Sir Richard Branson is to import lemurs to the Caribbean, where they will live wild in the forest on his islands.

Of intense debate at the moment is Sir Richard Branson’s plans to introduce lemurs (native to Madagascar) to a Caribbean island. Sparking a number of  twitter conversations across the primate community (both supporting and dismissing the plans), we thought we would open up a debate and post any updates we encounter to monitor the eventual outcome and to explore the debates and questions raised.

Updates 02/05/11

The following articles suggest that plans are set to continue as normal.

Source: http://www.greenantilles.com

Branson says island may save lemurs and in this follow-up/response, Sir Richard’s possible folly.

And from Reuters, Richard Branson gets flak for lemur relocation plan.

The BBC’s coverage continues below:

Sir Richard Branson is to import lemurs to the Caribbean, where they will live wild in the forest on his islands. The project has alarmed conservation scientists, who point out that many previous species introductions have proved disastrous to native wildlife. But Sir Richard’s team maintains that both the lemurs, which will come from zoos, and native animals will be fine.

Introducing species found on one continent into another for conservation purposes is virtually unprecedented. Lemurs are found only on the African island of Madagascar and many species are threatened, largely because of deforestation. The threat has grown worse since the toppling of President Marc Ravalomanana’s government two years ago, which allowed illegal logging to flourish.

“We’ve been helping to try and preserve lemurs, and sadly in Madagascar because of the government being overthrown the space for lemurs is getting less and less,” Sir Richard told BBC News from his Caribbean property.

“Here on Moskito Island we’ve got a beautiful rainforest – we brought in experts from South Africa, and they say it would be an absolutely perfect place where lemurs can be protected and breed.”

Ring-tailed and red ruffed lemurs are two of the species in the plan. Both are on the Red List of Threatened Species. Moskito (also spelled Mosquito) Island is one of two that Sir Richard owns in the British Virgin Islands (BVI). Several luxury houses, including one for the boss of the Virgin business empire himself, are being built on it.

His other island is Necker, home to an eco-tourism resort where a stay is priced at around $2,000 (£1,200) per day. The plan has aroused a lot if interest locally, with the bulletin boards of BVI news websites buzzing with comments for and against, and politicians locking horns.

And it concerned conservation scientists contacted by BBC News.

“Maybe [Sir Richard] has got some people to say it is alright – but what else lives on the island, and how might they be affected?” asked Simon Stuart, chair of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Species Survival Commission (IUCN SSC).

Continue reading the article on the BBC’s website here

The Great Primate Handshake currently use the older XO model to explore ways in which educational materials can be distrubuted to schools and students using XO laptops across Africa. We have experienced the advantages of using XO laptops in the field, as well as the disadvantages, so it was with delight to see that some of the existing limitations have now been overcome.

The improvements:

The Hand Crank - The once trailed, but deemed unsuccessful, “Hand Crank” was designed to allow students to crank up their laptop, producing enough power for a typical lesson. Although in principle the device should have worked, it was found to have been to clumsy and inefficient, resulting in several hours of cranking for perhaps an hours use of the laptop. With the change from AMD processors, to Marvell processors, the laptop now uses 2 – 3 watts of power instead of 4. This dramatic power reduction, combined with an improved crank, should result in a 2 hour crank achieving 7 hours worth of use. A very necessary requirement for children using the laptop in areas devoid of power.

The Cost – Thanks both to the lowering cost of hardware since the XO’s initial release, coupled with the change of processor, the XO laptop should now be available for $165 (£106). This is still not the initial “$100 Laptop” (the original laptop’s desired cost) but is an improvement on the path to a sub-$100 machine. As a comparison, the original XO laptop was closer to $250 when launched if purchased by individuals or organisations.

For more information view the BBC’s coverage here

White rhinos in Ol Pejeta Conservancy, Kenya.

In May 2010, a British conservation charity, Save The Rhino, hit the headlines after accepting donations from Safari Club International, a company that organises trophy hunting expeditions.   In its defence, Save The Rhino said it has to look at all the different ways of raising money for the conservation of rhinos, and when you consider the fact that it has received £32,000 from Safari Club International to date, an amount which it would have struggled to receive from any other source, it is possible to sympathise with their position.

Despite the poor conservation status of both the black and white rhino in South Africa and Namibia (black rhinos are critically endangered and white rhinos are near threatened), laws passed in 2004 allow hunters to pay £170,000 each to kill up to 10 black rhinos per year and allow the hunting of white rhinos in South Africa at a cost of £12,000 each.

