60 Commentaries

of individuals and groups in the conservation field. If, together as a community, we can share the vision, feel pleased with the successes, and learn from the mistakes we make individually, we might actually win the war on wildlife. Appendix. Holistic activities surrounding CBSG process workshops

appropriate educational materials and programmes.

in the wild from a wide range of agencies and organizations which may not otherwise collaborate.

distribution to zoos holding the species, protected area managers, conservation organizations, and others who are in position to do grassroots work.

series of issues, sent to subscribers and to all persons on special interest mailing list for species.

publication of key materials also in monthly magazine.

generation of additional volume of previously unpublished material by local professionals.

1 . Status and management survey of targeted species in captivity in Indian zoos, coordinated with

2. Collation of census data, published and unpublished literature, and other information on species

3. Manufacture and free distribution of educational materials with reference to the species;

4. Publication of key materials about the species in monthly compendium issue (ZOO ZEN) or a

5 . Sequential series of mailings with preliminary process materials on PHVA to special interest list;

6. Production of briefing material with emphasis on articles and information by local professionals;

7. PHVA, GASP, min-CAMP exercise, etc. 8. Veterinary and Husbandry Workshops (held twice following PHVA); production and wide

9. Briefing Books for PHVA distributed free to zoos holding species, to Chief Wildlife Wardens of distribution of veterinary and husbandry briefing material.

range states, to key governmental officials, to universities with wildlife biology programs, and to Zoological Survey of India branches. 10. Rapid production of Draft Report and wide distribution throughout wildlife department and zoo community as a Special Issue of our monthly publication. 11. Follow-up of recommendations by contacting people responsible for various tasks and provision of information, educational material, and (whenever possible) contacts for funding. 12. Preparation for next step in the process.

General activities under CBSG network

13. Participation in training courses organized by other agencies highlighting international cooperation and interactive management; provision of technical materials for same. 14. Wide distribution of SSC Taxon Specialist Group newsletters and other scientific materials from specialist groups and workshops to appropriate individuals and agencies locally. 15. Forwarding of queries about a variety of conservation issues to individuals or agencies able to provide answers, etc.

Strategic Collection Planning From an Australasian Viewpoint. Christine Hopkins and Peter C. Stroud, Australasian Species Management Program, Mosman, New South Wales, Australia (C. H.); Werribee Zoological Park (l?C.S.).

In “Strategic Collection Planning: Theory and Practice,” Hutchins et al. attempt to describe the process of strategic collection planning as it operates currently in the world zoo community, and to offer criticisms and suggestions aimed at improving its efficiency and effectiveness. However, the authors’ critique seems to be focused on the North American scene, and several of their recommendations for improving the collection planning process may be of little value when considered elsewhere. It is probably not valid, in fact, to suggest that a single collection planning process is currently employed globally. The rapid development of a global species conservation planning network is phenomenal in its lack of formal processes and structures, and the application of collection planning processes varies even between the major regional zoo associations. The points raised here in response to the paper by Hutchins et al. reflect our experiences with institutional and regional collection planning in Australasia through the activities of the Australasian Species Management Program (ASMP), and its interface with global collection planning processes.

Commentaries 61

Having indicated that the processes of planning are applied differently in different regions, we acknowledge that the need to plan is universal. Hutchins et al. make clear the urgency with which the planning process needs to be addressed, and we agree with their assertion that failure to plan will cost the zoo community greatly. Their contention that the long-term benefits of collection planning outweigh short-term costs, including the perceived reduction in the autonomy of zoos, is supported by experiences gained in Australasia to date.

The levels at which collection planning take place are adequately described, although the cited categories of global captive breeding recommendations generated through the CAMP/GCAP process are outdated [IUCN/SSC, 1994al. Further, GCAPs have been redefined as Global Captive Action Recom- mendations (GCARs) [IUCN/SSC, 1994bl. These changes are not acknowledged, although the adoption of the GCAR terminology by the CBSG has been made in response to concerns, clearly shared by the authors, that earlier GCAP documents have sometimes been regarded, inappropriately, as being fully prescriptive.

