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? -

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.