Pheasants: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan ... - IUCN

Vietnamese pheasant is of recent origin and managed
through an international studbook; it stood at 65
individuals in December 1998 (A. Hennache in litt.). The
Edwards’s pheasant population originates from birds
collected in the 1920s (Ciarpaglini and Hennache 1995)
and has been hybridised with Swinhoe’s pheasant
(Delacour 1977, E. Randi in litt.). Its international
studbook population stood at 902 individuals in December
1998, and every effort is now being made to identify and
exclude any further Swinhoe’s pheasant hybrids, as well as
to outbreed from the pure lines (Hennache 1997b, A.
Hennache in litt.).
Both these species are currently the subject of attempts
to safeguard crucial remnant habitat patches in recognised
nature reserves (Le Trong Trai et al. 1999a, Le Trong Trai
et al. 1999b, Nguyen Cu in litt.). Within these areas,
strenuous efforts will need to be made to prevent hunting,
mainly by ensuring that local people do not have to
consume forest wildlife in order to survive. It is important
to stress that if these efforts fail and the wild populations
are hunted out of existence, no attempt should be made to
re-introduce them using birds from the ex situ populations,
at least until such time as the threat of hunting has been
substantially reduced. If all the remaining blocks of habitat
are deforested, re-introductions will again be impractical
until new forests of a similar type are established artificially.
In the immediate future, therefore, all possible efforts
must be made to save the wild populations and their native
habitats, whilst their international studbook populations
are managed through the co-operation of a number of
breeding centres both within and outside Vietnam. Both
strands of this strategy are being pursued energetically
(J.C. Eames pers. comm., A. Hennache pers. comm.),
although no good case can be made for supplementation
or re-introduction projects at present.
The example of these two Vietnamese species and that
of the cheer pheasant re-introduction attempt in Pakistan
indicate how complex the planning and execution of reintroduction
projects will usually be, even when captive
populations are already in existence. Indeed, such projects
have the potential to consume enormous resources whilst
still having a negligible chance of success measured in the
shape of re-established and self-sustaining populations in
the wild. In an effort to reduce the likelihood of poorly
conceived projects being undertaken, a comprehensive set
of guidelines has been produced by the IUCN/SSC Reintroduction
Specialist Group (IUCN 1998, see Appendix
2 for contacts). The Pheasant Specialist Group fully
recognises that these guidelines cannot be used under the
prevailing circumstances in Vietnam to justify
supplementation or re-introduction projects for the
Edwards’s or Vietnamese pheasants. Specifically, the major
threats to their survival in situ have not been reduced
sufficiently for such projects to have any likelihood of
success. The IUCN guidelines should be studied closely
when considering similar projects for any other threatened
pheasant species.
Conducting conservation awareness programmes: because of
the close relationship between humans and many pheasant
species in the wild, there is great potential for conservation
awareness programmes to highlight the plight of individual
species, and raise awareness of general principles of
environmental stewardship and sustainable use. Direct
conservation measures are unlikely to be effective unless
they are accompanied by a vigorous and well-targeted
conservation awareness programme that is designed to win
the co-operation of local communities, especially when
direct human causes, such as over-hunting or forest
degradation, have been implicated in the decline of a species.
Two examples of this dual approach involving a pheasant
species are concerned with the conservation of western
tragopan populations and their temperate forest habitats in
the western Himalayas. The Himalayan Jungle Project in
Pakistan is focused on the Palas Valley, where village-level
consultations form the basis of all initiatives designed to
reduce human impact on surrounding forests (Duke 1993).
The Great Himalayan National Park in India was set up
with similar aspirations (Garson and Gaston 1989) and an
eco-development project focused on the park’s buffer zone
villages has recently been completed (S. Pandey pers. comm.).
A further example of this approach is provided by the
participatory management of Ke Go Nature Reserve, the
only protected area for the Vietnamese pheasant (Vo Quy
1998).
At present, rather few project proposals involving a
significant educational component are received by the
Pheasant Specialist Group. However, it is obvious that as
our knowledge of threatened pheasants’ ecological
requirements increases, the scope for translating this into
specific conservation action is also expanding, making it
ever more important that such projects are developed. In
the hope of stimulating activity in this vital area of
conservation action, a framework for such projects is set
out here (C. Inskipp pers. comm.).
Conservation awareness programmes are most
appropriately targeted at the local community level in
areas where a species of concern occurs. Initiatives may
include workshops involving stakeholders to discuss
problems and possible solutions, and the establishment of
mechanisms for distributing knowledge in communities
through such means as leaflets or posters, an information
centre, a nature trail, nature clubs at local schools with
regular events (e.g., slide/video shows, field trips, talks), or
a field camp for schoolchildren or teachers.
On a larger scale, awareness programmes could involve
funding publications, visual education materials, or
exhibitions (travelling or static), all giving information on
pheasants, the threats to their survival, their habitat
requirements, why their conservation is important, and
13