FTW! Liberia quashing corruption & making more strides towards nature conservation

Hot on the heals of banning bushmeat exportation, President Sirleaf is now tackling corruption in the nation's carbon credit schemes.-MA

Map of Liberia's forest cover from Jonathan Davies' blog

From the Guardian
Liberia's inquiry into a carbon offsetting deal is a vital step forward
The country will ensure inward investment is for the benefit of its people
BY FRANK HAWKINS (senior vice-president, Africa and Madagascar division, for Conservation International)

You report that "a British company's proposal to rent out one-fifth of Liberia's forests for carbon offsetting could have bankrupted the impoverished west African state" (UK firm's carbon offset deal 'could have bankrupted Liberia', 24 July). While this was certainly accurate reporting, it also missed a vital point – that this marks a vital step forward for Liberia.

The article outlined an investigation into the proposal to manage Liberia's forests for carbon offsetting. But "if Liberia's forests had failed to deliver the full estimated number of carbon credits … it could have been liable to make up the difference to a maximum of $2.2bn". Liberia's GDP last year was around $1.6bn.

Such a story could lead one to worry that Liberia is not ready to benefit from international finance in return for improving the management of its forests. But actually, it demonstrates quite the reverse. The article, which reports that the government has launched an inquiry into the deal, shows that Liberia is prepared to address potential corruption and ensure that investment in the country is for the benefit of its people rather than a few individual interests.

The government has said that if it is to enter the carbon market, it will uphold the highest standards for climate, community and biodiversity benefits, and transparency and good governance are key to reducing deforestation.

The parties that revealed the flaws in the proposal deserve praise for their vigilance. But the critical difference between Liberia today and 10 years ago is that this is now a nation that listens to criticisms, investigates and takes swift action. Given its recent history, this is a revelation.

The nation has been shattered by 15 years of civil war and desperately needs to rebuild, but its entire annual national budget is a meagre $372m (according to the president's website), less than that of many British local authorities. So if we are to preserve these forests we need to find a means of generating money from them other than the timber industry and conversion to agriculture.

Deforestation is responsible for nearly 17% of global carbon emissions – more than the entire global transport sector – and Liberia is home to nearly two-thirds of the remaining rainforest in west Africa. Preventing the loss of Liberia's forests is vitally important in mitigating climate change, and is also essential in preventing the further loss of the area's unique biodiversity.

My organisation, Conservation International, has been working with local partners and the Liberian government to help build a green economy in which it can meet its development needs without compromising the environment – but it's going to take time, effort and determination to help this nation reach its potential. Support from a responsible private sector, investing in ecosystem services for sustainable economic growth, will be a key component of this.

So let's give credit to Liberia for shutting down a potentially dodgy deal and moving forward in a prudent manner, rather than reinforcing the western belief that Africa is inescapably corrupt.

---
Original Article
from the Guardian
British deal to preserve Liberia's forests 'could have bankrupted' nation
Investigation launched over forest-saving carbon scheme in impoverished west African country
BY FELICITY CARUS

A British company's proposal to rent out one-fifth of Liberia's forests for carbon offsetting could have bankrupted the impoverished West African state, according to a former government adviser. The claim came as the Liberian government yesterday announced an interim statement on its inquiry into alleged "improprieties" surrounding the $2.2bn deal.

City of London police are assisting the Liberian authorities with the investigation launched by President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf into the deal. Police last month arrested Mike Foster, a 53-year-old British businessman from Widnes, Cheshire, on allegations of bribery after an investigation by campaigning NGO Global Witness. He was later released without charge.

Under the proposed deal seen by the Guardian, 400,000 hectares of Liberia's forests would have been granted as a concession to Carbon Harvesting Corporation (CHC), a company based in the north-west of England. CHC changed its name in 2008 from Elton Gaming Limited, which manufactured Kentucky Derby and Racing Dolphins fairground games.

Inquiry head Negabalee Warner said in a statement in Liberian capital Monrovia yesterday: "The president's communication to the committee suggested that certain procedural requirements relative to the granting of such [a] concession might not have been followed. For example, the proposal was recommended to the inter-ministerial committee without any open competitive bidding process.

"The committee has since started a rigorous review of all procedures and circumstances surrounding the awarding of the proposed carbon credit concession, including allegations of bribery and other improprieties."

Liberia is a densely forested country, a resource it could potentially use as a major source of revenue as part of a UN scheme to pay poor countries to protect their forests and reduce emissionsas the country recovers from decades of civil war. Deforestation produces around 17% of global greenhouse gas emissions and the UN's Redd (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) scheme is viewed as an effective way to cut emissions by buying carbon credits, or "offsets", from developing countries who keep their forests standing.

Carbon Harvesting Corporation first proposed a deal in 2008 that was later rejected by Liberia. The company says it requested the government's Forest Development Authority (FDA) to carry out an "initial survey report", which it said calculated that 423 tonnes of CO2 would be stored in each hectare of forest. This would have been worth 162m carbon credits to Liberia, and roughly the total C02 equivalent emitted by Venezuela.

But Thomas Downing, a financial expert employed by Liberia's anti-corruption body the Governance and Economic Management Assistance Programme (GEMAP), called the figure "unreasonably high" and advised the FDA to reject it.

