Bye Bye!

This blog process has been an interesting look into the impacts of biodiversity and biodiversity loss on humans and the relationships between them. I hope I have succeeded in considering multiple perspectives and arguments from across a wide range of disciplines and countries. I will find it odd no longer spending my weeks researching and hunting for information!

Rousseau- Tiger in a Tropical Storm

It is dangerous to think of biodiversity and human populations as mutually exclusive but I feel more and more of us are beginning to understand the extent to which we are reliant on the natural world. We may be just a tiny part of a complex and expansive network that makes up life on earth but we are unique in our ability to manipulate the resources around us. We have the potential to find affective solutions that achieve the balance between maintaining biodiversity and supporting human wellbeing for centuries to come however it will take creativity, compromise and innovation. 

Community Conservation- an achievable aim?

When most people think of conservation, protected areas typically spring to mind. However this traditional paradigm of fortress conservation was so heavily criticised as a result of its impact on local people. For example, exclusionary conservation is thought to have resulted in 14-24million environmental refugees in Africa alone leading to landlessness, joblessness, economic marginalisation, food insecurity and a rise in morbidity and mortality (Adams, 2007). Post the 1987 Brundtland commission's report and the rise in discourse surrounding ‘sustainable development’, conservation efforts turned to the development and implementation of community based conservation. This initiative focuses on the importance of conservation for ecosystem health and biodiversity whilst ensuring social justice and material wellbeing and advocates that sustainable use or incentive based conservation is most viable giving rural communities economic interest in preserving the ecosystem and species survival (Hutton, 2003). 

The Ngorongoro Crater- a typical Tanzanian protected area

Tanzania has huge potential for community conservation. It is of high biological importance with 10% of land already designated as protected areas but very low levels of economic development with a GDP of just $609 per capita (World Bank, 2012). Wildlife Management Areas (WMA’s) were Tanzanias attempt at community conservation initiated in 1998. In this instance village land outside protected areas or parks were set aside to promote conservation and bring prosperity to villagers. Once an area was designated a WMA, communities were granted legal rights to manage the resources and could seek outside investors for wildlife based business ventures. As of the 31^st March 2006, 4 WMAs have been established with mixed success (Igoe, 2007).

The Burunge WMA is located between lake Manyara and Tarangire national parks and the Manyara game reserve. Its location in a wildlife migration area and a large elephant population raises concerns over safety and difficulties with farming. There was huge confusion over the establishment of the WMA carving up villages and resulting in the eviction of 64 families. The conflict that ensued resulted in several arrests and harm at the hands of the private game hunting company that relocated to the area. Furthermore, corruption in the distribution of benefits means the villagers have seen little economic return and there is much confusion at the community level over who is responsible for management (Igoe, 2007). Although this case study would appear as a failure for community conservation methods, I feel it is more a failure of ‘top down’ approaches so typical in conservation.

Burunge WMA- Tourist camp

Ololosokwan village in northern Tanzania lies adjacent to the Maasai Mara and Serengeti national parks and residents are predominantly Maasai agro pastoralists. The village lies in one of the most wildlife rich areas and until top down management attempts were made, I feel it was a good advocate for community based conservation. Two ecotourism ventures, an eco lodge and campsite, developed with private companies have earned the village $55 000 annually. The village also developed by-laws to regulate land use and management including methods to control illegal hunting and requirements for all tourist revenues to be placed in a village bank account with quarterly reports on earnings and expenditure. In 1992 the government established a hunting block with the United Arab Emirates Ortello Business Corporation. To provide exclusive access to the village lands the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism banned game viewing and photographic or walking safaris within any wildlife protected area except for National Parks (MNRT 2000). This attempted to close the village’s existing ecotourism ventures. A WMA was then proposed but villagers protested. (Nelson, 2013).

Ololosokwan community conservation method

At present when human populations particularly in Africa are expanding at such a rate, I feel that if conservation or biodiversity preservation is to succeed, it needs to incorporate the needs of local people. Otherwise these vital sites will become battle grounds for conflicting interests resulting in failure on both sides. Although I feel uncomfortable with the idea of commodifying these areas, local people need income and resources and ecotourism does seem to pose a solution in some instances. This however should come from within the communities in a bottom up approach with states offering support. In other instances, when ecotourism is not relevant or unfeasible, mechanisms for community conservation should be considered on a case by case basis as as ideal as conservation mechanisms may sound in theory, there is never a one size fits all solution.

