WWF - Publications, factsheets and reports on species

Ivory traffickers held in Central African Republic

2009-10-06

The arrests were the first of their kind in the African nation since it passed a wildlife protection law in the 1980s, said Ofir Drori, director of the Cameroon-based group The Last Great Ape which announced the arrests with WWF.

One woman had 157 ivory objects weighing more than 200 kilogrammes in her home in Bangui, the groups said in a statement.

The other trafficker was detained in a Bangui hotel Friday as he was "trying to sell 14 ivory objects, hippopotamus teeth and a panther skin," said the statement.

The two could face up to a year in jail if found guilty.

"They had several decades of experience between them and were said to be at the centre of an international ivory trafficking network," the statement said.

Illegal poaching threatens the elephant with extinction, animal protection groups say, despite the ivory trade being banned by a 1989 international agreement.

Experts say some 38,000 African elephants are killed each year for their tusks.

Banking on Cod

2009-06-16

Cetaceans and Other Marine Biodiversity of the Eastern Tropical Pacific: Options for Adapting to Climate Change.

2009-06-12

This three-day meeting brought together 72 international experts in cetacean biology, oceanography, biodiversity, conservation and climate to discuss the current status of cetacean and other marine populations in the eastern tropical Pacific and to assess their vulnerability and adaptation options to climate change in the region.

This is the first effort in the region to collate oceanographic and climate knowledge in the context of vulnerabilities and adaptation options for marine organisms. Although it did not aspire to be comprehensive, it will serve as a platform to stimulate further regional work towards adaptation of marine habitats to climate change.

Hoffman, JR, Fonseca, A, and C Drews (eds). 2009. Cetaceans and Other Marine Biodiversity of the Eastern Tropical Pacific: Options for Adapting to Climate Change. Report from a workshop held February 9-11, 2009. MINAET/WWF/EcoAdapt/CI/IFAW/TNC/WDCS/IAI/PROMAR, San Jose, Costa Rica. ISBN: 978-9968-825-37-5

Defining and estimating global marine fisheries bycatch

2009-04-15

Abstract

Unselective fishing catches non-target organisms as ‘bycatch’—an issue of critical ocean conservation and resource management concern. However, the situation is confused because perceptions of target and non target catch vary widely, impeding efforts to estimate bycatch globally. To remedy this, the term needs to be redefined as a consistent definition that establishes what should be considered bycatch. A new definition is put forward as: ‘bycatch is catch that is either unused or unmanaged’. Applying this definition to global marine fisheries data conservatively indicates that bycatch represents 40.4 percent of global marine catches, exposing systemic gaps in fisheries policy and management.

Reference: DAVIES RWD, et al. Defining and estimating global marine fisheries bycatch. Marine Policy (2009), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2009.01.003.

New scientific paper reveals the impact of climate change on whales dolphins and porpoises

2009-04-02

In the week when 4000 towns and cities across 88 countries turned off their lights to call for stronger action to combat climate change, a new scientific paper published in the Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK takes a collective look at what is currently known about how climate change may affect or is already affecting whales, dolphins and porpoises (collectively know as cetaceans) and how this issue may be best addressed. The paper was written by WWF and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS).

There is unequivocal evidence that climate change is affecting the oceans but just how it impacts cetaceans and what conservationists, scientists and governments should do about it remain critical questions.

What we know
Climate change could have an impact on several factors that cetaceans depend upon for survival including:

• Ocean temperature
• Habitat availability
• Changes in sea-ice distribution
• Prey availability

These factors in turn can be expected to impact feeding and breeding and survivorship.

Some cetacean species and populations are likely to be especially vulnerable to these predicted climate related changes, including those with a limited habitat range, or those for which sea ice provides an important habitat for the cetacean and/or that of their prey.

Other factors impacting cetaceans such as bycatch, unsustainable hunting, chemical and noise pollution and oil and gas development are even further compounded by the different threats posed by climate change, which adds undue pressure to already vulnerable species. At least a quarter of the world’s cetaceans were recently confirmed as endangered and the situation may be worse as the status of many others remains unclear.

What can be done?
If conservation programs for cetaceans are to succeed in the face of climate change, decision makers must be swift to react to emerging developments that are a result of climate change; focus on reducing other pressures on populations where possible; and, be more responsive as new information becomes available. For example, if cetaceans change their distributions and establish new critical habitat areas, conservation and management efforts will have to move with them.

Conservation programs should also shift to not only focus all work on critically endangered species, but also pay attention to ensuring that other species and populations remain robust and resilient to the changes that are predicted.

There is a need for large scale and long-term work to better understand the impending risks posed to cetaceans by climate change and leadership from appropriate international bodies will be crucial. However, such bodies will need to prioritize these endeavors and allocate adequate funding.

The paper was written by WWF and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS).

For the full paper click here: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=MBI&volumeId=89&issueId=01&iid=4249964

WWF position following the IWC intersessional meeting, March 2009

2009-03-11

A proposed “package deal” that would allow Japan a five year coastal whaling quota in exchange for phasing out or reducing its so-called scientific whaling program in the Southern Ocean is not an acceptable compromise as it does not do enough to protect whales according to WWF.

The package deal was discussed at a three day meeting in Rome on 9-11 March attended by just over half of the 84 member governments of the IWC, and is part of an attempt to resolve the current impasse in the IWC between pro-whaling and anti-whaling nations. WWF attended the meeting as an official observer.

This meeting was an opportunity for IWC member governments to come up with a plan that would move the IWC forward for the benefit of whales but few innovative suggestions that would contribute to a feasible solution were made.

The chair of the IWC, William Hogarth, has passed the task of drafting a package deal to the Small Working Group (SWG), which will present their report on18 May. The package deal will then be discussed and voted on at the 61st meeting of the IWC in Madeira, Portugal in June. Dr Hogarth is the IWC Commissioner for the United States.

WWF has been working with the IWC, and on whaling, for decades. WWF fully supports a resolution to the deadlock in the IWC, but believes that such a resolution must benefit whales more than whaling. WWF appreciates the fact that the IWC member governments are engaging each other in discussion but finds the package deal discussed at the meeting has some major loop holes and problems.

WWF has several suggestions for the SWG as they go forward with drafting a new deal, including the following:

All “scientific whaling” must be stopped immediately;
All whaling nations, not just Japan, must be considered in any deal;
There must be clear mechanisms for compliance, monitoring and sanctions against countries that break the rules; and,
The Revised Management Procedure (RMP), agreed by the IWC in 1994 and one of the most rigorous procedures for natural resource management yet developed, must be included in any deal involving quota setting.

Without these and several other provisions in the deal, whale populations already depleted from the unregulated whaling of the past century will continue to suffer from the actions of irresponsible whaling nations.

WWF looks forward to discussing with governments all of the elements of the SWG report and hopes that the SWG’s decisions are based on sound, robust science and for the benefit of the world’s whales. WWF continues to work with all governments on the conservation and recovery of whale species, and the reduction of all threats to whales and dolphins including bycatch, ship strikes, pollution, noise, habitat loss, and climate change.

WWF Opening Statement, International Whaling Comission (IWC) intersessional meeting in Rome, March 2009

2009-03-01

WWFolio Bolivia Nº 15

2008-10-27

Le presentamos nuestra edición informativa de octubre de 2008. En este número usted podrá leer sobre:

EDITORIAL VIVO:

La conservación es una disciplina de emergencia

PANTANAL VIVO:

Un enfoque ecor-regional transfronterizo para el Cerrado-Pantanal
Chichi Grillo y Rosa la Mariposa nos llevan a conocer y valorar la vida en el Pantanal boliviano
El trabajo de las artesanas del Pantanal boliviano

AMAZONIA VIVA:

Contaminación por mercurio en el Iténez
Problemática del mercurio
NUESTROS SOCIOS: El Instituto de Investigación para el Desarrollo (IRD) en Bolivia
Comunidades del Área Protegida Iténez hacia un futuro más sostenible
La Fuerza Naval de Bolivia y el Proyecto Centinela Ambiental
PUBLICACIONES VIVAS: Visión de Conservación de la Biodiversidad del Corredor Amboró-Madidi

VIDA FORESTAL:

Las instituciones públicas y su compromiso con la conservación de los bosques
La FTN Bolivia y la promoción de la oferta forestal certificada de Bolivia

MÁS VIDA:

4 de septiembre: Día Nacional de las Áreas Protegidas en Bolivia
Becas Príncipe Bernhard
Generando resultados de conservación a gran escala

Lifting the lid on Italy’s bluefin tuna fishery

2008-10-07

This WWF-commissioned report, researched and compiled by independent consultancy ATRT, contains the first in-depth analysis of the role of Italy in the bluefin tuna fishery in the Mediterranean. Its findings confirm the widely held view that Italy is among the main culprits in the region for overfishing and violation of the fishery’s management rules.

In April 2008 WWF released a report quantifying for the first time the fishing overcapacity of industrial fleets targeting the stock in the Mediterranean . That study identified Italy as the leader in overcapacity among EU member states, with an estimated catch capacity for the industrial purse seine fleet twice the national quota allocated to it. The study pointed to the likely underreporting of real catches in the last years, coupled with a systematic violation of international management rules and the overshoot of national quotas.

