CAN BE EXTENDED TO BRAZIL AND LATIN AMERICA

This report was prepared Argentine environmentalist Claudio Bertonatti, along with Fidel Baschetto and Carlos Fernandez Balboa in 2014 and presented for consideration of the public and the Argentine authorities by Natural History Foundation “Félix de Azara”.

In Brazil, a similar debate is opened, and at the level of National Congress, law proposals are being considered, approaching to what is being discussed in neighbor Argentina. Zoos must change or perish, as they say. The conversion into rescue and rehabilitation of species of our biodiversity centers, also collaborating with the environmental education of the new generations, is the unique and immediate solution. Insisting on the business of exploration zoos for human entertainment, at the sacrifice of millions of lives of innocent animals, is a cancer that must be excised without pain or remorse .

Dr. Pedro A. Ynterian

President, GAP Project International

NATURAL HISTORY FOUNDATION “FELIX OF AZARA”

DIAGNOSIS AND POSITION PAPER ON “The Zoos and Aquariums in Argentina ” (SUMMARY)

“In Argentina, there are currently close to a hundred places of collections of live wild animals generically called “zoos”. But a zoo is an institution that must comply with the objectives set out by the reference of the same institution: WAZA – World Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Hence, in Argentina there are no authentic zoos that meet the grounds mentioned by WAZA and comply with its “global strategy of Zoos and Aquariums for conservation”. Only a few meet some of these principles and objectives . And it is necessary to clarify that only do so partially.

The vision of WAZA maintains that “the main goal of zoos and aquariums is to integrate all aspects of their work within the activities of conservation”. It is clear, then, that over 90% of the places popularly called zoos are nothing more than mere collections of living beings to be displayed to the public for commercial or recreational purposes. Unfortunately, this is also the reality of large state-owned zoos in the country, located in the most important cities: Buenos Aires, La Plata, Cordoba and Mendoza.

The global environmental crisis facing biodiversity in Argentine territory requires zoos, aquariums, botanical gardens and natural history museums to rise up against approaching extinction, and these institutions must concentrate the maximum liability of conservation. With a few exceptions (which occur at the level of specific projects often sustained by individual people and not institutions), the majority is far away of these circumstances.

A diagnosis of Argentine Zoos and Aquariums highlights the following situations:

1. Being known as “zoos”, this definition does not apply to them, since they are limited to mere collections of live wild animals. They do not have the vision nor seek to achieve the objectives set out by WAZA, the reference institution worldwide of this group. To be fair, there are employees, directors, technicians, educators and caretakers committed to what should be a good zoo, but they do not have the economic and political support to achieve their goals .

2. They seek more commercial and recreational purposes than conservation, education and research. The vast majority (over 95%) does not have master plans, nor formal conservation, animal welfare, environmental education and research programs. No matter what the standards require.

3. They commit misconduct (abuse, trafficking in wildlife, direct contact between visitors and wild mammals, lack of reliable records and inventories, etc). Some take them in front of the public and in a chronic mode, showing impunity, neglect, incompetence and complicity with various government authorities.

4. Most lack of infrastructure, safety, hygiene, animal health and welfare care, and are characterized by improvisation and precariousness.

5. There is a minority of competent qualified staff that develops their functions in them. However, there are wrong practices (handling, containment, education, etc). That recurs chronically to be accepted as “normal” and even considered to be “correct”.

6. There is no order or criterion in the selection of species that make up the collection or animal population, and no relation to the conservation policy. There are no plans of collection and administration of the population, except when they have business objectives. This becomes evident when one focuses on the acquisition, breeding and exhibition of “stars” animals (no conservation or  public education value, such as lions and white tigers) for the sole purpose of increasing ticket sales, advertising or gains through their sale or exchange .

7. Captive populations are characterized by being inbred (result of breeding between relatives animals) and crossbred (crossing with distinct geographical races or subspecies). The lack of records and control over the geographical origin of individuals and families increases an uncontrolled reproductive management, wasting financial resources and dilutes conservation efforts or conspire against them.

8. As the commercial and recreational interests prevails in large institutions, which should be the examples, it predominates the displaying of large mammals of the Old World over to the representatives of the Argentine fauna. The provincial, regional and national biodiversity, which should be the priority, is overlooked. This is reflected in the size and location of the chosen for the display of the species and its propagation through media spaces as well as in printed advertisements.

9. They are run by entrepreneurs (private zoos) or employees (public zoos), who respond for the main interests (commercial and/or political). In both cases it could be added concessions to private entities by public entities, which have shown little ability to incorporate the development needs of natural heritage conservation. Hence, when we have conflicts of commercial and political interests with conservation or education, the first ones shall prevail.

10. They act “islands”, without integrating common policies or strategies on provincial, regional or national level. Much less with institutions dedicated to real conservation (natural science museums, botanical gardens, redemption and rehabilitation centers of wildlife) in protected natural territories and third sector and public interest organizations.

This is the scenery of the situation featuring Argentine zoos and aquariums.

This diagnosis is also a common finding in other countries, but in some of them it tries to put the institutions with higher solvency as references in conservation. This has not happened in Argentina. Added to dissemination of bad examples, one radicalizes the position of some segments of society. In particular, the ones linked to the defense of animal rights, which are already manifest as opposed to existence of Zoos and Aquariums, or not meet the criteria or standards of WAZA. Many people, then, with little technical or training level in the field, find the fertile ground for promoting the closure of these institutions in place to discuss their transformation.

Facing this debate we maintain the view that:

1. The fauna of Argentina needs immediate conservation efforts that are complementary to those carried out in specific protected areas (in situ) and other public and private sectors. Dispensing the specific immediate efforts (ex situ) aggravate the situation of species and threatened ecosystems.

2. A state policy that clearly promotes the transformation of today’s zoos and aquariums is required. They should be converted into rescue and rehabilitation centers, with environmental conservation and education, giving priority to the fauna of the province and region where they are located. To avoid the delay and lack of coordination in this process, we need a new legal standard to meet these criteria.

3. Each conservation center should count inexorably with a strategic plan, with chapters that define its new vision, mission and objectives, its message , its infrastructure needs, its procedures and plans of collection, education, extension, community, culture, conservation, Animal welfare ( including health, nutrition , environmental enrichment and handling handlers ) and business .

4. These institutions should be managed by independent and specialized NGOs, staffed by recognized trajectory, with the political and economic support from the state. There may even be contributions from companies, however, must be subordinated to the goals and plans guided by the other components . The zoological societies or foundations have given the best results in this field worldwide.

5.  It would be smart  to join efforts with all institutions devoted to natural heritage conservation (both in situ and ex situ ) to encourage completion, collaboration and efficiency in the inversion of the available resources .

It is clear that with this crisis there are not many options. Circuses with “beasts ”  faced it and disappeared . Now, zoos and aquariums face uncertainties. Undoubtedly, it is the State that must decide the survival of those institutions that have clarity, courage, financial resources and genuine desire to quickly become centers of wildlife conservation and environmental education “