Sources:

Adams, W. Hutton, J. (2007). Peoples, Parks and Poverty: Political Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation and Society.  5(2). pp 147-183.

Hutton, JM (2003) sustainable use and incentive driven conservation: realigning human and conservation interest. Oryx. 37 . pp215-226

Igoe, J.,Croucher,B. (2007) Conservation, Commerce and communities: the story of community based wildlife management areas in tanzanias northern tourist circuit. . Conservation and Society. 5(4) pp 534-561

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT) (2000). The Wildlife Conservation (Tourist Hunting) Regulations. 

Nelson, F. (2007). Emergent or illusory? Community wildlife management in Tanzania. Pastoral society of east africa. [online]. Available at: http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/12540IIED.pdf [Accessed 12.01.2015]

World Bank,(2012)  GDP per Capita.[online].  Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD. [Accessed 12.01.2015]

Just a walk in the park?

Many of us enjoy a walk in the park, or forest, or mountains, but only relatively recently have scientists begun to consider why this might be. The link between nature and biodiversity on mental health is of particular interest as incidences of mental health are on the rise and is estimated to affect over 450 million people worldwide, biodiversity is in decline and now more than half of the worlds population live in cities (World Health Organisation, 2003)(United Nations, 2007). A multitude of studies now address this link from a number of different disciplines including urban planning and environmental psychology.  

A cross sectional study by de Vries et al looked at associations between living in a highly diverse environment with general health. They compared the percentage of green-space, agricultural land, forestry, nature areas, gardens and degree of urbanity with health, measured via self reported symptoms, perceived general health and a 12 point general health questionnaire. This large study (n= 10,179) found that living in a green environment was positively related to the three health indicators and that these effects were more significant in lower income groups or those that spend more time at home (de Vries et al, 2003)(Hough, 2014). This sort of study has significant repercussions for urban planners as the way in which an urban area is designed has the ability to influence health and wellbeing.

Further work has addressed the more specific link between nature or biodiversity and mental health. There are two major explanatory theories, the stress reduction theory, or SRT, and the attention restoration theory, or ART.

SRT proposes the healing power of nature lies in an unconscious autonomic response to actual elements. Landscapes with views of water and or vegetation with high levels of complexity or biodiversity would have been most beneficial for human survival and at a preconscious level we may have evolved diminished states of arousal and negative thoughts at sites such as these (Bratman, 2012).  Ulrich, who developed this theory, carried out multiple tests. In one instance, 120 subjects were made to watch a stressful film for 10 minutes and then viewed scenes and sounds of six different settings from urban to very natural. During this process, stress indicators were measured including the subjects heart rate, skin conductance, muscle tension and systolic blood pressure was measured. Subjects were also asked to self rate their state. In all instances, subjects viewing natural scenes recovered from the stress at a faster rate than those presented with urban scenes (Ulrich, 1991). 

The ART proposes nature replenishes certain types of attention through unconscious cognitive process in response to natural landscapes. This draws on the distinction between two components of attention, voluntary or directed, and involuntary. Direct or voluntary attention requires the use of cognitive control in order to ignore distractions. After prolonged use this capability becomes fatigued resulting in irritability. Involuntary attention is used when individuals are presented with ‘inherently intriguing’ stimuli and the ART approach posits that viewing nature acts in this way. This allows neural mechanisms underlying direct attention to rest and replenish which can benefit performance on other tasks and impact levels of depression and stress (Bratman, 2012).  This also has been tested on multiple occasions. For example, Taylor et al compared children from the same population, whose characteristics and demographics only differed by their view from home; urban park or barren concrete. On average, the more natural the view, the better performance on a number of tasks used to measure attention such as the digit span backyard and Stroop colour word test (Taylor et al, 2002). 

There are many more studies that measure the links between nature and mental health in different ways and within different disciplines, although I will not go into any more at the present. Correspondingly, it seems obvious that impacts on mental health be included in the list of ecosystem services and act as another argument for biodiversity conservation. Furthermore, these links should be considered in future urban planning projects to improve the overall quality of life and health for urban dwellers. 

Sources:

Bratman, G. et al.  2012. The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive

function and mental health. Annals of the New York academy of sciences. Vol. 1249. pp 118-136. 

de Vries S et al. 2003. Natural environments—healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environ Plan A. Vol. 35. pp. 1717–1731

Hough, R L. 2014. Biodiversity and Human Health: evidence for causality? Biodiversity Conservation. Vol. 23. pp 267-288. 

