state_of_the_wild_2010_2011_1597266787_

About the Wildlife Conservation Society

Founded in 1895, the Wildlife Conservation Society saves wildlife and wildplaces through science, international conservation, education, and the manage-ment of the world’s largest system of urban wildlife parks, led by the flagshipBronx Zoo in New York City. Together these activities change attitudes towardnature and help people imagine wildlife and humans living in harmony. WCS iscommitted to this mission because it is essential to the integrity of life on Earth.

20 10–20 1 1

S TATE OF THE WI LD

A Global Portrait

State of the Wild

Kent H. Redford, series editor

Eva Fearn, volume editorCatherine Grippo, photo editorSandra 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 O F TH E WI L D

A Global Portrait

With a special section

Wildlife Conservation in a Time of War

volume editorEva Fearn

series editorKent H. Redford

Wildlife Conservation Society

foreword byWard Woods

washington � covelo � london

Copyright © 2010 Wildlife Conservation Society

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American CopyrightConventions. 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 byW. S. Merwin with J. Moussaieff Masson from East Window: The Asian Translations

(Port Townsend, Wash.: Copper Canyon Press, 1998). Copyright © 1998 byW. 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 bypermission 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 ShihabNye. Reprinted with the permission of BOA Editions Ltd., www.boaeditions.org.

Mary Oliver, “Sleeping in the Forest,” from Twelve Moons. Originally published inthe 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 1556-0619ISBN (cloth) 978-1-59726-677-2ISBN (paper) 978-1-59726-678-9

The opinions expressed in this book are those of the authors and do not necessarilyreflect the view of the Wildlife Conservation Society.

Printed on recycled, acid-free paper

Manufactured in the United States of America10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Thank you earth, you know the way.

mohawk BLESS ING

by the numbers Wildlife Conservation in a Time of War xi

foreword Conservation and the Global Economic Recession xiiiWard Woods

introduction Future States of the Wild 2Kent H. Redford

part 1 State of the Wild 5

State of the Wild: Wounded Wilderness 6Gary Paul Nabhan

global conservation news highlights 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 38Josh Ginsberg, Catherine Grippo, and Jane Perrino

The Rarest of the Rare: Some of the World’sMost Endangered Animals 44

Rarest Ecosystems 50Patrick Comer

Emerging Diseases and Conservation:An Update on One World–One Health 52William B. Karesh

Champions of the Wild 59

Contents

part i i Focus on the Wild 63Wildlife Conservation in a Time of War

Conservation Amid War 64Jeffrey A. McNeely

Conservation and Governance: Lessons fromthe Reconstruction Effort in Afghanistan 72Peter Zahler

Marine Life in Times of Conflict 81Callum M. Roberts

Who Owns the Wild? Civil Conflict in Africa 88Simon Anstey, Fred Nelson, and Liz Rihoy

Parks as Peace Makers: The Peru–Ecuador Divide 96Virginia Rosas

part i i i Emerging Issues in the Wild 105

conservation of wildlife 106

Vanishing Asian Turtles 107Peter C. H. Pritchard

What Future for Forest Elephants? 114Stephen Blake and Simon Hedges

Restoration of the Guanaco, Icon of Patagonia 122Andrés J. Novaro

Changing Flyways: Migratory Birdsin a Warming World 129Janice Wormworth

conservation of wild places 138

The Boreal Forest: Trouble in Canada’sGreat Wilderness 139Peter Lee

Inspiring Ocean Conservation 146Claudio Campagna

The Wild and the City 153Steward T. A. Pickett

Life Waters: Wetlands and Climate Change 160Carmen Revenga and Max Finlayson

Conservation Controversy: Can Paying forEcosystem Services Save Biodiversity? 167Will Stolzenburg

the art and practice of conservation 174

Faith, Hope, and Conservation 175Martin Palmer and Tony Whitten

Canine Detection Teams and Conservation 183Megan Parker and Aimee Hurt

Agriculture and Wildlife in Europe 189Nigel Dudley and Sue Stolton

The Dilemma of Confiscated Wildlife 196Michael Hutchins

The Evolving Practice of Conservationin Rwanda 203Bill Weber

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

Acknowledgments 219

Notes 221

Index 235

BY THE NUMBERS

Wildlife Conservation ina Time of War

By the Numbers • xi

Sudan has the largest population of internally displaced persons and interna-tional refugees in the world: over 5 million. Displacement at such a scale hasresulted in significant environmental damage and has led to conflicts over natu-ral resources. Political instability in Sudan has also led to poaching in neighbor-ing Central African Republic.1

Poverty and conflict go hand-in-hand. Over the past 15 years, approximately 80percent of the world’s 20 poorest countries have experienced a major war.Countries emerging from war have a 44 percent chance of relapsing within 5years.2

A 1993 survey of Rwanda’s Akagera National Park revealed that an estimated 90percent of large mammal species, including lions, impala, and buffalo, were lostfrom 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 guerrillaforces about 1,000 times in the past 20 years. The resulting oil spills have causedsevere damage to some of the country’s rivers and wildlife.4

During years of civil unrest in Chad, conservation work in and aroundZakouma National Park had increased the elephant population from 1,100 ani-mals in 1985 to about 3,500 in 2006. Chad’s elephant population is under severethreat again due to lawlessness and poaching.5

Six hundred rangers currently guard the rich biodiversity of Virunga NationalPark, Africa’s oldest park, in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Since 1996, 120park rangers have been killed by armed rebels.6

Over 100 million land mines have been planted around the world and remainactive long after conflicts are over. An estimated 20,000 people are killed orinjured by land mines each year. The number of livestock and wild animals

affected is likely much higher, including antelopes and elephants in Angola andZimbabwe. The presence of mines discourages ecotourism and field conserva-tion activities.7

National borders are prime conflict zones, so establishing transboundary pro-tected areas (TBPAs) is important for conserving the natural resources found inthese regions. As of 2007, there were 227 TBPAs around the world, coveringover 1.8 million square miles (4.6 million km2).8

Illegal logging was widespread in Cambodia during the country’s 30-plus yearsof civil war, and the corruption continues today. Cambodia’s total forest coverplummeted 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 and2000 took place within biodiversity hotspots, which are defined by ConservationInternational as areas that have lost at least 70 percent of their original habitatand contain at least 1,500 species of endemic plants.10

During the Vietnam War, the US military used bombs and toxic agents to defo-liate 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 man-groves destroyed in Can Gio, Ho Chi Minh City, were reforested between 1978and 1999.11

At least two-thirds of current social and political conflicts are driven in part bycontested claims to land.12

xii • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

FOREWORD

Conservation and the GlobalEconomic Recession

WA R D WO O D S

Foreword • xiii

The world is reeling from the global economic recession that took firm holdin 2009. Its widespread and interconnected nature has practically crippled

our modern banking institutions and baffled economists. As countries strugglewith debt, particularly in the developing world, many will experience a pro-longed period of economic malaise, with high unemployment rates and reducedstandards of living.

For the countries that contain our last wild places, a decrease in global con-sumption of natural resources could offer a reprieve for biodiversity. In fact, therecession has reduced demand for and exploitation of some natural resources.For example, Malaysia and Indonesia have lowered the targeted acreage of rain-forest to be converted to palm oil plantations, a relief to orangutans and otherforest wildlife. By the same token, a reduction in economic security may provedetrimental to wild places—local communities and national governments maysell rights to extract natural resources in order to receive much-needed immedi-ate income, shelving good conservation regulations in the process.

Regardless of unpredictable economic factors, conservation organizationssuch as the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) will continue the vital workof protecting our planet’s precious species and ecosystems. In its 100-plus yearhistory, WCS’s science-based approach to conservation has survived otherrecessions, and its investment in conservation has proven to be quite a bar-gain. WCS’s $200 million annual operating budget directly helps to conserve

WARD WOODS is chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Wildlife ConservationSociety; a former trustee of Stanford University and chairman of the StanfordManagement Company; chairman of the Advisory Board of the Woods Institute for theEnvironment, Stanford University; a trustee of the Packard Foundation; a member ofthe Council on Foreign Relations; and a director of several private companies.

at least one quarter of all the world’s biodiversity contained within the 200million acres where WCS works—that equals one dollar per acre, an incredi-ble value per dollar.

Funding to support conservation efforts must come from private donations,governments, and bilateral donor agencies, and all three of these sources havebeen affected by the global recession. Government and bilateral donor agenciestend to use their financial resources to prioritize economic development andsocial safety networks over wildlife conservation. Remaining funds may gotoward mitigating and adapting to climate change. At the same time, founda-tions that historically have supported conservation may reduce their grants. Asof early 2009, foundations reported an average 30 percent decline in theirendowments from their previous highs.

To effectively achieve durable conservation results regardless of the globaleconomy, conservation organizations must identify and seize innovative newopportunities. In wild places, such as the rich forests of Cameroon and Congo,logging concessions have recently been marked, roads have been cut, andspecies such as chimpanzees and forest elephants have been disturbed. But themarket for expensive tropical timber has recently shrunk, causing a decrease inthe value of logging concessions and presenting an opportunity to acquire theseconcessions for conservation. Similarly, opportunities may open up to buy outhunting leases, mining rights, or even fishing concessions.

Other opportunities may lie in new partnerships. As this edition of State ofthe Wild makes clear, biodiversity conservation is intricately linked to factors asvaried as rural livelihoods and political stability, which could encourage newpartnerships to address several facets of conservation both comprehensively andsimultaneously. Recognizing this, the US Agency for International Development(USAID) has increased funds for programs that seek to promote environmentalconservation, economic development, and democratization. Such programsinclude building sustainable natural resource management in Afghanistan, aplace notable as a crossroads for species from three faunal realms.

Another opportunity for new partnerships lies in climate change offset pro-grams that may pay for preserving intact forests. For example, WCS plans to“sell” the carbon currently secured in Makira Forest, Madagascar, in a develop-ing international market for “avoided deforestation” credits. The funds fromthese carbon offsets will support the conservation of lemurs and reptiles in thisforest, and will be disbursed to the local people, helping to alleviate poverty andbuild security.

Finally, by strengthening their strategies, conservation organizations caninvest 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 vulner-abilities 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 activitiesnot directly tied to the mission of saving wildlife and wild places may cease. Inthe process of streamlining, conservation organizations should also decidewhich species and places are most essential for conservation, and where effortwill yield the greatest conservation impact. Finally, to fund this continued work,conservation organizations need to reach new audiences and highlight the factthat conservation is in humankind’s best interest. Ultimately, the value of con-servation is that sustaining wild places and biodiversity today will ensure a bet-ter future for the planet and humanity. Thank you for reading State of the Wildas part of this journey.

ward woodsnew york citynovember 2009

Foreword • xv

20 10–20 1 1

S TATE OF THE WI LD

A Global Portrait

Introduction:Future States ofthe Wild

KENT H. REDFORD

2 • 2010–2011 State of the Wild

I t is a remarkable thing that Afghanistan, in the midst of its long spiral of vio-lence, 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 theazure blue waters, contained in intricate natural dams, and the tawny moun-tains. 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. Thoughmuch of the wildlife has disappeared from the area, it still contains ibex (a typeof wild goat) and urial (a type of wild sheep), along with wolves, foxes, smallermammals, and fish. The new park will also protect a broad range of birdspecies, including the Afghan snow finch (Montifringilla theresae), believed to bethe only bird found exclusively in Afghanistan.

Creating the park was not easy, and sustaining it will be no easier. This act isa testament to the desire of the local people and the foresight of the Afghan gov-ernment. Aldo Leopold wrote of living in a “world of wounds” due to theimpacts humans have had on the natural world.1 Unfortunately, this world ofwounds extends to the violence done by people to other people, apparently aninescapable part of our human heritage, which, tragically, does not exist inde-pendent of violence toward the natural world. As in Afghanistan, all too oftenthese two types of violence are intertwined, with environmental destructioneither a strategy, a result of the conflict itself, or a consequence of the after-

KENT H. REDFORD is director of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Instituteand vice president for conservation strategy at WCS. He previously worked at TheNature Conservancy and the University of Florida. His areas of interest include biodi-versity conservation, sustainable use, the politics of conservation, and the mammals ofSouth America.

math. But healing is possible, and the creation of Band-e-Amir National Park isa manifestation of the power of conservation to provide hope.

In these times of financial upheaval and far-reaching social change, hope is acurrency in short supply. But we can draw hope from conservation and createhope through conservation. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Institutecreated the State of the Wild series in 2006 as a vehicle for building support forthe values of saving the wild. With this series, we aim to inform and inspire oth-ers who dream of the wild and care about ensuring its future.

Our objective is to fulfill a need for a science-based publication that focuseson 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 press-ing 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 shortcom-ings of conservation practice based on WCS’s more than 100 years of doing con-servation, and highlight an emerging theme of particular importance in eachedition. The first volume of State of the Wild featured a section on hunting andwildlife trade, and the second volume focused on the intersection of the healthof wildlife, domestic animals, and humans.

This third volume focuses on the interplay between conservation and warthrough five essays examining how the wild has been affected during times ofhuman conflict, and how conservation can, in some circumstances, help ame-liorate the effects of conflict. This theme is complemented by a range of essaysclustered into sections addressing conservation of wildlife, conservation of wildplaces, and the art and practice of conservation. We have drawn upon the tal-ents of scientists from WCS and other institutions, as well as environmentalauthors and poets.

In times of human crisis, it is easy to lose touch with the indispensable rolenature plays in the continuing survival of humankind. Humans have becomethe most significant evolutionary force acting on the nonhuman world, but weremain largely ignorant of that which we are molding. For example, despite mil-lennia of living with storks, people in Europe did not know where they flewwhen they disappeared each fall. As we see later in this volume, it was not until1822, when a stork pierced with an arrow of unmistakable African originreturned to Germany, that stork migration to Africa was understood.2 This pfeil-storch (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 impactscan be changed to bring a better life to both humans and the millions of otherspecies that share the planet with us. We hope that State of the Wild can play asmall 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.

Wendell Berry

PART I

STATE OF THE WILD

State of the Wild • 5

Our planet’s wild places—its myriad forests, grasslands,freshwaters, scrublands, and deserts, not to mention

the largely unknown oceans—contain boundless biologicalinterconnections. Exploring the natural world, directlythrough research and travel or indirectly through films andbooks, provides us an education on howwonderful and var-ied ecosystems are, and how our human societies aredegrading the planet. Here, in State of the Wild, we shareinformation on emerging issues in the conservation ofwildlife and wild places over the past two years.

The opening essay, “State of the Wild: WoundedWilderness,” reveals the discovery of mercury contamina-tion in even our most remote wild places. Often, we hopethat oceans, rivers, and forests will somehow absorb theunwanted output from our industries and cities, but theconsequences of this practice are playing out on a plane-tary scale.

From this overarching view, the focus narrows to show-case conservation victories and losses around the world in“Global Conservation News Highlights.” These serve todescribe the present state of the wild and, in sum, are bothcomforting and worrisome. “Discoveries” synthesizesnews from the past two years in a different way, highlight-

ing some of the new species that were discovered on theexhilarating expeditions of wildlife biologists and recre-ational naturalists. This is followed by “Rarest of the Rare,”a poignant catalogue of species in decline, some of whichmay not last beyond a few more generations unless con-servation efforts are redoubled. We hope that “Rarest ofthe Rare,” rather than serving as an epitaph, will inspire adesire to learn more about wildlife and to work toward itslong-term survival. The section continues as we follow aState of the Wild series tradition by returning to the themeof the previous volume (2008–2009)—Emerging Diseasesand Conservation: One World–One Health—to explorewhy the intersection of wildlife, livestock, and humanhealth continues to make headlines.

With the background and context provided by thesepieces, we can better appreciate the contributions madeby the 2010–2011 “Champions of the Wild”—individualswho have truly dedicated their lives to conservation.Subsequent parts of the book analyze wildlife conserva-tion challenges, both local and global, and contemplatethe theme of this edition: the conservation of wildlife dur-ing times of conflict. We hope you are inspired by the sci-ence, issues, species, and places presented in this book. u


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

Source:

ChlausLotscher/Peter

Arnold,

Inc.

M y canoe skimmed along a small lake in Alaska where I had traveled for afishing trip. The quiet was punctuated only by the rippling water and dis-

tant bird calls. As I looked out upon snow-capped peaks, coniferous forests, andmeadows 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 bor-eal forest ecosystem stretched from Alaska into Canada, imagining the milesand miles of trees and wilderness that separated me from the distant cities Iknow. All I could see before me was the cold blue waters of Takahula Lakebelow the Arrigetch Peaks in the Brooks Range, some 70 miles from the near-est settlement of any size. I had not considered Russia and China across theArctic 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 enjoy-ing a contaminated wilderness.

Wounded Wilderness • 7

GARY PAUL NABHAN is founder and facilitator of the Renewing America’s FoodTraditions collaborative and is based on Tumamoc Hill in Arizona, the first restorationecology site in the world and home of the Alliance for Reconciliation Ecology. His latestbook is titledWhere Our Food Comes From.

WoundedWilderness

GARY PAUL NABHAN

STATE OF THE WILD:

I had been out canoeing onTakahula Lake since seven in themorning, but the Arctic dawn hadalready occurred many hours earlier.It was July in the Gates of the ArcticNational Park, and I was the only oneon the water. That is to say, the onlyhuman, but there were plenty ofPacific loons (Gavia pacifica) andtrumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinator),as well as moose wading on the farside of the lake. The air was crisp andclear; the water fresh from glaciermelt; it seemed for a moment that Iwas partaking in the quintessentialwilderness experience.

As I cast my line toward a shallowshoal between me and the shore, Isaw the shimmering serpentine bodyof a green-spotted northern pike(Esox lucius) dodge its splash, thenturn and spot the spoon-shaped lure.The fish lunged toward the lure, itsboney jaw clamping down hard onthe hook. Within half a minute, I hadthe pike in my hands, a sleek, 16-inchbody quivering within my firm grip. Iwas thrilled.

But as I set about removing thehook from its upper jaw, I remem-bered what park ranger Pete Christianhad said when Inupiaq elder JamesNageak and I had gone out fishing theday before. Pete did not want to dis-courage us from fishing altogetherbut asked us to consider catch andrelease for a peculiar reason: high lev-els of mercury had been found in laketrout in the Gates of the ArcticNational Park and the NoatakNational Preserve. Many of the fish ina number of freshwater lakes in

Alaska were already unfit to eat on aregular basis, primarily as a result ofairborne contaminants that hadblown in from factories and powerstations thousands of miles away.Mercury? I was astounded that fish

in a wilderness lake contained enoughmethylmercury to cause neurologicaldamage and impair reproductive

health in people as well as in otherfish-eating animals. Because the riskthreshold for humans is the consump-tion of only two fish per month, somephysicians discourage anyone fromeating more than six ounces of anykind of fish per week, and they warnpregnant women against eating fishconsidered to be “apex predators.”


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

Source:

Michael

S.Quinton/N

ationalGeographicStock

Why? It turns out that the deadliestforms of mercury are organic mer-cury compounds. Exposure to just afew drops of certain compounds maybe enough to cause death. Methyl-mercury is the most persistent form,remaining stored in body tissuesrather than being excreted away.From microbes to crustaceans topredatory fish, it bioaccumulates upthe food chain.

Although I had caught a pike andnot a lake trout, I was unsure whetherI should bring the fish back to thekitchen for breakfast or release it. Ihesitated for a moment, gripping thepike between my palms to sense thepower of its wildness. Then I leanedover the wooden hull of the canoeand released the fish into the crystalclear but contaminated waters ofTakahula Lake. I paddled back tocamp, the fish bucket empty, but thememory of that slimy green pike stilloccupying my mind.

As an occasional visitor to Alaskafrom Arizona, I would not have beenparticularly vulnerable to mercuryexposure by eating one or two fishduring this trip. But nearly everyoneelse I was camping with was anAlaskan resident whose family andcommunity depended on wild-caughtfish and game for much of the year.Habitual consumption of either laketrout or pike from these parts wouldpose a real health risk for them.

When I returned home from theArctic wilderness, I read a six-yearstudy that the Western AirborneContaminants Assessment projecthad undertaken in the most remote

lakes in national parks across westernNorth America. Two bodies of fresh-water not far from Takahula—BurialLake and MatcharakLake—were among thosesampled for evidence of air-borne contaminants thatcan bioaccumulate up thefood chain. The fish inhab-iting these lakes carried notonly dangerously high lev-els of mercury but alsoproblematic levels of theinsecticide dieldrin, a toxinknown to be an immune-system depressant andendocrine disrupter,banned in the United Statessince 1987. Even thoughboth lakes have relativelysmall watersheds nestedentirely within the largestintact wilderness forest arearemaining on the NorthAmerican continent, thetoxins had found their wayhere. The results of themonitoring assessmentwere sobering:

The dieldrin concentration inBurial Lake, as well as dieldrinconcentrations in some individ-ual Matcharak Lake fish,exceeded contaminant thresh-olds for subsistence fishers. . . .Mercury concentrations exceed-ed thresholds for wildlife health,and the median mercury concen-tration in Burial Lake and insome fish at Matcharak Lakeexceeded the human contami-nant health threshold.1

The assessment concluded that,for the past 140 years, mercury hadbeen accumulating on most lake

bottoms within the Arctic Circleoriginating from coal burning andsmelting operations. The mercuryand dieldrin came from farthersouth in North America but alsofrom coal-fired power plants, facto-ries, and large agricultural fieldsacross northern Europe, Russia,China, Korea, and Japan. The toxinsknow no boundaries, persist in theglobal environment for a very longtime, and move with the wind, rain,and snow.

Wounded Wilderness • 9

Fly fishing on Rangeview Lake, Alaska. Mercury levelsin many Alaskan lakes make the fish unfit for humanconsumption.

Source:

AlaskaStock

Images/N


With this, I recalled writer BillMcKibben’s idea of the end ofnature.2 He referred to the notionthat, at this point in history, virtuallyno place on Earth is without humaninfluence—or contamination. In fact,in many places humans are at warwith the integrity of the naturalworld, dramatically diminishing thehealth and resilience of what we oncecalled wild ecosystems. And at this

particular moment in our planet’shistory, it seems like humans havenature surrounded.

Since my fishing foray into theAlaskan wilderness, I have mulledover the internal conflict I felt whenholding that northern pike in myhands. My senses were emphaticallyalerting me that “wild nature” wasalive and well, squirming between myhands, filling my nostrils with the fra-

grances of forest and lake,enriching my vision withthe splendor of snowyslopes and moose saunter-ing across the sandbarsand muskegs where I hadrecently seen the tracks ofgrizzly, caribou, and lynx.But my mind was picking

up an altogether different sig-nal: wild nature had some-how been compromised,contaminated, or corrupted.Although I found it difficultto say the phrase “end ofnature” aloud, because itsvery implications were sorepugnant to me, I certainlyunderstood the sentiment.

The nature writer AldoLeopold once lamented thatmost ecologists are painfullyaware that they live “in aworld of wounds,” whetherthey reside in an area directlydamaged by political andmilitary conflict or in an areacontaminated by industrial,agricultural, or recreationalwaste, or nuclear fallout.3

And yet, most ecologists Iknow do not write off “woundedlandscapes” any more than a medicalpractitioner would abandon care for awounded patient. We must engage intheir healing through the processesof remediation and ecologicalrestoration, and we must also beginto deal with the root causes. Thecounterpoint to Leopold’s recogni-tion that we have caused wounds isthat we can heal many of them, and,though that healing takes time, it isworthy of our efforts. We have thecapacity to restore the world and tostand in awe of its wonders oncemore. I look forward to the day whenmy grandchildren can fish in anArctic lake and take back to camp apike that is not only uncontaminatedbut a thrill to grill and eat. x


Source:

Julie

Larsen

Maher/W

CS

At this point in history,virtually no place on Earth iswithout human influence—

or contamination.

Grizzly bears roam the Alaskan wilderness.

Global Conservation News Highlights • 11

GLOBAL CONSERVATIONNEWS HIGHLIGHTS

The past two years brought both good news and bad news for wildlife andwildlands conservation. A number of new protected areas and partnerships

are safeguarding vulnerable species and places. At the same time, the effects ofclimate change have continued to reveal themselves worldwide, many soonerthan predicted, and the world economy plummeted into the worst financial cri-sis since the Great Depression.

The following pages provide a glimpse into a set of the most pressingissues and trends affecting biodiversity in every region of the globe, and showthat amidst some very troubling developments exist successes and glimmersof hope. w

R ecent challenges to African conservation include fluctuating commodityprices, political crises, unpredictable peace processes, and escalated poach-

ing. Commodity prices rose in 2007–2008, leading to increased pressure fromextractive industries across Africa, but declines in 2009 resulted in unemploy-ment and an increase in poaching from Gabon to Zambia. Conflict over natu-ral resources continued to plague Chad, Sudan, and the Democratic Republicof Congo, imperiling globally important ecosystems and wildlife populations.Hopes are high, however, for the role that ecotourism and carbon markets canplay in providing economic incentives to preserve species and habitats acrossthe continent.


Africa


Africa: In 2008, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species(CITES) reopened the international ivory trade, which had been banned since1989. This allowed Japan and China to import ivory from southern African coun-tries, which have stable or increasing elephant (Loxodonta africana) populations.Shortly afterward, South Africa permitted culling of elephants in KrugerNational Park, sparking intense criticism by some conservationists. Anecdotalreports from eastern and central Africa strongly suggest that relaxing the ban hasincreased the market for illegal ivory, resulting in steep increases in poachingacross 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.

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

Uganda: In a rare victory for grassroots conservation activists in Africa, massprotests in Uganda persuaded the government to cancel plans to lease the largestremaining 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 southernUganda was once forested, and protesters argued that Mabira should be preservedfor the enjoyment of the people of nearby Kampala rather than be sacrificed forshort-term private gain. Mabira is home to over 300 species of birds, includingNahan’s francolin (Francolinus nahani), and a number of endemics, such as thegrey-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.

Bonobo.

African elephants.

Grey-cheeked mangabey.

Source:

Julie

Larsen

Maher/W

CS

Source:

KarlAmmann/naturepl.com

Source:

Brent

Huffm

an/U

ltimateUngulateImages


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

Madagascar: In early 2009, Madagascar’s president was overthrown by thecountry’s opposition leader. The ensuing political turmoil led to an escalatingenvironmental crisis, with illegal loggers ravaging protected areas, and poacherskilling endangered lemurs in order to sell them to restaurants. In the midst ofthis crisis, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) has taken a lead role in rais-ing awareness about natural resource exploitation and continues to work towardthe creation of the Makira Forest Protected Area. Makira is home to speciessuch 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 mecha-nism for Makira through the sale of carbon emission credits from avoided defor-estation, and local communities are encouraged to participate in the manage-ment of the protected area through natural resource monitoring pro-grams. 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 125,000western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) are thriving across northern Republicof Congo. Scientists carrying out a survey of the region between 2006 and 2007 hadbelieved that only about 50,000 gorillas remained in the area after bushmeat hunt-ing and Ebola outbreaks decimated populations throughout central Africa.Approximately half of the estimated 125,000 reside in protected areas and loggingconcessions where WCS and its partners have pioneered landscape conservationsince the mid-1980s. The other half were found in Ntokou-Pikounda, an unpro-tected and inaccessible expanse of dry and swamp forest, renewing efforts to desig-nate this area as Congo’s newest national park. www.wcs.org/new-and-noteworthy/motherlode-of-gorillas-discovered-in-central-africa.aspx.

Kongou Falls, Ivindo National Park,Gabon.

Red ruffed lemur.

Western lowland gorilla.

Source:

Michael

Nichols/

NationalGeographicStock

Source:

Thom

asBreuer

Source:

Julie

Larsen

Maher/W

CS


Asia

A ll of Asia’s wildlife is under tremendous threat from heavy hunting, forboth local consumption and wealthy urban or international markets, pri-

marily for use in traditional medicines. In tropical and semitropical Asia, wheremost of the continent’s 4 billion humans live at some of the highest densities onthe planet, only small islands of truly wild lands remain. In the colder and drierclimes, grasslands face unsustainable land use, including desertification fromovergrazing by livestock, while boreal regions face largely unregulated naturalresource extraction.

Not all is lost, however, as innovative and tried-and-true conservation initia-tives are gaining momentum. The global response to climate change is increas-ingly emphasizing avoided deforestation as a major intervention, and through-out Asia governments and nongovernmental organizations are producing func-tional forest protection projects. More familiar biodiversity conservation initia-tives, such as protected areas and landscape-level local stakeholder engagement,are steadily becoming more effective, as governments and the conservationcommunity race to save Asia’s vast diversity.

Source:

AllanMichaud

Black-shanked douc langur.


Afghanistan: Despite more than a generation of nearly continuous warfare, thegovernment of Afghanistan is working to establish protected areas and safe-guard its endangered species. In April 2009, Afghanistan’s National EnvironmentProtection Agency announced the establishment of Band-e-Amir as the coun-try’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, sur-veys indicate that Siberian ibex (Capra sibirica) and urial (Ovis orientalis) are stillpresent, though some other species, including snow leopards (Uncia uncia), havedisappeared. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)provided much of the funding that supported activities related to the park’s cre-ation, and WCS worked closely with local communities and the Afghan govern-ment 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 payingoff in two important biodiversity areas in Cambodia. In the Seima BiodiversityConservation Area, current estimates of the endangered black-shanked douc(Pygathrix nigripes) indicate over 40,000 individuals, while elsewhere in its rangethe species is rapidly declining. Numbers of yellow-cheeked crested gibbons(Nomascus gabriellae) and green peafowl (Pavo muticus) are also on the rise. OnCambodia’s Tonle Sap Lake, a number of species of endangered waterbirds,including spot-billed pelicans (Pelecanus philippensis), painted storks (Mycteria leu-cocephala), and greater (Leptoptilos dubius) and lesser adjutant storks (Leptoptilosjavanicus) have staged remarkable comebacks thanks to former hunters and eggcollectors who are now instead protecting and monitoring the colonies. Theactive involvement of local communities has been key to the success of theseconservation 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:

Chris

Shank/W

CS

Travertine dam, Band-e-AmirNational Park, Afghanistan.


Source:

J.Thorbjarnarson/W

CS

Chinese alligator.

Source:

Julie

Larsen

Maher/W

CS

Tiger.

India: Tiger conservation suffered a major blow in 2004 when all 22 tigers(Panthera tigris) of the famous Sariska Tiger Reserve in the northwestern Indianstate of Rajasthan were poached during the course of the year. The resulting pub-lic outcry led the government of India to abandon existing tiger population mon-itoring approaches and provided renewed vigor for tiger conservation in thecountry. The government also redoubled its efforts to reintroduce tigers back intoSariska. During the second half of 2008, Indian wildlife officials successfullytranslocated three tigers (two female and onemale) from the Ranthambore TigerReserve in the south. Moving the tigers was complex, involving sedations, heli-copter flights in rough weather, and the construction of large enclosures forreleasing the animals. Happily, the three tigers survived and established territorieswithin Sariska. India now waits to see if the tigers will breed during the upcom-ing mating season. www.indiatogether.org/2008/aug/env-relocn.htm.

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

Source:

Norman

Lim

Sunda pangolin.

Source:

Staffan

Widstrand/naturepl.com

Spoon-billed sandpiper.


Indonesia: Illegal hunting and international trade in wildlife are key threats tothousands of animal species in Asia. Particularly hard hit is Indonesian wildlife,which is hunted throughout the archipelago and shipped primarily to Vietnam andChina for luxury consumption and use as components of traditional medicines.Encouragingly, Indonesian authorities, in collaboration with conservation organi-zations, 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 ofPalembang in South Sumatra and recovered over 30,000 pounds (13.6 metric tons)of the endangered Sunda pangolin (Manis javanica), packed frozen and ready forexport, and arrested 14 suspects. Similarly, in June and August 2008, Indonesianauthorities 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 only200 to 300 pairs. However, recent surveys of coastal Myanmar located a newwintering population of 84 birds, the largest number recorded anywhere apartfrom the breeding grounds for many years. One of the greatest threats to thespecies is the continued destruction of its intertidal habitat, both in nonbreedingand critical migration stopover areas such as the Saemangeum wetlands on theSouth Korean coast of the Yellow Sea, where a 21-mile (33 km) sea wall was con-structed in April 2006. Surveys at Saemangeum over the last two years havefound that at least 10 shorebird species, including spoon-billed sandpiper, havedeclined 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,

and the

PacificIslandsThe 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—areamong the most severe in the world, and further losses of species and ecologi-cal processes seem almost inevitable.

Despite this gloomy outlook, government agencies, scientists, conservationvolunteers, and many communities are fighting back. New Zealand has pio-neered methods to remove rats and other introduced mammals from its islands,and innovative Australian techniques are being used to efficiently identify areasof highest conservation priority. New reproductive technologies are beingdeveloped to conserve endemics, from a large ground frog (Platymantis vitianus)in Fiji to Gilbert’s potoroo (Potorous gilberti) in Western Australia, and heroicefforts are being made to recover ailing flagship animals such as the Tasmaniandevil (Sarcophilus harrisii) and New Zealand kakapo (Strigops habroptila). As sealevels are predicted to rise, temperatures to increase, and rainfall to diminishover much of the Pacific in coming decades, the region will need to call uponits ingenuity to meet the challenges that its wildlife and peoples will face.

Source:

Jean-PaulFerrero/AUSCAPE

Northern quoll.

Source:


Dingoes.


Australia: Australia has the world’s highest rate of mammal extinctions over thelast 200 years. Until recently, the only secure region was thought to be the “TopEnd,” a vast landscape of tropical savanna encompassing part of the NorthernTerritory and the Kimberley region of Western Australia. Recent surveys, how-ever, report declines of more than 90 percent in the distribution of many largerodents, medium-sized carnivorous marsupials, possums, and bandicoots.Delegates at a meeting of the Australian Mammal Society in 2008 heard that sev-eral species, including the golden-backed tree-rat (Mesembriomys macrurus) andnorthern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus), have almost vanished from across the TopEnd and now have their best chances of survival on nearby offshore islands. Themost pervasive and serious threats are likely overgrazing by cattle, an increase inthe frequency and intensity of fires ignited to stimulate growth of fresh pastures,and predation by feral cats. Participants in a workshop convened in February 2009agreed that urgent management action is needed but identified limited fundingand 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 declaredpest over much of the southern part of its continental range, owing to its attackson livestock. Consequently, landmanagers are legally obliged to control it. In 2008,however, the dingo was listed as vulnerable by the International Union forConservation of Nature (IUCN) and was recognized by the governments ofVictoria and New South Wales as a threatened native species, while in theNorthern Territory it enjoys full protection. These jurisdictions make a clear dis-tinction between pure dingoes, wild domestic dogs, and dingo–dog hybrids, andfocus their efforts on conserving the dingo while simultaneously controlling feraldogs and hybrids. Dingoes, and possibly dingo–dog hybrids, may help suppress redfox (Vulpes vulpes) and feral cat populations, two introduced predators that wreakhavoc on native fauna. Several projects are under way to quantify the biodiver-sity 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:

CSIRO

New species of Ophiomitrellabrittlestar.

Source:

FransLanting/AUSCAPE

Eastern gray kangaroo with joey inpouch.

Australia: A recent study predicts a bleak future for some of Australia’s mostwidely distributed and iconic species—its large kangaroos. Currently, theantilopine wallaroo (Macropus antilopinus), euro (M. robustus), red kangaroo (M.rufus), and eastern gray kangaroo (M. giganteus) occupy geographic ranges ofsome 300,000 to 2,650,000 square miles (777,000 to 6,860,000 km2) that extendfrom the tropics to more temperate regions. Climate models predict that thesefour 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 as3.6°F (2.0°C) by 2030 over vast areas of northern Australia, the core ranges ofthe red and eastern gray kangaroos and euros would decrease by some 10 to 55percent, and the wallaroo’s range by 89 percent. By 2070, with average annualtemperatures rising by up to 11.0°F (6.0°C), range contractions of all specieswould 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 HuonCommonwealth Marine Reserves off the southern coast of Tasmania yielded 274new 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 newspecies were found at depths of 3,280 to 5,250 feet (1,000 to 1,600 m) onseamounts. In December 2008, further surveys to the deepest part of the TasmanFracture—up to 13,100 feet (4,000m)—revealed dense communities of anemones,gooseneck barnacles, sea spiders, giant sponges, small fishes, and carnivorous seasquirts. These new and bizarre creatures are the deepest known life-forms inAustralian waters. The surveys also documented dead deep-water corals below4,260 feet (1,300 m), raising the possibility that the water quality is becoming lesssuitable for native deep-sea life. The Australian government declared marinereserves of over 87,230 square miles (226,000 km2) of ocean off the southeastAustralian coast in July 2007 and plans to designate more large reserves between2009 and 2010. www.csiro.au/science/SeamountBiodiversity.html; ww.csiro.au/news/Deep-Sea-Expedition.html.

Source:

John

Shaw/AUSCAPE

Tuatara.

Source:


Kagu.


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

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


S everal Latin American governments define natural resource prospection anddevelopment as matters of national interest and are allowing private compa-

nies to operate in remote wilderness areas, which are often occupied by indige-nous peoples and sometimes have protected area status. Grassroots organiza-tions are frequently effective in contesting development efforts that do notinclude careful consideration of conservation priorities. For example, indigenousAmazonian peoples in Peru succeeded in overturning decrees permitting the saleof collective lands to private investors for mining, logging, and drilling.

Meanwhile, state governments in Brazil are developing creative financialmechanisms to encourage preservation of remaining forest. While this efforthas not yet been reflected in reduced rates of deforestation, the initiative offershope for the future and shows that conservation constituencies are effective atthe state level. Carbon sequestration and valuing of ecosystem services mayalso help reduce the rate of destruction in the Amazon and around the world.

Centraland SouthAmerica

Source:

Carsten

Peter/


Polylepis trunks.

Source:

SuziEszterhas/naturepl.com

South American fur seal.


Argentina: Argentina achieved two important conservation milestones in 2008with the creation of amarine park in Patagonia’s Golfo San Jorge and a newno-fish-ing zone on Burdwood Bank. The park, which includes more than 40 small islands,protects 250 squaremiles (647 km2) of coastal waters and nearly 100miles (160 km)of shoreline, safeguarding Patagonia’s only colonies of South American fur seal(Arctocephalus australis) and southern giant petrel (Macronectes giganteus) and nestingand feeding grounds for 250,000 pairs of Magellanic penguins (Spheniscus magellan-icus). Despite the protection that official recognition brings, a number of threats stillloom, namely overfishing and petroleum development. The no-fishing zone onBurdwood Bank protects approximately 1,118 square miles (2,896 km2) of one ofthe most productive regions in the Southern Hemisphere from bottom trawlingand all other fishing activities. The bank is also the breeding ground for southernblue 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 Titicacabasin and the mountain ranges of La Paz and Apolobamba in Bolivia revealedthe presence of royal cinclodes (Cinclodes aricomae) and ash-breasted tit-tyrants(Anairetes alpinas)—two endangered bird species that were virtually unknown inthe country—in 8 and 28 forest patches, respectively. Polylepis trees are used forfirewood and building materials, so the forests are depleting rapidly. With fund-ing from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the American BirdConservancy and a team of biologists are working with local communities toimplement activities in the region that will help conserve these rare birds’ specialforest habitat. www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/stories/0810_bolivian.html.


Source:

LuizClaudio

Marigo/naturepl.com

Deforestation, Brazil.

Source:

PaulP.

Calle,VMD

Grand Cayman blue iguana.

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

Brazil: Brazil’s vast rainforests continue to face deforestation pressures, yetsome recent reports assert that the rate of loss has been slowing since 2004. Datacollected by Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE) betweenAugust 2007 and July 2008, however, paints a very clear picture of a surge in rain-forest destruction. INPE’s findings show roughly 10,000 square miles (25,000km2) of Amazon forest as damaged, a 67 percent increase over the previousyear’s findings. In all, annual rainforest destruction in Brazil between 2007 and2008 totaled roughly 14,000 square miles (37,000 km2). INPE’s report alsopointed out that this total does not include those forested areas selectivelylogged for commercial purposes, nor does it address forest conversion for agri-cultural biofuel production. These figures would only increase the rate of defor-estation, making the need for regulation and implementation of managementplans even more critical. www.inpe.br/ingles/news/news_dest48.php;http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1220-amazon.html.

Source:

ImageB

roker/Imagebroker/FLPA

Great green macaw.

Source:

PeteOxford/naturepl.com

Giant river otter.


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

Peru: The Peruvian government continued to grant hydrocarbon concessionsthat overlapwith protected areas throughout 2008, and energy andmining author-ities have succeeded in blocking any legal challenges to these moves. Recently, aproposal to degazette a critical portion of Bahuaja Sonene National Park in orderto permit a new concession generated enough public protest and international dis-approval that the government abandoned its plans before the proposal was offi-cially announced. Bahuaja Sonene is one of the flagships of Peru’s system of pro-tected areas and provides habitat for a high diversity of species, such as the manedwolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus), marsh deer (Blastocerus dichotomus), giant river otter(Pteronura brasiliensis), and black caiman (Melanosuchus niger). It is also rich in nat-ural resources. Increased human migration to the region, land conversion, illegallogging, gold mining, and excessive extraction of other resources remain seriousthreats. www.parkswatch.org/parkprofile.php?l=eng&country=per&park=tabs.


The European Union (EU) continues to spread south and east with 27 mem-ber states as of 2008. Some of the newest members—Bulgaria and

Romania, for example—are some of Europe’s least developed and most wildlife-rich countries. The sheer diversity of territories and cultures making up the EUbrings many challenges for the protection of wildlife and the natural environ-ment. Membership in the EU and the resulting access to funds available to new-comers have inevitably brought to new members an increase in developmentpressures, from intensification of traditional agriculture to the construction ofnew coastal communities and highways across unspoiled landscapes. Theexpanding free-trade area of the European Single Market has also stretched itsborders south and east, making the illicit trade of wildlife goods from outsideof Europe considerably easier across internal borders. Largely as a result of landuse changes encouraged by EU farming, forestry, and development policies, thelatter third of the twentieth century was disastrous for wildlife across westernEurope, from the United Kingdom to Spain. The next five years should revealwhether wildlife in the newest member states will suffer a similar fate to theirmore advanced neighbors.

Europe

Source:

Jouan&Rius/naturepl.com

Eurasian lynx.

Source:

Philippe

Clement/naturepl.com

Marsh fritillary.


Europe: The already extensive Natura 2000 network of over 26,000 European pro-tected 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 theGóry Slonne Mountains, which support Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) and Europeangrey wolf (Canis lupus lupus). The same year saw action to protect the EU’s marineenvironment, which extends out 200miles (322 km) from the coast, following adop-tion of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, under which member states arerequired to designate Marine Protected Areas within which damaging activitiessuch as fishingwill be controlled and, in some cases, prohibited. Such directives pro-vide an essential legal framework for conservation, but substantial differencesremain in the level of implementation by individual member states.http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm.

Europe: The European Butterfly Indicator for Grassland Species, published in 2008 byButterfly Conservation Europe, illustrates the continuing decline of natural andseminatural grasslands across Europe. The report shows that populations of typi-cal grassland butterflies have declined by 60 percent since 1990, primarily becauseof land-use change, particularly the plowing of wildflower-rich grassland toexpand arable land. At the same time, the increasing urbanization of Europe’spopulation has also led to widespread abandonment of farmland. This hasresulted in the spread of scrub and consequent losses of butterfly food plants andhabitat for species such as the dusky large blue (Maculinea nausithous) and marshfritillary (Euphydryas aurina). The Climatic Risk Atlas of European Butterflies under-lines 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.

Source:

Kim

Taylor/naturepl.com

Saker falcon.

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

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

Source:

Sue

Everett

A no-shooting sign, AkamasPeninsula, Cyprus, shot upby hunters.

Source:

Imagebroker/FLPA

Common walnut.


Cyprus: The Akamas Peninsula, on the Greek-administered side of theMediterranean island of Cyprus, is an area of great ecological significance, butits wildlife and landscape lack adequate protection. Akamas is both a EuropeanImportant Bird Area and Important Plant Area, with 39 of Cyprus’s 128 endem-ic plant species. Akamas is also one of the few Mediterranean locations whereboth loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) and green turtles (Chelonia mydas) nest.In 1997, the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention asked the GreekCypriot government to declare Akamas a national park and take other measuresto 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 StandingCommittee showed that tourist development is rapidly eroding the onceunspoiled 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, cli-mate change will cause the ranges of up to one in five of Germany’s wild plantspecies to shrink dramatically. Scientists from the Helmholtz Centre forEnvironmental Research, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, andthe French Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine estimate that with only moderatewarming of about 3.7°F (2.2°C), about 7 percent of species will lose more thantwo-thirds of their current ranges. This rises to 11 percent with an increase of4.8°F (2.9°C) and 20 percent for 6.3°F (3.8°C). Many plant species could also losetheir niches in especially vulnerable habitats such as mountains or moors, and,according to models, species likely to migrate northward from southern Europemay not be able to offset these losses. Common walnut (Juglans regia), originallyintroduced north of the Alps by the Romans, is one species projected to find moreareas with suitable conditions as temperatures warm. Biology Letters 4: 564–567.


“Adapt or perish, now as ever, is nature’s inexorable imperative.” Goodadvice from author H. G. Wells, but North American wildlife today are

finding adaptation difficult in the face of rapid habitat changes and fragmenta-tion across the continent. Migratory birds are leaving their summer groundslater every year, while many glaciers are receding, altering mountain species’habitat. Resource extraction is also increasing pressure on wild areas such asCanada’s Peace-Athabasca delta, a nesting ground to over 1 million waterfowl.Fortunately, conservation thinking in North America is following Wells’s adviceand adapting its approaches. Following in the footsteps of conservation pio-neers Aldo Leopold, John Muir, Bob Marshall, and Theodore Roosevelt, scien-tists and practitioners in North America are incorporating new strategies tomanage landscapes and species and strengthening partnerships to protect andinterconnect crucial habitats and maintain corridors for wildlife.

NorthAmerica

Source:

Ron

Long,Simon

Fraser

University,Bugwood.org

Mountain pine beetle.

Source:

Julie

Larsen

Maher/W

CS

Polar bear.


Canada: The winter of 2008 blasted parts of British Columbia with subzerotemperatures, the most frigid winter for several years—good news for treesstruggling to cope with mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) infesta-tion. Beetle larvae feed on the inner bark of pine trees, depleting water andnutrients and introducing a fungus that destroys a tree’s natural defenses againstinfection. The beetles produce an internal antifreeze that protects them frommild cold. Warm winters, such as those recently experienced by much of thewestern United States and Canada, do not provide the deep, sustained cold tem-peratures necessary to kill bark beetles. The recent continuous stretch of below-zero temperatures in British Columbia brings hope for a reduction of the infes-tation, 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 theheads of all executive departments and federal agencies to consult with the FishandWildlife 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 thislong-standing practice in December 2008 by permitting agencies to take actionwithout first consulting the scientists who oversee the nation’s EndangeredSpecies Act. Supporters of Obama’s decision said it would help guard againstpotential conflicts of interest and lack of expertise in guiding decision making byany 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:

AlanD.Barron,

2006

Blotched tiger salamander.

Source:

Merlin

D.Tuttle,Bat

Conservation

International,www.batcon.org

Little brown bat.

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

Western United States: While searching for frogs and salamanders in pondslast surveyed 15 years ago in northern Yellowstone National Park, a StanfordUniversity graduate student discovered a shocking decline among residentamphibians and of the ponds themselves. The dozens of small, fishless ponds inYellowstone are ideal for the breeding and development of species such asblotched tiger salamanders (Ambystoma mavortium melanostictum), boreal chorusfrogs (Pseudacris maculate), and Colombia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris).Historically, the ponds have been recharged during the summer by groundwa-ter, but increasing temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns are nowcausing the ponds—and the jelly-like amphibian eggs deposited in them—to dryup. Moreover, seasonal wetlands near the ponds, usually ideal amphibian habi-tat, are evaporating earlier in the spring. This evidence reveals that even themost 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.

Humpback whale.

Source:

Julie

Larsen

Maher/W

CS

Pronghorn antelope.


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

Wyoming: The US Forest Service (USFS) designated the first wildlife migrationcorridor—the “Path of the Pronghorn”—in June 2008, protecting a portion ofthe approximately 100-mile (160 km) corridor pronghorn antelope (Antilocapraamericana) use to migrate between Grand Teton National Park and Wyoming’sUpper Green River Valley. Archaeological evidence indicates that pronghornhave been traveling the same route for more than 6,000 years. The designationensures that future activities on USFS lands along the corridor will allow prong-horn to continue their migration, but the unprotected portion on private andBureau of Land Management lands remains open to the construction of fences,roads, and gas fields—all obstacles to pronghorn migration. Conservationistshope 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

The past two years have seen major advances in ocean conservation, withequally daunting rises in threats from continued overexploitation, land-

based pollution, and the growing impacts of climate change. The world’s fish-eries are in a continued crisis, with global production stalled since the mid-1990seven as more boats continue to fish smaller and smaller fish at the farthest cor-ners of the earth. This complicates management, let alone conservation. Aspeople around the globe begin to consider “greening” their infrastructure andactivities, a major opportunity presents itself to “blue” human impact onmarine ecosystems by reducing waste discharge into water bodies, preventingdestructive coastal developments, and limiting nitrogen-laden runoff from agri-cultural lands. Recent news that over 6,000 Irrawaddy dolphins (Orcaella brevi-rostris), a species whose numbers had been declining due to bycatch and coastalpollution, were discovered in Bangladeshi waters provides hope that other, yet-to-be discovered populations of threatened species exist. Finally, while signifi-cant gains have been made in establishing large tracts of marine protected areas,it remains clear that, despite this, the oceans are increasingly impacted by cli-mate change and that a broad array of initiatives will be necessary to maintainthe oceans as some of the last of the world’s intact wild.

Source:

Imagebroker/FLPA

Bleached coral, Philippines.

Source:

NeilLucas/naturepl.com

Bluefin tuna.

Source:

Brian

J.Skerry/


Guitarfish, rays, and other bycatchtossed from a shrimp boat.


