Posted on December 6th 2011 in videos
Posted on December 6th 2011 in videos
An international effort is required to protect forests in the Democratic Republic of the Congo from logging and mining
A log park in Madjoko, Bandundu, in the DRC. The country’s forests are under threat from logging and mining, and a growing population. Photograph: Kate Davison/Greenpeace/AFP/Getty Images
This week the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) votes on its future, with many in the country nervous about the outcome. Meanwhile in Durban, delegates are meeting to try to resolve our collective future, by finding a way to tackle global climate change. As a Congolese citizen fighting to protect the forests that millions of us call home, there is a great deal at stake in the coming weeks.
For those of us who rely on forests for everything, the key to a better future is clear – we must protect our homes from the march of the logging companies, before it is too late. To us, this is not a fuzzy, distant debate about the future of big-name treaties. Forests are crucial to climate protection because they store huge amounts of carbon dioxide and emit it when they’re destroyed. But this is also a human rights and development issue about how we as citizens can use our resources to build a better future. To do that, we need an international effort to protect our forests, and a government that manages them in the interest of the people who live there.
All this could happen if the right decisions are made in the next few weeks. An international framework to pay developing countries to protect their forests has been set up – it is known as Reducing Emissions through Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+), and is based on providing financial support to forest protection initiatives in-country, to bring those who live in forests into the conversation about how they’re used. There are many such projects in DRC, which is the second most densely forested area in the world, and great things are expected from REDD+ here. But the scheme will only work if donors provide the money they have promised, set up solid oversight mechanisms to make it work, and ensure the money is not lost to corruption. This is what needs to happen in Durban.
There are threats to DRC’s forests on many fronts. First, a growing population, a large majority of whom live in poverty, have opened up tracts of forest land for agriculture, often using damaging slash and burn methods. Additionally, here in North Kivu, local people are reliant on charcoal for cooking, the production of which has obvious consequences for forests.
Another threat comes from the multinational mining and oil exploration firms seeking to open up the country’s mineral-rich interior. A British oil company, SOCO International Plc, recently conducted surveys in theVirunga national park in this province, a Unesco world heritage site that supports the livelihoods of more than 3 million people. DRC is incredibly rich in natural resources – their exploitation must be managed in a way that benefits the Congolese, and doesn’t just line the pockets of companies.
Unfortunately, this is not the case when it comes to our forests. Industrial logging is opening up new areas of previously untouched forest. Amoratorium on new logging contracts was imposed in 2002, while a World Bank sponsored review of existing concessions took place. The ban was not respected, and the bank did not bother to speak to the people the forests belong to, but the process is currently being rushed to a conclusion, with several logging firms a week having their contracts renewed. The people who live in DRC’s forests have benefited very little from the exploitation and destruction of their homes, and social agreements signed by companies in the past have provided little more than gifts for local chiefs.
For some communities, this rush for our resources has had even harsher consequences. Following a dispute after one logging company reportedly failed to build a school in an area called Yalisika, the company was then accused of facilitating a police intervention that resulted in numerous accusations of rape, attempted rape, assault and even the death of one man. A formal court case is ongoing, and we hope this will reveal the truth in due course.
Industrial logging by large multinational corporations is not the only way forward. My organisation is lobbying for a new law that would allow communities to manage and preserve their own forests, a solution that would be good for them and good for the world’s climate. REDD+ funds could provide the means to support this kind of project, as well as projects to replant deforested areas, and to promote more efficient agriculture and reduce the need to open up new tracts of land.
There is a lot of talk about another big letdown in Durban. However, if REDD+ works, it could give people who live in the forests more of a say in how they are managed. This is an issue that matters now, to real people, in very difficult situations. Next week we will find out if global leaders can find the resources to make it work.
Posted on November 30th 2011 in News flash
Zookeepers have been warned to increase security after a conservation group declared Africa’s Western Black Rhino extinct and two subspecies at high risk.
A central African northern white rhino (Ceratotherium simum cottoni) is listed as “possibly extinct in the wild” Photo: ALAMY
The International Union for Conservation of Nature, which publishes an annual ‘red list’ of endangered species, said the Western Black Rhino could soon be joined by the Northern White Rhino of central Africa which is “possibly extinct” and the Javan Rhino which is “probably extinct.” Though overall numbers of black and white rhinos have increased, the three subspecies are particularly vulnerable owing* to a lack of political will in their habitats and poachers who target their valuable horns which are used in Asian medicine.
Simon Stuart, from the Union, said: “You’ve got to imagine an animal walking around with a gold horn. That’s what you’re looking at, that’s the value and that’s why you need incredibly high security.” Europol, the European Union’s criminal intelligence agency, says an organised gang is probably behind a spate of robberies in European zoos, auction houses, antique dealers and private collectors.
One zoo near Paris, France, has heeded the warning to protect its white rhinos for fear of them being butchered in their pens.
“Their enclosures are under surveillance by cameras and staff who make regular rounds,” said Paul de la Panouse, owner of Thoiry Wildlife Park.
