Wildlife tourism is a life changing experience for many people, but it is difficult to know whether you are helping or harming the animals involved. When used correctly, wildlife tourism can be an effective way to help with the conservation of endangered species through providing income and incentive to local communities. Wildlife tourism currently makes up around 20-40% of the entire tourism industry’s annual value of 1.5 trillion USD, according to the World Tourism Organization, and this value is only set to increase.

This issue is confused even more with many operations calling themselves ‘sanctuaries’ and ‘rescues’, and telling visitors they are helping conservation efforts. A particularly worrying investigation shows that a self-claiming sanctuary in Thailand called ‘Elephant EcoValley’ provide a seemingly natural bathing experience for Western tourists, but then the same elephants are transferred to a neighbouring village to perform tricks for different tourists.

Operations like ‘Elephant EcoValley’ can seem ethical, but in order to submit to tourists or handlers washing them, wild animals have to go through years of being beaten to ‘break their spirit’. Many of these places claim to be sanctuaries for ex-riding elephants, but if people keep visiting these places then the demand for ‘broken’ elephants will always be there.

These deliberately confusing marketing techniques mean it can be difficult to tell which wildlife experiences are ethical. If you are considering any activity involving animals, make sure to ask yourself these questions below.

1. Do you get the opportunity to touch the animals?

Taking a selfie holding, riding, or washing an exotic animal is an exciting prospect, but if you knew what these selfies are funding then you wouldn’t be so keen to brag about it on social media. A study by World Animal Protection exposed the horrible conditions that sloths and other South American wildlife were subjected to behind the scenes of tourist selfies.

Orangutan photoprops,  Safariworld, Thailand. Ian Redmond. 

These animals are taken illegally from the wild and kept in tiny boxes, with claws and teeth removed. Snakes go blind from camera flashes, and sloths quickly die from the stress of being handled. Wildlife officials in the Amazon have even said they are reluctant to confiscate the animals as that means more will be taken from the forest to replace them.

Captive tigers are heavily sedated and have their claws and teeth painfully removed in order to make them safe for tourists to stroke and take selfies with.

2. Do they have lots of baby animals?

Everyone loves baby animals. Lots of organisations use this to their advantage to attract tourists. Unfortunately, baby animals grow up, and when they are no longer cute enough they are used for canned hunting, sold to roadside zoos or harvested for traditional ‘medicines’. The baby animals are often taken from their mothers too early and presented as orphans to tourists or volunteers. The mothers are kept in cruel conditions and forced to continuously breed, and when they can no longer do this they are killed, and their bones or pelts are sold.

 Young orangutan being used as a photo-prop with canine teeth removed, A'Famosa Resort, Malaysia. Ian Redmond.

3. Do the guides explain and enforce strict rules before your tour?

Good examples of sensible rules include not touching animals, keeping a safe distance and wearing face masks around our close relatives such as great apes. Most protected areas have guidelines about how many vehicles or boats can surround an animal at one time, and it is a good sign if your guide mentions and sticks to these rules. Overcrowding wild animals can cause them stress and stop their normal hunting and breeding behaviours. If members of your group do not stick to the rules, the guides should strictly enforce them.

4. Can the animals freely engage in their natural behaviours?

Ask yourself ‘would this animal be doing this in the wild?’. For example, a wild elephant would not let you ride on its back, wash it in a river, and it certainly would not ride a bicycle for a crowd. In a National Geographic interview of Elephant trainers, they described the process that makes an elephant submit to these behaviours. “When a baby is about two years old mahouts tie its mother to a tree and slowly drag the baby away. Once separated, the baby is confined. To teach an elephant to sit we tie up the front legs. One mahout will use a bullhook at the back. The other will pull a rope on the front legs. To train the elephant, you need to use the bullhook so the elephant will know.”

 Left: Elephant show, A'Famosa Resort, Malaysia. Right: Is this conservation? A'Famosa Resort, Malaysia. Ian Redmond. 

You also need to be aware of this point with wild animals. In the Amazon region, swimming with pink river dolphins is advertised as part of many tours. Guides lure in dolphins with baitfish and are surrounded and stroked by tourists. The concentration of food causes the dolphins to fight each other, leading them to become badly scratched and bruised. Feeding wild animals, especially whilst they are being harassed by tourists, often causes them to alter their behaviour as they associate humans with food. This can lead to them becoming dangerous to humans and having to be ‘put down’.