Global: Recent research shows that acidification of ocean water due to increasinglevels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is adversely affectingmarine ecosystemsmuch faster than predicted by previous climate change models. Increased acidityreduces the calcification rate of corals, mollusks, and other organisms dependentupon high levels of carbonate (CO3) saturation in the world’s oceans. Less calcifi-cationmeansweaker shells and corals, while increasing ocean temperatures, highersea levels, and increasing storm events threaten coral reef structures and theirecological communities. PNAS 105(48): 18848–18853; www.ciw.edu/news/coral_reefs_may_start_dissolving_when_atmospheric_co2_doubles.

Atlantic Ocean: Bluefin tuna (Thunnus spp.) are wide-ranging, large-bodied fishprized around the world as a valuable food source. Commercial fishing fleetsstriving to meet rising global demand for sushi have rendered the bluefin tunaincreasingly rare. Atlantic bluefin (Thunnus thynnus), which breed only in theGulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean, are rapidly declining. Despite clear indi-cations of overfishing, the International Commission for the Conservation ofthe Atlantic Tunas, the regulatory board charged with overseeing commercialtuna fishing, has set catch limits for 2009 that conservation groups say are unsus-tainable and much higher than those recommended by the commission’s scien-tific advisers. In more hopeful news, the Atlantic bluefin is now proposed for list-ing under Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies, which would ban all international trade in the species and give popula-tions 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 thatAtlantic shark species such as spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) and guitarfish(Rhinobatos spp.) are under increasing threat from overfishing, bycatch, and thegrowing market for shark meat and fins. Of 116 species of Atlantic sharks, rays,and chimera, 26 percent are threatened with extinction, and an additional 20percent are near threatened. Sharks and rays are particularly vulnerable becausethey are long-lived, slow tomature, and have low reproductive rates. Few speciesof sharks are afforded legal protection under European Union law, and interna-tional catch limits on northern Atlantic sharks are sparse. The report calls forincreased data on the conservation status of sharks, the extension of catch lim-its to more species, and an end to finning. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/shark_report_1.pdf.


Source:

Ariadne

VanZandbergen/FLPA

Coconut crab.

Source:

NOAA,PacificIslandsFisheriesScience

Center,Coral

ReefEcosystem

Division,

Robert

Schroeder,photographer

Yellow tang (Zebrasoma flavescens),Mariana Archipelago.

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

Pacific Ocean: In 2009 President GeorgeW. Bush established three new nationalmonuments, comprising the largest marine protected area in US history. TheMariana Trench, Pacific Remote Islands, and Rose Atoll Marine NationalMonument encompass nearly 200,000 square miles (518,000 km2) of marine habi-tat. These areas are home to rare beaked whales (Mesoplodon spp.) and endangeredMicronesianmegapodes (Megapodius laperouse), and include some of themost pris-tine coral reefs in the central Pacific, a sulfur cauldron, and underwater vents andvolcanoes. Marine monuments are permanent and enjoy the highest level of reg-ulatory 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.

Source:

David

Wachenfeld/AUSCAPE

Fisherman selling the day’s catch,Solomon Islands.

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


JO SH G INSBERG, CATHER INE GR IPPO,AND JANE PERR INO

F rom a twenty-first-century perspective, the term discovery harks back hun-dreds 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 uswith wonder and awe—should come as no surprise. With perhaps 30 millionspecies of animals and plants in the world, and only about 2 million of thesedescribed 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 meanmany things. Most commonly, we think about the discovery of entirely newspecies, 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 dis-cover new species when we revisit old findings using modern tools, such asmolecular analysis of evolutionary histories, or new approaches to observing ananimal’s behavior in the wild.

Finally, we may also discover new populations of a species, a particularlyuplifting find when the species in question is endangered. As the distinguishedecologists Jared Diamond and Robert May noted over 20 years ago in the jour-nal Nature,1 conservation biology is a discipline with a time limit. In the lastyear alone, discoveries of several thousand orangutans in Borneo, 125,000 low-land gorillas in northern Congo, and 6,000 Irrawaddy dolphins in Bangladeshall gave us hope, buying us time in our endeavor to assure the persistence ofthe world’s wildlife.

Discoveries

Discoveries • 39

On a recreational dive off of Ambon Island,Indonesia, husband and wife dive team Buck and FitrieRandolph of Maluku Divers photographed andobserved a new species of anglerfish that has come tobe known as the Maluku frogfish or Histiophryne psy-chedelica for its swirling striped pattern. The fish pos-sesses leglike pectoral fins, a prominent feature ofanglerfish, and has an unusually flat face with a frown-ing mouth and forward-directed eyes, which may allowfor better depth perception. Its body structure is softand pliable, allowing it to creep into crevices seeminglytoo small for its size. H. psychedelica does not have alure fixed to its head for catching prey as other angler-fish do; rather, this fish hunts by waiting with mouthgaping, striking at close passersby.2

Blair Hedges of Pennsylvania State University discov-ered the 3 inch (10 cm) long Leptotyphlops carlae snakehiding under a small rock on the island of Barbados.Belonging to the threadsnake family, which look muchlike earthworms, the world’s smallest known snake usesits lower jaw to raketermite and ant lar-vae into its mouth.The species layselongated eggs, atrait related primar-ily to the shape of theavailable body cavityand clutch size.4

Maluku frogfish.

Source:

David

Hall/seaphotos.com

In the Thua Thien Hue province of centralVietnam lies one of the last remaining lowland wetevergreen forests rich in biodiversity, a remote part ofthe Annamite mountain range known as the GreenCorridor. Here a World Wide Fund for Nature expe-dition discovered 11 new species of plants and ani-mals. The list of discoveries includes the nonven-emous white-lipped keelback snake (Amphiesma leu-comystax), which has a yellow-white stripe along itsmouth; a butterfly in a new genus under the Satyrinaesubfamily; a new Zela species of skipper butterfly; andfive new orchids.5

White-lipped keelback snake.

Source:

Raoul

Bain,

American

Museum

ofNatural

History

Leptotyphlops carlae threadsnake.

Source:

S.BlairHedges

Sengis or ele-phant-shrews,so named fortheir longsnouts, sup-posedly werefully knownuntil Italians c i e n t i s tF r a n c e s c o

Rovero discovered the first new species in 125 years inthe Udzungwa Mountains of Tanzania. Rhynchocyonudzungwensis is a giant elephant-shrew compared to itsclose relatives and can grow to 1.5 pounds (0.68 kg), 25percent larger than other known shrews. The speciesis most likely monogamous like other elephant-shrewsand lives only in two high-altitude forest blocks in themountains of south-central Tanzania.3

Rhynchocyon udzungwensis.

Source:

FrancescoRovero,

MTS

N


In 1857, British scientist Alfred Russell Wallacecollected a flying fox specimen on the Indonesianisland of Sulawesi. He was certain that Stylocteniumwallacei was a unique species of fruit bat, although hewas met with adversity upon this announcement. AsWallace’s discovery was the sole specimen of its kind,he had difficulty making his case. If ever existent, thespecies was believed to be extinct. Recently, scientistson an expedition on Mindoro Island, Philippines, dis-covered another curious species of Styloctenium.Various physical traits distinguish Styloctenium min-dorensis from other fruit bats, and through geneticanalysis there is no doubt that this creature is distinc-tive among its relatives.7

Andrew Plumptre of the Wildlife ConservationSociety led the first research team in decades intoMisotshi-Kabogo forest, an area in the easternDemocratic Republic of Congo that has been used as arebel base camp in a series of civil wars. The region hasnotably rich biodiversity, which likely resulted from therelative isolation of the forest for centuries. The team’sdiscoveries include four new mammals—a small batspecies (Rhinolophus spp.) with horseshoe-shaped nos-trils, a rat species, and two shrew species—and twonew amphibians—a bright green frog of the Hyperoliusgenus and a black frog of the Phrynobatracus genus thatmeasures 0.80 inch (2 cm) long.6

Hyperolius spp.

Source: A.J. Plumptre

Styloctenium mindorensis.

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

Discoveries • 41

While setting up a British Government DarwinInitiative Award project, conservation biologist JulianBayliss used Google Earth to identify mountains over5,000 feet (1,500 m) in northern Mozambique. The aimwas to assess the biological similarity between MountMulanje in southern Malawi and its neighboring moun-tains in northernMozambique, includingMountMabu.When Bayliss first climbed up Mount Mabu in 2005 henoticed a dark green area of forest in the distance.Using satellite imagery, he determined that this forestwas the largest continuous tract of midaltitude forest insouthern Africa. Subsequent field visits confirmed this.An international team of 28 scientists, led by RoyalBotanic Gardens Kew botanist Jonathan Timberlake,visited the area in 2008 and found a wealth of newlydocumented species. These included the globallythreatened Thyolo alethe thrush (Alethe alethe choloen-sis), which appeared in moderate numbers, andMozambique’s only endemic bird species,Namuli apalis,previously believed to populate only Mount Namuli.Among the new species were two butterflies; threesnakes, including a new species of bush viper (Atherismabuensis); a pygmy chameleon (Rhampholeon spp.); andrare orchids.8

Atheris mabuensis.Source:

JulianBayliss

Australian and US conservationists, led by ScottKeogh of the Australian National University’s Schoolof Botany and Zoology, were ecstatic to uncover anew iguana species in Fiji after analysis of mitochon-drial DNA from 61 iguanas from 13 islands. AlthoughFijian iguanas are well studied among reptiles, one ofthe Brachylophus genus had been overlooked. NamedBrachylophus bulabula after the Fijian word for “hello,”this iguana has distinctly white banding over its entirebody that immediately greets the eye. Unfortunately,it seems this newly discovered reptile is already highlythreatened by introduced predators such as mon-gooses and feral cats.9

Brachylophus bulabula.

Source: Paddy Ryan/Ryan Photographic


Amphibians around the globe are under threat, sothe discovery of 10 new amphibian species byConservation International was an encouraging signand reason to protect the mountainous Tacarcuna Hillsregion of northwestern Colombia. These finds includean orange-legged rain frog (Pristimantis spp.) with spikyskin, three glass frogs (Nymphargus, Cochranella, andCentrolene spp.) with transparent skin, one harlequinfrog (Atelopus spp.), three poison dart frogs (Colostethus,Ranitomeya, and Anomaloglossus spp.), and a salamander(Bolitoglossa taylori).10

Along the Rio Aracá, a tributary of the Rio Negroin Brazil, conservation scientist Jean-Phillipe Boublidiscovered a new species of uakari. Having followedthe native Yanomamo Indians on their hunts, Boublinoted variations in this small monkey that distin-guished it from other uakari species, and while otheruakaris normally inhabit flooded river forests, the newCacajao ayresii, so-called in honor of Brazilian biologistJosé Márcio Ayres, was found in a mountainous regionalong the Brazil–Venezuela border. The newly founduakari species lives in a small territory outside of anypreserve and is sometimes hunted by locals.11

Bolitoglossa taylori.

Source: CI-Colombia/photo by Marco Rada

Cacajao ayresii.

Source:

ÍtaloMourthé

Discoveries • 43

JOSH GINSBERG is vice president and deputy chief of conservation for the WildlifeConservation Society (WCS). Josh has worked for WCS for 13 years and previously heldpositions as vice president of conservation operations, director of the Asia and PacificProgram, and acting director of the Africa Program. Josh spent 17 years as a field biol-ogist/conservationist in Asia and Africa and is currently an adjunct professor atColumbia University.CATHERINE GRIPPO is program manager for the Wildlife Conservation SocietyInstitute and photo editor for State of the Wild. She previously worked in the musicindustry. Catherine holds a BA in communication and media studies from FordhamUniversity, 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 inter-ested in translating zoological research to public education for conservation efforts. Janelives in New York City where she works as a part-time research assistant for the WildlifeConservation Society.

Five new pygmy seahorses were discoveredin the reefs of the Red Sea in the MiddleEast, and off Sulawesi, Indonesia, a result ofcollaboration between scientists and dive pho-tographers. It has taken decades for the twocommunities to track down several of thesecreatures since initial sightings. The Waleaseahorse (Hippocampus waleananus), namedafter a central Sulawesi island, is a brilliantorange. H. debelius was named for dive pho-tographer Helmut Debelius, who led a suc-cessful campaign to track this knobby, red-lined seahorse, while H. severnsi, a seahorsewith a blotchy white and brown tone andshort spines along its dorsal side, was namedafter 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 small-est seahorse; this species gives birth to young approximately the size of a 12-point-type apos-trophe. Pontoh’s seahorse (H. pontohi), beige in color, was discovered by a local Indonesianguide named Hence Pontoh.12

Satomi’s pygmy seahorse.

Source:

Takako

Uno


The Rarest of the

Rare

Amur or Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica).

The Rarest of the

Rare

Source:

Julie

Larsen

Maher/W

CS

The Rarest of the Rare • 45

Some of theWorld’s MostEndangeredAnimalsE xtinction is tragic, especially if it is preventable. Today, many species are

threatened by habitat destruction, overhunting, and the loss of prey andfood sources. The complete list of Earth’s rarest creatures is too long for thesepages. Instead, each volume of State of the Wild highlights a selection of lifeforms that are inching closer to extinction, representing different taxonomicgroups and all regions of the globe.

The following species are listed as Critically Endangered by the InternationalUnion for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a global network of almost 11,000volunteer scientists who compile and update the comprehensive Red List. TheIUCN Red List categorizes rare species as Near Threatened, Vulnerable,Endangered, or Critically Endangered based on observed and estimated popu-lations, threats, and specific biological parameters. Critically Endangeredspecies face an “extremely high risk of extinction in the wild,” often meaningthat the species’ numbers have been reduced by approximately 80 percent in thelast 10 years (or three generations). Unfortunately, as of 2009, the total numberof Critically Endangered plant and animal species was well over 3,200, a statis-tic that grows with each assessment. Thankfully, some saw genuine improve-ment in their conservation status: 37 mammal and two bird species are now lessthreatened than they were. Species on the road to recovery, two of which arefeatured in the following text, prove that conservation action can indeed help.


Cuban crocodile: The Cubancrocodile (Crocodylus rhombifer),which reaches a maximum size ofabout 11 feet (3.5 m) in length, iscurrently restricted to two smallareas of Cuba. Illegal hunting con-tinues to be a threat, chiefly formeat for restaurants serving thetourist industry. There is also evi-dence of extensive hybridizationwith American crocodiles(Crocodylus acutus), which arefound throughout Central andnorthern South America. The esti-mated population of Cuban croc-odiles is 4,000, but it is highly like-ly that a growing number of theseanimals are hybrids.1

Green-eyed frog: Chytrid fungus,fatal to amphibians, has reducedthe population of the green-eyedfrog (Lithobates vibicarius) to onlya few hundred. This frog, whichgrows to an average of 2.5 inches(6.5 cm), was once common inCosta Rica and Panama. Agri-culture and logging have nowlimited its range to Costa Ricawhere a population near ParqueNacional Juan Castro Blancoexhibited physical deformitieslikely due to agricultural chemi-cals easily absorbed by frogs.One hope for the species iscaptive breeding.3

Florida bonneted bat: The Floridabonneted bat (Eumops floridanus)was thought to be extinct until2002, when a small colony was dis-covered in a North Fort Myers sub-urb. The bat, the largest in Florida,with a 21-inch (53 cm) wingspan, iscritically endangered due to theloss of roosting sites, a cumulativeresult of the felling of old trees inhurricanes and for construction.Pesticide spraying for mosquitoesmay contribute to a decline ofthese insectivorous bats. Their pop-ulation is estimated at about 100,and they were recently reviewedfor potential Federal protection.2

Grenada dove: The national bird of this Caribbean islandnation, the Grenada dove (Leptotila wellsi) numbers fewer than150. The pink-breasted bird is legally protected and has been fea-tured on the country’s postage stamp. Nevertheless, habitat loss inGrenada, compounded by introduced predators such as mon-gooses, cats, and rats, has pushed the remaining Grenada doves toMt. Hartman National Park and Mt. Hartman Estate. Despiteplans to develop part of this area as a resort, a 10-year recoveryplan hopes to restore enough habitat to support four subpopula-tions totaling several hundred doves.4

Florida bonneted bat.

Source:

Merlin

D.Tuttle,Bat

Conservation

International,www.batcon.org

Cuban crocodile.

Source:

Julie

Larsen

Maher/W

CS

Green-eyed frog.

Source:

2005RobertPuschendorf

Grenada dove.

Source:

BonnieL.

Rusk2004

Some of the World’s Most Endangered Animals • 47

Hirola: The hirola or Hunter’shartebeest (Beatragus hunteri orDamaliscus hunteri) is one of themost highly threatened antelopesin Africa. It is now found only inan approximately 2,900-square-mile (7,600 km2) area along theborder of Kenya and Somalia.White markings around the hiro-la’s head give it the appearance ofwearing glasses. The main threatsto the species include disease,predators, habitat loss due toencroachment by cattle farmers,and severe drought. The specieshas been legally protected fromhunting in Kenya since 1971 and inSomalia since 1977, but lack ofeffective enforcement leaves it vul-nerable to poaching. An estimated600 individuals survive.5

Ploughshare tortoise: The plough-share tortoise (Astrochelys yniphora)is found in the Baly Bay region innorthwestern Madagascar. Thecurrent wild population is nearly200 mature animals (400 individu-als in total). The tortoise was his-torically threatened by hunting andfrequent human-caused fires. Ilegalcollection of ploughshare tortoisesfor the international pet trade con-tinues to be a threat. Smugglinghas increased since the 2009 politi-cal unrest in Madagascar. The tor-toises are now restricted to fivesmall, unconnected subpopula-tions, posing a genetic concern forthe species. Ploughshare tortoisesare nearly certain to go extinctwithin 30 years if current threatscontinue unabated.6

Island gray fox: The island grayfox (Urocyon littoralis), at 3 to 4pounds (1.5 kg), is the smallest foxin the United States, and it livesonly on six of the CaliforniaChannel Islands. The fox is vulner-able to canine diseases introducedto the islands by domestic dogs andalso heavily preyed upon by thegolden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Itis believed that there are fewerthan 1,000 individuals left. Even so,in the past decade, gray foxes wereeuthanized on San ClementeIsland to protect another rarespecies, the endemic loggerheadshrikes (Lanius ludovicanus mearsi).Because both the shrikes and thefoxes are so rare, the fox-controlefforts ceased in 2003, and thefocus is now on restoring habitatand reducing the populations ofintroduced species on the islands.7

Hirola.

Source:

WinfriedWisniew

ski/FLPA

Island gray fox.

Source:

Moose

Peterson/ardea.com

Ploughshare tortoise.

Source:

WCS


White-headed langur: Thewhite-headed or Cat Ba langur(Trachypithecus poliocephalus) liveson Cat Ba Island in Halong Bay offthe northeastern coast ofVietnam. There may be as few as59 individuals remaining, theresult of a 98 percent decline overthe last 40 years. The majorthreats to this species are huntingfor “monkey balm,” a traditionalChinese medicinal preparation,and the destruction and exploita-tion of their forest habitat. Prior to1979, few people lived on Cat BaIsland, but now approximately12,300 people live in the bufferzone of Cat Ba National Park. Thewhite-headed langurs are split intojust a few isolated subpopulations,many of which are all-femalegroups. This fragmentation resultsin low reproductive rates and adanger of inbreeding.10

Vaquita: The five-foot-long (1.5m) vaquita (Phocoena sinus) is thesmallest marine cetacean and isknown to occur only in the north-ern Gulf of California in Mexico.This porpoise has distinctive darkrings around its eyes and darkpatches on its beak. The mainthreat to the vaquita is gettingcaught and drowned in fishinggillnets used in these waters. Inaddition, the vaquita may beaffected by reduced water flowinto the Gulf from the ColoradoRiver, and the increase in pesticideand fertilizer pollution in thatwater. A population estimate con-ducted in 1997 estimated that 567vaquitas survive, but their currentnumber is estimated at 150. In2009, the Mexican governmentpassed a resolution to ban trawlingin part of the vaquita’s range.9

Sumatran orangutan: The major-ity of Sumatran orangutans (Pongoabelii) live in the province of Acehin northern Sumatra, Indonesia.They were originally considered asubspecies of the neighboringBorneo orangutan (Pongo pyg-maeus) but were classified as a dis-tinct (and much rarer) species in2004. The Sumatran orangutanpopulation is believed to havedeclined by 80 percent based on avariety of surveys over the past 75years. A 2008 estimate places thepopulation of Sumatran orang-utans at around 6,600 left in thewild. Most orangutans live outsideprotected areas, and their foresthabitat is seriously threatened bylogging and deforestation for palmoil plantations. As more forest isconverted, young orangutans areorphaned, illegally captured forthe international pet trade, killedas pests for raiding fruit crops, oreven killed for food.8

Sumatran orangutan.

Source:

AnupShah/naturepl.com

Vaquita.

Source:

Flip

Nicklin/M

indenPictures/


White-headed langur.

Source:

TerryWhittaker/AUSCAPE

Road to Recovery • 49

Przewalski’s horse: The stocky, short-neckedPrzewalski’s horse (Equus ferus przewalskii) is the onlytrue living species of wild horse. It is native to thesteppe of Central Asia and became extinct in the wild,existing only in zoos and animal parks. Projects spear-headed in the early 1990s by the Mongolian Associationfor Conservation of Nature and the Environment, theFoundation for the Preservation and Protection of thePrzewalski’s Horse, and the International Takhi Grouphave reintroduced the horse into its native habitat inthree areas in central, northwest, and southwestMongolia. As of January 2008, there are more than 300free-ranging reintroduced and wild-born Przewalski’shorses and the number is increasing. Further initiativesare under way in neighboring China. There are hopesthat there will soon be large, self-sustaining wild popu-lations of the once extinct animal.12

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 andthen was long thought to be extinct because its naturalhabitat was almost completely destroyed by the con-struction of an airport. However, in the 1990s, captivebreeding and release programs were initiated by a col-laboration of the Melbourne Zoo, World WildlifeFund–Hong Kong, Hong Kong University, and theKadoorie Farm and Botanic Gardens. A few thousandfrogs were released at various sites, and while it appearsthat the population has not grown significantly, thespecies has survived where it was once thought lost.11

Road to Recovery

Romer’s tree frog.

Source:

ChunChiu,

Pang

Przewalski’s horse.

Source:

EricBaccega/naturepl.com


Rarest EcosystemsPATR ICK COMER

An ecosystem represents an interconnected set of animal, plant, insect,and other species in a particular part of a biome. The variety of ecosys-

tems that our planet affords is astounding, and more so when we learn aboutan ecosystem that is highly adapted to a particular set of environmental param-eters. The following are two representatives from the increasing number ofrare ecosystems—rare either because they have been degraded, their charac-teristic community of species has changed, or they exist in very particularplaces. As the global climate warms and precipitation patterns shift, environ-

mental parameters will influence ecosystems in newways, so it is worth taking a close look at them. As of2010, two of the rarest ecosystems on Earth are the lon-gleaf pine woodlands of North America and theGuyanan tepuis of South America.

In the spring of 1773 William Bartram, a naturalistfrom Philadelphia, traveled across the southeasternUnited States and saw “a vast forest of the most statelypine trees that can be imagined.”1 At that time, longleafpine (Pinus palustris) was the dominant tree across muchof the coastal plain, encompassing some 141,000 squaremiles (360,000 km2) from Virginia in the northeast, southto Florida, and west to Texas. Over time, logging, landdevelopment, and management techniques to suppresswildfires destroyed most of these old-growth forests.Currently, less than 3,000 square miles (7,800 km2) of long-leaf pine forests still exist, a 97 percent decline and one ofthe most drastic reductions of any major ecosystem in

PATRICK COMER is chief terrestrial ecologist for NatureServe, an international non-profit devoted to bringing scientific methods, information, and understanding to envi-ronmental decision makers. His research centers on the classification, mapping, andassessment of terrestrial ecosystems throughout the Americas. He also develops methodsand tools for integrating scientific information into land use planning.

Prescribed fireshave helped to pre-serve longleaf pineforests in Florida.

Source:

RaymondGehman/N


Rarest Ecosystems • 51

the United States. The Red Hills Region of Florida and Georgia is home to someof the best-preserved stands of longleaf pine.

Longleaf pine woodlands encompass a variety of habitats and include adiverse suite of grasses and herbs. Individual trees can grow up to 115 feet (35m) and can live 300 years. The longleaf pine is adapted to an environment inwhich extensive natural fires may burn every few years. The rare animalspecies that occur in longleaf pine woodlands include the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), as well as several amphibians and rep-tiles such as the gopher tortoise(Gopherus polyphemus) and the easternindigo snake (Drymarchon coraiscouperi)—the largest North Americansnake. Since the early 1990s, ecosys-tem-based land management onmany public and private lands hasslowed or even reversed the declineof these forests, and many popula-tions of red-cockaded woodpeckerhave begun to stabilize.

The Guyanan tepuis are isolatedmesas or tabletop mountains that arefound only among the GuyanaHighlands in the border regions ofVenezuela, Guyana, and Brazil. Tepuismeans “house of the gods” in thelocal indigenous language. Most are composed of sandstones and quartzites andare so geologically ancient that they have been eroded with sinkholes and deepcaves (features more common in soluble limestones). Typically between 2,600and 5,000 feet (800 to 1,500 m) above sea level, they tower above the surround-ing 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 orKerepakupai Merú. Due to their age and relative isolation—both from the sur-rounding jungle and one another—tepuis support unique local ecosystems richin endemic (locally evolved) species. Coarse, thick-leaved shrublands occuracross the tops and sides of some tepuis and can form dense thickets reaching26 feet (8 m) in height. In this extremely wet, cool climate, short trees, includ-ing the threatened conifer Podocarpus roraimae form open canopies over succu-lent and rosette-forming shrubs and herbs. Most tepuis are protected withinVenezuela’s Canaima National Park, which is classified as a World Heritage Siteby the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. u

Angel Falls, Auyantepui.

Source:

Kevin

Schafer/Peter

Arnold,

Inc.

M ad cow disease, monkey pox, Ebola, and avian influenza are now householdwords, expressions of the inextricable link between the health of wildlife,

people, and domestic animals. The exponential growth of human and livestockpopulations, urbanization, intensive agriculture, and the global trade in animalshas increased the chances for contact between animals, humans, and disturbedecosystems, for diseases to emerge or reemerge, and for those diseases tospread. This is of particular concern as we consider zoonotic diseases—diseasesthat are transmissible from animals to humans. The multifaceted nature of thisissue challenges our previously held notions of the boundaries between wildlifeconservation, veterinary science, pathology, human livelihoods, agriculture, andpublic health. The threat of disease can be global—as recently illustrated by the2009 H1N1 influenza’s rapid spread from Mexico to countries around theworld—which means that all sectors need to collaborate to both prevent andrespond to outbreaks. As conservationists, we need to partner with like-mindedindividuals and organizations in human health, agriculture, and the domesticanimal veterinary fields to craft effective ways to make our world a healthierplace for all.

There are multiple connections between disease, health, and conservation.Disruption of ecosystems, such as deforestation, flooding caused by dams, andagricultural expansion, can provide opportunities for disease emergence and


Emerging Diseases and Conservation:

An Update on

One World—One Health1

WILL IAM B . KARESH

WILLIAM B. KARESH is vice president of the Wildlife Conservation Society and direc-tor of its Global Health Program. He is leading efforts around the world to reduce theimpact of diseases such as Ebola, influenza, and tuberculosis on endangered speciesand people. He also serves as president of the World Organization for Animal Health’sWorking Group on Wildlife Diseases and cochairs the IUCN’s Wildlife HealthSpecialist Group.

reemergence, particularly zoonotic diseases. Incursions into forests and otherwild areas bring humans and their livestock closer to wildlife, increasing thechance of contact and disease transmission. Overhunting can eliminate certainspecies from a complex ecological web, disrupting predator–prey relationshipsand allowing dramatic changes to occur in the numbers of disease vectors andreservoirs (often insects and rodents). The disruption of ecosystems oftenweakens the natural barriers to the movement of disease, which has resultedin the emergence of novel diseases such as severe acute respiratory syndrome(SARS), Ebola, and new strains of avian influenza, the reemergence of old dis-eases such as anthrax, and the further spread of existing diseases such as tuber-culosis. Continued environmental degradation, intensified livestock produc-tion, and a warming climate all increase the risk of disease transmissionbetween wildlife, domestic animals, and people. At the same time, rapid inter-national transportation, livestock export, and the illegal trade of wild animalsprovide avenues for the quick spread of diseases far beyond the countrieswhere they originate.

Emerging zoonotic diseases impede the global endeavors to improve humanhealth and livelihoods, and therefore must be studied and addressed through

Emerging Diseases and Conservation: An Update on One World—One Health • 53

The Ebola viruskills both gorillasand humans.Currently, there isno known cure forthe disease.S

ource:

Julie

Larsen

Maher/W

CS

comprehensive policy. Infectious diseases that have emerged and reemergedsince the mid-1990s have cost an estimated $100 billion in losses to the globaleconomy in that time.2 The health sciences have traditionally been segregatedinto many specialty areas without linkages between human medicine, livestockdisease, and wildlife health. The compartmentalization of these specializedfields has hampered communication, research, and other efforts that could pre-vent or control the emergence and spread of diseases. A broader understandingof the connection between human and animal health requires a more compre-hensive approach, such as the One World–One Health paradigm, highlighted in

the State of the Wild 2008–2009. TheOne World–One Health paradigmengages expertise and experiencefrom a range of not only the healthprofessions, but also biologists, sociol-ogists, anthropologists, economists,natural resource managers, and otherstakeholders from the public and pri-vate sectors to address complexhealth challenges and utilizes a multi-disciplinary approach to create solu-tions.

Since State of the Wild 2008–2009’sspecial section on emerging diseasesand conservation was published,much progress has been made towardunderstanding the driving factorsbehind disease emergence and shar-

ing that information across professional disciplines and political borders. Highlypathogenic avian influenza (subtype H5N1) is still killing millions of domesticpoultry (mostly chickens and ducks in Asia and Africa) and causing economichardship for people in the affected countries. It also continues to infect and killpeople (over 400 cases were reported as of October 2009, resulting in at least 262human deaths), and presents an ongoing threat of a potential pandemic—a sit-uation where the avian influenza virus mutates so that it can move not just frombird to bird, or bird to human, but from human to human.3 However, collabo-ration among health organizations and local governments to deal with influenzahas vastly improved. Nevertheless, much remains to be done to implement bet-ter control mechanisms, and, although new vaccine technologies for bothhumans and birds may help to reduce risks, in many areas local capabilities tocarry out vaccination strategies are sorely lacking.

Over the past two years, dramatic improvements in global information shar-ing have allowed scientists from around the world to more easily communicate


Wildlife Conservation Society health staffcollect samples from a whooper swan(Cygnus cygnus) in Mongolia to test for thepresence of avian influenza.

Source:

W.B.Karesh/WCS

findings and ideas, an essential step toward meeting the challenge of protectingpeople and animals from influenza. The Global Initiative on Sharing AvianInfluenza Data (GISAID) has fostered international sharing of avian influenzavirus isolates and related data in new ways.4 Scientists participating in theGISAID consortium have agreed to allow access to their sequence data, to ana-lyze the findings jointly, to publish the results collaboratively, and to exchangenew virus information within months, rather than many years as was com-monplace in the past. The hundreds of scientists working on innovative analy-ses 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 howcommon it is and where it is present in wild and domestic birds. We need toknow where wild birds migrate and if wild birds carry thevirus from its incubation points in large duck and chickenfarms. To help answer these questions, the WildlifeConservation Society (WCS) created the Global AvianInfluenza Network for Surveillance (GAINS) in 2006.5

Over the past 4 years, participants from GAINS partnerorganizations around the world have recorded the move-ments and locations of over 100,000,000 wild birds, col-lected over 40,000 samples for influenza testing, andplaced their findings in a publicly available, open databaseand mapping system. Thousands of people have beentrained to safely and effectively participate in a globalwildlife health monitoring system for the first time in his-tory. Further applications of this global monitoringapproach could cover a wide range of diseases, and could enhance the detec-tion of new diseases, or the occurrence of known diseases in new places. TheUS Agency for International Development has therefore launched a new ini-tiative to support a multisectoral, multidisciplinary approach to monitoringother wildlife diseases around the world.

Over the last two years, the OneWorld–One Health concept has gained wideacceptance, as well as the endorsement of policy makers. The World HealthOrganization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) have adopted the OneWorld–One Health approach in their forward-looking collaborative efforts tocontrol avian pandemic influenza and other diseases of global concern. InWinnipeg in 2009, the Public Health Agency of Canada hosted a meeting ofhealth experts and diplomats from UN member countries to develop, plan, andimplement multilateral agency and national government actions to preventzoonotic disease outbreaks, promote health programs, and better prepare torespond to potential pandemics. In addition, the Asia Pacific Economic


Highly pathogenic avian influenza(subtype H5N1), is still killingmillions of domestic poultry(mostly chickens and ducks inAsia and Africa) and causingeconomic hardship for peoplein the affected countries.

Community’s health working group—whose member countries have experi-enced their fair share of health crises from zoonotic outbreaks such as SARS andNipah virus—adopted the One World–One Health concept at their 2008 meet-ing in Peru and made a commitment to finding collaborative ways to improvehealth and livelihoods.

National governments are also acknowledging the links between wildlife,domestic animal, ecosystem, and human health, and the need for cross-sec-toral policies to address the threat of disease. There is growing recognitionthat 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 Braziliangovernment brought together the ministries of agricul-ture, human health, and the environment to developmultidisciplinary projects to advance the health of peo-ple, animals, and the environment. Since the launch ofBrazil’s One World–One Health program, ten projectslinking human, domestic animal, and wildlife healthhave been funded.

In the United States, the National Academies ofScience has embraced the ideas underlying One World–One Health and has commissioned a number of panelsand studies to address the growing need to comprehen-sively address emerging diseases, the global spread ofdisease, and the expected effects of climate change on

disease. These initiatives have engaged significant wildlife health expertise andrecommended formal integration among health and environmental sectors inways that have not been seen before. The US Centers for Disease Control andPrevention (CDC) created the National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne,and Enteric Diseases under the CDC’s Coordinating Center for InfectiousDiseases. Staffed with over 600 epidemiologists, physicians, veterinarians, andother disease specialists, this new center brings together some of the oldestcomponents of the agency—those dealing with viral, bacterial, parasitic, andother communicable diseases—in order to understand, prevent, and controlinfectious 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 onlivestock health and required its 174 member countries to report on diseaseoccurrences in order to maintain their international agricultural trading sta-tus. Recently, the OIE has added a broader range of zoonotic and wildlife dis-eases to its list and has modified its global electronic disease reporting systemto include wildlife diseases. As of 2009, the OIE requires countries to report


A frequently overlooked facetof climate change is that warmertemperature and altered rainfalllevels may foster emergingand reemerging infectiousdiseases, posing a threat to

humans and wildlife.

on instances of chytrid fungus and ranaviral diseases ofamphibians, two diseases that spread quickly and havecaused local extinctions of frogs.

Wildlife health measures are being incorporated intothe field of conservation not only at the policy level butalso on the ground in areas where it is greatly needed,such as rural southern Africa. State of the Wild 2008–2009described how past efforts by livestock interests to controldisease set the stage for potential disease reemergence insouthern Africa’s transfrontier conservation areas(TFCAs). TFCAs re-connect protected areas, sometimesacross international borders, often requiring the disman-tling of disease “control” fences to open migration path-ways for wildlife. Although seemingly good for conserva-tion and ecotourism, without appropriate planning, thispractice could pose the risk of disease transmissionbetween formerly segregated wildlife populations andbetween wildlife and the livestock and humans in and nearthese parks. Over the past two years, the countries of theSouthern African Development Community have contin-ued to build collaborative efforts, and more than half amillion dollars of funding has supported local projectsfocused on health challenges facing livestock, wildlife, and people in andaround TFCAs.6 While the challenges are greater than ever, there is now hon-est engagement among park managers, livestock owners, other local commu-nity members, tourism operators, veterinarians, and physicians. These stake-holders are committed to ensuring that the establishment of the TFCAs pro-ceeds without negative consequences to the health of wildlife, livestock, andhumans. For possibly the first time, a broad range of issues such as proper gov-ernance structures, human resettlement, poverty alleviation, natural resourcesmanagement, gender roles, zoonotic and other infectious diseases (includingHIV/AIDS), open data-sharing, and the need to fence land are being discussedwith all stakeholders.

Collaborative work on disease monitoring, prevention, and conservation willcontinue to be critical as we look to the future. A frequently overlooked facet ofglobal climate change is that warmer temperature and altered rainfall levels mayfoster emerging and reemerging infectious diseases, posing an increased threatto humans and wildlife. The health of wild animals is tightly woven into theecosystems in which they live, and alterations in their environment, includingthose caused by changes in temperature and rainfall, can influence their suscep-tibility to disease. Climate-related changes can also affect the viability of virus-es, bacteria, and parasites.


Humans can contract Rift Valley fever fromexposure to the bodily fluids of infecteddomestic animals or through the bite of avirus-carrying mosquito. These goats weretested for the virus during an outbreak inSaudi Arabia.

Source:

CDC/AbbigailTumpey


At the IUCN’s 2008 World Conservation Congress in Barcelona, Spain, WCSreported that climate change could influence 12 pathogens and their spread intonew regions with potential cascading effects on the health of wildlife, humanpopulations, and global economies. This report, The Deadly Dozen: Wildlife–Human Disease Threats in the Age of Climate Change, highlights that some disease-causing agents are very sensitive to climate conditions that can affect bothwildlife and people, such as Rift Valley fever (a zoonotic disease spread by mos-quitoes), red tides (toxic ocean algal blooms deadly to both humans and marinelife), and anthrax (a lethal bacteria that can be long lived in the environment).7

Little data exists on how diseases willspread in response to climate change,and surveillance efforts for these dis-eases need to be examined in tandemwith meteorological data to reveal cli-mate-related trends.

Drivers of global change—popula-tion growth, expanding agricultureand livestock production, biodiversity

loss, and climate change—disturb the balance of disease pathogens in wildecosystems. We are beginning to gain an understanding of the vulnerabilities ofcertain species, transmission routes, and ways to prevent disease problems. Butorganisms continue to mutate, adapt, and spread. Exciting work is taking placeto develop new technologies for mapping and monitoring diseases, and to createnew 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 changingworld. We must continue to build new partnerships, stronger capabilities forwildlife health surveillance, and, as importantly, innovative mechanisms to putinformation to use to effectively protect the health of wildlife, domestic animals,and people everywhere. F

Exciting work is taking place todevelop new technologies for

mapping and monitoring diseases,and to create new vaccines.

Champions of the Wild • 59

Champions of the Wild

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

The Guards of Chad’s Zakouma National Park Protection Unit are stateemployees entrusted with park security. They spend most of their daysdealing with elephant poaching problems inside the park. Their dedica-tion is noteworthy. For example, the chief of the Goz Djerat outpost hasbeen paying informants out of his own pocket to notify him aboutpoaching activities, leading to seizures of automatic weapons and thearrest of some poachers. Tragically, the poachers are winning, as theelephant population has crashed from nearly 4,000 to just over 600 indi-viduals in just the past four years. Since 1990, 14 guards and 3 civilianpark employees have been killed by poachers. Following are the namesof the Zakouma guards and employees who have lost their lives for con-servation: 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 makesenforcing conservation efforts extremely difficult, but despite the dan-gers presented by poachers and the tough working conditions withinZakouma, many of the guards stay committed to saving the park’sremaining elephants.

Zakouma ranger on patrol.

Source:

D.Potgieter


Mark Higley is an exemplary naturalist, scientist, manager, and mentor. He hasserved as the wildlife biologist for the Hoopa Valley Tribe in northwestern Californiasince 1991. The Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation is the largest land-based reservationin California. According to the 2000 US Census, the reservation suffers from an unem-ployment rate of 14 percent and a poverty rate of 29 percent, rivaling figures of manyAmerican inner cities. Higley helps the Hoopa Valley Tribe’s Forestry Division pro-vide for the conservation and management of natural resources, many of which areimportant to the tribe for cultural and traditional subsistence. He oversees researchand monitoring efforts of wildlife populations on the reservation, supervises crews offield technicians to complete federally mandated endangered species surveys, andbrings outside conservation expertise to the reservation. Higley also developed inno-vative management approaches, involving community participation and science, toaddress human–bear conflict issues on the reservation. The extreme socioeconomicconditions on the reservation have a direct impact on quality of life and the means toachieve self-sufficiency, making for a challenging work environment, but Higley’sefforts are paying off both for the tribe and for the wildlife on their land.

Yuri Melini is founder and director of the Center for Environmental,Social, and Legal Action (CALAS), an environmental nonprofit organiza-tion based in Guatemala City, Guatemala. Melini has publicly highlightedthe socioenvironmental impacts of mining, petroleum exploration, andillegal timber extraction across Guatemala and particularly within theMaya Biosphere Reserve (MBR), Guatemala’s most ecologically intact andarchaeologically important protected area. Challenges to the protectionof the MBR include the usurpation of massive expanses of parks and com-munity managed forests by powerful individuals, many supported by orlinked to the narcotics trade, and the lack of consistent application ofnational laws. Much of Melini’s work focuses on three areas. First, he isleading the national charge to improve the government’s ability to holdpowerful absentee ranchers accountable for usurping land in the MBR.Second, he is working to pass national legislation aimed at improvingenforcement. And finally, he supports community groups attempting todefend forest concessions granted to them by the government. Melini hastrained lawyers, prosecutors, and judges in environmental legislation andhelped to develop a cadre of professionals willing to promote institutionalchange in Guatemala. In 2008, Melini suffered an assassination attempt inwhich he was shot several times at close range. Fortunately, he survivedthe attack and continues living andworking in Guatemala as a tireless pub-lic advocate for the basic human right to a healthy environment.

Mark Higley.

Source:

Chuck

Goddard,Hoopa

ValleyTribe

Yuri Melini.

Source:

CALAS

Champions of the Wild • 61

Habiba Sarabi, born Mazari Sharif, was appointed governor ofAfghanistan’s Bamiyan Province in 2005, making her the first female gover-nor in the country. Bamiyan, located in Afghanistan’s central Hindu KushMountains, is one of Afghanistan’s poorest and least-developed provinces,but it is also a region of spectacular natural wonders. Sarabi, a hematologistand former minister of Women’s Affairs, was designated one of TimeMagazine’s “Heroes of the Environment” in 2008, in part for her instrumen-tal role in the establishment of Band-e-Amir National Park, Afghanistan’sfirst official protected area. For decades, tourists have enjoyed Band-e-Amir’ssix crystal blue lakes and spectacular red cliffs, but the area never had pro-tected status. As chair of the Band-e-Amir Protected Area Committee(BAPAC), a government/community management committee, Sarabi suc-cessfully tackled many difficult issues regarding land use and governance.Sarabi understands that in order for tourism to enhance the livelihoods oflocal people, the integrity of Band-e-Amir’s landscape must be maintained.Her strong stance on environmental issues makes her a positive role modelfor local communities, and her actions will inspire national change.

Habiba Sarabi (far right).

Source:

Christopher

Shank/W

CS

The snow leopard that vanishes in a whirlwind of snow

Can be seen stalking on soft paws among the clouds.

Michael Longley,from “The Snow Leopard,”NEW YORKER, March 10, 1997


Conserving wildlife and wild places often entails work-ing under a broad range of political circumstances,

including conflict and war. A recent review showed thatover 90 percent of the major armed conflicts between 1950and 2000 occurred in countries noted for their richness ofspecies and the endangered status of their biodiversity.1

The Wildlife Conservation Society and others have beenworking in many countries that have experienced violence,from Rwanda and Sudan, through Colombia andGuatemala, to Afghanistan and Cambodia. Dealing withhuman conflict has all too often been a part of the conser-vationist’s work.Only recently has the international community begun

to appreciate the cost of instability and war on the naturalworld. For this reason, the special focus of State of the Wild2010–2011 is “Wildlife Conservation in a Time of War.”What follows is an examination of the role that conserva-tion plays in the context of human conflict, war, and recon-struction. Critical to the long-term success of the conser-vation of wildlife and wild places is understanding howwildlife fares in times of conflict, the interventions conser-vation can provide, and how conservation can contributeto reconstruction and rehabilitation.The essays here bring together an international per-

spective ranging from Afghanistan to southern Africa. The

introductory essay, “Conservation Amid War,” synthesizesthe variety of ways in which human conflict affects wildlifeand how conservation organizations can prepare for thesesituations. Next, “Conservation and Governance: Lessonsfrom the Reconstruction Effort in Afghanistan” details howconservation nongovernmental organizations in this war-torn country can help build natural resource managementcapacity and democratic governance while protecting rarespecies such as ibex and markhor sheep. Recognizing thevast scope of the marine realm, the third essay, “MarineLife in Times of Conflict,” illustrates the resilience of theunderwater world in the face of global terrestrial turmoil.In the penultimate essay, “Who Owns the Wild? CivilConflict in Africa,” three experts from the region addresshow government collapse affects wildlife management inMozambique and Zimbabwe, and how communityresource management contributes to stability and supportsconservation. Finally, in a stirring example of the power ofconservation, the essay “Parks as Peacemakers: The Peru–Ecuador Divide” documents the efforts of scientists andcivil society to help alleviate a long-standing border disputein the biodiverse Cordillera de Cóndor region.Through the pursuit of conservation in conflict settings,

we hope that both the affected humans and wild nature cansurvive and heal. i

Focus on the Wild • 63

PART II

FOCUS ON THE WILD

Wildlife Conservationin a Time of War


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

Sou

rce:

Bru

ceD

avid

son/

natu

repl

.com

The Borjomi-Kaharaguli National Park in the southern Caucasus Mountainsof the Republic of Georgia contains some of the best-preserved moun-

tainous forests in that region. It provides important habitat for wolves (Canislupus), brown bears (Ursus arctos), and the endemic Caucasian black grouse(Tetrao mlokosiewiczi). On August 15, 2008, Russian military helicopters report-edly dropped incendiary munitions on the Borjomi forests as part of a retalia-tory campaign, starting fires that burned for weeks and ravaged nearly 2,500acres (1,000 ha). Warfare such as this and in all its forms causes destruction toboth human societies and biodiversity. While ecological damage cannot be com-pared with the human costs of war, the fact that nature also suffers from the fol-lies of violent conflict is a situation worthy of greater attention.From 1968 to 1977, I saw firsthand the impacts of the VietnamWar on the peo-

ple and places of Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Vietcong tactics depended heav-ily on tropical forests for shelter. The US military, wanting to uncover guerrillasupply routes, sprayed the forests with over 21 million gallons of Agent Orange, acarcinogenic herbicide. This deforestation campaign devastated many areas, and

Conservation Amid War • 65

ConservationAmid War

J E F FREY A . McNEELY

JEFFREY A. McNEELY is senior science advisor at the International Union forConservation of Nature (IUCN), where he is responsible for overseeing the work of theworld’s largest conservation network. Before joining IUCN, he spent 12 years inThailand, Indonesia, and Nepal, conducting research and practical application ofresource management activities. He is currently working to link biodiversity to sustain-able agriculture, human health, biotechnology, climate change, energy, and more tradi-tional fields of IUCN interest such as species, protected areas, ecosystems, and economics.

the damage to mangroves in theMekong Delta is still visible today.North Vietnam also sent suppliesdown the Annamite Mountain chainthrough Laos and Vietnam, and USforces sought to disrupt this flow ofordnance by dropping more bombsalong these mountains thanfell on Germany in all ofWorld War II. The substan-tial damage to Vietnam’sforests during this war hasbeen termed “ecocide.”1

Nevertheless, somewildlife was able to surviveand even prosper duringthe wartime conditions inIndochina. Tigers (Pan-thera tigris) reportedlylearned that fighting leavescorpses upon which theycould feed. After the war,field biologists returned toVietnam’s forests to find anamazing number of species had sur-vived the turmoil, including thenewly discovered giant muntjac(Muntiacus vuquangensis) and the saola(Pseudoryx nghetinhensis).Since 1990, wars and civil conflicts

have been waged in forests, grass-lands, and other important wildlifehabitat in Angola, Bosnia, Cambodia,Central African Republic, Colombia,the Democratic Republic of Congo(DRC), Guatemala, India, Indonesia,Liberia, Mexico, Myanmar, Nepal,Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines,Senegal, Sierra Leone, the SolomonIslands, Sri Lanka, and Sudan—quite adepressing catalogue. Over 90 percentof the major armed conflicts in the

second half of the twentieth centuryoccurred in countries containing bio-diversity hotspots—areas that supportthe entire populations of more thanhalf of all plant species and more than42 percent of the planet’s vertebrates.More than 80 percent of all conflicts

took place directly within the highlybiodiverse areas.2 Often, expanses offorest are distant from governmentcontrol and can harbor insurgents.The remoteness also means that fewpublic services are available to main-tain existing protected areas or to helpthe people caught in the conflict. Warcan severely impact biodiversitybecause refugees and militias oftenturn to the forests for food, buildingmaterials, and tradable resources. Atthe same time, conflict makes conser-vation work extremely challenging.The international community is

well aware of the hazards that con-flicts pose to biodiversity. TheConvention on Biological Diversity, in

its Article 3, supports the Charter ofthe United Nations in recognizing theresponsibility of states “to ensure thatactivities within their jurisdiction orcontrol do not cause damage to theenvironment of other States or ofareas beyond the limits of national

jurisdiction.” This estab-lishes a clear internationallegal basis aimed at avoid-ing environmental damageduring wars betweennations. The conventionalso acknowledges the rela-tionship between peaceand conservation, conclud-ing that “ultimately, theconservation and sustain-able use of biological diver-sity will strengthen friendlyrelations among States andcontribute to peace.”3 Suchinternational laws set auseful framework, but, on

the ground, the civil conflicts thatdominate recent wars often involveantigovernment forces that by defini-tion are operating outside the law.Patterns of warfare can influence

the distribution of species and evenecosystems, and large mammals areespecially vulnerable during times ofconflict. For example, the white rhi-noceros (Ceratotherium simum) wasexterminated from Sudan during its17-year civil war (1955–72), perhapsbecause it was already rare, an easytarget, and its horns and other bodyparts were worth money to traders.In Central Africa, the continuing

wars, skirmishes, and rebellions arehaving a profoundly negative impact


Over 90 percent of the majorarmed conflicts in the second halfof the twentieth century occurredin countries containing biodiversityhotspots—areas that support theentire populations of more thanhalf of all plant species and

more than 42 percent of all theplanet’s vertebrates.

on both people and wildlife. In LakeEdward, on the border betweenUganda and the DRC, the hippopota-mus (Hippopotamus amphibius) popu-lation declined from approximately9,600 in the 1970s to just 683 in 2005due to poaching by insurgent militia-men. The hippo’s decline has cascad-ing ecosystem effects: hippo popula-tions previously deposited over 45million pounds (nearly 100 millionkg) of nutrients into the lake annual-ly, which fed phytoplankton andworms and, in turn, tilapia (Tilapiarendalli) fish, an important local foodand economic resource.Within the DRC, a more serious

conservation threat has been civilconflict and refugees in and nearVirunga National Park, a WorldHeritage Site especially important forcritically endangered mountain goril-las (Gorilla gorilla beringei). The DRChas been through several decades ofinstability, often merging into war andexacerbated by conflict in neighbor-ing countries. In 1994, VirungaNational Park was in the path of some850,000 refugees fleeing the genocidein Rwanda. This remote protectedarea provided temporary shelter, butthe settlers deforested some 118square miles (300 km2) and signifi-cantly depleted populations of ele-phants (Loxodonta africana) and hip-pos. In addition, well-meaninghumanitarian relief groups leftmounds of medical waste, increasingdisease transmission risks to gorillasand other animals.4

In 1996, the DRC civil war blazedagain, killing some 3.8 million people

and displacing many farmers. Yet, evenafter the 2003 Peace Agreement,Virunga National Park was still infest-ed with armed ex-farmers and ex-mili-tary men who freely poached game forfood and sale. By mid-2005, theCongolese military had established 21positions in the park to keep an eye onthe seven rebel camps also inside thepark. The late-2008 outbreak of newviolence in the region further threat-ened the wildlife there. In the struggleto protect wildlife, at least 120 parkstaff have been killed over the past fewdecades, including one in January 2009.

