Transcript review and lessons learned workshop agenda development

Key Biodiversity Areas:
review and lessons learned workshop
agenda development
Setting the agenda for a meeting on
five years of Key Biodiversity Areas
CI Annual Meeting 2 May 2006
First, some basic background:
the importance of local ownership of
global standards for conservation
outcomes in CI
 Local ownership because the closer to the ground
planning occurs, the better the link to implementation
 Global standards because CI is a global organization,
accountable to global donors, and so must be able to
compare between regions and over time
Species
Sites
Extinctions
Avoided
Areas
Protected
Sea/Landscapes
Corridors
Consolidated
Biosphere
Genes
Increasing scale of ecological organization
Key Biodiversity Areas are…
 Sites of global significance for biodiversity
conservation
 Targets for ‘Areas Protected’ biodiversity conservation
outcomes for CI
 Identified by CI CBCs, regional programs, and
partners, using globally standard criteria and thresholds
Key Biodiversity Areas are…
Identified following standard criteria:
 Vulnerability (globally threatened species)
 Irreplaceability (>X% of global population of a species)
- start with restricted-range species
- congregations
-…
Key Biodiversity Areas are not…
 Necessarily protected areas, although many are, and
many more should be
 The “only” scale at which biodiversity conservation is
urgent – they must often be complemented by targeting
species specific (e.g., invasive species control) and
sea/landscape scale (e.g., biodiversity conservation
corridors) outcomes
(Ancient) history of KBAs…
 BirdLife International (then ICBP) developed “Important
Bird Areas” (IBAs) in the early 1980s
 Mid-90s: Plantlife and Important Plant Areas (IPAs)
 From 2000: Important Freshwater Areas, Important
Mammal Areas, Important Herp Areas, Important Butterfly
Areas, Important Dragonfly Areas…
(Ancient) history of KBAs (cont)…
…so, importance of unifying these multiple taxonspecific initiatives to avoid duplication of effort and
confusion
 IBAs therefore become the bird subset of KBAs,
IPAs the plant subset of KBAs, etc
(Recent) history of KBAs…
 2002: CI pioneers quantitative framework for defining
biodiversity conservation outcomes, including KBAs as
explicit targets at the site scale
 2003: Development of AZE (launched 2005) to identify
and conserve the tip-of-the-iceberg of KBAs, signed off
by >50 organizations
 2003: World Parks Congress leads to CBD PoW on
PAs – demand for KBAs as basis for gap analysis
(Recent) history of KBAs (cont)…
2004: RPD publishes CI Strategy Handbook, laying out
institutional methodology for identifying KBAs
 2004: MacArthur Foundation funds multi-institutional
KBA workshop to solidify criteria
 2004: Eken et al. published in BioScience
 2005: Marine KBAs workshop
Identifying KBAs within CI
 2002: Development workshop in Bogotá hosted by CI
Andes CBC
 2003: KBA identification built into Ecosystem Profile
preparation for CEPF Cycle 4 hotspots
 2004 to date: KBA refinement in other CEPF hotspots
and CBCs
 2005: KBA identification begins in wilderness areas
and marine
 2006: time for review and lessons learned workshop…
Progress in KBA identification and refinement
4
4
4/2
4
1
2
2
4
2
4
2
4
1
3
1
3
2
Green: Moore CBCs with KBA process underway; Yellow: hotspots where KBA refinement underway through CEPF; Purple: hotspots
where KBA refinement near-completion through CEPF; Orange: KBA identification as part of CEPF Cycle 4; Blue: preliminary KBA
discussions underway in marine regions; Pink: KBA identification not yet begun. Numbers denote CEPF cycle hotspots.
Jan 2006: Bensted-Smith document
raises eight issues regarding KBAs:
1.
Irreplaceability criteria?… thresholds need field testing
2. Taxonomic bias?… support Red List assessments
3. Geographic bias?… model and test research priorities
4. Delineation?… needs review and guidelines
5. Relationship with corridors?… field test sea/landscape
scale concept development
6. Cost?… needs review and guidelines
7. In wilderness?… needs review and guidelines
8. Partner engagement?… publicize successful examples
Proposal for a KBA review and lessons
learned workshop
Today, we need to:
 Determine, at least to a coarse level of detail, topics of
substance to be covered in the workshop
 Make a proposal for where and when the workshop
will be held
 Determine, roughly, the appropriate size and origin of
participants
 Estimate cost and how this cost will be covered
Questions of substance
 Develop processes for field testing (e.g.,
irreplaceability criteria)
 Develop process for modeling and testing research
priorities
 Review and guidelines paper on delineation
 Review and guidelines paper on cost
 Review and guidelines paper on wilderness KBAs
 Publicize successful examples of KBA collaborations
 Anything else?
Questions of logistics
 When should the workshop be held?… Last week of
July fits many people
 Where should the workshop be held?… Probably most
practical/cheap to be in Washington DC
 Participants: at least a biodiversity analyst and some
program heads from each CBC/Regional Program, some
senior staff, select staff from Cons Syn, OM, RA, RAP,
PPC, RPS, others? – say maximum 40 people?
 How should the cost be covered?