• Conservation Score Cards •
|
Wild canids and hyenas in India face many threats. Although the IUCN undertakes periodic assessments, the status/threats are examined at species level (not sub-species), and at a global scale. We developed a Conservation Score Card taking into account all ecological and conservation attributes relevant to wild canids and hyenas in India. The Conservation Score Card is a metric assigned to each species/sub-species, and denotes its conservation status in India. The schematic below summarizes the six components used for developing these score cards.
|
|| 1. Protection Status
|
We use levels of legal protection afforded to the species/sub-species to determine the current protection status. The protection status is a crude surrogate for gauging degree of endangerment. We incorporate the IUCN Red List categories, CITES Appendices and Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act Schedules. Scores range from 1 to 5.
IUCN 1 = CR ; 2 = EN ; 3 = VU ; 4 = NT ; 5 = LC
CITES 5 = APPENDIX l ; 3 = APPENDIX ll ; 1 = APPENDIX lll
WLPA 5 = SCHEDULE l ; 3 = SCHEDULE ll ; 1 = SCHEDULE lll
IUCN 1 = CR ; 2 = EN ; 3 = VU ; 4 = NT ; 5 = LC
CITES 5 = APPENDIX l ; 3 = APPENDIX ll ; 1 = APPENDIX lll
WLPA 5 = SCHEDULE l ; 3 = SCHEDULE ll ; 1 = SCHEDULE lll
|| 2. Population Trend
|
Robust population estimates are not available for any of the target species. We therefore use an index of population trend, elicited from field experts and conservationists. Scores range from 1 to 5.
1 = Decreasing ; 3 = Stable ; 5 = Increasing
1 = Decreasing ; 3 = Stable ; 5 = Increasing
|| 3. Distribution Extent
|
Distribution extent is obtained from results of our modeling effort as part of WCIP surveys. This metric refers to the proportion of a species/sub-species’ plausible range within India that it currently occupies. Scores range from 1 to 10:
1 = Occupancy is 00–10% of plausible range | 2 = Occupancy is 11–20% of plausible range
3 = Occupancy is 21–30% of plausible range | 4 = Occupancy is 31–40% of plausible range
5 = Occupancy is 41–50% of plausible range | 6 = Occupancy is 51–60% of plausible range
7 = Occupancy is 61–70% of plausible range | 8 = Occupancy is 71–80% of plausible range
9 = Occupancy is 81–90% of plausible range | 10 = Occupancy is 91–100% of plausible range
1 = Occupancy is 00–10% of plausible range | 2 = Occupancy is 11–20% of plausible range
3 = Occupancy is 21–30% of plausible range | 4 = Occupancy is 31–40% of plausible range
5 = Occupancy is 41–50% of plausible range | 6 = Occupancy is 51–60% of plausible range
7 = Occupancy is 61–70% of plausible range | 8 = Occupancy is 71–80% of plausible range
9 = Occupancy is 81–90% of plausible range | 10 = Occupancy is 91–100% of plausible range
|| 4. Ecological Factors
HABITAT LOSS
|
PREY DECLINE
|
Habitat loss and decline in principal prey populations are among the main issues for carnivore conservation. We obtained intensity of the two threats through surveys of field experts and conservationists. Respondents assigned scores for these two threats for each of the nine species/sub-species. The final score for each species/sub-species is obtained from averaging scores from multiple experts. Scores range from 1 to 5.
1 = Fatal ; 2 = High ; 3 = Medium ; 4 = Low ; 5 = Not a threat
1 = Fatal ; 2 = High ; 3 = Medium ; 4 = Low ; 5 = Not a threat
|| 5. Human Interactions
DIRECT PERSECUTION
|
ROADKILLS
|
ILLEGAL TRADE
|
Negative interactions with humans can be detrimental to carnivore populations. We identified (1) direct persecution for meat or retribution, (2) road-related mortality and (3) illegal trade of live animals/parts as key threats. We obtained intensity of these threats through surveys of field experts and conservationists. Respondents assigned scores for these threats for each of the nine species/sub-species. The final score for each target species is obtained from averaging the scores from multiple experts. Scores range from 1 to 5.
1 = Fatal ; 2 = High ; 3 = Medium ; 4 = Low ; 5 = Not a threat
1 = Fatal ; 2 = High ; 3 = Medium ; 4 = Low ; 5 = Not a threat
|| 6. Domestic/Feral Dogs
COMPETITION
|
DISEASES
|
HYBRIDIZATION
|
Domestic/feral dogs can negatively affect many wild carnivore species. We identified (1) competition with dogs (2) spread of diseases and (3) hybridization as key threats related to dogs. We obtained intensity of these threats through surveys of field experts and conservationists. Respondents assigned scores for these threats for each of the nine species/sub-species. The final score for each target species is obtained from averaging the scores from multiple experts. Scores range from 1 to 5.
1 = Fatal ; 2 = High ; 3 = Medium ; 4 = Low ; 5 = Not a threat
1 = Fatal ; 2 = High ; 3 = Medium ; 4 = Low ; 5 = Not a threat
Scores for each category are calculated in multiple ways, as explained above. The total score for each species/sub-species ranges from 0 to 100, and depending on the score, we assign a 'grade' to each one following standard academic grading format in India. An A grade means that the species/sub-species is faring well. Similarly, an F grade means the species is facing severe threats and requires immediate conservation attention. Note that the grades are assigned to each species/sub-species independent of each other (i.e., grades should not be compared across species).
The Conservation Score Card is intended to serve as a metric that is easy to understand for citizens and policy-makers alike. The score cards are periodically updated based on every expert opinion we receive. We rely on experts to keep the information as up-to-date as possible. If you are a species/sub-species expert willing to contribute, please send us a mail at [email protected].
Acknowledgements: The Conservation Score Card assessment was adapted from a method developed by Emerging Wildlife Conservation Leaders (EWCL) and Foundation for the Conservation of Salamanders (FCSal). We thank the Amphibian Report Card initiative for making their methods freely available.
