Conservation on Lowland Farms
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Annual Report
ECTF Edinburgh Centre for Tropical Forests School of GeoSciences CECS/Crew Building, Kings Buildings, University of Edinburgh, http://www.darwin.gov.uk West Mains Rd, Edinburgh EH9 3JN, UK [email protected] Tel: +44 (0)131 650 7862 Darwin Initiative Annual Report 1. Darwin Project Information Project Ref. Number 14-028 Project Title Conservation of Puna’s Andean cats across national borders Country(ies) Argentina, Bolivia and Chile UK Contractor Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU), Oxford University Partner Organisation(s) Andean Cat Alliance (AGA); Mammal Behavioural Ecology Group, Universidad Nacional del Sur (Argentina); Museo de Ciencias Naturales de Salta, Universidad Nacional de Salta (Argentina); Colección Boliviana de Fauna (Bolivia); Fundación Biodiversitas (Chile); Universidad de Chile, Universidad Mayor, Universidad Catolica (Chile); Wildlife Conservation Network (USA) Darwin Grant Value £159,186 Start/End dates 01 October 2005 – 30 September 2008 Reporting period 1 Oct 2005 to 30 Apr 2006, Annual report # 1 Project website www.wildcru.org/andeancat Author(s), date Claudio Sillero-Zubiri, Mauro Lucherini, María José Merino and Jorgelina Marino; 30 April 2006 1 Project annual report format Feb 2006 2. Project Background The Andean cat (Oreailurus jacobita) is the rarest South American felid, and one of the most endangered wild cats in the world. Endemic to the Central High Andes, this carnivore is a specialized predator of a community of high altitude vertebrates and can be used as a flagship species for the conservation of the Puna’s endemic-rich biodiversity. Our work is centred on the triple frontier of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile, a remote region where most recent Andean cat sightings have occurred and with existing adjacent conservation areas in all three countries. -
Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas: Review Paper for Saskatchewan
INDIGENOUS PROTECTED AND CONSERVED AREAS: REVIEW PAPER FOR SASKATCHEWAN (January 2021) Norman Henderson Adjunct Professor, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, U of R / U of S Sponsoring Partners: Ya'thi Néné Lands and Resources and Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment Project Managing Partner: Ya'thi Néné Lands and Resources DISCLAIMER: This Paper is for informational purposes only and was developed through collaboration between the Sponsoring Partners. This Paper is not a positional paper and is not a representation of the interests of either of the Sponsoring Partners. Where it includes views or opinions, these are the views and opinions of the author only, not the views or opinions of the Sponsoring Partners. Both Sponsoring Partners believe the information contained within this Paper could be useful for dialogue purposes moving forward and for any rights holders or stakeholders to consider when learning about Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..3 Purpose of an Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area…………………………….3 IPCA Diversity…..…………………………………………………………………….4 North American and European Conservation Thought Contrasted……………………4 Stakeholder and Athabasca Denesųłiné Objectives and Context………………………5 Saskatchewan-based IPCAs in the National Context………………………………..…6 Existing IPCA-Instructive Protected Area Designations…………………………………...8 British National Parks: All-Inclusive Protected Areas…………………….…………....8 Australian Indigenous Protected Areas: Autonomy, Conservation -
Report on Lion Conservation, 2016
Report on Lion Conservation with Particular Respect to the Issue of Trophy Hunting AreportpreparedbyProfessor David W. Macdonald CBE, FRSE, DSc⇤ tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt Director of WildCRU, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt at the request of Rory Stewart OBE ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt Under Secretary of State for the Environment tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt 28 November 2016 ⇤[email protected] Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. Contributors TTT This report was prepared with the assistance of members of the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, of which the core team was Dr Amy Dickman, Dr Andrew Loveridge, Mr Kim Jacobsen, Dr Paul Johnson, Dr Christopher O’Kane and..Dr Byron du Preez, supported by Dr Kristina Kesch and Ms Laura Perry. It benefitted from critical review by: TTTDr Guillaume Chapron TTTDr Peter Lindsey TTTProfessor Craig Packer It also benefitted from helpful input from: TTTDr Hans Bauer TTTProfessor Claudio Sillero TTTDr Christiaan Winterbach TTTProfessor John Vucetich Under the aegis of DEFRA the report -
Recconnaissance Visit to Bejimiz NP, Ethiopia
