o_19ko2dt161ng2j4e1tgnoqv1s45a.pdf

APPLYING THE IUCN RED LIST CATEGORIES IN A FOREST SETTING
CONSERVATION PRIORITIZATION PROCESSES
An unsurprising but nonetheless striking insight provided by William Hawthorne’s study is
that conservation prioritization processes for forest resource management use much the same
datasets as might be used in the assignment of a Red List category. Graudal et al. (2004)
propose that resource conservation assessments should consider past and present geographical
distribution, prevailing utilization patterns in terms of direct use or indirect land-use, occurrence
in protected areas – i.e. data types that would feed directly into an A or B criterion Red List
assessment. However, as a rule, Red List categories are not used or applied in the resource
management setting, except in various developed countries where resource management and
nature conservation are more effectively linked.
Evidently there are often substantial differences between typical national conservation
prioritization processes and Red Listing, not least the scale at which either is carried out: Red
Listing categories were designed for use at the species or global level; conservation prioritization
is applied at a local level and is frequently customised to the local conditions and situations,
although they often respect global distribution patterns. Furthermore, the main criterion for
including species in some forest conservation programmes is their present and possible future
value (Graudal et al. 2004, although not for example Hawthorne and Abu Juam 1995). Resource
managers place emphasis on a wider range of factors, including costs of intervention, potential
success, legal issues and particularly on species’ value in phylogenetic, economic, ecological
or cultural terms. Assessments may be based on qualitative data, soliciting different stakeholders
to provide a subjective score for each variable. Weightings and judgement values may also be
used. For example, a multistakeholder group, comprising scientists, researchers, farmers, local
peasants, and business people, scored forest tree species for their ‘utility’, ‘ecological value’
and ‘threat’ in Sao Paulo State, Brazil (Koshy et al. 2002).
The Ghana Forestry Department uses the “Star system” (Hawthorne & Abu Juam 1995,
Hawthorne 1996, 2001), which aims to define plant species priority for conservation on the
basis primarily of species’ global distribution. Aspects of a species’ biology, economic and
ecological value have a minor influence on the categorization. Black, Gold, Blue, Scarlet,
Red, Pink and Green stars are assigned in order of declining conservation priority. Species
that are extremely rare on a global scale automatically attain a high significance (Black Star)
without regard for other species or data attributes. Other species might have been sampled in
more degree squares, but are estimated to be sparser or more ecologically sensitive and so
may also earn high significance despite their wider range. Common and widespread but heavily
exploited species earn a reddish (Scarlet, Red or Pink) Star according to degree of exploitation
in proportion to inventories of standing crop. One of the main applications of Stars is in a
weighted average score of rarity for the plant community (a Genetic Heat Index), and for this
purpose, the weight is approximately in inverse proportion to the numbers of degree squares
occupied for a subsample of species in each of the Stars. Stars have also been useful in Ghana
to frame management regulations – e.g. allowable cut in logging operations is reduced for
Scarlet Star species, and Black Star species are to be protected wherever they occur; and to
justify patterns of uneven apportionment of global funds to local conservation initiatives
(Hawthorne et al. 1998). Similar Star categorisations have been applied in Mexico and
Honduras, Cameroon and Malaysia (see Chua et al. 1998; Gordon et al. 2004)
264