The difference conservation can make: integrating knowledge to reduce extinction risk J ON P AUL R ODRÍGUEZ The IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) is a unique network of , expert volunteers from almost every country. Grouped into c.  specialist groups of taxonomic expertise and cross-cutting disciplines, one of the major tasks undertaken, in collaboration with the IUCN Global Species Programme, is the continuous update and publica- tion of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Not really a list and not only about threatened species, it is an extensive database of information across taxa, from those not current- ly threatened to those that are extinct in the wild. The Red List includes data on species’ geographical distributions, population structure and trends, habitat and ecology, and threats and conservation actions proposed or taken. To date, nearly , species have been assessed, % of which are categorized as threatened (IUCN, c). IUCN aims to assess a total of , species for the Red List by  (Stuart et al., ). The Red List is evidence-based, with species assessments grounded in the best available data and subjected to peer re- view and quality control (Brooks et al., ). Transparency and objectivity of assessments are supported by clear guide- lines for application of the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria and a formal mechanism for challenging and amend- ing them (IUCN, a,b; IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee, ). Publication of Red List analyses in the scientific literature strengthens the process, by exposing the reasons for species categorizations or recommending changes, illustrating innovative uses of the categories and criteria, doc- umenting the impact of conservation action or policies, and subjecting the conceptual foundations of the Red List to scru- tiny from outside the IUCN Community (for examples in this journal, see: Hjarding et al., ; Teixeira et al., ; Tejedor Garavito et al., ; de Lima et al., ; Rossi et al., ). There is no doubt that the dedication of the people and the expertise underlying the Red List has paid off. It is widely used for supporting conservation policy decisions at national and global levels, and for guiding investments (IFC, ), informing progress towards achieving the targets of international agree- ments such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Brooks et al., ), and evaluating the proposals submitted for consideration by CITES. But is documenting extinction risk sufficient, and is de- tailed knowledge of species’ declines, or the contrary, a conservation achievement in itself? Clearly, simply keeping a record, no matter how rigorous, is only the first step. Repeated assessments are required to document change in response to conservation interventions or as a result of dri- vers of population decline. For example, Red List data have been used to measure the difference that conservation makes, demonstrating that in the absence of conservation interventions the Red List status of species would probably be worse (Hoffmann et al., ). But we need more: ways to reward conservation success and to create incentives for re- ducing extinction risk. To address this challenge, we are de- veloping Green List criteria, which would be integrated into the Red List to highlight conservation success (IUCN, c: Resolution  Development of objective criteria for a Green List of species, ecosystems and protected areas). Saving species requires the expansion of the SSC’s evidence- based approach to the implementation of actions and policies that lead to the reduction of extinction risk. This will benefit from diversification of the active participation of members from all statutory regions of IUCN in the leadership of the SSC, and the increase in diversity of the membership both geographically and demographically. Key will also be to engage more regularly with the other IUCN Commissions (Education and Communication; Environmental, Economic and Social Policy; Environmental Law; Ecosystem Management; and Protected Areas) and the Secretariat in designing and delivering scientific tools to assist the Members of IUCN in reporting progress towards achieving international biodiversity goals and targets, and implementing conservation action. If one makes a global map of the species’ richness of, for example, birds, the greatest number of species occurs in the tropics. If one plots financial resources (e.g. per capita GDP), human resources (e.g. number of authors involved in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) or institutional capacity (e.g. number of IUCN Members), one finds a different pattern: the lowest numbers lie in the tropics. This paradox—more spe- cies are located where there are fewer resources—is a challenge for the SSC and for biodiversity conservation generally. Local capacity can be enhanced by seeking and identifying emerging leaders in countries not well represented in the SSC. This will be a primary responsibility of the eight Regional Vice Chairs, who will serve on the SSC Steering Committee, one for each of IUCN’s statutory regions. Although the global influence of the Red List is undisputed, there is comparatively little interaction between the SSC and IUCN Members. The problem with this is that conservation action does not really occur at the global level but at the level JON PAUL RODRÍGUEZ IUCN Species Survival Commission, Provita, and Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, Caracas, Venezuela E-mail jonpaul.rodriguez@iucn.org Oryx, 2017, 51(1), 1–2 © 2016 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605316001605 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316001605 Published online by Cambridge University Press