Consolidating the standards for identifying sites that contribute significantly to

the global persistence of biodiversity: The results of a framing workshop

Cambridge, UK, 5–8 June 2012

1

Consolidating standards for identifying sites that contribute significantly to the

global persistence of biodiversity: The results of a framing workshop

Cambridge, UK, 5–8 June 2012

IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas and Species Survival Commission Joint Task Force on

Biodiversity and Protected Areas

With contributions from:

Rod Abson (IUCN), Ashraf Saad Al-Cibahy (Environment Agency Abu Dhabi), Hesiquio Benítez Díaz (Comisión

Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad), Leon Bennun (BirdLife International), Luigi Boitani

(Sapienza Università di Roma), Thomas Brooks (NatureServe), Neil Burgess (WWF), Achilles Byaruhanga

(NatureUganda), Rob Campellone (USFWS), Savrina Carrizo (IUCN), David Coates (CBD), Joanna Cochrane (Shell),

Topiltzin Contreras MacBeath (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos), Annabelle Cuttelod (IUCN), Lindsay

Davidson (IUCN), Bertrand de Montmollin (Biolconseils), Nigel Dudley (Equilibrium), Jon Ekstrom (The Biodiversity

Consultancy), Simon Ferrier (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation), Lincoln Fishpool

(BirdLife International), Jaime García-Moreno (Amphibian Survival Alliance), Claude Gascon (National Fish &

Wildlife Foundation), Laurens Geffert (IUCN), Craig Groves (The Nature Conservancy), Mike Hoffmann (IUCN SSC),

Jon Hutton (UNEP-WCMC), Diego Juffe-Bignoli (IUCN), David Keith (New South Wales Department of Environment,

Climate Change & Water), Andrew Knight (Stellenbosch University), Marie-Odé Kouame (SOS-Forests), Aline Kuehl

(CMS), Penny Langhammer (Arizona State University), Nigel Leader-Williams (University of Cambridge), Mervyn

Lotter (Mpumalanga Tourism & Parks Agency), Courtney Lowrance (CitiGroup), Nik Lopoukhine (IUCN WCPA),

Kathy MacKinnon (IUCN WCPA), Vinod Mathur (Wildlife Institute of India), Aroha Mead (IUCN CEESP), David

Minter (Centre for Agricultural Bioscience International), Miguel Munguira (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid),

Priya Nanjappa (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies/Partners in Amphibian & Reptile Conservation), Mike Parr

(American Bird Conservancy), John Pilgrim (The Biodiversity Consultancy), Hugh Possingham (University of

Queensland), Robert Pressey (James Cook University), Tony Rebelo (SANBI), Kent Redford (Archipelago Consulting),

Carlo Rondinini (Sapienza Università di Roma), Gertjan Roseboom (Shell), Yvonne Sadovy (University of Hong

Kong, Society for the Conservation of Reef Fish Aggregations), Jörn Scharlemann (UNEP-WCMC), George Schatz

(Missouri Botanical Garden), Jane Smart (IUCN), Robert Smith (University of Kent), Martin Sneary (IUCN), Nadinni

Sousa (Ministry of the Environment, Brazil), Sacha Spector (Scenic Hudson), David Stroud (Ramsar STRP), Simon

Stuart (IUCN SSC), Amy Upgren (Conservation International), Sheila Vergara (ASEAN Center for Biodiversity), James

Watson (Wildlife Conservation Society), Phil Weaver (Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative), Tony Whitten (Fauna &

Flora International), Stephen Woodley (IUCN and Parks Canada)

Citation: IUCN (2012) Consolidating the Standards for Identifying Sites that Contribute Significantly to the Global

Persistence of Biodiversity: The Results of a Framing Workshop. Cambridge, UK, 5–8 Jun 2012. Species Survival

Commission and World Commission on Protected Areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland,

Switzerland.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank our donors. Without their support this workshop and the wide IUCN

led consultation process would not be possible: our major donor MAVA foundation, and also Shell, Rio Tinto, and

Abu Dhabi Environment Agency.

2

Executive Summary

Biodiversity is facing a crisis of loss at genetic, species, and ecosystem levels, and across terrestrial,

marine, and freshwater biomes, with serious negative consequences for the delivery of ecosystem

services and human well-being. Given that many of the drivers of this loss are area-based (i.e. habitat

loss), many of the solutions must be area-based as well, to guide decision-makers both within and

beyond the conservation community on where such area safeguard is necessary. Addressing the need

for criteria for identifying areas of global significance for biodiversity is one of the objectives of the IUCN

World Commission on Protected Areas and Species Survival Commission Joint Task Force on Biodiversity

and Protected Areas, convened by the Chairs of the two Commissions in 2009 in response to IUCN

Resolution WCC 3.013 in 2004 in Bangkok (www.iucn.org/biodiversity_and_protected_areas_taskforce).

Over the last three decades, various approaches of conservation practice have been developed, ranging

from large representative area approaches to identifying areas of significance for biodiversity. Several

programmes to identify specific areas for conservation have been developed, including Important Bird

Areas, Important Plant Areas, the Alliance for Zero Extinction, and many others such as Marine EBSAs

(Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas), Important Fungus Areas, and Prime Butterflies areas.

These site inventories have also informed the selection of sites for protection under national and

international legislation, included under multi-lateral environmental agreements (MEAs). In this report

we conceptually group approaches used to date as “Key Biodiversity Areas” (“KBAs”). While these

various approaches have delivered substantial benefits, they are neither sufficient nor unified, and have

also resulted in some confusion among decision-makers and duplication of efforts. Moreover, the

discipline of systematic conservation planning has developed a range of tools for optimizing

conservation decision-making over the last 30 years, which stand to inform the “KBA” approaches in a

number of important ways.

The aim of the current IUCN-convened process is to develop a new globally agreed standard that draws

and builds on existing approaches in a way that best advances the biodiversity conservation agenda,

while responding to end-users needs for a scientifically rigorous yet pragmatic methodology for

practitioners. To develop this new IUCN standard, the Joint Task Force organized a “Framing Workshop”

in Cambridge, UK, 5–8 Jun 2012. Leading thinkers and practitioners from across the conservation

community and related sectors were invited to contribute to a consultation process that will lead to a

new IUCN standard for identifying areas of global significance for biodiversity. Sixty-six participants

involving individuals from four IUCN Commissions, more than 40 IUCN members and six secretariat staff

(representing 19 countries and 52 organizations including conservation organizations, government

agencies, academics, private and financial sectors, attended this workshop.

The deliberations of the workshop yielded consensus recommendations on five high-level issues:

1. Vision, mission and purpose:

a. Vision A world where decisions impacting nature are guided by knowledge of areas of

significance for biodiversity in order to maintain and enhance biodiversity and thereby

contribute to human well-being.

3

b. Mission Building on existing approaches, to develop a global standard and system for

identifying and documenting areas of significance for biodiversity across multiple scales

and implemented by stakeholders.

c. Purpose of the criteria Identify areas contributing significantly to the global persistence

of biodiversity.

d. Areas identified by this standard will not imply any formal designation, specific

management scheme or land use regime.

e. The process of developing a global standard should not stop or delay ongoing actions

and work on current approaches to identify areas of significance for biodiversity.

2. Scope and scale: Regarding the scope and scale of the standard, it was agreed that:

a. The scope should follow the Convention on Biological Diversity’s definition of

biodiversity as encompassing genes, species and ecosystems, considering the

composition, structure, and function of each.

b. The ecosystem services and benefits for human well-being resulting from the

safeguarding of identified areas should be documented, communicated, and

incorporated into subsequent decision-making. However, developing criteria for area

identification of ecosystem services are not within the scope of this standard.

c. The delineation of areas should be based on actual or potential manageability for

conservation or biodiversity compatible land-use decisions, being clear that while many

areas will be or should be protected areas per se, many others will be adequately

safeguarded through other management approaches.

d. The viability of the biodiversity features for which the site is identified or the

vulnerability of the sites are important considerations, but not a requirement for its

identification or delineation.

3. End-users: Importantly, a diverse range of end-users at different scales, rather than a single

audience, was identified for the standard:

a. Primary: those who lead or influence decision-making processes linked to mechanisms

that secure biodiversity or that avoid biodiversity loss

i. Global and regional end-users, including those who need to comply with

intergovernmental treaties (e.g., Target 11 of the CBD’s strategic plan),

agencies, and coalitions; multilateral development banks; donors; multinational

companies and industry associations; international conservation and

development NGOs; global assessment processes and researchers.

ii. National and sub-national end-users, including national government

conservation agencies, agencies managing living resources, and other agencies;

industry and industry associations; investors; cultural and spiritual institutions;

NGOs; and local and indigenous communities.

b. Secondary: those who use information, such as maps or site lists, for additional

purposes including research and communication. Secondary end-users may not be

decision-makers but the new approach will provide solutions to achieve their

biodiversity assessment or conservation planning goals.

4

4. Relationships between the new IUCN standard and systematic conservation planning: The

diversity of end-users for whom this IUCN standard is intended is not always the same as the

target audience of systematic conservation planning, which specifically aims to optimize

conservation investment and actions. However, systematic conservation planning can and

should inform the process in many ways, specifically:

a. It is important to i) document and map areas meeting thresholds for areas of

significance for the global persistence of biodiversity, but also to ii) identify those areas

for which data are insufficient to undertake such an evaluation, iii) to identify those

areas which have been assessed and found not to meet thresholds of significance, and

iv) to identify any remaining un-assessed areas within a given domain.

b. For each of the above four categories, it is important to document the biodiversity

features for which an area has been assessed, stating explicitly for which of these the

site is important and for which it is not.

c. Given that an area’s contribution towards the global persistence of biodiversity can be

measured using techniques from systematic conservation planning, these methods

should be used to inform the setting of (likely high) thresholds of significance.

d. Moreover, where sufficient data exist, these techniques could be applied as an

additional quantitative criterion for identification, alongside existing rules of thumb.

e. In addition to thresholds of global significance, the standard should also be applicable at

multiple scales including national and sub-national, while ensuring global consistency.

f. Areas that contribute significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity should serve

as a data layer to inform subsequent stages of national and regional planning. Hence,

these areas may also be a spatial input layer to be used by stakeholders involved in

conservation planning (e.g. government agencies, private sector, conservation

organizations, local communities, etc) to progress to the next stages of the planning

process which may include prioritization.

5. Governance: The framing workshop affirmed that IUCN should play a substantial role in the

process beyond the immediate task of consolidating global standards and that the process

should follow a “nutcracker” approach (combining both bottom-up and top-down) to:

a. Provide a supporting role to legitimize national organizations in the application of the

standard and develop guidance materials and provision of training.

b. Explore the possibility of delivering a function of data validation to ensure comparability

between countries, between assessors, and over time.

c. Work with current approaches by incorporating existing “KBA” data sets and by ensuring

that the new standard strengthens and amplifies these.

d. Seek an acknowledgement from the Convention on Biological Diversity and other

relevant multilateral environmental agreements so that this standard can be adopted

and used by Parties in order to assist them to meet their treaty obligations and targets.

e. Aggregate and disseminate nationally published datasets, probably using web services

to avoid issues of attribution and versioning, while ensuring intellectual property rights.

5

Table of Contents

Cover Page 1

Executive Summary 2

Table of Contents 5

Abbreviations/Acronyms 8

1. Introduction

1.1. Rationale 9

1.2. Aims 10

1.3. Summary of daily events 10

2. Vision, Mission, and Purpose 13

2.1. Vision 14

2.2. Mission 14

2.3. Purpose 14

3. Scope and Scale 15

3.1. Scope 15

3.1.1. Agreed in plenary 15

3.1.2. Are composition, structure, function adequately considered in “KBA” framework/criteria? 16

3.1.2.1. Ecosystems 16

3.1.2.2. Species 17

3.1.2.3. Genes 17

3.1.3. Ecosystem services 18

3.1.3.1. Summary of plenary discussion 18

3.1.3.2. Should ecosystem services be included at the species level? 18

3.1.3.3. Cultural values 18

6

3.1.4. Other issues related to scope 18

3.2. Scale 19

3.2.1. What do we mean by site/area? 19

3.2.2. Recommended attributes for areas identified under the IUCN standard 20

3.2.3. Size of areas identified under the IUCN standard 20

3.2.4. Freshwater, marine, and migratory species 20

3.2.5. The broader landscape/seascape/basin context 21

3.2.6. Delineation 21

4. End-users 22

4.1. Background 22

4.2. Primary end-users 22

4.3. Communication 23

5. Relationship with Systematic Conservation Planning 26

5.1. Multiple categories (Binary vs. Categorical) 26

5.2. Documenting features for which thresholds are met 27

5.3. Irreplaceability and setting the thresholds 27

5.4. Scale of application of thresholds 28

5.5. Global and sub-global thresholds 28

5.6. Site vulnerability 28

5.7.Further considerations 29

6. Governance 30

6.1. Mandate 30

6.1.1. Precise role of IUCN 30

6.2. IUCN Internal issues 31

6.3. Data 31

7

6.4. National level issues 32

6.5. Further questions to be addressed 32

7.Next steps 34

Literature Cited 37

Appendix 1: Draft Agenda 38

Appendix 2: List of Participants 43

Appendix 3: “Expectations” Cards 47

Appendix 4: “Issues” Cards 51

Appendix 5: “Name Suggestions” Cards 59

Appendix 6: Results of the Workshop Evaluation Survey 61

8

Abbreviations/Acronyms

AZE: Alliance Zero Extinction

CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity

CBD COP 11: Eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity

(to be held on 8-19 October 2012 in Hyderabad, India)

CMS: Convention on Migratory Species

DGIS: Netherlands Directorate-General for International Cooperation

GEF: Global Environment Facility

IBA: Important Bird Areas

ILCs: Indigenous and local community

IPA: Important Plant Areas

IPBES: Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

“KBAs”: Key Biodiversity Areas. In this report, this is used as an umbrella term to refer to the number of

approaches used to date to identify areas of global significance for biodiversity.

MEAs: Multilateral Environmental Agreements

MOU: Memorandum of Understanding

NBSAPs: National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans. A key component for the implementation of

the CBD Strategic Plan 2011-2020

POWPA: Program of Work on Protected Areas. Part of the Convention on Biological Diversity

SSC: Species Survival Commission

UN: United Nations

UNEP-WCMC: United Nations Environment Programme – World Conservation Monitoring Centre

USAID: Independent U.S. agency that provides economic, development and humanitarian assistance

around the world in support of the foreign policy goals of the United States

WCC: IUCN World Conservation Congress (to be held on 6-15 September 2012 in Jeju, South Korea)

WCPA: World Commission on Protected Areas

WGRI: Working Group on Review of Implementation. This is a CBD body

9

Introduction

1.1. Rationale

Biodiversity is facing a crisis of loss at genetic, species, and ecosystem levels, and across terrestrial,

marine, and freshwater biomes (Vié et al. 2009), with serious negative consequences for the delivery of

ecosystem services and human well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Hooper et al.

