24.11.2012 Views

Proceedings - Waza

Proceedings - Waza

Proceedings - Waza

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Proceedings</strong><br />

of the 65 th<br />

Annual Conference<br />

Cologne/Köln<br />

17–21 October 2010<br />

Biodiversity<br />

is Life<br />

WAZA Technical Congress<br />

Presentations only


Imprint<br />

Editor:<br />

Gerald Dick,<br />

WAZA Executive Office<br />

IUCN Conservation Centre<br />

Rue Mauverney 28<br />

CH-1196 Gland<br />

Switzerland<br />

phone: +41 22 999 07 90<br />

(WAZA Secretariat)<br />

Layout &Typesetting:<br />

michal@sky.cz<br />

Cover photo:<br />

Cathedral of Cologne, the Kölner<br />

Dom © Ulrike Fox, WAZA<br />

Edition:<br />

© WAZA 2011<br />

In order to make wise use of natural<br />

resources, it has been decided to<br />

offer the proceedings of WAZA<br />

Conferences in future online only.<br />

This saves paper resources and<br />

expensive postage costs, thus CO 2<br />

emissions. WAZA thanks for your<br />

understanding.<br />

www.waza.org (members’ area).<br />

Founding<br />

Member<br />

ISSN: 2073-6576


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 1<br />

Biodiversity<br />

is Life<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of the 65 th Annual Conference<br />

Technical Congress<br />

18–19 October 2010<br />

Hosted by Kölner Zoo


2<br />

Table of Contents<br />

Welcoming address by the Host .................................. 3<br />

Welcome by the Mayor<br />

of the City of Köln (Cologne) ........................................ 4<br />

Welcome Address on behalf of the German<br />

Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature<br />

Conservation and Nuclear Safety ................................ 5<br />

Welcome to the Region ............................................... 7<br />

Welcome Address by the WAZA President...................9<br />

Keynote Addresses ........................... 11<br />

Saving Biodiversity – Key Messages in the<br />

International Year of Biodiversity 2010 and the Roles<br />

of WAZA and the UNEP Convention<br />

on Migratory Species................................................. 12<br />

Biodiversity:<br />

Where Zoos Can Make a Difference ........................... 16<br />

Conserving Plant Diversity –<br />

the Role of Botanic Gardens and Zoos ....................... 19<br />

WAZA Congress Papers ..................... 23<br />

The One Curator – One Species Challenge ................. 24<br />

Re -thinking ex situ vs. in situ Species Conservation .... 25<br />

Defining What It Means to Save a Species –<br />

The Species Conservation Program<br />

of the Wildlife Conservation Society .......................... 30<br />

Building Sustainable Zoo Populations and<br />

Connecting Zoo Populations to Field Conservation,<br />

A Report by the AZA Task Force on the Sustainability<br />

of Zoo -based Populations: Phase 1. ........................... 32<br />

Chicago Zoological Society’s Center<br />

for the Science of Animal Welfare .............................. 36<br />

The ISO’s International<br />

Workshop Agreement (IWA) ..................................... 38<br />

Why Not Partner an African Zoo? .............................. 41<br />

Public and Private Sector Collaboration<br />

to Preserve Biodiversity in Aviculture ........................ 42<br />

The Value of Biodiversity and the Economics<br />

of Biodiversity Conservation ......................................46<br />

Beauval Conservation Program<br />

in Djibouti, “Back to Africa” ....................................... 50<br />

Back to Africa and Restorative Conservation,<br />

Pursuing the WAZA Conservation Strategy ............... 52<br />

Dvůr Králové Zoo and WAZA ‑branded<br />

Rhino Conservation Projects ..................................... 53<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

Letting the Cat Out of the Bag: Genetic Effects<br />

of Ex situ -Conservation in the European<br />

Wildcat (Felis silvestris) .............................................. 63<br />

India’s Initiative in Ex ‑situ Wildlife Conservation ........ 64<br />

“Joined -up Conservation”: Addressing Native<br />

Species Declines in Western Australia ........................ 67<br />

Developing Conservation Strategies<br />

for the Armenian Viper .............................................. 70<br />

An Overview and Evaluation<br />

of WAZA Conservation Projects ................................. 72<br />

Breeding, Research & Conservation<br />

of Tropical Herpetodiversity:<br />

Linking ex situ with in situ Approaches ........................73<br />

Zoo Personnel Serving an IUCN Specialist Group:<br />

An Introduction to the Northeast African Subgroup<br />

of the Antelope Specialist Group ............................... 78<br />

Zoos’ Role in Conserving the Diversity of<br />

a Small Taxon – from the Perspective of the<br />

Bear Specialist Group ................................................ 79<br />

The Sabah Rhino Project – Captive Breeding,<br />

Habitat Protection and Habitat Reforestation .......... 83<br />

Dysfunctional Zoos & What to Do? ............................ 84<br />

Transportation of CITES-listed Species ...................... 91<br />

How Do You Create A Zoo That Really Contributes<br />

Towards Biodiversity Conservation? .......................... 93<br />

Troubles in Paradise –<br />

Zoo Design for Conservation Education ..................... 97<br />

Biodome – Biomimicry – Biodiversity ........................99<br />

Zoos and Conservation – the Frankfurt Example ...... 102<br />

Husbandry Success in Zoos: A Constant Aim<br />

for Science and Practice .......................................... 105<br />

Where Are We Now? – Trends in Global Grants<br />

for Wildlife Conservation ......................................... 106<br />

Project MOSI<br />

(Mosquito Onset Surveillance Initiative) .................. 108<br />

The Conservation Status of the<br />

World Zoo’s Species ................................................ 109<br />

EAZA Conservation Campaigns: What Have<br />

We Learned and Where do We Go from Here? ..........111<br />

Multiplication Effect Through Partnerships:<br />

The Granby Zoo’s Experience....................................114


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 3<br />

Welcoming address by the Host<br />

Theo Pagel, Zoo Director & CEO – Cologne Zoo<br />

Welcome to Cologne!<br />

Dear WAZA members and guests, it<br />

is an absolute pleasure for me to welcome<br />

you all on behalf of the board<br />

of Cologne Zoo and the whole staff to<br />

the 65 th annual WAZA conference.<br />

This year, in 2010, we celebrate our<br />

150-year anniversary and are proud<br />

to host the WAZA meeting for the<br />

first time in our long history, to have<br />

colleagues from almost 40 countries<br />

around the world as guests. We will<br />

try our best to make you feel at home<br />

in our beautiful Zoo and our city full<br />

of culture and life!<br />

Let us together make this conference<br />

a successful one with a lot of<br />

fruitful workshops, discussions and<br />

results. “Biodiversity is Life: the Role<br />

of Zoos and Aquariums in Biodiversity<br />

Conservation” is our conference<br />

topic. We are the experts in keeping<br />

and breeding animals, in teaching<br />

about the importance of the fauna, of<br />

biodiversity in general.<br />

We all should use this meeting to become<br />

friends, close partners and take<br />

it as a chance to tell the people what<br />

we are doing.<br />

I wish you all a fruitful, enjoyable and<br />

happy time in Cologne.<br />

Yours<br />

© Ulrike Fox, WAZA<br />

Theo Pagel and Mark Penning at Kölner Dom.


4<br />

Welcome by the Mayor<br />

of the City of Köln (Cologne)<br />

Jürgen Roters, Oberbürgermeister<br />

• Dr. Elsa Nickel | Director<br />

Nature Conservation of the<br />

Federal Ministry for the Environment,<br />

Nature Conservation and<br />

Nuclear Safety<br />

• Dr. Lesley Dickie |<br />

Executive Director EAZA = European<br />

Association of Zoos and Aquaria<br />

• Dr. Thomas Kauffels |<br />

President of German Zoo<br />

Director’s Association<br />

• Dr. Gerald Dick |<br />

Executive Director WAZA<br />

• Dr. Mark Penning | President WAZA<br />

• Mr. Pagel<br />

Ladies and gentlemen,<br />

It is a great pleasure for me to welcome<br />

you here in Cologne on occasion<br />

of the 65th Annual Conference<br />

of the World Association of Zoos and<br />

Aquariums.<br />

For your information I would like to<br />

mention that I am not only the Mayor<br />

of Cologne but also Chairman of the<br />

Board of the Cologne Zoo. Therefore<br />

I am particularly interested in finding<br />

out more about what is going on in<br />

our zoo and in other zoos and aquariums<br />

worldwide.<br />

It is a great honour that you have<br />

decided to come to Cologne and<br />

its beautiful zoo which in this year<br />

celebrates its 150 th anniversary.<br />

Furthermore, under the leadership of<br />

Theo Pagel, the director of Cologne<br />

Zoo, and Christopher Landsberg his<br />

executive board partner we were able<br />

to inaugurate our new attraction this<br />

year. We’ve named it the “Hippodom”.<br />

What it shows is an African river<br />

landscape, an immersion exhibit as<br />

it is called. This allows our visitors to<br />

experience crocodiles, fishes, turtles<br />

and hippos under water – for most of<br />

them (both people and animals) an<br />

absolutely new experience. I gather<br />

that quite a few of you had the opportunity<br />

to visit our zoo yesterday and I<br />

really hope that you agree with me in<br />

that it is one of the leading institutions<br />

of its kind.<br />

Our zoo attracts some 1.5 million<br />

visitors each year and is only topped<br />

by the huge Cologne cathedral with<br />

nearly 4 million visitors annually.<br />

This impressive building is on your<br />

agenda later on during your social<br />

programme.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

We are very proud that in a recently<br />

published ranking in the International<br />

Zoo News our zoo was listed as number<br />

six of the big European zoological<br />

gardens. That shows that Theo Pagel<br />

and his team are on the right way.<br />

And I’m sure they will continue in<br />

that direction: A new master plan is<br />

scheduled to be presented at the end<br />

of this year.<br />

Ladies and gentlemen,<br />

We in Cologne understand that zoos<br />

and aquariums are necessary: If we<br />

want to change the world, these<br />

facilities are ideally suited as a vehicle<br />

to this end. Nowhere else are we able<br />

to get more people fascinated by<br />

nature than in zoos and aquariums.<br />

As 2010 has been declared the Year<br />

of Biodiversity it seems to be only<br />

consistent that you have chosen this<br />

thematic complex for your conference<br />

Biodiversity is Life: the Role of<br />

Zoos and Aquariums in Biodiversity<br />

Conservation.<br />

I believe that the Cologne zoo is just<br />

one in a number of outstanding zoos<br />

that are very active in research, education<br />

and of course in conservation.<br />

Ladies and gentlemen,<br />

Please allow me to wish you all an<br />

interesting and successful conference<br />

and a wonderful time in our zoo and<br />

our city.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 5<br />

Welcome Address on behalf<br />

of the German Federal Minister<br />

for the Environment, Nature<br />

Conservation and Nuclear Safety<br />

MinDirig Dr. Elsa Nickel<br />

Distinguished representatives of<br />

Zoos, Aquariums and Botanical gardens,<br />

paticipants of this conference,<br />

On his visit to Cologne Zoo on<br />

5 March 2010 for the celebrations<br />

marking the 150 th anniversary since<br />

the Zoo was founded, the German<br />

Federal Minister for the Environment<br />

and Nature Conservation, Dr. Norbert<br />

Röttgen, became patron of this<br />

65 th Annual Conference of the World<br />

Association of Zoos and Aquariums.<br />

Due to other pressing engagements,<br />

Minister Röttgen unfortunately cannot<br />

be present today for the opening<br />

of the conference, but he has asked<br />

me to pass on his greetings and very<br />

best wishes for its success.<br />

Coinciding with the start of your<br />

conference, the 10 th meeting of the<br />

Parties to the Convention on Biological<br />

Diversity (CBD) gets underway<br />

today in Nagoya, Japan.<br />

With 193 Parties, including the EU,<br />

the CBD is the most comprehensive<br />

international agreement in the field<br />

of nature conservation and sustainable<br />

development, not only with<br />

regard to the number of signatories,<br />

but also in terms of its scope and<br />

goals. The Convention has three main<br />

objectives:<br />

Biological diversity must be preserved,<br />

comprising all species, their<br />

genetic diversity and habitats; sustainable<br />

use of natural diversity must<br />

be achieved and every effort made to<br />

ensure that people in the countries of<br />

origin have a fair share in the profits<br />

arising from the use of biological and<br />

genetic resources.<br />

Achieving these three objectives is<br />

in the basic interest of mankind, not<br />

only for ecological and economic<br />

reasons, but for social reasons too.<br />

It is a challenge which calls for major<br />

efforts at national and international<br />

level from policy -makers, society and<br />

industry.<br />

A key strategy in the conservation of<br />

global biodiversity is to preserve sufficiently<br />

large natural habitats, to link<br />

these areas and protect them from<br />

overuse and poaching. Protected areas<br />

and national parks have thus been<br />

established in many countries, benefiting<br />

the flora and fauna, but also<br />

mankind. They have become tourist<br />

attractions. Even so, we have had to<br />

learn that it is not always possible for<br />

us to safeguard nature permanently<br />

in this way. Time and again, conservation<br />

efforts are thwarted by political<br />

unrest, serious famine and the needs<br />

for land and ressources of a growing<br />

world population. This often results<br />

in the decline of species, with many<br />

becoming extinct in the wild.<br />

The theme of your conference this<br />

year is "Biodiversity is Life: The role<br />

of Zoos and Aquariums in Biodiversity".<br />

To put it in more general terms,<br />

this is asking "what can zoos and<br />

aquariums do for species and nature<br />

conservation?" I am certain that the<br />

answer will be very apparent at this<br />

conference: They can do a great deal<br />

indeed!<br />

Zoological gardens and aquariums –<br />

and let me add: Botanical gardens –<br />

are increasingly important partners in<br />

nature and species conservation. For<br />

many years, the World Association<br />

of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) and<br />

many of its members have worked<br />

hard and diligently to preserve the<br />

rarest of the world's animal species<br />

through coordinated conservation<br />

breeding programmes. The excellent<br />

international cooperation deserves<br />

particular credit in this regard. Zoos<br />

and aquariums support each other<br />

in scientific research projects, with<br />

financing, and by sharing expertise in<br />

the breeding of endangered species.<br />

This paves the way for species which<br />

have already died out in their natural<br />

habitats to be returned to the wild<br />

as soon as the right conditions are in<br />

place.


6<br />

For decades, German zoos have<br />

enjoyed an outstanding reputation<br />

throughout the world for their<br />

efforts in the field of national and<br />

international species protection and<br />

conservation breeding. To give just<br />

one of many examples: Cologne Zoo<br />

has long worked closely with partners<br />

in Vietnam to preserve the unique<br />

amphibian diversity of the region.<br />

The cooperation with the amphibian<br />

breeding station of the Institute for<br />

Ecology and Biological Resources<br />

in Hanoi supports the breeding of<br />

endangered or little known Vietnamese<br />

amphibian species. Some of<br />

these were discovered only recently<br />

and had to be added immediately to<br />

the Red List because of their small<br />

distribution range and the continuous<br />

loss of habitat. The work this project<br />

involves is complex and demanding,<br />

and of course can only cover a limited<br />

number of species. Nevertheless, it is<br />

an important, necessary task and usefully<br />

supplements efforts to protect<br />

and restore habitats.<br />

I would like to highlight another<br />

especially important part played<br />

by zoos and aquariums, and that is<br />

their role in environmental education.<br />

The influence this has on species<br />

and nature conservation cannot be<br />

overestimated. While we can provide<br />

excellent scientific justification for<br />

species conservation, it still has to be<br />

conveyed to people on an emotional<br />

level. Animals in the zoo are often<br />

better "ambassadors" for nature than<br />

any words of warning, statistics or<br />

Red Lists. Particularly in our modern<br />

media age, it is imperative that<br />

people experience nature with all<br />

their senses. Ultimately, we will only<br />

protect the things we value. But can<br />

we value something we do not know?<br />

At a time when half the world population<br />

lives in cities, with barely any<br />

connection to wild animals or plants,<br />

zoos are often the only place where<br />

we can encounter elements of our<br />

original environment, even though<br />

they could never, and should never,<br />

completely replace it.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

This conference is notable for its<br />

wide range of presentations: Topics<br />

include reports on individual projects<br />

in zoos in Germany and elsewhere,<br />

the new challenges facing not only<br />

zoos but science in general as a result<br />

of climate change, and the economic<br />

aspects of biodiversity.<br />

I feel that it is very important to be<br />

open to new tasks and new problems.<br />

For in the coming decades the importance<br />

of zoos as an "Ark" for many<br />

species and as a basis for research<br />

and education will become more and<br />

more apparent. Climate change will<br />

transform the planet and is a major<br />

challenge facing life on Earth, as<br />

serious a challenge as that of halting<br />

the gradual but accelerating erosion<br />

of biodiversity. We must continue to<br />

do all we can to curb the rate of loss<br />

of species and habitats. Zoos and<br />

nature conservationists are reliable<br />

partners in these efforts.<br />

On behalf of its patron, the Federal<br />

Minister for the Environment, Norbert<br />

Röttgen, I wish this conference<br />

every success, with many interesting<br />

presentations and constructive<br />

discussions which help to advance<br />

nature and species conservation.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 7<br />

Welcome to the Region<br />

Dr Thomas Kauffels, President –<br />

VdZ (Verband Deutscher Zoodirektoren, German Zoo Directors’ Association)<br />

Dear Dr. Elsa Nickel,<br />

Dear Oberbürgermeister<br />

Jürgen Roters,<br />

Dear Simon Tonge, as Chairman of<br />

the European Association of Zoos and<br />

Aquaria, dear Simon,<br />

Dear Dr. Lesley Dickie, dear Lesley,<br />

Dear Dr. Mark Penning, dear Mark,<br />

Dear Dr. Gerald Dick, dear Gerald,<br />

dear colleagues from around<br />

the world,<br />

and last, but not least,<br />

Dear Theo,<br />

As President of the German Zoo<br />

Director’s Association, I am happy to<br />

welcome all of you in the region with<br />

the highest zoo densitiy in the world.<br />

In addition to the Cologne Zoo you<br />

will find the zoological gardens of<br />

Wuppertal, Dortmund, Neuwied,<br />

Bochum, Düsseldorf, Duisburg, Krefeld,<br />

Aachen and Gelsenkirchen in<br />

just a one hour drive around Cologne.<br />

These zoos have an average yearly attendance<br />

of about 5 Million visitors.<br />

If you add another 30 minutes you<br />

may reach Osnabrück, Münster,<br />

Rheine, Frankfurt and my zoo in<br />

Kronberg, not mentioned the Zoos of<br />

Arnheim, Apeldoorn and Kerkrade in<br />

the Netherlands, which are the same<br />

distance away. These zoos add 3.5<br />

Million annual visitors to the above<br />

mentioned crowd, and Cologne Zoo<br />

got at least another million!<br />

We as the regional zoo association<br />

are proud that, you Theo, hosts the<br />

65 th WAZA conference in 2010 here in<br />

Cologne.<br />

The German Zoo Director’s Association<br />

or VDZ was founded in 1887. It<br />

is not only the oldest association<br />

in our professional network worldwide,<br />

even the International Union of<br />

Directors of Zoological gardens, the<br />

IUDZG, as predecessor of WAZA, had<br />

its origin in the VDZ.<br />

But being 125 years old in 2012<br />

means only, that we are not half as<br />

old as our oldest still existing member<br />

zoo, Vienna, represented by colleague<br />

Dr. Dagmar Schratter. Vienna<br />

Zoo has a history of animal husbandry,<br />

care and exhibition in Europe since<br />

1752, 258 years.<br />

Cologne Zoo is the third Zoo in Germany,<br />

who is celebrating its 150 year<br />

anniversary; only Berlin in 1994 and<br />

Frankfurt in 2008 are older.<br />

And Cologne Zoo is one of the best<br />

examples, of what zoos in our days<br />

are standing for.<br />

Your Zoo, Theo, is highly valued by<br />

your local people. The Cologne citizens<br />

are very much interested, how<br />

your zoo is developing and take part<br />

on any occasion and zoo event. This<br />

is your zoo’s and your base, on which<br />

you can develop your worldwide<br />

engagement in conservation, and on<br />

which you and your whole team can<br />

really be proud of.<br />

And that is, for my understanding,<br />

what our work as zoo community is<br />

all about.<br />

We need the local support, We have<br />

to raise awareness and understanding<br />

in our visitors that our animals<br />

need their support, worldwide.<br />

We have the duty of educating our<br />

children and raise their respect for<br />

the other creatures on our planet.<br />

And we have to stand up and let everybody<br />

know that we and our institutions<br />

are the competence centres<br />

for species conservation and nature<br />

conservation and for animal welfare,<br />

because animal welfare starts in the<br />

brain of every person. But we should,<br />

in discussing our role in the world,<br />

never forget where we come from.<br />

We are the specialists in animal care<br />

and husbandry.<br />

We are recognised by the International<br />

Union of Conservation of Nature,<br />

IUCN, as the specialists in managing<br />

small populations, a knowledge,<br />

which was badly needed, and still is,<br />

in the global amphibian crisis and will<br />

be even more essential in the coming<br />

decades. Therefore the care for our<br />

animals in all its facettes should be<br />

our overall focus.


8<br />

This is our expertise, where no other<br />

organisations can really give more<br />

input than we can. Especially today,<br />

where on and off mostly self ‑declared<br />

animal activists try to reduce the role<br />

of zoological gardens to menageries,<br />

where the economical profit is higher<br />

valued than the animal itself, we need<br />

to clarify our role in the society, again<br />

and again.<br />

And it is a kind of interesting, but also<br />

scary, that in a hearing for a proposal<br />

for a new animal welfare law of the<br />

German green party, only 3 out of<br />

about 30 associations invited to comment<br />

on this proposal, were actual<br />

working with animals on a daily base.<br />

We have to stand up to the discussions,<br />

but we also have to make clear,<br />

perhaps even insist, that our institutions<br />

are the professionals, if we are<br />

talking about animals.<br />

We are the only hands -on experts.<br />

Therefore, as animal professionals,<br />

but with a sincere passion and commitment,<br />

we offer our expertise to<br />

the political decision making process.<br />

But, we need the political support, as<br />

you, Dr. Elsa Nickel, gives us today as<br />

the Director Nature Conservation of<br />

the Federal Ministry for Environment,<br />

Nature Conservation and Nuclear<br />

Safety.<br />

Please take it literally, that the German<br />

Zoo Director’s association is<br />

more than willing to support any<br />

political activities, which helps to anchor<br />

the need of conservation inside<br />

our society. If you may only use our<br />

institutions for this task, you already<br />

reach more than 30 million people<br />

annually, just in Germany.<br />

Let me finish with thanking you,<br />

Mr Roters, for supporting the Cologne<br />

Zoo, not only as a politician but<br />

personally, too.<br />

Supporting a zoo means to support<br />

an institution, where generations of<br />

visitors go to, but every generation<br />

expects something different.<br />

Being born and raised in Neuss on<br />

the Rhine River, which is located<br />

just 40 km downstream, means<br />

north, from here. I know the Cologne<br />

Zoo from childhood on. I even was<br />

employed as an animal keeper at<br />

Cologne Zoo in 1982. Furthermore<br />

I was so lucky to collect the data for<br />

my zoology master thesis on the<br />

Przewalski horses, here at Cologne<br />

Zoo in 1987.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

I tell you this, because I saw the<br />

developing of the Cologne Zoo over<br />

the years from different angles, not<br />

knowing that one day I will stand in<br />

front of you, like today, expected to<br />

make a political correct statement.<br />

With this personal experience I think<br />

that I am able to state that your zoo,<br />

Theo, made his homework over the<br />

years, was able to fascinate the humans,<br />

developed due to the visitor’s<br />

acceptance and expectations, but not<br />

forgetting the animals.<br />

I wish your zoo all the best for the<br />

future and let this conference be a<br />

success for you, us and for the benefit<br />

of our animals.<br />

Thank you.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 9<br />

Welcome Address by the<br />

WAZA President<br />

Mark Penning – SAAMBR (uShaka Sea World)<br />

South African Association for Marine Biological Research<br />

Your Worship the Mayor of Köln,<br />

Oberbürgermeister Jurgen Roters,<br />

distinguished guests, Ladies and<br />

Gentlemen,<br />

it is a pleasure to extend to you a<br />

warm welcome to the 65th Conference<br />

of the World Association of Zoos<br />

and Aquariums in Köln, Germany.<br />

“It is a real pleasure to be in a region<br />

with such a strong zoo and aquarium<br />

community, with a long and rich<br />

history. It is one of the most progressive<br />

regions too, and has given<br />

us some exceptional leaders who<br />

have changed the way in which we<br />

think about our business. The likes of<br />

Hagenbeck, Grzimek, Nogge…<br />

Es ist eine grosse Freude in einer<br />

Region mit einer so starken und<br />

tradsitionsreichen Zoo und Aquariengemeinschaft<br />

zu sein. Auch zählt<br />

Deutschland zu den innovatievsten<br />

Regionen unserer Gemeinschaft, die<br />

Pioniere wie Hagenbeck, Grzimek,<br />

Nogge und andere hervorgebracht<br />

hat.<br />

We are grateful indeed to Mr. Theo<br />

Pagel, the staff of the Kölner Zoo in<br />

this their 150th year, and the City of<br />

Köln, for hosting us this year. It is a<br />

most beautiful city, and we consider<br />

it a privilege to be here.”<br />

WAZA ist äusserst dankbar für die<br />

Einladung zur Jahreskonferenz nach<br />

Köln, insbesonders Theo Pagel und<br />

allen seinen Mitarbeitern und der<br />

Stadt Köln gebührt unser aufrichtiger<br />

Dank! Köln ist eine wunderschöne<br />

Stadt und es ist eine grosse Ehre hier<br />

sein zu können.<br />

Thank you also to representatives<br />

of our major strategic partners who<br />

have joined us today, from UNEP/<br />

CMS, WWF International and BGCI.<br />

Our conference theme this year is<br />

“Biodiversity is Life.” In our world<br />

today, people are becoming increasingly<br />

separated from nature. At least<br />

half the world’s population lives in<br />

cities, and too many believe that biodiversity<br />

can be achieved by having a<br />

few protected areas here and there<br />

to serve as living museums. Society in<br />

general does not understand that the<br />

inter -connectedness of everything on<br />

earth is critical to our own survival.<br />

In 2002, Parties to the Convention on<br />

Biodiversity set a target to significantly<br />

slow biodiversity loss worldwide<br />

by 2010, a target endorsed by<br />

the United Nations General Assembly.<br />

In this, the year of Biodiversity, representatives<br />

of 192 member nations<br />

of the Convention on Biodiversity will<br />

meet at the 10th Conference of Parties<br />

in Nagoya Japan to see how close<br />

we have come. I’m sure all of us here<br />

know in our hearts that we have fallen<br />

well short of our goal, and at the<br />

Conference of Parties we will need to<br />

examine our successes and failures,<br />

and formulate new strategies.<br />

Here in Köln, we have gathered to<br />

discuss the role of zoos and aquariums<br />

in the conservation of biodiversity.<br />

Our efforts to connect people<br />

with nature have been quantified<br />

over the last year – we know that our<br />

collective institutions host some 700<br />

million visitors each year, a remarkable<br />

opportunity for us to bring<br />

about the social changes that are so<br />

desperately needed. Our efforts to<br />

conserve species and ecosystems was<br />

also quantified – following a survey<br />

this year, our collective spend on<br />

field conservation was conservatively<br />

estimated to be US$350 million annually,<br />

placing the international zoo and<br />

aquarium community right up with<br />

the major conservation NGO’s.


10<br />

You may have noticed that I refrained<br />

from using the terms in situ and ex<br />

situ – as Jeffrey Bonner so eloquently<br />

stated in his opening address to<br />

EAZA this year, they force us to think<br />

about the world in two boxes. They<br />

give the impression that we either<br />

have animals in “captivity” or animals<br />

in “the wild” with nothing in between.<br />

Obviously there is an entire spectrum<br />

instead, depending on the degree<br />

of management of the creatures<br />

themselves and of their environment.<br />

Animals can certainly be kept wholly<br />

ex situ on the one end of the spectrum,<br />

but I’m not sure that wholly in<br />

situ applies in many instances any<br />

longer. Even in Africa’s big game<br />

parks, a significant degree of management<br />

intervention is required for<br />

veld management, predator control<br />

and the like. So what are the terms<br />

we should be using – I’m not sure<br />

what the answer is, but perhaps that<br />

will be one of the outcomes of this<br />

conference?<br />

Despite the global economic situation<br />

over the last year, WAZA managed<br />

to achieve a net increase in<br />

membership in all categories. There<br />

is no doubt we serve a dynamic and<br />

driven community.<br />

I would like everyone here to recall<br />

one of the outcomes of the World<br />

Conservation Congress in Barcelona,<br />

2008, which was to organize a World<br />

Species Congress. This has been a<br />

talking point ever since – the five<br />

international Parks Congresses have<br />

been very successful in increasing the<br />

number and extent of the world’s protected<br />

areas, the creation of trans-<br />

-boundary parks and a host of other<br />

achievements. What is needed now is<br />

to focus the world’s attention on the<br />

loss of biodiversity on a species -by-<br />

-species basis, and the mechanism<br />

by which that can be achieved is a<br />

world species congress. It will require<br />

the participation of governments,<br />

NGOs, the academic community, the<br />

specialists groups of the IUCN, and,<br />

of course, our community. It will be<br />

expensive and will require enormous<br />

effort. But it is what we must do.<br />

The World Species Congress, our response<br />

to climate change, and a host<br />

of other pressing issues will be tackled<br />

during this conference. It promises<br />

to be an exciting week. To all of<br />

you, a warm welcome, and I trust that<br />

you will enjoy a truly memorable stay<br />

in Köln.<br />

Thank you.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 11<br />

Keynote<br />

Addresses


12<br />

Saving Biodiversity –<br />

Key Messages in the International<br />

Year of Biodiversity 2010 and the Roles<br />

of WAZA and the UNEP Convention<br />

on Migratory Species<br />

Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, Executive Secretary –<br />

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (UNEP/CMS)<br />

Dear Deputy Director General Nickel,<br />

Dear Mayor Roters, Dear Director<br />

Pagel, Dear Friends of CMS, Ladies<br />

and Gentlemen,<br />

I feel honoured to have been asked to<br />

deliver, as the Executive Secretary of<br />

the UNEP Convention on the Conservation<br />

of Migratory Species of Wild<br />

Animals – or CMS for short – a keynote<br />

address to this year’s Annual Conference<br />

of the World Association of Zoos<br />

and Aquariums, the 65th of its kind.<br />

It is a pleasure to see several familiar<br />

faces in the room. I especially would<br />

like to thank the WAZA team and the<br />

Cologne Zoo’s staff, who have worked<br />

hard to make this conference happen.<br />

The Convention on Migratory Species<br />

– based in Cologne’s neighbour<br />

city Bonn, and therefore also known<br />

as the Bonn Convention – is an inter‑<br />

governmental treaty aiming to conserve<br />

terrestrial, aquatic and avian<br />

migratory species throughout their<br />

ranges. Since the Convention’s entry<br />

into force in 1983, its membership<br />

has grown steadily to include currently<br />

114 Parties from Africa, Central<br />

and South America, Asia, Europe and<br />

Oceania. However, the largest countries,<br />

be it by territory, population or<br />

economic size, though cooperating<br />

with CMS on certain aspects, have yet<br />

to become Parties to CMS. The support<br />

of our partners, including WAZA,<br />

in continuing to lobby for their accession,<br />

is crucial.<br />

CMS, through its array of agreements,<br />

cooperation arrangements, action<br />

plans and other measures negotiated<br />

in cooperation with species’ range<br />

states, aims to ensure the long -term<br />

survival and sustainability of these<br />

travellers of the animal kingdom.<br />

Conserving or restoring the places<br />

where they live, mitigating obstacles<br />

to migration and controlling other<br />

factors that might endanger them are<br />

among CMS’s principal goals. Besides<br />

establishing obligations for each<br />

State Party to the Convention and<br />

its agreements, CMS also promotes<br />

concerted actions among the Range<br />

States of many species.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,<br />

As you may be aware, migratory<br />

species are of special importance to<br />

all of us as they serve as indicators of<br />

biodiversity decline and ecosystem<br />

health. They are dependent on a<br />

variety of often far ‑flung habitats as<br />

well as intact migration corridors to<br />

complete their complex life cycles.<br />

They in effect have the function of the<br />

metaphorical “canary in the mine”:<br />

if only one link in the chain of their<br />

migration breaks, the entire species<br />

has to rapidly adapt or face extinction.<br />

A famous example, which we<br />

all know, is the Polar Bear, increasingly<br />

restricted in its movements and<br />

hunting behaviour by the vanishing of<br />

large parts of its icy habitat. Whether<br />

this iconic species will be able to overcome<br />

the daunting challenges posed<br />

by such a rapid and – at least for the<br />

time being – irreversible change in its<br />

surroundings, remains to be seen.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 13<br />

Migratory animals face varied and numerous<br />

threats. Permit me to briefly<br />

highlight a selected few.<br />

• Manmade structures, such as dams<br />

and windfarms can – if constructed<br />

without forethought – become barriers<br />

to migration, altering fish and<br />

bird species’ usual routes or cutting<br />

them off entirely from parts of their<br />

life journeys. A current example<br />

are plans in Tanzania, my own<br />

country, to build a road through the<br />

Serengeti, with unknown and most<br />

likely detrimental effects on the migrations<br />

of vast herds of wildebeest,<br />

zebra and many other species. CMS,<br />

together with others, is lobbying<br />

for an alternative route around the<br />

south border of this iconic park.<br />

• Unnatural underwater noise, for example,<br />

from ship traffic and seismic<br />

underwater resource exploration,<br />

can impair the ability of whales<br />

and dolphins to communicate and<br />

navigate, and lead to changes in<br />

behaviour. Social disruption and<br />

spatial displacement are possible<br />

consequences, to the detriment of<br />

the species.<br />

• Habitat loss and fragmentation<br />

remove important resting points<br />

for birds or habitat corridors for<br />

terrestrial mammals like the African<br />

Elephant, making migration much<br />

more perilous and difficult.<br />

Ladies and Gentlemen,<br />

Another major and topical global<br />

human -induced threat, which this<br />

conference will also be discussing, is<br />

of course Climate Change. Migratory<br />

species with their often enormous<br />

ranges and delicately timed migratory<br />

behaviour are especially at risk.<br />

The Zoological Society of London, on<br />

behalf of CMS, is conducting research<br />

into the effects of climate change on<br />

migratory species. The preliminary<br />

results and outcomes coming out of<br />

this research work are sobering, as<br />

the negative effects and impacts of<br />

climate change on migratory species<br />

are manifold and complex, putting<br />

virtually all migratory species at great<br />

risk. Again a few examples to illustrate<br />

the threats:<br />

• Increasing temperatures and the<br />

acidification of oceans lead, through<br />

a change in the water’s chemical<br />

properties, to a decline in the abundance<br />

of krill, which forms the base<br />

of the marine food chain. Baleen<br />

whales, the Basking and Whale<br />

Shark, as well as many smaller species<br />

directly depend on this food resource<br />

and will suffer. This development<br />

is further exacerbated by the<br />

fact that the poles, around which<br />

temperatures rise most strongly,<br />

are the most important areas for<br />

krill development.<br />

• A further effect of ocean warming<br />

and acidification is the destruction<br />

of coral reefs, which can already<br />

be very clearly documented. Coral<br />

reefs are an irreplaceable pillar of<br />

marine life and function as uncounted<br />

species’ nursery.<br />

• Sex ratios of many reptiles, fish and<br />

even birds are influenced by warming,<br />

and even very slight temperature<br />

rises can lead to a feminisation<br />

of populations. This in turn affects<br />

the future breeding success of CMS<br />

species like the Green turtle, Hawksbill<br />

turtle and Loggerhead turtle, to<br />

name but a few.<br />

• Changes in rainfall patterns and<br />

abundance affect wetland habitats,<br />

which are often crucial breeding or<br />

feeding grounds, especially for migratory<br />

birds. The grazing habitats<br />

of terrestrial mammals are equally<br />

disrupted, with already dry regions<br />

possibly becoming uninhabitable,<br />

affecting for example species like<br />

the Sahelo -Saharan Addax or Dama<br />

gazelle. 1<br />

• The frequency of extreme weather<br />

event is on the rise, damaging habitats<br />

and in some cases reducing the<br />

availability of important resources.<br />

For example, the availability of the<br />

Mexican free -tailed bat’s insect prey<br />

is decreased by poor weather.<br />

• The rising of sea levels by anything<br />

between a few dozen centimetres<br />

and several meters, as predicted<br />

by the various models, could have<br />

severe adverse effects on sea turtle<br />

breeding success and a variety of<br />

low -lying coastal habitats needed<br />

by various birds and such mammals<br />

as the Mediterranean Monk Seal.<br />

1 Both occur in small areas throughout the<br />

Sahara and Sahel region; Hanover zoo plays<br />

a lead role in Addax ex-situ breeding and<br />

reintroduction schemes.<br />

In response to temperature changes,<br />

biomes and habitats will shift, affecting<br />

migratory species’ life cycles and<br />

potentially leading to mismatches<br />

between migratory behaviour and<br />

resource or habitat availability. In<br />

this regard, Zoos may very well have<br />

an important role to play in helping<br />

displaced species through difficult<br />

adaption phases. It is our hope, for<br />

example, that Zoos will be able to<br />

offer artificial resting and feeding<br />

opportunities or undertake breeding<br />

and reintroduction programs. I am<br />

happy to see that several contributions<br />

will be addressing Climate<br />

Change tomorrow and I look forward<br />

to discuss with you all the effects and<br />

impacts and how together we can<br />

help and support these threatened or<br />

critically threatened species.<br />

Ladies and Gentlemen,<br />

WAZA, needless to say, is a leading<br />

forum and umbrella organisation for<br />

quality zoos and aquariums throughout<br />

the world. Through its many<br />

member zoos and aquariums, WAZA<br />

has the potential to reach and educate<br />

millions of visitors and influence<br />

their position towards animals and<br />

conservation. We all know well how<br />

fundraising and implementing in situ<br />

conservation is an essential part of<br />

everyday work in any good zoo and<br />

it is our hope that WAZA is well supported<br />

to accomplish this noble task.


