Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan Parrots Edited By Noel Snyder, Philip McGowan, James Gilardi, and Alejandro Grajal IUCN Donors to the SSC Conservation Communications Programme and the Parrot Action Plan The IUCN/Species Survival Commission is committed to communicate important species conservation information to natural resource managers, decision-makers and others whose actions affect the conservation of biodiversity. The SSC's Action Plans, Occasional Papers, news magazine (Species), Membership Directory and other publications are supported by a wide variety of generous donors including: The Sultanate of Oman established the Peter Scott IUCN/SSC Action Plan Fund in 1990. The Fund supports Action Plan development and implementation. To date, more than 80 grants have been made from the Fund to Specialist Groups. As a result, the Action Plan Programme has progressed at an accelerated level and the network has grown and matured significantly. The SSC is grateful to the Sultanate of Oman for its confidence in and support for species conservation worldwide. The Chicago Zoological Society (CZS) provides significant in-kind and cash support to the SSC, including grants for special projects, editorial and design services, staff secondments and related support services. The mission of CZS is to help people develop a sustainable and harmonious relationship with nature. The Zoo carries out its mission by informing and inspiring 2,000,000 annual visitors, serving as a refuge for species threatened with extinction, developing scientific approaches to manage species successfully in zoos and the wild, and working with other zoos, agencies, and protected areas around the world to conserve habitats and wildlife. The Council of Agriculture (COA), Taiwan has awarded major grants to the SSC's Wildlife Trade Programme and Conservation Communications Programme. This support has enabled SSC to continue its valuable technical advisory service to the Parties to CITES as well as to the larger global conservation community. Among other responsibilities, the COA is in charge of matters concerning the designation and management of nature reserves, conservation of wildlife and their habitats, conservation of natural landscapes, coordination of law enforcement efforts as well as promotion of conservation education, research and international cooperation. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) provides significant annual operating support to the SSC. WWF's contribution supports the SSC's minimal infrastructure and helps ensure that the voluntary network and Publications Programme are adequately supported. WWF aims to conserve nature and ecological processes by: (1) preserving genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity; (2) ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable both now and in the longer term; and (3) promoting actions to reduce pollution and the wasteful exploitation and consumption of resources and energy. WWF is one of the world's largest independent conservation organisations with a network of National Organisations and Associates around the world and over 5.2 million regular supporters. WWF continues to be known as World Wildlife Fund in Canada and in the United States of America. The Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR), UK supports a Red List Officer post at the SSC Centre in Cambridge, UK, where the SSC Trade Programme staff are also located. Together with two other Government-funded agencies, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, the DETR is also financing a specialist plants officer. Further support for the centre is being offered by two NGO members of IUCN: the World Wide Fund for Nature - UK, and Conservation International, US. The World Parrot Trust (WPT) was founded in 1989 to work exclusively for the conservation and welfare of the parrots. Associated trusts and support groups have been formed in ten countries. Together, they have raised over US$1m and supported projects for 23 species in 20 countries. In 1995 WPT (with British Airways Assisting Conservation) funded a meeting of parrot experts in London, with the aim of proceeding with an Action Plan for the parrots. The meeting was successful, and began the process resulting in the completed Action Plan. A major part of the necessary administration and funding for the Parrot Action Plan has been provided by the World Parrot Trust. The Wildlife Conservation Society (formerly the New York Zoological Society) has been dedicated to preserving the earth's wildlife and ecosystems since its establishment in 1895. WCS relies on long- term field studies to gather information on wildlife needs, and has forged numerous productive relationships with governments and local conservation organisations. WCS provided staff, communications, and administrative assistance for the production of this Action Plan. WCS also provided funding for editorial interns, and logistics for the second and final editorial meeting in New York. The British Airways Assisting Conservation (BAAC) scheme was established in 1983 and provides logistical support for specific conservation projects, focusing on preserving the essential variety of life on Earth and encouraging the responsible use and sustainable management of the Earth’s natural resources. BAAC provided air travel for delegates from Australia, Africa, Europe, and the USA to the Parrot Action Plan meeting where the framework of the plan was discussed and agreed. It also supported travel for the final editorial meeting. The National Audubon Society (NAS) founded in 1905 and with over 550,000 members in 518 chapters throughout the Americas, the National Audubon Society advances its mission to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds, other wildlife and their habitats for the benefit of humanity and the earth's biological diversity. NAS provided staff, communications, and editorial assistance for the production of this Action Plan. We also acknowledge the unstinting support of the following regional parrot organisations: The Association for Parrot Conservation (APC) was founded in 1993. Its mission is to promote the conservation of wild parrot populations through scientific research, policy recommendations, communication, and education. As a volunteer scientific organisation, the guiding principle of the APC is to promote techniques and strategies that maximise the conservation of biological diversity. APC provided time and communications support for this Action Plan. The Research Centre for African Parrot Conservation (RCAPC) has recently been established to provide biological information that will underpin efforts to conserve the threatened parrots of Africa and its islands. As a research centre, RCAPC seeks to apply contemporary principles of conservation biology to issues in the management of parrot populations, both in the wild and captivity. Pan African collaboration and co-operation is central to this work. RCAPC was the focus for African input to the plan. The Birds Australia Parrot Association is a specialist group attached to Birds Australia (formerly Royal Australian Ornithologists Union), with aims to promote an interest in parrots of the Australian region and their conservation. It is a strong supporter of the Parrot Action Plan and has provided extensive input into the sections relating to Australia, New Zealand and the southwest Pacific region. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan Parrots Edited by Noel Snyder, Philip McGowan, James Gilardi, and Alejandro Grajal IUCN SSC OMAN CZS WWF COA DETR WPT WCS BAAC APC RCAPC NAS BAPA The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN or of the Species Survival Commission. Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, in collaboration with The World Parrot Trust, Wildlife Conservation Society, Wildlife Preservation Trusts International, Association for Parrot Conservation, BirdLife International, BIRDS Australia Parrot Association, and the Research Centre for African Parrot Conservation. Copyright: © 1999 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. Citation: For Action Plan: Snyder, N., McGowan, P., Gilardi, J. and Grajal, A. (eds.) 1999. Parrots - Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Xx + xx pp. ISBN: X-XXXX-XXXX-X Cover photo: Layout by: Produced by: Printed by: Available from: IUCN Publications Services Unit 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 ODL, United Kingdom Tel: +44 1223 277894, Fax: +44 1223 277175 E-mail: info@books.iucn.org http://www.iucn.org A catalogue of IUCN publications is also available Contents List of Species Accounts …………………………………………………………………… Foreword ……………………………………………………………………………………. Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………………. Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………………… Chapter 1: Introduction ……………………………………………………………………. Parrots and humans ……………………………………………………………………… Structure of the Action Plan ………………………………………………………………. Chapter 2: General Principles for Parrot Conservation …………………………………. Preliminary remarks ………………………………………………………………………… Status assessment …………………………………………………………………………… Determining causes of population decline …………………………………………………. Designing conservation actions …………………………………………………………….. Some final remarks …………………………………………………………………………. Chapter 3: Threatened Parrots of the World …………………………………………… Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………… Key to regional chapters …………………………………………………………………… Chapter 4: Australia, New Zealand, and the Southwest Pacific ………………………….. Overview …………………………………………………………………………………… Priority projects ……………………………………………………………………………. List of threatened species ………………………………………………………………….. Species accounts …………………………………………………………………………… Chapter 5: Asia ……………………………………………………………………………… Continental Asia overview …………………………………………………………………. Species account ……………………………………………………………………………. Indonesia overview ………………………………………………………………………… Priority projects ……………………………………………………………………………. List of threatened species ………………………………………………………………….. Species accounts …………………………………………………………………………… Philippines overview ……………………………………………………………………… Priority projects ……………………………………………………………………………. List of threatened species ………………………………………………………………….. Species accounts …………………………………………………………………………… Chapter 6: Africa …………………………………………………………………………… Overview …………………………………………………………………………………… Priority projects ……………………………………………………………………………. List of threatened species ………………………………………………………………….. Species accounts …………………………………………………………………………… Chapter 7: Neotropics ……………………………………………………………………… Overview …………………………………………………………………………………… List of threatened species ………………………………………………………………….. Species accounts …………………………………………………………………………… References ……………………………………………………………………………………. Appendix 1: Contact details ………………………………………………………………… Appendix 2: IUCN Red List Categories …………………………………………………… List of Species Accounts Australia, New Zealand and the south-west Pacific Baudin’s cockatoo Calyptorhynchus baudinii Carnaby's cockatoo Calyptorhynchus latirostris Red-throated lorikeet Charmosyna amabilis New Caledonian lorikeet Charmosyna diadema Antipodes parakeet Cyanoramphus unicolor Horned parakeet Eunymphicus cornutus Swift parrot Lathamus discolor Orange-bellied parrot Neophema chrysogaster New Zealand kaka Nestor meridionalis Night parrot Pezoporus occidentalis Princess parrot Polytelis alexandrae Superb parrot Polytelis swainsonii Golden-shouldered parrot Psephotus chrysopterygius Kakapo Strigops habroptilus Kuhl’s lorikeet Vini kuhlii Blue lorikeet Vini peruviana Henderson lorikeet Vini stepheni Ultramarine lorikeet Vini ultramarina Accounts for threatened taxa that may be full species Forbes’ parakeet Cyanoramphus forbesi Orange-fronted parakeet Cyanoramphus malherbi Accounts for species removed from the Red List Glossy black-cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami Norfolk Island parakeet Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae cookii Scarlet-chested parrot Neophema splendida Asia - Continental Intermediate parakeet Psittacula intermedia Asia - Indonesia White cockatoo Cacatua alba Moluccan cockatoo Cacatua moluccensis Yellow-crested cockatoo Cacatua sulphurea Black-winged lory Eos cyanogenia Blue-fronted lorikeet Charmosyna toxopei Red-and-blue lory Eos histrio Sangihe hanging-parrot Loriculus catamene Wallace’s hanging-parrot Loriculus flosculus Purple-naped lory Lorius domicella Chattering lory Lorius garrulus Salvadori’s fig-parrot Psittaculirostris salvadorii Iris lorikeet Psitteuteles iris Pesquet’s parrot Psittrichas fulgidus Black-lored parrot Tanygnathus gramineus Account for species removed from the Red List Blue-naped parrot Tanygnathus lucionensis Asia - Philippines Philippine cockatoo Cacatua haematuropygia Green racquet-tail Prioniturus luconensis Blue-headed racquet-tail Prioniturus platenae Blue-winged racquet-tail Prioniturus verticalis Accounts for species removed from the Red List Luzon racquet-tail Prioniturus montanus Mindanao racquet-tail Prioniturus waterstradti Blue-naped parrot Tanygnathus lucionensis Mindanao lorikeet Trichoglossus johnstoniae Africa Black-cheeked lovebird Agapornis nigrigenis Echo parakeet Psittacula eques Accounts for threatened taxa that may be full species Cape parrot Poicephalus (robustus) robustus Accounts for species proposed for consideration for inclusion on the Red List Rόppell’s parrot Poicephalus rueppelli Neotropics Black-billed parrot Amazona agilis Red-necked Amazon Amazona arausiaca Yellow-shouldered Amazon Amazona barbadensis Red-tailed Amazon Amazona brasiliensis Yellow-billed parrot Amazona collaria St. Vincent Amazon Amazona guildingii Imperial Amazon Amazona imperialis Yellow-headed parrot Amazona oratrix Red-spectacled parrot Amazona pretrei Red-browed Amazon Amazona rhodocorytha Hispaniolan parrot Amazona ventralis St. Lucia parrot Amazona versicolor Vinaceous Amazon Amazona vinacea Red-crowned parrot Amazona viridigenalis Puerto Rican parrot Amazona vittata Yellow-faced Amazon Amazona xanthops Hyacinth macaw Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus Lear’s macaw Anodorhynchus leari Great-green macaw Ara ambigua Blue-throated macaw Ara glaucogularis Blue-winged macaw Ara maracana Military macaw Ara militaris Red-fronted macaw Ara rubrogenys Golden-capped parakeet Aratinga auricapilla Socorro parakeet Aratinga brevipes Hispaniolan parakeet Aratinga chloroptera Cuban parakeet Aratinga euops Grey cheeked parakeet Brotogeris pyrrhopterus Rufous-fronted parakeet Bolborhynchus ferrugineifrons Spix’s macaw Cyanopsitta spixii Yellow-faced parrotlet Forpus xanthops Golden parakeet Guarouba (Aratinga) guarouba Rusty-faced parrot Hapalopsittaca amazonina Azure-winged parrot Hapalopsittaca fuertesi Red-faced parrot Hapalopsittaca pyrrhops Golden-plumed parakeet Leptosittaca branickii Yellow-eared conure Ognorhynchus icterotis White-breasted parakeet Pyrrhura albipectus Flame-winged parakeet Pyrrhura calliptera Blue-throated parakeet Pyrrhura cruentata El Oro parakeet or Orces parakeet Pyrrhura orcesi Santa Marta parakeet Pyrrhura viridicata Thick-billed parrot Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha Maroon-fronted parrot Rhynchopsitta terrisi Brown-backed parrotlet Touit melanonota Spot-winged parrotlet Touit stictoptera Golden-tailed parrotlet Touit surda Blue-bellied parrot Triclaria malachitacea Accounts for species proposed for consideration for inclusion on the Red List Yellow-naped parrot Amazona auropalliata Cuban Amazon Amazona leucocephala Northern Central American populations of the scarlet macaw