ProAves response to NEOORN postings - and some personal views on all this mess
I would really rather not get involved in this debate at all, but the below message sent to NEOORN earlier may be of interest. It refers to some postings on other sites and some here:
Subject: ProAves response to NEOORN postings - and some personal views on all this mess
From: Thomas Donegan
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:08:07 +0000
Dear all,
There have been some bizarre comments on this forum about ProAves and this Grallaria. As one of few members of ProAves still left in this discussion group (many people having signed off long ago), I have been asked by colleagues to send this message correcting a few mis-statements made on this forum and elsewhere. Some may think of this email as defending the undefendable and I appreciate that this issue has polarised people's views. But the other side have been defended here using rumours presented as fact and have attacked ProAves with strong language. Some things therefore need clarifying and it unfortunately falls on these reluctant shoulders to do that. Knowing some of the members of this group, I look forward with trepidation to the public execution which will follow this message, but would encourage members of NEOORN please not to shoot the messenger in replying. As set out at the end of this message, the author of it has very mixed feelings about all of this and was not a central character in this mess. ProAves would like to draw the attention of NEOORN members to the following and I am therefore passing these points on:
1. ProAves has clarified in a statement (
http://www.proaves.org/article... that it is not opposed to collecting in appropriate circumstances. Various external researchers have asked in advance and been given permission to collect in its nature reserves, including Daniel Cadena – one of the people at the centre of this dispute – so this should be common knowledge. ProAves asks for a rationale to be presented as to why the particular specimen collection activity in question is necessary, for proper permits to be in place and for reporting under the permits to be complied with. This is understandable given that ProAves’ reserves are established to protect birds and because it is now liable for a massive fine due to collecting activities it never knew about or authorised. In response to Floyd’s latest message, ProAves has indeed sanctioned specific instances of scientific collecting and recognises that there are mortalities resulting from its mist-net and expedition programmes. ProAves has only condemned illegal collecting and the withholding of information.
2. Why David Caro is leaving his current position at ProAves. Before January, the "chisme" was that David resigned due to disagreeing with ProAves' stance on the Grallaria. Now it has conversely been claimed on this forum that he has been sacked for defending ProAves' position. This is an interesting conclusion, as he was already "outgoing" per Science when the quote was published. To dispell a myth: David Caro has had various health problems last year and resigned from his position at the end of last year on medical advice. He has since then been transitioning his work to the new executive director, Lina Daza, part time. David Caro was recently nominated to become a member of ProAves' advisory counsel (consejo). As a result, he is likely to maintain an active role at ProAves in whatever position he seeks following his recovery, be it at ProAves or elsewhere.
3. “We needed the name to raise more funds.” David Caro has asked that it be communicated to this forum that he considers to have been misquoted in Science. The quote attributed to him does not make sense anyway because the Fenwick donation which led to the purchase of the Colibri del Sol reserve occurred several years before the Grallaria was found and was given unconditionally. No funding was received or sought by ProAves for ‘naming rights’ (if such a thing exists). Use of fenwickorum was just something that people at ProAves wanted to do to thank a valued donor.
4. The end of David Caro's era as director of ProAves should not be surrounded only by negative comment. He has been a tireless worker and very effective administrator for conservation and research in Colombia. His tenure as executive director, and previously as part of ProAves' administrative staff, has seen ProAves' protected area network grow considerably to 18 nature reserves protecting over 22,0000 hectares of endangered tropical forest. A number of huge strides forward in the foundation's conservation management, environmental education, community outreach and research programmes have taken place during this time in charge. He should be congratulated for his excellent work in furthering conservation in Colombia.
5. ProAves and Ecoturs are not “for profit”. Ecoturs gives all its profits from ecotourism to ProAves. Ecoturs operates in a separate legal entity for legal reasons – because a charity is not allowed to provide ecotourism services in Colombia. Ecoturs undertakes ecotourism operations to assist with the sustainability of ProAves’ nature reserves. The income ProAves receives from Ecoturs funds core reserve protection costs and allows ProAves to focus on expanding nature reserves in size and number. The benefits for birds and conservation from this arrangement are clear. ProAves actively raises funds but entirely for its conservation work. It operates with a lean administrative and office staff, channelling funding where possible to land purchase for conservation and the management and protection of its existing reserves. Almost all of its reserves are registered with the National Parks network and those which are not have applications pending. ProAves is frequently audited by its donors and other third parties. It should be regarded as a model for effective conservation work by an NGO in Latin America.