To ascertain the performance of the Italian bluefin tuna fishing industry during the crucial 2008 fishing season, the authors of this report have combined a thorough analysis of trade information with extensive field work. The latter has included the monitoring of Italy’s fleet at sea in real time, as well as the field analysis (through aerial surveys) of bluefin tuna biomass caged in every farm based in Italy, Croatia and Malta. This colossal undertaking has generated the most comprehensive picture yet of the role played by Italian interests in the Mediterranean bluefin tuna fishery, including the extent of compliance (or lack thereof) with international management rules agreed by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT, the body tasked with sustainably managing the fishery) and the EU.

This WWF study is all the more relevant now, when the Italian government holds the view that the EU’s decision to close the purse seine fishery two weeks early (15 June 2008) resulted in the Italian purse seine fleet falling short of fulfilling its quota for the year (which even led Italian interests to the extreme step of taking the European Commission to the European Court of Justice).

The current report reviews data for 2007 and demonstrates that Italy’s overshoot of the bluefin tuna national quota for 2007 amounted to a minimum of 1,653 tonnes, more than five times as much as the officially recognized overshoot of 327 tonnes. It also highlights the serious inconsistencies in the register of the fleet targeting bluefin tuna, with a broad mismatch of records between ICCAT, the EU and national fleet registers. Up to 163 purse seine vessels would have been active in the Mediterranean bluefin tuna fishery in 2008, according to the crosscheck between the relevant official registers. A total of 15 purse seine flotillas, or fishing groupings, were identified to be operating during the 2008 fishing season, including in partnership with other Libyan, Turkish and possibly Algerian vessels. The latter were identified as having been involved in an illegal operation of paper-quota transfer between Algerian and Turkish vessels during the 2008 fishing season.

The report includes extensive field information proving that Italian airports have played a key role during 2008 as a hub for illegal aerial spotting activities in central Mediterranean waters. Additionally, Italian spotter planes have operated (with others, such as US, French and Swiss) in support of the illegal activities of Italian purse seiners.

A total of 5 farms based in Italy were identified as active in 2008, containing an estimated biomass of 2,410 tonnes of live tuna (equivalent to an estimated weight at input of 2,241 tonnes). This tuna was caught exclusively by Italian purse seiners operating during the 2008 fishing season.

Additionally, a conservative 1,321 tonnes of bluefin tuna is estimated to have been caught by Italian purse seiners in the early spring fishery inside the Adriatic Sea, including an estimate of 853 tonnes that would have been caged in Croatian farms.

Finally, a further 1,159 tonnes of tuna are estimated to have been caught by Italian seiners and transferred to farms in Malta and Tunisia during 2008.

The estimate of the total bluefin tuna catch by Italian fleets during the 2008 fishing season contained in WWF’s report thus amounts to 4,887 tonnes at the very minimum. This highly conservative figure does not account for any estimate of catches by long line fleets outside of the Adriatic Sea, due to the impossibility of obtaining this information, and yet, entails a minimum quota overshoot by Italy of 724 tonnes. One wonders what the final catch of Italy’s bluefin tuna fleet might have been, had the EU not closed the purse seine fishery 15 days earlier than initially scheduled this year. Additionally, the report highlights that several relevant fishing ports for bluefin tuna in Italy, such as Pozzuoli, Vibo Valentia, Portopalo and Cetraro, are duly registered with ICCAT as landing ports for the species, but do not report any single bluefin tuna.

In WWF’s opinion, the disturbing findings of this report (concerning a significant EU member state) reinforce the conclusions contained in the recent independent verdict on ICCAT’s performance elaborated by an international panel of experts , released in September 2008. The report commissioned by ICCAT describes mismanagement in the East Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna fishery as an “international disgrace” and recommends that ICCAT immediately suspend fishing – until conditions for sustainable fisheries management exist.

WWF continues to advocate a moratorium of the fishery – and in parallel encourages retailers, chefs, restaurants and consumers to join the growing boycott of the species – until Mediterranean bluefin tuna has been pulled safely back from the brink.

Exploratory co-management interventions in Kuiburi National Park, Central Thailand, including human-elephant conflict mitigation

2008-09-03

John W.K. Parr (Corresponding Author)
Supol Jitvijak, Saowanee Saranet and Songsak Buathong

Co-management is a developing field of protected area management. Increasingly, the practice is to involve local communities and other stakeholders in protected area planning and management. In many countries,
management boards, co-management structures and other participatory mechanisms are being created.

This paper reports on promoting co-management involving participatory management planning at Kuiburi National Park, Central Thailand, through the establishment of two working groups, namely a core management planning team comprising park personnel (charged with plan implementation), operating in parallel with a park management board working group (local people and other stakeholders).

These institutional bodies participated in a park management planning process, which was fuelled by socio-economic data focusing on the high profile human-elephant conflict in the buffer zone. The initiative led to a major rethink on participatory management planning by the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation. The process also led to some valuable recommendations for elephant-wildlife mitigation, both at Kuiburi and the international context.