He said the proposed contract was flawed to the extent that it had "no commercial value" for Liberia and advised the Forest Development Authority to reject it in 2008. He added that the estimate of emissions credits from the 400,000 hectares appeared to have been exaggerated.

But this year it emerged that a similar proposal is under consideration. Last year Downing wrote a memo to the acting head of the FDA, Kederick Johnson, in June 2009, saying: "I had understood that the Carbon Harvesting proposal had been definitively rejected. Thus I was surprised to hear that it still enjoyed some support. The proposal, if adopted, would be quite damaging to the FDA. Indeed, it could cost [Liberia] hundreds of millions of dollars. It's important that you and other decision-makers appreciate its nature."

"If the project produced less than 162 million tonnes of credits (and … failure appears likely), Carbon Harvesting could force the FDA to purchase the shortfall in the open market. This could cost hundreds of millions of dollars."

Under the contract, if Liberia's forests had failed to deliver the full estimated number of carbon credits, based on a minimum target price of around $13.5 per tonne of CO2, it could have been liable to make up the difference to a maximum of $2.2bn. The west African country, which is recovering from decades of civil war, had an estimated GDP last year of $1.6bn, according to the IMF.

Moses Wogbeh, the managing director of the FDA, said that while the review was ongoing, he was unable to comment on the reasons why the agency continued negotiations after warnings from GEMAP.

The review led by Warner is expected to be completed next month.

A spokesman said Foster denied any intention to expose Liberia to large-scale financial liabilities and declined to comment in response to Warner's statement, adding that he still considered the deal as "live" and hoped to resume negotiations with the Liberian government once the inquiry there was complete.

Orangutans weren't always found at such low densities, unsurprisingly, humans to blame

From National Geographic blogs
Hunting a key factor in orangutan's decline, study suggests
by RICHARD THOMAS

Humans entering the forests of Borneo 150 years ago were six times more likely to encounter wild orangutans than they would today, a new study finds. The researchers suspect that heavy hunting over the years is to blame. The finding means our understanding of the lives and behaviors of the great ape is based on artificially low population densities. We may need to rethink what we know about our nearest animal relative.

Hunting appears to have been significantly underestimated as a key reason for the historical decline of orangutans, according to a new study published today.

An international team of scientists noted how animal collectors operating in the mid-19th Century in Borneo [an island shared by Indonesia and Malaysia] were able to shoot orangutans on a daily basis and speculated that 150 years ago, encounter rates with the forest primates must have been far higher than they are today.

To test the hypothesis, the researchers attempted to quantify historic encounter rates from information contained in hunting accounts and museum collections and comparing them to recent field studies.

"Even after allowing for variations in the size and length of hunting and survey expeditions and other variables, we estimated that daily encounter rates with orangutans have declined by about six-fold in areas with little or no forest disturbance," said Erik Meijaard, of People and Nature Consulting International in Indonesia, the lead author of the study.

Possible explanations for the decline were examined, including habitat loss and degradation, hunting, disease, and even changes in behavior, such as animals becoming more wary in the face of human persecution.

"Although there are gaps in the data, after examining several possible explanations, we concluded that high levels of hunting was the most likely cause of the reduced encounter rates over time," said Vincent Nijman, of Oxford Brookes University, a co-author of the study.

Despite legal protection, hunting of orangutans still occurs and may have had a more significant impact on wild populations than previously realized.

According to Meijaard, recent unpublished studies in Indonesian Borneo suggest that more than 1,000 orangutans are killed annually.

Orangutans are hunted for a variety of reasons, including food, as agricultural pests, and to obtain young individuals for the pet trade.

Hanging in the balance, an assessment of trade in gibbons and orangutan in Kalimantan, Indonesia, a TRAFFIC report published in 2005, found that the vast majority of orangutans in trade were young animals, suggesting that the adult females had been hunted.

"We need to understand better how orangutan populations are affected by different levels of hunting pressure," said Nijman.

"Indeed, our findings may force us to rethink the whole biology of orangutans. Much of our current ecological understanding is possibly based on field studies of animals living at densities below those that would be imposed by food availability."

"How would the species behave if natural densities were 5 or 10 times higher than those we currently observe?"

Declining orangutan encounter rates from Wallace to the present suggest the species was once more abundant by Erik Meijaard, Alan Welsh, Marc Ancrenaz, Serge Wich, Vincent Nijman and Andrew J. Marshall, is available from PLoS One.

Richard Thomas is the communications coordinator for TRAFFIC, the UK-based wildlife trade monotiring network. This article is reproduced on Nat Geo News Watch courtesy of TRAFFIC.

The views expressed here are those of Richard Thomas or TRAFFIC and not necessarily those of the National Geographic Society.

---
REEFERNCE
Meijaard E, Welsh A, Ancrenaz M, Wich S, Nijman V, et al. (2010) Declining Orangutan Encounter Rates from Wallace to the Present Suggest the Species Was Once More Abundant. PLoS ONE 5(8): e12042. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012042

ABSTRACT
Background
Bornean orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) currently occur at low densities and seeing a wild one is a rare event. Compared to present low encounter rates of orangutans, it is striking how many orangutan each day historic collectors like Alfred Russel Wallace were able to shoot continuously over weeks or even months. Does that indicate that some 150 years ago encounter rates with orangutans, or their densities, were higher than now?