2012). Given that many of the drivers of this loss are area-based (Baillie et al. 2004), many of the

solutions must be area-based as well, to guide decision-makers both within and beyond the

conservation community on where such area safeguarding is necessary. Over the last three decades,

numerous approaches of conservation practice have been developed in response to this crisis, including

Important Bird Areas, Important Plant Areas, the Alliance for Zero Extinction, Key Biodiversity Areas, and

many others such as Marine EBSAs (Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas), Important Fungus

Areas, and Prime Butterflies areas (Eken et al. 2004, Ricketts et al. 2005, Langhammer et al. 2007). While

these various approaches have delivered substantial benefits (Donald et al. 2007, Butchart et al. 2012),

they are neither sufficient nor unified, nor perfectly compatible and have also resulted in some policy

confusion and duplication of efforts. Moreover, the discipline of systematic conservation planning has

developed a range of tools and methodologies for optimizing conservation decision-making over the last

30 years (Margules & Pressey 2000, Darkar et al. 2006, Margules and Sarkar 2007, Moilanen et al. 2009),

which stand to inform the above approaches in a number of important ways. Addressing these needs is

one of the objectives of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas and Species Survival

Commission Joint Task Force on Biodiversity and Protected Areas

(www.iucn.org/biodiversity_and_protected_areas_taskforce), convened by the Chairs of the two

Commissions in 2009 in response to IUCN Resolution WCC 3.013 in 2004 in Bangkok. In addition the

work of the Task Force is directly relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Strategic Plan for

Biodiversity, with the Aichi Targets (www.cbd.int/sp/targets), notably target 11.

The aim of the current IUCN-convened process is to develop a new globally agreed approach that draws

and builds on existing approaches in a way that best advances the biodiversity conservation agenda,

while responding to end-users needs for a scientifically rigorous and pragmatic tool for practitioners. To

develop this new IUCN standard, the Joint Task Force organized a “Framing Workshop” in Cambridge,

UK, 5–8 June 2012 (Appendix 1). Leading thinkers and practitioners from across the conservation

community and related sectors were invited to contribute to an IUCN convened consultation process

that will lead to a new IUCN global standard to identify areas of global significance for biodiversity. Sixty-

six participants involving individuals from four IUCN Commissions, more than 40 IUCN members and six

secretariat staff (representing 19 countries and 52 organizations including conservation organizations,

government agencies, academics, private and financial sectors attended this workshop (see Appendix 2).

The workshop was generously supported by the MAVA Foundation which was the major donor,

Environment Agency Abu Dhabi, Rio Tinto and Shell supplementing support to the Task Force’s. The

workshop comprised four full days.

10

1.2. Aims

Clarify and agree on the high-level objective(s) of the new IUCN standard.

Define the concepts to be included (or not included) in the new standard and the elements needed to reach these objectives.

Time-permitting, and based on the results of the previous discussions, start the process of developing criteria to identify areas under the new standard.

To build a shared understanding of the global standard.

1.3. Summary of daily events

Day 1 – Tuesday 5th June 2012 (chaired and facilitated by UNEP-WCMC Director, Jon Hutton): In the

workshop’s opening session, all participants were invited to introduce themselves and the organization

they were representing. Participants were asked to share their “Expectations” for the workshop by

writing them onto yellow cards (Appendix 3). Similarly, green cards were also given to all participants so,

throughout the day and based on their thoughts and the opening presentations, they could write down

the key “Issues” the new IUCN standard faces (Appendix 4). The intention of this exercise was to capture

relevant themes that should then form the basis of the work on the following days.

The bulk of the opening day then focused on background presentations to set the scene of work to date.

These comprised:

- “WCPA-SSC Joint Task Force on Biodiversity and Protected Areas” (Stephen Woodley, Parks

Canada and IUCN)

- “Consolidating a Global Standard for the Identification of Sites of Biodiversity Conservation

Significance: Review of Existing Approaches and their Objectives” (Thomas Brooks, NatureServe)

- “The IUCN standard in the context of systematic conservation planning” (Bob Pressey, James

Cook University)

- “The IUCN Standard from the Perspective of an Equator Principles Financial Institution”

(Courtney Lowrance, Citi Group)

- “Identifying Sites of Global Significance for Biodiversity Conservation: Needs of End-users”

(Achilles Byaruhanga, Nature Uganda).

- “Core principles for IUCN engagement in consolidation of standards for identifying significant

sites” (Jane Smart, IUCN)

- Nik Lopoukhine, WCPA Chair, also joined the workshop by Skype to give a perspective from the

IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas.

- Results from the “expectation cards” exercise (Annabelle Cuttelod, IUCN) (Appendix 3).

The questions sessions after each of the talks were chaired by Jon Hutton, allowing sufficient time to

have a full discussion of any issues raised.

At the end of the day “issues cards” were collected and the chair called for four volunteers who would

group them in categories. A number of categories were proposed beforehand by the workshop

organizers although these could be changed, renamed or new categories could emerge depending on

11

the volunteer’s criteria. The volunteers were Mike Hofmann, , Yvonne Sadovy, George Schatz, and

Penny Langhammer.

Day 2 – Wednesday 6th June 2012 (chaired and facilitated by Jon Hutton and Species Survival

Commission Chair, Simon Stuart): The second morning, facilitated by Jon Hutton, was dedicated to

discussion, classification and refinement of the “Issues” cards submitted the day before (Appendix 4).

This process highlighted 11 groups of key themes for subsequent, more detailed discussion (see

Appendix 4).

The afternoon session, facilitated by Simon Stuart, was a plenary discussion of high level issues emerging

from the classification of the “Issues” cards. These tackled the scope of the putative IUCN standard in

terms of biodiversity features, the potential for characterization of multiple categories of areas, and

development of a clear statement of purpose for the IUCN process. The purpose of this discussion was

to answer the following questions: what is the scope of the standard? What are the criteria trying to

measure? Are we identifying areas important for 'biodiversity' or 'conservation'?

After a full and open plenary discussion, the general consensus emerging from the discussion was that i)

the scope should follow the Convention on Biological Diversity’s definition of biodiversity as

encompassing genes, species, and ecosystems, considering the composition, structure, and function of

each; ii) the criteria should aim to identify the contribution of a particular area for the persistence of

biodiversity; iii) the new approach should build upon and acknowledge the amount of work carried out

by current approaches (e.g. BirdLife’s Important Bird Areas, Plantlife’s Important Plant Areas, EBSAs);

It also became obvious to the group that there were key themes that would need individual working

groups to permit more detailed discussion.

An evening field trip to Wicken Fen National Nature Reserve, kindly guided by Martin Lester (National

Trust) and Francine Hughes (Anglia Ruskin University), provided a welcome break to proceedings,

followed by a dinner generously hosted by Kathy Mackinnon at her residence near the reserve.

Day 3 – Thursday 7th June 2012 (chaired by Simon Stuart): The third morning discussion returned to

plenary to tackle outstanding key themes including the potential incorporation of ecosystem services

and human well-being benefits as part of the documentation and subsequent action for identified areas

(rather than in the criteria themselves), along with further discussion on the relationship between the

IUCN standard and systematic conservation planning.

Based on the discussions of the previous days, it was agreed that participants would divide into break-

out groups for the third afternoon to address specific topics.

1. Vision, Mission, and Purpose (facilitated by Stephen Woodley, minutes by Diego Juffe-Bignoli)

2. Scope and Scale (facilitated by Penny Langhammer, minutes by Savrina Carrizo)

3. End-users (facilitated by Nigel Dudley, minutes by Laurens Geffert)

12

4. Relationships between the new IUCN standard and systematic conservation planning

(Binary/Categorical and threshold group) (facilitated by Mike Hoffmann, minutes by Annabelle

Cuttelod)

5. Governance (facilitated by Lincoln Fishpool, minutes by Rodney Abson)

The first, third, and fifth of these break-out groups reported back in plenary on the third evening, while

the second and fourth reported to plenary to start day 4. The outcomes of each of these groups are

dealt with in detail in sections 2,3,4,5 and 6. The information provided in these sections reflects main

issues raised and key decisions or agreements around these. Some recommendations to consider in

further stages on the process of developing the standard and questions that the process should resolve

are also presented in these sections.

Day 4 – Friday 7th June 2012 (chaired by Simon Stuart): With plenary comments in hand, each of the

five groups then went back into break-out for the remainder of the final morning, with the specific task

of attempting to incorporate these plenary comments into their deliberations.

The last afternoon of the workshop, focused on a final round of reporting back from the break-out

groups, focused on explaining how the earlier plenary comments had been addressed.

The workshop then addressed some final plenary issues, including:

- Submission of “Suggested Name” for the new IUCN standard cards and brief discussion of these

(Appendix 5)

- Revisiting of the “Expectations” cards from the first day (Appendix 3) to discuss which had been

met, which not, and any additions or modifications.

- A summary of next steps from the workshop presented by Thomas Brooks and Stephen

Woodley, Co-Chairs of the IUCN Joint SSC-WCPA Task Force on Biodiversity and Climate Change

(section 7).

After the workshop was completed, a small follow-up break-out was convened to link the working

groups on “Scope and Scale” and “Relationship with Systematic Conservation Planning”.

13

2. Vision, Mission, and Purpose

Participants: Hesiquio Benítez Díaz, Leon Bennun, Topiltzin Contreras MacBeath, Claude Gascon, Vinod Mathur,

Aroha Mead, Kent Redford, Gertjan Roseboom, Robert Smith, James Watson

Facilitator: Stephen Woodley

Notes: Diego Juffe-Bignoli

The break-out group on “Vision, Mission, and Purpose” presented their results in a formal structure,

supporting their three main text sentences with extensive preamble for clarification. This is documented

here in full:

Whereas:

1. The world is losing biodiversity at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels and across

terrestrial, marine and freshwater biomes.

2. The world is rapidly changing, requiring dynamic approaches to understanding how biodiversity

is affected.

3. Area-based conservation has been the most important means of conserving biodiversity, but

there remains a need to enhance the existing conservation system.

4. Decisions made by a range of interests, including governments, corporations and local

stakeholders, have not properly accounted for biodiversity conservation.

5. The global community failed to achieve 2010 targets for biodiversity conservation.

6. Biodiversity is essential for human well-being.

7. There is a lack of knowledge on areas of global biodiversity significance.

8. Existing schemes for prioritizing globally significant biodiversity areas are important and provide

a sound basis for further development, but are not sufficient or unified.

9. The decision on Aichi Target 11 requests: By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland

water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for

biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed,

ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective

area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascapes.”

10. In addition there are a range of international targets and commitments that require information

on areas of biodiversity significance.

11. The resolution (3.013) the World Conservation Congress in Bangkok, 2004 called on the IUCN

Species Survival Commission (SSC) “to convene a worldwide consultative process to agree a

methodology to enable countries to identify Key Biodiversity Areas, drawing on data from the

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and other datasets, building on existing approaches and

paying particular attention to the need to have quantitative, transparent and objective criteria

to identify Key Biodiversity Areas.”

14

2.1. Vision

A world where decisions impacting nature are guided by knowledge of areas of significance for

biodiversity in order to maintain and enhance biodiversity and thereby contribute to human well-being.

2.2. Mission

Building on existing approaches, to develop a global standard and system for identifying and

documenting areas of significance for biodiversity across multiple scales and implemented by

stakeholders.

2.3. Purpose of the criteria

Identify areas contributing significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity.

Definition of the term persistence

In addition, the “Vision, Mission, and Purpose” break-out group presented a definition for persistence of

“having a very high likelihood that biodiversity feature(s) will continue to exist over time”. Persistence

of biodiversity implies both stopping species declines and preventing species extinctions.

Observations and recommendations

The break-out groups on “Scope and Scale” and “Relationship with Systematic Conservation Planning”

determined that the standard should consider the vulnerability of sites as an important consideration

for site management but not as a requirement for identification. Persistence may then be better stated

as “increasing the likelihood that biodiversity feature(s) will continue to exist over time”.

DECISION: The purpose of the process was agreed to be to consolidate standards which “identify areas

contributing significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity”.

Areas identified by this standard will not imply any formal designation or specific management regime.

These are areas that should be safeguarded to stop biodiversity loss. Governments, local or global

organizations can take action to manage and protect these areas more effectively.

The process of developing a global standard should not stop ongoing action and work on current

approaches to identify areas of global significance for biodiversity (e.g. Important Plant Areas, Important

Bird Areas, Alliance for Zero Extinction sites, etc). These have proven to be useful for biodiversity

conservation by global, national and local communities and therefore the current process should not

undermine or slow down these ongoing activities.

15

3. Scope and Scale

Participants: Ashraf Al Cibahy, Steven Bachman, Neil Burgess, Savrina Carrizo, David Coates, Marie-Ode Kouame,

Mervyn Lötter, Tony Rebelo, Yvonne Sadovy, George Schatz

Facilitator: Penny Langhammer

Notes: Savrina Carrizo

3.1. Scope

3.1.1. Agreed in plenary

- The scope of this effort is biodiversity as per CBD definition: genes, species, and ecosystems.

- Composition, structure and function (C/S/F) should be considered at each of these levels of

biodiversity but it will take a lot of time to consider their inclusion within the criteria.

DECISION: The scope should follow the Convention on Biological Diversity’s definition of biodiversity as

encompassing genes, species, and ecosystems, considering the composition, structure, and function of

each.

Observations and recommendations

- Update framework of composition, structure and function given by Noss (1990) (Figure 1). o Need to consult recent literature on C/S/F and levels of biodiversity

Figure 1. Compositional, structural, and functional biodiversity, shown as interconnected spheres, each

encompassing multiple levels of organization (Noss 1990).

16

- Inclusion of human-made, modified, degraded and restored ecosystems into the development

of the new standard (e.g. almost all ecosystems in Europe are modified or influenced by

humans). Hence, we should also consider populations/species that are only maintained because

of human interventions.

3.1.2. Are composition, structure, and function (C/S/F) adequately considered in “KBA”

framework/criteria?

Within the scope theme, this group discussed whether C/S/F was considered in current “KBA”

framework approaches, looked at how this might be done at an ecosystem, species and genetic level,

and gave examples of the likely units of C/S/F in each case.

