1. Cost of KBA process Jessica D., Liza D., Joel G, Jaime GM, Frank H., David K., Francois M., Ricardo M., Yves P., José Vicente R., Jatna S., Romy T., Sebastian T.,

2. Goals  Review the process and the cost associated with it, and produce a template  What are the factors that influence the variations in the costs?  Consider the benefits of the KBAs  What is the cost of not delineating KBAs

3. Budget template Length and cost of KBA process depend on previous exercises and what data is available (e.g., IBAs, previous priority setting exercises, etc.) Budget presented here is for 18 months

4. Salaries

5. Travel

6. Workshops

7. Products

8. Supplies

9. External Grants and Overhead

10. DC Costs DC CABS Costs (Staff, Travel, etc.) DC Programmatic Costs (Regional Programs, etc.)

11. Financial Cost among Regions

12. Costs per KBA Range: $300-$2284 per KBA Mean: $896 per KBA Median: $555 per KBA

13. General issues around the KBA process Do CI target areas change pre and post KBA process? Are these changes different between places where previous priority settings have been conducted and places where no priority settings have been done? Need to gauge CI’s investment in the KBA process/evaluation based on assessment of previous priority setting Cost analysis of the added value of the KBA process inclusive/exclusive other priority setting process

14. Benefits of identifying KBAs I It was tackled in the “engaging partners” breakout group Provides support to governments to meet their intergovernmental commitments (e.g., national/regional gap analysis for protected areas) Gives you guidelines of allocating resources (CI and partners) Common Framework for partners and Government (safeguarding threatened species)

15. Benefits of identifying KBAs II Baseline for monitoring conservation impacts Scientific/data driven process Jumpstarts the conservation action in a region Refinement of previous priority setting processes

16. Costs of not identifying KBAs Lack of a full understanding of threatened species in the area Difficulty in setting priorities Resources are invested less effectively No clear baseline for monitoring conservation impacts No scientific/data driven process Lack of sound scientific argument in guiding or refuting development activities in/outside KBAs