In 2017, MSc GCE students felt an absence of a centralized hub through which the GCE family could stay connected. This inspired students to propose beginning an alumni association. Through the support of GCE coordination, students, and many others, Friends of GCE, or FroG, was established. The primary motivation of FroG is to serve as a centralized networking platform through which the GCE family can stay connected, especially considering the international nature of current students, alumni, associates of the study program and the program itself!

According to two current FroG representatives, formally certifying FroG was an unexpectedly long process involving paperwork and legal guidance. The statues of the organization had to be outlined in advance as well as a clear statement of the requirements and roles of FroG. In 2018, the effort paid off and FroG was officially certified as an organization. Immediately outreach initiatives were planned as was drafting membership options for the GCE family’s involvement.

Board Elections

In November 2020, FroG hosted its annual members meeting during which new board members were elected. All positions were open for re-election including chair, vice-chair, secretary, and treasurer. In 2021, this new leadership team, among other things, aims to host online “fireside” networking events to connect alumni and students, work with the coordination to further advance email and LinkedIn pages for GCE alumni, continue to support the Klimawald Bayreuth initiative, and, depending on the situation with Corona, host an excellent conference at the Summer Fete.

Other long term  goals of FroG include serving as a liaison between the GCE Student Board and alumni in order to connect current and past students. This would support another of FroG’s long-term goals, which is to include mentorship programs within the GCE family, host a FroG conference for members to present their work and exchange ideas, and to build financial support for hosting additional programs.

If you are interested in learning more or getting involved with FroG, please check out their website here (http://www.bayceer.uni-bayreuth.de/friends-of-gce/) or contact them at friends-of-gce@uni-bayreuth.de.

Thank you to FroG representative Kiely Doherty for their support in writing this article!

The post MSc GCE Alumni Organization appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Sylvia Sprödhuber has joined Stephanie Thomas in GCE Coordination as a successor to former coordinator Anja Jaeschke. Sylvia additionally works as a coordinator of the Bayreuth-Melbourne Colloid/Polymer Network in the International Office at the University of Bayreuth. Previously she was already employed as the Chair of Marketing and member of the management team of the Bayreuth Economic Congress at the University of Bayreuth.

In addition to her career experience, Sylvia brings with her to the GCE department interest in the varying perspectives of different disciplines which are captured in the GCE program. She describes herself as “a great friend of multidiscplinarity” and finds this aspect one of the most appealing attributes of the elite international GCE curriculum.

Sylvia looks forward to becoming familiar with the diverse range of tasks involved in her position and especially connecting with the students which, admittedly, is not easy under the current Covid-19 restrictions. She is enthusiastic about her core duties involving working with and supporting students and the GCE family is excited to welcome her.

The post MSc GCE Welcomes New Coordinator appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

The current Summer Semester 2020 has been a peculiar semester for everyone in the academic community. An important time for learning, being comprehensive and active, at the same as being responsible about the global pandemic. Adaptation was required as our lives switched from having the fulltime campus way of life to teaching and learning from our households. Like the education process, the way of interaction between our colleagues had to change – and so did our plans, as the annual GCE Summerfête was cancelled for the first time.

As the scenario regarding the containment of covid-19 spread improves in Germany, social gatherings became possible and the first GCE Get Together event of the year came to fruition: The GCE Hike 2020! The starting point was the Bayreuth Hauptbahnhof, where all of us met and we had the chance to do some catching up before the beginning of our journey. Joined by GCE students from years 2017, 2018 and 2019 along the GCE coordination, we were a group of fifteen people. We followed a path of approximately 7 km, walking through the Bayreuther forest by the Grüner Hügel towards a Biergarten in Bindlach. It was a nice hike on a beautiful day!

Besides being a gathering for the GCE community, it was also a moment when we could cherish and honour the presence of GCE coordinator Anja Jaeschke, who is now leaving the Universität Bayreuth. Anja came to the Uni Bayreuth in 2009 for her PhD, and following that, in 2013, she started teaching modules for the Global Change Ecology Master Program. Some of the courses she was responsible for are “Spatial Ecology”, “Concepts in Biogeographical Modelling”, “Academic Working Methods and Skills” and the “Global Change Ecology Overview” module. She has been doing a great job as part of the coordination alongside Stephanie Thomas since 2015, but now she heads to a new and exciting phase of her life to work at the Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt (Bavarian Environment Agency) in Augsburg.

