16 thoughts on “White-headed Duck (Oxyura leucocephala)”
I am posting information regarding Turkmenistan as it is a major country mentioned here based on recent discussion with Eldar Rustamov and official info:
According to the latest edition of the Red Data Book of Turkmenistan (2024):
Oxyura leucocephala. Until 2019, up to 9,000-18,000 individuals wintered on the Caspian coast of Turkmenistan; currently, no more than 300-600. Inland waters—in eastern Turkmenistan, 300-600 individuals used to winter; now, 40-90. In total, no more than 600-700 individuals winter in Turkmenistan. They should nest on inland waters in the eastern part of the country, but no one has yet found nests; the number of pairs is unknown (expert estimates: no more than 5-10 pairs?).
This gives considerably different view on the numbers in Turkmenistan compared to those used in the evaluations and provided by the leading national expert on birds there.
I would like to contribute to the Red List Forum discussion as a PhD researcher on White-headed Duck and one of the authors of the Multi-species Action Plan for threatened breeding duck species in Türkiye, including the WHD, prepared between 2020 and 2023. This contribution is based primarily on four consecutive years of intensive national breeding surveys (2021–2025). Within the last three generations, the White-headed Duck in Türkiye has shown a continued and substantial decline. Between 1996 and 2001, the breeding population in Türkiye was estimated at 200–250 pairs (Gürsoy Ergen, 2019). By 2019, this population had already declined by approximately 50–60% relative to the initial estimate (80-125 pairs). Results from our four-year national census, no more than c. 65 pairs breed in Türkiye by 2023, corresponding to an additional decline of roughly 25–30% within just six years after 2019.
Despite consistent survey effort and coverage, the decline we have observed reflects real losses rather than methodological variation. Breeding declines are closely linked to ongoing wetland degradation, particularly the loss of small, shallow wetlands that are critical for nesting and brood-rearing. Water abstraction, drought, reed burning during the breeding season, and illegal hunting continue to act synergistically, with water-level fluctuations having immediate and strongly negative effects on breeding success. Wintering data from the same period do not indicate a compensatory regional redistribution of birds that would offset losses in Türkiye. Historically important wintering sites such as Lake Burdur now support only very small and irregular numbers after 2010. While some wintering has shifted to Lake Manyas and occasionally Lake Uluabat, counts at these sites remain low, inconsistent between years, and far below historical numbers recorded in Türkiye after 2016. Last recent years max. 3000 birds wintering in Lake Uluabat. Available winter counts therefore do not support the hypothesis that declines in Türkiye are balanced by increases in neighbouring regions such as Bulgaria or Greece. In eastern Türkiye, particularly within the Lake Van closed basin, populations linked to the Caucasus and potentially to Central Asia continue to decline. Of particular relevance is Lake Arin, which has supported up to c. 4,000 individuals during the moulting period in 2014. Moulting numbers have never reached these figures again since this year. In 2024, it dropped to a maximum of 1500 WHD (pers. obs.). These counts were recorded during the post-breeding moulting season and represent a demographically distinct aggregation. In the absence of evidence for individual-level connectivity, these moulting numbers should not be directly added to post-breeding or wintering counts from Kazakhstan or other parts of Central Asia, as doing so risks double counting and inflating regional population estimates. While occasional high winter counts reported from Central Asia are noteworthy, they remain episodic and insufficient, on their own, to demonstrate demographic stability or recovery across the species’ range. Without clear evidence of connectivity, sustained trends, and survival rates linking these counts to declining core populations, reliance on isolated peak numbers of risks obscuring ongoing declines in key regions. Türkiye supports breeding, moulting, and wintering populations that are very likely demographically connected to populations in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Iran, the Arabian Peninsula, and Central Asia. Given the documented declines within the last three generations, the rapid degradation of key wetlands, and projected future habitat loss under current climatic and water-use scenarios, the available evidence does not support downlisting.
Importantly, a significant proportion of the documented declines has taken place within the period corresponding to the species’ three-generation length, directly meeting the temporal framework used in Red List assessments.
Considering the current situation of WhD in the region, I strongly believe that retaining the White-headed Duck in the Endangered category is consistent and reflects a precautionary, range-wide assessment of extinction risk.
I am a post-doctoral researcher who has been studying White-headed Duck populations in central Türkiye for approximately a decade. I would like to contribute to the ongoing discussion by sharing some insights into the central Türkiye populations of these ducks over the past few decades. Additionally, I would like to highlight some previously unknown challenges that the species may have been facing, which could potentially threaten the remaining populations further. A colleague of mine based in Türkiye has already expressed concerns about how local declines in Türkiye cannot be and is not offset by increases in neighboring regions. Therefore, I will skip that aspect and directly focus on the scientific studies that my working group and I have published. I will also share some of our unpublished findings and very recent observations from central Türkiye. While some of the findings I will share here may not directly relate to the Red List assessment criteria, they should still be of high value to the team proposing the update.
The breeding central Türkiye populations of the species have nearly vanished by 2025. Studies published over the past few years (e.g., Çolak et al., 2022; Özgencil et al., 2025; Özgencil & Uslu, 2021; Yılmaz et al., 2021) have documented unprecedented population declines in the region. These studies revealed that the declines are primarily attributable to the intensifying wetland losses and degradation in the area. As of 2025, there are NO wetlands in the entire Konya Closed Basin (a closed basin in central Türkiye – larger than the Netherlands) that can support a breeding White-headed Duck population (unpublished data). This is an excruciating thing to think about, especially considering that the region once hosted nearly 200 breeding pairs of White-headed Ducks in the 1990s (Yılmaz et al., 2021). Uncontrolled groundwater and surface water use for irrigation has led to the complete destruction of some wetlands that were once strongholds for the species, such as Ereğli Marshes, Hotamış Marshes, Lake Kulu (also known as Lake Düden), Lake Uyuz, and Lake Kamış. Similarly, other regions in central Türkiye have suffered a similar fate. Another famous wetland known for harboring breeding, wintering, and molting White-headed Ducks, the Mogan Flood Control Dam, completely disappeared in 2025 due to uncontrolled water use (unpublished data). Currently, there are only three sites in the entire central Türkiye that have breeding populations, with a cumulative population size of 10-15 breeding pairs (unpublished data). Given the rapid rate at which the wetlands are disappearing in central Türkiye, these three wetlands will likely dry out and cease to exist in the near future.
In addition to these conventional data on population size trends, our recent studies have revealed that the lakes in central Türkiye have begun to dry or shrink earlier over the past two decades. This alarming trend poses a significant threat to the late-breeding White-headed Ducks in the region, as their breeding grounds may disappear in the middle of their breeding season (Özgencil et al., 2025). Our previous research has already demonstrated that late-breeding wetland birds in the region are disappearing at a faster rate compared to their early-breeding counterparts (Yılmaz et al., 2021). Another unpublished study of ours has highlighted widespread invasive fish introductions in the region (for more information, refer to García, 2001 and Maceda-Veiga et al., 2017) and worsening eutrophication (contrary to findings of some previous studies, we have demonstrated that the species clearly prefers areas of the lake with abundant submerged macrophytes and clearer water even during the breeding season) may be forcing species to utilize small patches of “refuge” habitats, likely due to a combination of lower invasive fish biomass and an abundance of invertebrate food (unpublished data). What’s worrying about this is that such areas tend to be shallow and susceptible to water level declines or drying. Another recent study of ours has uncovered a potential trophic mismatch affecting the unfledged juveniles of the late-breeding White-headed Ducks (and other ecologically similar late-breeding diving ducks, such as the Common Pochard). Approximately one-third of all broods may suffer from significant shortages of their primary food source, the midge larvae and emerging pupae, before they even fledge (unpublished data). We expect that the warming springs and summers will exacerbate this issue.
