Limits to the use of threatened species lists

Abstract

Threatened species lists are designed primarily to provide an easily understood qualitative estimate of risk of extinction. Although these estimates of risk can be accurate, the lists have inevitably become linked to several decision-making processes. There are four ways in which such lists are commonly used: to set priorities for resource allocation for species recovery; to inform reserve system design; to constrain development and exploitation; and to report on the state of the environment. The lists were not designed for any one of these purposes, and consequently perform some of them poorly. We discuss why, if and how they should be used to achieve these purposes.Governments and nongovernmental organizations produce threatened species lists for three main reasons: (1) to assess potentially adverse impacts on species; (2) to help inform conservation priorities, including reserve system design; or (3) as a component of State of the Environment Reports [1]. Moreover, in many countries there is a direct connection between threatened species lists and legislation (e.g. the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species [2] and the US Endangered Species Act), leading to political and social considerations in the listing protocol. The ideal characteristics of these lists, and the protocols for generating them, will depend on the specific objectives. Regardless of who generated the list, there are three classes of user group: the public, governments and conservation organizations. All protocols result in an assessment of threat, couched in words that reflect the probability of decline or loss of a taxon at different regional scales [3]. Some are designed to apply within a local region or state [4][5][6], whereas others have national [7][8][9], or international status [10,11], or are used at multiple political scales [12][13][14]. Some have also been developed for specific taxonomic groups [15][16][17]. These protocols share many attributes and use similar information, such as population size, extent, number of populations and trends in at least some of these variables.Because of the variety of objectives and users, the interpretation of lists is variable, and most are used for more than one purpose, regardless of their original intent. Here, we critically assess four ways in which threatened species lists are commonly used. We argue that they are used for purposes beyond their original intent; furthermore, they perform some of these uses poorly. The protocols used to generate lists differ in the extent to which they consider management variables, taxonomic status, recoverability and assessments of past or future trends. In addition, they employ different logical systems to interpret data, treat missing data differently, and apply different weights to the variables. As a result, the level of correspondence among classifications resulting from different methods can be low, even when using the same data [18]. Given the widespread use of such lists to allocate scarce conservation resources, before app...

Protecting Migratory Species in the Australian Marine Environment: A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis of Policy and Management Plans

“…Marine turtles and humpback whales are listed as threatened under the EPBC Act 1999 and while less than one-third of the reviewed Australian policies listed protected species, threatened species listings often drive conservation actions and are used to prioritize the resources used for protecting threatened species (Possingham et al, 2002;Parsons, 2016). The dugong is not a nationally-listed threatened species in Australia, but it is still recognized as a MNES and, along with marine turtles, holds high traditional value to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People living in Northern Australia .…”

National and subnational Red Lists in European and Mediterranean countries: current state and use for conservation

“…National and subnational actors mainly use RLTSs for prioritizing species for protection. Nevertheless, a confusion persists between risk of extinction and conservation priorities or rarity (Miller et al 2007, Fitzpatrick et al 2007, Mace et al 2008) that can affect RLTS efficiency and constrain support from policymakers (Possingham et al 2002, Lamoreux et al 2003. As a prioritization tool, RLTSs must be associated with other factors such as national responsibility and opportunities for action (Keller & Bollmann 2004, Rodríguez et al 2004, Schatz et al 2014, Schmeller et al 2014.…”

“…Despite published recommendations (Miller et al 2007, Rodríguez 2008, several points of confusion persist in the use of RLTSs (e.g. RLTSs used directly as a list of protected species or as a template to establish conservation priorities), which hampers both the production and use of RLTSs for conservation (Possingham et al 2002, Farrier et al 2007, Martín-López et al 2011.…”

Is There Enough Science for Conservation Action?

“…But, there is little consensus on the criteria used or on the lists of species-a feature not expected if the lists were indeed based on objective approaches. This lack of agreement has led to unending debates and conflicts over whether or not our conservation efforts should be guided by these lists (Possingham et al 2002).…”