<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../over-400000-advised-evacuating-as-the-storm- bears-down-on-japan-243089">Japan </a>insisted Friday it no longer hunts endangered sei whales in international waters but faced accusations of still violating a wildlife treaty by allowing commercialisation of meat from past catches.</p>

<p>The standing committee of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) last October found Japan in breach of the treaty and ordered it to rectify the situation or face trade sanctions.</p>

<p>The elected panel, which handles the treaty's compliance and enforcement, dismissed Japan's claims that the cull since 2002 of some 1,500 North Pacific sei whales was only scientifically motivated.</p>

<p>Instead, it found that the hunt was primarily commercially motivated, and thus constituted international trade in a protected species and a clear violation of the treaty.</p>

<p>Japan told the committee meeting in Geneva on Friday that it no longer permits taking sei whales on the high sea and is therefore in compliance with CITES.</p>

<p>"This matter should be considered closed," a member of the Japanese delegation said, &nbsp;a day before a global conference of all 183 countries that have signed the treaty kicks off in Geneva.</p>

<p>But committee members from a range of countries, including the European Union, Israel, Niger, Peru and the United States, disagreed.</p>

<p>Many voiced outrage&nbsp;at the continued sale of meat and blubber from the whales deemed to have been illegally culled and imported over a 16-year period.</p>

<p>According to conservationists, 1,500 tonnes of meat from 131 sei whales killed in 2018 alone have been commercialised in Japan, and sei whale meat remains widely available in shops and restaurants in the country.</p>

<p><strong>'Truly shocking'&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p>"It is truly shocking," the representative from Niger told the meeting, maintaining that when illegal international trade is detected in other endangered species, such as elephant ivory, the stockpiles are ordered confiscated and destroyed.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The European Union representative agreed, pointing to article 8 of the convention, which he said "requires ... confiscating specimens traded, or in this case introduced from the sea, in violation of CITES."</p>

<p>Japan meanwhile stressed that it had immediately followed the committee's October ruling, but baulked at the idea it should be applied retroactively.</p>

<p>In the end, the committee ordered Japan to report back on its use of the sei whale stockpiles, but put off the thorny discussion on confiscation until next year.</p>

<p>While Japan remains bound by CITES &nbsp;international wildlife trade restrictions, it has withdrawn from the International Whaling Commission (IWC), enabling it last month to resume commercial whaling in its territorial waters for the first time in decades.</p>

<p>It has allotted itself a hunting quota of 227 of the giant sea mammals this year, including 25 sei whales.</p>


Japan insisted Friday it no longer hunts endangered sei whales in international waters but faced accusations of still violating a wildlife treaty by allowing commercialisation of meat from past catches.

Japan insisted Friday it no longer hunts endangered sei whales in international waters but faced accusations of still violating a wildlife treaty by allowing commercialisation of meat from past catches. The standing committee of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) last October found Japan in breach of the treaty and ordered it to rectify the situation or face trade sanctions. The elected panel, which handles the treaty's compliance and enforcement, dismissed Japan's claims that the cull since 2002 of some 1,500 North Pacific sei whales was only scientifically motivated. Instead, it found that the hunt was primarily commercially motivated, and thus constituted international trade in a protected species and a clear violation of the treaty. Japan told the committee meeting in Geneva on Friday that it no longer permits taking sei whales on the high sea and is therefore in compliance with CITES. "This matter should be considered closed," a member of the Japanese delegation said, a day before a global conference of all 183 countries that have signed the treaty kicks off in Geneva. But committee members from a range of countries, including the European Union, Israel, Niger, Peru and the United States, disagreed. Many voiced outrage at the continued sale of meat and blubber from the whales deemed to have been illegally culled and imported over a 16-year period. According to conservationists, 1,500 tonnes of meat from 131 sei whales killed in 2018 alone have been commercialised in Japan, and sei whale meat remains widely available in shops and restaurants in the country. 'Truly shocking' "It is truly shocking," the representative from Niger told the meeting, maintaining that when illegal international trade is detected in other endangered species, such as elephant ivory, the stockpiles are ordered confiscated and destroyed. The European Union representative agreed, pointing to article 8 of the convention, which he said "requires ... confiscating specimens traded, or in this case introduced from the sea, in violation of CITES." Japan meanwhile stressed that it had immediately followed the committee's October ruling, but baulked at the idea it should be applied retroactively. In the end, the committee ordered Japan to report back on its use of the sei whale stockpiles, but put off the thorny discussion on confiscation until next year. While Japan remains bound by CITES international wildlife trade restrictions, it has withdrawn from the International Whaling Commission (IWC), enabling it last month to resume commercial whaling in its territorial waters for the first time in decades. It has allotted itself a hunting quota of 227 of the giant sea mammals this year, including 25 sei whales.

Japan under pressure over past hunting of endangered whales

<p>Six baby seals have been found decapitated in New Zealand in what wildlife rangers on Wednesday branded a "cruel and senseless" act against a protected species.</p>

<p>The bodies of the New Zealand fur seal pups were found by a tourism operator on Monday at Scenery Nook near the South Island city of Christchurch, the Department of Conservation said.</p>

<p>The department's local operations manager Andy Thompson said the animals, which are protected under New Zealand law, were estimated to be 11 months old.</p>

<p>"Due to the disturbing, brutal and violent nature of this crime... it has been reported to the police," he said.</p>

<p>Thompson said the seals' heads were nowhere to be found and it appeared they had been killed elsewhere then dumped in the beauty spot from a boat. "We believe it's incredibly unlikely sharks would have bitten the heads off six seals but left the bodies untouched," he said.</p>

<p>Thompson added the killers may have mistakenly believed the seals were competing with local anglers for fish.</p>

<p>"Regrettably, antagonism towards seals is often due to the misplaced belief that seals are eating large amounts of fish species valued for human consumption," he said.</p>

<p>"That isn't the case. Research shows 90 per cent of Banks Peninsula fur seal diet is made up of lantern fish which are not sought after in fishing."</p>

<p>The DOC has appealed for information about the killings. In 2011, a South Island teenager was jailed for two years after he admitted to bludgeoning 25 seals to death, including newborn pups.</p>


Six baby seals have been found decapitated in New Zealand in what wildlife rangers on Wednesday branded a "cruel and senseless" act against a protected species. The bodies of the New Zealand fur seal pups were found by a tourism operator on Monday at Scenery Nook near the South Island city of Christchurch, the Department of Conservation said.

