Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center
2. The need to revise the categories has been recognised for some time. In 1984, the SSC held a symposium, ‘The Road to Extinction’ (Fitter & Fitter 1987), which examined the issues in some detail, and at which a number of options were considered for the revised system. However, no single proposal resulted. The current phase of development began in 1989 with a request from the SSC Steering Committee to develop a new approach that would provide the conservation community with useful information for action planning.
In this document, proposals for new definitions for Red List categories are presented. The general aim of the new system is to provide an explicit, objective framework for the classification of species according to their extinction risk.
The revision has several specific aims:
4. In the rest of this document the proposed system is outlined in several sections. The Preamble presents some basic information about the context and structure of the proposal, and the procedures that are to be followed in applying the definitions to species. This is followed by a section giving definitions of terms used. Finally the definitions are presented, followed by the quantitative criteria used for classification within the threatened categories. It is important for the effective functioning of the new system that all sections are read and understood, and the guidelines followed.
References:
Fitter, R., and M. Fitter, ed. (1987) The Road to Extinction. Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN.
IUCN. (1993) Draft IUCN Red List Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Mace, G. M. et al. (1992) "The development of new criteria for listing species
on the IUCN Red List." Species 19: 16-22.
Mace, G. M., and R. Lande. (1991) "Assessing extinction threats: toward a
reevaluation of IUCN threatened species categories." Conserv. Biol.
5.2: 148-157.
Mace, G. M. & S. N. Stuart. (1994) "Draft IUCN Red List Categories, Version 2.2".
Species 21-22: 13-24.
1. Taxonomic level and scope of the categorisation process
The criteria can be applied to any taxonomic unit at or below the species level.
The term ‘taxon’ in the following notes, definitions and criteria is used for
convenience, and may represent species or lower taxonomic levels, including
forms that are not yet formally described. There is a sufficient range among
the different criteria to enable the appropriate listing of taxa from the complete
taxonomic spectrum, with the exception of micro-organisms. The criteria may
also be applied within any specified geographical or political area although
in such cases special notice should be taken of point 11 below. In presenting
the results of applying the criteria, the taxonomic unit and area under consideration
should be made explicit. The categorisation process should only be applied to
wild populations inside their natural range, and to populations resulting from
benign introductions (defined in the draft IUCN Guidelines for Re-introductions
as “..an attempt to establish a species, for the purpose of conservation, outside
its recorded distribution, but within an appropriate habitat and eco-geographical
area”).
2. Nature of the categories
All taxa listed as Critically Endangered qualify for Vulnerable and Endangered,
and all listed as Endangered qualify for Vulnerable. Together these categories
are described as ‘threatened’. The threatened species categories form a part
of the overall scheme. It will be possible to place all taxa into one of the
categories (see Figure 1).
3. Role of the different criteria
For listing as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable there is a range
of quantitative criteria; meeting any one of these criteria qualifies a taxon
for listing at that level of threat. Each species should be evaluated against
all the criteria. The different criteria (A-E) are derived from a wide review
aimed at detecting risk factors across the broad range of organisms and the
diverse life histories they exhibit. Even though some criteria will be inappropriate
for certain taxa (some taxa will never qualify under these however close to
extinction they come), there should be criteria appropriate for assessing threat
levels for any taxon (other than micro-organisms). The relevant factor is whether
any one criterion is met, not whether all are appropriate or all are met. Because
it will never be clear which criteria are appropriate for a particular species
in advance, each species should be evaluated against all the criteria, and any
criterion met should be listed.
4. Derivation of quantitative criteria
The quantitative values presented in the various criteria associated with threatened
categories were developed through wide consultation and they are set at what
are generally judged to be appropriate levels, even if no formal justification
for these values exists. The levels for different criteria within categories
were set independently but against a common standard. Some broad consistency
between them was sought. However, a given taxon should not be expected to meet
all criteria (A-E) in a category; meeting any one criterion is sufficient for
listing.
5. Implications of listing
Listing in the categories of Not Evaluated and Data Deficient indicates that
no assessment of extinction risk has been made, though for different reasons.
Until such time as an assessment is made, species listed in these categories
should not be treated as if they were non-threatened, and it may be appropriate
(especially for Data Deficient forms) to give them the same degree of protection
as threatened taxa, at least until their status can be evaluated.
Extinction is assumed here to be a chance process. Thus, a listing in a higher
extinction risk category implies a higher expectation of extinction, and over
the time-frames specified more taxa listed in a higher category are expected
to go extinct than in a lower one (without effective conservation action). However,
the persistence of some taxa in high risk categories does not necessarily mean
their initial assessment was inaccurate.
6. Data quality and the importance of inference and projection<
The criteria are clearly quantitative in nature. However, the absence of high
quality data should not deter attempts at applying the criteria, as methods
involving estimation, inference and projection are emphasised to be acceptable
throughout. Inference and projection may be based on extrapolation of current
or potential threats into the future (including their rate of change), or of
factors related to population abundance or distribution (including dependence
on other taxa), so long as these can reasonably be supported. Suspected or inferred
patterns in either the recent past, present or near future can be based on any
of a series of related factors, and these factors should be specified.