Given that the eutrophication problem is unlikely to slow down anytime soon, invasive fish species like carps continue to be introduced to every water body in Türkiye, the fact that these fish can easily be transported among wetlands across landscapes due to their eggs’ ability to survive the gut passage of waterbirds (e.g., Lovas-Kiss et al., 2020), the advancing drying and shrinking dates, coupled with potential trophic mismatches caused by warming springs and summers, the near future will undoubtedly present a wider range of challenges for the remaining populations of these species in the region. Consequently, it is highly probable that the declines in their populations will only intensify in the coming years.
Türkiye continues to serve as an important habitat for breeding, migrating, wintering, and molting White-headed Ducks in the region. I hope the information provided here will assist you in conducting a more accurate update. Given the wide variety of challenges mentioned here (especially those that concern the near future) and the alarming rate at which Turkish populations are declining, I strongly recommend maintaining the Endangered (EN) status for the species, which would better reflect the range-wide status and act as a PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE (considering there won’t be another update for years) for the expected and more intense declines in some regions like Türkiye.
Below, I’ve listed some papers and potentially relevant information they contain that you may find useful during your assessment. Please feel free to contact me in person if you require further information regarding the unpublished data.
1) Yılmaz et al. (2021) – https://doi.org/10.1080/20442041.2021.1924034: Focuses on the situation in Konya Closed Basin, a former stronghold for the species. Both breeding and wintering populations are discussed.
2) Çolak et al. (2022) – https://doi.org/10.3390/w14081241: Focuses on another closed basin, Burdur Closed Basin. The story of the famous Lake Burdur, and how it went from harboring ~11k wintering White-headed Ducks to nothing over the past two decades is told and the underlying reasons are discovered.
3) Özgencil et al. (2020) – https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13531: Two lakes in central and western Türkiye. Studies historical records to show that omnivorous diving duck species, including the White-headed Ducks, enjoy clear-water and submerged-macrophyte-dominated states of the lakes during winter time.
4) Özgencil & Uslu (2021) – https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350656697_Update_on_the_status_of_White-headed_Duck_Oxyura_leucocephala_and_its_breeding_phenology_in_Central_Anatolia_Turkey
: Update on the central Türkiye populations.
5) Özgencil et al. (2025) – https://doi.org/10.1080/20442041.2025.2488655: Discusses how earlier drying and shrinking of the lakes due to uncontrolled water use and warming summers in central Türkiye can further endanger the late-breeding White-headed Ducks.
References used
Çolak, M. A., Öztaş, B., Özgencil, İ. K., Soyluer, M., Korkmaz, M., Ramírez-García, A., Metin, M., Yılmaz, G., Ertuğrul, S., Tavşanoğlu, Ü. N., Amorim, C. A., Özen, C., Apaydın Yağcı, M., Yağcı, A., Pacheco, J. P., Özkan, K., Beklioğlu, M., Jeppesen, E., & Akyürek, Z. (2022). Increased Water Abstraction and Climate Change Have Substantial Effect on Morphometry, Salinity, and Biotic Communities in Lakes: Examples from the Semi-Arid Burdur Basin (Turkey). Water, 14(8), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14081241
García, P. A. (2001). Competition with Carp may limit White-headed Duck populations in Spain.
Lovas-Kiss, Á., Vincze, O., Löki, V., Pallér-Kapusi, F., Halasi-Kovács, B., Kovács, G., Green, A. J., & Lukács, B. A. (2020). Experimental evidence of dispersal of invasive cyprinid eggs inside migratory waterfowl. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(27), 15397–15399. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004805117
Maceda-Veiga, A., López, R., & Green, A. J. (2017). Dramatic impact of alien carp Cyprinus carpio on globally threatened diving ducks and other waterbirds in Mediterranean shallow lakes. Biological Conservation, 212, 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.002
Özgencil, İ. K., Beklioğlu, M., Özkan, K., Tavşanoğlu, Ç., & Fattorini, N. (2020). Changes in functional composition and diversity of waterbirds: The roles of water level and submerged macrophytes. Freshwater Biology, 65(11), 1845–1857. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13531
Özgencil, İ. K., Çolak, M. A., Yılmaz, G., Uslu, A., Hasnain, S., Korkmaz, M., Amorim, C. A., Soyluer, M., Beklioğlu, M., Meynard, C., Akyürek, Z., Özkan, K., & Jeppesen, E. (2025). Changes in diversity of wetland birds across spatial scales following 20 years of wetland degradation: A case study from central Türkiye. Inland Waters. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20442041.2025.2488655
Özgencil, İ. K., & Uslu, A. (2021). Update on the status of White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala and its breeding phenology in Central Anatolia, Turkey. Sandgrouse, 43(1), 112–122.
Yılmaz, G., Çolak, M. A., Özgencil, İ. K., Metin, M., Korkmaz, M., Ertuğrul, S., Soyluer, M., Bucak, T., Tavşanoğlu, Ü. N., & Özkan, K. (2021). Decadal changes in size, salinity, waterbirds, and fish in lakes of the Konya Closed Basin, Turkey, associated with climate change and increasing water abstraction for agriculture. Inland Waters, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/20442041.2021.1924034
Dear colleagues,
Based on my experience as researcher working on White-headed Duck in Kazakhstan, I would like to add several points relevant to the interpretation of migration trends in Central Asia.
During the period 2013–2017, there was indeed evidence of a positive trend in the eastern migratory population. This conclusion was based on systematic and repeated counts at key post-breeding and stopover sites in north-central Kazakhstan, particularly in the Tengiz–Korgalzhyn region, using standardized methodology across years (Koshkina et al. 2019).
However, after 2017, comparable coordinated surveys were largely discontinued, and data availability became fragmented. Based on the information currently available, there is no evidence that the positive trend observed up to 2017 has been maintained.
In Kazakhstan the key threats to the species remain unchanged, including wetland degradation, disturbance, mortality in fishing nets, and unstable hydrological regimes at both breeding and staging sites.
I fully agree that to properly understand population trend, coordinated flyway-scale monitoring is essential. The territory of Kazakhstan is extremely large, making it impossible to consistently cover all potentially suitable sites. In addition, the highly dynamic nature of wetlands often leads to substantial redistribution of White-headed Duck aggregations between years. For this reason, migration and staging data should ideally be supported by information from known wintering areas. In Kazakhstan there are currently no confirmed regular wintering sites for the species, which further limits our ability to interpret trends based solely on national data.
Due to a certain relative increase in the number of White-headed Ducks observed during overflight and wintering in some regions, it is now proposed to downgrade its endangered status from EN to NT. However, this duck remains a very vulnerable species due to the current rapid climate change, with its instability in the current transitional period, especially in the main breeding areas in Central Asia, where reservoirs are subject to sharp fluctuations in water levels, there is a danger of their drying out and salinization, burning of reeds, etc. (Auezov 1978).