Six baby seals have been found decapitated in New Zealand in what wildlife rangers on Wednesday branded a "cruel and senseless" act against a protected species. The bodies of the New Zealand fur seal pups were found by a tourism operator on Monday at Scenery Nook near the South Island city of Christchurch, the Department of Conservation said. The department's local operations manager Andy Thompson said the animals, which are protected under New Zealand law, were estimated to be 11 months old. "Due to the disturbing, brutal and violent nature of this crime... it has been reported to the police," he said. Thompson said the seals' heads were nowhere to be found and it appeared they had been killed elsewhere then dumped in the beauty spot from a boat. "We believe it's incredibly unlikely sharks would have bitten the heads off six seals but left the bodies untouched," he said. Thompson added the killers may have mistakenly believed the seals were competing with local anglers for fish. "Regrettably, antagonism towards seals is often due to the misplaced belief that seals are eating large amounts of fish species valued for human consumption," he said. "That isn't the case. Research shows 90 per cent of Banks Peninsula fur seal diet is made up of lantern fish which are not sought after in fishing." The DOC has appealed for information about the killings. In 2011, a South Island teenager was jailed for two years after he admitted to bludgeoning 25 seals to death, including newborn pups.

Outrage as six baby seals decapitated in New Zealand

<p>Scores of animal species across the globe, including tigers, lions and rhinos, are at risk of disappearing&nbsp;due to threats posed by mankind.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Latest researches&nbsp;indicate that 59% of the world&rsquo;s largest carnivores and 60% of the world&rsquo;s largest herbivores are currently threatened with extinction. These species, known as megafauna, play very important ecological roles, but can be difficult to live with because they are prone to conflict with humans and can be challenging to conserve.</p>

<p>Some megafauna species are expensive as well as deadly for humans to live with and pose a direct risk to human life, crops, livestock and even pets. The targeted killing of these animals for their body parts, including skins, teeth, horns, bones and other organs, also means that significant effort and expenditure is needed to protect large mammals from poachers feeding the illegal wildlife trade.</p>

<p>Many megafauna species also have large spatial requirements, needing&nbsp;in significant blocks of wilderness set aside to accommodate them. However, large mammals also engender unparalleled passion among the public for conservation.</p>

<p>Surprisingly little attention has been paid to how the world shares the burden of conserving these charismatic species. We cannot ignore the possibility that we will lose many of them unless swift, decisive and collective action is taken by the global community.</p>

<p>Therefore, the need exists to assess the relative contributions and sacrifices made by countries for conservation. Thus, measuring the efforts of nations to conserve such species seemed like a good place to start.</p>

<p><strong>Megafauna Conservation Index</strong></p>

<p>A group of colleagues and I set about to try to do just that. The idea was to identify a benchmark such that countries that are underperforming, in conservation terms, could be encouraged to do more.</p>

<p>We developed a &ldquo;megafauna conservation index&rdquo; where we measured 152 countries on the following three areas based on the latest available information:</p>

<ul>
	<li>The proportion of the country occupied by each megafauna species - spatial contribution</li>
	<li>The proportion of the range of these species that&rsquo;s strictly protected in each country - ecological contribution</li>
	<li>The amount of money spent on conservation by each country &ndash; either domestically or internationally, relative to GDP - financial contribution</li>
</ul>

<p>These data were extremely challenging to collect, particularly information on the expenditures of countries on conservation. Improving the data on megafauna specific expenditure is an important next step.</p>

<p>We found wide divergence among nations. Poorer countries tend to contribute more and have a higher megafauna conservation index while richer countries contribute less. The reason for this varies from country to country, and continent to continent. For example, African countries tended to score more highly than other parts of the world in terms of the distribution and diversity of megafauna species.</p>

<p>The index classified 90% of countries in North/Central America and 70% of countries in Africa as major or above average performers. But approximately one quarter of countries in Asia (25%) and Europe (21%) were identified as major underperformers. Asia as a region scored the lowest megafauna conservation index, and is home to the greatest number of countries classified as conservation underperformers.</p>

<p>Although challenged by poverty and instability in many parts of the continent, Africa prioritises and makes more of an effort for large mammal conservation than any other region in the world. In fact, Africa accounts for four of the five top performing megafauna conservation nations, including Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. The United States ranked 19 out of the top 20 performing countries.</p>

<p><strong>Improving scores</strong></p>

<p>At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, developed nations vowed to allocate at least USD$2 billion per annum towards conservation in developing nations. However, current conservation contributions from industrialised nations have reached just half of that amount, averaging USD$1.1 billion per year.</p>

<p>The world needs to do much more for megafauna conservation. But some countries need to step up more than others. Several developed countries in particular need to make much more of an effort in what&rsquo;s a global asset and a shared responsibility.</p>

<p>There are three ways in which countries can improve their score:</p>

<ol>
	<li>
	<p>&ldquo;Re-wilding&rdquo; landscapes by reintroducing megafauna or by allowing the distribution of such species to increase;</p>
	</li>
	<li>
	<p>Setting aside more land as strictly protected areas; and</p>
	</li>
	<li>
	<p>Investing more in conservation, either at home or abroad.</p>
	</li>
</ol>

<p>We hope that in creating this conservation index, nations around the globe will be mobilised to invest more in international conservation support to save the planet&rsquo;s large and magnificent wildlife species.</p>

<p>This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" nofollow="" rel="">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/poorer-countries-do-more-for-the-conservation-of-large-mammals-77252" nofollow="" rel="">original article</a>.</p>


Although challenged by poverty and instability, Africa prioritises and makes more effort for large mammal conservation than any other region in the world.

