11 thoughts on “Iberian Grey Shrike (Lanius meridionalis)”
Last year in Spain, SEO/BirdLife was commisioned by the Spanish Government to update the trends and conservation status of breeding bird populations, following IUCN standards. I participated in the research team , and our conclusion was that the Spanish population of the Iberian Grey Shrike was best listed VU. Although the trend during 2014-2023 was roughly stable, as proposed by the monitoring program SACRE, we considered that in the long term (decades of 2000 and 2010) the decline had been quite important, with a reduction of over 40% in the abundance index. Our interpretation of the IUCN standards was that a level of threat can be adscribed to depleted populations, because this situation maybe indicating base or long-term processes, still not completely understood. Besides, the previous Spanish Red Data Book (published in 2021) had listed the population EN, so a two-grade downlisting needed to have a very strong justification. More information about this Spanish IUCN assessment -very relevant to the overall assessment, in view of the proportion of the global population implicated- can be obtained from SEO/BirdLife (Juan Carlos del Moral, Jorge Orueta, Octavio Infante).
Many thanks for the comment and indeed the Spanish national assessment is relevant to the species. The IUCN Red List guidelines are clear on the application of Criterion A, which is about population reduction over three generations or 10 years, whichever is longer. Species whose populations have declined in the past, but have since stabilised at a lower level (or are only declining slowly, i.e. <20% over three generations) are not considered to currently have an elevated extinction risk (unless their population size and/or range size is small AND meets some other conditions, in which case they might meet Criteria B/C/D).
For Iberian Grey Shrike the relevant period is ten years. A2 refers to reductions over the past ten years, i.e. 2014-2024, for which the data shows the population has been stable, as noted in your comment.
Second, each reassessment is independent of previous assessments. If the data indicate the correct current category is two or even more categories different from that published in a previous assessment, unless there is cause to use the 5-year rule, the correct category is still the one indicated by the best available data at the time of the assessment.
Separately, IUCN has developed the Green Status of Species approach, which allows assessments of how far from ‘favourable’ status a species is, rather than how close to extinction, and incorporate the quantification of past population depletion. This would be a good approach to capture the past declines in the species.
Just to follow on this, our reasoning was based on point 5.4 of the IUCN Guidelines (v16), considering that the causes for long-term decline (2002-2024, over 40%) were not clearly understood and probably had not ceased. The point was that long-term trend may indicate an underlying cause still operating. But I understand that the guideline is more applicable to long-lived species . Our second concern was that of a two-grade downlisting from a recent assessment (published 2021), which according to the guidelines has to be very carefully justified, and we didn’t want to erode the reliability of the previous asessment (EN). Finally, the species’ experts agreed on VU.
Best regards and thanks again for this interesting discussion.
It is proposed to reduce the endangered status of this species from VU to LC, but judging by its abundance, the population in Europe as a whole is declining (European birds of conservation concern 2017).
In the south of Russia, on the border of the range, the number of this species is only 500-1500 pairs (Belik, 2014, 2023). Birds are rare and sporadically distributed here, nesting in bushes among mosaic sandy massifs in the lower reaches of the Volga River and are in a vulnerable posi-tion due to the destruction of shrubs in pastures and overgrowth of sand as a result of humidifica-tion of the climate, as well as due to reduced pasture load in the late twentieth century (Muzaev 2013; Belik 2014). In the deserts of Kazakhstan, this species is widespread but sporadic. It is rela-tively common in sands with shrubs and trees, and in some places it is numerous, but its abun-dance periodically fluctuates sharply (Berezovikov et al. 1999; Kovshar 2019; Gubin 2015, 2018, 2020). However, there are no pronounced negative trends in the populations inhabiting Kazakh-stan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan, and this species does not need protection any-where in Central Asia.
In general, to Iberian Grey Shrike can be given the category of a species with minimal threat of extinction (Least Concern).
The debate on the reclassification of a clearly declining species is very interesting.
