10 thoughts on “Vinaceous-breasted Amazon (Amazona vinacea)”
Dear BirdLife International colleagues,
We respectfully submit the following comments regarding the proposed down-listing of the Vinaceous-breasted Amazon (Amazona vinacea) from Endangered (EN) to Vulnerable (VU). Based on the best available evidence and direct field experience across the species’ range, we consider that a change of category at this time would be premature and not supported by robust demographic data or documented threat reduction.
The global abundance estimates reported by Zulian et al. (2020) constitute an important contribution to knowledge, but do not demonstrate a reduction in extinction risk nor evidence of population recovery. The authors explicitly caution that their estimates are characterized by uncertainty and do not justify a category change. Moreover, these estimates do not distinguish mature from juvenile individuals, preventing assessment against IUCN criteria based on mature individuals (Criterion C). The sampling period (2016–2017) is also insufficient to evaluate long-term trends over ≥10 years or ≥3 generations, as required under criteria A and C.
Risk remains elevated under multiple criteria. Population structure remains highly asymmetric: most individuals occur in Brazil, whereas subpopulations in Argentina and Paraguay are small, fragmented and at risk of local extinction. Threats that originally justified the EN status—including habitat loss and degradation, scarcity of nesting cavities, low recruitment, and ongoing anthropogenic pressures—remain largely unresolved. The ecology of this species (longevity, low reproductive rate, and cavity-dependence) imply that positive demographic responses will only be detectable over multiple generations, consistent with IUCN time frames.
Recent field data highlight regional vulnerabilities. In Paraguay, the 2021 national census estimated ~100 individuals, followed by sharply lower counts of 15–18 individuals in 2022–2023, and preliminary estimates of 20–40 individuals in 2025. In Argentina, comprehensive roost counts recorded 247 individuals in 2023 and 323 in 2025, but post-breeding counts include a high proportion of juveniles, many of which do not survive to maturity.
In the absence of evidence for sustained positive trends or reductions in threats, a down-listing would create an inaccurate perception of recovery. Retaining the species as Endangered more accurately reflects current conditions and ensures the continuity of conservation actions necessary for its long-term survival.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this assessment process and thank in advance for considering the observations, field data, and local experience of practitioners working directly with the species. We remain available to provide further information or clarification as needed.
Sincerely,
Dr. Sofía Zalazar
Coordinator of the strategy: Study and Conservation of threatened species, Project Atlantic Forest.
Aves Argentinas / BirdLife International
Dear Members of Birdlife International Committee,
On behalf of the undersigned conservation organizations and research groups working directly with the Vinaceous-breasted Amazon (Amazona vinacea) throughout its distribution in Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, we respectfully submit this joint institutional statement to express our serious concern regarding the proposed change of the IUCN Red List category of this species from Endangered (EN) to Vulnerable (VU).
Based on the best available scientific evidence, long-term field experience, and regional population monitoring, we conclude that such a change would be premature and not supported by demographic data, population trends, or evidence of threat reduction, as required under the IUCN Red List criteria.
The proposal for downlisting relies primarily on the population estimates presented by Zulian et al. (2020). While this study represents an important advance in estimating the global abundance of A. vinacea, the authors themselves explicitly caution that their work does not warrant a change in Red List category. The estimates are derived from roost counts combined with N-mixture models that incorporate multiple assumptions and substantial uncertainty, including movement between sites, spatial uncertainty, imperfect detection, and the absence of age and population structure data. The authors clearly state that “we strongly emphasize that our estimates do not warrant proposing a category change for the species” and that “there is no statistical evidence that such increase resulted from population growth.”
Furthermore, roost counts were conducted during the post-breeding period, when a large proportion of individuals observed are fledglings and juveniles from the current breeding season. In long-lived psittacids such as A. vinacea, which have intrinsically low reproductive rate and high juvenile mortality, particularly during the first winter, post-breeding counts may substantially overestimate the number of individuals contributing to long-term population viability. Importantly, the proportion of mature individuals within these counts is unknown. As IUCN Criterion C is based exclusively on the number of mature individuals, the available data do not demonstrate that A. vinacea exceeds the thresholds required to exclude it from Endangered under Criterion C2a(i), nor do they demonstrate a sustained positive population trend. Additionally, the sampling period (2016–2017) is insufficient to evaluate trends over the ≥10 years or ≥3 generations required under IUCN criteria A and C.
The population structure of Amazona vinacea remains highly asymmetric across its range. Although the largest populations occur in Brazil, subpopulations in Argentina and Paraguay are extremely small, fragmented and declining, with a clear risk of local extinction. In Paraguay, a national census conducted in 2021 estimated approximately 100 individuals. Subsequent counts in 2022 and 2023, without full coverage of all relevant sites, recorded a drastic decline to 15–18 individuals, and preliminary estimates from 2025 indicate the presence of only 20–40 individuals. Compounding this situation, a major forest remnant (Reserva Itabó Rivas) that supported a subpopulation was deforested, and no viable habitat remains in the surrounding landscape. The fate of those individuals is unknown.
