theincrediblesofkv

Aiming to Sustainable Growth and Development

Wildlife includes all non-domesticated plants, animals, and other organisms. Domesticating wild plant and animal species for human benefit has occurred many times all over the planet, and has a major impact on the environment, both positive and negative. Wildlife can be found in all ecosystems, Deserts, rain forests, plains, and other areas including the most developed urban sites all have distinct forms of wildlife. While the term in popular culture usually refers to animals that are untouched by human factors, most scientists agree that wildlife around the world is impacted by human activities.

Indian wildlife:-
The wildlife of India is a mix of species of diverse origins. The region's rich and diverse wildlife is preserved in numerous national parks and wildlife sanctuaries across the country. Since India is home to a number of rare and threatened animal species, wildlife management in the country is essential to preserve these species. According to one study, India is home to about 60-70% of the world's biodiversity. India, lying within the Indomalaya ecozone, is home to about 7.6% of all mammalian, 12.6% of avian, 6.2% of reptilian, and 6.0% of flowering plant species.

Many Indian species are descendants of taxa originating in Gondwana, to which India originally belonged. Peninsular India's subsequent movement towards, and collision with, the Laurasian landmass set off a mass exchange of species. However, volcanism and climatic changes 20 million years ago caused the extinction of many endemic Indian forms. Soon thereafter, mammals entered India from Asia through two zoogeographical passes on either side of the emerging Himalaya. As a result, among Indian species, only 12.6% of mammals and 4.5% of birds are endemic, contrasting with 45.8% of reptiles and 55.8% of amphibians. Notable endemics are the Nilgiri leaf monkey and the brown and carmine Beddome's toad of the Western Ghats. India contains 172, or 2.9%, of IUCN-designated threatened species. These include the Asiatic lion, the Bengal tiger, and the Indian white-rumped vulture, which suffered a near-extinction from ingesting the carrion of diclofenac-treated cattle.

In recent decades, human encroachment has posed a threat to India's wildlife; in response, the system of national parks and protected areas, first established in 1935, was substantially expanded. In 1972, India enacted the Wildlife Protection Act and Project Tiger to safeguard crucial habitat; further federal protections were promulgated in the 1980s. Along with over 500 wildlife sanctuaries, India now hosts 14 biosphere reserves, four of which are part of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves; 25 wetlands are registered under the Ramsar Convention. The varied and rich wildlife of India has had a profound impact on the region's popular culture. Common name for wilderness in India is Jungle which was adopted by the British colonialists to the English language. The word has been also made famous in The Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling. India's wildlife has been the subject of numerous other tales and fables such as the Panchatantra and the Jataka tales.

The gradual emergence of the human beings as the most dominant species among all other species of animals and the attempt of the human beings to set themselves apart from other species is the main underlying cause of the contemporary environmental disaster. The main reason behind a threat to the wildlife and the ecosystem is the constantly growing deforestation, poaching and negligence towards animals and nature. The Indian Government has started nature projects like, Project Tiger, Nature Camps, Jungle Lodges, etc. to encourage wildlife awareness among the common people. Besides preserving the natural heritage, these projects also promote eco-tourism.

Various Projects:-

Gir National Park in Gujarat is the only existent habitation for the nearly extinct Asiatic Lions in India. The Kaziranga Sanctuary in Assam is a major example of good effort to save the endangered Rhinoceros. Similarly, Periyar in Kerala is doing a great job to preserve the wild Elephants and Dachigam National Park is progressing rapidly to save Kashmiri Stag.

Wildlife Conservation in India occupies a total area of about 3.29 million sq. km. that contains floral and faunal species, mammals, reptiles, insects and birds. The Wildlife Conservation in India has become the most popular holiday destinations because of its diverseness. In India there are 571 sanctuaries and reserve parks that are protected by the Indian Government, mainly meant for the protection of the extinct species of animals and birds. Predators, Carnivores and Herbivores, - all are equally important to maintain the vital ecological processes as nutrient and water cycling. India has over 500 animal sanctuaries, referred to as Wildlife Sanctuaries (IUCN Category IV Protected Area). Among these, the 28 Tiger Reserves are governed by Project Tiger, and are of special significance in the conservation of the tiger. Some wildlife sanctuaries are specifically named Bird Sanctuary, eg. Keoladeo National Park before attained National Park status.

Many National Parks were initially Wildlife Sanctuaries. Wildlife sanctuaries of national importance to conservation, usually due to some flagship faunal species, are named National Wildlife Sanctuary, like national chambal (gharial) Wildlife Sanctuary for conserving the Gharial (1978).

Some of the important wildlife sanctuaries in India are:-
• Bandhavgarh National Park in Madhya Pradesh
• Corbett National Park in Uttar Pradesh
• Gir National Park & Sanctuary in Gujarat
• Kanha National Park in Madhya Pradesh
• Kaziranga National Park in Assam
• Periyar Wildlife Sanctuary in Kerala
• Sariska Wildlife Sanctuary in Rajasthan
• Sunderbans National Park in West Bengal
• Dachigam National Park in Jammu & Kashmir
• Manas Tiger Reserve in Assam

National Parks of India:-

India's first national park (an IUCN category II protected area) was established in 1935 as Hailey National Park, now known as Jim Corbett National Park. By 1970, India only had five national parks. In 1972, India enacted the Wildlife Protection Act and Project Tiger to safeguard the habitats of conservation reliant species. Further federal legislation strengthening protections for wildlife was introduced in the 1980s. As of April 2007, there are 96 national parks. All national park lands encompass a combined 38,029.18 km², 1.16% of India's total surface area. A total of 166 national parks have been authorized. Plans are underway to establish the remaining scheduled parks.

Biosphere Reserves:-

The term ‘Biosphere Reserve' should denote an area:
• Which is, set aside for the conservation of the resources of the biosphere and for the improvement of the relationship between man and the environment;
• Which is, to serve as sites for long term scientific research as well as education all over the world.

List of National Parks:-

• Dibru-Saikhowa National Park-Assam
• Desert National Park-Rajasthan
• Dachigam National Park-Jammu and Kashmir
• Corbett National Park-Uttarakhand
• Chandoli National Park-Maharashtra
• Campbell Bay National Park-Andaman and Nicobar
• Anshi National Park-Karnataka
• Balphakram National Park-Meghalaya
• Bandhavgarh National Park-Madhya Pradesh
• Bandipur National Park-Karnataka
• Bannerghatta National Park-Karnataka
• Vansda National Park-Gujarat
• Betla National Park-Jharkhand
• Bhitarkanika National Park-Orissa
• Blackbuck National Park, Velavadar-Gujarat
• Buxa Tiger Reserve-West Bengal
• Fossil National Park-Madhya Pradesh
• Great Himalayan National Park-Himachal Pradesh
• Indira Gandhi National Park (Annamalai National Park)- Tamil Nadu
• Dudhwa National Park-Uttar Pradesh
• Intanki National Park-Nagaland
• Guindy National Park-Tamil Nadu
• Govind Pashu Vihar-Uttarakhand
• Kaziranga National Park-Assam
• Khangchendzonga National Park-Sikkim
• Kishtwar National Park-Jammu and Kashmir
• Van Vihar National Park-Madhya Pradesh
• Kanha National Park-Madhya Pradesh
• Mollem National Park-Goa
• Mount Harriet National Park-Andaman and Nicobar

The programme of Biosphere Reserve was initiated under the 'Man & Biosphere' (MAB) programme by UNESCO in 1971. Biosphere Reserves are areas of terrestrial and coastal ecosystems promoting solutions to reconcile the conservation of biodiversity with its sustainable use. They are internationally recognized, nominated by National Governments and remain under sovereign jurisdiction of the states where they are located. Biosphere Reserves serve in some ways as 'living laboratories' for testing out and demonstrating integrated management of land, water and biodiversity (CES., UNESCO, 2005., IUCN, 1979).

