Platanista Gangetica Ssp. Minor,: Assessment By: Braulik, G.T., Smith, B.D. & Chaudhry, S

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ISSN 2307-8235 (online)

IUCN 2008: T41757A17628296
Platanista gangetica ssp. minor, Indus River Dolphin

Assessment by: Braulik, G.T., Smith, B.D. & Chaudhry, S.
View on www.iucnredlist.org
Citation: Braulik, G.T., Smith, B.D. & Chaudhry, S. 2012. Platanista gangetica ssp. minor. The IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species 2012: e.T41757A17628296.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012.RLTS.T41757A17628296.en
Copyright: © 2015 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written
permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale, reposting or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written
permission from the copyright holder. For further details see Terms of Use.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN
Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN Red List Partners are: BirdLife
International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; Microsoft; NatureServe; Royal
Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; Wildscreen; and Zoological Society of London.
If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with
feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™

Taxonomy
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
Animalia Chordata Mammalia Cetartiodactyla Platanistidae
Taxon Name: Platanista gangetica ssp. minor Owen, 1853
Synonym(s):
• Platanista minor
Parent Species: See Platanista gangetica
Common Name(s):
• English: Indus River Dolphin, Indus Dolphin, Susu
• French: Plataniste De L'Indus
• Spanish: Delfín Del Indo
Assessment Information
Red List Category & Criteria: Endangered A2abcde; B1ab(i,ii,iii,iv); C1 ver 3.1
Year Published: 2012
Date Assessed: May 1, 2004
Annotations: Needs Updating
Justification:
This subspecies meets several of the criteria for listing as Endangered, as follows:
Only very limited data are available on the life history of Platanista sp. (reviewed by Brownell 1984). Age
at first reproduction is likely between 6–10 years and maximum longevity may be close to 30. Therefore,
generation time is probably more than 10 but possibly less than 20 years, so three generations into the
past would be to 1944–1974 and two generations would be 1964–1984.
Subcriterion A2 applies because a population size reduction of more than 50% since 1944 (the longest
estimated time of three generations) is inferred and suspected, given that almost all of the critical
barrage construction associated with the large-scale decline in the area of occupancy has occurred since
that time. Moreover, the reduction and its causes have not ceased (habitat quality is expected to
deteriorate further and mortality from canal entrapment continues), are not fully understood, and may
not be reversible. The basis could rest on any or all of (a) to (e) with the case strongest for (c).
The linear extent of occurrence of the subspecies is approximately 1,000 km of the Indus River (Reeves
et al. 1991, Braulik 2003). Analysis of satellite images indicates that during the dry season the average
width of the Indus River is 900 m, meaning that the extent of occurrence for the Indus Dolphin is
approximately 900 km², clearly below the 5000 km² threshold for listing as EN under Criterion B1
(Braulik 2004). The area of occupancy of this subspecies is 690 linear km, or 620 km², falling just outside
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Platanista gangetica ssp. minor – published in 2012. 1
the 500 km² threshold for criterion B2.
The metapopulation presently occurs at no more than five locations (defined as segments of river
between two barrages), thereby meeting subcriterion 'a' of B1. Prior to 1990 there were occasional
reports of dolphins in the lower Chenab and Sutlej Rivers, but these reports have ceased, implying that
the remnant subpopulations in those tributaries have now been extirpated. Subpopulations above
Chashma Barrage and below Sukkur Barrage have been reduced in size so that they are almost certainly
too small to persist in the long term. Meanwhile, the demand for river water for agricultural, industrial,
and urban use continues to escalate, which implies a continuing decline in suitable habitat, and in the
number of subpopulations, extent of occurrence, and number of mature individuals, thereby also
meeting subcriterion 'b' of B1.
Although the best estimate of about 1,000 individuals made by Braulik (2003) for the total population
size may be negatively biased due to availability (i.e., dolphins were submerged when in the field of view
of observers) or perception (observers were looking elsewhere or were inattentive), the number is far
below the Criterion C threshold of 2,500 mature individuals. Evidence that the Indus population meets
this criterion becomes even more compelling when the measures taken by Braulik (2003) to minimize
and evaluate sighting biases are considered (see above). Given the rapid escalation in demand for water
from the Indus and the likely associated degradation and loss of habitat for the subspecies, it is
reasonable and precautionary to estimate that a 20% or greater reduction in population size is likely to
occur in the next two generations (20–40 years). The subspecies therefore also qualifies for listing as EN
according to Criterion C1.
Previously Published Red List Assessments