In Argentina, exhaustive surveys conducted across the entire known distribution recorded 247 individuals in 2023 and 323 individuals in 2025. These surveys are carried out in autumn, immediately following the breeding season, and therefore include a high proportion of juveniles from that year, many of which will not survive to sexual maturity. This spatial structure and ongoing decline are directly relevant to IUCN Criteria C2a(i) and B2.
The threats that originally justified the Endangered status of A. vinacea remain widespread and unresolved throughout most of its distribution. These include continued deforestation and degradation of the Atlantic Forest, particularly Araucaria forests, loss and scarcity of large cavity-bearing trees, low reproductive success, low juvenile survival, illegal harvesting of chicks for the pet trade, land-use change, and increasing impacts of climate change. As forest remnants become increasingly impoverished, large trees suitable for nesting are not only rarer but also more susceptible to collapse during storms, events that are becoming more frequent and intense.
Only a limited number of roosts, nests, and subpopulations are fully located within protected areas. Moreover, even when conservation actions such as translocation or reintroduction are implemented inside protected areas, A. vinacea does not remain restricted to these areas due to its nomadic behavior, exposing individuals to threats across unprotected landscapes. Consequently, the presence of individuals within protected areas alone does not equate to effective mitigation of extinction risk.
Evidence from wildlife rescue and rehabilitation further demonstrates ongoing pressure on the species. Over the last 15 years, almost 600 individuals of Amazona vinacea confiscated from illegal wildlife trade were received by a reintroduction project in Santa Catarina State, Brazil, one of the states harboring a significant portion of the species’ remaining population. These data confirm that illegal harvest and maintenance remain active and ongoing threats. In contrast, only one free-ranging injured individual was officially admitted during the same period, reflecting severe under-detection and under-reporting of mortality, rather than low impact. Field observations confirm that injured individuals, including nestlings, frequently do not enter official rescue systems, leading to a substantial underestimation of mortality.
Active conservation efforts are currently underway across the species’ range. In Brazil, these include reintroductions and in situ management, the installation and long-term monitoring of artificial nest boxes, and targeted actions to reduce key threats, such as protection of nesting sites, mitigation of illegal harvest, environmental education, and income-generation initiatives with local communities aimed at increasing long-term conservation incentives. In Argentina, efforts focus on intensive reproductive monitoring and community-based conservation initiatives. In Paraguay, conservation actions include population monitoring, site protection, and emergency measures in response to rapid population decline and habitat loss.
These combined efforts aim to increase reproductive success, improve juvenile survival, reduce mortality, and mitigate anthropogenic pressures. However, monitoring remains challenging due to the species’ nomadic behavior, which limits site fidelity and complicates the detection of individuals and trends across years. In addition, given the species’ longevity, delayed maturity, intrinsically low reproductive rate, and dependence on large cavities, any positive demographic response will only be detectable over multiple generations, consistent with the timeframes required by the IUCN to demonstrate genuine population recovery.
In conclusion, while recent studies have improved knowledge of the abundance and distribution of Amazona vinacea, there is no evidence of sustained population recovery, no demonstrated reduction in threats, and no robust demographic data supporting a decrease in extinction risk. Significant regional vulnerabilities persist, particularly in Argentina and Paraguay. Under the IUCN framework, changes in the Red List category require solid evidence of reduced extinction risk. In the absence of such evidence, a downlisting would be premature and risks creating a misleading perception of recovery.
Maintaining Amazona vinacea as Endangered (EN) more accurately reflects its current conservation status and ensures continued prioritization of the conservation actions necessary for its long-term survival.
We thank Birdlife International and the IUCN Red List Committee for considering this joint institutional contribution and remain available to provide additional data or clarification as needed.
Respectfully,
Signatory Institutions:
Brazil
Waita – Instituto de Pesquisa e Conservação – MSc Ariela Castelli Celeste, manager of the Project Voar – rehabilitation, release and monitoring of Amazona vinacea in Minas Gerais
Instituto Fauna Brasil – Dr. Vanessa Kanaan – President and responsible for the Amazona vinacea reintroduction at the Araucarias National Park, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Argentina
Aves Argentinas/BirdLife International – Dr. Sofía Zalazar, Coordinator of the strategy: study and conservation of threatened species, Project Atlantic Forest.
Paraguay
Asociación para la Conservación de Psitácidos del Paraguay (ACPP) – MSc Diana Pésole, President of the Association for the conservation of Psittacines of Paraguay and member of the technical team of Itaipu Binacional Protected Areas
I have forwarded a technical comment by email for consideration, prepared by a group of Brazilian researchers (Marina Somenzari, Fabio Stucchi Vannucchi, Alex Augusto de Abreu Bovo, Nêmora Pauletti Prestes, Jaime Martinez, Elenise Sipinski and Roberta Boss). It was too long to post here as a comment.
It includes modeling results from an unpublished Population Viability Analysis that predict an ongoing decline in the Brazilian population (the majority of the global population is in Brazil), and estimate that only 59% of the birds in the population are mature individuals (Ferraz et al. 2021).
