Evolution of a community-based, Scarlet Macaw conservation organization

This paper analyzed the evolution of a community-based effort to conserve the Central Pacific Scarlet Macaw (Ara macao) population in Costa Rica. Between 1990-1994, research demonstrated that the macaw population was declining, primarily due to chick poaching. Club Punta Leona, the town of Quebrada Ganado and the Universidad Nacional initiated the conservation efforts. Two regional workshops (1994, 1999) outlined and evaluated a protection strategy. Both workshops recommended: (a) carrying out strong environmental education programs, (b) protecting chicks in nests, (c) increasing macaw food and nesting sources, (d) research and monitoring of the macaw population, and (e) promoting the project and providing economic returns for local inhabitants. A local conservation organization, LAPPA, was created and attempted to carry out the strategy. Reviewing their successes, LAPPA’s board of directors considered they had been effective with respect to items a, b and d. Strategic planning conducted at the workshops was essential for the conservation work. The methodology utilized in the second workshop helped outline the Scarlet Macaw workplan more clearly then the first. Finally, funds channelled through LAPPA for macaw conservation work have been utilized effectively. To ensure future success, board members believe that this program requires: (a) additional community leaders in more communities, (b) yearly strategic planning, (c) funding to hire a full-time staff member, (d) continued environmental education for children, (e) a transparent accounting system, and (f ) continued research and monitoring.


Wildlands and wildlife conservation in the crucible
Beginning in the 1970's, many developing countries followed the U.S. model of creating wildlands (national parks and equivalent reserves) by setting aside undisturbed habitats for the "enjoyment of current and future generations" (Ghai 1994).However, local politicians and residents increasingly questioned exclusion of locals from areas they had utilized for generations.Over 75% of wildlands in Latin America had ineffective protection, long-term management plans nor economic resources (World Conservation Monitoring Center 1992).Resentment, mistrust and conflicts often ensued between local communities and park officials (Boo 1990).Many leaders in developing countries labeled reserve creation a second wave of colonialism, and political pressure increased for radical changes in wildlands management (Kramer & VanSchaik 1997).
Discussions at the international level focused on understanding the complex links between development, poverty and the environment resulting in the "sustainable development" concept.Following the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), a consensus emerged that rural "sustainable development" should be grounded in local-level solutions emanating from community initiatives (Ghai & Vivian 1992, Ghai 1994)."Community-based conservation" promoted top-down, center-driven efforts to favor "natural resources or biodiversity protection by, for, and with the local community" (Western & Wright 1994).Conservationists recognized long-term success depended on fostering cooperation and support of local communities (Western & Wright 1994, Brandon et al. 1998, Agrawal & Gibson 1999).However, most community-based conservation efforts fell short of expectations (Wells & Brandon 1992, Wells 1994, Leach et al. 1999, Hulme & Murphree 2001b).

Community-based wildlife projects
Excellent reviews of African, community-based wildlife conservation projects exist (Western & Wright 1994, Hulme & Murphree 2001a).These projects are naturally complex because they take into account multiple interests, actors and institutions that interact and influence decision-making (Agrawal & Gibson 1999).Most conservation scientists have focused their efforts on the "high, hard ground" of species and ecosystem conservation (location, status, why important) (Salafsky et al. 2002).However, scientists have ignored the larger and more difficult "human" issues of conservation that reside in the "swampy lowlands".For instance, do local communities benefit from ecotourism in national parks (Vaughan 1999).According to Salafsky et al. (2002) several crucial questions remained: (a) what should conservation goals be, (b) how can we take action to achieve conservation, and (c) who are the people and groups that make conservation happen?I had the opportunity to address the above questions while working with an endangered species in Costa Rica since the 1990's.This paper considered how strategic planning resulted in a Scarlet Macaw (Ara macao) conservation plan which was carried out by a conservation organization specifically set up for this purpose.I examined the what, how and who in tracing the evolution of Scarlet Macaw conservation project.

Costa Rica, National Parks and social issues
During the 1970's and 80's, Costa Rica created a worldclass wildlands system, consisting of 29% of the national territory (14 500 km 2 ) in 78 protected and private areas (Umaña & Brandon 1992).However, by the early 1990s, the wildlands system and its biological riches were increasingly threatened by adjacent human communities.Facing similar wildland problems as those outlined above, Costa Rica also adopted a "sustainable development" approach and created the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) to manage its 78 wildlands and surrounding zones, as nine regional areas.This system promoted participation by all groups sharing the common objective of preservation, restoration, and protection of ecological equilibrium and biodiversity.
Eventually, SINAC wanted civil society and local communities to become responsible for management, concessions and research of wildlands while the state would be responsible only for facilitation and financing (Garcia 1993, Vaughan & Rodriguez 1997).Although communitybased projects were promoted, usually with international funding, results to date have been mixed.These conservation projects are rare in Costa Rica, especially with wildlife species.A white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) reintroduction project at Cobano, Nicoyan Peninsula involving the local community functioned for 5 yrs in the late 1980's (Hernandez 1993).The community of Ostional has been working for over a decade to manage the oliveridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) with mixed results (Alvarado & Ballestero 1995).
In 1990, my assistants and I began ecological research on the CP Scarlet Macaw population.After several years, we determined that the population consisted of about 330 individuals living in a 560km 2 range of human-dominated landscape of cattle ranches, secondary forest, towns, primary forest and mangrove swamps (Marineros & Vaughan 1995).About 10 000 people inhabit the region, mostly in the towns of Tarcoles, Quebrada Ganado (QG), Herradura, Jaco, and Bijagual (Direccion General de Estadisticas y Censos 1987).
The principal economic activities of the region are ranching, tourism and fishing.Tourism employs up to 80% of the working class in some towns, such as Quebrada Ganado.The nearby resort of CPL is the major employer in the region, with 300 workers, mostly from Quebrada Ganado.Employment in tourism and small-scale fishing are major job sources in Tarcoles and Playa Azul, the poorest towns in the area.Agriculture occupies the working class in Bijagual.Tourists regularly visit beaches at Playas Blanca, Herradura, Jaco, Hermosa, Esterillos and Quepos (Vargas 1992).

Macaw population decline, poaching, communites and Punta Leona
After years of population monitoring, the Scarlet Macaw showed a six percent annual population decrease (Vaughan et al. 2005).Habitat loss was not a major factor, as secondary forests and exotic plantations of teak (Tectona grandis) and Gmelina arborea were increasing, replacing cattle ranches, and providing additional macaw food sources.Park guards and local residents suspected that chick poaching was causing population decline (Vaughan et al. 2005).For the estimated 10 poachers who lived in Tarcoles and Playa Azul, a macaw chick was worth between US$300-400, equivalent to 2 months salary.Wildlife and park officials could not stop this illegal trade because of the difficulty of patrolling macaw nests randomly throughout their 560km 2 home range (Vaughan & Liske 1991, Marineros & Vaughan 1995).Local community and institutional support were needed to attack the poaching problem.
Interest in Scarlet Macaw conservation varied between and within communities in the region.Poachers from Tarcoles and Playa Azul, sold about 18 chicks yearly (Marineros & Vaughan 1995).Both towns were within a kilometer of Carara National Park and Guacilillo Mangrove Reserve, where many macaws nested, fed and roosted.In Bijagual and Quebrada Ganado, the other sizable towns, employment was greater and teachers and community leaders favored Scarlet Macaw conservation, relating it to tourism.This information was transmitted to children and townspeople.However, fewer macaws nested in these areas and only four known poachers lived in these two towns.In 1994, the declining macaw population interested and worried the two owners of CPL, who wanted to increase the number of Scarlet Macaws in their resort.In mid-1994, CPL and the Universidad Nacional signed an agreement to collaborate on Scarlet Macaw conservation.The Universidad Nacional agreed to organize regional meetings to develop a strategy to conserve the Scarlet Macaw population.The rest of this paper explains the first two regional meetings carried out and the preliminar results, finalizing with lessons learned which can be applied to other conservation efforts involving endangered species and local human communities.

