The IUCN- World Conservation Union and its “Red List of Threatened Species” command nearly universal respect as the “gold standard” of scientific opinion on the world’s animals and plants flirting with extinction. Now one of its own has called in question the credibility of the Red List and the scientific methodology upon which its decisions are based.

That criticism is contained in the newly released report, “Predicting Extinction: Fundamental Flaws in IUCN’s Red List System, Exemplified by the Case of Sea Turtles,” by Dr. Nicholas Mrosovsky. The Mrosovsky report is an important read for yet another reason. It proves a launch pad for a key, if unintended, insight into a major problem within the community of environmental advocates.

Dr. Mrosovsky is not some disgruntled outside wannabe tossing pebbles at a rock-solid institution. He is very much part of the IUCN community of world-renowned scholars who helped construct the Red List and IUCN’s reputation as a bastion of environmental scientific data.

Precisely why Dr. Mrosovsky’s critique of the Red List program is relevant to individuals, cultures and industries dependent upon natural resources is contained in his terse statement that the IUCN listings of threatened species “carry weight.” That “weight” equates to the role the listing categories play with governments, scientists, journalists, international regulatory agencies, the public, and, increasingly court decisions in shaping policies that affect commerce, resource management, economic development, individual livelihoods, cultural traditions and the species themselves.

Cash-strapped African nations seeking to trade stocks of ivory acquired from the corpses of elephants who died of natural causes as well as tusks confiscated from poachers understand that weight as year after year attempts to seek legal commerce in that limited but lucrative resource are quashed by environmental groups citing the Red List and the numerous other international and national “endangered species” lists derived from it.

Global traders in seafood, agriculture, precious minerals, energy, forestry, and biotechnology are more and more getting to know the effects of that weight too. Fisheries, fish farms and other resource-reliant commercial enterprises are being fined or face being shut down by court or trade-inhibiting regulatory decisions alleging increased threats to endangered species.

Arguably, the public perception of the IUCN Red List is that it is the world’s most definitive reference source for scientific opinion on threatened species. That perception of the List as a repository of sound science is the basis for its being cited in a host of judicial, legislative, and regulatory decisions regarding preservation of the environment and trade in natural resources.

In all fairness, IUCN is the first to acknowledge the deficiencies inherent in its present system. IUCN recognizes that its Red List is hardly immutable. The List, its criteria for including a species, the categories it uses and the placement of species within those categories are constantly changing. In many ways it is a work in progress albeit one four decades in the making.

Similarly scientists participating in the collection and evaluation of data clearly recognize the fallibility inherent in such an ever-changing document. To them, Dr. Mrosovsky’s critique is nothing new. The shock effect of the report lies in his going public with that information. Most, for a variety of reasons, choose to remain mum concerning the List’s problems. That veil of silence underscores the dilemma pitting sound environmental science against the vast corpus of advocacy campaigns whose impetus depends upon status quo of species currently on the List.

As Dr. Mrosovsky points out “the deficiencies of the IUCN Red Lists are not generally known.” By “generally,” he means publicly. Guarding the Red List’s credibility with the public is important. Any erosion of that credibility undermines the credibility of IUCN, which, in turn, threatens the public’s faith that the foundation of the environmental preservation movement rests on sound science.

On the other hand, if, as Dr. Mrosovsky alleges, key species now listed as endangered or critically endangered should be removed from the list, the ability of numerous advocacy groups to sustain very lucrative “save the species” campaigns would be undermined. Literally hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake. A close read of the Mrosovsky Report presents a strong case that the state of the environmental advocacy community as it now exists could be radically changed if Mrosovsky’s criticisms are accepted and the Red List is revised.

Dr. Mrosovsky’s use of marine turtles and other species to illustrate his point that the IUCN listings are filled with inconsistencies and questionable scientific decision-making are, in a word, startling.

Six of the world’s seven species of sea turtles are listed as “Critically Endangered” or “Endangered” in the 2000 Red List and have been throughout the evolution of the current Red List categories. The Mrosovsky Report details the complex and confusing mutation of the current listing categories and the criteria for each presently used by the Red List. They are Extinct (EX), Extinct in the Wild (EW), Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Near Threatened (NT), Least Concern (LC), Data Deficient (DD), and Not Evaluated (NE).