In addition, this species is characterized by increased vulnerability to poaching, as White-headed Ducks are very trusting of humans (Hughes et al. 2006). The significant similarity in the appearance of males and females in the White-headed Duck also increases its vulnerability to predation by birds of prey, since, unlike dimorphic duck species, in which the main burden of predation falls on brighter and more noticeable males, the proportion of females in White-headed Duck may decrease due to their in-creased capture by predators.
It is advisable to give White-headed Duck the category Vulnerable species.
In Rajasthan, Delhi and Haryana side of North India, where 1000s of migratory ducks visit every year, this species not sighted in last couple of decades.
If any, then it will be a one/two bird as “vagrant” only.
Itri Levent Erkol – Senior Conservation Expert
—
The current proposal to downlist the White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala from Endangered to Near Threatened raises concerns that extend well beyond the status of a single species. It tests whether the global conservation community, particularly BirdLife International and the IUCN, will continue to function as independent, science-driven arbiters of extinction risk, or whether Red List assessments will begin to mirror the political convenience created by widespread governmental failure to protect wetlands, even within Europe.
Across much of the species’ range, governments have failed to halt wetland loss. In many cases, they have actively driven it. Water abstraction for agriculture, hydropower development, poorly regulated fisheries, and chronic pollution continue largely unchecked. This is not confined to Central Asia or the Middle East. It is a persistent reality across the Mediterranean and parts of the European Union, where legal protection exists on paper but hydrological collapse proceeds in practice. In this context, the role of BirdLife and the IUCN is not to validate optimistic narratives, but to provide a corrective—grounded in evidence and precaution—when policy and management fail.
As conservation scientists and practitioners, we must be especially careful to ensure that our assessments reflect the full weight of science-based evidence rather than a desire to highlight success stories. Conservation is under constant pressure to demonstrate positive outcomes, yet the Red List is not a communications tool for celebrating partial gains. It is a risk assessment framework. When selective improvements or episodic increases are elevated into narratives of recovery, there is a real danger that science becomes shaped by optimism rather than by data. In the long term, this undermines both credibility and conservation outcomes.
The proposed downlisting rests heavily on inferred population increases and episodic peak counts, particularly in parts of Central Asia. Yet this interpretation collapses when confronted with recent, officially endorsed national data. Turkmenistan, formerly one of the most important wintering range states for the species, has experienced a >95% decline in wintering White-headed Ducks since 2019. Numbers have fallen from many thousands along the Caspian coast to only a few hundred nationwide. Breeding in the country is now, at best, marginal. This collapse has occurred well within the three-generation timeframe used by the IUCN and has not been meaningfully incorporated into the global narrative of “recovery.”
In Türkiye, a country often cited as a stronghold, the situation is no less troubling. Intensive, multi-year national surveys demonstrate that the breeding population has declined from several hundred pairs in the 1990s to roughly 65 pairs today, with losses accelerating in Central Anatolia. Entire basins have lost all functionally viable wetlands. These are not speculative projections; they are documented extirpations driven by water mismanagement, climate-amplified drying, invasive fish, and chronic disturbance. Crucially, there is no evidence that these losses are being offset by sustained increases elsewhere. Treating occasional high counts in Kazakhstan or molting aggregations in eastern Türkiye as indicators of demographic security risks, double-counting, and obscuring real declines in core breeding landscapes.
This exposes a deeper structural issue. The International Single Species Action Plan (ISSAP) for the White-headed Duck sets population targets and speaks of “maintaining current numbers,” yet those benchmarks were already optimistic when adopted and are now demonstrably misaligned with reality. Action plans are planning tools, not extinction-risk assessments. When their assumptions begin to substitute—implicitly or explicitly—for IUCN Red List criteria, the result is a dilution of scientific rigor. The Red List was never intended to reward temporary aggregation or to average away collapse in inconvenient places.
BirdLife International and the IUCN occupy a unique position precisely because they are not governments. Their authority derives from independence, methodological discipline, and a willingness to state uncomfortable truths. In a world where wetland loss continues even inside the EU, where climate adaptation remains largely rhetorical, and where water policy routinely prioritizes short-term economic use over ecological function, downlisting a wetland-dependent species on the basis of partial recovery narratives sends the wrong signal. It risks implying that conservation is succeeding when, in fact, the ecological foundation of that success is still eroding.
When assessed rigorously against the IUCN criteria, the White-headed Duck continues to meet the thresholds for a threatened category. Evidence of rapid decline in a major range state directly engages Criterion A. Global population estimates hovering around—or below—10,000 mature individuals, combined with clear, ongoing declines in multiple regions, meet Criteria C and D under a precautionary interpretation. Uncertainty regarding detectability, connectivity, and demographic structure strengthens rather than weakens the case for caution.
Downlisting at this stage would not reflect confidence grounded in recovery; it would reflect discomfort with acknowledging loss. The credibility of top-tier conservation institutions depends on resisting that impulse. Until a fully updated global assessment integrates the most recent data from Central Asia, Türkiye, and other declining regions—and until there is clear evidence that wetland degradation is being reversed rather than normalized—the White-headed Duck should remain listed as Endangered.
Ultimately, the Red List must describe biological reality, not institutional optimism. Where governments fail to protect habitats, it is precisely the responsibility of BirdLife International and the IUCN to say so—clearly, consistently, and without compromise.
Russia is one of the four countries with the largest breeding number of White-headed Duck, with an estimated population of 250-500 pairs in the early 2000s (Hughes et al., 2006; Li and Mundkur, 2003). According to the latest edition of the Red Book of the Russian Federation (2021), at the end of the 2010s, the number in Russia was estimated at 350-500 pairs and was subject to significant asynchronous interannual fluctuations in different regions of the country (Bukreev, Bazdyrev, Murzakhanov, 2021). Despite some positive trends at that time, the savka population in Russia was still in a threatened state, since with adverse climatic changes and an increase in other threats (death during flight and wintering, anthropogenic transformation of habitats, etc.), a decrease in numbers could quickly occur, which manifested itself in subsequent years.
In recent years, there has been a clear downward trend in nesting numbers, both in European Russia and in Western Siberia. The main place of concentration of White-headed Duck during the flight in the Pre-Caucasus is Lake Manych-Gudilo, where birds nesting in European Russia, as well as in the western regions of Western Siberia and Northern Kazakhstan gather. In 2005-2010, up to 2.6 thousand individuals were counted here at a time in spring and up to 6.3 thousand in autumn (Rosenfeld et al., 2012). In 2019, the autumn number was still quite high – at least 3.5 thousand. However, in 2020-2024 it sharply decreased by about 10 times (Morozov and Fedosov, 2025).
Therefore, we consider it premature and erroneous to significantly and dramatically downgrade the international conservation status of the White-headed Duck from EN (Endangered) to NT (Near Threatened).
Bukreev S.A., Bazdyrev A.V., Murzakhanov E.B., 2021. The White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala (Scopoli, 1769) // The Red Book of the Russian Federation. Ed. 2-E. – M. – Pp. 596-599 (in Russiun).
Hughes B., Robinson J.A., Green A.J., Li Z.W.D., Mundkur T., (Compilers). 2006. International Single Species Action Plan for the Conservation of the White¬ headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala. CMS Technical Series № 13 & AEWA Technical Series № 8. Bonn, Germany. 66 p.
Li Z.W.D., Mundkur T., 2003. Status Overview and Recommendations for Conservation of the White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala in Central Asia // Wetlands International Global Series № 15. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 98 p.