Methodology/Principal Findings
We test this hypothesis by quantifying encounter rates obtained from hunting accounts, museum collections, and recent field studies, and analysing whether there is a declining trend over time. Logistic regression analyses of our data support such a decline on Borneo between the mid-19th century and the present. Even when controlled for variation in the size of survey and hunting teams and the durations of expeditions, mean daily encounter rates appear to have declined about 6-fold in areas with little or no forest disturbance.

Conclusions/Significance
This finding has potential consequences for our understanding of orangutans, because it suggests that Bornean orangutans once occurred at higher densities. We explore potential explanations—habitat loss and degradation, hunting, and disease—and conclude that hunting fits the observed patterns best. This suggests that hunting has been underestimated as a key causal factor of orangutan density and distribution, and that species population declines have been more severe than previously estimated based on habitat loss only. Our findings may require us to rethink the biology of orangutans, with much of our ecological understanding possibly being based on field studies of animals living at lower densities than they did historically. Our approach of quantifying species encounter rates from historic data demonstrates that this method can yield valuable information about the ecology and population density of species in the past, providing new insight into species' conservation needs.

Someone Built the Perfect Green House in a Perfect Paradise

from GIZMODO.com
by JESUS DIAZ

Playa Carate, Peninsula de Osa, Costa Rica. 5% of the world biodiversity is in this place, a perfect paradise on Earth. Somehow, someone built this house in it. Loaded with green technology, it's not only pretty but 100% self-sufficient.

Created by Robles Arquitectos, the house is so isolated from civilization that it has no access to public power cables, sanitation, or water. For the latter, the house uses water from the forest, which also serves as a power source thanks to two low-impact hydroelectric turbines that crank 800kWh. In addition to the generators, the roof can provide up to 10,800kWh of electricity thanks to its panels. Additional panels heat up the water.

Everything else in the house has been designed to be energy efficient and easy to maintain:

All the proposed materials were tested in order to evaluate its behavior on the difficult environment that the Osa peninsula has because of its humidity, high percentage of rain, mould, fungi and its flora and fauna.

The whole house—which is 1 meter over the ground so it's away from its humidity—uses thermal panels, built around a steel structure. The structure itself has been designed following the same principles that make insects energy efficient, to enhance ventilation, reduced sun exposure, and provide with natural illumination for as long as possible during the day.

According to the architects, the house is the "first stage" of the ISEAMI Institute (Institute of sustainability, ecology, art, mind and investigation):

The house is the main area of the institute, therefore, it's design will serve as a multifunctional place in order to host activities as Investigation, meditation, training, Yoga and joy at the terrace located in the first level. At the same time, the Institute director will habit the house on the second level.

This whole institute feels like an excuse to build an amazing house in an amazing place, but whatever. I want to join it as much as I wanted to join those bastards of the Dharma Initiative. [

For TONS more pictures go to the original gizmodo post

More on zoos and gorilla captive breeding

Continuing the debate going on in this post on the role of zoos in conservation is this article from the guardian that discusses how much breeding gorillas in zoos makes sense from a conservation perspective. - MA

from the guardian.co.uk
London Zoo's gorilla breeding initiative is questioned by conservationists
Is our preoccupation with the species in captivity distracting from the problems they face in the wild?
by IAN TUCKER

London Zoo announced that, in August, Kesho, an 11-year-old male "blackback" gorilla will be imported from Dublin in the hope he might graduate to silverback status and breed with the females in Regent's Park.

One would find it hard to recall the last time we read a story about the baby-making issues of other under-threat species in our zoos. Why are we fascinated by gorillas and their breeding habits? Ian Redmond, a biologist and conservationist who worked with Dian Fossey in the 1970s, refers to himself as a "lifelong gorillaholic". He is consultant to the Born Free Foundation; in 2009 he was an ambassador for the UN year of the gorilla; and he taught Sigourney Weaver how to grunt like a gorilla for her role as Fossey in 1988's Gorillas in the Mist.

"We seem to be more excited by gorillas perhaps because they embody many of the characteristics we wish we had. Chimpanzees are very like us – prone to violence and mob culture sometimes – but gorillas have a reputation for being above all that."

So our interest in gorillas isn't necessarily about their fight against extinction and conservation issues are often far from our minds. Redmond finds a zoo visit "very uncomfortable".

"You see a lot of institutionalised behaviour patterns that you see in humans – rocking, plucking of hair, boredom and stress – things you don't see in the wild because there's so much going on. In the wild, they take the daily decisions, not someone else."

Such as decisions about who they breed with. As Redmond says, breeding is a tricky business among complex social mammals. Ask London Zoo: in 22-years of trying they have only managed to produce one youngster.

"In captivity, males are not competing with each other and females aren't weighing up the talent and choosing – they're presented with a male." The patter of tiny gorilla feet will only follow if they "get on".

In 2006, Bristol Zoo used IVF drugs to help produce a baby gorilla, but what practical use this has for gorillas in the wild is unclear. The 125,000 odd gorillas in the wild don't have problems breeding, the problem is with hunters, farmers and mining companies destroying their habitat, and disease.

