Download - Beyond Noah's Ark: the evolving role of modern zoological parks and aquariums in field conservation

EVOLVING ROLES OF ZOO- AND AQUARIUM-BASED FIELD CONSERVATION 117

Znt. Zoo Yb. (1995) 34: 117-130 0 The Zoological Society of London

Beyond Noah’s Ark: the evolving role of modern zoological parks and aquariums in field conservation MICHAEL HUTCHINS’ & WILLIAM G. CONWAY2 ‘Director, Conservation and Science, American Zoo and Aquarium Association, A Z A Executive OfJicelConservation Center, 7970-0 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20814 and 2Executive Director, Wildlfe Conservation Society, 18Sth Street and Southern Boulevard, Bronx, New York 10406, USA

Arguments are presented that zoological institutions and aquariums should take a broader view of their conservation responsibilities. The current emphasis on captive breeding and public education should be expanded to include a greater commitment to involvement in field conservation. Examples are given of various ways in which members of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) are already contributing to a more holistic approach to conservation in the field. Examples include the use of public relations, local education, political action, scientific research, development of relevant technologies, training wildlife personnel and fund raising. Also covered are the organizational changes developed by AZA within the last three years to promote the Association’s collective field-conservation efforts. Among these are the establishment of the Field Conservation Committee (FCC) and several Fauna Interest Groups (FIGS), the formation of a set of guidelines for international conservation programmes and the further development of projects by existing conservation and scientific committees such as SSPs, Taxon Advisory Groups (TAGS) and Scientific Advisory Groups (SAGS).

Zoos and aquariums have come to be seen as modern Noah’s Arks, protecting threatened and endangered wildlife from the approaching ‘flood’ of species extinc- tions (Foose, 1986; Seal, 1986; SoulC et al., 1986; Flesness & Foose, 1990; Foose et al., 1992), but this view is changing. Rapidly increasing numbers of endangered species (Wilson, 1988), combined with sobering appraisals of limited zoo capacity, an apparent lack of habitat for reintroduction and the technical difficulties and expense of reintroduction, make such views less tenable (Conway, 1986; Kleiman el al., 1991; Stuart, 1991; Der- rickson & Snyder, 1992; Ginsberg, 1993;

Stanley Price, 1993; Willis & Wiese, 1993; Conway, 1995b; Hutchins, Willis & Wiese, 1995). While captive breeding for reintroduction remains the only viable option for species that are extinct in the wild or whose populations have become so fragmented that they are no longer viable without human intervention (Hutchins & Wemmer, 1991; Conway, 1995b; Hutchins, Willis & Wiese, 1995), zoos and aquariums are now taking a broader view of their conservation responsibilities (Hutchins & Wiese, 1991; Wiese & Hutchins, 1994a, b; Wiese et al., 1994; Conway, 1995b; Hutchins, Willis & Wiese, 1995).

This paper details various ways that modern zoological institutions contribute to the conservation of wildlife in nature and summarizes some recent steps taken to facilitate zoo- and aquarium-based field conservation by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association and its participating member institutions. While the form and complexity of such co-operative programmes are likely to vary from one regional programme to another, it is hoped that many of the components of the AZA programme could serve as a basic model on which to build.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS TO FIELD CONSERVATION Modern zoological parks and aquariums contribute to field conservation in numerous ways, including public educa-

118 THE DEVELOPING ZOO WORLD

tion, scientific research, development of relevant technologies and fund raising.

Public relations, education and political action Public education is one of the most important responsibilities of modern zoological institutions (Block, 1991; DeLapa, 1994; Woodside & Kelly, this volume). Education programmes reach millions of visitors annually (Block, 1991; IUDZGKBSG (IUCNBSC), 1993). In addition, the considerable expertise of zoo and aquarium educators is being increasingly applied to more holistic conservation efforts in the field.

Fort Wayne Children’s Zoo has developed a broad-based education, exhi- bition and fund-raising programme designed to help conserve endangered primates in the Mentawai Islands of Indo- nesia (Tenaza, 1988, 1989). The Zoo raises public awareness of and funds for the project through an extensive outreach programme, which includes educational programmes for local schools (Piropato, 1990). Even more important, the education programme is not restricted to zoo visitors and school children. The primary cause of the decline of the primate populations has been habitat destruction and over-hunting and conservationists have come to realize that for conservation programmes to succeed, the local people must value both the animals and the habitat they share. Fort Wayne has established various education activities for the Men- tawai Islanders about the importance of wildlife and habitat conservation, including a poster written in the local language, Bahasha (Goldman, 1990).

The Golden lion tamarin Leontopith- ecus rosalia Conservation Program, administered by the Brazilian government and an international consortium of zoos, has organized educational field trips to the Poco das Antes Reserve, Brazil, for local farmers, school groups and families (Dietz et al., 1994). The Wildlife Conservation Society (formerly the New York Zoolog- ical Society) has initiated a wildlife edu-

cation programme in Yunnan Province, China. Based on a curriculum developed at the Bronx Zoo/Wildlife Conservation Park, the programme seeks to change public attitudes associated with the use of wildlife products in traditional Chinese medicine (Berkovits & Naiman, 1994). Similar outreach programmes are oper- ating in many other regions of the world (Savage, 1989, 1993; Johnson, 1994; Odum & Goode, 1994) and have assisted in habitat and species protection.

Public awareness of wildlife conservation issues can be increased by frequent media attention. The zoo community can help to keep such issues in the public eye through regular exposure in newspapers and magazines and on television and radio. They also join together to educate political decision-makers about wildlife conservation issues. As one recent example, AZA organized a Capital Hill reception, attended by several members of Congress and their aides, to publicize collaborative efforts to conserve the endangered Black-footed ferret MusteZa nigripes. AZA has also been active in the Endangered Species Coalition, a consortium of environmental groups working to strengthen and gain reauthorization of the US Endangered Species Act (1973), and participated in a consortium of organizations that was responsible for the enact- ment of the Wild Bird Conservation Act (1993) (Bruning, 1992).

