The distribution of diversity: challenges and applications
119
identifi es partners, reviews institutional frameworks
and sensitizes stakeholders to the process. The identifi -
cation phase involves establishing a National Liaison
Committee, literature compilation and fi eld surveys,
national workshops to apply criteria and defi ne site
networks and training and capacity building as
required. The third and fourth action phases focus on
prioritizing and planning action to protect the IBAs,
the formulation of site action plans, site support networks and associated advocacy campaigns.
Key Biodiversity Areas
As a result of these attributes, the IBA approach is
growing in infl uence. When linked to legislation, as in
the European Union, IBA inventories empower citizen
groups to hold their government to account for its conservation action. For example, in 1998 the EC took
action against the Netherlands in the European court
for failing to meet its obligations under the Birds
Directive, using the IBA inventory in evidence (see
Heath et al ., 2000 ). Similarly, East European countries
wishing to join the EU were required to identify Special
Protection Areas as one condition of their accession.
The BirdLife European network assisted bird -
conservation groups in accession countries to prepare
IBA inventories for their governments as part of this
process. This helped to build new relationships between
conservationists and government offi cials in post -
communist countries as well as ensuring that key sites
received the recognition and protection they needed.
Criteria - based schemes, such as IBAs, align well
both with the new managerialism (also called audit
culture) in government and its focus on targets and
indicators, and with the principle of grass - roots participation in the formulation and delivery of policy.
Such schemes also provide a mechanism for identifying the sites required to make up networks of protected
areas at a fi ner (landscape/region) scale, within so -
called hotspot regions and within nations.
As previously discussed, the CI hotspots scheme is
typically too coarse - grained to aid in reserve selection.
Hence, following from the fundraising success of the
CI - 2000 hotspots launch at the turn of the 21st
century, there was an urgent need to adopt or generate
frameworks that would allow reserve networks to be
designed within hotspots and within nations.
A natural starting point was to turn to pre - existing
planning frameworks, of which the IBAs was the oldest
and best - developed (national IBA directories had been
and categorized at the regional (level ‘ B ’ criteria) and/
or sub - regional level ( ‘ C ’ criteria). For example, the
second European IBA inventory used up to 20 criteria
for this purpose (Heath et al ., 2000 ). This is to enable
comparisons to be made between countries and across
regions.
Application of the IBA criteria requires an associated list of eligible species for assessment against each
criterion (A1 to A4, above), along with associated
numerical population thresholds that must be matched
or exceeded in order for the site to qualify under the
particular category (Table 5.7 ). For categories A1 and
A2, the data are derived from BirdLife International ’ s
assessments of threatened birds and the lists of
restricted - range species compiled to identify Endemic
Bird Areas (above). Lists of biome - restricted species are
generated for each region and thresholds for congregatory species derived from the best available sources (see
Fishpool & Evans, 2001 for explanation). The criteria
are applied by national IBA coordinators, usually
working under the guidance of an advisory committee
supported by experts from the BirdLife International
secretariat. This involves comparing data on the population of species and assemblages of species at a site
against the defi ned threshold. Where data are lacking,
fi eld surveys are conducted.
Clearly this process is dependent on the ability
of those implementing the approach to identify a discrete site. To create this possibility, IBA boundaries/
assessment units are defi ned on the basis of the following criteria:
1 being different in character, or habitat, or ornithological importance from the surrounding area;
2 being an actual or potential protected area, with or
without buffer zones, or being an area which can be
managed in some way for nature conservation; or
3 being, alone or with other sites, a self - suffi cient area
that provides all the requirements of the birds, when
present, for which it is important (Fishpool & Evans,
2001 ).
These all - encompassing defi nitions have the practical effect of prompting IBA site identifi cation processes
to fi rst look at sites that are already known and defi ned
(conservation areas, research sites) and then to identify and add additional sites.
