Proceedings of the 65th Annual Conference
Cologne/KĂśln 17â€“21 October 2010
W AZ Pr A T es ec en hn ta ica tio l C ns on on gr ly es s
Biodiversity is Life
Imprint Editor: Gerald Dick, WAZA Executive Office IUCN Conservation Centre Rue Mauverney 28 CH-1196 Gland Switzerland phone: +41 22 999 07 90 (WAZA Secretariat) Layout &Typesetting: firstname.lastname@example.org Cover photo: Cathedral of Cologne, the Kölner Dom © Ulrike Fox, WAZA Edition: © WAZA 2011 In order to make wise use of natural resources, it has been decided to offer the proceedings of WAZA Conferences in future online only. This saves paper resources and expensive postage costs, thus CO2 emissions. WAZA thanks for your understanding. www.waza.org (members’ area).
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Biodiversity is Life Proceedings of the 65th Annual Conference Technical Congress 18–19 October 2010 Hosted by Kölner Zoo
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Table of Contents Welcoming address by the Host................................... 3 Welcome by the Mayor of the City of Köln (Cologne)......................................... 4 Welcome Address on behalf of the German Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety................................. 5 Welcome to the Region................................................ 7 Welcome Address by the WAZA President...................9
Keynote Addresses............................ 11
Saving Biodiversity – Key Messages in the International Year of Biodiversity 2010 and the Roles of WAZA and the UNEP Convention on Migratory Species................................................. 12 Biodiversity: Where Zoos Can Make a Difference............................ 16 Conserving Plant Diversity – the Role of Botanic Gardens and Zoos........................ 19
WAZA Congress Papers...................... 23 The One Curator – One Species Challenge.................. 24 Re‑thinking ex situ vs. in situ Species Conservation..... 25 Defining What It Means to Save a Species – The Species Conservation Program of the Wildlife Conservation Society........................... 30 Building Sustainable Zoo Populations and Connecting Zoo Populations to Field Conservation, A Report by the AZA Task Force on the Sustainability of Zoo‑based Populations: Phase 1............................. 32 Chicago Zoological Society’s Center for the Science of Animal Welfare............................... 36 The ISO’s International Workshop Agreement (IWA) ...................................... 38 Why Not Partner an African Zoo?............................... 41 Public and Private Sector Collaboration to Preserve Biodiversity in Aviculture......................... 42 The Value of Biodiversity and the Economics of Biodiversity Conservation.......................................46 Beauval Conservation Program in Djibouti, “Back to Africa”........................................ 50 Back to Africa and Restorative Conservation, Pursuing the WAZA Conservation Strategy................ 52 Dvůr Králové Zoo and WAZA‑branded Rhino Conservation Projects...................................... 53
Letting the Cat Out of the Bag: Genetic Effects of Ex situ‑Conservation in the European Wildcat (Felis silvestris)............................................... 63 India’s Initiative in Ex‑situ Wildlife Conservation......... 64 “Joined‑up Conservation”: Addressing Native Species Declines in Western Australia......................... 67 Developing Conservation Strategies for the Armenian Viper............................................... 70 An Overview and Evaluation of WAZA Conservation Projects.................................. 72 Breeding, Research & Conservation of Tropical Herpetodiversity: Linking ex situ with in situ Approaches.........................73 Zoo Personnel Serving an IUCN Specialist Group: An Introduction to the Northeast African Subgroup of the Antelope Specialist Group................................ 78 Zoos’ Role in Conserving the Diversity of a Small Taxon – from the Perspective of the Bear Specialist Group................................................. 79 The Sabah Rhino Project – Captive Breeding, Habitat Protection and Habitat Reforestation ........... 83 Dysfunctional Zoos & What to Do?............................. 84 Transportation of CITES-listed Species....................... 91 How Do You Create A Zoo That Really Contributes Towards Biodiversity Conservation?........................... 93 Troubles in Paradise – Zoo Design for Conservation Education...................... 97 Biodome – Biomimicry – Biodiversity.........................99 Zoos and Conservation – the Frankfurt Example....... 102 Husbandry Success in Zoos: A Constant Aim for Science and Practice........................................... 105 Where Are We Now? – Trends in Global Grants for Wildlife Conservation.......................................... 106 Project MOSI (Mosquito Onset Surveillance Initiative)................... 108 The Conservation Status of the World Zoo’s Species ................................................. 109 EAZA Conservation Campaigns: What Have We Learned and Where do We Go from Here?...........111 Multiplication Effect Through Partnerships: The Granby Zoo’s Experience....................................114
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Welcoming address by the Host Theo Pagel, Zoo Director & CEO – Cologne Zoo
Welcome to Cologne! Dear WAZA members and guests, it is an absolute pleasure for me to welcome you all on behalf of the board of Cologne Zoo and the whole staff to the 65th annual WAZA conference. This year, in 2010, we celebrate our 150-year anniversary and are proud to host the WAZA meeting for the first time in our long history, to have colleagues from almost 40 countries around the world as guests. We will try our best to make you feel at home in our beautiful Zoo and our city full of culture and life! Let us together make this conference a successful one with a lot of fruitful workshops, discussions and results. “Biodiversity is Life: the Role of Zoos and Aquariums in Biodiversity Conservation” is our conference topic. We are the experts in keeping and breeding animals, in teaching about the importance of the fauna, of biodiversity in general. We all should use this meeting to become friends, close partners and take it as a chance to tell the people what we are doing. I wish you all a fruitful, enjoyable and happy time in Cologne. Yours
© Ulrike Fox, WAZA Theo Pagel and Mark Penning at Kölner Dom.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Welcome by the Mayor of the City of Köln (Cologne) Jürgen Roters, Oberbürgermeister
• Dr. Elsa Nickel | Director Nature Conservation of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety • Dr. Lesley Dickie | Executive Director EAZA = European Association of Zoos and Aquaria • Dr. Thomas Kauffels | President of German Zoo Director’s Association • Dr. Gerald Dick | Executive Director WAZA • Dr. Mark Penning | President WAZA • Mr. Pagel
Ladies and gentlemen, It is a great pleasure for me to welcome you here in Cologne on occasion of the 65th Annual Conference of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums. For your information I would like to mention that I am not only the Mayor of Cologne but also Chairman of the Board of the Cologne Zoo. Therefore I am particularly interested in finding out more about what is going on in our zoo and in other zoos and aquariums worldwide. It is a great honour that you have decided to come to Cologne and its beautiful zoo which in this year celebrates its 150th anniversary. Furthermore, under the leadership of Theo Pagel, the director of Cologne Zoo, and Christopher Landsberg his executive board partner we were able to inaugurate our new attraction this year. We’ve named it the “Hippodom”. What it shows is an African river landscape, an immersion exhibit as it is called. This allows our visitors to experience crocodiles, fishes, turtles and hippos under water – for most of them (both people and animals) an absolutely new experience. I gather that quite a few of you had the opportunity to visit our zoo yesterday and I really hope that you agree with me in that it is one of the leading institutions of its kind. Our zoo attracts some 1.5 million visitors each year and is only topped by the huge Cologne cathedral with nearly 4 million visitors annually. This impressive building is on your agenda later on during your social programme.
We are very proud that in a recently published ranking in the International Zoo News our zoo was listed as number six of the big European zoological gardens. That shows that Theo Pagel and his team are on the right way. And I’m sure they will continue in that direction: A new master plan is scheduled to be presented at the end of this year. Ladies and gentlemen, We in Cologne understand that zoos and aquariums are necessary: If we want to change the world, these facilities are ideally suited as a vehicle to this end. Nowhere else are we able to get more people fascinated by nature than in zoos and aquariums. As 2010 has been declared the Year of Biodiversity it seems to be only consistent that you have chosen this thematic complex for your conference Biodiversity is Life: the Role of Zoos and Aquariums in Biodiversity Conservation. I believe that the Cologne zoo is just one in a number of outstanding zoos that are very active in research, education and of course in conservation. Ladies and gentlemen, Please allow me to wish you all an interesting and successful conference and a wonderful time in our zoo and our city.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Welcome Address on behalf of the German Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety MinDirig Dr. Elsa Nickel
Distinguished representatives of Zoos, Aquariums and Botanical gardens, paticipants of this conference, On his visit to Cologne Zoo on 5 March 2010 for the celebrations marking the 150th anniversary since the Zoo was founded, the German Federal Minister for the Environment and Nature Conservation, Dr. Norbert Röttgen, became patron of this 65th Annual Conference of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Due to other pressing engagements, Minister Röttgen unfortunately cannot be present today for the opening of the conference, but he has asked me to pass on his greetings and very best wishes for its success. Coinciding with the start of your conference, the 10th meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) gets underway today in Nagoya, Japan. With 193 Parties, including the EU, the CBD is the most comprehensive international agreement in the field of nature conservation and sustainable development, not only with regard to the number of signatories, but also in terms of its scope and goals. The Convention has three main objectives:
Biological diversity must be preserved, comprising all species, their genetic diversity and habitats; sustainable use of natural diversity must be achieved and every effort made to ensure that people in the countries of origin have a fair share in the profits arising from the use of biological and genetic resources. Achieving these three objectives is in the basic interest of mankind, not only for ecological and economic reasons, but for social reasons too. It is a challenge which calls for major efforts at national and international level from policy‑makers, society and industry. A key strategy in the conservation of global biodiversity is to preserve sufficiently large natural habitats, to link these areas and protect them from overuse and poaching. Protected areas and national parks have thus been established in many countries, benefiting the flora and fauna, but also mankind. They have become tourist attractions. Even so, we have had to learn that it is not always possible for us to safeguard nature permanently in this way. Time and again, conservation efforts are thwarted by political unrest, serious famine and the needs for land and ressources of a growing world population. This often results in the decline of species, with many becoming extinct in the wild.
The theme of your conference this year is "Biodiversity is Life: The role of Zoos and Aquariums in Biodiversity". To put it in more general terms, this is asking "what can zoos and aquariums do for species and nature conservation?" I am certain that the answer will be very apparent at this conference: They can do a great deal indeed! Zoological gardens and aquariums – and let me add: Botanical gardens – are increasingly important partners in nature and species conservation. For many years, the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) and many of its members have worked hard and diligently to preserve the rarest of the world's animal species through coordinated conservation breeding programmes. The excellent international cooperation deserves particular credit in this regard. Zoos and aquariums support each other in scientific research projects, with financing, and by sharing expertise in the breeding of endangered species. This paves the way for species which have already died out in their natural habitats to be returned to the wild as soon as the right conditions are in place.
For decades, German zoos have enjoyed an outstanding reputation throughout the world for their efforts in the field of national and international species protection and conservation breeding. To give just one of many examples: Cologne Zoo has long worked closely with partners in Vietnam to preserve the unique amphibian diversity of the region. The cooperation with the amphibian breeding station of the Institute for Ecology and Biological Resources in Hanoi supports the breeding of endangered or little known Vietnamese amphibian species. Some of these were discovered only recently and had to be added immediately to the Red List because of their small distribution range and the continuous loss of habitat. The work this project involves is complex and demanding, and of course can only cover a limited number of species. Nevertheless, it is an important, necessary task and usefully supplements efforts to protect and restore habitats.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
I would like to highlight another especially important part played by zoos and aquariums, and that is their role in environmental education. The influence this has on species and nature conservation cannot be overestimated. While we can provide excellent scientific justification for species conservation, it still has to be conveyed to people on an emotional level. Animals in the zoo are often better "ambassadors" for nature than any words of warning, statistics or Red Lists. Particularly in our modern media age, it is imperative that people experience nature with all their senses. Ultimately, we will only protect the things we value. But can we value something we doÂ not know? At a time when half the world population lives in cities, with barely any connection to wild animals or plants, zoos are often the only place where we can encounter elements of our original environment, even though they could never, and should never, completely replace it.
This conference is notable for its wide range of presentations: Topics include reports on individual projects in zoos in Germany and elsewhere, the new challenges facing not only zoos but science in general as a result of climate change, and the economic aspects of biodiversity. I feel that it is very important to be open to new tasks and new problems. For in the coming decades the importance of zoos as an "Ark" for many species and as a basis for research and education will become more and more apparent. Climate change will transform the planet and is a major challenge facing life on Earth, as serious a challenge as that of halting the gradual but accelerating erosion of biodiversity. We must continue to doÂ all we can to curb the rate of loss of species and habitats. Zoos and nature conservationists are reliable partners in these efforts. On behalf of its patron, the Federal Minister for the Environment, Norbert RĂśttgen, I wish this conference every success, with many interesting presentations and constructive discussions which help to advance nature and species conservation.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Welcome to the Region Dr Thomas Kauffels, President – VdZ (Verband Deutscher Zoodirektoren, German Zoo Directors’ Association)
Dear Dr. Elsa Nickel, Dear Oberbürgermeister Jürgen Roters, Dear Simon Tonge, as Chairman of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, dear Simon, Dear Dr. Lesley Dickie, dear Lesley, Dear Dr. Mark Penning, dear Mark, Dear Dr. Gerald Dick, dear Gerald, dear colleagues from around the world, and last, but not least, Dear Theo, As President of the German Zoo Director’s Association, I am happy to welcome all of you in the region with the highest zoo densitiy in the world. In addition to the Cologne Zoo you will find the zoological gardens of Wuppertal, Dortmund, Neuwied, Bochum, Düsseldorf, Duisburg, Krefeld, Aachen and Gelsenkirchen in just a one hour drive around Cologne. These zoos have an average yearly attendance of about 5 Million visitors. If you add another 30 minutes you may reach Osnabrück, Münster, Rheine, Frankfurt and my zoo in Kronberg, not mentioned the Zoos of Arnheim, Apeldoorn and Kerkrade in the Netherlands, which are the same distance away. These zoos add 3.5 Million annual visitors to the above mentioned crowd, and Cologne Zoo got at least another million!
We as the regional zoo association are proud that, you Theo, hosts the 65th WAZA conference in 2010 here in Cologne. The German Zoo Director’s Association or VDZ was founded in 1887. It is not only the oldest association in our professional network worldwide, even the International Union of Directors of Zoological gardens, the IUDZG, as predecessor of WAZA, had its origin in the VDZ.
And that is, for my understanding, what our work as zoo community is all about. We need the local support, We have to raise awareness and understanding in our visitors that our animals need their support, worldwide. We have the duty of educating our children and raise their respect for the other creatures on our planet.
And we have to stand up and let everybody know that we and our instituBut being 125 years old in 2012 tions are the competence centres means only, that we are not half as for species conservation and nature old as our oldest still existing member conservation and for animal welfare, zoo, Vienna, represented by colbecause animal welfare starts in the league Dr. Dagmar Schratter. Vienna brain of every person. But we should, Zoo has a history of animal husbandry, in discussing our role in the world, care and exhibition in Europe since never forget where we come from. 1752, 258 years. Cologne Zoo is the third Zoo in Germany, who is celebrating its 150 year anniversary; only Berlin in 1994 and Frankfurt in 2008 are older. And Cologne Zoo is one of the best examples, of what zoos in our days are standing for. Your Zoo, Theo, is highly valued by your local people. The Cologne citizens are very much interested, how your zoo is developing and take part on any occasion and zoo event. This is your zoo’s and your base, on which you can develop your worldwide engagement in conservation, and on which you and your whole team can really be proud of.
We are the specialists in animal care and husbandry. We are recognised by the International Union of Conservation of Nature, IUCN, as the specialists in managing small populations, a knowledge, which was badly needed, and still is, in the global amphibian crisis and will be even more essential in the coming decades. Therefore the care for our animals in all its facettes should be our overall focus.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
This is our expertise, where no other organisations can really give more input than we can. Especially today, where on and off mostly self‑declared animal activists try to reduce the role of zoological gardens to menageries, where the economical profit is higher valued than the animal itself, we need to clarify our role in the society, again and again. And it is a kind of interesting, but also scary, that in a hearing for a proposal for a new animal welfare law of the German green party, only 3 out of about 30 associations invited to comment on this proposal, were actual working with animals on a daily base. We have to stand up to the discussions, but we also have to make clear, perhaps even insist, that our institutions are the professionals, if we are talking about animals. We are the only hands‑on experts. Therefore, as animal professionals, but with a sincere passion and commitment, we offer our expertise to the political decision making process. But, we need the political support, as you, Dr. Elsa Nickel, gives us today as the Director Nature Conservation of the Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.
Please take it literally, that the German Zoo Director’s association is more than willing to support any political activities, which helps to anchor the need of conservation inside our society. If you may only use our institutions for this task, you already reach more than 30 million people annually, just in Germany.
I tell you this, because I saw the developing of the Cologne Zoo over the years from different angles, not knowing that one day I will stand in front of you, like today, expected to make a political correct statement.
Let me finish with thanking you, Mr Roters, for supporting the Cologne Zoo, not only as a politician but personally, too.
With this personal experience I think that I am able to state that your zoo, Theo, made his homework over the years, was able to fascinate the humans, developed due to the visitor’s acceptance and expectations, but not forgetting the animals.
Supporting a zoo means to support an institution, where generations of visitors go to, but every generation expects something different.
I wish your zoo all the best for the future and let this conference be a success for you, us and for the benefit of our animals.
Being born and raised in Neuss on the Rhine River, which is located just 40 km downstream, means north, from here. I know the Cologne Zoo from childhood on. I even was employed as an animal keeper at Cologne Zoo in 1982. Furthermore I was so lucky to collect the data for my zoology master thesis on the Przewalski horses, here at Cologne Zoo in 1987.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Welcome Address by the WAZA President Mark Penning – SAAMBR (uShaka Sea World) South African Association for Marine Biological Research
Your Worship the Mayor of Köln, Oberbürgermeister Jurgen Roters, distinguished guests, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a pleasure to extend to you a warm welcome to the 65th Conference of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums in Köln, Germany. “It is a real pleasure to be in a region with such a strong zoo and aquarium community, with a long and rich history. It is one of the most progressive regions too, and has given us some exceptional leaders who have changed the way in which we think about our business. The likes of Hagenbeck, Grzimek, Nogge… Es ist eine grosse Freude in einer Region mit einer so starken und tradsitionsreichen Zoo und Aquariengemeinschaft zu sein. Auch zählt Deutschland zu den innovatievsten Regionen unserer Gemeinschaft, die Pioniere wie Hagenbeck, Grzimek, Nogge und andere hervorgebracht hat.
We are grateful indeed to Mr. Theo Pagel, the staff of the Kölner Zoo in this their 150th year, and the City of Köln, for hosting us this year. It is a most beautiful city, and we consider it a privilege to be here.” WAZA ist äusserst dankbar für die Einladung zur Jahreskonferenz nach Köln, insbesonders Theo Pagel und allen seinen Mitarbeitern und der Stadt Köln gebührt unser aufrichtiger Dank! Köln ist eine wunderschöne Stadt und es ist eine grosse Ehre hier sein zu können. Thank you also to representatives of our major strategic partners who have joined us today, from UNEP/ CMS, WWF International and BGCI. Our conference theme this year is “Biodiversity is Life.” In our world today, people are becoming increasingly separated from nature. At least half the world’s population lives in cities, and too many believe that biodiversity can be achieved by having a few protected areas here and there to serve as living museums. Society in general does not understand that the inter‑connectedness of everything on earth is critical to our own survival.
In 2002, Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity set a target to significantly slow biodiversity loss worldwide by 2010, a target endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly. In this, the year of Biodiversity, representatives of 192 member nations of the Convention on Biodiversity will meet at the 10th Conference of Parties in Nagoya Japan to see how close we have come. I’m sure all of us here know in our hearts that we have fallen well short of our goal, and at the Conference of Parties we will need to examine our successes and failures, and formulate new strategies. Here in Köln, we have gathered to discuss the role of zoos and aquariums in the conservation of biodiversity. Our efforts to connect people with nature have been quantified over the last year – we know that our collective institutions host some 700 million visitors each year, a remarkable opportunity for us to bring about the social changes that are so desperately needed. Our efforts to conserve species and ecosystems was also quantified – following a survey this year, our collective spend on field conservation was conservatively estimated to be US$350 million annually, placing the international zoo and aquarium community right up with the major conservation NGO’s.
You may have noticed that I refrained I would like everyone here to recall from using the terms in situ and ex one of the outcomes of the World situ – as Jeffrey Bonner so eloquently Conservation Congress in Barcelona, stated in his opening address to 2008, which was to organize a World EAZA this year, they force us to think Species Congress. This has been a about the world in two boxes. They talking point ever since – the five give the impression that we either international Parks Congresses have have animals in “captivity” or animals been very successful in increasing the in “the wild” with nothing in between. number and extent of the world’s proObviously there is an entire spectrum tected areas, the creation of trans instead, depending on the degree ‑boundary parks and a host of other of management of the creatures achievements. What is needed now is themselves and of their environment. to focus the world’s attention on the Animals can certainly be kept wholly loss of biodiversity on a species‑by ex situ on the one end of the spec‑species basis, and the mechanism trum, but I’m not sure that wholly in by which that can be achieved is a situ applies in many instances any world species congress. It will require longer. Even in Africa’s big game the participation of governments, parks, a significant degree of manNGOs, the academic community, the agement intervention is required for specialists groups of the IUCN, and, veld management, predator control of course, our community. It will be and the like. So what are the terms expensive and will require enormous we should be using – I’m not sure effort. But it is what we must do. what the answer is, but perhaps that will be one of the outcomes of this The World Species Congress, our reconference? sponse to climate change, and a host of other pressing issues will be tackDespite the global economic situaled during this conference. It promtion over the last year, WAZA manises to be an exciting week. To all of aged to achieve a net increase in you, a warm welcome, and I trust that membership in all categories. There you will enjoy a truly memorable stay in Köln. is no doubt we serve a dynamic and driven community. Thank you.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
October 2010 | Cologne/Kรถln
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Saving Biodiversity – Key Messages in the International Year of Biodiversity 2010 and the Roles of WAZA and the UNEP Convention on Migratory Species Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, Executive Secretary – Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (UNEP/CMS)
Dear Deputy Director General Nickel, Dear Mayor Roters, Dear Director Pagel, Dear Friends of CMS, Ladies and Gentlemen, I feel honoured to have been asked to deliver, as the Executive Secretary of the UNEP Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals – or CMS for short – a keynote address to this year’s Annual Conference of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the 65th of its kind. It is a pleasure to see several familiar faces in the room. I especially would like to thank the WAZA team and the Cologne Zoo’s staff, who have worked hard to make this conference happen.
The Convention on Migratory Species – based in Cologne’s neighbour city Bonn, and therefore also known as the Bonn Convention – is an inter‑ governmental treaty aiming to conserve terrestrial, aquatic and avian migratory species throughout their ranges. Since the Convention’s entry into force in 1983, its membership has grown steadily to include currently 114 Parties from Africa, Central and South America, Asia, Europe and Oceania. However, the largest countries, be it by territory, population or economic size, though cooperating with CMS on certain aspects, have yet to become Parties to CMS. The support of our partners, including WAZA, in continuing to lobby for their accession, is crucial. CMS, through its array of agreements, cooperation arrangements, action plans and other measures negotiated in cooperation with species’ range states, aims to ensure the long‑term survival and sustainability of these travellers of the animal kingdom. Conserving or restoring the places where they live, mitigating obstacles to migration and controlling other factors that might endanger them are among CMS’s principal goals. Besides establishing obligations for each State Party to the Convention and its agreements, CMS also promotes concerted actions among the Range States of many species.
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, As you may be aware, migratory species are of special importance to all of us as they serve as indicators of biodiversity decline and ecosystem health. They are dependent on a variety of often far‑flung habitats as well as intact migration corridors to complete their complex life cycles. They in effect have the function of the metaphorical “canary in the mine”: if only one link in the chain of their migration breaks, the entire species has to rapidly adapt or face extinction. A famous example, which we all know, is the Polar Bear, increasingly restricted in its movements and hunting behaviour by the vanishing of large parts of its icy habitat. Whether this iconic species will be able to overcome the daunting challenges posed by such a rapid and – at least for the time being – irreversible change in its surroundings, remains to be seen.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Migratory animals face varied and nu- • Increasing temperatures and the merous threats. Permit me to briefly acidification of oceans lead, through highlight a selected few. a change in the water’s chemical properties, to a decline in the abun• Manmade structures, such as dams dance of krill, which forms the base and windfarms can – if constructed of the marine food chain. Baleen without forethought – become barwhales, the Basking and Whale riers to migration, altering fish and Shark, as well as many smaller spebird species’ usual routes or cutting cies directly depend on this food rethem off entirely from parts of their source and will suffer. This developlife journeys. A current example ment is further exacerbated by the are plans in Tanzania, my own fact that the poles, around which country, to build a road through the temperatures rise most strongly, Serengeti, with unknown and most are the most important areas for likely detrimental effects on the mikrill development. grations of vast herds of wildebeest, • A further effect of ocean warming zebra and many other species. CMS, and acidification is the destruction together with others, is lobbying of coral reefs, which can already for an alternative route around the be very clearly documented. Coral south border of this iconic park. reefs are an irreplaceable pillar of • Unnatural underwater noise, for exmarine life and function as uncountample, from ship traffic and seismic ed species’ nursery. underwater resource exploration, • Sex ratios of many reptiles, fish and can impair the ability of whales even birds are influenced by warmand dolphins to communicate and ing, and even very slight temperanavigate, and lead to changes in ture rises can lead to a feminisation behaviour. Social disruption and of populations. This in turn affects spatial displacement are possible the future breeding success of CMS consequences, to the detriment of species like the Green turtle, Hawksthe species. bill turtle and Loggerhead turtle, to • Habitat loss and fragmentation name but a few. remove important resting points • Changes in rainfall patterns and for birds or habitat corridors for abundance affect wetland habitats, terrestrial mammals like the African which are often crucial breeding or Elephant, making migration much feeding grounds, especially for mimore perilous and difficult. gratory birds. The grazing habitats of terrestrial mammals are equally Ladies and Gentlemen, disrupted, with already dry regions possibly becoming uninhabitable, Another major and topical global affecting for example species like human‑induced threat, which this the Sahelo‑Saharan Addax or Dama conference will also be discussing, is gazelle.1 of course Climate Change. Migratory • The frequency of extreme weather species with their often enormous event is on the rise, damaging habiranges and delicately timed migratats and in some cases reducing the tory behaviour are especially at risk. availability of important resources. The Zoological Society of London, on For example, the availability of the behalf of CMS, is conducting research Mexican free‑tailed bat’s insect prey into the effects of climate change on is decreased by poor weather. migratory species. The preliminary • The rising of sea levels by anything results and outcomes coming out of between a few dozen centimetres this research work are sobering, as and several meters, as predicted the negative effects and impacts of by the various models, could have climate change on migratory species severe adverse effects on sea turtle are manifold and complex, putting breeding success and a variety of virtually all migratory species at great low‑lying coastal habitats needed risk. Again a few examples to illusby various birds and such mammals trate the threats: as the Mediterranean Monk Seal. 1 Both occur in small areas throughout the Sahara and Sahel region; Hanover zoo plays a lead role in Addax ex-situ breeding and reintroduction schemes.
In response to temperature changes, biomes and habitats will shift, affecting migratory species’ life cycles and potentially leading to mismatches between migratory behaviour and resource or habitat availability. In this regard, Zoos may very well have an important role to play in helping displaced species through difficult adaption phases. It is our hope, for example, that Zoos will be able to offer artificial resting and feeding opportunities or undertake breeding and reintroduction programs. I am happy to see that several contributions will be addressing Climate Change tomorrow and I look forward to discuss with you all the effects and impacts and how together we can help and support these threatened or critically threatened species. Ladies and Gentlemen, WAZA, needless to say, is a leading forum and umbrella organisation for quality zoos and aquariums throughout the world. Through its many member zoos and aquariums, WAZA has the potential to reach and educate millions of visitors and influence their position towards animals and conservation. We all know well how fundraising and implementing in situ conservation is an essential part of everyday work in any good zoo and it is our hope that WAZA is well supported to accomplish this noble task.
14 In late 2008, WAZA and CMS signed • With a large number of activities a Partnership Agreement. As most organized by WAZA‑ and GRASP of you will know, this agreement was ‑partners as well as the CMS and then immediately filled with life as several enthusiastic individual WAZA and CMS, together with the supporters, regular press releases, UNEP Great Ape Survival Partnership, plus a regularly updated and well worked together closely during the ‑frequented website and blog, the 2009 Year of the Gorilla (YoG) camglobal visibility achieved by YoG paign. WAZA, through direct action was significant. In 2009 alone, there and through the engagement of its were several hundred news articles numerous members, played an imin English, German, French and portant role in making this campaign other languages, as well as over truly global. It reached out to the 40,000 web references for Year of public through educational displays, the Gorilla. talks and tours, and the over 100 participating WAZA zoos were crucial Ladies and Gentlemen, for delivering the message of YoG to a broad and multifaceted audience, We have learned a lot from the Year from the enthusiastic naturalist to the of the Gorilla campaign, notably that chance visitor. Fundraising activities the choice of adequate partners defor a variety of gorilla conservation termines much of the success of such projects and activities were a further a campaign. YoG focused on awarekey contribution that WAZA was well ness and education, and was very positioned to make. successful in reaching out to a large number of people, from interested I would, therefore, like to take this children to professional conservationopportunity to name only a few of ists. Our campaign partners, WAZA the outcomes of YoG, to which WAZA and GRASP, proved to be well suited contributed immensely: and much of the campaigns outreach success is attributable to activities un• Several field projects in the gorilla dertaken by zoos. Furthermore, it is clear that support for actual field conrange states received financial supservation projects is crucial for both port from a variety of YoG fundraisthe effectiveness and the credibility ing efforts. These included projects of such a campaign. Though the YoG addressing wildlife law enforcewas able to raise significant funds ment – a key issue with regards to the bushmeat trade – , deforestafor projects, even more fundraising tion and community involvement should be undertaken in future, with in conservation work. WAZA zoos a more fine‑tuned approach to proraised funds for Year of the Gorilla ject fundraising. Again partnerships projects and other gorilla activities. are a central aspect, as the UN is not We believe there is great scope for well suited for small‑scale fundraising future cooperation of this kind on from individual donors. Partners like mutually agreed projects and speWAZA zoos and conservation NGOs cies of shared and common interest. bring to the table a very good capac• A number of publications of lasting ity to tap into available resources at value were another outcome of the this level, which they did during the YoG, including an excellent WAZA YoG, while CMS has the approprieducational kit called “All about ate tools to approach state donors. Gorillas”, which was translated into The establishment of lucrative and 4 languages and will continue to ethically appropriate Public‑Private serve as a valuable tool to interest ‑Partnerships with the private sector and involve children and youths in is a further aspect to be pushed congorilla conservation. sidering the current global financial difficulties.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Gorillas are just one species in which WAZA and CMS have a shared interest. There are many more, ranging from the emblematic African Elephant and the Saiga Antelope to more elusive beings, such as bats. In fact, CMS and its EUROBATS Agreement have decided to make 2011 the European Year of the Bat, with an expansion to a global campaign foreseen for 2012. The campaign was launched at the EUROBATS Meeting of Parties last month in Prague, and I would like to urge you all to join us and become supporters and partners of this two‑year campaign. We highly welcome any contribution from you all to make it a success, and invite you to find out more about the campaign on our dedicated website. Ladies and Gentlemen, 2010, as you all know, is the International Year of Biodiversity. In April 2002, most nations committed themselves, through the Convention on Biological Diversity, to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth. This target, called the 2010 biodiversity target, was subsequently endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly and made a Millennium Development Goal. According to the third Global Biodiversity Outlook, which was published earlier this year, it is clear that this target has, on the whole, not been met, though there are also some partial successes, an example being growing populations of several threatened European bat species – a growth that we at CMS like to believe is partly due to the work done by the CMS EUROBATS agreement. Biodiversity as a political topic has certainly become more prominent over the last years and much work is being done to safeguard natural wealth and reduce biodiversity loss. On the whole, humanity has nevertheless not been able to stem the loss of life, and with growing human populations and escalating resource use, time is no longer on our side.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
This is a blunt assessment – however, we have no choice but to face this simple fact if we are to succeed in the future. In order to truly reach decision makers, whose outlook seldom extends beyond 10-20 years, an important point that we will have to keep stressing is the fact that preserving intact ecosystems and biodiversity makes sense not only from an ecological, but also from an economic and geostrategic point of view. A recent major international study by UNEP draws attention to the global economic benefits of biodiversity and ecosystem services to the economy, to society and to individuals, while highlighting the growing costs of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation. The report clearly shows that the cost of sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem services is much lower than the cost of allowing biodiversity and ecosystem services to dwindle, as all human wellbeing and activity ultimately rests on the pillars of natural wealth. Biodiversity, the variety of life on Earth, sustains the living networks and systems that provide us all with health, wealth, food, fuel and the vital services our lives depend on. For example, rainforests in the tropics are essential components of the global precipitation cycle, which in turn allows for large crop yields in more temperate regions. Biodiversity is a key component of this cycle not only through the trees that make up rainforests, but equally through the animals and microorganisms without whose activities (e.g. seed dispersal; breaking down dead plant matter) the forest would collapse within years. If this system were to break down because of manmade destruction of rainforests, the consequences would go far beyond food shortages.
Another example is the role of fisheries, on which one fifth of the world population depend as their main source of protein. Human‑dominated marine ecosystems are experiencing accelerating loss of populations and species, mostly due to overfishing, with wealthy countries being most to blame. Science indicates that restoration of biodiversity through the establishment of large, strictly enforced no‑catch zones would greatly increase productivity of the world’s oceans. This again demonstrates the principle that the cost of sustaining biodiversity is tiny compared to the mid‑ to long‑term benefits. Beyond these systemic values of biodiversity and species, there are also various other benefits to be derived, for example through ecotourism and the associated developmental opportunities – think of the famous Mountain Gorilla watching in Rwanda and Uganda or the many jobs created by safari tourism. Encouraging and supporting the development of such alternative livelihoods that do not undermine ecosystem services, for example also beekeeping and sustainable agriculture, is a way to help maintain the integrity of habitats. In an ideal world, animals and ecosystems would of course be protected for their own sake and intrinsic worth, not because of their economic value. However, we must use all tools at our disposal, and economic arguments tend to attract the attention of people who may otherwise view biodiversity conservation as a “soft”, neglectable topic. As I noted with interest, this conference will go into some detail on this topic, with the economics of biodiversity conservation being addressed later today.
Just last month, the UN General Assembly came together in a High ‑Level Meeting to discuss biodiversity loss and related issues. Though late and with limited outcomes, we should take this event as encouragement to redouble our efforts. As you will know, the biannual Conference of the Convention on Biological Diversity is starting today in Nagoya, Japan. Let us hope that states will see the urgency to take a more proactive and inclusive stance, for the benefit of us all. The conference will adopt so‑called post‑2010 targets, reiterating and where necessary refining the global community’s biodiversity conservation goals. However, actually achieving these goals is a very different thing, and this is where partnerships come in. Only an effective combination of global policy changes and state funding on the one hand and grassroots projects and activities on the other can bring about the kind of change we are all working for. Before making way for the next speaker, I would again like to underline the value of close future cooperation between CMS and the WAZA network. I think we can build on our positive and mutually beneficial experiences during the Year of the Gorilla as well as on our many shared goals and focal species to expand our cooperation into the future. I wish you all a pleasant, interesting and successful meeting. Thank you very much for your kind attention.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Biodiversity: Where Zoos Can Make a Difference Claude Martin, former Director General – WWF International
The Failure to meet the CBD Targets As the WAZA Annual Conference coincides with the COP in Nagoya it might be just as well to briefly reflect on some of the reasons why the international community failed to achieve the 2002 CBD target, as endorsed by the World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg. Although at the time of the WAZA conference we do not know yet what will be said in Nagoya, there can be little doubt that we are far off “a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at a global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth”. We have certainly won a few battles (e.g. a further increase in the protected areas coverage), but by and large we are still on a course to lose the war. In attempting to analyze some of the intrinsic difficulties of biodiversity conservation, one has to recognize that the term “biodiversity” is complex and as such cannot be measured with indicators that provide conclusive evidence. The term “biodiversity” it its current meaning was first introduced in the 1970’s by Raymond F. Dasmann, one of the environmental visionaries, and at that time Senior Ecologist at the IUCN. In 1986, at the US National Forum on Biological Diversity the term was described as “the variation of life forms within a
given ecosystem, biome or the entire Earth” and subsequently defined as the “totality of genes, species and ecosystems”. By this, the term became a conglomerate and a sort of substitute for “Nature”, in an attempt to combine its three levels – the genetic, species as well as the ecosystems diversity. As meritorious this attempt may have been, as doubtful it has remained as a tool to monitor the changes occurring in the world’s living systems.
Inadequate Biodiversity Indicators In light of the difficulties to measure any progress of the CBD target mentioned above, it is legitimate to ask the question whether the quote of the economist Peter Drucker does not apply in this case: “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it”. Thus the need to create substitute targets that may give an indication of progress, although they do not actually measure the state of biodiversity. The protected areas target set at the CBD COP in 2004 is an example for such a substitute target: “By 2010 terrestrially and 2012 in the marine area, a global network of comprehensive, representative and effectively managed national and regional protected area system is established”. The IUCN Red Data Books provide a better idea of biodiversity trends, although, strictly speaking they are not biodiversity indicators neither. In 2009 they counted 47’677 assessed
species and recorded 36 per cent of these species as in various degrees endangered. A particularly rapid increase of endangered species was recorded among amphibians (31%) as well as reef building corals (27%), both pointing to the increasing threat of climate change. Although the Red Data Books only cover a small fraction of the currently described species, they provide a sense of the dynamics of biodiversity degradation, if not a representative one. Considerably more questionable are the often cited extinction rates of 100 – 1000 times the historical background rates. These projections go back to some very rough estimations made in the 1990’s but can neither be proven nor refuted, simply because we have no idea of the number of species existing on this planet, and even less an idea of the state of survival of the large majority of them. Without being able to substantiate extinction rates it is not particularly meaningful to continue using these guesses.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
The Taxonomic Impediment Because of the lack of baseline data on species numbers and their status, the CBD launched the “Global Taxonomy Initiative – GTI” in 2002 www. cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd‑ts‑30. pdf with the aim to remove or reduce the knowledge gaps in the taxonomic system and to address the shortage of trained taxonomists and curators for the benefit of biodiversity conservation. The taxonomic impediment, however, is not least the responsibility of biology departments at universities who have in the past decades largely abandoned phenomenology and taxonomic sciences, at least in continental Europe. Many younger biologists thus do not have any faunistic or floristic knowledge anymore, a condition that does not help biodiversity conservation. All the more remarkable has been the achievement of the “Census of Marine Life – CoML” www.coml.org – a ten years’ program completed in October 2010. The 2700 scientists from 80 countries that participated in this 650 million USD project identified about 200’000 marine species and described 1200 new ones, with another 5000 species yet to be described. Baseline data is but one prerequisite for biodiversity conservation. Assessing the extent of biodiversity loss and its drivers is yet another major challenge. In 1998 WWF International created a tool – the Living Planet Index (LPI) – to provide information on the trends of vertebrate populations for which population estimates exist since at least 1970. Today the LPI, together with the Ecological Footprint Analysis, is part of a biennial publication of WWF International – the Living Planet Report wwf.panda.org/ about_our_earth/all_publications/ living_planet_report. The LPI which has been computed in collaboration with the Zoological Society of London, and was last published in the Living Planet Report of October 2010, is based on 7953 populations of 2544 different vertebrate species. Although the LPI is not an indicator for biodiversity, in its comprehensive sense, neither, it provides a useful indication of the trends in abundance of species for which scientific data is available.
Rapid Deterioration in the Tropics While the Living Planet Index at a global level decreased by about 30 per cent since 1970, it is particularly revealing to analyze the LPI by biomes as well as regionally. In fact the global index masks an important dichotomy between the temperate and the tropical indices. While in the temperate and boreal zones the index remained stable or even increased, the loss in the tropics since 1970 is significant in all biomes – the terrestrial (approx. – 50%), the marine (approx. – 60%), as well the freshwater (almost -70 %). Vertebrate populations in the temperate and boreal zones remained at the same level or increased, at least partly because the loss occurred prior to 1970 and population subsequently recovered under protective measures. The massive degradation in the tropics on the other hand signals the rapid loss of habitats since the past 40 years, in terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, as well as the impact of overfishing and climate change in the marine ecosystems. Among all tropical areas assessed in the Living Planet Report the LPI of the Indo‑Pacific region experienced the most dramatic loss with a decrease of 66 per cent. The report traces this loss back to “rapid agricultural, industrial and urban development …which has led to the most rapid destruction and fragmentation of forests, wetlands and river systems anywhere in the world”. The LPI in the Indo‑Pacific region, unsurprisingly, reflects the consequences of the rapid economic growth of the region, as well as in the neighboring East Asian tiger economies. The LPI, thus, points to the major root cause of biodiversity loss anywhere in the world – the rapidly increasing impact of over‑consumption of resources and energy. Be it forest clearance for palm oil, pulp and paper plantations or unsustainable logging operations, overfishing, coral bleaching due to climate change, or the cultivation and depletion of freshwater ecosystems
in the large river basins, the global biodiversity loss is intrinsically linked to the rapidly growing demand for commodities. With the increasing wealth in emerging economies, particularly of urban populations, the demand for resources and energy will continue to increase and put further pressure on biodiversity. In this context one has to take into account the current trend of urbanization which is projected to increase the urban population to 2/3 of humanity. It is an open question whether urban populations may develop a more advanced consciousness in relation to the huge environmental challenges of coming decades, or on the contrary risk to become progressively estranged from natural areas and biodiversity concerns. It will, without any doubt, become decisive that we reckon with these massive sociological shifts. Under any circumstance it will not do us any good if the problem of increasing consumption of resources and energy by an ever larger urban population is minimized, nor is there any silver bullet to solve this problem. It is in this context that the future role of zoos and aquariums must be seen.
Where Zoos can make a Difference If the Living Planet Report can teach us anything, it is the fact that protective measures can make a difference, as the example of a good number of temperate countries but also some rarer cases of tropical countries (e.g. Costa Rica) show. Protected areas, species conservation and re‑introduction programs, habitat restoration, land use and natural resource management can contribute to biodiversity enhancement. For this to become possible, conservation organizations and zoos alike will have to take growing urban consumptive societies into account. This may concern societies whose views and perceptions will more likely come off cyberspace rather than natural places,
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
and may manifest itself in ignorance and unscrupulous behavior quite contrary to the urgent needs of biodiversity conservation. The past decades have also taught us that biodiversity notoriously suffers from multiple market failures, e.g. when the price of soy or palm oil dictates the destruction of tropical forests, irrespective of the consequent massive loss of natural capital. It is against this back‑drop that zoos and aquariums will have to define their future role in biodiversity conservation. The 2005 WAZA Conservation Strategy stipulates this role quite clearly, even though it leaves great potential, and equally so a need, to go beyond the 9 target areas described in this strategy. With their ex‑situ breeding programs zoos have undoubtedly contributed to the conservation of a limited number of species and they deserve credit for this. Measured against the immense challenges, these successes remain but punctual and should not be idealized, let alone presented as the solution to global biodiversity conservation needs. In ‑situ conservation must always take precedence and there is room to expand the role of zoos in concrete field‑based conservation projects, e.g. the WAZA projects. As with the in‑situ projects it is important not to create the impression that zoos could do it all by themselves, or to use such projects merely for zoo PR purposes. Credible conservation is increasingly a long‑term partnership business in which government, international and local NGO’s as well as local communities have a role to play in ensuring sustained conservation results. Nothing convinces the public more than joint efforts and cooperation with specialized conservation agencies, and the better zoos manage to reflect these in their exhibitions the more credible is their story.
Given the fact that the greatest conservation challenges of our time are caused by the over‑consumption of resources and energy, zoos and aquariums should also reflect on these root causes for biodiversity loss, not least the threats of climate change. In fact I wonder whether zoos and aquariums would not have a more active role to play with regard to the dire fate of coral reefs in view of the current threats from coral bleaching, if only to highlight these global threats, but also to ensure that the supply of coral reef fishes is sustainable. I could equally envisage some form of cooperation with NOAA’s coral reef conservation strategy http://coralreef.noaa.gov/, or a coral strategy to be developed specifically by and for zoos and aquariums.