The Mrosovsky paper presents the logic disconnect that places Australia’s Western swamp turtle with a global population of less than 100 in the same endangered category as the green sea turtle estimated to have at least 100,000 mature females and an unknown number of mature males and juveniles swimming about the Earth’s oceans. The southern bluefin tuna made the Critically Endangered category in 1996 with its numbers approaching the one million mark. And the olive ridley sea turtle was declared endangered despite nesting reports of 250,000 on a beach in India and a 1994 estimate of more than 600,000 nests on a single Mexican beach.

He details the inexplicable decision by the IUCN Marine Turtle Specialist Group taking the Critically Endangered “status of the most imperiled population of hawksbills and applying this to the entire species.” He juxtaposes that action with the decision of the Crocodile Specialist Group (CSG) that recommended the lowest categories for saltwater crocodiles that also have vastly depleted populations in specific areas of its habitat but a global population of 200,000 - 300,000.

Dr. Mrosovsky equated the decision to list the hawksbill sea turtles in the highest threat category to a hypothetical listing of mosquitoes and rats as “Critically Endangered” if regional populations were “reduced to a remnant.”

Admittedly the self-appointed mission of the IUCN list is Herculean. It entails determining the conservation status of 56,586 identified marine and terrestrial vertebrates, 1,190,200 invertebrates, 287,655 plants and 10,000 lichens, a daunting venture to say the least. To date, the Red List legion of volunteer scientists and species experts who are members of individual species specialist groups has managed to evaluate 30 percent of vertebrates (with 6 percent categorized as threatened), 0.28 percent of invertebrates (0.2 percent threatened), 3.3 percent of plants (2 percent threatened), and 0.02 percent of lichens (0.02 percent as threatened). So statistically there is plenty of latitude within the process for good judgment as well as faulty decision-making.

Lest Dr. Mrosovsky be dismissed as a non-credentialed iconoclast, his expertise giving his critique “weight” should be noted.

Dr. Nicholas Mrosovsky is a former co-chairman of the IUCN Marine Turtle Specialist Group (1976-1979). He is an Emeritus Professor with the University of Toronto’s Department of Zoology and a current MTSG member. He authored numerous articles on sea turtles, founded the Marine Turtle Newsletter, and is on the editorial review board of the international journal of turtle and tortoise research, “Chelonian Conservation and Biology.” He’s also a world authority on biological rhythms and was a member of the research team that discovered the night/day cycle receptor cells in the eye.

The origin of his critique is concern for the credibility of IUCN, respect for literally ten thousand colleagues who are members of the various IUCN specie specialist groups, a genuine desire to see that the Red List is a truly useful tool for the conservation of threatened species, and preservation of IUCN’s reputation as a credible source of scientific knowledge on the status of the world’s plants, animals, insects, and lichens.

At its October 5, 1948 debut, IUCN was known by the unwieldy title of the International Union for the Protection of Nature (IUPN). Its title changed in 1956 to the even more awkward International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). By 1990, IUCN trimmed its title to IUCN-The World Conservation Union. Over the years, IUCN has grown into an organization of impressive proportions. Today, IUCN has an annual income of $62.5 million, a membership of 1000 nations (140), government agencies (100), and non-government organizations (more than 750). Some 10,000 scientists and experts participate in its volunteer research corps.

From its earliest days IUCN immersed itself in its scientific chores. Raising funds was seen as inappropriate for scientists. So in 1961 the organization’s founding network of big game hunters, dignitaries and conservation luminaries created a sister organization to handle fundraising: the World-Wide Fund for Nature/World Wildlife Fund (WWF). That relationship lasted until the mid 1980s.

Claiming five million members globally, WWF still contributes to IUCN but the bulk of its $329 million annual income is now focused on programs of its own network of some 51 national and regional affiliate offices. WWF-US brings in $117.8 million alone.

Over the years, a community of animal rights and environmental organizations mushroomed across the global landscape. The competition among conservation groups for individual, corporate, and foundation funding often creates a perplexing situation. Scientific research and other conservation programs cannot exist without funds. The most successful fundraising campaigns were driven by the public’s desire to “save” flagship species such as whales, elephants and tigers. Writing a check or mailing a fistful of dollars was a convenient way of alleviating guilt by consumers too busy to pitch in to save a species by sweat equity. As long as the public perceived a favorite species as threatened with extinction the dollars flowed.

As happens in the multi-million dollar world of environmental fundraising, extinction sells. Success stories where a threatened species returns to non-endangered status have little or no appeal for donors. Campaigns aimed at changing laws or halting perceived threats to species by commercial interests wither without an “endangered” species. In many cases, fundraising rhetoric that created a perception in the public that a species was teetering on the brink of oblivion overwhelmed scientific fact that millions of whales swim in the sea or hundreds of thousands of elephants daily trample and eat poor African’s crops. Perceptions sell, reality doesn’t. The more creative the copy writers are in painting an emotion-wringing albeit totally perceived threat to a targeted species, the looser donor purse strings become. Surplus numbers of elephants, whales, sea turtles or baby seals don’t make headlines or get donor checks signed.