14<br />

In late 2008, WAZA and CMS signed<br />

a Partnership Agreement. As most<br />

of you will know, this agreement was<br />

then immediately filled with life as<br />

WAZA and CMS, together with the<br />

UNEP Great Ape Survival Partnership,<br />

worked together closely during the<br />

2009 Year of the Gorilla (YoG) campaign.<br />

WAZA, through direct action<br />

and through the engagement of its<br />

numerous members, played an important<br />

role in making this campaign<br />

truly global. It reached out to the<br />

public through educational displays,<br />

talks and tours, and the over 100<br />

participating WAZA zoos were crucial<br />

for delivering the message of YoG to<br />

a broad and multifaceted audience,<br />

from the enthusiastic naturalist to the<br />

chance visitor. Fundraising activities<br />

for a variety of gorilla conservation<br />

projects and activities were a further<br />

key contribution that WAZA was well<br />

positioned to make.<br />

I would, therefore, like to take this<br />

opportunity to name only a few of<br />

the outcomes of YoG, to which WAZA<br />

contributed immensely:<br />

• Several field projects in the gorilla<br />

range states received financial support<br />

from a variety of YoG fundraising<br />

efforts. These included projects<br />

addressing wildlife law enforcement<br />

– a key issue with regards to<br />

the bushmeat trade – , deforestation<br />

and community involvement<br />

in conservation work. WAZA zoos<br />

raised funds for Year of the Gorilla<br />

projects and other gorilla activities.<br />

We believe there is great scope for<br />

future cooperation of this kind on<br />

mutually agreed projects and species<br />

of shared and common interest.<br />

• A number of publications of lasting<br />

value were another outcome of the<br />

YoG, including an excellent WAZA<br />

educational kit called “All about<br />

Gorillas”, which was translated into<br />

4 languages and will continue to<br />

serve as a valuable tool to interest<br />

and involve children and youths in<br />

gorilla conservation.<br />

• With a large number of activities<br />

organized by WAZA - and GRASP-<br />

-partners as well as the CMS and<br />

several enthusiastic individual<br />

supporters, regular press releases,<br />

plus a regularly updated and well-<br />

-frequented website and blog, the<br />

global visibility achieved by YoG<br />

was significant. In 2009 alone, there<br />

were several hundred news articles<br />

in English, German, French and<br />

other languages, as well as over<br />

40,000 web references for Year of<br />

the Gorilla.<br />

Ladies and Gentlemen,<br />

We have learned a lot from the Year<br />

of the Gorilla campaign, notably that<br />

the choice of adequate partners determines<br />

much of the success of such<br />

a campaign. YoG focused on awareness<br />

and education, and was very<br />

successful in reaching out to a large<br />

number of people, from interested<br />

children to professional conservationists.<br />

Our campaign partners, WAZA<br />

and GRASP, proved to be well suited<br />

and much of the campaigns outreach<br />

success is attributable to activities undertaken<br />

by zoos. Furthermore, it is<br />

clear that support for actual field conservation<br />

projects is crucial for both<br />

the effectiveness and the credibility<br />

of such a campaign. Though the YoG<br />

was able to raise significant funds<br />

for projects, even more fundraising<br />

should be undertaken in future, with<br />

a more fine ‑tuned approach to project<br />

fundraising. Again partnerships<br />

are a central aspect, as the UN is not<br />

well suited for small -scale fundraising<br />

from individual donors. Partners like<br />

WAZA zoos and conservation NGOs<br />

bring to the table a very good capacity<br />

to tap into available resources at<br />

this level, which they did during the<br />

YoG, while CMS has the appropriate<br />

tools to approach state donors.<br />

The establishment of lucrative and<br />

ethically appropriate Public -Private-<br />

-Partnerships with the private sector<br />

is a further aspect to be pushed considering<br />

the current global financial<br />

difficulties.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

Gorillas are just one species in which<br />

WAZA and CMS have a shared interest.<br />

There are many more, ranging<br />

from the emblematic African Elephant<br />

and the Saiga Antelope to<br />

more elusive beings, such as bats. In<br />

fact, CMS and its EUROBATS Agreement<br />

have decided to make 2011<br />

the European Year of the Bat, with<br />

an expansion to a global campaign<br />

foreseen for 2012. The campaign was<br />

launched at the EUROBATS Meeting<br />

of Parties last month in Prague, and<br />

I would like to urge you all to join us<br />

and become supporters and partners<br />

of this two -year campaign. We highly<br />

welcome any contribution from you<br />

all to make it a success, and invite you<br />

to find out more about the campaign<br />

on our dedicated website.<br />

Ladies and Gentlemen,<br />

2010, as you all know, is the International<br />

Year of Biodiversity. In<br />

April 2002, most nations committed<br />

themselves, through the Convention<br />

on Biological Diversity, to achieve<br />

by 2010 a significant reduction of the<br />

current rate of biodiversity loss at the<br />

global, regional and national level as<br />

a contribution to poverty alleviation<br />

and to the benefit of all life on Earth.<br />

This target, called the 2010 biodiversity<br />

target, was subsequently endorsed<br />

by the United Nations General<br />

Assembly and made a Millennium<br />

Development Goal.<br />

According to the third Global Biodiversity<br />

Outlook, which was published<br />

earlier this year, it is clear that this<br />

target has, on the whole, not been<br />

met, though there are also some<br />

partial successes, an example being<br />

growing populations of several<br />

threatened European bat species – a<br />

growth that we at CMS like to believe<br />

is partly due to the work done by the<br />

CMS EUROBATS agreement. Biodiversity<br />

as a political topic has certainly<br />

become more prominent over<br />

the last years and much work is being<br />

done to safeguard natural wealth<br />

and reduce biodiversity loss. On the<br />

whole, humanity has nevertheless<br />

not been able to stem the loss of life,<br />

and with growing human populations<br />

and escalating resource use, time is<br />

no longer on our side.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 15<br />

This is a blunt assessment – however,<br />

we have no choice but to face this<br />

simple fact if we are to succeed in the<br />

future.<br />

In order to truly reach decision makers,<br />

whose outlook seldom extends<br />

beyond 10-20 years, an important<br />

point that we will have to keep stressing<br />

is the fact that preserving intact<br />

ecosystems and biodiversity makes<br />

sense not only from an ecological, but<br />

also from an economic and geostrategic<br />

point of view. A recent major<br />

international study by UNEP draws<br />

attention to the global economic benefits<br />

of biodiversity and ecosystem<br />

services to the economy, to society<br />

and to individuals, while highlighting<br />

the growing costs of biodiversity<br />

loss and ecosystem degradation. The<br />

report clearly shows that the cost of<br />

sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem<br />

services is much lower than the<br />

cost of allowing biodiversity and<br />

ecosystem services to dwindle, as all<br />

human wellbeing and activity ultimately<br />

rests on the pillars of natural<br />

wealth. Biodiversity, the variety of life<br />

on Earth, sustains the living networks<br />

and systems that provide us all with<br />

health, wealth, food, fuel and the<br />

vital services our lives depend on.<br />

For example, rainforests in the tropics<br />

are essential components of the<br />

global precipitation cycle, which in<br />

turn allows for large crop yields in<br />

more temperate regions. Biodiversity<br />

is a key component of this cycle not<br />

only through the trees that make up<br />

rainforests, but equally through the<br />

animals and microorganisms without<br />

whose activities (e.g. seed dispersal;<br />

breaking down dead plant matter)<br />

the forest would collapse within<br />

years. If this system were to break<br />

down because of manmade destruction<br />

of rainforests, the consequences<br />

would go far beyond food shortages.<br />

Another example is the role of fisheries,<br />

on which one fifth of the world<br />

population depend as their main<br />

source of protein. Human -dominated<br />

marine ecosystems are experiencing<br />

accelerating loss of populations and<br />

species, mostly due to overfishing,<br />

with wealthy countries being most<br />

to blame. Science indicates that restoration<br />

of biodiversity through the<br />

establishment of large, strictly enforced<br />

no -catch zones would greatly<br />

increase productivity of the world’s<br />

oceans. This again demonstrates the<br />

principle that the cost of sustaining<br />

biodiversity is tiny compared to the<br />

mid ‑ to long ‑term benefits.<br />

Beyond these systemic values of biodiversity<br />

and species, there are also<br />

various other benefits to be derived,<br />

for example through ecotourism<br />

and the associated developmental<br />

opportunities – think of the famous<br />

Mountain Gorilla watching in Rwanda<br />

and Uganda or the many jobs created<br />

by safari tourism. Encouraging and<br />

supporting the development of such<br />

alternative livelihoods that do not<br />

undermine ecosystem services, for<br />

example also beekeeping and sustainable<br />

agriculture, is a way to help<br />

maintain the integrity of habitats.<br />

In an ideal world, animals and ecosystems<br />

would of course be protected<br />

for their own sake and intrinsic worth,<br />

not because of their economic value.<br />

However, we must use all tools at<br />

our disposal, and economic arguments<br />

tend to attract the attention<br />

of people who may otherwise view<br />

biodiversity conservation as a “soft”,<br />

neglectable topic. As I noted with<br />

interest, this conference will go into<br />

some detail on this topic, with the<br />

economics of biodiversity conservation<br />

being addressed later today.<br />

Just last month, the UN General<br />

Assembly came together in a High-<br />

-Level Meeting to discuss biodiversity<br />

loss and related issues. Though<br />

late and with limited outcomes, we<br />

should take this event as encouragement<br />

to redouble our efforts. As you<br />

will know, the biannual Conference<br />

of the Convention on Biological<br />

Diversity is starting today in Nagoya,<br />

Japan. Let us hope that states will see<br />

the urgency to take a more proactive<br />

and inclusive stance, for the benefit<br />

of us all. The conference will adopt<br />

so -called post -2010 targets, reiterating<br />

and where necessary refining<br />

the global community’s biodiversity<br />

conservation goals. However, actually<br />

achieving these goals is a very different<br />

thing, and this is where partnerships<br />

come in. Only an effective<br />

combination of global policy changes<br />

and state funding on the one hand<br />

and grassroots projects and activities<br />

on the other can bring about the kind<br />

of change we are all working for.<br />

Before making way for the next<br />

speaker, I would again like to underline<br />

the value of close future cooperation<br />

between CMS and the WAZA<br />

network. I think we can build on<br />

our positive and mutually beneficial<br />

experiences during the Year of the<br />

Gorilla as well as on our many shared<br />

goals and focal species to expand our<br />

cooperation into the future.<br />

I wish you all a pleasant, interesting<br />

and successful meeting. Thank you<br />

very much for your kind attention.


16<br />

Biodiversity:<br />

Where Zoos Can Make a Difference<br />

Claude Martin, former Director General – WWF International<br />

The Failure<br />

to meet the CBD Targets<br />

As the WAZA Annual Conference<br />

coincides with the COP in Nagoya<br />

it might be just as well to briefly<br />

reflect on some of the reasons why<br />

the international community failed<br />

to achieve the 2002 CBD target, as<br />

endorsed by the World Summit for<br />

Sustainable Development (WSSD) in<br />

Johannesburg. Although at the time<br />

of the WAZA conference we do not<br />

know yet what will be said in Nagoya,<br />

there can be little doubt that we are<br />

far off “a significant reduction of the<br />

current rate of biodiversity loss at a<br />

global, regional and national level as<br />

a contribution to poverty alleviation<br />

and to the benefit of all life on Earth”.<br />

We have certainly won a few battles<br />

(e.g. a further increase in the protected<br />

areas coverage), but by and large<br />

we are still on a course to lose the war.<br />

In attempting to analyze some of the<br />

intrinsic difficulties of biodiversity<br />

conservation, one has to recognize<br />

that the term “biodiversity” is complex<br />

and as such cannot be measured<br />

with indicators that provide conclusive<br />

evidence. The term “biodiversity”<br />

it its current meaning was first<br />

introduced in the 1970’s by Raymond<br />

F. Dasmann, one of the environmental<br />

visionaries, and at that time Senior<br />

Ecologist at the IUCN. In 1986, at<br />

the US National Forum on Biological<br />

Diversity the term was described as<br />

“the variation of life forms within a<br />

given ecosystem, biome or the entire<br />

Earth” and subsequently defined<br />

as the “totality of genes, species<br />

and ecosystems”. By this, the term<br />

became a conglomerate and a sort of<br />

substitute for “Nature”, in an attempt<br />

to combine its three levels – the<br />

genetic, species as well as the ecosystems<br />

diversity. As meritorious this<br />

attempt may have been, as doubtful<br />

it has remained as a tool to monitor<br />

the changes occurring in the world’s<br />

living systems.<br />

Inadequate<br />

Biodiversity Indicators<br />

In light of the difficulties to measure<br />

any progress of the CBD target<br />

mentioned above, it is legitimate to<br />

ask the question whether the quote<br />

of the economist Peter Drucker does<br />

not apply in this case: “If you can’t<br />

measure it, you can’t manage it”.<br />

Thus the need to create substitute<br />

targets that may give an indication of<br />

progress, although they do not actually<br />

measure the state of biodiversity.<br />

The protected areas target set at the<br />

CBD COP in 2004 is an example for<br />

such a substitute target: “By 2010<br />

terrestrially and 2012 in the marine<br />

area, a global network of comprehensive,<br />

representative and effectively<br />

managed national and regional<br />

protected area system is established”.<br />

The IUCN Red Data Books provide<br />

a better idea of biodiversity trends,<br />

although, strictly speaking they are<br />

not biodiversity indicators neither. In<br />

2009 they counted 47’677 assessed<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

species and recorded 36 per cent of<br />

these species as in various degrees<br />

endangered. A particularly rapid<br />

increase of endangered species was<br />

recorded among amphibians (31%)<br />

as well as reef building corals (27%),<br />

both pointing to the increasing threat<br />

of climate change. Although the<br />

Red Data Books only cover a small<br />

fraction of the currently described<br />

species, they provide a sense of the<br />

dynamics of biodiversity degradation,<br />

if not a representative one. Considerably<br />

more questionable are the often<br />

cited extinction rates of 100 – 1000<br />

times the historical background rates.<br />

These projections go back to some<br />

very rough estimations made in the<br />

1990’s but can neither be proven nor<br />

refuted, simply because we have no<br />

idea of the number of species existing<br />

on this planet, and even less an idea<br />

of the state of survival of the large<br />

majority of them. Without being able<br />

to substantiate extinction rates it is<br />

not particularly meaningful to continue<br />

using these guesses.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 17<br />

The Taxonomic Impediment<br />

Because of the lack of baseline data<br />

on species numbers and their status,<br />

the CBD launched the “Global Taxonomy<br />

Initiative – GTI” in 2002 www.<br />

cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd -ts -30.<br />

pdf with the aim to remove or reduce<br />

the knowledge gaps in the taxonomic<br />

system and to address the shortage<br />

of trained taxonomists and curators<br />

for the benefit of biodiversity conservation.<br />

The taxonomic impediment,<br />

however, is not least the responsibility<br />

of biology departments at universities<br />

who have in the past decades<br />

largely abandoned phenomenology<br />

and taxonomic sciences, at least in<br />

continental Europe. Many younger biologists<br />

thus do not have any faunistic<br />

or floristic knowledge anymore, a<br />

condition that does not help biodiversity<br />

conservation. All the more<br />

remarkable has been the achievement<br />

of the “Census of Marine Life –<br />

CoML” www.coml.org – a ten years’<br />

program completed in October 2010.<br />

The 2700 scientists from 80 countries<br />

that participated in this 650 million<br />

USD project identified about 200’000<br />

marine species and described 1200<br />

new ones, with another 5000 species<br />

yet to be described.<br />

Baseline data is but one prerequisite<br />

for biodiversity conservation. Assessing<br />

the extent of biodiversity loss<br />

and its drivers is yet another major<br />

challenge. In 1998 WWF International<br />

created a tool – the Living Planet Index<br />

(LPI) – to provide information on<br />

the trends of vertebrate populations<br />

for which population estimates exist<br />

since at least 1970. Today the LPI, together<br />

with the Ecological Footprint<br />

Analysis, is part of a biennial publication<br />

of WWF International – the<br />

Living Planet Report wwf.panda.org/<br />

about_our_earth/all_publications/<br />

living_planet_report. The LPI which<br />

has been computed in collaboration<br />

with the Zoological Society of<br />

London, and was last published in<br />

the Living Planet Report of October<br />

2010, is based on 7953 populations<br />

of 2544 different vertebrate species.<br />

Although the LPI is not an indicator<br />

for biodiversity, in its comprehensive<br />

sense, neither, it provides a useful<br />

indication of the trends in abundance<br />

of species for which scientific data is<br />

available.<br />

Rapid Deterioration<br />

in the Tropics<br />

While the Living Planet Index at a<br />

global level decreased by about<br />

30 per cent since 1970, it is particularly<br />

revealing to analyze the LPI by<br />

biomes as well as regionally. In fact<br />

the global index masks an important<br />

dichotomy between the temperate<br />

and the tropical indices. While<br />

in the temperate and boreal zones<br />

the index remained stable or even<br />

increased, the loss in the tropics<br />

since 1970 is significant in all biomes –<br />

the terrestrial (approx. – 50%), the<br />

marine (approx. – 60%), as well the<br />

freshwater (almost -70 %). Vertebrate<br />

populations in the temperate and<br />

boreal zones remained at the same<br />

level or increased, at least partly because<br />

the loss occurred prior to 1970<br />

and population subsequently recovered<br />

under protective measures. The<br />

massive degradation in the tropics on<br />

the other hand signals the rapid loss<br />

of habitats since the past 40 years, in<br />

terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems,<br />

as well as the impact of overfishing<br />

and climate change in the marine<br />

ecosystems.<br />

Among all tropical areas assessed<br />

in the Living Planet Report the<br />

LPI of the Indo ‑Pacific region experienced<br />

the most dramatic loss<br />

with a decrease of 66 per cent. The<br />

report traces this loss back to “rapid<br />

agricultural, industrial and urban<br />

development …which has led to the<br />

most rapid destruction and fragmentation<br />

of forests, wetlands and river<br />

systems anywhere in the world”. The<br />

LPI in the Indo ‑Pacific region, unsurprisingly,<br />

reflects the consequences<br />

of the rapid economic growth of the<br />

region, as well as in the neighboring<br />

East Asian tiger economies. The LPI,<br />

thus, points to the major root cause<br />

of biodiversity loss anywhere in the<br />

world – the rapidly increasing impact<br />

of over -consumption of resources<br />

and energy. Be it forest clearance for<br />

palm oil, pulp and paper plantations<br />

or unsustainable logging operations,<br />

overfishing, coral bleaching due to<br />

climate change, or the cultivation and<br />

depletion of freshwater ecosystems<br />

in the large river basins, the global biodiversity<br />

loss is intrinsically linked to<br />

the rapidly growing demand for commodities.<br />

With the increasing wealth<br />

in emerging economies, particularly<br />

of urban populations, the demand for<br />

resources and energy will continue to<br />

increase and put further pressure on<br />

biodiversity. In this context one has<br />

to take into account the current trend<br />

of urbanization which is projected to<br />

increase the urban population to 2/3<br />

of humanity. It is an open question<br />

whether urban populations may develop<br />

a more advanced consciousness<br />

in relation to the huge environmental<br />

challenges of coming decades, or on<br />

the contrary risk to become progressively<br />

estranged from natural areas<br />

and biodiversity concerns. It will,<br />

without any doubt, become decisive<br />

that we reckon with these massive<br />

sociological shifts. Under any circumstance<br />

it will not do us any good if the<br />

problem of increasing consumption<br />

of resources and energy by an ever<br />

larger urban population is minimized,<br />

nor is there any silver bullet to solve<br />

this problem. It is in this context that<br />

the future role of zoos and aquariums<br />

must be seen.<br />

Where Zoos<br />

can make a Difference<br />

If the Living Planet Report can teach<br />

us anything, it is the fact that protective<br />

measures can make a difference,<br />

as the example of a good number of<br />

temperate countries but also some<br />

rarer cases of tropical countries<br />

(e.g. Costa Rica) show. Protected<br />

areas, species conservation and<br />

re -introduction programs, habitat<br />

restoration, land use and natural<br />

resource management can contribute<br />

to biodiversity enhancement. For this<br />

to become possible, conservation<br />

organizations and zoos alike will have<br />

to take growing urban consumptive<br />

societies into account. This may<br />

concern societies whose views and<br />

perceptions will more likely come off<br />

cyberspace rather than natural places,


18<br />

and may manifest itself in ignorance<br />

and unscrupulous behavior quite contrary<br />

to the urgent needs of biodiversity<br />

conservation. The past decades<br />

have also taught us that biodiversity<br />

notoriously suffers from multiple<br />

market failures, e.g. when the price of<br />

soy or palm oil dictates the destruction<br />

of tropical forests, irrespective of<br />

the consequent massive loss of natural<br />

capital. It is against this back -drop<br />

that zoos and aquariums will have to<br />

define their future role in biodiversity<br />

conservation.<br />

The 2005 WAZA Conservation Strategy<br />

stipulates this role quite clearly,<br />

even though it leaves great potential,<br />

and equally so a need, to go beyond<br />

the 9 target areas described in this<br />

strategy. With their ex ‑situ breeding<br />

programs zoos have undoubtedly<br />

contributed to the conservation of a<br />

limited number of species and they<br />

deserve credit for this. Measured<br />

against the immense challenges,<br />

these successes remain but punctual<br />

and should not be idealized, let alone<br />

presented as the solution to global<br />

biodiversity conservation needs. In‑<br />

‑situ conservation must always take<br />

precedence and there is room to<br />

expand the role of zoos in concrete<br />

field ‑based conservation projects,<br />

e.g. the WAZA projects. As with the<br />

in ‑situ projects it is important not to<br />

create the impression that zoos could<br />

do it all by themselves, or to use such<br />

projects merely for zoo PR purposes.<br />

Credible conservation is increasingly<br />

a long -term partnership business in<br />

which government, international and<br />

local NGO’s as well as local communities<br />

have a role to play in ensuring<br />

sustained conservation results. Nothing<br />

convinces the public more than<br />

joint efforts and cooperation with<br />

specialized conservation agencies,<br />

and the better zoos manage to reflect<br />

these in their exhibitions the more<br />

credible is their story.<br />

Given the fact that the greatest<br />

conservation challenges of our time<br />

are caused by the over -consumption<br />

of resources and energy, zoos and<br />

aquariums should also reflect on<br />

these root causes for biodiversity<br />

loss, not least the threats of climate<br />

change. In fact I wonder whether<br />

zoos and aquariums would not<br />

have a more active role to play with<br />

regard to the dire fate of coral reefs<br />

in view of the current threats from<br />

coral bleaching, if only to highlight<br />

these global threats, but also to<br />

ensure that the supply of coral reef<br />

fishes is sustainable. I could equally<br />

envisage some form of cooperation<br />

with NOAA’s coral reef conservation<br />

strategy http://coralreef.noaa.gov/,<br />

or a coral strategy to be developed<br />

specifically by and for zoos and<br />

aquariums.<br />

The Educational<br />

Imperative of Zoos<br />

Any consideration of the role of zoos<br />

would miss the main point if it did<br />

not refer to what I personally have<br />

always seen as the primary and most<br />

important responsibility: Providing a<br />

personal experience with animals for<br />

young people, education, information<br />

and communications – building<br />

on the natural curiosity and emotional<br />

ties of children and youth for the<br />

living creatures. Without this emotional<br />

access, which in one way or the<br />

other rests in every human being, it<br />

will be all the more difficult to later<br />

establish an intellectual interest and<br />

motivation for the living world and<br />

its conservation. No other institution<br />

lends itself in an equally opportune<br />

way for these aspects of awareness<br />

building than a zoo. Using the<br />

attraction of live animal exhibitions<br />

to inform visitors about wild habitats,<br />

their threats and conservation<br />

activities undertaken by zoos as well<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

as other organizations should be at<br />

the heart of every zoos and aquarium.<br />

I know that I risk sounding like a<br />

broken record hinting on the crucially<br />

important role of zoos in education.<br />

If I do it nevertheless, it is because<br />

I strongly believe that the need for<br />

educational activities will rise in parallel<br />

with the rapid urbanization, the<br />

increasing ecological footprint, and<br />

the risk of estrangement from the<br />

natural world I have described earlier.<br />

Zoos have the potential to evolve to<br />

education centers that attract urban<br />

masses, and where the exhibition of<br />

animals is only one aspect of a more<br />

comprehensive set of outreach possibilities.<br />

Finally, zoos and aquariums<br />

should also demonstrate that their<br />

own footprint in terms of the use of<br />

materials and energy, as well as recycling<br />

and waste disposal, is exemplary<br />

and in line with a credible conservation<br />

message.<br />

Thus, the question should no more be<br />

whether zoos and aquariums have a<br />

role to play in conservation (of course<br />

they have!), but to what extent they<br />

are serious in using their potential<br />

to enhance the understanding and<br />

willingness to engage in conservation,<br />

and to what extent they can motivate<br />

the increasing urban masses for<br />

changes in their consumptive behavior<br />

that may improve the chances<br />

for biodiversity, in places most often<br />

remote from zoo exhibits.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 19<br />

Conserving Plant Diversity – the Role<br />

of Botanic Gardens and Zoos<br />

Sara Oldfield – Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI)<br />

The conservation of plant diversity<br />

is one of the key roles of botanic<br />

gardens around the world. In common<br />

with the zoo community botanic<br />

gardens are involved in ex situ conservation,<br />

as well as the propagation<br />

and re -introduction of endangered<br />

species, environmental education<br />

and increasingly, in situ conservation<br />

of threatened plant species (Havens<br />

et al, 2006). Botanic gardens have<br />

adapted their activities to reflect the<br />

requirements of international policy<br />

and are increasingly responding to<br />

the impact of climate change on<br />

wild plant diversity. The challenges<br />

of global plant conservation remain<br />

immense however and there is great<br />

potential for botanic gardens to work<br />

with zoos to conserve both plants and<br />

animals worldwide.<br />

A widely accepted definition of a botanic<br />

garden is, an institution holding<br />

collections of documented and living<br />

plants for the purposes of scientific<br />

research, conservation, display and<br />

education. There are currently over<br />

2500 such institutions worldwide. Botanic<br />

Gardens Conservation International<br />

(BGCI) provides a coordinating<br />

body for botanic gardens acting in<br />

a broadly similar way to WAZA. The<br />

mission of BGCI is to mobilise botanic<br />

gardens and engage partners in securing<br />

plant diversity for the benefit<br />

of people and the planet. BGCI includes<br />

within its membership around<br />

20 zoos and works particularly closely<br />

with the Association of Zoological<br />

Horticulture (AZH). Amongst the services<br />

provided by BGCI are the GardenSearch<br />

database that provides an<br />

online directory of all botanic gardens<br />

and the PlantSearch database that<br />

records plant species in cultivation in<br />

botanic gardens and also in contributing<br />

zoos. PlantSearch is designed<br />

as a planning tool to support ex situ<br />

conservation identifying for example<br />

the extent to which globally threatened<br />

plant species are held in ex situ<br />

collections around the world.<br />

Global strategies<br />

for plant conservation<br />

Working through BGCI, botanic<br />

gardens have formulated various<br />

shared global strategies for plant<br />

conservation. The first of these was<br />

the Botanic Gardens Conservation<br />

Strategy published in 1989 (IUCN<br />

BGCS & WWF, 1989) and linked to the<br />

World Conservation Strategy published<br />

by IUCN in 1980. Subsequently<br />

the International Agenda for Botanic<br />

Gardens in Conservation was published<br />

by BGCI in 2000 (Wyse Jackson<br />

& Sutherland, 2000). The publication<br />

of the International Agenda in turn<br />

directly influenced the formulation of<br />

the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation<br />

of the Convention on Biological<br />

Diversity (CBD).<br />

The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation<br />

(GSPC) provides a framework<br />

for plant conservation worldwide.<br />

Adopted in 2002, the Strategy set<br />

out 16 ambitious targets to be met<br />

by 2010. National governments have<br />

developed their own implementation<br />

strategies mirroring the GSPC<br />

or implement the GSPC through<br />

existing biodiversity conservation<br />

action plans. Regional and national<br />

botanic garden associations have also<br />

developed conservation plans in line<br />

with the GSPC.


20<br />

The GSPC targets have been widely<br />

adopted by the botanic garden community<br />

(see for example Leiva, 2005;<br />

Martinelli 2010; Huang, 2010; Kramer,<br />

2010) and have been used to develop<br />

national and regional botanic garden<br />

strategies. Linking work to the GSPC<br />

targets helps botanic gardens to be<br />

closely aligned with national and<br />

international policy through the CBD.<br />

The GSPC has also provided focus for<br />

the plant conservation work of zoos,<br />

which may include the collection of<br />

information regarding plant -animal<br />

interactions, the expansion of conservation<br />

activities beyond animals to<br />

also include the plants they depend<br />

on and the inclusion of the GSPC and<br />

its principles in plant and nature-<br />

-based education courses organised<br />

by zoos. The role of botanic gardens<br />

in implementing the GSPC was<br />

recognised in the mid -term review of<br />

the Strategy (Secretariat of the CBD,<br />

2009). More recently BGCI has undertaken<br />

a survey of botanic gardens to<br />

find out about implementation of the<br />

Strategy (Williams & Sharrock, 2010).<br />

A total of 252 responses were received<br />

by the end of May, 2010 from<br />

botanic gardens around the world.<br />

The results show that all GSPC targets<br />

are being implemented to some<br />

extent with a wide range of different<br />

activities supporting the Strategy.<br />

BGCI has supported the implementation<br />

of the GSPC in a variety of ways.<br />

The 16 GSPC targets have provided<br />

the basis for BGCI’s own programmes<br />

and activities for example in the BGCI<br />

Five Year Plan 2007–2012. A BGCI<br />

member of staff has been seconded<br />

to the CBD Secretariat to act as GSPC<br />

Programme Officer helping to support<br />

national implementation of the<br />

Strategy in a wide range of countries<br />

including China, Japan, Mexico and<br />

the Seychelles.<br />

Although primary responsibility for<br />

GSPC implementation is at the national<br />

level, most of the 16 Targets of<br />

the GSPC (except for several that are<br />

cross -cutting) have an international<br />

organisation designated to help<br />

facilitate implementation and monitor<br />

progress. BGCI acts as the lead<br />

facilitating agency for GSPC Target<br />

8 on ex situ plant conservation and<br />

also GSPC Target 14 on education and<br />

public awareness. These two targets<br />

are clearly key to the work of botanic<br />

gardens around the world and their<br />

associated networks at national<br />

and regional levels. Linking botanic<br />

gardens with other major actors in<br />

plant conservation, BGCI provides the<br />

Secretariat for the Global Partnership<br />

for Plant Conservation (GPPC), which<br />

is mandated by the CBD to support<br />

the GSPC.<br />

Monitoring ex situ plant<br />

conservation<br />

BGCI’s online PlantSearch database<br />

was designed to monitor progress<br />

towards Target 8 of the GSPC as well<br />

as providing a planning tool for ex<br />

situ plant conservation. Target 8 calls<br />

for 60 percent of threatened plant<br />

species in accessible ex situ collections<br />

preferably in the country of origin<br />

and 10 percent of them in recovery<br />

and restoration programmes. Recent<br />

analysis shows that around 9500<br />

globally threatened plant species<br />

are recorded in PlantSearch out of<br />

a total of around 100,500 species in<br />

the database (Sharrock et al, 2010).<br />

Threatened plant data recorded in<br />

PlantSearch and used in the analysis<br />

are based on the 1997 IUCN Red List<br />

for plants (Walter & Gillett, 1998) and<br />

the current online IUCN Red List. As<br />

progress in IUCN global Red Listing<br />

for plants has been slow (Vie et<br />

al 2009) more detailed analyses of<br />

PlantSearch data have been undertaken<br />

for Europe (Sharrock and Jones,<br />

2009) and North America (Kramer et<br />

al 2011), using regional threatened<br />

plant lists. These reveal that 42 percent<br />

of Europe’s regionally threatened<br />

plant species and 39 percent of<br />

North American species are in ex situ<br />

collections.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

The overall number of globally threatened<br />

plant species remains uncertain.<br />

Generally up to 100,000 plant species<br />

considered under threat, a figure<br />

supported by the recent Sampled<br />

Red List Index (www.iucnredlist.<br />

org/news/srli ‑plants ‑press ‑release).<br />

BGCI is directly involved in supporting<br />

assessment of the conservation status<br />

of plant species and provides the<br />

Secretariat for the IUCN/SSC Global<br />

Tree Specialist Group. Following assessments<br />

for particular tree groups,<br />

focussed surveys are undertaken of<br />

their status in ex situ collections and<br />

then complimentary strategies are<br />

developed to conserve key species in<br />

the wild. Such an approach has been<br />

adopted for example for Magnolia<br />

spp. following the publication of a<br />

red list for these species (Cicuzza et al<br />

2007). Subsequently a BGCI survey of<br />

ex situ collections at 238 institutions<br />

in 47 countries revealed that over half<br />

of the Critically Endangered or Endangered<br />

Magnolia taxa are currently<br />

not known to cultivation.<br />

Integrated conservation<br />

action<br />

BGCI is supporting ex situ and in situ<br />

conservation of Magnolia spp. in<br />

China, Cuba and Colombia as part of<br />

the Global Trees Campaign, a joint<br />

initiative with Fauna & Flora International.<br />

Southern China is the world<br />

centre of diversity and distribution of<br />

Magnolias with over 40 percent of the<br />

242 known species occurring there.<br />

A significant number are considered<br />

globally threatened because of habitat<br />

decline and fragmentation leading<br />

to increasingly isolated remnant populations<br />

of Magnolia spp. that often<br />

have regeneration problems. In some<br />

cases over -exploitation for medicinal<br />

products, for planting in gardens and<br />

as street trees is an additional threat.<br />

As one example of action, Kunming<br />

Botanic Gardens supported by BGCI,<br />

is studying the reproduction cycle of<br />

M. coriacea, researching propagation<br />

techniques, strengthening ex situ<br />

conservation and initiating recovery<br />

programmes. Closely linked to this<br />

are local activities to raise awareness<br />

on related conservation issues<br />

in collaboration with local forestry<br />

agencies.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 21<br />

In a similar project, botanists from<br />

South China Botanic Garden, which<br />

has the most significant ex situ collection<br />

of Magnolia spp. globally, are<br />

collecting information on a range of<br />

priority species of Magnolia in the<br />

wild – studying and recording their<br />

ecology, conservation status and the<br />

threats they face. The information is<br />

used to strengthen ex situ conservation<br />

efforts and initiate restoration<br />

of natural populations. One of the<br />

species being conserved is the Critically<br />

Endangered Magnolia hebecarpa<br />

which is currently only known to be in<br />

cultivation at the South China Botanic<br />

Garden. In 2008 botanists found a<br />

single mature specimen of the species<br />

during field surveys in Hekou<br />

County, Yunnan. Approximately 300<br />

seeds were collected from the tree<br />

to supplement ex situ collections.<br />

More recently a new population was<br />

discovered in the Daweishan Nature<br />

Reserve in area of Yunnan close to<br />

the border with Vietnam. A very<br />

important step in the conservation of<br />

Magnolia hebecarpa is to make people<br />

aware of the global rarity of this<br />

endemic species.<br />

In general, Magnolia experts around<br />

the world have found their efforts to<br />

propagate the rarer species of Magnolia<br />

limited by poor germination and<br />

establishment rates. More research is<br />

urgently required to understand seed<br />

production and propagation in all<br />

threatened taxa in order to support of<br />

the establishment of ex situ collections<br />

and associated restoration and<br />

reintroduction activities. Magnolia<br />

spp. are serving as good flagship<br />

species for conservation as they are<br />

generally popular in cultivation, well<br />

represented in botanic gardens and<br />

useful as a basis for education programmes.<br />

Education<br />

and public awareness<br />

Target 14 of the GSPC calls for: the<br />

importance of plant diversity and the<br />

need for its conservation incorporated<br />

into communication, educational and<br />

public awareness programmes. With<br />

over 200 million visitors to botanic<br />

gardens annually botanic gardens are<br />

vitally important in supporting this<br />

target.<br />

BGCI generally focuses on building<br />

the capacity of its global network to<br />

deliver effective education and public<br />

awareness programmes. More broadly<br />

it has focussed on raising awareness<br />

of plant conservation and the<br />

GSPC amongst a wider audience. One<br />

way of doing this has been through<br />

Plant Conservation Day partnering<br />

with AZH. Plant Conservation Day<br />

has been adopted by both the zoo<br />

and botanic garden communities on<br />

both sides of the Atlantic. In the USA,<br />

North Carolina Zoo has, for example,<br />

initiated a popular ‘sky art’ event to<br />

celebrate the day and raise awareness<br />

of the plant conservation work<br />

it is carrying out in partnership with<br />

the Tooro Botanic Garden in Uganda.<br />

In the UK, the event is regularly<br />

celebrated by zoos, such as Bristol<br />

Zoo Gardens and in 2009, activities<br />

in botanic gardens in Australia, China,<br />

Russia, the USA and the UK received<br />

support from the Boeing Company<br />

through a grant to BGCI.<br />

Looking ahead<br />

Overall the GSPC has been hailed as<br />

a success of the CBD. Although progress<br />

towards meeting the 16 targets<br />

has been variable (Secretariat of the<br />

Convention on Biological Diversity<br />

2009), the Strategy has been effective<br />

in harmonising a wide range of diverse<br />

conservation actions and stimulating<br />

new activity. As a consequence<br />

a decision was made to develop a<br />

revised Strategy and targets, moving<br />

beyond 2010 and taking into account<br />

the impact of global climate change.<br />

BGCI has played a significant role<br />

in the revision process, producing a<br />

report on plants and climate (Hawkins<br />

et al, 2008) with suggested action<br />

within a revised GSPC framework and<br />

organising stakeholder workshops<br />

to develop a proposed new version<br />

of the GSPC. The resulting document<br />

was adopted at CBD COP10 in<br />

Nagoya.<br />

With the revised plant conservation<br />

framework in place, botanic gardens<br />

need to make renewed efforts to<br />

meet the more ambitious targets<br />

set for 2020. Ex situ conservation is<br />

likely to become ever more important<br />

in our rapidly changing world<br />

with increased efforts necessary to<br />

ensure that collections of endangered<br />

species are genetically diverse and<br />

representative. Messages about the<br />

need for plant conservation need to<br />

be strengthened and reinforced. Collaboration<br />

between the botanic garden<br />

and zoo community will become<br />

increasingly important as we work to<br />

ensure a sustainable and biodiverse<br />

future.


