16 thoughts on “Yellow-breasted Bunting (Emberiza aureola)”
Yes, Yellow-breasted Buntings are critically endangered species but their wintering population in eastern Assam, India are good in numbers. Every year the winter in some fixed locations in good numbers.
We are now starting to monitor the Yellow-breasted Bunting by birdwatching records and roost count at wintering sites in Asia. It is still difficult to prove status of the global population. As project holder on this species in many countries, at times I heard comments of increasing of number BUT I believe those interpretations were simply due to a higher awareness of this species. It is too early to judge it. Japan is the country with the best monitoring of this species and we observed a constant decline to one regular breeding site. And in last year no breeding bird was recorded. So I think it is too early to consider a lower category to this species.
Just to add an important fact: illegal hunting of migratory passerines in China and SE Asia is still a serious threat. From the chatroom of We Chat in China a birder re-post a news article from Dalian in late October that 12,000 Yellow-breasted Bunting were found in a poaching case (not sure the birds were dead or alive). Other people in the chatroom said there was another similar case in Jiangsu. When we had the land bird workshop in Bangkok last October many SE Asian participants said illegal killing of wild birds was still a big problem in SE Asia but so far no good analysis is available.
Compared to other parts of SE Asia, India seems to be at the edge of its wintering range, at least currently, and the roost sites are about two orders smaller than what occurs in Thailand and Myanmar. Populations are known from Manipur, Tripura, Assam, W. Bengal – and possibly in N Bihar and NE Uttar Pradesh, during spring migration. They have been a widespread vagrant elsewhere in India. Most of this recent knowledge are undoubtedly due to greater observer coverage in E India.
We are joining the roost counts this year with Thailand and other countries to obtain a consolidated picture.
Anecdotal evidence from some sites in Russia, Mongolia or Kazakhstan suggest that at least locally populations might have been stable in the past few years, while in other parts of the distribution the species continues to decline (e.g. Preobrazhenskaya & Amosov 2023, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1062359023100229) or is now completely extinct (Bourski 2025, https://doi.org/10.7868/S3034543X25060042). In Japan, the species has also declined further and can now be considered extinct as a breeding bird despite good and constant monitoring. The number of vagrants observed in Europe has also continued to decrease, with not a single record since 2023 (www.tarsiger.com/havainnot?species=9215). And the paucity of data coming from the core populations in Russia render an assessment of the global population trend difficult.
Illegal persecution continues to threaten the species, while other threats such as habitat loss, pollution through pesticides or heavy metals are still poorly understood but could be relevant. For example, potentially toxic levels of zinc where found among Yellow-breasted Buntings wintering in Thailand with likely effects on body condition (Sankamethawee et al. 2025, https://doi.org/10.1093/etojnl/vgaf241).
Although it seems the number of sightings and the population of Yellow-breasted Buntings have increased in recent years (2022/2023), the current population remains significantly lower than in the 1980s (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/inc3.70021). Trapping and eating practices occurring in the lowlands of Nepal are a high threat for the Yellow-breasted Bunting. Large-scale illegal trapping remains an active threat.
Nepal is a significant wintering ground and, consequently, a major killing field for YBB. Despite bans, tens of thousands of birds are still caught and eaten in Nepal. (https://www.tiktok.com/@ravi_hotel/video/7588070778877365512) The species heavily depends on grasslands and wetlands (particularly rice paddies) for foraging and roosting.
For all these reasons, awareness among local people and policy implementers, and attention from government implementation agencies, are highly necessary. Regular monitoring is also highly necessary. Therefore, its status needs to remain unchanged as Critically Endangered (CR).
In Pakistan, Yellow-breasted Bunting was first reported thorugh a specimen collected at Ormara, Baluchistan on 14 November 1901 by J.W.N Cumming, and thus it was considered as vagrant.
But recently, it was rediscovered from a different province further north, which probably is ts westernmost wintering limit. In recent times, it was reported in a mixed-species flock of other species of buntings, in late November till 3 December 2017 at Head Marala, Punjab, after a missing period of 116 years. Later on, it was subsequently reported at the same area on 7-8 November 2020 (4-15 indivuduals as per two indepnedent bird photographers).