Authorities in Vienna, Austria, are also hunting an Irish and British gang which has carried out rhino horn snatches worth £130,000.
CCTV caught two members fleeing a taxidermist’s shop in the Vienna, Austria, with a stolen horn bought at an auction house by the shop owner on the previous day.
Earlier, two suspected-English men stole a 35in horn worth £100,000 from the same auctioneers. The horn, weighing nearly a stone, was taken off a white rhino shot in Sudan in the 1930s.
Posted on November 11th 2011 in News flash
Hi Folks,
We are very excited to announce the launch of our new African Wildlife Conservation Fundwebsite. This has been designed by Robin Bijlani – a wonderful designer and extremely kind person who has put together the most brilliant new website for us.
Please check it out by clicking on this link or visiting www.africanwildlifeconservationfund.org
You will be able to read about all the different projects that AWCF is involved in (not just wild dogs!), see profiles of all the team members, get links to other great sites and have the opportunity to buy great wildlife art and make donations to any of the projects.
Do go and have a look, and please pass on the URL to friends and contacts who may be interested.
Please also check out and ‘like’ our new Facebook page and follow us on twitter – @AWCF_ORG. Here you can keep up to date on the happenings on the ground and follow interesting stories as they happen.
Thanks again for all the support,
Rosemary.
Posted on November 8th 2011 in News flash
Conservancy freshwater scientist Jeff Opperman and his eight-year-old son Luca give a tour of their homemade science project that demonstrates the connection between healthy natural lands and a reliable supply of clean water for people.
Posted on March 22nd 2011 in videos
Tokyo considers halting Antarctic mission, blaming Sea Shepherd conservation group for obstructing fleet’s mother ship
Japanese whaling fleet’s mother ship, the Nisshin Maru, seen from Sea Shepherd vessel the Bob Barker. Photograph: Sam Sielen/AFP/Getty Images
Japan has temporarily suspended its annual whale hunt in the Antarctic after anti-whaling activists obstructed its fleet’s mother ship.
Officials in Tokyo have conceded that this year’s mission, which had again been the target of international criticism, had not gone as well as hoped and the fleet may be called home early, according to reports.
Tatsuya Nakaoku, a fisheries agency official, said the decision was taken after the mother ship, the Nisshin Maru, was “harassed” by members of the marine conservation group Sea Shepherd.
“Putting a priority on safety, the fleet has halted scientific whaling for now,” he said. “We are currently considering what to do next.”
Reports said the government was considering halting the expedition entirely well before its scheduled end in mid-March.
Sea Shepherd described this year’s campaign as its most successful yet. “I see victory on the horizon,” a spokesman for the group, Peter Hammarstedt, told ABC News in Australia.
“I think certainly our actions down there have contributed to them possibly calling off their season early.”
The Japanese fleet is thought to have killed between 30 and 100 whales – a fraction of its quota – since it arrived in Antarctic whaling grounds late last year.
The Sea Shepherd’s vessel, the Bob Barker, located the fleet as soon as it arrived and has been pursuing the Nisshin Maru as it heads towards the Antarctic peninsula below South America. The harpoon ships are unable to kill whales unless the mother ship is there to process them.
Japanese broadcaster TBS said the government believed the situation had become “so dangerous” that it had no choice but to suspend the hunt and recall the fleet.
“If the government does call back the fleet it would mean giving in to anti-whaling activists,” the broadcaster said.
Japan is one of three countries that continue to hunt whales – the others are Norway and Iceland – despite opposition from environmental campaigners and countries including Australia and New Zealand.
Latin American members of the International Whaling Commission recently urged Japan to end its scientific hunts and respect whale sanctuaries.
Australia, meanwhile, has filed a complaint with the international court of justice in the Hague in an attempt to get the hunts banned. A decision is expected in 2013 or later.
Under a provision in the IWC’s 1986 ban on commercial whaling, Japan is permitted to kill around 1,000 whales in the Southern Ocean every year for what it calls scientific research.
This year the fleet, comprising four ships and 180 crew members, had planned to kill about 900 minke and 50 fin whales.
But the whalers have been hampered in recent years by clashes with Sea Shepherd activists. Last year they returned to port with 506 minke whales, far fewer than their intended haul.
Posted on February 19th 2011 in News flash
The idea of conservation credits is now being pushed hard by government. Can it work?
Bluebells at dawn, Micheldever Woods, near Winchester, Hampshire. Photograph: Guy Edwardes/Solent News
How much is a bluebell worth? Or a rabbit-riddled down? Or a walk through a squelchy marsh buzzing with birds? Or the nation’s population of otters?
These are the tough questions that need to answered if biodiversityoffsets – also called conservation credits – are to help stop the inexorable decline of the UK’s natural environment. The prime minister, David Cameron, and the Conservative party are enthusiastic, as we reported previously. The Conservative election manifesto (p96) said: “We will pioneer a new system of conservation credits to protect habitats.”