In less enlightened times, a zoo that fancied exhibiting a gorilla would just go and catch one. These days, that's not allowed – you have to breed your own. With this, Redmond argues you begin to see the creation of a sub-species. Zoos breed a type of gorilla that knows nothing of the forest. If you were inclined to reintroduce this zoo-bred gorilla to its natural habitat, you'd have problems.

The relationship between zoos and conservation is delicate. In 2007, London Zoo handed over 10% of the £5.3m budget for its gorilla kingdom enclosure to field conservation. Yet a warden of a national park in Africa might question why 90% is spent on maintaining captive gorillas.

David Field, zoological director of London Zoo, sees breeding as a key part of its role as a "safety net". "Without the funding that comes from zoos, the programmes for protecting gorillas in the wild would not get funding."

But Redmond wonders if the preoccupation with gorillas in zoos distracts from the threats they face in the wild, "If you look at the range of organisations that fund conservation in the wild, most don't hold animals captive. Increasingly, the public asks if we're wanting to raise money for field conservation, why do we need to keep them captive?"

Human Motivation: Money doesn't work, autonomy does.

Animation to Daniel Pink's talk at Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA)

I would love to see a similar study done with graduate students. On the surface I would think we are motivated by purpose and mastery and not money (that might in fact be the definition of a grad student) but based on the "stereotype" of miserable, demotivated, procrastinating, grad student and the slave-driving supervisor (more papers! more grants!), I wonder if maybe that isn't what's happening at all...A sampling from PhD comics below-MA

Its been a tough week - here is something to smile about :)

and Eles in the snow!

For more info go to the Elephant Sanctuary website and for MANY more videos visit the elephant sanctuary's youtube page
Thanks to Tracy K and Grit S for the link!

Do we still want zoos?

Image from zoocheck Canada

Here is a 2008 article from Mongabay.com, so some of the info may be a bit dated, but it is still a great read. I definitely think that Mr. Hance makes some great points, but I don't agree with it all either. Zoos may be one of the thorniest topics in conservation, I know people who hate them and people who think they ARE conservation, and everything in between. I personally think that the Toronto Zoo played a substantial role in connecting TV and stories about nature to something more tangible and wonderous for me. It played a big role in me becoming a conservation biologist and I think it can also make other people care about our planet and all its inhabitants. At the same time, other zoos I have visited made me care more about animals rights and hate the way we treat animals (even some of the enclosure at the Toronto Zoo make me cringe).
The economics of running a zoo is tricky business. I have heard from several people over the years that the Toronto Zoo is boring because its too big and spread out. Wonderful for many of its animals, but it highlights the problem of attracting people/balancing revenue (not necessarily profit but at lest breaking even!) with animal welfare. I, like Mr. Hance, like to sit and watch animals for hours and when the zoo is at its quietest, is my favorite time to go. I know not everyone is like that though, and zoos needs to engage them as well. Nevertheless, zoos should be about education first and entertainment second (and profit way down the line) and deviating from that , loses my support.
Furthermore, some animals should simply not be kept in captivity, like elephants, big cats and apes. There are plenty of sanctuaries in Africa which can repopulate the wild populations if it really comes to that (which has all its own problems since captive-bred animals rarely do well when put back in the wild) as well as sanctuaries in North America that have taken on the responsibility of retiring entertainment and biomedical animals, (like the fauna foundation, save the chimps, the elephant sanctuary) some of which can even be visited . If people want to see elephants, zoos should either create suitable, truly suitable enclosures for them, the same size that a sanctuary can provide, or direct them to such sanctuaries (or Africa!). I think Mr. Hance is correct when he writes that an animal in a cage (or even 500 square meter paddock), pacing around, doesnt teach anyone anything and pretending it is conservation education is deliberately misleading.
The criticisms of the Minnesota Zoo are rather harsh and without understanding how the deal went down, it is impossible to judge whether it was a good or bad decision. Perhaps the deal secured long term funding for the zoo to help support it's other animals? Maybe it was a farm or no money at all. I know the Minnesota Zoo has a top notch conservation department and is actively engaged in conservation activities. (full disclosure, my friend and colleague works there and the MPI-EVA's conservation group has received funding for our conservation education program Club P.A.N. from the zoo in the past)
Do zoos' role in society need to be re-evaluated and justified? Yes, and lets use this op-ed below as a spring board for discussions. -MA

From Mongabay.com
Zoos: Why a Revolution is Necessary to Justify Them
by JEREMY LEON HANCE
When the Grey Squirrel Met the Siberian Tiger

Watching a Siberian tiger kill a grey squirrel for a half-hour proved to be one of my most enlightening experiences at a zoo. It was a weekday; I was alone, not even an employee passed by. The tiger pounced on the squirrel, flipped it into the air like a juggler's ball, pinned it and rolled it. A short reprieve from this unlikely encounter and the bloodied, half-crushed squirrel attempted an escape, dragging itself across the grass; the tiger watched curiously, let it go a few feet then pounced again. My whole self suffered over the squirrel's pain and torture while marveling in the same instance at the tiger's power, the ease with which it knocked the rodent along the ground. Here in an institution where nature is faked was a relatively truthful half-hour: nature's brutality, grace, ugliness, awe, beauty, and tragedy were reveled. I never could conclude whether the Asian terror was just playing or if it simply lacked the knowledge (as has been proven with many captive cats) to finish off the squirrel. Either way, it took a long time for the rodent to die.

