DateVen 1. W In aAkçButcClauClubHiltoHoffJenkJoppLachMalMcNMittRagRaimRhoRodRonSecoSmaSmivan Vié,VincYou PermBrooStua ObsAli, CoxDiasHoleHotrLangRylaSneaTurn ApoWild

21st M

e: 21nue: C

Welcome

ttendance çakaya, Resitchart, Stu (SBusnitzer, Viobbe, Colin (Con-Taylor, C

ffmann, Mikekins, Richardpa, Lucas (LJher, Tom (TLlon, David (D

Neely, Jeff (Jtermeier, Ruhavan, Rajeemondo, Domodin, Anders dríguez, Jon Pndinini, Carlooy, Katherineart, Jane (JS)th, Paul (PS)Dijk, Peter P

, Jean-Christcent, Amand

ung, Bruce (B

manent Obseoks, Tom (Tart, Simon (S

ervers Natasha (IU

x, Neil (IUCNs, Braulio (Ce, Dave (CI) ra, Larissa (Ighammer, Peands, Anthonary, Martin (ner, Will (CI

logies dscreen Repr

Di

MEETING O

1–23 April 2onservation

t – by phone,B)

ola (VC) CC) Craig (CHT) e (MH) d (RJ) J) L) DM) JM) ss (RAM) ev (RR)

matilla (DR) – by phone i

Paul (JPR) o – by phonee (KS) ) Paul (PPvD) tophe (JCV) da (AV) BY)

ervers B)

SS)

UCN GSP) (NN CI) (NC)

CBD Secretar(DH)

IUCN) (LH) enny (PL) ny (AR) (IBAT) (MS)I) (WT)

resentative

iscussion Su

OF THE IU

2015 International

, in part (RA

in part (AR)

in part (CR)

NA)

riat) (BD)

)

ummary and

UCN RED LI

l, Arlington,

A)

)

d Action Poi

IST COMM

Virginia, US

nts

MITTEE (RL

SA

LC21)

RLC21 Agenda Item Discussion summary RLC21 Action Item # (updated from previous RLC)

RLC21 Action Item Lead Progress since RLC21

1. Welcomes

MH welcomed participants to the 21st meeting, noting apologies from those who could not make it. Thanked CI for hosting, and Ella Outlaw, Jill Lucena, Luana Luna for logistics and help through the meeting, NC for support, Roxanne Halley in IUCN US for handling accommodation, Caroline Edgar in IUCN HQ for handling flights, CHT, RJ and NA for taking notes and recording discussion, and everyone who contributed inputs into background documents.

2. Review and Composition of the Red List Committee

Renewal of the Red List Partnership Agreement

Have begun the process of renewing the Red List Partnership agreement in early 2015. A draft of the revised text of the main agreement has been prepared, as well as revisions to the RLC Terms of Reference. Discussions will continue with the RL Partners, including one-on-one consultations around the overarching agreement and the bilateral MoUs, and aim to finalize the agreement by end of 2015.

21.1 (updated from 20.1)

Circulate the proposed amendments and revisions to the RLP agreement to all RL Partners for review and comment (will be shared with the whole Red List Committee as agreed by all Red List Partners). Important for each Red List Partner to initiate internal process to discuss and agree the document.

SS, MH

21.2 Update the Rules of Procedure for Red List assessments document, which is an Annex to the Partner Agreement and also a formal document signed by all RLA Coordinators.

MH, SS, RLU

3. Progress on action points from previous Meetings

RLC Action Item 18.2 Complete Arabic Translations of Red List Categories & Criteria and Regional Guidelines.

The person contracted to do this work (contracted in Nov 2014 with delivery by end of February) was unable to complete the work by the end of February and requested an extension to March which was granted. On 7 April the contractee informed us that they were unable to complete the task and would like to terminate the contract. Fortunately no funds have been paid and at this stage we are trying to find out if they have done anything or not. There was some work done in mid-2014 by this person and a small group of Arabic speaking people familiar with the Red List Categories and Criteria to agree on the correct translation of some of the key terms (David Mallon was part of that discussion). We are in discussion with IUCN Legal about termination of the Contract and with David Mallon about next steps include alternative translators or an alternative process to follow.

(18.2) CHT, DM

RLC Action Item 18.8 Bring the issue of scheduling of press releases/media back to a future RLC meeting. This should perhaps be preceded by a 1-2 day meeting of the communication leads from the Red List Partners, including possibly some external players

This item is still pending discussion (18.8) MH

RLC Action Item19.12 Review progress of the IWG after two years of operation, to assess whether it is adding value

See RLC agenda item 4.3. Superseded by 21.11 - RLC

RLC Action Item19.21 Make progress on the development of a “Red List for dummies”

No progress. Review need. (19.21)

RLC Action Item 19.24 [part] Implement reciprocal links between existing regional assessments and global assessments on RL website by a) making the former visible on the latter species accounts

In the queue for development, but currently hampered by the architecture of the ailing IUCN Red List website. At least have name of region in summary search results.

(19.24) RLU

RLC Action Item 20.1 Develop a proposal for the Red List Partnership renegotiation process and circulate this around the RLC for discussion.

Superseded by 21.1 -

RLC Action Item 20.2 RLC to engage fully with the process of how knowledge products will be branded and named, once that process is established. (all RLC members)

A meeting on Knowledge Products ("Knowledge baskets") was held in IUCN at end Jan, involving IUCN Secretariat and key partners (e.g., BirdLife, IBAT) and invited regional representatives.

(20.2)

All

21.3 Share the draft documents (tables of contents) on branding , naming and governance of KPs arising from the meeting on Knowledge Products held in IUCN HQ in January 2015 with the Red List Committee.

TB Done. See Tom Brooks email 21 April 2015

RLC Action Item 20.5 Update mapping standards document as quickly as possible to ensure new guidance is available

A draft has been compiled which requires a bit more editing and then circulation to the Red List Technical Working Group for input and approval.

(20.5) AJ

RLC Action Item 20.7 Update the online Red List Training course to include revised advice from the mapping standards document as soon this is available.

To be done once the RLTWG sign off on the finalised standards document. However, note that this will require funding to contract TNC to update and revise the mapping module and to translate these changes into French and Spanish.

