A good problem to have: What next when a species recovers?
Previously listed as Endangered, the iconic Giant Panda was downlisted to Vulnerable in 2016 due to a population increase. Despite this success, they remain at risk due to habitat fragmentation, climate change, and low reproductive rates. Image © Alexander Schimmeck.
In conservation, we celebrate when species recover. We work toward it, we fundraise for it, and we hold it up as proof that determined action can reverse decline. But what happens when a species improves enough to be downlisted on the IUCN Red List?
In a new paper published in Conservation Biology, Mu-Ming Lin explores the surprisingly complex consequences of Red List downlisting Lin et al 2025. Her analysis shows that genuine recovery is rare — and that success can bring its own challenges.
As of 2024, more than 163,000 species have been assessed by the IUCN. Yet only about 1 in 1,000 have been downlisted because of real population improvement. Between 2007 and 2024, most genuine category changes involved species being uplisted to higher threat categories. Only 15% of genuine changes were downlistings. Recovery is possible, but it remains the exception rather than the rule.
The paper examines four high-profile Asian species that have experienced or are proposed for downlisting: saiga antelope, giant panda, red-crowned crane, and black-faced spoonbill Lin et al 2025. All are charismatic flagship species. All underwent steep declines. And all have benefited from substantial conservation effort.
The saiga antelope represents a widely celebrated success. Intensive interventions helped its numbers rebound, and its downlisting was broadly accepted, in part because stakeholders were well prepared for the change. By contrast, the giant panda’s downlisting from Endangered to Vulnerable in 2016 prompted concern that reduced threat status might weaken political momentum and funding.
For migratory birds, the situation has been even more delicate. The red-crowned crane’s downlisting reflected stabilisation of its global population, yet some regional populations remain in serious trouble. Similarly, the black-faced spoonbill — a species closely connected to long-term international conservation efforts in East Asia — is now proposed for further downlisting after decades of coordinated habitat protection and management. In both cases, the concern is not that recovery has not occurred, but that downlisting may unintentionally weaken legal protection, funding streams, or public support.
The paper makes a careful distinction: the Red List measures extinction risk, not conservation priority. A lower threat category does not mean a species no longer needs management. Many recovering species remain conservation dependent — reliant on continued habitat protection, supplementary feeding, or other interventions.
One particularly striking insight is how funding systems often track Red List categories. Many grant programs prioritise Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable species. If a species moves to Near Threatened or Least Concern, it may fall outside eligibility criteria, even if it still requires ongoing management to prevent relapse.
The authors argue that this tension should not discourage accurate downlisting. Inflating risk categories to maintain funding would undermine the integrity of the Red List. Instead, they highlight the importance of preparing for success. Early communication with stakeholders, transparent reassessment processes, and long-term funding models are essential to ensure that recovery is consolidated rather than reversed.
A key tool in this space is the IUCN Green Status of Species, which complements the Red List by measuring recovery and conservation dependence. For example, a species may qualify for Red List downlisting while still scoring as “largely depleted” under the Green Status framework, signalling that conservation effort must continue. Integrating these two assessments can help avoid the misunderstanding that downlisting means “mission accomplished.”
Ultimately, this paper invites the conservation community to grapple with an unusual but welcome problem: how to manage success. Downlisting should be recognised as evidence that conservation works. But success brings responsibility — to communicate clearly, to sustain support, and to ensure that recovery is durable.
If conservation is to move more species out of high-risk categories, we will need systems ready not only to prevent extinction, but also to steward recovery.