I would like to emphasize and strongly support the contribution made by José Mª Fernández-García. Although the data from the last 10 years might suggest possible stability, I believe we must be cautious with the estimates being provided. Different studies in the same locations yield very diverse estimates, so I believe it is necessary to be cautious and maintain the species’ Vulnerable (VU) status until more precise data is obtained. It is very important to conduct specific monitoring of this species with sufficient resources to obtain data from which we can draw reliable conclusions. With the current data, we have obtained trends that fluctuate considerably and should not be considered definitive. Perhaps another 5-10 years of monitoring would be necessary.
Similarly, the species suffered a marked decline without the causes being clear to date, leading to the conclusion that conservation measures have not been established to reverse these threats.
I understand that the application of the criteria may indicate reclassification, but the scientists and organizations working with the species believe we must be cautious.
The distribution area has shrunk between 1998–2002 (Hernández and Infante in Martí and Del Moral, 2003) and 2014–2019 (Infante in SEO/BirdLife, 2022), judging by the number of 100 km² UTM grid squares with detection (-15%, from 1,630 to 1,392, based on the 2,778 comparable cells). Losses appear throughout the range, but are most pronounced in Catalonia, the Ebro Valley, and the Basque Country—from where it may have disappeared (Gainzarain and Belamendia, 2015)—the northern plateau, and Madrid. A similar decline may have occurred in other regions, but insufficient coverage of the atlases prevents us from confirming this with data.
Previous estimates of population size exist (e.g., 718,000–1,118,000 birds, 90% CI, abundance modeling in 2004–2006; Carrascal and Palomino, 2008), but the variety of sources and methodologies employed precludes rigorous comparison. According to the SACRE program, the Iberian Grey Shrike experienced a moderate numerical decline between 2002 and 2023 (TRIM model, average annual change = -2.74, -3.5 to -1.98, 95% CI; SEO/BirdLife, unpublished data). However, in the short term (2012–2023), the decline appears to have slowed (average annual change = -0.37, -1.8 to 1.1, 95% CI). Similarly, in Catalonia the SOCC program has also recorded a decline during 2002-2023 (ICO, 2024).
Over the past days, several exchanges on this matter have taken place among colleagues from different institutions involved in bird monitoring. Given the urgency imposed by the closing of the consultation period, we have not had time to discuss this subject in detail with our colleagues at SEO/BirdLife; however, we believe it is important to submit these considerations within the deadline, and we will also share them with our colleagues at the SEO/BirdLife team.
The population estimates from the Spanish Atlas (SEO/BirdLife (Molina, B., Nebreda, A., Muñoz, A. R. Seoane, J., Real, R., Bustamante, J. y DelMoral, J. C. Eds.) 2022), although they provide interesting and useful data, likely overestimate the real and current population in Spain. For example, this atlas estimates a population of 24,000 individuals in the region of Catalonia (18,724–30,867), whereas the most recent Atlas of Breeding Birds of Catalonia (Franch et al., 2021; https://www.sioc.cat/fitxa/Lanius+meridionalis), estimates only 260–960 pairs (i.e. 520–2,200 individuals), which corresponds to roughly 10% of the estimate of the Spanish Atlas for that region. Another example concerns the Basque Country, where the species is currently considered extinct (p. 426 of the regional atlas; (https://ornitologia.eus/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/atlasa.pdf), yet the Spanish Atlas estimated 492–1,151 individuals there. Similar inconsistencies also arise at European level: Herrando et al., (2024) (doi:10.1017/S0959270924000054) estimated a population size for the species of 171,202 individuals for Europe using the EBBA2 (2013-2017), which strongly contrasts with the 932,000 individuals estimated in BirdLife International (2021) European Red List of Birds (2013-2018).
Although it is clear that these numbers do not allow the species to be classified as Vulnerable under the population criteria, they may reflect a lower level of knowledge than desirable in other variables (e.g. trends and distribution) and may advise caution when considering a two-category downgrading of the species.