3.1.2.1. Ecosystems

Examples of C/S/F on ecosystems

- Composition: species assemblages, communities, habitats, ecosystems, biomes.

- Structure: growth forms, physionomy.

- Function: Interspecific interactions, ecosystem processes.

Observations and recommendations:

- Build on the Red List of Ecosystems process to incorporate C/S/F into “KBA” identification

- Red List of Ecosystems presumably incorporates C/S/F into definition of ecosystems. If so, C/S/F

would be captured when applying “KBA” ecosystem criteria.

- Confirm that ecosystems can include assemblages of just a few species

- Check how Red List of Ecosystems deals with issue of natural vs. unnatural ecosystems

- Consider C/S/F when delineating areas identified by the new standard but not as a requirement

3.1.2.2. Species

Examples of C/S/F on species

- Composition: Species.

- Structure: Species-wide population structure (including age structure).

- Function: Demographic and life history processes (spatial and temporal).

Observations and recommendations

- The above elements are included in the Red List assessment criteria and would therefore feed

directly into identification of areas under the new standard but data are often lacking or not

documented for Not Evaluated and Data Deficient species

- Species need to be assessed for geographic and temporal concentrations e.g. congregations in

space and time such as migration routes.

17

- Identifying areas across a trigger species’ (the organism for which the area is identified ) range

should capture key population/age structure and demographic/life history processes

- Relative importance of the site for a particular species in terms of C/S/F (e.g. age structure, life

history processes) should be included in “KBA” documentation

- Plenary comment: We are considering identification of “KBA”s across a species’ range.

3.1.2.3. Genes

Examples of C/S/F on genes

- Composition: genes, genotypes, populations

- Structure: spatial genetic structure

- Function: genetic processes

Observations and recommendations

- Some of the examples above already captured in populations and species.

- Plenary comment: Need genetic experts engaged.

Questions to be addressed

- Should subspecies be considered and such areas identified for subspecies with the same weight

as given to species?

- Do the existing “KBA” criteria adequately include genotypes (e.g. big fish genotype, many

plants)? – while recognizing that pheonotypic plasticity need not be incorporated

- Unknown / uncharted – do we need some expert genetic input?

3.1.3. Ecosystem services

3.1.3.1. Summary of plenary discussion

- Ecosystem services are very important and should be documented but developing criteria for

the new standard upon ecosystems services is not feasible at this stage.

- Ecosystem services including cultural services should instead be documented (wherever

possible) for each identified “KBA” and this information fed into conservation planning

- Need a separate but parallel process for identifying areas of importance for ecosystem services.

Some processes are already underway.

- Plenary comment: Not discarding ecosystem services. Not precluding inclusion of ecosystem

services at some point in criteria. Requires an inventory of existing initiatives working on

ecosystem services.

- Plenary comment: Need to bring together those working on key IUCN knowledge products in

any way looking at ecosystem services to see how it may fit with the new IUCN standard”.

18

DECISION: The ecosystem services and benefits for human well-being resulting from the safeguard of

identified areas should be documented, communicated, and incorporated into subsequent decision-

making, but not included in the criteria for site identification.

3.1.3.2. Should ecosystem services be included at the species level, e.g. crop wild relatives, fish of

relevance to fisheries, and livestock?

Observations and recommendations

- If these species are threatened or geographically concentrated theY will fall within areas

identified by the new standard.

- Many may also be captured by existing “KBAs” (and this should be documented).

- Ecosystem services within these areas (at genetic, species, and ecosystem levels) should be

documented as detailed as possible, recognizing that existing knowledge regarding ecosystem

services continues to evolve (e.g., Hawlena et al. 2012).

- There is an outstanding concern about whether, and how, to include species that provide

specific ecosystem services but that are not captured under the “KBA” criteria (e.g. areas of crop

wild relatives, wide-ranging fish of relevance to fisheries, and livestock)?

- Plenary comment: Explore possible link with CITES. “KBA” process needs to keep track of

harvested species, to make sure that by the time a species is listed as threatened, it hasn’t been

committed to extinction already.

Questions to be addressed

- For the (possibly few) species delivering ecosystem services that are not captured by the “KBA”

criteria for species or ecosystems, or that may not be captured by the new standard identified

for other species, is there justification to relax the thresholds or add a new criterion for them?

o Recognition that process is more likely to be adopted if human benefits from nature are

included.

o BUT, this is a slippery slope. Majority recommendation was that separate non-biological

criteria or thresholds were not warranted.

3.1.3.3 Cultural values

Observations and recommendations

- Recognizing the significance of an area for the cultural values and practices (aka Traditional

Knowledge) of local communities is important and should be documented.

- Plenary comment: Cultural services of a site should be documented.

3.1.4. Other issues related to scope

Is rarity adequately captured by current KBA approaches?

19

- Populations with less than 10,000 individuals (and continuing decline) are captured in Red List

assessment criteria and therefore “KBA” criteria.

- Restricted range species are also captured by “KBA” criteria.

- For species that are rare because they are sparsely distributed, these will likely require

landscape/seascape-scale conservation efforts in addition to a site-level approach.

Age of biodiversity elements cuts across scales

- Age of individuals could be captured at ecosystem (e.g., pristine, old growth), species (e.g.,

longevity of individuals) and genes (e.g., large fish example noted earlier).

- Plenary comment: Phylogenetic distinctiveness not currently considered in its own right and it

depends on the group you’re looking at. It is an issue when comparing groups. Within the tree of

life, the branch leading to chordates is tiny, so it is difficult to justify that something is

phylogenetically different when put in the larger context. Not further discussed in plenary.

Issue of natural / unnatural / native / non-native areas:

- The standard should include a species’ historical native range.

- The standard should not include zoos/herbaria/aquaria.

- What about sites outside a species’ native range (e.g. managed relocation)? Red List considers

species in their native ranges (and populations purposefully introduced into a non-native area

for conservation purposes), and may provide clarity.

- Plenary comment: Should include artificial areas, managed populations, and potentially sites to

be restored. There is a scale of modification from pristine to totally damaged /transformed.

- Restoration needs consideration of return-on-investment

- Plenary comment: Several fungi may be known from outside their native/known range (non-

natural areas). This is a potential issue.

- Plenary comment: Red List experience dealing with wild vs. non-wild may provide clarity.

- Should areas that are not important now be identified, if they could be restored to become a

“KBA” in future? Majority consensus is no.

Questions to be addressed

Should we consider species that are threatened in one area, but that are invasive elsewhere?

3.2. Scale

3.2.1. What do we mean by area?

Observations and recommendations

- Potentially use AZE definition of a site as a starting point.

- Issue of vulnerability at species and site level affects discussion of scale/site.

20

Plenary comment: Need working group that will inventory/analyze existing initiatives (EBSA, IBA, IPA) to

see how this fits.

3.2.2. Recommended attributes of areas identified under the IUCN Standard:

- Manageable or potentially manageable for conservation. Not saying that all such areas need to

be protected areas as management for conservation can take many forms.

- Plenary comment: Reduced credibility of process if areas identified are decoupled from land/sea

management.

- Plenary comment: current “KBAs” can be transnational – depends on context.

DECISION: The delineation of areas should take into account the actual, or feasible, effective

management for conservation, being clear that while many areas will be protected areas, many others

will be best safeguarded through other management approaches.

- Size of “KBA” is dependent on the biodiversity feature that needs to be maintained. Viability (or

potential viability) is an important consideration and an ultimate aim but not an absolute

requirement of “KBA” identification/delineation.

- Plenary comment: Persistence requires consideration of viability in “KBA” size

o But we’re talking about global persistence of species, not just the site.

o Site can’t make any contribution to global persistence if it doesn’t persist.

o If areas identified are too small, may not be viable conservation areas, but they could

very well be (depends on the organism for which the area is identified).

DECISION: The viability of the biodiversity features for which the site is identified or the vulnerability of

the sites are important considerations, but not a requirement for its identification or delineation.

3.2.3. Size of areas identified under the IUCN standard

- In theory, no minimum size.

- Maximum size constrained by manageability.

3.2.4. Freshwater, marine, and migratory species need extra consideration in site/area delineation

- Freshwater “KBAs” are defined as catchments or sub-catchments currently because this is often

the scale at which management needs to consider for biodiversity in these ecosystems to

persist.

- Temporary or seasonal “KBAs”, particularly in the marine environment, were raised as a

possibility that may be more acceptable to decision-makers for congregatory species.

- Plenary comment: Identifying temporary areas may require special consideration, including

when areas are not in the same place over time. Mobile areas were also considered for species

such as tuna and other migratory species

- The 3-dimensional aspect of some aquatic (and some terrestrial) areas needs special

consideration.

21

3.2.5. The broader landscape/seascape/basin context

- Landscape/seascape/basin-scale management required for the areas identified under the new

standard should be documented, as threats may not be at the same location as the identified

area.

- Off site threats must be considered in the “KBA” delineation.

- Corridors between areas included in “KBA” delineation are an important consideration for

landscape management but are not within the scope of this standard. Areas that will be

identified by following this standard are not the only solution to biodiversity declines, and that

there are many other mechanisms to manage the matrix in which they occur. Plenary comment:

Corridors are important for persistence and management. If overlooked, they will be open to

development.

o Some species may move through the landscape but not in corridors.

- Plenary comment: Need to consider network aspect of some of these areas:

o Low density, wide-ranging species depending on specific areas.

o Migratory species.

- Plenary comment: Need to more thoroughly consider climate change, focusing on refined

statements (e.g., recognizing that climate change will affect different species in different ways,

including some beneficial ones), rather than broad, blanket declarations.

3.2.6. Delineation

- Inventorise and consider existing site approaches (e.g. EBSAs, IBA, IPA) to avoid conflict and to harness work already completed or underway.

- Delineation should strive to incorporate biodiversity feature’s ecosystem boundaries, where possible.

- Special consideration is needed in the identification working group for freshwater and marine systems

- Plenary comment: Goal of persistence may require nesting of areas identified under the new

standard

- Delineation work should continue after this workshop.

22

4. End-users

Participants: Achilles Byaruhanga, Andrew Knight, Craig Groves, Aline Kuehl, Courtney Lowrance, Kathy McKinnon,

Nadinni Sousa, Martin Sneary, David Stroud, Phil Weaver.

Facilitator: Nigel Dudley

Notes: Laurens Geffert

4.1. Background

The new IUCN standard is being developed in a world where there are already many area prioritization

processes (IBAs, IPAs, marine EBSAs and others). The ways in which the new standard is applied will

depend on how much similar analysis has already been undertaken. There are two broad options:

- In places with existing biodiversity prioritization processes: results of the new standard will not

replace but may over time modify or increase the sophistication of existing processes.

- In places where there is no current analysis: the new standard could provide a single,

coordinating analytical approach

Areas identified under the new standard could be used as a tool particularly for: (1) planning effective

conservation and land use planning Interventions at a landscape or seascape scale; and (2) avoiding

damage to areas important for biodiversity as a result of resource management and development.

4.2. Primary end-users

While “KBAs” and areas identified under the new standard may be relevant to any interested person,

the following distinguishes between primary and secondary end users. A draft definition of primary end

users is as follows:

Primary end users lead or influence decision-making processes linked to mechanisms to secure

biodiversity or to avoid biodiversity loss.

This might include, for example: (1) government protected area agencies planning a national protected

area system; (2) an indigenous peoples’ group planning management of their territory; or (3) a mining

company seeking to avoid operations in the most sensitive areas.

Secondary users are those who use information, such as maps or site lists, for additional purposes

including research and communication.

DECISION: There is no single audience for the process, but rather a range of primary end-users – those

who lead or influence decision-making processes linked to mechanisms to secure biodiversity or to avoid

biodiversity loss. Secondary users may not be decision-makers but the new approach will provide

solutions to achieve their biodiversity assessment or conservation planning goals.

Although the emphasis is on those influencing decisions, it was noted that there may also be significant

stakeholder or right-holder groups that are deliberately or accidentally omitted from decisions and yet

23

are affected by decisions about areas of global significance. Such groups require particular

consideration, including principles and codes of practice for implementation.

A draft matrix was prepared outlining user groups at different scales, summarizing the reasons that they

might use the new IUCN standard and the products that they would require. This is summarized below –

it does not imply an order of importance. “Areas of Global Significance” will usually be an input to

decisions rather than the sole source of information (see Table 1).

4.3. Communication

If this new IUCN standard is to be accepted and disseminated, some high-level communication is

needed. A draft list of institutions was identified as useful for seeking support and endorsement:

- Treaties and conventions (e.g., CBD, CMS, Ramsar)

- UN institutions: (e.g. UNDP, UNEP, FAO, UNESCO)

- Multi-lateral development banks (e.g., World Bank)

- ISEAL: The ISEAL Alliance is the global association for sustainability standards

(http://www.isealalliance.org)

- WBCSD: World Business Council for Sustainable Development: http://www.wbcsd.org

- IAIA: International Association of Impact Assessments ( http://www.iaia.org)

- Indigenous Peoples’ Business Forum: http://www.ipbf.com.na/

It was noted that although international institutions are needed to build support, implementation has to

take place at national, regional or local levels and therefore government support is essential. It is also

important to stress that those organizations who lead or influence processes that might affect

biodiversity and don’t yet take biodiversity into account, but need to, should be targeted as potential

end-users too (e.g. Corporate farming and/or extractive industries with, as yet, no consideration fo

biodiversity in their environmental policies).

24

Table 1. Global/Regional and National.Subnational users of areas of global significance and their potential use and needs.

Scale End user Purpose – input to: Examples Product

Global /

Regional

End users are

replicated at

global and

regional scale

Intergovernmental treaties (e.g., CBD,

Ramsar, CMS)

Meeting convention obligations. Target 11 of Aichi Targets of

CBD

Methodolog

y and

guidance on

implementat

ion

To be used

for:

Map of

areas

List of

areas

But not

necessarily

by IUCN

Intergovernmental agencies (e.g., UNDP,

UNEP)

Predominantly for guiding investment, also

setting policy

Priorities for GEF projects

Intergovernmental coalitions (e.g., Africa

Union, Micronesia Challenge)

Meeting convention obligations, also helping to

plan regional initiatives

Planning multi-country

protected areas e.g. in

Micronesia Challenge

Multi-lateral Development Banks (e.g.,

World Bank IFC, ADB)

Implementing safeguards Potential input to IFC Performance Standards and other safeguard policies

Donors (e.g. bilateral donors such as USAID,

DGIS)

Guiding conservation investments Support for indigenous

protected areas

Multinational companies and industry

associations (e.g., Shell, Rio Tinto, FSC, MSC,

roundtables, Equator Principles Financial

Institutions)

Helping to implement safeguard policies Avoiding biodiversity loss

during sitting of private sector

projects

International conservation and

development NGOs (e.g., WWF)

Guiding investment and also helping to set

policies

Identifying priority places for

investment in field projects

Global assessments (e.g. MEA, IPBES) Informing , helping to identify priorities and case

studies

Assessment of threat to different

regions

25

Scale End user Purpose – input to: Examples Product

National/ Sub-

national

Government

takes place at

many different

levels: in some

countries sub-

national levels

(state, province,

canton etc) may

be more

important than

national

government in

taking land-use

decisions. The

sub-categories

are the same

whatever the

level and are

listed as one

here.

