This is a 70 page booklet by an expert in sea turtles, a professor at the University of Toronto, Canada. It may be considered a scientifically based and properly documented pamphlet that describes how the Red List System, elaborated by the IUCN - World Conservation Union, and its applications, are flawed, especially in difficult cases, such as sea turtles.

The work starts with a presentation of the history of changes in definitions and categories for Red Lists. It notes the misuse of the precautionary principle, which is implemented to classify species rather than to take conservation action, especially for species for which the data available are deficient. Thus species that may number hundreds of thousands of individuals may be found in the same category of Critically endangered as species numbering only 100 or a few hundreds of specimens. Precaution is used instead of evidence.

The IUCN's criteria are based on one system for all species without distinction, e.g. between long-lived and short-lived species or widespread species and species occurring in one location only. This may result in serious inconsistencies and may be misleading, in one direction or the other. Although this is, as noted by the author, recognized in the guidelines for the use of the categories and criteria, which say "although this appears illogical, it is the result of the structure of the criteria", long-lived and widespread species continue to be listed in the category of species supposed to become extinct in the near future even when subpopulations are stable or increasing.

A relatively long section is then devoted to the diverse interpretations used for a standard system. A first problem highlighted is the role of the many IUCN Specialist Groups involved in the process, whose views may be almost opposite in terms of conservation. Specific examples are used for the hawksbill turtle and crocodiles to present the perceptions of the Marine Turtle Specialist Group and the Crocodile Specialist Group respectively. Regarding the former, and with reference to the green turtle and the special treatment (an exception) granted to its Mediterranean population, the author underlines the tendency to make bad news overwhelm good news. Further, regarding the leatherback turtle, another long-lived and widespread species, the author eloquently illustrates the debatable validity of a system that uses inconsistent data from different periods and places to assess the evolution of populations of a species.

Another described problem is the supremacy of the criteria over common sense. Thus, although the Marine Turtle Specialist Group did not consider that the hawksbill turtle was expected to become extinct in the foreseeable future, the species was maintained in the Critically Endangered (with extinction) category, because it was meeting the relevant criteria. Citing Messel (1988), the author believes that the "real goal is to evaluate the risk of extinction, not just to apply the key wherever it may lead".

A more qualitative approach in the implementation of the criteria is recommended, since the IUCN itself recognizes that the criteria were "developed through wide consultation, and they are set at what are generally judged to be appropriate levels, even if no formal justification for these values exists". Therefore the criteria should not be considered as absolute, and should not be implemented as such.

The categorization of species in the Red Lists may be subject to appeals, which are handled by a Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. Although IUCN now states that "all assessments should be documented" and the S&PS has ruled in the same way, this alleged transparency appears to the author to be contradicted by the fact that the membership of the S&PS remains secret. The case of the olive ridley turtle is used to illustrate the application of 'secret science' to justify decisions that are contradicted by published data.

After having recapitulated the problems and questioned whether the constantly changing IUCN system of red listing has improved, N. Mrosovsky expresses the need for a more fundamental change, notably, of the people involved, especially for sea turtles. If the IUCN Red Lists are rather well known, their deficiencies are generally unknown. Unfortunately, no better system exists, at least for the time being. Another aspect that is noted, but that is not attributed to IUCN, is that the criteria for categorization are used to push for the prohibition of any exploitation of or trade in species belonging to certain categories rather than to promote actual conservation actions.

The author concludes his work by asking whether there is a future for IUCN's Red Lists. His answer is yes, on the conditions that the listings of sea turtles be reconsidered, that a better use of the category of Data Deficient species be made until the status of such species would become better known on the basis of scientific evidence, and that the criteria be revised, once again and in particular for long-lived and widespread species, for which emphasis should be put on the state of sub-populations. Acting in such a way would constitute an opportunity for IUCN, which has accomplished much, to enhance its credibility, and to attract the support it needs for its great enterprises. If not, the opportunity would be for another organization to step in with a better system.

Reading of this booklet is highly recommended to all those interested in conservation, and should guide them to consult the Red Lists with caution so they shall not be granted an absolute value they do not deserve. Predicting Extinction is available at:

http://members.seaturtle.org/mrosovsky 

(ISBN 0-9734777-0-9)

A limited number of hard copies are available from the author
at the Dept of Zoology, University of Toronto, Canada.