Finally, considering the distribution data available for the species, in a recent report sent to the EU (Gamero, A. 2025. Contribution of farmland birds to condition assessment in agricultural systems. European Bird Census Council. Unpublished technical report for the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.), it is shown that there has been an observed reduction of -11% in the area of occupancy between 2006–2010 and 2018–2022 at the 10×10 km scale across the distribution range of the species in Europe. Although the periods compared do not correspond exactly with the last 10 years, this data suggests that the species is not stable, which may be in conflict with the stable population trend reported by Carrascal et al. (2023) in Spain, the stronghold of the European population.
Overall, we think that these incongruences reflect some degree of uncertainty in the available and published data for this species, which should be seriously considered before downgrading its current category (VU) and, at most, consider to only downgrade it to the category Near Threatened.
Marti Franch (Departament de Territori, Habitatge i Transició Ecològica, Generalitat de Catalunya)
David Giralt (CTFC – Science for Forest Management, Biodiversity & Bioeconomy)
Sergi Herrando (Catalan Ornithological Institute & European Bird Census Council)
Marc Anton (Catalan Ornithological Institute)
Anna Gamero (Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme & European Bird Census Council)
Guillem Pocull (CTFC & European Bird Census Council)
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, and acknowledge the concerns expressed about the long-term population decline and range contraction of this species in parts of its relatively small global distribution. The magnitude of its historical decline and contraction indicate that it will continue to qualify as a Species of European Conservation Concern (SPEC) in BirdLife’s Birds in Europe assessments for the foreseeable future. It will also have an unfavourable population status (Depleted or Declining) at EU level in the forthcoming 2026 EU State of Nature report, based on data reported by Member States in 2025 under Article 12 of the Birds Directive.
However, Depleted and Declining are not categories used by the IUCN Red List, which focuses solely on assessing species’ relative global extinction risk. Hence, while 61% of bird species worldwide are estimated to have declining populations, 11% are considered globally threatened (VU+EN+CR) and a further 8% as Near Threatened (NT). To be listed as threatened or Near Threatened under Criterion A, a species must be declining rapidly (>30%) or moderately rapidly (>20%) over three generations (or ten years, whichever is longer).
We will revise the population size estimate (min-max range) in the proposal to better reflect the uncertainty expressed by some contributors. We will also change the population trend direction from Stable (Estimated) to Decreasing (Inferred), to better reflect (1) that while the Spain-wide trend from SACRE is stable/fluctuating, population declines have been recorded in some parts of the range (including Catalonia); and (2) the probability that the global population has continued to decline more recently, as the species’ range has contracted.
Critically, however, in the absence of evidence for global population declines exceeding 20% over the last ten years, the species cannot be assessed as Near Threatened.
Based on available information, therefore, our preliminary proposal for the 2026 Red List is to adopt the proposed classification outlined in the initial forum topic.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 8 February 2026, after which the recommended categorisations will be prepared for submission to IUCN.
The final 2026 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites later in 2026, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Thanks to the Red List Team for the valuing of the comments posted in the forum. I understand the reasoning of the preliminary proposal, but it stills seems to me that the uncertainties shown by O. Infante, M. Franch and colleagues are not acknowledged. Incongruencies in the assessment refer basically to the well-stablished reduction in the extent of occurrence over the last two decades, as oposed to the more variable and criticable data on trends and population size. Apart from nation-wide, regional and local data also show the recent range reduction beyond any doubt. In my own study region is the Basque Country in N Spain, a region well monitored for breeding birds (six atlas since the 1970’s), the species was a regular breeder at the beginning of the series, but for the last decade breeding records are lacking and currently the Shrike is considered regionally extinct. Although it was not a core population, it can be representative of the wider situation.
The comments on the modelled population sizes made by Franch and colleagues are reasonable, and build on the limitations of predictive models to give fair estimates, then unuseful to adjust the risk criteria. A cautious attitude towards uncertainty is reccomended in such cases (low tolerance to risk, as stated in 3.2 of the Red List Guidelines).
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.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Although its range has contracted and its population has experienced a long-term decline, there is no evidence that it has declined by >20% (NT) or >30% (VU) over the last ten years. Consequently, Iberian Grey Shrike is recommended to be listed as Least Concern.
