Ownership of Parrots in Madagascar: Extent and Conservation Implications

Ownership of parrots in Madagascar: extent and conservation implications

K IM E. REUTER,LUCIA R ODRIGUEZ S AHONDRA H ANITRINIAINA and M ELISSA S. SCHAEFER

Abstract The trade of live parrots is a threat to wild popula- they are extracted from source countries for international tions but is understudied. Madagascar is home to three par- pet markets (Poole & Shepherd, ). In Ghana, –% rot species listed on CITES Appendix II: Coracopsis nigra, of grey parrots Psittacus erithacus have been lost since Coracopsis vasa and Agapornis canus. Prior to this study  as a result of the trade in these species and habitat deg- there were no data on the ownership of parrots in radation (Annorbah et al., ). Likewise, in the Madagascar. We therefore aimed to investigate the extent Democratic Republic of Congo the live capture of parrots of the domestic pet trade in this group. Our objectives for the pet trade is a driver of the decline in P. erithacus were to quantify the prevalence, spatial extent, and timing (Hart et al., ). Although numerous studies have exam- of ownership. We collected data in July and August  in ined the keeping of parrots as pets in Latin America, there nine urban towns across Madagascar, using semi-structured have been relatively few studies of this in Africa. household surveys (n = ). We found that the ownership Madagascar is home to three species of parrot: the lesser of pet parrots is widespread in time and space; %(%CI vasa parrot Coracopsis nigra, the greater vasa parrot –%) of interviewees had seen, and %(%CI–%) Coracopsis vasa andthegrey-headedlovebirdAgapornis had owned, a Coracopsis sp. Fewer interviewees (.%ofall canus. There are no published population estimates for the interviewees) had seen A. canus in captivity, and only one in- three species, but all are thought to have at least , mature dividual reported having previously owned an A. canus.We individuals in the wild (BirdLife International, a,b,c). The estimate that , Coracopsis spp. individuals were held in live capture of parrots as pets in Madagascar has received captivity in the towns surveyed, in the . years prior to our scant attention (Martin et al., ), although other species interviews. It is likely that much of this ownership is illegal, are known to be threatened by live capture (Andreone et al., although we did not examine this explicitly. Additional re- ; Schwitzer et al., ;Reuteretal.,). search is needed to determine whether current extraction Most documented captures of live parrots in Madagascar rates are sustainable. This study adds to a growing body of evi- are anecdotal (McBride, ), outdated, or related to the dence that the domestic regulation of the trade of wild species legal export of live birds (UNEP-WCMC, ). In the is not being addressed adequately in Madagascar. past there were reports from north-east Madagascar of wild- caught Coracopsis spp. being held prior to export for the Keywords Africa, Agapornis canus, birds, Coracopsis nigra, international pet trade (McBride, ), as well as in Coracopsis vasa, Madagascar, parrots, trade Antananarivo and around Tôlanaro for the domestic pet trade (C. vasa, Ekstrom, ; Coracopsis spp., Bollen & Donati, ). Evidence suggests that pet parrots within Madagascar are usually taken from the wild (as opposed Introduction to being bred in captivity; K. Reuter et al., unpubl. data;  verexploitation is a threat to biodiversity (Baillie et al., UNEP-WCMC, ). ), with up to  million birds extracted alive Similar to other developing countries (Jepson & Ladle, O  from the wild annually (Karesh et al., ). Parrots ), there is little information regarding the trade and ’ (Psittaciformes) are no exception; the trade in live parrots keeping of parrots as pets within Madagascar s national is a threat to wild populations in many countries where boundaries. There are no data on the frequency of pet parrot they are endemic (Pires, ). Parrot populations across ownership within Madagascar, and estimates of extraction Africa are declining (Martin et al., ); in many cases are typically based on export data in the CITES database (Table ). However, in the absence of significant international export (see Methods), there is a need for estimates of do- KIM E. REUTER (Corresponding author) Conservation International, Africa Field mestic extraction. Understanding the domestic pet trade is Division, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail [email protected] important for conservation programming. We aimed to in- LUCIA RODRIGUEZ and SAHONDRA HANITRINIAINA Pet Lemur Survey Initiative, housed by the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA vestigate the ownership of pet parrots (C. nigra, C. vasa, A. canus) in Madagascar. Our objectives were to quantify MELISSA S. SCHAEFER University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, and Salt Lake City Community College, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA the prevalence, spatial extent and timing of ownership. Received  February . Revision requested  March . Based on identified gaps in the literature, we aimed to quan- Accepted  May . First published online  October . tify () the proportion of households that owned a parrot or

