Sir

In a recent Commentary article (Nature 389, 436; 1997), Nicholas Mrosovsky highlighted the continuing work within the Species Survival Commission's volunteer network to improve the transparency of the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) Red List by compiling documentation detailing the scientific justifications for the 5,000-plus listings in the latest volume.

As a member of the Species Survival Commission (SSC), Mrosovsky is well aware that it is our intention to make the documentation substantiating the inclusion of a species in the Red List publicly available as soon as possible. It is our hope that this enormous task will soon be completed and posted on the evolving Red List Internet website. However, as the SSC is a network of volunteers who donate their time and effort, sometimes such initiatives take longer to accomplish than its more enthusiastic members would prefer.

We recognize that there is a great deal of interest in the documentation for listings such as Eretmochelys imbricata(the hawksbill sea turtle). We do not believe that E. imbricata belongs in the “data deficient” category, and plan to make available very soon the documentation supporting the current listing.

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals, soon to be joined by the Red List of Threatened Plants, has been a respected standard reference for many years, and we plan to keep it so for many years to come.

Sir — Mrosovsky has expressed concern about the credibility of IUCN. But is the IUCN as a whole really to blame?

The IUCN assessment of the Cuban hawksbill turtle proposal at the tenth Conference of Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) was based largely on information provided by selected members of the voluntary IUCN-SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group (MTSG). (From 1982 to 1990 I was secretary general of CITES.) When MTSG members at that conference were given the opportunity to discuss their concerns publicly with the Cuban delegation, the group demonstrated a superficial understanding of the proposal, the scientific analyses upon which it was based and even the IUCN principles about sustainable use with which the proposal complies. Group members showed little interest in resolving problems with Cuba, and were clearly committed to advocacy against Cuba.

Why the MTSG should have adopted such a strong advocacy position against Cuba is unknown. The information provided for the IUCN assessment came mainly from US members of the MTSG, and the United States has a vested interest in Cuba being isolated economically. Perhaps the controversial issue of turtle excluder devices in the US shrimping industry makes it politically difficult to admit that some sea turtle species are not ‘endangered’. The MTSG has been slow to adopt the concepts and philosophies of sustainable use, despite their increasing acceptance by other SSC specialist groups and by the IUCN itself.

Nevertheless, as Mrosovsky states, IUCN credibility with CITES has been adversely affected by the antics of the MTSG. More effective ways of filtering philosophical and political biases will need to be found if the IUCN assessments are to be treated seriously and with respect.