Organization
We used the participative diagnostic planning process (see Nichter 1984 for examples) to devise a conservation strategy.Emilio Vargas, a rural sociologist from the Universidad Nacional, Heredia familiar with this methodology, was the facilitator.It consisted of four themes developed in sequential fashion: (a) discussing disorganized ideas about Scarlet Macaw conservation problems, (b) structuring ideas around the Scarlet Macaw problem, (c) analyzing causes and consequences of principal problems to conserve the species, and (d) formulating ideas to resolve principal problems.Two teams were formed to ensure active participation from all stakeholder groups.Priorities and expected results were set for specific objectives on the last afternoon.
Guillermo Hernández who represented the Quebrada Ganado community and the CPL and I organized the first workshop, carried out in the CPL in October 1994.The CPL provided an excellent work environment for the workshop (conference room, materials for writing on, lodging for university staff, and meals).During 2 days, 15 local stakeholders, including local community leaders from Quebrada Ganado and Tarcoles (5), national park staff (1), tourist resort managers, owners and employees (3), university professors (5), schoolteachers (1), macaw poachers (2) and businessmen (2) worked to design Scarlet Macaw conservation strategies.Marlene Leon was the only local woman present.Table 1 includes major stakeholders from the workshop and other macaw conservation activities.

Organization
A methodology to design, manage and monitor conservation projects was used (Margoluis & Salafsky 1998) as a basis for the workshop.The six-step process included: (a) clarify mission, (b) design conceptual model, (c) develop management plans, goals and objectives, (d) develop monitoring plan, (e) implementing management/monitoring plans and (f ) analyzing data and communicating results to interested parties.The last two steps required project implementation, so were not included.I was the facilitator and my interventions were presenting a scientific overview of the project, assuring the methodology was followed and answering technical questions.This workshop was held November 3-4, 1999 and co-financed by CPL and the Wildlife Trust.
Only 12 of 40 invited participants from four communities attended due to a hurricane two days earlier.Seven of the 12 participants had attended the first workshop held five years earlier (Table 1).Among the new participants was Lisbeth Mora, director of the QG school and Roy Arroyo, naturalist for CPL who had recently moved to the region.

Strategy agreed upon in first workshop
Scarlet Macaw conservation was the general objective.Stopping poaching was the highest ranked (of five) specific objectives centered on general objectives, causes, activities, priorities, and expected results (Table 2).Several of the same priorities were mentioned for different specific objectives such as constructing and mounting artificial nest boxes, conducting environmental education courses at local schools, protecting Scarlet Macaw nests during the nesting season, promoting economic incentives, including training tour guides, making arts and crafts, and having a national Scarlet Macaw fair (Marineros & Vaughan 1995).I was surprised the group did not rank receiving economic incentives as a major priority.Many of the same expected results were mentioned for different objectives including: counting 20-25 macaw chicks per year, increasing successful legal suits against poachers, and having local communities participate in Scarlet Macaw conservation programs.

Results from workshop and how to measure progress
The workshop participants understood threats to Scarlet Macaws and had good ideas to resolve them.Many identified problems that appear in the literature (chick exploitation, habitat alteration and local community and authority education) (Collar & Juniper 1992).Identifying chick poaching as the major threat was consistent with Wright et al. (2001).It was important that hunting and harvesting reproducing adults or introducing diseased birds was not considered or recognized as a threat because this has quickly decimated parrot populations elsewhere (Beissinger & Bucher 1992, Wiley et al. 1992).Progress was to be measured by achieving expected results during a defined time-frame (Table 2).

Who were the conservation stakeholders?
Guillermo Hernandez, Miguel Fernandez, Eugenio Gordienko (all from CPL) and Humberto Solorzano have been heavily involved in the workshop and macaw conservation  work since 1994.The CPL played an important role by facilitating installations, employees and funds.Because they receive thousands of Costa Rican and foreign visitors yearly and are the largest employer in the region, they established themselves as a major stakeholder in terms of Scarlet Macaw conservation.In addition, the community leaders were outspoken and had a good grasp of the major problems facing macaw conservation.It was obvious that some leaders (Guillermo Hernandez, Victor Mora, and Alvaro Gonzalez) wanted to take action.
The almost total absence of the National Parks Service representative invited comments about their disinterest, corruption and abuse of power among locals.The macaw poachers played a minor role, but provided important information about the number of poachers and poaching techniques.Because they may determine the status of the population, they must be taken into account for effective macaw conservation.The university academics chose not to dominate planning and meetings (Barrow & Murphree 2001).Because it was essential to form an interdisciplinary stakeholder group to tackle the macaw problems, we went out of our way to include park officials in all conservation programs.

How to take actions to achieve conservation goals?
There was a general anxiety that the strategy would be tabled after the workshop.However, the creation of a local Scarlet Macaw conservation organization was approved by all present and created about 8 months later.

