Conservationists across the globe rely upon the IUCN Red List (“Red List”) to understand the current status of wild species in terms of their survival and whether they are threatened with extinction. I have visited their website often and noticed how out of date the information is.
Often the latest information is about 10 years old. A lot can happen in terms of threats to a wild species in 10 years and therefore arguably 10-year-old information is simply not good enough.
The reason why I’m writing this article is because today in my newspaper (The Times) there is a story about the slender-billed curlew which the report states “has become the first bird in the regions [Europe, North Africa and West Asia] to become extinct.”
This bird species’ status in terms of surviving and extinction is rated by the Red List as ‘critically endangered’ which is two places above extinction.
Interestingly, The Times reports that the Red List classifies the bird’s status as “threatened”. That is incorrect and, in my view, poor reporting. The journalist probably means that the bird is endangered in terms of survivability in the wild but you have to use the particular terminology of the Red List in this instance and they appear not to have done that.
The point though is that the Red List is out of date far too often. It may be because there’s not enough conservationists out in the field reporting back. That’s the most likely cause. There is not enough resources to keep track of the status of these wild species. If that assessment is true it feeds into a general scenario namely that not enough resources are put into the conservation of all wild species and also the plants.
Far more resources are put into commerce; making money to support humankind’s growing population across the globe. This is the human-centric world we live in. And it is therefore unsurprising that the scientists appear to have been caught out by the likely extinction in the wild in these regions of the slender-billed curlew.
The event is described as “one of the most fundamentally devastating stories to come out of nature conservation in a century”. That’s according to Nicola Crockford, principal policy officer for the RSPB.
It appears that the slender-billed curley is not entirely extinct in the wild (according to this report) but it states that the “bird’s status of threatened on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List is likely to be updated next year to confirm extinction.” This would be a reaction after the event. It would be far better if the Red List kept pace with developments. It is my honest opinion that the Red List provides misinformation because they are so far behind the curve in many instances.
The reason for this dire state of affairs concerning the curlew? Researchers in a study said that habitat loss and hunting had been identified as pressures on the species but they don’t know the full reason for the extinction of this bird species. Imagine that people were hunting the bird while it was going extinct in the wild! That does indicate a high level of ignorance. At one time the bird was spotted across much of Europe.
And to not know the reason for this extinction supports my assertion that the Red List is broken and has been for many years. It is feeble. Being so feeble it is actually dangerous to conservation. It is an organisation which can give the impression that conservation is in a healthier state than it genuinely is.
This results is a reduced effort to protect species. Being out of date removes the sense of urgency. Having a slight tendency towards conspiracy theories, I have sometimes felt that the IUCN Red List is successfully lobbied by big business to classify species generously to allow businesses to trample over nature; to continue destroying the planet. But I have no hard evidence to prove that hypothesis.
Also it is interesting to note that at this time the Red List tells us that there are between 1-49 mature individuals in the wild on their website. Surely that indicates a population size that is unable to sustain itself and therefore this bird species was going extinct. In this instance the information is 6 years old. Where was the urgency?
More: IUCN Red List
