A combination of methods needed to assess the actual use of provisioning ecosystem services

Failure to recognize that potential provisioning ecosystem services are not necessarily collected and used by people may have important consequences for management of land and resources. Accounting for people's actual use of ecosystem services in decision making processes requires a robust methodological approach that goes beyond mapping the presence of ecosystem services. But no such universally accepted method exists, and there are several shortcomings of existing methods such as the application of land use/cover as a proxy for provisioning ecosystem service availability and surveys based on respondents' recall to assess people's collection of e.g. wild food. By combining four complementary methods and applying these to the shifting cultivation systems of Laos, we show how people’s actual use of ecosystem services from agricultural fields differs from ecosystem service availability. Our study is the first in Southeast Asia to combine plot monitoring, collection diaries, repeat interviews, and participant observation. By applying these multiple methods borrowed from anthropology and botany among other research domains, the study illustrates that no single method is sufficient on its own. It is of key importance for scientists to adopt methods that can account for both availability of various services and actual use of those services

Integrating sustainable hunting in biodiversity protection in central Africa: Hot spots, weak spots, and strong spots

© 2014 Fa et al. Wild animals are a primary source of protein (bushmeat) for people living in or near tropical forests. Ideally, the effect of bushmeat harvests should be monitored closely by making regular estimates of offtake rate and size of stock available for exploitation. However, in practice, this is possible in very few situations because it requires both of these aspects to be readily measurable, and even in the best case, entails very considerable time and effort. As alternative, in this study, we use high-resolution, environmental favorability models for terrestrial mammals (N = 165) in Central Africa to map areas of high species richness (hot spots) and hunting susceptibility. Favorability models distinguish localities with environmental conditions that favor the species' existence from those with detrimental characteristics for its presence. We develop an index for assessing Potential Hunting Sustainability (PHS) of each species based on their ecological characteristics (population density, habitat breadth, rarity and vulnerability), weighted according to restrictive and permissive assumptions of how species' characteristics are combined. Species are classified into five main hunting sustainability classes using fuzzy logic. Using the accumulated favorability values of all species, and their PHS values, we finally identify weak spots, defined as high diversity regions of especial hunting vulnerability for wildlife, as well as strong spots, defined as high diversity areas of high hunting sustainability potential. Our study uses relatively simple models that employ easily obtainable data of a species' ecological characteristics to assess the impacts of hunting in tropical regions. It provides information for management by charting the geography of where species are more or less likely to be at risk of extinction from hunting. Copyright

The scale of illegal meat importation from Africa to Europe via Paris

Concerns have been raised about the illegal import of bushmeat from Africa into Europe, particularly regarding the health risks posed to people and livestock. The role of international trade in driving unsustainable hunting in source countries is unknown, but generally assumed to be limited. Here, we present the first systematic study of the scale and nature of this international trade. We estimate that around five tonnes of bushmeat per week is smuggled in personal baggage through Paris Roissy-Charles de Gaulle airport. Bushmeat is not only imported for personal consumption but is part of a lucrative organized trade, with high prices indicating luxury status. A wide range of species is carried, many of which are CITES-listed. Based on these findings, we suggest ways in which customs, airlines, and airport authorities could reduce imports, focussing on raising awareness of regulations, and improving surveillance and deterrence, particularly where CITES-listed species are concerned.Anne-Lise Chaber, Sophie Allebone-Webb, Yves Lignereux, Andrew A. Cunningham, J. Marcus Rowcliff

Are alternative livelihood projects effective at reducing local threats to specified elements of biodiversity and/or improving or maintaining the conservation status of those elements?

Background: Alternative livelihood projects are used by a variety of organisations as a tool for achieving biodiversity conservation. However, despite characterising many conservation approaches, very little is known about what impacts (if any) alternative livelihood projects have had on biodiversity conservation, as well as what determines the relative success or failure of these interventions. Reflecting this concern, Motion 145 was passed at the Vth IUCN World Conservation Congress in 2012 calling for a critical review of alternative livelihood projects and their contribution to biodiversity conservation. This systematic map and review intends to contribute to this critical review and provide an overview for researchers, policy makers and practitioners of the current state of the evidence base. Methods: Following an a priori protocol, systematic searches for relevant studies were conducted using the bibliographic databases AGRICOLA, AGRIS, CAB Abstracts, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge, as well as internet searches of Google, Google Scholar, and subject specific and institutional websites. In addition, a call for literature was issued among relevant research networks. The titles, abstracts and full texts of the captured studies were assessed using inclusion criteria for the systematic map and the systematic review, respectively. An Excel spreadsheet was used to record data from each study and to provide a systematic map of the evidence for the effectiveness of alternative livelihood studies. The studies that met additional criteria to be included in the systematic review were described in more detail through a narrative synthesis. Results: Following full text screening, 97 studies were included in the systematic map covering 106 projects using alternative livelihood interventions. Just 22 of these projects met our additional criteria for inclusion in the systematic review, but one project was removed from the detailed narrative synthesis following critical appraisal. The 21 included projects included reports of positive, neutral and negative conservation outcomes. Conclusions: Our results show that there has been an extensive investment in alternative livelihood projects, yet the structure and results of most of these projects have not been documented in a way that they can be captured using standardised search processes. Either this is because there has been little reporting on the outcomes of these projects, or that post-project monitoring is largely absent. The implications of this review for policy, management and future research are provided in relation to this evidence gap