 5. If in captivity, are the animals well cared for and appear healthy?

It is safest to avoid attractions involving captive animals, due to the dangers listed above. If you do decide to see captive animals, for example in a zoo, make sure they’re in good conditions. This is often an easy one to spot: if the animals are too thin or appear sick, then this is a red flag. Look at their enclosure, does it have enrichment, is it reasonably clean and do they have enough space, as well as a place to escape from the crowds?

Orca Show at Loro Parque, Tenerife. Ian Redmond.

It is never a good idea to see some animals in captivity, for example cetaceans (whales and dolphins) as a tank simply cannot provide them with the necessary space. This causes them severe suffering, which can be hard to see as some species have a permanent ‘smile’. Often these animals are forced to perform in shows, which is also obviously unnatural behaviour. 

Many places with poor animal welfare have overwhelmingly positive reviews on sites like TripAdvisor, so be wary of this and keep in mind the questions you should ask yourself when researching organisations. However, sometimes the poor practices are exposed in the few one- or two-star reviews, so it always good to check these before booking.

If you are worried that an organisation isn’t following any of these rules, what should you do? Obviously, the best thing to do is to do your research and not visit in the first place, as these places won’t continue to run without demand from tourists. However, if you accidentally find yourself somewhere that is not following these protocols then what should you do? It is good to leave as soon as possible, and if you feel comfortable doing so, tell the organisers why. If they get enough complaints, they may change their practices. If not, make sure to leave negative reviews explaining the situation on TripAdvisor and other sites, and complain to travel sites advertising these experiences. This is important as it will to warn other travellers.

Supporting ethical wildlife interactions signals to the market that they are valued, and slowly cuts off the market for cruel wildlife tourism. If you make sure to ask yourself all of these questions beforehand, don’t be put off engaging in positive wildlife tourism! It can be a great way to incentivise conservation efforts by providing income and raising awareness about issues the animals face.

Article by Ape Alliance coordinator Iona Haines. 

Climate change threatens ecological and economic systems. That is why investors are increasingly looking to invest in companies with a plan to address one of the largest drivers of climate change: deforestation.

A newly released Investor Guide to Deforestation and Climate Change provides tools to mainstream institutional investors, such as mutual fund and hedge fund managers, who want to work with and influence the companies in their portfolios to address deforestation.

The guide was developed by the sustainability nonprofit Ceres along with an advisory committee of nonprofits, major investors and leading scientific experts in deforestation.

“Investors can’t be experts on all topics, so this guide gives investors the information they need to bring deforestation into their engagements,” Meryl Richards, co-author of the guide and director of research on the food and forests team at Ceres, told Mongabay in an email.

The guide covers the material risks of deforestation, countries and commodities of risk, assessing portfolio-wide risks, evaluating corporate action, and next steps for engagement. Investors are provided with key expectations to look for in companies’ deforestation and climate commitments, example questions for companies, and concrete gives action items to address deforestation risks.

“What was really unique about the process was that we brought in our investor reviewers early in the process and they provided input on how we communicated the science and framed the engagement guidance to make sure it was relevant and useful for an investor audience,” Richards said.

“I agreed to help review this guide because I thought it’d be a meaningful resource for investors and for us, here in our office,” Jimmy Yan, a reviewer of the guide who works in the bureau of asset management in the Office of the New York City Comptroller, said in a webinar hosted by Ceres. The bureau of asset management is the investment adviser for the New York City pension funds which, collectively, have about $200 billion in assets.

“We’re always looking for ways to enhance how we address climate risks in our portfolio, and since deforestation risk is a major climate change related risk, we need more resources to understand it,” Yan said. “We also recognize that deforestation is an important risk issue, standing on its own given its profound impacts on environmental sustainability, biodiversity, human rights and other areas.”

In response to the 2019 fires in the Amazon, 251 investors representing $17.7 trillion in assets wrote a letter urging business leaders to “reverse the worrying deforestation trends we are witnessing” and to uphold commitments to end commodity-driven deforestation by 2020. A majority of companies are not on track to meet these deadlines.

Companies with connections to deforestation may suffer financially in the long run. Regulatory action, loss of customer trust and support, or collapse of supply chains are all issues investors need to be aware of. Eliminating deforestation from a company’s supply chain can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and should be a key part of a company’s climate change strategy, according to the guide.