Ara macao cyanoptera Saffron-headed Parrot Pionopsitta pyrilia Foreword The subjects of this Action Plan have a number of adverse survival factors unique to their family. First, they have for centuries been taken into our homes, due to their beauty, charm, hardiness, and supposed ability to 'talk'. Second, this domestic demand, involving hundreds of thousands of birds annually and occurring on a global basis, results in many parrot taxa having a high monetary value. For these reasons it can be argued that the parrots have been subject to more exploitation, numerically and financially, than any other wild animal. The large charismatic mammals, whale, tiger, elephant, rhinoceros, gorilla, panda, have to contend with a host of threats directly related to their rarity and monetary value, but none of these are subject to capture for live domestic use by millions of humans. Only the parrots have this dubious distinction, and in addition the most rare species are likely to be illegally trapped and traded around the world to satisfy demand from wealthy collectors. Added to the threats created by their unique attractiveness, the parrots are exposed to hunting pressures, and above all to loss of habitat. As ecosystems around the world are destroyed or degraded, so the survival prospects of the parrots decline. And yet, surely this is where the parrots should be brought into prominence as charismatic 'flagship species' to highlight the urgent need to preserve these habitats, vital to the survival of so many species including our own. Apart from educating the public at large, there is an urgent need to change the attitudes of two groups with special interests. These are, firstly, the many millions who keep parrots, either as pet or companion animals, or for breeding for the pet trade. I can state from personal experience that at least ninety percent of parrot owners do not accept any responsibility for the survival of the wild con-specifics of their own treasured birds. To put it as kindly as possible, this demonstrates a distinct lack of imagination, or any sense of natural justice. The second category is the many businesses that are unquestionably built upon the 'parrot phenomenon', the tens of millions of parrots being kept in captivity. These companies enjoy a global annual income of billions of dollars, but with only one or two commendable exceptions, few of them donate anything to the birds that create their wealth. If the parrots are to survive, these attitudes must change. What of the governments of the parrot range countries? While a few are effective in preserving their parrots, some regard them as a resource to be exploited as ruthlessly as their forests. It is easy to speak of the ‘sustainable use’ of parrots, but it is difficult to propose a species for which a convincing scientific case for sustainable use can be made. Those few countries still allowing ‘quotas’ of parrots for export should be required to provide appropriate scientific justification. The burning of huge areas of forest, intentionally or not, is a massive additional threat to the survival of these birds. It has to be said that most governments seek, in principle, to protect and preserve their wildlife, and have considerable expertise at their disposal. This was clearly demonstrated when the joint compilers of this Action Plan sent out requests for updated information on threatened parrot species. The response from all quarters was swift and positive, and the result is an effective document that will guide their conservation for several years. Special thanks are due to the editors, Noel Snyder, Phil McGowan, Jamie Gilardi and Alejandro Grajal, for their extended commitment to the project and their determination to achieve the highest standards. Needless to say, the contributions of the many experts around the world were invaluable. Thanks also to Rod Hall MBE of British Airways Assisting Conservation, now part of BA Environment Branch. It was Rod's idea to bring together the world's leading parrot people to start this Parrot Action Plan process, and British Airways provided flights to bring ten key participants to the conference organised by The World Parrot Trust in London in 1995. BA also helped with other flights to Africa, and to the final review meeting in New York. There is no shortage of field biologists interested in working with the parrots. People prepared to commit themselves to the fascinating and often urgent tasks at hand. Priorities for many of these projects emerge clearly from this Action Plan. Given that the interest and expertise exist, we must ensure the next steps, which are the provision of the necessary funds, and the support of the relevant authorities. The sheer enthusiasm that has carried this Action Plan to completion must be sustained. Readers may well be able to help support the many ongoing activities discussed in this plan, or initiate action where no work is currently under way. The authors and the World Parrot Trust are available to advise and coordinate. Michael Reynolds Hon. Director, World Parrot Trust Acknowledgements This Action Plan is dedicated to the many specialists who have sought to promote the cause of parrot conservation throughout the world, and who have unhesitatingly shared their knowledge and spared their time so that this Action Plan may help that cause. In particular, we dedicate this plan to the late Olaf Wirminghaus who died from cancer in the final stages of his PhD study on the cape parrot in South Africa. The plan was stimulated by a meeting that was arranged by the World Parrot Trust and extensively supported by British Airways-Assisting Conservation in June 1995 and chaired by Joe Forshaw. The meeting was proposed by Rod Hall (British Airways-Assisting Conservation) and Mike Reynolds (World Parrot Trust) as the starting point for production of an Action Plan for the parrots of the world and followed a previous attempt to prepare an Action Plan in the early 1990s and which has been widely cited. We gratefully acknowledge the support that Rod and Mike have provided throughout the compilation of this plan. At the June 1995 meeting, the Association for Parrot Conservation, BirdLife International, the Species Survival Commission and the World Parrot Trust committed themselves to the publication of an Action Plan. These organisations have been joined in the endeavour by the Wildlife Conservation Society, Wildlife Preservation Trusts International, National Audubon Society, BIRDS Australia Parrot Society and the Research Centre for African Parrot Conservation to ensure representative coverage from all parts of the world where parrots occur. Without the commitment of any one of these organisations the Action Plan would be of limited value and their continued support is readily acknowledged. The regional overviews and species accounts would not have been possible without the enthusiastic assistance of numerous contributors throughout the world. Many volunteered field notes, personal communications, unpublished reports, and manuscripts to make the accounts as up-to-date as possible. Many also constantly revised and reviewed draft material. We gladly acknowledge their contributions: Sergio Aguilar, Andrew Alexander, Des Allen, Donald Anthony, Alvaro Aragσn-Tapia, Thomas Arndt, C.S. Balchin, M. Bell, Mauro Berlanga, Vicente Berovides, Colin Bibby, BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme (Bas van Balen and Paul Jepson), Robin Bjork, John Blyth, Michael Bobb, Patricia Bradley, Tom Brooks, Allan Burbidge, Andrew Burton, Frederick Burton, Paul Butler, Felipe Campos, Rita Cerqueira de Souza, Jose Chabert, Billy Christian, Mette Bohn Christiansen, Les Christidis, Jack Clinton- Eitniear, Nigel Collar, Javier Cruz-Nieto, Miguel A. Cruz-Nieto, Charles Daugherty, Herlitz Davis, Alwin Dornelly, Colleen Downs, Guy Dutson, Graeme Elliott, Ernesto Enkerlin, Jeremy Flanagan, Mauro Galetti, Xiomara Galvez, Stephen Garnett, Aldegundo Garza, Rosemarie Gnam, Jaqueline Goerck, Jaime Gonzalez- Elizondo, Andrew Grant, Terry Greene, Nevia Guedes, Mark Holdsworth, Eric Horstman, Eduardo Iρigo, David Jeggo, C. Lyndon John, Gustavo Kattan, John Kearvell, Susan Koenig, Niels Krabbe, Cyndi Kuehler, Alberto Lafσn-Terrazas, Frank Lambert, Dirk Lanning, Wendy Lee, Catherine Levy, Alan Lieberman, Pedro Lima, Teresa Lopez de Lara, James Lowen, Claudia Macias, Bruce Male, Josι Luis Manzano-Loza, Sergio Marines, Stuart Marsden, Jaime Martinez, Paulo Martuschelli, Peter Mawson, Peter Menkhorst, Carolyn Miller, Tiberio Monterrubio, Jesus Montes, Teresa Mulliken, Richard Noske, Charles Munn, Fernando Nuρez, Fabio Olmos, Gabriela Ortiz, Roger Otto, Michael Parr, Lynn Pedler, Mike Perrin, Elin Pitter, Marco Aurelio Pizo, Robert Pople, Michael Poulsen, George Powell, Nemora Prestes, Luis Miguel Renjifo, Michael Reynolds, Jon Riley, Olivier Robinet, Pam Rasmussen, Jon Paul Rodriguez, Adriana Rodriguez- Ferraro, Franklin Rojas-Suarez, Alison Rosser, Ernesto Ruelas, Andres Sada, Paul Salaman, Alejandro Salinas, Denis Saunders, Virginia Sanz, Pedro Scherer Neto, Roland and Julia Seitre, Chris Sharpe, Jim Shiflett, Ann Smith, Fitzroy Springer, Paul Stevenson, Gary Styles, Kirsty Swinnerton, Craig Symes, Paul Toyne, Celia Valverde, Christopher Vaughan, Mario A.Vazquez, Diana Venegas, Louise Warburton, David Waugh, David Wege, David Wiedenfeld, James Wiley, Roger Wilkinson, Ed Willis, Kerry-Jayne Wilson, Roland Wirth, Paul Wood, Tim Wright, Joseph Wunderle, Carlos Yamashita, Ruperto Zepien. Ernesto Enerkelin, Paul Jepson, Frank Lambert, Stephen Garnett, Mike Perrin, James Wiley and Kerry- Jayne Wilson were instrumental in reviewing much text and in providing sources of information. Nigel Collar, James Lowen and Joe Tobias made all draft accounts of Threatened birds of the Philippines available. Nigel Collar, Georgina Mace and Alison Stattersfield kindly answered queries on the Red List categories. We gladly acknowledge all of this support and hope that we have treated all of the information with the care that it deserves: any misinterpretations are ours. We thank Gerry Casadei, Rosa Fernαndez, Angela Lavin, Allison Richens and Gerardo Zuloaga for their editorial and logistic assistance. The necessary financial support for this Action Plan was provided by the World Parrot Trust, BirdLife International, the Wildlife Conservation Society and the National Audubon Society. Facilities were provided by The Open University, Wildlife Conservation Society and The World Parrot Trust. Finally we thank Linette Humphrey and Mariano Gimenez-Dixon at SSC for their help in production of the plan. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FOR PERMISSION TO USE THE KAKAPO (COOPER AND THE PUBLISHER?) AND THE MAPS (PUBLISHER AND AUTHORS?) Noel Snyder, Philip McGowan, James Gilardi and Alejandro Grajal Executive Summary This Action Plan covers the conservation of the threatened parrots of the world. It is divided into two major sections: a general principles section and a species account section, organised by region. Ninety four of the approximately 330 known extant parrot species are considered to be at some threat of extinction on the IUCN Red List. Roughly half of these occur in the Western Hemisphere and half in the Eastern Hemisphere. The proportion of extant parrot species that are threatened (28 %) is one of the highest proportions for any major family of birds. Yet the number of parrot species that have been given careful field study to determine the best means of conservation remains low. In part because of this relative dearth of information, this Action Plan places substantial emphasis on conservation research methods and strategies applicable to parrots in general. Although conservation strategies are advanced for individual species where appropriate, comprehensive conservation strategies are not yet possible for many species because too little information is available to identify the factors responsible for their endangerment with confidence. Parrots face a great variety of threats, ranging from the impacts of introduced predators and competitors to habitat destruction and shooting for food. But in addition to these sorts of threats, which are shared by many other bird groups, parrots face the considerable extra pressures of the bird trade. A significant number of species are threatened primarily by insufficiently controlled and unsustainable harvest from the wild. Much of this harvest has traditionally been fuelled by international trade, which poses the additional threats of establishment of feral parrot populations in non-native countries and spread of exotic avian diseases around the planet. But much of the harvest, indeed the great bulk of the harvest for many species, has been fuelled by local demand. Countering the effects of bird trade on susceptible species poses complex internal and external regulation dilemmas for the countries affected. Chapters 1 and 2 of this Action Plan are devoted to techniques that may be helpful in determining the major factors affecting threatened parrots and to the advantages and disadvantages of common conservation techniques used to reduce pressures on wild populations. Examples to illustrate major principals in this section are not limited to threatened parrots, but sometimes include other threatened taxa. Chapters 3 through 7 concern the threatened parrots of the world. For convenience, the world is split into four regions: (1) Australia, New Zealand and the south-west Pacific, (2) Asia, including continental Asia, Indonesia, and the Philippines, (3) Africa, and (4) The Neotropics (Americas) Within each region there is an overview of the parrot fauna that outlines broad issues that affect the parrots of the whole region and then discusses potential conservation solutions. In the first three regions, there are also outlines of specific projects that address the most threatened species and some other regional priorities. These general materials are followed by species accounts for all threatened species. These accounts describe why each species is considered threatened and actions that are necessary as the next stage in ensuring their survival. This plan is designed to aid managers and researchers entrusted with the conservation of parrot species both in understanding how best to evaluate the threats faced by individual species and how best to design appropriate conservation strategies to counter the threats involved. It is intended as much to be an evaluation of conservation techniques as to be a set of specific recommendations for individual species. Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Parrots (Psittaciformes) are one of the most endangered groups of birds in the world, in part due to their popularity in the bird trade. Yet bird trade is not the only threat faced by the group, and conservation efforts on behalf of parrots entail reductions of stress factors that are as complex as those found with any other wildlife group. Unfortunately, many of the most threatened parrot species have not yet received the comprehensive field study that would allow the identification of the most appropriate strategies for their conservation. Nevertheless, it is valuable to review the status of knowledge concerning the threatened parrots of the world to: (1) Provide a summary of existing knowledge, (2) Identify the most pressing gaps in information, (3) Offer some general recommendations on conservation techniques, and (4) Recommend conservation actions wherever appropriate. The major goal of this Action Plan is to ensure the conservation of all of the world’s parrot species, by providing researchers and managers with practical recommendations for conducting conservation programs for the threatened parrot species and populations endemic to their regions of the world. The Parrot Action Plan is by definition action-oriented. It is built upon the most up-to-date assessments of distribution, status, and threats for endangered forms, and relates these data to the considerable experience that conservation biologists have had in trying to prevent threatened populations from becoming extinct. The plan is not intended as a treatise on parrot biology. For enhanced understanding, it should be read in conjunction with general treatments of parrot biology and conservation available elsewhere (e.g., Collar and Stuart 1985, Forshaw 1989, Beissinger and Snyder 1992, Joseph 1992, Garnett 1992, Collar et al. 1992, and Juniper and Parr 1998). Parrots and Humans Parrots are among the most familiar of bird species to the general public, and are generally held in esteem and affection even by people uninterested in natural history or conservation. Ironically, people’s fascination with parrots is a significant cause of the conservation challenges they face today. In part because of their attractive colours and abilities to imitate human speech, parrots have been kept in captivity by many different cultures worldwide, ranging from the ancient Greeks and Romans to native tribes of the Caribbean. Captive rearing of parrots to obtain feathers for ceremonial purposes was a widespread activity even many centuries ago among the native peoples of Mexico. Parrots also have historically been valued as objects of trade between cultures, leading to their distribution far beyond the boundaries of their natural ranges and their establishment in numerous feral exotic populations. Today, ninety of the approximately 330 extant species of parrots worldwide are considered at some risk of extinction (Collar et al. 1994), a proportion that is higher than for almost all other major groups of birds. Despite their familiarity as cage birds, most parrot species have not been the subject of detailed ecological and conservation studies. In part, this situation of relative neglect has resulted from an association of many species with remote and difficult habitats far from centres of learning. In part it is due to the difficulties in conducting studies on species that have large home ranges, are often difficult to capture for individual marking purposes, and are often canopy dwellers in tropical forests, nesting in elevated tree cavities that are challenging to reach. Despite the difficulties involved in their study, parrots often present major conservation opportunities. As conspicuous and attractive birds, they can often serve as flagship species for preservation of threatened ecosystems, and because their range needs are often large, they often can provide important justifications for the saving of quantitatively significant amounts of habitat. Their spectacular congregations at clay licks, waterholes, and mass roosts often present important potentials for ecotourism benefits for local communities, and for development of conservation education efforts. The plight of parrots is due to many factors, but two problems stand out as especially important -- habitat destruction and fragmentation and trapping for the bird trade. For example, of the 95 species considered in this Plan, habitat destruction and fragmentation endanger 78 species while 36 species are endangered by trade. Diminished international trade has been dwarfed by significant growth in internal trade within countries. For many species, the threats of habitat loss and trade act concurrently, so that it is difficult to determine which factor might be most important. For example, 29 species are currently threatened by a combination of habitat destruction and intense trade, and 8 species are threatened by combined habitat destruction and introduced predators or competitors. However, these factors are clearly not the only cause of declining parrot populations. In other cases, massive reductions in parrot populations have occurred in spite of the persistence of natural habitats and an absence of trade. Introduced predators or competitors have apparently threatened 16 species, while others have suffered significantly from hunting for food or feathers, or to protect crops (9 species). Though not well documented, it is also reasonably likely that introduced diseases have been a major factor in the woes of some species, for example the extinct Carolina Parakeet (see Snyder et al. 1987). It is thought that introduced diseases possibly endanger 2 species, and 3 are possibly hybridising with related taxa. The principle threats vary geographically, temporally, and with the specific characteristics of the species involved: introduced predators and competitors have been a major threat primarily for parrot populations on oceanic islands; hunting for food is a principle threat for relatively large species; trade has been very damaging for many highly charismatic or colourful species, especially for those that are extraordinarily talented in imitating human speech. While legal international trade has been declining in magnitude for the past decade (due to CITES regulations, passage of various national regulations, and increased law enforcement activities), internal trade still remains a major problem in many countries, and certain species still suffer from grave threats due to illegal international trade. Some parrot species represent major conservation dilemmas, as their feeding habits make them competitors for agricultural crops. Finding acceptable solutions to crop damage problems without extermination of the parrots involved is one of the most difficult aspects of conservation of a significant number of species. Most of the specific threats faced by parrots can be traced to various human activities. Consequently, lasting conservation of many species will entail changing various human practices that directly and indirectly affect the species in question. For this reason, education efforts and generation of public awareness and support are of major importance in the conservation of most species. Structure of the Action Plan In Chapter 2, the Action Plan considers general aspects of parrot conservation, while the remaining chapters give detailed species by species status accounts and conservation recommendations. Particular emphasis is placed on the need for sound knowledge about the problems faced by individual species and the potential conservation actions available for each species. Such information should normally be gathered and evaluated before specific prescriptions are advanced, because premature judgements based on incorrect information can waste valuable time and resources and greatly diminish the prospects for effective conservation. This is not meant to sanction a lack of action on behalf of species that are critically threatened simply because all research answers are not yet in. For such species provisional recommendations should be developed and followed, but not as a continuing substitute for obtaining the scientifically rigorous data that will allow development of comprehensive conservation strategies. Because resources for conservation are limited, it is extremely important to maximise the efficiency of each programme. Conservation approaches will necessarily vary among individual species, and it is essential that every programme be continuously evaluated for effectiveness and that conservation actions be adaptively modified whenever success remains elusive. General Principles The second chapter of the Action Plan discusses principles that should apply to the conservation of all parrot species. Subsections include determinations of population sizes, ranges, and trends; determinations of causes of decline; and general evaluations of conservation alternatives. The principles involved are for the most part not specific to parrots, and some examples to illustrate principles are drawn from other groups. Nevertheless, emphasis is placed on the unique characteristics of parrots that pose special problems and opportunities in the application of conservation techniques. The World’s Threatened Parrots Chapters 3 to 7 provide the most up-to-date information available on the status, distribution, and threats to the 102 species of parrots threatened worldwide. The species are organised into four main regions: Australia, New Zealand, and the Southwest Pacific; Asia, including continental Asia, Indonesia, and the Philippines; Africa; and the Neotropics (Americas). A general overview, including threats and conservation solutions, and detailed species accounts for all threatened taxa are provided for each region. In addition, priority conservation projects are discussed as text boxes for Asia and Africa. Most priority projects In the Neotropical section were included in the "actions" section of each species account, so the Text Boxes were omitted. Initially, the species considered were those listed in Birds to Watch 2: the world list of threatened birds (Collar et al. 1994), which is also the official IUCN list of threatened birds (see IUCN 1996). Species included in Birds to Watch 2 are drawn from the list of species proposed by Sibley and Monroe (1990, 1993), that remains controversial but has been adopted by both BirdLife International and CITES. This list is followed more in the interests of standardisation than out of complete agreement with the species limits and sequence proposed. However, the updated information in this Action Plan produced several changes to the original Birds to Watch 2. These changes fall into four categories: i) change in the threat category for species which remain threatened; ii) addition to the list; iii) removal from the list (8 species); iv) taxonomic reappraisal which suggests that a threatened taxa might be most appropriately treated as a species, and hence should be added to the list (3 species); v) new species proposed for consideration in the Red List (8 species). Classifying species as to degree of threat is a controversial endeavour, as it is commonly extremely difficult to predict how likely extinction may be, especially in cases where detailed studies of individual species have been lacking. Various efforts have been made to base classifications on numerical criteria for population sizes and trends and on sizes of ranges. Although no numerical scheme has yet achieved consensus support of the conservation community, this Action Plan follows the IUCN categories of threat (IUCN, 1994) assigned to individual species in this Action Plan. The categories utilised are: Extinct in wild, Critically Endangered, Endangered, and Vulnerable (see Appendix 2). Chapter 2 GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR PARROT CONSERVATION Preliminary Remarks The overriding goal of parrot conservation should be the maintenance of viable wild populations of all species within their native ranges and natural ecosystems. Captive populations are not an end-point of conservation efforts. Although in extreme cases it may be necessary to depend on an intermediate stage in captivity to achieve viable wild populations, as a rule wild populations should be sustained continuously if at all feasible. In large part, this is because the difficulties in re-establishing wild populations from captivity can be especially daunting for species such as parrots in which many important behavioural characteristics are learned and can be quickly modified or lost under captive conditions (see Snyder et al. 1996). By retaining a strong focus on wild populations at all stages of the conservation process, the chances of simultaneously sustaining the species and preserving essential habitat are maximised. Reduction of fundamental causes of endangerment in the wild must remain the primary goal of conservation efforts. Defining viable wild populations is not a simple task. Criteria for viability can include both genetic and demographic considerations, and can involve time scales ranging from a few years to the indefinite future. It is difficult to justify any particular minimum population size as a goal applicable to all parrot species, considering the variations among species in overall range, natural population fluctuations, life history parameters, and sensitivity to environmental threats. Nevertheless, there is probably broad agreement that viable wild populations should have the following characteristics: (1) Populations remain stable (or increase) over time, (2) Subpopulation numbers remain stable (or increase) over time, (3) The range of the species remains stable (or increases) over time, and (4) Populations are large enough and subdivided enough to minimise threats posed by inbreeding and catastrophic events. Implicit in this last characteristic is a general goal of maintenance of multiple self-sustaining sub-populations of the species in as wide a geographic distribution as is feasible. In cases where abundant demographic data are available for a species, it is also sometimes possible to define viable populations in terms of probabilities of extinction (e.g., < 5% in l00 years), based on modelling studies. Application of these concepts will vary among species, but should include consideration of both short- and long-term time scales. Status Assessment Without accurate status assessments -- specifying population sizes, ranges, and trends -- there is no reliable way to determine which species deserve conservation attention and no way to measure progress in conservation programmes. All three characteristics are important, as a single determination of population size and range provides only an instantaneous “snapshot” of a species, and cannot reveal very much about its conservation status. A tiny population that is stable or increasing is a very different conservation entity than a tiny population that is rapidly declining, and repeated monitoring efforts are necessary to determine just which situation exists. All populations fluctuate to a greater or lesser extent, and distinguishing between short-term fluctuations due to chance events and long-term trends is of major importance. The measures employed for population recovery must be tailored to the severity of the crisis. Just as single, short-duration assessments of population size and range have limited utility in determining whether populations are declining, they are also generally inadequate for identifying either the causes of population decline or appropriate conservation measures on more than a provisional basis. What appear to be obvious causes of decline, sometimes turn out on careful study to be only minor problems, while truly important causes can sometimes be missed in short-term assessments. Thus, while population size and range assessments are essential in conservation efforts, they can be easily misinterpreted if they are not carried out at biologically meaningful intervals and if they are not coupled with comprehensive biological studies. The dangers involved in failing to follow all these paths simultaneously can be seen clearly in an example from another group of birds -- the California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus). This species was known to occur in very low and declining numbers for a period of decades, but research on behalf of the species was limited largely to surveys of population size and range until the 1980s, when comprehensive biological studies were begun (see Snyder and Snyder 1989). These latter studies quickly revealed