Many thanks to everyone who contributed to the 2026.1 GTB Forum process. The final Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites later this year, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Last year in Spain, SEO/BirdLife was commisioned by the Spanish Government to update the trends and conservation status of breeding bird populations, following IUCN standards. I participated in the research team , and our conclusion was that the Spanish population of the Iberian Grey Shrike was best listed VU. Although the trend during 2014-2023 was roughly stable, as proposed by the monitoring program SACRE, we considered that in the long term (decades of 2000 and 2010) the decline had been quite important, with a reduction of over 40% in the abundance index. Our interpretation of the IUCN standards was that a level of threat can be adscribed to depleted populations, because this situation maybe indicating base or long-term processes, still not completely understood. Besides, the previous Spanish Red Data Book (published in 2021) had listed the population EN, so a two-grade downlisting needed to have a very strong justification. More information about this Spanish IUCN assessment -very relevant to the overall assessment, in view of the proportion of the global population implicated- can be obtained from SEO/BirdLife (Juan Carlos del Moral, Jorge Orueta, Octavio Infante).
Many thanks for the comment and indeed the Spanish national assessment is relevant to the species. The IUCN Red List guidelines are clear on the application of Criterion A, which is about population reduction over three generations or 10 years, whichever is longer. Species whose populations have declined in the past, but have since stabilised at a lower level (or are only declining slowly, i.e. <20% over three generations) are not considered to currently have an elevated extinction risk (unless their population size and/or range size is small AND meets some other conditions, in which case they might meet Criteria B/C/D).
For Iberian Grey Shrike the relevant period is ten years. A2 refers to reductions over the past ten years, i.e. 2014-2024, for which the data shows the population has been stable, as noted in your comment.
Second, each reassessment is independent of previous assessments. If the data indicate the correct current category is two or even more categories different from that published in a previous assessment, unless there is cause to use the 5-year rule, the correct category is still the one indicated by the best available data at the time of the assessment.
Separately, IUCN has developed the Green Status of Species approach, which allows assessments of how far from ‘favourable’ status a species is, rather than how close to extinction, and incorporate the quantification of past population depletion. This would be a good approach to capture the past declines in the species.
Kind regards,
Rob Martin
Thanks a lot for your comments, Rob.
Just to follow on this, our reasoning was based on point 5.4 of the IUCN Guidelines (v16), considering that the causes for long-term decline (2002-2024, over 40%) were not clearly understood and probably had not ceased. The point was that long-term trend may indicate an underlying cause still operating. But I understand that the guideline is more applicable to long-lived species . Our second concern was that of a two-grade downlisting from a recent assessment (published 2021), which according to the guidelines has to be very carefully justified, and we didn’t want to erode the reliability of the previous asessment (EN). Finally, the species’ experts agreed on VU.
Best regards and thanks again for this interesting discussion.
It is proposed to reduce the endangered status of this species from VU to LC, but judging by its abundance, the population in Europe as a whole is declining (European birds of conservation concern 2017).
In the south of Russia, on the border of the range, the number of this species is only 500-1500 pairs (Belik, 2014, 2023). Birds are rare and sporadically distributed here, nesting in bushes among mosaic sandy massifs in the lower reaches of the Volga River and are in a vulnerable posi-tion due to the destruction of shrubs in pastures and overgrowth of sand as a result of humidifica-tion of the climate, as well as due to reduced pasture load in the late twentieth century (Muzaev 2013; Belik 2014). In the deserts of Kazakhstan, this species is widespread but sporadic. It is rela-tively common in sands with shrubs and trees, and in some places it is numerous, but its abun-dance periodically fluctuates sharply (Berezovikov et al. 1999; Kovshar 2019; Gubin 2015, 2018, 2020). However, there are no pronounced negative trends in the populations inhabiting Kazakh-stan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan, and this species does not need protection any-where in Central Asia.
In general, to Iberian Grey Shrike can be given the category of a species with minimal threat of extinction (Least Concern).
The debate on the reclassification of a clearly declining species is very interesting.
