I n / Zoo Yh (1994)33 114-118 0 The Zoological Society of London

Wi Idfowl conservation: implications of the Anseriform Conservation Assessment and Management Plan ANDREW J. GREEN’ & SUSIE ELLIS’ I The Wildfowl & Wetlunds Trust, Slimbridge, Gloucester GL2 7B7: Great Brituin und ?IUCNISSC Conservution Breeding Specialist Group, 12101 Johnny Cuke Ridge Rocid, Apple Vulley, Minnesota 55124, USA

Given the rate of destruction of wetlands habitat, an increasing number of wildfowl taxa are under threat. Collaboration between CBSG, the IWRB Threatened Waterfowl Research Group and The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust has produced a first draft of a Conservation Assessment and Management Plan for Anseriformes which has resulted in the most objec- tive list of threatened species to date. Although much attention has been focused on problems of migratory waterfowl it appears that comparatively few migrants are seriously threatened. In addition to developing flyways for migrants, the development of plans for non-migratory species is urgent. A revised draft of the Plan is scheduled for late 1994.

Reduction and fragmentation of wildfowl populations and wetland habitats are occurring at a rapid and accelerating rate. For an increasing number of taxa, this has led to small and isolated populations that are at risk of extinction. As wildfowl populations diminish in their natural hab- itat, conservationists realize that manage- ment strategies to reduce the risk of species’ extinction must be adopted. The Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, International Waterfowl and Wetland Research Bureau (IWRB) Threatened Waterfowl Research Group and Conservation Breeding Spe- cialist Group of the IUCN Species Sur- vival Commission are co-operating in the identification, monitoring and conserva- tion of the world’s threatened wildfowl.

The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust has had a long-standing interest in the con- servation of Anseriformes (Anatidae and Anhimidae) threatened with global extinc- tion. In the 1930s the Trust’s founder, the late Sir Peter Scott, identified the Hawai- ian goose Bruntu sundvicensis as a species in need of urgent action and went on to

establish a captive-breeding programme at Slimbridge (Scott. 1938, 1981).

In the 1970s the Trust began to identify and monitor the world’s threatened wild- fowl (Kear & Williams, 1978; Kear, 1979). Since 1989 The Trust has intensified mon- itoring of threatened Anseriformes (Green, 1992a; Callaghan & Green, 1993) and has developed recovery plans and conservation programmes for selected spe- cies (Anstey, 1989; Green, 1992b, 1993). This work has been aided by the develop- ment in 1990 of the Threatened Waterfowl Research Group which is currently co- ordinated from The Wildfowl and Wet- lands Trust.

ANSERIFORM CAMP The Conservation Breeding Specialist Group is pioneering the use of scientifi- ically based management tools that aid informed and efficient decision-making regarding allocation of limited conserva- tion resources for species’ management and survival. One such tool is the Con- servation Assessment and Management Plan (Foose & Seal, 1991: Foose rt ul., 1992, Seal et ul., 1994; see also Ellis, this volume). The first CAMP prepared for a bird group was for the Anseriformes and was developed in a workshop of experts from CBSG, the IWRB Threatened Water- fowl Research Group and The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust at Slimbridge in August 199 1.

A key activity is the assignment of categories of threat to each taxon, includ- ing subspecies. It has long been recognized

AQUATIC BIRDS 115

that the original IUCN categories for ‘threatened’ status are based on highly subjective criteria and are inadequate. The Mace-Lande proposals for revised and more objective criteria which could be applied across taxonomic lines (Mace & Lande, 1991) are currently undergoing further revision (Mace et ul., 1992). The original Mace-Lande criteria defining ‘Critical’, ‘Endangered’ and ‘Vulnerable’ (see Ellis, this volume) were systematically applied in the Anseriform CAMP.

When other factors, such as information about population fragmentation, demo- graphic trends, range, environmental sto- chasticity and commercial exploitation or interaction with introduced taxa, are taken into account taxa with populations of more than 10 000, although normally con- sidered as above the safety level, would possibly qualify for threatened status. The Baikal teal Anus formosu, for example, with a global population estimated at 40 000, is classified as Vulnerable because of its rapid and continuing rate of decline.

