The IUCN Green List of An Optimistic and Ambitious New Vision for Conservation

H. Reşit Akçakaya Department of Ecology and Evolution Stony Brook University, NY, USA

Red List Committee Standards and Petitions Committee Green List Task Force References Updates Akçakaya HR, et al. 2018. Quantifying species recovery and conservation success to develop an IUCN Green https://www.researchgate.net/project/ List of Species. 32, 1128-1138 IUCN-Green-List-of-Species-measuring- https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13112 conservation-success Sanderson EW. 2019. A full and authentic reckoning of species’ ranges for conservation: response to Akçakaya et al. 2018. Conservation Biology 33, 1208-1210 https://www.iucn.org/species/about/ https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13399 species-survival-commission/ssc- Stephenson PJ, et al. 2019. Defining indigenous species leadership-and-steering- range to account for geographic and taxonomic committee/iucn-red-list-committee/iucn- variation in the history of human impacts. Conservation Biology 33, 1211–1213. green-list-species https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13400 Grace M, et al. 2019. Using historical and paleoecological data to inform ambitious species recovery targets. #SpeciesGreenList Philosophical Transactions B. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019-0297 IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee. 2019. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 14. Akçakaya HR, et al. Assessing ecological function in the context of species recovery (in review) Preventing

species listed conservation recovery extinct, if no as threatened begins begins conservation

Latency time Response time

Warning time

with conservation

Population size Population extinct no conservation

Year Akçakaya et al. 2014 Nature Climate Change Risk

IUCN Red List Criteria IUCN Red List Categories

A Population reduction Extinct Restricted geographic Critically B range endangered & Quantitative C decline thresholds Endangered Very small or restricted D population Vulnerable

E Quantitative analysis Near-threatened Least concern

Data deficient At of extinction, BUT only because of ongoing conservation

• Improvement in status controversial • Extinction risk does not capture dependence on conservation Not at risk of extinction, BUT safe only in a fraction of former range

Species with many extirpated and threatened populations, and a few populations with negligible risk of extinction

Map by Brandon Sideleau; © Adam Britton http://crocodilian.com/cnhc/cst_cpor_dh_map.htm Not at risk of extinction, BUT “ecologically extinct” Populations reduced to very low densities at which they do not fulfill their ecological functions (“functionally extinct”)

American : Status Survey and Conservation Guidelines 2010. IUCN. Is avoiding extinction enough?

species listed conservation recovery extinct, if no species as threatened begins begins conservation recovered

Latency time Response time Recovery time

Warning time ?

with conservation

Population size Population extinct no conservation

Year Akçakaya et al. 2014 Nature Climate Change Setting Recovery Targets

100% More A critical step of the 90% Same conservation planning 80% Fewer process. 70%

60%

50% Not standardized.

40% 30% e.g., recovery targets for 20% many ESA-listed species are 10% at or below the current 0% levels Populations Individuals Data source: Neel et al. 2012. BioScience Recovery • No objective, practical & ambitious definition of recovery applicable across taxonomic groups • “Extinct” vs. “Recovered” • Much conceptual confusion (e.g., “3Rs”)

Concepts, methods and other terms related to recovery and population targets adaptability ecological interactions functional PVA adaptable ecological role genetic diversity redundancy adaptive response ecologically self- genetic robustness reference conditions Allee effects sustaining healthy populations replicated populations baseline economic benefits historical level representative captive management ecosystem historical range resilience connectivity representation intensive management self-sustaining conservation dependent ecosystem services local adaptations social dynamics demographic environmental health managed populations species interactions sustainability evolutionary potential MVP sustainable ecological function extinction risk pre-impact threatened ecological integrity fragmentation pristine viable

Recovery

Three main dimensions . Viability (persistence, resilience, etc.): low risk of extinction is the minimum requirement . Functionality: role or function in the ecosystem . Representation: occurring in a representative set of ecosystems throughout its native range

Defining the recovered state

A species is “fully recovered” if it is viable, and ecologically functional, in every part of its indigenous and projected range. Akçakaya et al. 2018; Conservation Biology Representation: Range

Indigenous range: known or inferred distribution at a temporal benchmark Projected range: areas expected to become suitable due to climate change

© WWF Representation: Range

Indigenous range: known or inferred distribution at a temporal benchmark • Globally fixed? (e.g., 1750?) • Regionally fixed? • Species-specific? • Region x Species? Defining the recovered state

A species is “fully recovered” if it is viable, and ecologically functional, in every part of its indigenous and projected range. Akçakaya et al. 2018; Conservation Biology Representation: Parts of the Range

To represent the different ecological settings, conditions, and contexts that the species occurs in

Spatial units (subdivisions), based on • Subpopulations, ESUs, DPSs, subspecies; • Ecoregions, habitat types; • Geographical features (lakes, watersheds, etc.) as proxies • Locations (as defined in the Red List) Polar Bear spatial units (subpopulations)

Regehr et al. 2016 Biology Letters Defining the recovered state

A species is “fully recovered” if it is viable, and ecologically functional, in every part of its indigenous and projected range. Akçakaya et al. 2018; Conservation Biology Viability: Low Extinction Risk

• Persistence; Resilience; Demographic sustainability • Attributes necessary for long-term persistence – Large – Stable – Replicated – Healthy – Genetically robust – Adaptive capacity Viability: Low Extinction Risk

Practical definition of viability in each spatial unit: LC or (NT and not declining) according to IUCN Red List rules + regional guidelines incorporating rescue effects Defining the recovered state

A species is “fully recovered” if it is viable, and ecologically functional, in every part of its indigenous and projected range. Akçakaya et al. 2018; Conservation Biology Functionality “A fully recovered species exhibits the full range of its ecological interactions, functions, and other roles in the ecosystem” Akçakaya et al. 2018; Conservation Biology

• Long history of considering function in conservation • But no explicit and systematic use of ecological function as a criterion of species recovery e.g., Estes & Palmisano 1974 Ecological Function of a Species

• The species' interactions with other species, • Its influence on ecosystem processes, • Intra-specific interactions, behavior and social dynamics that are characteristic of the species.