The danger inherent in such a system is a principle that is as old as Socrates’ evaluation of the various forms of government. The ancient philosopher and his star student, the broad-shouldered Plato, firmly held that as citizens grow richer, they tend to think less of virtue and honor more the rich and riches. Substitute the word “institutions” for “citizens” and an uneasy portrait of the real motivation behind many animal and environmental organizations begins to emerge. Such a scenario also helps explain the importance to some, that the IUCN Red List continue to err in favor of listing more species as endangered than correctly down-listing those with sustainable and abundant numbers.

IUCN is caught between two arguably problematic situations. Its traditional fundraising arm split off to become something of an independent IUCN look-alike. As a result, IUCN to a degree became dependent upon handouts from WWF and other institutions. Many of those donor groups rely upon IUCN’s Red List to create emotion-evoking scenarios that translate into successful fundraising campaigns. As noted, the more threatened species, the more certain needed annual funding will be forthcoming, according to traditional professional fundraiser wisdom. That is not to say that IUCN knowingly condones, encourages, or participates in the listing inconsistencies noted by Dr. Mrosovsky.

The Red List deficiencies noted in the Mrosovsky Report are not intended to cast a shadow over the appropriateness of each of the species listed. Nor would Dr. Mrosovsky deny that the environment and many of its species are enduring severe problems and are desperate for help. His plea is for a redoubling of IUCN resolve to bring the reality of its institutional credibility related to the Red List closer to the public’s perceptions. One of Dr. Mrosovsky’s recommendations aimed at bringing consistency to the corpus of Red List work is that IUCN distance itself from the current dependence upon volunteer research. His point is “you get what you pay for.”

With environmental groups like WWF hauling in more than a third of a billion dollars each year and animal rights groups like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to mention but two bringing in $100 million and $50 million respectively, potential funding sources for sound conservation science abound.

Unfortunately, the bulk of monies donated to save endangered species, whether that threat is real or perceived, is diverted to campaigns that are more motivated by politics, the desire to raise even more funds, and anti-globalism/anti-trade ideologies that have little to do with preserving the equilibrium of nature. As Dr. Mrosovsky states, contrary to the allegations made by many NGOs, trade is not inherently in conflict with conservation. In fact, regulated trade in even endangered species can provide the missing incentive for conservation as economic stability replaces poverty in a species’ rangeland. That is one side of the abiding principles behind the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Unfortunately, even the most casual suggestion that trade in commodities such as ivory, fur, tortoise shell and meat, tropical timber, seafood and more draws the wrath of advocacy groups whose objections are often exposed as lacking substance when examined under the light of sound science.

Groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth collect millions of contributed dollars for their campaigns. Some are aimed at marine issues. Some claim agricultural biotechnology threatens wild fauna and flora. Others are aimed at undermining the sovereignty of cultures bound through history to the sustainable use of nature’s resources. Their agenda is not served by scientists lacking an “animal rights” bias who produce evidence that the condition of the elephants, sea turtles, swordfish, giant tunas, and other plants and animals of the world might not be as threatened as many advocacy groups claim.

A compelling argument can be made that threatens to the perceptions upon which multi-million dollar environmental fiefdoms are built may well find the author’s professional reputation and career in jeopardy. Tens and hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake in fundraising ventures and campaigns driven by the marriage of public perceptions and faulty science. Fear of real or imagined retaliation may account for the reticence of more scientists to second Dr. Mrosovsky’s plea for better science associated with the Red List. If such a retaliatory scenario proves real, Dr. Mrosovsky may well have put his reputation and career in a “threatened” category. Nevertheless that is a risk the good doctor has chosen to endure with the publication of his opinion.

The most compelling argument for the world to pay attention to Dr. Mrosovsky and the corrective action he urges is the vital goal of preserving the scientific and public confidence of IUCN and its work. If the credibility of IUCN and the Red List plummets, public confidence in and support for virtually the entire conservation community will be irreparably diminished.

Dr. Nicholas Mrosovsky’s report, “Predicting Extinction: Fundamental Flaws In IUCN’s Red List System, Exemplified By the Case of Sea Turtles,” can be found at http://members.seaturtle.org/mrosovsky/