Island Biocultural Diversity Initiative for Sustainable Society in Asia-Pacific Island Regions

Stopping declines in biodiversity is critically important, but it is only a first step toward achieving more ambitious conservation goals. The absence of an objective and practical definition of species recovery that is applicable across taxonomic groups leads to inconsistent targets in recovery plans and frustrates reporting and maximization of conservation impact. We devised a framework for comprehensively assessing species recovery and conservation success. We propose a definition of a fully recovered species that emphasizes viability, ecological functionality, and representation; and use counterfactual approaches to quantify degree of recovery. This allowed us to calculate a set of 4 conservation metrics that demonstrate impacts of conservation efforts to date (conservation legacy); identify dependence of a species on conservation actions (conservation dependence); quantify expected gains resulting from conservation action in the medium term (conservation gain); and specify requirements to achieve maximum plausible recovery over the long term (recovery potential). These metrics can incentivize the establishment and achievement of ambitious conservation targets. We illustrate their use by applying the framework to a vertebrate, an invertebrate, and a woody and an herbaceous plant. Our approach is a preliminary framework for an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Green List of Species, which was mandated by a resolution of IUCN members in 2012. Although there are several challenges in applying our proposed framework to a wide range of species, we believe its further development, implementation, and integration with the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species will help catalyze a positive and ambitious vision for conservation that will drive sustained conservation action.

ESR Endangered Species Research Contact the journal Facebook Twitter RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsSpecials ESR 6:193-198 (2008) - DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00129 National Red Lists: the largest global market for IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria Jon Paul Rodríguez1,2,* 1Centro de Ecología, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, Apdo. 20632, Caracas 1020-A,Venezuela 2Provita, Apdo. 47552, Caracas 1041-A, Venezuela *Email: jonpaul@ivic.ve ABSTRACT: The 2 major challenges currently confronting the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with regard to the ‘red listing’ process are the taxonomic, and the geographic growth of the data base. Taxonomic growth refers to the objective of gradually assessing the risk of extinction of all the world’s species and periodically repeating such assessments. Geographic growth refers to the increasing number of people around the world interested in performing extinction risk assessments for various groups of organisms in their region or country. The taxonomic challenge, although a large and demanding task, can be addressed by expanding and strengthening the networks of experts organized within the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC), which represents a significant scaling-up of a well-developed, known model. However, no current structure within the IUCN has the mandate to address the geographic challenge; this requires the creation of new structures or mechanisms. At least 5 key activities must be implemented to effectively integrate the diffuse network of national assessors into the global red listing process: (1) large-scale publicizing of the Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels, and encouraging the work of national assessors; (2) establishing the IUCN Species Programme as the primary trainer and certifier of multipliers; (3) delegating the majority of training to national institutions; (4) creating a virtual data clearing house for national red lists, seamlessly linked to the global list; and (5) consolidating the IUCN Species Programme as the primary endorser of national red list assessments. Hundreds of regional and national red lists will probably be produced in the next decade using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, particularly because they are now recognized by international agreements such as the 2010 biodiversity target of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nation’s General Assembly Millennium Development Goals. By catalyzing this process, the IUCN would expand the information on the world’s threatened species, while strengthening local scientific capacity for generating and using these data to support conservation action. KEY WORDS: Assessment of extinction risk · Conservation priorities · IUCN Red List · National red lists · Threatened species Full text in pdf format PreviousCite this article as: Rodríguez JP (2008) National Red Lists: the largest global market for IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Endang Species Res 6:193-198. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00129 Export citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in ESR Vol. 6, No. 2. Online publication date: December 30, 2008 Print ISSN: 1863-5407; Online ISSN: 1613-4796 Copyright © 2008 Inter-Research.

The list of threatened species (Red List), established by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), aims to provide global assessments on the extinction risk of species. However, protecting vulnerable populations requires establishing threat criteria at sub-global scales, e.g., national Red Lists. In data-poor contexts, typical of many developing countries, assessing threat status by applying IUCN criteria constitutes a major challenge, which may be one reason for mismatches between national and global Red List assessments. Despite the intense harvesting of threatened elasmobranchs species in Brazilian waters, Brazilian fisheries monitoring has ceased to exist for nearly a decade. This jeopardizes accurate assessment of species’ conservation status at a local scale. In the absence of fisheries records, local ecological knowledge (LEK) provides an alternative option to obtain reliable information on targeted species. We interviewed 186 fishers from four Brazilian Northeastern states, whose recollections spanned six decades and documented catches or sightings of 19 shark species. For eight species with sufficient data, temporal trends in maximum length of sharks caught by fishers of different age-classes were statistically tested. Four species’ maximum length declined over time, while four were primarily captured by elderly fishers, with few or no recent catches reported. Of these species, one is classified more conservatively in the national Red List vs. IUCN Red List, which is supported by LEK results. Contrastingly, two species are classified less conservatively at the national level than by IUCN, such that upgrading and matching IUCN’s conservation criteria is warranted. We suggest that LEK provides support for conservation status listing in data-poor contexts.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) currently serves as the multilateral environmental framework for protecting biodiversity. Parties to the CBD are required to develop and submit National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and National Reports. These documents serve as the instruments used by governments and stakeholders to identify their priorities, implement, and track progress to the CBD. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has produced biodiversity and conservation knowledge products that are fundamental for tracking the progress of targets such as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. We examined if countries in the Americas are using knowledge products based on IUCN standards to help construct their documents; 234 documents were analyzed for knowledge product keywords. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species was mentioned in 91.8% of keyword‐coded segments. IUCN publications, Protected Areas Categories, Key Biodiversity Areas, the Red List of Ecosystems and World Database on Protected Areas had 8.2% of the remaining segments. Further studies should investigate awareness of knowledge products among national focal points for the CBD to determine their limited use in document development. IUCN knowledge products should continue to form an integral part of future indicators during this critical moment for biodiversity conservation.

Youth are increasingly recognized for their important role in shaping environmental decisions surrounding conservation. Regrettably, youth who are crucial decision‐makers are often excluded from environmental governance spaces due to structural barriers, both economic and political. As highlighted by recent environmental justice literature, this marginalization hinders their active participation in the decision‐making process. The recent publication of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Youth Strategy 2022–2030 has brought prominent environmental organizations into the debate. The IUCN World Conservation Congress (WCC) presents a useful example from which to understand how youth access and participate in decision‐making at the highest level of governance in a prominent global conservation organization. We used event ethnography and participant observation methods to study the WCC Forum in Marseille, France (2021). We sought to examine the geopolitical intricacies of power and the underlying inequalities at the root of youth engagement, or lack thereof. We considered the IUCN's engagement with youth, outlining the process from previous resolutions and recommendations to the publication of the IUCN Youth Strategy in 2022. The results from the youth narratives we compiled showed that youth are not a monolith, that tokenism should be challenged, and that youth have agency but require support. We argue that when youth are mobilized in metalevel decision‐making spaces, their engagement is stratified and unequal. We situated youth engagement in decision‐making through the perspective of environmental organizations as a contribution to environmental governance and youth literature.

The threat assessment of Finnish species was carried out during 2017–2018 for the third time using International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) criteria (IUCN 2012a, IUCN 2012b, IUCN 2016). The Red List was published in March 2019 (Hyvärinen et al. 2019). In conjunction with the assessment of threatened species, 36,602 species or lower taxa were listed. The information was sufficient for assessment of 22,418 species. It was done by 18 expert groups of different organism groups. The process was coordinated by the Finnish Environment Institute Syke and led by the steering group of the assessment from the Ministry of Environment. For the first time, the Finnish Biodiversity Information Facility FinBIF offered a documentation tool and archive for the threat assessment. The assessment was based on the national checklist of Finnish species coordinated by FinBIF. Many of the expert groups are in active collaboration with FinBIF in maintaining FinBIF’s taxon database and in updating the checklists. Hence, there was a good foundation to build on in developing the cooperation further and deepening the integration of the Red Listing process into FinBIF’s IT infrastructure. The documentation tool of the assessment is implemented in the taxon database of FinBIF (Fig. 1). The Red List data of the 2010 (all species) and 2015 (birds and mammals) assessments are readily available in the tool. The assessor can therefore easily copy and confirm e.g. area of occupancy, extent of occurrence, generation length and habitat of a species, if there is no need for editing. The service offers the possibility to add notes to most of the fields separately and commenting on the assessment by other authorized users. The tool archives the history of all changes. In line with the IUCN instructions, the tool automatically chooses the criteria leading to the highest possible threat category of criteria A-E filled out for each species. However, the assessor confirms the final evaluation. Finally, in several fields, the tool automatically checks the validity of values entered, e.g. criteria, threat category, length of the observation period, causes of threat, and current threat factors. The tool includes necessary fields for back-casting the categories of previous assessments to count the Red List Index. There is also a possibility to add or choose references for the assessment of a certain species in the publications part of the taxon database. Due to linkage through the taxon database, the updated threat categories of each Finnish species are immediately available as additional information of each species introduced in FinBIF. Also for the first time, the results of the threat assessment can be examined online directly after its publication at the Red List online service through FinBIF: https://punainenkirja.laji.fi/en. The online service makes Red List categories and related criteria searchable. Data can be categorized also by habitat, causes of threat, or current threat factors. Due to the ability to conduct searches, the online service supplements the printed book (Hyvärinen et al. 2019), which includes extensive summaries for groups of organisms.

As members of the team that was involved in the preparation of the ‘2007 Red List of Threatened Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka’ (IUCN Sri Lanka & the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, 2007), we have paid careful attention to a recent article published by Bahir & Gabadage (2009) in the Journal of Threatened Taxa, which has attempted to judge or interpret the quality of this publication. After careful review of the article under reference, we have decided to submit a response in order to address erroneous interpretations and misleading statements contained therein, based on reasoned judgment or analysis. The 2007 Red List of Threatened Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka will be referred to herein, as the 2007 National Red List. The 2007 National Red List was the result of a three-year collaborative project implemented by IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) in Sri Lanka and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. This project, evaluated the conservation status of selected fauna and flora species in Sri Lanka using IUCN’s Global Red List Categories and Criteria, adapted to a regional level. The project was steered by the National Species Conservation Advisory Group (NSCAG) appointed by the Biodiversity Secretariat of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. As elaborated on page 11 of the 2007 National Red List, the project followed an extensive consultative process, involving a group of expert reviewers appointed by the Biodiversity Secretariat. These reviewers consisted of over 50 researchers, taxonomists and naturalists, within 11 taxonomic groups. It also consulted relevant stakeholders such as protected area managers, and non-governmental environmental organizations in the country. It is evident that Bahir & Gabadage (2009) have not read this section of the document as the statements made in the background as well as conclusions in their article have implied that appropriate specialists have not been consulted in the preparatory process of this national document. Ironically the first author, Mr. Mohomed Bahir was one of the appointed expert reviewers as can be seen from the list contained in page viii. Bahir & Gabadage (2009) have ignored facts, in their effort to point out errors in taxonomy, nomenclature, citations, and data, in the 2007 National Red List. We will address all of their unsubstantiated allegations, with relevant facts, in the following sections. The science of taxonomy is dynamic and fluid, continuously evolving and changing as new data emerges. Taxonomists often find themselves at odds with each other in changes relating to nomenclature. Therefore it is obvious that the taxonomic changes emerging after the publication of the 2007 National Red List could only be be addressed in its future revisions. Bahir & Gabadage (2009) have pointed out nomenclatural issues relating to the amphibians in the 2007 National Red List, without noting the fact that the document has chosen to adopt the list of threatened amphibians from the Global Amphibian Assessment (www.globalamphibians.org). The decision to adopt the threatened amphibians list from the Global Amphibian Assessment was taken in order to avoid duplication of efforts, a decision which was endorsed by the National Species Conservation Advisory Group (NSCAG) of Sri Lanka, as well as the expert reviewers, including the foremost amphibian taxonomists and researchers in the country. This fact is mentioned in the methodology section of the document (page 12). It is to be noted however, that the national list was further supplemented with evaluations of amphibian species described more recently from Sri Lanka (Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi 2005; Fernando et al. 2007; Meegaskumubura et al. 2007). Bahir & Gabadage (2009) have further highlighted Cnemaspis tropidogaster (Boulenger 1885) as being OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOAD Date of publication (online): 26 April 2010 Date of publication (print): 26 April 2010 ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)