Whales set to chase shrinking feed zones

2008-06-20

The report Ice breaker: Pushing the boundaries for whales, summarises WWF research showing that levels of global warming predicted over the next 40 years will lead to winter sea-ice coverage of the Southern Ocean declining by up to 30 per cent in some key areas.

“Essentially, what we are seeing is that ice-associated whales such as the Antarctic minke whale will face dramatic changes to their habitat over little more than the lifespan of an individual whale,” said Dr Susan Lieberman, Director of WWF International's Species Programme and head of the WWF delegation to the IWC meeting.

Migratory whales meanwhile may need to travel 200-500 kilometres further south to find the “frontal” zones which are their crucial foraging areas. Migratory whale species which will be affected include the Blue Whale, earth's largest living creature, and the humpback whales which are only now coming back from the brink of extinction after populations were decimated by commercial whaling, mainly during the first half of the 20th century.

Both species build up the reserves that sustain them throughout the year in the frontal zones, which host large populations of their primary food source – krill.

“As frontal zones move southward, they also move closer together, reducing the overall area of
foraging habitat available,” the research notes. As the krill is dependent on sea ice, less sea ice is also expected to reduce the abundance of food for whales in the feeding areas.

“The impact on whales is one more imperative for the world to take decisive action to reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change,” Dr Lieberman said. “However, the IWC must also take the opportunity of this southern hemisphere meeting to look at every possible way to increase the resilience of whale populations to climate change.

“For Antarctica’s whales, the best way to do this would be to reduce all other threats – such as the unregulated and unjustified so-called ‘scientific whaling’ of these species conducted by Japan.”

WWF is recommending the protection of critical habitats and for also limiting other non-climate stresses to whale populations such as fishing, pollution and ocean noise.

Notes

• Ice breaker: Pushing the boundaries for whales summarises research commissioned by WWF from scientists Dr. Cynthia Tynan and Dr. Joellen Russell which was presented to the IWC Scientific Committee in the following paper: Tynan, C. T. and Russell, J.L. 2008. Assessing the impacts of future 2°C global warming on Southern Ocean cetaceans. International Whaling Commission, Scientific Committee document SC/60/E3. Ice Breaker (English, French and Spanish) and the report (English only) are available at https://intranet.panda.org/documents/folder.cfm?uFolderID=61441 The log-in is: intranet@wwfint.org and the password is: dropbox

• Current projections have 2°C of average global warming over pre-industrial levels – widely regarded as a threshold level for unacceptable risks of runaway climate change – arriving on average in 2042, with impacts going furthest and fastest in polar regions.

• Warming of 2°C will reduce winter sea-ice coverage by 10-15 per cent overall and up to 30 percent in some key areas.

• Shrinking ice covered areas affect krill production in two ways –sea ice is a refuge for krill larvae in winter, and an area of intense algal blooms in summer on which the krill feed. Krill is so fundamental to the Southern Ocean ecosystem that the impacts will not be confined to whales but also to seals, seabirds and penguins, and to fisheries productivity.

• “Frontal zones” are where water masses of different temperatures meet. They are associated with upwelling of nutrients supporting large plankton populations on which species such as Antarctic krill feed.

Whales, Whaling & the International Whaling Commission

2008-06-01

WWF’s goal is to ensure that viable populations of all cetacean species occupy their historical range, and fulfil their role in maintaining the integrity of ocean ecosystems. We work at a local level and across a broad range of international fora to address and reduce threats to cetaceans.

Download WWF's full Position Paper for the 2008 IWC Meeting. [pdf, 166 KB]

WWF’s goal is to ensure that viable populations of all cetacean species occupy their historical range, and fulfil their role in maintaining the integrity of ocean ecosystems. We work at a local level and across a broad range of international fora to address and reduce threats to cetaceans. In doing so, WWF acknowledges the widely varied cultural attitudes toward the conservation and management of whales. WWF opposes commercial whaling, now and until WWF is convinced that the governments of the world have brought whaling under international control, with a precautionary and conservation-based enforceable management and compliance system adhered to by the whaling nations.
In the more than 60 years since the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling (which established the International Whaling Commission) was adopted, it has become impossible to separate the threats presented by commercial whaling from those of marine and noise pollution, commercial bycatch, overfishing, ship strikes, oil and gas development or climate change. It would be far preferable, and of greater potential conservation benefit to cetaceans, for the IWC to now embrace the internationally accepted principles of Ecosystem Based Management, and address all of the threats to cetacean populations in a broad, multilateral context. As such, WWF urges governments to make the IWC an effective international forum for the conservation of all cetaceans, particularly those that are endangered, and to work to minimise adverse human impacts from all human-caused threats. Achieving successes together to alleviate these threats will increase the trust between member governments, which has been lost over recent decades.
The IWC has an important contribution to make to the conservation of all cetaceans, but the current stalemate caused by the Contracting Governments’ differing views on commercial whaling is adding to the many threats faced by both the great whales and small cetaceans. WWF supports a resolution to the current stalemate in the IWC, and looks forward to working cooperatively with all governments and stakeholders with an interest in whales and whaling to find a common way forward to ensure a secure and sustainable future for the world’s whales. In particular, WWF continues to call on the Government of Japan to stop abusing the special whaling permit provision of the ICRW by conducting commercial whaling under the guise of research, above all in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
WWF continues to oppose the resumption in international trade in whale parts and products, and supports the retention on CITES Appendix I of all whale species and stocks protected from commercial whaling by the IWC.
WWF recognises the human need for aboriginal subsistence whaling where it is carried out by aboriginal, indigenous, or native peoples with long-standing, strong social or cultural ties to whaling; where products are for local consumption only; and with a precautionary management scheme in place to ensure such activities are sustainable and do not threaten whale populations.

