Protecting wildlife in conflict zones

VIEWPOINT Eva Fearn Research shows that the vast majority of armed conflicts occur in areas rich in biodiversity, says Eva Fearn. In this week's Green Room, she explains how conservationists often find themselves on more than the front line in the battle to save species. Conservation 'diplomacy' has become an exciting and critically important outgrowth of the work of conservationists In Afghanistan's Wakhan region, a mountainous area bordered by Tajikistan and China, a herd of ibex deftly climbs a steep hillside. Across the valley, a man in Wakhi headdress views them through a spotting scope. His tracking skills are helping my organisation - the US-based Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) - assess ibex numbers. Of all the places to study wildlife, why work in a volatile country such as Afghanistan? Well, Afghanistan holds a surprising diversity of species, from giant flying squirrels to the Himalayan lynx. Of course, first and foremost, war is a tragedy for humans. But the environmental destruction it causes has also become a concern. In Afghanistan, the past three decades have seen 50% of the country's forests disappear and wildlife hunted out of many areas. The connection between conservation and conflict was highlighted by a report published in the journal Conservation Biology last year. It found that more than 80% of the armed clashes in the past 50 years occurred in countries that contain places of extraordinarily high global species diversity. In the 1990s, in Africa's biologically diverse Albertine Rift region, civil insurgencies rendered national parks the strongholds of rebels and provided shelter for refugees, causing large mammal populations to plummet. More recently, instability in other parts of Africa, including Zimbabwe and the Central African Republic, has facilitated increased elephant poaching, which is boosting the world's illegal ivory trade. So if conservation organisations are to protect wildlife and wild places, they must increasingly operate in conflict and post-conflict settings. On the front line Because civil unrest can often result from competition for natural resources, there is another powerful reason why conservation is important in conflict settings: it can help build peace. While wildlife conservation and the promotion of peace are worthy goals, staff safety is a major concern for conservation organisations operating in conflict zones Gorilla diary - life on the front line The UN Environment Programme (Unep), the World Bank, and the International Institute for Sustainable Development have all found re-inforcing linkages between natural resource management and post-conflict recovery. As the international community looks for ways to encourage peace and development, some conservation NGOs are taking on a little extra work. How exactly can a conservation organisation promote political stability? In part, it is by helping to build (or rebuild) natural resource management governance structures. During conflict, as people flee - and after, as refugees return - traditional ways of managing forests and pastures can dissolve. Helping to re-establish local governance structures for natural resources has become a key way to manage overgrazing, overhunting, and competition for dwindling resources. In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), for example, decades of strife have allowed for an explosion in the trade of bushmeat, tropical timber and charcoal. With funding from the US development agency USAID, WCS staff facilitated multi-stakeholder village committees to target overharvesting and corruption, and to plan for the management of resources. At three fishing villages near Lake Edward, addressing overfishing involves a participatory process to ascertain why fish stocks are declining and what can be done. It brings together stakeholders, including the military, police, fishing community, local security officials, and park managers to agree on plans for managing the stocks. People participating in this effort at good governance are building the foundations of new democratic institutions that will be essential to long-term stability and the future sustainability of fishing, their main resource. Risky business While wildlife conservation and the promotion of peace are worthy goals, staff safety is a major concern for conservation organisations operating in conflict zones. A beautiful landscape can often be the source of human conflict In Nuristan, a volatile region of Afghanistan along the Pakistan border rich in species like Asiatic black bear and markhor sheep, conservation work has stalled. Foreign experts cannot enter this Taliban stronghold, and even local Nuristani wildlife surveyors have been interrogated, their GPS units and binoculars a cause for suspicion. In DRC, a Congolese conservationist surveying Grauer's gorilla in Kahuzi Biega National Park was recently apprehended (and thankfully released) by a militia group. For conservation work to succeed through times of conflict, organisations must commit for the long-term. In war-torn DRC in the 1990s, a combination of UN agencies and NGOs continued to pay park guard salaries long after central ministry funds dried up. Similarly, flexible funders allowed WCS to maintain a presence in Rwanda and Uganda through the years of civil unrest. Perseverance through times of upheaval is well worth the effort on many fronts. Often, the conservation of resources and of economically important species can be discussed with relatively little political, ideological, or military pressure, and can serve as a starting point for wider political dialogue. For example, the creation of a wilderness buffer area along the contested Peru/Ecuador border bolstered a 1998 peace accord between the two countries. In Africa, there are plans for similar transboundary "peace parks" on the border between Sudan and Uganda, as the two nations emerge from decades of civil unrest. Because post-conflict states are often pre-occupied and underfunded, international conservation organisations can be called upon to help in myriad ways. Working to establish and re-establish community resource management mechanisms can help secure food, shelter, and economic stability, while nature tourism, transboundary parks, and scientific training can contribute in other ways to long-term peace. Conservation "diplomacy" has become an exciting and critically important outgrowth of the work of conservationists. Eva Fearn is Editor of the State of the Wild series, published by the Wildlife Conservation Society and Island Press. The 2010-2011 volume features a special section on Conservation in Times of War The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website Do you agree with Eva Fearn? Can conservation be a force for peace and renewed stability after conflict? What could governments do to make the conservationist's task easier in these regions? Or is considering nature a luxury in these situations? I work in the DRC for WCS and basically what Eva says is correct. Conservation is more and more being asked, demanded by funders, to peform these tasks. However conservationists need to bring in experts who can perform these sort of tasks and that is possibly one of the great benefits of this process. It is bringing together different types of NGOs from different fields and forging new partnerships. This can hopefully only be good for conservation and the local population. However people have to realise this is long term and very complicated. Funders need to know that it will not happen over night and have long term vision and sadly at the moment most of them do not. Ashley Vosper, Eva forgot to mention the huge number of conflicts caused by conservation organisations who fund paramilitary forest guards to control activities on the customary lands of forest peoples from the Congo Basin, guards who then prevent these indigenous and local peoples from practicing their traditional, sustainable subsistence activities in the forests they have roamed for aeons. Conservation which alienates the local population from their lands makes forest peoples poorer, and badly managed armed guards targeting local people results in human rights violations of the kind more associated with the war zones she mentions. In line with international conservation standards it is time for conservation organisations to move away from the exclusionary model of conservation towards practices which recognise peoples' land rights, and which work with indigenous and local people to protect forests upon which we all rely. John Nelson, Moreton-in-Marsh UK There is a serious danger within this whole movement to overplay the role of conservation in building peace. I don't doubt that establishing fairer and more equitable use of natural resources can help alleviate conflict in certain situations by helping to promote dialogue and improve governance, but conservationists often naively assume that this is the cause of the conflict when it is often just the manifestation of more deep-rooted social/cultural/economic issues. We also have to be honest and stop portraying the conservation movement as an independant and impartial broker in these processes - we have vested interests which will chime with some but not others. This gives us a seat at the table, but not the right to lead the process. This article also overlooks the uncomfortable reality that conflict and turmoil in these places is a large part of the reason why they are rich in biodiversity. The lack of stability has restricted economic development, and the environmental destruction (particularly the large-scale clearance or degradation of habitats) that typically accompanies it. JB, UK Eva is absolutely right! Those centers need to be built and both governments should cooperate on the idea of Urb-Wild Prolong Life Centers where people return back to nature. It's a wholistic approach to balance: Live, Work, Exercise, Nutrition and Mental Health. The whole system needs to be rewired, by giving people knowledge, teach them, so they can be sustainable. The variety topics of teaching should differ on the reagent. The daly business of these centers needs to be shared through YouTube and other similar media to challenge the status quo and inspire others into action on cause bases. Of course the logistics of these centers would have to be made and agreed upon by the different leaders of the regents by a liaison, who is interested ONLY in managing these centers. Vita Gillar, Honolulu, HI USA I think there is a lot of hostility and ongoing conflict to completely find an adequate and immediate solution. If people don't get all their needs filled from an authoritative government that can provide as well as control people will naturally take things into their own hands whether or not it causes greater damage than good. Maybe some lessons can be gained from the experiences that have gone on and continue to with Korea. Neutrality must be established and needs met before even considering correcting current behavior. ED, sioux falls, SD; US

