M
Mike Vandeman
Guest
"Some species do quite well in times of conflict. The answer may lie
in the compelling deterrent conflict creates for people, and the
ability of species to bounce back when humans leave them well alone"
From: Kevin Stewart <[email protected]>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 00:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [involuntaryparks] The nature of war
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1289
The nature of war
by Hamish Clarke
Cosmos Online
9 May 2007
Landmines, chemical agents and hunting for bushmeat
all take a heavy toll on wildlife during war, but on
occasion animals can fare surprisingly well in times
of conflict. What can we learn from these examples?
After ten years of bitter civil combat in the
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) the outlook for the
eastern lowland gorilla was looking grim. The combat
itself, a marked increase in the bushmeat trade and
illegal mining to fund the conflict had all taken a
heavy toll. Conservation International was one of many
non-governmental organisations chased out by the war
in 1994. But upon their return ten years later, they
found that gorilla numbers had collapsed by as much as
70 per cent.
This tale has a familiar ring to it. Asian elephants
in Vietnam and Sri Lanka, waterfowl in Iraq, bluefin
tuna and green turtles in Lebanon, rhinos in Nepal and
hippos in the DRC have all suffered the fallout of
human conflict.
It doesn't always have to be that way though. During a
similar period in the 1990s, a radically different
fate befell the eastern mountain gorilla, a montane
cousin of the lowland gorilla. The species shot to
fame after the work of conservationist Dian Fossey and
the subsequent movie Gorillas in the Mist. Amidst
Rwanda's own infamously bloody civil war, mountain
gorillas in the Virunga Volcanoes National Park
experienced a remarkable upswing, of a round a fifth,
in numbers.
This begs the question: why would a species do well at
times of conflict? If conservationists can pin down
the reasons, they might be able to learn from these
experiences to help species survive future conflicts.
Hit list
The list of ways in which warfare can harm wildlife
and their habitats is lengthy. Munitions, landmines
and chemical agents can cause both immediate and
long-lasting effects. Refugees and soldiers spill into
wild habitats during conflicts, as does poaching and
over-harvesting.
"Here in [Africa's] Great Lakes Region you are never
far from war," says Andre Plumptre, director of the
Wildlife Conservation Society's Albertine Rift Program
in Uganda. Plumptre has seen the effect of war on
wildlife first hand and says that conserving species
while finding ways to work alongside a background of
unrest is a way of life.
Large animals tend to suffer disproportionately as
they are hunted for bushmeat, he says. That can also
be "bad for the rest of the biodiversity, if it leads
to loss of their habitat or conversion to another land
use."
One such example is Akagera Park in Rwanda, which has
shrunk to a third of its original area as a direct
result of the civil war. The bushmeat trade also hurts
conservation efforts indirectly as the loss of large
'flagship' species makes it much harder to generate
funds and retain political support.
Agent Orange
Plumptre co-authored a 2002 study in U.S. journal
Conservation Biology cataloguing effects such as these
and detailing a litany of species battered by war.
For example, during the Vietnam War (1955 to 1975)
Asian elephants were routinely strafed and bombed by
U.S. aircraft to prevent the Vietcong using them for
transport. Landmines continue to maim wildlife and
livestock, in addition to people, to this day.
Furthermore, around one hundred thousand tonnes of
herbicide – such as the 'defoliant' Agent Orange -
were sprayed over not just Vietnam, but also Cambodia
and Laos during the conflict. A recent survey in an
area of Vietnam untouched by the conflict found 150
species of birds; but a comparable area, blanketed
with the herbicide during the war, was found to
contain just 24 species of birds.
Asian elephants have also been caught in the crossfire
in the ongoing Sri Lankan civil war. Starting in 1984,
elephants that managed to avoid munitions have had
their migratory patterns disrupted by the conflict. In
1986 a national park was directly attacked by rebels,
killing staff and wildlife and crippling
infrastructure.
No-go zone
Surprisingly though, some species do quite well in
times of conflict. The answer may lie in the
compelling deterrent conflict creates for people, and
the ability of species to bounce back when humans
leave them well alone.
According to Plumptre, war can sometimes give species
the breathing space they need to rebound. "War can be
good in that it keeps people from moving into an area
and settling there," he says.
He cites the example of an area of the DRC west of
Lake Tanganyika, which has been unstable because of
rebel activity until the last few years.
"The forest is amazingly intact and few people live in
the region despite the place having been totally
unprotected for more than 50 years," says Plumptre.
"If there had not been rebels here this forest would
likely have been finished by now."
The deterrent effect isn't new either. Paul Martin and
Christine Szuter from the University of Arizona in the
U.S. studied areas disputed by Native American tribes
from the 17th to the 19th centuries. They found that
disagreement between tribes over these areas created
buffer zones with few inhabitants, where species such
as bison, elk and deer thrived.
Strange effects
The Korean Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) between North and
South Korea is perhaps the ultimate no man's land.
Created in 1953 by the U.N., the DMZ (four-km-wide but
248 km-long) divides the Korean Peninsula in two and
is the most heavily armed border in the world.
Thanks to this strange confluence of events, the DMZ
is a treasure trove of biodiversity, packed with 149
U.N.-listed World Heritage Sites. The zone is home to
a significant chunk of Korean biodiversity and two
endangered cranes use it as a pit-stop on a migratory
journey spanning thousands of kilometres across the
globe.
Present day Australia is not the first place you'd
think to go looking for war zones. One thing the
country does have in increasing abundance though are
military training areas, and these often have high
conservation value too, says zoologist John Woinarski
with the Northern Territory Department of Natural
Resources, Environment and the Arts in Darwin.
This is likely down to the fact that much of the rest
of Northern Australia, at least the bits that aren't
desert, are given over to cattle production, he says.
"In this environment, any lands that aren't managed
for cows will have biodiversity gains."
Working in a war zone
In between dodging bullets, conservationists working
in war zones are constantly trying to extract maximum
benefit from severely limited resources. But can we
learn from the experiences of species that have been
ravaged by conflict to better protect others in the
future?
A study published in April 2007 in the U.K. journal
Biology Letters argues that current efforts to protect
endangered species during wartime may need rethinking.
Guy Cowlishaw, a conservationist at the Institute of
Zoology in London, U.K., and colleagues studied
changes in the bushmeat trade in the DRC during
periods of peace and conflict. Surprisingly, the
number of anti-poaching patrols had little effect on
bushmeat offtake.
What they found instead was that social factors were
critical in determining the opportunities of poachers.
In rural areas where village chiefs maintained a tight
control over the supply of automatic weapons, poaching
was restricted even during periods of armed conflict.
In urban areas the outbreak of fighting lead to a
catastrophic loss of control over arms and an increase
in poaching.
These results point to the need for conservationists
to establish closer links with the community. "Our
results indicate that sociopolitical factors can be an
important determinant of species offtake," say the
authors.
"The impact of human conflict on wildlife and habitats
is complex. While stretches of depopulated no man's
land between warring forces can provide a sanctuary
for wildlife, most war zones are more likely to act as
population sinks through the proliferation of
armaments and uncontrolled poaching by refugees and
combatants," they wrote. "Given the threat that
warfare poses and the prevalence of armed conflicts,
it is imperative to identify how wildlife and habitats
can best be safeguarded."
Their study is hopefully the first of many that will
provide more data to help conservationists understand
why the eastern mountain gorilla was able to do so
well during the Rwandan civil war – and also help them
find ways to protect less fortunate species such as
the eastern lowland gorilla, which was so decimated
during the DRC's neighbouring conflict.
Hamish Clarke is a science journalist based in Sydney,
and a regular contributor to Cosmos Online.