Common Ground - Reducing human wildlife conflict

2008-05-13

The WWF report ‘Common Ground’ (PDF - 3.74MB) assesses cases of Human Wildlife Conflict (HWC), focusing on elephants as a flagship of these conflicts. Often the scale of the damage that can be caused by them, and the fact that they can injure or even kill humans, makes them the species that communities most fear.

Although the dynamics and drivers of HWC can be very different wherever it occurs, there are themes in the studies that can be used to compose a 'Common Ground' or a basic list of solutions available and tested. Here are some of them:

Scale of the problem
Common Ground found the most serious conflict and harm to both human communities and elephants resulted from unplanned and unregulated development. In Namibia, elephant related conflict costs communal farmers around $US 1 million a year, while in some Nepalese communities it can be up to around a quarter of the household incomes of poor farming families.

The most significant consequence of the conflict was loss of human life, but other considerable, costs of human wildlife conflict go largely uncounted – for instance, in Nepal, men in elephant-ravaged villages faced difficulties in marrying as women as scared to move to villages where elephants are a problem. In some areas, retaliatory killing of elephants was a major threat to already vulnerable elephant populations.

Effective land use planning can reduce HWC
In Nepal, the study compared communities with high levels of wild elephant damage with an area where the conflict costs were at half those levels, and found that the less damaged area had more forest cover in edge areas and less fragmented forests overall. Further analysis revealed that the level of habitat fragmentation was actually more influential in determining the amount of crop loss than the amount of forest coverage itself - although there are many other factors which play a part.

In Namibia levels of crop damage were closely related to the distance of farms from wildlife areas, with farms immediately adjacent to unfenced wildlife habitat being “a drain on the national economy”. Human wildlife conflict in just one region of Namibia was estimated as causing annual losses of US$700,000 to the national economy. Therefore effective structures and planning process that ensure new agricultural developments are places as far away from wildlife habitat as possible will reduce HWC and ensure greater profitability for the agricultural enterprise.

Community Based Natural Resource Management
The report also found that an effective way to manage HWC was to give rights over wildlife to local communities, thus enabling local communities to benefit from neighbouring wildlife. Economic analysis in Namibia demonstrated that these communities were able to generate more income from wildlife than they suffered from wildlife losses. In Nepal, communities which received benefits from wildlife and wildlife habitat showed a much greater tolerance towards elephants than communities receiving no benefits.

A united effort
In order to be truly effective, prevention of Human Wildlife Conflict has to involve the full scope of society: international organizations, governments, NGOs, communities, consumers and individuals. Drivers of the problem are not just local, but can be regional or even international. In Namibia for example, international agreements between Europe and Africa artificially enhance the economic viability of the livestock sector compared to other land-uses and add to wildlife conflict pressures.

Innovative financial solutions
In many cases, innovative financial solutions are required. These range from compenstation and insurance, to Payments for Environmental Services and the development of ‘Wildlife Friendly Products’. These solutions are available, but need development, backing and support.

Field based solutions
There are a number of practical field based solutions that can limit the damage done both to humans and human property, and to wildlife. These are solutions that aim to prevent wildlife entering crops or villages. But this is something on a case-by-case basis. What people see as solution in one place, they may resist in another. What works in one place, may have the opposite effect somewhere else.

Livestock Insurance Scheme

2008-02-14

The latest document on the theme sustainable livelihoods, focuses on the compensation mechanism for wildlife induced vulnerability. It is based on the study carried out in Kanchenjunga Conservation Area, one of the project sites of Sacred Himalaya Landscape in eastern Nepal. The document targets the local audience vulnerable to livestock depredation (especially yak) by wild animals (especially snow leopard). To reduce the vulnerability, build local people’s coping capacity and reduce the retaliatory killings of snow leopards by victimized people, the concept community based livestock insurance scheme was started five years ago.