Now the one thing everyone agrees on is that the current protections for nature and wildlife in the UK are not working. Creatures and plants are vanishing forever every year and developers are eating up land piece by piece.
So a seminar on conservation credits yesterday, organised by theparliamentary office of science and technology, was a very useful examination of the pros and cons. And the issue is a live one. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is now working on conservation credit proposals to go into the forthcomingNatural environment white paper (You’ll have to be quick to have your say: the deadline for comments is the end of January).
Defra’s Bronywn Jones set the scene. “The current arrangements are not working well. In particular they do not capture the cumulative effect of small losses.” She said benefits of being able to offset the destruction of habitat in one place with restored or protected habitat in another included the following: pooling credits would enable bigger, more resilient and strategically sited habitats; making the damage economically visible means it could be accounted for; a market for credits would bring forward new conservation projects.
She said the crux issue of placing a value on the lost habitat was “not to put a £ sign next to it”, but to develop a points system through which habitat types and quality could be compared. She said the responses received so far had been broadly positive and could foresee a county-scale pilot going ahead.
David Hill set up the Environment Bank Ltd to sell credits to developers. He said current on-site wildlife provisions, ie next to the new houses or factories, were “good habitats for shopping trolleys but little else”, and said he should know as he’d spent 25 years designing them. He saw the credits as a “once in a lifetime opportunity” for long-term funding for coherent habitat protection, plus income for landowners and fewer delays for developers.
Less certain was Michael Oxford, from the Association of Local Government Ecologists. Some local authorities were very keen, some very sceptical, he said. One issue “with offsetting is removing people’s connection with nature by moving it away,” he noted. “And how do you capture the value of people’s access and enjoyment?
Last to speak was environmental consultant Jo Treweek, who said it was possible to operate conservation credits well, but also to do them badly. She pointed out that even though the UK is formally committed to halting biodiversity losses, the current system, even when done well, leaves uncompensated habitat losses.
But here’s the crux: Defra is suggesting a voluntary scheme – all the other speakers insisted it must be mandatory if it is to offer real protection. If not, then it’s not a even a market for conservation credits, it’s just voluntary aid, said Hill.
As ever, money seems to be the key. The much-cited Lawton review, which found England’s nature reserves, national parks and protected areas were not providing protection, said between £600m and £1.1bn is needed to help rebuild nature in England.
The UK’s vast budget deficit means that money won’t be found, so the conservation credit idea is attractive: developers and those who buy their houses bear the costs.
But to really work, according to the experts I heard, it has to be compulsory. That appears to be an ideological leap too far for the government.
Posted on January 26th 2011 in News flash
Conservation is quite literally vital. This is a challenge that calls for serious science, serious action – and serious money
This has been the International Year of Biodiversity and a UN gathering in Nagoya, Japan, is getting under way, charged with launching a 10-year strategy to avert the collapse of fisheries, conserve the Amazon rainforest and check the spread of invasive species.
The auguries are not good. A few weeks ago, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature confirmed the capture and subsequent deathof a rare antelope from the mountains of Vietnam and Laos. This animal – Pseudoryx nghetinhensis – was discovered only in 1992 and last spotted by an automatic camera in 1999. It has, however, never been seen alive by a working zoologist. So, it has been named and pronounced critically endangered by researchers who know almost nothing about it. Researchers know a little more about the crested gibbons that live in south-east Asia. They know that there are seven species in the genus, and that one is now down to 100 individuals, and another to about 20. These species have just been declared the world’s rarest apes.
The story is no happier closer to home. In March IUCN confirmed that 9% of Europe’s 435 butterfly species and 11% of the saproxylic beetles that live in rotting wood are threatened with extinction, for the same reason that the crested gibbons could swing through the trees into oblivion: human pressure on habitat. Likewise, last year more than 1,200 bird species were classified by IUCN as threatened with extinction. Does it matter? Yes: civilisation is built on life’s diversity. We survive only on the bounty of the living world and the rocks beneath, and even coal and oil were once living things. Biodiversity delivers fuel, fibres, fabrics, all food and most medicines: it also hums away unobserved, pollinating crops and recycling the planet’s air, water and nutrients. Without the saproxylic beetles, the forests would be full of dead trees, and soon there would be no forests. So conservation is quite literally vital.
Extinction is a natural companion to evolution, but mass extinction is a dangerous strategy. Yet humans are unthinkingly obliterating the planet’s species at a rate at least 1,000 times faster than normal, unthinking because this obliteration is accompanied by massive ignorance. Around 1.9 million species have been described, but nobody knows whether the world is home to seven million of them, or 70 million. This is a challenge that calls for serious science, serious action, and of course, serious money. Will this challenge be met? Britain once led the world in such science. The word from Whitehall is that scientific research which is “not commercially useful” is at risk in today’s spending review. Such an attitude could hardly be more short-sighted, or more dangerous.
Posted on October 20th 2010 in News flash