Since then, no sightings have been made. In case of Pakistan, it has visited a wetland ecosystem. There is a possibility that it might be a recurring migrant but lack of observation coverage can explain its absence, as birding is a limited outdoor activity here. Given the limited records and observations in recent times, no evidence-based threat has been identified for this species in Pakistan. Generally, wetlands are under threat in the country from various activities, which can ultimately impact their known wintering habitat in Pakistan.
The main part of the Yellow-breasted Bunting’s breeding range is located in Russia, so data on its population dynamics in our country is extremely important. Research in recent decades has shown different trends in population dynamics. On the Kamchatka Peninsula, there has been a slight increase in numbers in the sparse forests formed by stone birch over the past ten years (Gerasimov et al. 2024). At the same time, in abandoned overgrown agricultural lands, the Yellow-breasted Bunting now ranks 1-2 among all birds in terms of numbers. The population density of this species in some abandoned fields is very high, reaching 50.0–57.7 pairs/km2 (Kovaleva et al. 2024). In the Baikal region and Primorsky Krai in the Russian Far East, Yellow-breasted Bunting is regaining its abundance at a noticeable pace (Ivushkin 2021). The data on the abundance of the species in 2022-2024 in the valley of the Northern Dvina and its tributaries (Arkhangelsk Region), where more than half of all habitats suitable for nesting in European Russia are located, suggest a possible population recovery (Preobrazhenskaya 2025).
However, the negative situation persists in Central Siberia. Population trends has been monitored in the Krasnoyarsk Territory since 1978. Formerly a numerous inhabitant of meadows, the Yellow-breasted Bunting disappeared as a breeding species in Central Siberia in the short period between 1999 and 2006. The species inhabited rare isolated patches of open biotopes among the taiga. Population recovery has not yet been observed (Bursky, 2025). In the area of the Ob River floodplain in the Tomsk Region in 1978-1983, the Yellow-breasted Bunting was the dominant species, along with the Yellow Wagtail. But then this bunting disappeared completely. The species was not recorded in 2018-2022 (Gureev and Nekhoroshev 2025).
Taking into account the restoration of breeding populations in large areas in the Asian and European parts of Russia, I believe that the category of this species should be changed from CR to EN. It is too early to give Yellow-breasted Bunting the VU category, further monitoring is needed.
In Thailand and likely also other countries, the large numbers reported in recent years are a result of intensive survey efforts for communal roosts rather than a true population recovery. It is no longer recorded in some localities where sizeable congregations used to occur not long ago (such as https://ebird.org/hotspot/L13535906, https://ebird.org/hotspot/L14026912).
In addition to the ongoing illegal hunting across their range, the indiscriminate use of mist-nets as a deterrence in ricefields can also pose a significant threat to this gregarious granivorous species (e.g., Angkaew et al., 2022; https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12810). Moreover, there are many significant contributions to the loss of suitable habitat in both roosting and feeding sites. Almost all known roosting sites in Thailand are outside protected areas. One important driver is the Land and Building Tax Act B.E. 2562 (2019) in Thailand, which imposes higher tax rates on “unused or abandoned” land. Many roosting sites fall under this category. Consequently, landowners have been converting these areas into residential developments or agricultural lands, such as monoculture plantations and orchards, to avoid higher taxes, resulting in further habitat loss for the species (see discussion in a relevant study; https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.70499).
Given the ongoing threats, evident local declines, and remaining knowledge gaps, I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to confirm a genuine population recovery at this time. In my opinion, the IUCN conservation status should remain CR until more comprehensive data are available.
Thailand likely contains the most important wintering grounds for the yellow-breasted bunting. The increasing number of records in recent years is largely a consequence of more intensive and coordinated surveys of communal roost sites across the country. At one well-monitored site in northeastern Thailand, approximately 40,000 birds were counted at a roost site in March 2025 (https://ebird.org/hotspot/L6127202). In addition, many sites surveyed during 2024–2025 reported relatively high numbers at communal roosts, with an estimated total for Thailand of at least 85,000. However, our preliminary estimates of the total population size across fifteen
provinces in Thailand remain substantially lower than population levels recorded before the collapse in the 1980s.
Our surveys mostly found communal roost sites in wetlands in which all but one was on private lands with no formal protection. Our initial analysis indicated low intensity agricultural lands (rice fields) likely contain the primary roosting and foraging areas for the yellow-breasted
bunting (Thongsuk et al., 2025; doi: 10.26107/RBZ-2025-0039). Furthermore, irrigation management and rice cultivation practices are likely having a large impact on the availability of grass/reedy wetland habitat for roosting and availability of rice seed as the major food source for this species in this region.
