1. The 2010 Red List of Finnish species: the assessment work in practice Ilpo Mannerkoski Finnish Environment Institute Syktyvkar 29.9.-4.10.2014

2. Contents IUCN-categories Criteria National applications Work in practice Documentation Data Problems

3. Mannerkoski, I., Ryttäri, T. (toim.) 2007. Eliölajien uhanalaisuuden arviointi: maailman luonnonsuojeluliiton (IUCN) ohjeet. Helsinki, Suomen ympäristökeskus. 143 s. Ympäristöopas. Guidebook for red-listing of organisms in Finland – the IUCN Guidelines In Finnish, contains also the original text of IUCN 2001, 2003 Finnish manual for the assessment

4. IUCN categories

5. A – Population reduction B – Geographic range, fragmentation, continuing decline, fluctuations C – Small population size, continuing decline, population structure, fluctuations D – Very small or restricted population E – Quantitative analysis Only one criteria needs to be met; only the criteria for the highest category met should be listed CR A2cd; B2ab(i,ii,iii); C2a(i) Criteria

7. Changes in criteria after year 2000 A two new subcriteria, changed limit values B one new level of hierarchy C minor changes D, no national application of D2 used No changes in criteria after 2010

8. A1 A2 A3 A4 10 yrs/3 generations New time windows in Criteria A Today If the causes behind the decline are reversible AND known AND have ceased. Old A1 Old A2 90%, 70%, 50% 80%, 50%, 30% New time windows and reduction percentages in Criteria A

9. National applications Habitat (primary and other habitats) Causes of threat Threat factors Proposal for the threatened species list in Nature Conservation Degree Sub-regional assessment

10. Work was done in expert groups (14): gathering of data documentation assessment in the steering group manual and extra guidance inspection of the documentation and lists Vascular plants Lichens Beetles Bryophytes Lepidoptera Hemiptera Hymenoptera Diptera Fungi Aquatic insects Molluscs Arachnida Birds Mammals Fishes

11. Documentation Things required by IUCN Some national additions Distribution Habitat (primary and other habitats) Causes of threat Threat factors Comment fields on occurrence, habitats, etc. relevant for the assessment Regional status (RT) (not all species groups)

12. Documentation Nomenclature, taxonomy Status in Finland: breeding, occasional Extent of occurrence Extent of occupancy Distribution in forest vegetation zones Habitat: primary, other Length of generation Observation period Population size Reduction of the population during the observation period Fluctuations Fragmentation Effect of populations outside Finland Causes of threat Threat factors Application of criteria (all criteria met) IUCN category 2000 Criteria 2000 IUCN category 2010 Criteria 2010 Reason for category change Range of uncertainty Reliability of the assessment Global IUCN-category Probably extinct Latest observation

13. Examples of habitat classification and causes of threat

14. Checklists maintained mostly by expert groups Databases maintained by expert groups Databases maintained by authorities and museums Published data Assessment of threatened habitat types in Finland (published 2008) included 368 habitat types and supported the assessment of species Data used in assessment

15. Research programme of deficiently known and threatened forest species 2003- 2007 (PUTTE) books and other publications Data: research, books

16. Threatened species database (part of Environmental Information System HERTTA ), 118 000 observation sites Databases of Finnish Museum of Natural History (Hatikka, Kastikka, Bird Atlas, Plant Atlas) Tiira (BirdfLife), birds 3 670 000 observations (now 11,5 million) Databases of expert groups (Hemiptera 160 000, Coleoptera > 600 000, etc.) Insect Database (Lepidoptera 900 000, Diptera 87 000) Monitoring databases for butterflies and moths Data, databases

17. white 1999 Data: distribution maps

18. Problems Shortage of information Complexity of the criteria Keeping the schedule Shortage of resources High proportion of volunteer work High number of assessors (eg. different views in interpretation of data, collaboration) Laborious documentation in species-rich groups Last minute corrections etc. No common database for observation data

19. Thank you!