Buffer Zones Provide Respite

On a more positive note, history sug-gests that, in many parts of the world,buffer zones between warring ethnicor tribal groups may offer respite forwildlife populations. Buffer zonestend to receive less hunting pressurebecause conflicting groups try to

avoid each other. When Lewis andClark crossed the Great Plains in1803–06, they found the greatestnumber of large mammals in thebuffer zones between different NativeAmerican tribes at war, including theChippewa, Lakota, Mandan, Black-feet, and Shoshone. It appears thatwar parties and hunters penetratedbut did not occupy an approximately46,000-square-mile (120,000 km2) areathat, as a result, was richly stockedwith elk (Cervus canadensis), bison(Bison bison), and wolves. Today, onlya few US national parks offer aglimpse of this rich fauna that was inthe past at least partly maintained bywarfare between tribes.5

Amazonia experienced a similarphenomenon. Juan Salinas de Loyola,the first European to sail up theUcayali River in the Upper Amazon in1577, found large villages with hun-dreds of warriors who seemed to be


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

Sou

rce:

Jean

-Pau

lFe

rrer

o/A

US

CA

PE

in constant conflict with their neigh-bors, leaving extensive buffer zonesbetween the villages rich in wildlife.Modern examples of buffer zones aredemilitarized areas, such as the demil-itarized zone separating North andSouth Korea. This is a 2.5-mile-wide(4 km) strip of land stretching acrossthe peninsula, bracketed by an addi-tional “civilian control zone” thattotals 590 square miles (1,529 km2) onthe South Korean side. The demilita-rized zone provides a sanctuary forspecies that are rare in Korea, espe-cially red-crowned (Grus japonensis)and white-naped cranes (Grus vipio).

These birds are symbols of peace andtranquility in Asia, and the irony oftheir finding a refuge between twoheavily armed nations is hard to miss.In other settings, fauna-rich buffer

zones reveal some surprising evidenceof the resilience of wildlife. A 2007survey in southern Sudan carried outby the Wildlife Conservation Society(WCS) found what may be the largestremaining mammal migration in theworld—over 1.3 million white-earedkob (Kobus kob leucotis) are still thriv-ing in the region despite years of con-flict. WCS surveys, repeated in 2008,also found approximately 8,000 ele-

phants, 13,000 reedbuck (Reduncaredunca), 8,900 buffalo (Syncerus caf-fer), and nearly 4,000 Nile lechwe(Kobus megaceros), a species found onlyin that region.6 The Sudd, Africa’slargest wetland, has remained under-developed because of Sudan’s civilwar, but many interests have cast cov-etous eyes on this wetland, recogniz-ing it as a potential breadbasket forthe region. Sadly, the onset of peacemay be the biggest threat to wildlifein Sudan: automatic weapons are nowwidespread, and former combatantslooking for income often becomehunters and poachers. The govern-


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

Sou

rce:

P.E

lkan

&M

.Fa

y/W

CS

ment of southern Sudan has plans torecruit several thousand ex-soldiersfrom the Sudan People’s LiberationArmy to help manage the country’sprotected areas.

Conservation after ConflictEnds

These examples show that the impactof war on biodiversity can be decided-ly mixed, with a combination of dam-ages and benefits. The situation inNicaragua is illustrative: A 20-yearcivil war there resulted in nearly100,000 casualties and the relocationof half of the country’s population.During the turmoil, trade in timber,fish, minerals, and wildlife slowed sig-nificantly, and the domestic cattlepopulation was reduced by two-thirds, freeing pastures for recoloniza-tion by forests and enabling the recov-ery of collared peccaries (Tayassutajacu), monkeys (Alouatta villosa,Cebus capucinus, Aotus paniscus, andSaimiri oerstedii), crocodiles (Caimancrocodilus), iguanas (Iguana iguana),and large birds. However, at the sametime, new military bases and roadswere established in formerly remoteareas, opening them up to exploita-tion. The country’s once-outstandingsystem of protected areas fell intoneglect, and the collapsed economyforced villagers to fall back on clear-ing forest for firewood and harvestingwildlife for food.7

A paradoxical but somewhat dis-heartening corollary is that whenpeace “breaks out,” wildlife may suf-fer from either increased hunting ornew development in areas that were

previously too unsecure to attractinvestment. For example, Liberia’s 15-year civil war, which left about200,000 people dead, rendered SapoNational Park virtually untouched.Now that the fighting has declinedand a modicum of stability hasreturned, new threats to Sapo haveemerged in the form of a gold rushand an accompanying trade in bush-

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

The Challenge forConservation Work

Conflict makes the work of conserva-tion much more complicated.Conservationists and parks depart-ments sometimes have to sit by as theplaces they value come under fire or


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

Sou

rce:

Edw

ard

Myl

es/F

LPA

are overrun by displaced people.Decades of work can be undone byeven relatively small conflicts. Forexample, disaffected tribes and Maoist“Naxalite” guerrillas in remote areasof central and eastern India may influ-ence tiger conservation. The area con-trolled by the Naxalites constitutesabout 30 percent of India’s tiger range.While guerrilla activity may notdirectly threaten tigers, it preventsconservation, regulation, and moni-toring. Excessive harvesting of deerand wild pigs, the main prey of tigers,may render this region unable to sup-port tigers.Gaining a better understanding of

the causes and consequences of con-flict can help conservation organiza-tions to continue functioning evenduring volatile times. When I was

working in Nepal in 1972–74,Chitwan National Park was teemingwith large mammals, including thegreater one-horned rhinoceros(Rhinoceros unicornis), tigers, andnumerous species of ungulates.Located in the productive lowlandsthat were gradually being convertedto agriculture, Chitwan was protectedby some 300 army troops, enablingthe wildlife and tourism to prosper.After armed struggle began in 1996,Maoist rebels spread throughout thecountry, and the troops were rede-ployed in response, leaving Chitwanopen to increased poaching. In otherprotected areas, conservation organi-zations such as the National Trust forNature Conservation and WorldWildlife Fund–Nepal were able tocontinue working with all parties of

the conflict and remain in the fieldeven when government authoritieshad withdrawn.It is important for conservation

practitioners to recognize the differ-ent interests of local and nationalauthorities and to understand whathappens to natural resources whenconflict destabilizes power structures.For example, in the DRC, the bush-meat supply to urban and rural mar-kets varies depending on the level andtype of conflict. During peacetime,meat from species in GarambaNational Park (mostly elephants andbuffalo) constituted more than halfof the bushmeat in the urban mar-kets.8 This was because, during timesof stability, the military controlledthe supply of bushmeat to urbanmarkets (and provided the automaticweapons necessary to hunt such largespecies). During war, however, themilitary was diverted, which openedaccess to bushmeat operations andallowed massive exploitation, evi-denced by a fivefold increase in meatof protected species in urban mar-kets. Interestingly, the local chiefsdiscouraged the use of automaticweapons, so fewer large mammalsappeared in local markets. Even dur-ing war, the amount and type ofbushmeat in rural markets remainedrelatively stable because of the con-tinued authority of the village chiefs.This suggests that during times ofconflict, traditional local authoritiesplay an important role, and that con-servation organizations can engagewith those authorities to help wildlifesurvive the chaos.


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

Sou

rce:

Mik

eK

ollo

ffel

/Pet

erA

rnol

d,In

c.

Each conflict has its own uniquefeatures, but experience suggests sev-eral general policies for conservation-ists to consider:

• Do everything possi-ble to maintain a pres-ence in conflict zonesof conservation inter-est. This may involveworking through alocal nongovernmen-tal organization.• Be seen not as a toolof the governmentbut rather as a sup-porter of the legiti-mate interests of the people whoare living in the conflict zone.Experience from Colombia,Nepal, India, and parts of Africashows that insurgent groups willoften permit nongovernmentalorganizations to carry out con-servation activities that benefitrural communities.• That said, continue to supportgovernment conservation agen-cies to the fullest extent possible.

This may involve stepping in aftergovernment support has beenwithdrawn, and helping the staffto maintain good relations withthe local people.

• Seek objective understanding ofany historical grievances of thecommunities living in areaswhere conflict occurs, and usethis understanding to designappropriate forms of support toconservation interests.• Work with humanitarian agen-cies to encourage resettlement ofrefugees in suitable areas that willnot damage biodiversity.• In postconflict situations,

ensure that any new forms ofdevelopment have broad publicsupport and will be environ-mentally sustainable.

We can find little reas-surance that war willbecome less of an issue inthe coming years. Armiesremain a dominant politi-cal, social, and economicforce in most countries.Yet, senior military offi-cials in many parts of theworld increasingly recog-nize that political, eco-nomic, and ecological via-

bility are closely interrelated. Becausemany threats to national securityhave their roots in the inappropriatemanagement of natural resources,and because the struggle over naturalresources often fuels conflict, defenseagencies could legitimately beexpected to support improved con-servation as a preventive measure.War is indisputably a disaster for peo-ple, but it does not necessarily have todestroy wildlife. b


Experience from Colombia, Nepal,India, and parts of Africa shows thatinsurgent groups will often permitnongovernmental organizationsto carry out conservation activitiesthat benefit rural communities.

T elevision and other media portrayals of Afghanistan often present a coun-try traumatized by over a quarter-century of near-constant warfare—a dev-

astated landscape, barren except for the desperately poor people trying to ekeout a living in this ostensibly postconflict environment. Yet Afghanistan containsa surprising diversity of life, with 10 species of hooved mammals—rangingfrom 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 50years ago, the Asiatic cheetah and now globally extinct Caspian tiger were alsofound 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 north-ern Asia, which bestowed such species as brown bear and wolf ), Afrotropic(providing such species as gazelle and hyena), and Indomalayan (whichbrought such species as leopard cats and giant flying squirrels). This uniquespecies 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, providea way for postconflict rural Afghan communities to manage their natural


Conservation and Governance

Lessons from the Reconstruction Effort in Afghanistan

PETER ZAHLER

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 NewGuinea. 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’sAfghanistan Program with a focus on community management, the creation of pro-tected areas, and environmental legislation, and has worked toward a four-countrytransboundary protected area between China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Tajikistan.

resources. This is particularly impor-tant because unsustainable resourceuse in Afghanistan can ultimatelyhave local, regional, and even globalrepercussions.

The Importance of NaturalResource Governance

For many developing countries, natu-ral resource management is still thesingle most important aspect of thelives, livelihoods, and survival of ruralcommunities. Poor and marginalizedpeople are usually directly dependentupon environmental services. Forestsprovide firewood, building materials,and a host of foods and medicines. Functional grasslands provide grazing forlivestock. Streams and rivers provide water, fish, and irrigation. And wildlife pro-vides food, clothing, and goods to trade. Natural resources also serve as animportant economic buffer by allowing rural people to keep their capital—oftenlivestock—for the longer-term production of wool, milk, and offspring, ratherthan slaughtering it for food. Given this reliance on natural resources, rural vil-lage or community-level governance structures are often built around the needto manage land, forests, water, grazing, hunting, and fishing, and to solve groupresource use problems.Unfortunately, war often destroys these local governance structures. Many

people are killed and others flee, becoming internally displaced or refugees inneighboring countries. Local physical infrastructure such as water channels,crop fields, storage buildings, local markets, and roads are destroyed, and his-toric systems of resource management crumble. If the conflict continues foryears, or in some cases even decades, cultural memory of these local gover-nance institutions also disappears. Repatriated communities may no longerremember how they once managed the land and resources, and this may beexacerbated by an influx of new settlers with different cultural and resourcemanagement practices. In Afghanistan, for example, over 4.5 million refugeeshave returned from neighboring countries since 2002, with millions more peo-ple internally displaced during the wars.1 These shifting waves of people havetorn the very fabric of tribal tradition that once defined and controlled localgovernance institutions.Even in situations where conflict has not entirely eradicated traditional prac-

tices, local governance may fail due to a combination of population growth, nat-ural resource depletion, and external economic interests. In postconflict set-

Conservation and Governance • 73

A quarter century of conflict has left theAfghan countryside devastated. Theserusting tanks are only one legacy of thedamage, much of it the subtle but perva-sive effects of years of unsustainable andunmanaged exploitation from a desperatepopulation struggling to survive.

Sou

rce:

Knu

tM

uelle

r/P

eter

Arn

old,

Inc.

tings, international donor agencies interested in reconstruction may pressurelocal communities to open their societies and join global economic markets thatthey neither trust nor understand. Traditional systems of governance are rarelycapable 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 land-scapes and biodiversity worthy of protection do not choose their political con-text, so if conservation organizations are to protect these landscapes and biodi-

versity, they must go where the need for conservationexists. A recent study has found that most modern con-flict occurs in regions that are highest in biodiversity,2

and not surprisingly this often leads conservationorganizations into, or has them already situated in, con-flict or postconflict settings. Once there, organizationsmust deal with the threats to wildlife and resources,and often those threats come from people trying to sur-vive in these areas. Yet at the most basic level, conser-vation organizations are interested in sustainable natu-ral resource management—an interest which matchesthe needs of these same poor rural communities.Since the 1960s, the international conservation com-

munity has progressively recognized that local com-munities are integral to the effective stewardship oftheir land and its biodiversity. To promote local stew-ardship, conservation nongovernmental organizations(NGOs) have invested in education (especially focused

on sustainable land use), technical training, natural resource and political map-ping (e.g., landownership), resolving wildlife–human conflict, developing alter-native livelihoods, improving production and market access, and building localinstitutions 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. Ratherthan simply building infrastructure such as a bridge or school, conservationNGOs are interested in helping communities improve long-term, sustainableresource management—the foundation of rural people’s very survival. To dothis effectively means facilitating governance at all levels, often by helping torebuild and strengthen traditional governance structures that have dissolved orare not working, or by creating new institutions in areas that may not have hadforms of political involvement more complex than the extended family. This


Organizations that attempt toprovide support in more politicallyexplicit sectors, such as humanrights or even straightforwardgovernance reform, often meetwith strong cultural resistance,in part because of the overtappearance of “external”pressure brought to bear onlong-standing traditions.

work can range from helping establish resource committees to co-drafting thebylaws through which the communities can more sustainably manage their nat-ural 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, pro-moting long-term changes. To do this, conservation NGOs first earn the trustof local communities and then work to build capacity for better naturalresource management. In the process, NGOs can become valued partners andadvisers as these communities work through what are often traumatic socialand 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 facilitatorsbetween rural and often marginalized communities and central governmentagencies. By providing this link, conservation NGOs can help local communitiescross 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 toprovide support in more political-ly explicit sectors, such as humanrights or even straightforwardgovernance reform, often meetwith strong cultural resistance, inpart because of the overt appear-ance of “external” pressurebrought to bear on long-standingtraditions.Conservation, on the other

hand, can be more widely accept-ed. Wildlife, forests, andresources are shared concerns,and extinction—especially of cul-turally iconic or economicallyimportant species—is a touch-stone that can cross political andcultural boundaries. This can betrue even in the case of dangerous predators. For example, in Mongolia, sur-veys have shown that while nomadic herders on the steppe do not want largenumbers of wolves threatening their livestock, neither do they want the wolfto disappear, as it is culturally revered and respected (and the trade of its furand body parts can provide a source of income).3


Approximately 80 percent of Afghansdepend directly on natural resources fortheir survival, either growing crops orgrazing domestic animals such as goats.

Sou

rce:

Don

Bed

unah

Conservation, Governance, and Stability: The Afghan Context

Afghanistan and its environment have suffered enormously from nearly 30 yearsof conflict. Desperate people have leveled forests and overgrazed grasslands,and the coupling of an influx of modern weapons with increased poverty hasdramatically depleted wildlife populations. Since 2002, the global communityhas poured enormous resources into Afghanistan’s reconstruction.Unfortunately, little funding reaches outside the capital Kabul, and thus, whilethe central government has made some progress in the past few years, theseimprovements 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, conser-vation should be a critical component of reconstruction in Afghanistan.Importantly, long-term stability will depend upon sustainable management ofthe country’s natural resources and the new governance structures that supportthis. Afghanistan lies within arguably the world’s most volatile political region.If local environmental degradation continues, people will no longer be able tocarve a living out of the fragile steppe, desert, and mountains as they have forcenturies. Poverty will spread, communities and cultural practices will dissolve,and rural migration will further destabilize neighboring communities, regions,and even states.


Snow leopards areendangered due toloss of prey andpoaching for peltsand bones. S

ourc

e:Ju

lieLa

rsen

Mah

er/W

CS

Recognizing this, the UN Environment Programme performed a postcon-flict assessment of Afghanistan in 2002. Subsequently, the US Agency forInternational Development provided funding to the Wildlife ConservationSociety (WCS) for conservation initiatives to help improve local and centralgovernance for natural resource management. This includes collecting thefirst baseline data on wildlife in decades, helping the new Afghan governmentdraft the country’s first modern environmental laws, and training governmentofficials. WCS is also working with 50 communities in the northern Wakhanregion, the central highlands ofBamiyan, and the province ofNuristan along the Pakistan borderto help rural villages strengthen,reform, or rebuild governance sys-tems for sustainable resource man-agement and economic develop-ment.The Wakhan region is a pencil of

land stretching east into the PamirMountains bordered by Pakistan,China, and Tajikistan. Most of theWakhan lies above 14,000 feet (4,200m) in elevation—well above tree-line—and while it supports criticalpopulations of snow leopards (Unciauncia), Himalayan lynx (Lynx lynx), Marco Polo sheep (Ovis ammon), ibex (Caprasibirica), and brown bears (Ursus arctos), it is also a cold, harsh, and easily dis-rupted environment. On this “roof of the world,” environmental degradationcan affect more than the wildlife and soils. The vast majority of bothWakhi andKyrgyz peoples who live here depend directly on local ecosystem processes fortheir survival. These agropastoralists take livestock up into high pastures in thespring, moving back down to lower elevations before the snows of winter. Somefarm plots are hewn from the sides of steep mountains, providing critical localfood production as the terrain makes transport of products prohibitively expen-sive and, when rains or frequent earthquakes block the few roads with land-slides, impossible. The long-term survival of Wakhan communities and theentire Pamir environment depends on local people successfully managing theirnatural 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 asovergrazing and unsustainable hunting) and identify practices to alleviate thosethreats. Community-level conservation education is a simple and direct way toencourage dialogue on environmental concerns. WCS works with Wahki peo-


Marco Polo sheep live on the steep, snowyslopes of the Pamir Mountains. Trophyhunters prize them for their impressivehorns.

Sou

rce:

Bet

hW

ald,

20

05

ple from Pakistan to give presentations in the local language about biologicaland conservation principles regarding their resources, unsustainable activities,and alternatives, and particularly techniques to regulate overgrazing and hunt-ing. The dialogue helps villagers see that loss of wildlife and rangelands threat-ens their ecosystem, culture, and future economic opportunities. This conser-

vation education program also collects informationfrom local stakeholders regarding traditional knowl-edge, uses, and rights. Although the program’s focus ison adults, there are now also 56 environmental educa-tion school committees in all 13 schools in the WakhanCorridor, with 526 students and 82 teachers collectingdata relevant to community resource decision making.The next goal has been to enable communities

throughout the Wakhan Corridor to achieve consen-sus on changes in resource use and sustainable man-agement. Community-based institutions are requiredby the Environment Law of the Islamic Republic ofAfghanistan, which calls for the creation of commu-nity development committees (CDCs). However,

these committees, when functioning at all, are not focused on resource man-agement, and so WCS has worked within the CDC system to incorporateenvironmental decision making. WCS also works with these committees todevelop environmental bylaws and hire and train wildlife rangers with theexpectation that they will become staff of the provincial agencies (and even-tually central ministries).The work in Bamiyan, the second focal region, entails similar education and

community resource management planning and has included the developmentof Band-e-Amir, Afghanistan’s first national park. This beautiful set of six deep-blue lakes set off from each other by natural travertine dams attracted tourists—both international aid workers and Afghans—even through the years of conflictand instability. WCS helped create the Band-e-Amir Protected Area Committee(BAPAC) to co-manage the park with the provincial government, with plans forpark revenue to be transmitted through the BAPAC governance structure toimprove local livelihoods.WCS’s work in the third region, Nuristan, is much more difficult, but per-

haps the most important for Afghanistan’s biodiversity. Nuristan, by dint of itslocation within the northwestern edge of the South Asian monsoon belt, hassome of the highest species diversity in Afghanistan. Thick conifer forests,similar to what might be found in the mountains of southern Colorado, con-tain some of the last populations of Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus), mark-hor (Capra falconeri), Persian leopard (Panthera pardus), leopard cat(Prionailurus bengalensis), and yellow-throated marten (Martes flavigula) in


With the vast majority (over 80percent) of Afghans living in ruralareas and depending directly onthe natural resource base for

their very survival, conservationshould be a critical componentof reconstruction in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan. However, Nuristan’s proximity to the volatile Pakistan borderarea makes it especially vulnerable to unsustainable management. The cur-rent “lawlessness” and economic isolation of this region has restricted or cutoff normal market access and has put extreme pressure on communities toexploit their resources unsustainably—for example, selling rights to theremaining forests to illegal timber operations in Afghanistan or across the bor-der.Unfortunately, due to the security conditions along the Pakistan–

Afghanistan border, there is no chance for international experts to work inthis region. Instead, WCS has focused on training Nuristanis in wildlife sur-vey, forestry, and community conservation techniques, and has encouragedthem to open dialogue on natural resource management within their owncommunities. If institution-building efforts in Nuristan are successful, thesesystems will enable local communities to improve their livelihoods while sus-taining the resource base upon which they depend. It may also bring thesecommunities 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.

Sou

rce:

Ale

xD

ehga

n

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

Conservation’s Role in Postconflict Governance

The conservation community has stepped into the role of building governanceinstitutions and is working in conflict and postconflict settings, addressing bothdirect threats to biodiversity and the governance institution building necessaryfor long-term conservation. By facilitating natural resource management andenvironmental decision making, conservation NGOs are also often contributingto the process of democratization, whether intended or not. This carries with ita heavy responsibility, with implications and consequences for the communities,the NGOs, and the regions in which they work. Because of this, internationalconservation NGOs and their staff need better training in the myriad subjectsrelated to governance at the community level, such as cultural anthropology,political science, civic engagement, comparative democratization, and transi-tional government. To refuse to engage at these levels would condemn some ofthe last great wild places and their unique biodiversity to becoming just anothercasualty of human conflict. V


Marine Life in Times of Conflict • 81

The boat slid to a halt on the beach. I jumped from the bow and walkedacross 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 cratersblistered the land, and live cluster bomblets were strewn across the open sand.Trenches and discarded weaponry spoke of careful military preparation andchaotic abandonment. The skeletal remains of shattered concrete structures,heaped into grotesque shapes, broke the low skyline. An osprey watched mecarefully from a perch of twisted iron. All was quiet now but for the rustle ofwind 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 SaddamHussein’s army retreated, it unleashed one of the world’s largest acts of envi-ronmental 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 ofoil into the sea, perhaps more.1 Umm al Maradem lay in the path of spilled oilmoving 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

Marine Life in Times of Conflict

CALLUM M. ROBERTS

CALLUM M. ROBERTS is professor of marine conservation at the University of Yorkin England. His research focuses on threats to marine ecosystems and species and onfinding the means to protect them. His work includes studies of the profound historicaland recent alteration of marine ecosystems by fishing, on the extinction risk of marinespecies, and on global conservation priorities for coral reefs. His best-known work is onthe performance and design of marine reserves. His award winning book TheUnnatural History of the Sea charts the effects of 1,000 years of exploitation onocean life. Callum is also a Pew Fellow in Marine Conservation.


this and several other islands. The devastated landscape ledme to fear the worst for life beneath the water. But the seawas bright and clear, and the coral reef below shimmeredwith hues of green and brown.How has the sea fared in times of conflict? As battles

rage above water, and human societies are thrown intotragedy and turmoil, just how much damage is done tomarine life? World War I can be considered the first emer-gence of modern conflict, with its advanced machineryand industrialized killing. For example, during the NorthSea Blockade, when the British naval fleet attempted tokeep the German fleet in port and prevent overseas tradewith Germany, large areas of the North Sea were sownwith mines. The seas around Britain and far beyond intothe North Atlantic became a hunting ground for Germansubmarines and much too dangerous to fish. Associatedwith this, governments put fishing vessels to other uses,such as minesweeping, protecting convoys, and settingantisubmarine nets. Landings of seafish into England andWales fell by two-thirds between 1914 and 1917.2

In the three decades prior to World War I, fishing inEurope had become industrialized, and steam trawlers haddiminished fish stocks. The catch per unit of fishing effort,an index of how many fish are in the sea, fell by 50 percentin the last decade of the nineteenth century.3 But for sea

animals such as fish, whales, dolphins, seabirds, and seals, the war provided awelcome relief from the ravages of a fishing industry that, by this time, hadremoved 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 man-agement. After the cessation of hostilities, fishers were rewarded with spectac-ular catches all along the North Atlantic seaboard of Europe. Later analyses oflandings and fishing effort data showed that combined stocks of bottom-livingfish such as cod, haddock, and hake had rebounded. For example, catch perunit of fishing effort increased by 105 percent in the North Sea, by 75 percentaround the Faroe Islands, and by 260 percent in the English Channel.5 Scientistswere finally convinced of the link between fishing pressure and the size of fishstocks, and they realized that stock sizes could be manipulated by adjustingfishing pressure—a fundamental truth that lies at the heart of fisheries man-agement today.The gigantic wartime fishing “experiment” was repeated during World War

II. Fish landings into England and Wales fell by three quarters between 1939and 1944. E. S. Russell, the UK government’s chief fisheries scientist, pleaded

Oil-polluted shoreline in Bahrain, PersianGulf. Saddam Hussein’s troops releasedmillions of barrels of oil into the sea whenthey retreated from the Gulf War.

Sou

rce:

Fran

cis

Abb

ott/

natu

repl

.com

in 1942 for postwar restraint in fishing so as to take advantage of the much-needed stock rebuilding.6 But his call went unheeded. Instead, the end of thewar led to a massive recapitalization of the fishing industry that continued intothe 1970s.The World Wars had other impacts on the sea. During World War II,

Japanese and American forces established bases throughout the Pacific, plantingairports on coral atolls, cutting channels through lagoons, and storing toxicagents like nerve gas on remote islands. The realignment of coastal water flowsand blanketing of coral reefs withconcrete had many localized effectson marine wildlife, some of whichwere permanent. In some places,however, nature has reclaimed thedebris of war for itself. Chuuk Lagoonin Micronesia was Imperial Japan’smain military base in the Pacific. In1944, a surprise attack by US forcessank over 40 ships and destroyed near-ly 250 aircraft on the atoll. ChuukLagoon is a memorial to those whodied, and the ships have long sincebeen colonized by rich communitiesof corals, sponges, and seafans. Thecavernous steel bellies of the slowlyrusting 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 dramaticdamage to marine test sites, such as around the Marshall Islands in the Pacificand Puerto Rico. Palmyra Atoll in the Line Islands was an American naval air-base in World War II. Parts of the atoll are still off-limits due to unexplodedordinances. Beneath the waves, however, Palmyra is home to some of themost intact coral reefs remaining on Earth.7 These reefs sustain spectacularcommunities of predatory sharks, groupers, jacks, and snappers. Their abun-dance offers us a glimpse of the primordial wealth of fish that reefs and othermarine habitats once supported. Everywhere in the Pacific, nature has soft-ened the harsh edges of war. Military roads on Midway Atoll, another USbase, have today been reclaimed by nesting colonies of millions of Laysanalbatrosses (Phoebastria immutabilis). Even the mile-wide bomb craters fromnuclear tests on Enewetak Atoll were recolonized by fish and invertebrateswithin a couple of decades of the explosions. Of greater concern are the pow-erful sonars still used by modern navies that produce noises that can injure


Aerial view of Eastern Island, MidwayAtoll, showing runways used during WorldWar II.

Sou

rce:

Mic

hael

Pit

ts/n

atur

epl.c

om

cetaceans like beaked whales (Ziphiidae spp.) and have been implicated inmany mass strandings.8

Probably the largest act of ecological destruction inflicted in wartime wasthe US spraying of herbicides during the Vietnam War (commonly known asAgents Orange, White, and Blue). Around one-sixth of the area of SouthVietnam was sprayed at least once, causing mass defoliation and the wide-spread death of trees.9 Coastal mangroves were among the most sensitivespecies, and an estimated 36 percent of the mangroves in South Vietnam, over386 square miles (1,000 km2), was defoliated and much of it killed. The deathof mangrove trees led to large-scale erosion of mudflats and loss of the net-work of tidal channels that interlaced them. The elimination of these habitatscaused a steep fall in the number of coastal birds, such as the little ringedplover (Charadrius dubius) and greater coucal (Centropus sinensis). Since man-groves act as nurseries for young fish and crustaceans, like shrimp, snapper,and emperor fish, mangrove loss is implicated in the postwar decline inVietnamese fisheries.10

Elsewhere, conflict has led to some positive outcomes for marine life. In theFalkland Islands, for example, mines have kept beaches around Port Stanley freeof people since the Falklands War in 1982. These beaches were recolonized bynesting Magellanic penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus), which are too light totrigger the explosives, and which prior to the war had disappeared due to humandisturbance.11 However, the de facto protection they have enjoyed will not lastforever: the UK agreed to clear all of the mines by 2009, although it requested aten-year extension to this deadline in 2008.


After World War II, Bikini Atoll, MarshallIslands, Micronesia, was used as an atombomb testing site by the US government.

Sou

rce:

U.S

.G

ov't

Nav

y/N

atio

nal

Geo

grap

hic

Sto

ck

How did the reefs of Umm alMaradem fare after the first GulfWar? Pulling on mask and fins, I slidinto the water and set off across theshallow reef. Immediately, I surpriseda heavybeak parrotfish (Chlorurus gib-bus), which scudded away resplendentin green, blue, and pink. A shoal ofgoatfish, unconcerned by myapproach, raised puffs of sand as theydug for worms among seagrassblades. Damselfish charged me as Ipassed, defending coral knolls thatrose like castles from the sand.Moving seaward, the bottom fell awaybeneath me, revealing a flourishingreef that circled the island. Beneathspreading table corals, shoals of fat-lipped grunts followed my movements through goggle eyes. Scattered groupsof grazing surgeonfish worked their way across the reef while moray eels gapedfrom 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 thearea 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 patch-es of dead coral I saw were victims of cold weather and low tides, not oil orbombs (although the cold weather may have been made worse by the pall ofsoot from burning oil wells that had blocked out the sunfor more than eight months).Later on, I walked around the island. I noticed that

areas of fresh oil at the strandline overlay older deposits,solid as tarmac. Large slabs indicated earlier spills thatcould have originated from the bombing of oil installa-tions in the long war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s.These spills had killed intertidal life and poisoned seabirds,sea snakes, and marine mammals. Oil spilled in these warshad further effects on marine life. To the south, the oilwashed onto Saudi Arabia’s coastline in dark drifts of“chocolate mousse,” an apt description for the sticky emul-sion created when oil and water mix. The slicks heaped suffocating layers overthe roots and trunks of the world’s most northerly mangrove forest and blan-keted substantial areas of sensitive saltmarsh and sabkha (hypersaline evaporitedeposits). The following year, there was a failure in prawn reproduction: the


Scattered groups of grazingsurgeonfish worked their wayacross the reef while moray

eels gaped from shadowy crevices.To my great relief, the reefappeared almost unscathed.

Millions of Laysan albatrosses nest at anabandoned navy base on Midway Island.

Sou

rce:

Fran

sLa

ntin

g/A

US

CA

PE

eggs were released into these poisoned coastal seas, and the juveniles failed tothrive in some of the worst affected shallow subtidal areas. Offshore breedingcolonies of terns could not find sufficient food for their young as populations oftheir fish prey became scarce, probably also a result of high egg and larval mor-tality in places affected by the oil spill. Although Gulf habitats and species havesince staged a comeback, oil contamination will probably affect these sensitiveecosystems 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


A green turtle enjoys the clear waters of alagoon off Midway Atoll’s Eastern Island.Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge ispart of the Northwestern Hawaiian IslandsMarine National Monument. S

ourc

e:Fr

ans

Lant

ing/

Nat

iona

lG

eogr

aphi

cS

tock

Republic of Congo has experienced decades of dictatorship and civil war. Herewe find a bleak connection between the fortunes of leatherback (Dermochelyscoriacea) and olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) turtles and the illegal logging offorests—a practice that has flourished in the shadow of the breakdown in gov-ernance and the rule of law.12 Competing for naturalresources, small and medium logging operations havebecome active. Loggers float trees down rivers, and,during floods, many logs have been washed to sea.Ocean waves have flung much of this timber ashore,and choking beaches with jumbled masses of felledtrees. Their vast trunks, hundreds of feet long andoften 8 feet (2.4 m) wide, create mazes through whichnesting turtles must navigate to lay their eggs. In time, turtle offspring must finda way to sea. The barriers posed by the trees are often insurmountable, as thebleached 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 intoanarchy and is fragmented into domains controlled by different warlords.Piracy has flourished in coastal seas as a means of generating revenue andweapons. At the start, illegal fishing thrived, but the frequency and audacity ofattacks on merchant ships led to the abandonment of nearshore trade routesand fishing grounds. International vessels pursuing Indian Ocean tuna havenow forsaken Somali coastal fishing areas.13 Because these are importantwaters for juvenile tuna, it is possible that relief from fishing mortality causedby 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 somecases it has relieved the impacts of exploitation for a time, giving fish and theirhabitats a breather. Soldiers are not particularly aquatic, and armies rarely turnto 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 con-verted to civilian use. Shielded for now from the world of violent conflict by alayer of water, fish and other species live on in peace. z


Shielded for now from the world ofviolent conflict by a layer of water,

fish and other species live on in peace.

A frica’s vast expanses of wildlands, from the plains of the Serengeti to thedrylands of the Kalahari, harbor an extraordinary abundance and diversi-

ty of wildlife that inspire people around the world. Wildlife is a strategic eco-nomic resource and the basis for the livelihood of many rural people. Touristswho flock to Africa’s wildlife areas generate the bulk of more than $14 billion in


Who Owns the Wild?

Civil Conflict in Africa

S IMON ANSTEY, FRED NELSON,AND L IZ R IHOY

SIMON ANSTEY was born in Tanzania and has spent most of his working life in west-ern and southern Africa, with three years in central Asia and the Middle East. In 1992,he established IUCN’s Mozambique program, supporting postconflict protected arearehabilitation and pilot community natural resource management initiatives. He has adoctorate on the politics of natural resource governance and Yao history in northernMozambique from the Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, andis currently the director of ResourceAfrica.FRED NELSON has worked on community-based natural resource management, eco-tourism, and conservation policy in eastern Africa since 1998. From 2000 to 2005 heserved as the first Tanzania program director for the Sand County FoundationCommunity Based Conservation Network, working with pastoralist communities innorthern Tanzania and helping to establish the Tanzania Natural Resource Forum. In2007, he founded Maliasili Initiatives, a consulting firm working to address biodiversityconservation and natural resource management challenges using innovative, collabora-tive, and market-based strategies.LIZ RIHOY currently resides in Kenya and is the programme director of the ZeitzFoundation. She has worked with nongovernmental organizations in a number ofAfrican countries on community development and natural resource management issues.Her interests lie in governance and Community Based Natural Resource Managementand she is completing a PhD thesis on related policy processes in Zimbabwe andBotswana for the University of the Western Cape.

annual tourism revenue, with recent rates of tourism industry growth nearlydouble those of North America and Europe.1 Since wildlife in many Africannations is a major driver of income and investment, it is often a source of com-peting interests among private companies, government agencies, and the localcommunities—communities that rely directly on the land and its resources fortheir survival.In contrast to resplendent scenes of wildlife and wilderness, the other pre-

vailing image of Africa is that of suffering and war. But amid the headlines, theroot causes of conflict are often ignored, and links between civil conflicts andnatural resources remain obscure. Major armed conflicts have emerged directlyfrom struggles to control land and valuable natural resources, as occurred in thecivil wars in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo dur-ing the 1990s.2

Over the past decade, the nature of conflict in Africa has shifted, and large-scale wars are being replaced by localized strife around issues of land ownership.Such civil conflicts may emerge from day-to-day competition among differentgroups of people, often fueled by the wider political contests regarding the con-trol and allocation of natural resources. That competition can quickly turn vio-lent, as occurred in 2008 in Kenya when the disputed presidential election led toan explosion of bloodshed rooted in longstanding tensions and grievances overland rights. In Africa, as elsewhere in the world, when governments do not rec-

Who Owns the Wild? • 89

African elephants are a popular touristattraction, but they can come into conflictwith local communities.

Sou

rce:

Mic

hael

D.

Koc

k

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

Contested Ground

Globally, up to 2 billion people depend on the natural resources on collectivelyheld lands—lands to which they hold traditional or customary rights based ontheir use and occupancy. But modern states often do not recognize these typesof land rights and instead classify collectively held lands as government ownedor un-owned. The resulting tension lies at the core of many social and politi-cal conflicts: at least two-thirds of all current conflicts in the world are drivenin part by contested claims to land.3 In Africa, part of the colonial legacy isthat postindependence governments generally retain rights to allocatelandownership. This means that if resources such as timber or wildlifebecome economically valuable, governments can reallocate land to externalinvestors or state agencies, often bypassing the claims of local residents. Aslocal communities struggle to survive, even amidst Africa’s great naturalwealth, unaccountable governance and weak legal rights create the conditionsfor 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 theresources they own, the right to use and capture benefit from a naturalresource, 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’snational parks, local communal and private landholders need to view wildlife asvaluable 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 Namibiadevolved wildlife ownership from the state to privateranchers. The ranchers were able to capture the econom-ic value of wildlife on their land through tourism andmeat production and therefore, had the incentive to man-age these activities sustainably. This led to widespreadwildlife population recoveries on private lands. Laterreforms extended the benefits of resource proprietorshipto local communities. For example, Namibian legislativereforms in 1996 enabled local communities to securerights 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 ofwhich benefited from wildlife tourism and provided important new sources oflocal income. As a result, the communities were willing to commit more oftheir land to wildlife rather than other uses, and communal conservancies con-


In Africa, as elsewhere in theworld, when governments do notrecognize citizens’ rights to landsand resources, they sow theseeds of eruptive civil conflict.

tributed to the recovery of some large mammal popula-tions, including the critically endangered black rhinoceros(Diceros bicornis).4

Although devolved land and resource rights are essentialto local livelihoods and provide incentives for conservation,democratizing natural resource management in rural Africahas proven difficult. The following examples fromZimbabwe and Mozambique illustrate how local rights andconservation interact in conflict and postconflict settings.

Zimbabwe

In 1980, Zimbabwe emerged from almost a century ofcolonial rule and a long liberation war, much of which cen-tered on questions of land tenure. The government hassought to reverse the legacy of racially biased inequalitiesin land and resource distribution. In 2000, it began institut-ing a campaign to forcibly redistribute land held by whitefarmers, resulting in a volatile cocktail of land and race thatdominated all aspects of economic, political, and social life.In the consequent protracted crisis, Zimbabwe’s once rela-tively strong economy has collapsed, there has been anextensive period of political repression and violence, thepreviously well-functioning bureaucracy and educationand health service are in tatters, and around half the popu-lation depends on food aid. One of the many casualties ofthis crisis has been Zimbabwe’s extensive network of national parks. In addition,many private wildlife conservancies—which once made up a significant pro-portion of the total land managed for wildlife and helped conserve endangeredspecies such as black rhino and African wild dog (Lycaon pictus)—have beenappropriated 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 forIndigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE), established in the mid-1980s byZimbabwean policymakers and conservationists. One of southern Africa’s mostimportant natural resource management experiments, CAMPFIRE wasdesigned to create incentives for local people to manage wildlife sustainably byallowing them to benefit economically fromwildlife tourism and safari hunting.Between 1989 and 2001, CAMPFIRE grew to cover 23 districts, an area ofaround 13,500 square miles (35,000 km2) (doubling the land under wildlife man-agement in Zimbabwe), involved over 120,000 households, and produced $20million in revenue.5 Although successful in both promoting conservation and


A Zimbabwean woman collects water froma dry riverbed. It is feared that climatechange may increase pressure on watersources and arable/grazing land in south-ern Africa, fueling conflict.

Sou

rce:

Nei

lC

oope

r/P

eter

Arn

old,

Inc.

improving local communities’ livelihoods, a shortcoming of CAMPFIRE washeld to be its failure to devolve sufficient ownership of wildlife to the local com-munities. Instead, wildlife ownership was granted to district governments—rural district councils (RDCs)—who then received up to half of the revenue gen-erated 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 governmentsand local communities has created a strong political constituency that cancounter the national government’s tendency to recentralize wildlife revenuesfor state coffers. Vesting control of wildlife with the politically powerful RDCshas ensured that they are outspoken supporters of CAMPFIRE and the local

benefits it produces. More importantly, district govern-ments and local communities form a system of checks andbalances that helps prevent local elites, unscrupulous pri-vate sector interests, and politicians from abusing the natu-ral resource base to the degree that would otherwise bepossible given the country’s institutional collapse.The village of Mahenye in southeastern Zimbabwe

illustrates the importance of this balance of power. For 10years, Mahenye had a thriving CAMPFIRE program thatimproved villagers’ standards of living and encouragedthem to set aside land for wildlife, resulting in increased

wildlife populations. However, in 2001, reflecting national trends, the local chiefstruck a personally lucrative deal with a safari hunting operator and effectivelyappropriated the village’s wildlife revenues. As a result, the villagers lost all eco-nomic benefits from wildlife and, consequently, had little incentive to conservethe species that roamed on their land. Fortunately, after their long experiencewith CAMPFIRE, villagers were both aware of their legal rights and how toexercise them. Acting in conjunction with their RDC, villagers reasserted theirclaims and forced the chief to relinquish control of wildlife-related revenue andreplace the colluding safari operator. This helped to resecure both the commu-nal benefits from wildlife and the incentive to sustainably manage the commu-nity’s resources. One of CAMPFIRE’s main successes is that, over time, it hasmade local people aware of the economic value of sustainably managed wildlifeand their legal rights to access and use this natural resource. In Zimbabwe’s timeof crisis and institutional breakdown, this community-based approach is prov-ing as robust, if not more, than other conservation policies.

Mozambique

Mozambique experienced extensive armed conflict for much of the periodbetween the late 1960s and 1992, first during the war for independence fromPortugal and then during a 12-year civil war. The civil war resulted in the death


In Zimbabwe’s time of crisisand institutional breakdown, acommunity-based approach isproving as, if not more, robustthan other conservation policies.

of around a million people and the displacement of halfthe population. The country was reduced to one of thepoorest in the world. Wildlife was also seriously impacted.Combatant and civilian groups depended on wild meat forfood, and there was widespread illegal exploitation of ivoryand timber. The renowned Gorongosa National Park lostaround 90 percent of its large mammals, and without fieldstaff, funding, or security, the general protected areas sys-tem in Mozambique collapsed.6

Following the first multiparty elections in 1994, thegovernment instituted numerous initiatives to address thecauses of the civil war and to help sustain peace. Thesereforms included new policies meant to democratize governance from thenational to the local level, ensure clear legal rights to land for local communi-ties, and promote community-based natural resource management. However,there has been relatively little progress in implementing the reforms. The mostprogressive legislation has vested local communities with legal collective titleover their land, which gives them the right to negotiate with investors onissues of resource use and benefit sharing. But even this has faced implemen-tation challenges because securing such local rights is nota government priority and does not serve the interests ofpolitical elites. The reforms’ rhetoric is becoming lessmeaningful to local communities as state and private enti-ties appropriate large resource-rich areas of Mozambique:the state has doubled the overall area of national parksand reserves under its jurisdiction, and the most valuableportion of the national forest estate has been set aside forprivate timber concessions. These trends create the poten-tial for new local conflicts over land and resource rights,and the lack of clear ownership and benefits for local peo-ple may erode their incentive to conserve wildlife and nat-ural resources.Over the past decade, various initiatives have sought to

strengthen new community land rights and improve local governance, liveli-hoods, and conservation. Started in 1999, Chipanje Chetu (“Our Wealth”) isan initiative in which nongovernmental organizations and the local govern-ment facilitated internal negotiations among five villages to formally secureand title 2,500 square miles (6,500 km2) of communal land. As part of the ini-tiative, the villages created an elected governance structure; a managementplan for their shared timber, wildlife, and fisheries resources and a system formanaging revenues from these resources; and negotiated access for trophyhunting with a private operator. The communities received cash income and


Elected representatives from MatchedgeVillage in the Chipanje Chetu CommunityBased Natural Resource Management ini-tiative in north Mozambique planning theirboundaries for collective land title andmanagement zones for wildlife, fisheries,and forest management. The groupincludes ex-combatants from all sides inthe Mozambican civil war, hunters, fisherpeople, and an herbalist.

This team of scouts from the ChipanjeChetu Community Based Natural ResourceManagement initiative, Mozambique, isresponsible for natural resource monitor-ing and management activities.

Sou

rce:

Sim

onA

nste

yS

ourc

e:S

imon

Ans

tey

ensured sustainable management of wildlife populations that had previouslybeen 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 ofthe political elite or, alternatively, to declare it a state hunting area. Reallocatingthe land to an external owner would have reduced income for the villagers andtheir access to a range of resources, decreased incentives to sustainably managethe area’s wildlife, and likely increased conflict. During the next three years, res-idents of Chipanje Chetu displayed a remarkable degree of resourcefulness:they drew on their land title and the social cohesion that had built up throughearlier negotiations to successfully maintain at least a basic recognition of theirrights and ensure continued benefit from the wild resources. This case illus-trates how securing a degree of local community proprietorship over naturalresources can help build democratic mechanisms to combat politicized compe-tition, often in ways that benefit both local livelihoods and conservation. But afew isolated initiatives are not enough. With Mozambique facing increasingpressure on land and resources, and many rural communities living below thepoverty line, the basic question for stability and wildlife conservation remains:Whose land, whose resources, whose wealth?


The lifestyle of pastoral-ists is based largely onthe sustainable use ofnatural resources.

Sou

rce:

Mic

hael

D.

Koc

k

New Battlegrounds?

Peace, development, and conservation in Africa all depend on greater recogni-tion of rural peoples’ rights to manage the lands and resources on which theirlives depend. However, increasing pressures for access to land and resourcesthreaten to undo many gains and reignite long-simmering tensions. Thesepressures include growing human populations and chang-ing global economic forces, such as increased demandfrom large agribusinesses for land for food and biofuelcrops and surging demand from Asia for minerals and tim-ber. In addition, new stresses are coming, climate changebeing the most critical.Climate change will act as a multiplier of other pres-

sures on land and biodiversity, magnifying environmentaland social stresses and increasing rural peoples’ vulnera-bility. For example, warmer temperatures and less rainfallleading to water scarcity and land degradation may reducefood production and intensify competition not onlybetween groups of people, but also between humans andwildlife. The violence in Darfur, Sudan, with its links to land rights andresource competition between agriculturalists and pastoralists, is perceived inpart as an early harbinger of the wider climate change–induced conflicts thatAfrica will experience.7 Climate change will also mean that species’ ranges willshift, and existing protected areas will not effectively cover the key habitats thatwildlife may need in the future. Therefore, more than ever, efforts to protectwildlife in Africa will have to focus on creating local incentives for conservationbeyond the boundaries of national parks. In a changing world, secure rights toland and resources will be critical to local communities and to wildlife conser-vation. Negotiating these growing challenges in the contested landscapes ofrural Africa requires collaborative efforts that help local communities advocatefor their resource rights. Ultimately, durable conservation, local rights andincentives, and, by extension, peace in Africa, are all tied to the question ofwho owns the wild. x

AcknowledgmentsThis article draws on the authors’ work included in a forthcoming volume,Community Rights, Conservation, and Contested Lands: The Politics of Nat-ural Resource Governance in Africa. Support for this collaborative work was pro-vided by the IUCN Southern Africa Sustainable Use Specialist Group and the BradleyFund for the Environment.


Climate change will act asa multiplier of other pressureson land and biodiversity,magnifying environmental

and social stresses and increasingrural peoples’ vulnerability.

E 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 areabecame politically significant because it held their undelineated internationalborder.1 In 1941, the struggle escalated into outright war, and after Peru’s deci-sive victory, both countries signed the Rio Protocol brokered and guaranteedby the United States, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. A provision of the protocolwas that the final boundary between Ecuador and Peru should be established.However, difficult terrain and technological limitations left settling on anagreed-upon international border open to continued debate. Many optionswere considered, but in each case the actual demarcation line was unacceptableto either country.2

This tenuous process of delineating the border continued. But regular polit-ical 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 dif-fering 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 forest-ed Cordillera del Cóndor region. In 1951, Ecuador claimed that designating anational boundary in this challenging topography—a region of ridges between1,640 feet (500 m) and 9,840 feet (3000 m) in elevation—was beyond the scopeof the brokered agreement. Ambiguity over the control of these eastern slopesof the Andes provoked another series of skirmishes and diplomatic crises,which compounded the destabilization already being caused by totalitarianregimes and insurgent movements in this part of South America.