Scores of animal species across the globe, including tigers, lions and rhinos, are at risk of disappearing due to threats posed by mankind. Latest researches indicate that 59% of the world’s largest carnivores and 60% of the world’s largest herbivores are currently threatened with extinction. These species, known as megafauna, play very important ecological roles, but can be difficult to live with because they are prone to conflict with humans and can be challenging to conserve. Some megafauna species are expensive as well as deadly for humans to live with and pose a direct risk to human life, crops, livestock and even pets. The targeted killing of these animals for their body parts, including skins, teeth, horns, bones and other organs, also means that significant effort and expenditure is needed to protect large mammals from poachers feeding the illegal wildlife trade. Many megafauna species also have large spatial requirements, needing in significant blocks of wilderness set aside to accommodate them. However, large mammals also engender unparalleled passion among the public for conservation. Surprisingly little attention has been paid to how the world shares the burden of conserving these charismatic species. We cannot ignore the possibility that we will lose many of them unless swift, decisive and collective action is taken by the global community. Therefore, the need exists to assess the relative contributions and sacrifices made by countries for conservation. Thus, measuring the efforts of nations to conserve such species seemed like a good place to start. Megafauna Conservation Index A group of colleagues and I set about to try to do just that. The idea was to identify a benchmark such that countries that are underperforming, in conservation terms, could be encouraged to do more. We developed a “megafauna conservation index” where we measured 152 countries on the following three areas based on the latest available information: The proportion of the country occupied by each megafauna species - spatial contribution The proportion of the range of these species that’s strictly protected in each country - ecological contribution The amount of money spent on conservation by each country – either domestically or internationally, relative to GDP - financial contribution These data were extremely challenging to collect, particularly information on the expenditures of countries on conservation. Improving the data on megafauna specific expenditure is an important next step. We found wide divergence among nations. Poorer countries tend to contribute more and have a higher megafauna conservation index while richer countries contribute less. The reason for this varies from country to country, and continent to continent. For example, African countries tended to score more highly than other parts of the world in terms of the distribution and diversity of megafauna species. The index classified 90% of countries in North/Central America and 70% of countries in Africa as major or above average performers. But approximately one quarter of countries in Asia (25%) and Europe (21%) were identified as major underperformers. Asia as a region scored the lowest megafauna conservation index, and is home to the greatest number of countries classified as conservation underperformers. Although challenged by poverty and instability in many parts of the continent, Africa prioritises and makes more of an effort for large mammal conservation than any other region in the world. In fact, Africa accounts for four of the five top performing megafauna conservation nations, including Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. The United States ranked 19 out of the top 20 performing countries. Improving scores At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, developed nations vowed to allocate at least USD$2 billion per annum towards conservation in developing nations. However, current conservation contributions from industrialised nations have reached just half of that amount, averaging USD$1.1 billion per year. The world needs to do much more for megafauna conservation. But some countries need to step up more than others. Several developed countries in particular need to make much more of an effort in what’s a global asset and a shared responsibility. There are three ways in which countries can improve their score: “Re-wilding” landscapes by reintroducing megafauna or by allowing the distribution of such species to increase; Setting aside more land as strictly protected areas; and Investing more in conservation, either at home or abroad. We hope that in creating this conservation index, nations around the globe will be mobilised to invest more in international conservation support to save the planet’s large and magnificent wildlife species. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Poor countries do more for conservation of large mammals

<p>By:&nbsp;James Douglas Langston</p>

<p>Deforestation has historically been the price of development, but the world is now going through a forest transition; since 2015, there has been net global reforestation.</p>

<p>The pace and quality of this transition is mixed. In the world&rsquo;s remaining high conservation-value forests, deforestation rates are high and poverty persists but development opportunities are within sight.</p>

<p>These forests are mainly located in the tropical developing world and have growing human populations. Because as forest-dependent people are increasingly involved in cash economies , they use their forests to participate in markets. This will inevitably lead to changes in forests.</p>

<p>But can these transitions be nurtured so that future forest landscapes deliver the biodiversity and ecosystem benefits that societies need or desire?</p>

<p><strong>Human interference</strong></p>

<p>It&rsquo;s not that the world&rsquo;s remaining forests are pristine and untouched. Humans have shaped and domesticated the remote Amazonian and Bornean and Congo Basin forests for millennia; all forests are the result of human actions.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Humans have shaped and domesticated the remote Amazonian and Bornean and Congo Basin forests for millennia; all forests are the result of human actions</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Humans have shaped and domesticated the remote Amazonian and Bornean and Congo Basin forests for millennia; all forests are the result of human actions" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>But as development pressures and the rate of globalisation increase, and as market and cash economies spread, changes in forests are intensifying. Forest clearance and disturbance has seen biodiversity decline and ecosystems suffer.</p>

<p>Conservationists typically respond to this in one of two ways. They either tackle the threat head on and try to counter it (classic threat-based conservation). Or they hand over forest management to local people (community-based forestry).</p>

<p>This latter is a recent popular trend and it&rsquo;s based on the assumption that locals will take care of biodiversity.</p>