Scientific research Because successful field-conservation programmes often require a detailed knowledge of basic biology, ecology, reproductive biology, genetics, behaviour, nutrition and diseases of a species, the research activities of zoological institutions are continuously expanding (Hutchins, 1988; Conway, 1989; Hutchins, Willis & Wiese, 1995; Hutchins et al., in press). The investment of zoos and aquariums in basic and applied science is substantial and has been extensively covered in the literature. Data from the A Z A Annual Report on Conser-


vation and Science indicate that from 1990 to 1994 alone, scientists working at AZA and its member institutions produced over 1600 technical and semi-technical articles on wildlife biology, conservation biology, and animal management and propagation (Hutchins, Wiese et al., 1991; Wiese et al., 1992; Wiese, Willis et al., 1993; Bowdoin et al., 1994; Hutchins et al., in press).

Zoos and aquariums are also becoming important forums for scholarly discussion on environmental and related issues. In 1992 Columbus Zoo, in collaboration with Ohio State University, organized a meeting on ‘Conservation Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology: a Case Study of the Cichlid Fauna of Lake Victoria’ and M A , with the Society for the Study of Reptiles and Amphibians and Herpetolo- gist’s League, organized a symposium on the biology and conservation of amphibians and reptiles (Murphy et al., 1994). The Tennessee Aquarium in Chattanooga recently served as the venue for a meeting on ‘Aquatic Fauna in Peril: the South- eastern Perspective’, which brought together policy makers and environmental scientists from many disciplines to discuss the current status of the imperilled aquatic fauna of the south-eastern United States.

Development of relevant technologies Many of the technologies developed or tested by zoo and aquarium biologists are directly relevant to field conservation; a largely unrecognized benefit of maintaining collections of living wild animals (Hutchins, 1988; Conway, 1989; Hutchins, Willis & Wiese, 1995). Zoo- and aquarium-based research has led to various technological advances in animal reproduction, including cryopreservation of gametes, in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer and artificial insemination (Dresser, 1988; Wildt, 1989). In the future such techniques may make it possible for wildlife managers to maintain genetic diversity in small or fragmented populations by transferring genetic material

among them (Hutchins & Fascione, 1993; Conway, 1995b).

Wildlife medicine is another area in which important contributions have been made. Many of the dosages for the safe chemical immobilization of wild animals have been developed by zoo veterinarians (Hutchins, Foose & Seal, 1991). Reliable methods for the diagnosis and treatment of naturally occurring wildlife disease has become increasingly important to wildlife conservation (Spalding & Forrester, 1993) and zoo and aquarium veterinarians and veterinary pathologists are making significant contributions (Hutchins, Foose & Seal, 1991). The Wildlife Conservation Society recently developed an international field veterinary programme, the first zoo-based veterinary programme with the primary mission of enhancing conservation in the field (Gorman, 1994).

‘High-tech’ methods for monitoring the movements of free-ranging animals are becoming an important aspect of conservation biology and zoos and aquariums are on the cutting edge of these advances. Satellite-telemetry devices were improved by testing on Asian elephants Elephas maximus at the Bronx ZoolWildlife Con- servation Park before being used in Africa (Nobbe, 1992). Radio-tracking devices have also been developed and used to monitor the movements of captive-bred Puerto Rican crested toads Peltophryne lemur after their release into the wild. This involved the invention of a specialized ‘backpack’ to hold the transmitter and battery (Johnson, 1994).

Methods of individual animal identification developed in zoos and aquariums are also being utilized in field conservation. For example, the Aquarium for Wildlife Conservation in New York recently assisted the Fisheries and Oceans Department in Canada in the development of a flipper band for marking free- ranging Beluga whales Delphinapterus leucas (Orr & Hiatt-Saif, 1992). The Canadian Director of Fisheries and Hab- itat Management called this ‘an excellent


example of how captive beluga can be studied and the knowledge gained be used directly to enhance the management of free ranging stocks’ (Ayles, pers. comm. to L. Garibaldi). Zoological institutions are also experimenting with microchip transponders for use in identifying individual animals (Elbin & Burger, 1994; Rice & Kalk, in press). Implanted under the skin, an encoded copper coil can generate a unique ten digit read-out comparable to a supermarket bar code. This technological advance has led to the recovery of reintroduced Bali mynahs Leucospar rothschildi captured illegally for the pet trade in Indonesia (Wiese & Hutchins, 1994b).

Professional training and technology transfer If conservation is to succeed, it will be necessary to train and empower a new generation of leaders, particularly in developing countries (Wemmer et al., 1993). Professional training and technology transfer is another area where modern, professionally managed zoos and aquariums make an important contribution (Ryder, 1990; Conway, 1991, 1995; Waugh & Wemmer, 1994). Such training programmes could include: methods of veterinary care; animal capture, restraint and transport; record keeping; captive breeding; reintroduction; conservation education; fund raising and public relations; application of artificial reproduction techniques; genetic and demographic management of small populations.

The AZA Sumatran Tiger Species Sur- vival Plan (SSP) recently worked with Indonesian wildlife authorities to build a breeding/holding facility for tigers at Taman Safari Indonesia, The Indonesian Center for the Reproduction of Endan- gered Species (Manansang et al., 1993). Funding for the project came from SSP participating institutions. Less than 400 Sumatran tigers Panthera tigris sumatrae are thought to survive in the wild, thus making a combination of ex situ and in

situ approaches increasingly necessary. ‘Problem’ tigers, which would previously have been destroyed, will now be transferred to this facility for use in a scientifically managed captive-breeding programme.

Veterinarians and biologists from SSP institutions have trained Indonesian wildlife personnel in animal care, chemical immobilization techniques and genome banking methods. In addition, wildlife managers from Sumatran national parks were trained in the use of Vortex population simulation models (Lacy, 1993). Assuming the population data are correct, subsequent analyses have indicated that at least some of the existing populations may not be viable over the long term (Wiese, Seal et al., 1993). GIS mapping techniques were also used to plot resource-use pat- terns and critical tiger habitat in and near the five existing parks with extant tiger populations. The resulting data will provide the basis for a draft management plan.

The National Zoological Park admin- isters an International Wildlife Conserva- tion Training Program at its Conservation and Research Center in Front Royal, Vir- ginia, and in various range countries (Edge, 1989; Jhala, 1994). The Wildlife Conservation Society also conducts extensive training programmes in field conservation methods world-wide (Conway, 1991; Rabinowitz, 1993) and the Chicago Zoological Society, Chicago Field Museum and University of Illinois recently received a large grant from the MacArthur Foundation to train biologists from developing countries in the latest techniques in biological research, habitat protection and management of endangered species.