Government:

conservation agencies (e.g., ministries of

environment, parks agencies)

Identifying priorities through the identification

of national level “Areas of Global Significance”,

and setting associated policy

National government priority

setting for conservation

Methodolog

y and

guidance on

implementat

ion

To be used

for:

Map of

areas

List of

areas

But not

necessarily

by IUCN

Government: agencies managing living

resources (e.g., forestry, fisheries,

agriculture)

Compliance with policy; in some cases direct

management of “Areas of Global Significance”

Identifying areas for fishing

restrictions and for locating

new agricultural areas

Government:

other agencies (e.g., transport, mining)

Compliance with policy (e.g., in terms of mine

and quarry location, new roads and rail links

etc)

Zoning for mineral exploration

Industry/industry associations

(including national certification bodies)

Risk management, informing Environmental

Impact Assessments, policy formulation

Potential input to High

Conservation Value

assessments for the FSC, RSPO,

and other certification schemes

Investors Risk assessment, implementing safeguards Providing advice on investment

to major banks

Cultural/spiritual institutions (e.g., faith

groups, cultural protection organisations)

Policy, identifying priorities Working with faith groups to

increase protection for sacred

natural areas

NGOs Priority setting, investment, advocacy Planning for investment in land

purchase within a country

Communities:

Indigenous

Local

Natural resource negotiations, access funding,

guiding investment More generally as a tool for

building enthusiasm, support and pride in

place.

Management plans for

indigenous peoples’ territories

26

5. Relationship with Systematic Conservation Planning

Participants: Thomas Brooks, Rob Campellone, Simon Ferrier, David Keith, Andrew Knight, David Minter, Miguel

Munguira, Priya Nanjappa, John Pilgrim, Robert Pressey, Tony Rebelo, Carlo Rondinini, Jorn Scharlemann, Sacha

Spector.

Facilitator: Mike Hoffmann

Notes: Annabelle Cuttelod

5.1. Multiple categories (Binary vs. Categorical)

Question to be addressed: Do more categories of “Areas of Global Significance” contribute towards

avoiding biodiversity loss? Would a binary (i.e. Yes or no) vs. a categorical (i.e. ranked values of “Areas of

Global Significance”) output best serve our purpose?

- Binary system contributes to the oversimplified “in/out” problem, whereby other areas in the

landscape that may make an important contribution to the persistence of biodiversity are left

“out”.

- At the very least, one would need four categories: 1) Black (“Areas of Global Significance”), 2)

White (areas with low contribution to the persistence of biodiversity for the features

assessed/considered), 3) Data Deficient (DD), and 4) not evaluated (NE) (see Table 2).

- Even so, this system provides no context or nuance as to which of the “Black” areas make a

higher contribution to the persistence of the biodiversity feature than others (for example, IFC

PS6 uses Tier 1 and 2 to define Critical Habitat). However, on balance, the introduction of

“tiers”, “ranks” or additional categories risks confusion and making it more difficult to

communicate. Although adopting a Red List Type approach was discussed and supported by

some participants, the major consensus is that smaller number of categories was best to

develop a simple and pragmatic system.

- Key characterization of current “KBAs” is their minimization of commission errors (false

positives) because they are identified based on known presence of the relevant biodiversity

features. However, the new standard should also allow the selection or identification of areas

that may be predicted or thought to be of value based on, for example, modeling approaches.

- DECISION: It is important not just to document areas meeting thresholds of significance, but

also those for which data are insufficient to undertake such an evaluation, those which have

been assessed and found not to meet thresholds of significance, and any remaining un-assessed

areas within a given domain.

- DECISION: Areas where certainty is low could be considered as “candidates”.

27

Figure 2. Proposed categories for the new IUCN standard based on contribution to the global persistence of

biodiversity of a given area. Assessment domain refers to the geographic scope of the assessment.

5.2. Documenting features for which thresholds are met

It is important to document what feature the area has been assessed for, in each of the categories in

Table 2, to avoid any misinterpretation that a site making a lower contribution for feature Y performs

similarly for feature X.

DECISION: For each of the categories of the new IUCN standard, it is important to document all the

biodiversity features for which a site has been assessed, stating explicitly for which of these the site is

important and for which it is not. The site should be implicitly considered not assessed against all the

biodiversity features that are not mentioned.

5.3. Irreplaceability and setting the thresholds

Question to be addressed: At what level of irreplaceability should the thresholds be set?

- This question depends on the incorporation of complementarity into the criteria.

o When sites are 100% irreplaceable for one or more species, threshold approaches

applied to individual areas and complementary approaches applied to all areas across

the country will be the same.

o At lower irreplaceability, the relationship between the two is expected become

progressively weaker.

o Consequently, there is a research question to be addressed: At what level of

irreplaceability will threshold approaches diverge so far from complementarity

28

approaches that the latter may need to be incorporated explicitly? A small team (Carlo

Rondinini, Bob Smith, Bob Pressey, Tom Brooks, plus a BirdLife representative and

others as interested/necessary) to explore further the implications of setting thresholds

at varying levels on existing approaches.

DECISION: Given that a site’s contribution towards the persistence of biodiversity can be measured

using techniques from systematic conservation planning, these methods should be used to inform the

establishment of (likely high) thresholds of significance.

5.4. Scale of application of thresholds

Question to be addressed: Do we apply thresholds to individual areas within a landscape or to all areas

across a landscape?

- The answer to this question depends on the answers emerging from the study proposed under

Section 5.3. If the thresholds are set high enough, then thresholds can be applied to individual

areas within a landscape. Conversely, if the thresholds are set lower, then the complementarity

issue (see above) results in the need to assess all areas in the landscape. More generally, such

assessment of complementarity of all areas across the landscape could be applied as additional

criterion for site identification.

DECISION: Where sufficient data exist, complementarity techniques could be applied as an additional

quantitative criterion for area identification, alongside existing rules of thumb, especially if thresholds

are proposed to be set at less than very high irreplaceability.

5.5. Global and sub-global thresholds

Question to be addressed: Are thresholds set at global levels applicable also at levels below the global

level (sub-global)?

- Thresholds should be set to capture the contribution of a site’s global contribution to

persistence. However, thresholds could be “relaxed” at sub-global levels, provided these always

performed better than the global thresholds (i.e., were more inclusive).

- Categories (per 5.1) may, of course, be assigned at different levels (global/ regional/ national)

resulting in areas categorized in different categories at a global level and a sub-global level (as

already happens, for example, with Important Bird Areas in Europe).

DECISION: In addition to thresholds of global significance, the standard should also be applicable at

multiple scales including national and sub-national, while encouraging global consistency.

29

5.6. Site vulnerability

Question to be addressed: Mindful of the distinction between site vulnerability and feature

vulnerability, should the former be included in the criteria?

- A key outcome of the workshop discussion was clarity on the use of the term “vulnerability” by

the different audiences present in the room:

o In systematic conservation planning, the term “vulnerability” applies to the vulnerability

of the site / area itself.

o In the KBA-context, vulnerability applies to the global vulnerability (i.e. across the entire

range) of each of the biodiversity features (e.g. species) present at the site.

o The distinction is important for several reasons, not least of which is that the latter can

effectively be viewed as a component of “irreplaceability” (in the sense that a site

holding threatened biodiversity is “irreplaceable”.

Since the purpose of the criteria is to identify areas that contribute significantly to the global persistence

of biodiversity, not for prescribing conservation management or scheduling investment/action, site

vulnerability may be excluded from the criteria per se. However, it would be necessary for information

on site vulnerability to be recorded or coded in the metadata to inform scheduling and other decision-

making later.

DECISION: Site vulnerability may be excluded from the criteria although it will be necessary for

information on site vulnerability to be recorded or coded in the metadata to inform further decision-

making and planning.

5.7. Further considerations

Areas of biodiversity significance should serve as a data layer to inform subsequent stages of planning.

Hence, these areas are not a result of a prioritization exercise but a spatial input layer to be used by

stakeholders involved in conservation planning to move onto the next stages of the planning process

which may include prioritization (e.g. government agencies, private sector, conservation organizations,

local communities, etc). Such prioritisation will necessitate integrating the biodiversity-significance layer

with other vital layers of information relating to site vulnerability, costs associated with candidate

management actions, feasibility of implementing these actions, etc.

30

6. Governance

Participants: Hesiquio Benitez Diaz, David Coates, Jaime García-Moreno, Marie-Odé Kouamé, Andrew Knight,

Aline Kuehl , Nigel Leader-Williams, , Mike Parr, Tony Rebelo, Jane Smart, Nadinni Sousa , Sheila Vergara

Facilitator: Lincoln Fishpool

Notes: Rodney Abson

6.1. Mandate

IUCN is developing a tool (which will encompass a methodology and a process) that should be useful for

countries based on a mandate that it already has from the WCC Resolution (see section 1: Vision and

Mission).

The governance group highlighted the need of an affirmation that the meeting wanted the process to

belong to IUCN, remembering that it is a body consisting of Members, Commissions and Secretariat.

DECISION: The framing workshop affirmed that IUCN should play a substantial role in the process

beyond the immediate task of consolidating global standards, but that doing this will require the

development of governance mechanisms.

Observations and Recommendations

Such a mandate will also be needed from the global conservation community, from the World Conservation Congress, from MEAs, from GEF and even the UN. Countries should see this approach as useful in helping them achieve their targets and international commitments. Three uses of the standard could support this:

1. By using the approach to provide global assessments. 2. As an approach for use by countries (i.e. the national level or sub-national). 3. By IUCN working with governments at a national level in helping to apply the tool so that results

will assist decision makers and guide the process in achieving Aichi Target 11 in particular and some others.

6.1.1. Precise role of IUCN

Observations and Recommendations

- Plenary comment: the end-user’s perspective is that IUCN would not only be expected to support this process by providing the tool but also by guiding the process.

- IUCN should also assess end-user needs. - IUCN should play a quality control function.

- IUCN Regional offices see a role for facilitation and coordination with countries and at the

regional level.

- The process should also seek the support of other MEAs : Convention on Biological Diversity,

(CBD), Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), Ramsar convention, etc

31

- The process would need endorsement from GEF; we need recognition and funding from the

financial mechanism

- The application of the standard could also provide key information for IPBES

- CBD Focal points could help take responsibility for countries getting work done

- NBSAPs is an opportunity; national target-setting is in process.

- Update WCC Motion to reflect need to strengthen mandate as above; using text from Vision and

Mission section.

- Indigenous and local communities (ILCs) should also be involved, in addition to NGOs and

political institutions.

- IUCN should develop criteria or in addition help implement them trhough IUCN regions and members.

DECISION: Seek an acknowledgement of the contribution of the approach from the Convention on

Biological Diversity and other multilateral environmental agreements.

DECISION: The identification of areas of global significance for biodiversity must take a bottom-up

approach in being led by countries but guided and controlled by IUCN.

Questions to be addressed

- IUCN have observer status at the UN General Assembly. Could we use this to get an

endorsement?

- WDPA and Ramsar have interesting models – governments submit data. Could this model be

applied for the new standard?

6.2. IUCN Internal issues

Observations and Recommendations

- Governance needs to be vested in a body consisting of Members, Commissions (WCPA and SSC)

and Secretariat

- Quality control and accountability elements sit within the secretariat.

- Red List is rarely authenticated at national level, although many national Red Lists exist:

implications of this for this new standard needs to be considered.

- It would need a new programme team in the Biodiversity Conservation Group.

6.3. Data

Observations and Recommendations

- The criteria should be simple to use. It should be an easy-to-apply tool for people with little

money and time. Documentation requirements should be as minimal as possible to support the

assessment;

32

- IUCN could manage the process and would own the global database, but would not claim

ownership of the data (e.g. IUCN owns Red List brand but not data).

- BirdLife is managing the World Biodiversity Database which already holds KBA information and

it incorporates non-bird KBA data including, soon, freshwater.

- IUCN would be accountable for quality control and would also have some accountability

/responsibility for database.

- Frequency of updating. A suggestion could be to synchronize updating to the CBD reporting

process.

DECISION: A global report on areas under the IUCN standard would be released, at about 3-5 year

intervals, and ideally synchronized with the CDB reporting

An additional option is to aggregate and disseminate nationally published site datasets, likely through

web services to avoid problems of attribution and versioning.

DECISION: IUCN should deliver a function of quality control to ensure comparability between countries,

between assessors, and over time.

6.4. National level issues

Observations and Recommendations

- It is recommended to have national workshops with all stakeholders invited to attend:

government and ILCs

- Criteria application: establish simple documentation requirements; submit for minimal quality

control; IUCN would hold the consolidated global dataset.

DECISION: IUCN should provide a supporting role to legitimize national organizations in application of

the standards for site identification.

- Need to ensure we include a means to consider species which have not been assessed for the

IUCN Red List.

- We should bring in the existing “KBA” data sets wholesale in an uncomplicated and streamlined

way.

DECISION: Work with current approaches by incorporating existing “KBA” data sets and by ensuring

that the new standard strengthens and amplifies these.

- If there are contentious data, a mechanism for national users to alert the IUCN needs to be

available so that such information does not appear without warning in the website.

6.5. Further questions

- Relationships between national and global processes needs more work

33

o Is a global assessment needed? The answer seems to be yes according to what was

discussed at the workshop.

o Top-down/voluntary combined bottom-up process(es)? Mainly bottom-up as agreed by

the workshop but it was also clear that IUCN will have to carry out a quality control or

validation of the identification process.

- Questions related to the process that should serve as a guide for further workshops (some of

these questions are already answered in this report but should serve as a guide for further

work).

o Who manages the data?

o Who maintains standards of implementation?

o Who manages the “learning”?

o Who provides the funding?

o Who retains the intellectual property rights?