List of Biosphere Reserves
• Achanakmar-Amarkanta- Madhya Pradesh & Chhattishgarh
• Agasthyamalai- Kerala
• Dehang-Debang- Arunachal Pradesh
• Dibru-Saikhowa- Assam
• Great Nicobar- Andaman and Nicobar
• Gulf of Mannar - Tamil Nadu
• Khangchenjunga – Sikkim
• Manas- Assam
• Nanda Devi-Uttaranchal
• Nilgiri -Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Karnataka
• Nokrek-Meghalaya
• Pachmarhi -Madhya Pradesh
• Simlipal-Orissa
• Sunderbans-West Bengal

IUCN

Biosphere Reserve Objectives:-

Each Biosphere Reserve is intended to fulfill three basic functions, which are complementary and mutually reinforcing:
• A conservation function - to contribute to the conservation of landscapes, ecosystems, species and genetic variation;

• A development function - to foster economic and human development which is socio-culturally and ecologically sustainable;

• A logistic function - to provide support for research, monitoring, education and information exchange related to local, national and global issues of conservation and development (UNESCO, 2005).

The Indian government has established 15 Biosphere Reserves of India, (categories roughly corresponding to IUCN Category V Protected areas), which protect larger areas of natural habitat (than a National Park or Animal Sanctuary), and often include one or more National Parks and/or preserves, along buffer zones that are open to some economic uses. Protection is granted not only to the flora and fauna of the protected region, but also to the human communities who inhabit these regions, and their ways of life. Four of the fifteen biosphere reserves are a part of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, based on the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme list.

• Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve
• Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve
• Sundarbans Biosphere Reserve
• Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve

Conservation of wildlife in India:-

The need for conservation of wildlife in India is often questioned because of the apparently incorrect priority in the face of dire poverty of the people. However Article 48 of the Constitution of India specifies that "the state shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country" and Article 51-A states that "it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures."

Large and charismatic mammals are important for wildlife tourism in India and several national parks and wildlife sanctuaries cater to these needs. Project Tiger started in 1972 is a major effort to conserve the tiger and its habitats. At the turn of the 20th century, one estimate of the tiger population in India placed the figure at 40,000, yet an Indian tiger census conducted in 1972 revealed the existence of only 1827 tigers. Various pressures in the later part of the 20th century led to the progressive decline of wilderness resulting in the disturbance of viable tiger habitats. At the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) General Assembly meeting in Delhi in 1969, serious concern was voiced about the threat to several species of wildlife and the shrinkage of wilderness in the India. In 1970, a national ban on tiger hunting was imposed and in 1972 the Wildlife Protection Act came into force. The framework was then set up to formulate a project for tiger conservation with an ecological approach.

Project Tiger which was launched on April 1, 1973, has become one of the most successful conservation ventures in modern history. The project aims at tiger conservation in specially constituted 'tiger reserves' which are representative of various bio-geographical regions falling within India. It strives to maintain a viable tiger population in their natural environment. Today, there are 27 Project Tiger wildlife reserves in India covering an area of 37,761 km².Project Elephant, though less known, started in 1992 and works for elephant protection in India. Most of India's rhinos today survive in the Kaziranga National Park. The wildlife institute of India (WII) is a government institution run by the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education which trains wildlife managers and wildlife researchers.

Trained personnel from WII have contributed in studying and protecting wildlife in India. WII has also popularized wildlife studies and careers. The institute is based in Dehradun, India. It is located in Chandrabani, which is close to the southern forests of Dehradun. The Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education also runs the Forest Research Institute and the Indian Institute of Forest Management

Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 :-

In 1972 by the Government of India. Prior to 1972, India only had five designated national parks. Among other reforms, the Act established schedules of protected plant and animal species; hunting or otherwise harvesting these species was largely outlawed.

The Act provides for the protection of Wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. It extends to the whole of India, except the State of Jammu and Kashmir which has its own wildlife act. It has six schedules which give varying degrees of protection, with absolute protection being provided under Schedule I and part II of schedule II with the highest penalties prescribed for offences under these schedules and Species listed in the Sch. IV are also protected but the penalties are much lower, with the enforcement authorities having the power to compound offences (as in they impose fines on the offenders).

Some drivers of biodiversity loss are localized, such as overexploitation. Others are global, such as climate change, while many operate at a variety of scales, such as the local impacts of invasive species through global trade. Most of the responses assessed here were designed to address the direct drivers of biodiversity loss. However, these drivers are better seen as symptoms of the indirect drivers, such as unsustainable patterns of consumption, demographic change, and globalization.

At the local and regional scale, responses to the drivers may promote both local biodiversity and human well-being by acting on the synergies between maintenance of local biodiversity and provision of key ecosystem services. Responses promoting local management for global biodiversity values depend on local “capture” of the global values in a way that provides both ongoing incentives for management and support for local well-being .

At the global scale, effective responses set priorities for conservation and development efforts in different regions and create shared goals or programs, such as the biodiversity-related conventions and the Millennium Development Goals. Effective trade-offs and synergies will be promoted when different strategies or instruments are used in an integrated, coordinated way.

The MA assessment of biodiversity responses places human well-being as the central focus for assessment, recognizing that people make decisions concerning ecosystems based on a range of values related to well-being, including the use and non-use values of biodiversity and ecosystems. The assessment therefore has viewed biodiversity responses as addressing values at different scales, with strong links to ecosystem service values and well-being arising at each of these scales. The well-being of local people dominates the assessment of many responses, including those relating to protected areas, governance, wild species management, and various responses related to local capture of benefits.

Focusing exclusively on values at only one level often hinders responses that could promote values at all levels or reconcile conflicts between the levels. Effective responses function across scales, addressing global values of biodiversity while identifying opportunity costs or synergies with local values. Local consideration of global biodiversity recognizes the value of what is unique at a place (or what is not yet protected elsewhere). The values of ecosystem services, on the other hand, do not always depend on these unique elements. Effective biodiversity responses recognize both kinds of values. These considerations guide the assessment summarized in this section of a range of response strategies that to varying degrees integrate global and local values and that seek effective trade-offs and synergies for biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being.

Difficulties in measuring biodiversity have complicated assessments of the impact of response strategies. Developing better indicators of biodiversity would enhance integration among strategies and instruments. For example, existing measures often focus on local biodiversity and do not estimate the marginal gains in regional or global biodiversity values. Similarly, biodiversity gains from organic farming are typically expressed only as localized species richness, with no consideration of the degree of contribution to regional or global biodiversity or the trade-offs with high-productivity industrial agriculture.

How do protected areas benefit biodiversity and humans?

