S

© 2009 BirdLife InternationalJuan de Dios Martínez Mera N35-76 y Av. PortugalCasilla 17-17-717Quito, Ecuador.Tel: +593 2 2277059Fax: +593 2 2469838

americas@birdlife.orgwww.birdlife.org

BirdLife International is a UK-registered charity No. 1042125ISBN: 978-9942-9959-0-2

Recommended citation: DEVENISH, C., DÍAZ FERNÁNDEZ, D. F., CLAY, R. P., DAVIDSON, I. & YÉPEZ ZABALA, I. EDS. (2009) Important Bird Areas Americas - Priority sites for biodiversity conservation. Quito, Ecuador: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 16).

To cite a chapter: PROSPER, J., JOSEPH, V., OTTO, A. & PROSPER, S. (2009) Antigua and Barbuda. Pp 53 - 58 in C. Devenish, D. F. Díaz Fernández, R. P. Clay, I. Davidson & I. Yépez Zabala Eds. Important Bird Areas Americas - Priority sites for biodiversity conservation. Quito, Ecuador: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 16).

The purpose of the information contained in this book is to support conservation initiatives in the Americas, for which it may be reproduced. Using this information for commercial purposes is not permitted. If part or all of this information is used or included in any other publication, BirdLife International must be cited as copyright holder. Those who provided illustrations or photographs in this book have copyright over them and these are not permitted to be reproduced separately to the texts accompanying them.

The presentation of material in this book and the geographical designations employed do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of BirdLife International concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Membership of BirdLife International does not imply any opinion or position with respect to sovereignty issues on the part of BirdLife International Partner organizations.

Graphic design: Alejandro Miranda Baldares (alejoanime@yahoo.com)Translations: Christian Devenish, Ítala Yépez Zabala & Amiro Pérez-LerouxMaps: David F. Díaz Fernández, Ítala Yépez Zabala & Christian DevenishEdition of Spanish language country chapters: Ítala Yépez Zabala, Carlos Huertas Sánchez & David F. Díaz Fernández Graphic design volunteer (Spanish language country chapters): Adriana Valencia Tapia

This publication and all country/territory chapters in their native languages are available for download at www.birdlife.org/

Front cover image credits:• Loxigilla barbadensis): Jonathan Farmer• Cuban Amazon (Amazona leucocephala): Henry Nixon• Strange-tailed Tyrant (Alectrurus risora): Cristian Bannier• Ridgway’s Hawk (Buteo ridgwayi): Bill Clark• Araripe Manakin (Antilophia bokermanni): Ciro Albano• Fratercula cirrhata): Shutterstock• Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis): Tomasz Cofta• Red-backed Hawk (Buteo polyosoma): Cristobal Briceño• Resplendent Quetzal (Pharomachrus mocinno): Nick Athanas• Black Skimmer (Rynchops niger): Esmeralda Martínez• Black-browed Albatross (Thalassarche melanophrys): James C. Lowen; www.

pbase.com/james_lowen• Capuchinbird (Perissocephalus tricolor): Thierry Nogaro/GEPOG• Grenada Dove (Leptotila wellsi): Greg Homel• Jamaican Tody (Todus todus): Rafy Rodriguez• Amazonian Royal Flycatcher (Onychorhynchus coronatus• Peruvian Plantcutter (Phytotoma raimondii): Murray Cooper• Puerto Rican Woodpecker (Melanerpes portoricensis): Alfredo Colón Archilla• St Lucia Warbler (Dendroica delicata): Tseng Chiu-wen Hank• St Vincent Amazon (Amazona guildingii): Álvaro Jaramillo• Guianan Cock-of-the-Rock (Rupicola rupicola): Sylvain Cordier

• Trinidad Piping-guan (Pipile pipile): Alfredo Colón Archilla• Roseate Spoonbill (Platalea ajaja): Jim Williams• Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator): Milo Burcham• Venezuelan Troupial (Icterus icterus): David Southall• Red-necked Amazon (Amazona arausiaca): Paul Reillo RSCF/FWP Division• Yellow-shouldered Amazon (Amazona barbadensis): Sam Williams• Gentoo Penguin (Pygoscelis papua): James C. Lowen; www.pbase.com/james_lowen• Orange-breasted Bunting (Passerina leclancherii): Manuel Grosselet &

Georgita Ruiz/www.tierradeaves.com• Cuban schoolchildren: Omar Labada• Bolivian workshop: Asociación Armonía• Instituto de

Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt• Ecuadorian children: Murray Cooper• Ecuador workshop: Tatiana Santander• El Salvador training: Jorge M. Herrera• Birding in Guatemala: Knut Eisermann• Bay of Panama play: Karl Kaufmann• Paraguay local radio: Emily Y. Horton• IBA sign, Peru (PE003): NCI-Perú• Uruguayan farmer observing Entre Ríos Seedeater (Sporophila zelichi):

Joaquín Aldabe

Forewords image credits:• Photo of Peter Johan Schei: James C Lowen; www.pbase.com/james_lowen• Others photos: AnonymousIllustrations (from left to right)• Red-tailed Amazon (Amazona brasiliensis): Norman Arlott• Turquoise Cotinga (Cotinga ridgwayi): Peter Hayman• Imperial Woodpecker (Campephilus imperialis): Norman Arlott• Puerto Rican Amazon (Amazona vittata): Norman Arlott• White-tailed Sabrewing (Campylopterus ensipennis): Norman Arlott• Dwarf Jay (Cyanolyca nana): H. Douglas Pratt• Crested Eagle (Morphnus guianensis): Chris Rose

• Cuban Amazon (Amazona leucocephala): Norman Arlott• Gundlach’s Hawk (Accipiter gundlachi): Norman Arlott• Hooded Grebe (Podiceps gallardoi): Hilary Burn• Red Siskin (Carduelis cucullata): Norman Arlott• Eriocnemis nigrivestis): Martin Woodcock• Bermuda Petrel (Pterodroma cahow): Hilary Burn• Kirtland’s Warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii): Gamini Ratnavira

Summary image credits:• Rio de Janeiro Antbird (Cercomacra brasiliana): Clive Byers• Seven-coloured Tanager (Tangara fastuosa): Peter Hayman

1st title page image credits:• Mural: Artists for Nature Foundation

• Keel-billed Motmot (Electron carinatum): Norman Arlott• Black-headed Parrot (Pionites melanocephalus): Norman Arlott

S

00

•

•

•

•

)

00

Why Important Bird Areas?

The Americas

Saving biodiversity in the Americas

• IBA criteria

•

•

• Overview of IBAs in the Americas

• Focus on IBAs in the marine environment

• Focus on protection of the IBA network

• Focus on IBAs and threatened birds I

• Focus on IBAs and threatened birds II

• Focus on IBAs and Neotropical migrants I

• Focus on IBAs and Neotropical migrants II

• Focus on BAs and waterbird conservation

• Focus on IBAs and other biodiversity

• Focus on IBAs and global scale conservation priorities

• Focus on IBAs in the Amazon basin

• Focus on IBAs and Multilateral Environmental Agreements

• Focus on IBAs and CBD commitments

• Focus on IBAs and donor safeguard policies

• Focus on IBAs and private companies

• Focus on IBAs and local communities

• References - overview

• Antigua and Barbuda

• Argentina

• Bahamas

• Barbados

• Belize

• Bolivia

• Brazil

• Canada

• Chile

• Colombia

• Costa Rica

• Cuba

• Dominica

• Dominican Republic

• Dutch Caribbean

• Ecuador

• El Salvador

• Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

• French Overseas Départements and Territories

• Grenada

• Guatemala

• Guyana

• Haiti

• Honduras

• Jamaica

• Mexico

• Nicaragua

• Panama

• Paraguay

• Peru

• Puerto Rico and US Unincorporated Territories

• St Kitts and Nevis

• St Lucia

• St Vincent and the Grenadines

• Suriname

• Trinidad and Tobago

• UKOTs in the Caribbean

• United States

• Uruguay

• Venezuela

• Appendix 1. IBA trigger species for the Americas

• Appendix 1a. Changes to IUCN categories 2007–2008

• Appendix 1b. Species not currently considered

as restricted range

• Appendix 1c. Proposed new Endemic Bird Areas and

• Appendix 1d. Extinct species in EBAs

• Appendix 1e. Summary information for Endemic Bird Areas

• Appendix 1f. Secondary Areas

• Appendix 1g. Summary information for Biomes

• Appendix 2 IUCN Red List categories and criteria

• Appendix 3 Proposed AZE sites

• Appendix 4 Candidate Ramsar and WHSRN sites

• Appendix 5 Multilateral Environmental Agreements

• Map of Important Bird Areas in the Americas

• Photographer/artist and image index

5

9

23

25

29

33

35

39

43

45

49

52

53

59

85

99

205

229

235

243

249

255

289

329

333

339

345

383

393

403

434

435

435

438

439

440

442

443

455

For image credits, see page ii

-

-

-

-

2

-

--

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

For image credits, see page ii

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Over three thousand people participated in the production of

sites of global importance for birds in the Americas. The implementation of this phase of the Important Bird Area (IBA)

engagement of these extraordinary people. Nor would we have succeeded without the help, encouragement and commitment of countless organizations and donor agencies that provided valuable resources for this publication.