Oryx, 2019, 53(3), 582–588 © 2017 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S003060531700093X Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.40.139, on 02 Oct 2021 at 01:32:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531700093X Ownership of parrots in Madagascar 583

TABLE 1 Number of individuals of Coracopsis nigra, C. vasa and both Madagascar and the Comoros; BirdLife International, Agapornis canus exported from Madagascar since , including c). the number of parrots that were recorded as being wild caught Coracopsis nigra (Least Concern; stable population size;  (UNEP-WCMC, ). BirdLife International, b) is a frugivore/granivore that No. of exported Total no. of feeds in primary and secondary forests on ripe and unripe individuals recorded individuals exported fruit (Bollen & Elsacker, ; Reuter, ). In one study Species as wild caught from Madagascar the species was not found in edge or matrix habitats Coracopsis nigra 2,606 5,875 (Watson et al., ); other reports have found it in agricul- Coracopsis vasa 570 4,242 tural settings, forests, grasslands and savannahs (BirdLife Agapornis canus 54,469 117,549 International, b). The range of C. nigra is recorded as  the entire island of Madagascar (, km ; BirdLife International, b). had knowledge of parrot ownership, and () the occurrence Agapornis canus (Least Concern; stable population size;  of ownership in living memory. We estimated the number BirdLife International, a) is a frugivore/granivore  of Coracopsis spp. individuals extracted for pet ownership (Collar, ) found in coastal regions, with a large range    in urban areas of Madagascar. that includes much of Madagascar ( , km ; BirdLife International, a). In one study the species was not found in edge or matrix habitats (Watson et al., ), al- Study area though other sources indicate it is found in agricultural landscapes, savannahs and shrublands but not typically in The nine towns selected for surveying included five of the forests (BirdLife International, a). seven largest towns in Madagascar and the three in which All three study species are listed in Appendix II of CITES published anecdotes indicated that Coracopsis spp. were (). kept as pets in the past (McBride, ; Ekstrom, ; Bollen & Donati, ). The towns are located in four of the country’s six provinces, and across all towns at least six ethnicities are represented. The combined human popu- Legality of capture, keeping and trade of wild parrots   lation of the nine towns surveyed was c. . million, out of Within Madagascar a  law determined that species ’   Madagascar s total urban population of . million listed in Appendix II of CITES () can be extracted (cap-  ’   (UNDP, ). Madagascar s total population is c. . tured or hunted) legally only with a permit and within na-  million people (World Bank, ). We acknowledge that tional quotas determined by the government (Durbin, the survey effort could have both excluded and over- ). Some have interpreted the law to mean that extrac- represented hotspots for parrot ownership. By selecting tion is further restricted to national hunting seasons areas where parrot ownership had been reported previously (Randrianandrianina et al., ). Similar to bushmeat in the literature, the sample could have been biased towards hunting (Golden et al., ; Reuter, ), it is likely that areas with higher ownership rates. However, there are areas most extraction occurs without permits and is therefore il- now known to the authors (e.g. Antsiranana) where parrots legal. Prior to , C. nigra was listed as a pest species and have been seen as pets but not reported in the literature, and could be hunted legally in the event of human–wildlife con- therefore this study could also have excluded areas where flict (Ekstrom, ). parrot ownership is popular but not previously known. Export of these species from Madagascar is regulated Limited time and resources precluded surveying of more (CITES, ). A moratorium on trade of C. vasa was issued areas. in  (Dowsett, ) after the government was unable to establish export quotas (although the primary threat to the  Methods species appeared to be habitat degradation; CITES, ). It was later recommended that this trade moratorium be lifted, Study species given the low demand for the species from the pet trade (CITES, ). There have been no reported exports of Coracopsis vasa (categorized as Least Concern on the IUCN the species from Madagascar since  (UNEP-WCMC, Red List, but with a decreasing population; BirdLife ). Regarding C. nigra, there have been no exports of International, c) is a frugivore/granivore that feeds in the species since , prior to which wild-caught individuals primary and secondary forests (Bollen & Elsacker, ; were exported for commercial reasons (UNEP-WCMC, ). Reuter, ). The species is edge-sensitive (Watson et al., Agapornis canus captured from the wild continue to be ex- ). It is found in coastal regions, with a large range ported for commercial reasons ( individuals in  and  that includes much of Madagascar (, km across  in ; UNEP-WCMC, ); an annual export quota

of , individuals was established in  (CITES Notification No. ) but was exceeded in the  years that followed (Species Survival Network, ). There is little evidence of substantial illegal export of the three species; a public database on illegal animal seizures did not list Madagascar’s parrot species (Wildlife Trade Tracker, ).

