Position Statement from the SCB Africa Section -

 Salvaging Okomu National Park from Ruin: Proposals for Sustainability in Critical Times

Read the PDF with signatures here.

Background to the problem
Protected areas (PA) around the world face challenges and this is even more so in the global south where resources are lacking, natural resources governance is weak, and PA officials have limited capacity. The Okomu National Park (ONP), in southwestern Nigeria, was originally established as a forest reserve in 1912 and covers a total land area of 181 km2. It was designated a national park in 1999 with the original aim of conserving two species, the forest elephants (Loxodonta africana cylotis) now listed as Critically Endangered in the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List and the white-throated monkey (Cercopithecus erythrogaster pocoki) listed as Endangered[1,2]. Other wildlife species of global importance found in the park include the African buffalo (Syncerus caffer nanus), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), the red-capped mangabey (Cercocebus torquatus), mona monkey (Cercopithecus mona), and putty-nosed monkey (C. nictitans ludio), as well as three species of antelope: Maxwell duiker (Cephalophus maxwelli), yellow-backed duiker (Cephalophus silvicultor), and red-flanked duiker (Cephalophus rufilatus), and a species of mongoose (Herpestes sp.). Others are the civet cat (Viverra civetta), the red river hog (Patamochoerus porcus), dwarf crocodiles (Osteolamus tetrapis), warthog (Phocochoerus aethipicus), and tree pangolin (Phataginus tricuspis) [1]. Further, about 150 species of birds have been identified in ONP, including the African grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus), and the African grey hornbill (Tockus nasutus) [1]. Some of the key trees found in the park are the Ceiba petandra, Celtis zenkeri, Triplochiton scleroxylon, Antiaris toxicaria and Pycnanthus angolensis[1]. ONP is the last stronghold for these species and plays a vital role in their survival. The national park is situated between latitudes 6°15’ and 6°25’ N and longitudes 5°9’ and 5°23’ E and is about 60 km north-west of Benin City, southwestern Nigeria.

In recent times, alarming levels of logging have occurred in ONP[3]. Similarly, in 2011, conservationists raised an alarm over illegal logging in the park[4]. This persisting and escalating destruction of the last vestiges of rainforests in ONP calls for urgent action. Without this, we will be losing, in a short space of time, one of Nigeria’s critical sites for biodiversity and the country’s insurance against climate change in the region. ONP is an important part of the Guinean forests of West Africa biodiversity hotspot[5]. 

Importantly, the Edo State governor Mr Godwin Obaseki has recently committed, in response to this crisis, to collaborate with the Federal Government to manage ONP, revitalise the park and strengthen security in the region[6]. However, this proposal will need to be informed by the best science available for sustainability and long-term impact. 

Position Statement

Empirical studies have repeatedly demonstrated the ecological consequences associated with large-scale deforestation[7,8]. Given the mandate of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030) “to prevent, halt and reverse the degradation of ecosystems on every continent and in every ocean”, Sustainable Development Goals (Goals, 12, 13 and 15), and the strategic priorities of the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB), we take the following positions:

1. The ONP represents one of the most important sites of biodiversity in Nigeria and globally. Losing this vital PA would be tantamount to retrogressing on all our national and international commitments to biodiversity conservation including meeting our National Determined Contributions of the Paris Agreement to address climate change and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

2. That this problem is due to both internal and external factors. Internal, as relates to management problems, corruption, and lack of basic amenities and equipment to enforce protection laws; and external, due to meagre budget allocation and low priority by the government[1] .

3. That the situation can be reversed if the government, civil society, and private institutions consolidate efforts to intervene on the problems in ONP, and indeed all Nigerian national parks.

Recommendations

The following recommendations based on the peer-reviewed literature are provided to address current challenges in ONP:

1. While funding should be provided to augment equipment and infrastructure, these may fail to improve enforcement and not lead to positive conservation outcomes if not followed by resolution of land tenure, clarity in user rights, enhanced patrolling strategies and protection of rangers from risks of retaliation[9] .

2. Consecutive steps within the enforcement regime such as detection, arrest, persecution, and conviction must not allow any weaknesses to lie in any of these steps to prevent undermining the effectiveness of enforcement. For example, if these sanctioning steps are poor, just increasing efforts may not be enough to heighten deterrence[9] .

