Browse > Article

Critiques of 'The Endangered and Protected Wild Species List in Korea' Proposed by Korea Ministry of Environment and Listing Process - Is This the Best Process for the Current National Management of Endangered Wildlife and Plants in Korea? -  

Kim, Hui (Department of Medicinal Plants Resources, Mokpo National University)
Lee, Byong Cheon (Korea National Arboretum)
Kim, Yong Shik (Department of Landscape, Yeong Nam University)
Chang, Chin-Sung (Department of Forest Sciences and The Arboretum, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science / v.101, no.1, 2012 , pp. 7-19 More about this Journal
Abstract
After having announced legislation for threatened or endangered species on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants in 2005, the Korea Ministry of Environment proposed (in June 2011) amending the list, thereby delisting or reclassifying endangered species using new quantitative criteria for two levels (I and II), as well as status reviews. The new legislation included 40 species remained in their original endangered status, but 19 species were delisted, 5 species were proposed as candidates for delisting, 29 species were given a new endangered listing, and 3 species were proposed for an endangered listing in Korea. We assessed the threatened status of 98 plants using the IUCN Red List Criteria (version 3.1) at the global level, and compared the Ministry's revised criteria with the IUCN Red List Criteria and ESA criteria used in the USA. Most species proposed by the Ministry do not qualify as threatened and one of the major difficulties found in applying IUCN Red List Criteria at the global scale was a lack of knowledge on the status of species at broader geographic scales and the perceived difficulty this causes. Under the current classification process, many endangered species, such as Abeliophyllum distichum, Leontice microrhyncha, Echinosophora koreensis, Leontopodium coreanum, Iris odaesanensis, and Corylopsis coreana at global level were excluded here. Knowledge gaps and uncertainties mean that the number of taxa at high risk of extinction may be substantially greater than is currently understood. Due to a lack of information on its taxonomic status, currently there is controversy over the Red List status of Physocarpus insularis. Also, Caragana koreana, which was an invalidly published name, should be excluded here. Although the Korea Ministry of Environment insisted this procedure was conducted by applying the modified IUCN threat categories and definitions, this evaluation has been carried out based only on subjective views and misapplication of the IUCN Red List Criteria. The current listings by the Korea Ministry of Environment should be challenged. We suggest that broad species concepts on endemic species are applied and also criteria that adequately address the proper quantitative knowledge should be used. It is suggested that the highest priorities for the Red List should be given to endemic species at least in the Korean peninsula first at global scale.
Keywords
endangered threat; The National Endangered Act for Wildlife and Plants; Korea Ministry of Environment; IUCN Red List; Listing process;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Applied Biomathmetics. 2005. $RAMAS^{(R)}$ Red List ver. 2.0. http://www.ramas.com.
2 Chang, C.S., Kim, H. and Kim, Y.S. 2001. Reconsideration of rare and endangered plant species in Korea based on the IUCN Red List Categories. Korean Journal of Plant Taxonomy 31(2): 107-142 (in Korean).
3 Chang, C.S., Lee, H.S., Park, T.Y. and Kim, H. 2005. Reconsideration of rare and endangered plant species in Korea based on the IUCN Red List Categories - Evaluation on the endangered plant list of the Ministry of Environment, Korea - Korean Journal of Ecology 28(5): 305-320 (in Korean).
4 Cheffings, C.M., Farrell, L. (Eds.), Dines, T.D., Jones, R.A., Leach, S.J., McKean, D.R., Pearman, D.A., Preston, C.D., Rumsey, F.J. and Taylor, I. 2005. The Vascular Plant Red Data List for Great Britain. Species status 7: 1-116. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
5 Environment Agency of Japan. 2000. Threatened Wildlife of Japan -Red Data Book 2nd ed.- Vol. 8. Vascular Plants. Japan Wildlife Research Center, Tokyo. pp. 664. (in Japanese).
6 Gibbs, D. and Chen, Y. 2009. The Red List of Maples. Botanic Gardens Conservation International. UK. pp. 41.
7 IUCN. 2001a. IUCN Red List criteria review provisional report. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc.
8 IUCN. 2001b. IUCN Red List Categories: Version 3.1. Prepared by the IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. http:// www.iucn.org/themes/ssc
9 IUCN. 2003. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels: Version 3.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. p.
10 IUCN. 2005. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. pp.
11 Kim, C.H, Kim, T.J. and Sun. B.Y. 2000. Taxonomic identities of some endemic Korean vascular plants. Korean Journal of Plant Taxonomy 30(4): 355-361 (in Korean).
12 Kim, Y.H. (Organizer). 2011. The first projects report on preservation and recovery strategies of rare and endangered plant species. Korea National Arboretum, Gyeonggi-do, Korea. pp. 546 (in Korean).
13 Lee, B.C. 2009. Rare Plants Data Book in Korea. Korea National Arboretum, Geobook Comp. Seoul, Korea. pp. 332 (in Korean).
14 Ministry of Environment 2011a. Release copy of "New process of Endangered species conservation - candidate species conservation". Natural Resources Bureau, Gwachon, Korea. (in Korean).
15 Ministry of Environment 2011b. A public release of "New process of Endangered species conservation - public hearing". Natural Resources Bureau, Gwachon, Korea (in Korean).
16 Ministry of Environment 2005. Portraits of endangered Species of wild Animals and plants In Korea. Natural Resources Bureau, Gwachon, Korea. pp. 247 (in Korean).
17 Oh, S.H., Chen, L., Kim, S.H., Kim, Y.D. and Shin, H.C. 2010. Phylogenetic Relationship of Physocarpus insularis (Rosaceae) Endemic on Ulleung Island: Implications for Conservation Biology. Journal of Plant Biology 53: 94-105   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Oldfield, S. and Eastwood, A. 2007. The Red List of Oakes. Botanic Gardens Conservation International. UK. pp. 32.
19 Regan, T.J., Burgman, M.A., McCarthy, M.A., Master, L. L., Keith, D.A., Mace, G.M. and Andelman, S.J. 2005. The consistency of extinction risk classification protocols. Conservation Biology 19(6): 1969-1977.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Shin, H.C. 2011. Endangered species listing criteria making and Red List publishing. Soonchunyang Univ. Cheonan, Korea. pp. 217 (in Korean).
21 Son, K.-N. (Chief editor). 2005. Red Data Book of DPR Korea (Plant). MAB National Committee of DPR Korea. Minchuchosensa. Pyongyang, DPR Korea. pp. 177.
22 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1983. Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines. Federal Register 48: 43098.
23 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1991. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered Status for the Plant Echinacea laevlgata (Smooth Coneflower) Federal Register 60: 64229-64233.
24 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009. 5-Year Review Pygmy fringe-tree (Chionanthus pygmaeus). South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, Vero Beach, Florida, USA. pp. 29.
25 Wang, S. and Xie, Y. (eds). 2004. China Species Red List. Higher Education List. pp. 692.