Data collection

We collected data in July and August  in  households in nine towns across central, southern and eastern Madagascar, using semi-structured household surveys (Fig. ; Table ). Towns were selected at regular intervals along a  km highway transect (following Reuter et al., ), beginning in Toamasina (eastern Madagascar) and travelling in a south-central direction via the RN/RN roads down to the town of Fianarantsoa. The town of Tôlanaro was not sampled using our overland transect ap- proach because of safety concerns regarding travel by car. FIG. 1 The provinces of Madagascar and the nine towns where Based on Madagascar’s urban population and mean interviews were conducted to investigate parrot ownership. household size (. people per household; INSTAT & ORC Macro, ), there are c. ,, urban households about whether they had owned a parrot, because of the po- in the country. It was therefore calculated that a minimum tential for increased interviewee discomfort. Some intervie- of  household interviews would yield a nationally repre- wees indicated voluntarily that they were current or former sentative dataset of urban Malagasy households (following owners. Therefore, rates of current and historical parrot Dillman, ; P set to %; margin of error ± % of the es- ownership could be ascertained only from information pro- timate; % confidence level). vided voluntarily by interviewees and should be considered Verbal informed consent was received. Interviews were a conservative estimate. conducted by a two-person team of one international pro- We did not provide interviewees with a definition of a pet ject leader (KER, LR, MSS) and one trained Malagasy trans- parrot, and individuals reported on both caged and uncaged lator (SH, see Acknowledgements). Following Reuter et al. birds. We anticipated a priori, given the physical similarities (), we used random sampling stratified by administra- between the two Coracopsis spp., that it would be difficult tive unit, with – interviews conducted within each of as for urban respondents to differentiate between C. nigra many communes/quarters within each town as time would and C. vasa, especially if they saw the pet parrot only briefly. allow. To ensure independent sampling, only one adult was Therefore, aside from differentiating between Coracopsis ’ interviewed per household. If an eligible individual refused spp. and A. canus (based on the respondent s use of local to participate or if nobody was present, sampling continued or scientific names) no further species identification was at the next household. Interviews were anonymous and no done. We did not provide images of birds to facilitate species identifying information was collected. identification. When an interviewee did not recognize the Interviewees were asked the following questions: ()Have common names used by researchers, we occasionally you ever seen a pet parrot? () If so, where, when and how showed photographs of the three species on mobile phones. many did you see? We used various local words for parrots and lovebirds separately, as grey-headed lovebirds were not Analysis typically considered to be parrots by respondents. Translators were fluent in the local dialect and ensured Following similar studies (Reuter et al., ), and as there that the most appropriate common names were used. We may be greater variation between than within towns, inter- excluded wild parrots or those seen in zoos, as this study viewees were used as subsamples within each town except was focused only on the ownership of parrots as pets. for subsets of the data with low sample size. In other Noting that most pet parrots in Madagascar were probably words, towns were used as replicates in analyses unless extracted illegally (even if people were not aware that it was otherwise noted. Results are presented as mean values illegal; Keane et al., ), and following other survey efforts with % confidence intervals. in Madagascar regarding both legal and illegal behaviour We estimated the total number of Coracopsis spp. held in (e.g. Reuter, ), we did not ask individuals directly urban households during  to mid  by extrapolating

TABLE 2 Towns in Madagascar where interviews were conducted (Fig. ), with population, number of households interviewed, percentage of individuals who knew someone who owned or had previously owned a parrot, and percentage of individuals who themselves owned or had previously owned a parrot. Population estimates for cities were obtained from the Ilo Project ().