At 28 years of age I have spent countless hours in well over twenty zoos spanning four continents. I present this fact as the main expertise I posses in writing an essay analyzing contemporary zoos and their visitors. That is to say, this is not an exploratory essay of a professional zoologist or biologist (or even a science major), rather this is one zoo-goers and environmental reporter's view of the current state of zoos and, more importantly and rarely discussed, some general ideas that could transform the zoo's place in our society. This is my hope. Due to the desire to avoid a dissuadable length, I will not evaluate zoos separately (though of course they vary widely in quality), but rather sketch a general impression.
The True Purpose of Zoos
Think about it: the zoological park—in which living beings are subjected to strict confinement, where they must live a life, no matter the size and 'naturalness' of the cage, wholly different from the natural one to which they are suited, where their instincts are dulled, tamed, and corrupted: eating involves no hunting or foraging and sexual relations are interfered with and closely monitored—allows such seemingly needless suffering to fellow creatures that we, as ethical (hopefully) animals, must not only supply a very good reason for this subjection, but also achieve it.

Zoos have a long history. China claims the first (as it does with most public institutions), but Egypt, Greece, and Rome all possessed zoos of a kind. However our contemporary zoos are direct descendants of Europe's first public zoos (replacing royal menageries meant only for the aristocratic class). A product of the European Enlightenment, late 18th Century zoos were built with the purpose to harbor animals for scientific purposes and public education. These were noble ideas, but it would be two-hundred years before zoos began to consider the health and sanity of its inmates. At the same time, circa 1960s and 70s, zoos began to rethink their general purpose. It was quite clear at this point that the earth was on the verge of a global extinction, called the Holocene Mass Extinction, and only strong efforts by scientists and societies at large could save the vast biodiversity of our planet. Contemporary zoological parks have added stipulations regarding species health and well-being, while embracing the idea that they must focus on conservation efforts worldwide and environmental education locally. This is a purpose that makes sense. In fact this is the only reason to allow such unnatural captivity: the zoo should be a local Conservation Center, focusing wholly on saving (or reinstating) species in the wild and on educating the public on the importance of conservation and biodiversity. AZA (the accrediting Association of Zoos and Aquariums) exists to make this happen, and there are many quality conservation programs going in and coming out of most zoos. My skepticism lies not so much with zoo's conservation programs, but with their effectiveness as educators.

Zoo: The Educational Institution?
It appears that most zoos believe the animals themselves are sufficient education: somehow by seeing a bear in a cage one will be environmentally enlightened. Yet what do captive animals—lacking context—teach one about the natural world and its importance? The zoo is an artificial 'wilderness'; it is man-made and man-managed. There is no connection between a pen and an ecosystem. A visitor can look through the glass and see an insect, a snake, a reptile and 'learn' nothing more than: they are boring, because they just sit there. In the same manner polar bears appear as playful, cute, and hardly menacing, though they can kill a two-hundred pound seal (or human) with one hit from the paw. Finally, it's difficult to wrap one's head around an animal being endangered when its three feet from you. Without context—without quality information in a wide variety of forms—zoos only teach us illusions regarding nature and conservation, yet many zoos still believe that the caged animal will say it all. If this were true then according to my experience the main prey of Siberian Tigers would be the North American Gray Squirrels.

Zoos have tried—a little—to incorporate education into the premier attraction. Some zoos are satisfied with a including fascinating fact about each subject: 'the chameleon can look in two directions at once!' or 'the kangaroo is the world's largest marsupial!' It's like if you went to see an exhibit on Van Gogh and all it said was 'he shot himself in the stomach!' Most zoos, however, have informative signs regarding the animal itself, including habitat, feeding, mating, nominal behavior etc. Even when zoos offer more information, they expound upon the subject as though it lives in a vacuum: zoos rarely explain an animal's place in its ecosystem. Better information on this level would allow people to find more respect for animals (or plants) they usually ignore and avoid—reptiles, snakes, amphibians, insects, arachnids—and to gain new insight into the so-called charismatic species. A wide assortment of such information would help people understand why every part of an ecosystem is vital.

Conservation and Education
Since zoos embraced conservation, most include a display regarding the species' conservation status. Some are even enlightened enough to include the reasons behind the animal's endangerment. But even this proves hardly sufficient: when a visitor reads about logging in Sumatra or the bush-meat problem in Congo, what can they really do but shrug their shoulders in wonder and drop a quarter in a donation bin? Zoos need to take these conservation issues and make them applicable. If they want to stop logging in Borneo to save the orangutans, why doesn't the zoo provide a list of tropical woods to avoid purchasing? In addition, why don't they highlight that the rainforest isn't being cut for Borneo's needs, but western consumption? To tackle the bush-meant trade, zoos could address the larger issue of poverty in Africa. American policy can have a large effect on this issue. These are merely two examples of how to make wildlife conservation meaningful to the average visitor. The zoo, as a conservation center, must make visitors aware of their responsibility in fixing these global problems. For in the end it is lack of funds, awareness, and will that continually allows our world to be ravaged in unsustainable and wasteful ways.

