Abstract
The IUCN Red List is the most widely used tool to measure extinction risk and report biodiversity trends. Accurate and standardised conservation status assessments for the IUCN Red List are limited by a lack of adequate information; and need consistent and unbiased interpretation of that information. Variable interpretation stems from a lack of quantified thresholds in certain areas of the Red List guidelines. Thus, even in situations with sufficient information to make a Red List assessment, inconsistency can occur when experts, especially from different regions, interpret the guidelines differently, thereby undermining the goals and credibility of the process. In such an information vacuum, assessors make assumptions depending on their level of Red List experience (subconscious bias) and their personal values or agendas (conscious bias). We highlight two major issues where such bias influences assessments: relating to fenced subpopulations that require intensive management; and defining benchmark geographic distributions and thus the inclusion/exclusion of introduced subpopulations. We suggest assessor bias can be reduced by refining the Red List guidelines to include quantified thresholds for when to include fenced/intensively managed subpopulations or subpopulations outside the benchmark distribution; publishing case studies of difficult assessments to enhance cohesion between Specialist Groups; developing an online accreditation course on applying Red List criteria as a prerequisite for assessors; and ensuring that assessments of species subject to trade and utilisation are represented by all dissenting views (for example, both utilitarian and preservationist) and reviewed by relevant Specialist Groups. We believe these interventions would ensure consistent, reliable assessments of threatened species between regions and across assessors with divergent views, and will thus improve comparisons between taxa and counteract the use of Red List assessments as a tool
Highlights
The Red List was developed in 1964 by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
The global Red List is the most widely used and accepted authority on the conservation status of the world’s biodiversity (Rodrigues et al, 2006), which is achieved by soliciting taxon experts to apply available population, distribution and threat data to five quantitative criteria to evaluate whether the species meets any of the extinction risk thresholds
As habitat loss continues to encroach on remaining wilderness areas, wildlife, large mammal species, will increasingly be restricted to fenced areas, which will necessitate a more detailed discussion about their management (Ripple et al, 2015) and of what it means to conserve these species so their “wildness” quality is sustained
Summary
The Red List was developed in 1964 by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). This has been resolved in the current South African national Red List revision by conducting sensitivity analyses on permutations of the data to assess whether the assessment is robust to including or excluding questionable subpopulations and by actively engaging the relevant SG to provide the most experienced and objective guidance, thereby aligning the national assessments with current best practice at the global scale To solve this in the long-term, more case studies need to be published and the relevant SGs should engage regularly with local experts to align and refine the thresholds of intensive management laid out by the IUCN guidelines Version 11. Intensive management aimed at enhancing the long-term resilience and adaptive capacity of the subpopulation/species (e.g., metapopulation management) is permissible (Figure 2)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
