The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is incomplete, partially outdated, and has several other limitations suggesting it should not play the critical role it does in determining conservation policy-making and funding for governments, NGOs, and philanthropists, a new study has claimed.

Since its inception in 1964, the Red List has played a hugely important part in global efforts to avoid species extension.

Based on its ranking on now around 150,000 species, governments – especially in the Global South – determine which conservation efforts they should undertake, and NGOs and philanthropists plan projects.

It plays a hugely important role in global determinations of what should be categorised as Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) worthy of investment and protection, and it is also the main indicator for the species section of the Global Biodiversity Framework’s Goal A.

As well, the IUCN Red List and the tools it influences, such as the KBA listing, is also slated to play a fundamental role in the emerging voluntary biodiversity credit market, with several early-stage crediting methodologies suggesting quality or quantity of credits should be determined in part based on such catalogues.

However, a pre-print of a study carried out by 25 global scientists – some of them members of the IUCN teams keeping the Red List updated – that was published this month, outlined a number of the list’s shortcomings and warned against relying too heavily on it.

“The global influence of the red List and its misuse in decision-making can constitute a priority-setting ‘pitfall trap’ in which funds and other resources are disproportionately allocated to a small number of species that have been assessed, are threatened, and are charismatic,” the report said.

“This is exacerbated by the globalisation of conservation, the concentration of power in centralised authorities, and the dominance of conservation policies set by high-income economies and large conservation organisations.”

CHALLENGES

The scientists drew up a lengthy list of challenges with the Red List, both in the way it has been designed and operated and in the way it is being used.

One major issue is that while the list assesses an impressive 150,000 species, that’s only a minor share of the 2 million species that have been properly described globally, and a mere drop in the ocean of the total number of species estimated to live on the planet, with the latest estimations suggesting over 50 million animal species alone.

Many of the unassessed species are assumed to be in trouble, over a million species in total are likely threatened according to some estimates, yet funding tends to flow towards the most charismatic of the 42,100 species the IUCN has categorised as threatened, which the report said is creating a cycle of underfunding for other species.

Additionally, the scientists listed examples of species that had ended up on the extinction list – or not – in cases where they had not been properly assessed or the determination was found to be biased.

The list’s status also opens up for misuse or exploitation, they claimed.

“This can occur by elevating the threat status of species, opposing downlistings to maintain funds, or elevating populations and subspecies to the species level, where they are placed in threatened categories,” the report said.

“Such situations can create a sense of urgency and fundraising opportunities due to the ‘high-profile’ status of the Red List, which would be mitigated if species conservation was less dependent on a single system of threat categorisation.”

The study also found a number of additional flaws, such as the Red List often not incorporating local or traditional knowledge, failing to account for simultaneously operating threats, and relying on often outdated methodologies or technology.

ADD OTHERS

The authors stressed that they were not advocating for the IUCN Red List to be removed, but rather that it should be seen as “a” tool and not “the” tool for evaluating extinction risk.

“Other systems for quantifying extinction risk have been proposed, some might be more appropriate in different jurisdictions, and others are already in place, such as the New Zealand Threat Classification System categories,” the report said.

“Importantly, new developments in assessing extinction risk should incorporate better quantitative methods to make use of the wealth of biodiversity data sources and methodological advances whenever possible.”

As well, they said extinction risk alone should not dictate conservation ambition, and that other social, biological, and ecological factors should also be taken into account.

The report comes as the hunt for better biodiversity data is already on amid rapidly increasing interest from the private sector following the signing of the Global Biodiversity Framework last year.

That includes global, national, and corporate-level systems, with Professor Andrew Gonzalez at McGill University last month calling for the setting-up of a global biodiversity observing system.

By Stian Reklev – stian@carbon-pulse.com

** Click here to sign up to our twice-weekly biodiversity newsletter **