There is nothing like being around your favourite people, and this GCE gathering was very much in demand! We could enjoy each other’s presence after being apart for around four months of online courses, and appreciate the day and nature. While some of us are already free of lectures, others still have courses, assignments and exams, and this day of togetherness offered a much-needed day of stress-relief and connection. All in all, one thing is for sure: We stay emotional as Anja departs from the Uni Bayreuth and the GCE coordination, but we are all excited and wishing her all the best in this new moment of her life!

The post GCE Hike 2020 appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Over several years, he showed his culture to Thomas Fischermann, a German journalist writing for the German newspaper Die Zeit. Now, the two men wrote a book about their journeys, called “The last Guardian of the Amazon”. Yes, both men. Madarejuwá Tenharim is listed as the first author in the book, Fischermann as the second. This is something that makes this book special in my eyes. It’s not the typical story of a foreigner visiting a foreign culture, collecting data and information to leave for good and write a book about this culture, not giving back anything to the people.

“The last Guardian of the Amazon” is different. The book is written from Madarejuwá Tenharim’s perspective: he takes the reader onto a journey through the Amazon, showing him his daily life and telling him which problems his community is facing. For example, deforestation which is destroying the rainforest. Or Brazilian loggers threatening him and his family because they want to exploit the Tenharim’s land. Or his own balancing act living between two completely different worlds – the Brazilian life with cities, buses and smartphones, and the Tenharim life with hunting animals, learning from the elders and listening to the birds.

The 184 pages of the book are a source of knowledge for the reader and a guide to understand the Tenharim culture. The reader also learns why the Amazon rainforest is so important for the indigenous communities living in and off it. Not only is it the provider of food, but it is also the main part of the people’s identity and spirituality. If the Amazon gets destroyed, the indigenous people inhabiting it are dying both physically and mentally. But it also gives an impression of how determined and resolute Madarejuwá Tenharim and other indigenous people are to protect the forest.

Unfortunately, so far, the book is only available in German but there is an English preview on the book’s website where still some important parts of Madarejuwá’s story are available. (Maybe, if enough English speaking persons insist on a translation, there will be an English version, who knows…)

A few days ago, Madarejuwá’s message became more important than ever: Paulo Paulino Guajajara, a 26-year old member of the Guajajara indigenous group was killed in the Araribóia reserve located in Brazil’s North-East. He was one of the most prominent indigenous activists fighting for the protection of the Amazon rainforest in the country. Under the far-right government of Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil has become one of the most dangerous countries for environmental and indigenous activists. Bolsonaro wants to open indigenous territories to exploitation. This is fatal in various ways: indigenous communities rely on the intactness of the surrounding nature since it provides their daily life; also, indigenous people are one of the most important players when it comes to environmental protection in the Amazon rainforest. Large parts of the Amazon forest were burning in August and September 2019 due to wildfires which were in parts caused by human activities, especially by land clearing for farming. After the burning was controlled in October, deforestation has increased extremely. This year, the deforestation rate of the first nine months has been 85% higher than the one of the respective time span of last year.

The Amazon forests seem to be far away. Many may say: Why should I care? The Amazon rainforest is also called the “lungs of the planet” because its innumerable trees and plants are providing oxygen and working as a CO2 sink – which in times of the global climate crisis is of incomparable importance. Therefore, we should all care about what is going on in Brazil.

Indigenous communities are fighting, risking their lives to protect the forest which is the center of their culture, traditions, and lives. There are various institutions and organizations supporting the indigenous groups’ resistance against the exploitation of the Amazon forest, here are some: Amazonwatch, Amazonfrontlines, The Amazon Conservation Team, Amazon Conservation, and others. 

The post Guardians of the Amazon appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

And then, I cannot stop myself from diving into the topic. Rifling the internet for more information about this very newest report on climate change. At one point, I stumble upon another article: “Eat less meat: UN climate-change report calls for change to human diet”. This puts my feelings a bit to ease. Finally, I think. Finally, the IPCC gives a suggestion on how we all should behave if we want to save the Earth’s climate as we know it.

This is new. Before, there was hardly such thing as a direct call for action in the IPCC reports. As mentioned in our article on the World Conference for Science Journalists, the chairman of the IPCC did not want to answer directly to a person in the audience asking if a change in diet would help to reduce emissions. That was the moment when my jaw dropped, I couldn’t believe it.

Now, the new report on land and climate suggests that a change in diet is necessary. That means, all of us – unless not already vegetarian or vegan – have to rethink their daily life. The cards are on the table (actually not just since this IPCC report but much longer), science provides evidence after evidence that tipping points are likely to be reached. Then, there will probably be no way back to our current climate. For example, if permafrost soils thaw, they will not freeze in the next moment (or the coming century) just because we cut emissions. Dairy products should also be mentioned since they as well generate high amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.