In contrast to the preceding frameworks, and in
order to enhance the grounded legitimacy of the
scheme and create local site - support networks, the
IBA approach specifi es a process through which sites
should be identifi ed and assessed. A preparation phase
119
identifi es partners, reviews institutional frameworks
and sensitizes stakeholders to the process. The identifi -
cation phase involves establishing a National Liaison
Committee, literature compilation and fi eld surveys,
national workshops to apply criteria and defi ne site
networks and training and capacity building as
required. The third and fourth action phases focus on
prioritizing and planning action to protect the IBAs,
the formulation of site action plans, site support networks and associated advocacy campaigns.
Key Biodiversity Areas
As a result of these attributes, the IBA approach is
growing in infl uence. When linked to legislation, as in
the European Union, IBA inventories empower citizen
groups to hold their government to account for its conservation action. For example, in 1998 the EC took
action against the Netherlands in the European court
for failing to meet its obligations under the Birds
Directive, using the IBA inventory in evidence (see
Heath et al ., 2000 ). Similarly, East European countries
wishing to join the EU were required to identify Special
Protection Areas as one condition of their accession.
The BirdLife European network assisted bird -
conservation groups in accession countries to prepare
IBA inventories for their governments as part of this
process. This helped to build new relationships between
conservationists and government offi cials in post -
communist countries as well as ensuring that key sites
received the recognition and protection they needed.
Criteria - based schemes, such as IBAs, align well
both with the new managerialism (also called audit
culture) in government and its focus on targets and
indicators, and with the principle of grass - roots participation in the formulation and delivery of policy.
Such schemes also provide a mechanism for identifying the sites required to make up networks of protected
areas at a fi ner (landscape/region) scale, within so -
called hotspot regions and within nations.
As previously discussed, the CI hotspots scheme is
typically too coarse - grained to aid in reserve selection.
Hence, following from the fundraising success of the
CI - 2000 hotspots launch at the turn of the 21st
century, there was an urgent need to adopt or generate
frameworks that would allow reserve networks to be
designed within hotspots and within nations.
A natural starting point was to turn to pre - existing
planning frameworks, of which the IBAs was the oldest
and best - developed (national IBA directories had been
and categorized at the regional (level ‘ B ’ criteria) and/
or sub - regional level ( ‘ C ’ criteria). For example, the
second European IBA inventory used up to 20 criteria
for this purpose (Heath et al ., 2000 ). This is to enable
comparisons to be made between countries and across
regions.
Application of the IBA criteria requires an associated list of eligible species for assessment against each
criterion (A1 to A4, above), along with associated
numerical population thresholds that must be matched
or exceeded in order for the site to qualify under the
particular category (Table 5.7 ). For categories A1 and
A2, the data are derived from BirdLife International ’ s
assessments of threatened birds and the lists of
restricted - range species compiled to identify Endemic
Bird Areas (above). Lists of biome - restricted species are
generated for each region and thresholds for congregatory species derived from the best available sources (see
Fishpool & Evans, 2001 for explanation). The criteria
are applied by national IBA coordinators, usually
working under the guidance of an advisory committee
supported by experts from the BirdLife International
secretariat. This involves comparing data on the population of species and assemblages of species at a site
against the defi ned threshold. Where data are lacking,
fi eld surveys are conducted.
Clearly this process is dependent on the ability
of those implementing the approach to identify a discrete site. To create this possibility, IBA boundaries/
assessment units are defi ned on the basis of the following criteria:
1 being different in character, or habitat, or ornithological importance from the surrounding area;
2 being an actual or potential protected area, with or
without buffer zones, or being an area which can be
managed in some way for nature conservation; or
3 being, alone or with other sites, a self - suffi cient area
that provides all the requirements of the birds, when
present, for which it is important (Fishpool & Evans,
2001 ).
These all - encompassing defi nitions have the practical effect of prompting IBA site identifi cation processes
to fi rst look at sites that are already known and defi ned
(conservation areas, research sites) and then to identify and add additional sites.
In contrast to the preceding frameworks, and in
order to enhance the grounded legitimacy of the
scheme and create local site - support networks, the
IBA approach specifi es a process through which sites
should be identifi ed and assessed. A preparation phase