European Red List of Vascular Plants - European Commission

faced by any direct extinction risk) does not necessarily
mean that it has a favourable conservation status’ (Anon.
2007).
Of the vascular plants assessed 467 species were
assigned a threatened category and 436 have a declining
population trend. Although intensified livestock farming,
recreational activities, tourism and urban development,
wild plant collection, invasive alien species, natural
system modification and pollution have been identified
as the main causes of decline in vascular plants within the
three groups assessed, the results of this assessment are
not representative of the overall threat status of vascular
plants in Europe. Special emphasis needs to be placed on
Data Deficient species, especially as some are known to
be in a critical state of decline, but the lack of information
from the entire range of these species meant that a threat
category could not be assigned. These species could not
be regarded as having Favourable Conservation Status.
The species assessed as Least Concern should also not be
ignored. If they are not already adequately conserved, both
in situ and ex situ, the Least Concern assessment should
be carefully interpreted as it does not necessarily mean
that the species is not in need of conservation action – at
minimum, population monitoring is likely to be needed.
As emphasized various times in this publication, the Red
List assessment does not include genetic diversity within
and between subpopulations – it is based on population
size and range. As the goal of CWR conservation (and
indeed vascular plant conservation in general) is to
maximize the conservation of genetic diversity, it is vital
that sufficient subpopulations are conserved, both in situ
and ex situ, to provide the best possible sample of total
genetic diversity (Maxted et al. 2008a,b). Knowledge of
the intrinsic pattern of genetic diversity is lacking for the
majority of species as sampling and molecular analysis
is resource intensive; therefore, it is necessary to ensure
that as wide a range of ecogeographic diversity is sampled
and conserved as possible – ecogeographic diversity
being used as a proxy for genetic diversity (see Kell et al.
2011b). This means that conservation of even the most
widespread species is of concern, both at regional and
national levels.
6.7 Red List versus priority for
conservation action
Assessment of extinction risk and setting conservation
priorities are two related but different processes.
Assessment of extinction risk, such as the assignment of
IUCN Red List Categories, generally precedes the setting
of conservation priorities. The purpose of the Red List
categorization is to produce a relative estimate of the
likelihood of extinction of a taxon. Setting conservation
priorities, on the other hand, normally includes the
assessment of extinction risk, but also takes into
account other factors such as ecological, phylogenetic,
historical, economical, or cultural preferences for some
taxa over others, as well as the probability of success of
conservation actions, availability of funds or personnel,
cost-effectiveness, and legal frameworks for conservation
of threatened taxa. In the context of regional risk
assessments, a number of additional pieces of information
are valuable for setting conservation priorities. For
example, it is important to consider not only conditions
within the region but also the status of the taxon from
a global perspective and the proportion of the global
population that occurs within the region. A decision on
how these three variables, as well as other factors, are used
for establishing conservation priorities is a matter for the
regional authorities to determine.
Trapa natans, Water Chestnut, is an aquatic plant that was consumed widely in Europe and still is in Asia. It is protected under the Bern Convention and is listed as Near Threatened in
Europe. Photograph © Richard V. Lansdown.
51