NEW YORK ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY WHEN A BIRD IN THE HAND MEANS NONE IN THE BUSH: A CALL TO STOP THE CURRENT PRACTICES OF THE WILD BIRD TRADE An Issue Analysis by the New York Zoological Society and its division Wildlife Conservation International June 1992 BRONX, NEW YORK 10460 TELEPHONE 212 - 220 5100 TELEX 428279 NYZWCI NEW YORK ZOOLOGICAL PARK/BRONX ZOO NEW YORK AQUARIUM • WILDLIFE CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION EDUCATION SCIENCE WHEN A BIRD IN THE HAND MEANS NONE IN THE BUSH: A Call To Stop the Current Practices of the Wild Bird Trade Position Statement The New York Zoological Society (NYZS) and its field science division, Wildlife Conservation International (WCI), believe that the trade in wild caught birds as it currently exists must be stopped. The bird trade should be restricted to captive bred birds and birds harvested from wild populations that are shown to be managed for sustainability. A temporary moratorium is necessary as soon as possible to allow an opportunity to protect critically threatened species and to design appropriate international and national regulatory controls on the trade. The Wild Bird Trade Is Causing Population Declines "Bird populations around the world are declining as a result of a variety of factors. The primary threats are from habitat destruction, the bird trade, and a combination of both. For many species, especially some parrots, the international bird trade for pets is the most immediate threat. About 3.5 to 5 million wild birds, mostly songbirds and psittacines (parrots, macaws and cockatoos), currently are reported to enter the international commercial trade each year. However, mortality during capture and transport can be significant, and estimates suggest that a minimum of 15 to 20 million birds are caught each year to supply the trade. Because documentation of the bird trade is poor, especially for songbirds, these figures are conservative. The bulk of the bird trade is for pets. The United States and Europe are the predominant markets for birds in international trade, but many tropical nations have significant domestic pet bird markets as well. The United States is the world's largest single market for imported birds. In the last decade at least 8.5 million birds, over 85% captured in the wild, were imported or smuggled into the country. When mortality is factored into these figures, a least 16 million birds were captured in the wild for the US market in the 1980s. However, imported birds comprise less than 15% of the overall market which is dominated by US captive bred birds. However, the US has imported about 250,000 parrots a year for the past decade, nearly half of the documented world trade in parrots. The US trade in imported parrots, though a small segment of the overall US bird trade in volume, is valued at $300 million a year and has placed many species of parrots in jeopardy. Many psittacines, which are especially valuable in the trade, have suffered precipitous declines. Over 40 species are listed by the International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP) as threatened specifically by the international trade. Densities of birds in regions which have been exploited for the trade are low. WCI field censuses, for instance, indicate that macaw populations throughout much of the Bolivian rainforest, which remains relatively intact, have been decimated by the heavy trading in the 1970s and early 1980s. Unexploited populations in adjacent areas of Peru, which prohibits exports from the Amazon region, are relatively healthy. In Venezuela, another country that prohibits bird exports, WCI field studies indicate substantial illegal movement of psittacines that are caught in Venezuela into adjacent countries for export. See the attached, "Details on the Effects of the Wild Bird Trade," for further information from WCI research on various aspects of the wild bird trade. Local Communities and National Development Do Not Benefit from the Wild Bird Trade Most of the profits from the wild bird trade go to middlemen and dealers. In a recent analysis by TRAFFIC-International of the five top exporting countries, only one nation claimed to recieve significant government revenue from fees it levied to regulate the international bird trade. Rural peoples derive the least economic benefit from the wild bird trade, yet they are usually the primary trappers of wild birds. On average, a trapper realizes about 1%-2% of the retail price of a wild bird. There is no reinvestment of profits to ensure the sustainability of the harvest: the trapper does not have the means, while the buyer and dealer are opportunistic and simply move to other areas when the yield declines. Óverexploitation of wild bird populations forces the trappers to turn to other sources for supplemental income. As populations of species that are important to the bird trade dwindle, countries lose an important natural resource and a part of their biological heritage. The decline in bird populations, especially of parrots, makes it ever more difficult to develop other economic options such as ecotourism or possible sustainable harvesting projects. Though many countries have imposed laws to protect their wild bird populations, smuggling across national borders is common because of ineffective regulation and the lack of stringent controls in adjacent countries and in major consumer nations. Current Controls of the