6. CORPOURABA’s enforcement action against Carantón (and, through his agency, ProAves) was for a breach of reporting requirements, not for illegal collecting per se. ProAves has taken the position that the collecting itself was irregular because ProAves would usually at least notify proposed instances of collection in advance to the regional corporation where it is borderline as regards the scope of the permit. This is discussed in the second editorial. However, there was no such finding by CORPOURABA - who concentrated on the easy-to-prove reporting violations. Assertions that ProAves’ feather sampling was illegal miss the point: these activities were duly reported to the regional corporation. It is the reporting aspects that Carantón was found to have breached, presumably a consequence of his wish (for reasons that are still not clear) to hide the discovery from his then employer, ProAves.
7. Was the Barrera et al. paper really “scientifically irresponsible” in using samples? There were two specimens of this critically endangered species already collected. These were cited, illustrated and discussed in the fenwickorum paper as forming part of the basis for the description. Barrera et al. presented full details of their justification for what they did: the two existing specimens were under threat of confiscation pursuant to a freezing order issued by the environmental authority CORPOURABA. There are recent examples of illegally collected specimens being confiscated from museums in Colombia in similar circumstances, so they did not want to create types which would end up confiscated and unavailable for study in the office of a Corporación Autónoma Regional or rubbish bin. In the event, it has been ordered that they be transferred to another museum, one assumes as some sort of sanction for the ICN’s own failure also to report the specimens. Perhaps the fenwickorum authors should have used the full specimens anyway; and many would conclude that they should have waited until the investigation had run its course. Some people with a particular view about bird collections and holotypes might say that they should have collected a third specimen for use as a holotype and reported it in compliance with the permits. The question of whether the collection of a third full specimen of a critically endangered species is warranted is not a straightforward one, given that the two specimens already available were considered sufficient for two independent teams to conclude that a new species was involved and to describe its phenotype in detail. Notably, the Carantón & Certuche team also captured but did not collect further individuals. We can all discuss whether a different holotype should have been selected, but it is understandable why the individual on which fenwickorum holotype is based was released.
8. Gary Stiles is a great ambassador and servant for ornithology and conservation in Colombia and elsewhere. He was one of the council members of ProAves in its early days. Though he is no longer in that position, many people at ProAves greatly appreciate his work and contribution to ornithological study. Gary is a great ornithologist and his work has led to important conservation outcomes.
9. John Burton of World Land Trust has done more than perhaps anyone else in fundraising for land purchase for conservation from public donations. Hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest and the birds that inhabit them throughout the world are protected because of him and World Land Trust. John is a great conservationist.
10. It is unnecessary and futile to compare different people’s important but differing contributions to conservation in a subjective, biased, self-serving manner in the way that has been done on this listserver.
11. ProAves recognises that the widely discussed ABC Bird Calls paper includes factual inaccuracies, as has been widely pointed out. As regards matters relating to Colombia, the Atlapetes latinuchus yariguierum description was based on a series of specimens, including the holotype which was collected on a ProAves expedition (which died having been roosted overnight for further study). Also, there were fewer Bushbirds collected than was stated in the ABC article. The opinions expressed in Bird Calls are those of ABC, not ProAves. The viewpoints on John Burton’s blog are his own. ProAves did not review or approve either of those pieces and neither ABC nor WLT has implied this.
12. ProAves may partner in projects and conservation actions with ABC, WLT and other organisations, but each are separate organisations, with their own staff, have their own position on issues such as specimen collecting and also include various individual employees or directors who have different attitudes on this and other topics.
13. Dusky Starfrontlet authors. An email written by Niels Krabbe (lead author) to the other co-authors dated 23 January 2005 argues that Paul should be an author of the paper because he conceived, obtained funding for and organised much of the logistics for ProAves expedition to Frontino (which rediscovered the species) and because he wrote a good portion of the manuscript. If that is correct, then it is not clear why his co-authorship of the paper should be controversial.
