lakes, and wetlands, including some mighty river systems. Since 2000, a group of Canadian and Russian researchers coordinated by the World Resources Institute has been using satellite images to map the full extent of the world’s remaining boreal forests.2 As part of this effort, my organization, Global Forest Watch Canada, examined more than 1,000 satellite images covering all of Canada’s forests, each image covering a square 112 miles by 112 miles (180 km by 180 km).3 In the process, we mapped every road, clear-cut, oil and gas well site, mine, and agricultural clearing, as well as any other human disturbance that we could discern from the images. The results of these satellite-mapping studies were startling. We found that Canada contains the majority of Earth’s ecologically intact boreal forest. This translates into about one quarter of the entire world’s remaining ecologically intact forest cover. But the satellite images also revealed the rapid increase of incursions into the forest to exploit its natural riches. The southern edge of the 140 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

boreal has long been a frontier for Canadians: we mapped agricultural lands in Saskatchewan’s Northern Great Plains where my grandparents cleared the spruce and aspen trees and drained the wetlands in the early 1900s. We also saw the clear-cuts north of Lake Superior where I worked as a teenager in a pulp mill fed by spruces from nearby valleys. But today, Canada’s boreal forest is the site of industrial-scale timber, hydrocarbon, hydroelectric power, and mineral extraction, all of which are unprecedented in terms of both scale and rate of acceleration. The annual area logged in Canada alone has almost doubled since 1950; currently, about five acres (2 ha) of mostly virgin boreal forest are clearcut every minute of every hour of every day.4 The cumulative impacts of these activities remain largely unstudied, however, even though they are rapidly evolving. Given the compounded ecological toll wrought by these anthropogenic disturbances, the future of the boreal forest is likely to contain some unpleasant surprises.5

Canada’s boreal region is largely made up of four major landscape types: upland forests, river valleys, wetlands, and lakes. Dense conifer forests of spruce and pine trees dominate the bulk of the boreal. As one travels north, the forest shrinks and opens up into tundra barrens. While people often think of global biodiversity as being concentrated in tropical forests, the tremendous environmental complexity of the boreal ecosystem and the diversity of species that spend part or all of the year here make it an equivalent treasure. Iconic large mammals, such as woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), far-ranging predators, and songbirds, many of which are uniquely adapted to survive long, harsh winters, thrive in these landscapes. Many forbs—herbaceous flowering plants—on the forest floor survive the extreme winter buried beneath an insulating layer of snow. Some species, such as black bear (Ursus americanus) and red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), survive the season by hibernating. Other species, such as snowshoe hare and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), have evolved sufficient body insulation and other physical and behavioral characteristics that permit them to be active during the relentless frost. The boreal forest is also a haven for breeding and migrating landbirds and waterfowl, with 63 percent of Canada’s native birds occuring here. North America’s western boreal forest supports an average of more than 13 million ducks representing some 40 percent of the entire continent’s breeding water-

Source: Suzanne Bolduc/WCS

Landscape of Riches

Canada lynx are top predators in the boreal forest, but continued forest disturbance could fragment their populations.

The Boreal Forest: Trouble in Canada’s Great Wilderness • 141

Source: Gerald Romanchuk

Yellow-rumped warblers (Dendroica coronata) spend their breeding season in old-growth boreal conifer and mixed wood forests.


fowl.6 Close to 30 percent of all landbirds in Canada and the United States combined breed in Canada’s boreal forest, and many of these depend on the remaining stands of old-growth upland conifers across the southern part of the region.7 Tracts of old-growth boreal forest typically support a higher richness of birds, mammals, fish, invertebrates, arthropods, vascular and nonvascular plants, fungi, and bacteria than younger forests. Many rare, uncommon, or endangered species in the boreal forest—such as bay-breasted warblers (Dendroica castanea), winter wrens (Troglodytes troglodytes), grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis), northern long-eared bats (Nyctophilus arnhemensis), and flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus)—are likewise most abundant in the unique habitat provided by old-growth forests. This habitat is not easily replicated. For example, the old-growth stands in Alberta’s Peace River Valley contain the tallest known white spruces (Picea glauca) in the world at 130 to 150 feet (40 to 46 m). However, loggers also prefer old-growth timber and have logged over 78,000 square miles (202,000 km2) of Canada’s boreal oldgrowth in the last 25 years.8 Perhaps the most significant single imminent threat to Canada’s boreal biodiversity is this loss of old-growth forest. A second major feature of Canada’s boreal is the large river systems that flow to the Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific oceans. These rivers and their associated basins are among the boreal forest’s most complex ecosystems in terms of topography, microclimate, and vegetation. The river valleys are important overwintering habitat for many species, such as moose (Alces alces) and wolves (Canis lupus). Where the Peace and Athabasca Rivers converge, they form one of the world’s largest inland freshwater deltas, where herds of wild wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) dwell year-round. One of the greatest threats to these boreal forest river systems is the planned rapid expansion of hydroelectric power generation and damming of rivers. Canada, as the world’s largest producer of hydrogenerated electricity, diverts more water than any other country and has built the largest number of dams, most of these in the boreal region.9 The resulting flooded reservoirs have released mercury, methane, and CO2 into the atmosphere and caused the loss of commercial and subsistence fisheries for many of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples. Despite this, more dams and reservoirs are planned for the boreal regions of Quebec, Manitoba, and the Northwest Territories. Wetlands make up 20 percent of Canada’s boreal region and include swamps, marshes, and peatlands. Of this, 85 percent is peatland, giving Canada the largest peatland coverage in the world. Sensitive mosses and lichens


Boreal lake and mixed wood boreal forest in the Chibougama area of northern Quebec. Freshwater boreal lakes are the most numerous type of lake on Earth.

predominate in the ecology of wetland landscapes, particularly in acidic peatlands, where sphagnum mosses can often reach nearly 10 feet (3 m) in depth. Importantly, peatlands are crucial storehouses of carbon and hold anywhere from 15 to 30 percent of the world’s soil carbon.10 Finally, freshwater lakes dot Canada’s boreal, and, in total, freshwater covers about 7 percent of this region.11 Canada’s assemblage of boreal fish species includes some that occur exclusively or predominantly here, such as the cisco (Coregonus artedii) and Arctic lamprey (Lethenteron japonicum), and others that are among the most sought-after sport and commercial fish species, such as lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), and lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis). Canada’s boreal forest is vast and remote, and due to the relatively undisturbed expanse, it can still provide habitat for wide-ranging predators and their ungulate prey species. In Canada’s boreal, predator–prey systems are still intact—a rarity in other large wildernesses. Top predators such as wolves, Canada lynx, and grizzly In Canada’s boreal, predator–prey bears are crucial to maintaining ecosystems because they systems are still intact—a rarity in limit their prey species’ populations. But increasing disturbance in the forest will impact the ancient relationship of other large wildernesses. predator and prey. For example, Canada lynx are already negatively affected by human activity, and if encroachment continues at its current rate and scale, lynx range could contract, and their populations could become fragmented.12 Logging in older-growth coniferous forests has already put some populations of native woodland caribou at risk: logging The Boreal Forest: Trouble in Canada’s Great Wilderness • 143

increases the number of younger trees and consequently promotes higher densities of moose and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), which attract and support more predators, especially wolves, throwing off the preexisting predator–prey dynamic.13


Warming the North

Clearcut logging of lodgepole pine and white spruce in the boreal forest of western Canada. Forest loss leaves more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which contributes to climate change.


Global warming is of particular significance in the boreal forest. Over the next century, average temperatures in northern regions will rise substantially more than the global average.14 This will almost certainly mean a northward shift of the boreal biome. Changing precipitation patterns will likely lead to an overall reduction of the total area of wetlands, while rising temperatures will cause permafrost to melt, draining some northern lands. Warmer temperatures may also allow invasive species to spread northward, resulting in the loss of native and endangered species. But the boreal region plays a vital role in the global carbon cycle and thus has the capacity to profoundly affect the course of the planet’s future warming. The boreal forest historically has been a key global carbon sink, meaning it absorbs carbon from the atmosphere. Between 8 and 11 percent of the world’s terrestrial carbon is stored in North America’s boreal forest, and only a small fraction of this is in the trees and surface vegetation—the rest is stored in peat deposits, soils, and lake sediments.15 Continued large-scale logging will decrease the amount of atmospheric carbon absorbed by the boreal forest. In fact, some studies suggest that the boreal region’s absorption decreased between 1970 and 1989, and recent studies have shown net carbon emissions from the region due to the oxidation of peat, either from drying or from burning.16 Warmer temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns could increase the frequency and intensity of summer fires, potentially releasing vast amounts of carbon currently stored in boreal vegetation and peatlands.

Unfortunately, industrial developments in Canada’s boreal will contribute to the warming trend as well. For example, the development of the tar sands region of the western boreal is the single largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions growth in Canada.17

Looking Back, Looking Forward Looking back over a lifetime spent in or near the boreal forest, including 10 years of fieldwork to verify Global Forest Watch Canada’s satellite maps, I am struck by two contradictory impressions. First, I am comforted by the almost unbelievable size of what remains as ecologically intact, pristine boreal forest, with its self-perpetuating predator–prey ecosystem and large-scale ecological processes. It almost seems so big and permanent as to be immune to the heavy hand of the industrial The boreal region plays a vital role juggernaut that would plunder its riches. At the same in the global carbon cycle and thus time, it is unsettling to witness the immense speed and scale of recent development activities, from open pit bituhas the capacity to profoundly men mines in the western boreal to oil and gas developaffect the course of the planet’s ments now dotting the Mackenzie River valley. Despite these threats, Canada’s boreal forest still presfuture warming. ents an unprecedented global conservation opportunity. It is one of the last wild places capable of sustaining biological diversity—a place of great beauty and power, and of almost unfathomable scope and variety. Its forests, lakes, and wetlands continue to provide critical ecosystem services at a planetary scale, purifying our water, producing oxygen, and moderating our climate. It is also home to more than 600 Aboriginal communities and is a source of spiritual renewal and economic livelihood for many Canadians. There are some hopeful signs of boreal conservation. In 2008, the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec announced efforts to protect 50 percent of the northern portions of their provinces. Implementation of the Boreal Conservation Framework, led by First Nations, government organizations, corporations, environmental organizations, and scientists, is an attempt to preserve at least half of the boreal forest in a network of large, interconnected protected areas. But perhaps the most hopeful sign of all lies in the fact that more than 95 percent of Canada’s boreal forest is public land and that Canadians, together with people from around the world, are beginning to recognize this ecological treasure. As a result, with the right decisions today, future generations will be able to expeZ rience that, indeed, “the wild is always near.”

The Boreal Forest: Trouble in Canada’s Great Wilderness • 145

Inspiring Ocean Conservation C L A U D I O C A M PA G N A

n Mapping Paradise, Alessandro Scafi provides an account of a surrealistic undertaking: over the course of centuries, mapmakers attempt to reveal the location of the Garden of Eden, a place inaccessible to mortals but conceptually a true “place.”1 Likewise, in Jorge Luis Borges’ short story “On Exactitude in Science,” cartographers work with obsessive precision to create a map of an empire so detailed that it equals the size of the empire itself, blurring the distinction between symbolism and reality.2 Are these useless maps or apt metaphors for our quest for knowledge? These stories and metaphors provide inspiration as we seek to understand the vast, unfathomable oceans. Evidence suggests that human activities have affected almost every part of the world’s oceans.3 A few areas, such as the Antarctic and the deep ocean, are still wild and pristine, containing intact food webs, species diversity, and wildlife spectacles. Some temperate waters, including the Patagonian Sea, which surrounds the southern cone of South America, are also still wild. The Patagonian Sea, like Eden, is not a real place in geography. Modern cartographers named this area the Southwest Atlantic. Its cold, biologically rich depths support abundant marine life and inspire ocean conservationists who strive to prevent the Patagonian Sea from becoming a lost paradise.

I

CLAUDIO CAMPAGNA works for the Wildlife Conservation Society in Argentina and is a researcher for the National Research Council of Argentina. Claudio has an MD from the University of Buenos Aires and a PhD from the University of California at Santa Cruz. He received a Pew Fellowship for his work on the conservation of the Patagonian Sea, and he has published five books and over 100 papers and popular articles on animal behavior and conservation biology. He recently coedited the comprehensive Atlas of the Patagonian Sea: Species and Spaces. 146 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: Jim Large

Southern elephant seals spend eight months of the year foraging at sea and are among the the deepest divers of all marine mammals.

Exploring the Patagonian Sea In the Patagonian Sea, plankton richness supports large populations of resident and migratory birds, fish, turtles, and marine mammals. In particular, plankton productivity at the edge of the continental shelf makes the Patagonian Sea one of the most reliable marine foraging areas in the southern hemisphere—some 1,400 species of zooplankton are sustained by the confluence of the Brazil and Malvinas currents, a well-known “secret” to many marine animals that come here to feed. The Patagonian Sea supports a diversity of wildlife, including over 900 species of mollusks, among them the commercially important Argentine shortfin squid (Illex argentinus) and red squid (Ommastrephus bartrammii). About 700 species of vertebrates thrive here as well, many of which reproduce along the Patagonian coast Evidence suggests that human in breath-taking aggregations. Some 400,000 pairs of blackactivities have affected almost browed albatrosses (Diomedea melanophris)—about 75 percent of the entire world population—breed and feed in this every part of the world’s oceans. region. Over a million pairs of Magellanic penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus) breed in spectacular colonies on the shores of the mainland and nearby islands. The only continental population of the southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina) is found along the Argentine Patagonian coast, and southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) breed off the same coast.4 Yet the Patagonian Sea is certainly not pristine. There are at least 100 introduced species, or species suspected to be invasive, affecting the ecosystem. On land, when a species is introduced from another habitat, it can spread and devastate native ecosystems. In the oceans, invasives can spread even more easily, the disturbance is often overlooked, and control of negative consequences is Inspiring Ocean Conservation • 147

Source: Eugenia Zavattieri

Southern giant petrel (Macronectes giganteus) in the reflection of a fishing boat. Adults feed on carrion and discards from fishing vessels.

rarely achieved. Likewise, direct human activity has caused dispersed damage to Patagonian marine wildlife. Commercial fishing fleets, particularly for squid, are so numerous they are often visible from satellites. Overfishing in the Patagonian Sea is causing populations of squid and fish to decline, affecting the albatrosses, penguins, and other species that depend on them. And in the nets and hooks that probe these waters, seabirds, mammals, and turtles die unnecessarily as collateral, or bycatch, due to indiscriminate fishing practices. The problem with the Patagonian Sea, as with all oceans, is that its wildlife riches and damage to them exist mostly out of our sight. On land, where all is visible, one could direct attention to an environmental issue even when it is not yet fully understood. But water conceals form and function under a surface of relatively uneventful homogeneity, and the untrained eye sees only the usual expanse of blue waves crowned with foam. As a result, ocean conservationists have difficulty sharing their concerns with the rest of society. How can one point to an albatross drowned in a longline hundreds of miles offshore? How can one observe an elephant seal’s nonstop, mile-long dive into total darkness, surrounded by the bioluminescent flashes of plankton, as if traveling through woodlands of lighted Christmas trees? The lives of these animals can only be imagined, and only in our minds can we grasp their grandeur and their struggle for survival. But relying on imagination alone for conservation can be misleading. For example, we once imagined that oceans were infinitely abundant, when, in fact, overfishing and bycatch are slaughtering marine life everywhere.5

Learning to Conserve Oceans Without a doubt, oceans are ruled not by fish or marine mammals but by humans. This would be fine, were it not that our style of harvesting the oceans’ resources resembles strip mining. Even as our understanding of the oceans continues to mature, we nevertheless neglect their conservation. Less than 1 percent of the seas are under some level of protection, despite the proven fact that Marine Protected Areas—discrete areas where fishing is limited—serve as valuable nurseries to bolster the stocks of fish species that are increasingly of global concern.6 The cost of neglecting the oceans is mainly biological, but we also lose something conceptual: oceans provide ecosystem services, but also inspiration; 148 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

marine wildlife is a natural resource, but also a wondrous spectacle. The flagrant waste of millions of animals each year due to indiscriminant fishing practices is called bycatch, but it is in fact a crime.7 As this planet’s marine biodiversity looks less and less like an abundant Eden, conservationists must find the right strategy to halt ocean degradation. This includes a combination of fitting portions of evidence, understanding, and action.

Evidence How can we plan conservation based on ideas alone? If science is the mother of fact, technology is a servant of science; both help us experience oceans and disclose what they conceal. The migrations of elephant seals and albatrosses to Patagonia’s productive waters may not be easily seen, but they can be scientifically represented. The problem with the Patagonian With proper instruments, we can create maps of ocean Sea, as with all oceans, is that wildernesses to guide conservation. For example, after fitting a juvenile elephant seal named Clarisa with a satellite its wildlife riches and damage to transmitter, scientists learned that she traveled from them exist mostly out of our sight. Península Valdés, on the Atlantic side of Patagonia, to the Pacific via the Drake Passage, and returned to the elephant seal colony by traversing the Magellan Strait—a journey across thousands of miles of waters thriving with plankton and dependent creatures, in a complex web that includes Clarisa and all her counterparts. Evidence such as this leads to the understanding that creatures such as elephant seals—but also seabirds, fish, and turtles—traverse these seascapes extensively, migrating beyond frontiers that we cannot even perceive.8 Yet humans stubbornly continue to divide the oceans according to unnatural boundaries, such as political jurisdictions and fishing quadrants.

Understanding After decades of researching the seas and their awe-inspiring wildlife, I am certain of one thing: the oceans are so immense that we consider them immune to misuse. Few people know, however, that some places in the ocean contain more human garbage, by mass, than plankton.9 Nor do they know that, for every pound of shrimp caught in nets, 5 to 15 pounds of other crustaceans—plus fish, snails, sea stars, scallops, algae, sea worms, and marine turtles—are thrown back, dead.10 Current exploitation of the Patagonian Sea is harming the diversity and abundance of its marine life. Furthermore, it benefits only a small number of people and it does not support overall regional economic development. It is difficult to compare the economics of current exploitation with the potential gains that could be realized through other, more sustainable uses, such as tourism. So, even though Magellanic penguins attract significant nature tourism in some Inspiring Ocean Conservation • 149

Source: W. Conway/WCS

The Magellanic penguin is the most common species of penguin in coastal Patagonia.

areas, they continue to be harmed by chronic hydrocarbon pollution. The incessant and unregulated degradation of biodiversity in the Patagonian Sea could soon reduce local economic opportunities.11 Conservationists expect that scientific and economic arguments such as these will lead people to understanding, wisdom, and conservation action. Are we wise enough to help the world change its attitudes? The mission sounds too ambitious for a small group of contemporary cartographers of Eden, but it needs to be accomplished, and urgently. How should conservationists proceed to save the diversity of life in a truly global marine system? I draw a few ideas from experience. First, we must think locally, be ready to expand broadly, and be persistent in our work. It is critical to integrate available knowledge and to work toward improving institutional support for conservation. Finally, I have learned to trust the power of inspiration.

The Sea and Sky Program A decade ago I was thinking about how best to communicate the ecological tapestry of life in the Patagonian Sea when I came across the work of the Dutch artist M. C. Escher. In one of his woodcuts, Sky and Water I, Escher masterfully represents the interdependence of life in the ocean and the sky above. This artwork integrates concepts of connectivity, diversity, space, and function. In it, the birds and fish are surrogates for species diversity, food chains, habitats, coevolution, competition, and mutual dependency. It inspired a group of us to found a conservation endeavor, the Sea and Sky Program, as an attempt to change the course of degradation of the wild Patagonian Sea. 150 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: M.C. Escher's "Sky and Water I" © 2009 The M.C. Escher Company-Holland. All rights reserved. www.mcescher.com

The challenge posed by Escher’s Sky and Water I is how to find a place for humans—for our fishing boats, our byproducts, our offshore oil platforms, our gigantic vessels carrying goods to every corner of the globe—in a system that is almost perfectly balanced. At the same time, we must do this without a full comprehension of how oceans work or their carrying capacity—the oceans’ thresholds to withstand human impact. The mission of Sea and Sky, therefore, is to find ways to limit degradation and perhaps create a sense of protection for the Patagonian Sea and its wildlife—and “sense of protection” is unfortunately the only accurate way to refer to the state of today’s ocean protection. Sea and Sky’s mission assumes the impossibility of inserting a fishing boat into Escher’s artwork without disrupting the equilibrium of its components: the fishing boat, by forcing human needs into such a delicate web, can impose its presence only by eliminating some of Escher’s birds and fish. In other words, one of the meanings of sustainable use is controlling unnecessary damage—we know some damage is inevitable.

Mapping the Future Like those cartographers who attempted to represent Eden, conservationists may be expecting too much from human imagination. We number in the billions, and many of our societies depend heavily on ocean productivity for food. We have seen that oceans, whether treated as common or as private property, pay the price of overuse. The conservation of the Patagonian Sea, as with all oceans, is today as sensitive to idiosyncratic human behavior and political caprice as ever. But in many ways conservation requires nothing more than the application of common sense. The past few years have seen the creation of new coastal Marine Protected Areas in the Patagonian Sea, and the declaration of the first open ocean area of importance for biodiversity in the Burdwood Bank between Tierra del Fuego and the Malvinas/Falkland Islands. This 694 square mile (1,800 km2) underwater island in the open ocean is particularly rich in hard and soft coral species and is an important feeding and spawning area for fish such as the Chilean sea bass (Dissostichus spp.). The Sea and Sky program helped identify the banks as a critical conservation priority and played a key advisory and technical role in formally establishing the protected area. It is the first time that Argentina has protected an area of ocean within its exclusive economic zone due to its biodiversity. Although the area is small, it shows important progress toward creating a more robust ocean protected area and truly integrating the conservation of sea and sky.

M.C. Escher’s Sky and Water I, an illustration of the interdependency of life in the sky and ocean.

Inspiring Ocean Conservation • 151

Source: Jim Large

King penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) are top predators in the Patagonian Sea. The world population of this migratory species is estimated at 2 million pairs.


Sea and Sky aims to alter Escher’s vision and to ask a very fundamental question: can oceans be conserved? However, the query might be misleading, given the fact that oceans are such interdependent systems and the degree to which they have already been degraded. Achieving sustainability is an imaginary scenario for which there is no map. Meanwhile, the international markets that drive fishing fleets to the Patagonian Sea do not incorporate the environmental costs of bycatch, and our governments, instead of halting our tendencies to deplete the oceans, continue to subsidize these fishing fleets. Although no species extinctions have yet been documented in the Patagonian Sea, if humanity has so often caused pain to fellow humans, will we refrain when other species are at stake? We may not, and Escher’s equilibrium might be disrupted forever. That k may be one scenario, but we are not there yet.

The Wild and the City S T E WA R D T. A . P I C K E T T

hat does wildness have to do with cities? The ecological sciences usually regard wildness as something that exists well outside of cities. Yet, when we look carefully at places as different as Seattle, Phoenix, and Baltimore, a complex, extensive mosaic of natural spaces appears—one that contains wild creatures, plants, and insects, as well as functioning ecological processes. The species and systems in and near urban areas help maintain a connected patchwork of nature. Now that cities and suburbs are home to 80 percent of the people in the United States and other developed nations, and to 50 percent of the total global population, the urban wild deserves closer examination.1 Urban ecology includes the study of more than just the patches of nature within central business districts and dense residential and industrial areas. It addresses the entire city–suburb–exurb (CSE) mosaic that makes up the larger urban ecosystem. CSE systems are integrated by flows of air, water, nutrients, animals, and plants. They are affected by patterns of investment and infrastructure. The connections within and between parts of the CSE can range from movements of beneficial insects, such as pollinating bees, to the unwelcome spread of pests like the emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis). The network of nature that makes up the urban wild is crucial to supporting a diversity of plants, pollinators, seed dispersers, fungi, microbes, insects, and invertebrate

W

STEWARD T. A. PICKETT is a plant ecologist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies. His research relates to the role of spatial heterogeneity in community and landscape structures and dynamics. Specific projects include research on urban ecosystems, function of landscape boundaries, and plant community succession. Steward is also project director of the Baltimore Ecosystem Study Long-Term Ecological Research Program. The Wild and the City • 153

Source: Baltimore Ecosystem Study

False-color, aerial photograph of a portion of the Baltimore metropolitan area. Dark red shows healthy vegetation, and blue indicates buildings and pavement. This view shows the mosaic nature of an urban ecosystem.

decomposers. These organisms help regulate community composition and store and recycle crucial nutrients. Animals that traverse the CSE mosaic, such as foxes, crows, and songbirds, help ecologists map the connections between green spaces along a gradient from the urban to the wild.

Hidden Nature Wild space in CSE systems is often hidden from view and thus exists outside of our awareness. For instance, drivers on a highway bridge might not realize there is a deep, wooded valley below them. A bit of desert vegetation in a suburban lot yet to be developed may attract hummingbirds. Native prairie grasses and wildflowers may cling to railroad rights-of-way through a midwestern city. Small vernal pools in a northeastern suburb may support rare marbled salamanders (Ambystoma opacum).2 Urban wetlands obscured by railroad yards or industrial buildings can provide habitat for species such as the great blue herons (Ardea herodias) that wade along New York City’s Arthur Kill Creek. Urban streams flow over complex beds of organic matter, absorbing nutrients and pollutants as they tumble down to coastal zones. Many such streams have, in fact, disappeared from view: 90 percent of Baltimore’s small streams are now hidden in culverts or buried in large pipes underground.3 The densest parts of cities generally provide only slivers of space for wild things. In downtowns and industrial areas, along transportation corridors, and among continuous blocks of apartments and houses, nature can only appear in 154 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild


extremely small areas. But appear it does. Street-tree pits, crumbling walls, and sidewalk cracks all present opportunities for ferns, herbs, and grasses, and even volunteer maple and ash trees can take root in neglected spaces. While many of the hardiest species are exotics that may threaten native plants and wildlife, even these invaders represent a toehold for the biological world within the built environment.4 Medium-sized sites in CSE systems include residential yards, abandoned lots, and disused industrial lands. These areas provide space for more extensive communities of organisms and the soils and waters on which they depend.5 Private gardens, thoughtfully designed to include native flowers, can support bees and butterflies. Yards can be havens for wild birds (but they are also places where birds are killed by domestic cats). Trees at the backs of lots can mingle crowns with those in neighboring open areas to form surprising patches of urban forest canopy. However, these medium-sized habitats would be isolated and have limited significance if they were not connected to larger blocks of wilderness within the CSE mosaic.6

Blocks for the Wild In many CSE systems, large blocks of open space containing unmanaged soils and natural or artificial surface waters provide significant habitat for wild plants and animals and support native ecological processes. Large wooded parks often echo former estates, represent enlightened city planning, or provide a snapshot of a less urban time in history. New York City, for example, has 29,000 acres (11,700 ha) of parkland. Of course, some of these acres are paved playgrounds or heavily used sports fields. But the city also contains the 880-acre (350 ha) Pelham Bay Park, which includes forest, grasslands, freshwater wetland, and salt marsh. New York’s Central Park is largely manicured, but it contains intact forests and hosts more than 200 bird species during their migrations along the Atlantic flyway.7 Birds as disparate as tiny blue-winged warblers (Vermivora pinus), great egrets (Ardea alba), and American kestrels (Falco sparverius) rely on these urban green spaces. Large blocks of New York City’s CSE include the Bronx Zoo and the adjacent New York Botanical Garden, which support birds, bats, and a beaver that recently made its home in the Bronx River. Other urban parks include Berlin’s Grunewald, a 270-acre (110 ha) nature preserve tucked within a larger forest complex, and Sydney’s Olympic Park, which protects endangered salt marsh, mangrove, and swamp oak floodplain forest communities. Other large blocks of nature in the CSE mosaic are not limited to parks: cemeteries and buffers around municipal reservoirs are also important

Great blue herons are found in urban wetland environments.

The Wild and the City • 155

wild sites. For example, Louisville’s Cave Hill Cemetery is a local birding and botanical destination, with 500 plant species, including the native bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). Even the largest open patches in a CSE system, however, do not function in isolation. Connections with surrounding neighborhoods and other built areas influence the health and function of wild areas within urban landscapes. In Baltimore, for instance, the diversity of bird species is influenced by the relative greenness of the CSE: a study of similar-sized parks showed that parks surrounded by neighborhoods with more tree canopy supported more bird species than parks in neighborhoods with less tree canopy. Vegetated corridors connecting parks provide important insurance for biodiversity in CSE systems by permitting the movement of widely ranging species.

Source: Imagebroker/FLPA

Benefits of the Urban Wild

New York City’s Central Park provides green space for more than 200 bird species.


