Search

Biodiversity is not evenly distributed across the globe and some areas have greater potential to contribute to biodiversity conservation than others. Whilst there are multiple ways to determine priority areas for conservation, for a global institution like the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the funding mechanism for the Convention on Biological Diversity and the largest multilateral source of funding for developing countries focused on enhancing biodiversity outcomes and promoting sustainable use, it is important to fund the top-ranked countries whilst also ensuring that all eligible countries are able to undertake some biodiversity conservation actions in accordance with the Convention. To this end, the GEF uses the System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR) to allocate funding in separate funding rounds to eligible countries. This country focus means that all prioritization analyses need to be undertaken within that political framework, while also considering the intrinsic patterns in biodiversity that don’t respect national borders. We present the 2018 update of the biodiversity component of GEF-STAR, investigate how the weighting system affects the ranking of countries. We show that top ranked and bottom ranked countries are robust to changes in the weighting of analytical elements, but the weighting can significantly alter the importance of middle ranking countries, affecting their funding allocation. This analysis has been used by the GEF, along with other data, to allocate over $1 billion in biodiversity funding (GEF-7 = $1.2 billion) to improve country and global prospects for conservation. However, this large funding allocation for conservation needs to be set against the vastly larger funding flows that decrease natural values around the world, and the need for systems level change remains evident across the entire planet.

The Anthropocene is characterized by unparalleled human impact on other species, potentially ushering in the sixth mass extinction. Yet mitigation efforts remain hampered by limited information on the spatial patterns and intensity of the threats driving global biodiversity loss. Here we use expert-derived information from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List on threats to 23,271 species, representing all terrestrial amphibians, birds and mammals, to generate global maps of the six major threats to these groups: agriculture, hunting and trapping, logging, pollution, invasive species, and climate change. Our results show that agriculture and logging are pervasive in the tropics and that hunting and trapping is the most geographically widespread threat to mammals and birds. Additionally, current representations of human pressure underestimate the overall pressure on biodiversity, due to the exclusion of threats such as hunting and climate change. Alarmingly, this is particularly the case in areas of the highest biodiversity importance., Red List information is used to generate global maps of the likelihood of impacts on terrestrial vertebrates exerted by agriculture, hunting and trapping, logging, pollution, invasive species and climate change.

Overexploitation is a major threat to biodiversity and international trade in many species is regulated through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). However, there is no established method to systematically determine which species are most at risk from international trade to inform potential trade measures under CITES. Here we develop a mechanism using the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species to identify species that are likely threatened by international trade. Of 2,211 such species CITES includes 59% (1,307 species) leaving two-fifths overlooked and in potential need of international trade regulation. Our results can inform deliberations on potential proposals to revise trade measures for species at CITES Conference of the Parties meetings. We also show that for taxa with biological resource use documented as a threat, the number of species threatened by local and national use is four times greater than species likely threatened by international trade. To effectively address the overexploitation of species, interventions focused on achieving sustainability in international trade need to be complemented by commensurate measures to ensure that local and national use and trade of wildlife is well-regulated and sustainable.

Comprehensive assessments of species’ extinction risks have documented the extinction crisis1 and underpinned strategies for reducing those risks2. Global assessments reveal that, among tetrapods, 40.7% of amphibians, 25.4% of mammals and 13.6% of birds are threatened with extinction3. Because global assessments have been lacking, reptiles have been omitted from conservation-prioritization analyses that encompass other tetrapods4–7. Reptiles are unusually diverse in arid regions, suggesting that they may have different conservation needs6. Here we provide a comprehensive extinction-risk assessment of reptiles and show that at least 1,829 out of 10,196 species (21.1%) are threatened—confirming a previous extrapolation8 and representing 15.6 billion years of phylogenetic diversity. Reptiles are threatened by the same major factors that threaten other tetrapods—agriculture, logging, urban development and invasive species—although the threat posed by climate change remains uncertain. Reptiles inhabiting forests, where these threats are strongest, are more threatened than those in arid habitats, contrary to our prediction. Birds, mammals and amphibians are unexpectedly good surrogates for the conservation of reptiles, although threatened reptiles with the smallest ranges tend to be isolated from other threatened tetrapods. Although some reptiles—including most species of crocodiles and turtles—require urgent, targeted action to prevent extinctions, efforts to protect other tetrapods, such as habitat preservation and control of trade and invasive species, will probably also benefit many reptiles.

Unsustainable exploitation of wild species represents a serious threat to biodiversity and to the livelihoods of local communities and Indigenous peoples. However, managed, sustainable use has the potential to forestall extinctions, aid recovery, and meet human needs. We analyzed species-level data for 30,923 species from 13 taxonomic groups on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species to investigate patterns of intentional biological resource use. Forty percent of species (10,098 of 25,009 species from 10 data-sufficient taxonomic groups) were used. The main purposes of use were pets, display animals, horticulture, and human consumption. Intentional use is currently contributing to elevated extinction risk for 28-29% of threatened or near threatened (NT) species (2752-2848 of 9753 species). Intentional use also affected 16% of all species used (1597-1631 of 10,098). However, 72% of used species (7291 of 10,098) were least concern, of which nearly half (3469) also had stable or improving population trends. The remainder were not documented as threatened by biological resource use, including at least 172 threatened or NT species with stable or improving populations. About one-third of species that had use documented as a threat had no targeted species management actions to directly address this threat. To improve use-related red-list data, we suggest small amendments to the relevant classification schemes and required supporting documentation. Our findings on the prevalence of sustainable and unsustainable use, and variation across taxa, can inform international policy making, including the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.Predominio del Uso Sustentable y No Sustentable de Especies Silvestres Inferido a partir de la Lista Roja de Especies Amenazadas de la UICN Resumen La explotación insostenible de especies silvestres representa una verdadera amenaza para la biodiversidad y el sustento de las comunidades locales y los pueblos indígenas. Sin embargo, el uso sostenible gestionado tiene el potencial para prevenir extinciones, auxiliar en la recuperación y satisfacer las necesidades humanas. Analizamos los datos a nivel de especie correspondientes a 30,923 especies de 13 grupos taxonómicos localizados en la Lista Roja de Especies Amenazadas de la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (UICN) para investigar los patrones del uso intencional de recursos biológicos. Usamos el 40% de las especies analizadas (10,098 de 25,009 especies pertenecientes a diez grupos taxonómicos con suficiente información). Los principales motivos para el uso de vida silvestre fueron como mascotas, animales de exhibición, horticultura y consumo humano. El uso intencional está actualmente contribuyendo a un riesgo elevado de extinción para 28 - 29% de las especies amenazadas o casi amenazadas (NT) (2,752 - 2,848 de 9,753 especies). El uso intencional también afectó al 16% de todas las especies utilizadas (1,597 - 1,631 de 10,098). Sin embargo, el 72% de las especies utilizadas (7,291 de 10, 098) pertenecen a la categoría de preocupación menor, de las cuales casi la mitad (3,469) también contaban con tendencias poblacionales estables o de mejoría. Las especies restantes no estaban documentadas como amenazadas por el uso de recursos biológicos, incluyendo al menos 172 especies amenazadas o NT con poblaciones estables o en aumento. Casi un tercio de las especies que tienen documentado el uso como una amenaza no cuentan con acciones de manejo para abordar directamente esta amenaza. Para mejorar la información de la lista roja relacionada con el uso, sugerimos pequeñas modificaciones a los esquemas relevantes de clasificación y la documentación de apoyo requerida. Nuestros descubrimientos sobre el predominio del uso sustentable y no sustentable, y la variación entre taxones, puede orientar la formulación de políticas internacionales, incluyendo a la Plataforma Intergubernamental de Políticas Científicas sobre Biodiversidad y Servicios Ecosistémicos, el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica y la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas.

