Solutions for Vulture Decline

Numerous actions have been initiated to halt the extinction of vultures due to diclofenac (mostly in India, Pakistan, Nepal and parts of South East Asia) and also to ameliorate other problems such as pesticide and lead poisoning (mostly in Europe). To solve the diclofenac problem, the governments of India, Nepal and Pakistan passed legislation in 2006 that banned the manufacture and importation of diclofenac for veterinary uses. In 2008, India went further and banned the sale, distribution or use of veterinary diclofenac. The Drug Controller General of India in 2008 informed scores of drugs firms to cease selling the veterinary form of diclofenac. Human diclofenac containers were ordered 'not for veterinary use' (BirdLife International 2008). The government of Bangladesh in October 2010, banned the production of diclofenac for cattle. The distribution and sale of the drug were ordered banned during 2011 (BirdLife International 2014). These laws have reduced diclofenac use for cattle, but diclofenac contamination remains common. Also, the forms of the drug for human use are still available for use in cattle (Cuthbert et al. 2011a,b). Studies of alternatives are intensive, and one alternative, meloxicam, was tested and found to have no ill effect on vultures (see above) (Swan et al. 2006; Swarup et al. 2007; Cuthbert et al. 2011c). In Nepal, diclofenac has been in replaced with meloxicam near breeding colonies; in addition there is diversionary feeding with diclofenac- free carcasses (Chaudhary et al. 2010).

In addition supplementary feeding of vultures with safe meat, combined with effective monitoring has increased. Seven vulture restaurants were set up in Cambodia by the Cambodia Vulture Conservation Project, which involves a partnership between the Royal Cambodian Government and national and international NGOs (Masphal and Vorsak 2007; Rainey 2008). The vulture restaurants are in some cases used as ecotourism attractions, especially in Cambodia for financial gain and also to promote public knowledge of the issues (Eames 2007a; Masphal and Vorsak 2007). Vulture restaurants were studied in Myanmar in late 2006 and early 2007, and more research was conducted into factors for vulture mortalities, nesting locations of nesting colonies and diclofenac use (Eames 2007b).

Diversionary feeding has met with moderate success. Vultures are highly mobile, and more movement detection studies are necessary for restaurant locations to be effective (Pain et al. 2008). Some vultures are satellite tagged for information on their movements (Ellis 2004). There is evidence of social support for vulture conservation, as local people are aware of the ecological benefits of vulture feeding, such as removal of rotting meat, reduction of diseases and reduced numbers of facultative scavengers such as feral dogs (Gautam et al. 2003).

Captive breeding is another strategy for vulture rescue. For example, the Report of the International South Asian Vulture Recovery Plan Workshop in 2004 recommended the development of at least three captive breeding centres, each capable of holding 25 pairs of vultures (Bombay Natural History Society 2004; Lindsay 2008). In Uthai Thani, Thailand, a five-year captive breeding and reintroduction was initiated by the Zoological Park Association and Kasetsart University. In Pinjore, Haryana, India, two chicks were hatched in 2007 and three more in 2009 at a breeding centre established by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the Bombay Natural History Society (Bowden 2009). By April 2008, there were 88 captive birds in three Indian breeding centres, 11 in a centre started by WWF- Pakistan in Pakistan and 14 captive birds in Nepal (Pain et al. 2008). These populations of captive birds increased over the next year, to 120 in India, 43 in Nepal and 14 in Pakistan (Bowden 2009). By the end of November 2011, there were a total of 221 vultures in the breeding centres affiliated to SAVE (Saving Asia's Vultures from Extinction) (SAVE 2012). Some of the vultures in these centres were found poisoned and treated to recovery. An example of a rescue centre is the Centre for Wildlife Rehabilitation and Conservation, Assam, conducted by the Wildlife Trust of India and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW).

In Europe, the ameliorative actions largely concern the Cinereous Vulture and the Egyptian vulture. The EU Birds Directive has assisted in the recovery of Cinereous Vulture in Spain. Here the population increased from an estimated 290 pairs in 1984 to at least of 1,845 pairs in 2007 (De la Puente et al. 2007). Poisoned baits, which affect the vultures were also controlled by work involving Spanish government agencies and conservationists in the 'Antidote Programme'. Anti-poisoning plans were developed by the Spanish and the Andalusian Governments that may yet be implemented. Cinereous vultures were reintroduced in Grands Causses, Southern France, which increased to 16 breeding pairs in 2006 (Eliotout et al. 2007).

Supplementary feeding and captive breeding programmes have been initiated in Spain and France (Tewes et al. 1998). Other supplementary feeding centres are in Bulgaria and South Korea (Lee et al. 2006). A colony of vultures in the Dadia forest reserve in northern Greece, is supported by the World Wildlfe Fund. The Balkan Vulture Action Plan also attempts technology transfer on vulture conservation from western Europe to eastern Europe.