The planning process is made to seem necessarily chronological in nature, and much is made of The World Zoo Conservation Strategy extract:

Once RCP proposals for a given taxon have been formulated in various regions of the world, global attunement and coordination should result in the establishment of Global Captive Action Plans (GCAPs) [IUDZGICBSG (IUCN/SSC), 19931.

Our reading of this statement is that development of a draft GCAP (now GCAR) is in no way precluded in cases where regional programs have so far neglected to produce regional collection plan proposals for given taxa. The World Zoo Conservation Strategy goes on to stress that the formation of regional collection plans and GCARs is a dynamic process, and will require continuous development and modi- fication. In our view, the initiation of the planning process for a taxon is preferable to no action at all. This includes cases where the draft GCAR requires significant alteration following contributions from regional programs.

The authors’ suggestion for new and broader criteria for the selection of species-for a new para- digm-is constructive, but assumes that the apparent lack of such criteria in North America is mirrored globally. The development of species selection criteria was fundamental to the initial collection planning activities of the Australasian Species Management Program (ASMP) [Phipps and Hopkins, 1990; Aus- tralasian Species Management Program, 199 11, and issues of species selection are continually revisited through the work of Taxon Advisory Groups that are responsible for generating recommendations that cover all species in ASMP collections. These criteria were necessarily never restricted to a consideration of the wild status of a species, but included biogeographical significance, phylogenetic uniqueness, potential for use in educational programs or as analogues for threatened species, usefulness as “flagship” species, cultural significance, adaptability to captivity, availability of founders, and the potential for successful reintroduction. The use of broad selection criteria is reflected in the terminology applied to our species-based work. Species Management Plans (SMPs) are formulated to facilitate regional management of a species or subspecies, regardless of whether the underlying need for regional management is the production of stock for reintroduction into the wild or to ensure the proliferation of captive stock for educational displays and husbandry research.

The suggestion that the flagship concept be adopted as it relates to long-term breeding programs is well reasoned but is not new. We contend that allowing this to become the principle focus of zoo-based conservation efforts would be a dangerous move. Solely targeting flagship species allows our work to remain in the abstract, without the need or clear means of demonstrating progress. A change in the wild status of a species as a result of a structured recovery effort is more easily defined as “progress” than is an improved level of public awareness of a species. Australasian zoos will continue to consider high profile, potential flagship species for their international programs, but will seek to become key players in the establishment and operation of more interagency species recovery programs within Australasia. We are now extending this effort to Southeast Asia and the Pacific, having identified this region as a primary focus for our direct conservation work. We do therefore agree with the authors that the flagship concept has some merit, but temper this with their earlier point that zoos must strive to increase the connection between their work and the work of field biologists by operating in direct support of structured species recovery efforts.

In their discussion of suggested organizational improvement to collection planning, the authors ex- press clear concern about the activities of the SSC/CBSG. Considerable discussion is devoted to the use and misuse of the SSCKBSG’s CAMP reports and GCAPs. The tendency, absent in the Australasian region, to regard these as overly prescriptive possibly reflects a weakness in a cooperative collection

62 Commentaries

planning process which has historically been largely concerned with the development of individual SSPs (the Noah’s Ark Paradigm), rather than any faults inherent with the SSC/CBSG approach.

In Australasia, the history of institutional and regional collection planning is now over a decade long. Initial concerns about the sustainability of collections in a small and isolated zoo community led to the early consideration of cooperative plans to enhance the survival of taxa in collections. The adoption of conservation philosophies and the development of a regional data base listing entire collections fostered the development of institutional collection plans for entire collections. Selection criteria for species have been developed and refined. SSCXBSG activities continue to generate global recommendations that, through the work of a vigorous system of Taxon Advisory Groups (TAGS), facilitates the refinement of both institutional and regional plans. CAMP and GCAR documents help to direct a process where the key elements are constant communication and constant revision. We regard a draft global plan as better than no plan at all, and a lack of agreement with the contents of a first draft should only encourage thorough regional contributions to the next.