Cities and suburbs benefit greatly from these parcels and blocks of nature because they help to clean the air and water that flows through CSE systems. For example, plant canopies can effectively absorb airborne particulates that contribute to asthma, and complex vegetation can take up water pollutants, such as nitrates and ammonium, and transform them into nonpolluting forms. Urban vegetated open spaces can also reduce the CSE’s net output of carbon dioxide, a fact that has inspired some replanting campaigns to combat climate change. Finally, the rapid runoff of precipitation from pavements and city streets can lead to flooding, and even small natural areas help absorb storm water and reduce flow into drains and streams. Urban nature also directly enhances many aspects of human health and well-being. Environmental psychologists have documented the salubrious effects of natural areas in cities. Patients with a view of the wild have been shown to heal faster, and the presence of green spaces can reduce public aggression and domestic violence and even improve performance of school children.8 Urban gardens and parks are often a focus for community interaction and recreation. The urban wild can contribute to many ecosystem services that are beneficial to cities, and therefore the preservation, restoration, and extension of nature in the CSE are increasingly being studied. Because most of humanity now lives in urban areas, the urban wild is also the predominant way that people experience nature. Accessible urban wild areas can, therefore, stimulate broader environmental concern by providing opportunities to learn about nature during recreation or school field trips.

Preservation and Restoration

Source: Steward T.A. Pickett

Despite all of the benefits provided by the urban wild, these areas are under threat.9 The conservation of nature in the CSE mosaic is clearly different from efforts in more extensive wildernesses like the North Slope of Alaska or the plains of East Africa, which often assume that a superficial absence of humans will guarantee preservation. In CSE systems it is, by definition, impossible to exclude humans. Human activity adds invasive exotic species and pollution, extirpates sensitive native species, and directly or accidentally controls the disturbance events that shape the larger ecosystem.10 Therefore, preservation and restoration require the management of human activities.

The first priority of CSE-systems planning and management is to preserve wild areas that already exist, especially large tracts and the corridors between them. However, even small wild patches should not be overlooked as in total they contribute to the health of the whole system. Urban conservationists should be conscious of opportunities to protect and restore even degraded parcels of land; indeed, some abandoned areas are ripe for restoration, using native vegetation composition and structure as a model to facilitate ecological processes like water and nutrient storage. As many old industrial parcels and their associated residential zones thin out, there are increasing opportunities for inserting large tracts of functioning wild in and around cities. The 500-acre (200 ha) Duisburg-Nord Landscape Park in Germany’s Ruhr Valley is an example of greening an abandoned factory site. In the United States, the Forest Service is restoring 19,000 acres (7,700 ha) of rare tallgrass prairie at the site of a former army ammunition plant near Chicago. Many cities have generated plans to increase their vegetation cover, with concomitant opportunities to enhance their urban wildness. New York City,

Franklin Park Elementary schoolyard in Baltimore, showing a new green space of trees, shrubs, and grass. The “greening” of the yard is part of a larger neighborhood project aiming to reduce the amount of stormwater and provide a community focus.


Washington, DC, and Los Angeles are among the US cities enhancing their tree canopies. New York and Los Angeles Because most of humanity now have declared their intent to plant 1 million trees in each city. Reducing impervious surface, where possible, is lives in urban areas, the urban another useful restoration tool. In Baltimore, the removal wild is also the predominant way of pavement on public property, including on school grounds, is part of a larger urban greening plan. that people experience nature. Outside of urban centers, the disused farmland that is Accessible urban wild areas can, usually converted to suburbs can be reforested to local and regional advantage. In particular, creating clustered develtherefore, stimulate broader opments rather than the usual scattering of large lots is a environmental concern by design that allows for unbroken forest. An example of this approach is the pattern produced by the Urban–Rural supporting opportunities to learn Demarcation Line in Baltimore County, Maryland, which about nature during recreation was established to clearly identify areas that had already been or would be developed in order to help preserve existor school field trips. ing natural and agricultural lands. Another example is a new exurban development in Tuxedo, New York, which was designed to maintain the small vernal pools required by the marbled salamander. Similarly, thoughtful revegetation in private yards, public lands, and areas of extensive turf can help restore the riparian function along degraded urban streamsides, a strategy now promoted to enhance water quality in the Chesapeake Bay.11 Although turf does have some functional advantages, the sterile American lawn can be replaced, managed more lightly, or diversified as much as possible throughout CSE mosaics to create something approaching wild habitat. Prairie gardens have been shown to be effective substitutes for lawn in Chicago and elsewhere, as has xeriscaping—using drought-tolerant native species—in desert cities and suburbs.

Cities and Conservation of the Wild Policy that promotes sustainably designed urban areas can reduce the pressure to develop natural and seminatural land and can moderate the penetration of suburban and exurban development into nearby wild areas. Policies that promote livable cities and walkable, mixed-use suburbs can also enhance the conservation of both local and regional wild features. Maintaining the large natural areas that already exist, providing corridors between them, restoring vacant land, and creating small satellite wild areas are all ingredients of successful wilding of the CSE landscape. Individuals and communities can act to enhance the wild in their midst and raise awareness that the CSE mosaic is a functioning ecosystem. The following kinds of activities can help promote the urban wild: 158 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Protecting and enhancing the urban wild, and promoting an understanding of it, can have impacts far beyond municipal boundaries or suburban growth limits. I recently led a field trip of city school children to a large urban park, and along our walk, we discovered a patch of native blackberry canes heavy with fruit. The looks of surprise and delight that spread across the children’s faces after they tasted the berries were a sign of an awakening to the wonder of the wild in an unexpected place. The unexpected urban wild is important for cities, people, and the larger success of conservation. By encouraging the CSE as a functioning ecosystem that depends on its wild components, we ensure that the wild in our midst continues to thrive and to enhance people’s lives.

Source: Todd Pusser/naturepl.com

• Landscaping with native plants suitable to the region’s climate, geography, and soil. • Avoiding planting known or potentially invasive exotic species in yards, gardens, and on streets. • Planting trees, shrubs, and flowering herbs that support beneficial insects and native birds, and arranging those plantings with neighbors to form the largest possible patches of vegetation. • Managing storm runoff by installing native rain gardens and bioswales (landscape elements designed to remove silt and pollution from surface runoff water). • Replacing monoculture lawns with diverse native plantings. • Removing unnecessary pavement or replacing it with permeable ground coverings where soil conditions allow. • Supporting “no child left inside” efforts in communities and schools to expose students to the nature around them. Marbled salamanders migrate between upland forest and temporary vernal pools. In an increasingly urban landscape, these habitats must be preserved to conserve salamanders.

p


Life Waters: Wetlands and Climate Change C A R M E N R E V E N G A A N D M A X F I N L AY S O N

f one is asked to imagine a landscape teeming with life, a desert is not the first thing that comes to mind. But what a difference some water can make. In southern Africa, the Kalahari desert lies along the Okavango River and after every rainy season, water flows here from the central Angolan highlands 680 miles (1,100 km) away. Life springs from the river as it moves down to northern Botswana, where it replenishes the 5,790 square mile (15,000 km2) Okavango Delta, an inland alluvial fan. In this season, the Okavango wetlands expand as if by magic into a lush mosaic of permanent and temporary channels, grassy islands, and banks that crisscross the landscape. At its peak, this magnificent wetland complex can grow to 10,800 square miles (28,000 km2)—an area the size of Massachusetts.1

I

CARMEN REVENGA is senior freshwater scientist at The Nature Conservancy (TNC), where she has led a global comprehensive assessment of the status, condition, and threats to freshwater ecosystems and their dependent species. Prior to joining TNC, she worked for the World Resources Institute where she focused on linking science and policy to improve the management of freshwater resources for people and nature. She has published a number of influential books, reports, and papers relating to the condition of freshwater ecosystems, water resources policy, and marine and inland fisheries. MAX FINLAYSON is director of the Institute for Land, Water, and Society at Charles Sturt University in New South Wales, Australia. He is a wetland ecologist with an interest in interdisciplinary approaches to wetland management and interactions with agriculture and water resources. He has worked on the inventory, assessment, and monitoring of wetlands, covering water pollution, invasive species, and land cover/use change, and for many years also addressed climate change issues, notably in Kakadu National Park. Max is past-chair of the Ramsar Wetland Convention’s Scientific and Technical Review Panel and currently leads their workgroup on climate change. 160 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

This predictable, annual influx of water to the Okavango wetlands supports an abundance of wildlife. As the water filters through the area, it deposits nutrients that feed the intricate food webs that underpin life. More than 1,300 plant species are known to flourish here, providing fruits and other sustenance to amphibians, fish, birds, and mammals, and attracting thousands of migrating animals to feed and breed here. The wildlife congregations are staggering: an estimated 140,000 impala (Aepyceros melampus), 65,000 African buffalo (Syncerus caffer), 60,000 red lechwe (Kobus leche leche), and 35,000 elephants (Loxodonta africana) come to the delta every rainy season. More than 169 species of birds can be found here as well. The Okavango Delta is truly one of the last great biodiverse wetlands in the world.

While wetlands the world over serve as habitat for many aquatic and terrestrial species, they also play a vital role in the lives of people. Wetlands maintain clean water and fisheries and afford recreation and employment. They also provide many other ecological services that are often taken for granted: wetlands help mitigate floods, restore soil fertility, and dilute wastes. All of the services provided by wetlands have been valued at several trillion dollars per year.2 Despite their beauty and productivity, wetlands have a reputation for being insect-infested wastelands, which has for centuries encouraged their drainage and conversion for more “productive” uses, such as agriculture, urban development, and shrimp farming. Generally, destruction of wetlands is caused by drainage and infilling, water withdrawal and diversion, and pollution. Unfortunately, these threats can interact to multiply the problems they cause, making the combined impact worse than the sum of the individual effects. More than half of the original wetlands in the United States have been drained and converted, and although this has slowed in the last 15 years, they are still being lost to rural and suburban development.3 In other parts of the world, population growth, industrialization, and the expansion of irrigated agriculture are straining the capacity of freshwater ecosystems. Since the 1950s, many tropical and subtropical wetlands, particularly mangrove and swamp forests, have been degraded or completely lost, but their disappearance has not been well recorded, or the consequences have simply been ignored. This is particularly true


Compounded Threats

Aerial view of lagoons in the Brazilian Pantanal. Warming temperatures will alter this distinct habitat’s suitability for many species.

Life Waters: Wetlands and Climate Change • 161


Hippos (Hippopatamus amphibius) playfight in the Okavango Delta. Hippos submerge themselves in water to prevent their thin skin from dehydrating.

of the recent destruction of peat swamps in Borneo to clear land for palm oil plantations and the massive conversion of tidal wetlands that will result from the construction of the Saemangeum sea wall in South Korea. Wetlands are part of Earth’s hydrological cycle—a planet-spanning, interconnected system that includes everything from clouds to oceans. As such, they are directly linked to river flows, groundwater levels, and climate and precipitation patterns. Therefore, major changes in any part of the hydrological cycle can have cascading effects. River flows are critical to functioning wetlands, and in much of the world, rivers have been fragmented, diverted, and channelized. Globally, more than 65 percent of the large river systems are moderately to severely fragmented by dams.4 Fragmented rivers are less able to sustain life in floodplains and deltas as the dams block the seasonal, replenishing floods that enrich soils and maintain habitat for fish and other species. Dam building has skyrocketed in the developing world, and thousands of dams are planned worldwide. Magnificent wetlands like the Okavango, Doñana in Europe, the Pantanal in Brazil, and Kakadu in Australia have been protected by law and are emblems of conservation that bring nature tourism revenue to their regions. But conserving them has not been easy, and there are growing pressures on their vital resources. In addition, climate change is now exacerbating the existing pressures on these ecosystems, adding urgency to the conservation of wetlands around the globe.

Climate Change Impacts The most pronounced impacts of climate change will be increased temperatures and altered precipitation patterns, and these will not affect all wetlands of the world in the same way. Some areas will become drier, while others will experience more precipitation and storms. High-altitude wetlands stand to lose their predictable annual glacier-melt, while coastal wetlands will slowly be flooded by rising sea waters. The varied combinations of temperature increase and precipitation changes will alter the frequency, duration, and timing of events such as spring peak floods or low summer flows. Aquatic species are extremely sensitive to such changes in water flows, as these events cue species to mate, migrate, spawn, feed, release seeds, and avoid predators.5 These effects of climate 162 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

change, in addition to current human pressures, may cause some wetlands and the countless species that depend on them to disappear.

Warmer Temperatures in Arid Regions

One of only two known breeding populations of Iberian lynx resides in the Doñana wetland in southwestern Spain.


Source: Jose B. Ruiz/naturepl.com

In southern Africa, climate change scenarios forecast a marked decrease in both annual mean and monthly low water flows for the Okavango River.6 This predicted drying of the region will exacerbate the existing pressures on the basin’s water resources: for decades, plans for upstream dams and groundwater pumping have threatened to reduce the water flowing to the Okavango Delta. So far, projects have been stalled by agreements among riparian nations and the prolonged civil war in Angola, but rapid population growth, resettlement arising from the Angolan peace process, and economic development initiatives to increase irrigation and hydropower are placing serious pressure on the river system and the wetlands it sustains. Climate models also show a reduction in rainfall and warmer temperatures across the delta, which will cause increased plant transpiration and evaporation from the wetlands. Such drying of the river and delta is likely to reduce the wetland area that is flooded year-round by 68 percent—from 1,070 square miles (2,770 km2) to 350 square miles (900 km2). The combined effect of climate warming compounded by water resources development upstream would result in a severe contraction of the wetland: in normal years, flooding would decrease from a maximum of 5,000 square miles (12,825 km2) to 1,800 square miles (4,695 km2), and from a minimum of 1,140 square miles (2,944 km2) to a mere 61 square miles (158 km2).7 Under this scenario, the future of the Okavango Delta and the species that depend on it seems bleak. Another wetland projected to experience a drier climate is the Doñana wetland in southwestern Spain. This unique area of marsh, freshwater wetlands, lagoons, and sand dunes on the Atlantic coast is home to one of the world’s most threatened feline species—the Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus). In addition, 6 million migratory birds stop here on their annual flights between their European and African breeding and wintering grounds. Competing demands on limited water resources for agriculture, coastal resorts, and golf courses have already reduced the water tables that sustain these wetlands. As the global climate warms, southwestern Europe is expected to experience longer and drier summers. This, in conjunction with rising sea levels, may mean that Doñana will be diminished, and eventually lost,

Source: John Carnemolla/AUSCAPE

Paperbark trees in the wetlands of Kakadu National Park. If the salinity of these wetlands increases, the trees will likely die off.

with dire consequences for local species and for more than 300 migrating bird species that rely on this habitat.8

Sea Level Rise and Coastal Wetlands As sea levels rise, saltwater will intrude into coastal areas, replacing freshwater wetlands and pushing wetland complexes inland. Coastal wetlands have already been significantly altered due to development—40 percent of the world’s population now lives within 62 miles (100 km) of the coast.9 If these wetlands are constrained on their landward side by elevation or human infrastructure, some coastal habitats may be squeezed out of existence by rising seas. In addition, climate change is predicted to increase the intensity and frequency of cyclones and hurricanes, putting lagoons, salt marshes, and mangroves at particular risk. More storm events will increase coastal erosion, reducing the total area of some coastal wetlands, particularly if they are not replenished with sediment delivered by rivers. In Australia’s Northern Territory, coastal wetlands in Kakadu National Park already experience very large tides and ingress of saltwater, and higher sea levels and storm surges are expected to move seawater inland. As saltwater moves up creek lines, Kakadu is likely to see the replacement of freshwater wetlands with saline mudflats. This could allow mangrove species to colonize farther inland and cause an extensive loss of native grassland and paperbark trees 164 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

(Melaleuca spp.). It is difficult to make detailed analyses of habitat–species interactions because consistent datasets do not exist for this region, but it can be expected that these vegetation changes will be accompanied by shifts in local freshwater bird and fish species, with cultural and economic consequences for the Aboriginal communities that use these resources.

Snowmelt-Dependent Wetlands With climate warming, high elevation rivers and wetlands that depend on snowmelt runoff are some of the most at-risk freshwater ecosystems. These areas are already experiencing shifts in the timing, magnitude, and volume of flow events essential for life in these harsh environments. Regions such as South America’s Andean Altiplano—a high-elevation plateau with inland drainage— the North American Rockies, the European Alps, and the Tibetan Plateau are seeing dramatic warming trends. The alpine tarns, meandering headwater networks, and salt lakes that make up montane wetlands often hold relatively low volumes of water, making even small water losses critical. Many of these wetlands tend to be isolated from other water bodies, so aquatic species cannot escape the drying by migrating to other suitable habitats. The flora and fauna of montane wetlands are often highly adapted to these resource-poor environments and may suffer from their loss. For example, the Andean flamingo (Phoenicoparrus andinus) is endemic to South America and survives on the diatoms and algae of altiplano salares, or brackish lakes. This unique bird is globally threatened as water withdrawal, mine pollution, and poaching have The combined effects of human decimated its numbers.10 Now with climate change, less pressures on water resources and snowmelt and precipitation will be discharged into lakes, which will dry up the flamingo’s food source and climate change paint a daunting reduce its chances for long-term survival.

Conservation Future

picture for these unique habitats, some of which will be lost, others of which will be changed substantially.

The combined effects of human pressures on water resources and climate change paint a daunting picture for these unique habitats, some of which will be lost, others of which will be changed substantially. Yet the extent and rate of wetland loss will depend in large part on how we conserve and manage them. First, we need to alleviate or halt current stresses to wetlands in order to enhance their resilience and ability to adapt to a changing climate. One way to alleviate reduced water flows in systems that are dammed is to manage water releases from dams to mimic natural seasonal flood patterns. This method of helping to revitalize wetlands is gaining acceptance in many parts of the world, from the Zambezi in Africa to the Murray-Darling in Australia. Second, we have to consider our own climate adaptation measures.



Climate change threatens to dry up the Andean flamingo’s food source.


Over one in six people rely on melting snow and glaciers for water, and reductions in ice and snow will cause water shortages in much of the world.11 This could lead to conflicts over water resources and the construction of more dams and diversions. Furthermore, the notion that hydropower is a “green” energy means that some countries that have stopped building dams may start constructing them again. More dams, diversions, and levees threaten to constrain rivers and wetlands, leaving less connected freshwater habitat available for aquatic species to adapt to a changing world. Many climate change mitigation and adaptation discussions focus almost exclusively on forests and carbon sequestration measures but omit water-related concerns. However, omitting freshwater and wetland management from energy, climate, and development discussions is shortsighted. The conservation of functioning floodplains, as well as the restoration of degraded wetlands, can help mitigate the adverse effects of climate change: mangroves buffer coastal communities from storm surges; inland wetlands provide consistent water supplies; and natural floodplains help control floods by expanding to retain excess water during rainy or higher snowmelt periods. Paying attention to nature’s design for water management can greatly enhance our climate change mitigation strategies. For example, after four devastating floods of Europe’s Rhine River in 10 years, an ecosystem-based approach was established that calls for ongoing restoration of part of the Rhine’s floodplain and its key alluvial corridors. This restoration will help reduce the impact of future floods with the added benefit of enhancing habitat for native species.12 The current lack of understanding and appreciation of the role of wetlands in climate change discussions is a missed opportunity to moderate future impacts on millions of people. It is urgent to integrate water-related strategies into crosssectoral climate change discussions and national adaptation measures. Preventing the further loss of wetlands is good for people and wildlife, and W restoring wetlands would bring even greater benefits.

Conservation Controversy: Can Paying for Ecosystem Services Save Biodiversity? WILL STOLZENBURG

here is a Renaissance under way in the campaign to save nature. To some, it is a great new hope for bringing biodiversity conservation from the committed fringe to the mainstream. It involves pricing nature to pay for its own preservation, a plan that brings hope for lifting endangered species out of the red zone, while lifting the rural people who often live in and near wilderness areas from the depths of poverty. The hope rests on placing a value on those vital services that nature provides to human societies. Ecosystem services are the wetlands that shield us from floods and filter our waste, the bees that pollinate our crops, the botanicals that cure our ills, and the forests that help regulate our climate. In short, ecosystem services make Earth livable. Such services of ecosystems in principle make them lucrative. Ecosystem services—ES to some—have become conservation’s new hedge fund, introduced in a Wall Street parlance of capital and assets, amenities and marginal values, and heavily peppered with the term win–win. The ES perspective is being embraced by national governments, the world’s largest development financiers, and international conservation groups, all touting a utopian bargain that saves nature, feeds the poor, and makes money, too. The sudden rise of ES as a conservation star has predictably aroused some skeptics. Sympathetic though they may be with the cause, they are raising pointed questions about its substance. They fear that in the rush to embrace a strategy to place dollar values on nature’s services in the name of biodiversity conservation, biodiversity itself may get priced out of the equation.

T

WILL STOLZENBURG is a freelance science journalist and author of Where the Wild Things Were: Life, Death, and Ecological Wreckage in a Land of Vanishing Predators. Conservation Controversy: Can Paying for Ecosystem Services Save Biodiversity? • 167

Time to Check Accounts

Source: Biosphoto/Gunther Michel/Peter Arnold, Inc.

Touted as economic boons of vegetable oil and storehouses of carbon, palm oil plantations exact tremendous costs from tropical forests and biological diversity.


Nature’s services are anything but a late-breaking discovery of modern society. Stone Age peoples very likely held in priceless reverence that vital cycle of sun and rain that fed their soil, seeded their forest, furnished their shelters, and filled their bellies with wild fruits and meat. Twentieth-century luminaries of conservation, from Aldo Leopold to E. O. Wilson, have since heralded the utilitarian services of ecosystems as a good reason for saving nature—albeit a reason they ultimately trump with the deeper moral imperative of protecting the diversity of life for life’s own sake. It is only lately, based on fears that morality has failed the environmental movement, that the conservation community has shifted to the more utilitarian approach, and begun dressing its noble cause in dollar signs. In 1997, a team of ecologists and economists led by Robert Costanza calculated a global value for “the services of ecological systems and the natural capital stocks that produce them” at $33 trillion a year.1 Costanza and his colleagues considered even this a vastly conservative estimate, stymied as they were to fully account for nature’s irreplaceable, interconnected, and sometimes subtle gifts. How, for example, to put a price on oxygen or water? But even at a bare minimum, it was a figure that raised eyebrows, considering that the final tally nearly doubled the $18-trillion gross national product of the United States at that time. “So, although ecosystem valuation is certainly difficult and fraught with uncertainties,” concluded Costanza and company, “one choice we do not have is whether or not to do it.” That choice has apparently been forced upon the conservation community by hard times. Ecosystems worldwide are under assault. Half the world’s wetlands have been drained, nearly 40 percent of its coral reefs are either dead or soon to be. Grasslands and savannas are all losing ground, and forests are being cut at an annual rate of almost 58,000 square miles (150,200 km2).2 On closer view, the outlook grows no brighter. Nearly one in four of the world’s mammals are considered threatened with extinction.3 One in every three species of amphibian, one in five freshwater fish, and one in eight species of bird are similarly in peril. Three of every four marine fish stocks are either collapsed, declining, or barely holding their own. Species are now hurtling to extinction at rates a thousand times faster than Earth’s historical norm.4 The time has come, say the champions of ES, to shift gears. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005,

Source: Julie Larsen Maher

while otherwise delivering a mountain of bad news about the planet’s ecological state, particularly emphasized the idea of employing ES values to inspire sustainable development and conservation. The assessment spoke in the economist’s lingo of bottom lines and balance sheets, red ink and black ink, capital assets and debt. “In the midst of this unprecedented period of spending Earth‘s natural bounty,” its authors declared, “it is time to check the accounts.” A year later, three powerhouses of conservation came together in validation of the ES approach. Stanford University, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wide Fund for Nature launched The Natural Capital Project, a plea to improve our treatment of nature by acknowledging its life-sustaining values. International bodies have since joined the movement, with the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature all sprouting Web pages and programs aimed at putting prices on forests and watersheds in the name of biological conservation and their service to humanity. “There are complex issues here, no doubt about it,” said Stanford’s Gretchen Daily, one of the academic spearheads of the new economy of nature. “My main drive toward ES approaches is the utter failure of traditional approaches— if taken alone—to protect and sustain more than tiny shreds of the splendor and deep values of nature.” It is an argument that on the surface seems rock solid. Or so it once seemed to Douglas J. McCauley. A graduate student of ecology and close colleague of Daily’s at Stanford, McCauley had entered conservation as had many before him, drawn by nature’s intrinsic allure and eventually driven to action as he watched its inexorable destruction. He was enthralled by this new tool called ES that promised success in a world of defeat. But the deeper he probed, the less enthralled he became—for all the ES fanfare, little in the way of conservation seemed to have come from it. McCauley pointed by example to the coffee country of Costa Rica. At a plantation named Finca Santa Fe, scientists had calculated a dollar value for the farm’s native bees—bees that flew in from nearby tropical forests and pollinated coffee flowers to produce $62,000 worth of beans each year. The bottom line thus came to read: Save the forest and its bees, grow more coffee and reap handsome profits.

With a large percentage of the world’s wild ecosystems converted to human designs (here, Iowa grasslands cleared for agriculture), understanding the value of intact nature and its services grows ever more critical.

Conservation Controversy: Can Paying for Ecosystem Services Save Biodiversity? • 169

Unfortunately, as global coffee prices plummeted, the bottom dropped out of that bottom line. The farmers of Finca Santa Fe cleared their fields of coffee and planted pineapples, a more profitable crop needing no bees. As quickly as that, by McCauley’s calculations, the forests’ pollinator-based value to Finca Santa Fe dropped to zero. Had the forests’ conservation been pinned to the value of its coffee-tending bees, the main argument for keeping the forests intact would have vanished. “Nature is just not a fungible commodity,” said McCauley. “When a forest is destroyed, you can’t immediately re-create its biodiversity, and in many cases you can’t re-create it at all.” McCauley had other technical bones to pick with the ES strategy, which he published in a rousing critique that appeared in a 2006 issue of the journal Nature.5 But the crux of his concern centered on one particular development—in the apparent abandonment of a once-gallant defense of nature’s inherent worth, for what seemed a crass new set of values as fleeting as a cup of coffee. “To admit we just quit,” he said, “that people value money, and these projects were going to start selling nature as just another commodity to them—I found that very dangerous.” trees are

Great swaths of also being sold based on their ability to sequester carbon in their tissues and soils and thereby temper the planetary hothouse.

A Commodity Called Nature

McCauley is neither the first nor likely the last to come away queasy over this new utilitarian tack to conservation. “We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us,” wrote the wilderness sage Aldo Leopold in 1948. “When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”6 Leopold’s concerns would in time be echoed by the conservation biologist David Ehrenfeld who by 1988 saw the ES bandwagon on the horizon. “If we persist in this crusade to determine value where value ought to be evident, we will be left with nothing but our greed when the dust finally settles.”7 Twenty years later, Kent Redford, director of the Wildlife Conservation Society Institute, finds more than a few things that worry him about conservation’s ES argument. “What’s concerning me overall,” said Redford, “is this largely putative link between the sale of ecosystem services and the delivery of conservation results. I’m worried that this will turn into a fad, and when fads get over-hyped, they get dismissed. In the end we stand to lose the true value this approach is capable of delivering.” Many of the current ES projects are promoted on the utilitarian basis that forests and watersheds capture and purify our water. Great swaths of trees are also being sold based on their ability to sequester carbon in their tissues and soils and thereby temper the planetary hothouse. A newly hatched UN-based program to reduce greenhouse gases invites rich nations to compensate for



their industrial emissions by purchasing carbon-storing forests in developing, forest-rich countries. The UN’s REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) initiative could transfer tens of billions of dollars to developing nations each year. Indonesia alone has the potential to receive $1 billion a year by cutting back on its rampant deforestation of species-rich tropical habitats. But what qualifies as forest to some is hardly a forest to others, and hence the challenge for REDD transactions. One of the greatest new drivers of extinction, according to David Wilcove, conservation scientist at Princeton University, is the rampant conversion of tropical forest to oil palm plantations—huge commercial monocultures rich in vegetable oil but otherwise devoid of biological diversity. Palm growers would like to see plantations categorized as “forests” that bank carbon, thus qualifying them for payment through REDD and other programs. Whether these plantations deliver on that promise is another question: “The calculations I have seen indicate that far more carbon will be released by converting the land to oil palm than will be sequestered by the oil palm trees,” said Wilcove. “It is possible that even growing oil palm on ‘wastelands’ would not result in a net positive sequestration effect.” Along with big money typically come big government, corporations, and corruption. And with them come fears that the rural poor living in the path of the “great carbon rush” will shoulder much of the sacrifice and reap little of the profit exchanged between nations. As for conserving biodiversity, few ES projects have yet to demonstrate their value. In 2008, a survey of the World Bank’s development projects found them failing 84 percent of the time to

Forests and watersheds capture and purify water that makes modern human society possible.

Conservation Controversy: Can Paying for Ecosystem Services Save Biodiversity? • 171

deliver on their twin goals of protecting the environment and alleviating poverty.8 The authors of the survey concluded that, “Much of the current enthusiasm for ecosystem service projects in the conservation world is an act of faith. At some point, however, that faith will need to be backed up by irrefutable data showing that these projects benefit both people and nature.”