2004 – Endangered (EN)
1994 – Endangered (E)
Geographic Range
Range Description:
This subspecies is endemic to the rivers of the lower Indus basin in Pakistan. Historically it occurred in
the Indus mainstem and the Sutlej, Beas, Ravi, Chenab, and Jhelum tributaries. It ranged from the Indus
delta upstream to the Himalayan foothills where rocky barriers or shallow water prevented further
upstream movement. Development of the vast Indus Basin Irrigation System has severely fragmented
the dolphin population within a network of barrages (low, gated, diversion dams) and water diversion
has dramatically reduced the extent of dolphin habitat. Current occupancy is effectively limited to three
subpopulations in the Indus mainstem located between the Chashma and Taunsa, Taunsa and Guddu,
and Guddu and Sukkur Barrages. A few individuals still remain above Chashma Barrage and below
Sukkur Barrage (Braulik 2003, Reeves and Chaudhry 1998, Reeves 1998) (see Figure 1 in the
Supplementary Material).
The Indus River Dolphin was considered by some researchers as a distinct species for several decades
(1970s–1990s) and was listed as such in the 1996 Red List. Its range is disjunct with that of the other
subspecies, Ganges River Dolphin, Platanista gangetica gangetica, and therefore the two have been
assessed and listed, and should be managed, separately.
The map shows where the species may occur. The species has not been recorded for all the states within
the hypothetical range as shown on the map. States for which confirmed records of the species exist are
included in the list of native range states.
For further information about this species, see Supplementary Material.
Country Occurrence:
Native: India; Pakistan
Population
Direct-count surveys of the largest subpopulations have been conducted regularly by the Sindh and
Punjab Wildlife Departments since the early 1980's, but described methods do not provide a basis for
evaluating bias, estimating precision, or detecting trends in abundance (Reeves and Chaudhry 1998).
Dolphin counts between Guddu and Sukkur Barrages show an apparent increase from 139 dolphins
recorded in 1974 (Pilleri and Zbinden 1973–74), to 290 in 1979 (Pilleri and Bhatti 1980), and 458
dolphins in 1996 (Mirza and Khurshid 1996). If this increase was real and not an artifact of variable
sighting biases, it could be explained by recovery of the subpopulation after implementation of a
hunting ban in 1974 (see Conservation Actions below) or by permanent immigration from upstream
subpopulations (see Major Threats below). A comprehensive review of previous survey data is
presented in Reeves and Chaudhry (1998) and Reeves et al. (1991).
The most recent and comprehensive assessment of the Indus Dolphin population was a survey of their
entire range conducted in March and April 2001 that resulted in a minimum abundance estimate of 965
dolphins (based on the sum of best estimates of group size of all sightings). High and low estimates of
group size were also recorded. The sum of high estimates was 1,171 and the sum of the low estimates
843. This survey also documented a pronounced increase in the abundance and encounter rate of
dolphins as the survey vessel proceeded downstream. The largest subpopulation is located in the Sindh
Dolphin Reserve between the Guddu and Sukkur Barrages, at the downstream end of the range. Best
estimates of 602 total dolphins and 3.6 dolphins/linear km were recorded for this section, 259 dolphins
and 0.74 dolphins/linear km for the section between Guddu and Taunsa, and 84 dolphins and 0.28
dolphins/linear km for the furthest upstream section between Taunsa and Chashma. Two dolphins were
seen upstream of Chashma Barrage and 18 downstream of Sukkur Barrage.
The minimum abundance estimate of 965 dolphins for the subspecies is likely to be close to the actual
population size due to measures taken in the field to increase sighting efficiency. Essentially all potential
dolphin habitat was surveyed in the Indus mainstem, including secondary channels and braids off the
main channel, from a non-motorized vessel (mean survey speed = 5 km/hr), which maximized detection
opportunities. Double-concurrent counts were also conducted from a second vessel traveling behind the
primary survey vessel. Sightings were considered unique if they were greater than 750 m distant from
another group according to the GPS positions. Preliminary analyses indicate that the primary survey
vessel missed less than 10% of dolphin groups, and no groups of more than 3 individuals (mean group
size recorded was 2.0; SD = 1.6; range 1–11) (Braulik 2004). The probability of double counting dolphins
due to their movement from surveyed to unsurveyed areas overnight was considered to be balanced by
the probability that an equal number of dolphins were missed altogether due to their movements in the
opposite direction.
The linear extent of occurrence of the subspecies has declined from approximately 3,400 km of Indus
mainstem and its tributaries in the 1870s (see Anderson 1879) to approximately 1,000 linear km of the
mainstem today (Braulik 2004). An estimated 99% of the dolphin population occurs in only 690 linear
km, which corresponds to an 80% reduction in the area of occupancy (Anderson 1879, Reeves et al.
1991, Braulik 2003, Braulik 2004). During the 1970s and 1980s there were occasional reports of dolphin
occurrence between barrages in the lower reaches of the Indus tributaries (Reeves et al. 1991). No
recent surveys have been conducted in those areas. However, due to an increase in upstream water
abstraction and a decline in dry season flows, it is unlikely that any dolphins remain in these reaches.
Current Population Trend: Unknown
Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)

