Yes, customary and complied with

Tourism_Dingoes_Australia

Emma_Hemmerle — Tue, 08 Feb 2022 12:35:41 +0000

Tourism_Dingoes_Australia Emma_Hemmerle Tue, 02/08/2022 - 12:35

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Tue, 02/08/2022 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species used in its natural habitat

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Unknown/not recorded

Record Source

Scientific publication (e.g., journal articles and book chapters independently peer-reviewed)

When wildlife tourism goes wrong: a case study of stakeholder and management issues regarding Dingoes on Fraser Island, Australia

Unknown/not recorded

Is the species endemic HIDE

Unknown

Population Status

Unknown/not recorded

National Level

Unknown/not recorded

Threats/Pressures impacting the conservation of the species

Unknown/Not Recorded

Population Trend

Unknown/not recorded

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Canis lupus dingo

Common Name(s)

Dingo

Type of Use

Non-Extractive

How is the primary use carried out?

Watching/experiencing terrestrial, aerial, or aquatic fauna and flora in the wild (e.g., birdwatching, snorkeling, wildlife watching)

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Recreational

Additional Details (if available)

Wildlife Tourism

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

Conservation Management (translocation, restoration, ex-situ breeding)

Amount

350000.00

Units Of Measurement

approximate number of tourists on the island annually

Time period over which this has been recorded

2003

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Increasing

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Yes, customary and complied with

Additional Details (if available)

. Currently, both direct and indirect feeding of Dingoes is strongly discouraged and transgressors face heavy penalties.

Geographic Location

Oceania

Country

Australia

Sub region/state

Queensland

Name

Fraser Island

Site Description

Located off the Queensland coast, approximately 190km north of Brisbane, Fraser Island was given its European name after Captain James Fraser and his wife Eliza were shipwrecked there in 1836 (Sinclair 1990, p. 76–77). The world’s largest sand island, it is almost 125km long, 25km wide in some places, and over 160,000 ha in area.4

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Yes

Ownership

Unknown/Not Recorded

Management

Unknown/Not Recorded

National external (individual, groups. e.g., hunters, anglers, photographers, tourists)

International external (individual, groups. e.g., hunters, anglers, photographers, tourists)

If more than one box ticked, please provide more details

tourists

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Yes – use is negatively affecting the status (e.g., population is declining; extraction effort is increasing)

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Unknown/not recorded

Details of assessment carried out

as the number of tourists to the island increase, so do the reports of Dingo attacks. The first recorded death from such an attack on Fraser Island occurred in April 2001, and was immediately followed by a government-ordered cull of Dingoes. For WT to be sustainable it is not acceptable to have wildlife a risk to human life, nor is it acceptable to eradicate the fauna visitors expect to see.

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

as the number of tourists to the island increase, so do the reports of Dingo attacks. The first recorded death from such an attack on Fraser Island occurred in April 2001, and was immediately followed by a government-ordered cull of Dingoes.
Between 1996 and 2001, 279 incidents were reported of which 74 were rated ‘insignificant’ 70 were rated ‘minor’, 95 ‘moderate’ 39 ‘major’ and 1 ‘catastrophic’ (EPA, 2001c, attachment 8).

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Yes, recorded as negative

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Support from NGOs

Present

Support from Government

Present

Biological characteristics of target species

Present

Is this use legal or illegal?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Source Reference(s)

Burns, G., & Howard, P. (2003). When wildlife tourism goes wrong: a case study of stakeholder and management issues regarding Dingoes on Fraser Island, Australia. Tourism Management, 24(6), 699-712. doi: 10.1016/s0261-5177(03)00146-8

Threats/pressures impacting the species at the scale of this record

Unknown/Not Recorded

Who is involved in the use?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Does the site have any designations? HIDE

World Heritage Site

The site is a National Park

Scale of Assessment

Sub-national

IUCN National Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

IUCN Global Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

Green Status Global Category

Indeterminate

Yearly Financial Flows

No assessment recorded

Yes, considered unsustainable

Country reference

Australia

Tourism_Yellow Eyed Penguin_New Zealand

Emma_Hemmerle — Tue, 08 Feb 2022 10:44:05 +0000

Tourism_Yellow Eyed Penguin_New Zealand Emma_Hemmerle Tue, 02/08/2022 - 10:44

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Tue, 02/08/2022 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species used in its natural habitat