A Price on the Priceless From the Wall Street lingo and pragmatic focus of ES comes a certain detachment from the nature it would defend. With conservation’s faceless new stars named “carbon sink” and “watershed” and “pollinator,” one wonders whether the pandas and polar bears, butterflies and blue whales that once embodied the movement will be discounted or lost in the trade. For that matter, what of the less charismatic species that do the yeoman’s work to sustain life on Earth? “The mere phrase ‘ecosystem services’ has a mundane A survey of the World Bank’s ring, rather like waste disposal or water-quality control,” development projects found them noted E. O. Wilson in his 1992 landmark The Diversity of Life.9 “But if only a small percentage of the journeyman failing 84 percent of the time organisms filling these roles were to disappear, human life to deliver on their twin goals would be diminished and strikingly less pleasant. It is a failing of our species that we ignore and even despise the creaof protecting the environment tures whose lives sustain our own.” and alleviating poverty. Once nature becomes a commodity, it becomes easier to dismiss those individual creatures of the ecological portfolio whose stock is arbitrarily low. The bees that help make the coffee farmer richer could be forgotten should the farmer find a more lucrative crop. Failure in the marketplace leaves nature’s salvation to the heart— to those emotional intangibles so rarely captured on the accountant’s spreadsheet. But this same elusive loyalty to nature, so sacred to some, is what the champions of ES insist we can no longer take to the bank. “The Renaissance in conservation today is born of the realization that a Noah’s Ark approach won’t work, that the flood of humanity today is not a forty-day quickie,” says Stanford’s Gretchen Daily. “For nature and humanity to survive, we must make the sea of humanity friendly to nature.” On that, both sides of the ES argument would seem to agree. The question still dividing them asks whether the friendship with nature that Daily envisions is a friendship that can ever be bought. “People say you can’t put a price tag on the priceless,” said Daily. “I agree—nature is priceless. But if we don’t, it’s like an all-you-can-eat buffet: People go whole hog and it’s gone.”

X


Nature has now become “natural resources” viewed all too often only in economic terms and treated as a commodity to be sold, bought, or discarded. Appreciation of beauty, a sense of wonder, and the ethics of taking responsibility for other species and the land seldom enter official conservation discourse now. But I remain convinced that an appeal for conservation must reach the heart, not just the mind. Intimate portraits of animals help to inspire concern for their tenuous future, create a feeling of kinship, and convey that they too have a right to exist. Conservation without moral values cannot sustain itself. George B. Schaller, from A N AT U R A L I S T A N D O T H E R B E A S T S : TA L E S F R O M A L I F E I N T H E F I E L D

The Art and Practice of Conservation • 173

SECTION 3

The Art and Practice of Conservation

he conservation of wildlife and wild places may be one the most urgent endeavors facing humanity. Unfortunately, it is not a simple task. Effective conservation first requires extensive scientific knowledge of a species’ numbers, needs, ecological interactions, and threats. This knowledge must then be translated to all parties who have a stake in the habitat or region, assuming they can all be reached and are interested in conservation. Finally, measures to lay the foundation for long-term conservation need to be designed, implemented, and maintained. Each of these steps involves hundreds of variables and must be adapted to political, economic, and biological contexts. As this edition of State of the Wild makes clear, political instability and conflict alone can derail even wellplanned efforts. Conservationists must constantly innovate and find creative solutions—part of the art and practice of conservation—because, in the end, this is what determines whether wildlife and wildlands will be saved. The following authors piece together many aspects of conservation work and lessons learned, and offer insight on new techniques and concepts. To start, new partnerships are often the key to encouraging greater cultural change, but only if those partnerships are solid. “Faith, Hope, and Conservation” traces the convergence between the world’s major religions and the efforts of the environmental community, with hopes that

T


well-intentioned organizations can work together to promote conservation. For the wildlife scientist, gaining information about species quickly, accurately, and cheaply is important. The essay “Canine Detection Teams and Conservation” shows how a long-time helpmate of humans can locate signs of wildlife in even the most challenging environments. As our human population grows, it will become increasingly important to design conservation measures that overlap with our need for agricultural land. Conservation management techniques on European farmlands are assessed in “Agriculture and Wildlife in Europe.” To examine how zoos help to save endangered species, “The Dilemma of Confiscated Wildlife” follows the fate of animals caught in the illegal wildlife trade. Finally, the essay “The Evolving Practice of Conservation in Rwanda” covers the many lessons learned over three decades of mountain gorilla conservation in the remote forests of a once war-torn country. The author stresses the importance of long-term commitment and of building local capacity, practices that could improve conservation effectiveness in any setting. We hope that the timely insight offered here from across the conservation community sparks ideas for ongoing innovation in the art and practice of conservation.t

Faith, Hope, and Conservation M A R T I N PA L M E R A N D T O N Y W H I T T E N

I was part of the generation that made the choice—the horrendous strategic blunder—of situating ourselves outside of the institutions of faith. Now we have a chance to repent of, and reform from that error.1 —Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierr a Club

n 2008, French adviser Regis Debray observed of the ethnic-religious world of the Middle East: “When we see on the Lebanese coast . . . a green patch, two chances out of three a sanctuary or a convent can be found there. Where nature has survived, there lives a habit or a cassock.” 2 Debray’s account of the connection between religions, sacred places, and the conservation of nature is one borne out in many parts of the world. It was the ancient role of faiths to protect certain areas of wilderness because they were sacred—sanctuaries for both humanity and other species—and it is no accident that today we speak of wildlife “sanctuaries.” Take the train from Narita airport into Tokyo, and if you see a green space, particularly one with trees in it, a Buddhist or Shinto temple

I

MARTIN PALMER is secretary general of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC), a secular nongovernmental organization that helps the major religions of the world to develop environmental programs based on their own core teachings, beliefs, and practices. ARC helps the religions link with key environmental organizations, creating powerful alliances between faith communities and conservation groups. ARC now works with 11 major faiths through each of their key traditions. TONY WHITTEN is senior biodiversity specialist in the East Asia and Pacific Region of the World Bank in Washington, DC. He manages a range of biodiversity conservation projects from Mongolia to Indonesia and has developed initiatives in areas such as freshwater biodiversity, karst and cave biodiversity, and the opportunities presented by working with faith communities. Faith, Hope, and Conservation • 175

Source: Biosphoto/Stoecklé Tanguy/Peter Arnold, Inc.

Buddhist monks own Thailand’s Khao Chong Pran Cave. The monks help to protect the cave’s bats, thousands of which were once snared monthly by poachers for sale to local restaurants. The surrounding mountain is now a no-hunting area, and bat populations have recovered.

or shrine will be at its heart. The truth is that many of the world’s important nature reserves have survived because they are considered sacred, and for centuries, faiths have given them a protection of far greater significance than could any government decree or environmental directive from some distant international body. The connection between faith and conservation is reflected clearly in the statement of the Daoists of China who in 2008 launched their Eight-Year Plan for Generational Change for a Living Planet: From ancient times, Chinese Daoism has always put a great emphasis on Dao following nature. It pays a great attention to the harmony and balance of heaven, earth and humanity, and the balance between Yin and Yang. Humanity should obey nature’s rules, maintain the balance of our ecological system, and protect the species that live beside us. This unique wisdom will be a powerful and effective weapon for us to battle the environment problems we are facing. Today, Daoism stands in the frontline of our times: it wishes to guide people through the obstacles of environmental problems through their own Daoist beliefs, and it wishes to rekindle the fire of our old wisdom to bring us new inspiration and hope.3


Also in 2008, the members of the 4th International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress passed a resolution recognizing the centrality of spiritual and faith traditions in protecting wild places. The resolution opens by stating “that one of the oldest forms of culture-based conservation has been the protection of the sacred natural sites of indigenous communities and mainstream faiths, and that these sacred natural sites often harbor rich biodiversity and safeguard valuable landscapes and ecosystems.”4 It calls on governmental and nongovernmental agencies to recognize the skills of local indigenous peoples as well as global mainstream faith communities to manage important landscapes. The significance of this statement from the heart of the conservation community is that it acknowledges and honors the fastest growing area of new environmental activity—outreach to and partnership with communities of faith.

Perhaps among the most striking forms of overlap between conservation and faith are the sacred mountains. Mountains are sacred for a host of different reasons: some because gods are believed to dwell there, such as the Himalayas and the sacred mountains of Mongolia; some because of mythological associations, such as Govinda Hill in India, which the monkey god Hannuman is believed to have carried into battle for the healing herbs that grew on it. Other mountains are sacred because of religious events, such as Mount Sinai where Judaism, Christianity, and Islam hold that Moses received the Ten Commandments. Some are sacred simply because, in these places, the veil between heaven and earth is felt to be gossamer thin, such as Tai Shan in China or Huiricuta Mountain in Mexico. Sacred mountains tend to be well protected by local people and customs, particularly when compared to mountains that were never considered sacred or where “sacredness” has been degraded or lost. A study in the late 1990s confirmed that, of the more than 400 sacred mountains in China, those with functioning Daoist or Buddhist communities nearby were in better ecological shape than sacred mountains where religious communities had been driven away during the worst excesses of communism.5 The same study also found that many wilderness areas and parks in other parts of the world contained an element of sacredness and had been protected long before formal government gazetting. For example, in the eighth and ninth centuries, Islamic law created hima or harim areas throughout the Muslim empire where hunting was prohibited and

Source: Lowell Georgia/National Geographic Stock

Sacred Wilderness

Daoist, Buddhist, and Confucian pilgrims worship and ask the gods for favors as they climb China’s sacred Tai Shan Mountain.

Faith, Hope, and Conservation • 177

The Venerable Hiek Sopheap, head of Cambodia’s Association of Buddhists for the Environment, meditates among the groves of Angkhor Wat. The Association’s main goals are to promote a cleaner and healthier environment and preserve natural resources.


Source: Victoria Finlay/ARC

where open access to water was protected for wildlife, domestic animals, and humans. This concept built upon statements in the Koran (“To Him belongs what is in the heavens and on Earth and all between them and all beneath the soil,” Surah 20 verse 6) and the Hadith, in which the prophet Muhammad mandates that humans protect and appropriately use water, vegetation, and fire for the benefit of all creatures. Throughout Europe, valleys and mountains have also been protected because of their association with Christian saints. For example, the valley of Pennent Melangell in central Wales is associated with Saint Melangell, who, in the seventh century, gave sanctuary to a hare that was being hunted by a pagan prince. The prince, so moved by her compassion, gave the valley to her care. Even after fourteen centuries of change in Wales, the sacredness of the Saint and her gesture keeps the valley a wildlife sanctuary.

The realization that the religious and the spiritual can be serious partners in conservation was first recognized by the World Wide Fund for Nature (officially known as WWF as of 2009). In 1986, WWF invited leaders from the major international environmental groups and the five main global religions to meet in Assisi, Italy—the birthplace of St. Francis, the patron saint of ecology—to explore ways that they could work separately and together to protect the natural world. At the time, opening a collaboration of this kind was radical to the conventional thinking of large international conservation organizations. Nevertheless, On the practical side, the major the environmental groups asked the faiths to share their faiths together own or have control teachings and practices with regard to stewardship, and for the first time a true discourse and interaction began— of millions of hectares of forest, albeit with levels of unease on both sides. farmland, pilgrimage trails, and Working with faith groups and formally acknowledging religious connections to nature had been viewed as a wilderness, and altogether, decidedly fringe activity within the environmental comfaiths control some 8 percent of munity. For example, around 1998 the IUCN formed its Task Force on the Non-Material Values of Protected the habitable surface of the planet. Areas, effectively avoiding any reference to the spiritual value that humans can derive from the wildlife and wild places in protected areas. The group’s work originally concentrated only on indigenous beliefs rather than on the worldwide religions, a considerable oversight since some 85 percent of the world’s population claims membership to a major global faith.6 (Years later, as a sign of the growing realization that there is a relationship between faith and conservation, the group’s name was changed to the Cultural and Spiritual Values Task Force.) International nongovernmental organizations have increasingly come to recognize that the world’s faiths represent vast constituencies within civil society. At first, environmentalists tended to view this as simply an opportunity to disseminate their own particular messages. But by the late 1990s, many agreed that it would be more effective if faiths developed responses to environmental issues framed by their own various teachings. To broker communication and links between faith communities and the secular world, WWF helped establish the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) in 1995.

Power of Faiths From the perspective of the contemporary environmental movement, the strengths of many global faiths can be categorized as practical or conceptual. On the practical side, the major faiths together own or have control of millions of hectares of forest, farmland, pilgrimage trails, and wilderness, and altogether, faiths control some 8 percent of the habitable surface of the planet. They also own or control many buildings, newspapers, pension investments, equities, and Faith, Hope, and Conservation • 179


Tree planting by the Church of South India, assisted by environmental activist Vandana Shiva, after a conference to discuss how India can, through the faiths, respond to the pressures of environmental degradation and climate change.


hospitals. Importantly, they can speak directly to their members—a very large proportion of the world’s population—who recognize the authority of their faith’s leaders on ethical issues. The outreach capacity of major faiths is bolstered further by their contributions to education (the Catholic Church alone runs 200,000 schools).7 For these practical reasons alone, religions and their faithful can have huge potential for positive environmental change around the world. Conceptually, every religion contains teachings about our human relationship with the natural world that often provide a way of comprehending some of today’s major environmental issues. In their traditions of monasticism, compassion, fasting, and contemplation, the world’s religions show us models of simpler living that could help humanity deal with the impacts of our growing population. Some faiths, including the Jains, Hindus, and some schools of Buddhism, have helped preserve natural resources such as sacred groves, holy rivers, and taboo species for many generations. Some religions, such as the Shinto of Japan, hold that wild places are integral to our existence, and that rather than humans protecting forests and mountains, it is these elements of the natural world that serve to protect us. Moreover, traditions of celebration, prayer, and creating beautiful gardens can remind people of the wonders of this Earth and the importance of valuing it. Many faiths encode into their legends, texts, and traditions the memories of great historical ecological collapses and how societies reemerged from them— lessons that may still be applicable today. For example, after the Roman Empire and its agricultural system failed, the Benedictine monastic order helped rebuild the natural resources of rural Europe. In the sixth century, Saint Benedict commanded his monks to go to the areas that had been wasted by bad farming practices—areas of desert and scrubland—and restore them with trees and sustainable agriculture and water management. Around the fourteenth century, Buddhists in Mongolia included environmental wisdom about sacred places into their sutras (religious texts), containing advice such as “Do not cut down the trees on the goddess’s side of the mountain or she will flood your village in return.” Even the Old Testament story of Noah’s Ark indicates that, in the face of environmental catastrophe, the preservation of biodiversity is critical to our continued existence. It is important to remember that sacred sites are not static places and that they, like nature itself, can be renewed. For example, in Mongolia, Buddhists

Working with the Faiths There are obstacles to building strong partnerships between faiths and the environmental community. One is that some religious leaders view environmentalism as another type of missionary movement, with each environmental group espousing its own particular ideas about the Truth and the path to “saving the world.” It has been observed that collaboration tends to work best when faith communities feel they have a unique and distinct contribution to make to conservation based on their beliefs. Some of the most effective work has been done when a faith examined its own scriptures, histories, landholdings, and strengths to explore how it could best express a relationship to conservation through a practical application of its teachings.9 For example, in the late 1990s, an international conservation body wrote to the Maronite Church of Lebanon instructing it to fill out some forms in order to ensure protection of the last remaining old-growth forests on the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean. The language was utilitarian and, frankly, conservation bureaucracy, and the church did not respond. But later, the church explored its own teachings and traditions and found a profound theological justification for placing this forest under perpetual Maronite Environmental Protection. Now the church is protecting this forest in a formal program that includes two other environmentally crucial areas


who are now regaining their monasteries and lands after generations of communism are working to rediscover some of their lost sutras that refer to the country’s many traditional sacred mountains. Buddhist leaders see the rediscovery and eventual reconsecration of these mountains as a way to protect the threatened landscape. Faiths can also help to inspire new places of religious significance that benefit nature—important on our currently beleaguered planet. For example, in the past decade, Indonesia has established two new national parks, both as a result of action by local Islamic groups. Batang Gadis Park in Sumatra came into being after teachers and students at an Islamic school became troubled by the pollution and silt in the nearby river caused by logging and mining that compromised their ritual washing before prayer. In the Togian Islands, Muslim leaders came to realize that dynamiting, poisoning, and overfishing of local reefs was not consistent with their faith and pushed for a national marine park to protect fish stocks as well as people’s livelihoods. Both initiatives were supported by Conservation International’s Islam and Conservation Program.8 Lebanon’s “holy valley” of Qadisha. The country’s Maronite Church vowed to protect the steep-walled landscape of this ecologically fragile valley.

Faith, Hope, and Conservation • 181

linked to Lebanon’s system of nature reserves. This old-growth forest will likely remain intact because the decision to protect it was based on belief rather than on the decree of an external organization. Gradually, some in the environmental community are realizing that it needs partners, not just converts. Today, several of the major mainstream conservation nongovernmental organizations have explicit programs to work with faith communities. When Conservation International found that Christian Evangelicals were a significant stakeholder The task of preserving the natural in many of the world’s highly biodiverse places, it began reaching out to US Evangelical groups and other faith world and of finding a balance groups around the world through a partnership with ARC between human needs and the and the Christian environmental group A Rocha. The World Bank now also has an active program of working needs of the rest of the planet’s with the major religious groups based on often converging species requires all those with desires for a sustainably managed environment.10 Among other things, the World Bank program has produced a good intent to work together. handbook on Mongolian Buddhism and economic development to help demystify the faith and development communities to each other, and to illustrate the potential synergies of working together.11 The IUCN, too, published a practical guide to the management of sacred sites in 2008.12

The Path Ahead Where so much of the environmental agenda is focused on quick solutions, the experience of the world’s religions is that real change takes time and perseverance. To build on all the potential that work between international faith groups and environmental groups holds, ARC and the United Nations Development Programme have launched an initiative to create and promote plans for longterm partnerships. In this, each faith organization is invited to examine its potential for conservation-related work in seven areas: assets (including land, buildings, and financial investments); educational outreach to young people; pastoral care; ability to promote simpler lifestyles; media; partnerships; and celebrations. ARC has created a guidebook to facilitate the establishment of new traditions that link conservation and faith to ensure that future generations will not only learn that it is important to treat the earth with respect but also how to do so as part of the way they live and behave every day.13 The task of preserving the natural world and of finding a balance between human needs and the needs of the rest of the planet’s species requires all those with good intent to work together. The emerging partnerships between faith communities and environmental organizations are essential, and they could z well become the defining movement of the twenty-first century.


Canine Detection Teams and Conservation M E G A N PA R K E R A N D A I M E E H U R T

early 40 million years ago, the first doglike mammals wandered across North America. A wolf ancestor—Cynodictis, or “dawn wolf ”—evolved into a multitude of species with varying body types and habits, many of which have endured to become the wild and not so wild canids we know today. The ancestral canids and their relatives ranged south through the Americas and to the north, crossing the Bering land bridge to colonize Asia, Europe, and Africa. While canids were evolving and dispersing across the globe, primates were doing the same. Homo erectus and other Homo species were moving across habitable landscapes. Serendipitously, canids and humans found enough common ground to become partners in this evolutionary tale. Wolves (Canis lupus) are excellent scavengers and likely found fairly regular nourishment around unkempt human camps. This, and their tolerance for humans, may have paved the way for some wolf individuals to evolve into domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris). During the thousands of years that dogs have partnered with humans, people have played a heavy-handed role in selectively breeding dogs for appearance, skills, and temperament. We realized that a particular selection of traits would

N

MEGAN PARKER is assistant director of the North America Program for the Wildlife Conservation Society, based in Bozeman, Montana. She helped develop methods to train detection dogs for conservation projects and cofounded Working Dogs for Conservation. Megan has trained and handled dogs around the globe for a variety of conservation projects. AIMEE HURT is cofounder and operations director of Working Dogs for Conservation. She received her BA in biology from the University of Montana. She lives in Missoula, Montana, and has been training—and has been trained by—conservation dogs since 1998. Canine Detection Teams and Conservation • 183

Source: Working Dogs for Conservation

A dog’s sense of smell could be up to a thousand times more sensitive than that of humans, providing us with a great tool for finding wildlife.


create dog breeds that were better able to assist us with our chores and have since relied on sporting, herding, and working groups and their crossbreeds to help us locate, gather, and guard livestock, flush birds for hunting, and find and alert us to the presence of a limitless number of things. The first official “jobs” held by dogs were likely military in nature, including defending their owners and finding and attacking enemies. Fighting dogs were deployed in battle as early as the seventh century BC in Asia, Africa, and Europe. In more recent military history, dogs have been employed to scout, track, act as sentries, carry messages and medical equipment to the front lines, and detect mines, booby-traps, trip wires, and tunnels. In nonmilitary use, dogs have been asked to use their olfactory nerves—believed to be a thousand times more sensitive than ours—to find people, drugs, guns, gas and water lines, termites, bad wine corks, illegally traded wildlife, ivory, and even cancer cells. While dogs excelled at sensing incredibly subtle odors, humans developed better ways to train dogs to locate and communicate their findings. It is hardly a stretch, therefore, to imagine that dogs bred for specific tasks and adept at learning commands would be enlisted to help us find wildlife. Biologists have often brought their dogs into the field, where the dogs quickly learned what their humans were seeking. To some extent, asking a dog to locate wildlife for conservation purposes is simply a twist on hunting, in which humans and dogs have partnered together for millennia. The first record of dogs assisting in efforts to protect species was in the 1890s, when Richard Henry, a conservation officer in New Zealand, used dogs to locate kiwis (Apteryx spp.), flightless burrow-dwelling birds, and kakapos (Strigops habroptilus), nocturnal parrots. Both of these groups of birds were highly threatened on the main islands due to introduced predators.1 With the help of the dogs, Henry was able to find and move the birds to native habitat on Resolution Island, just offshore, where they were safe. Today New Zealand’s Department of Conservation uses two kinds of dog-handler teams for wildlife conservation: Predator Dogs—often terriers (“rat hunters”)—that search for nonnative and invasive rats, mice, weasels, and feral cats, and Protected Species Dogs—often pointers—that search for native threatened species, particularly


birds, so that they can be better conserved. New Zealand’s Conservation Dogs have been trained to search for nearly two dozen species and are an invaluable tool for wildlife managers. In North America, dogs have been assisting wildlife biologists by locating animals, dens, and nests since the 1930s.2 “Canine conservationists” have helped biologists to study raccoons (Procyon lotor), seals (Phocidae spp.), polar bears (Ursus maritimus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), lemmings (Lemmus spp.), and numerous bird species. Dogs enhance the efficiency of wildlife monitoring and field studies because their stamina allows them to cover more area— greatly increasing sample sizes—and their keen, almost infallible senses help reduce human observer bias. In general, handlers are able to exploit natural hunting instincts by training their dogs for specific behaviors. For example, retrievers must learn not to touch the target species for the sake of safety and sample contamination, but somehow must indicate its presence to the field biologist. A novel way of getting information on the presence, location, and habitat use of a species is training dogs to find wildlife feces, or scat. Thanks to laboratory genetics advances in the 1990s, scat has become a data-rich calling card. We can now extract DNA and hormones from scat to obtain information on the sex of an animal and its diseases and diet. For many species, it is currently possible to get as much information from an animal’s feces as from a blood sample. This means that a walk in the mountains, jungle, or desert affords canine teams and researchers an opportunity to collect scat and a great deal of data. Furthermore, rather than having to handle an animal directly, this noninvasive technique gets information without the need for baiting, calling, or otherwise aggravating wild animals. Optimally, the scat will be collected without the animal ever knowing that anyone was there. If it is logical to use bird dogs to find birds and terriers to find rodents, what type of dog do we use to find scat? Although some may argue that it is instinctual for all dogs to find scat, the ideal scat-sniffing dog is not only willing and happy to detect the scat of a specific species for which it has been trained but, more importantly, ignores all the other scat that it encounters. Furthermore, the dog must be disciplined enough not to touch the scat and be able to communicate to its handler what it has found so the specimen can be properly collected and catalogued. To this end, researchers began training dogs to find scat in a manner similar to the discipline of canine narcotics and cadaver detection. The best scat-sniffing dogs usually have an obsession with a certain toy or treat, and trainers teach the dogs to equate smelling a particular odor of the target species’ scat with the reward of their favorite toy or treat. The dogs are

The best dogs to train for scat-sniffing are those that readily focus on a specific toy or treat, learn quickly, are happy to work with a handler, and have high energy.

Canine Detection Teams and Conservation • 185


Scat-sniffing dogs are trained to search for specific odors amidst a variety of smells.


further trained to search methodically to find that special odor that produces the reward and to perform an alert (often sitting at the target) to quietly tell the trainer that a sample has been found. This training is repetitive and challenging. The dogs must be driven to search for something out of sight, eager to work for long periods of time, willing to work closely with a handler, and able to adapt to new sights, smells, temperatures, and sounds. The kinds of dogs that make good candidates for detection work may be too high-energy and hyperfocused to be easy family pets. These high-energy dogs often end up in animal shelters, but fortunately, they can be rescued and trained to help with the work of conserving imperiled wildlife. By the 1990s, several conservation projects in North America had begun to use formally trained scat-detection dogs to find wildlife scat, and Working Dogs for Conservation was established in Montana to train and handle dogs for conservation research. In California’s Central Valley, trained dogs were used to detect the scat of endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis). The dogs were able to tell conservationists where these animals were on the landscape at a remarkably accurate rate: all 1,298 scats detected by the dogs were genetically confirmed as kit fox, even though other resident predators were in the area.3 Subsequent fecal genetic testing revealed information on the presence, sex ratio, relatedness, movement patterns, scent-marking behavior, and home-range size of this 4 endangered fox. Human searchers have a hard time telling scats apart, this report of perfect accuracy proved that dogs can almost infallibly distinguish between specific odors and all the other distracting odors in the field. Ecologists often want to understand how different species use a landscape, and how they interact with each other spatially in that landscape. Thankfully, dogs can be employed to locate the scat of multiple species because they can be trained to recognize several odors and search for them simultaneously. In the rugged country west of Yellowstone National Park, dogs were asked to find and perform different alerts for the scat of wolves, mountain lions (Puma concolor), black bears (Ursus americanus), and grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis). Covering hundreds of square miles over several years, researchers turned piles of scat into mountains of wildlife information. The monitoring revealed information on how these carnivores moved through cattle and sheep grazing lands in the Centennial Mountains to get to protected lands in Idaho, and researchers were able to produce predictive models that are now being used to advise planners on development options in that region.5 In Vermont, detection, or sniffer, dogs, were put to the test when researchers looking for forest carnivores—black bears, bobcats (Lynx rufus), and fishers

Canine Detection Teams and Conservation • 187


(Martes pennanti)—across the state compared three noninvasive methods, including detection dogs, camera traps, and hair (fur) snares. Detection dogs were substantially more effective than hair snares or cameras (13 times more effective, on average, for all species) at revealing signs of these elusive forest carnivores.6 This effectiveness, combined with their accuracy, makes sniffer dogs a promising new partner for the wildlife biologist. Although trained dogs might be more expensive than other methods, dogs only need to visit a site once to gather hard-to-get information. In addition, using them is often less costly overall because dogs can cover a much greater dis- Detection dogs are very effective at finding signs of black bears and other large carnitance than humans, and with their keen senses they seldom miss a sample. vores in forests and across other expanIn recent years, trainers have asked dogs to perform increasingly specific sive habitats. work for conservation in a variety of habitats, including searching river banks for North American otter (Lontra canadensis) latrines, beating through thick jungles on Guam to find invasive brown tree snakes (Boiga irregularis), dodging cacti to find well-disguised desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) and black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes) in burrows, and standing on the bow of a small boat to sniff out northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) scat.7 In the Russian Far East, Russian scientists trained dogs to identify individual Amur, or Siberian, tigers (Panthera Covering hundreds of square miles tigris altaica) from scats picked up during snow-track surover several years, researchers veys. The dogs’ ability to identify individual tigers and communicate this information helped researchers map turned piles of scat into mountains individual tiger movements and territory use.8 With of information and produced only approximately 400 Amur tigers left, knowing where each one is in relation to threats is critical to their propredictive models that are now tection. In similarly tough terrain in the mountains of being used to advise planners Bhutan, scat-detection dogs will soon enhance biologists’ efforts to assess the snow leopard (Uncia uncia) on development options. population, improving monitoring efficiency by discerning the sign of different individual snow leopards. Worldwide, conservationists are increasingly interested in measuring just how well dogs detect a greater variety of noninstinctual targets. In New Zealand, dogs are adding novel targets to their repertoires, including an unusual parasitic plant, the wood rose (Diactylanthus taylorii), rare skinks, and tuataras


Dogs help find scat in vast, rugged landscapes such as this. Scat can give scientists information on an animal’s identity, sex, diet, and the presence of some diseases.

