What is the role for zoos and aquaria in conservation?
Modern zoos are an increasingly influential voice in global biodiversity conservation. Earlier this year, the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) released a video outlining their vision for the role of their members in conservation programmes:
There are many arguments for the value of such ex situ conservation. For many people, zoos provide an important source of engagement and education about the natural world. The revenues raised by zoos may be also be reinvested in in situ conservation projects – see for example the Zoological Society of London’s conservation outreach programmes.
The accumulated knowledge and expertise held by many zoos can also be put to use in breeding and reintroduction programmes for species otherwise endangered or extinct in the wild (for example, see the La Palma pupfish – this month’s entry into the Cabinet of Freshwater Curiosities.
European otters at London Zoo. Photo: Cyril Blazy (http://www.fotopedia.com/users/blazouf / Creative Commons)
However, critics argue that zoos only foster a partial and unrealistic public engagement with nature – prioritising only the most charismatic and exotic species. Similarly, there is a concern that the over reliance on zoos as the last habitat for many endangered species may channel attention and funds away from the conservation of their natural habitats.
There are an increasing number of ex situ programs involving zoos and aquaria targeted at the conservation of freshwater species. For example, the IUCN Turtle Survival Alliance created a network of zoos, aquaria and private breeders to maintain viable populations of freshwater turtles, with a view to reintroductions in the wild. Similarly, Amphibian Ark is a collaborative project which uses captive breeding to ‘rescue’ dwindling populations of endangered amphibians.
What role should zoos and aquaria play in the global conservation movement? How far do they lead to a positive and productive public engagement with nature?
As ever, we’re keen to hear your views.
More information:
Getting it together for freshwater ecosystems
Today, thousands of bloggers across hundreds of counties will take part in Blog Action Day, an annual event to raise awareness about a single topic – this year focussed on freshwater. An impressive list of participants – including Google, Greenpeace and the White House blog – will all post on a range of human rights, environmental, animal welfare and sustainability issues surrounding access to clean water.
We believe that BioFresh can lend an important voice to this discussion. By creating a shared network of global freshwater biodiversity data, the project will better our understanding of the status and trends of freshwater ecosystems, and so allow effective conservation strategies to be planned. This week’s post on a recent Nature article emphasised the pressing need for accurate biodiversity datasets in order to map the threats faced by freshwater ecosystems.
The value of this data lies solely in its use. That’s why we are spearheading new and creative ways of engaging new users with BioFresh in order to encourage use of our open access data portals, and to raise awareness of the urgency of biodiversity loss from freshwater systems. Whilst our focus is on biodiversity, the conservation of healthy freshwater ecosystems provides numerous beneficial services to humans – such as water security, clean drinking water and flood control. Today’s Blog Action Day is about raising awareness of these benefits, and highlighting the numerous threats to freshwater ecosystems. We at BioFresh are glad to be involved.
How to get involved:
- Register your blog at Blog Action Day to take part
- Publicise the event through email and social media
- Follow the global debate throughout the day
More information:
- Read more about freshwater biodiversity conservation at: The BioFresh site; The IUCN Freshwater Biodiversity Unit; and WWF Freshwater Conservation
- An excellent explanation of the potential for blogs to engender positive action at charity: water
Nature study identifies need for new data to map the effect of water security investments on freshwater biodiversity
Writing last month in Nature, Charles Vörösmarty and colleagues provide the first global synthesis of threats to human water security and biodiversity services provided by freshwater ecosystems. The study shows that human water security and freshwater biodiversity share many threats. However, vastly more data and investment is available for improving human water security than for freshwater biodiversity conservation. Importantly, the fact that many water security interventions impact negatively on freshwater biodiversity highlights the challenges in balancing ecosystem management to address both human livelihood improvement and biodiversity conservation.
The study collated data on 23 stressors on freshwater systems under four themes – catchment disturbance, pollution, water resource development and biotic factors – to suggest that over 80% (4.8 billion people) of the world’s population is exposed to high levels of water security threat.
Global geography of incident threat to river biodiversity. Blues reflect lower threat, reds reflect higher threat. From http://www.riverthreat.net/ (13/10/10)
The highest threats (yellows, oranges and reds) to both water security and biodiversity were found where water resource development (e.g. dams and flood defences) and pollution levels were highest – in Europe, the USA, China and India. As there are many (and often local) factors that influence threat calculation, Vörösmarty and colleagues argue for integrated strategies to address ecosystem rehabilitation.
