WORKSHOP SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

FOR NEOTROPICAL GUANS, CURASSOWS, AND CHACHALACAS

Introduction

Reduction and fragmentation of wildlife populations and habitat are occurring at a rapid and accelerating rate worldwide. For an increasing number of taxa, the results are small and isolated populations at risk of extinction. A rapidly expanding human population, now estimated at 5.25 billion, is expected to increase to 8 billion by the year 2025. This expansion and concomitant utilization of resources has momentum that cannot be stopped, the result being a decreased capacity for all other species to simultaneously exist on the planet.

In Latin America, habitat destruction and the overexploitation of wildlife have become increasing threats to the survival of natural environments. As wildlife populations are diminished through hunting and fragmentation, their ecological roles in ensuring a well-balanced, regulated and sustainable ecosystem are also reduced. Still, most conservation actions are directed toward the protection of habitat and reserves, rather than the conservation and management of the wildlife components which are critical to the long-term survival of Neotropical ecosystems.

Wildlife managers realize that management strategies must be adopted that will reduce the risk of species depletion in order to ensure viable ecosystem functions. These strategies will be global in nature and will include habitat preservation, intensified information gathering in the field, investigations regarding the ecological roles of key species, the development of improved biological monitoring techniques, and in some cases, scientifically managed captive populations that can interact genetically and demographically with wild populations.

The successful conservation of wild species and ecosystems necessitates development and implementation of active management programs by people and governments living alongside that ecosystem. The recommendations contained within this document are based on conservation need only; adjustments for political and other constraints are the responsibility of regional governmental agencies charged with the preservation of flora and fauna within their respective countries.

Conservation Assessment and Management Plans (CAMPs)

Within the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of IUCN-The World Conservation Union, the primary goal of the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG) is to contribute to the development of holistic and viable conservation strategies and management action plans. Toward this goal, CBSG is collaborating with agencies and other Specialist Groups worldwide in the development of scientifically-based processes, on both a global and regional basis, with the goal of facilitating an integrated approach to species management for conservation. One of these tools is called Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP).

CAMPs provide strategic guidance for the conservation of threatened taxa. This may include recommendations for field investigations and improved data-gathering methods, as well as the application of intensive management techniques that are increasingly required for survival and recovery of threatened taxa. The CAMP process ensures an objective overall view of the status of the taxa in question with the intent of improving the effectiveness and synergy of conservation efforts. CAMPs are also one means of testing the applicability of the draft IUCN Red List criteria for threat as well as the scope of its applicability. Additionally, CAMPs are an attempt to produce ongoing summaries of current data for groups of taxa, providing a mechanism for recording and tracking of species status.

CAMP recommendations are broad-based: of paramount importance are those recommendations related to field surveys, applied investigations and in situ conservation and management programs. Ultimately, the survival of taxa in the wild will depend on the availability of field data regarding the status of natural populations, the ecological role of the species (and its interdependence on other taxa), life history parameters, and applied investigations related to management and conservation. Where such data are lacking, a primary recommendation of the CAMP will be to stimulate their collection.

In addition to management of taxa in their natural habitat, conservation programs leading to viable populations of threatened species may sometimes need a captive component. In general, captive populations and programs can serve several roles in holistic conservation: 1) as genetic and demographic reservoirs that can be used to reinforce wild populations wither by revitalizing populations that are languishing in natural habitats or by re-establishing by translocation populations that have become depleted or extinct; 2) by providing scientific resources for information and technology that can be used to protect and manage wild populations; and 3) as living ambassadors that can educate the public as well as generate funds for in situ conservation.

Captive management programs should only be developed in conjunction with ongoing field investigations and conservation initiatives. This document does not intend to promote the establishment of captive programs in isolation from in situ programs.

Rather, it is proposed that, when captive populations can assist species conservation, captive and wild populations should, and can be, intensively and interactively managed together. For instance, with the development of appropriate techniques, interchanges of animals between captive and wild populations can be undertaken as needed and as feasible to maintain genetic and demographic viability of the species in the field.