Indus River Dolphins generally occur in the deepest river channel and are less common in secondary
channels and small braids (Bhatti and Pilleri 1982, Braulik 2003). Reported habitat preferences include
channel constrictions, confluences, and deep, low-velocity water (Kasuya and Nishiwaki 1975, Khan and
Niazi 1989, Braulik 2004). During the low-water season (October to April), barrages divert almost all
river water such that dolphin habitat downstream of Sukkur Barrage and in some tributary segments has
been eliminated. As water levels drop in the winter, dolphins are concentrated in the remaining deep
areas, including the head ponds upstream of barrages.
Systems: Freshwater
Threats (see Appendix for additional information)

The most significant threat to dolphins in the Indus has been the construction of at least 25 dams and
barrages that have severely fragmented the population and reduced the amount of available habitat
(Smith and Reeves 2000). Upstream subpopulations may lose individuals downstream if dolphins move
through barrage gates when they are open in the wet season. Individuals are unlikely to move upstream
through a barrage because of strong downstream hydraulic forces at the gates. While there have been
no direct observations of dolphins moving through a barrage, they often swim through regulator gates
into irrigation canals, which, although smaller, present a similar obstacle (Braulik 2002). Evidence for
permanent downstream emigration includes that each subsequent downstream subpopulation is larger
than the one above (see Range and Population above), despite the reduced linear extent and availability
of water in downstream segments. Encounter rates in the farthest downstream subpopulation (between
Guddu and Sukkur Barrages) are very high (3.60 dolphins/linear km), approaching three times those
recorded in similar surveys elsewhere for Platanista dolphins (Braulik 2003). The possible large increase
in the dolphin subpopulation between Guddu and Sukkur Barrages (described above) may be due to
reproduction and reduced mortality alone, or may be augmented by downstream emigration. Even a
low emigration rate could dramatically affect the persistence of upstream subpopulations (Reeves et al.
1991, Reeves and Smith 1999).
Since the mid 1990s, there have been increasing reports of dolphins trapped in irrigation canals near
Sukkur Barrage. Dolphins have survived for several months in the canals until they are drained in
January for annual de-silting and maintenance. Between January 2000 and December 2002, 34 dolphins
were reported trapped in these canals. Twenty-four were successfully rescued and returned to the Indus
River, while the remainder died (Bhaagat 1999, Braulik 2002, WWF-Pakistan unpublished data).
One of the direst threats to the survival of the Indus River Dolphin is probably the escalating demand for
water. Pakistan is a largely desert nation, with a rapidly growing human population and fast developing
industrial and agricultural sectors that demand increasing amounts of water. Several years of extreme
drought have depleted aquifers that would normally be expected to augment river flows in the dry
season.
Pollution may be affecting the viability of the subspecies, especially considering the decline in flushing
and dilution due to reduced flows. The Indus River corridor is not highly developed and above the
Panjnad River confluence, the habitat is likely to be relatively unpolluted. However, more than 75% of
the dolphin population occurs downstream of the confluence with the Panjnad River, which receives a
large pollution load from the industrialized cities of the Punjab. There are almost no facilities for
treatment of municipal waste in Pakistan and few controls on industrial effluent. Massive fish kills have
reportedly become common from industrial pollution in urban areas and from pesticides used on
irrigated crops grown along the riverbanks (Reeves and Chaudhry 1998). The pressures on river water
supply and continued untreated discharge of pollutants imply that there will be a continuing decline in
the amount and quality of dolphin habitat.
Deliberate killing for meat and oil was a traditional and widespread practice until at least the early 1970s
(Pilleri and Zbinden 1973–74). Hunting is now banned although poaching occasionally occurs. Similar to
all cetaceans, this subspecies is vulnerable to entanglement in fishing gear and vessel collisions.
However, the areas of the Indus River where dolphins are extant are not heavily fished or utilized by
vessels and these factors may not be major threats at present. Incidents of accidental killing and
observations of dolphin carcasses and products are documented in Reeves et al. (1991) and Reeves and
Chaudhry (1998).
Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)

