Friday, July 27, 2007

biodiversity and how to measure it

Biodiversity

Biodiversity exists at three interrelated levels: species diversity, genetic diversity, and community-level diversity. When we talk about plant biodiversity, we refer to the full range of plant species, the genetic variation found within those species, and the biological communities formed by those species. For vascular plants, biodiversity includes all species of ferns, gymnosperms, flowering plants, and related smaller groups such as clubmosses and horsetails. The genetic variation found within populations and among populations arises through the mutation of individual genes or chromosomes and is rearranged by genetic recombination during the sexual process. Genetic variation is important not only for the survival and evolution of species; it is also important to people for breeding improved crop plants with higher yields.

Biological diversity also refers to all biological communities, including temperate forests, tropical forests, grasslands, shrub lands, deserts, freshwater wetlands, and marine habitats. Each of these biological communities represents an adaptation of plants to particular regimes of climate, soil, and other aspects of the environment. This adaptation involves ecosystem interactions of each biological community with its physical and chemical environment. For example, the ability of a forest community to absorb rain water and slowly release the water into streams and the ability of a swamp to process and detoxify polluted water are both aspects of ecosystem-level biological diversity that are of central importance to human societies.

Measuring Biodiversity

Biological diversity can be measured in various ways, each of which captures some of the overall meaning of biological diversity. The most common method of measuring biological diversity is simply to count the number of species occurring in one particular place, such as a forest or a grassland. Since it is not possible to count every species of plant, insect, fungus, and microorganism, the usual procedure is to count certain types of organisms, such as birds, butterflies, all flowering plants, or just tree species. This type of local diversity of species is usually referred to as species richness or alpha diversity. A tropical rain forest might contain three hundred or more tree species in a square of forest measuring 400 meters on a side, whereas a temperate forest of equal area might contain only forty tree species. Biological diversity can also be measured in larger areas. For example the country of Colombia has more than fifty thousand species of higher plants, in contrast to sixteen hundred species for the United Kingdom and nearly sixteen thousand for Australia. This type of regional or large-scale diversity is referred to as gamma diversity.



Thursday, July 26, 2007

MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION AND POPULATION, Section 2