3. Park officials should endeavour to make the timing and location of their patrols unpredictable to increase the detection probabilities for illegal activities such as logging and hunting[9] .

4. Funding should be channeled from government, civil society, private institutions, and the international community to increase the budget allocation for managing ONP including increasing the wages of rangers who are at the frontlines of conservation.

5. Park officials should increase investment in co-management efforts with local communities surrounding ONP to facilitate information sharing and cooperation in controlling logging in the park.

Authors

Dr. Stephen Awoyemi Independent Researcher 

Prof. Emmanuel Aigbokhan Department of Plant Biology and Biotechnology, University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria

Endorsed and Signed by

Dr. Adedotun Afolayan President, Society for Conservation Biology, Nigeria Chapter

Dr. Abraham Ekperusi Chair, Policy Committee, Society for Conservation Biology, Africa Section

Dr. Israel Borokini President, Society for Conservation Biology, Africa Section

Date of release: March 17, 2022

1 Digun-Aweto et al. 2019. Constraints to conservation at Okomu National Park: a ranger’s perspective, Int J Comp Appl Crim Justice, 43(2):173-187.

2 National Park Service (NPS). 2022. Okomu National Park. Available from http://nigeriaparkservice.org/?p=152

3 Trojannews. 2022. Marine Police Arrest 213 logs of Illegal Woods From Okomu Forest In Edo (VIDEO). Available from https://trojan.com.ng/marine-police-arrest-213-logs-of-illegal-woods-from-okomu-forestin-edo-video/

4 Anon. 2011. Conservationists raise alarm over illegal logging at Okomu National Park. Available from http://ihuanedo.ning.com/m/group/discussion?id=2971192%3ATopic%3A17766.

5 Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF). 2018. Ecosystem profile: Guinean forests of West Africa biodiversity hotspot. Available from https://www.cepf.net/sites/default/files/en_guinean_forests_ecosystem_profile.pdf

6 Egbejule, M. 2022. Edo to partner FG on Okomu National Park, works on forestry bill. The Guardian. Available from https://guardian.ng/features/agro-care/edo-to-partner-fg-on-okomu-national-park-works-onforestry-bill/

7 Bala et al. 2007. Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. PNAS, 104(16): 6550-6555.

8 Zeppetello et al. 2020. Large scale tropical deforestation drives extreme warming. Environ Res Lett, 15(8):084012.  

9 Nolte, C. 2016. Identifying challenges to enforcement in protected areas: empirical insights from 15 Colombian parks. Oryx, 50(2): 317-322.

From the Abstract: Most of the cetacean species are endangered due to various past human activities and most of these species are still under threat due to the same reason. We recommend the development of policies regarding whaling, trading, and watching of cetaceans in the Republic of Korea. 

We recommend the restriction of trade in marine mammals in the Republic of Korea, whether for human consumption or for entertainment purposes, and the development and adoption of ethical rules for marine mammal watching activities. 

Download the open access paper "Policy recommendation on whaling, trade, and watching of cetaceans (Mammalia Cetacea) in the Republic of Korea." 

In the light of all increasing evidence of climate change, genetic variation needs to be considered among (all) wild species and not only among wild relatives of the crop species and animal breeds used in agriculture. In 3C, science-based indicators need to be chosen. Similar to Laikre et al. 2020 (Post-2020 goals overlook genetic diversity; Science accepted), SCB proposes that an indicator reflecting the genetic effective population size (N_e) is used, i.e. the percentage of the populations of all assessable taxa that have an effective population size larger than 500 that reflects maintenance of adaptive potential. Furthermore, wherever relevant – for example in Suggested elements 1B of the Draft 2050 Goals and the Draft 2030 Targets – the SCB advocates that genetic methods are used in identifying distinct populations or subpopulations, and to validate whether connectivity between subpopulations is functional so that genetic variation is maintained or increasing in the species of concern. This is an important part of a general “no net loss” philosophy which should be applied at the genetic diversity level too.

Download the statement.

This article was updated on 21 February 2020.* 

Mauna Kea. By Adrian Malec, Pixabay.