Morozov V.V., Fedosov V.N., 2025. Reduction of the White-headed Duck population in Manych // Proceedings of the 16th International Ornithological Conference of Northern Eurasia. – Kazan. – Pp. 167–168 (in Russiun).
Rosenfeld S.B., Timoshenko A.Yu., Badmaev V.B., Salemgareev A.R., 2012. The main results of the White-headed Duck population counts at migration stops in Russia and Kazakhstan in 2005-2010 // Kazarka. № 15 (1). – Pp. 84-98 (in Russiun).
Currently, the species breeds in less than 10 sites in Morocco. However, although the species continue to colonise new sites (e.g. see the references below), the breeding population is small in the majority of them. It’s classified as Endangered in Morocco.
From a Moroccan perspective, we do not recommend downlisting the species at this time.
El Hamoumi, R., Rihane, A. & Himmi, O. 2022. Première observation de la reproduction de l’Érismature à tête blanche Oxyura leucocephala dans une zone humide urbaine : Etang d’El Oulfa (Casablanca). Go-South Bulletin 19: 45-54.
Maire, B., El Hamoumi, R. & Rihane, A. 2025. Première reproduction de l’Erismature à tête blanche Oxyura leucocephala à Dar Bouazza à l’Ouest de Casablanca (Maroc). Go-South Bulletin 22: 27-31.
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 received the following comment from Sonia Rozenfeld while the forum was temporarily closed:
In Manytch-Gudilo lake area according my counts at 2006-2013 about 5000-6000 WHD could be seen each year during spring and autumn migration. At 2018-2019 — 1900 birds registerd.
At 2021-2024 — 0.
At 2025 about 300 birds, including 1 brood at 2024 and 2025. In wintering sites in Israel I don’t register WHD since 2021.
SINCE 2019 the water level of Manytch-Gudilo lake dropped dramatically and the salinity of water increased (no fish and algae anymore). Fresh water discharge in Manytch were finished. All fresh water go to agriculture.
We received the following comment from Keramat Hafezi Birgani while the forum was temporarily closed:
Dear colleagues
In Iran
The White-headed Duck is seen throughout the year in Iran; it is a common wintering species in the southern Caspian Sea; and a common breeding species in the wetlands of northwestern Iran.Of course, it is seen in the wetlands of northwestern Iran all year round, but the most important time for the White-headed duck to be present in the wetlands of northwestern Iran is summer; it is also a rare species in the wetlands of central and southern Iran ,in the northern coasts of the Persian Gulf.
In Iran, hunting of birds, including endangered birds such as the White-headed duck, is prohibited; of course, unauthorized hunters may hunt from behind; but the most important threat seems to be drought and drying up of the wetlands of northwestern Iran; especially at the end of the breeding season when the chicks are vulnerable and may be hunted by dogs and golden jackals.
Also, due to the fact that this duck feeds on fish, there have been reports of white-headed ducks getting entangled and drowning in fishing nets.
We are ready to implement broader educational and conservation programs in collaboration with local communities to protect white-headed ducks, especially in the wetlands of northwestern Iran.
We thank all contributors for their comments and the valuable information shared.
It is particularly challenging to accurately estimate the size and trend of this species’ population in the E Mediterranean and SW Asia, and thus globally. Rapidly changing hydrological conditions mean that the birds often use very different sites between years, which severely complicates the analysis of trends, even from the network of sites that are monitored consistently. The small number of observers across this vast region also means that many potentially suitable sites are rarely monitored, if ever. As Langendoen and Nagy (2025) concluded in the latest analysis of IWC trends for the 9th AEWA Conservation Status Report, “Available monitoring data are too patchy to assess the population trend”.
As this flyway population comprises most of the global population, this makes it difficult to quantify the global population trend over three generations (c. 18 years) as necessary to assess a species’ status under Criterion A. For example, neither the apparent wintering population ‘crash’ in Turkmenistan, from c. 16,700 individuals in 2019 to c. 1,800 in 2025 (E. Rustamov and N. Petkov in litt. 2026), nor the contemporaneous 90% reduction in autumn numbers using the Manych area in Russia (Morozov and Fedosov 2025; S. Bukreev and S. Rozenfeld in litt. 2026), are thought to indicate a c. 90% global population decline in only six years.
Nevertheless, it is clear from the contributions received that this species continues to face various threats across its range, and especially in the E Mediterranean and SW Asia. Some threats may even have intensified in recent years and been compounded by the impacts of climate change, as conveyed by several contributors from Türkiye (Ö. Ü. Özkoç, İ. K. Özgencil, I. L. Erkol and Ş. Arslan in litt. 2026). Cumulatively, the scope and nature of these threats do seem likely to have driven an ongoing global population decline in recent decades, and one that is likely continue in the future unless more conservation action is taken.
For many years, the size of the E Mediterranean and SW Asia population was estimated at 5,000–10,000 individuals (Wetlands International 2026). It was only increased to 20,000 individuals in the light of higher post-breeding counts in Kazakhstan (2013–2017) and the 2019 winter count in Turkmenistan. Since 1985, there are only a handful of occasions when IWC count totals in this flyway have exceeded 10,000 birds, with counts in most years totalling c. 5,000–10,000 birds (Langendoen and Nagy 2025). The working assumption has been that the high numbers recorded in Kazakhstan a decade ago (Koshkina et al. 2019) persist, despite the lack of coordinated surveys since then and the ongoing threats to the species in Central Asia (A. Koshkina, V. Belik and A. Mischenko in litt. 2026) and elsewhere. Taking a precautionary approach, in the light of contributions received, the current size of this flyway population is placed in the range of c. 10,000–20,000 birds.
Combining these revised values with the existing size estimates for the other three flyway populations produces a revised global estimate of c. 14,700–25,450 individuals, which equates to c. 9,800–17,050 mature individuals (assuming approximately 2/3 of birds are mature). The lower end of this range falls below the Vulnerable threshold under Criterion C. However, additional conditions must also be met. For the reasons outlined above, there is no evidence from which to robustly estimate rates of continuing population decline as required for assessment against Criterion C1. However, under Criterion C2, a continuing decline (at an unspecified rate) can be inferred, based on information in the contributions received about the status of and threats to this species in key range states including Türkiye, Russia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Iran, India and Morocco.
The species cannot be assessed against Criterion C2a(i) since the largest subpopulation is >1,000 mature individuals. Assessment as Vulnerable C2a(ii) requires that all mature individuals are in a single subpopulation. Although four flyway populations are recognised, this species is monotypic: the lack of consistent morphological and colour variation between populations does not support the characterisation of subspecies (Salvador et al. 2023). Furthermore, the only genetic analysis conducted on this species, using museum and contemporary samples from across its range, found a lack of significant genetic structure between populations in different areas, even in mitochondrial DNA, which tends to diverge quickly (Munoz-Fuentes et al. 2005). Combining this with its high interannual mobility and tendency to vagrancy, it seems unlikely that this species maintains four subpopulations (per IUCN SPC 2024) over a relatively contiguous area (despite historical range contractions), and may actually function as a single subpopulation. While there is uncertainty in this suggestion, it is considered a plausible scenario, so the number of subpopulations will be revised from 4 to a range of 1–4.
Therefore, based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2026 Red List is to list this species as Vulnerable under Criterion C2a(ii).
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 8 February 2026, after which the recommended categorisation 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.
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. White-headed Duck is recommended to be listed as Vulnerable under Criterion C2a(ii).
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.