Protected areas are an extremely important part of programs to conserve biodiversity and ecosystems, especially for sensitive habitats. Recent assessments have shown that at the global and regional scales, the existence of current PAs, while essential, is not sufficient for conservation of the full range of biodiversity. Protected areas need to be better located, designed, and managed to deal with problems like lack of representativeness, impacts of human settlement within protected areas, illegal harvesting of plants and animals, unsustainable tourism, impacts of invasive alien species, and vulnerability to global change. Marine and freshwater ecosystems are even less well protected than terrestrial systems, leading to increasing efforts to expand PAs in these biomes. Efforts to expand marine protected areas are also spurred by strong evidence of positive synergies between conservation within PAs and sustainable use immediately outside their boundaries. However, marine protected area management poses special challenges, as enforcement is difficult and much of the world’s oceans lie outside national jurisdictions.

Based on a survey of management effectiveness of a sample of nearly 200 protected areas in 34 countries, only 12% were found to have implemented an approved management plan. The assessment concluded that PA design, legal establishment, boundary demarcation, resource inventory, and objective setting were relatively well addressed. But management planning, monitoring and evaluation, and budgets for security and law enforcement were generally weak among the surveyed areas. Moreover, the “paper park” problem remains, whereby geographic areas may be labeled as some category of protected area but not achieve the promised form of management.

Protected areas may contribute to poverty where rural people are excluded from resources that have traditionally supported their well-being. However, PAs can contribute to improved livelihoods when they are managed to benefit local people . Relations with local people should be addressed more effectively through participatory consultation and planning. One possible strategy is to promote the broader use of IUCN protected areas management categories. Success depends on a collaborative management approach between government and stakeholders, an adaptive approach that tests options in the field, comprehensive monitoring that provides information on management success or failure, and empowerment of local communities through an open and transparent system that clarifies access and ownership of resources.

Success of protected areas as a response to biodiversity loss requires better site selection and incorporation of regional trade-offs to avoid some ecosystems from being poorly represented while others are overrepresented. Success of PAs depends on adequate legislation and management, sufficient resources, better integration with the wider region surrounding protected areas, and expanded stakeholder engagement.Moreover, representation and management targets and performance indicators work best when they go beyond measuring the total area apparently protected. Indicators of percent-area coverage of PAs, as associated with the Millennium Development Goals and other targets, for example, only provide a broad indication of the actual extent of protection afforded by PA systems, but regional and national-level planning requires targets that take into account trade-offs and synergies with other ecosystem services.

Protected area design and management will need to take into account the impacts of climate change. The impacts of climate change will increase the risk of extinctions of certain species and change the nature of ecosystems. Shifts in species distribution as a result of climate change are well documented. Today’s species conservation plans may incorporate adaptation and mitigation aspects for this threat, drawing on existing tools to help assess species’ vulnerability to climate change. Corridors and other habitat design aspects to give flexibility to protected areas are effective precautionary strategies. Improved management of habitat corridors and production ecosystems between protected areas will help biodiversity adapt to changing conditions.

Can economic incentives benefit biodiversity and local communities?

The impact of market instruments in encouraging and achieving conservation of biodiversity is unclear. Although tradable development rights offer the potential to achieve a conservation objective at a low cost by offering flexibility in achieving the objectives, they have been the subject of some criticisms—notably for being complex and involving high transaction costs and the establishment of new supporting institutions. For example, a situation could arise in which the most ecologically sensitive land but also the least costly to develop would not be protected. To date, the TDR has not been designed to target specific habitat types and properties.

For example, in South Africa, changes in wildlife protection legislation allowed a shift in landownership and a conversion from cattle and sheep farming to profitable game farming, enabling conservation of indigenous wildlife. On the other hand, the CAMPFIRE program in Zimbabwe, based on sustainable community-managed use of wildlife, has now become an example of how success can turn into failure, with the state repossessing the areas given to individuals and breaking the levels of trust and transparency—a form of instrumental freedom—that are critically needed for these economic responses to work efficiently and equitably .

Payments to local landowners for ecosystem services show promise of improving the allocation of ecosystem services and are applicable to biodiversity conservation. However, compensating mechanisms addressing the distributive and equitable aspects of these economic instruments may need to be designed in support of such efforts. By 2001, more than 280,000 hectares of forests had been incorporated in Costa Rica within reserves, at a cost of about $30 million per year, with typical annual payments ranging from $35 to $45 per hectare for forest conservation .However, the existence of direct payment initiatives does not guarantee success in achieving conservation and development objectives or benefits for human well-being. Empirical analyses about the distributive impacts across different social groups are rare.

Direct payments are often more effective than indirect incentives.

For example, integrated conservation-development projects—an indirect incentive—designed to allow local populations to improve their well-being by capturing international willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation have in practice rarely been integrated into ongoing incentives for conservation. Overall, long-term success for these response strategies depends on meeting the economic and social needs of communities whose well-being already depends to varying degrees on biodiversity products and the ecosystem services biodiversity supports .

However, direct payments have been criticized for requiring ongoing financial commitments to maintain the link between investment and conservation objectives. Furthermore they have led in some instances to inter- and intra-community conflict.

Yet many success stories show the effectiveness of direct payments and the transfer of property rights in providing incentives for local communities to conserve biodiversity. Effectiveness of payments in conserving regional biodiversity may be enhanced by new approaches that target payments based on estimated marginal gains (“complementarity” values) .

Significant improvements can be made to mitigate biodiversity loss and ecosystem changes by removing or redirecting economic subsidies that cause more harm than good. Agricultural subsidies in industrial countries reduce world prices for many commodities that developing countries produce. Lower prices provide the wrong incentives, encouraging these countries to adopt unsustainable agricultural activities that destroy ecosystems as well as push many poor farmers into poverty. Therefore the removal or redirection of agricultural subsidies is highly likely by itself to produce major improvements in ecosystem services and to check the rate of biodiversity loss .

The promotion of “win-win” outcomes has been politically correct at best and naive at worst. Economic incentives that encourage the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity show considerable promise. However, trade-offs between biodiversity, economic gains, and social needs have to be more realistically acknowledged. The benefits of biodiversity conservation are often widespread, even global in the case of existence values or carbon sequestration, while the costs of restricting access to biodiversity often are concentrated on groups living near biodiversity-rich areas.

How can invasive species be addressed?

Direct management of invasive species will become an even more important biodiversity conservation response, typically calling for an ecosystem-level response if the invasive species has become established. Control or eradication of an invasive species once it is established is often extremely difficult and costly, while prevention and early intervention have been shown to be more successful and cost-effective. Common factors in successful eradication cases include particular biological features of the target species (for example, poor dispersal ability), early detection/response, sufficient economic resources devoted for a sufficient duration, and widespread support from the relevant agencies and the public. Successful prevention requires increased efforts in the control and regulation of the transportation of invasive species due to international trade.

Chemical control of invasive plant species, sometimes combined with mechanical removal like cutting or pruning, has b

een useful for controlling at least some invasive plants, but has not proved particularly successful in eradication. In addition to its low efficiency, chemical control can be expensive. Biological control of invasive species has also been attempted, but results are mixed .For example, the introduction of a non-native predatory snail to control the giant African snail in Hawaii led to extinction of many native snails. Some 160 species of biological agents, mainly insects and fungi, are registered for controlling invasive species in North America, and many of them appear highly effective. However, at least some of the biological agents used are themselves potential invaders. Environmental screening and risk assessment can minimize the likelihood of negative impacts on non-target native species.