Time to close the global energy gap

VIEWPOINT Carlos Slim and Kandeh K Yumkella

It is time to close the global energy gap, say Carlos Slim and Kandeh K Yumkella. In this week's Green Room, they explain how universal access to modern energy sources can help make progress towards a number of Millennium Development Goals.

The financial implications of ensuring universal energy access are large, but not overwhelming when weighed against the enormous benefits

If you are reading this article, you most likely have electricity and heat at home and never think of that fact as at all remarkable.
Yet more than two billion people - one in three people on our planet - have no access to modern energy to light and heat the dwellings in which they live.
The obstacles to energy access are not technical. We know how to build power systems, design modern cooking stoves, and meet energy demand efficiently.
What is missing is a global commitment to move energy access up the political and development agendas.
Half of the world's population uses solid fuel - such as wood, charcoal, or dung - for cooking. According to the World Health Organization, 1.6 million women and children die each year as a result of indoor smoke inhalation, more than those who lose their lives to malaria.
Add the pollutant emissions from such stoves, together with the deforestation that results from using firewood, and you have several pressing global challenges that can be tackled at once by closing the energy gap.
2030 vision
Efforts to close this gap have so far been insufficient in scale and scope. However, a plan of action now exists, developed in recent months by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change (AGECC).

Solar lamps are one way to reduce deaths from air pollutants Solar lamp wins award

The group brings together top UN officials and business executives, including representatives from Edison International, Statoil, Suntech Holdings and Vattenfall.
Through this innovative public-private partnership, we analysed global energy access and recommended in our resulting report that the international community committed itself to universal access to modern energy services by 2030.
The report also called for a 40% reduction in global energy intensity by 2030, which, if implemented, would reduce global energy intensity at approximately double the historical rate.
The AGECC is now working on how best to deliver on the plan. This was the focus of the group's last meeting, held in Mexico City in July.
It was hosted by the Carlos Slim Foundation, which works in support of implementing the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in policy areas such as health, deforestation, and closing the digital divide.
Sharing the benefits
Mexico will be the location for key UN climate talks later this year, and the AGECC is interacting with the country's energy ministry to ensure a co-ordinated and effective approach.

Are future generations going up in smoke? Climate: Paying the price

The financial implications of ensuring universal energy access are large, but not overwhelming when weighed against the enormous benefits.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that over the next two decades, ensuring universal access to electricity would require about 10% of total annual investment in the energy sector, which can be mobilised by the private sector.
Universal energy access is a new market opportunity, but one that needs the right support to thrive.
Many clean technologies are already available, so we are not talking about investing billions in research. It is a question of transferring the technologies and adapting them to local conditions and needs.
But increasing energy access is not only about supplying better, more efficient cooking stoves or light bulbs.
To promote economic development and growth, energy services must also work in the interest of creating wealth and jobs by providing power for businesses and improving healthcare, education and transportation.
In September, world leaders will meet at the UN to assess progress on the MDGs. While there is no goal on energy, it is central to meeting the other MDGs, especially those concerning poverty and hunger, universal education and environmental sustainability.
Governments alone will not be able to deal with all of these challenges. We need a firm commitment from all sides: private businesses, academia, civil society and international organisations and NGOs.
The deadline for delivering universal energy access is 2030. Will you join us?
Kandeh K Yumkella is director-general of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, chairman of UN-Energy and chairman of the UN secretary general's Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change (AGECC)
Carlos Slim Helu is chairman of the Carlos Slim Helu Foundation and a member of AGECC
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website

---

Do you agree with Carlos Slim and Kandeh K Yumkella? Is delivering universal energy acccess by 2030 a realistic goal? Will this help make progress on a number of Millennium Development Goals? Or are there too many barriers in the way to make any meaningful progress?

