If monitoring efforts with a species show that it is under continuous decline, it is important to establish causes of the decline through more detailed demographic investigations. This is usually accomplished via quantitative evaluations of both reproduction and mortality. Stresses on species may arise in either sphere, or in both, and if effective conservation is to take place, it is essential that the major factors causing decline are identified so that they can be countered effectively.

Intensive research to determine causes of decline may entail some risks to individuals of the species. But, the risks to populations are the most important concern, and they cannot be reduced reliably without a comprehensive understanding of the causes of decline. It is a fundamental mistake to adopt a policy of always minimising risks to individuals, if in so doing one remains ignorant of the true causes of a species’ decline. As a concrete example of faulty risk analysis, the California condor programme was hobbled for decades by fears that intensive research would be too risky for individuals. Thus radio-telemetry of condors was delayed until the population was almost lost, and yet it was only through radio-telemetry that lead poisoning, the most important cause of decline, was finally identified (see Snyder and Snyder 1989). Up to that point, conservation strategies for the species were aimed in the wrong direction and the species continued to decline rapidly toward extinction.

When dealing with endangered species, every action or lack of action carries risks. It is essential that programmes retain a focus on overall risk reduction for populations, which often entails small, carefully monitored risks for individuals. Often, the worst enemy in conservation programmes can be mistaken assumptions about the causes of decline. As Caughley (1994), and Caughley and Gunn (1996) discuss, failure in conservation management efforts often traces to lack of sufficient information about basic natural history features of the species in question and incorrect identification of main causes of endangerment.

Current debates over conservation of Lear’s macaw (Anodorhynchus leari) provide an instructive example of how concerns for individuals can be in conflict with concerns for populations (see Munn 1995a). Major conservation efforts on behalf of this species have been mobilised on the assumption that inadequate food supplies have been a crucial limiting factor. Yet, it is not certain that food scarcity has been as important as assumed, and Munn has called for intensive research to clarify the situation. However, the detailed studies of nesting birds that appear to be necessary to resolve the issue have been vigorously opposed by parties concerned about possible impacts of intensive research on nesting individuals. More recent information (Reynolds 1997) suggests that at least at present the major limiting factor for Lear’s macaw may be poaching for the bird trade. If so, efforts to increase food supplies at best may fall far short of what it is needed to preserve the species.

Reproduced with permission of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and the World Parrot Trust.