AZA FACT SHEET Taxon Advisory Groups What is a Taxon Advisory Group (TAG)? Established by AŻA in 1990, TAGs examine the conservation needs of entire taxa, or groups of related species. Examples of some basic taxonomic groupings for which AZA TAGs exist are: amphibians, felids (cats), hornbills, and great apes. Each TAG consists of AZA Species Survival Plan (SSP) coordinators, studbook keepers and other individuals with special expertise on one or more of the species covered by the TAG. Currently, AZA administers over 40 TAGs covering groups of invertebrates, fish, birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. The Regional Collection Plan One of the most serious challenges facing zoological professionals today is how to determine which species are most in need of zoo- or aquarium-based conservation programs and how to use the limited exhibition and holding space most efficiently. In the past, personal preferences, the spirit of competition among zoos, and availability often determined which species were acquired and became the focus of scientifically managed captive breeding programs. Today, however, there is a growing appreciation of the need for an organized, broad-based collection planning process that better serves the conservation mission of the North American zoo and aquarium community. One of the TAGs' primary responsibilities is to evaluate the present North American captive carrying capacity for a given taxonomic group and recommend how this space should be allocated. This strategic planning process results in the development of Regional Collection Plans (RCPs). In developing these plans, TAGs take into account both the limited amount of enclosure space available and the need to maintain animals in populations large enough to ensure their long-term genetic viability and demographic stability. They consider the potential of selected species to contribute to conservation action through education, scientific research, fund raising to support field conservation and captive breeding for reintroduction. The goal of this careful planning process is that each species and individual animal held at AZA zoos and aquariums will eventually be part of a cooperative population management program and have a defined conservation purpose. Planning Criteria A number of criteria are involved in the regional collection planning process, and, depending on the particular taxon in question, various factors will carry different weights. For example, in the case of amphibians and invertebrates, groups which encompass thousands of species, collection planning often takes a short-term, project-oriented approach. In such cases, research potential may carry a greater weight in the selection of species than factors such as public appeal and ability to assist in long-term fund raising. The selection criteria, therefore, are flexible to allow each TAG to work most efficiently. The following criteria are often used as a starting point: ⚫ current and anticipated captive space available; ⚫ current captive population size and composition; ⚫ sufficient number of founders (individual wild blood lines) available; ⚫ usefulness of the taxon to save habitat and other taxa (i.e.., is the taxon a so-called • public appeal and ability to assist in fund raising to support field conservation • uniqueness of the taxa in terms of phylogeny, adaptive strategy, interactions and coevolution with other taxa, ecological approach to survival, cultural appeal or scientific significance; . ability to survive in human altered ecosystems that are now ubiquitous; probability of successful reintroduction to the wild, if appropriate and necessary. FORUM A Model for Improving Endangered Species Recovery Programs BRIAN MILLER* Centro de Ecologia, UNAM Apartado Postal 70-275 México D.F., 04510 México RICHARD READING Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies 205 Prospect Street New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA COURTNEY CONWAY Department of Natural Resource Science The University of Rhode Island Kingston, Rhode Island 02881-0804, USA JEROME A. JACKSON Mississippi State University Department of Biological Science, PO Drawer GY MICHAEL HUTCHINS American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums NOEL SNYDER Wildlife Preservation Trust International Portal, Arizona 85632, USA STEVE FORREST Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund 2008 East Calhoun Seattle, Washington 98112, USA JACK FRAZIER CINVESTAV Apartado Postal 73 "Cordemex" SCOTT DERRICKSON ABSTRACT/This paper discusses common organizational problems that cause inadequate planning and implementation processes of endangered species recovery across biologically dissimilar species. If these problems occur, even proven biological conservation techniques are jeopardized. We propose a solution that requires accountability in all phases of the restoration process and is based on cooperative input among government agencies, nongovernmental conservation organizations, and the academic community. The first step is formation of a task-oriented recovery team that integrates the best expertise into the planning process. This interdisciplinary team should be composed of people.... whose skills directly address issues critical for recovery. Once goals and procedures are established, the responsible agency (for example, in the United States, the US Fish and Wildlife Service) could divest some or all of its obligation for implementing the plan, yet still maintain oversight by holding implementing entities contractually accountable. Regular, periodic outside review and public documentation of the recovery team, lead agency, and the accomplishments of implementing bodies would permit evaluation necessary to improve performance. Increased cooperation among agency and nongovernmental organizations provided by this model promises a more efficient use of limited resources toward the conservation of biodiversity. 