You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘policy’ tag.

The Canary Islands sound very interesting. You can access some GIS data via Google Earth, thanks to the Canary Islands Spatial Data Infrastructure.

As well as 50% of their vertebrate species (Juan et al., 2000), 21 non-migratory vertebrate species, and 7 birds (Blanco and Gonzalez, 2002), endemic fauna of the Canary Islands include 5 bird of prey subspecies: the Canarian Egyptian Vulture (or Guirre), a Common Buzzard, a Eurasian Sparrowhawk, two Eurasian Kestrel subspecies, and a Barn Owl. The Islands are also home to Barbary Falcons and Ospreys (Palacios, 2004).

The Canarian Egyptian Vulture is an endangered bird now restricted largely to Fuerteventura and to two territories on Lanzarote. The subspecies declined rapidly due to collisions with power lines, poisoning, and increased tourism, and in 2000 there was estimated to be only 25-30 breeding pairs (Donázar et al., 2002).

The European Commission’s LIFE (Financial Instrument for the Environment) project for Spain planned to introduce measures to protect the Canarian Egyptian vulture by October 2009:

A 50% reduction in the adult mortality through collision with power lines will be attained by introducing corrective measures in the island’s power lines. An increase of 20% in the breeding success will be achieved through reinforced surveillance of nesting areas. Surveillance and awareness raising measures will be implemented with the aim to reduce the use of poison. Finally, to avoid the potential threat of famines, three controlled middens will be created with the collaboration of local livestock breeders.

Middens are also known as ‘vulture restaurants’, and are basically areas with a constant supply of carcasses (provided by humans) so food availability for the birds is never erratic. This would hopefully encourage breeding and improve survival, thereby increasing the number of birds and helping to establish a sustainable population. Sounds like a great example of a simple and easily implemented conservation method, right?

Sort of.

In an article in this January’s Animal Conservation by a team from CSIC (Spanish National Research Council) including a member of the team that originally described the species in the first place (Donázar et al., 2002), it was found that, when artificial ground-nesting birds‘ nests were placed along lines 200m to 34km from vulture restaurants (as summarised on Nature Data) “of the 67% lines predated by carrion-eaters, 90% of nests were attacked.”

It’s never simple, is it?

At least it’s predictably never simple. The complexities of population dynamics are mind-blowing, but by anticipating that there are complexities and learning more about the ecosystems, reserve management continually gets more effective.


Blanco JC, Gonzalez JL, 1992. “Libro rojo de los vertebrados de Espana.” (Red List of the vertebrates of Spain) Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentacion, Madrid, Spain. (via Donázar, 2002)

Cortés-Avizanda A, Carrete M, Serrano D, Donázar JA, 2009. “Carcasses increase the probability of predation of ground-nesting birds: a caveat regarding the conservation value of vulture restaurants.” Animal Conservation, 12(1): 85-88, doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2008.00231.x (CSIC, full pdf here)

Donázar JA, Negro JJ, Palacios CJ, Gangoso L, Godoy JA, Ceballos O, Hiraldo F, Capote N, 2002. “Description of a new subspecies of the Egyptian Vulture (Accipitridae: Neophron percnopterus) from the Canary Islands.” Journal of Raptor Research 36(1): 17–23 (CSIC, full pdf here)

Juan C, Emerson BC, Oromí P, Hewitt GM, 2000. “Colonization and diversification: towards a phylogeographic synthesis for the Canary Islands.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15: 104-109, doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01776-0 (Universitat de les Illes Balears)

Palacios JC, 2004. “Current status and distribution of birds of prey in the Canary Islands.” Bird Conservation International, 14:3:203-213, doi: 10.1017/S0959270904000255 (CSIC)

There has been a bit of a brouhaha, to say the least, over the National Park Service’s press release distributed on 10th March saying they were going to phase out all ammo and tackle containing lead by 2010.