Taxa at risk from threats posed by future events of low probability but with
severe consequences (catastrophes) should be identified by the criteria (e.g.
small distributions, few locations). Some threats need to be identified particularly
early, and appropriate actions taken, because their effects are irreversible,
or nearly so (pathogens, invasive organisms, hybridization).
7. Uncertainty
The criteria should be applied on the basis of the available evidence on taxon
numbers, trend and distribution, making due allowance for statistical and other
uncertainties. Given that data are rarely available for the whole range or population
of a taxon, it may often be appropriate to use the information that is available
to make intelligent inferences about the overall status of the taxon in question.
In cases where a wide variation in estimates is found, it is legitimate to apply
the precautionary principle and use the estimate (providing it is credible)
that leads to listing in the category of highest risk.
Where data are insufficient to assign a category (including Lower Risk), the
category of ‘Data Deficient’ may be assigned. However, it is important to recognise
that this category indicates that data are inadequate to determine the degree
of threat faced by a taxon, not necessarily that the taxon is poorly known.
In cases where there are evident threats to a taxon through, for example, deterioration
of its only known habitat, it is important to attempt threatened listing, even
though there may be little direct information on the biological status of the
taxon itself. The category ‘Data Deficient’ is not a threatened category, although
it indicates a need to obtain more information on a taxon to determine the appropriate
listing.
8. Conservation actions in the listing process
The criteria for the threatened categories are to be applied to a taxon whatever
the level of conservation action affecting it. In cases where it is only conservation
action that prevents the taxon from meeting the threatened criteria, the designation
of ‘Conservation Dependent’ is appropriate. It is important to emphasise here
that a taxon may require conservation action even if it is not listed as threatened.
9. Documentation
All taxon lists including categorisation resulting from these criteria should
state the criteria and sub-criteria that were met. No listing can be accepted
as valid unless at least one criterion is given. If more than one criterion
or sub-criterion was met, then each should be listed. However, failure to mention
a criterion should not necessarily imply that it was not met. Therefore, if
a re-evaluation indicates that the documented criterion is no longer met, this
should not result in automatic down-listing. Instead, the taxon should be re-
evaluated with respect to all criteria to indicate its status. The factors responsible
for triggering the criteria, especially where inference and projection are used,
should at least be logged by the evaluator, even if they cannot be included
in published lists.
10. Threats and priorities
The category of threat is not necessarily sufficient to determine priorities
for conservation action. The category of threat simply provides an assessment
of the likelihood of extinction under current circumstances, whereas a system
for assessing priorities for action will include numerous other factors concerning
conservation action such as costs, logistics, chances of success, and even perhaps
the taxonomic distinctiveness of the subject.
11. Use at regional level
The criteria are most appropriately applied to whole taxa at a global scale,
rather than to those units defined by regional or national boundaries. Regionally
or nationally based threat categories, which are aimed at including taxa that
are threatened at regional or national levels (but not necessarily throughout
their global ranges), are best used with two key pieces of information: the
global status category for the taxon, and the proportion of the global population
or range that occurs within the region or nation. However, if applied at regional
or national level it must be recognised that a global category of threat may
not be the same as a regional or national category for a particular taxon. For
example, taxa classified as Vulnerable on the basis of their global declines
in numbers or range might be Lower Risk within a particular region where their
populations are stable. Conversely, taxa classified as Lower Risk globally might
be Critically Endangered within a particular region where numbers are very small
or declining, perhaps only because they are at the margins of their global range.
IUCN is still in the process of developing guidelines for the use of national
red list categories.
12. Re-evaluation
Evaluation of taxa against the criteria should be carried out at appropriate
intervals. This is especially important for taxa listed under Near Threatened,
or Conservation Dependent, and for threatened species whose status is known
or suspected to be deteriorating.
13. Transfer between categories
There are rules to govern the movement of taxa between categories. These are
as follows: (A) A taxon may be moved from a category of higher threat to a category
of lower threat if none of the criteria of the higher category has been met
for five years or more. (B) If the original classification is found to have
been erroneous, the taxon may be transferred to the appropriate category or
removed from the threatened categories altogether, without delay (but see Section
9). (C) Transfer from categories of lower to higher risk should be made without
delay.
14. Problems of scale
Classification based on the sizes of geographic ranges or the patterns of habitat
occupancy is complicated by problems of spatial scale. The finer the scale at
which the distributions or habitats of taxa are mapped, the smaller the area
will be that they are found to occupy. Mapping at finer scales reveals more
areas in which the taxon is unrecorded. It is impossible to provide any strict
but general rules for mapping taxa or habitats; the most appropriate scale will
depend on the taxa in question, and the origin and comprehensiveness of the
distributional data. However, the thresholds for some criteria (e.g. Critically
Endangered) necessitate mapping at a fine scale.