For the Egyptian vulture, conservation actions include monitoring programmes (in both Europe and Africa), supplementary feeding in Europe (Cortes-Avizanda et al. 2010) and campaigns against illegal use of poisons, including awareness-raising (BirdLife International 2014). This species may also benefit from the diclofenac ban by the Indian government. Research has also been conducted in Tanzania on the extent of Diclofenac use for veterinary purposes (BirdLife International 2007; Woodford et al. 2008; Inigo et al. 2008). In Europe, there are national species action plans in France, Bulgaria and Italy.

The Egyptian vulture is also included in the Balkan Vulture Action Plan (BVAP) for eastern Europe. Captive breeding is also being developed in Italy. Satellite-tag surveys are conducted in Spain, France, Italy, Bulgaria and Macedonia for information on juvenile dispersion, migratory movements and wintering areas (Garria-Ripolles et al. 2010). Nests are also guarded against poachers in Italy and Bulgaria. As the Egyptian vulture winters in northern Africa, there have been studies on the factors affecting migrants in Mauritania, Senegal, Ethiopia, Sudan and Turkey. These studies are being conducted with local organizations in the relevant countries.

In Africa, despite an extensive literature on the decline of most vulture species (Campbell 2009; Ogada and Buij 2011) it appears most of the actual conservation actions are for the Cape vulture in South Africa. Nongovernmental organizations have been able to elicit support for vulture conservation among farming communities in South Africa (Barnes 2000). This species enjoys legal protection throughout its range, and some breeding colonies are in protected areas (Barnes 2000). Nestlings were color-ringed in the 1970s and 1980s for information on their movements and survival (Botha 2006). Due to pylon related deaths and injuries, the national electricity suppliers in South Africa replaced some pylons with safer designs (Barnes 2000), and breeding numbers have increased in one area (Wolter et al. 2007).

Supplementary feeding has been successfully developed and may be a factor for minimal population recovery in some local areas (Barnes 2000). Two restaurants, one in Nooitgedacht and another in Magaliesberg appear to have assisted in local species recovery (Borello 2007; Wolter et al. 2007). In at least one area, supplementary feeding increased the survival rate of young birds in the Western Cape Province of South Africa (Piper et al. 1999).

Captive breeding is also practiced successfully. There were 37 birds in captivity in Namibia in 2011. Sixteen captive South African vultures were released in Namibia in October 2005. Two of these birds were fitted with satellite transmitters, and five more were fitted with these transmitters in 2006, although there is evidence that some released birds died (Diekmann and Strachan 2006; Komen 2006; Bamford et al. 2007).

Public education on vulture problems has also yielded dividends. In Namibia, farmers have learned of the benefits of vulture presence and the disadvantages of poisoning carcasses from publication education programmes, an education centre and a programme for schools (Diekmann and Strachan 2006). There was a conservation workshop in March 2006, with 19 people in attendance, the result being planning for the management of the main vulture colonies in southern Africa (Komen 2006). Topics receiving attention by recent actions in southern Africa include: the dangers of using diclofenac in the treatment of cattle; awareness of vulture drownings in reservoirs and actual modifications of these reservoirs to reduce such deaths; possible re-establishment of monitoring at the Cape vulture's only colony in Zimbabwe; the impacts of hunting for medicinal and cultural reasons in southern Africa; and general conservation matters (Boshoff and Anderson 2006, 2007; Komen 2006; McKean and Botha 2007; Wolter et al. 2007).

In other parts of Africa, there have been directives and studies, but fewer actual actions possibly due to lack of funds. For the Rueppell's Vulture, there may be a benefit from a survey in 2007 to determine diclofenac use for veterinary purposes in Tanzania (BirdLife International 2007). For the White-backed Vulture, a press release was circulated in July 2007 to raise awareness of the impacts of hunting for medicinal and cultural reasons in southern Africa (McKean and Botha 2007). For the White-headed Vulture, possibly a more threatened species, birds were marked with patagial tags in Fouta Djallon Vulture Sanctuary, Guinea, in 2007 to monitor movements and for a toxicological assessment of the vulture population of the park (Rondeau 2008). For the Lappet-faced vulture, there are studies on its status, especially in Saudi Arabia (Newton and Shobrak 1993). Also, a five-year international action plan for the species was published in 2005, aiming to stabilize or increase its population, increase ecological knowledge and minimize human impacts (Shimelis et al. 2005). For Botswana, there was a study in 2007 (Hancock in litt. 2006), and 221 chicks were marked with patagial tags between 2006 and 2009 (Bridgeford 2009). Also in 2008 a conference of the World Organisation for Animal Health in Senegal led to a resolution asking 'Members to consider their national situation with the aim to seek measures to find solutions to the problems caused by the administration of diclofenac in livestock' (Bowden 2008; Woodford et al. 2007).