Engaging Partners: Challenges and Recommendations Working Group Members: Ruth, Franklin, Grace, Philip, Romy, Jatna, Bruce, Jess, Zoo, Cristiano, Naamal, François Facilitator: Simon; Presenting: Harison. July 25, 2006

Benefits of Partner Engagement Access to higher quality biodiversity data Better coverage of the region Reduction in duplication of effort Build lasting relationships for implementating conservation action within KBAs Many institutions decide to use KBAs as scientific foundation of investment/activities within the region Increases speed of KBA analysis Efficient use of funding Capacity building Increased range of expertise and technical skill

Government (national, provincial, local) NGOs (international, national, local) Intergovernmental organizations (such as SPREP, IUCN) Universities, museums, research agencies Corporate sector Local communities Donors Potential Partners

General Principles for Partner Engagement Build trust: –Through showing respect, keeping promises, listening, making concessions (without compromising the overall goal), maintaining long-term relationships, increasing transparency, providing credit, providing/obtaining feedback, delivering outputs in a timely fashion, and admitting mistakes. Engage partners at the beginning of the KBA/outcomes process. Decentralize the process. Involve partners that have legitimacy (governmental/ intergovernmental). Secure support from appropriate governmental agencies. Provide incentives. Build from earlier collaborative processes.

General Principles for Partner Engagement Ensure that the person/institution leading the KBA process has credibility within the country or region. Secure funding for the process before beginning the work. Actively avoid developing unrealistic expectations. Provide communications materials to partners. “Planning again?” – Communicate benefits of the KBA process. Maintain communication throughout the process. Avoid making unnecessary demands on partners’ time.

Fundraising Challenge: Need funding for KBA analysis (and for disseminating results). May need funding for partners as an incentive for data- sharing. Recommendations: Build the partnership around the KBA process, to allow for effective joint fundraising proposals and match funding Train local partners in fundraising for participation in the KBA process. Look for cost-sharing opportunities with NGOs, universities, etc. Engage the private sector by providing a business case for KBA identification, for instance, through: –incorporating biodiversity into environmental impact assessments –directing development activities away from highest priority areas for biodiversity (IBAT tool).

Capacity Building Challenge: In some regions, lack of capacity is so serious that a major investment is needed. Recommendations: Analyse capacity of potential partners and select the best organization for long-term investment. Provide equipment. Provide ongoing training (in taxonomy, GIS, biodiversity data sourcing and collection, data analysis, database management, languages, project management, etc.). Provide funding for communications. Encourage participation in relevant symposia Explore potential for national training centers, jointly sponsored by BINGOs. Support to taxonomic institutions (basic curation, secondment, etc.).

Data Sharing Challenge: Reluctance of partners to share data (particularly unpublished, raw data) Recommendations: General agreements on principle of data sharing for the KBA work Provide incentives to partners (data-sharing credit, data, capacity- building, funding, etc.) Obtain raw data for KBA analysis through formal agreements (Data sharing agreements, data licensing, MOUs) Data sharing networks (i.e. - SW China EcoPartnership, Liberia Forest Initiative) Encourage experts to analyze and publish data, and facilitate analysis/publication Encourage adoption of the Conservation Commons Provide credit and acknowledgement Facilitate repatriation of data Provide a data sharing platform Communication (to increase trust)

Engaging BINGOs Challenge: “Agenda mismatch” – how to fit KBAs into the conservation planning processes of BINGOs Recommendations: Regional/national/global meetings of representatives from major NGOs –to communicate strategy/process –to discuss progress with current activities, plans –to share data –to explore options and opportunities for aligning planning strategies (such as KBAs fitting into TNC fine filter approach), drawing on collaboration that has already taken place in Meso-America, China, New Guinea, Poly-Micro, the Himalayas, and the Caucasus Where appropriate, recommend that the government encourages and catalyzes collaboration between BINGOs on conservation planning.

Engaging Government-Led Planning Processes Challenge: How to feed KBAs into governmental planning processes Recommendations: Frame KBA process in the context of assisting governments in meeting their CBD and other inter-governmental commitments Use existing national legal mechanisms to obtain governmental adoption of the KBAs as sites requiring protection to comply with existing laws (for instance, as critical habitat for legally protected species) Where the adoption of KBAs by the national government is not possible, KBAs should still be used to guide CI investment. Also, CI must still engage in government-led processes (and ideally influence policy over the long term).

Concerns regarding the IUCN Red List Challenge: Many partners have concerns about the quality of the Red List (out of date, taxonomic bias, inaccurate threat status). Recommendations: For species not yet assessed by IUCN, use national red list status. Provide data to the ongoing Global Species Assessments Provide data on inaccuracies in the IUCN Red List through website Make recommendations to IUCN on what CI believes should be priorities for updating the red list to effectively support the KBA process Encourage stronger links between national and global Red List