Recognizing the imperative to evaluate species recovery and conservation impact, in 2012 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) called for development of a "Green List of Species" (now the IUCN Green Status of Species). A draft Green Status framework for assessing species' progress toward recovery, published in 2018, proposed 2 separate but interlinked components: a standardized method (i.e., measurement against benchmarks of species' viability, functionality, and preimpact distribution) to determine current species recovery status (herein species recovery score) and application of that method to estimate past and potential future impacts of conservation based on 4 metrics (conservation legacy, conservation dependence, conservation gain, and recovery potential). We tested the framework with 181 species representing diverse taxa, life histories, biomes, and IUCN Red List categories (extinction risk). Based on the observed distribution of species' recovery scores, we propose the following species recovery categories: fully recovered, slightly depleted, moderately depleted, largely depleted, critically depleted, extinct in the wild, and indeterminate. Fifty-nine percent of tested species were considered largely or critically depleted. Although there was a negative relationship between extinction risk and species recovery score, variation was considerable. Some species in lower risk categories were assessed as farther from recovery than those at higher risk. This emphasizes that species recovery is conceptually different from extinction risk and reinforces the utility of the IUCN Green Status of Species to more fully understand species conservation status. Although extinction risk did not predict conservation legacy, conservation dependence, or conservation gain, it was positively correlated with recovery potential. Only 1.7% of tested species were categorized as zero across all 4 of these conservation impact metrics, indicating that conservation has, or will, play a role in improving or maintaining species status for the vast majority of these species. Based on our results, we devised an updated assessment framework that introduces the option of using a dynamic baseline to assess future impacts of conservation over the short term to avoid misleading results which were generated in a small number of cases, and redefines short term as 10 years to better align with conservation planning. These changes are reflected in the IUCN Green Status of Species Standard.Reconociendo que era imperativo evaluar la recuperación de especies y el impacto de la conservación, la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (UICN) convocó en 2012 al desarrollo de una “Lista Verde de Especies” (ahora el Estatus Verde de las Especies de la UICN). Un marco de referencia preliminar de una Lista Verde de Especies para evaluar el progreso de las especies hacia la recuperación, publicado en 2018, proponía 2 componentes separados pero interconectados: un método estandarizado (i.e., medición en relación con puntos de referencia de la viabilidad de especies, funcionalidad y distribución antes del impacto) para determinar el estatus de recuperación actual (puntuación de recuperación de la especie) y la aplicación de ese método para estimar impactos en el pasado y potenciales de conservación basados en 4 medidas (legado de conservación, dependencia de conservación, ganancia de conservación y potencial de recuperación). Probamos el marco de referencia con 181 especies representantes de diversos taxa, historias de vida, biomas, y categorías (riesgo de extinción) en la Lista Roja de la IUCN. Con base en la distribución observada de la puntuación de recuperación de las especies, proponemos las siguientes categorías de recuperación de la especie: totalmente recuperada, ligeramente mermada, moderadamente mermada, mayormente mermada, gravemente mermada, extinta en estado silvestre, e inderterminada. Cincuenta y nueve por ciento de las especies se consideraron mayormente o gravemente mermada. Aunque hubo una relación negativa entre el riesgo de extinción y la puntuación de recuperación de la especie, la variación fue considerable. Algunas especies en las categorías de riesgo bajas fueron evaluadas como más lejos de recuperarse que aquellas con alto riesgo. Esto enfatiza que la recuperación de especies es diferente conceptualmente al riesgo de extinción y refuerza la utilidad del Estado Verde de las Especies de la UICN para comprender integralmente el estatus de conservación de especies. Aunque el riesgo de extinción no predijo el legado de conservación, la dependencia de conservación o la ganancia de conservación, se correlacionó positivamente con la potencial de recuperación. Solo 1.7% de las especies probadas fue categorizado como cero en los 4 indicadores de impacto de la conservación, lo que indica que la conservación ha jugado, o jugará, un papel en la mejoría o mantenimiento del estatus de la especie la gran mayoría de ellas. Con base en nuestros resultados, diseñamos una versión actualizada del marco de referencia para la evaluación que introduce la opción de utilizar una línea de base dinámica para evaluar los impactos futuros de la conservación en el corto plazo y redefine corto plazo como 10 años.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species, a species extinction risk assessment tool, has been guiding conservation efforts for over 5 decades. It is widely assumed to have been instrumental in preventing species from moving closer to extinction and driving recoveries. However, the impact of the IUCN Red List in guiding conservation has not been evaluated. We conducted, transcribed, and coded interviews with experts who use the IUCN Red List across a range of sectors to understand how the list is used in conservation. We developed a theory of change to illustrate how and why change is expected to occur along causal pathways contributing to the long‐term goal of the IUCN Red List and an evaluation framework with indicators for measuring the impact of the IUCN Red List in generating scientific knowledge, raising awareness among stakeholders, designating priority conservation sites, allocating funding and resources, influencing development of legislation and policy, and guiding targeted conservation action (key themes). Red‐list assessments were the primary input leading to outputs (scientific knowledge, raised awareness), outcomes (better informed priority setting, access to funding and resource availability, improved legislation and policy), and impact (implemented conservation action leading to positive change) that have resulted in achievement of IUCN Red List goals. To explore feasibility of attributing the difference made by the IUCN Red List across themes, we studied increased scientific knowledge, raised awareness, access to funding and resource allocation, and increased conservation activity. The feasibility exploration showed increased scientific knowledge over time identified through positive trends in publications referring to the IUCN Red List in the literature; raised awareness of the list following high IUCN activity identified by peaks in online search activity; an increased proportion of conservation funding bodies requesting IUCN Red List status in the application process; and, based on interviews with Amphibian Specialist Group members, red‐list assessments were essential in connecting relevant stakeholders and ensuring conservation action. Although we identified the IUCN Red List as a vital tool in global conservation efforts, it was challenging to measure specific impacts because of its ubiquitous nature. We are the first to identify the influence of the IUCN Red List on conservation., Article impact statement: The IUCN Red List has direct and indirect impact on conservation practice; the extent of its influence should be better recognized.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species includes assessment of extinction risk for 98 512 species, plus documentation of their range, habitat, elevation, and other factors. These range, habitat and elevation data can be matched with terrestrial land cover and elevation datasets to map the species’ area of habitat (AOH; also known as extent of suitable habitat; ESH). This differs from the two spatial metrics used for assessing extinction risk in the IUCN Red List criteria: extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of occupancy (AOO). AOH can guide conservation, for example, through targeting areas for field surveys, assessing proportions of species’ habitat within protected areas, and monitoring habitat loss and fragmentation. We recommend that IUCN Red List assessments document AOH wherever practical., Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 34 (11), ISSN:0169-5347, ISSN:1872-8383

