Engaging Partners in the KBA processfor the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot

KBA definition – what does it involve?

• Database structure/design (action-oriented)

• GIS equipment and lab• Technical expertise• Data collation (papers, books, internet,

expert contacts) & data entry/shape-files• Products (lists, summary tables, analyses,

maps, reports, publications)• Decisions with stakeholders (workshops)

Context of partnerships for KBA definition

• KBA definition was to be done as a CEPF Cycle 4 Ecosystem Profile (only one part of the process)

• Technical Team of CBC (two staff) in 2003• Species Specialist based in New Zealand and a

Technical Director based in Samoa• No GIS capacity – No IT connectivity – No database• 20 odd island countries coverage across an ocean

continent four times the size of the USA • CABS first iteration of the KBA process was a 4-

page word document______________________________________

• Pacific Island countries agencies have strong tradition of regional partnership in conservation

______________________________________

• Design of the proposal for Ecosystem Profile and KBA definition entirely on the basis of partnerships

Main partners involved in KBA delineation process

How do you get partners to engage in a CI-lead process? – You need to build trust.

• Give them part ownership of the process: 1) Develop a strong partnership with a regional institution mandated for nature conservation (SPREP) – legitimacy of the initiative – co-leader 2) Set-up a Regional Task Force (advisory group) and invite all regional key data-rich agencies to full participation

• Ensure a decentralised and localised process for KBA definition (bottom-up approach)1) Sub-divide the hotspots in four sub-regions with biogeographic and logistic links2) Have the process led by a qualified and trusted local partner in each sub-region

Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot

CEPF Ecosystem ProfilePolynesia-Micronesia Hotspot

F.S.Micronesia

Nauru

Northern Marianas

Guam

FijiNiue

Tonga

Samoa

Tuvalu

Am.Samoa

French Polynesia

Cook Islands

Kiribati(Line Is.)

Marshall Islands

Tokelau

Hawaii

Wallis & Futuna

Palau

Easter Island

Pitcairn Island

Kiribati(Phoenix Is.)

Kiribati(Gilbert Is.)

Hotspot Sub-regions map and roundtables on biodiversity

Key partnerships involved in KBA delineation process

Strategic Partnerships• CEPF: co-lead the process in liaison with SPREP and in

support of CI team• SPREP: co-lead Ecosystem Profile by liaising with

Pacific Islands governments and providing GIS lab and equipment

Technical/Science Partnerships• Regional Task Force: Bishop Museum, WWF, Birdlife

International, TNC, University of the South Pacific, SOP-Manu (Tahiti), WCS and ISSG

• CABS: in support of CI team for outcome definition – analysis, KBA definition

Tasks• Provide data and GIS layers• Direct liaison with Profile Coordinator• Review draft KBA definition and investment strategy• Validate the process – 2 expert Roundtables

Key partnerships involved in KBA delineation process

Sub-regional Partnerships • Micronesia: University of Guam and TNC• Fiji Islands: Wildlife Conservation Society• Western Polynesia: Pacific Environment Consultants• French Polynesia: Te Ora Fenua and Delegation a la Recherche

Tasks• Liaise with sub-regional organisations and agencies at local level (each

country of the sub-region)• Identify key local stakeholders, organise and facilitate sub-regional

workshops and roundtables • Compile a sub-regional Ecosystem Profile including a preliminary cut at KBA

identification

March '03 April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan '04 Feb

Outcomes Definition Workshops

Final Report Oct 15

Inception Report May 30

Investment Strategy CEPF/CI Internal Review

2003-2004

Final Report

ExpertRoundtable

Draftof EP report (Oct 15)

Polynesia- Micronesia Hotspot Ecosystem Profile

Process for Profile and KBA definition

PartnersTask force members

SPREPBishop Museum

WCSTNCWWFSPC

CABS

PartnersFiji – WCS

Micronesia – TNCWest Polynesia – Pacific

Env.ConsultantsFrench Polynesia- Te Ora Fenua

LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS

Sub-Regional profiles

PartnersTask force members

SPREPBishop Museum

WCSTNCWWFSPC

CABS

Main local stakeholders involved in KBA definition process

Regional Intergovernmental • SPREP (provided data, office space and participated in the sub regional workshop in W. Polynesia)• SOPAC (provided GIS data)• USP (participated in the sub regional workshop in Fiji)• SPC- Forestry (participated in the sub-regional workshop in Fiji)

Academic and Research Institutions• Bishop Museum (provided data and participated in the “expert” workshops)• IRD-French Polynesia• Institut Malardie (Tahiti)• CRIOBE and R.Gump Research Centre (Tahiti)

Main partners involved in KBA definition process

Government Agencies• Division of Environment and Conservation staff and other officials (Forestry,

research) of all island countries eligible to CEPF (important for follow-up to GEF focal points)

Local NGOs• O le Siosiomaga Society (Samoa- participated in the sub regional workshop in

West Polynesia)• Te Ora Fanua (provided data and organised the sub-regional workshop in

French Polynesia) • Palau Conservation Society (participated in the sub regional workshop in

Micronesia)• Conservation Society of Pohnpei (FSM- participated in the sub regional

workshop in Micronesia)• National Trust for Fiji (participated in the sub regional workshop in Fiji)

Main local stakeholders involved in KBA definition process

Main partners involved in KBA delineation process

Private Sector• Pacific Environment Consultants Ltd (organised the sub-regional workshop in W. Polynesia)• Prof. Harley Manner (organised the sub-regional workshop in Micronesia)• Dr. Dick Watling (Ornithologist- participated in the sub regional workshop in Fiji)

Tasks• Input into sub-regional rountables and expert meetings• Assist in validation of data on species and sites, threats and gaps, and KBA definition • Participate in elaboration of sub-regional ecosystem profiles – directly of interest to them

Main local stakeholders involved in KBA definition process

Response of partners to the KBA process

• Generally very positive response:– More than 25 partner organisations were involved in the process– More than 100 specialists and stakeholders had input into the process– Appreciation for the “scientific” approach being followed– Expressed that CEPF would fill a large gap in terrestrial conservation effort and implementation of NBSAP strategies– All organisations and stakeholders have endorsed the Ecosystem Profile for the Hotspot

• Main concerns were that:– the IUCN RL for the region is very deficient and needs to be updated with the latest information.– there are major data gaps (thematic and geographical) that make it very difficult to comprehensively identify KBAs across the region– CI’s approach doesn’t take into account national priorities in this larger hotspot and global scale analysis.

Lessons learned over the partnerships to the KBA process

• Three-tier level partnership is essential - give part-ownership of the process to key partners – it is a system that help build trust/working relationship for the long-term

• Data-sharing, data usage and intellectual property agreements should be designed and signed from the onset• More time and budget are required for consultations and development of relationship with partners and

understanding of local conservation politics• In absence of CEPF implementation funding, delays in follow-up phase have a strong negative impact on key

partnerships• Partnerships for KBA definition need to work both ways – return CI input and support important for partners –

even if it doesn’t follow the KBA process

Key partnerships involved in KBA delineation process

In conclusion… Fa’afetai, Vinaka, Merci