(20.7) CMP

RLC Action Item 20.8 Include the revised mapping standards document as an annex to the Documentation Standards & Consistency Checks document

To be done once the RLTWG sign off on the finalised standards document.

(20.8) CMP

RLC Action Item 20.9

As soon as the revised mapping standards and new ArcGIS tool are available, communicate revised EOO guidance to Specialist Groups, RLAs, and National Red List Working Groups.

Make sure this guidance includes a note on how to consistently record non-genuine changes resulting from the

To be done once the RLTWG sign off on the finalised standards document.

Ensure the Standards and Consistency document includes clear guidance on consistently recording non-genuine changes resulting from the application of the new EOO rule.

(20.9) CMP, CHT

application of the new EOO rule (e.g., should this be “Other” with a clear note added to the justification field ?)

RLC Action Item 20.10 Include both the automatically calculated figures for “EOO (derived from the extent of the minimum convex polygon)” and the “area of the mapped distribution” in dedicated fields in SIS. Note that there must also be a clear explanation of the difference between the two concepts (see next action point)

This has been discussed, but not yet implemented. Thought needs to be given to cases where the EOO on the maps may be different to the EOO in the text of an assessment and how to explain that difference.

(20.10) AJ

RLC Action Item 20.11 Create a simple way of explaining the difference between the two concepts of EOO and area of distribution – for example through a simple animation or illustration – along with short and simple text to explain this

No progress; see above point. Also thought needs to be given to cases where the EOO on the maps may be different to the EOO in the text of an assessment and how to explain that difference

(20.11) AJ, CHT, CMP

RLC Action Item 20.13 Forward any recommendations for someone to take on the role of Chair of the RLTWG to MH.

Superseded by 20.1.1 (20.1.1) All

RLC Action Item 20.14 Develop wording to add to the Red List Strategic Plan to focus on mega-diverse countries and countries with high number of endemic species to create national red lists

This action point will be addressed through the revision of the RLSP for 2017-2020.

(20.14) KS

RLC Action Item 20.15 Work on bringing more government representation on the NRLA coordinating body.

This is work in progress, but it is proving hard to pin representatives down to signing the MoU

(20.15) KS

RLC Action Item 20.18: Follow-up with Rosie Cooney (SULiSG) on the indigenous knowledge document and ensure that RLC provides strategic inputs into this evolving document. (MH)

RA drafted a short response to the document prepared by SULi. MH, RA and TB discussed with Rosie Cooney and Trisha Watson-Sproat in SULi at the end of March. Made progress on several points of disagreement, and agreed that one sensible way forward might be to convene a small meeting of SULi- types and RL folks, on the back either of the next CEESP SC meeting or in Abu Dhabi or elsewhere.

(20.18) MH Revised iteration of traditional knowledge and Red List document circulated by RLC Chair to RLC Members on 13 May 2015. Tentative dates for meeting set for November 2015 in Hawaii on back of CEEPS Steering Committee meeting.

RLC Action Item 20.20 Follow-up with colleagues in New Zealand regarding feedback on examples of inappropriate red listing of insular species (MH). Let MH know if anything useful related to this emerges from the NZ

SPSC have reviewed and commented on the document provided by NZ DoC as have BirdLife, the RLU and MH. Cleaned up draft needs to be circulated to wider RLC for comment. SPSC will arrange a face-to-face meeting with NZ DoC in November 2015

(20.20) MH, CHT, RA

plant assessments (CHT).

21.4 Circulate SPSC draft response to New Zealand DoC re issues with RL categories and criteria. [Consider including in response a figure of the number of insular species already assessed and published on Red List.]

MH, CHT, RA

Done. See MH email of 07 May 2015.

RLC Action Item 20.23 Create an independent Wikipedia page about SIS to assert ownership of that page.

It is not clear from the Minutes what was meant by this action point. Is it to create a separate Wikipedia page under our control on The IUCN Red List (there were supposed to be attempts by the Species Communication team to see if we could get editing rights on the current Red List Wikipedia page so that we have better control of the content).

If it was to create a Wikipedia page on SIS, then we are not sure why – we have this page for reporting updates and changes to SIS Users: http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/sisupdate.

There is also a wiki about SIS on Assembla – see https://www.assembla.com/spaces/sis/wiki.

There are plans to update all the key documents on Assembla and to move them to GitHub which already has a number of the manuals that have been compiled: https://github.com/IUCN-UK/Manuals/wiki/_pages

21.5 (supersedes 20.23)

Add link to SIS from the ISIS page on Wikipedia – follow up with Doug Verdusco at ISIS.

CHT

RLC Action Item 20.25 Review estimated costs for technology development and implementation (including a breakdown of specific items) to ensure that stated amounts are reliable estimates.

Done; presented at the 20.1 virtual meeting. The costs associated with revamping the three websites will require a very specific, funded piece of work, which will be taken forward as 21.43.

- AJ, CHT, MH

Also, include costs for options surrounding consolidating the three websites. Also, redraft the document outlining specific areas to focus on in combining the three websites (AJ / CHT). Circulate the redrafted document around RLC for discussion in the next (virtual) RLC meeting (MH). RLC Action Item 20.30 Prioritize development and implementation of the SIS batch data uploader

See RLC agenda item 6.3. Superseded by 21.27. - AJ, CHT

RLC Action Item 20.31 For South Africa plant assessments, South Africa to update assessments to be compatible with new threat and habitat schemes, and then import into SIS via batch importer tool

DR indicated that it may take SANBI longer to do this than anticipated, as cross-walking the threats and conservation actions will take longer than expected and they also have limited staff resources for this right now.

(20.31) DR, AJ, CHT

RLC Action Item 20.33 For Cameroon, investigate options to get Jean Michel Onana (co-author of the Cameroon Plant Red Data Book, SSC Steering Committee member, and recently appointed Coordinator

Craig HT worked with Jean-Michel Onana, Martin Cheek and other members of his former West Africa team to complete 85 species assessments in September 2014 and they were all published in the November update (2014.3). Martin’s team continued working on the other species, but only managed to get another 12 completed and submitted for inclusion in the June update (2015.2) before the whole team was dissolved under the restructuring at Kew. Jean-Michel is coming to Kew for two weeks in late June (after the Red List launch) and CHT, Martin and Jean-Michel will try work through the remaining species that

(20.33) SS

of the Central African Plants RLA) to help work on these

are in SIS (about 170 species). That will leave about 551 taxa which exist only in Word format which need to be cut and pasted into SIS before work can be started on them to fill in all the missing supporting information. The Kew team were looking into ways to automate that, but the Word accounts are not in a standard format, so that makes it complicated.