that the presumed main cause of decline, habitat destruction, was in fact a minor problem in the near term, while the most important cause, mortality from lead poisoning, had not been recognised or addressed. Because the conservation efforts of many decades, primarily habitat protection, had failed to address the principal cause of decline, the species continued to decline and eventually reached such low numbers that captive breeding was the only remaining viable near-term conservation option. The important point of this discussion is that had the proper biological studies been initiated earlier, there is a real chance the species’ decline could have been reversed in the wild and without the enormous expense associated with current efforts (well over $1 million US annually). Although various methods for monitoring parrot populations are available, the utility of these methods is not uniform among species because of species differences in behaviour and ecology. Among the methods that have been used with various parrots are roost counts, nest enumerations, river transects, mark-resighting studies, and fixed lookout counts. All have weaknesses of one sort or another, and only direct field experience is likely to reveal the most useful and practical techniques for a particular species. All methods have key assumptions that need to be met for applications to be reliable (see Casagrande and Beissinger 1997). Roost counts have been used with good success in achieving population counts for some species [e.g., the Bahama Parrot (Gnam and Burchsted 1991), and the Puerto Rican Parrot (Snyder et al. 1987)], but proper use of such counts necessitates finding all significant roosts for the population in question and determining which time of year the birds tend to clump most consistently in roosts. Preferably, all roosts should be monitored simultaneously, although this requirement can be relaxed for species whose roost-use tends to be stable over long periods. Unfortunately, some species do not clump together in obvious roosts, while others approach and leave roosts in the subcanopy, making them difficult to enumerate accurately. Others change roost locations so frequently that it can be difficult to keep current on roost locations. Thus, while roost counts can be a very good method with species that do not present the above problems, it is not a method that can be used effectively with others. Nest enumeration is currently being employed in status work on the Maroon-fronted Parrot (Rhynchopsitta terrisi), a species that nests colonially in cliffs (Enkerlin in litt. 1997). As with roost counts, success in using this method as a population monitoring technique depends on locating all significant colonies of the species and determining which time of year is best for counting. The Maroon-fronted Parrot also roosts communally, but frequent changes in roost locations make monitoring of roosts difficult. Moreover, the habitat of this species is sufficiently difficult to access that getting close enough to count some roosts poses severe logistic problems. Nevertheless, results of roost counts to date show clearly that a large fraction (perhaps on the order of 80%) of the population does not show up in nest enumerations. While long-term monitoring of the size of the nesting population appears to be a relatively practical goal and may prove to be an important component of efforts to follow the overall health of the population it appears unlikely to track total population numbers closely on a year to year basis, because of large fluctuations in food supplies with this species. Nest enumerations may well give more useful population trend information on the basis of longer time spans. The optimal monitoring strategy with this species appears to be efforts to utilise both roost counts and nest enumerations, despite the practical difficulties in roost counts. For species that nest in dispersed fashion, nest enumeration often has little potential for overall monitoring of populations because it is often extraordinarily labour-intensive to locate nests for such species. Nevertheless, nest enumeration has proved useful in tracking the population health of the dispersed-nesting Golden- shouldered Parrot (Psephotus chrysopterygius), which utilises termite mounds for breeding (which can be located with some efficiency). The density and distribution of nests of this species are monitored annually over 250 square kilometres of terrain as a measure of effectiveness of conservation actions (Garnet and Crowley 1995). Counts of birds assembling at clay licks or waterholes can also be useful, particularly when they can be converted into density figures or total population counts. Such conversions, however, require knowledge of the areas serviced by such features and the frequency of visitation by individuals. Waterhole counts tend to be most useful for species in relatively arid habitats, especially during the dry season when the number of water sources is minimal, forcing the birds to concentrate on relatively few sites. However, since individuals may visit water sources more than once a day or move between water sources, to extrapolate such counts to population counts some individual birds must be marked (for example with radio-tags) to ascertain frequency of visits. As with roost counts and nest enumerations, efforts have to be made to locate all water holes in use and to monitor them simultaneously. Counts at clay licks, coupled with individual identifications of birds achieved through photography, have been used to generate population density figures for certain macaws (Munn 1992). Moving transects (line transects), such as counts from boats along rivers, can give useful indices of abundance of some species. They are often very difficult to convert into accurate population estimates, however, as the areas serviced and the detection efficiencies can be difficult to specify. Moreover, behavioural characteristics of some species may strongly bias their detectability by such methods. Nevertheless, such counts can be used to compare species abundances in different areas of similar habitat, to gain trend information on specific populations, and to document seasonal changes in habitat use (Munn 1992, Renton 1994, Robinet et al. 1996). Under some circumstances, counts from stationary locations can give useful monitoring data, particularly if stations are established along important flight lines. The problems here are that parrots are often highly patchy in distribution, and it is often difficult to establish how representative the observation points are and what areas are effectively covered in the counts. Such counts are often most useful as indexes of abundance if carried out over long periods of time, but they are difficult to convert into absolute abundances accurately. Flight lines of species can change, seasonally or more permanently, relative to changes in distributions of food supplies, so counts in fixed locations can give spurious trend information if not coupled with other indices of abundance. Point surveys can often be expected to be more biased than line transect counts, but there are circumstances where they are a preferable technique (see Casagrande and Beissinger 1997). Mark-resighting techniques are potentially useful with some species (Casagrande and Beissinger 1997), but such methods are highly labour-intensive compared to other methods and often are impractical because of difficulties in capturing birds for marking. In addition, there can also be an increased risk of predation for marked animals in some species (see Saunders 1988). The aforementioned methods are not the only methods that might be applied to parrots. For example, variable circular plot methodology has been used in many studies in Asia and Africa, and offers a number of advantages in some contexts. However this method, like some others, often yields such wide variability for population sizes that it is sometimes of limited value in monitoring population trends. Although it is highly desirable and valuable to develop techniques that may give accurate total population counts for any endangered species, this may simply not be feasible for some parrots. In such cases, it may alternatively be possible to devise ways of indexing abundance that can give reliable trend information over the long term. This is usually the most important information for conservation purposes. Additionally, relative differences in density between areas may be important, and even order of magnitude estimates for poorly known species may be better than no estimates at all. Mail surveys have been used successfully to monitor declines in populations of species that were once common and widespread in Western Australia. This method is cheap, quick, and well suited to species that are readily recognised and familiar to amateurs (see Mawson and Long 1966). In addition, information on trade volume can sometimes be used to infer population trends, provided certain assumptions about harvest intensity and reporting uniformity are met. The literature on bird censusing is large, and the reader should consult general reviews on bird censusing methods, such as Ralph and Scott (1981), Davis (1982), Verner (1985), Taylor et al. (1985), Seber (1986)), and Bibby et al. (1992) for a critical discussion of other methods that may have value with some species. Accurate censusing of wild bird populations remains one of the more difficult tasks confronting researchers and conservationists. There is no one universal method for estimating bird abundances and densities, and appropriate methods vary according to species, time, and location. The desire to find a single technique that might work well for all parrot species will surely remain unfulfilled. Regardless of how accurate the population and trend estimates may be for any species, conservation efforts must proceed on the best available information. Actions on behalf of critically endangered species should not be postponed simply because of uncertainties as to exact population size and trends. Determining causes of population decline If monitoring efforts with a species show that it is under continuous decline, it is important to establish causes of the decline through more detailed demographic investigations. This is usually accomplished via quantitative evaluations of both reproduction and mortality. Stresses on species may arise in either sphere, or in both, and if effective conservation is to take place, it is essential that the major factors causing decline are identified so that they can be countered effectively. Intensive research to determine causes of decline may entail some risks to individuals of the species. But, the risks to populations are the most important concern, and they cannot be reduced reliably without a comprehensive understanding of the causes of decline. It is a fundamental mistake to adopt a policy of always minimising risks to individuals, if in so doing one remains ignorant of the true causes of a species’ decline. A concrete example of faulty risk analysis, the California Condor programme was hobbled for decades by fears that intensive research would be too risky for individuals. Thus radio-telemetry of condors was delayed until the population was almost lost, and yet it was only through radio-telemetry that lead poisoning, the most important cause of decline, was finally identified (see Snyder and Snyder 1989). Up to that point, conservation strategies for the species were aimed in the wrong direction and the species continued to decline rapidly toward extinction. When dealing with endangered species, every action or lack of action carries risks. It is essential that programmes retain a focus on overall risk reduction for populations, which often entails small, carefully monitored risks for individuals. Often, the worst enemy in conservation programmes can be mistaken assumptions about the causes of decline. As Caughley (1994), and Caughley and Gunn (1996) discuss, failure in conservation management efforts often traces to lack of sufficient information about basic natural history features of the species in question and incorrect identification of main causes of endangerment. Current debates over conservation of Lear’s Macaw (Anodorhynchus leari) provide an instructive example of how concerns for individuals can be in conflict with concerns for populations (see Munn 1995a). Major conservation efforts on behalf of this species have been mobilised on the assumption that inadequate food supplies have been a crucial limiting factor. Yet, it is not certain that food scarcity has been as important as assumed, and Munn has called for intensive research to clarify the situation. However, the detailed studies of nesting birds that appear to be necessary to resolve the issue have been vigorously opposed by parties concerned about possible impacts of intensive research on nesting individuals. More recent information (Reynolds 1997) suggests that at least at present the major limiting factor for Lear’s Macaw may be poaching for the bird trade. If so, efforts to increase food supplies at best may fall far short of what it is needed to preserve the species. Reproduction Reproductive studies normally entail locating adequate samples sizes of potential nesting pairs and determining both the fraction that fail to breed and the success rates of the ones that do. In some species, such as the Kakapo (Strigops habroptilus), Puerto Rican Parrot (Amazona vittata), Yellow-headed Parrot ( A. oratrix), and many macaws, major problems lie in failures to lay eggs; while in others, problems may lie mainly in poor success of egg-laying pairs (Snyder et al. 1987, Munn 1992, Elliott 1996, Enkerlin in litt. 1997). Thus, it is important to study both factors. In some species which show low breeding effort (frequent failures to lay eggs), the problem can be traced to low availability of nest sites. This can sometimes be remedied by providing additional sites. For example, Red-tailed Black Cockatoos (Calyptorhyncus banksii), which are believed to face low nest-site availability, have quickly occupied artificial sites (Emison et al. 1994b). In other species where such problems have been suspected, however, artificial sites have not been accepted, and it has been necessary to improve deficient natural cavities to attract nesting birds (e.g., Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae -- see Hicks and Greenwood 1989). In still other species which reject artificial sites, even massive provision of improved natural sites has not cured chronic problems with low breeding effort (e.g., the Puerto Rican Parrot). Here, causes of low breeding effort have remained elusive, perhaps lying with food limitations of one sort or another, or with other factors such as unbalanced sex ratios in extremely small populations. Poor nest success can be determined only by comprehensive nest monitoring efforts, which normally will include periodic nest inspections to determine growth and development characteristics of nestlings and to determine if the nestlings are affected by parasite or disease problems. With basic precautions, such inspections can usually be done without significant negative effects on nesting success, and the benefits obtained from the information gathered normally far exceed any risks entailed. Species affected by food limitations may show slow-growth effects or brood-reduction effects. For instance in south-western Australia the growth rates of a food-stressed and declining population of Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus funereus latirostris) were lower than those in a stable one (Saunders 1986). Species affected primarily by nest predation problems will generally exhibit total losses of broods, and here it may be necessary to initiate intensive nest observations to determine the culprits and possible means of thwarting them. Habitat deterioration problems are perhaps most likely to manifest themselves in effects on food supplies or nest availability, and thus be reflected in low reproductive effort, reduced clutch size, poor nestling growth rates, and/or low fledging success. In many regions the primary nest predator will turn out to be man, as revealed by damage to nest sites or other clues (e.g., spike marks on trees). But in some species, where nest contents are easily accessible from entrances, few signs of human depredations may be evident even when such depredations are a major problem. Other principal threats to nest success include non-human nest predators and competitors, such as various snakes and lizards, Pearly-eyed Thrashers (Margarops fuscatus), brush-tailed possums (Trichosaurus vulpecula), and feral rats and cats. On occasion nest parasites such as various bot flies and soldier flies can be a major stress. In some instances the impacts of such natural and unnatural enemies can prove adequate in themselves to account for population declines. Island parrots (e.g., the Kakapo Strigops habroptilus) have proved to be especially susceptible to nest losses caused by introduced predators. Mortality Mortality studies are often more difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to conduct than reproductive studies, but especially with very long-lived species, good quantitative estimates of mortality rates may be crucial for diagnosing whether the species is stressed by excessive mortality. A number of techniques have been used successfully. For example, many species exhibit strong fidelity in nesting territories, and if individuals can be recognised by idiosyncratic characteristics or by artificial marks, such as bands, adult turnover rates in known territories can be determined over a period of years (see Snyder et al. 1987). Although such rates are not strictly equivalent to adult mortality rates (as there may be some movement of birds out of known territories to unknown locations) they can provide a good upper bound on adult mortality rates and in many cases are very close to adult mortality rates. Mortality rates of fledgling birds can sometimes be determined by close study of family groups, as fledglings of some species remain closely associated with their parents for long periods -- sometimes to the beginning of the next breeding season. By determining the numbers of young fledging in a reasonable sample of territories and by later determining the numbers of surviving young, mortality rates of fledglings can be calculated in a straightforward manner. However, in some species young do not stay with their parents for long after fledging, or families disperse from breeding territories soon after fledging and do not return as families later. For such species the above method cannot be used, and determining fledgling mortality rates may necessitate marking samples of young (e.g., with radio telemetry) to follow their survival directly. Similarly, survival rates of adults in species that do not exhibit territory fidelity might only be estimated through marking techniques. Radio-telemetry attachments have now been tested on many of the larger parrots with success, and units are now available that have lifetimes of several years. Radio-telemetry, however, is a relatively expensive technique and entails some risks associated with capture and handling of birds. Where it is possible to gain mortality information without it, this is sometimes a preferable option. However, radio-telemetry is often the only way to determine exact causes of mortality, and can also often provide other very useful information (e.g., on range use, foraging behaviour, and migration behaviour) that often cannot be obtained by other means. Another technique that has been used successfully to obtain mortality rate information is patagial tags (see Rowley and Saunders 1980, Saunders 1988, and Smith and Rowley 1995), although risks and benefits of these tags vary for different species. Banding (ringing) is useful as a marking technique for only certain species, as in many parrots feathers cover the tarsus sufficiently to obscure vision of bands, except when birds are in the hand. Banding with standard flat bird bands also poses risks of damage to legs in many species because of shape of the tarsus, and should always be tested carefully with captives before widespread implementation. Adults and fledglings do not represent all age classes in a population, but they can normally be expected to represent the groups with the lowest and highest mortality rates, respectively. Mortality rates of intermediate- aged birds can sometimes be inferred from accurate data on population figures, reproductive rates, and mortality rates of adults and fledglings (see Snyder et al. 1987). They can also be determined directly by means such as radio-telemetry. Expected mortality rates for the species under study can be estimated by comparisons with other species with similar demographic characteristics, such as age of first breeding, clutch size, etc. If the rates with the species in question appear excessively high, it is crucial to identify specific causes of mortality, and here radio telemetry may be essential. With some species hunting or trapping for the bird trade may cause excessive mortality. With others, there may be unusual situations regarding disease, toxic materials, or exotic non-human predators. Demographic Analyses Once basic demographic information is available for a species, including good quantitative data on age of first breeding, reproductive effort and success, and age-specific mortality rates, it becomes possible to pinpoint where the primary weak points in the life equation lie. Population viability analyses (PVAs) can be useful at this point in helping identify which aspects of the life equation need primary attention in conservation actions and in setting goals to be achieved in reducing stress factors. PVAs can also help reveal which demographic characteristics need the most accurate quantification to achieve reliable conclusions. However, PVAs should be conducted only after population size and demographic parameters, and their year- to year variations, have been determined with reasonable accuracy (Beissinger and Westphal 1998). Good information on frequency, severity, and effects of catastrophic events, such as hurricanes, is also needed for species vulnerable to such events. These various data are available for extraordinarily few species overall, let alone parrot species, so at the present time conservation efforts for the vast majority of parrot species cannot be expected to benefit from PVAs. Poor population data and inaccurate estimates of demographic parameters pose substantial risks of generating erroneous conclusions regarding population viability (Reed et al. 1998). PVAs based on such data can potentially redirect resources toward unwarranted conservation actions with a false sense of confidence that these actions rest on rigorous science. From both a cost and risk standpoint, scarce conservation resources are generally better allocated to accumulation of good demographic data than to premature PVA symposia. When enough data are accumulated to make PVA analyses legitimate and worthwhile, they should be conducted using a variety of models. Because alternative PVA models vary in their assumptions and internal structure, and can provide markedly different results from the same set of demographic data (Mills et al. 1996, Pascual et al. 1997), the results must be interpreted conservatively. With many declining parrot populations, the principal problem is likely to be excessive mortality. Parrot species are often (but not always) characterised by delayed sexual maturity and long life expectancies, and population size is typically influenced far more by changes in adult mortality than by changes in reproductive rates. In fact, if mortality problems can be reduced with such species they may be able to recover reasonably rapidly, even if reproductive statistics are relatively poor. Preliminary data suggest that such a situation may apply to the case of the St. Lucia Parrot (Amazona versicolor), a species that was suffering greatly from hunting mortality until massive education and legal efforts were made on its behalf starting in the late 1970s. Studies in recent years suggest that reproduction in this species is quite modest, as many pairs do not lay eggs and egg-laying pairs produce few fledglings. Nevertheless the species is clearly recovering steadily, and populations are being re-established in various parts of the island where parrots have been absent for many years. The effective cessation in hunting pressure on this species has very likely reduced mortality rates to very low levels and appears to have been the principal direct conservation action benefiting the species. For some long-lived species where excessive mortality is not the major problem, inadequate reproduction can be masked by the very longevity of individuals. Population declines may not be obvious for many years until they finally become relatively rapid as senescence of individuals increases, a situation that may apply, for example, to certain populations of Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris). Designing conservation actions This Action Plan strongly endorses the formation of capable advisory recovery teams to develop recommendations for conservation efforts with threatened parrots, especially with respect to the process of making choices among conservation alternatives. Recovery teams are not the same thing as occasional international symposia of outside experts to provide input on species conservation, but are locally-based functional teams that work to design research and conservation strategies on a continuing basis. There is a growing literature on how such teams should be set up to achieve efficiency and progress in recovery (see Clark and Westrum 1989, Clark et al. 1994, Westrum 1994), and it is crucial that teams are set up properly if they are to function productively. Principles to be followed here include the concepts that all major parties with a stake in conservation of the species and all major researchers involved with the species should be participants. Teams should be charged with designing effective conservation efforts for the species as their major goal and should be insulated as much as possible from the influences of special interests. Although their role obviously cannot be to usurp authority from responsible government wildlife agencies, their purpose should be to provide these agencies with the best independent advice relating to conservation of the species in question on a continuing basis. To this end teams should not be dominated by government agencies and should include the best biological expertise available. Teams should not be expected to produce immutable “recovery plans” but to generate focused documents at appropriate intervals that reflect changing knowledge about the species in question and the best ways to conserve them. Notwithstanding the values of well-constituted recovery teams, it is important to recognise the fact that success in recovery programmes often traces in large measure to on-the ground efforts of particularly well- motivated and skilful individuals. There is no formula for locating such individuals, but when they are discovered by whatever means, their importance can often outrank most other factors in the conservation process. Truly talented conservation “maestros” (see Westrum 1994), deserve to be given a high level of independence and authority in programmes. Programmes left in the care of pedestrian workers or unmotivated managers can easily fail even with the best of advice from well-constituted advisory groups. Although a variety of general techniques have been used to assist the conservation of threatened parrots, not all techniques will be effective for every species or in every local situation. Ideally, in implementing a conservation programme for any species, the techniques selected should meet the following criteria: (1) They should be appropriate to the biology of the species in question and be effective in promoting survival and recovery; (2) They should be economical; (3) They should be compatible with the local human political, economic, and social environment; and (4) They should benefit multiple species and promote biodiversity conservation in general. To be effective actions, the solutions chosen must address the basic causes of decline operating within the species. If, for example, problems are primarily ones of mortality due to hunting or poaching, these stresses will have to be reduced by whatever effective means can be devised. No amount of habitat protection will be adequate to save such species in itself, and while habitat protection is normally a very positive aspect of conservation in the long run, in the short run it can sometimes represent a diversion from crucial efforts to reduce sources of mortality. Conservation actions vary greatly in cost, and where choices are available, cost-effectiveness is an important consideration. For many years, captive breeding was proposed as an important aspect of conservation of the Lesser Antillean amazons (e.g., Berry 1980, Jeggo 1980, Noegel 1980). But captive breeding is relatively expensive, especially because of the long time-scales often involved, and full-scale programmes to implement this technique were never established with these species. Instead, major efforts were made to counter the principal perceived threats to these species through enhanced education, habitat protection, and law enforcement initiatives (see Butler 1992). These efforts were both economical and effective, and populations of all four amazons in the Lesser Antilles are now believed to be increasing significantly. To the extent that habitat protection turns out to be important in conserving a species, one can expect to see major benefits for many other associated species in pursuing this goal. Properly designed education programmes that emphasise the ecosystem dependencies of charismatic species can also be expected to benefit many other sympatric species. In contrast, other conservation techniques may have no spin-off benefits for other species. For example, captive breeding per se helps only the species in question, and thus represents a less favourable technique in many contexts, especially if it draws resources away from more productive techniques. Captive breeding at best represents only an interim and partial solution to species preservation. For it to be successful, it has to be tightly coupled with other actions that ensure survival of the species in the wild. It is true that under some circumstances captive breeding can attract funds toward in situ efforts that would not otherwise be available, but it should not represent an end in itself and should always be properly integrated with efforts actually leading to wild population conservation. Politically viable solutions are ones that come to enjoy widespread public support, and in this sense it is almost always advisable for there to be a significant public education component in any species’ conservation programme. Often national and local pride