Assessing recovery and conservation of Australian freshwater fishes with the IUCN Green Status of Species and structured expert elicitation

Abstract The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Green Status of Species (GSS), introduced in 2021, is a global standard of measurement used to assess the level to which a species has recovered (i.e., is viable and providing its ecological function across its entire range). It is also used to evaluate how a species has responded to past conservation actions and the expected conservation gains and recovery potential it would receive in the short‐ and long‐term future. Preliminary application of the GSS method has relied on expert knowledge from individuals or small groups of specialists. However, more accurate and reliable results are likely to be produced by formally eliciting individual judgments from a diverse range of experts, followed by discussion, reevaluation, and synthesis of these judgments. We developed a method in which 2 structured expert elicitation workshops are used to conduct GSS assessments and applied this method to 8 Australian freshwater fish species from the Murray–Darling Basin. We integrated the investigate, discuss, evaluate, aggregate protocol into the GSS methods; experts assessed the species’ IUCN Green Score (percent recovery) in the current state and for 5 other scenarios in the past and future with and without conservation. Four GSS conservation impact metrics were calculated based on the averages of expert judgments. Experts forecasted that impact in the short‐term would be minimal (i.e., conservation gain metric = zero or low) for 5 of the 8 species because targeted and maintained conservation actions are often lacking. In contrast, experts indicated long‐term recovery potential would be considerably higher if implementation of appropriate recovery activities could be sustained (all 8 species had medium or high recovery potential). We concluded that the GSS is well suited to a modified workshop approach because it aims to reduce biases associated with expert judgments and encourages valuable knowledge sharing among experts.