Captive populations should be a support, not a substitute for wild populations. There may also be problems with interchange between captive and wild populations with regard to disease, logistics, and financial limitations. In the face of the immense extinction crisis facing many taxa, these issues must be addressed and resolved immediately.

An Overview of the Family Cracidae

It has been estimated that roughly 400 of the 3,800 avian species found in the Neotropics are threatened or endangered, representing nearly 11% of the avifauna of the region (World Resources Institute, 1988; Collar & Andrew, 1988; Collar et al., 1992). These alarming figures are the direct results of the increasing rates of habitat destruction and other forms of human intervention that currently plague the region. A disproportionately large number of endangered species are found within several avian groups due to their reliance on the disappearing primary forest habitat and/or their local use as food by subsistence and market hunters.

The family Cracidae (guans, curassows, and chachalacas) illustrates such a group. This endemic Neotropical family of large, forest-dwelling, primarily frugivorous birds is the most endangered avian taxonomic group in the region. In addition to being dependent on primary forest for their survival, the majority of Cracid species are heavily hunted throughout Latin America as the number one avian source of bush meat.

Threats to Cracids

Mesoamerican region. The greatest threats for cracids in the Mesoamerica region are the continuing loss and widespread fragmentation of habitat, hunting of the birds for food, and the loss of habitat due to the agriculture, cattle ranching and the introduction of other exotic animals. In the Central American countries, there are few protected areas larger than 20-50,000 hectares. Most of the remaining natural areas outside of such reserves are too small to sustain demographically and genetically viable populations, and those which do house potentially-viable populations of cracids are coming under increasing pressure from human disturbance.

There is a need to conduct some taxonomic studies on several species and subspecies in the Mesoamerican region to determine if the current taxonomy is accurate and whether several species and subspecies are valid separate taxonomic units. These determinations will impact the priorities for captive breeding, reintroduction potentials, and the needs for protecting habitats.

Northern South America - Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, the Guianas. The taxonomic forms of the family Cracidae in the northern South America region face a considerable range of threats, especially from hunting and loss of habitat. The former is due mainly to people from indigenous and other local communities who engage in subsistence and/or market hunting. Also there is illegal hunting for sport which is largely confined to the north of Venezuela. Within the region, widespread loss of habitat has been due to commercial logging, clearance for agriculture, small-holdings and urbanization, gradual colonization through new routes of access into pristine areas. In addition to an absolute reduction in the area of suitable habitats, these same forces have caused substantial fragmentation of these habitats, especially along the Andean slopes and river valleys of Colombia, the north of Venezuela and the Pacific slope and Andean regions of Ecuador. Thus, the cracid species with geographical distributions corresponding to these areas are those most seriously affected by this process.

Other less serious factors affecting the Cracidae in Northern South America include human interference and disturbance (distinct from hunting and habitat clearance). Dangers are also present to field workers in certain areas due to the presence of guerrillas and/or drug-related activities. These sometimes limit field investigations and management to aid the conservation of the species concerned.

Within a region with such a wide range of topographies, altitudes and ecosystems, the potential for taxonomic distinctiveness is great. Unfortunately, for several reasons (including previous absence of techniques for genetic differentiation) our state of knowledge on the differentiation of Cracidae taxa, mainly at the subspecies level, is insufficient. This renders it more difficult to delimit the geographical ranges, population sizes and also the effects of the creation of sub-populations through the process of habitat fragmentation.

Southwestern South America - Peru, Bolivia, Argentina and Paraguay. The major threat to Cracids in Peru, especially in lowland areas, and Bolivia was hunting. In Peru, Cracids are widely hunted by subsistence farmers and colonists, and the area affected by hunting is far greater than associated habitat alteration for agriculture. In coastal areas and western Andean slopes of Peru, loss of habitat is of equal importance as hunting. In Bolivia, hunting by logging crews and colonists is probably the major cause of population reduction in the more remote and uninhabited areas, but subsistence and market hunters also make use of Cracids for food in these regions.

Hunting was identified as secondary to habitat loss as a threat to cracid populations in Argentina. Loss of habitat is most acute in Misiones in NE Argentina. Argentinian hunters take mainly Crax fasciolata (the largest Argentinian cracid), which is not known to occur in any protected area in that country. Threats to Paraguayan cracids were not fully known, but include loss of habitat to agriculture and flooding of riparian forest as a result of dam construction.

Other threats to cracids in Southwestern South America include the ineffectiveness of protected areas to secure populations against human incursion and hunting, colonization of forested areas resulting in conversion to agricultural uses, development projects opening roads to previously inaccessible areas, and the conversion of forested areas to large-scale agricultural production.

Brazilian region. Cracids in Brazil are faced with a number of serious threats, including hunting for food and rural markets, habitat loss, fragmentation due to human interference, and the collection of live specimens for trade. In the eastern and northeastern portions of the country, much cracid habitat has been already been severely altered. It is in these regions that the majority of threatened forms are found. Vast areas of forest in other sections of Brazil are also coming under pressure for colonization and development, and there is increasing impact on remaining primary habitat for the Cracidae throughout the country.

There is a chronic lack of reliable field data on the Cracidae of Brazil from which conservation recommendations can be implemented. This has resulted in delays in the initiation of the proper species and habitat management measures. The taxonomic status and actual ranges of certain subspecies, such as Ortalis spp., Penelope spp., and Pipile spp. are poorly documented. There is little reliable population data on which to make population estimates, resulting in the utilization of indirect information, such as remaining available habitat on which to base population estimates.

This meeting was an important first step in the development of a cohesive conservation effort for the Cracidae in Brazil, especially the more threatened taxe. Considering that the only extinct cracid species is (was) endemic to Brazil (Mitu mitu), it was felt that the Brazilian government and scientific community should take an active role in the development of a conservation plan for its endangered cracids.

OVERVIEW

Although the above processes and their gross effects are evident, the amount of information available for the Cracidae throughout the Neotropics from field study and management is scarce. For this reason our recommendations for most species include surveys, monitoring and life-history studies, along with ethnozoological investigations of the extent of human-wildlife conflicts and hunting pressure. However, for those endangered and vulnerable species which may be more negatively affected we recommend additional measures. These include the management and protection of habitat, as well as research and management aimed at controlling or eliminating the factors that limit cracid populations. Due to uncertainty of taxonomic status (see below), studies directed at resolving such limiting factors are strongly recommended.

There is a demonstrated need to coordinate and review in situ and ex situ programs for the cracid species which are considered critical, endangered, or vulnerable. Captive populations of species considered in any of the threatened categories should generally be obtained from areas where the birds and/or the habitats can not be protected sufficiently to preserve the species. This may mean collecting, salvaging, or even purchasing birds for the captive program only if such activities will not have a further detrimental affect on the wild population, or the attitudes of local people or governments.

Obtaining additional birds from the wild to augment a captive population should only be sought after a careful review of the captive population has been made and there is a demonstrated management or genetic need for additional birds. Such birds must be obtained from locations and in ways that do not further threaten the species or any local populations (unless such a local population is destined to be destroyed by other activities which can not be controlled).

Lastly, we have identified the need for the development of coordinated efforts with rural assistance and land management programs throughout the region so that the negative effect on wildlife populations due to subsistence hunting for food, habitat destruction and the introduction of exotic animals can be reduced. Combined with these, community-based environmental education programs can be a useful tool to augment the effectiveness of conservation initiatives. As large "flagship" species, cracids may be particularly useful in community-based education programs oriented towards the conservation of Neotropical ecosystems.

Taxonomy and Genetics

Taxonomy serves to identify populations of animals on the basis of their similarities and differences. Thus, a correct classification of taxa is an important instrument for conservation. The systematics of the Cracidae deserves further attention, to different extents according to the various taxa.

