How to build from KBAs to corridors
Transcript How to build from KBAs to corridors
Biodiversity Targets Group
Dec 10, 2004
Working Group Process
• Came into working group with frequently
• Additional questions identified through
• Consolidated questions, prioritized through
• Discussed prioritized subset of questions in
• Remaining questions will be addressed
subsequently in a process to be identified
Goal of a biodiversity conservation corridor
How we build from KBAs to corridors
How do you decide where in a hotspot or wilderness
areas where you want to go with corridor approach
Monitoring indicators at corridor scale (should fall out
if targets are clear)
How does this compare with freshwater and marine
What is the goal of a biodiversity
…to strengthen and complement species and
site scale conservation actions while at the
same time advancing human welfare.
• Additional language to consider: avoid
species extinction, persistence, connectivity.
• Should we say advancing human welfare or
g to human welfare?
Building on species and site outcomes
• Our primary goal is to avoid species extinctions.
• Start with species outcomes, moves on to KBAs and corridors
• Few species will persist in core areas if subpopulations are
isolated and core areas are surrounded by an inhospitable land
and resource use matrix.
• In most cases, well-protected KBAs are necessary but not
sufficient to avoid extinctions of species.
• The principal benefits of a corridor approach are:
–supplementary contributions to viable populations at species
–maintenance of essential ecological processes
How do we identify and quantify
species targets for corridors?
• All species outcomes are targets for
conservation at the landscape/ seascape
• But, some species are more likely to go
extinct soon if not conserved at the landscape
scale, while others will be ok for the shortterm if protected at the site scale.
• To plan for species persistence, we
need to quantify species targets.
• Options include:
– Population Viability Analysis (PVAs)
– Minimum Viable Population (MVP)
– Red List Criteria
Quantifying targets (contd)
Our aim is to ensure that globally threatened
species are no longer threatened and to ensure
that species not yet globally threatened do not
become globally threatened.
• Migratory species (e.g. seasonal
• Sub-populations isolated through
anthropogenic habitat fragmentation.
• Area-demanding species (e.g. large
home range, nomadic and naturally
occurring at a low density)
Estimating area and
• For area targets, need to assess habitat/
• For connectivity targets, need to assess
movement needs and dispersal capabilities.*
• For population targets, need to assess
threats** – where threats indicate need for
habitat protection beyond sites, use analysis
of habitat/ resource requirements and
population density data as the base case for
estimating area requirements.
How do we build from KBAs to
• How to identify KBAs that require a
corridor approach, and what should the
criteria for these be?
• Are there differences between hotspots
and wilderness areas?
Building from KBAs to corridors in
Most KBAs will not be viable on their own and will
require compatible land uses around them. Almost all
KBAs should be embedded in a corridor approach.
Given that our ultimate targets are species, not KBAs,
and that we can’t create corridors for all KBAs, how do
we decide where to go first? While most KBAs will
require corridor approach in medium- and long-term,
there are some species that need urgent action at the
landscape scale. Decisions on where in a hotspot to
start with a corridor should be driven by these species.
Ecological processes at the
1)Defining ecological processes
Crucial for persistence – MUST begin to incorporate
Challenges – 1) identification of critical processes;
2) defining spatial/quantifiable targets
“Flows of nutrients, water, energy, organisms, and
other resources between landscape elements”
Can split into species-driven and non-species driven
Need spatially explicit targets
Many conserved at site-scale
Some mediated by globally threatened keystones
Others non-threatened – but keystone role
Target ecological functional densities
Non-species driven processes:
E.g. disturbance regimes – minimum dynamic
E.g. hydrology – headwaters; whole watersheds
2) Targeting processes…continued
Prioritization – some processes important over short
time-scales – e.g. if flood pulse fails, immediate impacts
Do we target all processes or only those where direct
link is proven?
3) Wilderness areas and Hotspots
HBWA = many processes probably intact – maintain
processes; Hotspots = processes in decline? – restore
4) Processes and corridor design
Use ecological processes to aid definition of corridor
boundaries (e.g. watersheds; rivers; spatial requirements
for metapopulation dynamics; disturbance processes)
5) Ecological processes and evolutionary
Evolutionary processes also critical
Brazil program already identifying – generating paper
6) Marine and freshwater processes
Different processes and different threats (e.g. marine
red-listed species more commonly threatened by
exploitation than further habitat loss)
Essential to integrate freshwater processes into
terrestrial conservation planning (also consider marine)
7) Research questions
What other processes need to be targeted at the
Need to understand connections between processes –
e.g. flood – habitat change – metapopulation dynamics
Which matrix land uses may contribute to the
maintenance of key ecological processes at the
Which keystone species are critical (proven link)?
For particular species - what constitutes an ecological
NEED TO ROAD-TEST IN EXAMPLE CORRIDORS
Differences for Wilderness Areas
• In wilderness areas, we are trying to maintain the wilderness
state: prevent species from becoming threatened and conserve
key ecological processes.
• In wilderness areas, will have fewer threatened species and
possibly fewer KBAs. Species modeling and threat analysis can
be combined to design corridor strategies. Will need to monitor
ecological processes to make sure those processes remain
healthy and intact.
• We have more flexibility of where to put corridors responding to
opportunities and predicted threat because species more
widespread and not generally threatened.
• Most target species require management of core sites Key
• In most cases, target species will also require sites managed in
a network within a compatible landscape to ensure connectivity,
buffer against edge effects and maintain critical ecological
• Identify target species that have area, connectivity or ecological
process requirements beyond KBA scale. Then identify critical
ecological processes relating to target species that can’t be
conserved at KBA level alone.
• In both hotspots and wilderness areas, this will be an iterative
Integrating data (contd)
• Within a hotspot/ hbwa, build from a species-byspecies approach to a set of biodiversity
• Corridor dimensions need to be adequate to
support populations of species which need a
landscape-scale approach (e.g. area-demanding
• For internal structure, perhaps best to start with
migratory species and fragmented subpopulations
then add on area-demanding species.
• Analysis of globally threatened spp. (and paper)
• Building in possible responses climate change (paper for SCB)
• Evolutionary processes (paper by Brazil program)
• Test this approach in selected corridors
• Building hydrological processes into selected corridors (possible
collaboration with Wetlands International)
• What are the main land/ resource uses which provide additional
habitat/ connectivity for wide-ranging threatened species outside
protected areas, contribute to the persistence of KBAs and/ or the
maintenance of ecological processes?
• Decision support software
• Need to carry on testing and adapting
existing decision support software
• Peer learning study visits