Partner-led KBA Identification Processes: Ecosystem Profiles and Evolution

1. Partner-led KBA identification processes Supported by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund

2. Partner-led Cycle 4 Ecosystem Profiles • Northern Mesoamerica • Polynesia-Micronesia • Caucasus • Eastern Arcs & Coastal Forests • Indochina • Eastern Himalayas • Western Ghats & Sri Lanka

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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