I believe that maintaining the IUCN conservation status of CR is appropriate for this species. Current population data remain limited and insufficient to demonstrate a true population recovery. Moreover, habitat loss in wintering grounds continues to pose a threat and requires ongoing monitoring and effective management.
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 2 February 2026. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List category on this page on 2 February 2026, when discussions will re-open.
We thank all contributors for their comments so far. While it is undoubtedly challenging to quantify rates of population reduction in this species, assessment against Criterion A (the only criterion under which this species could reasonably be assessed as threatened) requires that plausible minimum and maximum values of decline are provided. In short, if this species is to be maintained as Critically Endangered (as most commenters seem to think is the most appropriate outcome for this species) then the maximum rate of plausible population reduction must exceed 80% over 10 years. If the species’ population trend has stabilised, notwithstanding the fact it is obviously still much lower than in the 1980s, then species cannot be assessed as threatened under Criterion A per the IUCN Red List categories and criteria.
We note and accept the suggestion that the increase in numbers recent reported is a result of improved survey effort; however, plausible rates of population decline for the past 10 years are still needed.
Anecdotes suggest that rapid rates of population reduction are not necessarily unrealistic. For example, as outlined in the assessment, 12,000 birds were found in an illegal fattening centre in Tangshan in September 2019, while another 12,000 were reportedly found in a poaching case in October 2025 (S. Chan in litt.; see above). Although the global population size of this species is unknown, if it is in the low hundreds of thousands such levels of offtake (when also accounting for the fact that most poaching events go unreported) could plausibly continue to drive very rapid declines.
Alternatively, rates of population decline may have slowed. It is clear that not all reports of recovery are an artefact of survey effort; as reported by A. Mischenko above, the species is ‘regaining its abundance at a noticeable pace’ (although this must be balanced with reports of continued losses elsewhere, including elsewhere in Russia, and in Japan).
The key remaining question for this species is: – Is it plausible that this species has declined by >80% over the past 10 years?
Without an answer to this question, the species will not past review by the IUCN Red List Unit and cannot be maintained as Critically Endangered.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 8 February 2026.
sorry for the late reply despite various reminders to contribute.
It seems clear that the species has not fully recovered and that a certain persecution pressure still exists. As surveys are geographically sketchy, and as no consistent, large-scale monitoring exists, establishing a global population trend over the past ten years will be close to impossible.
However, those data that we have clearly show no decline of 80% at the sites with repeated counts. The evidence summarized by Alexandr Mishchenko and Wieland Heim (and others) above does suggest local recovery independent of increasing survey effort.
In addition, fieldwork for the European Bird Distribution Atlas EBBA2 in Russia resulted in quite a few places where the species was still found breeding, and that were predicted as unoccupied in the models of Kamp et al. 2015 (suggesting our prediction of near-complete extinction in European Russia was too pessimistic). It is unclear what the trend was at these sites during the past 10 years, but had it been -80%, I consider it unlikely that many of these populations had been discovered in the first place.
In Kazakhstan, the population at the Lower Irtysh seems also to have grown slightly since 2013, with observations of up to 10 birds at a site in the past years (but hardly any sighting in 2000-2013 despite very intensive observations, e.g. by me), some evidence is here: https://kz.birding.day/v2taxgal.php?s=576&sortby=1&sor=desc&saut=all&l=en&p=0
I therefore agree with Alexandr Mishchenko that downlisting to EN might be sensible for this species.
I personally am pretty convinced that law enforcement and conservation has led to less persecution pressure (see e.g. here https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.405), but this is difficult to quantify. If the species is downlisted now, this would certainly also be a recognition to the high-effort conservation work of many people in many countries along the flyway – we did at least not loose it completely in the past 10 years 😉
All the best, and best wishes to everyone involved,
This species has declined by >80% at the end of XX c. and in the first decade of XXI c. Over the past 10 years there were no decline, if we’ll take into account all the breeding range.
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 16 February 2026.
Many thanks to everyone who contributed to the 2026.1 GTB Forum process; the comments received have been helpful and will be incorporated into a proposal for the next forum window when comments on that proposal will open.
Yes, Yellow-breasted Buntings are critically endangered species but their wintering population in eastern Assam, India are good in numbers. Every year the winter in some fixed locations in good numbers.
