Dear Cristiana,

It seems that the tables did not come through, so I am posting them again.

Dear Director LPF,

Thank you for taking the time to reply on this issue about your Foundations views on the wild bird trade.  As we’ve worked on trade in many places over the past 20 years, we’ve noted that there are a wide variety of views on the matter, some clearly against any trade, some powerfully in support of trade, and all sorts of less clear positions in between. 

We understand that the bird trade sometimes raises complex issues, and that there are many grey areas.  However, we have repeatedly encountered conservation groups which work hard and skillfully to protray these grey areas not as challenges to solve, but rather as opportunities to obfuscate the realities, to avoid taking a clear stand on important policies, and to excuse their lack of action on behalf of the parrots (or wildlife) they claim to care about.  So this supposed concern leads to studies, surveys, reviews, and the like, or as some say, it leads to “analysis paralysis” – a situation where to act is to look into things, learn more about how they work, but in the end, to never act to solve the problems.

While we agree there are grey areas when it comes to the wild bird trade, and we at the Trust recognize that we’ll never have complete information, we don’t let that stop us from staking out a clear position and taking action on behalf of parrots; we never have and we never will.  I’d like to review two key examples where these differences between studying trade and acting on trade have made all the difference in the world.

When the EU was importing nearly a million CITES listed birds a year (and likely at least another million or more non listed birds), and we saw so many of these populations in decline around the world, we didn’t need any more studies to read the writing on the wall.  We had several powerful pieces of published peer-reviewed science to support a ban on imports, we had our observations from our many parrot conservation projects where these imports were a serious threat, and we had a clear understanding of the history of how trade has driven so many parrots to the brink of extinction and beyond.  In response, we built a coalition of hundreds of conservation, welfare, and veterinary organizations to encourage the EU to reconsider their policy based upon three sets of concerns: threats to biosecurity, welfare, and conservation.  We were thrilled that the health and consumer protection branch of the EU agreed to study the first two of these threats (conservation falling under DG Environment’s bailiwick), tasking the scientists at EFSA to do a comprehensive review of both biosecurity and welfare risks associated with wild bird imports to the EU.  Their report, which runs to hundreds of pages, found that imports of wild birds created significant risks to both biosecurity and welfare and provided the EU with the basis for making the temporary ban permanent in 2007.  The temporary ban was put in place because of H5N1 avian flu showing up in the UK at a quarantine facility, but it was made permanent not because of that incident, but rather in response to the EFSA report on the threat to biosecurity and welfare.  And as you may know, this decision was unanimous, with all 25 nations then making up the EU voting in favor of the ban we have today.

There were and are many organizations which for the past 18 years (since the time of the first campaign in the early 1990’s) have been saying that we need to study trade, we need more information, we need to avoid taking drastic steps with incomplete information.  They claimed, among other things, that a ban might drive trade underground or would undermine the ability of developing countries to feed their poor.  We have never known until now what LPF’s views have been on these imports because, despite the open door to your endorsement or your independent participation in the EU campaign, we never heard a word.  To be fair, at least one of your advisors, Dr. Nigel Collar, has told me that he personally was against EU imports and was quite helpful with initial meetings at the RSPB and Birdlife International.  Also your partner organization in Bolivia (Armonia) endorsed the Wild Bird Declaration which called for an end to EU imports.  But in the end, where was Loro Parque or the Loro Parque Foundation when it came to ending the importation of millions of wild birds to Europe?

.... end of part one

.... begin part two:

Dear Director LPF,

In Cameroon, it appears we agree there were and are serious problems with the historically massive trapping and export of African Grey parrots; the situation is grim, enforcement in “protected” areas remains challenging.  Indeed CITES is in the process of it’s second hand-wringing exercise they call the Significant Trade Review process “studying” the effects of trade on African Greys.  LPF has apparently looked at this situation and decided to fund studies of the sustainability of parrot trade there.  You’re in good company here, as we’ve heard this reasoning many times before – don’t ban legal trade because it’ll drive it underground and make it harder to monitor, etc.  As you have suggested, this is slow going, it takes years and years of study.  In our experience, after this work is done, then follow more years of discussion, then generally nothing is done in the end, the illegal and legal trade continue hand in hand.  Or in the case of several CITES reviews, they do the studies, find declines, yet they increase export quotas!  Indeed, in this case – and very much to our amazement - the generally pro-trade CITES Secretariat directed Cameroon put a moratorium on their export quota – a directive that has apparently been ignored entirely.

Here too, we feel the writing on the wall is clear: the populations of African Grey Parrots are in decline for nearly every country where we have data, the Cameroonian government is ignoring CITES, and the trade continues.  With the closing of the EU market, we felt that the time is ripe to encourage the enforcement of existing laws there, to aid the confiscation of illegal birds and the prosecution of those breaking the law, and whenever possible, to release those birds into areas where they’ve been extirpated.  Harvest for the domestic market and for neighbors will surely remain as a risk and a problem to be solved, but if the lucrative export market can be eliminated (legal and illegal), then the chances of shutting down these smaller markets improves as well.