The global Rhino planning scenario as cited by Hutchins et al. seems indicative of, in this case at least, a lack of willingness on their part to embrace this valuable process. Well-reasoned criticisms of recom- mendations made in any GCAR document are most constructive when raised either during the workshop process or in response to the draft document circulation.

Hutchins et al. stress that communication and cooperation between regional captive breedinglconser- vation programs should be improved. This is incontestable. What is arguable, however, is the statement that “all plans are useless unless they are implemented.” Plans evolve, and while they must move as rapidly as possible towards implementation, a great deal is gained if a draft plan leads to a better plan.

Certainly a sense of ownership at an institutional level is essential if plans are to be implemented, but it is not clear how feelings of ownership would be enhanced if GCARs and GASPS were to become more exclusively the province of the captive breeding community under the IUDZG’s Committee for Inter- Regional Conservation Coordination (CIRCC). That body currently has no resources, but communicates informally via a newsletter produced in the offices of the authors. The authors do not appear to acknowl- edge clearly the essential link between broader SSCKBSG activities and the collection planning process. Indeed, from the Australasian perspective there appear to be real advantages in a situation where a wider range of authorities, including those closer to the field, contribute to the process of identifying priorities for captive breeding. In Australasia, SSC Specialist Groups and wildlife agencies have produced Action Plans covering most native vertebrates [Garnet, 1992; IUCN/SSC Australasian Marsupial and Monotreme Specialist Group, 1992; Cogger et al., 1993; Lee, 19931. By taking action on the captive breeding recommendations made by these broad-based groups, Australasian zoos are able to enhance their con- servation role in the region, while increasing the level of trust and cooperation between zoo and field biologists. In much of the world, it is now the SSCICBSG processes that are facilitating the setting of such captive breeding priorities by the broad conservation community.

We agree with the pressing need to develop institutional collection plans so long as it is done on a whole collection basis. The listing of planned numbers for an entire zoo collection is an important first step in focusing attention on the validity or invalidity of prevailing conceptions about the role and purpose of that collection. Through a rigorous TAG process, recommendations can be made which are aimed at focusing the regional collection plan and, by extension, each institutional collection plan on predefined objectives.

The success of this process hinges on strong communication between all parties, and several mech- anisms established in Australasia to facilitate the planning process have now matured into indispensable elements of our operations. These mechanisms include the Regional Animal Species Collection Planning software (REGASP), the annually produced Regional Census & Plan, and an electronic communications system linking an participating institutions to each other and to the ASMP offices [Hopkins, 1993; Australasian Species Management Program, 1994a,b]. These mechanisms are now accessed by wildlife agencies, including New Zealand’s Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Australian Nature Canservation Agency (formally Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service). The suggestion that a data base be established with links to the ISIS data bases is not new. REGASP, developed in collaboration with ISIS, is designed to be fully compatible with the ISIS Animal Records Keeping System and to complement the functions of that system. A demonstration version of REGASP has been distributed to regional programs worldwide in order to gauge interest and to solicit input into any further developments.

In our view, the greatest hindrances to the development of sound and well-reasoned regional collection plans have not been addressed by the authors. Our experience indicates that the primary hindrance is not the premature production of CAMPS and GCARs by the SSCKBSG, but the use of a single-species or taxon-group approach to planning. Individual zoos are better able to commit to a single program if they

Commentaries 63

can weigh the cost against whole collection considerations. In Australasia, progress with priority species has been enhanced by the production of a regional plan incorporating all species currently held, and those for which acquisition is planned.