The Educational Imperative of Zoos Any consideration of the role of zoos would miss the main point if it did not refer to what I personally have always seen as the primary and most important responsibility: Providing a personal experience with animals for young people, education, information and communications – building on the natural curiosity and emotional ties of children and youth for the living creatures. Without this emotional access, which in one way or the other rests in every human being, it will be all the more difficult to later establish an intellectual interest and motivation for the living world and its conservation. No other institution lends itself in an equally opportune way for these aspects of awareness building than a zoo. Using the attraction of live animal exhibitions to inform visitors about wild habitats, their threats and conservation activities undertaken by zoos as well
as other organizations should be at the heart of every zoos and aquarium. I know that I risk sounding like a broken record hinting on the crucially important role of zoos in education. If I do it nevertheless, it is because I strongly believe that the need for educational activities will rise in parallel with the rapid urbanization, the increasing ecological footprint, and the risk of estrangement from the natural world I have described earlier. Zoos have the potential to evolve to education centers that attract urban masses, and where the exhibition of animals is only one aspect of a more comprehensive set of outreach possibilities. Finally, zoos and aquariums should also demonstrate that their own footprint in terms of the use of materials and energy, as well as recycling and waste disposal, is exemplary and in line with a credible conservation message. Thus, the question should no more be whether zoos and aquariums have a role to play in conservation (of course they have!), but to what extent they are serious in using their potential to enhance the understanding and willingness to engage in conservation, and to what extent they can motivate the increasing urban masses for changes in their consumptive behavior that may improve the chances for biodiversity, in places most often remote from zoo exhibits.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Conserving Plant Diversity – the Role of Botanic Gardens and Zoos Sara Oldfield – Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI)
The conservation of plant diversity is one of the key roles of botanic gardens around the world. In common with the zoo community botanic gardens are involved in ex situ conservation, as well as the propagation and re‑introduction of endangered species, environmental education and increasingly, in situ conservation of threatened plant species (Havens et al, 2006). Botanic gardens have adapted their activities to reflect the requirements of international policy and are increasingly responding to the impact of climate change on wild plant diversity. The challenges of global plant conservation remain immense however and there is great potential for botanic gardens to work with zoos to conserve both plants and animals worldwide.
A widely accepted definition of a botanic garden is, an institution holding collections of documented and living plants for the purposes of scientific research, conservation, display and education. There are currently over 2500 such institutions worldwide. Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI) provides a coordinating body for botanic gardens acting in a broadly similar way to WAZA. The mission of BGCI is to mobilise botanic gardens and engage partners in securing plant diversity for the benefit of people and the planet. BGCI includes within its membership around 20 zoos and works particularly closely with the Association of Zoological Horticulture (AZH). Amongst the services provided by BGCI are the GardenSearch database that provides an online directory of all botanic gardens and the PlantSearch database that records plant species in cultivation in botanic gardens and also in contributing zoos. PlantSearch is designed as a planning tool to support ex situ conservation identifying for example the extent to which globally threatened plant species are held in ex situ collections around the world.
Global strategies for plant conservation Working through BGCI, botanic gardens have formulated various shared global strategies for plant conservation. The first of these was the Botanic Gardens Conservation Strategy published in 1989 (IUCN BGCS & WWF, 1989) and linked to the World Conservation Strategy published by IUCN in 1980. Subsequently the International Agenda for Botanic Gardens in Conservation was published by BGCI in 2000 (Wyse Jackson & Sutherland, 2000). The publication of the International Agenda in turn directly influenced the formulation of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) provides a framework for plant conservation worldwide. Adopted in 2002, the Strategy set out 16 ambitious targets to be met by 2010. National governments have developed their own implementation strategies mirroring the GSPC or implement the GSPC through existing biodiversity conservation action plans. Regional and national botanic garden associations have also developed conservation plans in line with the GSPC.
20 The GSPC targets have been widely adopted by the botanic garden community (see for example Leiva, 2005; Martinelli 2010; Huang, 2010; Kramer, 2010) and have been used to develop national and regional botanic garden strategies. Linking work to the GSPC targets helps botanic gardens to be closely aligned with national and international policy through the CBD. The GSPC has also provided focus for the plant conservation work of zoos, which may include the collection of information regarding plant‑animal interactions, the expansion of conservation activities beyond animals to also include the plants they depend on and the inclusion of the GSPC and its principles in plant and nature ‑based education courses organised by zoos. The role of botanic gardens in implementing the GSPC was recognised in the mid‑term review of the Strategy (Secretariat of the CBD, 2009). More recently BGCI has undertaken a survey of botanic gardens to find out about implementation of the Strategy (Williams & Sharrock, 2010). A total of 252 responses were received by the end of May, 2010 from botanic gardens around the world. The results show that all GSPC targets are being implemented to some extent with a wide range of different activities supporting the Strategy. BGCI has supported the implementation of the GSPC in a variety of ways. The 16 GSPC targets have provided the basis for BGCI’s own programmes and activities for example in the BGCI Five Year Plan 2007–2012. A BGCI member of staff has been seconded to the CBD Secretariat to act as GSPC Programme Officer helping to support national implementation of the Strategy in a wide range of countries including China, Japan, Mexico and the Seychelles.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Although primary responsibility for GSPC implementation is at the national level, most of the 16 Targets of the GSPC (except for several that are cross‑cutting) have an international organisation designated to help facilitate implementation and monitor progress. BGCI acts as the lead facilitating agency for GSPC Target 8 on ex situ plant conservation and also GSPC Target 14 on education and public awareness. These two targets are clearly key to the work of botanic gardens around the world and their associated networks at national and regional levels. Linking botanic gardens with other major actors in plant conservation, BGCI provides the Secretariat for the Global Partnership for Plant Conservation (GPPC), which is mandated by the CBD to support the GSPC.
Monitoring ex situ plant conservation BGCI’s online PlantSearch database was designed to monitor progress towards Target 8 of the GSPC as well as providing a planning tool for ex situ plant conservation. Target 8 calls for 60 percent of threatened plant species in accessible ex situ collections preferably in the country of origin and 10 percent of them in recovery and restoration programmes. Recent analysis shows that around 9500 globally threatened plant species are recorded in PlantSearch out of a total of around 100,500 species in the database (Sharrock et al, 2010). Threatened plant data recorded in PlantSearch and used in the analysis are based on the 1997 IUCN Red List for plants (Walter & Gillett, 1998) and the current online IUCN Red List. As progress in IUCN global Red Listing for plants has been slow (Vie et al 2009) more detailed analyses of PlantSearch data have been undertaken for Europe (Sharrock and Jones, 2009) and North America (Kramer et al 2011), using regional threatened plant lists. These reveal that 42 percent of Europe’s regionally threatened plant species and 39 percent of North American species are in ex situ collections.
The overall number of globally threatened plant species remains uncertain. Generally up to 100,000 plant species considered under threat, a figure supported by the recent Sampled Red List Index (www.iucnredlist. org/news/srli‑plants‑press‑release). BGCI is directly involved in supporting assessment of the conservation status of plant species and provides the Secretariat for the IUCN/SSC Global Tree Specialist Group. Following assessments for particular tree groups, focussed surveys are undertaken of their status in ex situ collections and then complimentary strategies are developed to conserve key species in the wild. Such an approach has been adopted for example for Magnolia spp. following the publication of a red list for these species (Cicuzza et al 2007). Subsequently a BGCI survey of ex situ collections at 238 institutions in 47 countries revealed that over half of the Critically Endangered or Endangered Magnolia taxa are currently not known to cultivation.
Integrated conservation action BGCI is supporting ex situ and in situ conservation of Magnolia spp. in China, Cuba and Colombia as part of the Global Trees Campaign, a joint initiative with Fauna & Flora International. Southern China is the world centre of diversity and distribution of Magnolias with over 40 percent of the 242 known species occurring there. A significant number are considered globally threatened because of habitat decline and fragmentation leading to increasingly isolated remnant populations of Magnolia spp. that often have regeneration problems. In some cases over‑exploitation for medicinal products, for planting in gardens and as street trees is an additional threat. As one example of action, Kunming Botanic Gardens supported by BGCI, is studying the reproduction cycle of M. coriacea, researching propagation techniques, strengthening ex situ conservation and initiating recovery programmes. Closely linked to this are local activities to raise awareness on related conservation issues in collaboration with local forestry agencies.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
In a similar project, botanists from South China Botanic Garden, which has the most significant ex situ collection of Magnolia spp. globally, are collecting information on a range of priority species of Magnolia in the wild – studying and recording their ecology, conservation status and the threats they face. The information is used to strengthen ex situ conservation efforts and initiate restoration of natural populations. One of the species being conserved is the Critically Endangered Magnolia hebecarpa which is currently only known to be in cultivation at the South China Botanic Garden. In 2008 botanists found a single mature specimen of the species during field surveys in Hekou County, Yunnan. Approximately 300 seeds were collected from the tree to supplement ex situ collections. More recently a new population was discovered in the Daweishan Nature Reserve in area of Yunnan close to the border with Vietnam. A very important step in the conservation of Magnolia hebecarpa is to make people aware of the global rarity of this endemic species. In general, Magnolia experts around the world have found their efforts to propagate the rarer species of Magnolia limited by poor germination and establishment rates. More research is urgently required to understand seed production and propagation in all threatened taxa in order to support of the establishment of ex situ collections and associated restoration and reintroduction activities. Magnolia spp. are serving as good flagship species for conservation as they are generally popular in cultivation, well represented in botanic gardens and useful as a basis for education programmes.
Education and public awareness Target 14 of the GSPC calls for: the importance of plant diversity and the need for its conservation incorporated into communication, educational and public awareness programmes. With over 200 million visitors to botanic gardens annually botanic gardens are vitally important in supporting this target. BGCI generally focuses on building the capacity of its global network to deliver effective education and public awareness programmes. More broadly it has focussed on raising awareness of plant conservation and the GSPC amongst a wider audience. One way of doing this has been through Plant Conservation Day partnering with AZH. Plant Conservation Day has been adopted by both the zoo and botanic garden communities on both sides of the Atlantic. In the USA, North Carolina Zoo has, for example, initiated a popular ‘sky art’ event to celebrate the day and raise awareness of the plant conservation work it is carrying out in partnership with the Tooro Botanic Garden in Uganda. In the UK, the event is regularly celebrated by zoos, such as Bristol Zoo Gardens and in 2009, activities in botanic gardens in Australia, China, Russia, the USA and the UK received support from the Boeing Company through a grant to BGCI.
Looking ahead Overall the GSPC has been hailed as a success of the CBD. Although progress towards meeting the 16 targets has been variable (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2009), the Strategy has been effective in harmonising a wide range of diverse conservation actions and stimulating new activity. As a consequence a decision was made to develop a revised Strategy and targets, moving beyond 2010 and taking into account the impact of global climate change. BGCI has played a significant role in the revision process, producing a report on plants and climate (Hawkins et al, 2008) with suggested action within a revised GSPC framework and organising stakeholder workshops to develop a proposed new version of the GSPC. The resulting document was adopted at CBD COP10 in Nagoya. With the revised plant conservation framework in place, botanic gardens need to make renewed efforts to meet the more ambitious targets set for 2020. Ex situ conservation is likely to become ever more important in our rapidly changing world with increased efforts necessary to ensure that collections of endangered species are genetically diverse and representative. Messages about the need for plant conservation need to be strengthened and reinforced. Collaboration between the botanic garden and zoo community will become increasingly important as we work to ensure a sustainable and biodiverse future.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
References • Walter, K. S. and Gillett, H. (eds.). • IUCN Botanic Gardens Conservation • Martinelli, G. 2010. Contributions 1998. The 1997 IUCN Red List of Secretariat and WWF. 1989. The Bo‑ of Rio de Janeiro Botanic Garden to Threatened Plants. Compiled by the tanic Gardens Conservation Strategy. Brazil’s national GSPC mainstreamWorld Conservation Monitoring IUCN Botanic Gardens Conservation ing process. BGJournal 7 (2): 8-10. Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Secretariat, Kew Richmond UK and Sharrock, S., Hird, A. Kramer, A. and and Cambridge, UK. IUCN Gland, Switzerland. Oldfield, S. 2010. Saving plants, sav‑ • Williams, S. and Sharrock, S. (2010) • Cicuzza, D., Newton, A. and Oldfield, ing the planet: Botanic Gardens and Botanic gardens and their response S. 2007. The Red List of Magnoliace‑ the implementation of GSPC Target to the Global Strategy for Plant Conae. Fauna & Flora International, UK. 8. Botanic Gardens Conservation servation. BGJournal 7 (2): 3-7 • Havens, K., P. Vitt, M. Maunder, E. O. International, Richmond, UK. • Wyse Jackson, P. S. and Sutherland, Guerrant Jr., and K. Dixon. 2006. Ex • Secretariat of the Convention on L. A. 2000. International Agenda situ Plant Conservation and Beyond’, Biological Diversity. 2009. The Con‑ for Botanic Gardens in Conserva‑ BioScience, 56: 6, pp. 525-31. vention on Biological Diversity Plant tion. Botanic Gardens Conservation • Hawkins, B, S. Sharrock, and K. Conservation Report: A review of International, Richmond, UK Havens (2008), Climate Change progress in implementing the Global and Plants; Which Future? Botanic Strategy for Plant Conservation Gardens Conservation International, (GSPC). Secretariat of the ConvenRichmond, UK. tion on Biological Diversity, Mon• Huang, H. 2010. Ex situ plant treal, Canada. conservation: a key role of Chinese • Vie, J‑C, Hilton‑Taylor, C. and Stuart, S. N. 2009. (eds.) Wildlife in a chang‑ botanic gardens in implementing ing world. An analysis of the 2008 China’s Strategy for Plant ConservaIUCN Red List of Threatened Species. tion. BGJournal 7 (2): 14-19. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. • Kramer, A. 2010. Measuring botanic gardens’ contributions to plant conservation and education in the US. BGJournal 7 (2): 24-28. • Kramer, A., A. Hird, K. Shaw, M. Dosmann, and R. Mims.2011. Conserving North America’s Threatened Plants: Progress towards Target 8 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. Botanic Gardens Conservation International U. S. • Leiva, A. 2005. The conservation of threatened plants by Cuban botanic gardens: achieving the objectives of the International Agenda as a contribution towards the GSPC. BGJournal 3 (1): 14-15.
October 2010 | Cologne/Kรถln
WAZA Congress Papers
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
The One Curator – One Species Challenge Robert J. Wiese – San Diego Zoo Global | Jenny Gray – Zoos Victoria
The One Curator – One Species Challenge is a plan that each zoo and aquarium commits long‑term that they will lead the efforts to secure the survival of a number of species equal to the number of animal curators on staff. With this strategy the world’s zoos and aquariums could ensure survival of well over 1,000 species. Zoos and Aquariums have long maintained a number of intensively managed populations within their facilities. Many of these have been to ensure the sustainability of the species for future exhibition. Some have also had the goal of acting as a reservoir of animals and genetic variation to supplement or reestablish wild populations. Many zoos and aquariums also provide direct conservation support for these and other species as well. These efforts have met varied success (Lees and Wilken, 2008; Gusset and Dick, 2010). So what makes a program successful? Each program is different in some aspects, but two characteristics that occur regularly in successful programs are focus and specialization (Conway, 2010). Success requires commitment. Often this intense focus comes from a single individual or a single institution that specializes in a given species or taxonomic group. The key is to get commitment for the long‑term as conservation is a never ending series of battles for survival. In this respect an institutional commitment is better than that of a single individual which at some point will retire or move on. While many of our cooperative breeding programs have the commitment
of a number of institutions, often the connection to the wild populations is lacking. The potential impact we can have on wild populations is also diminished when several regional programs select the same species, but do not coordinate their field efforts. For the large, charismatic species such as elephants, tiger and great apes there will always be more work than one institution can accomplish and these programs will require cooperation. However, for a vast number of species the commitment of a single institution can make the difference. Often this may be a species that in native to an area close to the zoo or aquarium. These local species will be the ones that can benefit the most from the concentrated efforts of a single institution. While many of the larger NGOs are switching to a habitat or landscape approach, the single species approach remains the unique arena for zoos and aquariums. It remains an effective strategy as living animals appeal to the public much more effectively than a less distinct ecosystem. What is needed to ensure survival of a species? What commitment is needed by each institution? Many zoos and aquariums may already believe that they are ensuring survival of one or more species because they support or participate in the captive population. While this is a good and important contribution, captive populations alone rarely affect conservation action (Wiese et al., 1994). The One Curator – One Species Challenge solicits much more dedication of effort to ensure true conservation action. Certainly providing staff support to coordinate the intensive breeding and management programs
in zoos and aquariums is needed to start. Provision of space and resources to care for a number of individuals of the species is also important as a guard against catastrophic loss of the wild population. But each facility must also commit to gathering data and supporting field research on the species to determine the species’ needs for continued survival. This commitment will likely require each institution to enroll additional partners (e.g., other zoos, aquariums, private partners, parks, reserves, government agencies) to keep the species at a viable population level. The Challenge requires working with local officials and politicians to enact protection for the species and find or develop funding resources that can affect conservation action. This may be in the form of education of the local people about their important resource, habitat purchase and/or protection, resource management support or all of these efforts. One of the keys will be to engage and transform the local human population to become the protectors of the species in peril. Where to begin? The advantage of this Challenge is that it is easily customized to the institution. Smaller institutions with fewer resources typically have fewer curators and are not expected to deliver as much. It easily scales to the institution’s size. The Challenge also allows every institution to become involved without extensive training or capacity building because most institutions already have a specialty and an expertise in one or more taxa. By starting small the institution can gain some quick successes and grow their effort and commitment over time.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Re‑thinking ex situ vs. in situ Species Conservation Robert Lacy – Conservation Scientist, Chicago Zoological Society and Chair, IUCN SSC Conservation Breeding To maximize the effect of zoos and aquariums and reach the most number of species it is important that we reduce the overlap of institutional focus and partner effectively. It is suggested that WAZA or the regional associations become the body registering institutions and recording the species for which they will serve as the organizing leader. In this way multiple institutions will not be leading the effort for the same species.
References • Conway, W. G. 2010. Buying time for wild animals with zoos. Zoo Biol. 29: 1–8. • Gusset, M. and Dick, G.. 2010. Building a future for wildlife? Evaluating the contribution of the world zoo and aquarium community to in situ conservation. Int. Zoo Yb. 44: 183–191. • Lees, C. M. and J. Wilcken. 2008. Sustaining the Ark: the challenges faced by zoos in • maintaining viable populations. Int. Zoo Yb. 42: 1–13. • Wiese, R. J., K. Willis, and M. Hutchins. 1994. Is genetic and demographic management conservation? Zoo Biol. 13: 297–299.
Species conservation has as its ultimate goal to protect species in their natural habitats, but increasingly often preservation of species in captivity is a necessary temporary measure because we cannot at this time adequately assure persistence of viable populations in the wild. A distinction is often made between in situ conservation – the protection of species in wild habitats – vs. ex situ conservation – the preservation of species in captive breeding programs. There has been a lot of discussion recently about the terms ex situ and in situ, regarding the roles of these two approaches to species conservation, but also often suggesting this dichotomy is becoming less meaningful and even suggesting that we should stop using the terms. Although WAZA, IUCN, and other conservation organizations distinguish between in situ and ex situ approaches to conservation in many of their documents, and one core purpose of the IUCN SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group is to help make effective linkages between ex situ and in situ conservation, there are a number of problems with the use of the terms. First, the terms are in Latin, a language that no one speaks and few understand. Perhaps as a consequence, the terms are used inconsistently and often incorrectly.
Moreover, it may be inappropriate to dichotomize conservation actions into two boxes, because intermediate states do exist. Also, there may be other terms that would better describe the categories of conservation that we pursue. In spite of these problems, however, I will respectfully disagree with some of my colleagues who have suggested that the terms in situ and ex situ are no longer meaningful and should no longer be used. I will argue here that just eliminating the terms, rather than using them correctly, will not necessarily improve our discussions of conservation. For example, while we should clarify that there is not a sharp separation between ex situ and in situ conservation, we should avoid the equally misleading suggestion that there are no differences between the two methods for protecting species. Maintaining tigers in zoo exhibits, even very large and naturalistic ones, or even maintaining tigers in a multi‑hectare enclosure that is a fenced piece of forest, is not the same as protecting tigers within their natural habitats where they compete for mates, hunt for prey, and serve an important role within an ecological community.
26 I think that we should clarify our terminology and use it correctly. Then, we can discuss meaningful and not so meaningful distinctions between the forms of conservation. Only then can we decide if the terms should be discarded because the methods of conservation have perhaps changed to the extent that the terminological distinction is no longer useful. However, we should not discard or replace the terms only because people sometimes misuse them, or because we want our work to sound more important, or because we wish to pretend that our conservation methods are something other than what they really are. We should start with clarity about what we mean by species or biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity conservation can be defined as the maintenance of components of natural systems (populations, species, communities, and biophysical systems) and the ecological and evolutionary processes through which the components of biodiversity interact with and are sustained by natural systems. Thus, conservation is directed toward protecting the integrity of natural systems – both the pieces and the processes – and is not just the saving of pictures, or bones, or DNA, or even just captive animals in zoos and plants in gardens. Quite tragically, it is the case that no place on Earth is still untouched by humans, and perhaps no ecosystems is 100% pristine, but some places are more wild and have more intact and healthier ecosystems. For us to ignore this reality could be very damaging to our reputations as conservationists, and to our efforts in biodiversity conservation. After all, if no place is “wild” anymore, and no real “wildlife” still exists, then why are we working to preserve wild places and wild species?
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
The goal of species conservation is to support the survival of species in their natural ecological systems. If a program does not further this goal, then it is not species conservation. Before my zoo and aquarium friends react angrily that I seem to be denying the value of their work, I need to add two caveats. First, sometimes – and far more often than anyone of us would wish – sustaining a species in the wild will require activities outside of the wild. Second, by delineating what constitutes species conservation as distinct from simply keeping specimens alive, I do not mean that the only valuable role for zoos and aquariums is to help save species in the wild. Education, entertainment, inspiring awe and wonder, and scientific study are all valid and important roles for zoos, and living animal collections make these goals possible in ways and with effectiveness that would not be possible otherwise.
As this audience knows, many species have been restored to the wild from captive populations.
What is “ex situ” conservation? Literally, ex situ means “out of place”. In the context of species conservation it means activities that take place outside of the natural habitat for the species. Ex situ conservation might take place outside or within the range country of a species, and one common mis‑use of the term is to ascribe it only to activities outside of the species range country. Ex situ activities could even take place immediately adjacent to the natural habitat, as in an exhibit enclosure within a natural protected area. In a sense, “ex situ conservation” is an oxymoron. Given what I stated above about the definition of biodiversity conservation, with the purpose of conservation being to protect natural systems, the very term ex situ correctly denotes that the activities are not where we wish them to be, and ex situ activities cannot by themselves achieve species conservation. A more accurate, if less concise, phrase would be “ex situ measures that support conservation”, so as to avoid the implication that the ex situ population itself is the conservation objective.
What is “in situ” conservation? In situ means “in place” and one dictionary definition is “in the natural or original position or place”. That leads to questions of “what is natural?” and “what is original?” We know that nature has been degraded everywhere, but it is still meaningful to describe in situ conservation as being activities that focus on protecting natural processes within as natural a system, in as original a location, as possible. As stated on the WAZA website, “Conservation of intact ecosystems is the only chance for the survival of our planet’s wildlife.” The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy defines species conservation as “the securing of long‑term populations of species in natural ecosystems and habitats wherever possible.” These definitions do appropriately identify our goals as we seek to conserve species, although I might quibble with the additional phrase “wherever possible” because even when it is not currently possible then the ex situ efforts are still directed toward an eventual outcome of securing the species in natural habitats.
In such cases, the ex situ work was a necessary step that allowed species conservation to resume its efforts toward securing healthy populations in natural habitats, again interacting with other species in the ecological community, and evolving adaptations – i.e., being the wild species again. Many other species were or still are on the edge of being lost from the natural habitats, but the wild populations have been reinforced via releases from captive stocks that served as insurance against loss. Thus, in stating honestly that ex situ efforts are not in themselves species conservation, we are not in any way implying that ex situ protection of species is not an important and even at times an absolutely essential action that allows conservation to succeed.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Sometimes it is obvious that a program is ex situ, even if it is directly adjacent to a natural habitat, as with the Amphibian Ark programs that sustain breeding populations within modular “pods” created from shipping containers. Other times, it is not immediately clear if a program is ex situ or in situ. Until recently, the last known breeding site for the Puerto Rican Crested Toad (Sapo Concho Puertorriqueño, Peltophryne lemur) was a sand‑substrate parking lot that is flooded after very heavy rains. The site may not look very natural compared to the ephemeral ponds that were once the breeding sites, but it is the breeding site that has sustained the species, the toads choose that site in which to breed, the tadpoles feed themselves on natural growing algae, and the metamorphosed toadlets disperse into the surrounding native woodlands to grow into adults. Thus, the system has been modified by humans, and it is dependent on humans for protection (the parking lot is closed to human use when the toads are breeding there), but the toads are still part of the ecological community of the area. Perhaps even less clearly in situ conservation, but in situ none‑the‑less, is a nearby secondary breeding site that was created with concrete, and was then populated with the release of more than 100,000 tadpoles. The pond itself is not original or natural, but the toads disperse from it, they again resume their role in the ecological community, and they return to that pond to breed. It is not perfect restoration of nature, but it is an important and successful effort to reinforce and protect the species within its original location, as a functioning part of that ecosystem.
A complicating factor in determining what is ex situ vs. in situ is that because of climate change the original and natural place for a species may no longer exist, the original place may become very unnatural (very unlike the habitat in which the species evolved), and the most natural habitat available might be far from the original location. In such cases, I think that it can be argued that the importance of maintaining as much integrity and naturalness of the ecological community and ecosystem processes within which a species evolved should take precedence over possibly futile attempts to preserve those systems within the same physical location. Thus, the “situ” of in situ might have to be interpreted at times as an ecological and evolutionary place, rather than a physical place. Indeed, to see it otherwise would require that we accept that a zoo of caged animals that replaces, on site, a natural area as an acceptable endpoint in the conservation of biodiversity. Although the above examples make clear that in situ and ex situ are not pure concepts with an easily defined or sharp boundary between them, and the latter is sometimes necessary to conserve the former, I will argue that it is still important to recognize that there are real differences between populations in situ and ex situ. To see the distinction, one needs to ask how natural the situation is for the species. Is the physical environment “natural” in the sense of being similar to that which the species evolved adaptations? Are daily and seasonal fluctuations in the environment what the species expects? Is there opportunity for the normal foraging behaviors of the species? Do predation and predator avoidance make use of the adaptations evolved in the species for those purposes? Are courtship, mate choice, and parental care as they are in the wild? Is there competition and other interactions
with other species of the community? Does the population encounter and mount responses to diseases and parasites? Is the population continuing to evolve as part of a complex ecological community responding to environmental change? (Note that these descriptions of natural have rather little relationship to the concept of “naturalistic” exhibits, which are designed to look natural to casual human observers, rather than to function naturally for the species within them.) Many captive propagation centers have elements of true natural habitats, sometimes even including extensive areas of complex landscapes in which species interact with at least some other components of communities and ecosystems. Yet it would be hard to argue that most of the aspects of a species living in a natural system – exist in ex situ programs. Another way to consider whether a population is “in situ” vs “ex situ” might be to ask: Who is in control? Does the species determine its diet, mates, behaviors, home range, nest sites, etc., or does the human manager determine most or all of these? Is the ongoing evolutionary trajectory one that is driven mostly by the species interacting with and often competing with other species in the habitat, or is it a response almost solely to our manipulations of its locale, if not also our control over who breeds?
28 Again, the distinctions are not always clear and sharp. The Florida Key Deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium) is an endangered subspecies that inhabits several islands in the Florida Keys (USA). Although the deer can still be seen in a few areas of relatively intact island habitat, including a small wildlife refuge, many of the deer have adapted to living primarily amidst the houses and in the lawns and gardens of the human residents of the islands. Most of the habitat is highly modified, but the deer are still (mostly) in control of habitat selection, food, and mating choices, and weather patterns and other general aspects of the local environment still match those to which the species evolved. (However, the entire range may become submerged with rising sea levels driven by climate change.) The habitat of the deer is now a human‑dominated landscape, with, for example, the primary “predator” being automobiles. It could be debated if this situation should be considered in situ, and if the current situation of the deer population should be considered an acceptable end point for the conservation of this component of the biodiversity of the region. Surprisingly, wildlife management authorities have deemed it unacceptable to move even temporarily a portion of the Key Deer population into fully captive care (in order to protect it against possible catastrophes, such as a direct hit by a major hurricane), because it was felt that such action would put the deer into an unacceptably unnatural situation, thereby destroying the essence of the Key Deer.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Evan Blumer and others have suggested that a better term than ex situ to describe many of our conservation breeding programs is “intensively managed populations” (or intensive management of populations). An intensively managed population is one which is dependent on management at the individual and population levels. (I thank colleagues at the Wildlife Conservation Society for suggesting this definition, although their usage does not match exactly the way the Evan and I use the term.) Among ex situ populations there is a range of the intensity of management, from pairs of animals kept in cages to flocks of birds in large aviaries. However, every ex situ population probably qualifies as being intensively managed; otherwise it will perish because it is outside of a functioning natural system. However, some in situ populations are also intensively managed, even if perhaps somewhat less intensively managed than are most ex situ populations. For example, black rhinoceroses in some reserves in Kenya are individually monitored, often protected individually from poachers, provided with veterinary care, and moved (in trucks) among reserves according to a management plan that considers the need to regulate numbers to match local capacity, to assure a good sex ratio of breeders, and to avoid inbreeding. But they are still living in natural habitats and interacting with the native, local fauna and flora. Thus, they would be considered to be intensively managed, in situ populations.
Puerto Rican Parrots (Amazona vit‑ tata) persist in their native habitat in a protected forest, although management has sometimes included providing artificial or modified nest sites and protection from predators. This relatively intensively managed, but still in situ, population has been supplemented by releases of birds reared in a captive breeding facility that while located at the site of the wild population is clearly an ex situ population. The ex situ population in the forest‑located captive facility is more intensively managed than is the in situ population in the forest, but both are appropriately described as being under intensive management while the important distinctions between the ex situ and in situ populations are clear. The parrots in the in situ population are living a very different existence than are the ex situ birds, within an ecological community and continuing to adapt to the selection pressures of a shifting natural habitat. Most importantly, the in situ population is the goal of the conservation program, while the ex situ population is a temporary way station to help assure that the in situ population will persist.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Thus, the term “intensively managed” Throughout the discussions of ex situ is not a replacement for the term “ex and in situ conservation methods, or situ”, but rather it has a somewhat intensive management and less indifferent focus, different meaning, tensive management of populations, and different use. Intensive managewe should keep in mind that while ment of populations describes the various approaches will be needed to level of management that is used, stem the losses of biodiversity, the regardless of where it is used, while goal of species conservation is to proex situ refers to a population under tect and restore biologically diverse whatever kind of management that communities that are functional, is being held outside of the wild. natural systems. We are not aiming for perpetual intensive management Intensive management focuses on of ex situ representatives of species. the methods of species conservation, (At least not when we are working while ex situ focuses on the place. Infor the conservation of that species. tensive management is more clearly descriptive of one side of a continuWe often do aim for long‑term ex situ um (from very intensive management, management for the other purposes to less intensive management, to for which zoological collections are extensive management at the level of maintained.) Rather, we use ex situ population manipulations that do not populations when necessary and useinvolve direct management of indiful to help restore in situ populations, viduals, to conservation dependent and we intensively manage populapopulations that would be threattions while working toward a goal ened if external processes such as of biodiversity that can thrive again trade are not controlled), rather than in healthy systems that require less implying as does the ex situ – in situ intensive care. dichotomy that the distinctions are always clear. In that respect, “intensively managed population” is a less precise (and therefore probably more confusing) but more accurate term.
In conclusion, we should try to use terms correctly and use the terms that best describe the concepts we are attempting to describe, without getting too concerned if occasionally someone uses less suitable terminology. At the same time, while recognizing that the terms can be imprecise and at times confusing, we need to keep in mind that there are real and meaningful differences – to the animals, to the species, to us, and probably to everyone except zoo media consultants – between ex situ and in situ approaches to biodiversity conservation. In situ is the goal, but often ex situ is a necessary way station for many species.
Acknowledgements I thank Evan Blumer, William Conway, Jeffrey Bonner, and many other colleagues in CBSG and WAZA for their insightful and immensely valuable discussions on the issues presented here. It should not be presumed that they agree with all or any of my arguments and views, and I hope that this paper stimulates ongoing discussion and effective action on behalf of species.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Defining What It Means to Save a Species – The Species Conservation Program of the Wildlife Conservation Society Robert A. Cook, V. M. D., M. P. A. – General Director of Living Institutions & Executive Vice‑President Wildlife Conservation Society
ABSTRACT: A group representing multiple conservation organizations gathered at the White Oak Conser‑ vation Center to re‑examine the question of what it means to suc‑ cessfully conserve a species. Rep‑ resented specialties of the partici‑ pants included conservation biology, genetics, small population man‑ agement, ornithology, elephant field conservation, wildlife health, marine conservation, landscape ecology, mammalogy and herpetol‑ ogy. The results of this workshop will be published in BioScience early in 2011.1
1 Redford, Kent H., et al. 2011. What does it mean to successfully conserve a (vertebrate) species? BioScience 61 (1): 39-48.
The group defined successful species conservation as maintaining multiple populations across the range of the species in representative ecological settings with replicate populations in each setting. The attributes of successfully conserved species include those that are self‑sustaining, genetically robust, healthy, representative with duplicate populations and resilient across the range.
survive even one generation. At the other end are species that manifest all of the attributes of “fully conserved” species with no reliance on human intervention for any requirements. The categories are:
• Captive Managed – species only surviving in captivity and entirely reliant on humans for survival. • Intensively Managed‑ species found in wild but reliant on direct Unfortunately, conserving species is human intervention at the indinot as straight forward as removing vidual and population level thru human influences to allow species population augmentation via to sustain themselves. We must captive breeding or direct habitat also recognize that many species manipulation. have become reliant on the ways • Light Managed‑ species that rely humans manage the world and that on limited human interventions via to successfully conserve species we population enhancement or habitat will have to apply different levels of management. They rely on human human interventions to ensure their resource management to sustain on‑going survival. The group theretheir populations. fore defined a continuum of species • Conservation Dependent‑ species conservation states based on the that are self‑sustaining but require ways species are reliant on human extrinsic management of human interventions for their survival. At one behaviors such as those to combat end are species found only in captive over‑exploitation. populations, such as zoos and aquari- • Self‑ Sustaining‑ species that ums and are dependent on people to express full conservation attributes and survive without human subsidy.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
It is also important to note that species that are abundant now may not continue to be so. As habitat loss and global climate shifts proceed it is expected that more species will require intensive demographic, health and genetic management. It is therefore important to shift our focus beyond threatened, vulnerable and endangered species to encompass the equally important role played by common or abundant species. We need to put forth an optimistic vision of a fully conserved species, a green list to complement the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) through our Species Conservation Program, headed by Dr. Elizabeth Bennett, incorporates the work we do at our 5 New York City zoological parks with 1,700 captive or intensively managed species with the 75 land and seascape programs in 60 countries conserving land and seascape species. In this way we integrate the expertise within our zoological and field programs across the continuum of the states of species conservation. We have defined 3 initiatives within the species programs: Global Priority Species, Recovery Species and Global Priority Species Groups. Global Priority Species (GPS) are biologically important, powerful icons of nature that need conservation action. For WCS it is also important that when selecting our GPS that we feel we can make a difference, that it is a priority for the entire organization and that we commit to saving the species across its global range. A fully developed GPS will include those where we have completed the range‑wide priority setting process and that WCS works in at least three
of the land or seascapes within that range. In addition we have set 10 year goals for the program, have completed a conceptual model, have developed measurable targets over the 10 years, have gained country and government approval and have articulated a 10 year funding model. Recovery Species (RS) are those that have sustained a dramatic population decline, require intensive management to avoid extinction, are biologically important and important to people and whose recovery in the wild is ecologically, politically and logistically feasible. WCS is working on a decision tree tool that has been applied to hundreds of potential qualifying species in our parks and landscape programs in order to prioritize how best to focus resources on those species where we can make a difference. We also defined a third group of iconic species that don’t necessarily fit into the GPS category as a single species but would as a group of species. We have called this the Global Priority Species Groups and include iconic groups such as cetaceans, sea turtles or migratory birds. They are biologically important, include a recognized need for conservation action, are iconic as a group and face a common threat or threats. A draft decision tree has been created to select candidates in this category.
The Wildlife Conservation Society has throughout its 115-year history focused on species conservation, however the establishment of this integrated zoological and field species conservation program is new. We hope that by sharing our progress here we have assisted others in their efforts to better define species conservation in their organizations.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Building Sustainable Zoo Populations and Connecting Zoo Populations to Field Conservation, A Report by the AZA Task Force on the Sustainability of Zoo‑based Populations: Phase 1. Paul Boyle – Association of Zoos & Aquariums | Brad Andrews – Sea World | Candice Dorsey – Association of Zoos & Aquariums | Mike Fouraker – Fort Worth Zoo | Dennis Pate – Henry Doorley Zoo | Mark Reed – Sedgewick County Zoo | Bob Wiese – San Diego Zoological Society (Task Force Chair)
In early 2009, then Chairman of the AZA Board, Brad Andrews engaged the AZA staff and Board members and colleagues across the U. S. in a discussion about the sustainability of zoological populations. This dialog was prompted by the empirical perception that many zoo‑based populations were not sustainable. Shortly after this discussion began, the Board chair appointed a special Task Force to investigate the sustainability of zoo‑based populations in AZA institutions. This Sustainability Task Force quickly discerned that the parameters affecting the sustainability of aquatic species were sufficiently different from those affecting non‑aquatic species that it created a separate Aquatic Sustainability Task Force to investigate aquatic sustainability issues in a separate, parallel track. The Aquatic Sustainability Task Force will report on its investigations separately during 2011. For the remainder of this paper the term “the Task Force” refers specifically to the work of the Task Force on the Sustainability of Zoo‑based Populations.
During 2009 and the first half of 2010 the Task Force focused on the following assessments: • Assessing the current sustainability of zoo populations with a broad focus across major taxonomic groups. • Setting achievable goals for population sustainability. • Assessing impediments to achieving sustainability. • Developing recommendations for modifications to AZA’s Species Survival Plan® programs that would increase population sustainability. • In conducting this work, the Task Force used the following guiding principles: • All zoo populations should be managed. • Animal management programs should be accountable. • All program changes should build population sustainability. • Changes should create incentives for program leaders to make populations more sustainable. • Program administration should be simplified.
The Task force found strong foundations throughout the animal management programs indicating a very high level of dedication among program leaders to conservation and best practices in animal care and welfare. However, by late 2009, the Task Force had conducted sufficient analytical studies to support the premise that zoo‑based populations, in fact, were largely declining in overall numbers over the previous decade. This included studies on carnivores, birds, reptiles and amphibians, hoof stock, and primates. Initially, the root cause seemed largely due to low numbers of animals in the specific populations. However, further investigation identified a number of underlying factors that individually and collectively reduced the sustainability of the various populations. These included: • Population too small to yield long ‑term sustainability. • Lack of space, including both exhibit and breeding space, sufficient to maintain a population capable of reaching long‑term sustainability. • Lack of husbandry expertise to breed some species predictably. • Overloaded population planning capacity.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
• Unnecessary complexity in population management administration. • Inadequate awareness at all levels related to sustainability issues. • A need for a stronger overall commitment to supporting sustainability outcomes. • Widespread difficulty in obtaining permits for acquiring and moving animals. • Dwindling staff expertise related to the husbandry of a broad range of species. In advance of the Task Force work, AZA’s Wildlife Conservation Management Committee (WCMC) identified program accountability as being clearly among the primary needs of building long term sustainability. An intensive program was put in place from 2007 through 2008, which succeeded in achieving program accountability near the 97 to 99 percent level. As the Task Force began developing recommendations to address the lingering issues shown in the above list, the initial focus was placed on: • Reducing administrative impediments that thwart sustainability. • Increasing resources that will advance sustainability. • Increasing the focus and incentives toward achieving sustainability. Other aspects that will require a longer time‑horizon to implement include: • Increasing the capacity for population management planning. • Developing new program leader professional development courses. • Capacity‑building in the writing and submission of permits • Sustainability education for all levels of stakeholders.
In July 2010 the Task Force brought a Phase‑1 set of recommendations to the AZA Board, which were unanimously approved. The following provides an overview of changes in the AZA SSP® programs that will be put into place in January 2011. • Population sustainability and conservation achievement of individual programs will be assessed separately. • Each animal management program will earn its level of population sustainability and / or conservation achievement and the levels can change depending on the program’s performance. • Population sustainability of each managed program will be placed in one of three levels: Green, Yellow, or Red (as described below). • Sustainability assessments will be performed as part of the ongoing process of management planning using models such as ZooRisk, Vortex, or others. • The general criteria for assessing long‑term sustainability will be how long a population is projected to remain demographically viable with total gene diversity above 90%. • Assessment of populations of some taxa will require consideration and monitoring of other criteria as well. • All AZA institutions will continue to be subject to the AZA Acquisition and Disposition and the Code of Professional Ethics policies. • Institutional accountability regarding active participation and willingness to provide timely and accurate data remains important for building collections sustainability; as such, institutional participation in following breeding recommendations and the provision of required data will be reported in management program plans, regional collection plans, and other communications. Details of the individual program levels are as follows:
GREEN SSP® Programs • The population is currently sustainable for the long term. • A population sustainable demographically for greater than 100 years or greater than 10 generations • The population is able to maintain a high level of gene diversity (>90%) over this time. • The program is subject to SSP® Full Participation and the AZA Non ‑member Participation Policy and process. • These programs are called Species Survival Plans®.
YELLOW SSP® Programs • The population currently can not retain 90% gene diversity for greater than 100 years or more than 10 generations. • Factors affecting sustainability may include • Too few individuals in the population. • Insufficient space available for maintaining a sustainable population. • Lack of husbandry and breeding expertise. • Low gene diversity • Poor demographics • Adherence to SSP® Full Participation is voluntary but remains highly recommended. • The program can partner with non ‑member organizations without the AZA non‑member application process. • Institutions are encouraged to participate in these programs to increase their sustainability. • These programs are called Species Survival Plans®
34 RED Programs • The population is not currently sustainable. • The population has fewer than 50 individuals. • The program is not designated as an SSP® program • The program is managed as an official AZA Studbook if the Taxon Advisory Group (TAG) recommends the species in the Regional Collection Plan (RCP). • The program is not required to engage in formal planning on a regularly scheduled basis, although such population planning is allowed if the program leader so desires. • RED designation may be a strong call to action. • Adherence to SSP® Full Participation is voluntary • The program can partner with non ‑member organizations without the AZA non‑member application process. • Some start‑up efforts will fall into this category and their designation may be changed as the appropriate sustainability criteria are attained.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Population Planning • GREEN SSP®, YELLOW SSP®, and RED Studbook programs all continue to require an official AZA Studbook. • All studbook keepers are required to complete the AZA Population Management I course. • Studbook keepers are encouraged to submit studbooks to AZA and ISIS every three years. • Population biologists are available to assist planning for all Animal Management Programs including RED programs as available. • RED Studbook Programs can advance into the YELLOW or GREEN SSP® category if they meet the required sustainability criteria.