14. Santa Marta Screech Owl specimen. The collection of the specimen and its current status have been reported to CORPAMAG. One specimen was collected outside the El Dorado Nature Reserve in an area which has recently been acquired and added to the reserve. The collection was only undertaken after a two-month period of field research on the owl to assess its population status. This specimen is the type for a paper being written on the new Megascops. When that is ready, and within the terms of permission, the specimen will be deposited in a registered bird collection. This approach has been agreed with the lead author, who is no longer involved with ProAves and has had full access to the specimen.
15. If people want to learn more about the dispute, then they should read the three editorials and Cadena’s response to the second ProAves paper in full rather than dipping into selected highlights/lowlights:
First ProAves editorial (including English translation)
http://www.proaves.org/IMG/pdf...
ACO editorial:
http://www.ornitologiacolombia...
ProAves response to ACO editorial (Spanish and English):
http://www.proaves.org/IMG/pdf...
http://www.proaves.org/IMG/pdf...
Cadena response to ProAves response:
http://evodiversidad.blogspot....
Daniel Cadena (for his part, one of the ACO editorial authors) in his blog and ProAves have both sensibly expressed a desire to draw a line under this and move on. ProAves repears that call here. It would be nice if people now did that. Everyone (that means not just the people that one disagrees with) can learn several obvious lessons about how not to go about during collaborative research work from this episode. However, certain members of this discussion group are repeating the mistakes of the original urraoensis and fenwickorum teams in using their communications for maximum insult and antagonism rather than for constructive discussion and reconciliation. It should be regarded as a minimum for decent human behaviour that professionally educated people deal with one another in a cordial and professional fashion based on facts, even if they disagree with one another. The spreading of false rumours, insults and false attributions on discussion forums should not be encouraged.
-
There ends ProAves' statements. Biomap is not a ProAves project, but a collaboration between museums. I have though been reliably informed that there are over 350 registered users of Biomap from a range of different institutions in Colombia and abroad. People who want to use the database, which is freely available and accessible online, should simply as users:
www.biomap.net.
-
Finally, given that the responsibility of sending this email has fallen on me, and because I have more mixed feelings about this that many people at ProAves, I must make some personal comments /disclaimers here.
1. ProAves has taken very tough action in this case and it is understandable that some people disagree with their approach. Given the strength of feeling on this topic, it was probably not prudent for ProAves to have produced its own description in the manner that has happened. I will not defend that decision because I was not involved in, or even aware of, the much-discussed arguments, fieldwork or decision itself or the writing of the MS which was submitted to Conservacion Colombiana (although I did review and provide comments on the submitted MS). The name chosen, nature of the holotype and some of the publicity also appear to have wound certain people up. Taking all those steps in relation to the same description was not, in my view, very prudent. However, those on the other side of this would do well to try and understand why ProAves decided to go ahead with their own description: The first step to preventing this sort of unfortunate situation from happening again is to consider why it arose. ProAves reacted to the Carantón/Certuche team, and those egging them on and leading their 'negotiations', behaving rather poorly. Breach of the terms of research permits in collecting activities, breach of ProAves’ regulations, breach of contract, infringement of intellectual property rights and lack of respect for donors and employer can all be considered a matter of fact, not opinion. Members of the urraoensis team complain about ProAves’ ethics, and they have some fair points: I was brought up to “turn the other cheek” and ProAves did not do that. However, the law sets a baseline for acceptable human behaviour and (unlike ProAves) the urraoensis team have not even met that low standard, never mind some higher ethical standard. The urraoensis team should not be regarded as a cause celebre: quite the contrary. In my own personal view, even though it appears always to have acted lawfully, ProAves should also not be regarded as cause celebre either. It is though most surprising that certain people have jumped in with comments defending the urraoensis team’s behaviour and pointing the finger unilaterally at ProAves with strong language as the party at fault. The situation is far more complex than that. As above, this is a view one formed from (now quite a lot of, almost entirely ex post facto) second hand information and I would refer people again to the editorials for versions of the facts.
2. What is done is done. We should now all draw a line under this and try to get on with life. As a minimum, I would call for dispassionate objectivity, respect and professionalism in discussions on this forum and elsewhere (again, that applies to all sides).
3. This Grallaria episode is a mess, but ProAves is a great organisation doing fantastic conservation work. People should be kinder to it and be proud of the great work it has achieved.
4. Enter axeman, stage left.
Thomas Donegan.