RLC Action Item 20.34 For East Africa, Chair of the Southern African Plant Specialist Group will meet with the chair of the East African Plant RLA in July to discuss procedures and standards of assessments and the best way to go forwards for East Africa

CHT has been following up with Henk Beentje to advance this work, partly supported through funds provided by the SSC Chairs Office (and may require additional resourcing through RLC resources). Henk (now retired) is keen to take on the work, but it still needs to be figured out how many species are involved.

(20.34) DR, CHT, HB

RLC Action Item 20.35 For Ferns, RLU to feed these into SIS, and liaise with Kew re manual cross-walks for the threats and conservation action classification schemes and with overlapping plant SGs/RLAs re review

Kew was unable to take on the job of cross-walking the threats, etc. hence work on this stopped. However, work has resumed again because one of the former SRLI team is now working for Neil Brummitt at the Natural History Museum and is taking on responsibility for completing the fern and bryophyte SRLI assessments

(20.35) RLU, AP

RLC Action Item 20.37 Update the Red List Process diagram to ensure that SIS is specifically mentioned in this. However, note that this diagram is included as an annex to

Not yet done, but will be done closer to the time when this is needed.

(20.37) RLU, SSC Chair’s Office

the RL Partnership agreement and is included within the RLA terms of reference (the “Rules of Procedure” document) – it cannot be officially updated until the start of the next quadrennium (2017). In future updates of the Rules of Procedure, move this diagram to an annex that can be updated. RLC Action Item 20.42 The topic of including subpopulation data in SIS for plant (and other) assessments to be discussed further as a direct agenda item in the Plant Conservation Sub-committee meeting in September, noting that it may be possible to add subpopulation information into assessments in the format as it appears in the software package RAMAS Red List

This was discussed in the PCSC meeting in November 2014, which agreed the need for including this functionality in SIS, but no specific action proposed. The discussion was therefore once again tabled for discussion at RLC21 and a side-group met to discuss a way forward which agreed for how SIS could potentially de modified to capture subpopulation information based on the fields used in RAMAS Red List. The RLTWG will be consulted prior to adding the fields into SIS. It is envisaged that this would all be straight forward, with minimal costs and with no cross-walking or importing of data required. Recording this information would be optional and would also not be necessary for all subpopulations.

(20.42) Draft a document outlining what new fields need to be added to SIS to capture subpopulation information. This would include the fields already in RAMAS Red List plus fields for recording population trend and geographic coordinates (or range of coordinates) of the subpopulation. The document will be emailed to members of the RLTWG for comment and approval and once approved will be implemented in SIS (CHT will also check with DR that the fields will meet their requirements).

DR, CHT, RLTWG

RLC Action Item 20.43 Proceed with investigating technical enhancements and functionality needed to allow assessments onto

No progress; this was put on hold as the Data Uploader and PDF-generator were given higher priority. This was also partly put on hold until we recruited an internal SIS Developer. Discussed at RLC21 under agenda item 7.2.

(20.43) AJ

the Red List in other languages, including a mechanism in the SIS bulk data import function to accommodate bringing non-English language assessment data into the appropriate fields. RLC Action Item 20.44 Progress on allowing assessments in other languages onto the Red List to be a standing item on every RLC meeting. The decision to allow other languages stands, and is the assumed basis of this continuing discussion.

(20.44) MH

RLC Action Item 20.47 Investigate the option of publishing older historic assessments together in one PDF (or several large PDFs) to accommodate download practicalities.

On hold; work has focussed on getting the current assessments turned into PDFs with DOIs. There are a number of issues with the older assessments which need investigation and correcting before PDFs for these can be generated (e.g. wrong citation reference attached or missing the citation reference; incorrect record of the past names the species were published under). In addition there are a large number of historical assessments from the 1970s and 1980s which still need to be databased – these all contained extensive information on each species.

(20.47) AJ

RLC Action Item 20.50 Provide a cost estimate for modifying SIS to include a function for Assessors to select a specific photo to use for the PDF

No progress; this will be a complicated change to make and was put on hold until we recruit an internal SIS Developer.

(20.50) AJ

RLC Action Item 20.51 Develop a clear strategy to communicate the release of the PDFs when the design is agreed and release is closer to becoming a reality

Pending implementation of PDFs and DOIs. (20.51) Lynne Labanne

RLC Action Item 20.58 Update the document “The business case for the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species” and make this available on The IUCN Red List web site. Remove the current document from the web in the interim.

The document has been removed from the website. Updating will await completion of the two items of work being led by The Biodiversity Consultancy (in lieu of license).

(20.52) NA

RLC Action Item 20.59 If considered appropriate, compile a letter of thanks from the RLC to the donor providing funds for the Red List Partnership work, to be delivered via TL.

This item pended until discussions with the donor are further advanced.

(20.59) MH, RLC

RLC Action Item 20.67 Investigate where income from Google adds on the website is going.

We started looking into this, no-one at IUCN HQ appears to know where these funds (if there is anything coming in) are. Lynne Labanne, Head of Communications and Marketing for the Global Species Programme has checked with the Species Programme Finance Officer and with IUCN Finance, but drew a blank. Ackbar is now trying through the source code to see if that can give us any clues.

(20.67) AJ, CHT, RJ

RLC Action Item 20.68 Arrange a discussion of whether the campaign side of the Barometer of Life needs to be brought into sharper focus again.

Discussed under agenda item 7.1 (as part of discussion on progress against Result 9). Superseded by 21.41

- SS, MH

RLC Action Items 20.1

RLC Action Item 20.1.1 (updated from 20.13) Forward any recommendations for someone to take on the role of Chair of the RLTWG to MH.