Conservation Action Designation The Task Force will appoint a Special Working Group to develop criteria and a process for assessing the conservation achievements of individual programs. The Conservation Assessment Working Group will include: members of the Sustainability Task Force, several members of AZA’s Field Conservation Committee and a number of other stakeholders. The Working Group will develop a set of recommendations for approval by the AZA Board. Following approval of the criteria and process for assessing the conservation achievement of individual programs, the Field Conservation Committee will be charged with conducting the program assessments. Programs that qualify will be granted a designation of GOLD, SILVER, or BRONZE depending on the amount of in situ conservation action being completed and / or research, which is directly related to measurable conservation outcomes. The Conservation assessment process will be implemented during the latter part of 2011.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Further Actions to build Program Sustainability
The Sustainability Task force extends • Efforts to increase population planspecial thanks to the following for ning capacity: • More individuals will be trained and significant assistance in planning The Sustainability Task Force recomfor the development of sustainable authorized to provide population mendations call for a number of other animal management programs: management planning services. actions to build program sustainabil• Some U. S. regional zoo groups ity. These include: • AZA’s Wildlife Conservation & Manmay fund population biology planagement Committee (WCMC). ner positions for planning in their • Increased Training opportunities • The Taxon Advisory Group (TAG) region. that will stress: Chairs. • To ensure consistency in plan devel• The fundamental importance of opment all authorized planners will • All of AZA’s Animal Program Leadcollaboration at local, regional, and ers. undergo similar training. global levels. • The Avian Science Advisory Group • The essential need for institutions (SAG) • Increased training on permit applito support capable staff in their vital • The Small Population Management cation writing: role as Program Leaders. • Permit‑writing workshops will be Advisory Group. • The crucial need for institutions to held at AZA meetings with as• Sarah Long follow breeding plan recommendasistance from permit authorizing • William Conway tions. agencies. • Palmer Krantz • On‑line courses in permit applica• Deborah Colbert • Increased space for animal holding tion writing will be developed by • Bob Lacy and breeding: AZA. • Steve Thompson • Lack of space is the primary factor affecting zoos’ ability to achieve the • Development of Program Leader Thanks also to the AZA Board of development of sustainable animal succession planning: Directors for encouraging the Task populations. • All SSP® programs will be required Force to continue working to ensure • Beyond a general lack of space, the to have an identified program Vice a sustainable future for zoological lack of holding and breeding space ‑Coordinator who will be mentored populations. is the principal concern. in developing capabilities for • Centralized breeding and holdhandling Program Leader responsiing centers may be necessary to bilities. maintain sustainable populations of • All SSP® Program Coordinators some taxa. and Vice‑Coordinators will be • Program Leaders are actively strongly encouraged to complete encouraged to work to increase the AZA Program Leader management course. space needed for their programs to • Program Leaders will be encourachieve YELLOW and GREEN SSP® aged to complete additional online designations. training courses as they are devel• Investigating models for cooperaoped. tive financing for the development of holding and breeding space at larger institutions that have available land. • Examples include The National Elephant Center, C2S2 (Conservation Centers for Species Survival), the development of global zoo and aquarium partnerships (e.g. Global Species Management Plans –GSMPs).
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Chicago Zoological Society’s Center for the Science of Animal Welfare Dan Wharton – Senior Vice‑President Conservation Science | Nadja Wielebnowski – Vice‑President Animal Welfare Science | Jason Watters – Behavioral Research Manager, Chicago Zoological Society
The Center for the Science of Animal Welfare (CSAW), Chicago Zoological Society, represents the integration of the departments of conservation science, veterinary services, and animal care for practicing and advancing state‑of‑the‑art zoo animal management. CSAW’s focus is to provide continuous improvement of animal welfare through sound, multi‑disciplinary scientific study. CSAW’s strength comes from the integration of many disciplines, emphasizing behavioral research and behavioral endocrinology. CSAW is also planning to provide training and development of future zoo animal welfare scientists.
The modern science of endocrinology has provided new tools for the monitoring of zoo animals. One of the special applications of this science for zoo animals is in the development of methods to get measurements without handling the animals. While blood serum is an obvious source of circulating hormones, techniques have been developed to get excellent readings from feces, urine and saliva. Hormone assays have been validated for more than 50 species over the past eight years at Chicago Zoological Society laboratories. We can now measure such things as estrous cycles, pregnancy, seasonality, onset of puberty, reproductive senescence and physiological stress responses.
We have two major initiatives in our Behavioral Research department. One is the development of a predictive theory for environmental enrichment. This is, in part, based on the simple facts that few animals in nature eat on schedule while few animals in zoos eat off schedule. Wild animals must figure out when and where food is. These facts provide the basis for translating learning theory into some assumptions about environmental enrichment practices including predictions on the effects of varying “doses” of enrichment.
Among the unusual species for which we can now diagnose pregnancy are aardvarks, red river hogs, okapi, also ovulation and seasonality in echidnas. Physiological stress response in clouded leopards has been an important part of our work and we have been able to demonstrate scientifically that the addition of more hiding places and climbing structures in clouded leopard exhibits cause a dramatic decline in measurable stress response.
In a study of fennec foxes under multiple and varying doses of food enrichment, it was possible to demonstrate that fennec fox behaviors became more varied and the time spent sleeping declined dramatically. Adjunct to this study was one of the visitors coming to the fennec fox exhibit while the foxes were subject to the enrichment dosing study. Visitor time spent at the exhibit watching and discussing the foxes increased significantly (see Watters et al., 2010).
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Another area of research is in “behavioral types” or issues in animal personality. By studying this as yet another aspect of population management, we can begin to develop methods for assessing zoo animals in regard to manager expectations. For instance, when one considers that “visitor experience” is the foundation for realizing the zoo mission in wildlife conservation, it becomes much more important to know which individual animals are likely to engage in natural behaviors on exhibit.
The Welfare Monitoring Tool Project We are currently moving into the implementation phase of employing an exciting new tool in animal welfare monitoring. This will include previously established questionnaire techniques to create easy‑to‑use welfare rating sheets for a wide variety of species, ranging from mammals, to birds and reptiles. These rating sheets are based on expert opinions of pertinent welfare measures for each species. We have validated the rating sheets by conducting detailed behavioral observations, collecting and analyzing hormonal data and reviewing medical records. Currently, we have developed rating sheets for twelve species: Aardvark, African elephant, clouded leopard, fennec fox, Goeldi’s monkey, gorilla, okapi, black rhinoceros, polar bear, leopard gecko, green‑winged macaw and red‑tailed hawk.
As ground‑breaking research, the For further reading: resulting tool will: 1) pinpoint appropriate methods for monitoring the • Watters, J. 2009. Toward a prewell‑being of individual animals; 2) dictive theory for environmental evaluate whether efforts to improve enrichment. Zoo Biology 28 (6): conditions result in enhanced welfare; 609–622. and, 3) refine institutional animal care • Watters, J., J. Miller, T. Sullivan. guidelines. 2010. Note on Optimizing Environmental Enrichment: A Study of Fennec Fox and Zoo Guests. Zoo Biology Animal Welfare Symposia DOI 10.1002/zoo.20365 • Whitham, J. and N. Wielebnowski. In 2008, the Chicago Zoological Soci2009. Animal‑based welfare moniety’s Center for the Science of Animal toring: using keeper ratings as an Welfare hosted its first symposium assessment tool. Zoo Biology 28 (6): entitled “Measuring Zoo Animal 545–560. Welfare: Combining Approaches • Wielebnowski, N. and J. Watters. and Overcoming Challenges.” The 2008. Applying Fecal Endocrine proceedings of this symposium were Monitoring to Conservation and published in 2009 in a special issue Behavioral Studies of Wild Mamof Zoo Biology entitled “Optimal mals: Important Considerations and Zoo Animal Husbandry” (Zoo Biology Preliminary Tests. The Israel Journal 28–6). of Ecology & Evolution 53: 439–460. Currently, a second Chicago Zoological Society animal welfare symposium is in planning for June 6 – 8, 2012 at the Brookfield Zoo.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
The ISO’s International Workshop Agreement (IWA) Trevor Vyze – International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
Introduction The International Workshop Agreement (IWA) was developed to bridge the gap between private consortia that produce standards and ISO’s formal International Standardization process which produces standards through the ISO member bodies (National Standards Bodies). The IWA is a very flexible model of standardization and still keeps the principles of openness and consensus. It involves direct participation of stakeholders. The IWA can provide a quick and effective solution for groups of people looking to solve the same problem or who wish to communicate something they have already developed to the international market. IWAs can be initiated and driven by any stakeholder group (industry, service providers, administrations, users and consumers) and they can come from any country or region of the world.
Main selling points of the IWA An IWA will: • Involve the main players from your target sector (public or private) and allow a sector to develop clear rules on an issue. • Give visibility to your professional practices or reference documents (ISO is a highly recognized international body). • Help you shape the future direction of the subject and influence any future ISO standard. • Allow you to develop relationships within a profession or sector. • Create understanding and co ‑ordination amongst your various stakeholders.
• Share best practice in a sector. • Improve quality and interoperability. • Lead to worldwide visibility due to ISO members’ distribution networks. • Help you to develop a members ‑only forum to communicate using, for example, a dedicated Web site.
Proposals to develop IWAs
possibility that a workshop may establish project teams to progress work between meetings of the workshop, the expected date of availability of any IWA, etc.
Review of proposals Proposals will be referred to the Technical Management Board for approval. If the proposal is accepted, the TMB will initiate consultations with member bodies to identify a candidate willing to act as the organizer and to provide administrative and logistics support to the proposer. Preference will normally be given to:
A proposal to hold an ISO workshop for the purpose of developing one or more IWAs on a particular subject may come from any source, including ISO member bodies, liaison organizations, corporate bodies etc. An organization that is not an ISO member body or liaison organization, or is not international in scope, shall inform • The member body presenting the the ISO member body in its country proposal (if the proposal comes of its intent to submit such a proposal. from a member body) Whenever practicable, proposers • The member body from the country shall provide details concerning: of the proposer, if the proposer is not a member body; or • Purpose and justification of the • Member bodies holding secretariats proposal; in fields related to that covered by • Relevant documents; and the proposal. • Cooperation and liaison, If there is more than one offer, the TMB will formally designate the in accordance with the ISO/IEC Direcmember body assigned to act as the tives, Part 1, 2004, annex C. Additionally, wherever possible, proposals shall workshop secretariat. The assigned include indication of an ISO member ISO member body may establish body willing to provide secretariat financial arrangements with the support to the IWA Workshop. If it is proposer to cover administrative considered likely that participation in and logistics support costs for the the workshop will need to be limited workshop. If a member body is not (see 7.2 of this document), this shall willing to act as workshop secretariat, also be indicated. In some circumthe ISO/TMB may authorize the stances, it may be considered that ISO Central Secretariat to fulfill this several meetings may be needed in role, provided all associated costs order to reach a consensus. In such are recovered by workshop registracases, the proposer is encouraged, or tion fees. An informative checklist may be required by the Technical Man- for estimating IWA workshop can agement Board, to develop a business be obtained from the ISO CS (tmb@ plan which would give details concern- iso.org). The workshop secretariat ing meeting schedules, expected dates and the proposer shall designate the of availability of draft documents, the chairman of the workshop.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Once the workshop secretariat and the proposer have agreed on a date and venue for the first meeting of the workshop, these shall be communicated to the ISO member bodies. These details shall be further announced by the workshop secretariat, the ISO Central Secretariat and by any other interested member bodies in the most appropriate way(s) to achieve the widest possible circulation (e.g. a publicly accessible website). This may include a number of different announcement options and media, but the intent is to ensure that the broadest range of relevant interested parties worldwide are informed of the workshop and have the opportunity to attend. The proposer and workshop secretariat will ensure that any ISO committees with projects relevant to the subject will be invited to be represented at the workshop1. A registration fee may be applied to help support preparation and hosting of the workshop. Any registration fees shall be stated in the workshop announcement. NOTE: When the subject matter of a workshop is likely to be of interest to developing countries, it is recommended either that a funding mechanism other than a registration fee be applied to facilitate participation from such countries, or that a number of “free” registrations be permitted. The announcement shall be made at least 90 days in advance of the agreed date to allow potential attendees adequate time to plan on attending the workshop. The announcement shall be accompanied by a registration form to allow potential participants to register for the workshop. Registration forms shall be returned to the workshop Secretariat.
A workshop programme detailing workshop objectives, deliverables, agenda, draft documents and any other relevant details for the workshop shall be available, and circulated to registered participants, no later than six weeks prior to the workshop date. Registered participants may submit their own contributions to the workshop secretariat for further distribution to other participants.
1 Where requested, ISO CS will help identify any TCs with a possible interest. It is also likely that the ISO TMB will note any relevant TCs with an interest when they approve the IWA.
Participation Workshop chairmen The proposer and workshop secretary shall designate the chairman of any particular workshop. The chairman shall act in a purely international and neutral capacity and in particular shall: • Ensure that all points of view expressed during a workshop are adequately summed up so that they are understood by all present, • Conduct the workshop with a view to reaching consensus, • Ensure that all decisions are clearly formulated and, if needed, made available to the participants before closure of the meeting of the workshop.
Registered participants Any organization may register as a participant in a workshop and participation will be open to the registered participants only. Participants are not required to be appointed by the ISO member body in their country2. The workshop secretariat, chairman and proposer shall endeavour to ensure that the broadest range of interests is represented in any workshop and that there is an appropriate balance of representation. If needed, this may require that some limitation be placed on participation (for example no more than two registered
2 ISO member bodies however can, in principle, participate in their own right.
participants from the same corporate body or organization). If the need to limit participation is expected at the outset, this shall be indicated in the proposal submitted to the Technical Management Board. If a need for limitation becomes apparent after announcement of the workshop, this shall be authorized by the TMB secretariat following consultation with the TMB chairman and, if needed, other TMB members.
Project teams In cases in which more than one meeting will be required to reach consensus, a workshop may establish one or more project teams to progress work between meetings of the workshop. The workshop shall designate the membership of such project teams, ensuring that their working methods will allow all interests to participate fully.
Workshop procedures and management oversight Workshops will be permitted to work in a practically autonomous manner using very flexible procedures. However, there are a number of general ISO policies which need to be respected, in particular those concerning intellectual property rights and the use of SI units. It shall be the responsibility of the workshop secretariat to ensure that the appropriate policies are known to registered participants and are respected. Management oversight will be kept to the minimum required to ensure coordination with existing standardization activities if relevant and to ensure that appropriate resource is provided by the ISO system. It will be the responsibility of the workshop chairman to determine when consensus of the workshop participants has been reached on a particular item or deliverable. For the purposes of determining consensus, the workshop chairman shall apply the following definition contained in ISO/IEC Guide 2:1996:
40 “General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments. Consensus need not imply unanimity.” It should be noted that an IWA workshop may arrive at the consensus that an IWA deliverable is not necessary. The workshop deliverables shall contain a description of the workshop consensus achieved including any recommendations for possible future actions or revisions to the workshop deliverables. The deliverable resulting from the workshop will proceed to publication based on the consensus of the workshop without additional reviews or approvals by any other body, except in the case of an appeal on such a deliverable (see immediately below).
Appeals Any parties affected by the deliverable resulting from the workshop shall have the right of appeal for the following reasons: • The workshop and the process to arrive at its deliverable have not complied with these procedures; • The deliverable resulting from the workshop is not in the best interests of international trade and commerce, or such public factors as safety, health or the environment; or • The contents of the deliverable resulting from the workshop conflict with existing or draft ISO standard (s) or may be detrimental to the reputation of ISO. Such appeals shall be submitted within two months of the date of the workshop and shall be considered by the ISO Technical Management Board which in such circumstances will take the final decision concerning publication of an IWA.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Workshop deliverables and publication Workshops will decide on the content of their own deliverables. It is strongly recommended that the drafting rules in Part 2 of the ISO/IEC Directives be followed if possible. The workshop secretariat and proposer shall be responsible for preparation of the text. The final document shall be sent to the ISO Central Secretariat for publication as an IWA. They will be numbered in a special IWA series. IWAs may be published in one of the official ISO languages only and competing IWAs on the same subject are permitted. The technical content of an IWA may compete with the technical content of an existing ISO or IEC standard, or the proposed content of an ISO or IEC standard under development, but conflict is not normally permitted unless expressly authorized by the TMB.
Review of IWAs Three years after publication, the member body which provided the workshop secretariat will be requested to organize the review of an IWA, consulting interested market players as well as, if needed, the relevant ISO committee (s). The result of the review may be to confirm the IWA for a further three year period, to withdraw the IWA or to submit it for further processing as another ISO deliverable in accordance with Part 1 of the ISO/IEC Directives. An IWA may be further processed to become a Publicly Available Specification, a Technical Specification or an International Standard, according to the market requirement. An IWA may exist for a maximum of six years following which it shall either be withdrawn or be converted into another ISO deliverable.
Costing of the services provided by the secretariat of the IWA. The specific services which will be carried out by the member body appointed as secretariat for the IWA, and the price of those services, are the subject of a private contract between the ISO member body and the proposing organization. ISO member bodies appointed as secretariats to IWAs shall consider the overall reputation of ISO when costing their services, drafting contracts and executing the final services agreed.
Distribution of the published IWA The IWA will be distributed as with any other ISO publication. This includes in particular the right of ISO Members to nationally adopt the IWA as indicated in ISO Guide 21:20053, or to reproduce the IWA in accordance to the terms of ISO POCOSA 20054. The IWA will also be available from the ISO Central Secretariat. If, however, the proposing organization wishes to suggest additional mechanisms for distributing the published IWA, then such terms should be submitted to the Secretary General of ISO for approval before the start of the IWA process.
3 Regional or national adoption of International Standards and other International Deliverables, Parts 1 and 2. 4 ISO Policies and Procedures for copyright, copyright exploitation rights and sales of ISO Publications
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Why Not Partner an African Zoo? Dave R. Morgan – Executive Director, African Association of Zoos and Aquaria (PAAZAB)
I was recently asked if there were any zoos in Africa, to which I replied that there are indeed. My surprised questioner then responded, “But why have zoos in Africa at all?” I guess that it is a reasonable query when one considers that Africa remains home to probably the largest populations and conceivably one of the greatest in diversity, of free‑ranging animals in the world. Overall, approximately 7 per cent of the land area of Africa has been designated as protected giving a total of 1 254 protected areas. However when one considers that the average sub‑Saharan wage is less than 70 US cents a day and that 37% of population of continental Africa is urbanized – often with truly staggering numbers of people living in cities, Lagos, Nigeria, 14 million, Cairo, Egypt, 22 Million – we are faced with the fact that the vast majority of these folk Are highly unlikely to see these masses of free‑ranging animals in wild for themselves. In this regard, African Zoos serve the identical function as do European and American zoos – they connect people with wildlife. In many African cases, they provide the only contact with wildlife. So to return then to the original question; are there zoos in Africa? Most assuredly; the African Association of Zoos and Aquaria (PAAZAB) currently estimate approximately 200 zoos and zoo‑type facilities in 48 countries in Africa (Morgan, 2003). These zoos are found in three main density clusters on continental Africa: southern Africa, West Africa and North Africa. A lot of these zoos are colonial artefacts, of early to mid 1900 derivation and are now government operated in one capacity or another. They also represent a considerable diversity of operational standards, ranging from world ‑class facilities to what are very likely, amongst the world’s worst examples of zoos. Sadly, as such they represent
a real concern to both international animal welfare NGOs and the larger community of professional zoos as represented by the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA).
mores, skills transfer and resource and capacity building. Such partnerships have also involved the sponsoring of these facilities’ institutional membership to PAAZAB.
The reasons why such zoos are like this are legion, but the primary reasons hinge around funding deficiencies, certainly a degree of ignorance of modern zoo practice, bureaucratic inertia and a total absence in most cases of relevant animal welfare and/ or zoo legislation. Notwithstanding, despite the best efforts of various animal welfare and rights NGOs to have them closed down (and in doing so, absolutely ravaging the image of all zoos worldwide); many of these zoos continue to exist.
However, since these zoos were brought into the PAAZAB fold, there has been the initiation of a mandatory‑compliance operational standard within the membership of PAAZAB. This standard is based upon the South African National Code of Zoo and Aquarium Practice (SANS 10379:2004). All institutional members of PAAZAB are now required to demonstrate compliance with this standard following inspection visits by trained PAAZAB auditors. This standard is applicable to all member zoos and aquariums in Africa and is aimed very specifically at uplifting all elements of operational practise in African Zoos. In doing so, it is envisaged that such benchmarking will engender a better environment for partner relationships between African and Developed World zoos.
Yet the fact of their continued existence should also be seen as a statement of their very desirability to the communities that visit them. A desirability that is often manifest in very high visitor numbers; in excess of 4 million people per annum in the case of Giza Zoo in Egypt and 1.5 million in the case of Addis Ababa Lion Zoo in Ethiopia. Such turnovers demonstrate that in the intensely urbanised environments that these cities represent, zoos provide some form of valued service to their communities. These zoos are not going to go away… Over the years, PAAZAB has examined various means of engaging with African Zoos. The most effective means to date has been the fostering of partner relationships between African Zoos and those in Europe. Noteworthy have been Leipzig Zoo’s partnering of Addis Ababa Lion Zoo in Ethiopia; the Zoological Society of London’s partnering with Kumasi Zoo in Ghana and Bristol Zoo with Mvog Betsi Zoo in Cameroon. These relationships have been characterised by effective cross‑pollination of cultural
The problem being that it will take several years to take some of these zoos from scratch through the Operational Standard process and mentoring. To this end PAAZAB has restructured the partnership deal to extend over a five year period to include operational standard mentoring and eventual auditing. A single lump sum to PAAZAB from the sponsoring zoo covers the cost of five years of membership to PAAZAB plus an operational standard audit, along with inspection visits and PAAZAB conference attendance. We still have a number of African zoos out there which we would like to guide into the larger WAZA community of zoos. Do give some consideration to sponsoring one of them.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Public and Private Sector Collaboration to Preserve Biodiversity in Aviculture Peter Karsten – Denman Island, B.C. Canada
Definitions: • “Public sector/institutions”: zoological gardens and conservation centers operating on a non‑profit basis. • “Private sector/institutions”: privately owned avicultural operation. • “Private breeder”: home based, aviculturist not depending on operating cost recovery.
Introduction “Only human passion can save spe‑ cies diversity in aviculture” The species extinction crisis is a reality to which we must respond with more ex situ conservation programs. Despite this, zoo animal inventory records indicate a diminishing trend of biodiversity in avian populations, and, although difficult to capture statistically, this is echoed in private bird collections. The causes include: • Import export restrictions due to avian influenza. • More species are subject to import/ export restrictions under endangered species regulations. • Competition over animal management spaces by other classes of animals with higher conservation priority and or charisma in zoological gardens. • Economic constraints to establish off‑exhibit breeding programs in zoological institutions. • Shift in spare time activities away from keeping and breeding birds in the private sector. • Propagation of many species is labor intense and costly. Cost recovery through sales of surplus birds is problematic.
Against this back drop the sequestration of new founders for ex situ breeding programs has become difficult. Softbill species are of particular concern. Most species require labour intense management, specialized breeding environment and costly food supplies. It is inconceivable that we will enjoy the wide variety of birds in aviculture, which we have today, unless we employ innovation, share available resources and make long term commitments. Passion and altruism, not monetary rewards, are the basis to achieve the preservation of species diversity in aviculture. The joining of forces between the public and private sector to establish more self‑sustaining avian population is suggested.
Loss of diversity in various genera of passerine birds A comparison of the International Species Information System (ISIS) data between June 1998 and September 2010 reveals a loss of species diversity by zoological institutions. This occurred despite a 37.5% increase of member institutions in the last 12 years. (500 to 800). The status of minlas, yuhinas, laughing thrushes (“Garrulax”), tits (Pa‑ rus), bulbuls (Pycnonotus), thrushes (Zoothera), robins (Erithacus), leafbirds (Chloropsis), tanagers and honey creepers has been examined (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1: Numbers of species per ISIS‑member for ten genera of passerine birds in 1998 and 2010.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
The Problem of Space and Resources William Conway, Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, warned us three decades ago that wildlife spaces had become endangered, not simply species. In the context of species conservation, this encompasses in situ and ex situ spaces, both, in public and private aviaries. Limited space and resources pose limitations to pursue the intensive breeding of a wide range of bird species and softbills in particular. The breeding of highly territorial species combined with seasonal incompatibility of mates (members of family Musicapidae for example) set a high threshold for such endeavours in a zoo environment when it is designed to present a variety of bird species to serve public education and recreation. Off‑exhibit breeding facilities have been established and remarkable achievements have been reached. But the sheer number of species needing off‑exhibit breeding spaces and organized programs is overwhelming. The need to access and create more wildlife spaces for species conservation and recovery programs is obvious. Many species of hookbills and hardbills are still well represented and can be preserved within the companion animal population by private breeders. The potential wildlife spaces reach into the millions; and what is significant, they are generally not sustained on a cost‑benefit basis, but on the passion for the animal. Revenue is pursued to offset operating cost, however the cost of labour is not a primary concern of many home based aviculturists. (I bred 30 offspring of genus Leiothrix at an average cost of Can$ 133 per bird, labour excluded, or Can$ 633 per bird labour included. The current market price in Canada for these species is about Can$ 250.) To engage private breeders who are pursuing conservation breeding programs deserves serious consideration.
3 1 paired birds which could breed [% of total population] 2 unpaired birds [% of total population] 3 unsexed birds with unknown breeding potential [% of total population] Fig. 2: Composition of the world wide population of Leiothrix lutea kept by ISIS‑members in September 2010
Fig. 3: Composition of the North American population of Leiothrix lutea kept by ISIS‑members in September 2010
Breeding of Pekin Robins or red‑billed Leiothrix L eiothrix lutea in zoological institutions
North American situation
World‑wide situation. The population is declining in public aviaries. ISIS data of member institutions: June 1998 = 345 specimens in 46 institutions (7.7 per Inst.). September 2010 = 318 birds in 55 institutions (5.78 per institution). More important are the numbers of birds propagated: June 1998 captive bred birds in the last twelve months = 21 and in 2010 = 25. While the breeding of pekin robins in zoological gardens is on the rise, the population is still diminishing. The global captive population is underutilized for breeding, since nearly half of the tracked specimens are not identified by sex. There are also unpaired birds in a number of collections (Fig. 2)
The North American captive population has a distinclty higher percentage of paired birds which could breed (Fig. 3). Despite this fact, the North American population showed a drastically decline from 1998 to 2010 (ISIS‑data of member institutions: June 1998 = 201 specimens, September 2010 = 70 birds; see Table 1). The number of birds propagated declined roughly proportionally (June 1998 = 18 birds bred during the last twelve months (0.07 offsprings per bird), September 2010 = 5 birds bred during the last twelve months (0.09 offsprings per bird)).
44 Pekin robins in Private sector Fortunately pekin robins can be bred by aviculturists through intense and focussed breeding programs. Off ‑exhibit breeding facilities have the greatest success in the private and public sector. (See Table 1) Although there are no comprehensive statistics, the population in private aviaries is declining rapidly since imports for the commercial trade stopped in 1997, when the species became listed in C. I. T. E. S Appendix II. Birds imported prior to that date are reaching the end of their average reproductive years (8 years, author’s experience). The species is effectively disappearing from the companion bird market. Recruitment from captive breeding very sporadic among pekin robin owners. 142 offspring were raised since 1999 to independence by the author, who has kept 14 birds on average per year. Over the last 11 years the reproduction rate was close to 93%. About ten birds were provided to other breeders annually. This represents a healthy surplus ratio to support other inventories. However, the intense breeding with only 19 founders to the 5th generation caused the dilemma that all offspring in 2010 are to some extend related. Only three unrelated founders could be located in Canada for the 2011 breeding season. This means curtailing further breeding of most of the progeny to protect genetic diversity. A solution had to be found.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Table 1: Statistics on the North American population of Leiothrix lutea in public institutions and by one private breeder Date
Public institutions Private breeder
No. of institutions 06/98 26 09/10 18 09/10 1
41.31.129 32.31.7 16.11.3
201 70 30
Births [total of Births [% of total last 12 months] population] 18 7 5 9 18 60
Table 2: The collaboration will undoubtedly lead to a better utilization and preservation of bird species. Parameter Capital cost Operating cost – Labour Facility maintenance Technical expertise Veterinary/research and support Availability of space Disturbance/business activity Access to founders Perpetuity of facility operation Emergency keeper back up Keeper hours per day on site
Public institution high high and inflexible high standard and high cost high high low high high High good limited
Collaboration – a road to preserve avian populations in ex situ. A review of benefits and limitations between private breeders and public institutions reveals a promising scenario for collaboration to support biodiversity in both inventories over the long term.
Strength and Weakness Analysis The resources of a private breeder could be combined with the resources of a zoological garden to develop long term conservation strategies to establish self‑sustaining gene pools of birds in aviculture. (See Table 2) By pooling the resources between the two sectors, a number of the disadvantages and constraints can be mitigated.
Private breeder low with own labour low and flexible low (no public services) variable and limited low to none high for selected spp. low low to nil, depending on sp. low to none (situational) problematic unlimited
Potential positive scenario A breeding consortium can be established between zoological gardens and private breeders. The private breeders would propagate relevant species of birds on his/ her premises to provide specialized breeding environments, alleviate high production cost and focus on the specific husbandry to obtain high and consistent reproductive success. Genetically over‑represented stock and non‑breeding specimens would be transferred to public zoological gardens for education and public display. The zoo would serve as a gene bank in case specimens must be re‑entered into the active breeding population. The zoo, as a non‑profit, public education/research facility can import species protected by C. I. T. E. S. to inject new founders into the gene pool, while a private individual can only do this with great difficulty. The imported specimens would be loaned to the breeder under contract and remain the property of the zoo. This would not exclude the zoological garden form creating its own breeding habitats, but it would alleviate the need for dedicating several aviaries to one species.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Benefits between the collaborators include: • Optimal breeding success of genetically enhanced and managed populations over the long term. • High rewards to the breeder and institution through conservation achievements. • Assured long term availability of relevant species for public education, study and recreation. • Preserving breeding stock by the zoo to relocate a private inventory of birds in case the breeder can no longer operate the program. • Collaborative research/study opportunity in an “off‑exhibit” environment and sharing of experience and knowledge. Constraints and deterrents include: • Policies by Zoos and Zoo Associations confine acquisition and sales, loans and trading of animals to accredited organisations and those maintaining institutional membership in an association to ensure animal standards are met. • Private breeder may feel a loss of independence. • No guarantees that the private breeder will or can participate over the long term. • Establishment of trust relationships takes time. Suggested steps to overcome constraints: • Develop a form of an accreditation process for private breeders to partner with zoological institutions. Establish an associate member category for conservation breeders in the membership structure of zoo associations. • All animal movements between partners to be documented by signed agreements (breeding loan, exhibit loan etc.). • All specimens are permanently marked (leg bands) and listed in a studbook or similar register. • Record keeping standards are set and mutual access to records is assured. • Provision of mutual site visit privileges and exchanges of periodical status reports. Dialogue on this topic is urgent and necessary to take advantage of this promising opportunity in conservation.
Recent development A Canadian Pekin Robin Breeding Consortium has been initiated. A number of private breeders have agreed to participate in a cooperative breeding program. Approximately 25 aviary spaces have been identified specifically for the breeding of pekin robins. Peter Luscomb, General Curator of the Zoological Garden of Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, and Tom Mason the Curator of Birds and Invertebrates of the Toronto Zoo, initiated the collecting of pekin robins under permit from the wild in Hawaii and transferring them to the Toronto Zoo. The removal of pekin robins is reconcilable since this species is an alien species, which competes with endemic and native species. Avian influenza and West Nile virus is not a concern in the region of origin for the export and import of the birds. These zoo‑owned specimens will be made available as new founder to private breeders under a loan agreement. Progeny is shared between the zoological garden and the breeder. Progeny and non‑breeding specimens will be transferred to the Toronto zoo and other zoos which may participate. The Canadian zoos can provide surplus to other zoological gardens in Canada, the United States and other countries to pursue self sustainability in ex situ. It is hoped that this initiative can serve as a model for other avian programs.
Conclusion More than 12% (2010 IUCN Red List) of the world’s bird species are threatened today. Some species have been secured through ex situ breeding programs and many more must be given that attention. Passerine softbill species are in decline in aviculture. Isolated, single pair breeding aviaries require space which is difficult to provide by a public zoo. A private breeder has good opportunities to produce pekin robins which can become part of a collaborative breeding program between the public and private sector. The resources of a private breeder could be combined with the resources of a zoological garden(s)
to develop long term conservation strategies to establish self‑sustaining gene pools in aviculture. This initiative requires agreements and protocols to be worked out between the private and public sector to overcome constraints. The collaboration will undoubtedly lead to a better utilization and preservation of bird species in ex situ. Dialogue on this topic is urgent and necessary to take advantage of this promising opportunity in conservation.
References • Flesness, N. (1998/2010) International Species Information System (ISIS), Eagan, USA • Karsten, P., (2007), Pekin Robins and small softbills: management and breeding. • Hancock House Publishers Ltd., Surrey, B. C. Canada, ISBN 0-88839606-6. • Karsten, P. (2007) Public and Private Sector Collaboration – an Opportunity to build and preserve Avian Gene Pools. International Symposium On Breeding Birds In Captivity (ISBBC), Toronto, September 12 to 16, 2007 • Acknowledgement: Data on species inventories in zoological institutions compiled by Jana Kuropka, dipl. Biologist, Silver Pine Aviaries, Denman Island. B. C., Canada • www.pekinrobin.ca
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
The Value of Biodiversity and the Economics of Biodiversity Conservation Frank C. Krysiak – University of Basel, Department of Business and Economics
Introduction During the past decades, biodiversity conservation has become an important objective of environmental policy. Management programs are to be adjusted to aim not only for protecting individual species or habitats but to take into account the contribution of such activities for biodiversity conservation. Moreover, the decline in biodiversity has led to calls for increasing the scope and funding of conservation programs. This has inspired a controversial discussion about what exactly are the benefits of higher biodiversity and whether and how these benefits can be measured and compared to the costs of conservation programs. From a purely ecological perspective, it often seems to be essential to prevent the extinction of species and thereby preserve biodiversity; after all, extinction incurs an irreversible loss. However, from a broader perspective, the situation is less clear‑cut. Like almost every activity, biodiversity conservation requires resources (such as labor, capital, land, materials) that could be used for other purposes and that are scarce. The question is: Should we assign funds to the protection of a little known species if we could alternatively use them to help thousands of destitute human beings?
This way of stating the decision problem emphasizes a point that is of foremost importance from an economic perspective: Biodiversity conservation competes with other desirable activities for scarce funds. Therefore it is necessary to compare the benefits of conservation programs to those of alternative activities. To this end, we need to describe exactly why biodiversity is valuable and we need to have concepts for measuring its value. These points are the focus of the economic contribution to the biodiversity debate. In this note, I briefly review the main economic approaches to define a value of biodiversity and their implications for optimal conservation programs. To provide some background, I begin with an introduction to the mindset of economic valuation.
Economic valuation The economic theory of value is strongly driven by its intended usage as a decision support tool. Therefore, most economic valuation concepts are consequentialistic, anthropocentric, and utilitarian.1 A consequentialistic concept ascribes value according to results not according to processes. For instance, a consequentialistic approach measures the value of a conservation program by the program’s results not by its design (e.g., whether it is participatory or not) or support (e.g., whether it is democratically legitimized).
1 For an introduction see, for example, Hausman and McPherson (1996).
Anthropocentric means that results are evaluated from the perspective of human beings. Only those results matter that influence human well ‑being. For example, if no human being is harmed directly or indirectly by the extinction of a species, an anthropocentric concept provides no rationale to prevent this extinction. In particular, there are no intrinsic values to the existence of non‑human beings. Finally, utilitarian (as this term is used in economics) implies that values are measured according to individual preferences. Something is valuable if and only if it is either directly desired by a human being or it contributes indirectly to the fulfillment of a human’s desires. Thus there are no “objective” values in a utilitarian framework. All values depend on the preferences of individual human beings. Furthermore, no distinction is made between “wants” and “needs”; there are only preferences.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
These points seem reasonable in the context of appraising private goods, that is, goods with clearly defined property rights and rivalry in their use.2 If markets perform reasonably well, the relative economic value of such goods results from the interaction of demand and supply. Demand measures how strongly a good is desired compared to other goods. Supply is determined by how costly it is to provide this good. Thus a seemingly useless good, like a diamond, can have much higher economic value than an essential good, such as clean water, simply because the diamond is much demanded and costly to supply.3 However, in the context of environmental goods, the above mindset seems to be less natural. Why should the value of preserving a species depend only on the human perspective? Moreover, why should we base this value on individual preferences? An important reason for using the above framework to assess environmental goods is that economic valuation is foremost a tool to make decisions more rational and transparent in cases where there are conflicts of interest. To achieve this, it is useful to have a concept of value that is based solely on measurable quantities. If all human beings would agree that biodiversity has such high value that we should assign every available resource to its preservation; quantifying the value of biodiversity would be unnecessary. But if individuals disagree regarding the importance of biodiversity, there is no simple and appealing way to decide how much funds should be assigned to biodiversity conservation.
2 Rivalry exists whenever a good cannot be used simultaneously by more than one individual. 3 This paradox of value is often referred to as the „diamond-water paradox“ and can be traced back to the work of Adam Smith and John Locke.
Economic valuation helps to make a decision in such situations, because it derives a measure of the value of biodiversity (or, at least, a lower limit to this value) from a transparent set of assumptions and rigorous empirical studies. Although it is difficult, we can assess the value that an individual assigns to environmental goods in a framework where this value based on the individual’s preferences. For instance, hedonic price methods, contingent valuation, or choice experiments can be used to this end.4 In contrast, it is conceptually impossible to quantify intrinsic values or to separate “objectively” between needs and wants. Thus if we would include, for example, intrinsic values in a concept of the value of biodiversity, this value could never be measured. Although we would (perhaps) have an ethically more appealing concept of value, it would be almost useless as a decision support tool. Instead of arguing what is the correct quantification of an intrinsic value (which is a question that cannot be resolved scientifically), we could as well directly quarrel over the funding of specific conservation programs. For this reason, many economic valuation concepts deliberately omit non‑measurable categories of value. Due to this omission, the concepts can derive only a lower limit for the “true” value of environmental goods. However, this limit will be useful for many purposes and can be derived rigorously and transparently.
4 See, for example, the papers in Alberini and Kahn (2006) and, for an alternative perspective, Diamond and Hausman (1994).
The economic value of biodiversity To define a value of biodiversity, a first step is to separate the value of biodiversity from the individual values of species, such as the joy humans derive from the existence of a species or its value for consumption. Consider a system that consists of n species and suppose that we are able to assign a value to the system as a whole (V) as well as to each individual species (vi, i=1,…, n). The difference between the value of the whole system (V) and the sum of the individual values of its species (∑ vi) is a reasonable starting point for measuring the value of biodiversity. This difference simply represents the additional value that results from the simultaneous existence of a number of species. In practice, we cannot derive the value of biodiversity in this way as a residual. Instead, we need to define and measure it on its own. There are numerous possibilities to achieve this. But two approaches are predominant in the economic literature that could be referred to as the “information approach” and the “ecosystem services approach.”
The information approach The information approach has been promoted, for example, in Weitzman (1992, 1998) and Metrick and Weitzman (1998). In this approach, each species is seen as providing some characteristics that might be needed in the future, such as a particular genetic information. We do not yet know which of these characteristics we will actually need. Therefore it is reasonable to preserve a set of “options,” that is, a set of species with different characteristics. This approach is thus similar to the economic concept of an option value. An option value measures the economic benefit of having an addition option for acting on new information that will become available in the future, see, for example, Arrow and Fisher (1974).
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Weitzman (1998) explains this approach to appraise biodiversity with an analogy. Suppose we know that, at some point in the future, we will need some information that is available in a book. But we do not know exactly which information this will be. The books are contained in libraries that are in danger of burning down (i.e., of becoming “extinct”). In such a setup, it will be a good idea to preserve several libraries with stocks of different books, because this maximizes the probability of having access to the needed information in the future.5 Similarly, if we have different species with different characteristics but do not know which of these characteristics will be most valuable in the future, it is a good idea to preserve a set of species. The value of such a set is strictly larger than the sum of the values of the individual species. Biodiversity is valuable. This approach has been applied, for example, in Polasky et al. (1993), Weitzman (1993) and in Polasky and Solow (1995). A more sophisticated concept for measuring diversity that is based on evolutionary information has been introduced in Nehring and Puppe (2002). In this approach, biodiversity has value only due to uncertainty regarding the future. Furthermore, the contribution of an individual species to the value of biodiversity depends on the distinctiveness of the species, which is often measured in terms of genetic distance. In the above analogy, it would not be optimal to protect two libraries with almost identical inventory, because it is not rational to pay twice for the protection of the same information. With limited funds, we would rather protect libraries that hold stocks of different books. Similarly, the preservation of redundant species is usually not optimal in the Weitzman framework.
5 The measure of diversity that results from these considerations is proportional to the Shannon index (Weitzman, 1992).
The ecosystem services approach
The economics of biodiversity conservation
The second concept for appraising biodiversity connects biodiversity to the provision of ecosystem services. The argument is that the level and stability of this provision depends on biodiversity. Biodiversity thus has an indirect value; it is a means to get more out of ecosystems.
The above two approaches have drastically differing implications as to what is a good biodiversity conservation program.
This approach has been used, for example, in Brock and Xepapadeas (2003). In contrast to the information concept, it focuses not directly on the value of a set of species but rather derives such a value from the influence that the simultaneous existence of species has on the “production” of consumable goods via ecosystem services. Brock and Xepapadeas (2003) analyze a case in which almost identical species provide a service to society. The species differ with regard to their susceptibility to a pest, which can develop only if there is a sufficient number of susceptible hosts. They show that, in such a case, protecting biodiversity is valuable, even if the species are almost redundant. In this approach, the contribution of a species to the value of biodiversity depends not on distinctiveness but rather on the influence on the provision of ecosystem services. Therefore redundant species can contribute strongly to the value of biodiversity, for instance, if they increase the system’s resilience and thereby the stability of the provision of ecosystem services.
As shown in Weitzman (1998), the information approach tends to favor programs that are strongly focused. The available funds should be invested so that a selected number of highly valuable species or habitats are protected as strongly as possible. This idea can be found, for example, in the WWF 200 conservation plan. In contrast, an ecosystem services approach often favors a more even distribution of funds. Furthermore, this approach might recommend to provide funding for the protection of similar species, which is rarely optimal in the Weitzman framework, see Brock and Xepapadeas (2003). These disparities show that it is necessary to provide clear arguments concerning why and how biodiversity matters. Is biodiversity valuable due to potentially useful genetic information or rather because of a more stable provision of ecosystem services? However, both approaches, as well as the numerous other concepts for defining a value of biodiversity that are discussed in economics, clearly show that biodiversity can have value even from a purely anthropocentric perspective.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Conclusions This brief review of economic concepts for defining and assessing the value of biodiversity provides two main insights.
• Alberini, Anna and James R. Kahn, 2006, “Handbook of Contingent Valuation,” Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK. • Arrow, K. J. and Fisher, A. C., 1974, First, it is possible define clearly and Environmental Preservation, Uncertransparently what constitutes the tainty, and Irreversibility, Quarterly value of biodiversity. Furthermore, Journal of Economics 88 (2), pp. although the current approaches 312–319. are still somewhat abstract, they are • Brock, W. A. and Xepapadeas, A., based solely on measurable proper2003. Valuing Biodiversity from an ties. It is thus possible to measure Economic Perspective: A Unified the value of biodiversity and, conseEconomic, Ecological, and Genetic quently, to include biodiversity in a Approach, American Economic comparison of the costs and benefits Review 93 (5), pp. 1597–1614. of conservation programs. • Diamond, P. A. and Hausman, J. A., 1994, Contingent Valuation: Is Some However, there is an important Number Better than No Number?, caveat. As argued in Section 2, such Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 a value will almost always be a lower (3), pp. 45–64. limit to the “true” value of biodi• Hausman, D. M. and McPherson, M. versity. Thus care has to be taken in S., 1996, “Economic Analysis and interpreting and using the resulting Moral Philosophy,” Cambridge Uninumbers. In particular, economic versity Press: Cambridge, UK. assessments of biodiversity are well • Metrick, A. and Weitzman, M. L., suited to argue for the funding of 1998, Conflicts and Choices in Bioconservation programs. But, as they diversity Preservation, The Journal yield only a lower limit to the “true” of Economic Perspectives 12 (3), pp. value, they are seldom apt to show 21–34. that a program should not be funded. • Nehring, K. and Puppe, C, 2002, A Theory of Diversity, Econometrica Second, it is important to state clearly 70 (3), pp. 1155–1198. why biodiversity is important. What are the main pathways via which biodiversity enhances human well ‑being? Answering this question is not only important in order to assess how much conservation effort should be exerted but also in order to spend the available funds in a way that is most beneficial.