Fund raising in support of field conservation As well as supporting field research, some institutions provide direct financial assistance for national parks and reserves, as illustrated by various ‘adop- tion’ programmes. Often such efforts are

lCVOLVlNCi ROLES O F ZOO- AND AQLJARILIM-BASED FIELD CONSERVATION 121

facilitated by the zoological institution’s relationship with its own local community, including conservation-minded corporate sponsors and wealthy donors. Because they can absorb the administra- tive overheads zoos and aquariums and their regional associations are particularly effective conduits for donated funds (Anon., 1994).

The ‘adopt-a-park’ concept, which provides direct financial, logistical and other support for protected areas, is gaining in popularity. Two of the earliest examples of this approach were the Wildlife Con- servation Society’s relationship with Amboseli National Park in Kenya (Conway, 1991) and the Chicago Zoolog- ical Society’s long-term support for the Brookfield Conservation Park in South Australia (Parker, 1992). More recently, the Minnesota Zoological Garden ‘adopted’ Ujung Kulon National Park on the island of Java in Indonesia (Tilson, 1991, 1995). An International Biosphere Reserve, the Park is one of the last strong- holds of the Javan rhinoceros Rhinoceros sonduicus. The Zoo provides financial assistance for park personnel to purchase equipment and to make improvements to park facilities. Zoo personnel also work closely with Indonesian colleagues to sug- gest improvements in park management and to assist with specific conservation projects. The ultimate goal is to empower the Indonesians to implement and manage their own programmes and to build international partnerships for conservation. Similar programmes are being developed by other AZA institutions, including Phil- adelphia Zoo’s Adopt-a-Park Project in Liberia, West Africa (Anon., 1992a). (See also Peter & Adler, this volume.)

Similarly, the American Association of Zoo Keepers (AAZK) and The Nature Conservancy have established an Eco- system Survival Plan, where funds raised in North American zoos and participating retail stores go to ‘adopt-an-acre’ of rain- forest habitat, primarily in Central America (Gershenz & Saul, 1993).

Administered by Norm Gershenz of San Francisco Zoological Park, this innovative programme uses reconditioned parking meters to raise funds from visitors. Over a quarter of a million dollars has been raised to purchase and protect wildlife habitats in Costa Rica and Belize.

Zoo- and aquarium-based ecotourism has the potential to inject needed foreign currency into developing countries and provide an economic incentive for wildlife and ecosystem conservation (Bruner, 1991; Conway, 1995b; Hutchins, Willis & Wiese, 1995). A recent survey of AZA institutions (Fascione, unpubl.) indicated that 86 of 135 respondents (64%) currently have travel programmes. However, only 22% of these channel their travel income into conservation, leaving considerable room for improvement.

AZA has initiated several national fund-raising efforts on behalf of field conservation. The largest such effort to date has been ‘Rhino Walk’, which netted nearly $200 000 for African rhinoceros conservation. Sponsored jointly by AZA and the Discovery Channel, Kenyan con- servationist Michael Werikhe walked across the United States to bring the plight of endangered African rhinoceroses to the attention of the American public (Anon., 1991).

Zoos and aquariums have only begun to tap their considerable potential to raise funds for field-conservation initiatives. For example, the AZA Jaguar SSP was recently established to manage the existing captive population for the purpose of public education and to serve as a conduit for future fund raising. The programme has already received two large corporate donations (Fouraker, 1994a). The majority of the funds received will go towards field conservation, including habitat protection in range countries (Four- aker, 1994b). Similar initiatives are being undertaken on behalf of the Giant panda Ailuropoda melanoleuca and its habitat. Less than 1000 Giant pandas exist in the wild and immediate action is necessary if


the species is to survive. AZA established the Giant Panda Conservation Action Plan in 1993. In consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the WWF and the Chinese Ministries of Forestry and Construction, AZA and participating institutions have developed an ambitious plan to assist with conservation projects (Wiese & Hutchins, 1994b; Conway, 1995b). If approved, panda exhibitions in North America and associated corporate donations would raise some $30-50 million over a ten-year period. Ownership of all Giant pandas would remain with the People’s Republic of China and funds generated by the programme would be used to implement the ‘Chinese National Plan for the Conservation of the Giant Panda and its Habitat’. AZA is also closely linked to the International Rhino Foundation through its Rhino Advisory Group and several zoo professionals serve on the IRF board. The Foundation is currently focusing its attention on in situ conservation of Asian rhinoceroses and has been instrumental in facilitating and co- ordinating development of a $2 million Global Environment Facility Project for anti-poaching and other intensive protection and management programmes for Sumatran rhinoceroses Dicerorhinus sumatrensis in Indonesia and Malaysia (T. Foose, pers. comm.).

AZA and several of its institutional members have developed various funding mechanisms to support conservation, both in North America and abroad. AZA’s $2 million Conservation Endow- ment Fund and Ralston Purina Big Cat Survival Fund have supported several field-conservation initiatives (Hutchins, Wiese et al., 1991; Wiese et al., 1992; Wiese, Willis et al., 1993; Bowdoin et al., 1994). The Scott Neotropical Fund, Sophie Danforth Fund and Fables Wild- life Conservation Fund are administered by the Lincoln Park Zoological Gardens, Roger Williams Park Zoo, Providence, and John Ball Zoo, Grand Rapids, respec- tively. The Wildlife Conservation Socie-

ty’s Research Fellows Programme and Chicago Zoological Society’s Conserva- tion and Research Fund provide considerable financial support for field- conservation projects.

AZA ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE Within the last three years, AZA has developed an organizational infrastructure to help facilitate and promote the Association’s collective field-conservation efforts. Among the most significant of these recent developments are the establishment of the Field Conservation Committee (FCC), the first such committee established by a reBonal zoo association (Wiese, Willis et a l , 1993), the formation of several Fauna Interest Groups (FIGS) and the formulation of a set of guidelines covering international field-conservation initiatives by AZA member institutions. Field conservation projects are also being developed by existing conservation and science committees, including SSPs, Taxon Advisory Groups (TAGS) and Scientific Advisory Groups (SAGS) (Hutchins & Wiese, 1991; Wiese & Hutchins, 1994b).

