It may also prevent costly duplications of ‘ex situ’ programmes dedicated to species occurring in several countries (i.e. non-endemics).
Furthermore, the dispersion of ex situ populations among several holders has several advantages, especially in the case of long-term maintenance programmes for long-living vertebrates, often originating from politically unstable regions of the world (see Fig. 1). There is one more reason for supporting ex situ activities outside range countries and this is the real risk of the misuse of scarce resources Belinostat nmr in financially poor, biodiversity-rich countries that should, ideally, give priority to in situ activities (Gippoliti and Carpaneto 1997). It has been correctly argued that sources of animals for reintroduction should originate from breeding centres in native countries rather than zoos (Stanley-Price and Soorae 2003).
However, zoos can collectively furnish valuable resources prior to reintroductions, and afterward contribute to maintain viable populations or at least precious genetic material (Iyengar et al. 2007; Russello et al. 2007), by continuing to maintain a managed stock as an insurance selleck chemical policy. The latter contribution may help to lowering costs of ex situ programmes. Good examples are provided by the black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes, Mexican wolf Canis lupus baileyi, red wolf Canis rufus and California condor Gymnogyps californianus programmes, all in the US and all incorporating both breeding centres and zoos (i.e. Ralls and Ballou 2004; Jackowski and Lockhart 2009). Fig. 1 Schematic representation of an Phosphoribosylglycinamide formyltransferase international ex situ breeding programme for a threatened species (pygmy hippopotamus, Choeropsis
liberiensis, a species endemic of west African rain forest). For geographic reasons, the programme should be coordinated by European zoos. Zoos in affluent countries should help zoos in the countries of origin to maintain the species to foster public awareness locally and to increase management and husbandry standards While EU zoo regulation asks zoos to fulfil a conservation and scientific role, funds are generally available within EU countries only for conservation of native species, specifically those included in the habitat and birds directive. If EU legislation, lack of resources and CBD force zoos to concentrate exclusively on threatened native or continental species, is this a satisfactory achievement for global biodiversity? A number of studies already shows a bias of conservation interest and resources allocation toward threatened species found in industrialised countries (Amori and Gippoliti 2000; Griffiths and Pavajeau 2008; Brito and Oprea 2009). So far, the immense popularity of European zoos (and the patchy support of governments at local level) has allowed the availability of limited resources to be directed toward international conservation projects.