Download sustainable conservation/development conservation and more Lecture notes Ecology and Environment in PDF only on Docsity!
Unit 5:conservation and sustainable development Topic1: nexsus between development and biodiversity conservation: Topic2: ecological economics and biodiversity conservation: Ecological economics / eco-economics refers to both a transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary field of academic research that aims to address the interdependence and coevolution of human economies and natural ecosystems over time and space.[1]^ It is distinguished from environmental economics, which is the mainstream economic analysis of the environment, by its treatment of the economy as a subsystem of the ecosystem and its emphasis upon preserving natural capital.[2] One survey of German economists found that ecological and environmental economics are different schools of economic thought, with ecological economists emphasizing strong sustainability and rejecting the proposition that natural capital can be substituted by human-made capital.[3] Ecological economics was founded as a modern movement in the works of and interactions between various European and American academics (see the section on history and development below). The related field of green economics is, in general, a more politically applied form of the subject.[4][5] Nature and economy A simple circular flow of income diagram is replaced in ecological economics by a more complex flow diagram reflecting the input of solar energy, which sustains natural inputs and environmental services which are then used as units of production. Once consumed, natural inputs pass out of the economy as pollution and waste. The potential of an environment to provide services and materials is referred to as an "environment's source function", and this function is depleted as resources are consumed or pollution contaminates the resources. The "sink function" describes an environment's ability to absorb and render harmless waste and pollution: when waste output exceeds the limit of the sink function, long-term damage occurs. [25]:8 (^) Some persistent pollutants, such as some organic pollutants and nuclear waste are absorbed very slowly or not at all; ecological economists emphasize minimizing "cumulative pollutants". [25]:28 (^) Pollutants affect human health and the health of the climate.
Natural resources flow through the economy and end up as waste and pollution Environmental services (Ecosystem valuation and price of life): The whole idea of treating ecosystems as goods and services to be valued in monetary terms remains controversial. A common objection[ according to whom? ]^ is that life is precious or priceless, but this demonstrably degrades to it being worthless under the assumptions of any branch of economics. Reducing human bodies to financial values is a necessary part of every branch of economics and not always in the direct terms of insurance or wages. Economics, in principle, assumes that conflict is reduced by agreeing on voluntary contractual relations and prices instead of simply fighting or coercing or tricking others into providing goods or services. In doing so, a provider agrees to surrender time and take bodily risks and other (reputation, financial) risks. Ecosystems are no different from other bodies economically except insofar as they are far less replaceable than typical labour or commodities. Despite these issues, many ecologists and conservation biologists are pursuing ecosystem valuation. Biodiversity measures in particular appear to be the most promising way to reconcile financial and ecological values, and there are many active efforts in this regard. The growing field of biodiversity finance[56]^ began to emerge in 2008 in response to many specific proposals such as the Ecuadoran Yasuni proposal[57][58]^ or similar ones in the Congo. US news outlets treated the stories as a "threat"[59]^ to "drill a park"[60]^ reflecting a previously dominant view that NGOs and governments had the primary responsibility to protect ecosystems. However Peter Barnes and other commentators have recently argued that a guardianship/trustee/commons model is far more effective and takes the decisions out of the political realm. Topic3: sustainable conservation: Integrated conservation and development conservation:
Mount Elgon, Uganda Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzanla Kilim Ijum, Cameroon Ostional Wildlife Refuge, Costa Rica Projects funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) For ICDPs to be successful Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) systems need to be institutionalized and unnecessary data needs to be avoided. Topic4 ecotourism : Principles and sustainability of ecotourism: Ecotourism is a form of tourism involving visiting fragile, pristine, and relatively undisturbed natural areas, intended as a low-impact and often small scale alternative to standard commercial (mass) tourism. Its purpose may be to educate the traveler, to provide funds for ecological conservation, to directly benefit the economic development and political empowerment of local communities, or to foster respect for different cultures and for human rights. Since the 1980s ecotourism has been considered a critical endeavor by environmentalists, so that future generations may experience destinations relatively untouched by human intervention.[1]^ Several university programs use this description as the working definition of ecotourism.[2] Generally, ecotourism deals with living parts of the natural environments.[3]^ Ecotourism focuses on socially responsible travel, personal growth, and environmental sustainability. Ecotourism typically involves travel to destinations where flora, fauna, and cultural heritage are the primary attractions. Ecotourism is intended to offer tourists insight into the impact of human beings on the environment, and to foster a greater appreciation of our natural habitats. Criteria (principles) Ecotourism is a form of tourism that involves visiting natural areas—in the remote wilderness or rural environments. According to the definition and principles of ecotourism established by The International Ecotourism Society (TIES) in 1990, ecotourism is "Responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people." (TIES, 1990). Martha Honey, expands on the TIES definition by describing the seven characteristics of ecotourism, which are: Involves travel to natural destinations Minimizes impact Builds environmental awareness Provides direct financial benefits for conservation
