Transcript Overview of the KBA process in the Polynesia-Micronesia

Overview of the KBA process in the
Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot
Presented by James Atherton
(Conservation Outcomes Manager,
CI Pacific Islands Program)
KBA Review and Lessons Learned Workshop
Washington DC
July 25-28, 2006
Key Features of the
Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot
• 20 countries and territories
(14 eligible for CEPF funds)
• > 4,500 islands
• 40 million km2 of ocean
• Land area only 46,000 km2
• Wide diversity of island size,
age, geologic type and
biodiversity endowment
• Data very patchy and
incomplete and often hard to
obtain
• Largest number of species
extinctions since 1600…
Current Status of KBA identification in
Polynesia-Micronesia
• First iteration completed
• Supported by CEPF as part of the Ecosystem Profile
development between February 2003 and September 2004
• Developed by the CI Melanesia CBC in collaboration with
SPREP and with the technical support of the Bishop
Museum, CABS, WCS, WWF, TNC and Manu
• First cut of KBAS were developed based on species
location and threat information from the literature
• Draft list of KBAs was then refined using a stakeholder
driven process via four sub-regional workshops and two
“expert” workshops
• KBA List was prioritised based on twin criteria of
irreplaceability and vulnerability
• KBA list and prioritised set needs refinement based on
new methodologies and on new data and thresholds for site
outcomes (eg restricted range species and congregations)
What previous site prioritization
initiatives it builds from
• No site identification and prioritisation had been done on
a Pacific wide basis before this work
• However, KBAs identification was informed by the
following key studies:
– UNEP’s Island Directory and ranking of islands by conservation
importance (1986 and 1998)
– IUCN terrestrial ecosystem and biogeographic regions (1974 and
1980)
– TNC’s Ecoregional Planning for FSM (2003)
– Birdlife International’s Endemic Bird Areas (2000)
– WWF’s Global Terrestrial Ecoregions (2001)
– Sub regional profile reports for W. Polynesia, Fiji, Micronesia and
French Polynesia
Threatened species and KBAs
• There are 476 Red Listed species in the hotspot
• Of these 244 are in countries eligible for CEPF funding.
• The taxonomic groups most highly threatened are plants, birds
and molluscs (land snails)
• 99.6% of all eligible redlisted species have been assigned to
KBAs (only one turtle was not assigned and it doesn’t breed in
the hotspot)
TERRESTRIAL SPECIES
Critically
Vulnerable Endangered Endangered Total
Plants
Molluscs
Birds
Arthropods
Mammals
Reptiles
Amphibians
Totals
94
7
50
13
2
1
0
59
31
25
2
3
2
1
90 243
68 106
21 96
0 15
4
9
3
6
0
1
167
123
186 476
CEPF Proportion of which
Eligible KBAs identified for
129
100
42
100
58
100
0
100
8
100
6
83
1
100
244
99.6
Application of KBA irreplaceability
criteria
•
•
•
•
162 KBA sites were identified
These sites were prioritised based on twin criteria of
irreplaceability and vulnerability
In the absence of good threat data for each site, the
IUCN species threat category was used as a proxy for
vulnerability
Process was:
1.
2.
3.
•
Identify KBAs containing CR and EN species restricted to those
sites only (33 sites)
Identify KBAs not listed above, containing CR or EN restricted to
only 2 sites (14 additional sites)
Identify KBAs not listed above, containing VU listed for only one site
(13 additional sites)
A list of 60 priority KBAs was the result
Map of Identified KBAs
Key issues for which
guidance is sought
• Guidance on how to refine the selection of KBAs with:
• New scientific information (eg IBAs, globally significant
congregations, restricted range species and possibly a few landscape
sites on larger islands)
• New CABS processes (more data driven? record data sources?
assess pressures? refine species- site relationships? select
conservation responses?)
• Guidance needed on how to improve the prioritisation of
KBAs (eg vulnerability and opportunity/cost criteria)
• Guidance on the definition of marine KBAs
• Guidance on how to develop an effective, practical and
useful monitoring strategy for conservation outcomes
THANK YOU