The map in the species account has some areas for improvement. The remnant population in eastern Paraguay is very small, as noted by Dr. Zalazar, and most of the former range in Paraguay can now be mapped as “possibly extinct”. The small remnant population is connected across the border with observations in Paraná state (Brazil) to the east, but there is then a discontinuity between this subpopulation and the subpopulation that now occupies only a relatively small part of Misiones, Argentina, extending into southern Brazil. On the other hand, in northeastern Minas Gerais, there are recent confirmed records of the species, and it should be shown there as a “native resident”.
There is a more up to date map of the species’ range in Figure 8 of Ferraz et al. (2021), with the black dots and coloured areas showing recent records and the currently understood range, respectively.
Reference:
FERRAZ, K.M.P.M. de B.; BOVO, A.A.A.; VANNUCCHI, F.S.; PRESTES, N.P.; MARTINEZ, J.; SOMENZARI. M. 2021. Modelagem de distribuição e análise de viabilidade populacional de Amazona vinacea. In: Martinez, J. & Prestes, N. P. (Orgs.), Biologia da conservação: Programa Nacional para Conservação do Papagaio-de-peito-roxo e outras iniciativas (Cap. 5). Tapera, Brasil: Lew. Disponível em: https://secure.upf.br/pdf/PDF de Livro/Biologia_conservacao_papagaio_peito_roxo.pdf
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 2 February 2026. 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 2 February 2026, when discussions will re-open.
We thank all contributors for their comments. We also thank Ben Phalan for providing additional information via email in the form of a technical document coordinated by Nêmora Prestes which presents additional data on the population structure and trend (Ferraz et al. 2021).
First, we would like to address concerns that the proposed downlist is due to a genuine recovery of this species. This assessment does not represent a genuine change in the species’ status, an increase in the population size, or a reduction in threats, but is rather a revision of the old category based on new information and an appropriate application of the IUCN Guidelines. The population trend as outlined in this assessment is ‘decreasing’ based on the continuation of a number of threats outlined in the comments. We will ensure that information on threats and conservation actions are updated to incorporate new information where applicable.
We have considered all information provided on the forum and separately via email, and provide a reassessment under IUCN Red List Criteria A to D below:
Criterion A:
We wish to draw attention to the fact that the species’ generation length has been updated and is now 8.9 years; rates of population reduction (for Criterion A) should therefore be calculated over c. 27 years, not 31 years.
As mentioned in the comments, there is insufficient monitoring data to estimate long-term trends, but based on additional information provided, it is possible to suspect a future reduction in the population within the range of 20-29% over three generations. Based on this information, the species is assessed as Near Threatened under Criterion A3. We have requested further information on population trends which may allow a revaluation under this Criterion.
Criterion B:
The species’ distribution map will be revised to more closely reflect the map provided in Ferraz et al. (2021). However, the species’ Extent of Occurrence and Area of Occupancy do not meet or approach the thresholds for listing as threatened under Criteria B1 or B2. The species is therefore assessed as Least Concern under Criterion B.
Criterion C:
Population size:
The original assessment updated the population size according to modelling and surveys presented in Zulian et al> (2020). As noted by several contributors, there is considerable uncertainty with this population estimate and this population size should be considered a maximum value. As such, a maximum population size of 6,100 mature individuals is calculated based on the maximum estimate from Zulian et al. (2020) of 9,176 individuals adjusted assuming approximately two-thirds are mature individuals. A minimum population size is derived by ignoring the estimate provided by Zulian et al. (2020) and relying on information provided during this forum, including: a minimum of 20 individuals in 2025 in Paraguay; 247 individuals in Argentina in 2023; and 5,058 individuals in Brazil (Ferraz et al. 2021). Tallying these counts and applying an adjustment for 59% mature individuals (Ferraz et al. 2021) gives a minimum population size of 3,150 mature individuals. As such, a new global population size of 3,150-6,100 mature individuals is proposed.
As such the population size falls below the initial threshold (10,000 mature individuals) for listing as Vulnerable, but is higher than the threshold for Endangered (<2,500 mature individuals).
Criterion C1
As mentioned under the assessment for Criterion A, it is possible to suspect a future decline of 20-29% over three generations. This does not meet the minimum data quality requirements of estimated, projected, or observed, according to the definitions in the IUCN Guidelines. Further information has been requested which may allow a reassessment under this Criterion. For now, however, this species is assessed against Criterion C1 as Near Threatened.
Criterion C2
There is a continuing decline as outlined in the original proposal. The modelling outlined in Ferraz et al. (2021) and documents provided by Ben Phalan suggest that there are four subpopulations in Brazil. This analysis indicates that the largest subpopulation in the south comprises 2,466 mature individuals. Regardless of the size and status of other subpopulations, this indicates that the largest subpopulation has more than 1,000 mature individuals and the species cannot be assessed as threatened under Criterion C2a(i). Additionally, according to the global population size outlined above, this indicates that the largest subpopulation contains a maximum of roughly 80% of all mature individuals. However, the definition used to define a subpopulation in the modelling is stricter than the definition in the IUCN Guidelines: “Subpopulations are defined as geographically or otherwise distinct groups in the population between which there is little demographic or genetic exchange (typically one successful migrant individual or gamete per year or less). ” Therefore, a precautionary approach could be to consider a minimum of one subpopulation with a maximum of six (assuming separate subpopulations in Paraguay and Argentina, respectively). Under this precautionary approach, the species could be listed as Vulnerable under Criterion C2a(ii) as originally proposed.
