o_19ko2dt161ng2j4e1tgnoqv1s45a.pdf

C. LUSTY, W.A.N.AMARAL, W. D.HAWTHORNE, L.T. HONG & S. OLDFIELD (2007)
networks could provide the channels for introducing and discussing the Red List categories
and carrying out joint assessments.
The IUCN/SSC Global Tree Specialist Group (GTSG) was established in 2003 with two specific
aims. The first is to act in an advisory capacity to the action-based Global Trees Campaign
which is run by UNEP/World Conservation Monitoring Centre and Fauna and Flora
International and aims to conserve the world’s most threatened plant species. The second is to
promote and implement Red Listing for trees. The GTSG takes a pragmatic approach to red
listing, attempting to use all available information to evaluate species in priority regions and
taxonomic groups. The intention is to provide evaluations which can be used as part of
conservation planning for tree species where possible using evaluation workshops as a means
to determine conservation priorities. In its first year of operation (2004) the GTSG contributed
to the evaluation of over 1200 tree species using various approaches including desk studies,
correspondence with experts, workshops and liaison with other IUCN/SSC plant specialist
groups. The GTSG also evaluated several major commercial timber species and in doing so
sought input from a wide range of stakeholders in an attempt to develop a robust evaluation
model.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite its quantitative framework, the IUCN Red List categorisation inevitably demands
varying degrees of subjective judgement. It is a well-matured system, in the sense that the
rules have evolved through more than a decade of use and feedback, but is somewhat
complicated and time-consuming to absorb and use. The risk that such a system presents is
that while a few relatively well-known groups may be intensively assessed by well-versed
assessors the vast majority of threatened species remain either unevaluated or their assessment
is unrecognised. A small percentage (3%) of described plant species has been assessed using
versions 3.0 or 3.1 Red List categories. Whereas, an exercise to approximate for missing data
carried out by Pitman & Jørgensen (2002), using proxies of endemic species and threatened
species for different combinations of countries, hotspots, tropical and temperate zones, suggest
that somewhere between 22% and 47% of described plant species are likely to be threatened.
It is widely recognised that global-level biodiversity monitoring needs to address a far broader
range of species and means should be sought to increase the involvement of a wider group of
stakeholders, the use of local calibration, ground-truthing and locally collected data (Balmford
et al. 2005).
The feasibility, therefore, of assessing plants using the IUCN Red List system may be brought
into question. However, the knowledge that resource managers and policy makers are obliged
to make daily decisions about genetic resources and that species-level information and indicators
are increasingly sought in international and national policy-making should encourage us to
maximise on the strong points of the Red List system and on all information and expertise
available to accelerate the application of the Red List categories. We are advocating that this
process might be better facilitated through the use of rules of thumb and coordinated through
joint initiatives between taxonomists, conservationists and resource managers typified by the
Workshop on threat assessment of plant species in Malaysia. In addition, some of the raw data
used to categorise the species (e.g. degree square distribution data; estimates of population
size) could also be used to frame local systems (focused initially through the Red List priorities
267