The North American Free Trade Agreement Commission for Environmental Cooperation provided key support during the early stages of the program, leading to the publication of the

in the Tropical Andes, thanks to funding from Conservation International’s Andean Center for Biodiversity Conservation and the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (NMBCA-USFWS),

Conserving the Tropical Andes Important Bird Areas. In the Caribbean, support over the last nine years, has come principally from the Aage V. Jensen Charity Foundation, British Bird Watching Fair, Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs/ Development Cooperation (DGIS), Environmental Foundation of Jamaica, Global Environment Facility through the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, NMBCA-USFWS, Olewine Family, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), SPAW Protocol Regional Activity Centre and the UNEP Caribbean Environment Programme.

provided by the DGIS, IUCN Mesoamerica and NMBCA-

Key Biodiversity Areas led by Conservation International and funded by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund and Partners in Flight. Support from the Aage V. Jensen Foundation during

systematic attempts to identify IBAs within a Wilderness Area. Most recently, the IBA program in the Guianas was generously supported by Vogelbescherming Nederland, with additional support from NMBCA-USFWS, DGIS and the Aage V. Jensen Charity Foundation.

Many of the above donors also provided support to the IBA program beyond the regional level, especially the Olewine Family, NMBCA-USFWS, Sociedad Española de Ornitología (SEO/BirdLife), Vogelbescherming Nederland and the Canadian Wildlife Service of Environment Canada. Many other organizations at the national level also played crucial roles in advancing national IBA programs. Finally, Fundación Biodiversidad and United States Forestry Service (USFS) played an important role in supporting the production of this directory as well as the NMBCA-USFWS and Jensen Foundation through a number of different projects.

We would particularly like to single out the support of a few key individuals throughout the Americas IBA program, many of whom are from these agencies and organizations: María del Coro Arizmendi (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Paul Schmidt and Doug Ryan from the USFWS; Luís Suárez, Thomas Brooks, José Vicente Rodríguez-Mahecha and Paul Salaman from Conservation International; Carol Lively from the USFS; Martin

Davies from the RSPB; Jan Ejlsted from Dansk Ornitologisk Forening/BirdLife Denmark; and Garry Donaldson from the Canadian Wildlife Service.

Country chapters were written under pressure of successive deadlines and we are grateful to the 112 authors for providing these texts. In addition to the chapter authors, we are grateful to the following for their participation in the edition of overseas territory chapters: John Cecil, Bernard Deceuninck, Bert Denneman, Alison Duncan and Sarah Sanders.

Many thanks to those who volunteered to translate or edit the native language country chapters, either for this directory or for the national language versions of chapters (available in pdf), especially Susana Aguilar Mugica, Christiaan van der Hoeven, Vincent Lemoine, Anthony Levesque, Verónica Méndez-Gallardo, Otte Ottema and Nyls de Pracontal. Thanks also to Carlos Huertas Sánchez for the edition of Spanish language chapters and to Adriana Valencia Tapia for design of native language chapters in pdf format.

We are very grateful to those who took time to write or obtain the prologues, especially, Susana Aguilar Mugica, Wanda Algarín, Margaret Atwood, Philippe Bayard, Claudia Belli, Andrés Bosso, Agustín Carriquiry, José Luis Casaccia, Liliana Chavarría, Natalia Collier, Juan Criado, Nyls de Pracontal, Janine Ferretti, John Flicker, Francisco Gadea, Graeme Gibson, Jaqueline M. Goerck, Andrew Harding, Anna D. Hoare, Oliver Komar, Marco Lambertini, Ana Leiva, Carol Lively, Sandra Loor-Vela, Verónica Méndez-Gallardo, Salvadora Morales, Mike Rands, Alejandro Sánchez, Peter Johan Schei, Paul R. Schmidt, Jonathan Stacey, Alfredo G. Stroessner, Jørgen B. Thomsen, Delta Willis, Richard Yank, Alberto Yanosky, Bernardo Zentilli and José Manuel Zolotoff.

We’d also like to thank the team at BirdLife International. Many people at the Global Secretariat based in Cambridge (with apologies for any omissions) provided essential support

of IBA criteria, GIS, communications, case studies and help obtaining images: Tris Allinson, Gary Allport, Mark Balman, Gilly Banks, Jez Bird, Gill Bunting, Stuart Butchart, Des Callahan, Beverley Childs, Mike Evans, Ian Fisher, Lincoln Fishpool, Martin Fowlie, Ben Lascelles, Adrian Long, Ian May, Gina Pfaff, Caroline Pridham, Martin Sneary, Jonathan Stacey, Chris Spreadbury, Jennifer Terry and Oli Yates. From the Americas Secretariat, Jaqueline M. Goerck lead the

Angulo Pratalongo provided support from the Peru Country Program; Amiro Pérez-Leroux provided input for certain case studies, and together with Amanda Tapia, ensured administrative issues were dealt with effectively; Arne Lesterhuis provided support for the introductory section on the Ramsar convention; Ana Torres volunteered data entry for Chile; and Doris Torres, Patricia Luzuriaga and Martha Gordón

this complexity.

Previous Americas staff, also instrumental at different stages of the IBA program include: Kerem Boyla and Angélica Estrada, editors of the Tropical Andes IBA directory; Eugenio Coconier who helped complete the IBAs for the

Southern Cone region; as well as Santiago García Lloré, Itziar Olmedo, Rita Besana, Ximena Casares and Mónica Rivas.

Many thanks to all those who provided information for case studies in the introductory chapters illustrating select conservation successes of the IBA program. Apart from those already mentioned, a special thanks to Humberto Berlanga (Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad), Mike Burger (Audubon New York), John Cecil, Connie Sanchez (National Audubon), Adrián Di Giacomo (Aves Argentinas), Juan Criado (SEO/BirdLife), Eugenia Endara, Sandra Loor, Tatiana Santander (Aves & Conservación), Anna D. Hoare (Belize Audubon), Mara Kerry, Sarah Wren (Nature Canada), Oliver Komar (SALVANatura), Patricia Majluf (Centro para la Sostenibilidad Ambiental), Patricia Marconi (Grupo de Conservación Flamencos Altoandinos/ Fundación YUCHAN), Oscar Rodas (Guyra Paraguay), Julio E. Sánchez (Unión de Ornitólogos de Costa Rica), Laura Sommers (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation), Rosa María Vidal (Pronatura), George Wallace (American Bird Conservancy), and Jose Manuel Zolotoff (Fundación Cocibolca).

We would like to offer thanks to the artists whose images we have used in illustrating this directory. These come from

specially commissioned paintings for the BirdLife Rare Bird Club. Thanks are also due to more than 250 photographers

who kindly donated all the images that so richly illustrate this directory.

Among amateur and professional photographers, much time was given in searching for and providing these

wonderful shots. Photographers are credited in each country chapter, but special thanks are due to Murray Cooper and James Lowen who have provided a

throughout the directory.

On a personal level, the authors thank our families,

especially partners and children, for enduring our absence during the latter stages of the directory’s completion.

Finally, a very special thanks to Alejandro Miranda for the design and layout of this directory. Alejandro put up with many more changes, comments and editions after

could have been expected, but has produced a book which we hope can be judged by its cover, and communicates a stunning visual message to further the conservation of birds and their habitats throughout the Americas.

BirdLife International’s Important Bird Area (IBA) program is a worldwide initiative focused on identifying, documenting and working towards the conservation of a global network of high priority sites for

• support national conservation strategies and protected area programs;• highlight areas which should be safeguarded and identify the most urgent conservation actions within them;

• provide a focus for conservation efforts led by civil society; and • inform the implementation of global and regional conservation agreements.

of South America, north to Alaska and the Canadian Arctic, including the Caribbean. The Americas is one of the most important regions in the world in terms of bird conservation, holding almost 40% of all threatened birds. Major threats to birds stem from agriculture, use of natural resources (e.g. logging and hunting) and invasive species, with 11% of the region’s birds globally threatened. Other biodiversity is

This directory is the result of a collaborative effort in every country across the hemisphere, including the 23 organizations of the

Organizations include conservation and development NGOs, government agencies, local community groups, academia and research institutions. Over 30 key regional workshops and many more national events, with the participation of at least 3000 people, were

in certain countries. IBAs cover an area of 3,284,602 km2, including some 140,000 km2 of marine

triggering IBA criteria, of an approximate total of 2200 in the Americas, including threatened, restricted-range, biome-restricted and congregatory species. Thirty-one percent of IBAs are fully protected, 22% are partially protected and the remainder are either unprotected or without information. Almost half (49%) the area of IBAs in the Americas lies within a protected area. To date, 19 national and regional IBA directories

America, the Tropical Andes and the Caribbean.