I don’t think I suggested that your study in Cameroon was “pre-disposed” in favor or against sustainable trade.  Indeed, that is precisely why I quoted you at length and asked you clarifying questions.  My point here is that when LPF and WPT look at the same situation, our reaction is apparently quite different.  That is to be expected, as you say, we are different organizations after all.  Your reaction, as I understand it from your article, was to partner with a local researcher and fund a study of the sustainability of the trade, in part because it, “might still be economically exploitable.”  Our reaction has been to locate partners with expertise in the wildlife trade, encourage enforcement, prosecution of those involved in the illegal trade, then rehabilitation and release of confiscated animals.

I found the following comment to be especially confusing, “The LPF and other organisations and individuals, and especially many government wildlife departments, consider that the “jury is still out” on whether or not the work done to date on sustainable trade in wild birds can be applied to all situations.”  Are you suggesting that some trade in parrots may be sustainable and in that case LPF would support it?  There are two peer reviewed published papers on the parrot trade, one in the New World and the other on the old world (Wright et al 2001, and Pain et al 2006), and both reach similar conclusions about the impacts of trade and the effectiveness of legislation and enforcement.  In what sense is the “jury still out” on these matters, can you please provide some published science to clarify what you mean here?

All best wishes,

Jamie

Dear Jamie,

Seems to me like you’re wasting your time. For those with a long memory, the WPT has had this to say in the past “….the fate of the Spix’s Macaw now rests largely in the hands of a few private collectors in the Philippines, Switzerland, Qatar, and the Canary Islands, who operate with few if any scientific or conservation credentials,…”. I quote from the WPT press release of 22 December 2002 about finding Presley the Spix’s Macaw in the USA and sending him to Brazil. So assuming that the Loro Parque Foundation is the only outfit in the Canary Islands with Spix’s Macaws, the WPT has already dismissed its scientific or conservation contribution – on the wild bird trade, Spix’s Macaws or anything else. Case closed.

Regards,

Tim Daley

I don’t know about the Philippines or Switzerland, but in Qatar it is the Al Wabra preservation with Spix’s macaws and Loro Park foundation in the Canary Islands. From what I have read about these organizations, they have done good scientific and conservation work for years. For all of us who want the best for the parrots we also want to support genuinely good work, but sometimes it is difficult to choose, at least for a lay person like me. So it is disconcerting that the World Parrot Trust says they don’t have scientific or conservation credentials and I hope that Dr Gilardi can explain so that persons like me don’t make mistakes in future.

Thank you and all the best for the parrots in 2010.

Trisha M.

Dear Tim,

Many thanks for your note and your impressive memory.  That was, as you point out, eight years ago, and many things have changed since that date including where birds are held, who is caring for them, as well as the staff employed by these various facilities.  It was also a very broad statement about a number of dispersed and diverse groups. 

As this was a release for the general public, one of the details we hoped to get across was just how unique this species was (and is), not just a unique parrot, but a unique bird - and for that matter a truly unique animal.  Few animal species have been so clearly driven to extinction by trapping for the live animal trade, especially in this case for collectors of rare birds.  More importantly, in the 21st Century, it is rarer still for the fate of such animals to be partially or even largely in the hands of a few wealthy individuals.  (For those unfamiliar with the story of this bird – aka Presley - who showed up unexpectedly in a Colorado living room, Shankar Vadantam wrote this article which ran on the cover of the Washington Post on Christmas 2002 - http://vedantam.com/macaw12-2002.html)

To be more objective about such questions, it might be worth going at this from two independent approaches.  First, have a look around the animal conservation world at comparable species – both birds and non-birds - which are extinct or nearly extinct in the wild, and see who ‘owns’ the captive animals and who is making decisions about their fate.  Are these efforts directed by teams of scientists and veterinarians who are experts in the biology of these species?  Are the animals held at institutions with a long track record of acquiring and managing their rare species in a responsible, cooperative, and transparent manner?

The second approach is more straightforward.  One can simply look at the scientific credentials of those running such institutions, have they published peer-reviewed scientific papers on the species or topic in question?  Have they conducted field conservation work on the species or others like it?  Again, it’s important to bear in mind that many things have changed since 2002, some birds are owned by different people, they are living in different countries, and organizations have had substantial turnover in their respective staff and directors, etc.

Lastly, when it comes to the wild bird trade, the questions have little to do with the science as virtually all the published peer reviewed science points in one direction – trade has serious conservation consequences for parrots and restricting this trade at the local, national and international level is powerfully effective at reducing the impacts of trade on parrot populations.  This question really hinged (and hinges) on whether bird conservation groups were and are willing to speak out about these realities, to stand up for the parrots, and to end trade in wild caught birds.  World Parrot Trust has, along with hundred of other organizations, been willing to do so since it’s founding in 1989.  As we’ve discussed above, not all organizations have been part of this movement, even today.

All best wishes,

Jamie