this message is composed of replies to various messages from over the
last couple of days so if I have replied to your message I know you
didn't write the rest as well.
-- Madeleine Groves:> Dear All > > In response to comments from everyone re. conservation of > cps worldwide, I'm very much in favour of seed collection AND the > keeping of good location data which is very important for > reintroduction purposes.
What do you feel should be done with this data? Stored under lock and key? Circulated? "Selectively" circulated, i.e. generalised (=imprecise) and circulated?
>Cps and their habitats can not been seen in > isolation, but as communities that sustain other rare and endangered > plants and animals. I also think that the major keys to conserving > these plants is to have local support(in order to keep an eye on > populations and to gain a better understanding of management > practices used in the past), to keep it simple and be able to act fast.
Yes, I agree totally. Surely to do this you need a certain degree of centralisation?
> I recently attended the huge IUCN World Conservation > Congress in Montreal and they were talking about the fact that > decentralisation and grassroot movements are the way ahead. If they've only just > cottoned on to this fact then we are all in big trouble!!!
To an extent I agree with that, but surely if there are hundreds of "grassroot" movements they are not all going to share their information? Sure, have small local groups or movements, but keep some centralised system that they can relay results back to and that can then share this info with the other groups. Then each group can fight with several hundred times as much fire. Also, a small and efficient centralised system can then give its weight to any case which needs help i.e to stop developement on a stand of plants, therefore the government etc is forced to realise that it is not just a few individuals fighting against it but a _national_, or better, _international_ action/pressure group and all of it's affiliated "grassroot" movements all over that country. Then, by publicising that fight that local group has worldwide backup. > I have had the opportunity to work with the marvellous team at Atlanta > Botanical Garden and they have addressed many of the conservation > needs of cps in the south-eastern USA in a very simple and organised > manner. Unfortunately, larger organisations can often get bogged down > in the bureaucracy and are overstretched as each regional office has > such a large catchment area to cover. However, their membership base > is very important to instil fear in policy makers and corporate giants > that only address environmental problems when Joe Public starts a > campaign or takes to the streets e.g. Shell in Nigeria. I hope we > can address many of these factors in Atlanta next May at the > International CP Conference so see you all there.
Yes, I agree with this also. I think I also answered these issues in my last paragraph.
--Michael Chamberland:
> > In response to comments from everyone re. conservation of cps > > worldwide, I'm very much in favour of seed collection AND the > > keeping of good location data which is very important for > > reintroduction purposes.Cps and their habitats can not been seen in > > isolation, but as communities that sustain other rare and endangered > > plants and animals. I also think that the major keys to conserving > > these plants is to have local support(in order to keep an eye on > > populations and to gain a better understanding of management > > practices used in the past), to keep it simple and be able to act > > fast. > > > Madeline, yes I certainly agree that local support is the way to > approach conservation. I think it is also important for interested > individuals to network with local groups and organizations which have > conservation/monitoring interests (even if not specifically concerned > with CP). Universities and herbaria are engaged in > monitoring/documenting plant communities, the Nature Conservancy works > toward protecting habitat, local plant clubs serve to educate and > disseminate information on local flora. Botanical gardens may be > involved with salvaging plants from habitats scheduled for > destruction, or even developing reintroduction programs (ie. CPC). > It's important for a conservation-minded individual to work with > existing groups/organizations, rather than on a solo project--the > results of which could be lost, unknown, or unavailable to the right > parties when needed.
That's exactly why I think that some sort of centralized system is necessary to co-exist and co-operate with the smaller movments and even individuals.
> I know some people have expressed dissillusionment with thier local > chapter of the Nature Conservancy, or their local botanical garden, or > the Forest Service, and other groups. It may be necessary to shop > around and find which organization bests suits your time and > interests. The adventurous may try starting their own organization!
I feel that a standardized organization [for collating location info etc, sharing information between other movements and local conservation ("grassroot") groups, helping to fight for CP's best interests in cases where sites are at risk and maybe organizing 'digs' etc, so that at least the plants can be saved and handed over to a botanical garden or other local society/group for re-introduction etc if a site is condemned] /is/ needed.It could also educate people as to why plants must not be wild-collected for introduction to cultivation - and what will happen to their wild-collected plants if they do. I believe that the ICPS has done a good job in helping groups to share information but now a centrealised organization which promotes grass-roots movements and does all of the other things mentioned above is absoltuely necessary. This sort of organization *must* be totally and unreservedly conservation-minded and international in its approach. It must be diplomatic but have the capability to show its full set of teeth and turn into a pressure/action group when necessary. > Another good example of local involvement: a volunteer working in the > MSC herbarium regularly attends our city's township planning board, > and argues for protection of wetlands, against the interests of local > developers. Involvement in the township planning board sounds like a > dry and political activity to me, but she enjoys it. And since the > number of people involved is likely to be small, one voice can go a > lot farther than in a general election.
Again, this is what such and organisation would promote. If there was a threatened stand of Sarracenia species (for example, of course (~: ) then while this individual at the town planning board may well not be able to do much if the board is having its arm twisted by the developers, have that case published in the newsletter of the organization and many people in that area and possibly outside that area may well want to be involved, getting a petition organized etc, and if that doesn't work /then/ the centralized organization can actually become involved. In that way, local movements would be the ones taking action, the organization would just serve to publicise to them what is happening, and at the same time let other people around the world know how that case was handled and how successful it was, therefore helping them to save /their/ local flora from the building companies.
Comments, please, everyone?
Kind Regards,
Toby Marsden