The Anseriform CAMP has produced the most objective list of threatened Anseriform taxa to date. The process of assigning Mace-Lande categories to Anseriformes initially identified 77 threat- ened taxa, including 59 not included in previous IUCN threatened lists, partly because subspecies have not been included in recent lists. While ‘Endangered’ and ‘Vulnerable’ were also used as labels in the IUCN categories ‘Critical’ was a new label imparting a strong sense of urgency, with a

message that any taxa assessed as such is under immediate threat of extinction. Crit- ical Anseriform taxa include the Brazilian merganser Mergus octosetuceus (with a known population of around 20), Mada- gascar pochard Aythyu innotutu (only one individual seen in the last 20 years), Madagascar teal Anus bernieri (known population of fewer than 100 individuals), Campbell Island flightless teal Anus uuck- lundicu nesiotis (population of 3e100) and Crested shelduck Tudornu cristutu (last recorded in 1971).

Considerable attention has been focused on the problems of conserving migratory waterfowl. However, using the Bonn Con- vention definition of a migratory species as one for which ‘a significant proportion of whose members cyclically and predictably cross one or more national jurisdictional boundaries’, only 23% of threatened Anseriformes are migratory (Table 1). Furthermore. of the 29 taxa defined as Critical or Endangered only 7% are migra- tory and the only Critical taxon is the Crested shelduck. Migration is a general feature among wildfowl breeding in the large land masses at northern latitudes but the majority of threatened forms are resi- dent at tropical or sub1 ropical latitudes or on islands. There are currently no specific conservation plans for most of these non- migratory taxa. Hence, while there is a need to develop flyway plans for migratory species, there is also an urgent need to develop plans for resident species.

Species preservation calls for manage- ment strategieshecommendations which

CATEGORY MIGRATORY TAXA NON-MIGRATORY TOTAL TAXA

Critical 1 9 10 Endangered 1 18 19 Vulnerable 13 24 31

TOTAL 15 51 66

Table 1. Migratory and nonmigratory Anseriform taxa threatened with global extinction Listed by Mace-Lande categories (for details of categories see Ellis, this volume).

116

can minimize the risk of extinction. Once taxa were assigned categories of threat in the CAMP workshop, participants made recommendations for each taxon on the kinds of management action required for both wild and captive populations. For the Anseriformes, 173 of the 234 taxa (74%) were recommended for improved manage- ment programmes in the wild, such as better habitat protection. Recommenda- tions for taxonomic research were made for 94 taxa (40%), particularly to address the validity of questionable subspecies (such as the Tropical cinnamon teal Anus cyunopteru tropicu and Borrero’s cinna- mon teal A. cyunoptera borreroi, both clas- sified as Critical). Field surveys to clarify status and population size were recom- mended for 150 (64Y0) of Anseriform taxa and 92 taxa (39%) were recommended for Population and Habitat Viability Assess- ment workshops. The PHVAs, which com- bine computer simulation and analytical techniques to identify optimal manage- ment strategies for conserving animal pop- ulations, are always conducted in the range of the species, at the invitation of and in collaboration with responsible wildlife agencies. Among the avian species recently covered by PHVAs are the Whooping crane Grus americana, Hawaiian crow C o r t u ~ hmuiiensis, At twater’s prairie chicken Tvmpunuchus cupid0 utticnteri, Waldrapp ibis Geronticus eremitu and the White-winged wood duck Cairinu scutulrtrl.

CAMPs also make recommendations regarding the need for husbandry research and the level of captive-breeding pro- gramme which is appropriate for each taxon.

The Global Captive Action Recom- mendation (see Ellis, this volume), which summarizes the captive status and man- agement priorities for taxa recommended by CAMPs on the world-wide basis, pro- poses that captive populations should be treated as an integral part of metapopula- tions being managed by conservation strategies and action plans.