Final assessment
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2026 Red List would be to list Vinaceous-breasted Amazon as Vulnerable under Criterion C2a(ii).
We recognise the suggestion made that this species should be retained as Endangered. If sufficient information can be provided (i.e. updated census data) that the global population size is less than 2,500 mature individuals and that the population is experiencing continuing declines of 20% or higher over two generations (18 years); or that the largest subpopulation contains 95-100% of mature individuals and/or less than 250 mature individuals, then the species may be reassessed as Endangered under Criterion C1 and/or C2. Additionally, if sufficient evidence can demonstrate a reduction >50% over three generations (27 years), the species may be reassessed as Endangered under Criterion A. Currently, available data do not support these scenarios and strongly suggest that the species is best assessed as Vulnerable.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 8 February 2026, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2026 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites later this year, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Based on the information currently available, we would like to reiterate our concern that key risk factors for Amazona vinacea have not diminished. Currently, major threats persist across the species’ range, the global population does not appear to have increased substantially over the last two decades, subpopulations remain increasingly isolated, and the number of mature individuals is still poorly known. Taken together, these factors suggest that the species’ extinction risk may be underestimated if assessed under less precautionary assumptions.
Given these uncertainties, we kindly request that the species be retained as Endangered for at least the coming years, until more robust and comparable information on population size, structure, and trends becomes available. In this regard, we note that in Argentina an intensive, long-term study has recently been initiated to better understand the current status of the species, including population dynamics, dispersal, and habitat use, through systematic nest monitoring and telemetry-based tracking. We believe that results from such efforts, together with ongoing work elsewhere in the range, will be critical to support a more confident reassessment in the near future.
I hope our arguments are clear and that they will be considered in the final decision.
Zalazar Sofía
Aves Argentinas – Birdlife International
In Paraguay the species was evaluated as Critically Endangered (C2a1) in the last national Red List assessment conducted in 2017. The species’ status in the country has only become more critical since then, with ongoing deforestation (despite a zero deforestation law) and extensive degradation of remaining forest blocks (even protected areas) due to illegal plantations, selective logging and fires. In the past ten years there have only been two reports outside of the species last remaining stronghold (the Itaipú Binacional reserves in Alto Paraná and Canindeyú departments), one of one bird in Alto Paraná, and one of two birds in Itapúa department. As Diana Pesole has noted, the Paraguayan population seems likely be just a few tens of birds.
Dear Members of the BirdLife International Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the assessment of Amazona vinacea. I would like to offer additional considerations and to respectfully express my disagreement with the proposed down-listing of the species at this time.
First, I would like to emphasize that Zulian et al. (2020) is a peer-reviewed study produced through extensive international collaboration, involving researchers with decades of direct field experience with A. vinacea across Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay. The study was based on a coordinated effort of roost counts across the species’ range, and the analytical framework was applied cautiously, with explicit discussion of assumptions, uncertainty, and limitations. As clearly stated in the paper, our estimates represent a snapshot in time and were not intended to demonstrate population recovery or to justify a change in Red List category. Rather, they provide an estimate of abundance and distribution at a specific point in time and explicitly caution against interpreting these results as evidence of reduced extinction risk or positive population trends.
As previously noted, the counts were conducted during the post-breeding period and therefore include an unknown—and likely substantial—proportion of juveniles. In a long-lived parrot species with low reproductive output and high juvenile mortality, post-breeding counts are likely to overestimate the number of individuals contributing to long-term population viability. Consequently, these data do not allow a reliable assessment of the number of mature individuals. Changes in extinction risk can only be robustly assessed through trend analyses conducted over multiple generations. Down-listing a long-lived species in the absence of such trend data entails a high risk of misclassifying extinction risk.
Regional population dynamics further support a precautionary interpretation. Subpopulations in Argentina and Paraguay are extremely small and, based on recent field evidence, are disappearing or at imminent risk of local extinction. These declines are highly relevant to global extinction risk, particularly given the fragmented structure of the species’ range and the limited potential for demographic rescue among subpopulations. The studies already cited in this discussion (Zulian et al. 2021; Ferraz et al. 2021) provide updated range estimates for these two countries.
In addition, the key threats that originally justified the Endangered status remain active. Nest poaching and habitat loss continue to exert significant and ongoing pressure on the species, at least in western Santa Catarina, where I have extensive field experience.
Until robust demographic data or population trend analyses become available, a precautionary approach would be to retain A. vinacea as Endangered rather than proceed with a down-listing based primarily on static abundance estimates.
I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this assessment and remain available for any further clarification.
Sincerely,
Viviane Zulian
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 16 February 2026.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
We would like to thank all contributors for their ongoing contributions to this assessment. It was indicated via email that updated analyses on the population trend will be provided which may result in a revaluation of the proposed Red List category.
Based on available information, our proposal for the 2026 Red List is to pend the decision on this species and keep the discussion open, while leaving the current Red List category unchanged.
