29/04/2021
Article written by Wayne E Wheatley
The African Grey Parrot: Observations on the impact of their status change to appendix I of CITES - Past, present and future.
It has been four years since the conservation status of the African Grey Parrot (Psittacus Erithacus), was changed from appendix 2 to appendix 1 of CITES. At the time there was a lot of uncertainty amongst breeders of this species, in South Africa at least, where the species has been bred on a commercial basis for many years and a great deal of people rely on this for their livelihood. The issue has now had time to run its course and the impact has been digested, thus it is a good time to reflect not only on the impact to breeders, but also on the way these changes have affected the species.
This article focusses mainly on a South African perspective, as it is in South Africa that commercial African Grey breeders have been supplying thousands of offspring to global markets for several years.
At the time that member states voted to move the species to appendix 1 of CITES at the COP17 meeting held in September 2016, there was a lot of contradictory information, and it was this information that was used as a basis for the decision to change the status of the species. That was partly because the ease of putting “facts” into the public domain is so simple with the internet, social media and chat groups, enabling anyone to become a self-proclaimed expert. For example, a quick look at Wikipedia will tell you that “Breeders from South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Scandinavia have aggressively bred greys since the 1800s”, when in fact large scale commercial breeding is a relatively recent development, with large numbers only really being produced since the 1970’s. Even well researched publications are at odds, with Rosemary Low claiming that the first recorded breeding in Britain was by E J Boosey in 1945 in her book Parrots: Their care and breeding, whereas her Guide to Grey parrots as cage and aviary birds states that the first UK breeding was achieved in 1843, a hundred years earlier. The situation was further clouded by the agendas that different parties have as their basis. The keeping of animals in captivity is very emotive at both extremes, from environmental extremists who believe that birds should be left in the wild and not caged under any circumstance to dedicated aviculturists who literally live for their birds.
Given that African Greys have been traded since some point in the middle of the 15th century, their long life span and legendary mimicking ability, it is not surprising that for a lot of people, a parrot is synonymous as an African Grey, never mind that there are over 350 other species within the Parrot family. With a very large range over west and central Africa, spanning 19 countries, African Greys have been exported in very large numbers (More than 1.5 million from 1975 to 2013) and there are many thousands of successful breeders around the world, with probably the most captive breeding occurring in South Africa. In 2017, there were around 1600 African Grey breeders in South Africa, producing an estimated 60,000 – 80,0000 chicks per year, and up to December 2016, these birds supplied around 95% of the market in Eastern and Middle Eastern countries. With a ban on the import of wild caught African greys into Europe and USA and extremely limited allowance for the import even of captive bred birds at the time, these markets largely got by with what was produced domestically. Commercial breeding in South Africa largely negated the need for the removal and trade in African Greys from the wild to satisfy eastern and Middle Eastern demand.
The trade in African Greys had evolved so that a few key factors should have made the future of the species very bright, these included the fact that breeding the species had increased and improved to the point that many markets could satisfy demand from domestically produced offspring, commercially produced offspring from South Africa could supply a large part of the demand to many markets and the species was protected as a cites 2 species with limited quotas for only two range state countries (Cameroon (3,000) and DRC (5,000)), far less than in preceding years. Having said that, several factors meant that by 2016, there was a basis for proponents to motivate the up listing of the species to Appendix 1 of CITES, despite the counter argument that this could ultimately be highly detrimental to the species as a whole, and certainly detrimental to many people who relied on the species to provide a sustainable income. To some extent, the move was an opportunistic one by environmentalists, but to a greater extent, the move was as a result of greed and corruption at many levels.
Despite the fact that African Greys had been protected as a CITES 2 species along with strict quotas out of range states, this had been greatly disregarded. From 2011 to 2014 an estimated 54,000 birds were trafficked out of the DRC alone. Quantities exported to South Africa alone in 2009, 2010 and 2012 exceeded the total quota for DRC. This greed and corruption portrayed a very poor picture of the “protection” afforded the species and made it very easy to justify the actions taken by CITES at COP17.
It doesn’t end there either. Pictures of dark battery cages used to breed African Greys at commercial facilities along with images of smuggled birds in appalling conditions added to the emotional outburst against the African Grey pet trade. Instances are recorded and published concerning hundreds of African Grey parrots dying under suspicious circumstances and thousands of birds being confiscated while in transit illegally. In reality, these examples are often isolated instances that do not fairly reflect the efforts made by dedicated Aviculturists. That does not excuse the fact that the industry operated, for a long time, with poor ethics and values and not enough effort was made to clean up the industry and shun the actions of the few that bought it into disrepute.
