Partner-led KBA identification processes

Supported by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund

Cycle 4 Ecosystem Profiles

•Northern Mesoamerica•Polynesia-Micronesia•Caucasus•Eastern Arcs & Coastal Forests•Indochina•Eastern Himalayas•Western Ghats & Sri Lanka

Partner-led

Evolution of Ecosystem Profiles

• Cycles 1-2 – ecosystem profiles prepared by consultants

• Cycle 3 – profiles led by CI programs, dove-tailing with ongoing priority setting processes

• 2003 -- CI pioneers quantitative framework for defining biodiversity conservation outcomes

• Cycle 4 – CEPF adopts conservation outcomes framework for ecosystem profiles as scientific foundation of funding strategy; most ecosystem profiles led by partner organizations

Caucasus

• Led by WWF Caucasus Programme• Supported by BirdLife partnership in

Georgia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia• Dove-tailed with WWF Ecoregional Planning processes

for the Caucasus• Biggest challenges:

– sub-species of large mammals treated as distinct to Caucasus; – lack of plant data (one plant species on the Red List)

• Biggest success: – leveraging additional funding for KBAs, through KfW-GCF Caucasus

trust fund– Strong (data-driven) case for mitigating BP pipeline

Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests

• Led by Nature Kenya and Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania (BirdLife partners)

• Supported by University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Forest Conservation Group, WWF-Tanzania, ICIPE, National Museums of Kenya

• KBA process built on strong IBA processes • Biggest challenges:

– Quality of Red List data, esp. for plants– Effectively engaging the Tanzania partner

• Biggest successes: – extremely well-targeted funding portfolio– Red Listing project for plants

Indo-Burma

• Led by BirdLife IndoChina Programme• Supported by Bird Conservation Society of Thailand, CARE

Myanmar, Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden, WWF Cambodia Program

• Built on IBA processes in the region• Biggest challenges:

– massive region, short timeframe for KBA analysis– lack of data on freshwater biodiversity and plants

• Biggest success: – First-ever picture of multi-taxa conservation targets across entire

6-country IndoChina region– Conservation organizations using profile to direct their own

investments, despite lack of CEPF funding to date

Eastern Himalayas• Overall profile led by WWF-US;

KBA identification led by BirdLife IndoChina Programme• Supported by Aaranyak, ATREE, Bird Conservation Nepal, Bombay

Natural History Society, India Centre for Environmental Education, Royal Society for Protection of Nature in Bhutan, WWF-India, WWF Nepal Program

• Built on IBA processes in the region, WWF ecoregional planning• Biggest challenges:

– Complex partnership between WWF-US and BirdLife IndoChina– Initial resistance to the importance of site conservation (in

addition to corridor-scale)• Biggest success:

– Fitting KBAs into WWF conservation vision for the region, which has considerable buy-in from government

Western Ghats & Sri Lanka

• Western Ghats: led by ATREE, supported by WCS-India, University of Agricultural Sciences in Bangalore

• Sri Lanka: led by Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka, supported by University of Peradeniya

• Treated as two separate hotspots; two profiles created• Greatest challenges:

– Data sharing– Quality of IUCN Red List, taxonomic instability

• Greatest success:– Promoting intellectual exchange between two countries and

across institutions within country

Summary

• Strengths– High quality outputs– Buy-in, local ownership obtained– Creative partnerships required

• Challenges– Time constraints need for KBA refinement– Often initial divergent goals– Managing expectations re: funding availability