Global geography of threat to human water security when adjusted to include investment into water technologies. Blues reflect lower threat; reds reflect higher threat From http://www.riverthreat.net/ (13/10/10)
Wealthy nations are in a better position to improve their water security through technological investments (e.g. reservoirs, sanitation plants), thus widening the gap with poorer countries. Vörösmarty and colleagues suggest that such investments into improving human water security may have direct negative impacts on biodiversity (e.g. dams impeding migratory fishes). Unfortunately, due to the lack of available data the authors were unable to map the effects of this investment on biodiversity.
As the environmental impacts of climate change and population growth increase in the future, the challenge of implementing such integrated management strategies is likely to become increasingly important. However, without adequate data on the distribution, status and trends of global freshwater biodiversity, how can successful integrated management strategies be designed? As Vörösmarty and colleagues suggest, policymakers and water managers require high-resolution biodiversity data at scales relevant to their decision-making.
The BioFresh project aims to build a freshwater biodiversity information platform to bring together, and make publicly available, the vast amount of information on freshwater biodiversity currently scattered among a wide range of databases. However, this study demonstrates that there is a need for futher work in quantifying and communicating the threats faced by global freshwater biodiversity.
The fundamental question remains: how to manage global ecosystems in a manner that balances the needs of both humans and nature? As ever, we’d welcome your comments.
Reference:
Vörösmarty, CJ, McIntyre, PB, Gessner, MO, Dudgeon, D, Prusevich, A, Green, P, Glidden, S, Bunn, SE, Sullivan, CA, Reidy Liermann, C & Davies, PM (2010), ‘Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity’, Nature, vol. 467, no, 7315, pp. 555-561. Link
Links to further information:
Last Friday’s launch and rapid withdrawal of a high profile climate change campaign video illustrates the pitfalls and tensions in environmental communication. The 3 minute video, directed by Richard Curtis (director of Love Actually, Four Weddings and Funeral) aimed to bring climate change “back into the headlines whilst making people laugh”. Unfortunately, the joke – blowing up schoolchildren, the footballer David Ginola and actress Gillian Anderson for not agreeing to act to reduce their emissions after being told ‘no pressure’ – spectacularly backfired.
Classroom scene from the controversial 10:10 video. Image: YouTube
The imagery chimes with contemporary themes of terrorism, war and militant fundamentalism, and if blog traffic is anything to go on the 10:10 campaign is being accused of being either very naïve (see here, here or here to begin with) or eco-fascist.
Gillian Anderson in the 10:10 video. Image: 10:10
The video (and subsequent reaction) illustrates contemporary debates on ways to communicate environmental issues and the underlying science. Broadly, these revolve around notions of fear/crisis-based vs. vision-based messaging.
Fear or crisis-based messages commonly aim to shock viewers into action through presenting graphic or disaster-strewn representations of the need for rapid environmental action. For example, Conservation International have used Harrison Ford’s chest hair to highlight deforestation; the UK government Act on CO2 campaign pictured a doomsday twist on a child’s bedtime story; and anti-aviation pressure group Plane Stupid depicted polar bears falling out of the sky to highlight CO2 emissions from aircraft. The 10: 10 video falls into this category, ironically posing the phrase ‘no pressure’ whilst explicitly (admittedly in a slapstick fashion) blowing up anyone who doesn’t comply by making pledges to lower their carbon emissions.
A vision-based approach tends to be more subtle, attempting to align a vision for environmental action with the audience’s values, beliefs and aspirations. For example, WWF used the pride and adulation fans devote to Benfica football club to highlight the plight of an endangered eagle. This process (often termed ‘framing’) treads a fine line between presenting an easily relatable (and often hopeful) message without watering-down the underlying science or lapsing into political ‘spin’.
We have debated the merits of the two approaches in media workshops at Oxford for the last 4-5 years, and one insight is that messages of impending crisis attract the attention of politicians and policy makers but turn off the general public. Instead, most people are thought to respond most positively to environmental messages of hope (two academic papers from Oxford on this subject can be found here and here).