Around 80 percent of the world’s arable land is used for livestock production. Meanwhile, 820 million people around the world suffer from malnourishment. More and more land is used for agricultural production – a huge amount of food is thrown away in the end. It is absurd.

Of course, it is not possible that all people don’t eat meat at all – some people rely on it since they live in environments where the soil is not favourable for crop production or similar. Yet, a reduction in our westernized meat consumption is definitely inevitable.

That the IPCC is now at least suggesting to reduce the global meat consumption may not lead to a drastic change by tomorrow. But, to me personally, it gives hope. Hope, that science may, in the end, convince people to understand the urgency of changing our lifestyle. More suggestions and drastic words are needed, of course. Even though science is supposed to be independent or neutral – we cannot afford to waste time anymore. There are solutions for tackling the problem of climate change such as reducing our meat consumption; we just have to do our part now. “We” includes states, policymakers, the economy, and individuals.

It has had an impact already: In Germany, discussions about meat consumption have been wild the past few months. Various ideas are debated: increasing the tax on meat, a tax on CO2 generation and others. This may be a good sign, maybe it made “click” for some politicians. Who knows? To say it with well-known words: We are all sitting in the same boat. And this boat is likely to get caught by a storm. Literally. Therefore, action is needed. Spread the word, speak to people who may not be aware of the problems we will have to face due to climate change – and point out some solutions. 

The post How the last IPCC report may change our diet appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

“In those three days, 245 people have helped us to plant 4719 saplings”, Kun says. The 28-year old GCE student from South Korea had the idea for Klimawald already last year. “I wanted to something on the ground together with my fellow students. To have a good time and plant trees somewhere in Bavaria.” As trees (and plants in general) work as carbon sinks, because they absorb CO2 through their leaves, this would contribute to reducing our carbon footprints. As GCE students travel quite a lot due to conferences, internships and science schools, Klimawald was intended as a compensation measure for this study programme.

He proposed his idea in a project management seminar. First, Nikunj Pathak from India and study colleague of him, wanted to help in the project. “He suggested Bayreuth as a suitable location for this project. Seminar leader Birgit Thies suggested us to have at least one German speaking student in the group as this would make communication with local authorities easier.” At this point, GCE student Theresa Landwehr joined the team for the Klimawald project. Gregor Aas, head of the Ecological-Botanical Garden in Bayreuth (ÖBG) also supported the students with his knowledge.

After various attempts to contact different city departments of Bayreuth, finally the Office for Food, Agriculture and Forestry Bayreuth (AELF Bayreuth) and the City Forestry Bayreuth (Stadtförsterei Bayreuth) showed interest in participating. “Before our first meeting with them, we were not sure how much land we would get. Normally, the landowners use it for timber production and other forestry activities”, Kun, who is originally coming from South Korea, says. The experts from AELF and Stadtförsterei proposed a forested area of one hectare and thousands of saplings. “This was very unexpected, and we were really happy about it. From this point on, there was no way back, we had to do it”, Kun says and laughs. The landowner of the forest area, Hospitalstiftung, agreed with the plans to plant species adapted to climate change.

As a next step, the team had to agree on a date when the Klimawald project should take place. “We had to make sure that students would be back from the semester break. Also, we had to take into account a suitable time for planting. Late April was not ideal, but students were back then”, Kun says. On the site, some older trees got cut down in order to lower competition for the new saplings. “Normally, the most common tree species to be found in this region are pine and spruce. Both species have suffered during the last years due to heat stress, bark beetle outbreaks, storms and droughts”, Kun says. Also, a fence was set up around the site to prevent wildlife from eating the saplings.

When it came to decide which species to plant, the opinions of experts from the city and the county were different from the students’ ones: “They wanted to stay at a scenario with 2°C warming and plant beeches and oaks, which are local native species. But we from the university thought a bit differently, as the average temperature in Bayreuth has already risen by 2°C. Gregor Aas therefore suggested some non-native species which we could merge with the ones proposed by AELF and Stadtförsterei. For example, Turkish hazel and Douglas fir, Turkish and Sicilian firs, and Lebanon cedar as they are more drought tolerant as well as adapted to extreme winters.”

A little smile hushes over Kun’s face as he remembers the workload of the project. “There was so much work involved I hadn’t even thought of. We had to design a website, a logo, organize drinks and food to give to the volunteers. Thankfully, my girlfriend Ahram Chae (Bauhaus-Universität Weimar) joined our team at some point as the designer for the website.” Such projects often bring unexpected turns: During Klimawald, various media teams arrived, interviewing the students – most of all focussing on Theresa as she is the only German speaking team member. “This was really hard for her and we hadn’t thought of this problem before”, Kun says.

