Suchergebnisse

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

The paper combines an economic-geography model of agglomeration and periphery with a model of species diversity and looks at optimal policies of biodiversity conservation. The subject of the paper is 'natural' biodiversity, which is inevitably impaired by anthropogenic impact. Thus, the economic and the ecological system compete for space and the question arises as to how this conflict should be resolved. The decisive parameters of the model are related to biological diversity (endemism vs. redundancy of species) and the patterns of economic geography (centrifugal and centripetal forces). As regards the choice of environmental-policy instruments, it is shown that Pigouvian taxes do not always establish the optimal allocation.

AbstractAsian's remarkable economic growth brought many benefits but also fuelled threats to its ecosystems and biodiversity. Economic growth brings biodiversity threats but also conservation opportunities. Continued biodiversity loss is inevitable, but the types, areas and rates of biodiversity loss are not. Prioritising biodiversity conservation, tempered by what is tractable, remains a high priority. Policy and market distortions and failures significantly underprice biodiversity, undermine ecosystems and create perverse incentives, leading to over‐consumption and under‐conservation. Properly priced biodiversity creates price signals and incentives that account for all contributions from biodiversity and ecosystems. Habitat conservation remains the centrepiece of biodiversity conservation. The next steps forward include selected command‐and‐control measures and economic policies that eliminate perverse incentives and creating positive ones along with improved enforcement.

The fact sheet describes the objectives and activities of Workpackage 2: Biodiversity of the SponGES project. The main aim of this Work Package is to provide a complete assessment of the biodiversity contained within sponge grounds ecosystems of the North Atlantic.

Dr Matthew Agarwala, Bennett Institute for Public Policy, tells Channel 4 News that reversing the trend in biodiversity loss will be the defining economic challenge of our generation.
The post Biodiversity is in crisis appeared first on Bennett Institute for Public Policy.

Intro -- Foreword -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- Contributors -- Abbreviations -- Project Acronyms -- Chapter 1: An Introduction to the Brazilian Deep-Sea Biodiversity -- References -- Chapter 2: Water Masses and Oceanic Circulation of the Brazilian Continental Margin and Adjacent Abyssal Plain -- 2.1 Preamble -- 2.2 Water Masses -- 2.3 Western Boundary Currents -- 2.3.1 The Brazil Current System -- 2.3.2 The North Brazil Current System -- 2.3.3 The Deep Western Boundary Current -- 2.3.4 A Brief Synthesis -- References -- Chapter 3: Continental Slope and Submarine Canyons: Benthic Biodiversity and Human Impacts -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Biodiversity of the Deep-Sea Margin -- 3.2.1 Slope Benthic Ecosystems -- 3.2.1.1 Patterns of Faunal Abundance and Species Richness -- 3.2.2 Submarine Canyons -- 3.3 Human Impacts on Brazilian Continental Margins -- 3.3.1 Current Threats to Deep-Sea Ecosystems Off Brazil -- 3.3.1.1 Oil and Gas -- 3.3.1.2 Deep Water Fishing -- 3.3.2 Future Threats by Climate Change and Seabed Mining -- 3.3.2.1 Climate Change -- 3.3.2.2 Seabed Mining -- References -- Chapter 4: Brazilian Deep-Sea Corals -- 4.1 Deep-Sea Corals -- 4.1.1 Hexacorallia Scleractinia -- 4.1.2 Octocorallia -- 4.2 Brazilian Deep-Sea Corals -- 4.2.1 History of the Study of the Deep-Water Scleractinians from Brazil -- 4.2.2 History of the Study of the Deep-Water Octocorallians from Brazil -- 4.3 Modeling the Distribution of Deep-Sea Corals from Brazil -- 4.4 Reproduction in the Deep-Sea Coral Habitats -- 4.5 Anthropogenic Impacts on Brazilian Deep-Water Coral Ecosystems -- 4.5.1 Fisheries -- 4.5.2 Mining and Oil and Gas Exploration -- 4.5.3 Climate Change -- References -- Chapter 5: Chemosynthetic Ecosystems on the Brazilian Deep-Sea Margin -- 5.1 Introduction -- 5.2 Seeps on the Brazilian Margin -- 5.2.1 Known Brazilian Seeps -- 5.3 Organic Falls.