To truly reach visitors, zoos should employ a variety of new educational strategies: signs in front of a cage are simply not enough. For example, I find it odd that science and art museums have continuously rotating exhibits, but zoos do not. Why not include such exhibits exploring a particular species, a famous wildlife expedition, or the state of our earth? Imagine an exhibit on birds of paradise, the journeys and writings of Peter Matthiesen, or the recent extinction of the Baiji. Quality and detailed exhibits may make some visitors excited by biology and conservation who are otherwise dispassionate to animals in cages. Displaying exhibits on conservation issues would kill two birds with one stone—excuse the completely inappropriate adage. Such exhibits could cover major topics like human population, rainforest deforestation, or global warming. And if zoos are serious about shaping minds regarding conservation they should be pursuing honest and effective information: the presentation should not wipe away the complexities of these issues nor avoid our responsibility in making the difference. In the end, as I have related, conservation information must include concrete steps that the visitor can do to make a difference.

A theatre that would play quality nature and conservation programs would be a perfect place for tired visitors to take a respite and learn something new. With amazing programming such as the recent Planet Earth—including its follow-up episodes on conservation—and David Attenborough's or National Geographic's wonderful documentaries, it seems odd to me that zoos have not thought of this as a novel way to provide both entertainment and education. However, if the programs that are played have no interest in conservation and science, but merely display 'funny' or 'dangerous' animals to entertain than they are not worthy of what should be zoo's higher place in society.

While quality education may be lacking at most zoos, they are still doing great things in the conservation world. The Bronx Zoo, arguably one of the best zoos in the world, is run by the Wildlife Conservation Society which currently has 660 field projects running around the world. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) admirably bring zoos and conservation programs together around the country. But this leaves me with a question: why are these conservation initiatives not proclaimed? Why don't zoo visitors see information first-hand what their local zoo (or zoos across the world) are working on? I'm not talking about just a little plaque and a few words, but an in-depth description of the project and its goals. Let the visitor know that the zoo does not exist solely for their needs, but as a research institute and base for overseas conservation. Allow them to comprehend that animals are not mere entertainment for humans, but a vital part of ecosystems around the world that the makes our earth as wondrous (and effective) as it is.

The Green Zoo?
Currently, most zoos are standing contradictions. They use tremendous amounts of dirty power and water daily, both for guests and animals. Zoo cafes serve largely unhealthy and purely unethical foods. One minute you could be walking through a rainforest exhibit and the next drinking coffee or eating chocolate, both of which are grown in tropical countries. Or you might have just read about the devastating impact of climate change on amphibians worldwide and then have a hamburger or hotdog for lunch (according to the UN livestock is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere—5 percent more than global transportation). Munch on some chips while watching orangutans and despairing of their plight without even realizing the threat to them and innumerable other Asian species is in your mouth—palm oil (which can appear in products ranging from snack foods to cosmetics and shampoo). Palm oil has ravaged forests across south-east Asia over the last few decades, especially in Indonesia (which lost 24 percent of its forest in just fifteen years) and Malaysia (6.6 percent). Or shop in the gift store and buy something—pretty much anything—and you'll be supporting China's industrial and booming economy, which is run almost entirely on carbon emitting coal.

Imagine if the zoo put its ethics where its mouth is: power could be generated entirely from sustainable sources; water could be very carefully consumed, reused after treatment, and collected whenever it rains; the zoo restaurant could be filled with local foods; carrying chocolate and coffee that is both shade-grown and fair-trade (with explanations as to the importance of these distinctions) and offering a good selection of vegetarian meals. In addition it could make a point of carrying foods that either do not contain palm oil or carry eco-certified palm oil. The gift shop could sell materials that are only ethically and sustainably produced. Instead of gifts from Chinese sweat shops or Indonesian rainforests, we could be buying alpaca scarves from co-operatives in Peru or hand-carved animals from recycled wood in Kenya. If a zoo cannot live by the standards it attempts to teach than our gluttonous society is perhaps beyond the point of help.

Obviously, many of these suggestions and ideas are dependent on funds. I am no economist but I imagine making a zoo 'green' would be expensive, but I also believe public benefactors and the government would quickly shore up funds for a 'green' zoo, and then tout that sustainability as an example to the public.
An Example of One Zoo's Incongruent Decision
Despite continuous opportunities for zoos to improve upon their mission statement of education and conservation, some of their decisions simply boggle the mind. In 2000 the Minnesota Zoo—the state in which I grew up—decided to add a new attraction: a giant barn with lots of domesticated animals. In what way does this meet goals of wildlife conservation and education? Here is the description from the website: "The objective of the Wells Fargo Family Farm is to create a place for Minnesota Zoo visitors to become part of a community of people, plants and animals striving to maintain balance with nature." That's all well and good, but these are not endangered species! There are a few rare breeds in the barn, but a domestic breed—genetically managed by and for man—is not an endangered species. These are not wild species: they have no habitat, no prey, no ecosystem—so why are they taking up zoo's money and resources? The barn, as well, features a unique exhibit: cloned farm animals. I almost have no words for this, for in whose devious mind does a cloned domestic breed of cattle inspire conservation?

This decision is odd for another reason. Minnesota already has several places one can go for this exact experience. Numerous small working farms incorporate educational programs for children and adult visitors. The decision by the zoo to spend 4.5 million dollars—yes, 4.5 million—on this farm complex (when it could have been using the money for overseas conservation, breeding programs, or any set of educational activities) is a direct threat to small family-farms that gain a lot of their livelihood from visitors.