Perhaps the most often-cited quote in biological conservation circles is this ominous warning from E. O. Wilson (1990:182): ‘‘The one process now going on that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us.’’ If there is a cultural corollary to Wilson’s principle, it is that the loss of and disregard for traditional ecological knowledge may regrettably keep us from maintaining or recovering the species now at risk due to habitat destruction, fragmentation or mismanagement. Nonetheless, there remains sufficient indigenous knowledge about endangered species, their life histories and habitats, to give us hope that it can guide both species recovery and habitat restoration in order to prevent the further loss of biodiversity. This hope is grounded in our discussions with tribal elders and indigenous resource managers who retain detailed oral histories of the behavior and habitats of critically endangered species such as the ‘‘California’’ condor (Gymnogyps californianus), a species that was never geopolitically restricted to California alone. This North American condor is one of 1253 species of birds considered to be threatened with extinction by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN); another 853 avian species are considered ‘‘near threatened’’ as well. Together, the birds in these two categories amount to roughly twenty percent of all avian species already described by Western science. But something remarkable has happened to condors in North America over the last quarter century, something which flies in the face of the global trends regarding other endangered birds. While the conservation status of nearly all of the IUCN Red Listed birds at risk has deteriorated since 1988 (Butchart et al. 2004), condor numbers have increased from the 22 individuals captured in 1987, to over 386 individuals today. At least 213 condors now live and thrive in the wilds of Arizona, Baja California, California, and Utah. Notably, both ethnobiologists and keepers of traditional knowledge have played roles in the recovery of condors in North America, and we believe will continue to do so. It was the Society for Ethnobiology’s first elected president, Amadeo Rea, who first discovered that lead poisoning might be playing a disproportionately large role in condor deaths. He is also recognized as the first scientist who ‘‘recommended the Grand Canyon region as the best place to

Traditional knowledge on local biodiversity has sustained traditional economies for centuries across the world. While it is threatened by modern ecological knowledge, it remains very important in some regions, especially among poor communities in both less developed and industrialized nations. Among such communities, it is valued and treasured at varying extent throughout the year. In other communities, it is valued and utilized in seasonal livelihoods. It is therefore, treasured and passed from one generation to the next. In some cases, it almost competes with modern technological or scientific knowledge on the use and management of biodiversity. This case study is based on a research conducted in the Eastern part of Botswana among 14 villages where knowledge of species of edible and medicinal plants remains relevant. The researchers used observations, individual interviews and focus group discussions to generate data over a period of twenty months. It became apparent that local ecological knowledge is still valued, especially by poor people, who use it to enhance their wellbeing and to protect biodiversity. Some respondents said they value it since they are beneficiaries of those who possess it since they need and utilize the products sold by those who still have a wealth of knowledge of local biodiversity. Other respondents felt it (local knowledge) was as valuable as modern scientific knowledge and suggested that it should be legislated and taught in schools as it is slowly eroded or disappearing. This paper recommends the sustenance of the existing traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) while reconstructing it in preparation for curriculum development. The paper recommends that further research be carried out to document the type or nature of people who are TEK holders, the methods they use to manage and utilize local biodiversity products, the extent of success of their practices, up-to-date contacts of these people (communication channels) and suggest a policy to develop enabling social and economic conditions within which TEK practitioners work. Article visualizations:

Protected areas (PAs) are considered the cornerstone of biodiversity conservation (Chape et al., 2005), and according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), are defined as “A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long'term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley, 2008). The IUCN set the first ‘target’ for protection, by agreeing at the 1992 World Parks Congress in Caracas, Venezuela, that PAs should cover a minimum of 10% of each biome by 2000. There are now over 120,000 PAs worldwide, taking into account both those classified under any of the six IUCN management categories, and those not classified, including private reserves and community'conserved areas (UNEP'WCMC, 2008). The overall trend in the total surface of PAs has been steadily upward during the last few decades in all regions of the world, but has been leveling off somewhat since 2000 (Fig. 1). Recognising the importance of PAs to global efforts to halt biodiversity loss, in late 2010 at the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 10th Conference of Parties in Japan, twenty targets were set for biodiversity conservation (‘Aichi Targets’). These include a global increase of terrestrial and inland water PAs to 17% (from 13%) by 2020, and coastal and marine PAs from 1% to 10% in the same period (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010). Despite this growth, however, the effectiveness of PAs in conserving habitats and species cannot simply be interpreted as the result of their number and size as it also depends on their location, structure (size, shape, connectivity) and, of equal importance, their management (Cantu'Salazar & Gaston, 2010; Rodrigues et al., 2004). Traditionally, a top' down approach was employed to PA establishment and management which excluded local participation (Ervin et al., 2010; Kiss, 1990; Stevens, 1997). As a result, people whose livelihoods chiefly involve the direct exploitation of local natural resources often come into conflict with the institutions of PAs. Frequently, communities living in and around PAs have important and longstanding relationships with these areas that embrace inter alia cultural identity and subsistence practices essential to sustaining livelihoods, and often contribute to maintenance of biodiversity (Anthony & Bellinger, 2007). Consequently, PAs