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Unknown/not recorded

Record Source

Scientific publication (e.g., journal articles and book chapters independently peer-reviewed)

Behavioural consequences of human disturbance on subantarctic Yellow-eyed Penguins Megadyptes antipodes

Decreasing

Is the species endemic HIDE

Yes

Population Status

Uncommon and only found within narrow areas of distribution

Unknown/not recorded

National Level

Unknown/not recorded

Threats/Pressures impacting the conservation of the species

Agriculture

Illegal/Unregulated Logging and Wood Extraction

Energy Production and Mining

Climate Change

Fire

Invasive Species

Illegal/Unregulated Fishing

Population Trend

Unknown/not recorded

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Additional Details (if available)

By-catch mortality in the commercial gillnet fisheries is thought have driven significant declines over the past two decades, both on predator-free islands, such as Whenua Hou, and along the mainland coast; . Modelling has found a likely correlation between changing sea surface temperature and penguin vital rates, whereby productivity and survival are projected to decline under predicted climate change (Mattern et al. 2017). This has been seen in the Boulder Beach colony, where changes in SST have been found to account for 33% of the population fluctuations (Mattern et al. 2017). Human disturbance, particularly from unregulated tourists at breeding areas, negatively affects energy budgets, fledgling weight and probability of survival (McClung et al. 2004; Ellenberg et al. 2007, 2009, 2013), with human to penguin distance being a predictor of the likelihood of defensive behaviour;

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Megadyptes antipodes

Common Name(s)

Yellow-eyed Penguin

Type of Use

Non-Extractive

How is the primary use carried out?

Watching/experiencing terrestrial, aerial, or aquatic fauna and flora in the wild (e.g., birdwatching, snorkeling, wildlife watching)

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Recreational

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

Conservation Management (translocation, restoration, ex-situ breeding)

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Yes, customary and complied with

Additional Details (if available)

The current minimum approach guideline for all wildlife there is a distance of 5 m, yet the appropriateness of this has never been scientifically validated.
On Enderby Island, tourists approached to a median minimum distance of 27 m, where the probability of disturbance is 0.65, and 39% of tourists approached to a minimum distance of < 21 m, where the probability of disturbance is > 0.87

Geographic Location

Oceania

Country

New Zealand

Sub region/state

Auckland Archipelago

Name

Enderby Island

Site Description

Enderby Island, Auckland Island archipelago (50°29′45′′S 166°17′44′′E)
We collected all behavioural data at Penguin Alley, a section of Sandy Bay, Enderby Island, that is frequently used by penguins transiting to and from their nests and tourists arriving/departing and setting off/returning from walks on the island;

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Unknown/Not Recorded

Management

Unknown/Not Recorded

National external (individual, groups. e.g., hunters, anglers, photographers, tourists)

International external (individual, groups. e.g., hunters, anglers, photographers, tourists)

If more than one box ticked, please provide more details

tourists are the primary users

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Yes – use is negatively affecting the status (e.g., population is declining; extraction effort is increasing)

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Unknown/not recorded

Details of assessment carried out

As tourist visitation is infrequent and at low levels on Enderby Island, these penguins may not have had the opportunity to become habituated to humans. However, the lack of habituation by Yellow-eyed Penguins on mainland New Zealand (where the level of tourism is much higher and continuous year-round) indicates that habituation to tourism may not be possible.

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Strong community governance/institutions/rights for wildlife management

Present

Support from Government

Present

Abundant population of target species

Absent

Biological characteristics of target species

Present

Establishment and implementation of species and/or area management plan

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Legal under national law

Source Reference(s)

French, R. , Muller, C. G., Chilvers, B. L., & Battley, P. (2019). Behavioural consequences of human disturbance on subantarctic Yellow-eyed Penguins Megadyptes antipodes. Bird Conservation International, 29(2), 277–290. Cambridge University Press.