Maria C. J. Cruz The World Bank*
Cross-Country Studies
The World Bank's Africa-region Nexus Project is a comprehensive review and statistical analysis of more than 41 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (Cleaver and Schreiber, 1995). This project examines the relationships between rapid population growth, environmental degradation, and poor agricultural performance. The results follow:
The availability of cultivable land per person is significantly lower than the rate of population growth.
Agricultural intensification, through greater use of fertilizers, increases crop yields at rates higher than the growth of population and reduces deforestation rates by almost 3% per year.
A population growth rate exceeding 2.5% per year increases deforestation (or land degradation) by 1.5% per year.
National Studies
Time series and cross-section analyses of population and environment trends were conducted by the World Bank in Cote D'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Malawi, Nigeria, and a subset of the Sahelian countries. Other country studies were made in Costa Rica, the Philippines, Belize, Mexico, and Thailand.
Africa
The Africa studies reached three conclusions:
Agricultural intensification outside of forests and protected areas is vital to a country's economic growth.
Only a few protected areas can be expected to generate sufficient revenues from tourism and other sources to provide significant local income.
The significant factors affecting human uses of biodiversity resources are tenure, government's capacity to manage resources, and distribution of political power between the central and local governments.
Costa Rica and the Philippines
The studies of Costa Rica and the Philippines illustrate some of the long-run consequences of a history of high population-growth rates (Cruz et al., 1992). Population densities are high not only in urban centers but also in the frontier. Economic growth, although moderately rapid, has failed to provide enough new jobs to absorb excess rural labor. Family planning, health, and other social services have not reached the poor and rural households. The studies also demonstrate how economic policies have failed to reduce poverty. Ill-defined property reforms, which merely provided short-term leases to occupants of forests and coastal areas, induce movements to the frontier and encourage short-sighted cultivation and harvesting practices.
Belize, Mexico, and Thailand
The impacts of roads on deforestation in Belize, Mexico, and Thailand are analyzed through time-series land use changes from GIS maps (Chomitz and Gray, 1994). The evidence shows that where roads are built for the marketing of farm products, deforestation, and land clearing increased twofold in the following year. Accessibility or proximity of roads to major urban centers in Mexico not only significantly increased land clearing for agriculture but also led to larger rates of fuelwood cutting by women.
Case Studies
A case study of the Machakos District, Kenya, demonstrates how correct policies and strategic investments can break the cycle of population growth and environmental degradation (English et al., 1994). Since 1920, soil erosion rates have been increasing in Machakos, along with a fivefold increase in population. Throughout this process, land degradation has not been severe because of a mixture of good policies and interventions. The government of Kenya endorsed agricultural pricing that made farming profitable in the district. Roads and other infrastructure facilitated procurement of inputs and marketing. Land rights were secured through individualized titling, which encouraged farmers to invest in land. In addition, widespread support for health, education, and family planning existed. Local farmers' groups were trained in conservation farming, tree planting, and low-cost crop husbandry. However, the costs were high; questions were raised about how and if this approach could be replicated in other countries.
Another study that examined some of the nexus factors at the village level was the review of biodiversity conservation projects during the Bank/GEF's pilot phase (World Bank, 1994). Almost all protected areas in the 14 countries that received financing from the Bank and GEF were shown to be located in areas containing significant resident populations. Of these 14 countries, ten had population densities in their protected areas exceeding 100 persons per sq. km, a figure higher than most rural agricultural areas in Asia. Seven protected areas have large numbers of indigenous peoples residing inside the core or sanctuary.
Important social issues were also identified in the review:
social diversity, in particular, differences in population numbers, gender roles, and indigenous peoples' concerns;
tenure and access rights;
local customs governing livelihood;
conflict resolution;
institutional arrangements in project management;
financial arrangements, and;
stakeholder identification and participation.
Studies on Women and the Environment
The contributions of women in rural production systems are generally evaluated in terms of:
bearing and rearing children, thus influencing the quality of the future rural labor force;
managing households and acting as the primary users of natural resources such as fuelwood and water, and;
cultivating substantially large shares of village food crops, including applications of soil conservation, water retention, and waste and by-product recycling.
However, many legal, institutional, socio-economic, and cultural factors have constrained women's productivity. Examples include gender-biased land titling and inheritance policies as well as lack of access to credit and extension, project development, and research orientation. The role of women in rural production and conservation is critical, especially as men increasingly turn to nonfarm employment. In many protected sites in Sub-Saharan Africa, more than one-half of resource users and farms are managed by women. The number of female heads of households, as shown in the case studies in Zambia, is growing. In the Lusaka Province of Zambia, for example, female-headed household farms are, on the average, larger than male-headed farms. But women lack access to oxen, farm implements, and cash-earning opportunities, leading to what is widely known as the feminization of poverty (Cleaver and Schreiber, 1995).
Gender division of labor and land allocation were explicit in many rural systems. Three-fifths of respondents in a survey in Botswana noted how men and women engaged in specific tasks. In another survey in the forest-protected zones in the Uluguru Mountains of Tanzania, efforts to address water and fuelwood problems in order to preserve biodiversity in the area were directed specifically at women. Farming research kits in Kilosa, Tanzania, were designed to address women's needs since more than one-half of agricultural labor for planting, weeding and harvesting, and thinning were women.
Women's labor accounts for more than 90% of work in fuelwood gathering and carrying water for domestic uses in Africa. The time allotted by women to fuelwood collection also increases with the amount of degradation in an area. For example, the average travel distance required for this activity was two times longer than it had been during last five years, with an average of about 5 to 10 kms (see Table 3).
New patterns of agricultural development reinforced women's dominance in rural food crop production. For example, the shift to cocoa production in southern Ghana left women in charge of the planting, weeding, harvesting, transporting, and processing of food crops such as yams and cassava. In addition, women diversified planting strategies by creating home gardens planted with plantains, maize, cocoyam, cassava, and vegetables.
Insecurity of tenure is a serious problem for most women in protected sites. For example, most rural women traditionally have rights to use only those lands belonging to a male relative (e.g., Kenya, Tanzania, Madagascar, Malawi). Even in Sierra
TABLE 3. Time Allocation and Distance Traveled for Fuelwood Collection by Women.By Region
Country
Region
Year of Study
Average Time Alloted for Fuelwood Consumption
Average Distance Traveled for Fuelwood Collection
Asia
Nepal
India
Bangladesh
Indonesia
Pangua (hills)
Garhwal (hills)
Bihar (depleted forest)
Chargopal
Java
1970s
1980s
1980
1977
1973
4-5 hours/bundle
5 hours/day
No data
0.4 hours/day
0.3 hours/day
No data
1-2 kms/day
8-10 kms/day
No data
No data
Africa
Sahel
Kenya
Ghana
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
1977
1970s
1980s
3 hours/day
3.0-3.5 hours/day
4-5 trips/week
10 kms
No data
2.5-7 miles
Latin America
Peru
Pincos (highlands)
Matapuan (highlands)
1981
1981
1.33 hours/day
1.67 hours/day
No Data
No DataNOTE: The figures in this table are based on different women's time allocation studies compiled in Agarwal (1986, 1989).
Leone and Ghana, where land belongs to the community and use-rights are held by lineage, women tend to use their husband's or male kin's lands because women have poor access to tractors and wage labor. Thus, to ease peak labor constraints, women sometimes give up their tenure rights to land and resources. This action permits them to join labor exchanges and cooperative arrangements or to continuously rely upon their own labor and that of their children, which, in turn, contributes to the maintenance of high fertility rates.
