• The Korean Journal of Ecology
• /
• v.28 no.5
• /
• pp.305-320
• /
• 2005

Recently 64 species in Korea have been ranked as rare and endangered taxa by the Ministry of Environment using two categories, I and II. The original threat categories produced by the Ministry of Environment were developed to provide a standard for specifying animals and plants in danger of extinction and has been influential sources of information used in species conservation in Korea. However, the criteria by Ministry of Environment were applied to the whole taxa only by regional boundaries, especially in South Korea, rather than international context, and it also lacked an explicit framework that was necessary to ensure repeatability among taxa because of the absence of quantitative criteria to measure the likelihood of extinction. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has developed quantitative criteria for assessing the conservation status of species. The threatened species categories, the 2000 IUCN Red List, proposed by SSC (Species Survival Commission) of IUCN have become widely recognized internationally. Details of threatened Korean plants, identified by applying the IUCN threat categories and definitions, were listed and analyzed. The number of species identified as threatened was only 34 out of 64 taxa (48.4%), while the rest of taxa were rejected from the original lists. Many of the species (51.6%, 33 taxa) excluded from the original list proposed by Ministry of Environment do not qualify as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable because these taxa were widely distributed either in Japan or in China/far eastern Russia and there is no evidence of substantial decline in these countries. An evaluation of taxa in Korea has been carried out only based on subjective views and qualitative data, rather than quantitative scientific data, such as rates of decline, distribution range size, population size, and risk of extinction. Therefore, the national lists undermine the credibility of threatened species lists and invite misuse, which have been raised by other cases, qualitative estimate of risk, political influence, uneven taxonomic or geographical coverage. The increasing emphasis on international responsibilities means that global scale is becoming more significant. The current listings by Environment of Ministry of Korea should be challenged, and the government should seek to facilitate the resolution of disagreements. Especially the list should be flexible enough to handle uncertainty and also incorporates detailed, quantitative data. It is suggested that the highest priorities for the Red List should be given to endemic species in Korea first. After setting up the list of endemic species to Korea, quantitative data on population size and structure, distributional range, rated of decline, and habitat fragmentation should be collected as one of long term projects for the Red list categories. Transparency and accountability are the most important key factors. Also, species assessors are named and data sources referenced are required for the future objective evaluations on Korean plant taxa.

• Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science
• /
• v.106 no.2
• /
• pp.111-120
• /
• 2017

The best source of information on the conservation status of species at a global scale is the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Until now, 236 vascular plants from Korean peninsula have been evaluated using the IUCN red list categories and criteria. It indicated that five taxa were considered as critically endangered, 20 as endangered and nine as vulnerable species as a threatened status. On the other hand, the rest (189 taxa) were assessed as a least concern, which did not qualify for threatened species categories. Korea Ministry of Environment published a revised version of 57 species list by re-classifying endangered species with idiosyncratic qualitative criteria for two levels (I and II) followed by status reviews in 2011. However, two thirds species proposed by Ministry of Environment do not qualify as threatened. 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 the causes. The lack of consistency between two lists constrains the prioritization of species-based conservation work at the national level. Due to a lack of centralized monitoring data for most species, this status is largely qualitatively and so it carries a high level of uncertainty. This is reflected in the high number of species with an unknown population trend. The current list of endangered species of flora and fauna by the Ministry of Environment should be recognized as the national list (local and population extinction), which is different from the IUCN Red list due to the different geographical contexts. Also, it is necessary to improve the quality of evaluation and conservation management system rather than presenting massive number of endangered species list.