We are now starting to monitor the Yellow-breasted Bunting by birdwatching records and roost count at wintering sites in Asia. It is still difficult to prove status of the global population. As project holder on this species in many countries, at times I heard comments of increasing of number BUT I believe those interpretations were simply due to a higher awareness of this species. It is too early to judge it. Japan is the country with the best monitoring of this species and we observed a constant decline to one regular breeding site. And in last year no breeding bird was recorded. So I think it is too early to consider a lower category to this species.
Just to add an important fact: illegal hunting of migratory passerines in China and SE Asia is still a serious threat. From the chatroom of We Chat in China a birder re-post a news article from Dalian in late October that 12,000 Yellow-breasted Bunting were found in a poaching case (not sure the birds were dead or alive). Other people in the chatroom said there was another similar case in Jiangsu. When we had the land bird workshop in Bangkok last October many SE Asian participants said illegal killing of wild birds was still a big problem in SE Asia but so far no good analysis is available.
Compared to other parts of SE Asia, India seems to be at the edge of its wintering range, at least currently, and the roost sites are about two orders smaller than what occurs in Thailand and Myanmar. Populations are known from Manipur, Tripura, Assam, W. Bengal – and possibly in N Bihar and NE Uttar Pradesh, during spring migration. They have been a widespread vagrant elsewhere in India. Most of this recent knowledge are undoubtedly due to greater observer coverage in E India.
We are joining the roost counts this year with Thailand and other countries to obtain a consolidated picture.
Anecdotal evidence from some sites in Russia, Mongolia or Kazakhstan suggest that at least locally populations might have been stable in the past few years, while in other parts of the distribution the species continues to decline (e.g. Preobrazhenskaya & Amosov 2023, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1062359023100229) or is now completely extinct (Bourski 2025, https://doi.org/10.7868/S3034543X25060042). In Japan, the species has also declined further and can now be considered extinct as a breeding bird despite good and constant monitoring. The number of vagrants observed in Europe has also continued to decrease, with not a single record since 2023 (www.tarsiger.com/havainnot?species=9215). And the paucity of data coming from the core populations in Russia render an assessment of the global population trend difficult.
Illegal persecution continues to threaten the species, while other threats such as habitat loss, pollution through pesticides or heavy metals are still poorly understood but could be relevant. For example, potentially toxic levels of zinc where found among Yellow-breasted Buntings wintering in Thailand with likely effects on body condition (Sankamethawee et al. 2025, https://doi.org/10.1093/etojnl/vgaf241).
Although it seems the number of sightings and the population of Yellow-breasted Buntings have increased in recent years (2022/2023), the current population remains significantly lower than in the 1980s (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/inc3.70021). Trapping and eating practices occurring in the lowlands of Nepal are a high threat for the Yellow-breasted Bunting. Large-scale illegal trapping remains an active threat.
Nepal is a significant wintering ground and, consequently, a major killing field for YBB. Despite bans, tens of thousands of birds are still caught and eaten in Nepal. (https://www.tiktok.com/@ravi_hotel/video/7588070778877365512) The species heavily depends on grasslands and wetlands (particularly rice paddies) for foraging and roosting.
For all these reasons, awareness among local people and policy implementers, and attention from government implementation agencies, are highly necessary. Regular monitoring is also highly necessary. Therefore, its status needs to remain unchanged as Critically Endangered (CR).
In Pakistan, Yellow-breasted Bunting was first reported thorugh a specimen collected at Ormara, Baluchistan on 14 November 1901 by J.W.N Cumming, and thus it was considered as vagrant.
But recently, it was rediscovered from a different province further north, which probably is ts westernmost wintering limit. In recent times, it was reported in a mixed-species flock of other species of buntings, in late November till 3 December 2017 at Head Marala, Punjab, after a missing period of 116 years. Later on, it was subsequently reported at the same area on 7-8 November 2020 (4-15 indivuduals as per two indepnedent bird photographers).
Since then, no sightings have been made. In case of Pakistan, it has visited a wetland ecosystem. There is a possibility that it might be a recurring migrant but lack of observation coverage can explain its absence, as birding is a limited outdoor activity here. Given the limited records and observations in recent times, no evidence-based threat has been identified for this species in Pakistan. Generally, wetlands are under threat in the country from various activities, which can ultimately impact their known wintering habitat in Pakistan.