Many thanks to everyone who contributed to the 2026.1 GTB Forum process. The final 2026 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites later this year, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Dear BirdLife International colleagues,
We respectfully submit the following comments regarding the proposed down-listing of the Vinaceous-breasted Amazon (Amazona vinacea) from Endangered (EN) to Vulnerable (VU). Based on the best available evidence and direct field experience across the species’ range, we consider that a change of category at this time would be premature and not supported by robust demographic data or documented threat reduction.
The global abundance estimates reported by Zulian et al. (2020) constitute an important contribution to knowledge, but do not demonstrate a reduction in extinction risk nor evidence of population recovery. The authors explicitly caution that their estimates are characterized by uncertainty and do not justify a category change. Moreover, these estimates do not distinguish mature from juvenile individuals, preventing assessment against IUCN criteria based on mature individuals (Criterion C). The sampling period (2016–2017) is also insufficient to evaluate long-term trends over ≥10 years or ≥3 generations, as required under criteria A and C.
Risk remains elevated under multiple criteria. Population structure remains highly asymmetric: most individuals occur in Brazil, whereas subpopulations in Argentina and Paraguay are small, fragmented and at risk of local extinction. Threats that originally justified the EN status—including habitat loss and degradation, scarcity of nesting cavities, low recruitment, and ongoing anthropogenic pressures—remain largely unresolved. The ecology of this species (longevity, low reproductive rate, and cavity-dependence) imply that positive demographic responses will only be detectable over multiple generations, consistent with IUCN time frames.
Recent field data highlight regional vulnerabilities. In Paraguay, the 2021 national census estimated ~100 individuals, followed by sharply lower counts of 15–18 individuals in 2022–2023, and preliminary estimates of 20–40 individuals in 2025. In Argentina, comprehensive roost counts recorded 247 individuals in 2023 and 323 in 2025, but post-breeding counts include a high proportion of juveniles, many of which do not survive to maturity.
In the absence of evidence for sustained positive trends or reductions in threats, a down-listing would create an inaccurate perception of recovery. Retaining the species as Endangered more accurately reflects current conditions and ensures the continuity of conservation actions necessary for its long-term survival.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this assessment process and thank in advance for considering the observations, field data, and local experience of practitioners working directly with the species. We remain available to provide further information or clarification as needed.
Sincerely,
Dr. Sofía Zalazar
Coordinator of the strategy: Study and Conservation of threatened species, Project Atlantic Forest.
Aves Argentinas / BirdLife International
Dear Members of Birdlife International Committee,
On behalf of the undersigned conservation organizations and research groups working directly with the Vinaceous-breasted Amazon (Amazona vinacea) throughout its distribution in Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, we respectfully submit this joint institutional statement to express our serious concern regarding the proposed change of the IUCN Red List category of this species from Endangered (EN) to Vulnerable (VU).
Based on the best available scientific evidence, long-term field experience, and regional population monitoring, we conclude that such a change would be premature and not supported by demographic data, population trends, or evidence of threat reduction, as required under the IUCN Red List criteria.
The proposal for downlisting relies primarily on the population estimates presented by Zulian et al. (2020). While this study represents an important advance in estimating the global abundance of A. vinacea, the authors themselves explicitly caution that their work does not warrant a change in Red List category. The estimates are derived from roost counts combined with N-mixture models that incorporate multiple assumptions and substantial uncertainty, including movement between sites, spatial uncertainty, imperfect detection, and the absence of age and population structure data. The authors clearly state that “we strongly emphasize that our estimates do not warrant proposing a category change for the species” and that “there is no statistical evidence that such increase resulted from population growth.”
Furthermore, roost counts were conducted during the post-breeding period, when a large proportion of individuals observed are fledglings and juveniles from the current breeding season. In long-lived psittacids such as A. vinacea, which have intrinsically low reproductive rate and high juvenile mortality, particularly during the first winter, post-breeding counts may substantially overestimate the number of individuals contributing to long-term population viability. Importantly, the proportion of mature individuals within these counts is unknown. As IUCN Criterion C is based exclusively on the number of mature individuals, the available data do not demonstrate that A. vinacea exceeds the thresholds required to exclude it from Endangered under Criterion C2a(i), nor do they demonstrate a sustained positive population trend. Additionally, the sampling period (2016–2017) is insufficient to evaluate trends over the ≥10 years or ≥3 generations required under IUCN criteria A and C.
The population structure of Amazona vinacea remains highly asymmetric across its range. Although the largest populations occur in Brazil, subpopulations in Argentina and Paraguay are extremely small, fragmented and declining, with a clear risk of local extinction. In Paraguay, a national census conducted in 2021 estimated approximately 100 individuals. Subsequent counts in 2022 and 2023, without full coverage of all relevant sites, recorded a drastic decline to 15–18 individuals, and preliminary estimates from 2025 indicate the presence of only 20–40 individuals. Compounding this situation, a major forest remnant (Reserva Itabó Rivas) that supported a subpopulation was deforested, and no viable habitat remains in the surrounding landscape. The fate of those individuals is unknown.