One could argue that, with the animals  already threatened by poachers, it would be better to ban hunting and concentrate on eco-tourism to fund rhino conservation, but it seems that simply watching rhinos is not as big a draw as it should be, and it certainly doesn’t come with as high a price tag as hunting.   Is it okay, therefore, to compromise by sacrificing a few rhinos for the greater good of the species?  If the future success of rhinos can be safeguarded by allowing a few individuals to be killed and re-investing the money into measures to prevent poaching and habitat destruction, can the deaths of those individuals be said to have been worth it?

A brief look at the websites of hunting organisations such as www.africahunting.com shows that the hunting community believes strongly that trophy hunting being used to fund conservation is right.   Its view is:  “It is quite clear that the hunting industry has benefited wildlife conservation in (South Africa) in a huge way. It drives the entire game ranching industry. The conversion of millions of hectares of stock farms to game farms also stimulated the proliferation of eco-tourism ventures. This has injected huge sums of money into the rural areas, which have been in the economic doldrums for the previous fifty years. The development of the hunting industry was – in many cases – the saviour of inhabitants of the rural areas, and should remain that for years to come.”

The League Against Cruel Sports, however, puts it this way: “Since 1996, customers of UK and European travel companies have slaughtered over 9000 bears, more than 2500 highly endangered leopards and nearly 4000 African elephants.”

Clearly, the two views above are at extreme ends of the argument, and are heavily biased because of the source from which they’ve been obtained, but both definitely have a point.  The fortunes of people and wildlife cannot be separated, and anything that boosts the economic wellbeing of people living in or near endangered habitats can definitely have an impact on issues facing wildlife, not least poaching and bushmeat.  However, when you look at the stark figures presented by the League Against Cruel Sport, it’s a chilling reminder of how quickly humans can decimate populations of other species, and of how badly wrong this situation could go if controls on it are lessened or permits fall into the wrong hands.

What do you think?  Can the killing of an individual animal be justified by the “greater good”?  Do you believe that trophy hunting helps communities and conservation efforts?  Should conservation charities accept funding from hunting organisations, or should they remain completely separate?  We look forward to hearing your views.

In recent years, technological advances have revolutionised the way that most of us go about our daily lives, our work, the way we share information and even the way we think about things.  Some of these advances have had a direct impact on conservation, whether by saving time and manpower or by allowing research into species and habitats to be less invasive.  For example, the internet is helping to monitor rates of deforestation around the world, as the launch of Google Earth Engine and  combines existing technologies with enhanced computing power to enable quicker, easier analysis of patterns of deforestation.  On a more direct level, technological advances in the treatment of wood have provided an alternative to the destruction of rainforests to supply the trade in hardwood.  A Norwegian company called Kebony has developed a process by which softwoods can be treated in an environmentally sound manner to bring them to the same level of durability as hardwoods, thus reducing the need for logging operations.

On the other hand, our thirst for bigger, better, faster technology is causing environmental destruction on a huge scale in some areas of the world.  A well known example of this is the problem of coltan in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  We are all playing a part in this by purchasing mobile phones, laptops and all the other things we feel we can’t live without, and even those of us that care deeply about the situation in DRC can’t honestly say that we would give up on the technology we’re now so used to.

Perhaps the problems in DRC just feel too far away and too hard to stomach for us to really worry about, but closer to home, psychologists have found that technology which attempts to “replace” interactions with nature could, in the long term, be harmful to us and to nature itself.

Even something as simple as performing a Google search creates carbon emissions; how many of us turn to anything other than internet search engines when we need information these days?  Of course, the production of books and newspapers also has an environmental impact, but research to assess just which is worse is ongoing.

So, what do you think?  Can you think of an example of technology having a positive impact on a conservation issue, however large or small?  Do you think the benefits of faster information-sharing and the ease of inspiring others to change outweigh the negative effects of technological advances?  Would YOU give up your mobile phone or laptop if you thought it would make a difference?  The Great Primate Handshake looks forward to being challenged and stimulated by your input.