The main part of the Yellow-breasted Bunting’s breeding range is located in Russia, so data on its population dynamics in our country is extremely important. Research in recent decades has shown different trends in population dynamics. On the Kamchatka Peninsula, there has been a slight increase in numbers in the sparse forests formed by stone birch over the past ten years (Gerasimov et al. 2024). At the same time, in abandoned overgrown agricultural lands, the Yellow-breasted Bunting now ranks 1-2 among all birds in terms of numbers. The population density of this species in some abandoned fields is very high, reaching 50.0–57.7 pairs/km2 (Kovaleva et al. 2024). In the Baikal region and Primorsky Krai in the Russian Far East, Yellow-breasted Bunting is regaining its abundance at a noticeable pace (Ivushkin 2021). The data on the abundance of the species in 2022-2024 in the valley of the Northern Dvina and its tributaries (Arkhangelsk Region), where more than half of all habitats suitable for nesting in European Russia are located, suggest a possible population recovery (Preobrazhenskaya 2025).
However, the negative situation persists in Central Siberia. Population trends has been monitored in the Krasnoyarsk Territory since 1978. Formerly a numerous inhabitant of meadows, the Yellow-breasted Bunting disappeared as a breeding species in Central Siberia in the short period between 1999 and 2006. The species inhabited rare isolated patches of open biotopes among the taiga. Population recovery has not yet been observed (Bursky, 2025). In the area of the Ob River floodplain in the Tomsk Region in 1978-1983, the Yellow-breasted Bunting was the dominant species, along with the Yellow Wagtail. But then this bunting disappeared completely. The species was not recorded in 2018-2022 (Gureev and Nekhoroshev 2025).
Taking into account the restoration of breeding populations in large areas in the Asian and European parts of Russia, I believe that the category of this species should be changed from CR to EN. It is too early to give Yellow-breasted Bunting the VU category, further monitoring is needed.
In Thailand and likely also other countries, the large numbers reported in recent years are a result of intensive survey efforts for communal roosts rather than a true population recovery. It is no longer recorded in some localities where sizeable congregations used to occur not long ago (such as https://ebird.org/hotspot/L13535906, https://ebird.org/hotspot/L14026912).
In addition to the ongoing illegal hunting across their range, the indiscriminate use of mist-nets as a deterrence in ricefields can also pose a significant threat to this gregarious granivorous species (e.g., Angkaew et al., 2022; https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12810). Moreover, there are many significant contributions to the loss of suitable habitat in both roosting and feeding sites. Almost all known roosting sites in Thailand are outside protected areas. One important driver is the Land and Building Tax Act B.E. 2562 (2019) in Thailand, which imposes higher tax rates on “unused or abandoned” land. Many roosting sites fall under this category. Consequently, landowners have been converting these areas into residential developments or agricultural lands, such as monoculture plantations and orchards, to avoid higher taxes, resulting in further habitat loss for the species (see discussion in a relevant study; https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.70499).
Multiple-cropped rice can result in a shorter fallow period, which also negatively affects the availability of their feeding area (Thongsuk et al., 2025; https://doi.org/10.26107/RBZ-2025-0039 and Angkaew et al., 2023; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110307).
Given the ongoing threats, evident local declines, and remaining knowledge gaps, I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to confirm a genuine population recovery at this time. In my opinion, the IUCN conservation status should remain CR until more comprehensive data are available.
Thailand likely contains the most important wintering grounds for the yellow-breasted bunting. The increasing number of records in recent years is largely a consequence of more intensive and coordinated surveys of communal roost sites across the country. At one well-monitored site in northeastern Thailand, approximately 40,000 birds were counted at a roost site in March 2025 (https://ebird.org/hotspot/L6127202). In addition, many sites surveyed during 2024–2025 reported relatively high numbers at communal roosts, with an estimated total for Thailand of at least 85,000. However, our preliminary estimates of the total population size across fifteen
provinces in Thailand remain substantially lower than population levels recorded before the collapse in the 1980s.
Our surveys mostly found communal roost sites in wetlands in which all but one was on private lands with no formal protection. Our initial analysis indicated low intensity agricultural lands (rice fields) likely contain the primary roosting and foraging areas for the yellow-breasted
bunting (Thongsuk et al., 2025; doi: 10.26107/RBZ-2025-0039). Furthermore, irrigation management and rice cultivation practices are likely having a large impact on the availability of grass/reedy wetland habitat for roosting and availability of rice seed as the major food source for this species in this region.