The paper combines an economic-geography model of agglomeration and periphery with a model of species diversity and looks at optimal policies of biodiversity conservation. The subject of the paper is natural biodiversity, which is inevitably impaired by anthropogenic impact. Thus, the economic and the ecological system compete for space and the question arises as to how this conflict should be resolved. The decisive parameters of the model are related to biological diversity (endemism vs. redundancy of species) and the patterns of economic geography (centrifugal and centripetal forces). As regards the choice of environmental-policy instruments, it is shown that Pigouvian taxes do not always establish the optimal allocation.

In the past century, European agriculture has undergone profound changes. Through technical advances and structural changes, productivity is snowballing while farmland ecosystems are increasingly affected. These changes are taking place not only at the field scale through increased inputs and outputs, but also at the landscape scale through landscape simplification, with ecological effects being attributable to changes at both scales. While the decline of many farmland organisms in response to agricultural intensification is the most apparent effect, many of the biological functions provided by the systems biodiversity (so called ecosystem services such as pollination, nutrient cycling etc.) are also threatened, which could have great economical implications. To counter negative effects of agricultural intensification, EU Member States are using agri-environmental schemes (AESs) to incite farmers to use environmentally friendly practices. However, the effects of these schemes have been questioned both on the uncertain effects on biodiversity and on farmers' reluctance to participate. Many studies have tried to relate AES participation to characteristics of schemes, or demographics of farms and farmers including attitudes. Farmers seem to prefer schemes with flexible contract terms that only infer small changes in farm management. However, linking AES participation to farm characteristics is problematic, and studies often reach opposing results. Regarding ecological effects, lack of clearly stated objectives and the low scientific quality of the CMEF evaluations cloud the assessment of measures. Further, the effects of AESs have been found to vary with landscape composition (cleared/complex) and between taxa. With a deeper understanding of how AES effects interact with the landscape and how farmers relate to conservation initiatives, there are opportunities to improve scheme design. Collection of baseline data, evidence‐based measures and result-­based payments are examples of ways to advance AESs. To increase farmer engagement in AESs, participatory approaches play an important part in bridging the attitudinal gap between conservationists, legislation and farmers.

Moderator: David Anderson. ; Presented at the 8th international congress for wildlife and livelihoods on private and communal lands: livestock, tourism, and spirit, that was held on September 7-12, 2014 in Estes Park, Colorado. ; Recognizing the imperiled status of biodiversity and its benefit to human well-being, the world's governments committed in 2010 to take effective and urgent action to halt biodiversity loss through the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and its 'Aichi Targets'. These targets, and many other conservation programs, require monitoring to assess progress toward specific goals. However, comprehensive and easily understood information on biodiversity trends at appropriate spatial scales is often not available to the policy makers, managers, and scientists who require it. We surveyed conservation stakeholders in three geographically diverse regions of critical biodiversity concern (the Tropical Andes, the African Great Lakes, and the Greater Mekong) and found high demand for biodiversity indicator information but uneven availability. To begin to address this need, we envision a biodiversity 'dashboard', a visualization of biodiversity indicators designed to enable tracking of biodiversity and conservation performance data in a clear, user-friendly format. We structured around the Pressure-State-Response-Benefit framework, selecting four indicators to measure pressure on biodiversity (deforestation rate), state of species (Red List Index), conservation response (protection of key biodiversity areas), and benefits to human populations (freshwater provision). Disaggregating global data, we present dashboard maps and graphics for the three regions surveyed and their component countries. These visualizations provide charts showing regional and national trends and lay the foundation for a web-enabled, interactive biodiversity indicators dashboard. This should be able to help track progress toward the Aichi Targets, support national monitoring and reporting, and inform outcome-based ...