While I am not aware of recent reports of capture from other areas of Madagascar there are some references that indicate that this practice was widespread affecting populations throughout the island 20-30 years ago and it is certainly plausible that the situation remains similar.
Dowsett (2000) referred to the practice of capture and killing C. vasa as “common on the island where they are readily eaten” referring to the island of Madagascar. They further note that there is “significant demand for these birds in Madagascar, either for food (all three species) or as cage birds. In areas where Coracopsis are common (such as Morondava), they are regularly sold in markets for food. In addition, many Coracopsis are eaten directly by farmers who capture them in their fields…. There is no doubt that the numbers involved are far greater than those of birds exported abroad.”
Although likely not impacting wild populations to the same extent as capture for food, the keeping of Coracopsis species as pets should also be considered as a threat further compounding capture for food and forest loss. Studies of keeping of Coracopsis parrots as pets indicate this practice is widespread in Madagascar. One estimate suggested that there were 38,000 parrots (including Agapornis canes) kept as pets in Madagascar in 2015-16 (Reuter et al 2019) and surveys indicate that this practice is geographically widespread across multiple regions (Reuter et al 2017). Significantly two sellers of parrots reported that they stopped selling parrots because they were becoming difficult to find in the wild (Rodriguez et al 2020).
It is important to note that people capturing Coracopsis parrots for food do not distinguish between C. nigra and C. vasa (Dowsett, 2000) and that both species are ecologically similar and likely affected to a similar degree by the loss of habitat. If it is inferred that unsustainable capture and habitat loss are driving declines across the range of C. nigra then it would seem reasonable to make a similar inference for C. vasa, unless there are well justified reasons for considering the extent and impact of these threats to differ.
Dowsett RJ. 2000. Le statut des Perroquets vasa et noir Coracopsis
vasa et C. nigra et de l’inséparable à tête grise Agapornis canus
à Madagascar. Cambridge: IUCN Species Survival Commission.
Fauré, J.-C. 1996. Traditional use of the forest. 33-40 in Ganzhorn, JU & Sorg, J.-P. (eds) Ecology and economy of a tropical dry forest in Madagascar. Primate Rep. (spec. issue) 46:1-382.
Rodriguez et al 2020. Motivations of pet parrot ownership and captive
conditions of the pets in Madagascar Madagascar Conservation & Development. 15(1): 13-18
Reuter, K.E., Clarke, T.A., LaFleur, M., Rodriguez, L., Hanitriniaina, S. and Schaefer, M.S., 2017. Trade of parrots in urban areas of Madagascar. Madagascar Conservation & Development, 12(1).
Reuter KE, Rodriguez L, Hanitriniaina S, Schaefer MS. Ownership of parrots in Madagascar: extent and conservation implications. Oryx. 2019;53(3):582-588. doi:10.1017/S003060531700093X
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 25 April 2025. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List category on this page on 25 April 2025, when discussions will re-open.
Thank you, Rowan, for your comment. C. vasa was not reassessed during this cycle, as it was last evaluated in 2018. Priority has been given to species last assessed in 2016, and the process is now continuing to those assessed in 2017. However, the scale and severity of threats facing C. nigra are considerable, and given the similarities between the two species, it may be appropriate to prioritise C. vasa for reassessment in the next update cycle. There are some distinctions, including the presence of C. vasa in the Comoros, where it remains relatively common (Collar and Boesman 2020), suggesting lower levels of hunting pressure in that part of its range. Nonetheless, the species is likely subject to similar threats as C. nigra across much of its distribution.
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2025 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classification outlined in the initial forum discussion.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 4 May 2025, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2025 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in October 2025, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Collar, N. and P. F. D. Boesman (2020). Greater Vasa Parrot (Coracopsis vasa), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, J. Sargatal, D. A. Christie, and E. de Juana, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.vaspar1.01
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret the information, and a final decision on this species’ Red List category will be posted on this page on 12 May 2025.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Black Parrot is recommended to be listed as Vulnerable under Criteria A2cd+3cd+4cd .