The purpose of the GCAR is to provide strategic guidance for programmes at the global and regional level. In essence, this is a process that will help to ensure that efforts are not duplicated between regions and that the best collaborative use of captive space is facilitated. An important aspect of GCARs is the development of recommendations for target population sizes both on a global and a regional basis. Regional Taxon Advisory Groups and managers of Species Survival Plan-type programmes can then make decisions and take action concerning these collabor- atively developed recommendations.

There will be multiple genetic and demographic objectives depending on the status and outlook for a particular species in the wild. Some taxa will need large populations for a long time; others will need small populations which can be expanded later if needed.

Frequently the species most abundant in collections are those at least risk in the wild. The Anseriform CAMP recommen- ded managing 78 Secure taxa to ‘extinc- tion’ in captivity to release the spaces they occupy for the management of threatened species. Both zoos and private individuals may be alarmed by these recommenda- tions but they were based on conservation criteria alone; it is recognized that there are other factors which will continue to determine the list of taxa in captivity, in particular educational needs in zoos and many individually determined criteria of private individuals.

For threatened species not already in captivity, captive-breeding programmes should be established only following a PHVA workshop in which the needs of such a programme are considered by all interested parties and experts. The estab- lishment of captive populations of threat- ened species is considered for the sole purpose of supporting the long-term con- servation of species. Captive propagation should be viewed as a support, not a substitute for wild populations. In some cases, application of ‘captive technology’

AQUATIC BIRDS I17

may allow for the recovery of a species (see Ellis, this volume).

Of the 234 Anseriform taxa, 30 (13%), which are currently considered difficult to breed in captivity, were recommended for husbandry research. For 39 taxa it was recommended that intensively managed captive programmes be stepped up or initiated within the next five years (Table 2).

A critical factor that has to be deter- mined is the quality and quantity of the available captive habitat. Many facilities manage waterfowl in multi-species groups

Chauna chavaria Anser cygnoides Anser fabalis serrirostris Anser fabalis middendorji Cereopsis novaehollandiae grisea Branta sandvicensis Dendrocygna arborea Anas acuta drygalskii Anas aucklandica aucklandica Anus aucklandica nesiotis Anas bernieri Anas cyanoptera borreroi Anas cyanoptera tropica Anas georgica niceforoi Anas gibberifrons albogularis Anus laysanensis Anas luronica Anas melleri Anas platyrhynchos oustaleti Anus superciliosa pelewensis Anas superciliosa rogersi Anus superciliosa superciliosa Anas tvyvillina Ayth-va australis extima Aythva baeri Aythva innotata Cairina scut da ta Merganetta annata armata Merganetta armata leucogenis Mergus merganser coinatus Mergus octosetaceus Mergus squarnatus Nettapus coromandelianus albipennis Hymenolaitnus malacorh.vnchus Stictonetta naevosa Tachveres leucocephalus Tadorna cristata Thalassornis leuconotus insularis

~

Table 2. List of taxa proposed for intensively managed captive programmes within ten years

and/or large single-species groups which may not be appropriate for some recom- mended levels of captive programmes. In this varied avian group, spaces are not necessarily interchangeable between taxa. Detailed surveys as to quality and quan- tity of available space will be needed to provide additional information for further development of management plans both at the global and regional level.

The first draft of the Anseriform CAMP has been reviewed by over 150 waterfowl experts and in the light of additional data supplied on the status of taxa, the cate- gories and recommertdations applied to them are being modified in an ongoing review process. Eleven of the original 77 taxa assessed as threatened are now known to be Secure. leaving 66 (28%) currently considered as threatened. A CAMP is a ‘living’ document that will be continually assessed and revised, based on new information and shifting priorities. A revised draft of the ,4nseriform CAMP, incorporating reviewers’ comments, is being prepared in 1994.