No progress (20.1.1) All

RLC Action Item 20.1.2 (updated from 20.56) Circulate the critique of the DOPA that was prepared; examine how much of this JRC has taken on board to decide on next steps (MH; early 2015)

See email from MH sent 05 Dec 2014. Need to evaluate how much of this has been taken onboard by DOPA. JS, Jon Hutton, Alan Bellwood and others to meet with other EU reps in Brussels to discuss governance.

(20.1.2) JS, TB, MH

RLC Action Item 20.1.3 Follow up with Olga Krever (SSC Steering Committee) on her request for more formal training in Russia

It has been agreed to follow-up with Olga at SSC Leaders’ Meeting in Abu Dhabi (or on margins of SSC Steering Committee)

(20.1.3) KS, CMP, MH

RLC Action Item 20.1.5 Circulate revised versions of user guidelines incorporating changes made following the marine Red Listing workshop held in Vancouver in October 2014

SPSC will consider and review all edits to the guidelines at their in-person meeting in November and then circulate to the RLC and RLTWG for review.

(20.1.5) RA

4. Brief Reports

4.1 Red List Technical Working Group

Still no replacement chair of the RLTWG (would really like someone from the botanical or invertebrate community to step forward). Although the RLTWG did not meet in 2014, a marine workshop, under the auspices of SPSC and RLTWG, to address issues relating to application of categories and criteria in the marine realm, was held in October 2014 (the report was circulated as background documentation to the current meeting).

4.2 National Red List Working Group / National Red List Alliance

The group discussed ways for the RLC to work with the SCBD to increase the throughput of national red lists assessments, and towards the inclusion of red listing processes in NBSAPs. Ideas included: developing web pages for an NBSAPs forum; regional workshops; development of the Modalities and Milestones paper, including a sections on the value national red lists (see action 7.5); letter from SCBD to Parties encouraging national red listing programmes; country twinning between countries with good capacity for assessments, and those with less knowledge; in-country support for national red lists through IUCN members, lessons learned from GSPC.

21.5 Follow-up with UAE on progress in accessing funding that could help improve functionality of SIS to enable its use for national-level assessment processes (building off global assessments).

SS, CHT

21.6 Explore options for whether national (north-south) agreements could allow financial support to less developed countries to support conservation assessments and monitoring (as well as other potential funding opportunities from UNDP Biodiversity fund, corporate funds (e.g. from mining) etc. and recommend areas where the CBD may offer political support)

DR, KS, SS

21.7 Work with the CBD Secretariat to issue an inf doc to assist parties in developing national red lists

KS, CBD Secretariat

21.8 Decide which ideas emerging from the national Red List breakout group discussion the NRLWG should prioritize to take forward.

KS

4.3 Informatics Working Group

The role and purpose of this Working Group needs to be addressed. It has proved useful for keeping everyone up to date on new developments and avoiding duplication where possible. But unlike RLTWG it is not being asked specific questions on how to solve issues. How best to redesign and integrate all the websites are key areas where IWG can play a useful role. It was agreed to keep the IWG, but on the basis and understanding that it would be more of a reactive role than necessarily proactive, and re-evaluate in a year’s time.

21.9 IWG to put together a document with recommendations on the approaches to running/hosting Forums.

LJ

21.10 When the time comes, IWG to help advise on revamping the Red List websites, SIS, etc

LJ

21.11 Re-evaluate IWG at RLC22 RLC

4.4 Standards and Petitions Sub-committee

Although the SPSC did not meet in 2014, a marine workshop, under the auspices of SPSC and RLTWG, to address issues relating to application of categories and criteria in the marine realm, was held in October 2014 (the report was circulated as background documentation to the current meeting). Key changes resulting to the guidelines will be incorporated into v12 of the Red List User Guidelines. A small group of people met to discuss what “red listed” means and agreed the following text to be included in the User Guidelines and in the Rules of Procedure: “The use of the term “red-listed” is discouraged owing to ambiguity as to whether this includes Least Concern species or not, given that species assessed as Least Concern are included on the IUCN Red List. To refer to a set of species all of which have assessments on the IUCN Red List, the phrase “assessed for the IUCN Red List” can be used. To refer to threatened (i.e. Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable) plus Extinct in the Wild and Near Threatened species

21.12 Post all the Red List Criteria Review documents on the Red List website and include the new finalised report from the recent Marine Workshop.

CHT

collectively, the phrase “species of elevated conservation concern” may be used” Paper on EOO submitted, reviewed and comments being addressed for resubmission. Misconceptions paper led by Ben Collen to be included in a Special Issue of Biology Letters, with a deadline of October. Propose to circulate a draft of this to all concerned.

21.13 Include agreed new wording regarding use of the term “Red Listed” in Red List user Guidelines and also in the Rules of Procedure document (at next revision)

RA (User guidelines), SS, MH (RoP)

21.14 Circulate all proposed changes to Red List User Guidelines to the RLC following in-person meeting of the SPSC in November 2015.

RA

4.5 Red List Unit CHT provided general update on RL-related activities for the calendar year 2014.

21.15 Send a written word of thanks to Synchronicity Earth for their generous fundraising efforts, Adam, Jessica and the whole team for the significant event that they organised

MH A draft letter has been compiled, and it is hoped that it can be hand-delivered to SE by Simon Stuart and the IUCN DG in early June.

21.16 On the fundraising/donate pages, make clearer the link between what we are doing by listing a species and conservation of that species. For example, by showing not that X amount does Y assessments, but by highlighting how X amount can contribute to conservation of Y.

LH (with Lynne Labanne)

21.17 Provide a formal written update on current progress with plant red listing targets to Braulio Dias (to demonstrate IUCN’s collective contribution to GSPC target 2). In turn, discuss with BD whether SCBD could write letters to ministers of megadiversity countries to ask for support for national red listing activities,

JS, NA, PS, CC, CHT, DR

especially to help support the SRLI work

21.18 Provide BD a summary of recent publications focused on demonstrating the role that conservation makes to trends in extinction risk, highlighting particular case studies and examples, as an input for SBSTTA19 or CoP13

SB, MH

5. Appointment of Red List Authorities

Arabian Plant Red List Authority to be re-established; SS in negotiation with RBG Edinburgh on this. It was noted that the current Terms of Reference only task the RLC with reviewing the “…the need for appointment, and the performance of, Red List Authorities”, but not for vetting the appointment of Red List Authority Coordinators, which should be amended.