2. Subpopulations
Subpopulations are defined as geographically or otherwise distinct groups in
the population between which there is little exchange (typically one successful
migrant individual or gamete per year or less).
3. Mature individuals
The number of mature individuals is defined as the number of individuals known,
estimated or inferred to be capable of reproduction. When estimating this quantity
the following points should be borne in mind:
5. Continuing decline
A continuing decline is a recent, current or projected future decline whose
causes are not known or not adequately controlled and so is liable to continue
unless remedial measures are taken. Natural fluctuations will not normally count
as a continuing decline, but an observed decline should not be considered to
be part of a natural fluctuation unless there is evidence for this.
6. Reduction
A reduction (criterion A) is a decline in the number of mature individuals of
at least the amount (%) stated over the time period (years) specified, although
the decline need not still be continuing. A reduction should not be interpreted
as part of a natural fluctuation unless there is good evidence for this. Downward
trends that are part of natural fluctuations will not normally count as a reduction.
7. Extreme fluctuations
Extreme fluctuations occur in a number of taxa where population size or distribution
area varies widely, rapidly and frequently, typically with a variation greater
than one order of magnitude (i.e., a tenfold increase or decrease).
8. Severely fragmented
Severely fragmented is refers to the situation where increased extinction risks
to the taxon result from the fact that most individuals within a taxon are found
in small and relatively isolated subpopulations. These small subpopulations
may go extinct, with a reduced probability of recolonisation.
9. Extent of occurrence
Extent of occurrence is defined as the area contained within the shortest continuous
imaginary boundary which can be drawn to encompass all the known, inferred or
projected sites of present occurrence of a taxon, excluding cases of vagrancy.
This measure may exclude discontinuities or disjunctions within the overall
distributions of taxa (e.g., large areas of obviously unsuitable habitat) (but
see ‘area of occupancy’). Extent of occurrence can often be measured by a minimum
convex polygon (the smallest polygon in which no internal angle exceeds 180
degrees and which contains all the sites of occurrence).
10. Area of occupancy
Area of occupancy is defined as the area within its ‘extent of occurrence’ (see
definition) which is occupied by a taxon, excluding cases of vagrancy. The measure
reflects the fact that a taxon will not usually occur throughout the area of
its extent of occurrence, which may, for example, contain unsuitable habitats.
The area of occupancy is the smallest area essential at any stage to the survival
of existing populations of a taxon (e.g. colonial nesting sites, feeding sites
for migratory taxa). The size of the area of occupancy will be a function of
the scale at which it is measured, and should be at a scale appropriate to relevant
biological aspects of the taxon. The criteria include values in km2, and thus
to avoid errors in classification, the area of occupancy should be measured
on grid squares (or equivalents) which are sufficiently small (see Figure 1).
11. Location
Location defines a geographically or ecologically distinct area in which a single
event (e.g. pollution) will soon affect all individuals of the taxon present.
A location usually, but not always, contains all or part of a subpopulation
of the taxon, and is typically a small proportion of the taxon’s total distribution.
12. Quantitative analysis
A quantitative analysis is defined here as the technique of population viability
analysis (PVA), or any other quantitative form of analysis, which estimates
the extinction probability of a taxon or population based on the known life
history and specified management or non-management options. In presenting the
results of quantitative analyses the structural equations and the data should
be explicit (Figure 2). Two examples of the distinction between extent of occurrence
and area of occupancy. (a) is the spatial distribution of known, inferred or
projected sites of occurrence. (b) shows one possible boundary to the extent
of occurrence, which is the measured area within this boundary. (c) shows one
measure of area of occupancy which can be measured by the sum of the occupied
grid squares.
EXTINCT IN THE WILD (EW)
A taxon is Extinct in the wild when it is known only to survive in cultivation,
in captivity or as a naturalised population (or populations) well outside the
past range. A taxon is presumed extinct in the wild when exhaustive surveys
in known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, annual),
throughout its historic range have failed to record an individual. Surveys should
be over a time frame appropriate to the taxon’s life cycle and life form.
CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (CR)
A taxon is Critically Endangered when it is facing an extremely high risk of
extinction in the wild in the immediate future, as defined by any of the criteria
(A to E) on pages and .
ENDANGERED (EN)
A taxon is Endangered when it is not Critically Endangered but is facing a very
high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as defined by any of
the criteria (A to E) on pages and .
VULNERABLE (VU)
A taxon is Vulnerable when it is not Critically Endangered or Endangered but
is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future, as
defined by any of the criteria (A to D) on pages and .
LOWER RISK (LR)
A taxon is Lower Risk when it has been evaluated, does not satisfy the criteria
for any of the categories Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable. Taxa
included in the Lower Risk category can be separated into three subcategories:
NOT EVALUATED (NE)
A taxon is Not Evaluated when it is has not yet been assessed against the criteria.
U.S. Department of the Interior |
U.S. Geological Survey
URL: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/cranes/app3.htm
Page Contact Information: Webmaster
Page Last Modified: Friday, 01-Feb-2013 19:05:29 EST
Menlo Park, CA [caww54]