Sir

Although Rodríguez et al. are correct that nationally endemic taxa should be classified identically on national and global Red Lists1, they provide no evidence to support their inferences that national Red Lists “are more accurate” than global Red Lists, or that global lists ignore a “wealth of local data”. Moreover, we see certain problems with the national Red Lists they analyse which suggest these inferences may be mistaken.

Only nine of the 70 different assessments tabulated by Rodríguez et al. are due to different information about species. Thirty-two result from differences between IUCN assessors and the national assessors over the choices of taxa for consideration — especially taxa from groups such as reptiles, amphibians, bony fishes and invertebrates, which IUCN has only partially considered2 — and the inclusion of sub-species, which have not been a major focus of the IUCN Red List. Seven species were listed as Data Deficient on the national lists, whereas for the global list the same information was considered adequate to place them in a threatened category. Of particular concern are the cases resulting from inconsistent use in the national lists of the IUCN Red List Criteria3 (see Table 1).

Table 1 Reasons for disparities between threatened endemic animal taxa (Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable) on the IUCN global Red List and on national Red Lists
Full size table

Many of these inconsistencies are compounded by national Red List assessments not making their use of the Red List Criteria explicit for each taxon, as required3, and/or failing to provide supporting information (despite the claim that national Red Lists utilize a “wealth of local data”, the Argentine4 and Ecuador5 lists contain no supporting data whatsoever).

At present IUCN recommends that experts making assessments for the global Red List should consult national authorities in reaching a decision. IUCN would like to move rapidly towards a situation where the national assessments could be used without any intermediate steps to ensure standardization of approaches. To this end IUCN has established two key initiatives.

First, to improve information flow and quality, IUCN is appointing Red List Authorities (RLAs) who will ensure that all assessments are done in a fully consultative manner and are well documented and peer reviewed (a model established by BirdLife International6,7). The RLAs will have access to shared databases of species information that will be based in part on interactive web technologies (see http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/programs/sis.htm ).

Second, IUCN aims to improve consistency in the use of the Red List Criteria. It is running a series of regional Red List workshops around the world: the first, held in Sri Lanka in September 1999, involved participants from 12 Asian countries. Other workshops are planned for Mesoamerica, South America, southern Africa and east Africa. IUCN is also recommending and distributing standard computer software8 that takes assessors systematically through the categorization process. Progress in all this is constrained only by resources.