Social and economic aspects of the control of invasive species have received less attention, perhaps because of difficulties in estimating these trade-offs. The Global Invasive Species Program is an international response to address the problem. The CBD has adopted Guiding Principles on Invasive Alien Species (Decision VI/23) as a basic policy response, but it is too early to assess the effectiveness of implementation.

Sustainable use of natural resources is an integral part of any sustainable development program, yet its contribution to conservation remains a highly controversial subject within the conservation community. Conserving species when the management objective is ensuring resource availability to support human livelihoods is frequently unsuccessful. This is because optimal management for natural resource extraction frequently has negative impacts on species targeted for conservation. Therefore, care in establishing positive incentives for conservation and sustainable use is critical to successful biodiversity conservation.

Where the goal is species conservation, and where a specific population has a distinct identity and can be managed directly, species management approaches can be effective. However, managing for a single species is rarely effective when the goal is ecosystem functioning, which is tied to the entire suite of species present in the area. Where human livelihoods depend on single species resources, species management can be effective (for example, some fisheries and game species), but where people depend on a range of different wild resources, as is frequently the case, multiple species management is the appropriate approach.

How do protected areas benefit biodiversity and humans?

Strategies for integrating biodiversity issues in production sectors

At the national level, integrating biodiversity issues into agriculture, fishery, and forestry management encourages sustainable harvesting and minimizes negative impacts on biodiversity. Biodiversity will only be conserved and sustainably used when it becomes a mainstream concern of production sectors. Agriculture is directly dependent on biodiversity, but agricultural practices in recent decades have focused on maximizing yields. Research and development have focused on few relatively productive species, thus ignoring the potential importance of biodiversity. Effective response strategies include sustainable intensification, which minimizes the need for expanding total area for production, so allowing more area for biodiversity conservation. Practices such as integrated pest management, some forms of organic farming, and protection of field margins, riparian zones, and other noncultivated habitats within farms can promote synergistic relationships between agriculture, domestic biodiversity, and wild biodiversity. However, assessments of biodiversity contributions from such management reveal little data about contributions to regional biodiversity conservation.

A review of 36 initiatives to conserve wild biodiversity while enhancing agricultural production demonstrated benefits to landscape and ecosystem diversity, while impacts on species diversity were very situation-specific. Assessing the impact of these approaches suffers from a lack of consistent, comprehensively documented research on the systems, particularly regarding interactions between agricultural production and ecosystem health.

Tropical deforestation at a local level can be controlled most effectively when the livelihood needs of local inhabitants are addressed within the context of sustainable forestry. The early proponents of forest certification hoped it would be an effective response to tropical deforestation, but most certified forests are in the North, managed by large companies and exporting to Northern retailers. The proliferation of certification programs to meet the needs of different stakeholders has meant that no single program has emerged as the only credible or dominant approach internationally. Forest management policies should center on existing land and water ownership at the community level. Relevant legal tools include redesigning ownership to small-scale private control of forests, public-private partnerships, direct management of forests by indigenous people, and company-community partnerships. New land tenure systems must be context-relevant and accompanied by enforcement if they are to be effective. They need to include elements of education, training, health, and safety to function effectively.

Contributions of the private sector to biodiversity objectives

The private sector can make significant contributions to biodiversity conservation. Some parts of the private sector are showing greater willingness to contribute to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use due to the influence of shareholders, customers, and government regulation. Showing greater corporate social responsibility, many companies are now preparing their own biodiversity action plans, managing their own landholdings in ways that are more compatible with biodiversity conservation, supporting certification schemes that promote more sustainable use, working with multiple stakeholders, and accepting their responsibility for addressing biodiversity issues in their operations. Influence of shareholders or customers is limited in cases where the company is not publicly listed or is government-owned.

Further developments are likely to focus on two main areas. First, in addition to assessing the impact of companies on biodiversity, important though this is, increasing emphasis will be given to ecosystem services and how companies rely on them. This will require development of mechanisms for companies to understand their risk exposure and to manage those risks. Second, greater collaboration is likely to take place between NGOs and business in order to more fully explore ways to reduce harmful trade-offs and identify positive synergies that could lead to more effective sustainable management practices .

What governance approaches can promote biodiversity conservation?

Governance approaches to support biodiversity conservation and sustainable use are required at all levels, with supportive laws and policies developed by central governments providing the security of tenure and authority essential for sustainable management at lower levels. The principle that biodiversity should be managed at the lowest appropriate level has led to decentralization in many parts of the world, with variable results. The key to success is strong institutions at all levels, with security of tenure and authority at the lower levels essential to providing incentives for sustainable management.

At the same time that management of some ecosystem services is being devolved to lower levels, management approaches are also evolving to deal with large-scale processes with many stakeholders. Problems such as regional water scarcity and conservation of large ecosystems require large-scale management structures. For example, most of the major rivers in Southern Africa flow across international borders, so international water co-management organizations are being designed to share the management of riparian resources and ensure water security for all members. However, political instability in one state may negatively affect others, and power among stakeholders is likely to be uneven.

Neither centralization nor decentralization of authority always results in better management. For example, the power of Catchment Management Agencies in South Africa is constrained to their catchment, but impacts may be felt from outside or upstream. The best strategy may be one with multi-subsidiarity—that is, functions that subordinate organizations perform effectively belong more properly to them (because they have the best information) than to a dominant central organization, and the central organization functions as a center of support, coordination, and communication.

Legal systems in countries are multilayered and in many countries, local practices or informal institutions may be much stronger than the law on paper. Important customs relate to the local norms and traditions of managing property rights and the ecosystems around them. Since these are embedded in the local societies, changing these customs and customary rights through external incentive and disincentive schemes is very difficult unless the incentives are very carefully designed. Local knowledge, integrated with other scientific knowledge, becomes absolutely critical for addressing ways of managing local ecosystems.

More effort is needed in integrating biodiversity conservation and sustainable use activities within larger macroeconomic decision-making frameworks. New poverty reduction strategies have been developed in recent years covering a wide range of policies and different scales and actors. However, the integration or mainstreaming of ecosystems and ecosystem services is largely ignored. The focus of such strategies is generally on institutional and macroeconomic stability, the generation of sectoral growth, and the reduction of the number of people living on less than $1 a day in poor countries. It is well documented that many of the structural adjustment programs of the mid- to late 1980s caused deterioration in ecosystem services and a deepening of poverty in many developing countries.

International cooperation through multilateral environmental agreements requires increased commitment to implementation of activities that effectively conserve biodiversity and promote sustainable use of biological resources. Numerous multilateral environmental agreements have now been established that contribute to conserving biodiversity. The Convention on Biological Diversity is the most comprehensive, but numerous others are also relevant, including the World Heritage Convention, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the Convention on Migratory Species, the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, and numerous regional agreements. Their impacts at policy and practical levels depend on the will of the contracting parties.

Effective responses may build on recent attempts (such as through joint work plans) to create synergies between conventions. The lack of compulsory jurisdiction for dispute resolution is a major weakness in international environmental law. However, requirements to report to conventions put pressure on countries to undertake active measures under the framework of those treaties. An effective instrument should include incentives, plus sanctions for violations or noncompliance procedures to help countries come into compliance. Links between biodiversity conventions and other international legal institutions that have significant impacts on biodiversity (such as the World Trade Organization) remain weak.