22<br />

References<br />

• IUCN Botanic Gardens Conservation<br />

Secretariat and WWF. 1989. The Bo‑<br />

tanic Gardens Conservation Strategy.<br />

IUCN Botanic Gardens Conservation<br />

Secretariat, Kew Richmond UK and<br />

IUCN Gland, Switzerland.<br />

• Cicuzza, D., Newton, A. and Oldfield,<br />

S. 2007. The Red List of Magnoliace‑<br />

ae. Fauna & Flora International, UK.<br />

• Havens, K., P. Vitt, M. Maunder, E. O.<br />

Guerrant Jr., and K. Dixon. 2006. Ex<br />

situ Plant Conservation and Beyond’,<br />

BioScience, 56: 6, pp. 525-31.<br />

• Hawkins, B, S. Sharrock, and K.<br />

Havens (2008), Climate Change<br />

and Plants; Which Future? Botanic<br />

Gardens Conservation International,<br />

Richmond, UK.<br />

• Huang, H. 2010. Ex situ plant<br />

conservation: a key role of Chinese<br />

botanic gardens in implementing<br />

China’s Strategy for Plant Conservation.<br />

BGJournal 7 (2): 14-19.<br />

• Kramer, A. 2010. Measuring botanic<br />

gardens’ contributions to plant<br />

conservation and education in the<br />

US. BGJournal 7 (2): 24-28.<br />

• Kramer, A., A. Hird, K. Shaw, M.<br />

Dosmann, and R. Mims.2011. Conserving<br />

North America’s Threatened<br />

Plants: Progress towards Target 8 of<br />

the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation.<br />

Botanic Gardens Conservation<br />

International U. S.<br />

• Leiva, A. 2005. The conservation of<br />

threatened plants by Cuban botanic<br />

gardens: achieving the objectives<br />

of the International Agenda as a<br />

contribution towards the GSPC.<br />

BGJournal 3 (1): 14-15.<br />

• Martinelli, G. 2010. Contributions<br />

of Rio de Janeiro Botanic Garden to<br />

Brazil’s national GSPC mainstreaming<br />

process. BGJournal 7 (2): 8-10.<br />

Sharrock, S., Hird, A. Kramer, A. and<br />

Oldfield, S. 2010. Saving plants, sav‑<br />

ing the planet: Botanic Gardens and<br />

the implementation of GSPC Target<br />

8. Botanic Gardens Conservation<br />

International, Richmond, UK.<br />

• Secretariat of the Convention on<br />

Biological Diversity. 2009. The Con‑<br />

vention on Biological Diversity Plant<br />

Conservation Report: A review of<br />

progress in implementing the Global<br />

Strategy for Plant Conservation<br />

(GSPC). Secretariat of the Convention<br />

on Biological Diversity, Montreal,<br />

Canada.<br />

• Vie, J -C, Hilton -Taylor, C. and Stuart,<br />

S. N. 2009. (eds.) Wildlife in a chang‑<br />

ing world. An analysis of the 2008<br />

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.<br />

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

• Walter, K. S. and Gillett, H. (eds.).<br />

1998. The 1997 IUCN Red List of<br />

Threatened Plants. Compiled by the<br />

World Conservation Monitoring<br />

Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland<br />

and Cambridge, UK.<br />

• Williams, S. and Sharrock, S. (2010)<br />

Botanic gardens and their response<br />

to the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation.<br />

BGJournal 7 (2): 3-7<br />

• Wyse Jackson, P. S. and Sutherland,<br />

L. A. 2000. International Agenda<br />

for Botanic Gardens in Conserva‑<br />

tion. Botanic Gardens Conservation<br />

International, Richmond, UK


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 23<br />

WAZA Congress<br />

Papers


24<br />

The One Curator –<br />

One Species Challenge<br />

Robert J. Wiese – San Diego Zoo Global | Jenny Gray – Zoos Victoria<br />

The One Curator – One Species Challenge<br />

is a plan that each zoo and<br />

aquarium commits long-term that<br />

they will lead the efforts to secure the<br />

survival of a number of species equal<br />

to the number of animal curators on<br />

staff. With this strategy the world’s<br />

zoos and aquariums could ensure<br />

survival of well over 1,000 species.<br />

Zoos and Aquariums have long<br />

maintained a number of intensively<br />

managed populations within their<br />

facilities. Many of these have been to<br />

ensure the sustainability of the species<br />

for future exhibition. Some have<br />

also had the goal of acting as a reservoir<br />

of animals and genetic variation<br />

to supplement or reestablish wild<br />

populations. Many zoos and aquariums<br />

also provide direct conservation<br />

support for these and other species<br />

as well. These efforts have met varied<br />

success (Lees and Wilken, 2008; Gusset<br />

and Dick, 2010).<br />

So what makes a program successful?<br />

Each program is different in some aspects,<br />

but two characteristics that occur<br />

regularly in successful programs<br />

are focus and specialization (Conway,<br />

2010). Success requires commitment.<br />

Often this intense focus comes from<br />

a single individual or a single institution<br />

that specializes in a given species<br />

or taxonomic group. The key is to get<br />

commitment for the long-term as<br />

conservation is a never ending series<br />

of battles for survival. In this respect<br />

an institutional commitment is better<br />

than that of a single individual which<br />

at some point will retire or move on.<br />

While many of our cooperative breeding<br />

programs have the commitment<br />

of a number of institutions, often the<br />

connection to the wild populations<br />

is lacking. The potential impact we<br />

can have on wild populations is also<br />

diminished when several regional<br />

programs select the same species,<br />

but do not coordinate their field efforts.<br />

For the large, charismatic species<br />

such as elephants, tiger and great<br />

apes there will always be more work<br />

than one institution can accomplish<br />

and these programs will require cooperation.<br />

However, for a vast number<br />

of species the commitment of a<br />

single institution can make the difference.<br />

Often this may be a species<br />

that in native to an area close to the<br />

zoo or aquarium. These local species<br />

will be the ones that can benefit the<br />

most from the concentrated efforts<br />

of a single institution. While many of<br />

the larger NGOs are switching to a<br />

habitat or landscape approach, the<br />

single species approach remains the<br />

unique arena for zoos and aquariums.<br />

It remains an effective strategy as living<br />

animals appeal to the public much<br />

more effectively than a less distinct<br />

ecosystem.<br />

What is needed to ensure survival<br />

of a species? What commitment is<br />

needed by each institution? Many<br />

zoos and aquariums may already believe<br />

that they are ensuring survival<br />

of one or more species because they<br />

support or participate in the captive<br />

population. While this is a good<br />

and important contribution, captive<br />

populations alone rarely affect<br />

conservation action (Wiese et al.,<br />

1994). The One Curator – One Species<br />

Challenge solicits much more dedication<br />

of effort to ensure true conservation<br />

action. Certainly providing staff<br />

support to coordinate the intensive<br />

breeding and management programs<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

in zoos and aquariums is needed to<br />

start. Provision of space and resources<br />

to care for a number of individuals<br />

of the species is also important as<br />

a guard against catastrophic loss of<br />

the wild population. But each facility<br />

must also commit to gathering data<br />

and supporting field research on<br />

the species to determine the species’<br />

needs for continued survival.<br />

This commitment will likely require<br />

each institution to enroll additional<br />

partners (e.g., other zoos, aquariums,<br />

private partners, parks, reserves,<br />

government agencies) to keep the<br />

species at a viable population level.<br />

The Challenge requires working with<br />

local officials and politicians to enact<br />

protection for the species and find or<br />

develop funding resources that can<br />

affect conservation action. This may<br />

be in the form of education of the<br />

local people about their important<br />

resource, habitat purchase and/or<br />

protection, resource management<br />

support or all of these efforts. One of<br />

the keys will be to engage and transform<br />

the local human population to<br />

become the protectors of the species<br />

in peril.<br />

Where to begin? The advantage<br />

of this Challenge is that it is easily<br />

customized to the institution. Smaller<br />

institutions with fewer resources typically<br />

have fewer curators and are not<br />

expected to deliver as much. It easily<br />

scales to the institution’s size. The<br />

Challenge also allows every institution<br />

to become involved without<br />

extensive training or capacity building<br />

because most institutions already<br />

have a specialty and an expertise in<br />

one or more taxa. By starting small<br />

the institution can gain some quick<br />

successes and grow their effort and<br />

commitment over time.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 25<br />

To maximize the effect of zoos and<br />

aquariums and reach the most number<br />

of species it is important that we<br />

reduce the overlap of institutional<br />

focus and partner effectively. It is<br />

suggested that WAZA or the regional<br />

associations become the body registering<br />

institutions and recording<br />

the species for which they will serve<br />

as the organizing leader. In this way<br />

multiple institutions will not be leading<br />

the effort for the same species.<br />

References<br />

• Conway, W. G. 2010. Buying time<br />

for wild animals with zoos. Zoo<br />

Biol. 29: 1–8.<br />

• Gusset, M. and Dick, G.. 2010. Building<br />

a future for wildlife? Evaluating<br />

the contribution of the world zoo<br />

and aquarium community to in<br />

situ conservation. Int. Zoo Yb. 44:<br />

183–191.<br />

• Lees, C. M. and J. Wilcken. 2008.<br />

Sustaining the Ark: the challenges<br />

faced by zoos in<br />

• maintaining viable populations. Int.<br />

Zoo Yb. 42: 1–13.<br />

• Wiese, R. J., K. Willis, and M. Hutchins.<br />

1994. Is genetic and demographic<br />

management conservation?<br />

Zoo Biol. 13: 297–299.<br />

Re ‑thinking ex situ<br />

vs. in situ Species<br />

Conservation<br />

Robert Lacy – Conservation Scientist,<br />

Chicago Zoological Society and<br />

Chair, IUCN SSC Conservation Breeding<br />

Specialist Group<br />

Species conservation has as its<br />

ultimate goal to protect species in<br />

their natural habitats, but increasingly<br />

often preservation of species<br />

in captivity is a necessary temporary<br />

measure because we cannot at this<br />

time adequately assure persistence<br />

of viable populations in the wild.<br />

A distinction is often made between<br />

in situ conservation – the protection<br />

of species in wild habitats – vs. ex situ<br />

conservation – the preservation of<br />

species in captive breeding programs.<br />

There has been a lot of discussion<br />

recently about the terms ex situ and<br />

in situ, regarding the roles of these<br />

two approaches to species conservation,<br />

but also often suggesting this dichotomy<br />

is becoming less meaningful<br />

and even suggesting that we should<br />

stop using the terms.<br />

Although WAZA, IUCN, and other<br />

conservation organizations distinguish<br />

between in situ and ex situ<br />

approaches to conservation in many<br />

of their documents, and one core<br />

purpose of the IUCN SSC Conservation<br />

Breeding Specialist Group is to<br />

help make effective linkages between<br />

ex situ and in situ conservation, there<br />

are a number of problems with the<br />

use of the terms. First, the terms<br />

are in Latin, a language that no one<br />

speaks and few understand. Perhaps<br />

as a consequence, the terms are used<br />

inconsistently and often incorrectly.<br />

Moreover, it may be inappropriate<br />

to dichotomize conservation actions<br />

into two boxes, because intermediate<br />

states do exist. Also, there may<br />

be other terms that would better<br />

describe the categories of conservation<br />

that we pursue. In spite of these<br />

problems, however, I will respectfully<br />

disagree with some of my colleagues<br />

who have suggested that the terms<br />

in situ and ex situ are no longer meaningful<br />

and should no longer be used.<br />

I will argue here that just eliminating<br />

the terms, rather than using them<br />

correctly, will not necessarily improve<br />

our discussions of conservation. For<br />

example, while we should clarify that<br />

there is not a sharp separation between<br />

ex situ and in situ conservation,<br />

we should avoid the equally misleading<br />

suggestion that there are no<br />

differences between the two methods<br />

for protecting species. Maintaining<br />

tigers in zoo exhibits, even very<br />

large and naturalistic ones, or even<br />

maintaining tigers in a multi -hectare<br />

enclosure that is a fenced piece of<br />

forest, is not the same as protecting<br />

tigers within their natural habitats<br />

where they compete for mates, hunt<br />

for prey, and serve an important role<br />

within an ecological community.


26<br />

I think that we should clarify our terminology<br />

and use it correctly. Then,<br />

we can discuss meaningful and not<br />

so meaningful distinctions between<br />

the forms of conservation. Only then<br />

can we decide if the terms should be<br />

discarded because the methods of<br />

conservation have perhaps changed<br />

to the extent that the terminological<br />

distinction is no longer useful. However,<br />

we should not discard or replace<br />

the terms only because people<br />

sometimes misuse them, or because<br />

we want our work to sound more<br />

important, or because we wish to pretend<br />

that our conservation methods<br />

are something other than what they<br />

really are.<br />

We should start with clarity about<br />

what we mean by species or biodiversity<br />

conservation. Biodiversity<br />

conservation can be defined as the<br />

maintenance of components of<br />

natural systems (populations, species,<br />

communities, and biophysical systems)<br />

and the ecological and evolutionary<br />

processes through which the<br />

components of biodiversity interact<br />

with and are sustained by natural systems.<br />

Thus, conservation is directed<br />

toward protecting the integrity of<br />

natural systems – both the pieces and<br />

the processes – and is not just the<br />

saving of pictures, or bones, or DNA,<br />

or even just captive animals in zoos<br />

and plants in gardens. Quite tragically,<br />

it is the case that no place on Earth<br />

is still untouched by humans, and perhaps<br />

no ecosystems is 100% pristine,<br />

but some places are more wild and<br />

have more intact and healthier ecosystems.<br />

For us to ignore this reality<br />

could be very damaging to our reputations<br />

as conservationists, and to our<br />

efforts in biodiversity conservation.<br />

After all, if no place is “wild” anymore,<br />

and no real “wildlife” still exists, then<br />

why are we working to preserve wild<br />

places and wild species?<br />

The goal of species conservation is<br />

to support the survival of species in<br />

their natural ecological systems. If a<br />

program does not further this goal,<br />

then it is not species conservation.<br />

Before my zoo and aquarium friends<br />

react angrily that I seem to be denying<br />

the value of their work, I need to<br />

add two caveats. First, sometimes –<br />

and far more often than anyone of us<br />

would wish – sustaining a species in<br />

the wild will require activities outside<br />

of the wild. Second, by delineating<br />

what constitutes species conservation<br />

as distinct from simply keeping<br />

specimens alive, I do not mean that<br />

the only valuable role for zoos and<br />

aquariums is to help save species in<br />

the wild. Education, entertainment,<br />

inspiring awe and wonder, and scientific<br />

study are all valid and important<br />

roles for zoos, and living animal<br />

collections make these goals possible<br />

in ways and with effectiveness that<br />

would not be possible otherwise.<br />

What is “ex situ” conservation? Literally,<br />

ex situ means “out of place”. In<br />

the context of species conservation<br />

it means activities that take place<br />

outside of the natural habitat for the<br />

species. Ex situ conservation might<br />

take place outside or within the range<br />

country of a species, and one common<br />

mis -use of the term is to ascribe<br />

it only to activities outside of the species<br />

range country. Ex situ activities<br />

could even take place immediately<br />

adjacent to the natural habitat, as in<br />

an exhibit enclosure within a natural<br />

protected area. In a sense, “ex situ<br />

conservation” is an oxymoron. Given<br />

what I stated above about the definition<br />

of biodiversity conservation, with<br />

the purpose of conservation being<br />

to protect natural systems, the very<br />

term ex situ correctly denotes that<br />

the activities are not where we wish<br />

them to be, and ex situ activities cannot<br />

by themselves achieve species<br />

conservation. A more accurate, if<br />

less concise, phrase would be “ex situ<br />

measures that support conservation”,<br />

so as to avoid the implication that the<br />

ex situ population itself is the conservation<br />

objective.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

As this audience knows, many species<br />

have been restored to the wild from<br />

captive populations.<br />

In such cases, the ex situ work was a<br />

necessary step that allowed species<br />

conservation to resume its efforts<br />

toward securing healthy populations<br />

in natural habitats, again interacting<br />

with other species in the ecological<br />

community, and evolving adaptations<br />

– i.e., being the wild species<br />

again. Many other species were or<br />

still are on the edge of being lost from<br />

the natural habitats, but the wild<br />

populations have been reinforced<br />

via releases from captive stocks that<br />

served as insurance against loss. Thus,<br />

in stating honestly that ex situ efforts<br />

are not in themselves species conservation,<br />

we are not in any way implying<br />

that ex situ protection of species<br />

is not an important and even at times<br />

an absolutely essential action that<br />

allows conservation to succeed.<br />

What is “in situ” conservation? In situ<br />

means “in place” and one dictionary<br />

definition is “in the natural or original<br />

position or place”. That leads to questions<br />

of “what is natural?” and “what<br />

is original?” We know that nature has<br />

been degraded everywhere, but it<br />

is still meaningful to describe in situ<br />

conservation as being activities that<br />

focus on protecting natural processes<br />

within as natural a system, in as original<br />

a location, as possible. As stated<br />

on the WAZA website, “Conservation<br />

of intact ecosystems is the only<br />

chance for the survival of our planet’s<br />

wildlife.” The World Zoo and Aquarium<br />

Conservation Strategy defines<br />

species conservation as “the securing<br />

of long -term populations of species<br />

in natural ecosystems and habitats<br />

wherever possible.” These definitions<br />

do appropriately identify our<br />

goals as we seek to conserve species,<br />

although I might quibble with the<br />

additional phrase “wherever possible”<br />

because even when it is not currently<br />

possible then the ex situ efforts are<br />

still directed toward an eventual<br />

outcome of securing the species in<br />

natural habitats.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 27<br />

Sometimes it is obvious that a program<br />

is ex situ, even if it is directly<br />

adjacent to a natural habitat, as with<br />

the Amphibian Ark programs that<br />

sustain breeding populations within<br />

modular “pods” created from shipping<br />

containers. Other times, it is not<br />

immediately clear if a program is ex<br />

situ or in situ. Until recently, the last<br />

known breeding site for the Puerto<br />

Rican Crested Toad (Sapo Concho<br />

Puertorriqueño, Peltophryne lemur)<br />

was a sand -substrate parking lot that<br />

is flooded after very heavy rains. The<br />

site may not look very natural compared<br />

to the ephemeral ponds that<br />

were once the breeding sites, but it is<br />

the breeding site that has sustained<br />

the species, the toads choose that<br />

site in which to breed, the tadpoles<br />

feed themselves on natural growing<br />

algae, and the metamorphosed toadlets<br />

disperse into the surrounding<br />

native woodlands to grow into adults.<br />

Thus, the system has been modified<br />

by humans, and it is dependent on<br />

humans for protection (the parking<br />

lot is closed to human use when the<br />

toads are breeding there), but the<br />

toads are still part of the ecological<br />

community of the area. Perhaps<br />

even less clearly in situ conservation,<br />

but in situ none -the -less, is a nearby<br />

secondary breeding site that was<br />

created with concrete, and was then<br />

populated with the release of more<br />

than 100,000 tadpoles. The pond<br />

itself is not original or natural, but<br />

the toads disperse from it, they again<br />

resume their role in the ecological<br />

community, and they return to that<br />

pond to breed. It is not perfect restoration<br />

of nature, but it is an important<br />

and successful effort to reinforce and<br />

protect the species within its original<br />

location, as a functioning part of that<br />

ecosystem.<br />

A complicating factor in determining<br />

what is ex situ vs. in situ is that because<br />

of climate change the original<br />

and natural place for a species may<br />

no longer exist, the original place<br />

may become very unnatural (very unlike<br />

the habitat in which the species<br />

evolved), and the most natural habitat<br />

available might be far from the<br />

original location. In such cases, I think<br />

that it can be argued that the importance<br />

of maintaining as much integrity<br />

and naturalness of the ecological<br />

community and ecosystem processes<br />

within which a species evolved should<br />

take precedence over possibly futile<br />

attempts to preserve those systems<br />

within the same physical location.<br />

Thus, the “situ” of in situ might have<br />

to be interpreted at times as an ecological<br />

and evolutionary place, rather<br />

than a physical place. Indeed, to see<br />

it otherwise would require that we accept<br />

that a zoo of caged animals that<br />

replaces, on site, a natural area as an<br />

acceptable endpoint in the conservation<br />

of biodiversity.<br />

Although the above examples make<br />

clear that in situ and ex situ are not<br />

pure concepts with an easily defined<br />

or sharp boundary between them,<br />

and the latter is sometimes necessary<br />

to conserve the former, I will argue<br />

that it is still important to recognize<br />

that there are real differences<br />

between populations in situ and ex<br />

situ. To see the distinction, one needs<br />

to ask how natural the situation is for<br />

the species. Is the physical environment<br />

“natural” in the sense of being<br />

similar to that which the species<br />

evolved adaptations? Are daily and<br />

seasonal fluctuations in the environment<br />

what the species expects? Is<br />

there opportunity for the normal<br />

foraging behaviors of the species? Do<br />

predation and predator avoidance<br />

make use of the adaptations evolved<br />

in the species for those purposes? Are<br />

courtship, mate choice, and parental<br />

care as they are in the wild? Is there<br />

competition and other interactions<br />

with other species of the community?<br />

Does the population encounter and<br />

mount responses to diseases and<br />

parasites? Is the population continuing<br />

to evolve as part of a complex<br />

ecological community responding<br />

to environmental change? (Note<br />

that these descriptions of natural<br />

have rather little relationship to the<br />

concept of “naturalistic” exhibits,<br />

which are designed to look natural to<br />

casual human observers, rather than<br />

to function naturally for the species<br />

within them.)<br />

Many captive propagation centers<br />

have elements of true natural<br />

habitats, sometimes even including<br />

extensive areas of complex landscapes<br />

in which species interact with<br />

at least some other components of<br />

communities and ecosystems. Yet<br />

it would be hard to argue that most<br />

of the aspects of a species living in<br />

a natural system – exist in ex situ<br />

programs. Another way to consider<br />

whether a population is “in situ” vs<br />

“ex situ” might be to ask: Who is in<br />

control? Does the species determine<br />

its diet, mates, behaviors, home<br />

range, nest sites, etc., or does the human<br />

manager determine most or all<br />

of these? Is the ongoing evolutionary<br />

trajectory one that is driven mostly<br />

by the species interacting with and<br />

often competing with other species<br />

in the habitat, or is it a response<br />

almost solely to our manipulations of<br />

its locale, if not also our control over<br />

who breeds?


28<br />

Again, the distinctions are not always<br />

clear and sharp. The Florida Key Deer<br />

(Odocoileus virginianus clavium) is an<br />

endangered subspecies that inhabits<br />

several islands in the Florida Keys<br />

(USA). Although the deer can still<br />

be seen in a few areas of relatively<br />

intact island habitat, including a<br />

small wildlife refuge, many of the<br />

deer have adapted to living primarily<br />

amidst the houses and in the lawns<br />

and gardens of the human residents<br />

of the islands. Most of the habitat is<br />

highly modified, but the deer are still<br />

(mostly) in control of habitat selection,<br />

food, and mating choices, and<br />

weather patterns and other general<br />

aspects of the local environment still<br />

match those to which the species<br />

evolved. (However, the entire range<br />

may become submerged with rising<br />

sea levels driven by climate change.)<br />

The habitat of the deer is now a<br />

human -dominated landscape, with,<br />

for example, the primary “predator”<br />

being automobiles. It could be<br />

debated if this situation should be<br />

considered in situ, and if the current<br />

situation of the deer population<br />

should be considered an acceptable<br />

end point for the conservation of this<br />

component of the biodiversity of the<br />

region. Surprisingly, wildlife management<br />

authorities have deemed it unacceptable<br />

to move even temporarily<br />

a portion of the Key Deer population<br />

into fully captive care (in order to<br />

protect it against possible catastrophes,<br />

such as a direct hit by a major<br />

hurricane), because it was felt that<br />

such action would put the deer into<br />

an unacceptably unnatural situation,<br />

thereby destroying the essence of the<br />

Key Deer.<br />

Evan Blumer and others have suggested<br />

that a better term than ex situ<br />

to describe many of our conservation<br />

breeding programs is “intensively<br />

managed populations” (or intensive<br />

management of populations). An<br />

intensively managed population is<br />

one which is dependent on management<br />

at the individual and population<br />

levels. (I thank colleagues at the<br />

Wildlife Conservation Society for<br />

suggesting this definition, although<br />

their usage does not match exactly<br />

the way the Evan and I use the term.)<br />

Among ex situ populations there is<br />

a range of the intensity of management,<br />

from pairs of animals kept<br />

in cages to flocks of birds in large<br />

aviaries. However, every ex situ<br />

population probably qualifies as being<br />

intensively managed; otherwise<br />

it will perish because it is outside of<br />

a functioning natural system. However,<br />

some in situ populations are also<br />

intensively managed, even if perhaps<br />

somewhat less intensively managed<br />

than are most ex situ populations. For<br />

example, black rhinoceroses in some<br />

reserves in Kenya are individually<br />

monitored, often protected individually<br />

from poachers, provided with<br />

veterinary care, and moved (in trucks)<br />

among reserves according to a management<br />

plan that considers the need<br />

to regulate numbers to match local<br />

capacity, to assure a good sex ratio<br />

of breeders, and to avoid inbreeding.<br />

But they are still living in natural<br />

habitats and interacting with the native,<br />

local fauna and flora. Thus, they<br />

would be considered to be intensively<br />

managed, in situ populations.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

Puerto Rican Parrots (Amazona vit‑<br />

tata) persist in their native habitat in<br />

a protected forest, although management<br />

has sometimes included providing<br />

artificial or modified nest sites<br />

and protection from predators. This<br />

relatively intensively managed, but<br />

still in situ, population has been supplemented<br />

by releases of birds reared<br />

in a captive breeding facility that<br />

while located at the site of the wild<br />

population is clearly an ex situ population.<br />

The ex situ population in the<br />

forest -located captive facility is more<br />

intensively managed than is the in<br />

situ population in the forest, but both<br />

are appropriately described as being<br />

under intensive management while<br />

the important distinctions between<br />

the ex situ and in situ populations<br />

are clear. The parrots in the in situ<br />

population are living a very different<br />

existence than are the ex situ birds,<br />

within an ecological community and<br />

continuing to adapt to the selection<br />

pressures of a shifting natural habitat.<br />

Most importantly, the in situ population<br />

is the goal of the conservation<br />

program, while the ex situ population<br />

is a temporary way station to help<br />

assure that the in situ population will<br />

persist.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 29<br />

Thus, the term “intensively managed”<br />

is not a replacement for the term “ex<br />

situ”, but rather it has a somewhat<br />

different focus, different meaning,<br />

and different use. Intensive management<br />

of populations describes the<br />

level of management that is used,<br />

regardless of where it is used, while<br />

ex situ refers to a population under<br />

whatever kind of management that<br />

is being held outside of the wild.<br />

Intensive management focuses on<br />

the methods of species conservation,<br />

while ex situ focuses on the place. Intensive<br />

management is more clearly<br />

descriptive of one side of a continuum<br />

(from very intensive management,<br />

to less intensive management, to<br />

extensive management at the level of<br />

population manipulations that do not<br />

involve direct management of individuals,<br />

to conservation dependent<br />

populations that would be threatened<br />

if external processes such as<br />

trade are not controlled), rather than<br />

implying as does the ex situ – in situ<br />

dichotomy that the distinctions are<br />

always clear. In that respect, “intensively<br />

managed population” is a less<br />

precise (and therefore probably more<br />

confusing) but more accurate term.<br />

Throughout the discussions of ex situ<br />

and in situ conservation methods, or<br />

intensive management and less intensive<br />

management of populations,<br />

we should keep in mind that while<br />

various approaches will be needed to<br />

stem the losses of biodiversity, the<br />

goal of species conservation is to protect<br />

and restore biologically diverse<br />

communities that are functional,<br />

natural systems. We are not aiming<br />

for perpetual intensive management<br />

of ex situ representatives of species.<br />

(At least not when we are working<br />

for the conservation of that species.<br />

We often do aim for long -term ex situ<br />

management for the other purposes<br />

for which zoological collections are<br />

maintained.) Rather, we use ex situ<br />

populations when necessary and useful<br />

to help restore in situ populations,<br />

and we intensively manage populations<br />

while working toward a goal<br />

of biodiversity that can thrive again<br />

in healthy systems that require less<br />

intensive care.<br />

In conclusion, we should try to use<br />

terms correctly and use the terms<br />

that best describe the concepts we<br />

are attempting to describe, without<br />

getting too concerned if occasionally<br />

someone uses less suitable<br />

terminology. At the same time, while<br />

recognizing that the terms can be<br />

imprecise and at times confusing, we<br />

need to keep in mind that there are<br />

real and meaningful differences – to<br />

the animals, to the species, to us, and<br />

probably to everyone except zoo<br />

media consultants – between ex situ<br />

and in situ approaches to biodiversity<br />

conservation. In situ is the goal, but<br />

often ex situ is a necessary way station<br />

for many species.<br />

Acknowledgements<br />

I thank Evan Blumer, William Conway,<br />

Jeffrey Bonner, and many other colleagues<br />

in CBSG and WAZA for their<br />

insightful and immensely valuable<br />

discussions on the issues presented<br />

here. It should not be presumed that<br />

they agree with all or any of my arguments<br />

and views, and I hope that this<br />

paper stimulates ongoing discussion<br />

and effective action on behalf of species.


30<br />

Defining What It Means<br />

to Save a Species – The Species<br />

Conservation Program of the Wildlife<br />

Conservation Society<br />

Robert A. Cook, V. M. D., M. P. A. – General Director of Living Institutions<br />

& Executive Vice ‑President Wildlife Conservation Society<br />

ABSTRACT: A group representing<br />

multiple conservation organizations<br />

gathered at the White Oak Conser‑<br />

vation Center to re ‑examine the<br />

question of what it means to suc‑<br />

cessfully conserve a species. Rep‑<br />

resented specialties of the partici‑<br />

pants included conservation biology,<br />

genetics, small population man‑<br />

agement, ornithology, elephant<br />

field conservation, wildlife health,<br />

marine conservation, landscape<br />

ecology, mammalogy and herpetol‑<br />

ogy. The results of this workshop<br />

will be published in BioScience early<br />

in 2011. 1<br />

1 Redford, Kent H., et al. 2011. What does it<br />

mean to successfully conserve a (vertebrate)<br />

species? BioScience 61 (1): 39-48.<br />

The group defined successful species<br />

conservation as maintaining multiple<br />

populations across the range of the<br />

species in representative ecological<br />

settings with replicate populations<br />

in each setting. The attributes of successfully<br />

conserved species include<br />

those that are self -sustaining, genetically<br />

robust, healthy, representative<br />

with duplicate populations and<br />

resilient across the range.<br />

Unfortunately, conserving species is<br />

not as straight forward as removing<br />

human influences to allow species<br />

to sustain themselves. We must<br />

also recognize that many species<br />

have become reliant on the ways<br />

humans manage the world and that<br />

to successfully conserve species we<br />

will have to apply different levels of<br />

human interventions to ensure their<br />

on -going survival. The group therefore<br />

defined a continuum of species<br />

conservation states based on the<br />

ways species are reliant on human<br />

interventions for their survival. At one<br />

end are species found only in captive<br />

populations, such as zoos and aquariums<br />

and are dependent on people to<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

survive even one generation. At the<br />

other end are species that manifest<br />

all of the attributes of “fully conserved”<br />

species with no reliance on<br />

human intervention for any requirements.<br />

The categories are:<br />

• Captive Managed – species only<br />

surviving in captivity and entirely<br />

reliant on humans for survival.<br />

• Intensively Managed ‑ species<br />

found in wild but reliant on direct<br />

human intervention at the individual<br />

and population level thru<br />

population augmentation via<br />

captive breeding or direct habitat<br />

manipulation.<br />

• Light Managed ‑ species that rely<br />

on limited human interventions via<br />

population enhancement or habitat<br />

management. They rely on human<br />

resource management to sustain<br />

their populations.<br />

• Conservation Dependent ‑ species<br />

that are self -sustaining but require<br />

extrinsic management of human<br />

behaviors such as those to combat<br />

over -exploitation.<br />

• Self ‑ Sustaining ‑ species that<br />

express full conservation attributes<br />

and survive without human subsidy.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 31<br />

It is also important to note that species<br />

that are abundant now may not<br />

continue to be so. As habitat loss<br />

and global climate shifts proceed<br />

it is expected that more species<br />

will require intensive demographic,<br />

health and genetic management. It is<br />

therefore important to shift our focus<br />

beyond threatened, vulnerable and<br />

endangered species to encompass<br />

the equally important role played by<br />

common or abundant species. We<br />

need to put forth an optimistic vision<br />

of a fully conserved species, a green<br />

list to complement the International<br />

Union for Conservation of Nature’s<br />

red list.<br />

The Wildlife Conservation Society<br />

(WCS) through our Species Conservation<br />

Program, headed by Dr. Elizabeth<br />

Bennett, incorporates the<br />

work we do at our 5 New York City<br />

zoological parks with 1,700 captive<br />

or intensively managed species with<br />

the 75 land and seascape programs<br />

in 60 countries conserving land and<br />

seascape species. In this way we<br />

integrate the expertise within our<br />

zoological and field programs across<br />

the continuum of the states of species<br />

conservation.<br />

We have defined 3 initiatives within<br />

the species programs: Global Priority<br />

Species, Recovery Species and Global<br />

Priority Species Groups.<br />

Global Priority Species (GPS) are biologically<br />

important, powerful icons<br />

of nature that need conservation<br />

action. For WCS it is also important<br />

that when selecting our GPS that we<br />

feel we can make a difference, that<br />

it is a priority for the entire organization<br />

and that we commit to saving<br />

the species across its global range.<br />

A fully developed GPS will include<br />

those where we have completed the<br />

range -wide priority setting process<br />

and that WCS works in at least three<br />

of the land or seascapes within that<br />

range. In addition we have set 10<br />

year goals for the program, have<br />

completed a conceptual model, have<br />

developed measurable targets over<br />

the 10 years, have gained country<br />

and government approval and have<br />

articulated a 10 year funding model.<br />

Recovery Species (RS) are those that<br />

have sustained a dramatic population<br />

decline, require intensive management<br />

to avoid extinction, are biologically<br />

important and important<br />

to people and whose recovery in the<br />

wild is ecologically, politically and<br />

logistically feasible. WCS is working<br />

on a decision tree tool that has<br />

been applied to hundreds of potential<br />

qualifying species in our parks<br />

and landscape programs in order to<br />

prioritize how best to focus resources<br />

on those species where we can make<br />

a difference.<br />

We also defined a third group of iconic<br />

species that don’t necessarily fit<br />

into the GPS category as a single species<br />

but would as a group of species.<br />

We have called this the Global Priority<br />

Species Groups and include iconic<br />

groups such as cetaceans, sea turtles<br />

or migratory birds. They are biologically<br />

important, include a recognized<br />

need for conservation action, are<br />

iconic as a group and face a common<br />

threat or threats. A draft decision tree<br />

has been created to select candidates<br />

in this category.<br />

The Wildlife Conservation Society<br />

has throughout its 115-year history<br />

focused on species conservation,<br />

however the establishment of this<br />

integrated zoological and field species<br />

conservation program is new. We<br />

hope that by sharing our progress<br />

here we have assisted others in their<br />

efforts to better define species conservation<br />

in their organizations.


32<br />

Building Sustainable Zoo Populations<br />

and Connecting Zoo Populations to<br />

Field Conservation, A Report by the<br />

AZA Task Force on the Sustainability<br />

of Zoo ‑based Populations: Phase 1.<br />

Paul Boyle – Association of Zoos & Aquariums | Brad Andrews – Sea World |<br />

Candice Dorsey – Association of Zoos & Aquariums | Mike Fouraker – Fort Worth Zoo |<br />

Dennis Pate – Henry Doorley Zoo | Mark Reed – Sedgewick County Zoo |<br />

Bob Wiese – San Diego Zoological Society (Task Force Chair)<br />

In early 2009, then Chairman of the<br />

AZA Board, Brad Andrews engaged<br />

the AZA staff and Board members<br />

and colleagues across the U. S. in a<br />

discussion about the sustainability of<br />

zoological populations. This dialog<br />

was prompted by the empirical perception<br />

that many zoo -based populations<br />

were not sustainable. Shortly<br />

after this discussion began, the Board<br />

chair appointed a special Task Force<br />

to investigate the sustainability of<br />

zoo -based populations in AZA institutions.<br />

This Sustainability Task Force<br />

quickly discerned that the parameters<br />

affecting the sustainability of aquatic<br />

species were sufficiently different<br />

from those affecting non ‑aquatic<br />

species that it created a separate<br />

Aquatic Sustainability Task Force to<br />

investigate aquatic sustainability issues<br />

in a separate, parallel track. The<br />

Aquatic Sustainability Task Force will<br />

report on its investigations separately<br />

during 2011. For the remainder of<br />

this paper the term “the Task Force”<br />

refers specifically to the work of the<br />

Task Force on the Sustainability of<br />

Zoo -based Populations.<br />

During 2009 and the first half of 2010<br />

the Task Force focused on the following<br />

assessments:<br />

• Assessing the current sustainability<br />

of zoo populations with a broad focus<br />

across major taxonomic groups.<br />

• Setting achievable goals for population<br />

sustainability.<br />

• Assessing impediments to achieving<br />

sustainability.<br />

• Developing recommendations for<br />

modifications to AZA’s Species<br />

Survival Plan® programs that would<br />

increase population sustainability.<br />

• In conducting this work, the Task<br />

Force used the following guiding<br />

principles:<br />

• All zoo populations should be managed.<br />

• Animal management programs<br />

should be accountable.<br />

• All program changes should build<br />

population sustainability.<br />

• Changes should create incentives<br />

for program leaders to make populations<br />

more sustainable.<br />

• Program administration should be<br />

simplified.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

The Task force found strong foundations<br />

throughout the animal management<br />

programs indicating a very high<br />

level of dedication among program<br />

leaders to conservation and best<br />

practices in animal care and welfare.<br />

However, by late 2009, the Task Force<br />

had conducted sufficient analytical<br />

studies to support the premise that<br />

zoo -based populations, in fact, were<br />

largely declining in overall numbers<br />

over the previous decade. This<br />

included studies on carnivores, birds,<br />

reptiles and amphibians, hoof stock,<br />

and primates. Initially, the root cause<br />

seemed largely due to low numbers<br />

of animals in the specific populations.<br />

However, further investigation identified<br />

a number of underlying factors<br />

that individually and collectively reduced<br />

the sustainability of the various<br />

populations. These included:<br />

• Population too small to yield long-<br />

-term sustainability.<br />

• Lack of space, including both exhibit<br />

and breeding space, sufficient to<br />

maintain a population capable of<br />

reaching long -term sustainability.<br />

• Lack of husbandry expertise to<br />

breed some species predictably.<br />

• Overloaded population planning<br />

capacity.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 33<br />

• Unnecessary complexity in population<br />

management administration.<br />

• Inadequate awareness at all levels<br />

related to sustainability issues.<br />

• A need for a stronger overall commitment<br />

to supporting sustainability<br />

outcomes.<br />

• Widespread difficulty in obtaining<br />

permits for acquiring and moving<br />

animals.<br />

• Dwindling staff expertise related to<br />

the husbandry of a broad range of<br />

species.<br />

In advance of the Task Force work,<br />

AZA’s Wildlife Conservation Management<br />

Committee (WCMC) identified<br />

program accountability as being<br />

clearly among the primary needs of<br />

building long term sustainability. An<br />

intensive program was put in place<br />

from 2007 through 2008, which<br />

succeeded in achieving program<br />

accountability near the 97 to 99 percent<br />

level. As the Task Force began<br />

developing recommendations to<br />

address the lingering issues shown<br />

in the above list, the initial focus was<br />

placed on:<br />

• Reducing administrative impediments<br />

that thwart sustainability.<br />

• Increasing resources that will advance<br />

sustainability.<br />

• Increasing the focus and incentives<br />

toward achieving sustainability.<br />

Other aspects that will require a<br />

longer time -horizon to implement<br />

include:<br />

• Increasing the capacity for population<br />

management planning.<br />

• Developing new program leader<br />

professional development courses.<br />

• Capacity -building in the writing and<br />

submission of permits<br />

• Sustainability education for all levels<br />

of stakeholders.<br />

In July 2010 the Task Force brought<br />

a Phase -1 set of recommendations<br />

to the AZA Board, which were<br />

unanimously approved. The following<br />

provides an overview of changes in<br />

the AZA SSP® programs that will be<br />

put into place in January 2011.<br />

• Population sustainability and conservation<br />

achievement of individual<br />

programs will be assessed separately.<br />

• Each animal management program<br />

will earn its level of population<br />

sustainability and / or conservation<br />

achievement and the levels can<br />

change depending on the program’s<br />

performance.<br />

• Population sustainability of each<br />

managed program will be placed in<br />

one of three levels: Green, Yellow, or<br />

Red (as described below).<br />

• Sustainability assessments will be<br />

performed as part of the ongoing<br />

process of management planning<br />

using models such as ZooRisk, Vortex,<br />

or others.<br />

• The general criteria for assessing<br />

long -term sustainability will be how<br />

long a population is projected to<br />

remain demographically viable with<br />

total gene diversity above 90%.<br />

• Assessment of populations of some<br />

taxa will require consideration and<br />

monitoring of other criteria as well.<br />

• All AZA institutions will continue to<br />

be subject to the AZA Acquisition<br />

and Disposition and the Code of<br />

Professional Ethics policies.<br />

• Institutional accountability regarding<br />

active participation and willingness<br />

to provide timely and accurate<br />

data remains important for building<br />

collections sustainability; as such,<br />

institutional participation in following<br />

breeding recommendations<br />

and the provision of required data<br />

will be reported in management<br />

program plans, regional collection<br />

plans, and other communications.<br />

Details of the individual program<br />

levels are as follows:<br />

GREEN SSP® Programs<br />

• The population is currently sustainable<br />

for the long term.<br />

• A population sustainable demographically<br />

for greater than 100<br />

years or greater than 10 generations<br />

• The population is able to maintain a<br />

high level of gene diversity (>90%)<br />

over this time.<br />

• The program is subject to SSP® Full<br />

Participation and the AZA Non-<br />

-member Participation Policy and<br />

process.<br />

• These programs are called Species<br />

Survival Plans®.<br />

YELLOW SSP ® Programs<br />

• The population currently can not retain<br />

90% gene diversity for greater<br />

than 100 years or more than 10<br />

generations.<br />

• Factors affecting sustainability may<br />

include<br />

• Too few individuals<br />

in the population.<br />

• Insufficient space available<br />

for maintaining a sustainable<br />

population.<br />

• Lack of husbandry<br />

and breeding expertise.<br />

• Low gene diversity<br />

• Poor demographics<br />

• Adherence to SSP® Full Participation<br />

is voluntary but remains highly<br />

recommended.<br />

• The program can partner with non-<br />

-member organizations without<br />

the AZA non -member application<br />

process.<br />

• Institutions are encouraged to<br />

participate in these programs to<br />

increase their sustainability.<br />

• These programs are called Species<br />

Survival Plans®


34<br />

RED Programs<br />

• The population is not currently<br />

sustainable.<br />

• The population has fewer than 50<br />

individuals.<br />

• The program is not designated as an<br />

SSP® program<br />

• The program is managed as an<br />

official AZA Studbook if the Taxon<br />

Advisory Group (TAG) recommends<br />

the species in the Regional Collection<br />

Plan (RCP).<br />

• The program is not required to<br />

engage in formal planning on a<br />

regularly scheduled basis, although<br />

such population planning is allowed<br />

if the program leader so desires.<br />

• RED designation may be a strong<br />

call to action.<br />

• Adherence to SSP® Full Participation<br />

is voluntary<br />

• The program can partner with non-<br />

-member organizations without<br />

the AZA non -member application<br />

process.<br />

• Some start ‑up efforts will fall into<br />

this category and their designation<br />

may be changed as the appropriate<br />

sustainability criteria are attained.<br />

Population Planning<br />

• GREEN SSP®, YELLOW SSP®,<br />

and RED Studbook programs all<br />

continue to require an official AZA<br />

Studbook.<br />

• All studbook keepers are required<br />

to complete the AZA Population<br />

Management I course.<br />

• Studbook keepers are encouraged<br />

to submit studbooks to AZA and<br />

ISIS every three years.<br />

• Population biologists are available<br />

to assist planning for all Animal<br />

Management Programs including<br />

RED programs as available.<br />

• RED Studbook Programs can advance<br />

into the YELLOW or GREEN<br />

SSP® category if they meet the<br />

required sustainability criteria.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

Conservation<br />

Action Designation<br />

The Task Force will appoint a Special<br />

Working Group to develop criteria<br />

and a process for assessing the conservation<br />

achievements of individual<br />

programs. The Conservation Assessment<br />

Working Group will include:<br />

members of the Sustainability Task<br />

Force, several members of AZA’s<br />

Field Conservation Committee and<br />

a number of other stakeholders. The<br />

Working Group will develop a set of<br />

recommendations for approval by<br />

the AZA Board.<br />

Following approval of the criteria and<br />

process for assessing the conservation<br />

achievement of individual<br />

programs, the Field Conservation<br />

Committee will be charged with<br />

conducting the program assessments.<br />

Programs that qualify will be granted<br />

a designation of GOLD, SILVER, or<br />

BRONZE depending on the amount<br />

of in situ conservation action being<br />

completed and / or research, which<br />

is directly related to measurable<br />

conservation outcomes. The Conservation<br />

assessment process will be<br />

implemented during the latter part<br />

of 2011.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 35<br />

Further Actions to build<br />

Program Sustainability<br />

The Sustainability Task Force recommendations<br />

call for a number of other<br />

actions to build program sustainability.<br />

These include:<br />

• Increased Training opportunities<br />

that will stress:<br />

• The fundamental importance of<br />

collaboration at local, regional, and<br />

global levels.<br />

• The essential need for institutions<br />

to support capable staff in their vital<br />

role as Program Leaders.<br />

• The crucial need for institutions to<br />

follow breeding plan recommendations.<br />

• Increased space for animal holding<br />

and breeding:<br />

• Lack of space is the primary factor<br />

affecting zoos’ ability to achieve the<br />

development of sustainable animal<br />

populations.<br />

• Beyond a general lack of space, the<br />

lack of holding and breeding space<br />

is the principal concern.<br />

• Centralized breeding and holding<br />

centers may be necessary to<br />

maintain sustainable populations of<br />

some taxa.<br />

• Program Leaders are actively<br />

encouraged to work to increase<br />

space needed for their programs to<br />

achieve YELLOW and GREEN SSP®<br />

designations.<br />

• Investigating models for cooperative<br />

financing for the development<br />

of holding and breeding space at<br />

larger institutions that have available<br />

land.<br />

• Examples include The National<br />

Elephant Center, C2S2 (Conservation<br />

Centers for Species Survival),<br />

the development of global zoo<br />

and aquarium partnerships (e.g.<br />

Global Species Management Plans<br />

–GSMPs).<br />

• Efforts to increase population planning<br />

capacity:<br />

• More individuals will be trained and<br />

authorized to provide population<br />

management planning services.<br />

• Some U. S. regional zoo groups<br />

may fund population biology planner<br />

positions for planning in their<br />

region.<br />

• To ensure consistency in plan development<br />

all authorized planners will<br />

undergo similar training.<br />

• Increased training on permit application<br />

writing:<br />

• Permit ‑writing workshops will be<br />

held at AZA meetings with assistance<br />

from permit authorizing<br />

agencies.<br />

• On ‑line courses in permit application<br />

writing will be developed by<br />

AZA.<br />

• Development of Program Leader<br />

succession planning:<br />

• All SSP® programs will be required<br />

to have an identified program Vice‑<br />

-Coordinator who will be mentored<br />

in developing capabilities for<br />

handling Program Leader responsibilities.<br />

• All SSP® Program Coordinators<br />

and Vice -Coordinators will be<br />

strongly encouraged to complete<br />

the AZA Program Leader management<br />

course.<br />

• Program Leaders will be encouraged<br />

to complete additional online<br />

training courses as they are developed.<br />

The Sustainability Task force extends<br />

special thanks to the following for<br />

significant assistance in planning<br />

for the development of sustainable<br />

animal management programs:<br />

• AZA’s Wildlife Conservation & Management<br />

Committee (WCMC).<br />

• The Taxon Advisory Group (TAG)<br />

Chairs.<br />

• All of AZA’s Animal Program Leaders.<br />

• The Avian Science Advisory Group<br />

(SAG)<br />

• The Small Population Management<br />

Advisory Group.<br />

• Sarah Long<br />

• William Conway<br />

• Palmer Krantz<br />

• Deborah Colbert<br />

• Bob Lacy<br />

• Steve Thompson<br />

Thanks also to the AZA Board of<br />

Directors for encouraging the Task<br />

Force to continue working to ensure<br />

a sustainable future for zoological<br />

populations.