The recent publication is a practical field based assessment using different triangulation methods to explore the perceptions, benefits, use and management of Livestock Insurance Schemes and its other induced livelihoods opportunity.

Update after 5 years of Marine Turtle monitoring in Gamba, Gabon (2002-2007)

2008-01-22

Considering the environmental concerns on global level, and following other countries in the Congo
Basin, Gabon has been endowed with a network of 13 National Parks, representing the countries
ecological and biological wealth. One of the characteristics of the country’s recognized biological
diversity is the presence of nesting sites for several marine turtle species of the cheloniidae family and
one of the dérmochelyidae family.

The presence of four species of marine turtles in Gabon, of which some estimates go as far as 30% of
the worlds nesting leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) population (see 2006 report) and their
endangered status, make them flagship ship species for conservation and scientific research.

The beaches near Gamba town situated in the Gamba Complex of Protected Areas (GCPA) are part of
these privileged nesting sites for marine turtles. The 200 km of coastline of the Complex receives an
average of 2000 turtles every year (see 2006 report). Since 2002, the NGO Ibonga-ACPE in
collaboration with WWF and his partners (PROTOMAC) contributes every nesting season to the
monitoring and daily research on 5.75 km of beach near Gamba.

For the 2006-2007 nesting season, the activities of Ibonga’s monitoring team started at the 5th of
November 2006 till the 31st of April 2007 (including one week preparing the camp), thanks to financial
support from the RAPAC (Réseau des Aires Protégées d’Afrique Centrale) and the UICN (the World
Conservation Union).

This report will firstly present the geographical context, the different conservation activities, before
showing the final results and analysing these results, to end with suggestions for future activities and
the conclusion.

Technical Report:
Update after 5 years of Marine Turtle monitoring in Gamba, Gabon (2002-2007)
By: Gil-Avery Mounguéngui Mounguéngui
Technical Coordinator IBONGA-ACPE
Translated by Bas Verhage (Conservation Advisor WWF, Gabon)

Polar Bear Factsheet

2008-01-11

In some areas of their Arctic home, polar bears are in decline. Their drop in population can be traced to another decline: that of sea ice, reduced by global warming. Sea ice is the polar bears’ primary habitat and they rely on it for survival. Unless major actions to reduce global warming are taken, two-thirds of the world’s polar bears are likely to be gone by 2050.

Antarctic Penguins and Climate Change

2007-12-11

A WWF overview, Antarctic Penguins and Climate Change, shows that the four populations of penguins that breed on the Antarctic continent — Adélie, Emperor, Chinstrap and Gentoo — are under escalating pressure. For some, global warming is taking away precious ground on which penguins raise their young. For others, food has become increasingly scarce because of warming in conjunction with overfishing.

Captive Breeding - WWF Policy Statement 2007

2007-05-29

What is captive breeding?
Captive breeding is the process of breeding animals outside of their natural environment in restricted conditions in farms, zoos or other closed facilities. The choice of individual animals that are to be part of a captive breeding population, and the mating partners within that population, are controlled by humans.

Captive breeding is generally carried out for one of these main purposes:

To produce animals for commercial purposes (pets, food, fibre, medicine, and other human uses).
To produce animals for zoos, aquaria, research institutions, and other public facilities.
To increase captive population numbers of threatened or endangered species. In some cases, these individuals are part of a management programme aimed at eventually reintroducing captive-bred animals into wild habitats and populations. In other cases, captive facilities claim to be breeding animals for such purposes -but the animals may not be suitable - or they are not part of a legitimate conservation and management programme.

This position statement considers the risks/values of captive breeding programmes to conservation efforts to boost threatened species numbers in the wild. The focus of this position statement is on rare, threatened, and endangered species. There are many important and valid concerns related to the welfare and husbandry of animals in captivity, but these are not the subject of this statement, nor are they the focus of WWF’s work.

Is captive breeding a useful conservation tool?
WWF considers captive breeding of rare, threatened, or endangered species, with the aim of eventual reintroduction to the wild, to be a “last resort” strategy. It is exceedingly difficult and must be part of a scientifically-based management plan for the species, working closely with the range country government authorities. It is also expensive, and should not be seen as a substitute for in-situ efforts, except in rare circumstances. Captive situations may interfere with the behavioural development of animals by removing them from natural predators and prey. Furthermore, having captive populations of animals does not solve underlying problems of habitat destruction, which are often one of the key causes of the species’ decline.

Captive breeding programmes should never be seen as a substitute for in-situ conservation of a species, and can only provide positive benefits for species conservation if designed and applied as part of a science-based conservation management plan for the species.

