The need for conservation scientists to produce research of greater relevance to practitioners is now increasingly recognized. This study provides an example of scientists working alongside practitioners and policy makers to address a question of immediate relevance to elephant conservation in Malaysia and using the results to inform wildlife management policy and practice including the National Elephant Conservation Action Plan for Peninsular Malaysia. Since ensuring effective conservation of elephants in the Endau Rompin Landscape (ERL) in Peninsular Malaysia is difficult without data on population parameters we (1) conducted a survey to assess the size of the elephant population, (2) used that information to assess the viability of the population under different management scenarios including translocation of elephants out of the ERL (a technique long used in Malaysia to mitigate human-elephant conflict (HEC)), and (3) assessed a number of options for managing the elephant population and HEC in the future. Our dung-count based survey in the ERL produced an estimate of 135 (95% CI [80-225]) elephants in the 2,500 km2 area. The population is thus of national significance, containing possibly the second largest elephant population in Peninsular Malaysia, and with effective management elephant numbers could probably double. We used the data from our survey plus other sources to conduct a population viability analysis to assess relative extinction risk under different management scenarios. Our results demonstrate that the population cannot sustain even very low levels of removal for translocation or anything other than occasional poaching. We describe, therefore, an alternative approach, informed by this analysis, which focuses on in situ management and non-translocation-based methods for preventing or mitigating HEC. The recommended approach includes an increase in law enforcement to protect the elephants and their habitat, maintenance of habitat connectivity between the ERL and other elephant habitat, and a new focus on adaptive management.
Systematic assessments of species extinction risk at regular intervals are necessary for informing conservation action1,2. Ongoing developments in taxonomy, threatening processes and research further underscore the need for reassessment3,4. Here we report the findings of the second Global Amphibian Assessment, evaluating 8,011 species for the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species. We find that amphibians are the most threatened vertebrate class (40.7% of species are globally threatened). The updated Red List Index shows that the status of amphibians is deteriorating globally, particularly for salamanders and in the Neotropics. Disease and habitat loss drove 91% of status deteriorations between 1980 and 2004. Ongoing and projected climate change effects are now of increasing concern, driving 39% of status deteriorations since 2004, followed by habitat loss (37%). Although signs of species recoveries incentivize immediate conservation action, scaled-up investment is urgently needed to reverse the current trends.
Recognizing the imperative to evaluate species recovery and conservation impact, in 2012 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) called for development of a "Green List of Species" (now the IUCN Green Status of Species). A draft Green Status framework for assessing species' progress toward recovery, published in 2018, proposed 2 separate but interlinked components: a standardized method (i.e., measurement against benchmarks of species' viability, functionality, and preimpact distribution) to determine current species recovery status (herein species recovery score) and application of that method to estimate past and potential future impacts of conservation based on 4 metrics (conservation legacy, conservation dependence, conservation gain, and recovery potential). We tested the framework with 181 species representing diverse taxa, life histories, biomes, and IUCN Red List categories (extinction risk). Based on the observed distribution of species' recovery scores, we propose the following species recovery categories: fully recovered, slightly depleted, moderately depleted, largely depleted, critically depleted, extinct in the wild, and indeterminate. Fifty-nine percent of tested species were considered largely or critically depleted. Although there was a negative relationship between extinction risk and species recovery score, variation was considerable. Some species in lower risk categories were assessed as farther from recovery than those at higher risk. This emphasizes that species recovery is conceptually different from extinction risk and reinforces the utility of the IUCN Green Status of Species to more fully understand species conservation status. Although extinction risk did not predict conservation legacy, conservation dependence, or conservation gain, it was positively correlated with recovery potential. Only 1.7% of tested species were categorized as zero across all 4 of these conservation impact metrics, indicating that conservation has, or will, play a role in improving or maintaining species status for the vast majority of these species. Based on our results, we devised an updated assessment framework that introduces the option of using a dynamic baseline to assess future impacts of conservation over the short term to avoid misleading results which were generated in a small number of cases, and redefines short term as 10 years to better align with conservation planning. These changes are reflected in the IUCN Green Status of Species Standard.