Birds to watch: a Red Data List for East Africa |
| |
Authors: | Leon A. Bennun Peter Njoroge Derek Pomeroy |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Ornithology Department , National Museums of Kenya , P.O. Box 40658, Nairobi, Kenya E-mail: kbirds@africaonline.co.ke;2. Makerere University Institute of Environment and Natural Resources , Box 10066, Kampala, Uganda |
| |
Abstract: | Bennun, L.A., Njoroge, P. & Pomeroy, D. 2000. Birds to watch: a Red Data List for East Africa. Ostrich 71 (1 & 2): 310–314. The value of Red Data books and lists is well established; there has been much recent work on improving the criteria for listing species of conservation concern. So far these have been applied mainly at the global level. Regional lists can be useful, however, in improving the resolution of conservation priorities and setting an agenda for research, monitoring and conservation, especially where data are collected by amateur naturalists. A Red Data list for East African birds has been drawn up following an eight-month process that involved wide consultation within the region, defined as Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya and Burundi. The criteria for listing were based on those defined by IUCN, and summarised in a single, simple table that could be used for screening large numbers of species. A criterion based on geographic range eliminated from consideration vagrant species or those on the extreme edge of their range. A separate Near Threatened category (Lower Risk but very close to Vulnerable) proved useful. An additional category of Regional Responsibility captured species that are entirely or mainly confiied to East Africa, or to three habitats where the region has special responsibility: coastal forests, Albertine Rift forests, and papyrus swamps. A total of 107 species (about 8% of the regional avifauna) were listed as regionally threatened. This includes four Critical, 18 Endangered and 85 Vulnerable species, proportions very close to those expected from the theoretical probabilities of extinction in each case. One hundred and four species were listed as Near-threatened and 153 as Regional Responsibility, 87 of which are not under threat. Placing a species in a particular category of threat, for explicit reasons, poses an hypothesis about its status that can be tested with additional data. This process is now under way with the compilation of a more detailed, annotated list. |
| |
Keywords: | |
|
|