Time to rethink Captive Breeding Programmes

Who is ‘Pan Pan’?

Pan Pan, believed to be the world’s oldest male giant panda, died aged 31 at the China Conservation and Research Center for Giant Panda in Sichuan Province.
He fathered over 30 cubs. Considering there are fewer than 500 in captivity where panda breeding is a minor miracle, Pan Pan’s contribution cannot be overstated.

What’s the IUCN status of Panda?

This September, the IUCN noted a decadal rise of 17% in the wild population and revised the status of the giant panda from threatened to vulnerable.
The rise in the wild population — from 1,596 in 2004 to 1,864 in 2014 — is perhaps testimony as much to conservation efforts as to the refinement of estimation tools.

What is the contribution of captive breeding programme?

The contribution of the super expensive captive breeding programme to the now 1,864-wild population is just 5 pandas.
Since 2006, seven captive-bred giant pandas have been released into the Chinese wild. Two did not survive the initial weeks.

Time to rethink?

Zoos world over pay millions of dollars to China for a captive-bred exhibit or two on lease. Housing a giant panda is roughly five times as expensive as having an elephant.
The massive cost of captive breeding underlines the need for a rethink. Caring for a giant panda in captivity costs up to a million dollars a year. That’s a lot of money that could be spent on securing natural habitats.

What is the purpose of captive breeding?

Its purpose is to build up a stock and reintroduce individuals into the wild. It’s not easy. For one, most species struggle to breed in captivity.
There is no foolproof training protocol to make the young ones fit to survive in the wild.
The bigger the species, the smaller the chances of successful reintroduction due to their progressively complex skill requirements.
Captive breeding, therefore, is best employed as an insurance against a potential crisis that may hit a species that is already vulnerable in the wild.

Are captive breeding programmes pointless?

In India, it became necessary when residual painkiller diclofenac (in cattle carcass) killed 99.9% of white-rumped vultures by the early 2000s.
But only a ban — though much delayed and not well enforced — on the veterinary use of diclofenac could see a tentative population rebound in certain pockets.
The bottomline is captive breeding and reintroduction programmes are pointless without securing the natural habitat.
Take gharials, for example. Their eggs are hatched in breeding centres and thousands of young ones have been released in the Chambal. But the population remains below 1,200.
Sand mining, water shortage and overfishing has reduced the breed-and-release programme into a glorified replenishment tool. Even this equilibrium won’t last long if the habitat continues to bleed.
The panda breeding programme needs a reality check. Compared to the 17% gain in the wild population, the captive population more than doubled in the last decade.
The most remarkable finding of the latest giant panda census is that the area it inhabits increased by nearly 12% in the last decade. That’s where they need help.

Why the obsession in saving only certain species?

In India, the tiger continues to hog nearly all conservation funds, while species far more endangered cry for attention.
The argument that conserving apex species involves an umbrella approach helping all else that come under it, does not hold good unless all ecosystems get ticked.
Nobody helped Great Indian Bustards in the name of saving the apex species of the semi-arid grassland where wolves themselves became near extinct.

Conlcusion:

In these testing times, conservation cannot afford to play favourites. An umbrella species, the giant panda’s natural habitat is also home to about 2,300 mammal, bird, and amphibian species.
Each of them is a reason for securing all of them in the name of saving the giant panda or not.

Category: Prelims & Mains | GS – III | Environment & Biodiversity

Source: Indian Express