Formation of a local Scarlet Macaw Conservation Organization
The first workshop recommended the formation of a local watchdog conservation organization.Therefore, LAP-PA, "La Asociación para la Protección de los Psitacidos" (see LAPPA 2011), was first created in August 1995.It was created as a civil society as dictated by the Civil Registry in Costa Rica.A general assembly was convened in the elementary school at QG and 23 founding members attended, of whom 50% were CPL employees, including its owner.There were also land owners, national parks employees, university academics and others.The elected board of directors included a representative from Bijagual, Tarcoles and QG, a national parks employee, and three professionals working in the CP, but living elsewhere (Table 1).
On June 2, 2000, LAPPA was re-inscribed using its old bylaws after failing to report yearly to the Civil Registry.The founders' meeting had 15 members, including 12 past founders.It elected a new board of directors in the general assembly, including leaders from Tarcoles, Bijagual and QG.Roy Arroyo was elected the new President, Guillermo Hernandez and Humberto Solorzano were reelected .A parks service employee, Alvaro Bermudez, was also elected to maintain our contact with them.Evaluating the formation of the Psitacine Protection Association (LAPPA) in 1995 and 2000 was a product of reviewing documents, interviewing board members and reflecting on my personal experiences.

Macaw population increase
After a decline of 4% in the August population counts from 1990-1994, a population increase of 37 individuals was noted in the August counts of 37 individuals in two years (1995)(1996) and remained constant until 2003 (Vaughan et al. 2005).This was thought a partial result of the work of LAPPA.

Strategy agreed upon in Second Workshop
The mission statement that resulted from this workshop was "to conserve and increase the Cental Pacific Scarlet Macaw population".In addition, the poaching of chicks, lack of education towards the local communities and habitat alteration were considered the most important threats to the population, with poaching twice as threatening as the other two.The conceptual model showed how direct and indirect threats affected Scarlet Macaw conservation (Fig. 1).
In the model, threats affecting Scarlet Macaw hunting (eggs, chicks and adults) and habitat deterioration were traced to land tenure, poor government policy, and culture and education.Each threat was met by a management plan with objectives, activities, timetables and responsible persons (Table 3).Finally, monitoring presented a special challenge to the group.It was discussed, but I had to provide initial insight because most participants were not skilled in this line of thinking.They caught on quickly, however, and formulated monitoring for the last objectives (Table 3).

Results from Second Workshop and how to measure progress
Most participants had attended the 1994 workshop.They still considered the major threat to the macaw population to be chick poaching, followed by lack of education.However, they were able to link direct and indirect threats to management objectives and activities to resolve them.The monitoring programs were a direct form to measure progress towards resolving the threat (Table 3).

Macaw population increase
As noted earlier after the first workshop, after a decline, a population increase of 37 individuals noted in the August counts of 37 individuals in two years (1995)(1996) which remained constant until 2003 (Vaughan et al. 2005).This was thought a partial result of the work of LAPPA and the implementation of the recommendations of the 1995 and 1999 workshops.

Who were the conservation stakeholders?
All participants lived in the region.Most participants lived and/or worked in QG, a kilometer from CPL.The CPL employees participated in both workshops (the owner and manager the second day) and the resort paid for half of logistical support.Thus QG and CPL were major stakeholders in the workshops.Two schoolteachers who participated were very influential in the successful  environmental education programs (Table 1).The National Parks Service employees attended infrequently, but made excellent contributions.

How to take actions to achieve conservation goals
The monitoring program was the blueprint to achieve the goals and different persons were responsible for each activity.The Scarlet Macaw conservation organization was to oversee the strategy, which had many aspects similar to the first workshop's strategy.

Comparisons between the First and Second Workshops
The workshops differed in several ways: a) five years experience in Scarlet Macaw conservation work; b) only locals were involved in the second workshop, c) Lisbeth Mora and Roy Arroyo were new participants and important contributors to the second workshop; and d) Margoluis and Salafsky (1998) provided a much clearer methodology for the participative diagnostic planning process (Table 2, 3 and Fig. 1).The second workshop participants understood the entire design and planning process they were involved in and their responsibilities for actions and monitoring of the project.The workshops had the following similarities: (a) they were both carried out in CPL during a 2-day period, (b) both employed a facilitator to help the planning process to develop a strategy , and (c) eight people came to both workshops (Table 1).In addition, the mission and or general objective, threats to the Scarlet Macaw population and many objectives and activities were similar between the two workshops (compare Tables 2 and 3 and Fig. 1).I believe this was attributable to the experience of the participants and the macaw project obtained since the first workshop.