First off, let’s have a look at what a ban on lead ammo and tackle would actually mean. What it applies to is the use of bullets and shots (the little lead spheres that go inside cartridges), and sinkers (attached to the end of a fishing line to get a better cast distance and to weigh down the lure) in National Parks. This ban certainly doesn’t equate to a ban on hunting (the NRA is not a force to be taken lightly) and, as mentioned in the press release, non-toxic alternatives (tungsten, copper, and steel) are pretty freely available throughout the USA. The California Department of Fish and Game has produced this list of approved non-lead ammo manufacturers, and there’s a similar list of approved non-lead shots for wildfowl hunting by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

So why ban lead, anyway? Well, you probably already know that lead is bad for people, which is why you won’t see any new lead plumbing (including solder), lead paint, or leaded petrol in the UK and elsewhere. Here is a really good list of things that lead has been shown to do to people (by mimicking calcium in the body’s chemical reactions), from lowering our IQ, turning us into criminals, and causing schizophrenia to killing us. Lead was used for so long in plumbing because it is so non-corrosive (i.e. non-biodegradable), so over time it can build up to toxic levels (bioaccumulate). Although absorption of lead via skin contact is very low, absorption of ingested lead is much higher and can build up, especially if you’re a carnivore and therefore eating lots of things with low levels of lead them. It all adds up.

For instance, lead poisoning is of particular concern for birds of prey, which eat the carcasses of animals that may have been shot with lead ammo. Lead poisoning is a primary cause of death in the critically endangered California Condor, and it’s already illegal to shoot deer, bear, wild pig, elk, pronghorn antelope as well as coyotes, ground squirrels, and other non-game wildlife in areas designated as California condor range. Just a few days ago a California Condor was taken in by the Los Angeles Zoo suffering not only from lead poisoning but also from having been shot. The Peregrine Fund (a birds of prey charity) hosted a conference last May called “Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans”, in which several papers were presented with evidence that eating game shot with lead ammo substantially increases lead concentrations in the blood (pdf here). As in humans, lead is stored in bone and soft tissues, especially kidneys and brain, impairing reproduction and causing cognitive and behavioural defects as well as tissue damage and death.

The use of lead shot when hunting waterfowl is already banned by the Fish and Wildlife Service since 1991, but is still permitted for shooting game birds in neighbouring fields (e.g. pheasants) and even to hunt snakes in the same water body. Waterfowl may be particularly susceptible to inadvertent ingestion of lead shot due to their feeding habits. For example, swans swallow grit to help with digestion, but shots are the same sort of size and shape that they can be easily confused and inadvertently ingested. According to the Swan Society, it only takes three or four shots to kill a swan, but in the major swan die-off of winter 2000/2001 up to 30 shots were found in each bird. The use of lead sinkers was made illegal in the UK over 20 years ago, and in some US states it’s illegal to sell certain lead sinkers or jigs, but nationwide the Environmental Protection Agency estimates:

approximately 2,500 metric tons of lead, zinc, and brass sinkers (over 98 percent of the volume represented by lead), an estimated 480 million sinkers, are manufactured each year in the United States.

This phenomenal number is so high because lines break not too infrequently, leaving the sinkers in the water, so they have to be replaced. You can imagine for yourself what this means for the number of lead sinkers that get lost in the US’s water bodies every year, and how much lead this constitutes. Straight Dope estimates up to 3000 tons of lead entering Canadian and US waterways annually.

So why are people still up in arms (so to speak) about switching to lead-free? I have seen a lot of people claiming that there is no evidence that lead ammo/tackle damages wildlife in any way, but there is so much evidence out there to suggest lead has dangerous implications for the health of both wildlife and humans (see the AEWA’s list of papers regarding waterbirds, the proceedings of the Peregrine Fund’s conference on spent lead ammo, and Needleman’s book “Human Lead Exposure”) that I find it hard to believe that people still believe hunting with lead can continue without repercussions. I think it’s partly about tradition and self-reliance: for a lot of people hunting can be a way to distance oneself from bureaucracy and regulation, and return to tradition. It’s also not necessarily immediately obvious that lead ammo and tackle have a detrimental effect on wildlife, because the fact that hunting is still such a popular and historic activity and there’s still wildlife to be had seems to suggest that its practice is sustainable. Consider, though, that lead sticks around in the environment and that for example in California the number of Lifetime Hunting licenses issued has tripled since 2000 to 4,159 – there is more lead in the environment now than there ever has been. Furthermore, birds of prey are already pretty rare (some more than others, after suffering hugely from other persistent toxins, e.g. DDT), so it’s not like you’re going to see them falling out of the sky en masse, but the fact that California Condors are showing up pretty regularly with lead poisoning has got to mean something, right?