Field Conservation Committee The AZA FCC was established by a unanimous vote of the AZA Board of Directors in March 1993. Its primary goals are to: (1)promote field-conservation efforts by AZA member institutions; (2) educate members about their potential role in field conservation; (3) provide assistancelguidance to member institutions that wish to expand their involvement; (4) catalogue and monitor successful examples of in situ conservation by members; (5 ) work closely with the AZA Conservation and Science Office to meet these and other related goals (Wiese, Willis et al., 1993). The Com- mittee is currently chaired by William Conway and has nine members and advisers, most of whom have field-conservation experience.


Since its inception, the FCC has taken a number of initiatives designed to meet its short- and long-term goals, including the organization of two major symposia dealing with zoos, aquariums and field conservation for the 1993 and 1994 AZA Annual Conferences. It has also begun work on the AZA Field Conservation Resource Guide. The volume, due to be completed in early 1996, will describe the various options by which member institutions can become involved in field conservation and the benefits that can be derived. It will include a frank discussion of the associated biological, cultural and fiscal challenges and potential problems and pitfalls (Bowdoin et al., 1994).

The Committee is planning a number of other initiatives, including a workshop on the role of zoos and aquariums in field conservation for society and institutional directors, and a reception at the 1995 M A Annual Conference, to provide information on specific field initiatives that could be supported by AZA member institutions.

Fauna Interest Groups FIGs represent another type of specialized committee within the AZA organizational infrastructure. These groups were conceived to help co-ordinate the field-conservation activities of participating AZA institutions in specific geographic regions, particularly those rich in biological diversity (Hutchins & Wiese, 1991; Wemmer, 1991; Wiese & Hutchins, 1994b). FIG member- ship includes representatives of North American zoos and aquariums with an interest in a particular region, as well as advisers from the region and from collaborating academic institutions or other non-governmental organizations. AZA currently has seven FIGs, including Brazil, Madagascar, Meso-America, Par- aguay, South-East Asia, the West Indies and Zaire. All are becoming increasingly active by developing contacts with appropriate field researchers, conservation plan- ners and government wildlife agencies.

Often such initiatives are as a result of a Memorandum of Understanding between AZA, the FIG and appropriate government wildlife agencies. Whenever possible, FIG chairs typically have a knowledge of the region’s natural history, conservation issues, culture and language.

Guidelines for international conservation programmes Field conservation initiatives are extremely complex and, if they are to be successful, can not be focused exclusively on biologicaVecologica1 issues. Wildlife conservation is primarily a social problem which must take into account legal, political, cultural, economic and ethical considerations. We agree with Raf- faele (1993) and Foster (1993) that all international scientifickonservation initiatives should address local priorities and needs. We also recognize that the best international conservation programmes provide benefits for all collaborating partners, while at the same time producing effective conservation action. To help address these issues, AZA has adopted a set of guidelines for zoo- and aquarium- based international conservation programmes (Anon., 1992b). These guidelines clearly discourage AZA members from engaging in ‘extractive’ programmes designed to obtain wild animals from range countries without proper justification. They also include recommendations concerning sensitivity to cultural differ- ences and address the need for the transfer of technology between developed and developing regions.

SSPs, TAGS and SAGS SSPs have been the foundation of AZA’s conservation programme for over a decade (Conway et al., 1984; Hutchins & Wiese, 1991; Wiese & Hutchins, 1994a, b). SSPs were origin- ally established to address the problems associated with maintaining small captive populations over long periods (Conway et al., 1984; Wiese & Hutchins, 1994b). As such, these single-species programmes have traditionally focused on genetic and


demographic management (Foose, 1 98 3). However, this is changing and, as appropriate and necessary, many SSPs are now endeavouring to strike a balance between ex situ and in situ conservation (Hutchins & Wiese, 1991; Bowdoin et al., 1994; Wiese & Hutchins, 1994a, b). A new SSP mission statement clearly recognizes and encourages this more holistic approach (Bowdoin et al., 1994).

Several SSP programmes are providing effective models for the future. The Lake Victoria cichlid Haplochromis spp, Aruba Island rattlesnake Crotalus durissus unicolor and Cotton-top tamarin Saguinus oedipus SSPs are examples of an integrated approach to co-operative zoo- and aquarium-based conservation. The Lake Victoria cichlid SSP is the first AZA programme for fishes. Its goal is to re-estab- lish as much of Lake Victoria’s endemic fish fauna as possible (Warmolts, 1994), through a broad range of activities, including captive breeding for reintroduction, scientific studies, professional training and technology transfer and fund raising to support in situ efforts (Kaufman, 1991; Kaufman & Ochumba, 1993; Warmolts, 1994).

The Aruba Island rattlesnake and Cotton-top tamarin SSPs have also struck an effective balance between ex situ and in situ conservation efforts. Both maintain managed captive populations, support active field-conservation programmes and seek to advance scientific knowledge. The Aruba Island rattlesnake SSP organized a symposium on rattlesnake biology and conservation on Aruba in 1993 (Odum & Goode, 1994). Zoo educators offered training to local teachers on the Island’s environment and in methods of conservation education. An additional training course on the treatment of snakebites was held for local medical personnel. Com- bined with a field study of the biology of this endangered reptile, the SSP has assisted the Aruba government in its efforts to set aside a large protected area to help preserve other endemic fauna and

flora. The Cotton-top tamarin SSP has similar characteristics. At the time of writing the population of free-ranging tamarins is estimated at less that 3000 individuals and the SSP co-ordinator has studied the species’ behaviour and ecology for several years (Savage, 1989, 1993). In 1988 a survey of Colombian schoolchil- dren, to assess their perceptions of wildlife and conservation needs, found that over 90% had no idea that the Cotton-top tamarin was endemic to their country (Savage, 1989, 1993).

TAGS were developed to assist in regional strategic collection planning and to address other issues that affect several related taxa (Hutchins & Wiese, 1991; Wiese & Hutchins, 1994b; Hutchins, Willis & Wiese, 1995). In addition to selecting new taxa for captive-breeding programmes, many TAGS are organizing collaborative field-conservation initiatives or helping to support SSPs that are under the TAG umbrella. The AZA Chiropteran Advisory Group has an education sub- committee which is developing a ‘bat trunk’ containing translated educational materials and items focused on bat biology and conservation. The trunks will be used by teachers in range countries to increase conservation awareness in their students (N. Fascione, pers. comm.).