<p>But neither threat-based conservation nor local management has proven successful for preserving forests. Tropical forests are still subject to high deforestation rates in less developed countries and conservationists lament the ongoing decline in biodiversity and ecosystems.</p>

<p>These forests are home to many thousands of people, who often have few economic opportunities. What is their future; what will happen to their forests; and where do they fit in future strategies for conservation?</p>

<p><strong>Romance vs making a living</strong></p>

<p>Some conservationists assume that forests will be preserved by forest-dependent people because they&rsquo;re content with their &ldquo;traditional lifestyles&rdquo;, disconnected from cash economies and living in romanticised sustainable communities.</p>

<p>And rights groups point out that people living in forests often have insecure land rights, lack freedoms and power, and are victims of land grabs by companies and governments. They say fixing these requires handing forests completely over to local communities.</p>

<p>Under the influence of their assumptions, rights-based and conservation groups both argue &ndash; perhaps implicitly &ndash; that communities, given the opportunity, will manage forests in a sustainable way.</p>

<p>Recently, even &ldquo;green-black&rdquo; alliances, where conservation groups and Indigenous rights groups collaborate over shared goals, have been shown to be problematic. Indigenous groups and local communities may not manage their forests to conserve biodiversity or, for that matter, the climate change mitigation values of the forests.</p>

<p>In spite of the lack of evidence that local management will lead to conservation, development organisations, NGOs and governments have mobilised vast sums of money to turn the management of lands over to local people.</p>

<p>But a slew of recent articles explains why local management is not a panacea.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>In general, forests managed by local people will only deliver benefits when this doesn&rsquo;t conflict with short-term economic interests</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=In general, forests managed by local people will only deliver benefits when this doesn?t conflict with short-term economic interests" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Communities and indigenous people would, of course, like to see forests, nature and biodiversity - and in abundance. But their priority, like that of most people, is improving their own well-being and that of their children. This means making choices.</p>

<p>Data from Indonesia, the Congo Basin and Brazil show that, in general, forests managed by local people will only deliver benefits when this doesn&rsquo;t conflict with short-term economic interests.</p>

<p><strong>Realistic forest futures</strong></p>

<p>To local people, tackling threats to forests is seen as opposing development and will continue to fail. Opposing new roads in areas where people are deprived of development opportunities, for instance, is clearly not a viable way forward.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Where governance is weak and people are poor, forests will not survive unless conservation engages with the process of development, rather than opposes it</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Where governance is weak and people are poor, forests will not survive unless conservation engages with the process of development, rather than opposes it" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>But the alternative strategy of handing management over to local people in the hope that they will protect biodiversity is also not realistic. If the only options on offer are forest protection or development at their expense (plantations, for instance, or mines and agriculture) then most people will, naturally, choose the latter.</p>

<p>Where governance is weak and people are poor, forests will not survive unless conservation engages with the process of development, rather than opposes it.</p>

<p>Current efforts, then, can be seen as seeking to conserve the forests of the past. But what we need is to transition to future forested landscapes that will meet the needs of the 9.5 billion resource-hungry people expected to populate the world by 2050, as well as conserve biodiversity and ecosystem processes.</p>

<p>The binary approach of integration or segregation is thus misleading. Strictly protected areas are essential but they will have to be part of a matrix of landscape components that provide for increased prosperity and sustainability.</p>

<p>A balance between conservation and development can only be struck at a landscape &ndash; or seascape &ndash; level. This approach brings together stakeholders and aims to balance the multiple &ndash; and sometimes conflicting &ndash; objectives in a landscape or seascape.</p>

<p>It&rsquo;s mindful that local peoples&rsquo; needs and aspirations change with time. People living near forests will say their preferred future includes the continued existence of forests and therefore, biodiversity and intact ecosystems. The challenge is to achieve this alongside improvements in livelihoods.</p>

<p>Blueprints and roadmaps are useless, then, unless they reflect and satisfy local development needs. Continual learning and adaptation is needed to work with changing priorities on both the local and global scales.</p>

<p>Only once local management coalitions explicitly acknowledge trade-offs, when winners and losers are clearly identified prior to any intervention, and local peoples share a commonly agreed path to their future, can we better nurture forests.<br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p>James Douglas Langston is a PhD Candidate and Demonstrator in the Development Practice Programme at&nbsp;James Cook University.</p>


Continual learning and adaptation is needed to work with changing priorities on both the local and global scales