Taylor, A.F. et al. 2002. Views of nature and self-discipline: evidence from inner city children. Journal of  Environmental Psychology. Vol. 22. pp49–63.

Ulrich, R.S. et al. 1991. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology. Vol. 11. pp 201–230

United Nations Population Fund State of World Population. 2007. Unleashing the potential of urban growth. New York: UNFPA.

World Health Organisation. 2003. Investing in metal health. Geneva: WHO

Set-aside- a saviour? (2)

Although not the primary intention, set aside has had a significant impact on biodiversity. This is well known despite a lack in comprehensive UK study. The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) identified cereal field margins, in which set aside can be included, as priority habitats and aimed to increase the number of hectares to 15 000ha by 2010, although this was met in 2008  (Hodge et al, 2006).

An integrated assessment by Firbank et al,  assessed environmental impacts of the scheme. They first carried out botanical surveys to assess the development of vegetation on set aside land. This involved analysing a single field using six nested quadrants on 100 farms with rotational set aside,  and one field from 100 farms with non rotational set aside. The same process was also used to test for aphids, slugs and deadhearts (the visible affect of damage by insect pests). Surveys of breeding birds were carried out using a territory mapping method on 92 farms in 1996 and 63 in 1997. Farmers were also given questionnaires and asked to note observations during the study.(Firbank et al, 2003)

A mean of 12 plant taxa were recorded on rotational set aside, and the plant species were fairly similar at each site although one nationally rare plant, Chrysanthemum segetum L was recorded. There was also no significant increase in weeds next to crops, which had been a concern for farmers following the introduction of the scheme. On non rotational set aside, in which the land is left alone for a number of years, plant species richness was great on natural regeneration than on sown set aside, 26.5 and 20.0 per site respectively. However, there was little sign these areas were developing into sites of conservation value although older sites did have more perennial species such as Fistula pratences typical of grasslands which are of conservation value. As part of the questionnaire farmers were asked to note increases in wildflowers. 20% of farmers with rotational set aside and 51% with non rotational set aside reported an increase. According to farmers, levels of crop disease was not affected by set aside with 85% noting that the risk of fungal disease on adjacent crops was unchanged.(Firbank et al, 2003).  

Slugs were present throughout the year and were observed on 60-80% of set aside and adjacent cropped sites in the autumn 1995 but fell to 10-40% of sites the following summer. During autumn 1995, 9% of non-rotational set aside sites were infected with aphids. The proportion of cropped fields with aphids rose to 33% of sites in 1996 and 54% in 1997 although the proportion of set aside fields with aphids remained below 10%. The trend in dead harts appears similar as they occurred in 7-24% of sites in cropped fields and between 0-10% in set aside fields. 80% of farmers reported no change in numbers of these insect pests next to set aside.(Firbank et al, 2003) 

Skylark

The territory mapping method reported that rotational set aside supported nine times the density of birds on crops compared with seven times in non rotational sown grassland set aside. Vegetation structure did effect bird numbers and species type. For example, further studies looked at bird species in different areas of the field. Game birds, typically seed eaters, preferred bare ground with the blackbird (Turdus merula L), song thrush (Turdus philomelos ) and pheasant (Phasianus colchicus L.) preferring the outer 5m of the field. Goldfinch (Carduelis carduelis L.) , greenfinch (C. chloris L.)  skylark (Alauda arvensis) and the combined group of wading birds increasing towards the field centre (Henderson et al, 2000). Maintaining a variety of habitat structures, management techniques and plant and insect diversity therefore benefits overall bird diversity and species richness. Overall, 47% of farmers with rotational set aside and 69% of farmers with non rotational set aside reported an increase in numbers (Firbank et al, 2003) .

From these studies it is clear that the fears farmer held, that set aside would increase insect pests and crop disease, did not occur to a great extent in the areas under study. Plant and bird diversity increased significantly, particularly in non rotational set aside where the land was left to naturally progress. Maintaining a variety of habitats, for example some areas left as stubble, is the ideal method for maximum diversity. However, the scheme was suspended in 2008/9 due to public pressure and those leaving land as set aside were no longer entitled to payments. This was replaced in 2010 by alternative policies to promote biodiversity conservation as farmers were required to manage a small percentage of land for environmental purposes, as opposed to just leaving land alone (HMRC, 2014). Furthermore, the 900 million payment scheme entitled the ‘Wild Pollinator and Farm Wildlife Package’ announced in 2014 will hope to carry on what the set aside scheme established, providing space for wildlife for the benefit of all (Trust, 2014). 

