5 thoughts on “Northern Red-breasted Plover (Charadrius aquilonius): Revise global status?”
The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 18 July 2022. We will now analyse and interpret the new information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 18 July 2022, when discussions will re-open.
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2022.2 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classifications outlined in the initial forum discussion.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 24 July 2022, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN. The final 2022.2 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in December 2022, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
I realise the criterion around conservation-dependence has changed (although I’m not sure what prompted the change), but the effects on the proposed rankings of several New Zealand birds seem unfortunate.
Three taxa (northern New Zealand dotterel, North Island kokako, and South Island saddleback) are about to be ranked Least Concern, a move that will raise a lot of eyebrows in this country, I am sure. All three are endemic, have limited ranges in a small country, and all are conservation-dependent. They may be increasing in numbers but all still have estimated populations of 2000-5000 mature individuals. Yet they are about to be placed in the same category as the house sparrow, the common starling, and the red-billed quelea.
I’m not suggesting that the revised criteria have been applied incorrectly, but rather that the change appears to have introduced a loss of resolution in these cases.
Having been a member of the New Zealand bird ranking panel for about 15 years, I am well aware of the complexities of ranking schemes and of the differences between the IUCN scheme and the local scheme. The IUCN scheme obviously has to deal with a wide range of situations on a global scale, and for some time the feeling in New Zealand has been that it does not provide sufficient resolution for the very unusual situation that exists in this country. That situation includes a very high level of endemism, many taxa with small populations (and typically with restricted ranges), long generation times, unusually high susceptibility to introduced predators, and consequent high levels of conservation management and dependence (no fewer than 137 bird taxa in New Zealand are currently considered conservation-dependent). And because the conservation issues here are huge and our resources are so scarce, a high degree of resolution in a ranking scheme is crucial to ensuring that those resources are targeted as accurately as possible.
The gaps between the IUCN and local rankings for these three taxa in particular are now very significant. I can’t argue with the IUCN rankings themselves given the change in the criteria, but I do think the proposed rankings fail these species by lumping them with the world’s commonest birds. I suspect the risk of downlisting them to Least Concern is that the conservation community in New Zealand will increasingly favour the rankings produced by our own scheme. Near Threatened seemed an appropriate category by which to recognise the fact that small, localised, and conservation-dependent species are more at risk than widespread, abundant species that require no management. I would be interested to know why the change in the criterion was considered necessary.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested by so many people in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret the new information, and we will post a final decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 1 August 2022.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Northern Red-breasted Plover is recommended to be listed as Least Concern.
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2022.2 GTB Forum process. The final 2022.2 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in December 2022, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 18 July 2022. We will now analyse and interpret the new information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 18 July 2022, when discussions will re-open.
Preliminary proposal
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2022.2 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classifications outlined in the initial forum discussion.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 24 July 2022, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN. The final 2022.2 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in December 2022, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
I realise the criterion around conservation-dependence has changed (although I’m not sure what prompted the change), but the effects on the proposed rankings of several New Zealand birds seem unfortunate.
Three taxa (northern New Zealand dotterel, North Island kokako, and South Island saddleback) are about to be ranked Least Concern, a move that will raise a lot of eyebrows in this country, I am sure. All three are endemic, have limited ranges in a small country, and all are conservation-dependent. They may be increasing in numbers but all still have estimated populations of 2000-5000 mature individuals. Yet they are about to be placed in the same category as the house sparrow, the common starling, and the red-billed quelea.
I’m not suggesting that the revised criteria have been applied incorrectly, but rather that the change appears to have introduced a loss of resolution in these cases.
Having been a member of the New Zealand bird ranking panel for about 15 years, I am well aware of the complexities of ranking schemes and of the differences between the IUCN scheme and the local scheme. The IUCN scheme obviously has to deal with a wide range of situations on a global scale, and for some time the feeling in New Zealand has been that it does not provide sufficient resolution for the very unusual situation that exists in this country. That situation includes a very high level of endemism, many taxa with small populations (and typically with restricted ranges), long generation times, unusually high susceptibility to introduced predators, and consequent high levels of conservation management and dependence (no fewer than 137 bird taxa in New Zealand are currently considered conservation-dependent). And because the conservation issues here are huge and our resources are so scarce, a high degree of resolution in a ranking scheme is crucial to ensuring that those resources are targeted as accurately as possible.
The gaps between the IUCN and local rankings for these three taxa in particular are now very significant. I can’t argue with the IUCN rankings themselves given the change in the criteria, but I do think the proposed rankings fail these species by lumping them with the world’s commonest birds. I suspect the risk of downlisting them to Least Concern is that the conservation community in New Zealand will increasingly favour the rankings produced by our own scheme. Near Threatened seemed an appropriate category by which to recognise the fact that small, localised, and conservation-dependent species are more at risk than widespread, abundant species that require no management. I would be interested to know why the change in the criterion was considered necessary.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested by so many people in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret the new information, and we will post a final decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 1 August 2022.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Northern Red-breasted Plover is recommended to be listed as Least Concern.
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2022.2 GTB Forum process. The final 2022.2 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in December 2022, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.