(Sphenodon spp.), endangered members of an ancient group of reptiles. In the western United States, dogs are being tested to see if they can accurately locate rare native plants as well as invasive weeds; the dogs’ outstanding senses help them locate young plants too small to be seen by humans. In Oregon, one such plant under study is a rare native lupine flower (Lupinus oreganus kincaidii), host to the endangered Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi). By finding and eventually protecting lupines, dogs can help us better preserve Fender’s blue butterflies. As this field expands, more uses for detection dogs will emerge, with new applications for the keen olfactory ability of our “best friends.” Sniffer dogs are being trained to differentiate between individual animals and to assist in answering questions related to estrus, disease, and gender, often vital information for knowing the reproductive health of a population and particularly important for saving rare species. Dogs are being asked to detect rare species in areas where humans have little chance of collecting that information, such as the surface of the ocean and in thick jungle vegetation, and these frontiers continue to be explored. As our conservation needs grow, undoubtedly so too will the role of detection dogs working for conservation.

c


Agriculture and Wildlife in Europe N I G E L D U D L E Y A N D S U E S T O LT O N

alf a mile above our cottage in Wales is a badger colony, an underground labyrinth of tunnels and chambers sheltering many families. On spring evenings, before the bracken fern grows high, we watch the badgers (Meles meles) as they shuffle into the open, sniffing for danger and discarding old bedding: they are notoriously fussy. Youngsters tussle and the adults gradually wander away, each traveling several miles a night in search of food. The farmer leaves this corner of his field alone. It is not a nature reserve—he would probably hate the idea—but simply peaceful coexistence between wildlife and human agricultural needs. If the government’s plan to eradicate

NIGEL DUDLEY established Equilibrium Research in partnership with Sue Stolton in 1991. Equilibrium promotes positive environmental and social change by linking targeted research to field application. Equilibrium works with groups ranging from local communities to United Nations agencies in countries worldwide. Nigel’s areas of focus include environmental policy research and issues relating to forest quality, protected areas, and landscape approaches to conservation. SUE STOLTON is an environmental consultant. Her work currently focuses on issues related to protected areas. Her areas of interest include protected area management, the assessment of management effectiveness, and understanding the wider values and benefits that protected areas can provide. Sue is a member of IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas.

Source: Paul Hobson/naturepl.com

H

European badgers often coexist peacefully with farmers who manage their lands for the benefit of wildlife.

Agriculture and Wildlife in Europe • 189

Source: John Eveson/FLPA

Removing livestock such as sheep from grassland ecosystems can alter the landscape to the detriment of other grasslanddependent species.

badgers in an effort to control bovine tuberculosis does not reach here, this family seems secure. Most European conservation takes place, formally or informally, on cultural landscapes—those places that “represent the combined works of nature and man”—and generally include farmland and managed woodlands.1 Wild species such as deer, badgers, and foxes often coexist with humans in these landscapes. Despite the enduring myth of the primeval forest in European folklore, our ancestors were already present when forests recolonized the land after the last Ice Age, and many of Europe’s habitats developed alongside human settlements.2 Except at the extremities in Iceland, Lapland, and parts of the Balkan and Caucasus mountains, almost no near-natural ecosystems remain in Europe. A survey by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe found that, outside Lapland, less than 1 percent of remaining forest, itself a fraction of the original, is “untouched by man” in the past 200 years.3 Even where seminatural habitat remains, sulfur and nitrogen pollution and acid rain have sometimes altered ecology, stripping forests of sensitive lichens, reducing invertebrate diversity, and killing fish. Conservationists in Europe are working with what remains by protecting fragments of near-natural habitat in reserves. European countries are cooperating on regionwide conservation strategies. For example, the European Union’s (EU) Natura 2000 network is an ambitious attempt to secure biodiversity in a continentwide protected area system. The PAN Parks Foundation, a nongovernmental organization set up by the World Wide Fund for Nature (officially known as WWF as of 2009), plans to bring wilderness back to Europe, starting with 11 core areas covering 25,000 acres (10,000 ha) of existing national parks in Russia, Finland, Sweden, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Georgia, Italy, and Portugal. Elsewhere, damaged habitats are being restored, often only after poor management has made the land useless for any other purpose. In Somerset, England, former peat workings have been converted to wetlands. But protected and restored areas in Europe are still too limited in size to secure viable populations of all wild species. A complementary strategy is to increase or enhance wild nature in cultural landscapes—particularly on farmland.

Conservation in an Altered Landscape: Three Strategies for Farms Conservation on farmland uses a mixture of tradition, innovation, and incentives. The easiest conservation approach is to maintain those traditional farming practices that incidentally support wild species. This “protected landscape” approach assumes that, in places where there has long been human influence, 190 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: David Noton/naturepl.com

an ecology has developed influenced by human agricultural management, and that eliminating traditional farming practices will cause a net biodiversity loss. For example, removing grazing livestock from flower-rich meadows can, in the absence of other large herbivores, allow coarse grass or trees to take over, reducing the number and variety of herbaceous species. A second way farmers can contribute to conservation is by adopting management practices that encourage wildlife, primarily in marginal agricultural areas such as field edges, river banks, and hedgerows, which serve as wildlife habitat and corridors. Such farming practices are often voluntary and linked to certification schemes. In fact, maintaining at least a proportion of native biodiversity in marginal habitat may be integral to organic and some other farming systems, where many certification programs oblige farmers to manage for conservation. Alternatively, conservation may be supplementary to farming, such as leaving an unsprayed strip at field edges to protect against herbicide drift, thus reducing damage to plants, insects, and birds in neighboring areas. In Europe, much of these types of supplementary protection is undertaken voluntarily by farmers supportive of hunting in an effort to stem declines in game species such as the gray partridge (Perdix perdix) and brown hare (Lepus capensis).

Hedgerows provide valuable wildlife habitat and corridors on agricultural lands, but could also serve as avenues for invasive species.


A third farming option that can benefit wildlife conservation is a set-aside approach. Under a variety of national and EU incentive schemes, farmers receive a subsidy to set aside land, either entirely or under specific management, to create wildlife habitat. Widely applied examples include letting upland areas return to heath or moor instead of being planted with grass, maintaining flower-rich meadows, and reestablishing hedgerows. For 20 years, set-aside schemes have been a major factor in European conservation strategies, particularly for grassland bird species such as skylarks (Alauda arvensis) and the northern lapwing (Vanellus vanellus).

Farming and Protected Areas Farms often overlap, sometimes uneasily, with the boundaries of formally protected areas. Over half the total coverage of European protected areas is “protected landscapes.”4 These are not strict nature reserves and are defined by International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as Category V Protected Areas: places where “the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value: and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to . . . nature conservaDoes farmland actually provide tion.”5 Management is complex because most protected landscapes are in private hands, and conservation plans often effective conservation? need to be negotiated rather than imposed. It depends on the location, on Many protected landscapes are farmed, and some but not all of these farms use an assortment of the conservationthe type of farming, and on friendly techniques outlined earlier. For example, in Italy what we mean by effective. and Hungary, various EU Agri-environment schemes encourage farmers in protected landscapes to convert to organic systems to help maintain biodiversity. Protected landscapes in Spanish Catalonia contain a mixture of cork oak forest, traditional vineyards, and lowlevel grazing lands that maintain populations of wolf (Canis lupus lupus) and the highly endangered Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus), both of which need large areas of natural or seminatural habitat to survive. Even some more strictly managed nature reserves contain farms, such as Austria’s Hohe Tauern National Park. In such situations, farming practices are critical for conservation, and farmers in this alpine park are paid to delay hay cutting to protect flowers and nesting birds.

The Effectiveness of Conservation on Agricultural Land These are fine examples and theory, but does farmland actually provide effective conservation? It depends on the location, on the type of farming, and on what we mean by effective. Teasing out the close relationship between conservation strategies and agriculture is not straightforward. Conditions change, and what worked last year might not work in the future. 192 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: Biosphoto/AUSCAPE

There are certainly conservation benefits from farming practices that deliberately or incidentally provide habitat for wildlife. Cultural landscapes support overall numbers of the more common species—maintaining a critical mass of wildlife. They also support species that are now largely or completely dependent on the ecology of cultural landscapes. Farm conservation practices create habitat that links to more natural habitats, which can help to conserve broadranging landscape species like Bonelli’s eagle (Hieraaetus fasciatus) and to facilitate genetic interchange between populations of other wild species. But cultural landscapes cannot conserve all species equally. Questions of long-term security for these species remain, and there is much to be learned about the details of exactly what works and what does not. Traditional farming practices that incidentally protect nature are only reliable as a conservation strategy if these farms actually support significant biodiversity and if the conservation-friendly traditions really are maintained. But practices usually change over time, with effects on biodiversity that are sometimes hard to discern. For instance, when marginal land is abandoned, forests start recolonizing pasture, which results in the loss of grassland species. Alternatively, marginal farmland may undergo intensified production, which results in general biodiversity loss. The vagaries of economic markets mean that these management changes themselves are temporary. For instance, short-term economic downturns in Bulgaria and Romania are causing a current trend of land abandonment in those countries. Longer-term economic trends are encouraging marginal farmland in Spain and Portugal to be left unused, but this might be reversed in the future due to an increased demand for biofuels. Although some Europewide studies identify the important role of traditional agriculture for conservation, there is as yet no grand strategy to maintain these practices.6 Several studies have evaluated just how effective certain changes to farming practices are in supporting biodiversity, and while some evidence is clear, there is still debate. Twenty years ago, several European conservation organizations opposed organic farming on the grounds that more extensive agriculture would reduce land for conservation. Yet research found significantly higher populations of birds, butterflies, and other wild species on organic farms, showing that switching to organic agriculture has a conservation benefit.7 Studies also show the benefits of protecting field edges from herbicide spray, but consensus on other approaches is still lacking. For example, although some conservationists promote hedgerows as biological corridors critical to conservation, others claim that they facilitate the spread of common and invasive species such as the brown rat (Rattus norvegicus) and Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica) and do not

The European population of northern lapwings declined as a result of land-use intensification.


Source: Jose B. Ruiz/naturepl.com

support the rare and range-limited species that are most at risk.8 Set-asides—land temporarily removed from agricultural production—have long been regarded as a success story in European conservation. However, set-asides were only meant to be temporary, although many conservation organizations forgot this or assumed that they would remain for the long term. Recent concerns about food shortages coupled with a booming biofuel market are changing the subsidy structure, and land that had in some cases been set aside for many years is being plowed and replanted. The wide-ranging Bonelli’s eagle breeds in Europe, Asia, and Africa.

What Are We Trying to Protect in Farmed Landscapes? A fundamental question about conservation on farmland in Europe asks what conservationists are trying to protect. Because changes to the European environment have been so profound, most conservation is aimed—consciously or unconsciously—at regaining what we have lost in the recent past. It is almost as if conservationists are trying to regain an idealized landscape of, say, the 1930s, which itself already consisted of highly modified ecosystems. This has led to some responses that are illogical from the perspective of conservation biology. For example, the decline of the skylark has been a concern; the lark’s high-altitude song flight is an archetype of spring. But would the skylark really be so prevalent in a “natural” European ecosystem? Several thousand years ago, the open grassland and heath that it favors were substantially less common, and virtually continuous forest dominated the continent—a habitat where its cousin the woodlark (Lullula arborea) would probably have been more common. Has the skylark changed its behavior since the Neolithic Revolution cleared the trees 10,000 years ago? Or did its range expand due to past favorable ecological changes, only to begin retracting now? Does the cultural value of the skylark outweigh factors relating to its “naturalness”? There is as yet little exploration of these and similar questions. In fact, overemphasis on maintaining traditional managed landscapes can threaten rarer habitats and species. For many years, European conservationists have argued that we lose biological value in woodlands unless they are managed, particularly through the periodic cutting that allows regeneration (coppicing). Conservationists and foresters alike accepted the idea of the “over-


mature forest” and of interfering with ecosystem function. One result is a continentwide threat to saprophytic (deadwood-dependent) species ranging from woodpeckers to polypore fungi. There is also the question of managing for the conservation of biodiversity for the European continent as a whole. Sometimes, traditional management may be protecting species that are rare at one site but common elsewhere. For instance, in the scattered coastal islands in the Archipelago National Park, the Finnish parks service maintains traditionally mown grass because farm abandonment and subsequent forest regeneration have made this type of habitat rare in Finland. Yet the flowering plant and butterfly species that mowing nurtures are common in other countries. Management has certainly added to the park’s diversity, but it may not be adding to the overall value of European nature and may rather simply reflect a cultural desire to retain popular species in a particular location.

No Simple Answer Although agricultural landscapes can play an important role in conservation strategies, neither they nor the management practices they require should be accepted uncritically. Questions of what we are trying to conserve in cultural landscapes need to be addressed more rigorously than in the past, particularly as the development frontier Questions of what we are trying advances around the world, and wildlife and conservation efforts are increasingly forced into managed landto conserve in cultural landscapes scapes. We need to know more about what such landneed to be addressed more scapes offer in order to integrate farm management more effectively with protected area management, and rigorously than in the past, we need to understand more clearly what we are aiming particularly as the development to conserve. Over the past 20 years, intensive agriculture has frontier advances around the world, stripped much of the wildlife from Wales, as it has in and conservation is increasingly the rest of Europe. However, species have also returned to places in response to favorable agricultural manageforced into managed landscapes. ment policies. Conservationists already know enough to make choices about what to conserve and why; the next challenge is to marshal political will, overcome self-interest, and accept cultural change. The idea that the people who manage lands and waters for human benefit also have a responsibility to preserve wild nature is gaining ground. Ultimately, this overarching sense of responsibility will be more important to Europe and to the badger family up the hill than another new m conservation policy.


The Dilemma of Confiscated Wildlife MICHAEL HUTCHINS

illions of animals are taken from the wild each year to fuel the growing trade in wildlife and wildlife parts for private collections, food, fur, ornament, traditional practices, or private collections. National and international laws designed to protect vulnerable species from unsustainable trade include the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); the Lacey, Endangered Species, and Wild Bird Conservation Acts in the United States; and similar legislation in several other countries. But porous borders and international travel and shipping make illegal wildlife trade feasible, and smugglers continue to conceal shipments, falsify documents, and bribe customs authorities in order to traffic animals. While the quantity of legally traded animals is vast (in 2007, the United States alone accepted 187,000 legal shipments of wildlife), the scope of illegally traded wildlife is more difficult to document.1 But intercepted shipments from the Port of Hong Kong and New York’s JFK Airport have uncovered crates of monkeys, birds, and turtles, indicating that the illegal trade is substantial. For example, from 1992 to 2005, US customs seized 1,605 parrots coming in from Mexico and, during a similar period, Mexican officials confiscated 13,571 illegally caught parrots. But these two confiscations represented only a fraction of the total estimated 65,000 to 78,500 wild parrots captured in Mexico during that time for the illegal trade.2

M

MICHAEL HUTCHINS is executive director/CEO of The Wildlife Society, an adjunct associate professor at the University of Maryland’s Graduate Program in Conservation Biology and Sustainable Development, an affiliate professor, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, and a senior fellow at the Center for Behavior and Conservation at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He has published over 200 scientific and popular books, reports, and articles and is series editor for Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia. 196 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

When customs officials discover illegal animal shipments, they should be confiscated, and confiscating even the small fraction of the trade that is intercepted is a logistical challenge. Reasons for confiscation are broad and include smuggling, lack of import permits, inadequate facilities, or inadequate disease testing. But, whereas confiscated wildlife parts, such as hides, bones, or horns can be packed up and stored, customs officials confiscating live animals have only a short time to decide what to do with, for instance, suitcases full of various species of parrots, thousands of miles from their native habitats, some of which may be ill, injured, or diseased. Live animals require constant care, and their welfare is of immediate concern. In addition, confiscated animals are often rare or threatened species, making their survival and eventual destination important for conservation. Unfortunately, few customs and wildlife authorities in any nation have the resources to keep confiscated animals, even for a few days. The care of captive wild animals is often highly specialized and for many rare species in trade, there is little accessible information. In addition, the animals may need immediate veterinary treatment due to injuries and illnesses exacerbated by their capture and transport. Regulatory agencies have three options when dealing with confiscated wildlife: release the animal back into nature, maintain it in captivity for the remainder of its life, or euthanize it.3

Source: Panda Photo/FLPA

Considerations for Wildlife Authorities

CITES officer with confiscated wildlife items, including rhinoceros horn, which is valued for its supposed medicinal properties.

Release into the Wild Most wildlife agencies prefer to release confiscated indigenous animals back into nature, and some national laws require that healthy animals be returned to their native habitats. For example, in 2006 in Vietnam, a hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) was confiscated from a local restaurant and returned to the ocean.4 However, in many cases, release is not possible because confiscated animals are held as legal evidence, may require rehabilitation or treatment, or may not be native to the region. In addition, an animal may carry a disease or parasite that could affect the existing wild population, but validated disease tests do not exist in many situations.5 Even the release of healthy, native animals could have social The Dilemma of Confiscated Wildlife • 197

Source: Terry Whittaker/FLPA

or genetic impacts on the wild population. However, shipping an animal back to its country of origin is often not feasible, and its specific capture site might be unknown. In cases such as these, a whole set of practical and ethical questions arise, starting with, Where is the confiscated animal to go, and who will care for it?

Long-Term Care Since few regulatory agencies can provide quality long-term care for even a small portion of the illegally traded wildlife that is confiscated, they partner with organizations that Snake meat and blood are delicacies in can—generally zoos and sanctuaries. In some developing countries, where Vietnam. Here, restaurant staff kill a snake options for care are limited, regulatory authorities require local zoos or sancfor consumption. tuaries to assume responsibility for confiscated wildlife. For example, in Costa Rica, many wild animals, including squirrel monkeys, jaguars, and macaws, are illegally obtained as pets, and when they are confiscated, they are sent to the National Zoo in San José. The zoo is expected to care for them, even if those species do not fit into its collection plan, and this becomes a tremendous financial and logistical burden.6 In western Europe and the United States, customs and regulatory authorities have more choices for the placement of confiscated, nonreleasable wild animals: they can be sent to zoos or aquariums, sanctuaries, laboratories, private individuals, humane societies, or Often only rare, threatened, or wildlife rehabilitation centers. But all options are endangered confiscated animals not equivalent. Ideally, when considering where to send a confisbringing new genetic material cated animal, the quality of care is the first priority, can be easily integrated into an SSP but this may be difficult to secure in many parts of the world. Animals should be sent to licensed faciliand readily incorporated into a ties that have wildlife professionals and veterinarians zoo’s collection. Most confiscated on staff. In the United States, the quality of licensed facilities varies tremendously because federal and animals do not fulfill all these criteria. state regulations for animal care are quite general and often fail to ensure standards. However, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) has higher standards for animal care—so high, in fact, that less than 10 percent of animal exhibitors in the United States actually meet AZA standards.7 (The Association of Sanctuaries 198 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

has general requirements and spotty enforcement, although some sanctuaries provide excellent care.) A second major consideration for placing an animal is how that individual can contribute to the conservation of its species through a program of scientifically managed, cooperative captive breeding. Sanctuaries generally do not participate in cooperative breeding programs, but many zoos do. In particular, the AZA’s Species Survival Plan (SSP) (and a similar program for the European Association of Zoos and Aquariums) documents lineages for the husbandry of rare and endangered species held across member zoos to help decide which species will be kept at certain zoos and at what population size. SSPs manage animals at separate facilities as a metapopulation to help ensure that captive populations are demographically and genetically healthy—meaning that there are enough individuals in each reproductive age class to sustain the population—and to minimize inbreeding and the loss of genetic diversity. SSPs also bolster conservation in the wild by providing scientific knowledge on the basic biology and behavior of endangered species, breeding genetically viable animals for hoped-for reintroductions to the wild, informing education programs, and raising funds to support field conservation.8 Therefore, to maximize the conservation contribution of a healthy, reproductively viable confiscated animal, it should be placed in an accredited zoo that participates in cooperative, scientifically managed captive breeding programs. In fact, if a US zoo receives a CITES Appendix I species—a species that is threatened with extinction—it is mandated to support in situ conservation.9 While beneficial for conservation, the SSP adds another layer of difficulty to housing animals confiscated from the illegal trade. The cooperative planning required for the SSP can limit which and how many confiscated animals a zoo or aquarium can accept. As a result, often only rare, threatened, or endangered confiscated animals bringing new genetic material can be easily integrated into an SSP and into a zoo’s collection. Most confiscated animals do not fulfill all these criteria.

Chimpanzee confiscated by government rangers in an African village. Confiscated animals are often sent to zoos for care.

Euthanasia Source: Biosphoto/AUSCAPE

Space in accredited zoos, aquariums, and sanctuaries is limited, and these institutions may not have the necessary funds or husbandry expertise to accept some animals; so regulatory authorities must sometimes settle for less than optimal conditions when placing confiscated wildlife. Few private individuals, breeders, wildlife centers, or humane The Dilemma of Confiscated Wildlife • 199

societies have specialized knowledge of rare or exotic animals. This forces the consideration of an animal’s long-term well-being: if an animal cannot be placed in a facility that meets the minimum requirements for its care, then the most responsible and humane alternative is euthanasia. Some regulatory authorities are reluctant to employ euthanasia due to criticism from some animal rights groups. Nevertheless, it is not possible to provide the best care for each individual confiscated in the growing illegal wildlife trade, and an animal’s painless death must be weighed against the potential lifetime of suffering in a substandard or abusive situation.


Considerations for Zoos and Aquariums

Zoos can help conserve endangered species such as the golden lion tamarin through captive breeding programs, research, and public awareness campaigns.


One of the most significant impediments to zoos and aquariums accepting confiscated wildlife is the public relations challenge posed by animal rights groups that perceive zoos as exploiters of wildlife. An example of this occurred in 2002, when Malaysian authorities confiscated four juvenile western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) caught illegally in the wild and imported from Nigeria to the Taiping Zoo. The animals, which were subsequently dubbed the Taiping Four, became the center of a controversy regarding their ownership. CITES authorities in Malaysia sent the gorillas to South Africa’s National Zoo in Pretoria, a well-respected institution that generously offered space to the four refugees. However, following vigorous criticism from animal rights groups on the grounds that the Pretoria Zoo was profiting from the situation, the gorillas were moved to the Limbe Wildlife Center in Cameroon in 2006.10 Some zoo professionals have questioned whether this was the best decision for the gorillas, as Africa’s primate sanctuaries are already overloaded with orphans from deforestation and bushmeat hunting and are strapped for funding. A better arrangement might have been made if the Cameroon government retained ownership of the four gorillas while they lived at the Pretoria Zoo, and, in return, the zoo could have provided financial and technical assistance to the Limbe Wildlife Center and supported gorilla field conservation. Such cooperative relationships exist. For example, the Brazilian government “owns” all

golden lion tamarins (Leontopithecus rosalia) in US and European zoos, and in return, those zoos support research and fieldwork to help the species recover in the wild.11 In the end, returning the gorillas to Cameroon adhered to CITES guidelines and provided Cameroon an opportunity to create public awareness about illegal wildlife trade, but the situation for the Taiping Four was less than ideal.

Wildlife authorities, regulatory agencies, zoos, and conservation organizations all have a stake in improving the situation for confiscated wildlife. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) developed guidelines for the placement of confiscated animals aimed at maximizing the conservation value of the animals without endangering their health, behavior, genetic characteristics, or conservation status. The IUCN guidelines also aim to discourage trade in the species and to provide humane solutions, such as return to the wild, appropriate captive care, or euthanasia.12 The World Zoo and Aquarium Association (WAZA) also developed guidelines on confiscated animals from the receiving institution’s perspective. WAZA recommends that: zoos and aquariums assist regulatory authorities in the temporary care of confiscated animals; animals be taken in permanently only if the facility has the expertise to ensure proper longterm care; confiscated animals be integrated into existing scientifically managed captive breeding programs; IUCN guidelines for reintroduction be followed if the animals are slated for return to the wild; and the public is informed about illegal wildlife trade and the animal’s origin if it is placed on display. With clear guidelines in place from a leading international conservation organization and a leading zoo association, it would also be helpful if accredited zoos built trust with animal rights groups. Some of these groups put zoos in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position, which may obscure what is best for the individual confiscated animal. More public awareness of the thought and care that accredited zoos give each case could help dispel the perception that zoos prioritize display for profit and entertainment over animal welfare and conservation education. In fact, accredited zoos and aquariums emphasize and adhere to national and international laws as well as association ethics codes on animal care. Zoos and sanctuaries operating outside these laws or established standards should be fined and censured by peer institutions.


Moving Forward

A woman holds her pet pygmy marmoset (Callithrix pygmaea) at a market in Ecuador.

The Dilemma of Confiscated Wildlife • 201

Ideally, confiscated animals would be safely returned to the wild, but this frequently proves impossible. A midway solution is bolstering wildlife expertise in the countries of trade. For example, turtles confiscated in Vietnam on the way to China are brought to the Cuc Phoung National Park. There, staff are increasingly able to identify the various species and habitat needs and can assess whether the turtles should be released into the wild or maintained in captivity. However, unless international authorities can effectively stop illegal wildlife shipments in their countries of origin, accredited zoos, aquariums, and sanctuaries around the world will continue to play an important role in caring for the confiscated refugees. Currently, regulatory authorities search for placement for a confiscated animal through an informal system of their own networks of private, commercial, and nonprofit animal collections. But going forward, zoos, aquariums, wildlife authorities, and customs agents should seek better ways to work together, particularly to One of the most significant share information about wildlife confiscations in order to impediments to zoos and find the best placement for them. For rare or endangered species, wildlife agencies should carefully evaluate the aquariums accepting confiscated options for placement with a goal of maximizing the aniwildlife is the public relations mals’ contribution to conservation. Creating a centralized database would help locate nearby facilities that will welchallenge posed by animal come the animals, either temporarily or permanently. rights groups that perceive Though not an ideal situation for the animals or institutions involved, it is incumbent upon all involved to make zoos as exploiters of wildlife. the best of it, despite limits on funding and space. The consequences for the individual animals involved are dire, and their survival is sometimes critical for the conservation and breeding of their species. Until wildlife trade can be effectively stopped, a well-coordinated team of institutions can provide safe passage and homes for the birds, mamb mals, reptiles, and fish illegally plucked from the wild.


The Evolving Practice of Conservation in Rwanda BILL WEBER

n 1978, during my first year in Rwanda’s Volcanoes National Park, I helped recover five bodies of mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei) killed by poachers seeking severed heads and live young for sale to foreigners. Later that year, I completed a census showing a sharp decline in the total gorilla population, with fewer than 270 left, down from an estimated 450 in 1960. The mountain gorilla’s last refuge in the Virunga Volcanoes, a single ecosystem straddling the borders of Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Uganda, was under threat.1 Thirty years later, however, I stood just outside the park before 10,000 cheering Rwandans to officially name one of 23 baby gorillas born to that same population. My experiences in Rwanda over several decades saw the gorillas narrowly escape extinction and become a symbol of national pride and a source of economic growth. This transition reflected fundamental changes in the field of conservation, including new models, practices, skills, and sciences. I also witnessed Rwanda’s change, including the dramatic upheavals of war and genocide, and subsequent peace and reconciliation. The story of conservation success in Rwanda is a continually evolving one of adapting new ideas and practices to local conditions in ways that inform how we can best do conservation there as well as far beyond its borders.

I

BILL WEBER has worked in Rwanda since 1978, including more than seven years incountry. He served for 18 years as director of the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Africa and North America Programs. Bill is senior editor of African Rain Forest Ecology and Conservation and lead author of In the Kingdom of Gorillas, which was featured by BBC Wildlife as one of “the most influential books from the past 40 years of wildlife publishing.” The Evolving Practice of Conservation in Rwanda • 203

Source: Ingo Arndt/naturepl.com

A mountain gorilla family group, including a silverback male, two females, and two juveniles, in Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda.

1970s: Conservation Foundations As a Peace Corps volunteer in the early 1970s, I experienced the power of African wildlife spectacles, from lumbering herds of elephants in the savanna to magnificent silverback gorillas in the montane forest. I also found the poverty of human communities living around most national parks deeply disturbing. Conservation in Africa at that time was dominated by expatriate scientists concerned with a handful of focal species. Most of them studied animal behavior or social organization, with little attention to ecology; very few if any studied the social and economic conditions that drove local people to threaten wildlife. As a result, beleaguered wildlife managers—mostly nationals—had little useful scientific information to guide the defense of their parks against the growing threats of poaching and land conversion. The “fortress” model of conservation (stay out of the park or be shot), imported by Western colonial powers, was not well adapted to the African context. Conservationists needed a new model. In late 1977, Amy Vedder and I received a grant from the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) to study the causes of a crash in Rwanda’s mountain gorilla population and to recommend conservation actions. Through Dian Fossey’s ongoing publicity of the gorillas, mountain gorillas were already an international cause célèbre. They were also disappearing, in large part due to habitat destruction, poaching, and respiratory illnesses. We needed to generate new kinds of information to understand both gorilla and human needs, especially where they concerned the same critical resource—land. 204 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: Gerry Ellis/Minden Pictures/National Geographic Stock

Boundary of Volcanoes National Park, showing the abrupt change in land use and acute pressure to convert forest to farmland.