©2007 Luna Media Pty Ltd, all rights reserved
Kevin Maddog Stewart
Project Mkono website ecn.ab.ca/~puppydog
My attempt at a blog: http://www.livejournal.com/users/aspenparkland/
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
in the compelling deterrent conflict creates for people, and the
ability of species to bounce back when humans leave them well alone"
From: Kevin Stewart <[email protected]>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 00:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [involuntaryparks] The nature of war
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1289
The nature of war
by Hamish Clarke
Cosmos Online
9 May 2007
Landmines, chemical agents and hunting for bushmeat
all take a heavy toll on wildlife during war, but on
occasion animals can fare surprisingly well in times
of conflict. What can we learn from these examples?
After ten years of bitter civil combat in the
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) the outlook for the
eastern lowland gorilla was looking grim. The combat
itself, a marked increase in the bushmeat trade and
illegal mining to fund the conflict had all taken a
heavy toll. Conservation International was one of many
non-governmental organisations chased out by the war
in 1994. But upon their return ten years later, they
found that gorilla numbers had collapsed by as much as
70 per cent.
This tale has a familiar ring to it. Asian elephants
in Vietnam and Sri Lanka, waterfowl in Iraq, bluefin
tuna and green turtles in Lebanon, rhinos in Nepal and
hippos in the DRC have all suffered the fallout of
human conflict.
It doesn't always have to be that way though. During a
similar period in the 1990s, a radically different
fate befell the eastern mountain gorilla, a montane
cousin of the lowland gorilla. The species shot to
fame after the work of conservationist Dian Fossey and
the subsequent movie Gorillas in the Mist. Amidst
Rwanda's own infamously bloody civil war, mountain
gorillas in the Virunga Volcanoes National Park
experienced a remarkable upswing, of a round a fifth,
in numbers.
This begs the question: why would a species do well at
times of conflict? If conservationists can pin down
the reasons, they might be able to learn from these
experiences to help species survive future conflicts.
Hit list
The list of ways in which warfare can harm wildlife
and their habitats is lengthy. Munitions, landmines
and chemical agents can cause both immediate and
long-lasting effects. Refugees and soldiers spill into
wild habitats during conflicts, as does poaching and
over-harvesting.
"Here in [Africa's] Great Lakes Region you are never
far from war," says Andre Plumptre, director of the
Wildlife Conservation Society's Albertine Rift Program
in Uganda. Plumptre has seen the effect of war on
wildlife first hand and says that conserving species
while finding ways to work alongside a background of
unrest is a way of life.
Large animals tend to suffer disproportionately as
they are hunted for bushmeat, he says. That can also
be "bad for the rest of the biodiversity, if it leads
to loss of their habitat or conversion to another land
use."
One such example is Akagera Park in Rwanda, which has
shrunk to a third of its original area as a direct
result of the civil war. The bushmeat trade also hurts
conservation efforts indirectly as the loss of large
'flagship' species makes it much harder to generate
funds and retain political support.
Agent Orange
Plumptre co-authored a 2002 study in U.S. journal
Conservation Biology cataloguing effects such as these
and detailing a litany of species battered by war.
For example, during the Vietnam War (1955 to 1975)
Asian elephants were routinely strafed and bombed by
U.S. aircraft to prevent the Vietcong using them for
transport. Landmines continue to maim wildlife and
livestock, in addition to people, to this day.
Furthermore, around one hundred thousand tonnes of
herbicide – such as the 'defoliant' Agent Orange -
were sprayed over not just Vietnam, but also Cambodia
and Laos during the conflict. A recent survey in an
area of Vietnam untouched by the conflict found 150
species of birds; but a comparable area, blanketed
with the herbicide during the war, was found to
contain just 24 species of birds.
Asian elephants have also been caught in the crossfire
in the ongoing Sri Lankan civil war. Starting in 1984,
elephants that managed to avoid munitions have had
their migratory patterns disrupted by the conflict. In
1986 a national park was directly attacked by rebels,
killing staff and wildlife and crippling
infrastructure.
No-go zone
Surprisingly though, some species do quite well in
times of conflict. The answer may lie in the
compelling deterrent conflict creates for people, and
the ability of species to bounce back when humans
leave them well alone.