The international agreements with the greatest impact on biodiversity are not in the environmental field but rather deal with economic and political issues. These typically do not take into account their impact on biodiversity. Successful responses will require that these agreements are closely linked with other agreements and that solutions designed for one regime do not lead to problems in other regimes. For example, efforts to sequester carbon under the Kyoto Protocol should seek to enhance biodiversity, not harm it (for example, by planting multiple species of native trees rather than monospecific plantations of exotic species).

Although biodiversity loss is a recognized global problem, most direct actions to halt or reduce loss need to be taken locally or nationally. Indirect drivers like globalization and international decisions on trade and economics often have a negative effect on biodiversity and should be addressed at the international level, but the proximate responsibility to detect and act directly on biodiversity loss is at the local and national level. For threatened endemic species or ecosystems limited to an area within a single country or local administrative unit, the relevant agencies should give high priority to these species or ecosystems, with appropriate support from global, regional, or national support systems.

What are the key factors of success of conservation actions?

Numerous response options exist to improve the benefits from ecosystem services to human societies without undermining biodiversity. The political and social changes now occurring in many parts of the world will have far-reaching consequences for the way ecosystem services and human well-being are managed in the future; it is thus imperative to develop an increased understanding of the enabling conditions needed for choosing and implementing responses.

Responses do not work in a vacuum. A variety of enabling conditions—a combination of instrumental freedoms and institutional frameworks—play critical roles in determining the success or failure of a response strategy. The success or failure of many responses is largely influenced by the various institutional frameworks in place in a country.

Education and communication programs have both informed and changed preferences for biodiversity conservation and have improved implementation of biodiversity responses. Scientific findings and data need to be made available to all of society. A major obstacle for knowing (and therefore valuing), preserving, sustainably using, and sharing benefits equitably from the biodiversity of a region is the human and institutional capacity to research a country’s biota. The CONABIO initiative in Mexico and INBio in Cost Rica offer examples of successful national models for converting basic taxonomic information into knowledge for biodiversity conservation policies, as well as for other policies relating to ecosystems and biodiversity.

Ecosystem restoration activities are now common in many countries and include actions to restore almost all types of ecosystems, including wetlands, forests, grasslands, estuaries, coral reefs, and mangroves. Restoration will become an increasingly important response as more ecosystems become degraded and as demands for their services continue to grow. Ecosystem restoration, however, is generally far more expensive an option than protecting the original ecosystem, and it is rare that all the biodiversity and services of a system can be restored.

Rather than the “win-win” outcomes promoted (or assumed) by many practitioners of integrated conservation and development projects, conflict is more often the norm, and trade-offs between conservation and development need to be acknowledged. Identifying and then negotiating trade-offs is complex, involving different policy options, different priorities for conservation and development, and different stakeholders. In the case of biodiversity conservation, the challenge is in negotiating these trade-offs, determining levels of acceptable biodiversity loss, and encouraging stakeholder participation. Where trade-offs must be made, decision-makers must consider and make explicit the consequences of all options. Better trade-offs from policies that remove perverse incentives or create markets for biodiversity protection can achieve a given level of biodiversity protection (regionally) at lower cost.

The “ecosystem approaches” as developed by the CBD and others provide principles for integration across scales and across different responses. Central to the rationale is that the full range of measures is applied in a continuum from strictly protected to human-made ecosystems and that integration can be achieved through both spatial and temporal separation across the landscape, as well as through integration within a site. The MA sub-global assessments highlight useful synergies and trade-offs where different responses are integrated into a coherent regional framework . While some effective approaches will not require quantification of biodiversity gains, quantifying marginal gains and losses from different sources can strengthen such integration and enable one strategy to complement another in a targeted, strategic way.

Society may receive greater net benefits when opportunity costs of conservation in a particular location are adjusted to reflect positive gains from ecosystem services provided and when the setting of biodiversity targets takes all land and water use contributions into account . Debates about the relative value of formal protected areas versus lands that are more intensely used by people but that conserve at least some components of biodiversity are more constructive when conservation is seen as a continuum of possibilities. Weaknesses of both ends of the spectrum can be overcome by linking them in integrated regional strategies.

For example, an area converted to agriculture can lead to loss of biodiversity but can still contribute to regional biodiversity if it contributes certain complementary elements of biodiversity to overall regional biodiversity conservation. Formal protected areas are criticized for foreclosing other opportunities for society, but an integrated regional approach can build on the biodiversity protection gains from the surrounding lands, thereby reducing some of the pressure for biodiversity protection in the face of other anticipated uses over the region. Many contributions to overall biodiversity protection are made from production landscapes or other lands outside of protected areas, and integration allows these contributions to be credited at the regional planning scale and to increase regional net benefits. However, the ideal of measurable gains from production lands should not reduce the more general efforts to mainstream biodiversity into other sectors; even without formal estimates of complementarity values, mainstreaming policies can be seen as important aspects of integration.

How could important drivers of biodiversity loss be addressed?

Many of the responses designed with the conservation of biodiversity or ecosystem service as the primary goal will not be sustainable or sufficient unless indirect and direct drivers of change are addressed. Numerous responses that address direct and indirect drivers would be particularly important for biodiversity and ecosystem services:

Elimination of subsidies that promote excessive use of specific ecosystem services. Subsidies paid to the agricultural sectors of OECD countries between 2001 and 2003 averaged over $324 billion annually, or one third the global value of agricultural products in 2000 (S7). These subsidies lead to overproduction, reduce the profitability of agriculture in developing countries, and promote overuse of fertilizers and pesticides. Similar problems are created by fishery subsidies, which amounted to approximately $6.2 billion in OECD countries in 2002, or about 20% of the gross value of production (S7). Although removal of perverse subsidies will produce net benefits, it will not be without costs. Some of the people benefiting from production subsidies (through either the low prices of products that result from the subsidies or as direct recipients of subsidies) are poor and would be harmed by their removal. Compensatory mechanisms may be needed for these groups. Moreover, removal of agricultural subsidies within the OECD would need to be accompanied by actions designed to minimize adverse impacts on ecosystem services in developing countries. But the basic challenge remains that the current economic system relies fundamentally on economic growth that disregards its impact on natural resources.
Promotion of sustainable intensification of agriculture. The expansion of agriculture will continue to be one of the major drivers of biodiversity loss well into the twenty-first century. In regions where agricultural expansion continues to be a large threat to biodiversity, the development, assessment, and diffusion of technologies that could increase the production of food per unit area sustainably, without harmful trade-offs related to excessive consumption of water or use of nutrients or pesticides, would significantly lessen pressure on biodiversity. In many cases, appropriate technologies already exist that could be applied more widely, but countries lack the financial resources and intuitional capabilities to gain and use these technologies. Where agriculture already dominates landscapes, the maintenance of biodiversity within these landscapes is an important component of total biodiversity conservation efforts, and, if managed appropriately, can also contribute to agricultural productivity and sustainability through the ecosystem services that biodiversity provides (such as through pest control, pollination, soil fertility, protection of water courses against soil erosion, and the removal of excessive nutrients).
Slowing and adapting to climate change. By the end of the century, climate change and its impacts may be the dominant direct driver of biodiversity loss and change of ecosystem services globally. Harm to biodiversity will grow with both increasing rates in change in climate and increasing absolute amounts of change. For ecosystem services, some services in some regions may initially benefit from increases in temperature or precipitation expected under climate scenarios, but the balance of evidence indicates that there will be a significant net harmful impact on ecosystem services worldwide if global mean surface temperature increase more than 2° Celsius above preindustrial levels or faster than 0.2° Celsius per decade (medium certainty). Given the inertia in the climate system, actions to facilitate the adaptation of biodiversity and ecosystems to climate change will be necessary to mitigate negative impacts. These may include the development of ecological corridors or networks.
Slowing the global growth in nutrient loading (even while increasing fertilizer application in regions where crop yields are constrained by the lack of fertilizers, such as parts of sub-Saharan Africa). Technologies already exist for reduction of nutrient pollution at reasonable costs, but new policies are needed for these tools to be applied on a sufficient scale to slow and ultimately reverse the increase in nutrient loading .
Correction of market failures and internalization of environmental externalities that lead to the degradation of ecosystem services . Because many ecosystem services are not traded in markets, markets fail to provide appropriate signals that might otherwise contribute to the efficient allocation and sustainable use of the services. In addition, many of the harmful trade-offs and costs associated with the management of one ecosystem service are borne by others and so also do not weigh into decisions regarding the management of that service. In countries with supportive institutions in place, market-based tools can be used to correct some market failures and internalize externalities, particularly with respect to provisioning ecosystem services.
Increased transparency and accountability of government and private-sector performance in decisions that affect ecosystems, including through greater involvement of concerned stakeholders in decision-making . Laws, policies, institutions, and markets that have been shaped through public participation in decision-making are more likely to be effective and perceived as just. Stakeholder participation also contributes to the decision-making process because it allows for a better understanding of impacts and vulnerability, the distribution of costs and benefits associated with trade-offs, and the identification of a broader range of response options that are available in a specific context. And stakeholder involvement and transparency of decision-making can increase accountability and reduce corruption.
Integration of biodiversity conservation strategies and responses within broader development planning frameworks. For example, protected areas, restoration ecology, and markets for ecosystem services will have higher chances of success if these responses are reflected in the national development strategies or in poverty reduction strategies, in the case of many developing countries. In this manner, the costs and benefits of these conservation strategies and their contribution to human development are explicitly recognized in the Public Expenditure Review and resources for the implementation of the responses can be set aside in national Mid-Term Budgetary Frameworks.
Increased coordination among multilateral environmental agreements and between environmental agreements and other international economic and social institutions. International agreements are indispensable for addressing ecosystem-related concerns that span national boundaries, but numerous obstacles weaken their current effectiveness. The limited, focused nature of the goals and mechanisms included in most bilateral and multilateral environmental treaties does not address the broader issue of ecosystem services and human well-being. Steps are now being taken to increase coordination among these treaties, and this could help broaden the focus of the array of instruments. However, coordination is also needed between the multilateral environmental agreements and the more politically powerful international legal institutions, such as economic and trade agreements, to ensure that they are not acting at cross-purposes.
Enhancement of human and institutional capacity for assessing the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and acting on such assessments. Technical capacity for agriculture, forestry, and fisheries management is still limited in many countries, but it is vastly greater than the capacity for effective management for ecosystem services not derived from these sectors.
Addressing unsustainable consumption patterns . Consumption of ecosystem services and nonrenewable resources affects biodiversity and ecosystems directly and indirectly. Total consumption is a factor of per capita consumption, population, and efficiency of resource use. Slowing biodiversity loss requires that the combined effect of these factors be reduced.

Actions to protect endangered species

Numerous international agreements deal with issues related to the conservation and protection of endangered species. The scientific effort to more accurately catalog species and better define the scope of biodiversity has dramatically raised the number of recorded threatened and endangered species in recent years. In spite of these shocking statistics of endangerment, there is a good deal of evidence that national and international efforts to preserve endangered species have been very successful. Some of the most important international conventions are ratified by most of the world's nations, and have had significant power to enforce agreements in the decades since their introduction: (1) the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance that promotes wise use of wetlands and encourages designation of important wetlands as ecological reserves; (2) the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage that designates of high-profile World Heritage Sites for protection of their natural and cultural values; (3) the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); (4) the 1979 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals of 1979 that deals with species that regularly cross national boundaries or that occur in international waters; and (5) the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The CBD was presented by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992, and has been regularly updated since then; the most recent amendments to the CBD occurred at the 2002 United Nations Earth Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa. The CBD is a central element of another international program called the Global Biodiversity Strategy, a joint effort by the IUCN, UNEP, and the World Resources Institute to study and conserve biodiversity.

Many countries, like the United States, have also undertaken their own actions to catalog and protect endangered species and other elements of biodiversity. Many of these national conservation efforts, like the ESA, have and international component that deals with species migration and trade across borders, and that mesh with the international conventions. Another important aspect of endangered species protection is collaboration with non-governmental organizations like the World Wildlife Fund, the Nature Conservancy and the Ocean Conservancy. The United States, for example, has a network of conservation data centers (CDCs) that gather and compile information on the occurrence and abundance of biological species and ecosystems that was designed and established by The Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy has also facilitated development of CDCs in Canada and in Central and South America.

International, national and non-governmental agencies attempting to conserve biodiversity and protect endangered species choose whether to pursue single-species approaches that focus on particular species, or to develop more comprehensive strategies that focus on larger ecosystems. Because there are so many endangered species, many of which have not even been discovered, the single-species approach has obvious limitations. While the method works well for charismatic, large animals like giant pandas, grizzly bears, whales, and whooping cranes, this approach fails to protect most endangered species. More effective strategies focus on entire natural ecosystems that include numerous, hidden elements of threatened biodiversity. Furthermore, more conservation policies are attempting to consider the social, political, and economic ramifications of a species or environmental protection plan. As in the case of the northern spotted owl, policies that require large economic sacrifices and offer no immediate local benefits often alienate the very humans that could best help to preserve an endangered species or ecosystem. Modern environmental protection strategies attempt to present alternatives that permit sustainable human productivity.

We frequently talk about saving our environment and how important it is to conserve the natural resources. Since the school years we have been learning about the importance of a healthy environment. Environmental education has made us realize the need to preserve our natural wealth. But when did you last take a step towards saving the environment? Do you remember having resorted to a measure that can contribute to the safeguard of nature? When have you last acted upon the need to save environment? It is high time we take some major steps towards saving the environment. It is high time we wake up and make some serious efforts to save nature.

When we think of saving the environment, we often imagine devising some lengthy procedures and serious measures of saving the planet. We think of all the constituents of the environment and wonder what we can do to offer them safety. We think of afforestation and wonder how we can contribute. We think of the precious animal life and sit puzzled finding ways of saving animals. Pollution of water, land and air tops our list of environment-unfriendly factors and serious thoughts of curbing pollution crowd our mind. But the need of the day is to rise above thoughts and words and take some serious action. Each one of us can actually contribute to saving the environment by choosing simple ways of doing so. Following are the simple ways to save the environment.