We set about assessing the gorilla’s population biology and feeding ecology, two little-known subjects needed to inform conservation. First, it appeared that the gorillas were reproducing sufficiently to sustain and even restore their numbers.2 Then, Amy’s study of gorilla feeding ecology showed that the family groups moved steadily through the full range of lower bamboo, mixed rainforest, and open alpine habitats. Most encouraging, she found that, despite significant losses due to farmland conversion, ample high-quality habitat remained. The research demonstrated that the gorillas could survive if the dual threats of poaching and habitat loss could be halted. To assess these human threats to the gorillas, I studied the ecology, economics, and attitudes of the surrounding human population. Nearly 200,000 people lived within a few hours’ walk of the park boundary; most depended on subsistence farming for survival, often on lots barely one acre (0.4 ha) in size. The high stakes for land meant that few people saw any value in the park or its gorillas. With little perceived value in the park, local people pressured their political authorities to convert more of it to agriculture. In 1979, a plan emerged to clear one-third of the park for a 12,400-acre (5,000 ha) cattle-raising scheme, which would have eliminated all remaining bamboo and driven the gorillas higher into the mountains where they would be more susceptible to respiratory diseases. Fortunately, our studies, on-the-ground experience, and relationships with government officials permitted us to make an effective counterproposal: the Mountain Gorilla Project, which combined traditional antipoaching activities The Evolving Practice of Conservation in Rwanda • 205

with educational outreach and a novel ecotourism program centered on hiking tours to view gorillas. At the time, tourism was virtually nonexistent because Rwandan officials were convinced that African tourism equated to savanna tourism: visitors driving around open grasslands to see large, easily viewed wildlife. As a result, they had developed Akagera Park in Rwanda’s eastern grasslands and ignored the rugged, roadless environment of the Virunga rainforest. By patiently following wild gorillas for several months and keeping a respectful distance, we quickly habituated two family groups to a human presence. The wonder of walking through the forest to sit with our close relatives— observing their strong family bonds, varied personalities, and striking similarity to ourselves—proved irresistible to tourists primed by nature documentaries. The resulting demand, in turn, permitted high prices and allowed limiting the number of visitors and consequent disturbance to the gorillas. By 1990, nearly The wonder of walking through 7,000 people per year were visiting the gorillas, genthe forest to sit with our close erating nearly $5 million per year in foreign revenue, local employment, and critical political support.3 relatives—observing their strong Several lessons emerged from our first 10 years in family bonds, varied personalities, Rwanda. First, a different kind of applied research was required to plan effective conservation action— and striking similarity to ourselves— research that focused on gorilla demography and proved irresistible to tourists ecology but included understanding the human factors of economics, culture, and politics. Second, a primed by nature documentaries. concerted effort to interact with government authorities, their advisers, and local communities in their own languages allowed us to access decision makers and garner their support. Third, it became apparent that the Rwandan park service (ORTPN) at that time was staffed by political appointees with virtually no technical capacity, which required international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to take the lead in both research and management of the gorilla project and all key aspects of park operations. Rwanda had no money, and international development agencies did not see nature tourism as an engine to reduce poverty. Yet.

1980s: Conservation and Development In 1981, the UN Development Program, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and the World Wide Fund for Nature published The World Conservation Strategy. It called for conservation and economic development to be complementary and mutually beneficial processes—a stark rejection of the previous fortress model. The Mountain Gorilla Project provided an early example of the potential for this integration. Building on that, I directed what was then the largest US Agency for International Development (USAID) “integrated conservation and development project” in Africa, a million dollar effort 206 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Source: Ariadne Van Zandbergen/FLPA

Rwanda’s Nyungwe Forest is home to nearly 270 bird species, including the redthroated alethe (Alethe poliophrys).


directed at the human landscape beyond Volcanoes National Park. We compiled and analyzed a database of the wood, water, soil, biological, and human resources in the Virunga watershed, which informed agroforestry projects and other improvements to land use management that helped the thousands of Rwandans who did not directly benefit from gorilla tourism. The late 1980s also saw increased global attention to the issue of biodiversity, calling for better conservation of areas like rainforests and coral reefs that contain proportionally high numbers of species. In response, we started assessing southwestern Rwanda’s Nyungwe Forest, a mountain rainforest that covered more than 386 square miles (1,000 km2)—six times the size of Volcanoes National Park—and supported a much greater species diversity, including nearly 270 bird species and 13 kinds of primates, among them chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), rare owl-faced monkeys (Cercopithecus hamlyni), and black and white colobus monkeys (Colobus angolensis). In addition to supporting a broader range of conservation activities, the influx of biodiversity money tied to development, particularly from USAID, permitted a new level of conservation capacity building. We hired and trained greater numbers of young Rwandans in biology, ecology, and forestry. A conservation biology program was started at the National University, and the country’s first PhD degree (in ornithology) resulted from work in Nyungwe. Many more Rwandans had the opportunity to learn while working with a growing number of field projects. Ultimately, rising tourism revenues allowed the park service to add several new positions at the ORTPN central office. Although the top positions were still held by older political appointees, new junior staff possessed more relevant technical skills. International NGOs still generated most of the ideas, contributed technical assistance, and provided the vehicle for foreign financial assistance, but as revenues rose, ORTPN began to assert its leadership over park management.

Many primates, including black and white colobus monkeys, are found in Nyungwe Forest.

1990s: Conservation and Conflict Just as the conservation agenda was coming together in a very positive way—tourism, training, increased capacity—Rwanda fell apart. Political dysfunction within a sclerotic regime provoked a civil war that simmered during the early The Evolving Practice of Conservation in Rwanda • 207

Source: Michael Nichols/National Geographic Stock

Much of Rwanda’s infrastructure was destroyed during the 1994 civil war.


1990s and ultimately boiled over into the worst genocide of our time. In 1994, as the rest of the world watched, or turned away, Rwandans slaughtered a million of their own countrymen. Decisive military action brought a new government to power, but it was preoccupied with issues of military security, political stability, economic recovery, and ethnic reconciliation. After fighting began around Volcanoes National Park in 1991, gorilla tourism collapsed. Nyungwe’s nascent tourism program followed suit. Development agency funding dried up as well. With tourism coffers empty and government attention focused elsewhere, conservation NGOs again stepped in to help maintain the parks. This was especially critical for several years after the genocide, when international NGOs—led in-country by Rwandans—paid the salaries of government park staff, purchased vehicles and other essential equipment, and directed patrols. These efforts kept poaching to a minimum and prevented any loss of wildlife habitat to farming or large-scale woodcutting in both Volcanoes National Park and Nyungwe Forest. In contrast, where no NGOs were present, significant losses occurred. Akagera Park lost 60 percent (580 square miles, or 1,500 km2) of its savanna habitat to returning pastoralists and their cattle, while the Gishwati Forest

Reserve saw more than 90 percent of its 58 square miles (150 km2) cleared for farming.4 Some habitat loss almost certainly would have occurred in these areas due to overwhelming population pressures, but an organized NGO presence could have argued for some form of mixed cattle–wildlife management regime in Akagera or prevented the most destructive forms of deforestation in Gishwati. In these cases, expertise would Just as the conservation agenda was have mattered more than money. After the turmoil, one positive change occurred: the rise coming together in a very positive of a Rwandan conservation leadership class. Some people way—tourism, training, increased had earlier field experience and training; others were welleducated returnees to Rwanda following the genocide. capacity—Rwanda fell apart. The two major conservation management–oriented NGOs—WCS in Nyungwe and the International Gorilla Conservation Programme in Volcanoes—were directed and staffed entirely by Rwandans. Some of them lacked scientific training, but they excelled as conservationists, exhibiting courage in the face of multiple dangers and demonstrating a real commitment to rebuilding their nation. As the 1990s came to a close, success in both conservation and nation building was at hand.

Looking Forward Today, Kigali is a dynamic national capital: clean, safe, and expanding. A growing economy has reduced the percentage of subsistence farmers from 95 to 70 percent—though the total population has nearly doubled, from 4.8 million to more than 9 million, since 1978. The influx of returnees following the genocide includes many foreign-educated, technically skilled, and entrepreneurial individuals. Recent elections received positive reviews from international observers and saw women take 56 percent of the seats in Parliament—the highest percentage in the world. Ethnic reconciliation is moving forward. The darkest clouds on Rwanda’s horizon appear over its western border with the Democratic Republic of Congo, where remnants of genocidal militias have reopened old ethnic wounds and brought Rwanda into open intervention across the border. Rwanda’s great progress in recent years has allowed the government—and the donor community—to return its attention to conservation. Although some gorilla killings in the Congo sector of the Virunga Volcanoes attracted world media attention in 2007, the most remarkable story is that gorilla numbers rose from 262 in my 1978 census to 380 in 2003.5 Most observers believe that current numbers exceed 400. The government is also considering restoring former parklands that were converted to agriculture in the 1970s to native habitat suitable for gorillas. Tourism is at all-time record levels, with nearly 20,000 visitors per year generating more than $10 million for the park service and supporting significant staff expansion.6 In addition, 5 percent of direct tourism receipts are set aside for local communities to build schools, health clinics, and other public The Evolving Practice of Conservation in Rwanda • 209

services. Nyungwe, declared a national park in 2005, has witnessed the removal of thousands of gold miners and improved antipoaching efforts to protect its more than 400 chimpanzees. Most important, Rwandans now manage their parks and agencies themselves. They do this very well, but could do even better with serious investment in management training. This is especially important now, as the country has generated so many new policies and plans that it suffers from an “implementation gap.” As a result, constructive new policies in support of buffer zones around national parks, compensation to farmers for crop damage by wild animals, and a new national This was once a luxury Rwanda wildlife law have yet to move from paper to practice. On the technical side, Rwanda needs more and could not afford, but it is now critical better-trained scientists. This was once a luxury to have personnel trained in applied Rwanda could not afford, but it is now critical to have personnel trained in applied biological and social biological and social sciences to sciences to better understand what is happening in and better understand what is around their parks. Only two Rwandans have earned PhDs in applied biology or conservation, and Rwanda happening in and around their parks. has yet to produce its first PhD-level gorilla expert. The country needs more economists who can identify new, creative ways to gain more from its world-class ecotourism and to distribute those benefits to the rural poor. Media specialists could fill a gaping void by producing materials on nature and environment topics for schools and the public. And although Internet access and computer technology have been a high priority in Rwanda, these skills and tools could be further focused for conservation, such as using improved geographic information systems for park management. Finally, Rwanda desperately needs people trained in the intricacies of carbon markets, because there is a growing international willingness to pay countries like Rwanda to protect its rainforests so that they can absorb the excess carbon dioxide causing global warming. But for now, Rwanda is at the mercy of outside interests in this complex realm. The recommendation for a variety of technical assistance required for successful, long-term conservation in Rwanda reflects the need for change in how international NGOs and agencies support conservation in developing countries. Although biology and ecology will never lose their central place in the field of conservation, we must adapt to provide a more diverse set of expertise to our conservation partners in Rwanda and elsewhere. There is an immediate need for technical assistance and training related to climate change adaptation, carbon credits, resource valuation, payments for ecosystem services, education, media, business planning, and parks management. Failure to meet these needs will signify a failure to evolve our conservation practices and ultimately limit i our effectiveness as conservationists. 210 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Sleeping in the Forest I thought the earth remembered me, she took me back so tenderly, arranging her dark skirts, her pockets full of lichens and seeds. I slept as never before, a stone on the river bed, nothing between me and the white fire of the stars but my thoughts, and they floated light as moths among the branches of the perfect trees. All night I heard the small kingdoms breathing around me, the insects, and the birds who do their work in the darkness. All night I rose and fell, as if in water, grappling with a luminous doom. By morning I had vanished at least a dozen times into something better. Mary Oliver (1935–)

Final Thoughts • 211

Final Thoughts Safe Havens for Wildlife and People in Contested Holy Lands G A R Y PA U L N A B H A N A N D MICHAEL L. ROSENZWEIG

very spring, as 500 million migratory birds move northward up the African and Arabian coasts of the Red Sea, they do not know that they are entering a war zone. As pygmy cormorants, glossy ibis, black storks, cranes, and marsh harriers try to find a safe stopover along their flight where food and rest can be found within some wetlands refuge, they encounter a burgeoning district of hotels and tourist facilities that has wrested away their ancient first stop—the salt marsh of Eilat, Israel. Leaving Eilat, the birds pass over the Negev desert and the salty Dead Sea. They enter the Jordan Valley, where they maneuver consecutively through Jordan, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and Turkey—all countries that have suffered conflict. The marshy stopovers edging these war-torn lands are few and far between but they serve as critical habitat for birds migrating across some of the driest places on the planet. The globally important Jordan wetlands—spanning Israel, Jordan, Palestinian Territories, and Syria—are fed by the mythic River Jordan, whose waters have been fought over for centuries. The River Jordan is but a shadow of its former self. It has been depleted by growing cities and agricultural developments, so much so that its current flows now hardly cover the width of

E

GARY PAUL NABHAN is founder and facilitator of the Renewing America’s Food Traditions collaborative and is based on Tumamoc Hill in Arizona, the first restoration ecology site in the world and home of the Alliance for Reconciliation Ecology. His latest book is titled Where Our Food Comes From. MICHAEL L. ROSENZWEIG is professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Director of Tumamoc: People and Habitats at the University of Arizona. His research focuses on species diversity and conserving biodiversity with reconciliation ecology. He is editor-in-chief of Evolutionary Ecology Research. Final Thoughts • 213

Source: Frank and Helen Schreider/National Geographic Stock

a city street for most of its length. And yet migrating birds continue to seek out these crucial wetlands as they have for millennia. As if the scarcity of wetland refuges were not enough of a challenge, the migrating flocks also face head-on collisions with ever-present Israeli and Jordanian jets. Such collisions kill pilots and birds and destroy planes. So a cooperative multinational effort, Migrating Birds Know No Boundaries, emerged through an initial collaboration between the Israel Raptor Information Center and the Israeli Air Force. It now also involves the Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature in Jordan, the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, and the military leadership of both countries. Policy initiatives, monitoring studies, and community education in both countries have reduced collisions by 88 percent.1 A poster of an F-15 fighter jet and a steppe eagle (Aquila nipalensis) flying side by side hangs in nearly every air base, telling a simple story: “Take Care, We Share the Air.” Continuing their journey, the migrating birds may venture northward past the tamarisk-lined rivulet of the River Jordan to at last reach the tributary known as the Yarmouk. There they can rest in the open waters of a reservoir behind Yarmouk dam, a critical resource for cities, farms, and industries in both Israel and Jordan, or fly over the The River Jordan has been depleted by Golan Heights, a site of frequent armed conflict since 1951 and the principal agricultural development, but migrating obstacle to peace between Israel and Syria. birds still depend on its surrounding wetlands. Once the feathered migrants make it beyond the river’s mountainous headwaters, they may still be in dire straits, as they were during the Summer War of 2006. The Summer War destroyed many spring-fed aqueducts and irrigation canals feeding the villages, orchards, and fields of Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley—orchards and fields that surround one of the most important bird stopover points along the Lebanon– Once the feathered migrants Syria border: the lush Kfar Zabad wetlands. The region was make it beyond the mountainous already suffering from a summer drought when damage to water mains, storage tanks, and canals left the Bekaa Valley headwaters feeding the River high and dry a few weeks before harvest. So Lebanese farmJordan, they may still be in dire ers clandestinely filled their tank trucks at the springs of Kfar Zabad. During the fighting, one of the tank trucks straits, as they were during the pumping from the wetlands was hit by a missile, discouragSummer War of 2006. ing further pumping from the springs. But the wetlands had become vulnerable due to the ongoing conflict. 214 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

Despite the turmoil, a few of the farmers whose fields edge the wetlands called the Society for Protection of Nature in Lebanon (SPNL) for help. The farmers not only wanted to save their crops, they also wanted to save the wetland bird habitat. Relief organizations were struggling at the time, so the SPNL staff reached out to conservation organizations around the world in the hope of gaining support to bring water to the area. The SPNL helped bring some 60 tons of water and other supplies overland (where bridges had been bombed and the steep banks of wadis—dry riverbeds—had to be maneuvered) at a time when the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders could not safely reach into this stretch of war-torn Lebanon.

What we hear in the West is that Muslims, Christians, and Jews in the Middle East seldom collaborate on anything, let alone on conservation. When we visited this region that had been under fire just a few months before, we expected to see people still picking up the shrapnel and debris. Instead we met a few of SPNL’s local partners—twenty-some Lebanese farmers. How had SPNL attracted dozens of Muslim and Christian farmers to help conserve the waters feeding the Kfar Zabad wetlands’ important migratory bird habitat? SPNL’s field conservation program officer, Dalia AlJawhary, explained the philosophy behind their work, and how conservation was incidentally building peace among cultures and faiths. Dalia suggested that we learn about the traditional Middle Eastern conservation concept of the hima: “Today, we are having great success with the acceptance of the hima system both locally and internationally. It is an ancient, community-based conservation strategy which is currently being revived by the Society for the Protection of Nature in two marine areas on the southwest coast of Lebanon and here in the Kfar Zabad wetlands.” When we studied the history of the hima concept, we realized that it worked because it offered a tangible spiritual rationale for resting or conserving springs, streams, marshlands, and surrounding wet pastures and riparian woodlands in a manner that all Semitic peoples of the Middle East could embrace as part of their common heritage. While questions of spirituality and morality often pit one faith against another, the hima concept reaches back to a common set of values that Muslims, Christians, and Jews once shared in the era when convivencia, or coexistence, enabled these cultures to work together for the common goal of conservation blended with human well-being. In Arabic and Aramaic, the term hima means a reserve, protected habitat, or area set aside for special consideration, usually resulting in long-term conser-

Source: Hanne & Jens Eriksen/naturepl.com

***

Steppe eagles frequently collided with Israeli and Jordanian fighter jets until a multinational collaborative effort helped reduce these collisions.


Source: Stewart Innes/Peter Arnold, Inc.

Mosque in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, near the Syrian border. The valley surrounds the Kfar Zabad wetlands, one of the most crucial stopover points for migrating birds.

vation, allowing periodic but restricted use under stressful circumstances. It is a concept that was already being implemented around springs, wetlands, and perennial pastures in pre-Islamic times—perhaps as early as AD 70 to 650, when Christianity and Judaism had not yet diverged all that much. The prophet Muhammad also embraced the hima concept, and later his disciples codified it. In Islamic law, a hima signifies a natural area—permanently or seasonally set aside for the public good—which may not be privately owned. It also states that the designation of a hima should not deprive local people of resources essential to their subsistence and survival. Conceptually, it is much like the “grass bank” being explored today in the Valles Caldera National Preserve, New Mexico, in which private cattle herds are allowed to enter the preserve to graze and water only when Cooperating for conservation surrounding areas have failed due to drought or catastrophe. during a time of war is not Over the last fourteen hundred years, himas protected both biodiversity and sacred sites from coming under the exclusive the same as lasting peace. Yet control of warriors, sheikhs, imams, priests, or rabbis. Hima the side benefits of these reserves were formulated by traditional communities, then blessed by both secular and religious officials and honored by technical and educational common law. They flourished from the far reaches of the collaborations are evident. Empty Quarter of the Arabian Peninsula—where a nomad’s access to a spring might be a matter of life or death—to the


Source: Philip Perry/FLPA

Levant, where Lebanese, Syrian, and Palestinian herders and farmers used himas as reserves during times of war or drought. Ranging from just ten to well over a thousand acres, more than three thousand himas were historically established in Saudi Arabia. They not only prevented horses, camels, and cattle from dying during droughts, they were also critical to the survival of the Arabian gazelle (Gazella gazella) and the Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx).2 In recent history, the hima concept was all but forgotten until the 1960s, when Omar Draz, a Syrian scientist working for the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, observed a few of the last functioning traditional himas in Saudi Arabia and reintroduced the concept to Syria. More recently, a Western convert to Islam—Othman Llewellyn—deepened public appreciation of the historic and spiritual roots of community-based hima conservation and championed the concept in half a dozen countries. In Lebanon, for example, both Sunni Muslims and Maronite Christians have started voluntarily shifting their farming and herding to relieve pressure on the Kfar Zabad wetlands, now a designated hima. Other laudatory efforts find people from separate camps cooperating to conserve both wildlife and their habitats in this volatile region. For instance, Israeli and Jordanian date growers faced devastation from rats on both sides of the River Jordan. The rats did not spare Arab dates or Jewish ones. Pesticides proved useless. Yossi Leshem, who was instrumental in starting Migrating Birds Know No Boundaries, suggested that growers in Sde Eliyahu, a kibbutz south of the Sea of Galilee, put up nest boxes for barn owls (Tyto alba). Barn owls feed freely on rats but did not have enough places to nest. Kibbutz farmers organized a conference with their Jordanian counterparts across the river to demonstrate the technique. Soon owls were protecting the date groves of Arab and Jew alike. Mansour Abu Rashed, once chief of Jordanian intelligence and now head of the Amman Center for Peace and Development, knows that owls will not ease Mideast tensions. Nonetheless, he says, it brings “people together to let them talk and build confidence.” Cooperating on particular conservation projects during a time of war is not the same as achieving lasting peace. Yet the side benefits of these technical and educational collaborations are evident: Jews, Christians, and Muslims involved in

Protected lands called himas are critical to the survival of species such as the Arabian oryx.


Source: Derek Middleton/FLPA

Barn owls keep rodents in check. Farmers use nest boxes to encourage the owls to nest on their lands.


such projects are no longer seen as “the other,” or merely as abstractions. At the same time, the survival of black storks and marsh harriers has become somewhat of a common goal to farmers of all three faiths. If this kind of social reconciliation can begin the healing process, particularly between Arabs and Jews, then frank discussions of environmental justice issues such as equitable access to water—a major obstacle in peace negotiations—might follow. A philosophical and scientific framework for technically advancing ways to share our habitats with other species—even in rapidly urbanizing, intensively agricultural, or war-torn areas—has been elaborated in the field of reconciliation ecology. Whether to protect precious water resources or crops, or to keep military jets from colliding with migrating birds, the Middle East is becoming a crucible for the trial and deployment of reconciliation ecology projects. Stemming from rigorous science, reconciliation ecology goes far beyond that: “In addition to its primary value as a conservation tool, reconciliation ecology . . . promises to reduce endless bickering and legal wrangling that characterize environmental issues today. We are all human beings. We share a stake in the world we are building. No one wants it to be sterile and lonely. . . . Reconciliation ecology gives us a conservation strategy that recognizes these simple truths and unites us in our common goals.”3 If our hunch is correct, we can invest in conservation initiatives that have both sound scientific goals and pursue the broader human goals of peace and reconciliation. When we visit our friends and relatives in Lebanon and Israel, we realize that their involvement in conservation is never “just for the birds.” It is an attempt to heal from past wounds, to build hope, and to participate once L more in efforts to treat these lands and waters as truly holy.

Acknowledgments

he publication of State of the Wild has been made possible by the help and support of a large number of people. In particular, the editors would like to express our gratitude to Steven E. Sanderson and Ward Woods for supporting this volume and the series. We would like to extend special thanks to our editorial board—Debbie Behler, Natalie Cash, Nancy Clum, Josh Ginsberg, Stephen Sautner, Bill Weber, and Peter Zahler—for their advice and time. We would like to single out our appreciation to Catherine Grippo for countless hours and endless patience in gathering the Global Conservation News Highlights, Champions of the Wild, By the Numbers, and photographs. Editorial help and advice also came from Sandra Alcosser, Dan Cherubin, and Julia Zafferano, with a particular thank you to Ken Kostel for his vast editing experience. We would also like to acknowledge the invaluable support and expertise of Todd Baldwin, Barbara Dean, Maureen Gately, Erin Johnson, Sharis Simonian, and Barbara Youngblood at Island Press. We thank the following biologists and conservationists who provided valuable information, reviews, photographs, or other support. Their insight, expertise, and advice are greatly appreciated. Ardea: Alice Bullock and Sophie Napier; Auscape International: Sarah Tahourdin; British Wildlife: Sue Everett; Conservation International: Heather Luca and Karen Mikosz; FLPA: Jean Hosking; National Geographic Stock: Ashley Parada; Nature Picture Library: Rachelle Macapagal; Peter Arnold, Inc.: Emily Teresa; Royal Botanic Gardens Kew: Julian Bayliss; The Nature Conservancy: Craig Groves; Turtle Survival Alliance: Rick Hudson; University of Sydney: Christopher Dickman; US Forest Service: Vicki Saab. Within the Wildlife Conservation Society we would like to thank: Suzanne Bolduc, Jean Boubli, Paul Calle, Avecita Chicchon, Carlton Chotalal, Peter Clyne, James Deutsch, Zach Feris, Craig Groves, Lisa Hickey, Damien Joly, Liz Lauck, Julie Larsen Maher, Sean Matthews, Colleen McCann, Caleb McClennen, Roan McNab, Sarah Pacyna, Graeme Patterson, Colin Poole, Darren Potgieter, Jennifer Pramuk, Bonnie Raphael, Eric Sanderson, Anton Seimon, Grace Seo, Christopher Shank, Kirstin Siex, Kristine Smith,

T

Acknowledgments • 219

Kara Stevens, Pat Thomas, John Thorbjarnarson, Mariana Varese, David Wilkie, Monica Wrobel, Victoria Zavattieri, and Steve Zack. The time, generosity, wise words, keen insights, and patience of all those named have made this volume possible. We thank them all.


Notes

By the Numbers: Wildlife Conservation in a Time of War 1. UNEP, Synthesis Report–Sudan Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment, http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/UNEP_Sudan_synthesis_E.pdf. 2. The World Bank, http://go.worldbank.org/TV8VJ1PRB0. 3. S. Kanyamibwa, “Impact of War on Conservation: Rwandan Environment and Wildlife in Agony,” Biodiversity and Conservation 7 (1998): 1399–1406. 4. E. Watkins, “Caño Limon-Coveñas Oil Pipeline Bombed, Shut Down,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 24, 2008. 5. Wildlife Conservation Society, “One Thousand Elephants,” December 11, 2008, http://www.wcs.org/353624/elephants (accessed April 20, 2009). 6. “WCS Says the Key to Saving Mountain Gorillas Is Saving the Guards That Protect Them,” January 7, 2009, http://www.bronxzoo.com/sitecore/content /wcs-org/new-and-noteworthy/wildlife-conservation-society-says-key-to-saving -mountain-gorillas-is-to-save.aspx. 7. C. T. Nachón, “Environmental Aspects of Landmines,” http://www.icbl.org /resources/document/lm_environment.php3 (accessed February 23, 2009). 8. UNEP-WCMC Transboundary Protected Areas Inventory–2007, http://www.tbpa.net/tpa_inventory.html. 9. USAID, “Cambodia: The Human Impact of Forest Conflict,” February 2006, http://www.forestconflict.com/documents/reports/Cambodia-%20Humanimpact.pdf; http://rainforests.mongabay.com/20cambodia.htm. 10. T. Hanson et al., “Warfare in Biodiversity Hotspots,” Conservation Biology, DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01166.x. 11. P. N. Hong, “Reforestation of Mangroves after Severe Impacts of Herbicides during the Viet Nam War: The Case of Can Gio,” http://www.fao.org/docrep/004 /y2795e/y2795e11.htm#Note1. 12. L. Alden Wily, Whose Land Is It? Commons and Conflict States, Why the Ownership of the Commons Matters in Making and Keeping Peace (Washington, DC: Rights and Resources Initiative, 2008). See http://www.rightsandresources.org/documents/files/doc_853.pdf.

Introduction: Future States of the Wild by Kent H. Redford 1. A. Leopold, A Sand County Almanac (New York: Oxford University Press, 1951). 2. R. K. Kinzelbach, Das Buch vom Pfeilstorch (Marburg um der Lahn: BasiliskenPresse, 2005).

Notes • 221

Part I: State of the Wild: State of the Wild: Wounded Wilderness by Gary Paul Nabhan 1. Western Airborne Contaminants Assessment Project, 2008, http://www.nature .npg.gov/air/Studies/air_toxics/wacap.cfm. 2. W. McKibben, The End of Nature (New York: Random House, 2006). 3. A. Leopold, A Sand County Almanac (New York: Oxford University Press, 1951).

Discoveries by Josh Ginsberg, Catherine Grippo, and Jane Perrino 1. J. M. Diamond and R. M. May, “Conservation Biology—A Discipline with a Time Limit,” Nature 317 (1985): 111–112. 2. T. W. Pietsch, R. J. Arnold, and D. J. Hall, “A Bizarre New Species of Frogfish of the Genus Histiophryne (Lophiiformes: Antennariidae) from Ambon and Bali, Indonesia,” Copeia 2009 (2009): 37–45. 3. F. Rovero et al., “A New Species of Giant Sengi or Elephant-Shrew (Genus Rhynchocyon) Highlights the Exceptional Biodiversity of the Udzungwa Mountains of Tanzania,” Journal of Zoology 274 (2008): 126–133. 4. S. B. Hedges, “At the Lower Size Limit in Snakes: Two New Species of Threadsnakes (Squamata: Leptotyphlopidae: Leptotyphlops) from the Lesser Antilles,” Zootaxa 1841 (2008): 1–30. 5. World Wide Fund for Nature, “New Species Found in Vietnam’s Green Corridor,” http://www.panda.org/index.cfm?uNewsID=113941. 6. Wildlife Conservation Society, “Discovery on Uncharted Lands,” http://www.wcs .org/353624/wcs_kabogo (accessed April 4, 2009). 7. J. A. Esseslstyn, “A New Species of Stripe-Faced Fruit Bat (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae: Styloctenium) from the Philippines,” Journal of Mammology 88 (2007): 951–958. 8. C. N. Spottiswoode et al., “Threatened Bird Species on Two Little-Known Mountains (Chiperone and Mabu) in Northern Mozambique,” Ostrich 79 (2008): 1–7. 9. J. S. Keogh et al., “Molecular and Morphological Analysis of the Critically Endangered Figian Iguanas Reveals Cryptic Diversity and a Complex Biogeographic History,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363 (2008): 3413–3426. 10. Conservation International, “Ten New Amphibian Species Discovered in Colombia,” http://www.conservation.org/newsroom/pressreleases/Pages /Amphibian-species-discovered-Colombia.aspx. 11. J. P. Boubli et al., “A Taxonomic Reassessment of Cacajao melanocephalus Humboldt (1811), with the Description of Two New Species,” International Journal of Primatology 29 (2008): 723–741. 12. H. Scales, “Sea Life Photos: Five New Pygmy Seahorse Species Found,” National Geographic News, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/photogalleries /new-seahorse-sea-life-found/index.html.

