Published July 21, 2021
0 views Journal article Open Access Open Access

Testing a global standard for quantifying species recovery and assessing conservation impact

Creators

  • 1. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
  • 2. University of Oxford
  • 3. Stony Brook University
  • 4. Wildlife Conservation Society
  • 5. University of the Philippines Los Baños
  • 6. Synchronicity Earth, London, UK.
  • 7. Zoological Society of London
  • 8. University of Trier
  • 9. Department of Planning and Environment
  • 10. University of New South Wales
  • 11. Re:wild, Washington, DC, USA.
  • 12. Manchester Metropolitan University
  • 13. University of Queensland
  • 14. Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research
  • 15. University of Lausanne
  • 16. Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust
  • 17. Autonomous University of Madrid
  • 18. Carrera de Biologia Marina, Universidad Cientifica del Sur, Lima, Peru.
  • 19. Morton Arboretum
  • 20. Madagasikara Voakajy, Antananarivo, Madagasikara.
  • 21. National University of Comahue
  • 22. Andrés Bello National University
  • 23. University of Cagliari
  • 24. Wildlife Institute of India
  • 25. University of the Azores
  • 26. University of Nebraska–Lincoln
  • 27. Indian Institute of Science
  • 28. University of Florida
  • 29. Auckland University of Technology
  • 30. BirdLife International
  • 31. Museo de Historia Natural Alcide d' Orbigny, Cochabamba, Bolivia.
  • 32. Complutense University of Madrid
  • 33. Dauphin Island Sea Lab, Dauphin Island, Alabama, USA.
  • 34. Society for the Protection of Prespa, Agios Germanos, Greece.
  • 35. Monash University
  • 36. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
  • 37. University of Dhaka
  • 38. Rhodes University
  • 39. University of Auckland
  • 40. Endangered Wildlife Trust
  • 41. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
  • 42. Fauna & Flora International
  • 43. Botanic Gardens Conservation International
  • 44. BirdLife/SAVE Brasil, Fernão Dias, Brazil.
  • 45. University of Otago
  • 46. Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Department of Fisheries, Hillarys, Western Australia, Australia.
  • 47. University of Molise
  • 48. Sociedade de Amigos da Fundação Zoobotânica de Belo Horizonte, (Pampulha), Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
  • 49. Brazilian National Centre for Flora Conservation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
  • 50. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research
  • 51. University of Bonn
  • 52. Hawai'i Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Kaneohe, Hawai'i, USA.
  • 53. University of Hawaii at Manoa
  • 54. Museum für Naturkunde
  • 55. Texas State University
  • 56. Pontifical Xavierian University
  • 57. National Autonomous University of Mexico
  • 58. Sabah Wildlife Department
  • 59. Mabuwaya Foundation Inc., ISU Garita, Cabagan, Philippines.
  • 60. Asociación Etnobotánica Paraguaya, Lambaré, Paraguay.
  • 61. University of Chile
  • 62. San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research, San Diego, California, USA.
  • 63. Wildlife Alliance, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
  • 64. Bowling Green State University
  • 65. Butterfly Conservation
  • 66. University of the Free State
  • 67. World Wide Fund for Nature
  • 68. Newcastle University
  • 69. BirdLife South Africa, Roggebaai, South Africa.
  • 70. Oregon State University
  • 71. University of Central Florida
  • 72. Virginia Tech
  • 73. Urban Wildlife Trust, Wellington/Hamilton, New Zealand.
  • 74. Dallas Zoo, Dallas, Texas, USA.
  • 75. Xerces Society
  • 76. Department of Conservation-Te Papa Atawhai, Wellington, New Zealand.
  • 77. Sociedade Chauá, Rua Julio Gorski, Paraná, Brazil.
  • 78. Flinders University
  • 79. Wildlife Trust of India, Noida, India.
  • 80. University of Eldoret
  • 81. African Aquatic Conservation Fund, Thies, Senegal.
  • 82. University of Waterloo
  • 83. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
  • 84. Florida Institute of Technology
  • 85. Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo and Aquarium, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
  • 86. Royal Botanic Gardens
  • 87. Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute
  • 88. Centro de Investigación Esquel de Montaña y Estepa Patagónica, CONICET, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
  • 89. National Center for Flora Conservation (CNCFlora), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
  • 90. Seabird Conservation Programme, BirdLife South Africa, Foreshore, South Africa.
  • 91. United States Fish and Wildlife Service
  • 92. International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA.
  • 93. University of Cambridge
  • 94. Department of Conservation, Dunedin, New Zealand.
  • 95. Center for Natural Resource Studies, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
  • 96. Landcare Research
  • 97. Minnesota Zoo
  • 98. School of Environmental Sciences, Federal University of Amapá, Macapá, Brazil.
  • 99. Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro
  • 100. Bermuda Government, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Paget, Bermuda.
  • 101. International Iguana Foundation, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.
  • 102. El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Lerma, Campeche, Mexico.
  • 103. National Park Service
  • 104. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences
  • 105. University of Nebraska at Kearney
  • 106. Department of Conservation, New Zealand, Fiordland District Office, Te Anau, New Zealand.
  • 107. Eastern Kentucky University
  • 108. University of Exeter
  • 109. University of Hong Kong
  • 110. Nottingham Trent University
  • 111. Cooperative Caipora, Florianópolis, Brazil.
  • 112. Stellenbosch University
  • 113. Grupo Micologos Colombia, Calle, Colmbia.
  • 114. Chikushi Jogakuen University
  • 115. D'ABOVILLE Foundation and Demo Farm Inc, Makati, Philippines.
  • 116. Namibia Crane Working Group, Swakopmund, Namibia.
  • 117. National Research Council
  • 118. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
  • 119. The Nature Conservancy
  • 120. Universidad de Bogotá Jorge Tadeo Lozano
  • 121. UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education
  • 122. United States Geological Survey
  • 123. Mauritian Wildlife Foundation
  • 124. Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh
  • 125. Archbold Biological Station
  • 126. University of Antioquia
  • 127. Fondation Franklinia, Genève, Switzerland.
  • 128. Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
  • 129. Ecolibrium Inc, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
  • 130. University of the Western Cape
  • 131. Northeast Forestry University
  • 132. Leiden University
  • 133. University of Hamburg
  • 134. Save Vietnam's Wildlife, Cuc Phuong National Park, Ninh Bình Province, Vietnam.
  • 135. Charles Darwin University

Description

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.
Enabled by The Lens

Open Access

Licence Attribution (CC BY)
Publisher Website Access full text