Provides financial benefits and empowerment for local people Respects local culture Supports human rights and democratic movements[7][8][9]^ such as: conservation of biological diversity and cultural diversity through ecosystem protection promotion of sustainable use of biodiversity, by providing jobs to local populations sharing of all socio-economic benefits with local communities and indigenous peoples by having their informed consent and participation in the management of ecotourism enterprises tourism to unspoiled natural resources, with minimal impact on the environment being a primary concern. minimization of tourism's own environmental impact affordability and lack of waste in the form of luxury local culture, flora and fauna being the main attractions local people benefit from this form of tourism economically, often more than mass tourism Improving sustainability Regulation and accreditation Because the regulation of ecotourism may be poorly implemented or nonexistent, ecologically destructive greenwashed operations like underwater hotels, helicopter tours, and wildlife theme parks can be categorized as ecotourism along with canoeing, camping, photography, and wildlife observation. The failure to acknowledge responsible, low-impact ecotourism puts legitimate ecotourism companies at a competitive disadvantage. Many environmentalists have argued for a global standard of accreditation, differentiating ecotourism companies based on their level of environmental commitment. A national or international regulatory board would enforce accreditation procedures, with representation from various groups including governments, hotels, tour operators, travel agents, guides, airlines, local authorities, conservation organizations, and non-governmental organizations.[20]^ The decisions of the board would be sanctioned by governments, so that non-compliant companies would be legally required to disassociate themselves from the use of the ecotourism brand. Crinion suggests a Green Stars System, based on criteria including a management plan, benefit for the local community, small group interaction, education value and staff training.[11] Ecotourists who consider their choices would be confident of a genuine ecotourism experience when they see the higher star rating.
social and economic benefits for local communities, minimum negative impacts on cultural heritage, and minimum negative impacts on the environment." (Clarkin and Kähler, p. 423) Wildfife tourism: Wildlife tourism can be an eco and animal friendly tourism, usually showing animals in their natural habitat. Wildlife tourism, in its simplest sense, is watching wild animals in their natural habitat. Wildlife tourism is an important part of the tourism industries in many countries including many African and South American countries, Australia, India, Canada, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Maldives among many. It has experienced a dramatic and rapid growth in recent years worldwide and is closely aligned to eco-tourism and sustainable- tourism. Negative impacts Wildlife tourism can cause significant disturbances to animals in their natural habitats. The growing interest in traveling to developing countries has created a boom in resort and hotel construction, particularly on rain forest and mangrove forest lands. Wildlife viewing can scare away animals, disrupt their feeding and nesting sites, or acclimate them to the presence of people. In Kenya, for example, wildlife-observer disruption drives cheetahs off their reserves, increasing the risk of inbreeding and further endangering the species.
Direct impacts
The effect that wildlife tourism will have on wildlife depends on the scale of tourist development and the behavior and resilience of wildlife to the presence of humans. When tourists activities occur during sensitive times of the life cycle (for example, during nesting season), and when they involve close approaches to wildlife for the purpose of identification or photography, the potential for disturbance is high. Not all species appear to be disturbed by tourists even within heavily visited areas.
Disturbing breeding patterns
The pressures of tourists searching out wildlife to photograph or hunt can adversely affect hunting and feeding patterns, and the breeding success of some species. Some may even have long-term implications for behavioral and ecological relationships. For example, an increase in boat traffic has disturbed the feeding of giant otters in Manú National Park, Peru. Further disturbance to wildlife occurs when tourist guides dig up turtle nests and chase swimming jaguars, tapirs, and otters to give clients better viewing opportunities. On the shores of Lake Kariba in Zimbabwe, the number of tourist boats and the noise generated as disrupted the feeding and drinking patterns of elephants and the black rhinoceros - it is feared that further increases in boat traffic will affect their reproductive success.
Disturbing feeding patterns
Artificial feeding of wildlife by tourists can have severe consequences for social behavior patterns. Artificial feeding by tourists caused a breakdown of the territorial breeding system of land iguanas on the South Plaza in the Galápagos Islands. Territories were abandoned in favor of sites where food could be begged from tourists, and this has had a negative effect on the breeding success of iguanas. Artificial feeding can also result in a complete loss of normal feeding behaviors. In the Galápagos Islands, overfeeding by tourists was so extreme that, when stopped, some animals were unable to locate their natural food sources. Similarly, until the early 1970s, the diet of some grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park consisted, to a large extent, of food wastes left by visitors at park refuse sites. When these sites were closed, the bears showed significant decreases in body size, reproductive rate, and litter size.