BioFresh decided on vision-based, hopeful messaging – see for example the Cabinet of Freshwater Curiosities – but is this the best approach to take? Whilst we wouldn’t go so far as blowing people up, should we be more vocal and sensationalist on the risk to human well-being that recent evidence on decline in African freshwater biodiversity or the extinction threat faced by many species of sturgeon might indicate? Are crisis-based messages more effective at communicating environmental issues? Or are you tired of sensationalist, ‘doom and gloom’ environmentalism and so more receptive to a constructive, hopeful, vision-based alternative?
Compassionate conservation
Marc Bekoff is professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. His latest book called The Animal Manifesto: Six reasons for expanding our compassion footprint, compiles six compelling rationales for changing our approach to how we treat animals of all species.
Bekoff utilizes anecdotes with statistics and facts drawn from a wide range of sources which brings a balance to both the tone and message of the book. Bekoff encourages the reader towards not just putting more thought into our treatment of animals, but coupling that thought with action, from cutting back on the meat consumed (or considering non-factory farm sources where available and practical) to their use in laboratories and entertainment venues to “management” techniques of our wild neighbors.
Addressing not only how we think of animals but also how we don’t think of animals and our impact on them in our day to day lives, The Animal Manifesto is a though provoking and compelling read.
A symposium on compassionate conservation was also organised at the beginning of the month in Oxford. A lot of interesting articles on the subject that were presented at the symposium can be accessed from here.
Bekoff also wrote an interesting article in New Scientist this month, that can be accessed from here. The article highlights that “The guiding principles of compassionate conservation are: do no intentional harm; respect all life; treat all individuals with respect and dignity; and tread lightly when stepping into the lives of animals” and it concludes with “Compassionate conservation is no longer an oxymoron. Ethics must be firmly implanted in conservation biology, even if doing so moves us outside our comfort zones and causes some projects to be put on hold or abandoned.”
Two more powerful statements that call on your comments! So get in touch and share your thoughts on Bekoff’s idea of compassionate conservation!
In Search for the Lost Frogs
Ranging from tiny poison dart frogs to the Chinese giant salamander (Andrias davidianus), the diverse class of creatures known as Amphibia is the most threatened group of vertebrates on the planet. Habitat loss, disease and climate change have caused some species to vanish without a trace in a single breeding season; however, the status of many of the world’s amphibians is currently unknown due to limited and outdated research.
Over the next few months, Conservation International is supporting expeditions by amphibian experts in 18 countries across Latin America, Africa and Asia, through the THE SEARCH FOR LOST FROGS campaign. Led by members of IUCN’s Amphibian Specialist Group, the research teams are in search of around 40 species that haven’t been seen for over a decade. Although there is no guarantee of success, scientists are optimistic about the prospect of at least one rediscovery.
And there is good news. Returning from the first wave of expeditions, scientists announce the re-discovery of 3 amphibian species not seen for decades. The three animals that have been rediscovered so far include a Mexican salamander not seen since it was discovered in 1941, a frog from the Ivory Coast not seen since 1967 and another frog from Democratic Republic of Congo not seen since 1979. Pictures are below (from the CI website):
More on the story can be found here.
Can the notion of ‘public good’ apply to Freshwater Biodiversity?
Last week a group of Cambridge-based conservationists published a paper in Science titled “Biodiversity Conservation: Challenges Beyond 2010” This restated the arguments that (1) unless people recognise the link between their consumption choices and biodiversity loss, the diversity of life on Earth will continue to decline and (2) biodiversity needs to be viewed as a public good. The timing of the paper is designed to increase pressure for more assertive action on biodiversity at the COP10 of the CBD, which takes place in Nagoya (Japan) next month.
Dr Mike Rands, Director of the Cambridge Conservation Initiative and lead author of the paper, said: “Despite increasing worldwide conservation efforts, biodiversity continues to decline. If we are to make any kind of impact, it is critical that we begin to view biodiversity as a global public good which provides such benefits as clean air and fresh water, and that this view is integrated not just into policies but also into society and individuals’ day-to-day decisions.”
Dr Rands continued: “The recognition of biodiversity as a public good is not a new concept, and in recent years economists have made substantial progress in developing valuation techniques that quantify the local and global benefits of biodiversity.”
Unfortunately the paper does not specify its concept of ‘public good’. Economics distinguishes between a good that is non-rivalries (i.e consumption by one actor does not reduce availability for another) and non-excludable (i.e. no one can effectively be excluded from using the good).
