o_19ko2dt161ng2j4e1tgnoqv1s45a.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

C. LUSTY, W.A.N.AMARAL, W. D.HAWTHORNE, L.T. HONG & S. OLDFIELD (2007) STATUS OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IN MALAYSIA & THREAT ASSESSMENT OF PLANT SPECIES IN MALAYSIA APPLYING THE IUCN RED LIST CATEGORIES IN A FOREST SETTING 1 C. Lusty, 2 W. A. N. Amaral, 3 W. D. Hawthorne, 4 L. T. Hong & 5 S. Oldfield ABSTRACT The IUCN-The World Conservation Union Red List categories provide a globally-accepted framework for classifying animal and plant taxa according to their risk of extinction. Different versions of the categories have been in use for forty years. Their present form, version 3.1 published in 2001, demands a quantitative assessment of species status, and has been carefully designed to accommodate the spectrum of case-studies from large mammals to mosses or commercially-exploited trees to poorly-known insects. Consequently, the categories are assigned by the use of any one of five major criteria that infer either past or potential species population declines, or habitat declines, restriction in geographical distribution or population numbers. For the uninitiated assessors of forest species, the categories may present a daunting need for largely unavailable data. In this paper, we would like to demonstrate that the categories can be applied through the use of available forest management data, biological inventory datasets and/or proxy information on habitats, as well as a certain amount of inference or extrapolation. Developing standards for using the criteria at a national level promotes consistency, replicability and a shared understanding of the categories. Furthermore, shared standards can be developed and applied across regions through forest genetic resource networks and species specialist networks (e.g. APFORGEN and the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) Global Tree Specialist Group), and contribute to global indicators of biodiversity loss relevant to the Global Strategy on Plant Conservation and the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2010 target. 1 International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), INIBAP, Parc Scientific Agropolis II, 34397 Montpellier – Cedex 5, France; Fax: +33 467 610334; c.lusty@cgiar.org 2 International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Via dei Tre Denari 472/a, 00057 Maccarese (Fumicino), Rome, Italy; Fax: +39 06 61979661; 3 Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3RB, UK; Fax: +44 1865 275074; william.hawthorne@plant-sciences.oxford.ac.uk 4 IPGRI Regional office for Asia, Pacific and Oceania, c/o Stesen Kuarantin Lepas Masuk, Jabatan Pertanian Bangunan JKR (P) 1746, P.O. Box 236 UPM Post Office, 434 Serdang, Selangor Darul Ehsan Malaysia, +60 3 948 7655; l.hong@cgiar.org 5 Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI), Descanso House, 199 Kew Road, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3BW UK; Fax: +44 208 3325956; sara.oldfield@bgci.org 257
APPLYING THE IUCN RED LIST CATEGORIES IN A FOREST SETTING INTRODUCTION In 2002, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and world leaders at the World Summit on Sustainable Development endorsed a commitment to reduce biodiversity loss by 2010. Among the indicators of biodiversity loss that are being adopted by the CBD are the IUCN Red List categories. Red List categories and Red Data books, over the past four decades of use, have become widely recognised as an international standard and reference for species conservation status. However, only 2.5% of the estimated number of extant (and recently extinct) species has been assessed; the comprehensively covered groups being mammals, amphibians, birds, conifers and cycads (Baillie et al. 2004). Furthermore, at a national or local level, conservation action continues to be geared towards species that are economically, ecologically or aesthetically attractive at a local level, rather than to the species which are listed ‘top of the league’ in Red Lists. It has been the expressed intention of the IUCN Red List categories not to prioritize species but to provide an objective indicator of extinction risk, which might be used as an initial step in the conservation prioritization process. In reality, throughout much of the developing world resource managers carrying out conservation on the ground do not apply or refer to the Red List categories for multiple reasons. This divorce between the processes of defining conservation priorities at a local level and global level could give reason to be sceptical of the 2010 targets being monitored appropriately, let alone achieved. However, the Workshop on Threat Assessment of Plant Species in Malaysia, organized by the Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM) represents a national level initiative