Female labor and lack of time have been a major constraint in maintaining sustainable farming practices. For example, the growing outmigration of males has left many fields cultivated by women unattended. The women and children lack sufficient adult labor to maintain the dikes and canals. Due to labor shortages, even chitemene farming in Zambia, which makes use of lopped tree branches for burning to improve the soil's fertility, is being replaced by the practice of felling entire trees.
These findings show that policy reforms focused on alleviating women's resource, capital, and labor constraints were more likely to improve food production than policies that attracted men into farming. The Zimbabwe case study demonstrates that by improving women's access to credit and extension services, small farm output increased from 6% of the national total in 1982 to more than 40% by the mid-1980s. The Zimbabwe government's policy to eliminate the requirement that a husband must sign his wife's credit statement has substantially increased women's farm credit. Designing Nexus Programs
Given the range of results from these Work Bank and GEF studies, a single strategic policy intervention that would retard the process of population growth, impoverishment, and loss of biodiversity is difficult to identify. In many countries, multiple points of intervention exist. For example, the absence of land tenure affects population policies when uncontrolled land occupation induces in-migration to frontier sites (e.g., Costa Rica, the Philippines, Thailand). Economic policies that depress real wages and employment also have significant demographic consequences because poor households tend to have higher fertility rates. Similarly, the failure to address rapid population growth is seen as both a resource and environmental problem that has long-term environmental impacts. PEOPLE AND BIODIVERSITY: MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
The summaries of regional, national, and community case studies on population and environment indicate that knowledge about this subject has been increasing. The research results have focused on a range of subjects and contexts because several complex factors and processes define the interactions between people and biodiversity. However, the issues must be prioritized in order to focus on the key problems where policy reforms and management interventions are critical.
The following management options are organized around what are perceived to be the priority issues, based upon the summaries of the studies, as well as comments from developing country executing agencies. These options examine actions that may lead to meaningful interventions at the project or field level. Perhaps they will eventually lead to changes in international development assistance. Defining the Allowable Human Uses of Biodiversity Resources
A more rigorous and scientific assessment of biodiversity is clearly needed. The case studies indicate that comparisons across countries, and within regions in a country, are difficult without a common definition of biodiversity. Such a definition would cover the three areas of genetic diversity, species diversity, and habitat or ecosystem diversity. Once an understanding of what constitutes biodiversity is achieved, priority-setting criteria may be developed.
One criteria is an estimate of the sustainable offtake per capita in a given ecosystem or habitat if the area is to maintain its biodiversity. This analysis could contain classifications by biome and measures for inventory or recording of key species. The important question is how to measure the balance between human uses and a minimum level of sustainable biodiversity. Such criteria will then be used to justify different types of management interventions, including relocation of resident populations and rezoning of areas for protection (some of which may cover ancestral lands or cultural heritage sites). Determining the Appropriate Measures of Population Pressures
A combination of demographic measures has been proposed in operationalizing population pressure on biodiversity resources. The studies emphasize population density, but often the density figures do not reflect the true nature of the ecological stresses. Because per-person impacts on biodiversity vary greatly by site (differences in ecological and geomorphological characteristics), one cannot assume that density refers to a homogenous land variable across sites. Refining the use of the word density to reflect microenvironmental differences will be important.
Some promising approaches have been tried. For example, in the Ghana Coastal Wetlands Project funded by the Bank and GEF, density measurements are combined with demographic attributes by sub-population. These attributes include the means of livelihood, settlement location, gender, and migration status. Using GIS data over a period of ten years has facilitated the analysis of historical population pressures and how these pressures shifted land uses over time. Designing Relevant Programs to Address Local Needs
Research on local needs vis-a-vis biodiversity conservation requirements is limited. Little systematic evaluation of community management approaches exists beyond descriptive reports on, for example, the Zimbabwe Project "Campfire" and Haitian programs. Even the ICDP project reviews contained very little information on the impacts of these projects on incomes and lifestyles.
A more systematic review of the results achieved by biodiversity projects could include the following:
assessments of whether households were better or worse off after the project;
quantification of changes in ecosystem biodiversity versus changes in human behavior (e.g., shifts in livelihood and controls), and;
ethnographic observations of local management or control mechanisms (e.g., coping strategies that evolved and conflict management mechanisms).
Researchers need to examine innovative approaches and biodiversity projects that have been tried both in and outside of protected areas. Some of these approaches follow:
Develop new forms of financing that include trust funds or other mechanisms that ensure longer term financing.
Make bureaucratic changes in government environmental agencies (e.g., creation of a parastatal management unit in Kenya or using NGOs as executing agencies for protected area management in the Philippines).
Use participatory management. ("Campfire" combines government extension workers with village headmen. In Ghana, Ecuador, and the Philippines, biodiversity projects hire community officers to assist in village conservation site planning and implementation. Livelihood funds or trusts have been created and supported by the MacArthur Foundation in some areas.)
Use negotiated solutions to resolve conflicts. (Some communities have developed ways to control migrant encroachments. For example, in Ecuador's Podocarpus National Park, the NGO - Fundacion Maquipucuna - facilitated the demarcation of physical boundaries and the assignment of responsibilities for maintaining trees and other resources. The NGO signed a contract with the government to manage the sites and to resolve disputes over who has the rights to use the area's resources.)
Creating a Conducive Environment for Implementing Participatory Programs
The policy environment should be conducive for addressing population and biodiversity issues. Policies could include those that:
reduce the incentives for rural-to-rural migration or frontier movements;
promote more equitable access to resources and remove the urban or industrial bias in pricing and taxation;
encourage rational land use planning, especially in growing urban centers, and;
facilitate the devolution of management authority to local users for the purposes of building ownership; increasing accountability; and empowering affected groups to govern, thus encouraging them to engage in capacity building and to participate in project decision making.
REFERENCES
Chomitz, Kenneth, and David Gray. 1994. Roads, Land, Markets and Deforestation: A Spatial Model of Land Use in Belize. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Cleaver, Kevin M., and Gotz A. Schreiber. 1995. Reversing the Spiral: The Population, Agriculture and Environmental Nexus in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Cruz, Maria Concepcion J., Carrie Meyer, Robert Repetto, and Richard Woodward. 1992. Population, Poverty, and Environmental Stress: Frontier Migration in the Philippines and Costa Rica. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
English, John, Mary Tiffen, and Michael Mortimore. 1994. Land Resource Management in Machakos District, Kenya 1930Ð1990. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
World Bank Environment Department. 1994. Social and Participation Issues in Biodiversity Conservation: A Review of GEF/Bank Financed Phase Projects. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
*Author's Note: This text was prepared for the AAAS meeting on "Human Population, Biodiversity, and Protected Areas: Science and Policy Issues." The views expressed herein are solely those of the author, who is a social scientist, formerly with the Environment Department, Social Policy and Resettlement Division, the World Bank. These views should not be attributed to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, its Board of Executive Directors, or the countries they represent.

MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION AND POPULATION

Maria C. J. Cruz The World Bank*
Experiences with managing biodiversity in government-owned or -controlled protected areas have shown that success depends on the involvement of local residents and users of resources. However, for the governments of many developing countries, taking into account the views and needs of local people requires a shift from traditional, custodial management to more participatory and development-focused initiatives. A fundamental conflict arises when governments treat land and resources as strictly protected, while local residents use the same resources for their livelihoods. Unless people who are directly affected by conservation projects are regarded as partners in achieving environmental objectives, strict enforcement - guard patrols, penalties - alone will probably not prevent unsustainable uses.
Many complex factors influence and exacerbate the negative impacts of human uses on biodiversity. Population growth, and the long history of high fertility rates in developing countries, are important factors contributing to the flow of migrants into remote, protected areas. Economic policies, which historically created surplus labor and worsened poverty, induce movements out of traditional agriculture. Together with unequal access to arable lands, credit, and extension services, these policies promote migration of landless, poor households in search of income-earning opportunities in protected areas.
Likewise, ill-defined property rights in government protected areas, and the opening of these areas by large-scale commercial ventures (e.g., concession logging, hunting and trading, commercial fishing) make these sites attractive to would-be migrants. Furthermore, because tenure is insecure and the institutional risks associated with encroachment on public lands are high, livelihood and resource-using practices are highly exploitative of the resource. Often, households have short-term time horizons, and thus, overharvest the resource.
Attempts have been made to control the negative impacts of some of these factors by experimenting with community-based resource management programs. Some of these programs are based upon the livelihood practices of indigenous peoples, practices in which human uses of resources have coexisted with the maintenance of habitats over long periods of time. One such program is the Integrated Conservation and Development Project (ICDP), which seeks to "conserve biological diversity...by reconciling the management of protected areas with the social and economic needs of local people through protected area management, buffer zone development, and local social and economic improvements."
However, while most ICDP projects use participatory approaches to promote biodiversity conservation, the applications and experiences from implementing these approaches have been limited. Yet, funding agencies, governments, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) need to learn from such experiences. The complexity of human and resource interactions and the urgency of adopting effective measures to address conservation requirements as well as social needs demands attention.
The key questions in evaluating such experiences follow:
What is the balance between human uses and the preservation of biodiversity?
What factors influence human impacts on biodiversity?
What are the appropriate management options for making human uses of resources compatible with biodiversity protection?
This chapter attempts to answer these questions by first, describing the key issues involved in defining the scope of biodiversity protection in relation to local needs. Human stress on resources is measured by various indicators of population and carrying capacity, or, the minimum number of people that an area can support given its supply of biodiversity resources.
Secondly, this chapter presents studies that examined the impacts of human uses on biodiversity, specifically the relationships between population, poverty, and environmental degradation. Studies that quantify some of the interactions include cross-country and regional statistical analyses of population, agriculture, and deforestation in Africa; comparative country studies of frontier migration; case studies of biodiversity conservation and forestry projects financed by the World Bank (Bank) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF); and case studies of women and the environment.
The third section on people and diversity offers management options for dealing with population-related issues, issues that need to be incorporated into international development assistance programs, policies of executing agencies of governments, and activities of NGOs and research institutions.
MEASURING BIODIVERSITY IN RELATION TO LOCAL NEEDS
The increasing loss and degradation of natural resources is an indication of the imbalance between human needs for livelihood and recreation and nature's capacity, which is often measured in terms of the Earth's biological diversity or biodiversity. Three ways to measure biodiversity exist: by the genetic diversity among species; by the diversity of species within a given ecosystem; and by the diverse assemblages of species habitats or ecosystems. Biodiversity values cannot be restricted to measurements of economics or money. These values include species and genetic richness, recreational satisfaction and aesthetics, religious and cultural significance, or ecological balance and integrity. Human diversity is an important component of total diversity, representing the richness of human cultures in a given habitat or environment.
Scientific Measures of Biodiversity
Only a small percentage of the world's biodiversity has been inventoried; at present, no systematic database of ecosystems, flora, fauna, and genetic races exist. The estimates of global species diversity vary from 2 million to 100 million (WRI, 1992). Only 1.4 million of the world's animal species have been named or scientifically identified and classified. For example, about 40% of freshwater fishes in South America have yet to be classified.
Monitoring changes in biodiversity are done in protected areas, which are largely supported by governments. But only 5% of the global area has been designated as protected and the extent, purpose, and biogeographical distribution of protected areas vary widely across countries. The most important issue in protected areas is the effectiveness of the protection provided. Although zoning is enforced and activities inside the protected areas are restricted, many of the protected areas are actually paper parks. Illegal poaching, hunting, grazing, and farming still occur inside the protected areas even when these areas have been legally demarcated.
In addition to the limited scope of biodiversity protection offered by protected areas, measurements of species richness within protected areas also vary by the scale of consumption (e.g., commercial exploitation versus subsistence livelihood) and type of biome. Information on biodiversity by biome, areas subjected to human disturbances, and areas protected provide rough indications as to which types of biomes are in greater stress, and therefore require interventions. As shown in Table 1, threats from human disturbances are highest in mixed island systems (C) where large tracts remain unprotected and subject to human uses. Over 25% of temperate grasslands (M) remain relatively undisturbed. By contrast, evergreen sclerophyll forests (G) have a larger proportion of area protected, but only less than 2.8% of lands outside the biome are undisturbed.
Measuring Human Disturbances
Given the variability and complexity of measuring biodiversity, determining per capita impacts of human disturbances on resources has become a critical issue. For example, in biomes with significant numbers of endangered species, the impacts of each person's hunting activity may be larger than the combined impacts of larger groups of people in another biome where fewer species are under severe stress. A framework for sorting the types of interventions that reduce various types and degrees of human impacts should be used.
Referencing Table 1, box 1 biodiversity conservation broadly consists of the following categories:
areas designated for full protection, such as those where key species are close to extinction;
areas with valuable species but low threats from human uses (e.g., remote forests and marine sites), and;
areas with valuable species but subjected to heavy human uses (e.g., hunting grounds, fishing areas).