Akçakaya et al. in review e.g., Estes & Palmisano 1974 Quantifying Recovery

In each “part” (spatial unit):

State Description Weight Absent does not occur in (but did or will) 0 Present occurs, but not viable or functional 1 Viable low risk of extirpation, but not functional 2 population size, density, structure allows Functional 3 ecological functions or roles Quantifying Recovery

The Green List Score (G) State Weight W Absent 0 G  s s 100 Present 1 Viable 2 WF  N Functional 3 s : each spatial unit

WS : the weight of the state in the spatial unit WF : the weight of the “Functional” category N : the number of spatial units

Maximum score: 100, functional in all parts of range (Fully recovered) Akçakaya et al. 2018 Minimum score: 0, absent in all parts of the range Conservation Biology (Extinct) Quantifying Conservation Success

Fully recovered Long-term potential

Future, with conservation Recovery Conservation Potential Former Gain Did conservation fail? State Current

Conservation

Current, no conservation Dependence Legacy (counter-factual) Conservation Future, no conservation Extinct Past Present Future Future (1950) (3 gen.) (100 yr) Time Quantifying Conservation Success

Akçakaya et al. 2018 Conservation Biology The IUCN Green List of Species

• Consists of the 4 conservation metrics: – Conservation Legacy – Conservation Dependence – Conservation Gain – Recovery Potential • Can be applied to any species, regardless of – Red List status (EW to LC) or population trends (decline, increase) – Whether it was or will be subject to conservation measures Test Assessments

160 species Stephenson, P.J. (2019). Testing the IUCN Green List of Species: Lessons Learned Across Multiple Taxa. IUCN SSC Species Monitoring Specialist Group, Gingins, Switzerland and National Geographic Society, Washington DC, USA. Example: Powesheik skipperling Red List: CR Range: USA, Canada

Powesheik skipperling • Conservation Legacy: numerically Oarisma powesheik low, but important because © NCC extinction was prevented • No Conservation Gain (in the next 10 years) • But, Conservation Dependence very high: would go extinction without future conservation

Source: Stephenson, P.J. (2019). Testing the IUCN Green List of Species: Lessons Learned Across Multiple Taxa. Example: Estuarine pipefish Red List: CR Range: South Africa

• Conservation Legacy = 0 Estuarine pipefish – past conservation did not make a Syngnathus watermeyeri difference © www.iltaw.com • Conservation Dependence = 0 – not expected to decline significantly even if there is no conservation action • But, Conservation Gain and Potential very high: – could recover to 100% (functional in all special units)

Source: Stephenson, P.J. (2019). Testing the IUCN Green List of Species: Lessons Learned Across Multiple Taxa. The IUCN Green List of Species

• Improvement in status: not a cause for cutting funding • Conservation dependence (reliance) documented

The IUCN Green List of Species

Fully recovered

Future, with conservation

Conservation Gain

State Current

Conservation Dependence

Future, no conservation Extinct Past Present Future Future (1950) (3 gen.) (100 yr) Time The IUCN Green List of Species: Relation to the Conservation Planning Process

• Not replacing the CP process that brings stakeholders together • Rather, reflecting the goals and aspirations set in that process • Short-term targets and priorities (5-20 years) ⇒ Conservation Gain • These are nested within a longer-term vision ⇒ Recovery Potential • Built upon evaluation of past conservation ⇒ Conservation Legacy • Necessity of continuing conservation ⇒ Conservation Dependence • Degree of recovery ⇒ Green List score (Species Recovery Index) The IUCN Green List of Species: Many Remaining Challenges e.g., • Temporal benchmark(s) for indigenous range • Methods for projected range • Methods and proxies for determining functionality • Methods for developing scenarios (counterfactual and future) • Categorization of metrics (e.g., conservation-dependent) • Communicating results (displaying metrics on iucnredlist.org) • Large-scale testing

The IUCN Green List of Species: Key contributions to conservation science & practice

• Defining “fully recovered” • Functionality: integrating species & ecosystem levels • Representation: integrating population & species scales • Encouraging ambitious and objective recovery goals • Addressing perverse incentives (focus on RL status) • Quantifying “conservation-dependent” (conservation-reliant) • Recognizing and measuring conservation success (even when the species remains threatened) • Promoting optimism Acknowledgements

Partners & Funding Green List of Species Task Force

Elizabeth Bennett, Co-Chair Barney Long, Co-Chair H. Resit Akçakaya Tom Brooks Molly Grace, Coordinator Anna Heath Simon Hedges Craig Hilton-Taylor Mike Hoffmann David Keith David Mallon Erik Meijaard E.J. Milner-Gulland Ana Rodrigues Jon Paul Rodriguez Peter Stephenson Simon Stuart Richard Young