120
The shaping of the global protected area estate
Within the KBA framework, the leading position of
the IBA scheme is such that the IBAs largely appear to
provide the starting point around which other data sets
are then added. The scientifi c and practical logic of
extending the IBA approach to wider biodiversity has
been critically assessed by Knight et al . (2007) . Among
other things, they note the following:
• First, the approach is preliminary and many key
methodological elements have not been validated. The
strong data sets and extensive networks of local experts
that underpinned the IBA foundations in most parts of
the world are not readily replicated for other taxa.
• Second, the approach is based on applying numerical
thresholds using species as the unit of analysis, which
is problematic enough in birds but far more so for many
taxa (reviewed in Chapter 4 ).
• Third, the approach fails to give any consideration
to questions of connectivity between sites across
landscapes.
Other concerns relate to the absence of scale limits
in the application of the criteria. This is not a serious
issue in regions such as Europe, where landscapes are
predominantly anthropogenic in character and patches
of conservation - important habitat are relatively distinct, discrete and small. However, in many regions,
any large remaining area of habitat could conceivable
qualify as an IBA/KBA.
Another concern arises from the diffi cultly of identifying clear universal thresholds. For example, while
defi ning species as range - restricted on the basis of a
global distribution of < 50,000 km
2 classifi es about 25
per cent of birds and of mammals as range - restricted,
the fi gure for amphibians is 60 per cent (Eken et al .,
2004 ). This means that either a different threshold
needs to be used or different taxa are being weighted
differentially by any automated application of the
threshold.
Similar problems arise in determining thresholds for
how many species have to be globally confi ned to a
particular biome for them to be given priority under
the ‘ biome - restricted assemblage ’ criterion. In addition, there is the question of the maximum permissible
size of site. In some regions there is the problem that
very many large areas of habitat could qualify as an
IBA or KBA. In practice, in some areas of the world,
such as Indonesia, the selected IBA list is largely the
same as designated under older, pre - existing schemes.
This is of course, an entirely pragmatic approach,
building around the existing (designated or planned)
published for nearly 50 countries by 2004). Others
included an Important Plant Areas framework, Prime
Butterfl y Areas, Important Mammal Areas (in the US),
and Important Sites for Freshwater Diversity.
Recognizing the benefi ts of collaborating, a number
of leading conservation organizations and networks
(including Conservation International, Birdlife,
Plantlife International, IUCN, and the Alliance for Zero
Extinction) pooled resources and proposed the Key
Biodiversity Areas scheme, fi rst formally outlined by
Eken et al . (2004) , who wrote: ‘ In this article, we build
on these developments and propose a general framework and
associated criteria for identifying key biodiversity areas
(KBAs). The overall goal of the KBA methodology is to
suggest universal standards for selecting sites of global signifi cance for conservation through the application of quantitative criteria. ’ (Eken et al ., 2004 , p. 1111). The KBA
scheme adopts the same four criteria as the IBA
scheme, refi ning them for application to other taxa in
addition to birds.
As well as providing a criteria - based scheme for
selecting sites to add to protected area networks, the
movers of the scheme expressed the hope that the KBA
framework can be used to monitor compliance with the
Convention on Biological Diversity as well as progress
towards biodiversity - related targets in other major
international environmental initiatives, such as the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. This form of use of
the KBA site lists would provide a new form of regulatory ‘ bite ’ to international protected area policy.
Despite the growing infl uence of the IBA scheme
and the taxonomically - expanded KBA framework,
these schemes have received relatively little academic
attention thus far. This may be largely a function of the
methodology involved, which, as described above,
involves many actors taking multiple forms of information into account, in ways that are not easily reduced
to the operation of computer algorithms (Table 5.7 ).
Unlike computer - based systematic conservation planning analyses discussed in Chapter 6 , they are thus not
analytically tractable within the normal framework of
typical life science papers.
The scheme ’ s originators recognize that the KBA
approach does not set out to design a site network of
maximized effi ciency, but rather that: ‘ … it provides
the universe of sites signifi cant for conservation, to
which complementarity - based methods for reserve
selection … can then be applied … ’ (Eken et al ., 2004 ,
p. 1111).