Sources: 

Firbank, L. G.et al. 2003. Agronomic and ecological costs and benefits of set aside in England. Agriculture, ecosystems and environment. Vol. 95 (1). pp73-85.  

Henderson, I. et al. 2000. The relative abundance of birds on set-aside and neighbouring fields in summer. Journal of applied ecology. Vol. 37 (2). pp. 335–347.

HMRC. 2014. IHTM24064 - Agricultural purposes: Set-aside scheme. [online]. Available at: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ihtmanual/ihtm24064.htm. [Accessed 30.12.14]

Hodge, I. et al. 2006. Project to assess future options for set aside. University of Cambridge. [online]. Available at: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/evaluation/futuresetaside/Fullreport.pdf [Accessed 30.12.14]

Trust, E. 2014. Environment and the Rural Economy.   [transcript]. 4.11.2014. Available at:https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/elizabeth-truss-speech-on-the-environment-and-the-rural-economy [Accessed: 31.12.2014]

Set-aside- a saviour? (1)

Set aside is probably the most well known and frequently debated management technique in european agriculture. It was introduced by the European Community as part of the Common Agricultural Policy in 1988 to reduce surpluses and counteract environmental problems as result of intensification of agriculture. In 1995/6, it was estimated that 500 000 ha were designated as set aside, equivalent to 11% arable land although the scheme was suspended in 2008 (Firbank, 1998)(HMRC, 2014).  

Modern farming has always been a source if pollutants, particularly nitrates in surface and groundwater and phosphates in surface water from pesticides, sediments and eutrophication. In 2006 a DEFRA funded study analysed the affect of the set aside scheme on levels of certain pollutants. By changing land use, set-aside can reduce the levels of diffuse pollutants entering surface and ground waters as significantly less is sprayed, as demonstrated in the table below.(DEFRA, 2007) 

Fig. 1- Areas treated with different kinds of pesticides as a percentage of area grown. Treated areas above 100% have been sprayed more than once (DEFRA, 2007). 

The Environment Agency as part of the Water Framework Directive found pollution from nitrate leaching was a major issue in arable areas of the country with East Anglia, Lincolnshire and Humberside worst affected. The study compared nitrate losses for arable systems in clay or sandy soils in dry and wet years with or without the application of organic manure as shown in the table below. The table suggests that the removal of set aside and the reintroduction of arable practice will increase nitrate output by 23-47kg per ha per year for non manure systems (IGER, 2005). When levels are already high, such as the Humberside, additional measures would need to be introduced that may result in increased public expenditure (Hodge et al, 2006). 

Fig.2- Nitrogen losses from different arable systems with mitigation measures (IGER, 2005). 

A cost benefit analysis was carried out based solely on the area understudy. This suggested that in the cases where additional measures were required, the gain would be the value of net output on 21 000ha plus the value of the output less mitigation costs on 157 000ha. This therefore suggests that in the case of nitrogen leaching, it makes sense to convert set aside. However, the study is simplistic and  fails to consider measures to address loss of phosphates and other pollutants along side other risks. Similar results were also found for studies looking at phosphorus levels. Furthermore, evidence also suggests reversion of set aside increased N2O, a greenhouse gas, as a result of an increase in field operations(Hodge et al, 2006)(DEFRA, 2007). 

Although set aside does reduce leaching of nitrates and phosphates with slight impact on greenhouse gas emissions, it appears that these impacts do not outweigh the economic impacts of reversion to working land. However, there has been little research on combined pollutants or the impact of set aside as a buffer zone. In addition, the following post will assess the impacts of set aside on plant, vertebrate and invertebrate biodiversity to further assess the schemes significance. 

Sources: 

DEFRA. 2007. Change in the area and distribution of set-aside in England and its environmental impact. [online]. Available at: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/foodfarm/enviro/observatory/research/documents/observatory08.pdf [Accessed 30.12.14] 

Firbank, L.  1998. Agronomic and environmental evaluation of set-aside under the EC Arable Area Payments Scheme, vols. 1–4. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology/Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London.