Parks as Peace Makers

The Peru–Ecuador Divide

V IRG IN IA ROSAS

VIRGINIA ROSAS is editor of the World section of the Peruvian newspaper, ElComercio. She was a delegate for Peru in the Maryland Group.

There was little progress as Peru refused to cede terri-tory. It had already been forced to hand over the Arica andTarapacá regions to Chile in 1883, and it had lost LeticiaProvince to Colombia in 1930. Meanwhile, Ecuador main-tained that it had always had sovereign access to the riversystem of Marañon-Amazonas in the disputed region andthat river access was imperative to Ecuador’s identity as anAmazonian nation. These claims were rejected byPeruvian officials, and in 1995, a significant armed conflictengulfed the region again.It was in this context that, in August 1997, the Latin

American Studies Center at the University of Marylandsponsored a “civil diplomacy” program called Ecuador andPeru: Towards a Democratic and Cooperative ConflictResolution. Ten Ecuadorians and ten Peruvians representing their respectivecivil societies met in an arena free of official diplomatic obligations. The groupwas diverse, consisting of academics, entrepreneurs, journalists, human rightsspecialists, educators, and representatives of conservation nongovernmentalorganizations. The history and character of the conflict between Peru andEcuador made nontraditional (or “track two”) diplomacy necessary. The hopewas that this group could open avenues of communication and begin con-structing a network that would provide the foundation for productive negotia-tions between Peru and Ecuador.3

The participants at the first gathering in Maryland—dubbed Partners inConflict—met under the leadership of Saúl Sonowsky, director of the LatinAmerican Studies Center, and Edy Kaufman, conflict-resolution specialist at the

Parks as Peace Makers • 97

Jaguars and other species live in the trans-boundary park within the Cordillera delCóndor.

Livestock is transported down theMarañon River in Peru. The Marañonmerges with the Ucayali before flowinginto the Amazon River.

Sou

rce:

Julie

Lars

enM

aher

/WC

S

Sou

rce:

Bio

spho

to/R

uoso

Cyr

il/P

eter

Arn

old,

Inc.

Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The “Maryland Group” focused on two areas:civil society’s contribution to the creation of peace, and civil society’s capacityto 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 imag-ining 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 theIsraelis and Palestinians had been. However, it became clear that Ecuadoriansand Peruvians had much in common, given their shared roots in Andean and

Amazonian cultures. As Avecita Chicchón, the environ-mental representative from Peru, recalls, “Once wefocused on universal values of peace, human rights,fight against poverty, and the conservation of nature,we quickly saw the need to work together.”5

At first, the group grappled with legal, economic, andpolitical routes to diplomatic resolution. Then it startedassessing nontraditional avenues to influence officialrelations between the two nations, including environ-

mental problems in the disputed region, the role of the media in influencingpublic opinion regarding the conflict, the responsibility of education to spreadawareness, and the role of corporations and economic development in the dis-puted region. The group discussed the necessity of reinforcing local democrat-ic institutions at every stage of the peace negotiation, because local people inthe region, most of them indigenous Awajun or Shuar, were the most directlyaffected by the conflict. All participants concurred that it was necessary to finda solution that would not impede future development possibilities for theCordillera 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 Cóndorregion, a topic that both the Ecuadorian and the Peruvian delegates approachedeagerly. Biological surveys of the Cordillera del Cóndor had shown that it wasone of the most biologically valuable places on the planet. The lower elevationsare covered with tall, wet forests of lowland and montane tree species, and thecomposition of the forests varies from one ridge to another, creating great diver-sity. The lower slopes contain Amazonian fauna, including parrots, parakeets,falcons, and, notably, a subspecies of the long-haired spider monkey (Ateles belze-buth belzebuth). Remarkable plant communities exist along the tops of ridges,including species-rich clumps of bromeliads and orchids and the insect-eatingplant Drosera spp.Roberto Troya represented the environmental perspective from Ecuador

during these discussions. He emphasized that civil societies could achieve a


It became clear that Ecuadoriansand Peruvians had much in

common, given their shared rootsin Andean and Amazonian cultures.

level of understanding and a common ground becausethey could more freely share different opinions: “Civilsociety’s contribution was a catalyst in the ongoing nego-tiations between the two governments in the search forpeace.” He and the group began working on a proposal tocreate a “park for peace” in the disputed region. Thisapproach—dedicating a border area to conservation—hadworked to facilitate solutions to conflict in other places,such as the La Amistad International Park betweenPanama and Costa Rica.6

The group proposed creating a binational park under ajoint sustainable development program. The region wouldbe managed by a binational fund that would receive sup-port from both local and international sources. Gradually,the idea of a binational park created a feeling of optimismamong the participants. When speaking of nature, politicalfrontiers became meaningless.The Maryland Group also recognized the need to sup-

port local populations because the Cordillera regionencompasses the ancestral territories of the Awajun,Wampis, and Shuar of Peru and Ecuador. These indige-nous peoples on both sides of the border share extendedfamilies, culture, and territories and rely heavily on accessto the rivers and forest resources. The proposal recom-mended integrating “sister towns” across the border tobuild local relations and creating binational criteria for themanagement 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 PontificalCatholic University of Ecuador (Cashapampa, Quito). The Cashapampa meet-ing was devoted to considering the proposed binational conservation area, andindigenous people from both sides of the border were invited to attend. Theleader of the Indigenous Organization of the Amazon Basin participated, as didCatholic priests who had worked with indigenous people for decades.Indigenous representatives wanted part of the Cordillera region to be declaredas communal reserves or protected areas. They also emphasized that they iden-tify themselves first as Awajun or Shuar and secondarily as Peruvians orEcuadorians, and they did not want to be considered traitors if they fosteredfriendly relations with fellow indigenous people.Formal diplomacy between Peru and Ecuador was progressing, but many

problems remained. Members of the Maryland Group recognized that theywould face resistance upon returning home and in order to solidify acceptance


This subspecies of long-haired spidermonkey is endemic to the Cordillera delCóndor region.

Sou

rce:

Pet

eO

xfor

d/na

ture

pl.c

om

of their work, they must generate measures to achievemutual trust—concrete actions focused on reducing ten-sions and preventing conflict. The group identified issuesthat could potentially become problems in the future, suchas the prevalence of malaria, and turned these issues intoopportunities for cooperation—in this case, by designing acampaign to combat malaria in the Cordillera region. Thegroup also outlined provisions for indigenous peoples, rec-ommending that the border, wherever eventually drawn,remain permeable to allow peaceful transit and that indige-nous groups on both sides of this boundary have the samesocial and political rights.Eventually, one of the Maryland Group members

moved into a position within the government where hewas able to open an avenue of communication betweenthe civil society group and the formal diplomatic discus-sions. Aided by this, the Maryland Group presented its“Cashapampa Declaration” to the Ecuadorian foreign rela-tions minister, Dr. José Ayala Lasso, and the Peruvianambassador to Quito, Dr. Alberto Montagne, on March 5,1998. In that declaration, the group suggested that theCordillera del Cóndor be classified as one of the world’s

most important areas for biodiversity con-servation. It outlined how a binationalpark could serve as a peace-making tool ina conflict zone and how its establishmentcould help foster sustainable developmentprograms in the region.On October 26 of that year, under the

attentive watch of the guarantor coun-tries, the presidents of Peru and Ecuador

signed a set of peace and cooperation accords called the Presidential Act ofBrasilia that definitively resolved the border conflicts between the two countriesand established that “on the basis of their common roots, both nations willwork toward a promising future full of cooperation and mutual benefits.”8

Based on the Maryland Group’s recommendations, the accords acknowledgedthe need to establish zones for environmental protection on both sides of theinternational frontier as well as the need to promote development plans aroundthese 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 estab-lished border, Peru created a conservation reserve of 34 square miles (54 km2)


The Maryland Group helpedothers recognize that the

Cordillera del Cóndor regionwas a common heritage.

and later added the Santiago-Comaina Reserve to it, which is currently 10,200square miles (16,420 km2). These protected areas helped create a political“buffer zone” and committed each country to conserving this biologically andculturally unique area. At the same time, the project “Binational Peace andConservation in the Cordillera del Cóndor,” funded by the InternationalTropical Timber Organization and Conservation International, held a series offield workshops with native communities. Stories emerging from the regionconfirmed that the Awajun-Wampis of Peru and the Shuar of Ecuador werebeginning 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 Parkon the US–Canada border is the world’sfirst transboundary peace park. It wasestablished to promote goodwill and toemphasize the importance of internationalcooperation to the preservation of wildlifeand wildlands.

Sou

rce:

Ed

Res

chke

/Pet

erA

rnol

d,In

c.

and its dedicated members bore fruit. Their meetings brought together institu-tions and interests that found common ground within the two warring coun-tries, particularly when allowed space for discussion free of political and militarypriorities. The group’s work began thawing the tension between Peru andEcuador, and their well-thought-out recommendations influenced the officialpeace negotiations. The Maryland Group helped others recognize that theCordillera del Cóndor region was a common heritage. By incorporating inputfrom indigenous people, the group’s recommendations helped reconnect theAwajun-Wampis and the Shuar, who today can freely navigate the SantiagoRiver and are working together to conserve their forest and river resources. Thefinal border was declared in 1999, and since then Peru and Ecuador have notshown any signs of conflict. r


Blue and yellowmacaws (Ara ara-rauana) and scar-let macaws (Aramacao) can befound in theCordillera delCóndor region. S

ourc

e:Ju

lieLa

rsen

Mah

er/W

CS

Emerging Issues in the Wild • 103

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

Anonymous twelfthcentury Sanskrit,W. S. Merwin translatedwith J . Moussaieff Masson

Emerging Issues in the Wild • 105

PART II I

EMERGING ISSUES

IN THE WILD

Our world contains wondrous wildlife and wildplaces, many of which face increasing direct and

indirect human-induced threats. To better share theemerging challenges ahead, we invited the followingauthors who have dedicated their professional lives tounderstanding conservation—following elusive reptiles,studying wild places from satellites and on foot, or tracingthe age-old journeys of migratory birds and elephantseals. In addition to sharing technical knowledge, theseexperts convey the inspiration they feel for biologicallycomplex places, and their passion for finding the mosteffective conservation solutions.

As reflected in the following pages, successful conserva-tion requires work of widely varying scope and perspective.The sections “Conservation of Wildlife” and “Conservationof Wild Places” reveal scientific discoveries related to a set ofspecific emerging concerns. The final section, “The Art andPractice of Conservation,” highlights techniques and con-cepts that will hopefully improve conservation.

From this mix of essays, two main themes emerge. Thefirst is that our planet is changing rapidly. Natural resource

extraction is penetrating once-remote forests in Africa andNorth America. Compounding this, global warming isshifting Earth’s biomes. These threats are global, and theirimpacts on biodiversity are sometimes challenging to doc-ument or predict. The intersection of a rapidly changingnatural world with the growing needs of people could fueloutright conflict.

The second major theme that emerges is that most partsof the planet are interconnected, and that damage can havecascading effects far from where it originates. The intercon-nection of ecosystems is well illustrated by a pair of essays,one focusing on the Patagonian Sea and the other on thePatagonian steppe, creating an ecological portrait of thisregion. Many of the essays provide a holistic view thatemphasizes human activity and culture, as we now domi-nate the planet.

Successful long-term conservation requires a combina-tion of knowledge and inspiration. Hopefully, the unholytrinity of habitat destruction, conflict, and climate changecan be controlled in order to stave off greater losses andkeep our wild places rich and enduring. w


In our rapidly changing world, new threats to wildlifedevelop every year, challenging us to stay abreast of

emerging issues in conservation. The species that shareour planet are finding their home ranges razed, dammed,or polluted as nations pursue economic growth. Despiteinternational treaties and some few conservation success-es, one in every three species of amphibian and one ineight species of bird are in peril, and nearly one in four ofthe world’s mammals is threatened with extinction. Thisset of essays aims to share what experts are learning aboutwildlife and introduce a spectrum of conservation chal-lenges. Most often, the threats to species’ survival areknown but challenging to control: hunting and wildlifetrade, habitat destruction due to natural resource extrac-tion or human livelihoods, and climate change. Thesethreats are highlighted by the following four essays.

In Southeast Asia’s rivers and lakes, freshwater turtles, aremarkably diverse group of reptiles, are being hunted toextinction. The unsustainability of the trade in turtles isexamined in the essay “Vanishing Asian Turtles.”

The essay “What Future for Forest Elephants?” showsthat, despite the ban on ivory trade, forest elephants con-tinue to be hunted, bringing poachers to volatile parts of

Central Africa and developing regions of Asia. The authorsunderscore the many challenges to studying forest ele-phants and to protecting their habitat.

The semi-arid steppe of Chile and Argentina is home toPatagonia’s once-abundant herbivore, the guanaco.Human livelihoods—particularly ranching and hydrocar-bon extraction—threaten the migrations of these mam-mals. “Restoration of the Guanaco, Icon of Patagonia”traces the demise of the guanaco’s ecological role in thisfragile ecosystem and what can be done to restore it.

Moving to the broader, more pervasive threat ofclimate change, “Changing Flyways: Migratory Birds in aWarming World” outlines how migratory bird populationswill struggle to adapt to a changing planet, but may alsoserve as sentinels.

These essays emphasize that each of these species orgroups plays a unique role in its ecosystem. Unfortunately,the slow extinction of that ecological role means that theplanet’s biodiversity could be diminished without us fullyunderstanding the consequences. Without secure popula-tions of freshwater turtles, forest elephants, guanacos, andmigratory birds, the empty wildernesses they leave behindwill likely be far less resilient. f

SECTION 1

Conservation of Wildlife

Vanishing Asian Turtles • 107

Adecade ago, the French turtle conservationist Bernard Devaux publishedan extraordinary book, La Tortue Martyre.1 This meticulously compiled

work documents the abuse to which turtles and tortoises have been subjectedthroughout recorded history. It describes centuries of inhumane treatment ofthese fascinating animals, the worst evidence of which is in food markets inAsia, where live turtles are sometimes slowly dismembered to keep slices oftheir meat fresh for each buyer.

Turtle remains at archaeological sites around the world show that humanshave been hunting and eating turtles and tortoises for millennia, causing theextinction of some species. For example, the gigantic, 4-foot (1.3 m) tortoiseGeochelone crassiscutata, once widespread in Florida, appears to have been huntedto extinction by early humans.2 Following the discovery of the Galapagos and theMascarene Islands in the sixteenth and early eighteenth centuries, visitors andsettlers took advantage of the abundant and often tame island faunas, especiallythe tortoises. As a result, tortoises disappeared completely from the Mascarenes,and Galapagos populations on the islands of Fernandina, Pinta, and Floreanabecame extinct in the wild.3 Generally, the demography and structure of turtlepopulations are such that they cannot tolerate significant take, especially ofadults—turtles take too long to mature, most species lay too few eggs, and themortality rate for eggs and hatchlings is too high (although the NorthernAustralian snake-necked turtle Chelodina rugosa may be an exception4).

Vanishing Asian Turtles

P E T E R C . H . P R I TC H A R D

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 sac-rifice of live animals. He has undertaken extensive field work with turtles on all conti-nents and many remote islands, and he has established a permanent field station for tur-tle conservation in northwestern Guyana. Three turtle species are named after him.

The biology of turtles, our overuse of them, and the destruction andpollution of some of their habitats brings us to the current concern for theturtle species of Asia. In South and Southeast Asia, freshwater ecosystemsand large rivers are home to complex communities of turtles. Most distinctiveare 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 Indianflap-shell turtle (Lissemys punctata) to the 39-inch (1 m) long, narrow-headedChitra and the various Aspideretes species found in the great rivers of Indiaand Bangladesh. South and Southeast Asia also harbor an extensive range ofhardshell freshwater and semiterrestrial turtles. Most are members of the family

Geoemydidae,5 and species range in sizefrom large river turtles of the genus Batagur,which can reach 24 inches (60 cm), to the 4-inch(10 cm) semiaquatic black-breasted leaf turtle(Geoemyda spengleri). Overall, the freshwater turtlecommunities of Southeast Asia are the mostdiverse in the world.

Virtually all of these species have been unwill-ing participants in the growing turtle trade.In recent years, a new wave of chelonian har-vesting has swept across southern and SoutheastAsia. Most of the demand comes from China,where the traditional taste for chelonians per-sists. China’s rapidly growing wealth, prosperousmiddle class, and currency that is convertible on


The demography and structureof turtle populations are such that

they cannot tolerate significanttake, 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.

The critically endangered golden cointurtle is highly prized for the supposedcancer-curing properties of its lower shell. S

ource:

Peter

Praschag


international markets makes the trade lucrative. Softshells and hardshells alikeare 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 tostock turtle farms. This combination of threats has sounded the death knellfor tens of thousands of individual turtles and rendered several species criti-cally endangered. Today, more than 40 species of Asian turtles and freshwatertortoises are classified as Endangered or Critically Endangered by theInternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).7 Several Asian turtlespecies are on the point of complete disappearance from the wild, judging bythe scarcity of specimens in markets in the range-states. These include theGuangdong river turtle (Mauremys nigricans) from China and the Vietnameseleaf turtle (Annamemys annamensis).

The pressure of the turtle trade is great. While some larger species are soldas food in markets, other species may command extraordinary prices for theiralleged medicinal purposes. One species of box turtle, the golden coin turtle(Cuora trifasciata), has been virtually exterminated throughout its range inChina and Vietnam because its flesh is considered a cure for cancer. Prices forindividual golden coin turtles are so high—sometimes over $2,000—that anyfield laborer who might encounter one of the last wild specimens could makemore money from this single turtle than from a year’s work. Golden coin tur-tles are now being raised in captivity at a large scale.

Wild turtles have been seriously depleted in most areas of China, with theexception of the relatively undeveloped island of Hainan, where there are stillpotentially viable populations of the four-eyed turtle(Sacalia quadriocellata), and the Chinese striped-neckturtle (Ocadia sinensis). With so few wild turtles left inChina, traders and suppliers have turned to ransack-ing turtle populations in other Asian countries tomeet the demands of the Chinese markets. The tradehas been staggering in scope, and its impact, althoughdifficult to quantify, has reduced turtle populations inneighboring Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, and India, andeven 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 tur-tle, Heosemys depressa, from Myanmar) have been seen in alarming numbers inChinese food markets.

In addition to these countries, the United States is a source of turtles forEast Asian consumers. The familiar red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans),a hardshell native to the Mississippi Valley, may be found in most Chinese tur-tle markets—the adults sold mainly as food, the juveniles sold as pets.Generally, the China–US turtle trade concentrates on softshell turtles and is

While some larger species are sold asfood in markets, other species maycommand extraordinary prices fortheir alleged medicinal purposes.

reaching a level of intensity that has forced many US states to re-evaluate theirpolicies toward the harvest and export of native turtles. However, official sta-tistics are not kept and harvesting often proceeds without legal restraint.Moreover, some states such as Florida based their lack of regulation on the mis-taken assumption that the local softshell species (Apalone ferox) was so prolificand fast-growing that it could tolerate even large-scale exploitation. Export of

the Florida softshells included wildand farmed live animals, turtle meatproducts, and eggs from the wild forsale to turtle farms.8 Recently, agrowing citizen protest, backed byscientists and conservationists, pres-sured the Florida Wildlife Commis-sion to ban the commercial export ofwild-caught Florida turtles, and inearly 2009, the commission votedthe ban in.

The intensified scouring of turtlehabitats in East and Southeast Asiafor the growing trade has had anironic by-product: the discovery ofnew species, such as Cuora aurocapi-tata in 1988 and Cuora zhoui in 1990,among others. In addition, at least

one species of box turtle has been rediscovered—the small, semiaquatic andaquatic turtles of the genus Cuora. These were captured and traded exten-sively, mainly as pets, and since the mid-1960s, there have been large-scaleCuora exports from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. At least three (C. gal-binifrons, C. bourreti, and C. picturata) have been described from pet tradematerial alone. In most cases, wild populations have not been documented,and type localities are speculative. All box turtles are now fully banned frominternational traffic by the Convention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild Fauna and Flora.

In many Asian countries, turtles have cultural meaning and are viewed as asymbol of longevity. In Thailand, wild turtles may be picked up by well-mean-ing Buddhists and released in temple ponds. Many die, but some, including thelarge Heosemys grandis and Hieremys annandalii, can tolerate captivity sufficient-ly well that they have been given the vernacular name “temple turtles.” In thesemultispecies assemblages at temples, one can see more turtles in a single daythan in an entire year in the wild. The most famous of these ponds is near theTemple of Byazid Bostami in Chittagong, Bangladesh, in which several hundredtame specimens of the large black softshell Aspideretes nigricans have existed for


The critically endangered Arakan forestturtle, native to Myanmar, has been foundin alarming numbers in Chinese foodmarkets.

Source:

RickHudson


centuries with only minimal natural recruitment.9 These Chittagong templeturtles were thought to constitute the entire world population of their species,until it was recently discovered that A. nigricans, although absent from theGanges, is widely distributed in the Brahmaputra River.10

With many turtle species so critically endangered, surprise discoveries andrediscoveries of even lone individuals in temple ponds, zoos, or markets spellsome hope for saving a species. One of the largest softshell species, the giantYangtse softshell (Rafetus swinhoei), is on the very brink of extinction. Theremay be no surviving wild individuals in China, and some of the scattered cap-tives and zoo specimens have recently died. These included lonely individualsin the Beijing and Shanghai Zoos as well as a solitary specimen in a pond in aBuddhist monastery complex in Suzhou, near Tai Hu Lake where the speciesthrived only a century ago. In Vietnam, a semisacred population of Rafetusswinhoei in Hoan Kiem Lake in downtown Hanoi is now reduced to a singleindividual, and one more was recently identified and photographed in DonghoLake west of Hanoi.11

In 2008, a last-ditch effort by the Turtle Survival Alliance and Chinese con-servationists to save the Rafetus swinhoei brought together the two remainingcaptive specimens in China—an approximately 100-year-old male from theSuzhou Zoo and an approximately 80-year-old female from the Chengda Zoo—in hopes of breeding them. Surprisingly, courtship, mating, and ovipositionoccurred rapidly in this precious, elderly couple. Their union resulted in about100 eggs in 2008, but because the female had subsisted on a diet seriously

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

ource:

Peter

Praschag

deficient in calcium for so many years, the eggshells were too thin and the eggsfailed to hatch (even though some embryological development had taken place).Additional clutches in the 2009 season also failed to hatch. With improved nour-ishment, she will, it is hoped, be in better breeding condition next season.12

Most conservationists give top priority to the preservation of threatenedspecies in the wild, but sometimes this is difficult or impractical due to habitatdegradation, introduced or invasive species, or ongoing legal or illegal collection

of wild specimens. In addition, turtle populations cannotbe saved in the wild if the species is so rare that the fewremaining individuals are isolated and not part of a breed-ing colony. The political will, public interest, and fundingnecessary for effective protection is also often lacking. Inresponse, many Asian turtle conservation programs areturning to captive breeding and working to form assurancecolonies, either within the natural habitat or outside it, asa strategy to save some species.

Captive breeding, artificial incubation, and raisinghatchling turtles in captivity through their vulnerableearly years (“head-starting”) have become popular tech-

niques and have been successful in saving certain endangered turtles and tor-toises, including the Española or Hood Island saddleback tortoise (G. nigrahoodensis), and the related Duncan (Pinzon) saddleback tortoise (G. nigra dun-canensis) in the Galapagos. Much of the current effort to organize Asian turtlecaptive breeding programs and conservation is the work of the members ofthe Turtle Survival Alliance and its partner, the Chelonian Conservation Fund,


With many turtle species socritically endangered, surprisediscoveries and rediscoveries ofeven lone individuals in templeponds, zoos, or markets spell

some hope for saving a species.

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

ource:

PaulP.

Calle,VMD


both headquartered in the United States with numerous Asian field programs.Their programs have focused on the most critically endangered species, includ-ing the giant softshell and some of the Burmese species, especially the rare startortoise (Geochelone platynota) and the almost extinct Burmese roofed turtle(Batagur trivittata). The last known nesting sites of the Burmese roofed turtleon the Chindwin River are now protected, and 20 percent of nestlings aretransferred to the Yadanabon Zoo in Mandalay each year. As of 2009, morethan 170 young individuals lived in a special facility at the zoo, and the captivegroup had successfully nested.

Ideally, captive breeding utilizes wild-caught specimens with selected, appro-priate genetic heritage, but the real world usually works otherwise, with confis-cated animals or long-term captive specimens constituting the primary sourceof breeding stock for most operations. Under good husbandry conditions, mostoften within the natural habitat of the species, it is possible to produce largenumbers of captive-raised turtles, but, distressingly often, no intact andprotected habitat is available to receive them. Captive breeding programs are auseful tool in light of the severe conservation situation of Asian turtles, but theyrequire commitment and resources to be successful, and permanent captivebreeding programs rarely succeed unless they are conducted at the nationallevel. In the end, there is no substitute for a turtle hatching in the wild andsurviving to produce eggs of its own. p

Rare Burmese star tortoises for sale at amarket in Bangkok, Thailand.S

ource:

Brian

D.Horne

D espite a diverse evolutionary heritage spanning 60 million years and numer-ous 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, thesavanna elephant (L. a. africana) and the smaller forest elephant (L. a. cyclotis).Asian elephants share many traits with African forest elephants so here we referto them as a single group, the forest elephants. Forest elephants, like their bet-ter-known savanna-living counterparts, are wondrous creatures with complexsocial lives. They play a dominant role in the ecosystems in which they live and


What Future for Forest Elephants?

S T E P H E N B L A K E A N D S I M O N H E D G E S

STEPHEN BLAKE began working in the Congo Basin in 1990, focusing on research andconservation of forest elephants. As African forest elephant conservation coordinator forthe Wildlife Conservation Society, he oversaw regionwide elephant conservation statusassessments in five countries for the CITES MIKE program. He also undertook a region-wide study of forest elephant movements using GPS telemetry. Stephen is now based inthe Galapagos Islands where he works on giant tortoise ecology with the Max PlanckInstitute 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 con-servation–related research, survey, and policy work, including the writing and imple-mentation of conservation strategies and action plans. Since 1998, Simon has focused onAsian elephants, particularly on survey method development and human–elephant con-flict assessment and mitigation. He is co-chair of the International Union forConservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission’s Asian Elephant SpecialistGroup, a member of the CITES MIKE program’s technical advisory group, and was thelead writer and editor of the MIKE Dung Survey Standards.

What Future for Forest Elephants? • 115

serve as flagships for conservation wherever they occur. For these and a host ofother reasons, we have spent much of our professional lives studying and track-ing forest elephants in Asia and Africa, and working toward their conservation.

Ecologically, forest elephants need large areas for their populations to flour-ish, and therefore, their presence defines the last strongholds of the “wild” inAsian and African tropical and sub-tropical forests. In recent decades, the rangeand abundance of forest elephants have decreased dramatically due to a combi-nation 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 inter-glacial expansions and contractions of the continent’s equatorial forests. Suchstrong adaptive pressures may have forced the ancestors of savanna elephants toleave the forests, while in West and Central Africa, elephants remained boundto the forest. In more recent history, humans have determined the distributionof Africa’s forest elephants. From the sixteenth century on, European tradingbases along the coast of West Africa allowed the plunder of forest elephants forivory. Today, the Ivory Coast, named for its elephant population of almostmythical size, may have fewer than 200 individuals left.1

Two adult female Asian elephants help avery young calf to its feet.S

ource:

Simon

Hedges

The dark, dank heart of Central Africa, however, remained relatively unex-plored by Europeans until the 1870s when Henry Morton Stanley forged hisway through the Congo Basin. At that time, unbroken forest covered nearly770,000 square miles (2 million km2), and it may have contained a million forestelephants. 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 jig-saw puzzle, and ivory, rubber, and timber flowed from Central Africa’s forests toAtlantic ports.

Today, the elephants of the Congo Basin are in a state of crisis. In the foreststhat 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 threatsis alarming. In the 1980s, the first systematic elephant survey of the regionshowed that these forests had not been impenetrable to commercial hunters andhad not provided complete refuge from the poaching that engulfed much ofAfrica. There were approximately 172,000 elephants still living in the CongoBasin, 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 easyaccess to the forest, which, coupled with nearly nonexistent law enforcementand high ivory prices, had encouraged large-scale poaching in all but the mostremote areas. The remaining elephants had presumably been driven into thedepths of the forest to escape hunting pressure.

In the late 1990s, the Convention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) developed a program calledMonitoring of the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE). As part of this program,we surveyed six areas in Cameroon, Congo, Gabon, CAR, and DRC—coveringsome 23,000 square miles (60,000 km2)—in an attempt to get a better idea of thestatus of Africa’s forest elephants. We found large elephant populations in twonational parks, each containing more than 10,000 individuals. But elsewhere,numbers were considerably reduced, and we detected a strong relationshipbetween the size of an intact wilderness area and its elephant density.3 Nearroads, where human disturbance is high and where poaching is concentrated,elephants were absent or scarce, having either fled or been hunted out. The con-clusion was that, in the absence of effective law enforcement, the key to ele-phant survival is large blocks of forest that are difficult for people to access.

To further assess how forest elephants are responding to the changes sweep-ing across the Congo Basin, we fitted Global Positioning System (GPS) teleme-try 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 allowedus to determine that forest elephants are capable of ranging over thousands ofsquare kilometers as they search for food, minerals, and mates. Given theselarge ranges and the continuing fragmentation of the wilderness, it is likely that


Confiscated ivory tusks. Poaching for ivorythreatens both Asian and African forestelephants.

Source:

MartinHarvey/Peter

Arnold,

Inc.


Mambeleme, a Bambenzelle pygmy fromthe northern Congo, used to hunt elephantsin exchange for goods but now contributeshis firsthand knowledge of forest elephantsto a variety of conservation projects.

there is nowhere left in the entire Congo Basin in which elephant movementsremain uninfluenced by humans.4 During the decade-long study, vast areas offorest were lost to the bulldozer. The road system acts like a virtual prison, con-straining forest elephants throughout their range, and as roadless wildernessshrinks, so too do the elephants’ home ranges. The few substantial areas ofintact forest that remain occur only in national parks such as Minkébé in Gabonand Odzala-Kokoua in Congo.

All the indications point to a continued dramatic loss of Africa’s forest ele-phants. Logging, mining, and the international community’s attempts to lift theregion out of poverty have led to massive investment in roads and infrastructurewith little attention to the severe negative ecological impacts. Building naturalresource extraction infrastructure in the Congo Basin dramatically increasesaccess to the largest remaining forest elephant populations on Earth. Industrialdevelopments and roads encourage the growth of villages and allow access forhunting, made lucrative by the international demand for illegal ivory, and facil-itated by poverty, war, and lawlessness. Only where significant investments havebeen made in antipoaching efforts, or deep in the forest where people cannot yeteasily 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

Asian elephants formerly ranged from the Iranian coast into the Indian subcon-tinent, eastwards into Southeast Asia, including Sumatra, Java, and possiblyBorneo, and into China at least as far as the Yangtze-Kiang. There is somedebate about whether Asian elephants are truly “forest” elephants or whetherthey have been displaced from more favored open vegetation types by humans.Today, however, most Asian elephants occur in forests of various types but arenow extinct in West Asia, Java, and most of China. They are still found in iso-lated populations in 13 nations, with an approximate total range of 188,000square 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, therewere few attempts to ascertain how many elephants are left in Asia.

It is nonetheless clear that Asian elephant populations have been in declineacross most of their range. To take but one example, in the mid-1980s, surveysfound that on the Indonesian island of Sumatra, 12 discrete populations of ele-phants persisted in the southernmost province of Lampung. However, our2001–2002 surveys in Lampung Province found that forest conversion for agri-culture had been so extensive that only three of those elephant populationsremained. Fortunately, the province’s two national parks, Bukit Barisan Selatanand Way Kambas, still contained elephant populations of international impor-tance.5 But given that 75 percent of Lampung’s elephant populations have beenlost since 1984, it is likely that a significant number of populations elsewhere on

Source:

Stephen

Blake

Sumatra—and in other parts of Asia that have developed as rapidly—have alsodisappeared. Eight years on, knowledge about Asian elephant distribution is bet-ter but there are still only a handful of places where we know how many ele-phants remain. These places are usually those where non-governmental organ-izations like the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) have monitored elephantnumbers as an essential starting point for long-term elephant conservation.

Unfortunately, the majority of the remaining Asian elephant populations aresmall and isolated—outside of India there are few, if any, population strong-holds (i.e., populations that number in the thousands rather than the hundreds).Almost all populations are threatened by poaching, the fragmentation andloss of their habitat, and direct conflict with humans. Consequently, a majorconcern is that these small and isolated elephant populations will lose demo-graphic 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 theAsian elephant’s range (these calculations are of necessity based on scarce dataon elephant distribution). It is estimated that only 16 percent of these wildlandswas protected as of 2003. The most important wildlands area outside of India isthe large block of forest along the Thai–Myanmar border and the forests ofnorthern Myanmar.6

Maintaining or re-creating large, unfragmented areas of habitat is thusessential for the long-term conservation of Asian elephants, particularly if weare to maintain ecologically functioning populations that retain at least someof their evolutionary potential. But this is challenging, as many of India’s, SriLanka’s, and Indonesia’s elephants live in close proximity to sizeable townsand villages, and there is little opportunity to re-create large blocks of habitator even substantial habitat links. Moreover, when elephant populations are


Okoumé logs readyfor transport fromthe Gabonese for-est. Logging roadsfragment Africa’sforests and provideeasy access forhunters. S

ource:

Stephen

Blake


surrounded by agriculture and human settlements, there are high levels ofhuman–elephant conflict—for example, instances when elephants raid cropfields and plantations or trample the people guarding those fields. Such con-flict leads to the capture or killing of elephants as pests. Encouragingly, small-scale, traditional methods for repelling elephants from farms, such as usingwatch towers, bright lamps, firecrackers and other noisemakers, as well assimple 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 toaccurately count them; inadequate knowledge about their ecology, behavior,and population viability; and ever-increasing threats? To truly save a species, weneed to consider some basic principles necessary for long-term, range-wide con-servation. First, we need to secure representation: conserving populations offorest elephants within all of their major ecological settings in order to maintainbehavioral and genetic diversity. Second, we need to secure redundancy: thereplication of forest elephant populations within the same ecological setting toinsure against losing an entire ecologically, behaviorally, or genetically definedpopulation. Third, it is important to preserve ecological functionality. Thismeans having forest elephant populations large enough to maintain their inter-actions with the full range of other species in theecosystem, including food plants, predators, competi-tors (such as wild cattle and buffalo), and even para-sites, and to maintain their role as seed dispersers andecosystem “engineers.” Given our inadequate knowl-edge of forest elephant ecology, it is hard to define“large enough,” but it is likely that maintaining trueecological functionality would require elephant popu-lation sizes typical of the time before human huntingsignificantly depleted elephant numbers.

However, even if the best biologically based con-servation strategy were implemented, it would not beenough to save forest elephants if it did not addressthe human dimension. It is particularly important to reduce human–elephantconflict to allow rural people and elephants to coexist. Yet currently, humanscontinue to expand into the last forest wildernesses, provoking, not reducing,human–elephant conflict.

Fortunately, conservationists are beginning to address the need to re-createlarge, connected areas of elephant habitat, particularly outside of protectedareas. In Asia, the Managed Elephant Range (MER) concept provides a land-scape-level approach in which planners assess the habitat requirements of ele-phants over large areas and allow for compatible human activities such as

How can we save forest elephants ontwo continents, with limited ability

to accurately count them; inadequateknowledge about their ecology,

behavior, and population viability;and ever-increasing threats?

reduced-impact forestry, slow rotation shifting cultivation, and controlled live-stock grazing. MERs are typically established as extensions to existing protectedareas and often include habitat corridors linking protected areas. The MER con-cept is particularly attractive where protected areas are steep and hilly (as in, say,

Laos and Sumatra) and the surround-ing, lower-elevation areas are dispro-portionately important to elephantsbut contain agriculture or villages.Encouragingly, the Indian Govern-ment’s Project Elephant has estab-lished 26 “Elephant Reserves” thatcover the bulk of the elephant rangein India, both within protected areasand outside them. However, the fullpotential of MERs to promote ele-phant-compatible land use has yet tobe properly evaluated.

In Central Africa, a similar land-scape approach has been developedby WCS, the World Wide Fund forNature (WWF), and others, and

focuses on defining and managing “conservation landscapes”—large forestblocks centered on protected areas. In these conservation landscapes, develop-ment objectives are integrated into an overall management plan based on sus-tainable use of natural resources adjacent to protected areas. Priorities includeprotecting the integrity of national parks and of species that range beyond parkborders, reducing fragmentation, maintaining ecological connectivity withinand between landscapes, and facilitating sustainable economic activities.

But what must be done to implement these ideas and give forest elephants afuture? For Asian elephants, the IUCN Asian Elephant Specialist Group ispreparing a range-wide elephant conservation strategy. A conservation strategydocument for Central Africa’s elephants, developed in 2005, provides a usefulplan for conservation in that region but the political will and the resources nec-essary to implement it are lacking. Both strategies outline the need to identify:(1) key elephant populations, (2) human–elephant conflict hotspots, (3) areas inneed of protection, (4) areas where the threat of poaching is high, and (5) oppor-tunities to re-create habitat linkages.

Once key elephant populations are identified, it is important to establish base-line population estimates to learn how many elephants remain and whether theirpopulations are declining, stable, or increasing. This is critical for assessing thesuccess or failure of conservation activities and to accurately advise governmentson elephant conservation policies. WCS and its partners have refined elephant


An African forest elephant, with snarearound left foreleg, crosses an oil pipelineto access fresh mangoes on the other side.Snaring remains a threat to elephants inmany regions of Africa.

Source:

Stephen

Blake


survey methods including those based on takinggenetic fingerprints from elephant dung, greatlyimproving monitoring effectiveness. In some cases,dung-derived DNA can provide more precise popula-tion estimates than conventional dung counts and revealadditional data about the ratio of males to females andthe population’s level of genetic diversity.

Forest elephant conservation requires comprehen-sive strategies that include the many factors outlined inthis essay, from improving survey techniques to pro-tecting and re-creating habitat to alleviating human–elephant conflict. It should also be noted that nationalgovernments, international lending agencies, and theprivate industries that promote, build, and finance the infrastructure to extractresources in the forests of Asia and Africa should bear the responsibility for theconservation of forest elephants and their habitat. The costs of wildlife protec-tion are trivial compared to the investments made in resource extraction. Forexample, the Belinga iron mine project in Gabon, 31 miles (50 km) from the crit-ical Minkébé wilderness area, will cost at least $3 billion in preproduction invest-ment in infrastructure alone. This single enterprise’s budget is 34 times greaterthan the annual investment required to effectively manage a network of pro-tected areas throughout the entire Niger Delta/Congo Basin forest region.8

Ultimately our best conservation efforts in the field are simply a holding pat-tern. If MERs and conservation landscapes are to succeed, and the remainingelephants and indeed all that we consider wild are to survive, we need a newway of valuing the wild. If the development trajectory and management ofinfrastructure in the Congo Basin continue without immediately amelioratingtheir negative consequences, the last forested wildernesses of Africa and the ele-phants living in them may disappear. Similarly, in Asia, the implementation ofwell-designed conservation strategies is urgent because many of the last sus-pected elephant strongholds are in developing nations. Without conservationmeasures, forest elephants will be irreplaceably lost across much of their rangeand, with them, a vital part of the wild. e

It is particularly important toreduce human–elephant conflict

to allow rural people and elephantsto coexist. Yet currently, humanscontinue to expand into the last

forest wildernesses, provoking, notreducing, human–elephant conflict.

In Patagonia, the southernmost region of South America, the wind rarelyceases to blow across the dry, rocky steppe and plateaus. It is a vast, open, eco-

logically fragile landscape and one of the most remote places on Earth. Yet evenhere, among the towering Andean peaks and rugged coasts, human activitieshave 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, approximately250-pound (110 kg) relative of the camel and a wild ancestor of the llama (Lamaglama). After the Pleistocene extinctions 10,000 to 12,000 years ago, guanacoswere the most abundant large herbivore in Patagonia, numbering around 20million. At this scale, their grazing and seasonal migrations shaped the ecosys-tem. Guanaco herds could include up to a few thousand animals in seasonalaggregations of family groups and bachelor herds, and migrated hundreds ofmiles in search of the best forage, going to higher-altitude plateaus in the sum-mer and down to more temperate areas in the winter. They were the main preyof pumas (Puma concolor) and scavengers such as the Andean condor (Vultur gry-phus). Until the late nineteenth century, guanacos were also the primary sourceof food and clothing for the Tehuelche people on the continent and theSelk’nam people on the island of Tierra del Fuego. Accounts of early European


Restoration of the Guanaco,

Icon of Patagonia

A N D R É S J . N OVA RO

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

Restoration of the Guanaco, Icon of Patagonia • 123

explorers refer to large herds of guanacos moving across the steppe, followed bygroups of Tehuelche hunters and their families.1

The guanaco’s majestic appearance, its role as a major herbivore in shapingthe Patagonian steppe ecosystem, and its importance to human cultures makeit the wildlife icon of southern South America. Unfortunately, as with othericons of the world’s once-extensive grasslands, such as the bison (Bison bison) inNorth America and the Mongolian gazelle (Procapra gutturosa) in Asia, theexpansion of human activities has ledto a catastrophic collapse of guanacopopulations over the past 150 years. Inthe late nineteenth century, an influxof European, Argentine, and Chileansettlers brought sheep to Patagonia,and by the 1950s, there were almost30 million sheep in the region,becoming major competitors withguanacos for grazing areas.

Today, only about 500,000 to 1million guanacos remain in popula-tions scattered throughout Patagoniaand the southern Andes, having lost60 percent of their original rangeand 90 percent of their original pop-ulation.2 Only a few, large popula-tions still number in the thousands, offering a spectacular glimpse of the pastin the Payunia Reserve in northern Patagonia, the Monte Leon National Parkin southern Patagonia, and on several large ranches strewn across the steppe.In the vast areas between, guanacos occur only in very small herds or havebeen extirpated.

Effectively Absent

The grazing patterns and seasonal movements of large guanaco herds helpedshape the grassland–scrub ecosystem. The catastrophic decline in guanaconumbers means that most of the Patagonian steppe has lost its dominant her-bivore. Today, the remaining guanacos are increasingly restricted by fences,hunting, and intense competition from sheep and other livestock, forcing themto become sedentary. As a result, guanacos throughout most of Patagonia arenow limited to relatively confined spaces throughout the year, and their inter-actions with the landscape—in particular the plants they eat—have changeddramatically. Thus, where guanacos are restricted in their movements andtheir populations reduced, many of the ecological roles they once played havepractically vanished.

A lone guanaco looks out across the vastPatagonian steppe. This is one of the mostremote places on Earth, yet even herehumans have an impact on wildlife.

Source:

Susan

Walker

Ecologists call the subtle functional loss of a species within an ecosystemecological extinction—as distinct from global extinction, which occurs onlywhen the last individual of a species has disappeared. Because over half amillion guanacos still exist, the guanaco is not in danger of becoming globallyextinct. Yet its ecological extinction could signal the final chapter for a group ofnatural relationships in this region.

Several signs point to the demise of the guanaco’s role in the Patagonianecosystem. Grazing interactions inthis fragile scrub–steppe have sochanged in the past century as to alterthe land. Because sheep and otherlivestock occupy the more humid andproductive grassland areas, guanacoshave been pushed to the most aridparts of the range. Guanacos are nolonger able to move seasonallybetween home ranges; instead, theygraze year-round in a single location,intensifying their impact on localplant resources. In addition, in areaswhere sheep have replaced guanacos,heavy, constant grazing by large herdsof sheep has caused the degradationof plant cover and soil erosion. The

combined result of these factors is that over 35 percent of the steppe has beenmoderately 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 offewer wild guanacos and more sheep have changed the ecological behavior ofthe largest scavenger, the Andean condor. Where condors still exist, their dietnow consists mostly of livestock. But some ranchers put poison in sheep car-casses to kill predators, and the giant birds have frequently succumbed to this.The puma, the guanaco’s main natural predator, now also consumes sheep andintroduced wildlife such as European hare, red deer, and wild boar, rather thanguanacos.4 As a result, puma numbers are increasing, and instances of conflictwith ranchers are on the rise.

These changes in Patagonia’s ecosystems have altered predator–prey interac-tions so much that they might challenge guanaco recovery even in areas wheresheep ranching is declining and hunting is no longer a problem. Pumas, whichwere extirpated from most of Patagonia in the early twentieth century, have insome ways benefited from abundant livestock and nonnative prey species, andthey have recovered, reaching high densities in many areas. When a predator


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

Source:

Fred

Bruem

mer/Peter

Arnold,

Inc.


species is abundant and its preferred prey species—in this case, guanaco—is not,even occasional predation may prevent small prey populations from rebound-ing. Thus the resurgence of predation by pumas may prevent the recovery ofsome smaller guanaco populations.

Because of the many human induced changes to their habitat, guanaco sea-sonal migrations across large swaths of open steppe are increasingly rare.Long-distance migrations are ecological phenomena integral to the characterof a species and the wildness of a landscape. Many terrestrial mammals oncemigrated over great distances to take advantage of seasonal fluctuations inresources, but an estimated 95 to 99 percent of thesemigrations have disappeared during recent decadesdue to development, physical barriers, and hunting.5

Recent research by the Wildlife Conservation Societyhas demonstrated that guanacos need expansive areasand that some populations —those with large numbersand few barriers to movement—still migrate season-ally. Regions with spectacular migratory guanaco pop-ulations include the San Guillermo landscape in thesouthern Andean steppe, the Payunia–Auca Mahuidalandscape and Somuncura Plateau in northernPatagonia, and Karukinka Natural Park in Tierra delFuego. In the extensive, 1,700-square-mile (4500 km2)Payunia Reserve, guanacos have seasonal home ranges as large as 230 squaremiles (600 km2)—impressive when compared to home ranges of guanacos onsheep ranches, which are often only 3 square miles (8 km2). In the Payunia, gua-nacos still make a seasonal roundtrip migration of over 100 miles (160 km).Guanaco populations that still migrate long distances may represent the onlyremaining phenomenon of this kind in South America, making their preserva-tion a unique conservation opportunity.

New Threats, Renewed Hope

In the 1990s, hunting regulations and a less profitable international market forsheep wool allowed some guanaco populations to rebound. However, in recentyears, two new types of conservation concerns have emerged, one of thembeing wool sheared from live-captured wild guanacos. Shearing of live guana-cos takes place primarily among 10 to 15 of the large populations in central andnorthern Patagonia, including the two migratory populations in Payunia andSomuncura. Between 2003 and 2008, approximately 20,000 guanacos were cap-tured, sheared, and released, producing 20,000 pounds (9,000 kg) of wool thatwas sold at an average price of $45 per pound. As a consequence of this favor-able price, 35 percent of guanacos in continental Patagonia have been targetedfor live shearing, with unknown consequences for the long-term recovery of

Guanaco populations that stillmigrate long distances may represent

the only remaining phenomenonof this kind in South America,making their preservation a

unique conservation opportunity.

populations.6 Renewed interest in the sale of guanaco wool (and to a lesserextent guanaco meat) may present an important opportunity to boost supportfor guanaco on private lands in both Argentina and Chile. However, if improp-erly managed, this commercialization of the species could lead to new threats,such as stress on the animals, selective breeding for wool attributes, and otherproblems associated with highly managed wildlife.

The second new concern comes from the indirect impacts of increasedexploration for hydrocarbon and mining, which has escalated in Patagoniaand 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


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

Source:

Julie

Larsen

Maher/W

CS

roads are left open during and after exploration and pro-vide poachers with widespread access to previously inac-cessible areas. Poaching led to a 92 percent decline in gua-naco numbers in the Auca Mahuida area of northernPatagonia, and it has also affected guanacos and otherwildlife in the San Guillermo landscape. These potentialnew threats highlight the need formore research to fully understandthe impacts of guanaco use and ofnew development.

Recent research on Patagonianguanacos has documented the natureof grazing competition with live-stock. Research has also investigatedthe threshold density level at whichsmall guanaco populations could sus-tain puma predation. Other ongoingstudies are addressing the effects offragmentation and hunting from oiltrails, and evaluating whether capture and live-shearingof guanacos results in levels of stress and mortality thatwould prevent population recovery. The WildlifeConservation Society is studying the seasonal migrationpatterns of the remaining large guanaco populations inthe four extensive landscapes in Argentina and Chileusing radio telemetry and transect counts. Knowing theirseasonal migration patterns will provide an understand-ing of the factors determining movement, the human-caused disturbances that may interrupt movements, andthe measures that can be taken to restore migration. Atthe regional level, a multi-institutional project is underway to map the distribution of guanacos and prioritize

new areas for conservation. (Currently, less than 1 percent of the Patagoniansteppe is effectively protected.)

Sweeping Vision

There is a need for governments, ranchers, and nongovernmental organizationsto agree on a vision that prioritizes the conservation of wild guanaco popula-tions and their habitat. The vision of success for guanaco conservation is aPatagonian landscape where guanacos are again the dominant herbivore,migrating seasonally in large herds and across great distances between summerand winter ranges and interacting with native plants and predators. Over the


Andean condors feed on a guanaco car-cass. Livestock has replaced guanaco as aprimary food source for the birds.

Source:

HermannBrehm

/naturepl.com

past 15 years, a consortium of governmentagencies in Argentina and Chile, along withscientists and nongovernmental organizations,has begun to develop this vision and to imple-ment a strategy to restore functional guanacopopulations to much of their former range. In2006, this consortium released a managementplan for guanacos that was adopted by the federalgovernment of Argentina. The restoration strat-egy calls for the preservation of the great wildplaces where guanacos can still migrate—thetruly wild Patagonian steppe—and the recoveryof large guanaco populations on private landsbetween protected areas.7

This vision will require that guanacos andconservation planners alike adapt to the climatechange impacts forecasted for Patagonia and thesouthern Andes, where global warming scenar-ios predict increasing aridity. Except for thosethat live in Tierra del Fuego’s wetter, forested

habitat, guanacos occur in greatest numbers in some of the driest parts ofPatagonia. An average 3.6°F (2°C) increase in temperature over the comingdecades, combined with decreased precipitation in areas such as westernPatagonia, is likely to exacerbate desertification and increase conflicts betweenwildlife and livestock interests. However, the predicted climate scenario presentsa strong argument for the restoration of guanaco populations because thishardy species is better adapted than sheep to arid conditions. This became evi-dent over the past century when the guanacos that were marginalized to drierplaces managed to thrive while sheep overgrazed even the richest ranges.