Within these types of biodiversity classifications, human disturbances vary by the degree of population pressure on the resource. In general, increasing numbers of people are migrating into open access areas (e.g., boxes 1-3) in search of land and economic opportunities (e.g., hunting, fuelwood collecting, fishing). At the same time, low density or small numbers of users may have large impacts on the resource if uses are commercial or large scale (see boxes 4-6). Population pressures may be low because of seasonal movements of people or gender-specialized activities (see boxes 7-9).
TABLE 1. Preliminary Classification of Biodiversity Projects By Ecological Value and Population Pressure on Resources
Categories of Population Pressures
Biodiversity Values
Critical, full protection due to species extinction
Valuable with few threats
Valuable with many threats
High with large numbers and growth rates
Box 1
Box 2
Box 3
Moderate with low numbers and growth rates
Box 4
Box 5
Box 6
Low with seasonal movements
Box 7
Box 8
Box 9
In the absence of scientific and clear-cut measurements of biodiversity at the site or ecosystem level, this preliminary classification allows planners and executing agencies to prioritize interventions that may require specific measures or policy reforms. The classification also helps define criteria for allocating limited financial resources across biodiversity sites with different levels of population pressures.
Useful indicators of population pressure include population density across resource types or biomes, yearly population growth, fertility and density, and migration factors. Ethnicity and gender are important factors that require specific attention. For example, gender-specialized roles are especially significant in low density populations where seasonal movements are high (e.g., coastal and marine environments). Remote areas of forest or marine reserves will affect particular indigenous peoples and the demographic and property rights issues are just as critical in these areas as maintaining the balance with nature.
Some activities in protected areas target factors that induce habitat destruction. As shown in Table 2, habitat fragmentation from land use changes (e.g., agriculture, infrastructure) accounts for 76% of human-induced pressures on mammals and 60% on birds. Solutions to reducing fragmentation involve rezoning or regazetting areas for protection, but this approach has sometimes led to the relocation and displacement of resident populations. Human disturbances due to the hunting of mammals and birds by residents and large-scale commercial groups, comprising 54% and 29% of pressures, respectively, have required less drastic solutions. For example, restrictions on hunting rights and licensing as well as controls over the pricing and trading of (hunted) goods have been imposed in some areas.
Different types of biomes, and micro environments within a biome, require different interventions depending upon the degree of biodiversity required and the seriousness of human threats. Examples of the possible interventions and the range of biodiversity and population pressures are shown in Table 2.
Human Impacts On Biodiversity
Biodiversity depletion is caused by multiple and complex factors, all of which are interconnected. The effect of one cannot be separated from another. One way of looking at how these factors interact is to trace the linkages between the nexus of population growth, poverty, and environmental degradation. For example, a particular form of population growth, migration of people into biodiversity protection sites, is viewed as a complicated
TABLE 2. Range of Biodiversity and Population Pressures, Key Issues, and Possible Interventions
Biodiversity and Human Threats
Key Issues and Possible Interventions to Reduce Negative Human Impacts on Biodiversity
Type 1
Biodiversity critical
Population pressure high (large numbers and growth rates)
Reduce fertility and emphasize the importance and value of women's education.
Control of migrant encroachments critical.
Possible rezoning or relocation of human populations to protect core or sanctuary.
Strict enforcement and policing in areas with heavy threats from encroachments in conjunction with the opening of areas as buffers or livelihood zones.
Type 2
Biodiversity valuable
Few threats
Population pressures high (large numbers and growth rates)
Reduce fertility and implement or develop controls for future in-migration.
Emphasize the key roles of women in maintaining households and procuring a livelihood.
Create buffers outside of core or sanctuary.
Implement/develop/enforce community controls to maintain low threats to resources due to possible encroachments.
Rezoning or relocating may not be necessary but may require creation of corridors to absorb large populations.
Type 3
Biodiversity values high
Many threats
Moderate population pressures
Control migrant encroachment.
Introduce fertility reduction programs.
Introduce gender-specific interventions.
Introduce alternative livelihoods.
Encourage local management of resources to reduce threats.
Classify sources of threats by sub-population (livelihood grouping, ethnicity, gender, etc.).
Biodiversity and Human Threats
Key Issues and Possible Interventions to Reduce Negative Human Impacts on Biodiversity
Type 4
Biodiversity critical
Population pressures moderate
Despite having small populations with relatively small growth rates, they may have to be relocated if human uses are not compatible with species protection.
Migrant encroachments will have to be anticipated through the strengthening of local controls.
Ethnicity and gender issues will be critical.
Type 5
Biodiversity valuable
Few threats
Population pressures moderate
Fertility controls may not be critical in the short term.
In-migration and possible increases in women's fertility may occur as the site is opened for tourism.
Few threats are observed.
Importance of village institutions and cultural moderate practices should be recognized.
Type 6
Biodiversity high
Many threats
Population pressures moderate
Pressures from commercial exploitation
Policies that control harvesting, trading and marketing, pricing, and licensing help control extraction.
Village controls should be developed.
Access and rights need to be defined.
Enforcement of commercial extraction rules may be necessary.
Type 7
Biodiversity critical
Population pressures low
Recognize the importance of ethnicity.
Recognize tribal rights.
Emphasize women's roles and contributions to managing resources.
Support cultural beliefs, practices, and local rules for controlling access to resources.
Biodiversity and Human Threats
Key Issues and Possible Interventions to Reduce Negative Human Impacts on Biodiversity
Type 8
Biodiversity valuable
Few threats
Low pressures
Accessibility may induce seasonal movements or seasonal harvests.
Gender considerations.
Encourage local controls and conflict resolution mechanisms.
Type 9
Biodiversity valuable
Many threats
Low pressures
Issues concerning gender, commercialization, and access to markets.
The possibility of creating buffers or corridors to absorb future expansion of settlements should be evaluated.
Boundary demarcation, especially in ancestral lands, may be needed.
response to a number of influences, including national population increase, lack of economic opportunities, and maldistribution of agricultural lands. Deepening poverty among rural farmers adds to other factors that were already propelling the landless into fragile lands and coastal areas.
Various studies by the World Bank and the GEF attempt to quantify, through statistical analysis and mapping, the interconnections of poverty and the environment as well as the effects of population increases on biodiversity. These studies range from cross-country or regional statistical analyses of population trends and changes in land cover (e.g., deforestation rates). Others use national or country-level data across time periods to detect shifts in resource use during different periods of population growth. Geographic information systems (GIS) data are also applied across regions in a country. A third set of studies focuses on the micro- or local-level processes of environmental degradation. Changes in population are matched with corresponding changes in land use, social structure, and gender-specialized activities over a given time period.
*Author's Note: This text was prepared for the AAAS meeting on "Human Population, Biodiversity, and Protected Areas: Science and Policy Issues." The views expressed herein are solely those of the author, who is a social scientist, formerly with the Environment Department, Social Policy and Resettlement Division, the World Bank. These views should not be attributed to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, its Board of Executive Directors, or the countries they represent.

