Common issues

Suriname and Guyana are the two last countries to export wildlife for the pet trade legally in South America. Both countries wish to maintain a sustainable use of their wildlife resources and not over-exploit them. However, when the data of both countries are compared, differences are clear:

Quotas: When the quotas of Suriname and Guyana are compared (Tables 9, 10) several problems arise:
Suriname has much lower quotas and far lower realized export figures than Guyana (Tables 2, 6) but higher FOB prices. Suriname has long believed that larger parrots cannot sustain large annual harvests and has set its quotas accordingly; Guyana has taken a different approach and in fact recently increased their parrot quotas. In other words, for a similar overall annual revenue from the wildlife trade, Guyana is exporting more wildlife at a lower price.
Guyana and Suriname have zero quotas for different species (Table 10). Just taking the case of parrots, Amazona festiva has a zero quota in Suriname while Guyana allows an export quota of 520 even though it is equally uncommon over the border. Meanwhile Suriname allows an annual export of 100 Ara macao and Ara severa while Guyana does not. Such differences in quotas for uncommon species give a clear incentive for cross-border smuggling. Harmonization of the quota lists of both countries is essential to discourage smuggling.
Quotas are set in both countries for the wildlife that is exported. It might be wise to consider setting a harvest quotum for each harvest area as well so as to insure that the harvest areas, some which have been used for years, are not being over harvested, particularly when local hunting for bushmeat is also putting pressure on the resource (Table 8). (Suriname's regulations stipulate that an exporter may not harvest more than 25% of his quotum, per species, from any given area ­ which is hard to enforce.) Community-based harvest quotas could be part of the wildlife-monitoring program and help the community withstand the pressure from the middlemen/exporters of over harvesting certain favored species.

Quotas for the capture of wildlife, and particularly parrots, should be established on the basis of the best information available and not be based on average exports over a given period. Both parrot surveys undertaken recently in Guyana (Kratter, A.W., 1998) and in Suriname (Schouten, K., 1995), which resulted in increased quotas in both countries, were considered inadequate by the international scientific community. Closer consultation with both the IUCN-Species Survival Commission parrot specialists and the parrot trappers themselves should be an active and ongoing process as part of the monitoring of wildlife export activities.

Revenue: The wildlife trade is a lucrative business, but the revenue is not distributed equally. The trappers who rely on this seasonal activity for precious cash in the cashless interior receive a few dollars for birds that sell for hundreds or thousands overseas. This creates the incentives to catch wildlife fast and indiscriminately to raise as much cash as possible during a short season, which is detrimental to the sustainable use of the resource. Communities must be involved in managing their wild populations including deciding the numbers of animals to be trapped and setting a fair market price for their wildlife.

Breeding and/or ranching (taking eggs from the wild) of birds may be a costly but viable alternative for certain species of birds and reptiles and could be a community-based activity if the expertise and funds are available to launch the effort. Both the Amerindian communities and the exporters in Suriname support this suggestion.

Lack of revenue affects the other end of the spectrum too -- Guyana's Environmental Protection Agency keeps the permit fees and taxes imposed on wildlife trade revenues, the Suriname's Permit Office does not and now has severe budgetary constraints. Lack of revenue has hampered Suriname's wildlife regulation enforcement for years. Export tax revenues should be allocated to the government entity responsible in Suriname for controlling wildlife harvests and exports, i.e LBB/NB. Further, these revenues should also be used to support wildlife population monitoring programs and other activities associated with the sustainable use of wildlife resources.

International organizations should bring whatever pressure necessary on the Office of the President and the Ministry of Natural Resources in Suriname to allow the allocation of revenues generated from wildlife exports to the operation expenses of the LBB/NB Permit Office, including its wildlife enforcement activities.

International cooperation: To date there has been little cooperation between Suriname and Guyana over wildlife trade issues. Exporters from both countries believe that the other side smuggles birds over the border in huge numbers. Indeed one researcher reports that 50% of Guyana's parrots go to Suriname (Kratter, 1998)! While we don't believe this to be the case, we feel that smuggling does take place in both directions and that smuggling routes are well established and some of the offenders, well known. Clearly a monitoring program needs to be set up along the border between Suriname and Guyana, preferably in key areas such as Apura and Nickerie as well as at the local airports.

Both countries have active and long-established wildlife trader associations whose members, on the whole, comply with export regulations and the quotas set by the regulating agencies. However, smuggling activities by members of these associations were seen first-hand in Suriname. While the mechanisms for issuing permits and establishing quotas are in place, there is no infrastructure to monitor the traders except the trader associations themselves. Until there are effective border patrols, hardly feasible when the Corantyne can be paddled across day and night unimpeded, cooperation between the regulating agencies in both countries would establish a broader information exchange base and monitoring infrastructure.

Further, cooperation between the traders' associations in both countries may help manage the resource more effectively and promote cooperation. Informal regional meetings, involving both agencies and stakeholders, to discuss broad issues, such as the preparation of a CITES meeting, may help establish mutual trust between the agencies and trader associations.

Rural community involvement and benefit: Trappers in the rural areas of Guyana and Suriname, usually Amerindians, derive significant cash revenues from the capture and sale of wildlife. The amount paid to the wild animal trappers is only a tiny fraction of what the birds or reptiles sell for in importing countries. Clearly there is an incentive to review the economic benefits of all concerned in the wildlife trade.

Long-term economic benefits can be realized through better management techniques (including better animal husbandry) at the trapper level. Such local education programs would be profitable to both the trappers and the wildlife. For instance, the placement of additional nesting boxes on trees for macaws and parrots has been successful in Peru (Thomsen, J. B. & A. Brautigam, 1991). Of course, these wildlife conservation techniques should be compatible with cultural systems and acceptable to community leaders. In our experience with Amerindian communities, there exists an interest in learning new techniques in the management of wildlife particularly if there is a direct economic benefit.

The desired benefit is to share information between all the stakeholders, create a sense of trust and participation in the management of the local wildlife resources, thus ultimately reduce the motivation to over-hunt and over-trap. The Amerindian communities are closer to the wildlife than the exporters or permitting agencies and yet they have no say in setting quotas. At present there is no relationship between the actual harvest and export quotas. There is no information as to level of effort by trappers in the interior to meet the quotas set in town. The same harvest areas are used for years and the exporters expect the same returns from these areas during the open season.

Monitoring: A closer monitoring of the wildlife trade, both legal and illegal, needs to be done in both Suriname and Guyana. This will require a network based on cooperation and trust at all levels and involve all the stakeholders from the "bottom up" as well a close working relationship with the governmental agencies and ministries involved. It is not an easy task as heretofore, the level of cooperation between each country, between governmental agencies, and between stakeholders has been lacking. Regional meetings and an informal newsletter reporting on wildlife trade activities in the region and internationally would be helpful in getting the process started.