Conservationists will also need to test and implement means to make privatelandowners more tolerant of large guanaco populations, particularly as herdsmove across the landscape. One key is to explore sustainable market options forguanaco products such as wool and meat and to develop mixed managementplans involving livestock and wild guanacos. Finally, new protected areas mustnot simply be envisioned, but actually established to help maximize connectivitybetween populations and between seasonal home ranges. Such a network oflands covering a variety of native habitats would allow functional populationsof this Patagonian icon to continue their spectacular and ecologically criticalmigrations in the face of future development and climate change. n


Puma numbers are increasing in Pata-gonia. The big cats now consume moresheep than guanacos and face persecutionby livestock ranchers.

Source:

Suzanne

Bolduc/WCS

Changing Flyways: Migratory Birds in a Warming World • 129

E ach September, cathedral bells in Christchurch, New Zealand, ring to wel-come the first returning bar-tailed godwits (Limosa lapponica baueri), large

wading shorebirds. A bit of celebration is certainly called for, given that some ofthese endurance champions of the bird world migrate all the way from Alaska,approximately 6,800 miles (11,000 km)—the longest nonstop flight recorded fora land bird. They owe their mind-boggling feat to extraordinarily efficient phys-iology, abundant food, and favorable southward winds. After spending longArctic summer days breeding, bar-tailed godwits gorge on worms and shellfishon the rich Yukon–Kuskokwim Delta mudflats. By departure time their heartsand flight muscles have enlarged, their blood has thickened to carry more oxy-gen, and their weight has doubled. Their transformation from breedingmachines to fat-fueled flying machines complete, they await winds that willboost them toward New Zealand. Some make the trans-Pacific journey in a sin-gle hop, but just how they fly continuously without food or water for about ninedays is a question that challenges our understanding of vertebrate physiology. Itis 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 thetiming of bird migrations are becoming a widespread phenomenon, a finger-print of climate change that commands intensifying scientific scrutiny. Theannual migration of 50 billion birds is a massive, global ecological pulse—one

Changing Flyways:

Migratory Birds in a Warming World

JA N I C E WO R M WO RT H

JANICE WORMWORTH is a Canadian freelance science communicator whose engage-ment with climate change and energy issues spans more than 15 years. She has workedfor numerous national and international environmental groups, and consults withorganizations seeking to address climate change through their business. She now lives inAustralia, where she is working on a book about climate change and biodiversity.


that is waning in the face of systemichuman threats, which include habi-tat destruction, overhunting, andother disturbances, and increasing,warmer average global tempera-tures. But shouldn’t migratory birds’very mobility endow them withgreater adaptability in the face of cli-mate change? Paradoxically, thedependence of some on multiplehabitats at precise times of the yearactually increases the odds thatchanging climate patterns will dis-rupt part of their fine-tuned annualcycle. As it turns out, migratorybirds have much to reveal when itcomes to climate change, and unfor-tunately, 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 Africandesign—provided the first clear evidence of long-distance migration.1

Fortunately, today more sophisticated tools have revealed that migratory birdsexploit seasonal abundance at different climes, and that their long journeys mayresult in bottlenecks of time, energy, and resources. These constraints are par-ticularly severe for long-distance migrants that use a small number of fixed stag-ing sites to rapidly refuel. For example, the threatened rufa subspecies of redknot (Calidris canutus) travels 19,000 miles (30,000 km) round trip betweenTierra 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 onthe 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 thecrabs. However, like many migratory birds, the red knot also faces new, climate-driven threats. Scientists trying to gauge how climate change will impact birdsstill confront huge knowledge gaps as to where many species breed, refuel, andoverwinter, 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 migratorycycles with conditions along their flyways as well as in their breeding and win-tering areas. Generally, birds want to breed as early as local conditions allow sinceearly reproduction increases reproductive success. Matching peak nutritional

Bar-tailed godwits make the longestrecorded nonstop flight—from Alaska toNew Zealand—of any land bird.

Source:

MarkusVaresvuo/naturepl.com


demands of chicks with peak abundance of suitable food, such as insect larvae,can be crucial. However, the increase in global average surface temperatures of1.3°F (0.74°C) over the past century is disrupting these time-sensitive relation-ships. Warming causes seasonal spring events such as plant budburst, insectemergence, and arrival of migratory birds to occur earlier in many cases, but notnecessarily at the same rate or to the same degree.

The well-studied pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca) is one such insect-eatingmigratory bird that misses the earlier worm. Some pied flycatcher populationsno longer arrive in the Netherlands to nest, lay eggs, and hatch chicks in time tocapitalize on peak abundance of their caterpillar food source. Due to warmingtemperatures, caterpillars now emerge earlier but peak in abundance at differ-ent times in different areas. The birds’ arrival time from their West African win-tering grounds is relatively fixed, and where this is mismatched with food-peaktiming (where they have missed the earliest food peaks), populations have

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

Source:

FritzPölking/AUSCAPE

declined by 90 percent. (Where the caterpillars peak later and early breeders areable to reproduce at the right time, populations have declined to a lesserdegree.) The pied flycatchers now breed more quickly after arriving, but not fastenough to fully take advantage of the earlier food peaks.2

Plant-eating migratory birds, such as geese, may also be vulnerable to warm-ing. As one of North America’s most northerly breeding geese, the greater snowgoose (Chen caerulescens atlantica) is under especially severe time constraints inthe short Arctic summer. The geese must match the nutrient abundance of localplants with their newly hatched goslings’ peak appetite demands. In years withwarmer springs, snow geese produce smaller, lighter goslings less likely to sur-vive their 2,500-mile (4,000 km) southward autumn migration.3 Even thoughthe 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’sgrowth rate, and that climate warming is likely to impact at least some aspectsof the reproductive success of greater snow geese.

Climate Change Causes Range Shifts

Climate affects not only when key events take place, but also where birds andtheir food sources and predators are found. Birds’ well-known sensitivity tosuch factors as temperature and precipitation means their distributions arelargely climate limited. Thus, where the climate warms, birds are expectedto generally shift their ranges in step with suitable conditions: towardthe poles or upward in elevation.4 However, an independent, uniqueresponse is expected from each species, reflecting its own specific climatetolerances. These idiosyncratic reactions mean ecological communities

are unlikely to shift intact and couldinstead be forced to reorganize andreshuffle. The Arctic, for example,is warming at almost twice theglobal rate, and tundra-breedingshorebirds face not only gradualnorthward invasion by subarcticshrub, but also new predators, com-petitors, and parasites. Such shiftscould trigger further, possibly moreextreme, impacts with conse-quences that are challenging scien-tists’ ability to model and forecast.

Widespread evidence from Europeand the Americas indicates that rangeshifts are already taking place.5

Research on birds breeding in France


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

Source:

Graham

Eaton/naturepl.com


suggests some species are not keeping up with the pace of climate change. Inthe last two decades of rapid warming in this region, average temperatures dur-ing the breeding season have shifted northward by approximately 170 miles (273km).6 In response, France’s bird communities have moved their habitat usenorthward at an average of 57 miles (91 km) in that time, lagging behind shift-ing climatic zones. For large numbers of European bird species, climaticchanges over this century are likely to shift their geographical distributions byas much as 600 miles (1,000 km).7 As ranges inch poleward, some birds’ migra-tions could become longer, testing the endurance of flyers already pushed totheir physiological limits. Some warblers that migrate across the Sahara tobreed in Europe, for example, could face journeys up to 250 miles (400 km)longer. Finally, research from Europe and southern Africa suggests that, on aver-age, future climatically suitable ranges for some bird species will contract, andsmall ranges are associated with higher extinction risk.8

In continental North America, the Prairie Pothole Region, the world’s mostproductive waterfowl habitat, may shrink and shift. Known as North America’s“duck factory,” this 290,000 square-mile (750,000 km2) region stretching fromAlberta to Iowa is made up of grassland and farmland dotted with millions ofwetland 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-relatedchanges in food availability and loss ofwetlands through drought and lower watertables.

Source:

Malcolm

Schuyl/FLPA

It also serves as vital breeding or stopover habitat for atleast 300 migratory bird species. However, over the nexthalf century, a warmer, more drought-prone climatecould cause pond numbers to plummet, potentially halv-ing US breeding duck numbers. At the same time, theregion’s most productive habitat would slowly shift eastwhere 90 percent of pothole wetlands have already beendrained for agriculture. The dilemma in the duck factoryhighlights a key climate-related threat: although globalwarming may create new, climatically suitable habitat, itmay be unsuitable for the birds if the landscape is alreadyfilled with farms or cities and crisscrossed by roadwaysand rail lines.

Climate change will threaten birds in areas far fromdirect human influence, such as the ivory gull (Pagophilaeburnea), an Arctic-breeding migrant. This pure-whitegull, one of North America’s rarest and least-knownseabirds, can be seen hovering above polar bears waitingto scavenge, or hunting through cracks in sea ice. Yet

retreat of sea ice from its remotecoastal breeding areas will leavethe ivory gull adrift in a warmingworld. The Arctic Climate ImpactAssessment found that endangeredCanadian populations of the ivorygull plummeted 90 percent in thetwo decades prior to 2004, and itspotential breeding range in theEuropean Arctic will likely shrink by70 percent this century. The ivorygull’s plight is unfortunately not

unique among migratory birds, as many new climate-related impacts will besuperimposed 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 inthe face of climate change.9 But some migratory species are predicted to beespecially hard hit because they are vulnerable to changes in any of their breed-ing, wintering, and stopover habitats. Those unable to shift or adapt will ulti-mately die out, and widespread extinctions are possible. The important task ofquantifying this remains a work in progress. The British Trust for Ornithology


For large numbers of Europeanbreeding bird species, climatic

changes over this century are likelyto shift the boundaries of theirgeographical distributions by asmuch as 600 miles (1,000 km).


finds climate change could significantly reduce the abundance of 84 percent of300 migratory birds listed with the Convention on the Conservation ofMigratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)—impacting as many species as thesum of all other human threats combined. Changing water regimes—alteredwetlands, for example—are the most pervasive climate-related threats and areexpected to affect nearly 150 of these species, including the wetland-dependentand critically endangered Siberian crane (Grus leucogeranus) and the aquatic war-bler (Acrocephalus paludicola), Europe’s rarest songbird.10

The novel challenges of climate change demand new strategies for wildlifeconservation. Species in a state of flux may move out of protected areas intoareas that are hostile to their survival. While “static” protected areas will remain

Earlier snow melt due to climate changecould make western sandpipers’southward migrations more perilousby increasing the birds’ encounters withperegrine falcons.

Source:

Steve

Kaufm

an/Peter

Arnold,

Inc.

a cornerstone of conservation, a versatile and nimble approach will be neededto restore degraded landscapes required by birds as they shift ranges in responseto a changing climate.

A key priority for all conservationists is to work on plans to curtail green-house gas emissions. Also crucial will be sustaining the largest, most geneti-cally diverse bird populations possible. Conservation efforts must also be eco-logically coherent and focus on entire migratory flyways, particularly with

regard to reducing habitat destruction and predictingwhere bird ranges may shift. All this will demand a trulyinternational approach to protecting birds that recognizeno political borders. So far, however, climate change hasfigured into only a few international species conservationconventions, among them the CMS and the RamsarConvention on Wetlands.

Notwithstanding these threats and conservation chal-lenges, there is an upside to migratory birds’ sensitivity tochange and globetrotting lifestyles: their potential to be“prime witnesses” to climate change. The six discrete sub-species 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, breedingsuccess, migration timing, and other vital signs of these flying data collectorscould reveal information on the health of the diverse ecosystems through whichthey pass. Faced with the impossible task of monitoring all species, scientistshave proposed using trans-Saharan migrants, shorebirds, and penguins andother seabirds as proxies to illuminate the wider impacts of climate change onmigrating wildlife.

In the meantime, the high-flying lifestyles of bar-tailed godwits and red knotswill continue to provoke fascinating questions and defy easy answers. Despitesurviving past glacial periods and turbulent climates, many migratory birds nowface the combined threats of climate change and other escalating human dis-turbances—an uncertain future. The quest to solve the mysteries of migrationand safeguard these remarkable birds will be challenging, but our planet will bethe richer for it if we succeed. y


The six discrete subspecies ofred knot bring much testimonyfrom their travels around theglobe, from Arctic tundra to

African desert coasts, Europeanestuaries and Australian beaches.

Conservation of Wild Places • 137

I’ve wandered the world in search of life:

bird by bird I’ve come to know the earth.

Pablo Neruda, from “The PoetSays Goodbye to the Birds”

I need the sea because it teaches me.

Pablo Neruda, from “On theBlue Shore of Silence”

Ask naturalists what inspires their work, and they will tellyou of wild places that fascinate them. But swaths ofwilderness are shrinking, and the human footprint is evi-dent on over 80 percent of the planet. In addition, climatechange has begun to slowly, inexorably alter wild places. Asmodelers and ecologists attempt to understand how warm-ing will change or shift biomes, others are urgently assess-ing the value of our last fragments of intact nature anddevising new methods for protecting them. The followingessays, written by passionate scientists and journalists at theforefront of conservation thinking, highlight preciousplaces from the truly wild seas to urban green spaces.

To start, we delve into Canada’s expansive northernboreal which contains possibly one quarter of the globe’sremaining intact forest cover. The riches of this harshwilderness, and the growing industrial threats eroding itsedges, are featured in the essay, “The Boreal Forest:Trouble in Canada’s Great Wilderness.”

A jaunt to the southern hemisphere in “Inspiring OceanConservation” takes us to the Patagonian Sea, where con-fluences of currents support an abundance of marinewildlife—and also attract the international fishing industry.The essay celebrates the wildlife in the seas and the skiesthat we are only beginning to understand.

Because a large and growing number of us now live inurban or semiurban areas, a closer look at maintaining thewild in our midst is of emerging importance. “The Wildand the City” highlights how nature contained in thepatchy network of urban green spaces supports a varietyof species and benefits city residents.

To illustrate the juggernaut of climate change, “LifeWaters: Wetlands and Climate Change” covers the manygrowing pressures on biodiverse wetlands, taking examplesfrom three continents.

In each volume of State of the Wild, we analyze anemerging debate in conservation. The wild placesexplored here, and the many that we could not cover,help regulate the planet’s carbon, water, and other life-sustaining services. “Conservation Controversy: CanPaying for Ecosystem Services Save Biodiversity?” askswhether assigning monetary value to wild places willinspire more effective conservation.

Each location, no matter how light or heavy the imprintof human activity, provides ecological services and inspira-tion, and, as these authors attest, understanding a wildplace is a first step to conserving it. L


SECTION 2

Conservation of Wild Places

The Boreal Forest: Trouble in Canada’s Great Wilderness • 139

If you view the world looking down from the North Pole, the white ice of theArctic 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 ringspans some 7,500 miles (12,000 km) across northern Asia, Europe, and NorthAmerica and is one of the last truly wild places on Earth. The boreal forest existslargely outside of public awareness, but its importance to the planetary ecosys-tem is unsurpassed, particularly in the face of climate change.

Named after Boreas, the Greek god of the north wind, the boreal biome ischaracterized by long, frigid winters with low sunlight, followed by summersthat bring clouds of voracious insects and ecosystem-renewing fires. It is notsurprising that most of the boreal forest is sparsely populated by humans. Thoseof us who live here are fortunate to experience a vast wilderness where wintersleave snow thick on the ground, showing traces of snowshoe hare (Lepus amer-icanus), and where summer visits to still lakes are punctuated by the songs ofSwainson’s thrush (Catharus ustulatus) mingled with those of hermit thrushes(Catharus guttatus). Of the boreal it has been written, “There are no housesbetween 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, withsmall intact vestiges in Europe and in some parts of the contiguous United

The Boreal Forest:

Trouble in Canada’s Great Wilderness

P E T E R L E E

PETER LEE is executive director of Global Forest Watch Canada. His career has focusedon improving sustainable forest management, primarily in Canada’s boreal forest. Healso has conservation and environmental experience in government (AlbertaGovernment), academia (University of Alberta), private industry (Syncrude), and not-for-profit organizations (World Wildlife Fund Canada).

States. (Relatively small areas described as boreal exist in South America, but theterm 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 eco-nomic resource. Canada’s boreal forest is nearly 14 times the size of Californiaand features large mountain ranges and expansive plains with bogs, peatlands,and permafrost. It provides mating, nesting, and breeding habitat for more thanhalf of North America’s birds and contains more than 20 percent of Earth’sfreshwater rivers, lakes, and wetlands, including some mighty river systems.

Since 2000, a group of Canadian and Russian researchers coordinated by theWorld Resources Institute has been using satellite images to map the full extentof 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 cover-ing 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 andgas well site, mine, and agricultural clearing, as well as any other human dis-turbance that we could discern from the images.

The results of these satellite-mapping studies were startling. We found thatCanada contains the majority of Earth’s ecologically intact boreal forest. Thistranslates into about one quarter of the entire world’s remaining ecologicallyintact forest cover. But the satellite images also revealed the rapid increase ofincursions into the forest to exploit its natural riches. The southern edge of the


In a view of the world from the North Poledown, a great evergreen snow forest ringsthe planet, known as the boreal biome, ortaiga in Russian. S

ource:

GlobalForest

Watch

Canada

boreal has long been a frontier for Canadians: we mapped agricultural lands inSaskatchewan’s Northern Great Plains where my grandparents cleared thespruce and aspen trees and drained the wetlands in the early 1900s. We also sawthe clear-cuts north of Lake Superior where I worked as a teenager in a pulp millfed by spruces from nearby valleys. But today, Canada’s boreal forest is the siteof industrial-scale timber, hydrocarbon, hydroelectric power, and mineralextraction, all of which are unprecedented in terms of both scale and rate ofacceleration. The annual area logged in Canada alone has almost doubled since1950; currently, about five acres (2 ha) of mostly virgin boreal forest are clear-cut every minute of every hour of every day.4 The cumulative impacts of theseactivities remain largely unstudied, however, even though they are rapidlyevolving. Given the compounded ecological toll wrought by these anthro-pogenic disturbances, the future of the boreal forest is likely to contain someunpleasant surprises.5

Landscape of Riches

Canada’s boreal region is largely made up of four major landscape types:upland forests, river valleys, wetlands, and lakes. Dense conifer forests ofspruce and pine trees dominate the bulk of the boreal. As one travels north,the forest shrinks and opens up into tundra barrens. While people oftenthink of global biodiversity as being concentrated intropical forests, the tremendous environmental com-plexity of the boreal ecosystem and the diversity ofspecies that spend part or all of the year here make it anequivalent treasure.

Iconic large mammals, such as woodland caribou(Rangifer tarandus caribou), far-ranging predators, andsongbirds, many of which are uniquely adapted to sur-vive long, harsh winters, thrive in these landscapes. Manyforbs—herbaceous flowering plants—on the forest floorsurvive the extreme winter buried beneath an insulatinglayer of snow. Some species, such as black bear (Ursusamericanus) and red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus),survive the season by hibernating. Other species, such assnowshoe hare and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), haveevolved sufficient body insulation and other physical andbehavioral characteristics that permit them to be activeduring the relentless frost.

The boreal forest is also a haven for breeding and migrating landbirds andwaterfowl, with 63 percent of Canada’s native birds occuring here. NorthAmerica’s western boreal forest supports an average of more than 13 millionducks representing some 40 percent of the entire continent’s breeding water-


Canada lynx are top predators in theboreal forest, but continued forest distur-bance could fragment their populations.

Source:

Suzanne

Bolduc/WCS

fowl.6 Close to 30 percent of all landbirds in Canada and the United States com-bined breed in Canada’s boreal forest, and many of these depend on the remain-ing 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 ofbirds, mammals, fish, invertebrates, arthropods, vascular and nonvascularplants, fungi, and bacteria than younger forests. Many rare, uncommon, orendangered 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 arn-hemensis), and flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus)—arelikewise most abundant in the unique habitat provided byold-growth forests. This habitat is not easily replicated. Forexample, the old-growth stands in Alberta’s Peace RiverValley contain the tallest known white spruces (Picea glau-ca) in the world at 130 to 150 feet (40 to 46 m). However,loggers also prefer old-growth timber and have logged over78,000 square miles (202,000 km2) of Canada’s boreal old-growth in the last 25 years.8 Perhaps the most significantsingle imminent threat to Canada’s boreal biodiversity isthis loss of old-growth forest.

A second major feature of Canada’s boreal is the largeriver systems that flow to the Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacificoceans. These rivers and their associated basins areamong the boreal forest’s most complex ecosystems interms of topography, microclimate, and vegetation. Theriver valleys are important overwintering habitat for

many species, such as moose (Alces alces) and wolves (Canis lupus). Where thePeace and Athabasca Rivers converge, they form one of the world’s largestinland freshwater deltas, where herds of wild wood bison (Bison bison athabas-cae) dwell year-round.

One of the greatest threats to these boreal forest river systems is the plannedrapid expansion of hydroelectric power generation and damming of rivers.Canada, as the world’s largest producer of hydrogenerated electricity, divertsmore 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 havereleased mercury, methane, and CO2 into the atmosphere and caused the loss ofcommercial and subsistence fisheries for many of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples.Despite this, more dams and reservoirs are planned for the boreal regions ofQuebec, 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 Canadathe largest peatland coverage in the world. Sensitive mosses and lichens


Yellow-rumped warblers (Dendroicacoronata) spend their breeding seasonin old-growth boreal conifer and mixedwood forests.

Source:

GeraldRom

anchuk

predominate in the ecology of wetland landscapes, particularly in acidic peat-lands, where sphagnum mosses can often reach nearly 10 feet (3 m) in depth.Importantly, peatlands are crucial storehouses of carbon and hold anywherefrom 15 to 30 percent of the world’s soil carbon.10

Finally, freshwater lakes dot Canada’s boreal, and, in total, freshwater coversabout 7 percent of this region.11 Canada’s assemblage of boreal fish speciesincludes some that occur exclusively or predominantly here, such as the cisco(Coregonus artedii) and Arctic lamprey (Lethenteron japonicum), and others thatare among the most sought-after sport and commercial fish species, such as laketrout (Salvelinus namaycush), Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), and lake white-fish (Coregonus clupeaformis).

Canada’s boreal forest is vast and remote, and due to the relatively undis-turbed expanse, it can still provide habitat for wide-ranging predators and theirungulate prey species. In Canada’s boreal, predator–preysystems are still intact—a rarity in other large wildernesses.Top predators such as wolves, Canada lynx, and grizzlybears are crucial to maintaining ecosystems because theylimit their prey species’ populations. But increasing distur-bance in the forest will impact the ancient relationship ofpredator and prey. For example, Canada lynx are alreadynegatively affected by human activity, and if encroachmentcontinues at its current rate and scale, lynx range could contract, and their pop-ulations could become fragmented.12 Logging in older-growth coniferous forestshas already put some populations of native woodland caribou at risk: logging


Boreal lake andmixed wood borealforest in the Chi-bougama area ofnorthern Quebec.Freshwater boreallakes are the mostnumerous type oflake on Earth.

In Canada’s boreal, predator–preysystems are still intact—a rarity in

other large wildernesses.

Source:

GlobalForest

Watch

Canada

increases the number of younger treesand consequently promotes higherdensities of moose and white-taileddeer (Odocoileus virginianus), whichattract and support more predators,especially wolves, throwing off thepreexisting predator–prey dynamic.13

Warming the North

Global warming is of particular sig-nificance in the boreal forest. Overthe next century, average tempera-tures in northern regions will risesubstantially more than the globalaverage.14 This will almost certainlymean a northward shift of the borealbiome. Changing precipitation pat-terns will likely lead to an overallreduction of the total area of wet-lands, while rising temperatures willcause permafrost to melt, drainingsome northern lands. Warmer tem-peratures may also allow invasivespecies to spread northward, result-ing in the loss of native and endan-gered species.

But the boreal region plays a vitalrole in the global carbon cycle andthus has the capacity to profoundlyaffect the course of the planet’s future

warming. The boreal forest historically has been a key global carbon sink, mean-ing it absorbs carbon from the atmosphere. Between 8 and 11 percent of theworld’s terrestrial carbon is stored in North America’s boreal forest, and only asmall fraction of this is in the trees and surface vegetation—the rest is stored inpeat deposits, soils, and lake sediments.15 Continued large-scale logging willdecrease the amount of atmospheric carbon absorbed by the boreal forest. Infact, some studies suggest that the boreal region’s absorption decreasedbetween 1970 and 1989, and recent studies have shown net carbon emissionsfrom the region due to the oxidation of peat, either from drying or from burn-ing.16 Warmer temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns couldincrease the frequency and intensity of summer fires, potentially releasing vastamounts of carbon currently stored in boreal vegetation and peatlands.


Clearcut logging of lodgepole pine andwhite spruce in the boreal forest ofwestern Canada. Forest loss leaves morecarbon dioxide in the atmosphere, whichcontributes to climate change.

Source:

GlobalForest

Watch

Canada


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

Looking Back, Looking Forward

Looking back over a lifetime spent in or near the boreal forest, including 10 yearsof fieldwork to verify Global Forest Watch Canada’s satellite maps, I am struckby two contradictory impressions. First, I am comforted by the almost unbeliev-able size of what remains as ecologically intact, pristine boreal forest, with itsself-perpetuating predator–prey ecosystem and large-scaleecological processes. It almost seems so big and perma-nent as to be immune to the heavy hand of the industrialjuggernaut that would plunder its riches. At the sametime, it is unsettling to witness the immense speed andscale of recent development activities, from open pit bitu-men mines in the western boreal to oil and gas develop-ments now dotting the Mackenzie River valley.

Despite these threats, Canada’s boreal forest still pres-ents an unprecedented global conservation opportunity.It is one of the last wild places capable of sustaining bio-logical diversity—a place of great beauty and power, and of almost unfath-omable scope and variety. Its forests, lakes, and wetlands continue to providecritical ecosystem services at a planetary scale, purifying our water, producingoxygen, and moderating our climate. It is also home to more than 600Aboriginal communities and is a source of spiritual renewal and economic liveli-hood for many Canadians.

There are some hopeful signs of boreal conservation. In 2008, the Premiersof Ontario and Quebec announced efforts to protect 50 percent of the northernportions of their provinces. Implementation of the Boreal ConservationFramework, led by First Nations, government organizations, corporations, envi-ronmental organizations, and scientists, is an attempt to preserve at least half ofthe boreal forest in a network of large, interconnected protected areas. But per-haps the most hopeful sign of all lies in the fact that more than 95 percent ofCanada’s boreal forest is public land and that Canadians, together with peoplefrom around the world, are beginning to recognize this ecological treasure. Asa result, with the right decisions today, future generations will be able to expe-rience that, indeed, “the wild is always near.” Z

The boreal region plays a vital rolein the global carbon cycle and thus

has the capacity to profoundlyaffect the course of the planet’s

future warming.


In Mapping Paradise, Alessandro Scafi provides an account of a surrealisticundertaking: over the course of centuries, mapmakers attempt to reveal

the location of the Garden of Eden, a place inaccessible to mortals but concep-tually a true “place.”1 Likewise, in Jorge Luis Borges’ short story “On Exactitudein Science,” cartographers work with obsessive precision to create a map of anempire so detailed that it equals the size of the empire itself, blurring the dis-tinction between symbolism and reality.2 Are these useless maps or aptmetaphors for our quest for knowledge? These stories and metaphors provideinspiration as we seek to understand the vast, unfathomable oceans.

Evidence suggests that human activities have affected almost everypart of the world’s oceans.3 A few areas, such as the Antarctic and the deepocean, are still wild and pristine, containing intact food webs, species diver-sity, and wildlife spectacles. Some temperate waters, including thePatagonian Sea, which surrounds the southern cone of South America,are also still wild. The Patagonian Sea, like Eden, is not a real place in geog-raphy. Modern cartographers named this area the Southwest Atlantic. Itscold, biologically rich depths support abundant marine life and inspireocean conservationists who strive to prevent the Patagonian Sea frombecoming a lost paradise.

Inspiring Ocean Conservation

C L AU D I O C A M PAG NA

CLAUDIO CAMPAGNA works for the Wildlife Conservation Society in Argentina andis a researcher for the National Research Council of Argentina. Claudio has an MD fromthe University of Buenos Aires and a PhD from the University of California at SantaCruz. He received a Pew Fellowship for his work on the conservation of the PatagonianSea, and he has published five books and over 100 papers and popular articles on animalbehavior and conservation biology. He recently coedited the comprehensive Atlas of thePatagonian Sea: Species and Spaces.

Exploring the Patagonian Sea

In the Patagonian Sea, plankton richness supports large populations of residentand migratory birds, fish, turtles, and marine mammals. In particular, planktonproductivity at the edge of the continental shelf makes the Patagonian Sea oneof the most reliable marine foraging areas in the southern hemisphere—some1,400 species of zooplankton are sustained by the confluence of the Brazil andMalvinas currents, a well-known “secret” to many marine animals that comehere to feed.

The Patagonian Sea supports a diversity of wildlife, including over 900species of mollusks, among them the commercially important Argentine short-fin squid (Illex argentinus) and red squid (Ommastrephus bar-trammii). About 700 species of vertebrates thrive here aswell, many of which reproduce along the Patagonian coastin breath-taking aggregations. Some 400,000 pairs of black-browed albatrosses (Diomedea melanophris)—about 75 per-cent of the entire world population—breed and feed in thisregion. Over a million pairs of Magellanic penguins(Spheniscus magellanicus) breed in spectacular colonies onthe shores of the mainland and nearby islands. The only continental populationof the southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina) is found along the ArgentinePatagonian coast, and southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) breed off thesame coast.4

Yet the Patagonian Sea is certainly not pristine. There are at least 100 intro-duced species, or species suspected to be invasive, affecting the ecosystem. Onland, when a species is introduced from another habitat, it can spread and dev-astate 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

Southern elephant seals spend eightmonths of the year foraging at sea and areamong the the deepest divers of all marinemammals.

Evidence suggests that humanactivities have affected almost

every part of the world’s oceans.

Source:

Jim

Large

rarely achieved. Likewise, direct human activity has caused dispersed damage toPatagonian marine wildlife. Commercial fishing fleets, particularly for squid, areso numerous they are often visible from satellites. Overfishing in the PatagonianSea 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 unnecessarilyas collateral, or bycatch, due to indis-criminate fishing practices.

The problem with the PatagonianSea, as with all oceans, is that itswildlife riches and damage to themexist mostly out of our sight. On land,where all is visible, one could directattention to an environmental issueeven when it is not yet fully under-stood. But water conceals form andfunction under a surface of relativelyuneventful homogeneity, and theuntrained eye sees only the usual

expanse of blue waves crowned with foam. As a result, ocean conservationistshave difficulty sharing their concerns with the rest of society. How can onepoint to an albatross drowned in a longline hundreds of miles offshore? Howcan one observe an elephant seal’s nonstop, mile-long dive into total darkness,surrounded by the bioluminescent flashes of plankton, as if traveling throughwoodlands of lighted Christmas trees? The lives of these animals can only beimagined, and only in our minds can we grasp their grandeur and their strugglefor survival. But relying on imagination alone for conservation can be mislead-ing. 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 byhumans. This would be fine, were it not that our style of harvesting the oceans’resources resembles strip mining. Even as our understanding of the oceanscontinues to mature, we nevertheless neglect their conservation. Less than 1percent of the seas are under some level of protection, despite the proven factthat Marine Protected Areas—discrete areas where fishing is limited—serve asvaluable nurseries to bolster the stocks of fish species that are increasingly ofglobal concern.6

The cost of neglecting the oceans is mainly biological, but we also lose some-thing conceptual: oceans provide ecosystem services, but also inspiration;


Southern giant petrel (Macronectesgiganteus) in the reflection of a fishingboat. Adults feed on carrion and discardsfrom fishing vessels.

Source:

Eugenia

Zavattieri

marine wildlife is a natural resource, but also a wondrous spectacle. The fla-grant waste of millions of animals each year due to indiscriminant fishing prac-tices is called bycatch, but it is in fact a crime.7 As this planet’s marine biodiver-sity looks less and less like an abundant Eden, conservationists must find theright strategy to halt ocean degradation. This includes a combination of fittingportions of evidence, understanding, and action.

Evidence

How can we plan conservation based on ideas alone? If science is the mother offact, technology is a servant of science; both help us experience oceans and dis-close what they conceal. The migrations of elephant sealsand albatrosses to Patagonia’s productive waters may notbe easily seen, but they can be scientifically represented.With proper instruments, we can create maps of oceanwildernesses to guide conservation. For example, after fit-ting a juvenile elephant seal named Clarisa with a satellitetransmitter, scientists learned that she traveled fromPenínsula Valdés, on the Atlantic side of Patagonia, to thePacific via the Drake Passage, and returned to the elephantseal colony by traversing the Magellan Strait—a journeyacross thousands of miles of waters thriving with plankton and dependent crea-tures, in a complex web that includes Clarisa and all her counterparts.

Evidence such as this leads to the understanding that creatures such as ele-phant seals—but also seabirds, fish, and turtles—traverse these seascapes exten-sively, migrating beyond frontiers that we cannot even perceive.8 Yet humansstubbornly 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 cer-tain of one thing: the oceans are so immense that we consider them immune tomisuse. Few people know, however, that some places in the ocean contain morehuman garbage, by mass, than plankton.9 Nor do they know that, for everypound 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 thrownback, dead.10

Current exploitation of the Patagonian Sea is harming the diversity andabundance of its marine life. Furthermore, it benefits only a small number ofpeople and it does not support overall regional economic development. It is dif-ficult to compare the economics of current exploitation with the potential gainsthat could be realized through other, more sustainable uses, such as tourism. So,even though Magellanic penguins attract significant nature tourism in some


The problem with the PatagonianSea, as with all oceans, is that

its wildlife riches and damage tothem exist mostly out of our sight.

areas, they continue to be harmed by chronic hydrocarbon pollution. The inces-sant and unregulated degradation of biodiversity in the Patagonian Sea couldsoon reduce local economic opportunities.11

Conservationists expect that scientific and economic arguments such asthese will lead people to understanding, wisdom, and conservation action. Arewe wise enough to help the world change its attitudes? The mission sounds tooambitious for a small group of contemporary cartographers of Eden, but itneeds to be accomplished, and urgently. How should conservationists proceedto save the diversity of life in a truly global marine system? I draw a few ideasfrom experience. First, we must think locally, be ready to expand broadly, and bepersistent in our work. It is critical to integrate available knowledge and to worktoward improving institutional support for conservation. Finally, I have learnedto trust the power of inspiration.

The Sea and Sky Program

A decade ago I was thinking about how best to communicate the ecological tap-estry of life in the Patagonian Sea when I came across the work of the Dutchartist M. C. Escher. In one of his woodcuts, Sky and Water I, Escher masterfullyrepresents the interdependence of life in the ocean and the sky above. This art-work integrates concepts of connectivity, diversity, space, and function. In it, thebirds and fish are surrogates for species diversity, food chains, habitats, coevolu-tion, competition, and mutual dependency. It inspired a group of us to found aconservation endeavor, the Sea and Sky Program, as an attempt to change thecourse of degradation of the wild Patagonian Sea.


The Magellanicpenguin is themost commonspecies of penguinin coastalPatagonia. S

ource:

W.Conway/W

CS

The challenge posed by Escher’s Sky and Water I is how to find a place forhumans—for our fishing boats, our byproducts, our offshore oil platforms, ourgigantic vessels carrying goods to every corner of the globe—in a system that isalmost perfectly balanced. At the same time, we must do this without a fullcomprehension 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 degradationand perhaps create a sense of protection for the Patagonian Sea and itswildlife—and “sense of protection” is unfortunately the only accurate way torefer to the state of today’s ocean protection. Sea and Sky’s mission assumesthe impossibility of inserting a fishing boat into Escher’s artwork without dis-rupting the equilibrium of its components: the fishing boat, by forcing humanneeds into such a delicate web, can impose its presenceonly by eliminating some of Escher’s birds and fish. Inother words, one of the meanings of sustainable use iscontrolling unnecessary damage—we know some damageis inevitable.

Mapping the Future

Like those cartographers who attempted to represent Eden,conservationists may be expecting too much from humanimagination. We number in the billions, and many of oursocieties depend heavily on ocean productivity for food. Wehave seen that oceans, whether treated as common or asprivate property, pay the price of overuse. The conservationof the Patagonian Sea, as with all oceans, is today as sensi-tive to idiosyncratic human behavior and political caprice asever. But in many ways conservation requires nothing morethan the application of common sense.

The past few years have seen the creation of new coastalMarine Protected Areas in the Patagonian Sea, and the declaration of the firstopen ocean area of importance for biodiversity in the Burdwood Bank betweenTierra del Fuego and the Malvinas/Falkland Islands. This 694 square mile (1,800km2) underwater island in the open ocean is particularly rich in hard and softcoral species and is an important feeding and spawning area for fish such as theChilean sea bass (Dissostichus spp.). The Sea and Sky program helped identify thebanks as a critical conservation priority and played a key advisory and technicalrole in formally establishing the protected area. It is the first time that Argentinahas protected an area of ocean within its exclusive economic zone due to its bio-diversity. Although the area is small, it shows important progress toward creat-ing a more robust ocean protected area and truly integrating the conservationof sea and sky.


M.C. Escher’s Sky and Water I, an illustra-tion of the interdependency of life in thesky and ocean.

Source:

M.C.Escher's"Sky

andWater

I"©

2009TheM.C.Escher

Com

pany-Holland.Allrights

reserved.www.m

cescher.com


Sea and Sky aims to alter Escher’s vision and to ask a very fundamental ques-tion: can oceans be conserved? However, the query might be misleading, giventhe fact that oceans are such interdependent systems and the degree to whichthey have already been degraded. Achieving sustainability is an imaginary sce-nario for which there is no map. Meanwhile, the international markets that drivefishing fleets to the Patagonian Sea do not incorporate the environmental costsof bycatch, and our governments, instead of halting our tendencies to depletethe oceans, continue to subsidize these fishing fleets. Although no speciesextinctions have yet been documented in the Patagonian Sea, if humanity has sooften caused pain to fellow humans, will we refrain when other species are atstake? We may not, and Escher’s equilibrium might be disrupted forever. Thatmay be one scenario, but we are not there yet. k

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

Source:

Jim

Large

The Wild and the City • 153

What does wildness have to do with cities? The ecological sciencesusually regard wildness as something that exists well outside of cities.

Yet, when we look carefully at places as different as Seattle, Phoenix, andBaltimore, a complex, extensive mosaic of natural spaces appears—one thatcontains wild creatures, plants, and insects, as well as functioning ecologicalprocesses. The species and systems in and near urban areas help maintain aconnected patchwork of nature. Now that cities and suburbs are home to 80percent of the people in the United States and other developed nations, and to50 percent of the total global population, the urban wild deserves closerexamination.1

Urban ecology includes the study of more than just the patches of naturewithin central business districts and dense residential and industrial areas. Itaddresses the entire city–suburb–exurb (CSE) mosaic that makes up the largerurban ecosystem. CSE systems are integrated by flows of air, water, nutrients,animals, and plants. They are affected by patterns of investment and infrastruc-ture. The connections within and between parts of the CSE can range frommovements of beneficial insects, such as pollinating bees, to the unwelcomespread of pests like the emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis). The network ofnature that makes up the urban wild is crucial to supporting a diversity ofplants, pollinators, seed dispersers, fungi, microbes, insects, and invertebrate

The Wild and the City

S T E WA R D T. A . P I C K E T T

STEWARD T. A. PICKETT is a plant ecologist at the Cary Institute of EcosystemStudies. His research relates to the role of spatial heterogeneity in community andlandscape structures and dynamics. Specific projects include research on urban ecosys-tems, function of landscape boundaries, and plant community succession. Stewardis also project director of the Baltimore Ecosystem Study Long-Term EcologicalResearch Program.

decomposers. These organisms help regulate community composition andstore and recycle crucial nutrients. Animals that traverse the CSE mosaic, suchas foxes, crows, and songbirds, help ecologists map the connections betweengreen 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 outsideof our awareness. For instance, drivers on a highway bridge might not real-ize there is a deep, wooded valley below them. A bit of desert vegetation ina suburban lot yet to be developed may attract hummingbirds. Nativeprairie grasses and wildflowers may cling to railroad rights-of-way througha midwestern city. Small vernal pools in a northeastern suburb may supportrare marbled salamanders (Ambystoma opacum).2 Urban wetlands obscuredby railroad yards or industrial buildings can provide habitat for species suchas the great blue herons (Ardea herodias) that wade along New York City’sArthur 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 ofBaltimore’s small streams are now hidden in culverts or buried in large pipesunderground.3

The densest parts of cities generally provide only slivers of space for wildthings. In downtowns and industrial areas, along transportation corridors, andamong continuous blocks of apartments and houses, nature can only appear in


False-color, aerial photograph of a portionof the Baltimore metropolitan area. Darkred shows healthy vegetation, and blueindicates buildings and pavement. Thisview shows the mosaic nature of an urbanecosystem. S

ource:

BaltimoreEcosystem

Study

extremely small areas. But appear it does. Street-tree pits, crumbling walls,and sidewalk cracks all present opportunities for ferns, herbs, and grasses, andeven volunteer maple and ash trees can take root in neglected spaces. Whilemany of the hardiest species are exotics that may threaten native plants andwildlife, even these invaders represent a toehold for the biological world withinthe built environment.4

Medium-sized sites in CSE systems include residentialyards, abandoned lots, and disused industrial lands. Theseareas provide space for more extensive communities oforganisms and the soils and waters on which they depend.5

Private gardens, thoughtfully designed to include nativeflowers, can support bees and butterflies. Yards can behavens for wild birds (but they are also places where birdsare killed by domestic cats). Trees at the backs of lots canmingle crowns with those in neighboring open areas toform surprising patches of urban forest canopy. However,these medium-sized habitats would be isolated and havelimited significance if they were not connected to largerblocks of wilderness within the CSE mosaic.6

Blocks for the Wild

In many CSE systems, large blocks of open space contain-ing unmanaged soils and natural or artificial surface watersprovide significant habitat for wild plants and animals andsupport native ecological processes. Large wooded parks often echo formerestates, represent enlightened city planning, or provide a snapshot of a lessurban 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 heavilyused sports fields. But the city also contains the 880-acre (350 ha) Pelham BayPark, which includes forest, grasslands, freshwater wetland, and salt marsh.New York’s Central Park is largely manicured, but it contains intact forests andhosts more than 200 bird species during their migrations along the Atlantic fly-way.7 Birds as disparate as tiny blue-winged warblers (Vermivora pinus), greategrets (Ardea alba), and American kestrels (Falco sparverius) rely on these urbangreen spaces. Large blocks of New York City’s CSE include the Bronx Zoo andthe adjacent New York Botanical Garden, which support birds, bats, and abeaver that recently made its home in the Bronx River.

Other urban parks include Berlin’s Grunewald, a 270-acre (110 ha) nature pre-serve tucked within a larger forest complex, and Sydney’s Olympic Park, whichprotects endangered salt marsh, mangrove, and swamp oak floodplain forestcommunities. Other large blocks of nature in the CSE mosaic are not limited toparks: cemeteries and buffers around municipal reservoirs are also important


Great blue herons are found in urban wet-land environments.

Source:

Julie

Larsen

Maher/W

CS

wild sites. For example, Louisville’s Cave Hill Cemetery is a local birding andbotanical 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 iso-lation. Connections with surrounding neighborhoods and other built areas influ-ence 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 parkssurrounded by neighborhoods with more tree canopy sup-ported more bird species than parks in neighborhoods withless tree canopy. Vegetated corridors connecting parks pro-vide important insurance for biodiversity in CSE systems bypermitting the movement of widely ranging species.

Benefits of the Urban Wild

Cities and suburbs benefit greatly from these parcels andblocks of nature because they help to clean the air andwater that flows through CSE systems. For example, plantcanopies can effectively absorb airborne particulates thatcontribute to asthma, and complex vegetation can take upwater pollutants, such as nitrates and ammonium, andtransform them into nonpolluting forms. Urban vegetatedopen spaces can also reduce the CSE’s net output of carbondioxide, a fact that has inspired some replanting campaignsto combat climate change. Finally, the rapid runoff of pre-cipitation from pavements and city streets can lead toflooding, and even small natural areas help absorb stormwater and reduce flow into drains and streams.

Urban nature also directly enhances many aspects ofhuman health and well-being. Environmental psychologistshave documented the salubrious effects of natural areas incities. Patients with a view of the wild have been shown to

heal faster, and the presence of green spaces can reduce public aggression anddomestic violence and even improve performance of school children.8 Urbangardens and parks are often a focus for community interaction and recreation.

The urban wild can contribute to many ecosystem services that are benefi-cial to cities, and therefore the preservation, restoration, and extension ofnature in the CSE are increasingly being studied. Because most of humanitynow lives in urban areas, the urban wild is also the predominant way that peo-ple experience nature. Accessible urban wild areas can, therefore, stimulatebroader environmental concern by providing opportunities to learn aboutnature during recreation or school field trips.


New York City’s Central Park providesgreen space for more than 200 birdspecies.

Source:

Imagebroker/FLPA

Preservation and Restoration

Despite all of the benefits provided by the urban wild, these areas are underthreat.9 The conservation of nature in the CSE mosaic is clearly different fromefforts in more extensive wildernesses like the North Slope of Alaska or theplains of East Africa, which often assume that a superficial absence of humanswill guarantee preservation. In CSE systems it is, by definition, impossible toexclude humans. Human activity adds invasive exotic species and pollution,extirpates sensitive native species, and directly or accidentally controls the dis-turbance events that shape the larger ecosystem.10 Therefore, preservation andrestoration require the management of human activities.

The first priority of CSE-systems planning and management is to preservewild areas that already exist, especially large tracts and the corridors betweenthem. However, even small wild patches should not be overlooked as in totalthey contribute to the health of the whole system. Urban conservationistsshould be conscious of opportunities to protect and restore even degradedparcels of land; indeed, some abandoned areas are ripe for restoration, usingnative vegetation composition and structure as a model to facilitate ecologicalprocesses like water and nutrient storage. As many old industrial parcels andtheir associated residential zones thin out, there are increasing opportunities forinserting large tracts of functioning wild in and around cities. The 500-acre (200ha) Duisburg-Nord Landscape Park in Germany’s Ruhr Valley is an example ofgreening an abandoned factory site. In the United States, the Forest Service isrestoring 19,000 acres (7,700 ha) of rare tallgrass prairie at the site of a formerarmy ammunition plant near Chicago.

Many cities have generated plans to increase their vegetation cover, withconcomitant opportunities to enhance their urban wildness. New York City,


Franklin Park Elementary schoolyard inBaltimore, showing a new green space oftrees, shrubs, and grass. The “greening”of the yard is part of a larger neighbor-hood project aiming to reduce theamount of stormwater and provide acommunity focus.

Source:

StewardT.A.Pickett

Washington, DC, and Los Angeles are among the US citiesenhancing their tree canopies. New York and Los Angeleshave declared their intent to plant 1 million trees in eachcity. Reducing impervious surface, where possible, isanother useful restoration tool. In Baltimore, the removalof pavement on public property, including on schoolgrounds, is part of a larger urban greening plan.

Outside of urban centers, the disused farmland that isusually converted to suburbs can be reforested to local andregional advantage. In particular, creating clustered devel-opments rather than the usual scattering of large lots is adesign that allows for unbroken forest. An example of thisapproach is the pattern produced by the Urban–RuralDemarcation Line in Baltimore County, Maryland, whichwas established to clearly identify areas that had alreadybeen or would be developed in order to help preserve exist-ing natural and agricultural lands. Another example is anew exurban development in Tuxedo, New York, which

was designed to maintain the small vernal pools required by the marbled sala-mander. Similarly, thoughtful revegetation in private yards, public lands, andareas of extensive turf can help restore the riparian function along degradedurban streamsides, a strategy now promoted to enhance water quality in theChesapeake Bay.11

Although turf does have some functional advantages, the sterile Americanlawn can be replaced, managed more lightly, or diversified as much as possiblethroughout CSE mosaics to create something approaching wild habitat. Prairiegardens have been shown to be effective substitutes for lawn in Chicago andelsewhere, as has xeriscaping—using drought-tolerant native species—in desertcities and suburbs.

Cities and Conservation of the Wild

Policy that promotes sustainably designed urban areas can reduce the pressureto develop natural and seminatural land and can moderate the penetration ofsuburban and exurban development into nearby wild areas. Policies that pro-mote livable cities and walkable, mixed-use suburbs can also enhance the con-servation of both local and regional wild features. Maintaining the large naturalareas that already exist, providing corridors between them, restoring vacantland, and creating small satellite wild areas are all ingredients of successful wild-ing of the CSE landscape.

Individuals and communities can act to enhance the wild in their midst andraise awareness that the CSE mosaic is a functioning ecosystem. The followingkinds of activities can help promote the urban wild:


Because most of humanity nowlives in urban areas, the urban

wild is also the predominant waythat people experience nature.

Accessible urban wild areas can,therefore, stimulate broaderenvironmental concern by

supporting opportunities to learnabout nature during recreation

or school field trips.


• Landscaping with native plants suitable to the region’s climate, geography,and soil.

• Avoiding planting known or potentially invasive exotic species in yards, gar-dens, and on streets.

• Planting trees, shrubs, and flowering herbs that support beneficial insectsand native birds, and arranging those plantingswith neighbors to form the largest possible patch-es of vegetation.

• Managing storm runoff by installing native raingardens and bioswales (landscape elementsdesigned to remove silt and pollution from surfacerunoff water).

• Replacing monoculture lawns with diverse nativeplantings.

• Removing unnecessary pavement or replacing itwith permeable ground coverings where soil con-ditions allow.

• Supporting “no child left inside” efforts in com-munities and schools to expose students to thenature around them.