36<br />

Chicago Zoological Society’s Center<br />

for the Science of Animal Welfare<br />

Dan Wharton – Senior Vice ‑President Conservation Science |<br />

Nadja Wielebnowski – Vice ‑President Animal Welfare Science |<br />

The Center for the Science of Animal<br />

Welfare (CSAW), Chicago Zoological<br />

Society, represents the integration of<br />

the departments of conservation science,<br />

veterinary services, and animal<br />

care for practicing and advancing<br />

state -of -the -art zoo animal management.<br />

CSAW’s focus is to provide continuous<br />

improvement of animal welfare<br />

through sound, multi -disciplinary<br />

scientific study. CSAW’s strength<br />

comes from the integration of many<br />

disciplines, emphasizing behavioral<br />

research and behavioral endocrinology.<br />

CSAW is also planning to provide<br />

training and development of future<br />

zoo animal welfare scientists.<br />

Endocrinology<br />

The modern science of endocrinology<br />

has provided new tools for the monitoring<br />

of zoo animals. One of the<br />

special applications of this science<br />

for zoo animals is in the development<br />

of methods to get measurements<br />

without handling the animals. While<br />

blood serum is an obvious source of<br />

circulating hormones, techniques<br />

have been developed to get excellent<br />

readings from feces, urine and saliva.<br />

Hormone assays have been validated<br />

for more than 50 species over the<br />

past eight years at Chicago Zoological<br />

Society laboratories. We can now<br />

measure such things as estrous cycles,<br />

pregnancy, seasonality, onset of puberty,<br />

reproductive senescence and<br />

physiological stress responses.<br />

Among the unusual species for which<br />

we can now diagnose pregnancy are<br />

aardvarks, red river hogs, okapi, also<br />

ovulation and seasonality in echidnas.<br />

Physiological stress response in<br />

clouded leopards has been an important<br />

part of our work and we have<br />

been able to demonstrate scientifically<br />

that the addition of more hiding<br />

places and climbing structures in<br />

clouded leopard exhibits cause a<br />

dramatic decline in measurable stress<br />

response.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

Jason Watters – Behavioral Research Manager, Chicago Zoological Society<br />

Behavioral Research<br />

We have two major initiatives in<br />

our Behavioral Research department.<br />

One is the development of a<br />

predictive theory for environmental<br />

enrichment. This is, in part, based<br />

on the simple facts that few animals<br />

in nature eat on schedule while few<br />

animals in zoos eat off schedule. Wild<br />

animals must figure out when and<br />

where food is. These facts provide<br />

the basis for translating learning<br />

theory into some assumptions about<br />

environmental enrichment practices<br />

including predictions on the effects of<br />

varying “doses” of enrichment.<br />

In a study of fennec foxes under<br />

multiple and varying doses of food<br />

enrichment, it was possible to demonstrate<br />

that fennec fox behaviors<br />

became more varied and the time<br />

spent sleeping declined dramatically.<br />

Adjunct to this study was one of the<br />

visitors coming to the fennec fox<br />

exhibit while the foxes were subject<br />

to the enrichment dosing study. Visitor<br />

time spent at the exhibit watching<br />

and discussing the foxes increased<br />

significantly (see Watters et al., 2010).


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 37<br />

Another area of research is in “behavioral<br />

types” or issues in animal<br />

personality. By studying this as yet<br />

another aspect of population management,<br />

we can begin to develop<br />

methods for assessing zoo animals in<br />

regard to manager expectations. For<br />

instance, when one considers that<br />

“visitor experience” is the foundation<br />

for realizing the zoo mission in wildlife<br />

conservation, it becomes much<br />

more important to know which individual<br />

animals are likely to engage in<br />

natural behaviors on exhibit.<br />

The Welfare Monitoring<br />

Tool Project<br />

We are currently moving into the<br />

implementation phase of employing<br />

an exciting new tool in animal<br />

welfare monitoring. This will include<br />

previously established questionnaire<br />

techniques to create easy -to -use welfare<br />

rating sheets for a wide variety<br />

of species, ranging from mammals,<br />

to birds and reptiles. These rating<br />

sheets are based on expert opinions<br />

of pertinent welfare measures for<br />

each species. We have validated the<br />

rating sheets by conducting detailed<br />

behavioral observations, collecting<br />

and analyzing hormonal data and<br />

reviewing medical records.<br />

Currently, we have developed rating<br />

sheets for twelve species: Aardvark,<br />

African elephant, clouded leopard,<br />

fennec fox, Goeldi’s monkey, gorilla,<br />

okapi, black rhinoceros, polar bear,<br />

leopard gecko, green -winged macaw<br />

and red -tailed hawk.<br />

As ground -breaking research, the<br />

resulting tool will: 1) pinpoint appropriate<br />

methods for monitoring the<br />

well -being of individual animals; 2)<br />

evaluate whether efforts to improve<br />

conditions result in enhanced welfare;<br />

and, 3) refine institutional animal care<br />

guidelines.<br />

Animal Welfare Symposia<br />

In 2008, the Chicago Zoological Society’s<br />

Center for the Science of Animal<br />

Welfare hosted its first symposium<br />

entitled “Measuring Zoo Animal<br />

Welfare: Combining Approaches<br />

and Overcoming Challenges.” The<br />

proceedings of this symposium were<br />

published in 2009 in a special issue<br />

of Zoo Biology entitled “Optimal<br />

Zoo Animal Husbandry” (Zoo Biology<br />

28–6).<br />

Currently, a second Chicago Zoological<br />

Society animal welfare symposium<br />

is in planning for June 6 – 8, 2012<br />

at the Brookfield Zoo.<br />

For further reading:<br />

• Watters, J. 2009. Toward a predictive<br />

theory for environmental<br />

enrichment. Zoo Biology 28 (6):<br />

609–622.<br />

• Watters, J., J. Miller, T. Sullivan.<br />

2010. Note on Optimizing Environmental<br />

Enrichment: A Study of Fennec<br />

Fox and Zoo Guests. Zoo Biology<br />

DOI 10.1002/zoo.20365<br />

• Whitham, J. and N. Wielebnowski.<br />

2009. Animal -based welfare monitoring:<br />

using keeper ratings as an<br />

assessment tool. Zoo Biology 28 (6):<br />

545–560.<br />

• Wielebnowski, N. and J. Watters.<br />

2008. Applying Fecal Endocrine<br />

Monitoring to Conservation and<br />

Behavioral Studies of Wild Mammals:<br />

Important Considerations and<br />

Preliminary Tests. The Israel Journal<br />

of Ecology & Evolution 53: 439–460.


38<br />

The ISO’s International Workshop<br />

Agreement (IWA)<br />

Trevor Vyze – International Organization for Standardization (ISO)<br />

Introduction<br />

The International Workshop Agreement<br />

(IWA) was developed to bridge<br />

the gap between private consortia<br />

that produce standards and ISO’s<br />

formal International Standardization<br />

process which produces standards<br />

through the ISO member bodies<br />

(National Standards Bodies). The IWA<br />

is a very flexible model of standardization<br />

and still keeps the principles of<br />

openness and consensus. It involves<br />

direct participation of stakeholders.<br />

The IWA can provide a quick and effective<br />

solution for groups of people<br />

looking to solve the same problem or<br />

who wish to communicate something<br />

they have already developed to the<br />

international market. IWAs can be initiated<br />

and driven by any stakeholder<br />

group (industry, service providers, administrations,<br />

users and consumers)<br />

and they can come from any country<br />

or region of the world.<br />

Main selling points<br />

of the IWA<br />

An IWA will:<br />

• Involve the main players from your<br />

target sector (public or private) and<br />

allow a sector to develop clear rules<br />

on an issue.<br />

• Give visibility to your professional<br />

practices or reference documents<br />

(ISO is a highly recognized international<br />

body).<br />

• Help you shape the future direction<br />

of the subject and influence any<br />

future ISO standard.<br />

• Allow you to develop relationships<br />

within a profession or sector.<br />

• Create understanding and co-<br />

-ordination amongst your various<br />

stakeholders.<br />

• Share best practice in a sector.<br />

• Improve quality and interoperability.<br />

• Lead to worldwide visibility due to<br />

ISO members’ distribution networks.<br />

• Help you to develop a members-<br />

-only forum to communicate using,<br />

for example, a dedicated Web site.<br />

Proposals to develop IWAs<br />

A proposal to hold an ISO workshop<br />

for the purpose of developing one<br />

or more IWAs on a particular subject<br />

may come from any source, including<br />

ISO member bodies, liaison organizations,<br />

corporate bodies etc. An organization<br />

that is not an ISO member<br />

body or liaison organization, or is not<br />

international in scope, shall inform<br />

the ISO member body in its country<br />

of its intent to submit such a proposal.<br />

Whenever practicable, proposers<br />

shall provide details concerning:<br />

• Purpose and justification of the<br />

proposal;<br />

• Relevant documents; and<br />

• Cooperation and liaison,<br />

in accordance with the ISO/IEC Directives,<br />

Part 1, 2004, annex C. Additionally,<br />

wherever possible, proposals shall<br />

include indication of an ISO member<br />

body willing to provide secretariat<br />

support to the IWA Workshop. If it is<br />

considered likely that participation in<br />

the workshop will need to be limited<br />

(see 7.2 of this document), this shall<br />

also be indicated. In some circumstances,<br />

it may be considered that<br />

several meetings may be needed in<br />

order to reach a consensus. In such<br />

cases, the proposer is encouraged, or<br />

may be required by the Technical Management<br />

Board, to develop a business<br />

plan which would give details concerning<br />

meeting schedules, expected dates<br />

of availability of draft documents, the<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

possibility that a workshop may establish<br />

project teams to progress work<br />

between meetings of the workshop,<br />

the expected date of availability of any<br />

IWA, etc.<br />

Review of proposals<br />

Proposals will be referred to the<br />

Technical Management Board for<br />

approval. If the proposal is accepted,<br />

the TMB will initiate consultations<br />

with member bodies to identify a<br />

candidate willing to act as the organizer<br />

and to provide administrative<br />

and logistics support to the proposer.<br />

Preference will normally be given to:<br />

• The member body presenting the<br />

proposal (if the proposal comes<br />

from a member body)<br />

• The member body from the country<br />

of the proposer, if the proposer is<br />

not a member body; or<br />

• Member bodies holding secretariats<br />

in fields related to that covered by<br />

the proposal.<br />

If there is more than one offer, the<br />

TMB will formally designate the<br />

member body assigned to act as the<br />

workshop secretariat. The assigned<br />

ISO member body may establish<br />

financial arrangements with the<br />

proposer to cover administrative<br />

and logistics support costs for the<br />

workshop. If a member body is not<br />

willing to act as workshop secretariat,<br />

the ISO/TMB may authorize the<br />

ISO Central Secretariat to fulfill this<br />

role, provided all associated costs<br />

are recovered by workshop registration<br />

fees. An informative checklist<br />

for estimating IWA workshop can<br />

be obtained from the ISO CS (tmb@<br />

iso.org). The workshop secretariat<br />

and the proposer shall designate the<br />

chairman of the workshop.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 39<br />

Announcement<br />

Once the workshop secretariat and<br />

the proposer have agreed on a date<br />

and venue for the first meeting of<br />

the workshop, these shall be communicated<br />

to the ISO member bodies.<br />

These details shall be further announced<br />

by the workshop secretariat,<br />

the ISO Central Secretariat and by<br />

any other interested member bodies<br />

in the most appropriate way(s) to<br />

achieve the widest possible circulation<br />

(e.g. a publicly accessible website).<br />

This may include a number of<br />

different announcement options and<br />

media, but the intent is to ensure that<br />

the broadest range of relevant interested<br />

parties worldwide are informed<br />

of the workshop and have the opportunity<br />

to attend. The proposer and<br />

workshop secretariat will ensure that<br />

any ISO committees with projects<br />

relevant to the subject will be invited<br />

to be represented at the workshop 1 .<br />

A registration fee may be applied to<br />

help support preparation and hosting<br />

of the workshop. Any registration<br />

fees shall be stated in the workshop<br />

announcement. NOTE: When the<br />

subject matter of a workshop is likely<br />

to be of interest to developing countries,<br />

it is recommended either that a<br />

funding mechanism other than a registration<br />

fee be applied to facilitate<br />

participation from such countries, or<br />

that a number of “free” registrations<br />

be permitted. The announcement<br />

shall be made at least 90 days in<br />

advance of the agreed date to allow<br />

potential attendees adequate time to<br />

plan on attending the workshop. The<br />

announcement shall be accompanied<br />

by a registration form to allow potential<br />

participants to register for the<br />

workshop. Registration forms shall be<br />

returned to the workshop Secretariat.<br />

1 Where requested, ISO CS will help identify<br />

any TCs with a possible interest. It is also<br />

likely that the ISO TMB will note any<br />

relevant TCs with an interest when they approve<br />

the IWA.<br />

Workshop information<br />

A workshop programme detailing<br />

workshop objectives, deliverables,<br />

agenda, draft documents and any<br />

other relevant details for the workshop<br />

shall be available, and circulated<br />

to registered participants, no later<br />

than six weeks prior to the workshop<br />

date. Registered participants may<br />

submit their own contributions to<br />

the workshop secretariat for further<br />

distribution to other participants.<br />

Participation<br />

Workshop chairmen<br />

The proposer and workshop secretary<br />

shall designate the chairman of any<br />

particular workshop. The chairman<br />

shall act in a purely international and<br />

neutral capacity and in particular shall:<br />

• Ensure that all points of view<br />

expressed during a workshop are<br />

adequately summed up so that they<br />

are understood by all present,<br />

• Conduct the workshop with a view<br />

to reaching consensus,<br />

• Ensure that all decisions are clearly<br />

formulated and, if needed, made<br />

available to the participants before<br />

closure of the meeting of the workshop.<br />

Registered participants<br />

Any organization may register as<br />

a participant in a workshop and participation<br />

will be open to the registered<br />

participants only. Participants<br />

are not required to be appointed by<br />

the ISO member body in their country<br />

2 . The workshop secretariat, chairman<br />

and proposer shall endeavour<br />

to ensure that the broadest range of<br />

interests is represented in any workshop<br />

and that there is an appropriate<br />

balance of representation. If needed,<br />

this may require that some limitation<br />

be placed on participation (for example<br />

no more than two registered<br />

2 ISO member bodies however can, in principle,<br />

participate in their own right.<br />

participants from the same corporate<br />

body or organization). If the need to<br />

limit participation is expected at the<br />

outset, this shall be indicated in the<br />

proposal submitted to the Technical<br />

Management Board. If a need for<br />

limitation becomes apparent after<br />

announcement of the workshop, this<br />

shall be authorized by the TMB secretariat<br />

following consultation with the<br />

TMB chairman and, if needed, other<br />

TMB members.<br />

Project teams<br />

In cases in which more than one<br />

meeting will be required to reach<br />

consensus, a workshop may establish<br />

one or more project teams to progress<br />

work between meetings of the<br />

workshop. The workshop shall designate<br />

the membership of such project<br />

teams, ensuring that their working<br />

methods will allow all interests to<br />

participate fully.<br />

Workshop procedures and<br />

management oversight<br />

Workshops will be permitted to work<br />

in a practically autonomous manner<br />

using very flexible procedures.<br />

However, there are a number of<br />

general ISO policies which need to<br />

be respected, in particular those concerning<br />

intellectual property rights<br />

and the use of SI units. It shall be the<br />

responsibility of the workshop secretariat<br />

to ensure that the appropriate<br />

policies are known to registered<br />

participants and are respected.<br />

Management oversight will be kept<br />

to the minimum required to ensure<br />

coordination with existing standardization<br />

activities if relevant and<br />

to ensure that appropriate resource<br />

is provided by the ISO system. It will<br />

be the responsibility of the workshop<br />

chairman to determine when consensus<br />

of the workshop participants has<br />

been reached on a particular item or<br />

deliverable. For the purposes of determining<br />

consensus, the workshop<br />

chairman shall apply the following<br />

definition contained in ISO/IEC Guide<br />

2:1996:


40<br />

“General agreement, characterized by<br />

the absence of sustained opposition<br />

to substantial issues by any important<br />

part of the concerned interests and<br />

by a process that involves seeking<br />

to take into account the views of all<br />

parties concerned and to reconcile any<br />

conflicting arguments. Consensus need<br />

not imply unanimity.”<br />

It should be noted that an IWA workshop<br />

may arrive at the consensus that<br />

an IWA deliverable is not necessary.<br />

The workshop deliverables shall<br />

contain a description of the workshop<br />

consensus achieved including any<br />

recommendations for possible future<br />

actions or revisions to the workshop<br />

deliverables. The deliverable resulting<br />

from the workshop will proceed to<br />

publication based on the consensus<br />

of the workshop without additional<br />

reviews or approvals by any other<br />

body, except in the case of an appeal<br />

on such a deliverable (see immediately<br />

below).<br />

Appeals<br />

Any parties affected by the deliverable<br />

resulting from the workshop<br />

shall have the right of appeal for the<br />

following reasons:<br />

• The workshop and the process to<br />

arrive at its deliverable have not<br />

complied with these procedures;<br />

• The deliverable resulting from the<br />

workshop is not in the best interests<br />

of international trade and commerce,<br />

or such public factors as<br />

safety, health or the environment;<br />

or<br />

• The contents of the deliverable<br />

resulting from the workshop conflict<br />

with existing or draft ISO standard<br />

(s) or may be detrimental to the<br />

reputation of ISO.<br />

Such appeals shall be submitted<br />

within two months of the date of the<br />

workshop and shall be considered<br />

by the ISO Technical Management<br />

Board which in such circumstances<br />

will take the final decision concerning<br />

publication of an IWA.<br />

Workshop deliverables<br />

and publication<br />

Workshops will decide on the<br />

content of their own deliverables. It<br />

is strongly recommended that the<br />

drafting rules in Part 2 of the ISO/IEC<br />

Directives be followed if possible. The<br />

workshop secretariat and proposer<br />

shall be responsible for preparation<br />

of the text. The final document shall<br />

be sent to the ISO Central Secretariat<br />

for publication as an IWA. They will<br />

be numbered in a special IWA series.<br />

IWAs may be published in one of the<br />

official ISO languages only and competing<br />

IWAs on the same subject are<br />

permitted. The technical content of<br />

an IWA may compete with the technical<br />

content of an existing ISO or IEC<br />

standard, or the proposed content of<br />

an ISO or IEC standard under development,<br />

but conflict is not normally<br />

permitted unless expressly authorized<br />

by the TMB.<br />

Review of IWAs<br />

Three years after publication, the<br />

member body which provided the<br />

workshop secretariat will be requested<br />

to organize the review of an IWA,<br />

consulting interested market players<br />

as well as, if needed, the relevant<br />

ISO committee (s). The result of the<br />

review may be to confirm the IWA<br />

for a further three year period, to<br />

withdraw the IWA or to submit it for<br />

further processing as another ISO<br />

deliverable in accordance with Part<br />

1 of the ISO/IEC Directives. An IWA<br />

may be further processed to become<br />

a Publicly Available Specification, a<br />

Technical Specification or an International<br />

Standard, according to the<br />

market requirement. An IWA may exist<br />

for a maximum of six years following<br />

which it shall either be withdrawn<br />

or be converted into another ISO<br />

deliverable.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

Costing of the services<br />

provided by the secretariat<br />

of the IWA.<br />

The specific services which will be<br />

carried out by the member body<br />

appointed as secretariat for the IWA,<br />

and the price of those services, are<br />

the subject of a private contract between<br />

the ISO member body and the<br />

proposing organization. ISO member<br />

bodies appointed as secretariats<br />

to IWAs shall consider the overall<br />

reputation of ISO when costing their<br />

services, drafting contracts and executing<br />

the final services agreed.<br />

Distribution of the<br />

published IWA<br />

The IWA will be distributed as with<br />

any other ISO publication. This<br />

includes in particular the right of ISO<br />

Members to nationally adopt the IWA<br />

as indicated in ISO Guide 21:2005 3 ,<br />

or to reproduce the IWA in accordance<br />

to the terms of ISO POCOSA<br />

2005 4 . The IWA will also be available<br />

from the ISO Central Secretariat. If,<br />

however, the proposing organization<br />

wishes to suggest additional mechanisms<br />

for distributing the published<br />

IWA, then such terms should be<br />

submitted to the Secretary General<br />

of ISO for approval before the start of<br />

the IWA process.<br />

3 Regional or national adoption of International<br />

Standards and other International<br />

Deliverables, Parts 1 and 2.<br />

4 ISO Policies and Procedures for copyright,<br />

copyright exploitation rights and sales of<br />

ISO Publications


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 41<br />

Why Not Partner an African Zoo?<br />

Dave R. Morgan – Executive Director,<br />

African Association of Zoos and Aquaria (PAAZAB)<br />

I was recently asked if there were<br />

any zoos in Africa, to which I replied<br />

that there are indeed. My surprised<br />

questioner then responded, “But why<br />

have zoos in Africa at all?” I guess<br />

that it is a reasonable query when one<br />

considers that Africa remains home<br />

to probably the largest populations<br />

and conceivably one of the greatest<br />

in diversity, of free -ranging animals<br />

in the world. Overall, approximately<br />

7 per cent of the land area of Africa<br />

has been designated as protected<br />

giving a total of 1 254 protected areas.<br />

However when one considers that<br />

the average sub -Saharan wage is less<br />

than 70 US cents a day and that 37%<br />

of population of continental Africa is<br />

urbanized – often with truly staggering<br />

numbers of people living in cities,<br />

Lagos, Nigeria, 14 million, Cairo,<br />

Egypt, 22 Million – we are faced with<br />

the fact that the vast majority of<br />

these folk Are highly unlikely to see<br />

these masses of free -ranging animals<br />

in wild for themselves. In this regard,<br />

African Zoos serve the identical function<br />

as do European and American<br />

zoos – they connect people with<br />

wildlife. In many African cases, they<br />

provide the only contact with wildlife.<br />

So to return then to the original question;<br />

are there zoos in Africa? Most<br />

assuredly; the African Association of<br />

Zoos and Aquaria (PAAZAB) currently<br />

estimate approximately 200 zoos and<br />

zoo -type facilities in 48 countries in<br />

Africa (Morgan, 2003). These zoos are<br />

found in three main density clusters<br />

on continental Africa: southern Africa,<br />

West Africa and North Africa. A lot of<br />

these zoos are colonial artefacts, of<br />

early to mid 1900 derivation and are<br />

now government operated in one capacity<br />

or another. They also represent<br />

a considerable diversity of operational<br />

standards, ranging from world-<br />

-class facilities to what are very likely,<br />

amongst the world’s worst examples<br />

of zoos. Sadly, as such they represent<br />

a real concern to both international<br />

animal welfare NGOs and the larger<br />

community of professional zoos as<br />

represented by the World Association<br />

of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA).<br />

The reasons why such zoos are like<br />

this are legion, but the primary reasons<br />

hinge around funding deficiencies,<br />

certainly a degree of ignorance<br />

of modern zoo practice, bureaucratic<br />

inertia and a total absence in most<br />

cases of relevant animal welfare and/<br />

or zoo legislation. Notwithstanding,<br />

despite the best efforts of various<br />

animal welfare and rights NGOs to<br />

have them closed down (and in doing<br />

so, absolutely ravaging the image of<br />

all zoos worldwide); many of these<br />

zoos continue to exist.<br />

Yet the fact of their continued existence<br />

should also be seen as a statement<br />

of their very desirability to the<br />

communities that visit them. A desirability<br />

that is often manifest in very<br />

high visitor numbers; in excess of 4<br />

million people per annum in the case<br />

of Giza Zoo in Egypt and 1.5 million<br />

in the case of Addis Ababa Lion Zoo<br />

in Ethiopia. Such turnovers demonstrate<br />

that in the intensely urbanised<br />

environments that these cities<br />

represent, zoos provide some form of<br />

valued service to their communities.<br />

These zoos are not going to go away…<br />

Over the years, PAAZAB has examined<br />

various means of engaging with<br />

African Zoos. The most effective<br />

means to date has been the fostering<br />

of partner relationships between<br />

African Zoos and those in Europe.<br />

Noteworthy have been Leipzig Zoo’s<br />

partnering of Addis Ababa Lion Zoo<br />

in Ethiopia; the Zoological Society of<br />

London’s partnering with Kumasi Zoo<br />

in Ghana and Bristol Zoo with Mvog<br />

Betsi Zoo in Cameroon. These relationships<br />

have been characterised by<br />

effective cross ‑pollination of cultural<br />

mores, skills transfer and resource<br />

and capacity building. Such partnerships<br />

have also involved the sponsoring<br />

of these facilities’ institutional<br />

membership to PAAZAB.<br />

However, since these zoos were<br />

brought into the PAAZAB fold,<br />

there has been the initiation of a<br />

mandatory -compliance operational<br />

standard within the membership of<br />

PAAZAB. This standard is based upon<br />

the South African National Code of<br />

Zoo and Aquarium Practice (SANS<br />

10379:2004). All institutional members<br />

of PAAZAB are now required to<br />

demonstrate compliance with this<br />

standard following inspection visits<br />

by trained PAAZAB auditors. This<br />

standard is applicable to all member<br />

zoos and aquariums in Africa and is<br />

aimed very specifically at uplifting all<br />

elements of operational practise in<br />

African Zoos. In doing so, it is envisaged<br />

that such benchmarking will<br />

engender a better environment for<br />

partner relationships between African<br />

and Developed World zoos.<br />

The problem being that it will take<br />

several years to take some of these<br />

zoos from scratch through the<br />

Operational Standard process and<br />

mentoring. To this end PAAZAB has<br />

restructured the partnership deal<br />

to extend over a five year period to<br />

include operational standard mentoring<br />

and eventual auditing. A single<br />

lump sum to PAAZAB from the<br />

sponsoring zoo covers the cost of five<br />

years of membership to PAAZAB plus<br />

an operational standard audit, along<br />

with inspection visits and PAAZAB<br />

conference attendance.<br />

We still have a number of African<br />

zoos out there which we would like to<br />

guide into the larger WAZA community<br />

of zoos. Do give some consideration<br />

to sponsoring one of them.


42<br />

Public and Private Sector<br />

Collaboration to Preserve<br />

Biodiversity in Aviculture<br />

Peter Karsten – Denman Island, B.C. Canada<br />

Definitions:<br />

• “Public sector/institutions”: zoological<br />

gardens and conservation centers<br />

operating on a non ‑profit basis.<br />

• “Private sector/institutions”: privately<br />

owned avicultural operation.<br />

• “Private breeder”: home based, aviculturist<br />

not depending on operating<br />

cost recovery.<br />

Introduction<br />

“Only human passion can save spe‑<br />

cies diversity in aviculture”<br />

The species extinction crisis is a reality<br />

to which we must respond with<br />

more ex situ conservation programs.<br />

Despite this, zoo animal inventory<br />

records indicate a diminishing trend<br />

of biodiversity in avian populations,<br />

and, although difficult to capture statistically,<br />

this is echoed in private bird<br />

collections. The causes include:<br />

• Import export restrictions due to<br />

avian influenza.<br />

• More species are subject to import/<br />

export restrictions under endangered<br />

species regulations.<br />

• Competition over animal management<br />

spaces by other classes of<br />

animals with higher conservation<br />

priority and or charisma in zoological<br />

gardens.<br />

• Economic constraints to establish<br />

off ‑exhibit breeding programs in<br />

zoological institutions.<br />

• Shift in spare time activities away<br />

from keeping and breeding birds in<br />

the private sector.<br />

• Propagation of many species is<br />

labor intense and costly. Cost recovery<br />

through sales of surplus birds is<br />

problematic.<br />

Against this back drop the sequestration<br />

of new founders for ex situ breeding<br />

programs has become difficult.<br />

Softbill species are of particular<br />

concern. Most species require labour<br />

intense management, specialized<br />

breeding environment and costly<br />

food supplies. It is inconceivable that<br />

we will enjoy the wide variety of birds<br />

in aviculture, which we have today,<br />

unless we employ innovation, share<br />

available resources and make long<br />

term commitments. Passion and<br />

altruism, not monetary rewards, are<br />

the basis to achieve the preservation<br />

of species diversity in aviculture. The<br />

joining of forces between the public<br />

and private sector to establish more<br />

self -sustaining avian population is<br />

suggested.<br />

Fig. 1: Numbers of species per ISIS ‑member for ten<br />

genera of passerine birds in 1998 and 2010.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

Loss of diversity in various<br />

genera of passerine birds<br />

A comparison of the International<br />

Species Information System (ISIS)<br />

data between June 1998 and September<br />

2010 reveals a loss of species diversity<br />

by zoological institutions. This<br />

occurred despite a 37.5% increase<br />

of member institutions in the last<br />

12 years. (500 to 800).<br />

The status of minlas, yuhinas, laughing<br />

thrushes (“Garrulax”), tits (Pa‑<br />

rus), bulbuls (Pycnonotus), thrushes<br />

(Zoothera), robins (Erithacus), leafbirds<br />

(Chloropsis), tanagers and honey<br />

creepers has been examined (Fig. 1).


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 43<br />

The Problem of Space<br />

and Resources<br />

William Conway, Wildlife Conservation<br />

Society, New York, warned<br />

us three decades ago that wildlife<br />

spaces had become endangered, not<br />

simply species. In the context of species<br />

conservation, this encompasses<br />

in situ and ex situ spaces, both, in<br />

public and private aviaries.<br />

Limited space and resources pose<br />

limitations to pursue the intensive<br />

breeding of a wide range of bird<br />

species and softbills in particular. The<br />

breeding of highly territorial species<br />

combined with seasonal incompatibility<br />

of mates (members of family<br />

Musicapidae for example) set a high<br />

threshold for such endeavours in a<br />

zoo environment when it is designed<br />

to present a variety of bird species to<br />

serve public education and recreation.<br />

Off ‑exhibit breeding facilities have<br />

been established and remarkable<br />

achievements have been reached.<br />

But the sheer number of species<br />

needing off ‑exhibit breeding spaces<br />

and organized programs is overwhelming.<br />

The need to access and create more<br />

wildlife spaces for species conservation<br />

and recovery programs is<br />

obvious. Many species of hookbills<br />

and hardbills are still well represented<br />

and can be preserved within the<br />

companion animal population by private<br />

breeders. The potential wildlife<br />

spaces reach into the millions; and<br />

what is significant, they are generally<br />

not sustained on a cost ‑benefit basis,<br />

but on the passion for the animal.<br />

Revenue is pursued to offset operating<br />

cost, however the cost of labour<br />

is not a primary concern of many<br />

home based aviculturists. (I bred 30<br />

offspring of genus Leiothrix at an<br />

average cost of Can$ 133 per bird,<br />

labour excluded, or Can$ 633 per bird<br />

labour included. The current market<br />

price in Canada for these species is<br />

about Can$ 250.)<br />

To engage private breeders who are<br />

pursuing conservation breeding programs<br />

deserves serious consideration.<br />

1<br />

1 paired birds which could breed [% of total population]<br />

2 unpaired birds [% of total population]<br />

3 unsexed birds with unknown breeding potential [% of total population]<br />

Fig. 2: Composition of the world wide Fig. 3: Composition of the North American<br />

population of Leiothrix lutea kept by<br />

population of Leiothrix lutea kept by<br />

ISIS ‑members in September 2010<br />

ISIS ‑members in September 2010<br />

Breeding of Pekin Robins<br />

or red ‑billed Leiothrix L<br />

eiothrix lutea in zoological<br />

institutions<br />

World ‑wide situation.<br />

3<br />

The population is declining in public<br />

aviaries. ISIS data of member institutions:<br />

June 1998 = 345 specimens in<br />

46 institutions (7.7 per Inst.). September<br />

2010 = 318 birds in 55 institutions<br />

(5.78 per institution). More<br />

important are the numbers of birds<br />

propagated: June 1998 captive bred<br />

birds in the last twelve months = 21<br />

and in 2010 = 25. While the breeding<br />

of pekin robins in zoological gardens<br />

is on the rise, the population is still<br />

diminishing.<br />

The global captive population is underutilized<br />

for breeding, since nearly<br />

half of the tracked specimens are<br />

not identified by sex. There are also<br />

unpaired birds in a number of collections<br />

(Fig. 2)<br />

2<br />

1<br />

North American situation<br />

The North American captive population<br />

has a distinclty higher percentage<br />

of paired birds which could<br />

breed (Fig. 3). Despite this fact, the<br />

North American population showed<br />

a drastically decline from 1998 to<br />

2010 (ISIS -data of member institutions:<br />

June 1998 = 201 specimens,<br />

September 2010 = 70 birds; see Table<br />

1). The number of birds propagated<br />

declined roughly proportionally (June<br />

1998 = 18 birds bred during the last<br />

twelve months (0.07 offsprings per<br />

bird), September 2010 = 5 birds bred<br />

during the last twelve months (0.09<br />

offsprings per bird)).<br />

2<br />

3


44<br />

Pekin robins<br />

in Private sector<br />

Fortunately pekin robins can be bred<br />

by aviculturists through intense and<br />

focussed breeding programs. Off‑<br />

-exhibit breeding facilities have the<br />

greatest success in the private and<br />

public sector. (See Table 1)<br />

Although there are no comprehensive<br />

statistics, the population in private<br />

aviaries is declining rapidly since<br />

imports for the commercial trade<br />

stopped in 1997, when the species<br />

became listed in C. I. T. E. S Appendix<br />

II. Birds imported prior to that date<br />

are reaching the end of their average<br />

reproductive years (8 years, author’s<br />

experience). The species is effectively<br />

disappearing from the companion<br />

bird market. Recruitment from captive<br />

breeding very sporadic among<br />

pekin robin owners.<br />

142 offspring were raised since 1999<br />

to independence by the author, who<br />

has kept 14 birds on average per year.<br />

Over the last 11 years the reproduction<br />

rate was close to 93%. About<br />

ten birds were provided to other<br />

breeders annually. This represents a<br />

healthy surplus ratio to support other<br />

inventories. However, the intense<br />

breeding with only 19 founders to the<br />

5th generation caused the dilemma<br />

that all offspring in 2010 are to some<br />

extend related. Only three unrelated<br />

founders could be located in Canada<br />

for the 2011 breeding season. This<br />

means curtailing further breeding<br />

of most of the progeny to protect<br />

genetic diversity. A solution had to be<br />

found.<br />

Table 1: Statistics on the North American population<br />

of Leiothrix lutea in public institutions and by one private breeder<br />

Date No. of Population Total Births [total of Births [% of total<br />

institutions<br />

last 12 months] population]<br />

Public<br />

06/98 26 41.31.129 201 18 7<br />

institutions 09/10 18 32.31.7 70 5 9<br />

Private breeder 09/10 1 16.11.3 30 18 60<br />

Table 2: The collaboration will undoubtedly lead to a better utilization<br />

and preservation of bird species.<br />

Parameter Public institution Private breeder<br />

Capital cost high low with own labour<br />

Operating cost – Labour high and inflexible low and flexible<br />

Facility maintenance high standard and high cost low (no public services)<br />

Technical expertise high variable and limited<br />

Veterinary/research and support high low to none<br />

Availability of space low high for selected spp.<br />

Disturbance/business activity high low<br />

Access to founders high low to nil, depending on sp.<br />

Perpetuity of facility operation High low to none (situational)<br />

Emergency keeper back up good problematic<br />

Keeper hours per day on site limited unlimited<br />

Collaboration –<br />

a road to preserve avian<br />

populations in ex situ.<br />

A review of benefits and limitations<br />

between private breeders and public<br />

institutions reveals a promising<br />

scenario for collaboration to support<br />

biodiversity in both inventories over<br />

the long term.<br />

Strength<br />

and Weakness Analysis<br />

The resources of a private breeder<br />

could be combined with the resources<br />

of a zoological garden to develop<br />

long term conservation strategies to<br />

establish self -sustaining gene pools<br />

of birds in aviculture. (See Table 2)<br />

By pooling the resources between<br />

the two sectors, a number of the<br />

disadvantages and constraints can be<br />

mitigated.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

Potential positive scenario<br />

A breeding consortium can be established<br />

between zoological gardens<br />

and private breeders.<br />

The private breeders would propagate<br />

relevant species of birds on his/<br />

her premises to provide specialized<br />

breeding environments, alleviate<br />

high production cost and focus on<br />

the specific husbandry to obtain high<br />

and consistent reproductive success.<br />

Genetically over -represented stock<br />

and non -breeding specimens would<br />

be transferred to public zoological<br />

gardens for education and public<br />

display. The zoo would serve as a<br />

gene bank in case specimens must be<br />

re -entered into the active breeding<br />

population. The zoo, as a non ‑profit,<br />

public education/research facility can<br />

import species protected by C. I. T.<br />

E. S. to inject new founders into the<br />

gene pool, while a private individual<br />

can only do this with great difficulty.<br />

The imported specimens would be<br />

loaned to the breeder under contract<br />

and remain the property of the zoo.<br />

This would not exclude the zoological<br />

garden form creating its own breeding<br />

habitats, but it would alleviate the<br />

need for dedicating several aviaries<br />

to one species.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 45<br />

Benefits between the collaborators<br />

include:<br />

• Optimal breeding success of genetically<br />

enhanced and managed populations<br />

over the long term.<br />

• High rewards to the breeder and<br />

institution through conservation<br />

achievements.<br />

• Assured long term availability of<br />

relevant species for public education,<br />

study and recreation.<br />

• Preserving breeding stock by the<br />

zoo to relocate a private inventory<br />

of birds in case the breeder can no<br />

longer operate the program.<br />

• Collaborative research/study opportunity<br />

in an “off ‑exhibit” environment<br />

and sharing of experience and<br />

knowledge.<br />

Constraints and deterrents include:<br />

• Policies by Zoos and Zoo Associations<br />

confine acquisition and sales,<br />

loans and trading of animals to<br />

accredited organisations and those<br />

maintaining institutional membership<br />

in an association to ensure<br />

animal standards are met.<br />

• Private breeder may feel a loss of<br />

independence.<br />

• No guarantees that the private<br />

breeder will or can participate over<br />

the long term.<br />

• Establishment of trust relationships<br />

takes time.<br />

Suggested steps to overcome constraints:<br />

• Develop a form of an accreditation<br />

process for private breeders to<br />

partner with zoological institutions.<br />

Establish an associate member<br />

category for conservation breeders<br />

in the membership structure of zoo<br />

associations.<br />

• All animal movements between<br />

partners to be documented by<br />

signed agreements (breeding loan,<br />

exhibit loan etc.).<br />

• All specimens are permanently<br />

marked (leg bands) and listed in a<br />

studbook or similar register.<br />

• Record keeping standards are set<br />

and mutual access to records is<br />

assured.<br />

• Provision of mutual site visit privileges<br />

and exchanges of periodical<br />

status reports.<br />

Dialogue on this topic is urgent and<br />

necessary to take advantage of this<br />

promising opportunity in conservation.<br />

Recent development<br />

A Canadian Pekin Robin Breeding<br />

Consortium has been initiated.<br />

A number of private breeders have<br />

agreed to participate in a cooperative<br />

breeding program. Approximately<br />

25 aviary spaces have been identified<br />

specifically for the breeding of<br />

pekin robins. Peter Luscomb, General<br />

Curator of the Zoological Garden<br />

of Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, and Tom<br />

Mason the Curator of Birds and<br />

Invertebrates of the Toronto Zoo,<br />

initiated the collecting of pekin robins<br />

under permit from the wild in Hawaii<br />

and transferring them to the Toronto<br />

Zoo. The removal of pekin robins is<br />

reconcilable since this species is an<br />

alien species, which competes with<br />

endemic and native species. Avian<br />

influenza and West Nile virus is not a<br />

concern in the region of origin for the<br />

export and import of the birds. These<br />

zoo -owned specimens will be made<br />

available as new founder to private<br />

breeders under a loan agreement.<br />

Progeny is shared between the zoological<br />

garden and the breeder. Progeny<br />

and non -breeding specimens will<br />

be transferred to the Toronto zoo<br />

and other zoos which may participate.<br />

The Canadian zoos can provide<br />

surplus to other zoological gardens in<br />

Canada, the United States and other<br />

countries to pursue self sustainability<br />

in ex situ. It is hoped that this initiative<br />

can serve as a model for other<br />

avian programs.<br />

Conclusion<br />

More than 12% (2010 IUCN Red List)<br />

of the world’s bird species are threatened<br />

today. Some species have been<br />

secured through ex situ breeding<br />

programs and many more must be<br />

given that attention. Passerine softbill<br />

species are in decline in aviculture.<br />

Isolated, single pair breeding aviaries<br />

require space which is difficult to provide<br />

by a public zoo. A private breeder<br />

has good opportunities to produce<br />

pekin robins which can become part<br />

of a collaborative breeding program<br />

between the public and private<br />

sector. The resources of a private<br />

breeder could be combined with the<br />

resources of a zoological garden(s)<br />

to develop long term conservation<br />

strategies to establish self -sustaining<br />

gene pools in aviculture. This initiative<br />

requires agreements and protocols<br />

to be worked out between the<br />

private and public sector to overcome<br />

constraints. The collaboration will<br />

undoubtedly lead to a better utilization<br />

and preservation of bird species<br />

in ex situ. Dialogue on this topic is<br />

urgent and necessary to take advantage<br />

of this promising opportunity in<br />

conservation.<br />

References<br />

• Flesness, N. (1998/2010) International<br />

Species Information System<br />

(ISIS), Eagan, USA<br />

• Karsten, P., (2007), Pekin Robins and<br />

small softbills: management and<br />

breeding.<br />

• Hancock House Publishers Ltd.,<br />

Surrey, B. C. Canada, ISBN 0-88839-<br />

606-6.<br />

• Karsten, P. (2007) Public and Private<br />

Sector Collaboration – an Opportunity<br />

to build and preserve Avian<br />

Gene Pools. International Symposium<br />

On Breeding Birds In Captivity<br />

(ISBBC), Toronto, September 12 to<br />

16, 2007<br />

• Acknowledgement: Data on species<br />

inventories in zoological institutions<br />

compiled by Jana Kuropka, dipl.<br />

Biologist, Silver Pine Aviaries, Denman<br />

Island. B. C., Canada<br />

• www.pekinrobin.ca


46<br />

Introduction<br />

During the past decades, biodiversity<br />

conservation has become an<br />

important objective of environmental<br />

policy. Management programs<br />

are to be adjusted to aim not only<br />

for protecting individual species or<br />

habitats but to take into account the<br />

contribution of such activities for biodiversity<br />

conservation. Moreover, the<br />

decline in biodiversity has led to calls<br />

for increasing the scope and funding<br />

of conservation programs. This has<br />

inspired a controversial discussion<br />

about what exactly are the benefits of<br />

higher biodiversity and whether and<br />

how these benefits can be measured<br />

and compared to the costs of conservation<br />

programs.<br />

From a purely ecological perspective,<br />

it often seems to be essential to<br />

prevent the extinction of species and<br />

thereby preserve biodiversity; after<br />

all, extinction incurs an irreversible<br />

loss. However, from a broader perspective,<br />

the situation is less clear -cut.<br />

Like almost every activity, biodiversity<br />

conservation requires resources<br />

(such as labor, capital, land, materials)<br />

that could be used for other<br />

purposes and that are scarce. The<br />

question is: Should we assign funds<br />

to the protection of a little known<br />

species if we could alternatively use<br />

them to help thousands of destitute<br />

human beings?<br />

This way of stating the decision<br />

problem emphasizes a point that<br />

is of foremost importance from an<br />

economic perspective: Biodiversity<br />

conservation competes with other<br />

desirable activities for scarce funds.<br />

Therefore it is necessary to compare<br />

the benefits of conservation programs<br />

to those of alternative activities.<br />

To this end, we need to describe<br />

exactly why biodiversity is valuable<br />

and we need to have concepts for<br />

measuring its value. These points are<br />

the focus of the economic contribution<br />

to the biodiversity debate.<br />

In this note, I briefly review the main<br />

economic approaches to define a<br />

value of biodiversity and their implications<br />

for optimal conservation programs.<br />

To provide some background,<br />

I begin with an introduction to the<br />

mindset of economic valuation.<br />

Economic valuation<br />

The economic theory of value is<br />

strongly driven by its intended usage<br />

as a decision support tool. Therefore,<br />

most economic valuation concepts<br />

are consequentialistic, anthropocentric,<br />

and utilitarian. 1 A consequentialistic<br />

concept ascribes value according to<br />

results not according to processes.<br />

For instance, a consequentialistic<br />

approach measures the value of a<br />

conservation program by the program’s<br />

results not by its design (e.g.,<br />

whether it is participatory or not) or<br />

support (e.g., whether it is democratically<br />

legitimized).<br />

1 For an introduction see, for example, Hausman<br />

and McPherson (1996).<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

The Value of Biodiversity<br />

and the Economics of Biodiversity<br />

Conservation<br />

Frank C. Krysiak – University of Basel, Department of Business and Economics<br />

