1. 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

2. 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

3. Species Extinctions Avoided Sites Areas Protected Sea/Landscapes Corridors Consolidated Increasing scale of ecological organization Genes Biosphere KeyBiodiversityAreas

4. 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

5. 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 - …

6. 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

7. (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…

8. (Ancient) history of KBAs (cont)…  …so, importance of unifying these multiple taxon- specific initiatives to avoid duplication of effort and confusion  IBAs therefore become the bird subset of KBAs, IPAs the plant subset of KBAs, etc

9. (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

10. (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

11. 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…

12. Progress in KBA identification and refinement 4/2 1 2 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 2 1 2 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.

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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?

16. 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?