21.19 Amend the Terms of Reference for the RLC (under the Red List Partnership Agreement) such that the RLC is also invited to comment on the appointment of Red List Authority Coordinators.

MH, SS

21.20 Amend Rules of Procedure for Red List assessments document to provide greater clarity on the distinction and roles of RLAs and RLA Coordinators

MH, SS

21.21 Re-initiate discussion to establish a Kew Plant Red List Unit (perhaps to be picked up under the renegotiated Red List Partnership bilateral agreements with RBG Kew and BGCI)

CC, PS, SS, JS, RJ

21.22 Relevant taxonomic representatives on RLC to encourage their Subcommittees to consider current coverage of RLAs, to identify gaps and identify potential champions to lead these

DR, VC, AV, RR

6. Updates

6.1 WCC_2012-Res-017-EN

Tracking progress on the implementation of this resolution is a key responsibility of the RLC. The Red List User Guidelines have been updated to take into account incorporation of Climate Change in Red List assessments. Progress with guidelines for consistent listing of species as

Extinct or Possibly Extinct (subsequent to the Woods Hole meeting) has been delayed, but is back on track. A methodological paper has been prepared and submitted for publication. Now methodology needs to be tested using real data and then RLTWG and SPSC to agree on the thresholds to use. The guidelines on collection and harvest of threatened species are being led by TRAFFIC and SULi. Dan Challender in IUCN UK is now leading and a draft is expected in May which will be circulated to RLC for comment. Guidance on what is wild – changes already incorporated in the Red List User Guidelines Improvement in using IUCN Red List Criteria for listing insular species – underway (see 20.20) Finalising the Required Supporting Information standards - done

6.2 Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool

Short presentation by MS on the three versions of IBAT. Approximately $300k of funds available for the three underlying datasets. Review underway to determine areas of growth (subscription) and impact/influence. Main updates since the last RLC meeting (availability of Red List polygons in IBAT) and focus on IBAT for Aichi (potential tool). New website and structure of IBAT will be launched in May.

21.23 RLC Chair to circulate log in details for the new IBAT platform once launched in May.

MS, MH

21.24 RJ to liaise with MS about providing a worked example for Madagascar on how data held in IBAT can inform NBSAPs.

RJ, MS

6.3 Income distribution 2014

RJ provided an update on the batch uploader and on PDFs and DOIs as well as other items covered under the allocation of income to the RLU in 2014. The batch uploader is now for all intents and purposes “done” and is moving into testing phase. It was agreed to run initial testing with 3 datasets: NatureServe, Kew and SANBI. For now, it was agreed to hold off including Brazil assessments in testing phase, pending outcome of this initial testing, and resolving the issue with bringing in assessments in other languages. The PDFs and DOIs should be completed in time for launch at the

21.25 Circulate the job advert for the recruitment of the new technical person in the RLU as soon as possible to RLC members

RJ

SSC Leaders’ Meeting in Abu Dhabi; however, several important issues remain to be resolved which will require the inputs from a small working group. Cycad re-assessments completed from funding allocated by RLC. Assessments are in SIS but not yet published. Conifer work is ongoing and was held up because of a leadership changes within the specialist group. BirdLife used funds to update and improve maps for passerines and new maps for species that result from taxonomic updates. Implementing revised EOO protocol, reviewing revised generation length data, assessing impact of tree cover loss for forest dependent birds and assessing global implications of European regional assessments are also ongoing for 2016 RL. Mammals: aim to complete by beginning of 2016 – three- person team working full-time; most of the 36 specialist groups are actively re-assessing species; less than 50% of species have been assessed but a large number of small mammals and bats are LC and should not take too long (taxonomic updates for these groups and primates have already been completed). Also supported a cetacean workshop with the RLC funds.

21.25 Circulate revised draft of the published assessment PDFs to RLC for review and comment

AJ, CHT

21.26 Convene a small subset of folks to discuss outstanding items on DOIs / PDFs, including: 1) additional data fields to be included in the PDF; 2) what, if any, differences between PDFs and web accounts are permissible; 3) multiple citations for same assessment i.e. web version versus PDF version plus same assessment published elsewhere e,g, birds on RL and on BL DataZone; 4) the process on editing/modifying existing published assessments; 5) whether or not all assessors need to be consulted before assessments are published as PDFs; and 6) implications of the latter and related issues of copyright, intellectual property rights

CHT, AJ (involving RLC, RLTWG and Deborah Murith)

21.27 Proceed with testing of the Data Uploader with trial datasets from SANBI, Kew and NatureServe and send details on field structure and format for the Data Uploader to the aforementioned RL Partners.

CHT, AJ (with DR, BY, CC)

Done (email from CHT sent 20 May 2015)

21.28 Ensure that the Data Uploader deals with foreign characters correctly

AJ Done. AJ confirmed that use of UTF8 is part of the requirements and that this addresses this issue.

21.29 Circulate composite RLI graph with new cycad results to wider RLC.

SB

Done. See Stu Butchart email 23 April 2015.

21.30 Locate the ‘lessons learned’ document on reassessments prepared by BirdLife International.

SB

21.31 Run a workshop session on how to do retrospective assessments and calculate RLIs at SSC Leader’s meeting

MH, SB

21.32 Follow-up with Sapienza in Rome about incorporating new distribution data from the South African mammal reassessment into the ongoing global mammal assessment

DR, CR

6.4 Global Forest Watch

SB updated on ongoing discussions with GFW, including from a meeting held with GFW in Cambridge. They want the Red List data and we need to decide how to engage. GFW also has a number of tools (e.g. fire, carbon, commodities, finance) and a product used by the government of Indonesia for granting land-use licences. Approached us because they want to develop a forest status index and forest biodiversity index. Simplest version of latter would be a forest-dependent-species-weighted loss of forest. Would quantify forest loss for individual species which could assist Red List assessments. GFW does not permit commercial use and will not distribute Red List data. Many opportunities for collaboration, especially for quantifying Criteria A and B. However, providing species, site and PA data would create of a new portal for KP integration i.e. potentially

21.33 Explore working with GFW/WRI to provide appropriate data and analytical inputs to development of forest biodiversity index as part of a wider strategic partnership between GFW and all IBAT Partners.

