Saturday 15 November 2014

The Polarity between the uplisting of Polar Bears

Polar bear cubs triplet!

To uplist the Polar Bears from CITES Appendix II to Appendix I, or not?


Today, I will be sharing about the uplisting of the polar bears from CITES Appendix II to Appendix I. I'll be exploring whether or not the uplisting of the polar bears would actually benefit the remaining populations.

Some background information!
Currently, there are about 20~25000 polar bears worldwide, which are split into 19 seperate populations.

The conservation status of the polar bears varies greatly between countries.
  • InternationalVulnerable
  • Canada (COSEWIC): Special Concern
  • Greenland / Denmark: Vulnerable
  • Norway: Vulnerable
  • Russia: Uncertain, Rare, and Rehabilitated/Rehabilitating
  • United StatesThreatened

Annually, about 800 polar bears are harvested, primarily for subsistence purposes.

                                                                                                                                               

Recently, there has been a push to uplist polar bears from Appendix II to Appendix I on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). However, at the 15th CITES (CITES CoP15), the proposal to list the polar
bear was defeated (48 countries voted in support of the listing, 62countries opposed, and 11 abstained).

Under Appendix I of CITES, trade in specimens of these species must be subject to particularly strict regulation in order not to endanger further their survival and must only be authorized in exceptional circumstances.

                                                                                                                                               

Is there really a need for the uplisting of the polar bears? 

In my opinion, I feel that there is no need for an uplisting of polar bears from appendix II to appendix I. Simply because the biggest threat to polar bears is climate change and its impact on their habitat. Polar bears are generally well-managed and illegal hunting of polar bears does not appear to be a concern for most polar bear range! Besides, although there is indeed a sale of polar bear parts, it is only as an added benefit of the subsistence hunt. In most cases trade in these items does not appear to be the primary incentive for the hunt, but a by-product of the hunt.
Additionally, the hunting of polar bears plays an important cultural role in the native indigenous people. 

Hence, the ban of international trade of polar bears, through the uplisting of polar bears to Appendix I, will not eliminate the harvesting of these animals.

With global warming and climate change exacerbating the rate of loss of habitats for these animals, a precautionary approach is necessary to ensure that primarily commercial trade does not compound the threats posed to the species by loss of habitat. However, at this current point, it cannot be certain whether or not the ban on internation trade of polar bears could ultimately benefit the remaining populations of polar bears. 



If only sticky tape works...





                                                                                                                                               
References

Cites.org, (2014). Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. [online] Available at: http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.php#top [Accessed 15 Nov. 2014].

Wwf.panda.org, (2014). Polar bear status, distribution & population. [online] Available at: http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/population/ [Accessed 15 Nov. 2014].


Parsons, E. and L. Cornick (2011). "Sweeping scientific data under a polar bear skin rug: The IUCN and the proposed listing of polar bears under CITES Appendix I." Marine Policy 35(5): 729-731.

Shadbolt, T., G. York and E. Cooper (2012). "Icon on Ice: International Trade and Management of Polar Bears." TRAFFIC, North America and WWF-Canada. Vancouver, BC.

Saturday 8 November 2014

BlackMarket Fish


Trafficking of wildlife does not only include the illegal trading of big, iconic or exotic animals. It also includes illegal harvesting and trading of other small wildlife. 

Instead of the usual iconic animals, today's post will be about the illegal poaching of smaller, less iconic animals.

File: The Obama administration announced new measures to combat black-market fishing and protect ocean ecosystems on Tuesday.
File: The Obama administration announced new measures to combat black-market fishing and protect ocean ecosystems on Tuesday.



Black market fishing is estimated to cost the global economy by about $23 billion annually! Black market fishing is the unregulated and unreported fishing.

Illegal fishing has led to the collapse of wild fisheries, where fishes are harvested at rate that is way higher than its restoration rate!