can be the key element for generating the necessary political support, but politically viable solutions need to be very carefully crafted in the local social context and can be very difficult to achieve if there is no significant local participation in the conservation programme. With the aforementioned caveats in mind, the specific strengths and weaknesses of various major conservation techniques that have been used and suggested for parrots are discussed in more detail below. Habitat Preservation and Restoration The great majority of endangered parrots face some degree of threat from habitat change, destruction, and fragmentation, so habitat preservation and restoration clearly represent the most fundamental and important overall solution to problems of endangerment of the group. Further, where choices in conservation strategies are available, it is reasonable to favour those that do the most good for the maximum number of species. Often this means that habitat protection and/or restoration should be a priority feature of the strategies adopted. However, where species are suffering most from factors additional to habitat degradation, such as trade or hunting, habitat protection alone cannot be expected to provide a full solution. Many parrot species are, in fact, relatively tolerant of habitat degradation per se, and can persist in highly modified habitats if stress factors such as trade, hunting, and loss of specialised nest sites can be controlled (see Beissinger and Snyder 1992, Enkerlin 1995, Munn 1995b). Thus, while parrot declines are commonly correlated with habitat deterioration, one should not simply assume that this proves a primary cause and effect relationship without further supporting data, as increases in many other stress factors are also commonly correlated with the declines, and in some cases these other stresses may be more important than habitat factors. However, it is important to recognise that important effects of habitat degradation can sometimes be very difficult to detect, as habitat degradation can stress the welfare of endangered parrots indirectly through primary effects on other competitor species, predators, parasites, diseases, etc. For example, Garnett and Crowley (1997) suggest that habitat changes may be significantly increasing the vulnerability of Golden-shouldered Parrots (Psephotus chrysopterygius) to predation by Pied Butcherbirds and that this may be an important factor in decline of the species. In cases where habitat deterioration has been a primary cause of a species’ decline, and adequate habitats no longer exist, it may be necessary to implement habitat restoration efforts, commonly focused on recreating critical habitat features missing from wild or semi-wild environments. These efforts may be focused on expanding crucial food supplies, nest sites, roost sites, or water supplies. A good understanding of the limiting factors faced by the species in question is essential for determining and remedying such deficiencies. Not all parrots are nest site limited, food limited, roost-site limited, or water supply limited, so habitat restoration efforts cannot be expected to benefit all species. Quite often, parrots are among the most charismatic species to be found in ecosystems under threat, and they can serve as a successful focus for habitat preservation efforts, attracting public support more easily than other less charismatic species, yet providing habitat protection for many of these less charismatic species simultaneously. Thus the Puerto Rican Parrot (Amazona vittata) has proved to be a crucial flagship species in preventing the cutting of rainforest habitat in the Caribbean National Forest in Puerto Rico, and has provided protection for numerous other plant and animal species as a consequence. Because long-term survival of all species is ultimately tied to adequate amounts of suitable habitat, habitat protection and/or restoration should be pursued as a component of almost all parrot conservation programmes. Even in circumstances where the species in question is not a strict habitat specialist, or where habitat protection alone will not address the immediate causes of decline, habitat protection is normally warranted. And in some cases, habitat protection alone may be adequate in itself to assure survival of a species. Efforts to prioritise habitat protection efforts in such a way as to benefit the largest numbers of species, be they parrots in part or not, make considerable sense, but are not the only factor to be considered. Habitat protection efforts sometimes succeed because the appeal of only a single charismatic species is sufficient to attract the support of a few key donors or politicians who would be reluctant to support biodiversity conservation per se. It can thus be debated whether more biodiversity conservation will be accomplished in the long run by concentrating on protecting habitats for as many charismatic species as possible or by concentrating on trying to sell biodiversity on its own merits independent of the existence of charismatic species. In pursuing habitat protection, it is important that all important habitats used by the species in question receive attention. Wintering habitat is as crucial as breeding habitat in migratory species, and habitat used on migratory routes may also be essential for survival. Determining what habitats are essential for the species and why, is a necessary precondition for successful design of a habitat protection plan. This determination needs to be made for each important sub-population of the species. Radio-telemetry can often be one of the quickest ways to gain this information in species that move substantial distances during the annual cycle (e.g., Ara ambigua in Central America). Habitat protection can be pursued in a variety of ways, including outright land purchase, development of appropriate management strategies for publicly owned lands, and purchase of conservation easements. The costs of habitat protection vary enormously, but this approach is often more cost effective in the long run than are other more intensive conservation solutions (see Balmford et al 1995). When efforts to conserve habitat are properly integrated with other conservation actions, such as development of education programmes and ecotourism programmes, they sometimes can pay for themselves. The most common mistake with habitat protection efforts is that once targeted areas are formally gazetted as reserves, meaningful conservation actions may be halted, and the crucial steps of funding comprehensive management plans and providing adequate resources for continuing management and protection efforts are neglected. Paper parks do little to conserve species. Recent efforts to protect habitat have generally attempted to integrate conservation and development objectives. Biosphere reserves, multiple-use areas, buffer zones, and large-scale planning units such as regional conservation areas are all efforts designed to link biodiversity conservation with social and economic betterment of local communities (Wells and Brandon 1992). Without such linkage, many habitat protection efforts may ultimately fail. In Australia parrot conservation is increasingly being undertaken on private lands, integrating sound conservation management with best practices in agriculture (Garnett and Crowley 1995). In exceptional circumstances, habitat manipulation may be required to protect highly specialised species, although this may not benefit other species. For example, regular burning of the heathland may be necessary to maintain some populations of the Ground Parrot (Pozoporus wallicus) in southern Australia, even though the burning regimes may be detrimental for certain other species. Education, Laws, and Law Enforcement A large fraction of the conservation problems faced by parrots trace to direct and indirect impacts of mankind, and the solutions to these problems commonly lie in changing attitudes of people toward the species and/or the ecosystems that it occupies. In part this effort may involve changing laws, or changing the willingness of people to obey existing laws. The penalties for not obeying laws need to be meaningful and applied in a just fashion. But much more importantly, people need to come to understand and support the need for such laws as being in their own best interests in the long term. Two widespread threats for which education and legal action are frequently crucial components of conservation are illegal bird trade and hunting. While laws prohibiting such activities are easy to pass and are on the books in most all countries, enforcement often proves difficult, especially where the illegal activities remain socially acceptable at the local level. Bird trade, both international and domestic, continues to be a pressing threat for many species (Collar and Juniper 1992) despite legal efforts to curtail and regulate it [i.e., the 1992 Exotic Wild Bird Conservation Act of the USA and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)]. CITES lists all parrot species on its appendixes. But, while it has evidently been an important force in controlling and curtailing legal trade in threatened parrots (judging from recent substantial declines in the overall volume of reported international parrot trade), it has not been uniformly successful in curbing illegal international trade in some highly valued species. In some cases, CITES listing may even have exacerbated trade problems for particular species. The profits involved in trade have led to widespread parrot smuggling and, so long as these profits exist, the solution to the trade problem may be elusive. By analogy with successful historical efforts to end the plume-bird trade, the most effective solution could be a campaign to destroy demand by concerted education efforts, especially within avicultural societies, aimed at ending the social acceptability of private ownership of endangered parrots. However, given the long history of keeping parrots in captivity, their strong attractions as pets and status symbols, and the public’s general inability to distinguish endangered from non-endangered species, this could be a very difficult task. Stiff penalties for convicted traffickers, and wide publicity given to their transgressions can be a significant deterrent. IUCN/UNEP/WWF Caring for the Earth (1991) has urged countries to legislate against private ownership of internationally threatened species except under tightly controlled conditions. But, so long as the private ownership of such birds remains socially acceptable, the problem will probably remain in spite of such efforts. Where international bird trade is a major component of the problem, efforts to reduce trade in threatened parrots need to be mounted in both exporting and importing countries. However, it is essential to recognise that for many species, a very large fraction of the trade problem is internal within source countries and is not an international issue. The enforcement capabilities of many source countries for parrots have not been comprehensive enough to provide effective deterrence to parrot harvest, although such capabilities are improving rapidly in some countries. In addition, as governments have increased their enforcement efforts, they have faced new problems in how to handle volumes of confiscated birds (see Reintroduction Section below). To some extent, commercial captive breeding may have the potential to reduce the profits obtainable in trade and reduce pressures on wild populations. Indeed, deliberate efforts to reduce the market price for Naretha Blue Bonnets (Psephotus haematogaster narethae) by captive breeding have more than halved the retail price for this species in just three years (Peter Mawson in litt. 1997). Similar efforts are now also being tried with Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris). Nevertheless, the costs of captive breeding tend to be much higher than those of wild harvest. So long as substantial cost disparities remain, wild harvest will likely continue. In view of the small amounts of money that are sufficient to motivate parrot harvest by poor rural people (who face virtually no costs in the process), commercial captive-breeding efforts cannot be expected to depress prices enough to remove this motivation unless conducted under major subsidy to cover the economic costs necessarily involved. In the absence of subsidy, commercial captive breeding operations must have price levels that exceed costs to be able to survive. It must also be recognised that the conservation problems of some parrot species stem from perceived overabundance rather than scarcity. Crop depredations by parrots have been a relatively common problem, and control programmes for parrots have been formally and informally instituted in many countries (see Bucher 1992). In many instances, these control efforts have not been based on sound ecological studies, and have been driven by exaggerated perceptions of damage. At local levels, even rare parrot species can be the targets of control efforts (e.g., the Red-fronted Macaw Ara rubrogenys, as a pest of maize crops in Bolivia). Designing appropriate management efforts, laws, and education efforts, as they may apply to pest species, pose some of the most difficult conservation problems to be faced with parrots, and achieving politically viable solutions that permit both survival of these species and satisfactory minimisation of depredations can be a challenge. Crop substitutions (e.g., seedless oranges for seeded varieties) can sometimes provide adequate solutions, but crop substitutions are not always economically attractive. Whether the problems are primarily due to trade, hunting, or other human impacts, education efforts are often among the most important components of successful conservation programmes. For a good appreciation of the potential impacts of such efforts, the reader should consult Butler (1992) and Jacobson (1995). When compared to other conservation options, education efforts can often be surprisingly economical and effective, and can successfully promote biodiversity conservation well beyond the particular species in question. The case of the St. Lucia Parrot (Amazona versicolor) is a prime example where effective conservation has resulted from a combination of education efforts, changed regulations, and comprehensive law enforcement (Butler 1992). Although chances for recovery had formerly appeared slim, largely because of widespread shooting (Wingate 1969), the numbers and range of this parrot have now increased substantially, and the species can no longer be considered Critically Endangered. Coupled with the law enforcement and education efforts have been renewed commitments to habitat conservation, justified as well on the grounds of watershed protection. The parrot has become a principal feature in expanding ecotourism on the island, and the Forestry Department has become a major income earner for the government as a result. This entire effort has been accomplished with only a minimum of costs, and it stands as a model effort that could potentially be replicated in other locales with other parrot species. In designing education programmes of the sort that have worked well in St. Lucia, it is important to keep in mind a number of general principles to maximise success: (1) Programmes should be locally implemented. Long term reliance on external technical assistance does not provide local conservationists/educators with lasting tools to enact or continue their work; and when external assistance is necessary it must contain a training component to ensure that efforts can be sustainable. Programmes must help identify and work with local institutions and businesses to provide tangible financial and/or material support for the campaigns. Local involvement builds local and national pride. (2) Programmes should promote optimism and positive attitudes. When people get the feeling of hopelessness, they lack the incentive to change. Programmes that build pride and focus on what can be achieved at the individual level are more likely to succeed. Education and training must emphasise a problem-solving approach, so that people can be empowered to make connections between their behaviour and possible impacts on the environment. (3) Programmes should promote cooperation and collaboration. The problems caused by environmental degradation and resource misuse are so complex and pervasive that they can only be tackled when individuals, local communities, national governments, and international donor agencies work together. Environmental education programmes should foster such cooperation and strive to involve as many people and agencies as possible. Often, rather than being imposed from the outside, education programmes should be based on local knowledge and understanding, and build on existing philosophies of environmental care. Any programme that relies exclusively on external aid is doomed to failure when its funds are exhausted. Where feasible, partnerships should be developed between similar programmes or projects in adjacent areas to maximise available financial and technical resources. (4) Programmes should help the targeted audience discover and understand not just the symptoms of any given environmental problem but also their underlying causes. An education programme on declining parrot populations should, for example, also focus attention on the root causes of habitat destruction, the effects of human population growth and consumption, etc. It must strive to relate the role of the individual to such causes and stress the positive results that can be achieved through changing behaviour. (5) Programmes should provide new skills. If real change is to be achieved, it is important to teach both “why” and “how”, and to train local people in new skills and techniques. Where new conservation initiatives are needed, efforts should be made to maximise local participation in both design and implementation of these initiatives (see Saunders 1990a). (6) Programmes should incorporate a diverse range of outreach techniques, each targeted to a specific group. No one technique will affect change across all age and socio-economic groups. Successful education campaigns are a mosaic of many activities each carefully aimed at a specific group. The formal education system (primary, secondary, and to a lesser extent tertiary education) is a formidable institution in most countries of the world. Traditionally, teachers are regarded as pillars of society, and like other community leaders, exert considerable influence. Because of this, and because curriculum is at the heart of formal education, it is important that environmental education programmes make inroads into this system. Environmental education should be included in, and should run throughout, the other disciplines of the formal education curriculum to foster a sense of responsibility for the state of the environment and to teach students how to monitor, protect, and improve it. Nevertheless, reaching out to children is not enough, and successful programmes must also target the entire public sector to get the message across to farmers, resource users, and the local leaders that write the legislation, enforce the laws and influence behaviour. To this end, lectures, town meetings, posters, billboards, theatre, song, dance, church sermons can all play a role; a good programme should encompass both “formal” and “informal” approaches (see Butler 1992). (7) Programmes should incorporate assessment mechanisms to monitor and evaluate changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour. Recognising that public attitudes can influence political decision-making, it is important that environmental education programmes incorporate mechanisms to analyse clearly and document their successes. These can be used to fine tune campaigns and encourage decision makers to rally to the cause. (8) Programmes should be replicable, with success documented and disseminated to others in the field. There is a natural tendency among people “to do one’s own thing”, but time is the enemy of conservation. By using proven methods, it is often possible to save time in achieving the goals of saving endangered species and their natural environment. The techniques and success of programmes with a proven track record must be documented and disseminated to other conservationists. This is not to deny the potentials for valuable innovations, but to ensure that successful lessons and techniques are remembered and utilised whenever and wherever appropriate. Ecotourism Many species of parrots are large and spectacular, and have good potentials to serve as a focus for ecotourism development. As a conservation technique, ecotourism can give economic benefits to local communities and cause them to value and protect the ecosystems on which the parrots depend. However, potentials for ecotourism do not extend equally to all parrot species, as many lack the charisma to make them major attractions, while others are too unpredictable in movements to allow reliable viewing in specific locations. Thus while the Maroon-fronted Parrot (Rhynchopsitta terrisi) offers excellent potentials for ecotourism because of its concentrated nesting in spectacular and consistently-used cliff colonies, the same potentials do not exist for the Maroon-fronted Parrot’s close relative, the Thick-billed Parrot (R. pachyrhyncha). Although spectacular enough in appearance, the thick-bills nest in dispersed fashion in trees, and are notable for their erratic presence in specific areas. Thick-billed Parrots also nest in a range currently troubled by widespread cultivation of illicit drugs, rendering the safety of ecotourism in some question and presenting some difficulties in attracting tourists to the area. Perhaps the most successful example of ecotourism centred on parrots is that developed for viewing of large macaws at clay licks of south-eastern Peru (Munn 1992). The clay-lick spectacle is reliable and massive and a proven tourist attraction, despite the difficulties of getting to the area (which may actually be part of the attraction). Further, it represents a major income-producing phenomenon for local communities and has been practical to connect with the need to preserve the rain-forest habitat of the species involved. Overall, ecotourism represents the third most important economic activity for southeastern Peru (Munn 1992), and this potential may continue to grow. Wherever charismatic parrots exist and concentrate for whatever reasons (clay licks, waterholes, waterfalls, colonial nesting sites, reliable roosting sites, etc.), the possibility of ecotourism needs to be considered as a conservation option. But this needs to be done with full knowledge of the weaknesses and risks of this approach. If implemented improperly, ecotourism can lead to regrettable consequences of a variety of sorts, including degradation of the very resources on which it depends and disruption of local human cultures (see Brandon 1996). Of principal concern is the proper distribution of economic benefits to be derived from the ecotourism. If the benefits do not stay substantially in local communities, then one cannot expect to see the development of local support for preservation of the ecosystems involved. Even if the benefits do remain largely local, the connection with needs for ecosystem protection may be missed without proper education efforts, or may simply be ignored if benefits are not substantial enough (see Brandon 1996). Unfortunately, in many cases of ecotourism development, the benefits have wound up primarily in the hands of extranationals or nationals that are far removed from the actual scene. Proper structuring of the economic benefits is something that should be addressed at the very outset of ecotourism development, and not simply be left to chance. To minimise exploitation and corruption as much as possible, the economic benefits should be controlled and realised by local communities as a whole rather than by individuals. Another weakness of the ecotourism approach is the fact that it can be expected to be vulnerable to unpredictable fluctuations in international economies, changes in currency exchange rates, and changes in perceptions of the risks of visiting various parts of the world. A few well-publicised bombings and kidnappings have the potential to sabotage the basic viability of tourism wherever it is developed for whatever purposes. Nevertheless, it is clear that many developing countries are turning to ecotourism as a major economic benefit (e.g., Costa Rica). In many cases, it works reasonably well to generate income, even if it does not always benefit conservation efforts. Thus far, the overall track record of ecotourism in aiding conservation has been disappointing, although positive potentials still exist, assuming structural changes can be implemented in the way the industry generally operates (see Brandon 1996). The main problem to be corrected is that economic returns do not substantially benefit local communities in many cases. In addition, visitor fees to protected areas, at least for non-nationals, are often underpriced and could easily be increased to generate more substantial benefits. Another change that can make a significant difference is gaining the cooperation of governments in channelling funds raised from public reserves back into reserve maintenance and protection. Captive Breeding Captive breeding has served a crucial function in the recovery of a number of species of critically endangered wildlife, and has a role to play in the recovery of certain parrots. However, there are significant limitations to this technique when it is used to breed birds for ultimate release to the wild. In general, the technique is advisable only as a short-term measure when other preferable conservation options are not immediately available. Employed properly in recovery programmes, captive breeding can provide a critical boost for some severely threatened populations. Employed improperly, it can lead to greatly increased recovery costs and risks rather than benefits. It is important, therefore to identify when captive breeding should or should not be used as a recovery measure and how it should be implemented. Captive breeding also has other values that are less directly related to species recovery, such as providing birds for exhibit, conservation education, and fund-raising purposes. Captive populations can also provide an important resource for fundamental biological research and research training which cannot be accomplished with wild individuals. The precautions that should be observed in captive breeding for recovery purposes (i.e., release to the wild) are different from and more stringent than those that are acceptable for captive breeding for these other purposes. When captive breeding is properly integrated into a species recovery programme, it can offer a number of advantages. Most importantly, it can serve as a safety net for species whose wild populations face a high probability of extinction. With species that breed readily in captivity, it is sometimes possible to greatly increase the rate of reproduction through techniques such as multiple-clutching and speed the recovery of wild populations through releases of captive-bred birds. Releases can serve a number of purposes such as increasing extant populations, correcting sex-ratio imbalances (if these are determined to be unnatural and detrimental), reestablishing extirpated populations, and/or establishing new populations in natural or altered habitats (see Greenwood 1996 for discussion of the Echo Parakeet Psittacula eques programme). Captive breeding can sometimes also make it possible to minimise losses of genetic diversity from critically threatened populations and minimise chances of catastrophic loss of populations. Captive populations have an important role to play in species recovery when pressures on wild populations are so large in the short term that there is no way to sustain wild populations. In such cases, captive breeding can provide a short-term reprieve, buying time for preparation of reintroduction sites that may permit reestablishment of wild populations. Nevertheless, the potentials of captive breeding in aiding species recovery are limited by a number of important considerations (see Derrickson and Snyder 1992, Snyder et al. 1996): (1) Difficulties in breeding certain species. Most psittacines have been bred in captivity, but sustained and quantitatively adequate captive production has remained an elusive goal for many species (see Clubb 1992). For others, satisfactory production has been attained only by hand-rearing. Unfortunately, hand- reared birds are generally of lesser value than parent-reared birds for reintroduction purposes, and in some cases they may be impossible to reestablish in wild environments. (2) Difficulties in reintroducing many species to the wild. Reintroduction programmes for vertebrates to date have been relatively unsuccessful when limited to captive-bred stock -- averaging 11-38% successful in recent major surveys by Beck et al. (1994) and Griffith et al. (1989). Reintroductions of captive-bred parrots often face problems with behavioural deficiencies resulting from a large component of learning in parrot behavioural repertoires and a difficulty in producing adequately normal behaviour in captive environments. Unless captive-bred individuals are reintroduced by fostering to wild pairs or are released in predator-free or predator-deficient environments, many reintroductions may fail because of problems such as inadequate flocking behaviour and poor habitat recognition abilities (see Snyder et al. 1994). The bottleneck in using captive breeding successfully in species recovery often lies in problems in reintroduction rather than in captive breeding itself. (3) High costs in facilities and personnel. The costs of properly-run captive-breeding programmes, including isolated, well-sited facilities, comprehensive disease control, and the manpower needed to maintain and care for adequate-sized captive populations, are substantial, sometimes running on the order of a half million dollars US per year. Over the time needed for conservation programmes, such costs can sometimes far exceed those of other potential conservation methods. Techniques such as habitat preservation (which automatically benefits far more species than the single parrot species under consideration) are often far more economical (see Balmford et al. 1995). (4) Disease risks. Parrots are susceptible to over 30 known pathogens and disease syndromes, many of which are widespread in captive collections and some of which cannot be reliably detected in carrier birds by presently available tests or standard quarantine procedures. Of course, diseases also occur in wild populations. However, wild populations are relatively well adapted to deal with indigenous diseases through natural immunities. The greatest risks occur when species are exposed to novel, exotic diseases. Such exposure risks are especially great whenever birds are transported