Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
Survival of Rain Forest,” in Caldecott and Miles,
World Atlas of Great Apes and Their Conserva-
tion
, 87.
71
Without the bonobos
Cowlishaw and Dunbar,
Primate Conservation Biology
, 2. Furthermore,
many other species of animals are important for seed dispersal, and without them, numerous types
of flora would vanish. One mistake in conservation is to focus on the protection of the forests but
not of the wildlife, since without the latter, the survival of the forests becomes tenuous at best. The
ideal approach is to highlight the inextricable relationship between forests and wildlife. For more
information on seed dispersal by animals, see “Roles of Animals in Tropical Rainforests,” Rain-
forest Conservation Fund,
http://www.rainforestconservation.org/rainforest-primer/2-biodiversity/
f-animals/1-roles-of-animals-in-tropical-rainforests
; Ellen Andresen and Douglas J. Levey, “Ef-
fects of Dung and Seed Size on Secondary Dispersal, Seed Predation, and Seedling Establish-
ment of Rain Forest Trees,”
Oecologia
139 no. 1 (March 2004): 45-54,
http://link.springer.com/
article/10.1007%2Fs00442-003-1480-4
; E.-D. Schulze, E. Beck, and K. Müller-Hohenstein,
Plant
Ecology
(New York: Springer, 2005), 543. For the impact of loss of wildlife on seed dispersal,
see Lund University, “Hunting for Meat Impacts on Rainforest, Fruit Tree Seed Dispersal,”
ScienceDaily
,
March
20,
2013,
Yetee
76
Guy Cowlishaw and Robin Dunbar
Cowlishaw and Dunbar,
Primate Conservation Biology
, 2.
76
With an estimated fourteen million
Mark Dowie, “Conservation Refugees,” in Lopez, ed.,
The
Future of Nature
, 70, referencing Charles Geisler, a sociologist at Cornell University; essay ori-
ginally published in
Orion Magazine
(Nov/Dec 2005).
76
Community-based reserves
Cowlishaw and Dunbar,
Primate Conservation Biology
, 6, 343-44.
Cowlishaw and Dunbar offer an excellent overview of community-based conservation projects:
Because the unsustainable exploitation of primate populations and their habitats by local com-
munities is often believed to pose the greatest threat to their survival, a great deal of conserva-
tion action is now aimed at making these natural resources more valuable to local people in the
long term. This goal is achieved by increasing the economic value of that resource, either by es-
tablishing new harvesting or tourism programs or by distributing more effectively the econom-
ic benefits of existing programs (e.g., the revenues from tourism that would previously have
gone directly to the state are redirected to neighbors of the national parks). Such projects have
the attraction that the improved economic benefits at the local level will bolster livelihoods
and community development. This approach of emphasizing the link between biodiversity and
the well-being of human populations has led to the emergence of Integrated Conservation and
Development Projects (ICDPs).
The wisdom of this approach is still hotly debated (see Spinage 1998, 1999; Colchester
1998; Martin 1999), not least because the accumulated evidence suggests that humans show
little natural inclination for sustainable use: what conservation does occur seems to be epiphen-
omenal rather than intentional. . . . Nonetheless, harsh economic realities dictate that conserva-
tion will reap substantial benefits if ways can be found to ensure that this approach succeeds.
Projects that involve local people in conservation are generally termed community-based
conservation projects (CBC). There are three basic types of community-based schemes (Gib-
son and Marks 1995). First, there are direct benefit-sharing schemes: local people gain directly
from state-controlled conservation activities in the form of either cash income (e.g., from the
sale of meat from safari-killed game) or employment as game scouts or tour guides. Second,
there are indirect benefit-sharing schemes: local people gain indirectly if a share of the profits
of conservation income is used on local development projects, such as building hospitals and