• Polasky, S. and Solow, A. R., 1995, On the Value of a Collection of Species, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29 (3), pp. 298–303. • Polasky, S., Solow, A. R. and Broadus, J. M, 1993, Searching for Uncertain Benefits and the Conservation of Biological Diversity, Environmental and Resource Economics 3 (2), pp. 171–181. • Weitzman, M. L., 1992, On Diversity, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 107 (2), pp. 365–405. • Weitzman, M. L., 1993, What to Preserve? An Application of Diversity Theory to Crane Conservation, Quarterly Journal of Economics 108 (1), pp. 157–183. • Weitzman, M. L., 1998, The Noah’s Ark Problem, Econometrica 66 (6), pp. 1279–1298.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Beauval Conservation Program in Djibouti, “Back to Africa” Eric Bairrão Ruivo – Science and Conservation Director, ZooParc de Beauval
ABCR – Association Beauval Back to Africa Conservation et Recherche
One of the most important programs Beauval created in 2008 a Conservamanaged by ABCR is in Djibouti since tion and Research Association, ABCR – 2005, in cooperation with two conAssociation Beauval Conservation et servation associations: DECAN in DjiRecherche – in order to boost Zoobouti and TER_RES in France. In the Parc de Beauval in situ conservation framework of this program, in 2008, and research work, and to have the 11 specimens of native Djiboutian institution recognized, nationally and species that got extinct some years internationally, as a leading center for ago were transferred from European in situ conservation and research. zoos DECAN sanctuary in Djibouti: In 2009, ABCR supported 16 conservation programs and 4 research programs. 2 of the conservation programs (in Djibouti and in Colombia) and all the research programs were managed directly by the Association.
• 7 Somali Wild Asses, from 4 Zoos (Chemnitz in Germany, Gdansk in Poland, Liberec in Czech Republic, Beauval in France) • 2 Grevy Zebras, from 2 Zoos (Montpellier in France, Tabernas in Spain) • 2 Beisa oryx from 1 Zoo (La Palmyre, France) The transfer of these animals had an educational goal: to raise the awareness of the Djiboutian populations for nature preservation, by using flagship species that lived in the past in Djibouti but disappeared since a long time. For this purpose an Education, Research and training Centre was built in DECAN and many educational tools were created This part of the programme was named “Back to Africa” to show the difference between the past, when animals were caught in Africa and sent to zoos, and the goal of this programme, to give back to Africa what belongs to Africa and preserve in situ its fauna and flora.
PICODE (Programme Intégré de Conservation pour le Développement) The success of these actions resulted in a growing recognition and support from local people, leading to an increasing commitment from the government, local authorities and Beauval zoo staff. The relations with the Djiboutian government members and the local authorities also became stronger. These are the reasons why ABCR has now developed a global biodiversity conservation program with different experts and stakeholders for the benefit of human communities. Named PICODE (Integrated Conservation Programme for Development), this program aims at the economical, cultural and social development of human populations in Djibouti through the preservation of the very rich and rare biological heritage of this country. It includes water retention works in different sites, changes in pastoral methods (from extensive to intensive, creation of commercial markets for cattle and hay, creation of protected areas, eco tourism, education and training, fauna and flora surveys, etc. The various projects and parts of PICODE should allow the creation of conservation programmes for the following key species: Somali wild ass, Grevy zebra, Oryx beisa, Beira antelope, Soemmering Gazelle, Plzen gazelle, Dick‑dick, Klipspringers, Leopard, Cheetah, Abyssinian genet, Djibouti Francolin, Arabian bustard, Helmeted guineafowl, Dugong, Whale shark, Corals, and many others…
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Figure 1 – The conservation programs supported by ABCR
PICODE materializes a new step of a project born from a wish to educate for conservation. It strongly links conservation and development. It is a pilot and model action, aiming at the restoration of the historical fauna heritage of the Republic of Djibouti, to make it a biodiversity conservation and restoration lever in all the country, for the first benefit of its inhabitants. The status of “PICODE” as of today: In DECAN: • Sanitary check‑up of the animals • First setting up of the practical aspects linked to the evolution from a sanctuary to a 1.000 ha reserve, including a marine reserve • Appointment and payment of a full ‑time director for the implementation of Picode In Assamo and Djalelo: • Creation of 2 protected areas • Selection, training and payment of the eco‑guards’ team. Their effective work has begun on the 1st of July
In Adaïlou: • First study on water availability and on actions that can be made to improve its management • Fauna and flora surveys • First practical changes of agricultural methods: from an extensive to an intensive production
Conclusion The first main goal of the initial programme which was to draw Djiboutian people’s attention to their natural resources conservation was reached with the animals’ arrival. Symbols of the ex situ conservation efforts to protect endangered species, the Somali wild asses, Zebras and Oryx that have been transferred to Djibouti, all born and raised in European zoos, are now back in Africa, on the earth of origin of their ancestors. These animals became real ambassadors of their wild cousins, which survive with difficulty. They are also the link between the European will and the Djiboutian needs and they are responsible for a trustable relationship between the different partners that have then developed the PICODE program.
The return of these 11 animals has made more for Djiboutian biodiversity conservation than 25 years of efforts from isolated entities. Effectively, the arrival of big mammals in a refuge of some hectares drew the attention of the media, both in France and in Djibouti. Many articles were spread in all the papers and the arrival of animals was broadcasted in Djiboutian television… 4 times in the same day! They perfectly fulfilled their flagship role! They are a perfect communication tool! They are a driving force behind a global involvement!
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Back to Africa and Restorative Conservation, Pursuing the WAZA Conservation Strategy Hamish Currie – Back to Africa, South Africa
Back to Africa Back to Africa (www.backtoafrica. co.za) is an African based non profit organization that relocates wild animals from zoo’s to conservation sites in Africa. It recognizes that zoo populations should be considered when attempting to preserve the genetic integrity of our wild life. Back to Africa • Believes in the existence of zoo’s and the role they can play in conservation in Africa • Is a proud WAZA member • Believes in the IUCN reintroduction specialist group guidelines for reintroductions. • Encourages zoo’s to breed animals for reintroduction. • Believes our activities should not unsatisfactorily deplete zoo populations • Raises funds specifically for reintroduction projects without diverting funds. • Rejects the sterilization and euthanasia of rare animals in zoo’s that could be used for conservation. • Believes that zoo’s donating money to conservation projects does not entirely fulfill their in situ conservation obligations. It is the participation of a zoo’s animals is what should count.
Most of Back to Africa’s projects involve Intensive Protected Areas (IPA’s). IPA’s are • Ex situ area in situ reserves • Fenced areas in reserves where rare and endangered species are managed to enhance their survival. IPA’s • Can involve zoo animals as a first step in their relocation back to the wild. • Offer protection from predators and poachers • Enable one to manage disease and manipulate nutrition when necessary. • Allow for research • Allow for genetic manipulation (stud books/ EEP’s) Reintroduced animals are kept in IPA’s and bred until minimal viable populations are reached. Only then can one think about reintroduction back to the “wild”. It can take years before these populations are ready for release back to the “wild”.
The following species have been reintroduced by Back to Africa into IPA’s from Europe‑ an zoo’s • Sable antelope (Hippotragus niger) WAZA PROJECT 04027 Mokala National Park South Africa • Roan antelope (Hippotragus equinus) WAZA PROJECT 04026 Mlilwane Reserve Swaziland • Black rhino (Diceros bicornis michae‑ li) WAZA PROJECT08013 Mkomazi Reserve Tanzania • Northern White rhino (Cermatotheri‑ um simum cottoni) WAZA PROJECT 0817 Ol Pejeta Conservancy Kenya
Projects looking forward Grevy’s Zebra (Equus grevyi). The existing population of Grevy; s at Ol Pejeta conservancy will be put into the Northern White Rhino IPA.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Dvůr Králové Zoo and WAZA‑branded Rhino Conservation Projects Dana Holečková – Director, Dvůr Králové Zoo
Preface Founded in 1946, Dvůr Králové Zoo has been specialising in keeping and breeding African wildlife. Throughout the 1970s, the zoo imported a number of mammal and bird species within several expeditions, fundamental for unique collections established later. Dvůr Králové Zoo is the world’s most successful breeder of giraffes, a number of antelope and zebra species and African wild dogs, as well as black rhinoceroses that were successfully reproduced in the fifth generation in captivity for the first time around the world, plus is the only captive institution where northern white rhinos have been born and raised in captivity successfully. The zoo has returned over 100 Cape buffalos, several dozens of roan antelopes and multiple sable antelopes, scimitar‑horned oryxes and addaxes back to the wild within the recent 20 years. With 48 (17.31) rhinos of three species and four subspecies, Dvůr Králové follows San Diego Wild Animal Park in terms of numbers of rhinos held and bred in captivity. With a total of seven rhinos relocated to Africa under two projects within a single year, which is a record number in terms of zoo community involvement in rhino conservation, Dvůr Králové has been striving to fulfil one of the key missions of members of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums in a very pro‑active manner.
Reintroduction of the eas‑ tern black rhino (Diceros bi‑ cornis michaeli) to Mkomazi, Tanzania, WAZA Conserva‑ tion Project No 080013 The development of the black rhino population in the wild: brief summary In 1900, there ranged several hundred thousand black rhinos (Diceros bicornis) in Africa. Within 22 years (1970 to 1992), 96% of wild population of this species was extirpated, particularly as a result of poaching (see Figure 1 and Table 1 for more details). Of the four subspecies, one
(D. b. longipes) was exterminated by 2006 (see Table 2), while the eastern black rhino (D. b. michaeli), occurring only in Kenya and Tanzania, became the most vulnerable form. While Kenya was home to 20,000 rhinos still in 1970, in the 1980s the numbers dropped to less than 350 individuals (Table 3). Tanzania had in 1995 a mere 32 animals, which in fact involved two localities – the Ngorongoro crater and Serengeti National Park (Table 4). In Kenya, first fenced rhino conservation areas were founded in the late 20 century, which subsequently became strongholds of the species and inspiration for Tony Fitzjohn’s idea to restore the population of the black rhino in northern Tanzania in the Mkomazi Reserve.
Figure 1: Development of therhino wild population black rhinosince population Figure 1: Development of the wild black 1960 since 1960 Development of the wild black rhino population since 1960 100000 90000 80000 70000 60000
Numbers 50000 40000 30000
In 2009, Tanzania and Kenya became target countries within two rhino conservation operations completed by Dvůr Králové branded as WAZA conservation projects.
20000 10000 0 1960 1970 1980 1984 1987 1991 1992 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2008
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Table 1: Development of the black rhino population in the wild
Table 1: Development of the black rhino population in the wild
1800 Over 1 million
1900 Several hundred thousands
1960 Over 100,000
Table 2: Development of the black rhino population in the wild, 1984–2008
Table 2: Development of the black rhino population in the wild, 1984-2007
Species (subspecies) / Year South-western (D. b. bicornis) Eastern (D. b. michaeli) South-central (D. b. minor) Western (D. b. longipes) Black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis)
1984 1993 1997 1999 737 560 740 740 490 500 485 485 1,467 1,300 1,365 1,365 About 10 40 10 About 10 2,704 2,400 2,600 2,700
2001 943 498 1,651 8 3,100
2003 1,310 520 1,770 5 3,610
2005 1,221 639 1,866 0? 3,726
2007 1,550 700 1,995 0 4,240
Table 3: Development of the black rhino population in Kenya since 1968
Table 3: Development of the black rhino abundance in Kenya since 1968
Table 4: Development of the black rhino population in Tanzania since 1970
Table 4: Development of the black rhino abundance in Tanzania since 1970 Year 1970 1980 1984 1987 1991 1992 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 46 47 49 66 101 123 Numbers 10,000 3,795 3,130 275 185 ? 127 32
Table born rhino and aborted Dvůr Králové Table 5: 5: Black Birthsrhinos in the black at Dvurin Kralove Zoo prior to 30 November 2010 (M - male, F female) DK Sex Name Conceived Birth 1 F Elvira DK 1 20 Jul 1976 2 Oct 1977 2 F Sali DK 2 15 Apr 1977 5 Jul 1978 3 M Jimm DK 3 6 Dec 1977 18 Mar 1979 4 M Eli DK 4 20 Feb 1983 15 May 1984 5 F Jessi DK 5 4 Aug 1983 8 Dec 1984 6 M Sado DK 6 21 Apr 1985 26 Aug 1986 7 M Jos DK 7 13 Feb 1988 21 May 1989 8 F Sany DK 8 28 Jun 1988 1 Oct 1989 9 F Eimi DK 9 29 May 1989 24 Aug 1990 10 M Jacob DK 10 8 Apr 1990 23 Jun 1991 11 M Jasper DK 11 11 Jun 1990 13 Sep 1991 12 F Sara DK 12 22 Nov 1990 24 Feb 1992 13 F Etna DK 13 21 Sep 1991 8 Dec 1992 14 F Jaga DK 14 1 Sep 1991 14 Dec 1992 15 F -- DK 15 8 Feb 1993 11 Apr 1994 16 M Sauron DK 16 16 Jul 1993 26 Oct 1994 17 F Jiddah DK 17 17 Aug 1993 15 Nov 1994 18 M Jonas DK 18 2 Sep 1994 4 Dec 1995 19 F Elba DK 19 23 May 1995 5 Aug 1996 20 F Musso DK 20 25 May 1996 20 Aug 1997 21 F Jola DK 21 1 Jul 1996 25 Oct 1997 22 F Jane Lee DK 22 4 Oct 1996 (?) 24 Jan 1998 23 F Salome DK 23 13 Oct 1998 25 Jan 2000 24 M Jeremy DK 24 16 Sep 1999 21 Dec 2000 25 F -- DK 25 10 Jun 2001 24 Aug 2002 26 F Ema-Elsa DK 26 4 Aug 2001 2 Nov 2002 27 F Deborah DK 27 5 Jun 2003 11 Nov 2004 28 F Maisha DK 28 20 Sep 2004 21 Dec 2005 29 M Jamie DK 29 6 Oct 2004 2 Jan 2006 30 F Etosha DK 30 17 Jun 2005 4 Sep 2006 31 M Jabu DK 31 7 Oct 2005 1 Feb 2007 32 M -- DK 32 25 Aug 2006 22 Sep 2007 33 M Dzanty DK 33 10 Aug 2006 24 Nov 2007 34 F Eva DK 34 26 Jul 2008 8 Dec 2009 35 F Jasmina DK 35 3 Sep 2008 13 Dec 2009 36 F Just Era DK 36 8 Jun 2009 21 Sep 2010 Total 36 (13.23) calves of which 32 (11.21) were reared.
Dam Elsa Sabi Jimmi Elvira Jimmi Sali Jimmi Sali Elvira Jessi Jimmi Sali Elvira Jarca Jimmi Sali Jessi Jarca Eimi Sali Jessi Jimmi Sali Jessi Eimi Elba Jiddah Musso Jessi Elba Jola Jane Lee Jiddah Elba Jessi Jola
Sire Ken Ken King Isis Isis Isis Isis Isis Isis Eli Isis Jimm Jimm Jimm Mabu Cody Mabu Cody Cody Jimm Mabu Isis Jimm Jimm Sauron Jimm Jimm Isis Sauron Jimm Isis Mweru Jimm Baringo Baringo Mweru
26 kg on day 2 stillborn, 24 kg 48 kg on day 3 37 kg died - hand-reared
stillborn, 33 kg
aborted on day 393, 29 kg
Brief history of the eastern black rhino stock at Dvůr Králové Zoo The Dvůr Králové black rhino breeding history began with wild‑caught juvenile animals coming from Kenya in 1971, with first ten (4.6) animals imported from Tsavo National Park, from which a pair was supplied to Florida (USA) one year after. In 1974, additional trio (1.2) was imported from Kenya; in the same year, 4 (2.2) animals left to Wroclaw (Poland), Zurich (Switzerland) and Lešná Zoo in Moravia (CZ). 23 (10.13) individuals became involved in reproduction. A total number of rhinos born for the entire holding period reached 36 (13.22) animals, of which three (2.1) were born dead and 32 (11.21) calves reared successfully, which represents 97% rate of success of all live‑born animals. During the most recent 10 months, three females were born, the last of which in September 2010. See more details in Table 5.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
The Mkomazi black rhino project As major rhino holders in Europe and in the world, Dvůr Králové were contacted as early as 2003 by Tony Fitzjohn, the African wildlife conservationist and manager of the northern Tanzania’s Mkomazi Game Reserve, who was then searching for animals for his eastern black rhino reintroduction project. Located in north‑eastern Tanzania, Mkomazi is a natural area of 3,270 square kilometres. A part of the Tsavo ecosystem, it connects to Kenyan Tsavo West National Park. As Dvůr Králové animals contain genes of their ancestors that were largely exterminated by poachers, they are very important for the populations in the wild. Tony Fitzjohn is a friend and colleague of fabled conservationist George Adamson. Manager of the George Adamson Wildlife Preservation Trust, he has been dedicated to the wildlife conservation in East Africa, namely to the critically endangered African wild dog and black rhino. Supported by donors, Tony built facilities in the Mkomazi Game Reserve where he has been breeding and releasing African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) since the early 1990s. In addition, he initiated the process of preparation for reintroduction of the eastern subspecies of the black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis michaeli) into the reserve by building the infrastructure within the reserve including fencing for the rhino area that covers 45 sq km. He obtained first two rhino pairs through importing from South Africa’s Addo National Park as early as 1997, which was followed by bringing additional two pairs in 2001. All the four cows have already bred in Mkomazi, with a total of five calves born; the most recent rhinos were born in February 2009 and July 2009, respectively. In Mkomazi, the rhino area is protected by an electrified fence (New Zealand type) powered by solar cells and guarded by armed patrols on 24-hour basis; the fence is alarmed so any invading is made known very quickly. There are logged strips around the facility to prevent potential fires to spread.
The local black rhino management programme has been arranged under the auspices of the George Adamson African Wildlife Preservation Trust and supported by diverse charities and other kinds of wildlife conservation organisations, including Suzuki Rhino Club, Save the Rhino, TUSK Trust and Swordspoint etc. Unfortunately, the Addo National Park rhino population is inbred as it had only 4 founders meaning that all the rhinos imported to Mkomazi are related to each other as well, so adding unrelated individuals was highly desirable. Therefore, Tony Fitzjohn paid a visit to Dvůr Králové as early as 2003 in searching for suitable animals. In October 2007, Dvůr Králové personnel in cooperation with Back to Africa, a charity represented by its managing director Hamish Currie, visited Tony Fitzjohn who at the same time re‑confirmed that Mkomazi was interested in animals from Dvůr Králové. A memorandum of understanding was signed on the site and the project preparation phase started. In June 2008, a meeting took place in Cape Town, where translocation of 2 males and 1 female born at Dvůr Králové Zoo to Mkomazi was agreed. In the autumn 2008, the Mkomazi black rhino reintroduction plan was endorsed by the EAZA Black Rhino EEP and an application was sent to the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums to include the programme within their branded projects, which was accepted and the initiative was assigned project number 080013. In the late 2008, Mkomazi Game Reserve was declared national park within TANAPA framework, as it became a third locality in Tanzania with ranging eastern subspecies of the black rhino, despite some 150 to 250 rhinos Mkomazi hosted back in 1968 that were however poached with only four individuals recorded in 1974. The last wild rhino was observed in Mkomazi in 1985.
Translocation and adaptation to living in the bush As the process of constructing the fencing and a six‑section boma inside the area allocated for Dvůr Králové rhinos was underway in Mkomazi, Dvůr Králové were making crates for the rhino transport, 500 kg each, and the young rhinos were trained for the transport. In April, Tony Fitzjohn visited the zoo once again and the transport preparation was discussed and agreed in details. From April on, the rhinos were getting familiar with their new keepers and trained for closing within a confined area, which imitated staying in the crate. In addition, handling imitating administration of sedatives was trained. Aside from the Czech keepers, the rhinos were attended by Berry White, a specialist keeper to stay with the rhinos in Mkomazi for several months, and rhino veterinarian Dr Pete Morkel, who was in charge of transport arrangements and sedation of animals both throughout and after the transport. Berry has had work experience as rhino head keeper in Port Lympne for seven years. Having moved several hundred black rhinos, Pete Morkel is a specialist dedicated to conservation and translocation of these animals. In addition, he managed the translocation of the rhinos from South Africa’s Addo National Park to Mkomazi. Both these experts, accompanied by Jan Zdarek, Dvůr Králové rhino keeper, were attending the rhinos all over their journey that began on 27 May. The move was started by placing the animals weighing 850 to 1,100 kg into their crates. Afterwards, they were transported in trucks from Dvůr Králové nad Labem to Amsterdam over the distance of thousand kilometres. To make sure the animals are not exposed to overheating and traffic jams on highways, the transport took place at night. With many Dutch press people present (the transport was funded by the Suzuki Dutch general importer via Suzuki Rhino Club), the crates weighing 1.5 tons were loaded on pallets and into the airplane that took off for its 7,000 km long flight around 9 pm. The Martinair plane landed at the Kilimanjaro
56 Airport, Tanzania, at 8.30 am. Once in Tanzania, the rhinos were transferred in trucks to Mkomazi National Park almost 200 km far away. The young rhino triplet included a nearly 5-year‑old female Deborah (DK 27), a 3–5-year‑old male Jamie (DK 29) and a 2.5-year‑old male Jabu (DK 31). While Jamie is already a generation 4 in captivity, Deborah and Jabu even represent a generation five. No animal can be released into the wild immediately once translocated to a new area. The rhinos were going to slowly adapt to their boma, with subsequent enlargement of the area by natural enclosures. The boma consists of six sections, 15 by 15 m each, with two sections available for each rhino and is located in the area with ranging wild rhinos that arrive at night. Gradual shift to a different diet is also inevitable, so the animals were accompanied with feedstuffs brought from Dvůr Králové plus were given food supplied by the George Adamson Wildlife Preservation Trust directly to Mkomazi, like alfalfa hay, chestnuts, carrots and sweet potatoes. First two weeks the rhinos were attended by their zoo keeper Jan Zdarek who was later replaced by Berry White. By the end of the week 1, female Deborah was introduced to male Jabu as this pair had been already used to spend several hours together in the zoo enclosure as well. In the week 2 (9 and 10 June), all rhinos were anaesthetised and notches were cut in their ears to make later identification possible. They were also fitted with horn‑implanted transmitters. The treatment as such including the anaesthetisation was carried out by Dr Pete Morkel. At the break of week 3 and 4, the rhinos were gradually accustomed to the New Zealand type electrified fence, which encloses the entire area for rhinos, and released from the boma to a natural area of approximately 45 × 40 m. The next phase involved releasing Jamie and Deborah into a large natural enclosure (800 m × 400 m, i.e. 320,000 sq m), while Jabu was allowed into
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
the enclosure of 120,000 sq m (400 m × 300 m). Deborah is now sexually mature and has periodical oestrus. Attempts of mating this female by male Jamie were underway back in Dvůr Králové in summer 2008, although the male was still very young. In Mkomazi, the first attempt was observed on 26 June, which was one month after the arrival of the rhinos.
The existing Mkomazi black rhino population contains 13 (5.8) individuals, with female Charlie now expected to be pregnant. An overview of black rhinos reintroduced and their progeny in Mkomazi is provided in the Table 6.
As of the autumn 2009, with rainy season starting in Mkomazi, the entire area went green and the rhinos from the Czech Republic stopped showing interest in extra food. Any attempts to find the animals were only successful using transmitters that were renewed in all the three rhinos by Pete Morkel in March 2010.
Dvůr Králové has partnered with the following institutions to implement the project: Mkomazi National Park, Back to Africa, Suzuki Rhino Club, The George Adamson Wildlife Preservation Trust, Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic, Severočeské doly, European Wildlife Conservation Foundation, Natura Viva, Save the Rhino International & Tusk Trust.
The main rhino sanctuary was extended by a further 5 sq km in order to prepare for a growing population. This was a massive undertaking in that it took over 2 years to put in the 9 km fence. With enough separation areas, this new part made a small amount of breeding management possible. In the near future, decisions are to be taken on further actions and possible transfers of other rhinos, including any putting Suzi – a Mkomazi ‑born young female – together with Jamie a Deborah.
Last but not least, thanks must go to other rhino captive breeders as: • The Czech rhino triplet originates from a founder stock of 11 animals imported by diverse zoos from East Africa • Jabu’s grandfather is Mabu born 1979 in Magdeburg, Germany • Deborah’s great‑grandfather is Isis/ Bubba born 1975 in Cincinnati, USA • Jamie’s grandfather is Cody born 1975 in Taronga Sydney, Australia
Table 6: Overview of the Mkomazi black rhino reintroduction project prior to 31 December 2009 Table 6: Overview of the Mkomazi black rhino reintroduction project prior to 31 December 2009 # Sex Birth Arrival in Mkomazi & Sire/Dam Death Name previous location 1/1/MK/0 M Addo NP, RSA 1997 Wild-born Jonah Addo NP, SA 2/2/MK/0 M Addo NP, SA 1997 Wild-born James Addo NP, SA 3/3/MK/0 F Addo NP, SA 1997 Wild-born Rose Addo NP, SA 4/4/MK/0 F Addo NP, SA 1997 Wild-born Charlie Addo NP, SA 5/5/MK/0 M Addo NP, SA 2001 Wild-born March 2006 Elvis Addo NP, SA Mkomazi 6/6/MK/0 M Addo NP, SA 2001 Wild-born 6.2.2004 Badger Addo NP, SA Mkomazi 7/7/MK/0 F Addo NP, SA 2001 Wild-born Lee Addo NP, SA 8/8/MK/0 F Addo NP, SA 2001 Wild-born Marina Addo NP, SA 9/0/MK/1 F May 2005 Bred in Mkomazi Rose/Jonah Suzi MK 1 Mkomazi NP 10/0/MK/2 M May 2006 Bred in Mkomazi Charlie/Jonah March 2008 Hashim MK 2 Mkomazi NP Mkomazi 11/0/MK/3 M May 2007 Bred in Mkomazi Marina/Jonah Billy MK 3 Mkomazi NP 12/0/MK/4 F February 2009 Bred in Mkomazi Rose/Jonah Daisy MK 4 Mkomazi NP 13/0/MK/1 F 11 Nov 2004 29 May 2009 Jiddah DK 5 / Deborah DK 27 Dvur Kralove Zoo Dvur Kralove Jimm DK 3 14/9/MK/0 M 2 Jan 2006 29 May 2009 Jessi DK 5 / Jamie DK 29 Dvur Kralove Zoo Dvur Kralove Sauron DK16 15/0/MK/1 M 1 Feb 2007 29 May 2009 Jola DK 21 / Jabu DK 31 Dvur Kralove Zoo Dvur Kralove Isis 16/0MK/5 F July 2009 Bred in Mkomazi Lee/Jonah Maggie MK 5 Mkomazi NP Explanatory notes: 11/0/MK/1: 11 – A running historical Mkomazi NP individual number 0 – A running number of import to Mkomazi NP MK – Mkomazi NP acronym 3 – A running number of birth in Mkomazi NP
Comments 1st breeding male
1st breeding female 2nd breeding female Killed by Jonah and James Paralysis; CNS problems 4th breeding female 3rd breeding female To be paired with Jabu Bitten to death by a snake
Paired with Jamie Paired with Deborah To be paired with Suzi
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Last Chance to Survive – Northern White Rhino Conservation Project WAZA Conservation Project No 080013
Project partners Dvůr Králové has implemented the project in partnership with the following institutions: Fauna & Flora International www.fauna‑flora.org FFI protects threatened species and ecosystems worldwide, choosing solutions that are sustainable, based on sound science and take account of human needs. Operating in more than 40 countries worldwide – mainly in the developing world – FFI saves species from extinction and habitats from destruction, while improving the livelihoods of local people. Founded in 1903, FFI is the world’s longest established international conservation body and a registered charity. Ol Pejeta Conservancy www.olpejetaconservancy.org The Ol Pejeta Conservancy occupies approximately 360 square kilometres of African savannah within the Laikipia District of Kenya and incorporates the Sweetwaters Chimpanzee Sanctuary. Laikipia carries large and growing wildlife populations and is home to almost 50% of Kenya’s black rhino population. The Ol Pejeta Conservancy works to conserve wildlife, provide a sanctuary for great apes and to generate income through wildlife tourism and complementary enterprise for reinvestment in conservation and community development. Lewa Wildlife Conservancy www.lewa.org Founded in 1995, the Lewa Wildlife Conservancy spans 62,000 acres and serves as catalyst for conservation across northern Kenya. Lewa holds over 10% of Kenya’s black rhino population and the world’s single largest population of Grevy’s zebra. Through the protection and
management of endangered species, the initiation and support of community conservation and development programmes, and the education of neighbouring areas in the value of wildlife, Lewa has become Kenya’s leading model for wildlife conservation on private land, leading destination for low impact conservation tourism, and leading catalyst for conservation, and its direct benefits for communities, across the region. Back to Africa www.backtoafrica.co.za As the name of this non‑profit conservation organisation founded in 1999 suggests, Back to Africa relocates rare and endangered African wildlife species from zoological institutions, thus providing a link between conservation programmes in the wild and captive breeders of African animals. Back to Africa have been Dvůr Králové Zoo partners since established, with return of sable antelopes into South Africa being their first joint project, followed by reintroduction of roan antelopes to Swaziland and black rhinos to Tanzania. Kenya Wildlife Service www.kws.org A state corporation charged with the responsibility of conserving and managing wildlife resources within and outside protected areas in collaboration with stakeholders, Kenya Wildlife Service’s goal is to work with others to conserve, protect and sustainably manage wildlife resources. The community wildlife program of KWS in collaboration with others encourages biodiversity conservation by communities living on land essential to wildlife, such as wildlife corridors and dispersal lands outside parks and reserves. The premise is that “if people benefit from wildlife and other natural resources, then they will take care of these resources.”
Brief history of the white rhino population in the wild The two white rhino subspecies met vastly different fates over the past 100 years. The southern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum simum) was described in 1817, while for the northern white rhino subspecies (Ceratotherium simum cottoni) the same occurred only in 1908. About 100 years ago, when the southern form was almost eradicated, the northern form was locally common and abundant in savannas and sparse forest steppes in five Central African countries: Uganda, Sudan, Chad, Central African Republic and the Congo. In the 1960s, the northern subspecies was still more common with some 2,250 animals than the southern form, with the latter consisting of just a single population in South Africa. Since then, the southern white rhino population grew and the subspecies was propagated to other regions, while for the northern form, there lived in 1984 the last remaining 15 animals in Garamba National Park, Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo). Just because of these rhinos, the park was declared a World Cultural Heritage Site, with protection of the rhinoceroses supported by the International Rhino Foundation (IRF), USA, in particular. Despite a slight increase to 31 individuals in 1995, there was gradual decline in the population due to civil wars and poaching. Thanks to international efforts, it was agreed in 2004 that some 10 remaining northern white rhinos would be caught and relocated into the Ol Pejeta Conservancy, Kenya, where bomas were developed to accommodate the animals following the potential transport. Unfortunately, this never took place.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Table 7: The numbers of the white rhinoceros in the wild Table 7: The numbers of the white rhinoceros in the wild Southern form Northern form Total
1920 110? 3000 3110
1960 1500 2250 3750
1970 2000 700 2700
1981 3150 100 3250
1984 3920 17 3937
1993 5700 31 5731
1999 8440 25 8465
2003 11320 10 11330
2005 14543 4 14550
2008 17480 4? 17484
Table 8: Northern white rhinos kept in captivity prior to 31 December 2009
Table 8: Northern white rhinos kept in captivity prior to 31 December 2009 No 1
Sex Stdbk # & name ? 1252 --
25 Jul 1955 London
290 Bebe 27 Bill
4 Sep 1956 Washington 22 Apr 1972 San Diego WAP 4 Sep 1956 Washington 22 Apr 1972 San Diego WAP 1 Apr 1964 Khartoum
1963 Shambe, Sudan 1963 Shambe, Sudan 1952 Sudan
1968 Shambe, Sudan 1970 Sudan
Date & place of arrival
1948 Southern Sudan 1948 Shambe, Sudan 1948 Shambe, Sudan 1950 Uganda
16 Jan 1949 Khartoum
17 Jan 1949 Khartoum
† Enteritis when 1-2 years old
7 Apr 1950 Antwerp
13 Apr 1968
† When 20 years old
7 Apr 1950 Antwerp
7 Aug 1985
† When 37 years old
25 Jul 1955 London 27 Aug 1986 Dvur Kralove
25 Jun 1990 Dvur Kralove
Euthanised for high age when 40 years old
29 May 1964 London 2 May 1975 San Diego WAP
† When 14 years old
15 Mar 1979 San Diego WAP
† When 27 years old
2 Aug 1967 Khartoum 31 Dec 1965 Riyadh
† When 4 years old
1 Apr 1964 Khartoum 1 Jan 1965 Riyadh 1 Apr 1964 Khartoum 1 Jan 1965 Riyadh
31 Dec 1985 Riyadh
Euthanised when 22 years old
28 Jul 1957 St. Louis 7 Aug 1972 San Diego WAP 28 Jul 1957 St. Louis 7 Aug 1972 San Diego WAP 29 Jan 1980 San Diego WAP 26 Oct 1972 San Diego WAP 1 Apr 1970 Khartoum
15 Aug 1974 San Diego WAP
† When 22 years old
28 Jan 1991 San Diego WAP
† When 39 years old
16 Jan 1978 Khartoum
† When 10 years old
12 Sep 1978 Al Ain
† When 8 years old
1972 Khartoum 1 Jan 1973 Al Ain 348 Angalifu 1972 1 Mar 1973 Khartoum Shambe, 12 Aug 1990 San Diego Sudan WAP 351 1965 Uganda 1 Jul 1971, Knowsley, Nasima Prescot 27 Aug 1977 Dvur Kralove 373 1972 19 Sep 1975 Dvur Kralove Saut Shambe, 13 Oct 1989 Sudan San Diego WAP 15 Jul 1998 Dvur Kralove 372 1973 19 Sep 1975 Dvur Kralove Sudan Shambe, 20 December 2009 Ol Sudan Pejeta, Kenya 375 1973 Sudan 19 Sep 1975 Dvur Kralove Nuri 377 1972 19 Sep 1975 Dvur Kralove Nesari Shambe, Sudan 374 1974 19 Sep 1975 Dvur Kralove Nola Shambe, 13 Oct 1989 San Diego Sudan WAP
1972 Shambe, Sudan 1977
26 Aug 1992 Dvur Kralove 14 Aug 2006 Dvur Kralove
4 Jan 1982 Dvur Kralove
† When 23 years old
Euthanised when 22 years old
Contrary to the southern white rhino numbers in the wild that have recently bounced to some 19,000 individuals, only a single northern white individual was seen in Garamba in the course of a field survey done in 2007, while none were found there in 2008 and 2009, making this form the rarest rhino in the world, with perhaps a few individuals surviving in southern Sudan (see Table 7). In 2009, last eight remaining animals were held in captivity. This involved males Sudan (36) and Suni DK 4 (28) and females Nesari (37), Nabire DK 6 (26), Najin DK 7 (20) and Fatu DK 9 (9) at Dvůr Králové Zoo and another pair kept at San Diego Wild Animal Park, the USA, with female Nola (37) owned by Dvůr Králové and loaned to the USA in 1989, and male Angalifu owned by Khartoum Zoo, Sudan; this rhino was imported to the USA in 1990.
Brief history of the captive northern white rhino stock
2008 - probably a nonbreeding animal (sperm collected by IZW Berlin) 1st breeding female Collapsed in shock when 27 years old 1st breeding male 1989-1998: on loan at San Diego WAP †Heart failure - 34 years old 2nd breeding male Loaned to Kenya Collapsed due to trauma when 9 years old Uterus tumour - nonbreeder Loaned to WAP in 1989, where mated in 1995 Found to be a non-breeding animal in 2008 due to atrophic ovaries Loaned to WAP in 1989 † When 37 years old
19 Sep 1975 Dvur Kralove 30 May 2007 13 Oct 1989 San Diego WAP San Diego WAP 23 F 476 Reared in Dvur Kralove 20 Jun 2007 Intercrossed animal (NWR x Nasi DK 2 Nasima / Arthur (Stdbk Dvur Kralove SWR) #355 – Knowsley, England) Mated in Knowsley England 24 M 630 1980 Reared in Dvur Kralove Loaned to Kenya Suni DK 5 20 December 2009 Ol Pejeta, Kenya 25 F 789 1983 Reared in Dvur Kralove Uterus tumour found in Nabire DK 6 Nasima/Sudan 2009 - non-breeder 26 F 943 1989 Reared in Dvur Kralove Loaned to Kenya Najin DK 7 Nasima/Sudan 20 December 2009 Ol Pejeta, Kenya 27 F 1122--18 Jul 1991 Reared in Dvur Kralove 18 Jul 1991 Aborted on day 296 DK 8 Dvur Kralove Nasima/Sudan Dvur Kralove 28 F 1305 29 Jun 1989 Reared in Dvur Kralove First F2 animal in captivity Fatu DK 9 Dvur Najin DK 7 / Saut Loaned to Kenya Kralove 20 December 2009 Ol Pejeta, Kenya [M - male, F - female; studbook numbers are assigned collectively to individual white rhinos regardless of the subspecies (boldhighlighted animals are still alive and a property of Dvur Kralove, except for Angalifu, i.e. #15)].
The northern white rhino form was rather rare in captivity, as according to the International Studbook information, a mere 22 animals (10 males, 11 females, 1 animal with sex not determined) were imported to zoological parks from the wild in 1948–1975 (see Table 8). Except for the last imported group, this mostly involved pairs that however never reproduced, with captive breeders being the zoos in Antwerp (Belgium), London (the UK), Washington, San Diego and St. Louis (the USA), Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) and Khartoum (Sudan). Khartoum Zoo held 4 individuals over time (2 pairs, including the male Angalifu). Prescot Zoo imported a single female, Nasima, in 1971. This rhino and the pair held at London Zoo, i.e. Ben and Bebe, were wild ‑caught animals from Uganda, while the remainder of 19 (9.9.1) individuals were of Sudanese origin, of which 12 (7.5) came from the Shambe region. The last of those imports from the wild was carried out in 1975, when Dvůr Králové Zoo brought a group of 6 (2.4) rhinos including two males
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Table 9: Northern white rhinos born in captivity, i.e. at Dvůr Králové Zoo
Table 9: Northern white rhinos born in captivity, i.e. at Dvur Kralove Zoo (Bold: still alive)
11 Nov 1977
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
M F F F F
Suni Nabire Najin Fatu
8 Jun 1980 15 Nov 1983 11 Jul 1989 18 Jul 1991 29 Jun 2000
Nasima Nasima Nasima Nasima Najin
Saut Sudan Sudan Sudan Saut
Gestation Stdbk #/comments period ? 476 - fathered by SWR, subspecific hybrid, died in 2008 503 days 630 485 days 789 481 days 943 Abortion 1122, stillborn 482 days 1305 - captive generation 2
that subsequently reproduced on a repeated basis. Nasima who was imported to the UK, more specifically, to Knowsley Zoo, Prescot, became the only breeding female. Other wild ‑caught animals never reproduced.
Change in the settings through sending three animals (male Saut and females Nadi and Nola), only 15 and 17 years old, from Dvůr Králové to the Wild Animal Park in San Diego, USA, in 1989. Despite repeated mating, females never fell pregnant.
Brief history of the northern white rhino collection in Dvůr Králové
Stimulation by feeding, light and exposing to other rhinos, changes in the group structure etc. After Saut returned from San Diego to Dvůr Králové in 1998, young female Najin got pregnant, giving birth to its single calf so far, female Fatu DK 9, which is at the same time world’s only northern white rhino born in the second generation in captivity.
Dvůr Králové Zoo is the only zoological park in the world where northern white rhinos ever reproduced, with five pure northern white rhinos born including one premature calf, plus a single southern/northern form hybrid, with however female falling pregnant at Knowsley Zoo, Prescot. The first pure northern white rhino was born in 1980, with following animals born in 1983, 1989, 1991 and 2000. For the last calf, Najin DK 7 was the mother, while the remainder was born to Nasima, the wild‑caught mother of Najin. More details: see Table 9. Many years of breeding efforts. Dvůr Králové tested diverse ways to successfully reproduce the northern form, which included their own programmes or activities conducted in cooperation with the international breeding and conservation community: Research in hormonal cycles was underway in Dvůr Králové from 1984: the females were found to have ceased cycling, and any efforts to change that failed except for Najin. It was found that keeping the animals in a pair situation definitely does not make difference in breeding performance and the same can be applied to managing rhinos as a group. From today’s perspective, absence of natural territorial and social behaviour seems to be the cause.
Assisted reproduction efforts were launched in April 2001, which was also not successful. From 2001 to 2007, a total of 27 anaesthetisations of the animals were carried out by IZW Berlin, including 5 attempts at artificial insemination, however without success. A sad reality of figures was all what has been ultimately left by the efforts mentioned above, with the entire population consisting of 4 captive ‑born individuals and 4 born in the wild. Even the captive southern form population would be subject to a slow process of extinction being there no imports of animals from the wild, since reproduction successes in the white rhino as a species has been rare despite some particular breeding success (San Diego, Whipsnade etc.) and cycle failure or absent cycles exist in the majority of females in captivity.
Conservation actions Preliminary discussions and arrangements With both Dvůr Králové females getting older, discussion on potential benefits of relocation of the animals into natural conditions was launched with AfRSG and Back to Africa representatives. The same started at Dvůr Králové Zoo and within the Rhino Committee to the Union of Czech and Slovak Zoos, with the move subsequently recommended by the latter. In December 2007, a meeting of the African Rhino Specialist Group (AfRSG) to the IUCN was held in South Africa, discussing the offer of Dvůr Králové to supply the last fertile animals held in captivity within a potential conservation project; at the same time, suitable locations were selected, with Kenyan Ol Pejeta being the best option and other two sites in South Africa considered. In early 2008, results of examination of hormonal derivates from Najin and Fatu faeces confirmed the females were not pregnant following the most recent artificial insemination. Therefore, the zoo decided to visit the potential destination, Ol Pejeta in Kenya, which was assumed to be the site for relocated animals from Garamba back in 2004. The visit however could not take place due to post‑election civil unrests in Kenya. In June 2008, another location was visited – this time it was De Beers’ Rooipoort Reserve, Kimberley, South Africa. As the site was found particularly suitable, conditions of potential partnership were agreed, including the one requiring that the ownership of the animals would remain with Dvůr Králové Zoo. In August 2008, the conservation of the northern white rhino was also encouraged by UNESCO at this organisation’s meeting in Quebec, Canada, calling on the Czech Government to support the Dvůr Králové conservation project.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Scientific planning workshop In the meantime, preparations were underway for an international meeting of rhino experts invited to Dvůr Králové Zoo, with the meeting date set to 3 September 2008. Invitations were sent to representatives of the following organisations: Dvůr Králové Zoo, European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, EAZA Rhino TAG, African Rhino Specialist Group (AfRSG) to the IUCN, Back to Africa, IZW Berlin, Veterinary University Vienna, International Rhino Foundation, World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Ministry of Environment of the CR, Union of Czech and Slovak Zoological Gardens, Parliament of the Czech Republic / Committee for Environment, Natural Science Faculty of the Charles University, Prague and Frankfurt Zoo. The objective of the meeting was to set the best way forward to save the northern white rhino. Representatives of Dvůr Králové Zoo, AfRSG, IZW, the White Rhino EEP and Veterinary University Vienna informed the participants through their presentations about historical data as well as the existing status of the white rhino in captive and wild situations, which in particular included the breeding record of rhinos in Dvůr Králové, research on captive white rhino cycles, situation of populations in the wild and in captivity for both subspecies, etc. Subsequently, a draft action plan developed by Dvůr Králové Zoo was discussed at an expert level, including input documents and presentations, with particular actions presented one by one and subjected to diverse aspects.