Anthropocentric means that results<br />

are evaluated from the perspective<br />

of human beings. Only those results<br />

matter that influence human well‑<br />

-being. For example, if no human<br />

being is harmed directly or indirectly<br />

by the extinction of a species, an<br />

anthropocentric concept provides no<br />

rationale to prevent this extinction.<br />

In particular, there are no intrinsic<br />

values to the existence of non -human<br />

beings.<br />

Finally, utilitarian (as this term is used<br />

in economics) implies that values are<br />

measured according to individual<br />

preferences. Something is valuable if<br />

and only if it is either directly desired<br />

by a human being or it contributes<br />

indirectly to the fulfillment of a<br />

human’s desires. Thus there are<br />

no “objective” values in a utilitarian<br />

framework. All values depend on<br />

the preferences of individual human<br />

beings. Furthermore, no distinction is<br />

made between “wants” and “needs”;<br />

there are only preferences.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 47<br />

These points seem reasonable in the<br />

context of appraising private goods,<br />

that is, goods with clearly defined<br />

property rights and rivalry in their<br />

use. 2 If markets perform reasonably<br />

well, the relative economic value of<br />

such goods results from the interaction<br />

of demand and supply. Demand<br />

measures how strongly a good is<br />

desired compared to other goods.<br />

Supply is determined by how costly it<br />

is to provide this good. Thus a seemingly<br />

useless good, like a diamond,<br />

can have much higher economic<br />

value than an essential good, such as<br />

clean water, simply because the diamond<br />

is much demanded and costly<br />

to supply. 3<br />

However, in the context of environmental<br />

goods, the above mindset<br />

seems to be less natural. Why should<br />

the value of preserving a species depend<br />

only on the human perspective?<br />

Moreover, why should we base this<br />

value on individual preferences?<br />

An important reason for using the<br />

above framework to assess environmental<br />

goods is that economic valuation<br />

is foremost a tool to make decisions<br />

more rational and transparent<br />

in cases where there are conflicts of<br />

interest. To achieve this, it is useful to<br />

have a concept of value that is based<br />

solely on measurable quantities.<br />

If all human beings would agree that<br />

biodiversity has such high value that<br />

we should assign every available<br />

resource to its preservation; quantifying<br />

the value of biodiversity would<br />

be unnecessary. But if individuals<br />

disagree regarding the importance<br />

of biodiversity, there is no simple and<br />

appealing way to decide how much<br />

funds should be assigned to biodiversity<br />

conservation.<br />

2 Rivalry exists whenever a good cannot be<br />

used simultaneously by more than one<br />

individual.<br />

3 This paradox of value is often referred to as<br />

the „diamond-water paradox“ and can be<br />

traced back to the work of Adam Smith and<br />

John Locke.<br />

Economic valuation helps to make a<br />

decision in such situations, because it<br />

derives a measure of the value of biodiversity<br />

(or, at least, a lower limit to<br />

this value) from a transparent set of<br />

assumptions and rigorous empirical<br />

studies. Although it is difficult, we can<br />

assess the value that an individual<br />

assigns to environmental goods in a<br />

framework where this value based<br />

on the individual’s preferences. For<br />

instance, hedonic price methods,<br />

contingent valuation, or choice experiments<br />

can be used to this end. 4<br />

In contrast, it is conceptually impossible<br />

to quantify intrinsic values or<br />

to separate “objectively” between<br />

needs and wants. Thus if we would include,<br />

for example, intrinsic values in<br />

a concept of the value of biodiversity,<br />

this value could never be measured.<br />

Although we would (perhaps) have<br />

an ethically more appealing concept<br />

of value, it would be almost useless<br />

as a decision support tool. Instead of<br />

arguing what is the correct quantification<br />

of an intrinsic value (which is a<br />

question that cannot be resolved scientifically),<br />

we could as well directly<br />

quarrel over the funding of specific<br />

conservation programs.<br />

For this reason, many economic<br />

valuation concepts deliberately omit<br />

non -measurable categories of value.<br />

Due to this omission, the concepts<br />

can derive only a lower limit for the<br />

“true” value of environmental goods.<br />

However, this limit will be useful for<br />

many purposes and can be derived<br />

rigorously and transparently.<br />

4 See, for example, the papers in Alberini and<br />

Kahn (2006) and, for an alternative perspective,<br />

Diamond and Hausman (1994).<br />

The economic<br />

value of biodiversity<br />

To define a value of biodiversity, a<br />

first step is to separate the value<br />

of biodiversity from the individual<br />

values of species, such as the joy<br />

humans derive from the existence of<br />

a species or its value for consumption.<br />

Consider a system that consists of n<br />

species and suppose that we are able<br />

to assign a value to the system as a<br />

whole (V) as well as to each individual<br />

species (vi, i=1,…, n). The difference<br />

between the value of the whole system<br />

(V) and the sum of the individual<br />

values of its species (∑ vi) is a reasonable<br />

starting point for measuring the<br />

value of biodiversity. This difference<br />

simply represents the additional<br />

value that results from the simultaneous<br />

existence of a number of species.<br />

In practice, we cannot derive the<br />

value of biodiversity in this way as a<br />

residual. Instead, we need to define<br />

and measure it on its own. There are<br />

numerous possibilities to achieve this.<br />

But two approaches are predominant<br />

in the economic literature that could<br />

be referred to as the “information approach”<br />

and the “ecosystem services<br />

approach.”<br />

The information approach<br />

The information approach has been<br />

promoted, for example, in Weitzman<br />

(1992, 1998) and Metrick and Weitzman<br />

(1998). In this approach, each<br />

species is seen as providing some<br />

characteristics that might be needed<br />

in the future, such as a particular<br />

genetic information. We do not yet<br />

know which of these characteristics<br />

we will actually need. Therefore it is<br />

reasonable to preserve a set of “options,”<br />

that is, a set of species with<br />

different characteristics. This approach<br />

is thus similar to the economic<br />

concept of an option value. An option<br />

value measures the economic benefit<br />

of having an addition option for<br />

acting on new information that will<br />

become available in the future, see,<br />

for example, Arrow and Fisher (1974).


48<br />

Weitzman (1998) explains this approach<br />

to appraise biodiversity with<br />

an analogy. Suppose we know that, at<br />

some point in the future, we will need<br />

some information that is available in<br />

a book. But we do not know exactly<br />

which information this will be. The<br />

books are contained in libraries that<br />

are in danger of burning down (i.e., of<br />

becoming “extinct”). In such a setup,<br />

it will be a good idea to preserve several<br />

libraries with stocks of different<br />

books, because this maximizes the<br />

probability of having access to the<br />

needed information in the future.5<br />

Similarly, if we have different species<br />

with different characteristics but<br />

do not know which of these characteristics<br />

will be most valuable in the<br />

future, it is a good idea to preserve<br />

a set of species. The value of such a<br />

set is strictly larger than the sum of<br />

the values of the individual species.<br />

Biodiversity is valuable.<br />

This approach has been applied, for<br />

example, in Polasky et al. (1993),<br />

Weitzman (1993) and in Polasky and<br />

Solow (1995). A more sophisticated<br />

concept for measuring diversity that<br />

is based on evolutionary information<br />

has been introduced in Nehring and<br />

Puppe (2002).<br />

In this approach, biodiversity has value<br />

only due to uncertainty regarding<br />

the future. Furthermore, the contribution<br />

of an individual species to the<br />

value of biodiversity depends on the<br />

distinctiveness of the species, which<br />

is often measured in terms of genetic<br />

distance. In the above analogy, it<br />

would not be optimal to protect two<br />

libraries with almost identical inventory,<br />

because it is not rational to pay<br />

twice for the protection of the same<br />

information. With limited funds, we<br />

would rather protect libraries that<br />

hold stocks of different books. Similarly,<br />

the preservation of redundant<br />

species is usually not optimal in the<br />

Weitzman framework.<br />

5 The measure of diversity that results from<br />

these considerations is proportional to the<br />

Shannon index (Weitzman, 1992).<br />

The ecosystem services<br />

approach<br />

The second concept for appraising<br />

biodiversity connects biodiversity to<br />

the provision of ecosystem services.<br />

The argument is that the level and<br />

stability of this provision depends<br />

on biodiversity. Biodiversity thus has<br />

an indirect value; it is a means to get<br />

more out of ecosystems.<br />

This approach has been used, for<br />

example, in Brock and Xepapadeas<br />

(2003). In contrast to the information<br />

concept, it focuses not directly on the<br />

value of a set of species but rather<br />

derives such a value from the influence<br />

that the simultaneous existence<br />

of species has on the “production” of<br />

consumable goods via ecosystem<br />

services.<br />

Brock and Xepapadeas (2003) analyze<br />

a case in which almost identical species<br />

provide a service to society. The<br />

species differ with regard to their<br />

susceptibility to a pest, which can<br />

develop only if there is a sufficient<br />

number of susceptible hosts. They<br />

show that, in such a case, protecting<br />

biodiversity is valuable, even if the<br />

species are almost redundant.<br />

In this approach, the contribution of<br />

a species to the value of biodiversity<br />

depends not on distinctiveness but<br />

rather on the influence on the provision<br />

of ecosystem services. Therefore<br />

redundant species can contribute<br />

strongly to the value of biodiversity,<br />

for instance, if they increase the<br />

system’s resilience and thereby the<br />

stability of the provision of ecosystem<br />

services.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

The economics<br />

of biodiversity conservation<br />

The above two approaches have<br />

drastically differing implications as to<br />

what is a good biodiversity conservation<br />

program.<br />

As shown in Weitzman (1998), the<br />

information approach tends to<br />

favor programs that are strongly<br />

focused. The available funds should<br />

be invested so that a selected number<br />

of highly valuable species or habitats<br />

are protected as strongly as possible.<br />

This idea can be found, for example,<br />

in the WWF 200 conservation plan.<br />

In contrast, an ecosystem services<br />

approach often favors a more even<br />

distribution of funds. Furthermore,<br />

this approach might recommend to<br />

provide funding for the protection of<br />

similar species, which is rarely optimal<br />

in the Weitzman framework, see<br />

Brock and Xepapadeas (2003).<br />

These disparities show that it is<br />

necessary to provide clear arguments<br />

concerning why and how biodiversity<br />

matters. Is biodiversity valuable due<br />

to potentially useful genetic information<br />

or rather because of a more stable<br />

provision of ecosystem services?<br />

However, both approaches, as well<br />

as the numerous other concepts for<br />

defining a value of biodiversity that<br />

are discussed in economics, clearly<br />

show that biodiversity can have value<br />

even from a purely anthropocentric<br />

perspective.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 49<br />

Conclusions<br />

This brief review of economic concepts<br />

for defining and assessing the<br />

value of biodiversity provides two<br />

main insights.<br />

First, it is possible define clearly and<br />

transparently what constitutes the<br />

value of biodiversity. Furthermore,<br />

although the current approaches<br />

are still somewhat abstract, they are<br />

based solely on measurable properties.<br />

It is thus possible to measure<br />

the value of biodiversity and, consequently,<br />

to include biodiversity in a<br />

comparison of the costs and benefits<br />

of conservation programs.<br />

However, there is an important<br />

caveat. As argued in Section 2, such<br />

a value will almost always be a lower<br />

limit to the “true” value of biodiversity.<br />

Thus care has to be taken in<br />

interpreting and using the resulting<br />

numbers. In particular, economic<br />

assessments of biodiversity are well<br />

suited to argue for the funding of<br />

conservation programs. But, as they<br />

yield only a lower limit to the “true”<br />

value, they are seldom apt to show<br />

that a program should not be funded.<br />

Second, it is important to state clearly<br />

why biodiversity is important. What<br />

are the main pathways via which<br />

biodiversity enhances human well-<br />

-being? Answering this question is not<br />

only important in order to assess how<br />

much conservation effort should be<br />

exerted but also in order to spend the<br />

available funds in a way that is most<br />

beneficial.<br />

References<br />

• Alberini, Anna and James R. Kahn,<br />

2006, “Handbook of Contingent<br />

Valuation,” Edward Elgar: Cheltenham,<br />

UK.<br />

• Arrow, K. J. and Fisher, A. C., 1974,<br />

Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty,<br />

and Irreversibility, Quarterly<br />

Journal of Economics 88 (2), pp.<br />

312–319.<br />

• Brock, W. A. and Xepapadeas, A.,<br />

2003. Valuing Biodiversity from an<br />

Economic Perspective: A Unified<br />

Economic, Ecological, and Genetic<br />

Approach, American Economic<br />

Review 93 (5), pp. 1597–1614.<br />

• Diamond, P. A. and Hausman, J. A.,<br />

1994, Contingent Valuation: Is Some<br />

Number Better than No Number?,<br />

Journal of Economic Perspectives 8<br />

(3), pp. 45–64.<br />

• Hausman, D. M. and McPherson, M.<br />

S., 1996, “Economic Analysis and<br />

Moral Philosophy,” Cambridge University<br />

Press: Cambridge, UK.<br />

• Metrick, A. and Weitzman, M. L.,<br />

1998, Conflicts and Choices in Biodiversity<br />

Preservation, The Journal<br />

of Economic Perspectives 12 (3), pp.<br />

21–34.<br />

• Nehring, K. and Puppe, C, 2002, A<br />

Theory of Diversity, Econometrica<br />

70 (3), pp. 1155–1198.<br />

• Polasky, S. and Solow, A. R., 1995,<br />

On the Value of a Collection of<br />

Species, Journal of Environmental<br />

Economics and Management, 29 (3),<br />

pp. 298–303.<br />

• Polasky, S., Solow, A. R. and Broadus,<br />

J. M, 1993, Searching for Uncertain<br />

Benefits and the Conservation<br />

of Biological Diversity, Environmental<br />

and Resource Economics 3 (2),<br />

pp. 171–181.<br />

• Weitzman, M. L., 1992, On Diversity,<br />

The Quarterly Journal of Economics<br />

107 (2), pp. 365–405.<br />

• Weitzman, M. L., 1993, What to<br />

Preserve? An Application of Diversity<br />

Theory to Crane Conservation,<br />

Quarterly Journal of Economics 108<br />

(1), pp. 157–183.<br />

• Weitzman, M. L., 1998, The Noah’s<br />

Ark Problem, Econometrica 66 (6),<br />

pp. 1279–1298.


50<br />

Beauval Conservation Program<br />

in Djibouti, “Back to Africa”<br />

ABCR – Association Beauval<br />

Conservation et Recherche<br />

Beauval created in 2008 a Conservation<br />

and Research Association, ABCR –<br />

Association Beauval Conservation et<br />

Recherche – in order to boost Zoo-<br />

Parc de Beauval in situ conservation<br />

and research work, and to have the<br />

institution recognized, nationally and<br />

internationally, as a leading center for<br />

in situ conservation and research.<br />

In 2009, ABCR supported 16 conservation<br />

programs and 4 research<br />

programs. 2 of the conservation programs<br />

(in Djibouti and in Colombia)<br />

and all the research programs were<br />

managed directly by the Association.<br />

Back to Africa<br />

One of the most important programs<br />

managed by ABCR is in Djibouti since<br />

2005, in cooperation with two conservation<br />

associations: DECAN in Djibouti<br />

and TER_RES in France. In the<br />

framework of this program, in 2008,<br />

11 specimens of native Djiboutian<br />

species that got extinct some years<br />

ago were transferred from European<br />

zoos DECAN sanctuary in Djibouti:<br />

• 7 Somali Wild Asses, from 4 Zoos<br />

(Chemnitz in Germany, Gdansk in<br />

Poland, Liberec in Czech Republic,<br />

Beauval in France)<br />

• 2 Grevy Zebras, from 2 Zoos (Montpellier<br />

in France, Tabernas in Spain)<br />

• 2 Beisa oryx from 1 Zoo (La Palmyre,<br />

France)<br />

The transfer of these animals had an<br />

educational goal: to raise the awareness<br />

of the Djiboutian populations for<br />

nature preservation, by using flagship<br />

species that lived in the past in<br />

Djibouti but disappeared since a long<br />

time. For this purpose an Education,<br />

Research and training Centre was<br />

built in DECAN and many educational<br />

tools were created<br />

This part of the programme was<br />

named “Back to Africa” to show the<br />

difference between the past, when<br />

animals were caught in Africa and<br />

sent to zoos, and the goal of this programme,<br />

to give back to Africa what<br />

belongs to Africa and preserve in situ<br />

its fauna and flora.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

Eric Bairrão Ruivo – Science and Conservation Director, ZooParc de Beauval<br />

PICODE (Programme<br />

Intégré de Conservation<br />

pour le Développement)<br />

The success of these actions resulted<br />

in a growing recognition and support<br />

from local people, leading to<br />

an increasing commitment from the<br />

government, local authorities and<br />

Beauval zoo staff. The relations with<br />

the Djiboutian government members<br />

and the local authorities also became<br />

stronger. These are the reasons why<br />

ABCR has now developed a global<br />

biodiversity conservation program<br />

with different experts and stakeholders<br />

for the benefit of human communities.<br />

Named PICODE (Integrated Conservation<br />

Programme for Development),<br />

this program aims at the economical,<br />

cultural and social development<br />

of human populations in Djibouti<br />

through the preservation of the very<br />

rich and rare biological heritage of<br />

this country. It includes water retention<br />

works in different sites, changes<br />

in pastoral methods (from extensive<br />

to intensive, creation of commercial<br />

markets for cattle and hay, creation<br />

of protected areas, eco tourism, education<br />

and training, fauna and flora<br />

surveys, etc.<br />

The various projects and parts of<br />

PICODE should allow the creation<br />

of conservation programmes for the<br />

following key species: Somali wild<br />

ass, Grevy zebra, Oryx beisa, Beira<br />

antelope, Soemmering Gazelle, Plzen<br />

gazelle, Dick -dick, Klipspringers,<br />

Leopard, Cheetah, Abyssinian genet,<br />

Djibouti Francolin, Arabian bustard,<br />

Helmeted guineafowl, Dugong,<br />

Whale shark, Corals, and many others…


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 51<br />

Figure 1 – The conservation programs supported by ABCR<br />

PICODE materializes a new step of a<br />

project born from a wish to educate<br />

for conservation. It strongly links<br />

conservation and development. It is<br />

a pilot and model action, aiming at<br />

the restoration of the historical fauna<br />

heritage of the Republic of Djibouti,<br />

to make it a biodiversity conservation<br />

and restoration lever in all the<br />

country, for the first benefit of its<br />

inhabitants.<br />

The status of “PICODE” as of today:<br />

In DECAN:<br />

• Sanitary check -up of the animals<br />

• First setting up of the practical<br />

aspects linked to the evolution from<br />

a sanctuary to a 1.000 ha reserve,<br />

including a marine reserve<br />

• Appointment and payment of a full-<br />

-time director for the implementation<br />

of Picode<br />

In Assamo and Djalelo:<br />

• Creation of 2 protected areas<br />

• Selection, training and payment of<br />

the eco ‑guards’ team. Their effective<br />

work has begun on the 1st of<br />

July<br />

In Adaïlou:<br />

• First study on water availability<br />

and on actions that can be made to<br />

improve its management<br />

• Fauna and flora surveys<br />

• First practical changes of agricultural<br />

methods: from an extensive to<br />

an intensive production<br />

Conclusion<br />

The first main goal of the initial<br />

programme which was to draw<br />

Djiboutian people’s attention to their<br />

natural resources conservation was<br />

reached with the animals’ arrival.<br />

Symbols of the ex situ conservation<br />

efforts to protect endangered species,<br />

the Somali wild asses, Zebras<br />

and Oryx that have been transferred<br />

to Djibouti, all born and raised in<br />

European zoos, are now back in<br />

Africa, on the earth of origin of their<br />

ancestors. These animals became real<br />

ambassadors of their wild cousins,<br />

which survive with difficulty. They are<br />

also the link between the European<br />

will and the Djiboutian needs and<br />

they are responsible for a trustable<br />

relationship between the different<br />

partners that have then developed<br />

the PICODE program.<br />

The return of these 11 animals has<br />

made more for Djiboutian biodiversity<br />

conservation than 25 years of<br />

efforts from isolated entities. Effectively,<br />

the arrival of big mammals<br />

in a refuge of some hectares drew<br />

the attention of the media, both in<br />

France and in Djibouti. Many articles<br />

were spread in all the papers and the<br />

arrival of animals was broadcasted in<br />

Djiboutian television… 4 times in the<br />

same day!<br />

They perfectly fulfilled their<br />

flagship role!<br />

They are a perfect communication tool!<br />

They are a driving force behind<br />

a global involvement!


52<br />

Back to Africa and Restorative<br />

Conservation, Pursuing the WAZA<br />

Conservation Strategy<br />

Hamish Currie – Back to Africa, South Africa<br />

Back to Africa<br />

Back to Africa (www.backtoafrica.<br />

co.za) is an African based non profit<br />

organization that relocates wild animals<br />

from zoo’s to conservation sites<br />

in Africa. It recognizes that zoo populations<br />

should be considered when<br />

attempting to preserve the genetic<br />

integrity of our wild life.<br />

Back to Africa<br />

• Believes in the existence of zoo’s<br />

and the role they can play in conservation<br />

in Africa<br />

• Is a proud WAZA member<br />

• Believes in the IUCN reintroduction<br />

specialist group guidelines for<br />

reintroductions.<br />

• Encourages zoo’s to breed animals<br />

for reintroduction.<br />

• Believes our activities should not<br />

unsatisfactorily deplete zoo populations<br />

• Raises funds specifically for reintroduction<br />

projects without diverting<br />

funds.<br />

• Rejects the sterilization and euthanasia<br />

of rare animals in zoo’s that<br />

could be used for conservation.<br />

• Believes that zoo’s donating money<br />

to conservation projects does not<br />

entirely fulfill their in situ conservation<br />

obligations. It is the participation<br />

of a zoo’s animals is what<br />

should count.<br />

Most of Back to Africa’s projects<br />

involve Intensive Protected Areas<br />

(IPA’s).<br />

IPA’s are<br />

• Ex situ area in situ reserves<br />

• Fenced areas in reserves where rare<br />

and endangered species are managed<br />

to enhance their survival.<br />

IPA’s<br />

• Can involve zoo animals as a first<br />

step in their relocation back to the<br />

wild.<br />

• Offer protection from predators and<br />

poachers<br />

• Enable one to manage disease and<br />

manipulate nutrition when necessary.<br />

• Allow for research<br />

• Allow for genetic manipulation (stud<br />

books/ EEP’s)<br />

Reintroduced animals are kept in<br />

IPA’s and bred until minimal viable<br />

populations are reached. Only then<br />

can one think about reintroduction<br />

back to the “wild”. It can take years<br />

before these populations are ready<br />

for release back to the “wild”.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

The following species have<br />

been reintroduced by Back to<br />

Africa into IPA’s from Europe‑<br />

an zoo’s<br />

• Sable antelope (Hippotragus niger)<br />

WAZA PROJECT 04027 Mokala<br />

National Park South Africa<br />

• Roan antelope (Hippotragus equinus)<br />

WAZA PROJECT 04026 Mlilwane<br />

Reserve Swaziland<br />

• Black rhino (Diceros bicornis michae‑<br />

li) WAZA PROJECT08013 Mkomazi<br />

Reserve Tanzania<br />

• Northern White rhino (Cermatotheri‑<br />

um simum cottoni) WAZA PROJECT<br />

0817 Ol Pejeta Conservancy Kenya<br />

Projects looking forward<br />

Grevy’s Zebra (Equus grevyi). The<br />

existing population of Grevy; s at Ol<br />

Pejeta conservancy will be put into<br />

the Northern White Rhino IPA.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 53<br />

Dvůr Králové Zoo and WAZA‑branded<br />

Rhino Conservation Projects<br />

Dana Holečková – Director, Dvůr Králové Zoo<br />

Preface<br />

Founded in 1946, Dvůr Králové Zoo<br />

has been specialising in keeping and<br />

breeding African wildlife. Throughout<br />

the 1970s, the zoo imported a number<br />

of mammal and bird species within<br />

several expeditions, fundamental for<br />

unique collections established later.<br />

Dvůr Králové Zoo is the world’s most<br />

successful breeder of giraffes, a number<br />

of antelope and zebra species<br />

and African wild dogs, as well as black<br />

rhinoceroses that were successfully<br />

reproduced in the fifth generation in<br />

captivity for the first time around the<br />

world, plus is the only captive institution<br />

where northern white rhinos<br />

have been born and raised in captivity<br />

successfully. The zoo has returned<br />

over 100 Cape buffalos, several dozens<br />

of roan antelopes and multiple<br />

sable antelopes, scimitar -horned<br />

oryxes and addaxes back to the wild<br />

within the recent 20 years. With<br />

48 (17.31) rhinos of three species and<br />

four subspecies, Dvůr Králové follows<br />

San Diego Wild Animal Park in terms<br />

of numbers of rhinos held and bred in<br />

captivity. With a total of seven rhinos<br />

relocated to Africa under two projects<br />

within a single year, which is a record<br />

number in terms of zoo community<br />

involvement in rhino conservation,<br />

Dvůr Králové has been striving to<br />

fulfil one of the key missions of members<br />

of the World Association of Zoos<br />

and Aquariums in a very pro -active<br />

manner.<br />

In 2009, Tanzania and Kenya became<br />

target countries within two rhino<br />

conservation operations completed<br />

by Dvůr Králové branded as WAZA<br />

conservation projects.<br />

Reintroduction of the eas‑<br />

tern black rhino (Diceros bi‑<br />

cornis michaeli) to Mkomazi,<br />

Tanzania, WAZA Conserva‑<br />

tion Project No 080013<br />

The development of the<br />

black rhino population in the<br />

wild: brief summary<br />

In 1900, there ranged several hundred<br />

thousand black rhinos (Diceros<br />

bicornis) in Africa. Within 22 years<br />

(1970 to 1992), 96% of wild population<br />

of this species was extirpated,<br />

particularly as a result of poaching<br />

(see Figure 1 and Table 1 for more<br />

details). Of the four subspecies, one<br />

(D. b. longipes) was exterminated by<br />

2006 (see Table 2), while the eastern<br />

black rhino (D. b. michaeli), occurring<br />

only in Kenya and Tanzania, became<br />

the most vulnerable form. While<br />

Kenya was home to 20,000 rhinos<br />

still in 1970, in the 1980s the numbers<br />

dropped to less than 350 individuals<br />

(Table 3). Tanzania had in 1995 a mere<br />

32 animals, which in fact involved two<br />

localities – the Ngorongoro crater<br />

and Serengeti National Park (Table 4).<br />

In Kenya, first fenced rhino conservation<br />

areas were founded in the<br />

late 20 century, which subsequently<br />

became strongholds of the species<br />

and inspiration for Tony Fitzjohn’s<br />

idea to restore the population of the<br />

black rhino in northern Tanzania in<br />

the Mkomazi Reserve.<br />

Figure 1: Development Figure 1: Development of the wild black of the rhino wild population black rhino since population 1960 since 1960�<br />

�<br />

Development of the wild black rhino population since 1960<br />

�<br />

Numbers<br />

100000<br />

90000<br />

80000<br />

70000<br />

60000<br />

50000<br />

40000<br />

30000<br />

20000<br />

10000<br />

0<br />

1960 1970 1980 1984 1987 1991 1992 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2008<br />

Year


54<br />

Table 1: Development of the black rhino population in the wild<br />

Table 1: Development of the black rhino population in the wild<br />

Year 1800 1900 1960 1970 1980 1984 1987 1991 1992 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007<br />

Numbers Over 1 Several Over 65,000 14,785 8,800 3,665 3,450 2,475 2,300 2,410 2,600 2,700 3,100 3,610 3,750 4,230<br />

million hundred<br />

thousands<br />

100,000<br />

Table 2: Development of the black rhino population in the wild, 1984–2008<br />

Table 2: Development of the black rhino population in the wild, 1984-2007<br />

Species (subspecies) / Year 1984 1993 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007<br />

South-western (D. b. bicornis) 737 560 740 740 943 1,310 1,221 1,550<br />

Eastern (D. b. michaeli) 490 500 485 485 498 520 639 700<br />

South-central (D. b. minor) 1,467 1,300 1,365 1,365 1,651 1,770 1,866 1,995<br />

Western (D. b. longipes) About 10 40 10 About 10 8 5 0 ? 0<br />

Black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) 2,704 2,400 2,600 2,700 3,100 3,610 3,726 4,240<br />

Table 3: Development of the black rhino population in Kenya since 1968<br />

Table 3: Development of the black rhino abundance in Kenya since 1968<br />

Year 1968 1970 1977 1980 1984 1987 1991 1992 1995 1997 2002 2003 2005 2007 2008<br />

Numbers 11,000 2,500 1,800 1,500 550 381 398 414 420 424 430 437 539 577 609<br />

Table 4: Development of the black rhino population in Tanzania since 1970<br />

Table 4: Development of the black rhino abundance in Tanzania since 1970<br />

Year 1970 1980 1984 1987 1991 1992 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007<br />

Numbers 10,000 3,795 3,130 275 185 ? 127 32 46 47 49 66 101 123<br />

Table 5: Black Births rhinos in the black born rhino and aborted at Dvur in Kralove Dvůr Králové Zoo prior to 30 November 2010 (M - male, F -<br />

female)<br />

DK Sex Name Conceived Birth Dam Sire Comments<br />

1 F Elvira DK 1 20 Jul 1976 2 Oct 1977 Elsa Ken<br />

2 F Sali DK 2 15 Apr 1977 5 Jul 1978 Sabi Ken<br />

3 M Jimm DK 3 6 Dec 1977 18 Mar 1979 Jimmi King<br />

4 M Eli DK 4 20 Feb 1983 15 May 1984 Elvira Isis<br />

5 F Jessi DK 5 4 Aug 1983 8 Dec 1984 Jimmi Isis<br />

6 M Sado DK 6 21 Apr 1985 26 Aug 1986 Sali Isis<br />

7 M Jos DK 7 13 Feb 1988 21 May 1989 Jimmi Isis 28 kg<br />

8 F Sany DK 8 28 Jun 1988 1 Oct 1989 Sali Isis<br />

9 F Eimi DK 9 29 May 1989 24 Aug 1990 Elvira Isis<br />

10 M Jacob DK 10 8 Apr 1990 23 Jun 1991 Jessi Eli<br />

11 M Jasper DK 11 11 Jun 1990 13 Sep 1991 Jimmi Isis<br />

12 F Sara DK 12 22 Nov 1990 24 Feb 1992 Sali Jimm<br />

13 F Etna DK 13 21 Sep 1991 8 Dec 1992 Elvira Jimm<br />

14 F Jaga DK 14 1 Sep 1991 14 Dec 1992 Jarca Jimm 26 kg on day 2<br />

15 F -- DK 15 8 Feb 1993 11 Apr 1994 Jimmi Mabu stillborn, 24 kg<br />

16 M Sauron DK 16 16 Jul 1993 26 Oct 1994 Sali Cody 48 kg on day 3<br />

17 F Jiddah DK 17 17 Aug 1993 15 Nov 1994 Jessi Mabu 37 kg<br />

18 M Jonas DK 18 2 Sep 1994 4 Dec 1995 Jarca Cody died - hand-reared<br />

19 F Elba DK 19 23 May 1995 5 Aug 1996 Eimi Cody<br />

20 F Musso DK 20 25 May 1996 20 Aug 1997 Sali Jimm<br />

21 F Jola DK 21 1 Jul 1996 25 Oct 1997 Jessi Mabu<br />

22 F Jane Lee DK 22 4 Oct 1996 (?) 24 Jan 1998 Jimmi Isis<br />

23 F Salome DK 23 13 Oct 1998 25 Jan 2000 Sali Jimm<br />

24 M Jeremy DK 24 16 Sep 1999 21 Dec 2000 Jessi Jimm<br />

25 F -- DK 25 10 Jun 2001 24 Aug 2002 Eimi Sauron stillborn, 33 kg<br />

26 F Ema-Elsa DK 26 4 Aug 2001 2 Nov 2002 Elba Jimm<br />

27 F Deborah DK 27 5 Jun 2003 11 Nov 2004 Jiddah Jimm<br />

28 F Maisha DK 28 20 Sep 2004 21 Dec 2005 Musso Isis<br />

29 M Jamie DK 29 6 Oct 2004 2 Jan 2006 Jessi Sauron<br />

30 F Etosha DK 30 17 Jun 2005 4 Sep 2006 Elba Jimm<br />

31 M Jabu DK 31 7 Oct 2005 1 Feb 2007 Jola Isis<br />

32 M -- DK 32 25 Aug 2006 22 Sep 2007 Jane Lee Mweru aborted on day 393, 29 kg<br />

33 M Dzanty DK 33 10 Aug 2006 24 Nov 2007 Jiddah Jimm<br />

34 F Eva DK 34 26 Jul 2008 8 Dec 2009 Elba Baringo<br />

35 F Jasmina DK 35 3 Sep 2008 13 Dec 2009 Jessi Baringo<br />

36 F Just Era DK 36 8 Jun 2009 21 Sep 2010 Jola Mweru<br />

Total 36 (13.23) calves of which 32 (11.21) were reared.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

Brief history of the<br />

eastern black rhino stock<br />

at Dvůr Králové Zoo<br />

The Dvůr Králové black rhino breeding<br />

history began with wild -caught<br />

juvenile animals coming from Kenya<br />

in 1971, with first ten (4.6) animals<br />

imported from Tsavo National Park,<br />

from which a pair was supplied to<br />

Florida (USA) one year after. In 1974,<br />

additional trio (1.2) was imported<br />

from Kenya; in the same year, 4 (2.2)<br />

animals left to Wroclaw (Poland),<br />

Zurich (Switzerland) and Lešná Zoo<br />

in Moravia (CZ). 23 (10.13) individuals<br />

became involved in reproduction. A<br />

total number of rhinos born for the<br />

entire holding period reached 36<br />

(13.22) animals, of which three (2.1)<br />

were born dead and 32 (11.21) calves<br />

reared successfully, which represents<br />

97% rate of success of all live -born<br />

animals. During the most recent 10<br />

months, three females were born, the<br />

last of which in September 2010. See<br />

more details in Table 5.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 55<br />