Also, I’ve seen people on forums saying if they were going to get lead poisoning (and by implication if lead poisoning were an issue for serious consideration) they would have done so by now, because they used to carry lead pellets around in their mouth, and regulating lead comes under the same category as constantly using anti-bacterial hand wash. One problem with that is that and that although absorption of lead through the skin may be minimal, absorption of ingested lead is considerably higher, especially in children (40%). The effects of low levels of lead may also not be immediately obvious or expected – behavioural changes, problems with hand-eye co-ordination, hyperactivity, lowered IQ and cognitive function, higher incidence of miscarriage, impotence, abdominal pain, etc. But the thing you have to bear in mind is that lead may build up in the body’s soft tissues and over time more serious effects can be seen, in some cases leading to death. See Herbert Needleman’s book “Human Lead Exposure” and LEAD Action News’ list of referenced effects of human lead exposure for papers on lead toxicity in humans. When it comes to equivalent effects in wildlife, it’s also important to consider that feeding habits (whether it’s birds of prey feeding on big game killed with lead ammo or swans inadvertently swallowing shot along with grit) and animal size are factors.

To cut a long story short, this is a very complex issue, and although there is an awful lot of support for the ban, there is also an awful lot of opposition. As a result of this, on the 18th of March NPS issued a new press release, effectively backtracking:

1. Nothing has changed for the public. We are simply announcing the NPS goal of eliminating lead from NPS activities to protect human and wildlife health.
2. We will work to clean our own house by altering NPS resource management activities. In 2009, we will transition to non-lead ammunition in culling operations and dispatching sick or wounded animals.
3. In the future, we will look at the potential for transitioning to non-lead ammunition and non-lead fishing tackle for recreational use by working with our policy office and appropriate stakeholders/groups. This will require public involvement, comment, and review.

I was quite saddened and frustrated by this, but I am ever-hopeful that by effective provision of information and public involvement by the NPS and other environmentally-minded people, those that opposed this ban this round will consider the effect that lead-containing hunting tools are having on wildlife and come to understand that the benefits of a lead ban are worth the minimal hassle of using non-toxic alternatives.

I’m just reading this article in BioScience by Steve Nash, “Ecotourism and Other Invasions”, about how the Galapagos archipelago has been suffering under the ecotourism boom.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) has designated the Galápagos and its surrounding marine reserve a World Heritage site, but in 2007 added them to another list: World Heritage in Danger. An assessment team warned that without fundamental changes in how the islands’ human population is managed, the chances for conservation of its natural systems are “slim.” Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa issued an emergency decree stating that Galápagos National Park is “at risk” and called its conservation a national priority.

It’s not hard to see that the pull for tourism is huge, both for the tourists and the industry. According to Nash, the number of visitors in 2008 was 180,000, each paying a $100 entrance fee, with tourism adding $250 million every year to Ecuador’s gross domestic product. For that, they can get right up close to a number of species that they will only ever see on that particular island, and imagine that their experience is somewhat linked that of Darwin himself when he used his observations of native wildlife to develop his theory of natural selection. Potentially life-changing, no doubt. There are of course potential downsides to this, and some regulations are in place.

Most tours are run from comparatively small cruise ships staffed by government-certified naturalist guides. Tour groups visit only a few of the islands in the archipelago, and they must troop around … on well-marked paths with knowledgeable, vigilant guides. Compare all that with, say, Yellowstone and its environs.

However, tourists don’t arrive in sterile bubbles like Glinda the Good Witch, unfortunately – they arrive in boats and planes. And chances are they’re not the only arrivals. Any manager of an island reserve with fragile indigenous wildlife should know that boats and planes bring all sorts of non-native animals and plants with them that could potentially totally mash up the ecosystem. Take the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) for instance, a species native to Eurasia which has been spread by ship hulls to all over the shop. It now costs the US millions of dollars every year to make sure zebra mussels aren’t clogging up pipes (sewer pipes may back up and that’s pretty unpleasant, but if a power plant water intake pipe is blocked it can cause the power plant to overheat, with more serious consequences) and consuming algae in such quantities that native species are booted out and the make-up of the local algal population is totally changed (which in turn will have an impact on the make-up of the benthic or bottom-dwelling population) with the result of more of a certain kind of blue-green alga and the toxins it produces.