This giant barn illustrates a final disturbing trend in zoos recently. You may have noticed the barn's evocative title: Wells Fargo Family Farm. I wonder if all the tellers at Wells Fargo came and did a barn-raising? Hardly, instead Wells Fargo shelled out 4.5 million dollars to build the barn. But why didn't any board members turn around and say that the money would be much better spent on something, say, conservational? And does anyone remember those days when companies would donate money without requiring their logo to appear everywhere?

Visiting zoos now is like walking through a set of commercials: 3M, Cargill Target, Wal-mart, Verizon, the list goes on. Even more ironic is the dubious, if not atrocious, environmental records of many of these corporations. Even on the Minnesota Zoo website, Wells Fargo has made its mark: just under an adorable picture of a girl feeding a calf with a bottle appears a direct link to Wells Fargo's. Such branding de-legitimizes zoos, as though these animals could (or should) be 'owned' by corporations. I don't know how we reached a point where this must be said, but aren't we overwhelmed with enough advertisements than to add them into a public institution like a zoo? I look forward to the day when the library shelf sports an ad for Mountain Dew, the judge's bench proclaims Home Depot, and the church pew has Hallmark carved into its wood. Not only has the Minnesota Zoo strayed from conservation to build this fake monstrosity, but they sold themselves to a big, big bank. And, of course, at the end of any strange decision process—such as the one that led to a big barn plastered with Wells Fargo—lie clues, i.e. one of the board members of the zoo is the VP of Human Resources at Wells Fargo.

Where could the Minnesota Zoo have better spent 4.5 million? The options makes the mind reel: updating old exhibits, additional educational facilities, creating a new exhibit on a particularly threatened ecosystem, or how about a program that brings lower-income children and families to the zoo who can't afford the general admission price of $14.00.
A Zoo is Not a Movie
Often, zoos are viewed by adults as a place for children, as though adults are too 'old' to learn anything from encountering other species. Zoos are also rarely thought of as a place of science or serious conservation. Visitors view zoos as a form of entertainment, something akin to a fluff movie, and most zoos have bought into that. Yet for the sake of the future, zoos need to rise above their self-belief and their public-perception that they are a carnival, something akin to a Disney movie or a theme park (like the ridiculous Disney's Animal Kingdom, in which the meld between theme park and zoo becomes so indistinguishable that animals are merely a backdrop to rides or confused with movie characters).

While our cultural fixation on entertainment and distraction is bad enough, it is a terrible thing when zoos place themselves in this category. To do so only perpetuates the idea that other species exist solely for our amusement and use (or abuse). Animals in zoos are not Disney characters; they do not speak English and tell funny jokes. Animals are true and real because they are not us. These species are not our slaves or property. We have no claim (moral or otherwise) for mastery over them. Yet, it was the expansion of this mostly-western philosophy of human dominance over pretty much everything that allowed previous generations to purposefully (or just lazily) bring species to the brink. One thinks of the American settlers who languidly shot bison from moving trains, killing at least 60 million animals (though they had an even more dubious reason added to boredom for this slaughter—our government wanted bison extinct to starve out Native Americans) or when the same Americans dropped the original population of two billion Passenger Pigeons to zero. The birds were ruthlessly hunted to provide low-quality meat to society's slaves, poor, and domestic animals.

Uniquely, we are a species that often destroys something for the sake of destruction or a desire to feel powerful. When I was a child I used to torture ants with a liquid blend of pesticides, toothpaste, whole milk, window cleaner, etc. I would watch them squirm and die for hours. I always felt bad when I did it, yet I still went ahead. This is the place where the view of life as entertainment leads us.

If one seeks pure entertainment, there are many other options than a zoo. This is not to say that one can't be entertained at a zoo, rather that such an experience should be complimented by education, awe, respect, and enlightenment. These are living and breathing beings, not pixels or stuffed bears. While western cultural humans may have a tradition of believing itself vastly superior to all other forms of life, seeing the breadth of a polar bear, the social organization of an ant colony, the unruffled beauty of an eagle, the gaze of a mountain gorilla, the deadliness of a copperhead should be an avenue to question such beliefs, not reinforce them.

Zoo's Effectiveness: Analysis of a Study
In 2007 AZA (Association of Zoos and Aquariums) published the findings of a survey that addresses many of the issues I have explored thus far. This survey, three years in the making, interviewed visitors from a total of twelve zoos and aquariums. They asked questions regarding educational experiences, conservation, and the place of zoos in society.

AZA, an extremely respectful and noble organization, view their findings as proof that "visits to accredited zoos and aquariums prompt individuals to reconsider their role in environmental problems and conservation action, and to see themselves as part of the solution." I am not surprised by their findings. Zoos do produce a lot of good. The problem however is that instead of looking at their findings and seeing the gaps for improvement, the conclusions of the paper state that all is well and good. They're playing Pollyanna.

Allow me to state why. First, when they state that visiting zoos and aquariums causes reconsideration of environmental problems and conservation actions in the visitor and the belief that we—humans—are apart of the solution, they really mean that 54 percent of visitors affirmed this. Fifty-four percent isn't bad, but it's hardly good. If we state that zoos are educational facilities and that their main focus is public education regarding conservation issues then how do these zoos seriously feel about failing 46 percent of the populace? While AZA sees this as a positive percentage, I only see it as proof that zoos are not doing enough—near enough—to change minds. I wish the AZA had followed up this question by asking visitors to then list the concrete steps they learned to lessen their impact on the environment.