34

7. Next Steps

Five immediate next steps stand out as emerging from the framing workshop:

1. Publish an update of the Task Force progress in the website including this report.

2. First and second quarter 2013 – Task Force to convene specific technical working groups

supported by associated options papers

The IUCN Taskforce on Biodiversity and Protected areas envisioned four working groups that would

focus on the key issues that will need to be resolved to develop the standard. These groups were

proposed to be i) Criteria and thresholds, ii) Delineation, iii) Documentation, validation and

endorsement, and iv) Application. These working groups were envisioned to be supported by an options

paper on the theme including issues to be resolved and a technical workshop aimed to address these

key issues.

The framing workshop pointed to several issues that were grouped in 11 categories (Appendix 4). These

have led to a re-thinking of some of the working groups mentioned above. Based on this, we propose

the following working groups:

Thresholds: What should be the thresholds to identify areas significant to the global persistence

of biodiversity be? The research mentioned under 5.3 will serve as support material to move

forward on this process.

End users and application: This will be the main theme of a workshop organized on the World

Conservation Congress on 8th September 2012 (see point 4 in this section).

Criteria and delineation: One of the issues to be tackled by this group would include units of

assessment (see Appendix 4). It could be subdivided into two subgroups, one tackling criteria

and the other delineation. Existing processes to draft options papers to support these two

themes could be modified in the light of the framing workshop’s decisions, and then used as

input into the this technical working group(s).

Governance of the process: How should the process be governed, documented, validated and

endorsed? This group will cover the Governance, Process, and Monitoring and Review

categories (see Appendix 4). An existing draft options paper on the subject of documentation,

validation, and endorsement can serve as background material for this group.

Joint GOBI/taskforce group: At a minimum, a mechanism to maintain clear communication

between the Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative (GOBI) and the taskforce is desirable.

3. August to December 2012 - Regional consultations

Four regional consultations have been carried out to date.

- International Congress for Conservation Biology (ICCB) held at New Zealand in December 2011,

which led to the organization of the Framing workshop described in this report.

- Biodiversity Without Boundaries 2012. Held at Portland in April 2012. Click HERE to access the

event description.

35

- Society of Conservation Biology Regional Conference: Biodiversity Asia 2012 (Bangalore, India –

7 to 10 August 2012). Click HERE to access the event description. Fifty participants took part in

this workshop which was chaired by Dr. Vinod Mathur (Wildlife Institute of India) and included

presentations from Diego Juffe-Bignoli (IUCN), Dr Thomas Brooks (Nature Serve), Dr. Jagdish

krishnaswamy (ATREE Ashoka trust for research in ecology and the environment).

- European Congress of Conservation Biology, ECCB (Glasgow, United Kingdom, 28 August to 1

September 2012). Click HERE to access the workshops website. This workshop included a panel

discussion with Robert Smith (University of Kent), Carlo Rondinini (Sapienza Università di Roma),

Hugh Possingham (University of Queensland), Ian Burfield (BirdLife International) and Thomas

Brooks (Nature Serve), moderated by Diego Juffe-Bignoli (IUCN).

Next consultations

The Task Force is preparing other consultations and is always opened to be present in relevant regional

fora. On the date of publication of this report no further consultations have been confirmed for 2012.

4. September 2012 - IUCN WCC Jeju, South Korea 8th September 2012

A workshop is organized for the World Conservation Congress in Jeju (click HERE to access the event

description). The workshop will be focused to end-users and applications. It will consist of a panel

discussion representing different perspectives and experiences of end-users, building on experiences

from “KBAs” and the needs and applications of the end-users of the new IUCN standard.

5. The name for the IUCN Global Standard for identifying areas significant to the global

persistence of biodiversity.

What should IUCN call the emerging standard? Numerous terms have been applied by various

stakeholders, such as “key biodiversity areas”, “areas of importance for biodiversity”, “areas of global

significance for biodiversity” among many others, but so far none of the names seemed to have

resonated broadly through the community. IUCN is therefore exploring alternatives for a name.

The first step to achieve this was a card exercise organized at the framing workshop (see Appendix 5 for

results). Further stages to find a name could include:

A joint initiative between the Taskforce and the IUCN Commission on Education &

Communication (CEC) to generate a list of possible names by consulting the IUCN CEC

community and related sectors.

An open, online consultation to let the public vote for their preferred names. Names suggested at the workshop may also be included.

An IUCN specific process to cut proposed names down to a 10 name shortlist.

A decision on the name for the new IUCN standard on WCC 2012 at Jeju, South Korea.

36

Literature Cited

Baillie, J.E.M., Hilton-Taylor, C. and Stuart, S.N. (2004). 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. A

Global Species Assessment. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN

Butchart, S.H.M., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Evans, M.I., Quader, S., Aricò, S., Arinaitwe, J., Balman, M.,

Bennun, L.A., Besançon, C., Boucher, T.M., Bartzky, B., Brooks, T.M., Burfield, I.J., Burgess, N.D., Chan, S.,

Clay, R.P., Crosby, M.J., Davidson, N.C., De Silva, N., Devenish, C., Dutson, G.C.L., Díaz Fernández, D.F.,

Fishpool. L.D.C., Fitzgerald, C., Foster, M., Heath, M.F., Hockings, M., Hoffmann, M., Knox, D., Larsen,

F.W., Lamoreux, J.F., Loucks, C., May, I., Millett, J., Molloy, D., Morling, P., Parr, M., Ricketts, T.H.,

Seddon, N., Skolnik, B., Stuart, S.N., Upgren, A. and Woodley, S. (2012) Protecting important sites for

biodiversity contributes to meeting global conservation targets. PLoS ONE 7(3): e32529.

Sahotra Sarkar, Robert L. Pressey, Daniel P. Faith, Christopher R.Margules, TrevonFuller, David M.

Stoms,Alexander Moffett, Kerrie A.Wilson, Kristen J.Williams, Paul H.Williams, and Sandy Andelman.

Biodiversity Planning tools: Present Status and Challenges for the Future. Annual Review Environmental

Resources 2006. 31:123–59

Paul F. Donald, Fiona J. Sanderson, Ian J. Burfield, Stijn M. Bierman, Richard D. Gregory, and Zoltan

Waliczky (2007). International Conservation Policy Delivers Benefits for birds in Europe.Science 317, 810

Güven Eken, Leon Bennun, Thomas M. Brooks, Will Darwall, Lincoln D. C. Fishpool, Matt Foster, David

Knox, Penny Langhammer, Paul Matiku, Elizabeth Radford, Paul Salaman, Wes Sechrest, Michael L.

Smith, Sacha Spector, Andrew Tordoff (2004). Key Biodiversity Areas as Site Conservation Targets.

BioScience, Vol. 54: 12. Pages 1110-1118

Hawlena, D., Strickland, M. S., Bradford, M. A., and Schmitz, O. J. (2012). Fear of predation slows plant-

litter decomposition. Science 336: 1434-1438.

Hooper, D. U., E. C. Adair, B. J. Cardinale, J. E. K. Byrnes, B. A. Hungate, K. L. Matulich, A. Gonzalez, J. E.

Duffy, L. Gamfeldt, and M. O’Connor (2012). A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver

of ecosystem change. Nature 486:105-108

Langhammer, P.F., Bakarr, M.I., Bennun, L.A., Brooks, T.M., Clay, R.P., Darwall, W., Silva, N.D., Edgar,

G.J., Fishpool, L.D.C., Foster, M.N., Knox, D.H., Matiku, P., Radford, E.A., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Salaman, P.,

Sechrest, W., Tordoff, A.W. (2007). Identification and Gap Analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas. IUCN,

Gland, Switzerland.

Margules C.R. and Pressey R.L. (2000). Systematic Conservation Planning. Nature 405. Pages 243-253.

Margules, C. R., and S. Sarkar (2007). Systematic conservation planning. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Wetlands and Water

Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

37

Moilanen, A., Wilson, K.H., Possingham, H.P. (Eds.), Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative

Methods and Computational Tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 196–210. Noss, R.F. (1990)

Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical Approach. Conservation Biology 4(4).Pages: 355-

364.

Ricketts, T.H., Dinerstein, E., Boucher, T., Brooks, T.M., Butchart, S.H.M., Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux, J.F.,

Morrison, J., Parr,M., Pilgrim, J.D., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Sechrest, W., Wallace, G.E., Berlin, K., Bielby, J.,

Burgess, N.D., Church, D.R., Cox, N., Knox, D., Loucks, C., Luck, G.W., Master, L.L., Moore, R., Naidoo, R.,

Ridgely, R., Schatz, G.E., Shire, G., Strand, H., Wettengel, W. and Wikramanayake, E. (2005). Pinpointing

and preventing imminent extinctions. PNAS 102: 18497–18501.

Vié, J.-C. Hilton-Taylor, C., and Stuart, S.N. (eds.) (2009) Wildlife in a Changing World – An analysis of the

2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland, Switzerland. IUCN.

38

Appendix 1: Draft Agenda

FRAMING WORKSHOP “CONSOLIDATING CRITERIA TO IDENTIFY SITES OF

GLOBAL RELEVANCE FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION”

Gonville Hotel, Cambridge (UK), 5 – 8 June 2012

Background:

There is currently an increasingly large demand from multiple sectors of society to

understand precisely where areas (both on land and in the sea) of high biodiversity

distinctiveness and threat are, and the contribution that the safeguarding of such sites can

make to overall biodiversity conservation goals. The identification of such areas of is a critical

to support decisions about land use, zoning, development planning and the establishment of

protected areas or other conservation measures. A number of specific approaches, which

partially meet these demands, have been implemented over the last few decades. However,

while these approaches have delivered measurable conservation successes, the outcomes

have also resulted in some policy confusion and duplication of efforts for countries using

these approaches. The aim of the current IUCN-convened process is to develop a new

globally agreed approach that draws and builds on existing approaches in a way that best

advances the biodiversity conservation agenda, while responding to end-users needs for a

scientifically-rigorous, comprehensive, and pragmatic tool for practitioners.

Aims of the workshop:

Clarify and agree on the high-level objective(s) of the new IUCN standard for

identification of sites of global relevance for biodiversity conservation.

Define the concepts to be included (or not included) in the new standard and the

elements needed to reach these objectives.

Time-permitting, and based on the results of the previous discussions, start the

process of developing criteria to identify sites under the new standard.

To build a shared understanding of the global standard.

Structure of the Workshop:

We have purposefully structured this workshop to be open, interactive and adaptive. We

want to take advantage of the knowledge, experience and creativity of the workshop

participants by maintaining an open structure that allows participants to input into the

agenda and its progress.

Outline of the workshop:

DAY 1: 5th June

Morning:

Afternoon:

Welcome + background on the large questions for the workshop

Framing the overarching objective and purpose of the IUCN standard

so as to be responsive to end-user needs DAY 2: 6th June

Morning: Afternoon:

Framing the overarching objective and purpose of the IUCN standard Having agreed the overarching objective and purpose of the standard, define the concepts to be included (or not included) in the new standard

DAY 3: 7th June

Morning: Afternoon:

Continue discussion on Concepts Time-permitting, and based on the results of the previous discussions,

start the process of developing criteria to identify sites under the new standard.

DAY 4: 8th June

Morning: Afternoon:

Continue discussion on Concepts/Criteria Products from the workshop, and next steps

39

Day 1 - Tuesday 5th June 2012

Morning: Welcome + background on the large questions for the workshop

9.00

9.30

9.45

Opening, welcome and introduction of participants

(Jon Hutton - UNEP-WCMC)

Introduction to the Task Force objectives and the

consultation process, clarification of the purpose of the

workshop

(Stephen Woodley – Parks Canada)

A review of existing approaches and their objectives

(Thomas Brooks - NatureServe)

Plenary

10.30 Questions

10.45 Coffee break

11:15

The IUCN standard in the context of systematic

conservation planning – (Robert L. Pressey – James

Cook University )

Plenary

11.45

Questions

12.00

12.45

13.00

The IUCN standard from the perspective of end-users:

Courtney Lowrance – Citi institutional clients group

Achilles Byaruhanga – Nature Uganda

Questions

Core principles for IUCN engagement in consolidation of

standards for identifying significant sites (Jane Smart -

IUCN)

13.15 Lunch

14.15 Afternoon: Framing the overarching objective and

purpose of the IUCN standard so as to be responsive to

end-user needs

Plenary/

working

groups as

needed

Goal: Framing the overarching objective and purpose of the IUCN standard so as

to be responsive to end-user needs

The task for the first afternoon and second morning will be to advance discussion – and

strive towards plenary consensus – on the overarching objective and purpose of the IUCN

standard.

40

15.30 Coffee break

16.00

18.00

Continue discussions

End of the day

Day 2 - Wednesday 6th June 2012

Morning: Framing the overarching objective and purpose of the IUCN standard

9.00

Framing the overarching objective and purpose of the

IUCN standard

Plenary/

working groups

as needed

11.00 Coffee break

11.15

Plenary/ working groups discussion continues

Plenary/working

groups as

needed

13.00 Lunch

14.00 Afternoon: Having agreed the overarching objective and purpose of the standard,

the concepts to be included (or not included) in the new standard need to be

defined

14:15

Discussion of next steps. Can we now discuss core

concepts? Are we missing core concepts?

Proposed Working Groups on core concepts

Concept A: Values

Concept: What values should be considered in the

process? Which should not? In each case, why?

Concept B: Geographic units

Concept: What geographic units should the process

address? Which should not? In each case, why?

Concept C: Coverage of taxonomic groups and

scales of ecological organization

Concept: What taxonomic groups and scales of ecological

organization should be considered by the process? Which

should not? In each case, why?

Concept D: Geographic extent

Concept: What geographical extent should be addressed

by the process? Which should not? In each case, why?

Plenary/Working

groups as

needed

16.00 End of the day

FIELD TRIP IN WICKEN FEN & DINNER

41

Wicken Fen was the very first Nature Reserve to be owned by The National Trust and has

been in their care since 1899. It is a National Nature Reserve, a Site of Special Scientific

Interest (both UK designations), a Special Area of Conservation (a European designation)

and a RAMSAR site (international wetland designation).

Departure time for field trip from Gonville Hotel: 16.15

Departure time for dinner from Gonville Hotel: 19.00

Day 3 - Thursday 7th June 2012

Morning: Continue discussion on Concepts

9.00

Continue discussion on Concepts

Plenary/Working

groups as

needed

10.30 Coffee break

11:00

Continue discussion on Concepts

Plenary/Working

groups as

needed

13.00 Lunch

Afternoon: Time-permitting, and based on the results of the previous discussions, start the

process of developing criteria to identify sites under the new standard

14.00

Continue discussion on Concepts, or if completed start

discussion on Criteria to identify sites according to the

agreed overarching objective, purpose and concepts on

the new IUCN standard. Criteria used in existing

approaches can be reviewed to determine whether or not

they are fit for purpose.