I am posting information regarding Turkmenistan as it is a major country mentioned here based on recent discussion with Eldar Rustamov and official info:
According to the latest edition of the Red Data Book of Turkmenistan (2024):
Oxyura leucocephala. Until 2019, up to 9,000-18,000 individuals wintered on the Caspian coast of Turkmenistan; currently, no more than 300-600. Inland waters—in eastern Turkmenistan, 300-600 individuals used to winter; now, 40-90. In total, no more than 600-700 individuals winter in Turkmenistan. They should nest on inland waters in the eastern part of the country, but no one has yet found nests; the number of pairs is unknown (expert estimates: no more than 5-10 pairs?).
This gives considerably different view on the numbers in Turkmenistan compared to those used in the evaluations and provided by the leading national expert on birds there.
I would like to contribute to the Red List Forum discussion as a PhD researcher on White-headed Duck and one of the authors of the Multi-species Action Plan for threatened breeding duck species in Türkiye, including the WHD, prepared between 2020 and 2023. This contribution is based primarily on four consecutive years of intensive national breeding surveys (2021–2025). Within the last three generations, the White-headed Duck in Türkiye has shown a continued and substantial decline. Between 1996 and 2001, the breeding population in Türkiye was estimated at 200–250 pairs (Gürsoy Ergen, 2019). By 2019, this population had already declined by approximately 50–60% relative to the initial estimate (80-125 pairs). Results from our four-year national census, no more than c. 65 pairs breed in Türkiye by 2023, corresponding to an additional decline of roughly 25–30% within just six years after 2019.
Despite consistent survey effort and coverage, the decline we have observed reflects real losses rather than methodological variation. Breeding declines are closely linked to ongoing wetland degradation, particularly the loss of small, shallow wetlands that are critical for nesting and brood-rearing. Water abstraction, drought, reed burning during the breeding season, and illegal hunting continue to act synergistically, with water-level fluctuations having immediate and strongly negative effects on breeding success. Wintering data from the same period do not indicate a compensatory regional redistribution of birds that would offset losses in Türkiye. Historically important wintering sites such as Lake Burdur now support only very small and irregular numbers after 2010. While some wintering has shifted to Lake Manyas and occasionally Lake Uluabat, counts at these sites remain low, inconsistent between years, and far below historical numbers recorded in Türkiye after 2016. Last recent years max. 3000 birds wintering in Lake Uluabat. Available winter counts therefore do not support the hypothesis that declines in Türkiye are balanced by increases in neighbouring regions such as Bulgaria or Greece. In eastern Türkiye, particularly within the Lake Van closed basin, populations linked to the Caucasus and potentially to Central Asia continue to decline. Of particular relevance is Lake Arin, which has supported up to c. 4,000 individuals during the moulting period in 2014. Moulting numbers have never reached these figures again since this year. In 2024, it dropped to a maximum of 1500 WHD (pers. obs.). These counts were recorded during the post-breeding moulting season and represent a demographically distinct aggregation. In the absence of evidence for individual-level connectivity, these moulting numbers should not be directly added to post-breeding or wintering counts from Kazakhstan or other parts of Central Asia, as doing so risks double counting and inflating regional population estimates. While occasional high winter counts reported from Central Asia are noteworthy, they remain episodic and insufficient, on their own, to demonstrate demographic stability or recovery across the species’ range. Without clear evidence of connectivity, sustained trends, and survival rates linking these counts to declining core populations, reliance on isolated peak numbers of risks obscuring ongoing declines in key regions. Türkiye supports breeding, moulting, and wintering populations that are very likely demographically connected to populations in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Iran, the Arabian Peninsula, and Central Asia. Given the documented declines within the last three generations, the rapid degradation of key wetlands, and projected future habitat loss under current climatic and water-use scenarios, the available evidence does not support downlisting.
Importantly, a significant proportion of the documented declines has taken place within the period corresponding to the species’ three-generation length, directly meeting the temporal framework used in Red List assessments.
Considering the current situation of WhD in the region, I strongly believe that retaining the White-headed Duck in the Endangered category is consistent and reflects a precautionary, range-wide assessment of extinction risk.
In India, White-headed Duck is at best a vagrant now, with no regular confirmed reports – at best one/two records every decade.
I am a post-doctoral researcher who has been studying White-headed Duck populations in central Türkiye for approximately a decade. I would like to contribute to the ongoing discussion by sharing some insights into the central Türkiye populations of these ducks over the past few decades. Additionally, I would like to highlight some previously unknown challenges that the species may have been facing, which could potentially threaten the remaining populations further. A colleague of mine based in Türkiye has already expressed concerns about how local declines in Türkiye cannot be and is not offset by increases in neighboring regions. Therefore, I will skip that aspect and directly focus on the scientific studies that my working group and I have published. I will also share some of our unpublished findings and very recent observations from central Türkiye. While some of the findings I will share here may not directly relate to the Red List assessment criteria, they should still be of high value to the team proposing the update.
The breeding central Türkiye populations of the species have nearly vanished by 2025. Studies published over the past few years (e.g., Çolak et al., 2022; Özgencil et al., 2025; Özgencil & Uslu, 2021; Yılmaz et al., 2021) have documented unprecedented population declines in the region. These studies revealed that the declines are primarily attributable to the intensifying wetland losses and degradation in the area. As of 2025, there are NO wetlands in the entire Konya Closed Basin (a closed basin in central Türkiye – larger than the Netherlands) that can support a breeding White-headed Duck population (unpublished data). This is an excruciating thing to think about, especially considering that the region once hosted nearly 200 breeding pairs of White-headed Ducks in the 1990s (Yılmaz et al., 2021). Uncontrolled groundwater and surface water use for irrigation has led to the complete destruction of some wetlands that were once strongholds for the species, such as Ereğli Marshes, Hotamış Marshes, Lake Kulu (also known as Lake Düden), Lake Uyuz, and Lake Kamış. Similarly, other regions in central Türkiye have suffered a similar fate. Another famous wetland known for harboring breeding, wintering, and molting White-headed Ducks, the Mogan Flood Control Dam, completely disappeared in 2025 due to uncontrolled water use (unpublished data). Currently, there are only three sites in the entire central Türkiye that have breeding populations, with a cumulative population size of 10-15 breeding pairs (unpublished data). Given the rapid rate at which the wetlands are disappearing in central Türkiye, these three wetlands will likely dry out and cease to exist in the near future.
In addition to these conventional data on population size trends, our recent studies have revealed that the lakes in central Türkiye have begun to dry or shrink earlier over the past two decades. This alarming trend poses a significant threat to the late-breeding White-headed Ducks in the region, as their breeding grounds may disappear in the middle of their breeding season (Özgencil et al., 2025). Our previous research has already demonstrated that late-breeding wetland birds in the region are disappearing at a faster rate compared to their early-breeding counterparts (Yılmaz et al., 2021). Another unpublished study of ours has highlighted widespread invasive fish introductions in the region (for more information, refer to García, 2001 and Maceda-Veiga et al., 2017) and worsening eutrophication (contrary to findings of some previous studies, we have demonstrated that the species clearly prefers areas of the lake with abundant submerged macrophytes and clearer water even during the breeding season) may be forcing species to utilize small patches of “refuge” habitats, likely due to a combination of lower invasive fish biomass and an abundance of invertebrate food (unpublished data). What’s worrying about this is that such areas tend to be shallow and susceptible to water level declines or drying. Another recent study of ours has uncovered a potential trophic mismatch affecting the unfledged juveniles of the late-breeding White-headed Ducks (and other ecologically similar late-breeding diving ducks, such as the Common Pochard). Approximately one-third of all broods may suffer from significant shortages of their primary food source, the midge larvae and emerging pupae, before they even fledge (unpublished data). We expect that the warming springs and summers will exacerbate this issue.
