1. Presented by James Atherton (Conservation Outcomes Manager) KBA Review and Lessons Learned Workshop Washington DC July 25-28, 2006 Presented by James Atherton (Conservation Outcomes Manager) KBA Review and Lessons Learned Workshop Washington DC July 25-28, 2006 Issues Arising in KBA delineation in the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot

2. KBA Identification Process Point occurrence locations were identified and mapped for all RL species based on a combination of scientific data review and data compilation followed by expert review in a series of stakeholder workshops Key data sources: –2003 Red List –UNEP’s Island Directory and ranking of islands by conservation importance (1986 and 1998) –IUCN terrestrial ecosystem and biogeographic regions (1980) –TNC’s Ecoregional Planning for FSM (2003) –Birdlife International’s Endemic Bird Areas (2000) –WWF’s Global Terrestrial Ecoregions (2001) –Pacific Plant Areas (Van Balgooy 1966-1993), and Flora –Pacific PA database and map

4. KBA Delineation Process KBAs were delineated by one of the following methods: i) In FSM where a RL species occurred in an area of biodiversity significance identified by TNC, we used the boundary of the ABS (53 KBAs) ii) Outside FSM: a) where a RL species occurred in an existing protected area or conservation area the boundary of the PA was used to delineate the KBA (44 KBAs) b) Where a RL species occurred outside an existing PA, the method used depended on the size of the island: - On small islands (less than about 50km 2 ), the whole island was selected as the KBA (41 KBAs- mostly in French Polynesia) - On larger islands (mostly Fiji), intact blocks of forest (“refugia”) were identified as KBAs (24 KBAs)

6. Map of Identified KBAs

7. Main problems faced in KBA delineation SCALE ISSUE: –Scale of the hotspot many thousands of islands and 14 CEPF eligible countries spread across almost 10% of the earth’s surface! DATA ISSUES: –Information required to delineate an appropriate management unit (eg land tenure, current forest cover, land use, village or political boundaries etc) not available for most islands –Some countries well studied (eg Fiji, French Polynesia), others poorly studied. Also “main” islands well studied, outer islands poorly studied. –Location information for many species poorly recorded with only an indication of the island name or archipelago where it is found. –Some taxonomic groups (eg birds) well studied, most (eg plants and invertebrates) poorly studied. –Data including GIS and scientific papers very hard to obtain as much is in “grey literature” or in research institutions outside the region. –Little information on species congregations such as sea birds and sea turtles etc

8. How did we deal with the problems? We didn’t really! However, we found that the series of 4 sub-regional workshops (in W.Polynesia, Micronesia, Fiji and French Polynesia) and 2 expert workshops (in Samoa) and the associated technical reports prepared for these by consultants and partner organisations (TNC, WCS, and Te Ora Fanua) provided key information and promoted buy-in from partners and collaborators at the local level…

9. Conclusion and discussion points We must consider the KBA outcomes for Polynesia- Micronesia to be provisional pending further refinement with new, refined and consistent datasets (eg global mammal and reptile assessments, IBAs etc). Outstanding issues remain: –How do you delineate a KBA on an island without current information on forest habitats, land use or land ownership? –How do we go about obtaining the relevant information we need to better delineate and then prioritise KBAs? –How do we integrate new IBA information into KBA site selection? –Is there a threshold island size below which a whole island should be considered a KBA? –How do you compare sites fairly and consistently with such variable quality data?

10. THANK YOU