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

Marbled salamanders migrate betweenupland forest and temporary vernal pools.In an increasingly urban landscape, thesehabitats must be preserved to conservesalamanders.

Source:

Todd

Pusser/naturepl.com


I f one is asked to imagine a landscape teeming with life, a desert is not the firstthing that comes to mind. But what a difference some water can make. In

southern Africa, the Kalahari desert lies along the Okavango River and afterevery rainy season, water flows here from the central Angolan highlands 680miles (1,100 km) away. Life springs from the river as it moves down to northernBotswana, where it replenishes the 5,790 square mile (15,000 km2) OkavangoDelta, an inland alluvial fan. In this season, the Okavango wetlands expand as ifby magic into a lush mosaic of permanent and temporary channels, grassyislands, and banks that crisscross the landscape. At its peak, this magnificentwetland complex can grow to 10,800 square miles (28,000 km2)—an area thesize of Massachusetts.1

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 AYS O N

CARMEN REVENGA is senior freshwater scientist at The Nature Conservancy (TNC),where she has led a global comprehensive assessment of the status, condition, andthreats to freshwater ecosystems and their dependent species. Prior to joining TNC,she worked for the World Resources Institute where she focused on linking science andpolicy to improve the management of freshwater resources for people and nature. She haspublished a number of influential books, reports, and papers relating to the condition offreshwater ecosystems, water resources policy, and marine and inland fisheries.MAX FINLAYSON is director of the Institute for Land, Water, and Society at CharlesSturt University in New SouthWales, Australia. He is a wetland ecologist with an inter-est in interdisciplinary approaches to wetland management and interactions with agri-culture and water resources. He has worked on the inventory, assessment, and monitor-ing of wetlands, covering water pollution, invasive species, and land cover/use change,and for many years also addressed climate change issues, notably in Kakadu NationalPark. Max is past-chair of the Ramsar Wetland Convention’s Scientific and TechnicalReview Panel and currently leads their workgroup on climate change.

This predictable, annual influx of water to the Okavango wetlands supportsan abundance of wildlife. As the water filters through the area, it deposits nutri-ents that feed the intricate food webs that underpin life. More than 1,300 plantspecies are known to flourish here, providing fruits and other sustenance toamphibians, fish, birds, and mammals, and attracting thousands of migratinganimals to feed and breed here. The wildlife congregations are staggering: anestimated 140,000 impala (Aepyceros melampus), 65,000 African buffalo (Synceruscaffer), 60,000 red lechwe (Kobus lecheleche), and 35,000 elephants (Loxo-donta africana) come to the delta everyrainy season. More than 169 speciesof birds can be found here as well.The Okavango Delta is truly one ofthe last great biodiverse wetlands inthe world.

Compounded Threats

While wetlands the world over serveas habitat for many aquatic and ter-restrial species, they also play a vitalrole in the lives of people. Wetlandsmaintain clean water and fisheriesand afford recreation and employ-ment. They also provide many other ecological services that are often taken forgranted: wetlands help mitigate floods, restore soil fertility, and dilute wastes.All of the services provided by wetlands have been valued at several trillion dol-lars per year.2

Despite their beauty and productivity, wetlands have a reputation for beinginsect-infested wastelands, which has for centuries encouraged their drainageand conversion for more “productive” uses, such as agriculture, urban develop-ment, and shrimp farming. Generally, destruction of wetlands is caused bydrainage 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. Morethan half of the original wetlands in the United States have been drained andconverted, and although this has slowed in the last 15 years, they are still beinglost to rural and suburban development.3 In other parts of the world, populationgrowth, industrialization, and the expansion of irrigated agriculture are strainingthe capacity of freshwater ecosystems. Since the 1950s, many tropical and sub-tropical wetlands, particularly mangrove and swamp forests, havebeen degraded or completely lost, but their disappearance has not been wellrecorded, or the consequences have simply been ignored. This is particularly true

Life Waters: Wetlands and Climate Change • 161

Aerial view of lagoons in the BrazilianPantanal. Warming temperatures will alterthis distinct habitat’s suitability for manyspecies.

Source:


of the recent destruction of peatswamps in Borneo to clear land forpalm oil plantations and the massiveconversion of tidal wetlands that willresult from the construction of theSaemangeum sea wall in South Korea.

Wetlands are part of Earth’s hydro-logical cycle—a planet-spanning,interconnected system that includeseverything from clouds to oceans. Assuch, they are directly linked to riverflows, groundwater levels, and cli-mate and precipitation patterns.Therefore, major changes in any partof the hydrological cycle can have cas-cading effects.

River flows are critical to functioning wetlands, and in much of the world,rivers have been fragmented, diverted, and channelized. Globally, more than 65percent of the large river systems are moderately to severely fragmented bydams.4 Fragmented rivers are less able to sustain life in floodplains and deltas asthe dams block the seasonal, replenishing floods that enrich soils and maintainhabitat for fish and other species. Dam building has skyrocketed in the develop-ing world, and thousands of dams are planned worldwide.

Magnificent wetlands like the Okavango, Doñana in Europe, the Pantanal inBrazil, and Kakadu in Australia have been protected by law and are emblemsof conservation that bring nature tourism revenue to their regions. But con-serving them has not been easy, and there are growing pressures on their vitalresources. In addition, climate change is now exacerbating the existing pres-sures on these ecosystems, adding urgency to the conservation of wetlandsaround the globe.

Climate Change Impacts

The most pronounced impacts of climate change will be increased tempera-tures and altered precipitation patterns, and these will not affect all wetlands ofthe world in the same way. Some areas will become drier, while others will expe-rience more precipitation and storms. High-altitude wetlands stand to lose theirpredictable annual glacier-melt, while coastal wetlands will slowly be flooded byrising sea waters. The varied combinations of temperature increase and precip-itation changes will alter the frequency, duration, and timing of events such asspring peak floods or low summer flows. Aquatic species are extremely sensitiveto 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


Hippos (Hippopatamus amphibius) play-fight in the Okavango Delta. Hippos sub-merge themselves in water to prevent theirthin skin from dehydrating.

Source:


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

Warmer Temperatures in Arid Regions

In southern Africa, climate change scenarios forecast a marked decrease inboth annual mean and monthly low water flows for the Okavango River.6 Thispredicted drying of the region will exacerbate the existing pressures on thebasin’s water resources: for decades, plans for upstream dams and groundwa-ter pumping have threatened to reduce the water flowing to the OkavangoDelta. So far, projects have been stalled by agreements among riparian nationsand the prolonged civil war in Angola, but rapid population growth, resettle-ment arising from the Angolan peace process, and economic development ini-tiatives to increase irrigation and hydropower are placing serious pressure onthe river system and the wetlands it sustains. Climate models also show areduction in rainfall and warmer temperatures across the delta, which willcause increased plant transpiration and evaporation from the wetlands. Suchdrying of the river and delta is likely to reduce the wetland area that is floodedyear-round by 68 percent—from 1,070 square miles (2,770km2) to 350 square miles (900 km2). The combined effectof climate warming compounded by water resourcesdevelopment upstream would result in a severe contrac-tion of the wetland: in normal years, flooding woulddecrease from a maximum of 5,000 square miles (12,825km2) to 1,800 square miles (4,695 km2), and from a mini-mum of 1,140 square miles (2,944 km2) to a mere 61square miles (158 km2).7 Under this scenario, the future ofthe Okavango Delta and the species that depend on itseems bleak.

Another wetland projected to experience a drier climateis the Doñana wetland in southwestern Spain. This uniquearea of marsh, freshwater wetlands, lagoons, and sanddunes on the Atlantic coast is home to one of the world’smost threatened feline species—the Iberian lynx (Lynx par-dinus). In addition, 6 million migratory birds stop here ontheir annual flights between their European and Africanbreeding and wintering grounds. Competing demands onlimited water resources for agriculture, coastal resorts, andgolf courses have already reduced the water tables that sus-tain these wetlands. As the global climate warms, south-western Europe is expected to experience longer and driersummers. This, in conjunction with rising sea levels, maymean that Doñana will be diminished, and eventually lost,


One of only two known breeding popula-tions of Iberian lynx resides in the Doñanawetland in southwestern Spain.

Source:

Jose

B.Ruiz/naturepl.com

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

Sea Level Rise and Coastal Wetlands

As sea levels rise, saltwater will intrude into coastal areas, replacing freshwaterwetlands and pushing wetland complexes inland. Coastal wetlands have alreadybeen significantly altered due to development—40 percent of the world’s popu-lation now lives within 62 miles (100 km) of the coast.9 If these wetlands areconstrained on their landward side by elevation or human infrastructure, somecoastal habitats may be squeezed out of existence by rising seas. In addition, cli-mate change is predicted to increase the intensity and frequency of cyclones andhurricanes, putting lagoons, salt marshes, and mangroves at particular risk.More storm events will increase coastal erosion, reducing the total area of somecoastal wetlands, particularly if they are not replenished with sediment deliv-ered by rivers.

In Australia’s Northern Territory, coastal wetlands in Kakadu National Parkalready experience very large tides and ingress of saltwater, and higher sea lev-els and storm surges are expected to move seawater inland. As saltwater movesup creek lines, Kakadu is likely to see the replacement of freshwater wetlandswith saline mudflats. This could allow mangrove species to colonize fartherinland and cause an extensive loss of native grassland and paperbark trees


Paperbark trees inthe wetlands ofKakadu NationalPark. If the salinityof these wetlandsincreases, the treeswill likely die off. S

ource:

John

Carnemolla/AUSCAPE

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

Snowmelt-Dependent Wetlands

With climate warming, high elevation rivers and wetlands that depend onsnowmelt runoff are some of the most at-risk freshwater ecosystems. Theseareas are already experiencing shifts in the timing, magnitude, and volume offlow events essential for life in these harsh environments. Regions such as SouthAmerica’s Andean Altiplano—a high-elevation plateau with inland drainage—the North American Rockies, the European Alps, and the Tibetan Plateau areseeing dramatic warming trends. The alpine tarns, meandering headwater net-works, and salt lakes that make up montane wetlands often hold relatively lowvolumes of water, making even small water losses critical. Many of these wet-lands tend to be isolated from other water bodies, so aquatic species cannotescape the drying by migrating to other suitable habitats.

The flora and fauna of montane wetlands are often highly adapted to theseresource-poor environments and may suffer from their loss. For example, theAndean flamingo (Phoenicoparrus andinus) is endemic to South America and sur-vives on the diatoms and algae of altiplano salares, orbrackish lakes. This unique bird is globally threatened aswater withdrawal, mine pollution, and poaching havedecimated its numbers.10 Now with climate change, lesssnowmelt and precipitation will be discharged intolakes, which will dry up the flamingo’s food source andreduce its chances for long-term survival.

Conservation Future

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


The combined effects of humanpressures on water resources andclimate change paint a dauntingpicture for these unique habitats,

some of which will be lost, others ofwhich will be changed substantially.


Over one in six people rely on melting snow and glaciersfor water, and reductions in ice and snow will cause watershortages in much of the world.11 This could lead to con-flicts over water resources and the construction of moredams and diversions. Furthermore, the notion thathydropower is a “green” energy means that some coun-tries that have stopped building dams may start construct-ing them again. More dams, diversions, and levees threat-en to constrain rivers and wetlands, leaving less connectedfreshwater habitat available for aquatic species to adapt toa changing world.

Many climate change mitigation and adaptation discus-sions focus almost exclusively on forests and carbonsequestration measures but omit water-related concerns.However, omitting freshwater and wetland managementfrom energy, climate, and development discussions isshortsighted. The conservation of functioning floodplains,as well as the restoration of degraded wetlands, can helpmitigate the adverse effects of climate change: mangrovesbuffer coastal communities from storm surges; inland wet-lands provide consistent water supplies; and natural flood-plains help control floods by expanding to retain excesswater during rainy or higher snowmelt periods. Payingattention to nature’s design for water management cangreatly enhance our climate change mitigation strategies.For example, after four devastating floods of Europe’sRhine River in 10 years, an ecosystem-based approach wasestablished that calls for ongoing restoration of part of theRhine’s floodplain and its key alluvial corridors. This

restoration will help reduce the impact of future floods with the added benefitof enhancing habitat for native species.12

The current lack of understanding and appreciation of the role of wetlands inclimate change discussions is a missed opportunity to moderate future impactson millions of people. It is urgent to integrate water-related strategies into cross-sectoral climate change discussions and national adaptation measures.Preventing the further loss of wetlands is good for people and wildlife, andrestoring wetlands would bring even greater benefits. W

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

Source:

PeteOxford/naturepl.com

Conservation Controversy: Can Paying for Ecosystem Services Save Biodiversity? • 167

T here is a Renaissance under way in the campaign to save nature. Tosome, it is a great new hope for bringing biodiversity conservation from

the committed fringe to the mainstream. It involves pricing nature to pay forits own preservation, a plan that brings hope for lifting endangered speciesout of the red zone, while lifting the rural people who often live in and nearwilderness areas from the depths of poverty. The hope rests on placing avalue on those vital services that nature provides to human societies.Ecosystem services are the wetlands that shield us from floods and filter ourwaste, the bees that pollinate our crops, the botanicals that cure our ills, andthe forests that help regulate our climate. In short, ecosystem services makeEarth livable.

Such services of ecosystems in principle make them lucrative. Ecosystemservices—ES to some—have become conservation’s new hedge fund, intro-duced in a Wall Street parlance of capital and assets, amenities and marginal val-ues, and heavily peppered with the term win–win. The ES perspective is beingembraced by national governments, the world’s largest development financiers,and international conservation groups, all touting a utopian bargain that savesnature, feeds the poor, and makes money, too.

The sudden rise of ES as a conservation star has predictably aroused someskeptics. Sympathetic though they may be with the cause, they are raisingpointed questions about its substance. They fear that in the rush to embrace astrategy to place dollar values on nature’s services in the name of biodiversityconservation, biodiversity itself may get priced out of the equation.

Conservation Controversy:

Can Paying for Ecosystem

Services Save Biodiversity?

W I L L S TO L Z E N BU RG

WILL STOLZENBURG is a freelance science journalist and author of Where the WildThings Were: Life, Death, and Ecological Wreckage in a Land of VanishingPredators.

Time to Check Accounts

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 sunand rain that fed their soil, seeded their forest, furnished their shelters, and filledtheir bellies with wild fruits and meat. Twentieth-century luminaries of conser-vation, from Aldo Leopold to E. O. Wilson, have since heralded the utilitarianservices of ecosystems as a good reason for saving nature—albeit a reason theyultimately trump with the deeper moral imperative of protecting the diversityof life for life’s own sake. It is only lately, based on fears that morality has failedthe environmental movement, that the conservation community has shifted tothe more utilitarian approach, and begun dressing its noble cause in dollar signs.

In 1997, a team of ecologists and economists led by Robert Costanza calcu-lated a global value for “the services of ecological systems and the natural cap-ital stocks that produce them” at $33 trillion a year.1 Costanza and his colleaguesconsidered even this a vastly conservative estimate, stymied as they were to fully

account for nature’s irreplaceable, interconnected, andsometimes subtle gifts. How, for example, to put a price onoxygen or water? But even at a bare minimum, it was a fig-ure that raised eyebrows, considering that the final tallynearly doubled the $18-trillion gross national product ofthe United States at that time. “So, although ecosystem valu-ation is certainly difficult and fraught with uncertainties,”concluded Costanza and company, “one choice we do nothave is whether or not to do it.”

That choice has apparently been forced upon the con-servation community by hard times. Ecosystems world-wide are under assault. Half the world’s wetlands havebeen drained, nearly 40 percent of its coral reefs are eitherdead or soon to be. Grasslands and savannas are all losingground, and forests are being cut at an annual rate ofalmost 58,000 square miles (150,200 km2).2

On closer view, the outlook grows no brighter. Nearlyone in four of the world’s mammals are considered threat-ened with extinction.3 One in every three species ofamphibian, one in five freshwater fish, and one in eightspecies of bird are similarly in peril. Three of every fourmarine fish stocks are either collapsed, declining, or barelyholding their own. Species are now hurtling to extinction atrates a thousand times faster than Earth’s historical norm.4

The time has come, say the champions of ES, to shiftgears. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005,


Touted as economic boons of vegetable oiland storehouses of carbon, palm oil plan-tations exact tremendous costs from tropi-cal forests and biological diversity.

Source:

Biosphoto/G

unther

Michel/Peter

Arnold,

Inc.

while otherwise delivering a mountain of bad news about the planet’s eco-logical state, particularly emphasized the idea of employing ES values toinspire sustainable development and conservation. The assessment spoke inthe economist’s lingo of bottom lines and balance sheets, red ink and blackink, capital assets and debt. “In themidst of this unprecedented periodof spending Earth‘s natural bounty,”its authors declared, “it is time tocheck the accounts.”

A year later, three powerhouses ofconservation came together in valida-tion of the ES approach. StanfordUniversity, The Nature Conservancy,and World Wide Fund for Naturelaunched The Natural CapitalProject, a plea to improve our treat-ment of nature by acknowledging itslife-sustaining values. Internationalbodies have since joined the move-ment, with the United Nations, theWorld Bank, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature all sprout-ing Web pages and programs aimed at putting prices on forests and watershedsin the name of biological conservation and their service to humanity.

“There are complex issues here, no doubt about it,” said Stanford’s GretchenDaily, one of the academic spearheads of the new economy of nature. “Mymain 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 anddeep values of nature.”

It is an argument that on the surface seems rock solid. Or so it once seemedto Douglas J. McCauley. A graduate student of ecology and close colleague ofDaily’s at Stanford, McCauley had entered conservation as had many beforehim, drawn by nature’s intrinsic allure and eventually driven to action as hewatched its inexorable destruction. He was enthralled by this new tool called ESthat promised success in a world of defeat. But the deeper he probed, the lessenthralled he became—for all the ES fanfare, little in the way of conservationseemed to have come from it.

McCauley pointed by example to the coffee country of Costa Rica. At a plan-tation named Finca Santa Fe, scientists had calculated a dollar value for thefarm’s native bees—bees that flew in from nearby tropical forests and pollinatedcoffee flowers to produce $62,000 worth of beans each year. The bottom linethus came to read: Save the forest and its bees, grow more coffee and reap hand-some profits.


With a large percentage of the world’s wildecosystems converted to human designs(here, Iowa grasslands cleared for agricul-ture), understanding the value of intactnature and its services grows ever morecritical.

Source:

Julie

Larsen

Maher

Unfortunately, as global coffee prices plummeted, the bottom dropped outof that bottom line. The farmers of Finca Santa Fe cleared their fields of coffeeand planted pineapples, a more profitable crop needing no bees. As quickly asthat, by McCauley’s calculations, the forests’ pollinator-based value to FincaSanta Fe dropped to zero. Had the forests’ conservation been pinned to thevalue of its coffee-tending bees, the main argument for keeping the forests intactwould have vanished.

“Nature is just not a fungible commodity,” said McCauley. “When a forest isdestroyed, you can’t immediately re-create its biodiversity, and in many casesyou can’t re-create it at all.”

McCauley had other technical bones to pick with the ES strategy, which hepublished in a rousing critique that appeared in a 2006 issue of the journalNature.5

But the crux of his concern centered on one particular development—in theapparent abandonment of a once-gallant defense of nature’s inherent worth, forwhat 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 proj-ects were going to start selling nature as just another com-modity to them—I found that very dangerous.”

A Commodity Called Nature

McCauley is neither the first nor likely the last to comeaway queasy over this new utilitarian tack to conservation.“We abuse land because we regard it as a commoditybelonging to us,” wrote the wilderness sage Aldo Leopoldin 1948. “When we see land as a community to which webelong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”6

Leopold’s concerns would in time be echoed by the con-servation biologist David Ehrenfeld who by 1988 saw the

ES bandwagon on the horizon. “If we persist in this crusade to determine valuewhere value ought to be evident, we will be left with nothing but our greedwhen the dust finally settles.”7 Twenty years later, Kent Redford, director of theWildlife Conservation Society Institute, finds more than a few things that worryhim about conservation’s ES argument. “What’s concerning me overall,” saidRedford, “is this largely putative link between the sale of ecosystem services andthe 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 losethe true value this approach is capable of delivering.”

Many of the current ES projects are promoted on the utilitarian basis thatforests and watersheds capture and purify our water. Great swaths of trees arealso being sold based on their ability to sequester carbon in their tissues andsoils and thereby temper the planetary hothouse. A newly hatched UN-basedprogram to reduce greenhouse gases invites rich nations to compensate for


Great swaths of trees arealso being sold based on their

ability to sequester carbonin their tissues and soilsand thereby temper the

planetary hothouse.

their industrial emissions by purchas-ing carbon-storing forests in develop-ing, forest-rich countries. The UN’sREDD (Reduced Emissions fromDeforestation and Degradation) ini-tiative could transfer tens of billionsof dollars to developing nations eachyear. Indonesia alone has the poten-tial to receive $1 billion a year by cut-ting back on its rampant deforesta-tion of species-rich tropical habitats.

But what qualifies as forest tosome is hardly a forest to others, andhence the challenge for REDD trans-actions. One of the greatest newdrivers of extinction, according toDavid Wilcove, conservation scien-tist at Princeton University, is therampant conversion of tropical for-est to oil palm plantations—hugecommercial monocultures rich invegetable oil but otherwise devoid ofbiological diversity. Palm growerswould like to see plantations catego-rized as “forests” that bank carbon,thus qualifying them for paymentthrough REDD and other programs.Whether these plantations deliver onthat promise is another question:“The calculations I have seen indi-cate that far more carbon will bereleased by converting the land to oilpalm than will be sequestered by theoil palm trees,” said Wilcove. “It ispossible that even growing oil palmon ‘wastelands’ would not result in a net positive sequestration effect.”

Along with big money typically come big government, corporations, andcorruption. And with them come fears that the rural poor living in the path ofthe “great carbon rush” will shoulder much of the sacrifice and reap little ofthe profit exchanged between nations. As for conserving biodiversity, few ESprojects have yet to demonstrate their value. In 2008, a survey of the WorldBank’s development projects found them failing 84 percent of the time to


Forests and watersheds capture and purifywater that makes modern human societypossible.

Source:

Julie

Larsen

Maher/W

CS


deliver on their twin goals of protecting the environment and alleviating pover-ty.8 The authors of the survey concluded that, “Much of the current enthusi-asm 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 datashowing 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 detach-ment from the nature it would defend. With conservation’s faceless new starsnamed “carbon sink” and “watershed” and “pollinator,” one wonders whetherthe pandas and polar bears, butterflies and blue whales that once embodied themovement will be discounted or lost in the trade. For that matter, what of the

less charismatic species that do the yeoman’s work to sus-tain life on Earth?“The mere phrase ‘ecosystem services’ has a mundanering, rather like waste disposal or water-quality control,”noted E. O. Wilson in his 1992 landmark The Diversity ofLife.9 “But if only a small percentage of the journeymanorganisms filling these roles were to disappear, human lifewould be diminished and strikingly less pleasant. It is a fail-ing of our species that we ignore and even despise the crea-tures whose lives sustain our own.”

Once nature becomes a commodity, it becomes easierto dismiss those individual creatures of the ecological port-folio whose stock is arbitrarily low. The bees that help

make the coffee farmer richer could be forgotten should the farmer find a morelucrative crop. Failure in the marketplace leaves nature’s salvation to the heart—to those emotional intangibles so rarely captured on the accountant’s spread-sheet. But this same elusive loyalty to nature, so sacred to some, is what thechampions of ES insist we can no longer take to the bank.

“The Renaissance in conservation today is born of the realization that aNoah’s Ark approach won’t work, that the flood of humanity today is not aforty-day quickie,” says Stanford’s Gretchen Daily. “For nature and humanity tosurvive, we must make the sea of humanity friendly to nature.”

On that, both sides of the ES argument would seem to agree. The questionstill dividing them asks whether the friendship with nature that Daily envisionsis a friendship that can ever be bought. “People say you can’t put a price tag onthe priceless,” said Daily. “I agree—nature is priceless. But if we don’t, it’s likean all-you-can-eat buffet: People go whole hog and it’s gone.” X

A survey of the World Bank’sdevelopment projects found them

failing 84 percent of the timeto deliver on their twin goals

of protecting the environmentand alleviating poverty.

The Art and Practice of Conservation • 173

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, fromA NATURAL I ST AND OTHER BEASTS :TALES FROM A LIFE IN THE FIELD


The conservation of wildlife and wild places may beone the most urgent endeavors facing humanity.

Unfortunately, it is not a simple task. Effective conservationfirst requires extensive scientific knowledge of a species’numbers, needs, ecological interactions, and threats. Thisknowledge must then be translated to all parties who havea stake in the habitat or region, assuming they can all bereached and are interested in conservation. Finally, meas-ures to lay the foundation for long-term conservation needto be designed, implemented, and maintained.

Each of these steps involves hundreds of variables andmust be adapted to political, economic, and biological con-texts. As this edition of State of the Wild makes clear, polit-ical instability and conflict alone can derail even well-planned efforts. Conservationists must constantly innovateand find creative solutions—part of the art and practice ofconservation—because, in the end, this is what determineswhether wildlife and wildlands will be saved. The follow-ing authors piece together many aspects of conservationwork and lessons learned, and offer insight on new tech-niques and concepts.

To start, new partnerships are often the key to encour-aging greater cultural change, but only if those partner-ships are solid. “Faith, Hope, and Conservation” traces theconvergence between the world’s major religions and theefforts of the environmental community, with hopes that

well-intentioned organizations can work together to pro-mote conservation.

For the wildlife scientist, gaining information aboutspecies quickly, accurately, and cheaply is important. Theessay “Canine Detection Teams and Conservation” showshow a long-time helpmate of humans can locate signs ofwildlife in even the most challenging environments.

As our human population grows, it will become increas-ingly important to design conservation measures that over-lap with our need for agricultural land. Conservation man-agement techniques on European farmlands are assessedin “Agriculture and Wildlife in Europe.”

To examine how zoos help to save endangered species,“The Dilemma of Confiscated Wildlife” follows the fate ofanimals caught in the illegal wildlife trade.

Finally, the essay “The Evolving Practice ofConservation in Rwanda” covers the many lessons learnedover three decades of mountain gorilla conservation in theremote forests of a once war-torn country. The authorstresses the importance of long-term commitment and ofbuilding local capacity, practices that could improve con-servation effectiveness in any setting.

We hope that the timely insight offered here fromacross the conservation community sparks ideas for ongo-ing innovation in the art and practice of conservation.t

SECTION 3

The Art and Practiceof Conservation

Faith, Hope, and Conservation • 175

In 2008, French adviser Regis Debray observed of the ethnic-religious worldof 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. Wherenature has survived, there lives a habit or a cassock.”2 Debray’s account of theconnection between religions, sacred places, and the conservation of nature isone borne out in many parts of the world. It was the ancient role of faiths toprotect certain areas of wilderness because they were sacred—sanctuaries forboth humanity and other species—and it is no accident that today we speak ofwildlife “sanctuaries.” Take the train from Narita airport into Tokyo, and if yousee a green space, particularly one with trees in it, a Buddhist or Shinto temple

Faith, Hope, and Conservation

M A RT I N PA L M E R A N D TO 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 Sierra Club

MARTIN PALMER is secretary general of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation(ARC), a secular nongovernmental organization that helps the major religions of theworld to develop environmental programs based on their own core teachings, beliefs, andpractices. ARC helps the religions link with key environmental organizations, creatingpowerful alliances between faith communities and conservation groups. ARC now workswith 11 major faiths through each of their key traditions.TONY WHITTEN is senior biodiversity specialist in the East Asia and Pacific Regionof the World Bank in Washington, DC. He manages a range of biodiversity conserva-tion projects from Mongolia to Indonesia and has developed initiatives in areas such asfreshwater biodiversity, karst and cave biodiversity, and the opportunities presented byworking with faith communities.


or shrine will be at its heart. The truth is that many of the world’s importantnature reserves have survived because they are considered sacred, and for cen-turies, faiths have given them a protection of far greater significance than couldany government decree or environmental directive from some distant interna-tional body.

The connection between faith and conservation is reflected clearly in thestatement of the Daoists of China who in 2008 launched their Eight-Year Planfor Generational Change for a Living Planet:

From ancient times, Chinese Daoism has always put a great emphasis onDao following nature. It pays a great attention to the harmony and balanceof heaven, earth and humanity, and the balance between Yin and Yang.Humanity should obey nature’s rules, maintain the balance of our ecologi-cal system, and protect the species that live beside us. This unique wisdomwill be a powerful and effective weapon for us to battle the environmentproblems we are facing. Today, Daoism stands in the frontline of our times:it wishes to guide people through the obstacles of environmental problemsthrough their own Daoist beliefs, and it wishes to rekindle the fire of our oldwisdom to bring us new inspiration and hope.3

Buddhist monks own Thailand’s KhaoChong Pran Cave. The monks help to pro-tect the cave’s bats, thousands of whichwere once snared monthly by poachers forsale to local restaurants. The surroundingmountain is now a no-hunting area, andbat populations have recovered.

Source:

Biosphoto/S

toeckléTanguy/Peter

Arnold,

Inc.

Also in 2008, the members of the 4th International Union for Conservationof Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress passed a resolution recogniz-ing the centrality of spiritual and faith traditions in protecting wild places. Theresolution opens by stating “that one of the oldest forms of culture-based con-servation has been the protection of the sacred natural sites of indigenous com-munities and mainstream faiths, and that these sacred nat-ural sites often harbor rich biodiversity and safeguard valu-able landscapes and ecosystems.”4 It calls on governmentaland nongovernmental agencies to recognize the skills oflocal indigenous peoples as well as global mainstream faithcommunities to manage important landscapes. The signif-icance of this statement from the heart of the conservationcommunity is that it acknowledges and honors the fastestgrowing area of new environmental activity—outreach toand partnership with communities of faith.

Sacred Wilderness

Perhaps among the most striking forms of overlapbetween conservation and faith are the sacred mountains.Mountains are sacred for a host of different reasons: somebecause gods are believed to dwell there, such as theHimalayas and the sacred mountains of Mongolia; somebecause of mythological associations, such as Govinda Hillin India, which the monkey god Hannuman is believed tohave carried into battle for the healing herbs that grew onit. Other mountains are sacred because of religious events,such as Mount Sinai where Judaism, Christianity, and Islamhold that Moses received the Ten Commandments. Someare sacred simply because, in these places, the veil betweenheaven and earth is felt to be gossamer thin, such as TaiShan in China or Huiricuta Mountain in Mexico.

Sacred mountains tend to be well protected by local people and customs, par-ticularly when compared to mountains that were never considered sacred orwhere “sacredness” has been degraded or lost. A study in the late 1990s con-firmed that, of the more than 400 sacred mountains in China, those with func-tioning Daoist or Buddhist communities nearby were in better ecological shapethan sacred mountains where religious communities had been driven away dur-ing the worst excesses of communism.5 The same study also found that manywilderness areas and parks in other parts of the world contained an element ofsacredness and had been protected long before formal government gazetting.For example, in the eighth and ninth centuries, Islamic law created hima orharim areas throughout the Muslim empire where hunting was prohibited and


Daoist, Buddhist, and Confucian pilgrimsworship and ask the gods for favors asthey climb China’s sacred Tai ShanMountain.

Source:

LowellGeorgia/N


where open access to water was protected for wildlife, domestic animals, andhumans. This concept built upon statements in the Koran (“To Him belongswhat is in the heavens and on Earth and all between them and all beneath thesoil,” Surah 20 verse 6) and the Hadith, in which the prophet Muhammad man-dates that humans protect and appropriately use water, vegetation, and fire forthe benefit of all creatures.

Throughout Europe, valleys and mountains have also been protectedbecause of their association with Christian saints. For example, the valley ofPennent Melangell in central Wales is associated with Saint Melangell, who, inthe seventh century, gave sanctuary to a hare that was being hunted by a paganprince. 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 Saintand her gesture keeps the valley a wildlife sanctuary.


The Venerable Hiek Sopheap, head ofCambodia’s Association of Buddhists forthe Environment, meditates among thegroves of Angkhor Wat. The Association’smain goals are to promote a cleaner andhealthier environment and preserve natu-ral resources. S

ource:

VictoriaFinlay/ARC

The realization that the religious and the spiritual can be serious partnersin conservation was first recognized by the World Wide Fund for Nature (offi-cially known as WWF as of 2009). In 1986, WWF invited leaders from the majorinternational environmental groups and the five main global religions to meetin Assisi, Italy—the birthplace of St. Francis, the patron saint of ecology—toexplore ways that they could work separately and together to protect the natu-ral world. At the time, opening a collaboration of thiskind was radical to the conventional thinking of largeinternational conservation organizations. Nevertheless,the environmental groups asked the faiths to share theirteachings and practices with regard to stewardship, andfor the first time a true discourse and interaction began—albeit with levels of unease on both sides.

Working with faith groups and formally acknowledg-ing religious connections to nature had been viewed as adecidedly fringe activity within the environmental com-munity. For example, around 1998 the IUCN formed itsTask Force on the Non-Material Values of ProtectedAreas, effectively avoiding any reference to the spiritualvalue that humans can derive from the wildlife and wildplaces in protected areas. The group’s work originally concentrated only onindigenous beliefs rather than on the worldwide religions, a considerable over-sight since some 85 percent of the world’s population claims membership to amajor global faith.6 (Years later, as a sign of the growing realization that there isa relationship between faith and conservation, the group’s name was changedto the Cultural and Spiritual Values Task Force.)

International nongovernmental organizations have increasingly come to rec-ognize that the world’s faiths represent vast constituencies within civil society.At first, environmentalists tended to view this as simply an opportunity to dis-seminate their own particular messages. But by the late 1990s, many agreed thatit would be more effective if faiths developed responses to environmental issuesframed by their own various teachings. To broker communication and linksbetween faith communities and the secular world, WWF helped establish theAlliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) in 1995.

Power of Faiths

From the perspective of the contemporary environmental movement, thestrengths of many global faiths can be categorized as practical or conceptual.On the practical side, the major faiths together own or have control of millionsof hectares of forest, farmland, pilgrimage trails, and wilderness, and altogeth-er, faiths control some 8 percent of the habitable surface of the planet. They alsoown or control many buildings, newspapers, pension investments, equities, and


On the practical side, the majorfaiths 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.

hospitals. Importantly, they can speak directly to theirmembers—a very large proportion of the world’s popula-tion—who recognize the authority of their faith’s leaderson ethical issues. The outreach capacity of major faiths isbolstered further by their contributions to education (theCatholic Church alone runs 200,000 schools).7 For thesepractical reasons alone, religions and their faithful can havehuge potential for positive environmental change aroundthe world.

Conceptually, every religion contains teachings aboutour human relationship with the natural world that oftenprovide a way of comprehending some of today’s majorenvironmental issues. In their traditions of monasticism,compassion, fasting, and contemplation, the world’s reli-gions show us models of simpler living that could helphumanity deal with the impacts of our growing popula-tion. Some faiths, including the Jains, Hindus, and someschools of Buddhism, have helped preserve naturalresources such as sacred groves, holy rivers, and taboospecies for many generations. Some religions, such as theShinto of Japan, hold that wild places are integral to ourexistence, and that rather than humans protecting forestsand mountains, it is these elements of the natural world

that serve to protect us. Moreover, traditions of celebration, prayer, and creat-ing beautiful gardens can remind people of the wonders of this Earth and theimportance of valuing it.

Many faiths encode into their legends, texts, and traditions the memories ofgreat historical ecological collapses and how societies reemerged from them—lessons that may still be applicable today. For example, after the Roman Empireand its agricultural system failed, the Benedictine monastic order helped rebuildthe natural resources of rural Europe. In the sixth century, Saint Benedict com-manded his monks to go to the areas that had been wasted by bad farming prac-tices—areas of desert and scrubland—and restore them with trees and sustain-able agriculture and water management. Around the fourteenth century,Buddhists in Mongolia included environmental wisdom about sacred places intotheir sutras (religious texts), containing advice such as “Do not cut down thetrees on the goddess’s side of the mountain or she will flood your village inreturn.” Even the Old Testament story of Noah’s Ark indicates that, in the faceof environmental catastrophe, the preservation of biodiversity is critical to ourcontinued existence.

It is important to remember that sacred sites are not static places and thatthey, like nature itself, can be renewed. For example, in Mongolia, Buddhists


Tree planting by the Church of SouthIndia, assisted by environmental activistVandana Shiva, after a conference to dis-cuss how India can, through the faiths,respond to the pressures of environmentaldegradation and climate change.

Source:

VictoriaFinlay/ARC

who are now regaining their monasteries and lands aftergenerations of communism are working to rediscoversome of their lost sutras that refer to the country’s manytraditional sacred mountains. Buddhist leaders see therediscovery and eventual reconsecration of these moun-tains as a way to protect the threatened landscape.

Faiths can also help to inspire new places of religioussignificance that benefit nature—important on our cur-rently beleaguered planet. For example, in the pastdecade, Indonesia has established two new nationalparks, both as a result of action by local Islamic groups.Batang Gadis Park in Sumatra came into being afterteachers and students at an Islamic school became trou-bled by the pollution and silt in the nearby river caused bylogging and mining that compromised their ritual wash-ing before prayer. In the Togian Islands, Muslim leaderscame to realize that dynamiting, poisoning, and overfish-ing of local reefs was not consistent with their faith andpushed for a national marine park to protect fish stocks aswell as people’s livelihoods. Both initiatives were sup-ported by Conservation International’s Islam andConservation Program.8

Working with the Faiths

There are obstacles to building strong partnerships between faiths and the envi-ronmental community. One is that some religious leaders view environmental-ism as another type of missionary movement, with each environmental groupespousing its own particular ideas about the Truth and the path to “saving theworld.” It has been observed that collaboration tends to work best when faithcommunities feel they have a unique and distinct contribution to make to con-servation based on their beliefs. Some of the most effective work has been donewhen a faith examined its own scriptures, histories, landholdings, and strengthsto explore how it could best express a relationship to conservation through apractical application of its teachings.9 For example, in the late 1990s, an inter-national conservation body wrote to the Maronite Church of Lebanon instruct-ing it to fill out some forms in order to ensure protection of the last remainingold-growth forests on the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean. The languagewas utilitarian and, frankly, conservation bureaucracy, and the church did notrespond. But later, the church explored its own teachings and traditions andfound a profound theological justification for placing this forest under perpetu-al Maronite Environmental Protection. Now the church is protecting this forestin a formal program that includes two other environmentally crucial areas


Lebanon’s “holy valley” of Qadisha. Thecountry’s Maronite Church vowed to pro-tect the steep-walled landscape of this eco-logically fragile valley.

Source:

VictoriaFinlay/ARC

linked to Lebanon’s system of nature reserves. This old-growth forest will like-ly remain intact because the decision to protect it was based on belief ratherthan on the decree of an external organization.

Gradually, some in the environmental community are realizing that it needspartners, not just converts. Today, several of the major mainstream conserva-tion nongovernmental organizations have explicit programs to work with faith

communities. When Conservation International foundthat Christian Evangelicals were a significant stakeholderin many of the world’s highly biodiverse places, it beganreaching out to US Evangelical groups and other faithgroups around the world through a partnership with ARCand the Christian environmental group A Rocha. TheWorld Bank now also has an active program of workingwith the major religious groups based on often convergingdesires for a sustainably managed environment.10 Amongother things, the World Bank program has produced ahandbook on Mongolian Buddhism and economic devel-opment to help demystify the faith and development com-

munities to each other, and to illustrate the potential synergies of workingtogether.11 The IUCN, too, published a practical guide to the management ofsacred sites in 2008.12

The Path Ahead

Where so much of the environmental agenda is focused on quick solutions, theexperience of the world’s religions is that real change takes time and persever-ance. To build on all the potential that work between international faith groupsand environmental groups holds, ARC and the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme have launched an initiative to create and promote plans for long-term partnerships. In this, each faith organization is invited to examine itspotential 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 cele-brations. ARC has created a guidebook to facilitate the establishment of newtraditions that link conservation and faith to ensure that future generations willnot only learn that it is important to treat the earth with respect but also howto 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 betweenhuman needs and the needs of the rest of the planet’s species requires all thosewith good intent to work together. The emerging partnerships between faithcommunities and environmental organizations are essential, and they couldwell become the defining movement of the twenty-first century. z


The task of preserving the naturalworld and of finding a balancebetween human needs and theneeds of the rest of the planet’sspecies requires all those withgood intent to work together.

N early 40 million years ago, the first doglike mammals wandered acrossNorth America. A wolf ancestor—Cynodictis, or “dawn wolf ”—evolved

into a multitude of species with varying body types and habits, many ofwhich have endured to become the wild and not so wild canids we knowtoday. The ancestral canids and their relatives ranged south through theAmericas and to the north, crossing the Bering land bridge to colonize Asia,Europe, and Africa. While canids were evolving and dispersing across theglobe, primates were doing the same. Homo erectus and other Homo specieswere moving across habitable landscapes. Serendipitously, canids and humansfound enough common ground to become partners in this evolutionary tale.Wolves (Canis lupus) are excellent scavengers and likely found fairly regularnourishment around unkempt human camps. This, and their tolerance forhumans, may have paved the way for some wolf individuals to evolve intodomestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris).

During the thousands of years that dogs have partnered with humans, peo-ple have played a heavy-handed role in selectively breeding dogs for appearance,skills, and temperament. We realized that a particular selection of traits would

Canine Detection Teams and Conservation • 183

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 RT

MEGAN PARKER is assistant director of the North America Program for the WildlifeConservation Society, based in Bozeman, Montana. She helped develop methods totrain detection dogs for conservation projects and cofounded Working Dogs forConservation. Megan has trained and handled dogs around the globe for a variety ofconservation projects.AIMEE HURT is cofounder and operations director of Working Dogs forConservation. She received her BA in biology from the University of Montana. Shelives in Missoula, Montana, and has been training—and has been trained by—con-servation dogs since 1998.

create dog breeds that were better able to assist us with our chores and havesince relied on sporting, herding, and working groups and their crossbreeds tohelp us locate, gather, and guard livestock, flush birds for hunting, and find andalert us to the presence of a limitless number of things.

The first official “jobs” held by dogs were likely military in nature, includingdefending their owners and finding and attacking enemies. Fighting dogs weredeployed 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 medicalequipment to the front lines, anddetect mines, booby-traps, trip wires,and tunnels. In nonmilitary use, dogshave been asked to use their olfactorynerves—believed to be a thousandtimes more sensitive than ours—tofind people, drugs, guns, gas andwater lines, termites, bad wine corks,illegally traded wildlife, ivory, andeven cancer cells. While dogs excelledat sensing incredibly subtle odors,humans developed better ways totrain dogs to locate and communicatetheir findings.

It is hardly a stretch, therefore, toimagine that dogs bred for specifictasks and adept at learning commands

would be enlisted to help us find wildlife. Biologists have often brought theirdogs into the field, where the dogs quickly learned what their humans wereseeking. To some extent, asking a dog to locate wildlife for conservation pur-poses is simply a twist on hunting, in which humans and dogs have partneredtogether 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 tolocate kiwis (Apteryx spp.), flightless burrow-dwelling birds, and kakapos(Strigops habroptilus), nocturnal parrots. Both of these groups of birds werehighly threatened on the main islands due to introduced predators.1 With thehelp of the dogs, Henry was able to find and move the birds to native habitat onResolution Island, just offshore, where they were safe. Today New Zealand’sDepartment of Conservation uses two kinds of dog-handler teams for wildlifeconservation: Predator Dogs—often terriers (“rat hunters”)—that search fornonnative and invasive rats, mice, weasels, and feral cats, and Protected SpeciesDogs—often pointers—that search for native threatened species, particularly


A dog’s sense of smell could be up to athousand times more sensitive than thatof humans, providing us with a great toolfor finding wildlife.

Source:

Working

DogsforConservation

birds, so that they can be better conserved. New Zealand’s Conservation Dogshave been trained to search for nearly two dozen species and are an invaluabletool for wildlife managers.

In North America, dogs have been assisting wildlife biologists by locating ani-mals, dens, and nests since the 1930s.2 “Canine conservationists” have helpedbiologists to study raccoons (Procyon lotor), seals (Phocidae spp.), polar bears (Ursusmaritimus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), lemmings (Lemmus spp.), and numerousbird species. Dogs enhance the efficiency of wildlife monitoring and field studiesbecause their stamina allows them to cover more area—greatly increasing sample sizes—and their keen, almostinfallible senses help reduce human observer bias. In gener-al, handlers are able to exploit natural hunting instincts bytraining their dogs for specific behaviors. For example,retrievers must learn not to touch the target species for thesake of safety and sample contamination, but somehowmust 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 findwildlife feces, or scat. Thanks to laboratory geneticsadvances in the 1990s, scat has become a data-rich callingcard. We can now extract DNA and hormones from scat toobtain information on the sex of an animal and its diseasesand diet. For many species, it is currently possible to get asmuch information from an animal’s feces as from a bloodsample. This means that a walk in the mountains, jungle, ordesert affords canine teams and researchers an opportunityto collect scat and a great deal of data. Furthermore, rather than having to han-dle an animal directly, this noninvasive technique gets information without theneed for baiting, calling, or otherwise aggravating wild animals. Optimally, thescat 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, whattype of dog do we use to find scat? Although some may argue that it is instinc-tual for all dogs to find scat, the ideal scat-sniffing dog is not only willing andhappy 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, thedog must be disciplined enough not to touch the scat and be able to communi-cate to its handler what it has found so the specimen can be properly collectedand catalogued. To this end, researchers began training dogs to find scat in amanner similar to the discipline of canine narcotics and cadaver detection.

The best scat-sniffing dogs usually have an obsession with a certain toy ortreat, and trainers teach the dogs to equate smelling a particular odor of thetarget species’ scat with the reward of their favorite toy or treat. The dogs are


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

Source:

Working

DogsforConservation

further trained to search methodically to find that special odor that producesthe reward and to perform an alert (often sitting at the target) to quietly tell thetrainer 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 forlong periods of time, willing to work closely with a handler, and able to adaptto new sights, smells, temperatures, and sounds. The kinds of dogs that makegood candidates for detection work may be too high-energy and hyperfocusedto be easy family pets. These high-energy dogs often end up in animal shelters,

but fortunately, they can be rescued and trained to helpwith the work of conserving imperiled wildlife.

By the 1990s, several conservation projects in NorthAmerica had begun to use formally trained scat-detectiondogs to find wildlife scat, and Working Dogs forConservation was established in Montana to train and han-dle dogs for conservation research. In California’s CentralValley, trained dogs were used to detect the scat of endan-gered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis). The dogs wereable to tell conservationists where these animals were onthe landscape at a remarkably accurate rate: all 1,298 scatsdetected 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 onthe presence, sex ratio, relatedness, movement patterns,scent-marking behavior, and home-range size of this

endangered fox.4 Human searchers have a hard time telling scats apart, thisreport of perfect accuracy proved that dogs can almost infallibly distinguishbetween 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 betrained to recognize several odors and search for them simultaneously. In therugged country west of Yellowstone National Park, dogs were asked to find andperform 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 pilesof scat into mountains of wildlife information. The monitoring revealed infor-mation on how these carnivores moved through cattle and sheep grazing landsin the Centennial Mountains to get to protected lands in Idaho, and researcherswere able to produce predictive models that are now being used to advise plan-ners on development options in that region.5

In Vermont, detection, or sniffer, dogs, were put to the test when researcherslooking for forest carnivores—black bears, bobcats (Lynx rufus), and fishers


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

Source:

Working

DogsforConservation

(Martes pennanti)—across the statecompared three noninvasive meth-ods, including detection dogs, cameratraps, and hair (fur) snares. Detectiondogs were substantially more effectivethan hair snares or cameras (13 timesmore effective, on average, for allspecies) at revealing signs of these elu-sive forest carnivores.6 This effective-ness, combined with their accuracy,makes sniffer dogs a promising newpartner for the wildlife biologist.Although trained dogs might be moreexpensive than other methods, dogsonly need to visit a site once to gatherhard-to-get information. In addition,using them is often less costly overall because dogs can cover a much greater dis-tance than humans, and with their keen senses they seldom miss a sample.

In recent years, trainers have asked dogs to perform increasingly specificwork for conservation in a variety of habitats, including searching river banksfor North American otter (Lontra canadensis) latrines, beating through thick jun-gles on Guam to find invasive brown tree snakes (Boiga irregularis), dodging cactito find well-disguised desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) and black-footed fer-rets (Mustela nigripes) in burrows, and standing on the bow of a small boat tosniff out northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) scat.7

In the Russian Far East, Russian scientists trained dogs toidentify individual Amur, or Siberian, tigers (Pantheratigris altaica) from scats picked up during snow-track sur-veys. The dogs’ ability to identify individual tigers andcommunicate this information helped researchers mapindividual tiger movements and territory use.8 Withonly approximately 400 Amur tigers left, knowing whereeach one is in relation to threats is critical to their pro-tection. In similarly tough terrain in the mountains ofBhutan, scat-detection dogs will soon enhance biolo-gists’ efforts to assess the snow leopard (Uncia uncia)population, improving monitoring efficiency by discern-ing the sign of different individual snow leopards.

Worldwide, conservationists are increasingly interested in measuring justhow well dogs detect a greater variety of noninstinctual targets. In NewZealand, dogs are adding novel targets to their repertoires, including an unusualparasitic plant, the wood rose (Diactylanthus taylorii), rare skinks, and tuataras


Detection dogs are very effective at findingsigns of black bears and other large carni-vores in forests and across other expan-sive habitats.

Covering hundreds of square milesover several years, researchers

turned piles of scat into mountainsof information and produced

predictive models that are nowbeing used to advise planners

on development options.

Source:

Julie

Larsen

Maher/W

CS

(Sphenodon spp.), endangered members of an ancient group of reptiles. In thewestern United States, dogs are being tested to see if they can accurately locaterare native plants as well as invasive weeds; the dogs’ outstanding senses helpthem locate young plants too small to be seen by humans. In Oregon, one suchplant under study is a rare native lupine flower (Lupinus oreganus kincaidii), hostto the endangered Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi). By findingand eventually protecting lupines, dogs can help us better preserve Fender’sblue butterflies.

