Establishing IUCN Red List Criteria for Threatened Ecosystems

Abstract

The potential for conservation of individual species has been greatly advanced by the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) development of objective, repeatable, and transparent criteria for assessing extinction risk that explicitly separate risk assessment from priority setting. At the IV World Conservation Congress in 2008, the process began to develop and implement comparable global standards for ecosystems. A working group established by the IUCN has begun formulating a system of quantitative categories and criteria, analogous to those used for species, for assigning levels of threat to ecosystems at local, regional, and global levels. A final system will require definitions of ecosystems; quantification of ecosystem status; identification of the stages of degradation and loss of ecosystems; proxy measures of risk (criteria); classification thresholds for these criteria; and standardized methods for performing assessments. The system will need to reflect the degree and rate of change in an ecosystem's extent, composition, structure, and function, and have its conceptual roots in ecological theory and empirical research. On the basis of these requirements and the hypothesis that ecosystem risk is a function of the risk of its component species, we propose a set of four criteria: recent declines in distribution or ecological function, historical total loss in distribution or ecological function, small distribution combined with decline, or very small distribution. Most work has focused on terrestrial ecosystems, but comparable thresholds and criteria for freshwater and marine ecosystems are also needed. These are the first steps in an international consultation process that will lead to a unified proposal to be presented at the next World Conservation Congress in 2012.Establecimiento de Criterios para la Lista Roja de UICN de Ecosistemas AmenazadosResumenEl potencial para la conservación de muchas especies ha avanzado enormemente porque la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (UICN) ha desarrollado criterios objetivos, repetibles y transparentes para evaluar el riesgo de extinción que explícitamente separa la evaluación de riesgo de la definición de prioridades. En el IV Congreso Mundial de Conservación en 2008, el proceso comenzó a desarrollar e implementar estándares globales comparables para ecosistemas. Un grupo de trabajo establecido por la UICN ha formulado un sistema inicial de categorías y criterios cuantitativos, análogos a los utilizados para especies, para asignar niveles de amenaza a ecosistemas a niveles local, regional y global. Un sistema final requerirá de definiciones de ecosistemas; cuantificación del estatus de ecosistemas; identificación de las etapas de degradación y pérdida de los ecosistemas; medidas de riesgo (criterios) alternativas; umbrales de clasificación para esos criterios y métodos estandarizados para la realización de evaluaciones. El sistema deberá reflejar el nivel y tasa de cambio en la extensión, composición, estructura y funcio...

Habitats on the grid: The spatial dimension does matter for red-listing

“…CITES, 1973;European Commission, 2011;United Nations, 1976, 1992. The most challenging aspect stems from the complexity of biodiversity, that in itself comprises both multiple levels of organisation Despite the cutting edge importance of species Red Lists, the realisation that an approach focused exclusively on the species level is unfit to conserve all components of biodiversity led the scientific community, conservation professionals and institutions to be increasingly concerned with biodiversity assessments, addressing higher levels of biological organisation (Izco, 2015;Keith, 2009;Keith et al, 2013Keith et al, , 2015Kontula & Raunio, 2009;IUCN, 2015a;Nicholson, Keith, & Wilcove, 2009;Rodríguez et al, 2011Rodríguez et al, , 2012Rodríguez et al, , 2015. Ecological communities may more efficiently represent the biological diversity as a whole, compared to the species-level approach, which often lacks direct information about fundamental abiotic components, thus missing both the targets of protecting ecological patterns and processes, and ensuring the persistence of ecosystem functions and structure (Balmford et al, 2002;Cowling et al, 2004;Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005;Noss, 1996; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010).…”

National responsibilities for conserving habitats – a freely scalable method

“…Accepted habitat classifications and spatial information on their distribution are therefore urgently needed, as recommended in a recent article (Rodríguez et al 2011). Once such data are available, we recommend the following addition to our methodology: A first biome-wide assessment of the distribution probability needs to be undertaken, comparing the expected and observed distribution probability of a habitat e.g.…”

Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of ecosystems categories and criteria

“…The resolution requested IUCN to "initiate a consultation process for the development, implementation and monitoring of a global standard for the assessment of ecosystem status, applicable at local, regional and global levels." Over the following four years, and with significant contributions from the scientific, government and conservation sectors, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Thematic Group of the Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM) drafted an initial set of criteria (Version 1.0; Rodríguez et al, 2011). In subsequent years, the criteria were disseminated and tested globally across a suite of ecosystem types by a range of external partners and in collaboration with the IUCN Global Ecosystem Management Programme (GEMP).…”

“…These systematic assessments require a typology to ensure consistent and comparable ecosystem risk assessments across the area of assessment. The classification may simply delineate units at a particular thematic scale, or may describe their relationships using hierarchies or nested arrangements that span a range of thematic scales (Rodríguez et al, 2011).…”