Sao Tome Scops-owl (Otus hartlaubi)

Red List Team (BirdLife International)

Sao Tome Scops-owl (Otus hartlaubi)

Africa

This discussion was first published as part of the 2021 Red List update. At the time a decision regarding its status was pended, but to enable potential reassessment of this species as part of the 2024 Red List update this post remains open.

The initial discussion on this topic can be viewed here.

10 thoughts on “Sao Tome Scops-owl (Otus hartlaubi)

  1. I agree with the proposed change, but it implies that other São Tomé endemic species currently listed as VU and that have similar habitat requirements are reassessed, namely the São Tomé Oriole, which is proposed to become NT.

    There is no also new data to justify this change, which is a bit concerning regarding the stability of IUCN Red List assessments.

    The population estimates should be revised, as they are based on density estimates from much smaller islands or AOO, where densities might be significantly higher.

  2. Preliminary proposal

    Based on available information, our proposal for the 2022.1 Red List is to pend the decision on this species and keep the discussion open, while leaving the current Red List category unchanged in the 2022.1 update.

    There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 27 February 2022, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.

    Final 2022.1 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in July 2022, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.

  3. Sur la base des résultats des travaux publiés, il ressort que l’espèce a sa population en constante régression qui serait corrélée avec la dégradation des habitats. Je pense que le statut de l’espèce peut être révisé en espèce EN; mais à condition de compléter les données préexistantes (tenir compte des variabilités climatiques ) afin de prendre une décision beaucoup plus objective pour la conservation durable de l’espèce.

  4. Preliminary proposal

    Based on available information, our proposal for the 2022.2 Red List is to pend the decision on this species and keep the discussion open until 2023, while leaving the current Red List category unchanged in the 2022.2 update.

    There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 24 July 2022, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN. The final 2022.2 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in December 2022, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.

  5. Preliminary proposal

    Based on available information, our proposal for the 2023.1 Forum process is to pend the decision on this species and keep the discussion open.

    There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 12 February 2023, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.

    Final 2023 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in December 2023, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.

  6. Preliminary proposal

    Based on available information, our proposal for the 2023 Red List is to pend the decision on this species and keep the discussion open, while leaving the current Red List category unchanged in the 2023 update.

    There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 2 July 2023, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.

    The final 2023 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in December 2023, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.

  7. I just had a look at this species as an example, as I consider proposing a change of category of another species. It appears that the species discussed here is clearly meeting the criteria of EN. At least I do not see any opinion in the discussion challenging these criteria (B1 & 2 a, b (ii,iii).

    However, RL team from BL kept the assignment of the corrected category as “pending” adn accordingly the categiory was not updated in the recent RL update. I think this can jeopardize the credibility of the IUCN RL, of the whole RL assessment process and especially of this RL authority.

    The RL criteria are not a recommendation or something to be applied or not due to considerations outside of these criteria. If a species meets certain criteria – and this was not challenged by anyone in that case – it should be assigned to the respective category. This is clear from the IUCN guidelines on the application of RL categories and the respective criteria.

  8. I’ve been following the discussion on this species and similar Sao Tomé e Príncipe species (see Ricardo’s comment above) over the past couple of years, and agree with the sentiments expressed by Stefan Michel. I too don’t understand why, since the species seems to meet EN criteria according to evidence provided, its reclassification has been left pending for the last two years. The only reason that occurs to me is that the RL team doubts the quality of the recent evidence used to support the reclassification as EN, but if so, it would be useful if the RL team could make this explicit and point out specific areas of uncertainty so that researchers can devote targeted effort to filling the gaps.

  9. I maintain my position regarding this species.
    There is no significant new information since the last assessment that justifies this change, but if you want to make it, please be coherent and change also the status of the São Tomé Short-tail, the Giant Sunbird and the São Tomé Oriole (even though the latter would only classify for criteria B1 and not B2).
    However, the changes that are being proposed make me question the objectivity of these criteria…

  10. Preliminary proposal

    Following a lengthy consideration of the issues with this proposal it has been decided that it should be withdrawn. The existing published assessment, published only shortly before these proposals were first posted, will stand until the species is reassessed during the next assessment cycle (2025-2030).

    All comments received will be retained to inform the reassessment and we thank those who have so helpfully contributed.

    With the primary threat being habitat degradation through logging, each location, bearing in mind this is the area in which a single threatening event can rapidly (i.e. within one generation) affect all individuals of the species present, is quite small. If there are parts of the range where the threat does not operate, the number of locations here can be based on a different threat or this subcriterion cannot be met.

    In this case the statement that most of the range is assumed to be protected from the main threat means that locations cannot be used, not that it represents a single location. In the current absence of evidence to define locations in this area, this error renders the proposal invalid.

    No further comments will be approved on this topic and it will be closed at the end of this forum window.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *