National Threatened Species Listing Based on IUCN Criteria and Regional Guidelines: Current Status and Future Perspectives

Abstract

: As countries worldwide become increasingly interested in conserving biodiversity, the profile of national threatened species lists expands and these lists become more influential in determining conservation priorities. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) Categories and Criteria for evaluating extinction risk, originally intended for use at the global level, are increasingly being used at the national level. To facilitate this process, the IUCN recently published guidelines for the application of the criteria at subglobal levels. We evaluated the application of these guidelines, focusing on the opinions and experience of the global community of national assessors. To assess the extent to which IUCN criteria have been used in official national listing efforts, we sent a survey to 180 Convention on Biological Diversity national focal points designated by governments. Of the respondents, 77% had developed national threatened species lists. Of these, 78% applied a version of the IUCN criteria, and 88% plan to produce future threatened species lists. The majority of this last group (83%) will use IUCN criteria. Of the countries that have or will develop a threatened species list, 82% incorporated their list or the IUCN criteria into national conservation strategies. We further explored the issues highlighted by the survey results by integrating the experience of assessors that have produced national lists. Most of the problems national assessors faced when applying the IUCN criteria arose when the criteria were applied at the regional level without the IUCN Regional Guidelines and when assessors were confused about the purpose of the IUCN criteria and lacked training in their proper use. To improve their clarity and increase their repeatability, we recommend that the IUCN increase communication and information exchange among countries and between regional and global assessors, potentially through an interactive Web site, to facilitate the development of national red lists and to improve their conservation value within and between countries.

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

“…Rather, lack of expert knowledge was identified as the principal constraint to RLTSs in these countries. Our study therefore confirms the essential role of experts for biodiversity knowledge and conservation (Miller et al 2007, Coreau 2014, Hjarding et al 2015. Respondents highlighted the need for the training of conservation experts, along with structured support from political decision makers and international organizations for the production of NRLTSs.…”

“…Defining an RLTS is a complex process as such a list can assess different areas (regional, national, subnatio nal), include one or several chapters, assess an entire taxonomic group or just selected species, be published at different times from an RLTS or Red Data Book, and be elaborated according to different guide lines (Köppel et al 2003, Miller et al 2007). N RLTSs can have different objectives and uses depending on their implementation process (Burton 2003).…”

“…On the other hand, several valuable studies have given an overview of the development of N RLTSs over the past decade (Köppel et al 2003, Miller et al 2007, Zamin et al 2010. They show unequal geographic coverage of N RLTSs and that regions with the most important stakes for biodiversity have developed fewer NRLTSs (McKinney 1999, Zamin et al 2010.…”

“…They show unequal geographic coverage of N RLTSs and that regions with the most important stakes for biodiversity have developed fewer NRLTSs (McKinney 1999, Zamin et al 2010. Several methodological questions have also been raised, especially regarding the applicability of IUCN methodology to less well-known areas and taxa (Miller et al 2007). Despite published recommendations (Miller et al 2007, Rodríguez 2008, several points of confusion persist in the use of RLTSs (e.g.…”

“…Several methodological questions have also been raised, especially regarding the applicability of IUCN methodology to less well-known areas and taxa (Miller et al 2007). 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.…”