As this field expands, more uses for detection dogs will emerge, with newapplications for the keen olfactory ability of our “best friends.” Sniffer dogs arebeing trained to differentiate between individual animals and to assist in answer-ing questions related to estrus, disease, and gender, often vital information forknowing the reproductive health of a population and particularly important forsaving rare species. Dogs are being asked to detect rare species in areas wherehumans have little chance of collecting that information, such as the surface ofthe ocean and in thick jungle vegetation, and these frontiers continue to beexplored. As our conservation needs grow, undoubtedly so too will the role ofdetection dogs working for conservation. c


Dogs help find scatin vast, ruggedlandscapes such asthis. Scat can givescientists informa-tion on an animal’sidentity, sex, diet,and the presenceof some diseases. S

ource:

Working

DogsforConservation

H alf a mile above our cottage in Wales is a badger colony, an undergroundlabyrinth of tunnels and chambers sheltering many families. On spring

evenings, before the bracken fern grows high, we watch the badgers (Melesmeles) as they shuffle into the open, sniff-ing for danger and discarding old bed-ding: they are notoriously fussy.Youngsters tussle and the adults gradu-ally wander away, each traveling severalmiles a night in search of food. Thefarmer leaves this corner of his fieldalone. It is not a nature reserve—hewould probably hate the idea—but sim-ply peaceful coexistence betweenwildlife and human agricultural needs.If the government’s plan to eradicate

Agriculture and Wildlife in Europe • 189

Agriculture and Wildlife in Europe

N I G E L D U D L E Y A N D S U E S TO LTO N

NIGEL DUDLEY established Equilibrium Research in partnership with Sue Stoltonin 1991. Equilibrium promotes positive environmental and social change by linking tar-geted research to field application. Equilibrium works with groups ranging from localcommunities to United Nations agencies in countries worldwide. Nigel’s areas of focusinclude environmental policy research and issues relating to forest quality, protectedareas, and landscape approaches to conservation.SUE STOLTON is an environmental consultant. Her work currently focuses on issuesrelated to protected areas. Her areas of interest include protected area management, theassessment of management effectiveness, and understanding the wider values and bene-fits that protected areas can provide. Sue is a member of IUCN’s World Commission onProtected Areas.

European badgersoften coexistpeacefully withfarmers who man-age their lands forthe benefit ofwildlife.

Source:

PaulHobson/naturepl.com

badgers in an effort to control bovine tuberculosis does not reach here, this fam-ily seems secure.

Most European conservation takes place, formally or informally, on culturallandscapes—those places that “represent the combined works of nature andman”—and generally include farmland and managed woodlands.1 Wild speciessuch as deer, badgers, and foxes often coexist with humans in these landscapes.Despite the enduring myth of the primeval forest in European folklore, ourancestors were already present when forests recolonized the land after the lastIce Age, and many of Europe’s habitats developed alongside human settle-ments.2 Except at the extremities in Iceland, Lapland, and parts of the Balkanand Caucasus mountains, almost no near-natural ecosystems remain in Europe.

A survey by the United Nations Economic Commission forEurope found that, outside Lapland, less than 1 percent ofremaining forest, itself a fraction of the original, is“untouched by man” in the past 200 years.3 Even whereseminatural habitat remains, sulfur and nitrogen pollutionand acid rain have sometimes altered ecology, strippingforests of sensitive lichens, reducing invertebrate diversity,and killing fish.

Conservationists in Europe are working with whatremains by protecting fragments of near-natural habitat inreserves. European countries are cooperating on region-wide conservation strategies. For example, the EuropeanUnion’s (EU) Natura 2000 network is an ambitious attempt

to secure biodiversity in a continentwide protected area system. The PAN ParksFoundation, a nongovernmental organization set up by the World Wide Fundfor Nature (officially known as WWF as of 2009), plans to bring wilderness backto Europe, starting with 11 core areas covering 25,000 acres (10,000 ha) of exist-ing national parks in Russia, Finland, Sweden, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania,Georgia, Italy, and Portugal.

Elsewhere, damaged habitats are being restored, often only after poor man-agement has made the land useless for any other purpose. In Somerset,England, former peat workings have been converted to wetlands. But protectedand restored areas in Europe are still too limited in size to secure viable popula-tions of all wild species. A complementary strategy is to increase or enhancewild 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 incen-tives. The easiest conservation approach is to maintain those traditional farm-ing practices that incidentally support wild species. This “protected landscape”approach assumes that, in places where there has long been human influence,


Removing livestock such as sheep fromgrassland ecosystems can alter the land-scape to the detriment of other grassland-dependent species.

Source:

John

Eveson/FLPA

an ecology has developed influenced by human agricultural management, andthat eliminating traditional farming practices will cause a net biodiversity loss.For example, removing grazing livestock from flower-rich meadows can, in theabsence of other large herbivores, allow coarse grass or trees to take over, reduc-ing the number and variety of herbaceous species.

A second way farmers can contribute to conservation is by adopting man-agement practices that encourage wildlife, primarily in marginal agriculturalareas such as field edges, river banks, and hedgerows, which serve as wildlifehabitat and corridors. Such farming practices are often voluntary and linked tocertification schemes. In fact, maintaining at least a proportion of native biodi-versity in marginal habitat may be integral to organic and some other farmingsystems, where many certification programs oblige farmers to manage for con-servation. Alternatively, conservation may be supplementary to farming, suchas leaving an unsprayed strip at field edges to protect against herbicide drift, thusreducing damage to plants, insects, and birds in neighboring areas. In Europe,much of these types of supplementary protection is undertaken voluntarily byfarmers supportive of hunting in an effort to stem declines in game species suchas the gray partridge (Perdix perdix) and brown hare (Lepus capensis).


Hedgerows provide valuable wildlife habi-tat and corridors on agricultural lands, butcould also serve as avenues for invasivespecies.

Source:

David

Noton/naturepl.com

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

Farming and Protected Areas

Farms often overlap, sometimes uneasily, with the boundaries of formally pro-tected areas. Over half the total coverage of European protected areas is “pro-tected landscapes.”4 These are not strict nature reserves and are defined byInternational Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as Category VProtected Areas: places where “the interaction of people and nature over timehas produced an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biologi-

cal, cultural and scenic value: and where safeguarding theintegrity of this interaction is vital to . . . nature conserva-tion.”5 Management is complex because most protectedlandscapes are in private hands, and conservation plans oftenneed to be negotiated rather than imposed.

Many protected landscapes are farmed, and some but notall of these farms use an assortment of the conservation-friendly techniques outlined earlier. For example, in Italyand Hungary, various EU Agri-environment schemesencourage farmers in protected landscapes to convert to

organic systems to help maintain biodiversity. Protected landscapes in SpanishCatalonia contain a mixture of cork oak forest, traditional vineyards, and low-level grazing lands that maintain populations of wolf (Canis lupus lupus) and thehighly endangered Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus), both of which need large areasof natural or seminatural habitat to survive. Even some more strictly managednature reserves contain farms, such as Austria’s Hohe Tauern National Park. Insuch situations, farming practices are critical for conservation, and farmers inthis 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 effectiveconservation? It depends on the location, on the type of farming, and on whatwe mean by effective. Teasing out the close relationship between conservationstrategies and agriculture is not straightforward. Conditions change, and whatworked last year might not work in the future.


Does farmland actually provideeffective conservation?

It depends on the location, onthe type of farming, and onwhat we mean by effective.

There are certainly conservation benefits from farming practices that delib-erately or incidentally provide habitat for wildlife. Cultural landscapes supportoverall numbers of the more common species—maintaining a critical mass ofwildlife. They also support species that are now largely or completely depend-ent on the ecology of cultural landscapes. Farm conservation practices createhabitat that links to more natural habitats, which can help to conserve broad-ranging landscape species like Bonelli’s eagle (Hieraaetusfasciatus) and to facilitate genetic interchange betweenpopulations of other wild species. But cultural landscapescannot conserve all species equally. Questions of long-termsecurity for these species remain, and there is much to belearned about the details of exactly what works and whatdoes not.

Traditional farming practices that incidentally protectnature are only reliable as a conservation strategy if thesefarms actually support significant biodiversity and if theconservation-friendly traditions really are maintained. Butpractices usually change over time, with effects on biodiver-sity that are sometimes hard to discern. For instance, whenmarginal land is abandoned, forests start recolonizing pas-ture, which results in the loss of grassland species.Alternatively, marginal farmland may undergo intensified production, whichresults in general biodiversity loss. The vagaries of economic markets mean thatthese management changes themselves are temporary. For instance, short-termeconomic downturns in Bulgaria and Romania are causing a current trend ofland abandonment in those countries. Longer-term economic trends are encour-aging marginal farmland in Spain and Portugal to be left unused, but this mightbe reversed in the future due to an increased demand for biofuels. Althoughsome Europewide studies identify the important role of traditional agriculturefor conservation, there is as yet no grand strategy to maintain these practices.6

Several studies have evaluated just how effective certain changes to farmingpractices are in supporting biodiversity, and while some evidence is clear, thereis still debate. Twenty years ago, several European conservation organizationsopposed organic farming on the grounds that more extensive agriculture wouldreduce land for conservation. Yet research found significantly higher popula-tions of birds, butterflies, and other wild species on organic farms, showing thatswitching to organic agriculture has a conservation benefit.7 Studies also showthe benefits of protecting field edges from herbicide spray, but consensus onother approaches is still lacking. For example, although some conservationistspromote hedgerows as biological corridors critical to conservation, others claimthat they facilitate the spread of common and invasive species such as the brownrat (Rattus norvegicus) and Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica) and do not


The European population of northernlapwings declined as a result ofland-use intensification.

Source:

Biosphoto/AUSCAPE

support the rare and range-limitedspecies that are most at risk.8

Set-asides—land temporarily re-moved from agricultural produc-tion—have long been regarded as asuccess story in European conserva-tion. However, set-asides were onlymeant to be temporary, althoughmany conservation organizations for-got this or assumed that they wouldremain for the long term. Recent con-cerns about food shortages coupledwith a booming biofuel market arechanging the subsidy structure, andland that had in some cases been setaside for many years is being plowedand replanted.

What Are We Trying to Protect in Farmed Landscapes?

A fundamental question about conservation on farmland in Europe asks whatconservationists are trying to protect. Because changes to the European envi-ronment have been so profound, most conservation is aimed—consciously orunconsciously—at regaining what we have lost in the recent past. It is almost asif conservationists are trying to regain an idealized landscape of, say, the 1930s,which itself already consisted of highly modified ecosystems. This has led tosome 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-alti-tude song flight is an archetype of spring. But would the skylark really be soprevalent in a “natural” European ecosystem? Several thousand years ago, theopen grassland and heath that it favors were substantially less common, and vir-tually continuous forest dominated the continent—a habitat where its cousinthe woodlark (Lullula arborea) would probably have been more common. Hasthe skylark changed its behavior since the Neolithic Revolution cleared the trees10,000 years ago? Or did its range expand due to past favorable ecologicalchanges, only to begin retracting now? Does the cultural value of the skylarkoutweigh factors relating to its “naturalness”? There is as yet little explorationof these and similar questions.

In fact, overemphasis on maintaining traditional managed landscapescan threaten rarer habitats and species. For many years, European conserva-tionists have argued that we lose biological value in woodlands unless they aremanaged, particularly through the periodic cutting that allows regeneration(coppicing). Conservationists and foresters alike accepted the idea of the “over-


The wide-ranging Bonelli’s eagle breeds inEurope, Asia, and Africa.

Source:

Jose

B.Ruiz/naturepl.com

mature forest” and of interfering with ecosystem function. One result is a con-tinentwide threat to saprophytic (deadwood-dependent) species ranging fromwoodpeckers to polypore fungi.

There is also the question of managing for the conservation of biodiversityfor the European continent as a whole. Sometimes, traditional managementmay be protecting species that are rare at one site but common elsewhere. Forinstance, in the scattered coastal islands in the Archipelago National Park, theFinnish parks service maintains traditionally mown grass because farm aban-donment and subsequent forest regeneration have made this type of habitatrare in Finland. Yet the flowering plant and butterfly species that mowing nur-tures are common in other countries. Management has certainly added to thepark’s diversity, but it may not be adding to the overall value of Europeannature and may rather simply reflect a cultural desire to retain popular speciesin a particular location.

No Simple Answer

Although agricultural landscapes can play an important role in conservationstrategies, neither they nor the management practices they require should beaccepted uncritically. Questions of what we are trying to conserve in culturallandscapes need to be addressed more rigorously than inthe past, particularly as the development frontieradvances around the world, and wildlife and conserva-tion efforts are increasingly forced into managed land-scapes. We need to know more about what such land-scapes offer in order to integrate farm managementmore effectively with protected area management, andwe need to understand more clearly what we are aimingto conserve.

Over the past 20 years, intensive agriculture hasstripped much of the wildlife from Wales, as it has inthe rest of Europe. However, species have also returnedto places in response to favorable agricultural manage-ment policies. Conservationists already know enoughto make choices about what to conserve and why; thenext challenge is to marshal political will, overcome self-interest, and acceptcultural change. The idea that the people who manage lands and waters forhuman benefit also have a responsibility to preserve wild nature is gainingground. Ultimately, this overarching sense of responsibility will be moreimportant to Europe and to the badger family up the hill than another newconservation policy. m


Questions of what we are tryingto conserve in cultural landscapes

need to be addressed morerigorously than in the past,

particularly as the developmentfrontier advances around the world,

and conservation is increasinglyforced into managed landscapes.

M illions of animals are taken from the wild each year to fuel the growingtrade in wildlife and wildlife parts for private collections, food, fur, orna-

ment, traditional practices, or private collections. National and internationallaws designed to protect vulnerable species from unsustainable trade includethe Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Faunaand Flora (CITES); the Lacey, Endangered Species, and Wild Bird ConservationActs in the United States; and similar legislation in several other countries. Butporous borders and international travel and shipping make illegal wildlife tradefeasible, and smugglers continue to conceal shipments, falsify documents, andbribe customs authorities in order to traffic animals.

While the quantity of legally traded animals is vast (in 2007, the United Statesalone accepted 187,000 legal shipments of wildlife), the scope of illegally tradedwildlife is more difficult to document.1 But intercepted shipments from the Port ofHong 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 1992to 2005, US customs seized 1,605 parrots coming in from Mexico and, during asimilar period, Mexican officials confiscated 13,571 illegally caught parrots. Butthese two confiscations represented only a fraction of the total estimated 65,000 to78,500 wild parrots captured in Mexico during that time for the illegal trade.2


The Dilemma of Confiscated Wildlife

M I C H A E L H U TC H I N S

MICHAEL HUTCHINS is executive director/CEO of The Wildlife Society, an adjunctassociate professor at the University of Maryland’s Graduate Program in ConservationBiology and Sustainable Development, an affiliate professor, Department ofEnvironmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, and a senior fellow at theCenter for Behavior and Conservation at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He haspublished over 200 scientific and popular books, reports, and articles and is series editorfor Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia.

Considerations for Wildlife Authorities

When customs officials discover illegal animal shipments, they should be con-fiscated, and confiscating even the small fraction of the trade that is intercept-ed is a logistical challenge. Reasons for confiscation are broad and includesmuggling, lack of import permits, inadequate facilities, or inadequate diseasetesting. But, whereas confiscated wildlife parts, such as hides, bones, or hornscan be packed up and stored, customs officials confiscating live animals haveonly a short time to decide what to do with, for instance, suitcases full of var-ious species of parrots, thousands ofmiles from their native habitats, someof which may be ill, injured, or dis-eased. Live animals require constantcare, and their welfare is of immedi-ate concern. In addition, confiscatedanimals are often rare or threatenedspecies, making their survival andeventual destination important forconservation.

Unfortunately, few customs andwildlife authorities in any nation havethe resources to keep confiscated ani-mals, even for a few days. The care ofcaptive wild animals is often highlyspecialized and for many rare speciesin trade, there is little accessible infor-mation. In addition, the animals may need immediate veterinary treatment dueto injuries and illnesses exacerbated by their capture and transport. Regulatoryagencies have three options when dealing with confiscated wildlife: release theanimal back into nature, maintain it in captivity for the remainder of its life, oreuthanize it.3

Release into the Wild

Most wildlife agencies prefer to release confiscated indigenous animals back intonature, and some national laws require that healthy animals be returned to theirnative habitats. For example, in 2006 in Vietnam, a hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelysimbricata) was confiscated from a local restaurant and returned to the ocean.4

However, in many cases, release is not possible because confiscated animals areheld as legal evidence, may require rehabilitation or treatment, or may not benative to the region. In addition, an animal may carry a disease or parasite thatcould affect the existing wild population, but validated disease tests do not existin many situations.5 Even the release of healthy, native animals could have social

The Dilemma of Confiscated Wildlife • 197

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

Source:

Panda

Photo/FLPA

or genetic impacts on the wild popula-tion. However, shipping an animalback to its country of origin is oftennot feasible, and its specific capturesite might be unknown. In cases suchas these, a whole set of practical andethical questions arise, starting with,Where is the confiscated animal to go,and who will care for it?

Long-Term Care

Since few regulatory agencies canprovide quality long-term care foreven a small portion of the illegallytraded wildlife that is confiscated,they partner with organizations that

can—generally zoos and sanctuaries. In some developing countries, whereoptions for care are limited, regulatory authorities require local zoos or sanc-tuaries to assume responsibility for confiscated wildlife. For example, in CostaRica, many wild animals, including squirrel monkeys, jaguars, and macaws,are illegally obtained as pets, and when they are confiscated, they are sent tothe National Zoo in San José. The zoo is expected to care for them, even ifthose species do not fit into its collection plan, and this becomes a tremendousfinancial and logistical burden.6 In western Europe and the United States, cus-toms and regulatory authorities have more choices for the placement of con-

fiscated, nonreleasable wild animals: they can besent to zoos or aquariums, sanctuaries, laborato-ries, private individuals, humane societies, orwildlife rehabilitation centers. But all options arenot equivalent.

Ideally, when considering where to send a confis-cated animal, the quality of care is the first priority,but this may be difficult to secure in many parts ofthe world. Animals should be sent to licensed facili-ties that have wildlife professionals and veterinarianson staff. In the United States, the quality of licensedfacilities varies tremendously because federal andstate regulations for animal care are quite generaland often fail to ensure standards. However, the

Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) has higher standards for animalcare—so high, in fact, that less than 10 percent of animal exhibitors in theUnited States actually meet AZA standards.7 (The Association of Sanctuaries


Snake meat and blood are delicacies inVietnam. Here, restaurant staff kill a snakefor consumption.

Often only rare, threatened, orendangered confiscated animalsbringing new genetic material

can be easily integrated into an SSPand readily incorporated into a

zoo’s collection. Most confiscatedanimals do not fulfill all these criteria.

Source:

TerryWhittaker/FLPA

has general requirements and spotty enforcement, although some sanctuariesprovide excellent care.)

A second major consideration for placing an animal is how that individualcan contribute to the conservation of its species through a program of scientif-ically managed, cooperative captive breeding. Sanctuaries generally do not par-ticipate in cooperative breeding programs, but many zoos do. In particular, theAZA’s Species Survival Plan (SSP) (and a similar program for the EuropeanAssociation of Zoos and Aquariums) documents lineages for the husbandry ofrare and endangered species held across member zoos to help decide whichspecies will be kept at certain zoos and at what population size. SSPs manageanimals at separate facilities as a metapopulation to help ensure that captivepopulations are demographically and genetically healthy—meaning that thereare enough individuals in each reproductive age class to sustain the popula-tion—and to minimize inbreeding and the loss of genetic diversity.

SSPs also bolster conservation in the wild by providing scientific knowledgeon the basic biology and behavior of endangered species, breeding geneticallyviable animals for hoped-for reintroductions to the wild, informing educationprograms, and raising funds to support field conservation.8

Therefore, to maximize the conservation contribution of ahealthy, reproductively viable confiscated animal, it shouldbe placed in an accredited zoo that participates in coopera-tive, scientifically managed captive breeding programs. Infact, if a US zoo receives a CITES Appendix I species—aspecies that is threatened with extinction—it is mandated tosupport in situ conservation.9

While beneficial for conservation, the SSP adds anotherlayer of difficulty to housing animals confiscated from theillegal trade. The cooperative planning required for the SSPcan limit which and how many confiscated animals a zooor aquarium can accept. As a result, often only rare, threat-ened, or endangered confiscated animals bringing newgenetic material can be easily integrated into an SSP andinto a zoo’s collection. Most confiscated animals do notfulfill all these criteria.

Euthanasia

Space in accredited zoos, aquariums, and sanctuaries is lim-ited, and these institutions may not have the necessaryfunds or husbandry expertise to accept some animals; soregulatory authorities must sometimes settle for less thanoptimal conditions when placing confiscated wildlife. Fewprivate individuals, breeders, wildlife centers, or humane


Chimpanzee confiscated by governmentrangers in an African village. Confiscatedanimals are often sent to zoos for care.

Source:

Biosphoto/AUSCAPE

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

Considerations for Zoos and Aquariums

One of the most significant impediments to zoos and aquariums accepting con-fiscated wildlife is the public relations challenge posed by animal rights groupsthat perceive zoos as exploiters of wildlife. An example of this occurred in 2002,

when Malaysian authorities confis-cated four juvenile western lowlandgorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) caughtillegally in the wild and importedfrom Nigeria to the Taiping Zoo. Theanimals, which were subsequentlydubbed the Taiping Four, became thecenter of a controversy regardingtheir ownership. CITES authorities inMalaysia sent the gorillas to SouthAfrica’s National Zoo in Pretoria, awell-respected institution that gener-ously offered space to the fourrefugees. However, following vigor-ous criticism from animal rightsgroups on the grounds that thePretoria Zoo was profiting from thesituation, the gorillas were moved tothe Limbe Wildlife Center inCameroon in 2006.10

Some zoo professionals have questioned whether this was the best decisionfor the gorillas, as Africa’s primate sanctuaries are already overloaded withorphans from deforestation and bushmeat hunting and are strapped for fund-ing. A better arrangement might have been made if the Cameroon governmentretained 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 theLimbe Wildlife Center and supported gorilla field conservation. Such coopera-tive relationships exist. For example, the Brazilian government “owns” all


Zoos can help conserve endangeredspecies such as the golden lion tamarinthrough captive breeding programs,research, and public awareness cam-paigns.

Source:

Julie

Larsen

Maher/W

CS

golden lion tamarins (Leontopithecus rosalia) in US andEuropean zoos, and in return, those zoos support researchand fieldwork to help the species recover in the wild.11 Inthe end, returning the gorillas to Cameroon adhered toCITES guidelines and provided Cameroon an opportunityto create public awareness about illegal wildlife trade, butthe situation for the Taiping Four was less than ideal.

Moving Forward

Wildlife authorities, regulatory agencies, zoos, and con-servation organizations all have a stake in improving thesituation for confiscated wildlife. The International Unionfor Conservation of Nature (IUCN) developed guidelinesfor the placement of confiscated animals aimed at maxi-mizing the conservation value of the animals withoutendangering their health, behavior, genetic characteristics,or conservation status. The IUCN guidelines also aim todiscourage trade in the species and to provide humanesolutions, such as return to the wild, appropriate captivecare, or euthanasia.12

The World Zoo and Aquarium Association (WAZA)also developed guidelines on confiscated animals from thereceiving institution’s perspective. WAZA recommendsthat: zoos and aquariums assist regulatory authorities inthe temporary care of confiscated animals; animals betaken in permanently only if the facility has the expertise to ensure proper long-term care; confiscated animals be integrated into existing scientifically managedcaptive breeding programs; IUCN guidelines for reintroduction be followed ifthe animals are slated for return to the wild; and the public is informed aboutillegal wildlife trade and the animal’s origin if it is placed on display.

With clear guidelines in place from a leading international conservationorganization and a leading zoo association, it would also be helpful if accred-ited zoos built trust with animal rights groups. Some of these groups putzoos in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position, which mayobscure what is best for the individual confiscated animal. More publicawareness of the thought and care that accredited zoos give each case couldhelp dispel the perception that zoos prioritize display for profit and enter-tainment over animal welfare and conservation education. In fact, accreditedzoos and aquariums emphasize and adhere to national and international lawsas well as association ethics codes on animal care. Zoos and sanctuaries oper-ating outside these laws or established standards should be fined and cen-sured by peer institutions.


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

Source:

Julie

Larsen

Maher/W

CS

Ideally, confiscated animals would be safely returned to the wild, but this fre-quently proves impossible. A midway solution is bolstering wildlife expertise inthe countries of trade. For example, turtles confiscated in Vietnam on the wayto China are brought to the Cuc Phoung National Park. There, staff are increas-ingly able to identify the various species and habitat needs and can assesswhether the turtles should be released into the wild or maintained in captivity.However, unless international authorities can effectively stop illegal wildlifeshipments in their countries of origin, accredited zoos, aquariums, and sanctu-aries around the world will continue to play an important role in caring for theconfiscated refugees.

Currently, regulatory authorities search for placement for a confiscated ani-mal through an informal system of their own networks of private, commer-

cial, and nonprofit animal collections. But going forward,zoos, aquariums, wildlife authorities, and customs agentsshould seek better ways to work together, particularly toshare information about wildlife confiscations in order tofind the best placement for them. For rare or endangeredspecies, wildlife agencies should carefully evaluate theoptions for placement with a goal of maximizing the ani-mals’ contribution to conservation. Creating a centralizeddatabase would help locate nearby facilities that will wel-come the animals, either temporarily or permanently.Though not an ideal situation for the animals or institu-tions involved, it is incumbent upon all involved to makethe best of it, despite limits on funding and space. Theconsequences for the individual animals involved are dire,

and their survival is sometimes critical for the conservation and breeding oftheir species. Until wildlife trade can be effectively stopped, a well-coordinatedteam of institutions can provide safe passage and homes for the birds, mam-mals, reptiles, and fish illegally plucked from the wild. b


One of the most significantimpediments to zoos and

aquariums accepting confiscatedwildlife is the public relations

challenge posed by animalrights groups that perceive

zoos as exploiters of wildlife.

In 1978, during my first year in Rwanda’s Volcanoes National Park, I helpedrecover five bodies of mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei) killed by

poachers seeking severed heads and live young for sale to foreigners. Later thatyear, I completed a census showing a sharp decline in the total gorilla popula-tion, with fewer than 270 left, down from an estimated 450 in 1960. The moun-tain gorilla’s last refuge in the Virunga Volcanoes, a single ecosystem straddlingthe borders of Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Uganda, wasunder threat.1 Thirty years later, however, I stood just outside the park before10,000 cheering Rwandans to officially name one of 23 baby gorillas born to thatsame population.

My experiences in Rwanda over several decades saw the gorillas narrowlyescape extinction and become a symbol of national pride and a source of eco-nomic growth. This transition reflected fundamental changes in the field ofconservation, including new models, practices, skills, and sciences. I also wit-nessed Rwanda’s change, including the dramatic upheavals of war and geno-cide, and subsequent peace and reconciliation. The story of conservation suc-cess in Rwanda is a continually evolving one of adapting new ideas and practicesto local conditions in ways that inform how we can best do conservation thereas well as far beyond its borders.

The Evolving Practice of Conservation in Rwanda • 203

The Evolving Practice of

Conservation in Rwanda

B I L L W E B E R

BILL WEBER has worked in Rwanda since 1978, including more than seven years in-country. He served for 18 years as director of the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Africaand North America Programs. Bill is senior editor of African Rain Forest Ecologyand Conservation and lead author of In the Kingdom of Gorillas, which was fea-tured by BBC Wildlife as one of “the most influential books from the past 40 years ofwildlife publishing.”

1970s: Conservation Foundations

As a Peace Corps volunteer in the early 1970s, I experienced the power ofAfrican wildlife spectacles, from lumbering herds of elephants in the savanna tomagnificent silverback gorillas in the montane forest. I also found the poverty ofhuman communities living around most national parks deeply disturbing.Conservation in Africa at that time was dominated by expatriate scientists con-cerned with a handful of focal species. Most of them studied animal behavioror social organization, with little attention to ecology; very few if any studiedthe social and economic conditions that drove local people to threaten wildlife.As a result, beleaguered wildlife managers—mostly nationals—had little usefulscientific information to guide the defense of their parks against the growingthreats of poaching and land conversion. The “fortress” model of conservation(stay out of the park or be shot), imported by Western colonial powers, was notwell adapted to the African context. Conservationists needed a new model.

In late 1977, Amy Vedder and I received a grant from the WildlifeConservation Society (WCS) to study the causes of a crash in Rwanda’s moun-tain gorilla population and to recommend conservation actions. Through DianFossey’s ongoing publicity of the gorillas, mountain gorillas were already aninternational cause célèbre. They were also disappearing, in large part due tohabitat destruction, poaching, and respiratory illnesses. We needed to generatenew kinds of information to understand both gorilla and human needs, espe-cially where they concerned the same critical resource—land.


A mountain gorillafamily group,including a silver-back male, twofemales, and twojuveniles, inVolcanoes NationalPark, Rwanda. S

ource:

Ingo

Arndt/naturepl.com

We set about assessing the gorilla’s population biology and feeding ecology,two little-known subjects needed to inform conservation. First, it appeared thatthe gorillas were reproducing sufficiently to sustain and even restore their num-bers.2 Then, Amy’s study of gorilla feeding ecology showed that the familygroups moved steadily through the full range of lower bamboo, mixed rainfor-est, and open alpine habitats. Most encouraging, she found that, despite signifi-cant losses due to farmland conversion, ample high-quality habitat remained.The research demonstrated that the gorillas could survive if the dual threats ofpoaching and habitat loss could be halted.

To assess these human threats to the gorillas, I studied the ecology, econom-ics, and attitudes of the surrounding human population. Nearly 200,000 peoplelived within a few hours’ walk of the park boundary; most depended on subsis-tence farming for survival, often on lots barely one acre (0.4 ha) in size. The highstakes 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 politicalauthorities to convert more of it to agriculture. In 1979, a plan emerged to clearone-third of the park for a 12,400-acre (5,000 ha) cattle-raising scheme, whichwould have eliminated all remaining bamboo and driven the gorillas higher intothe mountains where they would be more susceptible to respiratory diseases.

Fortunately, our studies, on-the-ground experience, and relationships withgovernment officials permitted us to make an effective counterproposal: theMountain Gorilla Project, which combined traditional antipoaching activities


Boundary ofVolcanoes NationalPark, showing theabrupt change inland use and acutepressure to convertforest to farmland.S

ource:

Gerry

Ellis/MindenPictures/NationalGeographicStock

with educational outreach and a novel ecotourism program centered on hikingtours to view gorillas. At the time, tourism was virtually nonexistent becauseRwandan officials were convinced that African tourism equated to savannatourism: visitors driving around open grasslands to see large, easily viewedwildlife. As a result, they had developed Akagera Park in Rwanda’s eastern grass-lands and ignored the rugged, roadless environment of the Virunga rainforest.

By patiently following wild gorillas for several months and keeping a respect-ful 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 similarityto ourselves—proved irresistible to tourists primed by nature documentaries.

The resulting demand, in turn, permitted high pricesand allowed limiting the number of visitors and con-sequent disturbance to the gorillas. By 1990, nearly7,000 people per year were visiting the gorillas, gen-erating nearly $5 million per year in foreign revenue,local employment, and critical political support.3

Several lessons emerged from our first 10 years inRwanda. First, a different kind of applied researchwas required to plan effective conservation action—research that focused on gorilla demography andecology but included understanding the human fac-tors of economics, culture, and politics. Second, aconcerted effort to interact with government author-ities, 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 timewas staffed by political appointees with virtually no technical capacity, whichrequired international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to take the leadin both research and management of the gorilla project and all key aspects ofpark operations. Rwanda had no money, and international development agen-cies 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 theConservation of Nature, and the World Wide Fund for Nature published TheWorld Conservation Strategy. It called for conservation and economic develop-ment to be complementary and mutually beneficial processes—a stark rejectionof the previous fortress model. The Mountain Gorilla Project provided an earlyexample of the potential for this integration. Building on that, I directed whatwas then the largest US Agency for International Development (USAID) “inte-grated conservation and development project” in Africa, a million dollar effort


The wonder of walking throughthe forest to sit with our close

relatives—observing their strongfamily bonds, varied personalities,

and striking similarity to ourselves—proved irresistible to tourists

primed by nature documentaries.

directed at the human landscape beyond Volcanoes National Park. We compiledand analyzed a database of the wood, water, soil, biological, and humanresources in the Virunga watershed, which informed agroforestry projects andother improvements to land use management that helped the thousands ofRwandans who did not directly benefit from gorilla tourism.

The late 1980s also saw increased global attention to the issue of biodiver-sity, calling for better conservation of areas like rainforests and coral reefs thatcontain proportionally high numbers of species. In response, we startedassessing southwestern Rwanda’s Nyungwe Forest, a mountain rainforest thatcovered more than 386 square miles (1,000 km2)—six times the size ofVolcanoes National Park—and supported a much greater species diversity,including nearly 270 bird species and 13 kinds of primates, among them chim-panzees (Pan troglodytes), rare owl-faced monkeys (Cercopithecus hamlyni), andblack and white colobus monkeys (Colobus angolensis).

In addition to supporting a broaderrange of conservation activities, theinflux of biodiversity money tied todevelopment, particularly fromUSAID, permitted a new level of con-servation capacity building. We hiredand trained greater numbers ofyoung Rwandans in biology, ecology,and forestry. A conservation biologyprogram was started at the NationalUniversity, and the country’s first PhDdegree (in ornithology) resulted fromwork in Nyungwe. Many moreRwandans had the opportunity tolearn while working with a growingnumber of field projects. Ultimately,rising tourism revenues allowed thepark service to add several new posi-tions at the ORTPN central office. Although the top positions were still held byolder political appointees, new junior staff possessed more relevant technicalskills. International NGOs still generated most of the ideas, contributed techni-cal assistance, and provided the vehicle for foreign financial assistance, but asrevenues rose, ORTPN began to assert its leadership over park management.

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 dysfunctionwithin a sclerotic regime provoked a civil war that simmered during the early


Rwanda’s Nyungwe Forest is home tonearly 270 bird species, including the red-throated alethe (Alethe poliophrys).

Many primates, including black and whitecolobus monkeys, are found in NyungweForest.

Source:

Ariadne

VanZandbergen/FLPA

Source:

Julie

Larsen

Maher/W

CS

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 mil-lion of their own countrymen. Decisive military action brought a new govern-ment to power, but it was preoccupied with issues of military security, politicalstability, economic recovery, and ethnic reconciliation.

After fighting began around Volcanoes National Park in 1991, gorilla tourismcollapsed. Nyungwe’s nascent tourism program followed suit. Developmentagency funding dried up as well. With tourism coffers empty and governmentattention focused elsewhere, conservation NGOs again stepped in to help main-tain the parks. This was especially critical for several years after the genocide,when international NGOs—led in-country by Rwandans—paid the salaries ofgovernment park staff, purchased vehicles and other essential equipment, anddirected patrols. These efforts kept poaching to a minimum and prevented anyloss of wildlife habitat to farming or large-scale woodcutting in both VolcanoesNational 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 savannahabitat to returning pastoralists and their cattle, while the Gishwati Forest


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

Source:

Michael

Nichols/N


Reserve saw more than 90 percent of its 58 square miles (150 km2) cleared forfarming.4 Some habitat loss almost certainly would have occurred in these areasdue to overwhelming population pressures, but an organized NGO presencecould have argued for some form of mixed cattle–wildlife management regimein Akagera or prevented the most destructive forms ofdeforestation in Gishwati. In these cases, expertise wouldhave mattered more than money.

After the turmoil, one positive change occurred: the riseof a Rwandan conservation leadership class. Some peoplehad earlier field experience and training; others were well-educated returnees to Rwanda following the genocide.The two major conservation management–orientedNGOs—WCS in Nyungwe and the International GorillaConservation Programme in Volcanoes—were directed and staffed entirely byRwandans. Some of them lacked scientific training, but they excelled as conser-vationists, exhibiting courage in the face of multiple dangers and demonstratinga real commitment to rebuilding their nation. As the 1990s came to a close, suc-cess in both conservation and nation building was at hand.

Looking Forward

Today, Kigali is a dynamic national capital: clean, safe, and expanding. A growingeconomy has reduced the percentage of subsistence farmers from 95 to 70 per-cent—though the total population has nearly doubled, from 4.8 million to morethan 9 million, since 1978. The influx of returnees following the genocideincludes many foreign-educated, technically skilled, and entrepreneurial individ-uals. Recent elections received positive reviews from international observers andsaw women take 56 percent of the seats in Parliament—the highest percentagein the world. Ethnic reconciliation is moving forward. The darkest clouds onRwanda’s horizon appear over its western border with the Democratic Republicof Congo, where remnants of genocidal militias have reopened old ethnicwounds and brought Rwanda into open intervention across the border.

Rwanda’s great progress in recent years has allowed the government—andthe donor community—to return its attention to conservation. Although somegorilla killings in the Congo sector of the Virunga Volcanoes attracted worldmedia attention in 2007, the most remarkable story is that gorilla numbers rosefrom 262 in my 1978 census to 380 in 2003.5 Most observers believe that currentnumbers exceed 400. The government is also considering restoring former park-lands that were converted to agriculture in the 1970s to native habitat suitablefor gorillas. Tourism is at all-time record levels, with nearly 20,000 visitors peryear generating more than $10 million for the park service and supporting sig-nificant staff expansion.6 In addition, 5 percent of direct tourism receipts are setaside for local communities to build schools, health clinics, and other public


Just as the conservation agenda wascoming together in a very positiveway—tourism, training, increased

capacity—Rwanda fell apart.

services. Nyungwe, declared a national park in 2005, has witnessed the removalof thousands of gold miners and improved antipoaching efforts to protect itsmore than 400 chimpanzees.

Most important, Rwandans now manage their parks and agencies them-selves. They do this very well, but could do even better with serious investmentin management training. This is especially important now, as the country hasgenerated so many new policies and plans that it suffers from an “implementa-tion gap.” As a result, constructive new policies in support of buffer zones

around national parks, compensation to farmers forcrop damage by wild animals, and a new nationalwildlife law have yet to move from paper to practice.

On the technical side, Rwanda needs more andbetter-trained scientists. This was once a luxuryRwanda could not afford, but it is now critical to havepersonnel trained in applied biological and socialsciences to better understand what is happening in andaround their parks. Only two Rwandans have earnedPhDs in applied biology or conservation, and Rwandahas yet to produce its first PhD-level gorilla expert. Thecountry needs more economists who can identify new,

creative ways to gain more from its world-class ecotourism and to distributethose benefits to the rural poor. Media specialists could fill a gaping void by pro-ducing materials on nature and environment topics for schools and the public.And although Internet access and computer technology have been a high prior-ity 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 carbonmarkets, because there is a growing international willingness to pay countrieslike Rwanda to protect its rainforests so that they can absorb the excess carbondioxide causing global warming. But for now, Rwanda is at the mercy of outsideinterests in this complex realm.

The recommendation for a variety of technical assistance required for suc-cessful, long-term conservation in Rwanda reflects the need for change in howinternational NGOs and agencies support conservation in developing countries.Although biology and ecology will never lose their central place in the field ofconservation, we must adapt to provide a more diverse set of expertise to ourconservation partners in Rwanda and elsewhere. There is an immediate needfor technical assistance and training related to climate change adaptation, car-bon credits, resource valuation, payments for ecosystem services, education,media, business planning, and parks management. Failure to meet these needswill signify a failure to evolve our conservation practices and ultimately limitour effectiveness as conservationists. i


This was once a luxury Rwandacould not afford, but it is now criticalto have personnel trained in applied

biological and social sciences tobetter understand what is

happening in and around their parks.

Final Thoughts • 211

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–)

Every spring, as 500 million migratory birds move northward up the Africanand 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 marshharriers try to find a safe stopover along their flight where food and rest can befound within some wetlands refuge, they encounter a burgeoning district ofhotels and tourist facilities that has wrested away their ancient first stop—thesalt marsh of Eilat, Israel. Leaving Eilat, the birds pass over the Negev desert andthe salty Dead Sea. They enter the Jordan Valley, where they maneuver con-secutively through Jordan, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and Turkey—all countriesthat 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 driestplaces 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 ashadow of its former self. It has been depleted by growing cities and agriculturaldevelopments, so much so that its current flows now hardly cover the width of


Final Thoughts

Safe Havens for Wildlife and Peoplein Contested Holy Lands

GARY PAUL NABHAN ANDMICHAEL L . ROSENZWE IG

GARY PAUL NABHAN is founder and facilitator of the Renewing America’s FoodTraditions collaborative and is based on Tumamoc Hill in Arizona, the first restorationecology site in the world and home of the Alliance for Reconciliation Ecology. His latestbook is titledWhere Our Food Comes From.MICHAEL L. ROSENZWEIG is professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology andDirector of Tumamoc: People and Habitats at the University of Arizona. His researchfocuses on species diversity and conserving biodiversity with reconciliation ecology. He iseditor-in-chief of Evolutionary Ecology Research.

a city street for most of its length. And yet migrating birdscontinue to seek out these crucial wetlands as they have formillennia.As if the scarcity of wetland refuges were not enough

of a challenge, the migrating flocks also face head-on colli-sions with ever-present Israeli and Jordanian jets. Such col-lisions kill pilots and birds and destroy planes. So a cooper-ative multinational effort, Migrating Birds Know NoBoundaries, emerged through an initial collaborationbetween the Israel Raptor Information Center and theIsraeli Air Force. It now also involves the Royal Society forthe Conservation of Nature in Jordan, the Society for theProtection of Nature in Israel, and the military leadershipof both countries. Policy initiatives, monitoring studies,and community education in both countries have reducedcollisions by 88 percent.1 A poster of an F-15 fighter jet anda steppe eagle (Aquila nipalensis) flying side by side hangs innearly every air base, telling a simple story: “Take Care,WeShare the Air.”Continuing their journey, the migrating birds may ven-

ture northward past the tamarisk-lined rivulet of the RiverJordan to at last reach the tributary known as the Yarmouk.There they can rest in the open waters of a reservoirbehind Yarmouk dam, a critical resource for cities, farms,and industries in both Israel and Jordan, or fly over the

Golan Heights, a site of frequent armed conflict since 1951 and the principalobstacle to peace between Israel and Syria.Once the feathered migrants make it beyond the river’s mountainous head-

waters, they may still be in dire straits, as they were during the Summer War of2006. The Summer War destroyed many spring-fed aqueducts and irrigation

canals feeding the villages, orchards, and fields of Lebanon’sBekaa Valley—orchards and fields that surround one of themost important bird stopover points along the Lebanon–Syria border: the lush Kfar Zabad wetlands. The region wasalready suffering from a summer drought when damage towater mains, storage tanks, and canals left the Bekaa Valleyhigh and dry a fewweeks before harvest. So Lebanese farm-ers clandestinely filled their tank trucks at the springs ofKfar Zabad. During the fighting, one of the tank truckspumping from the wetlands was hit by a missile, discourag-ing further pumping from the springs. But the wetlands hadbecome vulnerable due to the ongoing conflict.


The River Jordan has been depleted byagricultural development, but migratingbirds still depend on its surroundingwetlands.

Once the feathered migrantsmake it beyond the mountainousheadwaters feeding the RiverJordan, they may still be in direstraits, as they were during the

Summer War of 2006.

Sou

rce:

Fran

kan

dHelen

Schreider/N

ationa

lGeo

grap

hicStock

Despite the turmoil, a few of the farmers whose fields edge the wetlandscalled the Society for Protection of Nature in Lebanon (SPNL) for help. Thefarmers not only wanted to save their crops, they also wanted to save the wet-land bird habitat. Relief organizations were struggling at the time, so the SPNLstaff reached out to conservation organizations around the world in the hopeof gaining support to bring water to the area. The SPNL helped bring some 60tons of water and other supplies overland (where bridges had been bombedand the steep banks of wadis—dry riverbeds—had to bemaneuvered) at a time when the Red Cross and DoctorsWithout Borders could not safely reach into this stretch ofwar-torn Lebanon.

* * *

What we hear in the West is that Muslims, Christians, andJews in the Middle East seldom collaborate on anything, letalone on conservation.When we visited this region that hadbeen under fire just a fewmonths before, we expected to seepeople still picking up the shrapnel and debris. Instead wemet a few of SPNL’s local partners—twenty-some Lebanesefarmers. How had SPNL attracted dozens of Muslim andChristian farmers to help conserve the waters feeding theKfar Zabad wetlands’ important migratory bird habitat?SPNL’s field conservation program officer, Dalia Al-

Jawhary, explained the philosophy behind their work, andhow conservation was incidentally building peace amongcultures and faiths. Dalia suggested that we learn about the traditional MiddleEastern conservation concept of the hima: “Today, we are having great successwith the acceptance of the hima system both locally and internationally. It is anancient, community-based conservation strategy which is currently beingrevived by the Society for the Protection of Nature in two marine areas on thesouthwest 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 amanner that all Semitic peoples of the Middle East could embrace as part oftheir common heritage. While questions of spirituality and morality often pitone faith against another, the hima concept reaches back to a common set ofvalues that Muslims, Christians, and Jews once shared in the era when conviven-cia, or coexistence, enabled these cultures to work together for the commongoal of conservation blended with human well-being.In Arabic and Aramaic, the term himameans a reserve, protected habitat, or

area set aside for special consideration, usually resulting in long-term conser-


Steppe eagles frequently collided withIsraeli and Jordanian fighter jets until amultinational collaborative effort helpedreduce these collisions.

Sou

rce:

Han

ne&Jens

Eriksen

/naturep

l.com

vation, allowing periodic but restricted use under stressful circumstances. It isa concept that was already being implemented around springs, wetlands, andperennial 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 prophetMuhammad also embraced the hima concept, and later his disciples codified it.In Islamic law, a hima signifies a natural area—permanently or seasonally setaside for the public good—which may not be privately owned. It also states thatthe designation of a hima should not deprive local people of resources essen-tial to their subsistence and survival. Conceptually, it is much like the “grass

bank” being explored today in the Valles Caldera NationalPreserve, New Mexico, in which private cattle herds areallowed to enter the preserve to graze and water only whensurrounding areas have failed due to drought or catastrophe.Over the last fourteen hundred years, himas protected both

biodiversity and sacred sites from coming under the exclusivecontrol of warriors, sheikhs, imams, priests, or rabbis. Himareserves were formulated by traditional communities, thenblessed by both secular and religious officials and honored bycommon law. They flourished from the far reaches of theEmpty Quarter of the Arabian Peninsula—where a nomad’saccess to a spring might be a matter of life or death—to the


Cooperating for conservationduring a time of war is notthe same as lasting peace. Yetthe side benefits of thesetechnical and educationalcollaborations are evident.

Mosque in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, nearthe Syrian border. The valley surrounds theKfar Zabad wetlands, one of the most cru-cial stopover points for migrating birds.

Sou

rce:

StewartInne

s/Peter

Arnold,

Inc.

Levant, where Lebanese, Syrian, and Palestinian herders and farmers usedhimas as reserves during times of war or drought. Ranging from just ten to wellover a thousand acres, more than three thousand himas were historically estab-lished in Saudi Arabia. They not only prevented horses, camels, and cattle fromdying during droughts, they were also critical to the survival of the Arabiangazelle (Gazella gazella) and the Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx).2

In recent history, the hima concept was all but forgotten until the 1960s, whenOmar Draz, a Syrian scientist working for the United Nations Food andAgriculture Organization, observed a few of the last functioning traditionalhimas in Saudi Arabia and reintroduced the concept to Syria. More recently, aWestern convert to Islam—Othman Llewellyn—deepened public appreciationof the historic and spiritual roots of community-based hima conservation andchampioned the concept in half a dozen countries. In Lebanon, for example,both Sunni Muslims and MaroniteChristians have started voluntarilyshifting their farming and herding torelieve pressure on the Kfar Zabadwetlands, now a designated hima.Other laudatory efforts find people

from separate camps cooperatingto conserve both wildlife and theirhabitats in this volatile region. Forinstance, Israeli and Jordanian dategrowers faced devastation from ratson both sides of the River Jordan. Therats did not spare Arab dates or Jewishones. Pesticides proved useless. YossiLeshem, who was instrumental instarting Migrating Birds Know NoBoundaries, suggested that growers inSde Eliyahu, a kibbutz south of theSea of Galilee, put up nest boxes forbarn owls (Tyto alba). Barn owls feed freely on rats but did not have enoughplaces to nest. Kibbutz farmers organized a conference with their Jordaniancounterparts across the river to demonstrate the technique. Soon owls wereprotecting the date groves of Arab and Jew alike. Mansour Abu Rashed, oncechief of Jordanian intelligence and now head of the Amman Center for Peaceand 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 andeducational collaborations are evident: Jews, Christians, and Muslims involved in


Protected lands called himas are critical tothe survival of species such as the Arabianoryx.

Sou

rce:

Philip

Perry/FLPA

such projects are no longer seen as “the other,” or merely asabstractions. At the same time, the survival of black storksand marsh harriers has become somewhat of a commongoal to farmers of all three faiths. If this kind of social rec-onciliation can begin the healing process, particularlybetween Arabs and Jews, then frank discussions of environ-mental justice issues such as equitable access to water—amajor obstacle in peace negotiations—might follow.A philosophical and scientific framework for technical-

ly advancing ways to share our habitats with otherspecies—even in rapidly urbanizing, intensively agricul-tural, or war-torn areas—has been elaborated in the fieldof reconciliation ecology. Whether to protect preciouswater resources or crops, or to keep military jets from col-liding with migrating birds, the Middle East is becoming acrucible for the trial and deployment of reconciliationecology projects. Stemming from rigorous science, recon-ciliation ecology goes far beyond that: “In addition to itsprimary value as a conservation tool, reconciliation ecolo-gy . . . promises to reduce endless bickering and legalwrangling that characterize environmental issues today.We are all human beings. We share a stake in the world weare building. No one wants it to be sterile and lonely. . . .Reconciliation ecology gives us a conservation strategythat recognizes these simple truths and unites us in ourcommon goals.”3

If our hunch is correct, we can invest in conservation initiatives that haveboth sound scientific goals and pursue the broader human goals of peace andreconciliation.When we visit our friends and relatives in Lebanon and Israel, werealize that their involvement in conservation is never “just for the birds.” It isan attempt to heal from past wounds, to build hope, and to participate oncemore in efforts to treat these lands and waters as truly holy. L


Barn owls keep rodents in check. Farmersuse nest boxes to encourage the owls tonest on their lands.

