Survey Priorities Discussion Group Participants: Wang Hao, Cristiano, Megan, Wiggy, Curtis, Simon, Henni, Kristen, Naamal, Matt, Lisa, Leeanne, Tom L. Summary: What are the gaps? To model or not to model? Discuss approach (identify broad gaps, identify candidate KBAs, prioritization, validation through surveys and additional data collation) Recommendations

Survey Priorities IDENTIFY THE BROAD GEOGRAPHIC GAPS THROUGH: Literature studies Museum collections Consultation Overlap of KBAs and existing habitat cover

Survey Priorities IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL SITE LEVEL-GEOGRAPHIC GAPS (CANDIDATE KBAS): If species focus (single or multi-species): Desk study and consultation Expert review of initial results List the possible sites that could, or old records claim, hold the species Prioritize among potential sites Conduct field surveys If site focus: Look at hotspot-level maps and overlay existing KBAs, habitat cover, PA boundaries, infrastructure (e.g. roads), towns and villages, etc. Overlay with rough polygons denoting areas surveyed already (from reports, papers, or regional advice) Produce list of candidate KBAs Overlay with known or modeled distributions of GT taxa to be assessed Consultation with relevant experts Prioritize based on likely presence of CR or EN species, high numbers of GT species, irreplaceable species, undescribed species, threat, opportunity, etc. Select highest priority site, get the team together, and go survey!

Survey Priorities TYPES OF MODELING a)Pattern-based Definition: This is an exploratory analysis, where one is looking for a research purpose. It examines patterns in abiotic and/or biotic factors and is not linked directly to specific habitats or species, but to groups of species. Advantages: The research purpose here is to look for biogeographic patterns that lead to concentrations in small range size, which could be linked to triggering the irreplaceability and vulnerability criteria (a testable hypothesis). It can also be used to identify areas with new species. Previously surveyed sites can be added as another data layer (such as in Funk et. al). Disadvantages: This approach is often untested/inaccurate and hypothetical in answering questions relevant to outcome definition. The analyses could also be very complex and time/resource intensive to test each hypothesis. When to use: In the outcome definition process, there is always some data to work from, even in data poor regions. This modeling approach may be used towards the end of the first cut of outcome definition, if needed, to identify major survey gaps for inventory purposes. This can help to add more trigger species to the KBA process – through surveys confirming new species at previously unsurveyed sites.

Survey Priorities b)Species/Habitat-based Definition: Locality data and information on species habitat preferences to identify areas of known and estimated habitat for the species in question (with varying levels of confidence). Potential presence could highlight a candidate KBA and a research priority. Advantages: Reducing the geographic [and taxonomic] bias of the KBA process through the identification of survey priorities. Highlihts specific areas. Disadvantages: Expensive in terms of time/skill/funding. As with all models, there is a level of error, which needs to be kept in mind. We can only look at known species through this approach, and you are limited to the known habitat preferences (which is limiting when the species is known only from a few collection points); historical data assists in reducing this bias. When to use: Identify candidate KBAs for specific species. Used to identify more sites for known target species, and to identify candidate KBAs for target species where opportunity cost might be lower than the confirmed KBA(s) for that species. Identification of potential additional sites for AZE trigger species Where there are large areas of intact habitat, this approach can be used to identify candidate KBAs (which, by being less fragmented and facing lower threat), may be of higher conservation value (and less expensive to conserve)

PRIORITIZATION AMONG CANDIDATE KBAS TO IDENTIFY HIGHEST SURVEY PRIORITIES: Prioritization among candidate KBAs should be based on irreplaceability and vulnerability, generally following the guidelines developed by the prioritization group. Where does the prioritization of candidate KBAs differ from the prioritization of KBAs? Site based vulnerability likely plays more of a role (a candidate KBA with low potential species vulnerabililty facing an imminent threat – may be high urgency for survey) Opportunity may also be more important here than for KBA identification

Survey Priorities ASSESS CANDIDATE KBAS THROUGH: Field surveys Where possible, prioritize multi-species surveys (increases cost- effectiveness, efficiency, and likelihood of success). Feed resulting data into appropriate databases and processes. Collect data that will aid in evaluation/re-evaluation of species IUCN threat category Additional data collation (additional museum, new literature records)

Survey Priorities GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS: Establish a network within CI (CABS, regional programs, CBCs) to develop the recommendations and to increase regional interaction Develop guidelines for deciding what approach is most useful in candidate KBA identification (to model or not to model, which type of modeling to use, whether to do single-species or multi-species surveys, etc) Decision trees Tool kit of suggested models Access to and management of point locality data Data sharing (agreements and licenses, have data in a common format and shared within the institution, making data and metadata open access where appropriate, following conservation commons principles) Training in databasing and cleaning Develop accurate spatial data layers (forest cover, habitat type, etc) Recommend that IUCN formally assesses candidate threatened species and avoids the excessive use of the Data Deficient category Funding for field surveys and RAPs, and also for training workshops Increased focus on high-quality point locality data (including all KBA criteria)data and sharing within organization and with close partners Increased coordination between KBA process and RAP