Given that the eutrophication problem is unlikely to slow down anytime soon, invasive fish species like carps continue to be introduced to every water body in Türkiye, the fact that these fish can easily be transported among wetlands across landscapes due to their eggs’ ability to survive the gut passage of waterbirds (e.g., Lovas-Kiss et al., 2020), the advancing drying and shrinking dates, coupled with potential trophic mismatches caused by warming springs and summers, the near future will undoubtedly present a wider range of challenges for the remaining populations of these species in the region. Consequently, it is highly probable that the declines in their populations will only intensify in the coming years.
Türkiye continues to serve as an important habitat for breeding, migrating, wintering, and molting White-headed Ducks in the region. I hope the information provided here will assist you in conducting a more accurate update. Given the wide variety of challenges mentioned here (especially those that concern the near future) and the alarming rate at which Turkish populations are declining, I strongly recommend maintaining the Endangered (EN) status for the species, which would better reflect the range-wide status and act as a PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE (considering there won’t be another update for years) for the expected and more intense declines in some regions like Türkiye.
Below, I’ve listed some papers and potentially relevant information they contain that you may find useful during your assessment. Please feel free to contact me in person if you require further information regarding the unpublished data.
1) Yılmaz et al. (2021) – https://doi.org/10.1080/20442041.2021.1924034: Focuses on the situation in Konya Closed Basin, a former stronghold for the species. Both breeding and wintering populations are discussed.
2) Çolak et al. (2022) – https://doi.org/10.3390/w14081241: Focuses on another closed basin, Burdur Closed Basin. The story of the famous Lake Burdur, and how it went from harboring ~11k wintering White-headed Ducks to nothing over the past two decades is told and the underlying reasons are discovered.
3) Özgencil et al. (2020) – https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13531: Two lakes in central and western Türkiye. Studies historical records to show that omnivorous diving duck species, including the White-headed Ducks, enjoy clear-water and submerged-macrophyte-dominated states of the lakes during winter time.
4) Özgencil & Uslu (2021) – https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350656697_Update_on_the_status_of_White-headed_Duck_Oxyura_leucocephala_and_its_breeding_phenology_in_Central_Anatolia_Turkey
: Update on the central Türkiye populations.
5) Özgencil et al. (2025) – https://doi.org/10.1080/20442041.2025.2488655: Discusses how earlier drying and shrinking of the lakes due to uncontrolled water use and warming summers in central Türkiye can further endanger the late-breeding White-headed Ducks.
References used
Çolak, M. A., Öztaş, B., Özgencil, İ. K., Soyluer, M., Korkmaz, M., Ramírez-García, A., Metin, M., Yılmaz, G., Ertuğrul, S., Tavşanoğlu, Ü. N., Amorim, C. A., Özen, C., Apaydın Yağcı, M., Yağcı, A., Pacheco, J. P., Özkan, K., Beklioğlu, M., Jeppesen, E., & Akyürek, Z. (2022). Increased Water Abstraction and Climate Change Have Substantial Effect on Morphometry, Salinity, and Biotic Communities in Lakes: Examples from the Semi-Arid Burdur Basin (Turkey). Water, 14(8), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14081241
García, P. A. (2001). Competition with Carp may limit White-headed Duck populations in Spain.
Lovas-Kiss, Á., Vincze, O., Löki, V., Pallér-Kapusi, F., Halasi-Kovács, B., Kovács, G., Green, A. J., & Lukács, B. A. (2020). Experimental evidence of dispersal of invasive cyprinid eggs inside migratory waterfowl. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(27), 15397–15399. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004805117
Maceda-Veiga, A., López, R., & Green, A. J. (2017). Dramatic impact of alien carp Cyprinus carpio on globally threatened diving ducks and other waterbirds in Mediterranean shallow lakes. Biological Conservation, 212, 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.002
Özgencil, İ. K., Beklioğlu, M., Özkan, K., Tavşanoğlu, Ç., & Fattorini, N. (2020). Changes in functional composition and diversity of waterbirds: The roles of water level and submerged macrophytes. Freshwater Biology, 65(11), 1845–1857. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13531
Özgencil, İ. K., Çolak, M. A., Yılmaz, G., Uslu, A., Hasnain, S., Korkmaz, M., Amorim, C. A., Soyluer, M., Beklioğlu, M., Meynard, C., Akyürek, Z., Özkan, K., & Jeppesen, E. (2025). Changes in diversity of wetland birds across spatial scales following 20 years of wetland degradation: A case study from central Türkiye. Inland Waters. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20442041.2025.2488655
Özgencil, İ. K., & Uslu, A. (2021). Update on the status of White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala and its breeding phenology in Central Anatolia, Turkey. Sandgrouse, 43(1), 112–122.
Yılmaz, G., Çolak, M. A., Özgencil, İ. K., Metin, M., Korkmaz, M., Ertuğrul, S., Soyluer, M., Bucak, T., Tavşanoğlu, Ü. N., & Özkan, K. (2021). Decadal changes in size, salinity, waterbirds, and fish in lakes of the Konya Closed Basin, Turkey, associated with climate change and increasing water abstraction for agriculture. Inland Waters, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/20442041.2021.1924034
Dear colleagues,
Based on my experience as researcher working on White-headed Duck in Kazakhstan, I would like to add several points relevant to the interpretation of migration trends in Central Asia.
During the period 2013–2017, there was indeed evidence of a positive trend in the eastern migratory population. This conclusion was based on systematic and repeated counts at key post-breeding and stopover sites in north-central Kazakhstan, particularly in the Tengiz–Korgalzhyn region, using standardized methodology across years (Koshkina et al. 2019).
However, after 2017, comparable coordinated surveys were largely discontinued, and data availability became fragmented. Based on the information currently available, there is no evidence that the positive trend observed up to 2017 has been maintained.
In Kazakhstan the key threats to the species remain unchanged, including wetland degradation, disturbance, mortality in fishing nets, and unstable hydrological regimes at both breeding and staging sites.
I fully agree that to properly understand population trend, coordinated flyway-scale monitoring is essential. The territory of Kazakhstan is extremely large, making it impossible to consistently cover all potentially suitable sites. In addition, the highly dynamic nature of wetlands often leads to substantial redistribution of White-headed Duck aggregations between years. For this reason, migration and staging data should ideally be supported by information from known wintering areas. In Kazakhstan there are currently no confirmed regular wintering sites for the species, which further limits our ability to interpret trends based solely on national data.
Due to a certain relative increase in the number of White-headed Ducks observed during overflight and wintering in some regions, it is now proposed to downgrade its endangered status from EN to NT. However, this duck remains a very vulnerable species due to the current rapid climate change, with its instability in the current transitional period, especially in the main breeding areas in Central Asia, where reservoirs are subject to sharp fluctuations in water levels, there is a danger of their drying out and salinization, burning of reeds, etc. (Auezov 1978).
In addition, this species is characterized by increased vulnerability to poaching, as White-headed Ducks are very trusting of humans (Hughes et al. 2006). The significant similarity in the appearance of males and females in the White-headed Duck also increases its vulnerability to predation by birds of prey, since, unlike dimorphic duck species, in which the main burden of predation falls on brighter and more noticeable males, the proportion of females in White-headed Duck may decrease due to their in-creased capture by predators.
