Back to A MODEL FOR COOPERATIVE LAND MANAGEMENT: THE MALPAI BORDERLANDS GROUP -- Wendy Glenn

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to ADDITIONS AND UPDATES -- 1997 Society for Conservation Biology Annual Meeting

THE CHANGING ROLE OF ZOOS IN INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION AND THE WCS -- William Conway

During the last 25 years, while conservation biology was achieving recognition as a discipline, mainline United States zoos were transforming both their management and their objectives. Self-improvement efforts by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) led to the development of a zoo accreditation program in 1973 (Conway 1973). Then, in 1982, a collaborative Species Survival Plan was developed to better assure the viability of captive zoo populations (Conway 1982, Conway et al. 1984). Now, following the model of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and several like groups, the U.S. zoo profession is seeking to contribute directly to conservation in nature.

The zoo metamorphosis of the 1970s and 1980s was the indirect result of the accelerating pace of worldwide development and the perceived inevitability of the loss of much of the world's fauna. It reflects the prospect that zoos, despite their limitations, will be the final homes for an increasing number of species. The increase of zoo in situ conservation in the 1990s inaugurates a further transformation from museum-like animal collections to proactive environmental organizations whose services to society are in keeping with the focus of their collections.

Made to order?

In some ways, zoos and aquariums seem made to order for the pursuit of conservation biology. They provide sympathetic priorities, living wildlife for research in small population management, and a "bully pulpit" in virtually every human population center. Besides, they offer the potential for new sources of long-term support.

Made to order or not, few zoos have had programs of the kinds now called conservation biology until very recently. (I use "zoos" for both zoos and aquariums except where indicated.) Notable U.S. exceptions are the Wildlife Conservation Society (Founded in 1895 as the New York Zoological Society) which operates the Bronx Zoo, New York Aquarium for Wildlife Conservation, and three smaller collections; the Smithsonian's National Zoo, and the Chicago Zoological Society. WCS's program is by far the largest and its example has fostered increasing zoo interest. This year, more than 250 international conservation projects are proceeding under U.S. zoo sponsorship, not counting those of WCS. Nearly a dozen of the 175 AZA accredited zoos and aquariums now have full-time staff to manage conservation granting programs and more than three dozen have such programs with part-time staff.

Collaborative collection management

In the United States, the AZA accreditation program's process of professional self-review set the stage for the remarkable Species Survival Plan. By collaboratively managing the demography and genetics of zoo populations of selected species, the SSP seeks to assure their long-term viability and to provide, where practicable, animals for conservation studies and reintroduction. In creating the SSP, zoos made their first priority the well-being of the species. In essence, they placed animals under the management of elected SSP groups-regardless of ownership. Such collaborative and altruistic institutional behavior is extraordinarily rare in any endeavor-to say nothing of conservation activities.

Reintroduction, sometimes-in situ conservation, certainly

While the potential for reintroduction from zoo-bred populations is much discussed, few such efforts have been successful. Indeed, few efforts of any kind have been successful for animals in such straits that they are reintroduction candidates. Realistically, some homeless creatures' prospects will not depend so much upon the availability of original habitat as upon some level of care in greatly altered environments (Conway 1989; 1995a,b). Figuring out how to assure that some of the treasured inhabitants of yesterday's wilderness survive in tomorrow's altered and continuously changing one is a task in which zoos may play a useful role, but zoos are small.

The wild animal spaces in all the zoos in the world would fit comfortably within the borough of Brooklyn. The zoo's reinvention as a proactive conservation organization may prove far more important than any conceivable help it could proffer in propagating and reintroducing vanishing species.

The WCS model

WCS's in situ program remained small until 1970, when it had only 19 projects in nine countries. Today, the Society has more than 300 projects in 52 nations, has trained indigenous conservationists by the score, inspired local interest in conservation, and won protection for countless species and their habitats. In just the last seven years, it has midwifed the gazetting of more than 115 million acres of national parks and reserves in 11 nations.

The WCS agenda is field-driven and reflects a perception that biomass, ecological influence, and wilderness values can be as compelling conservation criteria as biodiversity. Administration is decentralized and methodology relies heavily upon long-term field commitments, upon developing both biological and socio-economic contexts in areas where the WCZ works, and upon the efforts of the scientist "ombudsman." In our collective view, an experimental approach is essential, as is monitoring progress, responsiveness, and participation of local people in conservation implementation. About sixty percent of WCS's international staff are indigenous to the countries in which they work. The vast majority of wildlife is outside protected areas, so WCS concentrates its efforts there.

Unfortunately, an ecosystem's protection rarely can transcend the dynamics of the group providing it, including dispute resolution capabilities and rate of cultural and socio-economic change. The rapid acceleration of development and trade during the last decade has left actual conservation effectiveness in the dust of socio-economic inattention. This gap is likely to widen rapidly. Recent world trends suggest that conservation is poised to snatch the short-term outlooks of privatization from the long-term views of public ownership.

It appears likely that much of today's most treasured wildlife increasingly will be confined to parks and reserves which seem certain to become megazoos that will have to be cared for with ever more sophisticated conservation science. The challenge is to keep them from becoming places where species go to die.

Literature Cited

• Conway, W. 1973. Accreditation of zoos and aquariums. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, Oglebay Park, West Virginia.
• _____. 1982. The species survival plan: tailoring long-term propagation, species by species. Pages 6-11 in AAZPA 1982 Annual Conference Proceedings.
• Conway, W., T. Foose and R. Wagner. 1984. Species survival plan of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, Wheeling, West Virginia.
• Conway, W. 1989. The prospects for sustaining species and their evolution. Pages 199-209 in D. Western and M. Pearl, editors. Conservation for the twenty-first century. Oxford University Press.
• _____. 1995a. The conservation park: a new zoo synthesis for a changed world. Pages 259-276 in C. M. Wemmer, editor. The ark evolving: zoos and aquariums in transition. Conservation and Research Center, Front Royal, Virginia.
• _____. 1995b. Wild and zoo animal interactive management and habitat conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 4(6):573-594.

Back to A MODEL FOR COOPERATIVE LAND MANAGEMENT: THE MALPAI BORDERLANDS GROUP -- Wendy Glenn

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to ADDITIONS AND UPDATES -- 1997 Society for Conservation Biology Annual Meeting