Strategic Planning for Species Conservation: A Handbook - IUCN

dynamics, including threats from human activity.
22
5. Status Review
The Status Review will allow stakeholders to formulate well-grounded Objectives (see
Chapter 7) and Actions (see Chapter 8), based on a transparent reading of current
information on species status. As the Status Review is often conducted in tandem with the
Vision and Goal setting process (see Chapter 6), the review can help formulate realistic
Goals and add detail to the Vision. Over time, subsequent updated Status Reviews will
provide a mechanism to evaluate progress toward achieving the Vision and Goals.
5.2 How to conduct a Status Review
As we have already mentioned, a Status Review requires broad collaboration. No one
person or agency has a monopoly on knowledge of the status of a species. Participation
should be as broad as possible and, at a minimum, representative of all the major
ecological settings and nations where the species can be found. It should include input
from scientists, managers and local stakeholders to the extent practicable. For example,
range State agency participation is important, to ensure that the Review results are wellinformed
and broadly accepted in the nations where the species is found. Scientists, policy
makers, managers, and local people all may have information concerning the status of the
species.
Ideally the Review should be based on “hard data”, including rigorously conducted surveys,
estimates of population size, population trends, rates of population growth or decline,
reproductive rates, and rates and causes of mortality; quantitative evaluation of extent,
quality, and rates of change in habitat; and assessment of rates and effects of human
exploitation, among others. Often, however, these data are incomplete or entirely lacking,
demanding inference of species’ status, for example from second-hand reports of sightings
or “expert” opinion. Collation of data from the so-called “grey literature” can be a useful
side-product of the Status Review process, as often many of the data are difficult to find or
access.
In addition, the Red Listing process may provide valuable information at the species scale.
Although Red List data may be useful, the Status Review process differs from Red List
assessment in that its focus is on the detailed information necessary to the conservation
planning process, whereas the aim of the Red Listing process is to assign categories of
threat status for the species as a whole.
To make different kinds of data work together, the Status Review process depends on
mechanisms for data assimilation, identification, and characterization, as described below.
Data assimilation methods combine data from diverse sources into a common system.
Data identification means that each individual datum is identified by its source, its date and
its location. Data characterization means that metadata describe the certainty with which
data are known using standardized categories, and how the data were generated.
It is equally important for the Status Review to be transparent and systematic. Species
should be assessed according to standardized guidelines and using methods that are
clearly documented. Data contributors, analysts, and reviewers should all be identified.
Synthetic databases produced as part of the Status Review, including tabulated population
estimates, graphs of population trend, maps and GIS layers, should be made broadly
available in the public domain. Data should include adequate metadata describing sources,
methods, and data-quality. Data providers should ideally agree at the start of the process to
the release of the generalized and summary data (not necessarily the raw data, of which