The Rarest of the Rare: Some of the World’s Most Endangered Animals 1. 2008 IUCN Red List Fact Sheet for Crocodylus rhombifer; Crocodylus acutus, http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/5670; http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/5659. 2. 2008 IUCN Red List Fact Sheet for Eumops floridanus, http://www.iucnredlist.org /details/136433. 3. 2008 Red List Fact Sheet for Lithobates vibicarius, http://www.iucnredlist.org /details/58746; Project Golden Frog, http://www.ranadorada.org.


4. BirdLife International Species Checklist, Grenada Dove, http://www.birdlife.org /datazone/species/index.html?action=spchtmdetails.asp&sid=2581&m=0. 5. Zoological Society of London/Edge of Existence Program, http://www.edgeof existence.org/mammals/species_info.php?id=37. 6. 2008 IUCN Red List Fact Sheet for Astrochelys yniphora, http://www.iucnredlist .org/details/9016. 7. 2008 IUCN Red List Fact Sheet for Urocyon littoralis, http://www.iucnredlist.org /details/22781. 8. Sumatran Orangutan Society http://www.orangutancentre.org/factsheet.htm; 2008 IUCN Red List Fact Sheet for Pongo Abelii, http://www.iucnredlist.org/details /39780. 9. World Wildlife Fund, http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/species /about_species/species_factsheets/cetaceans/vaquita/; 2008 IUCN Red List Fact Sheet http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/17028. 10. Arkive, http://www.arkive.org/white-headed-langur/trachypithecus-polio cephalus/; 2008 IUCN Red List, http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22045. 11. Hong Kong University, http://www.hku.hk/ecology/staffhp/dd/Philautu.html; 2008 IUCN Red List Fact Sheet, http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/58794. 12. http://www.arkive.org/przewalskis-horse/equus-ferus-przewalskii/threats-and -conservation.html; 2008 IUCN Red List Fact Sheet, http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41763.

Rarest Ecosystems by Patrick Comer 1. L. S. Earley, Looking for Longleaf: The Fall and Rise of an American Forest (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004).

Emerging Diseases and Conservation: An Update on One World–One Health by William B. Karesh 1. One World–One Health is a registered trademark of the Wildlife Conservation Society. 2. J. Newcomb, “Thinking Ahead: The Business Significance of an Avian Influenza Pandemic,” Bio Economic Research Associates, 2006: Original source, J. Pritchett et al., “Animal Disease Economic Impacts: A Survey of Literature and Typology of Research Approached,” International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 8 (2005): 23–45. 3. World Health Organization, http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza /country/cases_table_2009_04_23/en/index.html. 4. Global Initiative on Sharing Avian Influenza Data, http://www.GISAID.org. 5. Global Avian Influenza Network for Surveillance, http://www.GAINS.org. 6. Animal and Human Health for the Environment and Development, http://www.wcs-AHEAD.org. 7. Wildlife Conservation Society, http://www.wcs.org/deadly-dozen/wcs_deadly _dozen.

Part II: Focus on the Wild: Wildlife Conservation in a Time of War 1. T. Hanson et al., “Warfare in Biodiversity Hotspots,” Conservation Biology, published online February 18, 2009.

Notes • 223

Conservation Amid War by Jeffrey A. McNeely 1. A. H. Westing, Ecological Consequences of the Second Indochina War (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1976). 2. T. Hanson et al., “Warfare in Biodiversity Hotspots,” Conservation Biology, published online February 18, 2009. 3. See http://www.CBD.int for the full convention and other related information. 4. A. Biswas and H. C. Tortajada-Quiroz, “Environmental Impacts of the Rwandan Refugees on Zaire,” Ambio 25, no. 6 (1996): 403–408. 5. P. S. Martin and C. R. Szuter, “War Zones and Game Sinks in Lewis and Clark’s West,” Conservation Biology 13, no. 1 (1999): 36–45. 6. M. Fay et al., “Aerial Surveys of Wildlife, Livestock, and Human Activity in and around Existing and Proposed Protected Areas of Southern Sudan, Dry Season 2007” unpublished data. 7. B. Nietschmann, “Conservation by Conflict in Nicaragua,” Natural History 11 (1990): 42–49. 8. E. de Merode and G. Cowlishaw, “Species Protection, the Changing Informal Economy, and the Politics of Access to the Bush Meat Trade in the Democratic Republic of Congo,” Conservation Biology 20, no. 4 (2006): 1262–1271.

Conservation and Governance: Lessons from the Reconstruction Effort in Afghanistan by Peter Zahler 1. R. Margesson, “CRS Report for Congress—Afghan Refugees: Current Status and Future Prospects,” Report to Congress prepared January 26, 2007, http://www.usis.it /pdf/other/RL33851.pdf. 2. T. Hanson et al., “Warfare in Biodiversity Hotspots” Conservation Biology, published online February 29, 2009. 3. J. R. Wingard and P. Zahler, Silent Steppe: The Illegal Wildlife Trade Crisis in Mongolia, Mongolia Discussion Papers, East Asia and Pacific Environment and Social Development Department (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2006).

Marine Life in Times of Conflict by Callum M. Roberts 1. A. R. G. Price and J. H. Robinson, “The 1991 Gulf War: Coastal and Marine Environmental Consequences,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 27 (1993): 3–380. 2. R. Thurstan et al., unpublished data, based on PhD thesis “Effects of Fishing on the UK Marine Environment: An Analysis of 200 Years of Fishing Impacts,” Environment Department, University of York, and Marine Conservation Society. 3. W. Garstang, “The Impoverishment of the Sea,” Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK 6 (1900): 1–69. 4. C. Roberts, The Unnatural History of the Sea (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2007). 5. M. Graham, Rational Fishing of the Cod of the North Sea (London: Edward Arnold, 1956). 6. E. S. Russell, The Overfishing Problem (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1942). 7. C. Stevenson et al., “High Apex Predator Biomass on Remote Pacific Islands,” Coral Reefs 26 (2007): 47–51. 8. P. D. Jepson et al., “Gas-Bubble Lesions in Stranded Cetaceans,” Nature 425 (2003): 575–576.


9. P. N. Hong, “Reforestation of Mangroves after Severe Impacts of Herbicides during the Viet Nam War: The Case of Can Gio,” Unasylva 207: Rehabilitation of Degraded Sites Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Document Repository (2001), http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y2795e/y2795e11.htm. 10. G. Nakamura, “Defoliation during the Vietnam War,” in W. de Jong et al., eds., Extreme Conflict and Tropical Forests: World Forests, Volume 5 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2007), 149–158. 11. J. C. Ruan and J. E. Macheme, “Landmines in the Sand: The Falkland Islands,” Mine Action Information Center Journal (2001) 5, http://maic.jmu.edu/JOURNAL/5.2 /focus/falklands.htm. 12. W. F. Laurance et al., “Does Rainforest Logging Threaten Marine Turtles?” Oryx 42 (2008): 246–251. 13. D. Kaplan, Centre de Recherche Halieutique, France, pers. comm., 2008.

Who Owns the Wild? Civil Conflict in Africa by Simon Anstey, Fred Nelson, and Liz Rihoy 1. World Bank, Tourism: An Opportunity to Unleash Shared Growth in Africa (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2006). 2. J. Shambaugh et al., The Trampled Grass: Reducing the Impacts of Armed Conflict on the Environment (Washington, DC: Biodiversity Support Program, 2001). 3. L. Alden Wily, Whose Land Is It? Commons and Conflict States, Why the Ownership of the Commons Matters in Making and Keeping Peace (Washington, DC: Rights and Resources Initiative, 2008). 4. NACSO, Namibia’s Communal Conservancies: A Review of Progress in 2006 (Windhoek, Namibia: NACSO, 2007). 5. P. Frost and I. Bond, “The CAMPFIRE Programme in Zimbabwe: Payments for Ecosystem Services,” Ecological Economics 65 (2008): 776–787. 6. J. Hatton et al., Biodiversity and War: A Case Study of Mozambique (Washington, DC: Biodiversity Support Program, 2001). 7. J. Scheffran, “Climate-Induced Instabilities and Conflicts,” IOP Conference Series, Earth and Environment Science 6 (2009).

Parks as Peace Makers: The Peru–Ecuador Divide by Virginia Rosas 1. R. D. Ortiz, “Ecuador–Perú: Acuerdos Para una Paz Definitiva,” artículo aparecido en la Red de Seguridad y defensa Nacional de América Latina, 1999. 2. J. M. Bákula, “Perú Ecuador Tiempos y Testimonios de una Vecindad,” vol. 3 (Lima: Centro Peruano de Estudios Internacionales, 1992), 407–431. 3. I. Cevallos Breilh and S. Betancourt, “A Second Way: Grupo Maryland between Peru and Ecuador,” in People Building Peace II: Successful Stories of Civil Society, 600, P. van Tongeren et al., eds. (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005). 4. Ecuador – Perú: “Hacia una iniciativa democrática y cooperativa de resolución de conflictos,” Relatorio I y II, FASOC (Revista Fuerzas Armadas y Sociedad), Año 13, 12 (Santiago, Chile: Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, 1998). 5. Avecita Chicchón, pers. comm., 2009. 6. Roberto Troya, pers. comm., 2008. 7. E. Kaufman, “Resoluciones innovadoras de problemas: Un programa/taller modelo” Monographic Series Latin American Studies Center (College Park: University of Maryland, 1996).

Notes • 225

8. Diario “El Peruano” 27 de octubre de 1998: “Tratado de Comercio y Navegación entre el Perú y el Ecuador.” And “Peru and Ecuador Sign Treaty to End Longstanding Conflict,” New York Times, October 27, 1998.

Part III: Emerging Issues in the Wild Vanishing Asian Turtles by Peter C. H. Pritchard 1. B. Devaux, La Tortue Martyre (Gonfaron, France: SOPTOM, 1998), 1–230. 2. J. Holman, “Florida Sinkhole Archaeological Site,” Explorers Journal 59 (1981): 114–116. 3. A. North-Coombes, Histoire des tortues de terre de Rodrigues et la Mouvement Maritime de l’ile de 1601 à 1808 (Port-Louis, Mauritius, 1986), 1–75, and P. Pritchard, The Galapagos Tortoises: Nomenclatural and Survival Status, Chelonian Research Monographs, no. 1 (Lunenburg, MA: Chelonian Research Foundation, 1996), 85. 4. D. Fordham, A. Georges and B. Brook, “Experimental Evidence for Densitydependent Responses to Mortality of Snake-necked Turtles,” Oecologia (2008): 1217-5. 5. The family Geoemydidae was until recently known as Bataguridae. 6. M. Lau and Shi Haitao, “Conservation and Trade of Terrestrial and Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in the People’s Republic of China,” in P. P. van Dijk et al., eds., Asian Turtle Trade, Chelonian Research Monographs, no. 2 (Lunenburg, Mass.: Chelonian Research Foundation, 2000), 30–38. 7. IUCN Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, http://www.iucn-tftsg.org. 8. P. Meylan and P. Moler, “Apalone ferox—Florida Softshell Turtle,” in P. Meylan, ed., Biology and Conservation of Florida Turtles, Chelonian Research Monographs, no. 3 (Lunenburg, Mass.: Chelonian Research Foundation, 2006), 160–168. 9. F. Ahsan and A. Saeed, “The Bostami turtle, Trionyx nigricans Anderson: Population Status, Distribution, Historical Background and Length–Weight Relationship,” Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 86 (1989): 1–6. 10. P. Praschag and R. Gemel, “Identity of the Black Soft-Shell Turtle Aspideretes nigricans (Anderson, 1875), with Remarks on Related Species (Reptilia, Testudines: Trionychidae)” Faunistiche Abhandlung, Staatische Museum Tierkünde Dresden 3, no. 5 (2002): 87–116. 11. P. Pritchard, “Observations on Body Size, Sympatry, and Niche Divergence in Softshell Turtles (Trionychidae),” Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4, no. 1 (2001): 5–27. 12. Turtle Survival Alliance Report (Fort Worth: Fort Worth Zoo, 2008), 62 pp.

What Future for Forest Elephants? by Stephen Blake and Simon Hedges 1. J. J. Blanc et al., “African Elephant Status Report, 2007: An Update from the African Elephant Database,” IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group Occasional paper series of the IUCN Species Survival Commission, No. 33. (Gland: IUCN, 2007). 2. R. F. W. Barnes et al., “A Review of the Status of Forest Elephants Loxodonta africana in Central Africa,” Biological Conservation 71 (1995): 125–132, and F. Michelmore et al., “A Model Illustrating the Changes in Forest Elephant Numbers Caused by Poaching,” African Journal of Ecology 32 (1994): 89–99. 3. S. Blake et al., “Forest Elephant Crisis in the Congo Basin,” PLoS Biology 5 (2007): 111. 4. S. Blake et al., “Roadless Wilderness Area Determines Forest Elephant Movements in the Congo Basin.” PLoS ONE 3 (2008): e3546.


5. S. Hedges et al., “Distribution, Status, and Conservation Needs of Asian Elephants (Elephas maximus) in Lampung Province, Sumatra, Indonesia,” Biological Conservation 124 (2005): 35–48. 6. P. Leimgruber et al., “Fragmentation of Asia’s Remaining Wildlands: Implications for Asian Elephant Conservation,” Animal Conservation 6 (2003): 347–359. 7. S. Hedges and D. Gunaryadi, “Reducing Human–Elephant Conflict: Do Chillies Help Deter Elephants from Entering Crop Fields?” Oryx In press. 8. A. Blom, “An Estimate of the Costs of an Effective System of Protected Areas in the Niger Delta–Congo Basin Forest Region,” Biodiversity and Conservation 13 (2004): 2661–2678.

Restoration of the Guanaco, Icon of Patagonia by Andrés J. Novaro 1. G. C. Musters, Vida Entre los Patagones (Buenos Aires: El Elefante Blanco, 2005); E. L. Bridges, Uttermost Part of the Earth: The Indians of Tierra del Fuego (London: Dover Publications, 1988). 2. H. Torres, “Guanaco: Distribución y Conservación del Guanaco,” Informe Especial No. 2 (Cambridge, England: IUCN, 1985). 3. H. del Valle et al., “Status of Desertification in the Patagonian Region: Assessment and Mapping from Satellite Imagery,” Arid Soil Research and Rehabilitation 12 (1998): 95–122. 4. A. J. Novaro and R. S. Walker, “Human-Induced Changes in the Effect of Top Carnivores on Biodiversity in Patagonia,” in J. C. Ray et al., eds., Large Carnivores and the Conservation of Biodiversity (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005), 267–287. 5. J. Berger, “The Longest Mile: How to Sustain Long Distance Migration in Mammals,” Conservation Biology 18 (2004): 320–332. 6. R. Baldi et al., “Guanaco Management in Patagonian Rangelands,” in J. du Toit et al., eds., Conservation Science and Practice: Conserving Rangelands. In press. 7. S. Walker et al., “Rewilding Patagonia,” Wild Earth 15 (2004–5): 32–37.

Changing Flyways: Migratory Birds in a Warming World by Janice Wormworth 1. I. Newton, The Migration Ecology of Birds (Oxford: Elsevier Academic Press, 2008). 2. C. Both et al., “Climate Change and Population Declines in a Long-Distance Migratory Bird,” Nature 441 (2006): 81–83. 3. M. H. Dickey et al., “Climatic Effects on the Breeding Phenology and Reproductive Success of an Arctic-Nesting Goose Species,” Global Change Biology 14 (2008): 1973–1985. 4. C. Parmesan, “Biotic Response: Range and Abundance Change,” in T. E. Lovejoy and L. J. Hannah, eds., Climate Change and Biodiversity (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2005), 41–55. 5. Audubon, Birds and Climate Change: Ecological Disruption in Motion (New York: Audubon, 2009). 6. V. Devictor et al., “Birds are Tracking Climate Warming, But Not Fast Enough,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 275 (2008): 2743–2748. 7. B. Huntley et al., A Climatic Atlas of European Breeding Birds (Barcelona: Lynx Edicions, 2007). 8. K. Böhning-Gaese and N. Lemoine, “Importance of Climate Change for the Ranges, Communities and Conservation of Birds,” in A. Møller et al., eds., Birds and Climate Change, Advances in Ecological Research 35 (London: Elsevier Academic Press, 2004), 211–236.

Notes • 227

9. R. A. Robinson et al. “Travelling Through a Warming World: Climate Change and Migratory Species,” Endangered Species Research (2008), http://www.int-res.com /articles/esr2008/theme/ICC/ICCpp2.pdf. 10. R. A. Robinson et al., Climate Change and Migratory Species (Thetford, UK: British Trust for Ornithology Research Report 414, 2005).

The Boreal Forest: Trouble in Canada’s Great Wilderness by Peter Lee 1. S. Buchanan, “My Canada,” in G. Gatenby, ed., The Wild Is Always There: Canada through the Eyes of Foreign Writers (Toronto: Vintage Books, 1994). 2. D. Aksenov et al., Atlas of Russia’s Intact Forest Landscapes (Moscow Biodiversity Conservation Center, Greenpeace Russia, International Socio-Ecological Union, World Resources Institute, 2002), http://www.forest.ru/eng/publications/intact/. 3. P. Lee et al., Canada’s Forest Landscape Fragments: A First Approximation. (Edmonton: Global Forest Watch Canada, 2006), http://www.globalforestwatch.ca /FLFs/download.htm. 4. Silvaculture–National Tables, Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, National Forestry Database Program (2008), http://nfdp.ccfm.org/silviculture/national_e.php. 5. K. Timoney and P. Lee, “Environmental Management in Resource-Rich Alberta, Canada: First World Jurisdiction, Third World Analogue?” Journal of Environmental Management 63 (2001): 387–405. 6. M. Young, “The Other Duck Factory,” Ducks Unlimited March/April (2001): 38–43. 7. Canada Forest Inventory, Mature Volume of all Species, Natural Resources Canada (2001), http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/subsite/canfi/maps/7. 8. Silvaculture–National Tables, Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, National Forestry Database Program (2008). 9. Government of Canada, “Boreal Shield Ecozone,” in The State of Canada’s Environment 1996 (Ottawa, ON: Environment Canada, 1996), 5.1–5.30. http://www.ec .gc.ca/soer-ree/English/SOER/1996report/Doc/1-6-5-1.cfm. 10. J. Limpens et al., “Peatlands and the Carbon Cycle: From Local Processes to Global Implications,” Biogoesciences 5 (2008): 1475–1491. 11. Statistics Canada, Human Activity and the Environment: Annual Statistics. Environment Accounts and Statistics Division, System of National Accounts Catalogue no. 16-201-XIE. (2003): 88 pp. 12. E. Bayne et al., “Ecological Factors Influencing the Spatial Pattern of Canada Lynx Relative to Its Southern Range Edge in Alberta, Canada,” Canadian Journal of Zoology 86 (2008): 1189–1197. 13. M. Hummel and J. Ray, Caribou and the North: A Shared Future (Dundurn Press, Toronto, 2008), 288. 14. P. J. Burton and S. G. Cumming, “Potential Effects of Climatic Change on Some Western Canadian Forests, Based on Phenological Enhancements to a Patch Model of Forest Succession,” Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 82 (1995): 401–414. 15. L. Molot and P. J. Dillon, “Storage of Terrestrial Carbon in Boreal Lake Sediments and Evasion to the Atmosphere,” Global Biogeochemical Cycles 10 (1996): 483–492; M. J. Apps et al., “Boreal Forests and Tundra,” Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 70 (1993): 39–53. 16. W. A. Kurz et al., “20th Century Carbon Budget of Canadian Forests,” Tellus 47B (1995): 170–177. 17. “Oil Sands Fever,” The Pembina Institute (2005): 15, http://www.pembina.org /pub/203.


Inspiring Ocean Conservation by Claudio Campagna 1. A. Scafi, Mapping Paradise: A History of Heaven on Earth (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 254. 2. A. Hurley, trans., Jorge Luis Borges: Collected Fictions (New York: Penguin, 1999). 3. B. S. Halpern et al., “A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems,” Science 319 (2008): 948–952. 4. Foro para la Conservación del Mar Patagónico y áreas de Influencia, Síntesis del estado de conservación del Mar Patagónico y áreas de influencia (Puerto Madryn, Argentina: Fund. Patagonia Natural, 2008). Abbreviated English version available at http://www.patagoniansea.org. 5. C. Roberts, The Unnatural History of the Sea (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2007), 435. 6. S. Chape et al., “Measuring the Extent and Effectiveness of Protected Areas as an Indicator for Meeting Global Biodiversity Targets,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Series B: Biological Sciences 360 (2005): 443–455. 7. D. L. Alverson et al., “A Global Assessment of Fisheries Bycatch and Discards,” FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 339 (1994), http://www.fao.org/docrep/003 /T4890E/T4890E00.htm. 8. C. Campagna et al., “A Species Approach for Marine Ecosystem Conservation,” Aquatic Conservation (Marine Freshwater Ecosystems) 17 (2008): S122–S147. 9. G. L. Lattin, “A Comparison of Neustonic Plastic and Zooplankton at Different Depths Near the Southern California Shore,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 49 (2004): 291–294. 10. Alverson et al., “Global Assessment of Fisheries Bycatch.” 11. D. Pauly et al., “Global Trends in World Fisheries: Impacts on Marine Ecosystems and Food Security,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 360 (2005): 5–12.

The Wild and the City by Steward T. A. Pickett 1. United Nations Population Fund, State of World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth, http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2007/english/introduction .html. 2. E. A. Johnson and M. W. Klemens, “The Impacts of Sprawl on Biodiversity,” in E. A. Johnson and M. W. Klemens, eds., Nature in Fragments: The Legacy of Sprawl (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 18–53. 3. A. J. Elmore and S. S. Kaushal, “Disappearing Headwaters: Patterns of Stream Burial Due to Urbanization,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6 (2008): 308–312. 4. S. Clemants and G. Moore, “Patterns of Species Richness in Eight Northeastern United States Cities,” Urban Habitats 1 (2003): 4–11. 5. J. M. Marzluff and A. D. Rodewald, “Conserving Biodiversity in Urbanizing Areas: Nontraditional Views from a Bird’s Perspective,” Cities and the Environment 1 (2008), available at http://escholarship.bc.edu/cate/vol1/iss2/6. 6. W. E. Dramstad et al., Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape Architecture and Planning (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1996). 7. C. Vornberger, Birds of Central Park (New York: H. N. Abrams, 2005). 8. F. E. Kuo et al., “Transforming Inner-City Landscapes: Trees, Sense of Safety, and Preferences,” Environmental Behavior 30 (1998): 28–59. 9. Johnson and Klemens, Nature in Fragments.

Notes • 229

10. Marzluff and Rodewald, “Conserving Biodiversity.” 11. S. T. A. Pickett et al., “Watersheds in Baltimore, Maryland: Understanding and Application of Integrated Ecological and Social Processes,” Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education 136 (2007): 44–55.

Life Waters: Wetlands and Climate Change by Carmen Revenga and Max Finlayson 1. L. Ramberg et al., “Species Diversity of the Okavango Delta, Botswana.” Aquatic Science 68 (2006): 310–337. 2. S. Postel and S. Carpenter, “Freshwater Ecosystem Services,” in G. C. Daily, ed., Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1997). 3. T. E. Dahl, Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1998 to 2004 (Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006). 4. C. Nilsson et al., “Fragmentation and Flow Regulation of the World’s Large River System,” Science 308 (2005): 405–408. 5. D. A. Lytle and N. L. R. Poff, “Adaptation to Natural Flow Regimes,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19 (2004): 94–100. 6. L. Andersson et al., “Impact of Climate Change and Development Scenarios on Flow Patterns in the Okavango River,” Journal of Hydrology 331 (2006): 43–57. 7. J. Kjelds et al., “Decision Support Tools for Integrated Water Resources Management,” in Conclusions of the International Congress on River Basin Management, General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (DSI) (2007): 512–427, http://www.dsi.gov.tr/english/congress2007/. 8. M. Fernandez and F. B. Barrera, Doñana y Cambio Climático: Propuestas para la mitigación de los efectos (Madrid: WWF/Adena, 2006). 9. CSD Coastal Population Indicator: Data and Methodology Page, Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) of Columbia University (2006), http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/csdcoastal.html. 10. Species factsheet: Phoenicoparrus andinus, BirdLife International (2008) http://www.birdlife.org on 10/8/2008. 11. T. P. Barnett et al., “Potential Impacts of a Warming Climate on Water Availability in Snow-Dominated Regions,” Nature 438 (2005): 303–309. 12. M. Cioc and W. Cronon, The Rhine: An Eco-biography, 1815–2000 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2002).

Conservation Controversy: Can Paying for Ecosystem Services Save Biodiversity? by Will Stolzenburg 1. R. Costanza, et al., “The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital,” Nature 387 (1997): 253–260. 2. UNESCO, “WEHAB: A Framework for Action on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management,” Water, Energy, Health, Agriculture and Biodiversity Working Group Report, contribution to the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2002. 3. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, http://www.iucnredlist.org. 4. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 2005). 5. D. J. McCauley, “Selling Out on Nature,” Nature 443 (2006): 27–28.


6. A. Leopold, A Sand County Almanac (UK: Oxford University Press, 1949). 7. D. Ehrenfeld, “Why Put a Value on Biodiversity?” in E. O. Wilson, ed., Biodiversity (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988), 213. 8. H. Tallis, et al., “An Ecosystem Services Framework to Support Both Practical Conservation and Economic Development,” PNAS 105 (2008): 9457–9464. 9. E. O. Wilson, The Diversity of Life (New York: W. W. Norton, 1992).

Faith, Hope, and Conservation by Martin Palmer and Tony Whitten 1. Alliance of Religions and Conservation, “Sierra Club Director Pledges for First Time to Work with Religions,” October 29, 2007, http://www.arcworld.org/news .asp?pageID=199. 2. R. Debray, Candide en Terre Sainte (Paris: Gallimard, 2008), 254. 3. http://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectID=371. 4. IUCN, “Recognition and Conservation of Sacred Natural Sites in Protected Areas,” Resolution #4.038 to the 4th World Conservation Congress, Barcelona, Spain, October 2008, http://www.iucn.org/congress_08/assembly/policy/index.cfm. 5. N. Dudley et al., Beyond Belief: Linking Faiths and Protected Areas to Support Biodiversity Conservation (Gland: World Wide Fund for Nature, 2005), http://assets.panda.org/downloads/beyondbelief.pdf. 6. J. O’Brien and M. Palmer, The Atlas of Religion (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007). 7. N. Dudley et al., Beyond Belief: Linking Faiths and Protected Areas to Support Biodiversity Conservation. 8. http://www.ifees.org.uk/newsletter_2_small.pdf. 9. M. Palmer and V. Finlay, Faith in Conservation: New Approaches to Religions and the Environment (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2003). 10. T. Whitten and B. Morgan, Faiths and the Environment: World Bank Support 2000–05 (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2006). 11. http://go.worldbank.org/HYXCYG7FP0. 12. R. Wild and C. McLeod, eds., Sacred Natural Sites: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers (Gland and Paris: IUCN and UNESCO, 2008). 13. See http://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectId=358.

Canine Detection Teams and Conservation by Megan Parker and Aimee Hurt 1. C. M. Browne, “The Use of Dogs to Detect New Zealand Reptile Scents” (master’s thesis, Massey University, 2005). 2. F. C. Zwickel, “Use of Dogs in Wildlife Management,” in R. H. Giles, ed., Wildlife Management Techniques, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: Wildlife Society, 1969), 319–324. 3. D. A. Smith et al., “Detection and Accuracy Rates of Dogs Trained to Find Scats of San Joaquin Kit Foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica),” Animal Conservation 6 (2003): 339–346. 4. D. A. Smith et al., “Assessing Reliability of Microsatellite Genotypes from Kit Fox Fecal Samples Using Genetic and GIS Analyses,” Molecular Ecology 15 (2006): 387–406. 5. J. P. Beckmann, “Carnivore Conservation and Search Dogs: The Value of a Novel, Non-invasive Technique in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem,” in A. Wondrak Biel, ed., Greater Yellowstone Public Lands: A Century of Discovery, Hard Lessons, and Bright Prospects. Proceedings of the 8th Biennial Scientific Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Yellowstone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, 2005, 28–34.

