Analysis of the plan to eliminate Madrid's parrots from 4 different perspectives
CalaixAmbiental >> On June 4 the Madrid City Council authorized the contract to exterminate the parrots in the city. These birds include two species: Argentinean Parrot (Myiopsitta monachus) and Kramer's Parrot (Psittacula krameri). But do they really generate serious impacts on the urban ecosystem? Are they problematic for our health? Are there alternatives to control these populations that do not involve killing animals? To answer these questions, we will analyze the issue from 4 different perspectives: (1) ecological, (2) health, (3) ethical and (4) economic. But first let's see what the term "invasive" species refers to.
The term "invasive" species
During my years studying environmental sciences I viewed "invasive" species with much dislike and vehemently criticized their impacts on crops and biodiversity. However, I later understood that the problem associated with these newcomers is actually an effect of the exploitation of species and ecosystems that we systematically practice, these being in most cases mere victims that have been extracted from their environment and transported at our whim. In fact, more and more specialists prefer to talk about "introduced" species.
There are three key aspects to understanding the issue at hand. Firstly, living beings naturally move and can colonize new territories: it is part of our evolutionary biology so we should not criminalize a species for wanting to expand its range or simply for moving. For example, this is how all the emblematic species arrived to the Galapagos Islands; in the past they also "invaded" this new environment. Furthermore, in the context of the climate emergency, with thousands of species on the move, "a growing number of scientists say that the dichotomy between native and exotic species has become an obsolete concept and that efforts must be made to help migratory species adapt to their new habitats.
Second, many alien species settle into new territories without causing ecological imbalances. If their arrival currently tends to generate dysfunctions, it is because of the combined effect of how we humans have multiplied the speed at which these movements would occur naturally, moving species voluntarily or accidentally in our rapid transports; the degradation that many ecosystems suffer from pollution and/or the reduction of their biodiversity, so that when new species arrive, they are much more vulnerable than in a healthy, biodiverse and resilient state.
Thirdly, parrots have settled mainly in urban habitats (see image below).
Law 42/2007 on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity defines an invasive alien species as "that which is introduced or established in an ecosystem or natural or semi-natural habitat and which is an agent of change and threat to native biological diversity, either because of its invasive behaviour or because of the risk of genetic contamination". However, a large city does not fit as a natural or semi-natural habitat. The city is the artificial habitat par excellence, so the term "invasive" has little place in it. The trees in the streets or the hedges in the parks are full of introduced species, the hydrology is totally altered, the soils are paved... so it is very difficult to talk about what "should" or "should not" be there from an ecological perspective. Consequently, the very definition of Law 42/2007 is not applicable to the urban environment, so parrots in cities should not even be treated as "invasive".
1. Ecological perspective: The proliferation of new species is more a consequence of the previous ecological imbalance in cities than a cause of it
Let's review the ecological problems that are usually attributed to parrots:
Do they displace native wildlife? First, we must take into account that the native populations face many difficulties in the city: run-ins, noise, pollution, pesticides... These pressures are much more determining than the presence of parrots, which has become evident with the increase of birds in the cities detected during the confinement. Like all living beings, parrots can establish negative and positive relationships with other species. In terms of competition for resources, scientific findings point to a low incidence of this phenomenon with native fauna given the high availability of food and space in cities. Competition between the Kramer's parrot and the giant indigenous bat in the Maria Luisa Park in Seville has become highly mediatized. However - and beyond the measures that should be applied in this specific case - we must bear in mind that these bats are in a vulnerable situation due to the deforestation of their habitat in Europe, not because of the presence of parrots. One of the impacts associated with parrots was the decline in populations of sparrows and other small birds, but a recent study found that it is avian malaria that was behind this problem. As positive relations several investigations birds (e.g. starlings, as shown in the picture).have reported, for example, that the nests of the Argentinean Parrot can be cohabited with other species of birds (see studies in Rome, Tenerife or Malaga). In fact, a scientific study has concluded that the presence of Argentine Parrots in cities does not modify the composition of the pre-existing bird community in a significant way.
Are they aggressive? Parrots only show these behaviours when they feel attacked or must protect their nests, as the vast majority of animals do to look after their families. They are generally tolerant of other species; they can often be seen sharing space peacefully with pigeons or many other species.
Do they unbalance the ecosystem? We would more like to be able to talk about a certain balance in the urban ecosystem than to disturb it. On the contrary, today's cities are habitats that have been totally altered by the accumulation of solid waste and atmospheric pollutants, by their inefficient water management, by their monotonous asphalt and cement, which means that there is a lack of fertile soil and a lack of biodiversity that limits the development of the ecosystem. Therefore, the effects that parrots can cause are negligible in these ecosystems that, from their very foundations, suppose the total loss of pre-existing habitats and their biodiversity, replacing them with systems that are far from sustainable.
Do they damage trees? Their nests formed by complex networks of branches and with two chambers inside can damage urban trees, but this happens especially because of the poor state of health of many trees due to the recurrent pruning that leads to the entry of fungi. When this poses a risk to public safety, the nests can be removed without harming the birds.
Is the population growing out of control? In recent years the population of parrots has grown considerably in Madrid. At this point, we should ask ourselves what urban conditions favour only certain species, in order to resolve these basic questions. The predominance of artificial conditions, both in streets and even in parks, where the presence of naturalized meadows, bushes or forests is almost non-existent, hinders the development of the native populations. There is a lack of native Mediterranean habitats, while palms and other exotic trees abound, which in turn favours exotic fauna and attracts few local species. Even the climate, which is becoming warmer, is more suitable for exotic species than native ones. If we do not act on these underlying conditions, any action to limit populations of alien species will be only a small patch, as if a person with a serious thyroid problem causing acne among other effects would apply anti-acne cream and take the matter for granted.
In short, parrot populations are not in themselves a serious problem for the ecological balance, but it is the inherent disruption of the urban ecosystem that favours their populations and not those of indigenous species. It is not a coincidence that the Manzanares River and its surroundings have so many native species and we do not find parrots; this happens because it is a naturalized space, with a variety of native flora and healthy ecological dynamics that allow the local birds to prosper. Reducing motorized traffic, promoting the diversity of environments and Mediterranean flora or leaving some old dead logs in the parks are some of the many strategies that can be promoted in the cities to increase the local fauna and improve the health of our environment.
On the other hand, it is absurd that it is still so easy to buy and sell parrots illegally, despite the fact that their commercialization is prohibited in Spain since 2011. This is a subject that deserves all the attention of the administrations. On the contrary, the Community of Madrid itself endorses nonsense such as the recent release of rainbow trout in natural environments in the Community of Madrid for hunting purposes. It seems like a satire worthy of El Jueves or El Mundo Today, given that this species appears in the Spanish Catalogue of Invasive Exotic Species just like the Argentinean parrot and Kramer's. A population control that does not stop the introduction of exotic species and does not address the many basic problems faced by native fauna will be useless both to limit current exotic populations and to prevent the arrival of other species in the future.
2. Health perspective: no or very marginal risk of disease transmission
The Madrid City Council claims that birds can be a vector for the transmission of pathogens and cites three bacteria in this respect: Chlamydophila psittaci, Escherichia coli and Campylobacter jejuni, which cause diarrhoea and other symptoms in humans. However, if we investigate their main sources of infection, we find that they are produced by the breeding or sale of animals and not in relation to urban fauna (see annex for details of the main sources of infection of these bacteria at the end).
Note: To date, there have been no reported cases of human-to-human transmission of urban parrot diseases. In fact, we are talking about pathogens that have no or very marginal incidence in humans in an urban context. On the other hand, they are directly related to animal husbandry and livestock (closely linked to new diseases such as COVID-19, as we discussed in Prescription for pandemics in 10 steps). So shouldn't we take action in these areas if we want to protect ourselves from these diseases?
On the other hand, we know that urban air pollution kills some 5,400 people in Madrid every year, according to data from the European Environment Agency. As for noise, something similar happens: the sounds of parrots communicating are four drops in the ocean compared to the din of incessant urban traffic. Let us also think about our poor diet, an important cause of death in Spain, which according to two studies is between 44,000 and 90,000 deaths per year. In the absence of specific data for Madrid, we can apportion these figures based on population, which points to between 3,000 and 6,000 deaths per year in the city due to poor diet (deaths from parrots ... zero!).
In short, including the argument of citizen health to defend the extermination of parrots is completely unfounded, given its non-existent effect on it. On the other hand, there are many other areas that do require drastic actions, such as putting an end to air pollution and to junk food (instead of subsidizing it as has happened with the canteen grants awarded to Telepizza and Rodilla).
3. Ethical perspective: Better alternatives for population control
As we have already seen in sections A and B, the magnitude of the impact on local species and our health is only the tip of an immense iceberg of pre-existing pressures to which there is no will to seek solutions. However, if we consider that we have to manage this population, there are alternatives - in fact more effective and economical - that do not require causing an agonizing death by gassing animals that feel and suffer. We have the removal of nests and the sterilization of males, as is planned to be applied in Getafe, or the use of contraceptive feed, methods which have been implemented for some time in countries such as Switzerland, Slovenia, France or Italy, and some cities in Spain. In addition, in many cases it has been proven that killing is ineffective in controlling populations, only reducing them temporarily to reach their maximum number again after a few years.
Let us remember that these animals have not even chosen to come to our cities. They are species traded as pets since the 70-80s, which formed free populations from individuals released by their forks or which managed to escape. Wow, beings that remained caged and sought to remake their lives as you, me or anyone else who appreciates life would do.
And it has been the human species that has triggered the problems associated with introduced species. Some of these species have been spread accidentally, but an important part has been moved voluntarily: to sell them as pets (as in the case of the Florida turtle or the parrot), for fishing and hunting (this is how they were introduced from pike to catfish in the river network) or to extract their skins (as in the case of the American mink, which is still exploited in Spain despite being part of the Spanish Catalogue of Invasive Exotic Species and the escapes from these sad farms being the origin of the problem). We should recognize ourselves as the origin of the problem and take responsibility for it, instead of demonizing and persecuting animals that are not at fault for these processes and only try to develop their life cycle where they can. To talk about the extermination of a species while there are still farms with exotic species or they can still be bought as pets is nonsense, it is very irresponsible and lacks all ethics.
4. Economic perspective: A very inconvenient waste
The extermination of the Madrid parrots has been budgeted at 2.9 million euros. We live in times of crisis in which public money must be managed very carefully. A year ago, a study by CCOO estimated that nearly 350,000 Madrid residents live in severe poverty and 27.3% of children are poor. These are very alarming figures, even more so given that this situation is worsening as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (see: The coronavirus hits Madrid with greater poverty than the 2008 crisis or The hunger queues due to the covid-19 crisis flood Madrid). On the other hand, trying to eradicate the parrots with some 12,000 specimens in Madrid will be unfeasible, so they will be lives and money wasted uselessly.
In short, point after point, it is clear that many of the damages attributed to parrots are minor issues within a context of dysfunctional cities, both ecologically and in terms of health, where there would be lots of better actions to invest in. The approach to correcting urban ecological imbalances must be to address their causes, understanding their interconnected and large-scale nature, not just patch it up, in order to continue with a status quo of destruction of life. For all these reasons, this slaughter is a real absurdity that must be stopped (you can add your signature to ask for an ethical management of the parrots of Madrid here).
Of the millions of species that inhabit the planet, I know one that is clearly invasive. It continually occupies new territories, alters natural cycles, consumes an increasing amount of minerals, energy, water... and corners the other species -which all too often we forget that, in addition to having their own right to live, they are necessary for the natural processes on which we depend to continue to function. We urgently need to make progress on this pending subject: learning to coexist with all species. For too long we have been applying the method of killing, eradicating, razing... and it has been proven that it does not work, but rather that the imbalances we cause are increasingly greater and greater.
Clara Montaner Augé // Graduate in Environmental Sciences, Master in Urban Planning and Sustainability, a field in which I have been working professionally since 2013.