I believe that maintaining the IUCN conservation status of CR is appropriate for this species. Current population data remain limited and insufficient to demonstrate a true population recovery. Moreover, habitat loss in wintering grounds continues to pose a threat and requires ongoing monitoring and effective management.
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 2 February 2026. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List category on this page on 2 February 2026, when discussions will re-open.
Preliminary proposal
We thank all contributors for their comments so far. While it is undoubtedly challenging to quantify rates of population reduction in this species, assessment against Criterion A (the only criterion under which this species could reasonably be assessed as threatened) requires that plausible minimum and maximum values of decline are provided. In short, if this species is to be maintained as Critically Endangered (as most commenters seem to think is the most appropriate outcome for this species) then the maximum rate of plausible population reduction must exceed 80% over 10 years. If the species’ population trend has stabilised, notwithstanding the fact it is obviously still much lower than in the 1980s, then species cannot be assessed as threatened under Criterion A per the IUCN Red List categories and criteria.
We note and accept the suggestion that the increase in numbers recent reported is a result of improved survey effort; however, plausible rates of population decline for the past 10 years are still needed.
Anecdotes suggest that rapid rates of population reduction are not necessarily unrealistic. For example, as outlined in the assessment, 12,000 birds were found in an illegal fattening centre in Tangshan in September 2019, while another 12,000 were reportedly found in a poaching case in October 2025 (S. Chan in litt.; see above). Although the global population size of this species is unknown, if it is in the low hundreds of thousands such levels of offtake (when also accounting for the fact that most poaching events go unreported) could plausibly continue to drive very rapid declines.
Alternatively, rates of population decline may have slowed. It is clear that not all reports of recovery are an artefact of survey effort; as reported by A. Mischenko above, the species is ‘regaining its abundance at a noticeable pace’ (although this must be balanced with reports of continued losses elsewhere, including elsewhere in Russia, and in Japan).
The key remaining question for this species is:
– Is it plausible that this species has declined by >80% over the past 10 years?
Without an answer to this question, the species will not past review by the IUCN Red List Unit and cannot be maintained as Critically Endangered.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 8 February 2026.
Dear all,
sorry for the late reply despite various reminders to contribute.
It seems clear that the species has not fully recovered and that a certain persecution pressure still exists. As surveys are geographically sketchy, and as no consistent, large-scale monitoring exists, establishing a global population trend over the past ten years will be close to impossible.
However, those data that we have clearly show no decline of 80% at the sites with repeated counts. The evidence summarized by Alexandr Mishchenko and Wieland Heim (and others) above does suggest local recovery independent of increasing survey effort.
In addition, fieldwork for the European Bird Distribution Atlas EBBA2 in Russia resulted in quite a few places where the species was still found breeding, and that were predicted as unoccupied in the models of Kamp et al. 2015 (suggesting our prediction of near-complete extinction in European Russia was too pessimistic). It is unclear what the trend was at these sites during the past 10 years, but had it been -80%, I consider it unlikely that many of these populations had been discovered in the first place.
In Kazakhstan, the population at the Lower Irtysh seems also to have grown slightly since 2013, with observations of up to 10 birds at a site in the past years (but hardly any sighting in 2000-2013 despite very intensive observations, e.g. by me), some evidence is here: https://kz.birding.day/v2taxgal.php?s=576&sortby=1&sor=desc&saut=all&l=en&p=0
I therefore agree with Alexandr Mishchenko that downlisting to EN might be sensible for this species.
I personally am pretty convinced that law enforcement and conservation has led to less persecution pressure (see e.g. here https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.405), but this is difficult to quantify. If the species is downlisted now, this would certainly also be a recognition to the high-effort conservation work of many people in many countries along the flyway – we did at least not loose it completely in the past 10 years 😉
All the best, and best wishes to everyone involved,
Johannes
This species has declined by >80% at the end of XX c. and in the first decade of XXI c. Over the past 10 years there were no decline, if we’ll take into account all the breeding range.
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 16 February 2026.
Many thanks to everyone who contributed to the 2026.1 GTB Forum process; the comments received have been helpful and will be incorporated into a proposal for the next forum window when comments on that proposal will open.