I would like to emphasize and strongly support the contribution made by José Mª Fernández-García. Although the data from the last 10 years might suggest possible stability, I believe we must be cautious with the estimates being provided. Different studies in the same locations yield very diverse estimates, so I believe it is necessary to be cautious and maintain the species’ Vulnerable (VU) status until more precise data is obtained. It is very important to conduct specific monitoring of this species with sufficient resources to obtain data from which we can draw reliable conclusions. With the current data, we have obtained trends that fluctuate considerably and should not be considered definitive. Perhaps another 5-10 years of monitoring would be necessary.
Similarly, the species suffered a marked decline without the causes being clear to date, leading to the conclusion that conservation measures have not been established to reverse these threats.
I understand that the application of the criteria may indicate reclassification, but the scientists and organizations working with the species believe we must be cautious.
The distribution area has shrunk between 1998–2002 (Hernández and Infante in Martí and Del Moral, 2003) and 2014–2019 (Infante in SEO/BirdLife, 2022), judging by the number of 100 km² UTM grid squares with detection (-15%, from 1,630 to 1,392, based on the 2,778 comparable cells). Losses appear throughout the range, but are most pronounced in Catalonia, the Ebro Valley, and the Basque Country—from where it may have disappeared (Gainzarain and Belamendia, 2015)—the northern plateau, and Madrid. A similar decline may have occurred in other regions, but insufficient coverage of the atlases prevents us from confirming this with data.
Previous estimates of population size exist (e.g., 718,000–1,118,000 birds, 90% CI, abundance modeling in 2004–2006; Carrascal and Palomino, 2008), but the variety of sources and methodologies employed precludes rigorous comparison. According to the SACRE program, the Iberian Grey Shrike experienced a moderate numerical decline between 2002 and 2023 (TRIM model, average annual change = -2.74, -3.5 to -1.98, 95% CI; SEO/BirdLife, unpublished data). However, in the short term (2012–2023), the decline appears to have slowed (average annual change = -0.37, -1.8 to 1.1, 95% CI). Similarly, in Catalonia the SOCC program has also recorded a decline during 2002-2023 (ICO, 2024).
We have received the following comment via email:
Over the past days, several exchanges on this matter have taken place among colleagues from different institutions involved in bird monitoring. Given the urgency imposed by the closing of the consultation period, we have not had time to discuss this subject in detail with our colleagues at SEO/BirdLife; however, we believe it is important to submit these considerations within the deadline, and we will also share them with our colleagues at the SEO/BirdLife team.
The population estimates from the Spanish Atlas (SEO/BirdLife (Molina, B., Nebreda, A., Muñoz, A. R. Seoane, J., Real, R., Bustamante, J. y DelMoral, J. C. Eds.) 2022), although they provide interesting and useful data, likely overestimate the real and current population in Spain. For example, this atlas estimates a population of 24,000 individuals in the region of Catalonia (18,724–30,867), whereas the most recent Atlas of Breeding Birds of Catalonia (Franch et al., 2021; https://www.sioc.cat/fitxa/Lanius+meridionalis), estimates only 260–960 pairs (i.e. 520–2,200 individuals), which corresponds to roughly 10% of the estimate of the Spanish Atlas for that region. Another example concerns the Basque Country, where the species is currently considered extinct (p. 426 of the regional atlas; (https://ornitologia.eus/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/atlasa.pdf), yet the Spanish Atlas estimated 492–1,151 individuals there. Similar inconsistencies also arise at European level: Herrando et al., (2024) (doi:10.1017/S0959270924000054) estimated a population size for the species of 171,202 individuals for Europe using the EBBA2 (2013-2017), which strongly contrasts with the 932,000 individuals estimated in BirdLife International (2021) European Red List of Birds (2013-2018).
Although it is clear that these numbers do not allow the species to be classified as Vulnerable under the population criteria, they may reflect a lower level of knowledge than desirable in other variables (e.g. trends and distribution) and may advise caution when considering a two-category downgrading of the species.