Human presence caused a significant drop in the probability of a successful transit to or from their nest, and significantly increased the time penguins spent alert and decreased the time spent preening. Modelling showed the distance from a human to a penguin is a significant predictor of the likelihood of a bird displaying disturbance behaviour, with the current minimum approach guideline of 5 m not sufficient for preventing disturbance. Unregulated tourism has been shown to decrease juvenile survival in their first year as a result of lower fledging weights, affecting population recruitment (McClung et al. 2004).

Threats/pressures impacting the species at the scale of this record

Unknown/Not Recorded

Who is involved in the use?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Scale of Assessment

Individual Site

IUCN National Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

IUCN Global Red List Category

Endangered (EN)

Green Status Global Category

Indeterminate

Yearly Financial Flows

Other

Lack of habituation to human disturbance;

Other

Human Intrusions and disturbances

No assessment recorded

No assessment has been recorded

Country reference

New Zealand

Tourism_Seal_Iceland

Emma_Hemmerle — Tue, 25 Jan 2022 15:26:08 +0000

Tourism_Seal_Iceland Emma_Hemmerle Tue, 01/25/2022 - 15:26

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Tue, 01/25/2022 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species used in its natural habitat

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Unknown/not recorded

Record Source

Scientific publication (e.g., journal articles and book chapters independently peer-reviewed)

A responsible framework for managing wildlife watching tourism: The case of seal watching in Iceland

Unknown/not recorded

Is the species endemic HIDE

Population Status

Common and wildly distributed

No formal international protection in place

National Level

Formal national protection in place

the Icelandic harbour seal popu- lation is defined on the national red list for threatened populations as Critically Endangered;

Threats/Pressures impacting the conservation of the species

Residential and Commercial Development

Climate Change

Pollution

Dams and other System Modifications

Disease

Illegal/Unregulated Fishing

Population Trend

Unknown/not recorded

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Additional Details (if available)

Historically, there have been organized population reduction programs and bounty schemes for Harbor Seals in some range states, largely because of perceived competition with fisheries. Hunting and/or licensed killing to protect fisheries has largely been eliminated but subsistence hunting by Alaska Natives is allowed in the US. In the eastern Atlantic, Harbor Seal population reduction programs date from the early 1980s and 1990s in Iceland and Scotland, respectively (Bowen and Lidgard 2012) and continue at some level today (e.g., Butler et al. 2008). An extermination program at the beginning of the 20th century dramatically depleted Harbor Seals in the Baltic Sea. Quotas for Harbor Seals are set annually in Norway and a bounty is paid to hunters in several regions of the country.

Mass die-offs from viral outbreaks have killed thousands of Harbor Seals on both sides of the Atlantic, but most notably in Europe caused by phocine distemper virus (Dietz et al. 1989, Harkonen et al. 2006, Reijnders 1986). Because Harbor Seals haul out on nearshore and coastal mainland sites, they are exposed to terrestrial wild carnivores, pets and feral animals, and waste from human populations that create an increased risk of exposure to communicable diseases.

Because many Harbor Seals live and feed in close proximity to large populations of humans they are exposed to, and can accumulate, high levels of industrial and agricultural pollutants (e.g., organochlorines, PCBs, dioxins) that negatively affect reproduction (Reijnders 1986), induce vitamin deficiency (Brouwer et al. 1989), and cause immunosuppression (Ross et al. 1995). Both chronic oil spills and discharges and episodic large-scale spills can cause direct mortality (Frost et al. 1994, 1999; Hoover-Miller et al. 2001) and could have long term impacts on Harbor Seal health and their environment.

Noise and other disturbance from offshore oil and gas, and the development of offshore renewable energy such as wind farms, may also affect the foraging behavior and physical condition of Harbor Seals (Hastie et al. 2015, Skeate et al. 2012).

Harbor Seals live in coastal areas many of which are heavily fished and this results in entanglement and bycatch issues (see Desportes et al. 2010) Overfishing and environmental variability (including global climate change) may also impact Harbor Seal prey populations.

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Phoca vitulina

Common Name(s)

Harbour seal

Type of Use

Non-Extractive

How is the primary use carried out?