The Mkomazi<br />

black rhino project<br />

As major rhino holders in Europe and<br />

in the world, Dvůr Králové were contacted<br />

as early as 2003 by Tony Fitzjohn,<br />

the African wildlife conservationist<br />

and manager of the northern<br />

Tanzania’s Mkomazi Game Reserve,<br />

who was then searching for animals<br />

for his eastern black rhino reintroduction<br />

project. Located in north -eastern<br />

Tanzania, Mkomazi is a natural area<br />

of 3,270 square kilometres. A part of<br />

the Tsavo ecosystem, it connects to<br />

Kenyan Tsavo West National Park. As<br />

Dvůr Králové animals contain genes<br />

of their ancestors that were largely<br />

exterminated by poachers, they are<br />

very important for the populations in<br />

the wild.<br />

Tony Fitzjohn is a friend and colleague<br />

of fabled conservationist George<br />

Adamson. Manager of the George<br />

Adamson Wildlife Preservation Trust,<br />

he has been dedicated to the wildlife<br />

conservation in East Africa, namely<br />

to the critically endangered African<br />

wild dog and black rhino. Supported<br />

by donors, Tony built facilities in the<br />

Mkomazi Game Reserve where he has<br />

been breeding and releasing African<br />

wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) since the<br />

early 1990s. In addition, he initiated<br />

the process of preparation for reintroduction<br />

of the eastern subspecies of<br />

the black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis<br />

michaeli) into the reserve by building<br />

the infrastructure within the reserve<br />

including fencing for the rhino area<br />

that covers 45 sq km. He obtained<br />

first two rhino pairs through importing<br />

from South Africa’s Addo National<br />

Park as early as 1997, which was followed<br />

by bringing additional two pairs<br />

in 2001. All the four cows have already<br />

bred in Mkomazi, with a total of five<br />

calves born; the most recent rhinos<br />

were born in February 2009 and July<br />

2009, respectively.<br />

In Mkomazi, the rhino area is protected<br />

by an electrified fence (New Zealand<br />

type) powered by solar cells and<br />

guarded by armed patrols on 24-hour<br />

basis; the fence is alarmed so any<br />

invading is made known very quickly.<br />

There are logged strips around the<br />

facility to prevent potential fires to<br />

spread.<br />

The local black rhino management<br />

programme has been arranged under<br />

the auspices of the George Adamson<br />

African Wildlife Preservation Trust<br />

and supported by diverse charities<br />

and other kinds of wildlife conservation<br />

organisations, including Suzuki<br />

Rhino Club, Save the Rhino, TUSK<br />

Trust and Swordspoint etc.<br />

Unfortunately, the Addo National<br />

Park rhino population is inbred as it<br />

had only 4 founders meaning that all<br />

the rhinos imported to Mkomazi are<br />

related to each other as well, so adding<br />

unrelated individuals was highly<br />

desirable. Therefore, Tony Fitzjohn<br />

paid a visit to Dvůr Králové as early as<br />

2003 in searching for suitable animals.<br />

In October 2007, Dvůr Králové<br />

personnel in cooperation with Back<br />

to Africa, a charity represented by<br />

its managing director Hamish Currie,<br />

visited Tony Fitzjohn who at the same<br />

time re ‑confirmed that Mkomazi<br />

was interested in animals from Dvůr<br />

Králové. A memorandum of understanding<br />

was signed on the site and<br />

the project preparation phase started.<br />

In June 2008, a meeting took place<br />

in Cape Town, where translocation<br />

of 2 males and 1 female born at Dvůr<br />

Králové Zoo to Mkomazi was agreed.<br />

In the autumn 2008, the Mkomazi<br />

black rhino reintroduction plan was<br />

endorsed by the EAZA Black Rhino<br />

EEP and an application was sent to<br />

the World Association of Zoos and<br />

Aquariums to include the programme<br />

within their branded projects, which<br />

was accepted and the initiative was<br />

assigned project number 080013.<br />

In the late 2008, Mkomazi Game<br />

Reserve was declared national park<br />

within TANAPA framework, as it became<br />

a third locality in Tanzania with<br />

ranging eastern subspecies of the<br />

black rhino, despite some 150 to 250<br />

rhinos Mkomazi hosted back in 1968<br />

that were however poached with<br />

only four individuals recorded in 1974.<br />

The last wild rhino was observed in<br />

Mkomazi in 1985.<br />

Translocation and adaptation<br />

to living in the bush<br />

As the process of constructing the<br />

fencing and a six -section boma inside<br />

the area allocated for Dvůr Králové<br />

rhinos was underway in Mkomazi,<br />

Dvůr Králové were making crates for<br />

the rhino transport, 500 kg each, and<br />

the young rhinos were trained for<br />

the transport. In April, Tony Fitzjohn<br />

visited the zoo once again and the<br />

transport preparation was discussed<br />

and agreed in details. From April<br />

on, the rhinos were getting familiar<br />

with their new keepers and trained<br />

for closing within a confined area,<br />

which imitated staying in the crate. In<br />

addition, handling imitating administration<br />

of sedatives was trained.<br />

Aside from the Czech keepers, the<br />

rhinos were attended by Berry White,<br />

a specialist keeper to stay with<br />

the rhinos in Mkomazi for several<br />

months, and rhino veterinarian Dr<br />

Pete Morkel, who was in charge of<br />

transport arrangements and sedation<br />

of animals both throughout and after<br />

the transport. Berry has had work<br />

experience as rhino head keeper in<br />

Port Lympne for seven years. Having<br />

moved several hundred black rhinos,<br />

Pete Morkel is a specialist dedicated<br />

to conservation and translocation of<br />

these animals. In addition, he managed<br />

the translocation of the rhinos<br />

from South Africa’s Addo National<br />

Park to Mkomazi. Both these experts,<br />

accompanied by Jan Zdarek, Dvůr<br />

Králové rhino keeper, were attending<br />

the rhinos all over their journey that<br />

began on 27 May.<br />

The move was started by placing the<br />

animals weighing 850 to 1,100 kg<br />

into their crates. Afterwards, they<br />

were transported in trucks from Dvůr<br />

Králové nad Labem to Amsterdam<br />

over the distance of thousand kilometres.<br />

To make sure the animals are not<br />

exposed to overheating and traffic<br />

jams on highways, the transport took<br />

place at night. With many Dutch<br />

press people present (the transport<br />

was funded by the Suzuki Dutch<br />

general importer via Suzuki Rhino<br />

Club), the crates weighing 1.5 tons<br />

were loaded on pallets and into the<br />

airplane that took off for its 7,000 km<br />

long flight around 9 pm. The Martinair<br />

plane landed at the Kilimanjaro


56<br />

Airport, Tanzania, at 8.30 am. Once in<br />

Tanzania, the rhinos were transferred<br />

in trucks to Mkomazi National Park<br />

almost 200 km far away.<br />

The young rhino triplet included a<br />

nearly 5-year -old female Deborah<br />

(DK 27), a 3–5-year -old male Jamie<br />

(DK 29) and a 2.5-year -old male Jabu<br />

(DK 31). While Jamie is already a generation<br />

4 in captivity, Deborah and<br />

Jabu even represent a generation five.<br />

No animal can be released into the<br />

wild immediately once translocated to<br />

a new area. The rhinos were going to<br />

slowly adapt to their boma, with subsequent<br />

enlargement of the area by<br />

natural enclosures. The boma consists<br />

of six sections, 15 by 15 m each, with<br />

two sections available for each rhino<br />

and is located in the area with ranging<br />

wild rhinos that arrive at night.<br />

Gradual shift to a different diet is<br />

also inevitable, so the animals were<br />

accompanied with feedstuffs brought<br />

from Dvůr Králové plus were given<br />

food supplied by the George Adamson<br />

Wildlife Preservation Trust<br />

directly to Mkomazi, like alfalfa<br />

hay, chestnuts, carrots and sweet<br />

potatoes. First two weeks the rhinos<br />

were attended by their zoo keeper<br />

Jan Zdarek who was later replaced by<br />

Berry White. By the end of the week<br />

1, female Deborah was introduced<br />

to male Jabu as this pair had been<br />

already used to spend several hours<br />

together in the zoo enclosure as well.<br />

In the week 2 (9 and 10 June), all rhinos<br />

were anaesthetised and notches<br />

were cut in their ears to make later<br />

identification possible. They were<br />

also fitted with horn ‑implanted<br />

transmitters. The treatment as such<br />

including the anaesthetisation was<br />

carried out by Dr Pete Morkel.<br />

At the break of week 3 and 4, the<br />

rhinos were gradually accustomed<br />

to the New Zealand type electrified<br />

fence, which encloses the entire area<br />

for rhinos, and released from the<br />

boma to a natural area of approximately<br />

45 × 40 m.<br />

The next phase involved releasing<br />

Jamie and Deborah into a large natural<br />

enclosure (800 m × 400 m, i.e. 320,000<br />

sq m), while Jabu was allowed into<br />

the enclosure of 120,000 sq m (400 m<br />

× 300 m). Deborah is now sexually<br />

mature and has periodical oestrus. Attempts<br />

of mating this female by male<br />

Jamie were underway back in Dvůr<br />

Králové in summer 2008, although the<br />

male was still very young. In Mkomazi,<br />

the first attempt was observed on 26<br />

June, which was one month after the<br />

arrival of the rhinos.<br />

As of the autumn 2009, with rainy<br />

season starting in Mkomazi, the<br />

entire area went green and the rhinos<br />

from the Czech Republic stopped<br />

showing interest in extra food. Any<br />

attempts to find the animals were<br />

only successful using transmitters<br />

that were renewed in all the three<br />

rhinos by Pete Morkel in March 2010.<br />

The main rhino sanctuary was extended<br />

by a further 5 sq km in order<br />

to prepare for a growing population.<br />

This was a massive undertaking in<br />

that it took over 2 years to put in the<br />

9 km fence. With enough separation<br />

areas, this new part made a small<br />

amount of breeding management<br />

possible. In the near future, decisions<br />

are to be taken on further actions and<br />

possible transfers of other rhinos, including<br />

any putting Suzi – a Mkomazi-<br />

-born young female – together with<br />

Jamie a Deborah.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

The existing Mkomazi black rhino<br />

population contains 13 (5.8) individuals,<br />

with female Charlie now expected<br />

to be pregnant. An overview of black<br />

rhinos reintroduced and their progeny<br />

in Mkomazi is provided in the<br />

Table 6.<br />

Acknowledgments<br />

Dvůr Králové has partnered with the<br />

following institutions to implement<br />

the project: Mkomazi National Park,<br />

Back to Africa, Suzuki Rhino Club, The<br />

George Adamson Wildlife Preservation<br />

Trust, Ministry of Environment<br />

of the Czech Republic, Severočeské<br />

doly, European Wildlife Conservation<br />

Foundation, Natura Viva, Save the<br />

Rhino International & Tusk Trust.<br />

Last but not least, thanks must go to<br />

other rhino captive breeders as:<br />

• The Czech rhino triplet originates<br />

from a founder stock of 11 animals<br />

imported by diverse zoos from East<br />

Africa<br />

• Jabu’s grandfather is Mabu born<br />

1979 in Magdeburg, Germany<br />

• Deborah’s great -grandfather is Isis/<br />

Bubba born 1975 in Cincinnati, USA<br />

• Jamie’s grandfather is Cody born<br />

1975 in Taronga Sydney, Australia<br />

Table 6: Overview of the Mkomazi black rhino reintroduction project prior to 31 December 2009<br />

Table 6: Overview of the Mkomazi black rhino reintroduction project prior to 31 December 2009<br />

#<br />

Sex Birth Arrival in Mkomazi & Sire/Dam Death Comments<br />

Name<br />

previous location<br />

1/1/MK/0 M Addo NP, RSA 1997<br />

Wild-born 1st breeding male<br />

Jonah<br />

Addo NP, SA<br />

2/2/MK/0 M Addo NP, SA 1997<br />

Wild-born<br />

James<br />

Addo NP, SA<br />

3/3/MK/0 F Addo NP, SA 1997<br />

Wild-born 1st breeding female<br />

Rose<br />

Addo NP, SA<br />

4/4/MK/0 F Addo NP, SA 1997<br />

Wild-born 2nd breeding female<br />

Charlie<br />

Addo NP, SA<br />

5/5/MK/0 M Addo NP, SA 2001<br />

Wild-born March 2006 Killed by Jonah and<br />

Elvis<br />

Addo NP, SA<br />

Mkomazi James<br />

6/6/MK/0 M Addo NP, SA 2001<br />

Wild-born 6.2.2004 Paralysis; CNS problems<br />

Badger<br />

Addo NP, SA<br />

Mkomazi<br />

7/7/MK/0 F Addo NP, SA 2001<br />

Wild-born 4th breeding female<br />

Lee<br />

Addo NP, SA<br />

8/8/MK/0 F Addo NP, SA 2001<br />

Wild-born 3rd breeding female<br />

Marina<br />

Addo NP, SA<br />

9/0/MK/1 F May 2005 Bred in Mkomazi Rose/Jonah To be paired with Jabu<br />

Suzi MK 1<br />

Mkomazi NP<br />

10/0/MK/2 M May 2006 Bred in Mkomazi Charlie/Jonah March 2008 Bitten to death by a snake<br />

Hashim MK 2 Mkomazi NP<br />

Mkomazi<br />

11/0/MK/3 M May 2007 Bred in Mkomazi Marina/Jonah<br />

Billy MK 3<br />

Mkomazi NP<br />

12/0/MK/4 F February 2009 Bred in Mkomazi Rose/Jonah<br />

Daisy MK 4<br />

Mkomazi NP<br />

13/0/MK/1 F 11 Nov 2004 29 May 2009<br />

Jiddah DK 5 /<br />

Paired with Jamie<br />

Deborah DK 27 Dvur Kralove Zoo Dvur Kralove<br />

Jimm DK 3<br />

14/9/MK/0 M 2 Jan 2006 29 May 2009<br />

Jessi DK 5 /<br />

Paired with Deborah<br />

Jamie DK 29 Dvur Kralove Zoo Dvur Kralove<br />

Sauron DK16<br />

15/0/MK/1 M 1 Feb 2007 29 May 2009<br />

Jola DK 21 /<br />

To be paired with Suzi<br />

Jabu DK 31<br />

Dvur Kralove Zoo Dvur Kralove<br />

Isis<br />

16/0MK/5 F July 2009 Bred in Mkomazi Lee/Jonah<br />

Maggie MK 5 Mkomazi NP<br />

Explanatory notes: 11/0/MK/1: 11 – A running historical Mkomazi NP individual number<br />

0 – A running number of import to Mkomazi NP<br />

MK – Mkomazi NP acronym<br />

3 – A running number of birth in Mkomazi NP


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 57<br />

Last Chance to Survive –<br />

Northern White Rhino<br />

Conservation Project<br />

WAZA Conservation Project<br />

No 080013<br />

Project partners<br />

Dvůr Králové has implemented the<br />

project in partnership with the following<br />

institutions:<br />

Fauna & Flora International<br />

www.fauna ‑flora.org<br />

FFI protects threatened species and<br />

ecosystems worldwide, choosing<br />

solutions that are sustainable, based<br />

on sound science and take account<br />

of human needs. Operating in more<br />

than 40 countries worldwide – mainly<br />

in the developing world – FFI saves<br />

species from extinction and habitats<br />

from destruction, while improving<br />

the livelihoods of local people.<br />

Founded in 1903, FFI is the world’s<br />

longest established international<br />

conservation body and a registered<br />

charity.<br />

Ol Pejeta Conservancy<br />

www.olpejetaconservancy.org<br />

The Ol Pejeta Conservancy occupies<br />

approximately 360 square kilometres<br />

of African savannah within the Laikipia<br />

District of Kenya and incorporates<br />

the Sweetwaters Chimpanzee<br />

Sanctuary. Laikipia carries large and<br />

growing wildlife populations and<br />

is home to almost 50% of Kenya’s<br />

black rhino population. The Ol Pejeta<br />

Conservancy works to conserve<br />

wildlife, provide a sanctuary for great<br />

apes and to generate income through<br />

wildlife tourism and complementary<br />

enterprise for reinvestment in conservation<br />

and community development.<br />

Lewa Wildlife Conservancy<br />

www.lewa.org<br />

Founded in 1995, the Lewa Wildlife<br />

Conservancy spans 62,000 acres<br />

and serves as catalyst for conservation<br />

across northern Kenya. Lewa<br />

holds over 10% of Kenya’s black<br />

rhino population and the world’s<br />

single largest population of Grevy’s<br />

zebra. Through the protection and<br />

management of endangered species,<br />

the initiation and support of community<br />

conservation and development<br />

programmes, and the education of<br />

neighbouring areas in the value of<br />

wildlife, Lewa has become Kenya’s<br />

leading model for wildlife conservation<br />

on private land, leading destination<br />

for low impact conservation<br />

tourism, and leading catalyst for<br />

conservation, and its direct benefits<br />

for communities, across the region.<br />

Back to Africa<br />

www.backtoafrica.co.za<br />

As the name of this non ‑profit conservation<br />

organisation founded in 1999<br />

suggests, Back to Africa relocates<br />

rare and endangered African wildlife<br />

species from zoological institutions,<br />

thus providing a link between<br />

conservation programmes in the wild<br />

and captive breeders of African animals.<br />

Back to Africa have been Dvůr<br />

Králové Zoo partners since established,<br />

with return of sable antelopes<br />

into South Africa being their first joint<br />

project, followed by reintroduction<br />

of roan antelopes to Swaziland and<br />

black rhinos to Tanzania.<br />

Kenya Wildlife Service<br />

www.kws.org<br />

A state corporation charged with the<br />

responsibility of conserving and managing<br />

wildlife resources within and<br />

outside protected areas in collaboration<br />

with stakeholders, Kenya Wildlife<br />

Service’s goal is to work with others<br />

to conserve, protect and sustainably<br />

manage wildlife resources. The<br />

community wildlife program of KWS<br />

in collaboration with others encourages<br />

biodiversity conservation by<br />

communities living on land essential<br />

to wildlife, such as wildlife corridors<br />

and dispersal lands outside parks and<br />

reserves. The premise is that “if people<br />

benefit from wildlife and other<br />

natural resources, then they will take<br />

care of these resources.”<br />

Brief history of the white<br />

rhino population in the wild<br />

The two white rhino subspecies met<br />

vastly different fates over the past<br />

100 years. The southern white rhinoceros<br />

(Ceratotherium simum simum)<br />

was described in 1817, while for the<br />

northern white rhino subspecies<br />

(Ceratotherium simum cottoni) the<br />

same occurred only in 1908. About<br />

100 years ago, when the southern<br />

form was almost eradicated, the<br />

northern form was locally common<br />

and abundant in savannas and sparse<br />

forest steppes in five Central African<br />

countries: Uganda, Sudan, Chad, Central<br />

African Republic and the Congo.<br />

In the 1960s, the northern subspecies<br />

was still more common with some<br />

2,250 animals than the southern<br />

form, with the latter consisting of just<br />

a single population in South Africa.<br />

Since then, the southern white rhino<br />

population grew and the subspecies<br />

was propagated to other regions,<br />

while for the northern form, there<br />

lived in 1984 the last remaining 15<br />

animals in Garamba National Park,<br />

Zaire (now the Democratic Republic<br />

of the Congo). Just because of these<br />

rhinos, the park was declared a World<br />

Cultural Heritage Site, with protection<br />

of the rhinoceroses supported<br />

by the International Rhino Foundation<br />

(IRF), USA, in particular. Despite<br />

a slight increase to 31 individuals in<br />

1995, there was gradual decline in<br />

the population due to civil wars and<br />

poaching.<br />

Thanks to international efforts, it was<br />

agreed in 2004 that some 10 remaining<br />

northern white rhinos would be<br />

caught and relocated into the Ol<br />

Pejeta Conservancy, Kenya, where<br />

bomas were developed to accommodate<br />

the animals following the<br />

potential transport. Unfortunately,<br />

this never took place.


58<br />

Table 7: The numbers of the white rhinoceros in the wild<br />

Table 7: The numbers of the white rhinoceros in the wild<br />

1920 1960 1970 1981 1984 1993 1999 2003 2005 2008<br />

Southern form 110? 1500 2000 3150 3920 5700 8440 11320 14543 17480<br />

Northern form 3000 2250 700 100 17 31 25 10 4 4 ?<br />

Total 3110 3750 2700 3250 3937 5731 8465 11330 14550 17484<br />

Table 8: Northern white rhinos kept in captivity prior to 31 December 2009<br />

Table 8: Northern white rhinos kept in captivity prior to 31 December 2009<br />

No Sex Stdbk #<br />

& name<br />

Born Date & place of arrival Death Comments<br />

1 ? 1252 -- 1948 16 Jan 1949 Khartoum 17 Jan 1949 † Enteritis when 1-2 years old<br />

Southern<br />

Sudan<br />

Khartoum<br />

2 M 15<br />

1948 7 Apr 1950 Antwerp 13 Apr 1968 † When 20 years old<br />

Paul Shambe,<br />

Sudan<br />

3 F 16<br />

1948 7 Apr 1950 Antwerp 7 Aug 1985 † When 37 years old<br />

Cloe Shambe,<br />

Sudan<br />

4 M 19<br />

1950 Uganda 25 Jul 1955 London 25 Jun 1990 Euthanised for high age when<br />

Ben<br />

27 Aug 1986 Dvur Kralove Dvur Kralove 40 years old<br />

5 F 290 1950 Uganda 25 Jul 1955 London 29 May 1964 † When 14 years old<br />

Bebe<br />

London<br />

6 M 27<br />

1952 Sudan 4 Sep 1956 Washington 2 May 1975 † When 23 years old<br />

Bill<br />

22 Apr 1972<br />

San Diego WAP<br />

San Diego WAP<br />

7 M 28<br />

1952 Sudan 4 Sep 1956 Washington 15 Mar 1979 † When 27 years old<br />

Lucy<br />

22 Apr 1972<br />

San Diego WAP<br />

San Diego WAP<br />

8 F 1123 -- 1963 Sudan 1 Apr 1964 Khartoum 2 Aug 1967<br />

Khartoum<br />

† When 4 years old<br />

9 M 54 -- 1963 1 Apr 1964 Khartoum 31 Dec 1965 Euthanised when 22 years old<br />

Shambe,<br />

Sudan<br />

1 Jan 1965 Riyadh Riyadh<br />

10 F 55 -- 1963 1 Apr 1964 Khartoum 31 Dec 1985 Euthanised when 22 years old<br />

Shambe,<br />

Sudan<br />

1 Jan 1965 Riyadh Riyadh<br />

11 F 75<br />

1952 Sudan 28 Jul 1957<br />

15 Aug 1974 † When 22 years old<br />

Joyce<br />

St. Louis<br />

7 Aug 1972<br />

San Diego WAP<br />

San Diego WAP<br />

12 M 74<br />

1952 Sudan 28 Jul 1957<br />

28 Jan 1991 † When 39 years old<br />

Dinka<br />

St. Louis<br />

7 Aug 1972<br />

San Diego WAP<br />

29 Jan 1980<br />

San Diego WAP<br />

26 Oct 1972<br />

San Diego WAP<br />

San Diego WAP<br />

13 M 347 -- 1968 1 Apr 1970 Khartoum 16 Jan 1978 † When 10 years old<br />

Shambe,<br />

Sudan<br />

Khartoum<br />

14 F 345 Tofacha 1970 Sudan 1972 Khartoum<br />

12 Sep 1978 † When 8 years old<br />

1 Jan 1973<br />

Al Ain<br />

Al Ain<br />

15 M 348 Angalifu 1972 1 Mar 1973 Khartoum<br />

2008 - probably a non-<br />

Shambe, 12 Aug 1990 San Diego<br />

breeding animal (sperm<br />

Sudan WAP<br />

collected by IZW Berlin)<br />

16 F 351 1965 Uganda 1 Jul 1971, Knowsley, 26 Aug 1992 1st breeding female<br />

Nasima<br />

Prescot<br />

Dvur Kralove Collapsed in shock when 27<br />

27 Aug 1977 Dvur Kralove<br />

years old<br />

17 M 373 1972 19 Sep 1975 Dvur Kralove 14 Aug 2006 1st breeding male<br />

Saut Shambe, 13 Oct 1989<br />

Dvur Kralove 1989-1998: on loan at San<br />

Sudan San Diego WAP<br />

Diego WAP<br />

15 Jul 1998 Dvur Kralove<br />

†Heart failure - 34 years old<br />

18 M 372 1973 19 Sep 1975 Dvur Kralove<br />

2nd breeding male<br />

Sudan Shambe, 20 December 2009 Ol<br />

Loaned to Kenya<br />

Sudan Pejeta, Kenya<br />

19 F 375 1973 Sudan 19 Sep 1975 Dvur Kralove 4 Jan 1982 Collapsed due to trauma<br />

Nuri<br />

Dvur Kralove when 9 years old<br />

20 F 377 1972 19 Sep 1975 Dvur Kralove Uterus tumour - non-<br />

Nesari Shambe,<br />

Sudan<br />

breeder<br />

21 F 374 1974 19 Sep 1975 Dvur Kralove<br />

Loaned to WAP in 1989,<br />

Nola Shambe, 13 Oct 1989 San Diego<br />

where mated in 1995<br />

Sudan WAP<br />

Found to be a non-breeding<br />

animal in 2008 due to<br />

atrophic ovaries<br />

22 F 376 1972 19 Sep 1975 Dvur Kralove 30 May 2007 Loaned to WAP in 1989<br />

Nadi Shambe, 13 Oct 1989<br />

San Diego WAP † When 37 years old<br />

Sudan San Diego WAP<br />

23 F 476 1977 Reared in Dvur Kralove 20 Jun 2007 Intercrossed animal (NWR x<br />

Nasi DK 2<br />

Nasima / Arthur (Stdbk Dvur Kralove SWR)<br />

#355 – Knowsley, England)<br />

Mated in Knowsley England<br />

24 M 630 1980 Reared in Dvur Kralove<br />

Loaned to Kenya<br />

Suni DK 5<br />

20 December 2009 Ol<br />

Pejeta, Kenya<br />

25 F 789 1983 Reared in Dvur Kralove<br />

Uterus tumour found in<br />

Nabire DK 6<br />

Nasima/Sudan<br />

2009 - non-breeder<br />

26 F 943 1989 Reared in Dvur Kralove<br />

Loaned to Kenya<br />

Najin DK 7<br />

Nasima/Sudan<br />

20 December 2009 Ol<br />

Pejeta, Kenya<br />

27 F 1122--- 18 Jul 1991 Reared in Dvur Kralove 18 Jul 1991 Aborted on day 296<br />

DK 8 Dvur Kralove Nasima/Sudan<br />

Dvur Kralove<br />

28 F 1305 29 Jun 1989 Reared in Dvur Kralove<br />

First F2 animal in captivity<br />

Fatu DK 9 Dvur Najin DK 7 / Saut<br />

Loaned to Kenya<br />

Kralove 20 December 2009 Ol<br />

Pejeta, Kenya<br />

[M - male, F - female; studbook numbers are assigned collectively to individual white rhinos regardless of the subspecies (boldhighlighted<br />

animals are still alive and a property of Dvur Kralove, except for Angalifu, i.e. #15)].<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

Contrary to the southern white<br />

rhino numbers in the wild that have<br />

recently bounced to some 19,000 individuals,<br />

only a single northern white<br />

individual was seen in Garamba in the<br />

course of a field survey done in 2007,<br />

while none were found there in 2008<br />

and 2009, making this form the rarest<br />

rhino in the world, with perhaps a<br />

few individuals surviving in southern<br />

Sudan (see Table 7).<br />

In 2009, last eight remaining animals<br />

were held in captivity. This involved<br />

males Sudan (36) and Suni DK 4<br />

(28) and females Nesari (37), Nabire<br />

DK 6 (26), Najin DK 7 (20) and Fatu<br />

DK 9 (9) at Dvůr Králové Zoo and<br />

another pair kept at San Diego Wild<br />

Animal Park, the USA, with female<br />

Nola (37) owned by Dvůr Králové and<br />

loaned to the USA in 1989, and male<br />

Angalifu owned by Khartoum Zoo,<br />

Sudan; this rhino was imported to<br />

the USA in 1990.<br />

Brief history of the captive<br />

northern white rhino stock<br />

The northern white rhino form was<br />

rather rare in captivity, as according<br />

to the International Studbook<br />

information, a mere 22 animals<br />

(10 males, 11 females, 1 animal with<br />

sex not determined) were imported<br />

to zoological parks from the wild in<br />

1948–1975 (see Table 8). Except for<br />

the last imported group, this mostly<br />

involved pairs that however never<br />

reproduced, with captive breeders<br />

being the zoos in Antwerp (Belgium),<br />

London (the UK), Washington, San<br />

Diego and St. Louis (the USA), Riyadh<br />

(Saudi Arabia) and Khartoum (Sudan).<br />

Khartoum Zoo held 4 individuals<br />

over time (2 pairs, including the male<br />

Angalifu). Prescot Zoo imported a<br />

single female, Nasima, in 1971. This<br />

rhino and the pair held at London<br />

Zoo, i.e. Ben and Bebe, were wild-<br />

-caught animals from Uganda, while<br />

the remainder of 19 (9.9.1) individuals<br />

were of Sudanese origin, of which 12<br />

(7.5) came from the Shambe region.<br />

The last of those imports from the<br />

wild was carried out in 1975, when<br />

Dvůr Králové Zoo brought a group<br />

of 6 (2.4) rhinos including two males


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 59<br />

Table 9: Northern white rhinos born in captivity, i.e. at Dvůr Králové Zoo<br />

Table 9: Northern white rhinos born in captivity, i.e. at Dvur Kralove Zoo (Bold: still alive)<br />

# Sex Name Birth Dam Sire Gestation Stdbk #/comments<br />

period<br />

0. F Nasi 11 Nov 1977 Nasima Arthur ? 476 - fathered by SWR, subspecific hybrid,<br />

died in 2008<br />

1. M Suni 8 Jun 1980 Nasima Saut 503 days 630<br />

2. F Nabire 15 Nov 1983 Nasima Sudan 485 days 789<br />

3. F Najin 11 Jul 1989 Nasima Sudan 481 days 943<br />

4. F - 18 Jul 1991 Nasima Sudan Abortion 1122, stillborn<br />

5. F Fatu 29 Jun 2000 Najin Saut 482 days 1305 - captive generation 2<br />

that subsequently reproduced on<br />

a repeated basis. Nasima who was<br />

imported to the UK, more specifically,<br />

to Knowsley Zoo, Prescot, became<br />

the only breeding female. Other wild-<br />

-caught animals never reproduced.<br />

Brief history of the northern<br />

white rhino collection<br />

in Dvůr Králové<br />

Dvůr Králové Zoo is the only zoological<br />

park in the world where northern<br />

white rhinos ever reproduced, with<br />

five pure northern white rhinos born<br />

including one premature calf, plus<br />

a single southern/northern form<br />

hybrid, with however female falling<br />

pregnant at Knowsley Zoo, Prescot.<br />

The first pure northern white rhino<br />

was born in 1980, with following<br />

animals born in 1983, 1989, 1991 and<br />

2000. For the last calf, Najin DK 7<br />

was the mother, while the remainder<br />

was born to Nasima, the wild -caught<br />

mother of Najin. More details: see<br />

Table 9.<br />

Many years of breeding efforts. Dvůr<br />

Králové tested diverse ways to successfully<br />

reproduce the northern form,<br />

which included their own programmes<br />

or activities conducted in cooperation<br />

with the international breeding and<br />

conservation community:<br />

Research in hormonal cycles was<br />

underway in Dvůr Králové from 1984:<br />

the females were found to have<br />

ceased cycling, and any efforts to<br />

change that failed except for Najin. It<br />

was found that keeping the animals<br />

in a pair situation definitely does not<br />

make difference in breeding performance<br />

and the same can be applied<br />

to managing rhinos as a group. From<br />

today’s perspective, absence of natural<br />

territorial and social behaviour<br />

seems to be the cause.<br />

Change in the settings through<br />

sending three animals (male Saut and<br />

females Nadi and Nola), only 15 and<br />

17 years old, from Dvůr Králové to the<br />

Wild Animal Park in San Diego, USA,<br />

in 1989. Despite repeated mating,<br />

females never fell pregnant.<br />

Stimulation by feeding, light and<br />

exposing to other rhinos, changes<br />

in the group structure etc. After<br />

Saut returned from San Diego to Dvůr<br />

Králové in 1998, young female Najin<br />

got pregnant, giving birth to its single<br />

calf so far, female Fatu DK 9, which is<br />

at the same time world’s only northern<br />

white rhino born in the second<br />

generation in captivity.<br />

Assisted reproduction efforts were<br />

launched in April 2001, which was<br />

also not successful. From 2001 to<br />

2007, a total of 27 anaesthetisations<br />

of the animals were carried out by<br />

IZW Berlin, including 5 attempts at<br />

artificial insemination, however without<br />

success.<br />

A sad reality of figures was all what<br />

has been ultimately left by the efforts<br />

mentioned above, with the entire<br />

population consisting of 4 captive-<br />

-born individuals and 4 born in the<br />

wild.<br />

Even the captive southern form<br />

population would be subject to a slow<br />

process of extinction being there<br />

no imports of animals from the wild,<br />

since reproduction successes in the<br />

white rhino as a species has been rare<br />

despite some particular breeding success<br />

(San Diego, Whipsnade etc.) and<br />

cycle failure or absent cycles exist in<br />

the majority of females in captivity.<br />

Conservation actions<br />

Preliminary discussions<br />

and arrangements<br />

With both Dvůr Králové females<br />

getting older, discussion on potential<br />

benefits of relocation of the animals<br />

into natural conditions was launched<br />

with AfRSG and Back to Africa representatives.<br />

The same started at Dvůr<br />

Králové Zoo and within the Rhino<br />

Committee to the Union of Czech<br />

and Slovak Zoos, with the move<br />

subsequently recommended by the<br />

latter. In December 2007, a meeting<br />

of the African Rhino Specialist Group<br />

(AfRSG) to the IUCN was held in<br />

South Africa, discussing the offer of<br />

Dvůr Králové to supply the last fertile<br />

animals held in captivity within a<br />

potential conservation project; at the<br />

same time, suitable locations were<br />

selected, with Kenyan Ol Pejeta being<br />

the best option and other two sites in<br />

South Africa considered.<br />

In early 2008, results of examination<br />

of hormonal derivates from Najin and<br />

Fatu faeces confirmed the females<br />

were not pregnant following the most<br />

recent artificial insemination. Therefore,<br />

the zoo decided to visit the potential<br />

destination, Ol Pejeta in Kenya,<br />

which was assumed to be the site<br />

for relocated animals from Garamba<br />

back in 2004. The visit however could<br />

not take place due to post -election<br />

civil unrests in Kenya.<br />

In June 2008, another location was<br />

visited – this time it was De Beers’<br />

Rooipoort Reserve, Kimberley, South<br />

Africa. As the site was found particularly<br />

suitable, conditions of potential<br />

partnership were agreed, including<br />

the one requiring that the ownership<br />

of the animals would remain with<br />

Dvůr Králové Zoo.<br />

In August 2008, the conservation of<br />

the northern white rhino was also encouraged<br />

by UNESCO at this organisation’s<br />

meeting in Quebec, Canada,<br />

calling on the Czech Government to<br />

support the Dvůr Králové conservation<br />

project.


60<br />

Scientific planning workshop<br />

In the meantime, preparations were<br />

underway for an international meeting<br />

of rhino experts invited to Dvůr<br />

Králové Zoo, with the meeting date<br />

set to 3 September 2008. Invitations<br />

were sent to representatives<br />

of the following organisations: Dvůr<br />

Králové Zoo, European Association<br />

of Zoos and Aquaria, EAZA Rhino<br />

TAG, African Rhino Specialist Group<br />

(AfRSG) to the IUCN, Back to Africa,<br />

IZW Berlin, Veterinary University<br />

Vienna, International Rhino Foundation,<br />

World Association of Zoos and<br />

Aquariums, Ministry of Environment<br />

of the CR, Union of Czech and Slovak<br />

Zoological Gardens, Parliament of<br />

the Czech Republic / Committee for<br />

Environment, Natural Science Faculty<br />

of the Charles University, Prague and<br />

Frankfurt Zoo.<br />

The objective of the meeting was to<br />

set the best way forward to save the<br />

northern white rhino. Representatives<br />

of Dvůr Králové Zoo, AfRSG,<br />

IZW, the White Rhino EEP and Veterinary<br />

University Vienna informed the<br />

participants through their presentations<br />

about historical data as well as<br />

the existing status of the white rhino<br />

in captive and wild situations, which<br />

in particular included the breeding<br />

record of rhinos in Dvůr Králové, research<br />

on captive white rhino cycles,<br />

situation of populations in the wild<br />

and in captivity for both subspecies,<br />

etc.<br />

Subsequently, a draft action plan<br />

developed by Dvůr Králové Zoo was<br />

discussed at an expert level, including<br />

input documents and presentations,<br />

with particular actions presented<br />

one by one and subjected to diverse<br />

aspects.<br />

At this meeting, the specialists came<br />

to a conclusion that any recent efforts<br />

in captivity have failed to result in<br />

sufficient reproduction performance<br />

and that there was no time for any<br />

further attempts in captive situation,<br />

as biological time windows of the<br />

animals were closing too fast. Dvůr<br />

Králové’s rhino group was recognised<br />

and evidenced to be the only world’s<br />

herd able to breed, with 2 or maybe<br />

3 cows and 2 bulls being potential<br />

breeders. Consensus was reached in<br />

that moving these animals into the<br />

natural setting would potentially encourage<br />

natural social and territorial<br />

behaviour, essential for the remaining<br />

females to breed on a regular basis.<br />

DRC’s Garamba National Park<br />

was still assumed to contain three<br />

remaining wild rhinos, which might<br />

considerably increase the chances of<br />

the northern form to survive provided<br />

any such animals were found and<br />

integrated with captive rhinos, as<br />

evidenced through genetic modelling<br />

developed by ISIS and AfRSG<br />

specialists.<br />

A place fully secure and free of poachers<br />

and predators was a prerequisite<br />

for any move of the animals from<br />

captivity to the wild. A consensus was<br />

reached in that if sufficient numbers<br />

are achieved within 20-30 years, then<br />

a part of such population could be relocated<br />

to countries of former range,<br />

provided secure and suitable areas<br />

are found there.<br />

Because the former range of the<br />

subspecies did not contain any safe<br />

location, the Rooipoort Reserve of De<br />

Beers in the Northern Cape Province,<br />

South Africa, was proposed as<br />

a suitable site. De Beers have been<br />

supporters of conservation projects<br />

for one hundred years, with ranches<br />

reproducing many species of South<br />

Africa’s native wildlife, which can be<br />

very well evidenced through granting<br />

the WWF -Lonmin Award for conservation<br />

to Nicky and Strilli Oppenheimers<br />

to recognise the funding of<br />

conservation projects contributed by<br />

De Beers and Oppenheimer family.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

The only person objecting against the<br />

move to Africa was Lars Versteege,<br />

White Rhino EEP coordinator, supporting<br />

an idea of repeated attempts<br />

at artificial insemination and relocation<br />

of the animals to a different zoo,<br />

for instance the one that he worked<br />

with, i.e. Safari Park Beekse Bergen,<br />

where they had achieved a number of<br />

southern rhino calves produced.<br />

IZW Berlin were suggesting that<br />

artificial insemination efforts should<br />

continue until the transport. The<br />

remainder of the participants was<br />

opting for the move as the only real<br />

way forward, generally recommending<br />

to try making the females cycle<br />

again within the short time window<br />

before the transport, by either naturally<br />

or through artificial insemination,<br />

noting that this should not pose any<br />

unduly delay of the move.<br />

AfRSG and Back to Africa representatives<br />

invited Dvůr Králové to reconsider<br />

Ol Pejeta as an option, as the<br />

Kenyan post -election situation was<br />

already under control. At the same<br />

time, everyone was informed on the<br />

plans to survey Garamba National<br />

Park with the intention to find any<br />

last remaining rhinos.<br />

As a conclusion, the next project<br />

steps were identified including<br />

actions expected. A summary of<br />

meeting presentations and conclusions<br />

was incorporated into the<br />

Northern White Rhino Conservation<br />

Action Plan document. The operation<br />

as such was branded by the World<br />

Association of Zoos and Aquariums<br />

as WAZA Conservation Project<br />

No 08017.<br />

Choosing the best site<br />

Follow -up to the workshop above<br />

was the meeting of Dvůr Králové Zoo<br />

Board in September 2008, where the<br />

board members approved the steps<br />

proposed under the Action plan, as<br />

well as the move of the animals to the<br />

reserve in South Africa that had been<br />

assessed as 100% secured site.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 61<br />