Furthermore, with increased tourism there is also increased demand for labour, which is especially attractive in a country where, according to the World Bank, “between 2001 and 2004, youth unemployment increased from 14.8 percent to 21.6 percent of the total labor force”, leading to a steadily increasing residential population. The number of both tourists and inhabitants means there’s actually a considerable amount of sea and air traffic around the Galapagos, and it has apparently been severely lacking in cleaning protocols, and import inspection processes and fines. Without fines, what incentive is there to prevent the spread of invasives?

According to one of the more colorful passages in the UNESCO report, the old cargo boats that come over from the mainland, which have no refrigeration, systematic decontamination, rodent control, or cleaning protocols, “could hardly be better breeding grounds for all types of potential invasive species and diseases, as organic residues rot among pools of stagnant water in their rat and cockroach infested holds.” … Incoming aircraft routinely release ants, roaches, moths, mosquitoes, and other insects from cockpits, cabins, and cargo holds.

… The impacts are showcased along a trail within the national park that rises steeply to Cerro Crocker, the highest point on Santa Cruz island. Exotic smooth-billed anis, introduced by local farmers, account for most of the visible bird life. Hikers have to step around mounds made by one of several species of introduced fire ants. This trail ran through a highland thick with native Miconia bushes until the 1990s. Then alien quinine trees invaded thousands of hectares, shading out and killing native vegetation and altering the rest of the ecosystem. Years of arduous tree-by-tree application of herbicide by teams of laborers has created a forest of dead snags. But their work has reclaimed only a tiny fraction of the parkland that the quinine trees now dominate.

But of course there are many interests playing a part in this, and ecosystem services is apparently not the most powerful one. Raquel Molina was only park director for a bit less than two years, but in that short time fought the good fight, and ended up in hospital with serious injuries after being severely beaten at the local Baltra air base (along with other park wardens) while the comandante watched, for confronting military officials about illegal tourist operations they were running right smack in the middle of the sea turtle nesting ground. Molina was eventually fired last year for refusing entry to a cruise ship with iffy papers. The illegal fishing industry has been partly booming (.4 million sharks fished for their fin every year, despite the practice being illegal since 2004) and partly bust due to previous over-harvesting. Mmmm, healthy(!)

The implication of all this would seem to be that the Galapagos is screwed. The tourism industry is so powerful that the reason for its existence is no longer important. But what will they do when the marine iguanas are all gone, the rats kill off the mangrove finch, and the land is dominated by fire ant mounds? I wonder if they have considered that damage to the ecosystem causes damage to ecotourism.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel. Or at least a potential light. Which is that there’s a new constitution, as of September. As well as granting higher pensions for the poor and preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation, it also gives the ecosystem the inalienable right “to exist, flourish and evolve within Ecuador. Those rights shall be self-executing, and it shall be the duty and right of all Ecuadorian governments, communities, and individuals to enforce those rights.” Sounds good, doesn’t it? I would be very interested to see the practical results of the charter, and if the people enforcing it receive similar treatment to Raquel Molina.

There is of course a wider message in this, which is that tourism or other money-based interests can become an inconquerable behemoth if you don’t enforce checks right from the start. If there’s not enough public support to actually enforce the checks, then the eco-community needs to be doing a hell of a lot more to show that it’s important. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that ecotourism that damages the ecosystem is entirely self-destructive.

There’s an article by Marcelino Fuentes also in February’s BioScience called “The Tragedy of Political Services” in which the author argues that voters are largely biased and ignorant and therefore unable to make decisions about ecosystem services (i.e. nature reserve policy and regulations) and that private ownership would solve this. I totally disagree (and thankfully so too do the authors of the original article Fuentes was replying to). After all, 64% of voters approved Ecuador’s new constitution.

A great way to prevent ignorance is to actually provide information, and be proactive in explaining to people why a certain policy affects their lives. Because it invariably does. That’s why we do this, isn’t it?