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

Foreword
It has proved worthwhile to produce this second edition of
the Action Plan for pheasants for three main reasons. The
first edition set out action to be taken during 1995–99,
much of which has been initiated on schedule, so there was
a need for a new set of targets for the next five-year period.
We also take the opportunity to assess the role of the first
edition as a catalyst for this action. Secondly, the IUCN
Red List Criteria came into wide use just after preparation
of the first edition and the Specialist Group is, therefore,
mandated to re-assess the threat category of all pheasant
species using this internationally accepted system. We
have done this exercise in collaboration with BirdLife
International, and adopt their transparent policy of
detailing the reasons for applying certain identified criteria
in reaching the decision to classify any particular species
as we do. This has put up specific markers for amendment
in view of new findings in the future: the criteria and
category allocations are essentially hypotheses to be
falsified by good scientific argument. Thirdly, the enormous
volume of new work done since 1995 required us to
produce a revised overview of the status of pheasants as a
group of species, as well as to re-appraise the threats they
face and the success of our collective attempts to improve
their situation through research and conservation action.
The careful reader of both editions will realise that
fewer pheasant species are now classified as threatened (24)
than was the case in 1995 (33), but we would not be justified
in claiming that there is a strong link between this fact and
the work done in the intervening time. With species as
poorly known and long-lived as the pheasants, conservation
action takes time to produce positive effects even if it is well
conceived and targeted. Surveys and research must be done
to provide the scientific basis on which to propose action,
which then needs to be advocated effectively before being
put to the test through monitoring its usefulness. Progress
has been made in all these areas on different pheasant
species, but those that can now be subjected to experimental
management regimes designed to mitigate threats remain
in a small minority. For the majority of species, there are
still uncertain gaps in geographical distribution and a lack
of precise knowledge of ecological requirements. Very little
is known about their breeding biology and dispersal
behaviour, two key areas of knowledge if Population
Viability Analysis is to realise its potential as a strategic
conservation tool for these species.
Nevertheless, the flavour of the work programme we
outline for the next five years is much more strategic and
action orientated than that proposed in the 1995 edition,
so we are surely making some real progress towards
preventing any more of these spectacular and useful bird
species from reaching the brink of extinction. As things
stand, of the three most threatened species, the Edwards’s
and Vietnamese pheasants are the subject of enormous
research and conservation efforts by the BirdLife
International Vietnam Programme and the World Pheasant
Association, whilst the Bornean peacock-pheasant is a
target for action by the Indonesia Programmes of both
BirdLife International and the Wildlife Conservation
Society. These cases exemplify conservation as a cooperative
effort involving local people, decision-makers,
special interest groups, and international agencies.
There still is much to be done, so let us keep up the
momentum in proposing projects, raising funds, doing the
work, and applying our findings to the key problems
confronting pheasant species and their forested habitats
everywhere. Then, in five years’ time, we will have to carry
out another review like this one.
Peter J. Garson
Chairman, SSC/BirdLife/WPA Pheasant Specialist Group
v