By conserving IBAs, many other aspects of biodiversity conservation are supported, for example in other site-based priority setting initiatives, implementation of international conventions, donor safeguard policies and corporate or community conservation initiatives. Among the site-based conservation initiatives, IBAs have become the basis for identifying Key Biodiversity Areas in the Caribbean and Central America, as well as in other countries of the region. IBAs have also been employed to identify sites within the Alliance for Zero Extinction across the hemisphere. IBAs have been used to draw up site shadow lists for the Ramsar Convention and Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. Additionally, IBAs are functional tools for implementing international environmental agreements, for example, sites will play a key role in regional agreements or memoranda in the context of the Convention on Migratory Species. IBAs have also been employed to inform and meet obligations within the Convention on Biological Diversity, such as national reports, National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans and the Protected Areas Program of Work. IBAs also play an important role in

within development proposals. Finally, IBAs have become part of local community and corporative conservation or development initiatives, whereby conservation actions are implemented at sites necessary for local livelihoods or within the operations spheres of multinational companies.

The IBA program is a dynamic process, requiring regular updating and revision as new information becomes available and changes occur in threats and bird populations across the hemisphere. Thus, the program is not a linear sequence

of the hemisphere’s most important sites for bird conservation. Among the most important future themes in the Americas IBA program are conservation planning, priority setting and monitoring.

El programa de las Áreas Importantes para la Conservación de las Aves (IBAs) de BirdLife es una iniciativa a nivel mundial que se centra

internacionalmente. El programa de las IBAs en América se inició en 1995, con el objetivo de:

• apoyar estrategias nacionales de conservación y programas de áreas protegidas,•• dotar de un objetivo a los esfuerzos de conservación liderados por la sociedad civil y,• promover la implementación de acuerdos de conservación regionales y globales.

América, según BirdLife International, abarca 57 países o territorios desde la Tierra de Fuego en el extremo sur, hasta Alaska y el Ártico de Canadá en el norte, incluyendo el Caribe. América es una de las regiones más importantes en términos de conservación de aves; ya que contiene casi el 40% de todas las especies amenazadas a nivel mundial. Las principales amenazas a las aves provienen de la agricultura, el uso de recursos naturales (ej. tala y caza) y especies invasoras; con el 11% de las aves de la región globalmente amenazadas. Otra biodiversidad está también excepcionalmente representada, estando 7 de los 17 países megadiversos en la región. Tanto el nivel de

Hotspots para la conservación.

Este directorio es el resultado del esfuerzo conjunto de todos los países del hemisferio; incluyendo a las 23 organizaciones de la red de

apoyando el proceso. Las organizaciones incluyen ONGs de desarrollo y conservación, agencias gubernamentales, grupos locales de base e instituciones académicas y de investigación. La realización de más de 30 talleres regionales, otros muchos a nivel nacional, con la

2, incluyendo unos 140.000 km2

restringido; restringidas a biomas y congregatorias. El 31% de las IBAs están totalmente protegidas, el 22% lo están parcialmente y el resto están desprotegidas o bien sin información sobre su estado de protección. Casi la mitad del área de las IBAs (49%) de América se encuentra dentro de algún área protegida. Desde la publicación del primer directorio de IBAs en América en 1999, hasta la fecha se han publicado un total de 19 directorios, entre nacionales y regionales; incluyendo varios directorios en Norte América, los Andes Tropicales y el Caribe.

A través de la conservación de las IBAs se apoyan otros muchos aspectos de la conservación de la biodiversidad; por ejemplo, otras iniciativas de priorización basadas en sitios, la implementación de convenciones internacionales, políticas de salvaguarda de donantes e iniciativas de conservación corporativas o comunitarias. Entre las iniciativas de conservación basadas en sitios, las IBAs se han convertido en la base

hemisferio, así como para preparar listados de sitios candidatos para la Convención Ramsar y la Red Hemisférica de Reservas para Aves Playeras. Adicionalmente, las IBAs son herramientas funcionales a la hora de implementar acuerdos medioambientales a nivel internacional. Por ejemplo, algunos sitios jugarán un papel crucial en los acuerdos o memorándum regionales en el contexto de la Convención sobre la Conservación de las Especies Migratorias. Las IBAs también han sido utilizadas para promover y cumplir las obligaciones del Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica, en la forma de reportes nacionales, Planes de Acción y Estrategias Nacionales de Biodiversidad, y Programas de Trabajo de Áreas Protegidas. Las IBAs también han jugado un importante papel para promover políticas de salvaguarda de grandes donantes

las IBAs han formado parte de iniciativas de conservación y desarrollo de comunidades locales y corporaciones; a través de las cuales las iniciativas son implementadas en sitios necesarios para el sustento local o dentro del campo de operaciones de compañías multinacionales.

El programa de las IBAs es un proceso dinámico, necesitando de actualizaciones y revisiones regulares conforme a la disponibilidad de nueva información, cambios en las poblaciones de especies o en las amenazas de las IBAs

de conservación y monitoreo; más bien se trata de un ensamblaje de acciones para asegurar la conservación de los sitios más importantes para la conservación de aves en todo el hemisferio. Entre los temas más importantes del

y el monitoreo.

The need for site-based conservation action has never been greater. Biodiversity is facing unparalleled threats from human activities, and without focused and rapid conservation interventions many countries will experience dramatic extinction crises in the coming years. The resources available for conservation efforts are limited if not scarce and need to be invested in strategic ways to ensure that they make the greatest contribution to preserving global biodiversity; in other words, priorities need to be set.

In the early 1980s, BirdLife International created the “Important Bird Areas” (IBAs) concept. IBAs are places of the highest global priority for bird and biodiversity conservation. They are irreplaceable ‘hotspots’ and

worldwide network of sites for the conservation of nature. Since birds are excellent indicators of overall biodiversity, IBAs are also important

environmental services, such as the provision of fresh water and forest

such their conservation contributes to the broader agenda of environmental management, sustainable development, and poverty eradication.

The IBA concept is actively used by civil society groups, governments, NGOs (including all members of the BirdLife network), international agencies and scientists all over the world as a tool for setting priorities and achieving conservation action. IBAs are widely recognized by local

communities, national legislation and policy, international agreements and regulations, and multilateral instruments and organizations.

In the Americas, over 2345 IBAs of global importance1 have been

and diversity of threats, exacerbated by the fact that the many lie outside formal protected areas, there is a critical need for a comprehensive, region-wide program of coordinated conservation by all sectors of society. This directory aims to facilitate such action by presenting data on IBAs in the Americas, compiled by the BirdLife International Partnership since 1995, in a standardized and clear format.

The Americas IBA Program has the following long-term objectives:

• To provide a basis for the development of national conservation strategies and protected areas programs;

• To highlight areas which should be safeguarded through wise land-use planning, national policies and regulations, and the grant-giving and lending programs of international banks, development agencies, businesses and foundations;

• To provide a focus for the conservation efforts of civil society including national and regional NGO networks;

• To highlight sites which are threatened or inadequately protected so that urgent remedial measures can be taken;

• To guide the implementation of global conservation conventions and migratory bird agreements.

from Tierra de Fuego at the extreme tip of South America, north to the Canadian Arctic and Alaska, and encompasses all continental and insular landmasses and territorial waters in-between. The westernmost point is formed by Attu (173°E) in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska, US, and the easternmost point by the islands of Trindade and Martim Vaz (Brazil, 21°51’W) in the Atlantic Ocean, though technically, the western Aleutian Islands (including Attu) lie in the Eastern Hemisphere and could be considered the easternmost point of the Americas! Although BirdLife does not treat Greenland as part of the Americas, the populations of some species of bird that breed in Greenland and winter in the Americas have been taken into consideration for the

Territories which are politically part of the Americas but lie outside

Chilean Easter Island) are also excluded for biogeographic reasons.

which are politically part of countries that lie outside of the Western

Hemisphere, are treated as biogeographically part of the Americas in this publication. BirdLife recognizes that disputes exist between the governments of various countries within and outside of the Americas regarding the sovereignty of particular areas. However, the presentation of material in this book and the geographical designations employed do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of BirdLife International concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or

the Earth’s total surface area (and 28% of its land area) and contain about 14% of the human population (about 900 million people).