An estimated 10% of global emissions come from deforestation. Agricultural commodities — especially palm oil, soy, beef, and pulp and paper — are major drivers of deforestation, particularly in the tropics and account for an estimated 5% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Identifying investments in these agricultural sectors, particularly in deforestation hotspot countries such as Brazil, Indonesia, and Malaysia, is a first step for investors looking to address deforestation risks in their investment portfolios.

“Investors can use their influence as shareholders to engage with companies on deforestation as a way to mitigate portfolio-wide climate risks,” the guide says. “And now is the time … Simply put, we cannot avoid potentially catastrophic climate warming without eliminating deforestation.”

Climate change threatens ecological and economic systems. That is why investors are increasingly looking to invest in companies with a plan to address one of the largest drivers of climate change: deforestation.

A newly released Investor Guide to Deforestation and Climate Change provides tools to mainstream institutional investors, such as mutual fund and hedge fund managers, who want to work with and influence the companies in their portfolios to address deforestation.

The guide was developed by the sustainability nonprofit Ceres along with an advisory committee of nonprofits, major investors and leading scientific experts in deforestation.

“Investors can’t be experts on all topics, so this guide gives investors the information they need to bring deforestation into their engagements,” Meryl Richards, co-author of the guide and director of research on the food and forests team at Ceres, told Mongabay in an email.

The guide covers the material risks of deforestation, countries and commodities of risk, assessing portfolio-wide risks, evaluating corporate action, and next steps for engagement. Investors are provided with key expectations to look for in companies’ deforestation and climate commitments, example questions for companies, and concrete gives action items to address deforestation risks.

“What was really unique about the process was that we brought in our investor reviewers early in the process and they provided input on how we communicated the science and framed the engagement guidance to make sure it was relevant and useful for an investor audience,” Richards said.

“I agreed to help review this guide because I thought it’d be a meaningful resource for investors and for us, here in our office,” Jimmy Yan, a reviewer of the guide who works in the bureau of asset management in the Office of the New York City Comptroller, said in a webinar hosted by Ceres. The bureau of asset management is the investment adviser for the New York City pension funds which, collectively, have about $200 billion in assets.

“We’re always looking for ways to enhance how we address climate risks in our portfolio, and since deforestation risk is a major climate change related risk, we need more resources to understand it,” Yan said. “We also recognize that deforestation is an important risk issue, standing on its own given its profound impacts on environmental sustainability, biodiversity, human rights and other areas.”

In response to the 2019 fires in the Amazon, 251 investors representing $17.7 trillion in assets wrote a letter urging business leaders to “reverse the worrying deforestation trends we are witnessing” and to uphold commitments to end commodity-driven deforestation by 2020. A majority of companies are not on track to meet these deadlines.

Companies with connections to deforestation may suffer financially in the long run. Regulatory action, loss of customer trust and support, or collapse of supply chains are all issues investors need to be aware of. Eliminating deforestation from a company’s supply chain can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and should be a key part of a company’s climate change strategy, according to the guide.

An estimated 10% of global emissions come from deforestation. Agricultural commodities — especially palm oil, soy, beef, and pulp and paper — are major drivers of deforestation, particularly in the tropics and account for an estimated 5% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Identifying investments in these agricultural sectors, particularly in deforestation hotspot countries such as Brazil, Indonesia, and Malaysia, is a first step for investors looking to address deforestation risks in their investment portfolios.

“Investors can use their influence as shareholders to engage with companies on deforestation as a way to mitigate portfolio-wide climate risks,” the guide says. “And now is the time … Simply put, we cannot avoid potentially catastrophic climate warming without eliminating deforestation.”

An undercover investigation by PETA has revealed the surprising extent to which enslaved monkeys are used in Thailand’s coconut industry. These coconuts are used in products sold by major brands such as Aroy-D and Chaokoh.

Investigators visited ‘monkey schools’ and farms where chained and caged monkeys were forced to climb palm trees to pick coconuts. Their canine teeth were often pulled out and they displayed stereotypic symptoms of extreme stress, for example shaking, throwing themselves against cage bars, and screaming in fear.

Over 15,000 stores have since committed to discontinuing purchasing these products. Walgreens Boots Alliance will not be stocking any Aroy-D and Chaokoh products and their own brand lines will not knowingly contain any coconut food and drink products of Thai origin. Walgreens Boots Alliance includes Walgreens and Duane Reade in the US and Boots in the UK and Thailand.

UK retailers Waitrose, Co-op, Ocado and Morrisons have dropped all Aroy-D and Chaokoh products or made a commitment to not buy any products using monkey labour. Asda has also dropped the brand Chaokoh and Tesco have delisted Chaokoh from their UK stores and are investigating their international supply lines.

In the US, Bed Bath & Beyond's Cost Plus World Market has stopped buying coconut products from Chaokoh. Likewise, Ahold Delhaize (which includes Giant Food, Food Lion, Stop & Shop, and Hannaford as well as Albert Heijn in the Netherlands) have committed to no longer knowingly stocking and selling any products sourced from suppliers that use monkey labour.

The PETA investigation found that some Thai companies such as Harmless Harvest which grow dwarf trees for coconut water do not use monkey labour. However, PETA advises people and companies worldwide to boycott coconut products from Thailand until the Thai government instates a ban on the enslavement of monkeys.

Article by Iona Haines. 

• Zoos have been shuttered and wildlife rehabilitation centers barred from releasing animals into the wild as a result of measures imposed in Indonesia to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Without revenue from visitor fees, zoos in the country, long notorious for the egregious conditions in which they keep the animals, are looking at the possibility of killing some of their animals to feed the others.
• Wildlife rehab centers, which mostly care for orangutans and other apes, have been ordered to keep taking in rescued animals but not to release them for fear of spreading the virus to wild populations.
• This has raised concerns about overcrowding at rescue centers, many of which are also under financial pressure as donations decline.

   

  JAKARTA — Measures aimed at halting the spread of the novel coronavirus in Indonesia have meant tough times for Indonesia’s captive animals, both at wildlife rehabilitation facilities and in the country’s poorly regulated zoos.

  Earlier this year, Indonesia’s conservation department at the environment ministry alerted animal rehabilitation facilities and zoos about the potential for captive wildlife to be infected with COVID-19 from humans. The ministry subsequently ordered 33 centers across the archipelago to postpone releasing rescued individuals into the wild to protect them from contracting the highly contagious virus. But rehabilitation facilities are still allowed to take in newly rescued animals. The government also instructed all zoos to shut to the public.

  “Two percent of all extinction is caused by diseases. It’s one of the threats that experts are still pretty much unfamiliar with,” Indra Exploitasia, the ministry’s director of biodiversity conservation, said in a recent webinar.

  Indonesia is home to many endemic and threatened species, some on the brink of extinction. The lifeline for many of these species has been captive breeding or in-situ conservation efforts.

  While the COVID-19 protocols are deemed necessary, they’ve resulted in zoos and wildlife rescue centers being deprived of revenue while still having to bear the operational costs of feeding and caring for the animals.

  A survey published in April by the Indonesian Zoo Association (PKBSI) showed that only a tenth of zoos across the country would be able to feed their animals for longer than a month, and only up to four months, in the absence of revenue from visitor fees. There are about 60 zoos nationwide, with a total of more than 4,900 animals.

  Zoos in Indonesia are privately owned but the animals are considered the property of the state. Most are notorious for the egregious conditions in which they keep the animals, failing even the government’s standards. Negligence, mismanagement and corruption have long plagued the country’s zoos, with animals dying of malnutrition or ill treatment, or sold off into the illegal wildlife trade, prompting calls from conservationists to either shut down or reform the facilities.

  Some of the zoos have launched online donation appeals directly to the public to help buy food for the animals, while others are harvesting vegetation growing in their area to feed their herbivores. Some zoos have sent vegetables and grass to others in need.

  “But if this does not end in three months, we will be in big trouble,” Rahmat Shah, the PKBSI head, said earlier this month as quoted by the Jakarta Post.

  The association said the last resort in a worst-case scenario would be to slaughter some animals to feed other animals. PKBSI said the animals qualified for slaughter would have to be from an abundant species, healthy, and at an unproductive age. Such a move wouldn’t violate any laws, the environment ministry has confirmed, but will still have to be approved by the ministry.

  The environment ministry said it has proposed a bailout fund from the state budget to help buy food and medicine for zoo animals. It has also requested tax breaks for zoos to ease their financial burden.