Disruption of parent-offspring bonds
Wildlife tourism also causes disruption to intra-specific relationships. Attendance by female harp seals to their pups declined when tourists were present and those females remaining with their pups spent significantly less time nursing and more time watching the tourists. There is also a risk of the young not being recognized, and being more exposed to predator attacks. A similar concern has been expressed over whale watching, whale calves normally maintain constant body contact with their mothers but, when separated, can transfer their attachment to the side of the boat.
Increased vulnerability to predators and competitors
The viewing of certain species by wildlife tourists makes the species more vulnerable to predators. Evidence of this phenomenon has been recorded in birds, reptiles and mammals. Problems have occurred in breeding colonies of pelicans.
Positive impacts
Habitat restoration by eco-lodges and other tourism operations
Many owners of eco-accommodation or wildlife attractions preserve and restore native habitats on their properties In a large way, the tourists and travellers visiting the wildlife destinations contribute to the conservation and improvement of the conditions for the animals. The flow of the people keeps the poachers at bay from killing the valuable animals. The local tribes have a decent living as the tourism flourishes as it provides opportunities of improved livelihood.
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation ( REDD ) is a mechanism that has been under negotiation by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since 2005, with the objective of mitigating climate change through reducing net emissions of greenhouse gases through enhanced forest management in developing countries. In the last two decades, various studies estimate that land use change, including deforestation and forest degradation, accounts for 12-29% of global greenhouse gas emissions.[1][2][3]^ For this reason the inclusion of reducing emissions from land use change is considered essential to achieve the objectives of the UNFCCC.[4] REDD originally referred to "reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries"; the title of the original document on REDD[7] REDD+ (or REDD-plus ) refers to "reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries" (emphasis added); the most recent, elaborated terminology used by the COP[10] Eligible activities: The decisions on REDD+ enumerate five "eligible activities" that developing countries may implement to reduce emissions and enhance removals of greenhouse gases: "(a) Reducing emissions from deforestation. (b) Reducing emissions from forest degradation. (c) Conservation of forest carbon stocks. (d) Sustainable management of forests. (e) Enhancement of forest carbon stocks".[10] The first two activities reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and they are the two activities listed in the original submission on REDD+ in 2005 by the Coalition for Rainforest Nations.[6] The three remaining activities constitute the "+" in REDD+. The last one enhances removals of greenhouse gases, while the effect of the other two on emissions or removals is indeterminate but expected to be minimal. REDD+ as a climate change mitigation measure Deforestation and forest degradation account for 17-29% of global greenhouse gas emissions,[1][2] [3] (^) the reduction of which is estimated to be one of the most cost-efficient climate change mitigation strategies.[19][20]^ Regeneration of forest on degraded or deforested lands can remove CO₂ from the atmosphere through the build-up of biomass, making forest lands a sink of
greenhouse gases. The REDD+ mechanism addresses both issues of emission reduction and enhanced removal of greenhouse gases.
Reducing emissions
Emissions of greenhouse gases from forest land can be reduced by slowing down the rates of deforestation and forest degradation, obviously covered by the first two of the REDD+ eligible activities. Another option would be some form of reduced impact logging in commercial logging, under the REDD+ eligible activity of sustainable management of forests.
Enhancing removals
Removals of greenhouse gases (specifically CO₂) from the atmosphere can be achieved through various forest management options, such as replanting degraded or deforested areas or enrichment planting, but also by letting forest land regenerate naturally. Care must be taken to differentiate between what is a purely ecological process of regrowth and what is induced or enhanced through some management intervention. REDD+ and the carbon market: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… REDD+ and payment for carbon: REDD+ in the carbon market When REDD+ was first discussed by the UNFCCC, no indication was given on how developing countries would be financially compensated for their efforts to implement REDD+ to reduce emissions and enhance removals of greenhouse gases from forests. In the absence of guidance from the COP, two options were debated by the international community at large:
- a market-based approach;
- a fund-based approach where Annex I countries would deposit substantial amounts of money into a fund administered by some multi-lateral entity. Under the market-based approach, REDD+ would act as an "offset scheme" in which verified results-based actions translate into some form of carbon credits, more-or-less analogous to the market for Certified Emission Reductions (CER) under the CDM of the Kyoto Protocol. Such carbon credits could then offset emissions in the country or company of the buyer of the carbon credits. This would require Annex I countries to agree to deeper cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases in order to create a market for the carbon credits from REDD+, which is unlikely to happen soon given the current state of negotiations in the COP, but even then there is the fear that the market will be flooded with carbon credits, depressing the price to levels where REDD+ is no longer an economically viable option.[45][46]^ Some developing countries, such as Brazil and China,