Strategy agreed upon
The strategy of the first LAPPA board adapted (1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000) was based on the first workshop (Table 2).The second LAP-PA board adopted the strategy defined in the second workshop (Fig. 1, Table 3).The constitutive act or charter of the second board stated the following objectives: (a) support activities and projects to conserve psitacines (parakeets, parrots and macaws) in Mesoamerica; (b) support ecological studies on psitacines to promote their conservation; (c) help in the restoration of degraded ecological zones which form psitaine habitat; (d) promote socio-cultural and tourist activities that support psitacine and human conservation; (e) support environmental education activities so it creates a consciousness for conserving biodiversity in general and psitacines in particular, (f) seek economic resources to carry out the activities proposed above, (g) seek participation of communities, institutions, municipal governments in activities to conserve psitacines; and (h) provide technical and legal assistence for distinct projects and initiatives (public and private) which relate to psitacines.These were direct reflections of Table 2 and 3.

How to measure progress
Between 1995 and 1999, the board met at least 12 times to discuss the work plan (Table 2).Different members were assigned activities and progress towards goals was discussed in a general sense.An important index agreed upon by all board members were any changes in the macaw population monitored yearly which continued constant between 1996-2003 (Vaughan et al. 2005).It is necessary to analyze the population data taken between 2003-2012 to see the status of the population presently.

Who were the conservation stakeholders?
Active members in both boards have included: Guillermo Hernandez, Victor Mora, Humberto Solorzano and Christopher Vaughan.Networking was promoted with: (a)ranchers (Hernan Vargas, Jerimias Sirio, Macana Chaves) who protected artificial and natural macaw nests on their land, (b) schoolteachers who assisted with environmental education courses in different towns (Lisbeth Mora), (c) parks employees for nest protection (Table 1), (d) CPL employees who helped build and mount artificial nest boxes and (e) some parks' employees to help with protection efforts.

How to take actions to achieve conservation goals?
Several activities from both workshop strategies (Tables 2 and 3) were developed between 1995-2000 by LAPPA board members with mixed results (Table 4).

Time constraints
Most considered LAPPA had done well with time available, but needed a salaried employee to progress.Board members attended monthly meetings where policy for macaw conservation was discussed.However, because all had full-time jobs, most did not commit to teaching environmental education, protecting chicks, or artificial nest building.Roy Arroyo and Guillermo Hernandez complained they did most of the work.This was in spite of a campaign which had increased LAPPA membership to 75 people (Table 4).When Christopher Vaughan was involved (1990Vaughan was involved ( -1997Vaughan was involved ( , 2000)), he was paid by the university.In addition, they were aware that several of the programs, including environmental education, artificial nest boxes, scientific data collection, and arts and crafts programs had not progressed as much as possible.Nest protection was carried out during Easter Week by volunteers when they had vacation time, but it was insufficient..They were divided on effectiveness in controlling poaching, most alleging that park guards continued to collaborate with poachers or were indifferent to macaw conservation.Also they concurred that most of the scientific work, environmental education, mounting and monitoring artificial nest boxes had been carried out by Christopher Vaughan and collaborators.I agreed with their evaluation and marvel that Roy Arroyo and Guillermo Hernandez had invested so much time.

Progress on several fronts
Members of both boards thought the school environmental education programs were very beneficial to the communities and should be expanded (Vaughan et al. 2003a).All concurred the artificial nest box program was beneficial to increase Scarlet Macaw reproduction, educate school children, and facilitate protection (Vaughan et al. 2003b).They were also proud of the internet connection and quarterly bulletin they produced related to LAPPA (http://www.lappacr.org/es/sobre-lappa.php).LAPPA (1995LAPPA ( -2001)).
The scientific and monitoring program had been important to track the expansion of the population and all attribute the 6% increase in the macaw population to their programs (Vaughan et al. 2005).However, they would like a scientist to continue the research that I started in 1990.These local people have embraced the importance of science and monitoring although none were trained in the scientific method.Only one, Humberto Solorzano, is a college graduate.I believe that LAPPA has progressed towards several of its conservation goals, however many were due to my continued presence.