SB, MH, CHT

competing with IBAT. Agreed, ultimately there are two aspects to disentangle here: Derivatives: the forest loss analysis for species would not impact IBAT or re-posting considerations, and would help some assessment processes. Therefore, engaging with GFW at least on this work seems straight-forward. Data provision: providing the underlying range maps for direct display on GFW would potentially compete with IBAT, which raises the question (already discussed in IBAT GC) re whether IBAT should be the primary mechanism for data integration. It seems sensible to try to integrate the Red List into influential products. Further, initiatives such as GFW could deliver new opportunities for show-casing RL data to potential commercial interests. On balance, seems sensible to consider further discussing with GFW, but in tandem with IBAT Partners.

6.5 Key Biodiversity Areas

PL provided an update on the process to consolidate the KBA standard to date, including the first round of consultations; a second round consultation is planned for mid-2015. BD offered to release a CBD Joint notification to parties on the importance of engaging with the KBA consultation process. Also proposed possibly submitting an inf doc to SBSTTA19 in Nov 2015 on encouraging parties to participate in the KBA process once established.

21.34 Work with SCBD (BD, Sarat Babu Gidda and Robert Hoft) to prepare IUCN/SCBD notification to governments for second-round consultation on KBA Standard.

NA, JS

21.35 Work with SCBD on a process for engaging CBD Parties on KBA identification and conservation once the standard is adopted, including drafting a notification to Parties to encourage identification and conservation of KBAs to contribute to Aichi Target 11.

NA, JS

7. Major Items of Business

7.1 Progress against the RLSP 2013-2020 and revising 2017-2020

Discussion was structured in two parts: revising current progress against the RLSP 2013 -2016, and then discussion plans for the updated RLSP for 2017-2020.

21.36 With reference to the SRLI reassessment targets, ZSL to convene a conference call (and/or convene an in-person meeting) to work out how to get the reassessments done (even if the target

KS, MH (potentiall

As regards RLSP 2013-2016: 1) Targets marked by MH as proposed for deletion can be dropped; approved by RLC. 2) Pre-agreed with Danna Lehmann, DR and CHT to merge “WHO monograph species”, “CITES-listed medicinal plants” and “100 FairWild species” under a single target "1500 priority medicinal plants". 3) A notable concern is the SRLI reassessment targets, none of which will be met. All will need to be rolled over to 2017-2020. For some, the baseline is not yet even in place. Resources and data constraints are proving a challenge and require concerted effort to work out how to achieve this target. 4) Concerning Result 9 (sustainable funding of the RL), there has been generally little progress in achieving many of the targets under this result. It was acknowledged that some targets really could be deleted (e.g., “A Trust Fund for long-term IUCN Red List sustainability established”, “A “Sponsor a Taxon” initiative explored”, and “Opportunities created for personal legacy gifts (in will) for fund-raising for IUCN Red List (tax-deductible bequests)”. In addition, we have made some progress in the last year with many initiatives not actually explicitly stated as targets in the RLSP (eg., the BioPhilia Ball, art fundraisers) so we should not be too hard on ourselves. However, it was pointed out that 1) even though we have been successful at generating revenue through initiatives like the BioPhilia Ball, there has not been a proper assessment of what it cost to generate that income in the first place (through staff time etc); and 2) we are still failing at achieving what the Barometer of Life originally set out to do, namely to lock in a few very high-value ($millions) donors. On the first, it costs money to raise money, but obviously if we are running at even or a loss then this may not be the most sensible investment of time. On the second, what explains how organizations like EoL or GFW succeed in attracting very large sums of money, while we don’t? The general emerging consensus seems to be that 1) our messaging is off-base (far too focused on assessments, and not on how these help change the world – even

dates have to be shifted to 2017-2020). y with Kew, NHM and others)

phrases like “Barometer” are not identified by modern audiences), and 2) our packaging needs work (GFW is attractive because it is modern, visual, slick etc.) On the plus side, there is much more involvement by others in HQ, from the DGO and Strategic Partnerships than before. However, it would be good to think about sub-groups in the RLC focussed on finance and communication, as part of an effort to make joint fund-raising / marketing more of a collective endeavour in the RLC. Can we revitalize the BoL into a newly rebranded, repackaged initiative, involving all the RLPs? 5) For reporting on all other targets, RLC members to provide specific inputs directly to Chair. As regards RLSP 2017-2020: 1) We need to have the updated Strategic Plan in place to inform the Red List Partnership Bilateral MoUs (i.e., Partners will need to explicitly tie their activities to agreed targets in the RLSP). 2) In the revised version of the Strategic Plan need to: - number all the targets in the next version of the Red List Strategic Plan - indicate who is responsible / accountable - avoid multiple activities under individual targets involving different people (should be separate sub-targets) - for Assessments/Reassessments indicate number or approximate number of species involved to give an idea of scale of work to be done 3) The RLC agreed to retain the current 10 Result areas. 4) Process of revision need not be too demanding. Propose having co-leads for each Result working from what is already in place. Taxonomic targets will be set and agreed by the relevant taxonomic Sub-Committees, so besides general coordination of 1-3 it is primarily the revision of Results 4-10.

21.37 With reference to target “National RLIs calculated based on disaggregation of global data, where appropriate”, develop concept note on generating disaggregated RLIs for countries and thereby make this information available via Red List website

SB Concept note developed. Needs discussion around the technical aspects.

21.38 With reference to target “A presence in the peer-review academic literature maintained, and this literature widely disseminated and made available”, check if recent papers (including those using the RLI, but other assessment papers in general) have been included in Publications section on Red List website (http://www.iucnredlist.org/about/publication). All RLC members should check these pages and recommend inclusion of any papers to CHT (also relates to action 21.39)

CHT (and all RLC)

21.39 With reference to “Journal publishers contacted to request open access to papers or material that have relevance to application of the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria or that present results based on Red List data (ongoing)”, make a new approach to Wiley publishing and other journal publishing companies to enquire whether they could make any conservation/red listing papers open access

RJ (via Kevin Smith)

21.40 RLC members interested in serving as co-leads of Result Areas to contact RLC Chair, failing which RLC Chair will appoint co-leads proactively.

