Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회지)

Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회)
권호 표지

Critiques of 'The Endangered and Protected Wild Species List in Korea' Proposed by Korea Ministry of Environment and Listing Process - Is This the Best Process for the Current National Management of Endangered Wildlife and Plants in Korea? -

2011년 환경부 멸종위기종 등록절차 및 대상 멸종위기종 식물 목록 재고-과연 현재 국가 멸종위기종 관리가 최선의 방안인가? -

  • Kim, Hui (Department of Medicinal Plants Resources, Mokpo National University) ;
  • Lee, Byong Cheon (Korea National Arboretum) ;
  • Kim, Yong Shik (Department of Landscape, Yeong Nam University) ;
  • Chang, Chin-Sung (Department of Forest Sciences and The Arboretum, Seoul National University)
  • 김휘 (목포대학교 자연과학대학 한약자원학과) ;
  • 이병천 (국립수목원) ;
  • 김용식 (영남대학교 조경학과) ;
  • 장진성 (서울대학교 농업생명과학대학 산림과학부 및 수목원)
  • Published : 2012.03.31
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

After having announced legislation for threatened or endangered species on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants in 2005, the Korea Ministry of Environment proposed (in June 2011) amending the list, thereby delisting or reclassifying endangered species using new quantitative criteria for two levels (I and II), as well as status reviews. The new legislation included 40 species remained in their original endangered status, but 19 species were delisted, 5 species were proposed as candidates for delisting, 29 species were given a new endangered listing, and 3 species were proposed for an endangered listing in Korea. We assessed the threatened status of 98 plants using the IUCN Red List Criteria (version 3.1) at the global level, and compared the Ministry's revised criteria with the IUCN Red List Criteria and ESA criteria used in the USA. Most species proposed by the Ministry do not qualify as threatened and one of 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 this causes. Under the current classification process, many endangered species, such as Abeliophyllum distichum, Leontice microrhyncha, Echinosophora koreensis, Leontopodium coreanum, Iris odaesanensis, and Corylopsis coreana at global level were excluded here. Knowledge gaps and uncertainties mean that the number of taxa at high risk of extinction may be substantially greater than is currently understood. Due to a lack of information on its taxonomic status, currently there is controversy over the Red List status of Physocarpus insularis. Also, Caragana koreana, which was an invalidly published name, should be excluded here. Although the Korea Ministry of Environment insisted this procedure was conducted by applying the modified IUCN threat categories and definitions, this evaluation has been carried out based only on subjective views and misapplication of the IUCN Red List Criteria. The current listings by the Korea Ministry of Environment should be challenged. We suggest that broad species concepts on endemic species are applied and also criteria that adequately address the proper quantitative knowledge should be used. It is suggested that the highest priorities for the Red List should be given to endemic species at least in the Korean peninsula first at global scale.

