The analysis presented is highly appreciated. It comes out clearly that the forest cover is declining and the population is also declining. While there may be a good population in one small forest like Arabuko Sokoke Forest, overall, the species habitat which used to be East Africa Coastal Forests is highly fragmented leaving a few forest blocks. Notably, Arabuko Sokoke forest is the only protected strong hold.
With a higher past forest quality and higher past population, the species is endangered. But now with reducing forest and reducing species population, there is a proposal to down list to VU. This does not add up.
Nature Kenya has worked in this forest for a long time. Clearly the efforts have helped to slow down forest loss and slow down species population declines. But, it seems like it is not yet the time to down list. The conservation attention given to the species because of its threat status is likely to reduce. This could increase threats and risk the species sliding into the CR EN category.
As one of the pioneering researchers of this species, I was shocked to see a proposal to downlist this owl from Endangered to Vulnerable. The Sokoke Scops Owl must remain listed as Endangered due to the severe threats it faces and the lack of recent surveys to provide updated data on its population or habitat conditions. The most recent population surveys, conducted over a decade ago, revealed a dramatic 25% decline in breeding pairs between 1993 and 2008, dropping from 1,025 to 800 pairs. Since then, no new assessments have been made, leaving a critical gap in our understanding of the species’ current status. The absence of any recorded nests further exacerbates concerns about its reproductive success, calling into question whether the population can sustain itself. Without updated data or evidence of population recovery, downlisting this species would be premature and risky, potentially leading to diminished conservation efforts at a time when they are most needed. Indeed the legendary and late David Ngala (may he RIP) must be turning in his grave at the thought of this.
In addition to the lack of updated surveys, the Sokoke Scops Owl’s habitat continues to degrade at an alarming rate. The Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, its primary stronghold, is under constant threat from illegal logging, agricultural encroachment, and charcoal production. The work by Monadjem et al. (2012) has clearly demonstrtaed that Climate change adds another layer of urgency, with predictive models indicating a 64% reduction in suitable habitat by 2080 and a complete loss of climatic suitability in Tanzania (where almost nothing is known of the species). Most of the owl’s future potential habitat lies outside of protected areas, making it highly vulnerable to further destruction. These combined pressures make it clear that the species is still facing an imminent risk of extinction, and its Endangered status MUST be maintained to ensure the global focus and resources required for its protection.
To safeguard the future of the Sokoke Scops Owl, immediate action is required. A comprehensive feasibility study should be conducted to explore the possibility of translocating individuals to more secure habitats, such as the Kaya forests, which may provide suitable future refuge. Without exploring such conservation interventions, the owl’s already small and fragmented population could dwindle further. Until recent surveys are conducted and successful translocation or other recovery actions are underway, downlisting the species would be irresponsible and could severely compromise the species’ long-term survival. The Sokoke Scops Owl’s precarious situation calls for stronger, not weaker, conservation measures. I do hope the decision makers see sense and continue to maintain its endangered status.
I find it even more shocking that the paper by Monadjem et al. (2012), entitled “Rapid decline and shift in the future distribution predicted for
the endangered Sokoke Scops Owl Otus ireneae due to climate
change” is not referenced in the above analysis. This is a very important publication that emphasizes the bleak future conservation outlook for the Sokoke Scops Owl due to predicted habitat shifts and losses caused by climate change. Climate modeling suggests that by 2080, the species will lose 64% of its current suitable habitat, with complete extinction from certain areas, like the Usambara mountains in Tanzania. This shift leaves much of the owl’s future suitable habitat outside protected areas, increasing its vulnerability to human-driven habitat degradation. The species already occupies highly fragmented forests, and these fragments will likely become even more isolated and unsuitable over time.
Additionally, the paper underscores the importance of exploring translocation as a potential conservation strategy. With climate change dramatically altering the owl’s current range, translocation to other suitable but uninhabited forests, such as the Kaya forests, is suggested as a necessary intervention. Restoring habitats or even creating new protected areas in regions expected to maintain suitable climates could also be vital to the species’ survival. The paper advocates for close monitoring of populations, habitat assessments, and further surveys to determine the viability of such conservation actions, recognizing that without these efforts, the species faces a very real risk of extinction.