or held in large numbers in multispecies, especially ex situ, environments. Unless captive breeding is conducted under carefully controlled conditions, the risks of disease to captive, reintroduced, and wild populations are substantial. Ideally, to minimise these risks, captive breeding of endangered parrots for recovery purposes should occur in: (a) closed, single-species facilities, (b) facilities within the natural range of the species, (c) facilities in which staff does not have contact with other species of wildlife, either professionally or avocationally, (d) facilities that are sited as much as possible in areas free from arthropod disease vectors and feral populations of exotic birds, (e) facilities where established protocols include rigorous disease prevention methodologies, such as scrub downs of personnel entering the facilities, and regular health examinations of captive stock. To minimise the chances of introducing disease problems into wild populations, captive-breeding stocks for recovery of endangered parrots should generally be assembled directly from wild populations or from stocks held in closed single-species facilities with good records of disease prevention, and should not be formed from stocks that have been held in open multispecies facilities. Birds intended for reintroduction should be subjected to state-of-the-art disease screening when entering or leaving captive-breeding facilities, even though such screening cannot be expected to reveal the presence of all diseases of importance. Observing the above standards is often expensive, but should be recognised as one of the inherent costs of comprehensive captive breeding conducted for recovery purposes (Wilson et al. 1994). The consequences of not observing such precautions include substantially increased risks of permanent establishment of new disease stress factors in already threatened wild populations and, in some cases, extinction or near- extinction of wild populations (see Jacobson 1993; Woodford and Rossiter 1994). (5) Managing genetic and behavioural changes. When captive populations are established for conservation and recovery purposes, the preservation of extant genetic variation and species typical behaviour assumes paramount importance. Over the past decade, considerable attention has been given to the preservation of genetic diversity in small populations. Modern, conservation-oriented breeding programmes attempt to ameliorate the genetic effects of inbreeding, drift, and adaptation to the captive environment through the deliberate and careful control of reproduction, population size, and population demography (Foose and Ballou 1988, Lacy 1987, Allendorf 1993). This is a challenging task, however, given: (a) the practical limitations in controlling population size and reproduction (b) the dynamic nature of evolutionary forces in small populations; (c) the types of genetic variation to be maintained, and (d) the uncertain nature of selection in the captive environment (see Lande 1988, Simberloff 1988). In low-fecundity taxa, like most parrots, careful preparation of stud books and pedigree breeding to equalise progeny number in family lines can minimise genetic drift and adaptation to captivity (Allendorf 1993). However, it must be recognised that breeding programmes for endangered parrots have often failed to secure consistent reproduction and have been unable to equalise progeny numbers in family lines or pursue any other consistent genetic strategies, even after years of effort. Further, some stocks in captivity have been genetically debased by ill-advised cross-breeding with other races and do not constitute acceptable stocks for release on genetic grounds (see Triggs and Daugherty 1996). Much less attention has been given to the preservation of species-typical behavioural traits. Behavioural traits, especially those that are learned or culturally transmitted, are prone to rapid loss in captivity. The behavioural repertoires of many parrot species include many learned components, and problems with behavioural deficiencies have already been encountered in attempts to reintroduce captive-bred individuals of several species to the wild (see Wiley et al, 1992, Snyder et al 1994). Because the cultural transmission of information across generations appears to be essential for the survival of wild populations of some highly social species such as parrots (Toft 1994), breeding programmes for reintroduction must focus careful attention on behavioural management in the captive environment. Clearly, this aspect of captive management deserves much more scientific investigation than it has received, and will have to be undertaken on a species-by-species basis. (6) Problems in ensuring continuity of programmes. Captive breeding represents a relatively unstable and input-intensive approach to conservation that is difficult to sustain over the several decades often needed for the recovery of endangered species. Changes in personnel, institutional priorities, and financial resources can frequently leave long-term programmes without adequate support and expertise. The Puerto Rican Parrot captive programme, for example, has suffered several periods of substantial difficulty in maintaining optimal efficiency over the more than 25 years of its existence. Of course, problems with continuity are not unique to captive breeding programmes, and can affect complex in situ conservation efforts as well. (7) Preemption of other, better techniques. Captive breeding can sometimes pre-empt attention and resources from better, long-term conservation solutions. The existence of a captive population can give the impression that the species is “safe” and allow agencies to ignore long-term solutions that are often more difficult politically, though much more effective and beneficial biologically (see discussion and examples in Snyder et al. 1996). Because of the risks and limitations of captive breeding, it should be invoked as a species recovery approach only under carefully defined circumstances. The decision to start captive breeding for this purpose should be made only on a case-by-case basis and only following a comprehensive evaluation of conservation alternatives at the field level. It should not be made simply because some individuals are already in captivity and numbers of the species seem relatively low. Further, it should not be made when resources to conduct captive breeding comprehensively and humanely are unavailable. In general, captive breeding can be justified as a desirable recovery approach when: (1) species are so rapidly approaching extinction that they cannot be expected to survive without intensive intervention of some sort and either effective conservation alternatives are clearly unavailable in the short term or sufficient time to investigate alternatives does not exist; or (2) all or nearly all individuals of a species are already in captivity and it is deemed worthwhile to attempt reestablishment of wild populations; or (3) other conditions prevail that make captive breeding and reintroduction absolutely essential for preservation of the species in the wild. When captive breeding should begin for species in decline is often a point of vigorous controversy. Clearly, waiting too long before starting will risk genetic deterioration and potential failure in developing adequate husbandry techniques, especially if technology for captive breeding of the species or closely related species has not previously been researched. However, starting too soon can represent unnecessary expense, can accentuate genetic and behavioural management problems, and can focus resources in non-crucial directions, preempting other approaches that can offer potentials for more stable, long-term benefits. Population trends are often far more important than absolute numbers in making decisions as to whether and when captive breeding is warranted. Steeply declining species are cause for special concern, and care needs to be taken not to wait too long in establishing captive populations if effective alternatives are unavailable. In making such decisions it is crucial to recognise the difference between ephemeral short-term population fluctuations and pervasive long-term population trends. Well-constituted recovery teams weighing the many factors that need to be considered are probably the best mechanism for determining whether and when captive breeding is needed for a particular species. The decision should not be delegated to parties, such as private captive breeders, who have a personal stake in the captive breeding. Captive-breeding programmes for species recovery should not be established independent of efforts to develop alternative, long-term conservation solutions for wild populations. In general, wild populations should be sustained at the time captive populations are established so that research into limiting factors can take place and problems in the wild can be identified and corrected. Also, existing wild populations can present a valuable link for reintroduced individuals. Finally, captive breeding efforts for species recovery should proceed only when endorsed by the governments of the countries involved. Although extranationals may be useful in helping launch such programmes and in providing training, programmes should primarily involve participation by local conservationists. It is crucial that birds involved in captive breeding efforts be under the control of integrated conservation programmes so that disputes as to ownership of birds and as to the management and fate of birds do not disrupt progress toward conservation goals. Captive and wild populations of a species must be managed as one interactive entity under control of a single conservation authority. Reintroduction Reintroductions, in the broad sense of reestablishing or bolstering wild populations with releases of birds held in captivity, can utilise either wild-caught or captive-reared stocks. Potentially, such releases can enhance the status of endangered parrots in several ways: (1) When releases are made in former habitat of the species, they can either reestablish the species or significantly increase its range in the wild and by so doing increase the overall security of the species. (2) When releases are made into weakened wild populations of the species, they can reinvigorate the wild populations through increasing genetic diversity and correction of imbalanced sex ratios. (3) In carefully selected cases, the potential also exists to establish wild populations in formerly unoccupied habitat when habitat in the original range is no longer adequate for survival of the species. Here, the reintroduction programme for the Kakapo (Strigops habroptilus) comes immediately to mind (Merton 1997). Wiley et al. (1992) presented a review of a variety of parrot reintroductions from prehistoric times to the early 1990s and should be referred to for background information. For a discussion of criteria for reintroduction in general see Kleiman et al. (1994) and IUCN (1998), and for a more specific treatment of avian reintroductions see Black (1991). In general, reintroduction programmes have received a tremendous amount of publicity in recent years, and have been proposed for many species without a careful consideration of whether reintroductions are truly appropriate. Reintroductions should serve a direct conservation benefit for wild populations and pose a minimum of risks. They should have a clearly defined conservation goal and be terminated once that goal is reached. Continuous release programmes that never achieve self-sustaining wild populations of the target species are not legitimate reintroduction programmes from a conservation standpoint. However, legitimate reintroduction programmes may include carefully designed surrogate release efforts using less critically endangered species as models to develop techniques to use subsequently on a target species. Because of certain risks posed (see below) releases should not be undertaken solely for the purpose of disposing of confiscated birds or excess captive-reared birds. While improvements in technology can be expected (Beck et al. 1994), the success rate of reintroductions of captive-bred animals to the wild has not been impressive to date. Using rigorous criteria, reported an overall success rate of only 11% in some 145 reintroduction programmes utilising captive-bred stocks, mostly involving vertebrates, while Griffith et al. (1989) reported a 38% success rate using different criteria for success. Success rates have generally been much higher for translocations of wild-caught animals from one region to another (e.g., 75% in the study of Griffith et al. (1989)). This difference in success very likely traces in large measure to behavioural deficiencies of captive-bred stocks relative to wild-raised stocks. Examples of well-documented parrot reintroductions are few, which makes it difficult to evaluate success rates of captive-bred vs. wild-caught stocks. However, experimental releases of Thick-billed Parrots (Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha) in Arizona indicated that wild-caught birds survived much better than captive- reared birds (Snyder et al. 1994). Nevertheless, short-term success has been achieved in releases of hand- reared macaws (Ara ararauna, A. chloroptera, and A. macao) and Yellow-shouldered Parrots (Amazona barbadensis) into local healthy populations from which they were taken (Munn 1994, Sanz and Grajal 1998). Much of the difference in success rates between these studies may trace to the extent of predator pressure faced by the released birds in the different situations. The potentials for success in releases of captive-reared birds are presumably maximised if releases are conducted in low-predation environments hosting existing wild populations of the species concerned. As a general guideline, reintroductions should utilise wild-caught stocks in preference to captive-reared stocks, especially when a proposed release is not into an existing wild population from which naive captive- reared birds can learn appropriate behaviour. One of the most successful ways to link captive-reared birds to wild populations is through fostering of eggs or nestlings into wild nests (Snyder et al. 1987), a technique that demands close coordination of captive and wild-population efforts. Unfortunately, fostering opportunities may often be limited in endangered species programmes, and reliance may have to be placed on releases of flighted birds in many instances. Cross-fostering of eggs or nestlings into nests of other species poses severe problems of imprinting the released birds on inappropriate species and subsequent problems with hybridisation. Under such circumstances, it should be avoided (e.g., Harris 1970). Three risks of reintroductions need to be emphasised: (1) disease contamination, (2) unintended ecological effects, and (3) cultural/genetic pollution of wild populations. Reintroductions can pose severe risks to wild populations by the inadvertent introduction of exotic diseases (see Woodford and Rossiter 1994, Snyder et al. 1996). Reintroductions should utilise stocks that can be confidently assessed as disease-free, and use of disease-suspect stocks should be entirely avoided, particularly when releases are being made into existing wild populations. Many parrot diseases have long latency periods and are virtually impossible to detect in carrier individuals, so releases of birds in which the histories of exposure to disease are unknown are unwise. Thus, confiscated birds sh