The recommendations within CAMPs are broad and do not go into details such as where, by whom and how a survey or habitat management should be conducted. Hence CAMPs are a starting point, a broad definition of the scope of the problems facing a ta.xonomic group or region. CAMPs do inot replace Action Plans developed by various SSC and Birdland International Specialist Groups or those developed for single species such as the White-headed duck Oxyura Ieuco- cephah and the White-winged wood duck by IWRB and its partners. They are, however, an invaluable resource for the development of group Action Plans as they clearly identify which taxa are prior- ities for action. Wildlife agencies, Special- ist Groups and regional captive breeding programmes can use the CAMPs as guides as they develop their own Action Plans. The IWRB Threatened Waterfowl Research Group hopes in the future to develop such an Action Plan for the

i i8

Anseriformes in co-operation with other IWRB research groups.

The CAMP and GCAR processes have the potential for a great impact on priority setting for global biodiversity conserva- tion. Wildlife and zoo animal managers world-wide will soon have a set of compre- hensive documents at their disposal. col- laboratively and scientifically developed. which establish preliminary priorities for global wild and captive species' manage- ment and conservation. Ultimately, the CAMP process will facilitate the world- wide use of limited resources for conservation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to express our thanks to all those who have contributed to the preparation and review of the Anseriform CAMP. Special thanks to Nigel Hewston, Ulysses Seal, Jeff Black. Ann Marshall. Myrfyn Owen and Fern Duval.

REFERENCES ANSTEY, S. (1989): The siaius and conservaiion of the white-lieaded duck Oxyuva leucocephala. Special Publication No. 10. Slimbridge: International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau. CAI LAGIIAN. D. A. g: GREEN. A. J. (1993): Wildfowl at risk. Wildfowl 44: 149-169. Foost. T. J. & SEAL, U. S. (1991): Report of the Captive Breeding Specialist Group. Specie.( 17: 77 79.

FOOSE. T. J.. ELLIS-JOSEPH. S 6 SLU. 0, 5. (i992; Conservation assessment and management plallc (CAMPs) progress report. Species 18: 73- 7 5 . GREEN, A. J. (1992a): Wildfoivl at risk. 1992 Hib/fo~; . / 43: 160-184. GREEN, A. J. ( 1992b): T/IL> .s/ii/ils tiiirl t'onserrtifioti i j /

ilw n~hitr-ii.iiiged iroorl t lwk Cairina scutulata. Special Publication No. 17. Slimbridge: Internatlonal Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau. GREEN, A. J. ( 1993): T/ir stntii.s rind ~~oi~sersnrroti q ' t k rticzrhled t d Marmavonetta angustirostris. Special Publication No. 23. Slimbridge: International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau. GAR J. (1979): Wildfowl at risk, 1979. Wiitf~bn-l 29: 159-161. KEAR J. iu W11.r IAMS. G. ( 1978): Watet.fov,l '11 risk Wiidfud 29: 5 21 MACE. G. hl. A L,\h'l)t.. R ! is91 I . ?.<sssiiig extinction threats: twvards ii rceviiluiition 01' IUCN threatened species categories C'miww Riiil 5: 148-157 M A C t . G.. Cor I .\R h I Cilohk. j., < j A S i O ' \ , K , GINSBERG. J.. LEADFK Wr I i A m , N.. MAUNDER M. (i Mu KER-GVLLAKD. E. J. (1992): The development of new criteria for listing species on the IUCN Red List. Sprciey 1 9 16- 17. Scoir. P. (193X): LIilii c h i i i ~ ~ I . ~ i n d o i i - Counti-) L:tb Ltd. SCOrT. 1'. (1981): Oh\iwir:ioi:\ 1 1 f l!'i/t/lif(, i L m t l o ~ ~ Phaidon Presq. S ~ A L . U. S.. FOOS~. 1- _I :. I . L L i b , S. (19941 Conservation Assessment and Management Plans (CAMPs) and Global Captive Action Plans (GC.4Ps). In Criw/iw r o t iwrwifut i . ii7ii,rucifi,t, imiiageinrnr of' i d d (ind ( ~ ~ i p t i w i z i i i i n ( i l . ~ : .? 12- 325 Olney, P. J. S.. Mace. G. M. & Fristner. A. T. C (Eds! London: Chapman & Hall

Manuscript submitted 2 February I994