The political history of the post-Columbian Americas is dominated by the former colonies of European powers, in particular, Britain, France, Portugal and Spain. Eighteen territories are still linked to a former colonial power, as integral parts of a country (e.g. French Guiana as a departement of France), as overseas territories (e.g. UK territories, French collectivités and unincorporated territories of the US) and as autonomous countries within a federation (Aruba and the Netherlands

AMERICAS

)

1

Antilles as members of the Kingdom of the Netherlands). The United

Americas in 1776 (from Great Britain), followed by Haiti, in 1804 (from Spain), with St Kitts and Nevis being the most recent nation to gain independence in 1983 (from the UK). There are currently 35 independent states, of which 25 are republics and 10 are constitutional monarchies (all of which are Commonwealth Realms). In terms of population and territory size, independent republics are by far the largest component of political organization in the Americas, representing 75% and 95% of population numbers and country area, respectively.

Political organization, leading up to the time of the Spanish conquest was dominated by the Incas and Guaraní in South America and Aztecs in Mesoamerica, amongst others. Indigenous populations remain in the majority of American countries, albeit with different degrees of organization and territorial control, with indigenous reservations and special legislation existing in many countries.

The 57 modern countries or territories in the region vary widely in size and population numbers. The smallest sovereign state is St Kitts and Nevis at 261 km2 and the largest is Canada, almost 40,000 times larger at 9,984,670 km2. However, the smallest territory is the island of Navassa (to US), situated off the southwestern tip of Haiti, at just 5 km2. Although this island has no permanent human occupants, it actually has the highest density of bird species per km2 in the Americas by an order of magnitude. (The highest continental species densities occur in Belize and El Salvador.) In terms of human population density, another island, Bermuda, with almost 1250 people/km2, is also an order of magnitude ahead of Barbados, with the second highest population density. Apart from Navassa, the lowest population density is recorded from the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) with just 0.2 people/km2.

Superlatives are often needed to describe the geography of the Americas: they are dominated by the longest mountain chain on the planet, with the Rocky Mountains and other ranges running along the western side of North America and through Central America, and the Andes along the west coast of South America. The region is drained by some of the largest rivers in the world. The Amazon is the largest of the world’s rivers in terms of volume of water discharged into the sea, and its network of over a 1000 tributaries permeate nearly half of South America. The largest river basin in North America is that of the Mississippi, covering the second largest catchment area on the planet.

geography, stretching from above the Arctic Circle to within a few degrees of the Antarctic. Habitat types include forests (boreal, tropical,

dry or moist), savannas, shrubland, grassland (tundra, temperate and tropical), inland wetlands (seasonal and permanent), hot and

cold deserts and marine systems. This range of habitats is one of the drivers behind an incredible diversity of birds in the region, with the Americas supporting more than

43% of the world’s bird species. This diversity not only

globally, seven are in the Americas (Mittermeier et al. 2002). However, this biodiversity is increasingly threatened. In 2008,

73 bird species were Critically Endangered, and overall, of the more than 4,250 bird species, 11% are considered globally threatened with extinction and a further 7% are Near Threatened (BirdLife International 2008a). Both the high level of threats and diversity are

et al.2004) designated in the Americas, including the richest and most diverse hotspot on the planet, the Tropical Andes.

2

BirdLife International is a global network of non-governmental conservation organizations with a special focus on birds, which is currently present in over 110 countries and territories worldwide. In the Americas, the BirdLife Partnership comprises 23 Partner, Partner

BirdLife Americas Secretariat is in Quito, Ecuador, with operational centers in Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico and the UK. The Secretariat maintains contacts in all countries and territories in

organization. The BirdLife Partnership works together on shared priorities, policies and programs of conservation action.

IBA criteria for the Americas were circulated by the United States and Pan American sections of the International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP) and Pennsylvania Audubon Society. The merger of the two ICBP sections to form the Bird Conservation Alliance (soon

national IBA Program (in the United States) in April 1995 and the

Conservation Area, Arizona) at the American Birding Association’s Sierra Vista conference. Also in August 1995, the BirdLife Partners formally approved the IBA Program as a regional priority during the

second meeting of the Americas Partnership, in Asunción, Paraguay (at the V Neotropical Ornithological Congress).

In 1996, national programs were initiated in Canada, Mexico and

a regional IBA capacity-building workshop was held in Cayambe, Ecuador in February 1997. Several of the early national programs started with the naming of a well-known site as an IBA. Sites in Canada (Long Point, Ontario) and Mexico (El Carricito de Huichol) were named at a meeting of North American environment ministers

in South America were named at designation ceremonies in October 1997 (Mindo in Ecuador and San Rafael in Paraguay).

1994

1995

1997

1999

1999

2000

2001

2001

2001

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

2003

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2006

2005

2006

2006

2007

2007

2008

2008

2008

2008

2009

Year Location Detail

3

By 2001, the Americas IBA Program had grown to include activities in more than 26 countries and territories throughout the Americas, and it is now (2009) active in every Americas country and territory. Partners have led the development of national IBA Programs, supported by the Secretariat, and have engaged an extensive network of ornithologists and conservation experts in the collation of data on the sites included in this inventory. In countries without BirdLife Partners, the Secretariat has worked directly with non-government and government organizations to coordinate national processes to identify IBAs. At a regional level, the IBA Program has been advanced through a series of more than 30 key workshops (Table 1), with many more national

at least 3000 people.

In 1995, Key Areas for threatened birds in the Neotropics (Wege & Long 1995) was launched at the V Neotropical Ornithological Congress, in Asunción, Paraguay. This publication presented a comprehensive assessment of site-based conservation priorities for

Threatened Birds of the Americas (Collar et al. 1992) and provided a forerunner to the latter IBA analyses. Many of the 596 “Key Areas” that were

global conservation concern” criterion (A1).

published by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (an organization created under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation) which presented 150 IBAs in North America (50 in each country) in 1999. This was soon followed by national directories for Mexico (2000), Canada (2001), Panama (2003) and the United States (2003). To date, a total of 19 national and regional IBA directories have been published in the Americas, presenting approximately 4580 global, regional, subregional and national IBAs (Table 2). There is also a wealth of subnational

publications, including IBA directories for 21 states of the United States (including books, booklets and web pages), French overseas departments (Levesque et al. 2008, Levesque & Mathurin 2008) and other publications, such as bird guides and CDs of bird songs for

The criteria used to select IBAs in the Americas derive from those

1989), which had to be adapted when the IBA Program expanded beyond Europe. While the criteria had been standardized by 1996, their application continued to evolve until the publication of the revised European directory (Heath & Evans 2000) and the African IBA directory (Fishpool & Evans 2001), which led to a global standardized approach, applied in Asia (Chan et al. 2004) and systematically in the Americas from 2005 onwards (BirdLife International & Conservation International 2005). As the global IBA criteria continued to evolve during the early years of the Americas IBA Program, minor differences now exist between the current criteria and their application and those used for the early directories. At the time of going to press, this

However, several countries (Chile, Guyana, Mexico, United States) have ongoing IBA

information is constantly becoming available regarding sites in other countries. Regular updates

available through Data Zone on the BirdLife International website (www.birdlife.org/datazone).

1999

2000

20012

2003

2003

20052

2005

2005

2005

2006

2006

2006

20072

20072

2008

2008

Canada

Panama

150

225

597

88

500

2,300

273

107

163

22

113

273

283

57

28

20

21

Year Coverage CommentsReferenceIBAs

)

2 On-line or CD-Rom directories4

IBAs are sites which are, as far as possible, discrete areas of habitat that can be delineated and, at least potentially, managed for conservation. Effective protection of sites can address habitat loss, invasive species and over-exploitation, three of the major causes of biodiversity loss. Protection of a network of sites can represent a cost-effective approach to conservation, because a relatively small network can support a large proportion of the species, communities and/or habitats within any given region of analysis. In addition, protection of a network of sites is consistent with sustainable development and poverty alleviation

landscapes. For these reasons, sites are a major focus of conservation investment by government, donors and civil society. In particular, they form the basis of most protected area networks. Further strengths of the IBA approach are outlined below and relate to case studies in the Overview section.

• An integral approach to conservationThe IBA Program has been designed as an integrated conservation strategy, built on proven results over its 25 year history. Application of the standardized site selection criteria are the beginning of a process which then leads on to other actions such as development and execution of site management plans, implementation of

and monitoring, among others. As part of a wider range of site conservation strategies, aspects such as lobbying, advocacy and education aim to establish IBA networks as key conservation

mechanisms within national and international legislation and other biodiversity conservation initiatives.

• Birds are good indicatorsThe IBA Program uses birds as the basis for a region-wide site network. As a group, birds have several features which make them appropriate for site selection:

• They are the best-known animal group in terms of taxonomy, distribution and habitat requirements.

•other groups.

• They are good indicators of habitat condition and human disturbance.

•• They contain high numbers of globally threatened and

restricted-range species.• They are popular amongst the general public, very widespread,

(Collar et al. 2007)

Because of the intrinsic values of birds and their utility as indicators for biodiversity in general, many individuals and organizations are interested and motivated to conserve them. As a result, there is a growing constituency for bird conservation in the Americas, which forms a strong foundation for efforts to conserve the IBA network.