In the end, it was worth the effort. People with very different backgrounds and from all age groups participated: high school students, students from various departments of the University of Bayreuth, parents with kids, some professors, parents without their kids. “Even high school students from Bamberg came to plant trees, I heard that the Fridays for Future movement is quite strong there.” Another interesting side fact: around two thirds of the volunteers were women. “This is something, I see often in this field. More women are involved in environmental issues”, Kun says.

What is preoccupying Kun now, one month after the event, is the impact of the planting. “One hectare is nothing.” The forest area in Germany is around 11.4 million hectares and stores 52 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Therefore, the one hectare used for Klimawald accounts for around 4.5 tonnes of stored CO2 annually. Just to compare: Germany emitted 905 million tonnes of CO2 in the year 2017.

“I would like to extend the project, maybe introducing it in other cities, other universities as well”, Kun says. For the next five years, the Klimawald project is going to be continued in Bayreuth. “There will be a planting phase next spring. If it is needed due to droughts, the new trees will be watered once in summer. This is something new in forestry, normally, the plants are let alone.” Probably a “gap filling” is needed in October this year, as the beech saplings were of bad quality and some are likely going to die. This means, that new trees will be planted to replace the dead ones.

Is the result of Klimawald satisfying? Kun thinks for some moments and answers: “My character does not allow me to feel too much self-esteem, but with Klimawald, I was really happy and satisfied. It was a big dream of mine to plant trees for a long time.” His decision to study ecology was inspired when he read a book with the title “The Man Who Planted Trees” by Jean Giono some years ago. “This was something so simple: To plant trees and see change”, he says. And yet, Kun was not satisfied with just leaning over science books, reading through scientific papers and similar aspects of academia. “I started to lose the simplicity of action. Obviously, studying and gaining knowledge is important but I didn’t actually do anything with it yet.” Therefore, Kun decided to plant trees.

The post Klimawald Bayreuth: About planting trees and seeing change appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Der Grund dafür: Deutschlands Insekten. Oder besser gesagt, deren Rettung. Im Oktober 2017 ging eine Studie wie ein Lauffeuer um die Welt, die besagte, dass in geschützten Gebieten ein Rückgang von 75% aller Insekten zu verzeichnen ist. „Das war für uns der Punkt, an dem wir gesagt haben, wir müssen handeln“, sagt Thomas Pickel und nippt an seiner Kaffeetasse. Gemeinsam mit acht weiteren Studienfreunden gründete der Geoökologie-Student „Summer in the City“, einen Verein für den Artenschutz. „Jahrelang haben Naturschützer versucht, auf die Problematik des Artenschwunds aufmerksam zu machen. Sie haben symbolträchtige Tiere gewählt wie den Weißstorch oder den Wolf. Es ist beinahe ironisch, dass es dann mit den kleinen Insekten geklappt hat, die Menschen aufzurütteln.“

Der Artenschwund der Insekten war immer wieder Thema in den Medien. Vor allem ein bestimmter Vertreter dieser Lebewesen ist dadurch in den Fokus gerückt: die Biene. „Insekten mögen klein sein, aber sie machen eine unglaublich große Masse aus und sind ungeheuer wichtig. In Deutschland gibt es 48.000 Arten von Tieren – 33.000 davon sind allein Insekten“, sagt Pickel. Inzwischen ist der Artenschwund in Bayern in der Debattenliste so weit nach oben gewandert, dass sich etwas grundsätzlich ändern könnte: Durch das Volksbegehren “Artenvielfalt Rettet die Bienen!“ können wahlberechtigte Bürger in Bayern ab dem 31. Januar bis zum 13. Februar darüber abstimmen, ob sie Gesetze für mehr Artenschutz in ihrem Bundesland wollen.

Diese Gesetze würden unter anderem Pestizideinsatz in Biotopen verbieten, die ökologische Landwirtschaft stärken (bis 2030 sollen 30% der Landwirtschaft in Bayern ökologisch sein) und die Randstreifen von natürlichen Gewässern schützen. „In allen anderen 15 Bundesländern in Deutschland gibt es bereits einen Schutz von 5 Metern links und rechts von natürlichen Gewässern. Dort darf kein Ackerbau stattfinden, durch den Düngemittel und Pestizide in das Wasser fließen und die dort laichenden Arten stören,“ sagt Pickel.