Another curious finding from AZA's assessment was the results of a test given to adults to see if their knowledge of ecological concepts improved by visiting the zoo. Only 10 percent of visitors were found to have better knowledge of ecology after visiting the zoo. AZA states that this is because zoos underestimated the knowledge of the visitors. If this is the case, should they not be rushing to provide more and better information? If the visitors have graduated from Ecology 101, shouldn't zoos step it up to Ecology 201? After all, the more knowledge our populace has regarding ecology the better informed they will be in tackling complex issues like mass extinction and climate change. For decades, zoos have sufficed with the basics: name, habitat, a few sentences about behavior. Regarding conservation information it is more even pathetic. Inadequate information is not enough anymore, and this study proves that clearly. People are ready (and they must) come face-to-face with complex issues like climate change, bio-fuels, the Holocene mass extinction, poverty, and conservation, but why just focus on the problems without solutions? You want to cut your carbon foot-print: eat less red meat, buy less stuff, eat local foods, turn down your thermostat, and purchase a vehicle that gets at least 45 miles-per-gallon. If I can list a few big things in one sentence, you'd think a zoo could do a lot more than that.
Ineffective Zoos Are Immoral
When confronted with a caged animal, let us say the beautiful snow leopard, my brain sometimes flashes to Edmund Dantes from The Count of Monte Cristo, falsely imprisoned for fourteen years (incidentally about the lifespan of a snow leopard) that lead to madness and a desperate escape. Just because these are not humans in prison, does not mean that animals in the zoo do not 'feel' their confinement. Have you ever seen a polar bear pace back and forth, back and forth? That is called stereotypic behavior and has been compared to an insane man's ticks. Gorillas will pound on glass walls (and occasionally escape). Tigers (who in the wild may have a territory of over 50 square miles) patrol the same small acre incessantly. Primates may appear listless and withdrawn or overtly active from stimulants to keep zoo-goers happy. An eagle may have nothing more to do all than sit on a single perch and defecate (most zoo birds no longer have the ability to fly, something that would instantly doom them in their natural habitat). No matter how much someone wants to dismiss the 'intelligence' or 'awareness' of these animals (and this is becoming increasingly difficult with new scientific studies), one cannot argue against the fact that they are living a life to which they are not at evolved. These are not tame animals; it took humans centuries, perhaps millennia, to turn the now extinct aurochs into the fatter, duller, blanker cattle we see on farms today: animals so far from their ancestors that they can only survive in managed environments. Putting wild species in a managed environment is akin to a sane man locked in a madhouse.

If wild animals are not allowed to strike awe in the visitor and to educate them about what decisions they (or their governments) make that affect their wild relatives than their incarceration is not merely reasonless, but criminal. These animals are ambassadors for wilderness, for a bio-diverse earth, for the planet as it is (or even as it was). This is not a role they have chosen, but one we have forced upon them. Zoos have a moral obligation to achieve the most good out of this sad state of affairs.

Final Thoughts
An animal is worth more than a masterwork of art or an archeological treasure, simply because it lives. It breathes, it eats, it sleeps, it thinks, one day it will die; its true nature is impenetrable, because we can only view it through our own prejudices and limitations as humans.

I realize at times I probably sound terribly dour and that my ideas would suck all the fun out of any zoo experience, making it dim and serious. I am quite aware of this personal stuffiness: my wife likes to say that I am a 'zoo snob'; I don't deny the possibility. But I do not mean that a zoo experience should not be enjoyable. Experiencing the zoo should never become any less fun than it already is, rather it should be given the added dimensions of awe and education, of respect and a higher purpose to save the vastness of life on this planet, and in turn save ourselves.

For me, I am a quiet zoo-goer. It is almost a spiritual experience for me. I stand before an animal—unique and beautiful—and I undergo a sense of meaning and rejuvenation. It is a strange thing to experience such emotions while the source of them is locked in a cage, but there it is. I understand those who can find no joy in a zoo and those who see zoos as cruel (inherently they are), and I would stand and protest with them, if not for the fact that all other species are in the midst of a devastating ecological crisis, and it may only be these caged ambassadors who make people wake-up and act. But the institution has responsibilities that should no longer be overlooked. Remember the next time you visit the zoo, to stare an animal in the face and to know that the only reason this animal is where it is… You.

You and me and all of us are the reason these animals sits behind glass or bars; we are reason only a fraction of their habitat remains; we are the reason they have been driven to almost nothing; and may very well—sooner than we can imagine—be extinct and gone, forever flung from living. What right do we have to this? And what right do zoos have to exist, if not to show us our illusion of mastery, our waste of creation, and our responsibility to make it right—as right as it can be? The zoo—if only it lived up to its purpose—could play a leading role in the preservation of creation, the saving of life. I hope it will take up its mantle, and leave-by the many immaturities that still plague it.

Jeremy Leon Hance, mongabay.com (October 05, 2008). Zoos: Why a Revolution is Necessary to Justify Them. http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1006-hance_zoos.html