  Wildlife rehabilitation centers are not faring much better than zoos. Mongabay spoke to three organizations — the Bornean Orangutan Survival Foundation (BOSF), International Animal Rescue Indonesia (IAR) and the Orangutan Foundation International (OFI) — operating facilities that care for rescued animals, mainly the critically endangered Sumatran and Bornean orangutans (Pongo abelii and P. pygmaeus).

  For rehabilitation centers, which work closely with the environment ministry, a government directive temporarily banning releases while still requiring them to take in new animals is putting pressure on facilities that are already either at capacity or overcrowded.

  “This is certainly a challenging time for all of us,” Jamartin Sihite, the BOSF chief executive, told Mongabay. “We have seen that, just like us, many have launched emergency funding campaigns.”

  The centers have significantly reduced the interaction between caretakers and animals. Staff tasked with closely monitoring the captive individuals are required to follow strict hygiene protocols, such as wearing personal protective equipment. But PPE have become a rare commodity amid the COVID-19 crisis, with available stock selling for massively inflated prices. Wildlife rescue centers have had to bear those costs themselves.

  “It’s been quite stressful times, especially considering how difficult it is to obtain some of the PPE,” Karmele Llano Sanchez, the IAR program director, told Mongabay. Her organization runs a center in West Java province housing 13 macaques and 146 slow lorises, and another center in West Kalimantan housing 99 orangutans and nine slow lorises. Most of the orangutans at the IAR live are in open-air forested areas, not cages, so human contact is minimal, Sanchez said.

  Both BOSF and IAR have launched separate campaigns seeking help to buy more PPE to maintain good-quality care of their rescued animals.

  While OFI has not launched any special appeals to the public directly related to the pandemic, the organization said it was approached by “a small foundation” offering funding for protective clothing and coronavirus test kits. OFI has nearly 300 orangutans at its care center. This year it has received an orphaned infant orangutan and rescued and translocated a number of wild orangutans from dangerous situations.

  “We have noticed less donations from the general public as the economies of many countries have been devastated by the pandemic,” Birute Mary Galdikas, a pre-eminent primatologist and founder of OFI, told Mongabay.

  “We hope that stock markets and the global economy will recover as soon as possible but note that many people continue to be concerned about great apes, including orangutans, and are still donating as best they can,” she added.

  But with animal releases on hold, the centers are concerned about being overwhelmed with animals to care for. BOSF once had to operate for 11 years taking in new rescues but not being able to release any animals, Jamartin said. “This is not something we want to repeat, as the centers were over capacity and this presented many animal welfare challenges,” he said.

  He added his organization’s utmost priority was the animals’ safety and that they would wait as long as necessary to ensure each animal can be safely released back into the wild.

  “There are orangutans who are ready to return to the forest, but we cannot emphasize enough that our current priority is biosecurity above all,” he said. “For our operations to continue without releases, it is important that we have a strong network supporting our work and emergency measures, including the government, local communities and funding bodies.”

  IAR’s Sanchez said she supports the decision to postpone releases, calling it irresponsible to reintroduce to the wild an animal that might potentially be infected with the coronavirus and could go on to infect its wild counterparts or even other species. The IAR’s latest rescue is a baby orangutan being kept as a pet.

  Even though there have been no reports of great apes catching the coronavirus, orangutans may be at risk as all great apes are susceptible to catching respiratory diseases from humans, primatologists have warned.

  Sanchez called on the government to start thinking of ways to safely resume animal releases should the emergency situation last longer than anticipated. She said the chances of animals getting infected at the centers where they are in contact with humans are much higher than if they were free in the wild.

  “I think we must be able to set up biosafety or biosecurity protocols and procedures that will ensure the absolutely minimum risk of infection from released animals to other wild animals,” Sanchez said.

  Conservationists agree the ultimate solution is to stop destroying wildlife habitats so that there wouldn’t be any need for wildlife rescues or translocations, and less chance of the emergence of new zoonotic diseases like COVID-19.

  “The irony is that this pandemic, like so many newly emerging infectious diseases, occurred because humans increasingly destroyed intact ecosystems with wet wildlife markets being a collateral occurrence,” Galdikas said.

  “To stop pandemics similar to the current one emerging, it is important to stop the destruction of intact ecosystems such as tropical rainforests.”