Issues Arising in KBA delineation in the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot Presented by James Atherton (Conservation Outcomes Manager) KBA Review and Lessons Learned Workshop Washington DC July 25 -28, 2006
KBA Identification Process • Point occurrence locations were identified and mapped for all RL species based on a combination of scientific data review and data compilation followed by expert review in a series of stakeholder workshops • Key data sources: – 2003 Red List – UNEP’s Island Directory and ranking of islands by conservation importance (1986 and 1998) – IUCN terrestrial ecosystem and biogeographic regions (1980) – TNC’s Ecoregional Planning for FSM (2003) – Birdlife International’s Endemic Bird Areas (2000) – WWF’s Global Terrestrial Ecoregions (2001) – Pacific Plant Areas (Van Balgooy 1966 -1993), and Flora – Pacific PA database and map
KBA Delineation Process KBAs were delineated by one of the following methods: i) In FSM where a RL species occurred in an area of biodiversity significance identified by TNC, we used the boundary of the ABS (53 KBAs) ii) Outside FSM: a) where a RL species occurred in an existing protected area or conservation area the boundary of the PA was used to delineate the KBA (44 KBAs) b) Where a RL species occurred outside an existing PA, the method used depended on the size of the island: - On small islands (less than about 50 km 2), the whole island was selected as the KBA (41 KBAs- mostly in French Polynesia) - On larger islands (mostly Fiji), intact blocks of forest (“refugia”) were identified as KBAs (24 KBAs)
Map of Identified KBAs
Main problems faced in KBA delineation • SCALE ISSUE: – Scale of the hotspot many thousands of islands and 14 CEPF eligible countries spread across almost 10% of the earth’s surface! • DATA ISSUES: – Information required to delineate an appropriate management unit (eg land tenure, current forest cover, land use, village or political boundaries etc) not available for most islands – Some countries well studied (eg Fiji, French Polynesia), others poorly studied. Also “main” islands well studied, outer islands poorly studied. – Location information for many species poorly recorded with only an indication of the island name or archipelago where it is found. – Some taxonomic groups (eg birds) well studied, most (eg plants and invertebrates) poorly studied. – Data including GIS and scientific papers very hard to obtain as much is in “grey literature” or in research institutions outside the region. – Little information on species congregations such as sea birds and sea turtles etc
How did we deal with the problems? We didn’t really! However, we found that the series of 4 sub-regional workshops (in W. Polynesia, Micronesia, Fiji and French Polynesia) and 2 expert workshops (in Samoa) and the associated technical reports prepared for these by consultants and partner organisations (TNC, WCS, and Te Ora Fanua) provided key information and promoted buy-in from partners and collaborators at the local level…
Conclusion and discussion points • We must consider the KBA outcomes for Polynesia. Micronesia to be provisional pending further refinement with new, refined and consistent datasets (eg global mammal and reptile assessments, IBAs etc). • Outstanding issues remain: – How do you delineate a KBA on an island without current information on forest habitats, land use or land ownership? – How do we go about obtaining the relevant information we need to better delineate and then prioritise KBAs? – How do we integrate new IBA information into KBA site selection? – Is there a threshold island size below which a whole island should be considered a KBA? – How do you compare sites fairly and consistently with such variable quality data?
THANK YOU
Скачать презентацию Issues Arising in KBA delineation in the Polynesia-Micronesia
ac74c402b31a05bccc1e971902b479bb.ppt