Even before the change to appendix 1 of CITES, the legal trade in wild caught African Greys had slowed dramatically in South Africa. This was driven largely by the concerns around live bird trade (Particularly of wild caught birds) due to the risk of Avian Influenza and restrictions were aimed at curbing health risks, but there were also concerns over corruption in the process that saw the legal trade being used to cover illegal smuggling. It had been realised that permits issued by exporting countries in line with quotas, were being “reused” for multiple shipments, and substantially more birds were exported than quotas allowed. Further, 3rd party countries were being used to “launder” birds, wild birds being imported and then re-exported as captive bred. Authorities cracked down on the trade and imports reduced to a trickle.
Many other countries did continue to import wild caught African Greys, due to the fact that these could be acquired for less than captive bred birds out of South Africa, and the fact that wild caught adult birds could be set up for breeding far sooner than young birds that had been bred in captivity. In the final years of legal trade in wild caught African Greys, the biggest market for wild caught African Greys was in eastern and Middle Eastern countries, with import to Europe and USA stopped several years before that time.
Nobody was certain as to what impact the change in status would have on both the captive populations and offspring produced or the wild populations. On the one hand, there were claims that the change would provide protection for the species that was desperately needed, while at the other extreme, there were claims that the change would make captive populations worthless due to the restrictions on trading in them, impacting the willingness for breeders to continue with the species, while at the same time, illegal trade would surge, doing even more damage to wild populations.
Being placed on Appendix 1 of CITES meant that it was no longer possible to export African Greys commercially, even if they were bred in captivity. The two exceptions being countries where a reservation was taken, and where facilities have been registered as CITES 1 breeding facilities, with the CITES secretariat in Geneva. CITES recognised the contribution that South African breeders have played in producing large quantities of African Greys for global markets and said that they would support the process of registering facilities in order for the breeders to continue being able to supply markets, generate incomes that support many people and contribute to the South African economy in some part. The first applications were lodged immediately and the process to register was underway. There were concerns, however.
First amongst these issues was the fact that CITES first entered in force in 1975, and in the 42 years since then, not a single facility in South Africa had been registered as a breeding facility for CITES 1 birds, and in fact only a hand full of facilities had been registered in the world. It then remained to be seen whether registration of around 1600 facilities could be done in South Africa over the next year or two. There is a precedent that had enabled large scale registration in specific instances. The Asian Arowana is an endangered fish that is widely bred at registered facilities in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand, and registrations were expedited after the species was placed on Appendix 1 of CITES.
Secondly, it takes a lot of time and effort to register a facility, and the whole process can be hamstrung if a member state objects to the registration of a facility.
Thirdly, even if several facilities were registered, if sufficient numbers are not registered, the few that are registered will not be able to supply demand and with huge amounts of birds originating from unregistered facilities mounting up, it would be a matter of time until people started trying to bypass the process in order to match supply and demand.
Finally, if the DRC continued to export large numbers of wild caught birds, not only would it dilute the ability of commercial breeders to supply markets due to the lower price of wild caught birds and simpler process to acquire them, but all efforts to save the species in the wild would amount to nought. Pressure would be bought to bear on authorities in the DRC to stem the flow of wild caught birds, and as the country is far more reliant on logging than African Greys for its economy, there was hope that they would put a halt to African grey exports in order to protect their logging industry. However, one still had to be aware that the people on the ground, who rely on the birds as source of income, in the absence of a market to sell them and the resultant funds, could turn to use the African Grey resource as bush meat instead. To date CITES sees that as a small stress on the wild population, but that could change dramatically.
The initial impact of the change was that trade out of South Africa was halted as facilities scrambled to register as CITES breeding facilities. In the period that it took for registration of facilities to take place, several thousand birds were bred in South Africa, and these had no market. Prices crashed from several hundred dollars to around 100 dollars for a young bird. At the same time, along with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and UAE, the DRC took a reservation on the CITES decision and resumed trading in wild caught birds as CITES 2 birds. Anecdotal evidence showed that the volumes shipped out of the DRC exceeded previous years by several multiples as demand for the birds increases in the absence of birds from commercial facilities in South Africa. Along with the deforestation rates in the Congo of around 4% per annum, one of the highest rates in the world, this was disastrous for the protection of the species.