Wild Bird Trade are Failing The Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which regulates the international trade in wildlife, and national laws that control or prohibit the export of wild birds in over 100 countries, have not been able to effectively control the trade. Species such as the Spix's macaw of Brazil are virtually extinct because of habitat loss and the trade by specialized collectors. Many species, like the Hyacinth macaw and Moluccan cockatoo, are now endangered because of the trade and were recently listed on Appendix I of CITES, which prohibits international commercial trade. This listing recognizes the precarious state of these species and illustrates the loss of an economically important natural resource. Populations of other species that were once abundant, like the Blue-fronted, Yellow-headed, and Green-cheeked amazons; Goffin's, Lesser sulphur-crested, and White cockatoos; and the Fischer's lovebird are being rapidly depleted. It is ironic that so many parrot species are threatened by the international trade while at the same time they are covered by CITES. A primary reason for this failure is the inability of many exporting countries to comply with Article IV of The Convention. Article IV applies to Appendix II of CITES which requires an export permit to trade in the listed species. Article IV specifies that an export permit can only be issued based upon a determination that the export is not detrimental to wild populations. Even when methodologies exist, few exporting countries have the resources to make this determination, enforce CITES or their domestic laws, or check the accuracy of required documents. No baseline surveys of bird populations have been completed by the five top exporting countries which base their export quotas on past export trends as opposed to biological data indicating the trade level a species can sustain. As a result, the wild bird trade remains largely unregulated. The problem is compounded by the fact that no one exporting country can by itself stem the illegal trade in wild birds without regional and international cooperation and assistance. Controls on the bird trade have also been ineffective in consumer nations, the developed countries with more resources available to regulate the trade than exporting countries. Yet, for most consumer nations, there is little inspection of shipments, validation of documents, collection of import data, or other enforcement efforts. The US and United Kingdom are the only two countries that compile comprehensive data on all bird imports, not just species covered by CITES, and mortality levels in transit or in quarantine. Even the US, which has some of the most protective wildlife laws and sophisticated enforcement capabilities, has been unable to effectively control the wild bird trade. Two powerful laws include the 1900 Lacey Act, amended in 1981, which prohibits commerce in wildlife taken in violation of any state, federal, or foreign laws, and prohibits the importation of animals under inhumane conditions; and the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA), which prohibits any activity that would affect a species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. Yet, none of the psittacines listed on Appendix I of CITES in the past five years have been listed on the ESA. The US has never adequately financed the agencies to enforce and implement these and other laws that affect the bird trade. Only 65 inspectors are on duty to inspect over 83,000 shipments into the US a year. A Temporary Moratorium Is Needed NYZS and WCI believe that it is essential to end the wild bird trade as it currently exists. We believe that a moratorium for a specific period of time could effectively accomplish this goal. The aim of this moratorium would be to replace the present bird trade with one that is effectively regulated and is based only on captive bred birds and on birds harvested from wild populations that are shown to be managed sustainably. Though captive breeding of birds solely for the trade offers no incentive to conserve wild populations of species or their habitat, it will significantly reduce the trade pressure on wild populations. A moratorium is necessary in order to institute appropriate international and domestic controls on the bird trade and to collect basic biological data for most bird species traded. Such a time-limited moratorium on the wild bird trade has also been recently endorsed by the American Ornithological Union. It is encouraging to see the United States and Europe, the predominant markets for wild birds, focussing on legislative options to end the current practices of the wild bird trade. History has proven that as long as there are readily accessible markets, large volumes of wild caught birds have continued to be exported, often illegally, out of the few remaining countries that allow regulated trade as neighboring nations have imposed bans on exports. In 1991 the European Parliament passed a non-binding resolution to ban the importation of wild caught birds for the pet trade into the European Community. It is now before the European Commission to enact appropriate legislation. In the United States, New York in 1984 and New Jersey in 1991 passed laws prohibiting the sale of wild caught birds for pets. However, it will take a national law to effectively impose a moratorium and institute regulations that can feasibly enforce a future bird trade. Such