Universal access to clean, modern energy is a right for every human. It is also a highly realistic goal, particularly when planning and implementation includes decentralised models of generation, distribution and ownership.The lack of any explicit mention of energy in the Millennium Development Goals is probably the greatest of a number of editorial (or worse) blunders in those noble targets' shortcomings. Of course, with universal access as defined above, a great many of the MDGs become so much more realistic. I refer to examples, but not in any way as a promotion, given in two books I wrote recently: 'Sustainable Energy: Less Poverty, More Profits' at the World Bank, and 'Out of the Shadows - The Energy Transition of Indonesia' at NL Agency.
Paul Osborn, Uithoorn, The Netherlands

Slim and Yumkella are hitting the nail head-on. Energy, and in particular clean energy in developing countries is quintessential to all kinds of development. Progress on the MDGs is intimately linked to the increased production of energy. There is however one problematic aspect of energy politics that the authors underplay in this article - and that is the issue of access.Not all energy is 'good' energy - energy in itself is not a highway to salvation. At the centre of the energy conundrum in relation to development is the issue of who gets access and at what price? Is the best solution to build energy off-grid, or on-grid? Should ener gy be subsidised, and if so, for whom and on what terms? These are sensitive political issues - both in international development policy circles, but not least at local and national political levels. I would have wished for at least an allurement to these central issues in this article - issues which after all are decisive with respect to the development-efficiency of an increase in energy production. That said, we, through Norway's development policy, have already planned increased effort in the energy sector for the years ahead - using more or less the same argument that the authors use, but making sure that the focus is on access. Arvinn Gadgil, Junior Minister for International Development Norway
Arvinn Gadgil, Oslo, Norway

i share absolutely with the ambitions of Carlos and Kandeh on reaching universal energy access by 2030. This is a realistic, but only if we as a people come back to ourselves that it is possible to provide cheap solar panels in villages in Africa, to exploit the usefulness of human waste, bio-fuel etc as sustainable sources of clean energy, to bring wind energy closer to villages. The world's resources are limited, but at the same time abundant for us to live cleanly, devoid of harm to mankind and the resources that sustain us.
peter narh, bayreuth, Germany

i agree with project proposed as it may create more opporunities. leaving a question the action plan and targets to be achieved in framed time may have to achieved at nominal cost only but not at huge cost
kiran kumar, warangal, india

Absolutely, I am agreed with Carlos Slim and Kandeh K Yumkella. A lot of thanks to the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change (AGECC)to develop their existing action plan. Yes, there are no alternate beyond the innovative public-private partnership clean global energy access project. Under this public-private partnership, any governments will establish internationally-recognized certification programs to recognize facilities that adopt approved energy management systems and achieve significant and independently validated efficiency improvements over time.
Engr Salam, LGED, Bangladesh

I have been dealing with renewable energy for more than 40 years. Providing electricity, while very desirable, will not solve the need for oooking fuel. Wood and other forms of solid biomass will continue to be used indefinitely, principally because it is available and renewable. Using wood for fuel and other products is NOT the principal cause of deforestation. It is clearing land for arable and pastoral agriculture as a result of population increase and to obtain cash income. In fact for developing countries as a whole, the annual growth of wood is 3 to 4 times annual demand. Of course there are pockets of shortage, but these can be mitigated through better kitchen practices and improved stoves etc. Increasing agricultural productivity and reducing the rate of polulation increase are key elements in a rational policy to achieved the millenium development goals. Examining the costs and benefits of rual electrification as opposed to other energy initiatives should be given priority. This is as important as 'universal energy (electricity) access'!
Keith Openshaw, Vienna, VA, USA

Delivering universal energy access has only one barrier in front of it. Our slavish dependence on Oil. Workable solar electricity farms delivering salt and pure water as by-products and creating hydrogen for export would shift the balance of economic power towards the equatorial countries we traditionally refer to as 3rd world, and no one seems to want that.
Peter T, London

It's true that many clean technologies are available today. Solar energy solutions, wind energy, hydro and geothermal power, and new generation fuel cells have important roles to play. But a renewable energy system to power industry, transportation and homes needs to be partly centralized and partly decentralized. Universal access to energy thus consists of empowering the poor with free or inexpensive portable, home scale solutions, plus the choice for big, best available, zero impact infrastructures in democratic societies that cooperate in an enriching world for all. If the UN has a facilitating role in this as its focus, it may work. But government and foundations would seriously need to step up their empowerment efforts, while governments and business need to cooperate closely to implement best available infrastructures.
Garsett, Malle, Belgium

Instead of visiting "nice" parts of the world, wouldn't it be a good idea for the UN Climate Talks to be held in one of the countries/locations where there is no electricity or clean water, etc, and none specially laid on for the delegates? That might just open a few eyes (and minds).
Brian Kellett, Rhossili, Wales

I really support such initiative we at the village are concern
Peter talam, Nandihills kenya

The Green Room has just changed colour! You're going to supply 2 billion people with electricity and this is affordable? Where will this clean energy come from? How much infrastructure, materials (e.g. copper) will it need, how much will they all cost? So that this is not misconstrued as yet another PPPP (public pays, privates prosper), Mr Slim, as the richest man in the world, should easily be able to do this out of his own pocket for, say, everyone in Mali. Once he's done this, he could come back and tell us how he got on.
P Baker, Ascot UK

The potential pitfall is that bit about reducing energy density for the rest of us who have power to waste . . er 'spare'. The planet is long past the point where it can cope with 6 billion of us all wasting it equally. It can only cope with the present situation becasue we limited to only about 2 billion of us being able to live as we do. The "fair shares for all" bit will go down very well at the conferences. The fist fights will start when they have to point out that the rest of us have got to curb our habits. "So here it is folks, you too can finally enjoy what we have enjoyed for years, and now you have it; everybody switch it off !" Fair shares for all ! - that's going to be the tough bit.
steven walker, Penzance

Mangroves offer win-win opportunity

Mangroves shelter some unique wildlife

Healthy mangrove forests provide a huge range of environmental benefits and need to be protected, says Mark Huxham. In this week's Green Room, he argues that schemes such as Redd offer a vital lifeline to the important ecosystems.
Like smoke from a bushfire, a pall of black pessimism permeates news from tropical forests.

Conserving and restoring these forests must form part of a comprehensive climate change deal; reducing emissions from the developed world is essential, but is not enough

Every year millions of hectares are lost; usually between 1-2% of global forest coverage.
But in recent years, new units of destruction have appeared measuring mass, not area.
In 2008, we saw 12 billion tonnes of carbon disappear - this is equal to the mass of about 100 million blue whales.
This shift in measurement reflects a change in international priorities.
Whilst the negative impacts of deforestation on biodiversity and indigenous people remain as serious as ever, it is climate change, and units of carbon, that have come to dominate discussions around forestry.
Redd wedge
Approximately 17% of all global greenhouse gas emissions come from the destruction of tropical forests. This is more than the total from all forms of transport combined.
So conserving and restoring these forests must form part of a comprehensive climate change deal; reducing emissions from the developed world is essential, but is not enough.

For the first time in many years there is an emerging opportunity to clear the smoke, and community-based conservation of mangroves is a good place to start

International negotiations have developed a mechanism to achieve forest conservation, known as Redd (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation).
The idea is that tropical nations will be able to apply for funds either to slow the rate of destruction of existing forests or to increase the area of new ones.
Given that the international carbon market is worth in excess of $100bn per year - more than 100 times what is spent on international conservation - Redd holds the potential of injecting large sums into saving tropical forests and of finally reversing the decline.
Mangroves, forests that grow in intertidal areas in the tropics and sub-tropics, and the people that depend upon them could really benefit from Redd-related carbon payments.
Mangroves account for only around 0.4% of all forests; but the multiple services - such as coastal protection, nursery habitat for fish and filtration of pollution and sediments - that they provide, and the rapid rate of their destruction, make them a conservation priority.
They are also highly effective natural sinks for carbon, capturing up to six times more carbon per hectare than undisturbed rainforests.
Community credits
We have been working with conservation charities Earthwatch Institute and Plan Vivo, along with the Kenyan government, to develop a demonstration community mangrove conservation project at Gazi Bay in southern Kenya.
There are many good reasons to carry out this work, and money from carbon credits might just make it possible - not only in Kenya, but in other communities throughout the tropics.
So why don't we seize the chance?
Critics of the carbon market highlight a number of reasons.
First, the carbon accounting approach to forestry may fail to see the woods for the carbon; the best ways of maximising carbon revenue may not be the best ways of maintaining healthy ecosystems.

Mangroves favour areas such as deltas where salt and fresh water mix

For example, plantations of fast growing exotic species - such as eucalypts - can rapidly capture carbon but may be a disaster for native wildlife and ecosystems.
But the temptation to do this will usually not arise for mangroves, which are highly specialised and grow in areas that other trees cannot tolerate.
Second, there is the threat that Redd and similar systems will be used by governments to evict "inefficient" local people from forests made suddenly valuable by carbon money.
The recent People's Climate Conference, held in Cochabamba, Bolivia, came out against Redd on these grounds.
But this is an argument for bottom-up projects, which are led by local people from the start. While the Redd process is still flexible and evolving, an opportunity exists to model future projects on community-based principles.
In the case of mangroves, governments already own most forests around the world, with local people having no formal rights to their use or powers to protect them. Redd presents an opportunity to design and test new systems of community tenure-ship.
The third argument heard against investing in forests for carbon is that of "permanence": how can we know that carbon locked in forests today will not be released following fires or clear-felling tomorrow?
Such an argument could be made against most low-carbon developments. There is no guarantee that the wind turbine built today will not be struck by lightning tomorrow, and anyhow it will "die" at the end of its operating life of 30 years.
However, mangroves are capable of storing carbon for many thousands of years in the form of peat in their sediments, and much of this carbon may remain in place even if the forests themselves are destroyed.

The roots form a sheltered nursery for fish and other creatures

One UK newspaper columnist compares carbon offsetting to the indulgences paid by the pious in the Middle Ages - a device to absolve your conscience without changing your actions.

This is the "moral hazard" argument - that offsetting carbon is a trick that will excuse business-as-usual and will be counterproductive.

But we no longer have a choice between protecting forests and changing lifestyles. Both are necessary.

Money from offsetting can form a useful bridging mechanism as we move towards reducing emissions and enhancing and protecting sinks. But we do need to make sure that both happen, and that cash generated from offsetting is only a part, and a diminishing one, of the funding required.

And what can be said of the final argument, that pricing ecosystem services such as sequestration is a final capitulation to the market-driven, growth-obsessed logic that has got us into our current mess?

I agree that we need a revolutionary change in our ethical outlook so that ecological sustainability becomes our central concern, but I don't see it happening in time to save the forests.

