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 should be avoided in general, as should birds from open multi-species captive environments, especially those held in facilities outside the range of the species. Wild-caught birds are a relatively safer source for reintroduction, especially with respect to exotic diseases, but only if they are held separately from other stocks before release and undergo adequate quarantine with thorough pre-release screening for diseases that can be detected by available tests. Captive-bred birds from closed, single-species facilities within the natural range of the species are also good candidates for release from a disease standpoint, provided there has been an exemplary history of disease prevention at the facilities. However, even in isolated facilities shielded from contact from other species, disease problems can emerge if rigorous food handling practices are not practised and if staff servicing captives have contact with other birds outside the facilities. Unintended ecological effects are a special concern when releases are attempted outside the historical range, as here the species is being placed in an environment where other species have not evolved any adaptation to deal with it. Harmful distortions of ecological relationships can easily occur under such conditions, as has been demonstrated repeatedly around the world with feral populations of exotic pest species. Releases into non-native regions should only be considered under extreme circumstances, as previously recommended by the IUCN (1987). Yet the technique has been used with apparent success and absence of detrimental side effects with a variety of bird species island to island in the New Zealand region (see Armstrong and McLean 1995). A third risk of reintroductions is that when captive-bred stocks are used they may introduce genetic and cultural traits evolved in captivity into a wild population where such traits are not adaptive. Through learning and interbreeding, these traits may be of harm to the wild populations, especially if the wild populations are highly depressed in numbers relative to the numbers of released individuals. Such problems have been especially of concern in releases of hatchery-reared fishes (e.g., Fleming 1994, Philippart 1995), but there is no reason to expect such effects would not occur in parrots as well. An intact culture, where behaviours are transmitted through learning between generations, appears to be essential for the survival of populations of highly social species such as parrots (Toft 1994). A consideration of the potential benefits and risks of reintroductions leads to the following general recommendations regarding parrot reintroductions: (1) Reintroduction should not be considered as a conservation option until the factors causing endangerment or extirpation of the population in question have been corrected or are being corrected. This means that a thorough ecological study should be conducted to determine what factors may be limiting the particular species, and programmes directed at reversing limiting factors should be implemented before any consideration is given to reintroductions. If wild populations still exist, correction of limiting factors may be sufficient to achieve recovery without any need for reintroductions. This should be evaluated prior to initiation of any releases. (2) The potential release site should be thoroughly evaluated. If birds of the species to be released exist at the site, the population should be studied, the carrying capacity estimated, and a reintroduction plan developed around that population. Attention should be paid to reintroducing only the appropriate subspecies. If birds are to be released into an area where there is no existing wild population, great care should be given to assessing the suitability of the habitat and the possible effects of the release on other species. (3) Release programmes should follow all national and international laws, treaties, and regulations. It is imperative that all permits are in order so the success of the programme will not be jeopardised by improper paperwork. (4) Appropriate levels of cooperation and collaboration with local interests must be secured. Success of reintroduction can be expected to depend heavily on involvement of local people in release and monitoring efforts and in keeping local communities informed about the programme and gaining their support through educational programmes conducted simultaneously with and prior to the releases. (5) Sufficient numbers of birds to give reasonable hope of success should be available for release. A certain level of mortality will take place in any release, so there is no benefit in releasing such a small number of birds that normal flocking behaviour and/or pairing is unlikely to occur. (6) Stock for release should be chosen from disease-free sources and be shielded from exposure to exotic pathogens by proper siting of holding facilities. Release candidates should also all be sexed and screened for known diseases prior to release. (7) Adequate pre-release acclimatisation and training must be implemented. Conditioning prior to release should include flight training, socialisation within flocks, acclimatisation to local conditions, and experience with local foods. Whenever possible, releases should provide subsidies of food and water until birds are fully competent in the wild. Predator aversion training may be necessary with captive-reared birds, though should be unnecessary with wild-caught birds. (8) Resources should exist to monitor the results of releases comprehensively and to conduct quantitatively adequate follow-up releases. All birds should be banded and, finances permitting, have microchips implanted. If possible, a portion of released birds should be radio-tagged, at least during experimental phases, since this is the most effective way to monitor the success of the release. Confiscated birds Although the above recommendations regarding reintroductions are straightforward and reasonable, many recent release efforts with parrots have been initiated without conforming to these recommendations. In particular, releases have become a common way to dispose of confiscated birds in many Latin American countries. These releases often are made into populations for which the releases pose unnecessary risks and no clear potential benefits, and without comprehensive monitoring of results. Some of the programmes initiated have been designed precisely to rehabilitate and release confiscated birds and are financed by international organisations or by scarce conservation resources of government agencies. Most often, these programmes have involved common, rather than endangered, species, but the risks posed are not limited to the common species released. The reason many of these programmes have been started is that with increased law enforcement activities, the governments of many countries have been faced with a difficult problem of what to do with birds confiscated from illegal trade. The options for dealing with these birds are unfortunately limited, and all have drawbacks. Primary options include: (1) Donations or sale to zoos and other similar institutions, (2) Donations or sale to research institutions, (3) Auction to anyone willing to purchase them, (4) Release to the wild, and (5) Euthanasia. Donations or sale to zoos and other similar institutions provide an obvious and generally acceptable solution to the disposal problem for confiscated animals. However, the capacities of such institutions to absorb the quantities of birds available are generally far inadequate. The species available from confiscations are often ones that have only limited exhibit potential, and zoos simply do not have the space or desire to handle large numbers of such animals. Furthermore, because confiscated animals usually have unknown histories of exposure to disease, such institutions take a gamble on bringing them into their facilities, even after quarantine and screening for known diseases. Donations or sale to research institutions similarly provide an obvious and generally acceptable solution, but in general these institutions are even less capable than zoos of absorbing the quantities of birds available. While this option should be encouraged, it cannot be expected to provide a full solution to the problem. Auction to anyone willing to buy is another solution that has been commonly employed in the past, but it often results in the birds being bought back by the very people from whom they have just been confiscated. At auction prices, these people are still able to make substantial profits on the birds on resale, and since they are now legal as a result of auction, they can move them freely in commerce. This has obviously not been a very beneficial way to dispose of confiscated birds. Auction also represents a source of disagreement between authorities in different countries, especially when the status of the species or authorised uses are different between the country of origin and the country in which confiscation takes place. At most, auction should be encouraged as a solution only when a floor to sale prices is established that is at or close to retail value. Release to the wild has been recently adopted as a preferred way to dispose of confiscated parrots by many governments. Most of the releases that have been conducted have not been for the purpose of reestablishing wild populations, nor have they been needed for bolstering wild populations -- they have been implemented simply to dispose of birds that agencies do not know what to do with. Unfortunately, releases of confiscated birds pose serious risks of disease introduction into formerly disease-free wild populations. Confiscated birds have often been exposed to other captive birds, sometimes from around the world, prior to confiscation, and experience has shown (e.g., the Thick-billed Parrot reintroduction programme) that they are often carriers of serious pathogens. Unfortunately, the diseases involved are often ones for which no diagnostic tests exist. There is no reliable way to avoid the potential of introducing serious diseases into wild populations when such birds are released. Whether such disease problems have been developing in many of the confiscated bird release programmes is unknown, because there has been virtually no follow-up study done after releases. While the releases being conducted allow participants to feel they are doing something worthwhile, in most cases they only represent added risks for wild populations and often inhumane death for released birds. Only in the very unusual circumstances where history of disease exposure of confiscated birds is known and is determined to be benign, where there is a true conservation need for releases, and where there are resources for a comprehensive release programme is it advisable to utilise confiscated birds in releases. Unfortunately, determining the history of disease exposure to be benign in confiscated birds is usually impossible. Such a determination is generally limited to cases where confiscations have been made right at the source of birds, before they are moved to other links in the chain of commerce. Confiscations are rarely made at this level, and even confiscations made directly from people harvesting birds from the wild may involve disease-compromised birds, as for example birds exposed to poultry diseases in the homes of the collectors involved. In practical terms, nearly all confiscated birds should be considered highly suspect, regarding disease considerations. Euthanasia is a relatively simple method of disposing of confiscated birds and poses no risks to wild populations, but this solution can pose serious political risks of opposition from segments of the public that oppose such methods on principle. Where this solution can gain political support, it represents a preferable solution to releases to the wild. In any case, where birds have been exposed to or suffer from untreatable diseases, euthanasia is clearly warranted. Thus, while this Action Plan cannot propose a universally applicable solution to the problem of disposal of confiscated birds, release to the wild is normally the least favourable conservation option and should generally be avoided. Sustainable Harvest Parrots, by virtue of their bright colours, their capacities to imitate human speech, and their adaptability to captive conditions, have been favoured as human pets as far back as historical records extend. Unfortunately, this very popularity has been a major cause of the conservation woes of psittaciforms worldwide. As human populations have grown, wild parrot populations have been overharvested in many regions, many to the point of local extirpation and some to the verge of total extinction. In their review of conservation status of parrots in the New World, Collar and Juniper (1992) concluded that approximately half of the 42 threatened species in the region were endangered primarily or secondarily by trade. The prices commanded by the larger and more colourful species have commonly represented a significant source of income for rural human populations. Revenues from harvesting parrots have not usually been sole sources of income, but have been valued as supplementary income to be gained when opportunities arise. Unfortunately, the harvest has rarely been conducted on anything approaching a sustainable basis, largely because the resource has usually been a “commons” where any forbearance in harvest is perceived only as money in someone else’s pocket. In theory, the economic values commanded by parrots might represent a means to their conservation if the socio-economic environment could be restructured enough to promote truly sustainable utilisation of wild parrot populations. If implemented properly and conservatively, sustainable harvesting could provide advantages for conservation, aviculturists, the pet industry, and local human populations. Conservation could gain by the maintenance of healthy wild populations of parrots, and by the accruing of economic values to the habitats occupied by the parrots, which could result in conservation of many associated species. For example, if parrots could be sustainably harvested from tropical rain forests, this would provide another commodity that might help to make extractive reserves more economically valuable than clearing forest for timber harvest, cattle grazing, or intensive crop production. For many species of parrot, sustainable harvesting would require that substantial areas of land be maintained as mature forest. Aviculturists could purchase new genetic stock for their breeding programmes from birds harvested sustainably. The pet industry would have a steady but small flow of legally imported birds already conditioned to captivity. Finally, the profits from these programmes could be directed to the local people in need of ways to support themselves. No demonstrably successful sustainable harvesting projects with free-flying parrots have been established to date. Because most parrots have low reproductive potentials and long life spans, they are highly vulnerable to overharvesting, and conservative approaches to harvesting appear warranted. These include approaches such as harvesting only nestlings and not adults, and harvesting primarily nestlings that are produced in excess of natural productivity as a result of management programmes. Maximising sustainable nestling harvest levels requires management to achieve robust numbers of nesting pairs, which may in some cases approach the carrying capacity of the environment. The biological characteristics of some parrot species appear to lend themselves to sustainable harvesting programmes. For example, brood reduction occurs regularly in some parrot species, so it should be possible to practice early partial brood removals (last-hatched chicks) without greatly affecting productivity in these species. Further, even where brood reduction may not be a regular phenomenon, biological data suggest that there is a potential to harvest some parrots in a sustainable manner if overall productivity can be increased through the use of nest boxes (Beissinger and Bucher 1992a,b; Stoleson and Beissinger 1997). However, these approaches to sustainable harvest are not applicable to many parrot species, as they lack regular brood reduction, are not nest-site limited, or are reluctant to accept nest boxes. Sustainable harvest of such species may be difficult without development of other means of increasing reproduction or reducing mortality of wild populations. Realising the potential benefits of trade requires a degree of control over harvesting that promises to be difficult and expensive to achieve. Solving the biological problems associated with sustainable harvest of parrots is challenging enough, and presupposes that sensitive and reliable means of population monitoring may be available for the species in question. Even more challenging are the associated social, political, and economic problems. Examples of the latter include: (1) Illegal laundering of non-sustainably harvested birds through the programmes; (2) Continued poaching of birds by people outside of the programmes; and (3) A tendency for programmes to skimp on the costs of monitoring wild populations and to overharvest to maximise short-term profits. If there is to be a trade in parrots, it must be conducted on a sustainable basis. A commonly accepted biological basis for sustainable use of renewable resources is that harvest should not take more than excess individuals over the numbers needed to replenish the population and should not have negative effects on other components of the ecosystem. The best way to determine what harvest levels are sustainable is to conduct continuing detailed biological studies of the natural history, demography, movements, and population size and trends of the species to be harvested. Quotas set without such information will have little biological justification. Further, national and international regulation of harvest and trade must shift from the practice of national quotas to local harvest quotas based on scientific management plans. Using national quotas to regulate harvests does not tie harvest levels into local conditions and provides no impetus for ecosystem conservation. Harvest quotas must be developed on a site-by-site basis, with harvest levels linked directly to local changes in population productivity and habitat conditions. Unfortunately, without truly effective controls over harvesting programmes, attempts at sustainable harvesting run a significant risk of exacerbating conservation problems, rather than solving them. Once species are viewed primarily as items of legal trade, the primary concerns in free capitalistic economies commonly become maximising short-term profits, rather than ensuring long-term sustainability (Hawken 1993). Historically, attempts to harvest wildlife resources for profit include numerous examples of overexploitation and of species driven to the verge of extinction (see Geist 1988, Ludwig et al. 1993, Talbot 1993). One of the few apparently successful wildlife harvesting efforts, from the standpoints of sustainability and conservation, is butterfly ranching. Butterfly ranching, however, has two unusual characteristics: (1) It is often cheaper and easier to ranch butterflies than to collect them from the wild by other means; and (2) The trade quality of ranched butterflies is much better than that of wild-caught butterflies (both with respect to parasite incidence in pupae and wing damage in adults). Both of these factors greatly decrease economic incentives to “launder” wild-caught stocks through ranching programmes or to invest efforts in harvesting wild stocks outside ranching programmes. In contrast, nonranched parrots may be much less costly to harvest than sustainably ranched parrots because they do not entail monitoring costs, nest box costs, etc. This is especially true when finding of nests is incidental to other economic activities, such as herding livestock, and does not represent a substantial additional time investment. Further, nonranched parrots can be of equal trade quality to ranched parrots when they are harvested as nestlings. They can be as tame and as good speakers as ranched parrots, and in fact have no intrinsic features to allow their differentiation from ranched parrots. Thus, despite legal ranching efforts, there may be substantial economic incentives favouring continued illegal harvesting of wild parrots and substantial difficulties in detecting illegal nonranched parrots in trade. It is possible to reduce the attractiveness of laundering birds by setting up systems of bird identifications based on various DNA techniques. However, such techniques substantially increase costs of operations, and unless governments want to subsidise operations, these costs presumably would have to be borne by the ranchers themselves, reducing their abilities to compete with illegal harvest. Presumably all nesting individuals in ranching operations would have to be DNA sampled to make such systems work, and with many species this could present formidable practical problems because of difficulties in capturing adult birds for sampling. Other concerns posed by sustained harvest as a means of parrot conservation include: (1) An inherent tendency of this approach to work against alternative approaches that seek reductions in human uses as a means toward conservation; (2) A fear that placing primary importance on economic values of wild parrots as a means to their conservation will lead ultimately to a distortion of wildlife management efforts to favour only those species with high trade values at the expense of efforts to sustain general biodiversity values; and (3) A fear that once sustainable harvesting schemes are in place, the primary goal of operations can be expected to shift from conservation to maximising profits and sustaining employment of participants, even if this means overharvesting resources. History has shown that governments can be expected to be generally sympathetic to these latter goals and to be under great pressure to value them more than conservation goals. Sustainable harvesting for an international export trade poses the additional risk of continued export of wildlife diseases to foreign countries. It also increases the potentials for establishment of additional feral populations of exotic parrots in foreign countries. These are extremely important threats, especially when exported species have the potential to become pests in non-native countries. Despite these risks, pressures continue to surface for Australia to export pest cockatoo species as an alternative to other control measures. The prudent assumption that should be made is that any species exported in numbers to a foreign country may have the potential to establish feral populations in that country. The above problems, coupled with the substantial problems in solving the biological, social, political, and economic difficulties associated with effectively controlling sustainable harvest, raise substantial concerns as to whether this option might be successfully implemented with parrots. Demonstrated mechanisms to control such problems do not currently exist and promise to be challenging to develop. Until such mechanisms are developed, however, attempts to implement sustainable harvesting for parrot conservation seem likely to result in greater problems than they solve. Unfortunately, the various monitoring and management efforts that must be practised for sustainable harvest of parrots to work all represent substantial costs. Pressures to forgo or minimise these costs and to overharvest in order to maximise profits or even to compete with illegal trade in the same species could eventually undermine any initially successful sustainable harvesting ventures. At best, sustainable harvest would appear to have relevance only to the select group of species that are popular in trade and in countries that have the administrative and enforcement capacities to effectively regulate trade. At worst, it could result in greatly diminished conservation prospects for many harvested species. Because of the risks and uncertainties involved, species with low numbers locally or globally should not be considered candidates for sustainable harvest until their wild populations have recovered to healthy levels. Thus at the present time it is unwise to attempt sustainable harvest as a recovery technique for threatened psittacines and this Action Plan does not recommend such attempts. Strong hopes should not be placed in sustainable harvesting as a conservation strategy until several demonstration projects can prove the feasibility of controlling anticipated problems. Substantial funds will be needed to find ways of enforcing harvest and trade regulations in such projects in both exporting and importing countries. Comprehensive enforcement can be expected to be a necessity before potential exploiters will take harvest regulations seriously, and in many countries such enforcement may be an unrealistic goal. Furthermore, even if solutions to many of the above problems might be achieved, sustainable harvesting schemes may have difficulty surviving economically because of the tendency for single products to fluctuate greatly in value through time. Economics of the live-bird trade are governed by the vagaries of supply and demand. As a species becomes readily available, whether through poaching or successful captive breeding or sustainable harvesting, demand for that species tends to decline and the price falls, often dramatically. In a free market international economy, it is doubtful that any sustained harvest programme or export scheme can be maintained in the long term; supply and demand for the harvested or exported species will likely not be under the full control of local participants. Where profits are to be made, supplies can be expected to increase from all possible sources. But, as supplies increase, prices and thus profits will drop, potentially to levels that will not support comprehensive harvest operations, especially with the costs of scientific management included. In part this outcome can be anticipated because many of the birds produced and sold in aviculture are priced below their real cost. Many aviculturists sell these birds simply to reduce the economic losses in their collections and not to gain a profit. Sustained harvest efforts will have to compete with birds from such sources as well as birds from illegal wild harvest produced at very low cost. In overview, sustainable harvesting of parrots for trade should not presently be proposed for threatened species, although this conclusion does not preclude the possibility that this technique might have some future role in conservation of such species. Sustainable harvest can only serve a conservation purpose if robust parrot populations and long-term habitat preservation result. But, it cannot contribute to species or habitat conservation without availability of sound ecological information and effective methods to regulate harvesting and trade. Solving the economic and political problems associated with sustainable harvest promises to be a formidable task. Summary of Conservation Options Most conservation programmes for parrots will utilise more than one conservation technique. The combination best suited for a particular species must be determined on a case by case basis and reflect the limiting factors faced by that species. In designing an optimal mix of techniques, it is important to keep in mind the advantages and disadvantages of various choices, and to ensure that the programme furthers overall goals of economic effectiveness, benefiting associated species, and political viability. As a general view, nearly all conservation programmes will benefit from comprehensive habitat protection and education components. Some will be well suited to development of ecotourism, while others will not. Relatively few will benefit from captive breeding and reintroduction approaches, and at the present time it is wise to be extremely cautious about attempting sustainable harvesting schemes. Threats facing parrots are diverse. Comprehensive scientific study will call to attention specific conservation needs for many individual taxa. While the issues of trade and habitat deterioration loom as overarching threats to the group as a whole, they are by no means the only threats; the best solutions will vary with the species, and the local social, economic, and political context. Good biological knowledge about the species in question and thorough local involvement in designing and carrying out conservation programmes are essential for success. No one can successfully plan, let alone implement, a conservation programme for a species from afar. Nevertheless, productive international partnerships can often speed and facilitate the conservation process, particularly where sufficient resources are unavailable at the local or regional level. Some Final Remarks Endangered species programmes commonly represent excellent opportunities for international collaboration, but at the same time they pose considerable challenges for all involved parties (Foster 1993). Some of the failures in conservation programmes can be traced to breakdowns in collaborations and understanding between extranational scientists/conservationists (mostly with good intentions and frequently also good data and good financial resources) and local scientists/conservationists (also with good intentions, but sometimes lacking technical expertise, and usually lacking financial resources). Differences in expectations and resources are commonly involved. Scientists and organisations from developed countries are often confronted with a highly-competitive publication-driven environment that to some extent demands priorities in actions that are not entirely focused on effective conservation actions. Scientists/conservationists in developing countries, who are commonly underpaid and over-committed to too many conservation projects, often have difficulty understanding why so much effort goes into scientific research, which is sometimes perceived as relatively trivial, compared with the needs for action based on intuitive appreciation of the nature of species’ problems. Tensions can easily arise from basic conflicts over how much documentation is needed before actions should be initiated. In addition, there are clearly cases where persuasive apostles of particular conservation approaches are able to convince local participants and colleagues that certain courses of action (e.g., alluring reintroduction programmes) are necessary conservation actions, when they may not be. Once these programmes are started, they may be self-perpetuating with little or no benefits for conservation. We believe strongly that the best safeguards against abuse lie in major efforts to achieve mutual understanding and respect among all parties and in maximising participation by diverse points of view in recovery efforts. In any conservation programme there should always be an open forum for discussion of potential strategies that involves all interested parties and a process of consensus development based on reasoned argument and the best data available Chapter 3 THREATENED PARROTS OF THE WORLD This Plan was the result of extensive consultation with field experts from around the world, and as such it is possibly one of the widest collaborative efforts towards the conservation of endangered Psittacines. The parrot species included in this Plan were originally selected from the list of species and the accounts of their status and threats in Birds to watch 2 (Collar et al. 1994). With the updated information and input from field experts and literature reviews, the list of globally threatened with extinction parrots was updated using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (1994). As a result, both the list of species and the information contained in each species account have been revised and updated as completely as possible through consultation with conservation biologists familiar with the species in the wild and the recent literature. This has led to several changes in the list of threatened parrot species, all of which have been agreed to by BirdLife International (which maintains the world list of threatened birds on behalf of the Species Survival Commission of IUCN-The World Conservation Union). These changes are amendments to the IUCN 1996 Red List of Threatened Animals (IUCN 1996), the bird listings for which were taken from Birds to watch 2 (Collar et al. 1994). These changes have been made as result of new information from the field (e.g. great-green macaw Ara ambigua), additional information being used in the threat classification (e.g. glossy black-cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami), or even changes in taxonomy used (e.g. Norfolk Island parakeet Cyanoramphus [novaezelandiae] cookii). All of these changes are fully documented here. Please note also that we have amended the qualifying criterion A where appropriate. This is necessary because of an addition to that criterion between the publication of Birds to watch 2 and the adoption of the categories and criteria by IUCN. Basically, the qualifying criteria A1b,c,d now become A1c,d,e: the same applies to criterion A2b,c,d. (For a full explanation of the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, see Appendix 2.) The result is an up-to-date assessment of the threat status of the world’s parrots (Table 1). The accounts themselves are arranged alphabetically by scientific name within region and, where appropriate, include taxa which might be added to the list once further field data or taxonomic evidence becomes available. Accounts are also presented for any species that have been removed from the List. Under the species name, we list all those who have contributed to the text, which in some cases amounts to writing virtually the entire account. The basis for many accounts is Birds to watch 2 and where no contributor is listed, the information presented is essentially that contained in Birds to watch 2. We have gone to great lengths to include all contributors, and can only apologise if there are errors of omission. None were intended. Similarly, we hope that we have represented fairly the information that the contributors so generously provided. For each account, information is given under the following standard set of sub- headings: Conservation status: The species’ Red List category and criteria are given, along with its appendix listing under CITES and any information on the level of protection afforded by national legislation of range countries. This last category of "National Protection Status" was sought for every species, but is only included where information was available. Distribution and status: Gives the range countries, plus more detailed information, if available, on localities, altitudes and habitats in which the species has been recorded. Any information on population size is also provided here. In many cases little reliable data exists; in the most extreme cases we relate simply numbers of individuals recorded during occasional encounters. Threats: Factors that are known or suspected to cause a past or present decline in numbers are given. Any information relating to trade is given here, but should be treated with caution because of the nature of the CITES reporting procedure. Annual Reports of CITES Parties should be submitted by 31st October of the year following that in which the transaction occurred. However, late submission is quite common, resulting in possible under-reporting of international transactions. In contrast, over-reporting is also possible as Annual Reports often do not state whether the data were derived from records of specimens actually traded or from permits issued (it is often the latter). Furthermore, information in Annual Reports may not be provided in sufficient detail (e.g. the information on confiscated specimens) or information may simply be lacking, such as that on the source of the birds (i.e. wild caught or captive-bred) and the purpose (e.g. trade or personal effects etc.). In addition, it is worth noting that CITES refers to all international transaction in CITES -listed species as “trade”; but this may not refer to “trade” in the usual commercial sense. So the transfer around the globe of a pet parrot as the family changes residence every two years could be recorded as “trade” particularly if the authorities do not note the source of the parrot and purpose of the transaction. But the movement of this parrot would have no bearing on commercial trade. Action: This section includes action necessary (ongoing in some cases) to ensure the survival of the species. In many cases clarifying status, distribution and factors affecting the species is required before conservation programmes can be proposed. This section is omitted from accounts for species proposed for inclusion and those now downlisted. The accounts for taxa which are proposed as candidates for the Red List, those that may yet prove to be distinct species, and those species which have been removed from the List also include one or other of the following: Reason for taxonomic uncertainty: This mentions the work that has led to the proposal that the subspecies (two cases) or colour morph (one case) be given species status. Reason(s) for removal from the Red List: The supporting evidence for the revision of the species’ conservation status (six cases) or why it is not thought to be a species (one case). Where the species’ status has been revised, the species has been placed in the all embracing category “Lower Risk”, which includes the subcategories "conservation dependent”, “near threatened” and “least concern". Because of the work required simply to evaluate the threatened species, the Lower Risk species have not been assigned categories, although they may well qualify as near threatened. The species occurring in the Philippines are exceptions as they are considered Lower Risk, near threatened in a recent extensive review of the conservation status of the country’s birds (Collar et al. 1998). Priority Projects: These text boxes are offered for the Asia and Africa sections to highlight specific project for immediate action. In the Neotropical Section, most priority projects were included in the "actions" section of each species account. Regional projects are also suggested in the Neotropical overview (see multi- species remarks for Amazona rhodocorytha and Ognorhynchus icterotis), so the Text Boxes were omitted. Table 1: Threatened parrots of the world. A list of all globally threatened parrot species, organised by region, together with their distribution and threat status (the qualifying criteria are given in each species account). Threatened species are listed alphabetically by scientific name within each region and are followed, where appropriate, by: 1) threatened taxa for which there is evidence that they may be distinct species or otherwise might be candidates for inclusion on the List, and 2) species removed from the List. Critically Endangered species are shown in bold. Where two English names are given, the first is that widely used in the range country and the second, in parentheses, is the name used in Birds to watch 2 (Collar et al. 1994). *Denotes changes from Birds to watch 2 (and, therefore, the 1996 IUCN Red List). English name Scientific name Distribution Threat category AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND AND THE SOUTH-WEST PACIFIC Baudin’s cockatoo (White-tailed black- cockatoo) Calyptorhynchus baudinii South-west Western Australia Vulnerable Carnaby’s cockatoo (Slender-billed black- cockatoo) Calyptorhynchus latirostris South-west Western Australia Vulnerable Red-throated lorikeet Charmosyna amabilis Fiji Vulnerable New Caledonian lorikeet Charmosyna diadema New Caledonia (France) Endangered Antipodes parrot Cyanoramphus unicolor Antipodes, New Zealand Vulnerable Horned parakeet Eunymphicus cornutus New Caledonia (France) Vulnerable Swift parrot Lathamus discolor Eastern Tasmania and south-east mainland Australia Vulnerable Orange-bellied parrot* Neophema chrysogaster South-western Tasmania, and coastal Victoria and eastern South Australia Critically Endangered New Zealand kaka Nestor meridionalis New Zealand Vulnerable Night parrot Pezoporus (=Geopsittacus) occidentalis Thought to be central Australia Critically Endangered Princess parrot (Alexandra’s parrot) Polytelis alexandrae Western Australia, Northern Territory and north-western South Australia Vulnerable Superb parrot Polytelis swainsonii New South Wales and northern Victoria Vulnerable Golden-shouldered parrot Psephotus chrysopterygius Cape York Peninsula, Queensland Endangered Kakapo* Strigops habroptilus Codfish, Little Barrier, Mana, Maud and Stewart Islands, New Zealand Critically Endangered Kuhl’s lorikeet Vini kuhlii French Polynesia and Kiribati Endangered Blue lorikeet Vini peruviana French Polynesia and Cook Islands (NZ) Vulnerable Henderson lorikeet Vini stepheni Henderson Island (UK) Vulnerable Ultramarine lorikeet Vini ultramarina Marquesas Islands, French Polynesia Endangered Possible species Forbes’ parakeet Cyanoramphus (auriceps) forbesi Mangere and Little Manger Islands in Chatham Islands New Zealand Critically Endangered Orange-fronted parakeet Cyanoramphus (auriceps) ‘malherbi’ Arthur’s Pass and the Lake Sumner /Lewis Pass area, South Island, New Zealand Critically Endangered List removals Glossy black-cockatoo* Calyptorhynchus lathami Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, Australia Lower Risk Norfolk Island parakeet* Cyanoramphus cookii Norfolk Island (to Australia) Considered a sub- species Scarlet-chested parakeet* Neophema splendida Southern inland Australia Lower Risk ASIA -CONTINENTAL Intermediate parakeet Psittacula intermedia northern India Vulnerable ASIA -INDONESIA White cockatoo Cacatua alba North Moluccas Vulnerable Moluccan cockatoo (Salmon-crested cockatoo) Cacatua moluccensis Seram and satellite islands, Moluccas Vulnerable Yellow-crested cockatoo Cacatua sulphurea Lesser Sundas, Sulawesi and Masalembu Islands Endangered Blue-fronted lorikeet Charmosyna toxopei Buru Vulnerable Black-winged lory Eos cyanogenia Islands in Geelvink Bay, Irian Jaya Vulnerable Red-and-blue lory Eos histrio Miangas, Talaud and Sangihe Islands Endangered Sangihe hanging-parrot Loriculus catamene Sangihe Island Endangered Wallace’s hanging- parrot Loriculus flosculus Flores Vulnerable Purple-naped lory Lorius domicella Seram and Ambon, Moluccas Vulnerable Chattering lory Lorius garrulus North Moluccas Vulnerable Salvadori’s fig-parrot Psittaculirostris salvadorii Northern Irian Jaya Vulnerable Iris lorikeet Psitteuteles iris Timor and Wetar Vulnerable Pesquet’s parrot Psittrichas fulgidus New Guinea Vulnerable Black-lored parrot Tanygnathus gramineus Buru Vulnerable List removal Blue-naped parrot* Tanygnathus lucionensis Philippines, Talaud islands in Indonesia, and islands off Sabah, Malaysia Lower Risk ASIA -PHILIPPINES Philippine cockatoo Cacatua haematuropygia Now possibly as few as 10 islands in the Philippines Critically Endangered Green racquet-tail* Prioniturus luconensis Luzon and Marinduque, Philippines Vulnerable Blue-headed racquet-tail Prioniturus platenae Palawan Province, Philippines Vulnerable Blue-winged racquet-tail Prioniturus verticalis Sulu archipelago, Philippines Endangered List removals Luzon racquet-tail* Prioniturus montanus Luzon, Philippines Lower Risk, nt Mindanao racquet-tail* Prioniturus waterstradti Mindanao, Philippines Lower Risk, nt Blue-naped parrot* Tanygnathus lucionensis Philippines, Talaud islands in Indonesia, and islands off Sabah, Malaysia Lower Risk, nt Mindanao lorikeet* Trichoglossus johnstoniae Mindanao, Philippines Lower Risk, nt AFRICA Black-cheeked lovebird Agapornis nigrigenis South-west Zambia Endangered Echo parakeet Psittacula eques South-west Mauritius Critically Endangered Possible species Cape parrot Poicephalus (robustus) robustus Eastern Cape, Natal Midlands and eastern Transvaal in South Africa Vulnerable Species proposed for consideration for inclusion on the Red List Rόppell’s parrot Poicephalus rueppelli Central and north-western Namibia and extreme southern Angola To be considered NEOTROPICS Black-billed parrot Amazona agilis Jamaica Vulnerable Red-necked amazon Amazona arausiaca Dominica in the Lesser Antilles Vulnerable Yellow-shouldered amazon Amazona barbadensis Dry coastal scrub of Venezuela and outlying islands of Margarita, La Blanquilla, and Bonaire Vulnerable Red-tailed amazon Amazona brasiliensis Brazil's Serra do Mar Endangered Yellow-billed parrot* Amazona collaria Jamaica Vulnerable St. Vincent amazon Amazona guildingii St. Vincent in the Lesser Antilles Vulnerable Imperial amazon Amazona imperialis Dominica in the Lesser Antilles Vulnerable Yellow-headed parrot Amazona oratrix Mexico and Belize Endangered Red-spectacled parrot Amazona pretrei Araucaria forests of South-east Brazil Endangered Red-browed amazon Amazona rhodocorytha Lowland hardwood areas of Brazil's Atlantic forest Endangered Hispaniolan parrot* Amazona ventralis Hispaniola Vulnerable St. Lucia parrot Amazona versicolor Saint Lucia in the Lesser Antilles Vulnerable Vinaceous amazon Amazona vinacea Submontane “mixed” regions of Brazil's Atlantic forest Endangered Red-crowned parrot Amazona viridigenalis North-eastern states in Mexico Endangered Puerto Rican parrot Amazona vittata Forested parts of Puerto Rico Critically Endangered Yellow-faced amazon Amazona xanthops Cerrado (dry woodland) of interior eastern Brazil Vulnerable Hyacinth macaw Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus Pantanal of Brazil and Bolivia, and North-eastern Brazil Vulnerable Lear’s macaw Anodorhynchus leari Raso da Catarina, Bahia State, Brazil Critically Endangered Great-green macaw* Ara ambigua Lowland wet forests between eastern Honduras and western Colombia, western Ecuador Vulnerable Blue-throated macaw Ara glaucogularis Seasonally flooded Beni Lowlands (Llanos de Moxos) of Central Bolivia Endangered Blue-winged macaw Ara maracana Gallery forest and forest edge in parts of Brazil, eastern Paraguay and northern Argentina Vulnerable Military macaw Ara militaris Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru and Bolivia Vulnerable Red-fronted macaw* Ara rubrogenys Arid intermontane valleys of south- central Bolivia Vulnerable Golden-capped parakeet Aratinga auricapilla Semi-deciduous forests of the Paranα River Basin, Brazil Vulnerable Socorro parakeet Aratinga brevipes Socorro Island in the Revillagigedo Islands of Baja California, Mexico Vulnerable Hispaniolan parakeet Aratinga chloroptera Hispaniola, including the offshore islands Vulnerable Cuban parakeet Aratinga euops Cuba Vulnerable Rufous-fronted parakeet Bolborhynchus ferrugineifrons Forest-pαramo ecotone of the Central Andes of Colombia Endangered Spix’s macaw Cyanopsitta spixii Caatinga woodland and scrub of the dry region of north-east Brazil Critically Endangered Yellow-faced parrotlet Forpus xanthops Riparian thickets and desert scrub of the upper Maraρσn valley in north- central Peru Vulnerable Golden parakeet Guarouba (Aratinga) guarouba Northern Brazil Endangered Rusty-faced parrot Hapalopsittaca amazonina High Andean forests of Colombia and Venezuela Endangered Azure-winged parrot (Fuertes's parrot) Hapalopsittaca fuertesi Andean forests of the west slope of the central Andes of Colombia Critically Endangered Red-faced parrot Hapalopsittaca pyrrhops High cloud forests near Pαramo on the East Andean slopes of Ecuador and Peru Endangered Golden-plumed parakeet Leptosittaca branickii Cloud forests of central Colombia, Ecuador and southern Peru Vulnerable Yellow-eared conure Ognorhynchus icterotis Wax palm forest in the Central Cordillera of Colombia and Northern Ecuador Critically Endangered White-breasted parakeet Pyrrhura albipectus Upper tropical and subtropical forest of south-east Ecuador Vulnerable Flame-winged parakeet Pyrrhura calliptera Upper montane forest and pαramo on the central eastern Cordillera of Colombia Vulnerable Blue-throated parakeet Pyrrhura cruentata Atlantic Forest of Brazil Vulnerable El Oro parakeet Pyrrhura orcesi Very humid upper tropical forest on the west slope of the Andes of south- west Ecuador Vulnerable Santa Marta parakeet Pyrrhura viridicata Premontane to montane forests of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia Vulnerable Thick-billed parrot Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha Pine forests in mountain areas of northern Mexico Endangered Maroon-fronted parrot Rhynchopsitta terrisi Pine forests in mountain areas of northern Mexico Vulnerable Brown-backed parrotlet Touit melanonota Mid-altitude humid forests of Rio de Janeiro, Sγo, Paulo and Bahia, Brazil Endangered Spot-winged parrotlet Touit stictoptera Upper tropical and lower subtropical montane forests of Colombia, Ecuador, and northern Peru Vulnerable Golden-tailed parrotlet Touit surda Humid lowland forests of north- eastern and south-eastern Brazil Endangered Blue-bellied parrot* Triclaria malachitacea Atlantic forest of south-eastern Brazil Vulnerable Species proposed for consideration for inclusion on the Red List Yellow-naped parrot Amazona auropalliata Mesoamerica To be considered Cuban amazon Amazona leucocephala Cuba, the Bahamas Islands, and Cayman Islands To be considered Northern Central American populations of the scarlet macaw Ara macao cyanoptera Southern Mexico through Central America and throughout northern South America east of the Andes, south as far as Bolivia and southern Brazil To be considered Chapter 4 AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE SOUTH-WEST PACIFIC Overview Stephen Garnett The parrot fauna of Australia, New Zealand and the islands of the south-west Pacific east from New Guinea is the most diverse in the world. Over half the world's parrot genera occur in a region that extends from sub- Antarctic Antipodes Island to the equatorial forests of New Guinea, over most arid regions of Australia and out to some of the most isolated islands of the Pacific. Most species occur in Australia and New Guinea and are not currently considered threatened: only eight out of 53 species in Australia and two out of 46 in New Guinea are listed in this Action Plan. In the island nations of the Pacific, however, the proportion of threatened species is much higher and in both historic and prehistoric times many have already become extinct. Even those species that are still relatively secure will be threatened in the future unless effective conservation policies are implemented. Threats Habitat alteration is the main threat to all parrots in continental Australia. Since the arrival of Europeans 200 years ago there has been extensive clearance of habitat and, even where natural habitat remains, there has been disruption of fire regimes that were established during 60,000 or more years of Aboriginal occupation. For some species, such as Baudin's Calyptorhynchus baudinii and Carnaby's C. latirostris cockatoos of south- western Australia, the changes have resulted in a decline in the abundance of nest sites (Saunders et al. 1982, Smith 1991), a lack that will also gradually affect the populations of other parrot species (Mawson and Long 1994). Some, such as Major Mitchell's cockatoo Cacatua leadbeateri (Rowley and Chapman 1991), are already scarce; as well, others that are currently super-abundant, such as long-billed corellas C. tenuirostris (Emison et al. 1994a) and galahs C. roseicapilla (Rowley 1990) will also be affected in the long-term. The ancient trees that bear hollows big enough for nesting cockatoos have either been cut down or are dying of old age, and in surviving habitat remnants, grazing by sheep and introduced rabbits is preventing recruitment of new cohorts to take their place. For Carnaby's cockatoo (Saunders 1991), as well as the superb Polytelis swainsonii (Webster 1988) and swift parrots Lathamus discolor (Brown 1989) of the much diminished grassy woodlands of south-eastern Australia, it is the decline of feeding habitat that is a problem. In a land of depauperate soils, most pockets of fertility were long ago cleared for crops leaving only the land deemed too poor for agriculture for the parrots. The change has been to the advantage of some species. Galahs have been increasing their distribution for a century (Rowley 1990). Others took longer to adapt. Long-billed corellas almost disappeared when their principal food was all but eliminated by rabbits. Now that the corellas have learnt to eat an exotic weed, its distribution is exploding (Emison et al. 1994a). Similarly the turquoise parrot Neophema pulchella, once thought extinct, is now thriving on seed of an introduced South African daisy (Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993) and is returning to much of its former range. A smaller proportion of the tropics and arid zone has been cleared but most of it has been grazed for over a century by domestic stock, such as cattle and sheep, feral herbivores, including rabbits, horses, goats and camels, and native herbivores such as kangaroos (that have prospered as a result of the increased availability of surface water). There have also been dramatic changes in fire regime as pastoral burning practices have replaced those practised by Australian Aboriginals. Both grazing and fire may have contributed to the largely unexplained scarcity of the night Pezoporus occidentalis (see Box 1) and princess parrots Polytelis alexandrae of Australia's dry interior, and are playing a major role in the decline of the golden-shouldered parrot Psephotus chrysopterygius (Garnett and Crowley 1995: see Box 2). At the South-east end of the country, fire is also important for maintaining the diversity of grass and heathlands needed by the orange- bellied parrot Neophema chrysogaster (Brown and Wilson 1984b: see Box 3) and ground parrot (Meredith et al. 1980). Habitat loss is also the major problem for parrots of the tropical forests of the south-western Pacific islands. Though few of these species are as yet listed as threatened, so fast are the forests being logged that listing may not long precede extinction. For New Zealand and the more isolated islands of the south-west Pacific, however, predation is an even more urgent problem. For all five of New Zealand's threatened parrots (see Box 4 for discussion on taxonomic status of two Cyanoramphus taxa) the principal problem is actual or potential predation by introduced mammals - brush-tail possums Trichosurus vulpecula and rats Rattus exulans, R. norvegicus and R. rattus take eggs or young while cats Felis catus take adult kakapo Strigops habroptilus. Rats are also the most likely cause of extinction elsewhere in the Pacific, both before and after Europeans arrived. The parrot declines in the Pacific have also been exacerbated by hunting by people for food, feathers and the pet trade. Hunting for food is primarily a problem for parrots in New Guinea and has reduced the populations of palm cockatoos Probosciger aterrimus near settlements. Pesquet's parrot Psittrichas fulgidus, on the other hand, is hunted more for its red and black plumage than for food and demand is likely to follow the exponential increase in the human population of the New Guinea highlands where the feathers are used to purchase brides. Compared to most parts of the world, the pet trade is a relatively minor problem in Australia and New Zealand where there are strict export controls. Though the trade is more vigorous elsewhere, particularly in the Solomon Islands (R. Heinsohn pers. comm.), it is so far a proven threat only to the highly threatened subspecies of the horned parakeet Eunymphicus cornutus uvaeensis on Ouvea (Robinet et al. 1995). Conservation solutions Australia and New Zealand have well-organised and relatively well-funded conservation programmes for most threatened species. This is not to say their problems are solved - the rescue of the few elderly kakapo (see Box 5) or the mobile and erratic swift parrot will require research and innovative conservation management of the highest order. In New Zealand much of the conservation management is intensive. The kakapo in particular is the subject of detailed research by a substantial team of conservation managers (G. Elliott pers. comm.) but conservation of the kaka Nestor meridionalis also involves the protection of individual nests and possum poisoning. In most cases the work is undertaken on land dedicated to conservation. This differs from Australia, where most habitats of threatened parrots occurs on private land, and many conservation programmes involve negotiation with private landholders to manage their holdings in ways that are sympathetic to the parrots. This does not involve the landholders making a profit from the sale of parrots harvested from their land (as is sometimes advocated), but rather subsidising land management techniques that favour parrots. In Australia and New Zealand there is the political will and relatively ample resources to tackle the problems of parrot conservation. Conservation of parrots elsewhere in the region will require outside funding. A recovery plan is being implemented on Ouvea for the Critically Endangered subspecies of horned parakeet, and work on Pesquet's parrot and the palm cockatoo is starting in Papua New Guinea. But, there is a critical need to initiate research and conservation management of the Vini (see Box 6) and two of the Pacific Charmosyna lorikeets (see Box 7). As in Australia, the best approach is likely to be working with local landowners to manage their land in a way that will allow economic development to proceed without destroying the parrots or their habitat. This is the approach being taken in Papua New Guinea, where "Integrated Conservation and Development" projects are being adopted on a trial basis in two areas with assistance from various American conservation funding bodies. The dedication of conservation reserves is likely to be a less viable option, partly because most land has traditional owners for whom buying and selling their birthright is a foreign concept, and partly because there are rarely adequate resources to manage reserves after they are acquired. This cooperative approach at a local level must be combined with negotiations at a governmental level to counter the major problem of the loss of tropical forests in the region, whilst recognising the importance of logging revenue to regional development. Finally, the effects of trapping, particularly in places like the Solomons and New Guinea, need to be assessed and managed before the populations plummet, as have those of the yellow-crested cockatoo and red-and-blue lory in neighbouring Indonesia (P. Jepson pers. comm.). Box 1: Priority projects in Australia, New Zealand and the south-west Pacific Rediscovery and proposal of a recovery plan for the night parrot in central Australia John Blyth Aim: To find at least one population of the enigmatic night parrot and make recommendations for its long- term conservation. Justification: Only six reliable records were made of the night parrot Pezoporus (formerly Geopsittacus) occidentalis across the whole of its historical range in inland Australia between 1935 and 1984 (Blakers et al. 1984). This range must have extended across some 2,000,000 square kilometres mainly in Western Australia, Northern Territory and South Australia, but also into western New South Wales, south-west Queensland and north-west Victoria. There have been no confirmed reports of live birds since that time, despite several coordinated and intensive searches (see Blyth et al. 1998), although there are several unconfirmed reports (especially near Cloncurry in western Queensland and outside its supposed historical range). A single corpse has been found, however (Boles et al. 1994). In particular, two large-scale searches were made during 1996 in response to local reports: one in suitable habitat to the south of its known distribution and one in the deserts of Western Australia, but neither found night parrots. Several smaller scale searches were also made, but also without success. It has recently been suggested that the species is nocturnal as well as nomadic which, if true, may explain why it is so difficult to find. Project description: Designing a conservation programme for this species is complicated by the significant problems encountered in finding even one population. All mainland states and the Northern Territory have contact numbers for information and any survey planned for this species would clearly benefit from discussion with the appropriate person. Support should be offered to ongoing initiatives, such as the public information campaign run by the Northern Territory Threatened Species Network. Any efforts in Western Australia should be undertaken within the framework of the state Department of Conservation and Land Management's Interim Recovery Plan. The Interim Recovery Plan is designed to search the most promising areas and offer coordination and support to other interested parties in the state. Amongst the most likely areas for immediate searches is a re-survey of the Western Australia western desert region. Several historical records were made from this area as well as one promising but unconfirmed recent report, and it may be that searches made whilst major hummock grasses are seeding provide the best opportunity of finding this species. Surveys by other agencies would clearly profit from liaison with the Department of Conservation and Land Management for advice on survey design as any new insights into the species' ecology may have considerable implications for future searches. Contact: John Blyth Box 2: Priority projects in Australia, New Zealand and the south-west Pacific Recovery plan for the golden-shouldered parrot in Queensland, Australia Stephen Garnett Aim: To achieve downlisting to Vulnerable within 15 years by stopping the decline in area of occupancy, expanding range into areas formerly occupied and increasing confirmed numbers to more than 2,500 pairs at the start of the breeding season. Justification: The golden-shouldered parrot Psephotus chrysopterygius occurred throughout the Cape York Peninsula in northern Queensland, Australia where it inhabits tropical savanna. It is now restricted to a small fraction of this area and may not exceed 1,600 breeding pairs. Two breeding populations are known, in the central Cape York Peninsula south of Musgrave, and in the south-west of Chillagoe. Parts of the species' range have not been surveyed adequately as access is difficult or impossible for much of the year. It is believed that the main factor causing this range contraction is a change in burning regime whereby there are now many fewer hot fires. This has resulted in woody suckers not being burnt back to ground level and there are now more trees in the wet season feeding and breeding areas. This is thought to have led to an increase in predation as predators have become more successful. Project description: Extensive habitat management should be undertaken and the species' response assessed. Detailed information on this relationship would then be used to form the basis of a management plan. Experimental procedures would include the manipulation of the fire regime in selected sites, assessment of the response to supplementary feeding during the wet season and reduction of tree density around nest sites to reduce the frequency of predation. Each of these experimental actions, if successful, would allow the golden-shouldered parrot to expand into new areas and halt the decline in numbers at known sites. In addition, monitoring of populations should continue on an annual basis on Artemis Cattle Station to determine the effectiveness of management and at five-year intervals at specified remote parts of the southern and northern populations to measure overall population trends. The lead organisation is the Queensland Department of Environment with input from the Queensland Natural Resources, Environment Australia and non-governmental ornithological societies. Contact: Leasie Felderhof. Box 3: Priority projects in Australia, New Zealand and the south west Pacific Recovery Plan for the orange-bellied parrot Neophema chrysogaster in south-eastern Australia (1998- 2002). Mark Holdsworth and Peter Menkhorst Aim: The long-term objective of this recovery effort is to downlist the species to Lower Risk, conservation dependent (LRcd) within 30 years. The objective of this plan is to improve the conservation status of the species so that it no longer meets the IUCN criteria for Critically Endangered (CR) and can be down listed to Endangered (EN) within 5 years by increasing the size of the wild population to exceed 250 mature individuals. Justification: The orange-bellied parrot Neophema chrysogaster was formerly abundant throughout its range in Australia, where it occurred from the York Peninsula in South Australia to Bruny Island in southern Tasmania, and from Geelong in Victoria to Sydney in New South Wales. Since the 1920s, however, its range and abundance have continually decreased such that the breeding range is now a narrow coastal strip of south-west Tasmania and its winter range has shrunk to the east of the Murray River in South Australia and west of Jack Smith Lake in South Gippsland, Victoria. It is extinct in New South Wales. In winter the species is found in a variety of open habitats, such as saltmarshes, dunes, and shrublands, within 10km of the coast. The reduction in extent and quality of this habitat is thought to be the main cause of decline over the last century (e.g. Menkhorst et al. 1990, Casperson 1995). Numbers are now estimated at fewer than 200 mature individuals in the wild, mostly in one breeding population. Recovery plans were first initiated in 1984 (Brown and Wilson 1984a), and the decline in numbers seems to have halted subsequently. However, the species remains threatened by the loss of winter habitat (especially the destruction of the saltmarsh feeding areas), predation by foxes and cats, competition from other seed-eaters, disease, loss of genetic variation, and catastrophes (such as storms during migration). The actions proposed here are designed to increase both numbers and the sizes of the areas occupied. Project description: A coordinated programme that involves government agencies, non-governmental organisations, threatened species and land management groups, and the general public is vital to restore the population of the orange-bellied parrot. As such, a Recovery Coordinator should assist the existing Recovery Team in implementing and overseeing the following actions: i) restoring, creating and supplementing migratory and winter feeding habitat in locations traditionally used by the species in Tasmania, Victoria, and South Australia. In addition, the breeding population will continue to be intensively managed to ensure breeding potential is maximised and to assist with population monitoring. ii) reducing the risks of predation by eliminating introduced predators and identifying factors that limit food availability so that grazing animals, such as sheep and rabbits, can be managed accordingly. iii) finding sites where 'missing' birds overwinter. More birds have been counted in summers than in winters, indicating that there are currently unknown winter locations. There is, therefore, a need to find these sites, and potential sites both within and outside the known wintering range should be searched. iv) continuation of the captive breeding and release of healthy birds in both winter and summer. Allied to this is the development of a psittacine circoviral disease vaccination to improve the fitness of birds. v) maintenance and expansion of public awareness about the plight of the species through continued community education initiatives and a coordinated media strategy. The success of this component is important in maintaining the orange-bellied parrot as an issue in development-planning near to key wintering sites. Contacts: Mark Holdsworth and Peter Menkhorst Box 4: Priority projects in Australia, New Zealand and the south-west Pacific Clarification of the taxonomic status of the highly threatened orange-fronted and Forbes' parakeets from New Zealand Charles Daugherty and Kerry-Jayne Wilson Aim: To clarify the taxonomic status of the orange-fronted and Forbes' parakeets in New Zealand. Justification: The orange-fronted parakeet was considered a distinct species Cyanoramphus malherbi until 1985 when it was proposed that it be treated as colour morph of the yellow-crowned parakeet C. auriceps (Taylor 1985). Recently, however, protein (allozyme) electrophoresis study has led to the suggestion that it be restored to specific status (Triggs and Daugherty 1996, but see Taylor 1998). The data were not felt to be conclusive and larger samples and more sensitive genetic analyses are required before a firm conclusion can be drawn. If this form is in fact a species, then it is an endangered one, as it is now known only from the Arthur's Pass/Lake Sumner area in northern South Island. It was previously recorded from localities throughout New Zealand (Triggs and Daugherty 1996), although records from North Island are thought dubious (K-J. Wilson in litt. 1997). Forbes' parakeet Cyanoramphus (auriceps) forbesi has been considered a subspecies of the yellow-crowned parakeet C. auriceps. Recently it was proposed that it be elevated to specific status (Triggs and Daugherty 1996). In the early 1970s, fewer than 30 individuals survived on Mangere and Little Mangere Islands and hybridisation with the red-crowned parakeet C. novaezelandiae, which was reported in 1970 (Taylor 1975), has affected an unknown proportion of the population. Consequently, there are two issues here. The first is determining which taxonomic status is most appropriate for this species and the second is assessing the degree of genetic introgression of red-crowned parakeet genes into the Forbes' parakeet gene pool (Triggs and Daugherty 1996). Unravelling these two issues is likely to be difficult. If it is a species, then it is one of the most threatened parrot species in the world. Project description: Comparisons of the base pair sequences in the rapidly evolving parts of the mitochondrial DNA provide an objective way of comparing degrees of genetic difference between populations within the same species, by reference to another recognised species that is closely related (i.e. the control or outgroup). Given uncertainty over the taxonomic status of several Cyanoramphus populations (such as in the Auckland Islands), it is desirable to investigate the genetic variation in the genus so that appropriate units for conservation can be determined. Ideally, blood or other fresh tissue samples from many individuals in each group are required to provide a sufficient sample from their populations for these DNA tests. To achieve this in these cases, it will probably also be necessary to amplify minute and degraded DNA samples from moulted feather shafts collected in the wild, and museum skins. The use of material from Forbes' parakeets that was collected before hybridisation began (and hence 'pure') is crucial to determining the level of hybridisation with the red-crowned parakeet. Contacts: Charles Daugherty, and Kerry-Jayne Wilson Box 5: Priority projects in Australia, New Zealand and the south-west Pacific Recovery plan for the kakapo in New Zealand Graeme Elliott Aims: To establish at least one viable, self-sustaining, unmanaged population of kakapo as a functional component of the ecosystem in a protected habitat, and to establish two or more other populations which may require ongoing management. Justification: In pre-human times, kakapo were found throughout the three main islands of New Zealand. Following Polynesian and European settlement, their range was much reduced by forest clearance and predation by introduced cats, dogs, rats and mustelids. Since the 1970s, kakapo have been known only from Fiordland in the South Island, where they became extinct in about 1987, and Stewart Island. In 1977, a previously unknown population of about 200 kakapo was discovered on Stewart Island, but following very high rates of predation by feral cats these birds were transferred to three relatively predator-free islands during the 1980s and 1990s. In 1997, there were 54 known kakapo on three islands, and possibly a few surviving birds on Stewart Island. Two of the relatively predator free islands support populations of the Polynesian rat which have substantially reduced kakapo productivity by preying on recently hatched chicks. In addition, kakapo reproductive rates are very low because they breed as infrequently as once in five years in response to the availability of fruits produced by masting tree species, and because many kakapo are now very old and their fertility is probably declining. Project Description: Conservation management of kakapo is occurring in three parts: 1. Minimising mortality. 