This species probably represents one of the more clear-cut examples in Africa of a severely threatened species with numerous studies/reports documenting its decline, the decline and fragmentation of its habitat, as well as ongoing pressures facing its remaining habitat. In addition to being a range-restricted species that is endemic to a narrow range of coastal habitat.
Something seems amiss when such a species is proposed for downlisting.
The justification for its downlisting: ‘the largest subpopulation in Arabuko Sokoke Forest likely represents 50% of the total population and the forest does not appear fragmented. Therefore the species is not considered severely fragmented’…, is quite surprising. The range of this species was twice described by the IUCN Red List (2008, 2012), as ‘very small, severely fragmented range with declining habitat quality’. And most of the scientific literature published about this species mention its fragmented or disjunct populations (Virani 2000, Virani et al. 2010, Monadjem et al. 2012). There has been no reported increases or improvements to its habitat.
It’s therefore curious how this species’ population is no longer considered ‘fragmented’ and this appears to be a case of shifting baselines. The criteria for listing species are based on three generation lengths or 10 years, whichever is longer. I’m sure there has been a lot of discussion and decision-making behind this period of time. However, for short-lived species, whose GL would be assessed as 10 years, it means that the baseline for these species is being reset every 10 years. In other words, any population declines/fragmentation, loss of habitat, etc, prior to 10 years ago are not included for a species’ assessment, therefore the baseline keeps shifting every 10 years. So, for a species like Sokoke Scops Owl what seems not to matter is that much of its coastal forest habitat largely disappeared prior to 10 years ago. I hope BirdLife or IUCN will correct me if I’m wrong, but I cannot find any documentation in the Red List guidelines that this is not the case.
Further, I believe the species does qualify as Endangered under, B. Geographic range in the form of either B1 (extent of occurrence) OR B2 (area of occupancy) OR both. Under section 2, as follows:
2. Area of occupancy estimated to be less than 500 km2, and estimates indicating
at least two of a-c:
b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the following:
(i) extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat
(iv) number of locations or subpopulations
(v) number of mature individuals.
Monadjem et al. (2012) state, its global range is unlikely to exceed 500 km2, and may well be less than 400 km2 and a 25% decline in population over the past two decades has already been documented (Virani et al. 2010). These appear to satisfy both Area of occupancy (note 500km2 would appear to represent its EOO, while its area of occupancy would be even smaller) and continuing decline criteria.
Further Monadjem et al. (2012) note that climate change is likely to have dire consequences for the owls’ long-term persistence. Their model predicted a total loss of suitable conditions for the East Usambara population. And an overall 64% reduction in areas of high environmental suitability for the species by 2080.
Monadjem et al. (2012) concluded, ‘The combination of the current restricted range of the Sokoke Scops Owl, and the future projections of range shifts and loss into the future, suggest that this species has a high risk of extinction.’
To add to the comments above and to clarify on some of the statements in the species description, I too would caution downgrading the Sokoke Scops Owl to Vulnerable. Firstly there are only three existing sites – the ‘Dakatcha Woodland’ and ‘Marafa’ are one and the same location – Dakatcha is the forest / woodland just to the west of Marafa. This should be corrected in the text for a start.
Furthermore, while the largest subpopulation is indeed in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest and probably is >50% of the total population, the realities of the distribution of the birds in Arabuko-Sokoke is that it is somewhat patchy with quite significant sections of the ‘Cynometra forest’ being no more than thicket and as such lacks the owl. In addition, a population that occured in Madunguni forest (c.8 km2) to the north of the Malindi – Tsavo road running along the northern boundary of Arabuko-Sokoke forest has been reduced to one or two birds from what would have a been a very healthy population in 2000 (at similar densities to the main Jilore area of Arabuko-Sokoke forest of 6.7 birds per km2). Between 1999 and 2005 much of Madunguni was completely cleared leaving only a section of 0.6 km2 remaining to the west and which amazingly still held 2-3 pairs of owls. However, within the last 10 years this area has been set on fire losing almost half of it and the owls have not been reported from here for the past 2 years or so. A thorough survey would be required to confirm that they are indeed no longer there, however.