HMRC. 2014. IHTM24064 - Agricultural purposes: Set-aside scheme. [online]. Available at: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ihtmanual/ihtm24064.htm. [Accessed 30.12.14]

Hodge, I. et al. 2006. Project to assess future options for set aside. University of Cambridge. [online]. Available at: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/evaluation/futuresetaside/Fullreport.pdf [Accessed 30.12.14] 

IGER. 2005. Cost Curve of nitrate mitigation options NT2511. Report for Defra. Institute of

Grassland and Environmental Research. 

Agro-ecosystems

In agricultural systems biodiversity perform a number of ecosystem services including nutrient recycling, micro climate control, regulation of the local hydrological cycle and pest control. The persistence and health of these services depends on the maintenance of diversity, without which constant human intervention is required (Altieri, 1994).

As a result of expanding human populations, globalisation, and the intensification of agriculture there is increased reliance on a small number of crop species. Across the 1440 million ha of presently cultivated land, only 70 plant species are grown (Perry, 1994). There is also limited genetic variability. For example in the US 72% of the area planted with potato consist of just four species increasing vulnerability to disease and pests (National Academy of Sciences, 1972). 

In agro-ecosystems the degree of biodiversity depends on the diversity of vegetation within and around the agro-ecosystem, the permanence of various crops, the intensity of management and extent of the isolation of the system (Southwood and Way, 1970). As a result, biodiversity can be grouped into productive biota or crops and livestock deliberately selected, resource biota or organisms that contribute e.g. pollinators and pest controllers such as Apis mellifera,the common honeybee, and finally destructive biota such as Phytophthora infestans or potato blight. To promote the required ecosystem services, it is important to determine the best practices that maximise productive and resource biota (Altieri, 1999). 

In 2014 the INSPIA project was initiated, bringing together the European Conservation Agriculture Federation, the Institute for Sustainable Agriculture and the European Crop Protection Association. The project aims to raise awareness about the value of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to both biodiversity and agricultural productivity and how to implement them. These BMPs include the use of minimum soil disturbance practices. This favours the proliferation of  Lumbricus terrestris, the common earthworm, improving soil aeration and water infiltration. They also include the implementation of field margins or buffer strips. These areas enhance agro-biodiversity by providing habitats for birds, other pollinators and soil fauna. They also prevent soil erosion, the transfer of agricultural pollutants from crop land to non crop land and slow runoff.  As it stands, the project promotes 15 BMPs, many of these drawing on more traditional agriculture practices (INSPIA, 2014).

Sources:

Altieri, M. 1994. Biodiversity and Pest Management in Agroecosystems. Haworth Press: New York. p185 

Altieri, M. 1999. Th ecological role of biodiversity in agro-ecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. vol 74. pp19–31. 

INSPIA. 2014. European Index for sustainable productive agriculture. [online]. Available at: http://www.inspia-europe.eu/ [accessed 28.12.14]. 

National Academy of Sciences. 1972. Genetic vulnerability of major crops. NAS: Washington. p307 

Perry, D.1994. Forest Ecosystems. Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore. p649.

Southwood, R and Way, M.J. 1970. Ecological background to pest management. In: Rabb, R and Guthrie, F.E. (Eds.). Concepts of Pest Management. North Carolina State University: Raleigh.  pp. 6–29. 

Brazil is home to the largest extent of tropical forests in the world but with a yearly annual deforestation rate of 1.8 to 2.0 million hectares between 1995 and 2000 (Ruiz-Pérez, 2005). Extractive reserves, drawing on traditional land use techniques are thought to be an innovative approach to land use; protecting biodiversity, promoting development and preserving traditional ways of life (Barnes,1999).  

Rubber tapping is considered a method for sustainable development as it incurs very little damage to the forest as only a small amount of biomass os removed from select trees (Barnes, 1999). During the 1980s the state of Acre in western Brazil was the site of protest led by the rubber tapper Chico Mendes against environmentally destructive national development plans. His assassination and subsequent international condemnation led to the establishment of extractive reserves and the 1999 Chico Mendes Law (IUCN, 2008). The law provided subsides for rubber tappers registered with the executive secretary of forest and extractivism and the state government. These reserves are organised into seringais, a traditional rubber estates, surrounding colocação, a rubber tapping unit containing a family home, agricultural plot and rubber trees. These were divided up according to the number of rubber trail units, typically three each at approximately 100-125ha her unit. Each colocação are members of the national council of rubber tappers who distribute the subsides (Vadjunec, 2009. Each tapper receives US$0.20 for every kilogram of rubber extracted and between 1999 and 2002.  the total paid to rubbers increased from R$305,000 to $1600000 (Barnes, 1999). 

