Red List Index

Figure 1: Red List Index for the world’s mammals (1996-2008), birds (1988-2012), amphibians (1980-2004), corals (1998-2008) and cycads (2003-2015), with an aggregated Red List Index shown in blue. Source: BirdLife International and IUCN (2016).

The Red List Index results can also be viewed and explored on the BIP Dashboard, which includes downloadable graphs of trends. Further summary statistics and graphs are also available through the Red List.

The Red List Index shows that all species groups with known trends are deteriorating in status, as more species move towards extinction than away from it. Cycads are the most threatened group but corals are deteriorating in status fastest, owing to increased frequency of ‘bleaching events’ brought about by climate change. South-East Asia is the region in which mammals are most threatened while birds are most threatened in Oceania. The fungal disease chytridiomycosis is the major driver of declines in amphibians, while unsustainable exploitation and habitat loss are the major driver of cycad declines.

Baseline data-points are available for several other groups, such as reptiles, fishes, sharks, conifers, freshwater crabs and crayfish, dragonflies and various plant groups, several of which are based on a sampled approach given the large numbers of species in some of these groups. Among plants, gymnosperms are the most threatened group.

Underlying data come from the IUCN Red List, which is developed by IUCN and the Red List Partnership (Arizona State University, BirdLife International, Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Conservation International, NatureServe, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Sapienza University of Rome, Texas A&M University, and The Zoological Society of London).

Sampled Red List assessments for plants, which will in due course feed into the RLI, are coordinated by Royal Botanic Gardens Kew.

Individual logos shown are those for Red List Partners who are also BIP partners.

Coverage:

Global time series (1980 onwards, varying by taxonomic group. Aggregate index from 1993).

Regional/National time series (time periods variable).

Global baseline (Multiple taxonomic groups have been comprehensively assessed).

Regional/National baseline (National RLIs based on assessments of extinction risk are available for a number of taxa and countries –see http://www.iucnredlist.org/about/publication/red-list-index, while many other countries have completed national red lists but not yet repeated these to produce an RLI: see www.nationalredlist.org. National RLIs for all countries, disaggregated from the global RLI and weighted by the proportion of each species’ distribution occurring within the country, are available in the Country Profiles at https://www.ibat-alliance.org/ibat-conservation).

Scale: Aggregated from species level data which may be collected nationally, regionally and/or globally.

Time series available: 1980 –2016.

Next planned update: Updates are released annually.

Possible disaggregations: By region, country, taxonomic group, threatening process (e.g. pollution, invasive alien species etc), ecosystem service (e.g. RLI for pollinators) etc.

Methodology: The RLI was initially designed and tested using data on all bird species (Butchart el al 2004) and then extended to amphibians (Butchart et al 2005). The methodology was revised and improved in 2007 (Butchart et al 2007), with methods for aggregating across taxonomic groups and for calculating confidence intervals published in 2010 (Butchart et al 2010). RLIs for additional groups have been added subsequently.

RLIs have been published showing the negative impacts of invasive species (McGeoch et al 2010) and trade (Butchart 2008), and the positive impacts of conservation action (Hoffmann et al 2010) and protected areas (Butchart et al 2012). An RLI to show the impact of a single conservation institution was published by Young et al (2014). The spatial distribution of the RLI was mapped by Rodrigues et al (2014). An RLI for pollinators was published by Regan et al (2015).

For poorly known, species-rich groups (e.g. insects, fungi, plants, etc), a sampled approach to Red Listing has been developed (Baillie et al 2008). Once the sample of species in these groups are reassessed, RLIs for will be calculated.

Producing this indicator nationally: National Red List Indices (RLIs) can be calculated either by:

(1) Repeatedly assessing extinction risk at the national scale: examples of this approach have been published for an increasing number of countries and taxa.

(2) Disaggregating the global RLI: national RLIs are produced for all countries and updated each year for the UN SDGs.

These two approaches are described below.

More information about producing national RLIs can be found in Bubb et al. (2009), IUCN Red List Index – Guidance for National and Regional Use available here.

Use at the national level & examples of national use:

(1) RLIs based on repeatedly assessing extinction risk at the national scale.