Finally, considering the distribution data available for the species, in a recent report sent to the EU (Gamero, A. 2025. Contribution of farmland birds to condition assessment in agricultural systems. European Bird Census Council. Unpublished technical report for the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.), it is shown that there has been an observed reduction of -11% in the area of occupancy between 2006–2010 and 2018–2022 at the 10×10 km scale across the distribution range of the species in Europe. Although the periods compared do not correspond exactly with the last 10 years, this data suggests that the species is not stable, which may be in conflict with the stable population trend reported by Carrascal et al. (2023) in Spain, the stronghold of the European population.
Overall, we think that these incongruences reflect some degree of uncertainty in the available and published data for this species, which should be seriously considered before downgrading its current category (VU) and, at most, consider to only downgrade it to the category Near Threatened.
Marti Franch (Departament de Territori, Habitatge i Transició Ecològica, Generalitat de Catalunya)
David Giralt (CTFC – Science for Forest Management, Biodiversity & Bioeconomy)
Sergi Herrando (Catalan Ornithological Institute & European Bird Census Council)
Marc Anton (Catalan Ornithological Institute)
Anna Gamero (Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme & European Bird Census Council)
Guillem Pocull (CTFC & European Bird Census Council)
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, and acknowledge the concerns expressed about the long-term population decline and range contraction of this species in parts of its relatively small global distribution. The magnitude of its historical decline and contraction indicate that it will continue to qualify as a Species of European Conservation Concern (SPEC) in BirdLife’s Birds in Europe assessments for the foreseeable future. It will also have an unfavourable population status (Depleted or Declining) at EU level in the forthcoming 2026 EU State of Nature report, based on data reported by Member States in 2025 under Article 12 of the Birds Directive.
However, Depleted and Declining are not categories used by the IUCN Red List, which focuses solely on assessing species’ relative global extinction risk. Hence, while 61% of bird species worldwide are estimated to have declining populations, 11% are considered globally threatened (VU+EN+CR) and a further 8% as Near Threatened (NT). To be listed as threatened or Near Threatened under Criterion A, a species must be declining rapidly (>30%) or moderately rapidly (>20%) over three generations (or ten years, whichever is longer).
We will revise the population size estimate (min-max range) in the proposal to better reflect the uncertainty expressed by some contributors. We will also change the population trend direction from Stable (Estimated) to Decreasing (Inferred), to better reflect (1) that while the Spain-wide trend from SACRE is stable/fluctuating, population declines have been recorded in some parts of the range (including Catalonia); and (2) the probability that the global population has continued to decline more recently, as the species’ range has contracted.
Critically, however, in the absence of evidence for global population declines exceeding 20% over the last ten years, the species cannot be assessed as Near Threatened.
Based on available information, therefore, our preliminary proposal for the 2026 Red List is to adopt the proposed classification outlined in the initial forum topic.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 8 February 2026, after which the recommended categorisations will be prepared for submission to IUCN.
The final 2026 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites later in 2026, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Thanks to the Red List Team for the valuing of the comments posted in the forum. I understand the reasoning of the preliminary proposal, but it stills seems to me that the uncertainties shown by O. Infante, M. Franch and colleagues are not acknowledged. Incongruencies in the assessment refer basically to the well-stablished reduction in the extent of occurrence over the last two decades, as oposed to the more variable and criticable data on trends and population size. Apart from nation-wide, regional and local data also show the recent range reduction beyond any doubt. In my own study region is the Basque Country in N Spain, a region well monitored for breeding birds (six atlas since the 1970’s), the species was a regular breeder at the beginning of the series, but for the last decade breeding records are lacking and currently the Shrike is considered regionally extinct. Although it was not a core population, it can be representative of the wider situation.
The comments on the modelled population sizes made by Franch and colleagues are reasonable, and build on the limitations of predictive models to give fair estimates, then unuseful to adjust the risk criteria. A cautious attitude towards uncertainty is reccomended in such cases (low tolerance to risk, as stated in 3.2 of the Red List Guidelines).
Kind regards
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.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Although its range has contracted and its population has experienced a long-term decline, there is no evidence that it has declined by >20% (NT) or >30% (VU) over the last ten years. Consequently, Iberian Grey Shrike is recommended to be listed as Least Concern.
Many thanks to everyone who contributed to the 2026.1 GTB Forum process. The final Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites later this year, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.