This being the case, however, there is definitely a ‘patchiness’ in the distribution of SSO within Arabuko-Sokoke which may not quite qualify as ‘fragmentation’ but is certainly not a solid continous distribution.
In Dakatcha the first owls were discovered in 2001 5 kms to the west of Marafa in Brachystegia woodland habitat – but right on the edge of it and beside an area of red soil which previously would have had Cynometra forest on it but which had been cleared for agriculture. We thoroughly surveyed the area and found a total of 3 birds, but by 2003 these had disappeared. In 2007 David Ngala discovered another population 13 kms north west of this site at Kirosa, this time in good Cynometra habitat. A Rocha then surveyed the whole of the Dakatcha KBA to the north (in total c.800 km2) carrying out over 200 point counts but finding that the owl is restricted to a small but significant population stretching north from Kirosa up a shallow forested valley covering in total an area of just c.30 km2. However, densities are lower than in Arabuko-Sokoke probably at a maximum of 2 birds per km2. Furthermore, from 2004 charcoal burning became rampant in Dakatcha and many of the larger (and thus presumably nesting) trees were removed. A Rocha has been purchasing the forest to protect the owl and now has secured 8,500 acres and continue to secure more. However, the remaining forest areas are pretty hammered and are unlikely to contain owls now – though there is hope that they will return as the forest is restored. This being said, the population in Dakatcha is likely to be no more than 50-60 birds.
Considering the above, the actual AOO of the Sokoke Scops Owl cannot be more than 350-400 km2 – and that is taking the Usambaras as the original Ripley estimate of c.100 km2 which is highly unlikely to be correct now given the forest degration reported from there.
As for threats, ASF has been experiencing increased cutting of trees over the past years. Forest disturbance surveys in 2006 and 2017 showed an overall increase in tree cutting of 180%. While most of these were considered ‘poles’ (5-15cm DBH), this is a clear indication of increased human disturbance in the forest which would threaten species like the SSO. Charcoal burning inside the forest has also increased in recent years – previously there were never kilns found inside the forest. Now it is a regular occurence. In Dakatcha the owl occurs in greater numbers in forest dominated by Diospyros bussei and Newtonia than the Cynometra forest which covers only a small percentage of the area. However, the Diospyros and Newtonia have been largely cut out for charcoal over the past 10 years and these are presumed as the key nesting trees for the owl – though this has yet to be proven. The fact is, there are no other large trees present which could house an owls nest, so these must be the chosen tree for nesting.
All this to say that there is no reasonable doubt that the Sokoke Scops Owl is still under serious threat and decline and it is strongly recommended that it should not be downlisted from Endangered.
The Sokoke Scops Owl is iconic species that connects people with the coastal forests. Downgrading its conservation status may impact collective coastal forest conservaiton efforts. Coastal forests in Kenya are highly threatened by mineral mining prospector -Titianium, Limestone, oil & gas. Collectively, Area of Suitable Habitat for this highly specialized species is highly restricted with habitat quality continually compromised as a result of degradation. Assessment of values of AOO and EOO should be interogated given that area of suitable habitat between the two subpopulations in Tanzania and Kenya may not exist.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 28 October 2024. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 28 October 2024, when discussions will re-open.
Thank you to all for helpful comments on this species. It’s clear that there is a discrepancy between the Area of Occupancy (AOO) found in this reassessment and that previously recorded by Monadjem et al. (2012).
Upon reviewing the mapped range, the previous range map erroneously included the larger Nilo Nature Reserve east of the Manga and Kwamgumi forest reserves in the East Usambara lowlands, rather than the forest reserves themselves. Monadjem et al. (2012) described the species as present in these adjoining reserves, not in this larger forest. There do not appear to be any records from this block, and much lies above the elevational limit of the species. After removing the Nilo Nature Reserve and adding both the Manga and Kwamgumi forest reserves, the updated AOO was projected as 600 km². Following the detailed occupancy derived by Habel et al. (2021), the AOO for the Kenyan range is between 300 and 500. With the revision to the occupancy in the Usambaras, and noting the proportion occupied in the Kenyan range, a minimum and maximum AOO for the Tanzanian range is projected to be between 70 and 115. Accordingly, the AOO is estimated to fall between 370-600 km². The updated AOO is more consistent with the figures reported by Monadjem et al. (2012).