Browsing the environment pages of The Guardian’s website one day, I came across two articles that caught my eye.  One was about Daniel Suelo, who has lived in a cave for a decade, ostensibly without spending any money and the other about Mark Boyle, an ordinary man who tried something that is extraordinary to us in our consumerist society: living without money for a year.  Wanting to bridge the void that modern life has created between our actions and their consequences, he gave up on cash to enable himself to see through the entire process of everything his life entailed, from eating to electricity, and everything in between.  Now, having founded the Freeconomy Community and continuing to inspire others through his pieces for the Guardian’s Green Living blog, Mark’s ideas for reducing one’s impact on the environment range from washing less and using fewer cosmetic products to foraging for wild apples to make cider, rather than spending money in the pub.  Some of these ideas are, with a little bit of effort, achievable for the majority of people, and seem tempting in a fun, novelty way, but it’s the effort that is the sticking point; how many of us actually want to make any effort to help the environment?  Are local council recycling schemes and the wide availability of energy-saving light bulbs a handy sticking plaster for our consciences, allowing us to think of ourselves as “green”, when really we’re doing the bare minimum?  Clearly, we can’t go back in time and undo the advances of human civilisation, just as we can’t reverse the damage we’ve already done to the planet, and it would also be impossible now for everyone to live the way that Mark does, as the world’s population is just too large, but surely we could all do a bit more to help?  What is it that’s stopping us?  Is it that the obvious environmental destruction all happens far away from our safe, comfortable Western homes?  Are we going to have to wait for a crisis before we pull our heads out from the sand in which they’re currently buried?   There is a plethora of websites that promote sustainable living on both a small and large scale, with notable examples being http://www.1010global.org/uk and http://www.worldwatch.org/, but is the message getting through?

We want to know what you think of people like Mark and Daniel, and whether any of Mark’s ideas have inspired you.  We’d also like to hear your opinion on what it will take for people to really, truly start changing their lifestyles for the benefit of the planet, and your honest assessment of what would have to happen for you, personally, to change yours.

 Another approach is conserving an umbrella species; one that requires a large range and therefore protecting that, shields a large area where other animals live. Many feel it is vital for conservationists to promote these types of conservation as they are the most beneficial to an entire ecosystem.

 Conserving a flagship species can often be very expensive, which in impoverished areas can be a big problem. The actual identification of an animal whose existence benefits other organisms can also be difficult to determine. Any actions which are taken concerning an ecosystem are going to have an affect.

 The choice of these flagship species can often be an animal which strikes an emotional chord with the general public. It is much easier to raise money through charity by using a mammal such as the gorilla as its poster animal. This may explain why much of the world’s amphibians are in danger of extinction. Would, an emotionless approach prove fairer and less biased to a species that gather little emotional sentiment?

Primates were chosen above others as test subjects for space exploration, as their close genetics and morphological similarities made them a perfect choice. The first primate in space was a Rhesus monkey called Albert II. This links closely to modern day usage of animal within scientific and cosmetic research. It is openly accepted by a large numbers of people that usage within cosmetics is totally wrong. A recent poll claimed that only 10% of Briton’s who took part thought animal testing for cosmetics was acceptable.

[http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/changing-british-attitudes-animal-testing.html].

The testing performed within scientific and medical research is less clean cut. Could it be justified if the drugs tested on animals could save millions of human lives? Cancer or HIV treatments are known to be tested on animals and if this practice could lead to real development of the drugs and possible cures, is it ok? Or should all medical testing only be performed upon fellow humans? An article published in the British newspaper the telegraph in 2009, stated that MP’s in the UK were putting forward plans to investigate human alternatives to animal testing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/4339504/Human-alternatives-to-animal-testing-should-be-investigated-MPs-say.html.

It puts forward the question, what give Humans the right to use animals in situations which cause immense suffering and possible death. Can the progression of medicine justify this practice?

 http://www.captiveanimals.org/zoos/southport.htm

 Another issue which has caused major controversy is the location of many of these places. Should animals which aren’t native to a country or even a continent, be found in sanctuaries and zoos? Although there are major differences between zoo’s and sanctuaries, the most obvious one being a sanctuary is home for animal where may have no where else to go.  

 Arguments for include a lack of finance or safe environment, due to situations such as deforestation, bush meat or war, within their native countries.

Many people who advocate the presence of these animals within non-native countries, say it is important for the long-term survival of these species, especially ones that are currently endangered.

 Arguments against this issue include claims it is important that the animal’s stay within the home range. It is  believed there is no hope for conservation of these species if the people who they share the land with, don’t come into contact with them. The issue remains that sometimes it is just impossible for this to occur. Improvements in infrastructure, political stability or attitudes may see the chance of the animals returning to these areas significantly increased.

Whether an animal can truly live naturally without being in its habitat is also an issue that is important to this topic. How can an Elephant or Tiger really live happily within captivity? Such animals are thousands of miles from natural habitats, and the areas they find themselves in, bare little or no resemblance to where they should be found. In the case of zoos, could it be classed as cruelty to put an organisms like such in a habitat it doesn’t understand and probably finds uncomfortable to live in. Large animals like the Elephants mentioned are the organisms which suffer the most from living in such establishments. These animals naturally migrate and have large home ranges, so to put them in an enclosure is unnatural. It could be said that animals bred in captivity will lack some of these natural instincts and therefore be more suited to this limited lifestyle? Sanctuaries could be classed as a different matter as most the animal housed in these collections, have no where else to go.  