(Lord) Nicholas Stern, in his landmark review into the economics of climate change, identified climate change as a massive "market failure".

By using the language of economics, his report influenced thinking from governments to tabloid newsrooms, even though it contained no new science.

We should learn from this and use the tools of economics to help correct "market failures" such as the destruction of valuable mangroves for short-term gain.

Meanwhile, the bad news from the tropics continues to drift in.

But for the first time in many years there is an emerging opportunity to clear the smoke, and community-based conservation of mangroves is a good place to start.

Dr Mark Huxham is an Earthwatch researcher based at Napier University, Scotland

The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website

---

Do you agree with Dr Huxham? Should mangrove forests be protected at all costs? Do schemes such as Redd help or hinder conservation goals? Can adopting economic language help correct "market failures", such as short-term gains from habitat destruction?

The best thing we could do is to plant trees and mangrooves while it's not too late. If we cut, we should plant. Minimize also cutting. We all know that trees can grow maturely after several years. Population is booming around and as much as possible, we should use recycled materials.
janice, Philippines

I am no specialist in mangroves, but what I am pleased to see developing in both reporting and political discussion circles, is the realisation that mankind will not solve our climate problems with conscience alone. Many care a great deal but we need to face the fact that many do not; only by bringing the climate down into economics will we solve these issues, whether we like it or not. It's not an excuse for business as usual - we can't afford that - but if we are smart we will re-shape our current economic outlook to value what really matters. In this I agree with contributor #3; we have a fantastic opportunity right now to change the way we're going.
Rob Wigham, Aberdeen, UK

Who gives a dime to mangroves, drain the water from mangroves and grow corn for bio diesel. My small car Ford expedition needs lot of diesel and diesel is very expensive. If we increase the supply I am sure prices will go down and it will cheaper for me to fill up.
S.N.Rao, Boulder,CO

Along with a huge number of facts with which I can bore everyone I know, it is a powerful and exciting thing to believe that, through good conservation science work, you really can save the world. Mangrove conservation based on, need for coastal protection, sustainable products for firewood and construction, income generation, and creation of new land. To conclude, it is important that we better understand the conditions under which local forest users are more or less likely to adopt conservation-oriented practices like tree planting and forest management.
Engr Salam, LGED, Bangladesh

mangrove is part of the natural system to protect coast and river estuary. Sadly it has long been associated with collecting "detritus" - unpleasant to us, but all part of the environmental system nurturing micro life. Further, like terrestrial forest Mangrove is associated with unpleasantness the final refuge of the landless/dispossesed or no longer wanted. Singapore is a good example of this. Mangrove can be seen as the resort of the city's discarded litter, entrained as it is through the run off from impermeable surfaces, drains, canals. However that said Singapore goes to considerable costly effort to replace/retain and maintain the remains of it's once extensive mangrove sites. Pasir Ris is a notable example amongst many on the island. The mangroves of "Paris" are interlaced with substantial boardwalks which make not only for a pleasurable if not educational stroll, but a haven of solitude for wildlife.
Dick Mason, Singapore

"But for the first time in many years there is an emerging opportunity to clear the smoke, and community-based conservation of mangroves is a good place to start." Of course, we need both to protect forests and go on living near them. In our country,these forests are good resources for fire woods and shelters.Rural People need to use them daily. Nowadays, thanks to JICA's help and knowledge to our people along with their great endeavor,we have tried hard to replenish what we have used in these mangroves forest.
Myint Lwin, yangon, Myanmar

Confusing but concise? No, ecologist, conservationist or ethono-botanist can dispute the fact that ecosystems especially that of the low-lying coastal areas such as tropical mangrove should not be protected in the face of all intrusive anthropogenic activities, but such protection nowadays should integrate all components underpinning its protection. Serving as a Mangrove Restorationist and facilitator for FCPF/REDD+ for Cameroon in NGO, REDD+ being a "waving additionality" will have its own impact (-/+) on mangrove protection at different levels. It could lead to a new round of protection for mangrove forests without securing legal recognition of usage rights and tenure of local communities since all such land belong to the state. It might reward the wrong countries and practices even if the market proves to be devoid of corruption. It is unlikely also that those states who are both major perpetrators of mangrove deforestation and engage in corrupt practices are going to honestly embrace the REDD framework. REDD perpetuates commoditisation of nature since its language and mechanism are only relevant in a capitalist/commodity market economy. Finally REDD focuses on State and not people: the purpose of the FCPF is to support state to decrease deforestation and degradation and to issue emissions reduction certificate at the national level and might go down to the project level though FCPF/REDD is clear on the implication of users. Much still is needed to fine turn the market follows for mangrove African countries in the FCPF considering the many bottle necks that exist. Ok, we are inside the train let see what the future holds!
MOUDINGO, EKindI, Douala-Edea National Park, Mouanko, Cameroon

Mangrooves do offer a lot of benefits to the environment especially in maintaining wildlife and protection from environmental hazards. I have witnessed the growth of these trees along the Mtwapa creek in Mombasa over the last 15 years and quite impressed by their growth and other creatures that can be found. I encourage that these trees be protected.
Mzalendo, Mtwapa, Mombasa Kenya