At this meeting, the specialists came to a conclusion that any recent efforts in captivity have failed to result in sufficient reproduction performance and that there was no time for any further attempts in captive situation, as biological time windows of the animals were closing too fast. Dvůr Králové’s rhino group was recognised and evidenced to be the only world’s herd able to breed, with 2 or maybe 3 cows and 2 bulls being potential breeders. Consensus was reached in that moving these animals into the natural setting would potentially encourage natural social and territorial behaviour, essential for the remaining females to breed on a regular basis. DRC’s Garamba National Park was still assumed to contain three remaining wild rhinos, which might considerably increase the chances of the northern form to survive provided any such animals were found and integrated with captive rhinos, as evidenced through genetic modelling developed by ISIS and AfRSG specialists. A place fully secure and free of poachers and predators was a prerequisite for any move of the animals from captivity to the wild. A consensus was reached in that if sufficient numbers are achieved within 20-30 years, then a part of such population could be relocated to countries of former range, provided secure and suitable areas are found there. Because the former range of the subspecies did not contain any safe location, the Rooipoort Reserve of De Beers in the Northern Cape Province, South Africa, was proposed as a suitable site. De Beers have been supporters of conservation projects for one hundred years, with ranches reproducing many species of South Africa’s native wildlife, which can be very well evidenced through granting the WWF‑Lonmin Award for conservation to Nicky and Strilli Oppenheimers to recognise the funding of conservation projects contributed by De Beers and Oppenheimer family.
The only person objecting against the move to Africa was Lars Versteege, White Rhino EEP coordinator, supporting an idea of repeated attempts at artificial insemination and relocation of the animals to a different zoo, for instance the one that he worked with, i.e. Safari Park Beekse Bergen, where they had achieved a number of southern rhino calves produced. IZW Berlin were suggesting that artificial insemination efforts should continue until the transport. The remainder of the participants was opting for the move as the only real way forward, generally recommending to try making the females cycle again within the short time window before the transport, by either naturally or through artificial insemination, noting that this should not pose any unduly delay of the move. AfRSG and Back to Africa representatives invited Dvůr Králové to reconsider Ol Pejeta as an option, as the Kenyan post‑election situation was already under control. At the same time, everyone was informed on the plans to survey Garamba National Park with the intention to find any last remaining rhinos. As a conclusion, the next project steps were identified including actions expected. A summary of meeting presentations and conclusions was incorporated into the Northern White Rhino Conservation Action Plan document. The operation as such was branded by the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums as WAZA Conservation Project No 08017. Choosing the best site Follow‑up to the workshop above was the meeting of Dvůr Králové Zoo Board in September 2008, where the board members approved the steps proposed under the Action plan, as well as the move of the animals to the reserve in South Africa that had been assessed as 100% secured site.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
At the same time, the management method was changed in the northern white rhino at the zoo in order to induce hormonal cycles in females, which involved putting two females together with one male at a time and separating Najin from her daughter Fatu. Female cycles were under monitoring; should any female started cycling, a male was at hand to enable mating. In January 2009, Hamish Currie of Back to Africa informed on increased poaching in South Africa, suggesting re‑considering the Kenyan location (Ol Pejeta) as an option, this being at the same time a recommendation of AfRSG to the IUCN. Based on the information above, the Zoo Board decided to visit Kenya, which took place in February 2009. When visiting Ol Pejeta, the project was discussed and conditions of cooperation approved. The zoo representatives also became familiar with Ol Pejeta operations and reintroduction projects, as well as with rhino management and security situation in Kenya generally and in Ol Pejeta in particular. The meeting participants included representatives of Dvůr Králové Zoo, Czech Parliament’s Committee for Environment and Kenya Wildlife Service, as well as managers and other personnel of Ol Pejeta Conservancy, Lewa Wildlife Conservancy, Back to Africa and Fauna & Flora International (FFI). The Zoo Board requested additional expert opinions on the project and based on these the move of the rhinos to the new location in Kenya was approved. A memorandum of understanding was signed in June, containing the following project objectives: • To induce normal and periodical breeding in the Dvůr Králové animals that were still able to reproduce, in a secure place in the wild. • To develop maximum efforts to integrate the captive animals with last remaining northern white rhinos in the wild if any are found. If not, to produce pure northern white rhinos as well as intercrossed offspring to preserve the genes of the northern white rhino, where adding southern white rhino females was recommended to induce normal social and territorial behaviour.
A management committee consisting of representatives of Dvůr Králové Zoo, Ol Pejeta Conservancy, Back to Africa, FFI, Lewa Wildlife Conservancy and Kenya Wildlife Service was established to oversee rhino management and care. The move was officially supported by the African Rhino Specialist Group to the IUCN, UCSZ and a number of various specialists in the rhino conservation field, Prince William of Wales (a supporter of Ol Pejeta Conservancy), Minister for Environment of the Czech Republic, Czech Ambassador in Kenya, the President of the Czech Committee for UNESCO and many others. Ol Pejeta Conservancy Ol Pejeta Conservancy was identified by AfRSG as the best option on the basis of its very good climate and a location close to the former range of the subspecies. A high altitude area, Ol Pejeta lacks issues concerning trypanosomiasis, which can be mortal for rhinos imported from the moderate climate. Kenya neighbours Sudan, where three northern white rhinos were observed in summer 2008 according to reliable evidence. In 2005, Ol Pejeta Conservancy was the site chosen for placing the last surviving animals from Garamba National Park, DRC. Therefore, it is the best place for receiving any potential remaining northern white rhinos from the wild in terms of both climate and politics. The current governmental policy and rhino protection system are comprehensive enough to provide maximum guarantee for security of the animals, with additional fenced and guarded area inside the reserve. Ol Pejeta represents 25,000 hectares of a habitat located near the original range of the northern white rhino. This institution has experience of rhino reintroduction and contains the largest black rhino population in East Africa counting 81 individuals, plus manages 11 southern white rhinos. Ol Pejeta has a consistent and effective system of patrols to prevent any poaching attempts on the rhino populations.
Available for the northern white rhino are bomas and 400-hectare enclosures surrounded on all sides by a fully electrified fence with monitoring on a 24-hour basis plus strategically located watch‑towers. Other security features include horn‑implanted transmitters to enable intensive surveillance and monitoring and security patrols formed of 14 men under the supervision of senior management, with additional assistance by the security divisions of the Lewa Wildlife Conservancy and Kenya Wildlife Service. The rhino enclosure is located in the centre of the conservancy, which itself is a fenced area of 61,000 hectares patrolled by a security team of over 80 guards on a 24/7 basis. Translocation including pre‑arrangements and acclimatisation In cooperation with IZW Berlin, female Nabire was examined in July 2009 and subsequently excluded from the project as a non‑breeding animal. Sperm was also collected from male Suni and sent to the Berlin‑based sperm bank. Biological samples were taken from all northern white rhinos for future use. All animals to be transported except for Sudan were dehorned from safety reasons. On Saturday, 19 December 2009 early in the morning, the process of crating and loading got underway in Dvůr Králové. Heaters were installed inside lorries as severe frosts were expected during the day and each crate was fitted up with a tarpaulin covering the ventilation holes so that the animals were kept under a temperature of 16 °C. The animals were accompanied by experienced specialists, including keeper Jan Zdarek and veterinarian Dr Jiri Vahala on behalf of Dvůr Králové Zoo, Berry White and South African veterinarian Dr Pete Morkel, a rhino translocation expert. A national traffic police escort (Traffic Police of the Czech Republic) ensured a smooth passage for the convoy as far as the airport. The aircraft with rhinos took off at 6 pm and landed at the Nairobi airport on 20 December 2009
62 in the early morning. From Nairobi, the transport continued as far as Ol Pejeta Conservancy by trucks. The rhino convoy reached the place of final destination following 26 hours and the animals were uncrated and entered their bomas on 20 December at 2 pm CET. The Dvůr Králové Zoo keepers stayed on the site with rhinos five weeks after the translocation, while Berry White spent several months there. Veterinarian Peter Morkel was and will be available to oversee the animals on an ongoing basis as they are getting adapted to living in the bush, which is going to last for one to two years and include training for the electrified fence as well as adapting to natural diet and large enclosures that will be enlarging with time. As early as January, the rhinos were released in their first natural enclosure. At the end of April, the females were put together with male Sudan and the male and female Najin subsequently transferred into a breeding area of 300 hectares, with southern white female and two calves added to the pair. Fatu is kept with male Suni in an enclosure of 8 hectares. As faecal examination results and female’s behaviour have shown, Fatu has slowly begun to cycle, with first signs of interest in mating recorded in early October 2010. A journey was taken to southern Sudan in March 2010 and it really seems that there are still a few rhinos alive. The next step planned is to build a large fenced area for Fatu and Suni and additional southern white females. In order to identify the effects that the change in environment might have on the females, monitoring of hormonal activity based on their faeces is still in progress, with samples collected and frozen twice a week as well as earlier at the zoo and then examined at the University of Vienna to determine whether the females cycle and ovulate or not and check for any pregnancy.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Rhino translocation is costly, particularly between continents, but the fundraising efforts for this translocation do not aim to compete with other recognised rhino conservation priorities. What’s more, if the original transport of the northern white rhinos from Sudan to Czechoslovakia had not been done and paid by Dvůr Králové Zoo in 1975, there would be no animals left to save and these rhinos could even never obtain this last chance to survive. For basic information and facts as well as updates, please visit project micro site: www.northernwhiterhinolastchance.com
Acknowledgments In addition to the partners mentioned earlier, a number of supporters and funding institutions must be applauded for their appreciated help.
Conclusion Dvůr Králové sent to Africa as part of conservation projects seven rhinos within a single year, which would not be possible in a small country in the middle of Europe being there no dedicated partners as well as generations of keepers. The black rhinos were literally sent to the land of their ancestors, returning into what can be called promised land, i.e. their native habitat, with the belief that the Mother Nature thereby gets what we humans owe to her. I believe that both sites can provide a permanent home for our rhinos and that any future offspring of these will help Dvůr Králové fulfil the modern zoo mission totally in compliance with the strategy of WAZA. I had the opportunity of testing in person that the animals were translocated to the best possible habitat.
I feel happy that we gave the northAfRSG to the IUCN, Kenya Wildlife ern white rhinos their last chance, Service, Kenyan Ministry for Environthat they live in conditions that are ment, Czech Embassy Kenya, Czech believed to establish a normal female Ministry of Environment, Czech Committee for UNESCO, Environreproductive behaviour, and that the mental Committee of Czech Parliaworldwide interest in this project ment, IZW Berlin & Vienna University, turned public attention to the protecBBC, National Geographic, Lemuria tion of the entire taxon. TV & Czech TV, Matsarol Foundation, Australia; Whitley Animal ProtecEven though four last remaining tion Trust, Prince Bernhard Fund for animals may be unable to guarantee Nature, The Chadramohan Famsurvival of a species, promoting conily Foundation (Zoomungus World servation as such is something that Foundation), Tudor Investments (Paul they can. Tudor Jones), Montague‑Panton Charitable Trust, Ministry of Environment, Czech Republic; DHL Supply References Chain, The Daphne Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, Natura Viva Dvůr Králové n. L. • HOLECKOVA, D., 2009: Breeding & Severočeské doly endangered species at Dvůr Králové Zoo, Volume 3: Rhinos. Dvůr Králové Special thanks for both projects Zoo, Dvůr Králové nad Labem. • The team of Dvůr Králové Zoo, in particular animal management staff and veterinarians • Dvůr Králové Zoo Board of Directors & Supervisory Board • The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums for your support
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Letting the Cat Out of the Bag: Genetic Effects of Ex situ‑Conservation in the European Wildcat (Felis silvestris) Kathrin A. Witzenberger – University of Trier
Data on the genetic diversity and relatedness of animals in a zoo population are crucial for the implementation of successful breeding programs. We analysed the genetic structure of the zoo population of the European wildcat (n = 77) and compared it with genetic data from a natural wild population in Germany (n = 81). The method used was genotyping at 10 microsatellite loci. Our results show, that the genetic diversity in the ex situ population of the European wildcat was higher than in the studied wild population. The inbreeding coefficient found in the captive population was comparable to the wild population (and data for other wild populations found in literature). Also the captive population showed a very high effective population size (Ne = 66). We found six distinct genetic lineages within the captive population. Combined with the available data on origin and ancestry of the sampled individuals, some of these groups could be assigned to certain zoos or regions. Therefore, the differentiation of the clusters might be due to more or less isolated breeding lines, or groups of zoos that often exchanged individuals, or zoos that
were very successful breeders. Also, it is very likely that the zoos have used several source populations to found the captive population. There were no signs of genetic erosion within the captive population. The comparably high diversity and low inbreeding found in the captive population might be due to the combination of different founder populations. Despite the fact that the European wildcat has been bred for many generations without a coordination of breeding efforts, inbreeding currently does not represent a severe threat in the captive population. Therefore, the uncoordinated breeding seems to have had no negative effect up to now. It has been proposed, that an artificial fragmentation of captive populations into several more or less independent subpopulations might help to retain a maximum of genetic diversity. In the ex situ population of F. silvestris, the strategy to divide the captive population into several independent fragments seems to have been applied just by chance due to
the missing network of holders. This might have helped to maintain the strong genetic variability across the whole population. Instead of managing these populations as a single population in the future, it might therefore be worthwhile to retain at least some sub‑structuring. Up to now our genotyping data suggests that hybridisation with domestic cats also seems to be negligible in the ex situ stock. Nevertheless, a studbook for the European wildcat is needed in order to avoid that the currently good condition of the captive population is lost.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
India’s Initiative in Ex‑situ Wildlife Conservation B. S. Bonal – Central Zoo Authority, India
Introduction The Central Zoo Authority was created in 1992 under the Wild Life (Protection) (Amendment 1991) Act, 1972 with main objective to oversee the functioning of zoos in the country and to enforce minimum standards and norms for upkeep and health care of animals in Indian zoos so that the zoos come up to a standard where they can complement and strengthen the national efforts in conservation of wildlife of the country as envisaged in National Zoo Policy, 1998. Coordinated planned conservation breeding of critically endangered wild animal species is the flagship objective of zoos as per the National Zoo Policy, 1998. The Central Zoo Authority has identified 73 such critically endangered wild animal species for planned conservation breeding in India with following objectives: • Developing physically, genetically and behaviourally viable populations of healthy animals of identified species for the purpose of display in zoos. • Developing physically, genetically and behaviourally viable populations of healthy animals to act as insurance and raise stock for rehabilitation them in wild when it is appropriate and desirable. Coordinating and participating zoos in conservation breeding programme of each identified species have been identified. Central Zoo Authority is providing funds for creation of off‑display conservation breeding centres in coordinating zoo on 100% basis. Funds are also being provided for proper display enclosures in participating zoos of each identified species.
Target is to have at least 250 plan bred and physically, genetically and behaviourally healthy individuals of each identified critically endangered wild animal species of Indian origin in captivity in the world of which at least 100 must be in India of each identified species with less than few hundred/ thousands (or say less than 2500) individuals left in the wild. So far conservation breeding programme of 18 no. of identified species has been taken off in different zoos. The status of the ongoing conservation breeding programme is as below:
Red Panda (Ailurus fulgens fulgens) The range of Red Panda (Ailurus fulgens fulgens) extends from Nepal through north‑eastern India (West Bengal, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh), Bhutan and China. It is listed in Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act (1972) of India and Vulnerable in the IUCN Red data book. Indian zoos had also received animals from zoos of Cologne, Rotterdam, Madrid, Holland, and Belgium. The Padmaja Naidu Himalayan Zoological Park, Darjeeling and Himalayan Zoological Park, Sikkim has been identified as Coordinating zoo and Participating zoo respectively for the conservation breeding of the species. Status of Red Panda housed in the Indian zoos during the year 2009-10 is 20 (13: 7) with 2 birth and successful release to wild. Singhalila National Park in 2003 has been landmark of this programme.
Western Tragopan (Tragopan melanocephalus) The Western Tragopan is considered as the rarest of all living pheasants. Their range is very restricted and found from an altitude of 1750 m to 3600 m in Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh. It is listed in Schedule I of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Vulnerable in IUCN Red Data book. The Central Zoo Authority has provided financial assistance to establish off‑display conservation breeding centre at Sarahan Himachal Pradesh. There are 25 (13:12) Western Tragopan in captivity of two zoos in India. The Sarahan Pheasantry since last few years is facing infection of E‑coli in breeding hen leading to deaths. The breeding centre is doing its best to overcome this problem.
Cheer Pheasant (Catreus wallichii) The Cheer Pheasant is distributed in the highlands and scrublands of the Himalayas region of the India (Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Kashmir), Nepal, and Pakistan. The Cheer Pheasant has been listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red Data Book and listed in Schedule I of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. There are 70 birds (34:20:16 Chicks) housed in 3 zoos in India. The Central Zoo has provided fund to Himachal Pradesh Forest Department for establishing off‑display conservation breeding centre at Khariun in Chail Wildlife Sanctuary.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Manipur Brow Antlered Deer or Sangai (Cervus eldi eldi) The Sangai is an endemic deer found only in Manipur, India. Manipur brow ‑antlered deer has been classified as Critically Endangered (CR) species in IUCN Red Data Book and Schedule 1 in Wild Life (Protection Act), 1972. There are 187 (48:76:63) Sangai housed in the 15 zoos in India. The Central Zoo Authority has provided fund to Manipur Zoological Park to established off‑display conservation breeding centre.
Mouse deer (Moschiola indica) The Indian Mouse deer a small, secretive creatures is a species of even ‑toed ungulate in the Tragulidae family found in India and possibly Nepal. The CZA has identified Nehru Zoological Park Hyderabad as Coordinating zoo providing financial assistance for establishing the infrastructure for the conservation breeding of Mouse deer. There are 17 (6:10:1 young one) Mouse deer housed in the 4 number of zoos in the country.
Vultures More than 90% vultures populations have been lost during the last 2 decades. Therefore, conservation breeding programme in captivity and possible reintroduction into the wild has been taken up by establishing an off ‑display conservation breeding centre at Pinjore, Sakkarbaugh Zoo, Junagarh; Nandankanan Zoological Park, Bhubaneswar; Van Vihar National Park‑Zoo, Bhopal; Rani‑Guwahati, Assam; Rajbakhtawa, South Khairabari in West Bengal and Muta at Ranchi basically for three species i.e. Long billed vulture, Slender billed vulture and White backed vulture. National (Bombay Natural History Society) and Zoological Society of London are partner in this conservation effort.
There are 62 long billed vultures in 4 centres, 18 slender billed vultures in 1 centre and 137 white backed vultures in 9 centres. Vulture conservation Breeding Centre at Pinjore Haryana has achieved 15 successful birth and successful raising in the captivity.
Grey Jungle Fowl (Gallus sonneratii) The species is found, mainly in the Indian Peninsula but extends into Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and south Rajasthan. This species and the Red Junglefowl overlap slightly along the northern boundary of the distribution. It is listed in Schedule II of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Central Zoo Authority has identified Sri Venkatkeshwara Zoological Park, Tirupati as coordinating zoo for the conservation breeding for the same. There are 66 (15:18:33) birds in captivity in 5 zoos in India.
Lion Tailed Macaque (Macaca silenus) The Lion‑tailed Macaque is endemic to the Western Ghats of South India. The Lion‑tailed Macaque ranks among the rarest and most threatened primates. The species has been identified as Endangered (E) in IUCN Red Data Book and listed in Schedule 1 in Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Central Zoo Authority has identified Arignar Anna Zoological Park, Vandalur (Chennai) as Coordinating zoo and State Museum Zoo, Trivananthapuram and Sri Chamarajendra Zoological Park, Mysore zoo as Participating zoos. There are 63 LTM (34:26:3) housed in 14 facilities in India (2009).
Hoolock Gibbon (Hoolock hoolock) The range of the hoolocks is the most northwestern of all the gibbons, extending from Assam in North‑East India, to Myanmar. Small populations (in each case few hundred animals) live also in eastern Bangladesh and in southwest China. There are two species of Hoolocks i.e. Western Hoolock Gibbon, (Hoolock hoolock) and Eastern Hoolock Gibbon, (Hoolock leuco‑ nedys). The Central Zoo Authority has identified Biological Park, Itanagar as coordinating zoo and Aizawl Zoo, Mizoram; Assam State Zoo, Guwahati and Sepahijala Zoological Park, Tripura as participating zoos for the conservation breeding. There are 35 hoolock (13:15:7) in captivity at the moment in 8 zoos in India.
Pygmy Hog (Porcula salvania) Pygmy hog is an endangered species of small wild pig, previously spread across India, Nepal, and Bhutan but now only found in Assam. The current wild population may be about 150 individuals or fewer. The conservation breeding of Pygmy hogs by Pygmy Hog Conservation Breeding (PHCP, Assam) began at Basistha research and breeding centre near Guwahati in 1996, using seven (3 males, 4 females) wild hogs captured from their last surviving population in Manas National Park, Assam. PHCP is a collaborative project of Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust (Durrell), IUCN/SSC PPHSG, Forest Department of the Government of Assam, and the Ministry of Environment & Forests of the Government of India. Release of 30 Pygmy hog in wild (Sonairupai WLS) with constant post ‑release monitoring with successful establishment and breeding in wild is the greatest achievement of the conservation breeding programme. Assam state zoo has been identified as participating zoo.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Indian Pangolin (Manis crassicuadata)
Pig Tailed Macaque (Macaca leonine)
Himalayan Monal (Lophophorus impejanus)
The Indian Pangolin (Manis crassicau‑ data) is found in many parts of India and some parts of Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The Central Zoo Authority has identified Nandankanan Zoological Park Bhubaneshwar as coordinating zoo providing a grant for establishing off display conservation breeding centre. The centre has 9 individuals with recorded successful breeding.
The Northern Pig‑tailed Macaque (Macaca leonina) is found in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. The IUCN Red Data book lists the pig tailed macaque as Vulnerable. The Central Zoo Authority has identified Sepahijala Zoological Park, Tripura as coordinating zoo providing financial assistance for establishing off‑display conservation breeding centre. There are 33 pig tailed macaque (9:10:14) housed in 6 zoos in India. Assam state zoo has been identified as Participating zoo under the programme.
The Himalayan Monal (Lophophorus impejanus) also known as the Impeyan Monal or Impeyan Pheasant or Danphe is the national bird of Nepal, and the state bird of Uttarakhand. The Central Zoo Authority has identified Nature Park Manali as Coordinating zoo and providing financial assistance for establishing off‑display conservation breeding centre. There are 35 birds (21:11:3) housed in 7 zoos in India. The Padmaja Naidu Himalayan Zoological Park, Darjeeling and Himalayan Zoological Park, Gangtok has been identified as participating zoo under the programme.
Binturong (Arctictis binturong)
Identification of founders, marking of founders (transponders, ear tags or rings), preparation of animal history sheets and animal observation sheets of the identified founders by the zoos, compilation of studbook by the national studbook keeper, liaison with the International studbook keeper of the species (if any), possibility of acquiring the founders from foreign zoos (if required) and details of the zoos from where founders can be acquired, physical health check‑up of the founders using the veterinary hospital in the zoo as well as National Referral Centre (Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Bareilly), Genetic health check‑up of the founders using blood samples or body parts with help from Lacones, Hyderabad, engagement of technical assistant (biologist, veterinary assistant etc) in the coordinating zoo are the major factors leading to its success.
King Cobra (Ophiophagus hannah) The king cobra is the world’s longest venomous snake, with a length up to 5.6 m (18.5 ft). This species is widespread throughout Southeast Asia and parts of India, and is found mostly in forested areas. The Central Zoo Authority has identified Pilikula Biological Park, Mangalore as coordinating zoo providing technical assistance for establishing off‑display conservation breeding centre. There are 35 king cobra (14:10:11) housed in 13 zoos in India.
Clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa nebulosa) The Clouded leopard (Neofelis nebu‑ losa) is a medium‑sized cat found in Southeast Asia. The Red list of endangered species of IUCN lists the clouded leopard as Vulnerable. The Central Zoo Authority has identified Sepahijala Zoological Park, Tripura as coordinating zoo providing financial assistance for establishing off‑display conservation breeding centre and Assam State Zoo, Guwahati as participating zoo. There were 4 births reported in Sepahijala zoo during the 2009-10. At the moment, there are 23 clouded leopard (9:8:6) in the Indian zoos.
The Binturong’s (Arctictis binturong) natural habitat is forest canopy in rainforest of Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Nepal, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. The IUCN Red Data book listed the Binturong as Vulnerable. The Central Zoo Authority has identified Sepahijala Zoological Park, Tripura as coordinating zoo providing financial assistance for establishing off‑display conservation breeding centre. There are 11 binturong (7:4) housed in 6 zoos in India. Assam state zoo and Aizawl zoo has been identified as Participating zoo under the programme.
Spectacle Langur – phyre’s monkey (Trachypithecus phayrei) Phayre’s Leaf Monkey also known as Phayre’s Langur, is a species of lutung found in Southeast Asia. Its range includes Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, China, Thailand, Laos and Vietnam. The Red Data book of IUCN lists the Phayre’s Leaf Monkey as Endangered species. The Central Zoo Authority has identified Sepahijala Zoological Park, Tripura as coordinating zoo providing financial assistance for establishing off‑display conservation breeding centre. There are 13 Spectacle langur (5:7:1) housed in 6 zoos in India.
There is need to link ex‑situ conservation breeding programme of identified species with in‑situ species recovery programme with positive approach to save the critically endangered wild animal species from extinction.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
“Joined‑up Conservation”: Addressing Native Species Declines in Western Australia Susan Hunt PSM – Chief Executive Officer, Perth Zoo
This paper outlines the new approach recently formalised by the Western Australian Minister for Environment which nominates Perth Zoo and our colleague organisation the Botanical Parks and Gardens Authority as the Government’s official ex‑situ ‘Conservation Arks’ for Western Australia’s native threatened species.
1,600 known fish species and 12,000 known species of vascular plants. The south‑west corner of WA is one of the world’s global biodiversity hotspots, containing large numbers of threatened species found nowhere else. It is estimated that there are as many as 8,000 species of wildflowers in the south‑west with frequent and continuing new discoveries:
Western Australia has unique biodiversity and has Australia’s only biodiversity hot spot. To address local native species’ decline and to build the effectiveness of conservation actions, the CEOs of the Western Australian conservation department, the botanical gardens, the WA Museum and Perth Zoo have formed This new arrangement establishes a a Threatened Species Council. With process where conservation and like “…south‑west organisms are record a mandate to reform native species’ ‑minded agencies are now officially keepers in the global biodiversity recovery processes, build scientific re- “joined up” in their work in conserving stakes. Living fossils and missing links search and respond swiftly to species threatened flora and fauna species in abound in unexpected places. …Fossil declines, this Council is also tasked to the State. This work includes emerstudies and DNA research show that build community awareness of local gency recovery, species recovery some of the south‑west banksias native species. Perth Zoo leads this planning, breed for release programs, have persisted almost unchanged work, which as a part of the action research and science, and increasin flower and fruit for more than 40 around the Year of Biodiversity is deing public awareness and knowledge million years. So too among marsupiveloping a broad community educawithin our community about local als; the beautiful mouse‑sized honey tion campaign highlighting the plight threatened species. possum (tarsipes rostratus) has perof the State’s threatened species. sisted over a similar period, living off Home to between 600,000 and the nectar and pollen of banksia and Perth Zoo has worked in species 700,000 species, Australia is one of other plants.” (Hopper, S Does Biodirecovery for many years with a par17 countries known as ‘megadiverse’. versity matter in southwest Australia? ticular focus on breeding threatened This group of countries has less than BGPA 2009) native species for release into the 10% of the world’s surface but supwild. More than 2,000 native animals ports more than 70% of its biological The Western Australian landscape has bred at Perth Zoo have been released diversity. experienced waves of development into protected habitat since the including the introduction of graz1990s. This has been done in collaboWestern Australia is a State of Ausing species which have dramatically ration with colleagues in the Western tralia with a vast land mass – some changed the ecosystem. Since the Australian Government and at times 2,500,000 square kilometers – com1820s, European farming and water as part of a contract agreement to prising almost a third of the Australmanagement processes have had a significant impact. Additionally, feral breed animals for release. Perth Zoo’s ian continent. cats, goats, rabbits, dogs, horses and role in conservation and breed for reWestern Australia (WA) is home camels have had a dramatic impact lease programs has now evolved into to 141 of Australia’s 207 mammal on the environment. The arrival and taking a more central role in native species; (25 unique to WA), 439 full impact of foxes was felt during species conservation and conservareptile species (187 unique to WA), the mid 20th century. Foxes and the tion education programs. spread of feral cats have resulted in a catastrophic decline in Western Australia’s native fauna.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
As a result, WA has recorded 24 native mammal extinctions since European settlement. A further 8 mammal species survive only on islands. Currently, 601 threatened species are listed as requiring action and conservation in Western Australia and there is evidence that we may in fact be understating the situation. In June 2008, 2,604 local species were identified as requiring more research to understand their actual conservation status. It was also reported that: “…about 85% of the species thought to be present are still to be described and new species are still being discovered.” (Department of Environment and Conservation 2008) As demonstrated in Figure 1 (Office of the Auditor General 2009), there is a serious imbalance in the WA experience and what is happening globally. WA is seeing many more critically endangered species and threatened species. A disturbing 30% of all threatened species are critically endangered in WA compared to 19% globally. Despite WA’s resource rich economy, it is apparent that the existing resources being directed to the problem are insufficient. Figure 2 shows that only 2% of WA’s threatened species presently have a species recovery plan in place; 35% have interim plans; and 63% have no recovery plans at all. Some of the most catastrophic of the declines in numbers of native species include WA’s most iconic species. We are presently seeing a decline in the number of Numbats (Myrmecobius fasciatus) which is the State’s native emblem and a rare diurnal marsupial. It is an exclusive termite feeder and only remains in two isolated populations in the south‑west of Western Australia at Dryandra and Perup. Perth Zoo has a dedicated breed for release program for this species; however, with the extent of breeding and the current decline in wild numbers, the remaining populations will not be sustainable without more direct intervention to create more intensively managed colonies of this species.
Another species in serious decline is the Woylie (Bettongia penicillata) with its population numbers collapsing by 95% over the past 5 years. This is faster than the decline in the more charismatic Tasmanian Devil (down by 65%) which has received active intervention. The reasons for these declines in Western Australia are still unclear. As with the Tasmanian Devil, a disease conservation medicine investigation through Perth Zoo has been commissioned. The effectiveness of the strategies for the management of feral pests and predators are also under review. Perth Zoo is also now involved in breeding a genetically strong insurance population of Woylie.
The Minister also formed a governing body called the Threatened Species Council comprising Chief Executive Officers of the Department of Environment and Conservation, Perth Zoo, BGPA, the WA Museum and the State Chief Scientist. The council’s role is to meet regularly to monitor processes and performance across agencies, with a mandate to: • target concerted actions for threatened species recovery; • review recovery planning processes; • address urgent concerns by fast tracking initiatives including emergency species recovery actions; • strengthen monitoring; and • develop a campaign to build public awareness of local threatened species.
The political imperative for action has grown in recent years with the One area of particular focus for continuing poor outlook for WA’s naPerth Zoo is using our expertise and tive animals. In 2010, the WA Minister experience in conservation education for the Environment announced a and public awareness. Through the new approach to acknowledge the Threatened Species Council, the Zoo role of agencies historically known is leading the development of a broad for a more passive conservation role based campaign to raise local underin flora and fauna exhibitory. This standing of WA’s threatened species. new approach brings Perth Zoo, the While our visitors and the Australian Botanical Parks and Gardens Aupublic have a strong recognition of thority (BGPA) and the WA Museum exotic species, knowledge and intertogether along with the responsible est in native animals is very low. The Government agency, the Department key messages for the public awareof Environment and Conservation, ness campaign are: to extend collaboration and action, build relationships and pool resources • Western Australia’s native species to more closely target species for are unique and central to our State’s species recovery. identity; • Conserving our natural world and Perth Zoo and the BGPA now have native species is necessary for life; formal, government‑endorsed and • Act now: many of our native species mandated roles to use their ex‑situ are facing extinction. conservation expertise, research focus and scientific base to: Actions underway include the development of a ‘top ten’ local species • provide a safe haven for animals focus to build understanding and and plants; knowledge of our fauna and flora • build reproductive biology research using species such as bilby, cockaknowledge; toos and native orchids. We are also • investigate conservation medicine developing a web portal on WA strategies; native species providing a focal point • store genetic material; for information, community action, • assist with population modelling; research and education. In addition, and • be responsible for the captive breeding of animals and propagation of plants for use in re‑introduction programs.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
a concerted media campaign and television series on native species is being negotiated with a mainstream media outlet. We are also linking with other effective awareness campaigns and branding them with WA native species, taking every opportunity to raise the level of community awareness, empathy and action to save our native species. These actions are certainly not unique in terms of public awareness and education campaigns for zoos but together with the now Government ‑mandated role of Perth Zoo as a significant player in broad conservation of our local species, this new approach moves the Zoo from a traditional role to one of a central player in active and mandated conservation actions. It is a model that recognises the Zoo’s valuable expertise in a broad range of areas – including research, small population management, conservation medicine, education, husbandry, breeding for release, species management and associated science – as central to the recovery of WA’s native species. Importantly, the State Government is using the enormous public affection for the Zoo to lead the campaign to build community awareness of our native species in concerted education and public awareness campaigns. This is a ‘joined up’ conservation model for the modern zoo.
Western Australia's Threatened Species Distribution in Comparison to Global Situation 100% 90% 80% 70% 60%
Critically Endangered 19%
Critically Endangered 30%
50% 40% 30%
10% 0% International Distribution of Species
WA Distribution of Species
Percentage of Listed Species with Recovery Plans Full Recovery Plan
No Recovery Plan
Interim Recovery Plan
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Developing Conservation Strategies for the Armenian Viper Jeff Ettling, Curator of Herpetology & Aquatics, Director – Center for Conservation of Near East Mountain Vipers, Saint Louis Zoo, One Government Drive, St. Louis, Missouri USA | Presented by Eric Miller, DVM, Senior Vice President of Zoological Operatioins, Director – WildCare Institute, Saint Louis Zoo, One Government Drive, St. Louis, Missouri USA
The Center for Conservation of Near East Mountain Vipers is one of twelve conservation centers under the umbrella of the Saint Louis Zoo’s WildCare Institute. The WildCare Institute is dedicated to creating a sustainable future for wildlife and people around the world. The Institute’s strategy for conservation success is based on a solid foundation of wildlife management, conservation biology and providing support for the human populations that coexist with wildlife. The Armenian viper, Montivipera raddei is one of eight species belonging to a complex of snakes known as mountain vipers. Mountain vipers have a collective distribution that includes portions of Greece, Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Armenia and Iran (Nilson and Andren 1986). With the exception of the Ottoman viper, M. xanthina, which has a broad distribution in the western portion of Turkey, the other seven species of mountain viper have small, fragmented and isolated distributions (Nilson and Andren 1986). The distribution of the eight species of mountain viper falls within three of the biodiversity hotspots: 1) Mediterranean Basin, 2) Caucasus and 3) Irano‑Antolian (Mittermeier et al. 2004).
The known range of the Armenian viper includes Armenia, northwestern Iran, eastern Turkey, and northeastern Iraq (Nilson and Andren 1986; Leviton et al. 1992). In Armenia agricultural activities have severely modified and fragmented the habitat of the Armenian viper. In addition, the species is also threatened by over‑collection for the pet trade (eastern Turkey), human persecution and possibly warfare (Mallow et al. 2003; O’Shea 2005; Nilson et al. 2008). In the mid‑ 1960’s population densities of Armenian vipers were estimated at 20–50 snakes/hectare (Darevsky 1966). Nilson et al. (2008) reported that current population densities are 4–10 vipers/hectare and that populations are declining. The reproductive behavior and timing of mating of the Armenian viper were studied by Darevsky (1966) and Bozhanskii and Kudryavcev (1986), respectively. However, we know very little about home range size, movement patterns, habitat preferences or population structure. Due to the increasing human pressure on its habitat and population numbers, a conservation management plan is needed. In order to address the questions regarding spatial ecology and population structure the Center for Conservation of Near East Mountain Vipers initiated a long‑term collaborative study of the Armenian viper in 2004 with Dr. Aram Aghasyan and Levon Aghasyan of the Ministry
of Nature Protection, Republic of Armenia and the Scientific Center of Zoology and Hydroecology, National Academy of Sciences, Republic of Armenia, respectively. To date we have been studying the spatial ecology and habitat usage of the Armenian viper in two different landscapes utilizing a combination of radio‑telemetry and geographical information system (GIS) technology. Specifically, we are interested in determining if the home range differs between populations inhabiting different locations, assessing the significance of anthropogenic modified landscapes as habitat compared to tracts of natural vegetation, and comparing the seasonal movements and activity patterns between Armenian viper populations inhabiting two locations that differ in climate, elevation, topography and vegetation. As previously noted snake habitats have become fragmented due to anthropogenic landscape changes, such as conversion of land for agriculture, housing developments and road construction. This fragmentation has restricted gene flow in many populations and completely eliminated it in others. Subsequently, these populations either decline or go extinct (Madsen et al. 1996; Gibbs and Weatherhead 2001; Anderson et al. 2009). In order to assess the genetic
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
diversity and connectivity of Armenian viper hibernacula and to evaluate the impact of anthropogenic modifications on movement and gene flow we have been collecting blood samples from vipers at each of three or more hibernacula at each of the two study locations. These samples are being used in a microsatellite analysis to genotype individuals, examine relatedness, estimate migration rates between hibernacula and determine effective population size. By tracking the movements of Armenian vipers and calculating their home range sizes, seasonal activity/ movement patterns and habitat usage, this study will add to our expanding knowledge of the spatial ecology and habitat preferences of snakes. Furthermore, comparative studies in two locations differing in climate, elevation, topography and vegetation will provide valuable insight into how environmental factors influence home range size and movements. In addition, the examination of the population structure using microsatellites, combined with the GIS data, will provide a better understanding of how anthropogenic changes in landscape features are impacting movement patterns and gene flow. Ultimately, the results of this study will provide us with the data needed to help draft an effective conservation plan for the species. Until recently the only protected habitat in Armenia for the Armenian viper was Khosrov Nature Reserve and Shikahogh Nature Reserve which were established in 1958. That changed on 15 October 2009 when the Government of the Republic of Armenia declared two new protected nature areas: 1) Zangezur Sanctuary and 2) Arevik National Park. Both sites are home to the Armenian viper and many other endangered species. Many conservationists and non‑governmental organizations, including our research team, played a role in the establishment of these protected areas.
Our plans for the future not only include long‑term monitoring of Armenian viper populations, but education programs in villages and farming communities within the range of the Armenian viper. In 2006 we developed “Save Our Viper” posters and brochures in three different languages (Armenian, Russian, English). They discuss the important role that snakes, including venomous species, play in the ecosystem, why Armenian vipers are in trouble, what to do if you encounter a snake, and how to help save the viper. We carry the posters and brochures with us when we are in the field and use them for impromptu education opportunities that arise when farmers come to investigate what we are doing. We plan to take this a step further in coming years and have scheduled “snake talks” in villages near our study sites. Although we can collect the data needed to develop a conservation strategy for a species, the success of a conservation program ultimately depends on “buy in” and support from the people who live with the wildlife.
References • Anderson, C. D., H. L. Gibbs, M. E. Douglas, and A. T. Holycross. 2009. Conservation genetics of the desert massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus edwardsi). Copeia, 2009 (4): 740–747. • Bozhanskii, A., and S. V. Kudryavcev. 1986. Ecological observations of the rare vipers of the Caucasus. Pages 495–498 In Z. Rocek (ed.), Studies in Herpetology. Prague. • Darevsky, I. S. 1966. Ecology of rock‑viper (Vipera xanthina raddei Boettger) in the natural surroundings of Armenia. Mem. Inst. Butantan Simp. Internac. 33: 81–83. • Gibbs, H. L., and P. J. Weatherhead. 2001. Insights into population ecology and sexual selection in snakes through the application of DNA ‑based genetic markers. Journal of Heredity 92: 173–179. • Leviton, A., S. C. Anderson, K. Adler, and S. Minton. 1992. Handbook of Middle East Amphibians and Reptiles. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, St. Louis University, St. Louis, USA. 160 pp. • Madsen, T., B. Stille, and R. Shine. 1996. Inbreeding depression in an isolated population of adders, Vi‑ pera berus. Biological Conservation 75: 113–118. • Mallow, D., D. Ludwig, and G. Nilson. 2003. True Vipers: Natural History and Toxinology of Old World Vipers. Krieger Pub. Co., Malabar, Fl. • Mittermeier, R. A., P. R. Gil, M. Hoffman, J. Pilgram, T. Brooks, C. G. Mittermeier, J. Lamoreux and G. A. B. da Fonseca. 2004. Hotspots Revisited: Earth‘s Biologically Richest and Most Threatened Terrestrial Ecoregions. CEMEX, Mexico City, Mexico. 390 pp. Nilson, G., and C. Andren. 1986. The mountain vipers of the Middle East – the Vipera xan‑ thina complex (Reptilia: Viperidae). Bonn. Zool. Monogr. 20: 1 – 90. • Nilson, G., C. Andrén, A. Avci, and F. Akarsu 2008. Montivipera raddei. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. <www. iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 30 November 2010. • O’Shea, M. 2005. Venomous Snakes of the World. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
An Overview and Evaluation of WAZA Conservation Projects Markus Gusset & Gerald Dick – WAZA Executive Office
In light of the United Nations declaring 2010 as the “International Year of Biodiversity”, we carried out an audit of in situ conservation projects supported by the world zoo and aquarium community. The results of our questionnaire survey show that the 113 evaluated projects are helping to improve the conservation status of high‑profile threatened species and habitats in biodiversity‑rich regions of the world. Our results show that thanks to the investment made by zoos and aquariums, particularly financial, these projects reached overall impact scores of a magnitude suggestive of an appreciable contribution to global biodiversity conservation. The present first global appraisal of the contribution of the world zoo and aquarium community
to in situ conservation from a supported project’s perspective thus suggests that zoos and aquariums are on track for “Building a Future for Wildlife”, as stipulated in the revised World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy of 2005. However, zoos and aquariums could make an even stronger contribution by allocating more resources to in situ conservation, which – as our results show – would significantly increase the projects’ conservation impact. Increased pooling of resources among zoological institutions thus appears to be advisable.
Reference • Gusset, M. & G. Dick (2010): “Build‑ ing a Future for Wildlife”? Evaluating the contribution of the world zoo and aquarium community to in situ conservation. Int. Zoo Yb. 44: 183–192.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Breeding, Research & Conservation of Tropical Herpetodiversity: Linking ex situ with in situ Approaches Thomas Ziegler
The author commenced with biodiversity research in Vietnam in the framework of his doctoral thesis in 1997. Since 2003 he is curator of the Aquarium / Terrarium Department of the Cologne Zoo and Coordinator of the Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Projects in Vietnam. Since 1994 he published 218 papers and books, of which about 90 are dealing with Vietnam’s biodiversity. Since February 2009 he is Associate Professor at the Zoological Institute of Cologne University.
Introduction In times of the global amphibian crisis and ongoing global habitat destruction, conventional ex situ zoo breeding programs became even more important. To reach the goal of modern arks, viz. to better understand and breed endangered species for possible population reinforcement and releases, much investment is still required and international networks have to be established. In the framework of co‑operations with
Fig. 1. How zoos can contribute in the light of the global biodiversity crisis: Linking conservation breeding with biodiversity research and conservation measures.
local partners, authorities, and scientists, zoos can furthermore engage in particular by the help of students in conservation‑based in situ diversity and natural history research. In the following, examples are provided based on the Cologne Zoo’s actual WAZA branded projects, how zoos can link conservation breeding efforts with biodiversity research and conservation measures. This paper is based on my correspondent lecture held at the 65th Annual Conference of WAZA “Biodiversity is Life”.
