No abstract

:  As countries worldwide become increasingly interested in conserving biodiversity, the profile of national threatened species lists expands and these lists become more influential in determining conservation priorities. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) Categories and Criteria for evaluating extinction risk, originally intended for use at the global level, are increasingly being used at the national level. To facilitate this process, the IUCN recently published guidelines for the application of the criteria at subglobal levels. We evaluated the application of these guidelines, focusing on the opinions and experience of the global community of national assessors. To assess the extent to which IUCN criteria have been used in official national listing efforts, we sent a survey to 180 Convention on Biological Diversity national focal points designated by governments. Of the respondents, 77% had developed national threatened species lists. Of these, 78% applied a version of the IUCN criteria, and 88% plan to produce future threatened species lists. The majority of this last group (83%) will use IUCN criteria. Of the countries that have or will develop a threatened species list, 82% incorporated their list or the IUCN criteria into national conservation strategies. We further explored the issues highlighted by the survey results by integrating the experience of assessors that have produced national lists. Most of the problems national assessors faced when applying the IUCN criteria arose when the criteria were applied at the regional level without the IUCN Regional Guidelines and when assessors were confused about the purpose of the IUCN criteria and lacked training in their proper use. To improve their clarity and increase their repeatability, we recommend that the IUCN increase communication and information exchange among countries and between regional and global assessors, potentially through an interactive Web site, to facilitate the development of national red lists and to improve their conservation value within and between countries.

No abstract

Action to reduce anthropogenic impact on the environment and species within it will be most effective when targeted towards activities that have the greatest impact on biodiversity. To do this effectively we need to better understand the relative importance of different activities and how they drive changes in species’ populations. Here, we present a novel, flexible framework that reviews evidence for the relative importance of these drivers of change and uses it to explain recent alterations in species’ populations. We review drivers of change across four hundred species sampled from a broad range of taxonomic groups in the UK. We found that species’ population change (~1970–2012) has been most strongly impacted by intensive management of agricultural land and by climatic change. The impact of the former was primarily deleterious, whereas the impact of climatic change to date has been more mixed. Findings were similar across the three major taxonomic groups assessed (insects, vascular plants and vertebrates). In general, the way a habitat was managed had a greater impact than changes in its extent, which accords with the relatively small changes in the areas occupied by different habitats during our study period, compared to substantial changes in habitat management. Of the drivers classified as conservation measures, low-intensity management of agricultural land and habitat creation had the greatest impact. Our framework could be used to assess the relative importance of drivers at a range of scales to better inform our policy and management decisions. Furthermore, by scoring the quality of evidence, this framework helps us identify research gaps and needs.

Global and regional targets to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss bring with them the need to measure the state of nature and how it is changing. A number of different biodiversity indicators have been developed in response and here we consider bird population indicators in Europe. Birds are often used as surrogates for other elements of biodiversity because they are so well known and well studied, and not for their unique intrinsic value as environmental indicators. Yet, in certain situations and at particular scales, trends in bird populations correlate with those of other taxa making them a valuable biodiversity indicator with appropriate caveats. In this paper, we look at two case studies, in the UK and Europe as a whole, where headline bird indicators, that is, summary statistics based on bird population trends, have been developed and used to inform and assist policy makers. Wild bird indicators have been adopted by many European countries and by the European Union as indicators of biodiversity and of sustainable development. In the discussion, we review the strengths and weaknesses of using bird populations in this way, and look forward to how this work might be developed and expanded.