Er ist überzeugt, dass das Volksbegehren Erfolg haben wird. „Zwei Wochen sind keine lange Zeit“, räumt er ein. In dieser Zeit müssen bayernweit eine Million Unterschriften gesammelt werden. „Aber es hat schon zweimal bei anderen Themen geklappt, bei denen keiner dran geglaubt hat.“ Damit meint Pickel die Volksbegehren in Bayern zum Nichtraucherschutz und den Studiengebühren. Ersteres war 2010 erfolgreich und hatte zur Folge, dass Rauchen an öffentlichen Orten verboten wurde. Zweiteres schaffte im Jahr 2013 die Studiengebühren von etwa 500 Euro pro Student pro Semester in Bayern ab.

Deswegen ist Thomas Pickel auch zuversichtlich, dass sich eine Million Menschen mit ihrer Unterschrift für die Insekten in Bayern einsetzen werden. „Ein Freund von mir hat neulich im Zug aus Spaß 45 Personen befragt. Mehr als 50 Prozent wussten von dem Volksbegehren und wollen es auch unterschreiben“, sagt er mit leuchtenden Augen. Wichtig sei vor allem, möglichst viele Menschen in den größeren Städten wie München und Nürnberg zu motivieren. Die Wähler können ihre Stimme in den Rathäusern der Städte abgeben, mehr Informationen dazu hier. Hier in Bayreuth wollen die Summer es schaffen, rund 10.000 Stimmen für die Insekten zu sammeln.

Dafür mobilisieren sie an allen Ecken: Sie verteilen Flyer, hängen Plakate auf, sprechen mit den Menschen. „Zurzeit fahre ich mit dem Rad wahrscheinlich 40 Stundenkilometer und hetze von hier nach dort“, sagt Thomas Pickel lachend. Vor einigen Tagen hat er für eine Radioshow mit dem Pressesprecher des Bayerischen Bauernverbandes, Markus Peters, gesprochen. Die Bauern sind derzeit der wohl schärfste Gegner des Volksbegehrens. 30 Prozent Ökolandbau bis im Jahr 2030 sei nicht machbar, so die Begründung. „Das soll sich auf keinen Fall gegen die Bauern wenden. Im Gegenteil, es soll den Staat zum Umdenken und Umlenken in der Landwirtschaft bringen“, sagt Pickel.

Dass 30 Prozent ökologische Landwirtschaft sehr wohl möglich seien, sei am Beispiel Österreich abzulesen: Dort seien es mittlerweile etwa 25 Prozent. Durchgesetzt wurde das dadurch, dass etwa Kantinen von Schulen, Behörden und Firmen rechtlich dazu verpflichtet wurden, ökologisch angebaute Lebensmittel zu verwenden. „Wir zerstören die wertvollen, artenreichen Kulturflächen momentan, weil wir alles totspritzen und intensivieren“, sagt Pickel. „Das Volksbegehren ist ein verzweifelter Versuch, etwas zu ändern. Die Politik macht ja nichts, die schauen immer noch nur zu.“

Rund 44% der Landfläche Bayerns werden landwirtschaftlich genutzt, bisher sei die Agrarwirtschaft auch noch recht kleinteilig in dem süddeutschen Bundesland. Dennoch – das Artensterben ist in landwirtschaftlichen Bereichen besonders groß. Im Grunde ist aber auch den bayerischen Bauern auch klar, dass sich etwas ändern muss in Sachen Artenschutz.

Immer wieder winken Studierende am Campus Thomas Pickel zu, rufen etwas herüber oder fragen ihn etwas wegen des Volksentscheids. Er grinst unter seiner Schirmmütze hervor und freut sich, dass so viele andere sich auch für das Wohl der Natur interessieren und einsetzen. „Wir müssen unseren Kindern doch eine schöne Welt hinterlassen und nicht wie die Generationen vor uns denken „Nach uns die Sintflut“ und sich um nichts kümmern. Uns geht es darum, zukunftsfähig und nachhaltig zu sein. Wir wollen unsere Erde nicht kaputt machen!“

The post Eine Unterschrift für den Erhalt der Artenvielfalt appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

The reason for his insomnia: Germany’s insects. Or, to be more precise, their rescue. In October 2017, a study caused a huge uproar, stating that there was a decline of about 75% in all insects in protected areas. “This was when we said we have to do something”, Thomas Pickel says, sipping his coffee. Together with eight other students, he founded “Summer in the City”, a club for biodiversity protection based in Bayreuth. “Over years, conservationists have tried to get the public’s attention to the species decline. They chose symbolic animals to spread the message, like the White Stork or the wolf. It’s kind of ironic that the smallest animals, the insects, are getting the attention now.”