Recconnaissance visit to Bejimiz NP, Ethiopia (part of Dinder – Alatash – Bejimiz Lion Conservation Unit) Hans Bauer, Gidey Yirga and Claudio Sillero-Zubiri 3-21 December 2018 Report published in Oxford, 29 January 2019 Wildlife Conservation Research Unit - University of Oxford (WildCRU); Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority (EWCA); Mekele University (MU). Under the umbrella of the Large Carnivore Survey of Ethiopia (LCSE), a project hosted by the Ethiopian Wolf Conservation Programme (EWCP). Funded by the Born Free Foundation and Leipzig Zoo. 1 Contents Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Team ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Area description – Bejimiz NP ................................................................................................................. 5 Area description – Alatash NP & Dinder NP ........................................................................................... 6 Results .................................................................................................................................................... -
Annual Report 2001.Qxd
Annual Report 2001 The Living City Our global future will be determined in rapidly expanding city regions. Toronto and Region Conservation is committed to building the natural foundation for healthy sustainable communities in the Toronto city region. Table of Contents Message From the Chair and CAO 2 Healthy Rivers: Protecting Water 3 Biodiversity: Protecting Natural Areas and Wildlife 9 Sustainable Living: In Harmony With Nature 13 Business Management 17 2001 HIGHLIGHTS Partnered to protect the Oak Ridges Moraine • Advocated for water source protection • Implemented a Regional Water Monitoring Network • Worked to protect regional groundwater • Completed 12 land Message from the Chair and CAO acquisitions and nine property easements • Protecting our environment is no longer an option but a necessity. A healthy future depends on our ability to Worked on a Natural make more sustainable living choices. Our Living City vision recognizes that we need to value and invest in Heritage Program to protect natural ecosystems to achieve the social and economic objectives for a sustainable city region. natural areas and species • Our work in 2001 around the protection and management of water, the future of the Oak Ridges Moraine Initiated 12 new and the regeneration of natural areas, reflected the public’s concern about clean water, loss of greenspace community action site and urban growth and planning. projects and continued 17 multi-year projects Message from the Chair and CAO We want to thank all of our partners for their support, including our members, municipal politicians and staff, • Planted over 300,000 our community task forces, councils and alliances, The Conservation Foundation and our dedicated staff. -
The Material World, Memory, and the Making of William Penn's Pennsylvania, 1681--1726
W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 2011 Building and Planting: The Material World, Memory, and the Making of William Penn's Pennsylvania, 1681--1726 Catharine Christie Dann Roeber College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the American Studies Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Roeber, Catharine Christie Dann, "Building and Planting: The Material World, Memory, and the Making of William Penn's Pennsylvania, 1681--1726" (2011). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539623350. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-824s-w281 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Building and Planting: The Material World, Memory, and the Making of William Penn's Pennsylvania, 1681-1726 Catharine Christie Dann Roeber Oxford, Pennsylvania Bachelor of Arts, The College of William and Mary, 1998 Master of Arts, Winterthur Program in Early American Culture, University of Delaware, 2000 A Dissertation presented to the Graduate Faculty of the College of William and Mary in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of History The College of William and Mary August, 2011 Copyright © 2011 Catharine Dann Roeber All rights reserved APPROVAL PAGE This Dissertation is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ac#t~Catharine ~t-r'~~ Christie Dann Roeber ~----- Committee Chair Dr. -
Strategic Planning for Species Conservation: an Overview the Species Conservation Planning Task Force Species Survival Commission, IUCN
Strategic Planning for Species Conservation: An Overview The Species Conservation Planning Task Force Species Survival Commission, IUCN Version 1.0 Strategic Planning for Species Conservation: An Overview Version 1.0 A scorpion fish (Scorpaenidae) in the Mediterranean sea, near Escala, Spain IUCN Photo Library © Christian Laufenberg Strategic Planning for Species Conservation: An Overview Version 1.0 The Species Conservation Planning Task Force Species Survival Commission, IUCN IUCN/Species Survival Commission September 2008 The designation of geographical entities in this document, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or the organizations of the document authors and editors concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN. Production of this document was made possible by the generous support of the Wildlife Conservation Society in providing editorial and production services. Support for the work of the IUCN/SSC Species Conservation Planning Task Force was provided by grants from the Forestry Bureau of the Taiwan Council of Agriculture, the Chicago Board of Trade Endangered Species Fund, administered by the Chicago Zoological Society, and the IUCN Species Survival Commission. Working meetings of the Task Force were generously hosted by the Wildlife Conservation Society, Budapest Zoo, and the WildCRU of the University of Oxford. Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Copyright: © 2008 IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. -