Resource Management






Law 102 of 1983 and its accompanying decrees provide the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency with the necessary legal instruments to: 1. declare protected areas; 2. equip these with suitable resource management and conservation measures; 3. establish and enforce regulations to safeguard protected resources.
There are 15 Protected Areas in Egypt. Of these, 4 have been declared in Southern Sinai: 1. The Ras Mohammed National Park (declared in 1983) 2. The Nabq Managed Resource Protected Area (declared in 1992) 3. The Abu Galum Managed Resource Protected Area (declared in 1992) 4. The Saint Katherine Protected Area (declared in 1987).
A total of 11,000 square kilometers of the South Sinai Governorate are now protected, including 52% of the Egyptian shoreline on the southern Gulf of Aqaba; coral reefs of international importance; high altitude desert ecosystems; varied and unique coastal habitats; important religious and cultural sites; and other natural attractions of note. The Nature Protection Sector - Department of Protectorates of the EEAA administers these areas on behalf of the state.
The management of natural resources is subject to the normal and often unpredictable changes occurring in complex, often poorly understood ecosystems. If management policies, aimed at protecting resources and biodiversity in those ecosystems, are to be successful, then it is essential that studies are carries out to assess and inventory resources contained in or adjacent to declared Protected Areas.
These studies establish a baseline that records the state of the resources and the impacts these are subjected to. The baseline then forms the framework for the eventual implementation of management measures aimed at achieving protection and conservation objectives.
left: Crown of Thorns
Management of the South Sinai Protectorates has not followed the standard described above. Faced with the rapid development of the area, as a result of ever increasing investment in the tourism sector, a decision was made to establish logical management and conservation measures to protect existing resources and to modify these measures as baseline data becomes available.
Conservation measures are also adapted to respond to increasing tourism demand for nature and natural areas. These requirements have clear impacts on protected areas. Conservation measures must therefore effectively protect habitats and biodiversity sustainably.
The network of Protectorates in South Sinai has been established to set aside critical ecosystems, protect natural processes, provide natural areas to adjacent tourism development zones, maintain the value of natural resources thus protecting and supporting investments in the area, and to conserve natural resources and biodiversity as a common property and hereditary resource for all Egyptians. These objectives are being achieved with Technical Assistance from the European Union.
EEAA staff in South Sinai (Park Rangers, Managers) are responsible for the enforcement of regulations and the implementation of management policies. To this end they prepare area management plans, install moorings for diving vessels, prepare reef access points, install and maintain directional and regulatory sign posting, and carry out resource inventories. Rangers also patrol all territories and coastlines contained within the boundaries of the Protectorates, including all shorelines fronting the Sharm el Sheikh and Dahab development areas.
Both of these are integral to the Ras Mohammed National Park and the Abu Galum Managed Resource Protected Area respectively.
Park staff also prepare information material for distribution to diving centers and hotels, present educational seminars to selected user groups and liaise with local government and police authorities to ensure that EEAA conservation policies are clearly understood and supported.
Park Management staff also provide free consultancy services to both government agencies and investors on all matters relating to the development of coastal zones fronted by declared Protected Areas. Park experts work closely with investors to review development concepts and supervise works to ensure that these do not damage coral reefs or modify coastlines. They also evaluate beach and reef access requirements and propose access solutions for approval by the EEAA. (right: EEAA field laboratory)
These activities have established a unique equilibrium between conservation and development which has protected biodiversity while enhancing the economic value of the area.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

coal is arang...

Coal: Federal Research and Development NeedsPosted by Sidney Draggan on June 27th, 2007
Posted in Environment and Security, Minerals and Mining, Resource management
With directed funding from Congress, U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, asked the National Research Council’s Committee on Coal Research, Technology, and Resource Assessments to Inform Energy Policy, to examine national research and development (R&D) needs related to coal.
The committee was directed to focus “. . . on resource assessment, mining, and processing—and to recommend funding levels required to meet these needs. The committee was also asked to consider how best to organize federal coal research.”
The committee’s report recommends that, rather than creating a single, integrated multi-agency R&D program, specific research needs should be addressed by partnerships among federal agencies and relevant outside groups. The report (Coal: Research and Development to Support National Energy Policy) assessed R&D budgets in terms of the coal fuel cycle: resource and reserve assessment; coal mining and processing; coal mining safety and health; environmental protection and reclamation; transport of coal and coal-derived products; and coal utilization.

artik bukan macam dulu....

Earth Forum Posts
Watching Arctic Environmental ChangePosted by Sidney Draggan on July 10th, 2007
Posted in Climate change, Expert Commentary, Biodiversity, Global Warming, Resource management, Environmental Monitoring
The National Science Foundation (NSF), lead federal agency for planning and conducting U.S. Arctic research—and formulating and implementing U.S. Arctic research policy—has announced establishment of the Arctic Observing Network (AON). NSF describes AON “. . . as a system of atmospheric, land- and ocean-based environmental monitoring capabilities—from ocean buoys to satellites—that will significantly advance our observations of Arctic environmental conditions.
Information, data and operating experience from the AON is seen as enabling an interagency initiative—known as the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH)—to provide significant insight into environmental and climate changes in the Arctic. The Arctic Research Consortium of the United States (ARCUS) characterizes SEARCH as “. . .an effort to understand the nature, extent, and future development of the system-scale change[s] presently seen in the Arctic. These changes are occurring across terrestrial, oceanic, atmospheric and human systems, including:
increased air temperatures over most of the Arctic;
changing ocean circulation and rising coastal sea level;
reduced sea ice cover; and
thawing permafrost.”

Friday, July 20, 2007

Biodiversity Issues in the Pacific Islands

Ministerial Conference on
Environment and Development
in Asia and the Pacific 2000
Kitakyushu, Japan 31 August - 5 September 2000
Main page
Outcomes
Associated Events
Documents
Messages
Pacific Islands
Contact Info.
Links
Environment Section Homepage