Both the 'bottom-up' approach and the REDD mechanism do strengthen and support an emerging framework of mangrove protection and livelihood security of the mangrove-dependent communities. One of the primary challenges towards such a 'win-win' scenario is to overcome the social barriers by winning the hearts and minds of these ecosystem-dependent communities who have been bearing the brunt of an ever-changing conservation policy landscape which is ruthlessly techno-centric, exclusionary, and promotes confiscation in the name of conservation. Through my longstanding association with such mangrove-dependent communities in a coastal Ramsar site in India (the Bhitarkanika Mangroves) I have witnessed how the conservation planning and strategies systematically and meticulously restricts community accessibility to these natural resources and in turn severely impacts their livelihoods and survival. This is to share one such experience and an attempt to generalize the observation. REDD skeptics are very critical of the benefit sharing from such financial arrangements with their emphasis on 'who really wins from such a win-win scenario'. But there are also some best-practices in place demonstrating equitability and sustainability of such processes and the Gazi Bay conservation project will further enrich this with fresh insights and strategies. The bioshielding capacity of mangroves were well recognized during the 2004 Tsunami and since then many mangrove-focused programmes are in place at various levels; the Mangroves for the Future being one among them. To ensure community participation and ownership of the community-based conservation programmes, there is an urgency to build up institutional interplay and multi-level coordination among many such programmes at the community-level.
Jyotiraj Patra, University of Oxford, UK

The mangrove dominated eco-system is one of the more fantastic and effective of the planets climate change buffering methods, requiring protection and encouragement for the good of the biosphere. Offsetting in general should not be seen as a major ingredient in lessening/repairing the negative effects of our actions. It is however a fantastic tool for encouraging conservation and biodiversity increasing movements, offering a route to a sustaining profitability.

Care should be taken not to ignore the possibilities in 'developed' countries, their forests often miniscule in relation to those of relatively recent history.
David, Blackpool

Carbon credits, Redd, and other such indirect approaches do not work in developing countries, which cover most of the tropical mangrove forest regions. 'Short term monetary gain' vs. 'Long term environmental loss'. Who wins? The destruction of Mumbai's mangroves by corruption (private/government) is a stark example. Environment, and mangroves, are not the priority of people here, although with recent flooding and other disasters linked to climate change, opinion may soon change favourably.
Sandeep Pinge, Mumbai, India

"...plantations of fast growing exotic species - such as eucalypts - can rapidly capture carbon but may be a disaster for native wildlife and ecosystems. But the temptation to do this will usually not arise for mangroves, which are highly specialised and grow in areas that other trees cannot tolerate." Unfortunately, there are innumerable "reclamation" programs that are filling in viable mangrove wetlands to grow oil palms and set up other development options in the mangrove areas such as shrimp ponds, tourist hotels and golf courses. There is no guarantee that the conditions that favor only mangroves will not be changed to fit the newest economic incentive. Otherwise I am quite impressed with Dr Huxham's analysis of the situation, and suggest if we proceed into REDD strict adherence to certain guidelines must apply so that the problems listed ion this analysis can be minimized.
Alfredo Quarto, Port Angeles, USA

The problem in these mechanisms is that they "export" a set of our own Western cultures onto these ecosystems; which were surviving there beforehand pretty much because we hadn't got our sticky fingers on them - till now. Suddenly there is a whole load of stuff being dumped down in these places; our values, how we decide stuff is worth something; and its dropped in one afternoon from a Jumbo jet. - and lets face it; look at what those "values" have done to our own back yards ? - we want to save this other stuff because our "know the price of everything, but the value of nothing" has sawn down all the tree's we had here ? We take a pristine wilderness; tell the people who live there it is no longer their home; it's a "business opportunity" - well tell them they are no longer allowed to value it because of it's traditional use to them, but rather because of some dollar spot price on a computer screen, and then, when we have thoroughly messed up their heads, trying to catapult them into our version of the 21st century; we wonder why they cut down all their trees, like we did our ? Like the rats and the syphilis that stowed away on the early explorers ships; we have to consider if we are exporting a whole raft of other "unintended results" when we go wading into these places with our mind-set. Perhaps the best way to assure ourselves that these forests will still be here is to actually decide to do what we were doing before . . . - and leave them well alone !! - I know that's an anathema to us; but if you haven't figured that out yet; you haven't a hope of fixing our problem; we trashed the planet. Now either we rein in ourselves. Or we will kill the lot of it. The very words we use; the very way we discuss the issues; in dollars; "resources" plans and maps; these are the unintended rats in our very mind-set that stowed away upon the ships of our "good intentions" - and we spread these pests every time we step into these pristine wildernesses. We can put our empty bean cans back onto the plane when we leave; but we can't unwind our words, and thoughts and ideas, and take those back out of the environment when we leave; and those are what cut down the trees we had in the first place.
Steven Walker, Penzance

It is a wonderful and inetresting news and write up. Please keep up the good work.
Elijah O. Mokaya, Mombasa, Coast, Kenya

Having studied coastal management I totally agree that Mangroves provide considerable environmental services and deserve special protection (deaths from the 2004 Tsunami would have been greatly reduced with intact Mangroves protecting the coastline). I also totally agree that incorporating environmental services into the current economic system (through REDD or any similar schemes) is the only way, in the short term, to provide the funds and incentive to protect these vital places. Let's try it and see, its better than doing nothing and hoping that everyone wakes up to what is happening.
Darren Catterall, Hong Kong

People are going to need jobs and the affect of some portion of the industrialized wealth of nations flowing to local communities that work to protect forests is a case where a little will go a very, very long way toward starting to make things better. I'm still thinking something could be learned from the mess current world finances are in that can speed the transition to valuing ecosystem wealth and what it provides. Mangrove trees essentially can spit out salt that keeps others at bay and their design of how they naturally form channels for water to flow is truly a thing of beauty. Maybe the world needs to go to a fair trade system of wooden nickles till mankind figures out how to get a handle on global warming and restore balance in Nature so the world can go on living.
Dale Lanan, Longmont, Colorado, USA

The 'bottom-up' approach is crucial. People in most cultures resist and react against 'top-down' legislation; 'Thou shalt . . .' Most natural environments are somebody's home. Local action supported by a legislative structure that empowers small communities is how effective, intelligent, positive change can happen. Many of these communities have lived in such sensitive local ecosystems so long they are an integral part of the local balance. A partnership of local knowledge and carefully-applied modern technology is the way to reverse the negative changes. Such an approach, exercised in all humility, is being practised successfully with indigenous Inuit groups in Canada.
Jeff Taylor, Shanghai, China

"But we no longer have a choice between protecting forests and changing lifestyles. Both are necessary." Absolutely agree. Mangroves provide opportunities for high-density, bio-diversity spanning marine and terrestrial environments, making them an excellent investment for the community of fellow wo/man. Plant a plot of mangroves today as part of your CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) program and as hedge against "peak capitalism".
Martyn Willes, Makati City, Philippines

Five Ways To Save The World

Climate change is being felt the world over and if global warming continues to increase the effects could be catastrophic.