Notes • 231

6. R. Long et al., “Comparing Scat Detection Dogs, Cameras, and Hair Snares for Surveying Carnivores,” Journal of Wildlife Management 71 (2007): 2018–2025. 7. M. E. Cablk and J. S. Heaton, “Accuracy and Reliability of Dogs in Surveying for Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii),” Ecological Applications 16 (2006): 1926–1935; S. A. Reindl-Thompson et al., “Efficacy of Scent Dogs in Detecting Black-Footed Ferrets at a Reintroduction Site in South Dakota,” Wildlife Society Bulletin 34 (2006): 1435–1439; R. M. Rolland et al., “Faecal Sampling Using Detection Dogs to Study Reproduction and Health in North Atlantic Right Whales (Eubalaena glacialis),” Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 8 (2006): 121–125. 8. L. L. Kerley and G. P. Salkina, “Using Scent-Matching Dogs to Identify Individual Amur Tigers from Scat,” Wildlife Society Bulletin 71 (2007): 1341–1356.

Agriculture and Wildlife in Europe by Nigel Dudley and Sue Stolton 1. UNESCO, “Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention,” WHC 08/01 (Paris: World Heritage Center, 2008), 24. 2. S. Schama, Landscape and Memory (London: Harper Collins, 1995). 3. N. Dudley, Forest Resource Assessment 2000 (Geneva and Rome: UN Economic Commission for Europe and Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, 2000). 4. R. Gambino et al., Parchi d’Europa: Verso una politica europea per le aree protette (Pisa: ETS Edizioni, 2008) (English summary available). 5. N. Dudley, ed., Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories (Gland: World Conservation Union, 2008). 6. D. Baldock, The Nature of Farming: Low Intensity Farming Systems in Nine European Countries (London: Institute for European Environmental Policy, 1995). 7. See S. Stolton et al., eds., The Relationship between Nature Conservation, Biodiversity and Organic Agriculture (Gland and Bonn: International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, World Conservation Union, and World Wide Fund for Nature, 2000). 8. S. Bailey, “Increasing Connectivity in Fragmented Landscapes: An Investigation of Evidence for Biodiversity Gain in Woodlands,” Forest Ecology and Management 238 (2007): 7–23.

The Dilemma of Confiscated Wildlife by Michael Hutchins 1. US Fish & Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement, Annual Report FY 2007, http://www.fws.gov/le/pdffiles/FinalAnnualReportFY2007.pdf. 2. J. C. C. Guzman et al., The Illegal Parrot Trade in Mexico: A Comprehensive Assessment (Washington, DC: Defenders of Wildlife, 2007). 3. A. F. Cuaron, “Further Role of Zoos in Conservation: Monitoring Wildlife Use and the Dilemma of Receiving Donated and Confiscated Animals,” Zoo Biology 24 (2005): 115–124. 4. Anonymous, “Endangered Marine Turtles Back Where They Belong,” http://www.wildlifeatrisk.org/index.php?lang=en&id=6&subid=20. 5. J. D. Ballou, “Assessing the Risks of Infectious Diseases in Captive Breeding and Reintroduction Programs,” Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 24 (1993): 327–335. 6. Cuaron, “Further Role of Zoos in Conservation.” 7. M. Hutchins, “Animal Welfare: What Is AZA Doing to Enhance the Lives of Captive Animals?” In AZA Annual Conference Proceedings (1999): 117–129. 8. M. Hutchins and W. G. Conway, “Beyond Noah’s Ark: On the Evolving Role of Zoos and Aquariums in Field Conservation,” International Zoo Yearbook 34 (1995): 117–130.


9. Code of Federal Regulations 17.22 (2)(iv), “Permits for Scientific Purposes, Enhancement of Propagation or Survival, or for Incidental Taking,” http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html. 10. Anonymous, “NZG and International Fund for Animal Welfare Combine Forces to Return ‘Taiping 4’ Gorillas to Cameroon,” 2006, http://www.zoo.ac.za /newsletter/issues/01/06.html. 11. D. G. Kleiman and A. B. Ryland, eds., Lion Tamarins: Biology and Conservation (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2002). 12. For more information: CITES Conf 10.7, http://www.cites.org/eng/res/10 /10-07.shtml or IUCN Guidelines for the Placement of Confiscated Animals, http://www.iucnsscrsg.org/policy_guidelines.html.

The Evolving Practice of Conservation in Rwanda by Bill Weber 1. A second population in Uganda’s Bwindi Forest, recently reclassified as mountain gorillas, is not included. 2. B. Weber and A. Vedder, “Population Dynamics of the Virunga Gorillas: 1959– 1978,” Biological Conservation 26 (1983): 341–366. 3. B. Weber and A. Vedder, In the Kingdom of Gorillas (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001). 4. B. Weber and M. Masozera, Strengthening Biodiversity Conservation Capacity in the Forest Protected Area System of Rwanda (Kigali: UN Development Program /Global Environment Facility, 2005), 117. 5. Weber and Masozera, Strengthening Biodiversity Conservation Capacity. 6. ORTPN, official statistics (Kigali, 2008).

Final Thoughts: Safe Havens for Wildlife and People in Contested Holy Lands by Gary Paul Nabhan and Michael L. Rosenzweig 1. http://www.mfa.gov.il. 2. R. Foltz, Islam and Ecology: A Bestowed Trust (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003). 3. M. L. Rosenzweig, Win–Win Ecology: How the Earth’s Species Can Survive in the Midst of Human Enterprise (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).

Notes • 233

Index

Italicized page numbers refer to illustrations. Afghanistan: Band-e-Amir National Park in, 2–3, 16, 16, 61, 78, 79; community development committees (CDCs), 78; environmental laws in, 77–78; reconstruction in, 72–73, 75, 76–79; war in, 63, 72, 73 Afghan snow finch (Montifringilla theresae), 2 Africa, 12–14, 47, 47, 54, 57, 106, 115–16, 160–63, 165; and confiscated wildlife, 199, 200–201; and migratory birds, 3, 130–31, 131, 133, 136, 163–64; war in, 63, 64, 66–71, 68, 69, 87, 89, 89. See also names of African countries African buffalo (Syncerus caffer), 161 African elephant (Loxodonta africana), 13, 13, 59, 67–68, 70, 89, 103, 161; forest elephants, 106, 114–17, 116–17, 120–21, 120; savanna elephants, 114–15, 204 African wild dog (Lycaon pictus), 91 Agents Orange, White, and Blue, 65–66, 84 Agribusinesses, 55, 95 Agriculture, 9, 25, 35, 69–70, 77, 95, 97, 117, 119, 134, 158, 205, 208–10; and critically endangered species, 46, 47, 48; and diseases, 52–53, 55–58; and ecosystem services, 168–72, 168, 169; in Europe, 27–28, 174, 189–95, 189, 190, 191, 193; in Middle East, 214–18, 218; in North America, 48, 134, 140–41; in Patagonia, 106, 124; and war, 69–70, 73, 213–15, 214; and wetlands, 161, 163

Akagera Park (Rwanda), 206, 208–9 Alaska, 6–10, 6–7, 8, 9, 10, 129, 130, 139 Al-Jawhary, Dalia, 215 Alliance of Religious and Conservation (ARC), 179, 182 Almendro tree (Dipteryx panamensis), 26 Amazonia, 23, 25, 25, 67–68, 96–102 American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), 46 American kestrel (Falco sparverius) , 155 Amman Center for Peace and Development, 217 Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica), 44, 187 Andean condor (Vultur gryphus), 122, 124, 127 Andean flamingo (Phoenicoparrus andinus), 165, 166 Andes, 96, 122–28, 165 Angkhor Wat, 178 Animal rights groups, 200–201 Annamite Mountains (Laos and Vietnam), 39, 66 Anthrax, 53, 58 Antilopine wallaroo (Macropus antilopinus), 21 Apalone ferox, 110 Aquatic warbler (Acrocephalus paludicola), 135 Arabian gazelle (Gazella gazella), 217 Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx), 217, 217 Arakan forest turtle (Heosemys depressa), 109, 110 Archipelago National Park (Finland), 195 Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), 143

Arctic lamprey (Lethenteron japonicum), 143 Arctic region, 7–10, 129–30, 132, 134, 136, 139, 140 Argentina/Argentines, 24, 96, 106, 123, 126–28, 151 Argentine shortfin squid (Illex argentinus), 147 Arias, Oscar, 26 A Rocha, 182 Ash-breasted tit-tyrants, 24 Asia, 15–18, 49, 54, 72, 95, 115, 123, 139; freshwater turtles in, 106, 107–13, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113. See also names of Asian countries Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), 114–15, 115, 116, 117–21 Asian imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca savigny), 29 Asia Pacific Economic Community, 55–56 Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus), 78 Atheris mabuensis, 41, 41 Atlantic bluefin (Thunnus thynnus), 36 Australia, 19–22, 136, 155, 162, 164–65, 164 Automatic weapons, 59, 59, 68, 70 Auyantepui, 51, 51 Avian influenza, 53–55, 54 Awajun people (Peru), 98–99, 101–2 Ayala Lasso, José, 100 Ayres, José Márcio, 42 Badger (Meles meles), 189–90, 189 Bahuaja Sonene National Park (Peru), 26 Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), 156

Index • 235

Baltimore (Md.) urban wild places, 154, 154, 156, 157, 158 Bamiyan Province (Afghanistan), 61, 77–78 Band-e-Amir National Park (Afghanistan), 2–3, 16, 16, 61, 78, 79 Bangladesh, 38, 108–11, 111 Barn owl (Tyto alba), 217, 218 Bar-tailed godwit (Limosa lapponica baueri), 129, 130, 136 Batang Gadis Park (Sumatra), 181 Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, 46 Bats, 33, 40, 46, 142, 155, 176 Bay-breasted warbler (Dendroica castanea), 142 Bayliss, Julian, 41 Beaked whales, 37, 84 Bears, 7, 10, 10, 60, 65, 77–78, 134, 141–43, 186, 187 Belinga (Gabon), 14, 121 Benedict, Saint, 180 Bern Convention Standing Committee, 30 Binational parks, 99–101, 101 Biofuel production, 25, 95, 193–94 Bird species, 2, 13, 22, 24, 41, 69, 137, 140–42, 155–56, 161, 165, 168, 185, 192, 207, 207; and war, 69, 84, 86. See also Migratory species/routes; names of bird species Bison (Bison bison), 67, 123 Black and white colobus monkey (Colobus angolensis), 207, 207 Black bear (Ursus americanus), 141, 186, 187 Black-breasted leaf turtle (Geoemyda spengleri), 108 Blackbrowed albatross (Diomedea melanophris), 147–49 Black caiman (Melanosuchus niger), 26 Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), 187 Black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis), 91 Black-shanked douc (Pygathrix nigripes), 16, 16 Black softshell turtle (Aspideretes nigricans), 110–11, 111 Blotched tiger salamander (Ambystoma mavortium melanostictum), 33 Blue and yellow macaw (Ara ararauana), 102 Bluefin tuna (Thunnus spp. ), 36, 36 Bluetongue, 29


Blue-winged warbler (Vermivora pinus), 155 Bobcat (Lynx rufus), 186 Bolivia, 24 Bombings, 66, 81, 83, 84, 85 Bonelli’s eagle (Hieraaetus fasciatus), 193, 194 Bonobo (Pan paniscus), 13, 13 Boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris maculate), 33 Boreal Conservation Framework, 145 Boreal forests, 138, 139–45, 140, 143, 144 Borges, Jorge Luis, 146 Borjomi-Kaharaguli National Park (Republic of Georgia), 65 Borneo, 38, 48, 117, 162 Borneo orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus), 48 Boubli, Jean-Phillipe, 42 Bovine tuberculosis, 190 Box turtles (Cuora spp. ), 108, 109–10 Brachylophus bulabula, 41, 41 Brazil, 23, 25, 42, 51, 56, 96, 161 162, 200–201 Brazil National Institute for Space Research (INPE), 25 Brown bear (Ursus arctos), 65, 72, 77 Brown hare (Lepus capensis), 191 Brown rat (Rattus norvegicus), 193 Brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis), 187 Buddhism, 110–11, 111, 175–78, 176, 177, 178, 180–82 Buffalo (Syncerus caffer), 68, 70, 119 Buffer zones, 67–69, 67, 101, 155, 210 Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park (Lampung, Sumatra), 117 Burdwood Bank (Argentina), 24, 151 Burmese roofed turtle (Batagur trivittata), 113 Burmese star tortoise (Geochelone platynota), 113, 113 Bush, George W., 32, 37 Bushmeat trade, 14, 69–70, 200 Butterflies, 28, 28, 39, 41, 155, 195 Bycatch, 35–36, 36, 148–49, 152 Cacajao ayresii, 42, 42 Cambodia, 16, 63, 65–66, 109–10, 178 Canada, 31–32, 55, 101; boreal forests in, 138, 139–45, 143, 144; and migratory birds, 130, 133–34 Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), 141, 141, 143 Canaima National Park (Venezuela), 51

Canine detection teams, 174, 183–88, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 Captive breeding, 25, 49, 199, 200, 201; in Asia, 17, 106, 109, 112–13 Carbon, atmospheric. See Greenhouse gas emissions Carbon sequestration/storage, 13, 23, 143–44, 166, 168, 170–72 Cat Ba National Park (Vietnam), 48 Catch and release, 8–9 Catch limits, 36 Catholics, 99, 180 Caucasian black grouse (Tetrao mlokosiewiczi), 65 Cave Hill Cemetery (Louisville), 156 Center for Environmental, Social, and Legal Action (CALAS), 60 Central African Republic (CAR), 66–67, 116 Central America, 23, 25–26, 46. See also names of Central American countries Central Park (New York City), 155 Chad, 12, 59 Chagos Islands (Indian Ocean), 37 Chelonian Conservation Fund, 112 Chesapeake Bay, 158 Chicchón, Avecita, 98 Chilean sea bass (Dissostichus spp.), 151 Chile/Chileans, 96–97, 106, 123, 126–28 Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), 199, 207, 210 China, 13–14, 17–18, 77, 117, 202; freshwater turtles in, 109–11; religion and conservation in, 176–77, 177 Chinese alligator (Alligator sinensis), 17, 17 Chinese striped-neck turtle (Ocadia sinensis), 109 Chipanje Chetu Community Based Natural Resource Management, 93–94, 93 Chitwan National Park (Nepal), 70 Christianity, 177–78, 181–82, 181, 215–18 Chytrid fungus, 56–57 Cisco (Coregonus artedii), 143 City–suburb–exurb (CSE) systems, 138, 153–59, 154 Civil conflict, 89–95, 91, 93, 163, 207–9, 208. See also War and conservation Civil society, 63, 97–100 Climate change, 21, 28, 30, 50, 95, 105–6, 128, 156, 180; caused by deforestation, 15, 144–45, 144, 210; and diseases, 53, 56–58; effects on boreal

forests, 139, 144–45, 144; effects on migratory birds, 129–36, 133, 135; effects on oceans, 35–36; effects on wetlands, 138, 161, 162–66 Coconut crab (Birgus latro), 37 Collared peccaries (Tayassu tajacu), 69 Collective lands, 23, 90–94, 93, 94, 99 Colombia, 42, 63, 66, 71, 97 Colombia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), 33 Common walnut (Juglans regia), 30, 30 Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE), 91–92 Communal conservancies/reserves, 90–94, 93, 94, 99 Confiscated wildlife, 113, 174, 196–202, 197, 199, 200 Confucian pilgrims, 177 Congo Basin/River, 13, 116–17, 121 Connectivity, 31, 34, 57, 118–20, 128, 145, 150; in Europe, 191, 191, 193; in urban wild places, 154, 156–58 Conservation International, 42, 101, 181–82 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 66 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), 13, 110, 116, 196, 197, 199–201 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), 135–36 Coral reefs, 22, 36, 36, 37, 81–83, 85, 151, 168, 207 Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries, and Food Security (CTI), 37 Cordillera de Cóndor region, 63, 96–102, 99 Corridors. See Connectivity Costanza, Robert, 168 Costa Rica, 26, 46, 99, 169–70, 172, 198 Critically endangered species, 45–49, 67, 91, 108, 109, 111, 113, 135. See also Rare species Crocodiles, 46, 46, 69 Cuban crocodile (Crocodylus rhombifer), 46, 46 Cuc Phoung National Park (Vietnam), 202 Cultural landscapes, 190, 193 Cyprus, 30

Daily, Gretchen, 169, 172 Dall’s sheep (Ovis dalli dalli), 7 Dams, 52, 142, 162–63, 165–66 Daoism, Chinese, 176–77, 177 Darwin Initiative Award project (UK), 41 Debelius, Helmut, 43 Debray, Regis, 175 Deforestation, 14, 22, 24, 26, 48, 64, 67, 69, 171, 200; in Brazil, 23, 25, 25, 56; and diseases in wildlife, 52, 56; and war, 65–67, 69 Delaware Bay, 130 Demilitarized zone (North and South Korea), 67, 68 Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), 12–14, 38, 40, 70, 203; forest elephants in, 116, 117; war in, 64, 66–67, 86–87, 89, 209 Democratization, 75, 80, 91, 93–94, 98 Desertification, 15, 124, 128 Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), 187 Devaux, Bernard, 107 Development, 25, 27, 30, 35, 46, 49–50, 69, 77, 116–17, 133, 157, 161; in Cordillera de Cóndor region, 98, 100–101. See also Extractive industries Diamond, Jared, 38 Diego Garcia military base, US (Chagos Islands), 37 Dieldrin, 9 Dingo (Canis lupus dingo), 20, 20 Diplomacy/Diplomats, 55, 96–101 Discovery, 38 Diseases in wildlife, 29, 32, 46, 47, 52–58, 67, 185, 197, 204 DNA, 41, 121, 185 Dobles, Roberto, 26 Dogs, 183–88, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 Dolphins, 35, 38, 82 Domestic animals, 20, 29, 47, 75, 183; and diseases, 3, 52–56, 57. See also Livestock Doñana wetlands (Spain), 162–63, 163 Draz, Omar, 217 Drought, 47, 133, 158, 214, 216–17 Duisburg-Nord Landscape Park (Germany), 157 Duncan saddleback tortoise (Geochelone nigra duncanensis), 112 Dusky large blue (Maculinea nausithous), 28

Eastern gray kangaroo (Macropus giganteus), 21, 21 Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), 51 Ebola virus, 14, 53, 53, 56, 58 Ecological destruction (“ecocide”), 65–66, 84 Ecological extinction, 123 Ecosystem services (ES), 23, 138, 145, 148, 152, 156, 161–62, 167–72, 168, 169, 173 Ecotourism. See Tourism Ecuador, 63, 96–102, 102, 201 Ehrenfeld, David, 170 El Cóndor Park (Ecuador), 100 Elephant Project (India), 120 Elephants, 13, 13, 59, 67–68, 70, 89, 103, 106, 114–21, 204 Elephant-shrews, 39, 39 Elk (Cervus canadensis), 67 Emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), 153 Endangered species, 14, 24, 26, 37–38, 45, 91, 142, 144, 167, 188; in Afghanistan, 16, 76; in Asia, 16–18, 109, 112, 187; in Australia, 20, 155; as confiscated wildlife, 199, 200, 202; in United States, 32, 51, 60, 186, 196. See also Critically endangered species Endemic species, 19, 22, 25, 30, 47; in Africa, 13–14, 41, 65; in South America, 51, 98, 99, 165 Enewetak Atoll, 83 Environmental terrorism, 81, 82, 85–86 Escher, M.C., 150–52, 151 Espaüola saddleback tortoise (Geochelone nigra hoodensis), 112 Eurasian lynx (lynx lynx), 28, 28 Euro (Macropus robustus), 21 European Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 199 European grey wolf (Canis lupus lupus), 28 European Union (EU), 27–29, 36, 192; Natura 2000 network, 28, 190 Europe/Europeans, 27–30, 33, 72, 92, 115–16, 122–23, 139, 178; and agriculture, 189–95, 189, 190, 191, 193; and confiscated wildlife, 198–99, 201; and migratory birds, 131–36, 163–64; and wetlands, 162–63, 163, 165–66. See also names of European countries Euthanization, 47, 197, 199–200

Index • 237

Extinctions/Extinction risks, 22, 29, 45– 47, 72, 75, 106, 122–23, 168, 171, 199, 203; in Asia, 49, 107, 111, 117; in Australia, 20–21; of migratory birds, 133–34; in oceans, 36, 152; of turtle species, 107, 111. See also Critically endangered species Extirpations, 123–24, 157 Extractive industries, 12, 22, 26, 31, 60, 69, 105–6; in Africa, 14, 93, 117, 121; in Asia, 15, 121; in Canada, 138, 140– 45; in oceans, 37, 151; in South America, 23–26, 126. See also Development Falklands War (1982), 84 Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), 188 Feral animals, 20, 41, 46, 70, 184 Fiji, 19, 41 Finca Santa Fe, 169–70, 172 Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), 34 Fires, 20, 47, 50–51, 50, 139 Fisher (Martes pennanti), 186–87 Fishing/Fisheries, 8–9, 24, 28, 48, 93, 142–43; effects of war on, 82–84, 87; in oceans, 35–37, 36, 37, 82, 138, 148–49, 151–52. See also Overfishing Fish species, 2, 8–9, 13, 21, 143, 165, 168; effects of war on, 82–87; in oceans, 37, 82–83, 148–49. See also names of fish species Flooding, 52, 156, 161–62, 165–66 Florida, 46, 50–51, 50, 107, 110 Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus), 46, 46 Flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus), 72, 142 Flyways. See Migratory species/routes Food chain/webs, 9, 67, 146, 149–50, 161 Food markets, turtles in, 107, 109, 110, 113 Forest elephant (Loxodonta africana cyclotis), 106, 114–21, 115, 116, 117, 120 Forests, 22, 26, 53, 60, 69–70, 139, 140, 155, 161, 166, 211; in Afghanistan, 76, 78–79; in Africa, 13–14, 39–40, 41, 64, 87, 93, 105, 115–17, 118, 120–21, 174, 204–10, 205, 207; in Alaska, 7, 9–10, 139, 140; in Asia, 17, 48, 115, 117–18, 121, 139; in Canada, 32, 138, 139–45, 140; and ecosystem services,


168–71, 171; in Europe, 190, 192–95; and reconstruction, 73, 75–76, 78–79; in Russia, 139, 140; in South America, 23–25, 25, 98, 102, 128, 140; in United States, 50–51, 50, 140; in urban wild places, 155, 157–58; in Vietnam, 39, 48, 65–66, 84; and war, 65–66, 69, 73, 76, 87. See also Deforestation; Reforestation Fossey, Dian, 204 Four-eyed turtle (Sacalia quadriocellata), 109 Francis of Assisi, Saint, 179 Freshwater lakes, 7–9, 9, 111, 140, 143, 145 Freshwater turtles, 106, 107–13, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 202 Frogs, 19, 33, 39, 40, 40, 42, 42, 49, 49, 57. See also names of frog species Fruit bats, 40, 40 Fuegian sardine (Sardina fueguina, Sprattus fuegensis), 24 Gabon, 12, 14, 116, 118, 121 Galapagos, 107, 112 Ganges River, 111 Gaojinmao forest preserve (China), 17 Garamba National Park (DRC), 70 Gardens, 155, 158–59 Gates of the Arctic National Park (Alaska), 6–7, 7–8 Gecko (Rhacodactylus leachianus), 22 Genetic viability, 47, 118–19, 121, 136, 193, 199 Genocide, 64, 67, 208–9 Geomyces fungus, 33 Georgia, Republic of, 65 Germany, 3, 30, 130, 155, 157 Giant muntjac (Muntiacus vuquangensis), 66 Giant river otter (Pteronura brasiliensis), 26, 26 Gilbert’s potoroo (Potorous gilberti), 19 Gishwati Reserve (Rwanda), 208–9 Glaciers, 8, 31, 162, 166 Global Avian Influenza Network for Surveillance (GAINS), 55 Global Forest Watch Canada, 140, 145 Global information sharing, 54–58, 210 Global Initiative on Sharing Avian Influenza Data (GISAID), 55 Global Positioning System (GPS) units, 116–17

Global warming. See Climate change Golden-backed tree-rat (Mesembriomys macrurus), 20 Golden coin turtle (Cuora trifasciata), 108, 109 Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), 47 Golden lion tamarin (Leontopithecus rosalia), 200, 201 Golfo San Jorge (Patagonia), 24 Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), 51 Gorillas, 53, 58, 67, 200–201, 203–10, 204 Gorongosa National Park (Mozambique), 93 Govinda Hill (India), 177 Grand Cayman blue iguana (Cyclura lewisi), 25, 25 Grand Teton National Park, 34 Gray partridge (Perdix perdix), 191 Grazing, 20, 47, 73, 75, 120, 122–24, 127, 191. See also Livestock; Overgrazing Great blue heron (Ardea herodias), 154, 155 Great egret (Ardea alba), 155 Greater adjutant (Leptoptilos dubius), 16 Greater coucal (Centropus sinensis), 84 Greater snow goose (Chen caerulescens atlantica), 132 Great green macaw (Ara ambiguus), 26 Green-eyed frog (Lithobates vibicarius), 46, 46 Greenhouse gas emissions, 9, 36, 136, 142, 144–45, 144, 156, 170, 210 Green peafowl (Pavo muticus), 16 Green-spotted northern pike (Esox lucius), 8–10 Green turtle (Chelonia mydas), 30, 37, 86 Grenada dove (Leptotila wellsi), 46, 46 Grey-cheeked mangabey (Lophocebus albigena), 13, 13 Grizzly bear (Ursos arctos horribilis), 10, 10, 142–43, 186 Ground frog (Platymantis vitianus), 19 Grunewald (Berlin), 155 Guanaco (Lama guanicoe), 106, 122–28, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128 Guangdong river turtle (Mauremys nigricans), 109 Guatemala, 60, 63, 66 Guitarfish (Rhinobatos spp.), 36 Gulf of California (Mexico), 48 Gulf of Mexico, 36

Gulf War, 81, 82, 85–86 Guyanan tepuis, 50–51, 51 H1N1 influenza, 52 Habitat loss, 19, 22, 24–25, 45–46, 84, 95, 105–6, 162; in Africa, 14, 47, 89, 115–17, 204–5, 208–9; in Asia, 18, 48–49, 84, 112–13, 118–20; in Canada, 141, 143; of critically endangered species, 47–48; in Europe, 28–29; of forest elephants, 115–21; of migratory birds, 130, 132–36; in Patagonia, 123–25, 127; in South Korea, 18, 162; in United States, 33, 46, 47 Hainan Island (China), 109 Harlequin frog (Atelopus spp.), 42 Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), 197 Heavybeak parrotfish (Chlorurus gibbus), 85 Hedges, Blair, 39 Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, 30 Henry, Richard, 184 Heosemys grandis, 110 Herbicides, 65–66, 84, 191, 193 Hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus), 139 Heroes, 59–61 Hibernation, 33, 141 Hiek Sopheap, 178 Higley, Mark, 60, 60 Himalayan lynx (Lynx lynx), 77 Himas, 215–18, 217 Hindus, 180 Hippocampus spp., 43 Hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius), 67, 162 Hirola (Beatragus hunteri, Damaliscus hunteri), 47, 47 HIV/AIDS, 57 Hohe Tauern National Park (Austria), 192 Home ranges: effects of climate change on, 21, 30, 95; effects of development on, 46, 106, 143; effects of war on, 70, 95; of forest elephants, 115–21; of guanacos, 123–25, 127–28; of migratory birds, 132–36 Hong Kong, 49, 196, 202 Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation, 60 Human–wildlife conflict, 60, 74, 89, 115, 118–21, 124, 128, 128, 214, 215, 218

