Combat Conservation-The future after the Defence Review?

Anyone fancy being the military wing of Greenpeace?

BBC News - Protecting wildlife in conflict zones

"The connection between conservation and conflict was highlighted by a report published in the journal Conservation Biology last year.

It found that more than 80% of the armed clashes in the past 50 years occurred in countries that contain places of extraordinarily high global species diversity.

In the 1990s, in Africa's biologically diverse Albertine Rift region, civil insurgencies rendered national parks the strongholds of rebels and provided shelter for refugees, causing large mammal populations to plummet.

More recently, instability in other parts of Africa, including Zimbabwe and the Central African Republic, has facilitated increased elephant poaching, which is boosting the world's illegal ivory trade.

So if conservation organisations are to protect wildlife and wild places, they must increasingly operate in conflict and post-conflict settings.

Because civil unrest can often result from competition for natural resources, there is another powerful reason why conservation is important in conflict settings: it can help build peace."
Exploding over-population is the key cause of animal decline and habitat destruction.

I'd say that allowing these populations to kill each other off in large numbers is actually what would lead to improved conservation....

(I note that the rate of poaching during the Rhodesian and Namibian campaigns dropped to near zero. Wonder why...?)

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads