Who decides what species are endangered, threatened,
extinct, prominent, or otherwise? While a number of different organizations are
involved in making such determinations for different purposes, there is a gold
standard: the Red List. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources (“IUCN”) Red List of Threatened Species provides information
about the taxonomy, distribution, and conservation information of plants,
animals, and fungi with the purpose of determining the relative risk of
extinction. The list encompasses three categories: vulnerable, endangered, and
critically endangered. This year marks its 50th anniversary. This month, over
eight hundred species were added to the Red List. So, apart from requiring
edits to those species’ Wikipedia pages, what does this mean?
In terms of scientific knowledge, what species of flora and
fauna are added to the list in a given year can be telling about what is going
on in a given area, and can help further other scientific endeavors. For example,
most of the mammals added to the list this month were lemurs, and currently 94%
of the lemur population is at risk of extinction according to IUCN criteria. That
figure clearly indicates that current activities in Madagascar, the only place
where lemurs are found, are destructive to that endemic primate group. Furthermore,
the IUCN requires substantial quantities of reliable scientific data about a
species for its status to be assessed. The wealth data used in IUCN species
assessments is also helpful for other applications, and the Red Lists are
frequently cited to in scholarly publications.
In terms of practical repercussions, getting onto the Red
List often helps threatened species to find protection. Unlike when the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service lists a species endangered or threatened under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, being put on the Red List does not
automatically trigger protections or regulations. Technically speaking, the
list is really just a list, and does not oblige anyone to take any action.
Nevertheless, having an IUCN conservation status is an important starting point
for many species’ recovery. Getting listed sends a clear signal that actions
needs to be taken; and, generally, the message is well-received, influencing
policymakers and organizations worldwide. International organizations,
countries, and local communities alike let the Red List guide their policies
and decision-making.
One major flaw in the Rest List is that certain types of
animals have been hugely favored over others. Mammals, birds, amphibians and
reef-forming corals are the only “fully assessed” groups in which all known
species have been evaluated at least once. Meanwhile, very few reptile and
insect species and only one species
of fungus have been evaluated even once. The favoritism of the cute and cuddly,
while somewhat understandable, is unfortunate, and it means that the picture of
biodiversity painted by Red List statistics is skewed. As such, the organizations
relying on the Red List are relying on a skewed representation of global
biodiversity. The IUCN is currently seeking to increase the number of species
assessments in these underrepresented groups in the coming years.
-Amanda Hudson, Legal Intern
No comments:
Post a Comment