Guadeloupe Manatee Reintroduction Project

Guadeloupe Manatee Reintroduction Project
Minutes of Expert Working Group Meeting
29-31th august 2012, Guadeloupe
th
The meeting from 29 to 30 of August 2012 was attended by 4 members of the Expert Working Group
(J.Reynolds, T.O’Shea, B.Morales, A.Acosta) as well as James Powell, Director of the NGO “Sea to
Shore Alliance” (present for the restitution of the soft release enclosures assessment mission and the
discussion of O’Shea and Reynolds report) ; Gaëlle Vandersarren from the SPAW RAC ; Nicolas
Maslach from the AGOA Sanctuary; Hervé Magnin and Boris Lerebours, the Guadeloupe staff of the
project.
Summary:

Topic 1 : Soft release enclosures and protocols (Debriefing of the assessment mission)

Topic 2 : Factors promoting success for the project and place of animals from captivity
into the founder population (O’Shea and Reynolds Report, 2012)

Topic 3 : Fishermen endorsement

Topic 4 : General summary of activities

Topic 5 : Cooperation with potential donors countries

Topic 6 : Implementation and next steps

Appendices
Topic 1 : Soft release enclosures and protocols (Debriefing of the assessment
mission)
Preamble: The soft release assessment mission took place from August 27 to 29, involving James
Powell, John Reynolds and Tom O'Shea. Other experts were invited to attend this mission but James
Reid could not attend and Nicole Adimey was prevented from attending by Hurricane Isaac. First, an
aerial survey of the preselected sites was made, then 2 days boat trips to evaluate the potential of
each site pre-selected.
James Powell recalled the experimental nature of the manatee reintroduction project. According to him
and following the assessment mission, the project has a great potential for success, especially
because of the high quality habitat, productive and well preserved. In comparison with other islands
such as Cuba, Jamaica or Puerto Rico, the habitat is excellent compared to the size of the island. The
large availability of food, the presence of freshwater sources and marine traffic relatively low
(compared to many other places in the region) are criteria very encouraging for the project success.
Finally, J.Powell encouraged the use of small calves from captivity for the project, due to their greater
availability, the greater ease of transporting and handling small animals, and the fact that they may be
less inclined to wander than older animals. The downsides of using small calves are that they would
need a longer time in a soft release facility and may be more vulnerable to predators (but noting that
large sharks are not common around the GCSM).
Recommendations:



Land access is very important, especially if the project starts with animals from captivity that
will need to be handled frequently.
The access to a natural or artificial fresh water source is also very important for the welfare of
the animals.
Presence in the enclosure of sufficient natural food is important for the animals learning to







feed.
Have a hard enough substrate is important for teams to handle the animals.
The issue of storm shelters is important but not crucial. Animals could be removed from the
enclosure to the care center, if approaching hurricane risk.
Select a site close to the historical areas of the presence of manatees in the bay could be
decisive for the settlement of the animals.
Choose a site not far from a village, even it can represent more awareness effort initially, could
be a strong factor of involvement of the local population and benefit to the community.
If calves, can be considered a small enclosure (with less natural food) included in a larger one
(with more).
If calves close to a village, it is important to involve people and engage the young generation.
It will need to be defining the best strategy to engage the community.
Some options to promote the involvement of people: webcam in the soft release enclosures /
acoustic listening system / observation tower / wildtracks but not in real time (delay of 3/4
days).
Topic 2 : Factors promoting success for the project and place of animals from
captivity into the founder population (O’Shea and Reynolds Report, 2012)
This report is a result of a command from the National Park of Guadeloupe and addresses the issues
discussed during the second meeting of the Expert Working Group in December 2011. The questions
and recommendations were:
 Make a review of efforts involving terrestrial mammals (and even some manatees released in
various locations after periods in captivity) to help ensure the success of the project.
 Establish an overview of factors that optimize the chances for success in reintroductions of
large mammals. Specific factors that need to be included in the review are: costs and
benefits of using wild vs. captive animals; how many individuals are optimal during the
reintroduction process; what sort of genetic diversity is needed; and to what extent to
introduced individuals need to be genetically the same as the animals that once inhabited a
location.
 Make an inventory of captive Antillean manatees in the region and elsewhere.
The report was submitted in July 2012 and composed in two parts:

Phase I: “An Investigation of Factors Promoting Success or Failure of Releases of
Sirenians after Being Held in Captivity, as Pertinent to the Proposed Reintroduction of
Antillean Manatees to Guadeloupe”

Phase II: “A Selective Review of Successes and Failures of Mammalian Translocations
and Reintroductions as Related to the Proposed Reintroduction of Antillean Manatees
to Guadeloupe”
The findings of the two reports and the recommendations resulting from this work were presented by
the authors and discussed with the others Expert Working Group members, James Powell and the
Staff of the National Park:
General recommendations

Translocation of Antillean manatees to Guadeloupe is almost without precedent in marine
mammal conservation. In that context it will be important to be as thorough and deliberative
as possible, based on successes and failures with other wildlife and knowledge of manatee
biology.

The ground-breaking approach taken at Guadeloupe may be of long-term benefit to Antillean
manatee conservation range-wide. Establishment of a protected, isolated population will be of
benefit should a widespread disease or other catastrophe occur in the rest of the distribution.

Perhaps more importantly, should populations continue to decline elsewhere lessons learned
from a successful reintroduction to Guadeloupe will benefit possible future sirenian
reintroduction attempts in other parts of the world.

The manatee reintroduction project should move forward, but with well-designed plans for a
very intensive initial management phase lasting at least 10-15 years.

Establishment Phase will proceed slowly (low numbers of source animals, “slow “manatee life
history variables, likely need for behavioral, genetic, and demographic interventions and
supplementation).

This intensive management phase should include population and habitat monitoring, and a
formal structured decision-making framework that allows good decisions based on results of
this monitoring.
Recommendations regarding genetics:
Preamble: About the genetic issue, the Expert Working Group members felt comfortable that a match
at the subspecies level would likely be fine, as long as some genetic diversity was present. About the
hybridization issue, it should be avoided as much as possible but source populations with a low rate of
hybridization cannot be totally excluded. For example, Mexican manatees from the Gulf of Mexico
populations should not be excluded even if some genes shared with the Florida manatee could be
found.

Avoid hybrids (i.e. Amazonian manatee hybrids)

Avoid inbred captive-born stock

Maintain pedigrees

Characterize each individual by functional genetic markers

Archive tissues from each manatee

Stage the initial translocation for a 1-2 year trial period with a few manatees, followed by
addition of as many new individuals at as fast a rate as feasible

Use individuals from multiple source populations, provided that marine or estuarine habitats
are used by that population

Develop short and long term genetic management plans (but first be very opportunistic about
the animals to be reintroduced)

Consult with experts in conservation genetics
Recommendations regarding dispersal:

Manatees translocated to Guadeloupe must be intensively monitored by telemetry, and prior to
translocation contingency plans must be developed for their re-capture should dispersal occur.

Avoid potential founders that have abnormal behavior in captivity, or that seem especially
“bold”.

Attempt to use individuals less likely to disperse in the initial group of founders.

Avoid founders from the margins of the range if feasible.

Public outreach for manatee reintroduction at Guadeloupe must be intensive and include
preparation of the public for possible dispersal events or mortality.
Recommendations regarding the habitat:

Assess the reintroduction habitat for threats and requisites prior to translocation

Establish a habitat monitoring system for quantifying aspects of the seagrass ecosystem
Recommendations regarding capture, transport, and holding

Consult with centers of expertise in manatee capture and handling in planning capture,
transport, and holding for the Guadeloupe project

Techniques for transport to Guadeloupe should be specified in a written plan reviewed by
consulting veterinarians and animal care specialists who have experience with long-distance
transport of manatees

Details of soft-release holding facilities and conditions, periods of time manatees will be held,
and methods of de-conditioning manatees prior to release should be specified in a written plan
reviewed by experts

Train source manatees that are in captivity elsewhere to eat bottom-growing food at their
captive location prior to moving them to soft-release pens at Guadeloupe.

Co-house naïve manatees with manatees that have experience in bottom-feeding on
seagrasses.

Train manatees that are in captivity elsewhere to wear floating transmitter assemblies (or
dummy assemblies without instrumentation) prior to moving to soft-release pens at
Guadeloupe.

Train manatees that are in captivity elsewhere to approach care-givers when given a simple
underwater acoustic signal.
Recommendations regarding health and disease:

Consult with experts in manatee health and disease prior to initiating a translocation and
during the Establishment Phase

Consider disease screening and quarantine of translocated individuals, especially when the
source animals are from facilities that co-house multiple species (facilitating potential crossspecies transmission) or when translocated individuals come from multiple locations

Conduct health assessments of individuals designated for translocation

Review records and consult with animal health experts in the region to determine if there is a
risk from pathogens that are host generalists and maintained in common (e.g., domestic
animals), less susceptible hosts. Given the potential risks, it is advisable that the reintroduction
program at Guadeloupe consider formal disease risk analyses.

Develop contingency plans with provisions (i.e., advance agreements and contracts) for
intensive veterinary care at facilities staffed by experts in manatee health and critical care, in
the event a manatee at Guadeloupe is seriously injured or is in poor body condition.
Recommendations regarding monitoring and modeling:

Develop a population monitoring plan to judge the success of the project and to inform
management decisions aimed at improving prospects for success.

Use population monitoring data in appropriate models to develop and weigh hypotheses and
predictions (especially about possible future trends), and use these models within a structured
decision making framework (such as adaptive management).

Consult with experts in monitoring and adaptive management of wildlife in small populations
(including experts in applying these processes to manatees), for advice on preferred
demographic characteristics of the initial releases, and on methods for post-release and longterm monitoring of the reintroduced population in an adaptive management framework.

Maintain long-term involvement of stakeholders as part of the adaptive management
framework. Stakeholders include the general public, who should be engaged and involved
through various media and events surrounding the reintroduction efforts.
Note: An important point of the O'Shea and Reynolds reports was that in the re-introduction program, it
should be expected that a small number of individual manatees will not survive. The public should be
educated about that so that the death of a manatee does not lead to a huge outcry.
Topic 3 : Fishermen endorsement
The meeting organized with local stakeholders and users of the bay allowed initiating discussions with
the Experts group members regarding the fisherman community. The following comments and
recommendations emerged from the discussions: Relatively negative position towards the project
expressed by the fishermen at the meeting should be taken with caution. According to the fisheries
specialist of the Expert Group, Alejandro Acosta, this type of position is very political and do not always
reflect the reality of the relations between the manager and the fisherman community. Collaborative
work and fishermen's association with the project should be continued as it was committed. Moreover,
if the position of the fishermen remained reticent to the project it should not give more importance to
the fishermen they have, especially if the impacts of the project on their activity are low. The strategy
should be to continue to involve them in the construction of the project and propose the development
of joint solutions.
The discussion was not limited to involvement of fishing groups, but the Working Group members
clearly identified the integration of such entities as being vital to the success of the project.
Recommendations for improved relations included:

Continue the process of impact assessment including the development of surveys.

Use the surveys as a tool to discuss and propose adaptive and compensatory measures.

As the situation is favorable, develop as planned, workshops with fishermen to develop joint
solutions.
Topic 4 : General summary of activities
The staff of the National Park provided a thorough summary of activities that were conducted between
December 2011 and August 2012. The following activities were presented and discussed:

Opinion survey on the project developed throughout the population of Guadeloupe (June
2012).

Meetings held with various stakeholder groups and short-term project to develop Thematic
working sessions with these groups (ecotourism operators, fishermen, boaters, etc.)

French Guyana: First exploratory mission (April 2011) with the support of Nataly
Castelblanco and the proposal of an action plan elaborated by N.Castelblanco for the
coming months.

Preparation of the 7th COP/STAC SPAW Protocol

Development of the regional cooperation strategy with potential donors countries

First exploratory mission in Colombia (December 2011)

Capture and veterinary monitoring training in Florida (January 2012)

Evaluation of the place of captive animals within the project (O’Shea and Reynolds report)

Initiation of the study of socio-economic impact and potential interactions of the
reintroduction of the manatee on the activities of commercial fishing in the bay

Research on the genetic profile of the population formerly present :
Martinique museum possibly available

Participation in a by catch workshop organized by the SPAW RAC in Mexico (June 2012)

Participation in an international conference on reintroductions in Lyon (February 2012)

Presentation of the project at the next GCFI
Bones
from a
Comments and recommendations:

The positive results of the opinion survey show some disparity between the general opinion
of the population and the concerns of some key stakeholders as expressed at the meeting
organized the day before by boaters or fishermen.

Use the opinion survey as a tool to help build the communication strategy and relationships
to avoid any opposition.

Considering the organization of Thematic Working Groups with local stakeholders will help
build relationships and will participate significantly in the co-construction of the project with
the users of the bay.

The proposed work prepared by Nataly Castelblanco for French Guyana will be sent to the
expert group for discussion and recommendations.

Research on the genetic profile of the population formerly present is an interesting academic
exercise, but not essential for the continuation of the project.

The evaluation of the place of captive animals within the project and the factors of success
or failure have been widely discussed in the topic 2.

The impact assessment on fishing activities will serve to strengthen the dialogue with the
fishermen providing concrete answers to their concerns. The provider contacted and the
Park can count on the members of the expert working group, including Alejandro Acosta, the
specialist in these fields, to advise the development of the tools and the conduct of the
investigations.
Topic 5 : Cooperation with potential donors countries

The potential donors countries have been listed by the Expert Working Group:

Mexico: even though most manatees held in captivity are from the Gulf of Mexico, the
Expert Working Group does not believe that this fact represents an obstacle (also
regarding genetics) for not considering these individuals for the Guadeloupe project.

Colombia: Colombia is a one of the countries with the highest potential. The level of
knowledge of the project by the local partners is already quite good and a first
approach was made by the Park. A large number of animals are held in captivity,
representing serious candidates for reintroduction in Guadeloupe. Although these
animals come from river or lagoon habitats, it is not a critical issue and nothing
prevents to consider them as candidates for the reintroduction project. Indeed, if
exchanges will be proved between these populations and the coastal ones, there is no
indication of genetic isolation which prohibits translocation in Guadeloupe. According
to some Expert Group members, with less than 400 or 500 km of continuous river
habitat to the coast, it is doubtful that the upstream population would be genetically
isolated from the coastal population.

Brazil: Brazil can be an excellent candidate. The level of expertise in terms of
rehabilitation and release of animals is one of the best in the region. Brazil also has
many animals potentially useful for the project.

Dominican Republic: the current level of facilities and care center is very low and the
Guadeloupe project could represent a positive short-term solution for animals
recovered in distress

Belize: If the estimated number of manatees in Belize makes it an excellent candidate,
local authorities and scientists working in Belize need first a better understanding of
the Guadeloupe project before considering a more serious approach.

Venezuela: could be approach, thanks to the contacts from Alejandro Acosta.

Other countries could potentially be donors in the future but with lower-priority.

French Guiana may be a good candidate for wild individuals associated to the initial
population composed of captive animals.

Based on the principle of beginning the reintroduction with animals from captivity and a goal of
first reintroductions in 2014, all should be implemented to sign cooperation agreements with
one or more donor countries in 2013.

The cooperation strategy is focus on concrete and effective measures for the conservation of
source populations (e.g. limiting poaching, developing alternative income-generating activities,
etc.), conservation of wild populations; improve facilities for captive animals, strengthen
methods of rehabilitation and training teams.
Topic 6 : Implementation and next steps
Soft release facilities:
After this first soft release enclosures assessment mission, it’s necessary now to define the exact
location and development of the facilities (enclosures and care center).
Recommendations:

Entrust this work to an expert as soon as possible
Monitoring and retrieving,
Recommendations:

Consider the involvement of experts to develop tagging and monitoring protocols.

Train Park staff with regard to education/awareness and monitoring activities for manatees.
Scientific support
Today, the progress of the project and the goals to reintroduce the first individuals in 2014 requires the
involvement of a permanent scientific advisor on the project.
Recommendations:

Consider Nataly Castelblanco or other expert for a position of scientific advisor for the
project. Part of the duties would include ecological monitoring of the food resources;
elaboration of monitoring protocols; training of students and volunteers; and development of
regular communications regarding the project.

Develop a Scope of Work as soon as possible for this position with the help and guidance of
the Expert Group.
Action Plan:
This document should help to identify the involvement of external experts and define the work plan of
the permanent scientific advisor. With a timetable with a start of the operational phase in 2014, this
action plan will allow PNG and its expert group to monitor the effective implementation of actions.
Recommendations:

Transmit to the Expert Working Group the Action Plan revised of the project for discussion.
Project Schedule: the project schedule is accurate with a goal for first reintroductions in 2014. The
project has made great advances in scientific and technical aspects. The Expert Working Group
advised to prefer animals from captivity that offer real potential without risking damage to wild
populations. Moreover, studies are underway to study French Guiana population and assess its ability
to support the removal of some animals. So far the project is on track at the local level, discussions
with stakeholders and users have experienced significant advances although considerable work
remains to be done with fishermen and boaters.
Recommendations:

The fact that the project is based on a few people in the Park who could leave one day and
that the government of France fund the project for many years, the project should not wait
too long now to start the operational phase. Given the project's progress, the 2014 target
appears to be achievable.

Try to formalize commitments with third countries in 2013 to obtain the first animals and start
building the facilities as also continues training teams.
7th SPAW COP: The next SPAW COP will be held the 23th of October in Punta Cana (DR). A follow up
step involved seeking endorsement from the SPAW-COP. The progress of the project will be presented
in SPAW STAC by John Reynolds accompanied by Denis Girou, the Director of National Park.
.
Appendice 1
AGENDA
Expert Working Group Meeting
Guadeloupe FWI
Wednesday 29th – Friday 31 th August 2012
Wednesday 29 August:
Expert working group: arrive in Guadeloupe
5:00 – 7:00 PM: Welcome and discuss recommendations of the soft release expert
working group
Dinner (7:30 PM)
Thursday 30 August:
Morning:
 8:00 AM: Brief summary of the results of the soft release assessment to
Benjamain Morales (arrived the day before around 9:30 PM)
 8:15 AM: Discuss O'Shea and Reynolds report with the soft release expert working
group
Coffee break (10:00 AM – 10:30 AM)
 10:30 – 1:00 AM: Discuss SPAW STAC and COP meetings (and cooperation
strategy with potential donors countries if enough time)
Lunch (1:00 PM – 2:00 PM)
Afternoon:

4:00 – 6:00 PM: Meet with local stakeholders (fishermen, boaters, ecotour
operators, NGOs)
Departure from the hotel at 3:30 PM - There will be a translator for the
discussions
Dinner (19.30 pm)
Friday 31 August:
Morning :
- 8:30 AM: Discuss status of the project from different perspectives (progress;
cooperation)
Lunch (12:00 AM – 1:00 PM)
Early afternoon:
- 1:00 PM: Recommend next steps
Appendice 2
AGENDA
Soft release assessment mission for the manatee reintroduction
project
Guadeloupe FWI
th
Monday 27 – Wednesday 29th August 2012
Sunday 26 August:
Soft release experts and J.Reynolds arrive in Guadeloupe
Monday 27 August:
Morning 8:30 AM
- Welcome of participants and introductions
- Short presentation of the manatee reintroduction project
Coffee break (10:00 AM – 10:30 AM)
- Presentation of the mission and objectives
- Discuss preliminary evaluation study of the National Park
- Discuss prerequisites and evaluation criteria
Lunch (1:00 PM – 2:00 PM)
Afternoon 3:00 PM – 4:30 PM: Aerial survey of the Grand Cul-de-Sac Marin
Bay
Dinner (7:00 PM)
Tuesday 28 August:
Morning 8:30 AM: Site visit north of the bay
Note: Remember to bring with you a waterproof and a warm jackets for our visits on the
water, we never know ...
Lunch : Snack on the boat
Afternoon 3:00 PM: Discussion and debriefing
Wednesday 29 August:
Morning 8:30 AM: Site visit south of the bay
Lunch : Snack on the boat
Afternoon 2:00 PM: Meeting of the soft release expert working group to draft
report and recommendations
(Expert working group: arrive Guadeloupe by mid-afternoon)
Late afternoon 5:00 – 7:00 PM : Welcome and discuss recommendations of soft
release expert working group with the Expert working group, the Staff of the
National Park and some guests
Dinner (7:30 PM)
Thursday 30 August:
Morning 8:00 – 10:00 AM: Discuss O'Shea and Reynolds report with the Expert
Working Group
Coffee break (10:00 AM – 10:30 AM)
Afternoon: Departure of the soft release experts