Tracking trends in key sites for biodiversity: a case study using Important Bird Areas in Kenya

Abstract

SummaryImportant Bird Areas (IBAs) form a network of priority sites that are critical for the conservation of birds and biodiversity. A standard framework for monitoring IBAs is being implemented by the BirdLife Partnership globally. Scores are assigned on a simple ranked scale for state (condition), pressure (threats) and response (conservation action) at each site, from which IBA indices can be calculated. In Kenya, this scoring system was applied retrospectively using information in the national IBA directory (1999) and subsequent status reports (2004 and 2005). IBA indices for 36 IBAs show that their average condition deteriorated between 1999 and 2005, with the mean state score being between 'unfavourable' and 'near favourable'. Pressures on IBAs showed a slight decline in intensity, especially from 2004 to 2005, coincident with an improvement in management that was reflected in increasing response scores. Compared to unprotected IBAs, officially protected sites had substantially greater conservation responses underway, were subject to marginally lower pressures and tended to be in slightly better condition. Other disaggregations of the data allow comparisons to be made for sites in different habitats, of different size, and managed by different agencies. This national example for Kenya suggests that the BirdLife IBA monitoring framework provides a simple but effective way of tracking trends in the state of IBAs, the pressures upon them, and the responses in place. The system is sensitive enough to detect differences between sites and over time, but simple enough to be implemented with little training and without sophisticated technology. The results provide vital information for managers of individual protected areas, management agencies responsible for suites of sites, and national governments, and can be used to track progress in tackling the global biodiversity crisis.

Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs): their impact on conservation policy, advocacy and action

“…This incomplete coverage is significant for threatened biodiversity given that greater protected area coverage of IBAs has been shown to be associated with reduced declines in extinction risk of the species for which the sites have been identified (as measured using Red List Indices; Butchart et al 2012). This global-scale result mirrors the pattern found by Mwangi et al (2010) who reported that IBAs inside protected areas in Kenya were in better condition, with marginally lower pressures but significantly stronger conservation responses, than IBAs outside protected areas. Encouragingly, protected area coverage of IBAs has increased substantially over time (Figure 1), although the proportion of the protected area estate that overlaps IBAs is declining (Butchart et al 2012).…”

The prevalence, characteristics and effectiveness of Aichi Target 11′s “other effective area‐based conservation measures” (OECMs) in Key Biodiversity Areas

“…The scores are ordinal; pressure scores indicate the degree of pressure the site faces from the threats identified and range from low (0) to very high (-3); state scores indicate the condition of the site and range from very unfavorable (0) to favorable (3); response scores relate to the level of conservation action at the site and range from negligible (0) to high (3) (BirdLife International, 2006). These scores have been found to be highly reproducible across users and to correlate well with remotely measured environmental changes (Buchanan, Fishpool, Evans, & Butchart, 2013;Mwangi et al, 2010). Because the scores are ordinal, and because scores within countries may not be independent, we fitted cumulative link mixed models of each index using the "clmm" command in the R package "ordinal," with KBA class (three levels) fitted as a factor and country as a random effect.…”

An assessment of threats to terrestrial protected areas

“…Freely available satellite data offer global and standardized metrics for measuring those threats to PAs that can be observed remotely, such as deforestation (Joppa & Pfaff, 2011) and fires (Nelson & Chomitz, 2011). However, many other threats, including some of the most frequently reported threats to species, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List (e.g., overexploitation of species, invasive alien species, pollution, climate change), cannot be measured from space (Joppa et al, 2016) and require field-collected data (Mwangi et al, 2010).…”