Bridging gaps in plant conservation: The national red list assessment initiative in India

Groupers are vulnerable to fishing pressure largely because of their life‐history traits. The Pacific goliath grouper (PGG; Epinephelus quinquefasciatus), the largest reef fish inhabiting the tropical Eastern Pacific region, is suspected to be subject to high levels of exploitation, but scarce information exists on their population status and the species remains classed as Data Deficient according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. This study documents for the first time the threats to the PGG along the Colombian Pacific coast, where one of the few active fisheries for this species persists. Reconstructed landings of groupers and traditional ecological knowledge, gathered throughout several coastal villages, were used to obtain a historical and contemporary overview of the PGG status in Colombia. Over the past 20 years grouper landings in the Colombian Pacific have been around 200 tons per year. Landings of PGG have averaged ~35 tons per year and are now close to matching those of the historically most landed grouper on this coast, the rooster hind (Hyporthodus acanthistius). The current small‐scale fishery for PGG focuses on immature small individuals, with most taken from the extensive southern mangroves. Until recently fishers have captured PGG exclusively with handlines, but new fishing practices (spearfishing) and markets commanding higher prices for small individuals are increasing the extinction risk for the PGG. The exploitation of PGG in the Colombian Pacific may not be as severe as in other countries where severe population declines are suspected (e.g. Mexico). Low coastal human population density and the presence of relatively intact mangroves, essential habitat for juvenile fishes, contribute to the persistence of PGG populations throughout the Colombian Pacific. National and regional conservation and management measures should identify and protect mangrove nurseries and offshore spawning aggregation sites. Well‐enforced protected nurseries and spawning aggregation sites will then protect juvenile and adult PGG, improving the sustainability of this fishery.

Karim-Aly S. Kassam: Biocultural Diversity and Indigenous Ways of Knowing: Human Ecology in the Arctic

The Sendai and Hyogo Frameworks emphasize integrating modern science with Indigenous knowledge, a bottom-up community-based disaster management approach. However, a top-down disaster management mechanism and a lack of awareness about Indigenous knowledge are part of the current reality in Taiwan. This study chose the great Cinsbu, an Atayal community in Taiwan, as a case study area, using interviews to explore traditional ecological knowledge in Indigenous people’s daily lives. The study also applies a bottom-up, community-based approach through workshops. This study’s goals are to apply Indigenous knowledge to improve community disaster planning and to work with communities to assist them in utilizing their (Indigenous) knowledge and resources. As a key to achieving disaster resilience, the study highlights three approaches based on traditional ecological knowledge: the natural environment, agriculture production, and social capital. The natural environment approach integrates modern science and traditional ecological knowledge through community risk mapping. The agriculture production approach conserves seeds and stores food using traditional methods, such as pickling and storing in traditional barns. The social capital approach establishes a disaster management organization based on social networking. Finally, the community develops hazard preparedness and disaster response measures based on traditional ecological knowledge. These measures can be integrated with existing disaster management to form a specific mechanism for Indigenous communities.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species was increasingly used during the 1980s to assess the conservation status of species for policy and planning purposes. This use stimulated the development of a new set of quantitative criteria for listing species in the categories of threat: critically endangered, endangered, and vulnerable. These criteria, which were intended to be applicable to all species except microorganisms, were part of a broader system for classifying threatened species and were fully implemented by IUCN in 2000. The system and the criteria have been widely used by conservation practitioners and scientists and now underpin one indicator being used to assess the Convention on Biological Diversity 2010 biodiversity target. We describe the process and the technical background to the IUCN Red List system. The criteria refer to fundamental biological processes underlying population decline and extinction. But given major differences between species, the threatening processes affecting them, and the paucity of knowledge relating to most species, the IUCN system had to be both broad and flexible to be applicable to the majority of described species. The system was designed to measure the symptoms of extinction risk, and uses 5 independent criteria relating to aspects of population loss and decline of range size. A species is assigned to a threat category if it meets the quantitative threshold for at least one criterion. The criteria and the accompanying rules and guidelines used by IUCN are intended to increase the consistency, transparency, and validity of its categorization system, but it necessitates some compromises that affect the applicability of the system and the species lists that result. In particular, choices were made over the assessment of uncertainty, poorly known species, depleted species, population decline, restricted ranges, and rarity; all of these affect the way red lists should be viewed and used. Processes related to priority setting and the development of national red lists need to take account of some assumptions in the formulation of the criteria.