In 1972, dolphins were protected under the Wildlife Act of Sindh and in 1974 the government of Sindh
declared the Indus River between the Sukkur and Guddu Barrages a dolphin reserve. The government of
Punjab prohibited deliberate killing of dolphins in the Punjab Wildlife Protection Act in 1974 and
established the Taunsa Wildlife Sanctuary and Chashma Wildlife Sanctuary in 1983 and 1984,
respectively (Reeves et al. 1991, Reeves and Chaudhry 1998, Chaudhry and Khalid 1989). Enforcement
of regulations prohibiting dolphin hunting appears to have arrested the rapid population declines
reported by Pilleri and Zbinden (1973–74) for these river segments. A programme sponsored by the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to rescue dolphins trapped in irrigation canals and
return them to the Indus mainstem has had some success in reducing mortality (Braulik 2002, Bhaagat
2002).
Credits
Assessor(s): Braulik, G.T., Smith, B.D. & Chaudhry, S.
Reviewer(s): Reeves, R. & Taylor, B.L.
Bibliography
Anderson, J. 1879. Anatomical and zoological researches: Comprising an account of the zoological
results of the two expeditions to western Yunnan in 1868 and 1875; and a monograph of the two
cetacean genera Platanista and Orcella. Quaritch, London.
Baillie, J. and Groombridge, B. (eds). 1996. 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Bhaagat, H.B. 1999. Introduction, distribution, conservation and behavioural ecology of Indus blind
dolphin (Platanista indi) in River Indus (Dolphin Reserve), Sindh-Pakistan. Tiger Paper 26: 11-16.
Bhaagat, H.B. 2002. Status, population abundance, strandings and rescues of Indus Blind Dolphin
(Platanista minor) in River Indus (Pakistan). Tiger Paper 29: 9-12.
Bhatti, M.U. and Pilleri, G. 1982. Status of the Indus Dolphin population (Platanista indi Blyth 1859)
between Sukkur and Guddu Barrages in 1979-1980. Investigations on Cetacea 13:245-52.
Braulik, G.T. 2002. Entrapment of Indus Dolphins (Platanista minor) in irrigation canals: incidence,
implications and solutions. International Whaling Commission, Scientific Committee Document
SC/52/SM9, Cambridge, UK.
Braulik, G.T. 2003. Indus dolphin conservation project. Comprehensive survey and status report. March-
April, 2001. Report for the World Wide Fund for Nature – Pakistan, PO Box 5160, Ferozepur Road,
Lahore, 54600, Pakistan.
Braulik, G.T. 2004. Conservation and status of the Indus River dolphin, Platanista gangetica minor, in
2001. Draft Report, in preparation for journal submission. [Direct inquiries to:
GillBraulik@downstream.vg]
Brownell Jr., R.L. 1984. Review of reproduction in platanistoid dolphins. Report of the International
Whaling Commission (Special Issue) 6: 149-158.
Chaudhry, A.A. and Khalid, U. 1989. Indus dolphin population in Punjab. Proceedings of the Pakistan
Congress of Zoology 9:291-296.
Groombridge, B. (ed.). 1994. 1994 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK.
IUCN. 1979. Red Data Book Vol 3: Amphibia and Reptilia. International Union for the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources, Switzerland.