In Argentina, exhaustive surveys conducted across the entire known distribution recorded 247 individuals in 2023 and 323 individuals in 2025. These surveys are carried out in autumn, immediately following the breeding season, and therefore include a high proportion of juveniles from that year, many of which will not survive to sexual maturity. This spatial structure and ongoing decline are directly relevant to IUCN Criteria C2a(i) and B2.
The threats that originally justified the Endangered status of A. vinacea remain widespread and unresolved throughout most of its distribution. These include continued deforestation and degradation of the Atlantic Forest, particularly Araucaria forests, loss and scarcity of large cavity-bearing trees, low reproductive success, low juvenile survival, illegal harvesting of chicks for the pet trade, land-use change, and increasing impacts of climate change. As forest remnants become increasingly impoverished, large trees suitable for nesting are not only rarer but also more susceptible to collapse during storms, events that are becoming more frequent and intense.
Only a limited number of roosts, nests, and subpopulations are fully located within protected areas. Moreover, even when conservation actions such as translocation or reintroduction are implemented inside protected areas, A. vinacea does not remain restricted to these areas due to its nomadic behavior, exposing individuals to threats across unprotected landscapes. Consequently, the presence of individuals within protected areas alone does not equate to effective mitigation of extinction risk.
Evidence from wildlife rescue and rehabilitation further demonstrates ongoing pressure on the species. Over the last 15 years, almost 600 individuals of Amazona vinacea confiscated from illegal wildlife trade were received by a reintroduction project in Santa Catarina State, Brazil, one of the states harboring a significant portion of the species’ remaining population. These data confirm that illegal harvest and maintenance remain active and ongoing threats. In contrast, only one free-ranging injured individual was officially admitted during the same period, reflecting severe under-detection and under-reporting of mortality, rather than low impact. Field observations confirm that injured individuals, including nestlings, frequently do not enter official rescue systems, leading to a substantial underestimation of mortality.
Active conservation efforts are currently underway across the species’ range. In Brazil, these include reintroductions and in situ management, the installation and long-term monitoring of artificial nest boxes, and targeted actions to reduce key threats, such as protection of nesting sites, mitigation of illegal harvest, environmental education, and income-generation initiatives with local communities aimed at increasing long-term conservation incentives. In Argentina, efforts focus on intensive reproductive monitoring and community-based conservation initiatives. In Paraguay, conservation actions include population monitoring, site protection, and emergency measures in response to rapid population decline and habitat loss.
These combined efforts aim to increase reproductive success, improve juvenile survival, reduce mortality, and mitigate anthropogenic pressures. However, monitoring remains challenging due to the species’ nomadic behavior, which limits site fidelity and complicates the detection of individuals and trends across years. In addition, given the species’ longevity, delayed maturity, intrinsically low reproductive rate, and dependence on large cavities, any positive demographic response will only be detectable over multiple generations, consistent with the timeframes required by the IUCN to demonstrate genuine population recovery.
In conclusion, while recent studies have improved knowledge of the abundance and distribution of Amazona vinacea, there is no evidence of sustained population recovery, no demonstrated reduction in threats, and no robust demographic data supporting a decrease in extinction risk. Significant regional vulnerabilities persist, particularly in Argentina and Paraguay. Under the IUCN framework, changes in the Red List category require solid evidence of reduced extinction risk. In the absence of such evidence, a downlisting would be premature and risks creating a misleading perception of recovery.
Maintaining Amazona vinacea as Endangered (EN) more accurately reflects its current conservation status and ensures continued prioritization of the conservation actions necessary for its long-term survival.
We thank Birdlife International and the IUCN Red List Committee for considering this joint institutional contribution and remain available to provide additional data or clarification as needed.
Respectfully,
Signatory Institutions:
Brazil
Waita – Instituto de Pesquisa e Conservação – MSc Ariela Castelli Celeste, manager of the Project Voar – rehabilitation, release and monitoring of Amazona vinacea in Minas Gerais
Instituto Fauna Brasil – Dr. Vanessa Kanaan – President and responsible for the Amazona vinacea reintroduction at the Araucarias National Park, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Argentina
Aves Argentinas/BirdLife International – Dr. Sofía Zalazar, Coordinator of the strategy: study and conservation of threatened species, Project Atlantic Forest.
Paraguay
Asociación para la Conservación de Psitácidos del Paraguay (ACPP) – MSc Diana Pésole, President of the Association for the conservation of Psittacines of Paraguay and member of the technical team of Itaipu Binacional Protected Areas
I have forwarded a technical comment by email for consideration, prepared by a group of Brazilian researchers (Marina Somenzari, Fabio Stucchi Vannucchi, Alex Augusto de Abreu Bovo, Nêmora Pauletti Prestes, Jaime Martinez, Elenise Sipinski and Roberta Boss). It was too long to post here as a comment.
It includes modeling results from an unpublished Population Viability Analysis that predict an ongoing decline in the Brazilian population (the majority of the global population is in Brazil), and estimate that only 59% of the birds in the population are mature individuals (Ferraz et al. 2021).
The map in the species account has some areas for improvement. The remnant population in eastern Paraguay is very small, as noted by Dr. Zalazar, and most of the former range in Paraguay can now be mapped as “possibly extinct”. The small remnant population is connected across the border with observations in Paraná state (Brazil) to the east, but there is then a discontinuity between this subpopulation and the subpopulation that now occupies only a relatively small part of Misiones, Argentina, extending into southern Brazil. On the other hand, in northeastern Minas Gerais, there are recent confirmed records of the species, and it should be shown there as a “native resident”.