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), 34 Hunter’s hartebeest (Beatragus hunteri, Damaliscus hunteri), 47, 47 Hunting, 42, 46, 48, 53, 69, 106–7, 177, 191; in Afghanistan, 77–78, 77; in Africa, 47, 69, 91–94, 116–17, 117, 118, 119, 200; in Asia, 15, 18, 119, 176; of forest elephants, 116–17, 117, 118, 119; in Patagonia, 123–25. See also Overhunting Huon Commonwealth Marine Reserve (Tasmania), 21 Hussein, Saddam, 81, 82 Hydrocarbon extraction, 26, 106, 126, 141, 150 Hydroelectric power, 14, 141–42, 163, 166 Hyperolius spp., 40, 40 Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus), 163, 163, 192 Ibex (Capra sibirica), 2, 63, 77 Iguana (Iguana iguana), 41, 41, 69 Illegal wildlife trade, 46–47, 53, 69, 106, 112, 174; in Afghanistan, 76; in Africa, 66, 70, 89, 93; in Asia, 15, 18, 48; and confiscated wildlife, 196–202, 197, 199, 200; in Europe, 27, 29; and war, 66, 69–70, 93. See also Poaching Imagination, 146, 150–51, 151 Impala (Aepyceros melampus), 161 Inbreeding, 48, 199 India, 17, 66, 70–71, 81, 108–9, 118, 120, 177, 180 Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), 33 Indian flap-shell turtle (Lissemys punctata), 108 Indian Ocean, 37, 87 Indigenous peoples, 22, 37, 165, 176, 179; in Afghanistan, 77–78; in North America, 60, 67, 142, 145; in South America, 23, 42, 51, 98–102, 122 Indonesia, 18, 37, 39, 40, 43, 48, 66, 109, 117–18, 120, 171, 181 Infectious diseases, 54, 56–57 International trade, 27, 47–48, 69, 106; in Africa, 115–17; in Asia, 15, 18, 48, 108–10; and confiscated wildlife, 196– 202, 197, 199, 200; and diseases, 52–53, 56, 58; and environmental costs, 152; of forest elephants, 115–17; of

freshwater turtles, 108–10; in Patagonia, 125–26, 128; in United States, 109–10; and war, 69, 87 Introduced species, 19–20, 22, 29, 30, 46–47, 124, 147. See also Invasive species; Reintroduced species Invasive species, 19, 29, 45, 47, 112, 134, 144, 147, 154, 157, 159, 187–88, 193 Irrawaddy dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris), 35, 38 Islam, 177–78, 181, 215–18, 216 Island gray fox (Urocyon littoralis), 47, 47 Israel, 98, 213–18 IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), 20, 36, 45, 58, 109, 120, 169, 176, 179, 182, 192, 206 Ivindo National Park (Gabon), 14, 14 Ivory gull (Pagophila eburnea), 134 Ivory trade, 13, 89, 93, 106, 115–16, 116, 117 Jains, 180 Japan, 13, 83, 175–76, 180 Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica), 193 Jordan River, 213–14, 214, 217 Judaism, 177, 215–18 Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Gardens, 49 Kagu (Rhynochetos jabatus), 22, 22 Kakadu National Park (Australia), 162, 164–65, 164 Kakapo (Strigops habroptilus), 184 Kanak people (New Caledonia), 22 Karukinka Natural Park (Tierra del Fuego), 125 Kaufman, Edy, 97–98 Kenya, 47, 89 Keogh, Scott, 41 Kerepakupai Merú (Auyantepui), 51 Khao Chong Pran Cave (Thailand), 176 King penguin (Aptenodytes patagonicus), 152 Kiwi (Apteryx spp.), 184 Kongou Falls (Ivindo National Park, Gabon), 14 Kruger National Park (South Africa), 13 Kyrgyz people, 77 La Amistad International Park (Panama and Costa Rica), 99

Index • 239

Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), 9, 143 Lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis), 143 Land rights, 23, 34, 60, 74, 89–95, 91, 93 Laos, 65, 109–10, 120 Laysan albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis), 83, 85 Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), 87 Lebanon, 181–82, 181, 213–15, 216, 217 Lemmings (Lemmus spp. ), 185 Leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis), 72, 78 Leopold, Aldo, 2, 10, 31, 168, 170 Leptotyphlops carlae threadsnake, 39, 39 Leshem, Yossi, 217 Lesser adjutant (Leptoptilos javanicus), 16 Liberia, 66, 69, 89 Little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), 33 Little ringed plover (Charadrius dubius), 84 Little spotted kiwi (Apteryx owenii), 22 Livestock, 20, 47, 69, 77, 94, 97, 186, 205, 216–17; in Asia, 15, 75, 120; and diseases, 5, 52–54, 56–58; in Europe, 29, 190, 191; in Patagonia, 123–24, 124, 125, 127–28, 127, 128; and war, 69, 73 Llama (Lama glama), 122, 126 Llewellyn, Othman, 217 Local community involvement: in Afghanistan, 61, 76–79; in Africa, 70, 89–95, 93; in Bolivia, 24; on Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation, 60; in Peru–Ecuador border dispute, 98–99; and reconstruction, 73–80; on Tonle Sap Lake (Cambodia), 16; and war, 70–71, 73, 89–93 Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicanus mearsi), 47 Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), 30 Logging, 14, 23, 25–26, 50, 60, 79; in Africa, 87, 93, 116–17, 118; in Canada, 140–45, 144; and critically endangered species, 46, 48; and war, 87, 93 Long-haired spider monkey (Ateles belzebuth belzebuth), 98, 99 Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) woodlands, 50–51, 50 Longley, Michael, 62 Lupine (Lupinus oreganus kincaidii), 188 Lynx (Lynx lynx), 10 Mabira Forest Reserve (Uganda), 13 Madagascar, 14, 47


Madagascar serpent eagle (Eutriorchis astur), 14 Magellanic penguin (Spheniscus magellanicus), 24, 84, 147, 149–50, 150 Makira Forest Protected Area (proposed), 14 Malaria, 56, 100 Malawi, 41 Malaysia, 37, 109, 200 Maluku frogfish (Histiophryne psychedelica), 39, 39 Mambeleme, 117 Management. See Natural resource management Maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus), 26 Mangroves, 66, 84–85, 155, 161, 164, 166 Marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), 154, 158, 159 Marco Polo sheep (Ovis ammon), 72, 77, 77 Mariana Trench Monument, 37, 37 Marine National Monument (Northwestern Hawaiian Islands), 86 Marine protected areas/reserves, 21, 24, 28, 35, 37, 148, 151 Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EU), 28 Markhor (Capra falconeri), 63, 78 Maronite Church of Lebanon, 181, 181, 217 Marshall, Bob, 31 Marshall Islands (Micronesia), 83, 84 Marsh deer (Blastocerus dichotomus), 26 Marsh fritillary (Euphydryas aurina), 28, 28 Maryland Group, 97–102 May, Robert, 38 Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR), 60 McCauley, Douglas J., 169–70 McKibben, Bill, 10 Mediterranean Sea, 36 Melangell, Saint, 178 Melini, Yuri, 60, 60 MER (Managed Elephant Range), 119–21 Mercury contamination, 5, 8–9, 8, 9, 142 Mexico, 48, 52, 66, 116, 177 Micronesia, 83, 84 Micronesian megapode (Megapodius laperouse), 37 Middle East, 43, 175, 213–18, 214, 215, 216, 217. See also names of Middle Eastern countries Midges (Culicoides spp. ), 29

Midway Atoll, 83, 83, 85; National Wildlife Refuge, 86 Migrating Birds Know No Boundaries, 214, 217 Migratory species/routes, 18, 68, 161; and diseases in wildlife, 55, 57; guanacos in Patagonia, 106, 122, 124–25, 127–28; migratory birds, 3, 18, 31, 55, 105, 106, 129–36, 130, 131, 132, 133, 141–42, 155, 163–64, 213–15, 214, 216; in oceans, 34, 149 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), 168–69 Mines (military explosives), 70, 82, 84 Mining, 22, 23, 26, 37, 60, 69, 117, 126, 140, 145, 165, 210. See also Extractive industries Minkébé National Park (Gabon), 14, 117, 121 Mongolia, 49, 54, 75, 123, 180, 182 Mongolian gazelle (Procapra gutturosa), 123 Mongooses, 41, 46 Monitoring, 14, 60, 70, 136, 185–87; in Africa, 93, 116; in Asia, 16, 118; of diseases, 55, 57–58; of forest elephants, 116, 118, 121; in India, 17, 70 Monitoring of the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE), 116 Monkeys, 69, 98, 99, 196, 207 Montagne, Alberto, 100 Monte Leon National Park (Patagonia), 123 Moose (Alces alces), 8, 10, 142, 144 Mosquitoes, 46, 56, 57, 58 Mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei), 67, 174, 203–10, 204 Mountain Gorilla Project, 205–6 Mountain lion (Felis concolor), 186 Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae), 32, 32 Mozambique, 41, 63, 92–94, 93 Mt. Hartman National Park/Estate (Grenada), 46 Muir, John, 31 Myanmar, 18, 66, 109, 110, 118 Nahan’s francolin (Francolinus nahani), 13 Namuli apalis, 41 Narrow-headed softshell turtle (Chitra), 108 National parks. See Protected areas; names of national parks

Native species, 20–21, 29–30, 49, 109–10, 110, 169, 188; in boreal forests, 141, 143–44; in Patagonia, 122, 127–28; in urban wild places, 154–59. See also Endemic species; names of native species Natural resource management, 14, 20, 25, 51, 99, 128; in Afghanistan, 16, 61, 63, 73–74, 76–79; in Africa, 63, 90–95, 93, 94; in Europe, 174, 191–95; in Mozam bique, 63, 93–95, 93, 94; in oceans, 35, 82–83; and reconstruction, 73–80; in United States, 50–51, 60; in urban wild places, 157–59; and war, 63, 71, 91–93; of wetlands, 165–66; in Zimbabwe, 63, 91–92. See also Marine protected areas/reserves; Protected areas Nature, 38, 170 The Nature Conservancy, 169 Nepal, 66, 70–71 Nesting habitat, 17, 24, 29–31, 84, 113; and migratory birds, 130–31; and war, 84, 87 New Caledonia, 22 New species, 5, 21, 38–43 New York City, 34, 155, 157–58 New Zealand, 19, 22, 129, 130, 184–85, 187 New Zealand kakapo (Strigops habroptila), 19 Nicaragua, 69 Nile lechwe (Kobus megaceros), 68, 69 Nipah virus, 56 Noatak National Preserve (Alaska), 8 Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), 15, 37, 97, 118, 127–28, 190; and local community involvement, 63, 71, 74–75, 80, 93, 206–10; and reconstruction, 74–75, 80; and religion, 176, 179, 182; and war, 63, 71, 97, 208–9. See also names of NGOs North America, 31–34, 50, 123, 132–34, 139, 165. See also names of North American countries North American otter (Lontra canadensis), 187 North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), 34 Northern Australian snake-necked turtle (Chelodina regosa), 107 Northern lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), 192, 193

Northern long-eared bat (Nyctophilus arnhemensis), 142 Northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus), 20, 20 Northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis, 187 Nuclear tests, 83, 84 Nuristan Province (Afghanistan), 77–79 Nyungwe Forest (Rwanda), 207–10, 207 Obama, Barack, 32 Oceans, 35–37, 137, 142; effects of war on, 63, 81–87, 83; as wild places, 146–52, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152. See also names of oceans Odzala-Kokoua National Park (Congo), 117 OIE (World Organization for Animal Health), 55–56 Okapi (Okapia johnstoni), 3 Okavango wetlands, 160–63, 162 Old-growth forests, 50–51, 142–44, 182 Olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea), 87 Olympic Park (Sydney), 155 One-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), 70 One World–One Health paradigm, 54–56 Ophiomitrella brittlestar, 21, 21 Orange-legged rain frog (Pristimantis spp.), 42 Orchids, 39, 41, 98 Organic farming, 191–93 Overfishing, 24, 36, 130, 148, 181 Overgrazing, 15, 20, 76–78, 128 Overhunting, 45, 53, 130 Owl-faced monkey (Cercopithecus hamlyni), 207 Pacific Islands/Ocean, 19, 37, 83–84, 83, 84, 86 Pacific loon (Gavia pacifica) , 8, 8 Pacific rat (Rattus exulans), 22 Painted stork (Mycteria leucocephala), 16 Pakistan, 66, 77–79 Palm oil plantations, 48, 162, 168, 171 Panama, 46, 99 PAN Parks Foundation, 190 Pantanal wetlands (Brazil), 161, 162 Paperbark tree (Melaleuca spp. ), 164–65, 164 Park security, 59, 59, 69, 70 Parque Nacional Juan Castro Blanco (Costa Rica), 46

Parrots, 98, 116, 184 Patagonia, 24, 105, 106, 122–28, 123, 124, 127, 128 Patagonian Sea, 105, 138, 146–52, 147, 148, 150, 152 Payunia Reserve (Patagonia), 123, 125 Peace and conservation, 66, 68–70, 87, 93, 95, 163, 203, 218; and peace parks, 96–102, 101 Peace-Athabasca delta (Canada), 31, 142 Peatlands, 140, 142–44, 162, 190 Pelham Bay Park (New York City), 155 Persian leopard (Panthera pardus), 78 Peru, 23, 26, 56, 66; border dispute with Ecuador, 96–102, 102; war in, 63, 96–97 Pesticides, 46, 48, 217 Petroleum development, 24, 37, 60, 126, 140, 145; effects of war on, 81, 82, 85–86. See also Extractive industries Pet trade, 47, 48, 109–10, 198, 201. See also International trade Philippines, 36, 37, 40, 66 Pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca), 131–32 Plague, 56 Ploughshare tortoise (Astrochelys yniphora), 47, 47 Plumptre, Andrew, 40 Poaching, 12, 14, 17, 47, 70, 76, 106, 127, 165; in Africa, 13, 59, 67, 69, 115–16, 116, 204–5, 208, 210; in Asia, 116, 118, 120, 176; and war, 67, 69–70 Podocarpus roraimae, 51 Poison dart frogs, 42 Polar bear (Ursus maritimus), 32, 32, 134, 185 Pollinators, 33, 153, 167, 169–70, 172 Pollution, 48, 81–82, 108, 154, 156–57, 161, 165, 181, 190; effects on oceans, 35, 48, 81–82, 150 Polylepis forests, 24 Pontoh’s seahorse (Hippocampus pontohi), 43 Population growth, 52, 58, 73, 95, 161, 163, 174 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 30 Poverty, 57, 60, 76, 94, 98, 117, 167, 171, 204, 206 Prairie Pothole Region, 133–34

Index • 241

Predator Dogs, 184 Predators, 8, 19–20, 41, 46–47, 53, 75, 119, 132, 152, 162, 184, 186; in Canada, 141, 141, 143–45; in Patagonia, 124–25, 127 Presidential Act of Brasilia, 100–101 Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), 34, 34 Protected areas, 14, 25–26, 30, 57, 60, 69, 95, 135–36; in Afghanistan, 2–3, 16, 16, 61, 78, 79; in Africa, 14, 67, 91, 93, 116–17, 120–21, 203–10, 204, 205; in Asia, 15, 120; in Europe, 27–28, 190–95; in India, 70, 120; in North America, 33, 67, 145; as peace makers, 96–102; and religion, 181–82, 181, 215–16; in South America, 24, 26, 99–101, 127–28; and war, 66–67, 69, 93. See also Marine protected areas/ reserves; names of protected areas Protected Species Dogs, 184–85 Przewalski’s horse (Equus ferus przewalskii), 49, 49 Public health, 52–56, 153, 156 Puma (Puma concolor), 122, 124, 127, 128 Pygmy chameleon (Rhampholeon spp.), 41 Pygmy marmoset (Callithrix pygmaea), 201 Pygmy seahorses, 43, 43 Qadisha (Lebanon), 181–82, 181 Queen Elizabeth II Botanic Park (Grand Cayman), 25 Rabies, 56 Raccoon (Procyon lotor), 185 Rainforests, 13, 23, 25, 25, 206–7, 210. See also Forests; Tropics/Tropical forests Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, 13, 136 Ranaviral diseases, 56–57 Ranchers/Ranching, 60, 90, 97, 106, 123–24, 127, 128. See also Agriculture; Livestock Randolph, Buck and Fitrie, 39 Ranthambore Tiger Reserve (India), 17 Rare ecosystems, 50–51 Rare species, 5, 22, 24, 44–49, 63, 66, 187–88, 194–95; in Africa, 41, 47, 66, 207; in Asia, 48, 113; as confiscated wildlife, 197, 199–200, 202; in oceans, 36, 37; in United States, 46–47, 51,


154. See also Endangered species; Threatened species Rashed, Mansour Abu, 217 Rats, 19, 22, 40, 46, 184–85, 193 Reconstruction, 63, 69, 71, 72–80; in Afghanistan, 72–73, 75, 76–79 Recoveries/recovery plans, 19, 45, 46, 49 Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), 51 Red-crowned crane (Grus japonensis), 68 Red-eared slider turtle (Trachemys scripta elegans), 109 Redford, Kent, 170 Red fox (Vulpes vulpes), 20 Red kangaroo (Macropus rufus), 21 Red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), 130, 132, 136 Red lechwe (Kobus leche leche), 161 Red ruffed lemur (Varencia variegata rubra), 14, 14 Red Sea, 43 Red squid (Ommastrephus bartrammii), 147 Red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), 141 Red-throated alethe (Alethe poliophrys), 207 Reedbuck (Redunca redunca), 68 Reforestation, 22, 158 Refugees of war, 64, 66–67, 70–71, 73 Reintroduced species, 17, 49, 199, 201 Release programs, 8–9, 17, 25, 49 Religion and conservation, 174, 175–82, 176, 177, 178, 180, 215–18, 216 Rift Valley fever, 57, 58 Rio Protocol (1942), 96 Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), 185 Romer’s tree frog (Chirixalus romeri), 49, 49 Roosevelt, Theodore, 31 Rose Atoll Marine National Monument, 37 Rovero, Francesco, 39 Royal cinclodes, 24 Rural district councils (RDCs) in Zimbabwe, 92 Russell, E. S., 82–83 Russia, 65, 139, 140, 187 Rwanda, 63, 64, 67, 174, 203–10, 204, 205, 207, 208 Rwandan park service (ORTPN), 206–7 Saemangeum wetlands (S. Korea), 162 Saker falcon (Falco cherrug), 29, 29

Salamander (Bolitoglossa taylori), 42, 42 Salina Reserve (Grand Cayman), 25 Salinas de Loyola, Juan, 67–68 San Clemente Island (California), 47 San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), 186 Santiago-Comaina Reserve (Peru), 101 Saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis), 66 Sapo National Park (Liberia), 69 Sarabi, Habiba, 61, 61 Sariska Tiger Reserve (Rajasthan), 17 SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), 53, 56 Satellite imagery, 41, 105, 140, 145, 148–49 Satomi’s seahorse (Hippocampus satomiae), 43, 43 Saudi Arabia, 57, 85, 217 Savanna elephant (Loxodonta africana africana), 114–15 Scafi, Alessandro, 146 Scarlet macaw (Ara macao), 102 Scat-detection dogs, 185–87, 186, 187, 188 Sea and Sky Program, 150–52 Seal (Phocidae spp. ), 185 Sea level rise, 19, 36, 162–64 Selk’nam people (Tierra del Fuego), 122 Sengis, 39, 39 Set-asides, 192, 194 Severns, Mike, 43 Sharif, Mazari, 61, 61 Sheep. See Livestock Shinto temples, 175–76, 180 Shiva, Vandana, 180 Shuar people (Ecuador), 98–99, 101–2 Siberian crane (Grus leucogeranus), 135 Siberian ibex (Capra sibirica), 16 Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica), 44 Sierra Leone, 66, 89 Signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus), 29, 29 Silky sifaka (Propithecus candidus), 14 Silverback gorilla, 204 Sky and Water (Escher woodcut), 150–52, 151 Skylark (Alaud arvensis), 192, 194 Snakes, 39, 39, 41, 41, 51, 198. See also names of snake species Snow goose (Chen caerulescens atlantica), 133 Snow leopard (Uncia uncia), 16, 62, 76, 77, 187 Snowmelt runoff, 165–66

Snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), 139, 141 Society for Protection of Nature (SPNL), 215 Softshell turtles (Trionychidae), 108 Solomon Islands, 37, 37, 66 Somalia, 47, 87 Sonars, 83–84 Sonowsky, Saúl, 97 South Africa, 13, 90, 200 South America, 23–25, 33, 46, 123, 140, 165; Guyanan tepuis in, 50–51, 51. See also names of South American countries and regions South American fur seal (Arctocephalus australis), 24, 24 Southern African Development Community (SADC), 57 Southern blue whiting (Micromesistius australis), 24 Southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina), 147, 147, 148–49 Southern giant petrel (Macronectes giganteus), 24, 148 Southern right whale (Eubalaena australis), 147 South Korea, 18, 67, 68, 162 Species Survival Plan (SSP), 199 Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), 36 Spoon-billed sandpiper (Eurynorhynchus pygmeus), 18, 18 Spot-billed pelican (Pelecanus philippensis), 16 Sri Lanka, 66, 118 Stanley, Henry Morton, 116 Steppe, 49, 75–76; Patagonian, 105–6, 122–25, 123, 127–28 Steppe eagle (Aquila nipalensis), 214, 215 Styloctenium mindorensis, 40, 40 Sudan, 12, 63, 66, 68–69, 68, 69, 95 Sulawesi forest turtle (Leucocephalon yuwonoi), 109 Sumatra, 48, 117–18, 120 Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii), 48, 48 Sunda pangolin (Manis javanica), 18, 18 Swainson’s thrush (Catharus ustulatus), 139 Taiping Four, 200–201 Tai Shan Mountain (China), 177, 177 Tanzania, 39 Tar sands region (Canada), 145

Tasman Fracture Marine Reserve (Tasmania), 21 Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii), 19 Tehuelche people (Patagonia), 122–23 Temple of Byazid Bostami (Chittagong, Bangladesh), 110–11, 111 Terra Cypria, 30 TFCAs (transfrontier conservation areas), 57 Thailand, 109–10, 113, 118, 176 Threatened species, 20, 22, 32, 41, 112, 168, 184–85; as confiscated wildlife, 197, 199, 202; in oceans, 35–36; in South America, 51, 97, 165. See also Critically endangered species Thyolo alethe thrush (Alethe alethe choloensis), 41 Tibetan Plateau, 165 Tierra del Fuego, 122, 125, 128, 130 Tiger (Panthera tigris), 17, 17, 18, 66, 70 Tilapia (Tilapia rendalli), 67 Timberlake, Jonathan, 41 Tiritiri Matangi Island (New Zealand), 22 Tonle Sap Lake (Cambodia), 16 Tortoises, 47, 47, 51, 107, 110, 112–13, 113 La Tortue Martyre (Devaux), 107 Tourism, 12, 30, 46, 57, 70, 102, 149–50, 162; in Afghanistan, 16, 61, 78; in Africa, 88–91, 89, 206–7, 209 Traditional medicines, 15, 18, 48, 75, 108, 109, 197 Travertine dams (Afghanistan), 16, 16, 78 Tropics/Tropical forests, 56, 65, 115, 141, 161, 168, 171. See also Rainforests Troya, Roberto, 98–99 Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator), 8 Tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus), 22, 22, 188 Tuberculosis, 53 Tuna fisheries, 36, 36, 37, 87 Turtles, 30, 37, 86, 87, 106, 107–13, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 196, 202 Uakaris, 42, 42 Uganda, 13, 67, 203 Umm al Maradem (Mother of Rocks), 81–82, 85 United Kingdom, 82–84, 178, 189–90, 195 United Nations, 55, 66, 169–71, 182, 190, 206, 217 United States, 32–34, 47, 161, 168, 182, 186–88; boreal forests in, 139–40;

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 56; and confiscated wildlife, 198–99, 201; Diego Garcia military base, 37; effects of war on oceans, 83, 83, 84, 85; environmental legislation, 32, 196; Fish and Wildlife Service, 32; Forest Service, 34, 157; freshwater turtles in, 109–10, 113; longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) woodlands in, 50–51, 50; and migratory birds, 133–34, 142; National Academies of Science, 56; National Marine Fisheries Service, 32; peace parks in, 101; and Rio Protocol, 96; USAID, 16, 55, 77, 206–7; and war, 65–66, 84. See also names of states Urban wild places, 138, 153–59, 154 Urial (Ovis orientalis), 2, 16 Vaccination programs, 29, 54–55, 58 Valles Caldera National Preserve (New Mexico), 216 Vaquita (Phocoena sinus), 48, 48 Vedder, Amy, 204–5 Veterinary medicine, 25, 52, 56–57, 197–98 Victoria, Lake (Uganda), 13 Vietnam, 18, 39, 48, 109–11, 197, 198, 202; war in, 65–66, 84 Vietnamese leaf turtle (Annamemys annamensis), 109 Virunga National Park (DRC), 64, 67 Volcanoes National Park (Rwanda), 203, 204, 205, 207–9 Wakhi people (Afghanistan), 77–78 Walea seahorse (Hippocampus waleananus), 43 Wallace, Alfred Russel, 40 Wampis people (Peru), 99, 101–2 War and conservation, 3, 63–103, 105, 174, 203; in Afghanistan, 16, 72, 73; in Africa, 63, 64, 66–71, 68, 69, 86–87, 89–95, 89, 91, 93, 117, 207–9, 208; and buffer zones, 67–69, 67; in India, 70– 71; in Middle East, 213–18, 215; and oceans, 63, 81–87, 83; and reconstruction, 63, 69, 71, 72–80; in South America, 63, 96–97; in Vietnam, 65–66 Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park (US and Canada), 101

Index • 243

Way Kambas National Park (Lampung, Sumatra), 117 Wells, H. G., 31 Western Airborne Contaminants Assessment project, 9 Western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla), 14, 14, 200 Wetlands, 168, 190; in Africa, 13, 68; in Canada, 133, 140–42, 144–45; effects of climate change on, 138; in Middle East, 213–17, 214, 216; and migratory birds, 133–36, 133, 213–17, 214, 216; Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, 13, 136; in South Korea, 18, 162; in United States, 33, 133–34, 154, 155; as wild places, 138, 160–66, 163, 164, 166 Whales, 34, 82, 84 White-clawed crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes), 29 White-eared kob (Kobus kob leucotis), 68, 68 White-headed langur (Trachypithecus poliocephalus), 48, 48 White-lipped keelback snake (Amphiesma leucomystax), 39, 39 White-naped crane (Grus vipio), 67, 68 White-nose syndrome, 33 White rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum), 66 White spruce (Picea glauca), 142, 144 White stork (Ciconia ciconia), 3, 130, 131 White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), 144


Whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus), 54 Wilcove, David, 171 Wilderness. See Wild places Wildlands. See Wild places Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), 3, 14, 16, 25, 40, 54, 55, 58, 170, 204; in Afghanistan, 77–79; and forest elephants, 118, 120–21; and guanacos, 125, 127; and reconstruction, 77–79; and war, 63, 68, 209 Wild places, 11, 53, 63, 88, 101, 128, 138– 73; boreal forests as, 138, 139–45, 140, 143, 144; contamination of, 7–10; CSE systems as, 138, 153–59, 154; and ecosystem services, 138, 167–72, 168, 169; in Europe, 190; forest elephants in, 116–18, 121; oceans as, 35, 105, 138, 146–52, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152; and religion, 175, 177; wetlands as, 138, 160–66, 163, 164, 166 Wilson, E. O., 168, 172 Winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), 142 Wolf (Canis lupus), 2, 65, 67, 72, 75, 142–44, 183, 186, 192 Wood bison (Bison bison athabascae), 142 Woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), 6–7, 10, 141, 143 Woodlark (Lullula arborea), 194 Wood rose (Diactylanthus taylorii), 187 Working Dogs for Conservation, 186 World Bank, 169, 171–72, 182

World Conservation Congress (Barcelona 2008), 58 World Health Organization (WHO), 55 World Heritage Sites (UNESCO), 22, 51, 67 World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), 55–56 World Resources Institute, 140 World War I/II, 82–83, 83, 85 World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), 39, 120, 169, 179, 190, 206 World Wildlife Fund, 49, 70 World Zoo and Aquarium Association (WAZA), 201 Wyoming, 34 Xeriscaping, 158 Yangtse giant softshell turtle (Rafetus swinhoei), 111–13, 112 Yanomamo Indians, 42 Yellow-cheeked crested gibbon (Nomascus gabriellae), 16 Yellowstone National Park, 33, 186 Yellow tang (Zebrasoma flavescens), 37 Yellow-throated marten (Martes flavigula), 78–79 Zakouma National Park (Chad), 59, 59 Zimbabwe, 63, 90–92, 91 Zoonotic diseases, 52–58, 53, 57 Zoos, 49, 111–13, 112, 174, 198–202, 199, 200

State of the Wild 2010-2011: A Global Portrait

A Portrait of the Artist

The Portrait of a Lady

The Portrait of a Lady

The Portrait of a Lady

The Portrait of a Lady

The Portrait of a Lady

The Portrait of a Lady

The Portrait of a Lady

The Portrait of a Lady

The Portrait of a Lady

A Portrait of Emily

a Portrait of Emily

Portrait of a Kiss

Portrait of a Spy

Portrait of a Spy

Portrait of a Lady

A Portrait of Mendelssohn

A Portrait of the Artist

Portrait of a Killer

A Portrait of Olivia

Portrait of a Spy

Portrait of a Killer

Portrait of A Lady

Portrait of a Spy

Portrait of a Lover

Portrait of a Killer

Portrait of a Lady

Portrait of a Spy

Portrait of a Spy

Portrait of a Lady

State of the Wild 2010-2011: A Global Portrait

A Portrait of the Artist

The Portrait of a Lady

The Portrait of a Lady

The Portrait of a Lady

The Portrait of a Lady

The Portrait of a Lady

The Portrait of a Lady

The Portrait of a Lady

The Portrait of a Lady

The Portrait of a Lady

A Portrait of Emily

a Portrait of Emily

Portrait of a Kiss

Portrait of a Spy

Portrait of a Spy

Portrait of a Lady

A Portrait of Mendelssohn

A Portrait of the Artist

Portrait of a Killer

A Portrait of Olivia

Portrait of a Spy

Portrait of a Killer

Portrait of A Lady

Portrait of a Spy

Portrait of a Lover

Portrait of a Killer

Portrait of a Lady

Portrait of a Spy

Portrait of a Spy

Portrait of a Lady

Recommend Documents