The Society for Conservation Biology, a global community of conservation professionals dedicated to advancing the science and practice of conserving the world's biodiversity and ecosystems, opposes the planning and approval process, and potential construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT), International Observatory on Mauna Kea (Mauna a Wākea), Hawai'i.

If built, TMT would cause deleterious and irreversible impacts to the unique and highly threatened socio-ecological alpine landscape within the Mauna Kea Science Reserve (MKSR)¹ - the proposed site for TMT construction. The TMT Corporation, as well as the State of Hawai‘i Board of Land and Natural Resources, and Department of Land and Natural Resources, have all concluded in an environmental impact assessment that the TMT would exert “substantial, significant, and adverse” impacts on Mauna Kea’s ecological and cultural resources². TMT would likely “[displace] existing species and habitat” and would disrupt the site’s geology⁴.

Mauna Kea is a rare, globally significant, and uniquely threatened habitat. At 4,200 m in elevation, Mauna Kea is taller than both Mt. Hood (Wy'east to the Multnomah tribe) and Grand Teton (Rock Standing or Elder Brother to the Shoshone). Warm, moist air rising from the tropical Pacific Ocean condenses and falls as rain or snow at the summit. Mauna Kea can be translated to “white mountain” in reference to this seasonal snow, which is increasingly uncommon due to climate change⁵. However, there are many names for the mountain, one of which is Mauna a Wākea, as the mountain is connected to the sky father deity of Hawai‘i, meaning that Mauna Kea is the place that connects Kānaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians) from their lands to their cosmic origins⁶.

The summit of Mauna Kea (where the MKSR is located) supports a fragile aeolian ecosystem (i.e., shaped by wind patterns), characterized by specialized primary producers (including mosses, algae, and lichens) and a unique community of arthropod predators and scavengers. Resident plant species of Mauna Kea include the endemic and endangered Mauna Kea silversword (Argyroxiphium sandwicense subs sandwicense⁷) and the native Douglas’ bladderfern (Cystopteris douglasii), listed as a species of concern⁸. There are at least 12 arthropod species endemic to the summit, including omnivorous, day-flying Agrotis moths, Lycosa wolf spiders, and the unique, flightless wēkiu bug (Nysius wekiuicola)⁹. Finally, another arthropod, a Lithobius centipede, is also found on Mauna Kea, however, there is uncertainty as whether the species is endemic - underscoring the critical need to evaluate the species status and habitat needs¹¹. Further degradation of summit ecosystems—already impacted by existing development² and climate change—may be irreversible: The endemic species of Mauna Kea have no alternative habitat. 

The potential construction of TMT on Mauna Kea would follow decades of development that has already caused negative socio-environmental impacts, including significant ecological, cultural, and geologic environmental damage and desecration¹² due to past mismanagement¹³. We acknowledge important work by the Office of Mauna Kea Management (OMKM), which has engaged the Kahu Ku Mauna, a group of Kānaka Maoli, in management decisions that have mitigated some conservation and cultural impact outcomes of the telescope projects. However, many other Native Hawaiian groups have not been formally included in the decision making process. Native Hawaiian organizations like the Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, the Royal Order of Kamehameha I¹⁴, and the KAHEA¹⁵, a Hawaiian environmental alliance, have openly opposed management decisions regarding their ancestral and sacred Mauna, as demonstrated through written opposition and the ongoing protests and occupation by groups of Kānaka Maoli. This lack of fully inclusive decision making for more than 50 years of telescope development threatens sustainable co-management of this incredibly unique ecosystem and marginalizes the intergenerational roles of Native Hawaiians as ecological stewards and caretakers of their traditional practices, burial sites, shrines, and heritage sites¹⁷.  

Silversword. Image from Pixabay.

SCB recognizes the important and critical leadership role of Indigenous communities in global biodiversity conservation. Recent developments in conservation social science include the emerging field of conservation justice⁷. Research confirms that conservation interventions that are co-created with local communities under a justice and equity framework experience more successful, enduring ecological outcomes and resilient, grassroots community support^8,9. Effective conservation efforts must include and respect Indigenous People’s relationalities to land, water, and resources. Scientific advancement should not take primacy to Indigenous rights and ways of knowing; rather, western science stands to benefit from Indigenous science.