5

• Participatory process

local stakeholders (BirdLife Partners, network organizations, government agencies and local experts) from each country. The methods followed to identify IBAs are detailed in the next chapter and have been globally standardized, and this has formed

national level. However, the process followed has varied. In most

undertaken over a period of years, and often in parallel with targeted

actions at some of the important sites. Usually, national and regional workshops are held for all relevant stakeholders to contribute ideas and information and to learn about the process. Often a call for IBA nominations is made to the wider ornithological community,

process at particular sites. Information is then compiled by a national coordinator (the BirdLife partner or a collaborating

in the Americas (see Methods).

In other cases, the process has been different; consultants have been contracted to identify a draft suite of IBAs, which

the list is circulated widely to other experts within NGOs and governments. This has been the case in Chile, Honduras and in the Caribbean, except for Bahamas, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Puerto Rico. In some cases, the consultation process is still underway and these sites are listed as proposed in this directory (see Methods). Thus, while the process was not entirely

that the information presented is the best available at the time of publication.

• Community involvementFrom the outset of the national IBA Programs, many IBAs have a strong local community involvement. Some community organizations have played a key part in the nomination of IBAs in many countries, creating strong links between the community and the site. In other cases, existing community groups (e.g. conservation or development organizations), or groups created by a BirdLife partner, (generically known as Local Conservation Groups with a variety of different national names, e.g. IBA Adoption Groups in the US, Site Support Groups in the Caribbean), take on a caretaker role for the site. These groups are

resources and therefore have vested interests in its conservation. IBAs also provide the opportunity for networks of organizations to be formed, linked by a network of sites.

A similar sense of allegiance to sites is often created among the ornithological community, given that a consensus is reached

The participatory process provides the grounding for a solid constituency to implement (or continue to implement) conservation actions in sites from their inception.

in many cases it is appropriate or advantageous to seek legal recognition or even legal protection status for IBAs once the inventory has been drawn up. However, as a civil society approach

network of important areas for biodiversity conservation. Of course, obtaining government buy-in is always built into the process from the outset, but it is not a requirement.

The IBA Program goes well beyond bird conservation at particular sites, for it represents an opportunity to integrate biodiversity conservation into a variety of different social structures, from local community development to multilateral agreements. Some key ideas are outlined below and many are dealt with in more detail in the Overview section.

• Conservation and monitoring of wider biodiversityStudies in other regions have shown that birds can act as surrogates for measures of wider biodiversity. IBAs can therefore be used to set conservation priorities in the absence of detailed data on other taxa and consequently

contributions to the conservation of groups other than birds. –> Focus on IBAs and other biodiversity

• Contribution to socio-economic developmentEcosystem goods and services provided by IBAs often

and their biological values simultaneously maintained, IBA conservation should be an objective shared by conservationists, local communities and governments alike.–> Focus on IBAs and local communities

• Protected area designationThere are major gaps in existing protected area systems with regard to habitat types, biomes and threatened species (Rodrigues et al. 2003). IBA networks act as a tool to review national systems and identify candidate sites for expansion, new sites or changes in protected area delimitation. Gap analyses have been implemented using IBAs in several countries in North, Central and South America.–> Focus on protection of the IBA network

• Novel approaches to site protectionFormal protected area designation ( particularly in the public arena ), is not always the most effective approach to site-based conservation. Therefore, there is a need to develop alternative approaches such as community-managed conservation areas, legally-recognized private protected areas, voluntary agreements with land-owners and other incentive schemes. These approaches may provide greater opportunities for sustainable human use of natural resources.–> Focus on protection of the IBA network

• IBAs can be building blocks of networksWhile protecting individual sites can be an effective approach to conservation for many species, at least in the medium term, the long-term conservation of many species requires the protection of interconnected networks of sites. This is particularly important for species with wide home ranges, low natural densities and/or migratory behavior, for which individual sites cannot support long-term viable populations. In addition, protection of inter-connected networks is essential for the maintenance of broad-scale ecological and evolutionary processes (Schwartz 1999). Furthermore, interconnectednetworks may be less susceptible to the impacts of global climate change, as species are better able to “track” changes in habitatdistribution. Therefore, site-level approaches to conservation must be complemented by landscape-level approaches, which maintain or establish habitat connectivity among individual sites.

There are a number of examples of landscape-level conservation initiatives in the Americas and other parts of the world. Such

into broader socio-political agendas of inter-connected networks of core areas, linked by habitat corridors, protected by buffer zones and, in some cases, further developed by restoration areas. In most parts of the region, the IBA network represents the most comprehensive assessment of internationally important sites for conservation. Thus, IBAs could be adopted as core areas for such

taxonomic groups as available data permit.

• IBAs are a tool to mainstream biodiversity into other policy sectorsIncompatible land-use and development schemes are among the major threats to biodiversity in the Americas. For example commercial logging in the case of forest ecosystems, and conversion to agriculture in the case of grassland ecosystems

conservation objectives into the plans and policies of other sectors, leading to site-based conservation efforts being undermined by incompatible development projects and patterns of land use. Consequently, there is a need to “mainstream” biodiversity into other policy sectors, particularly agriculture,

In order to do so, it is essential that accurate, up-to-date information on the conservation importance of sites is made available to decision-makers in government and donor agencies. It is also essential that such information is based on clear, objective and universally accepted criteria. Consequently, IBAs are a valuable tool for integrating biodiversity into policy and planning.–> Focus on IBAs and MEAs

• Relevance to donor safeguard policiesMany multilateral development banks have introduced environmental safeguard policies to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to mitigate the potential negative impacts

to guide the implementation of donor safeguard policies has great potential to assist their effective implementation.–> Focus on IBAs and donor safeguard policies

• Support to national commitments under multilateral environmental agreementsConservation of the Americas IBA network will assist national governments and donor agencies to meet their commitments under multilateral environmental agreements. Because of the strong similarities between the criteria for identifying important sites for conservation under multilateral environmental agreements and the IBA criteria, many IBAs can act as candidate sites under these agreements.–> Focus on IBAs and MEAs, IBAs and waterbird conservation

)

AGUILAR, S. ED. (in press) Áreas Importantes para la Conservación de las Aves en Cuba. Havana, Cuba: Centro Nacional de Áreas Protegidas.

ANGEHR, G. (2003) Directorio de Áreas Importantes para Aves en Panamá.Balboa, Panama: Panama Audubon Society.

BENCKE, G.A., MAURICIO, G.N., DEVELEY, P.F. AND GOERCK, J.M. EDS. (2006) Áreas Importantes para a Conservação das Aves no Brasil: Parte 1 – Estado do domínio da Mata Atlântica. São Paulo, Brazil: SAVE Brasil.

BIRD STUDIES CANADA & NATURE CANADA (2001-2009) Canadian IBA On-Line Directory. http://www.bsc-eoc.org/iba/IBAsites.html

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2008a) 2008 IUCN RED LIST FOR BIRDS. HTTP://WWW.BIRDLIFE.ORG/DATAZONE/SPECIES/

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2008b) Important Bird Areas in the Caribbean: Key sites for conservation. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series no. 15).

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL & CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL (2005) Áreas Importantes para la Conservación de las Aves en los Andes Tropicales: Sitios prioritarios para la conservación de la biodiversidad. Quito, Ecuador: BirdLife International and Conservation International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 14).

CHAN, S., CROSBY, M. J., ISLAM, M. Z., RUDYANTO & TORDOFF, A. W. (2004)Important Bird Areas in Asia: key sites for conservation. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 13).

CHIPLEY, R. ED. (1999) North American Important Bird Areas: A Directory of 150 Key Conservation Sites. Montreal, Canada: Commission for Environmental Cooperation.

CHIPLEY, R. M., FENWICK, G. H., PARR, M. J. & PAHSLEY, D. N. (2003) TheAmerican Bird Conservancy Guide to the 500 Most Important Bird Areas in the United States. New York, USA: Random House Trade Paperbacks.

COLLAR, N. J., GONZAGA, L. P., KRABBE, N., MADROÑO NIETO, A., NARANJO, L. G.,PARKER, T. A. & WEGE, D. C. (1992) Threatened birds of the Americas: the ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book. Cambridge, UK: International Council for Bird Preservation.

COLLAR, N. J., LONG, A. J., ROBLES GIL, P. & ROJO, J. (2007) Birds and People: Bonds in a Timeless Journey. CEMEX-Agrupación Sierra Madre-BirdLife International.

DEL CORO ARIZMENDI, M. & MÁRQUEZ VALDELAMAR, L. EDS. (2000) Áreas de Importancia para la Conservación de las Aves en México. Mexico: CIPAMEX.

DE LUCA, A. C., DEVELEY, P. F., BENCKE, G. A. & GOERCK, J. M. EDS. (in press) Áreas Importantes para a Conservação das aves no Brasil. Parte II - Amazônia, Cerrado e Pantanal. São Paulo, Brazil: SAVE Brasil.