Sou

rce:

Derek

Middleton

/FLPA

The publication of State of the Wild has been made possible by the help andsupport of a large number of people. In particular, the editors would like

to express our gratitude to Steven E. Sanderson and Ward Woods for support-ing 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 ourappreciation to Catherine Grippo for countless hours and endless patience ingathering the Global Conservation News Highlights, Champions of the Wild,By the Numbers, and photographs. Editorial help and advice also came fromSandra Alcosser, Dan Cherubin, and Julia Zafferano, with a particular thank youto Ken Kostel for his vast editing experience.We would also like to acknowledgethe invaluable support and expertise of Todd Baldwin, Barbara Dean, MaureenGately, Erin Johnson, Sharis Simonian, and Barbara Youngblood at Island Press.We thank the following biologists and conservationists who provided valu-

able information, reviews, photographs, or other support. Their insight,expertise, and advice are greatly appreciated. Ardea: Alice Bullock and SophieNapier; Auscape International: Sarah Tahourdin; British Wildlife: Sue Everett;Conservation International: Heather Luca and Karen Mikosz; FLPA: JeanHosking; National Geographic Stock: Ashley Parada; Nature Picture Library:Rachelle Macapagal; Peter Arnold, Inc.: Emily Teresa; Royal Botanic GardensKew: Julian Bayliss; The Nature Conservancy: Craig Groves; Turtle SurvivalAlliance: Rick Hudson; University of Sydney: Christopher Dickman; US ForestService: Vicki Saab. Within the Wildlife Conservation Society we would like tothank: Suzanne Bolduc, Jean Boubli, Paul Calle, Avecita Chicchon, CarltonChotalal, 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, ColinPoole, Darren Potgieter, Jennifer Pramuk, Bonnie Raphael, Eric Sanderson,Anton Seimon, Grace Seo, Christopher Shank, Kirstin Siex, Kristine Smith,

Acknowledgments • 219

Acknowledgments

Kara Stevens, Pat Thomas, John Thorbjarnarson, Mariana Varese, DavidWilkie, 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.


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 ResourcesInitiative, 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: Basilisken-

Presse, 2005).

Notes • 221

Notes

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 TimeLimit,” 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 ofTanzania,” 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 BiogeographicHistory,” 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 ofPrimatology 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 FactSheet 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 (ChapelHill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004).

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

1. One World–One Health is a registered trademark of the Wildlife ConservationSociety.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 ResearchApproached,” 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 DemocraticRepublic of Congo,” Conservation Biology 20, no. 4 (2006): 1262–1271.

Conservation and Governance: Lessons from the ReconstructionEffort in Afghanistan by Peter Zahler

1. R. Margesson, “CRS Report for Congress—Afghan Refugees: Current Status andFuture 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 SocialDevelopment 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 MarineEnvironmental 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 Herbicidesduring the Viet Nam War: The Case of Can Gio,” Unasylva 207: Rehabilitation ofDegraded Sites Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations DocumentRepository (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 andResources 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,” artículoaparecido 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: Universityof Maryland, 1996).

Notes • 225

8. Diario “El Peruano” 27 de octubre de 1998: “Tratado de Comercio y Navegaciónentre el Perú y el Ecuador.” And “Peru and Ecuador Sign Treaty to End LongstandingConflict,” 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, TheGalapagos 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 Density-

dependent 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–WeightRelationship,” 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 theAfrican Elephant Database,” IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group Occasionalpaper 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 NumbersCaused 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 AsianElephants (Elephas maximus) in Lampung Province, Sumatra, Indonesia,” BiologicalConservation 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: DoverPublications, 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 andthe 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 JaniceWormworth

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: YaleUniversity 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 Changeand 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: Canadathrough 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, WorldResources 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 EnvironmentalManagement 63 (2001): 387–405.6. M. Young, “The Other Duck Factory,” Ducks UnlimitedMarch/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 AccountsCatalogue 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 ofZoology 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 ofForest 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 ofChicago 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 availableat 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 theRoyal 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 thePotential 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 (NewYork: 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 ContemporaryWater Research and Education 136 (2007): 44–55.

Life Waters: Wetlands and Climate Change by Carmen Revenga and MaxFinlayson

1. L. Ramberg et al., “Species Diversity of the Okavango Delta, Botswana.” AquaticScience 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: IslandPress, 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 SaveBiodiversity? by Will Stolzenburg

1. R. Costanza, et al., “The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and NaturalCapital,” Nature 387 (1997): 253–260.2. UNESCO, “WEHAB: A Framework for Action on Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Management,” Water, Energy, Health, Agriculture and Biodiversity Working GroupReport, 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 FirstTime 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 YellowstoneEcosystem, 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 forSurveying 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 aReintroduction Site in South Dakota,”Wildlife Society Bulletin 34 (2006): 1435–1439; R.M. Rolland et al., “Faecal Sampling Using Detection Dogs to Study Reproduction andHealth in North Atlantic Right Whales (Eubalaena glacialis),” Journal of CetaceanResearch 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 WorldHeritage 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 AgricultureMovements, 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 andW. 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 mountaingorillas, 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 Landsby 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

Index • 235

Italicized page numbers refer to illustrations.

Afghanistan: Band-e-Amir National Parkin, 2–3, 16, 16, 61, 78, 79; communitydevelopment committees (CDCs),78; environmental laws in, 77–78;reconstruction in, 72–73, 75, 76–79;war in, 63, 72, 73

Afghan snow finch (Montifringillatheresae), 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. Seealso names of African countries

African buffalo (Syncerus caffer), 161African elephant (Loxodonta africana), 13,

13, 59, 67–68, 70, 89, 103, 161; forestelephants, 106, 114–17, 116–17, 120–21,120; savanna elephants, 114–15, 204

African wild dog (Lycaon pictus), 91Agents Orange, White, and Blue, 65–66, 84Agribusinesses, 55, 95Agriculture, 9, 25, 35, 69–70, 77, 95, 97, 117,

119, 134, 158, 205, 208–10; and critical-ly endangered species, 46, 47, 48; anddiseases, 52–53, 55–58; and ecosystemservices, 168–72, 168, 169; in Europe,27–28, 174, 189–95, 189, 190, 191, 193;in Middle East, 214–18, 218; in NorthAmerica, 48, 134, 140–41; in Patagonia,106, 124; and war, 69–70, 73, 213–15,214; and wetlands, 161, 163

Akagera Park (Rwanda), 206, 208–9Alaska, 6–10, 6–7, 8, 9, 10, 129, 130, 139Al-Jawhary, Dalia, 215Alliance of Religious and Conservation

(ARC), 179, 182Almendro tree (Dipteryx panamensis), 26Amazonia, 23, 25, 25, 67–68, 96–102American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), 46American kestrel (Falco sparverius) , 155Amman Center for Peace and

Development, 217Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica), 44,

187Andean condor (Vultur gryphus), 122, 124,

127Andean flamingo (Phoenicoparrus andinus),

165, 166Andes, 96, 122–28, 165Angkhor Wat, 178Animal rights groups, 200–201Annamite Mountains (Laos and Vietnam),

39, 66Anthrax, 53, 58Antilopine wallaroo (Macropus antilopinus),

21Apalone ferox, 110Aquatic warbler (Acrocephalus paludicola),

135Arabian gazelle (Gazella gazella), 217Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx), 217, 217Arakan forest turtle (Heosemys depressa),

109, 110Archipelago National Park (Finland), 195Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), 143

Arctic lamprey (Lethenteron japonicum), 143Arctic region, 7–10, 129–30, 132, 134, 136,

139, 140Argentina/Argentines, 24, 96, 106, 123,

126–28, 151Argentine shortfin squid (Illex argentinus),

147Arias, Oscar, 26A Rocha, 182Ash-breasted tit-tyrants, 24Asia, 15–18, 49, 54, 72, 95, 115, 123, 139;

freshwater turtles in, 106, 107–13,108, 110, 111, 112, 113. See also namesof Asian countries

Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), 114–15,115, 116, 117–21

Asian imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca savigny),29

Asia Pacific Economic Community, 55–56Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus), 78Atheris mabuensis, 41, 41Atlantic bluefin (Thunnus thynnus), 36Australia, 19–22, 136, 155, 162, 164–65,

164Automatic weapons, 59, 59, 68, 70Auyantepui, 51, 51Avian influenza, 53–55, 54Awajun people (Peru), 98–99, 101–2Ayala Lasso, José, 100Ayres, José Márcio, 42

Badger (Meles meles), 189–90, 189Bahuaja Sonene National Park (Peru), 26Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), 156

Baltimore (Md.) urban wild places, 154,154, 156, 157, 158

Bamiyan Province (Afghanistan), 61, 77–78Band-e-Amir National Park (Afghanistan),

2–3, 16, 16, 61, 78, 79Bangladesh, 38, 108–11, 111Barn owl (Tyto alba), 217, 218Bar-tailed godwit (Limosa lapponica baueri),

129, 130, 136Batang Gadis Park (Sumatra), 181Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, 46Bats, 33, 40, 46, 142, 155, 176Bay-breasted warbler (Dendroica castanea),

142Bayliss, Julian, 41Beaked whales, 37, 84Bears, 7, 10, 10, 60, 65, 77–78, 134, 141–43,

186, 187Belinga (Gabon), 14, 121Benedict, Saint, 180Bern Convention Standing Committee, 30Binational parks, 99–101, 101Biofuel production, 25, 95, 193–94Bird species, 2, 13, 22, 24, 41, 69, 137,

140–42, 155–56, 161, 165, 168, 185,192, 207, 207; and war, 69, 84, 86. SeealsoMigratory species/routes; namesof bird species

Bison (Bison bison), 67, 123Black and white colobus monkey (Colobus

angolensis), 207, 207Black bear (Ursus americanus), 141, 186,

187Black-breasted leaf turtle (Geoemyda

spengleri), 108Blackbrowed albatross (Diomedea

melanophris), 147–49Black caiman (Melanosuchus niger), 26Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), 187Black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis), 91Black-shanked douc (Pygathrix nigripes),

16, 16Black softshell turtle (Aspideretes nigricans),

110–11, 111Blotched tiger salamander (Ambystoma

mavortium melanostictum), 33Blue and yellow macaw (Ara ararauana),

102Bluefin tuna (Thunnus spp. ), 36, 36Bluetongue, 29

Blue-winged warbler (Vermivora pinus), 155Bobcat (Lynx rufus), 186Bolivia, 24Bombings, 66, 81, 83, 84, 85Bonelli’s eagle (Hieraaetus fasciatus), 193,

194Bonobo (Pan paniscus), 13, 13Boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris maculate), 33Boreal Conservation Framework, 145Boreal forests, 138, 139–45, 140, 143, 144Borges, Jorge Luis, 146Borjomi-Kaharaguli National Park

(Republic of Georgia), 65Borneo, 38, 48, 117, 162Borneo orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus), 48Boubli, Jean-Phillipe, 42Bovine tuberculosis, 190Box turtles (Cuora spp. ), 108, 109–10Brachylophus bulabula, 41, 41Brazil, 23, 25, 42, 51, 56, 96, 161 162,

200–201Brazil National Institute for Space

Research (INPE), 25Brown bear (Ursus arctos), 65, 72, 77Brown hare (Lepus capensis), 191Brown rat (Rattus norvegicus), 193Brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis), 187Buddhism, 110–11, 111, 175–78, 176, 177,

178, 180–82Buffalo (Syncerus caffer), 68, 70, 119Buffer zones, 67–69, 67, 101, 155, 210Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park

(Lampung, Sumatra), 117Burdwood Bank (Argentina), 24, 151Burmese roofed turtle (Batagur trivittata),

113Burmese star tortoise (Geochelone platynota),

113, 113Bush, George W., 32, 37Bushmeat trade, 14, 69–70, 200Butterflies, 28, 28, 39, 41, 155, 195Bycatch, 35–36, 36, 148–49, 152

Cacajao ayresii, 42, 42Cambodia, 16, 63, 65–66, 109–10, 178Canada, 31–32, 55, 101; boreal forests in,

138, 139–45, 143, 144; and migratorybirds, 130, 133–34

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), 141, 141, 143Canaima National Park (Venezuela), 51

Canine detection teams, 174, 183–88, 184,185, 186, 187, 188

Captive breeding, 25, 49, 199, 200, 201; inAsia, 17, 106, 109, 112–13

Carbon, atmospheric. See Greenhousegas emissions

Carbon sequestration/storage, 13, 23,143–44, 166, 168, 170–72

Cat Ba National Park (Vietnam), 48Catch and release, 8–9Catch limits, 36Catholics, 99, 180Caucasian black grouse (Tetrao

mlokosiewiczi), 65Cave Hill Cemetery (Louisville), 156Center for Environmental, Social, and

Legal Action (CALAS), 60Central African Republic (CAR), 66–67, 116Central America, 23, 25–26, 46. See also

names of Central American countriesCentral Park (New York City), 155Chad, 12, 59Chagos Islands (Indian Ocean), 37Chelonian Conservation Fund, 112Chesapeake Bay, 158Chicchón, Avecita, 98Chilean sea bass (Dissostichus spp.), 151Chile/Chileans, 96–97, 106, 123, 126–28Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), 199, 207, 210China, 13–14, 17–18, 77, 117, 202; fresh-

water turtles in, 109–11; religion andconservation in, 176–77, 177

Chinese alligator (Alligator sinensis), 17, 17Chinese striped-neck turtle (Ocadia

sinensis), 109Chipanje Chetu Community Based Natural

Resource Management, 93–94, 93Chitwan National Park (Nepal), 70Christianity, 177–78, 181–82, 181, 215–18Chytrid fungus, 56–57Cisco (Coregonus artedii), 143City–suburb–exurb (CSE) systems, 138,

153–59, 154Civil conflict, 89–95, 91, 93, 163, 207–9,

208. See alsoWar and conservationCivil society, 63, 97–100Climate change, 21, 28, 30, 50, 95, 105–6,

128, 156, 180; caused by deforesta-tion, 15, 144–45, 144, 210; and dis-eases, 53, 56–58; effects on boreal


forests, 139, 144–45, 144; effects onmigratory birds, 129–36, 133, 135;effects on oceans, 35–36; effectson wetlands, 138, 161, 162–66

Coconut crab (Birgus latro), 37Collared peccaries (Tayassu tajacu), 69Collective lands, 23, 90–94, 93, 94, 99Colombia, 42, 63, 66, 71, 97Colombia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris),

33Common walnut (Juglans regia), 30, 30Communal Areas Management Program

for Indigenous Resources (CAMP-FIRE), 91–92

Communal conservancies/reserves, 90–94,93, 94, 99

Confiscated wildlife, 113, 174, 196–202,197, 199, 200

Confucian pilgrims, 177Congo Basin/River, 13, 116–17, 121Connectivity, 31, 34, 57, 118–20, 128, 145,

150; in Europe, 191, 191, 193; inurban wild places, 154, 156–58

Conservation International, 42, 101,181–82

Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD), 66

Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species (CITES), 13,110, 116, 196, 197, 199–201

Convention on the Conservation ofMigratory 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, 99Corridors. See ConnectivityCostanza, Robert, 168Costa Rica, 26, 46, 99, 169–70, 172, 198Critically endangered species, 45–49, 67,

91, 108, 109, 111, 113, 135. See alsoRare species

Crocodiles, 46, 46, 69Cuban crocodile (Crocodylus rhombifer),

46, 46Cuc Phoung National Park (Vietnam), 202Cultural landscapes, 190, 193Cyprus, 30

Daily, Gretchen, 169, 172Dall’s sheep (Ovis dalli dalli), 7Dams, 52, 142, 162–63, 165–66Daoism, Chinese, 176–77, 177Darwin Initiative Award project (UK), 41Debelius, Helmut, 43Debray, Regis, 175Deforestation, 14, 22, 24, 26, 48, 64, 67,

69, 171, 200; in Brazil, 23, 25, 25, 56;and diseases in wildlife, 52, 56; andwar, 65–67, 69

Delaware Bay, 130Demilitarized zone (North and South

Korea), 67, 68Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC),

12–14, 38, 40, 70, 203; forest elephantsin, 116, 117; war in, 64, 66–67, 86–87,89, 209

Democratization, 75, 80, 91, 93–94, 98Desertification, 15, 124, 128Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), 187Devaux, Bernard, 107Development, 25, 27, 30, 35, 46, 49–50,

69, 77, 116–17, 133, 157, 161; inCordillera de Cóndor region, 98,100–101. See also Extractive industries

Diamond, Jared, 38Diego Garcia military base, US (Chagos

Islands), 37Dieldrin, 9Dingo (Canis lupus dingo), 20, 20Diplomacy/Diplomats, 55, 96–101Discovery, 38Diseases in wildlife, 29, 32, 46, 47, 52–58,

67, 185, 197, 204DNA, 41, 121, 185Dobles, Roberto, 26Dogs, 183–88, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188Dolphins, 35, 38, 82Domestic animals, 20, 29, 47, 75, 183;

and diseases, 3, 52–56, 57. See alsoLivestock

Doñana wetlands (Spain), 162–63, 163Draz, Omar, 217Drought, 47, 133, 158, 214, 216–17Duisburg-Nord Landscape Park

(Germany), 157Duncan saddleback tortoise (Geochelone

nigra duncanensis), 112Dusky large blue (Maculinea nausithous), 28

Eastern gray kangaroo (Macropus giganteus),21, 21

Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon coraiscouperi), 51

Ebola virus, 14, 53, 53, 56, 58Ecological destruction (“ecocide”), 65–66,

84Ecological extinction, 123Ecosystem services (ES), 23, 138, 145, 148,

152, 156, 161–62, 167–72, 168, 169, 173Ecotourism. See TourismEcuador, 63, 96–102, 102, 201Ehrenfeld, David, 170El Cóndor Park (Ecuador), 100Elephant Project (India), 120Elephants, 13, 13, 59, 67–68, 70, 89, 103,

106, 114–21, 204Elephant-shrews, 39, 39Elk (Cervus canadensis), 67Emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), 153Endangered species, 14, 24, 26, 37–38,

45, 91, 142, 144, 167, 188; inAfghanistan, 16, 76; in Asia, 16–18,109, 112, 187; in Australia, 20, 155; asconfiscated wildlife, 199, 200, 202; inUnited States, 32, 51, 60, 186, 196.See also Critically endangered species

Endemic species, 19, 22, 25, 30, 47; inAfrica, 13–14, 41, 65; in SouthAmerica, 51, 98, 99, 165

Enewetak Atoll, 83Environmental terrorism, 81, 82, 85–86Escher, M.C., 150–52, 151Espaüola saddleback tortoise (Geochelone

nigra hoodensis), 112Eurasian lynx (lynx lynx), 28, 28Euro (Macropus robustus), 21European Association of Zoos and

Aquariums, 199European grey wolf (Canis lupus lupus), 28European Union (EU), 27–29, 36, 192;

Natura 2000 network, 28, 190Europe/Europeans, 27–30, 33, 72, 92,

115–16, 122–23, 139, 178; and agri-culture, 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; inAustralia, 20–21; of migratory birds,133–34; in oceans, 36, 152; of turtlespecies, 107, 111. See also Criticallyendangered species

Extirpations, 123–24, 157Extractive 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 SouthAmerica, 23–26, 126. See alsoDevelopment

Falklands War (1982), 84Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides

fenderi), 188Feral animals, 20, 41, 46, 70, 184Fiji, 19, 41Finca Santa Fe, 169–70, 172Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), 34Fires, 20, 47, 50–51, 50, 139Fisher (Martes pennanti), 186–87Fishing/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 offish species

Flooding, 52, 156, 161–62, 165–66Florida, 46, 50–51, 50, 107, 110Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus),

46, 46Flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus), 72, 142Flyways. SeeMigratory species/routesFood chain/webs, 9, 67, 146, 149–50, 161Food markets, turtles in, 107, 109, 110, 113Forest elephant (Loxodonta africana cyclo-

tis), 106, 114–21, 115, 116, 117, 120Forests, 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 SouthAmerica, 23–25, 25, 98, 102, 128, 140;in United States, 50–51, 50, 140; inurban wild places, 155, 157–58; inVietnam, 39, 48, 65–66, 84; and war,65–66, 69, 73, 76, 87. See alsoDeforestation; Reforestation

Fossey, Dian, 204Four-eyed turtle (Sacalia quadriocellata), 109Francis of Assisi, Saint, 179Freshwater lakes, 7–9, 9, 111, 140, 143, 145Freshwater turtles, 106, 107–13, 108, 110,

111, 112, 113, 202Frogs, 19, 33, 39, 40, 40, 42, 42, 49, 49, 57.

See also names of frog speciesFruit bats, 40, 40Fuegian sardine (Sardina fueguina,

Sprattus fuegensis), 24

Gabon, 12, 14, 116, 118, 121Galapagos, 107, 112Ganges River, 111Gaojinmao forest preserve (China), 17Garamba National Park (DRC), 70Gardens, 155, 158–59Gates of the Arctic National Park (Alaska),

6–7, 7–8Gecko (Rhacodactylus leachianus), 22Genetic viability, 47, 118–19, 121, 136, 193,

199Genocide, 64, 67, 208–9Geomyces fungus, 33Georgia, Republic of, 65Germany, 3, 30, 130, 155, 157Giant muntjac (Muntiacus vuquangensis), 66Giant river otter (Pteronura brasiliensis),

26, 26Gilbert’s potoroo (Potorous gilberti), 19Gishwati Reserve (Rwanda), 208–9Glaciers, 8, 31, 162, 166Global Avian Influenza Network for

Surveillance (GAINS), 55Global Forest Watch Canada, 140, 145Global information sharing, 54–58, 210Global Initiative on Sharing Avian

Influenza Data (GISAID), 55Global Positioning System (GPS) units,

116–17

Global warming. See Climate changeGolden-backed tree-rat (Mesembriomys

macrurus), 20Golden coin turtle (Cuora trifasciata), 108,

109Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), 47Golden lion tamarin (Leontopithecus rosalia),

200, 201Golfo San Jorge (Patagonia), 24Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), 51Gorillas, 53, 58, 67, 200–201, 203–10, 204Gorongosa National Park (Mozambique),

93Govinda Hill (India), 177Grand Cayman blue iguana (Cyclura

lewisi), 25, 25Grand Teton National Park, 34Gray partridge (Perdix perdix), 191Grazing, 20, 47, 73, 75, 120, 122–24, 127,

191. See also Livestock; OvergrazingGreat blue heron (Ardea herodias), 154, 155Great egret (Ardea alba), 155Greater adjutant (Leptoptilos dubius), 16Greater coucal (Centropus sinensis), 84Greater snow goose (Chen caerulescens

atlantica), 132Great green macaw (Ara ambiguus), 26Green-eyed frog (Lithobates vibicarius), 46,

46Greenhouse gas emissions, 9, 36, 136, 142,

144–45, 144, 156, 170, 210Green peafowl (Pavo muticus), 16Green-spotted northern pike (Esox lucius),

8–10Green turtle (Chelonia mydas), 30, 37, 86Grenada dove (Leptotila wellsi), 46, 46Grey-cheeked mangabey (Lophocebus

albigena), 13, 13Grizzly bear (Ursos arctos horribilis), 10,

10, 142–43, 186Ground frog (Platymantis vitianus), 19Grunewald (Berlin), 155Guanaco (Lama guanicoe), 106, 122–28,

123, 124, 126, 127, 128Guangdong river turtle (Mauremys nigri-

cans), 109Guatemala, 60, 63, 66Guitarfish (Rhinobatos spp.), 36Gulf of California (Mexico), 48Gulf of Mexico, 36


Gulf War, 81, 82, 85–86Guyanan tepuis, 50–51, 51

H1N1 influenza, 52Habitat 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; inSouth Korea, 18, 162; in United States,33, 46, 47

Hainan Island (China), 109Harlequin frog (Atelopus spp.), 42Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata),

197Heavybeak parrotfish (Chlorurus gibbus), 85Hedges, Blair, 39Helmholtz Centre for Environmental

Research, 30Henry, Richard, 184Heosemys grandis, 110Herbicides, 65–66, 84, 191, 193Hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus), 139Heroes, 59–61Hibernation, 33, 141Hiek Sopheap, 178Higley, Mark, 60, 60Himalayan lynx (Lynx lynx), 77Himas, 215–18, 217Hindus, 180Hippocampus spp., 43Hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius),

67, 162Hirola (Beatragus hunteri, Damaliscus

hunteri), 47, 47HIV/AIDS, 57Hohe Tauern National Park (Austria), 192Home ranges: effects of climate change

on, 21, 30, 95; effects of developmenton, 46, 106, 143; effects of war on,70, 95; of forest elephants, 115–21;of guanacos, 123–25, 127–28; ofmigratory birds, 132–36

Hong Kong, 49, 196, 202Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation, 60Human–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; inAfrica, 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. Seealso Overhunting

Huon Commonwealth Marine Reserve(Tasmania), 21

Hussein, Saddam, 81, 82Hydrocarbon extraction, 26, 106, 126,

141, 150Hydroelectric power, 14, 141–42, 163, 166Hyperolius spp., 40, 40

Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus), 163, 163, 192Ibex (Capra sibirica), 2, 63, 77Iguana (Iguana iguana), 41, 41, 69Illegal wildlife trade, 46–47, 53, 69, 106,

112, 174; in Afghanistan, 76; inAfrica, 66, 70, 89, 93; in Asia, 15, 18,48; and confiscated wildlife, 196–202,197, 199, 200; in Europe, 27, 29; andwar, 66, 69–70, 93. See also Poaching

Imagination, 146, 150–51, 151Impala (Aepyceros melampus), 161Inbreeding, 48, 199India, 17, 66, 70–71, 81, 108–9, 118, 120,

177, 180Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), 33Indian flap-shell turtle (Lissemys punctata),

108Indian Ocean, 37, 87Indigenous peoples, 22, 37, 165, 176, 179;

in Afghanistan, 77–78; in NorthAmerica, 60, 67, 142, 145; in SouthAmerica, 23, 42, 51, 98–102, 122

Indonesia, 18, 37, 39, 40, 43, 48, 66, 109,117–18, 120, 171, 181

Infectious diseases, 54, 56–57International 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; inPatagonia, 125–26, 128; in UnitedStates, 109–10; and war, 69, 87

Introduced species, 19–20, 22, 29, 30,46–47, 124, 147. See also Invasivespecies; 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, 216Island gray fox (Urocyon littoralis), 47, 47Israel, 98, 213–18IUCN (International Union for Conser-

vation of Nature), 20, 36, 45, 58, 109,120, 169, 176, 179, 182, 192, 206

Ivindo National Park (Gabon), 14, 14Ivory gull (Pagophila eburnea), 134Ivory trade, 13, 89, 93, 106, 115–16, 116, 117

Jains, 180Japan, 13, 83, 175–76, 180Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica),

193Jordan River, 213–14, 214, 217Judaism, 177, 215–18

Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Gardens, 49Kagu (Rhynochetos jabatus), 22, 22Kakadu National Park (Australia), 162,

164–65, 164Kakapo (Strigops habroptilus), 184Kanak people (New Caledonia), 22Karukinka Natural Park (Tierra del

Fuego), 125Kaufman, Edy, 97–98Kenya, 47, 89Keogh, Scott, 41Kerepakupai Merú (Auyantepui), 51Khao Chong Pran Cave (Thailand), 176King penguin (Aptenodytes patagonicus),

152Kiwi (Apteryx spp.), 184Kongou Falls (Ivindo National Park,

Gabon), 14Kruger National Park (South Africa), 13Kyrgyz people, 77

La Amistad International Park (Panamaand Costa Rica), 99

Index • 239

Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), 9, 143Lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis), 143Land rights, 23, 34, 60, 74, 89–95, 91, 93Laos, 65, 109–10, 120Laysan albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis),

83, 85Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), 87Lebanon, 181–82, 181, 213–15, 216, 217Lemmings (Lemmus spp. ), 185Leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis), 72, 78Leopold, Aldo, 2, 10, 31, 168, 170Leptotyphlops carlae threadsnake, 39, 39Leshem, Yossi, 217Lesser adjutant (Leptoptilos javanicus), 16Liberia, 66, 69, 89Little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), 33Little ringed plover (Charadrius dubius), 84Little spotted kiwi (Apteryx owenii), 22Livestock, 20, 47, 69, 77, 94, 97, 186, 205,

216–17; in Asia, 15, 75, 120; and dis-eases, 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, 126Llewellyn, Othman, 217Local community involvement: in

Afghanistan, 61, 76–79; in Africa, 70,89–95, 93; in Bolivia, 24; on HoopaValley Indian Reservation, 60; inPeru–Ecuador border dispute, 98–99;and reconstruction, 73–80; on TonleSap Lake (Cambodia), 16; and war,70–71, 73, 89–93

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicanusmearsi), 47

Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), 30Logging, 14, 23, 25–26, 50, 60, 79; in

Africa, 87, 93, 116–17, 118; in Canada,140–45, 144; and critically endangeredspecies, 46, 48; and war, 87, 93

Long-haired spider monkey (Atelesbelzebuth belzebuth), 98, 99

Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) woodlands,50–51, 50

Longley, Michael, 62Lupine (Lupinus oreganus kincaidii), 188Lynx (Lynx lynx), 10

Mabira Forest Reserve (Uganda), 13Madagascar, 14, 47

Madagascar serpent eagle (Eutriorchisastur), 14

Magellanic penguin (Spheniscusmagellanicus), 24, 84, 147, 149–50, 150

Makira Forest Protected Area (proposed),14

Malaria, 56, 100Malawi, 41Malaysia, 37, 109, 200Maluku frogfish (Histiophryne psychedelica),

39, 39Mambeleme, 117Management. See Natural resource

managementManed wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus), 26Mangroves, 66, 84–85, 155, 161, 164, 166Marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum),

154, 158, 159Marco Polo sheep (Ovis ammon), 72, 77, 77Mariana Trench Monument, 37, 37Marine National Monument

(Northwestern Hawaiian Islands), 86Marine protected areas/reserves, 21, 24,

28, 35, 37, 148, 151Marine Strategy Framework Directive

(EU), 28Markhor (Capra falconeri), 63, 78Maronite Church of Lebanon, 181, 181, 217Marshall, Bob, 31Marshall Islands (Micronesia), 83, 84Marsh deer (Blastocerus dichotomus), 26Marsh fritillary (Euphydryas aurina), 28, 28Maryland Group, 97–102May, Robert, 38Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR), 60McCauley, Douglas J., 169–70McKibben, Bill, 10Mediterranean Sea, 36Melangell, Saint, 178Melini, Yuri, 60, 60MER (Managed Elephant Range), 119–21Mercury contamination, 5, 8–9, 8, 9, 142Mexico, 48, 52, 66, 116, 177Micronesia, 83, 84Micronesian megapode (Megapodius

laperouse), 37Middle East, 43, 175, 213–18, 214, 215,

216, 217. See also names of MiddleEastern countries

Midges (Culicoides spp. ), 29

Midway Atoll, 83, 83, 85; NationalWildlife Refuge, 86

Migrating Birds Know No Boundaries,214, 217

Migratory species/routes, 18, 68, 161;and diseases in wildlife, 55, 57; gua-nacos 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, 84Mining, 22, 23, 26, 37, 60, 69, 117, 126,

140, 145, 165, 210. See also Extractiveindustries

Minkébé National Park (Gabon), 14, 117,121

Mongolia, 49, 54, 75, 123, 180, 182Mongolian gazelle (Procapra gutturosa), 123Mongooses, 41, 46Monitoring, 14, 60, 70, 136, 185–87; in

Africa, 93, 116; in Asia, 16, 118; of dis-eases, 55, 57–58; of forest elephants,116, 118, 121; in India, 17, 70

Monitoring of the Illegal Killing ofElephants (MIKE), 116

Monkeys, 69, 98, 99, 196, 207Montagne, Alberto, 100Monte Leon National Park (Patagonia), 123Moose (Alces alces), 8, 10, 142, 144Mosquitoes, 46, 56, 57, 58Mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei),

67, 174, 203–10, 204Mountain Gorilla Project, 205–6Mountain lion (Felis concolor), 186Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus

ponderosae), 32, 32Mozambique, 41, 63, 92–94, 93Mt. Hartman National Park/Estate

(Grenada), 46Muir, John, 31Myanmar, 18, 66, 109, 110, 118

Nahan’s francolin (Francolinus nahani), 13Namuli apalis, 41Narrow-headed softshell turtle (Chitra), 108National 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; inurban wild places, 154–59. See alsoEndemic 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 Mozambique, 63, 93–95, 93, 94; in oceans, 35,82–83; and reconstruction, 73–80; inUnited States, 50–51, 60; in urban wildplaces, 157–59; and war, 63, 71, 91–93;of wetlands, 165–66; in Zimbabwe, 63,91–92. See alsoMarine protectedareas/reserves; Protected areas

Nature, 38, 170The Nature Conservancy, 169Nepal, 66, 70–71Nesting habitat, 17, 24, 29–31, 84, 113;

and migratory birds, 130–31; andwar, 84, 87

New Caledonia, 22New species, 5, 21, 38–43New York City, 34, 155, 157–58New Zealand, 19, 22, 129, 130, 184–85, 187New Zealand kakapo (Strigops habroptila),

19Nicaragua, 69Nile lechwe (Kobus megaceros), 68, 69Nipah virus, 56Noatak National Preserve (Alaska), 8Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),

15, 37, 97, 118, 127–28, 190; and localcommunity 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 alsonames of NGOs

North America, 31–34, 50, 123, 132–34,139, 165. See also names of NorthAmerican countries

North American otter (Lontra canadensis),187

North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaenaglacialis), 34

Northern Australian snake-necked turtle(Chelodina regosa), 107

Northern lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), 192,193

Northern long-eared bat (Nyctophilusarnhemensis), 142

Northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus), 20, 20Northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis,

187Nuclear tests, 83, 84Nuristan Province (Afghanistan), 77–79Nyungwe Forest (Rwanda), 207–10, 207

Obama, Barack, 32Oceans, 35–37, 137, 142; effects of war on,

63, 81–87, 83; as wild places, 146–52,147, 148, 150, 151, 152. See also namesof oceans

Odzala-Kokoua National Park (Congo), 117OIE (World Organization for Animal

Health), 55–56Okapi (Okapia johnstoni), 3Okavango wetlands, 160–63, 162Old-growth forests, 50–51, 142–44, 182Olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea), 87Olympic Park (Sydney), 155One-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros

unicornis), 70One World–One Health paradigm, 54–56Ophiomitrella brittlestar, 21, 21Orange-legged rain frog (Pristimantis

spp.), 42Orchids, 39, 41, 98Organic farming, 191–93Overfishing, 24, 36, 130, 148, 181Overgrazing, 15, 20, 76–78, 128Overhunting, 45, 53, 130Owl-faced monkey (Cercopithecus

hamlyni), 207

Pacific Islands/Ocean, 19, 37, 83–84, 83,84, 86

Pacific loon (Gavia pacifica) , 8, 8Pacific rat (Rattus exulans), 22Painted stork (Mycteria leucocephala), 16Pakistan, 66, 77–79Palm oil plantations, 48, 162, 168, 171Panama, 46, 99PAN Parks Foundation, 190Pantanal wetlands (Brazil), 161, 162Paperbark tree (Melaleuca spp. ), 164–65, 164Park security, 59, 59, 69, 70Parque Nacional Juan Castro Blanco

(Costa Rica), 46

Parrots, 98, 116, 184Patagonia, 24, 105, 106, 122–28, 123, 124,

127, 128Patagonian Sea, 105, 138, 146–52, 147,

148, 150, 152Payunia Reserve (Patagonia), 123, 125Peace and conservation, 66, 68–70, 87, 93,

95, 163, 203, 218; and peace parks,96–102, 101

Peace-Athabasca delta (Canada), 31, 142Peatlands, 140, 142–44, 162, 190Pelham Bay Park (New York City), 155Persian leopard (Panthera pardus), 78Peru, 23, 26, 56, 66; border dispute with

Ecuador, 96–102, 102; war in, 63,96–97

Pesticides, 46, 48, 217Petroleum 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. Seealso International trade

Philippines, 36, 37, 40, 66Pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca), 131–32Plague, 56Ploughshare tortoise (Astrochelys yniphora),

47, 47Plumptre, Andrew, 40Poaching, 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, 51Poison dart frogs, 42Polar bear (Ursus maritimus), 32, 32, 134,

185Pollinators, 33, 153, 167, 169–70, 172Pollution, 48, 81–82, 108, 154, 156–57,

161, 165, 181, 190; effects on oceans,35, 48, 81–82, 150

Polylepis forests, 24Pontoh’s seahorse (Hippocampus pontohi),

43Population growth, 52, 58, 73, 95, 161,

163, 174Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact

Research, 30Poverty, 57, 60, 76, 94, 98, 117, 167, 171,

204, 206Prairie Pothole Region, 133–34

Index • 241

Predator Dogs, 184Predators, 8, 19–20, 41, 46–47, 53, 75,

119, 132, 152, 162, 184, 186; inCanada, 141, 141, 143–45; inPatagonia, 124–25, 127

Presidential Act of Brasilia, 100–101Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra

americana), 34, 34Protected 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; inAsia, 15, 120; in Europe, 27–28,190–95; in India, 70, 120; in NorthAmerica, 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 alsoMarine protected areas/reserves; names of protected areas

Protected Species Dogs, 184–85Przewalski’s horse (Equus ferus

przewalskii), 49, 49Public health, 52–56, 153, 156Puma (Puma concolor), 122, 124, 127, 128Pygmy chameleon (Rhampholeon spp.), 41Pygmy marmoset (Callithrix pygmaea), 201Pygmy seahorses, 43, 43

Qadisha (Lebanon), 181–82, 181Queen Elizabeth II Botanic Park (Grand

Cayman), 25

Rabies, 56Raccoon (Procyon lotor), 185Rainforests, 13, 23, 25, 25, 206–7, 210. See

also Forests; Tropics/Tropical forestsRamsar Convention on Wetlands, 13, 136Ranaviral diseases, 56–57Ranchers/Ranching, 60, 90, 97, 106,

123–24, 127, 128. See alsoAgriculture; Livestock

Randolph, Buck and Fitrie, 39Ranthambore Tiger Reserve (India), 17Rare ecosystems, 50–51Rare species, 5, 22, 24, 44–49, 63, 66,

187–88, 194–95; in Africa, 41, 47, 66,207; in Asia, 48, 113; as confiscatedwildlife, 197, 199–200, 202; in oceans,36, 37; in United States, 46–47, 51,

154. See also Endangered species;Threatened species

Rashed, Mansour Abu, 217Rats, 19, 22, 40, 46, 184–85, 193Reconstruction, 63, 69, 71, 72–80; in

Afghanistan, 72–73, 75, 76–79Recoveries/recovery plans, 19, 45, 46, 49Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides

borealis), 51Red-crowned crane (Grus japonensis), 68Red-eared slider turtle (Trachemys scripta

elegans), 109Redford, Kent, 170Red fox (Vulpes vulpes), 20Red kangaroo (Macropus rufus), 21Red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), 130, 132,

136Red lechwe (Kobus leche leche), 161Red ruffed lemur (Varencia variegata rubra),

14, 14Red Sea, 43Red squid (Ommastrephus bartrammii), 147Red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), 141Red-throated alethe (Alethe poliophrys), 207Reedbuck (Redunca redunca), 68Reforestation, 22, 158Refugees of war, 64, 66–67, 70–71, 73Reintroduced species, 17, 49, 199, 201Release programs, 8–9, 17, 25, 49Religion and conservation, 174, 175–82,

176, 177, 178, 180, 215–18, 216Rift Valley fever, 57, 58Rio Protocol (1942), 96Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), 185Romer’s tree frog (Chirixalus romeri), 49,

49Roosevelt, Theodore, 31Rose Atoll Marine National Monument, 37Rovero, Francesco, 39Royal cinclodes, 24Rural district councils (RDCs) in

Zimbabwe, 92Russell, E. S., 82–83Russia, 65, 139, 140, 187Rwanda, 63, 64, 67, 174, 203–10, 204, 205,

207, 208Rwandan park service (ORTPN), 206–7

Saemangeum wetlands (S. Korea), 162Saker falcon (Falco cherrug), 29, 29

Salamander (Bolitoglossa taylori), 42, 42Salina Reserve (Grand Cayman), 25Salinas de Loyola, Juan, 67–68San Clemente Island (California), 47San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), 186Santiago-Comaina Reserve (Peru), 101Saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis), 66Sapo National Park (Liberia), 69Sarabi, Habiba, 61, 61Sariska Tiger Reserve (Rajasthan), 17SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome),

53, 56Satellite imagery, 41, 105, 140, 145, 148–49Satomi’s seahorse (Hippocampus satomiae),

43, 43Saudi Arabia, 57, 85, 217Savanna elephant (Loxodonta africana

africana), 114–15Scafi, Alessandro, 146Scarlet macaw (Ara macao), 102Scat-detection dogs, 185–87, 186, 187, 188Sea and Sky Program, 150–52Seal (Phocidae spp. ), 185Sea level rise, 19, 36, 162–64Selk’nam people (Tierra del Fuego), 122Sengis, 39, 39Set-asides, 192, 194Severns, Mike, 43Sharif, Mazari, 61, 61Sheep. See LivestockShinto temples, 175–76, 180Shiva, Vandana, 180Shuar people (Ecuador), 98–99, 101–2Siberian crane (Grus leucogeranus), 135Siberian ibex (Capra sibirica), 16Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica), 44Sierra Leone, 66, 89Signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus),

29, 29Silky sifaka (Propithecus candidus), 14Silverback gorilla, 204Sky and Water (Escher woodcut), 150–52,

151Skylark (Alaud arvensis), 192, 194Snakes, 39, 39, 41, 41, 51, 198. See also

names of snake speciesSnow goose (Chen caerulescens atlantica), 133Snow leopard (Uncia uncia), 16, 62, 76,

77, 187Snowmelt runoff, 165–66


Snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), 139, 141Society for Protection of Nature (SPNL),

215Softshell turtles (Trionychidae), 108Solomon Islands, 37, 37, 66Somalia, 47, 87Sonars, 83–84Sonowsky, Saúl, 97South Africa, 13, 90, 200South America, 23–25, 33, 46, 123, 140,

165; Guyanan tepuis in, 50–51, 51. Seealso names of South American countriesand regions

South American fur seal (Arctocephalusaustralis), 24, 24

Southern African DevelopmentCommunity (SADC), 57

Southern blue whiting (Micromesistiusaustralis), 24

Southern elephant seal (Miroungaleonina), 147, 147, 148–49

Southern giant petrel (Macronectesgiganteus), 24, 148

Southern right whale (Eubalaenaaustralis), 147

South Korea, 18, 67, 68, 162Species Survival Plan (SSP), 199Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), 36Spoon-billed sandpiper (Eurynorhynchus

pygmeus), 18, 18Spot-billed pelican (Pelecanus philippensis),

16Sri Lanka, 66, 118Stanley, Henry Morton, 116Steppe, 49, 75–76; Patagonian, 105–6,

122–25, 123, 127–28Steppe eagle (Aquila nipalensis), 214, 215Styloctenium mindorensis, 40, 40Sudan, 12, 63, 66, 68–69, 68, 69, 95Sulawesi forest turtle (Leucocephalon

yuwonoi), 109Sumatra, 48, 117–18, 120Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii), 48, 48Sunda pangolin (Manis javanica), 18, 18Swainson’s thrush (Catharus ustulatus), 139

Taiping Four, 200–201Tai Shan Mountain (China), 177, 177Tanzania, 39Tar sands region (Canada), 145

Tasman Fracture Marine Reserve(Tasmania), 21

Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii), 19Tehuelche people (Patagonia), 122–23Temple of Byazid Bostami (Chittagong,

Bangladesh), 110–11, 111Terra Cypria, 30TFCAs (transfrontier conservation areas), 57Thailand, 109–10, 113, 118, 176Threatened species, 20, 22, 32, 41, 112,

168, 184–85; as confiscated wildlife,197, 199, 202; in oceans, 35–36; inSouth America, 51, 97, 165. See alsoCritically endangered species

Thyolo alethe thrush (Alethe alethecholoensis), 41

Tibetan Plateau, 165Tierra del Fuego, 122, 125, 128, 130Tiger (Panthera tigris), 17, 17, 18, 66, 70Tilapia (Tilapia rendalli), 67Timberlake, Jonathan, 41Tiritiri Matangi Island (New Zealand), 22Tonle Sap Lake (Cambodia), 16Tortoises, 47, 47, 51, 107, 110, 112–13, 113La Tortue Martyre (Devaux), 107Tourism, 12, 30, 46, 57, 70, 102, 149–50,

162; in Afghanistan, 16, 61, 78; inAfrica, 88–91, 89, 206–7, 209

Traditional medicines, 15, 18, 48, 75, 108,109, 197

Travertine dams (Afghanistan), 16, 16, 78Tropics/Tropical forests, 56, 65, 115, 141,

161, 168, 171. See also RainforestsTroya, Roberto, 98–99Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator), 8Tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus), 22, 22, 188Tuberculosis, 53Tuna fisheries, 36, 36, 37, 87Turtles, 30, 37, 86, 87, 106, 107–13, 108,

110, 111, 112, 113, 196, 202

Uakaris, 42, 42Uganda, 13, 67, 203Umm al Maradem (Mother of Rocks),

81–82, 85United Kingdom, 82–84, 178, 189–90, 195United Nations, 55, 66, 169–71, 182, 190,

206, 217United States, 32–34, 47, 161, 168, 182,

186–88; boreal forests in, 139–40;

Centers for Disease Control andPrevention, 56; and confiscatedwildlife, 198–99, 201; Diego Garciamilitary base, 37; effects of war onoceans, 83, 83, 84, 85; environmentallegislation, 32, 196; Fish and WildlifeService, 32; Forest Service, 34, 157;freshwater turtles in, 109–10, 113;longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) wood-lands in, 50–51, 50; and migratorybirds, 133–34, 142; NationalAcademies of Science, 56; NationalMarine Fisheries Service, 32; peaceparks 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, 154Urial (Ovis orientalis), 2, 16

Vaccination programs, 29, 54–55, 58Valles Caldera National Preserve (New

Mexico), 216Vaquita (Phocoena sinus), 48, 48Vedder, Amy, 204–5Veterinary medicine, 25, 52, 56–57, 197–98Victoria, Lake (Uganda), 13Vietnam, 18, 39, 48, 109–11, 197, 198,

202; war in, 65–66, 84Vietnamese leaf turtle (Annamemys

annamensis), 109Virunga National Park (DRC), 64, 67Volcanoes National Park (Rwanda), 203,

204, 205, 207–9

Wakhi people (Afghanistan), 77–78Walea seahorse (Hippocampus

waleananus), 43Wallace, Alfred Russel, 40Wampis people (Peru), 99, 101–2War and conservation, 3, 63–103, 105, 174,

203; in Afghanistan, 16, 72, 73; inAfrica, 63, 64, 66–71, 68, 69, 86–87,89–95, 89, 91, 93, 117, 207–9, 208; andbuffer zones, 67–69, 67; in India, 70–71; in Middle East, 213–18, 215; andoceans, 63, 81–87, 83; and reconstruc-tion, 63, 69, 71, 72–80; in SouthAmerica, 63, 96–97; in Vietnam, 65–66

Waterton-Glacier International PeacePark (US and Canada), 101

Index • 243

Way Kambas National Park (Lampung,Sumatra), 117

Wells, H. G., 31Western Airborne Contaminants

Assessment project, 9Western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla

gorilla), 14, 14, 200Wetlands, 168, 190; in Africa, 13, 68; in

Canada, 133, 140–42, 144–45; effectsof climate change on, 138; in MiddleEast, 213–17, 214, 216; and migratorybirds, 133–36, 133, 213–17, 214, 216;Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, 13,136; in South Korea, 18, 162; inUnited States, 33, 133–34, 154, 155; aswild places, 138, 160–66, 163, 164, 166

Whales, 34, 82, 84White-clawed crayfish (Austropotamobius

pallipes), 29White-eared kob (Kobus kob leucotis), 68, 68White-headed langur (Trachypithecus

poliocephalus), 48, 48White-lipped keelback snake (Amphiesma

leucomystax), 39, 39White-naped crane (Grus vipio), 67, 68White-nose syndrome, 33White rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum), 66White spruce (Picea glauca), 142, 144White stork (Ciconia ciconia), 3, 130, 131White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),

144

Whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus), 54Wilcove, David, 171Wilderness. SeeWild placesWildlands. SeeWild placesWildlife Conservation Society (WCS),

3, 14, 16, 25, 40, 54, 55, 58, 170, 204;in Afghanistan, 77–79; and forestelephants, 118, 120–21; and guana-cos, 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 ele-phants in, 116–18, 121; oceans as, 35,105, 138, 146–52, 147, 148, 150, 151,152; and religion, 175, 177; wetlandsas, 138, 160–66, 163, 164, 166

Wilson, E. O., 168, 172Winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), 142Wolf (Canis lupus), 2, 65, 67, 72, 75, 142–44,

183, 186, 192Wood bison (Bison bison athabascae), 142Woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus

caribou), 6–7, 10, 141, 143Woodlark (Lullula arborea), 194Wood rose (Diactylanthus taylorii), 187Working Dogs for Conservation, 186World Bank, 169, 171–72, 182

World Conservation Congress(Barcelona 2008), 58

World Health Organization (WHO), 55World Heritage Sites (UNESCO), 22, 51, 67World Organization for Animal Health

(OIE), 55–56World Resources Institute, 140World War I/II, 82–83, 83, 85World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF),

39, 120, 169, 179, 190, 206World Wildlife Fund, 49, 70World Zoo and Aquarium Association

(WAZA), 201Wyoming, 34

Xeriscaping, 158

Yangtse giant softshell turtle (Rafetusswinhoei), 111–13, 112

Yanomamo Indians, 42Yellow-cheeked crested gibbon (Nomascus

gabriellae), 16Yellowstone National Park, 33, 186Yellow tang (Zebrasoma flavescens), 37Yellow-throated marten (Martes flavigula),

78–79

Zakouma National Park (Chad), 59, 59Zimbabwe, 63, 90–92, 91Zoonotic diseases, 52–58, 53, 57Zoos, 49, 111–13, 112, 174, 198–202, 199, 200


state_of_the_wild_2010_2011_1597266787_

Documents

trachemys

limosa lapponica

naomi shihab

lupinus oreganus

icaricia icarioides

lanius ludovicanus

varencia variegata

chen caerulescens