Regarding the number of locations, while the species faces threats including habitat loss from timber extraction, agricultural expansion, and mining—each of which might involve more than 10 locations—the severe impact of climate change reduces this number. The species’ opportunistic breeding, which appears to be triggered by rainfall, makes it particularly vulnerable to the increasing frequency and severity of droughts due to climate change, which could disrupt breeding and reduce reproductive success (Cameron 2003). The wide-reaching impact of drought across the species’ restricted range suggests there would be fewer locations, compared to more localised threats (Monadjem et al. 2012). Given the species’ distribution across northern Tanzania and coastal Kenya, the number of locations is estimated to be at least 2, with a maximum of 5.
The EOO was listed in this assessment as 8,900 km², but after the map adjustments mentioned above, the revised EOO is now 7,100 km². This meets the threshold for Vulnerable under criterion B1.
In summary, the AOO is now set at 370–600 km², which falls below the threshold for Endangered under criterion B2. The limited number of Locations, driven by the potential widespread impact of climate change across the species’ restricted range, also meets the subcriteria threshold for Endangered. Furthermore, there is an inferred ongoing decline in the AOO, habitat quality, and number of mature individuals due to unsustainable logging, agricultural expansion, charcoal production, and other threats.
Preliminary proposal
Based on the available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2025 Red List would be to list Sokoke Scops-owl as Endangered under Criterion B2ab(ii,iii,v).
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 10 November 2024, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in 2025, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Thank you for keeping Sokoke Scops Owl as Endangered.
Although its nest has not been found, a critical factor is the availability of large mature trees with holes for nesting in its small local range at a time when large trees are being cut for wood, charcoal and agriculture.
We hope this iconic little owl will survive!
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret the information, and a final decision on this species’ Red List category will be posted on this page on 18 November 2024.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Sokoke Scops-Owl is recommended to be listed as Endangered under Criterion B2ab(ii,iii,v).
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2025.1 GTB Forum process. The final Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in 2025, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
The analysis presented is highly appreciated. It comes out clearly that the forest cover is declining and the population is also declining. While there may be a good population in one small forest like Arabuko Sokoke Forest, overall, the species habitat which used to be East Africa Coastal Forests is highly fragmented leaving a few forest blocks. Notably, Arabuko Sokoke forest is the only protected strong hold.
With a higher past forest quality and higher past population, the species is endangered. But now with reducing forest and reducing species population, there is a proposal to down list to VU. This does not add up.
Nature Kenya has worked in this forest for a long time. Clearly the efforts have helped to slow down forest loss and slow down species population declines. But, it seems like it is not yet the time to down list. The conservation attention given to the species because of its threat status is likely to reduce. This could increase threats and risk the species sliding into the CR EN category.
As one of the pioneering researchers of this species, I was shocked to see a proposal to downlist this owl from Endangered to Vulnerable. The Sokoke Scops Owl must remain listed as Endangered due to the severe threats it faces and the lack of recent surveys to provide updated data on its population or habitat conditions. The most recent population surveys, conducted over a decade ago, revealed a dramatic 25% decline in breeding pairs between 1993 and 2008, dropping from 1,025 to 800 pairs. Since then, no new assessments have been made, leaving a critical gap in our understanding of the species’ current status. The absence of any recorded nests further exacerbates concerns about its reproductive success, calling into question whether the population can sustain itself. Without updated data or evidence of population recovery, downlisting this species would be premature and risky, potentially leading to diminished conservation efforts at a time when they are most needed. Indeed the legendary and late David Ngala (may he RIP) must be turning in his grave at the thought of this.
In addition to the lack of updated surveys, the Sokoke Scops Owl’s habitat continues to degrade at an alarming rate. The Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, its primary stronghold, is under constant threat from illegal logging, agricultural encroachment, and charcoal production. The work by Monadjem et al. (2012) has clearly demonstrtaed that Climate change adds another layer of urgency, with predictive models indicating a 64% reduction in suitable habitat by 2080 and a complete loss of climatic suitability in Tanzania (where almost nothing is known of the species). Most of the owl’s future potential habitat lies outside of protected areas, making it highly vulnerable to further destruction. These combined pressures make it clear that the species is still facing an imminent risk of extinction, and its Endangered status MUST be maintained to ensure the global focus and resources required for its protection.