Biodiversity Issues in the Pacific Islands
Action Conservation Areas Tradition National Experiences Conflict Funding SPREP Conservation Coral Reefs
World-wide, the largest number of documented extinctions (28 between 1600 and 1899 and 23 this century) has occurred on islands of Oceania which now have more threatened species (110) than any other region. Dahl (1984) estimates that there are roughly 7 times more endangered bird species per capita in the South Pacific than in the Caribbean, 50 times more than South America, and a hundred times more than in North America or Africa.
The plants and animals that inhabit Pacific islands are often found nowhere else on Earth. They are often adapted to specialized habitats, and limited to only a small part of a few islands. These creatures are especially vulnerable to extinction from habitat destruction (for example by fire or deforestation), competition from introduced organisms, agricultural poisons, or harvesting.
The isolated small islands of the Pacific have fostered the evolution of myriad species of plants and animals found nowhere else on Earth. These creatures can be adapted to specialised micro-habitats, on only a limited portion of a few islands. They are especially vulnerable to extinction from habitat destruction (for example by fire or deforestation), competition from introduced organisms, agricultural poisons, or harvesting.New Caledonia, for example, has been isolated from other lands for 80 million years. Seventy six percent of the flora and fauna evolved on the island. Several plant species, unique in the world, are limited to only a small area of one mountain and are represented by only a few specimens. The rich and diverse genetic heritage is of such scientific importance that Myers, 1988, lists New Caledonia as one of the 10 hot spots in the world where the primary forest is at once exceptional and endangered. New Caledonia has the most diverse bird life in the Southwest Pacific, with 68 species. Twenty-two species of birds (32%) and thirty sub-species, are found only in the Territory.
The decline of the biodiversity of the Pacific islands began with the arrival of the first humans. Archaeological investigations discovered an even more phenomenal bird fauna existed in New Caledonia before the 18th Century, including a giant flightless bird, like the famous (and also extinct) New Zealand Moa. The extinction of these birds coincides with the arrival of the Melanesians about 900 years ago, and was likely caused by fire, slash and burn agriculture, and hunting. The arrival of European settlers towards the end of the last Century greatly accelerated the loss of biodiversity. A combination of logging, mining and natural drought conditions resulted in massive fires that destroyed a majority of the natural habitats on the southern part of the island.
This pattern was repeated throughout the Pacific. In the Marquesas, for example, the Polynesian settlers exterminated eight of twenty sea birds, including shearwaters, petrels, and boobies. Fourteen of the 16 land birds, primarily flightless rails, pigeons, doves, parrots and songbirds became extinct. On Easter Island, the early settlers denuded the entire island of trees and exterminated 22 species of sea birds and all six species of land birds. The Maori people arrived in New Zealand about 900 years ago and by the time the Europeans arrived in mass in the 1840’s, most of the country’s unique avifauna was extinct and nearly 30% of the native forests were cleared.
The European invasion of New Zealand resulted in the most extensive and complete biotransformation of any large island in the Pacific. This was a deliberate effort of "Acclimatisation Committees" to make New Zealand more like "home" and included removal of all but 20% of the native forests, filling all but 10% of the wetlands, and importation of over 3198 species of plants and animals. Australians were less successful than the New Zealanders in the biological transformation of their country, largely because of the sheer size of the landmass and the unsuitability of many areas to British plants and animals. In turn, the Australian and New Zealanders imported their favourite plants and animals into many Pacific island countries.
Endemic species can be lost in the space of a few months through the destruction of critical habitat or through the introduction of predator, insect pests and diseases. The loss of any habitat on a high island is likely to mean the extinction of species of plants or animals.
Recognition of the significance and value of biological diversity is growing within the region. In fact, the economic value of ecosystems was recently carried out in Fiji under its present Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan project. The value of Fiji’s ecosystem services is about FJD1 billion per year. It goes to support the need to look after the ecosystems not only for the resources but for the services they provide to the people. (Sisto, 1998). A number of other Pacific countries such as Samoa, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands are also currently undertaking similar biodiversity strategy and action plans to support their existing protected are systems.
The economies of most PICs are still subsistence based. This means that most Pacific islanders are dependant on local biological and other natural resources for survival. Biological resources not only provide food, clothing, tools, medicines and other material products, but are also critical component of Pacific island cultures- providing the objects of myths and legends. Thus, in the Pacific islands, biodiversity conservation is much more than an economic and an ecological issue, it is also a social and cultural issue. While great strides have been made to protect biodiversity in the region in recent years, the rapid increase in the number and magnitude of threats to biodiversity highlights the need for much greater effort to be placed on biodiversity conservation in the future.

Action for biodiversity in the Pacific Islands

1. Traditional cooperation for bioconservation in the South Pacific

Protected areas for nature conservation have been an integral part of Pacific island countries for thousands of years. Pacific island reserves were established by taboos to prevent anyone from entering the area, with the express purpose of allowing the wildlife to recover. Taboos were placed on garden areas as well as on coral reefs and lagoons. In some instances, particular species were protected. These practices endure in rural areas of some Pacific island nations. Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa acknowledge the value of community law in their national legislation and have recently made progress in forming partnerships between communities and national agencies for conservation.

2. Cooperation for the formation of conservation areas

In the 1980’s SPREPs conservation programme was modelled on the European concept of establishing National Parks owned and controlled by National governments as they are in New Caledonia, Australia and New Zealand. But its member Pacific island governments did not own very much land, and had no mechanism by which custom land could be appropriated or even purchased. Consequently, even though international funds were available to set up and manage national parks, very few were created. Previous colonial efforts at park formation had met with little practical success because people continued to use the areas for subsistence activities. The governments were unwilling to arrest and prosecute indigenous people for fishing or hunting for food. In fact, independent Pacific island governments have never prosecuted any of their citizens for violating national conservation laws or fishery laws. However, people who violate taboos set by local communities are dealt with effectively and quickly.
Following a 1992 SPREP conference on nature conservation in Nuku’alofa Tonga, where NGOs from around the Pacific were able to illuminate SPREP on some of these issues, the organisation began a different, community based approach to nature conservation. In 1993, the SPREP South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Programme (SPBCP) began. The focus was on strengthening the knowledge and skills of the communities who own the natural resources so they can make their own plans for protecting and managing biodiversity, and develop new ways of generating income from their resources without destroying them. By the end of 1998, 17 Conservation Areas had been established in 12 countries. These projects were located in the Cook Islands, Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia (2), Kiribati (2), Marshall Islands, Niue, Palau (2), Samoa (2), Solomon Islands (2), Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu (2).
Ideally, the Conservation Areas are planned, managed, and owned by local communities with government agencies and NGOs offering support as needed. This approach helps communities feel the Conservation Areas are their own decision on how best to utilise their own land. National Governments find the approach far more economical than the former National Park approach as the actual day to day management, including enforcement of rules, is done by the people themselves.
SPREP assists the local training programme by inviting members of the Conservation Area management teams to regional workshops where they can share experiences and learn conservation management tools such as monitoring and evaluation. Exchange study tours by land owners from different conservation areas help long term understanding of conservation area management.
A further 17 Community based conservation projects have been set up by other groups. New Zealand Overseas Development Assistance supports a conservation area in PNG (Maisin land, Oro province), a bird park in Tonga, and eco-tourism areas in World Heritage sites at Rennel and Marovo Lagoon in the Solomon Islands. The Nature Conservancy helped establish a Marine Conservation Area in at Kimke Bay in PNG. The United States provided support for the Crater Mt Wildlife Management Area in PNG, a Community Marine Conservation and Enterprise Development in the Solomon Islands, Community based conservation areas in Fiji and Vanuatu (in association with SPACHEE and the Bio Conservation Network). WWF assisted with the creation of marine conservation areas in PNG, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji, and the Cook Islands.