Conserving the ecological and culturally irreplaceable ecosystems in the MKSR is incompatible with currently proposed development plans on the summit of Mauna Kea. We acknowledge the investment that many colleagues in the astronomy community have made toward the project and the scientific knowledge that may be gained from it. We write not to judge the scientific value of TMT, but to establish that because of its adverse ecological and cultural resource impacts as well as the exclusionary process by which is it being planned and approved, the construction of TMT as planned is misaligned with the principles of sustainable and inclusive scientific practices.

1. Oppose the construction of the TMT and any further development on the summit of Mauna Kea, without the due and inclusive co-development of this and all other infrastructure plans with affected parties, including groups of the Kānaka Maoli, to avoid further adverse socio-environmental impacts on the fragile ecosystems and vulnerable species unique to the summit of Mauna Kea, and; 
2. Stand with Kānaka Maoli in their occupation of their unceded lands with the aim of supporting traditional stewardship of Mauna Kea, and;
3. Urge the pursuit of pono (righteous) scientific development efforts of any kind on Indigenous lands to employ an inclusive process that includes all stakeholders, respects the past and present irreplaceable ecological and cultural value of natural resources, and integrates the role of Indigenous Peoples as stewards of their lands.

*This article was updated on 21 February 2021. Click here to view the tracked changes. 

1 MKSR is land held in trust by the State of Hawai‘i and managed by the Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR), parts are subleased to the University of Hawai‘i (UH; to 2033). https://bit.ly/2rhndVz

2 TMT Corporation Environmental Impact Assessment.  2010.  http://www.malamamaunakea.org/uploads/management/plans/TMT_FEIS_vol1.pdf

3 TMT Management Plan, page 3-12. Similar statements are found in the FEIS and CDUA for the TMT project.

4 Zhang et al. 2017. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016EF000478

5 http://www.mauna-a-wakea.info/maunakea/F2_whitemountain.html

6 https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-listed-by-state-report?state=HI&status=listed

7 https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/dofaw/rules/endangered-plants/

8 Duman & Montgomery (1991) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jez.1402590318

9 Nishida, G. M. 2002. Hawaiian Terrestrial Arthropod Checklist 4th ed. http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/pdf/tr22.pdf.

10 TMT Management Plan, page 3-12. Similar statements are found in the FEIS and CDUA for the TMT project.

11 KAHEA 2019. http://www.kahea.org/blog/kahea-testimony-on-omkm-rules?searchterm=mismanagement+of+the+Mauna

12 Mauna Kea Anaina Hou et al. 2010. http://www.malamamaunakea.org/library/reference/index/refid/755-testimony-in-opposition-to-the-tmt-project-conservation-district-use-application-the-university-of-hawaii-and-the-thirty-meter-telescope-observatory-corporations-conservation-district-use-application-cdua-ha-3568

13 KAHEA 2010. http://www.kahea.org/issues/sacred-summits/sacred-summits-documents/kahea-comments-on-tmt/at_download/file

14 https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/27/protectors-mauna-kea-are-fighting-colonialism-not-science

15 Martin, et al.. (2016). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320716301045

16 Sikor, et al. (2014).https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/conl.12142

17 Oldekop, et al.  (2016) https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12568

From 21 – 25 July, the Society for Conservation Biology held its 29th International Congress for Conservation Biology (ICCB 2019) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 

Download the SCB Africa Section Policy Brief "Effective Wildfire Management: Pathway for sustainable livelihoods and biodiversity conservation in Africa"

The Challenge

While fire is one of the most important tools available to mankind, the lack of its mastery frequently leads to enormous human, environmental and economic damage each year.

Wildfires are usually accused of being the most pertinent threat to biodiversity and ecosystem integrity in the drier parts of Africa, where they are set by squatters and livestock graziers with the hope of better pastures, facilitation of hunting, collection of honey and in ceremonial events. The traditional slash and burn farming practice meanwhile is blamed for causing wildfires in the wet parts of the continent. In addition to devastating biological capital, wildfires are accused of reducing the water retention capacity of vegetation. As they pass over it, the canopy and below-ground sponge-like function of vegetation is destroyed, leading to prevalence of floods in the rainy season and empty riverbeds in the dry season.