DEVENISH, C. & FRANCO MAYA, A. M. (2007) Directorio Nacional de las Áreas Importantes para la Conservación de las Aves en Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia: Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Naturales Alezander von Humboldt. http://aicas.humboldt.org.co/

DI GIACOMO, A. S. ED. (2005) Áreas importantes para la conservación de las aves en Argentina. Sitios Prioritarios para la conservación de la biodiversidad. Temas de Naturaleza y Conservación 5:1-514.DI GIACOMO, A. S., DE

FRANCESCO, M. V. & COCONIER, E. G. EDS. (2007) Áreas importantes para la conservación de las aves en Argentina. Sitios Prioritarios para la conservacion

de la biodiversidad. Temas de Naturaleza y Conservación 5:1-514. CDROM (Revised and corrected).

FALKLANDS CONSERVATION (2006) Important Bird Areas of the Falkland Islands.London, UK: Falklands Conservation.

FISHPOOL, L. D. C. & EVANS, M. I., EDS (2001) Important Bird Areas in Africa and associated islands: priority sites for conservation. Newbury and Cambridge, UK: Pisces Publications and BirdLife International.

FREILE, J. F. & SANTANDER, T. (2005) Áreas Importantes para la Conservación de las Aves en Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador: Aves & Conservación (Corporación Ornitológica del Ecuador), BirdLife International, Conservación Internacional, Ministerio del Ambiente de Ecuador.

GRIMMETT, R. F. A. & JONES, T.A. (1989) Important Bird Areas in Europe. Cambridge, UK: International Council for Bird Preservation (Techn. Publ. 9).

GUYRA PARAGUAY (2008) Áreas de Importancia para la Conservación de las Aves en Paraguay. Asunción, Paraguay: BirdLife Intenational - Guyra Paraguay.

HEATH, M. F. & EVANS, M. I. EDS. (2000) Important Bird Areas in Europe: Priority sites for conservation. 2 vols. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 8).

LEVESQUE, A. & MATHURIN, A. (2008) Les Zone Importantes pour la Conservation des Oiseaux en Guadeloupe. Le Gosier, Guadeloupe: AMAZONA.

LEVESQUE, A., MATHURIN, A. & LE QUELLEC, F. (2008) Les Zone Importantes pour la Conservation des Oiseaux a Saint-Barthélemy. Le Gosier, Guadeloupe: AMAZONA.

MÉNDEZ, V. (in press) Áreas Importantes para la Conservación de las Aves en Puerto Rico. San Juan, Puerto Rico: Sociedad Ornitológica Puertorriqueña, Inc.

MITTERMEIER, R. A., MITTERMEIER, C. G., ROBLES GIL, P., PILGRIM, J., FONSECA, G.A. B., BROOKS, T. & KONSTANT, W. R. (2002) Áreas Silvestres. Las últimas regiones vírgenes del mundo. Mexico City, Mexico: CEMEX, Agrupación Sierra Madre

MITTERMEIER, R. A., ROBLES GIL, P., HOFFMANN, M., PILGRIM, J., BROOKS, T.,GOETTSCH MITTERMEIER, C., LAMOREUX, J. & DA FONSECA, G. A. B. (2004) Hotspots Revisited: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. Mexico City, Mexico: Agrupación Sierra Madre, CEMEX, Conservation International.

NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY (2005-2009) Important Bird Areas in the U.S. http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba

PERDOMO, L., ARIAS, Y., LEÓN, Y. & WEGE, D. (in press) Las Áreas Importantes para la Conservación de las Aves en República Dominicana. Dominican Republic: BirdLife International, World Wildlife Fund, United Nations Environment Programme.

RODRIGUES, A. S. L., ANDELMAN, S. J., BAKARR, M. I., BOITANI, L., BROOKS, T. M., COWLING, R. M., FISHPOOL, L. D. C., FONSECA, G.A. B., GASTON, K. J., HOFFMANN,M., LONG, J. S., MARQUET, P. A., PILGRIM, J. D., PRESSEY, R. L., SCHIPPER, J., SECHREST, W., STUART, S. N., UNDERHILL, L. G., WALLER, R.W., WATTS, M. E.J., & YAN, X. (2004) Global Gap Analysis: towards a representative network of protected areas. Advances in Applied Biodiversity Science 5: 1-98.

SANDERS, S.M. ED. (2006) Important Bird Areas in the United Kingdom Overseas Territories. Sandy, UK: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

SCHWARTZ, M. W. (1999) Choosing the Appropriate Scale of Reserves for Conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 83–108.

WEGE, D. C. & LONG, A. J. (1995) Key Areas for threatened birds in the Neotropics.Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series 05).

)

8

The aim of the IBA program is to identify and protect a network of sites critical for the long-term viability of naturally occurring bird populations, across the ranges of bird species for which a site-based approach is appropriate. The selection of IBAs is achieved through the application of standard, internationally recognized criteria, as far as possible based upon accurate, up-to-date knowledge of bird species distributions and populations. The use of standard criteria worldwide means that IBAs are a “common currency”, with sites consistent and comparable at the national, regional and global levels.

The criteria used to select IBAs in the Americas derive from those

1989), which in turn took account of IBA criteria developed earlier for use in the European Community (Osieck & Mörzer Bruyns 1981, Grimmett & Gammell 1989). However, these criteria had to be adapted when the IBA Program expanded beyond Europe. While the criteria had been standardized by 1996, their application continued to evolve until the publication of the revised European directory (Heath & Evans 2000) and the African IBA directory (Fishpool & Evans 2001), which led to a global standardized approach, applied in Asia (Chan et al.2004) and systematically in the Americas from 2005 onwards (BirdLife International & Conservation International 2005). As the global IBA criteria continued to evolve during the early years of the Americas IBA program, minor differences now exist between the current criteria and their application and those used for the early directories.

Using these global criteria, IBAs are selected based on the presence of:

• Bird species of global conservation concern• Assemblages of restricted-range bird species• Assemblages of biome-restricted bird species• Globally important congregations of birds

These criteria address the two key issues of concern in site conservation: vulnerability and irreplaceability (Margules & Pressey 2000). The four categories of criteria thus cover (a) globally threatened and near-threatened species (vulnerability) and (b) three classes of geographically concentrated species (irreplaceability): restricted-range species, biome-restricted species and congregatory species.

The standardized criteria are designed to identify IBAs of global

and between regions of the world. In a number of regions (e.g. Europe, North America) and subregions (Caribbean, European Union), IBAs have

subregional criteria are based on the four global IBA criteria and generally do not introduce new elements to the framework, but instead use different species lists (e.g. of regionally threatened birds) or lower threshold levels.

(national or state); in such cases the local organizations decide on the most appropriate criteria. Countries in the Americas which have

include Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Mexico, Panama and the United

of these national and state level sites, only those meeting international (subregional, regional or global) criteria are formally recognized as IBAs by the BirdLife Partnership as whole. In addition, although

and the Caribbean, only global IBAs are covered in this publication.

For each category and region, a list of species is drawn up, together with population thresholds, where appropriate. Species on these lists are known as ‘trigger’ species, in that they may trigger one or more IBA criteria at sites at which they occur. Threshold levels are standardized within, and where appropriate, across regions. In some cases, threshold values have been adapted for particular regions, but always by increasing

changes are detailed in the descriptions of each criterion below.

Various information sources (Box 1) have helped to establish population estimates, thresholds and key species lists and have been critical to the development of the IBA program. A further suite of key

of sites.

AMERICAS

)

)9

A1: Species of global conservation concern

cases, subspecies) falling under IUCN Red List categories (e.g. BirdLife International 2007) of Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU) and Near Threatened (NT). Globally Near Threatened species are included under this criterion in an attempt to prevent them from becoming uplisted to higher threat categories in future red lists. Species within these four categories are collectively known as “of global conservation concern” (Table 1), not to be confused with the USFWS publication Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002, 2008) which

States. A1 trigger species for the Americas are listed in Appendix 1. More detailed information, including global population numbers, country distributions and threats can be viewed on BirdLife’s Data Zone.

The mere presence of a globally threatened species at a site is not necessarily enough to trigger IBA criteria at a site. Certain population

thresholds, agreed upon regionally and dependent on the threat category and taxonomic group of the species in question, must be met. In the case of Critically Endangered or Endangered species, the regular presence of just one individual is enough to justify IBA designation, given the small population sizes of many of these species (see Appendix 2). However, for Vulnerable and Near Threatened the population thresholds outlined below must be met in order for a site to be selected under this criterion (Table 1).