Sixty-Fifth Meeting of the CITES Standing Committee
Notif. No. 2021/021 Annex / Annexe / Anexo List of observers admitted at the 71st and 72nd meetings of the Standing Committee Liste des observateurs qui ont été admis aux 71e et 72e sessions du Comité permanent Lista de los observadores que fueron admitidos en las 71a et 72e reuniones del Comité Permanente UN and its specialized agencies / ONU y organismos especializados de las Naciones Unidas / ONU et institutions spécialisées des Nations Unies Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) World Bank Group World Trade Organization (WTO) Intergovernmental organization / Organización intergubernamental / Organisation intergouvernementale African Union Commission ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC) International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) INTERPOL League of Arab States (LAS) Lusaka Agreement Task Force Ministerial Conference on Fisheries Cooperation among African States Bordering the Atlantic (COMHAFAT/ATLAFCO) Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) South Asia Cooperative Environment Programme (SACEP) Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) Southern African Development Community (SADC) World Customs Organization (WCO) World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) International NGO / ONG internacional / ONG internationale ADM Capital Foundation African Wildlife Foundation Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Association of Midwest Fish and Wildlife Agencies Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) BirdLife International Bloom Association Born Free Foundation P. -
Lower Columbia Salmon and Steelhead Recovery and Subbasin Plan
LOWER COLUMBIA SALMON AND STEELHEAD RECOVERY AND SUBBASIN PLAN Technical Foundation Volume III Other Species Prepared For Northwest Power And Conservation Council MAY 28, 2004 DRAFT Prepared By: Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board Preface This is number three of six volumes of a Technical Foundation for Recovery and Subbasin Planning prepared under direction of the Washington Lower Columbia River Fish Recovery Board. This information provides a basis for an integrated Salmon Recovery and Subbasin Plan prepared by the Fish Recovery Board. The Technical Foundation is an encyclopedia of information relating to focal and other species addressed by the plan, environmental conditions, ecological relationships, limiting factors, existing programs, and economic considerations. The Technical Foundation summarizes existing information and new assessments completed as part of the planning process. A separate Executive Summary document provides an overview of the entire Technical Foundation. Technical Foundation volumes include: Vol. I Focal Fish Species Species overviews, limiting factors, recovery standards, and status assessments for lower Columbia River chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon, steelhead, bull trout, and cutthroat trout Vol. II Subbasins Fish populations and habitat conditions in each of 11 Washington lower Columbia River subbasins Vol. III Other Species Descriptions, status, and limiting factors of other fish and wildlife species of interest to recovery and subbasin planning Vol. IV Existing Programs Descriptions of Federal, State, Local, Tribal, and non governmental programs and projects that affect or are affected by recovery and subbasin planning Vol. V Economic Assessment Potential costs and economic considerations for recovery and subbasin planning Vol. VI Appendices Methods and detailed discussions of assessments completed as part of this planning process This work was funded by the State of Washington and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. -
Deconstructing Compassionate Conservation