Summary The scale and drivers of marine biodiversity loss are being revealed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List assessment process. We present the first global reassessment of 1,199 species in Class Chondrichthyes—sharks, rays, and chimeras. The first global assessment (in 2014) concluded that one-quarter (24%) of species were threatened. Now, 391 (32.6%) species are threatened with extinction. When this percentage of threat is applied to Data Deficient species, more than one-third (37.5%) of chondrichthyans are estimated to be threatened, with much of this change resulting from new information. Three species are Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct), representing possibly the first global marine fish extinctions due to overfishing. Consequently, the chondrichthyan extinction rate is potentially 25 extinctions per million species years, comparable to that of terrestrial vertebrates. Overfishing is the universal threat affecting all 391 threatened species and is the sole threat for 67.3% of species and interacts with three other threats for the remaining third: loss and degradation of habitat (31.2% of threatened species), climate change (10.2%), and pollution (6.9%). Species are disproportionately threatened in tropical and subtropical coastal waters. Science-based limits on fishing, effective marine protected areas, and approaches that reduce or eliminate fishing mortality are urgently needed to minimize mortality of threatened species and ensure sustainable catch and trade of others. Immediate action is essential to prevent further extinctions and protect the potential for food security and ecosystem functions provided by this iconic lineage of predators.

International audience; Accounting for taxonomic and geographic variation in historic human impacts on indigenous range will facilitate use of IUCN’s Green List of Species.

In 2010, Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 to address the loss and degradation of nature. Subsequently, most biodiversity indicators continued to decline. Nevertheless, conservation actions can make a positive difference for biodiversity. The emerging Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework has potential to catalyze efforts to ‘bend the curve’ of biodiversity loss. Thus, the inclusion of a goal on species, articulated as Goal B in the Zero Draft of the Post-2020 Framework, is essential. However, as currently formulated, this goal is inadequate for preventing extinctions, and reversing population declines; both of which are required to achieve the CBD’s 2030 mission. We contend it is unacceptable that Goal B could be met while most threatened species deteriorated in status and many avoidable species extinctions occurred. We examine the limitations of the current wording and propose an articulation with robust scientific basis. A goal for species that strives to end extinctions and recover populations of all species that have experienced population declines, and especially those at risk of extinction, would help to align actors towards the transformative actions and interventions needed for humans to live in harmony with nature.

With the biodiversity crisis continuing unchecked, we need to establish levels and drivers of extinction risk, and reassessments over time, to effectively allocate conservation resources and track progress towards global conservation targets. Given that threat appears particularly high in freshwaters, we assessed the extinction risk of 1428 randomly selected freshwater molluscs using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, as part of the Sampled Red List Index project. We show that close to one-third of species in our sample are estimated to be threatened with extinction, with highest levels of threat in the Nearctic, Palearctic and Australasia and among gastropods. Threat levels were higher in lotic than lentic systems. Pollution (chemical and physical) and the modification of natural systems (e.g. through damming and water abstraction) were the most frequently reported threats to freshwater molluscs, with some regional variation. Given that we found little spatial congruence between species richness patterns of freshwater molluscs and other freshwater taxa, apart from crayfish, new additional conservation priority areas emerged from our study. We discuss the implications of our findings for freshwater mollusc conservation, the adequacy of a sampled approach and important next steps to estimate trends in freshwater mollusc extinction risk over time., The authors would like to acknowledge the Esme ́e Fairbairn Foundation (NIDR and MB) and the Rufford Foundation (MB) for their generous support. MV is supported by the Russian Fund for Basic Research (project No. 19-04-00270).

Global biodiversity targets require us to identify species at risk of extinction and quantify status and trends of biodiversity. The Red List Index (RLI) tracks trends in the conservation status of entire species groups over time by monitoring changes in categories assigned to species. Here, we calculate this index for the world’s fishes in 2010, using a sampled approach to the RLI based on a randomly selected sample of 1,500 species, and also present RLI splits for freshwater and marine systems separately. We further compare specific traits of a worldwide fish list to our sample to assess its representativeness. Overall, 15.1% of species in the sample were estimated to be threatened with extinction, resulting in an sampled RLI of 0.914 for all species, 0.972 in marine and 0.860 in freshwater ecosystems. Our sample showed fishing as the principal threat for marine species, and pollution by agricultural and foresty effluents for freshwater fishes. The sampled list provides a robust representation for tracking trends in the conservation status of the world’s fishes, including disaggregated sampled indices for marine and freshwater fish. Reassessment and backcasting of this index is urgent to check the achievement of the commitments proposed in global biodiversity targets.

Unsustainable exploitation of wild species represents a serious threat to biodiversity and to the livelihoods of local communities and indigenous peoples. However, managed, sustainable use has the potential to forestall extinctions, aid recovery, and meet human needs. Research to date has focused on unsustainable biological resource use with little consideration of sustainable use; we infer the current prevalence of both. We analyzed species-level data for 30,923 species from 13 taxonomic groups on the IUCN Red List. Our results demonstrate the broad taxonomic prevalence of use, with 40% of species (10,098 of 25,009 species from 10 data-sufficient taxonomic groups) documented as being used. The main purposes of use are pets, display animals and horticulture, and human consumption. Use often has an adverse impact on species extinction risk (we define this as biologically unsustainable): intentional use is currently contributing to elevated extinction risk for over a quarter of all threatened or Near Threatened (NT) species (2,752 – 2,848 of 9,753 species). Intentional use also threatens 16% of all species used (1,597 – 1,631 of 10,098). However, 72% of species that are used (7,291 of 10,098) are Least Concern (LC), of which nearly half (3,469) also have stable or improving population trends. The remainder of used species are not documented as threatened by biological resource use, including 172 threatened or NT species with stable or improving populations. Around a third of species that have use documented as a threat do not currently receive targeted species management actions to directly address this threat. We offer suggestions for improving use-related Red List data. Our findings on the prevalence of sustainable and unsustainable use, and variation across taxa, can inform international policymaking, including the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

International audience; The Convention on Biological Diversity’s post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework will probably include a goal to stabilize and restore the status of species. Its delivery would be facilitated by making the actions required to halt and reverse species loss spatially explicit. Here, we develop a species threat abatement and restoration (STAR) metric that is scalable across species, threats and geographies. STAR quantifies the contributions that abating threats and restoring habitats in specific places offer towards reducing extinction risk. While every nation can contribute towards halting biodiversity loss, Indonesia, Colombia, Mexico, Madagascar and Brazil combined have stewardship over 31% of total STAR values for terrestrial amphibians, birds and mammals. Among actions, sustainable crop production and forestry dominate, contributing 41% of total STAR values for these taxonomic groups. Key Biodiversity Areas cover 9% of the terrestrial surface but capture 47% of STAR values. STAR could support governmental and non-state actors in quantifying their contributions to meeting science-based species targets within the framework.

Given the current biodiversity crisis, pragmatic approaches to detect global conservation trends across a broad range of taxa are critical. A sampled approach to the Red List Index (RLI) was proposed, as many groups are highly speciose. However, a decade after its conception, the recommended 900 species sample has only been implemented in six groups and trend data are available for none, potentially because this sample is unfeasibly high. Using a broader set of all available data we show that when re-assessments are conducted every 10 years, 200 species (400 in some cases) should be sufficient to detect a RLI trend. Correctly detecting changes in slope still requires samples of 900 species (11,000 in some cases). Sampled assessments can accelerate biodiversity monitoring and complement current metrics, but the time-period between assessments and the approaches? purpose should be carefully considered, as there is a trade-off between sample size and the resulting indices.

Stopping declines in biodiversity is critically important, but it is only a first step toward achieving more ambitious conservation goals. The absence of an objective and practical definition of species recovery that is applicable across taxonomic groups leads to inconsistent targets in recovery plans and frustrates reporting and maximization of conservation impact. We devised a framework for comprehensively assessing species recovery and conservation success. We propose a definition of a fully recovered species that emphasizes viability, ecological functionality, and representation; and use counterfactual approaches to quantify degree of recovery. This allowed us to calculate a set of 4 conservation metrics that demonstrate impacts of conservation efforts to date (conservation legacy); identify dependence of a species on conservation actions (conservation dependence); quantify expected gains resulting from conservation action in the medium term (conservation gain); and specify requirements to achieve maximum plausible recovery over the long term (recovery potential). These metrics can incentivize the establishment and achievement of ambitious conservation targets. We illustrate their use by applying the framework to a vertebrate, an invertebrate, and a woody and an herbaceous plant. Our approach is a preliminary framework for an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Green List of Species, which was mandated by a resolution of IUCN members in 2012. Although there are several challenges in applying our proposed framework to a wide range of species, we believe its further development, implementation, and integration with the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species will help catalyze a positive and ambitious vision for conservation that will drive sustained conservation action. ISSN:0888-8892 ISSN:1523-1739

[Figure][1] Although the red pencilfish is listed as critically endangered and threatened by trade, it is not listed in CITES. PHOTO: BRUNO CAVIGNAUX/BIOSPHOTO/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO Unsustainable international wildlife trade is a major conservation concern, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is a key tool for regulating it. In their Policy Forum “Long delays in banning trade in threatened species” (15 February, p. 686), E. G. Frank and D. S. Wilcove suggest that when the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species identifies a species as threatened, at least in part by international trade, it should be promptly added to CITES. The authors claim that 271 such species warrant inclusion in CITES Appendix I or II, which they characterize as a backlog in need of clearing. We welcome the suggestion for closer interaction between the Red List and amendments to the CITES Appendices. However, the proposed approach of a near-automatic pathway overlooks the independent criteria and processes used for evaluating extinction risk on the Red List and for including species in CITES. ![Figure][1] Many pangolin species were upgraded to the more urgent CITES rating only after risk from trade had rapidly increased. PHOTO: [ISTOCK.COM][2]/2630BEN The Red List uses objective categories and criteria with quantitative thresholds (such as population size and trends) and information on known or likely threats ([ 1 ][3]). Conversely, the listing of species under CITES, a legally binding multilateral agreement, is a matter for its 183 parties. CITES uses detailed biological and trade criteria to evaluate proposals for species inclusion in its Appendices, and proposals can only be submitted by parties ([ 2 ][4]). Crucially, species threatened on the Red List that can be linked to international trade may not meet the criteria for inclusion in CITES, particularly when international trade is not a major threat. We agree that new or updated Red List assessments should be shared promptly with the CITES parties, but only subsequent evaluation of species against the CITES listing criteria can determine whether they are added. 1. [↵][5]IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee, “Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List categories and criteria, version 13 (2017); . 2. [↵][6]CITES, Res. Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP17), Criteria for amendment of Appendices I and II ( ). [1]: pending:yes [2]: http://ISTOCK.COM [3]: #ref-1 [4]: #ref-2 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [6]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text"

For 50 years, the IUCN Commissions, Secretariat, Members such as BirdLife International and partners such as UNEP-WCMC have been mobilising biodiversity and conservation knowledge products, which are fundamentally important for tracking progress towards 10 of the 20 Aichi Targets, and should similarly become so for seven of the emerging 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals. Each of these knowledge products comprises standards, governance and quality control, data sets, tools, capacity building and ongoing processes for derivation of biodiversity indicators. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, established in 1964, documents extinction risk for more than 76,000 species. Protected Planet, working from the mandate to provide the UN List of Protected Areas, is convened jointly with UNEP and documents ~220,000 protected areas. The Red List of Ecosystems aims to assess the risk of collapse of ecosystems, and is currently being piloted in a number of countries. Key Biodiversity Areas are sites contributing si...

Governments have committed to conserving 17% of terrestrial and 10% of marine environments globally, especially “areas of particular importance for biodiversity” through “ecologically representative” Protected Area (PA) systems or other “area-based conservation measures”, while individual countries have committed to conserve 3–50% of their land area. We estimate that PAs currently cover 14.6% of terrestrial and 2.8% of marine extent, but 59–68% of ecoregions, 77–78% of important sites for biodiversity, and 57% of 25,380 species have inadequate coverage. The existing 19.7 million km 2 terrestrial PA network needs only 3.3 million km 2 to be added to achieve 17% terrestrial coverage. However, it would require nearly doubling to achieve, costefficiently, coverage targets for all countries, ecoregions, important sites, and species. Poorer countries have the largest relative shortfalls. Such extensive and rapid expansion of formal PAs is unlikely to be achievable. Greater focus is therefore needed on alternative approaches, including community- and privately managed sites and other effective area-based conservation measures.

Biodiversity and conservation data are generally costly to collect, particularly in the marine realm. Hence, data collected for a given-often scientific-purpose are occasionally contributed toward secondary needs, such as policy implementation or other types of decision-making. However, while the quality and accessibility of marine biodiversity and conservation data have improved over the past decade, the ways in which these data can be used to develop and implement relevant management and conservation measures and actions are not always explicit. For this reason, there are a number of scientifically-sound datasets that are not used systematically to inform policy and decisions. Transforming these marine biodiversity and conservation datasets into knowledge products that convey the information required by policy- and decision-makers is an important step in strengthening knowledge exchange across the science-policy interface. Here, we identify seven characteristics of a selection of online biodiversity and conservation knowledge products that contribute to their ability to support policy- and decision-making in the marine realm (as measured by e.g., mentions in policy resolutions/decisions, or use for reporting under selected policy instruments; use in high-level screening for areas of biodiversity importance). These characteristics include: a clear policy mandate; established networks of collaborators; iterative co-design of a user-friendly interface; standardized, comprehensive and documented methods with quality assurance; consistent capacity and succession planning; accessible data and value-added products that are fit-for-purpose; and metrics of use collated and reported. The outcomes of this review are intended to: (a) support data creators/owners/providers in designing and curating biodiversity and conservation knowledge products that have greater influence, and hence impact, in policy- and decision-making, and (b) provide recommendations for how decision- and policy-makers can support the development, implementation, and sustainability of robust biodiversity and conservation knowledge products through the framing of marine policy and decision-making frameworks.

The Red List of marine bony fishes of the Eastern Central Atlantic (ECA) is a review of the conservation status of all native marine bony fishes in ECA according to the global Categories and Criteria of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. It identifies those species that are threatened with extinction at the global level and occur within the ECA region. This comprehensive assessment, which is the first of its kind in the ECA, aims to provide improved knowledge of species presence and extinction risk status for the purposes of guiding conservation actions and improved policies for these species both globally and regionally.

Made available in DSpace on 2018-11-26T15:30:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2016-08-16 MAVA foundation Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) National Science Foundation's Dimensions of Biodiversity program Rufford Foundation Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) Partnership Knowledge products comprise assessments of authoritative information supported by standards, governance, quality control, data, tools, and capacity building mechanisms. Considerable resources are dedicated to developing and maintaining knowledge products for biodiversity conservation, and they are widely used to inform policy and advise decision makers and practitioners. However, the financial cost of delivering this information is largely undocumented. We evaluated the costs and funding sources for developing and maintaining four global biodiversity and conservation knowledge products: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, Protected Planet, and the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. These are secondary data sets, built on primary data collected by extensive networks of expert contributors worldwide. We estimate that US$160 million (range: US$116-204 million), plus 293 person-years of volunteer time (range: 278308 person-years) valued at US$14 million (range US$12-16 million), were invested in these four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013. More than half of this financing was provided through philanthropy, and nearly three-quarters was spent on personnel costs. The estimated annual cost of maintaining data and platforms for three of these knowledge products (excluding the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems for which annual costs were not possible to estimate for 2013) is US$6.5 million in total (range: US$6.2-6.7 million). We estimated that an additional US$114 million will be needed to reach pre-defined baselines of data coverage for all the four knowledge products, and that once achieved, annual maintenance costs will be approximately US$12 million. These costs are much lower than those to maintain many other, similarly important, global knowledge products. Ensuring that biodiversity and conservation knowledge products are sufficiently up to date, comprehensive and accurate is fundamental to inform decision-making for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Thus, the development and implementation of plans for sustainable long-term financing for them is critical. UNESP WCMC, United Nations Environm Programme, 219 Huntingdon Rd, Cambridge CB3 0DL, England IUCN, 28 Rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland Univ Philippines Banos, World Agroforestry Ctr ICRAF, Laguna 4031, Philippines Univ Tasmania, Inst Marine & Antarct Studies, Hobart, Tas 7001, Australia BirdLife Int, David Attenborough Bldg,Pembroke St, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, England Univ Cambridge, Dept Zool, Downing St, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, England IUCN Global Species Programme, David Attenborough Bldg,Pembroke St, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, England IUCN, Nature Based Solut Grp, 28 Rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland IUCN Species Survival Commiss, Amphibian Specialist Grp, Toronto, ON M8W 1R2, Canada Royal Bot Gardens, Richmond TW9 3AB, Surrey, England Zool Soc London, Inst Zool, Regents Pk, London NW1 4RY, England Nat Hist Museum, Dept Life Sci, London SW7 5BD, England Old Domin Univ, IUCN Marine Biodivers Unit, Global Species Programme Biol Sci, Norfolk, VA USA Conservat Int, IUCN Global Species Programme, IUCN CI Biodivers Assessment, 2011 Crystal Dr,Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202 USA Univ Queensland, Ctr Biodivers & Conservat Sci, ARC Ctr Excellence Environm Decis, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia Univ Queensland, Sch Geog Planning & Environm Management, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia WWF Int, Luc Hoffmann Inst, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland Univ New S Wales, Ctr Ecosyst Sci, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia Arizona State Univ, Sch Life Sci, POB 874501, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA IUCN Global Ecosyst Management Programme, David Attenborough Bldg,Pembroke St, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, England Provita, Apdo 47552, Caracas 1041A, Venezuela Inst Venezolano Invest Cient, Ctr Ecol, Apdo 20632, Caracas 1020A, Venezuela Sapienza Univ Rome, Dept Biol & Biotechnol, Global Mammal Assessment Program, Viale Univ 32, I-00185 Rome, Italy IUCN, Biodivers Conservat Grp, 28 Rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland Crit Ecosyst Partnership Fund, 2011 Crystal Dr,Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202 USA World Commiss Protected Areas IUCN, 64 Juniper Rd, Chelsea, PQ J9B 1T3, Canada NatureServe, 4600 N Fairfax Dr, Arlington, VA 22203 USA Amer Bird Conservancy, 1731 Connecticut Ave, Washington, DC 20009 USA New South Wales Off Environm & Heritage, Hurstville, NSW 2220, Australia UNESP WCMC, United Nations Environm Programme, 219 Huntingdon Rd, Cambridge CB3 0DL, England National Science Foundation's Dimensions of Biodiversity program: 1136586