to bring together conservation practitioners, taxonomists and Red List assessors to provide coherence to the Red List process. This paper is not an overview of the guidelines for the Red List categories (please see the official guidelines prepared by the IUCN SSC Red List Programme) but explores their application when assessors only have access to limited datasets. It also briefly examines the Red Listing process in comparison to a conservation prioritization process, which might be adopted by a forest resource manager, and suggests mechanisms by which Red Listing might be better aligned to conservation action on the ground. THE EVOLUTION OF THE IUCN RED LISTING SYSTEM Before 1994, the IUCN proposed a mechanism for Red Listing species that was based entirely on subjective judgement of experts. Species were categorized according to an increasing order of extinction risk: from ‘Endangered’, ‘Vulnerable’ to ‘Rare’, and ‘Indeterminate’ for those species which were threatened to an unknown degree. Responding to recommendations for the development of a system to promote transparency, objectivity and replicability, several new versions of the categories were drafted and tested in consultation with experts of different taxonomic fields over a five-year period. The agreed system, version 2.3, was published in 1994 (IUCN 1994) and presented a quantitative framework for the application of categories very similar to the present version (3.1). Different animal and plant groups were evaluated using version 2.3 categories and a number of issues arose, most publicly a controversy on the listing of commercially-exploited fish species. A Criteria Review Working Group was brought together to recommend revisions to the system. As a result of their discussions some small but significant changes were made and version 3.1 was published in 2001 (IUCN 2001; see box 258
Page 1:
Status of Biological Diversity in M
Page 10 and 11:
G.W.H. DAVISON & ZUBAID AKBAR (2007
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34:
Page 38 and 39:
INDRANEIL DAS & NORSHAM YAAKOB (200
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88:
Page 91 and 92:
STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ON FRESHWATER FI
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 101 and 102:
1. Cucurlionidae. Photo courtesy Sh
Page 103 and 104:
MALAYSIAN FRESHWATER CRABS: CONSERV
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Species Status No. of Extent of Ran
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
OVERVIEW OF INSECT BIODIVERSITY RES
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
RESEARCH ON THE DIVERSITY OF MOTHS
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
AN OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH ON BEETLE D
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
THE STATUS OF RESEARCH ON HYMENOPTE
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173:
Page 176 and 177:
LEE SU SEE & ROY WATLING (2007) STA
Page 178 and 179:
LEE SU SEE & ROY WATLING (2007) wor
Page 180 and 181:
LEE SU SEE & ROY WATLING (2007) Som
Page 182 and 183:
LEE SU SEE & ROY WATLING (2007) mac
Page 184 and 185:
LEE SU SEE & ROY WATLING (2007) HAW
Page 186:
LEE SU SEE & ROY WATLING (2007) WAT
Page 191 and 192:
SEAWEED DIVERSITY IN MALAYSIA 1. Ha
Page 193 and 194:
SEAWEED DIVERSITY IN MALAYSIA seawe
Page 195 and 196:
Table 1. Checklist of Malaysian Mar
Page 197 and 198:
Family Siphonocladaceae Boergesenia
Page 199 and 200:
Caulerpa peltata Lamouroux [Syn: Ca
Page 201 and 202:
Family Liagoraceae Liagora ceranoid
Page 203 and 204:
Order Hildenbrandiales Family Hilde
Page 205 and 206:
Family Lomentariaceae Lomentaria gr
Page 207 and 208:
Laurencia caduciramulosa Masuda et
Page 209 and 210:
Dictyota hauckiana Nizamuddin [Syn:
Page 211 and 212:
Sargassum swartzii C. Agardh W C Sa
Page 213 and 214: SEAWEED DIVERSITY IN MALAYSIA can b
Page 215 and 216: SEAWEED DIVERSITY IN MALAYSIA assis
Page 217 and 218: SEAWEED DIVERSITY IN MALAYSIA RAMAC
Page 219 and 220: TOWARDS THE FLORA OF MALAYSIA the t
Page 221 and 222: TOWARDS THE FLORA OF MALAYSIA part
Page 223 and 224: TOWARDS THE FLORA OF MALAYSIA Penin
Page 225 and 226: TOWARDS THE FLORA OF MALAYSIA On th
Page 227 and 228: TOWARDS THE FLORA OF MALAYSIA immed
Page 229 and 230: TOWARDS THE FLORA OF MALAYSIA For t
Page 231 and 232: TOWARDS THE FLORA OF MALAYSIA BURGE
Page 233 and 234: TOWARDS THE FLORA OF MALAYSIA NG, F
Page 236 and 237: NAZIR KHAN NIZAM KHAN & MOHD YUNUS
Page 248: NAZIR KHAN NIZAM KHAN & MOHD YUNUS
Page 252 and 253: J. GREGSON, R. DE KOK, J. MOAT & S.
Page 266 and 267: C. LUSTY, W.A.N.AMARAL, W. D.HAWTHO
Page 276: C. LUSTY, W.A.N.AMARAL, W. D.HAWTHO
Page 279 and 280: CONSERVATION STRATEGIES OF SHOREA L
Page 297: CONSERVATION STRATEGIES OF SHOREA L
show all

o_19ko2dt161ng2j4e1tgnoqv1s45a.pdf

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?