legislation would complement foreign laws in most countries which prohibit the export of their native birds just as the US prohibits the commercial sale of its native birds via the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1913. Appropriate US legislation should institute a moratorium on importing live birds as soon as possible. The law should allow the importation of captive bred birds and birds from economically and ecologically sustainable harvesting projects if they become possible. However, imports should only be allowed from such operations if there are controls and effective enforcement that minimize illegal trade. A marking mechanism will be necessary to make controls effective, though there is currently no fully reliable means of marking all birds. The legislation should also focus on minimizing the risks of disease introduction from imported birds and of the establishment of feral populations of exotic species in the US. Is It Possible to Produce Birds on a Sustainable Basis? The premise of sustainable use, that conservation can be more effective when people value wildlife, is applicable to wild bird populations. However, to date there are no documented examples of any sustainable harvesting project or ranching operation for a wild bird population. Recent research is investigating an approach to designing a sustainable bird harvesting project by stimulating growth in a managed population and collecting a percentage of the increase. WČI research has shown that some psittacine species appear to be limited by the number of nesting sites and that the second nestling usually dies in several macaw species. Building artificial nest boxes, and collecting and hand-rearing moribund young might be a feasible management strategy. Nonetheless, any sustainable harvesting strategy will only be feasible if there is strong regulatory enforcement ensuring that only legally produced birds enter the trade. Presently, no country has such controls which are essential for sustainable harvesting projects to be economically competitive with illegal harvesting. The following points should be considered in exploring the potential for sustainable use projects that would produce birds for the trade: 1. Appropriate sustainable harvesting designs need to take into account the difficulty of censusing and managing wild bird populations. Traditional sustained-yield management is probably impractical for many bird species because of the need for rigorous population data rarely known for the species currently in the trade. Possible designs that involve augmenting and harvesting a managed wild population will require sensitive monitoring of the population trends, at the very least, in order to detect the effects of such methods. 2. Countries in which sustainable harvesting projects occur must have effective controls and enforcement. Projects will most likely need to be licensed and each site will have a specific quota assigned to it. The overall failure of national quotas as they are currently derived is well recognized. Regulation could involve establishing an independent commission, independent monitoring by a local non-governmental organization, and establishing cooperatives or other means to avoid middlemen. 3. The international trade will need to be much more carefully regulated and monitored to ensure that only legally produced birds are traded. This will involve a system to mark birds at the source in order to identify their origin. 4. Projects must benefit the people of the rural communities that produce birds for the trade. This will involve possible changes in land tenure practices with land ownership as a probable requirement for successful sustainable harvest projects. Most likely a bird project would be one of several sustainable harvesting efforts in a managed area. Tourism Opportunities for Parrot Conservation: Tourism is another method of giving wildlife economic value which can foster conservation and habitat protection. WCI research in southeastern Peru is studying two small ecotourism operations that are based on large congregations of macaws at clay licks. The daily gatherings of large macaws at these licks offer two key ingredients for successful ecotourism: charismatic wildlife and reliable viewing. Estimates from these operations indicate that a free-flying large macaw might generate $22,000 to $165,000 in tourist income in its lifetime; values that exceed current US retail prices for these macaws as pets. Again, land tenure is a prominent issue and factor in whether local communities directly benefit from ecotourism operations. Conclusions Many bird species have been negatively affected by the bird trade and existing regulatory mechanisms are insufficient to arrest the continued decline in the populations of many species. The wild bird trade as it currently exists must end now if we are to protect populations of endangered species and have the option to develop ecotourism and possible sustainable harvesting projects. NYZS and WCI believe that a temporary moratorium imposed as soon as possible could provide the opportunity to achieve this goal. Policy Committee on the Bird Trade: WILLIAM CONWAY, NYZS General Director JOHN ROBINSON, WCI Director DONALD BRUNING, NYZS Chairman of Ornithology STUART STRAHL, WCI Assistant Director, Latin American Programs CHARLES MUNN, WCI Research Zoologist ALEJANDRO GRAJAL, WCI Latin American Program Officer DORENE BOLZE, WCI Policy Analyst |