The diversity of life on Earth—which provides vital services to humanity ( 1 )—stems from the difference between rates of evolutionary diversification and extinction. Human activities have shifted the balance ( 2 ): Species extinction rates are an estimated 1000 times the “background” rate ( 3 ) and could increase to 10,000 times the background rate should species threatened with extinction succumb to pressures they face ( 4 ). Reversing these trends is a focus of the Convention on Biological Diversity's 2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and its 20 Aichi Targets and is explicitly incorporated into the United Nations' 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We identify major gaps in data available for assessing global biodiversity threats and suggest mechanisms for closing them.

For more than four decades the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has been assessing the global threat status for species and publishing the results in the periodically updated IUCN Red List of threatened species. Additionally, numerous countries have published national lists of threatened species, often based on IUCN criteria and guidelines for application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional levels. To assess how similar, or how different, national red lists are from the global red list, we compared threatened species lists of four countries (Brazil, Colombia, China, and the Philippines) with the 2008 IUCN Red List. We found notable differences falling into three categories: (1) a number of species (an average of 20% of the species pool considered in each of the four countries) have been listed nationally as threatened, but have yet to be globally assessed by IUCN, (2) some species (14% average) are considered globally threatened by IUCN, but are not listed nationally, and (3) a handful of species (2% average) are not considered threatened by IUCN, but are nationally threatened. However, for most species, the threat assessments concur. In other words, most species are either considered threatened both nationally and globally, or else not considered globally threatened and not listed nationally. Such possible comparison between national red lists and IUCN’s Red List is a high priority both for IUCN and for national red listing agencies.

Summary As stated in our original paper the IUCN–CMP threatsclassification will be revised on a regular basis based onfeedback from its users. To this end the critique fromBalmford et al. is both timely and welcome. In particularwe acknowledge the need to improve the classificationof stresses and enhance the guidance that details how torecord those direct threats that also function as stressorsand mechanisms.Nevertheless, many of the criticisms from Balmford etal. are based on fundamental misunderstandings of theIUCN–CMP system and how it is meant to be applied.Furthermore, the matrix of mechanisms and sources pro-posed by the CCF as an alternative has many substan-tial theoretical and practical drawbacks that we believewouldbecomereadilyapparentinfieldtesting.Unlesswesee compelling evidence that the CCF system has beenused successfully in practice and has produced substan-tiallybetteranalyses,wewillcontinuetofocusoureffortson further refining the IUCN–CMP classification withinits current structure. We hope our CCF colleagues—andthe rest of the conservation community—will continueto work with us in this endeavor.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species was increasingly used during the 1980s to assess the conservation status of species for policy and planning purposes. This use stimulated the development of a new set of quantitative criteria for listing species in the categories of threat: critically endangered, endangered, and vulnerable. These criteria, which were intended to be applicable to all species except microorganisms, were part of a broader system for classifying threatened species and were fully implemented by IUCN in 2000. The system and the criteria have been widely used by conservation practitioners and scientists and now underpin one indicator being used to assess the Convention on Biological Diversity 2010 biodiversity target. We describe the process and the technical background to the IUCN Red List system. The criteria refer to fundamental biological processes underlying population decline and extinction. But given major differences between species, the threatening processes affecting them, and the paucity of knowledge relating to most species, the IUCN system had to be both broad and flexible to be applicable to the majority of described species. The system was designed to measure the symptoms of extinction risk, and uses 5 independent criteria relating to aspects of population loss and decline of range size. A species is assigned to a threat category if it meets the quantitative threshold for at least one criterion. The criteria and the accompanying rules and guidelines used by IUCN are intended to increase the consistency, transparency, and validity of its categorization system, but it necessitates some compromises that affect the applicability of the system and the species lists that result. In particular, choices were made over the assessment of uncertainty, poorly known species, depleted species, population decline, restricted ranges, and rarity; all of these affect the way red lists should be viewed and used. Processes related to priority setting and the development of national red lists need to take account of some assumptions in the formulation of the criteria.La Lista Roja de Especies Amenazadas de la UICN (Union Internacional para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza) fue muy utilizada durante la decada de l980 para evaluar el estatus de conservacion de especies para fines politicos y de planificacion. Este uso estimulo el desarrollo de un conjunto nuevo de criterios cuantitativos para enlistar especies en las categorias de amenaza: en peligro critico, en peligro y vulnerable. Estos criterios, que se pretendia fueran aplicables a todas las especies excepto microorganismos, eran parte de un sistema general para clasificar especies amenazadas y fueron implementadas completamente por la UICN en 2000. El sistema y los criterios han sido ampliamente utilizados por practicantes y cientificos de la conservacion y actualmente apuntalan un indicador utilizado para evaluar el objetivo al 2010 de la Convencion de Diversidad Biologica. Describimos el proceso y el respaldo tecnico del sistema de la Lista Roja de la IUCN. Los criterios se refieren a los procesos biologicos fundamentales que subyacen en la declinacion y extincion de una poblacion. Pero, debido a diferencias mayores entre especies, los procesos de amenaza que los afectan y la escasez de conocimiento sobre la mayoria de las especies, el sistema de la UICN tenia que ser amplio y flexible para ser aplicable a la mayoria de las especies descritas. El sistema fue disenado para medir los sintomas del riesgo de extincion, y utiiza cinco criterios independientes que relacionan aspectos de la perdida poblacional y la declinacion del rango de distribucion. Una especie es asignada a una categoria de amenaza si cumple el umbral cuantitativo por lo menos para un criterio. Los criterios, las reglas acompanantes y las directrices utilizadas por la UICN tienen la intencion de incrementar la consistencia, transparencia y validez de su sistema de clasificacion, pero requiere algunos compromisos que afectan la aplicabilidad del sistema y las listas de especies que resultan. En particular, se hicieron selecciones por encima de la evaluacion de incertidumbre, especies poco conocidas, especies disminuidas, declinacion poblacional, rangos restringidos y rareza; todas estas afectan la forma en que las listas rojas deberian ser vistas y usadas. Los procesos relacionados con la definicion de prioridades y el desarrollo de las listas rojas nacionales necesitan considerar algunos de los supuestos en la formulacion de los criterios.