By: James Douglas Langston Deforestation has historically been the price of development, but the world is now going through a forest transition; since 2015, there has been net global reforestation. The pace and quality of this transition is mixed. In the world’s remaining high conservation-value forests, deforestation rates are high and poverty persists but development opportunities are within sight. These forests are mainly located in the tropical developing world and have growing human populations. Because as forest-dependent people are increasingly involved in cash economies , they use their forests to participate in markets. This will inevitably lead to changes in forests. But can these transitions be nurtured so that future forest landscapes deliver the biodiversity and ecosystem benefits that societies need or desire? Human interference It’s not that the world’s remaining forests are pristine and untouched. Humans have shaped and domesticated the remote Amazonian and Bornean and Congo Basin forests for millennia; all forests are the result of human actions. Humans have shaped and domesticated the remote Amazonian and Bornean and Congo Basin forests for millennia; all forests are the result of human actions × But as development pressures and the rate of globalisation increase, and as market and cash economies spread, changes in forests are intensifying. Forest clearance and disturbance has seen biodiversity decline and ecosystems suffer. Conservationists typically respond to this in one of two ways. They either tackle the threat head on and try to counter it (classic threat-based conservation). Or they hand over forest management to local people (community-based forestry). This latter is a recent popular trend and it’s based on the assumption that locals will take care of biodiversity. But neither threat-based conservation nor local management has proven successful for preserving forests. Tropical forests are still subject to high deforestation rates in less developed countries and conservationists lament the ongoing decline in biodiversity and ecosystems. These forests are home to many thousands of people, who often have few economic opportunities. What is their future; what will happen to their forests; and where do they fit in future strategies for conservation? Romance vs making a living Some conservationists assume that forests will be preserved by forest-dependent people because they’re content with their “traditional lifestyles”, disconnected from cash economies and living in romanticised sustainable communities. And rights groups point out that people living in forests often have insecure land rights, lack freedoms and power, and are victims of land grabs by companies and governments. They say fixing these requires handing forests completely over to local communities. Under the influence of their assumptions, rights-based and conservation groups both argue – perhaps implicitly – that communities, given the opportunity, will manage forests in a sustainable way. Recently, even “green-black” alliances, where conservation groups and Indigenous rights groups collaborate over shared goals, have been shown to be problematic. Indigenous groups and local communities may not manage their forests to conserve biodiversity or, for that matter, the climate change mitigation values of the forests. In spite of the lack of evidence that local management will lead to conservation, development organisations, NGOs and governments have mobilised vast sums of money to turn the management of lands over to local people. But a slew of recent articles explains why local management is not a panacea. In general, forests managed by local people will only deliver benefits when this doesn’t conflict with short-term economic interests × Communities and indigenous people would, of course, like to see forests, nature and biodiversity - and in abundance. But their priority, like that of most people, is improving their own well-being and that of their children. This means making choices. Data from Indonesia, the Congo Basin and Brazil show that, in general, forests managed by local people will only deliver benefits when this doesn’t conflict with short-term economic interests. Realistic forest futures To local people, tackling threats to forests is seen as opposing development and will continue to fail. Opposing new roads in areas where people are deprived of development opportunities, for instance, is clearly not a viable way forward. Where governance is weak and people are poor, forests will not survive unless conservation engages with the process of development, rather than opposes it × But the alternative strategy of handing management over to local people in the hope that they will protect biodiversity is also not realistic. If the only options on offer are forest protection or development at their expense (plantations, for instance, or mines and agriculture) then most people will, naturally, choose the latter. Where governance is weak and people are poor, forests will not survive unless conservation engages with the process of development, rather than opposes it. Current efforts, then, can be seen as seeking to conserve the forests of the past. But what we need is to transition to future forested landscapes that will meet the needs of the 9.5 billion resource-hungry people expected to populate the world by 2050, as well as conserve biodiversity and ecosystem processes. The binary approach of integration or segregation is thus misleading. Strictly protected areas are essential but they will have to be part of a matrix of landscape components that provide for increased prosperity and sustainability. A balance between conservation and development can only be struck at a landscape – or seascape – level. This approach brings together stakeholders and aims to balance the multiple – and sometimes conflicting – objectives in a landscape or seascape. It’s mindful that local peoples’ needs and aspirations change with time. People living near forests will say their preferred future includes the continued existence of forests and therefore, biodiversity and intact ecosystems. The challenge is to achieve this alongside improvements in livelihoods. Blueprints and roadmaps are useless, then, unless they reflect and satisfy local development needs. Continual learning and adaptation is needed to work with changing priorities on both the local and global scales. Only once local management coalitions explicitly acknowledge trade-offs, when winners and losers are clearly identified prior to any intervention, and local peoples share a commonly agreed path to their future, can we better nurture forests. James Douglas Langston is a PhD Candidate and Demonstrator in the Development Practice Programme at James Cook University.

To conserve forests, we need to think beyond current ideas of integration or segregation

<p>The popular belief of diminishing per capita water availability, due to the burgeoning population, has been driving the water governance paradigms in the developing world, including South Asia. Governments, therefore, with the concern of feeding the burgeoning population, as also to meet the urban water needs, have resorted to large-scale diversionary projects in the form of large dams, water transfers, and other forms of structural interventions over water. From the 1920s to 1960s, the USA and the EU showed this path to the rest of the world.</p>

<p>The Hoover Dam, Central Arizona Project, the Tennessee Valley Project, etc bore ample testimony of structural engineering excellence that intervened over hydrological flows. Such large constructions in the developed world gained instant popularity as they brought water to drier parts of a nation, generated hydropower, helped agricultural expansion, resolved drinking water problems, and were projected by populist governments as &ldquo;harbingers of progress&rdquo;.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Developing and underdeveloped world followed suit. In large parts of the developing world, in which South Asia prominently features, it was the British who brought the engineering knowledge to govern waters. But, over time, the perception of water governance changed in the developed world, with US and EU being the pioneers in this domain. A deeper thinking made them realise that water conflicts, more often than not, have been results of this constructionist paradigm.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Around 500 dams have been decommissioned in the US and Europe in the 1990s, noting the extensive ecosystem damages and potential for conflicts.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Around 500 dams have been decommissioned in the US and Europe in the 1990s, noting the extensive ecosystem damages and potential for conflicts. " target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Environmentalists have been vocal about the livelihoods problems that have been an outcome of the ecosystem damage through the losses in ecosystem services. This led to a trend in the western world to decommission dams. Around 500 dams have been decommissioned in the US and Europe in the 1990s, noting the extensive ecosystem damages and potential for conflicts. Rehabilitation and livelihoods losses even during the construction phases have been sources of social conflict, the costs of which are often not taken into consideration while carrying out impact assessment.&nbsp;</p>

<p>However, this realisation hardly dawns on the developing world. Agricultural expansion during the last century has caused widespread changes in land cover, watercourses, and aquifers, thereby degrading ecosystems, and restricting their ability to support some services including food provisioning. Ecosystem services are the services provided by the ecosystem to the human community free of cost, for e.g. food, fish, water, carbon sequestration, micro-climate regulation, tourism, etc.</p>