To provide technical support for its conservation programmes both ex situ and in situ, AZA recently established a Research Coordinator’s Committee and a series of SAGs. The role of the Committee is to consult with members on administra- tive issues related to the co-ordination of research programmes at AZA member institutions. SAGS were established to: (1) provide technical/scientific support to SSPs, TAGS and FIGS; (2) form working co-operative relationships with university and government scientists working on topics of mutual interest; (3) liaise with relevant scientific societies. SAGs currently exist for behaviour and husbandry, contraception, genome banking, reintro-


duction, systematics and veterinary science.

Five-year Action Plan All AZA conservation and science committees (SSPs, TAGS, FIGS and SAGS) have been asked to develop Five-year Action Plans (Bow- doin et al., 1994; Wiese & Hutchins, 1994b). The plans are to describe and justify several priority projects and the budgetary requirements necessary for implementation. It is recommended that at least one of the projects be focused on a field-conservation initiative. The plans should provide a powerful incentive for committees to become more organized and action orientated in their field-conservation, education and scientific activities. With a more systematic approach to fund raising potential donors will be able to get a clearer idea of the projects. In conjunc- tion with its five-year planning process, the AZA Board of Directors has approved a set of guidelines governing fund raising and management for its conservation and science committees (Wiese, Willis et ab, 1993).

DISCUSSION The World Zoo Conservation Strategy states that ‘The ultimate goal of ex situ conservation is to provide support for the survival of species in their natural environment (in situ) ’ (IUDZGICBSG (IUCN/SSC), 1993). Action 69 of the Global Biodiversity Strategy also calls for a strengthening of the conservation role of zoos and aquariums and for efforts to identify ‘national and international opportunities for [their] further contributions to conservation’ (WRI/IUCN/ UNEP, 1992). Clearly, this is a pIea for modern, professionally managed zoological institutions to look beyond their perimeter fences and find new and more effective ways to contribute to global conservation action.

The question arises whether zoos and aquariums should abandon captive- breeding programmes for endangered

species and the resultant savings be used to support field conservation, as has been suggested by Varner & Monroe (1991) and N. Snyder in response to Hutchins, Willis & Wiese (1995). There are several reasons why they should not. First, the presence of living animals is what draws people to zoological parks. Without them, and the public support they engender, zoos and aquariums could not undertake their broader conservation mission (Hutchins & Wemmer, 1991). Second, captive breeding for reintroduction will continue to be the best and, in fact, only conservation option for species that are extinct in the wild or whose populations have become so fragmented that they are no longer viable without human intervention (Hutchins & Wemmer, 1991; Conway, 1995b; Hutchins, Willis & Wiese, 1995). Lastly, as we have said, there are other, more immediate ways that zoological institutions and their living collections can contribute to wildlife and ecosystem conservation world-wide, including public education, scientific research, the development of relevant technologies, professional training and technology transfer and fund raising in support of field-conservation initiatives (Hutchins & Wiese, 1991; Wiese & Hutchins, 1994a, b; Conway, 1995b; Hutchins, Willis & Wiese, 1995).

Effective zoo- and aquarium-based field-conservation programmes appear to share many basic characteristics, including: (1) strong and effective leader- ship; (2) a link between ex situ and in situ conservation; (3) a working relationship with appropriate government wildlife agencies, including an attempt to address local needs; (4) direct involvement of individuals from the range country; ( 5 ) a long- term or at least a regular presence on site; (6) training and technology transfer; (7) an attempt to educate local communi- ties about the value of and need to preserve wildlife and wildlife habitat; (8) an effective scientific programme designed to increase understanding of basic biology


and to address technical issues related to programme implementation; (9) a good working relationship with collaborating organizations; (10) a strong development and marketing plan, leading to a solid financial base; (1 1) effective short- and long-term planning (Mallinson, 1991; Wemmer, 1991; Anon., 1992b; Conway, 1995b; Hutchins, Willis & Wiese, 1995).

Although substantial progress in zoo- and aquarium-based field conservation is

being made, many challenges to implementation remain. 1. With a few notable exceptions, zoological institutions do not have a long history of involvement in field conservation. Efforts to develop meaningful field initiatives will therefore be hampered by the lack of knowledgeable and experienced personnel. This is precisely why AZA have developed a FCC and FIGs to assist in making decisions and to help inform of potential problems or pitfalls. The situa- tion should improve as zoological institutions hire more personnel with appropriate experience and training. Improvements will also occur as zoos and aquariums identify reliable partners who have the necessary expertise. We caution, however, that zoos and aquariums have too often been seen only as a source of funds and not as true partners in field- conservation initiatives. This must change if zoological institutions are to become a significant and effective force in the global conservation community. 2. Many zoos and aquariums are gov- erned by boards of directors or government agencies such as municipal park departments, who may not see the logic of expending public resources, either human or financial, outside their local communi- ties. Justification for their involvement in national or international field-conservation initiatives must therefore be provided. Institutions that hold and exhibit captive wildlife have an ethical obligation to give something back to conservation (Conway, 1995a; Hutchins, Wemmer & Dresser, 1995). However, if zoological

parks and aquariums are to become ‘conservation centres’ as some have predicted (IUDZGKBSG (IUCNESC), 1993), then this obligation must be supplemented by other tangible benefits, including increased media attention, improved public relations and access to new sources of financial support. 3. Collective zoo- and aquarium-based conservation efforts, such as those organized by SSPs, TAGS and FIGs should not neglect individual institutions. This is essential to maintain good co- operation. Reciprocity can be accom- plished by ensuring that appropriate credit is given in the media and in other public forums. Some zoo managers have expressed concern that collective fund raising may lead to competition between individual institutions and their regional zoo associations. However, it should be noted that regional or national co-operative programmes may provide access to funding opportunities not available to most individual institutions. In addition, the majority of funds raised through association committees should trickle down to the participating institutions, as it is generally they who have the expertise and facilities to carry out specific projects. 4. Regional associations should not neglect small and medium-sized institutions. Although field-conservation projects have traditionally been conducted by a few large organizations this is changing. One small municipally supported zoo, the Roger Williams Park Zoo, has a full-time researchkonservation co-ordinator with an active field-conservation programme. In the future, small institutions with limited budgets may be able to participate in field-conservation initiatives through regional or international consortia, combined with innovative fund-raising techniques. The investment of individual institutions may be comparatively small but the collective impact could be great, especially in raising funds for use in developing countries (Tilson, 1991). The Mad- agascar Fauna Interest Group (Anderson,

EVOLVING ROLES OF ZOO- A N D AQUARIUM-BASED FIELD CONSERVATION 127

1990) provides an excellent example of this co-operative approach. 5. The zoological community needs to develop an effective track record and to build its reputation within the global conservation community. Too often it has been viewed as an exploiter, rather than a protector, of wildlife (Varner & Monroe, 1991; WSPA & Born Free Foundation, 1994). We recommend that national and regional zoo associations and their participating institutions proceed cautiously in the selection of their field-conservation initiatives both in order to minimize the potential for failure and to avoid misunderstandings.