This means ensuring that maintenance and possible introduction of captive animals is an appropriate long-term strategy for the species, that there is appropriate habitat for reintroduction, and managing this habitat to ensure that threats such as poaching, building damaging infrastructures such as roads or dams, or conflicts with local communities are mitigated. Without such management plans, any introduction of captive animals will be undermined, as these threats will lead to high levels of mortality of the reintroduced animals.

Captive breeding programmes may act as a research platform for zoologists, veterinarians and others to conduct research designed to enhance understanding of the biology of the species. In these cases, such research may yield invaluable information to inform conservation efforts. However, removal of animals from the wild for captive breeding must not endanger the survival of already vulnerable wild populations. Maintenance of zoo and aquarium populations may be appropriate for research and public education, but should not be seen as a panacea for the hard work of conservation in the field.

What are the risks associated with captive breeding?
The greatest conservation risks associated with captive breeding are when threatened or endangered species are bred for commercial purposes—for financial profit. This is particularly risky when individual animals or their parts and products are of high value, while at the same time the animals are highly endangered in the wild. This is yet again riskier if there is a high risk of poaching and illegal trade in wild individuals of the same species. For example, one of the greatest conservation risks today is the breeding in Asia in commercial farms of captive tigers, for use in traditional medicine. This puts wild tigers, of which there may be only 3,000-5,000 or fewer remaining in the wild, at an unacceptable risk (by promoting a market, stimulating consumption, and risking increased illegal trade).

Only when threatened species are bred for commercial purposes but the market is controlled, poaching and illegal trade are under control, wild animals are worth less than captive ones (e.g., pets), and the commercial value is low enough not to stimulate further illegal trade and removals from the wild—only then can we say that commercial captive breeding presents a lower risk to wild populations.

In the case of zoos, the lack of international standards for zoos and captive breeding operations has been a contributing factor to the proliferation of captive breeding facilities for commercial purposes, including commercial breeding programmes for threatened and endangered species such as tigers. Though claiming to be conservation driven, there are a number of risks which may completely negate, or seriously undermine, the appropriateness and conservation contribution (if any) of such captive breeding programmes:

Many captive breeding programmes take place in facilities that call themselves “zoos”, but that are really farms, circuses or entertainment parks, without any contribution to conservation. The lack of international standards for zoos makes this distinction difficult, and undermines the contributions of legitimate zoos to conservation. WWF urges the international zoo community to consider the development and adoption of such international standards.
Species that are popular as pets such as reptiles or birds have sometimes been labelled as “captive bred” but have since been discovered to have been laundered and removed from the wild unsustainably, thus damaging wild populations.
Captive breeding for conservation purposes necessarily must include a viable plan for reintroduction of species to the wild. Although IUCN–the World Conservation Union lists over 200 reintroduction projects currently under way around the world, re-establishing animals in their original habitat is more than a matter of simply setting them loose and hoping they will go forth and multiply. It is a complex, long-term effort that poses a raft of difficult economic, social, and environmental challenges.
Disease spread, social disruption and the introduction of alien genes which will may ultimately cause mortality is a risk for animals reintroduced into natural habitats. Although most reintroductions take place in areas where no remnant population exists and where possible, reintroduction candidates are of the same subspecies or race as the original, (since they are more likely to possess genetic traits adapted to the habitat), there is still a high level of risk which must be assessed and managed if reintroduced stock are to survive. If sufficient wild stock exists, and studies show that moving some will not be detrimental to the existing population, it may be easier and less expensive to catch and relocate animals than to captive breed them, since they already have the skills needed to survive in the wild.

What is the role of zoos in captive breeding and conservation?
WWF has long supported the legitimate role of zoos in conservation, education, and research. Captive breeding programmes managed by zoos can provide positive benefits for species conservation if designed and used appropriately, and if they are part of a science-based conservation management plan for the species. Such programmes may act as a platform for zoologists, veterinarians and others to conduct research designed to enhance understanding of the biology of the species.

Additionally, some zoos are involved in captive breeding and reintroduction programmes that may help to secure the future of threatened species. A few zoos are also involved in conservation projects in the field, either through the donation of funds or involvement of their own staff scientists in field programmes. Unfortunately, the proliferation of captive breeding facilities for commercial purposes, including commercial breeding programmes for threatened and endangered species such as tigers, requires that we carefully distinguish these facilities – some of which may call themselves “zoos” – from legitimate zoo operations.
WWF can support zoo conservation breeding programmes that:

are beneficial to the species in the wild, and enhance their conservation, using carefully monitored science-based programmes for removal of wild specimens only when necessary for controlled breeding, research, or educational purposes;
are open to the public for purposes of education about the species, its habitat, and conservation threats, and are used to increase support for the actions necessary to save the species in the wild;
provide funds, technical expertise, or other support to range states of the species concerned, to benefit the conservation of the species in the wild.

When does WWF Support Captive Breeding?
In accordance with IUCN—the World Conservation Union, WWF believes that in greatly reduced, highly fragmented, and disturbed habitats, captive breeding programmes for endangered species may be necessary to ensure that population numbers overall remain high enough to prevent local or global extinctions. This is in rare, exceptional circumstances only. However , where the rate of decline indicates this possibility, captive breeding programmes need to be established before species are reduced to critically low numbers, and need to be coordinated internationally according to sound biological principles, with a view to the maintaining or re-establishment of viable populations in the wild.

For which species has captive breeding been successful in terms of conservation?
There are only a few strong examples, including the large blue butterfly (reintroduced into SW England); wolves in Yellowstone Park, USA; the Peregrine Falcon in the USA; and the golden-lion tamarin, which are slowly rebounding in Brazil.

WWF also supports captive breeding of the Iberian lynx, the world’s most endangered cat species as an emergency measure, but notes that the Spanish government must first mitigate large scale threats to Iberian lynx habitat which is crisscrossed with legal and illegal roads, currently causing high levels of mortality.

Factsheet: Tigers

2007-05-23

The largest cat of all, the tiger is a powerful symbol among the different cultures that share its home. But this magnificent animal is being persecuted across its range. Tigers are poisoned, shot, trapped, and snared, largely as a result of conflicts with people and to meet the demands of a continuing illegal trade in tiger derivatives and parts. On top of this, both their habitat and natural prey continue to disappear. Over the past 100 years, tiger numbers have declined by 95 per cent and three sub-species have become extinct - with a fourth not seen in the wild for over 25 years.

Tigers are ‘flagship’ species for their habitats - that is, charismatic representatives of the biodiversity within the complex ecosystems they inhabit. Because these animals need a lot of space to survive, their conservation will help maintain biological diversity over extensive areas and so help many other species.

WWF has been working to conserve tigers for over four decades. In 2002, WWF developed a new and far-reaching strategy in partnership with other conservationists and authorities. The cornerstone of this Tiger Conservation Programme is a landscape-based approach to conservation supported by a strong programme to address illegal trade wherever it occurs.

Disturbed, hungry and lost – climate change impacts on whales

2007-05-22

The report — Whales in hot water? — highlights the growing impacts of climate change on cetaceans. They range from changes in sea temperature and the freshening of the seawater because of melting ice and increased rainfalls, to sea level rise, loss of icy polar habitats and the decline of krill populations in key areas.

Krill — a tiny shrimp-like animal that is dependent on sea ice — is the main source of food for many of the great whales.

Accelerating climate change adds significantly to disturbances from other human activities, such as chemical and noise pollution, collisions with ships and entanglement in fishing nets, which kills some 1,000 cetaceans every day.

“Whales, dolphins and porpoises have some capacity to adapt to their changing environment,” said Mark Simmonds, International Director of Science at WCDS, “but the climate is now changing at such a fast pace that it is unclear to what extent whales and dolphins will be able to adjust, and we believe many populations to be very vulnerable to predicted changes.”

Climate change impacts are currently greatest in the Arctic and the Antarctic. According to the report, cetaceans that rely on polar, icy waters for their habitat and food resources, such as belugas, narwhals and bowhead whales, are likely to be dramatically affected by the reduction of sea ice cover.

And as sea ice cover decreases, there will be more human activities, such as commercial shipping, oil, gas and mining exploration and development as well as military activities, in previously untouched areas of the Arctic.

“This will result in much greater risks from oil and chemical spills, worse acoustic disturbance and more collisions between whales and ships,” said the lead author of the report, Wendy Elliott of WWF’s Global Species Programme.

Other projected impacts of climate change listed in the report include: reduction of available habitat for several cetacean species unable to move into colder waters (e.g. river dolphins); the acidification of the oceans as they absorb growing quantities of CO₂; an increased susceptibility of cetaceans to diseases; and reduced reproductive success, body condition and survival rates.

Climate change could also be the nail in the coffin for the last 300 or so endangered North Atlantic right whales, as the survival of their calves has been directly related to the effects of climate variability on prey abundance.

WWF and WCDS and are urging governments to cut CO₂ global emissions by at least 50 per cent by the middle of this century. The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change showed it was possible to stop global warming if the world’s emissions start to decline before 2015.

The two conservation organizations further call on the International Whaling Commission to facilitate research on future impacts of climate change on cetaceans, including by supporting a special climate change workshop in the coming year; elaborate conservation and management plans in light of the climate change threat; and increase efforts and resources to fight all the other threats to cetaceans.

For further information:
Sarah Janicke
Species Communications Manager

Tel: +41 22 3649250
Mobile: +41 79 528 8641
Fax: +41 22 3646624
E-mail: sjanicke@wwfint.org