Despite this gloomy assessment, the ecological importance of wildfires is unequaled;  liberating  species  previously  dominated and subjugated to death or extinction by others, breaking the dormancy of recalcitrant seeds, checking prevalence and eliminating pests and diseases of all species including mankind, improving climatic tolerance and resilience of species, enhancing functional ecological processes for several species including attracting new species, and more. Despite these challenges and opportunities, the determination to effectively manage wildfires is still derisory in Africa. Why is this?

Type and extent of wildfire and its management in Africa

African wildfires are usually small and occur frequently, unlike the single large ravaging types in countries of the northern hemisphere. Survey results have revealed that the impact of small frequent fires is usually equal and sometimes greater than that of single large fires. FAO Forestry Study n° 163 (FAO, 2010), reported that between 2003 and 2007, the average annual forest and woodland area burnt by wildfire in Africa was 83,180 km² while that of the whole world was 198,310 km².

Promote re-establishment of ecological processes by restoring or rehabilitating native flora that may have been compromised, damaged or eliminated by fire suppression actions or high intensity fires.

Fig 1.  Forest areas in ’000 hectares, burnt annually in Africa between 2003 and 2012 (green) and annual cumulative areas computed for same period (orange).Source: Computed from FAO Forest Resources Assessment, 2015.

Africa’s small fires were responsible for 42% of the total annual forest and woodland area burnt and reported during the referred period. Rather fortunately, most African wildfires occur in the early dry season and contribute in checking the more damaging late dry season types. The graph above indicates, with the possibility of the same areas burnt annually, that the cumulative forest area burnt in Africa between 2003 and 2012 was 1,4Mkm² - an area twice the size of France. While specific information i.e. on frequency and dynamic ecology of African wildfires may be scarce, data on Fig 1 helps understand wildfires for the development of management strategies.  

Some Key Actions

Due to the multi-jurisdictional nature of wildfires, a single community or agency may not have the ability to manage all wildfire situations. Communities, other actors and specialized agencies should preferably develop cooperative arrangements to mitigate their trans-sectorial and cross-community impacts.

• Envisage establishment of a national fire authority representing various fire management jurisdictions, to facilitate allocation of wildfire control inputs through coordinated action and policy implementation.
• Make provisions for the development of fire plans including communication strategies prior to the fire season on fire-prone resources, prioritizing trans-sectorial and cross community actions.
• Empower communities by facilitating legal land tenure while using local knowledge and experiences to develop appropriate fire policies and by-laws. This may include promoting the establishment of local fire management brigades.
• Pursue maintenance or restoration of appropriate fire regimes to enhance the vigour and diversity of populations of species and communities of native flora and fauna in fire-dependent ecosystems.
• Promote re-establishment of ecological processes by restoring or rehabilitating native flora that may have been compromised, damaged or eliminated by fire suppression actions or high intensity fires.

Anticipated Response

The National Park Service has proposed a targeted fee increase at 17 parks. Under this proposal, visiting Acadia, the Grand Canyon, or Mount Rainier would cost $70 per vehicle, a jump of $45 to $50; per person fees would, at minimum, double for peak season visitors. The Park Service presents this plan as a means to increase revenue and help address the deferred maintenance backlog. They are currently soliciting public comments in response to this proposed fee increase and last week a group of SCB Smith Fellows submitted a comment in opposition of this increase.

They write:
“We believe that the targeted fee increases currently proposed for review are a misguided idea. They will reduce access to public lands and disproportionately impact economically disadvantaged segments of the American public who seek these areas to experience nature. National Parks belong to all Americans; these landscapes provide opportunities for recreation, education, conservation and research, and they should remain accessible to all Americans.”