This has led to a dwindling fish stocks, and increased competition between law-abiding fishermen and the illegal poachers. Some fishermen, unable to cope with the competition, will eventually ignore the fishing quotas that are set to allow fish population to rebound. Illegal fishing has also led to the decreased in prices of fish, where they overstock the demands for fish! Fishermen that are dependent on fishing for their livelihood suffered the greatest impact. 
With majority of commercial fish stocks over-exploited and collapsed, many countries turned to fish aquaculture as an alternative! However, fish aquaculture has several environmental impacts as well. For instance, escaped fish can spread diseases to endemic species! Additionally, a lot of food is required to feed the fishes in the aquaculture! Ironically, most of these fish food are made from wild-caught fish!



Illegal poaching of wildlife, whether iconic or not, can have grave and adverse impacts on the environment. Illicit animal trading does not just affect endemic species and the environment, but could also impact us just as gravely and adversely.   




Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing.


References

Exposure, (2014). WWF - Chile on Exposure. [online] Available at: https://wwf.exposure.co/chile [Accessed 9 Nov. 2014].

Wwf.panda.org, (2014). EU Clears Five States Following their Improvements in Fighting Illegal Fishing, While Red-cardi. [online] Available at: http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/smart_fishing/latest_fishing_news/?230871/EU-Clears-Five-States-Following-their-Improvements-in-Fighting-Illegal-Fishing-While-Red-carding-Sri-Lanka [Accessed 9 Nov. 2014].

Sunday 2 November 2014

From Poacher to Protector

In my previous post, I've talked about engaging the communities that are nearest to the wildlife as part of wildlife conservation efforts. Today, I'll be sharing a success story, about how poacher turned himself in, and converted from a poacher into a protector.

Ontai
Basumatary says he has remained most proud of his work in rehabilitating two clouded leopards. Photo credit: IFAW-WTI

"For over five years, 33-year-old Maheshwar Basumatary, a member of the indigenous Bodo community, made a living by killing wild animals in the protected forests of the Manas National Park, a tiger reserve, elephant sanctuary and UNESCO World Heritage Site that lies on the India-Bhutan border. Then one morning in 2005, Basumatary walked into a police check-post and surrendered his gun. Since then, the young man has been spending his time taking care of abandoned and orphaned rhino and leopard cubs."

In my opinion, this has got to be one of the best solutions for wildlife conservation. There is very little meaning in telling people what to do if they do not have any other alternatives. For instance, there is very little point in telling poor hunters that they should stop poaching because the animals that they are poaching are endangered. Why should they stop? It does not matter to the poachers whether or not the animals are endangered, but rather, what matter to them is whether they will be able to provide food for their family for the next day. 

Hence, it is very important to provide viable alternatives for these hunters. Currently, there are several "Poachers-to-Protectors" programmes, where they recruit and train ex-poachers to be park rangers, providing these ex-poachers with regular and dependable income. Besides converting poachers to rangers, alternative livelihood could be provided to these poachers, such as sustainable farming or beekeeping. 

"Engaging locals like Basumatary into wildlife protection and conservation is an effective way to curb wildlife crimes such as poaching, smuggling and the illegal sale of animal parts, according to Maheshwar Dhakal, an ecologist with Nepal's ministry of environment and soil conservation." 


great-elephant-cencus-BDF-w-children-in-GMFER-2,-Lyn-Francey
Botswana Defence Force members march with school children in the Global March for Elephants and Rhinos

Locals stand to gain the most from wildlife conservation, since they are the ones that are directly dependent on their environment for their livelihood. Hence, for wildlife conservation to succeed, it is essential that we have the support of the locals. 




References

allAfrica.com, (2014). Africa: Curbing the Illegal Wildlife Trade Crucial to Preserving Biodiversity. [online] Available at: http://allafrica.com/stories/201410132924.html [Accessed 2 Nov. 2014].

Wcs.org, (2014). Zambia: Poachers-turned-Protectors – Wildlife Conservation Society - Wildlife Conservation Society. [online] Available at: http://www.wcs.org/conservation-challenges/local-livelihoods/community-based-conservation/poachers-turned-protectors-in-zambia.aspx [Accessed 2 Nov. 2014].