o_19ko2dt161ng2j4e1tgnoqv1s45a.pdf

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