All

21.41 Arrange for a small subset of the RLC (PS, MH, LH, JS, JPR, SS + other partners) to have a conversation around re-invigorating a (rebranded?) Barometer of Life campaign to improve messaging and packaging and report back at next meeting

MH

21.42 RLC Chair to put on agenda for future meeting whether it would be useful having a working group focused on Fundraising and / or

MH

Communication

7.2 Income distribution 2015

MH introduced background document to the discussion that provided some context for the following discussion, noting that in 2015 the SSC Chair’s office was allocating ~$400k to support the Red List (although ordinarily it would be half this), including to a mix of projects across taxonomic groups, some to help resolve backlog issues identified at RLC20. In 2015, the estimated funding available to be distributed from licensed and other income is ~$410k, of which $30k is restricted to assessments, $140k to central infrastructure, and ~$240k is unrestricted. However, IBAT funds will only be known in June/July 2015 so any allocations made are provisional. In 2014, the decision was to allocate funding on a 2:1:1 basis to central infrastructure / assessments / reassessments and the proposal is to retain this ratio (for unrestricted monies) for 2015. After some discussion (including whether or not it would be more appropriate to have equal allocation of unrestricted funds, i.e., 1:1:1), this split was retained for 2015. The general rationale was that investing in central costs benefits everyone, we are now at a critical juncture in terms of the need to overhaul the website presence (to allow downloads, queries and access to data that are currently not possible) and to make further amends to SIS (e.g. to enable assessments to be included in other languages), and this is an excellent chance to get ahead of the game. However, it was agreed that this ratio would need to be revisited in 2016. In terms of the allocation of monies within central infrastructure, RJ was tasked with developing a formal proposal for how income would be spent, based on the same basis as in 2014, noting that this should explicitly include 1) further developing SIS to ensure that assessments in different languages can be imported into the database; and 2) scoping out and initiating the redesign and repositioning of the Red List website/SIS interfaces (including a user needs assessment). It was noted that the allocation of restricted funding from the Biophilia Ball was specifically intended to be spent on the website / SIS. In terms of allocation of monies to assessments, there was general

21.43 GSP to develop a proposal indicating how all allocated funds (including both restricted and unrestricted funding) will be allocated to central infrastructure. This proposal should include the issues of 1) further developments of SIS to ensure that assessments in different languages can be imported into the database; and 2) scoping out the redesign and repositioning of the Red List website interfaces (including a user needs assessment) with a full budget.

RJ (with CHT, AJ, JS)

support for the allocations suggested in the background document. Two discussions arose: 1) The degree to which we could directly support national red listing processes. In 2014, we indirectly were able to support this (through development of the data uploader) which has tremendous value in helping bring in assessments of country endemics. However, otherwise supporting national assessments directly is difficult to justify unless it very explicitly involved getting large numbers of endemics into the global list (where these endemics fully comply with IUCN documentation standards and the IUCN categories and criteria). Otherwise, because the income generated is mainly from globally assessed groups, and because there are no explicit country-based national RLs in the RLSP (because the RLC cannot have oversight of these), it would be quite difficult to justify. 2) The need to support marine fishes might need revisiting given what has been noted about the significant backlog. Since $10,000 ear-marked for resolving plant backlog may now not be needed, these monies could be combined with the 5k remaining balance, to lend some support to marine fishes (precisely how this would be invested to be agreed). Finally, the proposed allocation of monies to reassessments was supported. However, BirdLife asked that it be noted that while they could accept the allocation this year, the discrepancy between the very large proportion of the licensed funding that is generated by the existing large global datasets and the very small proportion of this that is returned to support them puts the BirdLife secretariat in a difficult position with BirdLife Partners (who ask why income is not proportional to number of species in the dataset). This was acknowledged by all as a challenging issue, and led to a formal word of thanks to BirdLife for effectively helping make it possible to achieve non-bird targets in the RLSP.

21.44 Agree a formal allocation of funding to support marine fishes assessment work

MH, SS

21.45 Review the 2:1:1 allocation ratio in 2016 as part of 2016 income distribution discussions

7.3 A taxonomic policy for The IUCN Red List

MH introduced the need for some consistency in dealing with taxonomic issues on The IUCN Red List. The policy was not intended to be prescriptive about what species concept to follow. It was more about getting Red List Authorities to take on responsibility for deciding what taxonomy they want to follow and what evidence they should use for accepting changes to taxonomy or additions of new species. The discussion was carried on in a break-out group facilitated by CHT. The group agreed that a Taxonomic Guidelines document should be drafted (i.e. not a policy). The Guidelines will cover the need to document what taxonomic source is being followed for all species on the RL, what evidence and procedures are used by RLAs for accepting new species descriptions and taxonomic changes. The Guidelines would recommend types of evidence that should be considered and how to handle conflicting evidence. The Guidelines will also address issues of overlapping taxonomic jurisdictions and handling taxonomic disputes.

21.46 Prioritize development of taxonomic guidelines for Red List Authorities, RLA Coordinators, assessors, and others, on conditions for making taxonomic changes. Consult with RLC, and include final document as annex in Rules of Procedure.

CHT (with PPvD and DM)

21.47 Circulate guidelines on making taxonomic changes (developed by the Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle SG) to the entire RLC

PPvD Done. See email from PPvD on 23 April 2015.

7.4 Conflict of Interest Protocol

TB introduced the need for the development of a Conflict of Interest protocol for the Red List, and the discussion was subsequently taken in a break-out group. The group essentially agreed that it made sense to draft a COI policy drawing on IPCC and IBPES COI policies & covering purpose, operation, plaintiff mechanism & principles for identifying COI. Other points included:

Specify a few broad types of COI with examples. Illustrate difference btwn COI & bias.

Timing – how far back must COIs be declared; establish as ongoing with onus on people to update if COIs arise in future (& 5-yearly refresher)

Mechanism – online form in SIS when logins first used + proactive declarations required for all staff, cttes etc (who may

21.48 Move ahead with developing a draft CoI policy, procedure and disclosure form, and circulate to wider RLC for approval once developed.