The species decline of insects has been discussed in the media over and over ever since. Especially one kind of insects moved to the spotlight: bees. “Insects might be small, but they make up a huge part of biomass and are incredibly important. In Germany alone, there are 48.000 different animal species – 33.000 of them are insects”, Pickel says.

Meanwhile, the topic moved to the top of the discussion list. This could lead to fundamental changes: The referendum “Artenvielfalt Rettet die Bienen!” (English: “Biodiversity Save the bees!”) enables elective citizen of the federal state of Bavaria to vote for new legislations on biodiversity protection. From January 31 to February 13, they have the chance to sign the referendum in city halls all across Bavaria.

The new legislation would for example include the prohibition of pesticides in biotopes, it would strengthen organic agriculture (until 2030, 30 percent of the Bavarian agriculture should be organic) and the protection of natural water bodies. “In all other 15 federal states of Germany, there is already a protection buffer of five meters around natural water bodies. It is prohibited to farm there as fertilizer and pesticides could flow into the water and disturb spawning species”, Pickel says.

He is confident that one million people will sign the petition. “A friend recently asked 45 persons in the train if they knew about the referendum and if they would vote for it. More than 50 percent said yes”, he says, eyes shining. He thinks it is crucial to motivate especially people in big cities, like in Munich or Nuremberg. In Bayreuth, the “Summerer” how Pickel and his friends from “Summer in the city” are sometimes called, hope to collect about 10,000 votes for the insects. Find more information here.

To reach this goal, they are mobilizing all across the city, distributing leaflets, fixing posters, talking to people. “These days, I guess I am racing around on my bike with about 40 kilometers per hour”, Thomas Pickel says, laughing. A few days ago, he talked with the spokesman of the Bavarian farmers’ association in a radio show. The farmers are currently the strongest opponents of the referendum. Their main argument: 30 percent of organic agriculture are not possible to achieve until 2030. “The referendum is definitely not against the famers and their needs. On the contrary, it shall bring the state to rethink and redirect agriculture”, Pickel says.

A good example for organic agriculture is Austria: in 2017, about 24 percent of the country’s agriculture are already organic, trend rising. This has been achieved by engaging cafeterias of schools, offices and companies to use organically produced groceries. “Right now, we are destroying our biodiverse nature because we are spraying pesticides, killing everything, and intensifying the agricultural sector. The referendum is a desperate attempt to change this. Politicians are not doing anything, they are still just looking.”

In Bavaria, about 44% of the land surface are used for agriculture, with still relatively small-patched fields. Still, the species decline is especially high in agricultural areas. In general, Bavaria’s farmers know as well that something has to change in relation to biodiversity protection.

Again and again, students are waving at Thomas Pickel, calling across the campus, asking him about details on the referendum. Under his cap, he is grinning, obviously happy about the fact that so many are interested in protecting nature. “We have to leave a beautiful world for our children and stop thinking “After me, the deluge” like generations before us did, not caring about anything. It is important for us to be sustainable. We don’t want to destroy our planet!”

The post Referendum could save Bavaria’s biodiversity appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Trophy hunting is a quite common practice in Namibia. The Wuparo Conservancy is no exception. “We have two different types of tourism here in the conservancy: photography and safari tourism on the one side and trophy hunting on the other side”, Shine Limbo, manager of the conservancy, says. “Today, trophy hunting brings more money than tourism. But I hope this will change.” In a long-term perspective, he believes that photography and safari tourism will be more sustainable than trophy hunting because the latter “could stop at any time, tourism won’t”.

Trophy hunting is a very controversial topic – it can get quite emotional. Trophy hunting can be defined as killing wild animals for their body parts, such as head and hide, for display but not primarily for food or sustenance. The controversy about trophy hunting is whether it supports biodiversity and wildlife conservation or if it is a threat to the species. Some in favour of trophy hunting argue that by targeting only old bull elephants, it is a sustainable way to protect the animals and their habitat. On the other hand, there are arguments that the practice leads to decreasing numbers of wildlife – especially when it comes to already endangered species.

One other point of supporters of trophy hunting is that it brings huge financial benefits to the communities in Namibia – which is in fact a solid argument: In 2017, the Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism said that conservancies are generating about 100 million Namibian dollars (around 61.500 Dollar) on average per year with trophy hunting. Besides the financial benefits on a national scale, also the local population of conservancies receives monetary support from hunting: The hunter pays a fee for the animal and this fee goes back to the conservancy. The rates for hunting are nothing for people with a small purse: To go for a 14 days elephant trophy hunt in the Zambezi region, one has to calculate about 72.000 US dollars. Hunting a buffalo costs up to 22000 US dollars including the trophy. The hunting organizations also offer packages for hunting: 7 days of trophy hunting including 7 trophies cost up to 6450 US dollars – the 7 species to be hunted are springbok, blesbok, gemsbok, blue wildebeest, red hartebeest, warthog and zebra.