At the same time, the management<br />

method was changed in the northern<br />

white rhino at the zoo in order to<br />

induce hormonal cycles in females,<br />

which involved putting two females<br />

together with one male at a time and<br />

separating Najin from her daughter<br />

Fatu. Female cycles were under monitoring;<br />

should any female started<br />

cycling, a male was at hand to enable<br />

mating.<br />

In January 2009, Hamish Currie of<br />

Back to Africa informed on increased<br />

poaching in South Africa, suggesting<br />

re -considering the Kenyan location<br />

(Ol Pejeta) as an option, this being<br />

at the same time a recommendation<br />

of AfRSG to the IUCN. Based on the<br />

information above, the Zoo Board decided<br />

to visit Kenya, which took place<br />

in February 2009. When visiting Ol<br />

Pejeta, the project was discussed and<br />

conditions of cooperation approved.<br />

The zoo representatives also became<br />

familiar with Ol Pejeta operations and<br />

reintroduction projects, as well as<br />

with rhino management and security<br />

situation in Kenya generally and in<br />

Ol Pejeta in particular. The meeting<br />

participants included representatives<br />

of Dvůr Králové Zoo, Czech Parliament’s<br />

Committee for Environment<br />

and Kenya Wildlife Service, as well<br />

as managers and other personnel of<br />

Ol Pejeta Conservancy, Lewa Wildlife<br />

Conservancy, Back to Africa and<br />

Fauna & Flora International (FFI).<br />

The Zoo Board requested additional<br />

expert opinions on the project and<br />

based on these the move of the rhinos<br />

to the new location in Kenya was<br />

approved. A memorandum of understanding<br />

was signed in June, containing<br />

the following project objectives:<br />

• To induce normal and periodical<br />

breeding in the Dvůr Králové animals<br />

that were still able to reproduce,<br />

in a secure place in the wild.<br />

• To develop maximum efforts to integrate<br />

the captive animals with last<br />

remaining northern white rhinos in<br />

the wild if any are found. If not, to<br />

produce pure northern white rhinos<br />

as well as intercrossed offspring to<br />

preserve the genes of the northern<br />

white rhino, where adding southern<br />

white rhino females was recommended<br />

to induce normal social and<br />

territorial behaviour.<br />

A management committee consisting<br />

of representatives of Dvůr Králové<br />

Zoo, Ol Pejeta Conservancy, Back to<br />

Africa, FFI, Lewa Wildlife Conservancy<br />

and Kenya Wildlife Service was established<br />

to oversee rhino management<br />

and care.<br />

The move was officially supported by<br />

the African Rhino Specialist Group<br />

to the IUCN, UCSZ and a number<br />

of various specialists in the rhino<br />

conservation field, Prince William of<br />

Wales (a supporter of Ol Pejeta Conservancy),<br />

Minister for Environment<br />

of the Czech Republic, Czech Ambassador<br />

in Kenya, the President of the<br />

Czech Committee for UNESCO and<br />

many others.<br />

Ol Pejeta Conservancy<br />

Ol Pejeta Conservancy was identified<br />

by AfRSG as the best option on the<br />

basis of its very good climate and a<br />

location close to the former range of<br />

the subspecies. A high altitude area,<br />

Ol Pejeta lacks issues concerning<br />

trypanosomiasis, which can be mortal<br />

for rhinos imported from the moderate<br />

climate. Kenya neighbours Sudan,<br />

where three northern white rhinos<br />

were observed in summer 2008 according<br />

to reliable evidence. In 2005,<br />

Ol Pejeta Conservancy was the site<br />

chosen for placing the last surviving<br />

animals from Garamba National Park,<br />

DRC. Therefore, it is the best place<br />

for receiving any potential remaining<br />

northern white rhinos from the wild<br />

in terms of both climate and politics.<br />

The current governmental policy and<br />

rhino protection system are comprehensive<br />

enough to provide maximum<br />

guarantee for security of the animals,<br />

with additional fenced and guarded<br />

area inside the reserve.<br />

Ol Pejeta represents 25,000 hectares<br />

of a habitat located near the original<br />

range of the northern white rhino.<br />

This institution has experience of<br />

rhino reintroduction and contains<br />

the largest black rhino population<br />

in East Africa counting 81 individuals,<br />

plus manages 11 southern white<br />

rhinos. Ol Pejeta has a consistent and<br />

effective system of patrols to prevent<br />

any poaching attempts on the rhino<br />

populations.<br />

Available for the northern white rhino<br />

are bomas and 400-hectare enclosures<br />

surrounded on all sides by a<br />

fully electrified fence with monitoring<br />

on a 24-hour basis plus strategically<br />

located watch -towers. Other security<br />

features include horn -implanted<br />

transmitters to enable intensive surveillance<br />

and monitoring and security<br />

patrols formed of 14 men under the<br />

supervision of senior management,<br />

with additional assistance by the<br />

security divisions of the Lewa Wildlife<br />

Conservancy and Kenya Wildlife Service.<br />

The rhino enclosure is located in<br />

the centre of the conservancy, which<br />

itself is a fenced area of 61,000 hectares<br />

patrolled by a security team of<br />

over 80 guards on a 24/7 basis.<br />

Translocation including<br />

pre ‑arrangements and<br />

acclimatisation<br />

In cooperation with IZW Berlin,<br />

female Nabire was examined in July<br />

2009 and subsequently excluded from<br />

the project as a non -breeding animal.<br />

Sperm was also collected from male<br />

Suni and sent to the Berlin -based<br />

sperm bank. Biological samples were<br />

taken from all northern white rhinos<br />

for future use. All animals to be<br />

transported except for Sudan were<br />

dehorned from safety reasons.<br />

On Saturday, 19 December 2009 early<br />

in the morning, the process of crating<br />

and loading got underway in Dvůr<br />

Králové. Heaters were installed inside<br />

lorries as severe frosts were expected<br />

during the day and each crate was<br />

fitted up with a tarpaulin covering the<br />

ventilation holes so that the animals<br />

were kept under a temperature of<br />

16 °C. The animals were accompanied<br />

by experienced specialists, including<br />

keeper Jan Zdarek and veterinarian<br />

Dr Jiri Vahala on behalf of Dvůr<br />

Králové Zoo, Berry White and South<br />

African veterinarian Dr Pete Morkel, a<br />

rhino translocation expert. A national<br />

traffic police escort (Traffic Police<br />

of the Czech Republic) ensured a<br />

smooth passage for the convoy as far<br />

as the airport. The aircraft with rhinos<br />

took off at 6 pm and landed at the<br />

Nairobi airport on 20 December 2009


62<br />

in the early morning. From Nairobi,<br />

the transport continued as far as Ol<br />

Pejeta Conservancy by trucks. The<br />

rhino convoy reached the place of<br />

final destination following 26 hours<br />

and the animals were uncrated and<br />

entered their bomas on 20 December<br />

at 2 pm CET.<br />

The Dvůr Králové Zoo keepers stayed<br />

on the site with rhinos five weeks<br />

after the translocation, while Berry<br />

White spent several months there.<br />

Veterinarian Peter Morkel was and<br />

will be available to oversee the<br />

animals on an ongoing basis as they<br />

are getting adapted to living in the<br />

bush, which is going to last for one to<br />

two years and include training for the<br />

electrified fence as well as adapting<br />

to natural diet and large enclosures<br />

that will be enlarging with time.<br />

As early as January, the rhinos were<br />

released in their first natural enclosure.<br />

At the end of April, the females<br />

were put together with male Sudan<br />

and the male and female Najin subsequently<br />

transferred into a breeding<br />

area of 300 hectares, with southern<br />

white female and two calves added to<br />

the pair.<br />

Fatu is kept with male Suni in an<br />

enclosure of 8 hectares. As faecal<br />

examination results and female’s<br />

behaviour have shown, Fatu has<br />

slowly begun to cycle, with first signs<br />

of interest in mating recorded in early<br />

October 2010.<br />

A journey was taken to southern<br />

Sudan in March 2010 and it really<br />

seems that there are still a few rhinos<br />

alive. The next step planned is to<br />

build a large fenced area for Fatu and<br />

Suni and additional southern white<br />

females. In order to identify the effects<br />

that the change in environment<br />

might have on the females, monitoring<br />

of hormonal activity based on<br />

their faeces is still in progress, with<br />

samples collected and frozen twice<br />

a week as well as earlier at the zoo<br />

and then examined at the University<br />

of Vienna to determine whether the<br />

females cycle and ovulate or not and<br />

check for any pregnancy.<br />

Rhino translocation is costly, particularly<br />

between continents, but the<br />

fundraising efforts for this translocation<br />

do not aim to compete with<br />

other recognised rhino conservation<br />

priorities. What’s more, if the original<br />

transport of the northern white<br />

rhinos from Sudan to Czechoslovakia<br />

had not been done and paid by Dvůr<br />

Králové Zoo in 1975, there would be<br />

no animals left to save and these<br />

rhinos could even never obtain this<br />

last chance to survive.<br />

For basic information and facts as<br />

well as updates, please visit project<br />

micro site: www.northernwhiterhinolastchance.com<br />

Acknowledgments<br />

In addition to the partners mentioned<br />

earlier, a number of supporters and<br />

funding institutions must be applauded<br />

for their appreciated help.<br />

AfRSG to the IUCN, Kenya Wildlife<br />

Service, Kenyan Ministry for Environment,<br />

Czech Embassy Kenya, Czech<br />

Ministry of Environment, Czech<br />

Committee for UNESCO, Environmental<br />

Committee of Czech Parliament,<br />

IZW Berlin & Vienna University,<br />

BBC, National Geographic, Lemuria<br />

TV & Czech TV, Matsarol Foundation,<br />

Australia; Whitley Animal Protection<br />

Trust, Prince Bernhard Fund for<br />

Nature, The Chadramohan Family<br />

Foundation (Zoomungus World<br />

Foundation), Tudor Investments (Paul<br />

Tudor Jones), Montague -Panton<br />

Charitable Trust, Ministry of Environment,<br />

Czech Republic; DHL Supply<br />

Chain, The Daphne Sheldrick Wildlife<br />

Trust, Natura Viva Dvůr Králové n. L.<br />

& Severočeské doly<br />

Special thanks for both projects<br />

• The team of Dvůr Králové Zoo, in<br />

particular animal management staff<br />

and veterinarians<br />

• Dvůr Králové Zoo Board of Directors<br />

& Supervisory Board<br />

• The World Association of Zoos and<br />

Aquariums for your support<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

Conclusion<br />

Dvůr Králové sent to Africa as part of<br />

conservation projects seven rhinos<br />

within a single year, which would<br />

not be possible in a small country in<br />

the middle of Europe being there no<br />

dedicated partners as well as generations<br />

of keepers.<br />

The black rhinos were literally sent to<br />

the land of their ancestors, returning<br />

into what can be called promised land,<br />

i.e. their native habitat, with the belief<br />

that the Mother Nature thereby<br />

gets what we humans owe to her.<br />

I believe that both sites can provide a<br />

permanent home for our rhinos and<br />

that any future offspring of these will<br />

help Dvůr Králové fulfil the modern<br />

zoo mission totally in compliance<br />

with the strategy of WAZA. I had the<br />

opportunity of testing in person that<br />

the animals were translocated to the<br />

best possible habitat.<br />

I feel happy that we gave the northern<br />

white rhinos their last chance,<br />

that they live in conditions that are<br />

believed to establish a normal female<br />

reproductive behaviour, and that the<br />

worldwide interest in this project<br />

turned public attention to the protection<br />

of the entire taxon.<br />

Even though four last remaining<br />

animals may be unable to guarantee<br />

survival of a species, promoting conservation<br />

as such is something that<br />

they can.<br />

References<br />

• HOLECKOVA, D., 2009: Breeding<br />

endangered species at Dvůr Králové<br />

Zoo, Volume 3: Rhinos. Dvůr Králové<br />

Zoo, Dvůr Králové nad Labem.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 63<br />

Letting the Cat Out<br />

of the Bag: Genetic Effects of<br />

Ex situ ‑Conservation in the European<br />

Wildcat (Felis silvestris)<br />

Kathrin A. Witzenberger – University of Trier<br />

Data on the genetic diversity and<br />

relatedness of animals in a zoo population<br />

are crucial for the implementation<br />

of successful breeding programs.<br />

We analysed the genetic structure<br />

of the zoo population of the European<br />

wildcat (n = 77) and compared<br />

it with genetic data from a natural<br />

wild population in Germany (n = 81).<br />

The method used was genotyping<br />

at 10 microsatellite loci. Our results<br />

show, that the genetic diversity in<br />

the ex situ population of the European<br />

wildcat was higher than in the<br />

studied wild population. The inbreeding<br />

coefficient found in the captive<br />

population was comparable to the<br />

wild population (and data for other<br />

wild populations found in literature).<br />

Also the captive population showed<br />

a very high effective population size<br />

(Ne = 66). We found six distinct genetic<br />

lineages within the captive population.<br />

Combined with the available<br />

data on origin and ancestry of the<br />

sampled individuals, some of these<br />

groups could be assigned to certain<br />

zoos or regions. Therefore, the differentiation<br />

of the clusters might be<br />

due to more or less isolated breeding<br />

lines, or groups of zoos that often<br />

exchanged individuals, or zoos that<br />

were very successful breeders. Also, it<br />

is very likely that the zoos have used<br />

several source populations to found<br />

the captive population. There were<br />

no signs of genetic erosion within the<br />

captive population. The comparably<br />

high diversity and low inbreeding<br />

found in the captive population might<br />

be due to the combination of different<br />

founder populations. Despite<br />

the fact that the European wildcat<br />

has been bred for many generations<br />

without a coordination of breeding<br />

efforts, inbreeding currently does<br />

not represent a severe threat in the<br />

captive population. Therefore, the<br />

uncoordinated breeding seems to<br />

have had no negative effect up to<br />

now. It has been proposed, that an<br />

artificial fragmentation of captive<br />

populations into several more or less<br />

independent subpopulations might<br />

help to retain a maximum of genetic<br />

diversity. In the ex situ population of<br />

F. silvestris, the strategy to divide the<br />

captive population into several independent<br />

fragments seems to have<br />

been applied just by chance due to<br />

the missing network of holders. This<br />

might have helped to maintain the<br />

strong genetic variability across the<br />

whole population. Instead of managing<br />

these populations as a single<br />

population in the future, it might<br />

therefore be worthwhile to retain<br />

at least some sub -structuring. Up to<br />

now our genotyping data suggests<br />

that hybridisation with domestic<br />

cats also seems to be negligible in<br />

the ex situ stock. Nevertheless, a<br />

studbook for the European wildcat is<br />

needed in order to avoid that the currently<br />

good condition of the captive<br />

population is lost.


64<br />

India’s Initiative in Ex ‑situ<br />

Wildlife Conservation<br />

B. S. Bonal – Central Zoo Authority, India<br />

Introduction<br />

The Central Zoo Authority was created<br />

in 1992 under the Wild Life<br />

(Protection) (Amendment 1991) Act,<br />

1972 with main objective to oversee<br />

the functioning of zoos in the country<br />

and to enforce minimum standards<br />

and norms for upkeep and health care<br />

of animals in Indian zoos so that the<br />

zoos come up to a standard where<br />

they can complement and strengthen<br />

the national efforts in conservation of<br />

wildlife of the country as envisaged in<br />

National Zoo Policy, 1998.<br />

Coordinated planned conservation<br />

breeding of critically endangered wild<br />

animal species is the flagship objective<br />

of zoos as per the National Zoo<br />

Policy, 1998. The Central Zoo Authority<br />

has identified 73 such critically<br />

endangered wild animal species for<br />

planned conservation breeding in<br />

India with following objectives:<br />

• Developing physically, genetically<br />

and behaviourally viable populations<br />

of healthy animals of identified<br />

species for the purpose of<br />

display in zoos.<br />

• Developing physically, genetically<br />

and behaviourally viable populations<br />

of healthy animals to act<br />

as insurance and raise stock for<br />

rehabilitation them in wild when it is<br />

appropriate and desirable.<br />

Coordinating and participating zoos<br />

in conservation breeding programme<br />

of each identified species have been<br />

identified. Central Zoo Authority<br />

is providing funds for creation of<br />

off ‑display conservation breeding<br />

centres in coordinating zoo on 100%<br />

basis. Funds are also being provided<br />

for proper display enclosures in<br />

participating zoos of each identified<br />

species.<br />

Target is to have at least 250 plan<br />

bred and physically, genetically and<br />

behaviourally healthy individuals of<br />

each identified critically endangered<br />

wild animal species of Indian origin in<br />

captivity in the world of which at least<br />

100 must be in India of each identified<br />

species with less than few hundred/<br />

thousands (or say less than 2500)<br />

individuals left in the wild.<br />

So far conservation breeding programme<br />

of 18 no. of identified<br />

species has been taken off in different<br />

zoos. The status of the ongoing<br />

conservation breeding programme is<br />

as below:<br />

Red Panda<br />

(Ailurus fulgens fulgens)<br />

The range of Red Panda (Ailurus<br />

fulgens fulgens) extends from Nepal<br />

through north -eastern India (West<br />

Bengal, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh),<br />

Bhutan and China. It is listed in<br />

Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection<br />

Act (1972) of India and Vulnerable<br />

in the IUCN Red data book. Indian<br />

zoos had also received animals from<br />

zoos of Cologne, Rotterdam, Madrid,<br />

Holland, and Belgium. The Padmaja<br />

Naidu Himalayan Zoological Park,<br />

Darjeeling and Himalayan Zoological<br />

Park, Sikkim has been identified as<br />

Coordinating zoo and Participating<br />

zoo respectively for the conservation<br />

breeding of the species. Status of Red<br />

Panda housed in the Indian zoos during<br />

the year 2009-10 is 20 (13: 7) with<br />

2 birth and successful release to wild.<br />

Singhalila National Park in 2003 has<br />

been landmark of this programme.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

Western Tragopan<br />

(Tragopan melanocephalus)<br />

The Western Tragopan is considered<br />

as the rarest of all living pheasants.<br />

Their range is very restricted and<br />

found from an altitude of 1750 m<br />

to 3600 m in Jammu & Kashmir and<br />

Himachal Pradesh. It is listed in<br />

Schedule I of Wild Life (Protection)<br />

Act, 1972, Vulnerable in IUCN Red<br />

Data book. The Central Zoo Authority<br />

has provided financial assistance<br />

to establish off ‑display conservation<br />

breeding centre at Sarahan Himachal<br />

Pradesh. There are 25 (13:12) Western<br />

Tragopan in captivity of two zoos in<br />

India. The Sarahan Pheasantry since<br />

last few years is facing infection of<br />

E -coli in breeding hen leading to<br />

deaths. The breeding centre is doing<br />

its best to overcome this problem.<br />

Cheer Pheasant<br />

(Catreus wallichii)<br />

The Cheer Pheasant is distributed<br />

in the highlands and scrublands of<br />

the Himalayas region of the India<br />

(Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand,<br />

Kashmir), Nepal, and Pakistan. The<br />

Cheer Pheasant has been listed as<br />

Vulnerable on the IUCN Red Data<br />

Book and listed in Schedule I of Wild<br />

Life (Protection) Act, 1972. There are<br />

70 birds (34:20:16 Chicks) housed in<br />

3 zoos in India. The Central Zoo has<br />

provided fund to Himachal Pradesh<br />

Forest Department for establishing<br />

off ‑display conservation breeding<br />

centre at Khariun in Chail Wildlife<br />

Sanctuary.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 65<br />

Manipur Brow<br />

Antlered Deer or Sangai<br />

(Cervus eldi eldi)<br />

The Sangai is an endemic deer found<br />

only in Manipur, India. Manipur brow-<br />

‑antlered deer has been classified as<br />

Critically Endangered (CR) species in<br />

IUCN Red Data Book and Schedule<br />

1 in Wild Life (Protection Act), 1972.<br />

There are 187 (48:76:63) Sangai<br />

housed in the 15 zoos in India. The<br />

Central Zoo Authority has provided<br />

fund to Manipur Zoological Park to<br />

established off ‑display conservation<br />

breeding centre.<br />

Mouse deer<br />

(Moschiola indica)<br />

The Indian Mouse deer a small, secretive<br />

creatures is a species of even-<br />

-toed ungulate in the Tragulidae family<br />

found in India and possibly Nepal.<br />

The CZA has identified Nehru Zoological<br />

Park Hyderabad as Coordinating<br />

zoo providing financial assistance<br />

for establishing the infrastructure for<br />

the conservation breeding of Mouse<br />

deer. There are 17 (6:10:1 young one)<br />

Mouse deer housed in the 4 number<br />

of zoos in the country.<br />

Vultures<br />

More than 90% vultures populations<br />

have been lost during the last 2 decades.<br />

Therefore, conservation breeding<br />

programme in captivity and possible<br />

reintroduction into the wild has<br />

been taken up by establishing an off‑<br />

-display conservation breeding centre<br />

at Pinjore, Sakkarbaugh Zoo, Junagarh;<br />

Nandankanan Zoological Park,<br />

Bhubaneswar; Van Vihar National<br />

Park -Zoo, Bhopal; Rani -Guwahati, Assam;<br />

Rajbakhtawa, South Khairabari<br />

in West Bengal and Muta at Ranchi<br />

basically for three species i.e. Long<br />

billed vulture, Slender billed vulture<br />

and White backed vulture. National<br />

(Bombay Natural History Society)<br />

and Zoological Society of London are<br />

partner in this conservation effort.<br />

There are 62 long billed vultures in 4<br />

centres, 18 slender billed vultures in 1<br />

centre and 137 white backed vultures<br />

in 9 centres. Vulture conservation<br />

Breeding Centre at Pinjore Haryana<br />

has achieved 15 successful birth and<br />

successful raising in the captivity.<br />

Grey Jungle Fowl<br />

(Gallus sonneratii)<br />

The species is found, mainly in the<br />

Indian Peninsula but extends into<br />

Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and south<br />

Rajasthan. This species and the Red<br />

Junglefowl overlap slightly along the<br />

northern boundary of the distribution.<br />

It is listed in Schedule II of Wild Life<br />

(Protection) Act, 1972. The Central<br />

Zoo Authority has identified Sri Venkatkeshwara<br />

Zoological Park, Tirupati<br />

as coordinating zoo for the conservation<br />

breeding for the same. There are<br />

66 (15:18:33) birds in captivity in 5<br />

zoos in India.<br />

Lion Tailed Macaque<br />

(Macaca silenus)<br />

The Lion -tailed Macaque is endemic<br />

to the Western Ghats of South India.<br />

The Lion -tailed Macaque ranks<br />

among the rarest and most threatened<br />

primates. The species has been<br />

identified as Endangered (E) in IUCN<br />

Red Data Book and listed in Schedule<br />

1 in Wild Life (Protection) Act,<br />

1972. The Central Zoo Authority has<br />

identified Arignar Anna Zoological<br />

Park, Vandalur (Chennai) as Coordinating<br />

zoo and State Museum Zoo,<br />

Trivananthapuram and Sri Chamarajendra<br />

Zoological Park, Mysore zoo<br />

as Participating zoos. There are 63<br />

LTM (34:26:3) housed in 14 facilities in<br />

India (2009).<br />

Hoolock Gibbon<br />

(Hoolock hoolock)<br />

The range of the hoolocks is the<br />

most northwestern of all the gibbons,<br />

extending from Assam in North -East<br />

India, to Myanmar. Small populations<br />

(in each case few hundred animals)<br />

live also in eastern Bangladesh and in<br />

southwest China. There are two species<br />

of Hoolocks i.e. Western Hoolock<br />

Gibbon, (Hoolock hoolock) and Eastern<br />

Hoolock Gibbon, (Hoolock leuco‑<br />

nedys). The Central Zoo Authority has<br />

identified Biological Park, Itanagar<br />

as coordinating zoo and Aizawl Zoo,<br />

Mizoram; Assam State Zoo, Guwahati<br />

and Sepahijala Zoological Park,<br />

Tripura as participating zoos for the<br />

conservation breeding. There are 35<br />

hoolock (13:15:7) in captivity at the<br />

moment in 8 zoos in India.<br />

Pygmy Hog<br />

(Porcula salvania)<br />

Pygmy hog is an endangered species<br />

of small wild pig, previously spread<br />

across India, Nepal, and Bhutan but<br />

now only found in Assam. The current<br />

wild population may be about 150<br />

individuals or fewer. The conservation<br />

breeding of Pygmy hogs by<br />

Pygmy Hog Conservation Breeding<br />

(PHCP, Assam) began at Basistha<br />

research and breeding centre near<br />

Guwahati in 1996, using seven (3<br />

males, 4 females) wild hogs captured<br />

from their last surviving population in<br />

Manas National Park, Assam. PHCP<br />

is a collaborative project of Durrell<br />

Wildlife Conservation Trust (Durrell),<br />

IUCN/SSC PPHSG, Forest Department<br />

of the Government of Assam,<br />

and the Ministry of Environment &<br />

Forests of the Government of India.<br />

Release of 30 Pygmy hog in wild<br />

(Sonairupai WLS) with constant post-<br />

-release monitoring with successful<br />

establishment and breeding in wild<br />

is the greatest achievement of the<br />

conservation breeding programme.<br />

Assam state zoo has been identified<br />

as participating zoo.


66<br />

Indian Pangolin<br />

(Manis crassicuadata)<br />

The Indian Pangolin (Manis crassicau‑<br />

data) is found in many parts of India<br />

and some parts of Pakistan and Sri<br />

Lanka. The Central Zoo Authority has<br />

identified Nandankanan Zoological<br />

Park Bhubaneshwar as coordinating<br />

zoo providing a grant for establishing<br />

off display conservation breeding<br />

centre. The centre has 9 individuals<br />

with recorded successful breeding.<br />

King Cobra<br />

(Ophiophagus hannah)<br />

The king cobra is the world’s longest<br />

venomous snake, with a length<br />

up to 5.6 m (18.5 ft). This species is<br />

widespread throughout Southeast<br />

Asia and parts of India, and is found<br />

mostly in forested areas. The Central<br />

Zoo Authority has identified Pilikula<br />

Biological Park, Mangalore as<br />

coordinating zoo providing technical<br />

assistance for establishing off ‑display<br />

conservation breeding centre. There<br />

are 35 king cobra (14:10:11) housed in<br />

13 zoos in India.<br />

Clouded leopard<br />

(Neofelis nebulosa nebulosa)<br />

The Clouded leopard (Neofelis nebu‑<br />

losa) is a medium -sized cat found<br />

in Southeast Asia. The Red list of<br />

endangered species of IUCN lists the<br />

clouded leopard as Vulnerable. The<br />

Central Zoo Authority has identified<br />

Sepahijala Zoological Park, Tripura as<br />

coordinating zoo providing financial<br />

assistance for establishing off ‑display<br />

conservation breeding centre and<br />

Assam State Zoo, Guwahati as participating<br />

zoo. There were 4 births<br />

reported in Sepahijala zoo during the<br />

2009-10. At the moment, there are 23<br />

clouded leopard (9:8:6) in the Indian<br />

zoos.<br />

Pig Tailed Macaque<br />

(Macaca leonine)<br />

The Northern Pig -tailed Macaque<br />

(Macaca leonina) is found in Bangladesh,<br />

Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia,<br />

Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam.<br />

The IUCN Red Data book lists the pig<br />

tailed macaque as Vulnerable. The<br />

Central Zoo Authority has identified<br />

Sepahijala Zoological Park, Tripura as<br />

coordinating zoo providing financial<br />

assistance for establishing off ‑display<br />

conservation breeding centre. There<br />

are 33 pig tailed macaque (9:10:14)<br />

housed in 6 zoos in India. Assam state<br />

zoo has been identified as Participating<br />

zoo under the programme.<br />

Binturong<br />

(Arctictis binturong)<br />

The Binturong’s (Arctictis binturong)<br />

natural habitat is forest canopy in<br />

rainforest of Bangladesh, Bhutan,<br />

Burma, China, India, Indonesia, Laos,<br />

Malaysia, Nepal, the Philippines,<br />

Thailand, and Vietnam. The IUCN Red<br />

Data book listed the Binturong as<br />

Vulnerable. The Central Zoo Authority<br />

has identified Sepahijala Zoological<br />

Park, Tripura as coordinating zoo<br />

providing financial assistance for<br />

establishing off ‑display conservation<br />

breeding centre. There are 11 binturong<br />

(7:4) housed in 6 zoos in India.<br />

Assam state zoo and Aizawl zoo has<br />

been identified as Participating zoo<br />

under the programme.<br />

Spectacle Langur –<br />

phyre’s monkey<br />

(Trachypithecus phayrei)<br />

Phayre’s Leaf Monkey also known as<br />

Phayre’s Langur, is a species of lutung<br />

found in Southeast Asia. Its range<br />

includes Bangladesh, India, Myanmar,<br />

China, Thailand, Laos and Vietnam.<br />

The Red Data book of IUCN lists the<br />

Phayre’s Leaf Monkey as Endangered<br />

species. The Central Zoo Authority<br />

has identified Sepahijala Zoological<br />

Park, Tripura as coordinating zoo<br />

providing financial assistance for<br />

establishing off ‑display conservation<br />

breeding centre. There are 13 Spectacle<br />

langur (5:7:1) housed in 6 zoos<br />

in India.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

Himalayan Monal<br />

(Lophophorus impejanus)<br />

The Himalayan Monal (Lophophorus<br />

impejanus) also known as the Impeyan<br />

Monal or Impeyan Pheasant or<br />

Danphe is the national bird of Nepal,<br />

and the state bird of Uttarakhand.<br />

The Central Zoo Authority has identified<br />

Nature Park Manali as Coordinating<br />

zoo and providing financial<br />

assistance for establishing off ‑display<br />

conservation breeding centre. There<br />

are 35 birds (21:11:3) housed in 7 zoos<br />

in India. The Padmaja Naidu Himalayan<br />

Zoological Park, Darjeeling and<br />

Himalayan Zoological Park, Gangtok<br />

has been identified as participating<br />

zoo under the programme.<br />

Identification of founders, marking<br />

of founders (transponders, ear tags<br />

or rings), preparation of animal history<br />

sheets and animal observation<br />

sheets of the identified founders by<br />

the zoos, compilation of studbook by<br />

the national studbook keeper, liaison<br />

with the International studbook<br />

keeper of the species (if any), possibility<br />

of acquiring the founders from<br />

foreign zoos (if required) and details<br />

of the zoos from where founders can<br />

be acquired, physical health check -up<br />

of the founders using the veterinary<br />

hospital in the zoo as well as National<br />

Referral Centre (Indian Veterinary<br />

Research Institute, Bareilly), Genetic<br />

health check -up of the founders<br />

using blood samples or body parts<br />

with help from Lacones, Hyderabad,<br />

engagement of technical assistant<br />

(biologist, veterinary assistant etc) in<br />

the coordinating zoo are the major<br />

factors leading to its success.<br />

There is need to link ex -situ conservation<br />

breeding programme of<br />

identified species with in ‑situ species<br />

recovery programme with positive<br />

approach to save the critically<br />

endangered wild animal species from<br />

extinction.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 67<br />

“Joined ‑up Conservation”:<br />

Addressing Native Species Declines<br />

in Western Australia<br />

Susan Hunt PSM – Chief Executive Officer, Perth Zoo<br />

Abstract<br />

Western Australia has unique<br />

biodiversity and has Australia’s only<br />

biodiversity hot spot. To address<br />

local native species’ decline and to<br />

build the effectiveness of conservation<br />

actions, the CEOs of the Western<br />

Australian conservation department,<br />

the botanical gardens, the WA<br />

Museum and Perth Zoo have formed<br />

a Threatened Species Council. With<br />

a mandate to reform native species’<br />

recovery processes, build scientific research<br />

and respond swiftly to species<br />

declines, this Council is also tasked to<br />

build community awareness of local<br />

native species. Perth Zoo leads this<br />

work, which as a part of the action<br />

around the Year of Biodiversity is developing<br />

a broad community education<br />

campaign highlighting the plight<br />

of the State’s threatened species.<br />

Perth Zoo has worked in species<br />

recovery for many years with a particular<br />

focus on breeding threatened<br />

native species for release into the<br />

wild. More than 2,000 native animals<br />

bred at Perth Zoo have been released<br />

into protected habitat since the<br />

1990s. This has been done in collaboration<br />

with colleagues in the Western<br />

Australian Government and at times<br />

as part of a contract agreement to<br />

breed animals for release. Perth Zoo’s<br />

role in conservation and breed for release<br />

programs has now evolved into<br />

taking a more central role in native<br />

species conservation and conservation<br />

education programs.<br />

This paper outlines the new approach<br />

recently formalised by the Western<br />

Australian Minister for Environment<br />

which nominates Perth Zoo and our<br />

colleague organisation the Botanical<br />

Parks and Gardens Authority as the<br />

Government’s official ex ‑situ ‘Conservation<br />

Arks’ for Western Australia’s<br />

native threatened species.<br />

This new arrangement establishes a<br />

process where conservation and like-<br />

‑minded agencies are now officially<br />

“joined up” in their work in conserving<br />

threatened flora and fauna species in<br />

the State. This work includes emergency<br />

recovery, species recovery<br />

planning, breed for release programs,<br />

research and science, and increasing<br />

public awareness and knowledge<br />

within our community about local<br />

threatened species.<br />

Home to between 600,000 and<br />

700,000 species, Australia is one of<br />

17 countries known as ‘megadiverse’.<br />

This group of countries has less than<br />

10% of the world’s surface but supports<br />

more than 70% of its biological<br />

diversity.<br />

Western Australia is a State of Australia<br />

with a vast land mass – some<br />

2,500,000 square kilometers – comprising<br />

almost a third of the Australian<br />

continent.<br />

Western Australia (WA) is home<br />

to 141 of Australia’s 207 mammal<br />

species; (25 unique to WA), 439<br />

reptile species (187 unique to WA),<br />

1,600 known fish species and 12,000<br />

known species of vascular plants.<br />

The south -west corner of WA is one<br />

of the world’s global biodiversity<br />

hotspots, containing large numbers<br />

of threatened species found nowhere<br />

else. It is estimated that there are as<br />

many as 8,000 species of wildflowers<br />

in the south -west with frequent and<br />

continuing new discoveries:<br />

“…south -west organisms are record<br />

keepers in the global biodiversity<br />

stakes. Living fossils and missing links<br />

abound in unexpected places. …Fossil<br />

studies and DNA research show that<br />

some of the south -west banksias<br />

have persisted almost unchanged<br />

in flower and fruit for more than 40<br />

million years. So too among marsupials;<br />

the beautiful mouse -sized honey<br />

possum (tarsipes rostratus) has persisted<br />

over a similar period, living off<br />

the nectar and pollen of banksia and<br />

other plants.” (Hopper, S Does Biodiversity<br />

matter in southwest Australia?<br />

BGPA 2009)<br />

The Western Australian landscape has<br />

experienced waves of development<br />

including the introduction of grazing<br />

species which have dramatically<br />

changed the ecosystem. Since the<br />

1820s, European farming and water<br />

management processes have had a<br />

significant impact. Additionally, feral<br />

cats, goats, rabbits, dogs, horses and<br />

camels have had a dramatic impact<br />

on the environment. The arrival and<br />

full impact of foxes was felt during<br />

the mid 20th century. Foxes and the<br />

spread of feral cats have resulted in<br />

a catastrophic decline in Western Australia’s<br />

native fauna.


68<br />

As a result, WA has recorded 24 native<br />

mammal extinctions since European<br />

settlement. A further 8 mammal<br />

species survive only on islands.<br />

Currently, 601 threatened species are<br />

listed as requiring action and conservation<br />

in Western Australia and there<br />

is evidence that we may in fact be<br />

understating the situation. In June<br />

2008, 2,604 local species were identified<br />

as requiring more research to<br />

understand their actual conservation<br />

status. It was also reported that:<br />

“…about 85% of the species thought<br />

to be present are still to be described<br />

and new species are still being discovered.”<br />

(Department of Environment<br />

and Conservation 2008)<br />

As demonstrated in Figure 1 (Office<br />

of the Auditor General 2009), there<br />

is a serious imbalance in the WA<br />

experience and what is happening<br />

globally. WA is seeing many more<br />

critically endangered species and<br />

threatened species. A disturbing 30%<br />

of all threatened species are critically<br />

endangered in WA compared to<br />

19% globally. Despite WA’s resource<br />

rich economy, it is apparent that the<br />

existing resources being directed to<br />

the problem are insufficient. Figure<br />

2 shows that only 2% of WA’s<br />

threatened species presently have a<br />

species recovery plan in place; 35%<br />

have interim plans; and 63% have no<br />

recovery plans at all.<br />

Some of the most catastrophic of the<br />

declines in numbers of native species<br />

include WA’s most iconic species. We<br />

are presently seeing a decline in the<br />

number of Numbats (Myrmecobius<br />

fasciatus) which is the State’s native<br />

emblem and a rare diurnal marsupial.<br />

It is an exclusive termite feeder and<br />

only remains in two isolated populations<br />

in the south -west of Western<br />

Australia at Dryandra and Perup.<br />

Perth Zoo has a dedicated breed<br />

for release program for this species;<br />

however, with the extent of breeding<br />

and the current decline in wild<br />

numbers, the remaining populations<br />

will not be sustainable without more<br />

direct intervention to create more<br />

intensively managed colonies of this<br />

species.<br />

Another species in serious decline is<br />

the Woylie (Bettongia penicillata) with<br />

its population numbers collapsing<br />

by 95% over the past 5 years. This is<br />

faster than the decline in the more<br />

charismatic Tasmanian Devil (down<br />

by 65%) which has received active<br />

intervention.<br />

The reasons for these declines in<br />

Western Australia are still unclear. As<br />

with the Tasmanian Devil, a disease<br />

conservation medicine investigation<br />

through Perth Zoo has been commissioned.<br />

The effectiveness of the strategies<br />

for the management of feral<br />

pests and predators are also under review.<br />

Perth Zoo is also now involved<br />

in breeding a genetically strong insurance<br />

population of Woylie.<br />

The political imperative for action<br />

has grown in recent years with the<br />

continuing poor outlook for WA’s native<br />

animals. In 2010, the WA Minister<br />

for the Environment announced a<br />

new approach to acknowledge the<br />

role of agencies historically known<br />

for a more passive conservation role<br />

in flora and fauna exhibitory. This<br />

new approach brings Perth Zoo, the<br />

Botanical Parks and Gardens Authority<br />

(BGPA) and the WA Museum<br />

together along with the responsible<br />

Government agency, the Department<br />

of Environment and Conservation,<br />

to extend collaboration and action,<br />

build relationships and pool resources<br />

to more closely target species for<br />

species recovery.<br />

Perth Zoo and the BGPA now have<br />

formal, government -endorsed and<br />

mandated roles to use their ex-situ<br />

conservation expertise, research<br />

focus and scientific base to:<br />

• provide a safe haven for animals<br />

and plants;<br />

• build reproductive biology research<br />

knowledge;<br />

• investigate conservation medicine<br />

strategies;<br />

• store genetic material;<br />

• assist with population modelling;<br />

and<br />

• be responsible for the captive<br />

breeding of animals and propagation<br />

of plants for use in re-introduction<br />

programs.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

The Minister also formed a governing<br />

body called the Threatened Species<br />

Council comprising Chief Executive<br />

Officers of the Department of Environment<br />

and Conservation, Perth Zoo,<br />

BGPA, the WA Museum and the State<br />

Chief Scientist. The council’s role is to<br />

meet regularly to monitor processes<br />

and performance across agencies,<br />

with a mandate to:<br />

• target concerted actions for threatened<br />

species recovery;<br />

• review recovery planning processes;<br />

• address urgent concerns by fast<br />

tracking initiatives including emergency<br />

species recovery actions;<br />

• strengthen monitoring; and<br />

• develop a campaign to build public<br />

awareness of local threatened species.<br />

One area of particular focus for<br />

Perth Zoo is using our expertise and<br />

experience in conservation education<br />

and public awareness. Through the<br />

Threatened Species Council, the Zoo<br />

is leading the development of a broad<br />

based campaign to raise local understanding<br />

of WA’s threatened species.<br />

While our visitors and the Australian<br />

public have a strong recognition of<br />

exotic species, knowledge and interest<br />

in native animals is very low. The<br />

key messages for the public awareness<br />

campaign are:<br />

• Western Australia’s native species<br />

are unique and central to our State’s<br />

identity;<br />

• Conserving our natural world and<br />

native species is necessary for life;<br />

• Act now: many of our native species<br />

are facing extinction.<br />

Actions underway include the development<br />

of a ‘top ten’ local species<br />

focus to build understanding and<br />

knowledge of our fauna and flora<br />

using species such as bilby, cockatoos<br />

and native orchids. We are also<br />

developing a web portal on WA<br />

native species providing a focal point<br />

for information, community action,<br />

research and education. In addition,


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 69<br />

a concerted media campaign and<br />

television series on native species is<br />

being negotiated with a mainstream<br />

media outlet. We are also linking with<br />

other effective awareness campaigns<br />

and branding them with WA native<br />

species, taking every opportunity to<br />

raise the level of community awareness,<br />

empathy and action to save our<br />

native species.<br />

These actions are certainly not unique<br />

in terms of public awareness and<br />

education campaigns for zoos but<br />

together with the now Government-<br />

-mandated role of Perth Zoo as a<br />

significant player in broad conservation<br />

of our local species, this new<br />

approach moves the Zoo from a traditional<br />

role to one of a central player<br />

in active and mandated conservation<br />

actions. It is a model that recognises<br />

the Zoo’s valuable expertise in a<br />

broad range of areas – including<br />

research, small population management,<br />

conservation medicine, education,<br />

husbandry, breeding for release,<br />

species management and associated<br />

science – as central to the recovery<br />

of WA’s native species. Importantly,<br />

the State Government is using the<br />

enormous public affection for the<br />

Zoo to lead the campaign to build<br />

community awareness of our native<br />

species in concerted education and<br />

public awareness campaigns. This is a<br />

‘joined up’ conservation model for the<br />

modern zoo.<br />

Figure 1<br />

100%<br />

90%<br />

80%<br />

70%<br />

60%<br />

50%<br />

40%<br />

30%<br />

20%<br />

10%<br />

0%<br />

Figure 2<br />

Western Australia's Threatened Species<br />

Distribution in Comparison to Global Situation<br />

Critically<br />

Endangered<br />

19%<br />

Endangered<br />

28%<br />

Vulnerable<br />

53%<br />

Critically<br />

Endangered<br />

30%<br />

Endangered<br />

26.1%<br />

Vulnerable<br />

44.1%<br />

International Distribution of Species WA Distribution of Species<br />

Percentage of Listed Species with<br />

Recovery Plans<br />

Full Recovery Plan No Recovery Plan Interim Recovery Plan<br />

35%<br />

2%<br />

63%


70<br />

Developing Conservation Strategies<br />

for the Armenian Viper<br />

Jeff Ettling, Curator of Herpetology & Aquatics,<br />

Director – Center for Conservation of Near East Mountain Vipers, Saint Louis Zoo,<br />