<p>As per the <i>Millennium Ecosystem Assessment</i>, food provisioning is one of the critical provisioning services of the ecosystem. It has now been realised that the poor depend more on these ecosystem services, than their incomes. Therefore, the ecosystem services have also been classified as &ldquo;GDP of the poor&rdquo;.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>It has now been realised that the poor depend more on these ecosystem services, therefore, the ecosystem services have also been classified as &ldquo;GDP of the poor&rdquo;.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=It has now been realised that the poor depend more on these ecosystem services, therefore, the ecosystem services have also been classified as ?GDP of the poor?." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>In the developing world, the management policy of many agro-ecosystems has essentially been based on the premise that they are delinked from the broader landscape. There has been scant recognition of the ecological components and the processes that support the sustainability of such agro-ecosystems. As a result, the carrying capacity of the ecosystem has been defied by traditional agricultural and water management regimes. Some ecosystems, therefore, were made to cross the ecological thresholds, leading to a regime change in the ecosystem and their concomitant services. The resultant reduction in the ecosystem&rsquo;s resilience also restricts the sustainability of its food provisioning service.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, beyond a point, even the water supply augmentation plans (through dam constructions), and land-use change (through bringing more land under agriculture by cutting down forests or filling wetlands), do not work and can have a negative impact on food security, with the impacts intensified by climate change. Interventions on hydrological flows and concomitant large-scale land-use change have intervened into the ecosystem functioning, thereby impeding on the ecosystem services.&nbsp;</p>

<p><b>The Reductionist Engineering Paradigm</b></p>

<p>While South Asia and large parts of developing world still adhere to its archaic notions of water resource development, entirely based on the reductionist engineering paradigm, this paradigm is an integral component of the colonial legacy being introduced and formalised under colonial capitalism in South Asia leading to a &lsquo;metabolic rift&rsquo; between human and nature.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The British engineers, who brought their European engineering knowledge to its colonies, hardly had any idea of the rivers of South Asia, like the Ganges and Brahmaputra. The hydrographs of most European rivers were almost horizontal lines, hardly revealing any seasonal pattern. There is definitely no concept of &ldquo;drought&rdquo; (or lean season flow) and &ldquo;floods&rdquo; (peak flow) in this paradigm of &ldquo;arithmetic hydrology&rdquo;. When monsoon occurred in the Indian sub-continent, and submerged the Ganges or the Cauvery floodplains at its own usual wont, it was thought of as an aberration, and not an integral component of the global eco-hydrological cycle, as this understanding existed among the engineers.</p>

<p>Therefore, most &lsquo;structural&rsquo; interventions in the colonial and post-colonial era were conceived of from the perspective of irrigation, and to a smaller extent, hydropower. Hardly these designs took into consideration the concerns of a) eco-hydrology, treating floods and droughts as integral components of the eco-hydrological cycle; b) hydro-meteorology, understanding the relation between meteorological variables and extreme events; c) seismic science, making the structures resistant to earthquakes, and d) sediment science, and understanding that water and sediment flow together. European rivers, unlike The Ganges-Brahmaputra in India, or the Yellow river in China hardly carried sediments. The British hardly understood that sediments have important ecosystem functions like soil formation, and enhancing soil fertility.&nbsp;</p>

<p><b>The Changing paradigm</b></p>

<p>However, the global paradigm for water governance is changing. It is increasingly felt that water management should not be irrigation-centric, but the river basin should be the unit of management. In the present age of <i>anthropocene</i>, where humans dictate the pathways for biodiversity, it is increasingly felt that conservation is no more an ethical or a normative concern based on our ingrained value system. Rather, it is a very selfish human need.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The global paradigm for water governance is changing. It is increasingly felt that water management should not be irrigation-centric, but the river basin should be the unit of management</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The global paradigm for water governance is changing. It is increasingly felt that water management should not be irrigation-centric, but the river basin should be the unit of management" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Humans realise that only with adequate conservation mechanisms of the ecosystem, the sustainability of the human society, polity, and business can be ensured. Demand management of water leading to keeping water in-stream is more beneficial from ecological and economic perspectives, given their important roles in providing food security and ecological sustainability. The bigger concern is always with downstream impacts. The way Central Arizona Project in US destroyed the paddy fields of the coastal Mexico, and the Farakka barrage destroyed the Indian Sundarbans Delta are cases in point.&nbsp;</p>

<p><b>Way forward</b></p>

<p>There is no doubt that the water governance policy narrative has to change globally. But, there have to be region-specific alternatives. EU and USA have gone ahead with understanding their priorities, but neither sediment, nor floods have really been the cases of concern for them as they have been for China and India. But EU and USA have shown to the developing world that demand management with basin as the unit of governance (also known as Integrated River Basin Management or IRBM) has to replace the age-old constructionist regime. A similar principle has to be in place for developing world, but a different set of knowledge base needs to be created for these principles being in place. China has developed its own set of ecologically informed engineering while designing its dam on Yangtze. The design helps in flood control, and also uses the peak flow to use the sediments effectively for downstream floodplain cultivation. India also needs to develop similar knowledge on fluvial geomorphology, by understanding sediments, floods, hydraulics, and seismic science. IRBM needs to be the new global pledge on this World Conservation Day.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p>


Based on reductionist engineering paradigm, current water resource development plans delink humans and nature