74 Cologne Zoo’s WAZA branded in situ projects in Vietnam Since 1999 – the opening of Cologne Zoo’s Asian tropical house “The Rainforest” – Cologne Zoo has engaged in an in situ conservation project in Vietnam. The project is managed together with our partners from the Vietnam National University in Hanoi, the People’s Committee of Quang Binh and Phong Nha – Ke Bang National Park to preserve a unique karst forest region in central Vietnam, which recently has been declared a world heritage site by UNESCO. Together with our long‑term partners and Cologne Zoo staff in Vietnam we concentrate on (1) forest protection, i.e. optimisation of ranger work (WAZA branded project 07010 “Forest protection program”), (2) development and implementation of a rescue centre for confiscated animals (WAZA branded project 07009 “Wildlife rescue and release program”), which meanwhile has been handed over to the national park, (3) design and development, together with Frankfurt Zoological Society, of a restocking program for endangered langur species (WAZA branded project 04015 “Langur reintroduction”), and (4) biodiversity research (for overview see Ziegler et al. 2008, Forster et al. 2010). The latter aspect (WAZA branded project 07011 “Herpetodiversity research”) is one of our most important project goals, because we can only protect what is well known to us. We mainly focus on the herpetofauna because amphibians and reptiles may serve as valuable bio‑indicators. In the past decade, our team discovered 14 new amphibian and reptilian taxa from the geographically isolated area of Phong Nha – Ke Bang (e.g., Ziegler & Vu 2009), and further new species still await scientific description. This does not only impressively exemplify how little is known even from “well ‑studied” regions, but also how many species have to be described from all over the tropics before we finally will be able to adequately protect them. To be as effective as possible in times of rapid global habitat loss and
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
destruction, and because Vietnam is still a poorly understood hotspot of biodiversity (Ziegler & Nguyen 2010), we thus increase our scope by student theses. As there is high demand for biodiversity research from other protected areas, we additionally have, together with our Vietnamese partners, built up a network beyond the borders of Phong Nha – Ke Bang. But to investigate diversity is only the first step for long‑term species protection. In a second step we must learn more about the species’ adaptations and their natural history, which will finally serve as basis for proper conservation measures, because many species from Vietnam are still only poorly known. Thus, we also have started to implement student theses and scientific co‑operations dealing with ecological research and population analyses of so‑called flagship species. Such research is currently carried out by our working group, e.g., for the recently discovered newt species Ty‑ lototriton vietnamensis (IUCN Status Near Threatened), the amazingly diverse, beautiful bent‑toed gecko genus Cyrtodactylus, with 18 species which have been described as new from Vietnam in the past 15 years only, or the only known population of the crocodile lizard (Shinisaurus crocodilurus) from Vietnam. Here, it will also be essential to bring forward public relation and environmental education, which was only recently done by the publishing of a brochure for the Tay Yen Tu Nature Reserve in northeastern Vietnam that houses amongst others the endangered Tylo‑ totriton vietnamensis and Shinisaurus crocodilurus. Thus, together with our partners, we will further develop and extend our herpetodiversity research and conservation approaches in Vietnam and Laos (e.g., Nguyen et al. 2010).
Cologne Zoo’s WAZA branded ex situ projects in Vietnam In the 2008 “Year of the Frog”, a worldwide campaign pointed to the alarming global amphibian decline. Cologne Zoo does not only engage with ex situ amphibian breeding projects in the amphibian sections of its Aquarium, but also engages together with the Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources in developing and running a breeding station on the outskirts of Hanoi (WAZA branded project 07012 “Amphibian and reptilian breeding station”). The main focus of this breeding station, which was established by the institute in 2004, is to keep, breed and study Vietnamese amphibians in an in country facility (Ziegler & Nguyen 2008, Nguyen et al. 2009, Ziegler et al. in press). Here, we have the possibility to study the breeding and natural history of endangered, rare or poorly known species in captivity. In the past decade, about 40 new amphibian species have been described from Vietnam. However, the ecology of most of these species is virtually unknown. But knowledge about habitat requirements and development, especially of the mostly unknown larval stages, is of high importance for respective conservation measures. Beyond documenting larval stages and reproductive biology of selected amphibian species, we can also learn more about breeding in captivity. This is a prerequisite for maintaining captive insurance populations especially in times of worldwide emerging, hazardous chytridiomycosis (a fungal disease), and to be prepared for subsequent release of offspring into the wild, if required. Further, by providing a surplus of offspring of certain species for example for the trade, the number of wild‑caught specimens decreases and long‑term maintenance and self‑financing of the breeding station is guaranteed. Since July 2007, fourteen amphibian species were successfully raised in the station, among them Tylototriton vietnamensis (IUCN status: near threatened, population
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Fig. 2. Vietnamese and German students and keepers engaged with amphibian conservation breeding and scientific documentation of developmental stages a) at the amphibian station at Hanoi and b) at the amphibian section at the Aquarium of the Cologne Zoo. Photographs by Thomas Ziegler (a), and Detlef Karbe (b)
trend: decreasing), Rhacophorus annamensis (IUCN status: vulnerable, population trend: decreasing), the only recently described R. kio (IUCN status: vulnerable, population trend: decreasing), and Theloderma bicolor (IUCN status: endangered, population trend: decreasing). We have also already started to provide offspring of bred amphibians to the European zoo
community for building up further insurance populations in human hands. Also initial reptilian breeding successes, for example the first breeding of the crocodile lizard from Vietnam, confirm the current husbandry concept of the breeding station.
Cologne Zoo’s WAZA bran‑ ded monitor lizard project Although monitor lizards belong to the most impressive of all lizards, their future is uncertain. All Varanus species are listed on CITES Appendices I‑II, and many of them are of commercial value, e.g., for the international pet trade or the leather industry, hence. Although these reptiles include the largest squamate lizards that have ever walked the earth, regularly new species are discovered. Currently, 73 monitor lizard species are recognized, including 21 subspecies, which represents an increase in species diversity of 20 percent since 2003. Only within the first half of 2010, the “International Year of Biodiversity”, four new species and one new subspecies were described from Indonesia and the Philippines (see overview in Koch et al. 2010). Especially diverse are the Mangrove (Varanus indicus species group) and Tree monitor lizards (V. prasinus species group), which are currently comprised of 20 species in total, 60 % of which have been discovered in the past twenty years. However, many of these species are only known from few museum specimens and virtually nothing is known about their natural history. Because we are only able to protect what is well known to us, there is a high demand for ecological research. Because many monitor lizard species live in remote and difficult to access habitats, also ex situ studies become important. Thus also the zoo community can contribute towards a better understanding of monitor lizards’ natural history. By “Keeping, breeding and natural history research of barely known monitor lizards” (Cologne Zoo’s WAZA branded project 09018) crucial data can be obtained for further captive conservation efforts (Ziegler 2010). Building up a zoo population some day also may serve as basis for reintroduction to the wild. In the Cologne Zoo we currently keep six monitor lizard species, half of which could be repeatedly bred so far. In particular noteworthy are the breeding successes of the only recently described Quince monitor lizard (Varanus melinus) and of the Blue ‑spotted tree monitor lizard (Varanus macraei) (Ziegler et al. 2010a, b). So far, offspring was provided to Plzen and Praha Zoos in Europe, with the aim to establish captive populations.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Fig. 3. a) The Phong Nha – Ke Bang bent‑toed gecko (Cyrtodactylus phongnhakebangensis) is just one of the many recently discovered gecko species from Vietnam; b) juveniles of the IUCN‑listed Annam flying frog (Rhacophorus annamensis) bred at the amphibian station at Hanoi; c) First F2 offspring of the Quince monitor lizard (Varanus melinus) at the Cologne Zoo; d) our latest WAZA branded project focuses on the natural history of the Critically Endangered Siamese crocodile (Crocodylus siamensis) in Vietnam and Indonesia. Photographs by Thomas Ziegler
Cologne Zoo’s WAZA bran‑ ded crocodile project
essential as basis for sustainable and long‑term conservation. However, it will not only be important to monitor Our latest WAZA branding (project the few remaining natural but also re 10007) was entitled “Natural history ‑introduced populations. In particular of reintroduced and natural Siamese because re‑introduction measures in crocodile populations: Implications the sense of IUCN guidelines require for protection and conservation thorough scheduling, including breeding”. Here, we carry out natural genetical screening of the founder history research and population population, optimum habitat choice, development analyses of the Siamese and continuous, properly documentcrocodile (Crocodylus siamensis), ed monitoring. Thus, the goal of this conducted within the framework of WAZA branded project is to combine student theses that are supervised studies on the development of one of by our partners and us. C. siamensis the few remaining wild populations is nearly extinct in large parts of its with the long‑term development of natural distribution, listed as Critically a re‑introduced population. For natuEndangered in the IUCN Red List, and ral occurring Siamese crocodiles we in Appendix I of the CITES, and thus focus on the only known Indonesian belongs to the most threatened crocpopulation in the Danau Mesangat, odile species on earth (Sommerlad et a freshwater swamp in the Mahakam al. 2010). The research findings will be river region in eastern Kalimantan
(Borneo), and with respect to a re ‑introduced population, a purebred and reproductive Siamese crocodile population is explored in the Cat Tien National Park in southern Vietnam, which exists since 2001 based on the release of 60 crocodiles. However, in times of habitat destruction and further negative human impact such as hybridization of purebred C. sia‑ mensis with escaped farm individuals, in situ activities again should be supported by ex situ approaches (Sommerlad et al. in press). Here, with respect to Asian crocodiles, Cologne Zoo also engages within the framework of a conservation breeding project of the Philippine Crocodile (Crocodylus mindorensis).
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
List of actual main sponsors* and partner institutions** involved (in alphabetical order)
• Ziegler, T. & T. Q. Nguyen (2008): Amphibian and Reptile breed• Forster, B., Vogt, M., Ziegler, T., ing – The amphibian and reptilian Schrudde, M. & M. Raffel (2010): breeding station at Hanoi. – WAZA Langurs in Vietnam: rescued at Magazine (World Association of Amphibian‑Fonds Stiftung Artensthe very last minute? In: Dick, G. & Zoos and Aquariums) Nr. 9 “Zoos chutz / VDZ*; Biogeography DepartM. Gusset (eds.): Building a future help sustaining the rich biodiversity ment, Trier University**; Department for wildlife: zoos and aquariums of Vietnam”: 10–14. of Herpetology and Ichthyology, committed to biodiversity conser• Ziegler, T. & T. Q. Nguyen (2010): Muséum d’histoire naturelle, Geneva vation. – WAZA Executive Office, New discoveries of amphibians and (MHNG)**; European Association of Gland: 133-138. reptiles from Vietnam. – Bonn zooZoos and Aquaria (EAZA)*; European • Koch, A., Auliya, M. & T. Ziegler logical Bulletin 57 (2): 137–147. Union of Aquarium Curators (EUAC)*; (2010): Updated checklist of the • Ziegler, T., Pagel, T., Vogt, M., ForFederal Agency for Nature Conservaliving monitor lizards of the world ster, B. & B. Marcordes (2008): Contion, Germany**; Frankfurt Zoo(Squamata: Varanidae). – Bonn zooserving Vietnam’s biodiversity – The logical Society (endangered primate logical Bulletin 57 (2): 127–136. Cologne Zoo’s nature conservation reintroduction program) (FZS)**; • Nguyen, T. Q., Dang, T. T., Pham, programme in Vietnam. – WAZA Institute of Ecology and Biological C. T., Nguyen, T. T. & & T. Ziegler Magazine (World Association of Resources, Vietnamese Academy (2009): Amphibian breeding station Zoos and Aquariums) Nr. 9 “Zoos of Science and Technology Hanoi in Hanoi: a trial model for linking help sustaining the rich biodiversity (IEBR)**; Internationaler Reptilledconservation and research with of Vietnam”: 5–9. erverband (IRV)*; IUCN/SSC Crocosustainable use. – Froglog 91, March • Ziegler, T., Rütz, N., Oberreuter, J. & dile Specialist Group*; Mohamed 2009: 12–15. S. Holst (2010a): First F2 Breeding of bin Zayed Fund*; Vietnam National • Nguyen, T. Q., Kingsada, P., Rösler, the Quince monitor lizard Varanus Museum of Nature (VNMN)**; World H., Auer, M. & T. Ziegler (2010): A melinus Böhme & Ziegler, 1997 at Association of Zoos and Aquariums new species of Cyrtodactylus (Squathe Cologne Zoo Aquarium. – Bi(WAZA)*; Yayasan Ulin (Ironwood mata: Gekkonidae) from northern awak 4 (3): 82–92. Foundation)**; Zoologische GesellsLaos. – Zootaxa 2652: 1–16. • Ziegler, T., Strauch, M., Pes, T., Kochaft für Arten und Populationsschutz • Sommerlad, R., Jelden, D., Nguyen, nas, J., Jirasek, T., Rütz, N. Oberreu(ZGAP)*; Zoologisches ForschunT. Q., Stuebing, R. B., Böhme, W. & ter, J. & S. Holst (2010b): First capgsmuseum Alexander Koenig, Bonn T. Ziegler (2010): Natural history of tive breeding of the Blue‑spotted (ZFMK)**; Zoological Museum, reintroduced and natural Siamese tree monitor Varanus macraei Vietnam National University, Hanoi crocodile populations: implicaBöhme & Jacobs, 2001 at the Plzen (VNUH)** tions for protection and conservaand Cologne Zoos. – Biawak 3 (4): tion breeding. – WAZA News 3/10: 122–133. 28–29. • Ziegler, T. & T. N. Vu (2009): Ten • Sommerlad, R., Schmidt, F. & T. years of herpetodiversity research Ziegler (in press): Threatened crocoin Phong Nha – Ke Bang National diles in European Zoos? – Reptilia. Park, central Vietnam. In: Vo Van Tri, • Ziegler, T. (2010): Keeping, breeding Nguyen Tien Dat, Dang Ngoc Kien and natural history of barely known & Pham Thi Hai Yen (eds.): Phong monitor lizards. – WAZA News Nha – Ke Bang National Park and 1/10: 24. Cologne Zoo, 10 years of coopera• Ziegler, T., Dang, T. T., Nguyen, T. Q. tion (1999–2009). – Quang Binh: (in press): Breeding, natural history 103–124. and diversity research: “ex situ” and “in situ” Asian amphibian projects of the Cologne Zoo and the Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources. – Proceedings of the Amphibian Conference of the Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kuching, Borneo.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Zoo Personnel Serving an IUCN Specialist Group: An Introduction to the Northeast African Subgroup of the Antelope Specialist Group Jens‑Ove Heckel – Regional Coordinator for Northeast Africa
The International Union for the ConThe main objectives of NEAASG are: servation of Nature, IUCN is recognized as the world’s leading conser• Highlight problems of antelope vation authority. It brings together conservation by bringing priorithe knowledge of several thousand ties for action to the attention of experts in several commissions. One national and international conserof these is the Species Survival Comvation agencies and in addition mission, SSC. It comprises over 100 recommending practical solutions taxonomic specialist groups and task and providing technical assistance forces for flora and fauna. Up to 8.000 where requested. members work honorary. • Monitor the status of antelopes, by providing information to the ASG as IUCN/SSC/Antelope Specialist Group this information becomes available. cares about antelopes, gazelles, • Offer scientific support. giraffes, buffalos, water chevron• Assist with fund‑raising for specific tain. Since 2002 the Northeast antelope projects. African Subgroup (NEAASG) within The subgroup supported and conthe IUCN/SSC/Antelope Specialist ducted status assessment surveys, Group (Antelope SG) puts a special advised on conservation efforts and focus within Northeast Africa to the published results through reports, countries Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, presentations and during meetings. Somalia and Sudan. The list of Antelope SG members relevant to the NEAASG is updated Northeast Africa can be considered a regularly. Further members assisted hotspot or center of endemism with with the revision of red list (i.e. for regard to antelope biodiversity. No dibatag, Speke’s and dikdik) less than 35 species and about 60 subspecies of antelopes, giraffes and buffalos are endemic to this region. The distribution, ecology and status of some endemic species or subspecies such as beira, dibatag or silver dikdik are unknown or need to be further investigated.
Great effort was made to create a homepage for the NEAASG. The first version was made available in the internet in May 2004. Since then the homepage has been updated regularly and extended. It can be found at neaasg.org. It is intended to replace printed copies of survey up‑dates. In the future some data will only be made available through a closed member area. The significant support provided by Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation, Qatar and Zoo Landau in Pfalz, Germany is gratefully acknowledged.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Zoos’ Role in Conserving the Diversity of a Small Taxon – from the Perspective of the Bear Specialist Group Lydia Kolter – Kölner Zoo and IUCN/SSC Bear specialist group
With the exception of polar bears the smallest natural distribution is (Ursus maritimus) ursids mainly listed endangered. Only brown bears – The Ursidae are a small family with inhabit forests: from boreal forests in with exception of small populations in only eight extant bear species. They the north to sub‑tropical and tropical Western Europe and Southern Asia – are spread over four continents, forests in the south. Populations of are stable and of least concern. Ameriinhabiting mainly the northern the widely distributed species also oc- can black bears are even increasing. hemisphere up to the Arctic. Only sun cur in habitats like tundra and semi bears (Helarctos malayanus) and An‑deserts. Additionally Asiatic black The goal of the IUCN/SSC Bear Spedean bears (Tremarctos ornatus) occur bears as well as Andean bears span cialist Group (=BSG) is “to promote also south of the equator. The brown a wide altitudinal range from close the conservation of (terrestrial) bear (Ursus arctos) occupies by far the to sea level up to elevations above bears and the habitats they require widest range all over the Northern the tree line, where they use alpine across their distribution” (BSG 2010). Hemisphere from islands along the meadows (Garshelis 2009). To effectively address the differAlaskan over Eurasia to Japan. There ent issues of bear conservation the is considerable intra‑specific morExcept mother‑cub units bears live BSG is organised in 11 expert teams: phological variation within the ursids solitary outside of the short mating 8 species‑specific teams for the 5 ter(Kitchener 2010). Recent revisions season. The solitary lifestyle and their restrial species listed as endangered or based on morphological and genetic dependency on mixed or even mainly vulnerable and 3 teams for brown bear analyses of larger datasets found only plant diets are features shared by the populations in Europe, in Northern few of those populations recognised seven terrestrial bear species. Thus Asia and in Southern Asia. Three topiby early taxonomists as subspecies they need for survival and reproduccal teams deal with “trade in bears”, or even species sufficiently distinct tion large undisturbed areas. Areas like “human‑bear conflicts” and “captive to support the subspecies status. these are shrinking on a global scale bears”. The chair persons of the teams, Though, many genetic lineages have due to habitat destruction and conver- the chairman of the polar bear specialbeen identified indicating that geosion into e.g. plantations or mining ist group and a few other bear experts graphic barriers actually restrict gene areas. Habitat fragmentation by roads form the co‑ordinating committee of flow between populations more than and settlements cause an increase of the Bear Specialist Group. expected (Garshelis 2009). Tremenhuman bear conflicts and makes bears dous intra‑specific variation of life even more vulnerable (Garshelis 2004). The captive bear expert team (CBET) history strategies concerning reproPoaching for the trade of bear parts deal with conservation relevant issues duction and survival are characteristic heavily requested in TCM is a severe of bears coming or already being kept for bears, at least for the well studied threat in particular for Asian bear in captivity on a global scale. Thus its brown and American black bears species. Orphaned cubs frequently members come from the different re(Ursus americanus). Many of the exoccur as by product of conflicts and gions and zoo organisations as well as amined variables, like litter size, age poaching and many finally end up in from rescue centres run from NGOs of first reproduction and inter‑birth captivity. Meanwhile five of the terwith focus on bears. The potential of restrial bear species are decreasing. interval are closely linked to habitat zoos and sanctuaries for bear conserThe Andean bear, the sun bear, the factors, mainly food availability and vation and the conditions necessary Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) quality (Garshelis 2004). for the promotion of bear conservaand the sloth bear (Melursus ursinus) tion as defined by the captive bear are categorized as vulnerable in the expert team will be presented and IUCN Redlist (2010), whereas the Giant the perspective of the BSG on the Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) with role of zoos will be outlined.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Bears in zoos and sanctuaries
Potential of zoos for bear conservation
According to a survey of the CBET The world zoo strategy strongly in 2008/2009 with updates in 2010 recommends to the more than 1300 at least 4600 bears are living in zoos zoos of the WAZA network to support and sanctuaries (fig.1), half of them species conservation by means of in Asian countries. Still this number is underestimated and reflects more • Education and raising awareness the incomplete regional represen• Data collection and research tation in the expert team than the • Population management in order to actual number as only four South East integrate zoo populations into the Asian countries are included. meta‑population concept Within each region the native bear species make up the majority of the bear collections in zoos and sanctuaries. These are brown bears in Europe, Andean bears in South America and American black bears in North America. Asian species dominate the bear collections in zoos within their natural range. The thousands of Asiatic black bears in farms used for bile production and those in road zoos and private households in South East Asia are not counted here (Kolter & Zee 2008).
Release of captive born animals for re‑introduction or re‑enforcement of existing wild populations is one of various aspects of meta‑population management (WAZA 2005). A survey of the CBET in 2010 revealed that at least 400 zoos keep bears in Eurasia, the region with most captive ursids (fig 1.). Most of these zoos are members in regional zoo associations linked to WAZA. Yet not all regional associations are represented in the captive bear expert team, thus this number is again an underestimate.
Fig.1: Geographic distribution of bears in zoos and sanctuaries in percent (n ~ 4600)
35 sanctuaries held bears. These are in general located in range countries and take bears – very often wild born animals – confiscated by authorities from circuses, sub‑standard zoos, private household, farms etc. Those sanctuaries, which are open to the public, also contribute in various ways to bear conservation (see www. waza.org/en/site/conservation/waza ‑conservation‑projects/indochina ‑bear‑conservation‑and‑rescue ‑programme).
Education and raising awareness Beyond the usual exhibit signs informing in general briefly on a species, its distribution, habitat and biology, there are examples of zoos with specific educational approaches (e.g. Kolter 2005; Walzer et al. 2005) and of campaigns to raise awareness and money e.g. for specific projects mitigating human‑bear conflicts like the EAZA European Carnivore Campaign (Kok 2010). Campaigns and programmes need educational material which has to be prepared by zoo educators from information available on bear conservation issues. These materials are more prevalent in areas with well established zoo associations (tab.1). Another pre‑requisite to use captive bears for raising awareness are appropriate keeping conditions which provide the stimuli necessary for the performance of natural behaviours including the diverse foraging patterns. For solitary species like ursids sufficient space per individual is crucial for the maintenance of inter‑individual distances when using the resources in the enclosures. Considering that in the majority of cases several bears are kept at one location, enclosure sizes below 500 m² for groups of bears are most probably inappropriate. As listed in table 1 not all regions the CBET has notice from meet conditions which are suitable for conservation education.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Tab 1.: Features relevant for zoo based bear conservation Region/countries China India Cambodia,Laos, Vietnam CIS Bulgaria, Romania,Turkey EAZA AZA South-America
Size of the majority of enclosures in m² <<100 100-500 >> 500 x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Population management no studbook/monitoring no/unknown/ monitoring monitoring no breeding programmes studbook breeding programmes studbook studbook
Education, material/programmes no yes restricted to single facility restricted to single species no yes yes restriced to single facilities
* Data from Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam
Data collection and research As stated by Christie (2010) the role zoo animals can play to provide information useful for field research and conservation is not yet well known. Though there are examples for zoo based data collection and research on captive bears which support conservation (see Kolter 2005, Walzer et al. 2005).
too. For certain studies like those on reproduction proper data collection and documentation at least on the institutional level are inevitable. But only well managed populations at least on the studbook level provide sufficiently large databases. There is another advantage of closely managed, thus well known populations. The selection of animals and locations to answer certain research questions reliably is facilitated. Globally there are considerable differences between regions with regard to population management. thus the conditions for research differ too (tab.1).
Just a few examples of fields of relevant research supported by captive bears will follow. Blood Samples provided by zoos helped to develop kits for the detection of bear tissues in TCM products (Peppin et al. 2008 a, b). Reproductive and life history related Provision of captive bred parameters of captive bears, which bears for re‑introduction/ give first ideas on the reproductive re‑enforcement projects potential of species not yet well studied in the wild were included in analy- Release projects of captive bred bears ses by Garshelis (2004) and Spady et in general failed (see Huber 2010). al. (2007). To assess the reproductive There is only one exception worthy potential of wild populations identifiof mention. Captive born brown cation of faecal steroids for monitorbear cubs which were removed from ing reproduction is beneficial (e.g. their dams and transferred at a very Schwarzenberger et al. 2004). early age to the biostation “Chisty Less” in the forests of the Tver region Additionally captive bears have been in Russia were successfully released of use for the development and imaccording to Pazhetnov and Pazprovement of anaesthetic protocols, hetnov (2005). The bears are reared for the verification of radio‑telemetric and released according to a specific data (e.g. Walzer et al. 2005) or for method based on findings of sensithe validation of methods to be used tive time windows critical for the in the field in order to find distinguish establishment and fixation of behavsympatric species like sun bear and iours which are relevant for survival in Asiatic black bears rarely encounthe wild. One obviously crucial aspect tered in the wild by claw marks is the minimisation of contact to on trees (Steinmetz and Garshelis humans in terms of time spent with 2007). The latter study could only be and number of familiar humans in performed in enclosures of sanctuarparticular in the period the following ies large enough to support bears and reaction develops. Training of natural foraging skills in the forests is considtrees simultaneously. This points to ered to be important too Pazhetnov the fact that for research appropriand Pazhetnov (2005). Even if release ate husbandry conditions are crucial,
of bears for conservation purposes would become widely accepted in the conservation community (see below) the ontogeny of each the threatened bear species has to be studied and the sensitive periods have to be identified in intense, time and budget consuming research projects, as it cannot be taken as granted, that the ontogeny has the same speed in all ursids. There might be more effective ways to spend money for bear conservation.
BSG perspective The members of the co‑ordinating committee of the BSG, as those having an overview over conservation issues of bears and running projects, were asked for their opinion on the role of zoos for bear conservation. There was a 50% return of the survey. All agreed that zoos are important for raising awareness and promoting education for bear conservation. They were prepared to provide information on ongoing projects to interested zoo educators/educational departments to develop educational material or run campaigns – with and without fundraising. All could imagine using captive bears for research to solve specific questions. Guidance by co‑ordinators, studbook keepers or TAG chairs who oversee all aspects of the captive population would be appreciated by most of the colleagues. Several members of the co‑ordinating committee had done conservation relevant studies based on captive bears. Not all relied on bears in zoos. They preferred
82 bears in university institutions with References less disturbing factors and better conditions for rigorous testing. The effect • BSG: www.bearbiology.com/ of visitors and fixed routines were bsgmain.html considered as major factors, which • Christie, S. (2010): Why Keep Tigers render the interpretation of the data in Zoos? pp. 205-214. In Tilson, R. on captive bears difficult. Garshelis and Nyhus, P. eds: Tigers of the pointed already 2004 to the fact World: the Science, Politics and Conthat some data on reproduction in servation of Panthera tigris. Elsevier particular in sun bears, like small litAcademic Press ter size and female biased sex ratios, • Garshelis, D. L. (2004): Variation derived from zoo populations might in ursid life histories — is there an not be valid, because of stress as a outlier? pp 53–73. In D. Lindburg confounding factor in that species. and K. Baragona, eds. Biology and Conservation of the Giant Panda. The answers regarding the potenUniv. California Press, Berkeley. tial of re‑introduction of bears as • Garshelis, D. L.(2009): Family Ursiconservation tool were less uniform dae (Bears). pp 448-497. In Wilson D. than the previous aspects. There is E. & Mittermeier, R. A. eds. Handprincipal concern about the usefulbook of the Mammals of the World. ness of re‑introductions of ursids for Vol. 1. Carnivores. Lynx Edicions, species conservation in particular Barcelona in densely inhabited regions like • Huber, D. (2010): Rehabilitation and Europe. The main arguments against reintroduction of captive‑reared re‑introductions are summarised by bears: feasibility and methodology Huber (2010). Nevertheless a few for European brown bears Ursus members of the co‑ordination comarctos. Int. Zoo Yb. 44: 47–54 mittee consider release of captive • IUCN Redlist (2010): www.iucnbears as a conservation tool, but only redlist.org/apps/redlist/search in very restricted well defined cases • Kitchener, A. C. (2010): Taxonomic and only if all conditions outlined in issues in bears: impacts on conserthe re‑introduction guidelines of the vation in zoos and the wild, and RSG apply. gaps in current knowledge. Int. Zoo Yb. 44: 33–46. • Kok, J. (2010): European Carnivore Conclusions Campaign: raising awareness and funding for bear conservation. Int. The attitude of the co‑ordinating Bear News, 19, (3): 20–21 committee of the Bear Specialist • Kolter, L. (2005): Potential contribuGroup towards the role of zoos contions of zoos to bear conservation. cerning their potential to promote pp 70–82. In: Kolter, L. & van Dijk, conservation education and conserJ. eds. Rehabilitation and Release vation relevant research is positive. of Bears. Publisher Zoologischer To actually enable zoos on a global Garten Köln. scale to fulfil that role the quality • Kolter, L. and Zee, J. (2008): Inventory of captive ursids. Int. Bear of husbandry has to be raised and News, 17 (4): 9–11 www.bearbiology. education and management procom/fileadmin/tpl/Downloads/IBN_ grammes have to be implemented Newsletters/IBN_November_2008. or improved. To be able to support pdf bear conservation in zoos effectively • Pazhetnov, V. S. and Pazhetnov, S. the captive bear expert team needs more members from zoos in Asian V. (2005): Re‑introduction of orphan countries with a good overview and brown bear cubs. pp 53–61.. In: knowledge about the captive bear Kolter, L. & van Dijk, J. eds. Rehabilipopulations in their regions. tation and Release of Bears. Publisher Zoologischer Garten Köln.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
• Peppin, L.; McEwing, R.; Webster, S.; Rogers, A.; Nicholls, D. and Ogden, R. (2008 a): Development of a field test for the detection of illegal bear products. Endang Species Res, Sept. 2008, 8pp. Open access, Inter‑Research 2008 www.int‑res. com • Peppin, L.; McEwing, R.; Carvalho, G. R. and Ogden, R. (2008 b): A DNA ‑Based Approach for the Forensic Identification of Asiatic Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus) in a Traditional Asian Medicine. J Forensic Sci, November 2008, Vol. 53, (6). 5pp. • Schwarzenberger, F.; Fredriksson, G.; Schaller, K. and Kolter, L. (2004): Fecal steroid analysis for monitoring reproduction in the sun bear (Helarctos malayanus). Theriogenology 62: 1677–1692. • Spady, T. J.; Lindburg, D. G. and Durrant, B. S. (2007): Evolution of reproductive seasonality in bears. Mammal Rev., 37 (1): 21–53. • Steinmetz, R. and Garshelis, D. (2007): Distinguishing Asiatic Black Bears and Sun Bears by Claw Marks on Climbed Trees. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 72 (3): 814–821. • Walzer, C.; Slotta‑Bachmeier, L.; Rauer, G. and Kaczensky, P. (2005): Support for in‑situ projects – examples of a zoo’s potential role. pp 83 – 88. In: Kolter, L. & van Dijk, J. eds. Rehabilitation and Release of Bears. Publisher Zoologischer Garten Köln. • WAZA (2005): Building a future for wildlife – The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy. WAZA, Berne. • WAZA (2010): www.waza.org/en/ site/zoos‑aquariums
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
The Sabah Rhino Project – Captive Breeding, Habitat Protection and Habitat Reforestation Petra Kretzschmar – Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research and Rhino and Forest Fund
The Sabah rhino (Dicerorhinus su‑ matrensis harrissonii) is a subspecies of the Sumatra rhino (Fig.1). It once occurred all over Borneo but habitat destruction and poaching led to a drastic reduction of the population within the last 15 years. Currently less than 50 individuals of the subspecies still exist. These few individuals occur in the northern tip of Borneo, in the East Malaysian state Sabah. Sabah is characterised by a high diversity in flora and fauna. Its rainforests are among the oldest rainforest of the world. But the majority of the forest areas in Sabah, especially the lowland forests, have been selectively logged in the past. The increasing demand for palm oil on the international market, has led to a high pressure on the remaining forest areas. Forest areas with a very low protection status, such as secondary forest, are therefore at a high risk to be converted into agricultural land. These areas are however very important for the animals such as the rhino and the elephant. They are buffer zones between agricultural land and primary forest and they are corridors for large animals connecting the fragmented landscapes.
The remaining Sabah rhinos are isolated from each other in small pockets of rainforest surrounded by plantations; here they are facing a high risk of inbreeding. Therefore breeding management of this highly endangered species becomes essential. In July 2007 the government of Sabah together with local and international Non Governmental Organisations (NGO) decided to start a rescue and breeding project for isolated individuals. In the past, the captive breeding of the species has not been a story of success. Basic information from free ranging animals was lacking due to its elusive character, its rarity and the inhospitable nature of its habitat. This resulted in management problems as its basic requirements in terms of food, health and breeding were unknown. In recent years more data has been collected and captive breeding methods have fast developed. Non‑invasive hormone analysis, ultrasound techniques and assisted reproductive techniques have been
successfully applied for the reproductive assessment in a number of species, including the Sabah rhino. The Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW) and the Zoo Leipzig support the local government and NGOs with its proven scientific and captive breeding expertise ensuring the preservation of the Sabah rhino. An eventual viable population will largely depend on an intact forest. Afforestation and reforestation efforts are therefore needed to increase the carrying capacity of the potential habitat. The Rhino and Forest Fund, a German NGO was founded to rise funding for saving the Sabah rhino and its vanishing habitat.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Dysfunctional Zoos & What to Do? Sally Walker – Director of Zoo Outreach Organisation and South Asian Zoo Association
Introduction This paper proposes the term dysfunctional zoos to describe a type of captive wild animal facility that does not function adequately (or at all) for even the most essential canons of zoos, e.g., education, conservation or research. While no one knows precisely the exact number of zoos, or if you will, captive wild animal facilities permitting public viewing, globally, an educated guesstimate might suggest that easily more than 50–75% of such facilities that are known could be defined or described as dysfunctional. WAZA has adopted a very practical and positive approach to the diversity of zoos in the world by welcoming Regional and National Zoo Associations as WAZA Association Members under certain conditions. WAZA and its member zoos work with the associations in a way that serves long‑range goals for the improvement even of captive animal facilities that do not function as what is currently called zoos. WAZA accepted the need for action on behalf of institutions then described as sub‑standard zoos but renamed by WAZA as Zoos needing Improvement for the sake of cultural sensitivity. The author suggests that even the best zoo in the world could use some improvement or other; just as no perfect human being exists on Earth, there is no perfect zoo, thus the term “zoos needing improvement” is embarrassingly inappropriate.
In 2003, at the Annual WAZA Conference held in San Jose, Costa Rica, there were multiple concerns raised about substandard zoos. Two presentations were given on this topic, one, entitled The Other Zoo World1 by this writer and colleagues calling attention to the proliferation of sub‑standard zoos which probably far outnumbered the professional zoos. The paper also called for a sub ‑committee to be set up by WAZA that would formulate a plan for addressing the issue. A second paper on substandard zoo was presented and in addition, much discussion occurred on the state of the host zoo of the conference and what could be done generally. Subsequently, in early 2006 a Drafting Committee was convened by WAZA the members of which produced a Resolution on needy institutions that was adopted by the WAZA membership in the annual conference held in Leipzig, Germany. The resolution declared: we as a community of organized zoos and aquariums have a moral, ethical and professional responsibility to engage with needy institutions in order to help them improve their standards, achieve conservation goals, and benefit the animals they hold.2 The following year, 2007, the Drafting Committee generated a WAZA tool kit for addressing the issue of needy zoos, or zoos needing improvement. The tool kit consisted of a set of minimum standards by which these zoos could be inspected and assessed for appropriate assistance, which could be undertaken by proficient zoos according to their interest and resources. The tool kit also included
a complaint procedure for use by the regional and national associations or by member zoos. These tools were made available within the year and met with enthusiasm by the membership which officially approved them at the 62nd (2007) WAZA conference3 Since then some individual zoos as well as zoo associations have undertaken projects assisting zoos that needed help, sometimes in localities where the assisting zoo was also running a field project. Other zoos have provided various kinds of help to needy zoos via the regional or national associations such as AZA, EAZA, PAAZAB, SAZARC, EARAZA, etc. In fact, several years before, AZA and EAZA addressed the issue of substandard zoos in their country or region, assessed them and made attempts to assist, often in serious, protracted and expensive exercises. In the long term, however, the totality of the enterprise has not been very effective in addressing and correcting the issue, primarily due to the sheer enormity of the problem, the speed at which zoos are increasing and the rate and scope of recidivism. There are hundreds, even thousands of dysfunctional zoos in the world, many yet to be documented. These zoos need very drastic improvements in the most elementary and fundamental aspects, such as animal welfare, which covers the entire range of care of captive animal. Many of these establishments are spurious, without long‑range plans, sustainability, trained and interested staff, an/ or other characteristics that define a healthy, functional zoo.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Terminology of bad zoos Dysfunctional zoos is a more accurate descriptor for what have been referred to as substandard, need‑ ing improvement or needy zoos. Although the latter terms are not wrong as such, neither do they convey a realistic picture. Dysfunctional zoos might be defined succinctly as: animal collections open to the public which don’t function as con‑ servation facilities, rather just the opposite. One might even be so bold as to say that dysfunctional zoos not only do not function as conservation facilities, but as purveyors of decline and extinction. This term is more appropriate also because it does not imply that such zoos are troubled with just a few poor enclosures or merely ignorant and untrained owners and staff. Dysfunctional implies ill health (physical and/ or mental) or a variety of deep‑seated and elemental problems that prevent the institution (s) from improving without fundamental changes, or all encompassing transformation, at the governance and ground level, including, but not limited to closure and re‑distribution of the animals. The major difference might be said to be that good zoos are busy with conservation actions… research, breeding, field projects, education, marketing, etc. and dysfunctional zoos are busy generating species decline! How do zoos generate species decline, and even extinction! They do it through such bad habits as were summarized in the previously cited presentation, The Other Zoo World by Walker et al in 2003. • Waste of wild animal resources both animal and financial. • Over breeding and release of surplus animals without monitoring which promotes disease, fighting and injury, over‑population, over ‑grazing, etc.
• Creating wrong attitudes in visiting public • Projecting a bad image of zoos worldwide with poor animal welfare practices • Acquiring animals from certain unscrupulous animal dealers, other dysfunctional zoos, and local trappers and traders (wild).
There are countless scenarios of this type. This example is difficult to prove, as no department or organisation wants to admit to this having happened, or perhaps has not even noticed!
This list was expanded and published in 2007 in the WAZA Guidelines for Improving Standards in Zoos, 2007 and again several times since by the author in other published documents.
The number of facilities that are called zoos has been estimated at as many as 10,000 worldwide. The source of that estimate is vague, but if you consider that there are about 1000 roughly documented zoos that are in some way related to WAZA (either members as such or members of member regional and national associations and/or wannabe members then it is not difficult to imagine a few more thousand off the grid. This many dysfunctional zoos is too many for our small world and its biodiversity due to impacts mentioned above and in the Appendix.
Extinctions Stating categorically that dysfunctional zoos cause extinctions may seem an extreme claim, however, the sheer number of non‑organised zoos in the world reflects a gigantic number of wild animals in captivity without purpose or responsible management. It is not beyond reason to assume that certain species’ numbers have been severely reduced by captures for zoos, deaths through mismanagement, etc. One zoo known by the author admitted to having caught six wild Pallas’ Cats (Felis manu) in the last few years, not all together as a breeding effort but one at a time. When an individual died zoo authorities ordered another captured. Pallas’ Cat is a relatively rare and highly delicate species: zoos that obtain them without a systematic plan and expertise in their care are most probably driving them to extinction in their country or region.
How many Zoos
The number of zoos in the world is moot, because no single agency or authority knows for certain how many captive wild animal facilities exist in their country, unless they have a rigorous registration system. For example, in 1982, years before the establishment of the Central Zoo Authority in India, the Department of Environment, Government of India brought out a booklet which listed zoos and botanic gardens of the country as a total of 44.5 Suspecting the accuracy of this number, the writer conducted a very simple survey consisting of a stamped postal card sent to all state forest, wildlife and Another example in a very differanimal husbandry departments, ofent scenario involves herd animals fices and ministries; all environmental, or large herbivores that are surplus conservation and animal welfare stock as they are easily bred and oriented non‑governmental organizapopulations are not controlled except tions; and a variety of individuals and by wrong releases! This happens in a state officials of the states. Returned great many zoos in South Asia. When postcards yielded a list of 122 zoos, released in a forested area without safari parks, deer parks, mini‑zoos, sufficient study of the carrying capac- etc. in various states in India.6 Two ity and appropriateness of the habitat, years later, in 1989 S. K. Patnaik, Dithey can lay waste the entire vegetarector and L. N. Acharyo, Veterinary tion of the area, thus leading to exSurgeon of Nandankanan Biological Park published a Directory of 49 Intinctions of endemic and indigenous niche‑oriented organisms. Disease dian Zoos, having conducted a survey from the once captive animals may through the forest departments and also infect resident animals as testing colleagues and including a great deal usually includes only TB.4 of information on each facility.7 Combined, these lists got the attention
86 of the Ministry of Environment who began to discuss a zoo policy that, some months or years later, morphed into legislation, and a good thing that was! The Zoo Act was passed in 19918, and in 19929, when the Ministry of Environment announced that all operating zoos of any size had to register with CZA, there many more facilities! In 1994, ZOOS’ PRINT magazine published a list of 312 existing zoos and another 13 registered to be established, a total of 342 then10. In fact a primary objective of the Act was to limit or regulate the mushroom growth of zoos by introducing a legal process which included obtaining permission government, having a sustainable economic base and authorities. By the time seemingly all zoos had registered the list had mushroomed indeed to 450! 11 In formulating their legislation, the Government of India did a very clever thing. The drafting committee contrived to define “zoo” in such a way that it would include almost any wild animal facility, even travelling menageries. As much of the impetus to have zoo legislation in the first place was animal welfare and the miserable conditions of many spurious animal facilities as well as the habit of wild captures, it was important to be able to control all of them with legislation. The term “stationary institution” is bedrock to the definition of zoos in other countries but that did not fit India’s situations.
South Asian Zoos – India South Asia till date includes 8 countries, (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka) of which all but Maldives has at least one zoo and one with more than 200. India, for example, now has 200-plus zoos which is many times the number of zoos of any other country and even of all the other countries’ zoos put together. In area India is far larger, so that number of zoos fits the country. Of these, 25% are standard but different sized zoos called Large, Medium and Small according to several different values, and 75% are mini‑zoos and deer parks. CZA inspected the zoos,
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
gave them each a list of undesirable constructions or practices, and provided funds and time to improve before conferring recognition or refusal. CZA closed over 200 additional zoos that were deemed hopeless for want of finance and a sufficiently interested patron over the years. In comparison there are about 30–50 known zoos throughout the rest of South Asia. This number includes other captive wild animal centers which are open to the public for viewing, such as the Takin Centre (Budorcas taxicolor) of Bhutan, a rescue and conservation breeding facility, as well as spurious facilities known to be operating. The vague number and the fact that no numbers have been assigned to countries reflects a certain variation in facts which changes every year or two! India was the first country in whole Asia to pass effective zoo legislation. As mentioned earlier Sri Lanka had passed a National Zoological Gardens Act 1982,12 but it was primarily an administrative tool. In 1991 the Government of India via the Ministry of Environment and Forest passed the Indian Zoo Act as an amendment to the Wildlife (Protection) Act. (op. cit.) The Zoo Act first featured broad regulatory legislation that also provided for setting up an autonomous Central Zoo Authority (CZA) to implement the Act. A year later (1992) after formation of CZA, detailed Norms and Standards were added as an additional amendment to the Zoo Act, which, itself was an amendment to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1975. Every year or two, additional amendments and corrections have been included in the Act, which reflects the evolution in thinking and experience of CZA and its member zoos, and to an extent, some global zoo trends. This flexibility to change ineffective or un‑implementable laws and replace them with improved legislation is very good as generally the time ‑ frame for amendments is far shorter than the initial cumbersome and painful act of passing legislation. It provides a fix for standards proven to be inadequate, for whatever reason, and a methodology for integrating ongoing changes taking place both in and outside the country addressing zoo animal welfare, wildlife biology, conservation education, etc.
The Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India does not have absolute power or oversight over all those zoos. CZA staff is not large, and these 200 zoos are operated by a range of state, municipal, private, and non‑governmental organizations and institutions. They can all get out of tune quite easily for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, it can be said quite accurately that India has, by adopting very strong zoo legislation backed up with a well‑funded CZA as well as much hope and good will, has significantly improved more zoos than any other effort in the history of zoos, and also closed more zoos! Even the backslider zoos which become complacent after having been inspected and recognized, do not slide back nearly so far as they were originally. Backsliding may occur temporarily when a new director or veterinarian is transferred to the zoo as per India’s draconian administrative system, and in any case, all zoos are re‑inspected every three years by CZA.
Other South Asian Zoos Another promising example is Nepal, which claimed only one zoo, the Central Zoo, located in Lalithpur, Kathmandu. Casual information indicated to this author that there may be more zoos, so R. Marimuthu, Education Officer of Zoo Outreach Organisation, visiting Nepal for purpose of conducting a training workshop, was deputed do a survey. The result of this effort was a list and short description of 14 facilities published in ZOOS’ PRINT Magazine.13 The Government of Nepal responded immediately, sending a team from Central Zoo to survey the facilities, of which 10 were categorized as zoos.14 Some months later the Government of Nepal set up a team to formulate legislation using, among other references, the CZA Norms and Standards, and it is currently moving through the various, tedious steps at a reasonable pace.15 Prospects for passage of zoo legislation in Nepal are very good. There is a proposal for the Central Zoo to function as a sort of coordinating institutions for all the rest of the zoos in Nepal which is very sensible.
October 2010 | Cologne/K��ln
In South Asia, Bangladesh and Pakistan are now more or less actively working on zoo legislation to cover the wild animal facilities open to public in their country. Pakistan is working provincially as some provinces do not have zoos or are not interested, and has a good number of wildlife regulations which could be tapped for certain zoo issues. Sri Lanka is aware of the need for norms and standards to strengthen their existing National Zoological Gardens Act, the primary purpose of which was perhaps to confirm the National Zoo as a Department to set up more zoos; it also includes a few simple rules for visitors. The new and powerful Ministry of Economic Development, that was recently made responsible for the Department of Zoos, has taken a decision to seriously upgrade all existing facilities and establish several new zoos in different areas of the country. It is hoped that strict legislation including high standards will precede this plan. Bhutan and Afghanistan have only one known or acknowledged wild animal facility at present. Afghanistan has a single zoo in Kabul which was opened August 17th, 1967,16 but for all practical purposes was destroyed during the bombings a few years ago. Now, as the nation’s capital gets back on its feet the zoo is being rebuilt and improved by the Municipal Corporation. Even suggestions are afoot for expansion into adjoining area as well as another zoo just outside the city. Afghanistan National Assembly approved an Environmental Law published in Official Gazette No. 912, 25 January 2007.17 The document has been unofficially translated from Dari and Pashto to English and carries many provisions, which, for the present, might be interpreted in such a way as to protect species and provide amenities such as education and training. In the past, Bhutan has listed a both Mini Zoo and a Gharial Breeding Centre that are now not listed, but there is a Takin Centre (Budorcas taxicolor) in need of improvement, as public visitation is permitted. This centre is located just on the outskirts of Bhutan’s capitol, Thimpu, and is one of the few nature‑oriented attractions near the city. Since Bhutan has a short history of creating mini‑zoos and permitting
public in breeding centres, some form of legislation to direct or regulate these practices is required. There are big holes (some for photography) in the rusty fencing around the Centre. If not for the essential goodness of virtually all Bhutanese people, surely some unfortunate event might have taken place.
South Asian Zoo Association for Regional Cooperation SAZARC The South Asian Zoo Association for Regional Cooperation SAZARC was founded in 2000 for the purpose of creating a link between zoos in the different South Asia countries as well as a kind of affiliation with global zoos and, most of all, to encourage them to get zoo legislation along the lines of the Indian Zoo Act. SAZARC meets every year in a different South Asian country 100% funded by Western Zoos. Every so often SAZARC substitutes a small group with each from a different South Asian country to attend a conference in one of the South East Asian countries. In all the South Asian countries the model of the Central Zoo Authority Zoo Act, Recognition of Zoos Rules, Norms and Standards (1991, 1992 and amendments thereafter) is an influence. In three SAZARC conferences, in 2002 (Dhaka, Bangladesh), 2008 (Ahmedabad, India) and 2009 (Dehiwala, Sri Lanka) zoo legislation was the major training theme with CZA legislation as an example. In the first instant, Bangladesh, host of the conference, convened a working group and drafted standards for their country using the CZA model. Subsequently, the transfer system worked its black magic in Bangladesh resulting in this important topic being dropped because new officials did not know about it. After a few years, Bangladesh zoo legislation was taken up and followed and is now in the Law Ministry being assessed. It still has a long road to travel and many obstacles but there is some hope that it will go through in the correct format. At the Ahmedabad SAZARC conference, Resource Person Brij Kishore Gupta, an official from CZA gave
several excellent presentations about Indian zoo legislation, including how it had evolved and was being implemented, as well as its pitfalls. Very good work in groups was done there. In Sri Lanka, in 2009, Dr. Miranda Stevenson, Director, BIAZA (formerly an experienced zoo keeper, curator and director), Dr. Kris Vehrs, (Director, AZA and an attorney holding the post of legislative council to AZA for over two decades), and Mike Jordan, formerly Curator, Chester Zoo, now Conservation Advisor, National Zoological Gardens, South Africa presented information on zoo animal welfare and legislation and sat with countries in working groups to assist them in working on these topics. In these conferences, working groups for all the countries were set up to take legislation and animal welfare forward with Indian participants advising. It is worth a mention that at the 10th Annual SAZARC Conference recently held in Nepal, the theme of Emergency Protocols was linked to 21st Century Crises of Climate Change, Emerging Diseases and Terrorism. In the past year, CZA had taken up the topic of emergency response and required their zoos to create one appropriate for their zoo contained within their Management Plan, without which their recognition might suffer. CZA also commissioned a Disaster Management Plan, a manual18 compiled from a variety of sources by former Director, Kanpur Zoo. CZA Member Secretary permitted SAZARC to use their document and donated 20 copies to the conference. Again CZA got there first with disaster response as, until this past year, no zoo in South Asia and probably even in all Asia had a systematic response plan in print. In the conference all countries formed their own working groups but combining Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bhutan as the latter two countries had only one attendee. Non‑Indian countries used the CZA model plan, which covered everything aside from the 21st century crises, which Indian participants were requested to cover. Participants were requested to submit the idea to their governing body, which, hopefully, would be influenced to set up an official committee to formulate a detailed plan that fits each country respectively.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Getting down to business
Down to the why
So, what business is it of WAZA and WAZA member zoos, which work hard to effectively promote and protect wildlife conservation using their institutions in different ways, to worry about the other zoos. Increasingly more WAZA zoos are busy contributing to conservation by supporting field projects, training, education, etc. However, here is a view that while many WAZA zoos are hard at work on conservation, dysfunctional or even some semi‑functional zoos may be cancelling this good work animal for animal. Many WAZA zoo personnel have indicated it is “a good thing but not a priority” to help dysfunctional zoos improve. If you look at this situation honestly, however, it may be more of a priority than anyone currently thinks. Because these zoos are off the grid, no one really has a clear idea of their impact. Its like climate change … hard to convince people because they do not want to believe all those bad things are or might be true. No one in the established zoo world wants to compare the good done by well‑meaning zoos and the damage done by indifferent or otherwise non‑productive facilities, each group for their own reasons.
The why requires a book, not an article, as reasons vary between and even among countries and regions. The focus of this particular discussion however is overwhelmingly on zoos in formerly colonized continental areas, such as the former Indian subcontinent, now officially South Asia. The whys for zoos in South Asian countries as well as several other continental areas have a large number of things in common, many of which seem to be colonial leftovers! In addition to lack of exposure to avant ‑garde zoos and decades experienced and knowledgeable zoo personnel, a few, only three, of the most destructive of these are summarized here:
Dysfunctional zoos occur in almost all countries. Surprisingly the United States, for example, which has perhaps the most outstanding zoos, has a shocking number of dysfunctional animal holding facilities (anti‑AZA institutions, mini‑zoos, rescue centres, orphanages, etc.) that are considered zoos by their visiting public, if they allow. Some years ago, AZA conducted a study and came up with a figure in the low thousands.
• Out‑dated administrative systems with cumbersome bureaucratic features which actually hinder progress, but particularly with respect to complex institutions, such as zoos • Dramatically hierarchical departments, services, ministries, in which senior‑most officials are so much revered or feared that often they cannot be approached with the facts of a situation. • A draconian system of transfer of mid‑ and senior level officials from seemingly related departments to zoos where they spend six months (or less) to a very few years getting some orientation, and then being transferring back to their parent department instead of to another zoo where they could use their experience and enhance their skills. There is almost total blindness to the dramatic negative impacts on institutional quality this system produces. It is institutional blindness because there seems to be no solution possible, particularly in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. This system seems to be more prevalent in forest, wildlife and animal husbandry services than in Municipal or city bureaucracies that have their own problems. To be fair to CZA, a couple of years after establishment, CZA investigated how this system might be changed in India
and learned that in order to toss the transfer system, even in one department or discipline, 50% of the states of India have to agree! Almost impossible to get even two Indian individuals to agree so 50% of states is pretty much out of the question. The parent ministry or department would not like to approve because they would almost certainly lose some senior posts if the zoos were declared a separate service. Naturally individual officers and their families would not be happy with this state of affaires. The outdated administrative structure is tragic, because the countries which laid this on its colonies have moved on with more streamlined and sensible administrative systems, while their offspring, their former colonies, remain the same as centuries ago. The hierarchical nature of these systems is close to military, particularly in certain departments connected with forests and wildlife. It prevents honest and healthy exchange of information and ideas and produces a sort of psychological disease, akin to Dr. Wilhelm Reich’s emotional plague, which, instead of being passed from generation to generation in families, it is passed from superior to subordinate with similar dynamics. The transfer system is the most destructive of these examples. In the transfer system, there seems virtually no forethought of which individuals might make the best zoo directors or curators. All personnel are considered equally qualified for the job since they are either foresters or veterinarians. Transfers are not based on merit, although an officer held in some esteem can be transferred to a particular city or town on his request because the schools are good and he has school‑going kids, or some other personal reason. Also in some places transfers are considered a punishment post. In India some of the negative impacts have lessened since legislation and CZA were established, as they have brought much needed prestige as well as money and more flexibility to zoos.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
The transfers transpire are not from zoo to zoo but from zoo to an only mildly related disciplines (such as eucalypus or coffee plantations, administration, etc. in the parent department). Parent departments may be forest or animal husbandry, environment, municipality, sometimes wildlife conservation or economic development. One thing in common – the decision makers for the zoos are rarely from zoos. In South Asian zoos as a whole, this system translates into a shifting, drifting zoo non‑community where genuine expertise rarely develops before another transfer takes place, even in India, despite the amazing input of the Central Zoo Authority. The strength of the destructiveness often lies with the hierarchical system Ministers, Secretaries and other very prestigious officials who often relate naïve or counter‑productive suggestions for zoos. Knowledgeable zoo personnel are afraid to correct their seniors. The press loves it when a very senior official makes a suggestion for the zoo – it is as if he or she conferred eternal life for everyone. In fact, many of the problems of zoos of this region starts with senior officials and politicians who do not understand the subtle problems, requirements or current ideology of the world’s zoos and of the established and organized contemporary zoo community. Trying the education is difficult because it is not a priority and as soon as or even before one gets a Minister or Secretary sufficiently trained up, its time for them to go.
Is there a fix?
Why everyone in WAZA should care about this
Using the resources of WAZA, members with sufficient experience in zoos Dysfunctional zoos bring a bad name and exposure to low‑income counto the greater zoo community. It is tries could make a difference by takperhaps the responsibility of all of us ing interest and engage the governto do what we can to either improve ments of these countries at different or help remove these destructive levels. Such help and the encouragefacilities. Lobbying for zoo/wild animent of strong principles in managmal facility legislation that includes ing zoos could help South Asian and standards, a procedure for registraother countries zoos to come out of tion, inspection, recognition and de their problems. The prestige value ‑recognition and protocol for closure of WAZA is immense in the global of hopeless and non‑compliant instizoo community, with virtually all the tutions is one way to help, although mainstream zoos aware of the global it can be soul‑destroying as per the association and arguably influenced writer’s personal experience of last by it. The mainstream zoos possibly quarter century. Verily, the process could play a significant role also in proceeds at a snail’s pace. Investferreting out the dysfunctional zoos ing funds in one‑off individual zoo and determining their future either improvements can be risky unless the with training and help or making a investing zoo or organisation is comcase for closure. mitted for its. One CAN if committed, make things happen, but much Much of the difficulty in improving patience is required. Serious backzoos globally is the cultural dissosliding is almost certainly inevitable nance existing between so‑called unless there is strong legislation, an developed and developing countries. implementing authority and effective For example, the WAZA Drafting penalties in place. Committee created a Zoo Assessment Tool, a form that ostensibly Thirty five years in the other zoo listed the minimum acceptable stand- world has convinced the writer that ards, for the purpose of evaluating without strong legislation and its substandard, or as they euphemisticomponents, there may be no way cally came to be called zoos needing to improve or close dysfunctional improvement. This tool and a set of zoos on a permanent basis. There are thousands of facilities …it is a job guidelines for improving zoos were approved by WAZA membership in for all of us. WAZA has developed the 67th Annual conference in 2007. At a series of documents to help with a certain regional conference, which this task. Tackling governments and shall remain anonymous for reasons lobbying for legislation is a slow and painful process but worth the investthat will become obvious, the topic ment long term. of zoo legislation was the theme and the Assessment Tool handed out as an aid to discussion. Participants of the conference snapped it up and innocently adopted it as their accepted, instead of minimum, standard. This was allowed to stand for the time being by the association director in view of the fact that the larger percentage of even the region’s best zoos would have to work for some time to meet these minimum criteria. Also this fact itself makes a strong statement in confirmation of the diversity of norms of the zoos of the world.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
References • 1 | Walker, S., Morgan, D. and Matamoros, Y. (2003). The “Other” zoo world – bad zoos and their impact: What is to be done. Presented at the 58th conference of the World As‑ sociation of Zoos and Aquaria WAZA, Costa Rica, November 2003. • 2 | WAZA (2006). WAZA resolution on Improving Standards in Zoos. Adopted at the 61st Annual Conference, Leipzig, Germany, August 2006. • 3 | WAZA (2009). WAZA resolutions 1946-2009. A complete listing of the WAZA resolutions adopted by the an‑ nual conferences. (Resolution 62.2). WAZA Executive Office, Berne, Switzerland. October 2009. • 4 | Walker, S. (Pers. Obs.) unpublished. • 5 | Anon (1982). List of National Parks, Sanctuaries, Botanical Gardens and Zoological Gardens in India, Department of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi, 1982. • 6 | Walker, S. (1987). How many zoos? ZOOS’ PRINT 2 (4–5): 7–10. • 7 | Patnaik, S. K. and Acharjyo, L. N. (1989). Directory of Indian Zoos. Nandankanan Biological Park, Bhubaneswar, Orissa.
• 8 | Anon (1991). Indian Wildlife Amendments: the zoo act, Gazette of India, October 1991. • 9 | CZA (2009). Recognition of Zoo Rules, 1992 (with up to date Amend‑ ments), pp. 230–283. In: Zoos in India. Legislation, Policy, Guidelines, and Strategies. • 10 | Walker, S. (1994). Historical Listing of Indian Zoos according to CZA Registration Forms. ZOOS’ PRINT 9 (11): 29–34. • 11 | Walker, S. (Pers. Comms.) unpublished • 12 | Anon (1982). National Zoological Gardens Act, No. 41 of 1982. Government of Sri Lanka. • 13 | Marimuthu, R. & Walker, S. (2007). Report on Animal Facilities. ZOOS’ PRINT 22 (4): 1–7.
• 14 | Walker, S. and Marimuthu, R. (2009). Changing zoos in a whole country – Nepal a case study. ZOOS’ PRINT 24 (2): 5–7. • 15 | Walker, S. (Pers. Obs.) unpublished. • 16 | Nogge, G. (1972). Kabul Zoo: the show window of Afghan Fauna, Outdoorsman Monthly, 3. • 17 | Anon (2007). Environment Law, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Official Gazette No. 912, dated 25 January 2007, as approved by National Assembly. • 18 | Hemanth Kumar, R. (2009). Model Disaster Management Plan for Zoological Parks in India, Kanpur Zoological Park, Kanpur, UP, 112pp.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Transportation of CITES-listed Species Andreas Kaufmann – Managing Director, GoWILD KG – Zoo & Wildlife Consulting Services
The reasons for shipping animals are manifold and range from the change of residence, participation in events and competitions, shows, breeding, trade, and research, to conservation, and reintroduction, and encompasses exchange of animals between zoos. Animals are being transported by air, road, rail, sea and inland waterways. When shipping animals you have to comply with a complicated legal framework that involves transport regulations that may require the use of special vehicles, trailers, containers, etc. Regulations may also restrict driving times and distances. Veterinary regulations ask for health certificates, veterinary import permits, testing, quarantine, in advance notifications, and much more. Every single animal has to be identifiable, and must therefore be marked, ringed, tagged, tattooed, branded, chipped, and maybe even registered. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species entered in force in 1975. Countries adhere voluntarily to CITES. Once a country has joined CITES it is legally binding on the country which is then a Party to CITES. Wildlife trade moves several hundred millions of plant and animal specimens annually ranging from wildlife products to live animals, and is estimated to be worth billions of dollars.
IATA Live Animals Regulations are As wildlife trade crosses borders deemed to meet the CITES requirethere is a need for international coments for the transport of live specioperation to control the wildlife trade mens by air, and shall also be used in order to safeguard species from as a reference to indicate suitable over‑exploitation, ensure the species survival but also ensure sustainability conditions for carriage other than air – in trade. Depending on the appendix where appropriate. The document the respective species that is subject does not specify when and where to import or export is listed in, ArtiLAR must not be used in case of non cles III, IV, and V of the Convention ‑air transport! require the prior grant and presentation of import and/or export permits As a condition of issuance, applicants or re‑export certificates. In the case for export permits or re‑export certifiof live specimens the convention adcates are required to prepare and ship ditionally requires that the specimens live specimens in accordance with the will be so prepared and shipped as to Live Animals Regulations. minimize the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment. Not only are IATA LAR recognized by CITES, and the World Organization The Conference of the Parties (CoP) for Animal Health (OIE), they are the directed their Animals (AC) and global standard for air transportaPlants Committees (PC) to deal with tion of live animals, and enforced matters related to the transport by the European Union and the US of live specimens. The CoP further Fish & Wildlife Service. When taking directs theAnimals and Plants Coma closer look at a CITES permit we mittees to examine regularly high notice that the permit is only valid if mortality shipments of live specithe transport conditions comply with mens and make recommendations of IATA LAR in the case of air transport, how to avoid this in the future. The and with the CITES Guidelines for the AC is obliged to examine new referTransport of Live Animals in case of a ences for the transport of live specinon‑air transport. The CITES Guidemens, and to participate in meetings lines for transport and preparation of the IATA (International Air Transfor shipment of live wild animals and port Association) Live Animals and plants were adopted at the second Perishables Board (LAPB) to amplify CoP in San Jose, Costa Rica 1979 and or update the LAR (Live Animals last revised in 1981. They are outRegulations) published by IATA on dated! an annual basis. The transport of live specimens is consequently a standing agenda item at the meetings of the CITES Animals Committee!
92 During their 23rd meeting the Animals Committee established a Transport Working Group (TWG) to work on a scoping exercise to determine the need for creating new CITES guidelines. The TWG found that humane transport was one of the key requirements for international trade of CITES ‑listed species. Ship and sea transport are obviously very rarely used. Air transport techniques are provided in the IATA LAR. In almost all cases of air transport, however, land transport constitutes a portion of the entire transport scenario since the animal has to be transported to and from the airport. The TWG assume the IATA LAR are a good basis to work from and that its container requirements could, in most cases, be used for land transport as well, and that there was no need for creating completely new guidelines from scratch. The Working Group proposed that IATA LAR should be the main reference for all forms of transport of CITES‑listed species. Some taxa however may require different procedures or modifications of the LAR for non ‑air transport – for example different containers or no containers at all.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
These taxa need to be identified and a section for non‑air transport (road, rail, sea or inland waterways, for longer periods than basic to and from airport transport) of these taxa, needs to be developed. The amended or newly written sections will then be compiled into new guidelines as a supplement to the LAR and could either be included in the LAR or posted on the CITES Secretariat’s web page. The Conference of the Parties to CITES at their 15th meeting held in Qatar in March 2010 mandated the Animals Committee to proceed with replacing the CITES guidelines for transport and preparation for shipment of wild animals and plants with new guidelines dealing only with non ‑air transportation of live specimens, and directed the Animals Committee to consult and liaise with stakeholders and experts to gather information on non‑air transport.
I ask you – the experts in the transportation of zoologicals – for your participation and expertise in the process of developing new, practical and feasible guidelines for non‑air transportation of live specimens of CITES‑listed species!
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
How Do You Create a Zoo That Really Contributes Towards Biodiversity Conservation? Bernard Harrison – Principal Partner, Creativity & Design, Bernard Harrison & Friends Ltd.
Introduction Most zoos in the world contribute hardly anything toward biodiversity conservation. Their ex‑situ breeding programmes when compared to the number of species in earth – are miniscule. In‑situ conservation links are limited to a handful of enlightened zoos. Conservation awareness programmes and their messages should reflect our important shift from endangerment and captive breeding towards in‑situ conservation. Yet sadly the material found at most zoo exhibits is simplistic – at most. How can our collections become more representative of the earth’s biodiversity and break our Directors’ obsessions with charismatic mega ‑vertebrates, which hog the collection’s space and budgets. How do we create storylines that focus on interpreting loss of biodiversity which are not trite and boring – having to compete with Discovery Channels and National Geographic? Only a fraction of a percent of animals on earth is vertebrates, but how do display difficult invertebrates? How do we create good biodiversity exhibits?
Biodiversity and Why Save It? We hear a great deal about the effects of climate change, the impact of greed, poverty and over‑population on habitat destruction, pollution of waterways and the oceans and other ways we are rapidly and effectively destroying the environment. It appears almost to be a pre‑destined fact that we are on a collision course towards the destruction of Planet Earth as we know it, as Governments squabble about who is responsible for the abating and alleviating the damage being irreparably done to Gaia: The Living Planet.
How Many Species? It is difficult to estimate with any real accuracy how many species there are on earth. In essence, there are about 1.62 million described to science and an estimated 13.55 million in the world, the balance still to be discovered and described. The following table based on data published by the Convention of Biodiversity list the major groupings of animals as follows (Table 1):
However, in the end Earth will be fine no matter what: So will life!! Its humans who are in deep trouble, and the animals and plants we will destroy, before the human species become extinct. Table 1: World’s Biodiversity Group Insects Fungi Bacteria Arachnids Protoctists (algae, protozoa, etc) Nematodes Viruses Plants Molluscs Crustaceans Vertebrates Total
Described 950,000 70,000 4,000 75,000 80,000 15,000 5,000 270,000 70,000 40,000 45,000 1.624,000
Estimates 8.000,000 1.500,000 1.000,000 750,000 600,000 500,000 500,000 300,000 200,000 150,000 50,000 13.550,000
Source: Convention of Biodiversity
94 Of these only 45,000 are vertebrates have been described and probably another 5,000 will be discovered. In contrast to this the insects of which 0.95 million have been described and an estimated 8million in the world. Basically invertebrates are biodiversity, and most invertebrates are insects, yet zoos do not give this impression to the public.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Sulphur Based Life
Living Planet Index
At the bottom of the deep ocean at about 7,500 m where there is no sunlight, a whole new group of life forms based on the sulphur from hypothermal vents (black smokers) instead of energy from the sun.
The Living Planet Index (LPI) compiled by the World Wide Fund for Nature and Zoological Society of London is an indicator of the state of global biodiversity around the world, specifically monitoring terrestrial, freshwater and marine systems. It also tracks Tropical and Temperate indices. The LPI fell by 30% from 1970 to 2005 and the Tropical Index fell by 50%.
Picture 1: Black smokers and sea pens
Life Began in the Ocean Water covers 20 times more area of the globe than land – maps are deceptive, globes give a more realistic picture that oceans cover 70% of the earth’s surface. Based on the World Register of Marine Species (WORMS) oceans contain 90% of the planet’s living biomass. There are presently 230,000 marine species recorded and between 1 to 10 million yet to be discovered.
Life at the Poles Originally thought of as biological deserts the biodiversity of the Poles teem with an amazing quantity and variety of life. The first comprehensive study of underwater marine life in Antarctica in 2009 shows that the waters around the southern continent are inhabited by some 7,500 species of animals, about half of them found nowhere else on Earth. On voyages to the Arctic, Census of Marine Life explorers have documented 5,500 species. In comparison, the total number of species in the world’s oceans is estimated at up to 250,000.
Why Save Biodiversity?
Life Without Oxygen
Are we like Vandals sacking a city who torch the library because they can’t read, in our case the genetic material and its potential use to us as humans. Is this the reason we are so callous about extinction?
A tiny creature from the phylum Loricifera genus Spinoloricusmay has Biodiversity been found in deep sediments lacking as a Zoo Exhibit oxygen in the L’Atalante basin of the Mediterranean Sea south of Greece. To design a Biodiversity Exhibit It is one of the most remarkable ever you need to address the following discovered, as they are the first aniaspects: mals that can survive and reproduce entirely without oxygen. • Storyline • Replicate Theatres of Biodiversity On Earth, bacteria, viruses and Evolution ancient archaea that survive without • Major Forces in Biodiversity oxygen are well known, but they are • Live Exhibits simple, single‑celled organisms. What • Supporting Exhibits marks out the new animal is that it • Display Techniques has millions of cells and functions independently. Picture 2: Spinoloricus
The storyline that I have chosen in this paper is: Extinction, Loss and Recovery. It is important to get the right perspective about extinction. Firstly, 99% of all the species that ever lived are extinct. There are more species alive now than at any time in the past. In the past 600 million years there have been five Implosions of extinction, each killed 70% to 95% of species on earth.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Major Forces Impacting Biodiversity Some of the major forces that have really impacted biodiversity are tectonic plate movement and asteroids and the impact of man. It is postulated that several asteroids struck earth about 65 million years ago, which started a chain reaction of earthquakes and volcanic activity. The best‑known asteroid strike is the Chicxulub crater in Mexico. However there was also the Boltysh crater in Ukraine, Silverpit crater in North Sea and the Shiva crater offshore the coast of Western India near Mumbai. This last crater was 600 km by 400 km in size. The impact of the asteroids and the explosions of the Deccan super volcano, that released 2,000 km³ of magma covering 1.5 million km², creating the Deccan Traps. The subsequent tsunamis and the volcanic winter which must have lasted several years apparently was too much for most of the large dinosaurs.
Table 2: Recent extinction of mega‑vertebrates coincides with man’s arrival Region Man’s arrival in years Africa & SE Asia 50,000 Australia 50,000 North Europe 15,000 North America 11,000 South America 10,000 West Indies 4,000 New Zealand 900 Madagascar 800
Man’s arrival matches with some accuracy the demise of mega fauna in these countries. The only continent to still have a range of mega fauna is Africa, and it is postulated that the animal species there, which evolved with man, were more wary of him than naïve species in other regions, thus falling prey to his hunting techniques. Picture 5: CGI of Maoris about to kill a moa in New Zealand
In the Biodiversity exhibit it is very useful to replicate one or some of the Theatres of biodiversity evolution, even in a modest way. Informing the visitor about their value to biodiversity and how we are rapidly destroying them is essential. A replica of a rain forests springboards the fact that 50% of the world biodiversity on land is found and evolved in tropical rainforest. That we are logging the forest for hard wood or even pulp, clearing and often simply burning it to make way for grassland for cattle grazing or palm oil plantations. We are also destroying areas of grassland and shrub land, turning them into barren deserts from over grazing and the impacts of climate change. Similarly a replicated coral reef allows for the visual images of the fact that they contain 30% of the oceans biodiversity also are being destroyed by indiscriminate anchoring, bleaching, dynamite and cyanide fishing.
Picture 3: Shiva’s Crater
The problem is that we are still killing and eating those mega vertebrates towards extinction. Picture 6: A hammerhead shark after being finned
It is postulated that the 70,000 years ago the super volcano Toba, which created Lake Toba in Sumatra, caused a volcanic winter that pushed the human race to the verge of extinction. Only a small pocket of human’s were left in East Africa. This theory is supported by mitochondrial DNA studies that confirm that the first lady – Eve – was from Africa. This population stabilized, increased and about 50,000 years ago commenced to spread, once more, over the world.
Replicate Theatres of Biodiversity Evolution
Images of the Pacific Ocean’s Plastic Soup, a trash vortex twice the size as continental United States comprising some 3.3 million pieces of plastic per km² amounting to 100 metric tonnes of plastic circulating Northern Pacific. This is equivalent to about 2.5 per cent of all plastic items made since 1950. Picture 7: Pacific Ocean’s Plastic Soup
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
We are similarly filling in mangrove forest, tsunami buffers and the essential breeding grounds for crabs, prawns and a range of fish. Like wise wetlands, rivers and lakes have a similar fate. The surface area of the Aral Sea, once the world’s fourth largest lake, has decreased by 85% due to irrigated cotton cultivation in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan over the last 40 years. Twenty of the 24 native fish species there are now extinct including the sturgeon that produced world ‑renowned caviar and many more fish and bird species are close to extinction.
Picture 8: Nautilus
Picture 9: Stromatalites growing at ETH Zurich
• Rain forest, Mangrove forest • Aquariums • Oceans, Coral reefs, Fresh water • 3D & 4D Theatres, CGI, Dark Rides & Roller Coasters • Plate tectonics, Deep sea, Extinct species • HD Video, Virtual Reality, Holograms, Water Screens • Deep sea, Extinct species, Microscopic species
How Do You Display Difficult!! Species? High‑powered microscopes and high definition TV can be use to display the huge diversity of common but unseen microscopic animals and plants.
Picture 8: Aral Sea… people in deserts should not grow cotton
Picture 11: Hydra under a high‑powered microscope
Living Fossil Displays Selecting live animal and plant displays for the biodiversity display is challenging. I have suggested that one displays living fossils – animals and plants that are unchanged from their original form for millions of years. These could be: Animals • Stromatalites......................3.5 Ba • Earthworms..................... 600 Ma • Oysters.............................550 Ma • Hagfish.............................550 Ma • Nautilus............................415 Ma • Silverfish.......................... 400 Ma • Millipede...........................395 Ma • Cockroach.........................350 Ma • Hellbender........................350 Ma • Dragonfly..........................325 Ma • Horseshoe crab.................250 Ma • Tuatara............................ 200 Ma • Snapping Tortoise............ 200 Ma • Crocodile:........................ 200 Ma • Giant Isopods:...................160 Ma • Army ant...........................100 Ma • Manatee............................ 50 Ma • Sandhill Crane.....................10 Ma Ba=billion years ago Ma= million years ago
Plants • Green Algae......................475 Ma • Cooksonia........................ 428 Ma • Horsetails.........................320 Ma • Tree Ferns.........................320 Ma • Cycads..............................320 Ma • Lepidodendron.................320 Ma • Ginko................................250 Ma • Woolemi Pine...................150 Ma • Monkey Puzzle Tree..........150 Ma • Grass...................................35 Ma • Blackboys.......................... 26 Ma Picture 10: Australian Blackboys
Virtual reality, animatronics and computer‑generated imagery (CGI) can be used to display animals that cannot be displayed in aquariums, such deep‑sea creatures such as anglerfish. Dark rides can be used to present the Big Bang Theory about the Beginning of the Universe and 4D theatres can present the Demise of the Dinosaurs. Holograms can be used to present deep‑sea sulphur based ecosystems and giant water screens can project the age of the giant mammals that roamed 55 million years ago. Models and puppets can also be used. Picture 12: CGI of the Carboniferous Age where insects were giants
Display Techniques A range of display techniques is at the disposal of the zoo designer: • Outdoor Habitat Immersion Exhibits • Grasslands, Wetlands, Rain forests, Create a Carboniferous Forest • Bio‑domes/Walk‑in Aviary
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Troubles in Paradise – Zoo Design for Conservation Education Monika Fiby – Zoo Design and Consulting
Troubles in Paradise
Content – Context – Message
Fashions in zoo design, whether dioramas or immersion exhibits, are Jon Coe introduced the concept of not the factor deciding on the success content, context and message into of conservation education, but rather zoo design. the message that an exhibit conveys. Even a row of well equiped cages can • Context: Exhibit surroundings that work for conservation education if the visitors perceives – consciously the interpretation in this context is and unconsciously. about breeding and not about habitat • Content: What the zoo wants to protection. Habitat immersion exhibcommunicate – for example what its show animals in idealized natural the graphics say. paradises. They are self‑explanatory. • Message: What a visitor experiences All other designs using non‑paradise and remembers – cognitive inforobjects like bars, plastic balls and mation filtered through the context steel food trays need to be carefully of the surrounding, distractions, interpreted in order not to irritate and prejudices and attitudes of the visiconfuse the intended message. tors themselves. In 2009, artists implanted paradoxical objects in animal exhibits at Zoo Schönbrunn in Vienna to reflect the troubled relationship of nature and civilization. The temporary exhibition was called “Troubles in Paradise”. Ironically, paradoxical arrangements can be found in common animal exhibits also. It is not always obvious which kind of “troubled paradise” should be presented to the zoo visitors and which story they should be told. Making this decision is part of zoo design. What should be the message? How can this message be translated into content for the communication with the visitor and what type of sourrounding, including the animal itself, will provide the appropriate context?
The idea behind this concept is that the visitor’s context is not just the animal, but also the exhibit of the animal, the visitor space, and other people around. The context is the framework for the content that the visitor can find on the signs. The signs may tell the visitor that there are several subspecies of tigers that one can recognize by colour and size; that Siberian tigers live in the Northeast of Asia; that tigers are endangered because of poaching; that they lose their forest habitat due to logging; and that the zoo’s tigers get sturdy balls for enrichment. In the case of the Bronx Zoo tiger exhibit, much of the content is visible. The visitor can see the size and the fur pattern of the Siberian tiger; that it feels comfort-
able in the snow; that its exhibit is forested; and that there is a ball in the shelter with traces of tiger claws and teeth. This content is supported by the context. Additionally, the visitor experiences the clear view of the massive animal in close proximity. She may enjoy the weather protection by the shelter and the tranquillity that allows her to read and observe without distraction. Together, the context and the content create messages in the visitor’s mind. These can be as simple as “this cat is impressive”. They may include new facts about tiger biology, assurance about the zoo caring well for its tigers, concern for the fate of tigers and an interest in conservation. This would be successful conservation education. Jon introduced the concept of content, context and message together with habitat immersion design. Both work well together for conservation education. Even when visitors do not read any signs they will probably unconsciously make the right connection between an animal and its habitat, just from what they experience. For habitat immersion design it is therefore critical that every detail fits into the theme of the habitat and supports the content.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Which style of zoo design? A number of proven principles can help with zoo design. Their effectiveness was found in visitor studies about perception of and attitudes towards animals in various types of exhibits. However, the combination of circumstances in zoos is so complex that only professional visitor studies can tell if a given exhibit communicates as intended. At the Minnesota Zoo it was found in a post‑visit study of the Russian Far East exhibits that guests were able to describe animal characteristics and to mention the animal in relation to its habitat: “Comments from post‑visit guests have significant amounts of content and vocabulary that matches the exhibition labels.” The Arizona Sonora Desert Museum aims at encouraging conservation. One conservation goal and intended message of the javelina exhibit is to teach local residents how to safely coexist with wild javelina. The zoo developed the content for supporting this message by offering visitors a comment notebook, to find out what they wanted to know about javelina, before interpretive labels were designed. Based upon the responses, a series of informal “flip‑up” labels was developed and tested at the exhibit. The final series of labels explains adaptations, social structure and ecological connections, and offers information for local residents about appropriate ways to handle human/ javelina interactions.
The African Ungulates Conservation Center at Woburn Zoo is an example for a taxonomic exhibition. This design is useful for breeding several species of the same taxon. The context of this exhibit is a functional building with simple paddocks. The content for the visitor is about the zoos involvement in conservation breeding and conservation projects, delivered in personal conversation. Since personal conversation is the most effective way of communication, we may assume that the message that visitors gain will be about the zoos involvement in the conservation of endangered African ungulates. The Hamill Family Play Zoo at Brookfield Zoo Chicago aims at giving children positive nature and animal experiences. The intended message is to enjoy nature and to want to care for animals. The context allows the handling of natural materials and all kinds of role play. The content of the graphics suggests caregivers how to continue the experiences at home. The effectiveness of this zoo exhibition for conservation education was ensured by careful evaluation.
Habitat immersion exhibits are suitable, but not the only clue to conservation education. Cages and dioramas, taxonomic and ecological themes can also work for conservation education if adequate messages are delivered. We need to be aware that everything that the visitor experiences at the zoo influences these messages. If the visitor’s experiences are contradictory, the result can be an unintended message. If context and content support each other and a suitable conservation message, chances are good that visitors will get inspired and motivated for conservation action. This presentation is published on www.zoolex.org/research.html with colour images.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Biodome – Biomimicry – Biodiversity Mark Pilgrim – Director General, North of England Zoological Society | Gareth Wilkins – B Arch, BA (Hons) Associate Director, Proctor and Matthews Architects, London
Biodome Heart of Africa The Heart of Africa Biodome at Chester Zoo will be a unique structure providing the North West of England with its own symbol for Global Conservation. This new facility will also deliver one of the world’s most spectacular simulated tropical environments. An immersive experience designed to create one of the very best habitats for the mixed species housed within and an engaging educational journey for visitors that will be both exciting and fun. The North of England Zoological Society’s brief called for an all year round visitor experience that can boost numbers during the normally quiet months of the year, while at the same time providing an environment that emulates the most threatened of all global habitats; the rainforests of the Congo. The design structures a series of differing habitats under one roof which is required to enclose close to 17,000 m2 of densely planted space. Spanning 190 meters in its length and 90 meters in width the new roof structure reaches a height in excess of 35 meters to provide a growing environment for an appropriately impressive tree canopy. The various habitats have been arranged to support a journey, through both an internal and external landscape, where visitors can experience barrier free encounters with the animals including Gorillas, Chimpanzee’s mandrills, colobus monkeys to name a few.
The creation of this fully immersive Educational animal habitat focus is on a central Storyline/Themeing open mixed species exhibit around which sits a further a simple petal Following the development of the arrangement of spaces. The specific species list the Zoo team discussed layout or arrangement of the individinternally over a series of small and ual and some mixed species exhibits large scale meetings, with a themeat Chester will be as far as we are ing specialist a storyline. The ‘story’ aware unique, in that the animals are crafted both education and theatre allowed to roam between the internal along an essential single route the and external on show and the off ‘winding twisting path’ which all visishow areas (including the holding artors follow. Sub loops exist that allow eas). Animals are actively encouraged, you to track animals between in and as far as possible not to beddown in out, but the routes always deliver you the holding areas but to nest or rest back to the main path so critically no in the open immersive space. This sense of ‘missing out’ is apparent. in itself helped develop the specific position of holding areas relative to As in all miniature ecosystems, biothe envelope of the building and the domes, the building in section has to public viewing areas. Such a strategy articulate and allow the visitors to exwas carefully developed between the perience, the rich section of the rainarchitect, keepers and the habitat forest from shrub layer to emergent’s. specialists through workshops and These key factors combined, detail through the initial concept designs arrangement, viewing requirement whilst always considering the visitor storyline etc impose an organisation viewing relationship. This arrangethat could sit within a divorced form ment has supported a varied viewing where content bears no relationship experience that is based on a ‘no barto its container, the format generally riers’ with visitor eye line below the of previous Biodomes. In this project animal. Critically it provides the right it was part of the clients brief and environment for the animal for whom as the previous Zoo director himself the building is their home. Gordon McGregor Reid stated ‘there are no straight lines in nature’ and the design of its contents and the evolution of form and detail should perhaps express this co‑exist. • Container and contents form a vessel
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Biomimicry The Challenge There is no doubt that the scales of buildings of this nature pose both challenges and opportunities. In the recent past Zoological structures have often been designed to disappear behind landscape or themed environments. This approach clearly has its limitations with Biodome structures of this magnitude. It simply isn’t possible or desirable for these building to be hidden and there is a growing realisation that both the structural and environmental challenges of these building types offer real opportunities to create an architecture that can become part of the conservation narrative, playing an active role in reinforcing a broader based sustainable agenda. At London Zoo we began exploring this approach with the Gorilla Kingdom. Bamboo could merely have been used as a camouflage material but instead it was used as a principle structural support, one of the first examples in the UK of how this highly sustainable material can be employed in modern construction. At Whipsnade the Lions of the Serengeti employ a woven roof that explores the issues of coppicing and recycling. Heart of Africa through advanced computer modelling explores the efficiencies of natural structures to drive down embodied mass, maximise sunlight penetration, and to deliver a balanced controlled environment that will be almost carbon neutral. Only a few years ago this kind of Biomimicry would not have been possible as technological efficiencies that have grown out of an understanding of nature remained theories. Architects, engineers and designers are now continually looking to nature to provide the model and measure for our industrial and perhaps future economic development. We have in this room, and in many other allied professions finally grasped the concept that nature in its 3.8billion years of operation has learnt what works, what is appropriate and what lasts on our planet.
The design at Chester in its organisation, structural resolution & environmental conditioning is inspired by this ethos of mimicking nature. The building form is akin to a flower cell (brain or is it a city). • An enclosing volume that looks like an animal • Simple visual references that are evident to the eye as architectural expressionism, but on a more meaningful level the project has allowed nature to ‘lead the way’ in the development of the roof structure its covering and the internal environmental conditioning.
Form The central double dip dome will reputedly be one of the largest free form (not a platonic solid) structure in the world. The undulating domes structural efficiency is reliant on the engineering solution of parabolic curves combined with a gridshell structure but we have in the development of the member layout overlapped this with computer scripting. The scripting looks at simple parameters where the shortest route between opposing nodes is mapped across the freeform shape. Unlike a geodesic dome the form of HoA is irregular akin to a natural sea life form such as a Spanish dancer and therefore the pattern produced is irregular but demonstrates shortest structural force route which creates a variety of resulting member diagram. Not a Voroni pattern – this doesn’t relate to forces. Multiple studies were produced and through our selection and intervention with the parameters, a natural selection of soughts, an optimisation took place. The final forms for the roofs and their coverings are therefore not imposed by us but directed through a process known to some as ‘digital sex’. Similar studies were carried out on other forms and coverings to the building to arrive at Carapace skins and Articulated wings – Front Canopy and rear skirt
Environment Disappointingly we cannot claim that we have created a closed eco‑system, like the rainforest, but our goal has been inspired by nature and the principals of its operation are the guiding force. Maximising daylight penetration has influenced the free form structure. Optimising shape to encourage penetration at the shoulder times in day early morning and late afternoon as well as seasonally in Late Autumn and early Spring. Free form shape modulated to encourage air flows from perimeter to peak that will encourage transpiration for plant growth. The biggest issue combined with soil type in creating a successful habitat for plants. Solar gain is transferred to heat tank underground so that energy can be passed back into form in order to maintain constant temp during dawn dusk and night 18-21d deg c min. Anerobic digestion and plant waste being considered in line with wood chip plant for CHP boiler primarily to be used at night only. The site zoning has also allowed the northern side of the scheme to provide a environmental buffer or blanket to the sun exposed animal and viewing areas on the South. Natural analysis providing again the guiding force to the design.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Biodiversity Heart of Africa The biodome at NEZS is the new breed of building that is vital in the role that Zoological societys play in educating the public about environmental issues. The loss of natural habitat being of primary importance in that conversation, since without habitats, we cannot study wildlife that is now providing the new leads for every scientific area of our lives. The ‘biodome’ is the building type to explore these ideas The mantra of heat beat and treat that we have followed since the industrial revolution is dead and it is refreshing to think that Zoo’s and their contents can be part of the stewardship in developing a different thought process where we embrace the concept that perhaps animals (a key component of Zoos) and plant life nature in general is our answer to the more complex issues of sustaining life and biodiversity on Earth. Zoological societys are the front runners; academic institutes (universities) do not perhaps in our opinion in Britain have such a public voice. As a society it seems we are struggling to accept how much further ahead nature’s development is than our own and that conveying the ideas of natural science has never been so more important (even in architecture).