The conservancies receive parts of this money and use it in various ways to support the local communities. In the Wuparo Conservancy, most of the money is used for social projects like the installation of electricity or providing access to clean water by drilling wells. The big aim of this kind of hunting tourism is to stop people from poaching. If some individual animals are killed and bring benefits to the whole community, the rest of the species is protected and the ecosystem remains in a sound state. At least, this is the theory. Also, the hunter is taking the trophy of his hunt – like horns, tusks or skin – with him, but the meat goes to the local population. During our research in Wuparo, the majority of the local respondents of the interviews rated trophy hunting as “good” because it brings them meat and money. Tourists on the other hand mostly disliked trophy hunting, arguing that it was a cruel and unnecessary practice.

Every year, the rangers of the Wuparo Conservancy monitor animals, record the numbers of wildlife and write them down. Based on these records of the monitoring, the Namibian state gives out so called “hunting quotas” for every year. These quotas define how many animals are free for shooting. “We have quotas for our own use, for traditional use and for trophy hunting”, Shine says. If a certain species has not been registered a lot of times and therefore seems to be not very abundant, the quota is low. On the other hand, if a species has been recorded frequently, the quota is higher. For the last year, in Wuparo, there have been quotas on buffalos and elephants for example. “This year, we had 16 quotas on buffalos, two for our own use, two for traditional use and twelve for trophy hunting”, Shine says. “Quotas for elephants were much lower: one for own use, one for traditional use and three for trophy hunting.”

Roggero Michelletti sits on one of the comfortable chairs in the Nkasa Lupala Lodge in the Wuparo Conservancy when we meet him. The rolling R’s and his singing way of speaking reveal the Italian roots of the lodge owner. “I don’t consider trophy hunting as tourism”, he says. In his eyes, it isn’t sustainable in the long term – even though at the moment it brings more money than safari and photography tourism. He lets his glance wander over the dry, yellowish savannah. A huge male hippo is taking a bath in the cool water of the river in front of the lodge. “I would stop hunting elephants and lions. By killing all the big bulls, you destroy the genetic pool.” He is happy though that in the Wuparo Conservancy there is a zonation defining areas for different usages. “It is not like in other conservancies, where safari tourists are marvelling an elephant from the car – and the next moment it falls over, dead, shot by a hunting tourist.”

Brutus Liwate Mosutela, a tall and robust man, sees this differently. “As they (editor’s note: the elephants) migrate and mix with others, there is still an exchange of genes”, he says. Being the hunting guide and the head of the rangers in the Wuparo Conservancy, he has a lot of experience with the fragile topic of hunting tourism. Growing up in the area, poaching was a daily companion, he says. “I have been poaching game like buffalos and hippos before as well, to feed my kids. We just hunted for the meat. If we stopped trophy hunting now, people would go back to poaching again. Before this became a conservancy, I had no work and no money – now I do have both and can feed my kids”, he says, gesticulating with his large hands. When we ask him if he thinks the Wuparo Conservancy could survive without trophy hunting, he tends his head back and forth, thinking for some moments. “For some time, it might survive”, he then says, “but not for long.”

The topic of trophy hunting is indeed controversial. When only looking at the local population of the Wuparo Conservancy, it might seem like it totally makes sense because people need to eat, and they want their lives to change to the better. Free meat from the hunter plus money for the conservancy – there is an undeniable benefit for the people. When looking at biodiversity and animal numbers, different statistics exist, different results of research indicate either decreases in wildlife numbers due to trophy hunting or they suggest that trophy hunting leads to less poaching. So at the end of the day it is a very personal decision if you want to shoot an elephant or let it roam in the wilderness of the Namibian bush.

The post Trophy hunting in Namibia: “If we stopped it, people would go back to poaching” appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

How do you feel about the progress of the conservancy?

John Kasaona: Comparing the Wuparo conservancy to others, I think they are doing well. They have a structure and are quite well organized. I hope changes in the constitution will lead to a spread of knowledge to the new committee members.

How is the status of the management plan of the conservancy?

John Kasaona: Speaking about conservancies in general, their success always depends on the layout of the area (editor’s note: this refers to the environmental surrounding and conditions) which determines the setup of the management plan. It is important to check where people use the land for agriculture, tourism, cattle etc. It is also important to sensitize people for the use of the land. In Wuparo, there is little space for livestock – and farmers depend on this space. Therefore, a flexible management is necessary, also in order to adapt to climate change. With flexible I want to say that they should adapt to altering situations and nothing should be gravelled in stone. The conservancy should help people to fulfil their needs.

