130925-studie-wildlife-comeback-in-europe

Recommendations

Info

A safari group in the Velebit mountains, Croatia, looking for Balkan chamois near the Paklenica National Park. Economic benefits Wildlife Watching The importance of tourism for conservation has been illustrated in a study looking at globally threatened birds and how encouraging bird watching visits can generate money for protected areas, particularly for highly threatened species, and in developing countries [14] . This study suggested that protected area managers could also enhance their budgets by specifically promoting bird watching tourism, thereby providing much needed funding for threatened birds. In a similar way, the initial investment of bringing back other species in Europe could have a longer term conservation benefit not only for the species but for the ecosystem as a whole. Wildlife comeback can promote local and national tourism especially if there are some flagship species that can act as a draw to visitors. Worldwide, wildlife watching has been proven to be a very profitable activity, from which some of the revenues can be fed back into species and habitat management as discussed below. Wildlife comeback has the potential to provide significant economic benefit at many scales, from benefitting local communities to contributing to a country’s GDP. One of the ways this can be achieved is via an increase in incomes from wildlife watching opportunities and associated tourism, whether for bird watching or for the opportunity to see and photograph many rare or charismatic species. Income can be generated both directly from tours and accommodation costs and indirectly through purchasing products and services locally. Wildlife tourism can also provide employment opportunities as an alternative livelihood in rural areas where prospects are limited and unemployment is high. Worldwide, the types of wildlife-related experiences and number of companies offering such activities have increased considerably in recent years [15] . For example, statistics related to whale watching reveal that the number of countries involved in whale watching (from 87 to 119), the number of tourists (from 9 to 13 million) and total expenditure (from $1 to 2.1 billion) have increased substantially between 1998 and 2008 [16] . Tourism growth has been particularly pronounced in many developing countries, with many areas that are hotspots for biodiversity experiencing over 100% increase in visitor numbers between 1990 and 2000 [17] . In regions such as East Africa, wildlife watching is responsible for the majority of income 284
from tourism [15] and it is reasonable to infer that the draw of wildlife has been behind much of the increase in tourism in similar areas of high biodiversity. For example in South Africa where safari opportunities are a major attraction, tourism accounts for 7.7% of GDP [18] and in Namibia, the communal conservancy scheme implemented by the government has generated an increasing contribution to the national economy between 1990 and 2011 [19] . Other than direct payments in the form of entrance fees to national parks, costs for a tour guide and accommodation, indirect payments can also be important in supporting the local and national economy through the purchase of products and services from other sectors both by tourists and by residents whom the tourist income has benefitted [15] . Provided that certain measures are in place, the influx of visitors to view wildlife can provide economic relief to the often poor rural communities [15] . The TAMAR project in Brazil is one such enterprise which has achieved success in attracting tourists to visit marine turtle nesting sites, resulting in both socio-economic and conservation benefits [20] . The project incorporates the training and employment of local people, extending the benefits from visitors to the wider community, and implementing marine turtle research for conservation [15] . However meeting the demand of the tourist industry can often mean relying on foreign investment and in some cases, part of the economic benefit is appropriated to other countries [15] . In more developed regions, there has long been an interest in wildlife related activities and this sector is fairly well established. Preliminary findings in the USA suggest that hunting, fishing and wildlife watching for recreation accounted for 1% of national GDP in 2011 and such activities are considered pivotal for local and national economic growth [21] . Wildlife watching was the most popular activity, more popular than sport fishing and hunting combined. At the EU level, a 2011 study for the Commission estimated the economic value of the benefits provided by tourism, recreation and employment supported by Natura 2000, a network of nearly 26,000 protected sites in the EU. The study suggested that expenditure related to tourism and recreation supported by Natura 2000 sites was between €50 and €85 billion in 2006, supporting between 4.5 and 8 million full-time-equivalent jobs [22] . At the national level, there is a considerable economic opportunity for wildlife related activities with an existing and interested market. In the UK for example, over half of the adult population of England visit the natural environment at least once a week [23] . In Scotland, no less than 56% of all travel