According to Plumptre, war can sometimes give species
the breathing space they need to rebound. "War can be
good in that it keeps people from moving into an area
and settling there," he says.
He cites the example of an area of the DRC west of
Lake Tanganyika, which has been unstable because of
rebel activity until the last few years.
"The forest is amazingly intact and few people live in
the region despite the place having been totally
unprotected for more than 50 years," says Plumptre.
"If there had not been rebels here this forest would
likely have been finished by now."
The deterrent effect isn't new either. Paul Martin and
Christine Szuter from the University of Arizona in the
U.S. studied areas disputed by Native American tribes
from the 17th to the 19th centuries. They found that
disagreement between tribes over these areas created
buffer zones with few inhabitants, where species such
as bison, elk and deer thrived.
Strange effects
The Korean Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) between North and
South Korea is perhaps the ultimate no man's land.
Created in 1953 by the U.N., the DMZ (four-km-wide but
248 km-long) divides the Korean Peninsula in two and
is the most heavily armed border in the world.
Thanks to this strange confluence of events, the DMZ
is a treasure trove of biodiversity, packed with 149
U.N.-listed World Heritage Sites. The zone is home to
a significant chunk of Korean biodiversity and two
endangered cranes use it as a pit-stop on a migratory
journey spanning thousands of kilometres across the
globe.
Present day Australia is not the first place you'd
think to go looking for war zones. One thing the
country does have in increasing abundance though are
military training areas, and these often have high
conservation value too, says zoologist John Woinarski
with the Northern Territory Department of Natural
Resources, Environment and the Arts in Darwin.
This is likely down to the fact that much of the rest
of Northern Australia, at least the bits that aren't
desert, are given over to cattle production, he says.
"In this environment, any lands that aren't managed
for cows will have biodiversity gains."
Working in a war zone
In between dodging bullets, conservationists working
in war zones are constantly trying to extract maximum
benefit from severely limited resources. But can we
learn from the experiences of species that have been
ravaged by conflict to better protect others in the
future?
A study published in April 2007 in the U.K. journal
Biology Letters argues that current efforts to protect
endangered species during wartime may need rethinking.
Guy Cowlishaw, a conservationist at the Institute of
Zoology in London, U.K., and colleagues studied
changes in the bushmeat trade in the DRC during
periods of peace and conflict. Surprisingly, the
number of anti-poaching patrols had little effect on
bushmeat offtake.
What they found instead was that social factors were
critical in determining the opportunities of poachers.
In rural areas where village chiefs maintained a tight
control over the supply of automatic weapons, poaching
was restricted even during periods of armed conflict.
In urban areas the outbreak of fighting lead to a
catastrophic loss of control over arms and an increase
in poaching.
These results point to the need for conservationists
to establish closer links with the community. "Our
results indicate that sociopolitical factors can be an
important determinant of species offtake," say the
authors.
"The impact of human conflict on wildlife and habitats
is complex. While stretches of depopulated no man's
land between warring forces can provide a sanctuary
for wildlife, most war zones are more likely to act as
population sinks through the proliferation of
armaments and uncontrolled poaching by refugees and
combatants," they wrote. "Given the threat that
warfare poses and the prevalence of armed conflicts,
it is imperative to identify how wildlife and habitats
can best be safeguarded."
Their study is hopefully the first of many that will
provide more data to help conservationists understand
why the eastern mountain gorilla was able to do so
well during the Rwandan civil war – and also help them
find ways to protect less fortunate species such as
the eastern lowland gorilla, which was so decimated
during the DRC's neighbouring conflict.
Hamish Clarke is a science journalist based in Sydney,
and a regular contributor to Cosmos Online.
©2007 Luna Media Pty Ltd, all rights reserved
Kevin Maddog Stewart
Project Mkono website ecn.ab.ca/~puppydog
My attempt at a blog: http://www.livejournal.com/users/aspenparkland/
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