There is a more up to date map of the species’ range in Figure 8 of Ferraz et al. (2021), with the black dots and coloured areas showing recent records and the currently understood range, respectively.
Reference:
FERRAZ, K.M.P.M. de B.; BOVO, A.A.A.; VANNUCCHI, F.S.; PRESTES, N.P.; MARTINEZ, J.; SOMENZARI. M. 2021. Modelagem de distribuição e análise de viabilidade populacional de Amazona vinacea. In: Martinez, J. & Prestes, N. P. (Orgs.), Biologia da conservação: Programa Nacional para Conservação do Papagaio-de-peito-roxo e outras iniciativas (Cap. 5). Tapera, Brasil: Lew. Disponível em: https://secure.upf.br/pdf/PDF de Livro/Biologia_conservacao_papagaio_peito_roxo.pdf
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 2 February 2026. 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 2 February 2026, when discussions will re-open.
Preliminary proposal
We thank all contributors for their comments. We also thank Ben Phalan for providing additional information via email in the form of a technical document coordinated by Nêmora Prestes which presents additional data on the population structure and trend (Ferraz et al. 2021).
First, we would like to address concerns that the proposed downlist is due to a genuine recovery of this species. This assessment does not represent a genuine change in the species’ status, an increase in the population size, or a reduction in threats, but is rather a revision of the old category based on new information and an appropriate application of the IUCN Guidelines. The population trend as outlined in this assessment is ‘decreasing’ based on the continuation of a number of threats outlined in the comments. We will ensure that information on threats and conservation actions are updated to incorporate new information where applicable.
We have considered all information provided on the forum and separately via email, and provide a reassessment under IUCN Red List Criteria A to D below:
Criterion A:
We wish to draw attention to the fact that the species’ generation length has been updated and is now 8.9 years; rates of population reduction (for Criterion A) should therefore be calculated over c. 27 years, not 31 years.
As mentioned in the comments, there is insufficient monitoring data to estimate long-term trends, but based on additional information provided, it is possible to suspect a future reduction in the population within the range of 20-29% over three generations. Based on this information, the species is assessed as Near Threatened under Criterion A3. We have requested further information on population trends which may allow a revaluation under this Criterion.
Criterion B:
The species’ distribution map will be revised to more closely reflect the map provided in Ferraz et al. (2021). However, the species’ Extent of Occurrence and Area of Occupancy do not meet or approach the thresholds for listing as threatened under Criteria B1 or B2. The species is therefore assessed as Least Concern under Criterion B.
Criterion C:
Population size:
The original assessment updated the population size according to modelling and surveys presented in Zulian et al> (2020). As noted by several contributors, there is considerable uncertainty with this population estimate and this population size should be considered a maximum value. As such, a maximum population size of 6,100 mature individuals is calculated based on the maximum estimate from Zulian et al. (2020) of 9,176 individuals adjusted assuming approximately two-thirds are mature individuals. A minimum population size is derived by ignoring the estimate provided by Zulian et al. (2020) and relying on information provided during this forum, including: a minimum of 20 individuals in 2025 in Paraguay; 247 individuals in Argentina in 2023; and 5,058 individuals in Brazil (Ferraz et al. 2021). Tallying these counts and applying an adjustment for 59% mature individuals (Ferraz et al. 2021) gives a minimum population size of 3,150 mature individuals. As such, a new global population size of 3,150-6,100 mature individuals is proposed.
As such the population size falls below the initial threshold (10,000 mature individuals) for listing as Vulnerable, but is higher than the threshold for Endangered (<2,500 mature individuals).
Criterion C1
As mentioned under the assessment for Criterion A, it is possible to suspect a future decline of 20-29% over three generations. This does not meet the minimum data quality requirements of estimated, projected, or observed, according to the definitions in the IUCN Guidelines. Further information has been requested which may allow a reassessment under this Criterion. For now, however, this species is assessed against Criterion C1 as Near Threatened.
Criterion C2
There is a continuing decline as outlined in the original proposal. The modelling outlined in Ferraz et al. (2021) and documents provided by Ben Phalan suggest that there are four subpopulations in Brazil. This analysis indicates that the largest subpopulation in the south comprises 2,466 mature individuals. Regardless of the size and status of other subpopulations, this indicates that the largest subpopulation has more than 1,000 mature individuals and the species cannot be assessed as threatened under Criterion C2a(i). Additionally, according to the global population size outlined above, this indicates that the largest subpopulation contains a maximum of roughly 80% of all mature individuals. However, the definition used to define a subpopulation in the modelling is stricter than the definition in the IUCN Guidelines: “Subpopulations are defined as geographically or otherwise distinct groups in the population between which there is little demographic or genetic exchange (typically one successful migrant individual or gamete per year or less). ” Therefore, a precautionary approach could be to consider a minimum of one subpopulation with a maximum of six (assuming separate subpopulations in Paraguay and Argentina, respectively). Under this precautionary approach, the species could be listed as Vulnerable under Criterion C2a(ii) as originally proposed.