TB (with CHT, MH, RJ, SB, SS and RJ)

Draft of CoI policy already developed, and being commented on by SB, MH, RJ, BY, CHT and SS)

not login to SIS) + use standalone form for all attendees at assessment workshops etc

Accept all potential COIs relating to NGO/museum employment etc

Declared potential financial & commercial COIs are handled by RLU & reviewed by RLA, RLP, Sec’t, or RLU as appropriate

Need to decide whether confirmed financial & commercial COI would preclude being an assessor. Always would preclude being a reviewer & RLA coordinator.

Financial COI – don’t set any minimum amount

Plaintiff mechanism by which anyone who suspects a COI (in an assessment or governance mechanism) can request this to be reviewed Need to check Data Protection Act and confidentiality issues (legal & IT implications)

7.5 The IUCN Red List and the Aichi Targets

Discussion on achievement of Target 12 where several ideas for improving the throughput of national red lists assessments were presented. Braulio Dias (SCBD) outlined possible ways that the CBD Secretariat could assist IUCN with progress towards Target 12, through guidance to CBD Parties. Similar guidance has shared with Parties in order to enhance the achievement of Aichi Targets, 3, 10 and 11, where IUCN and its members provided content for information documents especially on delivery of Target 11.

21.49 Produce a document to help support countries’ efforts in contributing to the achievement of Target 12 by demonstrating concrete steps that could be taken (tentatively titled “Modalities and Milestones for Target 12”) to take to SBSTTA19 (noting the imminent, June 22nd, deadline)

JS, NA (with others)

21.50 Circulate to the RLC the CBD document “Modalities and milestones for the full operationalization of Aichi biodiversity target 3, …” which is the proposed model for the Target 12 document.

JS Done. See email from JS sent 02 May 2015.

8. Red List Partner Updates

8.1 Conservation International

NC provided an update of activities of the Biodiversity Assessment Unit (BAU), set up 14 years ago jointly between CI and IUCN to assess species for the Red List. Currently work on Caribbean fish, reptiles, freshwater species and plan to work on

useful plants and pollinators. PPvD provided an update on freshwater turtle and tortoise assessments, which are aimed for completion by the SSC Leaders’ Meeting.

9. Other Business

9.1 ICCB meeting, Montpelier

Meeting takes place early August. There is a two-day training course at the end of the meeting. Also some Red List-related presentations in different sessions, including on conservation impact. The RLC heard advance news that, at the start of the meeting, the Red List Committee (presumably as representative of the Red List of Threatened Species, as the award recognizes “individuals, groups or institutions”) will be awarded an SCB Distinguished Service Award, a most prestigious honour by this Society.

9.2 World Conservation Congress 2016

WCC is set for Hawaii in early September 2016. As with past meetings (Jeju excluded), the RLC needs to decide whether we wish to produce a flagship product for the event (note that this is also a target under Result 7 of the RLSP). Possible ideas discussed include: i) a scientific paper that perhaps uses existing stories or data and repackages them into something to tell a different story (the example given here was the planetary boundaries paper that changed little in the years between which it was first promulgated and subsequently re-published); ii) something for policy audiences that highlights how Red List data are being used to inform conservation policy (essentially a distillation of Result 7 of the RLSP); iii) a phone / tablet-based app that provides support to countries focused around accessing data of relevance to CBD / Aichi; and iv) something niche (perhaps a summary of state of knowledge, trends, pressures etc.) specifically focused on Hawaii In addition, there may be value in submitting a new motion (since the current motion 017 will have been fully implemented), but perhaps focused more around uptake and influence than on the RL itself (which is how previous motions have been structured).

21.51 The discussion around a possible product for WCC to be discussed further by a subset of folks and returned to the RLC for further discussion (mindful of timelines involved – now only 15 months away)

MH, SS, JS

21.52 Bring back to virtual meeting the option to submit a motion for the next WCC focused

MH

around achievement of Result 7 of the Red List (i.e, promoting uptake of the RL in various decision-making contexts)

9.3 SSC Chairs’ Leaders Meeting

The SSC Leaders’ Meeting will take place in Abu Dhabi in September, through support of the Environment Agency of Abu Dhabi. Agenda being developed based on feedback from last time (likely changes include shortening the work day, less time in plenaries, and discouraging power-points), but will include opportunities for workshops, consultations etc. Red List related events likely to be included on the agenda include: 1) workshops on real-world application of the IUCN Red List categories criteria; using the Species Information Service; undertaking assessments at sub-global level (national, regional, sub-population); and production of RLIs; 2) consultations on guidelines on use and trade of species threatened by extinction; and the Red List and Traditional Knowledge; and 3) a plenary session looking at 50 years of the IUCN Red List and a look to the future. RLC will be invited to contribute to developing the agenda in the near future.

10. Next Meeting

10.1 AOB TB drew the RLC’s attention to display of RL data on OneZoom (http://www.onezoom.org/) and interest for similar display from TimeTree (http://www.timetree.org/). TB also noted that many of the IPBES processes are now reaching the review stage (e.g., Scenarios & Modelling, Pollinators, Policy Support); thanked RA and CR, who both serve as Coordinating Lead Authors for the Scenarios & Modelling assessment, for their efforts to ensure that the RL is appropriately reflected in this assessment; but noted with concern that the RL and other existing assessments are not currently very well reflected in many other IPBES processes

21.53 Follow up with James Rosindell (OneZoom) and Blair Hedges (TimeTree) to invite them to consume the RL API and ensure adherence to the RL Terms of Use

CHT

21.54 RLC members and colleagues to engage as possible into all the IPBES review processes, to ensure appropriate reflection of the RL throughout. TB to circulate IPBES review calls to RLC as and when they come in

All (as possible), TB (circulate calls)

10. 2 Date and venue MH asked for feedback on structure of RLC meetings. Key considerations for next time include: 1) minimizing reporting to focus sessions on actual decisions needed and less on updates; 2) more use of break-out groups; 3) need to be sure not to short-change some topics (e.g., would have been helpful to have had a brainstorm on the SSC Leaders’ meeting, but time ran out); and 4) reviewing the Strategic Plan could be done in a more focussed manner. RLC Members were invited to send any other feedback on the RLC meetings to Chair. Next meeting (the final of the quadrennium) is likely to be around same time in 2016 (April / May) and probably in the new Cambridge Conservation Campus (David Attenborough building), which will be the new home of IUCN and BirdLife International.