China has emerged as the world's largest market for smuggled endangered animal species. Just as some of our own environmental transgressions are born of the Western notion of man's hegemony over the natural world, China's destruction of its natural heritage is rooted in social and cultural mores that include the role of animal parts in traditional Chinese medicine. The freedom to spend currency abroad and the rise of the Chinese middle class have, despite government avowals to the contrary, increased trade on protected and threatened species worldwide. Tigers, rhinos, and bears are some of the most publicized and emblematic victims of smuggling and butchery, but there is another, nearly silent extinction epidemic underway in Asia -- the decimation of Asian turtles.

Included among these is the Giant Asian Forest Tortoise, Manouria emys, which occurs as far south as the Indonesian Island of Sumatra, and as far north as the Chinese border with Burma. Reaching as much as 100 lbs., but more typically half that, the Giant Asian Forest Tortoise -- the largest tortoise in Asia and fourth largest terrestrial turtle in the world -- is losing habitat daily, and is wantonly slaughtered for both medicine and food. Despite its bleak outlook, the species (both the smaller, southern, lowland race and the rarer, darker, larger, mountain variety) may ultimately owe their survival not to sweeping law enforcement or local fieldwork, but to the passion of unlikely conservation hero living not in Asia, but in a small town in North Florida.

More...

Wellington Airport announced last weekend that they were planning to erect a 26x100 foot "Wellywood" sign on the hills overlooking Wellington. The sign is meant to be a celebration of the city's strong film industry niche and a nod to the burgeoning tourist attractions related to the "Lord of the Rings" film franchise. The decision comes fifteen months after the idea was first proposed, reports the Associated Press, much to the chagrin of Wellingtonians and the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce.

Leron Gubler, president of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, is threatening legal action on the grounds that the chamber holds the trademark to the "Hollywood" sign, reports the NY Times. In a statement that details the full extent of the chamber's dealings (warning letters back and forth) with Wellington Airport, Gubler said the following:

We are not without a sense of humor, nor without legal rights. We hope that if the Wellington Airport wants to mimic our Sign in this fashion, it will proceed in cooperation with us and will recognize that the holder of the rights to the Sign and the party responsible for its continued existence is a nonprofit entity that works hard to raise funds so that the Sign even exists to be mimicked.

More...

At an impact investing meeting at the US State Department last week, I was probably the only one in the room who didn't know that only 3 percent of the world's assets/funds were engaged in what's often referred to as "social innovation" or "impact investing." It's apparently known as the "97 vs. 3" dilemma. But whatever you call it, it was news to me and an obvious shortcoming to driving sustainable change, I think.

Why are micro finance funds, NGOs and foundations the only ones playing big in this space? How will we ever get enough of these great ideas and programs to scale if we only approach them as philanthropic endeavors? Let me be clear: I have HUGE respect for the groups that were in the room. We are in fact already partners with many of them! But, despite the good intentions and great work, the truth is that philanthropy -- in the broadest sense -- can rarely make the long-term impact business can. I think of it this way -- as the president of the Kraft Foods Foundation, I have about $100 million in cash and in-kind we can invest each year. But as Kraft Foods INC, my company has literally billions to invest in the things we need to buy. Effectively directed, what is likely to have a greater impact -- millions or billions? I think the answer is obvious. But clearly this point isn't obvious enough or that 97 percent of assets wouldn't be on the sidelines of impact investing.

More...

Yesterday, the Tunisian people toppled their leader, President Ben Ali, in a historic first for the Arab world. This is still a would-be revolution, not yet a successful one. A revolution entails a change in regime, not just in leadership. Power, today, is still in the hands of those associated with the Ancien regime. As Issandr El Amrani writes: "The next 24 hours may be as crucial as the preceding 24." Elections are to be held within 60 days. Here, US and European pressure will be critical in ensuring these are free and fair, with full participation from all political forces, including the banned Islamist party -- al-Nahda led by Rachid Ghannouchi. Any post-revolutionary government in Tunisia needs to represent the widest spectrum possible of social forces in the country -- socialist, leftist, liberal, and Islamist. Tunisians will have to reassess and redesign their constitutional and institutional setup. This is where the international community (for example democracy promotion NGOs) can play a critical supporting role. For starters, under what electoral framework will new elections be held?

No one should underestimate what happened yesterday in Tunisia. If the revolution succeeds, this may very well prove to be one of the most important moments in recent Arab history. It will alter the calculus not only for Arab regimes -- who are watching very, very nervously -- but for Western powers that have long oriented their Middle East policy around seemingly stable, autocratic governments.

More...