The popular belief of diminishing per capita water availability, due to the burgeoning population, has been driving the water governance paradigms in the developing world, including South Asia. Governments, therefore, with the concern of feeding the burgeoning population, as also to meet the urban water needs, have resorted to large-scale diversionary projects in the form of large dams, water transfers, and other forms of structural interventions over water. From the 1920s to 1960s, the USA and the EU showed this path to the rest of the world. The Hoover Dam, Central Arizona Project, the Tennessee Valley Project, etc bore ample testimony of structural engineering excellence that intervened over hydrological flows. Such large constructions in the developed world gained instant popularity as they brought water to drier parts of a nation, generated hydropower, helped agricultural expansion, resolved drinking water problems, and were projected by populist governments as “harbingers of progress”. Developing and underdeveloped world followed suit. In large parts of the developing world, in which South Asia prominently features, it was the British who brought the engineering knowledge to govern waters. But, over time, the perception of water governance changed in the developed world, with US and EU being the pioneers in this domain. A deeper thinking made them realise that water conflicts, more often than not, have been results of this constructionist paradigm. Around 500 dams have been decommissioned in the US and Europe in the 1990s, noting the extensive ecosystem damages and potential for conflicts. × Environmentalists have been vocal about the livelihoods problems that have been an outcome of the ecosystem damage through the losses in ecosystem services. This led to a trend in the western world to decommission dams. Around 500 dams have been decommissioned in the US and Europe in the 1990s, noting the extensive ecosystem damages and potential for conflicts. Rehabilitation and livelihoods losses even during the construction phases have been sources of social conflict, the costs of which are often not taken into consideration while carrying out impact assessment. However, this realisation hardly dawns on the developing world. Agricultural expansion during the last century has caused widespread changes in land cover, watercourses, and aquifers, thereby degrading ecosystems, and restricting their ability to support some services including food provisioning. Ecosystem services are the services provided by the ecosystem to the human community free of cost, for e.g. food, fish, water, carbon sequestration, micro-climate regulation, tourism, etc. As per the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, food provisioning is one of the critical provisioning services of the ecosystem. It has now been realised that the poor depend more on these ecosystem services, than their incomes. Therefore, the ecosystem services have also been classified as “GDP of the poor”. It has now been realised that the poor depend more on these ecosystem services, therefore, the ecosystem services have also been classified as “GDP of the poor”. × In the developing world, the management policy of many agro-ecosystems has essentially been based on the premise that they are delinked from the broader landscape. There has been scant recognition of the ecological components and the processes that support the sustainability of such agro-ecosystems. As a result, the carrying capacity of the ecosystem has been defied by traditional agricultural and water management regimes. Some ecosystems, therefore, were made to cross the ecological thresholds, leading to a regime change in the ecosystem and their concomitant services. The resultant reduction in the ecosystem’s resilience also restricts the sustainability of its food provisioning service. Unfortunately, beyond a point, even the water supply augmentation plans (through dam constructions), and land-use change (through bringing more land under agriculture by cutting down forests or filling wetlands), do not work and can have a negative impact on food security, with the impacts intensified by climate change. Interventions on hydrological flows and concomitant large-scale land-use change have intervened into the ecosystem functioning, thereby impeding on the ecosystem services. The Reductionist Engineering Paradigm While South Asia and large parts of developing world still adhere to its archaic notions of water resource development, entirely based on the reductionist engineering paradigm, this paradigm is an integral component of the colonial legacy being introduced and formalised under colonial capitalism in South Asia leading to a ‘metabolic rift’ between human and nature. The British engineers, who brought their European engineering knowledge to its colonies, hardly had any idea of the rivers of South Asia, like the Ganges and Brahmaputra. The hydrographs of most European rivers were almost horizontal lines, hardly revealing any seasonal pattern. There is definitely no concept of “drought” (or lean season flow) and “floods” (peak flow) in this paradigm of “arithmetic hydrology”. When monsoon occurred in the Indian sub-continent, and submerged the Ganges or the Cauvery floodplains at its own usual wont, it was thought of as an aberration, and not an integral component of the global eco-hydrological cycle, as this understanding existed among the engineers. Therefore, most ‘structural’ interventions in the colonial and post-colonial era were conceived of from the perspective of irrigation, and to a smaller extent, hydropower. Hardly these designs took into consideration the concerns of a) eco-hydrology, treating floods and droughts as integral components of the eco-hydrological cycle; b) hydro-meteorology, understanding the relation between meteorological variables and extreme events; c) seismic science, making the structures resistant to earthquakes, and d) sediment science, and understanding that water and sediment flow together. European rivers, unlike The Ganges-Brahmaputra in India, or the Yellow river in China hardly carried sediments. The British hardly understood that sediments have important ecosystem functions like soil formation, and enhancing soil fertility. The Changing paradigm However, the global paradigm for water governance is changing. It is increasingly felt that water management should not be irrigation-centric, but the river basin should be the unit of management. In the present age of anthropocene, where humans dictate the pathways for biodiversity, it is increasingly felt that conservation is no more an ethical or a normative concern based on our ingrained value system. Rather, it is a very selfish human need. The global paradigm for water governance is changing. It is increasingly felt that water management should not be irrigation-centric, but the river basin should be the unit of management × Humans realise that only with adequate conservation mechanisms of the ecosystem, the sustainability of the human society, polity, and business can be ensured. Demand management of water leading to keeping water in-stream is more beneficial from ecological and economic perspectives, given their important roles in providing food security and ecological sustainability. The bigger concern is always with downstream impacts. The way Central Arizona Project in US destroyed the paddy fields of the coastal Mexico, and the Farakka barrage destroyed the Indian Sundarbans Delta are cases in point. Way forward There is no doubt that the water governance policy narrative has to change globally. But, there have to be region-specific alternatives. EU and USA have gone ahead with understanding their priorities, but neither sediment, nor floods have really been the cases of concern for them as they have been for China and India. But EU and USA have shown to the developing world that demand management with basin as the unit of governance (also known as Integrated River Basin Management or IRBM) has to replace the age-old constructionist regime. A similar principle has to be in place for developing world, but a different set of knowledge base needs to be created for these principles being in place. China has developed its own set of ecologically informed engineering while designing its dam on Yangtze. The design helps in flood control, and also uses the peak flow to use the sediments effectively for downstream floodplain cultivation. India also needs to develop similar knowledge on fluvial geomorphology, by understanding sediments, floods, hydraulics, and seismic science. IRBM needs to be the new global pledge on this World Conservation Day.