Plenary/Working

groups as needed

15.30 Coffee break

16.00

Continue discussion on Concepts, or if completed start

discussion on Criteria to identify sites according to the

agreed overarching objective, purpose and concepts on

the new IUCN standard. Criteria used in existing

approaches can be reviewed to determine whether or not

they are fit for purpose.

Plenary/Working

groups as needed

18.00 End of the day

42

Day 4 - Friday 8th June 2012

Morning: Continue discussion on Concepts/Criteria

9.00

Continue discussion on Concepts, or if completed start

discussion on Criteria to identify sites according to the

agreed overarching objective, purpose and concepts on

the new IUCN standard. Criteria used in existing

approaches can be reviewed to determine whether or not

they are fit for purpose.

Plenary/Working

groups as

needed

10:30 Coffee break

11.00 Continue discussion on Concepts, or if completed start

discussion on Criteria to identify sites according to the

agreed overarching objective, purpose and concepts on

the new IUCN standard. Criteria used in existing

approaches can be reviewed to determine whether or not

they are fit for purpose.

Plenary/Working

groups as

needed

13.00 Lunch

Afternoon: Products from the workshop, and next steps

14.00 Products from the workshop Plenary

15.30 Coffee break

16.00 Next steps:

What are the next steps/ process of the

consultation

Setting a roadmap

Plenary

18.00 End of the workshop

43

Appendix 2: List of Participants

In order to achieve maximum participation and representation, three different weeks to organize the

workshop were proposed. The week of the 4-8th June was chosen by most people. The organizers, in an

effort to have an inclusive and comprehensive list of participants, sent around 95 invitations in total.

Last Name First Name Institution Country

Abson Rodney IUCN - Commission on Education & Communication

Switzerland

Al Cibahy Ashraf Environment Agency - Abu Dhabi

United Arab Emirates

Badman Tim World Heritage Convention Switzerland

Bachman Steven Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew UK

Benítez Díaz Hesiquio Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO)

Mexico

Bennun Leon BirdLife International UK

Boitani Luigi University of Rome Italy

Brooks Thomas NatureServe USA

Burgess Neil World Wildlife Fund UK

Byaruhanga Achilles Nature Uganda Uganda

Campellone Rob U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USA

Carrizo Savrina IUCN UK

Coates David Convention on Biological Diversity

Canada

Cochrane Joanna Shell - Sensitive Areas Team Netherlands

Contreras MacBeath Topiltzin Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos

Mexico

Cuttelod Annabelle IUCN UK

De Montmollin Bertrand IUCN - Species Survival Commission Plant conservation subcommittee

Switzerland

Dudley Nigel Equilibrium UK

44

Ferrier Simon Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

Australia

Fishpool Lincoln BirdLife International UK

Garcia-Moreno Jaime Amphibian Survival Alliance Netherlands

Gascon Claude National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

USA

Geffert Laurens IUCN Germany

Groves Craig The Nature Conservancy USA

Hoffmann Mike IUCN - Species Survival Commission

UK

Hutton Jon United Nations Environment Programme - World Conservation Monitoring Centre

UK

Juffe-Bignoli Diego IUCN UK

Joolia Ackbar IUCN UK

Keith David NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change & Water

Australia

Knight Andrew Stellenbosch University South Africa

Kouame Marie-Ode

SOS-Forests Cote d'Ivoire

Kuehl Aline Convention on Migratory Species

Germany

Langhammer Penny Arizona State University USA

Leader-Williams Nigel University of Cambridge UK

Lotter Mervyn Mpumalanga Tourism & Parks Agency

South Africa

Lowrance Courtney CitiGroup, Environmental &

Social Risk Management USA

MacKinnon Kathy IUCN - World Commission on Protected Areas

UK

Mathur Vinod Wildlife Institute of India India

Mead Aroha IUCN - Commission on Environmental, Economic and

New Zealand

45

Social Policy

Minter David Centre for Agricultural Bioscience International/SSC Cup Fungi, Truffles and their Allies Specialist Group

UK

Munguira Miguel Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

Spain

Nanjappa Priya Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies/Partners in Amphibian & Reptile Conservation

USA

Parr Mike American Bird Conservancy USA

Pilgrim John The Biodiversity Consultancy UK

Possingham Hugh University of Queensland – (Day one via Skype)

Australia

Pressey Robert James Cook University Australia

Rebelo Tony South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI)

South Africa

Redford Kent Archipelago Consulting USA

Rondinini Carlo University of Rome Italy

Roseboom Gertjan Shell - Sensitive Areas Team Netherlands

Sadovy Yvonne University of Hong Kong / Society for the Conservation of Reef Fish Aggregations

Hong Kong

Scharleman Jorn United Nations Environment Programme - World Conservation Monitoring Centre

UK

Schatz George Missouri Botanical Garden USA

Smart Jane IUCN Switzerland

Smith Robert University of Kent UK

Sneary Martin Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool

USA

Sousa Nadinni Ministry of Environment, Brazil Brazil

Spector Sacha Scenic Hudson USA

46

Stroud David Joint Nature Conservation Committee

UK

Stuart Simon IUCN - Species Survival Commission

UK

Upgren Amy Conservation International USA

Vergara Sheila ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity Philippines

Watson James Wildlife Conservation Society USA

Weaver Phil Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative

UK

Whitten Tony Fauna & Flora International UK

Woodley Stephen Parks Canada Canada

47

Appendix 3: “Expectations” Cards

Summary

Participants were asked to write their expectations for this workshop on a card. Results of this exercise

are presented below. Most expectations were directed toward achieving consensus, discussing the

criteria or the end users of this standard (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Number of “Expectation” cards in each category defined at the workshop

At the end of the workshop participants were asked to group expectation cards in four categories based

on the results of the workshop.

Expectations (end of workshop) Number

Met expectations 5

Expectations on the way to being met 3

Expectations NOT met 2

NEW expectations (as a result of theworkshop) 0

20

14

9

8

7

5

3

2

0 5 10 15 20 25

Consensus

Criteria

Users

Taxonomic groups

Prioritisation

Other

Target 11

Flexibility

48

List of “expectations” cards

Category Comment Consensus Greater willingness of NGOs to work together on common priority systems rather than

promoting their own system

Consensus Know what people will be able to do better as a result of this initiative --> what does this ultimately lead to?

Consensus Everyone consolidates their understanding of terminology used across current approaches

Consensus A clear definition, with consensus for "sites of global biodiversity conservation significance" and for the IUCN role hereforth regarding them

Consensus To achieve consensus on the need for a global standard for sites of global conservation importance and for IUN to play the coordinating role to develop and maintain this standard

Consensus Consensus on an IUCN standard for ""

Consensus A clear, coherent and consensus driven system of KBAs or other system to identify and map globally critical habitat

Consensus Get a consensus on what this IUCN standard will do

Consensus That everyone agrees KBAs are the way to go

Consensus Achieving consensus on criteria for consolidation

Consensus Agreement on purpose/objectives

Consensus General happy convergence on a) at least the principles for progress, b) at best the criteria themselves

Consensus A common understanding of the process and the way forward

Consensus Move towards clarity on key conservation areas for planning purposes in land use

Consensus Define the need for an IUCN standard on areas of special importance

Criteria A set of principles for scientifically robust, quantitative criteria for selecting significant biodiversity areas

Criteria There are many sites of importance for biodiversity identified by different organizations using different criteria, which results in confusion for many people. Need to agree on the criteria to provide clarity to non-experts

Criteria The ability to examine all dimensions/aspects of the criteria under consideration

Criteria Clarification of existing terminology and criteria and assessment of overlap/commonalities

Criteria Reduce the inconsistency and subjectivity with identification of critical habitat

Criteria A comprehensive global criteria that can guide the national criteria for the selection of Pas

Criteria How to move beyond criteria of prioritization of sites -- field conservation

Criteria Design for persistence (size and connectivity)

Criteria Target-based criteria

Criteria Possible conceptual 'tiered' approach that takes lead from IPCC/carbon

49

Criteria Harmonising the different approaches for “KBA” already in operation

Criteria Criteria for identifying marine areas for conservation prioritization using limited data

Criteria Protocol to choose areas for biodiversity conservation

Consensus Identify points of core agreement and key issues for further (technical) discussion moving forward

Consensus Reach common understanding of what IUCN process is for and how it will proceed

Taxonomic groups Inclusive (animals, fungi, plants) consensus on what a standard approach to "KBAs" should contain

Flexibility Flexibility into the methodology to allow the incorporation of information on political decisions/local and regional levels

Flexibility Deliver flexible (use in any country), simple and mathematically credible advice about the best conservation actions to take

Consensus Agreement on fundamental conservation objectives before discussing criteria and methodologies

Consensus Consensus that this is a valuable concept and process

Consensus Agreement on process

Criteria To ensure the criteria and process also covers the fungi

Other To learn: we lack experience and expertise in this topic for fungi and will be great to leave with something to teach colleagues

NEW expectations (as a result of workshop)

(none indicated)

Other All views articulated and considered

Other Happiness

Other Inclusion of the role of cultures and communities in biodiversity conservation

Other Better understanding of IUCN's longer term plans for its "sites" programme

Prioritisation Agreement on the philosophical basis for biodiversity prioritisation

Prioritisation Better resolution of global priority systems with national and local priorities for conservation and development

Prioritisation We need a means to prioritize among sites since there are already thousands of “KBA”s and IBAs -- too many to complete protection for all by 2020

Prioritisation Proper discussion on the trade-offs between theory of prioritisation and reality of data availability

Prioritisation Identify common features of all approaches and unique features that need to be retained

Prioritisation I hope we can one day have a global registry of sites of conservation importance to inform planning decisions at a global and local level

Prioritisation A methodology with considers the importance of managed areas

Target 11 Understand what IUCN is going to push under Aichi Target 11 "areas of importance for biodiversity"

Target 11 General consensus from the broad set of constituencies present on how the new IUCN standard can useful contribute to achieving Target 11 and inform conservation planning exercises

50

Target 11 A methodology which incorporates connectivity --> CBD Target 11 (metapopulation approach and fragmented landscapes?)

Taxonomic groups Pragmatic approach to identify sites for all biodiversity beyond animals, fungi and plants

Taxonomic groups Include all taxonomic groups in “KBA”'s definition

Taxonomic groups Plants and fungi to have equal footing with the 'better known' groups

Taxonomic groups Better understand how migratory species are missing out/benefitting from various criteria

Taxonomic groups Freshwater sites considered

Taxonomic groups Consideration will be given to species, genes and ecosystem dimensions of "biodiversity"

Taxonomic groups “KBA” identification will include/accommodate all taxonomic groups and be iterative so that as new taxa are assessed they can be incorporated into “KBA” analyses

Users Understand how best to integrate "standards" into work of Amphibian Specialist Group

Users A clear message to non-conservation groups (banks, industry) that conservation can align on global priorities

Users Have a clear understanding of who the knowledge users are and how they want to receive the knowledge about this initiative, which should aid in the design of the knowledge product

Users Pragmatic solution to providing relevant advice to different end-users (from academics to ministers of finance and local communities)

Users Applicable within selection of World Heritage Sites

Users Improved understanding of views of academia and corporates of current site identification schemes

Users Critically assess how best to feed the criteria into the policy framework of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS)

Users End Users?

Users Make bottom-up approach real effective

51

Appendix 4: “Issues” Cards

Summary

Participants were asked to write onto carton cards the main issues the IUCN convened process would

face in order to achieve a consolidated standard. Cards were then classified in categories by five

volunteers and all cards were discussed in plenary in order to remove duplicates (cards that raised the

same issue or an issue that was covered by another card). Most issues raised were relative to Vision and

Criteria categories, and also related to the application of the standard or the process to implement and

manage the standard. Twenty percent (40) of the cards were considered duplicates (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Number of “Issues” cards in each category defined at the workshop and relative importance.

List of “issues” cards

Category Comment

Application

There needs to be a clear quantitative means of differentiating between “KBA”s by vulnerability and irreplaceability. This is very important for users to prioritize opportunity, and conversely, assess risk/significance of loss

Application “KBA” supporting implementation of conventions…WH, Ramsar, MAB, CBD, etc.

Application Standard should not simply inform which areas to protect but also to improve impact assessment practice which needs more consistency

52

Application

What if we identify a site as important but no action can succeed? Then we waste a lot of money. What if we identify a site where no action is needed? Then ditto, money will be spent for no reason. Sites without actions make no sense.

Application Governance mechanisms for “KBA”s will vary

Application How do we deal with management options?

Application What does “KBA” status imply in management terms?

Application Following up mechanism on criteria adoption and updates

Application Site protection is usually only one of several actions needed for marine conservation since the major threat is overexploitation

Application If action at a “KBA” is not feasible or secured, do we invest?

Application Some social scientists and political ecologists regard “KBA”s as a form of laying the ground for government 'land grabbing'?

Application National implementation

Application Useful for users (not too difficult to use)

Application

How can these sites be used? To provide metrics/inform the new platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services agenda? [global processes like CBD]

Application

We need to be able to report the ecosystem values of safeguarding “KBA”s, but these local anthropogenic values shouldn't be incorporated at the criteria level

Application

How to translate the IUCN standard for “KBA”s into relevant and actionable objectives adopted/accepted by authorized land management agencies/entities

Application Capacity building

Application How to ensure that data gaps don't hold up application?

Application You can't prioritize sites, you can only prioritize actions, because you can't "do" sites

Application “KBA”s not always understood by government agencies. More NGO/technical audience

Communication/marketing Branding

Communication/marketing Need new, better name

Communication/marketing Should we include ecosystem services/values in the branding?

Communication/marketing What type of scheme will best capture public imagination?

Communication/marketing Translation issues for word clarity

Communication/marketing Not spooking the horses

Communication/marketing

How to communicate (succinctly, clearly), especially to non-specialists, why this process is needed, what will be done with the outputs/outcomes, next steps

Communication/marketing Do “KBA”s resonate with local communities?

Communication/marketing End-users and opportunities

Criteria Species not on IUCN Red List--use of national and regional Red Lists in criteria? Bias.

Criteria Inclusion of biocultural values

Criteria Integration of cultural importance of biodiversity sites

Criteria Will (or should) the standard address viability of “KBA”s related to

53

climate change?

Criteria How to define vulnerability?