No. of households % interviewees who % interviewees who were current Town Population interviewed (%) had seen a pet parrot* or former parrot owners Ambositra 32,818 62 (0.83) 48 21 Andasibe 12,000 53 (1.94) 11 17 Antananarivo 1,054,649 53 (0.02) 23 11 Antsirabe 186,253 25 (0.06) 68 0 Beforona 13,000 55 (1.86) 38 6 Fianarantsoa 126,000 32 (0.11) 25 3 Moramanga 40,050 60 (0.66) 55 7 Toamasina (Tamatave) 201,729 50 (0.11) 36 0 Tôlanaro (Fort Dauphin) 46,298 50 (0.48) 32 6 Total 1,712,797 440 (0.11) 37 (95% CI 26–48) 8 (95% CI 3–15)

*Does not include the respondents who had personally owned a parrot.

the frequency of bird ownership at our urban sites to the , (%CI,–,) Coracopsis spp. individuals towns in which data were collected, and also to all urban being held in captivity across the country in the . years areas in Madagascar. Following Reuter et al. (), we prior to our interview. Fewer interviewees (n = ,or.% assumed conservatively that only one bird was owned per of all interviewees) had seen an A. canus in captivity. Only individual, representing one household. one individual interviewed reported having previously owned an A. canus.

Results Timing of ownership Most people (%of individuals) and most owners (%of owners) could recall the year  Profile of interviewees Most ( %) interviewees were female, in which they saw or owned a pet Coracopsis sp. Most people  % were male, and data were not collected in the remaining (%of individuals) could recall the year in which they   % of interviews (gender recorded in interviews). All saw a pet A. canus, as could the one owner of this species  were adults over the age of . interviewed. Many of these encounters occurred in the pre-   Geographical extent of ownership Pet parrots had been seen vious years (Table ). At least one respondent reported by respondents in all administrative regions where inter- having seen pet Coracopsis spp. in every decade since the   views were conducted. They had also been seen elsewhere s and pet A. canus in every decade since the s. in the country (Fig. ). Respondents reported owning Coracopsis spp. in every decade since the s, and the one owner of A. canus reported Proportion of respondents who had seen or owned parrots owning the pet in . Many interviewees (%(%CI–%); n =  over nine towns) had seen pet Coracopsis spp. (Table ). The proportion of interviewees who had seen a pet Coracopsis sp.   Discussion varied by town (Pearson χ test: χ = .,N=,df=, ,     – P . ). In addition, %( %CI %) of interviewees Extent and patterns of ownership per town (range –%) had personally owned a pet Coracopsis sp. previously. Sample sizes (n =  owners Based on our study and extrapolation to other urban areas of across nine towns) were too small to test whether the pro- Madagascar we estimate that , Coracopsis spp. indivi- portion of interviewees who had owned a pet Coracopsis sp. duals were held in captivity in the towns surveyed, in the varied by town. In the nine towns surveyed, .%(%CI . years prior to our interviews. For context, , .–.%) of individuals interviewed had owned a pet Coracopsis spp. individuals were exported from Coracopsis sp. in the . years prior to the interview (in Madagascar during – (UNEP-WCMC, ). As  and ). An extrapolation suggests that an estimated mentioned in published reports, the domestic pet trade , Coracopsis spp. individuals were held in captivity in could be less of a threat nationally than habitat degradation the towns surveyed, in the . years prior to our interview (CITES, ) and hunting (Dowsett, ; Ekstrom, (using town-specific rates of ownership for extrapolation). ); more research on this topic is required. Ownership Extrapolating the .%(%CI.–.%) estimate to all of A. canus was relatively low; so low that we could not ex- urban households in Madagascar yields an estimate of trapolate to the rest of Madagascar. Overall, the frequency of

FIG. 2 Locations in Madagascar where interviewees reported seeing (a) Coracopsis spp. and (b) Agapornis canus individuals kept as pets.