As described in the draft Cracid Action Plan (Strahl, in prep) and emphasized at this workshop, the genetic relationships between genera, species and subspecies of cracids are in urgent need of clarification. This information is necessary to determine the most suitable long-term management plan for the Family as a whole. Workshop participants were in agreement that although many of these classifications need to be reviewed and supported by genetic analyses, the taxonomic reference list presented here was the most appropriate.

Over the past 25 years there has been considerable debate over the taxonomy of the family Cracidae. The most recent of these, which has not been incorporated into this document, separates the entire family (along with the megapodes) into the separate order Craciformes (Sibley et al., 1988). Meanwhile, the extensive works of Vaurie (e.g., 1968) have been widely revised by a number of authors. The most radical divergences from Vaurie come from Delacour and Amadon (1973), whose classification has remained somewhat controversial.

Little work has been carried out on the taxonomy of this group since the publication of Delacour and Amadon's book, however, and there remains a great deal of variation in the usage of cracid genera, species, and subspecies in the literature. There is a strong need for standardization of the taxonomic classification of the Cracidae, especially in light of their endangered status throughout Latin America.

The classification adopted within this document (as well as within the draft Cracid Action Plan) is a compilation of cracid nomenclature, roughly following Sibley and Monroe (1992), Blake (1977), Vaurie (1968), and to a lesser degree, Delacour and Amadon (1973). This classification is intended to be somewhat conservative to ensure that proper attention is given to unique forms whose status is uncertain. However, with one or two exceptions, we have not diverged greatly from recognized authorities on this subject. Although some authors heavily favor merging species and genera within the family (e.g., Delacour & Amadon, 1973), such taxonomic mergers obscure the biological/genetic diversity of distinctive evolutionary and ecological groups. Furthermore, the 'lumping' of these groups has not been fully accepted by ornithologists.

This classification is presented more fully in the Cracid Action Plan and has been modified through discussions and input from international experts on the Cracidae during and after the Second and Third International Cracid Symposia, and reflects the opinions of the majority of reviewers.

The Cracid CAMP Process

The CAMP process assembles expertise on wild and captive management for the taxonomic group under review in an intensive and interactive workshop format. The purpose of the Cracid Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP) workshop was to assist in the further development of a conservation strategy for Cracids. On 1-3 October 1994, 28 individuals met in Houston, Texas to review, refine, and develop further conservation strategies for Cracidae. This workshop was held in conjunction with the

Third International Cracid Meeting. Participants in the workshop are listed in Appendix I.

Participants worked together to: 1) determine best estimates of the status of all Cracidae; 2) assign each taxon to a draft IUCN Red List category of threat; and 3) identify areas of action and information needed for conservation and management purposes.

Much of this information was presented in the draft BirdLife International/World Pheasant Association/ IUCN/SSC Cracid Action Plan, which was used extensively as a reference during the CAMP process.

Participants in the CAMP divided into regional workshops for Mesoamerica, Northern South America, Southwestern South America and Brazil. These groups met periodically in plenary sessions to compare results and consolidate information. The assessments and recommendations of the working group were circulated to the entire group prior to final consensus, as represented in this document. Summary recommendations concerning research management, field initiatives, assignment of all taxa to threatened status, and captive breeding were supported by the workshop participants.

CAMP Workshop Goals

The goals of the Cracid CAMP workshop were:

1) To review the population status and demographic trends for Cracidae, to test the applicability of the draft IUCN Red List criteria for threat, and to discuss management options for Cracid taxa.

2) To provide recommendations for in situ management, research and information-gathering for all Cracid taxa, including: field investigations; surveys, population monitoring and investigation of limiting factors; taxonomic studies; recommendations for PHVA workshops; more intensive management in the wild; or other specific research.

3) To provide recommendations for ex situ management and research for the Cracidae, including husbandry, maintenance of viable captive populations of the more threatened species (where feasible and desireable) and the development of collaborative captive/field programs.

4) Produce a discussion draft Conservation Assessment and Management Plan for Cracidae, presenting the recommendations from the workshop, for distribution to and review by workshop participants and all parties interested in Cracid conservation.