Knowledge of mammalian diversity is still surprisingly disparate, both regionally and taxonomically. Here, we present a comprehensive assessment of the conservation status and distribution of the world's mammals. Data, compiled by 1700+ experts, cover all 5487 species, including marine mammals. Global macroecological patterns are very different for land and marine species but suggest common mechanisms driving diversity and endemism across systems. Compared with land species, threat levels are higher among marine mammals, driven by different processes (accidental mortality and pollution, rather than habitat loss), and are spatially distinct (peaking in northern oceans, rather than in Southeast Asia). Marine mammals are also disproportionately poorly known. These data are made freely available to support further scientific developments and conservation action.

The world's governments have identified reducing the rate of biodiversity loss as a global priority. However, we lack robust measures of progress toward this target. Developing indicators that are generally representative of trends in global biodiversity has presented the scientific community with a significant challenge. Here we discuss the development and implementation of the IUCN Red List Index with a new sampled approach, permitting the assessment of the conservation status and trends of large, speciose taxonomic groups. This approach is based on the IUCN Red List and measures trends in extinction risk through time. The challenges in developing this new approach are addressed, including determining the species groups to be included in the index, identifying the minimum adequate samples size, and aggregating and weighting the index. Implementing this approach will greatly increase understanding of the status of the world's biodiversity by 2010, enabling the first assessment of a number of key groups.

An essential foundation of any science is a standard lexicon. Any given conservation project can be described in terms of the biodiversity targets, direct threats, contributing factors at the project site, and the conservation actions that the project team is employing to change the situation. These common elements can be linked in a causal chain, which represents a theory of change about how the conservation actions are intended to bring about desired project outcomes. If project teams want to describe and share their work and learn from one another, they need a standard and precise lexicon to specifically describe each node along this chain. To date, there have been several independent efforts to develop standard classifications for the direct threats that affect biodiversity and the conservation actions required to counteract these threats. Recognizing that it is far more effective to have only one accepted global scheme, we merged these separate efforts into unified classifications of threats and actions, which we present here. Each classification is a hierarchical listing of terms and associated definitions. The classifications are comprehensive and exclusive at the upper levels of the hierarchy, expandable at the lower levels, and simple, consistent, and scalable at all levels. We tested these classifications by applying them post hoc to 1191 threatened bird species and 737 conservation projects. Almost all threats and actions could be assigned to the new classification systems, save for some cases lacking detailed information. Furthermore, the new classification systems provided an improved way of analyzing and comparing information across projects when compared with earlier systems. We believe that widespread adoption of these classifications will help practitioners more systematically identify threats and appropriate actions, managers to more efficiently set priorities and allocate resources, and most important, facilitate cross-project learning and the development of a systematic science of conservation.

Two processes for regional environmental assessment are currently underway: the Global Environment Outlook (GEO) and Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Both face constraints of data, time, capacity, and resources. To support these assessments, we disaggregate three global knowledge products according to their regions and subregions. These products are: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Key Biodiversity Areas (specifically Important Bird & Biodiversity Areas [IBAs], and Alliance for Zero Extinction [AZE] sites), and Protected Planet. We present fourteen Data citations: numbers of species occurring and percentages threatened; numbers of endemics and percentages threatened; downscaled Red List Indices for mammals, birds, and amphibians; numbers, mean sizes, and percentage coverages of IBAs and AZE sites; percentage coverage of land and sea by protected areas; and trends in percentages of IBAs and AZE sites wholly covered by protected areas. These data will inform the regional/subregional assessment chapters on the status of biodiversity, drivers of its decline, and institutional responses, and greatly facilitate comparability and consistency between the different regional/subregional assessments.

The identification of species at risk of extinction is a central goal of conservation. As the use of data compiled for IUCN Red List assessments expands, a number of misconceptions regarding the purpose, application and use of the IUCN Red List categories and criteria have arisen. We outline five such classes of misconception; the most consequential drive proposals for adapted versions of the criteria, rendering assessments among species incomparable. A key challenge for the future will be to recognize the point where understanding has developed so markedly that it is time for the next generation of the Red List criteria. We do not believe we are there yet but, recognizing the need for scrutiny and continued development of Red Listing, conclude by suggesting areas where additional research could be valuable in improving the understanding of extinction risk among species.