pet parrot ownership in Madagascar (%(%CI–%) of interviewees in some towns (Table ). In one case, a pet par- households) may be low compared to other countries (% rot was owned collectively by the staff of a police station. of Costa Rican households have kept parrots as pets, Drews, ; .% of Indonesian households surveyed had pet  birds, Jepson & Ladle, ), although it appears to be Conservation implications high in some towns. The ownership of pet parrots appears to be widespread in We cannot ascertain whether the in-country ownership of time and space, but more extensive surveys are required to pet parrots is sustainable, because there is a lack of published investigate the hotspots of ownership. We found evidence of information about these species (e.g. population estimates) in-country ownership of Coracopsis spp. and A. canus going and their ownership as pets (e.g. longevity in captivity, age back several decades. In similar, recent research on the in- of capture). As such, we cannot estimate extraction rates for country ownership of lemurs, respondents could recall see- these species. Information on longevity in captivity and age ing captive lemurs in Madagascar in the s (Reuter et al., of capture would be a useful avenue for future studies. In a ). well-kept captive environment, the maximum lifespan Although not indicated directly by our dataset, our find- in captivity has been reported as ,  and  years for ings indicate that compared to the ownership of pet lemurs, C. nigra, C. vasa and A. canus, respectively (Young et al., the ownership of pet parrots is relatively visible in urban ). Therefore, the parrots could conceivably be moved areas of Madagascar. This is the case even though most of among and between multiple owners over time. However, the observed parrot ownership would probably be consid- in Madagascar, Coracopsis spp. may be kept in captivity ered illegal. Perhaps this reflects a low awareness regarding for much shorter periods of time (K. Reuter et al., unpubl. environmental laws in Madagascar (Keane et al., ), poor data), perhaps because (as we observed anecdotally) pet par- enforcement of laws, and/or that ownership is not asso- rots are kept in environments that do not facilitate adequate ciated with social stigma. Over one-third of respondents re- movement and nutrition. Regarding the age of capture, un- ported having seen a Coracopsis sp. as a pet, and we saw like studies from elsewhere (e.g. Jepson, ), we do not parrots kept in cages on balconies of households that were know whether there is a tendency to catch wild parrots not selected for interviews. Unlike when conducting surveys at certain life stages (e.g. young, crop-raiding birds or breed- related to the illegal ownership of lemurs (Reuter et al., ing adults), although both adults and juveniles of C. vasa ), we did not sense a fear of enforcement or repercus- and A. canus are reportedly captured as pets (BirdLife sions as a consequence of participation in the survey. International, a,b). Should the extraction of parrots Respondents did not hesitate to show researchers their pet for the pet trade be unsustainable, the resulting decrease parrots, and self-reported ownership rates were up to %of in parrot populations could have negative implications for