Thresholds for VU and NT species represent a global minimum standard, and have been applied as such in Africa (Fishpool & Evans 2001), Asia (Chan et al. 2004) and are currently being used in the

used a variable threshold for VU species, calculated from the size of the species’ global population and factoring-in body size and nesting habits (colonial or dispersed). A similar variable threshold has been used by National Audubon Society in the United States for VU and

in Flight population scores) and the dispersion pattern of each species (National Audubon Society 2009). However, US global IBAs presented

Table 1, as the US thresholds have yet to be adopted regionally (i.e. within the Nearctic).

in the Neotropics. For example, the VU threshold value of 30 individuals was used to identify IBAs for the Endangered Golden-cheeked Warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) in its wintering range in northern Mesoamerica.

CR

EN

VU

NT

In a few cases, countries decided not to consider Near Threatened species under this criterion, due primarily to these species being well represented

criteria. However, they were added to IBA species inventories at sites already meeting IBA criteria a posteriori. Countries not employing NT species were Canada, El Salvador, Guatemala and Paraguay.

In the absence of accurate population estimates, inference and expert opinion are used to apply the criterion. This has been especially important in the Americas, where accurate population data are not available for a large number of species. Generally, “regular” presence of a species is intended to exclude species which are vagrants, on the limits of the distributional range or historical records without recent

the case for many migratory species as well as sites which meet habitat requirements for trigger species on a cyclical basis, for example when

there are changes in food sources.

The A1 criterion also allows for the inclusion of sites with the potential to hold species of global conservation concern after habitat restoration or re-introduction programs, for example, California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus) and Puerto Rican Amazon (Amazona vittata).

A2: Assemblage of restricted-range species

IBAs are designated under this criterion for groups of species within Endemic Bird Areas (EBAs). EBAs are priority regions for conservation where the breeding ranges of two or more restricted-range species partially or completely coincide. A restricted-range

km2 et al. 1998), thus not including species with current distributions of less than this area due to habitat loss or other

et al. (1998), 77 EBAs are found in the Americas, as well as 34 Secondary Areas

980 extant restricted-range species (Appendices 1, 1e). Taxonomic changes and new range information that have become available

et al. (1998) have led to the consideration of an additional 35 restricted-range species. One new

these species, as well as two new Secondary Areas for two already restricted-range species (Appendix 1f). These species have also been

Application of the A2 criterion seeks to select sites which are representative of an EBA, that is, sites are chosen which hold a

component” has been interpreted to mean that, for a given EBA, an IBA should hold at least 33% of those restricted-range species present within the country in which the site occurs, following (BirdLife International & Conservation International 2005). This attempts to avoid site selection for just a few restricted-range species which may be, for example, widespread and adaptable within the EBA. However, in order for all restricted-range species in an EBA to be represented within a country’s set of IBAs, it is sometimes necessary to select one or more sites just for a small number of species, if they are the only known sites that hold those particular species. A geographic balance is also sought across the network of sites that meet this criterion for a given EBA, which is assessed through a complementarity analysis. Although no absolute values have been set, in general, a minimum

possible.

Almost half (46%) of restricted-range species in the Americas are also globally threatened or Near Threatened. For these species, if A1 population thresholds are not met, then they cannot be considered for the A2 criterion. Otherwise, only regularly occurring species are taken into consideration.

number of IBAs given that only 11 restricted-range species are present in the United States (in two EBAs and four SAs - see Appendices 1, 1e, 1f) and none in Canada.

A3: Assemblage of biome-restricted species

This criterion is applied in a similar fashion to A2, but with groups of biome-restricted species, that is, species whose distributions

distinctive life forms and principal plant species. For the Neotropics,

et al. (1996). However, seabirds were generally

has not been employed systematically given that restricted-range and biome-restricted species lists for the Greater and Lesser Antilles are almost identical, and thus application of A3 would simply duplicate the application of A2. The exceptions are Cuba, where most of the island endemics historically had ranges larger than 50,000 km2, and Trinidad and Tobago, Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao which share South American continental biomes. For the Nearctic, the A3 criterion has yet to be employed outside of northern Mexico, although biomes are

et al. (2004).

biome, and in general, sites should be large (very few sites under 1000 ha

complementarity analyses are also conducted to ensure that each biome-restricted species is represented in the national IBA network, though at a minimum of only one site per species. However, it is unusual to

component threshold is not met, at least 15% to 20% of species restricted to the biome should be present in the IBA.

in applying the A3 criterion have been made in order to provide a more

50%, given that almost any area within these biomes in both countries could comply with the 33% threshold.

016s006

039s021

s024

047

ps001 ps002

ps003

ps005

p001

ps004

075

068070

001

056

061

006

076

018

060

066

077

045

019

008

011

025

062

041

067

005

051

052

038

028

023

040

057

054

037

065

002

042

021

049

035

055

012

017

064

074

043

034

071

044

020

073

058

063

048

027

036

053

007

029

014

050

009

072

010

032

031

026

013

015

033

046

030

024

003

004

059

022

069

s036

s035

s034

s033

s032

s031

s030

s029

s028s027

s026

s025

s023

s022

s020

s019

s017s016

s015

s014

s013s012s011

s010 s009

s008

s007

s005

s004

s003

s002

s001

A4: Congregations

Congregatory species are those that gather together in large numbers at a particular site at a particular time in their life cycle for feeding, breeding, resting or migratory movements. Such species tend to have specialized ecological requirements due to their dependency on a relatively small proportion of their total range. Their congregatory behavior (even for short periods of time) makes them inherently

(including “marine” IBAs: see Box 4) to help protect against this vulnerability. To trigger this criterion, species congregations must exceed the selection thresholds of one or more of the four subcriteria:

• A4i. The site is known or thought to hold, on a regular basis, 1%of a biogeographic population of a congregatory waterbird species.

• A4ii. The site is known or thought to hold, on a regular basis, 1%of the global population of a congregatory seabird or terrestrial species.

• A4iii. The site is known or thought to hold, on a regular basis, 20,000 waterbirds or 10,000 pairs of seabirds of one or more

species.• A4iv. The site is known or thought to exceed thresholds set for

migratory species at bottleneck sites.

The term waterbird is used in the same sense as “waterfowl” in the Ramsar Convention and is made up of the list published by Wetlands

thereby includes some species which are not dependent on wetlands, such as marine species in the families Phalacrocoracidae (cormorants)

1 Secondary Area codes are preceded by a lower case “s”. See Appendices 1c, 1e and 1f for Endemic Bird Area names and related information.

2

2 For the purposes of this map, the biomes in Stotz et al. et al. 2001) to make boundaries clearer at this scale; however, it is not intended that these be taken as a new set of proposed biome boundaries. Nonetheless, some modest changes have been made to the biomes of Stotz et al. (1996): the three subregions of the Central South American region that were treated by Stotz etal. (1996) as one biome have been separated into three biomes (Caatinga, Cerrado, Chaco); also, two biomes recognized by Stotz et al. (1996) separately (Amazonia North and Tepuis) have been merged into one. Biomes in the Nearctic, not covered by Stotz et al. (1996), have also been included, based on Bird Conservation Regions (Rich et al. et al. (1996) for the northern extreme of the Neotropical region have been merged with

such as Procellariidae (petrels and shearwaters), Phaethontidae (tropicbirds), Sulidae (gannets and boobies) and Stercorariidae (skuas and jaegers). Also included in A4ii are landbird species within families such as Accipitridae, Falconidae, Psittacidae, Apodidae, Hirundinidae and Icteridae. The subcriterion A4iii is applied at the site level only (not by species), for large concentrations of waterbirds or seabirds of one or more species. A4iv can be applied both at the site level and by species, for sites over which migrants concentrate (often referred to as bottlenecks), such as narrow sea crossings, along mountain ranges or through mountain passes. At species level, 1% of the population of a species must pass through the site during a migration season. The list of A4 trigger species with their total and breeding threshold values is given in Appendix 1 (see also Future steps).

and Laridae (gulls and terns). These few anomalies are thought to be outweighed by the convenience of a whole-taxon approach. Not all waterbirds are by nature congregatory and this criterion only applies

threshold for A4i is taken as 1% of the biogeographic population of a species of waterbird which, in the case of the Americas corresponds either to the Nearctic or the Neotropics. For example, all population estimates for a species within the Neotropics are combined to form the “biogeographic population”, from which the 1% critical threshold is calculated (Box 2).

For subcriterion A4ii, the critical threshold is 1% of the global population of non-waterbirds, including seabirds of several families,

A1

A2

A3

A4

Criteria NotesDefinition

documents, and confusion can result when the lists and other information do not agree with each other. The web-enabled WBDB allows new IBA inventories, and updates and revisions to IBA information, to be entered directly by the designated national IBA coordinators. Once the

IBAs may also sometimes be proposed by organizations outside the BirdLife network, for example through collaborative work on Key Biodiversity Areas (e.g. with Conservation International). In these cases, the basic rule remains that no site may be considered as an IBA until data is incorporated in the

sites are published by BirdLife on the internet through Data Zone.