2. Maximising the hatching and survival of chicks and eggs. 3. Investigating ways of increasing breeding frequency. There are no predators capable of killing adult kakapo on any of the islands on which kakapo are held. The islands have stringent quarantine procedures to prevent accidental introduction of predators. Any further kakapo discovered on Stewart Island will be moved to one of the relatively predator-free kakapo islands. Nesting attempts of kakapo are closely monitored to prevent predation of eggs and chicks and to prevent starvation when natural food supplies fail. All known female kakapo carry radio-transmitters, and all nests are located within twelve days of laying. Once found, nests are surrounded with rat traps and poison stations, and are monitored 24 hours a day by close-circuit television. Any rats approaching the nests are scared away. At times of high rat risk when the eggs and chicks are unattended, nests are guarded by people standing near the nest, and eggs and chicks are prevented from chilling with electric heat pads. Chick health and condition are closely monitored. Attempts are planned to eliminate Polynesian rats from Little Barrier and Codfish Islands. Three lines of investigation are being followed to try to increase breeding frequency. Trials are being undertaken to see if hormone therapy can be used to induce old, apparently infertile, birds to breed. Trials are also to be undertaken to see if hormone therapy can be used to induce normally fertile female kakapo to breed more often than they would naturally. Research on environmental triggers to breeding is being undertaken to see if kakapo can be induced to breed more frequently by mimicking natural triggers. A limited increase in breeding frequency occurred on one island when kakapo were provided with supplementary food. Contact: Graeme Elliott Box 6: Priority projects in Australia, New Zealand and the south-west Pacific An overall conservation strategy for the Vini lorikeets of the South Pacific islands Kerry-Jayne Wilson Aim: To ensure the long-term survival of all extant species of the genus Vini by: i) collating and assessing all information on the threats and status of the lorikeets of this threatened genus and; ii) proposing a coordinated approach to the conservation of all island populations. Justification: There are five lorikeet species in the genus Vini which inhabit small islands in the South Pacific from Fiji in the west to the Line Islands in the north-west and Henderson Island in the south-west. Some of these populations are the result of introductions to islands which may be outside, but close to, the natural range (e.g. V. kuhlii: Watling 1995, McCormack and Kόnzle 1996 and V. ultramarina: Kuehler et al. 1997). Four of these species are considered to be threatened with extinction and as all are found on small islands, nowhere are populations large. The genus as a whole has been subjected to habitat alteration and almost complete replacement in some instances, as well as the attentions of European rats Rattus rattus. Whilst the lorikeets seem able to tolerate habitat change, as they are found in a variety of human habitations, such as gardens, villages and plantations, nest predation by rats seems to have caused local extinction on many islands. Of the rat species present, it appears that Rattus rattus is the main problem as Kuhl's lorikeet V. kuhlii survives in the presence of Rattus norvegicus and Rattus exulans, the Henderson Island lorikeet V. stepheni is not thought to have suffered since the introduction of Rattus exulans (Trevelyan 1995) and V. peruviana also survives in the presence of Rattus exulans on Aitutaki in the Cook Islands (Wilson 1993 and K-J. Wilson in litt. 1997). Consequently, whilst the genus is at risk of extinction from rat introductions to small islands, it is also possible to devise a practical strategy that would safeguard all species. In essence, a little foresight could easily save the whole genus. Project description: The first stage in this exercise should be the collation of all information, published and unpublished on both the lorikeets and the state of the natural history of the islands on which they live or have lived in the past. Specifically, the distribution of habitats and the extent of its alteration, presence of food plants and the presence of rats and any competitors on each island should be documented, along with any knowledge of human hunting. For example, there is evidence to suggest that Kuhl's lorikeet became extinct in the Cook Islands because its red feathers were used in cloaks by islanders (McCormack and Kόnzle 1996). This information collation should include an attempt to chart the progress of rats, especially Rattus rattus throughout the southern Pacific and the effect that they have had on the lorikeets and other native wildlife. In addition, information should be sought on the practicality (logistics, cost and environmental impact) of various rat eradication programmes (aerial application, the Landcare New Zealand land-based eradication approach) that have already been implemented elsewhere. Based on this assessment, management recommendations might consider three courses of action. First, islands (perhaps especially those within the lorikeets' natural range) where rats do not occur that have been identified should be considered as high priorities for the prevention of rat colonisation. Second, islands where rats do occur and are threatening lorikeet populations should be considered for rat eradication. Finally, translocation to rat-free islands might be considered: first indications are that this course of action appears to have been successful with ultramarine lorikeets in the Marquesas (Lieberman et al. 1997). Contact: K-J. Wilson Box 7: Priority projects in Australia, New Zealand and the south-west Pacific Status assessment of the New Caledonian lorikeet Aim: To determine whether the New Caledonian lorikeet Charmosyna diadema still exists, and if it does, to devise a strategy for its conservation. Justification: The only definite records of this species are the two female specimens that were collected in 1859 and from which the species was described, and an observation in 1913 (Forshaw 1989). Other than this the only information is that locals reported it to the west of Mount Paniι in 1976 (Stokes 1980). Project description: Searches for the lorikeet should concentrate around Mt. Paniι and any other areas that experienced local bushmen suggest. The cloud forest of Mt. Humboldt and the Massif of Kouakoue might also still contain the species (Bregulla 1993). It should also be determined whether the type locality still holds suitable habitat. Contact: BIRDS Australia Parrot Association Threatened species of Australia, New Zealand and the south-west Pacific Table 2: A list of parrot species of Australia, New Zealand and the south-west Pacific that are considered threatened using IUCN Red List criteria. Also included are threatened taxa for which there is evidence that they may be distinct species, and species removed from the Red List. Species are listed in alphabetic order by their scientific name, together with their distribution and threat status. The criteria under which each species qualifies are given in the appropriate species account. Where two English names are given, the first is that widely used in Australia and the second, in parentheses, is the name used in Birds to watch 2 (Collar et al. 1994). *denotes changes from Birds to watch 2 (and, therefore, the 1996 IUCN Red List), which have been agreed to by BirdLife International who maintain the IUCN list of threatened birds. English name Scientific name Distribution Threat category Baudin’s cockatoo (White-tailed black-cockatoo) Calyptorhynchus baudinii South-west Western Australia Vulnerable Carnaby’s cockatoo (Slender-billed black-cockatoo) Calyptorhynchus latirostris South-west Western Australia Vulnerable Red-throated lorikeet Charmosyna amabilis Fiji Vulnerable New Caledonian lorikeet Charmosyna diadema New Caledonia (France) Endangered Antipodes parakeet Cyanoramphus unicolor Antipodes, New Zealand Vulnerable Horned parakeet Eunymphicus cornutus New Caledonia (France) Vulnerable Swift parrot Lathamus discolor Eastern Tasmania and south-east mainland Australia Vulnerable Orange-bellied parrot* Neophema chrysogaster South-western Tasmania, and coastal Victoria and eastern South Australia Critically Endangered New Zealand kaka Nestor meridionalis New Zealand Vulnerable Night parrot Pezoporus (=Geopsittacus) occidentalis Thought to be central Australia Critically Endangered Princess parrot (Alexandra’s parrot) Polytelis alexandrae Western Australia, Northern Territory and north-western South Australia Vulnerable Superb parrot Polytelis swainsonii New South Wales and northern Victoria Vulnerable Golden-shouldered parrot Psephotus chrysopterygius Cape York Peninsula, Queensland Endangered Kakapo* Strigops habroptilus Codfish, Little Barrier, Mana, Maud and Stewart Islands, New Zealand Critically Endangered Kuhl’s lorikeet Vini kuhlii French Polynesia and Kiribati Endangered Blue lorikeet Vini peruviana French Polynesia and Cook Islands (NZ) Vulnerable Henderson lorikeet Vini stepheni Henderson Island (UK) Vulnerable Ultramarine lorikeet Vini ultramarina Marquesas Islands, French Polynesia Endangered Possible species Forbes’ parakeet Cyanoramphus (auriceps) forbesi Mangere and Little Mangere Islands in Chatham Islands New Zealand Critically Endangered Orange-fronted parakeet Cyanoramphus (auriceps) ‘malherbi’ Arthur’s Pass and the Lake Summer /Lewis Pass area, South Island, New Zealand Critically Endangered Red List removals Glossy black-cockatoo* Calyptorhynchus lathami Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, Australia Lower Risk Norfolk Island parakeet* Cyanoramphus (novaezelandiae) cookii Norfolk Island (to Australia) Considered a sub- species Scarlet-chested parrot* Neophema splendida Southern inland Australia Lower Risk Species accounts Baudin’s cockatoo Calyptorhynchus baudinii (White-tailed black-cockatoo in Collar et al. 1994. Name changed here to conform to Australian usage.) Peter Mawson Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: On 30th April 1996 it was formally listed as "rare or likely to become extinct" in Western Australia and was given maximum protection under state legislation. Distribution and status: The temperate forests of the south-west of Western Australia, Australia, requiring hollows up to 60m above the ground in mature eucalyptus for breeding. The population estimate of 5,000-25,000 in 1977 (Garnett 1992) is considered very subjective and it is unlikely that the species has approached the upper limit in recent times with current estimate of a maximum of 10,000 (P. Mawson in litt. 1997). There is no indication whether the population is declining at present (Garnett 1992). Licences to shoot birds where they are causing damage to commercial pome fruit crops have been few in number since 1990 and since 1994/5 licences have only been issued to scare birds, not to kill them. Threats: Current threats are not known: statements that illegal shooting and logging are having an adverse effect are speculative (Garnett 1992), although it is not clear if the strict prescriptions of coupe timber harvesting, which is practised through much of its range, are sufficient to meet the species’ needs. It is also uncertain whether previous forest management has already had a significant adverse effect. Clarifying its status and threats is challenging as the species is difficult to census reliably, but breeding biology is the subject of a small amount of fieldwork. Action: An understanding of the conservation status and needs of this species would benefit from better data on reproductive ecology, feeding and nesting requirements within the eucalypt forest. Information on the distribution of birds in relation to topography and vegetation sub-communities would also provide a better understanding of the impact or potential impacts that various land-uses within the forest (e.g. logging, mining, agriculture, dam construction) would have on cockatoo numbers. Carnaby's cockatoo Calyptorhynchus latirostris (or short-billed black-cockatoo: slender-billed black-cockatoo in Collar et al. 1994. Name changed here to conform to Australian usage.) Denis Saunders Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: On 30th April 1996 it was formally listed as "rare or likely to become extinct" in Western Australia and was given maximum protection under state legislation. Distribution and status: Woodland in south-west Western Australia, where it nests in hollow eucalypts and feeds on seeds in heath, shrublands and woodlands. In agricultural landscapes its food plants occur in patches and birds do miss these patches if there is not a link, in the form of strips of native vegetation along roadsides etc., to guide them. The total population was estimated at 9,000-35,000 individuals in 1977 and since then there has been a decline that is likely to continue for some decades. The bird has disappeared from more than a third of its breeding range during the last 30 years (Saunders 1990b). Threats: The removal of native vegetation for agricultural development has been the biggest cause of the decline. The greatest threat to the cockatoo now is the rising water-table resulting from over-clearance of deep-rooted native vegetation and its replacement with shallow-rooted agricultural crops. The increase in salinity has the potential to affect adversely 6,100,000ha, including much of the cockatoo's remaining habitat (Saunders and Ingram 1995). Garnett (1992) Collar et al. (1994) also cited clearance and fragmentation of habitat, insufficient regeneration to supply suitable nesting trees owing to introduced grazers, agriculture (which favours the galah Cacatua roseicapilla), and nest-robbing for trade as threats. It is now thought that the availability of nest sites is not limiting recruitment (Saunders et al. 1982). However, future availability of nest sites will depend upon current habitat management. What is having an affect at present is the distance between nesting and feeding sites which, if too large results in chicks starving to death or fledging under- weight with attendant reduced reproductive success in the first year (Saunders et al. 1982, Saunders 1986). With the introduction of DNA testing, nest-robbing may have become a very small problem. Action: A multi-department programme has been launched to try and reverse the trend in agricultural development, which has had the biggest impact on the species through salination and subsequent loss of habitat (3,000,000ha have been targeted). This programme aims to promote revegetation, to try and lower water tables so that further salination can be prevented and the decline in native vegetation halted. If successful, this will benefit the cockatoo as well as a wide range of other natives (Saunders and Ingram 1995). However, the trees being used are farm forestry trees with no other known conservation benefits, and the restoration of native habitat requires a planting campaign using native heath, shrub and woodland species. Whilst native remnant vegetation can now only be cleared on private land with government approval, much is becoming degraded and is in need of direct management. Without large scale revegetation and management of the remaining native vegetation, Carnaby's cockatoo will continue to decline. Red-throated lorikeet Charmosyna amabilis Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (C2a; D1). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to the mature forests (usually above 500m) on the islands of Viti Levu, Vanua Levu, Taveuni and Ovalau, Fiji (Watling 1982, Clunie 1984). The red-throated lorikeet is rare, with no confirmed records this century except from Viti Levu where recent observations are all of small flocks (two to six birds) (Collar et al 1994) Threats: Not known, but predation by European rats Rattus rattus may pose a problem. Action: Information is urgently required on distribution (including habitat use), status and threats to the species. New Caledonian lorikeet Charmosyna diadema Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (D1). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Described from two specimens, both females, collected in 1859, and an observation in 1913 on New Caledonia (to France) (Forshaw 1989). Treated as extinct by King (1978-1979) but in 1976 islanders reported that it might still exist, and two birds were reported by an experienced bushman in forest west of Mount Paniι (Stokes 1980). It might survive in the cloud-forest of Mount Paniι, Mount Humboldt and the Massif of Kouakouι (Bregulla 1993). Threats: Not known. Action: Information is urgently required on distribution (including habitat use), status and threats. Searches for the lorikeet should concentrate around Mt. Paniι and any other areas that experienced local bushmen suggest. The cloud forest of Mt. Humboldt and the Massif of Kouakoue might also still contain the species (Bregulla 1993). It should also be determined whether the type locality still holds suitable habitat. (See Box 7.) Antipodes parakeet Cyanoramphus unicolor Terry Greene Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (D2). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to the uninhabited and protected islands of the Antipodes, New Zealand. In 1978 it was common on the main island (20km2) and Bollons Island (50ha) and occurred in smaller numbers on Leeward (10ha), Inner Windward (8ha) and Archway (6ha) islets, with an estimated total of 2,000-3,000 birds (Williams and Given 1981). Threats: It nests in burrows among tall dense tussocks or sedges (Taylor 1985), and is threatened by accidental introductions of mammalian predators which once seemed unlikely because of its isolated location, but is now a possibility owing to increased numbers of visits and fishing in the Southern Ocean (Collar et al 1994, T. Greene in litt. 1997). Action: Information is urgently required on distribution (including habitat use), status and threats to the species, including the risk of predators being introduced. Horned parakeet Eunymphicus cornutus Olivier Robinet Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (C1). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to the forests of New Caledonia (to France), with two races, nominate cornutus on the mainland, and uvaeensis confined on Ouvea (about 6,600ha of suitable habitat remaining: Robinet et al. 1996) in the Loyalty Islands (Forshaw 1989). Subspecies cornutus has declined since 1882, when it was reported from all forested areas, to fairly common in more inaccessible areas above 470m in the 1940s, to relatively frequent in suitable habitat in the 1960s and 1970s (Bregulla 1993), with a population estimated at 2,000-10,000 (possibly stable) (Collar et al. 1994). Numbers of uvaeensis were estimated at 70-90 birds and declining (Hahn 1993), but a survey in December 1993 counted 73 individuals leading to an estimate of 617 (minimum 274, maximum 996; Robinet et al. 1996), in both the north (the stronghold) and the south, where the species was thought to have disappeared. Earlier attempts to release wild-caught stock on nearby Lifou Island (to establish a second population) have failed (Robinet et al. 1995), possibly because of the presence of ship and Norwegian rats (O. Robinet in litt. 1997: see Robinet and Salas 1996). Threats: It has suffered from habitat destruction, predation by rats, and capture for the cagebird trade. There were 19 wild caught specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, all between 1991 and 1993 (CITES Annual Report database). Robinet et al., (1995) refer to illegal trade to Europe. Action: A recovery plan has been prepared for uvaeensis for the period 1997-2002 involving strong local participation in population and habitat monitoring (O. Robinet in litt. 1997). A proposal for its inclusion on Appendix I of CITES was rejected in 1997. Swift parrot Lathamus discolor Peter Menkhorst Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (B1 + 2c; C2b). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Breeds in northern and eastern Tasmania (where it inhabits eucalypt forests, especially those with blue gum Eucalyptus globulus, breeding in mature and senescent trees) and winters in south-east mainland Australia (where it occurs in remnant forest patches within agricultural land and suburbs). A survey in 1988/1989 estimated a population of 1,320 breeding pairs with an end-of-breeding- season population probably in excess of 5,000 individuals (Garnett 1992). Threats: In its winter range it specialises in insect and nectar exudates which are abundant in rich habitat patches, many of which have long been cleared because they occur in prime sheep and cattle farming areas. Consequently, most of the remaining habitat might be suboptimal (P. Menkhorst in litt. 1997). Furthermore, eucalypt forest has been extensively cleared for agriculture and timber throughout its range and some birds continue to be trapped for trade (Garnett 1992), although this is not thought to be a significant problem (P. Menkhorst in litt. 1997). Action: Sympathetic management of remaining habitat should involve a more sensitive forest use strategy in Tasmanian breeding habitat, and a reassessment of timber harvesting practices in Victoria and New South Wales. Forests with highest densities of breeding birds should be protected. A community-based tree- planting programme should be encouraged to increase the coverage of blue gum in Tasmania, and of eucalypts that flower reliably in the wintering areas. Orange-bellied parrot Neophema chrysogaster Mark Holdsworth and Peter Menkhorst Conservation status: IUCN: Critically Endangered (C2b). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Wholly protected in all states. Listed as endangered under Commonwealth Threatened Species Protection Act 1992. The species’ IUCN status has been revised to Critically Endangered from Endangered (D1: Collar et al. 1994) on the basis of an inferred decline. Intensive population studies of the breeding population since 1991 show a stable population over the period, but, in 1994 and 1995 a decline (about 15%) was observed but since recovered. In addition all cohorts are known to experience at least 50% mortality each year (some times as high as 70%). Consequently, whatever has caused historic declines and is holding the population down is still active and potentially could cause sustained decline at any time. Distribution and status: Breeds in tree hollows in the forested margins of the coastal plains and feeds on sedgelands in the World Heritage Area of south-western Tasmania, Australia, and migrates across the islands in the west of the Bass Strait to coastal Victoria and eastern South Australia (P. Menkhorst in litt. 1997) along the southern coast of the Australian mainland in the winter, mostly to the shores of Port Philip Bay in Victoria, where it feeds on saltmarshes and coastal dunes. In the nineteenth century there were supposedly flocks of thousands, but in 1981 the population was estimated at 150 individuals with no evidence of a marked decrease in numbers in the wintering range in the period 1978-1990. The species now numbers 100 adults with about 80 young fledging in most years. Continual monitoring of both winter and summer populations does not show any significant change in numbers despite active population and habitat management (P. Menkhorst in litt. 1997). See also Male (1995) Threats: Continuing threats include loss of favoured feeding habitat throughout the winter range and lack of safety in numbers for a small bird attractive to avian predators (Garnett 1992). The suggestion that competition from introduced herbivores is a threat (Collar et al. 1994) is entirely conjectural (P. Menkhorst in litt. 1997). Action: The central issue is increasing overwinter survival. Under the Orange-bellied Parrot Recovery Plan 1998-2002 (Anon 1998), a coordinated programme that involves all sectors of the community, specific actions will be taken to ensure restoration of the orange-bellied parrot. The programme includes providing new winter feeding areas, reducing predation, finding all wintering populations, continuing the captive breeding and release of healthy birds in both winter and summer, and expanding public awareness initiatives. (See Box 3.) New Zealand kaka Nestor meridionalis Terry Greene and Kerry-Jayne Wilson Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Occurs on North Island (race septentrionalis) and South and Stewart islands (nominate meridionalis) and on some offshore islands, New Zealand (Turbott 1990). Its distribution follows the larger remaining areas of low and mid-altitude native forest. Numbers are high only on islands such as Stewart Little Barrier [where it remains common despite the presence of feral cats (K-J. Wilson in litt. 1997)], Codfish, and Kapiti [where the only introduced mammals are rats (O’Donnell and Rasch 1991)]. Threats: Its future on the mainland, and in particular on North Island, is threatened by introduced mammalian predators (e.g. stoats and rats), introduced possums that also compete for food, and by the destruction of much of its habitat. Introduced wasps which compete for ‘honey dew’ (an important food source in beech Nothofagus forest) are a problem on the South Island, but not elsewhere (T. Greene in litt. 1997). Wilson et al. (1998) suggest that introduced predators, especially of female kaka, are the major cause of decline on the mainland, and they predict that stoats will cause the species to become extinct on mainland New Zealand without appropriate management. Where predators occur, the kakas’ sex ratio is skewed toward males (T. Greene in litt. 1997). Action: Wilson et al. (1998) conclude that kaka will only survive in beech and other forests if predators, especially stoats, can be effectively controlled. Such action must be seriously considered. Night parrot Pezoporus occidentalis A recent widely accepted taxonomic revision (Christidis and Boles 1994) moved this species from the genus Geopsittacus under which name it appeared in Collar et al. (1994) and on CITES Appendix I. John Blyth, Allan Burbidge and Peter Menkhorst Conservation status: IUCN: Critically Endangered (C2a,D1). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Distribution and status: Thought to be nomadic, and has been recorded almost equally from gravel desert with areas of dense hummock grassland of spinifex (Triodia and Plectrachne species) and from chenopodiaceous vegetation associated with salt lake systems (J. Blyth and A. Burbidge in litt. 1997). It has been suggested that it may use areas of heavily seeding spinifex after local rains and may move seasonally or as conditions require to salt lake systems to feed on the fruits and seeds (and possibly the succulent leaves) of various chenopod species. It has been recorded from all mainland states and the Northern Territory, but it is now thought to be restricted to arid central Australia from central Western Australia through Northern Territory to south-west Queensland (J. Blyth and A. Burbidge in litt. 1997), with unconfirmed reports from Victoria as late as the 1950s (P. Menkhorst in litt. 1997). It was presumably more abundant in the 1870s, when 16 specimens were collected in the Gawler Range and Lake Eyre region in South Australia, compared with a total of six reliable records between 1935 and 1984 in the whole of Australia (Blakers et al. 1984). During the last decade there have been 15 sight records although none has been authenticated (and a corpse was found in 1990: Boles et al. 1994). Historical reports and several recent ones in an area of c. 200km2 near Cloncurry suggest that it may indeed be nocturnal (Garnett et al. 1993). Threats: Habitat degradation (as a result of altered fire regimes and grazing by domestic stock and feral animals), predation by cats and foxes, and reduction of available water by introduced camels may all be causes of decline (Garnett 1992). Action: Little action can be taken until areas where the species occurs are found. An Interim Recovery Plan (see Blyth et al. 1998) with an emphasis on finding and recovering one or more populations is being implemented in Western Australia, and reports of sightings by members of the public are being sought in Western Australia and across northern Australia (J. Blyth and A. Burbidge in litt. 1997). (See Box 1.) Princess parrot Polytelis alexandrae (Alexandra’s parrot in Collar et al. 1994. Name changed here to conform to Australian usage.) John Blyth Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (B2c+3d; C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Appears to prefer the sandy deserts characterised by large area of hummock grassland associated with Desert Oak Allocasuarina decaisneana and/or various flowering shrubs such as Grevillea wickhamii in Western Australia, Northern Territory and north-western South Australia, Australia. Early records of colonial breeding and the low number of recent breeding records involving more than one pair (Blakers et al.1984) have been claimed to be evidence of a decline this century (Collar et al. 1994). Examination of recent and historical records suggests that it may be irruptive rather than nomadic and that a core population may be resident in the area surrounding Lake Tobin, in the eastern region of Western Australia's Great Sandy Desert (Carter 1993). It was treated as Data Deficient in Australia by Garnett (1992) and is still considered of indeterminate status (J. Blyth and A. Burbidge in litt. 1998). Threats: Changes to its habitat may constitute threatening factors. Factors may have included altered fire regimes after Aboriginal people left the sandy deserts; introduced herbivores other than domestic stock (it may never have been anything but a transient species in pastoral country (Carter 1993). Increased water availability on pastoral lands may have favoured more water-dependent parrot taxa to its detriment (but see above). Other threatening processes may have included predation by foxes and cats. Action: Amateur and professional ornithologists should be encouraged to gather information about the distribution and biology of the princess parrot. Particular questions to address are: Where do princess parrots breed and what are the habitat factors required for successful breeding. Is there a sedentary population based around Lake Tobin on the Canning Stock Route? If so, how big is the area normally occupied and roughly how many princess parrots does it support? Are there any other areas that support resident populations of the species and where and under what circumstances are princess parrots seen outside the two areas referred to above? What are the key habitat factors that make an area suitable for princess parrots and are any of these changing in a way that may constitute threats to the princess parrot? Superb parrot Polytelis swainsonii Peter Menkhorst Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (C2b). CITES: Appendix II National protection status: Distribution and status: Occurs in loose colonies in riparian woodlands of the Murray - Murrumbidgee Rivers in New South Wales and northern Victoria and also on the south-west slopes of New South Wales (P. Menkhorst in litt. 1997), Australia. It has a breeding population (apparently confined to the southern part of its range) of under 5,000 pairs. Threats: Threats include a decline hollow trees (which provide nest sites) because of senescence and harvesting for firewood (P. Menkhorst in litt. 1997), degradation or clearance of foraging habitat and flight paths to foraging sites, and (probably heavy) trapping (Garnett 1992). There were 96 wild-caught specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995. Of these, 54 were in 1991 and 34 were in 1993 (CITES Annual Report database). Action: Three areas of action are needed. First, ensure that timber harvesting prescriptions provide special protection to all known nest colony areas and individual nest trees, and ensure the provision of future nest trees. Second, enforce vegetation clearance controls in box woodlands throughout the Riverina and South- west Slopes Biogeographic Regions. Third, work closely with landholder groups to protect and rehabilitate key foraging sites and protect or create corridors of woodland between breeding and foraging areas. Golden-shouldered parrot Psephotus chrysopterygius Stephen Garnett Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (B1+2a,b,c,e). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Distribution and status: Formerly widespread in southern and central Cape York Peninsula, Queensland, Australia, but now occupies two areas of approximately 300 and 150km², separated by 200km. Inhabits tropical eucalypt and "paperbark" savanna woodland and nests in termite mounds (Weaver 1982, Garnett and Crowley 1995). The population is less than 2,500 adults and is still declining (Garnett and Crowley 1995). Threats: The major threat is a widespread change in burning regime over the last century leading to woody weed invasion of grassy nesting habitat and higher predation occurring where the habitat is overgrown (Garnett and Crowley 1995). Trapping may formerly have been a problem (Wheeler 1975) but is now thought to be negligible. The fire management of its habitat has been altered to reverse the decline in numbers. Action: Experimental habitat management would provide information on the species’ response so that a management plan could be formulated. Procedures to be tested are those designed to halt the decline in occupied areas and allow colonisation of new areas. Monitoring of selected sites should also be undertaken. (See Box 2.) Kakapo Strigops habroptilus Graeme Elliott Conservation status: IUCN: Critically Endangered (D1) CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: The species’ IUCN status has been changed from ‘Extinct in the Wild’ for two reasons. First, the refined definition of ‘Extinct in the Wild’ now excludes species that were the subject of benign introductions and now survive close to their natural range (but not within it), as was the case with the kakapo. Second, the species has now been found within its natural range: a female was found on Stewart Island in mid-June 1997, and further birds are thought to occur on the island (G. Elliott in litt. 1997). It is considered Critically Endangered because only 9 of the 20 females in a known population of 54 birds are known to have produced fertile eggs. In this increasingly elderly population, the number of mature individuals is almost certainly below 50, if mature equates to potentially reproductively active. Distribution and status: Formerly, the kakapo occurred at all altitudes throughout forest and scrubland of North, South, and Stewart Islands, New Zealand. Its range had shrunk considerably before European settlement, although it remained abundant in the south and west of South Island until c.1900 (Robertson 1985). Thereafter the remaining populations in Fiordland and Stewart Island suffered further decline, and it became extinct on South Island by 1989 (Clout and Craig 1995). Trial transfers of Kakapo to Maud Island were attempted between 1974 and 1981, and since 1982 all known kakapo have been translocated to the predator-free islands of Codfish, Maud, Little Barrier and Mana (though the translocation to Mana failed and there are no longer any kakapo there). A kakapo was captured on Stewart Island in June 1997 and it is likely a few birds remain there. Kakapo have a slow and often erratic reproductive rate with four and five year gaps between recent breeding attempts on Stewart and Codfish Islands. Breeding on Stewart and Codfish seems tied to prolific autumn mast fruiting of Podocarpus. Supplementary feeding has been partially successful in inducing breeding activity on Little Barrier Island, but has had no effect on Codfish or Maud Islands. Since 1991 six chicks have been successfully fledged, including two that were hand-raised. The total known population at June 1997 was 54 birds, including 20 females of which only 9 are known to have produced fertile eggs (G. Elliott in litt, Clout and Craig 1995, Lloyd and Powlesland 1994, and Powlesland and Lloyd 1994). Threats: This flightless, lekking, nocturnal parrot is especially vulnerable to predation by mammalian carnivores, particularly during breeding. Action: Three strands are currently underway: attempting to minimise mortality, maximising reproductive output, and investigating ways of increasing breeding frequency. (See Box 5.) Kuhl’s lorikeet Vini kuhlii Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (B1+2e; C2a; D2). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: The only surviving population within its natural range is that on Rimatara (see Watling 1995, McCormack and Kόnzle 1996) and possibly Tubuai, although birds on this island may be escaped pets (Forshaw 1989) in the Tubuai (=Austral) Islands, French Polynesia. Populations on the islands of Teraina (= Washington), Tabuaeran (=Fanning) and Kiritimati (=Christmas Island), all in Kiribati, appear to have been introduced. Formerly it may also have occurred in the southern Cook Islands (Forshaw 1989, Holyoak and Thibault 1984). On Rimatara (population estimated at c.900 birds) the favoured habitat is mixed horticultural woodlands, where preliminary trapping indicated an absence of European rats, Rattus rattus (McCormack and Kόnzle 1996). On Teraina there are 1,000 individuals minimum and perhaps 50 on a single island in the Tabuaeran atoll. Only a couple of individuals survive on Kiritimati, the result of recent releases (Watling 1995). Threats: Effectively confined to coconut plantations on Taraina and Tabuaeran and is especially vulnerable to nest predation by rats and, in particular, to Rattus rattus which is present on Tabuaeran (Watling 1995). The population on Rimatara should be monitored as it is possibly the only natural population; the Teraina population, which is probably the most secure (Watling 1995), should also be monitored. Action: Information relating to the past and present distribution of the lorikeets, and habitats on relevant islands should be collated and then related to the colonisation of rats, especially Rattus rattus, and human hunting. Once the impact of introduced rodents is clear, consideration should be given to preventing rat colonisation and eradication, if practicable. (See Box 6.) Blue lorikeet Vini peruviana Kerry-Jayne Wilson Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable: (B1+2d; C2a.) CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Widespread but unevenly distributed in lowland coconut plantations and gardens in south-east Polynesia, including the Society Islands (French Polynesia: formerly all, now Motu One and Manuae only), the northern atolls of the Tuamotu archipelago (French Polynesia: Rangiroa, Arutua and Tikehau), and Aitutaki, Cook Islands (to New Zealand), where it was probably introduced. In total, the species has been recorded from 23 islands, but it is now extinct on many of these. There are possibly up to 250 and 300-400 pairs respectively on Motu One and Manuae, and Tikehau is thought to hold 30 pairs. Fewer than 500 pairs survive on Aitutaki, with no evidence of a decline in the last decade (Collar et al. 1994). This can be compared with a population estimate of 1,200 for Aitutaki based on surveys in 1992 and 1994 by the Cook Island Heritage Project (G. McCormack in Gill 1996). Its status is unknown on two further atolls (Apataki and Kaukura, Tuamotu archipelago), which have not been visited since 1923. There are several other suitable islands that have not been surveyed (Holyoak and Thibault 1984, Pratt et al. 1987, Thibault 1988, Seitre and Seitre 1992). A survey of Tiamanu Motu (in Apataki atoll) in 1989 revealed a minimum population of at least 300 individuals (see Collar et al. 1994) and in 1993, thirty- six birds were observed in two different locations on Rangiroa, with the possibility that several hundred birds live there. Threats: Many extinctions are thought to be the result of predation by European rats, Rattus rattus and cats. Trapping on Aitutaki in May 1993 and March 1994 indicated the presence of Rattus exulans but the absence of Rattus rattus and Rattus norvegicus (Wilson 1993 and K-J. Wilson in litt. 1997). Although trade is illegal, birds are still captured and sold by local people (Collar et al 1994). Observations on Aitutaki One indicated that gardens and plantations were the favoured habitats, suggesting that its survival is dependent solely on the absence of European rats Rattus rattus (Wilson 1993 and in litt. 1997). There were six wild caught specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, all in 1991 (CITES Annual Report database). Action: Information relating to the past and present distribution of the lorikeets, and habitats on relevant islands should be collated and then related to the colonisation of rats, especially Rattus rattus, and human hunting. Once the impact of introduced rodents is clear, consideration should be given to preventing rat colonisation and eradication, if practicable. (See Box 6.) Henderson lorikeet Vini stepheni Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (D2). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Inhabits forests on Henderson Island in the Pitcairn Islands (to UK), an uninhabited raised-reef island (37km2) in the south-central Pacific. It is a generalist feeder, utilising a wide variety of sources including nectar, pollen, arthropod larvae, and fruits (Trevelyan 1995). In 1987 the total population was estimated at between 720 and 1,820 individuals, whilst in 1992 the population was estimated at c.1,200 pairs (but difficult to assess because of their mobility and patchy distribution: Graves 1992). Threats: Henderson Island’s vulnerability to human impact was exposed in 1982-1983 when a millionaire sought to make it his home (Bourne and David 1983, Fosberg et al. 1983, Serpell et al. 1983). No obvious problems arising from the introduction of Rattus exulans were noted in 1992 (Trevelyan 1995). Action: Safeguarding this species appears to rely on ensuring the integrity of the uninhabited island. Confirmation that Rattus exulans does not pose any problems for the species is desirable. A better understanding of the species’ distribution in each habitat would be useful. (See Box 6.) Ultramarine lorikeet Vini ultramarina Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (B1+2b,d; D2). CITES: Appendix I (transferred from Appendix II in 1997). National protection status: Distribution and status: In 1975, it occurred in all habitats with trees on Ua Pou , Nuku Hiva, and Ua Huka, in the Marquesas Islands, French Polynesia (Holyoak 1975; Holyoak and Thibault 1984), although subfossil remains indicate it formerly had a wider distribution (Steadman 1989). The population on Ua Huka apparently descends from a single pair introduced in the 1940s (Kuehler et al. 1997). On Ua Pou, the population (estimated to be 250-300 pairs in 1975) suffered an unexplained 60% decline in 15 years, so that in 1990 it was rare from sea level to 800m . No birds were found during a week-long search in November-December 1991, although locals claimed small numbers still existed (Collar et al. 1994). On Nuku Hiva, an estimated 70 birds were restricted to high valleys and ridges at 700-1,000m in the north- western end of the island in 1972-1975, and by 1990 it was possibly extinct. No birds were recorded during a week in November-December 1991, although a single individual was reported between Taiohae and Taipivi during May 1991. On Ua Huka, the introduced population stood at around 200-250 pairs in the early 1970s, was still strong in 1987, with birds abundant in 1990 up to 500m and numbering some 1,00-1,500 birds in 1991 (Holyoak and Thibault 1984, Thibault 1988, Seitre and Seitre 1991, Kuehler and Lieberman 1993, 1997). In 1992 and 1993 seven lories were translocated each year to Fatu Hiva and 15 were moved in 1994. Fourteen were observed prior to the third release (Kuehler and Lieberman 1993, Kuehler et al. 1997) and 51 birds were recorded during eight days in January 1997 including 10 birds in subadult plumage, indicating successful breeding (Lieberman et al. 1997). Threats: European rats Rattus rattus are the most likely cause of its decline, being present on Nuku Hiva since the beginning of the century, on Ua Pou (probably) since 1980, and introduced to Amotu a few hundred metres from Ua Huka a couple of years ago, although it is not clear if they have become established on the main island too (Seitre and Seitre 1991). There were six wild caught specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, all in 1993 (CITES Annual Report database). The species was included in CITES Appendix I in 1997. Action: Information relating to the past and present distribution of the lorikeets, and habitats on relevant islands should be collated and then related to the colonisation of rats, especially Rattus rattus, and human hunting. Once the impact of introduced rodents is clear, consideration should be given to preventing rat colonisation and eradication, if practicable. The success of the translocation to Fatu Hiva should continue to be monitored and a survey is planned for 2000 with the support of the San Diego Zoological Society (A. Lieberman and C. Keuhler in litt. 1998). (See Box 6.) Accounts for threatened taxa which may be full species Forbes’ parakeet Cyanoramphus forbesi Charles Daugherty, Andrew Grant, Terry Greene and Kerry-Jayne Wilson Conservation status: IUCN: To be considered. CITES: Appendix I (as C. auriceps forbesi). National protection status: Reason for taxonomic uncertainty: Long considered a subspecies of C. auriceps, recent protein (allozyme) electrophoresis analysis has led to the suggestion that it should be restored to specific status (Triggs and Daugherty 1996). Currently the data are not conclusive, but as the genetic distance between this taxon on Mangere Island and several C. novaezelandiae populations (from various islands adjacent to North Island, on the Chatham Islands and the Kermedec Islands) is closer than that between this taxon and populations of C. auriceps from both North and South Islands, forbesi is best treated as a distinct species (Triggs and Daugherty 1996). This tentative conclusion is cautiously accepted here, pending further clarification. Uncertainty over the degree of hybridisation with C. n. chathamensis must also cloud interpretation of the genetic analysis of the taxonomic status of this form. Distribution and status: Occurs in Mangere and Little Mangere (formerly also Pitt) Islands, Chatham Islands, New Zealand, where it inhabits dense unbroken forest or scrub. Numbers were drastically reduced earlier this century following deforestation of Mangere and the introduction of cats. No Forbes’ parakeets were seen on Mangere in 1923-4 (Taylor 1975). Cats were eradicated in the 1950s and farming was stopped in 1968 when the island was made a Flora and Fauna Reserve (Taylor 1975). The species was restricted to the few hectares of forest that remained and in 1973 fewer than 30 individuals survived (Taylor 1975) on both Mangere and Little Mangere which should be considered as a single population because commuting has been observed (T. Greene in litt. 1997). Since 1968 the open country Chatham Island red-crowned parakeets C. n. chathamensis have rapidly recolonised the island and hybridised with C. forbesi to such an extent (Taylor 1975) that the purity of the remaining birds is unknown (red-crowned parakeets were recorded on Mangere in 1992; A. Grant per T. Greene in litt. 1997). What appears to be Forbes’ parakeet has been reported from the southern forested area of the main Chatham Island (Greene 1989). Red-crowned parakeets and hybrids have been culled on Mangere since 1976 in an attempt to maintain the genetic integrity of forbesi (Nixon 1994). The 1997 population estimate of the whole population is 100-120, based on fieldwork on Mangere only (M. Bell per T. Greene in litt. 1997), although the degree of genetic introgression, if any, remains uncertain. The taxon may qualify as Critically Endangered (B2c,d,e, 3c,d). Threats: As habitat management is restoring suitable areas for the parakeet, hybridisation remains the biggest single threat facing the species. There were 37 wild caught specimens of C. auriceps (no figures specifically for forbesi) recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, 25 in 1992 and 12 in 1993 (CITES Annual Report database). Action: Clarification of the taxonomic status involves two issues: first, determining which taxonomic status is most appropriate for this species and, second, assessing the degree of introgression of red-crowned parakeet genes into the Forbes’ parakeet gene pool (Triggs and Daugherty 1996). Unravelling these two issues is likely to be difficult. If it is a species, then it is one of the most threatened parrot species in the world. (See Box 4.) Orange-fronted parakeet Cyanoramphus malherbi Charles Daugherty, Terry Greene, John Kearvell and Kerry-Jayne Wilson Conservation status: IUCN: To be considered. CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Reason for taxonomic uncertainty: This form was treated as a species until it was first proposed as a colour morph of C. auriceps in 1974 (Holyoak 1974, see also Taylor et al. 1986). But, a recent protein (allozyme) electrophoresis analysis has led to the suggestion that it should be restored to specific status (Triggs and Daugherty 1996, but see Taylor 1998). Currently the data are not conclusive, but as there does appear to be considerable genetic difference between the Cyanoramphus forms inhabiting Lake Sumner Park, where ‘malherbi’ and C. (a.) auriceps co-occur (and allegedly interbreed), malherbi is thought to be best treated as a distinct species (Triggs and Daugherty 1996). Only one hybrid pair has been reported and the identification is suspect, casting doubt on supposed interbreeding (J. Kearvell per T. Greene in litt. 1997). This conclusion is provisionally accepted here, pending further clarification. Distribution and status: Formerly thought to be scattered throughout most of New Zealand (Harrison 1970), although the two records from the North Island are thought dubious and records from Hen Island in the Hauraki Gulf are probably also erroneous (J. Kearvell per T. Greene in litt. 1997). The South Island is thought to have been the stronghold in the past, but malherbi is now confined to Arthur’s Pass and the Lake Sumner/Lewis Pass area as a recent island-wide survey failed to locate additional populations (J. Kearvell per T. Greene in litt. 1997). It inhabits the fringes of Nothofagus forest and in one area is found breeding only at 600-900m in forest of N. fusca (Taylor 1985), but with a preference for areas bordering stands of N. solandri. In past reported from sea level to subalpine scrublands. There have been only a few sightings since 1966 (Triggs and Daugherty 1996; see also Taylor 1985). Previous assessments of its status have ranged from more common than originally thought (Harrison 1970) to close to extinction (Mills and Williams 1980). The taxon may qualify as Critically Endangered (B2a,b,c,d,e, B3a,b,c,d). Threats: Small population size and range are cause for concern. Hybridisation with yellow-crowned parakeets C. auriceps has been observed at Lake Sumner. Existing captive stocks also show signs of interbreeding with C. auriceps and should, therefore, not be considered for any conservation action in the future (Triggs and Daugherty 1996). There were 37 wild caught specimens of C. auriceps (no figures specifically for forbesi) recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, 25 in 1992 and 12 in 1993 (CITES Annual Report database). Action: Clarification of the taxonomic status is underway at the Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand (C. Daugherty in litt. 1997). (See Box 4.) Accounts for species removed from the Red List Glossy black-cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami Stephen Garnett and Peter Menkhorst Conservation status: IUCN: Lower Risk (formerly Vulnerable: C2a) CITES: Appendix II National protection status: Reason for removal from the list: Although the range in South Australia and possibly Victoria halved in the 19th century and early 20th, this contraction does not appear to be continuing and is not expected to begin again (S. Garnett in litt. 1997). Clearance of feeding habitat for agriculture or residential development in parts of the east coast of Australia (see under Threats below) are not at a rate that would reduce the population by 20% over the next 10 years or three generations (S. Garnett in litt. 1997). The extent of occurrence exceeds 20,000km² and the area of occupancy is greater than 2,000km² (Blakers et al. 1984). The population is probably greater than 10,000 individuals in New South Wales alone. A population estimate greater than 10,000 is also obtained by extrapolating the densities recorded by Pepper (1997) in the fragments of habitat on Kangaroo Island (Pepper 1996) to the area of distribution (Blakers et al. 1984). The population is not expected to decline by 10% or more over the next ten years: the only populations counted regularly appear to be stable or increasing (S. Garnett in litt. 1997). Distribution and status: Eucalypt woodland and forest with casuarinas, predominantly along the coast, in Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria (nominate lathami), and also occurs on Kangaroo Island (subspecies halmaturinus), Australia. A third subspecies, erebus, has been recognised, localised on outcropping ranges and adjacent lowlands in the Dawson-Mackenzie-Isaac basin in east-central coastal Queensland (Schodde et al. 1993). C. lathami is thinly and patchily distributed throughout its range of more than 20,000km². A estimate of c. 100 individuals for subspecies halmaturinus (Collar et al. 1994) was based on an incomplete count. Complete counts in 1995 (180 individuals) and 1996 (188 individuals) suggest the population is stable or may even be increasing (S. Garnett in litt. 1997). Threats: It formerly suffered from habitat loss following European settlement (further loss of habitat may occur as a result of fire or grazing by rabbits), and, although some of the remaining habitat is now conserved in a large number of national parks, the effect of habitat loss on population levels may not yet be fully evident because of the presumed longevity of the species (Garnett 1992). Furthermore, development is taking place along the east coast and much of the range includes production forest in which the density of old trees with suitable nest sites is still declining and much of the remainder is threatened with urban development (P. Menkhorst in litt. 1997). Norfolk Island parakeet Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae cookii Bruce Male and Paul Stevenson Conservation status: IUCN: Critically Endangered (D2). CITES: Appendix I (as C. novaezelandiae). National protection status: An increase in numbers (see below) raises the subspecies above the IUCN Red List threshold for Critically Endangered under the very small populations (<50) criterion (D1), although it still qualifies as critical under the very small range criterion (<100km²). Reason(s) for removal from the list: This parrot is generally considered to be a subspecies of the New Zealand kakariki Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae (e.g. Christidis and Boles 1994, Triggs and Daugherty 1996), rather than as a distinct species Cyanoramphus cookii as treated by Collar et al. (1994). Distribution and status: Endemic to the 35km2 Norfolk Island (to Australia) where it lives in forest and visits nearby orchards. In 1983, the subspecies numbered about 20 individuals (Garnett 1992) and recovery actions were initiated which led to an increase in numbers of more than 60 in the wild and 20 in captivity in 1996. There are about now about 100 individuals (P. Stevenson in litt. 1997). Threats: Has suffered from hunting in the past (including scientific collection) and from habitat destruction, although the main modern threat comes from predation by introduced rats Rattus rattus, competition for nest- sites from introduced crimson rosellas Platycercus elegans (Garnett 1992), and psittacine circovirus disease. This disease was diagnosed in March 1995; the majority of birds tested since then have demonstrated exposure to it (P. Stevenson in litt. 1997). Active management continues in the Norfolk Island National Park and Norfolk Island Botanical Garden and concentrates on rat and cat control, provision of nest hollows, and the establishment of a small captive breeding programme (P. Stevenson in litt. 1997). Scarlet-chested parrot Neophema splendida Lynn Pedler Conservation status: IUCN: Lower Risk (formerly Vulnerable: B2c + 3d) CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Reason(s) for removal from the list: The extent of occurrence exceeds 20,000km² (Blakers et al. 1984) and the area of occupancy exceeds 2,000km² (K. Pedler in litt. 1997). The population is probably greater than 10,000 based on area of occupancy and group sizes recorded, but even if the population is smaller, there is no reason to suspect a decline (K. Pedler in litt. 1997). The population is not known to be fragmented and the subpopulations are capable of dispersing great distances. Distribution and status: Occurs in mallee and acacia shrublands of southern semi-arid inland Australia. Under suitable conditions it apparently breeds rapidly and becomes locally common (K. Pedler in litt. 1997), such as the flock of 240+ recorded in the Great Victoria Desert (Andrew and Palliser 1993), apparently dispersing and declining until the next favourable season (Blakers et al. 1984; K. Pedler in litt. 1997). No population decline has been recorded or is expected. It has only ever been recorded rarely from New South Wales and there is a recent record from Queensland (Maher 1995). Threats: It has been suggested that altered fire regimes and increased availability of water in pastoral lands may be having an adverse effect (Garnett 1992: see Collar et al. 1994). However, most habitat is outside pastoral areas, and the area over which the species occurs is so large that even vast fires would be unlikely to have a detrimental effect (K. Pedler in litt. 1997). In essence, these threats are very unlikely to be operating at a scale that would put the species at risk of extinction. Trapping is now unlikely to be a major problem as the species is kept in large numbers and breeds readily (Garnett 1992). There were 294 wild caught specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, decreasing annually from 120 in 1991 to eight in 1995 (CITES Annual Report database). Chapter 5 ASIA Continental Asia Overview Philip McGowan The distribution of Asia’s parrots falls into two categories: species-poor continental Asia, and the species- rich islands of the Philippine and Indonesian archipelagos. The latter countries are so diverse, and contain such large numbers of species that are (or have recently been) considered threatened and face such acute conservation problems, that they are treated separately below. Continental Asia and Sri Lanka is home to few parrot species with only species belonging to the genera Psittacula and Loriculus occurring between Afghanistan in the west, south China in the north-east, and the Malay Peninsula in the south. These genera have large distributions and link the African parrot fauna to that of the south-east Asian islands. Only three of the 10 (Forshaw 1989) to 13 (Juniper and Parr 1998) species of Loriculus occur in continental Asia and Sri Lanka. As the threatened forms of Loriculus are endemic to Indonesian islands, they are treated in detail in that section. There are 13 or 14 surviving species of Psittacula parakeet (Forshaw 1989, Juniper and Parr 1998), including the species of the Indian Ocean islands, covered in chapter 6 of this Action Plan (e.g. echo parakeet P. eques). Two other Indian Ocean species became extinct by the turn of the century: the Seychelles parakeet P. wardi and Newton’s parakeet P. exsul which was endemic to Rodriguez Island (Forshaw 1989). In contrast, the ring-necked or rose-ringed parakeet P. krameri is arguably the most widespread (naturally and as the result of introductions) parrot in the world. There are few pressing conservation issues facing the parrots of continental Asia because they are typically found in large numbers and appear adaptable to changed landscapes. This is typified by the ring-necked parakeet, which breeds well close to human habitation. However, this should not lead to complacency about their future. Trapping is thought to have led to declines of both Finsch’s parakeet P. finschii and the blossom headed parakeet P. roseata in parts of Thailand (Juniper and Parr 1998) and the increasing intensification of agriculture throughout much of continental Asia may well impact on populations. The only member of this genus considered threatened is the intermediate parakeet P. intermedia of northern India where it is only known from skins and bird markets: no confirmed wild records exist. As indicated in the species account below, a recent thorough evaluation of all available evidence suggests that the ‘species’ is in fact a hybrid. It is retained here on the list of threatened parrots until this work is completed and published. Threatened species of continental Asia Intermediate Parakeet Psittacula intermedia Pamela Rasmussen Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (D1). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: P. intermedia is known from six (Biswas 1959) skins of unknown origin (Ali and Ripley 1987). Also, a small number of live birds, reputed to have come from the plains of Uttar Pradesh, India, appeared in Indian bird markets during the 1980s (Sane et al. 1986). It is very rarely reported in bird markets. No published records of free-flying wild birds are known (Inskipp and Inskipp 1995). Originally described as a distinct species (Rothschild 1895), it has been variously considered a hybrid P. himalayana and P. cyanocephala (Husain 1959, Forshaw 1989) or a good species (Biswas 1959, Walters 1985), but work in progress corroborates the view that it is of hybrid origin (P.C. Rasmussen in litt. 1997). It is retained here until the work in progress is completed. Threats: If a species, nothing is known of its habitat requirements, status and any threats, although it is presumably rare. Still reported that trappers offer the bird for sale infrequently (Inskipp and Inskipp 1995). Action: The nearly completed taxonomic reappraisal of this species should indicate whether it is a distinct species or a hybrid. If it is a distinct species, then survey work to determine its distribution, status and any threats is clearly urgent. Indonesia Overview Paul Jepson (with boxed contributions by Stuart Marsden, Jon Riley, Tim O’Brien, and Philip McGowan) Indonesia, an archipelago of 13,500 islands spanning 5,000 km of ocean and connecting the Oriental and Australasian faunal realms, has an exceptionally diverse psittacine fauna; 76 species occur, of which 30 are endemic to the Republic. Psittacines are prominent components of the avifauna east of Wallace's Line - in the Indonesian bio-regions of Sulawesi, Nusa Tenggara, Maluku and Irian Jaya. Maluku, with 32 species (of which eight are endemic), and Irian Jaya (the Indonesian territory on the island of New Guinea), with 33 species (including three endemics), are particularly diverse regions. Threats At present, most of Indonesia's parrot populations are reasonably healthy, although fifteen species have recently been considered threatened, (four Endangered, eleven Vulnerable: Collar et al. 1994). One of these, the blue-naped parrot Tanygnathus lucionensis, which has a large distribution in the Philippines and which in Indonesia occurs only in the Talaud islands, is now thought to be less at risk and has been removed from the list of threatened birds. Nevertheless, Indonesia has the highest number of threatened psittacines of any country and around 15% of the world total. Indonesia is a rapidly developing nation and landscapes are being fundamentally altered. Indonesia is preparing to feed an extra 35 million people, making a total population of 235 million, by the year 2015. In Sulawesi, Maluku, and Irian Jaya, Indonesia's three most parrot diverse regions, habitats in the lowland and coastal zone habitats areas are being converted to wet-rice cultivation, plantation and timber crops, and shrimp-ponds. In addition, people are being relocated from elsewhere in Indonesia to populate these areas. Such changes will impact any psittacine species with specialist lowland habitat requirements. Furthermore, all forest outside nature reserves, at altitudes below 1000 m, and on slopes of a grade less than 40%, will have been selectively logged by the year 2010. This may be critical for some parrot populations because it involves the removal of large trees, which may reduce nest site availability and hence the reproductive potential of parrots. As natural habitats decline or become degraded, additional pressures associated with increased human population and agricultural intensification may become more significant. Such pressures include excessive use of pesticides, the popular pastimes of shooting birds with air-rifles, capture of birds for the domestic and international trade, and, in east Indonesia, buying parrots as souvenirs or pets. In Java, Indonesia's most densely populated and developed island, the red-breasted parakeet (=moustached parakeet) Psittacula alexandri and blue-crowned hanging-parrot Loriculus galgalus are now rare birds. With the increasing human population and development in east Indonesia, other species may soon follow unless preventative actions are started now. Conservation solutions Until recently, the knowledge base for setting parrot conservation priorities in Indonesia was derived from the largely anecdotal, qualitative, and sometimes prejudiced reports of short-term visitors. Thus, some threat assessments have underestimated the area of available habitat and over-stated the impact of trade in wild caught birds. Recently, systematic surveys have clarified the conservation status of some of Indonesia’s parrots that were thought to be most threatened. As a result, the quality of information available for determining the risk of extinction facing parrot species is quite variable, ranging from detailed data, in a few cases, to, more commonly, inferences drawn from patchy knowledge of habitat and distribution. Limited knowledge of species’ status and the pressures that they face are often cited as major obstacles to conservation. In Indonesia where there are many endemic species distributed across many islands covering a huge area, there is a need to improve the capacity to undertake conservation-orientated psittacine studies (see Box 8). Fieldwork by the Directorate-General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHPA)/BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme has confirmed that yellow-crested cockatoo Cacatua sulphurea populations have collapsed (see Box 9) and has also failed to locate the blue-fronted lorikeet Charmosyna toxopei, for which no confirmed reports exist since its discovery in 1927 (see Box 10). However, other status assessments by PHPA/BirdLife in Maluku have revealed that white cockatoo Cacatua alba, Tanimbar corella, and the chattering Lorius garrulus, blue-streaked Eos reticulata, and violet-necked Eos squamata lories, all once believed to be threatened by trade, are still common birds within their limited ranges. A recent York University, UK/Universitas Sam Ratulangi expedition has found that Sangihe hanging-parrot Loriculus catamene is widespread in plantations and agricultural gardens, as well as in natural forest (University of York 1995). Lambert (1997) estimated that the red-and-blue lory population on Talaud numbers several thousand rather than just 500 as reported in the early 1990's. The possibility that the hanging parrot population may be dependent on recruitment from natural forest and that the lory may be declining rapidly requires clarification (see Box 11). In the case of other species that are thought to be at risk, notably black-lored parrot Tanygnathus gramineus (see Box 10), purple-naped lory Lorius domicella (see Box 12), Wallaces' hanging-parrot Loriculus flosculus, Moluccan cockatoo (see Box 12), Salvadori's fig-parrot Psittaculirostris salvadorii, and Pesquet's parrot Psittrichas fulgidus, the information cited to support "threatened" status is inferential and based on limited field data. Thorough status assessments of these species are needed. Because of Indonesia's size there will always be a need to target scarce conservation resources to the richest parrot areas, and the conservation of endemic island species is likely to remain a key issue. For this reason a revision of the taxonomic status of a number of species complexes is highly desirable (see Box 13). Two examples illustrate why. The rainbow lorikeet Trichoglossus haematodus superspecies extends from Lombok east to New Guinea and New Caledonia, and to northern and eastern Australia, including Tasmania, and has 21 recognised taxa (Forshaw 1989). The two taxa occurring in Australia are now classed as separate species, but the 14 taxa occurring in Indonesia are considered one species. Whilst the species group is widespread and, in places, abundant, if any taxa is sufficiently distinct (e.g. T. h. weberi on Flores) to merit species status then they may require attention. The Tanimbar corella illustrates the converse problem. It has been considered as a subspecies of the little corella C. sanguinea and split purely for convenience (see Forshaw 1989). Because it was classed as an endemic island species, international attention focused on the levels of off-take for the wild bird trade and it was assumed to be endangered. This led to a damaging argument over the need for CITES I listing, between the Indonesian government, trade and animal welfare NGOs, and BirdLife International, which would probably have never happened if goffini had been treated as a subspecies with the super-abundant sanguinea, the favoured historical approach. Subsequent surveys have shown that goffini, like sanguinea, is an agricultural pest, although this characteristic is unlikely to guarantee its survival. Other super-species and species groups where taxonomic reviews are needed to help guide conservation planning are the yellow and sulphur crested cockatoos, eclectus parrot, black-capped lory Lorius lory, and Amboina king parrot Alisterus amboinensis. Nine parrot species are protected in Indonesia, including the sulphur-crested cockatoo Cacatua galerita and the eclectus parrot Eclectus roratus, which are not considered to be globally threatened. The Moluccan cockatoo Cacatua moluccensis, Tanimbar corella (=Goffin’s cockatoo) Cacatua goffini, and red-and-blue lory Eos histrio are listed on CITES Appendix I, and international trade (but not domestic trade) is prohibited except under strict circumstances. The remainder of Indonesia’s parrots are included on Appendix II of CITES and the export of wild-caught parrots is subject to quotas. Interventions to control or ban the capture and trade of parrots should be carefully evaluated before they are implemented. For example, recent studies by social anthropologists of forest peoples in Seram and Halmahera showed that parrot catching accounts for 25-30% of their cash income (S. Badcock in litt. 1997) Among the Halafara people of the Manusela valley, Seram, young men catch and sell parrots to raise their bride price (S. Badcock in litt. 1997). Intervention without careful preparation runs the risk of alienating non- government agencies which are advocating the rights of traditional people and, in extreme cases, unwittingly initiating new and unforeseen problems. A good example of the latter is the case of the Tanimbar corella. When the trade was open, farmers gained compensation for crop damage by selling corellas snared on their maize crop. Now that there is no market, they have started burning tyres to keep the flocks away; increasing the risk of wildfires in Tanimbar's natural vegetation of dry monsoon forests (D. Pursima verbally 1997). The majority of Indonesia’s parrots are forest species and Indonesia's natural forest covers 109 million ha, of which 30.3 million ha is classed as protection forest and 16.7 million ha is contained within nature reserves. Furthermore, several major reserves have been established in key centres of psittacine diversity, notably the 2.5 million ha Lorentz National Park in Irian Jaya, the 229,000 ha Lore Lindu National Park in Sulawesi, and the 189,000 ha Manusela National Park in Maluku. Continued work to ensure that all species are adequately represented in protected areas is necessary. Conservation measures must bear in mind that Indonesia has a great cultural diversity and the values and perceptions of many differ from those of western conservationists. For example, many rural people in Indonesia are unaware that birds have restricted distributions and have difficulty with the concept of extinction; as a result they may rationalise population declines in terms of birds moving into the hills (which they may do if lowland forest is lost) or getting "cleverer" and therefore harder to catch. Furthermore, utilising and trading natural resources is fundamental to Indonesian culture and economy. Initiatives focusing on threatened species, such as those outlined in this Action Plan, are important. In the longer term, however, there is a need to widen the scope from single-species, crisis-driven interventions to broad-based, sustained efforts to create the conditions for psittacine assemblages to flourish in the human dominated landscape mosaics of the future. Such a reassessment of parrot conservation priorities in Indonesia will be a challenging task and its formulation will require deeper understandings of areas such as psittacine taxonomy and ecology, cultural perceptions towards parrots, habitat status, development planning, forestry and agricultural policy, and institutional capacities. The current portfolio of conservation and development projects in Indonesia is expanding the knowledge base of the latter, general subject areas, but progress in areas specific to parrots will require the initiation of targeted projects. Status assessments, and taxonomic and social anthropological studies will not in themselves save parrots in Indonesia. The real challenge for the future is translating knowledge into interventions with lasting impact. Promising areas include public awareness, local-level spatial planning, working with the forestry sector and (for threatened species) inter-agency recovery plans. In each of these areas there are exciting opportunities to build parrot conservation into on-going activities. For example, the WWF-Indonesia Programme distributes a "radio bulletin" which syndicates environmental news stories to local-language radio stations; WWF, BirdLife and Conservation International are all developing projects to work with local planning agencies on spatial planning; the eco-labelling of tropical hardwood initiative has opened avenues to explore the potential of working with forestry concessionaires on ways to reduce the impact of logging on parrot populations; and PHPA/BirdLife's yellow-crested cockatoo recovery plan provides an exciting model of how inter-agency support and government resources can be mobilised for the protection of an endangered parrot species. It may be possible to reduce the impact of logging which removes nest trees by providing artificial nest sites. There are a number of professional and image-conscious logging companies in Indonesia that might be interested in exploring restoration approaches. Sadly, human capacity or resources do not match opportunities. It may be that fewer more than 10 people in Indonesia will look at this Action Plan. In general, the Indonesian conservation community views parrots either as a non-issue or a specialist and thankless conservation activity that runs the risk of embroiling an agency in politics. Opportunities for outside agencies and individuals to make a useful contribution in Indonesia without a strong local partner are limited. Regulations governing foreign agencies and individuals wishing to conduct surveys, research or other conservation activities are complex. A collaborative conservation project (other than short inputs such as training or an awareness poster) with PHPA normally requires a formal agreement approved by the Secretariat to the Cabinet of the republic of Indonesia which will involve a major investment over two years to conclude. For parrot conservation to move forward in Indonesia there is a real need for different agencies and interest groups to work together, to pool resources and opportunities, and to recognise that no one agency can succeed with anything meaningful alone. Box 8: Priority projects in Indonesia Provision of training materials and courses in parrot conservation in Indonesia Paul Jepson and Philip McGowan Aim: To build local expertise within Indonesia to undertake extensive surveys and intensive research so that the status of parrot populations can be determined reliably and the threats facing them understood. Justification: Indonesia is home to 76 species of parrot (Andrew 1992), of which 14 are considered threatened with extinction. This comprises some 15% of the world's threatened parrots and indicates the importance of conservation efforts in this country during the next five years. A major obstacle to conservation in many countries is understanding whether species are at risk and if so what are the limiting factors. This is especially so in Indonesia, which is such a large country made up of many islands which are home to endemic species and subspecies. Consequently, there are many species that are believed threatened that have small ranges and are widely separated from each other. This means that the expertise that exists within the country is not able to address the conservation-orientated research needs of these species. Therefore, there is a great need to build the local capacity for undertaking work that will help our understanding of the plight facing Indonesia's parrots and what might be done to ensure their survival. Project description: Priority areas and personnel for a long-term training initiative should be determined in collaboration with the BirdLife-Indonesia Programme, the Directorate-General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHPA) and the Indonesian Institute of Science (LIPI). Personnel from universities who are attached to Environmental Study Centres (PSL), PHPA field offices (SSKSDA) and National Parks should be offered the chance of field training, whilst training materials could be distributed much more widely to national level PHPA and LIPI staff together with universities and non-governmental organisations. Establishing a parrot conservation capacity within a university might prove the most effective way of developing skills within Indonesia. Personnel thus identified will require resources to allow them to understand parrot status assessments. These resources should include materials such as a parrot identification key (for all species, not just threatened ones), pictures and tapes, and a manual of field techniques. Provision of a set of standard packs could be supplemented by items specific to some areas and/or species. The provision of stand alone training packs should be supported by local training courses during which general conservation issues are discussed. Within this context the plight of parrots can be raised and then training given in the techniques that can be used in understanding the problems in particular places. For example, a survey and inventory workshop might draw on staff from LIPI, BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme and local NGO conservation biologists. This initiative should be coordinated by a training officer whose responsibility it would be to bring together the materials for the standard pack, consider the necessity for additional material for particular areas and to draw up and begin the training workshops. A period of one year would be sufficient to start the programme and thereafter it could coordinated by BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme, PHPA and LIPI. Contact: BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme Box 9: Priority projects in Indonesia Assessment of the ecological requirements and populations dynamics of the yellow-crested cockatoo Cacatua sulphurea and other parrots in the Lesser Sundas and Sulawesi. Stuart Marsden Aims: i) To determine the effects of habitat alteration and direct harvesting on the population size and structure, and the nesting ecology of the yellow-crested cockatoo; (ii) to use available data to identify strategies to ensure the long-term viability of cockatoo and other parrot populations in Wallacea. (iii) to conduct experiments on the use of artificial nest boxes for the yellow-crested cockatoo. Justification: The yellow-crested cockatoo Cacatua sulphurea has suffered large declines throughout much of its natural range (see species account) and other parrots of the sub-region, such as eclectus parrot Eclectus roratus and great-billed parrot Tanygnathus megalorynchos have also shown dramatic recent declines (Jones et al. 1995). The causes of these declines are not properly understood, but populations have no doubt been seriously affected by habitat alteration and, in most cases (e.g. C. sulphurea and E. roratus) by direct harvesting of the birds themselves. Following recommendations made by the CITES Animals Committee as a result of its review of significant trade in Appendix II listed animal species, Indonesia has instituted an export moratorium pending surveys. While very little detailed ecological work has been carried out on any of these species, studies of all three species on Sumba have shown that all occurred at higher densities in primary forest than in disturbed forest (Marsden 1995); in all cases densities in non-forested areas were extremely low. Effective strategies are to be developed for the long-term conservation of yellow-crested cockatoo and other species of parrot require a much greater understanding of the factors that naturally affect recruitment and mortality. In addition, it is necessary to understand more fully the impacts of habitat alteration on population dynamics (particularly in relation to loss of critical food sources and nesting trees), and the implications of different levels of harvesting. Almost nothing is known of these critical factors in relation to any Indonesian parrot. The population of the cockatoo is now at such a critically low level throughout its range that there is a need for innovative conservation strategies, such as the provision of nest boxes. If nest sites are limiting population size, provision of acceptable boxes should eliminate this limiting factor. Project description: Work would be focused on the yellow-crested cockatoo, but data should also be collected on sympatric species such as great-billed and eclectus parrots, and would concentrate on four study areas (on Sumba, Sumbawa [Moyo], Komodo and Sulawesi). Preliminary data on population density, habitat associations and nesting ecology of Sumba’s parrots are already available from previous studies (e.g. Marsden 1995, Marsden and Jones 1997) and should be built upon. Komodo, with high cockatoo density (see species accounts), and the areas on Sumbawa where cockatoos still occur, provide a suitable contrast to Sumba’s low density. Comparatively little is known of the population status of cockatoos or other parrots on Sulawesi. Baseline data would be collected at all sites, including accurate assessments of population densities of all parrot species (reassessed, in some cases), within different habitat types (following Jones et al. 1995; Marsden 1999). The densities of active nest sites should be similarly assessed for cockatoos and other selected species, and their abundance determined in relation to patterns of human habitat alteration (though not necessarily on all islands mentioned above). These data will allow an assessment of current population levels for the selected species, as well as an indication of the proportion of non-breeders in each population. In each area, a large sample of active nests should then be monitored to determine their productivity per annum (eggs laid, young fledged). Characteristics of the nest site and variation in productivity should be related to habitat characteristics and other environmental factors and patterns of human nest predation. Data on population densities and structure in different habitats and nest availability and productivity could be compared with those data available for related species (e.g. galah C. roseicapilla: Rowley 1983; Carnaby’s cockatoo Calyptorhynchus funereus latirostris: (Saunders 1982, 1986); and three cockatoo species: Smith and Saunders 1986). Combined with information on bird capture patterns and harvest rates, these data can be used to develop a simple general population model, sensitive to elements both of loss of nesting trees and direct illegal harvest. It is anticipated that this model could be used to predict likely changes in population size of cockatoos in relation to different levels of habitat loss and harvesting. The model may also be used, with limited field data, for other populations of ecologically similar parrots in Indonesia: in this instance it may help to identify those taxa at risk and help prevent unsustainable harvest from populations by taking account of current habitat loss rates. Using nest site data collected during the initial course of fieldwork, artificial nest boxes should be designed and tested in appropriate localities in the field. Contact: S. Marsden, BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme The project is designed to fit into the framework of the Yellow-crested cockatoo Cacatua sulphurea Recovery Plan that is being developed by PHPA/BirdLife International Box 10: Priority projects in Indonesia Search for the blue-fronted lorikeet and black-lored parrot on Buru, Maluku Province, Indonesia Philip McGowan and Stuart Marsden Aim: To find one or more populations of the blue-fronted lorikeet and black-lored parrot and propose recommendations for the long-term survival of these species. Justification: The blue-fronted lorikeet Charmosyna toxopei and the black-lored parrot Tanygnathus gramineus are endemic to Buru, an island of less than 2500 square kilometres to the east of Sulawesi in central Maluku Province, Indonesia. The only certain records of the former species are seven specimens collected by Toxopeus using bird lime and described by Siebers (1930). The specimens were caught to the west of Lake Rana, in the centre of the island and remain the only definitive records despite intensive searches by the BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme in 1995 (Gunung Kelapat Mada proposed protected area, Lake Rana and Teluk Bay) and 1996 (central north-east Buru and in the mangroves of Kayeli Bay). The only trace of this species was claims by two hunters who reported catching it for food to the north- west of Lake Rana. Reports by Smiet's (1985) that the species was common in Teluk Bara in 1980 are thought questionable (e.g. Forshaw 1989) and were not confirmed in either 1989 or 1995, although it may have been encountered above Teluk Bara in 1989 (Marsden et al. 1997). There is only one recent record of the black-lored parrot (Smiet 1985) and it was not found during the 1989 survey, but calls which may be this species were heard in western Buru in 1995 (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997). Project description: There is an urgent need to clarify the status of both species. The lack of records for these species might suggest that they occur at very low densities, are nomadic or have very specific habitat requirements. In the case of the black-lored parrot, the fact that it is nocturnal is probably part of the reason for the lack of confirmed records. Consequently, any survey should call on as much precise information as possible relating to locality, altitude, state of the habitat, time of year and time of day when planning searches. For example, the search for the lorikeet might concentrate north-west of Lake Rana and in Teluk Bara, from where the only recent reports come from. Searches should be made at the same time of year as the hunters claim to have caught birds and any additional information should be sought that might reveal aspects of behaviour or ecology that make the birds difficult to detect. Results from as detailed a status assessment as is possible may then be used to propose the next stage in conservation planning for this species and its habitat. For the black-lored parrot, searches might concentrate in the Kelapat Mada Mountains at dusk. Contact: BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme, Stuart Marsden. Box 11: Priority projects in Indonesia A strategy for the conservation of the red-and-blue lory Eos histrio and the Sangihe hanging parrot Loriculus catamene in the Talaud Islands, Indonesia Jon Riley Aim: To ensure the survival of the red-and-blue lory and the Sangihe hanging parrot in the Talaud Islands by: increasing protection and reducing trapping levels of the red-and-blue lory on Karakelong and raising public awareness of its plight; assessing the status of both species on Sangihe. Justification: The Endangered red-and-blue lory was formerly found in great abundance in the Talaud Islands as large flocks could regularly be seen moving between islands (Meyer and Wigglesworth 1898). It is now thought extinct from parts of its former range and its stronghold is Karakelong, largest of the Talaud Islands (Riley 1995, Lambert 1997), the only island in the Talaud group where trapping takes place. Trapping levels are very high, with at least several hundred birds trapped in a year (Lambert 1997) and around 1,200 birds are estimated to have been shipped from the island in 1996 (Wardhill and Riley 1997). This level of trapping is likely to have played an important role in the decline of the species and is probably the most immediate threat to its future. The species was included in CITES Appendix I in 1995. Other potential factors are habitat loss, the use of the insecticide Azodrin and the potential for escaped captive birds to transmit diseases to wild birds. Habitat loss is thought to be responsible for the species’ disappearance from Salibau and Kabaruan and some areas are scheduled for logging on Karakelong. The insecticide Azodrin is applied to coconut trees and leaves the coconuts unfit for human consumption for three months after application. Lories drink nectar from flowers in contaminated trees and it is not known whether the insecticide has any effect. The Sangihe hanging-parrot is widespread at low densities on Sangihe, to which it is endemic, and has been recorded in small groups from a number of localities in different habitats. Almost all of Sangihe’s original vegetation has been replaced by mixed crop plantations and secondary scrub although small remnant patches of forest survive on Mt. Sahengbalira in southern Sangihe and on Mt. Awu in the north. It is unlikely that Sangihe will prove important for the red-and-blue lory, as fewer than 50 birds are thought to survive there (Riley 1995, Lambert 1997). Project description: A conservation strategy for the red-and-blue lory should address the three threats outlined above through: i) Increasing protection: protection is required at two levels. First is species protection that should involve including the species on the Indonesian list of protected species and strict enforcement of existing legislation; detailed recommendations are given in Lambert (1997). Second is the clarification and possible revision of the status of protected areas on Karakelong. Although the population on the island is centred on a Hunting Reserve, logging concessions have apparently been issued for part of this site. Whilst this is being clarified, it may be considered appropriate to revise the status of this reserve to a designation more compatible with the conservation requirements of this species. ii) Raising public awareness: legislation designed to reduce trapping and improve habitat protection will require partnership with district chiefs, village heads and local communities. Workshops and educational material might concentrate on the need to conserve threatened parrots and forest resources, and increasing awareness of existing protected areas. For the lory specifically, its probable role as a controller of agricultural pests and in pollinating crop plants should be emphasised. iii) Improving knowledge: wherever possible, additional information should be sought, both for monitoring purposes and to provide an understanding of the species’ ecological requirements and the impacts of potential threats. Repeat field surveys should be undertaken for comparison with Lambert (1997) after an appropriate time period and the numbers of birds recorded in trade should also be monitored. Two potential threats should be investigated: the possible impact of the insecticide Azodrin and whether escaped birds are transmitting diseases to wild birds. A status assessment of both species on Sangihe is required, especially the hanging-parrot. This should involve determining the distribution of the species across the island and quantifying habitat use, to be followed by ecological assessments designed to understand factors currently affecting population size and identifying threats. For the hanging-parrot, this should include clarification of whether the species depends on forest patches because although it appears to be faring well in Sangihe’s plantations (it feeds from coconut inflorescences), it is not known whether all of its requirements are met by this artificial habitat. Key factors are an assessment of its breeding success, roosting requirements and determining whether any agricultural practices (e.g. the insecticide Azodrin) are having a negative impact. These data will provide for recommendations concerning the appropriateness of habitat protection (including promoting the establishment of a protected area near Mt. Sahengbalira) and agricultural practices. Contact: Jon Riley, BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme Action Sampiri, a year long conservation project in the Talaud and Sangihe Islands, begun in 1998. Box 12: Priority projects in Indonesia 5 Assessment of the conservation status and needs of the Moluccan cockatoo and purple-naped lory on Seram, Indonesia Philip McGowan, Tim O’Brien and Paul Jepson Aim: To assess the status of the Moluccan cockatoo and purple-naped lory on Seram and propose a strategy for their conservation. Justification: The Moluccan cockatoo Cacatua moluccensis is endemic to Seram and the smaller islands of Saparua, Hariku and Ambon in Maluku Province and the purple-naped lory Lorius domicella occurs only on Seram and Ambon. Most of Seram's forests, which are still extensive, are now under timber concessions and the island's Regional Development priority status means that forests over good soil may be converted to wet rice cultivation and other crops. At present far too little is known of either species to be sure that they can withstand such changes. What little information does exist on habitat use is largely anecdotal in nature, although they are unable to exist in wet rice cultivation. Both species are forest inhabitants. The cockatoo is not thought to occur above 700m and does not tolerate selectively logged forest (Marsden 1998), although it may tolerate traditional forest/garden mosaics. Crucially, however, there are no data on breeding success in either natural or human-modified habitats and so it is not known if they will survive in these altered habitats in the long-term. The lory is considered uncommon in hill forest between about 400 and 900 m. Both species are traded and at least one species plays a significant part in the culture and economy of the inhabitants of Manusela National Park. For both species, there is a clear lack of information upon which to base recommendations that will ensure their survival in concert with regional development. Project description: The first step is the assessment of the status of both species on Seram. Ideally this should attempt to determine relative abundance by habitat. In addition, information on the size and distribution of habitat blocks, and on trapping and timber extraction would be applicable to Regional Development Projects. These data would permit consideration of the needs of these species in appropriate management strategies, such as advocation of reserve boundaries, land-use zoning, and possible new provincial forestry and agriculture policies. Furthermore, it will provide an adequate baseline for monitoring and a determination of the degree to which trade affects the status of the species. In response to the threat from international trade, Cacatua moluccensis was included in CITES Appendix I in 1990. During the status assessment, it should be determined whether it is feasible to assess the breeding success of both species in different habitats. This is necessary before the species' presence in man-modified habitats can be interpreted as an indicator that it will survive in these habitats in the long-term. Contacts: Wildlife Conservation Society-Indonesia Programme (lead agency on a planned survey), BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme, Stuart Marsden Box 13: Priority projects in Indonesia Clarification of parrot taxonomy in Indonesia Paul Jepson and Philip McGowan Aim: To clarify areas of uncertainty in the taxonomy of Indonesia's parrots so that threatened taxa that are distinct are not overlooked. Justification: Knowledge of Indonesia's parrot fauna is very poor indeed compared with some other areas of the world. Many taxa have been recorded few times and much of their taxonomy is based on few specimens from an unevenly distributed sample of sites. Whilst the standard taxonomy seems adequate for many species and their subspecies, it is apparent that in some cases the existing nomenclature fails to reflect the variation in the 'species' across its range. It is typically the degree of variation in plumage that has led to questions of taxonomic validity. Understanding the taxonomy of these complexes is important because scarce resources for conservation are more likely to be targeted towards species than subspecies. Therefore, it is crucial to understand whether taxa described as species accurately reflect genetic variation. There are several cases worthy of investigation among Indonesia's parrots, but the priorities are perhaps the rainbow lory Trichoglossus haematodius and the yellow or lesser sulphur-crested cockatoo Cacatua sulphurea. The former is distributed from Bali eastwards through Indonesia and on to New Caledonia and the Loyalty Islands and southwards to northern and eastern Australia. It has been assigned to 21 subspecies (Forshaw 1989), but the distinctness of the forms that inhabit the Indonesian islands from Bali to Biak in particular require clarification. The key issue within the subspecies of the lesser sulphur-crested cockatoo is whether C. s. citrinocristata from Sumba is sufficiently distinct to be considered a species. Other issues that require resolution include relationships within the pygmy parrots Micropsitta, fig parrots Cyclopsitta (=Opopsitta), Desmarest's fig-parrot Psittaculirostris desmaresti, blue-rumped parrot Psittinus cyanurus, painted parrot Psittacella picta, red-cheeked and singing parrot Geoffroyus geoffroyus and G. heteroclitus, golden-mantled racquet-tail, Prioniturus platurus, Amboina king parrot Alisterus amboinensis, and the eclectus parrot Eclectus roratus. Project description: Comparisons of the base pair sequences in the rapidly evolving parts of the mitochondrial DNA provide an objective way of comparing degrees of genetic difference between populations within the same species, by reference to another recognised species that is closely related (i.e. the control or outgroup). Suitable outgroups for the rainbow lory forms might be T. h. moluccanus from Tasmania and the ornate lory T. ornatus from Sulawesi. With the lesser sulphur-crested cockatoo, the monotypic Salmon-crested Cacatua moluccensis or white cockatoo C. alba seem appropriate. Ideally, blood or other fresh tissue samples from many individuals in each group are required to provide a sufficient sample from their populations for these DNA tests. To achieve this in these cases, it will probably also be necessary to amplify minute and degraded DNA samples from moulted feather shafts collected in the wild, and from captive birds (if they are known to be pure and not hybridised). Contact: Museum Zoologi Bogor, LIPI Threatened species of Indonesia Table 3: A list of Indonesian parrot species that are considered threatened using IUCN Red List criteria. Also included is one species removed from the Red List. Species are listed in alphabetic order by their scientific name, together with their distribution and threat status. The criteria under which each species qualifies are given in the appropriate species account. Where two English names are given, the first is that widely used in Australia and the second, in parentheses, is the name used in Birds to watch 2 (Collar et al. 1994). *denotes changes from Birds to watch 2 (and, therefore, the 1996 IUCN Red List), which have been agreed to by BirdLife International who maintain the IUCN list of threatened birds. English name Scientific name Distribution Threat category White cockatoo Cacatua alba North Moluccas Vulnerable Moluccan cockatoo (Salmon-crested cockatoo) Cacatua moluccensis Seram and satellite islands, Moluccas Vulnerable Yellow-crested cockatoo Cacatua sulphurea Lesser Sundas, Sulawesi and Masalembu Islands Endangered Blue-fronted lorikeet Charmosyna toxopei Buru Vulnerable Black-winged lory Eos cyanogenia Islands in Geelvink Bay, Irian Jaya Vulnerable Red-and-blue lory Eos histrio Miangas, Talaud and Sangihe Islands Endangered Sangihe hanging-parrot Loriculus catamene Sangihe Island Endangered Wallace’s hanging-parrot Loriculus flosculus Flores Vulnerable Purple-naped lory Lorius domicella Seram and Ambon, Moluccas Vulnerable Chattering lory Lorius garrulus North Moluccas Vulnerable Salvadori’s fig-parrot Psittaculirostris salvadorii Northern Irian Jaya Vulnerable Iris lorikeet Psitteuteles iris Timor and Wetar Vulnerable Pesquet’s parrot Psittrichas fulgidus New Guinea Vulnerable Black-lored parrot Tanygnathus gramineus Buru Vulnerable Red List removal Blue-naped parrot* Tanygnathus lucionensis Philippines, Talaud islands in Indonesia, and islands off Sabah, Malaysia Lower Risk Species accounts White cockatoo Cacatua alba BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (A2c,d). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to Halmahera, Bacan, Kasiruta, and Mandiole in the north Moluccas, Indonesia (specimens from Bisa and Obi seem most likely to derive from captive birds, or a feral population on Bisa, now extinct; Lambert 1994a), where it is found in primary and logged forest visiting tall trees within recently cleared areas, in the lowlands to 600m. It is apparently absent from lowland forest areas, with few records from forest over nutrient deficient soil near Foli (Lambert 1994a), and no records from Gunung Gamkonorna or in forest over super-alkaline soils inland from Buli (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997). Survey work carried out in 1991 and 1992 resulted in a population estimate of 49,765-212,430 birds (Lambert 1993a). It has been suggested that the proposed Lalobata protected area on Halmahera may contain as many as 28,500-42,900 individuals (MacKinnon et al. 1995), although they did not survey lowland forest on rich volcanic soil which reportedly contains the highest densities (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997). Threats: It is believed that the levels of legal and illegal trade in this species in the early 1990s (a minimum of 5,120-7,500 are estimated to have been captured in 1991) were not sustainable, particularly when combined with current levels of habitat loss and degradation (Lambert 1993a) . There were 17,362 wild caught specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995; 6,855 in 1991, 5,766 in 1992, 3,563 in 1993, 995 in 1994 and 183 in 1995 (CITES Annual Report database). Following an export moratorium recommended by the CITES Animals Committee as a result of their review of significant trade in Appendix II listed species, PHPA revised its quota to the level recommended by Lambert (1993a: see Collar et al. 1994). The export quota for 1997 was set at 720 (CITES Notification to the Parties No. 980, June 1997) and reduced to 380 for 1998 (CITES Notification to the Parties No. 1998/07). Action: The reduction of the CITES quota should help reduce the number of wild white cockatoos in international trade, but ways of reducing all exploitation (i.e. domestic trade as well) should be found. A clear priority is improved law enforcement, with all responsibility for quotas being centralised at the Department of Forestry in Ambon (Lambert 1993c). Additional approaches might include provision of incentives for not overexploiting cockatoo populations. This might be achieved through the introduction of cockatoo concessions in which particular areas would be allocated for cockatoo collection each year. Such an approach should allow better monitoring and would clearly involve considerable public awareness input if it were to succeed (Lambert 1993c). Moluccan cockatoo Cacatua moluccensis (Salmon-crested cockatoo in Collar et al. 1994. Name changed here to conform to Indonesian usage.) BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme and Frank Lambert Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (A1c,d; A2c,d; B1+2c,e). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Distribution and status: Was endemic to Seram and its satellite islands (Saparua, Haruku and Ambon), in the Moluccas, Indonesia (White and Bruce 1986), but apparent extinctions on Saparua and Haruku and the persistence of only a small populations in north-east Ambon (see Poulsen and Jepson 1996) leaves it almost restricted to Seram (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997). It is found in lowland forest to 1,000m. Surveys in central and north-east Seram, including the Manusela National Park, in 1989 found that it occurs at highest densities in primary (9.1 ? 6.3per km²) and disturbed primary forest (9.8 ? 7.7 per km²), rather than in secondary forest (6.4 ? 6.2 per km²) and much lower in recently logged forest (1.9 ? 1.8 per km²) (Marsden 1992), suggesting that large-scale logging could considerably reduce its total population (Collar et al. 1994). Threats: It is not clear whether the above figures reflect its specialised habitat requirements or the pattern and volume of bird capture: evidence that trade levels in this species were not sustainable and that its population was declining led to a complete ban on trade being imposed by CITES in 1989 (Marsden 1992; see Inskipp et al. 1988, Bowler and Taylor 1989) and inclusion in Appendix I in 1992, and to the species being given protected status in Indonesia (Collar et al 1994). Illegal trade could, however, still be a threat (Collar et al 1994) and does still occur (F. Lambert in litt. 1997). There were 235 wild caught specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of 131 in 1992 (CITES Annual Report database). These refer mainly to movement of pre-CITES held birds and pets (the species was included in CITES Appendix I in 1990). Action: The status of the species on Seram should be clarified and relative abundance in each habitat type determined. In addition, information on the size of and distribution of habitat blocks, and on trapping and timber extraction should be collected. Once such data have been collected, future action should be considered. This data will also provide an adequate baseline for monitoring and a determination of the degree to which trade affects the status of the species. BirdLife/Wildlife Conservation Society project is addressing these needs. (See Box 12.) Yellow-crested cockatoo Cacatua sulphurea BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (A1c,d; A2c,d). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to Indonesia (and introduced to Singapore and Hong Kong), where it occurs virtually throughout the Lesser Sundas, on Sulawesi and its satellite islands, and off Nusa Penida (off Bali) and the Masalembu islands (in the Java Sea). It is found in forested habitat in the lowlands to 500m on Sulawesi and to 800m, sometimes 1,200m, in the Lesser Sundas (White and Bruce 1986, MacKinnon and Phillips 1993, Collar et al. 1994). It was formerly locally common throughout much of its range, but numbers have declined. It is extinct on Lombok (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997) and thought to be potentially beyond recovery on Sulawesi (Andrew and Holmes 1990, Collar et al. 1994). There is evidence of substantial population declines in South Sulawesi (Cahyadin et al. 1994a) and North Sulawesi (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997). It survives, but is rare, on Flores (Dutson 1995). In the Masalembo Islands in the Java Sea, only 8-10 of the endemic subspecies abbotti were located in 1993 and 1994 (Cahyadin et al. 1994b) and only three breeding pairs now remain (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997). On Nusa Penida (where it may be irruptive) it was last recorded in 1986 (see Collar et al. 1994). In the Lesser Sundas, it was thought very threatened on Sumba (Collar et al. 1994), although this island might constitute one of its remaining strongholds, along with Komodo and Sumbawa (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997). However, the paucity of records from the latter in July-September 1993 led to concerns about its survival on the island (Butchart et al. 1996). It was still common in the Komodo National Park in 1993 (Butchart et al. 1996; see also Collar et al. 1994), and on Sumba the endemic subspecies citrinocristata was estimated to number 2,376 birds in 1992 (Jones et al. 1995). Intensive studies on Sumba indicate that the species select very large Datiscaceae trees for nesting and that there is a significant positive correlation between nest hole availability and cockatoo abundance (Marsden and Jones 1997). Threats: The reason for the continuing decline is believed to be a combination of habitat destruction and the unsustainable levels of trapping for the bird trade (see Collar et al. 1994). Cockatoo nests seem to be safe from trappers if they are sufficiently high and the lack of such trees may have played an important role in the species’ decline (Marsden and Jones 1997). PHPA and BirdLife-IP have an active conservation programme for the species (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997). There were 13,901 wild caught specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995: 5,880 in 1991, 4,668 in 1992, 2,409 in 1993, 461 in 1994 and 483 in 1995 (CITES Annual Report database). In March 1993, as part of the CITES Significant Trade Proccess, the CITES Standing Committee recommended countries to suspend imports from Indonesia, pending field surveys to assess the status of the species ( CITES Notification to the Parties No. 737). Action: The effects of habitat alteration and direct harvesting on the population size, structure and nesting ecology are required. Baseline data are required from selected sites. These data should include accurate assessments of population and active nest densities in each habitat type and in relation to habitat alteration. This should allow an estimate of current population level, proportion of non-breeding birds, and (if some nests are monitored) productivity. Assessment of nest site characteristics should aid the design of an experiment to determine the use of artificial nest boxes. The data collected from the study should be used to determine strategies for the long-term viability of cockatoo. Some of these initiatives are incorporated in the PHPA/BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme Yellow-crested cockatoo Cacatua sulphurea Recovery Plan. (See Box 9.) Black-winged lory Eos cyanogenia BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (A1c,d; B1+2c; C1). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Known from Biak-Supiori, Numfor, Manim, and Meos Num islands in Geelvink Bay, Irian Jaya, Indonesia (Beehler et al. 1986). On Biak it is considered generally uncommon (but sometimes in flocks of 40-60), feeding in inland forest (up to 460m) and thought to roost in coconut plantations and nearby coastal forest (Collar et al. 1994), but was thought to be quite common in January 1997 (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997); on adjacent Supiori it was common in 1982 along the coast and inland to c.200m, but less common at higher altitudes (Bishop 1992). Like many lories it is thought to be highly nomadic, making it difficult to assess true numbers. Threats: Threatened by the destruction of large areas of primary lowland forest on Biak (Collar et al 1994; see also Arndt 1992). It has been trapped for nearly 20 years (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997) and the effect that this has had on the population is not known. There were 223 wild caught specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of 215 in 1991 (CITES Annual Report database). Following a review under the CITES Significant Trade Process, Indonesia was recommended by the CITES Animals Committee in 1993 to suspend exports pending the development of a population monitoring programme, and this moratorium is still in place. Action: Information is urgently required on distribution (including habitat use), status and threats. Blue-fronted lorikeet Charmosyna toxopei BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (B1 + 2c; C1; C2b; D1). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to Buru, Indonesia, where it is known from seven specimens collected by Toxopeus on the west side of Lake Rana at altitudes between 850 and 1,000m in the 1920s (Siebers 1930, White and Bruce 1986). The seven specimens are thought to be the only definite records of this species as intensive searches by BirdLife-IP in 1995 (Gunung Kelapat Mada proposed protected area, Lake Rana and Teluk Bara) and 1996 (central north-east Buru and the mangroves of Kayeli bay) failed to record the species, and the locals who brought the birds to Toxopeus did not know other areas that the species inhabited. The inhabitants of 10 villages in western Buru were not generally familiar with the species in 1996 (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997), although two hunters had caught it for food in the mountains of the sacred Garan area north-west of Lake Rana, an area which includes similar habitat to that on the west of the lake (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997). Smiet’s (1985) records are thought uncertain: he described it as quite common in plantations, secondary and primary forest around Teluk Bara in 1980 but intensive searches in this area in 1989 and 1995 failed to find it (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997), although two flocks of five and six birds that were seen were thought to be this species (Marsden et al. 1997). Smiet’s observations have also been attributed to the more widespread red- flanked lorikeet C. placentis by Forshaw (1989), but there is no firm evidence that the latter occurs on Buru (Jepson 1993; see van Bemmel 1948). The paucity of historical records suggests that C. toxopei is rare, nomadic or is restricted to a specific habitat. Marsden et al. (1997) consider that the species should be treated as Data Deficient. Threats: If it proves to be confined to lowland forest, it could be seriously threatened by deforestation (Jepson 1993). Despite the lack of recent reliable field records of this species seven wild caught specimens were recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, all in 1991 (CITES Annual Report database). Action: Information is urgently required on distribution (including habitat use), status and threats. (See Box 10.) Red-and-blue lory Eos histrio BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme, Frank Lambert and Jon Riley Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (A1c,d; A2c,d; B1+2c,d,e; C1). CITES: Appendix I (transferred from Appendix II in 1995). National protection status: Distribution and status: Known from Miangas (although this is doubted: F.R Lambert in litt. 1997) and Talaud and Sangihe Islands, between Sulawesi, Indonesia and Mindanao, Philippines (White and Bruce 1986). Also reported from the Nenusa Islands (Anon 1993). In 1978, its status on Sangihe was reported to be similar to that in the last century (White and Bruce 1986), since when several ornithologists have visited the islands (Lambert 1997). The indigenous nominate subspecies was not recorded until 1995 when a maximum of six birds were seen in northern Sangihe (Riley 1995, University of York 1996), some of which were escapees (they had rings) of the subspecies E.h. talautensis, rather than the native subspecies, which probably numbers fewer than 50 birds (Lambert 1997) and is centred on Sangihe’s only remaining forest on Mt. Sahengbalira. Riley (in litt. 1997) reports that there may only be one voice record from this area since 1995. The species may now be extinct on the three other islands in this group from which it was previously known, Siau, Ruang, and Tagulandang (Riley in litt. 1997). Karakelong, in the Talaud Islands is the stronghold: the population was estimated at less than 2,000 birds in the early 1990s (Collar et al. 1994). In 1995 up to 250 birds were seen in a day (Riley 1995) and in 1996 the population was estimated at 9,400-24,160 individuals. A single bird was recorded from Salebabu (Talaud islands) in 1995 (Riley 1995) and six birds which may be of this species were noted in November 1996 (Lambert 1997) . No birds were found on Kabaruang (Talaud Islands) in November 1996 (Lambert 1997) but locals reported birds visiting the island for part of the year. The species is thought unlikely to occur in the Nenusa Islands and/or Miangas (Lambert 1997), the former being the supposed range of the questionable third subspecies challengeri (Riley in litt. 1997). Threats: Several hundred birds, perhaps as many as 700, were being illegally traded in 1992 and early 1993 (Nash 1993). There are two estimates, both made in 1996, for numbers trapped on Karakelong: Lambert (1997) estimated that several hundred birds (possibly over 1,000) were trapped each year and Riley (in litt. 1997), using figures provided by trappers, estimated that some 1,335 were trapped in 1996. Logging may become a serious threat in the future (operations were started on Karakelong in 1996: Riley in litt. 1997) and it has been speculated that insecticide may affect the parrots directly in coconut plantations, and that disease might be introduced to wild birds through releases of captive birds (Lambert 1997). There were 648 wild caught specimens in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of 475 in 1992 (CITES Annual Report database) and none in 1995 when the species was listed in Appendix I. Action: A conservation strategy for the red-and-blue lory should address the threats outlined above through legislation and raising public awareness, and by providing appropriate ecological knowledge. The species should be included on the Indonesian list of protected species and the status of protected areas on Karakelong should be clarified. A registration scheme for captive birds is also desirable. Workshops and educational material designed to raise public awareness might concentrate on the negative impacts of over-exploitation such as the lory's probable role as a controller of agricultural pests and in pollinating crop plants. Additional ecological information provides the knowledge upon which to refine conservation strategies and monitor populations. (See Box 11.) Sangihe hanging-parrot Loriculus catamene Frank Lambert and Jon Riley Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (B1+2c; C1; C2b; D1; D2). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to Sangihe Island, north of Sulawesi, Indonesia (White and Bruce 1986). In the mid-1980s, it was found to be not uncommon outside forest and was regularly observed in coconut groves (Collar et al 1994). At least two pairs were observed on steep, tree-cropped, volcanic slopes in 1986, but further investigation is required to determine whether it can survive in purely secondary habitats (Bishop 1992). Recently it has been considered widespread at low densities with groups of one to six birds being most commonly encountered, although 19 birds have been recorded in a flock (Riley in litt. 1997). It was commonly seen and heard in 1996 in the Mt. Awu and Mt. Sahengbalira areas (F. Lambert in litt. 1997). Threats: Sangihe’s original vegetation has been almost completely replaced by coconut and nutmeg plantations, and the secondary vegetation of abandoned gardens (Whitten et al. 1987a,b). Although Riley (in litt. 1997) and Lambert (1997) have recorded birds regularly in plantations and cultivated areas adjacent to forest areas, it is not clear whether birds can survive in the absence of forest. Other possible threats include the accidental transmission of disease from captive birds and the use of insecticides on trees from which birds take nectar (Riley in litt. 1997). Action: Information is urgently required on distribution (including habitat use), status and threats to the species. This should include clarification of whether the species depends on forest patches because although it appears to be faring well in Sangihe’s plantations (it feeds from coconut inflorescences), it is not known whether all of its requirements are met by this artificial habitat. Key tasks include assessing its breeding success and roosting requirements, and determining whether any agricultural practices are having a negative impact. For example, use of the insecticide Azodrin is a cause for concern for red-and-blue lories on Karakelong; it should be determined whether any chemicals applied to coconut trees on Sangihe may be affecting L. catamene. These data will provide for recommendations concerning the appropriateness of habitat protection and agricultural practices. (See Box 11.) Wallace’s hanging-parrot Loriculus flosculus BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme and Frank Lambert Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (B1+2c; C1;C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to Flores in the Lesser Sundas, Indonesia (White and Bruce 1986), where it was historically known from just one documented locality (Schmutz 1977, Forshaw 1989). Surveys in 1993 found it to be locally common in primary semi-evergreen rain forest between 450 and 1,000m (most sightings in fruiting fig trees between 850 and 1,000m) in the Tanjung Kerita Mese proposed protected area, near Paku, west Flores (Butchart et al. 1996). It was also seen at 1,000m on Gunung Egon in east Flores in 1987, and along a roadside in west Flores in 1995 (F. Lambert in litt. 1997; see Butchart et al. 1996) Threats: Little evergreen forest below 1,000m is included within the gazetted protected areas on Flores (Collar et al 1994), so this species is vulnerable to habitat destruction (Butchart et al. 1996). There were 55 wild caught specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, all in 1991 (CITES Annual Report database). Following a review under the CITES Significant Trade Process, in 1992, Indonesia was recommended by the CITES Animals Committee to suspend exports pending the development of a population monitoring programme, and this moratorium is still in place. Action: BirdLife-IP and WWF are undertaking biodiversity surveys with the aim of strengthening the protected area network on the island (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997). Purple-naped lory Lorius domicella BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (B1+2e; C1). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to Seram and Ambon in the Moluccas, Indonesia (White and Bruce 1986). In Manusela National Park, central Seram, it is rare to uncommon in hill forest within a narrow altitudinal range from 400 to 900m (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997). It was found to be more common on ridges above 900m in the Way Bala area of eastern Seram in 1996 where 10-14 individuals were recorded along 1-2 km of ridge (Isherwood 1996). The species is either very rare or extinct on Ambon (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997). Threats: It is a popular cagebird in Maluku where it is considered the most intelligent parrot. Although it has been suggested that any external trade in this species would pose a serious threat to its survival (Bowler and Taylor 1989, 1993, Bishop 1992), as population size and volume of trade have not been quantified it is not clear what the impact of trade is (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997). There were three wild caught specimens reported in international trade between 1991 and 1995, two in 1991 and one in 1994 (CITES Annual Report database). Action: The status of the species on Seram should be clarified and relative abundance in each habitat type determined. In addition, information on the size and distribution of habitat blocks, and on trapping and timber extraction should be collected. Once such data have been collected, future action should be considered. Furthermore, it will provide an adequate baseline for monitoring and a determination of the degree to which trade affects the status of the species. (See Box 12.) Chattering lory Lorius garrulus BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (A2c,d). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to the north Moluccas, Indonesia where it is known from Halmahera, Widi, Morotai, Rau, Bacan, Obi and possibly Ternate (White and Bruce 1986). It is found in forest, including logged forest, but not normally in agricultural land, from the lowlands to 1,300m. It is rarely encountered in forest on extremely alkaline soils (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997). The highest population densities are found in lowland forest on rich volcanic soils (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997). Survey work carried out in 1991 and 1992 resulted in a population estimate of 46,360-295,540 birds (Lambert 1993a). It has been suggested that the proposed Lalobata protected area on Halmahera may contain as many as 56,600-105,900 individuals (MacKinnon et al. 1995) and BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme (in litt. 1997) reports similar figures. Four to six birds were seen on each of six days in the Danau Mantis catchment in west Obi (Linsley 1995). Threats: This is a very popular cagebird throughout Indonesia and is one of the target species for bird trappers (it was not recorded in easily accessible areas: MacKinnon et al. 1995, BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997) and it is believed that the levels of legal and illegal trade in this species at that time (a minimum of 9,600-9,927 are estimated to have been captured in 1991) were not sustainable, particularly when combined with current levels of habitat loss and degradation (Lambert 1993a, BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997). However, PHPA has revised its (legal) quota to the level recommended by Lambert 1993a) (Collar et al 1994). There were 19,060 wild caught specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of 7,725 in 1992 followed by 6,305 in 1991 and 4,331 in 1993 (CITES Annual Report database). Following the CITES Significant Trade Review, the Animals Committee made recommendations to Indonesia to suspend exports pending establishment of a population monitoring programme. In 1997 and 1998, Indonesia established export quotas of 450 birds each year for this species (CITES Notification to the Parties No. 994 and No. 1998/07). Action: Ways of reducing the exploitation of wild chattering lories should be found. A clear priority is improved law enforcement, with all responsibility for quotas being centralised at the Department of Forestry in Ambon (Lambert 1993c). Additional approaches might include provision of incentives for not overexploiting parrot populations. This might be achieved through the introduction of parrot concessions in which particular areas would be allocated for parrot collection each year. Such an approach should allow better monitoring and would clearly involve considerable public awareness input if it were to succeed (Lambert 1993c). Salvadori’s fig-parrot Psittaculirostris salvadorii Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (A2c,d). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Northern Irian Jaya, Indonesia, from the Cyclops Mountains to the eastern shore of Geelvink Bay, where it affects evergreen forest from the lowlands to 400m (Rand and Gilliard 1967, Beehler et al. 1986). It is locally common (Diamond 1985, Collar et al. 1994), for example in the flat lowlands west of Jayapura (Collar et al 1994) Threats: Large numbers have been trapped for the cage bird trade (Collar et al 1994). It is also likely to decline locally owing to extensive logging and land clearance for the increasing human population (the result of transmigration policy) (Collar et al. 1994), although much of its range is remote and inaccessible (Collar et al 1994). There were 1,288 wild caught specimens in international trade between 1991 and 1995, only 23 of which were traded in the last two years (1994 and 1995: CITES Annual Report database). Following the CITES Significant Trade Review in 1993, the CITES Animals Committee recommended that Indonesia inform the CITES Secretariat of the biological basis for allowing exports. In 1998 Indonesia established an annual export quota of 190 birds for this species (CITES Notification to the Parties No. 1998/07). Action: Information is urgently required on distribution (including habitat use), status and threats to the species. Iris lorikeet Psitteuteles iris Frank Lambert and Richard Noske Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (C1; C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to Timor and Wetar, Indonesia, in monsoon and evergreen forest from the lowlands to 1,500m (White and Bruce 1986), but more recently recorded as high as 1,800m (R. Noske in litt. 1997). Collar et al. (1994) considered it scarce as it was seen at only two localities during a nine-week survey of west Timor’s remnant lowland forest in 1993 (Noske and Saleh 1993), but the species may occur at higher altitudes (R. Noske in litt. 1997). Many were seen with olive-headed lorikeets Trichoglossus euteles in June 1993 at 840m near Kefamenanu in remnant evergreen and secondary forest. During December 1995 many small flocks were noted in lower montane Eucalyptus urophylla forest at 1,300m near Lelobatan (R. Noske in litt. 1997). Several observers have recorded it on Gunung Mutis (at 1,800m or higher) in recent years. F. Verbelen (per R.Noske in litt. 1997) found them with olive-headed lorikeets at Bipolo (30m altitude) and Camplong (200m) in September-October 1995, but they were not recorded at these sites in September 1996 when hundreds of olive-headed lorikeets were found feeding on nectar of Syzigium flowers (R. Noske in litt. 1997). These observations suggest that these birds are very mobile, as is typical for nectarivores. During a two-week visit in November 1997, only two were seen at Bipolo whilst huge numbers of olive-headed lorikeets were recorded in lower montane forest around Gunung Mutis (R. Noske 1998). Although trapped, it is not considered uncommon in west Timor (Noske 1995). It was not recorded on a short visit to Wetar in 1990 (F. Lambert in litt. 1997), but extensive forest remains there (see RePProT 1990). It is, however, quite unobtrusive and so may have escaped detection in the few areas visited (F. Lambert in litt. 1997). Also, familiarity with the calls is required to distinguish them from those of the olive-headed lorikeet (R. Noske in litt. 1997) as confusion is possible if birds are flying overhead. However, separation is easy if birds are feeding (R. Noske 1998). Threats: Loss and fragmentation of the forests at lower altitudes. It is also trapped; 510 wild caught specimens were recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, 470 of which were in 1991 and 1992 (CITES Annual Report database). Following the CITES Significant Trade review, in 1993, the Animals Committee made recommendations to Indonesia to suspend exports pending establishment of a population monitoring programme. Action: A systematic assessment of the species’ status is now required to build upon the information obtained. This should seek to determine what the species' distribution is, and thus whether it is localised on the island, or whether its apparent scarcity is a result of natural movement patterns. The impact of habitat alteration at lower altitudes should be determined. Pesquet’s parrot Psittrichas fulgidus Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (A1c; A2c,d). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Primary and secondary forest, mostly at 600-1200m in New Guinea (Irian Jaya, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea), needing to forage widely for fruits. It is patchily distributed and absent from many areas. It was occasionally seen flying over the Fly River and also along the Magazine Road north of the town in Kiunga area, Western Province (Gregory 1997). Threats: Absence from many areas is due to hunting for feathers and food. This is especially true in Papua New Guinea (Coates 1985, Beehler et al. 1986, Collar et al 1994), where skins are in high demand, being used as ‘bride’ price in the highlands (Schmid 1993) and being even more valuable than those of birds-of- paradise (Collar et al 1994). The species is threatened to a lesser degree by trapping for the bird trade (Collar et al 1994). There was one wild caught specimen recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, in 1991 (CITES Annual Report database). Action: Information is urgently required on distribution (including habitat use), status and threats to the species. Black-lored parrot Tanygnathus gramineus BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (D2). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to Buru in the Moluccas, Indonesia, where it is known from forest above c.600m but has rarely (four times) been collected, being at least partly nocturnal (Forshaw 1989). It is not uncommonly heard in montane forest at night, although there is only one recent record, of two birds perched in treetops in daytime in 1980 (Smiet 1985, White and Bruce 1986). It was not found during a one- month survey in 1989, perhaps because suitable habitat was not visited at night (Jepson 1993), so its current status remains unknown. Large parrots perched in the canopy of tall Agathis trees or flying downhill above the forest just after dusk were commonly heard at 1,100-1,500m in the Kapalat Mada Mountains, western Buru during 1995, voice and altitude suggesting that they belong to this species (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997). Threats: Montane forests on Buru are likely to be relatively secure (Collar et al 1994). Action: Information is urgently required on distribution (including habitat use), status and threats to the species. (See Box 10.) Accounts for species removed from the Red List Blue-naped parrot Tanygnathus lucionensis Des Allen, Nigel Collar, Frank Lambert and Jon Riley Conservation status: IUCN: Lower Risk, nt (formerly Endangered: A1c,d; A2c,d; C1; C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Reason(s) for removal from the list: Determining this species’ status is extremely problematic as it is thought to survive in small pockets of habitat on the smaller islands in its range (Collar et al. 1998). This makes assessment of numbers difficult and inferences or predictions of population trends hard. However, its persistence in small numbers, together with the conclusion that it is still fairly numerous in some areas of Palawan and on Tawi Tawi (Lambert 1993, D. Allen per N. Collar in litt. 1997), and is found in large numbers in a large tract of forest on Talaud (Riley 1997), suggests that it may be best considered Lower Risk, near threatened (Collar et al. 1998). Distribution and status: Formerly occurred in lowland forest up to 1,000m throughout the Philippines (in the subspecies lucionensis on Luzon and Mindoro, hybridus on Polillo, and salvadorii in the rest of its range, including 45 Philippine islands), the Talaud Islands, Indonesia, and islands off the north and east of Sabah, East Malaysia (Dickinson et al. 1991). It was considered common on the larger islands in the Sulu Archipelago in 1971 (du Pont and Rabor 1973) and on Salebabu, Talaud, in 1978 (White and Bruce 1986). It was seen occasionally on Talaud (where good habitat exists on Karakelong) in 1996, suggesting that the island may support an important population (J. Riley per N. Collar in litt. 1997). It was noted on Ticao in 1993 (Curio 1994), and in 1996 a pair was recorded on both Simunul and Sibutu. It was not uncommon around Tawawakan Agricultural Research Station, Tawi Tawi (considered widespread on Tawi Tawi: Dutson et al. 1996), and may occur on the small offshore island of Buan (D. Allen in litt. 1997). The species was considered common wherever remnant forest patches exist (mostly in the mountains) around Mt. Awu and Mt. Sahengbalira, on Sangihe in 1996 (F. Lambert in litt. 1997). However, Riley (in litt. 1997) recorded only a single bird, which may have been an escapee, in five months on Sangihe. Searches have failed to find it on Negros and Siquijor (Evans et al. 1993) and it was thought rare on Mindoro (Dutson et al. 1992). But, it is subsequently considered quite common in Siburan Sub-prison of the Sablayan Prison and Penal Colony (Brooks et al. 1995c). It is thought to be rare on Luzon and elsewhere (Collar et al 1994) (in every case as a result of habitat loss and heavy trapping). In 1991, it was regularly seen in small numbers on Palawan (especially in the southern half), in areas that still held small patches of forest (F. Lambert in litt. 1997). It is found in Bataan, Quezon, Minalungaw, and St. Paul Subterranean River National Parks (N. Collar in litt. 1997). Threats: Pressures on the species include habitat loss and targeting for the pet trade (Lambert 1993b). Occasional sightings in cultivated areas on Talaud (Riley in litt. 1997) and in heavily disturbed areas on Tawi Tawi suggest that its tolerance to habitat alteration requires investigation. This would also help with interpreting the species’ status given its presence in small habitat patches on many small islands. There were 22 wild caught specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of 13 in 1991 (CITES Annual Report database). In 1998, the annual export quota from Indonesia was for 190 birds (CITES Notification to the Parties No. 1998/07). The export of wild taken specimens of all flora and fauna from the Philippines is prohibited (CITES Notification to the Parties No. 980, 1997). The Philippines Overview James Lowen (with boxed contributions by Des Allen, Tom Brooks, Guy Dutson and Frank Lambert) The psittacine fauna of the Philippines is characterised by endemicity and endangerment. Of the 13 species that have occurred in a wild state, all but three (all Tanygnathus parrots) are endemic to the country, four are globally threatened and four near-threatened. Almost all threatened species were abundant and widespread at the turn of the century, but subsequently have undergone a catastrophic reduction in population and range. Although no species have become extinct, there is a very strong possibility that perhaps two (specifically Philippine cockatoo Cacatua haematuropygia [see Box 14] and perhaps blue-winged racquet-tail Prioniturus verticalis) will soon do so, unless measures to conserve them are rapidly implemented. Threats Parrots in the Philippines are threatened solely by human activity, both direct (extraction of wild birds for trade and food) and indirect (habitat destruction). The relative severity varies between species and islands, but the one exacerbates the other, forming a potent combination. The ensuing drop in numbers and range has been dramatic. The blue-winged racquet-tail was found to be "exceedingly common" on Sulu Island in 1883 (see Collar et al. 1998), but the species could not even be located on Tawi Tawi and the Tandubas Island group in 1995 (see Collar et al. 1998). On Palawan, anecdotal evidence suggests that the Philippine cockatoo has declined by up to 90% since 1980 (Lambert 1994b). Almost all Philippine endemic psittacids are (at least partially) dependent on forests, the dominant (and natural) vegetation in the archipelago until recent decades. More than 80% of the natural vegetation has been removed (Forest Management Bureau 1988), and just 8% primary forest remains (Danielsen et al. 1994) (see Box 15). The situation is particularly severe on the smaller islands, such as Cebu, Negros and Mindoro (Evans et al. 1993). Commercial logging, whether under licence or illegal, and subsistence shift-and-burn agriculture (locally known as 'kaingin'), play equally severe roles. The destruction of lowland forest, the first vegetation to be decimated by human colonisation, has caused the green racquet-tail Prioniturus luconensis to become locally extinct in parts of Luzon (Poulsen 1995). The removal of low elevation forests in the Sulu Islands leaves just a few hundred Philippine cockatoos there (Lambert 1994b, Collar et al. 1998). On Palawan, logging activities target the same tree size and species in which the hole-nesting cockatoo and the blue-naped parrot Tanygnathus lucionensis breed (Lambert 1994b), and the incessant clearance of mangroves on Palawan and other islands for fishpond construction presents a further threat to the former (Quinell and Balmford 1988, Collar et al. 1998). Montane forest is not exempt from logging activities, with forest generally only left on inaccessible mountain tops and steep slopes. On Mt. Kitanglad, Mindanao, the Mindanao racquet-tail Prioniturus waterstradti and the Mindanao lorikeet Trichoglossus johnstoniae suffer from large tracts of forest being cleared by immigrants to plant crops such as potato and cabbage that do not thrive in lowlands (Collar et al. 1998: see Box 16). Trapping pressure is substantial, afflicting all psittacids to various degrees. Trade, both internal and international, has a crucial deleterious effect on species with already low and ever-declining populations. The green racquet-tail no longer occurs close to population centres in Luzon's Sierra Madre mountains (Poulsen 1995). Particularly susceptible are the Philippine cockatoo and the blue-naped parrot: the latter forms 55% of all birds traded in Palawan, and a basketful of nestlings were being sold for PhP200 each in Cubao Farmers Market in December 1995 (Collar et al. 1998). On Palawan, cockatoo chicks are taken from virtually every known and accessible nest, with Palawan tribesmen purposely leaving Koompsia excelsa nest-trees in otherwise cleared land in order to harvest nestlings (and, increasingly, adults) on an annual basis (Boussekey 1993, Lambert 1994b). The cockatoo can be sold for up to 10 times the price of other hole-nesting birds such as the blue-naped parrot and the hill myna Gracula religiosa. In 1991, the Manila street price reached US$640 (Lambert 1994b). Parrots are also exploited directly for other ends, being hunted for food (e.g. Philippine cockatoo: Lambert 1994b), persecuted for their depredation of maize and rice fields just prior to ripening (e.g. again, the cockatoo: see Collar et al. 1998), and used for target practice by sportsmen and the military (e.g. the unfortunately tame blue-winged racquet-tail: Lambert 1993b). Other potential threats include the explorations of mining companies, as may already be affecting the Mindanao lorikeet and the Mindanao racquet-tail on Mt. Matutum, Mindanao (Collar et al. 1998); and viscertropic velogenic Newcastle disease which could spread into wild populations of the Philippine cockatoo and the blue-headed racquet-tail Prioniturus platenae by the release of infected captive birds (Lambert 1994b). Conservation solutions Action to conserve the Philippines' threatened parrot fauna has taken several forms; all, however, need to be strengthened if the extinction of one or more species is not to result. Since December 1993, 200 sites covering 9% of the country's land area have been incorporated into the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS). The ten sites selected for priority action include the Northern Sierra Madre, Luzon (important for the Luzon racquet-tail Prioniturus montanus and the green racquet-tail), Mt. Kitanglad, and Mt. Apo (significant sites on Mindanao for the Mindanao lorikeet and the Mindanao racquet-tail). The subsequent National Integrated Protected Areas Programme aims to afford de facto protection to Mt. Pulog National Park, Luzon (where the green racquet-tail occurs). All but one threatened psittacid species occur in one or more protected area; immediate intervention is required in the Sulus to conserve remaining forests, and thus the blue-winged racquet-tail (see Box 17). Several protected areas should be extended or otherwise modified, to conserve, for example, montane forest in Palanan Wilderness Area, Luzon, for the Luzon racquet-tail and the Babuyan valley, adjacent to St. Paul's National Park, Palawan, for the Philippine cockatoo. Measures to combat trade have been of uncertain success. The Philippine cockatoo has been included on Appendix I of CITES since 1992. Palawan has been decreed a "game reserve" in which it is illegal to capture wild animals. However, the continuing illegal trade is likely to decline only with the introduction of locally- based, economically viable alternatives that lessen threats to birds and their habitats. These could include financial rewards to those who report and protect nest holes of the blue-naped parrot and the cockatoo. More drastic measures, such as Department of Natural Resources (DENR)-manned controls at major transport terminals, may be required to enforce CITES legislation for the cockatoo (Lambert 1994b, Collar et al. 1998). Awareness campaigns are an urgent requirement of any parrot conservation strategy. Such initiatives for the cockatoo have met with considerable success on Palawan and Mindanao (Tabaranza 1992, Low 1996). An expansion of these projects, managed by an internationally funded Philippine cockatoo Campaign Officer, and incorporating components of the successful Amazona parrot projects in the Caribbean (see Butler 1992), has been recommended (Lambert 1994b, Collar et al. 1998). Experiments with captive breeding are in their infancy, and the cockatoo forms the main subject (Boussekey 1995, Low 1996). There have been few successful breeding attempts and, although an internationally coordinated programme could complement in situ conservation initiatives, there is no guarantee that captive- bred birds would survive once released into the wild (Lambert 1994b, Collar et al. 1998). The preparation of conservation strategies, or even recovery plans, for Philippines endemic parrots, is problematic given the impoverished knowledge concerning their distribution, status, and ecological requirements. Further surveys are indicated in this plan (see also Collar et al. 1998). Yet, there remains the real possibility that one or more of these target species, figureheads for Filipino conservation, may no longer be a part of the Philippines' biological heritage by the time such surveys take place. Box 14: Priority projects in the Philippines Conservation of the Philippine cockatoo throughout the Philippines Based on Lambert (1994b) Aim: To implement actions that are urgently required to save the Philippine cockatoo Cacatua haematuropygia from extinction. Justification: The Philippine cockatoo is a Critically Endangered species that is endemic to the Philippines. It is one of the most threatened parrots in the world and has already disappeared from many islands throughout its former range (Lambert 1994b). The species account in the Action Plan indicates the scarcity of recent records. Palawan Province is probably the stronghold for this species with an important population on Tawi Tawi. Whilst further information is necessary to build a long-term conservation plan for the cockatoo, there is the risk that the species may disappear whilst such biological information is being collected. This is because the populations are so small and fragmented and are continuing to be depleted by trapping. Although habitat destruction in the past has contributed substantially to the species’ decline, the current level of exploitation for the pet trade is also now threatening the species’ survival in the immediate future. Project description: Action on behalf of this species falls into three areas. First is the clear need to raise awareness of the species’ plight and the fact it is endemic to the Philippines. A poster campaign highlighting endemic species has been initiated through Flora and Fauna International and includes the cockatoo. This should be expanded and followed up using the expertise available in organisations such as the Haribon Foundation in Manila. The second area where action is urgently needed is the protection of known breeding sites. These sites hold the key to the species’ future as they are often in commercially valuable emergent dipterocarps Lambert 1994b) and they are also the sites where birds can be caught for the pet trade. In some cases, nesting trees are left uncut so chicks can be regularly harvested. Although parents are now also being taken (Lambert 1994b), the direct result of this chick harvesting can be seen in the increasing proportion of aged individuals in cockatoo populations. Protecting these sites, either through law enforcement or by some sort of subsidy is crucial to the survival of the species. The latter would also contribute to the protection of other hole-nesting species that are caught for trade, such as other parrots, including the blue-naped parrot Tanygnathus lucionensis, the endemic Palawan hornbill Anthracoceros marchei and the hill myna Gracula religiosa. A proposed extension to St. Paul’s Subterranean River National Park on Palawan should implemented urgently, as trade does not currently threaten this population of some 200 birds. Third, there is legislation designed to protect the cockatoo. This includes the listing on Appendix I of CITES in 1992 and, in light of this, the drafting of new laws that will ban the export of the species unless individuals are on the Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ (DENR) inventory of birds held before the CITES listing. The cockatoo is also protected by the designation of Palawan as a ‘Game Reserve’, under Presidential Proclamation 219, in which it is illegal to catch any wild animals. This legislation should be implemented through establishment of DENR check-points at all major ports of entry to the key islands. Contacts: Tom Brooks, Guy Dutson, Frank Lambert Box 15: Priority projects in the Philippines Assessing extinction of Philippine parrot populations following deforestation Aim: To assess the tolerance of Philippine endemic parrots to deforestation, and to assess the rate at which parrot populations are becoming extinct. Justification: Only 24% of the Philippines' rainforest remains, and clearance continues (Brooks et al. 1997). Since deforestation inevitably also opens forests up to allow access to trappers and hunters (e.g. Diamond 1984) all of the endemic Philippine parrots are probably subject to some human pressures. Many Philippine parrots are also thought to make seasonal movements (Dickinson et al. 1991) which may indicate that more than a single block of suitable habitat is required to meet all of their needs. Project description: Forest cover data available from the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge, UK (on CD-ROM: Iremonger [1997]) and the National Mapping Resource Information Agency, Manila, Philippines, should be obtained. With this information, brief visits by skilled ornithologists should be paid to as many of the surviving forest tracts as possible, with the aim of locating parrot populations. Intensive sites should be identified where repeat visits can be concentrated to investigate within and between year movements. Surveys should concentrate on observation of parrots from vantage points (e.g. hill-tops) supplemented by aural surveys and location of key feeding and roosting trees. All surveys should also include interviews with residents to provide local reports and an indication of the extent of the parrot-trade on a local scale. This project should be designed to complement other initiatives, such as the proposed Sulu Archipelago project (see Box 17), and should build upon the results of recent forest surveys on Luzon, Mindoro, Panay, Negros, Cebu, Siquijor, Bohol, Tawi Tawi, and parts of Mindanao and Palawan. This will allow most efficient use of resources so that areas not recently surveyed may be covered, including forests on Samar and Leyte, Jolo, Basilan, and much of Mindanao and Palawan. This combination of extensive surveys and intensive work at selected sites will provide an indication of the rate at which parrot populations are lost as deforestation progresses throughout the Philippines. Contact: T. Brooks Box 16: Priority projects in the Philippines Provision of a management plan for the parrots of Mt. Kitanglad Range National Park and environs in Mindanao, Philippines Philip McGowan Aim: To survey the parrots of the Mt. Kitanglad area, assess their status and whether their conservation needs are being met. A management plan for the protected area and surrounds should follow. Justification: Two Lower Risk parrot species, the Mindanao lorikeet Trichoglossus johnstoniae and the Mindanao racquet-tail Prioniturus waterstradti are known from the recently gazetted Mt. Kitanglad Range National Park. Current information on these species is patchy and leads to varying assessments of threat, the most pessimistic of which is that the species are at risk. Coming into existence in 1990, the park covers over 31,000ha (IUCN 1994) in the north-east of the island. Most of Mindanao's montane endemics have been recorded from this mountain range and, as such, it is probably one of the most important areas for endemic birds on Mindanao (Lambert 1993a). Both parrot species inhabit forest above 1,000 m (Dickinson et al. 1991) and are suffering from forest destruction in the lower altitudes of their range (Collar et al. 1994). On the southern slope of Mt. Kitanglad, especially in the Lantapan and Basak areas, and in the neighbouring Pangantukan Mountains, "gardening technology" is considered a very serious threat (Collar et al. 1998). Brought by migrant Igarots from Luzon, this results in large tracts of montane forest being cleared and replaced with crops that do not grow well in the lowlands. What is needed now is an assessment of how well this protected area is serving the conservation of these threatened parrots, and other montane endemics and recommendations for its future management. In addition, other sites where these species are known to occur should be surveyed so that additional sites for their conservation can be targeted. Project description: Any management plan will rely on the findings of both extensive surveys and intensive research. For surveys, suitable blocks of forest should be identified from existing vegetation maps. While some sites can be identified from Kennedy et al. 1997, the World Conservation Monitoring Centre should also be contacted. Each site thus identified would then be visited and searched for the two parrots (as well as other montane endemics). The state of the forest should be evaluated and pressures on the parrots determined. Detailed ecological work will probably be centred on Mt. Kitanglad and will attempt to determine habitat use for various activities, abundance of nesting sites and breeding success. Based on the results obtained and the numbers of birds on other habitat patches (from the survey), predictions can be made about the survival of various populations. The most urgent needs can be addressed through a management plan. Contacts: Tom Brooks and Frank Lambert Box 17: Priority projects in the Philippines Assessment of the conservation needs of the parrot fauna in the Sulu Archipelago, Philippines Des Allen, Tom Brooks, and Guy Dutson Aim: To provide the biological information necessary for the survival of the Philippine cockatoo, blue- winged racquet-tail, and blue-naped parrot in the Sulu Archipelago through the identification of key sites and the assessment of their management needs. Justification: Habitat destruction and trapping for the cagebird trade are problems facing parrots throughout the Philippines. As forest loss continues and lowland forest birds become confined to increasingly isolated and ever smaller areas of suitable habitat, the impact of trapping almost certainly increases on dwindling populations. The Philippine cockatoo Cacatua haematuropygia is one of the most threatened parrots in the world (Collar et al. 1994). The blue-winged racquet-tail Prioniturus verticalis, in contrast, is endemic to the Sulu Archipelago (Dickinson et al. 1991), where it is threatened by habitat destruction. The need for an assessment of the status of these parrots should act as a catalyst for a systematic avifauna survey of Tawi Tawi and adjacent islands and which should identify which areas could be protected. The Sulu Archipelago has no protected areas. See Allen (1998). Project description: A comprehensive effort to conserve these species in the Sulu Archipelago requires both extensive surveys and intensive study, as well attempts to minimise the effects of direct human exploitation (trapping and shooting) and habitat loss. Such a project should also pay attention to the distinctive subspecies of the Philippine hanging parrot Loriculus philippensis bonepartei. 1. Further surveys. The key problem with understanding the distribution and abundance of these parrots and other bird species throughout the Sulu Archipelago is the difficulty in travelling safely around Tawi Tawi and to other islands (Dutson et al. 1996). What little area of Tawi Tawi has been visited (the southern part of Tawi Tawi and Bonguo) is known to hold these species, but possibly in small numbers. However, the prevalence of cockatoos in captivity on the island, and the difficulty of identifying the racquet-tail from calls alone in many areas, together with the extent of mangrove forest on the island suggest that these species might be widespread in areas not yet visited. Consequently, surveys should target areas known to hold suitable habitat, which possibly include mangroves adjacent to lowland forest. Of the other islands, Tumindao, Manuk Manka, and Jolo may offer the best prospects for additional sites for the species; unlike on Bongao, forest is thought to still remain here. However, contrasting reports suggest that Tumindao and Manuk Manka have few trees left. Forest cover maps, if available (e.g. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK), should be consulted so that logistically difficult surveys stand the best chance of locating these parrots. The easiest way of finding cockatoos is by checking maize fields in the harvest season, which they can devastate. Information on feeding, roosting, and nesting sites, as well as the level of exploitation for the cagebird trade, should be sought at each locality. 2. Intensive studies. All nine racquet-tails are very poorly known and a study of the ecology (especially habitat use, feeding requirements, breeding biology, and movements) of the blue-winged racquet-tail would serve as the basis for a conservation plan for the species. Once a key site or sites have been found, intensive population surveys should be instigated urgently. These would attempt to determine numbers of parrots in each forest type present, bearing in mind that different forest blocks might be used for different activities. Subsequently, intensive study on roost and nest tree use, and of food requirements could be used in conjunction with the results of the survey to make a preliminary appraisal about the availability of these key resources throughout the islands and be used as the basis for proposing protected areas. 3. Roost and nest sites should be protected from trappers, and it should be ensured that the impending development of the island does not destroy remaining forest. In the long-term, survival of these species and their habitat will be dependent upon raising public awareness and promotion of development that does not lead to habitat loss; for example, stimulation of the agar-agar industry. Consequently, there is a need for a strategy that incorporates conservation of habitats into development so that the global importance of this area can be reconciled with the real problems facing the human population. Improving protection and public awareness for the Philippine cockatoo is so clearly needed, and such a high priority, that a separate project is devoted to this issue. Contacts: Des Allen, Tom Brooks, Guy Dutson, Frank Lambert Threatened species of the Philippines Table 4: A list of Philippine parrot species that are considered threatened using IUCN Red List criteria. Also included are four species removed from the Red List. Species are listed in alphabetic order by their scientific name, together with the islands on which they occur, and their threat status. The criteria under which each species qualifies are given in the appropriate species account. *denotes changes from Birds to watch 2 (and, therefore, the 1996 IUCN Red List), which arise from BirdLife International and the Haribon Foundation’s work on Threatened birds of the Philippines (Collar et al. 1998). BirdLife International maintain the IUCN list of threatened birds. English name Scientific name Distribution Threat category Philippine cockatoo Cacatua haematuropygia Now possibly as few as 10 islands in the Philippines Critically Endangered Green racquet-tail* Prioniturus luconensis Luzon and Marinduque, Philippines Vulnerable Blue-headed racquet-tail Prioniturus platenae Palawan Province, Philippines Vulnerable Blue-winged racquet-tail Prioniturus verticalis Sulu archipelago, Philippines Endangered Red List removals Luzon racquet-tail* Prioniturus montanus Luzon, Philippines Lower Risk, nt Mindanao racquet-tail* Prioniturus waterstradti Mindanao, Philippines Lower Risk, nt Blue-naped parrot* Tanygnathus lucionensis Philippines, Talaud islands in Indonesia, and islands off Sabah, Malaysia Lower Risk, nt Mindanao lorikeet* Trichoglossus johnstoniae Mindanao, Philippines Lower Risk, nt Species accounts Philippine cockatoo Cacatua haematuropygia Des Allen, Tom Brooks, Guy Dutson and Frank Lambert Conservation status: IUCN: Critically Endangered (A1c,d; C1; C2a). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Distribution and status: Formerly occurred on all major and many minor islands (up to 45) of the Philippines, but recent visits to roughly half of these has shown that very reduced and often possibly unviable numbers remain on as few as 10 islands, chief among them being Palawan and its satellites, plus Tawi Tawi (see below). A six-week survey in August-September 1991 yielded a population estimate for Palawan of 800-3,000 birds, of which Pandanas, Bugsuk and Bancalan probably support 100-300 and Dumaran 150-250, with Tawi Tawi possibly holding several hundred more (Lambert 1993b, 1994b). A single pair survived on Siquijor in 1991 (Evans et al. 1993), a few remained at Mount Isarog, Luzon, in 1988 (Goodman and Gonzales 1990), and a few pairs reputedly hang on in Mindoro, chiefly at Malpalon (Dutson et al. 1992). Birds were seen on Masbate in 1993 (Curio 1994), and the species has been recorded a few times in singles or small numbers in Rajah Sikatuna National Park, Bohol since 1989 (Brooks et al. 1995b). Two pairs (G. Dutson in litt. 1997) were seen on Tawi Tawi in 1994 and it was considered widespread on Tawi Tawi in 1995/1996, although more often seen in captivity than in the wild (two singles in Batu-batu and a single and a pair in Buan: D. Allen in litt. 1997). Three birds were noted on Simunul in 1996 (D. Allen in litt. 1997: see also Dutson et al. 1996), while a number of smaller islands, plus those such as Samar and Leyte that have not been visited in recent years, may yet prove (or have been reported) to hold birds. So, the total population may lie between 1,000 and 4,000 (Lambert 1992, Tabaranza 1992). It is considered extinct on Cebu (Brooks et al. 1995a) and Negros (Brooks et al. 1992). Threats: Intensive trapping (‘the young of every known accessible nest are taken for the pet trade’: Dickinson et al. 1991, Lambert 1992) combined with destruction of its lowland forest habitat (amongst which mangrove may be critically important) suggests that this species may soon become extinct. Agriculture on Tawi Tawi has changed to agar-agar cultivation from maize (D. Allen in litt. 1997) and the possible beneficial impact of this should be investigated; the shift in emphasis away form forested areas to coastal ones may reduce habitat loss. Following the CITES Significant Trade Review in 1992, the Animals Committee made recommendations to the Philippines to suspend exports pending population surveys. Subsequently, the species was included in CITES Appendix I in 1992 and the Philippines prohibited the export of all terrestrial wildlife in 1997 (CITES Notification to the Parties No 980, 1997). Action: Reducing the numbers of birds taken for the pet trade is the single most important action required. Achieving this is likely to require a combination of law enforcement and raising awareness. The cockatoo is already protected by the designation of Palawan as a ‘Game Reserve’, in which it is illegal to catch any wild animals. This legislation should be implemented, through establishment of Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ (DENR) checkpoints at all major ports of entry to the key islands. It was listed in Appendix I of CITES in 1992 and new laws will ban the export of the species unless individuals are on the DENR inventory of birds held before the CITES listing. The proposed extension of St. Paul’s Subterranean River National Park should be implemented as a matter of urgency as it contains the only population not immediately threatened by trapping (see Box 14, and also Box 17). A poster campaign highlighting endemic species has been initiated through Flora and Fauna International and includes the cockatoo. Promoting sustainability amongst those collectors who take every nestling for the trade is imperative. Further work designed to protect nest sites is crucial to the survival of the species and is likely to require creative solutions, such as provision of a subsidy to local collectors. Green racquet-tail Prioniturus luconensis Frank Lambert Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (A1c,d; A2c,d; C2a). Formerly Endangered (A1b,c; A2b,c; C1; C2a: see Collar et al. 1994). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Full justification of revision to IUCN threat category is given in Collar et al. (1998). Distribution and status: Inhabits forest edge and cultivated areas of the lowlands and foothills of Luzon and Marinduque in the Philippines (Dickinson et al. 1991). Although there is no news on its status on Marinduque (though it must be in very low numbers), evidence from Luzon since 1988 suggests that (other than in Subic Bay Naval Forest Reserve: Collar et al 1994) it is now very rare throughout, with all records in the Sierra Madre coming from 300-700 m, and none near habitation (Collar et al. 1994, Danielson et al. 1994, Poulsen 1995). Recorded from Subic Bay Forest Reserve and Quezon National Park, where it is now very rare (F. Lambert in litt 1997). It has been recently found in Aurora Province in small numbers (F. Lambert in litt. 1997). Threats: Habitat loss and trapping for the cagebird trade (Collar et al. 1994). The export of wild taken specimens of all flora and fauna from the Philippines is prohibited (CITES Notification to the Parties No 980, 1997). Action: Information is urgently required on distribution (including habitat use), status, and threats to the species. A study of the species’ year-round ecological requirements may elucidate limiting factors and, if undertaken at the Subic Bay Naval Forest Reserve, could guide management of what appears to be the only known large population (see Collar et al. 1998). Blue-headed racquet-tail Prioniturus platenae Frank Lambert Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (C1; C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Lowland forest and adjacent cultivation in the Calamian Islands, Palawan, and Balabac in the Philippines (Dickinson et al. 1991). The blue-headed racquet-tail is uncommon and declining (Collar et al. 1994). It has been recorded from Iwahig Penal Colony in 1990 (Collar et al. 1998) and is uncommon but regularly recorded in St. Paul Subterranean National Park (Collar et al 1994). It was regularly observed in forests, including secondary forests in Palawan during 1991 (F. Lambert in litt. 1997). Threats: Rapid and extensive clearance of its habitat (Collar et al. 1994). The export of wild taken specimens of all flora and fauna from the Philippines is prohibited (CITES Notification to the Parties No 980, 1997). Action: Roosts and nest sites should be protected from trappers and a public awareness campaign should highlight the scarcity of this Palawan Province endemic. A survey of all remaining forest areas on the islands to determine the distribution of the species and assessment of its ecological needs are also required (see Box 15). Blue-winged racquet-tail Prioniturus verticalis Des Allen, Tom Brooks and Guy Dutson Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (A2c,d, B1+2a-e, C1, C2a, D1]). Formerly Endangered (A1b,c; C1; C2a: see Collar et al. 1994). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Full justification of additional IUCN threat criteria is given in Collar et al. (1998). Distribution and status: Endemic to the islands of Tawi Tawi, Bongao, Manuk Manka, Tumindao, Sanga Sanga, and Sibutu in the Philippines (Dickinson et al. 1991). It may occur on Simunul (D. Allen in litt. 1998) The blue-winged racquet-tail was reportedly abundant in mangroves on Tawi Tawi a century ago (Dickinson et al. 1991), where only a small part of its potential range has been visited recently (D. Allen in litt. 1997). In this area, the species was found only near undisturbed forest and in small numbers in September 1991 (Lambert 1993b). Only six racquet-tails were seen in August 1994 (Collar et al. 1994), and although none were recorded in July 1995 some were seen in May 1996 and December 1996/January 1997 (D. Allen in litt. 1998). The species’ last patch of known habitat is about to disappear (Collar et al. 1994). However, the species is very difficult to see and calls can be difficult to separate in the field from other parrots (D. Allen in litt. 1997). There are extensive tracts of mangrove in the south and east of the island (D. Allen in litt. 1997) which may hold the species. No reports from Bongao, Tumindao, or Manuk Manka since the turn of the century (Collar et al. 1998). It is thought unlikely to survive on Bongao as almost all of the mangroves have been lost, but forest may still survive on Tumindao and Manuk Manka (D. Allen in litt. 1997). Threats: Habitat clearance and previous use as target practice by men with high powered rifles (Lambert 1993b), although the latter is no longer thought to be a problem (T. Brooks in litt. 1997). None were seen in captivity in 1994 (G. Dutson in litt. 1997). The export of wild taken specimens of all flora and fauna from the Philippines is prohibited ((CITES Notification to the Parties No 980, 1997). Action: The extent and quality of forest on all islands in the Sulu Archipelago should be determined and considered urgently for protection. As part of this assessment process, forest patches should be surveyed for this and other endemics, starting with mangrove forest on Tawi Tawi and spreading to islands away from Tawi Tawi. Collar et al. (1998) state that whilst the other six Endemic Bird Areas in the Philippines now have protected areas, the Sulu Archipelago still has none and an integrated conservation strategy for these islands should consider the needs of several threatened endemic species (such as the Sulu Hornbill). (See Boxes 15 and 17.) Accounts for species removed from the Red List Luzon racquet-tail Prioniturus montanus Conservation status: IUCN: Lower Risk, nt (formerly Vulnerable: A2b,c; C1; C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Reason(s) for removal from the list: The species is now believed to inhabit areas which are relatively inaccessible, suggesting that its numbers are stable (Collar et al. 1998). Distribution and status: Endemic to Luzon in the Philippines. Possibly still common in parts of the Cordillera Central and Sierra Madre in primary forest above 700 m (Collar et al. 1994). Threats: The combination of habitat destruction, hunting, and trapping for the cagebird trade are threats and require continued monitoring (Danielson et al. 1994, Poulsen 1995). The export of wild taken specimens of all flora and fauna from the Philippines is prohibited (CITES Notification to the Parties No 980, 1997). Mindanao racquet-tail Prioniturus waterstradti Nigel Collar and Frank Lambert Conservation status: IUCN: Lower Risk, nt (formerly Vulnerable: C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Reason(s) for removal from the list: The assessment that the species is local and uncommon (Collar et al. 1994) has been revised because of information contained in old and new sources (see Collar et al. 1998). In addition, the species habitat (montane forest) is relatively safe at present. Distribution and status: Known from nine mountain localities on Mindanao in the Philippines (see Collar et al. 1998). It is generally restricted to forest above 1,000m, but has been recorded down to 820m and is thought to make daily vertical migrations (Collar et al. 1994, 1998). Thought to have been abundant in the first half of the century (N. Collar in litt. 1997) and still found in good numbers in Mt. Kitanglad National Park, it is now certainly local and uncommon, apparently occurring at lower density than some of its congeners (Dickinson et al. 1991, Collar et al. 1994). There are recent records from several areas, including Mt. Apo (F. Lambert in litt. 1997). Threats: Presumed to be suffering from habitat destruction (Collar et al. 1994) although this is now questioned (Collar et al. 1998) and should be investigated (see Boxes 15 and 16). The export of wild taken specimens of all flora and fauna from the Philippines is prohibited (CITES Notification to the Parties No 980, 1997). Blue-naped parrot Tanygnathus lucionensis Des Allen, Nigel Collar, Frank Lambert and Jon Riley Conservation status: IUCN: Lower Risk, nt (formerly Endangered: A1b,c; A2b,c; C1; C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Reason(s) for removal from the list: Determining this species’ status is extremely problematic as it is thought to survive in small pockets of habitat on the smaller islands in its range (Collar et al. 1998). This makes assessment of numbers and inference or prediction of population trends difficult. However, its persistence in small numbers, together with the conclusion that it is still fairly numerous in some areas of Palawan and on Tawi Tawi (Lambert 1993, D. Allen per N. Collar in litt. 1997), and is found in large numbers in a large tract of forest on Talaud (Riley 1997), suggest that it may be best considered Lower Risk, nt (Collar et al. 1998). Distribution and status: Formerly occurred in lowland forest up to 1,000m throughout the Philippines (in the subspecies lucionensis on Luzon and Mindoro, hybridus on Polillo, and salvadorii in the rest of its range, including 45 Philippine islands), the Talaud Islands, Indonesia, and islands off the north and east of Sabah, East Malaysia (Dickinson et al. 1991). It was considered common on the larger islands in the Sulu Archipelago in 1971 (du Pont and Rabor 1973) and on Salebabu, Talaud, in 1978 (White and Bruce 1986); it was seen occasionally on Talaud in 1996 where good habitat exists on Karakelong, suggesting that the island may support an important population (J. Riley per N. Collar in litt. 1997). It was noted on Ticao in 1993 (Curio 1994) and in 1996 a pair was recorded on both Simunul and Sibutu. It was not uncommon around Tawawakan Agricultural Research Station, Tawi Tawi (considered widespread on Tawi Tawi: Dutson et al. 1996) and may occur on the small offshore island of Buan (D. Allen in litt. 1997). It was considered common wherever remnant forest patches exist (mostly in the mountains) around Mt. Awu and Mt. Sahengbalira on Sangihe in 1996 (F. Lambert in litt. 1997). But, Riley (in litt. 1997) recorded only a single bird, which may have been an escapee, in five months on Sangihe. Searches have failed to find it on Negros and Siquijor (Evans et al. 1993). It was thought rare on Mindoro (Dutson et al. 1992), although subsequently was considered quite common in Siburan Sub-prison of the Sablayan Prison and Penal Colony (Brooks et al. 1995c). It is thought to be rare on Luzon and elsewhere (Collar et al 1994) (in every case as a result of habitat loss and heavy trapping). It was seen regularly on Palawan in 1991 in small numbers (especially in the southern half), in areas that still held small patches of forest (F. Lambert in litt. 1997). It is found in Bataan, Quezon, Minalungaw, and St. Paul Subterranean River National Parks (N. Collar in litt. 1997). Threats: Pressures on the species include habitat loss and targeting for the pet trade (Lambert 1993b). Occasional sightings in cultivated areas on Talaud (Riley in litt. 1997) and in heavily disturbed areas on Tawi Tawi suggest that its tolerance to habitat alteration requires investigation. This would also help with interpreting the species’ status given its presence in small habitat patches on many small islands. There were 22 wild caught specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of 13 in 1991 (CITES Annual Report database). In 1998, the annual export quota from Indonesia was for 190 birds (CITES Notification 1998/07). The export of wild taken specimens of all flora and fauna from the Philippines is prohibited (CITES Notification to the Parties No 980, 1997). Mindanao lorikeet Trichoglossus johnstoniae Nigel Collar and Frank Lambert Conservation status: IUCN: Lower Risk, nt (formerly Vulnerable: C1; C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Reason(s) for removal from the list: The species is now thought to be numerous in montane forest above around 1,000m, a habitat which is relatively secure at present (Collar et al. 1998). Distribution and status: Inhabits montane forest and forest edge (but including logged and degraded areas) above 800m on Mindanao in the Philippines, where it occurs in two subspecies, johnstoniae on five mountains, pistra on one (Dickinson et al. 1991). Thought now to be reasonably secure, although its status away from Mt. Kitanglad is not well known (F. Lambert in litt. 1997). Threats: Forest destruction was previously considered a problem (Collar et al. 1994), but is now thought unlikely to be a significant threat (Collar et al. 1998). Clarification of this would be useful (see Boxes 15 and 16). There were eight wild caught specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, all in 1994 (CITES Annual Report database). The export of wild taken specimens of all flora and fauna from the Philippines is prohibited (CITES Notification to the Parties No 980, 1997). Chapter 6 AFRICA Overview Mike Perrin and Philip McGowan (with boxed contributions by Colleen Downs, Craig Symes and Louise Warburton) Africa is a large continent that contains relatively few parrot species. There are 21 species that are native to Africa and the islands of Madagascar, Mauritius, and the Seychelles. They inhabit a variety of habitats, ranging from closed forests to arid zones. Most of these species have allopatric distributions (Fry et al. 1988) and in most parts of sub-Saharan Africa only one species occurs. All species are monogamous and typically sexually monomorphic, although arid zone species are dimorphic, as is the forest-dwelling grey- headed lovebird Agapornis cana of Madagascar and the Cape parrot Poicephalus robustus. Continental Africa is home to 18 species belonging to four genera. The African grey parrot Psittacus erithacus from West Africa is the only member of the genus Psittacus and is a common cage bird in countries in many parts of the world. The genus Poicephalus contains nine predominantly large-bodied species. There is some uncertainty about the taxonomy of the Cape parrot P. robustus and recent data suggest that there may be three species rather than the currently accepted one (Wirminghaus unpublished data). The range sizes of the Poicephalus parrots vary from the very large, such as the Cape parrot P. robustus, occurring from n. Namibia, n. Botswana, and north-east South Africa northwards to n. Ethiopia, to the very small, as in the yellow-fronted parrot P. flavifrons which is endemic to Ethiopia. Species in the genus are distributed among most major habitat types, ranging from arid scrub (e g. Rόppell’s parrot P. rueppelli of northern Namibia and southern Angola) to lowland forests (e.g. Jardine’s or red-fronted parrot P. gulielmi which occurs in west Africa and locally in central and east Africa). The third genus found in Africa is Agapornis, the small-bodied lovebirds that are typically found in large flocks. As with the larger Poicephalus parrots, geographical range sizes vary across the genus from the widely distributed red-headed lovebird A. pullaria, distributed from Sierra Leone east to Uganda and Ethiopia, to the very localised black-cheeked lovebird A. nigrigenis, which is almost entirely confined to an area of less than 5,000 km² in Zambia (Dodman 1995). They are also found in most habitats, from arid areas of southern Angola, Namibia, and western South Africa, where the rosy-faced (or peach-faced) A. roseicollis lovebird occurs, to forests, which the black-collared lovebird A. swinderianus prefers. Some lovebirds, including Fischer’s lovebird, have established feral populations in cities and others have become established on the Seychelles, where there are no naturally occurring parrots. The only native representative of the Psittacula is the echo or Mauritius parakeet P. eques from Mauritius, one of the most threatened birds in the world (Collar et al. 1994). Another species in this genus, the rose- ringed parakeet P. krameri, has become established across a large tract of central Africa from Senegambia eastwards to Uganda and Ethiopia, since it was first introduced in the early 1900s. Madagascar is home to one lovebird species, the grey-headed, and two vasa parrots Coracopsis. Both vasas also occur on the Comoros Islands, and the lesser vasa C. nigra is also found in the Seychelles. All three are gregarious, the vasa parrots being found in small groups, and the lovebird in flocks of up to 30 birds. The lesser vasa C. nigra is more of a forest bird than the greater vasa and can be found at higher altitudes (Langrand 1990). Although considered common (Langrand 1990), the rapid pace of forest loss on Madagascar suggests their status should be carefully monitored. The biological characteristics of the two main genera, Poicephalus and Agapornis, are strikingly different and these may influence their responses to human interference. The Poicephalus parrots are large and tend to remain in pairs whereas the smaller lovebirds are gregarious. The lovebirds have a much greater reproductive potential as they tend to have larger clutches (three to six in the wild, up to eight in captivity, as opposed to one to four in Poicephalus) and their incubation period is a few days shorter than in the larger parrots (Fry et al. 1988). As they can also lay two clutches in a season, there is the potential for increasing numbers much more rapidly than is possible with the Poicephalus species. Threats The diverse habits of the African parrot fauna is reflected in the variation in pressures facing the species. Some species appear to be at low risk of extinction at present, such as Meyer’s parrot Poicephalus meyeri, despite some occasional illegal trapping, whereas others are seriously at risk, such as the echo parakeet which is considered to be Critically Endangered. Across the group as a whole there are thought to be two main problems: trapping for the bird trade and habitat loss. Trapping for the bird trade has long been a problem for some species, including Fischer’s, masked or yellow- collared Agapornis personatus, black-cheeked Agapornis nigrigenis, and rosy-faced Agapornis roseicollis lovebirds, the Senegal parrot Poicephalus senegalus, and the African grey parrot Psittacus erithacus. Other species are now appearing in the bird trade and such trade may pose a significant threat for species such as Rόppell’s, red- or orange-bellied P. rufiventris and Jardine’s parrots. Trade is predominantly from Senegal, Cameroon, and Zaire (Poicephalus and Psittacus) in West Africa, and Tanzania (Poicephalus) in east Africa. A key problem here is the lack of appropriate legislation, and the lack of enforcement of such legislation where it exists. Addressing this issue and the many that flow from it will be necessary before Africa’s threatened parrots can be considered safe from extinction. Habitat loss faces many species, but it is difficult to predict how the impact of often subtle changes in land- use may affect parrot species. For the large-bodied parrots that tend to be dependent upon climax forest the effects may be clear (e.g. Cape parrot), but for species inhabiting open country, changes can be far from obvious (e.g. black-cheeked lovebird). Whilst the effects of outright habitat loss, such as the felling of trees, might be straightforward to determine, the consequences of a decrease in the suitability of habitats through increasing desertification and the intensification of agricultural practices are far less easy to assess, but may be no less dramatic. Conservation solutions In confronting the pressures facing Africa’s parrots, the major constraint is one of lack of knowledge. This need for more information on birds in the wild is one of the over-riding issues in African parrot conservation and would be greatly helped by the establishment of an informal network of people concerned for the future of parrots in the wild (see Box 18). Considering the interest in parrots in the Neotropics and Australasia, for example, the state of knowledge of the Africa’s parrots is very poor. Consequently, opportunities to raise awareness of the plight of these species among wildlife managers, legislators, researchers, bird-watchers, and the public in general must be taken wherever possible. More knowledge is required on birds in the field before their conservation status can be determined with any confidence and thus realistic and effective conservation measures proposed. For example, the yellow-faced parrot Poicephalus flavifrons from Ethiopia is thought to have a small distribution and to favour juniper and yellow-wood forests. The current status of both the species and the habitat is not known. A second example is the grey-headed lovebird Agapornis canus from Madagascar, which was previously thought to be common throughout most of the island (Langrand, 1990). There is now concern that trapping is beginning to seriously affect its status in the wild (O. Langrand per Mike Perrin verbally 1997) and consequently there is a need to survey the species and determine the severity of its plight. Whilst trade is thought to have been responsible for the dramatic crash in the population of the black-cheeked lovebird, it is not clear why numbers have remained low since trapping stopped and several explanations have been advanced (see Box 19). It is clear that trade can be a problem and addressing this complex task is difficult, as the money brought in by trading in these birds is important in many rural economies. Although appropriate legislation often exists, enforcement is typically poor for a variety of reasons. From the biological point of view, it is obvious that we know far too little about wild populations of traded parrots to be confident of their continued survival. Assessments similar to those recently provided for Fischer’s lovebird (Moyer 1995) of the status of populations from which birds are caught are urgently needed. The level of protection accorded to parrots by existing protected areas is quite variable. Whilst notification of an area as protected is no guarantee of security, it is the first step in helping a species towards long-term survival. No comprehensive assessment exists of the extent to which protected areas are effective in maintaining parrot populations, but such knowledge as exists indicates considerable variation across the group in the level of legal protection offered. Some species are well represented in protected areas, such as Fischer’s lovebird, which has a substantial part of its range within the Serengeti National Park, Maswa Game Reserve, and Ngorongoro Conservation Area in north-central Tanzania. Other species, however, are quite under-represented. The threatened Rόppell’s parrot barely touches the Etosha National Park in Namibia and much of the home ranges of known Cape parrot groups lie outside protected areas (Craig Symes verbally 1997), making them vulnerable despite some level of protection (see Box 20). The recent designation of the 7,000ha Black River Gorges National Park on Mauritius includes the entire known range of the echo parakeet and provides the secure habitat which is a crucial component in the recovery programme for this species. This programme has used, and is continuing to use, biological knowledge to underpin creative recovery techniques (see Box 21). In some cases, however, protected areas may not be required. For example, Meyer’s parrot is distributed in areas of low human density and is, therefore, little disturbed. Consolidating this knowledge of protected area coverage and, perhaps more importantly, the effectiveness of these areas for parrots is a prerequisite for an overall strategy for the conservation of Africa’s parrots. Box 18: Priority projects in Africa Increasing the effectiveness of parrot conservation activities in Africa Mike Perrin and Philip McGowan Aim: To build a network of interested individuals and organisations that will gather and distribute information that will help parrot conservation. Justification: Information on parrots in Africa is both scarce and hard to find, despite the considerable efforts of a few individuals. In order to build upon several recent parrot-orientated initiatives in the continent it is vital to establish and maintain a network of motivated parrot conservationists who will be able to assist with the development, execution and evaluation of project proposals, and provide advice for governmental agencies and both local and international organisations. Project description: An African parrot network will require a base from which to work. An ideal base would be the Research Centre for African Parrot Conservation at the University of Natal in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. What is required is the facility to build up a group of interested parties, which is likely to require considerable effort. This is because appropriate personnel are likely to be involved in a wide variety of activities, including research, bird-watching, general natural history, monitoring trade, or government service. Identifying appropriate personnel and then making them aware of the network will involve announcements and articles in appropriate magazines, direct contact, and displays at relevant conferences. Countries where contacts are particularly sought at the moment include Ethiopia, Tanzania, Senegal, Zambia and Madagascar. Once established, a means of managing communication, such as a newsletter, should be considered. A newsletter, together with the efficient communication will incur routine administrative costs. Contact: Mike Perrin Box 19: Priority projects in Africa Status survey and conservation of the black-cheeked lovebird in Zambia Louise Warburton Aim: To identify the ecological requirements of the black-cheeked lovebird Agapornis nigrigenis so that a conservation strategy for its survival can be prepared. Justification: The black-cheeked lovebird is Africa’s most threatened lovebird. It is thought to have suffered a major decline in numbers in the 1920s (Collar et al. 1994) because of very heavy exploitation. This resulted in a ban on its export from Zambia from 1930, but trade is thought to have remained brisk up to the 1960s (Dodman 1995). At the peak of trapping in 1929, 16,000 lovebirds were trapped in four weeks (Moreau 1948), a figure that is almost certainly impossible today as the population is estimated to number around 10,000 individuals (Dodman 1995). Why this species has not increased in numbers since extensive trapping declined is a mystery, although a change to sowing maize crops locally between the 1930s and 1950s may have led to a food shortage for a species that eats smaller seeds, such as the previously farmed millet and sorghum. Inspection of rainfall data over the last 45 years has shown a marked downward trend, coinciding with a reduction in the availability of surface water (Dodman 1995). This surface water may be critical during the dry season for a species thought to need water daily and which is apparently selective about the sources from which it will drink. A detailed assessment of the species’ distribution in relation to habitat features, such as various types of water sources, crop coverage, and vegetation, is required before a realistic conservation strategy can be advocated. In addition, other factors that may affect lovebird abundance, such as the importance of crops as food sources, and breeding success, should be investigated. Project description: Fieldwork should address three issues: population surveys, use of crops and water, and breeding success. Surveys should aim to determine the distribution and abundance of lovebirds in both the wet and dry seasons and attempt to identify factors that are associated with high densities. Data collection will probably rely on both local interviews and counts of birds. Counts can be made at pools where lovebirds come to drink and habitat measurements should be made at such sites. Comparison with habitat measurements from other sites, such as unused water-sources, may then reveal habitat features that are associated with high lovebird numbers. Such a survey would provide a baseline for the establishment of a long-term monitoring programme. As the change in agricultural practices has been suggested as a cause for concern for black-cheeked lovebirds, it is desirable to establish how dependent the species is upon crops, the amount they consume and the damage that they cause. Finally, the species may not have increased in the absence of trapping and in the presence of apparently favourable sorghum and millet because of constraints implicit in its breeding behaviour. Other lovebirds are able to reproduce rapidly, and an investigation of the breeding biology of this species may reveal why it has so far failed to do so. If feasible, movements should also be studied so that monitoring can track changes in numbers and resource availability and use more effectively. Contacts: Mike Perrin, Louise Warburton Box 20: Priority projects in Africa Status survey and conservation of the Cape parrot in South Africa Colleen Downs and Craig Symes Aim: To assess the distribution and abundance of the Cape parrot Poicephalus robustus robustus throughout its range and assess its ecological requirements so that appropriate management can be advocated. Justification: Whilst numbers of this taxon, which should probably be considered a full species (Wirminghaus unpublished data), are reasonably well known in the Natal Midlands, there is very little information from the other 70% or so of its range since the 1960s (Skead 1964; 1971). Considered Vulnerable in the South African Red Data Book (Brooke 1984), numbers are known to have declined considerably in the Natal Midlands during the last 10-20 years (Wirminghaus unpublished data, C.J. Skead per M. Perrin verbally 1997) and, therefore, an assessment of its current status throughout its range is urgently required. The deterioration of the Afro-montane forests during this period appears to have led to the decline of the parrot and thus the status of the species’ habitat also requires investigation. Of particular concern is the availability of trees with suitable nesting sites which seems to be limiting the reproductive output of the Natal Midlands population. Whilst the decline in the extent of habitat is an obvious pressure on the Cape parrot, the increasing distances between shrinking forest patches may also be causing stress to the species (Wirminghaus unpublished data). If different forest patches are used for different activities, then increasing distances between forest patches may be adversely affecting the species (Wirminghaus unpublished data) Project description: Fieldwork should address three issues: population surveys, forest quality, and the species’ use of available resources. Surveys should aim to determine the distribution and abundance of the Cape parrot throughout its entire range and attempt to identify factors that are associated with high densities. The network of informed and enthusiastic bird-watchers in much of the species’ range can help to identify potentially important forests. This information might then be supplemented by searches made by a survey team, which will be able to target previously identified areas. In each area detailed counts of birds should be made and forest quality determined. If possible, the impact of understorey cattle grazing on tree regeneration should be assessed, as should the effects of other human activities, such as the collection of small saplings and the debarking of trees for medicinal uses, as these may ultimately influence nest and roost site availability. The movements of individual birds between forest patches (Wirminghaus 1997) should be investigated in order to understand whether the reduction in size of many forest blocks is adversely affecting the parrots. Ideally, this would be achieved by comparing breeding success in a population inhabiting an area where forest blocks are relatively large and close together with a population that is reliant on forest blocks that are smaller and more widely dispersed. Following marked birds (perhaps using radio-telemetry) should reveal which patches are used for which activities and consequently what management is required. Contacts: Colleen Downs, Mike Perrin, Craig Symes Box 21: Priority projects in Africa Intensive management of the echo parakeet Psittacula eques on Mauritius Kirsty Swinnerton Aim: To increase the number and success of breeding echo parakeets using intensive management techniques until there is a stable population in excess of 300 birds dependant on minimal management. Justification: Widespread clearing of native forests, invasion of forests by woody weeds, introduction of alien predators and competitors greatly reduced echo parakeet numbers to 8-12 individuals and a 50km2 range by 1986. Without the management programme beginning in 1973 it is probable that the echo parakeet would have become extinct. The continuing existence of the echo parakeet population is dependant on addressing several factors: degradation of forests by introduced woody weeds, predator control, food shortages, and competition with alien species for nest sites and food supplies. The management programme and extensive surveying of the Black River Gorges National Park (the echo parakeet’s last refuge) has resulted in a population increase from 16-22 in 1993 to 84-95 individuals in March 1997. Project description: The echo parakeet management programme is run in conjunction with the Government of Mauritius and the Mauritian Wildlife Foundation alongside other endangered species programmes. Additional sponsors include the World Parrot Trust and the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust. The programme determines the conservation needs of the echo parakeet using a ‘learn as you go’ approach building on the previous breeding season’s results and knowledge. There are several key components to the management programme. Predator control (aimed primarily at ship rats Rattus rattus) using intensive anti-coagulant poison grids or surrounding cavity entrances with a barrier which cannot be climbed. Food shortages are obviated using a supplementary feeding programme and during chick-rearing reducing clutches from a maximum of three to a single nestling. Frequent nest checks allow underweight nestlings to be rescued. Productivity is increased by removing first clutches from selected breeding groups. Parasite (mainly nestfly Passeromyia heterochaeta) and fungal (Aspergillus) infestations are reduced by using treated nest linings. Eggs and chick are fostered between wild nests to spread productivity and risk. Harvested clutches and rescued nestlings are hand-reared in a special facility and then released into the wild population using ultra-soft release techniques. These released birds are trained to use supplementary food in special food hoppers and nest boxes. Research activities include ringing as much of the population as possible to determine breeding success and mortality and monitoring the survival and recruitment to the breeding population of both the released and wild fledged juveniles. Small fenced and weeded Conservation Management Areas are allowing impressive regeneration of the native vegetation and these are important echo parakeet feeding and nesting sites. Veterinary support is provided by the International Zoo Veterinary Group. Flexibility is an important attribute to the programme enabling fast response to management changes and problems. The echo parakeet population will need for the foreseeable future some form of management assistance in the form of supplementary feeding and alternative nest sites to overcome environmental deficiencies. Contact: Carl Jones Threatened species of Africa Table 5: A list of African parrot species that are considered threatened using IUCN Red List criteria, plus one threatened subspecies for which there is evidence that it may be a distinct species. Species are listed in alphabetic order by their scientific name, together with their distribution and threat status. The criteria under which each species qualifies are given in the appropriate species account. *denotes changes from Birds to watch 2 (and, therefore, the 1996 IUCN Red List), which have been agreed to by BirdLife International who maintain the IUCN list of threatened birds. English name Scientific name Distribution Threat category Black-cheeked lovebird Agapornis nigrigenis South-west Zambia Endangered Echo parakeet Psittacula eques South-west Mauritius Critically Endangered Possible species Cape parrot Poicephalus (robustus) robustus Eastern Cape, Natal Midlands and eastern Transvaal in South Africa To be considered Species proposed for consideration for inclusion on the Red List Rόppell’s parrot Poicephalus rueppelli Central and north-western Namibia and extreme southern Angola To be considered Black-cheeked lovebird Agapornis nigrigenis Louise Warburton Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (B1+2c; C1; C2b; D1; D2). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: It appears to occupy approximately 2500km² within a core extent of occurrence of 4,550 km² in Colophospermum mopane woodland between the Zambezi River to the south and the Kafue River to the north in south-west Zambia, and it may still occur in small patches elsewhere, such as in Namibia’s Caprivi Strip (Dodman 1995), although there are no recent reports (R.E. Simmon per Mike Perrin in litt. 1997.). During the dry season the birds retreat into two blocks of mopane woodland along the Zambezi (3,200km²) and Kafue (1,350km²) Rivers. It seems never to have recovered from heavy exploitation for the cagebird trade in the 1920s, which probably continued into the 1960s (Dodman 1995) despite a 1930 wild caught trade ban. Threats: Current threats are not clear, although the number of suitable water-sources is thought to be declining, reflecting gradual (presumed natural) desiccation (Dodman 1995) and which may be seriously affecting dry season water availability (see also ZOS 1994). Additional reasons for continued low numbers may include the change in agriculture from sorghum and millet to maize crops, and presumed specific habitat requirements. Threats include habitat loss and, more speculatively, hybridisation and/or competition with feral or naturally invasive Lilian’s lovebird A. lilianae (ZOS 1980, 1982), and the spread of disease from captive birds (see Kock 1989). There were 212 specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, 170 of which were in 1992 (CITES Annual Report database). The species is now captive bred in South Africa. Action: Fieldwork recently started is addressing three issues: population surveys, use of crops and water resources by birds, and breeding success. (See Box 19.) Echo parakeet Psittacula eques Conservation status: IUCN: Critical (D1). CITES: Appendix I National protection status: Fully protected Distribution: Now confined to 40km2 of highly degraded remnant native forest within the 7000 ha Black River Gorges National Park in the uplands of south-west Mauritius. On Rodrigues a related species Psittacula exsul survived until about 1876 (Cheke 1987) and on Reunion a form, probably conspecific with the Mauritius echo parakeet, disappeared much earlier. Population status: The population plummeted from 600-800 in the 1750’s (Jones and Owadally 1988) to an estimated 8-12 individuals in 1986 (Jones and Duffy 1993). As a result of an intensive management campaign and recent surveys, the population in March 1998 was 93-107 birds, with 20 of these in a captive breeding programme and 11 in a release programme (Thorsen et al. 1998). Surveys in 1996 and 1997 located 8 new breeding groups giving a total of 15 wild breeding groups. In the 1997/98 season, 12 of these bred and produced 17 fledglings, 7 in the wild and 10 in captivity. Fifty-eight nestlings have now fledged from wild eggs in the past three breeding seasons, significantly increasing the total population, although only 19 have fledged into the wild (Thorsen et al. 1998). In 1997 three captive-bred or reared birds were successfully released into native forest and a further 11 are currently being released. Threats: Food shortage and lack of suitable habitat as a result of massive habitat loss is considered a major factor in the species’ decline. Only 1.27% of native forest remains (Dwivedi and Venkatasamy 1991, in Duffy 1994). Depredation of eggs and nestlings, competition for food sources by introduced mammals (particularly rats and macaques), nest fly infestations, and competition for nest cavities, compounded by cyclones, are the major factors in the species’ decline and continuing vulnerability. Two birds were moved internationally (as P. echo) between 1991 and 1995 (CITES Annual Report database); both went to Jersey Zoo from Mauritius in 1991, for the breeding programme. Action: Conservation efforts were initiated in 1973 and intensified in 1987, focusing on habitat protection and improvement (fenced and weeded forest plots), rat control around nest sites, manipulation of breeding, supplementary feeding, and provision of nest boxes. Between 1993 and 1995 the programme was further refined. The main emphasis is now on predator control, nest cavity improvement, clutch manipulations (including harvesting eggs, downsizing of broods to one chick per nest, fostering of removed chicks and eggs and hand-rearing removed chicks), frequent examination of active nests, and rescuing chicks and eggs from failing nests. A release programme of hand-reared chicks began in 1997 and is continuing. It is intended that released birds will encourage wild birds to take supplemented food. The captive breeding programme will continue. The echo parakeet population is likely to be dependent upon some form of management in the near future. (See Box 21). Account for threatened taxon which may be a full species Cape parrot Poicephalus (robustus) robustus Colleen Downs, Mike Perrin and Craig Symes Conservation status: IUCN: To be considered. CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Reason for taxonomic uncertainty: Usually considered to be one of three subspecies, multivariate morphometric analyses suggest that it is more appropriately considered a full species, based on electrophoresis, karyology, DNA fingerprinting, and vocalisations (Wirminghaus unpublished data). Distribution and status: Now restricted to small, widely dispersed populations in the KwaZulu-Natal Midlands and eastern Mpumalanga in South Africa. The Cape parrot is a habitat specialist that has declined gradually and continually over the last 10-20 years (Wirminghaus unpublished data, C.J. Skead per M. Perrin verbally 1997) through habitat loss and fragmentation. Large blocks of Afro-montane forest have become much reduced in size (Cooper 1985), so populations are further apart than historically and are also separated by intensively managed farms and exotic tree plantations throughout most of its range. The taxon may qualify as Vulnerable (B1+2b,c). Threats: Fragmentation may be reaching the point where the distances that birds travel between patches is adversely affecting foraging efficiency (Wirminghaus unpublished data). This, in turn, may be reducing individual survival and breeding success. Legal and illegal extraction of potential nest trees (predominantly old and dead Podocarpus spp.) is likely to have a serious impact on breeding as nest sites are already limiting (Wirminghaus unpublished data). Increased rarity in the wild and the lack of breeding success in captivity has led to a ten-fold increase in price and demand, resulting in birds now being trapped for trade. Any harvesting of birds from the wild would further damage already depleted numbers. The impact of incidental, illegal hunting is not known. There were 6,354 wild caught specimens of the species as currently accepted (i.e. including all three subspecies) recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of 3,871 in 1994 (CITES Annual Report database). Most of this trade, however, is from Tanzania and, therefore, unlikely to be this taxon. Action: Clarification of the taxonomic status is currently underway at the Research Centre for African Parrot Conservation at the University of Natal at Pietermaritzburg and involves morphometric analysis, DNA, and vocalisations. Fieldwork on behalf of this taxon should address three issues: population surveys, forest quality, and the species’ use of available resources. Surveys should aim to determine the distribution and abundance of the Cape parrot throughout its entire range (through the continuation of the Cape parrot Big Birding Day) and attempt to identify factors that are associated with high densities. Following marked birds (perhaps using radio-telemetry) should reveal which patches are used for which activities. The monthly monitoring of populations at Hlabeni Forest should indicate the viability of this population and the current nest box erection project will determine whether nest sites are a limiting factor for the population. Subsequently, necessary conservation measures for the survival of this species and its habitat can be identified. (See Box 20.) Account for species proposed for consideration for inclusion on the Red List Rόppell’s parrot Poicephalus rueppelli Mike Perrin and Richard Selman Conservation status: IUCN: To be considered. CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Found in dry thornbush, riverine woodland, and wooded hills of the highlands of central and north-western Namibia and south-western Angola (R. Selman in litt. 1998). The patchy distribution of the species makes assessing population size difficult. However, the population was recently estimated at 9,700 ± 6,665 on the basis of atlas data (Robertson et al. 1995). This has subsequently been revised to 29,466 ± 16,392 (Jarvis and Robertson 1997) using knowledge of the species’ habitat and the distribution of vegetation, climate patterns, and altitude in Namibia. There are no recent data on the species’ status in Angola, but it believed that much of the species range lies Namibia (Robertson et al. 1995). Threats: Illegal capture for export through South Africa to Europe and North America is believed to have led to a decline in numbers of this species. The capture of wild birds is illegal in Namibia and only captive- bred birds can be sold. However, wild caught birds are being traded, leading to concerns about a decline in the population caused by an estimated 1,000 birds being taken from the wild per year. This suggests a decline rate that may put the species at risk. Locals report the loss of Rόppell’s parrots from some sites and dwindling numbers elsewhere, citing illegal capture as the reason. The reproductive rate, availability of nest sites, etc. suggest that the population would be at low risk of extinction if illegal capture were stopped. There were 12 wild caught specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995: 10 in 1994 and two in 1995 (CITES Annual Report database). Action: Existing review of wildlife trade legislation in both Namibia and South Africa may help to resolve the problem of illegal capture. Conservation action on behalf of this species should concentrate on supporting this legislation and promoting its implementation. Chapter 7 THE NEOTROPICS (Americas) Overview Alejandro Grajal With nearly 4,130 species, the Neotropics harbour almost 44% of the world’s avifauna and a generous representation of parrots (148 species in 27 genera: Wege and Long 1995). Parrot species diversity is especially great in the genera Amazona and Aratinga (31 and 19 species respectively), although the Neotropics also hosts 10 monotypic genera such as Leptosittaca, Myiopsitta, and Gypopsitta. Sizes range from the diminutive species of parrotlet, Forpus, to the hyacinth macaw, the largest parrot in the world. Neotropical parrots live in many different ecological settings and have evolved different life history traits. Some species show significant ecological and behavioural flexibility, and have become naturalised outside their regular ranges. For example, today it is not rare to see feral populations of parrots in suburban and urban areas both in the Neotropics and in warmer subtropical regions. Other species are restricted to specific habitats (for example, Anodorhynchus leari is restricted to Sertβo palm habitats of the Brazilian Caatinga and Ognorhynchus icterotis is restricted to Ceroxylum palm forests of the high Andes). Yet others are highly nomadic (e.g. Nannopsittaca panychlora, Leptosittaca branickii and Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha). Parrots are distributed from Northern Mexico to Tierra del Fuego at the southernmost tip of South America, and from the edge of glaciers in the high Andes to the steaming forests of Amazonia. Some species have large distributional ranges, particularly those parrots that are associated with lowland humid rainforests and savannahs. However, many species have extremely restricted ranges, particularly those of the Northern Andes, the Atlantic forest of south-eastern Brazil, the dry habitats of the Cerrado and Caatinga of Brazil, and the Lesser Antillean Islands of the Caribbean. The species accounts in this Action Plan discuss 50 species of Neotropical parrots that are classified as globally threatened by Collar et al. (1994). Several others have become extinct in historic times, including the Carolina parakeet Conuropsis carolinensis in eastern North America, the Cuban macaw Ara tricolor, and the Glaucous macaw Anodorhynchus glaucus in the Misiones forest of southern Brazil, northern Argentina, and Paraguay. Spix’s macaw Cyanopsitta spixii is now believed to exist almost entirely in captivity (Collar et al. 1992, Juniper and Yamashita 1990, 1991, Wege and Long 1995). The Neotropical species accounts also include several parrot species that were not considered globally threatened by Collar et al. (1994) but for which current information suggests a rapid decline in conservation status or for which discrete populations are under substantial threat. Four species (Yellow-billed parrot Amazona collaria, Hispaniolan parrot Amazona ventralis, Great-green macaw Ara ambigua and Grey- Cheeked Parakeet Brotogeris pyrrhopterus) are herewith included on the List, in agreement with BirdLife International, bringing the number of threatened species to 46. A further four taxa are noted as being worthy of further investigation of their status. These include the yellow-naped parrot Amazona auropalliata, which is under tremendous current trade pressure and deserves priority attention. Also included is the Cuban Amazon Amazona leucocephala, particularly for its fragile distinct sub-populations in the Bahamas and Cayman Islands. Similarly, The scarlet macaw Ara macao, which is relatively common and has a large distribution in South America, probably numbers fewer than 1,000 individuals in all Central America, fewer than 200 in Costa Rica, and possibly a few hundred in the Maya forests of Belize, Mexico, and Guatemala (Wiedenfeld 1994). Without urgent attention, the Central American populations can be expected to disappear in the near future. Finally, the elusive Saffron-headed parrot Pionopsitta pyrilia, is included as populations are considered very small and its habitat in Colombia is dwindling rapidly. Threats The main threats to Neotropical parrot species are habitat loss, hunting and the live bird trade. Species such as Anodorhynchus leari and Cyanopsitta spixii face imminent extinction largely due to the live bird trade (Reynolds 1997) Trapping for the bird trade in the Neotropics has occurred since pre-European times, as Amerindians valued macaws, parrots, and feather ornaments as ritualistic and trade objects. At present, owning wild parrots as pets remains socially acceptable in most Neotropical countries, even where it is known that their ownership is technically illegal. International trade in parrots has been significantly reduced during the 1990s, mainly as a result of adoption of national legislation, tighter enforcement of CITES regulations, the reviews of significant Trade in Appendix II species by the CITES Animals Committee, adoption of stricter domestic measures under the European Union legislation, adoption of the Wild Bird Conservation Act in the US, and transportation restrictions imposed by commercial airlines. These measures have all contributed to the significant reduction in the overall volume of birds traded from the Neotropics to the rest of the world. As a result of this reduction in volume, the remaining international trade has concentrated on illegal smuggling of uncommon species that command high prices such as Lear’s and hyacinth macaws and several amazon Amazona species. Illegal trade in smuggled parrots apparently continues across the US -Mexico border (Wiedenfeld 1993, 1995) and is sometimes associated with sophisticated smuggling rings dealing mainly in illegal migrant workers or illicit drugs. An international trade route to European markets is still existing, perhaps using the Caribbean islands that are commonwealth territories of European countries, such as the Netherlands Antilles and the UK Virgin Islands. The volume reaching the European Community, from mainland Central and South America seems substantial, given the results of a six year monitoring in one European port of entry (Guix et al, 1997). Local and national trade is thought to remain substantial throughout the Neotropics although it is extremely hard to quantify. Most experts are still documenting dramatic downward trends of wild populations of heavily traded species that already have low numbers (e.g. Amazona pretrei, Amazona brasiliensis, Amazona barbadensis, Guarouba (Aratinga) guarouba, the Central American Ara macao populations, and Ara ambigua guayaquilensis). Indeed, even though most countries ban trade in wild birds, it is still possible to see wild parrots being sold in markets, along rural roads and even in pet shops. Legislation in most Neotropical countries criminalises trade but not the ownership of wild birds. As a result, enforcement is usually negligible or erratic, and in most cases government agencies are legally unable to confiscate parrots owned by individuals. The root causes of this continuing pressure on wild parrots are a complex mix of several factors: widespread social and cultural approval of parrots as pets, poor enforcement of existing laws, growing purchasing capabilities of urban populations, and the need for supplementary income in impoverished rural communities. Habitat loss is an important threat to some of the most threatened parrots in the Neotropics, although understanding of specific ‘cause and effect’ relationships between parrot population declines and changes in land-use patterns remains rudimentary at best, particularly for extremely threatened species such as Ognorhynchus icterotis. However, many parrots are not habitat specialists and thrive in heterogeneous mosaics of different successional habitats. For example, many species of lowland forest habitats seem to do relatively well in modified human environments as long as a mosaic of habitats in different successional stages is maintained and the poaching of nestlings and the shooting and trapping of adults remain at low levels. Parrots that appear to be most threatened by habitat loss occur in the following regions: a) Species in the tropical Andes that require altitudinal migrations between different elevations (e.g. Ognorhynchus icterotis, Leptosittaca branickii, Ara ambigua guayaquilensis, and Hapalopsittaca fuertesi); b) Species that live in isolated forest remnants of the Atlantic forest of east and south-east Brazil, (e.g. Pyrrhura cruentata, Triclaria malachitacea); c) Species restricted to dry or seasonally dry forest habitats such as the Cerrado or the Caatinga of South America (e.g. Amazona xanthops, Ara rubrogenys, Brotogeris pyrrhopterus, and Forpus xanthops); d) Species restricted to forest remnants in the lesser and Greater Antilles of the Caribbean (e.g. Amazona vittata and Aratinga euops) or in small islands (Amazona oratrix tresmariae, Aratinga brevipes). These biogeographic regions have several factors in common, particularly high rates of deforestation and extensive fragmentation of natural habitats. The factors that induce land clearing for cattle production or agriculture are complex, but existing economic and social inequalities throughout the Neotropical region keep pushing the agricultural frontier further into natural habitats. The sinister persistence of “hidden” subsidies for land clearing in Central America, Northern Andes, and the Atlantic forests of Brazil, continues to accelerate the trend of habitat degradation. Some of these “hidden” subsidies include legal provisions that require habitat conversion to attain legal ownership of the land and corporate or individual tax shelters for industrial-scale land conversion. Finally, some of the most threatened Neotropical parrots suffer from the apocalyptic double threats of trade and habitat loss. These species include the most attractive parrots and macaws in severely pressurised or impacted habitats, including Anodorhynchus leari, Cyanopsitta spixii, Ara militaris, Ara ambigua, Guarouba (Aratinga) guarouba, and a number of Amazona species including A. brasiliensis, A. oratrix, and A. pretrei. Conservation solutions Conservation solutions have to be locally tailored, as what works in one setting may not in another (see Chapter 2). Some of the most interesting research and conservation strategies are happening in the Neotropics, such as conservation of Lesser Antillean parrot species using education and national pride (Butler 1992), law enforcement and foster nest use in Margarita Island, Venezuela (Sylvius 1997), ecotourism based on macaws in Peru, Bolivia, and Brazil (Munn 1992), and artificial nest boxes to enhance populations in Peru (Nycander et al. 1995). Some of the conservation biology research needs are discussed in Chapter 2, while other more specific strategies are discussed below. Surprisingly, few people in the Neotropics (beyond the specialists) understand or appreciate the dire conservation status of many parrot species. Nevertheless, parrots are often excellent species to use in campaigns to raise public awareness of conservation issues or as emblematic species. Parrots are well known to the general public, and inspire high levels of human empathy. Several examples show that, if properly orientated, raising environmental awareness based on parrot conservation can be very effective (Butler 1992, Sanz and Grajal 1998, Sylvius 1997). In some cases, national or local pride is a key to successful conservation campaigns. However, environmental education campaigns need to be properly designed, implemented and evaluated to avoid unintended consequences (such as the desirability to “save the parrot” by keeping it in a cage!). The threat of national and local trade demands creative studies of the social acceptability of private ownership of wild parrots. Whenever appropriate, environmental campaigns should vigorously attack private ownership of wild parrots, to reduce or eliminate national or local trade. The build- up of significant public opinion against wild bird trade does generally increase scrutiny by enforcement agencies, and eventually limits the overall volume of parrots traded locally or nationally. As human populations keep growing and natural habitats keep shrinking throughout the Neotropics, it is not surprising that the areas of highest human densities are the ones that have the largest numbers of threatened species (e.g. Central America, the Caribbean islands, the tropical Andes, and the Atlantic forest of eastern Brazil. The effects of burgeoning populations and habitat destruction have been historically accelerated by unstable land tenure regimes and hidden subsidies for land conversion. Increasing the stabilisation (and equitability) of land tenure can be an important factor in slowing the growth of the agricultural frontier. Similarly, more transparent fiscal policies can eliminate subsidies for land clearing. Incentives to encourage the maintenance of wildlands must be found. While many of these actions transcend the psittacine taxonomic scope of this Action Plan, conservationists and decision-makers should be aware of these factors and act opportunistically and appropriately to minimise their impact upon parrots and other threatened species. Parrot biologists can help to identify critical linkages in habitat connectivity for species facing severe habitat fragmentation. For example, this Action Plan has identified priority actions (land purchases or strict protection) for severely threatened parrots in the Andes of Colombia and Ecuador. Concentrating at a regional scale can make such conservation efforts more effective and efficient. Similarly, spatial analysis of the ecological representation of various habitats in protected areas can provide an idea of habitat conservation priorities in heavily fragmented areas such as in Brazil’s Atlantic forests and Central America. In fact, the current multi-national effort to implement the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor in Central America should maintain and in some cases, create, key linkages for habitat connectivity. Brazil’s recent strategic plans to establish a network of biological corridors between protected areas may advance conservation possibilities for severely threatened parrots in dry habitats of north-east Brazil (Caatinga), the Brazilian Cerrado, and the Atlantic forests of south-east Brazil. In the tropical Andes of Venezuela, Ecuador, and Colombia, protected area boundaries should be rethought, with the idea of increasing both the connectivity between reserves as well as the altitudinal representation of mosaics of important habitats. Since most Andean reserves were historically designed with altitudinal lower limits, many parrot species appear to be suffering from lack of contiguous altitudinal habitats for seasonal foraging or reproductive migrations. Ecotourism has the potential to provide economic value to large and colourful parrots or macaws. However, most tourism operators are concerned with very localised tourism attractions (such as parrot roosts), and local people are rarely prepared to be full-fledged tourism operators. As a result, few tourism projects are designed in a way that benefit local people or enhance parrot conservation. The challenge remains to create tourism operations that enhance parrot conservation and therefore add local value to these birds (for more on ecotourism, see Chapter 2). Not all valuation needs to be financial. Indeed, pride and nationalism can play important incentives in parrot conservation (Butler 1992). This has been particularly valuable in the Caribbean islands, where using emblematic species of parrots has increased their protection and has built popular support for conservation, enforcement, and legislation. This global Action Plan should be used as a guide to produce participatory national Action Plans. Concentrating as it does on global priorities, many subspecies or subpopulations are poorly represented in this Action Plan. Therefore, each country or region should develop plans that address its own threatened species or subspecies and which build upon the worldwide priorities outlined here. Venezuela developed a comprehensive Action Plan as part of a national symposium on conservation priorities for parrots. The symposium included the participation of government representatives, NGOs, universities and aviculturists. The organisers also produced a book with the most recent information on parrot biology and conservation for the country (Morales et al. 1994). A similar effort in Brazil resulted in a special edition of the journal of the Brazilian Ornithological Society, Ararajuba (Vol.5 No. 2, December 1997), with a section dedicated to parrot biology and conservation. The production of national Action Plans should be encouraged, as they will properly address conservation issues at an appropriate scale, and will provide outlets for existing information. Table 6: A list of Neotropical parrot species that are considered threatened using IUCN Red List criteria. Also included are additional taxa that may be threatened and are proposed as candidates for the Red List. Species are listed in alphabetic order by their scientific name, together with their distribution and threat status. The criteria under which each species qualifies are given in the appropriate species account. *denotes changes from Birds to watch 2 (and, therefore, the 1996 IUCN Red List), which have been agreed to by BirdLife International who maintain the IUCN list of threatened birds. English name Scientific name Distribution Threat category Black-billed parrot Amazona agilis Jamaica Vulnerable Red-necked amazon Amazona arausiaca Dominica in the Lesser Antilles Vulnerable Yellow-shouldered amazon Amazona barbadensis Dry coastal scrub of Venezuela and outlying islands of Margarita, La Blanquilla, and Bonaire Vulnerable Red-tailed amazon Amazona brasiliensis Brazil's Serra do Mar Endangered Yellow-billed parrot* Amazona collaria Jamaica Vulnerable St. Vincent amazon Amazona guildingii St. Vincent in the Lesser Antilles Vulnerable Imperial amazon Amazona imperialis Dominica in the Lesser Antilles Vulnerable Yellow-headed parrot Amazona oratrix Mexico and Belize Endangered Red-spectacled parrot Amazona pretrei Araucaria forests of south-eastern Brazil Endangered Red-browed amazon Amazona rhodocorytha Lowland hardwood areas of Brazil's Atlantic forest Endangered Hispaniolan parrot* Amazona ventralis Hispaniola Vulnerable St. Lucia parrot Amazona versicolor Saint Lucia in the Lesser Antilles Vulnerable Vinaceous amazon Amazona vinacea Submontane “mixed” regions of Brazil's Atlantic forest Endangered Red-crowned parrot Amazona viridigenalis North-eastern states in Mexico Endangered Puerto Rican parrot Amazona vittata Forested parts of Puerto Rico Critically Endangered Yellow-faced amazon Amazona xanthops Cerrado (dry woodland) of interior eastern Brazil Vulnerable Hyacinth macaw Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus Pantanal of Brazil and Bolivia, and North-eastern Brazil Vulnerable Lear’s macaw Anodorhynchus leari Raso da Catarina, Bahia State, Brazil Critically Endangered Great-green macaw* Ara ambigua Lowland wet forests between eastern Honduras and western Colombia, western Ecuador Vulnerable Blue-throated macaw Ara glaucogularis Seasonally flooded Beni Lowlands (Llanos de Moxos) of Central Bolivia Endangered Blue-winged macaw Ara maracana Gallery forest and forest edge in parts of Brazil, eastern Paraguay and northern Argentina Vulnerable Military macaw Ara militaris Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru and Bolivia Vulnerable Red-fronted macaw* Ara rubrogenys Arid intermontane valleys of south- central Bolivia Vulnerable Golden-capped parakeet Aratinga auricapilla Semi-deciduous forests of the Paranα River Basin, Brazil Vulnerable Socorro parakeet Aratinga brevipes Socorro Island in the Revillagigedo Islands of Baja California, Mexico Vulnerable Hispaniolan parakeet Aratinga chloroptera Hispaniola, including the offshore islands Vulnerable Cuban parakeet Aratinga euops Cuba Vulnerable Grey cheeked parakeet Brotogeris pyrrhopterus Deciduous and dry forests of South west Ecuador and North Western Peru Endangered Rufous-fronted parakeet Bolborhynchus ferrugineifrons Forest-pαramo ecotone of the Central Andes of Colombia Endangered Spix’s macaw Cyanopsitta spixii Caatinga woodland and scrub of the dry region of north-east Brazil Critically Endangered Yellow-faced parrotlet Forpus xanthops Riparian thickets and desert scrub of the upper Maraρσn valley in north-central Peru Vulnerable Golden parakeet Guarouba (Aratinga) guarouba Northern Brazil Endangered Rusty-faced parrot Hapalopsittaca amazonina High Andean forests of Colombia and Venezuela Endangered Azure-winged parrot (Fuertes's parrot) Hapalopsittaca fuertesi Andean forests of the west slope of the central Andes of Colombia Critically Endangered Red-faced parrot Hapalopsittaca pyrrhops High cloud forests near Pαramo on the East Andean slopes of Ecuador and Peru Endangered Golden-plumed parakeet Leptosittaca branickii Cloud forests of central Colombia, Ecuador and southern Peru Vulnerable Yellow-eared conure Ognorhynchus icterotis Wax palm forest in the Central Cordillera of Colombia and Northern Ecuador Critically Endangered White-breasted parakeet Pyrrhura albipectus Upper tropical and subtropical forest of south-east Ecuador Vulnerable Flame-winged parakeet Pyrrhura calliptera Upper montane forest and pαramo on the central eastern Cordillera of Colombia Vulnerable Blue-throated parakeet Pyrrhura cruentata Atlantic Forest of Brazil Vulnerable El Oro parakeet Pyrrhura orcesi Very humid upper tropical forest on the west slope of the Andes of south-west Ecuador Vulnerable Santa Marta parakeet Pyrrhura viridicata Premontane to montane forests of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia Vulnerable Thick-billed parrot Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha Pine forests in mountain areas of northern Mexico Endangered Maroon-fronted parrot Rhynchopsitta terrisi Pine forests in mountain areas of northern Mexico Vulnerable Brown-backed parrotlet Touit melanonota Mid-altitude humid forests of Rio de Janeiro, Sγo Paulo and Bahia, Brazil Endangered Spot-winged parrotlet Touit stictoptera Upper tropical and lower subtropical montane forests of Colombia, Ecuador, and northern Peru Vulnerable Golden-tailed parrotlet Touit surda Humid lowland forests of north-eastern and south-eastern Brazil Endangered Blue-bellied parrot* Triclaria malachitacea Atlantic forest of south-eastern Brazil Vulnerable Species proposed for consideration for inclusion on the Red List Yellow-naped parrot Amazona auropalliata Mesoamerica To be considered Vulnerable Cuban amazon Amazona leucocephala Cuba, the Bahamas Islands, and Cayman Islands To be considered Vulnerable Northern Central American populations of the scarlet macaw Ara macao cyanoptera Southern Mexico through Central America (separate from nominal species throughout northern South America east of the Andes, south as far as Bolivia and southern Brazil) To be considered Endangered Saffron-headed Parrot Pionopsitta pyrilia Humid montane forest and cloud montane forest of Venezuela and Colombia Vulnerable Species accounts Black-billed parrot Amazona agilis Herlitz Davis, Susan Koenig, Wendy A. Lee, Catherine Levy, Noel Snyder Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Protected under the Jamaica Wildlife Protection Act of 1945. Distribution and status: Endemic to the island of Jamaica. Range is restricted to mid-level wet limestone forest, which has been severely reduced over the past 40 years. Locally common throughout the Cockpit Country, particularly in disturbed edge habitat where it is more common than the yellow-billed parrot A. collaria, with which it occasionally associates. Populations also found at Worthy Park and Mount Diablo in the centre of the island. Historical reports also placed it at the eastern end of the island, although recent sightings in that area are uncommon. Small flocks have, however, been seen recently in the John Crow Mountains. Preliminary surveys indicate much greater population estimates than previously described, and possibly over 10,000 individuals in the Cockpit Country region (C. Levy in litt 1999). Threats: The greatest threat to population persistence is habitat loss, although illegal hunting and collecting for the pet trade continues. There are reports of birds being shot for food and as crop pests, particularly in areas with cultivated ackee Blighia sapida, pimento Pimenta spp., and corn Zea mays. The most notable impact of chick harvesting is the destruction of nest trees by poachers. Nesting success is 30-50%, with successful nests producing an average of 1.9 chicks. Nests that fail due to natural or anthropogenic factors have a very low likelihood of being used the following breeding season. Poaching, even without destruction, may increase nest switching and cause birds to abandon otherwise suitable cavities for those affording less protection from predators and inclement weather/flooding, two important natural causes of nest failure. Most failed nests do so in the early nestling period, resulting from predation by yellow boa Epicrates subflavus (Gruber 1980) and to a lesser extent Jamaican row Corvus jamaicensis. However, low reproductive performance does not appear to be limiting population health. Of unproven, but realistic threat is the possibility of disease transmittal and competition between Jamaica’s native parrot species and the several introduced psittacine species on the island (Long 1981, Lever 1987). There were no wild caught specimens of the species recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995 (CITES Annual Report database). The species was proposed for inclusion in CITES Appendix I in 1997 but this was rejected by the Parties on the basis that international trade did not appear to threaten the species. Actions: The black-billed parrot has been bred in captivity (Noegel 1979). The Blue and John Crow Mountain National Park was declared in 1993, but topography, lack of awareness, and lack of human resources for protection deter effective conservation action. The Cockpit Country has been identified as a priority area for conservation but has not yet been declared a protected area. Two research projects are in progress under the sponsorship of the Gosse Bird Club. These projects are compiling information on distribution and population estimates, and breeding biology. Red-necked amazon Amazona arausiaca Paul Butler, Billy Christian, Susan Koenig, Noel Snyder Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (D1; D2). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: In 1976, the Forestry and Wildlife Act made it illegal to hunt parrots (Evans 1991) Distribution and status: This species is found only on the island of Dominica in the Lesser Antilles. Recent surveys indicate that the main stronghold of the population is in and around the forests of Morne Diablotin from 300-800m, although the species is also found in other forested areas of the island. Numbers have apparently risen in recent years, from a low of 150 in 1980 to more than 500 by 1993 (Collar et al. 1994). Biologists of the Dominican Ministry of Agriculture place the population at not less than 2500 birds. Amazona arausiaca occurs at much higher densities than the sympatric A. imperialis. Flocks of up to five individuals can be seen regularly, although pairs and trios are more common. Parrots have been observed eating citrus fruits, opening the rind, and eating seeds. Threats: The historic decline was presumably caused by a combination of hunting for food, habitat conversion, trade, and hurricanes (Evans 1991). Actions: Although biological research on this species has been intermittent since the late 1970s, key aspects of its biology remain unknown. Such studies are needed and desired by the local government. Efforts to establish the proposed Morne Diablotin National Park should be continued, since the long- term survival of the two endemic parrots will be largely dependent on the continued existence of the intact forest in this proposed protected area (Lambert et. al 1993). Methods of protecting crops from damage by red- necked amazons should also be investigated as it may help reduce the human-wildlife conflict with citrus farmers. With the growing tourist trade in Dominica, this species, along with the imperial amazon, holds great promise as a target of ecotourism development. Yellow-shouldered amazon Amazona barbadensis Adriana Rodriguez-Ferraro, JonPaul Rodriguez, Franklin Rojas-Suarez, Virginia Sanz, and Chris Sharpe. Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (C2a). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to the Falcon, Sucre, and Anzoαtegui States of Venezuela, and to the outlying islands of Margarita, La Blanquilla, and Bonaire. It is considered extinct in Aruba. Amazona barbadensis rothschildi occurs on Margarita Island (1900 individuals) and on Isla La Blanquilla there are an estimated 80-100 individuals(Rodriguez-Ferraro 1996). A. barbadensis is found in Falcon and Anzoαtegui states. The total population of Falcon is estimated at 400-700 individuals and at least 100 for Cerro La Misiσn (M. Goodwin verbally 1997, Wege and Long 1995). The subspecific designation for the two races may not be valid (Amato 1995). There are also populations of unknown size in the states of Lara (Carora), Sucre (Peninsula de Araya). On the island of Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, the population is estimated at 450 individuals (R. Hensen verbally 1992). Threats: The main threat continues to be the trade for the national and international pet market, which particularly affects the western populations of Falcon and Lara states. In Cerro La Misiσn, birds are captured as local household pets. Nearly 120 individuals were confiscated in the islands of Aruba and Curaηao between 1994 and 1996, all originating in the Western mainland population. There were 60 wild caught specimens recorded moving internationally between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of 37 in 1994; 33 parrots were sent to Venezuela from the Netherlands Antilles where they had been seized (CITES Annual Report database). In Margarita, habitat destruction still poses a significant threat to the recovering population of Macanao peninsula, particularly as seasonal watercourses are mined for construction materials (sand and gravel). These seasonal watercourses (quebradas) are the main nesting and feeding grounds for A. barbadensis. In some areas, this parrot is hunted as it is considered a pest of Spondias purpurea orchards. Actions: For the Margarita and La Blanquilla island populations, Provita (a Venezuelan conservation organisation) is running a successful programme, which should be supported. This programme has combined a successful environmental education campaign (A. barbadensis was declared the State bird in 1990) with strong linkages to local enforcement agencies (National Guard, Ministry of the Environment), resulting in arrests for poachers, confiscations, and a fruitful foster nest programme to relocate chicks from nests at risk from poaching. Yearly census have shown the population to increase from 800 individuals in 1989 to 1900 in 1996. Detailed studies of its diet and habitat use were pivotal in an experimental and successful reintroduction project for eight animals using radio-telemetry techniques (Sanz and Grajal 1998). As the only protected area that (marginally) protects the species, La Restinga National Park in Margarita Island should be strengthened. A proposal for the creation of a dedicated wildlife refuge in the Macanao Peninsula (Rodriguez and Rojas-Suarez 1995), although supported by local government and institutions, has been stalled by the national government. Further actions should include a census of western populations of Falcon and Lara States to assess population trends. The talks and awareness campaigns at La Blanquilla Island should be continued. An ecotourism programme in Margarita Island, focusing on the natural habitats of Macanao Peninsula, might be developed. The possibility of reintroducing A. barbadensis in Aruba should be explored. Red-tailed amazon Amazona brasiliensis Paulo Martuschelli, Fαbio Olmos, Pedro Scherer-Neto Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (A1b,c; A2c,d; B1+2c,e; C1; C2a). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to the eastern slopes of Brazil's Serra do Mar (from sea level to 700m), in southern Sγo Paulo and Paranα states, and northern Santa Catarina state. The total area of distribution of this species is approximately 3,000km2. The species inhabits a mosaic of habitats, including mangroves, restinga flooded forests, and dense rainforest (six recognised habitat types) that occur in the narrow stretch of land (10-30km wide) from the sea to the mountains. The range includes several islands immediately offshore that are used by the parrots as overnight roosts. The most important islands are Peηas, Rasa, and Superagui, with the largest roost at Pinheiro Island. Pinheiro island is considered within the category of “Areas of relevant ecological interest”, and part of the “Area of environmental protection of Guaraqueηaba”. The population of red-tailed amazons for Paranα State, once thought to be relatively stable with c. 3,000 birds in 1988, is estimated to have declined by a third, to about 2,000 in 1992 (P. Scherer Neto in litt. 1992). The total population of red-tailed amazons in 1997 was estimated between 3,500 and 4,500 (P. Sherer-Neto in litt.. 1997). Threats: The main threat is capture of both adults and young for the pet trade, particularly by local people and fishermen on the offshore islands. Guarani Indians that invaded Superagui National Park and Ilha Cardoso State Park are believed to be a partly responsible for low recruitment rates, through shooting of adults. These reserves receive almost no protection while the proposed Ilha Comprimida State Park and Itapanhapina Ecological Station are still in the design phase. The proposed construction of a bridge to the mainland at Ilha Comprimida will increase tourism pressure and habitat conversion (F. Olmos in litt. 1997). About 356 birds were taken from the wild in the municipality of Cananeia alone in 1991/1992. Three wild caught specimens were recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, all in 1993 (two seized birds and one circus bird: CITES Annual Report database). Shooting, loss of nest-trees to boat builders, and deforestation for banana plantations, cattle grazing land, and beach houses are additional serious threats. Actions: Regular monitoring of all the significant remaining populations of the species, and a major public awareness and education programme for guards and local inhabitants are urgently required. Vigilance against poaching, hunting, and cutting of trees should be increased in and around all the twelve protected areas within the range of the species, and the tiny but important Ilha do Pinheiro should be included in the adjacent Superagui National Park. Yellow-billed parrot Amazona collaria Herlitz Davis, Susan Koenig, Wendy Lee, Catherine Levy, and Noel Snyder Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (A1c,d). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Since 1986, both A. collaria and A. agilis have been listed as 'threatened” by the Jamaican government. This is an addition to Collar et al. (1994) and hence the IUCN Red List. Although there are still moderate numbers of yellow-billed parrots, it is included because it is believed to have suffered a precipitous population decline and there is strong pressure on its populations from both cagebird harvest and habitat destruction. Distribution and status: Endemic to Jamaica, this species is still widespread, more so than the other Jamaican Amazona species, the black-billed parrot Amazona agilis, although no thorough island-wide surveys have yet been conducted. Flocks of 50-60 are observed year-round, particularly in the non-breeding season, moving from the interior forest to edge habitat, to forage. Particularly found in Cockpit Country, Mt. Diablo, and the John Crow Mountains. A small (presumably feral) population is also established at Hope Gardens in Kingston. In the Cockpit Country, which has long been considered the stronghold of this species, recent studies indicate that A. collaria is less abundant than A. agilis, possibly a result of A. collaria being a more colourful species and preferred in trade. While A. agilis is currently found nesting throughout Cockpit, including disturbed plantation areas along the edges, collaria now nests almost exclusively in relatively remote interior regions. Local reports suggest a significant decline overall in Cockpit and a higher degree of threat than for A. agilis. Preliminary population counts suggest 5,000 individuals in the Cockpit Country, Mt. Diablo, and the John Crow Mountains (C. Levy in litt. 1999) The species is often difficult to distinguish from A. agilis at a distance and potential misidentifications may have affected the validity of some earlier reports on its abundance and distribution. Threats: Illegal trade has been a much greater threat to A. collaria than to A. agilis, presumably because the latter is relatively difficult to keep healthy in captivity and is less colourful. Existence of a feral A. collaria population in disturbed habitat in Kingston suggests that the species may have been more threatened by trade than by habitat destruction, although both factors appear to have been involved. One wild caught specimen was recorded in international trade in 1991 and none between 1992 and 1995 (CITES Annual Report database). Some persecution for crop and garden damage, especially citrus, has also been reported. Nesting success in recent studies in Cockpit Country has been lower than for agilis, with a high percentage (c. 70%) of pairs exploring and defending nest sites but failing to lay eggs. Actions: A major study of both Jamaican amazons was initiated in 1995 by the Gosse Bird Club with the ultimate goal of developing conservation recommendations. Conservation efforts important to both A. collaria and A. agilis include protection of habitat, control of harvesting for the pet trade, and control of shooting. The Forestry Acts of 1937 and 1973 provide certain forms of protection to some habitat, such as the Cockpit Country Forestry Reserve, and other areas have been established as sanctuaries. Portions of the lands important to native parrots (Blue Mountains, John Crow Mountains, Portland Ridge, Cockpit Country, and major swamps) have been designated potential (and in some cases established) national parks under the National Physical Plan for Jamaica. In 1986, both A. collaria and A. agilis were listed as “threatened” by the Jamaican government. Also, stringent gun control has been instituted by the Jamaican government. All of these policies have resulted in a general awareness of the legal status of parrots among Jamaicans. However, they are still harvested illegally for local and international trade, and a stricter enforcement policy on poaching of nests is needed. Cockpit Country is not yet an officially established National Park, and comprehensive protection of this area is believed to be a central need for conservation of Jamaica's parrots. St. Vincent amazon Amazona guildingii Paul Butler, James Gilardi, David Jeggo, and Fitzroy Springer Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (D1; D2). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Distribution and status: Found only in the forested areas of the island of St. Vincent in the Lesser Antilles. Biennial surveys conducted since the late 1980s suggest that the population is quite stable, possibly increasing recently to 800 birds (Collar et al. 1994). Roughly 30 individuals are currently in captivity in an aviary in the Botanical Gardens in St. Vincent, and some 60 birds are also found in Barbados, North America, and Europe combined. All known captive birds are registered in a studbook for this species. Threats: Historically the major threats have been hunting for food and for the pet trade, and to a lesser extent, conversion of habitat. Chicks were taken from the nests which partially explains why there are more of these birds in captivity than there are St. Lucia parrots, which were apparently never collected from nests. Intermittent hurricanes have probably reduced population numbers in the past, particularly Hurricane Allen in 1980. The eruption of the Soufriere volcano in 1979 directly wiped out undetermined numbers of parrots as well as destroying a considerable amount of the remaining forest on the island (Nichols 1981). Both types of natural disasters are to be expected in the future and can only be effectively countered by a healthy population of parrots in a healthy quantity of habitat. Actions: As with all of the amazons of the Lesser Antilles, this species has received considerable domestic and international attention (Butler 1992). Initiated in the late 1980s, education campaigns and political action have led directly to meaningful protection of the rainforest and of this species which is now St. Vincent and the Grenadines' National Bird (Butler 1988). This species remains one of the least studied of all the Caribbean amazons. Beyond the population surveys and the description of several nest sites, little is known of its biology. Along with continued protection and censusing, a study of the reproductive success, movement patterns, and habitat requirements of this species is fundamental to its continued recovery. Imperial amazon Amazona imperialis Paul Butler, Billy Christian, Susan Koenig, Noel Snyder Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (D1; D2). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Dominica’s Forestry and Wildlife Act of 1976 prohibits the hunting of parrots. Distribution and status: Found only in the rainforests of Morne Diablotin and in the southern mountains east of Rousseau on Dominica in the Lesser Antilles. In the early 1990s it numbered less than 100 (Evans 1994), although recent observations suggest higher numbers. In 1994 close to 100 individuals were observed in just one valley on the west side of Morne Diablotin. The total population was roughly estimated to be in the low 100s (N. Snyder in litt. 1997). Biologists at the Dominican Ministry of Agriculture estimate the population for 1998 at 250 to 300 birds. Threats: Shooting for food was historically the most important threat but this threat has been much reduced in recent years. There has been some deforestation but the occupied habitat of the species is still in relatively good shape. Presumably Hurricane David in 1979 reduced the population somewhat, but the main effects of the storm were in the southern part of the island. Little is known of the threats from potential competitors. Red-necked parrots apparently initiate nesting earlier in the season, and in one instance a pair of red-necks used a historic imperial amazon nest site. Actions: In recent years the imperial amazon has benefited from joint government and NGO efforts to protect its habitat and sensitise local citizens to its needs. Although biological research on the biology of this species has been intermittent since the late 1970s, key aspects of its biology remain unknown. Efforts to establish the proposed Morne Diablotin National Park should be of top priority, since the long- term survival of the two endemic parrots will be largely dependent on the continued existence of the intact forest in this proposed protected area. With the growing tourist trade in Dominica, this species along with the red-necked amazon holds great promise as a target of ecotourism development. Very little is known about the ecology of this species and what factors are currently affecting its status. Such studies are needed and desired by the local government. Yellow-headed parrot Amazona oratrix Sergio Aguilar, Alvaro Aragσn-Tapia, Mauro Berlanga, Jack Clinton-Eitniear, Ernesto Enkerlin-Hoeflich, Jaime Gonzalez-Elizondo, Josι Luis Manzano-Loza, Carolyn Miller, Ernesto Ruelas, Mario A. Vazquez, and Paul Wood. Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (A1a,c,d; A2c,d; C1; C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Endangered in Mexico (Peligro de extincion, NOM- ECOL-059-1994). Distribution and status: Native to Mexico, Belize, Guatemala and Honduras. Populations have dramatically declined through most of its range. Four forms or races are considered but have yet to receive official subspecific recognition (Clinton-Eitniear in litt. 1997). A. o. oratrix and A. o. “magna” are respectively found primarily along the eastern and western coasts of Mexico. A. o. tresmariae is endemic to the Tres Marias Archipelago off the coast of Nayarit, Maria Madre, Maria Magdalena, and Maria Cleσfas in Mexico. A. o. belizensis, formerly widespread in coastal Belize, now primarily is found in north-western Belize, and along the northern Guatemala-Honduras border. Present range is very much like historic range but contracting in the edges and reduced to isolated populations within its core range (see also map in Howell and Webb 1995). Threats: A. o. oratrix is highly sought after by both the national and international pet market (Enkerlin- Hoeflich and Packard 1993). It is evidently still present in the illegal national trade since juvenile and yearling birds (recognised by the extent of yellow on the head and other subtle characteristics) are still found openly exhibited by proud owners who upon questioning argue that they have had the pet for “ many years” (Enkerlin-Hoeflich in litt. 1997). A. oratrix is the second most important in number of confiscated parrots at the Mexico-Texas border after A. auropalliata (Gobbi et al. 1996). A. oratrix most likely originate in Mexico, whereas A. auropalliata are presumed to be passed through Mexico from Honduras and Guatemala. There were 53 wild caught specimens of the whole species recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of 25 in 1995 (CITES Annual Report database). Actions: Increased awareness campaigns are the greatest hope for the species. Several organisations within Mexico such as TEYELIZ and Naturalia have initiated country-wide campaigns to educate the public on the species of Psittacines allowed in trade. Colourful posters depicting illegal species are posted in every airport and customs check points around the country. Mexican wildlife authorities through PROFEPA have greatly improved capabilities for law enforcement and confiscations. Jail sentences and follow-up actions are still the exception but exposure of delinquents is creating enough awareness amongst the great majority of the public. Ample opportunity lies with education and pride generation in rural areas. Most land in Mexico is private and efforts with landowners seem to have the greatest opportunity for effectiveness. The Center for the Study of Tropical Birds in conjunction with Mexican institutions has started the “Dia de los Loros”, a one day festival in the core area remaining for the species in north-east Mexico (J. Clinton-Eitniear in litt. 1997). In terms of intensive population management, reduction of pre-fledging mortality seems to hold most promise as A. oratrix do not commonly double clutch and do not seem limited by nest sites. Elimination of predation by snakes might allow for a minimum increased recruitment of about 10% of active nests in areas Mexican. Such an increase in productivity would be considerable in a whole population of a few thousand individuals. Other alternatives would be to implement nest guarding as in Puerto Rican parrot (Lindsey 1992). We envision that use of intensive techniques for conservation of species per se is very unlikely and left as a measure of last resort, especially considering the cost effectiveness of education and enforcement. Tres Marias population (A. o. tresmariae) Distribution and status: A. o. tresmariae is an endemic to Tres Marias Archipelago off the coast of Nayarit, Maria Madre, Maria Magdalena and Maria Cleσfas in Mexico. Threats: A. o. tresmariae individuals are still being taken by local island residents and reports of Tres Marias parrots on the market in mainland Mexico are frequent but impossible to substantiate (J.C. Cantϊfa in litt. 1997). The Mexican Government recently authorised extraction of nine pairs for “conservation through aviculture” to a private breeding facility, which might increase demand by other aviculturists. The Government of Mexico has also announced a national programme to establish “ units for wildlife use and conservation” or UMAs around Mexico. While this scheme may eventually prove to be successful, at present it poses a serious threat to a number of parrot species, including A. oratrix, for which increased trade will result as these facilities start. As controls are currently lax, it will also greatly increase probabilities for laundering of wild caught birds. There were 53 wild caught specimens of the whole species recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of 25 in 1995, together with an individual noted as this subspecies in 1992 and another 1994 (CITES Annual Report database). Actions: Fortunately for the future of A. o. tresmariae, the archipelago will continue under control of Mexican prison authorities. The Secretarνa de Gobernaciσn (Ministry of Government Affairs) has intentions to eventually afford a protected status designation to the islands including a sea buffer area around them (J. Dνaz de Leon in litt. 1997). A proposed project will evaluate the state of endemic birds, with special emphasis on the two parrots A. o. tresmariae and Forpus cyanopygius insularis, and mammals. Another project will propose and implement measures to reduce and ultimately eradicate introduced goats, cats, and deer. Belize population (A. o. belizensis) Distribution and status: Formerly widespread in suitable habitat in coastal Belize, now primarily in north- western Belize, and along the northern Guatemala-Honduras border. There is reportedly a “good” population in a private reserve, the Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area, in the north-western part of Belize. Interestingly, this area includes Hillbank where the species was reported to be common in the 1960's (Russell 1964). Another population is reported from Monkey Bay Wildlife Sanctuary in the central part of the country along the Western Highway. (See Collar et al. 1992 for an ample description and account). Threats: Although A. o. belizensis is well protected at the Rio Bravo and Monkey Bay properties, the population is thought to be declining countrywide. Recent development of extensive housing tracts presents a new threat to populations in unprotected savanna areas. A. o. belizensis is also frequently shot as a citrus pest and citrus development is currently expanding in Belize. There is limited, if any, export of A. o. belizensis. There were 53 wild caught specimens of the whole species recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of 25 in 1995 (CITES Annual Report database). Actions: Government conservation officials in Belize have expressed interest in developing a captive parrot banding registration scheme for A. o. belizensis. After captive birds are banded and registered, newly captured birds can be confiscated, and owners can be prosecuted. The Belize Zoo has been active over the years in discouraging parrots as pets, and most school children visit the Belize Zoo. However, there has been no widespread campaign targeted at this species. The Belize Audubon Society is initiating a publicity campaign beginning with a press release and they are developing further educational efforts targeting this species. Ecotourism is the second largest revenue generator in Belize but it has tended to bypass savanna areas. Ecotourism is being developed at the Rio Bravo Conservation Area and A. oratrix could conceivably be an aspect of ecotourism. Birders constitute a large percentage of Belize's tourists and they would no doubt be delighted to tick this bird on their list. The following actions are suggested for the conservation of A. oratrix in Belize: evaluation of existing wild populations to determine the distribution and quality of protection; banding and registering captive populations; and an education campaign in English, Spanish, and Chinese. Red-spectacled parrot Amazona pretrei Jaime Martinez, Nemora Prestes Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (A1c,d; A2c,d; C1). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to south Brazil, and distributed only in the states of Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina (Martinez 1996). A few individuals have been recorded in the Misiones forests of north- eastern Argentina (Chebez 1994) and it has also recently been reported from Paraguay (see Lowen et al. 1997) . A nomadic species, A. pretrei tends to concentrate in the remaining Araucaria forests of south- eastern Santa Catarina between the months of March and June to feed on the mass seed production of Araucaria augustifolia. During August and January, A. pretrei disperses in small flocks that range from tens to hundreds of individuals in a wide distribution of Rio Grande do Sul, particularly at the habitats of Campos da Cima da Serra, Planalto Medio, Alto Uruguai, Depression Central, and Serra do Sudeste. A census in 1994 estimated total population at 10,000 individuals, repeated censuses have showed population sizes of about 12,600 in 1996 and about 16,300 in 1997 (J. Martinez in litt. 1997, N. Prestes in litt. 1997) Threats: The main threat is thought to be the illegal domestic trade, particularly occurring in the municipalities of Lagoa Vermelha, Barracγo, Esmeralda, and Muitos Capυes. Approximately 500 chicks are taken annually from nests to be sold in the large urban centres of Caixas do Sul, Florianσpolis, Curitiba, and Sγo Paulo (Prestes et al. 1997). Reductions in the Araucaria seed supply may have been the cause for the change in feeding grounds from Aracuri Biological Station in 1991 (Muitos Capυes municipality) to the areas around the south-east of Santa Catarina, where the remaining Araucaria forest patches may supply enough seed to feed the populations of A. pretrei. Intense cattle grazing and agriculture have nearly extinguished the Araucaria forests habitat. These habitat impacts have reduced natural regeneration, and may have also reduced the amount of nesting sites in old trees. Actions: The continuing monitoring programme in southern Brazil, through regular censuses in its feeding and reproduction areas, together with recent advances in radio-telemetry, are providing information on yearly movements and population dynamics. Many land owners are engaged in protection of the trees where the parrot nests. The awareness programme includes an intense environmental education programme directed to students, professors, ranchers (fazenderos), and rural workers, using posters, presentations, and other publications. One of the communal roosts in the middle of a reproductive area was protected with the creation of the Carazinho Municipal Park. In the last two years artificial nests have been offered, but these boxes have not been used despite a potential limitation in suitable nesting trees. Further intensification of environmental education campaigns, enforcement of anti-poaching regulations, and provision of alternative sources of income for trappers could diminish the capture for the pet trade. Red-browed amazon Amazona rhodocorytha Paulo Martuschelli, Fαbio Olmos, and Carlos Yamashita, Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (B1+2c,e; C2a; D1). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to the lowland hardwood areas of Brazil's Atlantic forest, ranging from southern Alagoas state to extreme northern Sγo Paulo state. Population size is unknown but it is assumed to be rapidly declining as habitat diminishes. Threats: Habitat destruction is the main threat; the forest where it occurs is now highly fragmented. Cocoa production was formerly the main economy in the parrot's most suitable habitats (southern Bahia state). The decline of cocoa production has led to cutting of the big shade trees that provide good nest sites. Landless peasant movements (“sem terras”, many of whom formerly worked the cocoa plantations) have expanded into protected areas, where they are involved in illegal logging operations. Illegal trade may also be a threat, as it is for all large parrots in Brazil (i.e. macaws and amazons). Actions: The red-browed amazon's most pressing need is for the location and immediate protection of additional remnant forest areas within its range. A major survey to identify the key sites for the conservation of parrot populations ranging from the eastern part of Minas Gerais in the south, to Cearα in the north is therefore the most pressing priority. The impacts of illegal trapping and other threats should be assessed by a study of parrots in Sooretama Reserve. Specifically, it is important to recognise the biological importance of the Porto Seguro Reserve (also known as Estaηγo Veracruz) in Bahia and give it total protection. This reserve was purchased by a cellulose producing company from the (electric utility) Companhia de Vale do Rio Doce. All forest patches left in southern Bahia State deserve protection. These forests are vanishing fast, as cocoa prices are dropping and landowners are selling timber to earn money. Authorities in Rio de Janeiro state take the necessary steps to protect forests outside park boundaries where the species has been recorded, i.e. at Desenganho State Park and on Ilha Grande. The taking of nestlings as well as the capture and shooting of adult birds may be reduced by an education campaign in the areas adjacent to the breeding sites. In addition, curbing and enforcing anti-trafficking laws on the roads connecting Monte Pascoal National Park with the rest of southern Brazil may reduce the pressure on the local population. Hispaniolan parrot Amazona ventralis James Wiley Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (A1c,d). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: The parrot is protected by law (DR- 1975-Regulation 601) against chick harvesting and hunting in the Dominican Republic. This is an addition to Collar et al. (1994) and hence the IUCN Red List. Although a relatively common parrot in Hispaniola, there has been an inferred substantial recent reduction in available habitat. Deforestation in the last protected areas and habitat strongholds is likely to accelerate in the the next few years. Distribution and status: Endemic to Hispaniola and outlying islands, including Grande Cayemite, Gonδve, Saona, and Beata. The species formerly was common throughout the main island, but is now greatly reduced in numbers to the point of being extirpated or uncommon in most areas (Woods and Ottenwalder 1987, 1992; Dod 1992). In Haiti, it still occurs in good numbers in the Massif de La Selle and Massif de La Hotte (Woods and Ottenwalder 1992). It is considered threatened throughout its native range, where it is rapidly decreasing in distribution and numbers. Dod (1978, 1992) reported that its numbers declined dramatically in the 1970s and that the parrot was on the way to extinction in the Dominican Republic. Woods and Ottenwalder (1992) classified the parrot as threatened throughout its range, but noted that the populations in Haiti are endangered. It was introduced to Puerto Rico where it is established and locally common, especially in western and north- central parts of the island (Long 1981, Lever 1987, Raffaele and Kepler 1992). Threats: The main threat is the loss of habitat from conversion to agriculture uses. The parrot forms small to large foraging flocks that sometimes depredate crops, whereupon birds are shot or poisoned. Demand in the local and international pet trade has apparently affected most populations. Despite legislation and some vigorous efforts to curb that trade, parrots are still being harvested throughout the island. Trade was thought to be partly driven by the high price that these birds command on the international market, although only 15 birds were recorded in international trade from 1991-1995 ( CITES Annual Report database). Although several important parrot habitats have been established as protected areas, at least some of these (e.g., Parque Nacional Los Haitises) are poorly protected and parrot populations have continued to decline. Parrot populations in other protected areas (e.g. Parque Nacional Sierra de Baoruco) have shown good population increases, from low levels of the early 1980s, as a response to adequate habitat conservation and protection against shooting and harvesting of chicks. Actions: Additional protected habitat is needed and much of that habitat which has been established as reserves needs better enforcement of wildlife laws and regulations. The Hispaniolan parrot has been bred in captivity in several facilities, but there is currently no need for a captive propagation and release programme (Gates 1971, Carpenter 1977, Wiley and Gee 1981, Snyder et al. 1987). St. Lucia parrot Amazona versicolor Andrew Alexander, Donald Anthony, Michael Bobb, Paul Butler, Alwin Dornelly, James Gilardi, David Jeggo, C. Lyndon John, and Noel Snyder. Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (D1; D2). CITES: Appendix I. Distribution and status: Found only in the rainforests of St. Lucia in the Lesser Antilles. Although once depleted from much of its range, surveys in 1996 and 1997 found the St. Lucia parrot in most of the island’s intact forests above 300m. Pairs have recently been observed north of the Barre de Lisle ridge (Forestiere) and flying over the town of Soufriere. Estimates from the mid-1970s suggested that the population may have dipped to as few as 100 individuals (Jeggo 1976, Butler 1978). A survey in August 1996 roughly estimated the population to number 350-500 birds (D. Jeggo unpublished data). There are currently five captive individuals in St. Lucia and approximately 20 birds in a captive breeding programme at the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust (JWPT) in the British Isles. No other St. Lucia parrots are known to be in captivity. Threats: The primary causes of the decline were a combination of habitat destruction, and shooting for food, sport, and the pet trade. Currently the forest is well protected, as is the parrot. Hunting of all native wildlife is currently banned, but this legislation is in the form of a temporary moratorium that is reinstated annually. Actions: Since the late 1970s, this species has received considerable attention both locally and internationally. Censuses have been conducted on a roughly biennial basis by the Forest and Lands Department and JWPT (see Jeggo and Anthony 1991). A massive and highly successful education campaign was launched in 1978 which involved the education of adults and children, designing a 'parrot bus' as a mobile display, designating the species as the National Bird, and protecting a large portion of the species' remaining habitat in the Parrot Reserve. Since 1992, intensive efforts to study the ecology of this species have been undertaken by the Department of Forest and Lands, JWPT, and for the last few years by their sister group, Wildlife Preservation Trust International. Breeding success appears to be unexceptional for a Caribbean amazon, about half of the nests fledging chicks each year. Parrot densities in the core of the parrots' range (Quilesse and Edmond Forests) may be approaching levels occurring before human impacts. Outside this area however, particularly in the northerly forests, densities remain quite low and should continue to be monitored. While it remains to be seen what effect changes in the banana industry will have on the health of St. Lucia's forests, there remains significant pressure to resume hunting of wildlife species in the Parrot Reserve. The presence of firearms in the forest will almost certainly lead to parrot deaths and disturbance even if they are not the 'target' of the hunt and it would be impossible to monitor illegal hunting of parrots. Legislation to permanently ban hunting in the forest or in the country as a whole is likely to be the most constructive conservation action that could be taken in the next few years. The recent history of the St. Lucia parrot has been one of the great success stories in wildlife conservation and has brought together important changes in legislation, education of native St. Lucians, development of ecotourism, and scientific exploration. To allow hunting for a few individuals at this time would be a most unfortunate reversal of this tremendous success. Vinaceous amazon Amazona vinacea Jaqueline Goerck, Paulo Martuschelli, Fαbio Olmos, and Carlos Yamashita Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (A1a,c,d; A2c,d; C1; C2a). CITES: Appendix I. Distribution and status: Endemic to submontane “mixed” regions of Brazil's Atlantic forest, ranging from Minas Gerais state to extreme northern Rio Grande do Sul state. The range consists of mixed Podocarpus and Araucaria subtropical forest, but fruit orchards occupy much of the habitat as well. In Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul A. vinacea is partially sympatric with A. pretrei. Threats: All of the populations are isolated on “islands” of suitable habitat (usually steep hills e.g. Serra de Paranapiacaba, Serra de Mantiquiera). Habitat destruction is the main threat, the forest being highly fragmented. Cocoa production was formerly the main economy in the best parrot habitats (southern Bahia state), and the decline of cocoa production has led to cutting of the big shade trees (good nest sites). Landless people (“sem terras”, many of whom formerly worked the cocoa plantations) have expanded into protected areas, where they are involved in illegal logging operations. Pressure from the local pet trade is an even bigger threat for A. vinacea than it is for A. rhodocorytha due to its great popularity. At Campos do Jordao State Park (Sγo Paulo), about 20 pairs suffer nestling robbing and no recruitment. The park is not adequately protected despite having field personnel. A population of about 180 birds occurs in the 150,000ha Jacupiranga State Park near the Paranα border, although nearly 50,000ha have been destroyed by nearly 5,000 squatters since the 1970s. In addition to land speculation and nestling robbing, a major road (BR116) cutting through the park is being expanded to two additional lanes with money from the Inter American Development Bank. Despite payments by the bank for environmental mitigation, these scarce funds have been used to develop tourism facilities and community development projects instead of resettling people or strengthening the park management and protection. Jacupiranga Park is an important site for parrot conservation as it still harbours significant amounts of good habitat for Amazona brasiliensis, Triclaria, and probably Touit surda and melanonota. A major project to turn this park into a real conservation area should be considered. Actions: See A. rhodocorytha Red-crowned parrot Amazona viridigenalis Alvaro Aragσn-Tapia, Jack Clinton-Eitniear, Ernesto Enkerlin-Hoeflich, Jaime Gonzalez-Elizondo, Teresa Lopez de Lara, Josι Luis Manzano-Loza, Mario A. Vazquez Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (A1a,c,d; A2c,d; C1; C2a). CITES: Appendix I (it was transferred from Appendix II in 1997). National protection status: Endangered in Mexico (Peligro de extincion, NOM- ECOL-059-1994). Distribution and status: Resident, within proper habitat in a limited distribution of approximately 50,000km2 mainly in Tamaulipas, San Luis Potosν, Nuevo Leσn and north-eastern Veracruz, Mexico. Feral populations established are increasing in several cities in Texas, Florida, California, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii, as well as in the cities of Monterrey, Villa de Garcia, Mιrida, Montemorelos, Tijuana, and Tampico, Mexico. The ability of this bird to colonise new habitat, especially urban and suburban, poses questions as to the validity of declaring an extension of the “natural” range to areas such as Uxpanapa in southern Veracruz, the Sierra in Queretaro State, or Tampico. As of 1995, the southern California population was estimated at 750- 1,000 individuals (Garret 1997), a striking increase since 1972 when it was considered very rare (Hardy 1973). They density estimate in 1992-94 of 5.7 birds/ha (Enkerlin-Hoeflich 1995) is within the range of estimates from two previous studies (7.3 for 1985 and 4.72 for 1986: Perez 1986), but considerably less than the 25.2 reported in 1970s (Castro 1976). The 1992-94 estimate is based on number of nests per hectare, in contrast to variable circular plot technique used by previous researchers. Part of difference in density estimates could be due to problems in identification of A. autumnalis. Observers not thoroughly familiar with particular species can easily mistake A. autumnalis with historically more regionally abundant A. viridigenalis (Enkerlin- Hoeflich and Packard 1993). Threats: Local extirpations of Amazona parrots in many areas of north-eastern Mexico are the consequence of a combination of habitat loss and capture (Enkerlin-Hoeflich 1995). However, the ability of A. viridigenalis to successfully use disturbed habitat mosaics, points to capture as the main problem. Sixteen thousand four hundred and ninety (16,490) individuals (Iρigo-Elias and Ramos 1997), largely nestlings, of A. viridigenalis were legally exported to the US between 1970 and 1982, with estimates of similar numbers illegally leaving Mexico. Pre-export mortality was estimated at >50% (Enkerlin-Hoeflich and Packard 1993). The estimated minimum level of harvest was approximately 5,000 A. viridigenalis per year for a 12 year period, based on combined legal and illegal trade, and expected mortality. This is a very large number of individuals considering the limited range of the species. There were 63 wild caught specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with annual peaks of 23 in 1993 and 29 in 1995 (CITES Annual Report database). Poaching can also have effects on nest site availability in Mexico as poachers often cut whole trees to extract chicks from nest cavities. Woodlot clearing facilitates poaching and compounds the overall impact of direct habitat loss. A. viridigenalis does not appear sensitive to clearing if enough nesting cavities are available (Enkerlin-Hoeflich and Hogan 1997). Given high availability of suitable cavities, destruction of nest cavities by itself is not one of major threats to viability of A. viridigenalis (Enkerlin-Hoeflich 1995). Actions: Red-crowned parrots use cavities with a wide range of characteristics, in a variety of tree species. Wide acceptance of different cavity characteristics and vegetation assemblages suggests conservation of A. viridigenalis could be successful in mosaics of disturbed vegetation if tree replacement by native species, such as ebony, coma, and strangler fig is allowed and promoted (Enkerlin-Hoeflich and Packard 1993). If adequately promoted, pastures could instead be used as a basis for protection through education and agreements with landowners. While conservation measures should include a wide array of approaches, those that can rapidly reduce levels of unsustainable harvest should receive priority over more long-term habitat management (Enkerlin-Hoeflich and Packard 1993). Woodlots are crucial for maintaining nesting habitat and providing germplasm for regeneration of trees in presently tree-deprived areas. The prevalent practice in north-eastern Mexico of clearing understorey from cattle pastures (with standing trees at densities of nine or more trees per ha), would still provide nesting habitat for parrots in the short-term. While ranchers are becoming increasingly aware of benefits of maintaining large trees on pastures, current pasture management schemes will continue to reduce tree density within pastures. Large expanses of land used for cattle production could be integrated into parrot conservation schemes. Given still incipient knowledge of parrot ecology, a policy of enhancing tree regeneration and maintenance of all remaining forest patches seems the safest strategy. It may be the most important component of long-term conservation, not only for A. viridigenalis, but for many additional species as well (Enkerlin-Hoeflich and Packard 1993). Reintroductions have been considered for some parrot species, but given risks inherent in such efforts (Wiley et al. 1992) and the current status of A. viridigenalis, this does not seem to be needed or warranted. Conservation practice would benefit by considering aggregated nesting in a selection of areas targeted for management or protection of A. viridigenalis (Enkerlin-Hoeflich and Hogan 1997). A site- and species- specific approach for protecting known nesting areas (similar to clusters or colonies of red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis: Haig et al. 1993), coupled with a broader-scale but less intense, protection of areas for feeding and dispersal, can be more efficient than protecting large tracts of “parrot-empty” areas. While conservation of large tracts is a safe and proven strategy, it is frequently not feasible. Thus, promotion of conservation in concert with development is needed, especially in developing countries such as Mexico (Enkerlin-Hoeflich 1995). CITES Appendix I listing of this species should prevent international trade, although illegal international trade from Mexico to the US has been well documented (Gobbi et al., 1996). National trapping and commercial trade of this species were banned in 1983, but more creative thought on how to implement this ban is needed. Puerto Rican parrot Amazona vittata James Wiley, Joseph Wunderle, Ann Smith, Fernando Nuρez, and Jose Chabert Conservation status: IUCN: Critically Endangered (D1; D2). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Protected by Puerto Rico Commonwealth and United States federal laws Distribution and status: The endemic Puerto Rican parrot was formerly common and widespread, occurring throughout the forested parts of Puerto Rico and the islands of Culebra (where an endemic subspecies, A. v. gracilipes, is extinct), Mona, and Vieques (Snyder et al. 1987). An estimated 100,000 parrots existed when Columbus arrived in Puerto Rico in 1493 (Wiley 1980). Now it is Critically Endangered and one of the rarest birds in the world. In 1975, only 13 parrots were known to survive in the wild (with an additional eight birds in captivity), all in the rain forest of the Luquillo Mountains (Snyder et al. 1987). By 1989, the wild parrot population had increased to 48 birds, but Hurricane Hugo, which swept across Puerto Rico on 18 September of that year, reduced the population to approximately 20-22 birds. As of August 1996, the Puerto Rican parrot numbered 48 wild birds and 87 in captivity. Threats: Probably the most important factor in the decline of the parrot was the near island-wide cutting of original habitat (Wiley 1980, 1985, Snyder et al. 1987). Other factors included persecution by farmers, harvesting for the pet trade, and competition with and predation by native and exotic species (Snyder 1978, Snyder and Taapken 1978, Snyder et al. 1987). Most important current threats include disease spread from exotic species of parrots and competition with these and other species of birds and other introduced animals. The small, local (one area) population of parrots is at risk to another direct hit of a hurricane (Wiley and Wunderle 1993). Also, there is concern over genetic problems resulting from the depressed diversity of a population consisting of no more than six breeding pairs per year for three decades. Actions: The parrot's habitat, now entirely confined within the boundaries of the Caribbean National Forest, is protected from most dangers. Nevertheless, a recent threat (1986) to this reserve came from the US Forest Service's plans to harvest timber. Those plans were thwarted by negative public response. The latest threat is the proposal to reopen a long-closed major highway through parrot habitat in the forest. Through seed money from the World Wildlife Fund and the interest of the US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Forest Service, an intensive programme of research and conservation was begun in 1968. The programme has continued through to the present, with the primary involvement of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources. A captive breeding programme was begun in 1970. The captive flock consists of 93 birds, split between aviaries in the Luquillo Mountains (50 birds) and Rνo Abajo (43). The stock is of good genetic diversity and is genetically representative of the wild population. The first captive-produced chick was raised in 1979. That chick, as well as several other captive-produced parrots, has been used to bolster wild production through fostering into wild nests or releases of free-flying birds. The goal of the conservation programme is to develop a strategy for the parrot's recovery, based on sound biological data. The programme consists of (i) predator and competitor control; (ii) management of nest cavities; (iii) close guarding of active nests to maximise chick survival; and (iv) captive breeding and release. Yellow-faced amazon Amazona xanthops Paulo Martuschelli, Carlos Yamashita Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (A1b). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to the formerly extensive Cerrado (dry woodland) of interior eastern Brazil (states of Maranhγo, Piauξ, Tocantins, Goiαs, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Bahia, Minas Gerais, Sγo Paulo), eastern Bolivia, and northern Paraguay. Nearly 60-70% of this area has been converted to mechanised soybean croplands in the past 20 years and the species has become extremely scarce in many areas. It moves semi-nomadically, ranging over huge areas. Although it occurs in protected areas, such as Brasilia National Park, Grande Sertυes Veredas, Chapada dos Veadeiros, Chapada dos Guimarγes, and Emas National Park, its nomadic nature means that no protected area can permanently hold a population (A. Whittaker in litt. 1993). Threats: Habitat conversion to mechanised soybean cultivation. There were nine wild caught specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of four in 1994 (CITES Annual Report database). Actions: Information is urgently required on distribution, population status and threats. Hyacinth macaw Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus Jaqueline Goerck, Neiva Guedes, Charles Munn, Carlos Yamashita Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (A1c,d; A2c,d). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Protected under Brazilian law. Distribution and status: The Pantanal population may number a maximum of 5,000 birds (N. Guedes in litt. 1997). Recent work in the Chapada das Mangabeiras by BioBrasil has confirmed that a population of between 1,000 and 2,500 hyacinths still thrives in the cliff and dry forest region of south-western Piauξ State, south-western Maranhγo State, north-western Bahia State, and extreme eastern Tocantins State, Brazil. Threats: Nest-trees are still often cleared for the sake of cattle and illegal trapping remains a problem in some areas. The hyacinth macaw is protected under Brazilian law and has been listed on Appendix I of CITES since 1987, and is thus banned from international trade. There were 54 specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of 17 in 1993 (mostly zoo animals and pets: CITES Annual Report database). In the Pantanal, deforestation and forest burning are a serious threat to the supply of nesting trees. Conservation of stands of the palms Schellea phalerata and Acrocomia aculeata is considered a keystone for their survival. Actions: Proper studies of the species’ current range and population numbers in all parts of its range; and investigations of the possible illegal trading of the species throughout its range are required. In addition, experimental ecotourism should be developed at one or two key sites. To support this work, a broad political constituency must be built to attract donors (Brazilian and international public) to broaden funding and to protect this species in the wild. Assessing the effectiveness of experimentally erected nest boxes should also continue. Of eleven boxes hung in 1992, all but two were visited or used, but colonisation of artificial nests by aggressive Africanised bees is a problem. Lear’s macaw Anodorhynchus leari Pedro Lima, Charles Munn, Jaqueline Goerck, Michael Reynolds Conservation status: IUCN: Critically Endangered (A2b; B1+2C, C1; C2b; D1). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Distribution and status: Raso da Catarina, Bahia State, Brazil. Municipalities of Jeremoabo, Canudos, and Euclides da Cunha. Between 100 and 200 confirmed in the wild. In 1997, Marcus da Re counted 30 birds in a recently discovered second population. There are officially six in captivity. However, according to Yamashita and Martuschelli (in litt. 1997), more than 25 birds were trapped for trade over the last three years. There are birds reported in Singapore, Switzerland, eastern Europe, UK, and Brazil. Threats: The main threat to this species is the illegal pet trade by specialised trappers who systematically catch adults and chicks with mist nets at the nest cliffs of the Toca location. This area is still only partially protected by IBAMA, the national wildlife authorities. These populations are also thought to experience food shortages as the Licuri palm nut Syagrus coronata experiences poor recruitment due to cattle overgrazing. This palm is a slow growing species with a long lifespan (probably several centuries). Actions: Following the extreme drought of 1993, 50,000 Licuri palm seedlings were planted in plastic containers at Fazenda Piauξ near the town of Ituberα, and will be transplanted to fenced areas to protect the seedlings from livestock grazing. In an unorthodox, but effective way to investigate the trade in Lear's macaws, the tight trading network was infiltrated with an ex-poacher-turned-conservationist. This contact proved crucial in deactivating the trading of clandestine networks and providing information on key buyers and witnesses. The recently formed BioBrasil Foundation of Bahia, Brazil, has maintained guards since 1997 at the Serra Branca nest cliffs at the suggestion and full cooperation of the land owner. A detailed plan for land acquisition and/or the establishment of reserves, including the Ecological Station, has been developed (Machado and Brandt 1990). Priorities and funds needed to conserve this species require an absolute stop to the illegal pet trade, through private police work in the trapping region, guarding at the nest cliffs, and through investigations in Rio and Sγo Paulo, as well as internationally. It is estimated that the cost of local patrolling to stop trapping would be more cost effective and safer than trying to investigate, catch, and prosecute Brazilian and international smugglers. Further actions for the conservation of this species should include a study of the nesting ecology to estimate reproductive success and to determine home range. Once this nesting information has been gathered, it might be possible to consider double clutching, as has been done for the echo parakeet Psittacula echo and many others species. Additional reproductive output may require the provision of supplemental food. Another field study should describe the ranging patterns of birds at both known sets of nest cliffs, both during the nesting and non-nesting seasons. Finally, a long-term strategy should seek to mitigate effects of long-term habitat degradation from livestock overgrazing by planting Licuri palms in safe (i.e. fenced), ungrazed locations, for populations of Lear’s macaw that appear to experience food shortages. Food limitations might be detectable through ranging studies and from nestling growth data in wild nests. Great-green macaw Ara ambigua (also known as Buffon's macaw) Thomas Arndt, Robin Bjork, Eric Horstman, Niels Krabbe, Robert Pople, George Powell, Paul Salaman, and David Waugh Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (A2c,d; C2a). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: This is an addition to Collar et al. (1994) and hence the IUCN Red List. With a small and isolated population in Ecuador, and low but unknown population numbers in Central America, the species may well number fewer than 2,500 mature individuals, with no sub-population greater than 250 mature birds. With so many threats acting on the species (habitat loss, trapping, and persecution), a decline of 50% over three generations in terms of range and number of mature individuals is projected. Distribution and status: The distribution of the great-green macaw is restricted to lowland wet forests between eastern Honduras and western Colombia (A. a. ambigua), with a small disjunct population in western Ecuador (A. a. guayaquilensis: Stiles and Skutch 1989). Fjλldsa et al. (1987: in Sibley and Monroe 1990) suggested that the population in western Ecuador is intermediate between A. ambigua and A. militaris and probably of hybrid origin; the two may be conspecific. Central America and Colombia populations Ara a. ambigua Distribution and status: The great-green macaw occurs in humid lowland forests on the Atlantic slope of eastern Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica, locally on both slopes in Panama, and north-western Colombia (AOU 1983, Ridgely 1982, Forshaw 1989, Sibley and Monroe 1990, Stiles and Skutch 1989). The Central America populations apparently exist in four separated sub-populations that are restricted primarily to Atlantic lowland forests. The westernmost population occurs in north-eastern Honduras and north-western Nicaragua. J. Barborak (in litt. 1997) reports that it is uncommon in Rio Plαtano, Honduras, its primary refuge in that country. Its status in north-western Nicaragua is unknown. The second Central American population of A.a.ambigua is restricted to Atlantic wet forest in eastern Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Stiles (1985) reported that on the Costa Rican side, the species had been reduced to dangerously low levels and attributed its decline during the previous 15 years primarily to habitat loss and fragmentation. That situation has continued to worsen and there are now thought to be fewer than 36 pairs nesting in Costa Rica (Powell et al. 1996). Another discrete Central American population is a small relic of perhaps only a few individuals in the wetter forests on the southern tip of the Azuero Peninsula (D. Tovar in litt. 1997). The Darien populations in eastern Panama and the Chocσ of western Colombia are still relatively common at least in the Darien Biosphere Reserve (R. Ridgley 1982, G. Angehr in litt. 1996). In Colombia it has been reported at Los Katνos National Park and around Utrνa National Park in Serranνa de Baudσ (P. Salaman in litt. 1997). The most detailed information comes from Costa Rica, where fragmented distributional reports of the species suggest that it is dependent on a diverse array of Caribbean slope forests throughout the annual cycle, though the sequences of their use is not clear (Stiles and Skutch 1989, Loiselle and Blake 1992). Preliminary data from a radio-telemetry study of nesting great-green macaws in Costa Rica revealed that some individuals migrate at least 150km north into south-eastern Nicaragua during the non-breeding season (Bjork and Powell 1994). Threats: The greatest threats to great-green macaw populations are loss of habitat, poaching of nestlings for the cage-bird trade, and to some extent, poaching birds for food. With the exception of fragmented habitat in western Costa Rica, where remaining forest remnants are in private hands, most of the Central American habitat has been given some level of legal protection. However, the declaration of large protected areas, such as the Rio Plαtano Biosphere Reserve in Honduras, Bosawas and Indio-Maνz Reserves in Nicaragua, has not stopped the destruction of remaining macaw habitat in those areas. Colonisation around and within these reserves continues to lead to extensive habitat loss. In Costa Rica, nestlings were reported to be worth about $150 to $300, and poaching in the relatively accessible breeding range of the Costa Rican population is widespread (Bjork and Powell 1995). Although, all psittacines in Costa Rica receive legal protection from being taken from the wild, rarely are the laws enforced; poachers have little fear of being apprehended. The situation in eastern Panama with the Darien reserve is apparently more stable. In Colombia’s upper Sinϊ Valley in 1995, this species was trapped intensively and the area is in danger of deforestation (T. Arndt in litt. 1997). There were eight specimens of the whole species recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of five in 1995 (zoo animals, pets and pre-CITES-listing birds: CITES Annual Report database). What may be a more immediate threat in some parts of the species range, is loss of a specific component of the forest: large trees for nesting. As exemplified in Costa Rica, in the first documented description of nesting by the species, ten of the eleven observed (n = 3) or reported (n = 8) nests were located in natural cavities of large D. panamensis trees (Bjork and Powell 1995). The diameter at breast height of all these nest trees was greater than four metres. Furthermore, the seeds of this leguminous tree species are important in the birds’ diet (Bjork and Powell 1995, Stiles and Skutch 1989, G. Mayne in litt. 1997). Until recent years, the trees were protected de facto, because their wood was too hard for processing in the saw mills (K. Batchelder in litt. 1994). Consequently, they were generally left standing in the selectively logged forests and even in the clear-cut pastures. This undoubtedly has allowed the macaws to exist in areas that otherwise have been heavily fragmented and degraded. However, the technology has recently been developed to process this wood as other, formerly abundant, hardwoods become depleted. Actions: In Central America, it is urgent that the reserves in Honduras and Nicaragua are fully implemented and maintained as protected areas. International support of these national efforts is critical to their success and fully justified in recognition of their global significance. Hard wood of D. panamensis is now highly sought after (K. Batchelder in litt. 1994) and trees are being removed both from pastures and remaining forest. A moratorium on logging of D. panamensis trees was recently announced by the Costa Rican government, but its effects remain to be seen. Ecuador populations Ara ambigua guayaquilensis Distribution and status: The Guayas great-green macaw is found on the Pacific slopes of west-central Ecuador, in Esmeraldas and Guayas provinces (lowlands up to 600m, Pople et al. 1997). In Esmeraldas province, it is estimated that there are no more than 100 birds (Waugh 1995). In Bosque Protector Cerro Blanco, there is a remnant population that “barely survives” (Parker and Carr 1992), however a successful nesting pair was recorded there in 1994. It is recently thought that there are nine birds in the reserve (Waugh 1995). Said to be “easily seen” at Hacienda Gonzalez (40km north-west of Guayaquil, Ecuador), it is not known whether the population breeds there. Recent sightings have been confined to Machalilla National Park, the Chongσn-Colonche Cordillera (in 1991: Parker and Carr 1992), and Bosque Protector Cerro Blanco which forms the end of the Chongσn hill range (Parker and Carr 1992, R. Ridgely in litt. 1997). These rare sightings are undoubtedly of very small, relictual populations. Threats: In Ecuador, habitat loss, pet trade, and hunting as cultivation pest appear to be the primary threats (Pople et al. 1997, Waugh 1995, Fjeldsε et al. 1987). Large scale clearance of the lowland wet and dry forests, where it occurs in very small numbers, continues to be rapid. As evidenced by the number of captive birds in private hands (a minimum of 20 just in the city of Guayaquil: E. Horstman in litt.1997), there continues to be an illegal internal market. There were eight specimens of the whole species recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of five in 1995 (zoo animals, pets, and pre-CITES-listing birds: CITES Annual Report database). Actions: In Ecuador, Fundaciσn Natura continues to try to confiscate birds as a deterrent to would-be owners and to dampen demand. This organisation also has a reasonable output of educational materials, which could feature A. a. guayaquilensis much more. No known sustainable use of forest projects are operational in the region nor are any planned in the near future. Cemento Nacional, the country's largest cement-producing company, has formed Fundaciσn Pro-Bosque which is working jointly with Fundaciσn Natura (in a project called Proyecto Aspiazu) to map all remaining forests, and to protect forested areas near Manglaralto using the community-owned forest approach. Fundaciσn Pro-Bosque is studying the species in the Cerro Blanco Protection Forest in the Guayas Province of Ecuador and conducting an environmental education campaign. As regards captive birds, there is the potential to use them very effectively for education, possibly captive breeding, and possibly release into the reserve. Fundaciσn Pro-Bosque has the option to set-up a great-green macaw captive centre within the Bosque Protector Cerro Blanco Reserve (BPCB), and the donation of captive A. a. guayaquilensis from a rescue centre in Ecuador. It seems appropriate that when other conservation actions are more advanced for wild guayaquilensis in the reserve, the BPCB could have a productive centre for captive macaws. Other areas of conservation activity that merit support are: (i) the continuing integration of neighbouring farmers (campesinos) into the guarding of macaws and the reserve in general by offering inducements, at least in the short-term; (ii) support for the Fundaciσn Pro-Bosque education programme focused around A. a. guayaquilensis; and (iii) the centre for rescued captive A. a. guayaquilensis. Blue-throated macaw Ara glaucogularis Paulo Martuschelli, Charles Munn, and Carlos Yamashita Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (C2b; D1). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to forest islands in the seasonally flooded Beni Lowlands (Llanos de Moxos) of Central Bolivia (Jordan and Munn 1993). The minimum population in 1994 was 54 individuals, whereas 200 is the most optimistic figure (Yamashita and Barros 1997). Recent estimates indicate that there are between 75 and 150 individuals in the wild. Threats: Trapping for the pet trade could still be a problem although some protection for known populations is in place (see below). There were 14 specimens in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of 12 in 1992 (probably captive-bred: CITES Annual Report database). Not enough is known about the ecology and behaviour of this species, which may always have been competitively inferior to the larger and more abundant blue-and-yellow macaw Ara ararauna. Actions: Known populations are being patrolled on foot and by motorbike by a local guard of the Eco Bolivia Foundation of Bolivia. Parallel to this guard's work, Armonνa Association of Santa Cruz, Bolivia, is searching the Beni for more scattered populations of this species and is working on an environmental awareness campaign directed to the cattlemen's association to try to ensure that no trappers go after these rare birds. Priorities for the conservation of this species include continuation of protection by full time guards; searching for more populations of the species; a study of nesting and non-nesting ecology of this bird; a study of ecological interactions with blue-and-yellow macaw Ara ararauna. Blue-winged macaw Ara maracana Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (A1a,b; C1; C2) CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Distribution and status: Ara maracana formerly occupied a large range in central-eastern South America, including parts of Brazil (Perbambuco, Piaui, Maranhγo, Parα, Tocantins, Goiαs, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Bahia, Espiritu Santo, Rio de Janeiro, Sγo Paulo, Paranα, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul), eastern Paraguay, and northern Argentina (Misiones). Its habitat preferences include gallery forest and forest edge. It has undergone a steep decline, although it is recolonising one area in Rio de Janeiro State and may be more common there than anywhere else in its range. C. Yamashita has reported its last strongholds to include the Serra Negra in Pernambuco and the Serra do Cachimbo in southern Parα (Collar et al. 1994). Threats: Habitat destruction has apparently been involved in the decline of this species, but the rate of decline suggests involvement of other factors as well (see Ridgely 1982, Forshaw 1989, Olmos 1993, Collar et al. 1994). Actions: Information is urgently needed on the current distribution, population status, and threats to this species. Military macaw Ara militaris Ernesto Enkerlin-Hoeflich, Niels Krabbe, Charles Munn, JonPaul Rodriguez, Chris Sharpe, Paul Salaman, David A. Wiedenfeld Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (A1c,d; C2a). Formerly Vulnerable (A1b; C2a: see Collar et al. 1994). CITES Appendix I. National protection status: Distribution and status: A species with a large geographic distribution in mostly localised populations. Its status is difficult to evaluate because these birds range over large areas in rugged mountains. In Mexico, populations are reported in and around El Cielo Biosphere Reserve in Tamaulipas, at El Naranjo in San Luis Potosν, in the Sierra Gorda de Queretaro (recently declared a Biosphere Reserve), on the Cuixmala Ecological Reserve and other sites on the Pacific slope of the Sierra Madre Occidental. See also recent map in Howell and Webb (1995). The species does not currently occur in Guatemala although it may have in the past (Gardner 1972). There was a recent attempt to introduce captive-bred A. militaris to one of the volcanoes in the south, but this attempt was unsuccessful. In Venezuela, on the north slopes of El Αvila, Guatopo, Cerro La Misiσn, Sierra de Perijα National Parks. There are also apparently exceptional records in Cojedes State (Desenne and Strahl 1994), and on the north slopes of Henri Pittier National Park (Fernαndez-Badillo et al. 1994). In Peru and Bolivia, military macaws have a patchy distribution throughout the eastern foothills of the Andes. In Peru, flocks of 40-50 are seen daily at Atalaya on the Madre de Dios. They are also seen on the upper Tambopata River up to elevations of 900 m, near the border with Bolivia. In Bolivia, this species occurs in small flocks on the south edge of the Amborσ National Park, and is also reported from the hills of the south central Madidi National Park (near the Canyon del Beo). It is also reported by the Native Americans to live in the forests just above or around the Pongo de Mainique of the Urubamba River, Peru. In Colombia, little is known about the five or so disjunct populations in the central Andes (see map and description in Hilty and Brown 1986). Recorded recently from Guajira peninsula, Tayrona, Las Orquνdeas, and Cueva de los Guαcharos National Parks. At Cueva de los Guαcharos National Park large flocks (up to 16 individuals) were seen daily, particularly just before dusk, flying overhead. In Ecuador, about 20 individuals occur on Sumaco, and the same or less in Zamora-Chinchipe. No information is currently available on the population(s) in northern Argentina. The military macaw may be conspecific with the great-green macaw Ara ambigua (Fjeldsε et al. 1987). However, until further studies are made to establish its taxonomic status, they are retained here as separate species. Threats: This large macaw lives in some of the most fragmented habitats in the Neotropics, the lower montane wet forests of the Andes. Its deciduous forest habitat in Mexico is not faring better. Habitat destruction in the Andes and Mexico threaten the viability of many local populations. Surprisingly, A. militaris is still traded nationally in Mexico and other countries (Gobbi et al., 1996). Actions: Many populations need to be surveyed to assess its status and habitat use. In Mexico, the use of “sinkholes” (cenotes) as an ecotourism spectacle could have some potential (for example at Sierra Gorda and El Cielo Biosphere Reserve), although it is unknown whether human presence will interfere with successful nesting. In the case of the El Cielo sinkhole, where at one time over 50 birds circled in and out of the sinkhole several times a day, the population was almost wiped out by a single trapper in the mid-1980s (Aragσn-Tapia in litt. 1989). The populations in Peru and Bolivia require detailed surveys. In Venezuela, controls on national movement and sales, although difficult to implement, could help all parrot species. Fortunately, most of A. militaris’ range falls within existing protected areas (El Αvila, Guatopo, Henri Pittier, and Sierra de Perijα National Parks). Nevertheless, although this may slow habitat destruction, it does little to prevent capture for trade, so improved methods of enforcement are needed. Sierra de Perijα is in a particularly bad situation, being deforested for narcotics, land speculation, and cattle. Red-fronted macaw Ara rubrogenys Mette Bohn Christiansen, Elin Pitter Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (C1). Formerly considered Endangered (C2a; D1: see Collar et al. 1994). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to Bolivia, where it inhabits fairly arid, scrubby intermontane valleys in south-central Bolivia (Santa Cruz, Cochabamba, and Chuquisaca provinces: Collar et al. 1992). Found from 1,100 to 2,500 meters The species is resident and locally common, but restricted to the drainage of the Mizque, Grande, and Pilcomayo rivers. Pitter and Christiansen (1995) estimated total population at 2,000- 4,000 individuals and do not believe it to be “severely fragmented” as was suggested previously (Collar et al. 1992). Since they occur in gallery forests of large rivers, the populations are believed to be interconnected. In two areas studied, populations seemed healthy and stable, although a local trapper noted that the population had declined during the last 12 years due to habitat destruction and trapping. Threats: Although the situation is not considered critical, rapid conversion of riparian habitats to agricultural land is forcing Ara rubrogenys to feed in other drier areas and on domestic crops. Nearly 40% of its original habitat may have been already destroyed (Clarke and Durαn Patiρo 1991). It is locally considered a serious pest to maize cultivation, and is persecuted by farmers. Some trapping for the pet trade also threatens this species: it still continues along the Chico River and Vallegrande. There were 23 specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of 14 in 1994 (pets and zoo animals: CITES Annual Report database). The birds nest semi-colonially in cliffs, making them particularly vulnerable to trapping and nest destruction. Actions: Further protection of the habitat of Ara rubrogenys should be a high priority. Although locally common, the conservation situation can change rapidly, since pressures to develop agricultural lands along rivers is increasing. Methods to minimise attacks on maize crops should be designed with local farmers. Several large conservation and development projects are working in the area; these should focus on maintaining natural semi-deciduous vegetation on the edges of rivers, both for the red-fronted macaw and for local people. Fencing of key patches of gallery forests will limit cattle grazing and allow regeneration of natural vegetation. Golden-capped parakeet Aratinga auricapilla Rita Cerqueira de Souza, Paulo Martuschelli, Fαbio Olmos, and Carlos Yamashita Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (A1a,b; C1; C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Semi-deciduous forests of the Paranα River Basin, Brazil, occurring in the following states: Goiαs, Sγo Paulo (Lins, Guararapes, Ilha Solteira, Agua Vermelha), Paranα, Minas Gerais (Vale do Jequitinhonha, Furnas do Bom Jesus), Bahia, and Espνrito Santo. It has disappeared from many parts of its original distribution. In Sγo Paulo state for example, there are many records of skins, but no sign of this species today. Threats: Habitat destruction for coffee, soybean, and sugar cane plantations in Sγo Paulo. Cattle ranching is a serious problem in Goiαs and Minas Gerais. There were 16 specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of 10 in 1991 (CITES Annual Report database). Actions: Information is urgently required on distribution, population status and threats. Socorro parakeet Aratinga brevipes Ernesto Enkerlin-Hoeflich Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (D1). CITES: Appendix II (as Aratinga holochlora). National protection status: Threatened in Mexico (NOM-ECOL-059-1994). Distribution and status: Found only on Socorro Island in the Revillagigedo Islands south-west of the tip of Baja California. The population in 1991 was estimated to be 400-500 birds and numbers appear to be stable (Rodriguez-Estrella et al. 1992). Threats: The range is thought to have contracted over the past 30 years. Overgrazing by sheep may be degrading the parakeets' habitat, and predation by introduced cats remains a potential threat (Rodriguez- Estrella et al. 1992). Actions: Although the Socorro parakeet is not presently threatened, the spread of soil erosion caused by overgrazing by sheep could put the status of this and other endemic birds species at risk. Hispaniolan parakeet Aratinga chloroptera James Wiley Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to Hispaniola, including the offshore islands. Formerly common throughout Hispaniola and on several of the offshore islands with suitable habitat. Still fairly common in undisturbed habitat, but elsewhere rapidly declining in numbers and reduced in distribution. Not found in the Massif de la Hotte, Haiti, but survived in the Morne la Selle (Woods 1982, Woods and Ottenwalder 1987, 1992). Introduced and established locally in Puerto Rico (Lever 1987, Raffaele and Kepler 1992). Dod (1992) considers the parakeet declining toward extinction. Threats: Hispaniolan parakeets are not favoured as captives, but they are severely persecuted as crop pests. The most serious threat is from habitat loss (Wiley 1991). There were 12 specimens in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of eight in 1994 (CITES Annual Report database). Actions: The parakeet is protected by law against hunting and harvesting for pets in the Dominican Republic, although its legislation is not adequately enforced to ensure the species' continued survival. Even though several nature reserves and national parks have been established in the Dominican Republic, protection has not been sufficient to save the parakeet from extirpation in some of these, such as in the Parque Nacional Los Haitises. Additional areas need protection and all areas should be provided with better enforcement of wildlife protection laws. The Hispaniolan parakeet has been successfully bred in captivity (e.g. Ottenwalder 1980, Low 1991, van der Heyden and Paulmann 1987), although captive propagation is not a conservation need at this time. Cuban parakeet Aratinga euops Xiomara Gαlvez, James Wiley Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (A1c,d; B1+2c; C1; C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Endemic to Cuba, where it has declined and now has a fragmented distribution. It remains fairly common in Peninsula de Zapata, Trinidad mountains, Sierra de Najasa, and in the eastern part of the island. With the exception of Peninsula de Zapata, the parakeet is absent from the western provinces. In Central Cuba, it occurs in Guasimal, Trinidad, Peralejo, and Camagόey (Najasa). Found in the eastern provinces of Holguνn, Santiago de Cuba, and Guantαnamo. Formerly common on the Isla de la Juventud (formerly Isla de Pinos), it was extirpated there in the late 1800s. Gαlvez (1996a,b) considers the species seriously endangered. Of 14 populations studied, four are in serious decline. Paradoxically, while A. leucocephala has been increasing its effective population size (in response to intense habitat manipulation and protection), Aratinga euops, the only true endemic species of Cuban psittacid, is perilously nearing extinction. Threats: The parakeet is less in demand as a pet than the Cuban amazon A. leucocephala, although 10 specimens were recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, all in 1995 (CITES Annual Report database). The main cause of its decline has been large-scale destruction of forest and the dependence of A. euops on dead palms for nest sites (Roystonea regia and Sabal palviflora: de las Pozas and Gonzαlez 1984, Gαlvez 1996a,b). This rigid nest site preference appears to make the parakeet more vulnerable than Amazona leucocephala, which exhibits more flexibility in its nesting behaviour. Forest conversion and exposure of individual palms without surrounding vegetation makes nesting sites more vulnerable to the effects of fires, hurricanes, and human disturbances. Actions: The parakeet is protected by law and receives additional protection within seven environmental reserves, including the Ciιnaga de Zapata National Park and Refuge, and six other sites administered by the Empresa Nacional para la Conservaciσn de la Flora y la Fauna. Further research is needed on the species' biological requirements, especially its nesting habitat needs. Additional habitat must be conserved for the parakeet. Given its small and fragmented populations, conservation efforts for this species should be locally tailored and should include environmental awareness campaigns and protection of nesting sites (dead palms). Ecotourism programmes in the areas of Mogotes de Jumagua and Hanabanilla have been initiated. This species has not bred in captivity despite numerous attempts. A plan to translocate mainland Cuban parakeets to the Isla de la Juventud is being developed to re-establish the extirpated population. Grey-cheeked parakeet Brotogeris pyrrhopterus Niels Krabbe, Michael Parr, Felipe Campos, David Wege Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (A1b, c,d). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: This species is endemic to deciduous and dry forests of Southwest Ecuador and extreme Northwest Peru. Occurs in the Manabi south and Los Rios, Guayas, Azuay to Loja and crosses into Peru in the Tumbes and Piura regions (Juniper and Parr 1998). Two main and possibly disjunct populations exist, one in the coastal area of Manabi and Guayas in Ecuador and a second in the Ecuador and Peru border (Juniper and Parr 1998). Birds are seen in small groups and feed on a variety of local fruits and sometimes in local maize and banana crops (Best et al. 1995). Threats: An estimated 59,320 birds were recorded in international trade between 1983 and 1988 (Best et al. 1995). It is suspected that the population may have declined by more than 70% in the last ten years (Juniper and Parr 1998). Although locally common, local trade and very fast habitat destruction (Campos et al. 1998) may produced a catastrophic pressure on existing populations Actions: International trade is banned from Both Ecuador and Peru (Juniper and Parr 1998). The bird occurs in four protected areas in Ecuador: Cerro Blanco protected forest and Arenilla military reserve and Manglares Churute Ecological reserve. In Peru, it occurs in the Tumbes Reserve Zone. Rapid habitat destruction for marginal cattle and goat herding are the main threats. Priority actions include an education campaign and further research of the species habitat needs and population size. Rufous-fronted parakeet Bolborhynchus ferrugineifrons Luis Miguel Renjifo, Paul Salaman Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (B1+2c; C2a; D1). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: This species is endemic to the shrublands in the temperate forest-pαramo ecotone (3,200-4,000m) of the Central Andes of Colombia. It is known from a few specimens and observation in the Puracι Volcano in Cauca, and the Ruiz-Tolima volcanic massif complex along the junction of Caldas, Risaralda, Quindνo, and Tolima. It may occur in the pαramos of Las Hermosas along the border of Tolima and Valle del Cauca, and in Nevado del Huila at the junction of Cauca, Huila, and Tolima (Graves and Giraldo 1987, Collar et al. 1992): the latter two areas are located between Tolima and Puracι Volcanoes. Although this species is a pαramo and a forest-pαramo ecotone inhabitant, it has been recorded as low as 2,835 m (Ridgely 1982). Little is known of the natural history of this species. A few sightings indicate that this species eats grass seeds (Graves and Giraldo 1987) and achenes of Espeletia hartwegiana (Renjifo 1991, J. Hernαndez in litt. 1995), and nests in burrows in banks (D. Uribe in litt. 1996, J. Hernαndez in litt. 1997). The total population has been put at 1000- 2000 individuals (Graves and Giraldo 1987) but is perhaps lower (Collar et al. 1992). Rufous-fronted parakeets were seen in 1993 and 1994 between 3000m and 3900m in Los Nevados National Park (Salaman and Giles in litt. 1997). The species' habitat is far from intact. The species is considered common by farmers in the vicinity of Laguna del Otϊn. The species was seen twice (four and six individuals) during c. 30 days of bird censuses over a time period of a year, whereas other rare parrots such as Hapalopsittaca fuertesi were seen more often (Renjifo 1991). B. ferrugineifrons may be more at risk than previously suspected. (See multi-species remarks in Ognorhynchus icterotis) Threats: Information on wild B. ferrugineifrons appears to have been so scarce because of its restricted range, and particularly because of its specialised niche in the forest-pαramo ecotone. Although this zone, the “potato-belt”, has been much modified, it still appears suitable for the species and most recent observations are from agricultural fields. Given the species’ apparent preference for feeding in old fields it seems questionable that deforestation posses an immediate risk. It would also appear that, like B. orbygnesius, the species nests in ground burrows on a cliff-face/steep slope, thus tree-cavity nests largely restricted to old growth forest do not seem to limit nesting resources. Other, more subtle medium-term changes may be affecting this and other parrot species within its range, such as agricultural intensification (e.g. widespread use of herbicides), and increasing pαramo overgrazing and burning. The two areas from which the species is known are currently located within National Parks, namely Los Nevados National Park and Puracι National Park. Nevertheless, extensive habitat loss has occurred and is still continuing within these and other areas where the species could be potentially found (N. Gomez and W. Vargas in litt. 1997, L.M. Renjifo in litt. 1997). The underlying problem is that although these areas have received legal protection, the Colombian State has not been able to purchase pre-existing landholdings within the national parks. As a result, extensive overgrazing, seasonal pαramo burning to obtain new sprouts for cattle, and agriculture to a minor extent, are modifying most of the range of this species within and outside of “protected” areas. Failure to protect the remaining good quality habitat and to restore altered habitat will result in further decline of this already endangered species. Actions: Clearly, studies into the species population movements and into densities and distribution would be ideal; threats could be clarified and future conservation action proposed. Also, confirmation of nesting habits is very important in assessing the species’ conservation priority. Spix’s macaw Cyanopsitta spixii David Waugh and Carlos Yamashita Conservation status: IUCN: Critically Endangered (D1; D2). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Protected by Brazilian legislation. Distribution and status: With only one known bird remaining in the wild, and at least 42 in captivity spread over three continents, the Spix's macaw is one of the most threatened parrot species in the world. Its Caraiba woodland habitat has suffered long-term habitat destruction, and has always been a small and scarce habitat within the more widespread Caatinga woodland and scrub of the dry to semi-arid region of north-east Brazil. However, the trapping of adult birds has been the most significant force in its population decline. The reintroduction in 1995 of a wild-caught female from captivity in 1995 lasted exactly two months, the final month spent together with the wild male, after which she disappeared. Threats: The Spix’s Caraiba woodland habitat has suffered habitat destruction for a very long time, possibly centuries. The trapping of adult birds during the 1970s was the main cause for the recent decline of an already threatened species with a very restricted range. With only one lone male remaining in the wild, and all other known individuals in captivity, strong coordination of the captive breeding programme is the only hope for this parrot. However, coordination among parties has not been entirely transparent, despite efforts by the Brazilian authorities and the Recovery Committee (see below). Prospects for the captive breeding programme are not optimistic. As a former holder of this parrot, Smith (1991) commented: “The truth is that captive breeding attempts so far have been appalling. The few reared do not make up for the numbers of adults that have died, and continue to die”. There is scant information on the most recent captive-rearing results, and they do not tend to offset this pessimistic outlook. All parties should remember that time is the most critical factor in the conservation of Spix's macaw (Collar et al. 1992, Reynolds 1997). Actions: An extensive account of previous actions is reported by Collar et al. (1992: 266-282). A meeting coordinated by the CBSG (Captive [now Conservation] Breeding Specialist Group of the Species Survival Commission of IUCN-The World Conservation Union) at Loro Parque, Spain in 1987, established the basis for combined in situ/ex situ action. In 1989 the Brazilian Government formed a Special Working Group on the Spix’s macaw, followed in 1990 by the establishment of the Permanent Committee for the Recovery of the Spix’s macaw (CPRAA). Also, in October 1990 the Brazilian government issued a decree (Portaria 2161) providing amnesty to current holders of captive specimens that agreed to participate in the Permanent Committee to manage the captive populations. A Population and Habitat Viability Analysis (PHVA) was carried out in Brazil in October 1992. A workshop of the CPRAA at the 1989 CITES meeting in Lausanne recommended the reintroduction from captivity of the female Spix’s macaw, released in 1985. Although it is considered of high priority to establish, finally, whether further Spix's macaws occur in the wild, after various searches this now seems unlikely. Since 1990 a major in situ/ex situ combined programme has been in operation under the direction of the CPRAA. This includes management of the global population, with 42 captive birds (all the Spix’s macaws declared to IBAMA/CPRAA) held by some members of the CPRAA, and new pairings are expected to increase breeding from the presently low rate of captive reproduction. However, recent negotiations for movement of individuals among breeding facilities have often been tortuous. Rumours of captive Spix’s macaw individuals outside the declared population tend to surface at regular intervals, but none have been verified. The field programme is studying the species' ecological needs and is preparing the ground for an eventual re- establishment of the species in the wild. As a prerequisite for reintroduction, protection efforts for remaining habitat as well as habitat restoration are in progress, as are botanical studies in view of the paucity of information on exact habitat requirements, and the possible need for habitat management. An assessment of the extent of Caraiba gallery forest forms part of this work. The possibility of purchasing important areas of Caraiba should also be considered. The field programme also includes a strong element of local community involvement, with school-house construction, provision of an environmental/cultural centre, and training of teachers and students from local colleges and universities. Yellow-faced parrotlet Forpus xanthops Alfredo Begazo, Charles Munn, Thomas Valqui Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (A1a,c; B1+2c,e; C1; C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Resolucion Directorial No. 014-83-DGFF prohibits capture and trade in this species, effective 1983. Distribution and status: Occurs in the arid woodland, riparian thickets and desert scrub of the upper Maraρσn valley at 600-1700m in three departments (southern Amazonas, Cajamarca, and extreme eastern La Libertad) in north-central Peru (Girdler 1982, Riveros et al. 1991, Begazo 1996) Threats: Trapping for the domestic pet trade is the main threat, as its typical habitat is not well suited for agriculture or intensive grazing. Captive birds suffer very high mortality rates. Some habitat loss by subsistence farmers and their goat herds may be occurring in the region. Actions: This is a species that may require a back-up population in captivity as the wild birds are unlikely to attract ecotourism or other attention that might lead to habitat protection. The Huallaga valley is not a place where at the moment it would be possible to predict whether conservation is possible over the short, medium, or long-term. This area is a major coca producer and the social, political, and environmental situation there is very unstable. This species seems to do well in second growth mixed with original forest patches and may not need primary habitat. Possibly only two-three families trap this species, which has low local value because of its similarity with Forpus coelestis. Given also that the birds breed in colonies in rocky ravines, it might be possible to effectively involve key local people in conservation efforts (A. Begazo in litt. 1997). Golden parakeet Guarouba (Aratinga) guarouba Paulo Martuschelli, Carlos Yamashita Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (A2c,d; C1; C2b). CITES: Appendix I (as Aratinga guarouba). National protection status: Distribution and status: Restricted to Brazil, where it occurs in northern Maranhγo (five localities, four of them close to or within the Gurupi Biological Reserve), South-eastern Amazonas, northern Parα (many localities all north of 5°S), north-central Matto Grosso, and a single recent record from Rondτnia. The most important area is in Parα state, between the Tocantins and lower Xingϊ Rivers. This species appears to wander widely and is not predictably found in one area at any given season. Threats: Suffers from both the destruction of its (almost exclusively terra firme) rainforest habitat and illegal trapping (being a much desired aviary bird, both internationally and nationally) and hunting for food. Its main distribution range is centred in an area of land conflicts between farmers, ranchers, forest loggers, Indians, and landless peasants, including the controversy over mining at the Carajas site (Serra Leste). In the eastern part of the range, there is habitat destruction due to illegal logging, and mahogany exploration in the Tocantins-Xingϊ area. Guarouba roosts in tree cavities at night, so it is relatively easy to trap if the trapper climbs the emergent tree. Actions: Information is urgently required on distribution (including habitat use), status, and threats. Rusty-faced parrot Hapalopsittaca amazonina Luis Miguel Renjifo, JonPaul Rodriguez, Franklin Rojas-Suarez, and Chris Sharpe Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (A1c; A2c; B1+2c,d; C1). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Confined to Colombia and Venezuela, are very local throughout their ranges. In Venezuela, H. a. teresae occurs in Mιrida and northern Tαchira states, from 2,000-3,000m. It is found mainly in the Sierra Nevada National Park, but also in Pαramos Batallσn and La Negra National Park. A small population also probably occurs in La Carbonera on the north-west side of the Rio Chama. H. a. amazonina occurs in El Tamα and apparently also in Sierra de Perijα National Park (Desenne and Strahl 1994). In Colombia it is found in Norte de Santander, Santander, Cundinamarca, Caldas, and possibly Cauca and Huila. Of the three subspecies, one is endemic to Colombia (H. a. velezi), one (H. a. amazonina) occurs mainly in Colombia and ranges marginally into Venezuela, and the third (H. a. theresae) is endemic to Venezuela. The two protected areas of relevance to the species in Venezuela, Tamα National Park (which possibly has a population of H. a. amazonina) and Sierra Nevada National Park (the only conservation area in existence for H. a. theresae), are among the most threatened in the country. In Colombia the species is recorded in protected areas, such as Chingaza National Park, Puracι National Park and Cueva de los Guαcharos National Park, but it is not known whether it frequents these areas only seasonally. A well protected but probably small population of Hapalopsittaca amazonina velezi is found in the Rio Blanco watershed just in the outskirts of the city of Manizales, where the species seems to be a permanent resident (D. Uribe in litt. 1996) The area belongs to the City and is conserved for watershed protection. Probably fewer than 1,100 individuals (of both subspecies) occur in Venezuela (Rodriguez and Rojas-Suarez 1995) and population trends are not known. Threats: In Venezuela, the main threat is habitat destruction for cattle raising, subsistence agriculture, and settlements. The Andean forests where it is found are becoming more and more fragmented. However, even in good habitats the species is rare. Actions: Research should be carried out on the distribution and ecology of the species to clarify whether the existing protected area system is adequate to ensure the survival of the three subspecies. Preparation of a long-term management plan and protection of Sierra Nevada National Park in Venezuela is also needed. Unprotected forests in the Andes need identifying and require urgent protection, not only for this species, but also for the 25 other endemic birds found there (ICBP 1992). Currently the environmental group PROVITA is targeting this species in Venezuela. The first steps must be a census and ecological study of their breeding biology and habitat requirements. Azure-winged parrot Hapalopsittaca fuertesi (Fuertes's parrot in Collar et al. 1994. Name changed here to conform to Colombian usage.) Luis Miguel Renjifo Conservation status: IUCN: Critically Endangered (D1; D2). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Known only from the humid temperate forest on the west slope of the central Andes of Colombia in the Alto Quindνo, Quindνo Department near the border of Risaralda, and Tolima departments. The species is known to survive only in the Acaime Reserve and in the Quindνo Canyon (2,600- 3,500m), where the population is thought to be less than one hundred. It may also occur in the adjacent upper parts of the Toche Canyon. Unfortunately, this pass is being cleared. Local habitat protection efforts such as purchasing discrete parcels of forests can protect impressive forested habitats and would be more effective for this species than for Ognorhynchus or Leptosittaca. H. fuertesi seems to be rather sedentary but difficult to see because of its secretive behaviour (as with other species of the genus Hapalopsittaca). Often, the only evidence of their presence is their rather soft vocalisations (which are different between H. fuertesi and H. amazonina). (See multi-species remarks in Ognorhynchus icterotis) Threats: In many parts of its potential range, habitat loss and fragmentation is severe. Actions: Highest priority should be given to support for the Alto Quindνo, where the ecology of Azure- winged parrot, especially with respect to feeding and breeding, should be researched, and every step taken to ensure optimum management to maximise the population there. The possibility that the species occurs in the Los Nevados National Park (and the adjacent Navarco Nature Reserve) should be investigated, and appropriate management should follow if it does. The remnant patch of forest in which it may have been sighted in 1980 and adjacent habitat should also be investigated and protected. Institutional support for Fundaciσn Herencia Verde will assist in maintenance of their Acaime private reserve. Red-faced parrot Hapalopsittaca pyrrhops Jeremy Flanagan, Paul Toyne Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (A1b; A2b; B1+2c; C1; C2a; D1). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Restricted to high Andean cloud forests on the eastern slopes of the Andes of Ecuador (Morona Santiago, Azuay and Loja provinces) and in the adjacent Piura province of Peru. Rare and uncommon. Surveys in the Podocarpus National Park of Loja Province, from Cajanuma to Yagana reveal that the parrot occurs in low density and is rarely seen in flocks of more than six (Rasmussen et al. 1996, Toyne unpublished data). This species is found in greater abundance in the north of Loja Province around the Saraguro area, where surveys located a sedentary population in the community-owned conservation area at Huashapamba (Toyne unpublished data). Selva Alegre forest in north Loja Province, located on the Saraguro-Manu road (see Toyne et al. 1995 for details), has a sedentary population of around 20. A maximum flock size of 29 individuals was recorded by Jacobs and Walker (1999). This small forest patch is heavily degraded by tree clearance and cattle grazing. Red-faced parrots were found to inhabit the fragmented forests around Saraguro e.g. Torrι and El Sauce, Lomo del Oro (Toyne and Flanagan 1996, 1997, Jacobs and Walker 1999). Two pairs with young were recorded at Pαramos de Matanga in early 1995/6 (Krabbe et al. 1997). Cerro Chinguella in northern Peru, where Parker et al. (1985) twice recorded red- faced parrots in the 1970s, still has large tracts of undisturbed cloud forests; however, in a 7 day survey in 1996, no H. pyrrhops were recorded (Toyne and Flanagan unpublished data). Threats: The main threat to this species is habitat loss principally through fragmentation from human encroachment (cattle ranching and timber collection for construction and fuel). How tolerant red-faced parrots are to habitat degradation remains uncertain. Actions: Conservation efforts must be directed to the remaining cloud forests of the Saraguro area where red-faced parrots are found in greater abundance (Toyne 1996). The feasibility of a network of connecting Andean forests should be explored (Toyne and Flanagan unpublished data, see L. branickii). Efforts should be made to protect the forest patch between Selva Alegre and Manu in the Chilla mountains. It is of paramount importance that all mining activities in the Podocarpus National Park are prevented, thus securing habitat for three globally endangered parrots: The golden-plumed parakeet Leptosittaca branickii, the white-breasted parakeet Pyrrhura albipectus, and the red-faced parrot Hapalopsittaca pyrrhops. In Peru, surveys are required to assess whether viable populations of the species survive, and assess what options for their conservation exist. Golden-plumed parakeet Leptosittaca branickii Jeremy Flanagan, Gustavo Kattan, Paul Salaman, Paul Toyne Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (A1b; A2b; C1; C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: The golden-plumed parakeet ranges along the Andes from central Colombia to southern Peru, inhabiting temperate cloud forest and elfin woodland usually at 2,400-3,400m, although occasionally as low as 1,400m (Collar et al. 1992). Within its range, it is localised and considered nomadic (Fjeldsε and Krabbe 1990, Collar et al. 1992), making it difficult to study, which explains why it is a poorly known species. In Colombia, the species’ movements over large areas may follow a temporal pattern, with individuals foraging the same day in areas that are kilometres apart. A large population may exist in and around the Volcαn Ruνz-Tolima complex. There is a healthy population in the Central Andes of Ucumarν-Los Nevados- Quindνo region with groups of up to 40 individuals commonly seen. Birds seem to cross often from the west to the east slope of the central Andes. The Rio Blanco protected watershed may hold a population of up to 150 individuals within 10km of the City of Manizales. The species feeds on Podocarpaceae fruits, including Podocarpus and Prumnopytis, but contrary to previous published data, L. branickii does not seem to be a true Podocarpus specialist (Flanagan and Toyne in litt. 1997, Kattan in litt. 1997). Since large Podocarpaceae are only found in primary forest, the species is closely associated with primary forest, where it may depend for most of its food items and reproduction. However in Toche as well as in lower parts of Ucumarν Reserve, the species also feeds in secondary forests. In Ecuador it is only known from nine sites, five of which are in Loja Province. Prior to the 1990s there are few records of this species in Loja Province and consequently their distribution and status in the Province is sparsely documented. This species has been recently seen in small flocks in the following areas: In Ecuador: Acanama (Huashapamba), Angashcola, El Quingueado, Cordillera de Allapacha, Torrι, Hiρuiρa, Loma del Oro, El Sauce. In Podocarpus National Park, flocks have been seen in Cajanuma, Lagunas del Compadre, Yangana- Valladolid (including Quebrada Honda), Quebrada Rabadilla de Vaca, and San Francisco. In Colombia: has been seen in Ucumarν Regional Park, Los Nevados National Park, the Quindνo River, Rio Blanco, and the Volcαn Galeras. In Peru: Selva Alegre and Chilla Mountains in Manu National Park. Due to Leptosittaca’s mobility it is difficult to assess its status at any one site. However, it must be deemed as extremely rare and, at present, highly unpredictable. Threats: Habitat fragmentation (interruption of altitudinal and seasonal migration) and lack of nesting habitat (possibly in large mature in forests). In the Loja province of Ecuador, the main threat is habitat loss due to human encroachment (cattle ranching and timber use for construction and fuel). Actions: Conservation for Leptosittaca will require a landscape approach. That includes a high variety of habitats with fruit-bearing trees and Cordia cylondrostachya, Axinea macrophylla, and old growth stands of Podocarpus. In both Colombia and Ecuador, a network of interconnected montane forests at various altitudes is needed to secure the long-term future of this and other Andean parrots. The network can include private and community-owned reserves. Efforts should focus on protecting forest patches in the Quindνo region in Colombia and at Selva Alegre and Acanama -Huashapamba areas in the Chilla Mountains of Ecuador. In Peru, surveys are required to assess whether viable populations of the species survive, and what options for their conservation exists. (See multi-species remarks in Ognorhynchus icterotis). Yellow-eared conure Ognorhynchus icterotis Niels Krabbe, Luis Miguel Renjifo, Paul Salaman, Paul Toyne Conservation status: IUCN: Critically Endangered (A1b; C1; C2a; D1). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Distribution and status: This large parakeet, once numerous (Collar et al. 1992), is now on the brink of extinction owing to hunting for food, together with loss of habitat. The species is only known to roost and nest in wax palms Ceroxylon. All recent records may refer to three flocks, each of 20-24 birds from a large wax palm forest in the Central Cordillera of Colombia; a nearly deforested area in western Ecuador; and south-west Colombia and adjacent north-west Ecuador. The latter flock is considered extinct, after it vanished recently. The exact whereabouts of groups for much of the year is still unknown, rendering protective measures difficult. While the species is strongly seasonal and highly mobile, there are several sizeable areas of apparently suitable habitat over its historical range. For example, from at least 1983 until 1989 a flock would appear at La Planada Nature Reserve, Nariρo, almost to the very same day each year in February (often staying until May). The flock increased in size, reaching a maximum of 21 birds (1985), and roughly that number thereafter. Sadly, in 1990 the flock never appeared, and has never been seen since, despite excellent safe habitat remaining and plenty of observers (Salaman 1994). This population probably moved between Nariρo and Carchi, but it is now thought to be extinct (Krabbe and Sornoza 1996). An undisclosed location on the Volcαn Ruiz-Tolima massif, Central Cordillera of Colombia, contains the largest surviving fragment of wax palms, estimated at over 1,000ha (P. Salaman in litt. 1997). The Ceroxylum quindiense palms intermixed with montane humid forest forms a mosaic with pasture. Most Colombian reports in the past seven years originate from this one unprotected location, with the first confirmation in 1997 by L. G. Olarte and later the observation of a flock of 24 birds in October 1997 (P. Salaman in litt. 1997). Despite the close proximity to Los Nevados National Park and other private nature reserves, the species has not been recorded from these areas in the past decade. The species is so conspicuous, that it is unlikely to have been overlooked by the many ornithologists working in these areas. In the case of the Volcαn Ruiz-Tolima massif, where there appears to be sufficient feeding and nesting habitat, it is suspected that hunting is responsible for the very low population levels as appears to be the case in Ecuador. Recent reports of two flocks totalling 61 birds in a remote location of the Central Cordillera of Colombia, and the discovery and monitoring of the first ever active nest is a wax palm have dramatically increased knowledge of the natural history of this species (Salaman and Lopez-Lanus, 1999) Multi-species remarks: The Volcαn Ruiz-Tolima massif, including the High Quindνo region and the Toche Canyon of the Colombian Andean Central Cordillera are largely within the Los Nevados National Park and adjacent regional or private reserves. Forest cover is nearly continuous between the High Quindνo (western slope) and Toche (eastern slope). Furthermore, the ridge between both slopes has pristine and inaccessible pαramo, probably one of the last ones within the range of Bolborhynchus ferrugineifrons. In 1989 and 1990 B. ferrugineifrons was seen a few times in areas with more disturbed pαramo in the High Quindνo (L.M. Renjifo in litt. 1997). There is also a healthy population of Leptosittaca branickii in the High Quindνo-Toche area that actually moves frequently between the two slopes using the same forested pass between the two areas. In summary, these areas are the most important areas to preserve globally important populations of Ognorhynchus icterotis, Leptosittaca branickii, Bolborhynchus ferrugineifrons, and Hapalopsittaca fuertesi in the Colombian Andes, and certainly the only ones for which there is more detailed information. Leptosittaca branickii, Bolborhynchus ferrugineifrons, and Hapalopsittaca fuertesi have little altitudinal range-overlap with Ognorhynchus icterotis, for which protective measures must, therefore, be considered separately. Threats: Although rapidly diminishing, there are still several sizeable areas of apparently suitable habitat over its historical range (Renjifo 1991, Salaman 1994, Krabbe and Sornoza 1996, P. Salaman in litt. 1997), suggesting that factors other than habitat destruction are responsible for its rapid decline. It has always been rare in captivity, and only a handful of individuals have ever reached western markets (Collar et al. 1992): two wild caught specimens were recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, both in 1992 (seized by USA: CITES Annual Report database). Undoubtedly the severe fragmentation of its habitat, and perhaps in particular the destruction of traditional nesting palms, has had a large impact, but it is suspected that hunting at traditional roosts is the major cause of the species’ decline. Indeed, in the valley of a traditional roost in Ecuador, nearly all families had shot the parrot for food at the roost (Krabbe and Sornoza 1996). The conservative habits of the species render it particularly vulnerable. Despite persecution at the roost in Ecuador, the parrots continued to use the same palm, and when the palm fell, they only moved to the neighbouring palm (Krabbe and Sornoza 1996). The lack of information about the whereabouts of the two remaining flocks for much of the year poses a major obstacle to its conservation. Critically, the largest fragment of wax palms in the Central Cordillera of Colombia, is unprotected and highly threatened. Actions: Without an immediate multilateral conservation strategy and immediate intervention, the species is threatened with total extinction within the next decade. Research is desperately needed and required to locate more breeding areas, roost sites, potential migration routes, and favoured feeding sites. Studies should also identify specific threats and conservation priorities. Conservation actions will require urgent and creative land management strategies, such as strengthening the protection of all roosting and breeding sites (purchase if possible), and reverting pasturelands adjacent to wax palm to forest. Large-scale propagation of the wax palms is not recommended as a cost-effective conservation action: it is more important to revert to pasturelands adjacent to wax palm forest to second growth forest. Indeed, wax palm forests in general are currently highly fragmented, young wax palms do very well in secondary growth, and the seeds of wax palms are readily dispersed by large frugivores in the region. The involvement of local people in managing protected areas is necessary as they pose the greatest direct threat. Whenever possible ecotourism development should be considered. However, potential political instability associated to guerrilla warfare should be considered when developing ecotourism initiatives. Community involvement should be enhanced with an active environmental education campaign (i.e. distribution of posters, talks at local schools). But the greatest threat may be avoided by simply locating and talking to local hunters. In Ecuador, Niels Krabbe, with funding from Zoological Society for the Preservation of Species and Populations, Fonds fur Bedrohte Papageien, and the Loro Parque Foundation, has commenced a long-term conservation programme for the country's last known flock. Fifty hectares of land around a traditional roost in western Ecuador has been purchased and has been reforested with the parrot's favourite food plants, Sapium and Croton (both Euphorbiaceae). Three areas nearby, all used by Ognorhynchus and covering 150ha are presently being purchased, and a further 200ha may be added later in 1998. Formerly the parrot was heavily persecuted at this roost, which is now protected effectively (Krabbe and Sornoza 1996). White-breasted parakeet Pyrrhura albipectus C.S. Balchin, Jeremy Flanagan, Niels Krabbe, and Paul Toyne Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Known from three general areas of south-east Ecuador (Cordillera de Cutucϊ, Cordillera del Condor and Podocarpus National Park), where it inhabits upper tropical and subtropical forest and possibly disturbed areas, between 940 and 1,800m (Robbins et al. 1987, Collar et al. 1992, Toyne et al. 1992, Krabbe and Sornoza 1996, Schulenberg and Awbrey 1997). Also possibly recorded in Peru. This parakeet has been recorded in both pristine and degraded habitat, as it has been observed in partially and severely deforested areas around Podocarpus National Park (Toyne et al. 1992). The lower forested slopes of the Rνo Nangaritza valley may also prove to be ideal habitat for this parakeet (Toyne et al. 1992) and they have been recorded here once during a short survey in 1994 (Balchin and Toyne 1998). Here they were encountered between 1,300-1,800m above the Rνo Mariposa, a tributary of the Rνo Nangaritza. However, in nearby Podocarpus National Park the parakeet is a common, permanent resident of Rνo Bombuscara and Romerillos (Toyne et al. 1992). This suggests, at least for the area of Podocarpus National Park, that they are not as severely threatened as first feared (Toyne et al. 1992, Toyne 1996). Threats: Along the southern perimeter of Podocarpus National Park, encroachment by humans along the borders of the park is causing loss of habitat. Occasional trapping of this species has been recorded around Zamora where they are kept as pets (Toyne et al. 1992). Gold mining activities (e.g. mercury poisoning of rivers that provide the local water supply) in and around the park has also posed threats (Toyne et al. 1992, Vallιe 1992). Local miners left the park in 1993 but quickly returned in 1994-95 (Toyne 1994). Presently, there are about 90 miners in the area of San Luis, and they have formed strong ties with local politicians. But recently even the Ministry of Mining (DINAMI) decreed that the miners’ activities are illegal; it is now up to the new Ministry of the Environment to take steps to remove them (J. Flanagan in litt. 1997). The two other areas where this species is found (Cordillera de Cutucϊ and Cordillera del Condor) are also threatened by deforestation, gold mining, and road building, but the current situation is not known (Collar et al. 1992, Toyne et al. 1992). Actions: A public awareness and environmental education campaign about Podocarpus National Park and its importance has been initiated by Fundaciσn ArcoIris. This work needs further encouragement and the relevance of the Podocarpus National Park for parrot conservation needs to be highlighted. Fortunately Podocarpus National Park has been receiving international assistance for the last few years. These efforts have led to the strengthening of local institutions (both NGOs and governmental) and a new management plan being published. Flame-winged parakeet Pyrrhura calliptera Paul Salaman Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (A1b; A2b; C1; C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Estimated between 5,000 to 10,000 individuals. Confined to remnant patches of upper-premontane to montane forest and pαramo 1,800 to 3,400m on the central Eastern Cordillera of Colombia. The population is suspected to be similar to Pyrrhura viridicata (found to be not uncommon in remaining forest patches within restricted range). However, the species range is far more fragmented and human pressures much greater. Few sizeable forest fragments remain. Threats: Forest clearance for agriculture and timber is still very active. Road/track construction in the region (although slow and limited owing to rough terrain) will undoubtedly have severe consequences in the future. Actions: As with other species of the Colombian Andes, a field study on the species should concentrate on determining population densities in different forest types, and making estimates of current population levels according to the area of suitable habitat remaining. Knowledge of the extent of altitudinal movements and the distance travelled over open country (between forest patches) would also be of value. Blue-throated parakeet Pyrrhura cruentata (Blue-chested parakeet in Collar et al. 1994. Name changed here to conform to Brazilian usage.) Jaqueline Goerck Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (A1b; B1+2c; C2a). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Distribution and status: Found in scattered Atlantic Forest fragments in southern Bahia, Minas Gerais, Espνrito Santo, and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Although sometimes fairly common where it occurs, it may be unable to move between widely dispersed patches of forest, since it seems to be restricted to forested areas. Threats: Extreme deforestation and fragmentation throughout its range. The sparse remaining forest existing in southern Bahia is still being cut. There were four specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, all in 1992 (pets: CITES Annual Report database). Actions: Few actions, if any, are taking place. In fact, one of the areas where this species occurs in Espνrito Santo (Cσrrego do Veado Biological Reserve) had more than half its original area (2,392ha) irreversibly burnt twelve years ago. This reserve, as many others in Brazil is threatened by uncontrolled hunting, cattle grazing, and poor enforcement. Required conservation actions would be similar to those of Amazona rhodocorytha, since these two species share their range. El Oro parakeet or Orces parakeet Pyrrhura orcesi Niels Krabbe Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (B1+2c; C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Restricted to very humid upper tropical forest on the west slope of the Andes in Azuay and El Oro Provinces, south-western Ecuador, where it occurs at altitudes between 300 and 1,300m, with population estimated roughly at 2,000-10,000 birds. Threats: Threatened by continuing habitat clearance for cattle production (Collar et al. 1992, Best et al. 1993). Actions: Information is urgently required on distribution, population status and threats. Santa Marta parakeet Pyrrhura viridicata Thomas Arndt, Paul Salaman Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (C1; C2b). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Restricted to upper-premontane to montane forest 1,800 to 2,800m on the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta massif, Colombia. Very vocal parties (5-20 birds) are commonly seen flying about the San Lorenzo-Cerro Kennedy trail, which has been extensively deforested. Research is required into the extent of remaining suitable habitat for the species, and estimates are needed of population in primary and intervened forest. It is suspected that large healthy populations of the species can be found where sizeable forest fragments remain. Total population estimated at 5,000 to 10,000 individuals. Threats: Conifer plantations, and forest clearance for agriculture and timber. It is a cavity-nester that requires dead limbs, although not necessarily large trunks, and which is largely restricted to old secondary and primary forest. Some large and many small fragments of forest still remain on the massif, however the human pressures are very strong in the region. Also the extent of altitudinal movements is unknown, although suspected from seasonal variation in general observations along the San Lorenzo road. Hence, until further research clarifies the species status, the species should be designated a threatened status. Actions: Ideally, studies on the species should concentrate on tolerance of habitat change, population densities in different forest types, and estimates of current population levels. Thick-billed parrot Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha Andrew Burton, Javier Cruz-Nieto, Miguel A. Cruz-Nieto, Ernesto Enkerlin-Hoeflich, Alberto Lafσn- Terrazas, Dirk Lanning, Tiberio Monterrubio, Jesus Montes, Roger Otto, Jim Shiflett, Noel Snyder, and Diana Venegas Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (A1b; A2b; C1; C2a). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Endangered in Mexico (Peligro de extincion, NOM- ECOL-059-1994) and Endangered in the USA (US Fish and Wildlife Service). Distribution and status: Restricted during breeding to pine forests in mountainous areas of northern Mexico, largely in the states of Chihuahua and Durango and, to a much lesser extent in Sonora and Sinaloa (Howell and Webb 1995; Enkerlin-Hoeflich et al. 1996), with some individuals reported in historic times from extreme southern Arizona in the USA. Populations have declined markedly in Mexico. Breeding pairs are now found only in undisturbed remote areas, in disturbed areas with a few remaining suitable nest sites, and in islands of forest on steep slopes and ridges that are not accessible or currently economical to log. In non-breeding season wanders more widely within the Sierra Madre Occidental (Enkerlin-Hoeflich et al. 1996). See map by Howell and Webb (1995). The progressive decline in the population of the thick-billed parrot is apparent to long-term residents across the range (Lanning and Shiflett 1983, Lammertink 1996, M.A. Cruz-Nieto in litt. 1997), and the parrot is only one of many species currently in jeopardy in the region. While the parrot still persists in good numbers in the best remaining forested areas, all will surely be timbered of their large trees in the near future unless conservation efforts now being started prove successful. Lammertink et al. (1996) have offered a rough estimate for the total wild population still in existence as 500 to 2,000 pairs. Although this estimate may be on the conservative side, no adequate basis for estimating total numbers in the wild has yet been developed. The numbers in captivity were estimated by Snyder and Wallace (1987) to possibly exceed 1,000, almost all taken illegally. At least 200 birds use the general vicinity of Cebadillas de Tosanachic study site in Chihuahua. This may be the last relatively large healthy population, numbering in the low hundreds of pairs, as a fraction of the area contained 61 nests in 1997 (D. Venegas and T. Monterrubio in litt. 1997). There is an excellent account of this species in Collar et al. (1992) and a full account is found in Snyder et al. (1999) Threats: Unfortunately, the thick-billed parrot suffered heavily from shooting in the US, and was very likely extirpated north of the border by this stress (Snyder et al. 1994). Much of the recent decline is undoubtedly due to massive lumbering of the pine forests of the Sierra Madre Occidental since World War II (Lanning and Shiflett 1983, Lammertink, et al. 1996, Cruz-Nieto 1998), but the species has also been stressed in the past by extensive trapping for the pet and avicultural trades (Snyder and Wallace 1987). The thick-billed parrot is not limited to virgin forest, and can exist in selectively logged areas so long as snags suitable for nesting are available and it remains free of shooting and trapping. Significant efforts to manage and conserve major remaining habitats of the species are now being pursued in Mexico (Enkerlin-Hoeflich et al. 1996). Thick- billed parrots are rarely kept as pets because they do not talk, although large numbers of confiscations in the US followed a surge in illegal importation of birds in 1985-1986. They are not known to raid agricultural crops, and are not shot for food. Actions: Forest management practices need to be modified to conserve thick-billed parrot nesting habitat. Properly located and managed reserves could protect several prime nesting areas; no such reserves currently exist, although a number of efforts are currently underway (R. Otto in litt. 1997, Enkerlin-Hoeflich et al. 1996). A reintroduction project was started in south-eastern Arizona in 1986 (reviewed in Snyder et al. 1994). Efforts have not yet resulted in a viable wild population, but initial experiments are encouraging that this may be possible. Some birds still persist in Arizona, and experimentation has shown that at least some wild- caught birds will stay in the region of reintroduction, with reasonable levels of survival and reproduction. Experimentation has also shown that while confiscated wild-caught birds are a viable release source from a behavioural standpoint, they represent a risky source from a disease standpoint. Captive-reared thick-bills from various zoos and aviculturists have not proved to be a viable source from both behavioural and disease standpoints. Future efforts should involve direct wild to wild transfers, with extensive disease screening to avoid the above problems. Continued efforts to achieve appropriate habitat conservation measures; more extensive understanding of biology of the species, including documentation of wintering ranges of various breeding populations; development of better means for monitoring population sizes and trends; reactivation of programme to re- establish extirpated populations both in Mexico and the US, using wild-caught birds from populations that are vigorous enough to serve as donors; should all take place within the next five years. Maroon-fronted parrot Rhynchopsitta terrisi Ernesto Enkerlin, Aldegundo Garza, Jaime Gonzalez-Elizondo, Claudia Macνas, Josι Luis Manzano-Loza, Sergio Marines, Gabriela Ortiz, Andres M. Sada, Alejandro Salinas, Noel Snyder, Ruperto Zepien Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (B1+2C; C2a). CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Endangered in Mexico (Peligro de extincion, NOM- ECOL-059-1994) and Endangered in the USA (US Fish and Wildlife Service). Distribution and status: Restricted to pine forests and rock cliffs for nesting in mountain areas of northern Mexico mainly in the states of Nuevo Leσn and Coahuila, with some winter activity in Tamaulipas State. Breeding colonies known only from the northernmost 25% of the range. Recent intensive studies (initiated by PROFAUNA group of the Universidad Autσnoma Agraria Antonio Narro in Saltillo and continued by Monterrey Technological Institute) have yielded an almost complete inventory of nesting cliffs (currently numbering 24) which range in population from a single nesting pair to close to 100 nesting pairs each (Enkerlin-Hoeflich et al. 1996). Until recently the population had been assumed to be from 2,000 to 4,000 birds, mostly from data in the early 1970s when a flock of about 1,500 was observed (Snyder and Lanning cited by Collar et al. 1992). Presumed to be declining by some observers (i.e. Gσmez-Garza 1991), yet confirmed stable or at least within historic population estimates in 1994 with a simultaneous count of about 1,400 (Snyder and Enkerlin-Hoeflich 1996). High historic count in 1996 recorded 2,213 birds and a quasi- simultaneous yielded an additional count of about 300 at nearby nesting cliffs in September (J.J. Gonzalez- Elizondo in litt. 1997). This sets the minimum estimate at 2,500 and suggests a small but relatively stable population. Threats: The main threats to this species are: (i) destruction of its mixed-conifer forest habitat by fire; (ii) second home development; (iii) logging; and (iv) clearing for agriculture. The large Cumbres de Monterrey National Park exists within the maroon-fronted parrot's range, but increase in the frequency and intensity of forest fires is causing passive deforestation. Areas reforested naturally usually become oak chaparral which has no value as a food for the parrots. Reforestation with native species is not occurring except in tiny areas by private landowners. The species is very dependent on free flowing water on a daily basis and lack of springs to drink have sometimes forced it to drink from water troughs. During the 1994 drought at least 50 birds drowned in a single incident while attempting to drink water out of a walled cement tank. A better understanding of the ecology of the species is needed to propose a variety of measures to avert these threats (Enkerlin-Hoeflich et al. 1996). Actions: In the last few years a long-term conservation programme for the species has evolved. An integrated conservation plan using the maroon-fronted parrot as the flagship species has been initiated by Monterrey Technological Institute with multiple collaborators both in Mexico and abroad. The plan includes a three level strategy to achieve conservation of habitat, which in turn provides ecological services and scenic and recreational values to neighbouring cities of Monterrey and Saltillo (combined population close to five million, Enkerlin-Hoeflich et al. 1996). The plan includes El Taray Sanctuary, the most important nesting colony harbouring close to 100 breeding pairs that comprise 40% of the breeding population. This site was acquired by the Mexican Commission on Biodiversity (CONABIO) and is managed by a local NGO, the Museo de las Aves de Mexico. A 20-year strategic plan for the reserve includes financial, conservation management, conservation research, and education and outreach components that hope to make El Taray a show-case for sustainable land use in the region and even provide a useful model for other regions. The overall effort includes an ecological planning process that would safeguard the most important nesting cliffs. A Mexican foundation (Fundaciσn ARA) is also developing a plan for community-based protection of the second or third most important nesting cliff known as El Condominio (or “High-rise”). Brown-backed parrotlet Touit melanonota Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (C2a;D1). CITES: Appendix II National protection status: Distribution and status: This small and inconspicuous species is very poorly known. During this century it has been recorded only from Rio de Janeiro State and three sites in Sγo Paulo, Brazil. In the past century it was recorded also for Bahia. It inhabits humid forest, mainly at moderate elevations (500-1,000m), but descends to lower elevations at times, perhaps seasonally (Collar et al. 1994). Threats: Touit melanonota appears to be a victim primarily of widespread habitat loss and fragmentation, with many recent records limited to protected areas (Collar et al. 1992). Actions: Information is urgently needed on the current distribution, population status, and threats for this species. Spot-winged parrotlet Touit stictoptera C.S. Balchin, Niels Krabbe, Luis Miguel Renjifo, Paul Salaman, and Paul Toyne Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: This inconspicuous species occurs in five general areas extending through Colombia (Cundinamarca, Meta, Cauca), Ecuador (Napo, Morona-Santiago, Zamora-Chinchipe) and northern Peru (Cajamarca, San Martνn). Inhabits the upper tropical and lower subtropical zone, using tall humid montane forest at 500-2,300m, though mostly 1,050-1,700m. It was recently recorded in Miazi and elsewhere in the Cordillera del Cσndor in Ecuador. No recent sightings have been made of this species despite some searches in its upper tropical-premontane altitudinal zone on the east slope of the Eastern Cordillera of Colombia. Threats: Deforestation and fragmentation. Actions: Information is urgently required on distribution, population status, and threats. Golden-tailed parrotlet Touit surda Conservation status: IUCN: Endangered (C2a). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Touit surda has been recorded from four states in north-eastern Brazil - Cearα, Paraiba, Pernambuco, and Alagoas - and from four states in south-eastern Brazil - Bahia, Espirito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, and Sγo Paulo. The majority of records have come from humid lowland forest areas up to about 800m in the foothills. It appears to be migratory to some degree. Threats: This species has evidently suffered from continuing massive habitat destruction, with many recent records limited to protected areas (Collar et al. 1992). Actions: Information is urgently needed on the current distribution, population status, and threats to this species. Blue-bellied parrot Triclaria malachitacea Glayson Ariel Bencke, Paulo Martuschelli, Marco Aurelio Pizo, Carlos Yamashita Conservation status: IUCN: Vulnerable (B1+2c,d; C1, C2a). Formerly Endangered (C2a: see Collar et al. 1994). CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Protected under federal law and included on IBAMA's list of Brazilian species threatened with extinction (Bernardes et al. 1990). Distribution and status: The blue-bellied parrot Triclaria malachitacea is a threatened psittacine endemic to the Atlantic Forest region of south-eastern Brazil. Its current status has been attributed to its natural rarity coupled with the effects of hunting and loss of habitat. Within its range, Triclaria still survives in Rio Grande do Sul, where it inhabits a highly fragmented landscape along the escarpment of the state (Serra Geral) and is confined to remaining patches of forest on hilltops and steep mountain slopes (Bencke 1996). The species is uncommon at Intervales State Park, Sγo Paulo State, and from 1989-1993 there has been no noticeable decline in this population (Pizo et al. 1995). Numbers may be higher than suspected due to the fact that this is one of the most secretive parrots in the world. In central-eastern Rio Grande do Sul Triclaria is mostly associated with the humid broadleaf forests along the escarpment, which are now severely fragmented. It is presently restricted to the largest remnants of mature forest. However, preliminary radio- telemetry studies showed that individuals of Triclaria are able to disperse among habitat patches using narrow forest corridors, such as strips of second growth woodland, and also crossing small open areas (100- 200m). The total population of Triclaria was tentatively estimated at less than 5,000 individuals by Lambert et al. (1993). A recent survey (Bencke 1996) of remaining natural vegetation in central-eastern Rio Grande do Sul revealed a forest cover of 17.32%, corresponding to an area of 122,209.92ha (total area surveyed = 705,600.00ha). This calculation includes remnants >50ha of arboreal vegetation (both primary and secondary) and low second growth. Based on the amount of habitat available its population was estimated at a maximum of about 10,000 individuals. This number was calculated assuming a maximum density of 10 individuals per 100ha of forest (an assumption based on field observations conducted mainly at Monte Alverne). However, it is possible that the amount of suitable habitat has been overestimated due to the inclusion of areas of second growth in the survey of remnant vegetation. Therefore, population numbers may be lower. Unlike other parrots species in the region, Triclaria lives primarily in the forest interior, where it often occupies the lower strata. At Monte Alverne, most records inside the forest were of birds in the understorey, between five and 10m above the ground. Triclaria nests in natural cavities inside primary-forest remnants. Three nests have been found in Santa Cruz do Sul and were all quite low (between about three and five metres above ground) and thus easily accessible to nest poachers. The main foods of Triclaria in the region are the seeds and pulp of several common species of native plants, especially those of families Euphorbiaceae (such as Pachystroma longifolium, Actinostemon concolor, and Sebastiana brasiliensis) and Myrtaceae (principally Eugenia rostrifolia and Campomanesia xanthocarpa), and also cultivated maize (Galetti 1997). Some of these plant species proved to be keystone food resources, as they fruit (and are consumed) over extended periods, are available in large quantities in periods of low overall fruit diversity or constitute the main food item during the breeding season. Several evidences clearly indicate that the fruits of Euterpe edulis are not a particularly important food resource for Triclaria in Rio Grande do Sul. Threats: The main threat currently affecting the population of Triclaria in the centre-east of Rio Grande do Sul is the continuing process of habitat degradation and fragmentation. The illegal clearing of forests at a small scale to provide wood for curing tobacco and fuel for the winter is still very common throughout the region. As a result, primary-forest remnants are becoming increasingly smaller and more distant from each other. Additionally, this piecemeal process has been conducive to a progressive substitution of primary forests by second growth and to a consequent process of ecosystem impoverishment in the region. Attempts to evaluate the extent of deforestation in Rio Grande do Sul have been controversial, but all indicate an enormous reduction in forest areas since the time of colonisation (Forest cover has changed from 35% in 1940 to about 2% in 1990, G. Bencke in litt. 1998). The continuation of habitat fragmentation through the illegal clearing of primary forests and loss of connections between mature-forest remnants presently poses the most serious threat to the long-term survival of the blue-bellied parrot population in central-eastern Rio Grande do Sul. Local farmers living around primary-forest remnants throughout the region occasionally take young from parrot nests to keep as pets, but the magnitude of the effects of this practice on the local Triclaria population is currently unknown. The capture of chicks from nests is the cause of a number of nest failures every year. The forest fragments where the species nests in central-eastern state are small and easily accessible to trappers. Location and capture of Triclaria nestlings is further facilitated by the loud vocalisations often delivered by both adults and young near the nest and the usually low heights of nest holes. There were 20 wild caught specimens recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, all in 1991 (CITES Annual Report database). Actions: The main recommended measure to achieve the protection of the species and its habitat in the region is the establishment of protected areas with some degree of connectivity. The hilltop forests near Santa Cruz do Sul and in the boundary with the township of Candelαria are among the most representative of Rio Grande do Sul's remaining vegetation deserving protection by the Programa Mata Atlβntica-Rio Grande do Sul (Pagel et al. 1992). In spite of this, there is not a single protected area in central Rio Grande do Sul and extensive tracts of undisturbed forest no longer exist in the region. Primary-forest remnants are the only components of the landscape suitable to be set aside as reserves. These remnants are small (a few are larger than 400ha, but the great majority are much smaller) and often shared by several small land owners (mostly poor tobacco planters with properties of 2ha on average: Farias 1993). A particularly important issue is the protection or enhancement of wildlife corridors between the protected areas (i.e. habitat islands). This may be achieved through the implementation of a local plan for sustainable management of timber (see below). Given the financial constraints on the federal and state conservation bodies, the creation of new public reserves has been recognised as a difficult approach to achieve the protection of habitats for wildlife conservation. Alternatively, the creation of public or private reserves at the municipal level is considered feasible. The process of land acquisition seems to be the most appropriate strategy to achieve the establishment of protected areas in the region because the economic situation in Santa Cruz do Sul region is believed to be favourable for such an approach. Large branch industries of important international tobacco companies established in Santa Cruz do Sul and Venβncio Aires could provide a substantial part of the funds for land purchase. The rest could be sought from national and international conservation agencies. Another important step to reduce forest degradation would be the implementation of a plan for sustainable management of forest to cease the non-sustainable and inappropriate harvesting of wood from native forests. Brazil is currently the world’s leading exporter of tobacco in natura and one of the main exporters of cigarettes. International importers of tobacco leaves and manufactured products originating from the Santa Cruz do Sul region should be made aware that the tobacco is planted over areas where a globally threatened species of parrot occurs, and that this activity has resulted in the fragmentation of natural habitats and led to a decline of several wildlife species. Such an “overseas” awareness campaign would certainly be more effective if conducted by external conservation agencies rather than by local groups. Brazil’s tobacco planters association (Afubra) from Santa Cruz do Sul, in conjunction with tobacco companies, started several campaigns aimed at introducing in the region alternative sources of timber to replace the wood from native forests in the curing of tobacco. However, all these actions failed, apparently because of the lack of continuity and inadequate implementation. In view of the ineffectiveness of the previous campaigns, and also because of some fines imposed to farmers during occasional law enforcement activities in the region, the Afubra has recently adopted a different approach and is now leading a campaign to change the state legislation governing the use of native forests (Cσdigo Florestal Estadual). If approved, the proposed amendment to the law will allow (upon licensing) the exploitation of second growth forests, regardless of their successional stage and location, to use the wood as fuel in the curing of tobacco. However, this proposal is obviously not based on technical criteria and may have catastrophic consequences in areas where secondary forests predominate. The situation is rapidly worsening, particularly in the region around Santa Cruz do Sul where the wood used in the curing of tobacco is extracted principally from native forests. Souza Cruz, one of the largest tobacco companies in the region, has recently announced the installation of a new industrial plant at Santa Cruz do Sul which will significantly increase the company’s capacity for processing tobacco leaves. This measure will require an estimated additional 13,700 tobacco planters in the region to satisfy the plant’s demand for tobacco, which in turn will result in a corresponding increase of agricultural areas to maintain these farmers and in consumption of wood for curing the leaves. Moreover, tobacco industries have recently been given special incentives by the Rio Grande do Sul’s government to install new plants or to increase their investments in the state. Environmental education and public awareness will remain a high priority. Triclaria is an unknown bird for the great majority of the local population. Only rural inhabitants living in farms around primary forest remnants are familiar with the species. Consequently, public awareness and environmental education should be carried out in properties around the largest primary-forest remnants in the region and in elementary schools of communities near these properties. Awareness of urban populations in the region requires a different approach. This target group should be made aware of the situation of forests and wildlife in the interior of the townships, especially the effects of habitat fragmentation. Several species of bird are known to have already vanished from the whole region, and many others are locally threatened, primarily as a result of habitat fragmentation (Bencke 1996). Newspaper articles, lectures and TV interviews should complement the urban public awareness campaign. Accounts for species proposed for consideration for inclusion on the Red List Yellow-naped parrot Amazona auropalliata Ernesto Enkerlin-Hoeflich, Celia Valverde and David A. Wiedenfeld Conservation status: IUCN: To be considered. Vulnerable A2d CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: Patchily distributed along the Pacific (southern) coast of Central America from Chiapas, Mexico to north-western Costa Rica, and on the Caribbean slope from central Honduras to central Nicaragua. No formal, or even anecdotal, data are available for Mexico, although it is presumed to be critical in the Mexican part of the range. There are no reports in Mexico of large flocks as in other Amazona or Aratinga species. Present in at least the low hundreds in southern Guatemala in very disturbed cane and cattle areas. Thurber et al. (1987) also reported diminished numbers in El Salvador. In Honduras, the species exists in very low numbers on the Pacific Slope (Wiedenfeld 1993). It takes refuge for roosting and nesting in the mangroves around the Gulf of Fonseca; this may also be true for the remaining birds in El Salvador. On the Caribbean slope of Honduras, the species is restricted to the Departments of Colσn and Olancho. The Caribbean subspecies Amazona auropalliata parvipes is still fairly numerous, with an estimated population of about 140,000 in 1992 (Wiedenfeld 1993). On the Caribbean slope, the parrot is restricted to relatively undisturbed habitats, including both broad-leaved forest and pine savanna, but shuns cultivated areas and second-growth (Wiedenfeld 1993). The species may possibly be still extant in the Bay Islands, off the Caribbean coast of Honduras, but reports of birds there may represent escaped captive birds. In Nicaragua, the yellow-naped parrot numbers about 180,000 individuals (Wiedenfeld 1995). As in Honduras, it occurs on both the Pacific and Caribbean slopes, but not in the southern Central Highlands. Its population density is nearly twice as high on the Caribbean as the Pacific slope (Wiedenfeld 1995). Stiles (1985) reported some reductions in yellow-naped parrot populations in Costa Rica, which he attributed to cage bird trapping, and mentioned that the species had been extirpated from some areas. Threats: Because of its facility in learning to “talk,” this amazon is a preferred pet by Central Americans. As a result, there is great pressure on its populations for internal trade as pets. This pressure may be perhaps several times larger than the harvest for legal and illegal export combined. Especially on the Pacific slope of Central America, where yellow-naped parrot populations are already low and human populations are high, the harvest for internal trade may have a very significant effect on the amazon’s populations. In Honduras, the sellers of the amazons usually demand about US$25 in the field in the Mosquitia, and about US$60 in Tegucigalpa (Wiedenfeld 1993). The daily minimum wage in Honduras is about US$2. Heavy laundering of this species to the USA from Central America through Mexico makes it impossible to judge levels of harvest within Mexico. The average number of yellow-naped parrots exported during 1989-1994 was 733 birds per year (Wiedenfeld 1995). Because of the high value of each amazon and because of the large numbers exported, the yellow-naped parrot accounts for a high percentage of the economic value of the birds in trade. Other export figures are provided by the CITES Annual Report database) which recorded 4,018 wild caught specimens in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of 930 in 1995. The export quota from Nicaragua for 1997 and 1998 was set at 800 ranched birds (CITES Notification to the Parties No. 980, 1997; CITES Notification to the Parties No.1988/07). Habitat loss is an especially serious threat on the Pacific slope, where human populations are highest and much habitat has already been destroyed. The mangroves around the Gulf of Fonseca, which serve as a roosting and nesting refuge for the Honduran and El Salvadorian populations of the amazon are presently being cleared for conversion to shrimp farming ponds. To obtain young from the nest, many harvesters fell the nest trees. This has two detrimental effects on the amazons: it kills some of the young when the tree falls, and it reduces the availability of nest sites. On most of the Pacific slope of Central America and in some parts of the Honduran Mosquitia, destruction of nest sites in the process of harvesting may be so severe as to reduce the proportion of the adult population which can breed each year. A multi-year project in southern Guatemala revealed extremely high levels of poaching, little predation from natural predators, and an apparently stable adult population. Actions: Plans for the conservation of this amazon should be developed soon and implemented quickly, before the situation becomes critical. The yellow-naped parrot is a long-lived species, and most of the birds harvested are taken as young from the nest. Therefore, even if all young are harvested each year, the adult population may show only slight declines for many years. As the adults reach senescence and begin to die from normal old-age mortality, the population could crash in a very short time. It is imperative that a study be completed to determine the extent of the harvest for internal pet market consumption, which remains largely unquantified. A formal programme for monitoring the amazon's population numbers also should be put in place. In addition, immediate efforts should be made to reduce demand for the amazon in the pet trade, and therefore to reduce the harvest. These should probably include encouragement of captive-breeding programs using birds already in captivity and educational programs in both the importing and exporting countries, so that people will understand the effect of the harvest on this species. Cuban amazon Amazona leucocephala Vicente Berovides, Patricia Bradley, Frederick Burton, Xiomara Gαlvez, Rosemarie Gnam, and James Wiley Conservation status: IUCN: To be considered. Vulnerable B1 in Cuba and Endangered B3b in Bahama Islands and Cayman Islands CITES: Appendix I. National protection status: Distribution and status: Native to Cuba, the Bahama Islands, and Cayman Islands. It strictly inhabits forests at all elevations. Populations have dramatically declined through most of its range. There are five races of parrots that comprise the leucocephala complex, including two Cuban forms Amazona l. leucocephala and A. l. palmarum, the Bahama amazon A. l. bahamensis, the Grand Cayman amazon A. l. caymanensis, and the Cayman Brac amazon A. l. hesterna (Peters 1928). Cuban populations Amazona leucocephala leucocephala and A. l. palmarum Distribution and status: The Cuban amazon was formerly widespread and common throughout Cuba and Isla de la Juventud (Isle of Pines). The species is locally found in all of the provinces, except that of La Habana. It is common in some areas, e.g., Ciιnaga de Zapata in the Sierra de Najasa (Camagόey), and in some mountainous zones (Sierra Maestra) in Granma and Santiago de Cuba provinces (Gonzαlez et al. 1993, Gαlvez 1996b). The parrot was formerly abundant throughout Isla de la Juventud, but the population underwent considerable declines, notably in the 1960s. More recently, several populations have increased in numbers. Threats: Although the Cuban amazon is protected from capture and shooting by national and international law, it is still marketed in Eastern European countries. In 1988, US Fish and Wildlife Service agents seized 49 Cuban amazons en-route to the United States. A lively trade in parrots as local pets continues. Nevertheless, the most serious threat to the parrot is habitat destruction for agriculture, cattle, and firewood, and natural disasters such as hurricanes that limit the number of dead trees for nesting for both A. leucocephala and Aratinga euops (de las Posas and Gonzαlez 1984). Actions: The parrot continued to decline in range and numbers throughout Cuba until the late 1970s, when government measures were taken to control the export of parrots for pets. That control resulted in notable increases in several parrot populations in the 1980s. Also, the recovery of some populations has been the result of intensive protection and habitat restoration by the Empresa Nacional para la Conservaciσn de la Flora y la Fauna. For example, in continuing efforts since 1979, this government agency established dead palms with nesting cavities in the Los Indios Ecological Reserve in Isla de Juventud. The population increased from 196 parrots in 1976 to a total of 1,100 parrots for the northern part of the Isla de la Juventud in 1996. Both A. l. leucocephala and A. l. palmarum have been in captivity in Cuba and elsewhere (Tavistock 1916; Noegel 1977, 1978; Gonzαlez et al. 1993). Although the important Ciιnaga de Zapata and other habitats critical to A. leucocephala and Aratinga euops’ survival have been made reserves, additional large conservation areas are needed in sites where the species persists. The Empresa Nacional para la Conservaciσn de la Flora y la Fauna, in cooperation with the Zoolσgico Nacional de Cuba, and the Biblioteca Nacional de Josι Martν, has undertaken a vigorous education programme, including annual conservation festivals involving local communities since 1995, with events to date at the Isla de la Juventud and Ciego de Αvila. Bahama populations Amazona leucocephala bahamensis Distribution and status: The Bahama amazon was once plentiful and probably present on all major islands of the Bahama Archipelago, although records exist only for Abaco, New Providence, San Salvador, Long, Crooked, Acklin's, Great Inagua, and Long Cay. By the 1940s, it was found solely on Abaco, Acklin's, and Great Inagua. The population on Acklin's was extirpated shortly thereafter. The southern third of Abaco (1,681km2) is considered the parrot's primary stronghold on that island (Attrill 1980, Gnam 1990). Amazons occur island-wide on Great Inagua (1,544km2), but are patchy in distribution. The parrots formerly visited nearby Little Inagua, and may continue to do so today. The Abaco population nests in holes in the limestone ground, rather than traditional tree cavities as used by the Inagua population. The population on Abaco was estimated at 450-800 birds in 1976 (Snyder et al. 1982). In 1989, the Abaco population was estimated at 830-1082 birds (Gnam and Burchsted 1991). A population survey there in 1995 yielded 1,100-1,200 parrots. Threats: Populations of A. l. bahamensis are thought to be relatively stable (possibly increasing on Abaco), but vulnerable to exotic predators, poaching, possible habitat loss, and hurricanes. With its small population size, restricted distribution, and the threats facing it, this population cannot be considered secure. Actions: A successful public awareness campaign (Clarke 1993), and a parrot reserve has been established on Abaco. An urgent study to determine current population size and distribution is needed on Great Inagua. A comprehensive long-range management plan based on sound knowledge of parrot biology is needed for Abaco Island. Comprehensive fire policies and feral cat control in the nesting areas on Abaco would be of benefit. Also, it seems timely and prudent to re-establish A. l. bahamensis on other islands. A reintroduction on Acklin's Island or northern Abaco Island now appears particularly feasible in view of the parrot's recent extirpation, stability of the habitat in these areas, and the present respect by Bahamians of bird protection laws. The great strength of reintroduction is its power to rally public support for conservation. The Bahama race of the Cuban amazon has been bred in captivity (e.g., Fitzgerald and Larson 1989), although translocation of birds from the healthy Abaco population is probably the most feasible strategy for re- establishing populations on other islands. Cayman Islands populations Amazona leucocephala caymanensis and A. l. hesterna Distribution and status: Two forms of Amazona leucocephala parrots inhabit the Cayman Islands, A. l. hesterna from the Cayman Brac, and A. l. caymanensis from the Cayman Island. Both races inhabit coastal and inland forests and are of concern because of their small populations and the small area of available habitat. The Cayman Brac amazon occupies the smallest range of any Amazona in the Caribbean. It once occurred on both Cayman Brac and Little Cayman. Cayman Brac birds were said to fly to Little Cayman (7km) to feed, but it was likely that the smaller island had its own breeding population. At present, the parrot is found only in Cayman Brac, where it frequents the dry woodland of the plateau and nearby agricultural holdings along the coast, where the parrots often feed. In 1985, Bradley (1986) estimated a population consisting of about 26 adults (including 12 breeding pairs) and 11-15 juveniles. In addition, she estimated that more than 200 parrots were in captivity (four times more than in the wild population) on the island, although Noegel (1976) located only eight captive A. l hesterna on Cayman Brac a decade earlier. Most recently, Wiley et al. (1991) estimated a total population of 300-430 parrots. Subsequent population surveys in 1994 and 1997 have resulted in similar population estimates (Baxter 1997). The Grand Cayman parrot A. l. caymanensis ranges throughout Grand Cayman, except for central George Town, the eastern fringe of North Sound, the interior of the Central Mangrove Swamp, Booby Cay in North Sound, and the reclaimed land from Rum Point to Water Point. Within its limited range, A. l. caymanensis has been generally described as common. The adult population was estimated in 1985 to be 935 (range = 674-1,239) individuals (Bradley 1986). More recent population surveys have placed that estimate at about 2,000 birds (Baxter 1997). In 1985, the captive population of parrots on Grand Cayman was around 500 birds. Threats: Among the most serious threats that affect parrot reproductive success are: predation by rats, barn owl Tyto alba, smooth-billed ani Crotophaga ani, greater Antillean grackle Quiscalus niger, and feral cats; disease; starvation of young after a hurricane or period of drought; flooded cavities; felling of parrot nesting trees by humans; and human harvest of chicks for pets (Wiley et al. 1991, Wiley and Wunderle 1993). Amazons continue to be destroyed as pests, and wounded adult parrots that survive shooting are taken for captivity. Recently, escaped pet A. l. caymanensis have been observed free-flying in Cayman Brac and, in at least one case, a mixed pair consisting of caymanensis and hesterna individuals was observed attempting to breed. Since the initial investigations in the early 1990s, breeding effort by the Cayman Brac amazon populations appears to have substantially declined. Although suitable nesting cavities are few, sites used in earlier years have not been occupied in recent years. However, the most serious threat is the accelerated land development for tourism. Actions: Major steps have recently been taken by the Cayman Islands government to ensure the survival of the species. Some bird sanctuaries have been established, but inclusion of larger tracts of habitat are essential to the populations' survival. The parrot was removed from the Cayman Islands game list in 1990. In 1990, the National Trust for the Cayman Islands, in cooperation with the RARE Center for Tropical Conservation, began an intensive public education programme for the native parrots modelled on the programs successfully used in the Lesser Antilles. There were 115 specimens of the whole species recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of 42 in 1992 (CITES Annual Report database). For both races, the conservation education programme should be continued, since it has shown excellent results and is the foundation of other conservation measures (Scharr et al. 1992). In 1991, The Nature Conservancy transferred its holding on the Bluff of Cayman Brac to The National Trust, providing an important first step in protecting adequate habitat for the parrot. However, the creation of a large, or series of smaller, yet effective, parrot reserves on Cayman Brac is needed. Major terrestrial reserves on Grand Cayman include the Salina Reserve (253ha), Mastic Reserve (155ha), and Central Mangrove Wetland (c. 648ha), but additional habitat protection is vital to ensuring the survival of the parrot on that island. Further measures should include the regulation and restriction on construction of new roads through the important habitat of the Bluff. The removal of feral cats from parrot nesting and foraging areas is of high priority. Despite the removal of 250 feral cats from Cayman Brac by the Department of Agriculture in 1991, cat populations remain extremely high and pose a potential threat to the survival of the parrot. Given the small population size, regular population surveys are necessary. Additional research is needed on availability and quality of nesting habitat, as well as reproductive effort and success of the Cayman Brac amazon population. A well-managed captive propagation programme seems appropriate in view of the small population size and restricted range of the Cayman Brac amazon. Individuals for the captive flock should not be taken from the wild, but from extant captives of definite hesterna lineage. A captive population will serve both in providing a reserve of birds in the event of a devastating natural disaster to the wild population and as a source of progeny for management of the Cayman Brac population. Reintroductions may be vital in bolstering numbers, and to increase genetic diversity and geographic distribution. The re-establishment of A. l. hesterna on Little Cayman appears particularly feasible in view of the parrot's recent extirpation. However, recent habitat surveys on Little Cayman have revealed the need for intensive habitat management (e.g., provisioning of nesting sites) before the parrot can be re-established there. Efforts, including those of a local (Grand Cayman) aviculturist, to breed both races in captivity have been successful. Northern Central American populations of the scarlet macaw Ara macao cyanoptera Ernesto Enkerlin-Hoeflich, James Gilardi, Christopher Vaughan, and David Wiedenfeld Conservation status: IUCN: To be considered. Endangered A1a, b, d CITES: Appendix I (transferred from Appendix II in 1985 Liechtenstein, Surinam and Switzerland have reservations on this listing). National protection status: Distribution and status: The scarlet macaw occurs from southern Mexico in Oaxaca southward through Central America and throughout northern South America east of the Andes south as far as Bolivia and southern Brazil. Its northern Central American populations south to central Nicaragua have been recently described as a separate subspecies, Ara macao cyanoptera (Wiedenfeld 1994). The remaining populations from Nicaragua southward (including South American populations) comprise the nominate subspecies, Ara macao macao and are not considered globally threatened (although some isolated populations may be at risk, such as its northernmost populations in Panama and in the Carrara Biological Reserve in Costa Rica). Northern Central American populations Ara macao cyanoptera Distribution and status: Fewer than 100 birds are believed to survive in Mexico, and most of these are found in the Marques de Comillas area of the Lacandon forest. See map in Howell and Webb (1995). A small population also persists in north-west Guatemala in the Laguna de Tigre region, although chicks from all known nests are poached (Santiago Billy in litt. 1997). At least one population also remains in Belize where a flock of up to 100 individuals visits the Red Bank village intermittently. The scarlet macaw apparently no longer occurs on the pacific slope in El Salvador or Honduras. In Nicaragua, there remains a small population at Volcαn Cosigόina. On the Caribbean slope in Honduras, the species remains in low numbers. The majority of individuals occur in the north-eastern part of the country, primarily in Departamento Olancho. Wiedenfeld (1994) estimated the total population of scarlet macaws in Honduras at 1,000-1,500 individuals. As in Honduras, the Nicaraguan population of scarlet macaws is restricted to the Caribbean coast. Numbers in Nicaragua are probably somewhat higher than in Honduras, probably in the range of 1,500-2,500 birds (Wiedenfeld 1995). Threats: Virtually extirpated from middle America by a combination of capture for the pet trade and habitat loss (Iρigo-Elias 1991), the former being by far the most important factor (Iρigo-Elias in litt. 1997). Although the macaw is a CITES Appendix I species, some birds are still apparently taken for illegal international trade. However, the macaw is a popular pet species in its range countries, and the majority of birds harvested for pets probably remain within those countries. There were 314 specimens of the whole species recorded in international trade between 1991 and 1995, with an annual maximum of 171 in 1994 (CITES Annual Report database). Surinam, under its reservation, imposed an export quota of 100 specimens for 1998, although other Parties without reservations are not allowed to import the species (CITES Notification to the Parties No. 1998/07). Within the next 10 years, all middle American populations will probably disappear except for those in highly protected (i.e. guarded) areas. In Belize a recent sighting of over 60 birds puts this population as a special conservation concern (Saqui in litt. 1997). Conservation efforts are being considered for harvest of the species and captive breeding in Mexico despite the numerous risks involved in both courses of action. These efforts are, in the opinion of the authors, misguided. In Carrara Biological Reserve, Costa Rica, most nests are poached, despite attempts to guard them, although apparently juveniles do occur in the population each year. Nests in more remote areas with lower human populations on the Caribbean slope of Central America may experience lower poaching pressure. Surprisingly, chicks are at least as valuable in their range countries as they are in North America or Europe, suggesting that reduction of international trade would not stop the demand for chicks. Actions: Biological research is currently being conducted on scarlet macaw populations in Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize. Outreach programs are being implemented in Belize to educate schools and local communities about scarlet macaw ecology and conservation. Similar education programs need to be extended to other threatened macaw populations. The development of community-based ecotourism may provide an opportunity for local people to extract economic benefit from the tourist appeal of scarlet macaws. In the Marques de Comillas community in southern Mexico and in Red Bank village in Belize, scarlet macaw-based ecotourism projects are currently underway. Similar ecotourism focusing on macaws has been proposed for Costa Rica (Marineros and Vaughan 1995). However, the success of community-based ecotourism depends on effective organisation, training, infrastructure, services, and promotion, and should involve all members of the community (Norris et al. 1998). In Costa Rica, there has been substantial controversy over the management of the Carrara population. An international conference was held in 1995 and recommendations were made to move forward with a combination of ecological studies, nest site protection, and the rescuing of chicks from 'unprotectable' nests. Populations in Nicaragua and Honduras still need attention. The dispersed nature of the remaining scarlet macaw populations in Central America, many of which are located close to national borders, raises the need for a regional approach to conservation which coordinates national efforts, and addresses the socio-economic problems of poaching and habitat destruction. Saffron-headed Parrot Pionopsitta pyrilia Franklin Rojas, Jon Paul Rodriguez, Chris Sharpe, Gary Stiles, and Paul Salaman Conservation status: IUCN: To be considered. Vulnerable C1 CITES: Appendix II. National protection status: Distribution and status: A very uncommon parrot of the low humid and high cloud forest of Venezuela, Colombia and possibly Ecuador. In Venezuela it is rarely seen, even though good habitat is considered sufficient. In Colombia, it may be common at one site, but only seasonally. There are only two other recent records from the country. There is one isolated record in Cotacachi Cayapas National Park in NW Ecuador, and possibly represent wandering birds from nearby Colombia. The species is certainly rare and the estimated population is 10,000, and highly nomadic (Juniper and Parr 1998) Threats: Significant portions of nearly pristine habitat remain in Venezuela, where National Parks in the Andes cover more than 100 thousand hectares of suitable habitat. In Colombia, it has been recorded as being trapped for trade (at least nationally), and its habitat is rapidly being lost within its range. Actions: Further studies on its biology, distribution, population size and regional movements are needed. REFERENCES Ali, S. and Ripley, S.D. 1987. Compact handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka. Second edition. OUP, Delhi. Allen, D. 1998. On the birds of Tawi Tawi Province in the Philippines. Bulletin of Tsurumi University 35: 77-141. Allendorf, F.W. 1993. Delay of adaptation to captive breeding by equalizing family size. Conserv. Biol. 7: 416-419. Amato, G. 1995. Report on molecular genetic assessment of subspecies status for Amazona barbadensis. Unpublished report to the Wildlife Conservation Society, New York. Andrew, D. and Palliser, T. 1993. Observations of Scarlet-chested Parrots. Wingspan 10: 4-5. Andrew, P. 1992. The birds of Indonesia: a checklist (Peters' sequence). Jakarta: Indonesian Ornithological Society. Andrew, P. and Holmes, D.A. 1990. Sulawesi bird report. Kukila 5: 4-26. Anon. 1993. The red and blue lory. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia File Report. AOU. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, Sixth Edition. American Ornithologists' Union. Lawrence, Kansas. Arango, S. and Renjifo, L.M. 1993. Identification de areas prioritarias de conservaciσn en la region Toche (Tolima), Colombia. Report to Fundaciσn Herencia Verde - Wildlife Conservation Society, Cali, Colombia. Armstrong, D.P. and Mclean, I.G. 1995. New Zealand translocations: theory and practice. Pacific Conserv. Biol. 2: 39-54. Arndt, T. 1981. Sόdamerikanische sittiche-keilschwanzsittiche - freileben, haltung, zucht, arten. Horst– Mόller Verlag Walsrode, Bomlitz. Arndt, T. 1992. Die Papageien von Biak. Papageien 2: 61-65. Attrill, R. 1980. The status and conservation of the Bahamas Amazon Amazona leucocephala bahamensis. Pp.81-87 in R.F. Pasquier (ed.) Conservation of New World Parrots. ICBP Tech. Publ. No. 1. ICBP/Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, DC. Balchin, C.S. and Toyne, E.P. 1998. The avifauna and conservation status of the Rio Nangaritza valley in Southern Ecuador. Bird Conservation International. 8:237-254. Balmford, A., Leader-Williams, N. and Green, M.J.B. 1995. Parks or arks: where to conserve large threatened mammals? Biodiversity and Conservation 4: 595-607. Barbour, T. 1923. The birds of Cuba. Memoirs of the Nuttall Ornithological Club Number 6, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Baxter, T. 1997. The Cayman Islands. Pitirre 10: 120-122. Beck, B.B., Rapaport, L.G., Price, M.S. and Wilson, A. 1994. Reintroduction of captive-born animals. Pp.265-284 in P.J.S. Olney, G.M. Mace and A.T.C. Feistner (eds.) Creative conservation: interactive management of wild and captive animals. Chapman and Hall, London. Beehler, B.M., Pratt, T.K. and Zimmerman, D.A. 1986. Birds of New Guinea. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Princeton NJ. Begazo, A. 1996. Ecology and conservation of the yellow-faced parrotlet. Cotinga 6: 20-24. Beissinger, S.R. and Bucher, E.H. 1992a. Can parrots be conserved through sustainable harvesting? BioScience 42: 164-173. Beissinger, S.R. and Bucher, E.H. 1992b. Sustainable harvesting of parrots for conservation. Pp.73-115 in S.R. Beissinger and N.F.R. Snyder (eds.) New World parrots in crisis: solutions from conservation biology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Beissinger, S.R. and Snyder, N.F.R. (eds.) 1992. New World parrots in crisis: solutions from conservation biology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Beissinger, S.R. and Westphal, M.I. 1998. On the use of demographic models of population viability in endangered species management. J. Wildlife Management. 62:821-841. Bencke, G.A. 1996. The Ecology and conservation of the Blue-bellied parrot Triclaria malachitacea in forest fragments in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Final report to Loro Parque. Bernardes, A.T., Machado, A.B. and Raylands, A.B. 1990. Fauna Brasileira Amenacada de Extincao. Fundaηao Biodiversitas, Belo Horizonte, Brasil. Berry, R.J. 1980. Status of the St. Vincent Amazon breeding program at the Houston Zoological Gardens. Pp.209-214 in R.F. Pasquier (ed.) Conservation of New World Parrots, Conservation of New World Parrots. ICBP Tech. Publ. No. 1. ICBP/Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, DC. Best, B., J. Krabbe, N., Clarke, C. T. and Best, A.L. 1995. Red-masked parakeet Aratinga erythrogenys and Grey-cheeked Parakeet Brotogeris pyrrhopterus: Two threatened parrots from Tumbesian Ecuador and Peru? Bird Conservation International 5:233-250. Best, B.J., Clarke, C.T., Checker, M., Broom, A.L., Thewlis, R.M., Duckworth, W. and McNab, A. 1993. Distributional records, natural history notes, and conservation of some poorly known birds from southwestern Ecuador and northwestern Peru. Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 113: 456-457. Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D. and Hill, D.A. 1992. Bird census techniques. Academic Press, London. Bishop, K.D. 1992. New and interesting records of birds in Wallacea. Kukila 6: 8-34. Biswas, B. 1959. On the parakeet Psittacula intermedia (Rothschild) [Aves: Psittacidae]. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 56: 558-562. Bjork, R and Powell, G.V.N. 1994. Intratropical migration by Ara ambigua: identifying habitat heterogeneity to protect biodiversity in lowland Tropical Wet Forest of Central America. Report to the Wildlife Conservation Society. Bjork, R and Powell, G.V.N. 1995. Buffon's Macaw: some observations on the Costa Rican population, its lowland forest habitat and conservation. Pp.387-393 in J. Abramson, B.L. Speer and J.B. Thomsen (eds.) The Large Macaws: Their Care, Breeding and Conservation. Raintree Publications, Fort Bragg, CA. Black, J.M. 1991. Reintroduction and restocking — guidelines for bird recovery programmes. Bird Conservation International 1: 329-334. Blakers, M., Davies, S.J.J.F. and Reilly, P.N. 1984. The atlas of Australian birds. Royal Australian Ornithologists’ Union, Victoria. Blyth, J., Burbidge, A. and Boles, W. 1998. Report on an expedition to the western desert and East Pilbara areas in search of the night parrot Pezoporous occidentalis. Eclectus 3: 25-29. [Newsletter of the BIRDS Australia Parrot Association.] Boles, W.E., Longmore, N.W. and Thompson, M.C. 1994. A recent specimen of the Night Parrot Geopsittacus occidentalis. Emu 94: 37-40. Bosch, K. and Wedde, U. 1981. Amazonen - freileben, haltung, zucht, arten. Horst Mόller-Verlag Walsrode, Bomlitz. Bourne, W.R.P. and David, A.C.F. 1983. Henderson Island, central South Pacific, and its birds. Notornis 30: 223-243. Boussekey, M. 1993. Der Rotsteisskakadu Cacatua haematuropygia - ein bedrohter Vogel. Papageien 6: 216-218. Boussekey, M. 1995. Conservation of the Red-vented cockatoo. PsittaScene 7: 7. Bowler, J. and Taylor, J. 1989. An annotated checklist of the birds of Manusela National Park, Seram (birds recorded on the Operation Raleigh Expedition). Kukila 4: 3-33. Bradley, P.E. 1986. A report of a census of Amazona leucocephala caymanensis, Grand Cayman and Amazona leucocephala hesterna, Cayman Brac. Cayman Islands Government Tech. Publ. No. 1. George Town, Grand Cayman. Brandon, K. 1996. Ecotourism and conservation: a review of key issues. Paper No. 033, Environment Department of the World Bank, Global Environment Division,Washington, DC. Brandt, A. and Machado, R.B. 1990. Area de alimantaηγo e comportamento alimentar de Anodorhynchus leari. Ararajuba 1: 57:63. Bregulla, H.L. 1993. The birds of Vanuatu. Anthony Nelson, Oswestry, UK. Brooke, R.K. 1984. South African Red Data Book - Birds. South African Natural Sciences Progress Report No. 97. Brooks, T.M., Dutson, G., Gabutero, L. and Timmins, R. 1995c. Siburan - a key area for birds on Mindoro. Bull. OBC 21: 28-33. Brooks, T.M., Dutson, G.C.L., King, B. and Magsalay, P.M. 1995b. An annotated check-list of the forest birds of Rajah Sikatuna National Park, Bohol, Philippines. Forktail 11: 121-134. Brooks, T.M., Evans, T.D., Dutson, G.C.L., Timmins, R.J., Asane, D.L. and Toledo, A.G. 1992. The conservation status of the birds of Negros, Philippines. Bird Conservation International 2: 273-302. Brooks, T.M., Magsalay, P., Dutson, G. and Allen, R. 1995a. Forest loss, extinctions and last hope for birds on Cebu. Bull. OBC 21: 24-27. Brooks, T.M., Pimm, S.L. and Collar, N.J. 1997. Deforestation predicts the number of threatened birds in insular Southeast Asia. Conservation Biology 11: 382-394. Brown, P.B. 1989. The swift parrot Lathamus discolor, a report on its ecology, distribution amd status, including management considerations. Department of Lands, Parks and Wildlife, Tasmania. Brown, P.B. and Wilson, R.I. 1984a. The orange-bellied parrot recovery plan - management recommendations to the Governments of Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales. NPWS, Hobart. Brown, P.B. and Wilson, R.I. 1984b. The orange-bellied parrot. In R.H. Groves and W.D.L. Ride (eds.) Species at Risk. Australian Academy of Science, Canberra. Bucher, E.H. 1992. Neotropical parrots as agricultural pests. Pp.201-219 in S.R. Beissinger and N.F.R. Snyder (eds.) New World parrots in crisis: Solutions from conservation biology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Butchart, S.H.M., Brooks, T.M., Davies, C.W.N., Dharmaputra, G., Dutson, G.C.L., Lowen, J.C. and Sahu, A. 1996. The conservation status of forest birds on Flores and Sumbawa, Indonesia. Bird Conservation International 6: 335-370. Butler, P.J. 1988. St. Vincent Parrot Amazona guildingii: the road to recovery. Report to RARE Center, Philadelphia. Butler, P.J. 1992. Parrots, pressures, people, and pride. Pp.25-46 in S.R. Beissinger and N.F.R. Snyder (eds.) New World parrots in crisis: solutions from conservation biology. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Cahyadin, Y., Jepson, P. and Arif, S. 1994b. The status of Cacatua sulphurea abbotti on the Masalembo Islands, Indonesia. Technical Report No. 2. PHPA/BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme, Bogor. (Indonesian and English). Cahyadin, Y., Jepson, P. and Syarief, M. 1994a. A rapid status assessment of Cacatua sulphurea sulphurea in South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia. Technical Report No. 3, PHPA/BirdLife International- Indonesia Programme, Bogor. (Indonesian and English). Campos, F., Sierra, R. and J. Chamberlin, J. 1998. Diagnσstico de la Biodiversidad en el Ecuador y su Representaciσn en el Sistema Nacional de Areas Protegidas. Proyecto INEFAN/GEF, Wildlife Conservation Society y EcoCiencia. Quito. Carpenter, J.W. 1977. Propagation and management of endangered species at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Pp.23-33 in American Association of Zoo Veterinarians Annual Proceedings. Honolulu, Hawaii. Carter, M. 1993. Alexandra’s or Princess Parrot: status and ‘normal range’. Wingspan 12: 32-25. Casagrande, D.G. and Beissinger, S.R. 1997. Evaluation of four methods for estimating parrot population size. Condor 99: 445-457. Casperson, K.D. 1995. Orange-bellied parrot Neophema chrysogaster habitats in south east South Australia. DENR, Adelaide. Castro, G.A. 1976. Estudio de las poblaciones de Cotorra Frente Roja Amazona viridigenalis y del Loro Cabeza Amarilla A. ochrocephala en la Costa de Tamaulipas, Mexico. Seniors Thesis, UNAM, Mexico. Caughley, G. 1994. Directions in conservation biology. J. Animal Ecology 63: 215-244. Caughley, G. and Gunn, A. 1996. Conservation biology in theory and practice. Blackwell. Boston Massachussetts, USA. Chebez, J.C. 1994. Los que se van - Especies Argentinas en peligro. Editorial Albatros. Buenos Aires Argentina. Pp.173-176. Cheke A.S. 1987. An ecological history of the Mascarene Islands, with particular reference to extinctions and introductions of land vertebrates. Pp.151-207 in A.W. Diamond (ed.) Studies of Mascarene Island Birds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Christiansen, M.B. and Pitter, E. 1993. Aspects of behaviour of juvenile Red-fronted Macaw Ara rubrogenis in the wild. Le Gerfault 82-83: 63-69. Christidis, L. and Boles, W.E. 1994. The taxonomy and species of birds of Australia. Monograph no. 2 of Royal Australian Ornithologists’ Union, Victoria. CITES. 1997. Notification to the Parties No. 980: export quotas for 1997. CITES Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland. CITES. 1998. Notification to the Parties 1998/07: export quotas for 1998. CITES Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland. Clark, A.H. 1905. The genus Conurus in the West Indies. Auk 22: 310-312. Clark, A.H. 1905. The West Indian parrots. Auk 22: 337-344. Clark, T.W. and Westrum, R. 1989. High-performance teams in wildlife conservation: A species reintroduction and recovery example. Environmental Management 13: 663-670. Clark, T.W., Reading, R.P. and Clarke, A.L. (eds.) 1994. Endangered species recovery: finding the lessons, improving the process. Island Press, Washington, DC. Clarke, M. 1993. Promoting protection through pride. Pitirre 6: 9. Clarke, R.O.S. and Duran Patiρo, E. 1991. The Red-fronted Macaw Ara rubrogenis in Bolivia: Its distribution abundance biology and conservation. Unpublished Report. Clout, M.N. and Craig, J.L. 1995. The conservation of critically endangered flightless birds in New Zealand. Ibis 137 (supplement): 181-190. Clubb, S.L. 1992. The role of private aviculture in the conservation of Neotropical psittacines. Pp.117-131 in S.R. Beissinger and N.F.R. Snyder (eds.) New World parrots in crisis: Solutions from conservation biology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Clunie, F. 1984. Birds of the Fiji bush. Suva: Figi Museum. Coates, B.J. 1985. The birds of Papua New Guinea, 1: non-passerines. Alderley, Australia: Dove. Collar, N.J. and Juniper, A.T. 1992. Dimensions and causes of the parrot conservation crisis. Pp.1-24 in S.R. Beissinger and N.F.R. Snyder (eds.) New World parrots in crisis: solutions from conservation biology. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, DC. Collar, N.J. and Stuart, S.N. 1985. Threatened birds of Africa and related islands: the ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book. Cambridge, UK: International Council for Bird Preservation and International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Collar, N.J., Crosby, M.J. and Stattersfield, A.J. 1994. Birds to Watch 2: The World List of Threatened Birds. BirdLife International, Cambridge UK. Collar, N.J., Gonzaga, L.P., Krabbe, N.J., Madroρo Nieto, A., Naranjo, L.G., Parker III, T.A. and Wege, D.C. 1992. Threatened birds of the Americas. The ICBP/IUCN red data book, Third edition (part 2). Cambridge UK. Collar, N.J., Tabaranza, B.R., Mallari, N.A.D., Villasper, J. and Lowen, J.C. 1998. Threatened birds of the Philippines. Manila: Bookmark, Inc., for Haribon Foundation and BirdLife Asia Partnership. Cook, J.M. 1984. Jamaican Amazon parrot expedition 1983. Unpublished report to ICBP, Cambridge, UK. Cooper, K.H. 1985. The conservation status of indigenous forests in Transvaal, Natal and OFS, South Africa. Wildlife Society of South Africa, Durban. Cory, C.B. 1880. Birds of the Bahama Islands; containing many birds new to the island, and a number of undescribed winter plumages of North American species. Privately published by the author, Boston. Cory, C.B. 1885. The birds of Haiti and San Domingo. Published for the author by Estes and Lauriant, Boston. CPRAA. 