Animals especially from Africa and Asia do not have the security or the financial backing to prosper in their natural habitats. Whilst this continues the amounts of animals being found in zoos and sanctuaries will stay constant. This then points to the importance of improving the countries in which they animal should be found.

 Most of the world biodiversity hotspots are found within the third world. Poverty is usually rife in these areas and this breeds corruption. This is also a major problem populations have to face. The extreme poverty encourages people to take the rules into their own hands and sometimes these misguided people find themselves in positions of power.

 In countries with dictatorships such as Zimbabwe and Somalia, conservation efforts and animal rights issues are totally neglected. During times of war in central Africa, when corruption was everywhere, Gorillas were slaughtered in massive numbers. Civil war in Rwanda and the Congo encouraged the bush meat trade and logging, which in turn decimated Gorilla populations throughout these lands. In countries with more stable political situations, there tends to be much healthier conservation and animal right policies. In countries with non existent governments, law and order is usually in tatters. This lack of policing means that an anything goes attitude develops and sometime this leads to destruction of habitats and persecution of certain species.

The most successful conservation efforts are performed in countries with stable governments who act for the good of the people and land. Although post election violence marred the recent political history of Kenya, their mostly health political situation over the last 30 years has resulted in a competent conservation attitude. Especially when compared to other African countries. South Africa is the role model for most of Africa when it comes to conservation. Much of the country’s revenue is produced through this industry. Has the stable situation since the end of apartheid has encouraged this growth?

What connotation comes to mind when you hear the word Conservationist?  Helpful World Citizen or Imposing Westerner?

On one side, conservation can look much like a typical “Do as we say, not as we do” type of situation. In the western world, the evidence of our super sized environmental carnage is enough to want to stop other less developed nations from following our self-destructive ways. “Don’t consume as much as us or have as many children as us. Don’t purchase the luxuries that will make your life easier like cars, computers and air-conditioning. And definitely don’t hunt your wildlife like we hunt ours, even if it is imposing on your crops and livestock.  Are we, in a sense, forcing the job of “clean up crew” on to those who have done less destruction than us because we don’t want the burden?

But who are we to change the lifestyle of others when we our selves have yet to change our own ways. We can’t exactly have our cake and eat it too. And when does this imposition become more of a human rights issue rather than a conservation issue?

In a recently published book “Nature Crime: How We’re Getting Conservation Wrong”, Author Rosaleen Duffy suggests that our imposition can do more harm than good, both for the communities and the environment. She theorizes that conservationists have painted the local people as environmental criminals and themselves as the environmental heros.

On the flip side, there are those who find western aid invaluable and would argue that any negative biases are based on poor and incomplete generalizations rather than individual accounts.

In the Kakamega Forest in Kenya, Africa, there is great local effort toward conservation and education. Leonard Muhanga, himself a Kenyan local, is the Monitoring Coordinator for the Forest Again Project and Nature Kenya. He welcomes national and international organizations who would like to help and “ would like more foreign individuals coming in because they have a lot to share”.  Research done in the Kakamega forest also helps by bringing in funding for the community as well as shared knowledge to local researchers.

Furthermore, In Kenya’s Ol’ Pejeta Conservancy, the business of conservation has created many jobs for the local people.  Ol’ Pejeta Conservancy’s Project manager, US born Thomas Wimber, stresses that community planning should be the number one importance of Conservation. It becomes a game of creating a balance between sustainable livelihoods for the community while still allowing wildlife to flourish. “Conservation is more about the people than the animals as opposed to one might think”, he says.

Thomas feels that there must be a solid relationship built between the community and a conservation project. The needs of the people must be heard because after all, it is the locals that know the land and animals better than an outsider.  Men who used to find their income from poaching are now being paid to protect what they once killed by educating and dissuading other poachers. People who once made their profit in maize farming are finding better paying jobs in conservancy parks protecting natural landscape, and the same goes for those who at one time collected timber for firewood but are now making better profit by replanting forests.  It should never be the intention to take land away from people but to help find ways to live harmoniously with it. Especially in Africa where people live closely to the land. The western idea of fenced National Parks does not fit into the ways of Africa. It would be ignorant to assume what we do in the United States can work everywhere, no one size fits all.

Please join in this discussion and tell us what you think.  What preconceptions do you have about western aid conservation in places like Africa? Do you think the efforts are helpful or destructive? Is it a mixture of both?