• is different in character, habitat or ornithological importance from surrounding areas;

• exists as a potential or actual Protected Area, with or without buffer zones, or is an area that can be managed in some way for conservation;

• is an area which provides for all the requirements of the trigger

or in combination with networks of other sites.

Where extensive tracts of continuous habitat occur, only the latter two characteristics apply. Practical considerations on how best the site may be conserved are the foremost consideration. Features such as

watershed divides, ridge-lines and hilltops can be used to delimit site margins in places where there are no obvious discontinuities in habitat (transitions of vegetation or substrate). Boundaries of land ownership are also relevant, while simple, conspicuous boundaries such as roads can be used in the absence of other features.

sensible has to be balanced with what is practical for conservation. Neither is there a clear-cut answer about how to treat cases where a number of small sites lie close to each other. Whether these are best considered as a series of separate IBAs, or as one larger site containing

situation with regard to conservation and management.

1 Information downloaded from WBDB on 4 June 2009.2

2

Region2) 2)

1,539

135

1,983

970

1,981

468

561

29,171

168

10,067

781

29,344

5,682

4081

7

-

7.6

-

7.9

2

5

2,083,411

6,590

1,973,256

9,667

3,284,602

763,240

576,087

1,194

24

2,275

394

2,345

2,051

686

29,902,600

12,546,300

29,817,000

8,508,200

39,697,200

11,878,900

14,563,100

56

4

29

7

57

50

20

Africa

Antarctica1

Asia

Pacific2

Americas

Europe

experts, through the BirdLife Partner or another coordinating institution in each country propose sites which are thought to meet global criteria. These sites are then reviewed by specialist staff in the BirdLife International Secretariat to determine whether or not they do. This vetting process is essential to ensure consistency of standards, and a site can only be considered

a web-enabled database, the World Bird Database (WBDB; Box 3). It

that IBA information may often be published separately in several places, including regional and national directories and national update

DARWALL,W., DE SILVA, N., EDGAR, G.J., EKEN, G., FISHPOOL, L.D.C.,FONSECA, G.A.B. DA, FOSTER, M.N., KNOX, D.H., MATIKU, P., RADFORD, E.A.,RODRIGUES, A.S.L., SALAMAN, P., SECHREST, W., AND TORDOFF, A.W. (2007)

Comprehensive Protected Area Systems. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.LÓPEZ-LANÚS, B. AND BLANCO, D.E. EDS. (2005) El Censo Neotropical de Aves

Acuáticas 2004: Una herramienta para la conservación. Global Series No. 17. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Wetlands International.

MARGULES, C.R. AND PRESSEY, R.L. (2000) Systematic conservation planning.Nature 405: 243-253

MORRISON, R. I. G. & ROSS, R. K. (1989) Atlas of Neartic shorebirds on the coast of South Americas in two volumes. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Wildlife Service.

MORRISON, R. I. G, MCCAFFERY, B. J., GILL, R. E., SKAGEN, S. K., JONES, S. L., PAGE,G .W., GRATTO-TREVOR, C. L. & ANDRES, B.A. (2006) Population estimates of North American shorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bull. 111: 67–85.

NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY (2009) IBA criteria overview.

OLSON, D. M., DINERSTEIN, E., WIKRAMANAYAKE, E. D., BURGESS, N. D., POWELL, G.V. N., UNDERWOOD E. C., D’AMICO, J. A., ITOUA, I., STRAND, H. E., MORRISON,J. C., LOUCKS, C. J., ALLNUTT, T. F., RICKETTS, T. H., KURA, Y., LAMOREUX, J. F., WETTENGEL, W. W., HEDAO, P. & KASSEM, K. R. (2001) Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth. BioScience 51(11): 933-938

OSIECK, E. R. & MÖRZER BRUYNS, M. F. (1981) Important bird areas in the European Community. Cambridge, UK: International Council for Bird Preservation.

RICH, T. D., BEARDMORE, C. J., BERLANGA, H., BLANCHER, P. J., BRADSTREET, M. S. W.,BUTCHER, G. S., DEMAREST, D. W., DUNN, E. H., HUNTER, W. C., IÑIGO-ELIAS, E. E.,KENNEDY, J. A., MARTELL, A. M., PANJABI, A. O., PASHLEY, D. N., ROSENBERG, K. V.,RUSTAY, C. M., WENDT, J. S. & WILL, T. C. (2004) Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

ROSE, P. M. & SCOTT, D. A. (1997) Waterfowl population estimates. Second edition. Wageningen, Netherlands: Wetlands International (Publ. No. 44).

RUSTAY, C. M., WENDT, J. S. & WILL., T. C. (2004) Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Ithaca, USA: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

STATTERSFIELD, A. J., CROSBY M. J., LONG A. J. & WEGE D. C. (1998) Endemic Bird Areas of the World: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International.

STOTZ, D. F., FITZPATRICK, W., PARKER III, T.A. & MOSKOVITS, D. K. (1996) Neotropical

birds: ecology and conservation.

USFWS - U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (2007) Waterfowl population status, 2007.Washington, D.C. USA: U.S. Department of the Interior.

USFWS - U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (2008) Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. Arlington, Virginia: United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/

VMAP (2005) VMAP Level 1. Bethesda, MD, US: National Geospatial Intelligence Agency http://geoengine.nga.mil/geospatial/SW_TOOLS/NIMAMUSE/webinter/rast_roam.html.

WEGE, D. C. & LONG, A. J. (1995) Key Areas for threatened birds in the Neotropics.Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series 05).

WETLANDS INTERNATIONAL (2002) Waterbird Population Estimates – Third Edition. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wetlands International.

WETLANDS INTERNATIONAL (2006) Waterbird Population Estimates – Fourth Edition. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wetlands International.

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL & CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL (2005) Áreas Importantes para la Conservación de las Aves en los Andes Tropicales: Sitios prioritarios para la conservación de la biodiversidad. Quito, Ecuador: BirdLife International and Conservation International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 14).

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2006a) Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. Quito, Ecuador: BirdLife International. http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/species/waterbirds/downloads.html

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2006b) Conservando las Aves Migratorias Neotropicales en los Andes Tropicales. Quito, Ecuador: BirdLife International, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/sites/neotrops/andes/contacts.html

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2007) 2007 IUCN Red List for birds.

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2008a) 2008 IUCN Red List for birds.

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2008b) Important Bird Areas in the Caribbean: Key sites for conservation. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series no. 15).

CHAN, S., CROSBY, M. J., ISLAM, M. Z., RUDYANTO & TORDOFF, A. W. (2004) Important Bird Areas in Asia: key sites for conservation. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 13).

COLLAR, N. J., GONZAGA, L. P., KRABBE, N., MADROÑO NIETO,A., NARANJO, L. G., PARKER,T. A. & WEGE, D. C. (1992) Threatened birds of the Americas: the ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book. Cambridge, UK: International Council for Bird Preservation.

EVANS, M. I., ED. (1994) Important Bird Areas in the Middle East. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No.2).

FISHPOOL, L. D. C., HEATH, M. F., WALICZKY, Z., WEGE, D. C. & CROSBY, M. J.(1998) Important bird areas—criteria for selecting sites of global conservation

Congr., Durban. Ostrich 69: 428.FISHPOOL, L. D. C. & EVANS, M. I., EDS (2001) Important Bird Areas in Africa and

associated islands: priority sites for conservation. Newbury and Cambridge, UK: Pisces Publications and BirdLife International.

GRIMMETT, R. F. A. & GAMMELL, A. B. (1989) Inventory of Important Bird Areas in the European Community. (Unpublished report prepared for the Directorate-General of the Environment, Consumer Protection and Nuclear Safety of the European Community, study contract B6610-54-88.) Cambridge, UK: International Council for Bird Preservation.

GRIMMETT, R. F. A. & JONES, T.A. (1989) Important Bird Areas in Europe. Cambridge, UK: International Council for Bird Preservation (Techn. Publ. 9).

GADM - GLOBAL ADMINISTRATIVE AREAS (2009). Global Administrative Areas (version 0.9). California, USA: Univeristy of California, Berkeley. http://biogeo.berkeley.edu/gadm/

KUSHLAN, J. A., STEINKAMP, M. J., PARSONS, K. C., CAPP, J., ACOSTA CRUZ, M., COULTER, M., DAVIDSON, I, DICKSON, L., EDELSON, N., ELLIOT, R., ERWIN, R. M., HATCH, S., KRESS, S.,MILKO, R., MILLER, S., MILLS, K., PAUL, R., PHILLIPS, R., SALIVA, J. E., SYDEMAN, B.,TRAPP, J., WHEELER, J. & WOHL, K. (2002) North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1. Washington, DC, USA: Waterbird Conservation for the Americas

LANGHAMMER, P.F., BAKARR, M.I., BENNUN, L.A., BROOKS, T.M., CLAY, R.P.,