Watching/experiencing terrestrial, aerial, or aquatic fauna and flora in the wild (e.g., birdwatching, snorkeling, wildlife watching)

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Income generation from trade at individual or household or community

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

Conservation Management (translocation, restoration, ex-situ breeding)

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Yes, customary and complied with

Additional Details (if available)

Despite lack of an official seal watching management plan, the local community have a history of initiating preliminary management at a grassroots level, beginning with the establishment of the ISC (Burns 2018). More recently, a provisional code of conduct and limited interpretive signs were developed. This demonstrates a local desire for more effective management.

Geographic Location

Europe

Country

Iceland

Sub region/state

Vatnsnes Peninsula

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Unknown/Not Recorded

Management

Unknown/Not Recorded

Local people (e.g., individuals, communities, co-operatives)

National external (individual, groups. e.g., hunters, anglers, photographers, tourists)

International external (individual, groups. e.g., hunters, anglers, photographers, tourists)

National / local private sector

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Yes

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

No – no clear evidence of the impact of use compared to other factors influencing

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Unknown/not recorded

Details of assessment carried out

The main tourist season in Iceland is between May and September (Icelandic Tourist Board, 2020), coinciding with these biologically important periods when the seals are extra vulnerable to disturbance; Granquist and Sigurjo ́ndo ́ttir’s (2014) study indicated that both behaviour and spatial distribution of harbour seals in this region can be affected by land-based seal watching.

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Biological characteristics of target species

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Source Reference(s)

Aquino, J., Burns, G., & Granquist, S. (2021). A responsible framework for managing wildlife watching tourism: The case of seal watching in Iceland. Ocean & Coastal Management, 210, 105670. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105670

The Icelandic Seal Center (ISC) in Hvammstangi aims to simultaneously promote the development of tourism in the region and the transfer of knowledge between the scientific community and society to develop environmental policy. It achieves this through research in natural and social sciences, collaboration with operators and entrepreneurs, and informing tourists about responsible seal watching methods and viewing locations.

Threats/pressures impacting the species at the scale of this record

Unknown/Not Recorded

Who is involved in the use?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Scale of Assessment

Individual Site

Secondary Species

Halichoerus grypus

IUCN National Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

IUCN Global Red List Category

Least Concern (LC)

Green Status Global Category

Indeterminate

Yearly Financial Flows

Other

Human Intrusions and disturbances

No assessment recorded

Sustainability not determined

Country reference

Iceland

Hunting_Grey-faced petrel_New Zealand

Emma_Hemmerle — Tue, 25 Jan 2022 14:54:23 +0000

Hunting_Grey-faced petrel_New Zealand Emma_Hemmerle Tue, 01/25/2022 - 14:54

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Tue, 01/25/2022 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species used in its natural habitat

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Primary Producer/harvester (e.g., NTFP collectors, egg collectors)

Record Source

Scientific publication (e.g., journal articles and book chapters independently peer-reviewed)

Insights to the Functional Relationships of Maori Harvest Practices: Customary Use of a Burrowing Seahird;

Decreasing

Is the species endemic HIDE

Unknown

Population Status

Unknown/not recorded

No formal international protection in place

National Level

Unknown/not recorded

Threats/Pressures impacting the conservation of the species

Illegal/Unregulated Hunting

Invasive Species

Population Trend

Unknown/not recorded

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Additional Details (if available)

Invasive mammalian predators are the main threat faced by the Grey-faced Petrel. Cats, Polynesian Rats, Brown Rats, House Rats, stoats and pigs are all thought to cause population declines through nest depredation causing a loss of reproductive success, with cats also taking adults. Eradication efforts have taken place to reduce the population of both cats and Polynesian Rats. The removal of each species from breeding islands resulted in an increase in the population of Grey-faced Petrels (Greene et al. 2015). Cats remain on one breeding island and are present throughout the mainland distribution outside of fenced areas, while Polynesian Rats remain in some areas of its range. Brown Rats and House Rats remain on nine and fourteen breeding islands, respectively. The species is still legally harvested on some offshore islands in the Bay of Plenty and Hauraki Gulf; however, attempts have been made to ensure that current harvest is sustainable (Greene et al. 2015).

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Pterodroma gouldi

Common Name(s)

Grey-face petrel

Type of Use

Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)

If extractive, for the target species, is this use

Lethal

Does this use involve take/extraction of

The whole entire organism

How is the primary use carried out?