is nature oriented [24] and it is having clear economic benefits. Work commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage estimated that total annual visitor spending attributable to naturebased tourism (including outdoor activities other than wildlife watching) is £1.4 billion with 39,000 associated full-time-equivalent jobs [25] . The opportunity for real economic benefits from wildlife resurgence, and the nature tourism that can be generated from that, seems to be realistic in several areas of Europe. The presence of a key charismatic species can act as a great incentive for people to take part in wildlife watching and sometimes to pay a lot of money for the privilege. For instance, a permit to see the Mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei) of the Virunga mountain range of Rwanda, Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda costs each international tourist between $400 and $750 [26] , which has the benefit of generating local and national revenue. In addition, the presence of regular visitors and monitoring is one of the reasons contributing towards the survival and potential recovery of this threatened population [27] . There are issues surrounding revenue-sharing amongst all stakeholders but whilst there are still challenges to be overcome [28] , this example shows that there are individual species that provide enough of a draw to attract high numbers of visitors. Similarly, the recovery of charismatic species in Europe could prove to be an economic opportunity as well as an ecological one. As the Abruzzo region of Italy started being marketed as bear and wolf country, due to recent resurgence in populations, the number of tourists to the area increased even though the likelihood of actually seeing any individuals of those species is still low [29] . The Brown bear (Ursus arctos) is also the flagship species for the Somiedo Natural Park in northern Spain and has attracted increasing numbers of tourists to the local area almost exclusively due to the use of the bear as a means for promoting tourism [30] . An assessment of wildlife watching in Finland suggests that the number of visitors increased by 90% between 2005 and 2008 with the majority of tourists drawn by the presence of predators such as Brown bear and Wolverine [31] . In economic terms, preliminary results estimated a turnover from this sector of €4–5 million in 2012 with wildlife watching and photography as the main reason for an estimated 73% of tourists who visited Finland [32] . In Cevennes National Park in France, the reintroduced Griffon (Gyps fulvus) and Cinereous vultures (Aegypius monachus) have provided new bird watching opportunities for tourists, attracting 80,000 visitors per year. It was also estimated that 285
Page 1 and 2:
Stefanie Deinet Christina Ieronymid
Page 3 and 4:
Wildlife comeback in Europe The rec
Page 5 and 6:
Table of contents Foreword . . . .
Page 7:
Foreword Shifting baselines In Euro
Page 10 and 11:
The Adriatic coastline of the Veleb
Page 12 and 13:
96 year old olive farmer with his d
Page 14 and 15:
12
Page 16 and 17:
Limitations of population trend dat
Page 18 and 19:
Constructing historical distributio
Page 20 and 21:
Red deer at the Oostvaardersplassen
Page 22 and 23:
Table 2. Definitions of classificat
Page 24 and 25:
22
Page 26 and 27:
3.1. European bison Bison bonasus S
Page 28 and 29:
Table 2. Latest population estimate
Page 30 and 31:
Figure 1c. Map highlighting areas o
Page 32 and 33:
Rank Reason for change Description
Page 34 and 35:
3.2. Alpine ibex Capra ibex Summary
Page 36 and 37:
Figure 1a. Distribution of Alpine i
Page 38 and 39:
% change 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Fig
Page 40 and 41:
3.3. Iberian ibex Capra pyrenaica S
Page 42 and 43:
Figure 1a. Distribution of Iberian
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
3.4. Southern chamois Rupicapra pyr
Page 48 and 49:
Figure 1a. Distribution of Southern
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
3.5. Northern chamois Rupicapra rup
Page 54 and 55:
Scale Status Population trend Justi
Page 56 and 57:
% change 80 60 40 20 0 and Italy [2
Page 58 and 59:
Subspecies balcanica Exploitation B
Page 60 and 61:
3.6. Eurasian elk Alces alces Summa
Page 62 and 63:
Figure 1a. Distribution of Eurasian
Page 64 and 65:
Poland [10] and Estonia [28] . It i
Page 66 and 67:
References 1. Geist, V. 1998. Deer
Page 68 and 69:
3.7. Roe deer Capreolus capreolus S
Page 70 and 71:
Estimate Year assessed Reference Gl
Page 72 and 73:
Figure 2. Change in Roe deer popula
Page 74 and 75:
Recent developments As discussed ab
Page 76 and 77:
3.8. Red deer Cervus elaphus Summar
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
% change 750 600 450 300 150 0 Figu
Page 82 and 83:
lineages for the local area and min
Page 84 and 85:
3.9. Wild boar Sus scrofa Summary T
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Abundance and distribution: changes
Page 90 and 91:
References 1. IUCN 2011a. The IUCN
Page 92 and 93:
3.10. Golden jackal Canis aureus Su
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Recent developments Table 3. Major
Page 98 and 99:
3.11. Grey wolf Canis lupus Summary
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Drivers of recovery Figure 2. Distr
Page 104 and 105:
References 1. Mech, L.D. & Boitani,
Page 106 and 107:
3.12. Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx Summa
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
% change 750 600 450 300 150 0 Figu
Page 112 and 113:
Figure 3. Map of recent development
Page 114 and 115:
3.13. Iberian lynx Lynx pardinus Su
Page 116 and 117:
Figure 1a. Distribution of the Iber
Page 118 and 119:
Table 3. Major reasons for positive
Page 120 and 121:
18. IUCN 2011b. European Red List.
Page 122 and 123:
3.14. Wolverine Gulo gulo Summary T
Page 124 and 125:
Figure 1a. Distribution of Wolverin
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
3.15. Grey seal Halichoerus grypus
Page 130 and 131:
Estimate assessed Reference Global
Page 132 and 133:
% change 1500 1200 900 600 300 0 Fi
Page 134 and 135:
3.16. Harbour seal Phoca vitulina S
Page 136 and 137:
east coast, the distribution is res
Page 138 and 139:
% change 200 150 100 50 0 populatio
Page 140 and 141:
Figure 3. Map of recent development
Page 142 and 143:
3.17. Brown bear Ursus arctos Summa
Page 144 and 145:
Table 2. Latest population estimate
Page 146 and 147:
144
Page 148 and 149:
Recent developments % change 200 15
Page 150 and 151:
mation, e.g. between Slovenia and C
Page 152 and 153:
3.18. Eurasian beaver Castor fiber
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
% change 20,000 16,000 12,000 200 1
Page 158 and 159:
Table 3. Major reasons for change i
Page 160 and 161:
158
Page 162 and 163:
4.1. Pink-footed goose Anser brachy
Page 164 and 165:
Table 2. Major threats that drove P
Page 166 and 167:
4.2. Barnacle goose Branta leucopsi
Page 168 and 169:
Figure 2. Current breeding and wint
Page 170 and 171:
Table 3. Conservation actions in pl
Page 172 and 173:
4.3. Whooper swan Cygnus cygnus Sum
Page 174 and 175:
Threat Description Impact Hunting a
Page 176 and 177:
4.4. White-headed duck Oxyura leuco
Page 178 and 179:
No. of individuals 5000 4500 4000 3
Page 180 and 181:
educing the population in the count
Page 182 and 183:
4.5. White stork Ciconia ciconia Su
Page 184 and 185:
Country No. of breeding pairs Trend
Page 186 and 187:
Action Description Impact Monitorin
Page 188 and 189:
4.6. Eurasian spoonbill Platalea le
Page 190 and 191:
Country No. of breeding pairs No. o
Page 192 and 193:
Threat Description Impact Residenti
Page 194 and 195:
4.7. Dalmatian pelican Pelecanus cr
Page 196 and 197:
194
Page 198 and 199:
Table 3 Major threats that drove th
Page 200 and 201:
4.8. Lesser kestrel Falco naumanni
Page 202 and 203:
Figure 2. Current distribution of L
Page 204 and 205:
Action Description Impact Livelihoo
Page 206 and 207:
4.9. Saker falcon Falco cherrug Sum
Page 208 and 209:
Table 2. Latest Saker falcon popula
Page 210 and 211:
Action Description Impact Planning
Page 212 and 213:
4.10. Peregrine falcon Falco peregr
Page 214 and 215:
No. of breeding pairs 1,600 1,200 8
Page 216 and 217:
Action Description Impact Legislati
Page 218 and 219:
4.11. Red kite Milvus milvus Summar
Page 220 and 221:
Country No. of breeding pairs Trend
Page 222 and 223:
Action Description Impact Monitorin
Page 224 and 225:
4.12. White-tailed eagle Haliaeetus
Page 226 and 227:
Country No. of breeding pairs Year
Page 228 and 229:
References 1. Bijleveld, M. 1974 Bi
Page 230 and 231:
4.13. Bearded vulture Gypaetus barb
Page 232 and 233:
Figure 2. Current distribution of B
Page 234 and 235:
4.14. Griffon vulture Gyps fulvus S
Page 236 and 237: Figure 2. Current distribution of G
Page 238 and 239: Action Description Impact Monitorin
Page 240 and 241: 4.15. Cinereous vulture Aegypius mo
Page 242 and 243: Figure 2. Current distribution of C
Page 244 and 245: 4.16. Spanish imperial eagle Aquila
Page 246 and 247: Threat Description Impact Transport
Page 248 and 249: Drivers of recovery The spectacular
Page 250 and 251: 4.17. Eastern imperial eagle Aquila
Page 252 and 253: Figure 2. Current distribution of E
Page 254 and 255: 252
Page 256 and 257: 4.18. Common crane Grus grus Summar
Page 258 and 259: Figure 2. Current breeding and wint
Page 260 and 261: Action Monitoring and planning Site
Page 262 and 263: 4.19. Roseate tern Sterna dougallii
Page 264 and 265: Threat Description Impact Human int
Page 266 and 267: 264
Page 268 and 269: 337,539 2,000 20,000 >163,750 % abu
Page 270 and 271: 1950s 1980s Present 50km grid Speci
Page 272 and 273: No. of species 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 6 No.
Page 274 and 275: 272
Page 276 and 277: A Range change B Range change C Ran
Page 278 and 279: Reason for positive change Species
Page 280 and 281: Dalmatian pelicans at the Kerkini L
Page 282 and 283: 280
Page 284 and 285: The comeback of large and charismat
Page 288 and 289: The view from a bear watching hide
Page 290 and 291: species [44] [45] and if animals be
Page 292 and 293: One of the challenges around increa
Page 294 and 295: Box 1. Return and urbanization of w
Page 296 and 297: Table 1. Livestock damage by mammal
Page 298 and 299: key tool for wildlife population in
Page 300 and 301: Some of the over 500,000 visitors a
Page 302 and 303: Box 2. The native versus alien spec
Page 304 and 305: References 1. Navarro, L.M. and H.M
Page 306 and 307: 113. Potena, G., et al., Brown Bear
Page 308 and 309: Appendix 1. Sources of distribution
Page 310: Acknowledgements This study on wild
show all

130925-studie-wildlife-comeback-in-europe

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?