IUCN. 1990. 1990 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
IUCN. 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (ver. 2012.2). Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org.
(Accessed: 17 October 2012).
IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1986. 1986 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland,
IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1988. IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland,
Kasuya, T. and Nishiwaki, M. 1975. Recent status of the population of Indus dolphin. Scientific Reports of
the Whales Research Institute (Tokyo) 27:81-94.
Khan, M. and Niazi, M. 1989. Distribution and population status of the Indus dolphin, Platanista minor.
In W.F. Perrin, R.L. Brownell Jr., K. Zhou and J. Liu (eds) Biology and Conservation of the River Dolphins,
pp. 77-80. IUCN Species Survival Commission Occasional Paper No. 3.
Mirza, A.H. and Khurshid, S.N. 1996. Survey of the Indus Dolphin Platinista minor in Sindh. World Wide
Fund for Nature - Pakistan & Sindh Wildlife Department. 17 pp.
Pilleri, G. and Zbinden, K. 1973–74. Size and ecology of the dolphin population (Platanista indi) between
the Sukkur and Guddu Barrages, Indus River. Investigations on Cetacea 5: 59-69.
Reeves, R.R. 1998. Conservation status of the Indus Rver Dolphin in Pakistan. IBI Reports (International
Marine Biological Research Institute, Kamogawa, Japan) 8: 1–9.
Reeves, R.R. and Chaudhry, A.A. 1998. Status of the Indus River Dolphin Platanista minor. Oryx 32:
35–44.
Reeves, R.R. and Smith, B.D. 1999. Interrupted migrations and dispersal of river dolphins: some
ecological effects of riverine development. In: UNEP/CMS (eds) Proceedings of the CMS Symposium on
Animal Migration, Gland, Switzerland, 13 April 1997, pp. 9-18. United Nations Environment Programme,
Convention on Migratory Species, Technical Series Publication No. 2, Bonn/The Hague.
Reeves, R.R., Chaudhry, A.A. and Khalid, U. 1991. Competing for water on the Indus Plain: is there a
future for Pakistan’s river dolphins? Environmental Conservation 18: 341–350.
Smith, B.D. and Reeves, R.R. (eds) 2000. Report of the second meeting of the Asian river dolphin
committee, 22–24 February 1997, Rajendrapur, Bangladesh. In: R.R. Reeves, B.D. Smith and T. Kasuya
(eds) Biology and Conservation of Freshwater Cetaceans in Asia, pp. 1–14. IUCN/SSC Occasional Paper
No. 23, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Citation
Braulik, G.T., Smith, B.D. & Chaudhry, S. 2012. Platanista gangetica ssp. minor. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2012: e.T41757A17628296.
Disclaimer
To make use of this information, please check the Terms of Use.
External Resources
For Supplementary Material, and for Images and External Links to Additional Information, please see the
Red List website.
Appendix
Habitats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Major
Habitat Season Suitability
Importance?
5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.1. Wetlands (inland) - Permanent - Suitable -

