237Criteria—reduction in abundance, geographic distribution or genetic diversity

#### 237 Criteria—reduction in abundance, geographic distribution or genetic diversity 237 Criteria—reduction in abundance, geographic distribution or genetic diversity > > (1) It is observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected that the species has undergone, or is likely to undergo, within a time frame appropriate to the life cycle and habitat characteristics of the taxon— > > > > > (a) for critically endangered species—an extremely large reduction in 1 or more of the following— > > > > > > > (i) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon, > > > > > > > (ii) geographic distribution, > > > > > > > (iii) genetic diversity, or > > > > > (b) for endangered species—a very large reduction in 1 or more of the following— > > > > > > > (i) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon, > > > > > > > (ii) geographic distribution, > > > > > > > (iii) genetic diversity, or > > > > > (c) for vulnerable species—a large reduction in 1 or more of the following— > > > > > > > (i) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon, > > > > > > > (ii) geographic distribution, > > > > > > > (iii) genetic diversity. > > > (2) The Fisheries Scientific Committee must have regard to the following in determining the extent of the reduction referred to in subclause (1)— > > > > > (a) the rate of and trends in the reduction, > > > > > (b) the potential of the species to maintain relatively stable abundance under high levels of mortality, > > > > > (c) the ability of the species to recover rapidly from low numbers, > > > > > (d) the reproductive potential of the species in relation to the following— > > > > > > > (i) reproductive ecology and behaviour and the relationship of these to any threatening process or processes, and the probability of recruitment failure, > > > > > > > (ii) historical, anecdotal or scientific data suggesting a reduction in the production of eggs or progeny compared to the unexploited state, to an extent that the ability of the species to maintain viable populations has been compromised, > > > > > > > (iii) evidence of a reduction in the generation time and life span of the species relative to the unexploited state, > > > > > > > (iv) population density, and the significance of population density in the species’ reproductive strategies, > > > > > > > (v) effective population size, > > > > > (e) other aspects of the life history and ecology of the species, including any of the following— > > > > > > > (i) age and growth patterns, > > > > > > > (ii) habitat types and usages, > > > > > > > (iii) susceptibility to disease, > > > > > > > (iv) obligate migration requirements, > > > > > (f) evidence of recovery from low numbers following the introduction of protection measures or changes to management strategies, > > > > > (g) the current management strategies in relation to life history and reproductive ecology, > > > > > (h) assessment of the probability of extinction, > > > > > (i) evidence of declining populations across the species range for wide ranging or naturally rare or uncommon species, > > > > > (j) whether the species is at the edge of its geographic distribution, > > > > > (k) restricted or disjunct populations of naturally rare and uncommon species, > > > > > (l) the status of the species outside the State as appropriate for the taxon, > > > > > (m) the precautionary principle, namely, that if there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the species, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent that damage, > > > > > (n) other supporting information, including the following— > > > > > > > (i) expert advice, > > > > > > > (ii) anecdotal information where there is independent verification, > > > > > > > (iii) written evidence, especially of a historical nature, > > > > > > > (iv) any other corroborating evidence.