Financial problems
The LAPPA budget has always been very tight.Since 2000, LAPPA has received funding from diferent conservation organizations.However, financial reports from LAPPA, produced sporadically, showed that received funding was spent in accordance with the second workshop strategy.
In addition, the occasional LAPPA bulletins have been of excellent quality, demonstrating Roy's quality as an editor.CPL has provided a large amount of logistical and material support throughout the history of the project.Board members still consider CPL a major stakeholder in the project.Its economic contributions have maintained the project since the beginning.

Strategic planning
These are the conclusions of this study: • Strategic planning for a conservation organization is necessary, especially initially.It is also important to measure progress and be adaptive to changing circumstances, threats, funding, actors, and related issues.
• A strict methodology for conservation planning should be adhered to, such as the Margoluis and Salafsky (1998) planning model.
• There is a need to network and get many actors involved (land owners, teachers, students, park personnel, poachers, resort personnel and owners, community leaders and members, craftsmen, and some academics.
• Advanced planning is needed to ensure a successful meeting.Assume that 50 percent of the invitees won't be able to attend.

Running a conservation project
• Local community must manage the project.Empowerment with oversight as suggested by Kramer and VanShaik (1997) is recommended.The salaried coordinator must be adaptable to changes, and have good public relations.
• To avoid corruption, accurate and transparent bookkeeping must be accomplished, with periodic audits.

Benefits to local communities
• The project must benefit the local community if it is to survive.However, many locals and tourists haven't made the connection between community involvement and Scarlet Macaw survival.The new LAPPA web page will increase consciousness about this.
• This project needs the local community to buy into it and to promote ways the local community benefits directly from presence of Scarlet Macaws in the landscape.

Actors in this conservation project
• We have had continuing difficulty involving parks guards and directors in the project because they have little supervision, few demands and do not feel part of the process.Locals don't trust them because of past encounters and authority abuse.However, they legally manage the natural resources in the area and we have decided to continue to invest in them, hoping that eventually they will come around.
• It is important to have powerful political and economic allies to work with.With this project, CPL has been a major actor since the project began.Without their assistance, this project wouldn't exist.
• Another major actor includes the landowners who protect macaw habitat.Sixty-six percent of nests encountered have been on private lands.We must cultivate good relations with ranchers, such as Hernan Vargas who protects nesting macaws on natural and artificial nest boxes we have placed on his ranch.

Role of science, monitoring and management
• Certain types of monitoring are very important to measure success of this project.For instance, without monitoring the Scarlet Macaw population, we wouldn't have known if it was declining or increasing, important for judging success or failure of this conservation project with an endangered species (Vaughan et al. 2005) .• Successful high-visibility population, habitat and human management activities are key to perceived project success.Understanding Scarlet Macaw diet (Vaughan et al. 2006) is one area of interest for management purposes.• Although our artificial nest boxes have met with limited success, it is perceived as very successful by the local, national and international communities (Vaughan et al. 2003b).This brings a positive image to the project.It is important that projects such as the artificial nest boxes are maintained.• Environmental education (Vaughan et al. 2003a) is a successful management strategy.

Concluding remarks
• Small victories over time are the key to successful projects.They add up.• Time is a very important factor to consider when asking locals to buy into a project.Immediate gratification will not occur.Donor agencies must be ready for long-term investments with local community projects in conservation; • Strategic planning is necessary on a continuous basis, at least yearly.• The environmental education program is perhaps the most transparent success story of the overall project and should be continued and expanded.• Local community organizations can manage their own shop, including funds from donors.They must be held accountable as any other organization.• Research and monitoring are cornerstones to the management and outreach; however they must provide useful information.• Projects on highly visible endangered species, such as the Scarlet Macaw, should be expanded to other areas of its distribution in Costa Rica, such as the Osa Peninsula.There is a much larger population found there (Dear et al. 2010)

TABLE 1
Major stakeholders in Central Pacific Scarlet Macaw conservation, Costa Rica.

TABLE 2
Strategies for Scarlet Macaw Conservation in the Central Pacific Region, Costa Rica (1995).
Conceptual model for Central Pacific Scarlet Macaw Conservation Project.

TABLE 3
Management, activities and monitoring for Central Pacific Scarlet Macaw population (November, 1999).

TABLE 4
Activities carried out by