It is advisable to give White-headed Duck the category Vulnerable species.
In Rajasthan, Delhi and Haryana side of North India, where 1000s of migratory ducks visit every year, this species not sighted in last couple of decades.
If any, then it will be a one/two bird as “vagrant” only.
Itri Levent Erkol – Senior Conservation Expert
—
The current proposal to downlist the White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala from Endangered to Near Threatened raises concerns that extend well beyond the status of a single species. It tests whether the global conservation community, particularly BirdLife International and the IUCN, will continue to function as independent, science-driven arbiters of extinction risk, or whether Red List assessments will begin to mirror the political convenience created by widespread governmental failure to protect wetlands, even within Europe.
Across much of the species’ range, governments have failed to halt wetland loss. In many cases, they have actively driven it. Water abstraction for agriculture, hydropower development, poorly regulated fisheries, and chronic pollution continue largely unchecked. This is not confined to Central Asia or the Middle East. It is a persistent reality across the Mediterranean and parts of the European Union, where legal protection exists on paper but hydrological collapse proceeds in practice. In this context, the role of BirdLife and the IUCN is not to validate optimistic narratives, but to provide a corrective—grounded in evidence and precaution—when policy and management fail.
As conservation scientists and practitioners, we must be especially careful to ensure that our assessments reflect the full weight of science-based evidence rather than a desire to highlight success stories. Conservation is under constant pressure to demonstrate positive outcomes, yet the Red List is not a communications tool for celebrating partial gains. It is a risk assessment framework. When selective improvements or episodic increases are elevated into narratives of recovery, there is a real danger that science becomes shaped by optimism rather than by data. In the long term, this undermines both credibility and conservation outcomes.
The proposed downlisting rests heavily on inferred population increases and episodic peak counts, particularly in parts of Central Asia. Yet this interpretation collapses when confronted with recent, officially endorsed national data. Turkmenistan, formerly one of the most important wintering range states for the species, has experienced a >95% decline in wintering White-headed Ducks since 2019. Numbers have fallen from many thousands along the Caspian coast to only a few hundred nationwide. Breeding in the country is now, at best, marginal. This collapse has occurred well within the three-generation timeframe used by the IUCN and has not been meaningfully incorporated into the global narrative of “recovery.”
In Türkiye, a country often cited as a stronghold, the situation is no less troubling. Intensive, multi-year national surveys demonstrate that the breeding population has declined from several hundred pairs in the 1990s to roughly 65 pairs today, with losses accelerating in Central Anatolia. Entire basins have lost all functionally viable wetlands. These are not speculative projections; they are documented extirpations driven by water mismanagement, climate-amplified drying, invasive fish, and chronic disturbance. Crucially, there is no evidence that these losses are being offset by sustained increases elsewhere. Treating occasional high counts in Kazakhstan or molting aggregations in eastern Türkiye as indicators of demographic security risks, double-counting, and obscuring real declines in core breeding landscapes.
This exposes a deeper structural issue. The International Single Species Action Plan (ISSAP) for the White-headed Duck sets population targets and speaks of “maintaining current numbers,” yet those benchmarks were already optimistic when adopted and are now demonstrably misaligned with reality. Action plans are planning tools, not extinction-risk assessments. When their assumptions begin to substitute—implicitly or explicitly—for IUCN Red List criteria, the result is a dilution of scientific rigor. The Red List was never intended to reward temporary aggregation or to average away collapse in inconvenient places.
BirdLife International and the IUCN occupy a unique position precisely because they are not governments. Their authority derives from independence, methodological discipline, and a willingness to state uncomfortable truths. In a world where wetland loss continues even inside the EU, where climate adaptation remains largely rhetorical, and where water policy routinely prioritizes short-term economic use over ecological function, downlisting a wetland-dependent species on the basis of partial recovery narratives sends the wrong signal. It risks implying that conservation is succeeding when, in fact, the ecological foundation of that success is still eroding.
When assessed rigorously against the IUCN criteria, the White-headed Duck continues to meet the thresholds for a threatened category. Evidence of rapid decline in a major range state directly engages Criterion A. Global population estimates hovering around—or below—10,000 mature individuals, combined with clear, ongoing declines in multiple regions, meet Criteria C and D under a precautionary interpretation. Uncertainty regarding detectability, connectivity, and demographic structure strengthens rather than weakens the case for caution.
Downlisting at this stage would not reflect confidence grounded in recovery; it would reflect discomfort with acknowledging loss. The credibility of top-tier conservation institutions depends on resisting that impulse. Until a fully updated global assessment integrates the most recent data from Central Asia, Türkiye, and other declining regions—and until there is clear evidence that wetland degradation is being reversed rather than normalized—the White-headed Duck should remain listed as Endangered.
Ultimately, the Red List must describe biological reality, not institutional optimism. Where governments fail to protect habitats, it is precisely the responsibility of BirdLife International and the IUCN to say so—clearly, consistently, and without compromise.
Sergei Bukreev (Russia), PhD
Russia is one of the four countries with the largest breeding number of White-headed Duck, with an estimated population of 250-500 pairs in the early 2000s (Hughes et al., 2006; Li and Mundkur, 2003). According to the latest edition of the Red Book of the Russian Federation (2021), at the end of the 2010s, the number in Russia was estimated at 350-500 pairs and was subject to significant asynchronous interannual fluctuations in different regions of the country (Bukreev, Bazdyrev, Murzakhanov, 2021). Despite some positive trends at that time, the savka population in Russia was still in a threatened state, since with adverse climatic changes and an increase in other threats (death during flight and wintering, anthropogenic transformation of habitats, etc.), a decrease in numbers could quickly occur, which manifested itself in subsequent years.
In recent years, there has been a clear downward trend in nesting numbers, both in European Russia and in Western Siberia. The main place of concentration of White-headed Duck during the flight in the Pre-Caucasus is Lake Manych-Gudilo, where birds nesting in European Russia, as well as in the western regions of Western Siberia and Northern Kazakhstan gather. In 2005-2010, up to 2.6 thousand individuals were counted here at a time in spring and up to 6.3 thousand in autumn (Rosenfeld et al., 2012). In 2019, the autumn number was still quite high – at least 3.5 thousand. However, in 2020-2024 it sharply decreased by about 10 times (Morozov and Fedosov, 2025).
Therefore, we consider it premature and erroneous to significantly and dramatically downgrade the international conservation status of the White-headed Duck from EN (Endangered) to NT (Near Threatened).
Bukreev S.A., Bazdyrev A.V., Murzakhanov E.B., 2021. The White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala (Scopoli, 1769) // The Red Book of the Russian Federation. Ed. 2-E. – M. – Pp. 596-599 (in Russiun).
Hughes B., Robinson J.A., Green A.J., Li Z.W.D., Mundkur T., (Compilers). 2006. International Single Species Action Plan for the Conservation of the White¬ headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala. CMS Technical Series № 13 & AEWA Technical Series № 8. Bonn, Germany. 66 p.
Li Z.W.D., Mundkur T., 2003. Status Overview and Recommendations for Conservation of the White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala in Central Asia // Wetlands International Global Series № 15. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 98 p.