Rivers/Streams/Creeks (includes waterfalls)
Threats
Threat Timing Scope Severity Impact Score
5. Biological resource use -> 5.4. Fishing & harvesting Ongoing - - -

aquatic resources -> 5.4.1. Intentional use:
(subsistence/small scale)
Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
5. Biological resource use -> 5.4. Fishing & harvesting Past, - - -

aquatic resources -> 5.4.2. Intentional use: (large unlikely to
return
scale)
5. Biological resource use -> 5.4. Fishing & harvesting Ongoing - - -

aquatic resources -> 5.4.3. Unintentional effects:
(subsistence/small scale)
7. Natural system modifications -> 7.2. Dams & water Ongoing - - -

management/use -> 7.2.11. Dams (size unknown)
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
8. Invasive & other problematic species & genes -> Ongoing - - -

8.2. Problematic native species
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
9. Pollution -> 9.1. Domestic & urban waste water -> Ongoing - - -
9.1.3. Type Unknown/Unrecorded
9. Pollution -> 9.2. Industrial & military effluents -> Ongoing - - -

9. Pollution -> 9.3. Agricultural & forestry effluents -> Ongoing - - -

Conservation Actions in Place

Conservation Actions in Place
In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management
Occur in at least one PA: Yes
Conservation Actions Needed

Conservation Actions Needed

5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.2. National level
Additional Data Fields

Habitats and Ecology
Movement patterns: Full Migrant
The IUCN Red List Partnership
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species
Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN
Red List Partners are: BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation
International; Microsoft; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas
A&M University; Wildscreen; and Zoological Society of London.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™

Platanista Gangetica Ssp. Minor,: Assessment By: Braulik, G.T., Smith, B.D. & Chaudhry, S

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Platanista Gangetica Ssp. Minor,: Assessment By: Braulik, G.T., Smith, B.D. & Chaudhry, S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™

ISSN 2307-8235 (online)

Platanista gangetica ssp. minor, Indus River Dolphin

THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™

Animalia Chordata Mammalia Cetartiodactyla Platanistidae

Taxon Name: Platanista gangetica ssp. minor Owen, 1853

Parent Species: See Platanista gangetica

Year Published: 2012

Date Assessed: May 1, 2004

Annotations: Needs Updating

Previously Published Red List Assessments

1996 – Endangered (EN)

1996 – Endangered (EN)

1994 – Endangered (E)

1990 – Endangered (E)

1988 – Endangered (E)

1986 – Endangered (E)

For further information about this species, see Supplementary Material.

Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)

Threats (see Appendix for additional information)

Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)

Reviewer(s): Reeves, R. & Taylor, B.L.

5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.1. Wetlands (inland) - Permanent - Suitable -

Threat Timing Scope Severity Impact Score

5. Biological resource use -> 5.4. Fishing & harvesting Ongoing - - -

5. Biological resource use -> 5.4. Fishing & harvesting Past, - - -

5. Biological resource use -> 5.4. Fishing & harvesting Ongoing - - -

7. Natural system modifications -> 7.2. Dams & water Ongoing - - -

8. Invasive & other problematic species & genes -> Ongoing - - -

9. Pollution -> 9.2. Industrial & military effluents -> Ongoing - - -

9. Pollution -> 9.3. Agricultural & forestry effluents -> Ongoing - - -

Conservation Actions in Place

Occur in at least one PA: Yes

Conservation Actions Needed

Conservation Actions Needed

Additional Data Fields

THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™

You might also like