The liquid mosaic: A pledge for water on the World Conservation Day

<p>According to the World Bank, 59% world&rsquo;s trash is dumped in landfills- out of which almost half is comprised of organic waste. The world&rsquo;s population currently stands at 7.5 billion which adds on to the pressure of waste disposal systems, every year.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Tackling this issue, several countries have started rewarding its citizens for recycling the waste they produce. Some of the most cool ones are:&nbsp;</p>

<ul>
	<li><strong>Australia</strong></li>
</ul>

<p>The city of Sydney launched a trial of two reverse vending machines that gives out rewards for recycling empty plastic bottles and cans. The rewards range from anything like a bus ticket, to a draw to receive passes to the New Year&rsquo;s Eve fireworks and so on.&nbsp;</p>

<ul>
	<li><strong>Bangkok</strong></li>
</ul>

<p>The country&rsquo;s Bangkok Recycling Program (BRP) is an incentive-based program which brings together communities, local authorities and businesses to work towards a sustainable future. They have a performance tracking system for all recycling efforts.&nbsp;</p>

<ul>
	<li><strong>Brazil</strong></li>
</ul>

<p>The city of Curitiba have a recycling plan called &lsquo;Garbage that is not garbage&rsquo;, which encourages its citizens to recycle their trash. It rewards citizens with food, books, bus tickets for separating their organic and non-organic waste for waste management systems.&nbsp;</p>

<ul>
	<li><strong>Singapore</strong></li>
</ul>

<p>The country has an online recycling rewards programme called &lsquo;Grow Your Recycling Incentives Now&rsquo; which collects recyclable trash from flat and property owners in return for redemption points. Every kilogram of recyclable material collected can be used to redeem retail privileges or sponsored gifts. &nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/reco-20161027071800.JPG" />
<div class="media-description">
<p>PET bottle recycling in Singapore (Others)</p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<ul>
	<li><strong>Sweden</strong></li>
</ul>

<p>Leading the charge for recycling its waste, Sweden&rsquo;s less than 1% household waste ends up in landfills. They follow a waste-to-energy process which utilises its waste by segregating into hazardous and recyclable type. It is then sent to waste management systems to produce energy. Sweden currently imports almost 800,000 tons of waste from neighbouring countries to process it into energy.&nbsp;</p>

<ul>
	<li><strong>The United States</strong></li>
</ul>

<p>The program Cans for Cash organises a contest encouraging municipalities across the nation to promote recycling practices within communities. The program offers cash prizes ranging from $5,000 to $10,000 for communities with the best efforts.</p>

<ul>
	<li><strong>United Kingdom</strong></li>
</ul>

<p>Local governments help families recycle by offering incentives like cash prizes and shopping vouchers. In Dover and Shepway, they have introduced a &lsquo;reverse vending machine&rsquo; that distributes rewards in exchange for recycling.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(Contributed by: Zeba Khan)</em></p>


Cash prizes, shopping vouchers and loyalty points are just some ways the countries have started rewarding its citizens for recycling trash

According to the World Bank, 59% world’s trash is dumped in landfills- out of which almost half is comprised of organic waste. The world’s population currently stands at 7.5 billion which adds on to the pressure of waste disposal systems, every year. Tackling this issue, several countries have started rewarding its citizens for recycling the waste they produce. Some of the most cool ones are: Australia The city of Sydney launched a trial of two reverse vending machines that gives out rewards for recycling empty plastic bottles and cans. The rewards range from anything like a bus ticket, to a draw to receive passes to the New Year’s Eve fireworks and so on. Bangkok The country’s Bangkok Recycling Program (BRP) is an incentive-based program which brings together communities, local authorities and businesses to work towards a sustainable future. They have a performance tracking system for all recycling efforts. Brazil The city of Curitiba have a recycling plan called ‘Garbage that is not garbage’, which encourages its citizens to recycle their trash. It rewards citizens with food, books, bus tickets for separating their organic and non-organic waste for waste management systems. Singapore The country has an online recycling rewards programme called ‘Grow Your Recycling Incentives Now’ which collects recyclable trash from flat and property owners in return for redemption points. Every kilogram of recyclable material collected can be used to redeem retail privileges or sponsored gifts. PET bottle recycling in Singapore (Others) × Sweden Leading the charge for recycling its waste, Sweden’s less than 1% household waste ends up in landfills. They follow a waste-to-energy process which utilises its waste by segregating into hazardous and recyclable type. It is then sent to waste management systems to produce energy. Sweden currently imports almost 800,000 tons of waste from neighbouring countries to process it into energy. The United States The program Cans for Cash organises a contest encouraging municipalities across the nation to promote recycling practices within communities. The program offers cash prizes ranging from $5,000 to $10,000 for communities with the best efforts. United Kingdom Local governments help families recycle by offering incentives like cash prizes and shopping vouchers. In Dover and Shepway, they have introduced a ‘reverse vending machine’ that distributes rewards in exchange for recycling. (Contributed by: Zeba Khan)

How countries around the world reward their citizens for recycling

conservation

Conservation, News on Conservation, stories on Conservation, articles on Conservation, Conservation stories at Wion, Conservation news, Conservation latest news