o_19ko2dt161ng2j4e1tgnoqv1s45a.pdf

C. LUSTY, W.A.N.AMARAL, W. D.HAWTHORNE, L.T. HONG & S. OLDFIELD (2007)
As a rule conservation prioritization processes—and there many types, often very divergent
from each other—do not necessarily register changes in threat but are more clearly aimed to
provide managers or policy makers an indication of which species are worth conserving at
any one time. The change in priorities over the years may not necessarily be linked to changes
in extinction risk, especially where assessments are based on subjective judgements of ad hoc
groups of stakeholders. The conservation prioritization process, therefore, may not provide a
reliable monitoring tool. Assessments in the Red List system should hypothetically be
comparable over time, although it is too early to judge whether this proves to be correct,
especially for the more subjective assessments.
Numerous other differences between the two systems exist, including the following:
• IUCN Red List system offers the option of classifying species according to just one
dimension or parameter of the current status or trends of their population. In this way it
encourages a precautionary approach. A conservation prioritization approach would
usually be more holistic, taking account of all available data.
• Conservation prioritization occurs at a local scale and may not be applicable at a global
level. The Red List system was designed for global level assessments and works best at
this level.
• Conservation prioritizations are undertaken by resource managers and stakeholders. IUCN
Red List assessments are most often carried out by taxonomists and as a result are frequently
considered to be ‘top down’ and academic, but that is not to say they would not benefit
from more local inputs.
• Resource managers are obliged to make further within species assessments about which
populations or gene pools are a priority for conservation.
However, the similarities between the two scales of approach are fundamental. The baseline
data are often the same. The Red List categories depend on a much broader use of ecological,
biological and utilization aspects of species than is immediately obvious when first discovering
the criteria. The two systems can share the following data types:
– geographical distribution
– number of individuals
– regeneration rates and population trends
– threats and sustainable use considerations
– ecological specificity
– levels of protection or conservation measures
The effectiveness of both systems is underpinned by reliable taxonomy and nomenclature,
and, obviously, both are constrained by the lack of information. Conservation prioritization is
constrained by the availability of data on species occurrence, frequency, ecology and status
(Amaral et al. 2004). Basic surveys are needed to locate populations, estimate population
numbers, study population dynamics and monitor threats. Both assessments, therefore, share
the challenge of dealing with data uncertainty and different attitudes to risk and both would
potentially be advanced by the pooling of expert opinion and developing a consensual or
synergistic approach.
265