To safeguard the future of the Sokoke Scops Owl, immediate action is required. A comprehensive feasibility study should be conducted to explore the possibility of translocating individuals to more secure habitats, such as the Kaya forests, which may provide suitable future refuge. Without exploring such conservation interventions, the owl’s already small and fragmented population could dwindle further. Until recent surveys are conducted and successful translocation or other recovery actions are underway, downlisting the species would be irresponsible and could severely compromise the species’ long-term survival. The Sokoke Scops Owl’s precarious situation calls for stronger, not weaker, conservation measures. I do hope the decision makers see sense and continue to maintain its endangered status.
I find it even more shocking that the paper by Monadjem et al. (2012), entitled “Rapid decline and shift in the future distribution predicted for
the endangered Sokoke Scops Owl Otus ireneae due to climate
change” is not referenced in the above analysis. This is a very important publication that emphasizes the bleak future conservation outlook for the Sokoke Scops Owl due to predicted habitat shifts and losses caused by climate change. Climate modeling suggests that by 2080, the species will lose 64% of its current suitable habitat, with complete extinction from certain areas, like the Usambara mountains in Tanzania. This shift leaves much of the owl’s future suitable habitat outside protected areas, increasing its vulnerability to human-driven habitat degradation. The species already occupies highly fragmented forests, and these fragments will likely become even more isolated and unsuitable over time.
Additionally, the paper underscores the importance of exploring translocation as a potential conservation strategy. With climate change dramatically altering the owl’s current range, translocation to other suitable but uninhabited forests, such as the Kaya forests, is suggested as a necessary intervention. Restoring habitats or even creating new protected areas in regions expected to maintain suitable climates could also be vital to the species’ survival. The paper advocates for close monitoring of populations, habitat assessments, and further surveys to determine the viability of such conservation actions, recognizing that without these efforts, the species faces a very real risk of extinction.
This species probably represents one of the more clear-cut examples in Africa of a severely threatened species with numerous studies/reports documenting its decline, the decline and fragmentation of its habitat, as well as ongoing pressures facing its remaining habitat. In addition to being a range-restricted species that is endemic to a narrow range of coastal habitat.
Something seems amiss when such a species is proposed for downlisting.
The justification for its downlisting: ‘the largest subpopulation in Arabuko Sokoke Forest likely represents 50% of the total population and the forest does not appear fragmented. Therefore the species is not considered severely fragmented’…, is quite surprising. The range of this species was twice described by the IUCN Red List (2008, 2012), as ‘very small, severely fragmented range with declining habitat quality’. And most of the scientific literature published about this species mention its fragmented or disjunct populations (Virani 2000, Virani et al. 2010, Monadjem et al. 2012). There has been no reported increases or improvements to its habitat.
It’s therefore curious how this species’ population is no longer considered ‘fragmented’ and this appears to be a case of shifting baselines. The criteria for listing species are based on three generation lengths or 10 years, whichever is longer. I’m sure there has been a lot of discussion and decision-making behind this period of time. However, for short-lived species, whose GL would be assessed as 10 years, it means that the baseline for these species is being reset every 10 years. In other words, any population declines/fragmentation, loss of habitat, etc, prior to 10 years ago are not included for a species’ assessment, therefore the baseline keeps shifting every 10 years. So, for a species like Sokoke Scops Owl what seems not to matter is that much of its coastal forest habitat largely disappeared prior to 10 years ago. I hope BirdLife or IUCN will correct me if I’m wrong, but I cannot find any documentation in the Red List guidelines that this is not the case.
Further, I believe the species does qualify as Endangered under, B. Geographic range in the form of either B1 (extent of occurrence) OR B2 (area of occupancy) OR both. Under section 2, as follows:
2. Area of occupancy estimated to be less than 500 km2, and estimates indicating
at least two of a-c:
b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the following:
(i) extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat
(iv) number of locations or subpopulations
(v) number of mature individuals.