ecosystem health. In several remnant forests in Madagascar, Author contributions C. vasa and C. nigra are among only a few frugivorous bird species (Bollen & Elsacker, ; Reuter, ). As such, they KER and MSS designed the project, and KER secured funding. are considered to be important seed dispersers (Reuter, All authors collected, analysed and interpreted data, wrote and ). In other areas of the developing world, market-based undertook a critical revision of the article, and approved the solutions (such as commercial breeding of popular bird spe- final article for publication. cies) have been proposed to shift bird-keeping from wild- caught to captive-bred individuals (Jepson & Ladle, ; Jepson et al., ). These market-based and voluntary me- References chanisms are recommended in areas where stricter regula- ANDREONE, F., CADLE, J.E., COX, N., GLAW, F., NUSSBAUM, R.A.,  tions are impractical (Jepson & Ladle, ) and where RAXWORTHY, C.J. et al. () Species review of amphibian trade bans may not be effective (Cooney & Jepson, ), extinction risks in Madagascar: conclusions from the Global such as is the case in Madagascar. Amphibian Assessment. Conservation Biology, , –.  Additional studies on these species are important for ANNORBAH, N.N.D., COLLAR, N.J. & MARSDEN, S.J. ( ) Trade and habitat change virtually eliminate the grey parrot Psittacus erithacus Madagascar to meet the conditions of international agree- from Ghana. Ibis, , –. ments such as those on biodiversity conservation and trade. BAILLIE, J.E.M., HILTON-TAYLOR,C.&STUART, S.N. (eds) () Madagascar is party to CITES () and the Convention IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. A Global Species Assessment. on Biological Diversity (United Nations, ) and has there- IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK.  fore agreed to regulate aspects of wild animal trade using na- BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL ( a) Agapornis canus.InThe IUCN Red List of Threatened Species : e.TA. Http://dx. tionallegislationandgovernance.Inrelationtothe       ‘ doi.org/ . /IUCN.UK. - .RLTS.T A .en Convention on Biological Diversity, the use of components [accessed  January ]. of biological diversity’ is required ‘in a way and at a rate that BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (b) Coracopsis nigra.InThe IUCN Red does not lead to long-term decline of biological diversity’ List of Threatened Species : e.TA. Http://dx. (CBD, ). Regarding CITES, although the listing of parrot doi.org/./IUCN.UK.-.RLTS.TA.en   species on Appendix II (CITES, ) is the motivation for [accessed January ]. BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (c) Coracopsis vasa.InThe IUCN Red international and domestic trade regulations, our findings List of Threatened Species : e.TA. Http://dx. suggest that domestic regulations are not currently effective doi.org/./IUCN.UK.-.RLTS.TA.en in monitoring or enforcing limits on extraction of the species [accessed  January ]. from the wild. Therefore, an analysis of Madagascar’slegalfra- BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (a) Species factsheet: Agapornis canus. Http://www.birdlife.org [accessed  January ]. meworks on trade and tenure of wildlife, enforcement policies  ’ BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL ( b) Species factsheet: Coracopsis vasa. and results, and the country s international commitments, es- Http://www.birdlife.org [accessed  January ]. pecially regarding parrots, is warranted. BOLLEN,A.&DONATI,G.() Conservation status of the littoral forest of south-eastern Madagascar: a review. Oryx, , –. BOLLEN,A.&ELSACKER, L.V. () The feeding ecology of the lesser Acknowledgements vasa parrot, Coracopsis nigra, in south-eastern Madagascar. Ostrich, , –. We thank the reviewers whose feedback substantially im- CBD (CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY)() Text of the proved the quality of the article; Groupe d’étudeetderecher- Convention on Biological Diversity. CBD Secretariat, Montreal, Canada. che sur les primates de Madagascar, Association Mitsinjo, CITES () Convention on International Trade in Endangered Sainte Luce Reserve, and Conservation International for facili- Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Https://cites.org/sites/default/files/ tating research; Tiana Ratolojanahary, Irène Ramanantenasoa, eng/disc/CITES-Convention-EN.pdf [accessed  December ]. Housseini Maihidini, Tokihenintsoa Andrianjohaninarivo CITES () Interpretation and Implementation of the Convention.  and Tolotra Fanambinantsoa for serving as translators; Species Trade and Conservation. Review of Significant Trade. SC   Toby Schaeffer for the development of maps; and host com- Doc . . Fifty-seventh meeting of the Standing Committee, Geneva, Switzerland. munities for their hospitality. This research was funded by a CITES () The CITES Appendices. Http://www.cites.org/eng/app/ National Geographic Conservation Trust grant to KER. index.shtml [accessed  June ]. COLLAR, N.J. () Family Psittacidae (parrots). In Handbook of the Birds of the World. Volume : Sandgrouse to Cuckoos (eds J. del Ethical statement Hoyo, A. Elliott & J. Sargatal), pp. –. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain. Research was approved by the University of Utah COONEY,R.&JEPSON,P.() The international wild bird trade: ’  – Institutional Review Board, followed national and local what s wrong with blanket bans? Oryx, , . DILLMAN, J.D. () Covering the population and selecting who to laws, and was authorized by locally elected officials in survey. In Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The every town and commune where research took place. This Tailored Design Method, th edition (eds D.A. Dillman, J.D. Smyth research did not require government research permits. & L. M. Christian), pp. –. Wiley, Somerset, USA.

DOWSETT, R.J. () Le statut des Perroquets vasa et noir Coracopsis RANDRIANANDRIANINA, F.H., RACEY, P.A. & JENKINS, R.K.B. () vasa et C. nigra et de l’inséparable à tête grise Agapornis canus à Hunting and consumption of mammals and birds by people in Madagascar. IUCN Species Survival Commission, Cambridge, UK. urban areas of western Madagascar. Oryx, , –. DREWS,C.() Wild animals and other pets kept in Costa Rican REUTER, K.E. () Natural resource use in Madagascar. Doctoral households: incidence, species and numbers. Society & Animals, , dissertation. Temple University, Philadelphia, USA. –. REUTER, K.E., GILLES, H., WILLS, A.R. & SEWALL, B.J. () Live DURBIN,J.() New legislation for the protection of Malagasy capture and ownership of lemurs in Madagascar: extent and species. Lemur News, , –. conservation implications. Oryx, , –. EKSTROM, J.M.M. () Psittaciformes: Coracopsis spp., parrots. In SCHWITZER, C., KING, T., ROBSOMANITRANDRASANA, E., The Natural History of Madagascar (eds S.M. Goodman & J.P. CHAMBERLAN,C.&RASOLOFOHARIVELO,T.() Integrating Benstead), pp. –. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ex situ and in situ conservation of lemurs. In Lemurs of Madagascar: USA. A Strategy for their Conservation – (eds C. Schwitzer, R. GOLDEN, C.D., BONDS, M.H., BRASHARES, J.S., RASOLOFONIAINA, B.J. A. Mittermeier, N. Davies, S. Johnson, J. Ratsimbazafy, R. & KREMEN,C.() Economic valuation of subsistence harvest J. Razafindramanana et al.), pp. –. IUCN SSC Primate of wildlife in Madagascar. Conservation Biology, , –. Specialist Group, Bristol Conservation and Science Foundation, and HART,J.,HART,T.,SALUMU,L.,BERNARD, A., ABANI,R.&MARTIN,R. Conservation International, Bristol, UK. () Increasing exploitation of grey parrots in eastern DRC drives SPECIES SURVIVAL NETWORK () History of Species Reviewed population declines. Oryx, , . under Resolution Conf.  (Rev.). Species Survival Network, ILO PROJECT () Recensement des Communes . Http://www. Washington, DC, USA. ilo.cornell.edu/ilo/data.html [accessed  July ]. UNDP () Human Development Report : The Rise of the South: INSTAT (INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA STATISTIQUE)&ORC Human Progress in a Diverse World. United Nations Development MACRO () Enquête Démographique et de Santé, Madagascar Programme, New York, USA. –: Rapport de synthèse. INSTAT and ORC Macro, UNEP-WCMC () CITES Trade Statistics Derived from the Calverton, USA. CITES Trade Database. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring JEPSON,P.() The need for a better understanding of context Centre, Cambridge, UK. Http://trade.cites.org/ [accessed  when applying CITES regulations: the case of an Indonesian December ]. parrot—Tanimbar corella.InThe Trade in Wildlife: Regulation for UNITED NATIONS () Convention on Biological Diversity. Paper Conservation (ed. S. Oldfield), pp. –. Earthscan, London, UK. presented at Rio Earth Summit. Rio de Janeiro. Https://www.cbd. JEPSON,P.&LADLE, R.J. () Governing bird-keeping in Java and int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf [accessed  December ]. Bali: evidence from a household survey. Oryx, , –. WATSON, J.E.M., WHITTAKER, R.J. & DAWSON,T.P.() Habitat JEPSON, P., LADLE, R.J. & SUJATNIKA() Assessing market-based structure and proximity to forest edge affect the abundance and conservation governance approaches: a socio-economic profile of distribution of forest-dependent birds in tropical coastal forests of Indonesian markets for wild birds. Oryx, , –. southeastern Madagascar. Biological Conservation, , –. KARESH, W.B., COOK, R.A., BENNETT, E.L. & NEWCOMB,J.() WILDLIFE TRADE TRACKER () Http://wildlifetradetracker.org/ Wildlife trade and global disease emergence. Emerging Infectious [accessed  July ]. Diseases, , –. WORLD BANK () Http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP. KEANE, A., RAMAROLAHY, A.A., JONES, J.P.G. & MILNER-GULLAND, TOTL?locations=MG [accessed  July ]. E.J. () Evidence for the effects of environmental engagement and YOUNG, A.M., HOBSON, E.A., LACKEY, L.B. & WRIGHT,T.F.() education on knowledge of wildlife laws in Madagascar. Survival on the ark: life-history trends in captive parrots. Animal Conservation Letters, , –. Conservation, , –. MARTIN, R.O., PERRIN, M.R., BOYES, R.S., ABEBE, Y.D., ANNORBAH, N.D., ASAMOAH, A. et al. () Research and conservation of the larger parrots of Africa and Madagascar: a review of knowledge gaps Biographical sketches and opportunities. Ostrich, , –. MCBRIDE,P.() Concern for the greater vasa parrot. Psitta-Scene, KIM REUTER’s interests include the wildlife trade, natural resource use, , . and conservation in sub-Saharan Africa. LUCIA RODRIGUEZ is PIRES, S.F. () The illegal parrot trade: a literature review. Global interested in the psychology of environmental conservation and Crime, , –. community-level outreach. SAHONDRA HANITRINIAINA has done re- POOLE, C.M. & SHEPHERD, C.R. () Shades of grey: the legal trade search on Madagascar’s insect communities and on the bushmeat in CITES-listed birds in Singapore, notably the globally threatened trade. MELISSA SCHAEFER’s research focuses on both captive and African grey parrot Psittacus erithacus. Oryx, , –. wild primates as well as subfossil primates.