Simple Ways to Save the Environment

An endangered species of plant, animal, or microorganism is at risk of imminent extinction or extirpation in all or most of its range. Extinct species no longer occur anywhere on Earth, and once gone they are gone forever. Extirpated species have disappeared locally or regionally, but still survive in other regions or in captivity. Threatened species are at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future. In the United States, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 protects threatened and endangered species that meet specified criteria. Many nations have their own version of the ESA and, like the United States, are members of the World Conservation Union (IUCN), and signatories of the Convention on International Trade In Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Species have become extinct throughout geological history. Biological evolution, driven by natural climate change, catastrophic geologic events, and competition from better-adapted species, has involved extinction of billions of species since the advent of life on Earth about three billion years ago. In fact, according to the fossil record, only 2–4% of the species that have existed on Earth exist today. In modern times, however, species threatened by human activities are becoming extinct at a rate that far exceeds the pace of extinction throughout most of geologic history. (The mass species extinctions that occurred at the end of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras are noteworthy exceptions to this generalization. Geologic data show evidence that a cluster of very large meteorite impacts killed about 85% of the Earth's species, including the dinosaurs, about 65 million years ago at the end of the Mesozoic Cretaceous era.) Meteorite impacts notwithstanding, scientists approximate that present extinction rates are 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than the average natural extinction rate.

Species endangered by unsustainable hunting

Overhunting and overfishing have threatened animal species since aboriginal Europeans, Australians, and Americans developed effective hunting technology thousands of years ago. The dodo, passenger pigeon, great auk, and Steller's sea cow were hunted to extinction. Unstainable hunting and fishing continue to endanger numerous animals worldwide. In the United States, many of the animals considered national symbols—bald eagle, grizzly bear, timber wolf, American Bison, bighorn sheep, Gulf of Mexico sea turtles—have been threatened by overhunting. (American bison, incidentally, are no longer considered threatened, but they exist mainly in managed herds, and have never repopulated their wide range across the American and Canadian west.)

The eskimo curlew is a large sandpiper that was abundant in North America in the nineteenth century. The birds were relentlessly hunted by market gunners during their migration from the prairies and coasts of Canada and the United States to their wintering grounds on the pampas and coasts of South America. The eskimo curlew became very rare by the end of the nineteenth century. The last observation of a curlew nest was in 1866, and the last "collection" of birds was in 1922. There have been a few reliable sightings of individuals in the Canadian Artic and small migrating flocks in Texas since then, but sightings are so rare that the species' classification changes to extinct between each one.

The Guadalupe fur seal was abundant along the coast of western Mexico in the nineteenth century, numbering as many as 200,000 individuals. This marine mammal was hunted for its valuable fur and almost became extinct in the 1920s. Fortunately, a colony of 14 seals, including pups, was discovered off Baja California on Guadalupe Island in 1950. Guadalupe Island was declared a pinnaped sanctuary in 1975; the species now numbers more than 1,000 animals, and has begun to spread throughout its former range. The Juan Fernandez fur seal of Chile had a similar history. More than three million individuals were killed for their pelts between 1797 and 1804, when the species was declared extinct. The Juan Fernandez seal was rediscovered in 1965; and its population presently numbers several thousand individuals.

Commercial whaling for meat and oil since the eighteenth century has threatened most of the world's baleen whale species, and several toothed whales, with extinction. (Baleen whales feed by straining microorganisms from seawater.) Faced with severe depletion of whale stock, 14 whaling nations formed the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1946. While the IWC was somewhat successful in restoring whale populations, it lacks authority to enforce hunting bans, and non-member The endangered golden frog, Panama. JLM Visuals. Reproduced by permission. nations often threaten to disregard IWC directives. The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 banned all whaling in United States waters, the CITES treaty protects all whale species, and many whales have been protected by the ESA. In spite of these measures, only a few whale species have recovered to their pre-whaling populations, and a number of species remain on the brink of extinction. Seven baleen whales, and four toothed whales, remain on the ESA list and the IUCN Red List today: northern and southern right whales, bowhead whale, blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, humpback whale, sperm whale, vaquita, baiji, and Indus susu. The California gray whale is a rare success story. This species was twice hunted near extinction, but it has recovered its pre-whaling population of about 21,000 individuals. The gray whale was removed from the endangered species list in 1993.

Large predators and trophies

Many large predators are killed because they compete with human hunters for wild game like deer and elk, because they prey on domestic animals like sheep, or sometimes because they threaten humans. Consequently, almost all large predators whose former range has been developed by humans have become extirpated or endangered. The list of endangered large predators in the United States includes most of the species that formerly occupied the top of the food chain, and that regulated populations of smaller animals and fishes: grizzly bear, black bear, gray wolf, red wolf, San Joaquin kit fox, jaguar, lynx, cougar, mountain lion, Florida panther, bald eagle, northern falcon, American alligator, and American crocodile.

A number of generally harmless species are, sadly, endangered because of their threatening appearance or reputation, including several types of bats, condors, non-poisonous snakes, amphibians, and lizards. Internationally, many endangered species face extinction because of their very scarcity. Though CITES agreements attempt to halt trade of rare animals and animal products, trophy hunters, collectors of rare pets, and traders of luxury animal products continue to threaten numerous species. International demand for products like elephant tusk ivory, rhino horn, aquarium fish, bear and cat skins, pet tropical birds, reptile leather, and tortoise shells have taken a toll on many of the earth's most extraordinary animals.

Endangerment caused by introduced species

In many places, vulnerable native species have been decimated by non-native species imported by humans. Predators like domestic cats and dogs, herbivores like cattle and sheep, diseases, and broadly-feeding omnivores like pigs have killed, starved, and generally outcompeted native species after introduction. Some destructive species introductions, like the importation of mongooses to the Pacific islands to control snakes, are intentional, but most of the damage caused by exotic species and diseases is unintended.

For example, the native birds of the Hawaiian archipelago are dominated by a family of about 25 species known as honeycreepers. Thirteen species of honeycreepers have been rendered extinct by introduced predators and habitat loss since Polynesians discovered the islands, and especially since European colonization. The surviving 12 species of honeycreepers are all endangered; they continue to face serious threats from introduced diseases, like avian malaria, to which they have no immunity.

Deliberate introduction of the Nile perch caused terrible damage to the native fish population of Lake Victoria in eastern Africa. Fisheries managers stocked Lake Victoria, the world's second-largest lake, with Nile Perch in 1954. In the 1980s the perch became a major fishery resource and experienced a spectacular population increase that was fueled by predation on the lake's extremely diverse community of cichlid fishes. The collapse of the native fish community of Lake Victoria, which originally included more than 400 species, 90% of which only occurred in Lake Victoria, resulted in the extinction of about one-half of the earth's cichlid species. Today, most of the remaining cichlids are endangered, and many of those species exist only in captivity.

Species living on islands are especially vulnerable to introduced predators. In one case, the accidental introduction of the predatory brown tree snake to the Pacific island of Guam in the late 1940s caused a severe decline of native birds. Prior to the introduction of the snake there were 11 native species of birds on Guam, most of which were abundant. By the mid-1980s seven of the native species were extinct or extirpated on Guam, and four more were critically endangered. The Guam rail, a flightless bird, is now extinct in the wild, although it survives in captivity and will hopefully be captive-bred and released to a nearby, snake-free island.

Endangerment caused by habitat destruction

Many species have become extinct or endangered as their natural habitat has been converted for human land-use purposes. The American ivory-billed woodpecker, for example, once lived in mature, bottomland hardwood forests and cypress swamps throughout the southeastern United States. These habitats were heavily logged and/or converted to agricultural land by the early 1900s. There have been no reliable sightings of the American ivory-billed woodpecker since the early 1960s, and it is probably extinct in North America. A related subspecies, the Cuban ivory-billed woodpecker, is also critically endangered because of habitat loss, as is the closely related imperial woodpecker of Mexico.

