Transcript Issues Arising in KBA delineation in the Polynesia

Issues Arising in KBA delineation
in the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot
Presented by James Atherton
(Conservation Outcomes Manager)
KBA Review and Lessons Learned Workshop
Washington DC
July 25-28, 2006
KBA Identification Process
•
Point occurrence locations were identified and mapped for all RL
species based on a combination of scientific data review and data
compilation followed by expert review in a series of stakeholder
workshops
•
Key data sources:
–
2003 Red List
–
UNEP’s Island Directory and ranking of islands by conservation
importance (1986 and 1998)
–
IUCN terrestrial ecosystem and biogeographic regions (1980)
–
TNC’s Ecoregional Planning for FSM (2003)
–
Birdlife International’s Endemic Bird Areas (2000)
–
WWF’s Global Terrestrial Ecoregions (2001)
–
Pacific Plant Areas (Van Balgooy 1966-1993), and Flora
–
Pacific PA database and map
KBA Delineation Process
KBAs were delineated by one of the following methods:
i) In FSM where a RL species occurred in an area of biodiversity
significance identified by TNC, we used the boundary of the ABS (53
KBAs)
ii) Outside FSM:
a) where a RL species occurred in an existing protected area or
conservation area the boundary of the PA was used to delineate the
KBA (44 KBAs)
b) Where a RL species occurred outside an existing PA, the method
used depended on the size of the island:
- On small islands (less than about 50km2), the whole
island was selected as the KBA (41 KBAs- mostly in
French Polynesia)
- On larger islands (mostly Fiji), intact blocks of forest
(“refugia”) were identified as KBAs (24 KBAs)
Map of Identified KBAs
Main problems faced in KBA delineation
• SCALE ISSUE:
– Scale of the hotspot many thousands of islands and 14 CEPF eligible
countries spread across almost 10% of the earth’s surface!
• DATA ISSUES:
– Information required to delineate an appropriate management unit (eg
land tenure, current forest cover, land use, village or political boundaries
etc) not available for most islands
– Some countries well studied (eg Fiji, French Polynesia), others poorly
studied. Also “main” islands well studied, outer islands poorly studied.
– Location information for many species poorly recorded with only an
indication of the island name or archipelago where it is found.
– Some taxonomic groups (eg birds) well studied, most (eg plants and
invertebrates) poorly studied.
– Data including GIS and scientific papers very hard to obtain as much is in
“grey literature” or in research institutions outside the region.
– Little information on species congregations such as sea birds and sea
turtles etc
How did we deal with the problems?
We didn’t really!
However, we found that the series of 4 sub-regional
workshops (in W.Polynesia, Micronesia, Fiji and French
Polynesia) and 2 expert workshops (in Samoa) and the
associated technical reports prepared for these by
consultants and partner organisations (TNC, WCS, and Te
Ora Fanua) provided key information and promoted buy-in
from partners and collaborators at the local level…
Conclusion and discussion points
• We must consider the KBA outcomes for PolynesiaMicronesia to be provisional pending further refinement
with new, refined and consistent datasets (eg global
mammal and reptile assessments, IBAs etc).
• Outstanding issues remain:
– How do you delineate a KBA on an island without current
information on forest habitats, land use or land ownership?
– How do we go about obtaining the relevant information we need
to better delineate and then prioritise KBAs?
– How do we integrate new IBA information into KBA site selection?
– Is there a threshold island size below which a whole island should
be considered a KBA?
– How do you compare sites fairly and consistently with such
variable quality data?
THANK YOU