Hunting and/or Trapping of live Terrestrial and Aerial Animals

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Yes

By harvesting pre-fledging chicks, rather than adults

Purpose of Use

Basic subsistence (meeting day to day essential needs)

Cultural/spiritual

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

Food for People

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Yes, customary and complied with

Additional Details (if available)

customary guidelines based on indigenous knowledge that guides the harvesting techniques they use.

Geographic Location

Oceania

Country

New Zealand

Site Description

Data for our models were originally derived from stud conducted at 2 grey-faced petrel colonies (1 mainl Mauao—Mt Maunganui [37°37' S; 176°10' E] and 1 shore island: Moutohora—Whale Island [36°51' S, 176 E]) located along the east coast of the North Island, Zealand (Jones et al. 2011, 2015£; We based our models on the Moutohora colony because a growing population where a customary harvest of grey faced petrel chicks has recently been re-established (Jo et al. 2015a).

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Unknown/Not Recorded

Management

Unknown/Not Recorded

Local people (e.g., individuals, communities, co-operatives)

If more than one box ticked, please provide more details

harvesting by local Maori populations;

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Yes – use is improving the status (e.g., population is increasing or stabilising, extraction effort OR catch per unit effort is decreasing or stable)

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

results indicated that customary practices for the harvesting of the bird species was likely to be effective in sustaining growing populations of burrow-nesting seabirds;

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Unknown/not recorded

Details of assessment carried out

The cultural practice of rotating harvests or resting populations was effective; harvesting every 3 years allowed up to 75% of chicks to be taken without causing the theoretical population to decline. Maori's harvesting techniques, such as the harvesting of chicks rather than adults, promote the sustainability of the practice. In addition ,they recognize thresholds where chick survival also becomes important to the long terms survival of populations, and integrate that to their practices; only harvesting the chicks that are within arm's reach inside the burrows further ensures that a sustainable proportional harvest threshold would not be exceeded. rotating harvest among breeding colonies every couple of years also had a positive impact on the growth rate of the grey-face petrel populations.

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

High financial returns from use

Absent

Biological characteristics of target species

Absent

Establishment and implementation of species and/or area management plan

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Source Reference(s)

LYVER, P. O., JONES, C. J., BELSHAW, N., ANDERSON, A., THOMPSON, R., & DAVIS, J. (2015). Insights to the Functional Relationships of Māori Harvest Practices: Customary Use of a Burrowing Seabird. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 79(6), 969–977. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24763902

Threats/pressures impacting the species at the scale of this record

Unknown/Not Recorded

Who is involved in the use?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Scale of Assessment

Sub-national

IUCN National Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

IUCN Global Red List Category

Least Concern (LC)

Green Status Global Category

Indeterminate

Yearly Financial Flows

No assessment recorded

Yes, considered sustainable

Country reference

New Zealand

Harvesting_Moluccan Scrubfowl_Indonesia

Emma_Hemmerle — Wed, 12 Jan 2022 14:52:57 +0000

Harvesting_Moluccan Scrubfowl_Indonesia Emma_Hemmerle Wed, 01/12/2022 - 14:52

Wed, 07/01/2020 - 12:00

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Wed, 01/12/2022 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species used in its natural habitat

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Primary Producer/harvester (e.g., NTFP collectors, egg collectors)

Record Source

Scientific publication (e.g., journal articles and book chapters independently peer-reviewed)

Egg harvesting and local conservation of Moluccan Scrubfowl (Eulipoa wallacei) in the Maluku Islands, Indonesia

Decreasing

Is the species endemic HIDE

Yes

Population Status

Common but only within narrow areas of distribution

No formal international protection in place

National Level

Formal national protection in place

The Ministry of Environment and Forestry has also made the Moluccan Scrubfowl a protected species through Regulation P.106/Menlhk/Setjen/Kum.1/12/2018 of the Minister of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia.