환경부는 2005년 야생동 식물법을 제정 공포후, 2011년 6월에 멸종위기야생동 식물 지정 해제 목록과 함께 지정관리 기준안을 발표하였다. 고등식물의 경우 64종중 멸종위기 I, II등급 유지 및 등급 변경종은 40종, 멸종 위기 해제종(안)은 19종, 해제예정종(안)은 5종, 신규지정종은 29종, 지정후보종은 3종으로 본 연구에서는 모두 96종을 IUCN의 적색목록의 범주와 평가기준 ver. 3.1에 의해 재평가를 함과 동시에, 환경부에서 제시한 멸종위기야생동식물 지정관리 기준 및 절차와 시스템의 문제점을 검토하였다. 변경된 환경부 목록의 40종의 평가 결과를 보면 남한을 경계로 한 평가로 인하여 전세계 수준의 평가인 IUCN 적색목록으로 등재될 개느삼, 미선나무, 한계령풀, 솜다리, 노랑무늬붓꽃, 히어리가 모두 환경부 목록에서 해제되었다. 추가 신규제정도 이와 유사하며 지정후보종인 섬국수 나무는 기존 연구에서 인가목조팝의 이명으로 보는 견해와, 비합법적으로 발표한 학명인 참골담초가 포함되어 문제의 소지가 있다. 환경부에서 제시하는 IUCN적색목록을 개선하였다는 내용은 IUCN 적색목록을 수정한 것이 아니라 평가 방법을 잘못 번역함과 동시에 적색목록의 범주를 단순히 참고하는 수준이다. 특히, 관련용어의 정의에 대한 오역과 이해를 못하고 번역해서 임의로 평가기준을 혼용하고 있어 평가 자체를 혼란과 왜곡으로 유도하는 결과물로 수용하기 어렵다. 환경부의 멸종위기종 목록을 개선하는 데에는 고유종에 대한 매우 좁은 종의 개념대신 주변 국가에서 넓은 개념으로 보는 분류학적 소견을 수용할 필요가 있으며, 남한이나 북한의 국토 개념의 평가가 아니라 최 소 한반도를 기준으로 전세계 수준의 평가를 할 필요가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Applied Biomathmetics. 2005. $RAMAS^{(R)}$ Red List ver. 2.0. http://www.ramas.com.
  2. Chang, C.S., Kim, H. and Kim, Y.S. 2001. Reconsideration of rare and endangered plant species in Korea based on the IUCN Red List Categories. Korean Journal of Plant Taxonomy 31(2): 107-142 (in Korean).
  3. Chang, C.S., Lee, H.S., Park, T.Y. and Kim, H. 2005. Reconsideration of rare and endangered plant species in Korea based on the IUCN Red List Categories - Evaluation on the endangered plant list of the Ministry of Environment, Korea - Korean Journal of Ecology 28(5): 305-320 (in Korean).
  4. Cheffings, C.M., Farrell, L. (Eds.), Dines, T.D., Jones, R.A., Leach, S.J., McKean, D.R., Pearman, D.A., Preston, C.D., Rumsey, F.J. and Taylor, I. 2005. The Vascular Plant Red Data List for Great Britain. Species status 7: 1-116. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
  5. Environment Agency of Japan. 2000. Threatened Wildlife of Japan -Red Data Book 2nd ed.- Vol. 8. Vascular Plants. Japan Wildlife Research Center, Tokyo. pp. 664. (in Japanese).
  6. Gibbs, D. and Chen, Y. 2009. The Red List of Maples. Botanic Gardens Conservation International. UK. pp. 41.
  7. IUCN. 2001a. IUCN Red List criteria review provisional report. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc.
  8. IUCN. 2001b. IUCN Red List Categories: Version 3.1. Prepared by the IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. http:// www.iucn.org/themes/ssc
  9. IUCN. 2003. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels: Version 3.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. p.
  10. IUCN. 2005. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. pp.
  11. Kim, C.H, Kim, T.J. and Sun. B.Y. 2000. Taxonomic identities of some endemic Korean vascular plants. Korean Journal of Plant Taxonomy 30(4): 355-361 (in Korean).
  12. Kim, Y.H. (Organizer). 2011. The first projects report on preservation and recovery strategies of rare and endangered plant species. Korea National Arboretum, Gyeonggi-do, Korea. pp. 546 (in Korean).
  13. Lee, B.C. 2009. Rare Plants Data Book in Korea. Korea National Arboretum, Geobook Comp. Seoul, Korea. pp. 332 (in Korean).
  14. Ministry of Environment 2011a. Release copy of "New process of Endangered species conservation - candidate species conservation". Natural Resources Bureau, Gwachon, Korea. (in Korean).
  15. Ministry of Environment 2011b. A public release of "New process of Endangered species conservation - public hearing". Natural Resources Bureau, Gwachon, Korea (in Korean).
  16. Ministry of Environment 2005. Portraits of endangered Species of wild Animals and plants In Korea. Natural Resources Bureau, Gwachon, Korea. pp. 247 (in Korean).
  17. Oh, S.H., Chen, L., Kim, S.H., Kim, Y.D. and Shin, H.C. 2010. Phylogenetic Relationship of Physocarpus insularis (Rosaceae) Endemic on Ulleung Island: Implications for Conservation Biology. Journal of Plant Biology 53: 94-105 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12374-009-9093-z
  18. Oldfield, S. and Eastwood, A. 2007. The Red List of Oakes. Botanic Gardens Conservation International. UK. pp. 32.
  19. Regan, T.J., Burgman, M.A., McCarthy, M.A., Master, L. L., Keith, D.A., Mace, G.M. and Andelman, S.J. 2005. The consistency of extinction risk classification protocols. Conservation Biology 19(6): 1969-1977. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00235.x
  20. Shin, H.C. 2011. Endangered species listing criteria making and Red List publishing. Soonchunyang Univ. Cheonan, Korea. pp. 217 (in Korean).
  21. Son, K.-N. (Chief editor). 2005. Red Data Book of DPR Korea (Plant). MAB National Committee of DPR Korea. Minchuchosensa. Pyongyang, DPR Korea. pp. 177.
  22. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1983. Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines. Federal Register 48: 43098.
  23. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1991. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered Status for the Plant Echinacea laevlgata (Smooth Coneflower) Federal Register 60: 64229-64233.
  24. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009. 5-Year Review Pygmy fringe-tree (Chionanthus pygmaeus). South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, Vero Beach, Florida, USA. pp. 29.
  25. Wang, S. and Xie, Y. (eds). 2004. China Species Red List. Higher Education List. pp. 692.