Suchergebnisse

Conservation efforts are only as sustainable as the social and political context within which they take place. The weakening or collapse of sociopolitical frameworks during wartime can lead to habitat destruction and the erosion of conservation policies, but in some cases, may also confer ecological benefits through altered settlement patterns and reduced resource exploitation. Over 90% of the major armed conflicts between 1950 and 2000 occurred within countries containing biodiversity hotspots, and more than 80% took place directly within hotspot areas. Less than one-third of the 34 recognized hotspots escaped significant conflict during this period, and most suffered repeated episodes of violence. This pattern was remarkably consistent over these 5 decades. Evidence from the war-torn Eastern Afromontane hotspot suggests that biodiversity conservation is improved when international nongovernmental organizations support local protected area staff and remain engaged throughout the conflict. With biodiversity hotspots concentrated in politically volatile regions, the conservation community must maintain continuous involvement during periods of war, and biodiversity conservation should be incorporated into military, reconstruction, and humanitarian programs in the world's conflict zones. © 2009 Society for Conservation Biology.

With the combined knowledge of more than 30 scientists and some of the most stunning climate images every captured, "A Climate for Life: Meeting the Global Challenge", is one of the most comprehensive volumes on climate change ever published. The book features more than 175 images from world famous photographers including Frans Lanting, James Balog, and Joel Sartore, as well as expansive and accessible science on climate change and how the world can transform an unprecedented environmental challenge into opportunity for the future. "A Climate for Life" draws connections between seemingly unrelated events involving climate change to demonstrate the concerted and momentous effort required to combat it. The book explores how rising temperatures on land and in the oceans around the globe affect nature, and therefore all living things, including people. 'The science on climate change is clear and the threat is urgent. We must use this crisis as an opportunity to revolutionize economies, create jobs, and protect critical ecosystems that can stabilize our climate right now', says Russell A. Mittermeier, lead author and president of Conservation International. 'The emerging perception of climate change is fragmented at best, and this book demonstrates plainly the strong linkages between our modern society, the natural world, and climate change. There is hope for the future, but only if we act now'. To bolster the blueprint for success offered by the book, "A Climate for Life" features stunning images provided by the International League of Conservation Photographers. The photos are coupled with moving eyewitness accounts of climate change by the photographers themselves. International League of Conservation Photographers Cristina Mittermeier talks about the Kayapo tribe of Brazil and how they are desperately fighting to protect their corner of the planet against encroaching logging that makes Brazil the world's fourth largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Photographer James Balog shares how he witnessed climate change in the form of melting glaciers. "A Climate for Life" will soon be an indispensible part of our shared understanding of climate change. Above all, it is a clear roadmap on how to revolutionize global economies and spark innovation through a concerted effort to tackle all the aspects of climate change. The book's foreword by actor-environmentalist Harrison Ford and Harvard biologist and eminent author E.O. Wilson presents the case for hope in the face of challenge: 'The good news is that this nest of problems is soluble. The science is growing ever stronger. The technology exists or is at least imaginable and in practical terms. The economic benefits of a global turnaround are potentially enormous. What is needed now is the popular will to undertake what will be one of the great turnabouts of history'.

Primates occur in 90 countries, but four—Brazil, Madagascar, Indonesia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)—harbor 65% of the world's primate species (439) and 60% of these primates are Threatened, Endangered, or Critically Endangered (IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017-3). Considering their importance for global primate conservation, we examine the anthropogenic pressures each country is facing that place their primate populations at risk. Habitat loss and fragmentation are main threats to primates in Brazil, Madagascar, and Indonesia. However, in DRC hunting for the commercial bushmeat trade is the primary threat. Encroachment on primate habitats driven by local and global market demands for food and non-food commodities hunting, illegal trade, the proliferation of invasive species, and human and domestic-animal borne infectious diseases cause habitat loss, population declines, and extirpation. Modeling agricultural expansion in the 21st century for the four countries under a worst-case-scenario, showed a primate range contraction of 78% for Brazil, 72% for Indonesia, 62% for Madagascar, and 32% for DRC. These pressures unfold in the context of expanding human populations with low levels of development. Weak governance across these four countries may limit effective primate conservation planning. We examine landscape and local approaches to effective primate conservation policies and assess the distribution of protected areas and primates in each country. Primates in Brazil and Madagascar have 38% of their range inside protected areas, 17% in Indonesia and 14% in DRC, suggesting that the great majority of primate populations remain vulnerable. We list the key challenges faced by the four countries to avert primate extinctions now and in the future. In the short term, effective law enforcement to stop illegal hunting and illegal forest destruction is absolutely key. Long-term success can only be achieved by focusing local and global public awareness, and actively engaging with international organizations, multinational businesses and consumer nations to reduce unsustainable demands on the environment. Finally, the four primate range countries need to ensure that integrated, sustainable land-use planning for economic development includes the maintenance of biodiversity and intact, functional natural ecosystems.

Some conservation prioritization methods are based on the assumption that conservation needs overwhelm current resources and not all species can be conserved; therefore, a conservation triage scheme (i.e., when the system is overwhelmed, species should be divided into three groups based on likelihood of survival, and efforts should be focused on those species in the group with the best survival prospects and reduced or denied to those in the group with no survival prospects and to those in the group not needing special efforts for their conservation) is necessary to guide resource allocation. We argue that this decision‐making strategy is not appropriate because resources are not as limited as often assumed, and it is not evident that there are species that cannot be conserved. Small population size alone, for example, does not doom a species to extinction; plants, reptiles, birds, and mammals offer examples. Although resources dedicated to conserving all threatened species are insufficient at present, the world's economic resources are vast, and greater resources could be dedicated toward species conservation. The political framework for species conservation has improved, with initiatives such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and other international agreements, funding mechanisms such as The Global Environment Facility, and the rise of many nongovernmental organizations with nimble, rapid‐response small grants programs. For a prioritization system to allow no extinctions, zero extinctions must be an explicit goal of the system. Extinction is not inevitable, and should not be acceptable. A goal of no human‐induced extinctions is imperative given the irreversibility of species loss.