Morozov V.V., Fedosov V.N., 2025. Reduction of the White-headed Duck population in Manych // Proceedings of the 16th International Ornithological Conference of Northern Eurasia. – Kazan. – Pp. 167–168 (in Russiun).
Rosenfeld S.B., Timoshenko A.Yu., Badmaev V.B., Salemgareev A.R., 2012. The main results of the White-headed Duck population counts at migration stops in Russia and Kazakhstan in 2005-2010 // Kazarka. № 15 (1). – Pp. 84-98 (in Russiun).
Currently, the species breeds in less than 10 sites in Morocco. However, although the species continue to colonise new sites (e.g. see the references below), the breeding population is small in the majority of them. It’s classified as Endangered in Morocco.
From a Moroccan perspective, we do not recommend downlisting the species at this time.
El Hamoumi, R., Rihane, A. & Himmi, O. 2022. Première observation de la reproduction de l’Érismature à tête blanche Oxyura leucocephala dans une zone humide urbaine : Etang d’El Oulfa (Casablanca). Go-South Bulletin 19: 45-54.
Maire, B., El Hamoumi, R. & Rihane, A. 2025. Première reproduction de l’Erismature à tête blanche Oxyura leucocephala à Dar Bouazza à l’Ouest de Casablanca (Maroc). Go-South Bulletin 22: 27-31.
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 received the following comment from Sonia Rozenfeld while the forum was temporarily closed:
In Manytch-Gudilo lake area according my counts at 2006-2013 about 5000-6000 WHD could be seen each year during spring and autumn migration. At 2018-2019 — 1900 birds registerd.
At 2021-2024 — 0.
At 2025 about 300 birds, including 1 brood at 2024 and 2025. In wintering sites in Israel I don’t register WHD since 2021.
SINCE 2019 the water level of Manytch-Gudilo lake dropped dramatically and the salinity of water increased (no fish and algae anymore). Fresh water discharge in Manytch were finished. All fresh water go to agriculture.
We received the following comment from Keramat Hafezi Birgani while the forum was temporarily closed:
Dear colleagues
In Iran
The White-headed Duck is seen throughout the year in Iran; it is a common wintering species in the southern Caspian Sea; and a common breeding species in the wetlands of northwestern Iran.Of course, it is seen in the wetlands of northwestern Iran all year round, but the most important time for the White-headed duck to be present in the wetlands of northwestern Iran is summer; it is also a rare species in the wetlands of central and southern Iran ,in the northern coasts of the Persian Gulf.
In Iran, hunting of birds, including endangered birds such as the White-headed duck, is prohibited; of course, unauthorized hunters may hunt from behind; but the most important threat seems to be drought and drying up of the wetlands of northwestern Iran; especially at the end of the breeding season when the chicks are vulnerable and may be hunted by dogs and golden jackals.
Also, due to the fact that this duck feeds on fish, there have been reports of white-headed ducks getting entangled and drowning in fishing nets.
We are ready to implement broader educational and conservation programs in collaboration with local communities to protect white-headed ducks, especially in the wetlands of northwestern Iran.
Keramat Hafezi
Preliminary proposal
We thank all contributors for their comments and the valuable information shared.
It is particularly challenging to accurately estimate the size and trend of this species’ population in the E Mediterranean and SW Asia, and thus globally. Rapidly changing hydrological conditions mean that the birds often use very different sites between years, which severely complicates the analysis of trends, even from the network of sites that are monitored consistently. The small number of observers across this vast region also means that many potentially suitable sites are rarely monitored, if ever. As Langendoen and Nagy (2025) concluded in the latest analysis of IWC trends for the 9th AEWA Conservation Status Report, “Available monitoring data are too patchy to assess the population trend”.
As this flyway population comprises most of the global population, this makes it difficult to quantify the global population trend over three generations (c. 18 years) as necessary to assess a species’ status under Criterion A. For example, neither the apparent wintering population ‘crash’ in Turkmenistan, from c. 16,700 individuals in 2019 to c. 1,800 in 2025 (E. Rustamov and N. Petkov in litt. 2026), nor the contemporaneous 90% reduction in autumn numbers using the Manych area in Russia (Morozov and Fedosov 2025; S. Bukreev and S. Rozenfeld in litt. 2026), are thought to indicate a c. 90% global population decline in only six years.
Nevertheless, it is clear from the contributions received that this species continues to face various threats across its range, and especially in the E Mediterranean and SW Asia. Some threats may even have intensified in recent years and been compounded by the impacts of climate change, as conveyed by several contributors from Türkiye (Ö. Ü. Özkoç, İ. K. Özgencil, I. L. Erkol and Ş. Arslan in litt. 2026). Cumulatively, the scope and nature of these threats do seem likely to have driven an ongoing global population decline in recent decades, and one that is likely continue in the future unless more conservation action is taken.
For many years, the size of the E Mediterranean and SW Asia population was estimated at 5,000–10,000 individuals (Wetlands International 2026). It was only increased to 20,000 individuals in the light of higher post-breeding counts in Kazakhstan (2013–2017) and the 2019 winter count in Turkmenistan. Since 1985, there are only a handful of occasions when IWC count totals in this flyway have exceeded 10,000 birds, with counts in most years totalling c. 5,000–10,000 birds (Langendoen and Nagy 2025). The working assumption has been that the high numbers recorded in Kazakhstan a decade ago (Koshkina et al. 2019) persist, despite the lack of coordinated surveys since then and the ongoing threats to the species in Central Asia (A. Koshkina, V. Belik and A. Mischenko in litt. 2026) and elsewhere. Taking a precautionary approach, in the light of contributions received, the current size of this flyway population is placed in the range of c. 10,000–20,000 birds.
Combining these revised values with the existing size estimates for the other three flyway populations produces a revised global estimate of c. 14,700–25,450 individuals, which equates to c. 9,800–17,050 mature individuals (assuming approximately 2/3 of birds are mature). The lower end of this range falls below the Vulnerable threshold under Criterion C. However, additional conditions must also be met. For the reasons outlined above, there is no evidence from which to robustly estimate rates of continuing population decline as required for assessment against Criterion C1. However, under Criterion C2, a continuing decline (at an unspecified rate) can be inferred, based on information in the contributions received about the status of and threats to this species in key range states including Türkiye, Russia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Iran, India and Morocco.
The species cannot be assessed against Criterion C2a(i) since the largest subpopulation is >1,000 mature individuals. Assessment as Vulnerable C2a(ii) requires that all mature individuals are in a single subpopulation. Although four flyway populations are recognised, this species is monotypic: the lack of consistent morphological and colour variation between populations does not support the characterisation of subspecies (Salvador et al. 2023). Furthermore, the only genetic analysis conducted on this species, using museum and contemporary samples from across its range, found a lack of significant genetic structure between populations in different areas, even in mitochondrial DNA, which tends to diverge quickly (Munoz-Fuentes et al. 2005). Combining this with its high interannual mobility and tendency to vagrancy, it seems unlikely that this species maintains four subpopulations (per IUCN SPC 2024) over a relatively contiguous area (despite historical range contractions), and may actually function as a single subpopulation. While there is uncertainty in this suggestion, it is considered a plausible scenario, so the number of subpopulations will be revised from 4 to a range of 1–4.
Therefore, based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2026 Red List is to list this species as Vulnerable under Criterion C2a(ii).
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 8 February 2026, after which the recommended categorisation 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.
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. White-headed Duck is recommended to be listed as Vulnerable under Criterion C2a(ii).
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.