Taxon prioritization for ex situ conservation

1
Taxon prioritizationfor ex situ conservation

• Why?
• Panama proposal
• ASG response
• Moving forward

2
Taxon prioritizationfor ex situ conservation

• Why?
• Panama proposal
• ASG response
• Leaping forward

3
Conservation of amphibians

• in situ
• top priority, but it wont save the amphibians
• ex situ
• when in situ is too slow or not currently
  effective
• to buy time for species that would otherwise
  become extinct
• coupled with an obligation to mitigate in situ
  threats
• success end of captive program
• politics, expense, biosecurity,
  inbreeding/artificial selection
• the only hope for 500 species

4
Why select/prioritize?

• Need guidance
• Need focus
• Need cover
• Need resources
• Need protocol
• Process Output
• There is a difference between grabbing a bunch of
  frogs and putting them in a tank vs. running an
  ex situ conservation program

5
IUCN Red List Assessment for all 5,918 Known
Amphibian Species
456
1382
769
671
369
2236
6
What is needed?

• 427 Critically Endangered Species
• first cut at what species need ex situ protection
• 761 Endangered
• still often meet IUCN criteria for ex situ
  protection
• 1290 Data Deficient
• too little known to assess or protect in the
  wild, maybe therefore a high priority also?

7

• Add in some special species
• Evolutionary novelties
• Taxonomic/phylogenetic specialties
• Species with high importance to research,
  culture, or economy
• Drop some species
• Ones that can be protected in the wild
• Ones for which the threats can be reversed in
  situ
• Ones for which we dont know how to care?

8
The uncomfortable truth

• Although there is much uncertainty, many species
  of amphibians are at very high of extinction in
  the wild, and may be lost forever if effective ex
  situ programs are not initiated very soon.
• 100? 500? 1000? 2000?
• Precautionary Principle

9
But how do we decide how many resources to
allocate, which species to save,and what
receives priority for immediate action?
10
Incremental approach

• Start with the select subset that
• Is highly threatened
• We are reasonably confident we can do
• husbandry
• resources
• Has an identified plan
• for return to the wild
• 20? 50? 100?

11
Panama proposal

• Justified?
• role
• mandate
• legal, administrative authorization
• Prioritization
• where to put limited resources (what is the
  implication of limited?)
• Feasibility assessment (preparedness)

12
Justification

• Is there a clearly defined conservation role?
• Ark, Rescue, Supplementation, Farming, Research,
  Education
• Is there a mandate from ASG or otherwise?
• Is there range state approval?

13
Prioritization

• Program considerations
• Are the threats potentially reversible?
• Is main conservation role? Ark/Rescue/Supplement
  vs Research vs Farming vs Education
• Taxon considerations
• Extinction risk
• Phylogenetic uniqueness
• Biological distinctiveness
• Ecological significance
• Cultural importance
• Socio-economic importance
• Scientific importance

14
Feasibility/ Readiness

• Founders available?
• Financial support available?
• Husbandry knowledge, or basic species knowledge,
  or analogous species?
• Adequate facilities available or planned?
• Staff?

• Food supply?
• Management plan and record-keeping?
• Veterinary care, health screening?
• Species isolation?
• Control of escapes?
• Water treatment (of waste water)?

15
Panama proposal

• A careful (too careful?), thoughtful,
  well-designed approach
• Not a block to Rapid Response to an emergency
• but identification and instigation to do things
  right

16
Shotgun approach

• Aim for as many as possible of those in need
• Focus isnt as important as reach
• We dont know anyway
• 100? 500? 1000?

17
Aimed shotgun?

• Identify the menu of candidate species that need
  ex situ protection to be secure
• Apply selection/prioritization criteria to make
  local or regional decisions
• how many?
• which?
• which first?
• what will it require?

18
IUCN Species Survival CommissionAmphibian
Specialist GroupGlobal Amphibian Assessment

• Will identify the candidate list of species that
  are at high risk of imminent extinction if not
  provided the short-term protection of ex situ
  breeding
• Will identify species of high ecological,
  evolutionary, economic, or cultural importance
• Will help to monitor coverage and gaps
• Will help to identify resources and opportunities

19
WAZA, Regional Associations, partnerships, and
individual institutions (and a GSMP?)

• Identify resources (survey and develop)
• Identify geographic, taxonomic, or other
  interests and opportunities
• Match resources and interests with candidate list
• Assess readiness and likelihood of success
• Do it!
• Communicate and coordinate globally
• Seek, support, develop links to in situ
  conservation

20
500 species is a big number

• How much can the zoos and aquariums of the world
  really do?

21
Making the Mandate Tangible

• To save from immediate extinction every species
  that needs ex situ conservation, ...
• each WAZA zoo must commit the resources to
  secure the future for one amphibian species.
• There are more than 1200 WAZA institutional
  members or members of WAZA associations, so why
  not 1000 species!

22
Do we have the resources?

• If each visitor to a WAZA zoo contributes just 2
  cents (US 0.02) for amphibian conservation,
  then we will have all the funds that we need.
• If zoos got rid of one particular high profile
  mammal species program, then we will have all the
  resources that we need.
• It is an issue of resource allocation rather than
  availability

23
We can do it.We must do it.We are beginning to
do it.We will do it.