1996 World’s rarest parrot: Cause for optimism. Cyanopsitta 40: 10 Cruz, A. and Gruber, S. 1980. The distribution, ecology, and breeding biology of Jamaican Amazon parrots. Pp.103-131 in R.F. Pasquier (ed.) Conservation of New World Parrots. ICBP Tech. Publ. No. 1. ICBP/Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, DC. Cruz-Nieto, M.A. 1998. Caracteristicas de cavidades y de localidades de anidacion y biologia de nidificaciσn de la cotorra serrana occidental Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha. Centro de Calidad Ambiental. Monterrey, Mιxico, Tecnolσgico de Monterrey: 103. Curio, E. 1994. Zum Bedrohungs-Status endemischer Vφgel auf den Philippinen: eine Expedition der Ruhr- Universitδt Bochum (1993). Zool. Ges. Arten- u. Populationsschutz Mitt. 10: 5-7. Danielsen, F., Balete, D.S., Christensen, T.D., Heegaard, M. Jakobsen, O.F., Jensen, A., Lund, T. and Poulsen, M.K. 1994. Conservation of biological diversity in the Sierra Madre Mountains of Isabela and southern Cagayan Province, The Philippines. Manila and Copenhagen: Department of Environment and Natural Resources, BirdLife International and Danish Ornithological Society. Davis, D.E. (ed.) 1982. Handbook of census methods for terrestrial vertebrates. CRC Press. Davis, H. 1997 The parrots and parakeet in Jamaica. Gosse Bird Club Broadsheet 69: 2-4. de las Pozas, G. and Gonzαlez Alonso, H.J. 1984. Disminuciσn de los sitios de nidificaciσn de Cotorra y Catey (Aves: Psittacidae) por la tala de palma en Ciιnaga de Zapata, Cuba. Misc. Zool., Inst. Zool. Acad. Ciencias Cuba 18: 4. Derrickson, S.R. and Snyder, N.F.R. 1992. Potentials and limits of captive breeding in parrot conservation. Pp.133-163 in S.R. Beissinger and N.F.R. Snyder (eds.) New World parrots in crisis: Solutions from conservation biology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Desenne, P. and Strahl, S.D. 1994. Status and ranking of priority species for the conservation of the Psittacidae in Venezuela. Pp.231-272 in G. Morales, I. Novo, D. Bigio, A. Luy and F. Rojas - Suαrez (eds.) Biologνa y Conservaciσn de los Psitαcidos de Venezuela. Grαficas Giavimar, Caracas, Venezuela. Diamond, J.M. 1984. Historic extinctions: A rosetta Stone for understanding prehistoric extinctions. Pp.824-838 in P.S. Martin and R.G. Klein (eds.) Quaternary extinctions: a prehistoric revolution. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon. Diamond, J.M. 1985. New distributional records and taxa from the outlying mountain ranges of New Guinea. Emu 85: 65-91. Dickinson, E.C., Kennedy, R.S. and Parkes, K.C. 1991. The birds of the Philippines: an annotated checklist. British Ornithologists' Union, Tring, UK. Dod, A. Stockton de. 1978. Aves de la Repϊblica Dominicana. Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Santo Domingo, Repϊblica Dominicana. Dod, A. Stockton de. 1992. Endangered and endemic birds of the Dominican Republic. Cypress House, Fort Bragg, California. Dodman, T. 1995. Status and distribution of the black-cheeked lovebird Agapornis nigrigenis. Unpublished report to the Zambian Ornithological Society, Wildlife Conservation Society of Zambia, National Museums of Zambia, National Parks and Wildlife Service of Zambia, BirdLife International and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, UK. du Pont, J.E. and Rabor, D.S. 1973. South Sulu Archipelago birds: an expedition report. Nemouria 9: 1- 63. Duffield, G.E. and Hesse, A.J. 1997. Ecology and conservation of the blue throated Macaw. PsittaScene 9: 10-11. Duffy, K. 1994. Reproductive behaviour and biology of the Echo Parakeet Psittacula eques. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK. Dutson, G.C.L. 1995. The birds of Salayar and the Flores Sea islands. Kukila 7: 129-141. Dutson, G.C.L., Allen, D. and Brooks, T. 1996. Tawi Tawi - extreme Philippine birding. Bull. OBC 24: 32-35. Dutson, G.C.L., Evans, T.D., Brooks, T.M., Asane, D.C., Timmins, R.J. and Toledo, A. 1992. Conservation status of birds on Mindoro, Philippines. Bird Conserv. Internatn. 2: 303-325. Dwivedi, O.P and Venkatasamy, V. 1991. State of the Environment in Mauritius. A report prepared for presentation at the United Nations Conference on Environment and development. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 1992. Ministry of Environment and Quality of Life, Government of Mauritius, Port Louis, Mauritius. Elliott, G. 1996. What’s new in Kakapo research and management. Eclectus 1: 4-5. Emison, W.B., Beardsell, C.M. and Temby, I.D. 1994a. The biology and status of the long-billed corella in Australia. Proceedings of the Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology 5: 209-47. Emison, W.B., Caldow, W.D. and Forshaw, J.M. 1994b. Red-tailed Black Cockatoo project. PsittaScene 6: 4-5. Enkerlin-Hoeflich, E.C. 1995. Comparative ecology and reproductive biology of three species of Amazona parrots in northeastern Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, USA Enkerlin-Hoeflich, E.C. and Hogan, K.M. 1997. Red-crowned parrot, Amazona viridigenalis . The Birds of North America, No. 292. F. B. Gill and A. Poole (eds.) The American Ornithologists' Union and The Academy of Natural Sciences of Phildelphia. Phildelphia, Pennsylvania. Enkerlin-Hoeflich, E.C. and Packard, J.M. 1993. Reproduction, ecology and human impacts: a threatened endemic Mexican parrot Amazona viridigenalis and congeneric sympatrics. Final Report to World Wildlife Fund by Texas A&M University. College Station, TX. Enkerlin-Hoeflich, E.C., Cruz-Nieto, M.A., Macνas-Caballero, C., Quesada, J.M. and Snyder, N.F.R. 1996. Study of Rhynchopsitta parrots in Mexico: a program for training in ecosystem conservation and management B116: 62. Evans, P.G.H. 1991. Status and conservation of Imperial and Red-necked parrots Amazona imperalis and A. arausiaca on Dominica. Bird Conserv. International 1: 11-32. Evans, P.G.H. 1994. Stability in Dominica. Cotinga 1: 9-10. Evans, T.D. and Anderson, G.Q.A. 1993. Results of an ornithological survey in the Ukaguru and East Usambara mountains, Tanzania. Scopus 17: 40-47. Evans, T.D., Magsalay, P., Dutson, G.C.L. and Brooks, T.M. 1993. The conservation status of the forest birds of Siquijor, Philippines. Forktail 8: 89-96. Fairbairn, P. 1980. Parrot conservation in Jamaica. Pp.95-101 in R.F. Pasquier (ed.) Conservation of New World Parrots. ICBP Tech. Publ. No. 1. ICBP/Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, DC. FAO. 1993. Forest resources assessment 1990: tropical countries. Forestry Papers 112, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome. Farias, J.A. de. 1993. A cultura do fumo e a cobertua florestal nas propriedades dos fumicultores. Caderno de Pesquisa, ser. Botanica 5: 57-67. Fernandez-Badillo, A., Fernandez-Badillo, E. and Ulloa, G. 1994. Psittacids of the Henri Pittier National Park, Venezuela. Pp.4-9 in G. Morales, I. Novo, D. Bigio, A. Luy and F. Rojas - Suαrez (eds.) Biologνa y Conservaciσn de los Psitαcidos de Venezuela. Grαficas Giavimar, Caracas, Venezuela. Finsch, O. 1868. Die Papageien, monographisch bearbeitet. E. J. Brill, Leiden. Fitzgerald, L. and Larson, S. 1989. Captive breeding of the Bahama Parrot Amazona leucocephala bahamensis. Am. Assoc. Zool. Parks Aquarium Regional Conference Proceedings 1989: 474-479. Fjeldsε, J. and Krabbe, N. 1990. Birds of the High Andes. Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen and Apollo Books, Svendborg, Denmark. Fjeldsε, J., Krabbe, N. and Ridgely, R.S. 1987. Great Green Macaw Ara ambigua collected in northwest Ecuador, with taxonomic comments on Ara militaris. Bull. Brit. Ornithol. Club 107: 28-31. Fleming, I.A. 1994. Captive breeding and the conservation of wild salmon populations. Conserv. Biol. 8: 886-888. Foose, T.J. and Ballou, J.D. 1988. Management of small populations. Int. Zoo Yb. 27: 26-41. Forest Management Bureau 1988. Natural forest resources of the Philippines. Philippine-German Forest Resources Inventory Project. Forest Management Bureau, Department of the Environment and Natural Resources, Manila. Forshaw, J.M. 1989. Parrots of the world. Third (revised) (ed.) Lansdowne Editions, Melbourne, Australia. Fosberg, F.R., Sachet, M.-H. and Stoddart, D.R. 1983. Henderson Island (southeastern Polynesia): summary of current knowledge. Atoll Res. Bull. 272. Foster, M.S. 1993. Research, conservation, and collaboration: the role of visiting scientists in developing countries. Auk 110: 414-417. Fry, C.H., Keith, S. and Urban, E.K. 1988. Birds of Africa. Vol. 3. Academic Press, London. Galetti, M. 1997. Seasonal abundance and feeding ecology of parrots and parakeets in a lowland Atlantic forest of Brazil. Ararajuba 5: 115-126 Gαlvez Aguilera, X. 1996a. Auf den spuren des Kubasittichs Aratinga euops. Papageien 10: 312-314. Gαlvez Aguilera, X. 1996b. Los psitacidos del archipielgo cubano. Flora y Fauna 0: 34-35. Gardner, A.L. 1972. The occurrence of Streptoprocne zonarius albicincta and Ara militaris in Chiapas, Mexico. Condor 74: 480-481. Garnet, S. and Crowley, G. 1995. Recovery plan for the Golden-shouldered Parrot Psephotus chrysopterygius. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra. Australia. Garnet, S. and Crowley, G. 1997. Golden-shouldered Parrot Psephotus chrysopterygius. PsittaScene 9: 4-5. Garnett, S. (ed.) 1992. Threatened and extinct birds of Australia. Royal Australian Ornithologists’ Union and Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Moonee Ponds, Victoria. Garnett, S., Crowley, G., Duncan, R., Baker, N. and Doherty, P. 1993. Notes on live night parrot sightings in north-western Queensland. Emu 93: 292-296. Garnett, S.T. and Crowley, G.M. 1995. Recovery Plan for the golden-shouldered parrot Psephotus chrysopterygius. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra. Garret, K.L. 1997. Population status and distribution of naturalized parrots in southern California. Western Birds 28: 181-195. Gates, A.F. 1971. Breeding of the Hispaniolan or Salles Amazon Parrot Amazona ventralis. Avicult. Mag. 77: 185-187. Geist, V. 1988. How markets in wildlife meat and parts, and the sale of hunting priveleges, jeopardize wildlife conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2: 15-26. Gill, B.J. 1996. Notes on certain Cook Island birds. Notornis 43: 154-158. Girdler, R. 1982. Notes on the yellow-faced parrotlet Forpus xanthops. Avicultural Magazine 88: 3. Gnam, R.S. 1990. Conservation of the Bahama Parrot. American Birds 44: 32-36. Gnam, R.S. and Burchsted, A. 1991. Population estimates for the Bahama Parrot on Abaco Island, Bahamas. J. Field Ornithol. 62: 139-146. Gobbi, J., Rose, D., de Ferrari, G. and Sheeline, L. 1996. Parrot smuggling across the Texas-Mexico border. Report to Traffic-USA.Washington, DC. Gσmez-Garza, M.A. 1991. Recent observations on Rhynchopsitta terrisi. Psittascene 3: 7-8. Gonzαlez Alonso, H.J., Garcνa Romero, M.E. and Godinez, E. 1993. Estado de las poblaciones cubanas de cotorra Amazona leucocephala y cria en cautiverio. Pitirre 6: 9-10. Goodman, S.M. and Gonzalez, P.C. 1990 The birds of Mt. Isarog National Park, southern Luzon, Philippines, with particular reference to altitudinal distribution. Fieldiana Zool. N.S. 60: 1-39. Granizo, T., Guerrero, M., Pacheco, C., Phillips, R., Ribadeneira, M.B. and Suαrez, L. 1997. Lista de Aves Amenzadas de extincion de Ecuador. UICN sur, CECIA, INEFAN, EcoCiencia y BirdLife International. Quito, Ecuador. Graves, G.R. 1992. The endemic land birds of Henderson Island, southeastern Polynesia: notes on natural history and conservation. Wilson Bull. 104: 32-43. Graves, G.R. and Giraldo, J.A. 1987. Population status of the Rufous-Fronted Parakeet Bolborhynchus ferrugineifrons, a Colombian endemic. Gerfaut 77: 89-92. Graves, G.R. and Uribe Restrepo, D. 1989. A new allopatric taxon in the Hapalopsittaca amazonina (Psittacidae) superspecies from Colombia. Wilson Bull. 101: 369-376. Greene, T. 1989. Forbes’ parakeet on Chatham Island. Notornis 36: 326-327. Greenwood, A.G. 1996. The Echo responds: a partnership between conservation biology, aviculture, and veterinary science. PsittaScene 8: 6-7. Gregory, P. 1997. Range extensions and unusual sightings from Western Province, Papua New Guinea. Bull. Brit. Ornithol. Club. 117: 304-311. Griffith, B., Scott, J.M., Carpenter, J.W. and Reed, C. 1993. Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and strategy. Science 245: 477-480. Gruber, S. 1980. The yellow snake – threat to Jamaica’s parrots? Gosse Bird Club Broadsheet Number 35: 3-4. Guedes, N.M.R. 1993. Biologia reprodutiva da arara-azul Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus no Pantanal. MS, Brasil. Ms. Tesis, Universidade de Sγo Paulo, Piracicaba-Sγo Paulo. Guedes, N.M.R. 1994. A Historia das araras-azuis. ONATI-Rev. Tecnico cientifico e Cultural do CESUP, Campo Grande-MS. 1: 56-61 Guedes, N.M.R. 1995 Algunos aspectos sobre o comportamento reprodutivo da arara-azul Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus e a necessidade de manejo para a conservacao da especie. Anais de Etologia 13: 274- 292. Guedes, N.M.R. and Harper, L.H. 1995. Hyacinth macaw in the Pantanal. Pp.128-132 in J. Abramson, B.L. Speer, J.B. Thomsen (eds.) The large macaws: Their care, breeding and conservation. Raintree Publications, Fort Bragg California. Guix, J.C., Jover, L. and Ruiz, X. 1997. Muestreos del comercio de Psitαcidos Neotropicales en la ciudad de Barcelona, Espaρa 1991-96. Ararajuba 5:159-167. Hahn, P. 1993. Anmerkungen zur Situation des Hornsittichs Eunymphicus cornutus auf Neukaledonien und Ouvιa. Papageien 6: 189-192. Haig, S., Belthoff, M., Rose, D., De Ferrari, G. and Scheeline, L. 1993. Population viability for a small population of Red-cockated Woodpecker and an evaluation of enhancement strategies. Conserv. Biol. 7: 289-3. Hardy, J.W. 1973. Feral exotic birds in southern California. Wilson Bulletin 85: 506-512. Harris, M.P. 1970. Abnormal migration and hybridisation of Larus argentatus and L.fuscus after interspecies fostering experiments. Ibis 112: 488-498. Harrison, M. 1970. The orange-fronted parakeet Cyanoramphus malherbi. Notornis 17: 115-125. Hart, J.K. 1995. The Lear's Macaw Notes on Factors Limiting Their Survival. Pp.89-93 in J. Abramson, B.L. Speer and J.B. Thomsen (eds.) The large macaws: Their care, breeding and conservation. Raintree Publications, Fort Bragg California. Hawken, P. 1993. The ecology of commerce. Harper Business, New York. Hicks, J. and Greenwood, D. 1989. Rescuing Norfolk Island’s Parrot. Birds International 1: 34-47. Hilty, S.L and Brown, W.L. 1986. A guide to the birds of Colombia. Princeton University Press. Princeton New Jersey USA. Holyoak, D.T. 1974. Cyanoramphus malherbi, is it a colour morph of C. auriceps? Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 94: 4-9. Holyoak, D.T. 1975. Les oiseaux des ξles Marquises. Oiseau et R.F.O. 45: 207-234. Holyoak, D.T. and Thisbault, J.-C. 1984. Contribution ΰ l’ιtude des oiseaux de Polynιsie orientale. Mιm. Mus. Natn. Hist. Nat. Ser. A, Zool. 127: 1-209. Howell, S.N.G. and Webb, S. 1995. Field guide to the Birds of Mexico and northern Central America. Oxford University Press. Oxford, England Husain, K.Z. 1959. Is Psittacula intermedia a valid species? Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 79: 89-92. Iρigo-Elias, E.E. 1991. Unpublished MSc Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Iρigo-Elias, E.E. and Ramos, M.A. 1997. El comercio de los psitαcidos en Mιxico. Pp.445-458 in J.G. Robbinson, K.H. Redford and J.E. Rabinovich (eds.) Uso y conservaciσn de la vida silvestre neotropical. Fondo de Cultura Econσmica. Mιxico. Inskipp, C. and Inskipp, T. 1995. Little known Oriental birds: Intermediate parakeet Psittacula intermedia. Bull. OBC 22: 28-31. Inskipp, T., Broad, S. and Luxmoore, R. 1988. Significant trade in wildlife: a review of selected species in CITES Appendix 2, 3: birds. Cambridge, UK: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Iremonger, S., Ravilious, C. and Quinton, T. 1997. A Global Overview of Forest Conservation. CD-ROM. World Conservation Monitoring Centre and Center for International Forestry Research, Cambridge, UK. Isherwood, I.S., Willis, J.D.A., Edwards, T.R.K., Ekstrom, J.M.M., Kuriake, S., Lubis, I.R., Notanubun, H., Putnarubun, J., Robinson-Dean, J.C. and Tobias, J.A. 1996. Biological surveys and conservation priorities in north-east Seram, Maluku, Indonesia. CSB Conservation Publications., Cambridge, UK IUCN. 1987. Translocation of living organisms: introductions, re-introductions, and re-stocking. IUCN position statement, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. IUCN. 1994. IUCN Red List Categories, prepared by IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN - The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland. IUCN. 1994. The 1993 UN list of protected areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. IUCN. 1996. 1996 IUCN Red List of threatened animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. IUCN. 1998. Guidelines for re-introductions. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Jacobs, M. and Walker J. 1999. Density estimates of birds inhabiting fragmetns of cloud forest in Southern Ecuador Bird Conservation International 9:12-18. Jacobson, E.R. 1993. Implications of infectious diseases for captive propagation and introduction programs of threatened/endangered reptiles. J. Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 24: 245-255. Jacobson, S.K. (ed.) 1995. Conserving wildlife: International education and communication approaches. Columbia University Press, New York. Jarvis, A. and Robertson, T. 1997. Endemic birds of Namibia:evaluatingtheir status and mapping biodiversity hotspots. Research Discussion Paper No.14. Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Namibia. Jeggo, D.F. 1976. A report of the field study of the St. Lucian Parrot Amazona versicolor during 1975. Jersey Wild. Preserv. Trust. 12th Ann. Rep. 1975: 34-41 Jeggo, D.F. 1980. The captive breeding programme for Caribbean amazons at the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust. Pp.181-196 in R.F. Pasquier (ed.) Conservation of New World Parrots. ICBP Tech. Publ. No. 1. ICBP/Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, DC. Jeggo, D.F. and Anthony, D. 1991. A report on the 1990 field survey of the St. Lucian Parrot Amazona versicolor. Dodo 27: 102-107. Jepson, P. 1993. Recent ornithological observations from Buru. Kukila 6: 85-109. Jones, C. 1998. [Untitled letter] Psittascene 10: 13. Jones, C.G. and Owadally, A.W. 1988. The life histories and conservation of the Mauritius kestrel Falco punctatus, pink pigeon Columba mayeri and echo parakeet Psittacula eques. Proc. Royal Soc. Arts and Sci. Mauritius 1: 80-131 Jones, C.G.1987. The larger land-birds of Mauritius. Pp.208-300 in A.W. Diamond (ed.) Studies of Mascarene Island birds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Jones, G.C. and Duffy, K. 1993. Conservation management of the echo parakeet Psittacula eques echo. Dodo, J. Wildlife Preservation Trusts 29: 126-148. Jones, M.J., Linsley, M.D. and Marsden, S.J. 1995. The status, population sizes and habitat associations of the restricted-range bird species of Sumba, Indonesia. Bird Conservation International 5: 21-52. Jordan, O.C. and Munn, C.A.1993. First observations of the Blue-throated Macaw in Bolivia. Wilson Bull. 105: 694-695. Joseph, L. 1992. (ed.) Issues in the conservation of parrots in Australasia and Oceania: challenges to conservation biology. Proceedings of the RAOU/WWF Scientific day and Workshop, Sydney, September 1990. Victoria, Australia: RAOU. Juniper, T. and Parr, M. 1998. Parrots: a guide to the parrots of the world. Pica Press, Sussex, UK. Juniper, T. and Yamashita, C. 1990. The conservation of the Spix's Macaw. Oryx 24: 224-228. Juniper, T. and Yamashita, C.1991.The habitat and status of Spix's Macaw Cyanopsitta spixii. Bird Cons. Inter. 1: 1-9. Kennedy, R.S., Gonzales, P.C. and Miranda, Jr., H.C. 1997. New Aethopyga sunbirds (Aves: Nectariniidae) from the islands of Mindanao, Philippines. Auk 114: 1-10. King, W.B. 1978-1979. Red Data Book, 2: Aves. Second edition. Morges, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Kleiman, D.G., Stanley-Price, M.R. and Beck, B.B. 1994. Criteria for reintroductions. Pp.287-303 in P.J.S. Olney, G. Mace and A.T.C. Feistner (eds.) Creative conservation: interactive management of wild and captive animals. Chapman and Hall, London. Kock, N.D. 1989. An outbreak of beak and feather disease in lovebirds Agapornis sp. in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe Vet. J. 20: 97-101. Koenig, S. 1998, The conservation of Jamaica's endemic Amazon parrots (Amazona agilis and A. collaria). Final Report to Wildlife Preservation Trust International, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Krabbe, N. and Sornoza, F. 1996. The last Yellow-eared Parrots Ognorhynchus icterotis in Ecuador? Cotinga 6: 25-26. Krabbe, N. Poulsen, B.O., Frolander, A. and Barahona, O.R. 1997. Range extensions of cold forest birds from the high Andes of Ecuador: new sites for rare or little-recorded species. Bull. Brit. Ornithol. Club 117: 248-256. Kuehler, C. and Lieberman, A. 1993. Ultramarine Lory update. Re-introduction News 7: 12. Kuehler, C., Lieberman, A., Varney, A., Unitt, P., Sulpice, R.M., Azua, J. and Tehevini, B. 1997. Translocation of ultramarine lories Vini ultramarina in the Marqueses Islands: Ua Huka to Fatu Hiva. Bird Conservation International 7: 69-79. Lacy, R.C. 1987. Loss of genetic diversity from managed populations: interacting effects of drift, mutation, immigration, selection, and population subdivision. Conserv. Biol. 1: 143-158. Lambert, F., Wirth, R., Seal, U.S., Thomsen, J.B. and Ellis-Joseph, S. 1993. Parrots: an Action Plan for their conservation 1993-1998. Unpublished draft no. 2. ICBP Parrot Specialist Group. Cambridge. UK. Lambert, F.R. 1992. The status of the Philippine Cockatoo Cactua haematuropygia in Palawan and the Sulu Islands, Philippines. Unpublished. Lambert, F.R. 1993a. The status and trade in North Moluccan parrots with particular emphasis on Cacatua alba, Lorius garrulus and Eos squamata. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Lambert, F.R. 1993b. Some key sites and significant records of birds in the Philippines and Sabah. Bird Conservation International 3: 281-297. Lambert, F.R. 1993c. Trade, status and management of three parrots in the North Moluccas, Indonesia: White Cockatoo Cacatua alba, Chattering Lory Lorius garrulus and Violet-eared Lory Eos squamata. Bird Conservation International 3: 145-168. Lambert, F.R. 1994a. Notes on the avifauna of Bacan, Kasiruta and Obi, North Moluccas. Kukila 7: 1-9. Lambert, F.R. 1994b. The status of the Philippine cockatoo Cacatua haematuryopygia in Palawan and the Sulu Islands, Philippines. IUCN Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Lambert, F.R. 1997. Field assessment of the conservation status of red-and-blue lory Eos histrio in Indonesia. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Bangkok, Thailand. Lammertink, J.M., Rojas-Tomι, J.A., Casillas, F. and Otto, R. 1996. Status and conservation of old- growth forests and endemic birds in the pine-oak zone of the Sierra Madre Occidental, Mexico. Institute for Systematics and Population Biology (Zoological Museum) University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Langrand, O. 1990. Guide to the birds of Madagascar. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. Lanning, D.V. and Shiflett, J.T. 1983. Nesting Ecology of Thick-Billed Parrots. Condor 85: 66-73. Lever, C. 1987. Naturalized birds of the world. Longman Scientific and Technical, England. Lieberman, A., Kuehler, C., Varney, A., Unitt, P., Sulpice, R.M., Azua, J. and Tehevini, B. 1997. A note on the 1997 survey of the translocated ultramarine lory Vini ultramarina population on Fatu Hiva, Marqueses Islands, French Polynesia. Bird Conservation International 7: 291-292. Lindsey, G.D. 1992. Nest Guarding from observation blinds: Strategy for improving Puerto Rican Parrot Nest Success. J. Field Ornithology 63: 466-472. Lloyd, B.D. and Powlesland, R.G. 1994. The decline of Kakapo Strigops habroptilus and attempts at conservation by translocation. Biol. Conserv. 69: 75-85. Lo,V.K. 1995.Extensγo da distribuicγo de Guarouba guarouba para o norte de Mato Grosso, Amazonia Meridional. Ararajuba 3: 93-94. Loiselle, B.A. and Blake, J.G. 1992. Population variation in a tropical bird community: implications for conservation. Bioscience 42: 838-845. Long, J.L. 1981. Introduced birds of the world. The worldwide history, distribution and influence of birds introduced into new environments. Universe Books, New York. Low, R. 1991. Breeding the Hispaniolan Conure at Palmitos Park (Gran Canaria). Avicult. Mag. 97: 74-76. Low, R. 1996. Eine Zukunft fur den Rotsteisskakadu. Voliere 19: 207-209. Lowen, J.C., Clay, R.P., Barnett, J.M., Madrono Nieto, A., Pearman, M., Lanus, B.L., Tobias, J.A., Liley, D.C., Brooks, T.M., Esquivel, E.Z. and Reid, J.M. 1997. New and noteworthy observations on the Paraguayan avifauna. Bull. Brit. Ornithol. Club. 117: 248-256. Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R. and Walters, C. 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation. Science 260: 17-36. Mace, G.M. and Lande, R. 1991. Assessing extinction threats: toward a reevaluation of IUCN threatened species categories. Conserv. Biol. 5: 148-157. Machado, R.B. and Brandt, A. 1990. Projeto ararinha azul: relatorio final. Unpublished report to Fundaηao Biodiversitas, Belo Horizonte. MacKinnon, J and Phillips, K. 1993. A field guide to the birds of Borneo, Sumatra, Java and Bali. Oxford: Oxford University Press. MacKinnon, J.L., Fuller, R., Harper, M.E., Hugh-Junes, T., Knowles, R., Rahman, D., Robb, D. and Vermeulen, J. 1995. Halmahera ’94: a University of Bristol expedition to Indonesia. A final report. Maher, P. 1995. Night parrot survey, techniques and habitat requirements with notes on the fauna of the Winton and Cloncurry districts. Report to the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage. Male, B. 1995. Recovery action for threatened species - an Australian perspective. Ibis 137 (supplement): 204-208. Marien, D. and Koopman, K.F. 1955. The relationship of the West Indian species of Aratinga (Aves: Psittacidae). American Museum of Natural History Novitates 1712: 1-20. Marineros, L. and Vaughan, C. 1995. Scarlet Macaws of Carara: perspectives for management. Pp. 445- 467 in J. Abramson, B.L. Speer and J.B. Thomsen (eds.) The large macaws: their care, breeding and conservation. Raintree Publications, California. Marsden, S. 1992. The distribution, abundance and habitat preferences of the Salmon-crested cockatoo Cacatua moluccensis on Seram, Indonesia. Bird Conservation International 2: 7 -14. Marsden, S. J. 1998. Changes in bird abundance following selective logging on Seram, Indonesia. Conservation Biology 12: 605-611. Marsden, S. J. 1999. Estimation of parrot and hornbill densities using a point count distance sampling method. Ibis 141: 377-390 Marsden, S.J. 1995. The ecology and conservation of the parrots of Sumba, Indonesia. Psittascene 7: 8-9. Marsden, S.J. and Jones, M.J. 1997. The nesting requirements of the parrots and hornbill of Sumba, Indonesia. Biol. Cons. 82: 279-287. Marsden, S.J., Jones, M.J., Linsley, M.D., Mead, C. and Hounsome, M.V. 1997. The conservation status of restricted-range lowland birds of Buru, Indonesia. Bird Conservation International 7: 213-233. Martinez, J. 1996. Projeto Charγo: Biologia monitoramento e conservaηγo do papagaio Charγo Amazona pretrei. Pp.94-96 in Anais do V Congresso Brasileiro de Ornitologia Campinas SP Brazil. Martinez-Sanchez, J.C. 1991. Distribution and conservation of macaws in Nicaragua. Pp.19-23 in Proceedings of the first Mesoamerican workshop on the conservation and management of macaws. Center for the Study of Tropical Birds, Inc., San Antonio, Texas. Martuschelli, P. 1994. A parrot with a tiny range and a big problem: will illegal trade wipe out the Red- tailed Amazon? PsittaScene 6: 3-4. Martuschelli, P. 1995a Ecology and conservation of the Red-tailed Amazon, Amazona brasiliensis in south- eastern Brazil. Bird Conservation International. 5: 225-240. Martuschelli, P. 1995b Die Rotschwanzamazone, Amazona brasiliensis. Papageien 10: 316-320. Mawson, P.R. and Long, J.L. 1994. Size and age parameters of nest trees used by four species of parrot and one species of cockatoo in south-west Australia. Emu 94: 149-55. Mawson, P.R. and Long, J.L. 1996. Changes in the distribution and status of four species of parrot in the south of Western Australia during 1970-90. Pacific Conservation Biology 2: 191-199. McCormack, G.C. and Kunzle, J. 1996. The 'Ura or Rimatara lorikeet Vini kuhlii: its former range, present status, and conservation priorities. Bird Conservation International 6: 325-334. Menkhorst, P. Lyon, R.H. and Brown, P.B. 1990. Management of the orange-bellied parrot. Pp 239-252 in T.W. Clark and T.H. Seebeck (eds.) Management and conservation of small populations. Chicago Zoological Society, Chicago. Meredith, C.W., Gilmore, A.M. and Isles, A.C. 1980. A study of the ground parrot (Pezoporus wallicus Kerr) in south-eastern Australia: a fire adapted species? Australian Journal of Ecology 9: 367-80. Merton, D. 1997. Kakapo update. PsittaScene 9: 3-4 Meyer, A.J. and Wigglesworth, L.W. 1898. The birds of Celebes and neighbouring islands. Friendlander, Berlin. Milanelo, M., Caro Carillo, A., Martuschelli, P. and Scherer Neto, P. 1994. Integrated Conservation Plan for the Red-tailed Amazon (Amazona brasiliensis - Linnaeus, 1758). Unpublished Report to the Nature Conservancy. Mills, J.A. and Williams, G.R. 1980. The status of endangered New Zealand birds. In M.J. Tyler (ed.) The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Roy. Zool. Soc. South Australia, Adelaide. Mills, L.S., Hayes, S.G., Baldwin, C., Wisdom, M.J., Citta, J., Mattson, D.J. and Murphy, K. 1996. Factors leading to different viability predictions for a grizzly bear data set. Conserv. Biol. 10: 863- 873. Miyan C.Y., Guedes, N.M.R., Herrera, R.P. and Wajntal, A. 1995. Estudo da variabilidade genιtica e da razγo sexual de uma populacγo silvestre de arara azul do Pantanal. In- Congresso Nacional de Genetica 410, Brazilian Journal of Genetics 18(3) suppl., september/95. Morales, G., Novo, I. Bigio, D. Luy A. and Rojas-Suαrez, F. 1994. Biologa y Conservacin de los Psitcidos de Venezuela. Grficas Giavimar, Caracas,Venezuela. Moreau, R.E. 1948. Aspects of evolution in the parrot genus Agapornis. Ibis 90: 206-239. Moyer, D. 1995. The status of Fischer's lovebird Agapornis fischeri in the United Republic of Tanzania. Status of species in trade series, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Munn, C.A. 1992. Macaw biology and ecotourism, or “when a bird in the bush is worth two in the hand”. Pp.47-72 in S.R. Beissinger and N.F.R. Snyder (eds.) New World parrots in crisis: Solutions from conservation biology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Munn, C.A. 1994. Macaws: winged rainbows. National Geographic 185: 118-140. Munn, C.A. 1995a. Lears Macaw: a second population confirmed. PsittaScene 7: 1-3. Munn, C.A. 1995b. The bigger they are the harder they fall. PsittaScene 7: 1-5. Munn, C.A., Thomsen, J.A. and Yamashita, C. 1990. The hyacinth macaw. Pp.404-419 in W.J. Chadler (ed.) Audubon Wildlife Report Academic Press. New York. Nash, S.V. 1993. Concern about trade in Red-and-blue Lories. TRAFFIC Bull. 13: 93-96. Nichols, H.A.J. 1978. Captive breeding programs for Amazona parrots. Pp.263-271 in S.A. Temple (ed.) Endangered birds. Management techniques for preserving threatened species. University of Wisconsin Press.Madison and Croom Helm Ltd, London. Nichols, T.D. 1981. St. Vincent Amazon Amazona guildingii: predators, clutch size, plumage polymorphism, effect of the volcanic eruption, and population estimate. ICBP Tech. Pub. 1: 197- 209. Nixon, A. 1994. Feeding ecology of hybridizing parakeets on Mangere Island, Chatham Islands. Notornis supplement 41: 5-18. Noegel, R.P. 1976. The Cayman Brac Amazon parrot Amazona leucocephala hesterna. Avic. Mag. 82: 202-209. Noegel, R.P. 1977. Captive breeding of Amazona leucocephala. Avicult. Mag. 83: 126-130. Noegel, R.P. 1978. The captive breeding of the Isle of Pines Amazon. Avicult. Bull. 7: 3-10. Noegel, R.P. 1979. First captive breeding of the Jamaican Black-billed Parrot Amazona agilis. Avicult. Bull. 8: 9-11. Noegel, R.P. 1980. Amazon parrot husbandry. Avic. Mag. 86: 232-245. Norris, R., Wilber, J.S. and Morales-Marin, L.O. 1998. Community-based ecotourism in the Maya Forest: problems and potentials. Pp. 327-343 in R.B.Primack, D. Bray, H.A. Galletti and I. Ponciano (eds.) Timber, tourists, and temples: conservation and development in the Maya Forest of Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico. Island Press, Washington. Noske, R. 1995. At the crossroads of two avifaunas - Timor. Bull. OBC 21: 34-38. Noske, R. and Saleh, N. 1993. Report to LIPI: the status of lowland forest birds in West Timor. Unpublished. Nycander E., Blanco, D.H. Holle, K.M., delCampo, A., Munn, C.A., Moscoso, J.L. and Ricalde, D.G. Nesting success and techniques for increasing reproduction in wild macaws in Southeastern Peru. Pp. 348-362 in J. Abramson, B.L. Speer and J.B. Thomsen (eds.) The large macaws: their care, breeding and conservation. Raintree Publications, California. O’Donnell, C.F.J. and Rasch, G. 1991. Conservation of Kaka in New Zealand. A review of status, threats, priorities for research and implications for management. Wellington: Department of Conservation (Science and Research Internal Report 101). Olmos, F. 1993. Birds of Serra da Capivara National Park in the ‘caatinga’ of north-eastern Brazil. Bird Conserv. Internatn. 3: 21-36. Oren, D. and Novaes, F.C. 1981. Observations on the Golden Parakeet Guarouba guarouba in Northern Brazil. Biol. Cons. 36: 329-337 Oren, D.C. and Willis, E.O. 1981. New brazilian records for the Golden Parakeet Guarouba guarouba. Auk 98: 394-396. Ottenwalder, J.A. 1980. Captive breeding of the Hispaniolan Conure Aratinga chloroptera. International Zoo News 27: 51. Pagel, S.M., Chiappetti, M.S., Franco, C. and Focchi, E. 1992. Programa Mata Atlantica - RS. Annals of the 7th Congresso Florestal Estadual, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria. Parker, T.A. III and Carr, J.L. (eds.) 1992 Status of the forest remnants in the Cordillera de la Costa and adjacent areas of southwestern Ecuador. Conservation International RAP Working Papers 2, Washington, DC. Pepper, J.W. 1996. The behavioural ecology of the glossy black-cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami halmaturinus. Unpublished PhD. Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA. Pepper, J.W. 1997. A survey of the South Australian glossy black-cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami halmaturinus and its habitat. Wildlife Research 24: 209-224. Perez, R.J.J. 1986. Aspectos de historia natural y perspectivas de manejo de los pericos Amazona ochrocephala y A. viridigenalis en el estado de Tamaulipas, Mex. A special publication of WWF- Traffic. Peters, J.L. 1928. The races of Amazona leucocephala (Linn.). Auk 45: 342-344. Philippart, J.C. 1995. Is captive breeding an effective solution for the preservation of endemic species? Biological Conservation 72: 281-295. Pitter, E. and Christiansen, M.B. 1995. Ecology, status and conservation of the Red-fronted Macaw Ara rubrogenis. Bird Conservation International 5: 61-78 Pizo, M.A., Simγo, I. and Galetti, M. 1995. Diet and flock size of sympatric parrots in the Atlantic forest of Brazil. Ornitologia Neotropical 6: 87-95. Pople, R.G., Burfield, I.J., Clay, R.P., Cope, D.R., Kennedy, C.P., Lσpez Lαnus, B., Reyes, J., Warren, B. andYaugal, E. 1997. Bird surveys and conservation status of three sites in western Ecuador: Final report of Project Ortalis '96. CSB Conservation Publications. Cambridge, UK. Poulsen, M. and Jepson, P. 1996. Status of the salmon-crested cockatoo and red lory on Ambon Island, Maluku. Kukila 8: 159-160. Poulsen, M.K. 1995. The threatened and near-threatened birds of Luzon, Philippines, and the role of the Sierra Madre mountains in their conservation. Bird Conservation International 5: 79-115. Powell, G., Bjork, R., Montero, S. and Aleman, U. 1996. Migracion Intratropical por Ara ambigua: identificacion de heterogeneidad y enlaces/conexiones de hαbitat para proteger la biodiversidad en bosque hϊmedo tropical en αreas bajas de Centroamιrica. Unpublished Report. Powlesland, R.G. and Lloyd, B.D. 1994. Use of supplementary feeding to induce breeding in free-living Kakapo Strigops habroptilus in New Zealand. Biol. Conserv. 69: 97-106. Pratt, H.D., Bruner, P.L. and Berrett, D.G. 1987. A field guide to the birds of Hawaii and the tropical Pacific. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Prestes, N.P. and Martinez, J. 1996. Caracteristicas de nidificaηγo do papagaio Charγo Amazona pretrei Temmick 1830 (Psittacidae:Aves). Anais do V Congresso Brasileiro de Ornitologia Campinas SP Brazil. Prestes, N.P. Martinez, J, Meyrer, P.A., Hansen L.H. and Xavier M.N. 1997. Nest Characteristics of the Red Spectacled Amazon, Amazona pretrei . Ararajuba 5: 151-158 Quin, B.R. and Baker-Gabb, D.J. 1993. Conservation and management of the turquoise parrot Neophema pulchella in north-east Victoria. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Melbourne. Quinnell, R. and Balmford, A. 1988. A future for Palawan’s forests? Oryx 22: 30-35. Raffaele, H.A. and Kepler, C.B. 1992. Earliest records of the recently introduced avifauna of Puerto Rico. Ornitologia Caribeρa 3: 20-29. Ralph, C.J. and Scott, J.M. (eds.) 1981. Estimating numbers of terrestrial birds. Studies in Avian Biology 6, Cooper Ornithol. Soc., Lawrence, Kansas. Rand, A.L. and Gilliard, E.T. 1967. Handbook of New Guinea birds. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Rasmussen, J.F., Rahbek, C., Poulsen, B.O., Poulsen, M.K. and Bloch, H. 1996. Distributional records and natural history notes on threatened and little known birds of southern Ecuador. Bull. Brit. Ornith.Club 116: 26-46. Reed, J.M., D.D. Murphy, and P.F. Brussard. 1998. Efficacy of population viability analysis. Wildlife Society Bull. 26:244-251. Remsen, J.V., Melvin, A.T. and Parkes, K.C. 1986. Range extensions for some Bolivian birds, 2 (Columbidae to Rhynocryptidae). Bull. Brit. Ornith.Club 106: 22-32. Renjifo L.M. 1991. Status of endangered avifauna in the Alto Quindνo and Toche Regions. Report to The Wildlife Conservation Society and Fundaciσn Herencia Verde, Cali. Renjifo, L.M. 1991b. Expansion of the High Quindνo Reserve with the acquisition of Andean wax palm forest: A proposal for the conservation of vulnerable avifauna. Report to The Wildlife Conservation Society and Fundaciσn Herencia Verde, Cali. Renton, K. 1994. Seasonal variations in encounter rates, and the factors limiting breeding density of macaws, Ara species, in the floodplain forest of the Manu Biosphere Reserve, Peru. Masters thesis, University of Kent at Canterbury. RePPProT. 1990. National overview of the regional physical planning programme for transmigration. Chatham, UK: Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute. Reynolds, M. 1994. The World Parrot Trust -The Parrot Portfolio #17 Amazona brasiliensis. Supplement in PsittaScene 6: 1-2. Reynolds, M. 1997. Lear’s macaw-Next in line for extiction? PsittaScene 9: 1-3. Ridgely, R.S. 1982. The current distribution and status of mainland Neotropical parrots. Pp.233-384 in R.F. Pasquier (ed.) Conservation of New World Parrots. ICBP Tech. Publ. No. 1. ICBP/Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, DC. Riley, J. 1995. Preliminary assessment of the status and utilization of the red and blue lory Eos histrio on Talaud and Sangihe. PHPA/BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme Technical Report No. 10. BirdLife-IP, Bogor. Riley, J. 1997. Biological surveys and conservation priorities on the Sangihe and Talaud Islands, Indonesia: the final report of Action Sampiri 1995-1997. Cambridge, UK: CBS Conservation Publications. Riveros, J.C., Sanches, S. and Ascencios, D. 1991. Distribuction y status del pachaloro forpus xanthops. Resumenes del iv congreso de ornithologia tropical, 3-9 de Noviembre 1991. Quito Ecuador. Robbins, M.B., Ridgely, R.S., Schulenberg, T.S. and Gill, F.B. 1987. The avifauna of the Cordillera de Cutucu, Ecuador with comparisons to other Andean localities. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 139: 243-259. Robertson, A., Simmons, R.E., Jarvis, A.M. and Brown, C.J. 1995. Can bird atlas data be used to estimate population size? A case study using Namibian endemics. Biological Conservation 71: 87-95 Robertson, C.J.R. (ed.) 1985. Complete book of New Zealand birds. Sydney: Reader’s Digest. Robinet, O. and Salas, M. 1996. Absence of ship rats Rattus rattus and Norway rats Rattus norwegicus on Ouvea (Loyalty Islands, New Caledonia): copnsequences for conservation. Pacific Conservation Biology 2: 390-397. Robinet, O., Barre, N. and Salas, M. 1996. Population estimate for the Ouvea Parakeet Eunymphicus cornutus uvaeensis: its present range and implications for conservation. Emu 96: 151-157. Robinet, O., Beugnet, F., Dulieu, D. and Chardonnet, P. 1995. The Ouvea parakeet - state of knowledge and conservation status. Oryx 29: 143-50. Rodriguez, J.P. and Rojas-Suαrez, F. 1995. Libro Rojo de la Fauna Venezolana. PROVITA and Fundaciσn Polar, Caracas, Venezuela. Rodriguez-Estrella, R., Mata, E. and Rivera, L. 1992. Ecological notes on the Green Parakeet of Isla Socorro, Mexico. Condor 94: 523-5. Rodriguez-Ferraro, A. 1996. Proyecto de Conservacion y Manejo de la Cotorra Cabeciamarilla Amazona barbadensis en las Islas de Margarita y La Blanquilla. Report to the Wildlife Conservation Society. Rothschild, W. 1895. On a new parrot. Nov. Zool. 2: 492. Rowley, I. 1983. Mortality and dispersal of juvenile Galahs Cacatua roseicapilla in the Western Australian wheatbelt. Aust. Wildl. Res. 10: 329-342. Rowley, I. 1990. Behavioural ecology of the galah Eolophus roseicapillus in the wheatbelt of Western Australia. Surrey Beatty and Sons. Chipping Norton Rowley, I. and Chapman, G. 1991. The breeding biology, food, social organisation, demography and conservation of the Major Mitchell or pink cockatoo, Cacatua leadbeateri, on the margin of the Western Australian wheatbelt. Australian Journal of Zoology 39: 211-61. Rowley, I. and Saunders, D.A. 1980. Rigid wing-tags for cockatoos. Corella 4: 1-7. Russell, S.M. 1964. A distributional study of the birds of British Honduras. Ornithological Monographs 1: 1-195. Salaman, P.G.W. 1994. The survey and conservation of Biodiversity in south-west Colombia. BirdLife International Study Report 61. Cambridge UK. Salaman, P.G.W. and Gandy, G. 1993. Colombia ‘93: Thunder Lake Expedition. Preliminary Report. Salaman, P.G.W. and Lopez-Lanus, B. 1999. Critical discovery of Yellow-eared Parrot. Psittacine 11:6-7. Sane, S.R., Kannan, P., Rajendran, C.G., Ingle, S.T. and Bhagwat, A.M. 1986. On the taxonomic status of Psittacula intermedia (Rothschild). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 83 (supplement): 127-135. Sanz, V. and Grajal, A. 1998. Successful reintroduction of captive-raised Yellow-Shouldered Amazon in Margarita Island, Venezuela. Conserv. Biol. 12: 1-13. Saunders, D.A. 1982. The breeding behaviour and biology of the short-billed form of the White-tailed Black-cockatoo Calyptorhynchus funereus latirostris Carnaby. Ibis 124: 422-55. Saunders, D.A. 1986. Breeding season, nesting season and nestling growth in Carnaby’s Cockatoo, Calyptorhynchus funereus latirostris, over l6 years at Coomallo Creek, and a method for assessing the viability of populations in other areas. Australian Wildlife Research 13: 261-273. Saunders, D.A. 1988. Patagial tags: do benefits outweigh the risks to the animal? Australian Wildlife Research 15: 565-569. Saunders, D.A. 1990a. The landscape approach to conservation: community involvement, the only practical solution. Australian Zoologist 26: 49-53. Saunders, D.A. 1990b. Problems of survival in an extensively cultivated landscape: the case of Carnaby’s cockatoo Calytorhynchus funereus latirostris. Biol. Conserv. 54: 111-24. Saunders, D.A. 1991. The effect of land clearing on the ecology of Carnaby's cockatoo and the inland red- tailed black-cockatoo in the wheatbelt of Western Australia. Acta XX Congressus Internationalis Ornithologici. Saunders, D.A. and Ingram, J.A. 1995. Birds of southwestern Australia. An atlas of changes in distribution and abundance of the wheatbelt avifauna. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW. Saunders, D.A., Smith, G.T. and Rowley, I. 1982. The availability and dimensions of tree hollows that provide nest sites for cockatoos (Psittaciformes) in Western Australia. Australian Wildlife Research 9: 541-6. Scharr, P., Ground, D., Burton, F. and Butler, P.J. 1992. Conservation education in the Cayman Islands. The National Trust for the Cayman Islands and RARE Center for Tropical Conservation, George Town, Grand Cayman and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Scherer Neto, P. 1988. Die Rotschwanzamazone Amazona brasiliensis hat eine unge-wisse Zukunft Papagaien 1988: 23-26. Scherer Neto, P. 1989. Contribucγo a biologia do papagaio-da-cara-roxa Amazona brasiliensis (Linnaeus, 1758) (Psittacidae. Aves). Unpublished Masters Thesis. Universidade Federal do Paranα Departamento de Zoologia. Schmid, C.K. 1993. Birds of Nokopo. Muruk 6: 2. Schmutz, E. 1977. Die Vφgel der Manggarai (Flores). Ruteng, Flores: privately published. Schodde, R., Mason, I.J. and Wood, J.T. 1993. Geographical differentiation in the Glossy Black-cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami (Temminck) and its history. Emu 93: 156-166. Seber, G.A.F. 1986. A review of estimating animal abundance. Biometrics 42: 267-292. Seitre, R. and Seitre, J. 1991. Causes de disparition des oiseaux terrestres de Polynιsie Franηaise. Noumιa: South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (Occas. Pap. Series 8). Seitre, R. and Seitre, J. 1992. Causes of land-bird extinctions in French Polynesia. Oryx 26: 215-222. Serpell, J., Collar, N., Davis, S. and Wells, S. 1983. Submission to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the future conservation of Henderson Island in the Pitcairn Group. Unpublished. Sibley, C.G. and Monroe, B.L. 1990. Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World. Yale Press, New Haven and London. Sick, H. 1997. Ornitologia Brasileira. Siebers, H.C. 1930. Fauna Buruana. Aves 5 (supplement): 164-303. Silvius, K. 1989. Resultados Preliminares del Proyecto Ecologia, Biologia, y Situacion Actual de la Cotorra (Amazona barbadensis: Psittacidae) en la Isla de Margarita, Nueva Esparta. Final Report to FUDENA. Caracas, Venezuela. Skead, C.J. 1964. The overland flights and the feeding habits of the Cape parrot Poicephalus robustus (Gmelin) in the eastern Cape Province. Ostrich 35: 202-232. Skead, C.J. 1971. The Cape parrot in the Transkei and Natal. Ostrich Supplement 9: 165-178. Smiet, A.C. 1985. Notes on the field status and trade in Moluccan parrots. Biol. Conserv. 34: 181-194. Smith, G.A. 1991. Spix's Macaw Ara (Cyanopsitta) spixii. Mag. Parrot Soc. 15: 164-165. Smith, G.T. 1991 The breeding ecology of the western long-billed corella, Cacatua pastinator pastinator. Wildlife Research 18: 91-110. Smith, G.T. and Rowley, I.C.R. 1995. Survival of adult and nestling Western Long-billed Corellas, Cacatua pastinator, and Major Mitchell Cockatoos, C. leadbeateri, in the wheatbelt of Western Australia. Wildlife Research 22: l55-l62. Smith, G.T. and Saunders, D.A. 1986. Clutch size and productivity of three sympatric species of Cockatoo (Psittaciformes) in the south-west of Western Australia. Aust. Wildl. Res. 13: 275-285. Snyder, N. and Enkerlin-Hoeflich, E. 1996. New Parrot Preserve in Mexico. Psittascene 8: 8-9. Snyder, N.F.P. and Wallace, M.P. 1987. Reintroductions of the thick-billed parrot in Arizona. Pages 360- 384 in Proceedings 1987 Jean Delacour/IFCB Symposium on breeding birds in captivity. International Foundation for the Conservation of Birds, North Hollywood, California. Snyder, N.F.R. 1978. Puerto Rican Parrots and nest-site scarcity. Pp.47-53 in S.A. Temple (ed.) Endangered birds, management techniques for preserving threatened species. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Snyder, N.F.R. and Snyder, H.A. 1989. Biology and conservation of the California Condor. Current Ornithology 6: 175-263. Snyder, N.F.R. and Taapken, J.D. 1978. Puerto Rican Parrots and nest predation by Pearly-eyed Thrashers. Pp.113-120 in S.A. Temple (ed.) Endangered birds, management techniques for preserving threatened species. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Snyder, N.F.R., Derrickson, S.R., Beissinger, S.R., Wiley, J.W., Smith, T.B., Toone, W.D. and B. Miller. 1996. Limitations of captive breeding in endangered species recovery. Conserv. Biol. l0: 338-348. Snyder, N.F.R., King, W.B. and Kepler, C.B. 1982. Biology and conservation of the Bahama Parrot. Living Bird 19: 91-114. Snyder, N.F.R., Koenig, S.E., Koschmann, J., Snyder, H.A. and Johnson, T.B. 1994. Thick-billed parrot releases in Arizona. Condor 96: 845-862. Snyder, N.F.R., Wiley, J.W. and Kepler, C.B. 1987. The parrots of Luquillo: natural history and conservation of the Puerto Rican Parrot. Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology, Los Angeles. Snyder, N.F.R., E.C. Enkerlin-Hoeflich, and M.A. Cruz-Nieto. 1999. Thick-billed Parrot (Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha). In The Birds of North America, No. 406 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Species Survival Commission. 1994. IUCN Red List Categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Steadman, D.W. 1989. Extinctions of birds in Eastern Polynesia: a review of the records and comparisons with other Pacific Island Groups. J. Archaeol. Sci. 16: 177-205. Stiles, F.G. 1985. Conservation of forest birds in Costa Rica: problems and perspectives. Pp.141-168 in A.W. Diamond and T.E. Lovejoy (eds.) Conservation of tropical forest birds. ICBP Tech. Publ. No. 4. ICBP, Cambridge, England. Stiles, F.G. and Skutch, A.F. 1989. A field guide to the birds of Costa Rica. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Stokes, T. 1980. Notes on the landbirds of New Caledonia. Emu 80: 81-86. Stoleson, S.H. and Beissinger, S.R. 1997. Hatching asynchrony in parrots: boon or bane for conservation. Pp.157-180 in J.R. clemmons and R. Buchholtz (eds.) Behavioural approaches to conservation in the wild. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Sylvius, K.M. 1997. To save a parrot. Wildlife Conservation. 100: 52-57. Tabaranza, B.R. 1992. The distribution and conservation status of the Philippine cockatoo Cacatua haematuropygia (P.L.S. Muller, 1776). Final report to the Zoological Society for Conservation of Species and Populations. Talbot, L.M. 1993. Principles for living resource conservation. Marine Mammal Commission, Draft preliminary report on consultations, Washington, DC. Tavistock, Marquess of. 1916. Breeding notes – and others – for 1916. Avicult. Mag., ser. 3, 7: 330-332. Taylor, K., Fuller, R.J. and Lack, P.C. (eds.) 1985. Bird census and atlas studies. Proceedings VIII Internat. Conf. of Bird Census and Atlas Work, BTO, Tring. Taylor, R.H. 1975. Some ideas on speciation in New Zealand parakeets. Notornis 22: 110-121. Taylor, R.H. 1985. Status, habits and conservation of Cyanoramphus parakeets in the New Zealand region. Pp.195-211 in P.J. Moors (ed.) Conservation of island birds. Technical Publication No. 4, ICBP, Cambridge, UK. Taylor, R.H. 1998. A reappraisal of the orange-fronted parakeet Cyanoramphus sp. – species or colour morph? Notornis 45: 49-63. Taylor, R.H., Heatherbell, E.G. and Heatherbell, E.M. 1986. The orange-fronted parakeet Cyanoramphus malherbi is a colour morph of the yellow-crowned parakeet C. auriceps. Notornis 33: 17-22. Thibault, J.-C. 1988. Menaces et conservation des oiseaux de Polynιsie Franηaise. Pp.87-124 in J.-C. Thibault and I. Guyot, (eds.) Livre rouge des oiseaux menacιs des rιgions franηaises d’outre-mer. Saint-Cloud: Conseil International pour la Protection des Oiseaux (Monogr. 5). Thomsen, J.B. and Mulliken, T.A. 1992. Trade in Neotropical psittacines and its conservation implications. Pp.73-115 in S.R. Beissinger and N.F.R. Snyder (eds.) New World parrots in crisis: solutions from conservation biology. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, DC. Thorsen, M., Harper, G., Haverson, P., Reynolds, N., Smart A. and Pierard, M. 1998. Echo parakeet Psittacula eques management report 1998: the wild population. Unpublished report to UNDP, World Parrot Trust, Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust and Mauritian Wildlife Foundation. Thurber, W.Q., Serrano, J.F., Sermeρo, A. and Benitez, M.F. 1987. Status of uncommon and previously unreported birds of El Salvador. Proc. Western Found. Vertebr. Zool. 3: 203-204. Toft, C.A. 1994. The genetics of captive propagation for conservation: a manual for aviculturists. Special Publication No. 1., Psittacine Research Project, University of California, Davis. Toyne, E.P. 1994. Gold miners in Podopcarpus National Park, Going, going...gone. Cotinga 2: 8. Toyne, E.P. 1996. Parrots in peril in Ecuador 1994. Ibis 138: 148 Toyne, E.P. 1996. The Imperial College Parrots in Peril Initiative: a summary of the 1990, 1992 and 1994 expeditions. Bulletin of the British Ecological Society 28: 222-224. Toyne, E.P. 1996. Towards and a conservation strategy for the Red-faced Parrot. PsittaScene 8: 7. Toyne, E.P. and Flanagan, J.N.M. 1996. First nest record of Red-faced Parrot Hapalopsittaca pyrrhops. Cotinga 5: 43-45 Toyne, E.P. and Flanagan, J.N.M. 1997. Observations on the breeding biology, diet and behaviour of Red- faced Parrot Hapalopsittaca pyrrhops in southern Ecuador. Bull. Brit. Ornithol. Club. 117: 257- 263. Toyne, E.P., Flanagan, J.N.M. and Jeffcote, M.T. 1995. Vocalizations of the endangered Red-faced Parrot Hapalopsittaca pyrrhops in southern Ecuador. Ornithologia Neotropical 6: 125-128. Toyne, E.P., Jeffcote, M.T. and Flanagan, J.N.M. 1992. Status, distribution and ecology of the White- breasted Parakeet Pyrrhura albipectus in Podocarpus National Park, southern Ecuador. Bird Conserv. Internat. 2: 327-339 Trevelyan, R. 1995. The feeding ecology of Stephen’s lory and nectar availability in its food plants. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 56: 185-197. Triggs, S.J. and Daugherty, C.H. 1996. Conservation and genetics of New Zealand parakeets. Bird Conservation International 6: 89-101. Turbott, E.G. 1990. Checklist of the birds of New Zealand. Third edition. Wellington: Ornithological Society of New Zealand. University of York. 1996. The status and conservation of birds on the Sangihe and Talaud Islands, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Summary report. University of York, UK. Vallιe, D. 1992. Environmental impacts of gold-mining in Podocarpus National Park, southern Ecuador. MSc thesis, Imperial College. van Bemmel, A.C.V. 1948. A faunal list of the birds of the Moluccan Islands. Treubia 19: 87-91. van der Heyden, T. and Paulmann, K. 1987. Erfolgreiche zucht des Haiti-0sittichs Aratinga chloroptera. Trochilus 8: 60-63. Varty, N. 1991. The status and conservation of Jamaica’s threatened and endemic forest avifauna and their habitats following Hurricane Gilber. Bird Conservation International 1: 135-151. Verner, J. 1985. An assessment of counting techniques. Current Ornithology 2: 247-302. Walters, M. 1985. On the status of Psittacula intermedia (Rothschild). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 82: 197-199. Wardhill, J.C. and Riley, J. 1997. Assessment of the status and trade of the red-and-blue lory Eos histrio on Talaud and Sangihe. Technical Memorandum No. 20, PHPA/BirdLife International Indonesia Programme, Bogor Indonesia. Watling, D. 1982. The birds of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa. Wellington, New Zealand: Millwood Press. Watling, D. 1995. Notes on the status of Kuhl's lorikeet Vini kuhlii in the Northern Line Islands, Kiribati. Bird Conservation International 5: 481-489. Waugh, D. 1995. Action for Buffon's macaw in Ecuador: A report from the field. Proceedings of the International Aviculturists Society, January 11 - 15, 1995 Weaver, C.M. 1982. Breeding habitats and status of the golden-shouldered parrot Psephotus chrysopterygius, in Queensland. Emu 82: 2-6. Webster, R. 1988. The superb parrot. A survey of the breeding distribution and habitat requirements. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra. Wege, D.C. and Long, A.J. 1995. Key Areas for Threatened Birds in the Neotropics. Wells, M. and Brandon, K. (with Lee Hannah). 1992. People and parks: linking protected area management with local communities. The World Bank, Washington, DC. Westrum, R. 1994. An organizational perspective: designing recovery teams from the inside out. Pp.327- 349 in T.W. Clark, R.P. Reading and A.L. Clarke (eds.) Endangered species recovery: finding the lessons, improving the process. Island Press, Washington DC. Wetmore, A. and Swales, B.H. 1931. The birds of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. US National Museum Bulletin 155. Wheeler, W.R. 1975. Report on rare and endangered species of birds from the Australian mainland. Bull. Internatn. Counc. Bird Preserv. 12: 159-264. White, C.M.N. and Bruce, M.D. 1986. The birds of Wallacea (Sulawesi, the Moluccas and Lesser Sunda Islands, Indonesia): an annotated check-list. London: British Ornithologists’ Union (Check-list 7). Whitten, A.J., Bishop, K.D., Nash, S.V. and Clayton, L. 1987a. One or more extinctions from Sulawesi, Indonesia? Conserv. Biol. 1: 42-48. Whitten, A.J., Mustafa, M. and Henderson, G. 1987b. Ecology of Sulawesi. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press. Wiedenfeld, D.A. 1993. Status and management of Psittacines in northeastern Honduras. CITES Secretariat (Lausanne, Switzerland), Corporaciσn Hondureρa de Desarrollo Forestal (COHDEFOR; Tegucigalpa, Honduras), and TRAFFIC USA (Washington, DC, USA). Wiedenfeld, D.A. 1994. A new subspecies of scarlet macaw Ara macao and its status and conservation. Ornitologνa Neotropical 5: 99-104. Wiedenfeld, D.A. 1995. Status, management, and trade of Psittacines in Nicaragua. Unpublished report to CITES Secretariat (Lausanne, Switzerland), Oficina de CITES-Nicaragua (Managua, Nicaragua), and Traffic USA (Washington, DC, USA). Wiley, J.W. 1980. The Puerto Rican Parrot Amazona vittata: its decline and the program for its conservation. Pp.133-159 in R.F. Pasquier (ed.) Conservation of New World Parrots. ICBP Tech. Publ. No. 1. ICBP/Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, DC. Wiley, J.W. 1985. The Puerto Rican Parrot and competition for its nest sites. Pp.213-223 in P. Moors (ed.) Conservation of island birds. International Council for Bird Preservation Technical Publication Number 3, Cambridge, UK. Wiley, J.W. 1991. Status and conservation of parrots and parakeets in the Greater Antilles, Bahama Islands, and Cayman Islands. Bird Conservation International 1: 187-214. Wiley, J.W. and Gee, G.F. 1981. Using captive propagation to help save the Puerto Rican Parrot. A.F.A. Watchbird 8(5): 4-11. Wiley, J.W. and Wunderle Jr., J.M. 1993. The effects of hurricanes on birds, with special reference to Caribbean islands. Bird Conservation International 3: 319-349. Wiley, J.W., Ground, D., Burton, F., Cross, S., Ebanks, G., Marsden, M., Scharr, P., Butler, P. and Prescott, K. 1991. Report on surveys of the status and distribution of the Cayman Brac Parrot Amazona leucocephala hesterna. Unpublished report to ICBP. Wiley, J.W., Snyder, N.F.R. and Gnam, R.S. 1992. Reintroduction as a conservation strategy for parrots. Pp.165-200 in S.R. Beissinger and N.F.R. Snyder (eds.) New World parrots in crisis: Solutions from conservation biology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Williams, G.R. and Given, D.R. 1981. The Red Data Book of New Zealand. Wellington: Nature Conservation Council. Wilson, K.-J. 1993. Observations of the Kurδmoσ Vini peruviana on Aitutaki Island, Cook Islands. Notornis 40: 71-75. Wilson, M.H., C.B. Kepler, N.F.R. Snyder, S.R. Derrickson, F.J. Dein, J.W. Wiley, J.M. Wunderle, Jr., A.E. Lugo, D.L. Graham, and W.D. Toone. 1994. Puerto Rican Parrots and potential limitations of the metapopulation approach to species conservation. Conservation Biology 8:114-123. Wilson, P.R., Karl, B.J., Toft, R.J., Beggs, J.R. and Taylor, R.H. 1998. The role of introduced predators and competitors in the decline of kaka Nestor meridionalis populations in New Zealand. Biological Conservation 82: 175-185. Wingate, D. 1969. Unpublished report on the St. Lucia Parrot to ICBP. Wirmighaus, J.O. 1997. Cape Parrot Poicephalus robustus. In J.A. Harrison, D.G. Allan, L.G.Underhill, M.Herremans, A.J. Tree, V. Parker and C.J. Brown (eds). pp. 526-528. The atlas of southern African birds. Volume 1 Non-passerines. Academic Press, London. Woodford, M.H. and Rossiter, P.B. 1994. Disease risks associated with wildlife translocation projects. Pp.178-200 in P.J.S. Olney, G. Mace and A.T.C. Feistner (eds.) Creative conservation: interactive management of wild and captive animals. Chapman and Hall, London. Woods, C.A. 1982. Wildlife conservation in Haiti. Florida State Museum Notes 11: 1-3. Woods, C.A. and Ottenwalder, J.A. 1987. The threatened and endangered birds of Haiti: lost horizons and new hopes. Pp.385-429 in A.C. Risser (ed.) Proceedings of the Jean Delacour Symposium on breeding birds in captivity. International Foundation for the Conservation of Birds, Los Angeles. Woods, C.A. and Ottenwalder, J.A. 1992. The natural history of southern Haiti. Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville. Yamashita, C. and Franηa, J.T. 1991. A range extension of the Golden Parakeet Aratinga guarouba to Rondonia state, western Amazonia. Ararajuba 2: 91- 92. Yamashita, C. and Machado de Barros, Y. 1997. The Blue Throated Macaw Ara glaucogularis: Characterization of its distinctive habitats in savannas of the Beni, Bolivia. Ararajuba 5: 141-150. Young, G. 1987. Notes on the nesting behaviour of the Echo Parakeet Psittacula eques echo. Dodo 24: 102- 111. ZOS. 1980. Zambian Ornithological Newsletter 10: 158-159. ZOS. 1982. Zamhian Ornithological Newsletter 12: 142. ZOS. 1994. Zamhian Ornithological Newsletter 24: 136. APPENDIX 1: CONTACT DETAILS Further information may be obtained from the contacts listed below. Organisations Association for Parrot Conservation, c/o Ernesto Enkerlin, President. Centro de Calidad Ambiental ITESM, Sucursal de Correos J, C.P.64849 Monterrey N.L., Mexico. BirdLife International, Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge CB3 0NA, UK (BirdLife International- Indonesia Programme, P.O. Box 310/Boo, Bogor 16003, Indonesia). BIRDS Australia Parrot Association, Australian Bird Research Centre, 415 Riversdale Road, Hawthorn East, Victoria 3123, Australia. Fundaciσn Armonia, Alameda Junin 48 Esq Florida, Casilla 3081, Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Research Centre for African Parrot Conservation, Zoology and Entomology Department, Private Bag, X01, Scottsville, 3201, Natal, South Africa. World Parrot Trust, Glanmor House, Hayle, Cornwall TR27 4HY, UK. Individuals Des Allen 1158 NoGaYaCho, Machida Shi, Tokyo 195-0053 Japan. Steven R. Beissinger, Division of Ecosystem Sciences, Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, Hillgard Hall #3110, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3110, USA. Glayson Bencke, Rua Augusto Spengler 500/401. BL1, Santa Cruz do Sul RS, CEP 96815-020, Brazil. Vicente Berovides, Empresa Nacional Para la Protecciσn de la Flora y la Fauna, Programa especies en peligro, Av. 42 No. 514 esq 7a Miramar, La Habana, Cuba. Colin Bibby, BirdLife International, Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge CB3 0NA, UK. John Blyth, Department of Conservation and Land Management, P.O. Box 51, Waneroo, WA 6065, Australia. Tom Brooks, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, M313 Walters Life Science Building, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN37996-0810, USA. Enrique Bucher, Centro de Zoologia Aplicada, Casilla de Correos 122, Cordoba 5000, Argentina. Allan Burbidge, Department of Conservation and Land Management, P.O. Box 51, Waneroo, WA 6065, Australia. Paul Butler, RARE Center for Tropical Conservation PO Box GM755, Gablewoods Saint Lucia 809- 4520864. Nigel Collar, BirdLife International, Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge CB3 0NA, UK. Charles Daugherty, School of Biological Sciences, Victoria University, P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand. Leo Douglas, Gosse Bird Club (Birdlife Jamaica), 93 Old Hope Roas, Kingston Jamaica West Indies. Colleen Downs, Research Centre for African Parrot Conservation, Zoology and Entomology Department, Private Bag, X01, Scottsville, 3201, Natal, South Africa. Eduardo E. Iρigo Elias, Conservation Director, Mexico Program Office, World Wildlife Fund, Av. Mexico 51; Col. Hipodromo, D.F. 06100, Mexico. Present Address: Fundaciσn ARA, Aptdo. Postal 2275, Sucursal Monterrey, Nuevo Leσn. C.P. 64988 Mexico. Graeme Elliot, Department of Conservation, Private Bag 5, Nelson, New Zealand. Ernesto Enkerlin-Hoeflich, Centro de Calidad Ambiental ITESM, Sucursal de Correos J, C.P.64849 Monterrey N.L., Mexico. Leasie Felderhof, Queensland department of Environment, P.O. Box 2066, Cairns, Queenlsand, Australia. Jeremy Flanagan, Fundaciσn Ecolσgica ArcoIris, Casilla 11-01-860, calles Bernardo Valdiviezo 03-26 y Jose Felix Valdiviezo, Loja, Ecuador. Present address: ProAves Peru, PO Box 07, Piura, Peru. Joseph Forshaw, P.O. Box 84, Wauchipe, New South Wales, 2446, Australia. Mauro Galetti, Departamento de Botanica, UNESP, C.P. 199, 13506-900 Rio Claro, Sγo Paulo, Brazil. Xiomara Galvez, Empresa Nacional Para la Protecciσn de la Flora y la Fauna, Programa especies en peligro, Av. 42 No. 514 esq 7ma Miramar, La Habana, Cuba. Stephen Garnett, Department of Environment and Heritage, P.O. Box 2066, Cairns 4870, Australia. James Gilardi, Wildlife Preservation Trust International, 2320 Amapola Drive, Davis, CA 95616, USA. Mariano Gimenez Dixon, Programme Officer, Species Survival Programme, IUCN-The World Conservation Union, Rue Mauverney 28, CH-1196, Gland, Switzerland. Alejandro Grajal, Latin America and Caribbean Program, National Audubon Society, 444 Brickell Av. Suite 850, Miami FL 33131-2405, USA. Rosemarie Gnam, Office of Management Authority, US Fish Wildlife Service, 4401 N Fairfax Drive, Arlington VA 22203, USA. Terry Greene, Science and Research Division, Department of Conservation, PO. Box, 10420, Wellington, New Zealand. Neiva Guedes, Projeto ArarAzul, Rua Geraldo Jacques M. Lette 79, Conl Ma Apo Pedrossian, CEP 79044- 480 Campo Grande/MS, Brazil. Mark Holdsworth, Parks and Wildlife Service, GPO Box 44A Hobart Tasmania 7001 Australia. Eric Horstmann, Fundacion Probosque, Km. 15 Via La Costa, Aptdo. Postal 09-01-04243, Guayaquil, Ecuador. Paul Jepson, BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme, P.O. Box 310/Boo, Bogor 16003, Indonesia (current address: School of Geography, Oxford OX1 3TB, UK). Gustavo Kattan, Aptdo. Aιreo 25527, Carrera 80 NΊ 5-220 apto 407 U-3, Cali, Colombia. Susan Koenig, School of Forestry and , Environmental Studies, Prospect Street, Yale University, New Haven, Ct. 06511,USA. Present address: Windsor Research Station, Sherwood Content, Trelawny, Jamaica, W.I. Niels Krabbe, Casilla 17-21-791, Quito Ecuador Frank Lambert, BirdLife International-Indonesia Programme, P.O. Box 310/Boo, Bogor 16003, Indonesia. Wendy Lee, Sevenoaks, Runaway Bay, Jamaica, West Indies. Catherine Levy, Gosse Bird Club (Birdlife Jamaica), 93 Old Hope Roas, Kingston Jamaica West Indies. Pedro Lima, CETREL, S/A Via Atlantica Km9, Polo Petroquimico, CP 011-428810-000, Camaηari, Bahia, Brazil. James Lowen, 30 Suez Road, Cambridge CB1 3QB, UK. Stuart Marsden, Department of Biological Sciences, John Dalton Building, Chester Street, Manchester M! 5GD, UK. Jaime Martinez, Projeto Charγo, Rua Presidente Vargas 190, Caixa Postal 37, CEP 99500-000 Carazinho RS, Brazil. Peter Mawson, Wildlife Branch, Department of Conservation and Land Management, P.O. Box 104, Como, WA 6152, Australia. Phil McGowan, c/o World Parrot Trust, Glanmor House, Hayle, Cornwall TR27 4HY, UK. Peter Menkhorst, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, 4/250 Victoria Parade, East Melbourne, Victoria 3002, Australia. Carolyn Miller, P.O. Box 37, Belize City, Belize. Teresa Mulliken, TRAFFIC International, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK. Charles Munn , Aptdo 18-09-30, Lima 18, Peru. Richard Noske, School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Science Faculty, Northern Territory University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia. Fαbio Olmos, Rua Antonio F. Gandra 182, Sγo Vicente; SP, 11390-250, Brazil. Michael J. Parr, American Bird Conservancy, 1250 24th Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20037, USA. Lynn Pedler, P.O. Box 41, Parndana SA 5220, Australia. Mike Perrin, Research Centre for African Parrot Conservation, Zoology and Entomology Department, Private Bag, X01, Scottsville, 3201, Natal, South Africa. Elin Pitter, Mette Bohn Christiansen, Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. Marco Aurelio Pizo, Dept de Zoologia. IB/Unicamp, Caixa Postal 6109, 13083-971 Campinas SP Brazil. Pam Rasmussen, NHB 335 MRC 114, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. 20560, USA. Luis Miguel Renjifo, University of Missouri-St. Louis, Department of Biology, Natural Bridge Road, St. Louis, Missouri 63121, USA. Present address: Instituto Von Humboldt, AA 8693, Bogota, Colombia. Michael Reynolds, World Parrot Trust, Glanmor House, Hayle, Cornwall TR27 4HY, UK. Adriana Rodriguez-Ferraro, Provita, Aptdo. 47552, Caracas, 1041-A, Venezuela. Franklin Rojas-Suarez, Provita, Aptdo. 47552, Caracas, 1041-A, Venezuela. Alison Rosser, Trade Specialist Group, Species Survival Programme, IUCN-The World Conservation Union, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK. Paul G. W. Salaman, Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK. Virginia Sanz, Provita, Aptdo. 47552, Caracas, 1041-A, Venezuela. Denis Saunders, CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology, PO Box 84, Lyneham ACT 2602, Australia. Pedro Scherer Neto, Museu de Historia Natural, Seηγo de Aves, Rua Benedito Conceiηγo 407, Curitiba PR Brazil 82810-080. Richard Selman, 6 Aquila Drive, Heddon-on-the-Wall, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE15 0BS, U.K.. Noel Snyder, Wildlife Preservation Trust, P.O. Box 426, Portal, AZ 85632, USA. Craig Symes, Research Centre for African Parrot Conservation, Zoology and Entomology Department, Private Bag, X01, Scottsville, 3201, Natal, South Africa. Jon Riley, 1 The Croft, North Sunderland, Seahouses, Northumberland NE68 7XA, UK. Paul Stevenson, Australian Parks National and Wildlife Service, Norfolk Island, Australia E. Paul Toyne, WWF-UK, Panda House, Weyside Park, Cattershill Lane, Godalming, Surrey GU7 1XR, U.K. Christopher Vaughan, Programa Regional de Vida Silvestre, Aptdo. 1350-3000, Escuela de Ciencias Ambientales, Universidad Nacional, Mexico. Louise Warburton, Research Centre for African Parrot Conservation, Zoology and Entomology Department, Private Bag, X01, Scottsville, 3201, Natal, South Africa. David Waugh, Fundacion Loro Parque, Bencomo No1, 38400 Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, Spain. Present address: Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, Edinburgh EH12 6TS, Scotland U.K. David A. Wiedenfeld, George M. Sutton Avian Research Center, PO Box 2007, Bartlesville OK 740056, 918-336-7778, USA. James Wiley, USD. Interior, US Geological Survey, Grambling State Univ., PO Box.841, Grambling, LA 71245, USA. Roger Wilkinson, Chester Zoo, Upton-byChester, Cheshire CH2 1LH, UK. Kerry-Jayne Wilson, Entomology and Animal Ecology Department, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. Roland Wirth, Franz-Senn-Str. 14, 81377 Muenchen, Germany. Tim Wright, Program in Comparative and Evolutionary Biology of Hearing, Department of Zoology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA. Joseph M. Wunderle, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, US Forest Service, Box 490, Palmer Puerto Rico 00721. Carlos Yamashita, Rua Voluntarios da Patria 3714 apto 52, Sγo Paulo SP-CEP 02402-400, Brazil. A widely accepted taxonomic revision places the night parrot in a different genus and we follow this revision: the generic name under which it appeared in Collar et al. (1994) is given in parentheses. A widely accepted taxonomic revision places the night parrot in a different genus and we follow this revision: the generic name under which it appeared in Collar et al. (1994) is given in parentheses. viii 182