Delicate Arch is a popular destination for visitors in Arches National Park, one of 17 parks with proposed fee increases. Photo credit: Sara Bombaci

In recent years, the NPS has explicitly recognized the importance of reaching a younger and more diverse audience. The Smith Fellows note that “the entrance fee increase would disproportionately affect people already underrepresented in outdoor recreation and conservation science and would contradict current NPS policy of promoting a more diverse visitorship to National Parks." Though Americans are visiting National Parks in record numbers — over 330 million recreation visits were recorded by the National Park Service in 2016 — our direct contact with nature is declining in our everyday lives. As we lose connections with the natural world, we lose the health and well-being benefits associated with spending time outdoors. Reducing access to the National Parks is likely to exacerbate this trend, and disproportionately affect those who cannot afford the increased entrance fee.

The entrance fee increase has been proposed to improve infrastructure and facilities and to provide an enhanced level of service to visitors. However, President Trump’s proposed budget would reduce the NPS budget by 13 percent, with a dramatic loss of $400 million in fiscal year 2018. While the deferred maintenance backlog should certainly be addressed, the Smith Fellows argue that this should be accomplished through a restoration, or even an increase of the NPS budget, not through increased user fees.

Please join the Smith Fellows and submit your own comments on the proposed fee increases by 11:59pm December 22, 2017. 

SCB North America’s Policy Committee (SNAP) recently co-authored comments to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) offices on two separate management decisions regarding the taxonomic status of the Florida Panther (Puma concolor coryi) and the Mexican Wolf Draft Recovery Plan.

SCBNA and the American Society of Mammologists (ASM) call for continued protection of the Florida Panther as an endangered species, at least until further evaluation has occurred from a more comprehensive study of the species with regard to its relationship to other populations. Read the joint comments on the SNAP website.

Puma concolor coryi image courtesy of SNAP.

SCBNA & ASM additionally co-authored comments on the Mexican Wolf Draft Recovery Plan, recently released to the public by the USFWS. In consideration of changing environmental and political conditions, the organizations call for more detailed, specific benchmarks for the species Canis lupus baileyi, quantifying recovery over the next 10 years.

Canis lupus baileyi image courtesy of SNAP.

In the Republic of Korea, the long-tailed goral, a wild goat species, is listed as Endangered Species Class I by the Ministry of Environment and also as an intangible Natural Monument by the committee of heritage preservation. However, the survival of long-tailed gorals in Korea is threatened by habitat loss and the division of continuous habitats into smaller and smaller fragments. One of these threatened populations occurs in the Oseck-Kkeutchong sector in southern Seorak National Park, where the planned development of a cable-car for tourism jeopardizes their existence.

 
A long-tailed goral captured on a camera trap in South Korea; photo © Green Korea

The long-tailed goral, Naemorhedus caudatus, is found in the mountains of northern and eastern Asia, including Russia, China, part of the Himalayas and Korea. Brown fur with shades of gray and backward curving horns with a sharp end that form distinct rings characterizes the species. Gorals are herbivores, feeding on wide variety of grasses, woody materials, fruits and nuts. These endangered animals typically remain within a 1 km² area to find the resources they need to survive. This home range is small for an animal of its body size, suggesting a reliance on specific habitats.

Cable-cars can be a popular tourist attraction and provide beautiful views and opportunities for wildlife viewing. However, cable-cars and the tourists they carry have been shown to have adverse impacts on similar mammal species in other parks. The Oseck-Kkeutchong cable-car is planned to cut through the habitat and breeding grounds of a wild goral population of about 30 individuals. Currently, a trail leads hikers away from optimal goral habitat while still allowing access. However, the proposed construction will fragment the small habitat, and increase human activity. These consequences are expected to have a negative impact on the long-tailed gorals, potentially driving the local extinction of the species. 

Out of 13 goral populations along Baekdudaegan Mountain Range, only four harbor more than 100 individuals. Within the next few decades, nine populations, including the Seorak National Park population, are likely to go extinct unless habitat destruction is stopped and connections between currently fragmented populations are established. Therefore, the Korean Chapter of the Society for Conservation Biology strongly advocates against the planned construction of the cable-car within the Oseck-Kkeutchong sector in southern Seorak National Park. In a February 2017 letter, the Korean Chapter requested the Republic of Korea Minister of Environment, Cho Kyuengkyu, and the administrator of Cultural Heritage Administration, Rha Sun-Hwa, look for alternative plans that do not compromise the future of the fragile long-tailed gorals, and recommended the withdrawal of the cable-car project.