National indices based on national assessments of extinction risk are available for an increasing number of taxa and countries. Many other countries have completed national red lists but not yet repeated these to produce an RLI. There are at least 515 national Red Lists for various taxonomic groups, covering at least 122 countries, of which Red Lists for 43 countries are available online at http://www.nationalredlist.org. Not all of these use the Guidelines for application of the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria at regional and national scales, so results may not be comparable between countries.

Such national RLIs may be more sensitive than globally downscaled RLIs. However, they come with the disadvantage that their trends may be driven by changes in status of species with a trivial proportion of their global population within a given country (Rodrigues et al., 2014). This is because national RLIs do not take into account the fact that different countries have different levels of global responsibility towards the conservation of the species they harbour.

For example, the return of the Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) to Denmark as a breeding species contributed to this country’s improving national RLI, but was inconsequential to the global RLI, because Denmark holds a tiny fraction of this widespread species’ population. In contrast, an improvement in the conservation status of Albert’s Lyrebird (Menura alberti) in Australia (from Vulnerable to Near Threatened) is globally significant, because this species is a national endemic. Thus, a country can have an improving national index while making a negative contribution to the global RLI, if improvements concern mainly species that are marginally represented within the country and deterioration in species for which the country is highly responsible (Rodrigues et al., 2014).

(2) RLIs based on disaggregating the global RLI.

To overcome the issue that national RLIs based on national red lists may be driven by changes in status of species with a trivial proportion of their global population within a given country, national RLIs (disaggregated from the global RLI for all birds, mammals, amphibians, cycads and corals) weighted by the proportion of each species’ global distribution within the country have been calculated for all countries worldwide, and this is one of the official adopted SDG indicators (UNSD 2016, 2017). The methods for this approach are described at https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-15-05-01.pdf

The data for each country are available at https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/?indicator=15.5.1

The graphs for each country are available on the IBAT Country Profiles at https://www.ibat-alliance.org

Availability of global data for national use: National RLIs available at https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/?indicator=15.5.1 and https://www.ibat-alliance.org/ibat-conservation/nbsap/display

Contact person for supporting national use: stuart.butchart@birdlife.org or Thomas.brooks@iucn.org

Publications and reports

Exploitation indices: developing global and national metrics of wildlife use and trade IN: Biodiversity monitoring and conservation: bridging the gaps between global commitment and local action (Almond 2013).

Indices of invasion: how to monitor invasive species. Pp. 138-158 in Biodiversity monitoring and conservation: bridging the gaps between global commitment and local action (Genovesi et al. 2013).

Developing and implementing National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans: How to set, meet and track the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (BirdLife International 2012).

Application of the Red-List Index at a national level for multiple species groups (Juslén et al. 2013).

Protecting important sites for biodiversity contributes to meeting global conservation targets (Butchart et al. 2012).

Global patterns and drivers of avian extinctions at the species and subspecies level (Szabo et al. 2012).

Adapting global biodiversity indicators to the national scale: a Red List Index for Australian birds (Szabo et al. 2012).

Plants under pressure-a global assessment. IUCN Sampled Red List Index for Plants (RBG 2012).

State of Paraguay’s Birds (López 2011).

Estado de las Aves del Paraguay (López 2011).

A red list index for breeding birds in Denmark in the period 1991–2009 (Pihl and Flensted 2011).

Global indicators of biological invasion: species numbers, biodiversity impact and policy responses (McGeoch et al. 2010).

Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines (Butchart et al. 2010).

The impact and shortfall of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates (Hoffmann et al. 2010).

IUCN Red List Index: Guidance for national and regional use (Bubb et al. 2009).

Wildlife in a changing world - An analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ (IUCN 2009).

Toward monitoring global biodiversity (Baillie et al. 2008).

Red List Indices to measure the sustainability of species use and impacts of invasive alien species (Butchart 2008).

Improvements to the Red List Index (Butchart et al. 2007).

Trend in the Status of Breeding Bird Fauna in British Columbia, Canada, Based on the IUCN Red List Index Method (Quayle et al. 2007).

Biodiversity indicators based on trends in conservation status: strengths of the IUCN Red List Index (Butchart et al. 2006).

The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation (Rodrigues et al. 2006).

Measuring global trends in the status of biodiversity: Red List Indices for birds (Butchart et al. 2004).

Websites

IUCN Red List Index