16 May 2008 - Future
generations face hunger, thirst, disease
and disaster if we carry on losing biodiversity.
And as biodiversity plummets our use of
resources soars - WWF now estimates that
biodiversity has declined by more than a
quarter in the last 35 years.
The stark warning comes
as WWF launches its 2010 and Beyond: Rising
to the Biodiversity Challenge report which
contains the latest Living Planet index
– the internationally agreed way to measure
progress towards the global target of reducing
biodiversity loss by 2010– and which reveals
a continuing decline in biodiversity.
Food, clean water, medicines
and protection from natural hazards are
important ingredients in maintaining our
security and quality of life. If they are
to be maintained then the species, natural
habitats and ecosystems that support them
need to be protected. In 2002 the world’s
governments set themselves a target to reduce
the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010, but
WWF’s report shows that they are clearly
not on track.
“Biodiversity underpins
the health of the planet and has a direct
impact on all our lives. Put simply, reduced
biodiversity means millions of people face
a future where food supplies are more vulnerable
to pests and disease and where water is
in irregular or short supply,” said James
Leape, WWF International’s Director General.
“No one can escape the
impact of biodiversity loss because reduced
global diversity translates quite clearly
into fewer new medicines, greater vulnerability
to natural disasters and greater effects
from global warming.”
In 2002 the Parties
to the Convention on Biological Diversity
set clear targets to achieve a significant
reduction of the current rate of biodiversity
loss at global, regional and national levels.
However, the 2010 and Beyond: Rising to
the Biodiversity Challenge report shows
governments are not on track to meet the
2010 target and that environment ministries
cannot reverse this trend without integrated
support at the highest level.
WWF is calling on governments
during the Conference of the Parties to
the Convention on Biological Diversity Ninth
Meeting (CBD COP 9) in Bonn, 19-30 May 2008,
to make the protection and sustainable use
of biodiversity a political priority.
Concretely, WWF is asking
governments to:
• develop joint implementation plans between
environment, agriculture, food, water, finance,
and health in order to take urgent action
to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss
by 2010.
• live up to their commitment to put in
place effective protected area systems,
with the full and effective participation
of indigenous and local communities and
promoting equity and benefit sharing.
• to adopt a target to achieve zero net
annual deforestation by 2020 and initiate
collaboration between the CBD and the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change to reduce green house gas emissions
from deforestation and degradation.
WWF’s International
Policy Director, Gordon Shepherd, added:
“This is not rocket science. The reason
governments are failing to meet their biodiversity
targets is because they haven’t provided
adequate financial and technical resources.
They have also failed to develop economic
incentives and other measures to preserve
biodiversity. In particular environment
ministries must work for the active support
and involvement of ministers with a mutual
interest in saving biodiversity, especially
those responsible for development, finance,
agriculture, fisheries and climate."
“WWF is calling on all
the governments that signed the Convention
on Biological Diversity in 2002 to do what
they gave their word they would do: implement
the Strategic Plan by establishing national
targets and allocating sufficient financial,
human and technical resources.”
+ More
Saving lives and incomes
of the rural poor
14 May 2008 - WWF unveils
best ways to reduce conflict with wildlife
- Governments could save human lives and
millions of dollars in crop and income losses
for the rural poor through better consideration
of the needs of wildlife, according to a
new WWF study of conflict between humans
and wild elephants in Africa and Asia.
Common Ground found
the most serious conflict and harm to both
human communities and elephants resulted
from unplanned and unregulated development.
In Namibia, elephant related conflict costs
communal farmers around $US 1 million a
year, while in some Nepalese communities
it can be up to around a quarter of the
household incomes of poor farming families.
The most significant
consequence of the conflict was loss of
human life, but other considerable, costs
of human wildlife conflict go largely uncounted
– for instance, in Nepal, men in elephant-ravaged
villages faced difficulties in marrying
as women as scared to move to villages where
elephants are a problem. In some areas,
retaliatory killing of elephants was a major
threat to already vulnerable elephant populations.
“Conflict with elephants
causes death and suffering for many marginal
poor communities living close to wildlife
areas, and is often followed by the retaliatory
killing of wild elephants,” said Dr Susan
Lieberman, WWF International’s Species Programme
Director. “But we can go from lose-lose
to win-win for both humans and wildlife,
with the clearest gains coming from the
implementation of effective land-use planning
aimed at reducing the potential for conflict.”
In Nepal, the study
compared communities with high levels of
wild elephant damage with an area where
the conflict costs were at half those levels,
and found that the less damaged area had
more forest cover in edge areas and less
fragmented forests overall.
“The level of habitat
fragmentation was actually more influential
in determining the amount of crop loss than
the amount of forest coverage itself” the
report says, although there are many other
factors which play a part.
In Namibia levels of
crop damage were closely related to the
distance of farms from wildlife areas, with
farms immediately adjacent to unfenced wildlife
habitat being “a drain on the national economy”.
Human wildlife conflict in just one region
of Namibia was estimated as causing annual
losses of US$700,000 to the national economy
The report also found
that an effective way to manage HWC was
to give rights over wildlife to local communities,
thus enabling local communities to benefit
from neighbouring wildlife. Economic analysis
in Namibia demonstrated that these communities
were able to generate more income from wildlife
than they suffered from wildlife losses.
In Nepal, communities which received benefits
from wildlife and wildlife habitat showed
a much greater tolerance towards elephants
than communities receiving no benefits.
Other important measures
included innovative financial mechanisms,
and field based techniques such as planting
crops that are a deterrent, or less attractive
to elephants.
Common Ground reveals
how drivers from the west are also part
of the problem. In Namibia, international
agreements between Europe and Africa artificially
enhance the economic viability of the livestock
sector compared to other land-uses and add
to wildlife conflict pressures.
“Local communities can
both benefit economically and co-exist peacefully
with wildlife”, said Dr Lieberman. “What
we demonstrate here is that proper planning
to meet the needs of wildlife and the needs
of communities is the key to reducing deaths,
injuries and economic losses from human
wildlife conflict.”