Criteria Design for persistence (size and connectivity)

Criteria Minimum unit? MVP, endemic species range, conservation management unit

Criteria Will (or should) the standard address needs for life cycle stages for short-distance migrants (breeding vs. hibernation vs. forage areas)?

Criteria Divergence, and thus inconsistency in, criteria/thresholds among conservation site identification approaches

Criteria

Irreplaceabillity is scale dependent. Big areas, more species. 100% irreplaceability (emergent property) sites not equal. # threatened species / # last chance species

Criteria How many “KBA”s do we want? (Balance between too many covering all of the country or not enough to make a conservation impact)

Criteria Concerns about focusing only on threatened and endangered species

Criteria Species? Ecosystems? Ecosystem services? Cultural criteria?

Criteria

Using categories (as well as criteria) for “KBA”s is an interesting suggestion (parallel to the IUCN Red List), maybe, especially, for 'Data Deficient'

Criteria

How can the criteria identify areas of key functions/services? These values are of critical importance to the national/regional implementation actors.

Criteria How will ecosystems be defined in a standardize way for purposes of “KBA” identification?

Criteria

Would like the standard to include unique assemblages--however narrowly defined==as criteria. Assemblages are important biodiversity features in many cases.

Criteria

We need to distinguish between site vulnerability (i.e. human/climate pressures) and species vulnerability, but incorporate both into the standard. Perhaps through categorization of “KBA”s by threat?

Criteria Links of “KBA”s with PoWo [?], Ramsar, World Heritage, etc.

Criteria Shall we have different criteria or thresholds for different biome/taxonomic groups?

Criteria

Can we move towards % thresholds for irreplaceability and vulnerability (for species and ecosystems)? -- given that absolute thresholds will be vastly different between taxa/ecosystems

Criteria How will assessments of sites draw from (and interact with) Red Listing of species and ecosystems

Criteria

Criteria--some good things to aim for: 1) Transparent derivation from theory (conservation planning), 2) generality (all places, all elements of biodiversity), 3) KISS (keep it simple, stupid), 4) dealing with uncertainty (applicable with limited data)

Criteria Small-scale habitat specializations and requirements

Criteria How to harmonize existing “KBA”s based on other approaches at national level

Criteria Use CBD guidelines, e.g.. for Ecological and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs)

54

Criteria How to ensure extensive existing work is built on and built into new approaches

Criteria Important areas should be prioritized, especially in megadiversity countries

Criteria Criteria to measure success (e.g. population objectives)

Criteria How to deal with groups that are poorly represented on the Red List (e.g. fungi, plants)

Duplicates Move from identification to action

Duplicates What does being designated as a "KBA” actually mean/imply?

Duplicates Legal considerations of gazettement

Duplicates "Management" needs to be clarified. It has to be very clear what an area has to be managed for.

Duplicates Mission? Concepts? End Users?

Duplicates Evaluation

Duplicates How will we deal with the already existing network of protected areas? Compatibility with new standard.

Duplicates Will this new criteria include 'non biodiversity" criteria such as culture?

Duplicates There are no clear “KBA” selection processes for 'data-poor' geographies

Duplicates Availability of quantitative and recent data

Duplicates How to deal with data 'gap' and 'validation' issues

Duplicates Applicability to data poor countries

Duplicates Need to establish a new name (non-loaded, no historical baggage) for the standard. To include the world 'global'? 'Key' is unclear.

Duplicates Transparency, documentation

Duplicates Flexible vs. prescriptive methodology

Duplicates For whom?

Duplicates Monitoring and review

Duplicates Framework of collaboration between conservationists/scientists/end users

Duplicates Main users have to be the countries

Duplicates Reconciling “KBA”s and systematic conservation planning

Duplicates Limited cake: cannot have focus of key areas/species without loss/devalue of other areas/species

Duplicates Values that underpin prioritization of different elements of biodiversity

Duplicates Current approach is "rigorous" but entirely subjective, not science-based

Duplicates Why not a full set of categories of "importance" instead of just the top one?

Duplicates Prioritization among “KBA”s loses important non “KBA” sites

Duplicates "old growth"

Duplicates Are ecosystem processes relevant to site importance?

Duplicates Is the genetic level considered in this standard on "biodiversity" conservation?

Duplicates Review of existing terminology and their criteria: are they the same? Are they applicable to any biome? Is it possible to consolidate under one

55

umbrella?

Duplicates Connectivity?

Duplicates How will we allow for change? E.g. climate change, environmental change, dynamics of evolution, etc.

Duplicates What about plant assemblages?

Duplicates How to deal with rare wide-ranging marine species? (threatened)?

Duplicates How to take on board all biodiversity

Duplicates “KBA”s are based only on species representation. Missing functional roles/relationship

Duplicates Fund-raising implications longer term: more resources overall? Fewer resources for current practitioners?

Duplicates Genetic level, crop wild relatives, relatives of domesticated animals. Implicit or explicit? "Across the range of a species"

Duplicates Guidelines for consistent delineation--"What is a site"?

Duplicates How large should a “KBA” be?

Duplicates Scale-size of priority areas vs. size of PA's. Global vs. national

Governance of the process Who owns the process?

Governance of the process Mission/role for IUCN

Governance of the process Who will ensure appropriate application of the standards? Will there be a central registry of these sites?

Governance of the process Who has authority to apply the “KBA” standards? Any rigour on its application?

Governance of the process Within IUCN, who has the legitimacy/mandate to endorse/quality control of nationally identified IBAs?

Governance of the process What is the IP on the process/products?

Governance of the process Within a country, who has the authority/mandate to apply the standards to identify “KBA”s?

Governance of the process The method can be "certified" by IUCN. The product of its application no (unless done by IUCN)

Governance of the process Who decides and endorses/validates?

Governance of the process Frequency of updating

“KBA”s & systematic conservation planning

Test method against complementarity-based ones that use explicit cost and design constraints

“KBA”s & systematic conservation planning Units of assessment

“KBA”s & systematic conservation planning Is there a “KBA”/spatial planning divide?

“KBA”s & systematic conservation planning Site identification based on biodiversity targets

“KBA”s & systematic conservation planning

"Importance" implies some sort of comparison in relation to a target. “KBA”s/IBAs have no explicit conservation targets.

“KBA”s & systematic conservation planning

Misuse of irreplaceability concept (needs target and complementarity unless features are endemic)

“KBA”s & systematic To avoid confusion we need to use standard definitions of vulnerability

56

conservation planning and irreplaceability

“KBA”s & systematic conservation planning Do not define percentage areas if at all possible

“KBA”s & systematic conservation planning

Human use benefit of conservation (e.g. AZE) must be set against economic value of exploitation (logging, fishing, agriculture, etc) and assessed on NPV basis. This may not provide the economic answer conservationists want

“KBA”s & systematic conservation planning

Clarification on data requirements of “KBA”s vs. systematic methods: can “KBA”s really cope with less data?

Monitoring & review Clearly show site value to allow for the flexibility of the tool when changes in the current scenario happen

Monitoring & review monitoring outcomes

Parking lot Concern that “KBA” structure will over-determine outcome of this workshop

Process How to address data gaps?

Process Validation, quality control

Process Given growing exploitation pressures, when should site data be kept confidential?

Process Funding

Process Documenting uncertainty and data gaps would assist future data collection (e.g. for EIAs)

Process Timeframe to link with policy/implementation

Process

Data: at present, it is not easy to get information about associations between organisms (e.g. what insects pollinate this tree). Databases need to be modified to store and provide such information.

Process Clearinghouse?

Process How to ensure that data gaps don't hold up application?

Process Need systems that allow for increase in data availability

Process

The value of the site and the reasons why it was indicated should be clear in order to support later prioritization and to allow the flexibility of the tool, to manage with changes

Process Resources: a big problem for all but bigger for fungi and invertebrates; people to do the work; data

Process User-friendly methodology

Process Participatory processes such as Free Prior Informed Consent need to be used in identifying sites

Process Capacity building

Process Monitoring/evaluating outputs

Risks/problems Stakeholder conflicts: vested interests in maintaining existing terminology; marketing/branding of approaches/criteria

Risks/problems If “KBA”s are managed to a global standard, what are the impacts on other investments?

Risks/problems How to deal with protected areas that will not be “KBA”s?

Risks/problems Are we heading towards "go" vs. "no-go" areas?

Risks/problems Biodiversity is everywhere. So what happens to areas outside “KBA”s?

57

Can we loose these?

Risks/problems "Habitat loss" rather than habitat transformation. Biodiversity exists (incl. threatened species) in cropland and urban "lost" areas.

Risks/problems For what? If not users, discuss uses and misuses.

Risks/problems

Scale: funding strategies require larger areas than local-scale conservation. Need of clear list of what can and can not be done with “KBA”.

Risks/problems Wide-ranging species

Units of assessment (delineation)

Freshwater systems: management unit is catchment and are sometimes transnational. Need to deal with large-scale and connectivity issues. PAs containing freshwater elements don't guarantee protection.

Units of assessment (delineation)

What is a site/area? Scale? Consistency (e.g. across regions, landscapes, seascapes)? Overlaps, nestedness?

Units of assessment (delineation)

How should delineation of “KBA”s align among IBAs, IPAs, AZE, freshwater, marine sites, etc? Should they necessarily be congruent? What are the costs if they are not congruent?

Units of assessment (delineation)

Clearly defining "management unit" to draw boundaries of “KBA” sites will be very important, particularly in aquatic systems, while still remaining flexible in approach.

Units of assessment (delineation)

How to deal with issues of overlap of sites as increasing numbers of different taxa are used to identify sites?

Units of assessment (delineation) Scale difference between terrestrial and freshwater “KBA”s

Vision Key biodiversity conservation areas seek to provide criteria for the identification of sites of global relevance for biodiversity conservation

Vision Long-term commitment

Vision Application of "least concern" to sites?

Vision Medicinal plants areas of significance?

Vision Branding

Vision What is the added value of “KBA”s?

Vision To utilize existing methodologies: IPAs (Plantlife) and IBAs (Birdlife)

Vision Is livelihood considered in “KBA”s?

Vision Make values explicit

Vision Consolidating freshwater, marine, terrestrial approaches

Vision Is it possible to cover both national areas and areas beyond national jurisdiction (governed by UN processes)?

Vision Can we have tiers of “KBA”s?

Vision Limitations of site based approach…connections between sites, within landscapes and seascapes

Vision Criteria to help target setting at national level and financial needs assessment

Vision How to move beyond conserving rare, endangered, and threatened (RET) species?

Vision What will happen to these “KBA”s?

Vision Is it a global standard for biodiversity areas or a global standard for

58

global biodiversity areas?

Vision Global criteria will identify "too many" sites in some countries and "too few" in others

Vision Scale issues vary with scale. Cannot have one scale fits all. IUCN standard must be global scale (of what?)

Vision What are “KBA”s for? Driving investment? Add action, costs, feasibility, synergies

Vision Where to we want to get to, e.g. an 'IUCN Red List of Sites'? Difficult to fully resolve issues without broad consensus on end point.

Vision Do we develop a set of “KBA” categories like the Red List (e.g. binomial ranking vs. binary)?

Vision Scope of content (cultural/ecosystem services)

Vision What's the purpose?

Vision Is the “KBA” approach optional to countries?

Vision Are we identifying areas important for 'biodiversity' or 'conservation'?

Vision

(Diagram of IUCN knowledge products: data on endangered species and endangered ecosystems feeding into conservation area [“KBA”] identification, and with protected areas linked to conservation areas [presumably meaning that conservation areas/”KBA”s would have other options for management and use])

Vision Global or national?

Vision Are we doing criteria or criteria and map?

Vision In a fast changing world, does an area have to be threatened before we consider it of conservation importance?

Vision

Should important sites for restoration/reintroduction be incorporated at the criteria level? Or only after restoration/reintroduction has taken place?

Vision Define "biodiversity" or not (implies criteria vs. registry)

Vision Representativity

Vision Complementarity

Vision Viability

Vision Imperfect data

Vision Define "importance"

Vision What is meant by "key"? Does it translate well?

Vision Assemblages/process/structure/function/composition, etc.

Vision Lack of global standards allows countries and developers to down rate/ignore “KBA”s

Vision What will be done with a list of sites of global relevance for biodiversity?

Vision A role for horizon scanning in identification of “KBA”s (which areas could become more vulnerable with time)

59

Appendix 5: “Name Suggestions” Cards

Summary

Participants were invited to propose names for the new IUCN Standard by writing them onto

cards. The result of this exercise is presented below: i) using the free on-line tool Wordle

(http://www.wordle.net) and ii) the complete list of proposed names. Words like Biodiversity,

Areas, Sites, Life, Essential, Contribution, and Persistence were used by most participants.

Fig X. Wordle for the proposed names. The size of the words is relative to the number of times each word

appeared on the cards

List of “suggestions” cards

Category Contribution

Name suggestion Jubilee areas

Name suggestion Biodiversity kingdoms

Name suggestion Areas of biodiversity wealth

Name suggestion "Please just leave us alone" areas

Name suggestion Palaces of persistence

Name suggestion Areas of biodiversity importance

Name suggestion Edens

Name suggestion Bastions of biodiversity

Name suggestion Where the wild things thrive

Name suggestion Biodiversity (or natural) Insurance Areas

Name suggestion (Global) Contribution Area for Biodiversity

Name suggestion Red Zones

Name suggestion “KBA”+

Name suggestion Persistence Places

Name suggestion Sites for Life

60

Name suggestion Ecologically Important Areas

Name suggestion Vitally Important Biodiversity Areas

Name suggestion Network for Nature

Name suggestion Life Support Areas/Network

Name suggestion Essential Ecological Areas

Name suggestion Focal Biodiversity Areas

Name suggestion Areas of Biodiversity Contribution (ABC)

Name suggestion Areas of Biodiversity Significance (ABS)

Name suggestion Essential Biodiversity Areas (EBA)

Name suggestion Essential Life Areas

Name suggestion Areas for the Persistence of Ecosystems, Genes and Species (APEGS/APEX)

Name suggestion Red Mist

Name suggestion Erythrosites

Name suggestion EcoSites

Name suggestion Sites for Life

Name suggestion Life Sites/Life Sites Network

Name suggestion Green Zones

Name suggestion BioAreas

Name suggestion Nature's Arks

Name suggestion Essential Ecosystems

Name suggestion Sites of Significance (SOS)

Name suggestion Global Biodiversity Sites (GloBS)

Name suggestion BioZones/ Bio Sites

Name suggestion Eco Areas

Name suggestion Significant Biodiversity Sites (SBS)

Name suggestion Irreplaceable Areas

Name suggestion Global Biodiversity Persistence Areas

Name suggestion Known Areas of Opportunity for Biodiversity Conservation (KABC)

Name suggestion Sites for Life / Lifesites

Name suggestion Puzzle of Life

Name suggestion Important Biodiversity Areas (IBA)

Name suggestion Red (list) Sites

Name suggestion Biodiversity Register

Name suggestion Bioregister of Significant Places

Name suggestion Index of Bioviable Places (spaces, areas)

Name suggestion Conservation Opportunity Area

Consideration We have 'protected areas' as a "general" term. Could we do similar for biodiversity e.g. native areas under which we have various flavours [?]