One Government Drive, St. Louis, Missouri USA | Presented by Eric Miller, DVM,<br />

Senior Vice President of Zoological Operatioins, Director – WildCare Institute,<br />

Saint Louis Zoo, One Government Drive, St. Louis, Missouri USA<br />

The Center for Conservation of Near<br />

East Mountain Vipers is one of twelve<br />

conservation centers under the umbrella<br />

of the Saint Louis Zoo’s Wild-<br />

Care Institute. The WildCare Institute<br />

is dedicated to creating a sustainable<br />

future for wildlife and people around<br />

the world. The Institute’s strategy<br />

for conservation success is based on<br />

a solid foundation of wildlife management,<br />

conservation biology and<br />

providing support for the human<br />

populations that coexist with wildlife.<br />

The Armenian viper, Montivipera<br />

raddei is one of eight species belonging<br />

to a complex of snakes known as<br />

mountain vipers. Mountain vipers<br />

have a collective distribution that<br />

includes portions of Greece, Lebanon,<br />

Israel, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Armenia<br />

and Iran (Nilson and Andren 1986).<br />

With the exception of the Ottoman<br />

viper, M. xanthina, which has a broad<br />

distribution in the western portion<br />

of Turkey, the other seven species of<br />

mountain viper have small, fragmented<br />

and isolated distributions (Nilson<br />

and Andren 1986). The distribution of<br />

the eight species of mountain viper<br />

falls within three of the biodiversity<br />

hotspots: 1) Mediterranean Basin, 2)<br />

Caucasus and 3) Irano -Antolian (Mittermeier<br />

et al. 2004).<br />

The known range of the Armenian<br />

viper includes Armenia, northwestern<br />

Iran, eastern Turkey, and northeastern<br />

Iraq (Nilson and Andren 1986;<br />

Leviton et al. 1992). In Armenia<br />

agricultural activities have severely<br />

modified and fragmented the habitat<br />

of the Armenian viper. In addition,<br />

the species is also threatened by<br />

over -collection for the pet trade<br />

(eastern Turkey), human persecution<br />

and possibly warfare (Mallow et<br />

al. 2003; O’Shea 2005; Nilson et al.<br />

2008). In the mid - 1960’s population<br />

densities of Armenian vipers were<br />

estimated at 20–50 snakes/hectare<br />

(Darevsky 1966). Nilson et al. (2008)<br />

reported that current population<br />

densities are 4–10 vipers/hectare and<br />

that populations are declining.<br />

The reproductive behavior and timing<br />

of mating of the Armenian viper<br />

were studied by Darevsky (1966) and<br />

Bozhanskii and Kudryavcev (1986),<br />

respectively. However, we know very<br />

little about home range size, movement<br />

patterns, habitat preferences<br />

or population structure. Due to the<br />

increasing human pressure on its<br />

habitat and population numbers,<br />

a conservation management plan<br />

is needed. In order to address the<br />

questions regarding spatial ecology<br />

and population structure the<br />

Center for Conservation of Near East<br />

Mountain Vipers initiated a long -term<br />

collaborative study of the Armenian<br />

viper in 2004 with Dr. Aram Aghasyan<br />

and Levon Aghasyan of the Ministry<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

of Nature Protection, Republic of<br />

Armenia and the Scientific Center of<br />

Zoology and Hydroecology, National<br />

Academy of Sciences, Republic of<br />

Armenia, respectively.<br />

To date we have been studying the<br />

spatial ecology and habitat usage of<br />

the Armenian viper in two different<br />

landscapes utilizing a combination<br />

of radio -telemetry and geographical<br />

information system (GIS) technology.<br />

Specifically, we are interested in<br />

determining if the home range differs<br />

between populations inhabiting<br />

different locations, assessing the significance<br />

of anthropogenic modified<br />

landscapes as habitat compared to<br />

tracts of natural vegetation, and comparing<br />

the seasonal movements and<br />

activity patterns between Armenian<br />

viper populations inhabiting two locations<br />

that differ in climate, elevation,<br />

topography and vegetation.<br />

As previously noted snake habitats<br />

have become fragmented due to anthropogenic<br />

landscape changes, such<br />

as conversion of land for agriculture,<br />

housing developments and road<br />

construction. This fragmentation has<br />

restricted gene flow in many populations<br />

and completely eliminated it in<br />

others. Subsequently, these populations<br />

either decline or go extinct<br />

(Madsen et al. 1996; Gibbs and<br />

Weatherhead 2001; Anderson et al.<br />

2009). In order to assess the genetic


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 71<br />

diversity and connectivity of Armenian<br />

viper hibernacula and to evaluate<br />

the impact of anthropogenic modifications<br />

on movement and gene flow<br />

we have been collecting blood samples<br />

from vipers at each of three or<br />

more hibernacula at each of the two<br />

study locations. These samples are<br />

being used in a microsatellite analysis<br />

to genotype individuals, examine<br />

relatedness, estimate migration rates<br />

between hibernacula and determine<br />

effective population size.<br />

By tracking the movements of Armenian<br />

vipers and calculating their<br />

home range sizes, seasonal activity/<br />

movement patterns and habitat usage,<br />

this study will add to our expanding<br />

knowledge of the spatial ecology<br />

and habitat preferences of snakes.<br />

Furthermore, comparative studies<br />

in two locations differing in climate,<br />

elevation, topography and vegetation<br />

will provide valuable insight into<br />

how environmental factors influence<br />

home range size and movements.<br />

In addition, the examination of the<br />

population structure using microsatellites,<br />

combined with the GIS data,<br />

will provide a better understanding<br />

of how anthropogenic changes in<br />

landscape features are impacting<br />

movement patterns and gene flow.<br />

Ultimately, the results of this study<br />

will provide us with the data needed<br />

to help draft an effective conservation<br />

plan for the species.<br />

Until recently the only protected<br />

habitat in Armenia for the Armenian<br />

viper was Khosrov Nature Reserve<br />

and Shikahogh Nature Reserve<br />

which were established in 1958. That<br />

changed on 15 October 2009 when<br />

the Government of the Republic of<br />

Armenia declared two new protected<br />

nature areas: 1) Zangezur Sanctuary<br />

and 2) Arevik National Park. Both<br />

sites are home to the Armenian<br />

viper and many other endangered<br />

species. Many conservationists and<br />

non -governmental organizations,<br />

including our research team, played<br />

a role in the establishment of these<br />

protected areas.<br />

Our plans for the future not only<br />

include long -term monitoring of Armenian<br />

viper populations, but education<br />

programs in villages and farming<br />

communities within the range of the<br />

Armenian viper. In 2006 we developed<br />

“Save Our Viper” posters and<br />

brochures in three different languages<br />

(Armenian, Russian, English).<br />

They discuss the important role that<br />

snakes, including venomous species,<br />

play in the ecosystem, why Armenian<br />

vipers are in trouble, what to do if you<br />

encounter a snake, and how to help<br />

save the viper. We carry the posters<br />

and brochures with us when we are in<br />

the field and use them for impromptu<br />

education opportunities that arise<br />

when farmers come to investigate<br />

what we are doing. We plan to take<br />

this a step further in coming years<br />

and have scheduled “snake talks” in<br />

villages near our study sites. Although<br />

we can collect the data needed to<br />

develop a conservation strategy for a<br />

species, the success of a conservation<br />

program ultimately depends on “buy<br />

in” and support from the people who<br />

live with the wildlife.<br />

References<br />

• Anderson, C. D., H. L. Gibbs, M. E.<br />

Douglas, and A. T. Holycross. 2009.<br />

Conservation genetics of the desert<br />

massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus<br />

catenatus edwardsi). Copeia, 2009<br />

(4): 740–747.<br />

• Bozhanskii, A., and S. V. Kudryavcev.<br />

1986. Ecological observations of the<br />

rare vipers of the Caucasus. Pages<br />

495–498 In Z. Rocek (ed.), Studies in<br />

Herpetology. Prague.<br />

• Darevsky, I. S. 1966. Ecology of<br />

rock -viper (Vipera xanthina raddei<br />

Boettger) in the natural surroundings<br />

of Armenia. Mem. Inst. Butantan<br />

Simp. Internac. 33: 81–83.<br />

• Gibbs, H. L., and P. J. Weatherhead.<br />

2001. Insights into population ecology<br />

and sexual selection in snakes<br />

through the application of DNA-<br />

-based genetic markers. Journal of<br />

Heredity 92: 173–179.<br />

• Leviton, A., S. C. Anderson, K. Adler,<br />

and S. Minton. 1992. Handbook<br />

of Middle East Amphibians and<br />

Reptiles. Society for the Study of<br />

Amphibians and Reptiles, St. Louis<br />

University, St. Louis, USA. 160 pp.<br />

• Madsen, T., B. Stille, and R. Shine.<br />

1996. Inbreeding depression in an<br />

isolated population of adders, Vi‑<br />

pera berus. Biological Conservation<br />

75: 113–118.<br />

• Mallow, D., D. Ludwig, and G.<br />

Nilson. 2003. True Vipers: Natural<br />

History and Toxinology of Old World<br />

Vipers. Krieger Pub. Co., Malabar, Fl.<br />

• Mittermeier, R. A., P. R. Gil, M.<br />

Hoffman, J. Pilgram, T. Brooks, C.<br />

G. Mittermeier, J. Lamoreux and G.<br />

A. B. da Fonseca. 2004. Hotspots<br />

Revisited: Earth‘s Biologically Richest<br />

and Most Threatened Terrestrial<br />

Ecoregions. CEMEX, Mexico City,<br />

Mexico. 390 pp. Nilson, G., and C.<br />

Andren. 1986. The mountain vipers<br />

of the Middle East – the Vipera xan‑<br />

thina complex (Reptilia: Viperidae).<br />

Bonn. Zool. Monogr. 20: 1 – 90.<br />

• Nilson, G., C. Andrén, A. Avci, and F.<br />

Akarsu 2008. Montivipera raddei. In:<br />

IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened<br />

Species. Version 2010.4. . Downloaded on<br />

30 November 2010.<br />

• O’Shea, M. 2005. Venomous Snakes<br />

of the World. Princeton Univ. Press,<br />

Princeton, NJ.


72<br />

An Overview and Evaluation of WAZA<br />

Conservation Projects<br />

Markus Gusset & Gerald Dick – WAZA Executive Office<br />

In light of the United Nations declaring<br />

2010 as the “International Year<br />

of Biodiversity”, we carried out an<br />

audit of in situ conservation projects<br />

supported by the world zoo and<br />

aquarium community. The results of<br />

our questionnaire survey show that<br />

the 113 evaluated projects are helping<br />

to improve the conservation status of<br />

high ‑profile threatened species and<br />

habitats in biodiversity -rich regions<br />

of the world. Our results show that<br />

thanks to the investment made by<br />

zoos and aquariums, particularly<br />

financial, these projects reached<br />

overall impact scores of a magnitude<br />

suggestive of an appreciable<br />

contribution to global biodiversity<br />

conservation. The present first global<br />

appraisal of the contribution of the<br />

world zoo and aquarium community<br />

to in situ conservation from a supported<br />

project’s perspective thus<br />

suggests that zoos and aquariums<br />

are on track for “Building a Future for<br />

Wildlife”, as stipulated in the revised<br />

World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation<br />

Strategy of 2005. However,<br />

zoos and aquariums could make<br />

an even stronger contribution by<br />

allocating more resources to in situ<br />

conservation, which – as our results<br />

show – would significantly increase<br />

the projects’ conservation impact. Increased<br />

pooling of resources among<br />

zoological institutions thus appears<br />

to be advisable.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

Reference<br />

• Gusset, M. & G. Dick (2010): “Build‑<br />

ing a Future for Wildlife”? Evaluating<br />

the contribution of the world zoo<br />

and aquarium community to in situ<br />

conservation. Int. Zoo Yb.<br />

44: 183–192.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 73<br />

Breeding, Research & Conservation<br />

of Tropical Herpetodiversity: Linking<br />

ex situ with in situ Approaches<br />

Thomas Ziegler<br />

The author commenced with biodiversity<br />

research in Vietnam in the<br />

framework of his doctoral thesis in<br />

1997. Since 2003 he is curator of the<br />

Aquarium / Terrarium Department<br />

of the Cologne Zoo and Coordinator<br />

of the Biodiversity and Nature<br />

Conservation Projects in Vietnam.<br />

Since 1994 he published 218 papers<br />

and books, of which about 90 are<br />

dealing with Vietnam’s biodiversity.<br />

Since February 2009 he is Associate<br />

Professor at the Zoological Institute<br />

of Cologne University.<br />

Introduction<br />

In times of the global amphibian<br />

crisis and ongoing global habitat<br />

destruction, conventional ex situ zoo<br />

breeding programs became even<br />

more important. To reach the goal<br />

of modern arks, viz. to better understand<br />

and breed endangered species<br />

for possible population reinforcement<br />

and releases, much investment<br />

is still required and international<br />

networks have to be established. In<br />

the framework of co -operations with<br />

Fig. 1.<br />

How zoos can contribute in the light of the global biodiversity crisis: Linking conservation<br />

breeding with biodiversity research and conservation measures.<br />

local partners, authorities, and scientists,<br />

zoos can furthermore engage in<br />

particular by the help of students in<br />

conservation -based in situ diversity<br />

and natural history research. In the<br />

following, examples are provided<br />

based on the Cologne Zoo’s actual<br />

WAZA branded projects, how zoos<br />

can link conservation breeding efforts<br />

with biodiversity research and<br />

conservation measures. This paper is<br />

based on my correspondent lecture<br />

held at the 65 th Annual Conference of<br />

WAZA “Biodiversity is Life”.


74<br />

Cologne Zoo’s WAZA<br />

branded in situ projects<br />

in Vietnam<br />

Since 1999 – the opening of Cologne<br />

Zoo’s Asian tropical house “The Rainforest”<br />

– Cologne Zoo has engaged in<br />

an in situ conservation project in Vietnam.<br />

The project is managed together<br />

with our partners from the Vietnam<br />

National University in Hanoi, the<br />

People’s Committee of Quang Binh<br />

and Phong Nha – Ke Bang National<br />

Park to preserve a unique karst forest<br />

region in central Vietnam, which recently<br />

has been declared a world heritage<br />

site by UNESCO. Together with<br />

our long -term partners and Cologne<br />

Zoo staff in Vietnam we concentrate<br />

on (1) forest protection, i.e. optimisation<br />

of ranger work (WAZA branded<br />

project 07010 “Forest protection<br />

program”), (2) development and<br />

implementation of a rescue centre for<br />

confiscated animals (WAZA branded<br />

project 07009 “Wildlife rescue and<br />

release program”), which meanwhile<br />

has been handed over to the national<br />

park, (3) design and development,<br />

together with Frankfurt Zoological<br />

Society, of a restocking program for<br />

endangered langur species (WAZA<br />

branded project 04015 “Langur<br />

reintroduction”), and (4) biodiversity<br />

research (for overview see Ziegler<br />

et al. 2008, Forster et al. 2010). The<br />

latter aspect (WAZA branded project<br />

07011 “Herpetodiversity research”)<br />

is one of our most important project<br />

goals, because we can only protect<br />

what is well known to us. We mainly<br />

focus on the herpetofauna because<br />

amphibians and reptiles may serve<br />

as valuable bio -indicators. In the past<br />

decade, our team discovered 14 new<br />

amphibian and reptilian taxa from<br />

the geographically isolated area of<br />

Phong Nha – Ke Bang (e.g., Ziegler<br />

& Vu 2009), and further new species<br />

still await scientific description. This<br />

does not only impressively exemplify<br />

how little is known even from “well-<br />

-studied” regions, but also how many<br />

species have to be described from<br />

all over the tropics before we finally<br />

will be able to adequately protect<br />

them. To be as effective as possible in<br />

times of rapid global habitat loss and<br />

destruction, and because Vietnam is<br />

still a poorly understood hotspot of<br />

biodiversity (Ziegler & Nguyen 2010),<br />

we thus increase our scope by student<br />

theses. As there is high demand<br />

for biodiversity research from other<br />

protected areas, we additionally have,<br />

together with our Vietnamese partners,<br />

built up a network beyond the<br />

borders of Phong Nha – Ke Bang. But<br />

to investigate diversity is only the first<br />

step for long -term species protection.<br />

In a second step we must learn more<br />

about the species’ adaptations and<br />

their natural history, which will finally<br />

serve as basis for proper conservation<br />

measures, because many species<br />

from Vietnam are still only poorly<br />

known. Thus, we also have started<br />

to implement student theses and<br />

scientific co ‑operations dealing with<br />

ecological research and population<br />

analyses of so ‑called flagship species.<br />

Such research is currently carried out<br />

by our working group, e.g., for the<br />

recently discovered newt species Ty‑<br />

lototriton vietnamensis (IUCN Status<br />

Near Threatened), the amazingly<br />

diverse, beautiful bent -toed gecko<br />

genus Cyrtodactylus, with 18 species<br />

which have been described as new<br />

from Vietnam in the past 15 years<br />

only, or the only known population<br />

of the crocodile lizard (Shinisaurus<br />

crocodilurus) from Vietnam. Here, it<br />

will also be essential to bring forward<br />

public relation and environmental<br />

education, which was only recently<br />

done by the publishing of a brochure<br />

for the Tay Yen Tu Nature Reserve in<br />

northeastern Vietnam that houses<br />

amongst others the endangered Tylo‑<br />

totriton vietnamensis and Shinisaurus<br />

crocodilurus. Thus, together with our<br />

partners, we will further develop and<br />

extend our herpetodiversity research<br />

and conservation approaches in<br />

Vietnam and Laos (e.g., Nguyen et<br />

al. 2010).<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

Cologne Zoo’s WAZA<br />

branded ex situ projects<br />

in Vietnam<br />

In the 2008 “Year of the Frog”, a<br />

worldwide campaign pointed to the<br />

alarming global amphibian decline.<br />

Cologne Zoo does not only engage<br />

with ex situ amphibian breeding<br />

projects in the amphibian sections<br />

of its Aquarium, but also engages<br />

together with the Institute of Ecology<br />

and Biological Resources in developing<br />

and running a breeding station<br />

on the outskirts of Hanoi (WAZA<br />

branded project 07012 “Amphibian<br />

and reptilian breeding station”). The<br />

main focus of this breeding station,<br />

which was established by the institute<br />

in 2004, is to keep, breed and<br />

study Vietnamese amphibians in an<br />

in country facility (Ziegler & Nguyen<br />

2008, Nguyen et al. 2009, Ziegler et al.<br />

in press). Here, we have the possibility<br />

to study the breeding and natural<br />

history of endangered, rare or poorly<br />

known species in captivity. In the<br />

past decade, about 40 new amphibian<br />

species have been described<br />

from Vietnam. However, the ecology<br />

of most of these species is virtually<br />

unknown. But knowledge about habitat<br />

requirements and development,<br />

especially of the mostly unknown<br />

larval stages, is of high importance<br />

for respective conservation measures.<br />

Beyond documenting larval stages<br />

and reproductive biology of selected<br />

amphibian species, we can also learn<br />

more about breeding in captivity.<br />

This is a prerequisite for maintaining<br />

captive insurance populations especially<br />

in times of worldwide emerging,<br />

hazardous chytridiomycosis (a fungal<br />

disease), and to be prepared for subsequent<br />

release of offspring into the<br />

wild, if required. Further, by providing<br />

a surplus of offspring of certain<br />

species for example for the trade, the<br />

number of wild -caught specimens decreases<br />

and long -term maintenance<br />

and self ‑financing of the breeding<br />

station is guaranteed. Since July 2007,<br />

fourteen amphibian species were successfully<br />

raised in the station, among<br />

them Tylototriton vietnamensis (IUCN<br />

status: near threatened, population


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 75<br />

Fig. 2.<br />

Vietnamese and German students and keepers engaged with amphibian<br />

conservation breeding and scientific documentation of developmental stages a) at the amphibian<br />

station at Hanoi and b) at the amphibian section at the Aquarium of the Cologne Zoo.<br />

Photographs by Thomas Ziegler (a), and Detlef Karbe (b)<br />

trend: decreasing), Rhacophorus<br />

annamensis (IUCN status: vulnerable,<br />

population trend: decreasing), the<br />

only recently described R. kio (IUCN<br />

status: vulnerable, population trend:<br />

decreasing), and Theloderma bicolor<br />

(IUCN status: endangered, population<br />

trend: decreasing). We have also<br />

already started to provide offspring of<br />

bred amphibians to the European zoo<br />

community for building up further insurance<br />

populations in human hands.<br />

Also initial reptilian breeding successes,<br />

for example the first breeding<br />

of the crocodile lizard from Vietnam,<br />

confirm the current husbandry concept<br />

of the breeding station.<br />

Cologne Zoo’s WAZA bran‑<br />

ded monitor lizard project<br />

Although monitor lizards belong to<br />

the most impressive of all lizards, their<br />

future is uncertain. All Varanus species<br />

are listed on CITES Appendices I -II,<br />

and many of them are of commercial<br />

value, e.g., for the international pet<br />

trade or the leather industry, hence.<br />

Although these reptiles include the<br />

largest squamate lizards that have<br />

ever walked the earth, regularly new<br />

species are discovered. Currently, 73<br />

monitor lizard species are recognized,<br />

including 21 subspecies, which represents<br />

an increase in species diversity<br />

of 20 percent since 2003. Only within<br />

the first half of 2010, the “International<br />

Year of Biodiversity”, four new<br />

species and one new subspecies were<br />

described from Indonesia and the<br />

Philippines (see overview in Koch et al.<br />

2010). Especially diverse are the Mangrove<br />

(Varanus indicus species group)<br />

and Tree monitor lizards (V. prasinus<br />

species group), which are currently<br />

comprised of 20 species in total, 60 %<br />

of which have been discovered in the<br />

past twenty years. However, many of<br />

these species are only known from few<br />

museum specimens and virtually nothing<br />

is known about their natural history.<br />

Because we are only able to protect<br />

what is well known to us, there is<br />

a high demand for ecological research.<br />

Because many monitor lizard species<br />

live in remote and difficult to access<br />

habitats, also ex situ studies become<br />

important. Thus also the zoo community<br />

can contribute towards a better<br />

understanding of monitor lizards’<br />

natural history. By “Keeping, breeding<br />

and natural history research of barely<br />

known monitor lizards” (Cologne Zoo’s<br />

WAZA branded project 09018) crucial<br />

data can be obtained for further captive<br />

conservation efforts (Ziegler 2010).<br />

Building up a zoo population some day<br />

also may serve as basis for reintroduction<br />

to the wild. In the Cologne Zoo we<br />

currently keep six monitor lizard species,<br />

half of which could be repeatedly<br />

bred so far. In particular noteworthy<br />

are the breeding successes of the only<br />

recently described Quince monitor lizard<br />

(Varanus melinus) and of the Blue-<br />

-spotted tree monitor lizard (Varanus<br />

macraei) (Ziegler et al. 2010a, b). So far,<br />

offspring was provided to Plzen and<br />

Praha Zoos in Europe, with the aim to<br />

establish captive populations.


76<br />

Fig. 3. a) The Phong Nha – Ke Bang bent -toed gecko (Cyrtodactylus phongnhakebangensis) is just one of the many recently discovered gecko<br />

species from Vietnam; b) juveniles of the IUCN -listed Annam flying frog (Rhacophorus annamensis) bred at the amphibian station at Hanoi;<br />

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<br />

history of the Critically Endangered Siamese crocodile (Crocodylus siamensis) in Vietnam and Indonesia. Photographs by Thomas Ziegler<br />

Cologne Zoo’s WAZA bran‑<br />

ded crocodile project<br />

Our latest WAZA branding (project<br />

10007) was entitled “Natural history<br />

of reintroduced and natural Siamese<br />

crocodile populations: Implications<br />

for protection and conservation<br />

breeding”. Here, we carry out natural<br />

history research and population<br />

development analyses of the Siamese<br />

crocodile (Crocodylus siamensis),<br />

conducted within the framework of<br />

student theses that are supervised<br />

by our partners and us. C. siamensis<br />

is nearly extinct in large parts of its<br />

natural distribution, listed as Critically<br />

Endangered in the IUCN Red List, and<br />

in Appendix I of the CITES, and thus<br />

belongs to the most threatened crocodile<br />

species on earth (Sommerlad et<br />

al. 2010). The research findings will be<br />

essential as basis for sustainable and<br />

long -term conservation. However, it<br />

will not only be important to monitor<br />

the few remaining natural but also re-<br />

-introduced populations. In particular<br />

because re -introduction measures in<br />

the sense of IUCN guidelines require<br />

thorough scheduling, including<br />

genetical screening of the founder<br />

population, optimum habitat choice,<br />

and continuous, properly documented<br />

monitoring. Thus, the goal of this<br />

WAZA branded project is to combine<br />

studies on the development of one of<br />

the few remaining wild populations<br />

with the long -term development of<br />

a re -introduced population. For natural<br />

occurring Siamese crocodiles we<br />

focus on the only known Indonesian<br />

population in the Danau Mesangat,<br />

a freshwater swamp in the Mahakam<br />

river region in eastern Kalimantan<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

(Borneo), and with respect to a re-<br />

-introduced population, a purebred<br />

and reproductive Siamese crocodile<br />

population is explored in the Cat Tien<br />

National Park in southern Vietnam,<br />

which exists since 2001 based on the<br />

release of 60 crocodiles. However,<br />

in times of habitat destruction and<br />

further negative human impact such<br />

as hybridization of purebred C. sia‑<br />

mensis with escaped farm individuals,<br />

in situ activities again should be<br />

supported by ex situ approaches<br />

(Sommerlad et al. in press). Here,<br />

with respect to Asian crocodiles,<br />

Cologne Zoo also engages within the<br />

framework of a conservation breeding<br />

project of the Philippine Crocodile<br />

(Crocodylus mindorensis).


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 77<br />

List of actual main sponsors*<br />

and partner institutions**<br />

involved (in alphabetical<br />

order)<br />

Amphibian -Fonds Stiftung Artenschutz<br />

/ VDZ*; Biogeography Department,<br />

Trier University**; Department<br />

of Herpetology and Ichthyology,<br />

Muséum d’histoire naturelle, Geneva<br />

(MHNG)**; European Association of<br />

Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA)*; European<br />

Union of Aquarium Curators (EUAC)*;<br />

Federal Agency for Nature Conservation,<br />

Germany**; Frankfurt Zoological<br />

Society (endangered primate<br />

reintroduction program) (FZS)**;<br />

Institute of Ecology and Biological<br />

Resources, Vietnamese Academy<br />

of Science and Technology Hanoi<br />

(IEBR)**; Internationaler Reptillederverband<br />

(IRV)*; IUCN/SSC Crocodile<br />

Specialist Group*; Mohamed<br />

bin Zayed Fund*; Vietnam National<br />

Museum of Nature (VNMN)**; World<br />

Association of Zoos and Aquariums<br />

(WAZA)*; Yayasan Ulin (Ironwood<br />

Foundation)**; Zoologische Gesellschaft<br />

für Arten und Populationsschutz<br />

(ZGAP)*; Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum<br />

Alexander Koenig, Bonn<br />

(ZFMK)**; Zoological Museum,<br />

Vietnam National University, Hanoi<br />

(VNUH)**<br />

References<br />

• Forster, B., Vogt, M., Ziegler, T.,<br />

Schrudde, M. & M. Raffel (2010):<br />

Langurs in Vietnam: rescued at<br />

the very last minute? In: Dick, G. &<br />

M. Gusset (eds.): Building a future<br />

for wildlife: zoos and aquariums<br />

committed to biodiversity conservation.<br />

– WAZA Executive Office,<br />

Gland: 133-138.<br />

• Koch, A., Auliya, M. & T. Ziegler<br />

(2010): Updated checklist of the<br />

living monitor lizards of the world<br />

(Squamata: Varanidae). – Bonn zoological<br />

Bulletin 57 (2): 127–136.<br />

• Nguyen, T. Q., Dang, T. T., Pham,<br />

C. T., Nguyen, T. T. & & T. Ziegler<br />

(2009): Amphibian breeding station<br />

in Hanoi: a trial model for linking<br />

conservation and research with<br />

sustainable use. – Froglog 91, March<br />

2009: 12–15.<br />

• Nguyen, T. Q., Kingsada, P., Rösler,<br />

H., Auer, M. & T. Ziegler (2010): A<br />

new species of Cyrtodactylus (Squamata:<br />

Gekkonidae) from northern<br />

Laos. – Zootaxa 2652: 1–16.<br />

• Sommerlad, R., Jelden, D., Nguyen,<br />

T. Q., Stuebing, R. B., Böhme, W. &<br />

T. Ziegler (2010): Natural history of<br />

reintroduced and natural Siamese<br />

crocodile populations: implications<br />

for protection and conservation<br />

breeding. – WAZA News 3/10:<br />

28–29.<br />

• Sommerlad, R., Schmidt, F. & T.<br />

Ziegler (in press): Threatened crocodiles<br />

in European Zoos? – Reptilia.<br />

• Ziegler, T. (2010): Keeping, breeding<br />

and natural history of barely known<br />

monitor lizards. – WAZA News<br />

1/10: 24.<br />

• Ziegler, T., Dang, T. T., Nguyen, T. Q.<br />

(in press): Breeding, natural history<br />

and diversity research: “ex situ” and<br />

“in situ” Asian amphibian projects of<br />

the Cologne Zoo and the Institute of<br />

Ecology and Biological Resources. –<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of the Amphibian Conference<br />

of the Universiti Malaysia<br />

Sarawak, Kuching, Borneo.<br />

• Ziegler, T. & T. Q. Nguyen (2008):<br />

Amphibian and Reptile breeding<br />

– The amphibian and reptilian<br />

breeding station at Hanoi. – WAZA<br />

Magazine (World Association of<br />

Zoos and Aquariums) Nr. 9 “Zoos<br />

help sustaining the rich biodiversity<br />

of Vietnam”: 10–14.<br />

• Ziegler, T. & T. Q. Nguyen (2010):<br />

New discoveries of amphibians and<br />

reptiles from Vietnam. – Bonn zoological<br />

Bulletin 57 (2): 137–147.<br />

• Ziegler, T., Pagel, T., Vogt, M., Forster,<br />

B. & B. Marcordes (2008): Conserving<br />

Vietnam’s biodiversity – The<br />

Cologne Zoo’s nature conservation<br />

programme in Vietnam. – WAZA<br />

Magazine (World Association of<br />

Zoos and Aquariums) Nr. 9 “Zoos<br />

help sustaining the rich biodiversity<br />

of Vietnam”: 5–9.<br />

• Ziegler, T., Rütz, N., Oberreuter, J. &<br />

S. Holst (2010a): First F2 Breeding of<br />

the Quince monitor lizard Varanus<br />

melinus Böhme & Ziegler, 1997 at<br />

the Cologne Zoo Aquarium. – Biawak<br />

4 (3): 82–92.<br />

• Ziegler, T., Strauch, M., Pes, T., Konas,<br />

J., Jirasek, T., Rütz, N. Oberreuter,<br />

J. & S. Holst (2010b): First captive<br />

breeding of the Blue -spotted<br />

tree monitor Varanus macraei<br />

Böhme & Jacobs, 2001 at the Plzen<br />

and Cologne Zoos. – Biawak 3 (4):<br />

122–133.<br />

• Ziegler, T. & T. N. Vu (2009): Ten<br />

years of herpetodiversity research<br />

in Phong Nha – Ke Bang National<br />

Park, central Vietnam. In: Vo Van Tri,<br />

Nguyen Tien Dat, Dang Ngoc Kien<br />

& Pham Thi Hai Yen (eds.): Phong<br />

Nha – Ke Bang National Park and<br />

Cologne Zoo, 10 years of cooperation<br />

(1999–2009). – Quang Binh:<br />

103–124.


78<br />

Zoo Personnel Serving an IUCN<br />

Specialist Group: An Introduction to<br />

the Northeast African Subgroup of<br />

the Antelope Specialist Group<br />

Jens ‑Ove Heckel – Regional Coordinator for Northeast Africa<br />

The International Union for the Conservation<br />

of Nature, IUCN is recognized<br />

as the world’s leading conservation<br />

authority. It brings together<br />

the knowledge of several thousand<br />

experts in several commissions. One<br />

of these is the Species Survival Commission,<br />

SSC. It comprises over 100<br />

taxonomic specialist groups and task<br />

forces for flora and fauna. Up to 8.000<br />

members work honorary.<br />

IUCN/SSC/Antelope Specialist Group<br />

cares about antelopes, gazelles,<br />

giraffes, buffalos, water chevrontain.<br />

Since 2002 the Northeast<br />

African Subgroup (NEAASG) within<br />

the IUCN/SSC/Antelope Specialist<br />

Group (Antelope SG) puts a special<br />

focus within Northeast Africa to the<br />

countries Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia,<br />

Somalia and Sudan.<br />

Northeast Africa can be considered a<br />

hotspot or center of endemism with<br />

regard to antelope biodiversity. No<br />

less than 35 species and about 60<br />

subspecies of antelopes, giraffes and<br />

buffalos are endemic to this region.<br />

The distribution, ecology and status<br />

of some endemic species or subspecies<br />

such as beira, dibatag or silver<br />

dikdik are unknown or need to be<br />

further investigated.<br />

The main objectives of NEAASG are:<br />

• Highlight problems of antelope<br />

conservation by bringing priorities<br />

for action to the attention of<br />

national and international conservation<br />

agencies and in addition<br />

recommending practical solutions<br />

and providing technical assistance<br />

where requested.<br />

• Monitor the status of antelopes, by<br />

providing information to the ASG as<br />

this information becomes available.<br />

• Offer scientific support.<br />

• Assist with fund ‑raising for specific<br />

antelope projects.<br />

The subgroup supported and conducted<br />

status assessment surveys,<br />

advised on conservation efforts and<br />

published results through reports,<br />

presentations and during meetings.<br />

The list of Antelope SG members<br />

relevant to the NEAASG is updated<br />

regularly. Further members assisted<br />

with the revision of red list (i.e. for<br />

dibatag, Speke’s and dikdik)<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> of 65 th Annual Conference<br />

Great effort was made to create a<br />

homepage for the NEAASG. The first<br />

version was made available in the<br />

internet in May 2004. Since then the<br />

homepage has been updated regularly<br />

and extended. It can be found at<br />

neaasg.org. It is intended to replace<br />

printed copies of survey up -dates.<br />

In the future some data will only be<br />

made available through a closed<br />

member area.<br />

The significant support provided by<br />

Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation, Qatar<br />

and Zoo Landau in Pfalz, Germany is<br />

gratefully acknowledged.


October 2010 | Cologne/Köln 79<br />

Zoos’ Role in Conserving<br />

the Diversity of a Small Taxon –<br />

from the Perspective of the<br />

Bear Specialist Group<br />

Lydia Kolter – Kölner Zoo and IUCN/SSC Bear specialist group<br />

Introduction<br />

The Ursidae are a small family with<br />

only eight extant bear species. They<br />

are spread over four continents,<br />

inhabiting mainly the northern<br />

hemisphere up to the Arctic. Only sun<br />

bears (Helarctos malayanus) and Andean<br />

bears (Tremarctos ornatus) occur<br />

also south of the equator. The brown<br />

bear (Ursus arctos) occupies by far the<br />

widest range all over the Northern<br />

Hemisphere from islands along the<br />

Alaskan over Eurasia to Japan. There<br />

is considerable intra ‑specific morphological<br />

variation within the ursids<br />

(Kitchener 2010). Recent revisions<br />

based on morphological and genetic<br />

analyses of larger datasets found only<br />

few of those populations recognised<br />

by early taxonomists as subspecies<br />

or even species sufficiently distinct<br />

to support the subspecies status.<br />

Though, many genetic lineages have<br />

been identified indicating that geographic<br />

barriers actually restrict gene<br />

flow between populations more than<br />

expected (Garshelis 2009). Tremendous<br />

intra ‑specific variation of life<br />

history strategies concerning reproduction<br />

and survival are characteristic<br />

for bears, at least for the well studied<br />

brown and American black bears<br />

(Ursus americanus). Many of the examined<br />

variables, like litter size, age<br />

of first reproduction and inter ‑birth<br />

interval are closely linked to habitat<br />

factors, mainly food availability and<br />

quality (Garshelis 2004).<br />

With the exception of polar bears<br />

(Ursus maritimus) ursids mainly<br />

inhabit forests: from boreal forests in<br />

the north to sub -tropical and tropical<br />

forests in the south. Populations of<br />

the widely distributed species also occur<br />

in habitats like tundra and semi-<br />

-deserts. Additionally Asiatic black<br />

bears as well as Andean bears span<br />

a wide altitudinal range from close<br />

to sea level up to elevations above<br />

the tree line, where they use alpine<br />

meadows (Garshelis 2009).<br />

Except mother -cub units bears live<br />

solitary outside of the short mating<br />

season. The solitary lifestyle and their<br />

dependency on mixed or even mainly<br />

plant diets are features shared by the<br />

seven terrestrial bear species. Thus<br />

they need for survival and reproduction<br />

large undisturbed areas. Areas like<br />

these are shrinking on a global scale<br />

due to habitat destruction and conversion<br />

into e.g. plantations or mining<br />

areas. Habitat fragmentation by roads<br />

and settlements cause an increase of<br />

human bear conflicts and makes bears<br />

even more vulnerable (Garshelis 2004).<br />

Poaching for the trade of bear parts<br />

heavily requested in TCM is a severe<br />

threat in particular for Asian bear<br />

species. Orphaned cubs frequently<br />

occur as by product of conflicts and<br />

poaching and many finally end up in<br />

captivity. Meanwhile five of the terrestrial<br />

bear species are decreasing.<br />

The Andean bear, the sun bear, the<br />

Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus)<br />

and the sloth bear (Melursus ursinus)<br />

are categorized as vulnerable in the<br />

IUCN Redlist (2010), whereas the Giant<br />

Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) with<br />

the smallest natural distribution is<br />

listed endangered. Only brown bears –<br />

with exception of small populations in<br />

Western Europe and Southern Asia –<br />

are stable and of least concern. American<br />

black bears are even increasing.<br />

The goal of the IUCN/SSC Bear Specialist<br />

Group (=BSG) is “to promote<br />

the conservation of (terrestrial)<br />

bears and the habitats they require<br />

across their distribution” (BSG 2010).<br />

To effectively address the different<br />

issues of bear conservation the<br />

BSG is organised in 11 expert teams:<br />

8 species ‑specific teams for the 5 terrestrial<br />

species listed as endangered or<br />

vulnerable and 3 teams for brown bear<br />

populations in Europe, in Northern<br />

Asia and in Southern Asia. Three topical<br />

teams deal with “trade in bears”,<br />

“human ‑bear conflicts” and “captive<br />

bears”. The chair persons of the teams,<br />

the chairman of the polar bear specialist<br />

group and a few other bear experts<br />

form the co -ordinating committee of<br />

the Bear Specialist Group.<br />

The captive bear expert team (CBET)<br />

deal with conservation relevant issues<br />

of bears coming or already being kept<br />

in captivity on a global scale. Thus its<br />

members come from the different regions<br />

and zoo organisations as well as<br />

from rescue centres run from NGOs<br />

with focus on bears. The potential of<br />

zoos and sanctuaries for bear conservation<br />

and the conditions necessary<br />

for the promotion of bear conservation<br />

as defined by the captive bear<br />

expert team will be presented and<br />

the perspective of the BSG on the<br />

role of zoos will be outlined.


80<br />

Bears in zoos<br />

and sanctuaries<br />

According to a survey of the CBET<br />

in 2008/2009 with updates in 2010<br />

at least 4600 bears are living in zoos<br />

and sanctuaries (fig.1), half of them<br />

in Asian countries. Still this number<br />

is underestimated and reflects more<br />

the incomplete regional representation<br />

in the expert team than the<br />

actual number as only four South East<br />

Asian countries are included.<br />

Within each region the native bear<br />

species make up the majority of the<br />

bear collections in zoos and sanctuaries.<br />

These are brown bears in Europe,<br />

Andean bears in South America<br />

and American black bears in North<br />

America. Asian species dominate<br />

the bear collections in zoos within<br />

their natural range. The thousands<br />

of Asiatic black bears in farms used<br />

for bile production and those in road<br />

zoos and private households in South<br />

East Asia are not counted here (Kolter<br />

& Zee 2008).<br />

Potential of zoos<br />

for bear conservation<br />

The world zoo strategy strongly<br />

recommends to the more than 1300<br />

zoos of the WAZA network to support<br />

species conservation by means of<br />

• Education and raising awareness<br />

• Data collection and research<br />

• Population management in order to<br />

integrate zoo populations into the<br />

meta -population concept<br />

Release of captive born animals for<br />

re -introduction or re -enforcement<br />

of existing wild populations is one of<br />

various aspects of meta -population<br />

management (WAZA 2005).<br />

A survey of the CBET in 2010 revealed<br />

that at least 400 zoos keep bears in<br />

Eurasia, the region with most captive<br />

ursids (fig 1.). Most of these zoos are<br />

members in regional zoo associations<br />

linked to WAZA. Yet not all regional<br />

associations are represented in the<br />

captive bear expert team, thus this<br />

number is again an underestimate.<br />