21 toration often occurs in a sociopolitical environment of uncertainty, complexity, and public scrutiny, and such an atmosphere can produce a multitude of administrative challenges (Lindblom 1980, Yaffee 1982, Clark and Harvey 1988, Clark and others 1989). Programmatic difficulties are experienced by many organizations, and, in endangered species management, they seem to cut across species and geographical lines. Common recurring obstacles include: slow decision making, decisions made without the benefit of expertise outside the dominant organization, decisions based on politics and favoritism at the expense of scientific knowledge, rewarding organizational loyalty while penalizing creativity and initiative, faulty information flow through inadequate communication channels or conscious communication blockage, failure to develop plans with concise objectives that can be used to clearly evaluate progress toward a goal, deviating from a plan during implementation, and impeding effective action with an overly rigid or conservative organizational hierarchy (Allison 1971, Phenicie and Lyons 1973, Yaffee 1982, Rolhf 1991). These pitfalls, to the degree that they exist in any endangered species program, must be overcome. This paper discusses obstacles to implementation of endangered species programs and suggests how they might be avoided. In doing so, we present what we see as a “model." Because there are sociopolitical similarities that span biologically dissimilar circumstances, our model could be adapted to a wide variety of situations. On a broader scale than individual endangered species, the model presented here can also be applied to ecosystem, park, and public land management. A Problem Definition In this section, we first describe why it is important to understand organizational issues that affect the use of biological knowledge. Indeed, by failing to recognize these issues, an individual can unwittingly become part of the obstacle to effective recovery. Second, we discuss organizational and cultural structures that cause and perpetuate poor performance. Third and fourth, we examine ways that organizational obstades hinder formulation and implementation of a sound plan. Fifth, we explain why it is important to improve efficiency and effectiveness of recovery programs. Why We Need to Understand All organizations, including wildlife and land management agencies that shape and enact endangered species recovery programs, are afflicted by common problems. Often, wildlife biologists mistakenly believe that each recovery effort is unique, but in reality, the common thread of organizational structure may account for 50-75% of the way that individuals behave in any group (Galbraith 1977). Put simply, similar advantages or disadvantages will appear in programs with a similar design regardless of the endangered species. In this light, we can learn valuable lessons by examining both foreign and domestic endangered species programs, other programs with similar tasks and environments, and the structure of organizations in general (Loucks 1992). Most people working directly with endangered species are highly trained in the biological sciences but may have little exposure to organizational and policy theory. They are, therefore, often unable to diagnose problems in organizational structure and behavior or to develop effective solutions to those problems (Clark and Kellert 1988, Kellert and Clark 1991, Clark and others 1992). As a result, issues of organizational structure and behavior are usually avoided or misunderstood by biologists who prefer to plunge into the necessary physical work. Many people feel it is difficult to address organizational issues when so much needs to be ac~~~complished in the field and laboratory (Phenicie and Lyons 1973). In such circumstances, problems are often conveniently blamed on "biopolitics" or "personalities" (Jackson 1986, Clark and Cragun 1991). However accurate these labels may seem, blaming organizational ineffectiveness on biopolitics and personalities does not provide a suitable problem definition to develop an effective solution (Schon 1983). No one denies the presence of political motivations in many individuals, but appropriate organizational structure can significantly decrease the adverse effects of egocentric behavior. Unless biologists recognize and address organizational issues, even obviously rational solutions to conservation problems may be avoided, altered, or misused (Phenicie and Lyons 1973, Yaffee 1982). In other words, conservation biologists must develop the scientific capacity necessary to collect and evaluate technical information, but this must be combined with the skill to effectively inject that knowledge into the planning and implementation processes (Clark and others 1992). This may require extensive consultation with a social scientist, much the same as consulting a statistician about experimental design, but a better understanding of organizational processes will greatly enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of recovery by managing the mechanisms |