Does the conservancy receive any subsidies? If yes, from whom and are they sufficient?

John Kasaona: We (editor’s note: IRDNC) were supporting conservancies here in the North: 30 in the Kunene region and 16 in the Caprivi region. Since 1997, we were helping the communities with their management, with committee elections, human-wildlife-conflicts and tourist accommodation. We were carrying them from the very beginning. Since a couple of years, these conservancies are financially independent.

What is the next step in or for this conservancy?

John Kasaona: People look at conservancies like they look at a president: They expect that their lives will change, they expect that all social needs will be solved with the help of the conservancy. This is impossible – you would need an ideal area for that. As a next step, I think it is important that the conservancy covers access to water, electricity, animal vaccination and education. Once this is done, the conservancy should look at the households and try to help the most vulnerable ones, as they must benefit the fastest as possible.

Do you think the people living here benefit from the conservancy itself?

John Kasaona: It depends on what you see as a benefit. We can’t reach everyone but there is a change as we are creating a platform for talking about conflicts with wildlife and for raising awareness for conservation. Also, there is more employment, e.g. in the lodges, the campsite, in hunting and in the office of the conservancy. So, not everyone benefits but in general there is improvement.

Do you think the health education situation (e.g. AIDS) has changed since the establishment of the conservancy?

John Kasaona: This was part of our education programme from IRDNC. We were talking about how a healthy environment is connected with a healthy population. Conservancies became unknowingly a platform where different NGOs and parties from the government came to. People could talk about their problems. Thus, there were indirect improvements in the health situation.

Do you think the infrastructure in this area (e.g. medical aid, schools, roads, shops) has improved since the establishment of the conservancy?

John Kasaona: Indirectly, yes. In conservancies, we encourage rural democracy. It was our approach to teach people to stand up for their wishes and demands. The communities start to know about their rights. All those things like medical aid and schools came here because the voice of the rural people got out. Remember: Conservancies are not only for wildlife but also for people.

Do you see any necessity for more research in the conservancy area?

John Kasaona: Why not? Looking at human-wildlife-conflicts and ways to mitigate those conflicts is important. Conservation related research would be good. Living with wildlife is not easy – I think, research could help a lot here.

Is tourism an important factor in this conservancy?

John Kasaona: Yes, it’s a key factor! The financial sustainability depends on tourism here. Without tourism, there would be nothing for the community.

Which kind of tourism is most prominent in this conservancy?

John Kasaona: Organized tours bring most income because they have certain routes they always take. (Editor’s note: Many tourists stay in the lodge which is situated in the conservancy. The owners of the lodge pay money to the conservancy because it is the land of the local community.)

Which role does trophy hunting play in this conservancy?

John Kasaona: Trophy hunting depends on the abundance of big game like elephants or buffalos which bring most money (editor’s note: The Namibian government gives so called “quotas” on how many animals can be hunted. The hunting tourists pay a given price to the conservancy for the animal they want to shoot ). What I see as a problem is targeting big bulls – especially regarding elephants. Shooting old bulls that will die soon is not so much of a problem – but how many do remain? (Editor’s note: killing bulls leads to a smaller genetic pool) Baby elephants and female animals shouldn’t be killed either. Therefore, hunting guides need to be very comprehensive. They shouldn’t actively target breeding ones and not kill all the bulls.

Could the conservancy survive without trophy hunting?

John Kasaona: Yes, because we have to be very adaptive and look at alternative ways of income generation. The use of the devil’s claw could be an idea. (Editor’s note: Devil’s claw is an indigenous Namibian plant which is used for treatment of arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.)

Did the number of tourists increase since the establishment of the conservancy?

John Kasaona: Overall, the tourist numbers have increased. In the conservancies, land and wildlife became protected – people are coming to see this.

What influence does trophy hunting have on the local population?

John Kasaona: The population benefits economically as money is generated by trophy hunting.

What could be improved in this conservancy?

John Kasaona: I think that some administrational points could be improved. Also, the distribution of natural resources should be more equal.  

Do you think the traditional lifestyle has changed since the establishment of the conservancy?

John Kasaona: Well, life is changing with new technologies anyways. There is lots of influence and people are exposed to changes and challenges. People also go to other areas and see new things. So, yes, it could well be that the lifestyle has changed.

The post “Living with wildlife is not easy” appeared first on Global Change Ecology.