Monadjem et al. (2012) state, its global range is unlikely to exceed 500 km2, and may well be less than 400 km2 and a 25% decline in population over the past two decades has already been documented (Virani et al. 2010). These appear to satisfy both Area of occupancy (note 500km2 would appear to represent its EOO, while its area of occupancy would be even smaller) and continuing decline criteria.
Further Monadjem et al. (2012) note that climate change is likely to have dire consequences for the owls’ long-term persistence. Their model predicted a total loss of suitable conditions for the East Usambara population. And an overall 64% reduction in areas of high environmental suitability for the species by 2080.
Monadjem et al. (2012) concluded, ‘The combination of the current restricted range of the Sokoke Scops Owl, and the future projections of range shifts and loss into the future, suggest that this species has a high risk of extinction.’
To add to the comments above and to clarify on some of the statements in the species description, I too would caution downgrading the Sokoke Scops Owl to Vulnerable. Firstly there are only three existing sites – the ‘Dakatcha Woodland’ and ‘Marafa’ are one and the same location – Dakatcha is the forest / woodland just to the west of Marafa. This should be corrected in the text for a start.
Furthermore, while the largest subpopulation is indeed in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest and probably is >50% of the total population, the realities of the distribution of the birds in Arabuko-Sokoke is that it is somewhat patchy with quite significant sections of the ‘Cynometra forest’ being no more than thicket and as such lacks the owl. In addition, a population that occured in Madunguni forest (c.8 km2) to the north of the Malindi – Tsavo road running along the northern boundary of Arabuko-Sokoke forest has been reduced to one or two birds from what would have a been a very healthy population in 2000 (at similar densities to the main Jilore area of Arabuko-Sokoke forest of 6.7 birds per km2). Between 1999 and 2005 much of Madunguni was completely cleared leaving only a section of 0.6 km2 remaining to the west and which amazingly still held 2-3 pairs of owls. However, within the last 10 years this area has been set on fire losing almost half of it and the owls have not been reported from here for the past 2 years or so. A thorough survey would be required to confirm that they are indeed no longer there, however.
This being the case, however, there is definitely a ‘patchiness’ in the distribution of SSO within Arabuko-Sokoke which may not quite qualify as ‘fragmentation’ but is certainly not a solid continous distribution.
In Dakatcha the first owls were discovered in 2001 5 kms to the west of Marafa in Brachystegia woodland habitat – but right on the edge of it and beside an area of red soil which previously would have had Cynometra forest on it but which had been cleared for agriculture. We thoroughly surveyed the area and found a total of 3 birds, but by 2003 these had disappeared. In 2007 David Ngala discovered another population 13 kms north west of this site at Kirosa, this time in good Cynometra habitat. A Rocha then surveyed the whole of the Dakatcha KBA to the north (in total c.800 km2) carrying out over 200 point counts but finding that the owl is restricted to a small but significant population stretching north from Kirosa up a shallow forested valley covering in total an area of just c.30 km2. However, densities are lower than in Arabuko-Sokoke probably at a maximum of 2 birds per km2. Furthermore, from 2004 charcoal burning became rampant in Dakatcha and many of the larger (and thus presumably nesting) trees were removed. A Rocha has been purchasing the forest to protect the owl and now has secured 8,500 acres and continue to secure more. However, the remaining forest areas are pretty hammered and are unlikely to contain owls now – though there is hope that they will return as the forest is restored. This being said, the population in Dakatcha is likely to be no more than 50-60 birds.
Considering the above, the actual AOO of the Sokoke Scops Owl cannot be more than 350-400 km2 – and that is taking the Usambaras as the original Ripley estimate of c.100 km2 which is highly unlikely to be correct now given the forest degration reported from there.
As for threats, ASF has been experiencing increased cutting of trees over the past years. Forest disturbance surveys in 2006 and 2017 showed an overall increase in tree cutting of 180%. While most of these were considered ‘poles’ (5-15cm DBH), this is a clear indication of increased human disturbance in the forest which would threaten species like the SSO. Charcoal burning inside the forest has also increased in recent years – previously there were never kilns found inside the forest. Now it is a regular occurence. In Dakatcha the owl occurs in greater numbers in forest dominated by Diospyros bussei and Newtonia than the Cynometra forest which covers only a small percentage of the area. However, the Diospyros and Newtonia have been largely cut out for charcoal over the past 10 years and these are presumed as the key nesting trees for the owl – though this has yet to be proven. The fact is, there are no other large trees present which could house an owls nest, so these must be the chosen tree for nesting.