3. The Biodiversity Conservation Network (BCN)

The Biodiversity Conservation Network was a US$20 million, 6-year programme funded by the US Agency for International Development through the US-Asia Environmental Partnership. BCN is part of the Biodiversity Support Program, a consortium of the World Wildlife Fund/US, The nature Conservancy, and the World Resources Institute. BCN provided twenty sizable grants to organizations in seven countries to set up or maintain enterprises that are linked to biodiversity. The bulk of the projects involve harvesting or processing non-timber forest products, and eco-tourism projects. BCN’s mandate includes the analysis of the effectiveness and impact of enterprise based conservation strategies. The project wound up in September 1999 leaving 20 conservation based enterprises in various stages of development.
4. National experiences with conservation of biodiversity
The AusAID funded Samoan Fisheries Extension Project encouraged coastal villages to set up their own coastal resource management plans that included coral reef conservation areas. The Cook Island Fisheries Department and the Vanuatu Fisheries Extension programme both encourage the creation of community conservation areas. Custom taboo restrictions are now recognised by the Vanuatu Government as a valuable conservation tool. Some Vanuatu villages have spontaneously set up their own conservation areas, complete with village by-laws, and without outside financial assistance or economic goals.
The French and American island territories of the Pacific have established national park areas that function as they do in their parent countries. For example, in New Caledonia there is a sophisticated network of forest and marine parks that are carefully supervised and well developed for tourism purposes. They are zoned parks, with areas set aside that do not permit entry for any reason without special permit. In total, 3.3% of the land is set aside as forest parks, representing most of the remaining forest types. New Caledonia’s marine parks total 59,469 hectares. The Southern Lagoon Park system includes one section that is perpetually closed to entry of any kind except for licensed scientific investigations. The Southwest Lagoon permanently protects a large section of the barrier reef and a series of lagoon islands and reefs. Tourism is allowed in these areas but not fishing. The response of the sea life to total protection has been rewarding. Isle Canard, for example, directly off the major tourist beach area of Noumea, has a flourishing coral reef that is a popular snorkelling site. The fish have become extraordinarily abundant and divers hand feed swarms of them.

5. Conflict resolution in biodiversity issues

The Foundation of the Peoples of the South Pacific International (FSPI) and its local NGO affiliates, identified conflicts over the utilisation of natural resources as a major stumbling block for community participation in biodiversity conservation. In the Pacific islands, the problems are amplified by high levels of dependency on natural resources for both subsistence (food and fuelwood) and national wealth creation (timber, commercial agriculture, and fisheries). Land and resource ownership patterns complicate decisions on resource use, generating a wide range of conflicts. These are summarised by in Conflicts.rtf. National examples are provided in Pohnpei CA.rtf and Vanuatu CA.rtf. Participatory processes helped resolve conflicts in both these examples. Where conservation areas were reasonably free of community conflicts, they were implemented with much less difficulty. Examples are given in Samoa CA.rtf and Conservation Area Tuvalu.rtf.

6. Funding for protection of biodiversity

A number of Conservation Areas have made progress in developing sustainable benefit-generating activities such as eco-tourism, handicrafts, agroforestry, alley-cropping, whale watching, butterfly ranching, and others. These types of activities improve the potential sustainability of the projects. SPREP assists by providing training in small business management and regional conferences on eco-tourism. However, small eco-tourism operations in the Pacific islands, have not yet been economically sustainable and none bring in the level of funding needed for long-term conservation area management.
Funding is basic to the sustainability of community based conservation areas. Wealthy countries like Australia, New Zealand, or New Caledonia can afford to create, maintain and protect National Parks. But the small Pacific island countries simply do not have the funds to support conservation areas, and SPREP has proposed a Pacific Island Regional Conservation Trust to help meet conservation costs. ESCAP’s Pacific Operations Centre prepared a concept paper for the framework of the trust fund (Rosenberg 1998). The Trust will have an initial target funding level for grants of US$ 1 million, based on the current SPREP expenditures for Conservation Areas. This will require a principal of about US$ 30 million. Possible donors include GEF, UNDP, UNEP, ADB, EU, bilateral aid, private donors and foundations.
7. The Natural Resource Conservation Programme
SPREP’s Natural Resource Conservation Programme focuses on endangered species, like Sea Turtles and Dugongs. SPREP organised the 1995 Year of the Sea Turtle that spawned turtle conservation programmes in their member countries that are expected to run for many years. In Fiji, the Government of Fiji responded by placing a moratorium on the commercial harvesting of sea turtle and has developed a long-term strategy for the conservation of this valuable resource.
A new programme on invasive species was implemented in 1998 to eradicate or control non-indigenous species that threaten native ecosystems, habitats and species in the region. The project will review invasive species issues as they pertain to conservation values and work with the United States on methods to deal with the brown snake problem in Guam. Invasive species introduction through ballast water on ships will be addressed through SPREP’s Marine Pollution Programme.

8. The SPREP Coastal Management and Planning Programme

The Coastal Management and Planning Programme is intended to assist SPREP members with the planning and managing the multiple use, ecologically sustainable development and conservation of coastal areas. The programme is based on an Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) framework loosely built on the theme of a holistic local community response. The ICM programme requires (i) extensive consultation at all levels of decision making; (ii) education and awareness; (iii) ample time to develop and mature; (iv) sanction and support from the highest levels; (v) a high degree of flexibility; (vi) development based on a specific issue; and (vii) initial compatibility with existing institutional capacity and data available (Kaluwin 1996).
The ICM project has made little headway. The project held sub-regional workshops on Coastal Reef Survey and Monitoring Techniques in Palau and in Vava’u, Tonga. The training exercise included coral reef survey techniques as part of the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network. SPREP is co-ordinator for this programme in the Pacific Region. SPREP produced a directory of agencies involved in coastal management in the Pacific islands region and a directory of institutions and educational courses available for coastal management training.

9. SPREP/ICRI Coral Reef Programme

In 1997 SPREP organised the Year of the Coral Reef to heighten public awareness about coral reef problems and what people can do to help them recover. Eighteen Pacific island countries participated, each appointing a national campaign co-ordinator. SPREP assisted financially with the development of information materials, displays and videos to heighten community awareness on the biology and plight of coral reef ecosystems.
The SPREP project was part of the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), a world-wide group concerned with the global decline of coral reefs. In 1999 the Secretariat passed from Australia to France and called for a major thrust to bring the issue to the subsistence fishers who are one of many contributors to the declining vitality of coral reefs. The public awareness programme tries to mitigate abusive and unsustainable use of the coral reef by educating the public on coral reef conservation measures
Last updated: May 18, 2000.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

This is Group 8 Blog

Group 8 will be responsible for issues related to...