Conclusion Heart of Africa is a ground breaking project. The project demonstrates high ambitions in terms of content, containment, themeing and environmental conditioning. It will provide a hotbed (in more ways than one with 32 dec C climates) for a new generation to learn about the natural world and the need for mankind to find more responsible approaches to conserving the world’s habitats and species. At the same time the Heart of Africa embraces the storyline possibilities of Zoo architecture, no longer attempting to hide under layers of unconvincing fakery, but to engage through an understanding of natural structures, in the search for a holistic combination of nature, structural dynamics and evolutionary science. If Chester’s’ animals are to be the ambassadors of the rainforest this building is definitely their embassy.
• Biodome – Biomimicry – Biodiversity • Project Team – Heart of Africa • Client: North of England Zoological Society (Chester Zoo) • Brief Development: Chester Zoo, Keepers, Curators and Heads of Departments • Client Advisors: Masterplan Gerard Visser, Zoo Masterplanning advisor and Exhibit Designer • Horticulture: Rob Halpern, Zoo Horticulture Consulting & Design • Storyline + Themeing: Ray Robinson, Robinson Design, Exhibit and Visitor Experience Designer. • Design Team: Architects Proctor and Matthews Architects, London Integrated Service Engineers AECOM Landscape Design Barton Willmore Planning Consultant Barton Willmore
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Zoos and Conservation – the Frankfurt Example Christof Schenck – Frankfurt Zoological Society
From Citizens for Citizens
The city was called to action to save the Society once again in 1888 with a new contract, after which all of the zoo’s profits flowed back to the city. Frankfurt Zoological Society operated the Frankfurt Zoo until the First World War. The war closed the debate on moving the Zoo once again and also let to a decline in revenues that finally bankrupted the Society. In the summer of 1915, the city took over complete control of the zoo and the Society was dissolved as a joint‑stock company. But despite the demise of the Society as a legal entity, the shareholders continued to maintain their interest in and support of the zoo.
Inspired by a growing interest in natural history in the early 1850s, a small group of Frankfurt citizens came up with the idea of building a zoo in the city. In March 1858 they founded the Frankfurt Zoological Society. 246 shareholders invested a total of 80,000 Gulden into the project and the Frankfurt Zoo opened its doors just five months after the founding of the Society. This “pilot zoo” was not located at the zoo’s current site, but rather outside the city on a 15-acre parcel of land just west of the Bockenheimer Tor. Despite various difficulties, the first few years of operation showed that a zoo could survive in An important shift in thinking about Frankfurt, and when the lease ran zoos came about in 1923. For the first out on the property being used, the time, it was recognized that zoos search began for a new home. For lecould contribute to the protection gal reasons it was necessary to form of animals living in the wild. Already a “New Zoological Society,” which during the war years, zoo directors then merged with the “Zoological had feared for the survival of the Gesellschaft of 1858” at its first genwisent, an European bison species naeral meeting on October 31, 1873. It tive to Germany. Frankfurt Zoo direcwas the New Zoological Society that tor Dr. Kurt Priemel, who had collectunder constraints of time and money ed information on these threatened succeeded in building and relocating animals, was named president of the the Zoo to its present location. In newly founded “International Society February 1874, the animals made the for Wisent Protection.”. In 1923 he journey to their new sanctuary at Pfwrote: “All efforts toward the great ingstweide. The first years were diffiand glorious idea of nature protection cult for the zoo. Visitor numbers were must remain incomplete unless they are pursued on the basis of internawell below expectations and by late tionalism. Today, nature protection 1881 the Society would have faced is not only an undeniable challenge insolvency if the city of Frankfurt had not stepped in with a refinancing plan. to our time, but has advanced to become a generally accepted science.” These words have lost none of their relevance today. After the joint‑stock company was disbanded in 1915, many friends of the zoo continued in the tradition of the Society by making generous donations. Heavy bombing during the night of March 18, 1944 destroyed large parts of the city and the Zoo.
On May 1, 1945, a veterinarian from Upper Silesia, Dr. Bernhard Grzimek, was appointed director of the Frankfurt Zoo. During his first years as director, he was primarily concerned with rebuilding the Zoo, which had been completely destroyed. Much of the necessary construction was made possible by funds donated by friends of the zoo, who had once again begun to meet regularly after the war. On February 15, 1950, these patrons joined together to form the “Society of Friends and Supporters of the Zoological Gardens e. V.,” which raised badly needed money for the zoo. On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the defunct Zoological Society, the decision was made to revive the traditional name of the original Society. Beginning in 1958 there was once again a “Frankfurt Zoological Society,” later amended to “Frankfurt Zoological Society of 1858” – FZS for short. The early post‑war years find Grzimek and his son Michael travelling to Africa to observe, photograph and shoot documentary footage of animals in their natural habitat. These trips and the corresponding recognition that only global protection can preserve wild animal populations led to a new focus of the activities of the Frankfurt Zoological Society: nature conservation.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
From Frankfurt into the World
Zoos and Conservation – the Examples
Following the death of Michael Grzimek in a tragic plane accident in East Africa, FZS established a memorial fund in his name in 1960. The fund was the precursor of the special trust created a year later as “Help for Threatened Wildlife.” In his television programmes, Prof. Grzimek solicited donations to this fund, which formed the basis for the further work of FZS. The early work of the Society was primarily concerned with establishing a nature conservation infrastructure in East Africa, but soon projects were launched in other regions of the world, such as Galapagos, South America and Asia, and back home in Hessia as well. A new milestone was passed on March 30, 2001 with the creation of a new foundation – “Help for Threatened Wildlife.” Approximately 33 million euros stemming from the assets of the FZS now endow the foundation and ensure the financial basis of the projects.
Three projects are based on a strong and long‑lasting partnership between FZS and Zoos:
Today’s mission of the Society is: “We commit ourselves to a world that protects and values biodiversity as the basis for all life and the livelihood of present and future generations”. The current program consists of about 70 projects in 25 countries with an annual investment of 8–10 million euros.
In Sumatra, Indonesia, FZS joins forces with Perth Zoo, Australia, and the Australian Orangutan ‑Project. The Sumatran Island, inhabiting rainforests of outstanding biodiversity, already lost more than 70 percent of its natural forest cover. In 1998 FZS started an orangutan re‑introduction project in the Bukit Tigapuluh ecosystem in order to establish a sustainable organutan population and to protect one of the last larger rainforest blocks on the island. Perth Zoo became an essential project partner over the years, investing more than 130 K euros per year embedded in a perennial engagement. Apart from the financial contribution the zoos have been investing in capacitating of Indonesian staff, including in house training in Australian zoos, assist with experts and volunteers for the field operations, support the media relationship and PR work and do intensive lobbying in Australia and on the international level for orangutan conservation. The joint program on Sumatra consists of confiscation, rehabilitation and training of orang‑utans, followed by an intensive monitoring after the final release. The comprehensive orangutan project is itself a component of the wider protection of the Bukit Tigapuluh National Park and its surrounding buffer zone. This program includes ranger training, provision of equipment and infrastructure, the establishment of wildlife protection units, landscape planning, environmental education, community conservation, human elephant conflict mitigation and campaigning against the powerful pulp and paper industry. For the future it is envisaged to purchase concession management rights to restore degraded ecosystems and to avoid clear cutting of about 100.000 hectares of the Bukit Tigapuluh buffer zone.
The second FZS‑Zoo‑cooperation project takes place in Vietnam, where FZS and Cologne Zoo are running a joint program with the aim to re‑stock endangered Hatinh langures populations in the Phong Nha‑Ke Bang National Park by the release of confiscated and captive bred animals. Ranger training, improvement of infrastructure, including control posts as well as intensive monitoring form additionally part of the ambitious program. In a third project FZS established in partnership with the Frankfurt Zoo a program of conservation educa‑ tion in Frankfurt based on exhibi‑ tions, lectures, printed information, inter‑active displays and, as the core activity, voluntary conservation ambassadors providing exclusive information for visitors backed with individually designed mobile units. The ambassador program consists of over 50 volunteers, led by a full paid professional head. Intensive training, quality management as well as monitoring and evaluation form essential parts of this activity. Significant third party funds are raised by the project and every two years a new framework is designed. For the period 2010/2011 the general theme links for the first time the diversity of cultures and nationalities in Frankfurt to the diversity of species in the zoo and the variety of their origin.
104 The Frankfurt Challenges and Potential Besides the unique combination of an international conservation organisation and a famous zoo, the partnership can currently not fully exploit its potential due to severe constraints on both sides. As a conservation centre Frankfurt Zoo should provide significant funds for urgent in‑situ conservation activities. In contrast to that backing is at present restricted to in kind support and the provision of a basis for environmental education. For that purpose the partnership offers the unique possibility to integrate information from the conservation field projects into the visitor education and experience. The mutual benefit is already demonstrated in the conservation ambassador project. FZS on the other hand should help the zoo as a supporting organisation with the necessary investments for enclosures and infrastructure. A two million Euro contribution was made available by FZS for the new great ape facility some years ago but FZS currently cannot offer a constant flow of desperately needed funds to the zoo and does not have the capacity for larger fundraising. As a public zoo and established as a department of the city the zoo budget originates from the city of Frankfurt and depends on the communal budget and the changing disposability of funds. Additionally it suffers an investment backlog of about 30 years, as for decades it was hoped to move the zoo outside of town, an idea which never materialised. The financial limitation and the restriction to the communal budget do not allow the allocation of funds for conservation or the installation of intensive fundraising for in‑situ conservation. Private zoos might have more flexibility to allocate funds and some zoos have established successful fundraising activities for conservation.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
FZS itself is namely very successful in raising third party funds for specific conservation projects, but faces a strong decrease in its important free core funds. This is mainly due to the low interest rate in its own endowment and the reduced income from legacies. Therefore FZS is currently unable to support the zoo with substantial funds, but rather needs support itself.
The Way Forward Without doubt the partnership of zoos and conservation organisations offers a great potential for mutual benefit. With millions of visitors from all social background zoos are a unique platform for the conservation message. There is a great potential to influence consumer’s understanding and consumption pattern. The high percentage of children as zoo visitors offers the possibility to change the perception of the coming generation and future decision makers. The conservation ambassadors in Frankfurt are an example of a joint and lasting education activity. To overcome the current restrictions in the Frankfurt case and to develop the unique partnership further to a new era of successful cooperation and mutual benefit it is necessary that the Frankfurt Zoo overcomes its financial limitations. This can be reached if the zoo owner, the city of Frankfurt, provides more funding for investments on a secure basis as it is needed for a top class zoo in the 21st century. This will then give the zoo the possibility to set up a successful fundraising system for conservation. For example “one euro for conservation”, generated from the general entrance fee, would set free nearly one million euros annually for conservation. Additionally there is a growing potential of a revitalised bourgeoisie with a strong philanthropic approach. Frankfurt once was famous for the citizen’s financial engagement in communal tasks. Frankfurt Zoo and the Frankfurt Zoological Society both are children of that special feature. An urban conservation centre in the middle of an emergent region in central Europe with its link to the global biodiversity treasuries is the vision for the future.
Zoo owners in general must understand that the paradigm of modern conservation zoos includes the provision of funds for in‑situ conservation action. This enables them to participate in global biodiversity protection. For other zoos it is recommended that they join forces with well established, professional conservation organisations. The conservation business of today is highly complex and needs a lot of experience, constant national and local contacts as well as mutual trust, continuous presence and experts on‑site. Administrational procedures, strategic planning, effective implementation and monitoring can often only be covered by established organisations. If local investments are too small they fail reaching significant outcomes and funds are lost. In the majority of the zoos environmental education might be improved and the zoos should lobby much stronger for a general change of living. Holding and managing living gene reservoirs and re‑introduction of animals into the wild is without doubt a contribution to conservation, but should not be overestimated in their effects. Re‑introduction will not stop the biodiversity crisis where the majority of habitats from tropical rainforest to coral reefs are being lost. Keeping rare animals alone is not adding real value for conservation. Efforts must include the mainstreaming of biodiversity in the general public. Changing the way of life in the Western world and heading for a sustainable economy are crucial for our own survival. Leading by example, greening zoos and providing funds for in‑situ projects are important steps towards real conservation centres.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Husbandry Success in Zoos: A Constant Aim for Science and Practice Dennis W. H. Müller – Clinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich | Laurie Bingaman Lackey – International Species Information System (ISIS) | W. Jürgen Streich and Jörns Fickel – Leibniz‑Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research | Jean‑Michel Hatt and Marcus Clauss – Clinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich
Zoo animal husbandry aims at constantly improving husbandry, veterinary care, reproductive success, and ultimately animal welfare (WAZA, 2003). Although some zoos undertake great efforts to study aspects of wellbeing of certain species, comparative analyses to determine factors influencing husbandry success of different species are rare (Clubb, 2003; Müller, 2010). Demographic analyses of species kept in zoos can serve for such interspecific comparisons. Here, the relative life expectancy (rLE; average life expectancy as proportion of record longevity) is used to describe the husbandry success of zoo populations. By correlating rLE with biological characteristics of different species, reasons for variation in rLE can be detected. We analysed data of 166.901 animals representing 78 ruminant species. The data were collected by the International Species Information System (ISIS) between 1980 and 2008 and originated from app. 850 member institutions around the world (Müller, 2010). The rLE of females correlated significantly with the percentage grass in a species’ natural diet, suggesting that needs of species adapted to grass can be more easily accommodated than of those adapted to browse (Clauss, 2008). Furthermore, mating system had a significant influence on rLE of males, with monogamous species demonstrating higher rLE values than polyg-
amous species. This finding supports the theory that mating system largely explains the sexual bias in adult life expectancy, often reported for free ‑living populations (Clutton‑Brock, 2007). The third interesting finding was that rLE of both sexes was higher in species managed by international studbooks than in species not managed by a studbook (Müller, 2010). This indicates the positive effect of intensive studbook management. Our method facilitates the identification of biological characteristics of species that are relevant for their adaptability to conditions in captivity, and our results also support ecological theory. Finally, this approach can help to improve zoo animal husbandry by translating these results into husbandry recommendations. Acknowledgements: We thank the Georg and Bertha Schwyzer‑Winiker ‑Stiftung and the Vontobel‑Stiftung for financial support, the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums for enabling the data transfer from ISIS, and all participating zoos for their consistent data collection.
References • Clauss, M. and Dierenfeld, E. S. (2008) The nutrition of browsers. In: Fowler, M. E. and Miller, R. E. (eds.), Zoo and wild animal medicine. Current therapy 6. Saunders Elsevier, pp. 444–454. • Clubb, R. and Mason, G. J. (2003) Captivity effects on wide‑ranging carnivores. Nature 425: 473–474. • Clutton‑Brock, T. H. and Isvaran, K. (2007) Sex differences in ageing in natural populations of vertebrates. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 274: 3097–3104. • Müller, D. W. H., Bingaman Lackey, L., Streich, W. J., Fickel, J., Hatt, J.M. and Clauss, M. (2010) Be monogamous, eat grass, live long: mating system and dietary niche determine life expectancy in captive wild ruminants. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B doi: 10.1098/ rspb.2010.2275: 1–5. • Müller, D. W. H., Bingaman Lackey, L., Streich, W. J., Hatt, J.-M. and Clauss, M. (2010) Relevance of management and feeding regimens on life expectancy in captive deer. American Journal of Veterinary Research 71: 275–280. • WAZA (2003) WAZA code of ethics and animal welfare. 58th Annual Meeting, of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Where Are We Now? – Trends in Global Grants for Wildlife Conservation Marilyn Hoyt – Nonprofit Consulting, U.S.A.
Resources determine the scale of our work worldwide. Zoos, aquariums, nature centers and conservation organizations tap support from: • government • gifts from individuals • grants from corporations and foundations • earned income • non‑cash contributions • volunteer staff and consulting services • facilities • administrative infrastructure The Great Recession disrupted these resource flows. Worldwide, economic activity – and then support – dropped beginning in the fall of 2008. This is a trend we all experienced. Coming back, we see different trends in different parts of the world. The financial community has coined the term LUV to describe this uneven recovery.
• L describes Europe’s quick descent and projected flat economic performance for some time to come. • U describes the US quick descent, a period of flat performance and anticipated return to more historic economic activity. • V describes Asia’s quick descent and almost immediate return to high levels of economic activity. Within these large regions of the world, there are different resource stories at the federal, state/provincial and local government levels. Most of us who depend upon this funding have taken cuts each year since the 2008 downturn – 25% in a single year is not uncommon.
Those of us who compete for foundation funding are seeing results that mirror market trends. Foundations depend on market results to generate income from their investments for grant making. They saw 2008 losses of 24 – 42%. In the United States, where 98,000 foundations represent the bulk of foundation giving worldwide, these foundations chose not to pass those losses along in the following year. In 2009, they cut their giving only 11%. That said, many of us experienced deeper foundation funding cuts as foundations changed funding priorities in an effort to meet emergencies worldwide. In 2010, we are seeing increased funding in one area of interest to our field: education and training. And, for the first time since the fall of 2008, we are hearing informal projections of returns to more grant making in 2011. Full recovery is currently projected to come in the period of 2013 to 2015.
Grant trends in our field Foundation Center Directory On Line – Professional Version
10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0
Wldlf Con Environmt Clim Chg
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
If we look at the U. S.-based Founda- *** tion Center’s research we are reminded that when the economy is perRelated references and resources are forming well AND we ask assertively, available at Foundationcenter.org: we can actually increase the number of grants and the funding moving to • Special grants reports under home the work of zoos, aquariums, nature page button: Gain Knowledge centers and field conservation. We • Funding trends and maps under need to continue talking with foundahome page button: Focus on the tions and asking in order to reap the Economy benefits of increasing funding trends • Subscribe to free, customizable underway. e‑newsletter Philanthropy News Digest Although few U. S.-based founda• Foundation Directory on Line grants tions give to non‑US NGO’s in our research. Purchase access by the field,1 the number of internationally month or year or get free access incorporated grantmakers is growing via 250 libraries in the U. S., Ausannually – even during this period. tralia, Brazil, China, Mexico, Nigeria, There are now 131 grantmakers incorSouth Korea and Thailand. (Click porated outside of the United States, Locations on the home page and and many more unincorporated then Cooperating Collections) grantmakers like the zoos who raise and grant funds for conservation projects worldwide.
1 03–04: 56 05–06: 79 07–08: 84 09-10: 23
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Project MOSI (Mosquito Onset Surveillance Initiative) Proposal for an International Zoo‑Based Surveillance Programme to Monitor the Effects of Climate Change on Mosquito Range Spread, Behaviour and Disease Risk Giovanni Quintavalle Pastorino – Imperial College | Paul Pearce‑Kelly – Chair, WAZA/CBSG Climate Change Task Force | Andrew Routh – Zoological Society of London
Project proposal 1 To expand the current UK and Italian focused mosquito monitoring initiative (ZSL, Imperial College and University of Genoa) to a permanent international zoo community based monitoring project. 2 To establish principle collaboration with WAZA and Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW) with the objective of developing project under the auspices of this collaborating group 3 To use project outputs to fill current serious knowledge gaps regarding species range spread, seasonality extension and vector behaviour. Principle liaison agencies are considered to be: OIE (World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), World Health Organization (WHO), IUCN, UNEP and UNFCCC. 4 Use the unique circumstances of zoo environments to identify potential novel host‑preference behaviours to help develop new environment‑friendly and economically accessible trapping and monitoring techniques to use by zoos themselves and in any mosquito control programs (Malaria control programs) around the world. 5 To test in different environments, the efficacy of newly developed traps on several hundred mosquito species.
6 Use data from mosquito ‑vulnerable species interactions observed in the zoo environment to predict and manage potential disease outbreaks in the species natural range area. 7 Establish a permanent mosquito specimen library (facility available for this at Imperial College) for interdisciplinary (veterinary and human health) usage. 8 Provide monthly feed‑back reports to participating partners, in addition to annual regional and global reports. Review and discussion of findings within the project team. 9 Provide case studies and a zoo based project example to help WAZA community convey the current reality and increasing danger of climate change to their visitors and wider audiences.
Project rationale 1 The influence of global warming on mosquito range extension, life‑spans, breeding periods and disease dynamics is already significant. 2 This trend is very likely to continue, with increasingly serious implications for animal and human health. 3 Current mosquito surveillance capacity is very limited and there is no current ability to adequately address points 1 and 2.
4 By virtue of its global network of urban and rural sites, species assemblages, staff resource and coordination ability the international zoo community is uniquely placed to fill this role. 5 By establishing current baseline and divergence data for a number of key mosquito species the zoo community can provide an early warning system for in situ wildlife management and local communities. 6 Zoos are also uniquely placed to help improve current mosquito control ability and to predict likely impacts of climate change on many in situ species. 7 Zoos need this same information for their own animal health care and conservation management. 8 This project would help zoos convey the current reality and increasing danger of climate change to their visitors and wider audiences. 9 An ongoing UK zoo‑based mosquito monitoring programme has proven the feasibility and value of this work and provides an opportunity to easily implement this international initiative.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
The Conservation Status of the World Zoo’s Species Dalia A. Conde, Fernando Colcher, Owen Jones and Alex Scheuerlein – Max Plank Institute for Demographic Research | Nate Flesness – International Species Information System
Biodiversity loss is one of the biggest challenges humanity faces. Its rapid destruction had prompted nations to set a target of achieving significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 . Although the target has not been met  conservation actions have been effective to prevent species extinctions and improve the conservation status of several species . The most recent evaluation of the conservation status of the world’s vertebrates shows that 68 species had a genuine improvement in the IUCN Red List Index (RLI) . Some of the actions implemented that led to this improvement were: habitat protection and/or management, control of invasive species, disease management, nest protection, trade management, captive breeding, and reintroduction. For a quarter of the 68 species that showed a RLI improvement, captive breeding played a major role . The expertise to undertake captive breeding lies mainly in the world’s zoos and aquariums, and the capability represented by the zoo network spans the breadth of species that are held in zoos. It is perhaps surprising then that, to date, we do not know how many of the species held in zoos and aquariums are threatened or endangered.
In this paper we aim to (1) assess the IUCN Red List status of species represented in zoos; (2) examine zoo‑held population sizes for these species. In order to address these points we used the International Species Information System (ISIS) database.
Methods To assess which species of conservation concern are represented in ISIS zoos we matched the freely‑available online ISIS data with the IUCN Red List (RL)  for terrestrial vertebrates: mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. We did the matching at the species‑level and when the ISIS and IUCN taxonomic names did not match, we used the catalogue of life  to search for changes in taxonomic names. We then assigned the corresponding Red List Category to each of the species represented in ISIS zoos. These categories are: Least Concern (LC), Vulnerable (VU), Endangered (EN), Critically Endangered (CR), and Extinct in the Wild (EX).
Results Results at the species level We assessed the conservation status of more than 5000 species and nearly 625,000 living individual animals registered in 837 ISIS zoos. Species that were not assigned an IUCN Red List category were approximately 67% of the zoo collections for reptiles. However, for mammals, birds and amphibians most of the species were listed as Least Concern (LC). We found that a quarter of the mammal species held in ISIS zoo collections are threatened which includes the categories of Vulnerable, Endangered and Critically Endangered. For amphibians the figure is similar, with 23% of the species listed as threatened. Although the IUCN Red List assessment for reptiles is still incomplete, we estimated that approximately 16% of the zoo’s species of reptiles are threatened. However, for birds only 8% of the species in ISIS zoo collections are listed as threatened species. In Table 1 we give a detailed breakdown of these figures.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Table 1. Percentage of species in ISIS zoo collections that correspond to each of the IUCN Red List (RL) categories (VU = Vulnerable, EN = Endangered, CR = Critically Endangered, EW= Extinct in the Wild) ISIS Zoo collections percentages of species Class IUCN Red List Category VU EN CR EW Mammals 11.7 10.0 3.5 0.2 Birds 4.5 2.4 0.7 0.2 Reptiles 7.8 3.9 4.3 0.0 Amphibians 11.4 5.3 6.1 0.4
Results at the individual‑level (head counts) Our analysis of the percentage of individuals (i.e. head counts) that are in the ISIS zoo collections shows that, for the highly‑threatened categories (EN, CR and EW), approximately one of every six individuals of the ISIS zoo’s reptiles is highly threatened. For mammals and amphibians the figure is one in seven, and for birds it is only one in fifteen (Table 2). For birds most of the zoo collections (space‑counts) are devoted to not highly‑threatened individuals.
Table 2. Number of individuals within ISIS zoos in each of the IUCN Red List Categories for the groups analyzed. IUCN Red List (RL) categories (NT = Near threaten; VU = Vulnerable, EN = Endangered, CR = Critically Endangered, EW= Extinct in the Wild) Number of individuals (head counts) in ISIS zoos per RL category Class Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Totals
Total 107,814 290,690 197,811 27,912 624,227
NT 4,999 26,167 2,834 993 34,993
VU 16,426 11,479 6,970 1,642 36,517
EN 10,493 17,735 2,563 989 31,780
Threaten CR 2,071 209 2,729 2,305 7,314
EW 133 53 0 302 488
Discussion and Conclusions A high percentage of the species in zoo collections are in above the Near Threaten Red List categories of the IUCN, with the exception of reptiles and birds. The highest percentages of threatened and Extinct in the Wild species were for mammals and amphibians. In the case of birds, most of the zoo collections are devoted to species categorized as Least Concern by the IUCN Red List. A similar figure exists for the individuals (head counts); we found that a high percentage of the zoo’s space‑counts are devoted to non‑highly‑threatened individuals for birds, however for mammals and amphibians at least one of every seven individuals and one of every six for reptiles are in the highly threatened Red List categories. Although individual zoos often do not have large populations of a particular species, collectively the zoos often hold a surprisingly large number of individuals even for highly‑threatened species. In this sense, zoos hold key knowledge on the management of an important proportion of species of conservation concern. It is key that zoos, as a global network, should strive to ensure genetically and demographically sustainable populations for the threatened and extinct ‑in‑the‑wild species that they hold.
Our study has the limitation that we only included ISIS zoos and that many zoos are not represented in ISIS. Therefore we expect that the number of species of conservation concern in zoos is even higher than the one we present here. Although ISIS is expanding its coverage, many zoos in low income countries are not yet represented in ISIS, and unfortunately the majority of these zoos are in areas with high levels of biodiversity and threats. However, we consider that ISIS is the best data source available to have a global estimate of the percentages of the IUCN Red Listed species in zoo collections. We consider that for the development of ex situ conservation management policies and strategies purposes it will be key to incorporate more zoos in ISIS, especially those located in the defined biodiversity hotspots . It is important to stress that ISIS plays a key role for the development of global conservation strategies for intensively managed population of threatened species, the data that ISIS hold allows the zoo community and policy makers to have worldwide perspective on the zoos allocation of space for threatened species.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
EAZA Conservation Campaigns: What Have We Learned and Where do We Go from Here? Lesley Dickie – EAZA Executive Director
Introduction EAZA is a highly variable organisation, with a membership that stretches across 36 countries, from zoos, aquariums, native species parks, bird parks and non‑zoo conservation NGOs. EAZA members all have a commitment to conservation of biodiversity, however this conservation effort is implemented at varying levels across the membership. It is a strategic aim of EAZA to Increase involvement of the members in in situ conservation and sustainable develop‑ ment efforts. To this end EAZA has run yearly conservation campaigns since the year 2000 and in that time they have been immensely varied and successful.
How do we choose the campaigns and who can participate? Potential campaigns are evaluated by the Conservation Committee of EAZA. Campaign proposals, prepared by either a single EAZA institution, or more usually a number of EAZA institutions and external partners, are forwarded by the EAZA Executive Office to the committee. Where there is more than one campaign proposed for the same year the committee will vote on the results before this is forwarded for final sign‑off by the Executive Committee and Council of EAZA. Over the years there has been some real competition in assigning the final campaign choice and the campaign proposal document prepared by the planning group has to have coherent and compelling arguments as to why the subject would make an excellent campaign, including both conservation outcomes achieved and applicability to the membership of EAZA. The campaigns are launched yearly at the EAZA annual conference (usually in September) having been developed for the previous 9-12 months by the campaign working group. The campaigns are a voluntary activity and it is recognised that not all campaigns will suit each EAZA member uniformly. However it is encouraged that all members participate at the very least at the awareness raising level, if not actively raising funds. Non‑EAZA institutions can participate, however they must be assessed by the EAZA Executive Office for suitability. From 2010 individuals can also officially participate.
How do the campaigns benefit EAZA? EAZA campaigns deliver many opportunities for the development of the association. Campaigns help increase collaboration between member institutions and they also help increase collaboration with non‑zoo external conservation NGOs. They generate significant awareness of conservation issues across Europe in multiple countries simultaneously and this also generates awareness that modern progressive zoos and aquariums contribute positively to conservation. The campaigns additionally raise significant additional funds for conservation beyond the monies spent yearly on biodiversity conservation by the membership. Finally the campaigns also act as catalysts to lobby for conservation‑friendly legislation at EU level whilst also highlighting to key decision makers that EAZA and its membership are ‘putting their money where their mouth is’. Given that the number one strategic aim of the association is to Increase influence at the EU the campaigns can help promote awareness of EAZA in EU mechanisms.
112 Upon what subjects have the campaigns focused? Since 2000 the campaigns have focused on issue‑led campaigns (Bushmeat 2000-01), geographic areas (Atlantic Rainforest 2001-02, Madagascar 20006-07), limited taxa (Tiger 2002-04, Rhino 2005-06) or multiple taxa (Shellshock 2004-05, Amphibians 2007-08, European Carnivores 2008-10). This diversity has resulted in consistently high involvement across the membership. The very first campaign was instigated in response to the increasing concern held by EAZA members and other conservation practitioners about the impact of bushmeat hunting on great apes in Africa. This was different in character from the following campaigns in that while there was some fundraising for ape projects this was predominantly a political campaign focusing on requesting the EU to increase dialogue with African range states to enforce legislation already in place to protect these species. Two of the campaigns have run for a two year period and this has been welcomed by some EAZA member institutions and this allows for more investment in interpretation materials. Alternatively others have noted that they would prefer the one year campaign model to continue, as for example a bird park finds it more challenging to take part in a rhino campaign. It is likely that there may continue to be variation from campaign to campaign. Each campaign identifies campaign goals, the two most significant accounting for more than 50% of the assessed goals being project fundraising and awareness of the conservation issue amongst public. More specific goals that were also identified including the proliferation of more dedicated breeding centres for amphibians, creating long term dedicated funds, to promote responsible ecotourism, to promote public involvement and action in conservation and to consider twinning with other non‑zoo partners where appropriate.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
The wide geographic focus is reflected in the conservation projects that have been funded. More than a third are African based, approximately a quarter in South America, slightly fewer in Asia, slightly fewer again in Europe and the remainder in the Middle East or non‑geographically based projects. To date at the time of this presentation (October 2010) 106 discrete projects have been funded.1
Some notable achievements for individual campaigns include;
• 1.9 million signatures on the bushmeat campaign petition, one of the largest petitions ever handed into the EU. This petition was accepted by the EU; • Forest corridors that benefit all wildlife built from funds from the Atlantic coastal forest campaign. The animal focus in this campaign In relation to actual projects, a diverwas the lion tamarin species, howsity of species have received funds. ever many other species have been Rhino’s, lion tamarins, chelonians subject to conservation action; and tigers have received the bulk of • Longitudinal projects could the species focused monies, with continue due to funds from the great apes, other primates (mostly Tiger campaign. This campaign ran lemurs) fish and European carnivores for two years and individually raised receiving the remainder at the time €750,000 for tiger conservation, of presenting this data. However, the focusing on projects in the Russian Far East and Asia; amphibian fund and the Madagascar fund are still distributing monies and • The Shellshock campaign was the largest ever single conservation this distribution pattern would likely effort for turtles and tortoises and change somewhat. continues to fund projects from the monies raised, including funding When examining non‑species focused emergency action to aid communiprojects a number of themes can ties assisting in turtle conservation be seen. Nearly half of the projects funded focused on habitat protection, after the tsunami in 2004; with provision of equipment com• The rhino campaign, which was ing a more distant second. Training, a joint campaign with Save the capacity building, ecotourism and Rhino International has led to EAZA community initiatives all featured, members becoming involved long with research projects coming last. ‑term in the focal projects, working through SRI and building on the partnership developed in the How much money campaign year; has been raised? • When a cyclone struck the east coast of Madagascar the MadagasTo date including money raised in the car campaign was quickly able to actual campaign years and monies raise €25,000 to help repair vital that have been received year on year structures in Masoala National Park in the name of the individual camand was amongst the first such paigns €3,882,914 has been raised relief money to reach the for biodiversity conservation. This is affected area; a significant sum of money, particu• 40% of all funds raised by EAZA larly when some of the focal animals members in the amphibian camare species which do not ordinarily paign were donated to Amphibian receive high focus in terms of funding Ark to keep the structures in place (chelonians, amphibians). To help long‑term, a vital function in the publicise the campaign further and to establishment of the Ark; celebrate the 10th anniversary of the • The carnivore campaign raised campaigns new campaign fact sheets awareness of contentious issues in are now available from the EAZA Europe, living with carnivores and website. continues to petition the EU for the Stop Poison campaign. 1 By December 2010 another 13 projects had been funded and the amphibian campaign fund had been reopened to new project applications
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
The Future A new EAZA campaign was launched on the 22nd September 2010 and focuses on apes. 2010 is the 10th anniversary of the initial EAZA campaign focusing on bushmeat and so it seemed fitting that the campaigns should come full circle. This time however the campaign highlights all apes, including gibbons, and has as much focus in Asia as in Africa. Important endorsements for the campaign have been received from the Species Survival Commission of the IUCN, the SSC’s Primate Specialist Group, UNEP GRASP and the Jane Goodall Institute. The campaign has a dedicated website at www.apecampaign.org. An ambitious fundraising target has been set at €1,000,000 and the 3333 Challenge has been set whereby if 300 institutions or individuals were to raise €3333 then the target could be met – bar the final €1 which we are should we could find.2 A significant aspect of the Ape campaign is a lobbying campaign to highlight the use of palm oil in products in the EU. Palm oil is causal in vast swathes of Asian and African primary forest being removed on a yearly basis. The EU is now the single largest consumer of palm oil yet has not set significant targets for sustainability of the product and in addition the majority of EU consumers are not aware that the products they buy contain this oil as there is no legal requirement for it to be labeled on any product sold in the community. The Provision of Food Information to Consumers Regulation is currently making its way through EU
2 At the time of writing (December 2010) €344,256 had been pledged to the EAZA Ape campaign. In tandem the AZA Ape TAG Conservation Initiative, launched in 2010, has created a fund of €310,000. This action by these two leading associations will provide impressive funding for ape conservation in 2011 and 2012.
administration and this presented an opportunity to highlight the cause of ape conservation to the MEPs of the EU and commission officials as well as providing consumer information. Working with the Irish MEP Nessa Childers, EAZA successfully lobbied to have an amendment added to the Regulation that required that palm oil be identified (along with other oils such as soya) in food products instead of a general vegetable oil label, disguising the provenance of the oil and whether its impacts were highly unsustainable. This was in the first reading of the regulation in the European Parliament in June 2010. It will now have to move to the Council of mInisters for their approval, however is likely to come back to the parliament for second reading.3 The 2011–12 campaign marks yet another collaborative campaign for EAZA. In that year the campaign will focus on South East Asia, highlighted by the IUCN SSC as an area that is facing the most extreme biodiversity loss. The SSC has begun an initiative called Action Asia in which EAZA is the first official partner and will now team up with EAZA to run this conservation campaign. Planning for the campaign is now underway and it will be launched in September 2011.
3 In December 2010 the Council of Ministers removed the amendment, a most disappointing development. However, the Regulation will now return to the Parliament for a second reading in February/March 2011and EAZA will continue to work with Nessa Childers to ensure that the amendment returns to the Regulation and thereafter will provide further information to the Council of Ministers as to why this information should be given to consumers.
Conclusion To summarise, the key achievements of the EAZA Conservation Campaigns have been; • Significant sums raised for biodiversity conservation; • More than 100 individual projects supported to date; • 100’s of millions of visitors exposed to coordinated conservation messages across Europe; • Enhanced collaboration between member institutions of EAZA; • Enhanced collaboration between EAZA and external conservation NGO’s; • Enhanced focus for conservation lobbying at the EU; • Improved public face of EAZA and progressive conservation focused association zoos and aquarium. EAZA will be undertaking a more thorough analysis of the campaigns and be investigating methods to evaluate the messaging provided to the public. However, EAZA is proud of the efforts made to date by the membership to create these highly effective campaigns and we hope to deliver effective conservation by this method into the future.
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
Multiplication Effect Through Partnerships: The Granby Zoo’s Experience Joanne Lalumière – Executive Director, Granby Zoo
Abstract In 1996, the Quebec Government decided to protect the Spiny Softshell Turtle in Quebec (about 100 adults left in the northernmost habitat for this species). Partners of the Spiny Softshell Turtle Recovery Team included the Quebec Government, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ecomuseum, Nature Conservancy and Granby Zoo. Granby Zoo’s collaboration included protocols, installation of transmitters, educational programs and artificial incubation of eggs. This partnership led to research and in situ conservation projects for other species in Quebec. In 2010, partners in eight recovery teams participated in a special Biodiversity Conservation Day at the Zoo to raise awareness about other endangered species in Quebec.
A Few Facts about Granby Zoo Founded in 1953, Granby Zoo is accredited by AZA, CAZA and is a member of WAZA. It welcomes over 600,000 visitors yearly and is open 115 days during the summer season and approximately 40 days in the winter. In addition, approximately 50,000 students visit the zoo annually. The daily attendance reached a peak in 2009 with more than 19,600 visitors. The zoo has an annual operating budget of over $15 million and hires more than 550 employees in its peak season. It is documented that Granby Zoo generates over $45 million direct and indirect regional economic spin offs yearly.
Granby Zoo’s animal collection consists of 1,000 animals from over 200 species. It participates to 25 SSPs and 29 PMPs and is involved in local endangered species recovery programs with the Quebec Government. The Zoo also collaborates with five universities in various research and education programs. Its basic educational programs are linked to the Ministry of Education’s programs and reach over 31,000 schoolchildren every year. Since 2004, it is a Green Zoo when aggressive measures were undertaken to reduce energy and water consumption and waste material. In December 2009, the Board approved a Sustainable Development Policy.
Initial Conservation Project In 1996, the Quebec Government decided to protect the Spiny Softshell Turtle in Quebec. This species is found in only one area in the province: the Lake Champlain and some of its tributaries. It is the northernmost distribution for this species in North America and it is estimated that a little more than 100 adults are left in the wild. Granby Zoo was among the founding members of the Spiny Softshell Turtle Recovery Team. The other founding members were: Quebec’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Wildlife, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ecomuseum and the Nature Conservancy. Since then, the Missisquoi Bay Corporation joined the team due to its activities in Lake Champlain.
Granby Zoo’s Participation in the Project Granby Zoo first started by collaborating to the necropsy protocols and to the installation of telemetric transmitters. In 2002, it was asked to raise public awareness for this endangered turtle. To do so, Granby Zoo developed educational programs and an interpretative module for elementary schools and the residents of the Lake Champlain area. Between 2002 and 2007, these programs reached more than 50,000 people. Since 2009, the Granby Zoo is involved in a new action plan to help avoid predation of the eggs in the nests and risks of predation of the young when leaving the nests after they’ve hatched. The plan consists in: a) following the females to their nesting site; b) observing them during that period; c) protecting the nests; d) collecting the eggs for artificial incubation and e) releasing them at the nesting site the day after they’ve hatched According to the action plan, Granby Zoo will incubate 20 eggs per year from 2009 to 2011 and release the hatchlings in the wild. In 2009, no eggs hatched but in 2010, 14 young turtles hatched and were released in the wild shortly after.
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln
Importance of Team Efforts
The success of artificial incubation has great significance for the Granby Zoo and its recovery team partners as it is an important step in saving the most threatened turtle species in Quebec. This success is due to the collaborative work of each team member. Each partner plays a specific and needed role in the recovery efforts through:
Thanks to the partnership with Quebec’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Wildlife, other research and in situ conservation projects have been initiated in Quebec in recent years namely for the Flying squirrel and the Eastern cougar, two rare species without a specific status for the time being in Quebec. Presently, they have been identified as “missing”.
• Establishing and respecting research protocols • Field work and data or egg collection • Lab work and data analysis • Education and awareness programs • Signage • Follow‑up reports
The increase in number and scope of conservation related activities has prompted the Granby Zoo to create in 2008 a scientific‑oriented department regrouping the Zoo’s scientific resources in order to increase the synergy in research, conservation, sustainable development and education efforts.
Media Interest (place photo here – which one?)
Every year, students from various facilities approach the Zoo to conduct • Protection of the Geoffroy’s bachelor, masters or Ph. D. level Colobus (Colobus vellerosus) research projects. Collaborative rein Ghana Center – Nature Consersearch projects have been developed vation Research Center and nine with a number of universities such as: surrounding communities • Puerto Rican Crested Toad • Endocrine Dynamics in the Colobus (Peltophryne lemur) SSP Monkey – Yale University • International Elephant Foundation • Grooming Behaviour in Captive • Snow Leopard Trust Mandrills – Concordia University • AZA Conservation • The Effect of Visitors on the BehavEndowment Fund iour of the Amur Tiger in Captivity – • Conservation Breeding York University Specialist Group • Research Project on Primate • Phoenix Fund (Amur Leopard) Genomic DNA – Université de Sher‑ • Instituto de Pesquisas Ecologicas brooke (Ocelots in Brazil) • Indigenous Fauna Survey on Saint ‑Quentin Island in Central Quebec – Université du Québec à Trois‑Rivières Concluding message
Granby Zoo’s scientific reputation in Quebec has since then increased and drawn the attention of media and other scientific partners.
In 2008, Granby Zoo initiated a Conservation Day held at the Zoo during the first week of July where different wildlife agencies (governmental and non‑governmental) hold booths to raise awareness regarding endangered species in Quebec. In 2010, the Year of Biodiversity, eight recovery teams held booths on Conservation Day and helped raise awareness about endangered species considered a priority by the Quebec Government. During the past three years, this one ‑day initiative has reached more than 20,000 visitors.
The dynamism of the Granby Zoo in its conservation efforts has drawn the attention of the Canadian Business and Biodiversity Secretariat which prepared a compendium of best practices in biodiversity in 15 sectors of activity. This work was presented on behalf of the Canadian Government in Nagoya at the COP 10 on Biodiversity. Granby Zoo was asked to represent the Education sector. The Spiny Softshell Turtle Recovery Program was chosen to be part of this compendium.
Other Collaborative Efforts The following is a list of out of Quebec research and in situ conservation projects to which the Granby Zoo participates financially or is actively involved in:
Through collaborative efforts at all levels, this planet has a chance to survive!
Proceedings of 65th Annual Conference
October 2010 | Cologne/Köln © Kölner Zoo Cologne conference participants.