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2025.2 GTB Forum process. The final Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in October 2025, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
While I am not aware of recent reports of capture from other areas of Madagascar there are some references that indicate that this practice was widespread affecting populations throughout the island 20-30 years ago and it is certainly plausible that the situation remains similar.
Dowsett (2000) referred to the practice of capture and killing C. vasa as “common on the island where they are readily eaten” referring to the island of Madagascar. They further note that there is “significant demand for these birds in Madagascar, either for food (all three species) or as cage birds. In areas where Coracopsis are common (such as Morondava), they are regularly sold in markets for food. In addition, many Coracopsis are eaten directly by farmers who capture them in their fields…. There is no doubt that the numbers involved are far greater than those of birds exported abroad.”
Although likely not impacting wild populations to the same extent as capture for food, the keeping of Coracopsis species as pets should also be considered as a threat further compounding capture for food and forest loss. Studies of keeping of Coracopsis parrots as pets indicate this practice is widespread in Madagascar. One estimate suggested that there were 38,000 parrots (including Agapornis canes) kept as pets in Madagascar in 2015-16 (Reuter et al 2019) and surveys indicate that this practice is geographically widespread across multiple regions (Reuter et al 2017). Significantly two sellers of parrots reported that they stopped selling parrots because they were becoming difficult to find in the wild (Rodriguez et al 2020).
It is important to note that people capturing Coracopsis parrots for food do not distinguish between C. nigra and C. vasa (Dowsett, 2000) and that both species are ecologically similar and likely affected to a similar degree by the loss of habitat. If it is inferred that unsustainable capture and habitat loss are driving declines across the range of C. nigra then it would seem reasonable to make a similar inference for C. vasa, unless there are well justified reasons for considering the extent and impact of these threats to differ.
Dowsett RJ. 2000. Le statut des Perroquets vasa et noir Coracopsis
vasa et C. nigra et de l’inséparable à tête grise Agapornis canus
à Madagascar. Cambridge: IUCN Species Survival Commission.
Fauré, J.-C. 1996. Traditional use of the forest. 33-40 in Ganzhorn, JU & Sorg, J.-P. (eds) Ecology and economy of a tropical dry forest in Madagascar. Primate Rep. (spec. issue) 46:1-382.
Rodriguez et al 2020. Motivations of pet parrot ownership and captive
conditions of the pets in Madagascar Madagascar Conservation & Development. 15(1): 13-18
Reuter, K.E., Clarke, T.A., LaFleur, M., Rodriguez, L., Hanitriniaina, S. and Schaefer, M.S., 2017. Trade of parrots in urban areas of Madagascar. Madagascar Conservation & Development, 12(1).
Reuter KE, Rodriguez L, Hanitriniaina S, Schaefer MS. Ownership of parrots in Madagascar: extent and conservation implications. Oryx. 2019;53(3):582-588. doi:10.1017/S003060531700093X
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 25 April 2025. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List category on this page on 25 April 2025, when discussions will re-open.
Preliminary proposal
Thank you, Rowan, for your comment. C. vasa was not reassessed during this cycle, as it was last evaluated in 2018. Priority has been given to species last assessed in 2016, and the process is now continuing to those assessed in 2017. However, the scale and severity of threats facing C. nigra are considerable, and given the similarities between the two species, it may be appropriate to prioritise C. vasa for reassessment in the next update cycle. There are some distinctions, including the presence of C. vasa in the Comoros, where it remains relatively common (Collar and Boesman 2020), suggesting lower levels of hunting pressure in that part of its range. Nonetheless, the species is likely subject to similar threats as C. nigra across much of its distribution.
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2025 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classification outlined in the initial forum discussion.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 4 May 2025, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2025 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in October 2025, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Collar, N. and P. F. D. Boesman (2020). Greater Vasa Parrot (Coracopsis vasa), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, J. Sargatal, D. A. Christie, and E. de Juana, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.vaspar1.01
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret the information, and a final decision on this species’ Red List category will be posted on this page on 12 May 2025.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Black Parrot is recommended to be listed as Vulnerable under Criteria A2cd+3cd+4cd .
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2025.2 GTB Forum process. The final Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in October 2025, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.