How does the concept of public good relate to freshwater biodiversity? Many freshwater bodies are effectively managed to exclude some from exploiting biodiversity (e.g. fish) but equally many lakes, ponds and rivers are open access and support biodiversity that is ‘consumed’ in a non-extractive manner. We would welcome your thoughts and comments on the notion of freshwater biodiversity as a ‘public good’.
As the main driver of biodiversity loss seems to be the corporate world, driven by consumer appetites, companies need the tools to account for biodiversity in their balance sheet and start regarding the biodiversity as a public good. The Natural Value Initiative (NVI) created and developed a toolkit for the financial community to use in understanding companies’ dependence and impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services. This is the first tool of its kind enabling a rigorous evaluation of performance on this issue and a step in the right direction of incorporating biodiversity concerns in the corporate world.
Learning from Sherman the Shark
Cartoonist Jim Toomey created the comic strip Sherman’s Lagoon, a wry look at underwater life starring Sherman the talking shark. As he sketches some of his favorite sea creatures live onstage, Toomey shares his love of the ocean and the stories it can tell.
The video embedded here is from the TED website and can also be accessed from here.
The innovation of this video is the use of art, here cartoon characters, to help inform about and understand issues related to environmental change. Art and entertainment are often much underestimated tools for driving change in attitudes and behaviour.
A similar point was made at an event I attended this week-end with Angela Palmer, the artist behind the Ghost Forest.
But if we cry out for change when we see trees being cleared out, we hardly never see the damages done under the water surface of the oceans or rivers. How many people realise the heavy consequences of the BP oil spills a few months ago?
Toomey’s talk added a significant voice to aquatic biodiversity conservation and I really encourage anybody who has a bit of time to spare to check it out.
IUCN makes bold claim that heightened extinction risk of African freshwater biodiversity threatens livelihoods
Today IUCN launched the results of a 5-year project to apply Red List extinction risk categories to 5,167 species of African freshwater biodiversity. The results are worrying – 21% of freshwater species were classed as threatened with extinction. Interestingly the IUCN press release explicitly states that this trend puts “the livelihoods of millions of people at risk” citing as evidence estimates of 7.5 million people in Sub-Saharan African depending on inland fisheries and the case of overfishing a group of fish know as ‘chambo’ in Lake Malawi (link for full details). Whilst the tactic of aligning extinction risk with threats to livelihoods is clearly intended to gain policy attention in relation to water extraction, dams and invasive alien species, I wonder whether the claimed causal link is as solid or clear cut as suggested. For instance, to what extent are ‘replacement’ fisheries composed of ubiquitous species dependent on the biodiversity in the system, or put another way what happens to other fresh water biodiversity with human use value when native fish assemblies are eradicated and replaced with a few food fishes? In short, is there a scientific basis for using the outputs of a threshold-based categorisation scheme to predict that millions of people will lose a key source of income, food and materials? This is not intended to suggest that the IUCN are being alarmist, rather it is to prompt discussion on the evidence we have, or the future research we need, to test causal links between the maintenance of freshwater biodiversity and the maintenance of freshwater ecosystem services. With water development set to increase massively across Africa, with for example, a doubling of irrigated land area by 2025 there is clearly an urgent need to marshal evidence and arguments.
Paul Jepson
I recently attended a media strategy workshop on biodiversity organised by the Netzwerk-Forum Biodiversitätsforschung. This is a network that links biodiversity research with wider German society (http://www.biodiversity.de/). The aim of the workshop was to discuss with media experts (i.e. print, radio and TV journalists) how to increase public awareness of the global biodiversity crisis.
For me, a key insight from the workshop was that the term “biodiversity” (which in German sounds very stiff) is too technical to be recognized by the public and politicians. This prompted me to ask whether biodiversity is a poor term (though not from a scientific point-of-view) and is partly responsible for the public ignorance of the reality of biodiversity crisis? Do we need to coin a better term? It goes without saying that competition for media spaces gets stiffer every year. Maybe what we need are good stories, sharp titles (I always admire the short titles in the Economist), as well as hard data and facts. A statement such as “the decrease of biodiversity is higher in freshwaters than in marine and terrestrial ecosystems” appears too vague and outside the box of everyday life to be successfully communicated.
I am very curious to get your opinion on get your comment on this topic.
Best wishes,
Klement
The Freshwater Blog 