Could these men reduce the amount of sunshine hitting earth?

Some scientists and engineers are proposing radical, large-scale ideas that could save us from disaster.

The first three proposed ideas featured in the film, look at reducing the power of the sun - thereby cooling the planet.

Professor Roger Angel from Arizona - the designer of the world's largest telescope - is proposing to put a giant glass sunshade in space.

Professor Angel's sunshade will deflect a small percentage of the sun's rays back into space.

Dutch Professor Paul Crutzen won the Nobel Prize for chemistry when he discovered the causes of the hole in the ozone layer.

His plan is to fire hundreds of rockets loaded with tons of sulphur into the stratosphere creating a vast, but very thin sunscreen of sulphur around the earth.

British atmospheric physicist Professor John Latham and engineer Stephen Salter, have designed a fleet of remote-controlled yachts.

These will pump fine particles of sea water into the clouds, increasing the thickness of the clouds and reflecting the suns rays.

 

Carbon dioxide debate

The other two men in the programme want to tackle the problem of excess carbon dioxide - the cause of global warming.

Ian Jones (L) and Klaus Lackner (R) are 

tackling carbon dioxide head-on

Sydney engineer Professor Ian Jones proposes to feed plankton with gallons of fertiliser.

This will make the plankton grow and absorb carbon dioxide from the air.

And New York-based Professor Klaus Lackner has designed a carbon dioxide capturing machine and his plan is to locate more of them across the globe.

They would suck in carbon dioxide, turn it into a powder and he would bury it deep under the ocean in disused oil or gas fields.

Most of the scientists are reluctant advocates of these ideas, and all believe we should be cutting down on our use of fossil fuels to heat our homes and drive our cars.

But is time running out for planet earth?

Although these ideas might have unknown side effects, some scientists believe we may soon have no choice but to put these radical and controversial plans into action.

Five Ways To Save The World was broadcast on 19 February 2007 at 2100 GMT on BBC Two.

Producer/director: Jonathan Barker
Directors: Cecilia Hue & Anna Abbott
Executive producer: Karen O'Connor

Save the world with MUSIC THERAPY

Music therapy is an interpersonal process in which the therapist uses music and all of its facets—physical, emotional, mental, social, aesthetic, and spiritual—to help clients to improve or maintain their health. In some instances, the client's needs are addressed directly through music; in others they are addressed through the relationships that develop between the client and therapist. Music therapy is used with individuals of all ages and with a variety of conditions, including:

• psychiatric disorders
• medical problems
• physical handicaps
• sensory impairments
• developmental disabilities
• substance abuse
• communication disorders
• interpersonal problems
• aging

Because music has been shown to effect portions of the brain, especially emotions and social interactions, music therapy has been showing promising results in the area of stroke recovery. Recent studies have examined the effect of music therapy on stroke patients, when combined with traditional therapy. One study found the incorporation of music with therapeutic upper extremity exercises gave patients more positive emotional effects than exercise alone. In another study, rehabilitation staff rated participants in the music therapy group as more actively involved and cooperative in therapy than those in the control group. Their findings gave preliminary support to the efficacy of music therapy as a complementary therapy for social functioning and participation in rehabilitation with a trend toward improvement in mood during acute rehabilitation.

It is also used to: improve learning, build self-esteem, reduce stress, support physical exercise, and facilitate a host of other health-related activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_therapy

Music therapists are professionals in the field of music therapy who utilize responses to musical stimuli to evaluate the mental and even physical conditions in patients. They are also responsible for taking these evaluations and designing sessions for treatment which includes lyric discussion, song writing, music interpretation and other activities. Music therapists work in psychiatric hospitals, rehabilitative facilities, medical hospitals, outpatient clinics, day care treatment centers, agencies serving developmentally disabled persons, community mental health centers, drug and alcohol programs, senior centers, nursing homes, hospice programs, correctional facilities, halfway houses, schools, and private practice.

There are several associations that are responsible for the support of music therapy and the certification of music therapists.

The Certification Board of Music Therapists (CBMT) is the only organization to certify music therapists to practice music therapy nationally. Since 1986 it has been fully accredited by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA). Over 4,500 music therapists have attained the MT-BC credential, and now participate in a program of recertification designed to maintain or increase initial competence in the profession of music therapy.  

The American Music Therapy Association is the largest professional association which represents over 5,000 music therapists, corporate members and related associations worldwide. Founded in 1998, its mission is the progressive development of the therapeutic use of music in rehabilitation, special education, and community settings. AMTA sets the education and clinical training standards for music therapists. Predecessors to the American Music Therapy Association included the National Association for Music Therapy founded in 1950 and the American Association for Music Therapy founded in 1971. 

Want to Save the World? I’ll Tell You How

Our planet isn’t in very good shape right now. The air is polluted. The ocean is becoming plastic soup. We’re in a financial crisis.

Things don’t seem to be looking too good, huh?