A high proportion of plant species is predicted to be threatened with extinction in the near future. However, the threat status of only a small number has been evaluated compared with key animal groups, rendering the magnitude and nature of the risks plants face unclear. Here we report the results of a global species assessment for the largest plant taxon evaluated to date under the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List Categories and Criteria, the iconic Cactaceae (cacti). We show that cacti are among the most threatened taxonomic groups assessed to date, with 31% of the 1,478 evaluated species threatened, demonstrating the high anthropogenic pressures on biodiversity in arid lands. The distribution of threatened species and the predominant threatening processes and drivers are different to those described for other taxa. The most significant threat processes comprise land conversion to agriculture and aquaculture, collection as biological resources, and residential and commercial development. The dominant drivers of extinction risk are the unscrupulous collection of live plants and seeds for horticultural trade and private ornamental collections, smallholder livestock ranching and smallholder annual agriculture. Our findings demonstrate that global species assessments are readily achievable for major groups of plants with relatively moderate resources, and highlight different conservation priorities and actions to those derived from species assessments of key animal groups., La lista completa de autores que integran el documento puede consultarse en el archivo., Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo

Recent attempts at projecting climate change impacts on biodiversity have used the IUCN Red List Criteria to obtain estimates of extinction rates based on projected range shifts. In these studies, the Criteria are often misapplied, potentially introducing substantial bias and uncertainty. These misapplications include arbitrary changes to temporal and spatial scales; confusion of the spatial variables; and assume a linear relationship between abundance and range area. Using the IUCN Red List Criteria to identify which species are threatened by climate change presents special problems and uncertainties, especially for shorter-lived species. Responses of most species to future climate change are not understood well enough to estimate extinction risks based solely on climate change scenarios and projections of shifts and/or reductions in range areas. One way to further such understanding would be to analyze the interactions among habitat shifts, landscape structure and demography for a number of species, using a combination of models. Evaluating the patterns in the results might allow the development of guidelines for assigning species to threat categories, based on a combination of life history parameters, characteristics of the landscapes in which they live, and projected range changes.

Nearly half the world's vascular plant species and one-third of terrestrial vertebrates are endemic to 25 "hotspots" of biodiversity, each of which has at least 1500 endemic plant species. None of these hotspots have more than one-third of their pristine habitat remaining. Historically, they covered 12% of the land's sur- face, but today their intact habitat covers only 1.4% of the land. As a result of this habitat loss, we expect many of the hotspot endemics to have either become extinct or—because much of the habitat loss is recent— to be threatened with extinction. We used World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red Lists to test this expectation. Overall, between one-half and two-thirds of all threatened plants and 57% of all threatened terrestrial verte- brates are hotspot endemics. For birds and mammals, in general, predictions of extinction in the hotspots based on habitat loss match numbers of species independently judged extinct or threatened. In two classes of hotspots the match is not as close. On oceanic islands, habitat loss underestimates extinction because intro- duced species have driven extinctions beyond those caused by habitat loss on these islands. In large hotspots, conversely, habitat loss overestimates extinction, suggesting scale dependence (this effect is also apparent for plants). For reptiles, amphibians, and plants, many fewer hotspot endemics are considered threatened or ex- tinct than we would expect based on habitat loss. This mismatch is small in temperate hotspots, however, sug- gesting that many threatened endemic species in the poorly known tropical hotspots have yet to be included on the IUCN Red Lists. We then asked in which hotspots the consequences of further habitat loss (either abso- lute or given current rates of deforestation) would be most serious. Our results suggest that the Eastern Arc and Coastal Forests of Tanzania-Kenya, Philippines, and Polynesia-Micronesia can least afford to lose more habitat and that, if current deforestation rates continue, the Caribbean, Tropical Andes, Philippines, Me- soamerica, Sundaland, Indo-Burma, Madagascar, and Choco-Darien-Western Ecuador will lose the most spe- cies in the near future. Without urgent conservation intervention, we face mass extinctions in the hotspots.

This paper represents a work in progress by the World Conservation Union (IUCN). Earlier drafts of the work have appeared in IUCN publications, but the “International Issues” section of Conservation Biology seems an appropriate and important place to publish the penultimate version of the document. Comments on this issue in general or on the approach taken by the IUCN should be sent to the authors directly. Joshua Ginsburg

The Succulent Karoo biome is home to the world's richest succulent flora. It has approximately 1954 endemic plant species, and is the only semi-arid region to qualify as a hotspot of global significance. Despite its importance, only 2% of the biome is currently protected. Based on its flora, the biome can be divided into 12 bioregions, reflecting its high compositional turnover in relation to environmental and geographical gradients. Only three of these bioregions (the Gariep Centre, the Namaqualand Rocky Hills and the Tanqua Karoo) contain National Parks, and three contain large (over 10 000 ha) provincial reserves (the Gariep Centre, the Namaqualand Rocky Hills and the Little Karoo). The current reserve system does little to conserve biodiversity, with only one reserve significantly conserving Red Data Book (RDB) plant diversity. Using a RDB plant species database of 3874 records at a quarter degree scale (QDS = 15′×15′), we used hotspot analyses and iterative reserve selection algorithms to identify possible locations for future reserves. The hotspot analysis and iterative analyses yielded similar results for the top 11 QDS, mainly due to very high local endemism. Also because of the local endemism and the high species turnover within the biome, the real-world iterative algorithm (starting with the seven already reserved QDS) selected a very large total number of QDS (59% of the total in the biome) to conserve all RDB species. As a possible alternative to conservation planning based on QDS, we also assessed priorities at the scale of bioregions, but showed that representation at this geographic level misses important areas defined at a finer scale. We suggest that if the objective is to maximise the retention of RDB species in the landscape (to pre-empt extinction by scheduling the allocation of limited conservation resources), at least the top 5% of QDS (n=11) selected by the iterative procedure, and identified as the core conservation sequence by analysis of endemicity and threat, should be given priority for reservation. Less extensive and, in some cases, less formal conservation action can be applied to QDS later in the sequence, based on species-specific monitoring and action plans. Of the 11 core areas, four fall in a node centred on the Vanrhynsdorp Centre, two fall in a node centred on the Kamiesberg, and the remaining five are isolated. With existing reserves, the core areas capture 50% of the RDB flora in 8% of the biome.