A second significant hindrance is the fear of getting it wrong. Plans should be expected to constantly evolve. It doesn’t matter at what level pen is first put to paper (global, regional, or institutional). Nor does it matter which individuals or organizations are credited with the production of the plan. The critical factor is to map out a potential course of action and then allow the plan to develop with input from all quarters and in reflection of an ever-changing environment. The most important element of all in this process is the commitment of individuals within institutions, and a willingness to engage in truly open and con- structive dialogue. To facilitate the process, it is at least as important, currently, to break down proprietary feelings and hierarchical considerations as it is to reconstmct them. The SSC/CBSG has been outstanding in its ability to help contributors conquer this fear of getting it wrong and to facilitate the contribution of individuals and institutions.

The stated purpose of the paper was to “review and critique the strategic collection planning process currently employed by the world’s zoological community. ” Unfortunately, processes adopted in Aus- tralasia are inadequately covered, and the authors propose significant alterations to elements of the current global collection planning network which are not universally recognized as being deficient.

References Australasian Species Management Program. AN-

NUAL REPORT 1990/Y 1. Sydney, Australia, Australasian Species Management Program, 1991.

Australasian Species Management Program. AN- NUAL REPORT 1992/93. Sydney, Australia, Australasian Species Management Program, 1994a.

Australasian Species Management Program. RE- GIONAL CENSUS AND PLAN, 1994. Sydney, Australia, Australasian Species Management Program, 1994b.

Cogger, H.G.; Cameron, E.E.; Sadlier, R. A,; Eggler, P. THE ACTION PLAN FOR AUSTRA- LIAN REPTILES. Canberra, Australia, Austra- lian Nature Conservation Agency, 1993.

Garnett, S. THE ACTION PLAN FOR AUSTRA- LIAN BIRDS. Canberra, Australia, Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1992.

Hopkins, C. Australasian Regional Report. CBSG

IUCN/SSC Australasian Marsupial and Mono- treme Specialist Group. AUSTRALASIAN MARSUPIALS AND MONOTREMES: AN

TION. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 1992.

NEWS 4(3):4-6, 1993.

ACTION PLAN FOR THEIR CONSERVA-

IUCN/SSC Captive Breeding Specialist Group.

CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT AND MAN- AGEMENT PLAN (CAMP) WORKSHOP REF- ERENCE MATERIAL PACKET. Minneapolis, MN, IUCN/SSC Captive Breeding Specialist Group, 1994a.

IUCN/SSC Captive Breeding Specialist Group. GLOBAL CAPTIVE ACTION RECOMMEN-

ENCE MATERIAL PACKET. Minneapolis, MN, IUCN/SSC Captive Breeding Specialist Group, 1994b.

IUDZGiCBSG (IUCNiSSC). THE WORLD ZOO CONSERVATION STRATEGY; THE ROLE OF ZOOS & AQUARIA OF THE WORLD IN GLOBAL CONSERVATION. Brookfield, IL, Chicago Zoological Society, 1993.

Lee, A.K. THE ACTION PLAN FOR AUSTRA- LIAN RODENTS (DRAFT FOR COMMENT). Canberra, Australia, Australian Nature Conser- vation Agency, 1993.

Phipps, G.; Hopkins, C. A Regional Species Man- agement Plan For Australasian Zoos: Its Estab- lishment and Implementation Using The Regasp Package. BULLETIN OF ZOO MANAGE- MENT, Number 28. Association of Zoo Direc- tors of Australia and New Zealand, Adelaide, Australia, 1990. pp 53-76.

DATIONS (GCAR) WORKSHOP REFER-

Commentary on “Strategic Collection Planning: Theory and Practice.” Tom Foose, International Rhino Foundation, Columbus, Ohio.

These comments on the paper ‘‘Strategic Collection Planning: Theory and Practice” by Hutchins et al. are provided by a person who formerly was very involved with the early stages of strategic collection planning at both regional and global levels, and who currently is very much involved with the develop- ment of the rhinoceros GCAP (and GASPS) which Hutchins et al. cite. Many others are providing commentaries on this paper. Hence, there has been an attempt to limit these comments to some additional information and thoughts, to correct some omissions and other problems perceived by this reviewer, in the Hutchins et al. paper. Many of these perceived problems relate to the historical development of some of the concepts, processes, or entities discussed by Hutchins et al.