3.3D Success in conservation and eco-tourism (HL) Notes

Factors Influencing the Success of Biodiversity Conservation Organizations

1. The effectiveness of international, governmental, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in conserving and restoring biodiversity depends on several key factors: media influence, speed of response, diplomatic constraints, financial resources, and political influence.
2. Each organization operates within different capacities and limitations, affecting their ability to implement conservation measures.

International Organizations

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

1. UNEP plays a crucial role in global biodiversity policy, overseeing major conservation treaties such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol.
2. It has strong media influence, using global platforms to promote awareness about biodiversity loss and sustainability goals.
3. Diplomatic constraints often slow down progress, as member states must negotiate agreements, leading to delays in implementation.
4. UNEP relies on financial contributions from UN member states, making its funding dependent on international cooperation.
5. Its political influence is limited by national sovereignty, as countries may choose not to enforce conservation policies at the domestic level.

Governmental Organizations

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

1. The USFWS is responsible for enforcing biodiversity protection laws such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which protects threatened species and their habitats.
2. It uses media campaigns to raise awareness about endangered species and conservation needs, though these efforts are often politically influenced.
3. As a governmental agency, it operates within legal and bureaucratic constraints, meaning conservation actions can be delayed by legislative approval and public opposition.
4. Financial resources come from government budgets, which can fluctuate based on political priorities.
5. The USFWS has significant political influence within the United States but is limited internationally, as it can only enforce conservation laws within U.S. borders.

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

World Wildlife Fund (WWF)

1. WWF has strong media influence, using global campaigns to raise awareness and funding for conservation projects.
2. It responds quickly to environmental crises, such as poaching outbreaks or deforestation, by mobilizing funds and local conservation teams.
3. Diplomatic constraints are less restrictive than for governmental organizations, allowing WWF to work across national borders through partnerships.
4. It relies on private donations, grants, and corporate partnerships, providing financial flexibility compared to government-funded organizations.
5. WWF has some political influence, as it advises governments on conservation policies, but it lacks direct legislative power.

Assessing the Success of Conservation and Regeneration Measures

The effectiveness of conservation and regeneration projects can be evaluated based on three key criteria:

1. Did the measures succeed in the project as planned? (Biodiversity outcomes and ecological success)
2. Was the project well received by local communities? (Social and economic impacts)
3. Was this the best way to conserve nature? (Comparison with alternative strategies)

Evaluating the Green Belt Movement (GBM), Kenya

Did the measures succeed in the project as planned?

1. GBM was founded in 1977 by Wangari Maathai to combat deforestation, soil erosion, and desertification in Kenya.
2. Over 50 million trees have been planted across Kenya, restoring degraded landscapes and increasing carbon sequestration.
3. Tree planting has helped reduce soil erosion, improve water retention, and restore biodiversity, making farmland and natural ecosystems more resilient.
4. The project empowered women and rural communities, linking environmental conservation with economic self-sufficiency.
5. GBM received global recognition, and Wangari Maathai was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2004 for her efforts in environmental restoration and community leadership.

Was the project well received by the local communities?

1. GBM was largely community-driven, involving thousands of women in tree nurseries, planting, and conservation education.
2. Women benefited from training, employment, and financial independence, as tree planting provided income and enhanced agricultural productivity.
3. In some areas, government resistance and political opposition initially challenged the project, as it empowered grassroots activism against deforestation and land grabs.
4. GBM encouraged local ownership of conservation, ensuring that communities had a stake in environmental protection rather than viewing it as an externally imposed effort.

Was this the best way to conserve nature?

1. GBM was effective in addressing both environmental degradation and socio-economic challenges, making it a holistic conservation strategy.
2. It linked reforestation with social justice, providing a model for integrating conservation with poverty alleviation.
3. Unlike some conservation projects that displace communities, GBM worked with local people rather than imposing top-down restrictions.
4. However, the focus on tree planting alone had some limitations, as monoculture plantations in certain areas lacked the ecological benefits of fully restored forests.
5. Alternative conservation approaches, such as agroforestry and sustainable land management, could complement GBM’s tree planting model to ensure long-term environmental benefits.

Ecotourism and Its Impact on Biodiversity and Local Communities

1. Ecotourism is a sustainable tourism approach that generates income for local communities while funding biodiversity conservation.
2. It promotes interdependence between communities and nature by offering economic incentives to protect ecosystems.
3. However, ecotourism can also have negative societal and ecological impacts, such as habitat degradation, cultural erosion, and unequal economic benefits.

Ecotourism in Maasai Mara National Reserve, Kenya

Positive Impacts of Ecotourism

1. Biodiversity Conservation: Tourism revenue funds anti-poaching efforts, habitat restoration, and wildlife monitoring, helping protect endangered species such as lions, elephants, and rhinos.
2. Economic Benefits: The reserve attracts hundreds of thousands of tourists annually, generating significant revenue for Kenya’s economy and creating jobs in lodges, tour guiding, and conservation work.
3. Community Involvement: The establishment of community-owned conservancies allows local Maasai people to benefit from tourism revenue, reducing conflicts between conservation and livelihoods.
4. Cultural Preservation: Tourists visiting Maasai villages support cultural heritage programs, helping sustain traditional practices and knowledge.
5. Education and Awareness: Ecotourism promotes environmental education, encouraging both tourists and locals to value and protect biodiversity.

Negative Impacts of Ecotourism

1. Overcrowding and Habitat Disturbance: High tourist numbers, especially during the Great Migration, increase vehicle congestion, damaging fragile grasslands and stressing wildlife.
2. Unequal Distribution of Benefits: While some Maasai communities benefit financially, others struggle to access tourism revenue, leading to inequalities.
3. Cultural Commercialization: Traditional Maasai practices are sometimes staged for tourists, leading to a loss of authenticity and cultural dilution.
4. Human-Wildlife Conflict: Increased tourism infrastructure disrupts natural migration routes, bringing wildlife into closer contact with local communities and increasing conflict.
5. Carbon Footprint: Air travel and luxury safari lodges contribute to carbon emissions, raising concerns about the sustainability of mass tourism in the region