Final assessment
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2026 Red List would be to list Vinaceous-breasted Amazon as Vulnerable under Criterion C2a(ii).
We recognise the suggestion made that this species should be retained as Endangered. If sufficient information can be provided (i.e. updated census data) that the global population size is less than 2,500 mature individuals and that the population is experiencing continuing declines of 20% or higher over two generations (18 years); or that the largest subpopulation contains 95-100% of mature individuals and/or less than 250 mature individuals, then the species may be reassessed as Endangered under Criterion C1 and/or C2. Additionally, if sufficient evidence can demonstrate a reduction >50% over three generations (27 years), the species may be reassessed as Endangered under Criterion A. Currently, available data do not support these scenarios and strongly suggest that the species is best assessed as Vulnerable.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 8 February 2026, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2026 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites later this year, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Dear,
Based on the information currently available, we would like to reiterate our concern that key risk factors for Amazona vinacea have not diminished. Currently, major threats persist across the species’ range, the global population does not appear to have increased substantially over the last two decades, subpopulations remain increasingly isolated, and the number of mature individuals is still poorly known. Taken together, these factors suggest that the species’ extinction risk may be underestimated if assessed under less precautionary assumptions.
Given these uncertainties, we kindly request that the species be retained as Endangered for at least the coming years, until more robust and comparable information on population size, structure, and trends becomes available. In this regard, we note that in Argentina an intensive, long-term study has recently been initiated to better understand the current status of the species, including population dynamics, dispersal, and habitat use, through systematic nest monitoring and telemetry-based tracking. We believe that results from such efforts, together with ongoing work elsewhere in the range, will be critical to support a more confident reassessment in the near future.
I hope our arguments are clear and that they will be considered in the final decision.
Zalazar Sofía
Aves Argentinas – Birdlife International
In Paraguay the species was evaluated as Critically Endangered (C2a1) in the last national Red List assessment conducted in 2017. The species’ status in the country has only become more critical since then, with ongoing deforestation (despite a zero deforestation law) and extensive degradation of remaining forest blocks (even protected areas) due to illegal plantations, selective logging and fires. In the past ten years there have only been two reports outside of the species last remaining stronghold (the Itaipú Binacional reserves in Alto Paraná and Canindeyú departments), one of one bird in Alto Paraná, and one of two birds in Itapúa department. As Diana Pesole has noted, the Paraguayan population seems likely be just a few tens of birds.
Dear Members of the BirdLife International Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the assessment of Amazona vinacea. I would like to offer additional considerations and to respectfully express my disagreement with the proposed down-listing of the species at this time.
First, I would like to emphasize that Zulian et al. (2020) is a peer-reviewed study produced through extensive international collaboration, involving researchers with decades of direct field experience with A. vinacea across Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay. The study was based on a coordinated effort of roost counts across the species’ range, and the analytical framework was applied cautiously, with explicit discussion of assumptions, uncertainty, and limitations. As clearly stated in the paper, our estimates represent a snapshot in time and were not intended to demonstrate population recovery or to justify a change in Red List category. Rather, they provide an estimate of abundance and distribution at a specific point in time and explicitly caution against interpreting these results as evidence of reduced extinction risk or positive population trends.
As previously noted, the counts were conducted during the post-breeding period and therefore include an unknown—and likely substantial—proportion of juveniles. In a long-lived parrot species with low reproductive output and high juvenile mortality, post-breeding counts are likely to overestimate the number of individuals contributing to long-term population viability. Consequently, these data do not allow a reliable assessment of the number of mature individuals. Changes in extinction risk can only be robustly assessed through trend analyses conducted over multiple generations. Down-listing a long-lived species in the absence of such trend data entails a high risk of misclassifying extinction risk.
Regional population dynamics further support a precautionary interpretation. Subpopulations in Argentina and Paraguay are extremely small and, based on recent field evidence, are disappearing or at imminent risk of local extinction. These declines are highly relevant to global extinction risk, particularly given the fragmented structure of the species’ range and the limited potential for demographic rescue among subpopulations. The studies already cited in this discussion (Zulian et al. 2021; Ferraz et al. 2021) provide updated range estimates for these two countries.
In addition, the key threats that originally justified the Endangered status remain active. Nest poaching and habitat loss continue to exert significant and ongoing pressure on the species, at least in western Santa Catarina, where I have extensive field experience.
Until robust demographic data or population trend analyses become available, a precautionary approach would be to retain A. vinacea as Endangered rather than proceed with a down-listing based primarily on static abundance estimates.
I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this assessment and remain available for any further clarification.
Sincerely,
Viviane Zulian
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 16 February 2026.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
We would like to thank all contributors for their ongoing contributions to this assessment. It was indicated via email that updated analyses on the population trend will be provided which may result in a revaluation of the proposed Red List category.
Based on available information, our proposal for the 2026 Red List is to pend the decision on this species and keep the discussion open, while leaving the current Red List category unchanged.
Many thanks to everyone who contributed to the 2026.1 GTB Forum process. The final 2026 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites later this year, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.