Consideration Do not use the term 'biodiversity' in the name -- only scientists know what it means!

Consideration Use 'nature' -- people don't understand 'biodiversity'

61

Appendix 6: Results of the Workshop Evaluation Survey

An online workshop evaluation survey was created to seek feedback from participants regarding the

organization and outcomes of the workshop. The survey was completed by 38 participants (58 % of total

participants).

1. Please indicate which group of end users you represent (indicate if you wear multiple hats!):

answered question 36

skipped question 2

Response Response

Percent Count

Conservation organization

33% 12 Non profit conservation

organization

22% 8 Government Agency

19% 7

International Conventions & Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA) 6% 2

Private sector

8% 3 Financial institutions

3% 1

Academia (indicate discipline of expertise below)

22% 8

Cultural/Spiritual institutions

0% 0 Local and indigenous

communities

6% 2 Donors

0% 0

Other (please specify) / Academic expertise

9

Responses question 1 Intergovernmental Organization Conservation planning Conservation planning,

herpetology conservation planning Wildlife Conservation Conservation conservation priority setting Entomology Consultant

62

2. Please indicate any particular taxonomic and/or biome expertise (indicate if you have more than one).

answered question 34

skipped question 4

Response Response

Percent Count

Birds

27% 9

Freshwater fish

6% 2 Freshwater invertebrates

3% 1

Fungi

3% 1 Invertebrates

12% 4

Plants

15% 5 Mammals

24% 8

Freshwater

21% 7 Marine (high seas)

12% 4

Marine (coastal)

15% 5 Terrestrial

55% 18

Other (please specify)

6 Responses question 2

Amphibians human and social Amphibians Amphibians and Reptiles Amphibians Wetlands

3. Workshop organisation - please rate 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent)

answered question 38

skipped question 0

1 2 3 4 5 Response

Count

Meeting arrangements (travel, visas etc.)

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2.8% (1) 13.9% (5) 83.3% (30)

36

Quality of the accommodation and meals.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 5.3% (2) 36.8% (14)

57.9% (22)

38

Personal service received overall (not including hotel service) e.g., handling of registration, dealing with any queries, resolving any problems/issues

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2.6% (1) 5.3% (2) 92.1% (35)

38

Meeting venue (Gonville Hotel), including the meeting rooms

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 18.4% (7) 47.4% (18)

34.2% (13)

38

Social events (Field Trip to Wicken Fen and Dinner at Haddenham)

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2.9% (1) 22.9% (8) 74.3% (26)

35

63

4. Did the sessions comprise the right amount of time and content?

answered question 38

skipped question 0

Not Enough Just Right

Too Much Response

Count

Presentations 10.8% (4) 86.5% (32) 2.7% (1) 37 “Expectations Cards” and “Issues

Cards” 0.0% (0) 73.0% (27) 27.0% (10) 37

Plenary discussions 7.9% (3) 71.1% (27) 21.1% (8) 38 Break-out groups 18.4% (7) 76.3% (29) 5.3% (2) 38 Other (please specify below) 33.3% (1) 66.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 3 Other (please specify)

4

Responses question 4 Facilitation

Draft resolution Too much time devoted to the "binary" discussion

Very well managed but would have gad more breakout discussions

5. Are there any sectors/institutions/people who should have been present at the workshop but weren’t, and so who are priorities to involve in subsequent stages of the process (if the answer is yes please explain who)?

answered question 38

skipped question 0

Response Response

Percent Count

Yes

50% 19 No

26% 10

I don't know

24% 9 Please explain who are priorities to involve in

subsequent stages of the process

19 Responses question 5

More end-users, esp private sector. Representatives from Megadiverse Countries More developing country NGO or conservation agency staff, more

freshwater people End Users esp. representatives of national governments Presence of more governamental agencies More business people Government though I know more were invited than participated policy makers, managers

64

Plantlife International; IUCN Freshwater prog staff; staff from more MEAs

Belinda Reyers, Atte Moilanen, Hugh Possingham... but not sure I'd involve them now as the process has started

Local communities, business and non-conservation interests I noticed an excess of European people Expertise in ecosystem and genetic levels of biodiversity need to be

included, currently too species (mammal/bird) focussed International Finance Corporation (IFC) Perhaps they were invited and couldn't attend, but other US gov't

conservation/wildlife agencies should have been better represented; I came to represent amphibians/reptiles, but I participated in discussions more from the perspective of how conservation is implemented in US state fish/wildlife agencies - others from my organization (AFWA) may have been important to include as well.

more freshwater people, especially members of the dragonfly and mollusk SGs

At least one representative of each of the knowledge user groups As identified by Users group Hugh Possingham

6. Are you looking forward to be involved in the subsequent stages of the consultation process (yes/no/don’t know)?

answered question 38

skipped question 0

Response Response

Percent Count

Yes

97% 37 No (please explain why below)

0% 0

Don't know

3% 1 Please explain why you are not

willing to keep involved

4

Responses question 6 Because ultimately this is very important

Informed of progress, but not necessarily directly involved. This work is directly applicable to my work and the work of my

organization. I found the experience to be highly enriching and stimulating. I felt

humbled and honored to be among those in attendance, and I learned some important information/lessons that I can now apply to the in-progress criteria formulation for important conservation areas for herpetofauna (name of our effort still tentative).

65

7. Would you consider using the standard – or the products of its application – in your organisation when it is finished? How?

answered question 37

skipped question 1

Response Response

Percent Count

Yes

87% 32 No

3% 1

I don't know

11% 4 Please explain: how would/could you use this standard OR Why you

would not consider using it 26 Responses question 7

For business planning and priority setting / risk identification. A lot of protected areas in the region I belong to are misplaced / have

not targeted the necessary biodiversity. Having a global standard will increase the range of its use and actually have a reference where conservation should be done.

Promotion among local, state, national organisations Until there is a "standard", there is no way to know whether or how it

could be used. Because we are always having to establish priorities Evaluating it to see how effective it is We have an urgency to dilineate key biodiversity areas to keep them

away from developmental pressures. As a governamental agency, the standard could be used in national

prioritization exercises and to evaluate the contribution of its conservation policies at the regional and global levels.

Delineating areas based on new species distribution data and methodological standard

Would simplify conversation with stakeholders As a layer in systematic conservation planning analyses to complement our work on KBAs by highlighting other sites based on

other taxa. I would expect the standard would recognise existing KBAs and other sites of key biodiversity

Need to asses, and try to accommodate as necessary, the standard against our own

we do better analyses It would help negotiations under the CBD Detect areas that should be conserved at national level The standard has the potential to drive growth of my organization's

land/water acquisition efforts. Apply it to guide decision making to more clearly define "critical habitat" under IFC standards, which

dictates mitigation requirements Depending on the outcome, we are planning to refer to it in our

current document, stating that we have been engaged in recent KBA/systematic conservation planning discussions via IUCN and plan to adopt their standards once released.s

protected area planning

66

As I work for IUCN this will be a part of the job to promote this and make sure it is widely accessible and useful for various knowledge users

KBA's would be important input to project planning As possible Global support for priority areas at risk depends on the next phases

8. Overall, to what extent were the objectives of the workshop achieved? answered question 38

skipped question 0

Response Response

Percent Count

Completely achieved

37% 14 Partially achieved (please specify)

63% 24

Not achieved (please specify)

0% 0 Please specify why

26

Responses question 8 Not enough conclusions drawn by the end of the workshop. Too much

debate on whether we should be doing this in the first place rather than how to do it.

The initial expectation was too much anyway but I was glad that a lot of the issues were articulated, understood and discussed

There was good progress on the vision statement for a standard, but essentially no progress on the criteria that would define such a standard.

To a degree, but I think it could have been better and more cost effective

the workshop failed to build on the review of the existing approaches. More discussion is needed to cover all the issues raised during the

workshop, such as monitoring and evaluation of the standard and the use of the tool to evaluate the fulfillment at the global level of Aichi Target 11.

no clear criteria, methodology Difficult to determine the objectives of the meeting so difficult to

answer Product unclear, discussion on binary discussion unfinished the objective was to define the standard while just the beginning of a

new standard definition was achieved It will be a long process but this was a great start to be followed up in subsequent talks there was probably high expectations Main stated objectives achieved; the 'time-permitting' ones only

partially so we started a long and complex process, we don't know yet whether we

will get to a good result, if any

67

I expected some discussion on selection criteria I'd hoped we would have got further in defining the methods scoping to identify the key issues was largely achieved; the issues still

need to be addressed, however. I feel that great progress was made toward scope and focus of the

standard, as well as IUCN's role in its release/implementation. I thought we might discuss more on criteria, and I think we could have done more had some plenary discussions been shortened. That being said, the environment was one of respect and everyone being heard, so there was some great value to the lengthier plenary discussions.

It wasn't entirely clear what the precise desired objectives/outcomes were, but it seemed that we made tremendous progress and are now able to move forward to the technical phase.

I think the workshop made a lot of progress. I was not able to stay until the very end so perhaps this point is redundant, but I would like to see a clear roadmap of what, when and how the various parts will be developed

"next steps" should have been made clear We are still on a journey, but we made the best possible start. I was hoping for more progress Organisers were happy. More progress would have been better, but slow progress is

understandable in the circumstances

9. Overall, do you feel there is consensus on what the standard should be and do?

answered question 37

skipped question 1

Response Response

Percent Count

Yes

57% 21 No (please specify)

32% 12

I don't know

11% 4 Please specify why you feel there

is no consensus

19 Responses question 9

Could not expect consensus re specifics of the standard from this workshop, but strong consensus on the broad parameters and ways forward

It was difficult to know whether a consensus had emerged by the end of the workshop. I suspect that most participants would agree that the standard was to be a tool, i.e., a set of criteria, to identify important areas for biodiversity conservation. However, lacking the criteria, it is impossible to know the full ramifications of the tool, and therefore whether it would actually meet with any general consensus.

I think some people were just cowed and went quiet I think so.... Clearly two camps that are not fully agreeing on products and next

steps it seems to me that there is still a long way to reach consensus

68

Much more than before much more work needs to be done I think there is more work to be done for all to agree on the standard

and its applications. There was general feeling of the need for a global standard.

Not clear that there was adequate agreement as to the 'added-value' of what the standard would offer to governments beyond what is already available; put another way, while it is clear technically what the standard seeks to achieve, further 'needs-assessment' of the appetite for it within the main intended user-group seems needed.

or at least, not yet The workshop provided a forum to initiate the discussion, but I think

additional gatherings will be necessary before thier is complete consensus. In fact, we never as the ultimate question: "Can you/your organization live with/support the standard (as currently developed)?"

It seems like existing KBA advocates and systematic conservation planners have come together to endorse the KBA idea, however there is more than KBAs to consider

Generally, I felt that there was good consensus with respect to the Vision and Mission statements, which should guide all other aspects of the standard going forward.

Maybe consensus on the purpose/utility of the standard and to a lesser extent on the scope of the standard, but the criteria/thresholds themselves will still emerge from the technical meetings, no?

Yes, but there needs to be a clear articulation of this and ongoing explanations to make sure there remains a concensus as this tool develops

we didn't get to a "product" so there could be no consensus no consensus yet on how to specifically define a KBA - what it includes

and doesn't include Not yet! 10. Please feel free to add any

additional comments, suggestions or remarks. answered question 16 skipped question 22

Responses question 10 Thank you for putting this together.

Ultimately, it will be extremely shortsighted to exclude interactions with people (critical sustainable use of biodiversity; presence of wild relatives of useful species; critical ecosytem services provision of water, waste filtering, etc.) from among the primary criteria to identify important biodiversity areas. Important biodiversity areas should be important for both biodiversity and people. The days of having networks of pristine areas for the sake of biodiversity only are long gone. A new standard for identifying important areas for biodiversity conservation will fail to be adopted if it does not include criteria related directly related to human benefits in addition to those related to biodiversity benefits.

The organizers and facilitators deserve a huge amount of credit for a successful workshop.

69

I wish there had been a 'strawman' document prepared before the meeting. To have all the silverbacks in one room from all over the world discussing very premiminary things in plenary was an massive collective waste of time with enormous opportunity costs. I think you would have done better to have done the same meeting with a much smaller group and then brought in the larger number after they had been able to read at least the frameworks and why certain decisions had been made. I dread to think how much the meeting cost in cash terms, let alone the costs borne by the organizations.

An excellent workshop, one of the best I've been to. Great to have resolution between the KBA/IBA fraternity and the systematic conservation planning fraternity

The main meeting room and the seating arrangement was not conducive for interactive discussions. Everything else was fine.

Well done to the team for the organisation. I think the meeting set a string foundation for further work.

Excellent workshop, well organized, good range of participants. Good meeting. Probably include more persons especially those who will apply the

standard but may not necessarily be experts on any of the taxonomic groups eg. policy makers, managers/ heads of wildlife authorities etc.

Congratulations again to the organisers - they did a great job logistically while the workshop itself was conducted in an atmosphere that was sympathetic, stimulating and enjoyable

Thanks for initiating this effort! Excellent job! Keep up the good work! Still need to clarify if we are talking about sites of importance to biodiversity, or of

importance to biodiversity conservation. The difference being the latter includes information on threats, whereas the former does not.

I believe we achieved consensus on the objective of the standard to be used in conservation planning as well as risk management.

Big thanks to Annabelle and Diego (and Amy Burden) for handling all the travel logistics. I had some additional needs/requests that they were very helpful and attentive toward. Also, greatly appreciated the facilitation by John and Simon, as well as input from Jane at IUCN. The entire planning team did an excellent job, and I hope that I can continue to contribute toward, and benefit from, the connections made at the workshop with colleagues, and the subsequent stages of the process of developing the standard.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this workshop. Commendations to the facilitators and team coordinating the event and for bringing together such a depth of knowledge from across the 'key biodiversity areas' community.

Great group of people, really well run meeting, great support team, very much appreciated being part of this