All this to say that there is no reasonable doubt that the Sokoke Scops Owl is still under serious threat and decline and it is strongly recommended that it should not be downlisted from Endangered.
The Sokoke Scops Owl is iconic species that connects people with the coastal forests. Downgrading its conservation status may impact collective coastal forest conservaiton efforts. Coastal forests in Kenya are highly threatened by mineral mining prospector -Titianium, Limestone, oil & gas. Collectively, Area of Suitable Habitat for this highly specialized species is highly restricted with habitat quality continually compromised as a result of degradation. Assessment of values of AOO and EOO should be interogated given that area of suitable habitat between the two subpopulations in Tanzania and Kenya may not exist.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 28 October 2024. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 28 October 2024, when discussions will re-open.
Thank you to all for helpful comments on this species. It’s clear that there is a discrepancy between the Area of Occupancy (AOO) found in this reassessment and that previously recorded by Monadjem et al. (2012).
Upon reviewing the mapped range, the previous range map erroneously included the larger Nilo Nature Reserve east of the Manga and Kwamgumi forest reserves in the East Usambara lowlands, rather than the forest reserves themselves. Monadjem et al. (2012) described the species as present in these adjoining reserves, not in this larger forest. There do not appear to be any records from this block, and much lies above the elevational limit of the species. After removing the Nilo Nature Reserve and adding both the Manga and Kwamgumi forest reserves, the updated AOO was projected as 600 km². Following the detailed occupancy derived by Habel et al. (2021), the AOO for the Kenyan range is between 300 and 500. With the revision to the occupancy in the Usambaras, and noting the proportion occupied in the Kenyan range, a minimum and maximum AOO for the Tanzanian range is projected to be between 70 and 115. Accordingly, the AOO is estimated to fall between 370-600 km². The updated AOO is more consistent with the figures reported by Monadjem et al. (2012).
Regarding the number of locations, while the species faces threats including habitat loss from timber extraction, agricultural expansion, and mining—each of which might involve more than 10 locations—the severe impact of climate change reduces this number. The species’ opportunistic breeding, which appears to be triggered by rainfall, makes it particularly vulnerable to the increasing frequency and severity of droughts due to climate change, which could disrupt breeding and reduce reproductive success (Cameron 2003). The wide-reaching impact of drought across the species’ restricted range suggests there would be fewer locations, compared to more localised threats (Monadjem et al. 2012). Given the species’ distribution across northern Tanzania and coastal Kenya, the number of locations is estimated to be at least 2, with a maximum of 5.
The EOO was listed in this assessment as 8,900 km², but after the map adjustments mentioned above, the revised EOO is now 7,100 km². This meets the threshold for Vulnerable under criterion B1.
In summary, the AOO is now set at 370–600 km², which falls below the threshold for Endangered under criterion B2. The limited number of Locations, driven by the potential widespread impact of climate change across the species’ restricted range, also meets the subcriteria threshold for Endangered. Furthermore, there is an inferred ongoing decline in the AOO, habitat quality, and number of mature individuals due to unsustainable logging, agricultural expansion, charcoal production, and other threats.
Preliminary proposal
Based on the available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2025 Red List would be to list Sokoke Scops-owl as Endangered under Criterion B2ab(ii,iii,v).
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 10 November 2024, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in 2025, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Thank you for keeping Sokoke Scops Owl as Endangered.
Although its nest has not been found, a critical factor is the availability of large mature trees with holes for nesting in its small local range at a time when large trees are being cut for wood, charcoal and agriculture.
We hope this iconic little owl will survive!
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret the information, and a final decision on this species’ Red List category will be posted on this page on 18 November 2024.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Sokoke Scops-Owl is recommended to be listed as Endangered under Criterion B2ab(ii,iii,v).
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2025.1 GTB Forum process. The final Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in 2025, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.