There are a lot of people, that have a lot of answers. Everyone thinks their answer is right. We need cleaner, natural sources for energy. We need biodegradable products that if dumped, will simply disintegrate within a few weeks. As far as the financial crisis goes, that’s a little trickier. Some people say we need more regulation. Others say we need more jobs. Others still say the cost of living is increasing too fast for our incomes to keep up.

Everyone has answers.

The problem is, none of these answers address the fundamental problem:

We don’t need to do anything about it.

No, I didn’t stutter.

The answer isn’t in better solutions, fixes and different angles. The answer is… we need to do less.

There’s a fundamental rule in physics that says, energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred. I’m sure you’re familiar with this, we all learned it in school. And the same rule applies to everything in life, but I guess we didn’t listen very well.

See, the problem we’re in this big mess is really simple. It may seem like there’s so much we need to do, to make things right. And that’s the problem. We don’t need to do more. We don’t need to make more of an effort. We need to do less.

That’s why I don’t understand a lot of these “green enthusiasts.” They say we need greener products, with less of an environmental impact. They want to make our consumables more eco-friendly. I agree this is part of the answer, but the issue is really only a sliver of the type of things we consume. It’s how much we consume.

Consuming has caused the majority of our financial and environmental problems. We take more than we give. We know that we’ll need to repay our debt sooner or later, but we put it off. Interest accrues, financially and ecologically. It’s not until the problem gets so huge — and we can’t ignore it anymore — that we take action.

Just like energy cannot be created, or destroyed, we can’t magically make our financial or environmental debts disappear. The rubber band can only bend so far before it swings back.

So why do we avoid using less? Why are we so hungry to consume? Maybe it’s because we’re looking for the wrong things. Maybe what we really need is an internal revolution.

Let’s take a look at some of the ways we can use the power of less to restore balance.

• Driving less, walking more. Not only will you be saving the environment, you’ll be saving your heart as well. Bonus!
• Wanting less, appreciating more. Instead of wanting a big home you can’t afford, maybe you should settle for living in smaller home in a less expensive area. Enjoy your space more. By spending less money on mortgage, you’ll be saving more time. Time is life. Win/win.
• Talking less, listening more. We spend most of our time listening formulating our response. You’d be amazed how much people never really hear each other at all. Think about how your life can be improved by understanding people better. You’ll probably avoid a lot of unnecessary drama do to misunderstandings. When I do this, my wife gets mad at me less for not listening. That’s always nice. =)
• Buy things that are more expensive, but last longer. A double edged razor will last a lot longer than disposable razors. You’ll save money too. Use real dishes instead of plastic/paper. It may seem like a little more work to wash them, but it really isn’t. It takes more energy to mine that plastic, manufacture, package, distribute and purchase then it does to wash a dish. Rethink convenience.
• Spend more time being mindful. The more mindful we are, the more we’ll save. We often waste a lot of time rushing around, trying to do too many things at once. We try to print a report, make coffee, and talk on the phone at the same time. Doing this we run the risk of printing the wrong pages, accidentally forgetting the coffee filter and saying the wrong thing. We spend more time correcting ourselves than we would save simply being mindful.
• Less things. The more things we buy, the more we resources we take from the planet. The more we consume, the larger that debt becomes. Buying new clothes, appliances or phones isn’t really a bad thing. It’s our addiction to buy the newest and greatest each year or every few months that is dangerous. After all, that old thing has to go somewhere. And it’s probably in a landfill somewhere.

How can you use the power of less is to help save the planet? I would love to hear your ideas.

Save Mother Earth: Tips to Save the Environment

More and more people are becoming aware of the importance of saving mother earth. Indeed, the sense of urgency behind the drive to save the environment is stronger than ever before. After all, we only have one planet; if this one becomes totally ruined, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will not have a home. If we all do our part to save mother earth, it is definitely possible. Therefore, people should learn as much as they can about ways that they can help save the environment; by working together, our planet can remain habitable for centuries to come.

 

Save Mother Earth Tip #1: Recycling

The popularity of recycling has increased a great deal in recent years, as people search for ways of saving mother earth. Recycling can have a dramatic impact on helping to save the environment. Many different things can be recycled and reused, reducing waste and garbage in landfills and around the planet. In terms of helping to save the environment, recycling is an excellent strategy. It makes sense, in saving mother earth, to reuse her resources as much as possible. Increasing recycling efforts can help us save the environment.

 

Save Mother Earth Tip #2: Education

Teaching our children about the importance of saving mother earth is a great way of instilling lifelong habits that can help save the environment. Schools are increasing the teaching of subjects that pertain to helping to save the environment. Young children are encouraged to help save mother earth by engaging in various habits that promote eco-friendly techniques.

Parents can also increase the green-education of their children by demonstrating every day strategies for helping in the fight to save the environment. If everyone does their part, today’s children will be tomorrow’s environmentalists, helping to save our planet from ruin.

 

Save Mother Earth Tip #3: Reducing Consumption

In addition to recycling and reusing a lot of the materials that we rely on, people can help save the environment by reducing their use of them overall. This pertains not only to paper and plastic, but also things like water and energy.
Saving mother earth should be approached from every possible angle, after all. If you want to help save the environment, you can begin by using less resources. We can help save mother earth by being conscientious about the resources that we use; with effort, it is possible to save the environment.

 

Other Ways To Save Mother Earth

There are many small, easy ways to contribute to saving mother earth. You can try only running the tap when absolutely necessary; this saves water and can, in turn, help save the environment. Never litter; saving mother earth begins with cleaning up after yourself. Where possible, ride a bicycle to get around; less cars on the road can significantly help save the environment. Turn off unused lights in your home to further enhance your fight to save mother earth, and encourage others that you know to follow suit and spread awareness.