Registering as a CITES 1 breeding facility is a step that allows breeders to export their progeny in the same way as they do CITES 2 birds. It was hoped that along with registration of facilities, there would be a crackdown on export of wild caught birds, partly by bringing pressure to bear on the DRC who would need to manage the situation to save their logging industry, because if they were suspended from CITES, markets for their timber could potentially also close. This would go a long way to not only protecting the species in the wild as intended, but reduce the risk of smuggling as a ready alternative to captive bred birds. In other western countries, there would be an increased need for record keeping and management, but largely these countries already had mature management systems in place. Ultimately, it would be more onerous to acquire and keep an African Grey and over time this could reduce the desirability of the species in captivity.
Certainly in South Africa, we have seen many species value diminish greatly when the regulation around keeping it has gone up. Some species that were previously easily bred in large numbers have almost died out in South African aviculture due to the regulations around keeping them. Examples include species that have been placed on appendix one of CITES such as lesser sulphur cockatoos Cacatua Sulphurea, Illigers Macaws Primolius maracana and many Amazona species, as well as all the indigenous parrot (Poicephallus) species that require permits for keeping.
Despite concerns, the registration of facilities as CITES 1 breeding facilities of African Greys, has gone fairly smoothly. Unfortunately, there are many breeders who felt that the process and required record keeping was to arduous, particularly those breeders with fewer pairs, and many breeders decided rather to sell their birds than to attempt the registration process. In fact, only 299 facilities have been registered to date, out of an estimated 1600 facilities that held African Greys in 2016. The facilities registered, however, probably represent the majority of birds held by South African aviculturists, being that the larger facilities ensured that they went through the registration process.
The large number of birds that were bred in the period before registrations were finalised were mostly held back for future breeding. Now, 4 years later, these birds are starting to mature and are forming the basis for the future breeding flocks.
Significantly, the DRC made a commitment to stop trading in African Greys at a meeting of the Standing Committee of CITES in December 2017.
So where does that leave trade in the species now?
Exports of captive bred birds from registered facilities in South Africa regularly take place. While it is difficult to source data to determine actual numbers (The CITES data trade data base does not provide recent figures and local authorities are unable or unwilling to share this information), it is estimated that there are probably more than 1000 African greys exported from South Africa each month. This is below what was being exported prior to 2016, however the re-export of wild caught birds no longer contributes to these numbers and without the import of wild caught birds to supplement breeding flocks, the numbers being bred will in all likelihood reduce for many years. That will eventually stabilise and then increasing again, when breeders put more effort into holding progeny back for future breeding.
There is ongoing pressure from demand markets for birds in excess of what South African breeders are able to supply and this will be partly met through the porous and often corrupt borders of the range states. Out of desperation, there will be attempts to smuggle the birds, which, apart from the illegality of it, is never a humane experience for the birds involved.
We cannot ignore the fact that some factors are outside of mainstream aviculture control, including deforestation and corruption in range states that allow for the smuggling of wild caught birds. At the same time, no one can look past the fact that there is a huge demand for African Greys as pets, and that will not change. The solution is to put in place effective measures that ensure that wild African Greys are protected while easing the process for captive stock to continue being produced and easily transferred to countries where there is demand for them. Measures can be taken whereby the commercial side helps fund the conservation aspect and having a large captive gene pool ensures that whatever happens in the wild, the species will live on and could even be reintroduced to the wild if ever the environment supported that. Members of the South African Parrot Breeders Association who are registered as CITES breeding facilities for African Greys can contribute to a conservation fund for every bird they sell, however this is optional and many breeders do not contribute.
Whether you see African greys as pets, breeding them as a hobby or business, or a wild animal that should be left in the wild and not kept at all in captivity, all of our interest should focus on securing the future of the species. As aviculturists, we should not tolerate anyone who works in contravention of this goal. Anyone who tries to smuggle wild birds or keep them in inhumane conditions should be reported with as much vigour as we would defend our desire to work with the species and keep and care for them. We must recognise that trade in captive bred African Greys and keeping of the species as pets is a vital part of the conservation of the species and in fact may be its saving grace.
Finally, we must recognise that there are many stakeholders in the African Grey story, but it is only the African Grey Parrot that cannot get a say in its own future, and whose life depends on the actions and decisions of all the other stakeholders. My hope is that sense prevails and that decisions that are made are based entirely on the best interest of the species and not on the political, financial or emotional aspects of groups and individuals.