The reserves and law would be considered successful if they promoted the redistribution of resources and participation resulting in the strengthening of social capital. This refers to the networks of relationships and values binding groups together for collective action. Originally, the social structure of rubber economy was vertical; patron-clientage and from estate owners or intermediary merchants downwards ensuring the workers were trapped in cycles of poverty and dependence. The protest and subsequent reserves attempted to democratise and unionise the workers. Although this did improve conditions and social capital in some instances, it also resulted in additional conflict amongst the rubber tappers. For example, rubber tapper groups better organised and loyal to the unions are likely to be favoured and this undermines improvements to social capital and collective resource governance (Hall, 2004). 

The Chico Mendes Law and the subsides it provides was an attempt to reboot the rubber tapping industry as since the mid 1990’s it became apparent that rubber tapping and nut harvesting alone  were unlikely to generate adequate levels of income. Between 1992 and 2002, a total of R$1.2 million was paid in subsides to rubber tapper communities with the state receiving 70% back in tax. Furthermore, the total paid to rubbers increased from R$305 000 to $1600000 (Barnes,1999). Although the rubber tapping economy has seen a boost, it is unclear whether this has led to poverty alleviation, partly due to the social difficulties discussed above. Furthermore, many families have adapted, increasingly relying on beans instead of rubber as a key commodity with developments also made in rubber processing plants and livestock (Ruiz-Perez, 2005). 

Since the reserves were implemented, 12 000 km2 of rainforest have been designated protected areas (Barnes, 1999). Furthermore, studies by Vandjunec et al among others have assessed the impact of extractive reserves on forest preservation. They selected two sites of similar geographical characteristics and in close proximity linked to the same municipality. However, one was increasingly focusing on non timber forest products and the other cattle production. Satellite imagery and measures of diversity including the Margalef index were calculated to compare species richness, abundance, composition and distribution of trees. By 2003, the cattle community had cut 8.26% of its forest with an average annual rate of 0.38%/year across the 18 year study. The rubber tapping community however had only cut 3.835 of its forest with an average annual deforestation rate of 0.20%/year.  However, when comparing species richness, the cattle ranching community scored greater (Vandjunec, 2004). It is unadvisable to extrapolate out from this study although it suggests that although rubber tapping reserves may preserve forests from deforestation, they may result in some damage to species richness and biodiversity. 

On paper extractive reserves seem like the ideal form of sustainable development with wide reaching economic, social and environmental benefits. However, the nature of these problems are complex and relying on one management technique too naive particularly as the benefits are so uncertain. Further studies are needed on the specific effects of various types of non timber forest products along with dominant production such as logging and cattle ranching that also look at the impacts on forest structure and composition not just area preserved. Furthermore, to generate conclusive evidence these studies are needed on local and national scales over long time periods.  As it stands, these reserves and subside programmes are not viable on very large scales. Further mechanisms need implementing and testing if we are to slow deforestation and the rates of biodiversity loss whilst still supporting local communities. 

Sources:

Barnes, A. et al. 1999. Chico Mendes Law. USAID. [online]. Available at: http://www.cbd.int/financial/pes/brazil-pesrubbertappers.pdf. [Accessed 22.12.14]. 

Hall, A. 2004. Extractive Reserves: Building Natural Assets in the Brazilian Rainforest. Political Economy Research Institute. [online]. Available at: http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=peri_workingpapers [Accessed 22.12.14]

IUCN. 2008. Supporting local forest use in Amazonian Brazil: The Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve. [online]. Available at: http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/rubber_story.pdf [Accessed 22.12.14]

Ruiz-Pérez, M. et al. 2005. Conservation and Development in Amazonian

Extractive Reserves: The Case of Alto Jurua´. Ambio. Vol. 34.(3). pp 218-223. 

Vadjunec, J. M., and D. Rocheleau. 2009. Beyond forest cover: land use and biodiversity in rubber trail forests of the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve. Ecology and Society 14(2): 29. [online]. Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art29/ [Accessed 22.12.14]