The shaping of the global protected area estate
Within the KBA framework, the leading position of
the IBA scheme is such that the IBAs largely appear to
provide the starting point around which other data sets
are then added. The scientifi c and practical logic of
extending the IBA approach to wider biodiversity has
been critically assessed by Knight et al . (2007) . Among
other things, they note the following:
• First, the approach is preliminary and many key
methodological elements have not been validated. The
strong data sets and extensive networks of local experts
that underpinned the IBA foundations in most parts of
the world are not readily replicated for other taxa.
• Second, the approach is based on applying numerical
thresholds using species as the unit of analysis, which
is problematic enough in birds but far more so for many
taxa (reviewed in Chapter 4 ).
• Third, the approach fails to give any consideration
to questions of connectivity between sites across
landscapes.
Other concerns relate to the absence of scale limits
in the application of the criteria. This is not a serious
issue in regions such as Europe, where landscapes are
predominantly anthropogenic in character and patches
of conservation - important habitat are relatively distinct, discrete and small. However, in many regions,
any large remaining area of habitat could conceivable
qualify as an IBA/KBA.
Another concern arises from the diffi cultly of identifying clear universal thresholds. For example, while
defi ning species as range - restricted on the basis of a
global distribution of < 50,000 km
2 classifi es about 25
per cent of birds and of mammals as range - restricted,
the fi gure for amphibians is 60 per cent (Eken et al .,
2004 ). This means that either a different threshold
needs to be used or different taxa are being weighted
differentially by any automated application of the
threshold.
Similar problems arise in determining thresholds for
how many species have to be globally confi ned to a
particular biome for them to be given priority under
the ‘ biome - restricted assemblage ’ criterion. In addition, there is the question of the maximum permissible
size of site. In some regions there is the problem that
very many large areas of habitat could qualify as an
IBA or KBA. In practice, in some areas of the world,
such as Indonesia, the selected IBA list is largely the
same as designated under older, pre - existing schemes.
This is of course, an entirely pragmatic approach,
building around the existing (designated or planned)
published for nearly 50 countries by 2004). Others
included an Important Plant Areas framework, Prime
Butterfl y Areas, Important Mammal Areas (in the US),
and Important Sites for Freshwater Diversity.
Recognizing the benefi ts of collaborating, a number
of leading conservation organizations and networks
(including Conservation International, Birdlife,
Plantlife International, IUCN, and the Alliance for Zero
Extinction) pooled resources and proposed the Key
Biodiversity Areas scheme, fi rst formally outlined by
Eken et al . (2004) , who wrote: ‘ In this article, we build
on these developments and propose a general framework and
associated criteria for identifying key biodiversity areas
(KBAs). The overall goal of the KBA methodology is to
suggest universal standards for selecting sites of global signifi cance for conservation through the application of quantitative criteria. ’ (Eken et al ., 2004 , p. 1111). The KBA
scheme adopts the same four criteria as the IBA
scheme, refi ning them for application to other taxa in
addition to birds.
As well as providing a criteria - based scheme for
selecting sites to add to protected area networks, the
movers of the scheme expressed the hope that the KBA
framework can be used to monitor compliance with the
Convention on Biological Diversity as well as progress
towards biodiversity - related targets in other major
international environmental initiatives, such as the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. This form of use of
the KBA site lists would provide a new form of regulatory ‘ bite ’ to international protected area policy.
Despite the growing infl uence of the IBA scheme
and the taxonomically - expanded KBA framework,
these schemes have received relatively little academic
attention thus far. This may be largely a function of the
methodology involved, which, as described above,
involves many actors taking multiple forms of information into account, in ways that are not easily reduced
to the operation of computer algorithms (Table 5.7 ).
Unlike computer - based systematic conservation planning analyses discussed in Chapter 6 , they are thus not
analytically tractable within the normal framework of
typical life science papers.
The scheme ’ s originators recognize that the KBA
approach does not set out to design a site network of
maximized effi ciency, but rather that: ‘ … it provides
the universe of sites signifi cant for conservation, to
which complementarity - based methods for reserve
selection … can then be applied … ’ (Eken et al ., 2004 ,
p. 1111).