Threats/Pressures impacting the conservation of the species

Agriculture

Illegal/Unregulated Logging and Wood Extraction

Illegal/Unregulated Hunting

Energy Production and Mining

Transportation and Service Corridors

Population Trend

Decreasing

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Additional Details (if available)

Over-harvesting of its highly nutritious eggs is the main reason for its decline, even in some areas where traditional regulatory management is practiced. Civil unrest in the Moluccas has prevented conservation efforts over the past five years. However, on Haruku nesting success increased from the late 1990s onwards apparently because egg-collection virtually ceased owing to political unrest (Heij 2001a, Heij 2005a). Since 2003, the political situation has stabilised and uncontrolled harvesting has resumed (Heij 2005a,c), but while harvest effort is now likely to be as high the total number of eggs collected in 2017 was still 40% lower than in 1996/7 (Simanjuntak et al. 2020). Natural predation of eggs and chicks by Varanus lizards, snakes and birds of prey poses an increasing threat as colonies decline. Predation by introduced cats (Heij 2001b), dogs and pigs has also served to reduce the number of egg-laying birds (Heij 2005a), though these are controlled by people in heavily exploited nesting grounds (Heij et al. 1997). Sand extraction for local road construction and a number of development projects threaten nesting grounds, as does pollution from litter (Heij 2005b,c). Deforestation (through logging and agricultural encroachment) is presumed to be a threat in its non-breeding habitats. Severe droughts linked to the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) probably cause reductions in egg production.

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Eulipoa wallacei

Common Name(s)

Moluccan Scrubfowl

Type of Use

Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)

If extractive, for the target species, is this use

Lethal

Does this use involve take/extraction of

Only parts or products of the organism (e.g., feathers, leaves, branches, eggs, nuts)

Details of parts/products taken

The local people in the Maluku Islands have utilized Moluccan Scrubfowl eggs as an important source of protein and livelihood

How is the primary use carried out?

Collecting or harvesting parts or products from wild animals (e.g., eggs, wild honey, vicuna fibre)

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Basic subsistence (meeting day to day essential needs)

Income generation from trade at individual or household or community

Additional Details (if available)

Local communities in the study areas have been using the Moluccan Scrubfowl eggs for generations, both for their own consumption and for income generation;

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

Food for People

Amount

21707.00

Units Of Measurement

eggs harvested in Kailolo annually

Time period over which this has been recorded

2017-2018

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Increasing

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Yes, customary and complied with

Additional Details (if available)

In Kailolo and Haruku, the use of eggs has been regulated through a traditional custom called sasi. To control the implementation of sasi, a traditional organization was established, called kewang.

also some formal regulations: on 2 October 2018, facilitated by non-governmental organizations, the Kao villagers implemented a six-month moratorium on the collection of Moluccan Scrubfowl eggs to increase the population of the birds.

Geographic Location

South and Southeast Asia

Country

Indonesia

Sub region/state

Maluku Islands

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Unknown/Not Recorded

Management

Unknown/Not Recorded

Local people (e.g., individuals, communities, co-operatives)

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Yes

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Unknown/not recorded

No assessment has been recorded

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Has any assessment of socio-economic sustainability been recorded

No assessment recorded

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Strong community governance/institutions/rights for wildlife management

Absent

Supportive policy and legislative framework

Absent

Adequate capacity to implement and enforce governance arrangements

Absent

Good alignment of legal protections with local cultural values and traditional

Absent

Support from NGOs

Absent

Support from Government

Absent

High financial returns from use

Absent

Abundant population of target species

Absent

Biological characteristics of target species

Absent

Capacity building of community

Absent

Establishment and implementation of species and/or area management plan

Absent

Effective private sector approach engagement through certification

Absent

Good Market Strategies

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Source Reference(s)

Simanjuntak R, Yusniar M, Samalukang YM, Boleu FI, Mardiastuti A, Widyasari V, Udin JS. 2020. Short Communication: Egg harvesting and local conservation of Moluccan Scrubfowl (Eulipoa wallacei) in the Maluku Islands, Indonesia. Biodiversitas 21: 3018-3024.

Some villages have already developed measures to ensure the sustainability of the species and the harvestable eggs. In Simau, a portion of the harvested eggs is used in a semi- natural hatching program. In Simau, the semi-natural egg hatching program is conducted by the Salabia Youth Community, in collaboration with landowners.

Threats/pressures impacting the species at the scale of this record

Habitat Loss and Enviromental Degredation

Illegal/Unregulated Hunting

Who is involved in the use?

Unknown/Not Recorded

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Scale of Assessment