The next few decades will be critical for the survival of many species, especially the larger vertebrates. Historically, zoos and aquariums have seen their primary mis- sions as educating the visiting public and captive breeding for reintroduction. How- ever, in continuing along this traditional path, they run the risk of losing their relevance in a rapidly changing world. Con- versely, if zoos and aquariums successfully expand their raison d’gtre, they have an opportunity to become one of the world’s largest and most effective conservation networks. Independently zoos and aquariums could not achieve all that needs to be done but should they choose to adopt a broader approach to their conservation activities, they can make a substantial contribution. As Western (1986) so aptly put it ‘... saving a species means more than saving its genome; it means maintaining the ecosystem in which a species maintains itself, competes, adapts or is otherwise exterminated.’.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the AZA Board of Directors and Executive Director, S . Butler, for their continuing support of AZA’s efforts to facilitate and promote zoo- and aquarium-based field-conservation initiatives. We would also like to thank J. Bowdoin, N. Fascione, E. Paul and K. Willis for reading and commenting on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

REFERENCES ANDERSON, D. (1990): Formation of the Madagascar Fauna Captive Propagation Group. AAZPA a. Conf Proc. 1990 37-40. ANON. (1991): Taking steps for rhinos: the odyssey of Michael Werikhe. Zoonooz 64: 12-13. ANON. (1992a): Adopt a park project in Liberia, West Africa. One With Nature (Philadelphia Zoolog- ical Gardens) 1: 6-7. ANON. (1992b): Guidelines established for AAZPA- sponsored international conservation programs. AAZPA CommuniquP April: 5-6. ANON. (1994): Who gets the money? Budgets, assets, fund-raising and overheads. Anim. People December: 11-12. BERKOVITS, A. & NAIMAN, T. (1994): Teacher training. Wildl. Conserv. 97(6): 16. BLOCK, R. (1991): Conservation education in zoos. J. Mus. Edu. 1 6 6-7. BOWDOIN, J., WIESE, R., WILLIS, K. & HUTCHINS, M. (Eds) (1994): 1993-1994 A Z A annual report on conservation and science. Bethesda, MD: American Zoo and Aquarium Association. BRUNER, G. (1991): Ecotourism and zoos-partners in saving wildlife. AAZPA a. Con$ Proc. 1991: 492-499. BRUNING, D. F. (1992): Legislation to end the pet trade in birds. AAZPA r. ConJ Proc. 1992: 9-13. CONWAY, W. G. (1986): The practical difficulties and financial limitations of endangered species breeding programmes. In?. Zoo Yb. 24/25 216219. CONWAY, W. G. (1989): Prospects for sustaining species and their evolution. In Conservation for the twenty-first century: 199-363. Western, D. & Pearl, M. (Eds). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. CONWAY, W. G. (1991): A zoo-based international conservation program: Wildlife Conservation Inter- national. AAZPA a. Conf Proc. 1991: 381-390. CONWAY, W. G. (1995a): The conservation park: a new zoo synthesis for a changed world. In The ark evolving: zoos and aquariums in transition: 259-276. Wemmer, C. (Ed.). Front Royal, VA: National Zoo- logical Park, Conservation and Research Center, Smithsonian Institution. CONWAY, W. G. (1995b): Wild and zoo interactive management and habitat conservation. Bzodiv. Con- serv. 4, 513-594. CONWAY, W. G., FOOSE, T. & WAGNER, R. (1984): Species Survival Plan of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, WV: American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. DELAPA, M. D. (1994): Interpreting hope, selling conservation: zoos, aquariums, and environmental education. Museum NKWS MaylJune: 4849. DERRICKSON, S. & SNYDER, N. (1992): Potentials and limits of captive breeding in parrot conservation. In New World parrots in crisis: 133-163. Beissinger, S.

128 THE DFVELOPING ZOO WORLD

R. & Snyder, N. F. R. (Eds). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. DIETZ, J. M., DIETZ, L. A. t NAGAGATA, E. Y. (1994): The effective use of flagship species for conservation of biodiversity: the example of lion tamarins in Brazil. In Creative conservation: interactive management of wild and captive animals: 32-49. Olney, P. J. S., Mace, G. M. & Feistner, A. T. C. (Eds). London: Chapman & Hall. DRESSER, B. L. (1988): Cryobiology, embryo transfer, and artificial insemination in ex situ animal conservation programs. In Biodiversity: 29G308. Wilson, E. 0. (Ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. EDGE, D. (1989): International wildlife conservation training. CRC News 1: 2-3. ELBIN, S. B. t BURGER, J. (1994): Methods of individual identification for captive colonial waterbirds: lessons from the field. Znt. Zoo Yb. 3 3 148-156. FASCIONE, N. (Unpublished): Zoos, ecotourism and conservation: a survey of travel programs in North American zoos and aquariums. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 1994. FLESNESS, N. t FOOSE, T. J. (1990): The role of captive breeding in the conservation of species. In IUCN red book of endangered and threatened species: xi-xv. Gland: IUCN. FOOSE, T. J. (1983): The relevance of captive populations to the conservation of biotic diversity. In Genetics and conservation: a reference for managing wild animal and plant populations: 374-401. Schone- wald-Cox, C. M., Chambers, S. M., MacBryde, B. & Thomas, W. L. (Eds). Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co. FOOSE, T. J. (1986): Riders of the last ark: the role of captive breeding in conservation strategies. In The last extinction; 141-165. Kaufman, L. & Mallory, D. (Eds). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. FOOSE, T. J., FLESNESS, N., SEAL, U. S., DEBOER, L. E. M. t RABB, G. (1992): Ark into the 21st century. Apple Valley, MN: IUCN/SSC Captive Breeding Specialist Group. FOSTER, M. (1993): The role of visiting scientists in developing countries. The Auk 110 414417. FOURAKER, M. (1994a): Jaguar SSP. In 1993-1994 A Z A annual report on conservation and science: 79-80. Bowdoin, J., Wiese, R., Willis, K. & Hutchins, M. (Eds). Bethesda, MD: American Zoo and Aquarium Association. FOURAKER, M. (1994b): The Fort Worth Zoo’s in situ conservation projects: big bang for little bucks. A Z A r. Con$ Proc. 1994: 27-30. GERSHENZ, N. SAUL, L. (1993): The Ecosystem Survival Plan: zoo visitors save wild places. End. Spec. Update 1 0 61-62. GINSBERG, J. (1993): Can we build an Ark? T R E E 8 4-6. GOLDMAN, S. (1990): Zoos look beyond their gates to save animals in the wild. Zootails (Fort Wayne Zoological Society) NovemberlDecember: F6.

GORMAN, P. (1994): The doctor is out. WiIN. Con- serv. 97(1): 58-67. HUTCHINS, M. (1988): On the design of zoo research programmes. Int. Zoo Yb. 27: 9-18. HUTCHINS, M. t FASCIONE, N. (1993): What is it going to take to save wildlife? AAZPA r. ConJ Proc. 1993 5-15. HUTCHINS, M. t WEMMER, C. (1991): In defense of captive breeding. End. Spec. Update. 8: 5-6. HUTCHINS, M. & WIESE, R. J. (1991): Beyond genetic and demographic management: the future of the SSP and related AAZPA conservation efforts. Zoo Bid. 10: 285-292. HUTCHINS, M., FOOSE, T. t SEAL, U. S. (1991): The role of veterinary medicine in endangered species conservation. J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 22: 277-281, HUTCHINS, M., WIESE, R. J., WILLIS, K. t BECKER, S. (Eds) (1991): 1990-1991 AAZPA annual report on conservation and science. Bethesda, MD: American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. HUTCHINS, M., WEMMER, C. t DRESSER, B. (1995): Ethical considerations in zoo and aquarium research. In Ethics on the ark: zoos, animal weljare and wildlife conservation: 253-276. Norton, B., Hutchins, M., Stevens, B. & Maple, T. (Eds). Wash- ington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. HUTCHINS, M., WILLIS, K. & WIESE, R. J. (1995): Strategic collection planning: theory and practice. Zoo Biol. 1 4 2-22. HUTCHINS, M., PAUL, E. & BOWDOIN, J. (in press): Contributions of zoo and aquarium research to wildlife conservation and science. In Proceedings of the conference on the well being of animals in zoo and aquarium research. Greenbelt, MD: Scientist’s Center for Animal Welfare. IUDZG/CBSG (IUCN/SSC) (1 993): The world zoo conservation strategy; the role of zoos and aquaria of the world in global conservation. Chicago, IL: Chi- cago Zoological Society. JHALA, Y. (1994): CRC wildlife conservation and management course comes to India. CRC News Fall 1994 7. JOHNSON, R. R. (1994): Model programs for reproduction and management: ex situ and in situ conservation of toads of the family Buffonidae. In Captive management and conservation of amphibians and reptiles: 243-254. Murphy, J. B., Alder, K. & Collins, J. T. (Eds). Ithaca, NY: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. KAUFMAN, L. (1991): Progress in the conservation of endemic fishes from Lake Victoria. AAZPA (1. Con$ Proc. 1991: 403408. KAUFMAN, L. t OCHUMBA, P. (1993): Evolutionary and conservation biology of cichlid fishes as revealed by faunal remnants in northern Lake Victoria. Con- serv. Bid. 7: 719-730. KLEIMAN, D. G., BECK, B., DIETZ, J. M. t DIETZ, L. A. (1991): Costs of a re-introduction and criteria for success: accounting and accountability in the golden lion tamarin conservation program. Symp. 2001. soc. Land. 6 2 125-142.


LACY, R. C. (1993): VORTEX: a computer simulation model for population viability analysis. Wild. RKS. 2 0 45-65. MALLINSON, J . C. (1991): Partnerships for conservation between zoos, local governments and non- governmental organizations. Symp. zool. soc. Lond

MANANSANG, J., BRADY, G. & TILSON, R. L. (1993): Tiger captive breeding facility. Tiger Beat 6 9. MURPHY, J. B., ALDER, K. & COLLINS, J. T. (Eds) (1994): Captive management and conservation of amphibians and repfiles. Ithaca, N Y Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. NOBBE, G. (1992): Going into orbit. Wildl. Conserv.

ODUM, R. A. & GOODE, M. J. (1994): The Species Survival Plan for Crotalus durissus unicolor, a mul- tifascited approach to conservation of an insular rattlesnake. In Captive management and conservation of amphibians and reptiles: 363-368. Murphy, J. B., Alder, K. & Collins, J. T. (Eds). Ithaca, NY: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. ORR, J. R. & HIATT-SAIF, M. (1992): A flipper band for individual identification of beluga whales (&I- phinapterus leucas). Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1856 iv-9. PARKER, P. (1992): The Chicago Zoological Society’s affair with Australian conservation. Bison 6 12-19. PIROPATO, C. (1990): Saving the primates: Fort Wayne Children’s Zoo heads international effort. Zootails (Fort Wayne Children’s Zoo) November/ December: FlLF4. RABINOWITZ, A. (1993): Back to basics. Wildl. Con- serv. 96(4): 78-79, 82. RAFFAEIB, H. (1993): Tunnel vision in the neo- tropics. Living Bird 11: 32. RICE, C. & KALK, P. (In press): Identification and marking techniques. I n Wild mammals in captivity, principles and techniques. Kleiman, D. G., Allen, M. E., Thompson, K . V. & Lumkin, S. (Eds). Chicago, Chicago University Press. RYDER, 0. (1990): Saving species in their habitats: the transfer of genetics research technologies. AAZPA a. Conf: Proc. 1990 41-45. SAVAGE, A. (1989): Proyecto titi: a hands-on approach to conservation education in Colombia. AAZPA a. Con$ Proc. 1989: 605-606. SAVAGE, A. (1993): Tamarins, teens and teamwork: an integrated approach to in situ conservation. AAZPA a. Coqf.’ Proc. 1993: 106-108. SEAL, U. S. (1986): Goals of captive propagation programmes for the conservation of endangered species. Int. Zoo Yb. 24125: 114-179. SOULE, M., GILPIN, M., CONWAY, W. FOOSE, T. J. (1986): The millennium ark: how long a voyage, how many staterooms, how many passengers? Zoo Biol.

SPALDING, M. G . & FORRESTER, D. J. (1993): Disease monitoring of free ranging and released wildlife. J. Zoo. Wifdl. Med 24: 271-280.

62: 57-14.

95(5): 62-64.

5: 101-113.

STANLEY PRICE, M. R. (1993): What will i t take to save the rhino? In Rhinoceros biology cind conservation: 48-68. Ryder, 0. (Ed.). San Diego: Zoological Society of San Diego. STUART, S. N. (1991): Re-introductions: to what extent do we need them? Symp. zool. soc. Lond 62: 21-37. TENAZA, R. (1988): Status of primates in the Pagai Islands, Indonesia: a progress report. Prim. Conserv. 9 146. TENAZA, R. (1989): Primates on a precarious limb. Anim. Kingd. 92: 27-37. TILSON, R. L. (1991): Preserving critical habitat: the Minnesota Zoo’s adopt-a-park program. AAZPA a. Conf Proc. 1991: 386-390. TILSON, R. L. (1995): In support ofnature: the Min- nesota Zoo’s adopt-a-park program. In The ark evolving: zoos and aquariums in transition: 180-195. Wemmer, C. (Ed.). Front Royal, VA: National Zoo- logical Park, Conservation and Research Center, Smithsontan Institution. VARNER, G . & MONROE, M. C. (1991): Ethical per- spectives on captive breeding: is it for the birds? End. Spec. Update 8: 27-29. WARMOLTS, D. I. (1994): Conservation and the Lake Victoria Basin: the role of North American zoos and aquariums. Aquatic Survival 3: I , 7-1 1. WAUGH, D. R. & WEMMER, C. (1994): Training in zoo biology: two approaches to enhance the conservation role of zoos in the tropics. In Crearivr ron- servation: interactive management of wild and captive animals: 207-240. Olney, P. J. S., Mace, G. M. & Feistner, A. T. C. (Eds). London: Chapman & Hall. WEMMER, C. (1991): Fauna interest groups: zoo conservation with a regional focus. AAZPA a. COP$ Proc. 1991: 395-402. WEMMER, C., RUDRAN, R., DALLMEIER, F. &WILSON, D. E. (1993): Training developing country nationals is the critical ingredient to conserving global biodiversity. BioScience 43 762-767. WESTERN, D. (1986): The role of captive populations in global conservation. In Prirnates: the road to a self-sustaining population: 13-20. Benirshchke, K. (Ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag. WIESE, R. J. & HUTCHINS, M. (1994a): The role of zoos and aquariums in reptilian and amphibian conservation. In Captive management and conservation of amphibians and reptiles: 37-45. Murphy, J. B., Alder, K. & Collins, J. T. (Eds). Ithaca. NY: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. WIESE, R. J. & HUTCHINS, M. (1994b): Species survival plans: strategies ,for wifdlfe conservation. Bethesda, MD: American Zoo and Aquarium Association. WIESE, R. J., HUTCHINS, M., WILLIS, K. & BECKER, S. (Eds) (1992): 1991-1992 AAZPA annual report on conservation and science. Bethesda, MD: American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. WIESE, R. J., SEAL, U. S., SOEMARNA, K., RAMONO, W., SMITH, D. & TILSON, R. L. (1993): Vortex anal-


yses for major Sumatran protected areas. Tiger Beat 6: 6-11. WIESE, R. J., WILLIS, K., BOWDOIN, J. & HUTCHINS, M. (Eds) (1993): 1992-1993 AAZPA annual report on conservation and science. Bethesda, MD: Amer- ican Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. WIESE, R. J., WILLIS, K. & HUTCHINS, M. (1994): Is genetic and demographic management conservation?

WILDT, D. E. (1989): Reproductive research in conservation biology: priorities and avenues for support. J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 2 0 391-395. WILLIS, K. & WIESE, R. J. (1993): Effect of new foun- ders on retention of gene diversity in captive popu-

ZOO Bid . 1 3 291-299.

Int. Zoo Yb. (1995) 34: 13C135

lations: a formalization of the nucleus population concept. Zoo Biol. 12: 535-548. WILSON, E. 0. (Ed.) (1988): The current state of biodiversity. In Biodiversity: 3-18. Washington, DC, National Academy Press. WRUIUCNLJNEP (1992): Global biodiversity strategy. Baltimore: World Resources Institute and Gland: IUCN. WSPA & BORN FREE FOUNDATION (1994): Zoo inquiry. London: World Society for the Protection of Animals and Dorking, Surrey: Born Free Foundation.

Manuscript submitted 13 January 1995

0 The Zoological Society of London

Allwetter Zoo, Munster: Wildlife conservation activities in Vietnam WOLFGANG P. PETER’ & €3. JORG ADLER2 Zoologist and 2ZoologicaE Director, Allwetterzoo Munster, Sentruper Str. 315, 48161 Munster, Germany

The ecological disaster which has overtaken Vietnam as the result of 17 years of war has been exacerbated by continuing deforestation and hunting for food and trade. The country’s two zoos and seven national parks lack adequate resources. This paper reports on the work of the Munster Zoo as an inter- mediary between the wildlife authorities in Vietnam and European zoos. The resulting co-operation has provided support for particular projects for threatened species and enabled the provision of equipment and finance, as well as training at home and overseas for national park personnel.

Formerly one of South-east Asia’s richest countries in primary forest and animal species, Vietnam has suffered environmental devastation. During the war, which ended 17 years ago, 72 million litres of herbicide, 13 million tons of explosives and about 400000 tons of napalm were dropped. Almost two million hectares of forest were destroyed and the country was riddled with bomb craters. By the end of the war only 20-25% of Vietnam, which

had been almost totally wooded, was still covered with forest and only 2-2.5% of it was intact primary forest (MacKinnon, 1985).

After the war the destruction of the landscape continued and there remains a continuing battle to protect the remaining forests from the timber industry and uncontrolled hunting and poaching. Recent reports on local flora and fauna give rise to concern about the status of endemic species, many of which are listed in the I994 IUCN red list of threatened animals (Groombridge, 1993).

Several primate taxa that are confined to or have a significant percentage of their world population in Vietnam, are threatened with extinction through forest destruction, hunting for food, medicine or the illegal animal trade. These include the Douc langur Pygathrix nernaeus and Pygathrix n. nigripes, FranGois or Tonkin