Should the Compassionate Tail Wag the Conservation Dog? Matt W. Hayward 1, 2, 3, Alex Callen1, Benjamin L. Allen 4, Guy Ballard 5, Femke Broekhuis 6, Cassandra Bugir 1, Rohan. H. Clarke 7, John Clulow 1, Simon Clulow1, 8, Jennifer C. Daltry 9, Harriet T. Davies-Mostert 3, 10, Peter J. S. Fleming 5, Andrea S. Griffin 11, Lachlan G. Howell 1, Graham I. H. Kerley 2, Kaya Klop-Toker1, Sarah Legge 12, Tom Major 13, Ninon Meyer 14, Robert A. Montgomery 15, Katherine Moseby 16,17, Daniel M. Parker 18, Stéphanie Périquet 19, John Read 20, Robert Scanlon 1, Rebecca Seeto 1, Craig Shuttleworth 21, Michael J. Somers 3, 22, Cottrell T. Tamessar 1, Katherine Tuft 17, Rose Upton1, Marcia Valenzuela-Molina 23, Adrian Wayne 24, Ryan R. Witt 1 , Wolfgang Wüster 13 1 School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales 2308, Australia, email [email protected] 2 Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Nelson Mandela University, University Way, Summerstrand, Port Elizabeth 6019, South Africa 3 Mammal Research Institute, University of Pretoria, Lynwood Road, Hatfield 0028, Pretoria, South Africa 4 University of Southern Queensland, Institute for Life Sciences and the Environment, West Street, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350, Australia 5 School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Northern Ring Road, Armidale, New South Wales 2351, Australia and Vertebrate Pest This is the author manuscript accepted for publication and has undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. -
Letter to World Health Organisation and United Nations Environment Programme Dear Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and Ms
Open letter to World Health Organisation and United Nations Environment Programme Dear Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and Ms. Inger Andersen, CC: Achim Steiner, Administrator UNDP Elizabeth M. Mrema, Acting Executive Secretary, Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD Qu Dongyu, Director General, Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO Ivonne Higuero, CITES Secretary General Grethel Aguilar, Acting Director General, IUCN Michelle Bachelet, UN Human Rights Commissioner David Boyd, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Environment David Nabarro, Special Envoy to WHO DG on COVID-19 COVID-19: Holistic, equitable solutions are required to improve human and planetary health and reduce zoonotic pandemic risks We, the undersigned individuals and organisations, commend the work the UN is doing to tackle the COVID-19 disease pandemic and its socio-economic consequences1. The recently released UN Framework for the immediate socio-economic response to COVID-19 outlines the importance of shared responsibility and integration2. However, more action is required, particularly on the environmental front. Urgent, far-reaching steps must be taken to reduce zoonotic pandemic risks and secure a better future not only for humans but also for nature, which underpins the health and well-being of all humanity3. It is vital that any actions taken are appropriate and lead to socially just outcomes which contribute to – not detract from – the development of economically resilient livelihoods for those hundreds of millions of the world’s most vulnerable who depend on wild resources for their survival. COVID-19 is inflicting unprecedented social and economic costs on countries and communities, with the poor and vulnerable hardest hit. The virus’s suspected links with a Chinese ‘wet market’ has led to calls to ban wet markets and restrict or end the trade and consumption – for medicines or food - of wildlife4. -
The Value of a Clean and Healthy Delaware River
RIVER VALUES The Value of a Clean and Healthy Delaware River Delaware RIVERKEEPER® Network April 2010 RIVER VALUES The Value of a Clean and Healthy Delaware River Delaware RIVERKEEPER® Network April 2010 Printed on Recycled Paper Delaware RIVERKEEPER® Network The Delaware Riverkeeper is an individual who is the lead voice for the Delaware River, championing the rights of the Delaware River and its streams as members of our community. The Delaware Riverkeeper is assisted by seasoned professionals and a network of members, volunteers and supporters. Together they are the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and together they stand as vigilant protectors and defenders of the River, its tributaries and watershed. Established in 1988 upon the appointment of the Delaware Riverkeeper, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network (DRN) is the only advocacy organization working throughout the entire Delaware River Watershed. DRN is committed to restoring the watershed’s natural balance where it has been lost and ensuring its preservation where it still exists. The Delaware Riverkeeper Network's focus is the ecological health and integrity of the river ecosystem recognizing we best protect ourselves only when we best protect our River. The Delaware Riverkeeper Network works to: 9 Protect and defend the Delaware River through advocacy and enforcement; 9 Inform, organize, activate and strengthen citizens and communities that appreciate and rely upon the River, its tributaries and watershed and want to get involved for their protection and restoration; 9 Monitor the health of the River and tributary streams – gathering reliable data that is then used to bring about meaningful change; 9 Secure and enforce strong legal protections for waterways and associated ecosystems; 9 Restore damaged streams and ecosystems; and 9 Ensure that the voice of the River is heard and its needs are given highest priority in all decision making.