Abstract
One of the most critical events for aviculturists world-wide is the biennial meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (C.I. T.E.S.). The parties to the convention met in Lausanne, Switzerland, for two long weeks of daily sessions in October, 1989. It is referred to as C.I.T.E.S. #7 because this is the seventh time the group has met.
And it was the first time that there has been a visible presence of aviculturists from North America. Previously, we had waited at home for word of what had happened, fearful and impotent. In C.l.T.E.S. #6, they placed all parrotfamily birds in a controlled, limitedtraffic status in our absence, and against the will of most aviculturists. This time we were a part of the discussion, had a noticeable presence, and we were spared any too-objectionable action.
The AFA appointed a committee to work on preparations for the meeting. Under the leadership of Lee Phillips as Chair, the committee researched the avian issues and came up with position statements that reflected the perceptions of the committee members and a number of specialists who were contacted by the committee. I am happy to report that the position of the AFA was presented verbally during the debates on several of the issues and that the final action taken in every case was consistent with the AFA position. We won this one.
The major issues for aviculture centered around the Madagascar Lovebird, the Illigers Macaw, the Tucuman Parrot and the Moluccan Cockatoo.
It was proposed that the Madagascar Lovebird (Agapornis cana) be moved from Appendix II (the intermediate stage) to Appendix III (the least restrictive). At the last minute, the delegation withdrew the proposal because of an accident to the team working on the project. It remains on Appendix II.
There are three lists. Appendix I includes species genuinely endangered, where any removal of birds from the wild would likely be disastrous to the survival of the species in the wild. Absolutely no traffic is permitted in any Appendix I species. Not even a zoo is able to import such. Appendix II lists birds that are in trouble. Only if the exporting nation is willing may such species move across international lines, and the receiving nation is required to monitor imports carefully and cooperate with the exporting nation. Nearly all psittacines and all hummingbirds are on Appendix II. Species are added to the first two appendices only by the action of the entire C.l.T.E.S. convention. But any nation may add a species to Appendix III. This is a sort of "waiting room" in which the species is being watched by everyone and evidence is being gathered to determine if it should go to Appendix I or II.
The Illgiers Macaw (Ara maracana) discussion was intensive but rather brief. The Secretariat of C.l.T.E.S. picked up a point that had been made by the AFA report to the effect that there is now virtually no international traffic in the Illigers, and that moving it from Appendix II (where all hookbills are, except cockatiels, budgerigars and Indian Ringneck Parakeets) might give it heightened visibility, make it more attractive because of its rare status, and encourage smuggling. But the argument by others that it is now in dire straits and cannot support trapping was given greater credence and the species was moved from II to I.
Spirited discussion of the Tucuman (Amazonas tucumana) took much longer. The debate centered around whether the decision should be made now or await further field studies. I was pleased with the position taken repeatedly by the delegation from the United States of America (always specified thus to distinguish from the United States of Mexico and the United States of Brazil). The Assistant Secretary of the Interior included it in her opening statement: no action on any species should be taken without having in hand reliable scientific field research that provides valid information on which to make a decision.
In the case of the Tucuman, such studies were missing. But there was anecdotal information presented and the plea of persons who had observed the situation was sufficiently convincing that the assembly finally opted to preserve the species two more years until studies currently projected could be completed and presented to C.l.T.E.S. #8. I had some uneasy feelings about the action, but it was rather convincing that if we waited two more years to decide, there might not be any field specimens to study. It appears to be extinct in Brazil and is rarely sighted in Bolivia.
The pre-convention research by the AFA committee had shown that the Tucuman is being bred rather freely in this country and that as far as aviculture is concerned, we could get along without added imports. Shortly after returning from the Lausanne meeting, I met with a central-Indiana bird club and asked if anyone present was having success with breeding Tucumans. Two persons said they had pairs that are prolific. And Indiana is hardly a psittacine mecca.
The most intense discussion of an avian species was of the Moluccan Cockatoo (Cacatua moluccensis). There are some statistics available and they were not encouraging. One study of annual export figures showed that the government had authorized the catching of 5,000 birds but that 8,000 had been shipped out. That was through normal channels. There are, of course, no scientific figures for illegal shipments, of which there are presumed to be many. The main reason for disappearance of the species is destruction of habitat (this is the basic reason for reduction of numbers of most species), but this bird's roosting habits make it especially vulnerable in that it roosts in large concentrations and lends itself to capture in large numbers.
In support of continuing the Moluccan on Appendix II, Indonesia asserted that the species is a pest to agriculture, that the capture and export of the birds had significant economic value to residents of the area. It was suggested that final action be delayed if the government would agree not to issue export permits until adequate scientific studies could be completed, but the convention was reluctant to delay protection of the species, so it is now on Appendix I.
Hallway gossip prior to the discussion indicated that perhaps the compromise on the Tucuman would be for insertion of a microchip in each legally imported specimen so as to give positive identification of the bird. The main barrier seems to have been the cost, but the mere suggestion opens up a whole new field of avian technology.
The use of the microchip with salmon has been quite successful. It is a tiny, round tube about 1/32" by 1/2" that is inserted under the skin and remains there for the life of the fish. Each chip produces a unique number that will distinguish it from millions of other fish. The number appears on a scanning device similar to the hand-held electronic devices used at airports to detect metal on passengers. One of the distributors had demonstrations at the meeting. Although there are a few questions yet to be clarified, it does have definite promise for use with birds.
Inserted under the skin of a bird at the end of the quarantine period, it would be as certain identification as a closed band and would prove that the bird had entered the country legally. In addition, it would be absolute identification of that individual specimen.
The cost of the insert runs around $7 each and the reading device costs about $2,500. This would never work for the cheaper birds that come in by the thousands from Africa, but it has real possibilities with the big birds with a high enough price tag that another $7 would not be noticed.