The black-footed ferret was first discovered in the North American prairie in 1851. This small predator became endangered when the majority of its grassland habitat was converted to agricultural use. Farming in the American and Canadian plains also dramatically reduced the population of prairie dogs, the black-footed ferret's preferred food.

Furbish's lousewort is an example of a botanical species endangered by habitat destruction. This herbaceous plant only occurs along a 143-mi (230-km) reach of the St. John River in Maine and New Brunswick. It was considered extinct until a botanist "re-discovered" it in Maine in 1976. At that time, a proposed hydroelectric reservoir threatened the entire habitat of Furbish's lousewort. In the end, the controversial dam was not built, but the lousewort remains threatened by any loss of its habitat.

The northern spotted owl lives in the old-growth conifer forests of North America's Pacific Northwest. These small owls require large areas of uncut forest to breed, and became endangered when their habitat was greatly reduced and fragmented by heavy logging. The Environmental Species Act prescribes, and legally requires, preservation of large areas of extremely valuable timber land to protect the northern spotted owl. Upon receiving its status as an endangered species, the otherwise unremarkable owl became a symbol of the conflict between environmental preservation and commercial enterprise. For environmentalists, endangered classification of northern spotted owl brought the possibility of protecting the forests from all exploitation; for timber industry workers, the decision represented the government's choice to preserve a small bird instead of their livelihood. Small stores on the back roads of the Pacific Northwest expressed their resentment for the ESA by advertising such specialties as "spotted owl barbeque" and activities as "spotted owl hunts."

Like the northern spotted owl, the endangered redcockaded woodpecker of the southeastern United States requires old-growth pine forest to survive. The woodpecker excavates nest cavities in heart-rotted trees, and younger plantation trees do not meet its needs. Suitable forests have been greatly diminished by conversion to agriculture, logging, and residential development. Natural disturbance like hurricanes and wildfires threaten the remaining diminished and fragmented populations of red-cockaded woodpeckers. The ESA has attempted to protect the red-cockaded woodpecker by establishing ecological reserves and non-harvested buffers around known nesting colonies outside the reserves. Also like the spotted owl, the red-cockaded woodpecker is maligned by farmers, loggers, and developers for its role in their economic restriction.

Tropical deforestation presents represents the single greatest threat to endangered species today, though destruction of coastal and shallow marine habitats associated with anthropogenic global warming may present an even larger challenges in the future. While there was little net change (-2%) in the total forest cover of North America between the 1960s and the 1980s, the global area of forested land decreased by 17% during that period. Conversion of species-rich tropical forests in Central America, South America, Africa, and the Pacific islands to unforested agricultural land accounts for most of the decline. (Ironically, tropical soils have such poor structure and nutrient content that they generally cannot support profitable agriculture once the forest biomass has been removed.)

In the mid-1980s, tropical rainforests were being cleared at a rate of 15–20 million acres (6–8 million hectares) per year, or about 6–8% of the total equatorial forest area. The causes of tropical deforestation include conversion to subsistence and market agriculture, logging, and harvesting of fuelwood. All of these activities represent enormous threats to the multitude of endangered species native to tropical countries. Recent efforts to slow the rate of deforestation have included international financial and scientific aid to help poorer tropical nations protect important ecosystems, and to adopt new, more sustainable, methods of profitable resource use.

Human activities that influence the extinction and endangerment of wild species fall into a number of categories: (1) unsustainable hunting and harvesting that cause mortality at rates that exceed recruitment of new individuals, (2) land use practices like deforestation, urban and suburban development, agricultural cultivation, and water management projects that encroach upon and/or destroy natural habitat, (3) intentional or unintentional introduction of destructive diseases, parasites, and predators, (4) ecological damage caused by water, air, and soil pollution, and (5) anthropogenic (human-caused) global climate change. Alone or in combination, these stressors result in small, fragmented populations of wild flora and fauna that become increasingly susceptible to inbreeding, and to the inherent risks of small abundance, also called demographic instability. Without intervention, stressed populations often decline further, and become endangered.

Today, around 50 developed and developing countries have signed a partnership to take “immediate action” to reduce deforestation emissions. These countries signed a “REDD+ Partnership” (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) at the Oslo Climate and Forest Conference in Norway. The Partnership is an important step in international efforts to address global warming pollution from deforestation. These key countries are now committing to move from talk to action on efforts to address global deforestation.

Addressing deforestation emissions is a central effort in the fight against global warming so the commitment from these key countries will ensure that work begins immediately. Because every second of delay means that another acre of rainforest is lost (and won’t return). Towards this end, developed countries have now pledged to deliver over $4 billion over the next three years in efforts to address deforestation (as reported by AFP). This partnership should help to ensure this money is spent wisely, effectively, and transparently. After all, we need to have tangible progress in reducing deforestation emissions and show we can really do it. Both will be critical to maintaining strong public support for the ongoing funding necessary to address this challenge.

The countries represented by this agreement are critical players as they account for a significant portion of the deforestation emissions and remaining tropical forests, as well as, the developed countries that have pledged resources towards addressing deforestation.

Today major environmental, conservation, and development groups released a statement in response to the agreement. Here is the statement:

A significant step forward in the battle against climate change was made today with agreement from around 50 nations for the rapid deployment of more than $4bn to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) - which is responsible for more CO2 than every motorized vehicle on the planet.

A coalition of some of the world’s leading environment and development NGOs, including Conservation International, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resource Defense Council, Rainforest Alliance, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Wildlife Conservation Society, said today that the meeting in Oslo, Norway to launch a “REDD+ Partnership” was an important move from talk to action and released the following statement:

“The launch of the REDD+ Partnership demonstrates that countries finally are ready to move from talking about stopping deforestation

and forest degradation, to taking action to address this challenge. With deforestation accounting for the same amount of global warming pollution as all the cars, trucks, ships, and planes in the world we must turn the corner on this issue if we are to address climate change. Every second that we delay action on deforestation we lose an area the size of two football fields. Time is not on our side.

This Partnership can serve as an important venue for countries to cooperate on specific actions to address deforestation and forest degradation emissions. The world needs to ramp up its actions on deforestation and forest degradation and the REDD+ Partnership countries are central to this effort. These countries must mobilize the necessary resources, political will, and actions to achieve lasting reductions in deforestation and forest degradation emissions. We have no time to lose.

This Partnership can be a launching point for this increased global effort. The global community must continue to develop a post-2012 international climate agreement, one that recognizes the critical role of reducing deforestation and degradation emissions. This Partnership represents important progress towards that goal. We look forward to working with all the countries in this Partnership to deliver effective, efficient, and transparent actions to address the emissions associated with deforestation and forest degradation. Enhancing civil society participation in the Partnership will help ensure all relevant actors are engaged in forest-related climate solutions.”

Time to act. The US has committed $1 billion towards efforts to cut deforestation emissions and President Obama has outlined a tangible down payment towards this commitment in his budget (as my colleague discussed) Now Congress must agree to turn this pledge into real money so we can begin to implement tangible efforts to support countries in reducing their deforestation emissions. And other countries need to turn their pledges into real resources so that no time is lost in deploying resources to make the needed changes on the ground in tropical countries.

Now that this Partnership has been agreed, these countries working with NGOs, indigenous peoples, and forest dependent communities must begin the hard work of turning the corner on efforts to reduce deforestation emissions. We have no time to wait so let’s get started.

PROJECT UNDERTAKEN UNDER: